Flying Naked

OK, well at least it got your attention. Are we headed for a world where flying without clothes is going to be the norm? Is security worth the restrictions? Does the fourth amendment to the Constitution have any affect on the Washington idiots? Most directly, do we all have to give up privacy as an exchange for so-called increased air security?

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution says, inter alia, that "the people shall be secure in the persons, houses, papers and effects, and no warrant shall issue without probable cause". The latter part of the sentence is what is called the "warrant clause" Many constitutional scholars believe it stands, in application, as a "warrant requirement". Indeed, the SCOTUS has said over and over that "searches without a search warrant are presumptively unconstitutional" And, almost in the same breath, have carved out exception after exception to searches of persons being reasonable without a search warrant.

One of the exceptions the SCOTUS has established are so called administrative searches, such as what it going on in our airports. They have reasoned that a person has the option not to enter if they object to a search and that they (the passenger) have, by implication, consented to the search when they chose to fly on a commercial airplane. Forgive the directness, but WHAT BULLSHIT!

OK, right, yes the court has held limited searches to enter places reasonable but the denial of privacy was balanced against the need of government and in this balance, the court fell on the side of the government. But, come on!.... I do not believe the level of intrusiveness of the searches being conducted in our airports is reasonable in that balance and that it will, or damn well should, be found to be unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional. You see, government can violate your rights if they have a "compelling governmental interest" This is called a strict scrutiny. While a case can be made that terrorists being prevented from blowing up airplanes or using them as weapons is a compelling government reason to violate our fourth amendment rights, the government must be able to prove that the procedures they are using will likely achieve the need. I don't think they can do that. The government (TSA) admit the new porn scanners cannot detect bombs like the underwear bomber was using, or an explosive device hidden in a body cavity, so how are they going to show their procedures meet the governments need?

The fact is, they are targeting the wrong goal. The government needs to concentrate on detecting BOMBERS not bombs. What they are currently doing is, to quote the former security chief for El Al Airlines, idiotic. The government should stop searching grandmothers, infants and housewives from Philly and concentrate on the traits of those who have attacked this country in the past. That is not, repeat, not racial profiling...it is just common sense. If a segment of our society gets offended because they get to have a chat with a government official every time they fly, so what.....don't fly.....That is exactly what they are telling the rest of the country to do if they object to the current porn scanners or grope search, isn't it? We have got to stop being political correct long enough to save the country, don't you think?

Back to the law...... I hope a case gets to the SCOTUS on direct appeal soon enough for some of us to actually be willing to fly again. As for me, it would have to be a really "compelling need" for me to go through this crap to get on a plane..... Don't be so willing to give up a constitutional right so easily...Before long, you may not have any.