Slashdot Mirror
TSA Subpoenas Bloggers Over New Security Directive
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that TSA special agents have served subpoenas to travel bloggers Steve Frischling and Chris Elliott demanding that they reveal who leaked a TSA directive outlining new screening measures that went into effect the same day as the Detroit airliner incident. Frischling said he met with two TSA special agents for about three hours and was forced to hand over his laptop computer after the agents threatened to interfere with his contract to write a blog for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines if he didn't cooperate and provide the name of the person who leaked the memo outlining new security measures that would be apparent to the traveling public. 'It literally showed up in my box,' Frischling told The Associated Press. 'I do not know who it came from.' Frischling says he provided the agents a signed statement to that effect. The leaked directive included measures such as screening at boarding gates, patting down the upper legs and torso, physically inspecting all travelers' belongings, looking carefully at syringes with powders and liquids, requiring that passengers remain in their seats one hour before landing, and disabling all onboard communications systems, including what is provided by the airline. In a December 29 posting on his blog, Elliott said he had told the TSA agents at his house that he would call his lawyer and get back to them."
... is the best security.
There's no place like localhost
government agents acting like thugs and threatening anyone who does something the a government agency doesn't like....that is unheard of!
When will Obama be inaugurated?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
That will be a difficult statement to justify seeing the trouble that this has caused the industry. He may have just gotten some random emailing detailing a plot to blow up an airplane and then posted it as fact on his blog but he is going to need to justify his actions better then that to avoid scrutiny.
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
Aldous Huxley
The terrorists won. And won big!
They spent what... couple million? some of their dumber guys who they could talk into blowing up.
And got back what... The usa crapped itself and spent BILLIONS of dollars on totally useless 'security'.
Man... they won huge!
As long as Obama (and his wookie are secure, he doesn't care about the rest of us.
WORST PRESIDENT EVER!
Zeriously, they are just setting themselves up for this. Why on earth is anybody still using such primitive privacy-unprotective technology as email and blogs? Email and blogs create automatic records of communication that can be forced out of you. Far better in this day and age to use zero-logging software that never keeps any logs or other details that can be disclosed
The TSA security directive was never meant to be known by the public, yet would call for new security measures which would require searching or controlling the public in new ways!? That's a bizarre contradiction. How do you secretly MAKE people submit to new body searches or restrain them in their seats an hour before landing?
I don't think they really thought this plan through...
Whatever you do, don't ever write anything on a blog.
The terrorists aren't even trying that hard.
They're setting their sights too high. Stopping all air flight in the Western world is easy. You don't even need to get on the plane. Walk into an airport with a few pounds of explosives strapped on under your coat. Think of how many people tend to get queued up at those checkpoints.
When they stop you at the security checkpoint, go boom. It'll only have to happen a few times before air flight is completely stopped indefinitely.
Bibo Ergo Sum.
Another proof, to join the seemingly endless list, that Napolitano is totally unqualified to head DHS. A talking head on TV this week made the following reference to her "leadership ability"; She couldn't lead Tiger Woods to a free weekend at a whorehouse!
I am beginning to wonder if there are any qualified people in this administration at all.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Terrorism is the use or threat of use of violent to bring about a social, political, or economic change. Any single violent action taken by any terrorist group can not alter any of this. Yes, people will die, destruction will occur, and lives will be change. But it is only in our response to their attacks that our way of life can be changed.
You want to send a chilling message to those who would attack our very society? Find them with our existing intelligence systems. Try them in our existing court systems. Imprison them in our civilian detention system. And build back the Twin Towers just as they were with an anti-aircraft cannon sitting on the top of both of them. Show them the might of a free nation.
Or our politicians (on both sides of the isle) could use these attacks to justify sweeping changes to civil liberties, the judicial system, the creation of a new "security" department, and gross consolidation of federal and presidential power.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Hmm.... I think Steve and I have different definitions of the word "forced", but it sounds like standard Gestapo - I mean TSA - practices to me.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
An incompetent security agency is bad enough. An incompetent and aggressive security agency is even worse.
I guess they don't want terrorists figuring out ways around their ineffective security policies.
is the biggest killer in history.
More people died getting TO the front that AT that front.
I think that an online, constantly updated "Cause/mortality bar chart" would be an extremely helpful/useful thing.
Maybe Google should do a little research project, with that "result page" on the data mining processes required to get those figures.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
This is an Associated Press story published on the New York Times site. The NY Times did not report this.
So the government announces a massive initiative to protect our rights from the terrorists and here we find it harassing online journalists for informing the public about what the government is secretly up to. Not so different from the way it is charged by the Constitution "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries," and subsequently creates a legal morass which rewards patents trolls, suppresses innovation with legal harrassment, and extorts campaign donations from perpetual copyright extension. Then there is the initiative to lower health care costs and in improve the quality of care which will raise the costs of medical care and ration medical care. Next up: "Net Neutrality". What could possibly go wrong?
When will Americans wake up and recognize that no matter how noble are the stated goals of politicians that the actual outcomes usually oppose the stated goals?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Now if their detectors were really good, they'd provide biometric tagging, be able to gauge your health and update your medical records too.
That way we'd know the identity of everybody OR you CANT FLY!
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
"Frischling... was forced to hand over his laptop computer after the agents threatened to interfere with his contract to write a blog for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines if he didn't cooperate."
Gee, I feel safe now. I mean, I'm sure any journalist will protect me as a source if I blow a whistle or leak a government document. Unless of course someone threatens them with something totally crazy, like cutting off their fingers or, I don't know, leaning on their blogging income. If these people want to be treated like professional journalists - and they generally do - they had better act like it when it comes to their sources.
Does anyone else think that the TSA is exhibiting symptoms of: The Stanford Prison Experiment, wiki: here. Basically, when given power and the mandate to do something without proper checks and balances then stupidity or sadism emerges. The Stanford Experiment had to be called off early because normal people when put into that framework extremely mistreated other normal people. So, does the TSA need a good spanking and a bit of restructure?
Shh.
We can teach them a lesson!
Post as much internal information as you can going through TOR with a freshly installed browser.
And if you are stuck in your seat the last hour of a flight, pee in your seat, on the floor, the back of the seat in front of you, etc.
I don't want to live in a nanny-state anymore. Life is dangerous to your health. It should be especially so for terrorists in their own homes.
It's not classified information. It's just called "sensitive" information under 49 CFR 1520. That's a federal regulation, not a criminal law, and it only applies to persons authorized to receive the information, not to the general public. If the TSA finds the authorized person who is the source of the leak, they can charge them a civil penalty, but a non-authorized recipient has no obligation to keep the material confidential.
There are criminal penalties associated with actual classified information, but they don't apply here. Homeland Security has the authority to create classified documents, but then they have to comply with all the requirements of accountability, marking, numbered copies, copying restrictions, approved containers, encrypted transmissions, burn bags, and security clearances. They can't send something to every airline gate agent and baggage handler and call it "classified", because those people aren't cleared for classified information.
The two bloggers are the press, and our Constitution, in fact the very fabric of our American society tells us that they should tell the TSA to take a long walk off a short pier.
If we wanted to live in Soviet Russia, we wouldn't be Americans!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The "right to privacy", even the concept of privacy itself, is something that is very recent (that explains those TVs and radios left on all day. Imagine them just working in both directions,)
As long as its not INTRUSIVE, OBSTRUCTIVE or PUNITIVE, most surveillance is tolerated.
The fact that some people actually want and need an omnipresent, omniscient deity looming over them means that the possibility exists for a TIA initiative to actually succeed, just so long as its not obtrusive or judgmental. (How you likin' Google now, suckahs?)
The problem most governments have is that they want to have omnipotent powers too. That they can't ever have.
Look at Burma/Myanmar if you want to know what's wrong with governments who think they have omnipotence.
Omnipotence tends to think it can do without omnipresence and omniscience.
Realists DON'T WANT omnipresence and omniscience because they wants to exercise omnipotence without any backlash. (Or they get caught with a "wide-footed stance" in airport bathroom stalls. [Their hypocrisy is costing you billions every year, in so many ways.])
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
As long as there is evil in the hearts of men, there will never be a totally free government. And there will always be evil. The point is that the evil needs to be stamped out. And if the TSA has one leak in it, it may have others. And those leaks can compromise the security of an airport, which will allow that evil to succeed.
While terrorism exists, you will either have more death and more rights, or less death and fewer rights. Make your pick.
They can never take all bloggers off the net.
So the result will only be even more Streisand effect.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
a digitized remake of the Milton Berle (since he's dead) BVD commercial stating that exploding is about the only thing he hasn't done in his BVDs...
Or the maker of "Depends" commercial stating they prevent all sorts of, ehm, "accidents"...
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
A) after an incident involving hiding explosives in the groin area and injecting liquid from a syringe into explosives to try to trigger it ... uh, wouldn't "looking carefully at syringes with powders and liquids", and "patting down the upper legs and torso" would be, oh, I don't know, FRICKING OBVIOUS??? Now, the not being able to get up from your seat within 60 minutes of landing -- not so obvious because it's stupid (great, so now the bombers will go to the washroom 61 minutes before landing, and perhaps be obliged to blow up the plane a few minutes earlier).
B) what did these bloggers report that wasn't already reported the day after the event?
The whole thing is ridiculous. As if not announcing where the aircraft is located is going to prevent anyone with half a brain (or the ability to review in Google Earth beforehand) from knowing where they are located by looking out the window at the sun and ground (oh, look, a city), or simply looking up the typical airport approaches. What next? Forcing people to close the window shades? For that matter, the moment the "1 hour before landing ban" is announced, the terrorist will know they are "close enough", or that they need to wait about another 30-45 minutes and then do it, or they wait for the whir of the flaps or the clunk of the landing gear going down if they really want to be sure they are on approach but can't see anything.
Look, passengers WILL know when the plane is soon going to land and is therefore within the destination country. Who FRICKING CARES if a terrorist is knowledgeable enough about their location to blow up the aircraft close to a particular spot? The people on board are dead regardless, and there could be casualties on the ground regardless. If it happens anywhere above a city the outcome will be much the same: doubly tragic. And being above a city is pretty easy to determine. Who cares if it is near to some irrelevant landmark that a pilot might mention in passing? Position is irrelevant. Does the TSA want to save lives or protect landmarks?
I'm assuming the real concern here is not over the contents, but the fact that they were detailed in an internal TSA memo that wasn't supposed to be publicly released, because the only thing that got out was some combination of the obvious and stupid.
If they want to do anything sensible as a result of this event, they could engineer seats and floors to be more of a barrier to an explosion, like they did for cargo compartments and containers, and maybe do the same for bathrooms. Maybe wrap the interior with kevlar fabric or something. It will, of course, add weight and expense.
A cheaper solution to all this nonsense would be to force everyone to wear skirts or kilts without underwear.
If everyone were totally informed (yes, this is purely hypothetical) then no one could act against another's interests unless the majority of humanity agreed with that act.
I, for one, welcome our new Borg overlords.
It's well-known that people overestimate risks which they feel they cannot control, and underestimate those which they feel they have some level of control. Well, it's at least well-known to those who follow Bruce Schneier:
http://www.schneier.com/essay-155.html (see section "Conventional Wisdom About Risk")
So, in that I am in the airline industry and can look around...
Has anyone actually seen these mandatory pat downs the SD requires? So far 10 flights have left that I've seen, and there were no further security checks than we're used to seeing. Just normal, business as usual. Sure, some flight rules have changed... or expanded, perhaps. Flights going into the DC area have already had restrictions prior to landing, although not in the last hour.
And yes, Napolitano is an idiot. I thought as much when she was appointed. A bigger problem is the TSA has NO appointed head yet. Like many other agencies where the administration hasn't gotten around to nominating, and/or the Senate hasn't gotten around to confirming. (some are one, some are the other, a few are both).
Proof that Napolitano is a moron? The TSA, and even the DHS, wasn't involved in this event. The flight left from Amsterdam, where Dutch security protocols and authorities conduct any and all screening. The visa he flew to the US under was granted by the State Department last year, prior to his "radicalization". He didn't leave a long tail of solid, identifiable evidence but did make it on a list of roughly half a million people that could maybe be involved in terrorism, but for which there is no proof positive. That list is maintained by the FBI. And intelligence on him as a specific person would largely fall to the CIA. He wanted to martyr himself, Al Queda needed an idiot to test a technique for detonating an IED, and they came together over a relatively short time period and with few connections.
The result turns out to be people in the US blaming the TSA, undermining any faith they may have (not a lot, mind you) in the agency despite their lack of involvement, the typical politically driven over-reaction to prove that "we're doing something!", people further scared to fly globally, and an understanding that maybe this kind of IED is not quite ready for attacks by amateurs. (Of course, when it comes to suicide bombers... they only get to do it once, so wouldn't that make them all amateurs? The experts don't strap bombs on themselves... they enable the patsies.)
Explosive goes into condoms which are then stored in your body cavities.
Show up for the flight very early.
During that time, recover the explosives and PREP THE BOMB BEFORE HAND IN THE PUBLIC BATHROOM. You've already cleared security. They don't care about you anymore (until the headlines hit).
So far, our best defense against terrorism seems to be that they're all rather dumb.
This is an Associated Press story published on the New York Times site. The NY Times did not report this.
My guess is that the terms of service of the Associated Press is such that the NYT was only licensed to use the AP story if it was properly attributed. So this oversight made the NYT a copyright infringer for commercial profit.
They should go to jail. (No, I don't believe that. But some of the more wacko pro-copyright zealots here probably do. LOL!)
Home of the Brave. It's not my usual thing to spout off about people needing to leave the United States of America but gimme a break. A large amount of the federal government practice fear tactics to try and convince the people that they need to give up their freedoms to be safe. And the worst part is, most of these supposed secure measures don't do jack shit. We as a nation need to realize that we'll never be completely safe, that there's no level of TSA gadget that will prevent every single act of violence. We as a nation need to remember that we didn't become a nation by being scared pussies.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
I don't agree with that.
Yes they will win, I agree.
But it will be because we'll be spending so much money on "security" that we will either have to give up whatever operations we have that they disagree with or we'll go bankrupt (well on our way to that right now).
And the attacks don't have to be that damaging. Look at what a nutcase did with a rifle in DC. An entire city paralyzed because a sniper killed 10 people. And rifles are very easy get here.
Welcome to the police state. Pretty soon, we'll have "pre-screened" passengers wearing armbands and we all know where it goes from there
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
This was a quote by Benjamin Franklin and later Thomas Jefferson. obviously it still applies today. I would presume they are both rolling in their graves at the new directives.
And as for obama, he came in at the wrong time. It will take many, many years to undo the last 8. Starting at the rank-and-file of a lot of theses agencies that have quickly grown accustom to stripping libertys in the percieved name of safety, and quickly moving up to their bosses to make things "right". Its amazing how other countries can combat this problem without stripping liberties while preserving safety (it's all relevant of course, you are still more likely to die in an automobile accident, most of which happen within 5 miles of home).
No one is qualified to handle the impossible task of 100% safety/security on airlines.
Is that really the job, though? Aside from improving the flight deck door, there isn't anything that the DHS or TSA has done for safety or security.
But they have constantly reminded us of how scared we should be about the bad "terrorists" who are everywhere "out there". Just go to a major airport and listen to the constant litany of "watch your luggage" / "report suspicious people" / "stand in line and take off your shoes" / "liquids are dangerous".
Actually, this really says nothing about Frischling's level of journalistic professionalism. It would have been far more telling, yea or nay, if he actually knew his sources. His claim is that he doesn't know who left the document in his mailbox, so he's not sending anyone up the river by signing a document attesting that.
If he actually had a name, the act of protecting it or giving it up would be deeply meaningful one way or the other. But testifying a lack of knowledge is neither noble nor reprehensible.
Why should he sacrifice his career to protect, well, nothing?
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
OMG, don't ever let these types into your house. Many years ago I had run-ins with NSA types over crypto. They got invited in, and left "presents" I had to find. Then Customs called, wanting to meet at my new house. NO. NO. At lawyer's ok. With tape recorders running, openly, one copy for them as courtesy. Martha Stewart taught us one lesson: NEVER SAY ANYTHING to a Federal Agent. So you got a deposit in your mailbox. THEY have the technology to figure that out, and they have no reason to meet with you. No, I am not, never was, on the side of the "bad guys", but I was never on the anti Constitution side either. These folks could have checked, and followed the intelligence handed them on a silver platter, by "bad guy's" father - them being in the intelligence business and all - checking on where a blogger's Email came from is THEIR business, not the blogger's.
That guy needs a lawyer. But looking at the authorities referenced in the "subpoena", there are some real questions. It's an "administrative subpoena", not one issued by a court. Some agencies can do that. (The FBI has been refused that authority by Congress). The Department of Transportation has subpoena authority for its hearings and investigations, and Homeland Security inheirited that authority when TSA was transferred from DOT to DHS. For all administrative subpoenas, the party served can file a motion to quash the subpoena with a District Court, and the court has to rule before anything happens.
But that section (49 USC 46104) refers to a "hearing or investigation", a formal proceeding presided over by a hearing officer. This is just some "special agent", and the subpoena is signed by someone with the title "Senior Counsel - Civil Enforcement". There's a list of people who can sign these things at 49 CFR 1503.303, and a "Senior Counsel" isn't high enough up the food chain to sign off. A Deputy Chief Counsel or the Chief Counsel is supposed to sign. This probably reflects who the TSA had in the office on December 26. A more senior official probably would have considered the political implications of doing something this embarrassing.
This is a touchy area, related to the "National Security Letter" debacle. See this Congressional Research Service analysis. The FBI got in trouble for issuing demands for documents without statutory authority.
The Associated Press reports that the blogger is going to challenge the subpoena in court.
The incident happened around 11:20 am (EST) and they managed to send out a new security directive on the same day . One would have thought they'd take longer to draft something as elaborate as that. Who knows, perhaps they had it prepared already for such an incident...
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
Imply? Thats the truth, so that needs to be worked with when you exist in a Democracy. Various ways have been discovered so far, variations of "off with their heads" like elections and department ministers being reshuffled. In the case of the TSA, perhaps a reshuffling would be appropriate or even further, find someone to outright fire for letting it get this bad.
Shh.
Okay. How do we reliably determine who is "arab/muslim"??
On one hand the US National Security aperatus has reverted to pre 9/11 games ie Not Sharing, usually justified to PROTECT SOURCES, in this case a walk in concerned father, and just after they released an incorrectly redacted PDF which contained all the original screening material, just covered in black, and now Napolitano is dithering in Circles.
... lists with the responsibility get them up-to-date and correct. Web access to all via a web interface.
These idiotic assholes are very lucky I am not president because I would fire all the secretaries, directors, deputy and assistant directors of each of the Departments and Agencies involved in these repeated debacles, in this case CIA, DHS, TSA and anyone else found with dirty hands,
Then I would use the C level pay savings by re-appointing only half these posts to:
Get Schneier to head an office of Risk Assesment of no more than 50 analysts, drawn from existing agencies, reporting to the NSA so we would stop continually fighting the last war.
Get a similar independant thinker to take over and run an Office of Counterterrorist Reference Data, Comprising No-Fly, Watch
Finally, let me point out that all this full-body scan/sniffers is bullshit since the next guy to try this will probably put the stuff up his ass, not in his unter hosen, so that unless you use an NMR machine you are not going to find it. That is exactly why it is vital to listen to people like Schneier, who has been consistently correct, rather that sheeple pacifing politicians. This is too serious for business as usual.
When Osama sees all the changes prompted by the September 11 attacks he must pumping his fist and saying "yeah!!" (in Arabic of course).
When he sees the economy in ruins after pouring a trillion dollars and the blood of several thousand soldiers into the Iraq and Afghan wars.... yeah!! .. yeah!!
When he sees Americans spied on by telecoms and the US government....yeah!!!
When he sees mothers forced to drink breast milk to prove it is not a liquid explosive... yeah!!
When he sees a 3 year old boy on a kiddy leash frisked and wanded prior to boarding a plane (I saw this happen myself)
When every passenger now needs to take their shoes off and have their groins padded down prior to boarding a plane... yeah!!
When a five year old kid can't hold his number two, 59 minutes prior to landing... Ewww.... yeah!!
When he sees journalists subpoenaed/detained in the name of national security.... yeah!!
most people think terrorist are abought killing people they are not look at are own history. all they did was take out 3 planes and 2 towers and look are economy got trashed people died yes. but the actions of 1 day are still are having a effect on the usa to this very day. flying is just not worth it unless you have to taking a train or bus is less of a pain unless of course they blow up one of them next. look at this recent failed attack that wasn't even a real tersest but just some nutjob who dedcided to play one and failed its messed up air travel more. it proves a attack like 911 will never happon again the passengers will put a stop to it right away. what shoulda been done was the towers got rebuilt with aa guns on them showing you will die before you get hear showing your attacks will not effect the usa in any way but it didnt happon that way. we did everything like they whanted us to do.
Let's start with a simple concept. When you discover you have ants crawling all over your food in a cabinet, do you start out looking to negotiate? How about mice? Wolves?
Our position here in the West with regard to Islam is that we are somewhere between ants and mice in their view. We deserve nothing better than death because we are taking up space on their planet, given to them to rule over by Allah. There is no negotiation possible when one side views the other as mindless vermin to be exterminated.
Besides, any "negotiation" is going to be on the grounds of it being OK to lie to non-believers to achieve your objectives according to the Koran. Religion trumps all in this situation, and we are on the losing side. Period.
I believe that a substantial fraction of the US is beginning to be prepared to accept things like "Eat some bacon or don't fly" rules. Religious tolerance is fine, but there are limits and we are beginning to reach them.
The end of the IRA was negotiated because fundamentally both sides could trust the other and it was a matter of finding some acceptable terms. Neither side was solely interested in the extermination of the other. This is not the case with Islam vs. the West and right now, Islam is winning. There is no reason why they would discard their winning hand, no matter how hopeless the end game might seem.
Lets hope the bad guys don't watch "Invasion USA".
for those who have not seen it;
lots of mercenaries sneak in the US,
Start blowing up ferris wheels, little league fields,suburban homes, etc.,etc.,
Dress up as cops and shoot up a party in the Latin part of town, blow up a church in a black neighborhood and leave evidence pointing at white supremacists, etc.,etc.,
Chuck Norris saves the day.
Only I don't think even Chuck could save us now.
It is dropped now, bad anyway...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100101/ap_on_go_ot/us_airliner_attack_tsa_subpoenas
If you read the 5th amendment, you'll see that people in the armed forces do not have due process rights during times of war.
Since when do illegal enemy combatants get more rights under our constitution than our own soldiers?
The constitution further states that only congress has the authority to create courts and decide what their jurisdiction is. Congress passed laws establishing the military tribunals to try these terrorists. Under what authority does the president expand the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try these terrorists?
So... they subpoena him for the name and he says he doesn't know who it was and signs a paper saying so. Then in order to coerce him into coughing up his laptop for further investigation they THREATEN to interfere with his business? Excuse me but if the warrant didn't cover searching computer media specifically PISS OFF. NO, you do NOT get access to my computer to further your witch hunt. If you want access to that get a damned warrant to search it. Oh that's inconvenient? Sorry. That does NOT make it okay to threaten and intimidate. Bad news for this dude, while they are going over that laptop if they find ANYTHING potentially illegal - say a ripped DVD or who knows what - they can come after him for that. F' that, if they do not have specific access granted to them by a legal document they can take a hike and I'd be damned if I'd even allow them in my house. Talk to them on the porch and hell no you cannot use my restroom or get a glass of water. Cop on the job doesn't get access to JACK, sorry. I don't need the hassle if he spots something he thinks might be hinky. It's MY home, he can goto hell unless he has papers to get in.
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
If by "does nothing" you mean assuming the tax burden to pay for the health care of those who can't afford it..
/sigh
It's a shell game. You are already paying for the health care of those who can't afford it. Hospitals do not turn away the sick and injured, even if they have no means to pay, heck, even if they are illegal aliens, they can get service at any hospital. The hospital offsets those costs by increasing the price of all of their services. The insurance companies, having to pay higher rates for services, increase premiums.
No matter what, someone has to pay the piper. This new bill does little to curb costs. Sure it will subsidize some low income individuals, but it's the same people we were all ready subsidizing through bloated prices and premiums.
So prices should drop slightly and taxes should rise slightly, and at the end of the day, we spend virtually the same (maybe up to 5% less) on health care.
Which is why I'm more interested in a single payer or other NFP options. Because with private for profit insurance companies, like my current policy manager CIGNA, $0.20 of every dollar I pay in premiums goes straight into non-opperational overhead (ie: profits, dividends, bonuses). Compared to the same company back in 1980 when $0.05 of every dollar paid in premiums went to non-opperational overhead.
Under the current system, I have no choice. My employer allows CIGNA to manage our health insurance, and I don't have the money or negotiating power to get a decent policy on my own. Last time I was on COBRA my monthly premiums were over $800 a month and we still got slammed for $5000 for my wife's knee opperation. The time before that I was coughing up $980 a month for unsubsidized membership in the state's employee plan.
If I were elligable for the new insurance bazaar deal, I would at least be able to shop around for the best insurance provider. I might even find one that isn't running a 20% overhead. But, as I mentioned, this bill does nothing for the vast majority of people, so, I'm still stuck with my single option of CIGNA or effectively nothing.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
The New York Times reports that the TSA has dropped its subpoenas. Probably because someone with some political sense finally got involved.
The funny thing i'd like to point out is that the quran, itself, doesn't agree with suppressing other religious groups. it actually suggests tolerance of other religious groups, because their varying beliefs are "Allah's will"
However, al qaeda is an extremist group, who seemingly views the capitalist nations that currently seem to rule as "tyrants" and as such are struggling against them, which IS encouraged. If I remember right, the translation went something like "better kill one man than let thousands suffer his tyranny". Ok, it's been twisted out of proportion, however fundamentalist groups share that in common, no matter the belief.
Whether their view of us as tyrants is justified could perhaps be argued, what with the north American culture permeating and slowly replacing the cultures of the world through media, I think the one thing that we all agree on is that their response went and still goes overboard. and it will continue to do so, i'm afraid. However, when lives are nothing but cannon fodder, sad casualties of war, i guess it's really just an issue of perception.
A teacher of mine once brought up this interesting point. if someone comes up to you and punches you in the jaw, what is the appropriate response? Punching him back? but how does that solve anything? wouldn't it be much more productive to take a deep breath and ask why? I mean, you'll never get any fitting conclusions without that exchange of ideas. Right now we're busy pointing fingers and throwing punches, but no one is asking WHY we're still throwing punches, and why they even punched us to begin with. and maybe if we asked, we might just come to a solution.
I'm going off on tangents here, so i'll end with this:
Blame al qaeda. Hate it with all the passion you can muster. fair enough. But don't be blinded into believing all islamic culture is hate and terror. Forget your ethnocentric beliefs and try to take a neutral point of view when looking at other cultures, same as when looking at your own.
Anyways, here's my two cents, feel free to argue but there's no point shitting bricks.
install webcams in airplane bathrooms. Use crowdsourcing to detect potentially dangerous activity, like here.
Put a bounty on reporting timely.
(I'd prefer to be moderated "funny", although I fear that's not really funny).
Ever heard about the difference between rule and act utilitarianism? That's the difference between a law decided by a majority, and a case-by-case tyranny of the majority, also.
No, I have not heard of the difference between rule and act utilitarianism; but I will endeavor to educate myself as I understand your analogy describing the difference and it seems an important distinction.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
In order for the goonsquads to maintain their fony-ballony government jobs, they MUST invent and engage in terrorists acts, and their targest are citizens of the US or other countries who travel my airlines, but mostly the citizens of the US.
The new "Security" requirements are instruments of terrorism.
The TSA subpoenas are (were) instruments of terrorism.
The Executive Office of the President of the United States of America supports and funds terrorism through the existance of the Department of Homaland Security, and specifically, the Transporation Security Agency and all the involved employees, appointed by the President, confirmed by Congress, and by contract.
"Welcome to the new world."
Let me make this perfectly clear. Outside of an airport where these CZAR's have been given carte blanche authority from the prior regime, these people are NOT FBI, CIA, or have any other power outside of providing security for the transportation systems in this country. If one of these "special agents" showed up at my door, I would be calling the local police and have them removed my property, NOT inviting them inside for coffee or tea. People, STOP just giving away the rights and freedoms you have left! We the people need to stop allowing more and more government agencies from being created and just turning over everytime some new three-letter acronym with a badge shows up!
Perhaps I'm just getting old and I remember the bad ole 80's where we had this image of communist countries where men in trench coats would walk up and ask for papers and the citizenry would comply out of fear that they would disappear in the middle of the night. Those who may remember that should also be aware the the step before that is GIVING UP YOUR FREEDOMS FOR GREATER SECURITY.
Benjamin Franklin is probably rolling over in his grave.
A simple solution is to create a new category of citizens - born, naturalized, illegal, illegal and terrorist and declare normal laws do not apply to the last category. When the laws were created in the 1870s, they did not think about 'terrorist- crime against large group of people" and it is a crime that needs taking their eyes and balls and allow them to rot, as they will see Allah anyway. That is Allash's will. When any religious group wants to control the population, they should be classified as terrorists and apply the special law of exclusion.
As to TSA problems we have ignored for a long time to create educated people who can "think" rather than emotionally act and create problems. They don't need physics, etc., but logical thinking.legal crooks we elect, it is clear this country will have problems within itself because those who fought for freedom and logical thinking are dead for a long time.
My post showed how healthcare would be cheaper then the current system that we already pay for, ergo we dont have to worry about how its gonna be paid for.
Flawed logic. We should be worrying about how things are paid for right now. If someone breaks into your house and steals your TV and your computer, you don't feel relief that he left you your toaster.
Source?
Source your own arguments, if you're going to play that game.
Mandatory checkups, thats cool with me, you dont get the checkup you dont get the heathcare. AOK! Already paid for with the healthcare, no reason to divorce medical checkups from a public option. Just cause they got a checkup doesnt mean they can pay for needed medicine or other services the checkup determines they need. Still falls through to the taxpayer to pay the indignant bill at the hospital.
I prefer the government stay out of what my business is. On that note, certain things that are known to cause bad health AND be addictive in a way that makes it hard for the everyday user to stop, I would support limited measures to curb their use. (FUll disclosure: Im also a smoker whos tried to quit a few times, wish I had never started.)
These two statements are inconsistent. How can you say that you want the government to stay out of your business, and then say that it's okay to mandate health checkups, or to take measures to curb the use of products that have a negative effect on one's health?
Every action the government takes is restrictive of your freedoms in some way; every action in some way "gets into your business". As a society, it's our responsibility to be sure that each of these restrictions is justifiable, according to a unified set of morals. Few would argue that the government is unjustified in setting laws to protect the individual rights and freedoms of its citizens, or from raising a military to protect its citizens from other nations, or from imposing appropriate taxes to support those things. But once we start letting the government legislate based on what is "good for us", we're giving up the necessary freedom of making those decisions for ourselves.
If you're okay with mandating checkups in order to receive government-sponsored health insurance, are you also okay with mandating that you see a doctor if you have symptoms of an illness? After all, the logical principle that's the foundation of your argument (i.e. "mandating public insurance available to all would be more cost-effective than our current system") is just as applicable in both cases; mandating that anyone who runs a fever or has a sore throat must go to the doctor will help prevent the spread of infectious disease. Just how invasive are you willing to allow the government to be?
I dont want to mandate insurance, I want a public option. There is a HUGE difference. I think mandating insurance might even be illegal.
What makes you think that the federal government, paragon of waste and inefficiency, is better able to run health insurance than a privately-held company?
I wholeheartedly support better regulation of the health insurance industry, or more accurately, I wholeheartedly support better ENFORCEMENT of the regulations already on the books. When a company violates the law, it should be punished; instead, our corrupted legal system has forced the government to weigh pursuing said violations against the time and cost associated with the corporation's ability to throw up a wall of lawyers and paperwork. Fix our legal system to limit the ability to stonewall justice with endless motions and hearings and filings and you'll see progress on a lot of our current problems. But more importantly, having the government run an insurance option is NOT going to make things cheaper in the long run. Corporations, at least, are beholden to their shareholders, and those that do not ensure competitive pricing for their services are destined