… To Include Being Unhappy With Their Unconstitutional Screening Practices.
Over at CNN there is an article that highlights a recent move by the TSA to categorize profiling of those who are unhappy with the potential added
security screening as ‘potential threats’. There is also a video report. Here are a couple of quotes:
the TSA‘s crack behavior detection officers are now on the lookout for “anyone who displays arrogance or expresses contempt for the screening process.”
Why? Because scientific anti-terror detection techniques have now apparently revealed that complaining about poor treatment from airport security indicates you are probably a terrorist.
And more telling:
“Expressing your contempt about airport procedures — that’s a First Amendment-protected right,” said Michael German, a former FBI agent who now works as legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “We all have the right to express our views, and particularly in a situation where the government is demanding the ability to search you.”
“It’s circular reasoning where, you know, I’m going to ask someone to surrender their rights; if they refuse, that’s evidence that I need to take their rights away from them. And it’s simply inappropriate,” he said.
Of course they find a case that justifies it all:
the immigration agent who refused to let the alleged “20th hijacker” into the United States in 2001 later testified that the man’s arrogant behavior contributed to his suspicions.
So there you have it – one occurrence of an after the fact assessment ‘contributing’ to a decision means that the millions of us who feel discomfort about the draconian police-state power move inherent in the current system of feeling up toddlers and using under-tested equipment to irradiate our bodies need to be treated MORE like criminals than we already are when we enter the airport.
There have been countless articles, but recently Wil Wheaton recounted his experience during ‘enhanced screening’:
I believe that the choice we are currently given by the American government when we need to fly is morally wrong, unconstitutional, and does nothing to enhance passenger safety.
I further believe that when I choose to fly, I should not be forced to choose between submitting myself to a virtually-nude scan (and exposing myself to uncertain health risks due to radiation exposure)1, or enduring an aggressive, invasive patdown where a stranger puts his hands in my pants, and makes any contact at all with my genitals.
I couldn’t agree more. I was watching two movies showing people going through airports in the past week. One was from the 70’s, and everything was quick and easy. The other was ’21’, where everyone had to take off shoes, get screened, and on and on.
Some amount of security screening is reasonable. What is going on now is an assault on many of our rights: freedom of expression, illegal search & seizure, and also presumption of innocence. It is a sad and sorry state of affairs – especially considering how much time my state is wrapped up deciding on what will be the state fruit and our government is dealing with ‘the Donald’ and his fellow birther nutjobs. If we put that effort into dealing with a proper security system I have no doubt we could do better. Because we couldn’t do much worse.
Remember: this is our enemy!
Source: CNN via Buzzfeed