munky.org|v3.0

TSA Employee viewing the image from a full body scanner.

Full body scanners or intensive pat-downs, that is the question. The answer by an overwhelming number of Americans is neither. And for good reason.

America was founded as an ideal nation, a land of the free. Our forefathers had the insight from experience that a government that abuses its people in the name of authority was an evil enterprise. Even the noblest of intentions lead to inproprietaries against the people. Eventually, those good intentions paved the paths of hell that many Europeans faced at the time.

Freedom. Liberty. Ownership. Privacy. These were values so ingrained in their minds that they are the cornerstones of the foundation of this country. Our Constitution did not just set forth laws in the land, but also the rights than every single American were to enjoy. Since then, the government has made its path to define and limit those rights, bringing idealism into reality.

Welcome to 21^st century America. Once again, those rights are under assault by the same government, formed over 200 years ago, that wrote them in stone. Ever since 9/11, our freedoms, our liberty, our ownership rights, and our privacy, have continually been assaulted and diminished, under a new “cornerstone” they have tried to implement: security.

Last time I read the Constitution, I didn’t read anything about the right to security. Well, not that provided by the government at least.

The problem with Security as a cornerstone is that it is not a fundamental right. We were not born with security. And those who rely on others to provide the bulwark of their security, without being willing to fight for it themselves, forfeit their rights. Benjamin Franklin once said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Safety. Security. There are natural methods to these, such as the police and military. Yet neither proactively protect safety. A man breaks into your house and robs you. The police show up. Yet if you live in an area with overly restrictive weapons law, this is your only fate. The government has made a promise to your safety and security it cannot make, at the expense of a fundamental right (gun ownership, 2^nd Amendment of our Constitution). Changes to that system are being made, under McDonald vs. the City of Chicago, but that is an entirely different story in and of itself.

The point being, the government far too often believes it can ultimately provide for the safety and security of the people. In doing so it over-reaches, and in the end, makes us less secure. Our founding fathers gave credit to the people of this country, knowing that the people are a genuine part of the safety and security measures. The Revolution wasn’t won by large, well-trained armies, but by everyday Joe’s who came together in arms and fought for what was their’s.

Yet our government today gives us a vote of no-confidence. Not only are we restricted on protecting ourselves, our property, and our country, but we are continually being denied our fundamental rights. Freedom. Liberty. Ownership. Privacy. The terrorists won their battle, not by driving fear in the hearts of every American, but driving fear into the hearts of politicians, who give into demands that strip us our rights, and even deeper, our self-respect.

There is no sound reasoning that can justify full body scanning and intrusive pat-downs for every law abiding citizen that walks through the gates at the airport. Even if it provides a temporary level of safety, for giving in we give up our own liberty and safety. We were protected from unreasonable searches, yet we give men and women the ability to look upon our fully clothed naked bodies, or allow others to fondle in inappropriate areas, as if we were criminals.

Even worse, they are subjecting our children to this same level of disservice. “Susie, no one is allowed to touch you in those areas, unless they work for the government.” I am a parent, and I refuse to allow my child to fly. My child will not be subjected to radiation, and if anyone, even a TSA worker, would to touch my child in an inappropriate fashion, that person would not get that hand back.

Our government needs to wake up and get the message. Treating millions of Americans as common criminals does nothing to improve the safety of this country, especially when doing so, we are required to forfeit our fundamental rights. Doing so only creates tension and anger, which can be a bigger threat than from the terrorists. Or else we might as well pack our troops up and bring them home, because we have already lost the war.

Edit 11/16/2010:

This post originally had a picture that included a woman that had been scanned, then the scan inverted to show clear details of unmentionable body parts. Unfortunately, this picture has been determined to be a hoax. You can read up more on that at Just Get There.us.

Dick Cheney, former Vice President of the United States

Dick Cheney, former vice president under G.W. Bush and an average marksman (he tried to follow Shakespeare’s advice and kill all the lawyers, yet he only managed to wound one), sat down and spoke with CNN, defending the Bush era.

 Unfortunately for him, he was only partially right, and mostly wrong by ignoring too many facts. I’ll start with his rights.

He is right is stating that terrorism is a military issue, not a police issue. To that, I don’t think closing Gitmo is the best idea either. I’ll even agree with his statements regarding Bush’s poor resolution with North Korea.

However, beyond that, he is mostly wrong. First off, he staunchly supports the invasion of Iraq. Even though there weren’t weapons of mass destruction, he claims they eliminated the threat. We could also kill off the union workers too if we wanted to end the threat of a strike. It’s an unsatisfactory remark. Over 4,000 American lives have been lost to eliminate a threat that didn’t exist. Sure, we created a democracy in the middle east. But where is it that we have a god given right to decide how other people should be governed.

Cheney ignores American ideals in many ways. With Iraq, he forgets that the only reason America is a democracy is because her own people risked their own lives and property to fight for something they believed in. The French didn’t sail in, guns and bread in tow, saying you shall be free of English oppression. America does not have the right to tell others that they are to be a democracy, we can only go in and support that movement if it falls in line with our ideals. We will force our brand of government on others, but when other countries announce their own Declaration of Independence, we far too often ignore it.

Cheney also staunchly supports other opposition to American ideals. Warrantless wiretapping is one of those violations. Smack in the face of our own constitution, and a serious violation to privacy. Had this been done illegally and covertly by intelligence officials, it may have stayed under the radar. Unfortunately, these men decided it was best to make it a public law. Needless to say I make intentional reckless remarks over the phone for the next several months. I wanted that visit

Cheney also supports torture. For one, torture violates the Geneva convention (since he claims that terrorism is a military matter), for two it violates the 8th amendment of the United States, for three it violates the moral grounds that country was built on. But beyond all the moral and legal issues at hand, it has also proven fruitless. Many of these men who were tortured intentionally gave bad information based off of what the interrogators wanted. These men trained for this sort of work (read Inside The Jihadby Omar Nasari for more details). When you have radically committed your entire mind body and soul to this work, it appears little can affect you. The power of Islam, brainwashing men and women to be willing to blow themselves up also works to make them ineffective targets for torture.

Cheney also disregards more American ideals in his belief that terror subjects could be held for indefinite periods, with no trial. Police wise there is the 6th amendment concerning this. In the military they also have their own laws regarding this. However, since these men were being held on US sovereign soil, they are to be treated by the laws of this nation, irregardless of their citizenship.

Now I don’t particularly agree with the administrations move to close Gitmo. There is a high probability many these men will be set free, and has been proven already, they run immediately back to the nest.

Terrorism does change the game, but we can’t afford to change ourselves to fight it. If we do, then they have already won.

To read the full article and see the interview with Cheney, please visit it here on CNN.

Even This Image is Taboo

I’m no gun expert, but I do appreciate firearms. Yet the subject of guns is extremely taboo in this society, which is amazing given that we have a constitutional right just for them. Given that our new president has made it clear that he doesn’t like guns, I decided to think about and given my own interpretation to the second amendment.

  Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I have heard many opinions on this, with interpretations in each corner. Now I will give you my not so law-schooled opinion, but the opinion of someone who has great interest in the period of history surrounding this amendment.

First off, the well regulated militia. At the time in America in which this was written, we didn’t have so much of a standing army. In fact, Washington (the original G.W.) and other leaders of the continental army disarmed and went back to a more philosophical life. They didn’t believe in the standing army.

Many today argue that since we have a powerful standing Army, that it suggests that the right to bear arms is limited for that fact, given that our country has round the clock security. To them, they are wrong. First off, the ignore the fact that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. Those words “shall not be infringed,” cannot be construed or interpretted differently.

However, more can be taken from this. Consider the line “being necessary to the security of a free State.” Many interpret this being the security of the United States, better termed as national security. However, this is not how it is put, and given one of the main driving forces of the Bill of Rights, this was intentional. Thomas Jefferson believed that a country (even a ‘free’ democracy) needed a rebellion every 20 years or so. Given the wording in the Declaration of Independence, our fore-fathers understood that once a tyrannical leader commits too many crimes against his own people, the people have the human right to rebel. (more…)