Not too long after the horrific events of September 11, 2001, and before the dust had barely settled, the Homeland Security Agency was born. Not only should it never have been conceived, it should have been aborted post haste. Security is a good idea, but this idea has proven to not be good, and too, in many instances it continues to prove itself bad. Any agency that can routinely violate privacy is dangerous, and especially so when there isn’t any probable cause or suspicion of wrong doing or intent to do wrong.

Judge Robert Bork said that the Constitution didn’t have any privacy protection in it. It is suggested that he study the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution which limits the power of the government to conduct searches without a warrant or without probable cause or reasonable suspicion based on the situation that might arise. That brings us the Homeland Security work in the nation’s airports and other places.

There are numerous instances of the over zealous security agents overreacting to those attempting to board airplanes. They have made mothers drink the baby’s milk; made those with medications essential to their health dump the pills; have forced ladies to partially disrobe for no good reason; women have been groped by both men and women under the guise of looking for hidden objects. Who would argue that such searches by government employees are reasonable? Government bosses, that’s who have done so. They have used all kinds of excuses in trying to justify such conduct. But using Bork’s idea that there isn’t any privacy in the Constitution, they are not in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Now it gets worse. Homeland Security has a machine that can see though clothing and reveal the entire body of any person as if no clothes are being worn. Presumably, every person who wishes to board a plane will be subjected to this indignity. What right does a federal government employee have (or for that matter any other government employee) to look under or through a person’s clothing looking for an object that not only doesn’t exist but have no reason to believe a dangerous object does in fact exist? If that isn’t a violation of privacy under the Constitution, then what does constitute a violation? But with the government, one size fits all and thinking isn’t required unless it is how to create more violations of privacy and other rights.

The device (see http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200710/NAT20071015a.html) could have a practical application for police agencies that have a need to search persons under arrest but since a search is done at the scene, it isn’t practical in that instance. It might be put to better use in prisons to search for contraband. Such use wouldn’t be a violation of any rights when used there since prisoners basically have no right to privacy. They forfeited privacy rights when they entered a guilty plea, or when found guilty by a judge or a jury. Of course, the ACLU won’t like that, but then who cares. The ACLU members should try prison and experience the wonderful poor put upon folks residing in the cells, especially when they are attacked by a maniac with a prison made weapon.

But the government blunders on, pontificating on how wonderful the machines will be for improving safety and security. Safety and security in the eyes of the government poobahs are always justified even though it is intrusive and a violation of rights. (Be sure to digest the lame statements concerning privacy.) In the main, nearly every government operation in an air terminal violates privacy and the machines are just another example of an over reaching agency which will do nothing more than increase the license of the screeners to violate the passengers.

A bit of Food for Thought will reveal that is time to put an end to Homeland Security, an egregious violation of taxpayer funds, and it needs to go to the dustbin of history.

10-15-2009 DEC