Ron Paul Attacks TSA’s Porno-Scanners




Ron Paul appeared on CNN to argue against the current TSA airport security measures as being invasive and a broad government overreach.

Date: 11/19/2010

Transcript

News Anchor: Should the TSA be prohibited from touching you, or taking an x-ray image of your body, or what about doing away with the government screeners and having private companies decide who can and who cannot get on your flight? With us from Phoenix, Arizona tonight is Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. He’s pushing his new American Traveller Dignity Act which, among other things, tells the TSA, “Hands off”. And in Washington, Frances Townsend is our CNN national security analyst who served as the homeland security advisor in the post 9/11 Bush White House. She also serves currently on the Homeland Security Advisory Board.

Congressman Paul, to you first. Here’s among the highlights of your new legislation: It would prohibit physical contact by the TSA; it would prohibit x-rays of somebody’s body; it would prevent using the millimeter waves that are used in some of the high-tech scanners and prevent the government from taking images of an individual’s body even if covered by clothing. You view this as intrusive and abusive government power, but my question is, what about someone out there who says, “What, sir, happens if we take away these tough new screenings, and we have another 9/11?”

Ron Paul: Well, in taking it away, you’re implying that nothing else would happen. If you took out the government out of it, that would put the responsibility on the airlines. And the airlines would still be very concerned. Matter of fact, they actually have a little bit more leeway because they can screen their passengers a lot differently. And you can have agreements with the airlines. So you might have better screening with private companies, but even contracting out to a private company, as long as they have the same obligation to pursue the same thing the TSA is doing, that won’t do any good. That’s just another boondoggle for the private companies that are going to work with the government. It might be Chertoff that might get the contract to do the screening. No you want the private owners… you can’t provide perfect safety. This notion that the government’s role is to provide safety, it isn’t. It’s to protect our rights. But here we’re being told that we go to the gate, we buy a ticket, and you’ve lost your right, you sacrificed your right. Where did that come from? That’s about the most absurd thing I ever heard. And the American people aren’t for this, they’re tired of what they’re seeing and what’s happening at our airports.

News Anchor: Well, Frances, you hear the Congress there, his political committee sent out an email today talking about these naked porno scanners that people are made to go through at airports. And, of course, today I received other press releases. Senator Tom Udall wants to have a hearing after Thanksgiving. The Homeland Security Committee Chairman wants to have a hearing soon, he says maybe this TSA should not have these powers. Now that this clearly has become a big political story in our nation, do you have concerns that politics might undermine security?

Frances Townsend: Well, look. John, you know, this is a classic case where the government fails the common sense test. We’ve seen the threat from Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. This is the group that was behind the Detroit attempted bombing, the underpants bomber. This is the group that was behind the recent cartridges in the belly of the plane loaded with explosives. So the threat is very real, and I think as we come into a time of increased travel, the government is rightly concerned. There are a couple of questions about how and why they’re doing this. The government has the authority to implement these security procedures, but they also have an obligation to be advocates and to explain to the American people why these are necessary, why there isn’t a less intrusive means that they could use and how this will protect us and keep us safer. And frankly, they haven’t really done a very good job at that. But let’s remember, the threat is very real, and so we want them to be successful in keeping explosives off planes, and we are rightly debating the government’s policy about how they’re trying to do that.

News Anchor: Well, congressman, lets come back to you and where you would draw the line. And I want to show the pictures as we have the conversation. www.DenverPost.com put up some photos, and we’re just showing some video of the intrusive searches. This is from www.Denver.com. Now the government says this is absolutely necessary. You see the body scanners, and you also see as the photos go on, some of the touching and the padding that obviously you view, sir, as a violation of people’s rights. I want you to listen here to the Homeland Security secretary, Janet Napolitano. She says it’s necessary, and it does not, in her view, cross the line.

Janet Napolitano: They in no way resemble electronic strip searches. All they do is (?) in a private area away from the gate with an image that is neither retained nor transmitted. We’ve built privacy screens into the machines.

News Anchor: And, congressman, the head of the TSA, John Pistole, says using these screenings, they’ve already come up with some things that, in his view, have kept dangerous things off the airplane. So if we went with your approach, how do we make sure that somebody does not get on a plane with something that can’t be there.

Ron Paul: Well, so far, they haven’t been sure. You know, before 9/11 the government was in charge; they spent 45 billion dollars on intelligence gathering, and they got through anyway. And now we’ve given them 80 billion dollars, so how can you expect the government to do any better? Now, for the secretary, I’d like to ask her, you know, has she gone through a scanner and looked at herself on a scanner? Has she been probed and prodded? And Frances, have you done it too? I think everybody should.

Frances Townsend: Absolutely. Congressman, I have done it.

Ron Paul: Did you look at your image?

Frances Townsend: I did not look at my image.

Ron Paul: Well, look at your image when somebody else is doing, go look at your image.

Frances Townsend: Well, frankly Congressman, I’d much rather prefer they have an image of me rather than they touch me, and I’d like the understand what the …

Ron Paul: Have you had the prod? I mean, some people have to be prodded. The people are being forced to it. You haven’t gone through the prodding process?

Frances Townsend: Oh, I most certainly have.

Ron Paul: I want every member of Congress to do it, and every member of the cabinet to do it, and they might have a different feeling about this. But the whole thing is, we are dealing with 9/11, we’re dealing with Al-Qaida, and that has to do with a major problem with our foreign policy. And if we don’t understand why we are creating more people who want to hate us, believe me, taking away all our liberties won’t solve our problem. Spending more money on intelligence gathering and also taking away more of our liberties and having 6,000 of our people killed over in the Middle East… every time we kill a civilian over there to the tunes of 10s of thousands, we make more enemies. We won’t solve our problems by abusing the rights of American citizens. That’s what my beef is.

News Anchor: The congressman makes his case passionately, Frances, on this question. The debate over just what just the powers are, what the screening should be will continue, obviously, and the Congress will be dealing with this when it returns in January without a doubt, if not right after thanksgiving, but the question of should the government do this or should it be contracted out? And to the degree of what other technology is out there, what’s the answer?

Frances Townsend: I actually think it doesn’t matter. If you can do it more efficiently by contracting it out, that’s fine. But you have to set the standards. And quite frankly it’s easy for the congressman to criticize the government, whether it’s this administration or prior administration. But I don’t hear any suggestion about how he would improve it, how, if he had responsibility for protecting the American people, what exactly he would do to ensure their safety and security?

Ron Paul: Can I answer that?

News Anchor: Sure.

Ron Paul: The airlines, the private owners do it. Private owners have a better ability to do this than government bureaucrats. It just doesn’t work, that’s the problem.

News Anchor: It’s now a national conversation, we will continue it. Congressman Ron Paul, we appreciate your time tonight. Frances Townsend as well.



style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3666212842414688"
data-ad-slot="9478233584">

»crosslinked«

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

331 Comments:

  1. The government already is barred from touching you or taking your naked picture. It is called a unreasonable search and siezer. Just inforce the constitution. The constitution is a law against teh president and his appointees and also the congress and there laws. The constitution is the peoples law against the government

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. That woman was never patted down or prodded you can see her lying expression. She's even dismissive of the idea of handing the burden off to the airlines themselves. Looks like the terrorists are winning over the regular americans and have been for the last 10 year depression-recession that has followed.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. That is where Ron Paul is a fraud and a parrot. The government's involvement is irrelevant. Private enterprise would do the same thing, maybe worse. There are many cases of private enterprise encroaching on peoples rights. Ron Paul would also know most gov. agencies are run by people in the industry or on advice from people in the industry. He just parrots the anti government line to protect his rich corporate friends and all the suckers think hes protecting our rights. lol

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  4. Why is there even a debate over this? It's wisdom from the founding of this country that when you sacrifice liberty for safety you lose both.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. 8:09 LOOK AT THAT EVIL IN THAT WOMANS EYES! were coming for heads soon, were sick and tired of these witches in power. HERE HERE MR PAUL! LONG LIVE FREEDOM & LIBERTY.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. "On Nov. 17, 2010 Congressman Ron Paul presented a bill on the House floor in an attempt to curb the invasiveness of TSA search requirements."

    Go Paul! Fight this crap!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Paul's argument really does not make sense, that private owners can do a better job. Private owners would then be able to be just as intrusive as the government. Corporate tyranny is just as bad as government tyranny. Paul looked like a fool in my mind.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  8. State Department Admits: Detr0it Christmas Bomber Was Deliberately Allowed to Keep US Entry Visa, Board His Flight
    infowars . com/state-department

    THE SHARP DRESSED MAN WH0 AIDED MUTALLAB 0NT0 FLIGHT 253 WAS A U.S. G_V AG*NT
    xr . com/haskel

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Eyewitness Revelations: Confirmed FBI COVER-UP 0f Flight 253 Attack
    infowars . com/bombshell-eyewitness

    BOMBSHELL: Evidence Clearly Indicates staged Attack on Detr0it Flight
    infowars . com/bombshell-evidence

    Detr0it jet terrorist attack was staged - journalist
    rt . com/usa/news/
    detroit-terror-act-fake/

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Fran Townsend, I suspect has been bought and paid for by George Soro's
    Just has John King and all of the Lame Street Media. That's why I only listen
    to Truth Radio and Fox News. Anyone who promotes the surrender of our Freedoms to Government is a Communist. Got that Fran

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. Terrorwarrior: you fight terrorists 24/7.LOL! How do you "fight" them? by reading books by David Frum, sean hannity and karl rove??? Seriously? Seems to me like Terrorwarrior works for the neocon, zionist shill media..or just a paid provocateur (actually they're the same) because we know that the progressives and the neocons hate Ron and Rand Paul. Google Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11 (foxnews). Co-owner of fox also financed the imam of the ground zero mosque

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  12. Who is this bitch? Why does her opinion matter to me? Shes getting paid for that sex change right?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Ron Paul was definitely cringing when she said "the government has the authority to do these things"...

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Frances, what if i don't want their protection?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. PROFILE!!! PROFILE!!! This p.c. shit has to stop. Just profile

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Every time you get into a car to drive, you have significant risk of death from car crash. It doesn't matter how careful of a driver you are, all it takes is 1 other car to do something wrong and ram you head on.
    Yet we don't have draconian security measures for driving, even tho deaths are much greater. What makes the airplane so special? Why is 1 life in the air worth 1000 lives on the ground? This isn't right.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  17. Ron Paul is a pro-terrorist poop faced liberal Nazi racis Muslim gay freak.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  18. I'm a Paul supporter but reading the comments here gets old after a while. I don't understand why so many people are always shocked when someone who works for the government defends their policy. Was anyone really expecting someone at Homeland Security to agree with Paul? The point of a debate is to discuss opposing views and win an arguement via superior reason.

    Disagreeing with Paul makes someone misguided or ill-informed at best, but people really need to calm down with all the hysterics.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. how does this retarded broad A) get a job in homeland security and B) how does she not understand the organization she works for is the gestapo and completely unconstitutional. Are our leaders really so misguided? Or are they just genuinely despicably evil?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. That woman is a foolish political whore.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


five − 2 =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>