Dear John and other liberty lovers, I really appreciate Dr. Paul introduced the bill. It again shows he is some steps ahead others when it comes to fighting against the civil rights erosion. I thank you all from the Campaign for Liberty very much for informing not just American people and so bravely face the ominous development. I'll respectfully allow myself to share my opinion based on study of the laws in context of the TSA policy "either allow body-scan or be subjected to the enhanced pat-down, fines, no-fly or arrest ". I hope it will not rest unheard as when it was already repeatedly quickly deleted from some of the internet discussions. If you'll find this opinion competent, feel free to pass it to anyone who can evaluate it, use it, forward it, paraphrase it, correct it, publish it, whatever suitable. I allow myself to send the copy of this email also to some other friends and colleagues in USA and Europe. I'm an European from the Czech Republic and I'm not an english native so please excuse any mistakes. I watch with anxiety the recent developments not just in the USA towards almost unprecendented invasion into privacy and against the essential dignity of normal citizens, so I think we must jointly put together our best knowledge to avert it. Because we have no choice - either we defeat the powers which erode our rights and liberties or we'll be their victims. In the wake of globalized rise of stupid, dangerous and totalitarian policies there's no place to hide, to escape. There's no homeland for those who don't stand for it or if needed don't fight for it. -It is not a poetic quote for weepily nationalists, it is the very basic legal principle of patriotism which all liberty and rights worthy of that name are stem from - not just just some conditional revocable privilegies granted by somebody's real or spurious absolute power. The freedom means to hold our things firmly in our hands, not having crotches of us, our loved ones and even children exposed to filthy limbs of the Leviathan. Such sticky-fingered tentacles triyng to steal our very privacy we must avert or mercilessly axe. Our homelands are not owned by orwellian departments of homeland security, neither us are owned by them, the times of slavery should be over once for ever. The homelands are ours, there we should beware safe haven for our souls and lives. Who hasn't any homeland the one doesn't really own oneself, because nobody guarantees it, and who doesn't own oneself, owns nothing, even monied the one is the poorest of the poor. It is indeed us who should own ourselves and decide not let the organized armies of pervert criminals - working off themselves off as our protectors - to harass us by touching our very intimity without a proper reason and against our will and very dignity. It is not just our right, it is our very duty. If we'll give up us, our liberties and rights, our homelands and fights for them, what for then would be any doubtful safety anyway, we would by the way lose it all. Now more specifically. I think the TSA coercive policy of "allowing to choose" between potentially dangerous and in any case humiliating full body scan and abusive "enhanced pat-downs" is not even a not-free choice - because it is by TSA expressly and publicly coerced by threat of no-fly, fines and even arrest - but it is in fact not a choice at all. I think, that if someone refuses unwarranted (in the sense of the 4th Amendment) body scan for concerns of dignity and privacy the 4th Amendment is supposed to protect, there is in legal sense not anymore at all reasonable to expect there in any way lasts any applicable implicite permission to the TSA personnel to touch the persons intimous parts. Therefore any such an "enhanced pat-down" - even through clothing - shouldn't follow the opt-out from the body-scan in the first place. And if it indeed follows, then it in nature could become the federal criminal offense of Abusive sexual contact, because refering person who already opted-out from the body-scan to the "enhanced pat-down" without a pertinent warrant based on probable cause means in nature at least "to harass" (as enumerated in 18 USC 2246[3] - cited in footnote below) the person -exactly because one's tacite consent with touching the intimous parts after the person opted-out from the body-scan can't be reasonably expected anymore so refering the person to the "enhanced pat-down" procedure doesn't much make a sense at all. Moreover I think the touching of the one's intimous parts during the "enhanced pat-down" procedure becomes a criminal offense regardless the person will not expressly recall an implied consent (the TSA thinks it still has although from the logic is clear it was withdrawn already in the moment of the opt-out if ever was in fact there) -by e.g. the person expressly stating it is not giving the permission in the sense of the 18 USC §2244[b] - to reiterate again, even the person doesn't say anything after he/she was refered to the "enhanced pat-down" -especially in such a case- then to touch the intimate places of such a person would be perpetrating the crime, because it is then already beyond reasonable to expect there is an implied permission still given after the opt-out from the body scan for privacy or dignity reasons, and in such a case the person could be reasonably given an option of an alternative assesment or must be allowed to leave or travel - for there persist the legal status of no probable cause nor even reason for further detention, because a valid suspicion the person is a terrorist carrying dangerous items on his/her body cannot be reasonably based solely on the fact he/she opted-out the body-scan. I would think that if there theoretically the Supreme Court would be presented with this interpretation it would upheld it. In my opinion anyone hardly can convincingly contest it e.g. using the "special needs" exception from the 4th Amendment established by some of the precedents - because in fact the argumentation is primarily not based on the interpretation of the 4th Amendment, but instead on basic legal principle of what a legal term permission indeed means in the context of the federal penal code implications if such a permission is not given and cannot be even assumed as tacitly given. Therefore I think the TSA policy "of choice" is criminal in nature -if the policy of the search would not always include from the very beginning a pertinent warrant as directed by the 4th Amendment -which would render the search even via touching somebody's intimous parts being then having a reason and therefore reasonable. It is true, that the federal law allows searches without a warrant of any person who is under arrest. But nobody could be arrested for sole reason he/she opted-out the body-scan, because such a reason doesn't constitute a probable cause which could support an arrest warrant and therefore such an arrest could be directly considered as unlawful and would in consequence imply also that a warrantless unconsented search eventually conducted then by TSA via touching the intimous parts of the body will be again the criminal offense of Abusive sexual contact under the 18 USC 2244[b], moreover, such a search or any unwarranted search in general then could be resisted by adequate force as also the arrest itself (- John Bad Elk v. United States). This could potentially lead to dangerous escalations especially if we consider immanently intimidative nature of the whole TSA policy context, which could evoke strong emotions. To sum up: There are fundamental legal principles and statutes valid in USA an universaly which prevent any legality of unwarranted indiscriminate screening searches via touching of somebodys intimous parts if the person opted-out the body scan for dignity and privacy reasons. And refering somebody opting-out from body scan to the "enhanced pat-down" is per se illegal because immediately in the moment the person opted-out there is immediately not even implicite permission given to such a procedure taking place if the person expressly doesn't state then otherwise. This all has in my opinion another even much more serious implication, although maybe looking at the first sight wild, however could well be the very case: To me it looks quite clear the TSA policy thanks to its unfortunate wittingly coercive nature, (moreover in the context of posiible conflict of interest by the former DHS secretary M. Chertoff and like, which rises a suspicion the whole scheme is more than about the security of the public air-travel about the profits of certain companies) fits strikingly exactly into the definition of the federal capital felony of Conspiracy against rights (18 USC §241 - cited below) - and the TSA officials who introduced this policy and publicly wittingly "advocate" it using threats of fines, arrests and no-fly could theoretically indeed be punished even by death penalty - if it would result in deaths. And it indeed wery well could, first because the body-scan technology due to the radiation could possibly inflict lethal diseases both to the screened passengers and the TSA personel operating the devices - or second it could result in significant number of deaths inevitably, when the people would -after denied by TSA to fly solely as a consequence of defending their essential privacy, dignity or health concerns - be en masse so forced - instead of relatively safe flying - use the cars and other means of transportation with orders of magnitude higher danger of accidents and considerably high probability of them occuring. And so under the pretence of fighting terrorism the potential political dangers of the terrorism to the establishment would be in fact transformed into very real dangers on the highest expenses of real lives of the ordinary people so inevitably then sacrificed to a chimera of a perfect safety instead of being reasonably protected against real dangers. The probability of the deaths resulting so from this criminal policies just in car crashes would be clearly orders of magnitude higher than the actual probability the people would die due to a terrorist attack theoretically resulting from potential use of the planes by terrorists in the case the very invasive but doubtfully efficacious TSA policies would be completely abandoned or just changed to the less invasive ones. I think it would be ultimately repugniant from the political and judicial establishment if it would tacitly tolerate such an almost absurd and bizarre but very real hazard with the peoples safety and lives or even actively try to justify it. At last I would think even a mere theoretical possibility the relevant officials could be indicted by the Grand Jury - which is mandatory for capital crimes - could serve as a viable strong political deterrent, which could in my opinion eventually persuade DHS and TSA abandon the dangerous policy -if any attorney authorized to introduce a case to the federal Grand Jury would publicly express a serious intent to pursue the case and bring so the attention of media, politicians and public to the arguments -which in my opinion indeed uncover in its very nakedness the policies introduced by DHS and TSA are ultimately absurd, dangerous, immoral, criminal and generally condemnable. Sincerely Dr. Jan Zeman - Prague -------------------------------- 18 USC § 241. Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, *oppress, threaten, or intimidate* any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and *if death results* from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or *may be sentenced to death*. USC 18 § 2244. Abusive sexual contact (a) * *Sexual Conduct in Circumstances Where Sexual Acts Are Punished by This Chapter*.— * Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in or causes sexual contact with or by another person, if so to do would violate— (1) subsection (a) or (b) of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; (2) section 2242 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than three years, or both; (3) subsection (a) of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both; (4) subsection (b) of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both; or (5) subsection (c) of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life. (b) * **In Other Circumstances**.— * Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, *knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person without that other person’s permission* shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (c) * *Offenses Involving Young Children*.— * If the sexual contact that violates this section (other than subsection (a)(5)) is with an individual who has not attained the age of 12 years, the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed for the offense shall be twice that otherwise provided in this section. "Sexual contact" for the purposes of the §2244[b] is defined in 18 USC § 2246. Definitions for chapter As used in this chapter— (1) the term “prison” means a correctional, detention, or penal facility; (2) the term “sexual act” means— (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; (B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and the anus; (C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening of another by a hand or finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or (D) the intentional touching, not through the clothing, of the genitalia of another person who has not attained the age of 16 years with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (3) *the term “sexual contact” means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade*, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (4) the term “serious bodily injury” means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; (5) the term “official detention” means— (A) detention by a Federal officer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal officer or employee, following arrest for an offense; following surrender in lieu of arrest for an offense; following a charge or conviction of an offense, or an allegation or finding of juvenile delinquency; following commitment as a material witness; following civil commitment in lieu of criminal proceedings or pending resumption of criminal proceedings that are being held in abeyance, or pending extradition, deportation, or exclusion; or (B) custody by a Federal officer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal officer or employee, for purposes incident to any detention described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, including transportation, medical diagnosis or treatment, court appearance, work, and recreation; but does not include supervision or other control (other than custody during specified hours or days) after release on bail, probation, or parole, or after release following a finding of juvenile delinquency; and (6) the term “State” means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, possession, or territory of the United States. Dne 24.11.2010 0:13, Campaign for Liberty napsal(a): > > > > - > > > > > > November 23, 2010 > > > > > > Dear Patriot, > > > > TSA agents are gloved-up and ready to meet you as you travel this > > holiday season. > > > > While Thanksgiving Day offers choices such as what kind of stuffing > > you prefer and just how much mashed potatoes is too much, /flying /to > > your destination may require deciding whether to be ogled or felt up. > > > > If you and your kids, parents, or grandparents refuse to be seen > > naked, the TSA will proceed with an invasive “pat-down” procedure that > > is simply sexual assault by another name. > > > > Campaign for Liberty warned about > > > > the TSA trampling our freedoms in January 2010, following the > > “Christmas Day Bomber’s” failed attempt to set off his “underwear bomb.” > > > > As a result of the TSA constantly trying to play catch up, we must now > > take off our shoes, place our little liquids in Ziploc bags, and > > choose between potentially harmful, irradiating naked porno-scanners > > or a sexual assault that strips us of what dignity we have left. > > > > As with other massive federal government overreaches, the TSA thinks > > telling us this is necessary for “our safety” allows it to do whatever > > it wants to us, including shredding our Fourth Amendment rights. > > > > The government spends tens of billions on the TSA, our foreign > > intelligence gathering, and creating “No Fly Lists.” > > > > Yet it was the flight crew and passengers, not a wasteful bureaucracy, > > that stopped the “Shoe bomber” and “Christmas Day Bomber,” even though > > the Christmas Day Bomber’s father tried to warn the American > > government about what his son was doing well in advance. > > > > Tell your U.S. representative > > > > it is beyond time to restore Americans’ dignity when they travel. > > *Urge them to immediately cosponsor H.R. 6416, the "American Traveler > > Dignity Act." > > * > > Also, call the TSA at 1-866-289-9673 and email them at > > TSA-ContactCenter@dhs.gov to let > > them know what you think about their forced choice between pornography > > or sexual assault. > > > > In a free country, we should never have to choose between total > > exposure or assault just to get on a plane. And we should never stand > > idly by while fellow citizens like cancer patients and survivors are > > humiliated into submitting to a bureaucrat’s idea of “security.” > > > > While there are currently just under 400 porno-scanners in 68 airports > > across America, the plan is to have more than 1,000 scanners in > > airports by the end of 2011. > > > > This is the time to demand change in the TSA’s policies – before their > > plans are fully in place and while the American people’s anger is growing. > > > > Contact Congress today > > . > > Tell them you refuse to give up your liberties and that you’ve had it > > with the TSA! > > > > > > In Liberty, > > > > > > > > John Tate > > > > President > > > > > > P.S. Campaign for Liberty is continuing to fight against invasions of > > our privacy by wasteful federal bureaucracies like the TSA. Will you > > chip in $10 so C4L can turn up the pressure on the statists? > > > > > > This message was intended for: tumetuestumefaisdubien@gmail.com > > > > You were added to the system October 1, 2009. For more information > > click here > > . > > View this email as a web page > > . > > Update your preferences > > > > | Unsubscribe > > > > > > > > > >