This is the TSA oath.....where does it mention Federal Statute ??? Where is the Fourth Amendment??
I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. On Nov 17, 3:25 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Government Sexual Molestation in Airports Is ‘Over the Top’byIvan Eland, > November 17, 2010 > After the initial hysterical security response to the 9/11 attacks – inane > measures included posting 19-year-old National Guardsmen with automatic > weapons at crowded airports and the temporary discontinuation of electronic > tickets – lasting security augmentation entailed hardening of aircraft > cockpit doors and beefing up passenger screening in airports. The latter has > continued after each subsequent foiled terrorist plot and has now reached > absurd proportions. > After the failure of the shoe bomber, we were required to begin disrobing > when going through airport security. After the thwarted attempt to assemble a > liquid bomb on an aircraft, we were limited to three ounces of liquid per > bottle. After the underwear bomber, we began being subjected to pornographic > scans of our bodies, which showed genitals, breasts, etc. > And after the latest attempt to put bombs in airplane cargo compartments, we > are now subjected to sexual molestation and assault if anyone but the > government did it – that is, aggressive pat-downs by airport security > personnel that include actually touching those genitals and breasts. > The public, sold on the irrational post-9/11 dread of being killed by a > terrorist (the actual chance of the average American being killed by an > international terrorist is a minuscule one in 80,000), has grumbled and > tolerated most of these “security” augmentations. Yet outrageous fondling by > government employees has caused a rising tide of public outrage and may be > the straw that breaks the camel’s back. > For example, theWashington Postquoted one traveler, Marc Moniz of Poway, > Calif., as complaining about such molestation, “It’s very intrusive and very > insane. I wouldn’t let anyone touch my daughter like that. We’re not common > criminals.” > And the government has no probable cause to believe all travelers are > criminal terrorists, making any airport security measures that search every > traveler violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. That amendment > requires the government to have probable cause that a crime has been > committed before a search is conducted. > Also, the aforementioned piling on of security procedures after each stymied > attack should raise questions about the latest unconstitutional fad. After > all, each attack was foiled prior to the institution of the added security > measure, and the government is always guarding against yesterday’s threat, as > the nimble terrorists try to outmaneuver huge and ponderous government > bureaucracies. In fact, government officials often institute security > measures merely to “reassure the public” – read: pretend to be doing > something about a perceived problem. > But the government response to the recent attempt at cargo bombing should > cause the public to be even more suspicious of government actions. After all, > what do aggressive pat-downs of passengers have to do with the threat of > bombs being put in cargo compartments? The government is using the > time-honored bureaucratic tradition of using a crisis to get public > acceptance for some unrelated governmental policy preference – remember the > invasion of Iraq after the 9/11 attacks? Moreover, these new aggressive > pat-downs are more helpful in uncovering knives and other hand-held weapons > of lesser threat than they are of detecting chemical explosives. > Another bizarre security addition that I have recently experienced is the > plastic cage. Last week I was flying and was randomly selected for the > dreaded “secondary screening” (it sounds ancillary but is just annoying). The > security woman put me in the cage (fortunately it had air holes), locked it, > and told me that I wasn’t getting out until she swabbed my hands (presumably > for potential chemical residues from bomb making). > To show how much overkill the government has perpetrated on the traveling > public in passenger security lines, let’s do a thought experiment. After > 9/11, even if the government had instituted no added security measures, > flying would have been much safer. Why? Because previously, passengers and > crews were instructed to cooperate with any aircraft hijacker because most > people on the plane usually lived through such experiences. During and after > the 9/11 attacks, however, this paradigm changed abruptly as air travelers > became surly when envisioning everyone dying and also killing people on the > ground. Such enraged travelers likely foiled the attack with the fourth plane > on 9/11, and passengers or crew did not sit idly by during the shoe and > underwear bombing attempts. > Thus, with now vigilant and aggressive travelers as the first line of > defense, intrusive government passenger screening – previously annoying and > now dehumanizing – is hardly vital for air > security.http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2010/11/16/government-sexual-molestation/ -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
