The invasion of body scanners, first into airports, and now into courtrooms, and soon other public places smacks of a contrived event. I don't recall ever voting for the scanners, or my elected officials ever mentioning them.
They exist as an infringement of individual civil liberties and dignity. The scanners were implemented around the world following a false flag botched terrorist event on flight 253, where a known terrorist boarded a plane with powder and liquid explosives, without a passport, while being on a watch list.
The idea that this is about public safety simply couldn't be further from the truth. The scanners were pre-ordered, awaiting the false flag event for implementation. These devices will irradiate your body, and provide no safety whatsoever against acts of terrorism.
In this first part, I begin to explain how you've been had. We need to reclaim our freedom. Free people are not strip searched unless they've committed a crime.
Now consider if you choose to refuse the scanners, and the overzealous pat-downs - what then? What if you need entry to a courtroom to give testimony or as a jury member? Your refusal now puts you in contempt of court. That is the very definition of a police state. Either comply with our illegal search and seizure or be arrested and criminalized.
But we have to protect against people like the crotch bomber, who didn't have to go through a scanner, or have a wand run around him, or ...
Malafede122112 1 year ago
... a passport, or a proper background check, oh and by the way, did we mention that the body scanner wouldn't have picked him up according to experts?
TheSharpenedPen 1 year ago
Boston Herald, March 10, 2010:
A Transportation Security Agency worker who pats down members of the flying public was charged with multiple child sex crimes targeting an underage girl yesterday.
The bust outraged privacy and passenger advocates who say it justifies their fears about Logan International Airports full-body scanner.
TheSharpenedPen 1 year ago
terrible sound man...................
mushroomagicman 1 year ago
Well, the part with the lawyer was poor quality to begin with since it was taken by a hidden camera, but it does seem the audio quality in general has worsened since upload to YouTube. It wasn't enough for them I guess to hide this video in searches, they had to go ahead and mess with the audio as well. I think my days on YouTube are as limited as my days of personal liberty and freedom.
TheSharpenedPen 1 year ago