Posted by John Tate on 01/15/10 12:42 PM   [Newer: A Note of Thanks] [Older: Time is Running Out!]

After a lone Nigerian would-be terrorist tried to detonate explosives in his underclothes Christmas Day on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, TSA immediately grabbed for even more invasive power over American citizens.

Most disturbingly, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) wants to implement full-body scans at the nation's airports-allowing unelected bureaucrats to virtually strip-search and gawk at kids, moms, grandmothers, grandfathers -- you and all other American passengers -- through your clothes.

Predictably, misinformation on the graphic nature of the images and ability of TSA personnel to copy, photo, and save the images poured forth from TSA flaks.

I have included direct contact information for the TSA at the end of this post. Call them today and let them know how disgusted you are with their latest plan to invade our privacy.

It's a peeping tom's dream, and a nightmare for those of us who believe in the great American principles of liberty, restrained government, and privacy.

Unless we stop this outrage, TSA agents will be snooping at the undergarments of such "threats" as American kids, grandmothers, and grandfathers. And if you or they refuse? You will be physically searched by TSA employees just like a criminal after being arrested.

The TSA's dirty little secret is the agency has been pushing for full-body imaging since 2002 and even introduced the technology at a handful of airports in 2007-without ensuring that passengers knew they were being watched in this manner.

As Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said, "Nobody needs to see my wife and kids naked to secure an airplane."

Despite self-serving assurances from the TSA, these full-body scans are an unconstitutional, unacceptable intrusion into the privacy of American passengers nationwide.

Last year, Campaign for Liberty Director of Development Steve Bierfeldt sued the TSA for detaining him for carrying cash. Because Steve so strongly stood up to them, the TSA backed down from its unconstitutional searches of passengers' non-terrorism-related property.

But such victories for liberty are rare in today's America and must be fought for by a vigilant public jealous of its liberty.

We now risk losing the gains we have made against the surveillance state, all because of the "systemic failure" of the federal government-as Obama himself called it. Now the TSA wants to know far more about us than just the amount of cash we're carrying.

Use the numbers below to contact them today as we show the TSA that the freedom movement will not sit idly by in this fight.

Just as Big Brother advocates jumped on the intelligence failure of 9/11 to nationalize airport security, they once again want to use their own failure as an excuse for more power.

But we know that this latest move will not keep us safe. So far, it has been passengers and flight crew who have stopped such incidents as this and the attempted "shoebombing" of December 2001.

They can keep stripping away our privacy and liberty, all to foil the last attack, but the terrorists will continue to circumvent any of their freedom-crushing "security" measures.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano has explained, "Airline travel is safer today because pilots have guns, cockpit doors are like bank vaults, and the passengers have become courageous. All this was done by individuals in the private sector, not by the government. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if the feds had not stripped us of our natural rights to keep ourselves safe-by keeping and bearing arms-9/11 would never have happened."

If we want to diminish the threat of terrorism and fly more safely, we can restore the Second Amendment, hand airline security back to the private sector, and end our government's policy of foreign interventionism.

Contact the TSA's "Office of Civil Rights" by phone toll free at 1-877-EEO-4-TSA (1-877-336-4872) or (800) 877-8339 (TTY) and by email at TSA-ContactCenter@dhs.gov.

Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Let us do our part to show Washington and the TSA that Americans not only deserve and want both, but that we will not stop until our privacy and all our other freedoms are secure.

Posted 01/15/10 11:49 PM Surreal Reno, NV

I'm sorry, but why is nobody seriously bringing up the child pornography aspect of all of this? Isn't creating the image of a nude child some form of child pornography in this country? The TSA is in fact creating an image every time they scan somebody. At least the body scanner program in the UK is disallowing the use of the scanners on people under the age of 18 for violating child pornography laws. (Google "UK body scanner bans on under 18s") Where are parenting groups? Where is the media on this? Where is the ACLU? Since when are people okay with putting their children into one of these scanners so that some stranger, who may or may not be the same gender as their child, can gawk at their child's nude image? Seriously, think about that for a second... some stranger of the opposite gender, who is not a physician but simply a federal security guard, may be looking at nude images of your child. I have seen the images created by these scanners. Airports are not the only places these scanners are used. The image produced is nothing short of graphic and disturbing. Believe me, it is a very detailed image of the person being scanned. Don't be fooled by the blurry, stick figure images you see on TV news shows. The term, "Virtual strip search," does not do these scans enough justice.

Posted 01/16/10 12:09 AM illuminati hater Las Vegas, NV

Follow C4L members can use the E-mail that I just sent to the TSA: To whom ever it may concern, I am E-mailing this letter to express my disgust at the proposed plan to install body scanners at airports nation wise. On Christmas Day of 2009, a would-be terrorist tried to hijack and blow himself on a flight leaving Detroit. The incident in question has given the government the ability to feed on the fear of Americans, and introduce a new measure that will increase the power of Big Brother: body scanners. The body scanners in question will give people working for the TSA the ability to see a naked image of the person being analyzed. I hope that such an idea will, and more importantly, "has" set off red flags in the heads of people working for your organization. To give people working in some sort of back room the ability to see naked images of women and children is a disturbing fact. The people that will be scanned by these machines do not know who is looking at them. No matter how much people are reminded of their privacy, the chance that the person looking at them has some sort of perverted fantasy always exists. And even through the private areas of individuals will be blacked out by a bar, who's to say someone on a computer with some sick fetish won't try to remove for the bard for his own personal gain. Americans are having their privacy put at risk with these new machines. For people to expose themselves to a monitor being looked at by someone they don't even know is a scary thought. People need to be safe, but they also need to have their constitutional rights protected. To take away their right to privacy by exposing them to the outside world is unethical, immoral, and unconstitutional. Ben Franklin once said the following: "Those who would sacrifice their liberty for a little bit of security deserve neither." If you truly have a desire to protect people on planes, then perhaps you should consider petitioning the government to reestablish the right to bear ARMS, and give pilots the ability to carry guns. Before I finish, I would like to leave you with a famous statement by Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up their liberties for a little bit of security deserve neither." I hope you take this statement to heart when you consider the consequences of installing these devices in airports.

Posted 01/16/10 12:12 AM illuminati hater Las Vegas, NV

One other thing regarding this: people should take the health risks of these scanners into account. When one of these scans you, they're basically hitting your body with X-rays. Research has found that even a small amount of X-rays can do damage to your body. God only knows what would happen to a frequent flier being bombarded with these rays on a daily basis.

Posted 01/16/10 01:47 AM BillNM Carlsbad, NM

TSA will always close the gate after the calf has left the pen. It is like war games; the aggressor will always win. You make a metal detector to find buried mines and the aggressor will then make mines that blow up when in the presence of the detector field. And so it goes. The TSA imaging is just one more tool for the aggressor to defeat. Bureaucrats are only responsive to their charter and that makes them idiots. The Airlines should be in charge of security as they have the vested interest. They are not subject to frivolous rules and can refuse service to anyone since flying on an Airline is a voluntary contract. On my Airline I will install a "know your customer" policy. It will probably include a background check. Then I will issue you a card. You come to the counter and give me your card. I swipe it; if your picture doesn't come up, go buy your own Airline. I may include other measures but machines won't be a part of the program. Becky Akers has written extensively on this subject over at LewRockwell.com. As for me; I drive or fly myself if the weather is good. TSA can go fish.

Posted 01/16/10 11:13 AM MichaelBarry Sebring, FL

Surreal: I have raised the pornographic aspect of this whole subject as a post on the blog, "Who are they Polling?" 1/11/10 by Gary Howard. My comment was as follows, "I still think the whole idea of full body scanners has been introduced to satisfy the prurient interest of government bureaucrats and employees in the prepubescent children of the flying public." Sorry, that's the best I can do.

Posted 01/16/10 12:14 PM WillBee Linden, NJ

Surreal, ACLU is speaking out against this. I am uncomfortable with John's use of "gawk" It's the kind of language that turns off readers. Especially people who are on the fence on the issue. It brings about the image of people in the backroom with a few beers laughing at pictures. "However, the child pornography thing is very disturbing. But Child pornography is the price to pay for safety. /sarcasm"

Posted 01/17/10 03:08 AM Jstme Melbourne, FL

Just the title: "TSA Wants Kids and Grandmas Naked" is fear mongering. Ever more disappointed with C4L

Posted 01/17/10 1:07 PM Surreal Reno, NV

I don't like that kind of terminology either, nor do I like fear mongering titles on posts. I personally get more out of an article that doesn't contain bias and opinion. Give me the facts and let me make up my own mind. I can say (from personal, firsthand experience) that some of the people who do monitor these types of scanners do not do so in a purely professional, discreet manner. Comments are made. Jokes are made. I am not speaking about the scanners in place in airports, but instead about the scanners used in other places by the US government. I can't imagine that TSA "agents" will be any different. They are not held to the same standards or ethics that medical professionals are. They are security guards, working for the federal government. Can we reasonably expect every single agent in every single viewing booth to act in a 100 percent professional, discreet manner 100 percent of the time? Can we reasonably believe that men won't be viewing naked women and women won't be viewing naked men? Would we stand for a stranger to view us through our bedroom windows while naked? If the person looking at us through our bedroom window doesn't take an image of us or tell their friends, would that make it acceptable? The whole idea that because the person viewing our naked image is employed by the federal government somehow makes it alright is laughable. Because that person is removed from the scanner doesn't make it okay either. As a side note, I would almost like to see this implemented on 100 percent of commercial passengers. (I actually don’t want the scanners, and I am disgusted with the fact that they are being used,) but I know that it would only be a matter of time before embarrassing pictures are leaked, scandals are created, and people are embarrassed. Maybe that will be what it takes to finally end the debate about using body scanners. Thanks for the replies.

Posted 01/17/10 4:09 PM Liberty for Life Lake Forest, CA

Let me get this straight, US has a total of (18) Intelligent Agencies; Director of National Intelligence, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Coast Guard Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, Department of the Treasury, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Marine Corps Intelligence, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency and Navy Intelligence. Could you imagine the budgets to fund 18 Agencies for Intelligent! Don’t believe me? Here’ the proof; http://www.intelligence.gov/1-members.shtml We're the TSA and You Can Count on Us! (to overreact to tiny threats and ignore big ones) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPSUDYv6qyI&feature=sub Got more intelligent? More Agencies?

Posted 01/17/10 4:24 PM MichaelBarry Sebring, FL

I hope that my previous comment was not misunderstood as a joke. The federal government is full of people at all levels with "issues." In recent days high profile persons such as Scott Ritter have been exposed as having this long standing problem. It is simply not reasonable to expect examination of these scans to be clinical in the same manner as one expects from the family physician. To assert otherwise is nonsense. The thought of a person that his or her naked body...or that of their children will be leered at by an AFSCME federal employee is discomforting.

Posted 01/18/10 11:50 AM manychainsaw El Cerrito, CA

@ Surreal: These folks might be able to help: http://www.protect.org/

Posted 01/19/10 10:16 AM Glenn Cumming, GA

As long as the TSA pervs keep their hands above the table in the scanning room... Oh, that would mean that the TSA perv is being watched by another perv... Ahh, government monopoly on voyeaurism.