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.
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"
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.
Then the feds would just shut down the golden picnic hamper. States would go hungry.
Much of Federal legislation (education / environment, not so sure about the TSA in particular) isn't directly forcing states to do one thing or another. It's just if you don't want to play in their sandbox, you don't get to play with the fun toys.
The old golden rule "He who has the gold, rules".
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
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.
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.
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.