Police, TSA and other "Authorities"

[Backstop]

White House: Terrorists Have Discussed Use of Prosthetics to Conceal Explosives

SNIP

Americans by a 2-to-1 margin support the use of naked image full-body x-ray scanners in airport security lines, but fewer than half back aggressive new pat-down procedures, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll. Opposition to both rises among those who fly with any frequency.

SNIP

The MSM strikes again; they only surveyed 514 people.

http://www.langerresearch.com/upload...20Security.pdf

METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Nov. 21, 2010, among a random national sample of 514 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 5 points.

[Backstop]

ABC News/Washington Post can take their biased POS poll and shove it.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1925

Zogby Interactive: 61% Oppose Full Body Scans and TSA Pat Downs; 48% Will Seek Alternative to Flying



Frequent Fliers: 59% Oppose Enhancements and 43% Will Seek Alternative to Flying

The implementation of full body scans and pat downs by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as part of security enhancements at our nation's airports will cause 48% of Americans and 42% of more frequent fliers to choose a different mode of transportation when possible, a recent Zogby International Poll finds.

Overall, 61% of the 2,032 likely voters polled from Nov. 19 to Nov. 22, oppose the use of full body scans and TSA pat downs. Republicans (69%) and Independents (65%) oppose in greater numbers than Democrats (50%).

Of those polled, 52% believe the enhanced security measures will not prevent terrorist activity, almost half (48%) say it is a violation of privacy rights, 33% say they should not have to go through enhanced security methods to get on an airplane, and 32% believe the full body scans and TSA pat downs to be sexual harassment. This is in line with frequent fliers (fly more than once every 3 months), as 53% say the enhanced measures will not prevent terrorist activity, 48% believe it's a violation of their privacy rights, 41% say they should not have to go through it to get on an airplane, and 35% believe it is sexual harassment.

While roughly the same amount believe the full body scans and TSA pat downs are necessary to keep the country safe and prevent terrorist activities on airplanes (34% of frequent fliers vs. 29% overall), frequent fliers are more likely to feel that the enhanced methods are not needed because metal detectors and bag screenings are working fine (33% to 26%). Just 16% of frequent fliers say no one has an absolute right to fly and if people don't like the security measures, then just don't fly compared to 20% of everyone polled.

The Zogby poll also finds when given a choice, likely voters will choose full body scan over the TSA pat downs (48% to 7%), but 42% would rather have neither. Frequent fliers feel about the same.

Pollster John Zogby: "It's clear the majority of Americans are not happy with TSA and the enhanced security measures recently enacted. The airlines should not be happy with 42% of frequent fliers seeking a different mode of transportation due to these enhancements. It seems the airlines and TSA need to come together to find a solution before the American flying public abandons both."

The interactive poll consisted of 2,032 likely voters and has a margin of error of +/-2.2%. A sampling of Zogby International's online panel, which is representative of the adult population of the U.S., was invited to participate. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, gender, and education to more accurately reflect the population.

(11/23/2010)

[Phil Fiord]

The MSM strikes again; they only surveyed 514 people.

Interesting. I was one of those people who was surveyed by ABC. I received a call a few days back and decided to respond. I recall the questions as presented were loaded in way. I mean, they were direct, but general opinion on backscatter and pat downs.

Whoohoo! I was one of 514. How lucky is that. I need to buy a lotto ticket!

[Backstop]

Whoohoo! I was one of 514. How lucky is that. I need to buy a lotto ticket!

All things considered, I'll throw in a few bucks for some.

And in case you didn't look - the questions are at the PDF link above.

Are those the ones they asked you?

[Phil Fiord]

All things considered, I'll throw in a few bucks for some.

And in case you didn't look - the questions are at the PDF link above.

Are those the ones they asked you?

Interesting. I looked at that pdf and its not what I was asked, though the poll person identified as ABC News. What I was asked was more brief. Hmmm.

[Backstop]

Yeah, real interesting.

Thanks for taking the time to verify.

So now I wonder what the deal is.

[vector7]

November 24, 2010
Obama's Airport Security Strategy Dictated by CAIR

Jim Kouri, CPP

Print This E-mail This

ShareThis

Comments (5)

Obama said counterterrorism experts have told him that the current procedures are the only ones that they think can effectively guard against threats such as last year's attempted Christmas-day bombing.

On Saturday while in Lisbon, Portugal, President Barack Obama told reporters that he asked security officials whether there's a less intrusive way to screen U.S. airline passengers than the pat-downs and body scans causing a holiday-season uproar.

Obama claims his security team told him there wasn't.

Passengers at some U.S. airports must pass through full-body scanners that produce a virtually naked image. If travelers refuse, they can be forced to submit to a thorough patdown of their bodies, including of clothed genital areas and breasts, by security officers of the same sex as the passenger.

Obama claims that he's told the U.S. Transportation Security Administration: "You... have to think through, are there ways of doing it that are less intrusive." At this point, Obama said counterterrorism experts have told him that the current procedures are the only ones that they think can effectively guard against threats such as last year's attempted Christmas-day bombing.

"Either [President] Obama is being deceived or he's doing the deceiving. Any cop worth his salt will tell you there are definitely alternatives to this intrusive and time consuming nonsense," said former police detective and expert in interview and interrogation Mike Snopes.

"The fact of the matter is that the Obama administration is bowing to the demands of groups such as CAIR and others who don't want Muslims to be inconvenienced," said Snopes.

Truth be told, there are alternatives to the current heavy-handed security measures being used at U.S. airports: Psychological profiling and transactional analysis.

A PROGRAM KICKED TO THE WAYSIDE

The Council on American Islamic Relations, the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy group, began 2010 by complaining about a new security training program Transportation Security Administration security officers assigned to the nation's airports.

The CAIR leadership had released a statement that claimed the TSA's airport security directives amount to the profiling of Muslims.

According to TSA officials, security officers at major airports across the country would be trained to use "casual conversation" to flush out possible terrorists. Instructors would first teach officers what suspicious behaviors to look for in travelers. These can include nervousness, wearing a big coat in the summer or reluctance to make eye contact with law enforcement. Then, the officers carry on a supposedly casual conversation with passengers in hopes of spotting possible terrorists or to determine whether further scrutiny of a passenger is required.

This would have been a welcomed program by those in law enforcement who've said for years that psychological profiling should be used by airport security staff. While representing the staff and membership of the National Association of Chiefs of Police at lectures or during media interviews, this writer often discusses the need for upgrading the training of airport security staff with part of that upgrade to include psychological profiling.

Most police officers and investigators are familiar with the concept since it's used during the interrogation and interview process to detect deception on the part of the subject. Without going into too much detail, interrogators or interviewers, while questioning a subject about the matter at hand, are observing body language, eye contact, breathing, physical characteristics such as dry mouth or profuse perspiration, and other criteria.

However, the Washington-based CAIR officials claimed that the new guidelines, under which anyone traveling from or through 13 Muslim-majority nations will be required to go through enhanced screening techniques before boarding flights, will disproportionately target American Muslims who have family or spiritual ties to the Islamic world and therefore amount to religious and ethnic profiling.

"Under these new guidelines, almost every American Muslim who travels to see family or friends or goes on pilgrimage to Mecca will automatically be singled out for special security checks -- that's profiling," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.

"While singling out travelers based on religion and national origin may make some people feel safer, it only serves to alienate and stigmatize Muslims and does nothing to improve airline security," he said.

"We all support effective security measures that will protect the traveling public from an attack such as that attempted on Christmas Day," added Awad. "But knee-jerk policies will not address this serious challenge to public safety."

However, security experts believe that the measures are reasonable and necessary in order to enhance airport and airline protection and safety.

"Look, I don't buy it. The fact is, what I say is do smart screening. Ethnicity is one of the factors that should be included in the profile. After all, what is profiling? You're extrapolating the common characteristics of the terrorist attacks. 100% of all the terrorist attacks against the United States last year were carried out by Muslim jihadists. So, if that's the one common denominator, let's include that in the mix. That at airports would trigger a secondary inspection in which case the bomber on Christmas Day this year, maybe have they found the bomb," said the respected terrorism expert Steven Emerson, founder and director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

"Are you going to inspect 98 year old ladies from Sweden in wheelchairs because we're trying to distribute the risk among 300 million Americans when the risk category is really spread 99 to 1 million people? No I don't buy it. Let's be smart about this," added Emerson, who is a consultant for several media and law enforcement organizations.

Israeli security agents and police have used this method for screening people at airports and security checkpoints for years with much success.

In a commentary distributed by CAIR challenging calls for profiling, Awad suggested alternatives to faith-based security checks: "First look at behavior, not at faith or skin color. Then spend what it takes to obtain more bomb-sniffing dogs, to install more sophisticated bomb-detection equipment and to train security personnel in identifying the behavior of real terror suspects."

But law enforcement officials and security professionals believe that to treat everyone equally is like grade school discipline.

"It's ridiculous. Because a few extremists who are Muslims perpetrate terrorist attacks on planes, everyone must be inconvenienced and harassed? That's like elementary school when a student misbehaves and the teacher punishes the entire class by keeping them all after school," said former intelligence officer and NYPD detective Sid Franes.

"The Israeli security people are trained to use profiling -- they also look at body language, listen to voice patterns, check eye contact and other facial indicators of deception," said Franes.

Counterterrorism experts believe that part of the professionalization process is the training of airport security staff in what's been called psychological profiling or behavioral analysis or a number of other terms that all amount to the same thing -- effectively screening out potential terrorists.

[vector7]

Menstruating woman subjected to TSA grope because panty-liner obscured her private parts on pornoscanner

Cory Doctorow at 11:49 PM Wednesday, Nov 24, 2010

A self-described "rule follower" went through an airport pornoscanner wearing a panty-liner (she was menstruating). Because the hygienic item obscured the screener's view of her vagina vulva, she was made to endure a humiliating fondling, "so invasive that I was left crying and dealing with memories that I thought had been dealt with years ago of prior sexual assaults."

These new scans are so horrible that if you are wearing something unusual (like a piece of cloth on your panties) then you will be subjected to a search where a woman repeatedly has to check your "groin" while another woman watches on (two in my case - they were training in a new girl - awesome). So please, please, tell the ladies not to wear their liners at the airport (I didn't even have an insert in). I'm a strong, confident woman; I'm an Army vet (which is why those camo liners crack me up), I work full-time and go to graduate school full-time, I have a wonderful husband, and I don't take any nonsense from anyone. I don't dramatize, and I don't exaggerate. I'm trying to give you a sense of who I am so you won't think that this is a plea for attention, or a jumping on the bandwagon about the recent TSA proposed boycott. I just don't want another woman to have to go through the "patting down" because she didn't know that her glad-rag would be a matter of national security."

There are plenty of TSA apologists who say that objections to the TSA's invasive "pat-downs" are just whining from people don't want to go through the backscatter radiation machines -- we bring it on ourselves. But as we've seen, anything out of the ordinary -- wearing a fabric pad during menstruation, artificial limbs, medical prostheses, etc -- can send you off for a date with Doctor Jellyfinger, Junior G-Man extraordinaire. By declaring war on the unexpected, the TSA has set in motion a policy that makes the lives of cancer sufferers, disabled people, people who've had major surgery, and many others who're already having a hard time even harder.

[Malsua]

Gee there's a big surprise. What did they think, most women are menopausal or were they just hoping to stick to pre-pubescent ones? Heck, half the women I know are having the monthly visitor 90% of the time and in the other half, it never leaves.

[quartertiller]

This TSA thing is not over. There will be future stories, unbelievable ones, surfacing. I'd never allow any wife of mine to be felt over like this. Nor my daughters.

Wouldn't care for anyone to be handwalking up & down my body. Fearful I'd say something, and then the trouble would begin.

[American Patriot]

This TSA thing is not over. There will be future stories, unbelievable ones, surfacing. I'd never allow any wife of mine to be felt over like this. Nor my daughters.

Wouldn't care for anyone to be handwalking up & down my body. Fearful I'd say something, and then the trouble would begin.

how many wives you got?

hehe. Just kidding.

[vector7]

TSA Circus Reveals Dangers of Marxist Politically Correct Security Rules

Will Modern Liberals Ever Embrace the Tragic Vision, Even to Save Themselves?

By Kelly O'Connell Sunday, November 28, 2010

Enormous problems exist in TSA airline screening resulting from the nonsensical mixing of Political Correctness into safety procedures. Specifically, the problem is doctrines of progressive social engineering have become so powerful a centerpiece in minds of the elites that our very safety is threatened by this misbegotten ideology. Unsurprisingly, Political Correctness (PC) is not a randomly occurring phenomenon. Yet many will be shocked to discover PC is a product of social Marxism directed by expatriate German intellectuals in America after WWI.

This article shall briefly examine the history of Marxist Political Correctness as well as to the larger problem of liberal ideology and its pernicious affects upon America. More specifically the issue is leftist refusal to accept the Tragic Vision of life as presented by the classical and biblical world view which the founders of our culture originally envisioned.
I. Problems at TSA

It’s no secret that TSA, the Transportation Security Administration, has recently ramped up airline security measures for the holidays in 2010.

But much confusion and outrage has followed in the wake because of how the TSA is doing this. In a nutshell, TSA is treating all fliers as if they have an equal chance of being a terrorist. In other words, an 89 year old nun and a 5 year old child could be patted down and strip searched as quickly as a twenty five-year-old male Saudi visitor. Does this strike anyone as a sane standard?

A few outrages are occurring here. Common sense informs us that a resident of the Middle East would be a higher security threat for a potential Islamic terrorist than a Caucasian American child, or an octogenarian nun. But the silliness of the TSA approach, which is being touted as casting a wide net to catch domestic terrorists, is it’s a disappointing and hare-brained policy. It is also deadly mistaken. It is beyond dispute that such a one-size-fits-all terrorist policy results not from studies of the world’s best airline security organizations, but from political considerations.

II. What is Political Correctness?

Despite the fact that most polite citizens must ponder Political Correctness daily to be sure they avoid the myriad pitfalls of not making “insensitive” remarks, a truly perceptive definition of PC is hard to come by. The Free Dictionary has this:

1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
2. Being or perceived as being over-concerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters.

Political Correctness is first a movement of speech purification which is meant to remove any objectionable content that unfairly differentiates between the speaker and different subgroups. It is also supposed to change behavior by promoting these subgroups. It typically buries traditional morality along the way. The real problem with PC is that it is a theoretical standard which has real world consequences that can be quite appalling.

III. Political Correctness In Security & War

There is no lack of examples of bad, unintended consequences to the PC movement. Many claim America’s universities have been absolutely degraded by the absurd standards of PC. Another points out the harm it has done to medical services. But the worst influences may be upon US security and warfare.
Says military expert Ralph Peters in the NY Post:

Over the decades, political correctness insinuated itself into the ranks of our “Washington player” generals and admirals. And the Army published its disastrous Counterinsurgency Manual a few years back—doctrine written by military intellectuals who, instead of listening to Infantry squad leaders, made a show of consulting “peace advocates” and “humanitarian workers.”
The result was a manual based on a few heavily edited case studies “proving” that the key to success in fighting terrorists is to hand out soccer balls to worm-eaten children. The doctrine ignored the brutal lessons of 3,000 years of history—because history isn’t politically correct (it shows, relentlessly, that the only effective way to fight faith-fueled insurgents is with fire and sword).

For example, did the Fort Hood Shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, get preferential treatment because he was Muslim then end up shooting 41 American soldiers while screaming, “Allah Akbar”, ie God is Great—as an Islamic declaration of Jihad? America is so PC friendly, US service people cannot even carry their own weapons on base.
Stephanie Gutmann, the author ofThe Kinder, Gentler Military: How Political Correctness Affects Our Ability to Win Wars, quoted another soldier about the Fort Hood Shooting:

If soldiers on this base had been allowed to carry the weapons they use overseas, the service weapons they train with, Hasan would have been able to shoot perhaps one or two people, not 41. (As of this writing, 13 are dead, 28 wounded.)

Imagine in how many different ways the PC movement has hampered the ability of America to wage war effectively. These PC-styled Rules of Engagement have so hampered US forces in Afghanistan that the enemy often can claim strategic advantage in planning attacks despite all their weaknesses. Such doctrines as “Asymmetrical Warfare,” badly hamper a fair fight, needlessly killing Americans and other NATO participants in Afghanistan. Writes one Australian author,

Here are two examples of Rules of Engagement: If having been fired upon by a shooter who then drops his weapon to his side as soon as he comes under notice from coalition forces, he should no longer be considered an immediate threat and is not to be fired upon, even if he decamps to another location where it is likely he will take up another position to resume firing.

If troops come under fire from a dwelling place which could be considered to have women and children present they are to avoid returning fire and deploy to another safer area.

IV. History of Political Correctness

Political Correctness is a set of doctrines first articulated by the Frankfurt School, a group of Marxist professors who escaped Nazi Germany to avoid the wrath of Adolph Hitler before WWII. As Bill Lind states, “If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.”

Basically, the German Marxists of post-WWI Germany realized that Karl Marx was wrong about his ideas detailing the inevitability of socialist takeover of capitalism and the inevitable communist state. Instead, they believed if they did not turn their ideas into a stealth project to takeover health capitalist societies, then all would be lost for their cause. And when they were forced to leave Germany and resettled in America, they sensed their chance to try their theories.
Writes Lind,

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s….But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.

These ideas were worked out in Germany, but since all the professors behind the project were Jews, they had to flee. So they came to New York. Lind goes on,

In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research.

And its members fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society.

A Way Out of Madness: Embracing the Tragic Vision

A. Introduction

Is there a way out of the crazy maze created when Cultural Marxism meets radical Islam in the liberal mind? Actually, yes.

The West arose as a result of Christianity being slowly introduced into the small kingdoms of Europe of the first millennium. As time passed, and more chieftains were converted, and churches and monasteries and schools grew, Europe began developing it’s distinctive set of doctrines and practices—so different from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. But the classical world was also needed.

The Renaissance developed in Italy when the classic masters were rediscovered and studied again. From this was developed a love of the great Roman and Greek writers. After this, then the Reformation was ushered in on the wings of revitalized study of Greek. The Enlightenment then takes both of these elements, the classical pagans and biblical writers and adds philosophy. Until fairly recently, no man was considered educated unless they had studied both the classical world and the biblical writers. And it is here we are exposed to the Tragic Vision.

B. Classical

In the ancient world was a great deal of disease, suffering, and a lack of control of these. Lifespans were short, and even idealized “lucky” men and women suffered much more than anyone alive today can now imagine. The Tragic Vision of the classical writers was borne of this. Their literature was a reminder of life’s suffering and a way to see this within the context of a virtuous existence which included doing one’s duties and the perils when this did not occur. Add onto this the view of the gods who themselves also suffered outrageous twists of fate when they did wrong. But gods visited punishment upon those who forgot their limited role as mortals. For example, in Sophocles’ Oedipus the King, when the King is debased physically and turned into a cripple, we see how the fates can humble even the greatest figures and rob them of everything precious.

C. Biblical

The biblical writers were likewise highly aware of the brevity of life, how unfair things are for many of the best followers of Yahweh, and that most persons must await their proper rewards in the hereafter. The biblical view is undoubtedly more complex than the classical view of tragedy, but both accept that life is not fair and unexpected tragedy inevitable. There is a tragic law which controls the historical process, the law that ordains that human greatness utterly fall. That is the subject of Greek tragedy and the message of the biblical Prophet to the nations of the world. They are all subject to the law of tragic self destruction. One writer states on how the Bible agrees with the classical tragic vision,

They both (classical and biblical writers) resist the unrealistic assumption that goodness always triumphs, or that it at least will triumph with the aid of more extensive education and a higher standard of living. Both are constrained by the facts of experience to acknowledge that life may confront a person not with a choice between good and evil but with a choice between the lesser of two evils; that to try to put a lofty principle into practice may result in more harm than good; and that in order to preserve one’s own integrity one may have to forfeit one’s life. Hence believers in the “tragic vision,” together with adherents of the Christian faith, have made common cause against the sentimental illusions of a more credulous age. The former complain with Sophocles:

“Strange, that impious men, sprung from wicked parents, should prosper, while good men of generous breed should be unfortunate! It is not right that heaven should deal so with men.”

The latter exclaim with the prophet:
“Spoiling and violence are before me, and there are those that raise up strife and contention; therefore the law is slacked and judgment doth never go forth. For the wicked doth compass about the righteous; therefore wrong judgment proceedeth” (Habakkuk 1:3 4).

D. Modern: Burke’s Tragic Vision

Thomas Sowell wrote a book called The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. In this book he takes the liberal view, which he calls the Vision of the Anointed and opposes it to the contrary view expressed by Burke. This is the Tragic Vision which replaces liberal wishful thinking with a real understanding of life.

Sowell claims says the Left’s fixation with extremes in public policy expresses itself in certain ways:

1. Assertions that a great disaster to society is about to occur.
2. Calls for massive government intervention to avert the impending catastrophe.
3. Disdainful dismissal of contrary arguments as uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by “unworthy purposes.”
4. The policies of the anointed are implemented and are themselves disastrous.
5. The anointed steadfastly refuse to acknowledge mountains of evidence that their policies have failed while accusing their critics of dark motives.

Instead of liberalism and its horrible flaws, like Political Correctness, Sowell extolls the Burkean view of limited government founded upon the notion that not every human problem is amenable to address. He writes,

In the tragic vision, individual sufferings and social evils are inherent in the innate deficiencies of all human beings, whether these deficiencies are in knowledge, wisdom, morality, or courage. Moreover, the available resources are always inadequate to fulfill all the desires of all the people. Thus there are no “solutions” in the tragic vision, but only trade-offs that still leave many unfulfilled and much unhappiness in the world.

Conclusion

America is in grave danger of continued terrorist attack. Meanwhile, Political Correctness is Marxist idiocy which imperils America more everyday. Instead of hand-wringing over whether it’s fair to “punish” people who—through no fault of their own—were born in Arabia, let’s get serious about defending ourselves. The only way we can properly protect ourselves is by narrowing the scope of our defenses so that precious resources are not wasted. For only if we use the best strategies and weaponry, without apology, can we hope to defeat evil but highly intelligent and crafty Muslim extremists.

[Phil Fiord]

I did read there is legit concern due to pat down people NOT changing gloves between passengers they grope. This can spread many bacteria and or virus.

[vector7]

Sunday, November 21, 2010
Expanding the TSA - Coming to every city in the USA



A larger, more powerful, and more intrusive bureaucracy. Because you deserve it Amerikans:

TSA chief John Pistole to put priority on all rail, subways: (Public Transportation)

Pistole, 54, took over the TSA on July 1 after 26 years at the FBI. He said he wants to make the agency a full partner in U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

Members of Congress, including House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., have pressed the TSA to put more money into mass-transit security. Thompson met with Pistole on Thursday and said the two agreed.

Pistole said he wants TSA workers, including 47,000 screeners at 450 airports, to operate as a "national-security, counterterrorism organization, fully integrated into U.S. government efforts."

"I want to take TSA to the next level," Pistole said.

Are you seeing a picture here? Maybe Obamassiah is getting his National Security Force after all.

EPIC Demands Documents from DHS about Mobile Body Scanners, Use of Devices at Trains Stations and Stadiums

By Alton Parrish (Editor)
Contributor profile | More stories
Thursday, November 25, 2010 8:48

EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Homeland Security, demanding that the agency turn over documents concerning the use of body scanner technology by law enforcement agencies in surface transit and street-roaming vans.

EPIC cited previous DHS testing of body scanners on New Jersey's PATH trains and the development of street-roaming backscatter vans. EPIC has also filed a lawsuit to suspend body scanner program. EPIC has called the devices "invasive, ineffective, and unlawful." For more information, see: EPIC: Whole Body Imaging and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS.

Majority of Americans Now Oppose Body Scanners and TSA Pat Downs

A new poll by Zogby International finds that 61% of Americans polled between Nov. 19 and Nov. 22 oppose the use of full body scans and TSA pat downs. Of those polled, 52% believe the enhanced security measures will not prevent terrorist activity, almost half (48%) say it is a violation of privacy rights, 33% say they should not have to go through enhanced security methods to get on an airplane, and 32% believe the full body scans and TSA pat downs to be sexual harassment. The Zogby Poll is the most recent survey of American opinion on the new airport screening procedures. Combined with earlier polls by USA Today and the Washington Post-ABC News, the Zogby Poll reflects declining support for the TSA program.

EPIC Releases Analysis on TSA Body Scanner Program - "Deployment and contracting for body scanners should be suspended"

EPIC is making available to the public today the report EPIC prepared in January 2010, following the release of documents from the DHS in an open government lawsuit. The analysis, based on the internal records obtained from the agency, reveals that the "device specifications, set out by the TSA, include the ability to store, record, and transfer images, contrary to the representations made by the TSA...include hard disk storage, USB integration, and Ethernet connectivity that raise significant privacy and security concerns...include "super user" ("Level Z") status that allows the TSA itself to disable filters and to export raw images..."

The EPIC memo states "Based on the materials received to date, EPIC concludes that further deployment and contracting for body scanners should be suspended until the privacy and security problems identified are adequately resolved." The documents were obtained in EPIC v. DHS (FOIA) EPIC has since filed papers in federal court to suspend the program. See EPIC v. DHS (body scanners).

EPIC Challenges DoD FOIA Processing Policies

EPIC filed a request with the FOIA Ombudsman challenging the Department of Defense's unlawful assertion that the DoD has the statutory authority to administratively withdraw a FOIA request without input or consultation from the FOIA requester. DoD made the assertion in response to a FOIA request EPIC had filed seeking documents detailing the agency's agreements with Project Vigilant, a private sector company that monitors Internet Service Providers and provides that information to federal agencies. The FOIA Ombudsman is authorized to review policies and procedures of administrative agencies, review compliance by administrative agencies, and recommend policy changes to Congress and the President. EPIC requested that the FOIA Ombudsman investigate DoD's policies and publish a report of its findings. For related information see Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2010 and EPIC: Open Government.

EPIC is a public interest research center in Washington, D.C. It was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging civil liberties issues and to protect privacy, the First Amendment, and constitutional values. Click here to report body scanner incidents you have encountered.

Source: EPIC

POLICE STATE - TSA, Homeland Security & Tampa Police Set

[Backstop]

I have also read a few articles about that...kinda unnerving.

Especially for someone with a compromised immune system.

[vector7]

In bra, panties and wheelchair, woman goes through Oklahoma City airport screening this morning

A woman who passed through security at Oklahoma City's Will Rogers World Airport in a wheelchair and her underwear missed her flight Tuesday, and she said TSA denied her boarding. A TSA spokeswoman wouldn't say if the woman was denied by TSA employees.

BY ROBERT MEDLEY and MICHAEL KIMBALL, Staff Writers 39 Oklahoman Published: December 1, 2010

A woman who missed her flight at Will Rogers World Airport Tuesday when she showed up in a wheelchair, bra and panties, passed through the airport screening process this morning and has left the city.

In her bra, panties and wheelchair, woman passes through OKC airport screening

Dec 1A woman who missed her flight at Will Rogers World Airport Tuesday...

Tammy Banovac, clad in undergarments and sitting in a wheelchair, failed to pass the Transportation Security Administration screening process Tuesday when security officers detected traces of nitrates on her wheelchair.

Airport spokeswoman Karen Carney said the issue was resolved this morning and Banovac, 52, caught her flight out of the city at 7 a.m. after going through screening without incident.

Banovac did show up at the airport this morning in her wheelchair wearing her bra and panties again, Carney said. But Banovac had a change of clothes that she put on after being screened, Carney said.

She boarded her flight to Phoenix without incident. Carney said Banovac also had a dog with her, who left on the same flight.

Tuesday night Banovac said she chose to wear her underwear because of an unpleasant experience two weeks ago at airport security. She is typically hand-searched at airports because she uses a wheelchair, she said, and she felt violated by the more invasive searches employed at airports recently.

“If it happened anywhere else, it would have been sexual assault.”

Banovac said she was trying to board a flight to Phoenix on Tuesday when she was pulled aside at security for a more thorough search.

She said TSA employees told her equipment detected traces of nitrates, which are used in bombs, on her clothing and luggage. She said a TSA supervisor told her to leave the airport and “come back tomorrow” after more than an hour of hand searches and questioning.

[vector7]

TSA: Groping Grandmas but Giving Arms Traffickers, Terrorists & Drug Dealers a Pass

Written by William F. Jasper

Wednesday, 01 December 2010 17:20

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is spending billions of dollars to install naked full-body scanners at airports and millions of Americans are facing the humiliation of either a virtual strip search or a private-parts pat-down in order to fly. A regrettable but unavoidable development, right? After all, sacrificing one's dignity, privacy, and constitutional rights is a small price to pay for airline security. That's the government's line anyway. In fact, as far as Department Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano is concerned, this is just the start; travelers using mass transit, trains, and boats should also expect soon to experience the same treatment. And after that? Why not the same for bus stations, and portable scanners and pat-downs for random highway stops of motorists? Brian Sullivan, a retired Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) official and a harsh critic of the proliferation of wrongheaded FAA/TSA/DHS security policies since 9/11, had this to say about the recently instituted body scans and pat-down procedures: This business about us spending billions on procedures and equipment targeted against the last attack instead of the next one, while it costs them [the terrorists] about $4,500, will help bankrupt our economy and have an adverse impact on aviation. They must be laughing in their caves as they watch us spin around in reaction to their inexpensive provocations. How far will Americans go in accepting government intrusion and abuse in the name of security? What's coming next, body cavity searches for airline passengers? Surely, that would be too far. But would it seem so after an (alleged) Al Qaeda terrorist employed a body cavity bomb? Would body cavity searches not logically follow, with the "lessons of 9/11" being invoked to attempt to silence all critics of the new invasive "security" procedures? However, before even considering that abhorrent prospect, before even acquiescing to further groping of grandmas, frisking of four-year-olds, and electronically strip-searching of the entire traveling public, should we not perhaps demand that the FAA/TSA/DHS first target the obvious terrorists and security risks? We're not talking about profiling of passengers to spot potential terrorists and security risks; we're talking about people who are already identified as terrorists and dangerous criminals in the FAA's own data banks. FAA Pilot Licenses for Terrorists A private data processing company, Safe Banking Systems, of Long Island, New York, last year uncovered a major security flaw which showed that the FAA had failed to revoke the FAA-approved licenses and certificates for more than a dozen notorious criminals, including convicted terrorists, major drug traffickers, and even a producer of a biological Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD). In June 2009, Safe Banking Systems (SBS) distributed copies of its 23-page report detailing six of the most shocking cases of FAA/TSA failure in this regard to several dozen federal officials, including DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, FAA Administrator J. Randolph Babbit, and Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), Russell Feingold (D-WI), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). The six FAA-licensed individuals profiled in the SBS report included: Convicted Lockerbie bombers - Libyan intelligence officers Abdelbaset Ali Elmegrahi and Lamen Khlifa Fhima were convicted of the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988, killing 270 people. In June 2009 the FAA Certified Airmen Registry still listed both men as holding valid certificates as "aircraft dispatchers." (Elmegrahi was released from prison in August 2009 on compassionate grounds because he reportedly had only three months to live. He returned to Libya to national celebrations and acclaim - and an apparently miraculous recovery. His supposedly terminal cancer went into remission and he was released from the hospital to live at his new state-provide villa.) A Hezbollah arms provider - Fawzi Mustapha Assi was convicted of providing military and aviation equipment to Hezbollah, which has been designated a terrorist organization by the Secretary of State. As of June 2009 he was still listed by the FAA as possessing a valid certificate as a private pilot. Colombian drug traffickers - Gabriel Eduardo Afanador-Solano and his son, Gabriel Eduardo Afanador-Marin are convicted narco-traffickers for the Colombian drug cartel and are both currently serving sentences in federal prison in the United States. However, as of June 2009 the FAA Certified Airmen Registry still listed the son as having a valid commercial pilot certificate. It was not until after the FAA was questioned about the SBS report by members of the media in June 2009 that the agency revoked the licenses of the six men exposed by Safe Banking Systems. But, as SBS has since pointed out, the FAA has still failed to apply the basic security measures that would reveal the dangerous individuals that continue to hold FAA licenses. Since its initial report of June 2009, SBS has found many additional terrorist and security threats in the FAA's Certified Airmen Registry, including some listed as "Most Wanted" by the FBI. Thailand's recent extradition of Viktor Bout to the United States means that the notorious Russian arms trafficker will likely go to trial next year for conspiring to supply a FARC, South American terrorist organization, with surface-to-air missiles and other weapons. But almost completely lost in the reporting on the Viktor Bout case is the astounding fact that this "Merchant of Death" and seven of his associates in his global air transport network hold valid FAA licenses. The New American has reported on Viktor Bout's activities a number of times, noting in an October 2008 story that: Most news reports on "Viktor B," as he is known in arms-trafficking and intelligence circles, describe Bout as a "former KGB agent" who is now a freelance businessman. However, he is one of the old Soviet hands who have enabled the "new" Russia of Putin & Company to carry on the old Kremlin program of spreading global revolution, terror, and chaos under a shallow veneer of deniability. But his cover is so thin that only the completely naïve or willfully blind could believe his "I'm just a capitalist doing business" line. Bout, who has been on "wanted" lists worldwide for years, runs his many front companies and global air transport operations out of Moscow and uses multiple Russian passports under a variety of aliases. This protective sanctuary under the aegis of Putin's KGB-FSB regime, together with Bout's apparent ties to Russia's military intelligence (the old Soviet GRU), through which he obtains the arms for his customers, provides a few "clues" to the sensible that "Viktor B" is still an intelligence operative working for his old Kremlin masters. It is perfectly understandable that the Russian government would cover for Viktor Bout and his associates, but what excuses can our government give for failing to exercise due diligence in this matter? Not only common sense, but also federal law (14 CFR Parts 61, 63, and 65) dictate that FAA certificates be revoked for persons who pose a security threat. Yet, Viktor Bout, who was for years one of the "most wanted" criminal fugitives on the planet, even now, apparently, retains his FAA-approved pilot's license. In addition, Viktor Bout's business associate and personal physician, a Belgian doctor by the name of Johann Piret, was an FAA Designated Medical Examiner for nearly three decades, until 2007. Then there is notorious drug kingpin Fernando Zevallos Gonzalez, called the "Al Capone of Peru" by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. He also holds an FAA-approved license, according to SBS. There is also the case of Joseph Mahmoud Dibee who was indicted along with 10 others in 2006 for acts of terrorism associated with the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. He is believed by the FBI to have fled to Syria, a major state sponsor of terrorist organizations. As of June 2009, Mr. Dibee still had his FAA-approved pilot's license, as do a dozen or so members of Osama bin Laden's family. "Nothing has changed" It goes on and on. The FAA/TSA/DHS demand vast new invasive powers, huge budgets, and expensive high-tech equipment to keep us "secure," but can't (or won't) police their own houses and correct their own blatant derelictions of duty that constitute a genuine threat to America. The Obama adminstration's proposed DHS budget for 2011 came in at $56.3 billion. The TSA, which is part of the DHS, has an annual budget of over $8 billion dollars and more than 56,000 employees. The FAA boasts an annual budget of nearly $16 billion and employs more than 45,000. Yet these behemoths, with their massive resources, technology and personnel are apparently incapable of identifying well-known terrorists and international criminals and removing them from "approved" status in their own data banks. But Safe Banking Systems, a small, family-owned security consulting business in Mineola, New York, was able to zero in on the bureaucracy's glaring security gaps with relative ease. "Because SBS does not have access to confidential government watchlists, we make use of 'open source intelligence' that is publicly available on the internet," said David Schiffer, the President of Safe Banking Systems, in his foreword to the aforementioned SBS June 2009 FAA Airmen Registry Report. "Our tests ran for approximately two hours and yielded several alarming potential matches. After four days of further investigation, by just one member of our staff, a dozen matches were confirmed beyond any doubt," he noted. That was nearly a year and a half ago. Unfortunately, the FAA and TSA still have not cleaned up their act. In September 2010, Mr. Schiffer told The Enterprise Report that "despite the assurances of the TSA and FAA, nothing has changed since we first began exposing this issue last year." He went on to say that "despite the fact they we have identified over two-dozen suspect pilots with backgrounds who seem to clearly present a threat to aviation and national security, nothing seems to have changed." In a November 30 interview with The New American, Mr. Schffer said that it remains "astonishing" to him that the agencies involved have remained so resistant to change and continue to fail to plug the security gaps that SBS has exposed. "TSA says they scrub 4 million names a day with their system," he noted, but they still haven't revoked the licenses of dozens of individuals who SBS has exposed.

[vector7]

Janet Napolitano Considers Advanced Screenings for Mass Transit

Written by Raven Clabough

Saturday, 27 November 2010 11:00

Despite the public outcry against the virtual police state at airports, Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano indicates that she would like to see similar procedures utilized on trains, ships, and other varieties of mass transportation. Ironically, Napolitano made these statements after admitting that terrorists will eventually find a way past the naked-body scanners and enhanced pat-down procedures. Appearing on the Charlie Rose show on November 22, Napolitano said, “Terrorists are going to continue to probe the system and try to find a way through.” She added, “I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime. So what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there?” Later, an official at the Department of Homeland Security clarified that the use of the naked-body scanners at other mass transit facilities was not under consideration, as such procedures “would not be feasible in a system with hundreds or thousands of access points.” But what if it were "feasible" in such a system? Indeed, it may not be "feasible" for the TSA to virtually strip search every person using mass transit at every access point — but why wouldn't the abusive agency, which unapologetically uses full-body scanners to view the naked bodies of travelers at airports, use the mobile version of the technology to see through the clothes of unsuspecting passersby at mass transit facilities and elsewhere. In fact, it would be hard to imagine the TSA not doing this, considering that the full-body scan technology has already gone mobile! Napolitano’s announcements come at the height of criticism against the screening procedures used by the Transportation Security Administration at American airports, particularly the use of the naked-body scanners that penetrate an individual’s clothing and the enhanced pat-downs that under any other circumstance would be considered molestation under our laws. The images taken by naked-body scanners are so graphic that they cannot be shown on television without being censored. In addition to the explicit pictures taken by the machines, the scanners also release radiation that many contend (contrary to TSA denials) presents a health risk, particularly for those who fly repeatedly. The TSA and Department of Homeland Security claim that the screening procedures are necessary to prevent future terror attacks, but critics assert that terrorists will continue to find ways past security as innocent Americans are subjected to privacy violations prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. Defending the screening procedures, Napolitano remarked, “I really want to say, look, let’s be realistic and use our common sense. This is not about the government itself. We all have a role to play in security.” “And so I really regret some groups saying, ‘Well, we don’t want to be a part of that.’ I regret it because it’s not what we’re all about. What we’re all about is shared responsibility,” she added. But why would Americans "want to be a part of that"? Why would they want to accept the notion that every person should be viewed as a terror suspect — and therefore subjected to naked-body machines and groping — by their own government? And why wouldn't a government that fears its own citizens be feared by its citizens? Indeed, if the purpose is to provide legitimate security without sacrificing liberty in the process, why not try freedom? Why not end the TSA and its regulations so that the airlines and airports and others in the transportation sector can decide the best ways to protect their own passengers, employees, and property? AntiWar.com reports that it is unlikely Americans will have a change of heart over the invasive procedures. “It seems unlikely Napolitano’s comments, a combination of bureaucrat indifference and appeals to fear, are going to convince the public of the wisdom of the administration’s policies, but they do suggest that the Department of Homeland Security, itself a creation of Bush Administration paranoia, will not easily back down from its inexorable march toward more powers.” The security methods utilized by the TSA have provoked a variety of reactions, ranging from the introduction of a “National Opt-Out Day,” a day in which passengers were to opt out of the body scanners in protest, lawsuits, and public officials calling for an investigation into the efficiency and constitutionality of TSA’s procedures. Texas Representative Ron Paul even introduced a piece of legislation in response to the TSA’s privacy violations entitled the “American Traveler Dignity Act.” The public objection to the screening procedures prompted TSA head John Pistole to give a statement. On November 22, he claimed that he understands people’s privacy concerns and that the TSA would consider altering some of the procedures to make them “as minimally invasive as possible.” Pistole himself has been the subject of stark condemnation as critics complained that Americans should have been advised about the introduction of the naked-body scanners and enhanced pat-downs. Pistole claims, however, that he chose not to publicize the new techniques, lest terrorists would have time to make plans to circumvent the system — as if terrorists wouldn't find out about the techniques as soon as travelers were subjected to them. According to Fox News, regardless of the criticism, “The procedures may be on the rise. Senator Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, authored a bill in September that would allow testing of body scanners at certain federal buildings.” Napolitano continues to try to assure Americans that the screening procedures are short-term solutions, but given her long-term goals, one wonders how realistic it is to believe that the screening procedures will be phased out any time soon. “The long-term [question] is, how do we get out of this having to have an ever-increasing security apparatus because of terrorists and a terrorist attack? I think having a better understanding of what causes someone to become a terrorist will be helpful.” Recognizing that the Department of Homeland Security is nowhere near achieving that goal, Napolitano admits, “We don’t know much. If you were to try and devise a template about what connects this terrorist to this terrorist and how they were raised and what schools they went to and their socioeconomic status, or this or that, it’s all over the map. I think there’s some important work that’s being done on that but ... the Secretary of Homeland Security cannot wait for that.” In the meantime, Antiwar.com reports, “Public opposition to the TSA’s airport screenings have led a number of people to consider travel by other means, including trains, to avoid the screenings. It is noteworthy that the new talk about adding the scans to trains ... [has] only cropped up since people began looking to them as a way to avoid air travel.” And an official for the U.S. Travel Association noted, “We have received hundreds of emails and phone calls from travelers vowing to stop flying.” But what options would be available should the naked-body scanners become common throughout the transportation sector? Indeed, considering that the scanners can be used to see through walls as well as clothes, how can we even necessarily be secure from government snooping within our own homes?

[Backstop]

Not sure if you're familiar with Gerald Celente, but here he is on Fox News.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkiE-shfXnQ&feature=player_embedded

Here's his website:

http://www.trendsresearch.com/index.htm

[vector7]

TSA Breast Milk Screening Harassment Updated

New Mother Harassed and Threatened by TSA because she requests alternate screening for her breast milk. As a repeat traveler, the TSA singled her out to make an example out of her. She spends over an hour in the "Special Inspection" area and is forced to miss her flight.