Scanners. Not the horror flick but The New Horror coming to an airport near you!

An Airport Experience from Nov. 13, 2010 

the link to the story

The objective of a terrorist is to destroy your will to defend yourself, coercing you, through the threat of harm, to give up your rights and personal liberties, the easier to enslave you.

Enslavement means the loss of personal liberty.

And sometimes it means a laswsuit!
This just in:

"Forcing Americans to undergo a virtual strip search as a  matter of course in reporting to work or boarding an airplane when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing is a grotesque violation of our civil liberties, undermining our right to privacy and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents." 

If the TSA takes away your personal liberty and enslaves you to their rules, all in the name of Security, how does their objective differ from that of a terrorist?

Terrorists, as well as the TSA, believe they are both right in taking away your personal liberty.

They just differ on the procedural technicalities.

The TSA says they do what they do to protect us from risk.
Most terrorists believe that the American way of life puts us all at personal risk anyway.
It would appear that the TSA is a bit self-conscious about the fact that most terrorists in the sky are thwarted by passengers after airport "security" let's them board the plane. So, despite the fact that international regulators as well as the World Health Organization have urged a delay in the deployment of these x-ray scanners until more is known about them, a lot of people along the way stand to make a lot of money in the process at $150,000 per machine and thousands of them are on order. And with this gross expenditure of public funds, the TSA gets to buy some napkins with which to try to wipe some of the egg off its face.

Though there are arguments on both sides, those urging delay, hold their position on the premise that there is no guarantee that they are safe. Those supporting their use say that there is no evidence to prove that they are dangerous. Then one pauses and asks,

"And just how much evidence could be acquired regarding the mass use of these machines when they have not been in mass use long to accumulate much evidence either way?"

Here the TSA turns its back on the common wisdom to "Error the side of CAUTION".
Janet Napolitano simply tells you what she wants you to believe, even if she has to lie to make her point. Please see the second video below.

And then, there's this from NPR

'David Brenner, head of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research, recently aired his worries before the Congressional Biomedical Caucus.



"There really is no other technology around where we're planning to X-ray such an enormous number of individuals," Brenner told the caucus and congressional staffers. "It's really unprecedented in the radiation world."

Brenner's name carries some clout, because he served on a small group of experts convened in 2002 by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements to write guidelines for the security scanners. He now says he wouldn't have signed the report if he had known the X-ray scanners were going to be used on virtually every air traveler.'

But the TSA will tell you that he thinks its safe. Despite concerns expressed by Johns Hopkins Research Center, the TSA will tell you that they approve of these machines. All of this reassurance is from the same people that let armed terrorists onto the planes in the first place, causing all of this hysteria, and all at our expense; expense, not just in dollars but at the expense of our Fourth Amendment Rights against

unwarranted search.

So we must, logically, ask ourselves,

"If someone inadvertently, despite their best efforts, served me poison, should I trust them when they rush to deliver the antidote?"

Many of the same people who don't want to eat genetically engineered food, think it's OK to become genetically altered humans. Though the TSA can't cure cancer, they are willing to take the risk, or rather, are willing for you to take the risk of developing cancer from exposure to these insufficiently tested machines AND insufficiently tested personnel!

Something as commonplace as a glitch in the software could slow the scan sufficiently to significantly increase the amount of exposure to any one part of your body. This is particularly dangerous to deveolping tissues in children as well as reproductive cells in adults. But to the TSA and Naploitano, the response is effectively,  "Oh, don't worry about it!"



 
Terrorists, as well as the TSA, believe they are both right in taking away your personal liberty.

They just differ on the procedural technicalities.


Our TSA tells us to put up with it as a necessary inconvenience for the sake of safety. The Framers of The Constitution and the Fourth Amendment did not agree.

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government; so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

      -Thomas Jefferson

Follow the link below to the story and video.

: TSA encounter at SAN

the link to the story

And then, there's this: at the end of the segment on Charlie Rangel's lack of representation, the legality of the probing pat downs is addressed by a judge.

Watch it here:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4420039/junk-debate-security-vs-privacy/?playlist_id=86858#/v/4419885/rangel-walks-out-of-ethics-hearing/?playlist_id=86858

And this!

AND THIS!

Here is some USEFUL INFO if you intend to use an airline:

EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) has a pending suit regarding the body scanners:
http://epic.org/bodyscanner/incident_report/

The ACLU is also collecting information reports
https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServerpagename=watchlist_survey&JServSessionIdr011=5itmt3qbe1.app26a

Remember, the TSA's official response as to why John Tyner was subjected to confused and conflicting instructions at the airport was because the Supervisor! was new!