Slashdot Mirror
Registered Traveler Program Open For Business
storem writes "Enrollment into TSA's Registered Traveler program started yesterday at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Frequent flyers are given the opportunity to sign up for a fast-track system using biometrics to identify themselves. It seems this is pretty much the same system tested in Europe in the s-Travel program. There frequent flyers carried their biometric identifiers (fingerprint & iris) with them between airports on a smart card (privacy reasons)."
The people who were behiond 9/11 weren't known terrorists/criminals. They were quiet people, under the radar....
Ah, but they were foreign nationals. And the gov't is now requiring biometric data to be collected from all foreign nationals entering the country. Which I'll grant you wouldn't have solved the 9/11 problem, although similar data did help catch the Washington snipers.
For the record, I have mixed feelings about the gov't keeping biometric data on anyone but it has helped in the past and may in the future as well.
Thank you for your support.
Who the hell needs to murder someone for their fingerprints when all you need is some gelatin?
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
http://app.ica.gov.sg/serv_pr/oth_serv/iacs.asp
It doesn't cover separate security checks, but does allow one to speed through the immigration lines at entry and exit.
The above cut'n'pasted from the parent AC; I had moderator access, why couldn't I mod it up? The mod button was missing completely for that post alone...
Cheers,
-j.
The people who were behiond 9/11 weren't known terrorists/criminals.
This is a false statement. Some were in fact known terrorists. In fact, some had been previously denied Visas under other names.
They were quiet people, under the radar....
Which is exactly why they wouldn't apply for these cards; the risk of exposure would be too great.
Therefore, they'd still be subject to random search, and they'd be more likely to be searched because the pool would be smaller, since so many people would have been effectively pre-screened out of it.
I don't know what these frequent fliers have packed in their carry on bags that causes them to waste so much time at security. I've been to the nations busiest airports at the worst times (holidays) and have never spent more than 10-15 minutes or so getting through security. I never set off the metal detector therefore I never have to get searched. Its extremely simple:
1. Empty out your pockets into your carry on bag. Everything! Keys, changes, everything! I usually keep my wallet on me just because only thing in there is paper and plastic.
2. Stick your boarding pass in your back pocket so nothing is in your hands.
3. Wear sneakers. If you can't wear sneakers then take your shoes off ahead of time and send them through the machine.
4. No big metal belt buckles. I see this so often, people are idiots.
5. Walk through normally, not folding your arms or hands in pockets.
6. Be polite! This is a biggie! I've seen so many rude frequent fliers and businessmen at security.
Using these simple steps avoids any metal on you and gets you through security without getting stopped. It takes no time at all to put things in your carry on bag before you leave your home or car. But people are so freaking lazy then they act like the security is singling them out when the real truth is they set off the detector because they are a freaking moron.
The dictators we support, in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Libya, and elsewhere, serve only select global corporate interests, while fueling the sources of terrorism, at the convenience of a corporate US government.
Libya has given up the quest for nuclear weapons, in return for a normalization of diplomatic status. I submit that Libya not having nukes is of more than "global corporate interest".
The US bombed the crap out of the Serbian military, not the people.
Amnesty International disagrees with your assessment.
That's one reason we don't have Serbian suicide bombers attacking us.
Another, more likely reason is that the Serbs aren't Muslim. Non-Muslim suicide bombers are pretty rare. They exist, but not in great numbers. Also, we don't have many suicide bombers attacking us at all. They're mostly attacking Israeli civilians, Iraqi civilians, and Iraqi police.
And let's have a citation backing your belief in (and promotion of) the lies about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda, which have been definitively debunked by, among others, the 9/11 Commission.
Here's your citation. If a US Federal Court decision isn't enough to convince you that it's not a lie, then I doubt any proof could.
As for being debunked by the 9/11 Commission, they haven't released their final report yet, but the staff statements so far have not debunked anything. Pre-report staff statements have said they have found no evidence of a collaborative relationship in regards to the 9/11 attacks; they made no effort to prove there was no financing of Al Qaeda activities, and current events suggest they are not done with this issue. I'd hold off on calling their lack of evidence an evidence of lack at least until they release their report, if I were you.
See original post #3, about lying to the public, and calling it official intelligence - to which which you declined to respond, since everyone already knows better than whatever veiled apology you'd contrive for BushCo's lies about intelligence they make up to justify their malevolent agenda.
I didn't respond to it because it was a baseless insult without any evidence to back it up. It wasn't worthy of addressing.
However, if you insist:
Intelligence is sometimes wrong. That doesn't mean it's made up. Much of the intelligence upon which we were acting when we invaded Iraq dates from before Bush ever took office, and was deemed compelling by, among others, John Kerry.
How about people accepting that torture is unacceptable, rather than crying "blame the troops" whenever they're not chanting "support President Bush and our troops"
How about recognizing the difference between interrogation and torture, instead of trivializing the plight of those who were actually tortured by Saddam's regime? Those who were raped? Murdered? How about not attempting to conflate the policies with which you disagree and the illegal actions of a few sick criminals, that are completely different than those policies?
How about recognizing that Donald Rumsfeld initiated investigations that have already resulted in convictions, with more to follow, of those involved in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners? How about recognizing that the General in charge was yanked from her post almost immediately, again thanks to Rumsfeld?
See, the difference you're missing here is that when American Soldiers do something unacceptable to Iraqi prisoners, they go to jail. Under the regime we displaced, which if you had your way would still be there, they'd be promoted.