Sunday, November 28, 2010

The Fourth Amendment

I'm going to preface this post with the US Constitutional Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I am all about safety and I don't want another Sept. 11. But how far is too far?

         I had to go through TSA security in order to fly to Denmark. A bit apprehensive because of all the negative issues I had been hearing previously on the news. I went through the usual- put everything on the conveyer and get it scanned, take off your shoes, jackets, and walk on through.  I  was leaving the  US though, not coming into it. It might have been different if that was the case. I didn't bother to just wear a bikini.

Are the whole body scanners actually beneficial?  They can find about as much as the previous usual detection machines. And if someone really wants to sneak something dangerous in- hello folks, this is the 21st century. If they want to, they will find a way. And it's fact that the body scanners can't detect everything. They cost over $100,000 US dollars too.

In addition, there's enough news stories circulating so I won't go into how the full body scanners are misused by those operating them...

So what are your options if you want to not subject yourself to walking through the "naked scanner?"

a. Accept a fine of a substantial amount of $$$$
b. Subject yourself to an intrusive pat down

Option A:
Well, not everyone has 10,000+ US dollars floating around, so that might be a problem.
Option B:
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has received more than 900 complaints over the "pat down" procedures used by the TSA. I think we should say TSA loosely because they are the ones performing the action. Our Government is in charge of the TSA though, so these procedures are accepted and 'required' by our Government. And on a side note, the government is supposed to be for the people. So in essence, the pat down procedures are something we the people have accepted as ok unless we all come together and say "no."

If you want to see excerpts of complaints and what the people think of their personal  "pat downs" check out this link.  It's disturbing. Prisonplanet is an excellent source of news.

One particular complaint that I find highly disturbing is a woman who complied with the body scanner and was then pulled aside because she was wearing a panty liner and they needed a female TSA agent to insure that's what it was. So from the age a young woman starts menstruating she's in danger of some perv sticking their hands down her pants to make sure it's really a panty liner when going through security. That is what I call an unreasonable search. And that is just one of the complaints. 

And we all know, that random 14 year old American girl is carrying a bomb in her pants.

And the TSA does not appear to sensor who they hire much- it doesn't matter if you have a record of stalking and harassment, you'll still find a job with the TSA. Ew.

Besides that, let's talk about the health aspects of these "pat downs." Apparently the TSA don't change their gloves. Germs love things like that. So from one person to the next, to the next, to the next, TSA is spreading all the love. How nice.

Newsflash: the government is supposed to work for us. Not us for them. We vote these people in office and we vote them out. Having an incredibly invasive pat down because the TSA agents ultimately want you to find the experience uncomfortable so you'll subject yourself to the humiliating body scanners really finds the bad guys. Yes, that 6 year old kid is a terrorist. Go ahead and feel him up.

When our persons are being unreasonably searched and we are supposed to sit back and say it's ok, it has gone too far.  And please don't forget, silence is a form of acceptance.

And that's Emily reporting to your from Denmark


  1. So what did you choose for the airport security? I'm flying in a couple weeks and I'm not looking forward to that part at all.

    Hope you are having a totally awesome time in Denmark!!!

  2. I say bomb the airports from the outside! Burn the security to the ground!

    Very stupid. The government needs to stick their hands someplace else.

  3. That's disgusting about the pat downs, it's against human rights (or it should be). I think it's all gone a bit OTT even in Britain.

  4. honestly, if those terrorist really want to bomb a plane they would still, doesn't matter how many people they pat down before boarding the plane, those terrorist would find a way! so it's dumb that regular people like us get the shaft and feeling violated

  5. it all seems to be going over the top, and not just in the us....last year we flew from darwin to cairns (both in oz) and my wife was forced to throw out all her toiletries & told us we should have known that such things were banned and couldn't be taken on a plane

  6. eek. so frustrating. we of course want to be safe, but really? this stuff just seems like to much sometimes.

  7. So seriously this is just wrong. I have read a few other articles about the TSA being intrusive. It's just wrong and not necessary. Israel knows how to do it. When I went there I had no uncalled for problems and they were not inappropriate either. It was fast, efficient, and I felt completely safe. Here is how they do it.

  8. The TSA’s budget was $151.3 Million in 2009. Since its inception, the TSA has not stopped a single terror attack or apprehended a terrorist prior to boarding a plane. Every terror attack since has been thwarted by flight crews, flyers or failure on the part of the terrorist. That’s money well spent! I’m glad we’re all giving up our liberties and inconveniencing ourselves so the Fed Gov can burn more money.

  9. I would say a little disconfor is better than a potential life threat...

    Hey, I actually saw somewhere on the web they created a special underwear to protect your priviate parts during teh scanning process lol

  10. @India: I actually didn’t have to choose. Before I left that was a concern of mine but O’Hare didn’t have the scanner and so it was easy easy. Sorry you might have to deal with it. :( I really don’t know what I would have done if I had to make a decision. Where ya headed? I am having fun in Denmark! It’s cold but it’s been a neat experience so far. :D

    @Leanne: I share your sentiment 100%. :D

    @Alice X: Oh I agree! Thankfully people are starting to report this stuff, perhaps it will get toned down a bit? If enough people object?

    @Pop Champagne: I know!! It’s just lame. :P

    @dull boy: ack, it’s so silly! And at one point people couldn’t take nail clippers on board with them. Yeah, I’m really going to kill you with these amazingly sharp nail clippers. Oh please. :P

    @Lizzie: Yep, pretty much. Those who chose security over freedom get neither. Someone said that, but I don’t quite remember who!

    @Aaron: dang, that’s brilliant. Why don’t we pause and look at what other people are doing? I sometimes doubt it’s really about security and more about control.

    @J.M: Wow, that is really really lame! Yikes.

    @Julia: LOL about the underwear. :P I see where you’re coming from- I say it’s still a bit over the top especially after reading about “israelification” – the link that Aaron posted is quite interesting.

    Thanks for all the love! :D

  11. The thing is that when people say that random 14 year old girl, or that 90 year old granny, isn't coming on the plane strapped with bombs is that... well. That's not true.

    You can see that in Iraq and Afghanistan, women, children and even pregnant women will come in strapping bombs and god knows what else. Are granny's and kids doing it now? No. But if we give them an exception, they WILL be used. In a war, no one is off limits. There are no such thing as non-combatants. If adults can shoot a gun, so can kids. If adults can strap a bomb to themselves, so can kids.

    It's reality. Sorry folks, but the whole "babies, kids, grannys, and whatever demographic you choose" shouldn't be subject to similar security procedures is absolutely absurd. The moment we make them exempt is the moment they will be used.

    Not to sound harsh, but yes. That six year old kid could be a terrorist. There are a number of deceased service men that will attest to the fact that an innocent child shot them, threw a grenade at them, put up a piano wire under a bridge to decapitate them while their head was out of a gun truck, planted bombs and IED's, and even detonate them.

    I don't want to be a downer and I'm not saying I agree with the TSA procedures but profiling is wrong and ineffective in all forms - including in exclusion - so taking kids or teenagers or elderly people from the line is the worst thing we could do.

  12. Hello Riley, thank you for sharing your thoughts! I see what you mean and I can also see that my post was a bit short sighted.

    It really is their methods I dislike. Aaron posted a link talking about a method called israelification and that makes so much more sense then doing it the way TSA is doing it right now.

    I don't have a problem with security but TSA seems to be going about it in a''super police'' mode and I don't like that.

    Thanks again for your insight!