1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/14692/former-secretary-of-homeland-security-use-my-company%e2%80%99s-nude-scanners-or-be-sexually-assaulted/

Former Secretary of Homeland Security: Use my company’s nude scanners or be sexually assaulted

November 19, 2010 by

The TSA’s threats against travelers are making the headlines and attracting a lot of well deserved ire. Art Carden’s Forbes piece “Full frontal nudity doesn’t make us safer: Abolish the TSA” has been downloaded more than 200,000 times in just three days. Another fact is coming out: the former Secretary of Homeland Security stands to gain by having travelers threatened to use the machines, which are made by his company. Who knew that law enforcement would be used to help make money for those associated with government?

Governments actually have a long history of using law enforcement for personal gain. A thousand years ago in England, law enforcement was largely private. Individuals would take their disputes to the equivalent of arbitrators and victims would be compensated by wrongdoers. But after the Norman invasion, kings realized that they could raise money through the legal system by declaring more and more things violations of the King’s Peace. They mandated that a portion of the restitution go to the king and it was not long until they required all “restitution” go to the king. Unsurprisingly this removed incentives for people to resolve disputes through the formerly private system.

Bruce Benson and Murray Rothbard had it right all along. Government law enforcement was not created to satisfy a public good. It was created to coerce money from the public for the benefit of the rulers. Shall we let it continue? The full history is described by me and Nicholas Curott in our new article “The Rise of Government Law Enforcement in England” published in The Pursuit of Justice edited by Edward Lopez.

{ 44 comments }

Martin OB November 19, 2010 at 6:24 am

I understand the need to criticize government agencies, but I think the argumentation here is rather weak. I’m quite sure that if companies themselves used these body scanners, it would be obvious to the author how they improve security. Sure, you can smuggle some things in your body cavities, but carrying the equivalent of a 80-ounce BeerBelly, as described, I think it would be tricky (and an actual BeerBelly would be detected by the scanner).

Then there’s the argument that this or that measure only catches “dumb terrorists”, not the smart ones. Well, guess what, most terrorists (and most criminals in general) are rather dumb, so if you can at least catch those, you improve security.

So why didn’t airlines implement these scanners by themselves? That would be a nice question to investigate. My guess is that:

1) They expected the government to do it for them.
2) They don’t really need to scan all passengers. They have better methods to detect potential terrorists.

Of course, these methods are dangerously close to the un-PC elefant in the ballroom, always ignored in these articles describing how a geeky white journalist in a Bin Laden T-shirt smuggled a nail cutter or something like that.

By the way, I’m not reassured by those statistics about how ulikely is to be a victim of a terrorist attack, based on past records. Terrorism is not a natural force, it’s a form of human action, and it responds to incentives. If a terrorist technique succeeds, and nothing is done about the security hole, it will be used again and again, ever more often.

Personally, given that segregated planes are off-limits for the moment, I will feel a bit safer with these scanners. Even better would be harmless echographic scans for actually suspicious passengers.

But sure, abolish the wasteful TSA and let airlines do their job.

Slim934 November 19, 2010 at 8:10 am

The problem with THAT analysis is assuming that private airlines would WANT to use this extremely cumbersome system instead of figuring out some better means of doing this.

For example: the entire premise behind our security apparatus at airports is to assume that ALL passengers are equally likely to be terrorists. This is an absolutely retarded premise. Who on earth is going to believe that a young guy with a beard who has made multiple trips to Pakistan in the last few years is the EXACT SAME security threat level than an 8 year old who can’t even find that country on a map? This is precisely my point, there is really no method by which security officials TRY to separate likely security threats from unlikely ones. And there is no incentive for them to be.

Secondly, IF the airports decided to do this themselves they would sure as shit be put under much greater scrutiny for their use than the government would. I admit that it is not out of the realm of possibility that Airlines might use something like this. But let’s be clear here: the ONLY reason this particular technology was used it because of bureaucratic politicking within the security establishment and not due to an actual need for their use.

Martin OB November 19, 2010 at 11:34 am

We are both making pretty much the same points, but with a different emphasis.
In short, the real security boost is in profiling, and segregated planes would be even better. But the former is controversial and the latter is verbotten, so we are left with either treating everyone as a potential terrorist or everyone a nun. The former is safer.

Body scanners are a great tool compared with the alternative (pat downs), despite their limitations. I don’t know whether the cost is paid by taxes or by the airlines. In the former case, there you have one reason for them to wait for the State to do it. Another reason is to avoid the bad PR, blame the State and reap the benefit of greater security.

BioTube November 19, 2010 at 5:33 pm

Few people object to actual patdowns – it’s the groping the TSA calls “patdowns” that people hate.

nate-m November 19, 2010 at 6:58 pm

If they are at random intervals and based on actual suspicion then they make sense. Same thing with going through people’s luggage.

These ‘naked photos’ and such things are not real security mechanisms. It’s stuff that is done out in the open to make people _FEEL_ safer. Sure people will hate it, but it does make them feel like they are safe to be in a airport and fly on a airplane. It makes them think that it will be difficult to get explosives on a airplane due to the intensive screening process.

Of course this does nothing to increase security. It’s all for show. Called ‘Security Theatre’.

It’s not a question of acceptable trade offs for security vs convenience. It’s just a show. It’s a difference of making people think they are safe and making people think that TSA is doing something to protect them versus spending money, time, and resources on actually effective security mechanisms.

The difference is of competency. The TSA is not qualified to protect much of anything and they know it. So they have to put on a huge show so that when something bad happens they will be protected, politically, from accusations of ineptitude.

Google around for Bruce Schneier and the difference between Security Theater and real security and the difficulty we have assessing risk in the modern world. He has a good blog post on the TSA and has spent most of his professional life studying security. A very smart man, developed algorithms to compete with other for official AES status. All sorts of fun stuff. Concentrates on IT security for businesses and individuals, but he knowledgeable on most things associated with security. He has insightful analytical abilities.

A typical quote:

Some experts argue the new procedures could make passengers uncomfortable without providing a substantial increase in security. “Security measures that just force the bad guys to change tactics and targets are a waste of money,” said Bruce Schneier, a security expert who works for British Telecom. “It would be better to put that money into investigations and intelligence.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/tsa_backscatter.html

El Tonno November 19, 2010 at 6:57 am

They really put the “SA” into the “TSA”. Uniformed thugs behaving badly? We have heard of it.

More on this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/16/big-sisters-police-state/

“Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano insists that anyone who has a problem with the state of affairs simply shouldn’t fly. Unelected bureaucrats like Ms. Napolitano – known across the blogosphere as Big Sister – have no business making decisions that touch upon such a fundamental right as the ability of innocent citizens to travel freely. In Ms. Napolitano’s view, Americans wishing to visit family and friends across the country exercise a privilege granted by the government. Air travel is no longer a free transaction between a member of the public and an airline.”

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/11/18/airports-consider-ousting-tsa-after-congressmans-letter/

“The current federal law allows an airport to hire private screeners instead of using the TSA’s screeners. Unfortunately the private screeners would be required to follow the TSA’s same rules and conduct all the same objectionable screenings. The hope seems to be that the private screeners would be more customer friendly than the notiously surly TSA agents, but so long as they are being forced by the federal government to conduct the same searches that have some prosecutors threatening assault charges the issue is likely to remain.”

Ned Netterville November 19, 2010 at 11:58 am

AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM OSSAM BIN LADEN TO ALL OF YOU AMERICAN INFIDELS: http://lewrockwell.com/orig3/monahan1.html HAHAHAHAHAHHA, GOTCHYA!!!

King George November 19, 2010 at 1:19 pm

The ultimate arbitrator of law and rights is force. The coercers have been better at amassing force than the price sector has been able to defend this force. This is how things always have been, from 800 years ago when Genghis Khan slaughtered and enslaved an entire continent to today, where there is less slaughter but more sophisticated “enslaving”.

How do you propose to change this balance?

Ned Netterville November 19, 2010 at 3:02 pm

The use of force begets–surprise, surprise–the use of force, both retaliatory and sui generis. The United States has long deployed and employed its military forces in the Middle East to conduct what it euphemistically calls “foreign policy.” That its citizens should have to taste some of their own medicine at the hands Middle Easterners has all the earmarks of rough Western justice.

Martin OB November 19, 2010 at 3:36 pm

If only all prominent Islamic leaders and their dhimmi allies made the message as crystal-clear as you have (“who said you have a right to fight terrorism, infidels?”) the problem would be solved in no time.

El Tonno November 19, 2010 at 5:47 pm

Make your true meaning clear, oh confused one, and don’t bother us with fantasms of nonexistent “Islamic leaders”.

As said in http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/11/18/why-the-tsa-gets-to-grope-us/

“It was all predicted long ago by one Garet Garrett, a conservative editor of a very conservative and indubitably American publication, the Saturday Evening Post. Garrett’s last book, an account of the American experiment published in 1956, ended with the Voice of History speaking:

How, now, thou American, frustrated crusader, do you know where you are?

Is it security you want? There is no security at the top of the world.

To thine own self a liberator, to the world an alarming portent, do you know where you are going from here?

If only we had known, back then, perhaps we would have taken a different road. A few, like Garrett, saw what was coming, and warned against it, but they were “isolationist” Cassandras, easily ignored as the US entered the world stage determined to project American power to every continent, and into every “crisis.” Our CIA encircled the globe with intrigues, overthrowing democratically elected governments and installing friendly dictatorships. Our tax dollars flowed into “development projects” that filled the pocketbooks of local elites and impoverished the people. Our diplomats and generals bestrode the earth like giants, plenipotentiaries of America’s imperial will, succoring our protectorates and rebuking our enemies – who, by that time, had become legion.

When the Soviet empire teetered and fell, we took credit for it instead of heeding the lesson of imperial exhaustion, and this escalated our hubris beyond anything yet seen. More “American exceptionalism.”

No, there is no security at the top of the world. Furthermore, at these dizzying heights, it is hard to see anything at all, beyond our own mythology of Manifest Destiny and other self-regarding hallucinations. Our vision obscured by conceit, and our other senses deadened by complacency and impending decadence, we are blind to the very real danger that comes at us with the persistence of Nemesis.

Martin OB November 20, 2010 at 12:56 am

Nonexistent “Islamic leaders”? Sorry, no offense, but are you on khat?

Oh, but some Islamic leaders are moderate. I’ve heard a lot about “moderate” Muslims. Let me tell you something, if there is a famous moderate Muslim I would have expected Stewart and Colbert to take him to their rally. They took Cat Stevens (aka Yusuf Islam). That must be a real-life moderate Muslim, right? Ask him about Salman Rushdie.

As for my “true meaning”, I’ve made it quite clear already. Stop and reverse Muslim immigration now. Let Muslims live in their Muslim countries. Keep an eye on those countries. Not all foreign countries are the same; some are allies, some are potential threats. Don’t be ashamed to have other Western countries as allies, but ask them to help with defense costs.

Let Westerners protect themselves in the meantime by restoring full freedom of association, even if that means modifying or abolishing the Civil Rights Act.

Make a commitment to preserve America as a secular Christian country, and acknowledge demographic developments as a potential threat to be addressed. Let European countries do the same. Stop all naturalization of Muslim immigrants. Pay them generously to go back to their home (or ancestral) countries, and to renounce their Western citizenship if they have it. No punishment of innocent Muslims, just a sane population policy.

newson November 20, 2010 at 1:33 am

why should other countries’ taxpayers be forced to help “allies”?

Martin OB November 20, 2010 at 10:22 am

They shouldn’t. Neither should American citizens pay any taxes. Armies should be private and paid by their subscribers. Now that we are done with the libertarian boilerplate, we can leave Libertopia aside for a moment and go back to real life, where armies will stay State-owned and citizens will pay them with their taxes for the foreseeable future.

Now, maybe what you mean is “why is it in their self interest to help allies with their taxes?”. For the same reason that individuals team up and defend each other against thugs. It’s cheaper and more effective. Having allies you can trust is priceless. Countries with similar moral values can trust each other much more than they can trust countries with alien and mutually despised moral codes.

newson November 20, 2010 at 1:50 am

maybe the muslims could be resettled in madagascar.

Martin OB November 20, 2010 at 10:40 am

He, he. That was a nice little reductio ad Hitlerum.
Now, seriously, they all have their own countries. If repatriation were not an option, then it would be secession. I’m pretty sure one of the two will happen in a few years, if not something worse.

newson November 21, 2010 at 1:01 am

ha! you were begging for it. but it’s not only demographics that determines the ballot-box outcome. over half of democrat funding and around one quarter of republican comes from an ethnic group accounting for no more than 2-3% of the population. bottom-line: we can disagree on threats, but agree that democracy sucks on multiple levels and secession (peaceful, hopefully) is the best chance.

newson November 21, 2010 at 1:04 am

ha! you were begging for it. but it’s not only demographics that determines the ballot-box outcome. over half of democrat funding and around one quarter of republican comes from an ethnic group accounting for no more than 2-3% of the population.
bottom-line: we can disagree on threats, but agree that democracy sucks on multiple levels and secession (peaceful, hopefully) is the best chance.

Martin OB November 22, 2010 at 1:01 pm

Nazi analogies for critics of Islam, followed by judeophobic innuendo, hmm. That’s not unusual in liberal, paleo-conservative and paleo-libertarian circles. Of course, by the way, actual neo-Nazis tend to love Iran and other Islamo-fascist countries. And yes, a huge number of influential upper class, liberal, atheist, ethnic Jews who want to be seen as self-hating whites (Tim Wise is a prime example) are the main supporters of immigration from judeophobic cultures. It’s all so crazy, isn’t it.

Granted, we largely agree, which is not surprising given that we are commenting on mises.org to begin with. But democracy is not all that bad. Many private organizations, including criminal groups, use some kind of democracy as a way to solve minor issues, when everyone agrees about the fundamentals. Democracy is just useless to solve the fundamental coexistence problems which require separated jurisdictions, which in turn can be achieved by either secession or repatriation. The fundamental problem of the West is not democracy as such; I think it is something we can call “democratic proposition-nationalism”, that is, the belief that a viable nation state with a democratic government can be built around a set of moral values, and then accept immigrants from every corner of the world, with all kinds of cultural and ethnic backgrounds, and that they will all somehow get along and absorb those moral values which make up the nation, thereby perpetuating it by democratic means.

The only kind of viable open-borders “proposition nation” I can think of is a Hoppean market anarchy. The closest thing to that kind of country we have today is, well, the world as a whole. Countries don’t tax each other, and they can have wildly different legal systems.

There’s no need for secession when borders already exist. There’s no need to betray our Enlightenment values with ad-hoc exceptions when it suits our purposes. All it takes is to abandon the grandiose vision of a Western nation-state as a perfect miniature world, and go back to the more realistic concept of an extended home for a particular group of people with shared values and heritage.

Beefcake the Mighty November 22, 2010 at 1:35 pm

“Nazi analogies for critics of Islam, followed by judeophobic innuendo, hmm. That’s not unusual in liberal, paleo-conservative and paleo-libertarian circles. ”

This is such an utterly bizarre statement I hardly know where to start. Probably it’s not worth the effort to do so, so I won’t. I do wonder if your own “phobia” towards Islam (some of which I share) permits a certain myopia on other conflicts within Western society. For example, what do you make of the comments made here:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Bernhard.html

Martin OB November 22, 2010 at 5:08 pm

Beefcake,

Sadly, I’m afraid the anti-Jewish, pro-Muslim paleo-conservative and paleo-libertarian line of thought (“Israel bad”, “Jews powerful and dangerous”, “Holocaust? well, yes but…”, “Islamists not so bad”) is well documented. Murray Rothbard (a Jew himself), Joe Sobran, Pat Buchanan, even Walter Block and Ron Paul have shown some aspect of those tendencies. Search “Jews”, “Israel” and “Muslim” in mises.org or lewrockwell.com.
Some samples:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/07/murray-rothbard-lew-rockwell-and.html

Rothbard on anti-semitism:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch6.html

Yes, Jews and people with Jewish friends can be judeophobes, just like whites can hate their own race, and many do (although most white “self-haters” are actually Jewish or have been inspired by them). Being a judeophobe doesn’t mean you can’t have a Jewish friend, it means you regret his being Jewish. It’s not a crime, but it’s a sad thing.

About the Danish cartoons (read at least Margolis’s shameless pandering):

http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis16.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/sugg2.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block58.html

Judeophobia is also prevalent among most, let’s say, “anti-anti-white” thinkers (a notable exception is Jared Taylor).

Regarding a Jewish GLBT poo-pooing Sarah Palin and all she represents (where’s the surprise?), I don’t think that’s a separate problem; it’s all part of the same conundrum. It’s just a sample of the lemming run many liberal Jews have been pursuing for a long time. They suffer from extreme “Christianophobia”, a profound distrust which is mutual and mutually reinforced. Anything that makes Christians weaker is a good thing for them; they would call for a deluge if Christians were to drown first.

These people seem hopeless, but traditional Jews can and should join Christians to defend Western values like free speech and secularism. That’s why some of the most encouraging news I’ve read these days are about the EDL and Rabbi Shriffen.

newson November 24, 2010 at 2:59 am

hmmm, shared values and heritage. don’t know about that.

Kerux November 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm

All this TSA abuse is beyond the pale once you understand that the Official Story re: 9/11 is a myth.Get a clue people. Architects and Engineers for Truth and

http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5367&start=0&sid=d74b70e4c4b7cbe9a817dc660f3e203f/

nate-m November 19, 2010 at 6:35 pm

Asshattery of epic proportions. I could go into why the conspiracy theory is stupid, but it’ll probably just be wasted on people like you. You’ll have to figure it out on your own or you will never figure it out.

Anyways….

Suffices to say another 9/11-type event could not happen. It was a one-time deal. Not because of TSA or any sort of government security. It happened because people and crews were taught that if their planes were highjacked their best chances for survival was to just sit still and obey until the authorities could rescue them. Statistically speaking this was correct advice. Now there is a significant portion of the population in the USA that would rather die resisting then have their plane get taken over and allow a repeat of that day.

Kerux November 19, 2010 at 6:55 pm

“people like you”And people like those 1367 professional architects and engineers all with degrees and professional careers?

People like you use ad hominem instead of addressing the facts.

Are all those people in Colorado involved in “asshattery” of epic proportions too?http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/405-colorado-democrats-call-for-new-911-investigation-an-insider-tells-us-how-they-did-it.html___

nate-m November 19, 2010 at 6:59 pm

Yes.

Kerux November 19, 2010 at 6:54 pm

______________________

“people like you”

And people like those 1367 professional architects and engineers all with degrees and professional careers? People like you use ad hominem instead of addressing the facts.

Are all those people in Colorado involved in epic proportions too?

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/405-colorado-democrats-call-for-new-911-investigation-an-insider-tells-us-how-they-did-it.html

___

Ohhh Henry November 19, 2010 at 7:59 pm

I believe that the purpose of the constant caterwauling from the “controlled demolition” crowd is to give an aura of looniness to all forms of skeptical inquiry into 9/11. Especially, I believe, to discredit anyone calling attention to the prior warnings of the attack and the deliberate unpreparedness of the so-called authorities.

A propos to that, and with apologies for taking this thread off in another direction, when doing some reading recently I was surprised to see allegations that the Harper’s Ferry Raid was preceded by more or less explicit, precise warnings to the federal government, who took no action whatsoever to prevent the raid.

Can someone please add up the American wars which have been substantially triggered or justified to the public under extremely dubious circumstances: Civil War (Osama bin Brown), Spanish American War (USS Maine), WW1 (Lusitania), WW2 (Pearl Harbor), Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin), Gulf War 1 (encouragement to invade Kuwait), Great War on Terror (9/11). Probably also the War of 1812, Korea and Granada for all I know.

newson November 20, 2010 at 12:15 am
Martin OB November 20, 2010 at 1:05 am

A conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory? I love it!
Let’s see what’s next. Follow the money.. aha, tin foil manufacturing companies! ;)

newson November 20, 2010 at 1:36 am

following the money (a good idea) will lead you to the israel lobby, not the tin-foil brigade. dancing “removalists” is just a bit of jest to liven up the blog.

Ohhh Henry November 20, 2010 at 11:14 am

LOL, I see your point. But I think it is worth considering whether the “guided missile” slash “controlled demolition” crowd are motivated by something other than a mild case of paranoid schizophrenia. Leaving aside the improbability that so many would share an identical delusion, it occurs to me that if someone had a guilty part in allowing 9/11 to happen and they still had a lot of money and power at their disposal, they would have both the means and the motive to distract and discredit the skeptics.

You can dismiss it all as tinhattery if you like, but if you think that the hundreds of billions of dollars being tossed around on “defense” and “security” after 9/11 could not possibly be a reward and an incentive to lying and skullduggery, then you’re not paying attention.

newson November 21, 2010 at 1:20 am

to ohhh henry:
i don’t wear my tin-hat every day, only on special occasions. it’s a fascinating coincidence that the plane that hit the pentagon looped the building to hit the records and accounting section, frustrating the audit of the missing two trillion, as the cut/paste job below makes clear. peter scott dale has some interesting things to say about the passengers lists, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBozfOm9ngY&feature=related

9/10/2001 – The day before the false flag attack, two-time Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral) announces that the Pentagon cannot account for $2.3 trillion of ‘Loose Change’ in taxpayer funds. A billion is the number of seconds in 30 years. A trillion dollars is a thousand times more than that. Referring to the Pentagon’s sprawling bureaucracy that supposedly lost the money by oversight, Rumsfeld uses eerily threatening language: “The enemy is closer to home” he hisses to reporters, “It’s a matter of life and death.” The very next day, news of the greatest swindle of all time is buried beneath the rubble of the false flag terrorist attack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2144933190875239407

The taxpayers’ money disappeared on the watch of Rabbi Dov Zakheim (CFR), appointed Pentagon Comptroller a few months earlier on May 4, 2001. Dubbed “the bionic zionist” by Jerry Mazza, Zakheim is an Israeli citizen and co-signer of the PNAC document, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” that called for a new Pearl Harbor. In 2001, Zakheim just happened to be the CEO of a high tech aircract remote control company, SPS international. It was Zakheim’s subsidiary of SPS, Tridata Corporation, that investigated the first false-flag bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, as well as the highly suspicious Columbine massacre and Virginia Tech shootings. What a mensch.
http://judicial-inc.biz/Dov_zakheim.htm
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1047.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/24/AR2007042402267.html

9/11/2001 – The day after the taxpayer’s money disappeared, the newly renovated accounting and book-keeping wings of the Pentagon are destroyed, apparently by a remote-controlled aircraft of some kind. http://www.geocities.com/killtown/

tlpalmer November 19, 2010 at 11:03 pm

Maybe the evil empire (government) has a reason for wanting fewer people flying. Take over the remains once the airlines go broke and just have a government airline? Cut our freedom of movement? I don’t know.

Also, how long before the same “security” is used for trains, boats, long distance buses, etc.? And after that, security booths along the freeways and highways. Is this the start of an attempt to limit our travel?

Kerux November 20, 2010 at 5:02 am

___________________________

Also, how long before the same “security” is used for trains, boats, long distance buses, etc.?

Exactly. And, worse, if you don’t submit, off to jail you go and pay a fine of, get this, $11,000.

Folks, it was Chertoff that got us on this scanners, the dual Israeli / US citizen who let the dancing Israelis go free to go brag on national Israeli TV they were here to “document the event.” The “event” being the new Pearl Harbor.

_

newson November 20, 2010 at 12:18 am
Kerux November 20, 2010 at 5:34 am

___________________________

One guess who they are who “hate our freedom” and it’s not Muslim extremists.

____

J. Murray November 20, 2010 at 7:12 pm

TSS – Much more appropriate acronym.

El Tonno November 21, 2010 at 2:32 pm

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/11/19/tsa-travelers-who-refuse-scanning-cant-leave-will-be-fined/

Faced with the prospect of large numbers of people refusing the invasive “screening” measures they’ve implemented this holiday season, the TSA is hoping to fight back with threats of fine and arrest.

“Once a person submits to the screening process, they can not just decide to leave” warned Sari Koshetz, a TSA spokesperson. TSA officials say that anyone refusing both the “full body scanners” and the “enhanced pat down” procedures will be taken into custody.

Once there the detainees will not only be barred from flying, but will be held indefinitely as suspected terrorists, face fines of up to $11,000 and may also be turned over to local police. One sheriff’s office said they were already preparing to handle a large number of detainees and plan to treat them as terror suspects, held until they are convinced they don’t pose a terror threat.

The TSA genital “patdowns” have led to threats from some local prosecutors to charge them with sexual assault, but the TSA has shrugged off public outcry over the measures and seems more intent than ever on cowing the public into submission.

Ned Netterville November 22, 2010 at 9:09 am

We are all in favor of the new TSA regulations and procedures. In fact we like them so much many of our members have made application to become TSA security agents. Those of us who are already TSAers have shared with our membership their excitement and confidence in the appropriateness of these new measures. We will oppose any effort to derail TSA’s new, ehem, “security” measures. Signed, Ali Hands,Executive Director, SPPPAU (Sexual Perverts, Predators and Pedophiles of America United.)

Denis Drew November 24, 2010 at 11:48 am

I have a right to be in public anywhere (EVEN AT THE AIRPORT!) without being stripped or intimately groped without probable cause. What are airports some kind of normal-human-emotions-don’t-exist zone?

… even if there were the the most compelling of practical reasons …

There is an extremely practical reason to allow police to randomly frisk any young male (especially) they wish to. This would end all gang violence in the poorest neighborhoods and make Americans who live there feel much less like they are permanent prisoners in their own homes (I fully understand; I’m originally from the Bronx). But the Constitution has some very pointed things to say about it because we don’t want to live in a police state.

Imagine if Osama threatened America with an airliner brought down if we did not electronically strip search 3 million men and women every day all over the country and have strangers aggressively grope all the private areas of 100,000 men and WOMEN in public. Would you give in to that threat? Imagine after we gave in to such mass ugliness an airliner went down anyway — and Obama laughed and said I fooled you; I sent that bomber in from outside the country just like the last two — foolish Americans! (Or maybe he really found a 300 “martyr” — have to investigate if there were any obese Islamic passengers on the downed plane.)

Martin OB November 24, 2010 at 11:52 am

This kind of confused reasoning is found so often in the left:

http://www.leftycartoons.com/the-24-types-of-libertarian/

Selectively Frugal: “The deficit is too high to afford anything for the poor, or the environment… but don’t let that stand in the way of my tax cut!”

Martin OB November 24, 2010 at 11:53 am

Sorry, wrong thread.

Steve Thompson November 24, 2010 at 1:26 pm

As if the invasive security procedures and seizure of toothpaste tubes and nail clippers didn’t make the flying experience miserable enough, airlines are considering adding this to their arsenal of punishment for choosing to fly rather than take the bus:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2010/10/worlds-smallest-airline-seat.html

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: