Showing posts with label Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Show all posts
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Americans troubled more by governmental abuse than terrorism
RT: April 29, 2013 17:55
New polling numbers suggest that United States citizens are on average more afraid of their own government then the threat of another terrorist attack.
Even after a pair of bombings in Boston two weeks ago injured hundreds, more Americans say they are unwilling to sacrifice constitutional liberties for security than those who are.
A handful of polls conducted in the days after the Boston Marathon bombings show that US citizens are responding much differently than in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that killed roughly 3,000 people. Not only are Americans more opposed now to giving up personal freedoms for the sake of security than they were after 9/11, but other statistics show that distrust against the federal government continues to climb.
Just one day after the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing, pollsters with Fox News asked a sample of Americans, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?” Forty-three percent of the respondents said they would, while 45 percent said no. Comparatively, 71 percent of Americans asked a similar question in October 2001 said they’d be willing to give up personal freedoms, while only 20 percent opposed at the time.
In the dozen years since 9/11, frequent polling conducted by Fox has suggests that the majority of Americans have all the while said they’d give up their freedoms for the sake of security. Only with the latest inquiry though are those answers reversed: the last time a majority of Americans opposed giving up privacy for security was May 2001.
“Whether or not the government overreacted in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Americans then broadly supported a vigorous domestic counterterrorism policy,” Alan Rozenshtein writes for Lawfare Blog. “This time around, a rights-restrictive approach might not garner the same public support — if indeed that’s the road the government intends to go down.”
Indeed, a number of cities across the country have already asked for more surveillance cameras and other tactics that could be used to allegedly prevent acts of terror in the wake of the Boston bombing, but lawmakers in Washington have yet to impose the sort of restrictions on constitutional liberties that came in the aftermath of 9/11 — namely the PATROIT Act and the establishment of the US Department of Homeland Security and other agencies, including the Transportation Security Administration.
A separate poll conducted by the Washington Post just three days after the Boston Marathon bombing reveals that nearly half of those surveyed say that the government will go too far in trying to prevent future acts of terrorism. The Post asked a random national sample of 588 adults, “Which worries you more: that the government (will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights), or that it (will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism)?” Days after the Boston bombing, 41 percent of respondents said the government will not go far enough, compared to 48 percent saying they’ll go too far. When similar questions were asked in 2006 and 2010, 44 percent and 27 percent said the government will go too far, respectively, signaling that for the first time in years Americans are overly concerned about a misuse of power on the part of Washington.
That isn’t to say that the Boston attack is necessarily inspiring Americans to question authority, though. Two months before Tsarnaev brothers allegedly detonated a pair of explosives near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, 53 percent of Americans polled by the Pew Research Center said the federal government is threatening their personal rights and freedoms. In November 2011, that statistic was only 30 percent.
New polling numbers suggest that United States citizens are on average more afraid of their own government then the threat of another terrorist attack.
Even after a pair of bombings in Boston two weeks ago injured hundreds, more Americans say they are unwilling to sacrifice constitutional liberties for security than those who are.
A handful of polls conducted in the days after the Boston Marathon bombings show that US citizens are responding much differently than in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that killed roughly 3,000 people. Not only are Americans more opposed now to giving up personal freedoms for the sake of security than they were after 9/11, but other statistics show that distrust against the federal government continues to climb.
Just one day after the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing, pollsters with Fox News asked a sample of Americans, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?” Forty-three percent of the respondents said they would, while 45 percent said no. Comparatively, 71 percent of Americans asked a similar question in October 2001 said they’d be willing to give up personal freedoms, while only 20 percent opposed at the time.
In the dozen years since 9/11, frequent polling conducted by Fox has suggests that the majority of Americans have all the while said they’d give up their freedoms for the sake of security. Only with the latest inquiry though are those answers reversed: the last time a majority of Americans opposed giving up privacy for security was May 2001.
“Whether or not the government overreacted in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Americans then broadly supported a vigorous domestic counterterrorism policy,” Alan Rozenshtein writes for Lawfare Blog. “This time around, a rights-restrictive approach might not garner the same public support — if indeed that’s the road the government intends to go down.”
Indeed, a number of cities across the country have already asked for more surveillance cameras and other tactics that could be used to allegedly prevent acts of terror in the wake of the Boston bombing, but lawmakers in Washington have yet to impose the sort of restrictions on constitutional liberties that came in the aftermath of 9/11 — namely the PATROIT Act and the establishment of the US Department of Homeland Security and other agencies, including the Transportation Security Administration.
A separate poll conducted by the Washington Post just three days after the Boston Marathon bombing reveals that nearly half of those surveyed say that the government will go too far in trying to prevent future acts of terrorism. The Post asked a random national sample of 588 adults, “Which worries you more: that the government (will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights), or that it (will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism)?” Days after the Boston bombing, 41 percent of respondents said the government will not go far enough, compared to 48 percent saying they’ll go too far. When similar questions were asked in 2006 and 2010, 44 percent and 27 percent said the government will go too far, respectively, signaling that for the first time in years Americans are overly concerned about a misuse of power on the part of Washington.
That isn’t to say that the Boston attack is necessarily inspiring Americans to question authority, though. Two months before Tsarnaev brothers allegedly detonated a pair of explosives near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, 53 percent of Americans polled by the Pew Research Center said the federal government is threatening their personal rights and freedoms. In November 2011, that statistic was only 30 percent.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
911, Terrorism and the TSA
Stop-and-Frisk at the Airport Checkpoint
by ALAN FARAGO
I’ve been spending a lot of time in airports lately as a retail traveler. A lot of time waiting in lines to pass through TSA security checkpoints. Time watching a heavy-handed, cumbersome, Department of Motor Vehicles mentality that is the insistent marker of TSA checkpoints.
It is time to change how Americans are being herded into a national security landscape on the retail level, that seems hopelessly driven by a down-market bureaucracy.
True, there have been no airline hijackings in the US since 9/11/2001. But there would have been no 9/11 if our elected officials had been vigilant.
It was all there: the information, the data, the intel that al Qaeda was coordinating a major attack on US soil, as a New York Times editorial on the 9/11 anniversary, reminds us.
The other day my wife was singled out for a random security check at LAX. My wife is in her sixth decade. The check involved a TSA screener not only feeling her body, but also putting fingers along inside the waist hem of her blue jeans. Excuse me?
The 9/11 OPED in the New York Times by Kurt Eichenwald reminds that it was political incompetence in the months leading up to 9/11 that changed America. Today, what worries is that there is no road map for dialing back the unprecedented assault against American freedoms. Also, on the retail level, every time I travel through an airport I am reminded by the TSA how America became captives of its own political incompetence.
I am saying a couple of things. The explosion of domestic surveillance by the US national security apparatus has a very high likelihood of identifying terrorist plots within the United States before they are executed. Hopefully, top elected officials are more clued in than the Bush White House in the early months of 2001 when the signals were clear and ignored.
Meanwhile, the chance of the TSA stopping a determined and sophisticated terrorist attack is, in my opinion, very small. So why are we all being herded in long lines like cattle in chutes?
The probability of identifying every plot against citizens may never be better than predicting the weather. So why do we behave as though we can, under the bureaucratic gaze of the TSA?
The problem that overshadows even those threats that are real and present is that a ponderous, wealthy and cosseted security infrastructure is now self-sustaining. How do Americans back it down? I am waiting for Congress and the White House to say, “We’ve proved our point with the TSA: now it is time to be vigilant and focused on airline security, but no more waiting in lines at airports.”
Is it even possible to ratchet back, when every vested interest in national security spending and infrastructure has set its alarm bell to ring, at the first hint, scent or indication of a calamity averted or caused?
I don’t mean to minimize the facts of 9/11, the desperate costs, and tragedy imprinted on families and nation. But every time I travel, part of me surveys the TSA security checkpoints and thinks, the bad guys won.
The bad guys not only put us on the defensive, they have apparently done so permanently. Al Qaeda used box cutters to rearrange the playing field so our democratic freedoms now conform with the same instinct that organizes their hatreds. We are victims, too, taking off our shoes, belts, and removing all coins from our pockets.
On the one hand, I understand that the TSA security checkpoints are a price we pay for a world made small by technology and freedom of access and movement to anyone with an airline ticket and identification. How would I like being on a passenger flight commandeered by terrorists because we “let down our guard”? Not at all. On the other hand, we are fully invested in the dark arts of identifying and killing terrorists around the world.
Tear down those TSA checkpoints, Congress.
Keeping America safe from terrorism depends, in the end, on a few elected officials paying attention and not falling asleep or declaring the wrong missions, accomplished, when they weren’t even identified to being with. Stopping the next 9/11 is consuming billions if not hundreds of billions of tax dollars. TSA security checkpoints are as effective as putting your seat in the upright position on take-off and landing. They make us do it so we will be conditioned to accept the next words of authority. It is the same, with the TSA whether we know it or not.
by ALAN FARAGO
I’ve been spending a lot of time in airports lately as a retail traveler. A lot of time waiting in lines to pass through TSA security checkpoints. Time watching a heavy-handed, cumbersome, Department of Motor Vehicles mentality that is the insistent marker of TSA checkpoints.
It is time to change how Americans are being herded into a national security landscape on the retail level, that seems hopelessly driven by a down-market bureaucracy.
True, there have been no airline hijackings in the US since 9/11/2001. But there would have been no 9/11 if our elected officials had been vigilant.
It was all there: the information, the data, the intel that al Qaeda was coordinating a major attack on US soil, as a New York Times editorial on the 9/11 anniversary, reminds us.
The other day my wife was singled out for a random security check at LAX. My wife is in her sixth decade. The check involved a TSA screener not only feeling her body, but also putting fingers along inside the waist hem of her blue jeans. Excuse me?
The 9/11 OPED in the New York Times by Kurt Eichenwald reminds that it was political incompetence in the months leading up to 9/11 that changed America. Today, what worries is that there is no road map for dialing back the unprecedented assault against American freedoms. Also, on the retail level, every time I travel through an airport I am reminded by the TSA how America became captives of its own political incompetence.
I am saying a couple of things. The explosion of domestic surveillance by the US national security apparatus has a very high likelihood of identifying terrorist plots within the United States before they are executed. Hopefully, top elected officials are more clued in than the Bush White House in the early months of 2001 when the signals were clear and ignored.
Meanwhile, the chance of the TSA stopping a determined and sophisticated terrorist attack is, in my opinion, very small. So why are we all being herded in long lines like cattle in chutes?
The probability of identifying every plot against citizens may never be better than predicting the weather. So why do we behave as though we can, under the bureaucratic gaze of the TSA?
The problem that overshadows even those threats that are real and present is that a ponderous, wealthy and cosseted security infrastructure is now self-sustaining. How do Americans back it down? I am waiting for Congress and the White House to say, “We’ve proved our point with the TSA: now it is time to be vigilant and focused on airline security, but no more waiting in lines at airports.”
Is it even possible to ratchet back, when every vested interest in national security spending and infrastructure has set its alarm bell to ring, at the first hint, scent or indication of a calamity averted or caused?
I don’t mean to minimize the facts of 9/11, the desperate costs, and tragedy imprinted on families and nation. But every time I travel, part of me surveys the TSA security checkpoints and thinks, the bad guys won.
The bad guys not only put us on the defensive, they have apparently done so permanently. Al Qaeda used box cutters to rearrange the playing field so our democratic freedoms now conform with the same instinct that organizes their hatreds. We are victims, too, taking off our shoes, belts, and removing all coins from our pockets.
On the one hand, I understand that the TSA security checkpoints are a price we pay for a world made small by technology and freedom of access and movement to anyone with an airline ticket and identification. How would I like being on a passenger flight commandeered by terrorists because we “let down our guard”? Not at all. On the other hand, we are fully invested in the dark arts of identifying and killing terrorists around the world.
Tear down those TSA checkpoints, Congress.
Keeping America safe from terrorism depends, in the end, on a few elected officials paying attention and not falling asleep or declaring the wrong missions, accomplished, when they weren’t even identified to being with. Stopping the next 9/11 is consuming billions if not hundreds of billions of tax dollars. TSA security checkpoints are as effective as putting your seat in the upright position on take-off and landing. They make us do it so we will be conditioned to accept the next words of authority. It is the same, with the TSA whether we know it or not.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Documents show TSA intends to deploy body scanners at Rail, Bus, Ferry terminals
this is WAY too much.--jef
Banoosh
Yet more documents uncovered under the Freedom of Information Act have revealed that in the year prior to rolling out radiation body scanners in airports, the TSA was drawing up long term plans to deploy the machines at “ferry terminals, railway, and mass transit stations” as well as unspecified “other locations.”
The documents, dating from 2008 were released to engineer Jon Corbett who made headlines last year by infamously posted a video of himself demonstrating how the body scanners can easily be bypassed.
“You can expect [the scanners] at train stations, bus stations, subways, highways, cruise ships, and anywhere that “transportation” happens (i.e., everywhere).” Corbett writes. “And, where the body scanners go, so does the groping, since the body scanners have at least a 40% false positive rate which needs to be resolved by blue-gloved gestapo,” he adds.
The documents also detail the fact that the TSA refused to conduct any form of study on what effect the radiation firing scanners would have on the environments they are placed into.
Indeed, the DHS specifically issued an order “exempting” the scanners from environmental review.
HIGHLIGHTS
Scrutiny over radiation exposure was heightened last year following apparent efforts by the TSA to cover-up a “cluster” of cancer cases amongst scanner operators at Boston-Logan airport.
According to FOIA documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), when Union representatives in Boston discovered a “cancer cluster” amongst TSA workers linked with radiation from the body scanners, the TSA sought to downplay the matter and refused to issue employees with dosimeters to measure levels of exposure. infowars.com
The documents indicated how, “A large number of TSA workers have been falling victim to cancer, strokes and heart disease.”
In addition, further documents obtained by EPIC show how the TSA “publicly mischaracterized” findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in stating that the agency had positively confirmed the safety of full body scanners in tests.
Meanwhile, previous EPIC FOIA work also produced records showing that
the DHS is actively moving to install radiation firing scanners in all
manner of public places.
The technologies include “intelligent video,” backscatter x-ray, Millimeter Wave Radar, and Terahertz Wave, and could be deployed at subway platforms, sidewalks, sports arenas, and shopping malls.
EPIC filed a specific lawsuit against the DHS for attempting to keep the program secret.
Banoosh
Yet more documents uncovered under the Freedom of Information Act have revealed that in the year prior to rolling out radiation body scanners in airports, the TSA was drawing up long term plans to deploy the machines at “ferry terminals, railway, and mass transit stations” as well as unspecified “other locations.”
The documents, dating from 2008 were released to engineer Jon Corbett who made headlines last year by infamously posted a video of himself demonstrating how the body scanners can easily be bypassed.
“You can expect [the scanners] at train stations, bus stations, subways, highways, cruise ships, and anywhere that “transportation” happens (i.e., everywhere).” Corbett writes. “And, where the body scanners go, so does the groping, since the body scanners have at least a 40% false positive rate which needs to be resolved by blue-gloved gestapo,” he adds.
The documents also detail the fact that the TSA refused to conduct any form of study on what effect the radiation firing scanners would have on the environments they are placed into.
Indeed, the DHS specifically issued an order “exempting” the scanners from environmental review.
HIGHLIGHTS
Scrutiny over radiation exposure was heightened last year following apparent efforts by the TSA to cover-up a “cluster” of cancer cases amongst scanner operators at Boston-Logan airport.
According to FOIA documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), when Union representatives in Boston discovered a “cancer cluster” amongst TSA workers linked with radiation from the body scanners, the TSA sought to downplay the matter and refused to issue employees with dosimeters to measure levels of exposure. infowars.com
The documents indicated how, “A large number of TSA workers have been falling victim to cancer, strokes and heart disease.”
In addition, further documents obtained by EPIC show how the TSA “publicly mischaracterized” findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in stating that the agency had positively confirmed the safety of full body scanners in tests.
The technologies include “intelligent video,” backscatter x-ray, Millimeter Wave Radar, and Terahertz Wave, and could be deployed at subway platforms, sidewalks, sports arenas, and shopping malls.
EPIC filed a specific lawsuit against the DHS for attempting to keep the program secret.
Friday, May 18, 2012
No Freedoms to Hate Us For Anymore
Remember that they (the evil ones) hate our freedoms.
Remember, too, that in the aftermath of 9/11, the war criminals told us this repeatedly. Here’s an example from George W. Bush:
Recall the words Barack Obama spoke during his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech:
Now, make note that the United States has departments and legislation to protect freedom to prevent the evil ones from inflicting harm. Here’s a list:
I just took a break from writing this, checked my mail, and read the following from Free Press:
After 9/11, fear and loss-of-liberty threats became a perfect petri dish for the corporatocracy and a miasma of secrecy, surveillance, intimidation, punitive measures, and endless war.
Pay close attention to the “Police Forces” section in the Wikipedia piece. Along with this and all of the above, the truth about this freedom-hating propaganda strobe lights the impoverishment of loss. So many of the hallowed freedoms have been eliminated by the real enemies—Wall Street criminals and their puppets who reside in US government positions of “leadership.”
If “they” attacked us only because they hated our freedoms, there’s nothing to hate anymore.
Remember, too, that in the aftermath of 9/11, the war criminals told us this repeatedly. Here’s an example from George W. Bush:
And another:They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.
Remember, too, that this freedom, inspiring all that hatred, is enshrined in the Constitution:We must be strong and we must be decisive. We must stop the evil ones, so our children and grandchildren can know peace and security and freedom in the greatest nation on the face of the Earth… We know we’re one people; we know we’re one country. We’re united from coast to coast by a determination and a firm resolve to see that right prevails.
Remember that the words “freedom” and “evil ones” also are enshrined in the language of corporate media “stars” and politicians.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Recall the words Barack Obama spoke during his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech:
There’s the word “freedom” again. But in this paragraph, it refers to providing liberty to those whose countries we invade and occupy because we “seek” whatever (?) good transpires from granting “freedom and prosperity” to others.The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
Now, make note that the United States has departments and legislation to protect freedom to prevent the evil ones from inflicting harm. Here’s a list:
And think about the NATO Summit in Chicago—May 20th and 21st. But first read an article by John LaForge for a stomach-lurching look at NATO’s “mission accomplishments”.Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
Total Information Awareness (TIA)
Patriot Act
Military Commissions Act
Homegrown Terrorism Act
House Resolution 347
National Defense Authorization Act
I just took a break from writing this, checked my mail, and read the following from Free Press:
Whether you’re a credentialed journalist, a protester or a bystander with a smartphone, you are guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of access to information. Your right to document public events must also be protected.
Unfortunately, not everyone sees it this way. Conflicts are escalating between those trying to bear witness on one side and local police and government officials on the other. All too often, the First Amendment is caught in the middle.
But Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has put his official boot on this prerogative (the freedom for which the evil ones hate us) with certain ordinances that will remain in force after the summit:As protests and election-year events unfold in 2012, we must guard these rights and protect the networks that help us voice our political beliefs. Our First Amendment right to record must extend to everyone.
- Authorization for the Mayor to purchase and deploy surveillance cameras throughout the city, without any type of oversight.
- Restrictions on public activity, including amplified sound and morning gatherings.
- Restrictions on parades, including the requirement to purchase an insurance policy worth $1 million and to register every sign or banner that will be held by more than one person.
- The power to deputize many different types of law enforcement personnel other than the Chicago Police Department.
After 9/11, fear and loss-of-liberty threats became a perfect petri dish for the corporatocracy and a miasma of secrecy, surveillance, intimidation, punitive measures, and endless war.
Pay close attention to the “Police Forces” section in the Wikipedia piece. Along with this and all of the above, the truth about this freedom-hating propaganda strobe lights the impoverishment of loss. So many of the hallowed freedoms have been eliminated by the real enemies—Wall Street criminals and their puppets who reside in US government positions of “leadership.”
If “they” attacked us only because they hated our freedoms, there’s nothing to hate anymore.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Woman claims TSA molested her during pat-down
And watch how the TSA threatens the guy filming the whole thing.
Friday, December 23, 2011
TSA screenings aren't just for airports anymore
Roving security teams increasingly visit train stations, subways and other mass transit sites to deter terrorism. Critics say it's largely political theater.
Three federal air marshals in bulletproof vests and two officers trained to spot suspicious behavior watched closely as Seiko, a German shepherd, nosed Vetter's trousers for chemical traces of a bomb. Radiation detectors carried by the marshals scanned the 57-year-old lawyer for concealed nuclear materials.
When Seiko indicated a scent, his handler, Julian Swaringen, asked Vetter whether he had pets at home in Garner, N.C. Two mutts, Vetter replied. "You can go ahead," Swaringen said.
The Transportation Security Administration isn't just in airports anymore. TSA teams are increasingly conducting searches and screenings at train stations, subways, ferry terminals and other mass transit locations around the country.
"We are not the Airport Security Administration," said Ray Dineen, the air marshal in charge of the TSA office in Charlotte. "We take that transportation part seriously."
The TSA's 25 "viper" teams — for Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response — have run more than 9,300 unannounced checkpoints and other search operations in the last year. Department of Homeland Security officials have asked Congress for funding to add 12 more teams next year.
According to budget documents, the department spent $110 million in fiscal 2011 for "surface transportation security," including the TSA's viper program, and is asking for an additional $24 million next year. That compares with more than $5 billion for aviation security.
TSA officials say they have no proof that the roving viper teams have foiled any terrorist plots or thwarted any major threat to public safety. But they argue that the random nature of the searches and the presence of armed officers serve as a deterrent and bolster public confidence.
"We have to keep them [terrorists] on edge," said Frank Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University in Washington. "We're not going to have a permanent presence everywhere."
U.S. officials note that digital files recovered from Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan after he was killed by U.S. Navy SEALs in May included evidence that the Al Qaeda leader had considered an attack on U.S. railways in February 2010. Over the last decade, deadly bombings have hit subways or trains in Moscow; Mumbai, India; Madrid; and London.
But critics say that without a clear threat, the TSA checkpoints are merely political theater. Privacy advocates worry that the agency is stretching legal limits on the government's right to search U.S. citizens without probable cause — and with no proof that the scattershot checkpoints help prevent attacks.
"It's a great way to make the public think you are doing something," said Fred H. Cate, a professor at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, who writes on privacy and security. "It's a little like saying, 'If we start throwing things up in the air, will they hit terrorists?' ''
Such criticism is nothing new to the TSA.
The agency came under fresh fire this month when three elderly women with medical devices complained that TSA agents had strip-searched them in separate incidents at John F. Kennedy International Airport. Lenore Zimmerman, 84, said she was ordered to pull down her pants after she refused to pass through a full body scanner because she was afraid the machine would interfere with her heart defibrillator.
TSA officials denied the women were strip-searched, but they announced plans to create a toll-free telephone number for passengers with medical conditions who require assistance in airport screening lines. TSA officials said they also are considering a proposal by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to designate a passengers advocate at every airport.
The TSA's viper program hasn't drawn that kind of attention, although it is increasingly active.
In Tennessee in October, a viper team used radiation monitors and explosive-trace detectors to help state police inspect trucks at highway weigh stations throughout the state. Last month in Orlando, Fla., a team set up metal detectors at a Greyhound bus station and tested passengers' bags for explosive residue.
In the Carolinas this year, TSA teams have checked people at the gangplanks of cruise ships, the entrance to NASCAR races, and at ferry terminals taking tourists to the Outer Banks.
At the Charlotte train station on Dec. 11, Seiko, the bomb-sniffing dog, snuffled down a line of about 100 passengers waiting to board an eastbound train. Many were heading home after watching the Charlotte Panthers NFL team lose to the Atlanta Falcons after holding a 16-point lead.
No one seemed especially perturbed by the TSA team.
"It's probably overkill," said Karen Stone, 26, after a behavior-detection officer asked her about the Panthers game and her trip home to Raleigh.
"It's cool," said Marcus Baldwin, 21, who was heading home to Mebane, near Burlington, where he waits tables to help pay for computer technology classes. "They're doing what our tax money is paying them to do."
"I'm mostly curious," said Barbara Spencer, 75, who was heading home to Chapel Hill after watching her grandson perform in a Christmas play. She asked the officers whether a terrorist threat had required the extra security. No, they replied.
Vetter, the lawyer, had attended the game with his son, Noah. They jogged for the train after Seiko had finished his sniff, but Vetter had bigger worries on his mind. "The Panthers blew it," he said.
Reporting from Charlotte, N.C.—Rick Vetter was rushing to board the Amtrak train in Charlotte, N.C., on a recent Sunday afternoon when a canine officer suddenly blocked the way.
Three federal air marshals in bulletproof vests and two officers trained to spot suspicious behavior watched closely as Seiko, a German shepherd, nosed Vetter's trousers for chemical traces of a bomb. Radiation detectors carried by the marshals scanned the 57-year-old lawyer for concealed nuclear materials.
When Seiko indicated a scent, his handler, Julian Swaringen, asked Vetter whether he had pets at home in Garner, N.C. Two mutts, Vetter replied. "You can go ahead," Swaringen said.
The Transportation Security Administration isn't just in airports anymore. TSA teams are increasingly conducting searches and screenings at train stations, subways, ferry terminals and other mass transit locations around the country.
"We are not the Airport Security Administration," said Ray Dineen, the air marshal in charge of the TSA office in Charlotte. "We take that transportation part seriously."
The TSA's 25 "viper" teams — for Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response — have run more than 9,300 unannounced checkpoints and other search operations in the last year. Department of Homeland Security officials have asked Congress for funding to add 12 more teams next year.
According to budget documents, the department spent $110 million in fiscal 2011 for "surface transportation security," including the TSA's viper program, and is asking for an additional $24 million next year. That compares with more than $5 billion for aviation security.
TSA officials say they have no proof that the roving viper teams have foiled any terrorist plots or thwarted any major threat to public safety. But they argue that the random nature of the searches and the presence of armed officers serve as a deterrent and bolster public confidence.
"We have to keep them [terrorists] on edge," said Frank Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University in Washington. "We're not going to have a permanent presence everywhere."
U.S. officials note that digital files recovered from Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan after he was killed by U.S. Navy SEALs in May included evidence that the Al Qaeda leader had considered an attack on U.S. railways in February 2010. Over the last decade, deadly bombings have hit subways or trains in Moscow; Mumbai, India; Madrid; and London.
But critics say that without a clear threat, the TSA checkpoints are merely political theater. Privacy advocates worry that the agency is stretching legal limits on the government's right to search U.S. citizens without probable cause — and with no proof that the scattershot checkpoints help prevent attacks.
"It's a great way to make the public think you are doing something," said Fred H. Cate, a professor at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, who writes on privacy and security. "It's a little like saying, 'If we start throwing things up in the air, will they hit terrorists?' ''
Such criticism is nothing new to the TSA.
The agency came under fresh fire this month when three elderly women with medical devices complained that TSA agents had strip-searched them in separate incidents at John F. Kennedy International Airport. Lenore Zimmerman, 84, said she was ordered to pull down her pants after she refused to pass through a full body scanner because she was afraid the machine would interfere with her heart defibrillator.
TSA officials denied the women were strip-searched, but they announced plans to create a toll-free telephone number for passengers with medical conditions who require assistance in airport screening lines. TSA officials said they also are considering a proposal by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to designate a passengers advocate at every airport.
The TSA's viper program hasn't drawn that kind of attention, although it is increasingly active.
In Tennessee in October, a viper team used radiation monitors and explosive-trace detectors to help state police inspect trucks at highway weigh stations throughout the state. Last month in Orlando, Fla., a team set up metal detectors at a Greyhound bus station and tested passengers' bags for explosive residue.
In the Carolinas this year, TSA teams have checked people at the gangplanks of cruise ships, the entrance to NASCAR races, and at ferry terminals taking tourists to the Outer Banks.
At the Charlotte train station on Dec. 11, Seiko, the bomb-sniffing dog, snuffled down a line of about 100 passengers waiting to board an eastbound train. Many were heading home after watching the Charlotte Panthers NFL team lose to the Atlanta Falcons after holding a 16-point lead.
No one seemed especially perturbed by the TSA team.
"It's probably overkill," said Karen Stone, 26, after a behavior-detection officer asked her about the Panthers game and her trip home to Raleigh.
"It's cool," said Marcus Baldwin, 21, who was heading home to Mebane, near Burlington, where he waits tables to help pay for computer technology classes. "They're doing what our tax money is paying them to do."
"I'm mostly curious," said Barbara Spencer, 75, who was heading home to Chapel Hill after watching her grandson perform in a Christmas play. She asked the officers whether a terrorist threat had required the extra security. No, they replied.
Vetter, the lawyer, had attended the game with his son, Noah. They jogged for the train after Seiko had finished his sniff, but Vetter had bigger worries on his mind. "The Panthers blew it," he said.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
VIPR: America's new federal goon squad?
The 20th Century socialist thugocracies of Europe were infested with the likes of vicious Gestapo, Stasi and KGB secret police organs. (Yes, they were all de facto variations of socialism no matter that they called themselves Nazi, communist, fascist, or Glorious People's Republic.)
The Transportation Security Administration has taken a giant step towards mutating itself into America's first truly statist/socialist/fascist federal goon squad: VIPR.
Stupid even by acronym-obsessed federalcrat standards, the Fifties-motorcycle-gang-sounding VIPR stands for Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response, something only a career bureau slug could dream up.
It's no longer enough for TSA agents to stand in airports and simply grope and irradiate women with breast cancer, children in strollers and old men in wheelchairs. Now they have to take their fake "security" act on the road to bus stations and railroad depots and truck weigh stations and…
…and an interstate off ramp roadblock near you?
Why not? Who's going to stop them from treating every motorist in the privacy of their own vehicles as potential terror perps?
What's next, bashing down our doors so they can cop a feel?
One person who isn't playing sitting duck for these Intermodal Mobsters is James Wilson, Policy Research Director at DownsizeDC.org.
"As illustrated in Tennessee this week," Wilson writes in the organization's emailed Downsizer Dispatch Newsletter, "VIPR deploys TSA agents and works with local law enforcement to stop and search people who are doing nothing suspicious."
Wilson is asking everyone to do what he has already done: "I told Congress to get the TSA out of our lives by abolishing it."
He wants everyone to swamp their "representatives" in DC with angry emails.
You can begin with his hardwired message that reads, "Please abolish the TSA, and permit airlines to provide their own security plans," continue writing your own message, and then send it to your congresscrat right from the DownsizeDC website using their "Educate the Powerful System."
After showing up at the Super Bowl, searching students going to their prom, arresting a man for a small amount of marijuana, deporting three teenagers at a trolley stop after apprehending them on their way to school, Wilson accuses the TSA-turned-VIPR with an ugly, ulterior motive: "This tells me the TSA's purpose is not to protect us from terrorism, but to be deployed as a national police force to enforce federal laws."
VIPR: Vulgar Imperial Police Rabble.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Europe Bans X-Ray Body Scanners Used at U.S. Airports
(But they pose no health risk, we were told in the US by the proper authorities...were they dishonest..?--jef)
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 by ProPublica
The European Union on Monday prohibited the use of X-ray body scanners
in European airports, parting ways with the U.S. Transportation
Security Administration, which has deployed hundreds of the scanners as a
way to screen millions of airline passengers for explosives hidden
under clothing.
The European Commission, which enforces common policies of the EU's 27 member countries, adopted the rule “in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens’ health and safety.”
As a ProPublica/PBS NewsHour investigation detailed earlier this month, X-ray body scanners use ionizing radiation, a form of energy that has been shown to damage DNA and cause cancer. Although the amount of radiation is extremely low several research studies have concluded that a number of cancer cases would result from scanning hundreds of millions of passengers a year.
European countries will be allowed to use an alternative body scanner, on that relies on radio frequency waves, which have not been linked to cancer. The TSA has also deployed hundreds of those machines – known as millimeter-wave scanners – in U.S. airports. But unlike Europe, it has decided to deploy both types of scanners.
The TSA would not comment specifically on the EU’s decision. But in a statement, TSA spokesman Mike McCarthy said, “As one of our many layers of security, TSA deploys the most advanced technology available to provide the best opportunity to detect dangerous items, such as explosives.
“We rigorously test our technology to ensure it meets our high detection and safety standards before it is placed in airports,” he continued. “Since January 2010, advanced imaging technology has detected more than 300 dangerous or illegal items on passengers in U.S. airports nationwide.”
Body scanners have been controversial in the United States since they were first deployed in prisons in the late 1990s and then in airports for tests after 9/11. Most of the controversy has focused on privacy because the machines can produce graphic images. But the manufacturers have since installed privacy filters.
As the TSA began deploying hundreds of body scanners after the failed underwear bombing on Christmas Day 2009, several scientists began to raise concerns about the health risks of the X-ray scanner, noting that even low levels of radiation would increase the risk of cancer.
As part of our investigation, ProPublica surveyed foreign countries’ security policies and found that only a few nations used the X-ray scanner. The United Kingdom uses them but only for secondary screening, such as when a passenger triggers the metal detector or raises suspicion.
Under the new European Commission policy, the U.K. will be allowed to complete a trial of the X-ray scanners but not to deploy them on a permanent basis when the trial ends, said Helen Kearns, spokeswoman for the European transport commissioner, Siim Kallas.
“These new rules ensure that where this technology is used it will be covered by EU-wide standards on detection capability as well as strict safeguards to protect health and fundamental rights,” Kallas said.
Five-hundred body scanners, split about evenly between the two technologies, are deployed in U.S. airports. The X-ray scanner, or backscatter, which looks like two large blue boxes, is used at major airports, including Los Angeles International Airport, John F. Kennedy in New York and Chicago's O’Hare. The millimeter-wave scanner, which looks like a round glass booth, is used in San Francisco, Atlanta and Dallas.
Within three years, the TSA plans to deploy 1,800 backscatter and millimeter-wave scanners, covering nearly every domestic airport security lane. The TSA has not yet released details on the exact breakdown.
The European Commission, which enforces common policies of the EU's 27 member countries, adopted the rule “in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens’ health and safety.”
As a ProPublica/PBS NewsHour investigation detailed earlier this month, X-ray body scanners use ionizing radiation, a form of energy that has been shown to damage DNA and cause cancer. Although the amount of radiation is extremely low several research studies have concluded that a number of cancer cases would result from scanning hundreds of millions of passengers a year.
European countries will be allowed to use an alternative body scanner, on that relies on radio frequency waves, which have not been linked to cancer. The TSA has also deployed hundreds of those machines – known as millimeter-wave scanners – in U.S. airports. But unlike Europe, it has decided to deploy both types of scanners.
The TSA would not comment specifically on the EU’s decision. But in a statement, TSA spokesman Mike McCarthy said, “As one of our many layers of security, TSA deploys the most advanced technology available to provide the best opportunity to detect dangerous items, such as explosives.
“We rigorously test our technology to ensure it meets our high detection and safety standards before it is placed in airports,” he continued. “Since January 2010, advanced imaging technology has detected more than 300 dangerous or illegal items on passengers in U.S. airports nationwide.”
Body scanners have been controversial in the United States since they were first deployed in prisons in the late 1990s and then in airports for tests after 9/11. Most of the controversy has focused on privacy because the machines can produce graphic images. But the manufacturers have since installed privacy filters.
As the TSA began deploying hundreds of body scanners after the failed underwear bombing on Christmas Day 2009, several scientists began to raise concerns about the health risks of the X-ray scanner, noting that even low levels of radiation would increase the risk of cancer.
As part of our investigation, ProPublica surveyed foreign countries’ security policies and found that only a few nations used the X-ray scanner. The United Kingdom uses them but only for secondary screening, such as when a passenger triggers the metal detector or raises suspicion.
Under the new European Commission policy, the U.K. will be allowed to complete a trial of the X-ray scanners but not to deploy them on a permanent basis when the trial ends, said Helen Kearns, spokeswoman for the European transport commissioner, Siim Kallas.
“These new rules ensure that where this technology is used it will be covered by EU-wide standards on detection capability as well as strict safeguards to protect health and fundamental rights,” Kallas said.
Five-hundred body scanners, split about evenly between the two technologies, are deployed in U.S. airports. The X-ray scanner, or backscatter, which looks like two large blue boxes, is used at major airports, including Los Angeles International Airport, John F. Kennedy in New York and Chicago's O’Hare. The millimeter-wave scanner, which looks like a round glass booth, is used in San Francisco, Atlanta and Dallas.
Within three years, the TSA plans to deploy 1,800 backscatter and millimeter-wave scanners, covering nearly every domestic airport security lane. The TSA has not yet released details on the exact breakdown.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Homeland Security moves forward with 'pre-crime' detection
By: Declan McCullagh October 7, 2011 CNET
An internal U.S. Department of Homeland Security document indicates that a controversial program designed to predict whether a person will commit a crime is already being tested on some members of the public voluntarily, CNET has learned.
If this sounds a bit like the Tom Cruise movie called "Minority Report," or the CBS drama "Person of Interest," it is. But where Minority Report author Philip K. Dick enlisted psychics to predict crimes, DHS is betting on algorithms: it's building a "prototype screening facility" that it hopes will use factors such as ethnicity, gender, breathing, and heart rate to "detect cues indicative of mal-intent."
The latest developments, which reveal efforts to "collect, process, or retain information on" members of "the public," came to light through an internal DHS document obtained under open-government laws by the Electronic Privacy Information Center. DHS calls its "pre-crime" system Future Attribute Screening Technology, or FAST.
"If it were deployed against the public, it would be very problematic," says Ginger McCall, open government counsel at EPIC, a nonprofit group in Washington, D.C.
It's unclear why the June 2010 DHS document (PDF) specified that information is currently collected or retained on members of "the public" as part of FAST, and a department representative declined to answer questions that CNET posed two days ago.
Elsewhere in the document, FAST program manager Robert Middleton Jr. refers to a "limited" initial trial using DHS employees as test subjects. Middleton says that FAST "sensors will non-intrusively collect video images, audio recordings, and psychophysiological measurements from the employees," with a subgroup of employees singled out, with their permission, for more rigorous evaluation.
An internal U.S. Department of Homeland Security document indicates that a controversial program designed to predict whether a person will commit a crime is already being tested on some members of the public voluntarily, CNET has learned.
If this sounds a bit like the Tom Cruise movie called "Minority Report," or the CBS drama "Person of Interest," it is. But where Minority Report author Philip K. Dick enlisted psychics to predict crimes, DHS is betting on algorithms: it's building a "prototype screening facility" that it hopes will use factors such as ethnicity, gender, breathing, and heart rate to "detect cues indicative of mal-intent."
The latest developments, which reveal efforts to "collect, process, or retain information on" members of "the public," came to light through an internal DHS document obtained under open-government laws by the Electronic Privacy Information Center. DHS calls its "pre-crime" system Future Attribute Screening Technology, or FAST.
"If it were deployed against the public, it would be very problematic," says Ginger McCall, open government counsel at EPIC, a nonprofit group in Washington, D.C.
It's unclear why the June 2010 DHS document (PDF) specified that information is currently collected or retained on members of "the public" as part of FAST, and a department representative declined to answer questions that CNET posed two days ago.
Elsewhere in the document, FAST program manager Robert Middleton Jr. refers to a "limited" initial trial using DHS employees as test subjects. Middleton says that FAST "sensors will non-intrusively collect video images, audio recordings, and psychophysiological measurements from the employees," with a subgroup of employees singled out, with their permission, for more rigorous evaluation.
Peter Boogaard, the deputy press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, provided a statement to CNET that said:
A field test of FAST has been conducted in at least one undisclosed location in the northeast. "It is not an airport, but it is a large venue that is a suitable substitute for an operational setting," DHS spokesman John Verrico told Nature.com in May.
Although DHS has publicly suggested that FAST could be used at airport checkpoints--the Transportation Security Administration is part of the department, after all--the government appears to have grander ambitions. One internal DHS document (PDF) also obtained by EPIC through the Freedom of Information Act says a mobile version of FAST "could be used at security checkpoints such as border crossings or at large public events such as sporting events or conventions."
It also says that the next field trial of FAST will involve members of the public who "have food service experience" and are paid "to work at a one day VIP event." Most of the document is redacted, but each person is apparently told to act normally or to do something demonstrating "mal-intent," such as being told to smuggle a recording device into the VIP event. The trick, then, is to see if FAST can detect which is which.
It's not clear whether these people were informed that they're participating in a FAST study.
McCall, the EPIC attorney who has been pressing the department to obtain these internal documents, said it's time for the DHS Privacy Office to review the current state of the FAST project. What appears to be the most recent privacy analysis (PDF) was completed in December 2008 and contemplates using "volunteer participants" who have given their "informed consent."
"They should do a privacy impact assessment," McCall said.
DHS is being unusually secretive about FAST. A February 2010 contract (PDF) with Cambridge, Mass.-based Draper Laboratory to build elements of the "pre-crime" system has every dollar figure blacked out (a fleeting reference to an "infrared camera" remained).
Relying on ambiguous biological factors to predict mal-intent is worrisome, says McCall. "Especially if they're going to be rolling this out at the airport. I don't know about you, but going to an airport gives me a minor panic attack, wondering if I'm going to get groped by a TSA officer."
Update : A Homeland Security spokesman has just provided this additional statement to CNET: "The FAST program is entirely voluntary and does not store any personally-identifiable information (PII) from participants once the experiment is completed. The system is not designed to capture or store PII. Any information that is gathered is stored under an anonymous identifier and is only available to DHS as aggregated performance data. It is only used for laboratory protocol as we are doing research and development. It is gathered when people sign up as volunteers, not by the FAST system. If it were ever to be deployed, there would be no PII captured from people going through the system." (The DHS Privacy Office has said that the system does contain personally-identifiable information and that FAST "is a privacy sensitive system." DHS defines a privacy sensitive system as "any system that collects, uses, disseminates, or maintains" personally-identifiable information.
The department's Science and Technology Directorate has conducted preliminary research in operational settings to determine the feasibility of using non-invasive physiological and behavioral sensor technology and observational techniques to detect signs of stress, which are often associated with intent to do harm. The FAST program is only in the preliminary stages of research and there are no plans for acquiring or deploying this type of technology at this time.FAST is designed to track and monitor, among other inputs, body movements, voice pitch changes, prosody changes (alterations in the rhythm and intonation of speech), eye movements, body heat changes, and breathing patterns. Occupation and age are also considered. A government source told CNET that blink rate and pupil variation are measured too.
A field test of FAST has been conducted in at least one undisclosed location in the northeast. "It is not an airport, but it is a large venue that is a suitable substitute for an operational setting," DHS spokesman John Verrico told Nature.com in May.
Although DHS has publicly suggested that FAST could be used at airport checkpoints--the Transportation Security Administration is part of the department, after all--the government appears to have grander ambitions. One internal DHS document (PDF) also obtained by EPIC through the Freedom of Information Act says a mobile version of FAST "could be used at security checkpoints such as border crossings or at large public events such as sporting events or conventions."
It's not clear whether these people were informed that they're participating in a FAST study.
McCall, the EPIC attorney who has been pressing the department to obtain these internal documents, said it's time for the DHS Privacy Office to review the current state of the FAST project. What appears to be the most recent privacy analysis (PDF) was completed in December 2008 and contemplates using "volunteer participants" who have given their "informed consent."
"They should do a privacy impact assessment," McCall said.
DHS is being unusually secretive about FAST. A February 2010 contract (PDF) with Cambridge, Mass.-based Draper Laboratory to build elements of the "pre-crime" system has every dollar figure blacked out (a fleeting reference to an "infrared camera" remained).
Relying on ambiguous biological factors to predict mal-intent is worrisome, says McCall. "Especially if they're going to be rolling this out at the airport. I don't know about you, but going to an airport gives me a minor panic attack, wondering if I'm going to get groped by a TSA officer."
Update : A Homeland Security spokesman has just provided this additional statement to CNET: "The FAST program is entirely voluntary and does not store any personally-identifiable information (PII) from participants once the experiment is completed. The system is not designed to capture or store PII. Any information that is gathered is stored under an anonymous identifier and is only available to DHS as aggregated performance data. It is only used for laboratory protocol as we are doing research and development. It is gathered when people sign up as volunteers, not by the FAST system. If it were ever to be deployed, there would be no PII captured from people going through the system." (The DHS Privacy Office has said that the system does contain personally-identifiable information and that FAST "is a privacy sensitive system." DHS defines a privacy sensitive system as "any system that collects, uses, disseminates, or maintains" personally-identifiable information.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
TSA Violated Federal Law by Not Taking Public Comments on Airport Scanners
By: Kevin Gosztola Friday July 15, 2011
A court has ruled, in a lawsuit filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the Transporation Security Administration (TSA) violated federal law when it went ahead and installed airport body scanners without seeking comments from the public.
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals concluded TSA “has not justified its failure to initiate notice-and-comment rulemaking before announcing it would use AIT scanners for primary screening.” And, the court ruled that under the Administrative Procedures Act federal agencies are required to provide notice and opportunity for comment when implementing rules that affect the rights of the public.
The ruling was not a complete victory for the privacy rights group. While Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg did agree the machines produce an image of an unclothed passenger and thus the body scanner intrudes upon personal privacy “in a way a magnetometer does not,” the court did not conclude that the scanners violate the Constitution.
Marc Rotenberg, president of EPIC and lead counsel in the case, reacted, “The TSA is now subject to the same rules as other government agencies that help ensure transparency and accountability. Many Americans object to the airport body scanner program. Now, they will have an opportunity to express their views to the TSA and the agency must take their views into account as a matter of law.”
Rotenberg finds that not only does this indicate the government is obligated to begin a process for taking “public comments” on the process, but the result also indicates “travelers have a legal right to opt-out of the body scanner search” and they should be free to exercise that right “without coercion.”
The lawsuit filed in November 2010, just after TSA scanners became operational in a number of airports across the country, shows EPIC sought to demonstrate the scanners violated a Department of Homeland Security statute by “eroding privacy protections by sanctioning the nationwide development of FBS devices in tandem with a systemized collection of airline passengers’ personal information.” The lawsuit also sought to prove the scanners violated the Privacy Act by “creating an indexed system of records containing air traveler’s personally identifiable information without publishing a system of records notice,” and they also violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by “substantially burdening the free exercise of religion of those airline passengers who embrace sincerely held religious beliefs requiring preservation of modesty.”
Finally, the lawsuit argued by “systematically capturing images” of the “private area of the individual” including “the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, [and] female breasts,” the TSA violated the Video Voyeurism Prevention.
It does not appear that the court ruled on these individual issues, although they did rule on the constitutionality of the scanners.
The ruling comes just as CBS News reports TSA’s decision to “streamline the airport security checkpoint process for frequent fliers” is “one of the most dangerous things,” according to aviation consultant Michael Boyd.
The TSA would like to make it so that “frequent fliers” can go through less rigorous screening. They may even be able to keep their shoes on and leave laptops in carry-on bags. However, they would have to be a specially selected “frequent flier” and have to pass a “background check” by Customs and Border Protection.
Boyd concludes:
Here’s Keith Olbermann explaining why he’s got to go:
| Court: TSA Violated Federal Law by Not Taking Public Comments on Airport Scanners |
A court has ruled, in a lawsuit filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the Transporation Security Administration (TSA) violated federal law when it went ahead and installed airport body scanners without seeking comments from the public.
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals concluded TSA “has not justified its failure to initiate notice-and-comment rulemaking before announcing it would use AIT scanners for primary screening.” And, the court ruled that under the Administrative Procedures Act federal agencies are required to provide notice and opportunity for comment when implementing rules that affect the rights of the public.
The ruling was not a complete victory for the privacy rights group. While Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg did agree the machines produce an image of an unclothed passenger and thus the body scanner intrudes upon personal privacy “in a way a magnetometer does not,” the court did not conclude that the scanners violate the Constitution.
Marc Rotenberg, president of EPIC and lead counsel in the case, reacted, “The TSA is now subject to the same rules as other government agencies that help ensure transparency and accountability. Many Americans object to the airport body scanner program. Now, they will have an opportunity to express their views to the TSA and the agency must take their views into account as a matter of law.”
Rotenberg finds that not only does this indicate the government is obligated to begin a process for taking “public comments” on the process, but the result also indicates “travelers have a legal right to opt-out of the body scanner search” and they should be free to exercise that right “without coercion.”
The lawsuit filed in November 2010, just after TSA scanners became operational in a number of airports across the country, shows EPIC sought to demonstrate the scanners violated a Department of Homeland Security statute by “eroding privacy protections by sanctioning the nationwide development of FBS devices in tandem with a systemized collection of airline passengers’ personal information.” The lawsuit also sought to prove the scanners violated the Privacy Act by “creating an indexed system of records containing air traveler’s personally identifiable information without publishing a system of records notice,” and they also violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by “substantially burdening the free exercise of religion of those airline passengers who embrace sincerely held religious beliefs requiring preservation of modesty.”
Finally, the lawsuit argued by “systematically capturing images” of the “private area of the individual” including “the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, [and] female breasts,” the TSA violated the Video Voyeurism Prevention.
It does not appear that the court ruled on these individual issues, although they did rule on the constitutionality of the scanners.
The ruling comes just as CBS News reports TSA’s decision to “streamline the airport security checkpoint process for frequent fliers” is “one of the most dangerous things,” according to aviation consultant Michael Boyd.
The TSA would like to make it so that “frequent fliers” can go through less rigorous screening. They may even be able to keep their shoes on and leave laptops in carry-on bags. However, they would have to be a specially selected “frequent flier” and have to pass a “background check” by Customs and Border Protection.
Boyd concludes:
The program) will give (TSA) time to focus on the untrusted travelers, which means if you don’t go through a government background check, you are going to be untrusted. … You’re going to have to go through the same security either way, but what really scares me is you’re not going to be a trusted person unless you go through a government background check — that’s scary.
Here’s a recap for those of you not following along. In the last thirty days, TSA has:The TSA is not a professionally-managed organization,” he said. “The problem with it is we have politics involved. We have go and show — the other day they announced they found a bag with 13 knives in it. I’m not impressed. The reality of this is, this is show and it’s not going to improve anything.
The outcome of this lawsuit isn’t just an occasion to get the public a chance to register comments on scanners in airports. It’s also a chance to get rid of TSA Chief John Pistole.
- Asked a 95-year-old woman to remove her adult diaper (then denied ever asking her to do such a thing)
- Singled out a woman for a hair search probably because she was African-American
- After announcing they would try to avoid patting down children, let TSA pat down a 6-year-old boy twice
- Missed a man who stowed away on a flight from New York to Los Angeles
- Dismissed concerns about increased risk of cancer from the scanners (although these concerns have been coming from scientists since TSA began to use the scanners)
- Arrested a mom for refusing to let TSA search her daughter
- Let a stun gun get on a JetBlue flight to Boston. A cleaning crew found it.
- And, finally, couldn’t stop a scorpion from getting on a plane to sting a man
Here’s Keith Olbermann explaining why he’s got to go:
Monday, May 30, 2011
79 Senators vote to Increase The “War of Terror”
May 29, 2011
By Marti Oakley - Activist PostIf you haven’t received the memo yet, let me update you on your status as it pertains to the Constitution and your civil liberties; you have neither. 79 Senators who snickered as they swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, voted to render you guilty in advance, with no chance of proving your innocence. The unlawful data mining and collection, the compilation of dossiers on virtually every person in the US, the unwarranted wire-tapping, the rifling through personal records of all kinds for no other reason than to collect information to be used at a later date if the government decides to prosecute you for whatever reasons, was extended.
The Patriot Acts were sold to the public as part of the war of terror perpetrated by the Bush administration after the false flag attacks of 9/11. A “War of Terror” is being perpetrated by our own government against its own people and is blessed by both Democrat and Republican alike. “We the people” are the terrorists the government fears. The Constitution be damned.
Nothing in the Patriot acts is remotely connected to fighting terrorism from foreign invaders. It is a precisely targeted bill which amounted to a massive assault on liberty and freedom right here at home.
We had more than 1500 laws already on the books (never invoked) to fight terrorism prior to this Act, and even these could not stop an attack; what makes anyone think or believe the Patriot Acts could perform such a feat? If you think this Act could prevent terrorism, try waving a copy at a TSA agent and see if he (or, she) runs away in fear.
Had the intent of the Patriot Act actually been to fight terrorism, the federal government would have had to turn its efforts inward and waged “war” on itself.
The Patriot Acts are the systematic criminalization of American citizens. Terrorists, and terrorism are only mentioned when the assaults on Constitutional rights and civil liberties were so egregious, so blatantly obvious that the veiled threat of another attack, if we objected, was ever present.
No true terrorist gives a rat’s behind what laws we pass; if they did, they wouldn’t be terrorists. Nothing in the Patriot Acts will stop terrorism especially when it emanates from within.
These Acts will however:
The hunting of the American people
- Stop YOU from traveling unmolested by government agents.
- Will also violate your right to privacy and to be,
- Secure from illegal search and seizure
- Makes legal (not lawful) warrantless searches
- Allows unwarranted data mining of any and all information on you, including:
- Any comments, beliefs, political opinions, social positions, religious beliefs, political party affiliation, and any other belief system or political view not approved by government.
- These Acts are the foundation of the police state being systematically assembled and implemented by Homeland Security
They aren’t looking for terrorists…..they are looking for you.
There is far more to this police state Act than we can go into here. We all know this Act for what it is: The end of our Constitutional Republic and the rise of the police state. And 79 of our Senators took it upon themselves to vote away our liberty and to allow this monster to grow.
Too many of us dutifully comply with the sexual assaults perpetrated by TSA agents across the country. As passengers mewl and whine about how they “are just trying to keep us safe” I have to wonder just how egregious the invasion of our property and most especially the invasion of our persons has to become before we admit that what TSA is doing has nothing to do with your safety. It has everything to do with conditioning and training you to submit and comply, and god knows there are plenty of perverts more than willing to spend their days fondling the genitals of compliant passengers or watching the naked body scanner images. The sexual assaults perpetrated on the public have produced not ONE terrorist unless of course you count the TSA agents.
TSA is now planned for public buildings, malls, train stations and stadiums. And bunches of you sheeple will whine about how they are just trying to keep you safe! And to add insult to injury, the 2002 homeland Security Act has been amended to include a snitching-for-dollars program which we like to call “The Stool Pigeon Protection Act”.
Fusion Centers are proliferating across the country. These centers do nothing but data mine, snoop, and collect any and all data they can, indiscriminately and without regard to your liberty or civil protections. These are manned by your friends, neighbors and family members who lack morality and any sense of patriotism; people who quickly forgot who they are and where they come from.
Obama and several state senators and governors are contemplating a “per mile” surveillance tax system to be paid for by taxpayers. This new system would require surveillance equipment to be installed on your vehicle, not so much to generate revenue, but more to track your movements so that information could be added to your CIA/FBI/NSA dossier. Once identified in this new system, your ability to purchase gas could be shut off instantly simply by deactivating your vehicle ID number. It could shut off access for one vehicle . . . or all vehicles.
Our police and sheriff departments have been militarized under Homeland Security. Our police and sheriff department vehicles no longer have the words “To protect and Serve” emblazoned on the sides. This, thanks to a SCOTUS ruling that said law enforcement was under no obligation to protect us unless they arrest us, and then only in a limited fashion . . . and besides . . . they are essentially military units now.
They are hunting US citizens
SCOTUS has become a threat to the country at large, ruling time and again against the Constitution and your liberty and protected rights, and in favor of corporate interests many of whom now openly run various agencies of government. When Citizens v United came down, this court should have been immediately disbanded. This decision vested incorporeal, fictional entities with human rights.
We have major cities across the country now purchasing military equipment for use against their communities. A 911 call will elicit a SWAT team response, replete with star wars gear and uniforms, worn by badge heavy, testosterone pulsing storm troopers who don’t care if you have committed a crime or not. They have guns and other weapons and carte blanche to break any and all laws (that apply to civilians) in defense of “government”. These law enforcement officers, once the hero’s of children and many adults are now a menace to their communities and present a greater threat than your run of the mill criminal.
For those law enforcement personnel who swear to uphold the law and your rights and to refuse orders to violate your rights, the Southern Poverty Law Center will quickly add their names and organizations to their lists; lists which are then sold for millions of dollars to the federal government indicating which groups and individuals are to be targeted. These men and women are now “unique terrorists”, suspected terrorists; to be viewed with suspicion and arrested whenever possible. And why? For refusing to violate your rights and for refusing to participate in the growing police state. Anyone who expresses patriotism is considered a “nativist extremist” by SPLC. Think about that the next time you say the pledge of allegiance; maybe it will keep you from thinking about the McCarthy-esque nerds populating the SPLC.
Homeland Security has ordered 500 roving vans complete with x-ray scanners to be used across the country. You can be scanned walking down the street, in public places or even in your own yard. Why? You might be a terrorist. With our economy in shambles, and the national debt posing a real threat, the best they could come up with is to spend another estimated ½ billion dollars on vans to cruise our streets and surreptitiously x-ray to see if we have weapons on us? Really?
There is far more to this than the few items listed here. A repeal of the Patriot Act 1 and the misnamed Security Enhancement Act of 2003…an expansion of the first Act, would go along way in restoring the integrity of government and our freedom. But today, 79 Senators decided you were not worth it. 79 Senators committed an act of treason against the people they are supposed to represent and sold off their freedom, liberty and rights.
79 Senators…that’s all it took to lay waste to the Constitution. Not to worry! Several of them will be on various cable news shows talking about “keeping America safe”, “national security”, “the war of terror”, and trying to convince us that the only way we can be safe is if we forfeit our rights, freedom and our Constitution.
79 Senators…and not one of them will admit that the terrorists you need to fear, the people you need to be protected from…..is them.
______________________
Fusion Centers
http://epic.org/privacy/fusion/
SPLC paranoia
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2011/spring/the-year-in-nativism/nativist-extremists
Stool Pigeon Protection Act
http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/stool-pigeon-protection-act/
Homegrown terrorism..The threat of Homeland Security
http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/homegrown-terrorism-the-threat-of-homeland-security-and-spy-agencies/
Drones inAmerica: The ultimate no-knock warrant
http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/drones-in-america-the-ultimate-no-knock-warrant/
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Feds threaten to ground Texas airplanes if anti-groping bill becomes law
(The federal govt is being ridiculous. What a surprise...--jef)
The proposed law would have levied misdemeanor charges against security agents who "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly [touch] the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of the other person, including touching through clothing, or touching the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person."
An earlier version of House Bill 1937 would have made such action a felony.
"If [the legislation] passes, the federal government would likely seek an emergency stay of the statute," a letter from the Department of Justice explained (PDF). "Unless or until a such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew."
As a result, the bill's co-sponsor in the Texas Senate withdrew the legislation. It had cleared the Texas House by unanimous vote.
"All that HB 1937 does is require that the TSA abide by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution," State Rep. David Simpson, the bill's author, fired back in an advisory. "We aren‘t even prohibiting the pat-downs, per se. We're just saying you can't go straight to third base. You have to have a reason -- you have to have probable cause -- before groping someone‘s sexual organs."
Simpson was unavailable for comment at time of this story's publication. He'd previously told Raw Story that if states do not stand up to the TSA on airport security, similar security measures would start appearing at sporting events and even in the general public.
State Sen. Dan Patrick (R) ultimately gave in and withdrew the bill, but only after insisting that he would not "cave" to "heavy handed threats by the federal government."
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Texas to make TSA pat-downs felony crimes
Thursday, May 05, 2011 by J. D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) - Well, it was bound to happen. Someone has finally gotten so tired of the X-rated pat-downs at airports they are trying to criminalize it.
Tired of waiting for the federal government to do the right thing and uphold Americans' Fourth Amendment right to privacy and protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, Texas lawmakers are moving to make invasive pat-downs by Transportation Security Administration screeners a felony.
A bill moving through the state Legislature would make it illegal to intentionally touch a person's private areas, even above clothing, unless the screener had probable cause the passenger was hiding something - and by that, it means something dangerous.
Rep. David Simpson, R-Austin, said the measure - HB 1937 - aims to restore some dignity to the act of traveling. A second proposal, HB 1938, seeks to prohibit the use of full-body scanners in Texas airports. A vast majority of Texas state lawmakers support the legislation.
Few Americans doubt the need for increased security at airports, given the tragedy of 9/11. Most reasonable people understand the government's interest in preventing similar attacks. But feeling up 6-year-old girls? Molesting a former Miss America? And what about the TSA agent in Philly who was recently arrested on charges he was in possession of child pornography? That's not even the first time that's happened.
The Texas legislation may just be the beginning. There is a backlash growing against the overly invasive TSA pat-down procedures. Both pilots - who are also subject to such searches - as well as passengers, in growing numbers, have had enough. Even airports are opting out of using the TSA for airport "security."
The legislation in Texas may not hold up to a constitutional challenge from the U.S. Justice Department, which is sure to come if state lawmakers pass it and Gov. Rick Perry signs it into law. But the point is clear: People have had enough, and it's time for the government to listen.
There are better ways to provide airport security other than violating the constitutional rights of young passengers, beauty queens and everyone else in between.
(NaturalNews) - Well, it was bound to happen. Someone has finally gotten so tired of the X-rated pat-downs at airports they are trying to criminalize it.
Tired of waiting for the federal government to do the right thing and uphold Americans' Fourth Amendment right to privacy and protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, Texas lawmakers are moving to make invasive pat-downs by Transportation Security Administration screeners a felony.
A bill moving through the state Legislature would make it illegal to intentionally touch a person's private areas, even above clothing, unless the screener had probable cause the passenger was hiding something - and by that, it means something dangerous.
Rep. David Simpson, R-Austin, said the measure - HB 1937 - aims to restore some dignity to the act of traveling. A second proposal, HB 1938, seeks to prohibit the use of full-body scanners in Texas airports. A vast majority of Texas state lawmakers support the legislation.
Few Americans doubt the need for increased security at airports, given the tragedy of 9/11. Most reasonable people understand the government's interest in preventing similar attacks. But feeling up 6-year-old girls? Molesting a former Miss America? And what about the TSA agent in Philly who was recently arrested on charges he was in possession of child pornography? That's not even the first time that's happened.
The Texas legislation may just be the beginning. There is a backlash growing against the overly invasive TSA pat-down procedures. Both pilots - who are also subject to such searches - as well as passengers, in growing numbers, have had enough. Even airports are opting out of using the TSA for airport "security."
The legislation in Texas may not hold up to a constitutional challenge from the U.S. Justice Department, which is sure to come if state lawmakers pass it and Gov. Rick Perry signs it into law. But the point is clear: People have had enough, and it's time for the government to listen.
There are better ways to provide airport security other than violating the constitutional rights of young passengers, beauty queens and everyone else in between.
Friday, April 15, 2011
TSA Agent's Invasive Security Search of a 6 year old girl
(Sorry if you've already seen this a thousand times...
And she'd already gone through an airport body scanner. Really? This is the face of the enemy? A little girl? This is insane. This is paranoia of the nth degree. I would be livid were I there in person watching this. Shit!--jef)
Monday, March 7, 2011
TX Rep files anti-body-scanner bill
Written by: Andy Hogue - 3/4/2011
A freshman Representative filed a bill to penalize airport body scanner operators: Including TSA agents.
Can they do that to a federal agent? Bill author Rep. David Simpson (R-Longview) thinks so. And he's not alone, with 18 co-sponsors from both parties (see list below) and a few organizations.
The bill, HB 1938, makes it a civil penalty for anyone working in a locally owned airport to install or operate whole-body imaging equipment -- "including a device that uses backscatter x-rays or millimeter waves, that creates a visual image of a person's unclothed body and is intended to detect concealed objects," the bill read.
The penalty is capped at $1,000 per day per violation.
The bill is supported by the Travis County Republican Party, the Travis County Libertarian Party, ACLU-Texas, and Austin-based Texans for Accountable Government which pushed for a city of Austin resolution against the scanners.
Simpson may also have the backing of U.S. Congressman John Carter of Texas, a member of the U.S. House Appropriations and Homeland Security committees.
"On Thursday I met with U.S. Congressman John Carter ... to discuss strategies for stopping the federal Transportation Safety Administration’s implementation of unconstitutional and unreasonable searches of U.S. citizens as a condition of travel," Simpson wrote in his weekly blog post.
If it becomes law, Texas will be one of at least two states opposing the measures, including New Jersey and New Hampshire.
A press conference on the bill originally scheduled for Monday has been postponed.
Co-authors so far include: Reps. Jose Aliseda (R-Beeville), Leo Berman (R-Tyler), Joe Deshotel (D-Beaumont), Allen Fletcher (R-Tomball), Dan Flynn (R-Vann), John V. Garza (R-San Antonio), Larry Gonzales (R-Round Rock), Ryan Guillen (D-Rio Grande City), Charlie Howard (R-Sugar Land), Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola), Jason Isaac (R-Dripping Springs), Jim Landtroop (R-Big Spring), Jodie Laubenberg (R-Rockwall), Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), Debbie Riddle (R-Houston), Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston), and James White (R-Hillister).
A freshman Representative filed a bill to penalize airport body scanner operators: Including TSA agents.
Can they do that to a federal agent? Bill author Rep. David Simpson (R-Longview) thinks so. And he's not alone, with 18 co-sponsors from both parties (see list below) and a few organizations.
The bill, HB 1938, makes it a civil penalty for anyone working in a locally owned airport to install or operate whole-body imaging equipment -- "including a device that uses backscatter x-rays or millimeter waves, that creates a visual image of a person's unclothed body and is intended to detect concealed objects," the bill read.
The penalty is capped at $1,000 per day per violation.
The bill is supported by the Travis County Republican Party, the Travis County Libertarian Party, ACLU-Texas, and Austin-based Texans for Accountable Government which pushed for a city of Austin resolution against the scanners.
Simpson may also have the backing of U.S. Congressman John Carter of Texas, a member of the U.S. House Appropriations and Homeland Security committees.
"On Thursday I met with U.S. Congressman John Carter ... to discuss strategies for stopping the federal Transportation Safety Administration’s implementation of unconstitutional and unreasonable searches of U.S. citizens as a condition of travel," Simpson wrote in his weekly blog post.
If it becomes law, Texas will be one of at least two states opposing the measures, including New Jersey and New Hampshire.
A press conference on the bill originally scheduled for Monday has been postponed.
Co-authors so far include: Reps. Jose Aliseda (R-Beeville), Leo Berman (R-Tyler), Joe Deshotel (D-Beaumont), Allen Fletcher (R-Tomball), Dan Flynn (R-Vann), John V. Garza (R-San Antonio), Larry Gonzales (R-Round Rock), Ryan Guillen (D-Rio Grande City), Charlie Howard (R-Sugar Land), Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola), Jason Isaac (R-Dripping Springs), Jim Landtroop (R-Big Spring), Jodie Laubenberg (R-Rockwall), Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), Debbie Riddle (R-Houston), Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston), and James White (R-Hillister).
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Americans are Oppressed, Too
When We Gonna Wake Up ...
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Police in the US now rival criminals, and exceed terrorists, as the greatest threat to the American public. Rogelio Serrato is the latest case to be in the news of an innocent person murdered by the police. Serrato was the wrong man, but the Monterey County, California, SWAT team killed the 31-year old father of four and left the family home a charred ruin.
The fact that SWAT teams often go to the wrong door shows the carelessness with which excessive force is used. In one instance the police even confused the town's mayor with a drug dealer, broke into his home, shot dead the family's pet dogs, and held the mayor and his wife and children at gun point. But most cases of police brutality never make the news.
Most who suffer abuse from the police don't bother to complain. They know that to make an enemy of the police brings a lifetime of troubles. Those who do file complaints find that police departments tend to be self-protective and that the naive and gullible public tends to side with the police.
However, you can find plenty of examples of police brutality on youtube, more than you can watch in a lifetime. I have just searched google for "youtube police brutality" and the result is: "497,000 results." There's everything from police shooting a guy in a wheelchair to body slamming a befuddled 89-year old great grandmother to tasering kids and mothers with small children. The fat goon cops love to beat up on women, kids, and old people.
The 497,000 google results may contain duplicates as more than one person might have posted a video of the same event, and the incidents occurred over more than one year. However, probably only a small percentage of incidents are captured on video by onlookers, and many incidents of police brutality have no witnesses. What the videos reveal is that a large percentage of police move with alacrity to assault the public. The number of incidences could be very high. One million annually would not be an exaggeration.
In contrast, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, in 2009 (the most recent year for which data is compiled), there were 806,000 aggravated assaults (not including assaults by police against the public) by criminals against the public, of which 216,814 were committed by hands and feet and not by weapons. (In the U.S. if you merely push a person or grab his arm, you have committed assault. "Freedom and democracy" America uses any excuse to multiply the number of felons.)
Considering the data, one might conclude that the police are a greater danger to the public than are criminals.
Indeed, the trauma from police assault can be worse than from assault by criminals. The public thinks the police are there to protect them. Thus, the emotional and psychological shock from assault by police is greater than the trauma from being mugged because you stupidly wandered into the wrong part of town.
Why are the police so aggressive toward the public?
In part because their ranks attract bullies, sociopaths and psychopaths. Even normal cops are proud of their authority and expect deference. Even cops who are not primed to be set off can turn nasty in a heartbeat.
In part because police are not accountable. The effort decades ago to have civilian police review boards was beat back by "law and order" conservatives.
In part because the police have been militarized by the federal government, equipped with military weapons, and trained to view the public as the enemy.
In part because the Bush/Cheney/Obama regimes have made every American a suspect. The only civil liberty that has any force in the U.S. today is the law against racial discrimination. This law requires that every American citizen be treated as if he were a Muslim terrorist. The Transportation Security Administration rigorously enforces the refusal to discriminate between terrorist and citizen at airports and is now taking its gestapo violations of privacy into every form of travel and congregation: trucking, bus and train travel, sports events, and, without doubt, shopping centers and automobile traffic.
This despite the fact that there have been no terrorist incidents that could be used to justify such an expansive intrusion into privacy and freedom of movement.
The TSA has not caught a single terrorist. However, it has abused and inconvenienced several hundred thousand innocent American citizens.
The abuse happens, because people with authority are dying to use the authority. The absence of terrorists means that the TSA turns innocent Americans into terrorists. There have been so many absurd cases. One woman traveling with her ill and dying mother, who required special food, had contacted the TSA prior to the flight, explained the situation, and was given permission to take the special food onboard. But when she went through "security," the food was taken away, and when she protested she was arrested and hauled off, leaving the elderly mother in a wheelchair deserted.
Others have been arrested because a member of the household used a suitcase or carry bag to take guns and ammunition to the gun club or on a hunting trip and forgot to remove all the ammo, or the explosives test detected gunpowder residuals. Boy Scouts forgot to remove pocket knives from backpacks that they took on camping trips. Lactating mothers forced to give up breast milk. And so on.
These are the "great dangers" that the TSA protect the american sheeple from, and the sheeple submit, even servilely thanking their oppressors for protecting them.
Submission is what the government and the police want. Anyone who argues with TSA or the police will be abused. An American who stands up for his rights is likely to be beaten to a pulp. TSA has announced that such Americans are "suspects" and will be held in indefinite detention.
And "our" government assures us that we have "freedom and democracy." We have a police state, and everyone who forgets it is in deep trouble.
The Amerikan police state is closely allied with police states all over the world--Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel in the Middle East and former constituent parts of the Soviet Empire in Central Asia. The U.S. government never lifts a finger in behalf of democracy anywhere. In fact, the U.S. government quickly moves to overthrow democracy wherever it rears its head, as the U.S. recently did in Honduras. Before Honduras it was Palestine where the U.S. overturned the election that brought Hamas to power. Now Washington is targeting Lebanon where Hisbollah has gained.
Everywhere on earth the U.S.government prefers an autocracy that it can purchase to free elections that bring to power candidates unwilling to serve as American puppets.
The U.S. government is the most determined foe of democracy in the world. Yet, Washington lectures China, which has more civil liberties than Bush/Cheney/Obama permit Americans.
If Americans ever find the emotional strength to acknowledge the oppression under which they live, they, too, will be in the streets.
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Police in the US now rival criminals, and exceed terrorists, as the greatest threat to the American public. Rogelio Serrato is the latest case to be in the news of an innocent person murdered by the police. Serrato was the wrong man, but the Monterey County, California, SWAT team killed the 31-year old father of four and left the family home a charred ruin.
The fact that SWAT teams often go to the wrong door shows the carelessness with which excessive force is used. In one instance the police even confused the town's mayor with a drug dealer, broke into his home, shot dead the family's pet dogs, and held the mayor and his wife and children at gun point. But most cases of police brutality never make the news.
Most who suffer abuse from the police don't bother to complain. They know that to make an enemy of the police brings a lifetime of troubles. Those who do file complaints find that police departments tend to be self-protective and that the naive and gullible public tends to side with the police.
However, you can find plenty of examples of police brutality on youtube, more than you can watch in a lifetime. I have just searched google for "youtube police brutality" and the result is: "497,000 results." There's everything from police shooting a guy in a wheelchair to body slamming a befuddled 89-year old great grandmother to tasering kids and mothers with small children. The fat goon cops love to beat up on women, kids, and old people.
The 497,000 google results may contain duplicates as more than one person might have posted a video of the same event, and the incidents occurred over more than one year. However, probably only a small percentage of incidents are captured on video by onlookers, and many incidents of police brutality have no witnesses. What the videos reveal is that a large percentage of police move with alacrity to assault the public. The number of incidences could be very high. One million annually would not be an exaggeration.
In contrast, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, in 2009 (the most recent year for which data is compiled), there were 806,000 aggravated assaults (not including assaults by police against the public) by criminals against the public, of which 216,814 were committed by hands and feet and not by weapons. (In the U.S. if you merely push a person or grab his arm, you have committed assault. "Freedom and democracy" America uses any excuse to multiply the number of felons.)
Considering the data, one might conclude that the police are a greater danger to the public than are criminals.
Indeed, the trauma from police assault can be worse than from assault by criminals. The public thinks the police are there to protect them. Thus, the emotional and psychological shock from assault by police is greater than the trauma from being mugged because you stupidly wandered into the wrong part of town.
Why are the police so aggressive toward the public?
In part because their ranks attract bullies, sociopaths and psychopaths. Even normal cops are proud of their authority and expect deference. Even cops who are not primed to be set off can turn nasty in a heartbeat.
In part because police are not accountable. The effort decades ago to have civilian police review boards was beat back by "law and order" conservatives.
In part because the police have been militarized by the federal government, equipped with military weapons, and trained to view the public as the enemy.
In part because the Bush/Cheney/Obama regimes have made every American a suspect. The only civil liberty that has any force in the U.S. today is the law against racial discrimination. This law requires that every American citizen be treated as if he were a Muslim terrorist. The Transportation Security Administration rigorously enforces the refusal to discriminate between terrorist and citizen at airports and is now taking its gestapo violations of privacy into every form of travel and congregation: trucking, bus and train travel, sports events, and, without doubt, shopping centers and automobile traffic.
This despite the fact that there have been no terrorist incidents that could be used to justify such an expansive intrusion into privacy and freedom of movement.
The TSA has not caught a single terrorist. However, it has abused and inconvenienced several hundred thousand innocent American citizens.
The abuse happens, because people with authority are dying to use the authority. The absence of terrorists means that the TSA turns innocent Americans into terrorists. There have been so many absurd cases. One woman traveling with her ill and dying mother, who required special food, had contacted the TSA prior to the flight, explained the situation, and was given permission to take the special food onboard. But when she went through "security," the food was taken away, and when she protested she was arrested and hauled off, leaving the elderly mother in a wheelchair deserted.
Others have been arrested because a member of the household used a suitcase or carry bag to take guns and ammunition to the gun club or on a hunting trip and forgot to remove all the ammo, or the explosives test detected gunpowder residuals. Boy Scouts forgot to remove pocket knives from backpacks that they took on camping trips. Lactating mothers forced to give up breast milk. And so on.
These are the "great dangers" that the TSA protect the american sheeple from, and the sheeple submit, even servilely thanking their oppressors for protecting them.
Submission is what the government and the police want. Anyone who argues with TSA or the police will be abused. An American who stands up for his rights is likely to be beaten to a pulp. TSA has announced that such Americans are "suspects" and will be held in indefinite detention.
And "our" government assures us that we have "freedom and democracy." We have a police state, and everyone who forgets it is in deep trouble.
The Amerikan police state is closely allied with police states all over the world--Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel in the Middle East and former constituent parts of the Soviet Empire in Central Asia. The U.S. government never lifts a finger in behalf of democracy anywhere. In fact, the U.S. government quickly moves to overthrow democracy wherever it rears its head, as the U.S. recently did in Honduras. Before Honduras it was Palestine where the U.S. overturned the election that brought Hamas to power. Now Washington is targeting Lebanon where Hisbollah has gained.
Everywhere on earth the U.S.government prefers an autocracy that it can purchase to free elections that bring to power candidates unwilling to serve as American puppets.
The U.S. government is the most determined foe of democracy in the world. Yet, Washington lectures China, which has more civil liberties than Bush/Cheney/Obama permit Americans.
If Americans ever find the emotional strength to acknowledge the oppression under which they live, they, too, will be in the streets.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Jesse Ventura Sues TSA for Unlawful Sexual Assault
Jesse Ventura Sues TSA
By: Mark Albert 01/24/2011 KSTP.com
Former governor Jesse Ventura never shied away from a battle during his term as Minnesota's chief executive.
Now, as a "television performer," as he describes himself in a new lawsuit, the former pro-wrestler is trying to launch a legal smackdown against the agencies that are supposed to protect the flying public.
In a complaint filed Monday morning in the U.S. District Court for Minnesota, Ventura is suing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its secretary, Janet Napolitano, as well as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and its administrator, John Pistole.
Ventura accuses the agencies of violating his "basic rights to privacy and dignity, and his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures," after he received a pat-down by a TSA agent at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in November 2010.
Ventura, who said he has a titanium implant after hip replacement surgery in 2008, alleges the pat-down included "warrantless, non-suspicion-based offensive touching, gripping and rubbing of the genital and other sensitive areas of his body," which, the lawsuit contends, met "the definition for an unlawful sexual assault."
Ventura's Minneapolis-based attorney, David Olsen, told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS this afternoon, "The security procedures are going too far. There's a line somewhere and he believes that line has been crossed."
Olsen said Ventura no longer flies on commercial aviation because he is unwilling to submit to either a pat-down or a full-body scan, putting his job as host of cable television's Conspiracy Theory show, in jeopardy.
"He's made a decision that someone needs to make a stand and he's not one to back down from a fight," said Olsen. "He sees the erosion of civil liberties here and he's willing to stand up not only for himself, but for others."
A TSA spokesperson said the agency "does not comment on pending litigation."
On its website, the TSA says "Pat-downs are one important tool to help TSA detect hidden and dangerous items such as explosives."
A message left at the DHS in Washington, D.C. was not immediately returned.
In 2001, in the days after the September 11th terrorist attacks, then-Governor Ventura said increased scrutiny would be acceptable.
"We're at war and we're at war inside our own country," Ventura said on Sept. 27, 2001, "something we've never seen or heard of before inside the United States of America. I don't think you can be too careful and people are just going to have to accept a little bit of inconvenience."
By: Mark Albert 01/24/2011 KSTP.com
Former governor Jesse Ventura never shied away from a battle during his term as Minnesota's chief executive.
Now, as a "television performer," as he describes himself in a new lawsuit, the former pro-wrestler is trying to launch a legal smackdown against the agencies that are supposed to protect the flying public.
In a complaint filed Monday morning in the U.S. District Court for Minnesota, Ventura is suing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its secretary, Janet Napolitano, as well as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and its administrator, John Pistole.
Ventura accuses the agencies of violating his "basic rights to privacy and dignity, and his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures," after he received a pat-down by a TSA agent at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in November 2010.
Ventura, who said he has a titanium implant after hip replacement surgery in 2008, alleges the pat-down included "warrantless, non-suspicion-based offensive touching, gripping and rubbing of the genital and other sensitive areas of his body," which, the lawsuit contends, met "the definition for an unlawful sexual assault."
Ventura's Minneapolis-based attorney, David Olsen, told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS this afternoon, "The security procedures are going too far. There's a line somewhere and he believes that line has been crossed."
Olsen said Ventura no longer flies on commercial aviation because he is unwilling to submit to either a pat-down or a full-body scan, putting his job as host of cable television's Conspiracy Theory show, in jeopardy.
"He's made a decision that someone needs to make a stand and he's not one to back down from a fight," said Olsen. "He sees the erosion of civil liberties here and he's willing to stand up not only for himself, but for others."
A TSA spokesperson said the agency "does not comment on pending litigation."
On its website, the TSA says "Pat-downs are one important tool to help TSA detect hidden and dangerous items such as explosives."
A message left at the DHS in Washington, D.C. was not immediately returned.
In 2001, in the days after the September 11th terrorist attacks, then-Governor Ventura said increased scrutiny would be acceptable.
"We're at war and we're at war inside our own country," Ventura said on Sept. 27, 2001, "something we've never seen or heard of before inside the United States of America. I don't think you can be too careful and people are just going to have to accept a little bit of inconvenience."
Monday, January 17, 2011
The New Feudalism
Friday, January 14, 2011 – by Daily Bell Staff Report
TSA Pays Off In Breast Exposure Suit ... Texas woman, 24, receives "nominal" settlement ... The woman who sued the Transportation Security Administration after her breasts were exposed during a frisking at a Texas airport will receive a "nominal" payment from the government as part of a legal settlement ... The settlement was disclosed in documents filed last week in U.S. District Court in Amarillo, where Lynsie Murley last year filed a lawsuit accusing the TSA of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress in connection with the May 2008 incident at the Corpus Christi airport. – Smoking Gun
Dominant Social Theme: Fairness is the least that can be expected.
Free-Market Analysis: A new feudalism is being born. It is a quite deliberate effort of the power elite in our view, but people don't notice it – or haven't verbalized it – because it is difficult to analyze something when one is in the middle of it. But the feudal evolution is surely occurring. We can see its signature in the article above but there are many other signs.
Feudalism's "flourishing" or time-span was between ninth and 15th century, apparently. It was not a formal system but a sociopolitical evolution of relationships between various power nexuses. Wikipedia describes feudalism as "a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals and fiefs. There is also a broader definition, as described by Marc Bloch (1939), that includes not only warrior nobility but the peasantry bonds of manorialism, sometimes referred to as a ‘feudal society.'"
The evolution of the new feudalism can be seen in various ways, including the erosion of property rights for the middle class and the increasing molding of employment around the vast portfolios of the powers-that-be. (Lawyers and accountants are in high-demand.) The Western middle classes – especially in America where they have been the most vital – are under sustained attack. Taxes, inflation and unemployment are signatures of such a society, along with expansive regulations.
Of course the economic issues mentioned above have been features of Western regulatory democracies for some time. What is changing is the regulatory environment and people's attitudes towards its enforcement. Partially as a result of a bad economy, people are more willing to put up with a level of authoritarianism that would have disturbed them years ago. Ms. Murley is something of an exception, yet even here it is not her reaction that is so noteworthy as the attitude of those who harassed her. Here's some more from the article:
The 24-year-old Murley alleged that after being "singled out for extended search procedures," a TSA agent frisked her and "pulled Plaintiff's blouse completely down, exposing Plaintiff's breasts to everyone in the area." Her complaint noted that, "as would be expected," Murley was "extremely embarrassed and humiliated." Murley charged that TSA employees "joked and laughed about the incident for an extended period of time." After leaving the security line to be "consoled by an acquaintance who had brought her to the airport," Murley returned to the line, where a male TSA worker said that he had wished he was there when she first passed through. The employee, Murley recalled, added that "he would just have to watch the video."
There is a sense of entitlement, even arrogance, among TSA employees, or so it seems; and this is evidently and obviously shared by other government workers in the US, including law enforcement officials. There are endless reports in mainstream media of inappropriate use of tazers, and of outright shootings; the drug-war has been especially corrosive to American civil rights, encouraging government "takings" of private property without due process. Government service is increasingly glorified, if not rhetorically than through compensation. The average government worker apparently makes up to 50 percent more than the average individual in the private sector.
The inequities are increasingly obvious. Senior government officials contravene tax laws without penalty; central banks hand out trillions to favored financial firms and corporations; government secrecy is increasingly enshrined by judicial fiat along with the ever-expanding power of the US executive bench via authoritarian executive orders. As the inequities increase, so does the arrogance. Gradually a two-tier society is created.
At the center of the new feudalism, apparently, are the Anglosphere's great banking families and assorted appendages: major multinationals and even elements of church institutions. Beyond the core are lesser families and wealthy entrepreneurs, along with the corporate and government lieges that carry out the will of the central core. Still further down are government workers, soldiers, intelligence agents and others working within formal government institutions. In the private sector, lawyers, accountants and academic professors provide resources for the emergence of the new feudalism. Then, finally, there are the vassals ... everyone else.
The new feudalism is evidently to be worldwide; and the drive toward increased global governance is to be accompanied by eroding economic conditions, food insecurity and heightened authoritarianism. There is evidently and obviously a pattern in what is occurring; a level of planning seems evident and the implementation is ongoing. On the other hand, as we have pointed out, there has been a shock to the system: the Internet, the advent of which was unexpected. It has resulted in close scrutiny of the emergent new feudalism and may yet help ameliorate it.
Conclusion: The new feudalism is not being built openly but in secret; society is to be reorganized gradually and without any fanfare. But it is difficult to conduct a pan-social reconfiguration under the bright lights of electronic scrutiny. The Tea Party in America and the austerity riots in Europe are but two examples of the Internet's impact in our view. And just yesterday, protests flared in Tunisia, with much of the organizing apparently taking place on Facebook as occurred previously in Iran. Signs of the new feudalism are widespread; but because of the ‘Net, its imposition remains somewhat problematic.
TSA Pays Off In Breast Exposure Suit ... Texas woman, 24, receives "nominal" settlement ... The woman who sued the Transportation Security Administration after her breasts were exposed during a frisking at a Texas airport will receive a "nominal" payment from the government as part of a legal settlement ... The settlement was disclosed in documents filed last week in U.S. District Court in Amarillo, where Lynsie Murley last year filed a lawsuit accusing the TSA of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress in connection with the May 2008 incident at the Corpus Christi airport. – Smoking Gun
Dominant Social Theme: Fairness is the least that can be expected.
Free-Market Analysis: A new feudalism is being born. It is a quite deliberate effort of the power elite in our view, but people don't notice it – or haven't verbalized it – because it is difficult to analyze something when one is in the middle of it. But the feudal evolution is surely occurring. We can see its signature in the article above but there are many other signs.
Feudalism's "flourishing" or time-span was between ninth and 15th century, apparently. It was not a formal system but a sociopolitical evolution of relationships between various power nexuses. Wikipedia describes feudalism as "a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals and fiefs. There is also a broader definition, as described by Marc Bloch (1939), that includes not only warrior nobility but the peasantry bonds of manorialism, sometimes referred to as a ‘feudal society.'"
The evolution of the new feudalism can be seen in various ways, including the erosion of property rights for the middle class and the increasing molding of employment around the vast portfolios of the powers-that-be. (Lawyers and accountants are in high-demand.) The Western middle classes – especially in America where they have been the most vital – are under sustained attack. Taxes, inflation and unemployment are signatures of such a society, along with expansive regulations.
Of course the economic issues mentioned above have been features of Western regulatory democracies for some time. What is changing is the regulatory environment and people's attitudes towards its enforcement. Partially as a result of a bad economy, people are more willing to put up with a level of authoritarianism that would have disturbed them years ago. Ms. Murley is something of an exception, yet even here it is not her reaction that is so noteworthy as the attitude of those who harassed her. Here's some more from the article:
The 24-year-old Murley alleged that after being "singled out for extended search procedures," a TSA agent frisked her and "pulled Plaintiff's blouse completely down, exposing Plaintiff's breasts to everyone in the area." Her complaint noted that, "as would be expected," Murley was "extremely embarrassed and humiliated." Murley charged that TSA employees "joked and laughed about the incident for an extended period of time." After leaving the security line to be "consoled by an acquaintance who had brought her to the airport," Murley returned to the line, where a male TSA worker said that he had wished he was there when she first passed through. The employee, Murley recalled, added that "he would just have to watch the video."
There is a sense of entitlement, even arrogance, among TSA employees, or so it seems; and this is evidently and obviously shared by other government workers in the US, including law enforcement officials. There are endless reports in mainstream media of inappropriate use of tazers, and of outright shootings; the drug-war has been especially corrosive to American civil rights, encouraging government "takings" of private property without due process. Government service is increasingly glorified, if not rhetorically than through compensation. The average government worker apparently makes up to 50 percent more than the average individual in the private sector.
The inequities are increasingly obvious. Senior government officials contravene tax laws without penalty; central banks hand out trillions to favored financial firms and corporations; government secrecy is increasingly enshrined by judicial fiat along with the ever-expanding power of the US executive bench via authoritarian executive orders. As the inequities increase, so does the arrogance. Gradually a two-tier society is created.
At the center of the new feudalism, apparently, are the Anglosphere's great banking families and assorted appendages: major multinationals and even elements of church institutions. Beyond the core are lesser families and wealthy entrepreneurs, along with the corporate and government lieges that carry out the will of the central core. Still further down are government workers, soldiers, intelligence agents and others working within formal government institutions. In the private sector, lawyers, accountants and academic professors provide resources for the emergence of the new feudalism. Then, finally, there are the vassals ... everyone else.
The new feudalism is evidently to be worldwide; and the drive toward increased global governance is to be accompanied by eroding economic conditions, food insecurity and heightened authoritarianism. There is evidently and obviously a pattern in what is occurring; a level of planning seems evident and the implementation is ongoing. On the other hand, as we have pointed out, there has been a shock to the system: the Internet, the advent of which was unexpected. It has resulted in close scrutiny of the emergent new feudalism and may yet help ameliorate it.
Conclusion: The new feudalism is not being built openly but in secret; society is to be reorganized gradually and without any fanfare. But it is difficult to conduct a pan-social reconfiguration under the bright lights of electronic scrutiny. The Tea Party in America and the austerity riots in Europe are but two examples of the Internet's impact in our view. And just yesterday, protests flared in Tunisia, with much of the organizing apparently taking place on Facebook as occurred previously in Iran. Signs of the new feudalism are widespread; but because of the ‘Net, its imposition remains somewhat problematic.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
State Lawlessness on the Rampage
The Menu for 2011
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
The year 2011 will bring Americans a larger and more intrusive police state, more unemployment and home foreclosures, no economic recovery, more disregard by the US government of US law, international law, the Constitution, and truth, more suspicion and distrust from allies, more hostility from the rest of the world, and new heights of media sycophancy.
2011 is shaping up as a brutal year for American democracy. The Republican Party has degenerated into a party of Brownshirts, and voter frustrations with the worsening economic crisis and military occupations gone awry are likely to bring Republicans to power in 2012. With them would come their doctrines of executive primacy over Congress, the judiciary, law, and the Constitution and America’s rightful hegemony over the world.
If not already obvious, 2010 has made clear that the US government does not care a whit for the opinions of citizens. The TSA is unequivocal that it will reach no accommodation with Americans other than the violations of their persons that it imposes by its unaccountable power. As for public opposition to war, the Associated Press reported on December 16 that “Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the U.S. can’t let public opinion sway its commitment to Afghanistan.” Gates stated bluntly what has been known for some time: the idea is passe that government in a democracy serves the will of the people. If this quaint notion is still found in civics books, it will soon be edited out.
In Gag Rule, a masterful account of the suppression of dissent and the stifling of democracy, Lewis H. Lapham writes that candor is a necessary virtue if democracies are to survive their follies and crimes. But where in America today can candor be found? Certainly not in the councils of government. Attorney General John Ashcroft complained of candor-mongers to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Americans who insist on speaking their minds, Ashcroft declared, “scare people with phantoms of lost liberty,” “aid terrorists,” diminish our resolve,” and “give ammunition to America’s enemies.”
As the Department of Justice (sic) sees it, when the ACLU defends habeas corpus it is defending the ability of terrorists to blow up Americans, and when the ACLU defends the First Amendment it is defending exposures of the lies and deceptions that are the necessary scaffolding for the government’s pretense that it is doing God’s will while Satan speaks through the voices of dissent.
Neither is candor a trait in which the American media finds comfort. The neoconservative press functions as propaganda ministry for hegemonic American empire, and the “liberal” New York Times serves the same master. It was the New York Times that gave credence to the Bush regime’s lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and it was the New York Times that guaranteed Bush’s re-election by spiking the story that Bush was committing felonies by spying on Americans without obtaining warrants. Conservatives rant about the “liberal media” as if it were a vast subversive force, but they owe their beloved wars and coverups of the Bush regimes’ crimes to the New York Times.
With truth the declared enemy of the fantasy world in which the government, media, and public reside, the nation has turned on whistleblowers. Bradley Manning, who allegedly provided the media with the video made by US troops of their wanton, fun-filled slaughter of newsmen and civilians, has been abused in solitary confinement for six months. Murdering civilians is a war crime, and as General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the National Press Club on February 17, 2006, “It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral” and to make such orders known. If Manning is the source of the leak, he has been wrongfully imprisoned for meeting his military responsibility. The media have yet to make the point that the person who reported the crime, not the persons who committed it, is the one who has been imprisoned, and without a trial.
The lawlessness of the US government, which has been creeping up on us for decades, broke into a full gallop in the years of the Bush/Cheney/Obama regimes. Today the government operates above the law, yet maintains that it is a democracy bringing the same to Muslims by force of arms, only briefly being sidetracked by sponsoring a military coup against democracy in Honduras and attempting to overthrow the democratic government in Venezuela.
As 2011 dawns, public discourse in America has the country primed for a fascist dictatorship.The situation will be worse by 2012. The most uncomfortable truth that emerges from the WikiLeaks saga is that American public discourse consists of cries for revenge against those who tell us truths. The vicious mendacity of the US government knows no restraint. Whether or not international law can save Julian Assange from the clutches of the Americans or death by a government black ops unit, both executive and legislative branches are working assiduously to establish the National Security State as the highest value and truth as its greatest enemy.
America’s future is the world of Winston Smith.
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
The year 2011 will bring Americans a larger and more intrusive police state, more unemployment and home foreclosures, no economic recovery, more disregard by the US government of US law, international law, the Constitution, and truth, more suspicion and distrust from allies, more hostility from the rest of the world, and new heights of media sycophancy.
2011 is shaping up as a brutal year for American democracy. The Republican Party has degenerated into a party of Brownshirts, and voter frustrations with the worsening economic crisis and military occupations gone awry are likely to bring Republicans to power in 2012. With them would come their doctrines of executive primacy over Congress, the judiciary, law, and the Constitution and America’s rightful hegemony over the world.
If not already obvious, 2010 has made clear that the US government does not care a whit for the opinions of citizens. The TSA is unequivocal that it will reach no accommodation with Americans other than the violations of their persons that it imposes by its unaccountable power. As for public opposition to war, the Associated Press reported on December 16 that “Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the U.S. can’t let public opinion sway its commitment to Afghanistan.” Gates stated bluntly what has been known for some time: the idea is passe that government in a democracy serves the will of the people. If this quaint notion is still found in civics books, it will soon be edited out.
In Gag Rule, a masterful account of the suppression of dissent and the stifling of democracy, Lewis H. Lapham writes that candor is a necessary virtue if democracies are to survive their follies and crimes. But where in America today can candor be found? Certainly not in the councils of government. Attorney General John Ashcroft complained of candor-mongers to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Americans who insist on speaking their minds, Ashcroft declared, “scare people with phantoms of lost liberty,” “aid terrorists,” diminish our resolve,” and “give ammunition to America’s enemies.”
As the Department of Justice (sic) sees it, when the ACLU defends habeas corpus it is defending the ability of terrorists to blow up Americans, and when the ACLU defends the First Amendment it is defending exposures of the lies and deceptions that are the necessary scaffolding for the government’s pretense that it is doing God’s will while Satan speaks through the voices of dissent.
Neither is candor a trait in which the American media finds comfort. The neoconservative press functions as propaganda ministry for hegemonic American empire, and the “liberal” New York Times serves the same master. It was the New York Times that gave credence to the Bush regime’s lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and it was the New York Times that guaranteed Bush’s re-election by spiking the story that Bush was committing felonies by spying on Americans without obtaining warrants. Conservatives rant about the “liberal media” as if it were a vast subversive force, but they owe their beloved wars and coverups of the Bush regimes’ crimes to the New York Times.
With truth the declared enemy of the fantasy world in which the government, media, and public reside, the nation has turned on whistleblowers. Bradley Manning, who allegedly provided the media with the video made by US troops of their wanton, fun-filled slaughter of newsmen and civilians, has been abused in solitary confinement for six months. Murdering civilians is a war crime, and as General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the National Press Club on February 17, 2006, “It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral” and to make such orders known. If Manning is the source of the leak, he has been wrongfully imprisoned for meeting his military responsibility. The media have yet to make the point that the person who reported the crime, not the persons who committed it, is the one who has been imprisoned, and without a trial.
The lawlessness of the US government, which has been creeping up on us for decades, broke into a full gallop in the years of the Bush/Cheney/Obama regimes. Today the government operates above the law, yet maintains that it is a democracy bringing the same to Muslims by force of arms, only briefly being sidetracked by sponsoring a military coup against democracy in Honduras and attempting to overthrow the democratic government in Venezuela.
As 2011 dawns, public discourse in America has the country primed for a fascist dictatorship.The situation will be worse by 2012. The most uncomfortable truth that emerges from the WikiLeaks saga is that American public discourse consists of cries for revenge against those who tell us truths. The vicious mendacity of the US government knows no restraint. Whether or not international law can save Julian Assange from the clutches of the Americans or death by a government black ops unit, both executive and legislative branches are working assiduously to establish the National Security State as the highest value and truth as its greatest enemy.
America’s future is the world of Winston Smith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)