Don't Touch My Junk

by Mike Calpino

Mike Calpino

 The controversy over new airport screening procedures has continued to grow. No doubt it will explode over the long holiday weekend, particularly is planned protests involve even a fraction of the flying public. The TSA and Homeland Security have dug in their heels and defended the new procedures as necessary to ensure our safety. If a majority of Americans begin to strenuously object or even refuse, there is the possibility of a real confrontation over these methods. Even more importantly, it is getting people to talk about government intrusion in a way they have not considered before. It is the various levels in which these procedures have struck a nerve that need to be explored.

At some airports, there are two choices given. There are the new electronic screening machines which display your naked body to some minimum wage security guard, some of whom have been getting pretty excited about their job. If you choose not to display yourself in ways only your spouse should be privy to, don’t want to be radiated in ways the government assures you are safe (we believe everything they say) or the TSA decides you need to be further investigated, then you will receive an "aggressive" patdown. This involves touching and squeezing in areas that, again, only our spouse should touch and squeeze. It is applied to the very young, the very old, the infirm, everyone.

So why does this bother us so much? After all, we don’t want another terrorist with a bomb in his shoe, underwear or anywhere else to get on an airplane, do we? Of course not. However, the way we are going about it is insulting on a variety of levels. On the surface, we know it is a waste of time and resources to treat four year olds, nuns and cancer survivors with prosthetic devices or urine bags as potential terrorists. Yet we have Janet Nepalitano refusing to answer the question as to whether or not they would use such techniques on a Muslim woman in a burka. That offends our basic sense of fairness. We also know that any terrorist who chose to do so could walk across our southern border. If we applied a fraction of the effort on our border we do in the airport, we would catch a lot more terrorists and criminals. So far the TSA has caught.....zero.

It goes far beyond fairness, however, because if we were treated the same as the Muslims, that would not make us feel any better about it. We have a tradition in this country that states people are innocent until proven guilty. These aggressive screenings, however, are just the opposite. Everyone, be they a man, woman, child, elderly, or infirm are assumed guilty until the TSA can satisfy themselves, by any means they choose to employ, of our innocence. Remember, this is not a private interaction but the government that is making this assumption of our guilt, a very dangerous situation. It is not unprecedented, however. In dealing with the IRS, you are also assumed guilty unless you can prove your innocence. Unfortunately, this is a growing trend in our government. In our current topsy-turvy world, it is now the government that is suspicious and distrustful of us rather than ‘we the people’ being distrustful of them. That, my friends, is the characteristic of a police state. ‘We the people’ live in fear of a government that subjects us to whatever procedures they deem necessary to assure themselves at any moment that we are not a threat; not to our fellow citizens, but to the government itself. That is not America and should be unacceptable to us.

Finally, for those who know our Constitution, this is a blatant violation of our fourth amendment rights. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...." On the surface, is it "unreasonable" to subject a three year old to an aggressive pat down? Most of us think so. But this issue goes much deeper than what we may consider "unreasonable" or the "probable cause" as previously discussed. The fourth amendment deals with the government’s interaction with us, not requirements between private parties. If an airline, a private company, wants to assure themselves you are not going to blow up their plane, they have every right to use whatever method they choose to assure themselves you will not. You, of course, have every right to find another carrier or method to get to your destination. The government, however, has inserted itself in that contract and requires you to satisfy them of your innocence before you get on any airplane. And you can be assured the first time a bus, subway or train is attacked, it will be required there as well. Now your freedom to privately contract for travel is subject to government permission.

The purpose, however, of the fourth amendment is to establish a very important principle concerning our relationship with the state. This principle is one of ownership. The fourth amendment was meant to answer the question "who owns your effects, papers, home...you?" The answer is you do, the government does not. Unless the government can demonstrate that you have used your property or have taken some personal action that has violated the rights of another person, they have no authority to search or seize. That is because the foundational document of our noble experiment, the Declaration of Independence, states the principle that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights. That means that we, not the government, own our lives, our bodies, and therefore they have no authority to violate our person without just cause. We, not the government, own our liberty, our freedom of movement, our ability to contract for services and make any choices whatsoever regarding how we live our lives as long as the results of those choices do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. We, not the government, are responsible for our pursuit of happiness which necessitates our right to the property we have justly acquired in that pursuit.

These aggressive screenings are simply the latest evidence that the government thinks just the opposite. If it assumes it owns you, if you are merely an object, a cog in the wheel whose usefulness is tied only to your perceived ability to contribute to the state, then it will see nothing wrong with violating your person. Again, this is simply the latest abuse, albeit the most obviously intrusive only because it is not paper or property but a government agent actually placing his hands on our or our child’s genitals. The Kelo decision by the supreme court is the most recent example of the fact that our homes are not our castles but our property is only ours as long as the government has no better use for it or we pay our user fee (property taxes). There are the property seizures related to the so called "war on drugs" in which the hurdle of suspicion is so low any property can be seized. The abuses of the IRS are well documented and little due process is involved in those situations. These are only a few examples of how our persons and property are treated as useful objects to government and not as precious beings of intrinsic value to be treated with reverence and respect.

The fact that many Americans are revolted by these procedures is a good thing. The Tea Parties were an awakening against the general encroachment and fiscal irresponsibility of government. Now we have a specific and personal example of government abuse we can all relate to. Before the American Revolution, the Boston Massacre served a similar function. We are really beginning to wake up. If the sons of liberty can use this situation to educate their fellow Americans about their lost heritage, encourage their distrust of government and restore their appreciation for their God-given rights, we may yet reverse our slide into totalitarianism. We may finally be coming to understand that government is not the final authority, we are. We are under no obligation to surrender our rights just because the government says we must. In fact, when the government asks, or even worse, expects, us to do so, we should adamantly refuse. It is time to reassert our inherent value as human beings and refuse to be reduced to worthless government cogs to be used and abused as it sees fit.