H.R. 6416 – The American Traveler Dignity Act

[rowyn]

Representative Ron Paul introduced a bill to stop the new screening procedures, and in fact to roll some of the existing ones back. The bill is amusing:

H.R. 6416 – The American Traveler Dignity Act
A BILL
To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NO IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN AIRPORT SCREENING METHODS.
No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual’s body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual’s parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.

That's the whole thing. It's a very Ron Paul bill, not just in that it's short, but in the way he goes about it: which is to point out that the screening procedures are not things that an ordinary citizen can legally compel another citizen to submit to, so all he has to do is say "the law applies to TSA agents too" and hey, we're done.

Unfortunately, Dr. Ron Paul is regarded as rather a wingnut in Congress, so I don't know how much of a shot the bill has. And it doesn't do anything about the other stupid crap the TSA is doing (like "no liquids"). But at least it's a start.

Also, it's short. It's rather charming. Reminds me of the Constitution.

Comments

[skyflame.livejournal.com]

Well, you're short and charming too. :)

[rowyn]

Hee! Thanks. :) But do I remind you of the Constitution? (Oh wait, I just did.)

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't that also stop them from barring people from the flight for any reason at all? In the same way shoplift prevention people can't actually stop you from just brazenly picking up and carrying off stuff because they're not legally allowed to touch you or restrict your movement.

It seems like the 'simple, elegant, and wrong' solution.

[rowyn]

The law says the TSA cannot make submitting to these screening methods a requirement of boarding a flight. It doesn't say "you can't make anything at all a requirement of boarding a flight". If the TSA can use a metal detector or any of the other screening methods they've used for the last forty years to detect a reason to bar you from a flight, they still can.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

It doesn't specify TSA or screening methods, though. It's more vague than that. It would stop a police officer from arresting you to keep you from getting on the flight because that involves physical contact and the state government probably accepted federal funds at some point.

Without a police officer's normal immunity, an arrest is assault, battery, and kidnapping.

[rowyn]

as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft.

Touching someone to arrest them is not "a condition to fly on an aircraft". It's the exact opposite. If the TSA has reason to stop you from boarding an aircraft, they can. They just can't say "we're going to stop you from flying UNLESS you submit to these screening processes first." Itmight mean the TSA would stop people from flying entirely where before they might have let those people on board after invasive screening, I guess.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

So you're saying that that means that you *can* confer immunity as long as you're not letting them get on either way. That seems... kind of reasonable but that's not how I'd read it.

Really, why can't people ever just ACTUALLY go after the things they don't like instead of trying this kind of bullshit runaround? It reminds me of the endless succession of initiatives which claim to do one thing but secretly are meant to do a million others that no one would actually agree to.

Like some people are trying to use the constitution.

[rowyn]

So if it read:

No Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds may subject an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual’s body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual’s parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.

you'd be happier with the wording?

I suspect that Dr. Paul chose the "no immunity" wording because he's trying to avoid the impression of "that which is not explicitly forbidden is permitted". Eg, saying you can't do it an airport implies that you can do it at, say, a federal courthouse. Saying "none of our existing laws and regulations give you the right to do this at an airport" doesn't seem to have a bearing on other situations, one way or another. I guess. I dunno if it actually helps or not. Using more words never seems to, though. v.v

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

I think it'd be less likely to have unintended side effects.

I mean, when I read it I was walking through the scenario in my mind: I walk up to the security checkpoint, they ask me to put my bags on the conveyer and verbally confirm that none of them have a bomb (say). I ignore them and walk past. What do they do to stop me? Do they grab me? No! They can't! That would be physical contact as part of the condition for being in the airport or getting on the plane.

If they ARE allowed to grab me, then couldn't they still grab me for refusing to be patted down?

Being touched with consent is legal -- you'd don't need immunity to touch someone who said you could. Having a picture of you seen naked in private is legal with consent -- you don't need immunity to look at a picture of someone naked, in private, if they said you could. Obviously, the consent clause is supposed to somehow counteract this but I don't see how it can.

Unless they're a kid -- that's one thing it would actually prevent even under the narrow interpretation, but that's about it. And that's only because of insane child porn laws that make it illegal to see kids naked even without any sexual context that would make every parent a criminal if they were consistently enforced.

Otherwise, you have to go with the wider interpretation where they can't touch me AT ALL.

[rowyn]

But in the scenario you described, the TSA isn't making "grabbing you" a condition of boarding -- they're making "putting your bags on the X-Ray machine" a condition of boarding, and they're enforcing *that* condition when you ignore it. They're still allowed to enforce other conditions of boarding, like showing id and tickets and so forth.

The consent thing seems a little weirder -- I think it's there to so the TSA can't say "you must consent to entering this machine/being patted down or we won't let you on board" and thereby claim that the requirement isn't "submit to the process" but merely "consent to submit". That seems awfully legalistic, though. I'm not really sure why he put it that way, except out of an abundance of concern about abuse of authority to obtain coerced "consent".

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

If that's how you interpret it, though -- that they still have immunity from the grabbing -- then they can make 'being patted down' a condition, but still have immunity letting them (or maybe letting someone else, if you're going to say they give up any immunity forever for anything the minute they asked you to do that one thing) grab you if you refuse and try to walk past.

If you *don't* refuse they don't need the immunity, and the law does nothing.

?

[tahkhleet.livejournal.com]

An officer's power to arrest you for regular contraventions of the criminal code is unaffected by whether you let the TSA checkpoint search you. The criminal code isn't concerned with if you should be allowed to board a plane. It's just not a criteria of the common law. So the regular police powers remain intact. All this bill addresses is removing everyone's powers to restrain you in regards to boarding an aircraft because of failure to accept the delineated searches of your person.

I grasp you find the generality of the statement suspicious. But I'm pretty paranoid. Just ask May :) To me it doesn't seem like he's hiding anything at all. He just wants to leave absolutely no room for monkeying with the law. Keeping it incredibly terse serves this as long as the validation conditions work (and they do?)

Also, given his biases, I would expect he writes all his proposed bills so tersely since he hates lawyer speak used to befuddle laypeople in the name of making "good laws". He doesn't sound like he believes in the whole current paradigm of legal rules construction. If this bill is typical of his acuity of thought regarding rules, I'd say that preference is defensible. It's not just grousing without having a workable alternative(since he still clearly believes in objective, defined, enforceable laws).

I'm pleasantly surprised. I had thought his turn back the clock approach to policy meant he wasn't a careful thinker. But at least he knows how tp implement his aims well, if this is typical. We're just lucky almost no one shares those aims most of the time...of course maybe this is a unique exception to his normal work....

Re: ?

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

It doesn't say anything about restraining you in regards to boarding an aircraft because of failure to accept the delineated searches, though. It says the person doing the searches can't receive immunity for doing the searches.

You can interpret it more broadly so that it also prevents anyone from restraining you from boarding an aircraft, but then it's no longer specific to the delineated searches.

The more I read your interpretation and Rowyn's interpretation (and I don't even see how they're the *same* interpretation and they're definately not compatible with the two reasonable ways *I* can see to interpret it) the less I like this law.

On the other hand, being so badly worded that it's hard to even intuit what the person was *thinking* when they wrote it *does* make it like the Constitution. :/

Re: ?

[tahkhleet.livejournal.com]

it says you lose immunity. That is, you get no leeway to break a law just because your "duty" says you have to. That's a special power we reserve for soldiers and police in very specific cases. (A wide range of specific cases, but still a small set of all possible human interactions)

Lacking this immunity, you can't (for example) detain or use force on an unruly patron of a store or bus who refuses to leave. The owners/operators can't have that person physically thrown out. They have to call the police to handle it. Whoever uses force in that scenario whether it's the unruly customer or the store/establishment gets in big trouble.

The right to be free from being subject to physical force is the default position. It only gets suspended (immunity is granted to anyone to break the laws protecting you from physical force) for specific exceptions. This bill would make it so TSA work regarding personal searches would no longer be one of those exceptions.

The thing that nullifies (as far as I see) all the nightmare scenarios you're hypothesizing is that it's a logical "AND" statement. The two conditions are
(a) they have to be trying to use one of the listed types of searches (only one of which ever gets immunity normally btw)
AND
(b) this has to have the consequence of barring you from the plane or airport if you don't go along ("as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft").
When both are true, if they use force on you, they have no immunity to the consequences of their actions. It's very elegant and clear. I haven't heard you mention anything yet that doesn't fail one of those.

I don't see what I said that contradicts May's interpretation, I was just trying to not repeat anything she already said.

Re: ?

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

You're making a complex interpretation that isn't supported by a clear reading of the paragraph quoted. I don't think the law says what you think it says. I don't think it *can* say what you think it says without additional clauses.

I've already explained why half a dozen times, and you aren't understanding it (or aren't agreeing with it) so I'm not going to repeat myself again.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

The other completely unrelated thing that makes me nervous about laws like this is that it's intended to alter the behavior of the executive branch. Most laws only work because the prosecutors or whoever are responsible for deciding when to enforce them can use common sense. (or don't work because they don't)

If the law is inherently adversarial towards the people who are supposed to enforce it, it has to be *really really airtight*.

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

Interesting: Sanford airport opts out of TSA.

[rowyn]

Heh. Apparently, it doesn't get them out of using the same guidelines and procedures, though. :(

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

I find myself wondering if people would react better to the 'same' guidelines and procedures if they were done by apologetic uniformed persons of good upbringing, who were perfectly Britishly polite.

[zaimoni.livejournal.com]

H.R. 6416 of the 111th Congress.

Assuming it does not actually make it through the lame duck session, how about reintroducing it very early in the 112th Congress? Like, say, H.R. 99 or earlier?

After all, the universal service draft, nemesis of the Pentagon and the U.S. military, gets the same athletic restart from the Honorable Charlie Rangel. This is a much more useful bill.

[rowyn]

The TSA was created by an act of Congress; I would certainly like Congress to revisit their mandate. Or the courts to; honestly, the whole thing seems to violate "unreasonable search and seizure", and claiming "well, you don't *have* to fly" is specious in this age.

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

At my workplace today, some folks were discussing this, and someone actually brought up that business about, "Well, it's not like you HAVE to fly. You could always take a bus instead." And I did a double-take, since I thought this a very odd thing for one of my co-workers to say, given how often we're shuttled between the company offices. No, I DO have to fly.

The only reason I fly is because of work, and someone else tells me where I need to be and when, and makes the flight arrangements for me. This often happens with only a week's notice or so. It shoots holes in my reliability to do much of anything on weeknights, but that's the reality of my job. AmTrak or a bus trip aren't valid alternatives.

I am not concerned about some stranger seeing a ghostly representation of my nekkid body, except that I feel very sorry for anyone who has to do so. I am, however, concerned about the radiation exposure, as I've read some articles claiming that there could be risks from repeated exposure (frequent flier miles!), improper use, or even that the exposure is 10x what it's claimed to be.

I can't think of any polite way to explain exactly why the alternative security method available for those not going through the scanner strikes me as an unappealing option, given the new standards.

I guess I'll learn for sure just HOW disagreeable this is, on my next trip.

[rowyn]

It's as reasonable as saying "well, you don't HAVE to use the Internet" or "you don't HAVE to drive". Fine, yes, you could conceivably find employment that didn't require you to fly, but that's not exactly a reasonable thing to insist that you do if you want to avoid random searches and seizures by federal agents.

Blah.

Good luck on your next flight, wuf.

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

Just a niggle here that caught my eye.

Instead of saying "the whole thing seems to..." claim the idea and turn the passive into active like this: "the whole thing does violate". Now you have a much stronger statement and it's the little psychological things like these that help turn the tide of public opinion.

//end niggle

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

Hello,

Your blog is very informative and it appears you care about the same things I care about.

I came across your site from jordan179's comment section. I'd like to add you to my FL and will make sure that you are in my MUST READ list.

Thank you for caring about the Constitution and the future of our great nation.

[rowyn]

That's really nice of you to say! Thank you. :) I've added you too. I don't write about politics all that often, though. (At least, it doesn't seem that often to *me* ... )

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

There's no need to apologize for writing about politics. I am compelled, however, to inform you that I try to keep political posts off of my LJ; currently I am posting my political stuff to conservacorner and on my Xanga (which I do not always cross-post, but the Picking Up a Turd by the Clean End was too good not to cross post.

For your convenience, I've made it even easier to keep up with my Xanga; you can add the RSS feed pro_ts_xanga to your FL.