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

[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*.