Slashdot Mirror
Congress Capitulates To TSA; Refuses To Let Bruce Schneier Testify
McGruber writes "Following up on an earlier Slashdot story, earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing titled 'TSA Oversight Part III: Effective Security or Security Theater?' ... In a blog update, Bruce Schneier says that 'at the request of the TSA' he was removed from the witness list. Bruce also said 'it's pretty clear that the TSA is afraid of public testimony on the topic, and especially of being challenged in front of Congress. They want to control the story, and it's easier for them to do that if I'm not sitting next to them pointing out all the holes in their position. Unfortunately, the committee went along with them.'"
We would not want to threaten the profits of all those backscatter machine companies by pointing out how little TSA's airport security really accomplishes, now would we? What, you think that because Schneier is a prominent security researcher, he is supposed to be talking about the failures of security programs?
Palm trees and 8
Cherry picking speakers to support the status quo is just theater, nicely complementing the security theater of the TSA.
Same congress that prevented any women from testifying on women's health issues recently.
Congress has been violating the "charter" AKA The Constitution for years. If you are just noticing this then you need to wake up, get a cup of coffee, read the constitution and find out what has really been going on.
However, there is no guarantee that you or anyone will get to testify before congress. There is a guarantee that you will be secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
4th amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Can some one point to the airport exclusion? Or where congress amended the constitution to allow this?
Dictatorial government actions often start by "limiting voices", regardless of the country.
This is not a good omen for getting the best solutions for a critical issue.
The list of government witnesses in prior hearings were "officials" of various departments, meaning they are managers of employees.
Eliminating Bruce Schneier from the witness list means they really do NOT want any experts in front of the committee as that could bring up troubling "FACTS".
This is the same committee that wouldn't let any women testify in a hearing on contraception last month.
Apparently, if you know something about the topic at hand, they don't want your input.
The purpose of this hearing is not to allow congress to learn hidden facts. It is to convince the public that congress is doing its job, and that its decision to continue funding the TSA and to continue allowing the TSA to perform warrantless invasive searches is the result of a well-scrutinized and carefully considered process.
Allowing Bruce to testify will not win hearts and minds.
Doesn't give you the right to breathe, either.
It's almost like some rights are, what's the word? Oh yeah. Inalienable.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
You are exactly correct. I was on a boating trip with several couples whom I didn't know and people started complaining about TSA. One poor woman ventured her opinion "but I think it's all ok because it keeps us safe"... I pointed out that I could kill plenty of people by wedging a bit of metal into a commuter track. She gave me a horrified look along with "Why would you even think of that?", but I think I made my point.
The problem is, they've already got a huge chunk of the country, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, convinced that we are under constant threat of attack. (It's the lizard brain, I guess). So once they put in place checkpoints EVERYWHERE (which yes, is their plan, the fascisty fucks), it will actually be a bit harder to find the evidence you and I have both noted (once everything is surveilled, it will be hard to argue there's been no attacks because no one is trying). Also, I suspect violence would actually go up, as more people joined resistance/anti-fascist/terrorist groups in response to a crackdown. But I'm just speculating.
"sometimes he felt that his whole life was a dream, and he wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it."
Sigh... THIS IS NOT A LEFT VS. RIGHT THING! THIS IS A GOVERNMENT VS. THE PEOPLE THING!
As long as the populace wants to blame a Republican or a Democrat, we won't see any change. Both Democrats AND Republicans are to blame for the mockery the U.S. has become since 9/11. They are two sides of the same coin. No matter which side is face up when the coin hits the table, you and I lose. It's time to vote EVERYBODY out of office and start over!
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Actually the American founders though of that problem, and solved it via the Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This passage is really genius and its a great pity that the kind of intellectual governance that drafted it no longer exists in the US today.
May the Maths Be with you!
From Gustave Gilbert's transcripts of his conversations with Herman Goering at Nuremberg:
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Are you suggesting that matters of religious freedoms should only allow input from religious people at the exclusion of all others? You don't have to agree with her but something is wrong when you argue for a 'nah nah I'm not listening' debate.
Its official. The monkeys are running the zoo.
Have gnu, will travel.
I agree with you.. but it isn't like we (American citizens) haven't been complicit. We have one party that is willing to say publicly that water boarding isn't torture. And on the other side, one that says Guantanamo Bay is wrong and should be closed, yet is unwilling to actually close it. And we have American citizens that either don't care, won't say anything, or at the very least won't vote these people out of office. There are no protests - not over Guantanamo, not over the TSA, not over much of anything.
When something goes wrong (say 9/11), people scream for more security... and they willingly give up their rights. And to get them back? Congress might hold slow, reasoned debates, without so much as a peep from the public.
They are holding hearings on the TSA now... I watched MTP, ThisWeek, and Fox News Sunday yesterday, and there wasn't so much as a mention of it.
And if you think it's just the media... then where are the protests of people concerned about their rights? Where were they the last 10 years?
Oh, make no mistake about it, it is a violation of the rights of religious institutions. I don't think that was ever in much question. The question is just how far do those rights extend? My religious rights, for example, do not give me the right to dictate your health care options. Why should it be any different for an employer dictating that an employee cannot have have contraceptive coverage for no incremental expense past what the coverage already costs?
That is why Sandra Fluke should have been allowed to testify in a panel regarding religious freedom. They had a panel made of people whose agenda is pushing that freedom as far as possible, even at the expense of the individual liberty of people like Sandra Fluke. Without her testimony, there was no one to say, "That's too far," and the panel--and the public--did not get a fair representation of the issue at hand.
Also, if you actually watch the panel, you will quickly see that it wasn't just about religious freedom. Every person who testified did so extensively about the issue of contraception. To pretend like contraception just happened to be an issue that came up is extremely dishonest and disingenuous. I for one do not believe that simply draping some issue in the mantle of religious freedom and not allowing any opposing viewpoints because, hey, it's not relevant to religious freedom, is not an acceptable way to debate.