An Open Letter to Janet Napolitano

Secretary Napolitano,

Like millions of Americans today, I take issue with the fact that, upon entering an airport, we are all (well, not including the “elite”) considered guilty until proven innocent. As you know, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution established the right of Americans “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effect, against unreasonable searches and seizures” without probable cause. But one TSA employee put it this way: once a passenger purchases an airline ticket that passenger forfeits many of his rights, including constitutional rights. Do you actually believe that the purchase of a plane ticket is sufficient cause to suspect an American of malicious intent? If this simple act of engaging in commerce can negate one's constitutional rights, then what is to stop the government from saying once an American purchases a hot dog they forfeit their right to own a gun, or once a citizen checks out a book from the library they forfeit their rights to privacy (oh, wait, the government already did that.) Despite being a fairly decorated Iraq war veteran – who supposedly fought against those airplane destroying terrorists – I, too, become a suspected terrorist the moment I walk into an American airport. But I guess that should be no surprise to me. After all, your own department issued a memo just last year warning that young veterans like myself are likely candidates to become domestic terrorists.

You recently said that the TSA is doing what it needs to do “to protect the traveling public.” This notion that the TSA makes Americans safer by destroying America's foundation of liberties is the same tired falsehood that was used to justify the last several hundred expansions of government into American lives. According to you, if I go through the porno-scanner or get sexually assaulted by a uniformed government agent I will somehow be made safe, correct? Please explain to me how I am made safe by enduring these blatant violations of my privacy. Despite the TSA's habitual claims, how many terrorist plots have been stopped at the screening gates of American airports? How many bombs have TSA agents discovered in Americans' tighty-whities? I suspect you know the answer, but that suspicion may be a bit generous based on what I know of you and your ability to reason. Well, the answer is none. I apologize for my lack of faith, but I assure you it is based on reason (that strange concept I was talking about a minute ago).

Since September 11, 2001, not one single terrorist attempt has even occurred on a domestic U.S. flight. All attempts – the “shoe bomber,” the “underwear bomber,” and the latest cargo plot – all were on flights that departed from foreign countries. This means that the chances of an American dying while performing a number of mundane tasks are far greater than the chances of being a victim of a terrorist attack on a domestic flight. I am more likely to die in a car accident on the way to the airport or when I get hit by a car crossing the street from the airport parking lot. I am more likely to get infected with e-coli from a restaurant in the airport, or test positive for HIV after an unforeseen sexual excursion in the lavatory of a commercial airplane. And, like I said, it's not that and attacks on domestic flights were prevented, but they were never even attempted. In other words, the government agents that stand at the front of airport security lines did nothing to prevent them. Yet the TSA continues to ramp up its efforts to prevent terrorist attacks, even on domestic flights.

Secretary Napolitano, we know that you lied about the clarity of the scanned images. But you say passengers have the option to opt out of the scanners and instead undergo an enhanced pat down. Under 18 U.S. Code Section 2244, " '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." This degrading procedure would be considered a crime if it were perpetrated by anyone but the government. Never mind the psychological effect that it could have on abused children and rape victims.

Even if going through a virtual strip search machine or undergoing an “enhanced pat down” does make me safer, as you suggest, then wouldn't it do the same for you? I can't help but wonder, why don't you go through the two screening procedures yourself? If the soldiers that fight on our front lines – supposedly against terrorism – become terror suspects themselves the moment they step foot in an airport, then why not politicians and bureaucrats? Why not Janet Napolitano, or President Obama?

Furthermore, if the imaging procedures “in no way resemble electronic strip searches,” as you say, then I presume you would be willing to broadcast your own scanned image to the American people, right? If you want to gain the trust and support of Americans, then you ought to be willing to endure the same violations of privacy (which are, in fact, not violations of privacy according to you) that you expect all flying Americans to endure. If it is really not a violation of privacy and is in no way harmful to have your scanned image broadcast to some stranger in another room, then I'm sure you will not hesitate to to take this step to broadcast your image (which, I remind you, in no way resembles an electronic strip search) to hundreds of millions of American strangers, right? In fact, why even bother hiding the screens in the first place? According to you, the image of a nude child when seen through the eyes of an x-ray machine is not child pornography at all, otherwise TSA agents would be violating federal law. Why not broadcast the images to all the passengers standing in line, or even across the entire airport. That way, passengers could really feel safe by confirming first hand that the passengers boarding their flights are not carrying any explosives in their underwear (by viewing the images that in no way resemble electronic strip searches) or, god forbid, hiding nail clippers in their bra or a bottle of water in their pockets.

Secretary Napolitano, let's stop the elitism and hypocrisy in Washington. Will you follow your own agency's security regulations? Will you enforce them on all the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington? Or are you and your friends above laws and regulations?

Don't worry, you won't look bad if you say no to enforcing these regulations on America's elite. In fact, you'll still look the same. You'll still be what you are. “Big sis'.”

Sincerely,
Nicodemus

Constitutional Rights Are Human Rights

The partisan bickering over the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed continues:

Several senators announced legislation Tuesday that would cut off funding for the federal trial of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four accused accomplices, saying the five should be tried in a military court.

"We believe we're at war," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, who stood with a number of senators that included Democrats and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent.

"The law enforcement model being used by the Obama administration should be rejected," Graham said. "We're not fighting a crime, we're fighting a war."

But, I ask, when did Congress declare war, and with what nation are we at war? The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, in response to Germany's declaration of war against the United States.

Congressman Ron Paul declares, "The process by which we’ve entered wars... and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress’ abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution."

Sadly, it appears that an honest understanding of the Constitution is a very rare anomaly on Capitol Hill. Our representatives in Congress have continuously and deliberately circumvented the precepts of the Constitution in order to advance their rotten agendas at the expense of the people's liberty over the last century.

Senator Joe Lieberman also commented on the impending trial:

"Putting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a public courtroom in full view of the public gives him a better platform than any member of al Qaeda has been given to recruit new members," Lieberman said.

I find Senator Lieberman's initial comment to be somewhat ironic. Indeed, no better platform for al Qaeda recruitment could be provided than was provided by the United States government when they repeatedly attacked, occupied, and manipulated various countries throughout the Middle East. As I wrote in a previous post, there is undeniable evidence that American involvement in the Middle East has helped recruitment in terror organizations immensely. Again, Ron Paul was correct when he said of the then looming U.S. invasion of Iraq, "The greatest beneficiaries of the attack may well be Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. Some in the media have already suggested that the al Qaeda may be encouraging the whole event. Unintended consequences will occur – what will come from this attack is still entirely unknown."

Senator Lieberman continued:

"To try them as common criminals, giving them the constitutional rights of American citizens in our courts, is justice according to Alice in Wonderland."

Fortunately, the Constitution clearly distinguishes between persons and citizens, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments - the right to due process and a speedy trial respectively - declare persons to have these rights. The founders understood that these were inalienable rights - essentially human rights - rights that all men should have. Thus, I refuse to accept the notion that the Bill of Rights applies only to those that are fortunate enough and extraordinary enough to be American citizens.

If Americans want to encourage liberty to take hold across the world then we should do so - not through imperialism, not by force - but by example. We should restore our country to the confines of our Constitution and bring these men to justice. In doing so, we can demonstrate to the world the compassion that is the foundation of America and the morality that resides in all of us.

Innocence and Freedom

Consider a recent argument in favor of a housing bailout:

I know many, many innocent people who just wanted to buy a home...Now the innocent people have houses worth $200,000 less than their 2005 purchase price.

The innocence of a homeowner relative the innocence of an uninvolved taxpayer is arguable. But innocence isn't the key issue pertaining to bailouts. They key issue is personal responsibility, an idea that is closely tied to freedom.

If someone bought an overpriced home, that was their decision, just as if someone decided to invest in beanie babies or NASCAR collector plates, that too is their decision. They, and nobody else, are responsible for the outcome. Forcing that responsibility onto someone else who had no involvement is a most clear violation of the other person's freedom.

Is it sad that people make bad economic choices? Of course. But what is most sad is the idea that anyone thinks it is ok to force the outcome of their bad decisions onto others. In the same way that we would not sentence one man for another man's freely executed crime, we should not burden one man with another man's freely made economic decisions.

As I've shown before, government economic policies such as subsidies, bailouts, stimulus and inflation are counter-productive, but even more important to recognize is that they are also counter to individual freedom.

Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free.

- Ron Paul

What is Freedom?

I see and hear a lot of misperceptions about what freedom is. For example, many think that consumer choice is freedom, but this goes without recognizing that those choices come at a price that is mostly unseen. Really, it seems that that most people don't at all understand what freedom really is. The Creed of Freedom defines it perfectly:

INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS

I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.

I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.

SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL

I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of just government is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE

I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through coercion of law.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW

I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.

PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

I believe that the proper role of government is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If government is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That government is best which governs least.