From the YouTube description:

On June 19, 2011, after the Transportation Security Agency pulled my pants down, I was arrested at BNA for refusing to pick up my pants until I was informed as to whether the search was complete. I never got the answer to my request, “Is the search over?” The resolution search that I agreed to after my 3″x4″ microfiber cloth had been picked up as an anomaly in the millimeter wave scanner, is the same search that Senator Rand Paul (KY) refused. I am a frequent flyer, having A-list status with Southwest and flying through Nashville 3 dozen times in the past 2 years. I now opt out of the millimeter wave scanner and maintain an informal record of the search procedures of the TSA. The grab and pull of my pant legs seen in this video was not necessary as all the TSA searches I have received before and after the incident have proven.

I am looking for a lawyer to sue the TSA. The charges of Disorderly Conduct and Public Indecency are unjust. One officer, Robbie Keeler, was heard stating, “I think we’re stretchin’ it on the Public Indecency, but what the hell?! Have him tell it to the commissioner. I would like to charge the all officers involved, Officer Hardini Carter and Officer Robert Merritt, round up the pack. TSA agents Seth James and Lee (badge# 74020) are also liable. The first thing Agent Lee said upon standing up after pulling down my pants was, “Pick up your pants.” When I asked, “Is the search over?”, his response was, “Pick up your pants, sir!” His supervisor Seth James, could only offer snide remarks and the same “Pick up your pants!” command. I explained, “Is the search over? Because if the search is over, I will pull up my pants and grab my stuff.” The TSA Agents and the Police Officers had no intention of respecting my right to know whether the search was complete.

This video was obtained by requesting it from Bob Watson and Terri Barnhart. The TSA records at double time. 714p_thru_725p_11-01025_061911.mpg

As you are watching the video remember these questions:

As American citizens, have we or have we not, the right to know whether a search we voluntarily submit for is complete or if it shall continue indefinitely?

Is it TSA policy to submit American citizens to submission by dehumanization?

Am I prepared with the phone number of a friend or relative with a land line telephone, in the event that I attempt to keep my dignity at the airport?

Are the police liable for false arrest when they themselves reviewed the surveillance video and thought the charge of Public Indecency to be a stretch?

Watch out Americans. There are government agencies that do not respect your right, nor you dignity.

I am looking for a lawyer who believes in justice for American citizens. It has taken me nearly 8 months to even post this video on youtube and start to solicit the lawyer help, because the psychological toll this incident has taken can be unruly at times.

An internal Transportation Security Administration (TSA) memorandum concluded that the agency can successfully audit its screening practices to guard against racial and religious profiling.

The Sikh Coalition has complained for many years that they are being profiled by the TSA and are subject to more secondary screenings than they should be. A TSA memorandum was released this week stating that such a study into profiling can be done. The Sikh Coalition continues to push for such an audit.

Blackburn, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that the Fifth Amendment posed no barrier to his decryption order. The Fifth Amendment says that nobody may be “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” which has become known as the right to avoid self-incrimination.

“I find and conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer,” Blackburn wrote in a 10-page opinion today. He said the All Writs Act, which dates back to 1789 and has been used to require telephone companies to aid in surveillance, could be invoked in forcing decryption of hard drives as well.

Although the defendant in the case intends to appeal, there are conflicting decisions already on the books.

In March 2010, a federal judge in Michigan ruled that Thomas Kirschner, facing charges of receiving child pornography, would not have to give up his password. That’s “protecting his invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination,” the court ruled (PDF).

A year earlier, a Vermont federal judge concluded that Sebastien Boucher, who a border guard claims had child porn on his Alienware laptop, did not have a Fifth Amendment right to keep the files encrypted. Boucher eventually complied and was convicted.

The debate as to whether or not decrypting a computer by a defendant is a violation of the fifth amendment will continue as more cases like these come to trial. On the one side the argument is that decryption is similar to handing over the keys to a storage or safe deposit box while, on the other, privacy advocates state that giving up any information to decrypt a computer is the equivalent of testifying against oneself.

Also of note is that, in this particular case, the prosecution has to prove that she has the means to decrypt the laptop. If she is unable to do so, there is little else the prosecution can do.

As it stands right now, there is case law for both sides and it does not appear as if the debate is going to be settled any time soon. At some point, this issue will reach the Supreme Court because there are far too many conflicting points on both sides, in numerous cases, for the issue to be clear.

It’s called Terahertz Imaging Detection. It measures the energy radiating from a body up to 16 feet away, and can detect anything blocking it, like a gun.

Naturally, there are those who don’t understand that even if you don’t have anything to hide, you still have a right to privacy.

“It’s definitely a privacy issue, but it’s for our safety. So it’s just one of those things, a double-edged sword,” added Clarence Moore of Union, N.J.

“I think it’s good. I think if someone has something to hide and they’re going to worry about it, who cares?” Robert McDougall added.

Others, including the New York Civil Liberties Union, doesn’t think this way.

“It’s worrisome. It implicates privacy, the right to walk down the street without being subjected to a virtual pat-down by the Police Department when you’re doing nothing wrong,” the NYCLU’s Donna Lieberman said.

One particular comment from a person on the street should stop and make everyone think.

“If they search you, you’re not giving consent, so they can do what they want, meaning they can use that as an excuse to search you for other means. I don’t think that’s constitutional at all,” Devan Thomas said.

Whether or not you have anything to hide, there is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

One wonders how Kyllo vs. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), would fit into the use of such devices.

Find out more.

Find out more.

Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Amazon are considering a day of blackout to protest the “Stop Online Privacy Act” or SOPA. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian discuss SOPA and what kind of impact this protest would have.

From TYT Network.

(a) In General- Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended–

(1) in subsection (a)–

(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking ‘or’ at the end;

(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; or’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

‘(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’.

(b) Technical Amendment- Section 351(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1483(a)) is amended by striking ‘(6) and (7)’ and inserting ‘(6), (7), and (8)’.

It should be noted that 8 U.S.C. 1481 includes a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization.

How would this affect common, everyday Americans? In more ways than you think when you consider, if we are at war, everything a citizen does is subject to the laws of war. We already face the fact that many in Washington consider paying by cash to be a form of terrorism. Being a Muslim automatically puts you into a suspect category. What happens if a law enforcement official decides you look Muslim and you’re reading whatever they have deemed to be questionable literature? The government could classify anything from Noam Chomsky to the Qur’an to Ayn Rand as subversive. Read it during a time of war, which we seem to always be in, and a citizen is placing themselves in a precarious situation.

The government also considers anyone who stockpiles food to be questionable. The United States government’s definition of stockpiling food is anyone who has more than a seven day supply of food. That would automatically make anyone living in very rural parts of America automatically questionable. It is often a long drive to town to get food stuffs, making the stockpiling of food logical, but it is a first step for the government to start looking into the lives of Americans.

It would be much easier for the government to start questioning those who live in urban areas as to why they have two weeks of food stocked up. It is also easier for the government to potentially start rationing supplies. If citizens are deemed suspects for having too much food, they stop stockpiling it. It’s then easy to control the supply once this happens.

The NDAA states that the United States is within its rights to imprison or assassinate anyone that is not a US citizen without due process of law for merely being suspected of a crime. If the Enemy Expatriation Act were to pass, any American citizen could be stripped of their citizenship if the government deems them to be involved in terrorism and then the NDAA would apply to them. There would be no due process and no appeal.

Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the US Constitution gives the government the power to do this. Like it or not, this is a real possibility. The government may say that this is aimed at those who come to America and obtain citizenship and, thus, they can use Article I to then strip someone of their citizenship, however, giving the government such broad authority as the Enemy Expatriation Act would should never be allowed. Governments have shown time and again that, given such power, it will be abused. The fact is the Enemy Expatriation Act affects all citizens, natural born or not.

The Enemy Expatriation Act is wholly unnecessary. We already have laws on the books that deal with such issue as to whether or not someone has committed unlawful acts. We do not need a law that automatically strips someone of their rights based merely on the suspicion of a crime. The judicial system is entrusted with taking care of such matters. Circumventing due process is not the road the United States should be traveling on. Before we deny anyone their life and liberty, we owe them due process. If the United States government cannot convict a person without it, then it is their responsibility to investigate and build a better case.

Americans should be outraged that such a bill is even being considered. The Enemy Expatriation Act has now been referred to a committee. Now is the time to notify government representatives and kill the bill before it proceeds any farther.

The federal government has spent $34 billion dollars since 2001 to militarize some local police departments in America. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks explain why.

We don’t need the militarization of the police. It’s a waste of money and the police departments don’t need it, but they will use it for idiotic things.