"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by
gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
The recent controversy over the TSA's use of body imaging technology, which produces an essentially nude portrait of its subjects, and "enhanced pat-downs," which require near-minimum wage employees without police training or authority to literally squeeze and examine the topography of a subject's genitalia, are such blatant examples of government intrusion to privacy that I am astonished at the level to which we have slid down the proverbial slope. In a country where we pride ourselves in freedom, is it truly worth the loss of our privacy in air travel to allegedly make ourselves more secure? In light of how El Al and British airlines have managed without these measures, is it really a necessity that these methods become standard, primary means of screening?
Subjecting those 13 and older to essentially pornographic pictures (which the government assures us will be immediately be deleted - uh huh) with the only alternative option to literally have themselves touched in ways usually reserved only for pleasure or medical evaluation, what is a nation to do? "Submit to the governing authorities"? I do not believe Paul would have submitted to such abusive authority. "Render unto Ceasar..." does not include rendering our genitalia exposed or fondled. No excuse exists for a government to so viciously molest its population. No such act should be tolerated by a free people - especially not for uncertain and temporary security.
Profiling is the only answer that preserves freedom. Police do it all the time. So do soldiers. However, valuable profiling is so much more scientific than that which is normally derided in the media. I am not talking about picking by superficial means from people of a certain color, dress or creed. I am speaking of profiling that examines behavior, suspicious clothing and packages, travel destinations and history, name-specific intelligence and other investigative criteria that help identify "high risk" persons who must be examined when common sense, not random counts, dictate. All potential (and successful) airplane hi-jackers and bombers have had several things in common - and these cannot be denied in a proper system that identifies risk. 3-year-olds in strollers and 80-year-old grandmothers are not part of that risk pool, and yet the TSA insists that the time and man-power spent on these random checks is important. Can you spot stupidity when you see it? Or can you spot the creeping totalitarianism?
As the frog boiled slowly in the pot does not leap out, so we are sitting quietly as the heat is turned up on millions of innocent Americans daily - and all the while none of our technology and "expertise" has managed to stop shoe and underwear bombers. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the several average citizens who jumped these terrorists as they tried to set off their bombs weren't themselves subject to searches to which the terrorists themselves were not subject. It is lunacy at best, Nazism at its worst. A truly free country would identify and charge John Pistole, Janet Napolitano and all TSA agents who have followed these ludicrous and criminal protocols with the various crimes they have foisted upon the American public. No doubt that there will be lawsuits in the works. No soldier or cop would get away with such frisks or pictures, performed without probable cause (or even reasonable suspicion), and neither should any other agent of the government.
What were they thinking? Am I out of my mind to call this "creeping totalitarianism?" Is it over the top to call their actions and policies "criminal?" Take a look at the Washington (RCW) definitions of Rape and Sexual Intercourse here. While there is allegedly no intent to obtain sexual gratification in a pat down (I suggest most agents probably don't find such gratification during this procedure, but doubt complete certainty can be obtained), descriptions of searches that penetrate female labia fall within the chargable category of rape by Washington law. At the very least, these procedures are shocking to the conscience of any country not obsessed with a politically correct attempt to create a no-defects safety environment that is willing to trade indiviual dignity for security.
How long then before we establish such procedures at train stations, bus stations, or even at random vehicular check points? We've gone this far. Why not further? After all, it could make us safer, right? How about visual inspections such as strip searches? After all, in John Tyner's video you can hear a TSA agent inform us that we "gave up [our] rights when [we] bought a plane ticket." If this is precedence, how can we not give up our rights by applying for a driver's license or buying a bus or train ticket? If the TSA can feel you up or take nudie photos of you, what is stopping them from establishing rules of interstate (or intrastate) travel that approve random checks of citizens using the public roadways? Michael Roberts, a pilot that is on administrative leave from his job because he has refused to endure these intrusions on his rights, has spoken out against TSA policies on Fourth Amendment grounds - an opinion with which I am in full agreement. His logic is similar to mine: If they can justify it in airports, where can they NOT justify it? As long as we remain in the pot, the government will continue to raise it to a full boil.
This issue should not be left or right, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat or Tea Party. It is an American issue - a freedom issue. Heed the words of Ronald Reagan:
"There is no left or right. There's only an up or down: up to the ultimate in individual freedom, consistent with an orderly society -- or down to the totalitarianism of the ant heap. And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path.” Ronald Reagan, "A Time for Choosing," 1964
We cannot make the skies perfectly safe - nor can we make our country perfectly safe. We can, however, work ourselves into a frenzy in which we lose sight of our freedoms and slowly give them away to authorities who will one day use our comfort to enslave us. Even if you trust the people who hold this power today, can you really entrust such power to their successors...and to theirs?
I hold both a religious and a moral objection to these procedures. Civil disobedience is the answer I will choose, should this government subject me - or my family - to such grotesque abuses of power during my up-coming trip. My religion prohibits me from allowing my wife and children from such exposure or assault. My sense of freedom morally obliges me to object and resist. My religion further prohibits me from pre-emptory violence, so my redress will have to be in whatever lawsuits may arise in the future, and in contacting my elected representatives and holding their feet to the fire on this issue.
I pray a sleeping American public will be awakened to the seriousness of this issue before the water is too hot.
No comments:
Post a Comment