Executive Reactionary

Profiling

2010-11-26T11:54:00.000-08:00

"It's not profiling. It's trend analysis."

~Rep. Allan West (R-Fl.)

All this talk about the TSA and profiling got me thinking...Does profiling really have to be limited to religious and/or racial profiling? Behavioral profiling should be the goal. If an airline passenger has spent the last five years in Pakistan, bought his ticket with cash, and has zero carry on baggage, I am pretty sure that would be behavior justifying a deeper look by security, and possibly result in a reasonable search and seizure scenario. Certainly more so than a 12 year old boy who's parent doesn't want him to receive a full body scan or get felt up by some TSA agent.

Let's be realistic with all of this. Aside from the blatant violation of our Fourth Amendment rights, these new machines and pat down procedures are in response to a failed bombing attempt from almost a year ago in which a man flying into Chicago, from overseas, tried to light some plastic explosives hidden in his underwear. Consider these facts:

TSA has never stopped a terrorist or foiled a terrorist plot at an airport security checkpoint.
These new procedures will not identify or find plastic explosives.

What if the next terrorist attack happens because a passenger shoved plastic explosives up their anus? Or vagina? What will our security procedures be like then? Are school buses next? The government is perfectly okay with conducting these security practices in a place of private business. What are they willing to do for public transportation?

The fact is behavioral profiling is a better way to identify potential terrorists than having the federal government initiate extensive and invasive search policies targeting all, well, most travelers at airport security checkpoints while exempting certain classes of travelers from the searches all together.

On the topic racial and religious profiling though, aren't policies like affirmative action and lower tuitions for low-income families or students from certain ethnic/religious backgrounds a form of racial and religious profiling?

Happy Thanksgiving

2010-11-25T09:46:00.000-08:00

"Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be – That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks – for his kind care and protection of the People of this country..."

~George Washington, Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, 1789

Pelosi's Love-Hate Relationship With Protesting

2010-11-23T16:11:00.000-08:00

So, what happened between Pelosi THEN:

and Pelosi NOW:

This woman says she is scared of the hurtful rhetoric of the 60s and 70s, which is believable...until you find out the part that she actually loves it.

TSA, Dude, Stay In Your Swim Lane

2010-11-22T18:26:00.000-08:00

"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."

~Fourth Amendment, US Constitution, ratified in 1791

The new, invasive policies established by the TSA are blatent violations of our 4th Amendment rights. In fact, the TSA has been violating our 4th Amendment rights since their creation. In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs when:

a person expects privacy in the thing searched and
society believes that expectation is reasonable.

The Supreme Court has exempted certain situations from being held accountable under the Constitution, such as borders and entry points (like international airports). But even then government authority is limited to reasonable searches, and only then can searches and seizures take place if there is reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. So by establishing the TSA, thank you Mr. Bush, the government has declared that all travelers are suspected of illegal activity simply for purchasing an airline ticket.

The President says it's the only thing that will keep us safe from future "Christmas Day Bombers". The former head of the TSA says that we have to give up our 4th Amendment rights in order to maintain national security. And the current head of the TSA says there must be a balance between privacy and security.

I say, BS to all of that. Aside from the implications of further, more intrusive searches and seizures that would take place if we applied the logic of the new policy to other areas of our lives (such as public transportation, our homes, schools, work, etc.), the new procedures don't even "see" anything like plastic/playdough explosives that were involved in the "Christmas Day Bomber" incident. Besides, we can still maintain our freedoms and dignity while STILL maintaining security. If our federal government would just stick to their actual functions of national security--meaning customs/border control, intelligence, and law enforcement--and let private airline industry provide their own front-line airport security, then three things could happen:

Fourth Amendment issues would be moot because they only apply to government searches and seizures.
The federal government can focus the TSA's efforts and resources on their customs/border control, law enforcement, and intelligence functions, which provide more to national and airline security than screening at the gates. And
The cost of airline security would be absorbed by the people actually utilizing the service and flying instead of the general taxpayer who may or may not ever travel by plane.

Sure, as a Libertarian I'd like to see end of all federal regualtion of private industry, but in the end this is really about the Rule of Law, of which our government has lost all respect for over the past 10 years. How can a government enforce its Constitution, or its own laws, if it doesn't even abide by it itself?

Freedom Of The Press Is A Firewall Against Tyranny

2010-11-22T17:50:00.000-08:00

No matter how much we disagree with what is said in the media, we absolutely MUST maintain our freedom of the press. From Rockefeller's call below to the FCC's Net Neutrality and President Obama's war on Fox, one of our basic firewalls against tyranny are consistently under attack today.

"It is apprehended, that arbitrary power would steal in upon us, were we not careful to prevent its progress, and were there not an easy method of conveying the alarm from one end of the kingdom to the other. The spirit of the people must frequently be rouzed, in order to curb the ambition of the court; and the dread of rouzing this spirit must be employed to prevent that ambition. Nothing so effectual to this purpose as the liberty of the press, by which all the learning, wit, and genius of the nation may be employed on the side of freedom, and every one be animated to its defence. As long, therefore, as the republican part of our government can maintain itself against the monarchical, it will naturally be careful to keep the press open, as of importance to its own preservation."

~David Hume, Of The Liberty of The Press, 1742