Slashdot Mirror
State Legislatures Attempt To Limit TSA Searches
OverTheGeicoE writes "Here's a familiar story: a breast cancer survivor's mastectomy scars showed up on a TSA scan, which forced a horrifying pat-down ('feel-up' in her words) of the affected area. The woman decided that she would not subject herself to that again, and was barred from a later flight from Seattle to Juneau for that reason. But now the story takes an interesting turn: the woman is Alaska State Rep. Sharon Cissna, and once she finally made it back to Alaska she started sponsoring legislation to restrict TSA searches. Her many bills, if passed, would criminalize both pat-downs and 'naked scanning,' as well as require better health warnings for X-ray scanners and even studies of airport screenings' physical and psychological effects. Other states, including Utah and Texas, are considering similar legislation. For example, Texas State Rep. David Simpson is preparing to reintroduce his Traveler Dignity Act again in 2013 if he is re-elected. The last time that bill was being considered the Federal government threatened to turn all of Texas into a 'no-fly zone'."
Wait....
The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution states that, when there is a conflict, Federal law always trumps State law. So these measures are a nice gesture but ultimately useless. Too bad, I agree with them in principle, just not in execution.
It's about time the pendulum starts swinging away from the abusive, oppressive practices that the terrorists have set in place over our society.
America is supposed to be the land of the free, home of the brave. Not the land of the willing to consent to invasive and abusive practices because of drummed up fear.
...if only there were a way for reality to affect our politicians in other ways.... shoddy health insurance, loan scandals, eroding wages for skilled work, being on the wrong end of globalization.... etc. Now we can see true motivation.
Oh for effen crying out loud! When it is THEM then well we have a PROBLEM! But if they are not affected and we complain to the wahzoo we are complainers! No I want the TSA to keep going because I want THEM to start understanding how WE are dealt with by a government!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I'd love to see the states start calling the Federal Bluff. If the states revolt in unison against over reaching Federal Intrusions, the Feds will have no choice but to back off.
The problem is we have a bunch of pussified representatives.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Before federal deregulation, Southwest flew entirely within Texas so that it could set its own fares and schedules. I think PSA did the same thing by flying only within California. I could certainly see this happening again if the states and the feds go to war over the TSA. If you fly across state lines or fly international, you've got to go through the TSA first, but if you stay within your own state, you don't.
Why does it take a representative to be affected before they represent the people?
Aren't they supposed to be listening to us complaining and take action? Instead it seems like they only act on what is affecting them.
That's great! The last time I visited Texas, the flies were terrible!
Have gnu, will travel.
Why does it take a representative to be affected before they represent the people? Aren't they supposed to be listening to us complaining and take action? Instead it seems like they only act on what is affecting them.
Pretty much the same reason you get the crosswalk light installed only after some kid or old lady gets killed. People, including legislators, do what's easiest for them. When it's easier to do nothing, do nothing. When doing nothing gets to be more trouble than doing something, only then you do something.
I am not a crackpot.
It's natural for people to best understand the ramifications of law, policy, and procedure when it directly affects themselves. Perhaps a differently worded question is: wouldn't *we* be better off if our representatives more broadly represented us -- in terms of wealth, health, age, religion, ethnicity, educational background, etc.? That means more minorities and women, but it also means more factory workers [union and nonunion], more with a direct experience of poverty, more with a background in STEM, etc. Sure there are a few national politicians here and there who meet those kinds of broad demographics, but nowhere near the levels that America as a whole contains.
In short, elect fewer old white rich male lawyers and you may find a better cross section of legislative ideas and initiatives.
Let's make all of congress, the senate, and of course, the President and cronies, have to go thru a TSA scanner and pat down every time they want to enter the senate, or the white house, or congress. Let's do this for a month, then lets have a revote on this stuff.
My guess is we'd get rid of all the scanners and pat downs.
After all, the people who make the laws are the one rarely affected by the laws they are making, unless it's something to benefit them.
Be seeing you...
Call me a cynic, but why did this woman not actively support regaining our rights and dignity BEFORE she became a victim of the TSA? It seems a little self serving for her to suddenly pick up that flag only after her own personal traumatic experience. As a fellow human, I can sympathize with what she's gone through, but as a politician it looks less than righteous.
In the example you gave Mythonia would then have laws on its book that conflict with Federal law and hence would be invalid. In the case of what the Senator is proposing, there are no specific Federal laws they would be going against. Congress passed bills creating the DHS and TSA, but no law has been specifically passed defining their authority nor defining how they're to execute their charter. So while you're quite right that you cannot pre-empt federal law by state legislation if this theoretically got all the way to SCOTUS the TSA would likely be required to point to exactly what Federal law they were claiming had supremacy.
So all it takes is a politician to get fondled and it's an outrage worthy of legislation, but for us pedestrians and punters tough beans.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Because Texas has two very important hubs, DFW and IAH. Plus a very large number of southwest flights pass through Texas. When DFW/IAH gets shutdown the ripples will be national, good luck finding a flight anywhere. The texas leg should totally call their bluff, lets see what happens when united can't fly through IAH, and American can't fly through DFW. Plus chopping the middle out of southwest won't be pretty either.
Loosing the 2,3 and 4th largest airlines in the US will be a bigger problem for TSA, than any terrorist attack.
just a matter of time until we either return to a civilized system
You mean like in the 1950's when no one was searched or x-rayed at all? After all, no one would be stupid to blow up the plane they are on, right? I don't know why people have this obsession with "not dying" - we are all going to die sooner or later, be it disease or a car crash or a plane crash or yes, even the remote chance of a terrorist plot. But terrorism only works because people allow themselves the live in fear. And while it can be argued that screening helps reduce the chance of terrorism on an airplane - it does not eliminate it as has been proven with the shoe/underwear bombers both of whom failed NO THANKS to the security screeners who let them on the planes.
Honestly I would prever less intrusion into my private life and my private parts, and take my chances. Better to live one day as a lion than 1,000 years as a sheep.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
States can make it really uncomfortable for the Fed to actually enforce their policy.
Look at what's happened in Arizona; whether or not you agree with the policies, they are putting the federal government on the defensive about its own policies.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
The terrorists have already won.
Sharon Cissna is a Democrat.
No, North and South Dakota finally settled their differences and re-united.
The TSA was created to comfort passengers after 9/11 by providing a highly visible change to the airport security measures through inconveniencing all passengers as much as possible.
In reality, even without the TSA, the nature of in flight security changed forever on 9/11. Now everyone understands that the risk of hijacked planes is far greater than just the lives of those held hostage on the plane. By showing the larger threat hijacked planes pose as weapons, the hijackers on 9/11 effectively ended hijacking as a means to terrorize the greater population since most will accept that hijacked planes must be shot down before the plane can be used to pose a larger threat. Passengers and crews now know that their only hope for survival in a hijack attempt is to take down the hijackers themselves and regain control of the plane.
Security is still required to keep weapons and bombs off of flights, but even the security before 9/11 was sufficient to deter the hijackers from bringing guns or other large weapons. As prisoners have shown, sharp weapons can be made from virtually anything solid, but these weapons would be less effective in a hijack today since the passengers and crew would be willing to be cut to overpower hijackers.
The only minimal additional security provided since 9/11 is in limiting compounds that could be used to make explosives with the intent of destroying a plane rather than hijacking. This is battle of diminishing returns, where ever growing intrusions into personal privacy and intrusions provide ever smaller degrees of increased security and protection.
I have no problem with scanned luggage and carryons, but requiring everyone to remove shoes and clothes is purely an attempt to make each passenger feel and intimately experience the security.
These are psychological steps that accomplish virtually nothing to improve our security, but only raise the perception of safety.
Why does this have to be an issue for individual states? It is OUR (presuming the reader is a US citizen) federal government. Why aren't people calling out the individuals who granted the authority to the TSA and made the decisions there to ignore our rights and our dignity? It is not like it is a bunch of computers in Washington DC who are doing this; it is people that either you or friends of yours voted for. Let the people who support this be put on record as supporting it and then put pressure on the people who appointed them.
Individuals in government often made bad decisions, even when trying to do the right thing (like keep us safe). Sure, the terrorists have won when government takes away our rights to keep us safe. But the government won't realize that those rights were important enough to the people not to take away if the people just accept it.
The passengers who fought back against the terrorists are what is keeping us safe, not a scanner with a voyeur leering at it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What the state representative is reacting to is not law, but policy. The use of "nude-o-scopes" and invasive pat-downs are not codified in federal law, so restricting their use is fair game. The supremacy clause arguably applies only to laws, not regulations or policies enacted outside of the law.
The TSA screeners aren't law enforcement officers. They cannot themselves arrest you or prevent you from passing through security without the aid of a local or state police officer. If the state and locality decide not to respond to an individual breaching security -- well, the breach happens. A state could simply make a rule preventing police officers from arresting people that refuse certain types of screening and permitting them to, essentially, bypass security.
States also don't have to their waive public safety laws (such as those pertaining to radiation exposure and operator requirements for such devices), nor sexual battery laws (TSA screeners are not law enforcement officers, and even if they were, the touching of breasts/genitals would only be permitted by court order or with reasonable cause). Technically speaking, my state would be well within its rights to enforce it's current laws on operation of X-ray emitting equipment if it is shown that the operator is not a licensed radiologist, if the use of the device is not for a medical purpose, and if the devices are not inspected and tested on the required schedule. That'd be a $25 fine per person screened, and perhaps a couple of weeks in prison for the operator.
there is also a part of the swearing in process of federal legislators where they declare " fuck that shit"
...is an exemption from senators and representatives from needing to be exposed to the TSA. It's already acceptable for them to be exempt from other laws us little people face on a day to day basis, so I can see it happening. No way that will be extended to the unwashed masses.
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
(Smash amp, burn guitar, take home the groupies)
The FBI and DEA *do* very much care about state laws.
Federal Law Enforcement Agencies (FBI & DEA) are small with about 14k and 5k agents respectively. Without help from local law enforcement, they can do nothing but make the occasional token raids for show. They are small agencies with tiny budgets, staffed by non-exceptional government employees. These agencies are hard to under-estimate. The DEA could get 100x more agents and they still would have no hope of stopping the 45 Million american pot smokers.
--AC
...if you take the AlCan (Hint: tourists really shouldn't be attempting that)
Why? I've driven the AlCan three times, and there's no comparison between the last trip (2004ish) and the first (1989). It's not a great road in places, but most of it really isn't bad at all -- and there is some absolutely stunning scenery along the way. It is kind of a long drive admittedly, and you'll probably burn most of your vacation time just driving the AlCan, so your visit to Alaska will probably be quite a bit shorter than it would be if you flew, however.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?