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.
I thought the congress of the United States is a congress of ALL
Or am I wrong in this?
Excluding Mr. Schneier from testifying has violated the charter (if there is one written) of the congress of the United States of America
Or am I wrong in that also?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
if he doesn't keep quiet.
The committee is controlled by neo-cons. They do not want to hear what is happening. They just want the APPEARANCE of such, esp. with the election around the corner.
Right now they're silencing you officially and nicely, but they might step over the line at some point.
is on Twitter @DarrellIssa Anyone so inclined could tweet the link to Schneier's blog.
If there truly were a population of evil doers who both wished harm on the US and were really willing to work toward that goal, we would have bus stop bombings, etc. in this country. There are tons of unsecured stuff that could be attacked here very easily.
The fact that such does not occur is proof that such a population is largely non-existent and certainly nowhere near being worth all the BS with the Terrorism Industrial Complex.
...who also made himself available for testimoney before congress -- and was never called to testify -- after he blew the whistle on the NSA's installation of those Narus boxes at AT&T switches (throughout America, most probably and at IXPs or EPs, as well).
http://www.wallstreetwatch.org/reports/sold_out.pdf
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".
How George Bush continues to crap on future generations for decades after he's gone.
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.
That seems a little over-the-top. Sure it strips your clothes off your body, to display a naked gray image of your breasts and penis. Sure the guards have been caught asking particular gorgeous women to step through the machine multiple times. Sure some TSA agents have posted personal notes like "Get your freak on" in lady's luggage. Sure some of those images have been leaked by those same guards to the internet......
Never mind. I guess the description was apart afterall.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Since it is popular to post "Thanks to TSA, I now drive instead of flying", I will point out that the House and Senate are currently in a showdown that likely will result in a cutoff of federal highway funding.
Here is a CNN article about the situation: http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-21/politics/politics_congress-transportation-bill_1_committee-chairman-john-mica-highway-bill-senate-democrats
And a FoxNews article: http:/// www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/24/obama-urging-congress-to-end-transportation-standoff/
And a Politico article: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74498.html
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.
Security provided by the airports was ineffective enough to allow 9/11 to happen.
I'd rather take the 1 in 1 billion risk of being blown-up in a plane, then the 1 in 100(?) odds of being Xray nude scanned or sexually groped by the government employee.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
http://www.schneierfacts.com
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
The TSA needs to be totally disbanded and security taken over by the airports.
If security is handed back to the airports (where it used to be), you can be sure that they'll receive the same authority to conduct the same operations that TSA is doing today, with exemptions from lawsuits for doing it. If an airport were to relax the standards from fear of lawsuits from passengers offended by being searched, they'd be sued by families of anyone who died or was injured in an aircraft that was blown up by someone who smuggled the explosives through that airport's security.
When something bad happens, everyone involved gets sued. Right now, the airports have no responsibility for and no activities involved in screening passengers. Put them in the liability chain and see if they don't do everything they can to protect themselves, including lobbying for legislation and keeping the searches going.
And after TSA took over, security at the airports was ineffective enough to let the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber through. Passengers stopped both. Bad government advice to air passengers allowed 9/11 to happen until on the last plane, passengers decided to ignore it and avert further disaster.
So it seems that the big difference is that airport supplied security was cheaper, less degrading and offensive and didn't molest children.
The security provided now isn't any better. The only real improvements in security have been the cockpit doors and the passengers who won't allow a hijacking anymore, neither of which is because of the TSA.
The last time I served jury duty, my job alone was enough to get me thrown off.
The case being considered was an automobile accident (with injuries), where the driver of the car was claiming that part of the steering/suspension had suddenly failed, causing his car to swerve out of control and hit the other car. There was planned to be a lot of expert testimony involving forensic engineers, metallurgists, etc. hired by the defense to back up the claim.
3 of us were thrown out by the prosecuting attorney during jury selection for having engineering or mechanical backgrounds. One machinist, one auto mechanic, and myself (electronics design). Apparently, if you know enough to possibly UNDERSTAND what the hired experts are trying to say, you have no place on the jury....
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
And this won't happen again because of two things:
1) Pre-911, a hijacking meant you sit down and stay quiet. The hijackers take over, fly the plane to Cuba (or some other location), make a big statement about some political cause and (after some political negotiations), everyone is set free. Inconvenient? Sure, but in general not life threatening if you sit down and be quiet. However, now if someone hijacks an airplane, everyone will assume they intend to kill everyone on-board. Thus, there is nothing to lose trying to violently overthrow the hijackers. Worst case scenario: Everyone still dies, but might derail the terrorists' plans. Best case scenario: The terrorists are foiled and some/all passengers survive.
2) The cockpit doors are sealed and reinforced so a terrorist can't get to the cockpit. So even if a terrorist takes over the passenger section *AND* if the passengers don't fight back, the pilots can land the plane to minimize the damage the terrorists can do.
Even without a single post-911 TSA "advancement", no terrorist will be able to replicate 9-11. (This isn't to say they can't kill more people, just that they can't repeat their previous performance.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I think that he should sue and argue that by denying him the right to testify by removing him as a witness that Congress is violating his Constitutional Rights specifically the right to petition for a redress of grievances.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
Great idea, and 250 years ago, you could pull it offToday? It'll get you a one-way ticket to Gitmo. Maybe they'll be able to do it out in the self-sufficient asteroid habitats. Oh, wait...
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Seriously, I think we all know what Schneier's testimony would have been, so other than getting them in the Congressional Record and perhaps a soundbite for the news (fat chance!) was there really a need for him to testify?
Put them in the liability chain and see if they don't do everything they can to protect themselves
And you assume that includes continuing ineffective and invasive searches why again?
Put searches back in airports where they can apply some common sense, something that is not found in DC where the TSA edicts emanate from.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When is the time right for us to arm ourselves and kick every one of these fucking criminals out of the elected offices they hold? I think the OWS thing should have been done in D.C. and they should have marched right into the capitol building and the white house. There's no way they could contain that size of group short of opening fire with live rounds.
Maybe when we see piles of dead US citizens that were once our brothers and sisters would we then WAKE THE FUCK UP. This country needs another revolution worse than Madonna needs to retire.
Who will lead us into the new revolution? Who would have real good ideas for fixing our broken democracy? I elect Neil deGrasse Tyson, and maybe Ron Paul could help as well.
I get so tired of hearing this tripe.
9/11 didn't happen because TSA wasn't on duty yet. 9/11 happened because up until that point, the game went like this:
"Terrorist" hijacks an airplane
Everyone sits tight and does what they are told.
Airplane goes to Cuba (or wherever).
Everyone goes home a little shaken up, but unharmed after a nice vacation on a tropical island that very few Americans get to see any more.
That changed on 9/11, and we had already adjusted to the new playing field before the day was done. The new paradigm, and securing the cabin doors, were all that was necessary to ensure that there will NEVER be another 9/11. IMHO, if you really want to prevent another hijacking on an airliner, you'll scrap the TSA and just issue every passenger a Louisville Slugger when they board the airplane. The passengers have the greatest vested interest in the security; stop trying to disarm your greatest allies in the quest for secure airliners!
And even the argument I pose above begs the ultimate question in the so-called "War on Terror:" WTF were the 9/11 hijackers doing in the country in the first place?!?! If you *start* your security procedure in the airport, you've already screwed the pooch. IIRC, we had reason to believe at least some of the hijackers were bad actors long before they boarded the airplanes in 2001. They never should have been allowed to get to the airport to begin with.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
I've already petitioned my congresscritters and the Whitehouse as well as filing a complaint with TSA itself (no link for that). In addition, I have decided to boycott air travel until this nonsense stops, and I've started the blog that all these links point to so I can share information about what is going on at the airports. I'm not yet ready to take up arms and start an insurrection, but if you've got some constructive ideas that fall between what I've done so far (petitions, blogging, voting and hitting the airlines in the pocketbook) and armed rebellion, I'm all ears.
If, on the other hand, all you want to do is mouth off to people you disagree with, then kindly STFU, please.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
The committee members are probably trying to avoid a cavity search next time they take a trip.
Now, that is not the case. In fact even at the time one flight was brought down short of target as soon as passengers figured it out.
If I was a passenger on United 93, I think I would have much preferred that someone on the ground at a security checkpoint stopped the guys who wanted to take over before we left. I think flying the airplane into the gound and killing everyone on board to stop it would be my last choice.
No-one wants themselves to die, but even fewer want to die while taking a bunch of innocent people with them.
Nineteen fellows who felt ok dying while taking a bunch of innocent people with them were sufficient for 9/11. You are right. That's a small number. It's usually just one required to take out a city bus filled with women and children. That's even a smaller number. One guy walked into the one room Amish schoolhouse.
A plane will not be used as a weapon again.
That's an overly broad assertion. Maybe "a plane filled with arbitrary and unrelated passengers will probably not be used as a weapon again in any way that we can predict". That I'd agree with. But given how easy it is to walk onto the vast majority of the airports and steal an airplane or three, I don't agree that one will never be used as a weapon again. A Cessna 182 with a couple hundred pounds of C4 surrounded by ball bearings would do a pretty good job taking out a football stadium of people, even if there is a TFR over it. Crossing the few miles it would take to breach the prohibited space and crash boom would take much less time than the time it takes for an F16 intercept to happen. Finding an unattended C182 to fly off to a field somewhere to load up is trivial. At my local airport, there are even cargo helicopters (the life flight kind, and the "dump water on forest fires" kind) sitting on the ramp. Even if they are alarmed, it would take longer for the cops to show up than it would to start one up and fly it away, and they'll hold a butt-load of explosives. Or can dump a basket full of acid or other nasty stuff on a lot of people.
Pre-9/11 security seemed to be good enough to prevent regular bombings, plenty good for me.
Was it good enough for the people on United 93?
In a world with a pre-9/11 mindset, maybe it was good enough. We're faced with something called "progress", however. The information on how to make bombs is much easier to find, for just one thing.
What you need to remember is that it really wasn't the passengers that stopped either the shoe or underwear bomber from being successful. Yes, the passengers reported the activity and stopped it, but if either of those fellows had been one bit smarter, they'd have gone to the lavatory where nobody was watching to light things off. And if they had been two bits smarter, they'd have had working bombs. According to this, the shoe bomb only failed because the fuse was damp due to either the rain in Paris or foot persperation.
Relying on other passengers to stop a bombing on an airplane is relying on the bad guys being stupid. How do you plan on other passengers stopping someone from detonating a bomb when the bomber is alone and unobserved and has a working bomb?
Of course, you need to remember that the underwear bomber got on his plane in Schipol (not in the US), and the shoe bomber got in his plane in Paris (also not the US). And that the shoe bomber was actually in the custody of the French National Police because he wouldn't answer the airline screener's question and was, in general, a really suspicious fellow. But THEY LET HIM GO, including the bombs that were in his shoes. Apparently, it is legal to walk around Paris with bombs in your shoes. I don't know that TSA is the point of failure in these examples.
Does selective oversight into TSA security theatre equate to Oversight Theatre?
9/11 didn't happen because TSA wasn't on duty yet. 9/11 happened because up until that point, the game went like this:
"Terrorist" hijacks an airplane
Everyone sits tight and does what they are told.
Airplane goes to Cuba (or wherever).
Everyone goes home a little shaken up, but unharmed after a nice vacation on a tropical island that very few Americans get to see any more.
That's a fantasy. Here are some facts:
5 July 1972; Pacific Southwest 737-200; San Francisco, CA: The aircraft was on a scheduled flight from Sacramento to San Francisco when shortly before landing it was hijacked by two armed men who intended to have the aircraft fly to the Soviet Union. After landing in San Francisco, the aircraft was directed to an isolated part of the airport while the hijackers negotiated with authorities. Later, an armed FBI agent posing as the pilot that would fly the aircraft to the Soviet Union entered the aircraft while, unknown to the hijackers, three other armed FBI agents were able to position themselves near the front entry door. As the three outside FBI agents began to climb the stairs to enter the aircraft, a gun battle broke out which resulted in the deaths of both of the hijackers and one of the 77 passengers. Two other passengers were wounded, but survived. None of the seven crew members were injured.
17 December 1973, Pan Am 747, Rome, Italy: While the aircraft was at the gate loading passengers, a group of terrorists shot at the plane and threw incendiary grenades into the aircraft, killing 30. The terrorists later hijacked a nearby Lufthansa 737.
747 events involving passenger fatalities
14 June 1985; TWA 727 Athens, Greece: The aircraft was hijacked and the 153 crew and passengers were taken hostage for several days. A U.S. military member was killed by the hijackers during this time.
5 September 1986; Pan Am 747; Karachi, Pakistan: Four hijackers attempted to take control of the aircraft while it was on the ground, but the flight crew departed through the cockpit escape hatch. About 16 passengers were killed before the hijacking ended.
7 December 1987; Pacific Southwest Airlines BAe146-200; near San Luis Obispo, CA: A recently fired USAir employee used his invalidated credentials to board the aircraft with a pistol and apparently killed his former manager and both pilots (USAir had recently purchased PSA). All five crew members and the 37 other passengers were killed.
That changed on 9/11, and we had already adjusted to the new playing field before the day was done. The new paradigm, and securing the cabin doors, were all that was necessary to ensure that there will NEVER be another 9/11. IMHO, if you really want to prevent another hijacking on an airliner, you'll scrap the TSA and just issue every passenger a Louisville Slugger when they board the airplane. The passengers have the greatest vested interest in the security; stop trying to disarm your greatest allies in the quest for secure airliners!
That would usually work, but a small aircraft flown off-hours could be dominated by a handful of terrorists and it would still be a very deadly weapon. If you relax security too much, it would be possible to bring weapons on the plane that could be used to neutralize the passengers and crew even on a large plane.
And even the argument I pose above begs the ultimate question in the so-called "War on Terror:" WTF were the 9/11 hijackers doing in the country in the first place?!?! If you *start* your security procedure in the airport, you've already screwed the pooch. IIRC, we had reason to believe at least some of the hijackers were bad actors long before they boarded the airplanes in 2001. They never should have been allowed to get to the airport to begin with.
If you can't see that it's much easier and less intrusive to secure a few hundred small sites than to secure thousands of miles of border through which we must ship hundreds of billions of dollars worth of materials, I don't see how anything can penetrate your head.
And you assume that includes continuing ineffective and invasive searches why again?
Because if they don't do them, and someone gets through with something that is used to hijack a plane, they will be sued by the heirs and/or surviviors for being negligent in providing security. I think I said that already.
Further, anyone who buys into the current process won't accept an airport manager who proclaims that the current process is ineffectual and he's going to run things much looser.
That you and many others don't think the current measures are effective and/or reasonable won't be part of the equation. The lawyers run the asylum.
I was going to post an example from the newspaper last week but didn't. So: a guy goes to a bar and gets drunk. He drives home, and in the process runs into someone else. That person is seriously injured, unable to work, and will require a lifetime of managed care. That costs money. $5 million, to be exact. The lawyer sues the bar for not cutting him off, which apparently they didn't. Ok so far, I think there's a reasonable case. BUT. The lawyer also includes the bar the drunk was at PRIOR to the last one. The reason the drunk left that bar was because they CUT HIM OFF, which is what the law requires. Somehow, the previous bar should have known the impaired guy (he wasn't legally drunk yet) was going to go to another bar where they wouldn't cut him off and done something to stop him.
Put searches back in airports where they can apply some common sense, something that is not found in DC where the TSA edicts emanate from.
You assume that will happen. You assume that they have common sense (which is really not that common), and that those with common sense will overrule the lawyers on staff, or the local citizens on whatever airport board there might be who think that there must have been a reason the TSA did things the way they did.
The only reason I can see that returning the security process to the airports might result in a more reasonable system is if the airport cannot afford the staff to do it the same way the TSA did. That will probably result in increased fees on tickets and higher gate rentals for the airlines, even above the initial increases just to have a "common sense" system. And probably increased demands for federal funding of airport security, which will cost more and put us right back where we are now.
Its official. The monkeys are running the zoo.
Have gnu, will travel.
Not particularly fair to the passengers. For decades, they had been told "don't interfere, they won't kill you. They'll take you to Cuba, and you'll be back in the US soon."
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
In a related story, the congress is holding hearings on the magnificence of the emperor's clothing, and are excluding outspoken children from testifying.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Yeah! ANYONE can land a commercial jet in a corn field. Doesn't take training or anything.
This space available.
it was an evil panel of old men trying to put their ignorance into every woman's uterus.
The kind of people who hate on juries as being stupid are also the kind of people who pat themselves on the back for being "smart" enough to get out of it and thus don't know how it really works.
Actually, you'll find there is a skew towards above average intelligence just because of what is required. You need to have a job that won't can you for being gone. While legally no job can, in practice employers of menial labour have been known to do so. You also need to have an employer who will compensate you for your time, or have enough money you can afford it, since jury pay is jack shit these days, not even minimum wage.
Well guess what? That means more white collar professionals and that means a higher average intelligence.
What gets people thrown out is either involvement with the case, or Armchair Lawyer Syndrome (or the appearance thereof). That's the reason I'm never likely to serve on a jury. I love law shows (they ask) I've done mock trial all that kind of thing. Sets off Armchair Lawyer warning bells for them. They are worried you may decide you know the law and use your own, often incorrect (TV shows are fun not factual) interpretation of the law.
However they don't just seek out idiots or something. Great high profile example? The Terry Childs case. One of his jurors, juror #4, Jason Chilton is a CCIE. Highly educated (a CCIE is on the same level ass a maters or doctorate in terms of knowledge, just applies not theoretical) and in the precise area relating to the case: Network administration.
The jury system is by no means perfect but it is not the crap many like to make it out to be. They have no idea since they refuse to participate.
Unfortunately, as a country after 911 we said we don't care about our rights, just protect us from the terrorists. It's our own fault. Once you lose your liberty, it's hard to get it back. We might as well dismantle the Statue of Liberty, she doesn't stand for anything anymore.
It happens at some point after their share of the vote falls from 99% to 98%.
At present, people still emphatically confirm all the Republicrats' decisions. Every two years we get together and agree they are doing a spectacularly excellent job, in accordance with everything we want and believe in.
I have nothing against the man but what does he really know about Airport security? All he would do is spout the same obvious general talking points just about any of us would. Better than nothing but far from ideal.
I would rather see a nuclear scientist talk about ALARA or one of those Isrealis who laughed at our foolishness or people who were violated by TSA or were easily able to circumvent its protections.
That he was axed at TSA request is inexcusable nontheless...I'll be sending my rep a letter expressing my concern this not be repeated in the future hearings.
Well, the religious freedom issue was also a women's health issue. It depends on whether you have a medieval perspective on the world, or hold modernist enlightenment ideals like science. A compromise can, of course, be reached, as the Obama demonstrated. However, when it comes to scoring political points, the theatre will never end.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Security didn't fail on 9/11.
The 9/11 hijackers DID NOTHING WRONG, until they got on the plaze.
They were here under valid VISAs, they were not on any "no-fly" list, they had legitimate tickets, and they were carrying NO contraband,
The only way they could have been stopped by security is if someone in security had had a bug up their ass.
Yet ignorant people, spurred by Fox, kept repeating the lie that they "slipped past security" etc. that one unfortunate woman who had worked at the gate KILLED HERSELF because she felt such guilt, despite there having been nothing she could have done.
Meanwhile the people who ignored the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike etc." memo and then falsely blamed 9/11 on Saddam Hussein go on about their lives guilt-free.
This space available.
Actually the passengers did what they'd been told to do in this situation. Previously, a plane was flown to a politically safe destination (Cuba for the Americans) whilst a big political song and dance was made by the terrorist who then got a pithy concession from the west (a few prisoners) and let everyone go.
Now Hamas et al. must be loving Al Qeida as they can no long do that, no matter what the passengers will fight back and incapacitate the captors.
The failure in 9/11 was the intelligence, you had 18 hostile saudi's in the country, learning to fly, I bet they didn't have jobs either but had regular income (as flying lessons dont pay for themselves). A secondary failure on the flight school for not inquiring about suspicious behaviour.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Not particularly fair to the passengers...
I agree with your point about what people had been told to do.
But that does not change the fact that the passengers COULD have stopped them but did not. The simple fact is now passengers have been "upgraded" and provide real security whereas before, in general, they did not.
Again it's not the FAULT of those in the planes that did hit buildings they didn't do so, but it would be today.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If I was a passenger on United 93, I think I would have much preferred that someone on the ground at a security checkpoint stopped the guys
That would have been great!
But it didn't happen.
But here's the thing. This same guys, with the SAME WEAPONS, could easily get on today (just strap a box cutter to the side).
So for all the furor over the TSA we have NO MORE SECURITY against the 9/11 attacks than we did back then...
EXCEPT for the passengers. That is all the difference, that such an attack today would end in total failure because before they could even scratch someone when the box cutters came out they would be on the ground.
That is what I am saying, security has been upgraded but it is because of the passengers.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Senator Pat Roberts (Apparatchik, Kansas) who was chairman of the Senate 'Intelligence' Committee investigating the (ahem) reasons for invading Iraq famously said, "Let's put this on hold until after the election, to take partisan politics out of it." After the election, he naturally said "There's no reason to investigate the past".
Scumbag.
How ironic that the very next story on Slashdot (and the one I read before this) was about Chinese censorship of speech the ruling party finds threatening to itself.
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.'"
Not surprising at all. This is going to be just like the SOPA hearings, no dissenting opinions need be heard. What is surprising is that they have enough people on the committee on their side to pull it off this kind of obvious censorship. It also means that this committee meeting is just smoke and mirrors and that nothing is going to be done to curb TSA abuses.
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.
Or is the real issue that the TSA's security implementation is so haphazard and ill-conceived that it is worthless and it should be made more rigorous?
I keep seeing things claiming the TSA is violating in the US. If this is true, why has nobody launched a case against them, and brought it all the way to the supreme court?
Typically, in Canada at least, the supreme court rules via logic and the constitution, which would resolve this in a rational way.
First, while hijackings were not always friendly incidents the violent ones were the outliers. And the policy at the time that was drilled into travelers was to play the pacifist and let the authorities handle it.
Second, yes, a large plane is a deadly weapon. But the fact that the cockpit doors are now locked and reinforced negates much of that danger. Hell they could go a step further and in new large plane designs make access to the passenger compartment from the cockpit physically impossible. Although making the cockpit unassailable isn't strictly necessary though, all it needs to do is buy the pilots time to contact the ground controllers, after that a Jet Fighter can intercept it if necessary. No one is talking about completely relaxing all restrictions for what you can bring on to a plane, but the pre-9/11 stuff was probably sufficient.
Third, none of the terrorists that participated in 9/11 had entered the country illegally. So securing the borders doesn't have much to do with it. The problem was a breakdown in communications between the CIA and the FBI. The CIA knew who the badguys were and refused to pass along the information to the FBI once they entered the country because they wanted credit for whatever bust might happen. They basically gambled and lost without having to pay the debt themselves. So yes, securing airports is easier than the borders, but in practice it didn't matter because the people that could have done something didn't for personal glory.
LOL.
:)
Please excuse me for getting snippy with you, then. I've been arguing with a number of people commenting on this article who seem to think that "debate" means shouting "Huh-uh! Nyah, nyah, nyah," so I was getting a bit testy myself
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Try this. March down to the IRS and tell them that you're going to deduct some off of your tax bill because your religion instructs you that "Thou shalt not kill." Tell them that the money you're holding back is because you don't want to have to pay for soldiers to go fight in wars or for lawyers to prosecute federal death penalty cases. Then try to get some Internet time from jail and post again how your religious rights should extend infinitely, and that you should not ever have to pay to allow someone else to do anything that violates your own rights or conscience.
Or do this. Next time you have to go to a hospital, don't pay the whole bill. When they ask you why you're not paying the rest, explain to them that you don't want the rest of that amount to be used for free or low-cost prenatal services to unwed mothers, or to provide emergency trauma care to drug users who get shot or stabbed, or to treat sexually transmitted diseases of the indigent because it's against your religious beliefs.
Or go to an Apple store and tell them you want one of the new iPads. When they bring it out, pull out $300 for the $830-priced model. When they balk at giving you the item, just explain to them that you're conscientiously opposed to the labor practices that Apple is supporting in China, so you're just paying for the hardware. After all, your religious rights extend infinitely, right? By insisting that you pay the full $830, they're violating your First Amendment rights, and you should sue.
Like I said, religious rights do not extend infinitely. Sometimes other people's rights trump your own, especially when it comes to things like health care and their own individual liberty. If, say for example, a religious hospital is given the leeway to not have to pay for coverage or is charged less for insurance because that coverage is not provided, that gives it a financial advantage over another hospital that does not have that advantage. In other words, if a religious institution or company wants to provide public services and compete with public companies, they should be subject to the exact same laws and regulations as everyone else.
In you case you want to send any of these weasels a note about their questionable behavior. Here is the list of members:
http://oversight.house.gov/committee-members/
http://transportation.house.gov/singlepages.aspx/763
It is painfully obvious the TSA security is smoke and mirrors. They are extremely reactive and rarely if ever have thought ahead of issues that have come up. Think about all the "rules" they have now that only surfaced after a breech or near breech.
L053R
Security provided by the airports was ineffective enough to allow 9/11 to happen.
Only somebody who was too lazy to look up the facts would say something that fucking stupid - they didn't have reason to stop them at the time, the intelligence agencies could have stopped this and failed, the mindset about hijackings was to let them do what they want / you'll live, and the FAA - which controlled things allowed on a plane - allowed the boxcutters they used. How in the FUCK is that, AT ALL, analogous to private security being entirely to blame? Do you people spouting that crap even TRY to look intelligent, and actually back up your assertion? [er.... if you did, you wouldn't make that point, would you? :P]
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Actually most of the supposed terriers had expired visas. Atta in fact left the country and re-entered repeatedly (three times IIRC) with an expired visa, and was known by the government to be taking classes while only holding a tourist visa (strictly prohibited.) I've never met another foreign traveler who managed to re-enter the US with an expired visa, much less multiple times. Just one more piece of trivia that makes the Official Conspiracy Theory even more outrageous.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Please consult your local lobbying office on K-street for a fee schedule. That is all. Go back to sleep. Shearing times have already been posted in your cubes.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
George Bush, under whose administration the TSA was established once said that if we change our way of life because of the terrorists, they will have won. Well, TSA is a big change in our lifestyle. We are sacrificing freedom, not for security which would be a bad enough tradeoff, but for the illusion of security, as there is no proof the TSA has prevented any terrorists from coming to the US. We could get a lot of constructive advice from the Israelis who have been fighting terrorism for many more years than we have. Profiling is one thing they do, which is "politically incorrect" here. Let's turn airport screening back to the airports and have the FBI provide them with a database for checking passengers. Maybe we could have some professional security provided by the feds, but the mall cop guys who work for TSA don't make me feel the least bit safer or more secure. We could save billions of dollars every year by scrapping this agency which only provides the illusion of safety.