TSA 'Warning' Media About Reporting On Body Scanner Failures?

OverTheGeicoE writes "When anti-TSA activist Jonathan Corbett exposed a severe weakness in TSA's body scanners, one would expect the story to attract a lot of media attention. Apparently TSA is attempting to stop reporters from covering the story. According to Corbett, at least one reporter has been 'strongly cautioned' by TSA spokeswoman Sari Koshetz not to cover the story. If TSA is worried that this is new information they need to suppress to keep it away from terrorists, that horse may have left the barn years ago. Corbett's demonstration may just be confirmation of a 2010 paper in the Journal of Transportation Security that concluded that 'an object such as a wire or a boxcutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible' to X-ray scanners."

Comments

Re:Probably not suppressed for Terrorists.

[cold fjord]

You should watch Fox News from time to time. Been watching the real news shows again, right?

Please, tune in to the propaganda, you're getting so out of the loop.

Interesting.... you are implying that the mainstream media isn't willing to carry news of terrorist attacks and threats. So, why does it so upset liberals and progressives that Fox does? What stake do they have in suppressing that knowledge? Why does it upset them when it is covered?

Unholy Alliance Part I
Unholy Alliance Part II

Unholy Alliance

Unholy Alliance offers a very serious and disturbing account of the intellectual corruption of an important segment of the American Left. Even those of us who do not identify with the Left should be worried about the kind of rationalizations for Islamic terror and terrorists that have established a foothold in its ranks. The willingness of some mainstream liberals to form alliances with apologists for and defenders of terrorism in the name of defeating President Bush or sabotaging the war in Iraq represents an ominous development in American political life. Just like the battle for the soul of liberalism in the 1940s and 1950s, during which liberal anti-communists confronted and eventually defeated popular front pro-communists, the struggle within liberalism about Islamic fundamentalism in this decade may well have a defining effect on America's future.

Horowitz makes a very strong case that significant segments of the Left have formed alliances of convenience with Islamist radicals. He notes that immediately after 9/11, a number of prominent leftists opposed any American response and blamed American policies for the tragedy. With thousands of Americans dead, Noam Chomsky was so consumed by hatred of his own country and conviction that it was the fount of evil in the world that he traveled to Pakistan to inform Muslim audiences that America was planning to commit genocide in Afghanistan before it invaded to overthrow the Taliban. Other prominent writers denounced America for its reactions more vociferously than they condemned Al Qaeda for its murderous actions.

All Spelled Out

Politically speaking, it's probably the most explosive suggestion you can make today: that the Left has joined hands with radical Islam. That it is fellow-traveling with it. Such a suggestion will get you branded a McCarthyite, immediately. But is it true (the suggestion, that is)? Afraid so. And this case is powerfully, sickeningly made in David Horowitz's new book.

At first blush, it may seem an odd alliance: the leftists and the Islamists. After all, Islamists are premodern "conservatives." Reflecting on a big anti-war rally in London, Mark Steyn pointed out that militant lesbians were marching alongside militant Muslims. Did the former care that the latter would have them dead? Not really.

What unites the Left and Islamism, above all, is a deep-seated hatred of the United States (and, secondarily, Israel). Also, an absolutist, totalist view of the world. Those are enough.