|
| Posted by: Perm Dude
- [5510572522] Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 13:30
Things are really coming to a head regarding the TSA's new invasive "security" devices and protocol.
My man Rush Holt is on the case. Money quote:
The entire episode has served as a symbol of an invasive, technology-driven passenger screening process that is not making us safer, even as it humiliates, degrades, and enrages a public that deserves far better from those ostensibly seeking to protect them.
Lots of virtual ink being spilled these days about the new TSA--apparently you can either be photographed nude or be groped by a stranger--your choice! Bruce Schneier has all the latest scoop you'll need.
I rarely fly--maybe once a year or so. The humiliation of going through those security zones is enough to keep me away--sounds like I'm not going to be in a rush to go back. |
| | | 1 | Boldwin
ID: 3410322211
Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 14:42
|
Make those 'love pat' sessions degrading enuff and you might be happier using Soros-tech instead. Yeah he just sold off his Rapiscan shares but in my book he's still their daddy.
|
|
| | | 2 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 14:45
|
Uh, yeah. That makes the three year old with the invasive pat down feel better.
|
|
| | | 3 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 17:37
|
This is all because of the underwear bomber that they let in the country on purpose.
No person has ever successfully set off an underwear bomb on any plane ever.
A scientific test was done to see what damage a similar underwear bomb would do. Results:.....It would not have even blown a hole in the plane.
The underwear bomber had no visa, and a sharp-dressed man helped him onto the flight to Detroit.
A large order of the new scanners was placed 4 days after the underwear patsy was caught.
Chertoff and Soros are connected to the new scanner company. Chertoff was pushing the new scanners the day after the underwear bomber was caught.
Why did the underwear bomber not set off his bomb at night, when most people were sleeping. Instead of shortly before landing, when everyone was awake. Why did he not blow it up in the bathroom, where nobody could have stoppped him. Same question for the shoe bomber. Perhaps they were supposed to get caught.
What if the new scanner company found a patsy to sneak a fake underwear bomb on a flight. That would be pretty good for sales, if it happened. Why is this not a possibility.
|
|
| | | 4 | Tree
ID: 2010312116
Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 18:36
|
BINGO!! i had Soros in Underwear Bomber Conspiracy Bingo!
seriously?!? lol...
it only took one post...that's outstanding.
|
|
| | | 5 | Boldwin
ID: 3410322211
Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 19:01
|
And what is the TSA response to this?
I predict another famous 'Don't touch my junk' moment.
|
|
| | | 6 | Tree
ID: 2010312116
Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 19:35
|
i like your 14 months old links.
you realize that the article you linked to actually pre-dates the underwear bomber?
|
|
| | | 7 | Farn
Leader
ID: 451044109
Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 19:39
|
Tree!!! How dare you actually click on the link? You are supposed to just believe anything Glenn Beck...errr...Boldwin tells you.
|
|
| | | 8 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Tue, Nov 23, 2010, 11:25
|
Chertoff and Soros are connected to the new scanner company.
Soros OSI owned ‘six one-hundredths of one percent’ of the company’s total stock, from the end of the second quarter and sold it under the third quarter. Rapiscan is a wholly-owned subsidiary of OSI Systems(coincidentally the same initials as Soros's Open Society Institute, otherwise no connection). Here's the 1 year
performance of OSI Systems stock.
Depending on the day bought and sold, Soros' investment might have even lost money, as admitted by Getting rich from TSA body scanners, while claiming earlier in the article that who is profiting from TSA’s use of the body scanners? Mark Hemingway and Tim Carney at The Examiner discovered the shameful answer: George Soros, Michael Chertoff, and a number of lobbyists.
Notice whose name is first, even though Chertoff is the one who is realistically actually profitting as well as promoting the scanners?
But Chertoff doesn't have quite the appeal to the red meat right as Soros, and while B7 makes some good points in #3, he succumbs to the Soros card because it plays well.
|
|
| | | 9 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Tue, Nov 23, 2010, 12:49
|
This is entirely on topic and timely. My friend Phil Mocek is going to trial in Albequeque, NM for refusing to show ID to a TSA agent. He planned on doing this, he is an ardent supporter of the freedom to travel.
Here's a link to a blog about his case.
So far as we know, Mr. Mocek’s case is the first time someone in the USA has been brought to trial on criminal charges for attempting to exercise their right to travel by air without showing ID or answering questions about themselves or their trip, or for photography or audio or video recording at a TSA checkpoint... Of course, the seriousness of the bogus charges being pressed against Mr. Mocek shows why it’s so important for travelers to be able, for their own protection, to photograph and record exactly what happens at TSA checkpoints.
It was only after they detained Phil that he decided to photograph the scene, things that were in plain sight. Heaven forbid someone decides to capture evidence that they may use in a trial!
|
|
| | |
| | | 11 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Tue, Nov 23, 2010, 16:18
|
Now we're talkin, B7. And let's not forget that it was Chertoff's 25 year old cousin who penned the 9/11 hit piece for Popular Mechanics.
|
|
| | | 12 | Mith
ID: 4982142
Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 11:09
|
Why am I supposed to blieve this guy over official sources including the Dutch government that confirm the bomber had both a passport and a round trip ticket?
And why are there no other witnesses able to corroborate his account of this spectacle that should have drawn the attention of everyone at that gate?
|
|
| | | 13 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 20:00
|
I'm getting the feeling that the TSA is turning into the military: We throw an ungodly amount of money at them to protect us, but the problems we are trying to solve are virtually entirely described and certified by the agency getting the money. Who have billions of reasons to describe things vaguely or alarmingly.
Last year we spent about $200 million per arrest for the Air Marshalls, who are getting arrested themselves more often than they make arrests. Since 2001, the Air Marshalls have averaged a little over 4 arrests per year. Total.
While we are at it, can't we get a less evil looking guy than Congressman Duncan to make the point? I'm just sayin'...
|
|
| | | 14 | biliruben
ID: 34820210
Thu, Nov 25, 2010, 05:05
|
Make them get their funding through bakesales, and toss the 800 million towards schools.
|
|
| | | 15 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Thu, Nov 25, 2010, 08:27
|
Why am I supposed to blieve this guy over official sources.......
You can believe that man sticking his hand down your pants.
And why are there no other witnesses able to corroborate his account of this spectacle that should have drawn the attention of everyone at that gate?
There are. The Dutch gov't has the video tapes that would likely reveal who is telling the truth. They refuse to release them or show them to the eyewitness. Meanwhile, hundreds of cancer-causing, nude picture taking scanners are foisted on the innocent American public.
|
|
| | | 16 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Thu, Nov 25, 2010, 11:29
|
#12 And why have the Dutch refused to release video which could clear up this controversy?
As for additional witnesses, Federal agents also tell ABCNews.com they are attempting to identify a man who passengers said helped Abdulmutallab change planes for Detroit when he landed in Amsterdam from Lagos, Nigeria.”
“Authorities had initially discounted the passenger accounts, but the agents say there is a growing belief the man may have played a role to make sure Abdulmutallab “did not get cold feet.”
link
I curse B7 for #3. I was more than happy to put the folly of the non-investigation of 9/11 behind me, but this incident is so obviously staged, it's impossible to ignore. I blame the end of golf season. Too much time on my hands.
Happy Thanksgiving all!
|
|
| | | 17 | Mith
ID: 28646259
Thu, Nov 25, 2010, 16:59
|
So the reason I should believe him over the official record that the bomber had a passport and round trip ticket is that the officials are so ridiculous that I should just be inclined to believe anyone who challenges the official record?
And there are witnesses. And you say you know this, not because they have come forward but because they can be seen in the security video that the officials refuse to release?
Am I missing something? Sure,I can't discount the story outright but it's a bit fantastic. The most likely answer in my opinion is that something like the scene that guy describes did take place, possibly with someone who looked like the bomber, or any of a million other possible combinations of this guy not quite understanding what (or who) he saw and some embellishment/inaccurate recollection of his story.
If you had 7 or 12 people all giving a similar account, that would be one thing, but this is the only guy saying this, right? About an event that would have drawn considerable attention at an airport gate where an international flight to the US is boarding?
And I forget now but I believe I recall there being something else a little off about this guy, maybe some other claim he came forward with that turned out to be demonstrably untrue.
|
|
| | | 18 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 11:51
|
some other claim he came forward with that turned out to be demonstrably untrue.
Haskell claimed that another man was arrested after the plane landed, which the FBI said was demonstrably untrue. Except:
They[Haskell and his wife] also said a second man was arrested by federal agents, in addition to Abdulmutallab, once the flight landed in Detroit. The FBI essentially called the Haskells liars, saying there was no second person.
Bill Carter, a spokesman with the FBI in Washington, D.C., said in an interview Tuesday that Abdulmutallab was the only person arrested or charged in relation to Friday’s foiled attack. . . .
Daniel Huisinga of Fairview, Tenn., who was returning from an internship in Kenya for the holidays, says he also saw a man being taken away in handcuffs at the airport after a dog search. A third person, Roey Rosenblith, told The Huffington Post on Sunday that he saw a man in a suit being placed into handcuffs and escorted out, as well. . . .
A person was detained by customs at Detroit Metro Airport on Friday following Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s alleged attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253, according to a spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Who's being honest here and who's not? The FBI gets caught lying after trying to paint Haskell as a liar. But other witnesses confirm the story of the second arrest. The FBI spokesman plays word games:
“There’s a lot of stories out there, whether any of them are accurate or not, or they’re a little bit accurate and blown out of proportion,” Carter said. “But I’m not aware of anyone charged or arrested other than Abdulmutallab.”
If you see someone handcuffed and led away by feds, wouldn't your conclusion be they're being arrested? Plus, there's not one bit of info provided as to the identity of the 2nd man, whether he was charged, released, or anything. Maybe they just detained someone, found there was no real problem and released him. Then why lie and play word games? Why not just say there was a man detained on unrelated immigration charges if that was the case. When an FBI spokesman says "I’m not aware of anyone charged or arrested other than Abdulmutallab”,
how can your reaction not be "Are you kidding me?"
And if officials are eager to be dishonest in this case of a 2nd man in Detroit, is it really a stretch to think they're not being honest about the 1st 2nd man in Amsterdam? What's Haskell's motivation to make up the story?
I really don't want to continue delving into the specifics of this case, so I'll make a few concluding observations and we can all move on to the nearest airport where billions in scanner machines have been placed, based mainly on the ability of the underwear bomber to get on that plane.
U.S. State Department officials said in Congressional testimony that the State Department had wanted to revoke Abdulmutallab's visa, but U.S. intelligence officials requested that his visa not be revoked. The intelligence officials' stated reason was that revoking Abdulmutallab's visa could have foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaida.[65]
Abdulmutallab's name had come to the attention of intelligence officials many months before that,[66] but no "derogatory information" was recorded about him.[41] A Congressional official said that Abdulmutallab's name appeared in U.S. reports reflecting that he had connections to both al-Qaeda and Yemen.[67] The NCTC did not check to see whether Abdulmutallab's American visa was valid, or whether he had a British visa that was valid; therefore, they did not learn that the British had rejected Abdulmutallab's visa application earlier in 2009.[9] The British did not inform the Americans because the visa application was denied to prevent immigration fraud and not for a national security purpose.[9]
link
Again, how can you not ask, "Are you kidding me?"
Congressional testimony admits that we knew Abdulmutallab was involved with Al Qeada, admits that the British knew the same thing, admits that they were hoping Abdulmutallab would lead them to bigger Al Qeada fish, admits that his father warned intelligence agencies of his radical wish for global jihad, but we're to believe he was able to board an airplane with a bomb in his pants because we didn't know he could possibly be a threat. And, he managed to board the plane with a bomb in Amsterdam where security is run by Israeli security firm International Consultants on Targeted Security, which even the Israeli paper Ha'aretz states:
"Even if US intelligence failed and the name of the Nigerian passenger was not pinpointed as a suspect for the airline, he should have stirred the suspicion of the security officers," the newspaper wrote. "His age, name, illogical travel route, high-priced ticket purchased at the last minute, his boarding without luggage (only a carry on) and many other signs should have been sufficient to alert the security officers and warrant further examination of the suspect. However, the security supervisor representing I-SEC and PI allowed him to get on the flight."
The official story is unbelievable. Focusing on the honesty of Kirk Haskell is a distraction from the real nuts and bolts of this incident.
|
|
| | | 19 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 12:03
|
Nice piece from Apollo at Federalist Papers about scanners at the courthouse. Great, great points being made.
[sorry, this is about the original topic]
This kind of stuff is right in the wheelhouse of libertarians and many others on the right, but most of them have been neutered and/or co-opted by social conservatives. with all due respect with the argument above, most of their energy is spent proving aspects of conspiracy theories rather than the gradual erosion of rights.
Why is is that, during the Bush Administration, it was the Left who took up the banner of rights more often than anyone else? Sad, really.
|
|
| | | 20 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 12:04
|
|
|
| | |
| | | 22 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 12:34
|
There should be a third one with a priest's collar on the TSA uniform with a "??" touch...
I'm just sayin'...
|
|
| | | 23 | Boldwin
ID: 311028269
Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 13:17
|
Why is is that, during the Bush Administration, it was the Left who took up the banner of rights more often than anyone else?
It only seems that way because they're so quiet about it now.
|
|
| | | 24 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 13:19
|
James Fallows with another fine column which mirrors some of my own thinking about the problems of bad risk assessment.
|
|
| | | 25 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 13:50
|
#19 - So which is it according to that article:
Are there full body scanners accurate enough to give real 'nude images' of each persons body and this why we should be upset?
or
Is it that the full body scanners can't identify that a particular item is a metalic sticker, they are just clear enough to identify that there is a metalic item?
I agree 100% that the Bush administration took a shot at our rights. The Patriot Act was a complete joke and one of the ultimate violations of our Constitutional freedoms.
But if I a) want to enter a public government building where or B) want to enter a plane
I have no problem and do not feel its a violation of my rights to ask to be searched/scanned/patted down. I feel in those cases its reasonable.
The plane is for my own security. The government building is not for my security but for the security of the people who work there.
Whether or not scanners are effective is a whole other argument.
|
|
| | | 26 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 15:34
|
The point of the article is that the security is both non-effective and pervasive.
|
|
| | | 27 | Tree
ID: 2010312116
Sat, Nov 27, 2010, 09:52
|
the TSA is re-active, and not pro-active. and that won't make the skies safer. these current methods give an illusion things are safer, and that's all.
i am a firm believer that if someone wants to blow a plane up, they will.
|
|
| | | 28 | Boldwin
ID: 2210132620
Sat, Nov 27, 2010, 11:17
|
Do the trend analysis. TSA, not smarter than a fifth grader. So police cant even frisk someone who gives them reasonable suspicion on the street in a know drug area, but you get strip searched just to get on a plane.......wow I am surprised the lawyers have not had a field day with this. - Eugene O'Toole
|
|
| | | 29 | Boldwin
ID: 2210132620
Sat, Nov 27, 2010, 11:19
|
Hire Israel.
|
|
| | | 30 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Sat, Nov 27, 2010, 12:02
|
Hire Israel.
Maybe you missed it. Israeli security firm, International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS), are responsible for security screening of passengers at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport, where accused suicide bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded the Detroit-bound jet. The company uses screening technology to profile passengers and identify security risks, based on the experience of the Israeli intelligence services. Former El Al Airlines and Shin Bet security personnel established ICTS in 1982 to market their expertise, and many US airlines use their services or technology.
According to Ha’aretz, Abdulmutallab was screened by ICTS, but the security agents failed to identify him as a threat, despite ample evidence. - from the Ha'aretz link in #18
ITCS is also the one company that had automatic inside access to all of the airports from which hijacked planes departed on 9-11, and to the airports used by Richard Reid, the shoe bomber.
|
|
| | | 31 | Boldwin
ID: 2210132620
Sat, Nov 27, 2010, 12:27
|
They still prevent more terrorism than Napolitano feeling up granny, little Timmy and Sue.
|
|
| | | 32 | Boldwin
ID: 2210132620
Sat, Nov 27, 2010, 12:29
|
And if I ever fly to Israel I'm flying El Al.
|
|
| | | 33 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Sat, Nov 27, 2010, 12:46
|
They still prevent more terrorism than Napolitano feeling up granny, little Timmy and Sue.
You might have been able to post a more idiotic response, but it would have been hard.
|
|
| | | 34 | Boldwin
ID: 2210132620
Sat, Nov 27, 2010, 13:05
|
I might have been able to post about a more idiotic response, but it would have been hard.
|
|
| | | 35 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Sat, Nov 27, 2010, 14:11
|
Maybe I'm confused as to the message Hire Israel.
Did you mean hire the Israeli government? Certainly you didn't mean hire an Israeli security firm, because we tried that with horrific consequences. Even the Israeli press admits the Israeli security firm in Amsterdam either allowed an obvious detainee to board a plane for the US, or was complicit in a false flag ops.
Bringing Napolitano, granny, little Timmy and Sue into that discussion comes across as an admission that you're not interested in intelligent discussion on the subject you broached in #29.
It's a response deserving of ridicule.
|
|
| | | 36 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Nov 27, 2010, 16:56
|
I believe Baldwin might have been referring to the firms that run the actual Israeli airports. Not this third- and fourth-rate "security" firms who trade off their nationality to score "security" gigs elsewhere.
|
|
| | | 37 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Nov 28, 2010, 18:06
|
Our New Safety Overlords
The whole thing is cringe-worthy.
Non-accountable bureaucrats who make up their own rules, appealing to never-attained "safety" the whole time? A lot of silence from the Right, who were up in arms over fake death panels.
|
|
| | | 38 | Boldwin
ID: 4010132819
Sun, Nov 28, 2010, 20:28
|
who were up in arms over fake death panels
Here
|
|
| | | 39 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 14:03
|
Grandma Got Molested at the Airport
|
|
| | | 40 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Sat, Jan 22, 2011, 01:00
|
Re Post 9
Woo Hoo! Phil is NOT GUILTY!
Phillip Mocek was found not guilty on all counts by a jury Friday evening.
Defense co-counsel Nancy Hollander countered, in her opening statement, that the case was about filming.
"It's about the fact that Mr. Mocek was filming in a public place where he had a right to film. ... He decided to film the process as he went through the TSA checkpoint."
She said there is no law that prohibits filming in the airport or at the checkpoint -- although the TSA states that local or state laws may prohibit the practice or the TSA may ask someone to stop if they are "interfering with the screening process" or taking photos of certain monitors.
"The other thing that I suppose we all learned from this case ... is that even though there are signs up that say you're required to have a government ID to travel, you're really not required to have a government ID to travel," Hollander said.
Mocek was "polite" and "courteous" the entire time, she said.
"Mr. Mocek did nothing illegal that day," Hollander said. "The only thing that happened that day was that the TSA and the officers were the ones out of control, were the ones making a commotion, and were the ones shouting. And if the passengers were disturbed they were disturbed by the police and the TSA and not by Mr. Mocek."
Read more: ABQNews: BREAKING: Mocek Found Not Guilty http://www.abqjournal.com/abqnews/abqnewseeker-mainmenu-39/26616-breaking-mocek-found-not-guilty-.html#ixzz1BjzjTzRg
Here's a piece from The Flyer Talk Forum.
After lunch, the judge gave his instructions, which were lengthy but excellent. Then each side gave closing arguments. The senior prosecutor did his best, arguing that Phil had entered the airport with an agenda and simply had crossed a line into illegality. The defense argued that Phil had broken no law; specifically, on each of the four charges:
1. He was not disorderly. Mere questioning of the TSA does not rise to the level of illegality, and the only people raising their voices were the TSA and the police.
2. He was not required to identify himself if he was not breaking the law. That charge really depended on the others.
3. He did not refuse to obey a lawful order because he was not given an opportunity to obey the order before being instantly arrested. He gave every indication that he would have obeyed if given a chance.
4. He was not trespassing because he had a valid reason to be at the airport. Anyway, trespassing and disobeying a lawful order were essentially the same alleged crime.
|
|
| | | 41 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Sat, Jan 22, 2011, 12:34
|
Here is the video of Phil at the airport. Hard to believe that the prosecution thought this would help prove their case.
|
|
| | |
| | | 43 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Tue, Jan 25, 2011, 19:40
|
Phil Mocek is an American hero.
Jesse Ventura Sues TSA in Pat-Down Smackdown
Groping governors now. Has there been a problem with former governors being terrorists?
|
|
| | | 44 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 09:09
|
Attempted Plane Attack: Trial Date Set for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab: MyFoxDETROIT.com
"The U.S. government escorted them through security without a passport and, we believe, gave him an intentionally defective bomb," said Kurt Haskell.
It was intentional that it went this far to further the war on terror, to get body scanners in the airports, to increase the TSA's budget, to renew the Patriot Act and whatever other reasons you want to list," Kurt Haskell told FOX 2.
|
|
| | | 45 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 15:55
|
I did a bit of digging on Kurt Haskell and found...nothing that would make him not be credible. But I still have to wonder if he's not misinterpretting what he saw.
He does make some compelling statements and I've seen no reason to doubt he saw what he saw. But I do see a rather large leap in logic to get from, "I saw a man with an American accent" approach the tsa agent to, "the american government arranged this."
If he can fill that hole in, like I said, he seem credible. But its an awfully large hole to fill.
I'll also add that I read 3 or 4 of the interviews. None of the articles claims Haskell believes this was a cover up of the US aidingthe terrorist. They all seem to indicate a cover up by the US out of embarrassment for letting it happen or missing the signs. Bit of a difference (and also a bit easier to believe).
|
|
| | | 46 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 15:57
|
The linked news article he blatantly states that. But none of his other interviews I read said that. They all leaned more towards, "the us screwed up the investigation and is covering it up."
Maybe over time he's come to his new conclusion and it makes sense in his head. Or maybe I just didn't read the right articles.
|
|
| | | 47 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 16:10
|
There were a couple recent FBI cases where they gave the terrorists a fake bomb. Oregon and somewhere else. He thinks they did the same thing here.
|
|
| | | 48 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 16:51
|
Is that the government, "aiding the terrorist to further their own agenda," or is that a sting operation where the fbi is 'helping a terrorist' who is going to get the stuff and blow something up anyway. Only their 'help' is to create an environment where the terrorist is doomed to failure?
I'd like to think its the 2nd one. Again, Haskell seems credible but is still making a large leap in logic. He's got a pretty big gap to fill.
|
|
| | | 49 | astade
ID: 78462922
Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 20:51
|
B7, thanks for the link. I agree with Khahan. Haskell's eyewitness account helps us see holes in the government account but I don't think that gives him the right to theorize on such a broad scale. Especially about the government strategy to introduce body-scanners into airports and renewing the Patriot Act. Plausible? Yes.... but how is he an authority to make that connection?
|
|
| | | 50 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 21:25
|
Watch post #10
|
|
| | | 51 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 22:05
|
This blog entry by Haskell explains why he thinks a fake bomb was used.
|
|
| | | 52 | astade
ID: 78462922
Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 22:59
|
B7, I don't appreciate the satirical comic linked in #10. I think that is disingenuous at best.
Your link to the blog entry by Haskell, provides some background into his thought process. I appreciate that, so thank you. I still believe that is a far cry from relating that to the government (FBI/CIA) strategy. Pure speculation, IMO.
I think the only way to achieve that is through some sort of whistle blower on the inside to confirm Haskell's line of thinking.
Without that, it's an interesting concept without any meat.
|
|
| | | 53 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Thu, Jan 27, 2011, 07:39
|
Haskell's eyewitness account helps us see holes in the government account but I don't think that gives him the right to theorize on such a broad scale.
Him and his wife could have died on that flight. He had nightmares. They let a man on the plane without a passport and later he tries to blowup the plane. Later, the government lies to him on multiple occasions. He writes his Congressman and Senators and they nothing except send him a letter for donations.
He has every right to theorize on such a broad scale . Do you, or me, or anybody else have the right to theorize about this? So far, as of 1/27/11, yes we do.
|
|
| | | 54 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Thu, Jan 27, 2011, 07:51
|
B7, I don't appreciate the satirical comic linked in #10. I think that is disingenuous at best.
Do you want me to delete it? There are other readers here. I'm sorry you didn't appreciate it.
An article on the foisting of the scanners on an innocent American public can be found .
here
Also, Body scanner makers doubled lobbying cash over 5 years
|
|
| | | 55 | Boldwin
ID: 4058276
Thu, Jan 27, 2011, 09:13
|
What a test of TSA arrogance. Can you imagine being the TSA screener and Jesse Ventura walks up, stares you in the eye and says 'Don't touch my junk'?
And again, why can't we profile? How many ex-state governors are gonna strap a suicide belt on? Really?
|
|
| | | 56 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jan 27, 2011, 09:20
|
All the Democratic ones, according to FOX.
:)
|
|
| | | 57 | astade
ID: 78462922
Thu, Jan 27, 2011, 21:32
|
RE 53: You are right, I should retract the word phrase "right to theorize". What I meant was... even though he was an eyewitness to a series of events that took place before the attempted bombing that his position doesn't appear to allow him to have significant insight into the bigger picture. He can speculate all he wants but it doesn't carry more weight than you or I doing so when he links what he saw to a larger conspiracy.
RE 54: I was just speaking for myself. Keep the post.
|
|
| | | 58 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 13:01
|
Did you know there is a TSA blog? Well, they did a piece on Phil and it is ridiculous, the comments afterward are priceless.
|
|
| | |
| | | 60 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 16:19
|
....As TSOs were talking to Mr. Mocek to verify his identity, he was holding a camera up to film them and appeared to be trying to film sensitive security information related to TSA standard operating procedures on ID verification.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
62 Comments........62 new members of the no-fly list.
|
|
| | | 61 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 17:46
|
trying to film sensitive security information related to TSA standard operating procedures
We certainly wouldn't want the standard operating procedures to get out.
BTW, let's tuck this one in here: "Yes, officer, I can take a photo of that federal building."
|
|
| | | 62 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Tue, May 17, 2011, 12:09
|
TSA backscatter radiation safety tests were rigged by Mike Adams at Natural News.com
Excerpt:
The evidence of the TSA's fakery is now obvious thanks to the revelations of a letter signed by five professors from the University of California, San Francisco and Arizona State University. You can view the full text of the letter at: http://www.propublica.org/documents...
The letter reveals:
• To this day, there has been no credible scientific testing of the TSA's naked body scanners. The claimed "safety" of the technology by the TSA is based on rigged tests.
• The testing that did take place was done on a custom combination of spare parts rigged by the manufacturer of the machines (Rapidscan) and didn't even use the actual machines installed in airports. In other words, the testing was rigged.
• The names of the researchers who conducted the radiation tests at Rapidscan have been kept secret! This means the researchers are not available for scientific questioning of any kind, and there has been no opportunity to even ask whether they are qualified to conduct such tests. (Are they even scientists?)
TSA operates in complete secrecy
None of the Rapidscan tests have been available to be subjected to peer review. They are quite literally secret tests using secret techniques engineered by secret researchers. We the People apparently have no right to see the data, nor the methodology, nor even the names of the researchers who supposedly carried out these safety tests.
• The final testing report produced from this fabricated testing scenario has been so heavily redacted that "there is no way to repeat any of these measurements," say the professors. In other words, the testing violates the very first tenant of scientific experimentation which is that all experiments must be repeatable in order to be verified as accurate.
...............................
Much more. You may think I'm a nutjob, but nonetheless, you should read this article before going thru one of those machines. Remember, these machines were foisted on us just days after the patsy underwear bomber was caught.
|
|
| | | 63 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, May 17, 2011, 12:26
|
You may think I'm a nutjob
That may be true (mostly due to your asides about government conspiracies woven into otherwise good stand-alone pieces). But I've been on this same page throughout this thread and elsewhere.
|
|
| | | 64 | Tree
ID: 320371412
Tue, May 17, 2011, 13:39
|
i agree with 63 on all counts.
i think your conspiracy theories are often a bit much, but to me, the TS has no clue WTF it is doing.
the employees are poorly and inconsistently trained, and i think the bumbling goes nearly all the way to the top.
|
|
| | | 65 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Sun, Jun 05, 2011, 08:22
|
|
|
| | |
| | | 67 | sarge33rd
ID: 4310132913
Tue, Nov 29, 2011, 18:07
|
Not just TSA...but everything, everywhere
Either Monday or Tuesday the Senate will vote on a bill that allows the US military to imprison civilians with no formal charges and hold them with no trial.
The ACLU reports even US citizens wouldn't be immune as the legislation aims to declare national territory part of the "battlefield" in the War on Terror.
|
|
| | | 68 | Boldwin
ID: 361012916
Tue, Nov 29, 2011, 20:26
|
Wow...that is a very very bad thing.
How far we've come from posse comitatus.
|
|
| | | 69 | sarge33rd
ID: 4310132913
Tue, Nov 29, 2011, 21:04
|
Patriot Act, on steroids
|
|
| | | 70 | sarge33rd
ID: 4310132913
Tue, Nov 29, 2011, 21:36
|
in all sincerity and without exaggeration: How far removed is that Bill, from the movie "V"?
|
|
| | | 71 | Boldwin
ID: 361012916
Tue, Nov 29, 2011, 22:18
|
Coauthored my John McCain. Remember when all you libs were telling republicans how McCain was their best candidate?
|
|
| | | 72 | sarge33rd
ID: 4310132913
Tue, Nov 29, 2011, 22:19
|
he was the best bet. Doesnt mean he was a GOOD bet, just the best bet the Reps had
|
|
| | |
| | | 74 | sarge33rd
ID: 581115611
Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 12:43
|
That terrible bill from my post 67, passed
Last week the U.S. Senate passed 93-7 a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that includes provisions giving the military the right to detain you forever and without charge if they think you're some kind of terrorist. Consider it an early holiday present! There is no exchange policy, sorry.
President Barack Obama can get rid of the Act's indefinite detention provisions by using his veto powers. He says he might do just that, so there is hope. But Hopey could also change his mind at the last minute and let the language become law. Civil libertarians from all sides of the political spectrum are very anxious about the final call he'll make.
C'mon Pres Obama. You are a Constitutional Lawyer...veto this damn thing.
|
|
| | | 75 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 12:46
|
He's threatened to. Hope he follows through.
|
|
| | | 76 | sarge33rd
ID: 581115611
Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 13:23
|
Here is the prob as I see it:
He needs to veto it, and i believe he knows this. HOWEVER, it is part of the def Authorization Bill. Veto it, and the GOP will be ALL OVER, the airwaves, with how he refused to fund the soldiers in the field. Gullible as the American public is, it would cost him (and the Dems), the WH.
So play devils advocate, which is worse? This bill, or a Rep Pres with a Rep House and who knows, for the Senate?
|
|
| | | 77 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 13:50
|
He needs to come out and clearly say he will sign the bill without that provision. Then veto it and send it back to the Senate.
Make them stand up for the provision on its own.
|
|
| | | 78 | sarge33rd
ID: 581115611
Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 14:01
|
agreed, and I think he needs to do it publicly...
|
|
| | | 79 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 16:07
|
And herein lies the problem I've been talking about for years - rather than flat out denouncing this piece of trash provision you guys want to come on here and give this a political spin about how its all the republicans fault.
According to the Senate website there are currently 2 independents and 51 democrats. So don't sit here giving me any crap about how this is a republican ploy. This is not just rep or dem. This is political BS across the board.
senators of the 112th congress
A vote of 93-7. 2 republicans voted against it. Even if none of the independents voted against it t hat still means 46 dems voted for it. This is so obviously not a partisan ploy. The provision in question was co-sponsored by a republican AND a democrat.
For one event can you set aside your partisan bias and treat this simply as a grave travesty of our consititutional rights that is coming from our congress. Not one section of it, but 93% of it.
And yes, I do hope Obama veto's this bill. And yes I hope he does publicly state why. Not for any partisan reasons but because its a shame that this was crowbarred in and the public needs to know about this so they can all contact their respective senators and chew them out.
|
|
| | | 80 | sarge33rd
ID: 581115611
Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 16:13
|
from the link in 74:
10. Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) tried to kill the provision on indefinite detention with an amendment that required Congressional review of these brand-new military detention powers, but his effort failed 60 votes to 38.
article on that vote
WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted Tuesday to keep a controversial provision to let the military detain terrorism suspects on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without trial -- prompting White House officials to reissue a veto threat.
The measure, part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act, was also opposed by civil libertarians on the left and right. But 16 Democrats and an independent joined with Republicans to defeat an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have killed the provision, voting it down with 61 against, and 37 for it.
then of course we have Lindsey Grahams comments:
15. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of the provisions' most vocal supporters, put it this way to the New York Times: "Citizens who are suspected of joining Al Qaeda are opening themselves up 'to imprisonment and death ... And when they say, "I want my lawyer," you tell them: "Shut up. You don't get a lawyer. You are an enemy combatant, and we are going to talk to you about why you joined Al Qaeda."'" Shut up, fool! Lindsey Graham hates it when you talk.
Like it or not, it is a PREDOMINANTLY, Rep thing.
Either way, I want it vetoed, killed, dead, DOA
|
|
| | | 81 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 16:16
|
"And herein lies the problem I've been talking about for years - rather than flat out denouncing this piece of trash provision you guys want to come on here and give this a political spin about how its all the republicans fault."
Where did you see this again? I think thou dost protesteth too much.
The only thing remotely close was Sarge's post 76 -- and if you don't think the Republicans will (stupidly, I agree) try to use that veto against him, you're kidding yourself.
There's obviously a really easy counter there, of course, but to suggest that it won't devolve into partisan bickering for the benefit of the ignorant sheeple masses... well, if you're offering any kind of decent odds that that doesn't happen, I'd like to take that wager.
|
|
| | | 82 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 17:43
|
Not that I vote for incumbants for federal office, but my Senators will not be getting my vote ever again. These war mongers have to go. This alleged war on terror has to go. It's rediculous.
Since I wrote this before the bill passed, I should be OK. This post is probably a violation of the new law.
|
|
| | | 83 | sarge33rd
ID: 581115611
Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 17:44
|
hasnt been signed into law yet, and pray to whatever gawds you choose, it never is.
|
|
| | | 84 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Wed, Dec 07, 2011, 09:57
|
Let the record reflect that hell has frozen over.
|
|
| | | 85 | sarge33rd
ID: 321137711
Wed, Dec 07, 2011, 16:41
|
|
|
| | | 86 | sarge33rd
ID: 321137711
Wed, Dec 07, 2011, 16:45
|
Is it irony or fate, that the Presidential election is Nov 4th, and the 5th of Nov is the relevant date?
|
|
| | | 87 | weykool
ID: 21114561
Wed, Dec 07, 2011, 18:14
|
For one event can you set aside your partisan bias and treat this simply as a grave travesty of our consititutional rights that is coming from our congress. Not one section of it, but 93% of it.
It would be nice wouldnt it?
Unfortunately when people put party before country it just isnt going to happen.
|
|
| | | 88 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, Dec 07, 2011, 22:12
|
So you are unable or unwilling to treat something other than in a partisan way?
I'm genuinely curious, since your #87 reads like an excuse to continue acting like a partisan because others are doing so. It is, in fact, the kind of self-referencing excuse that a partisan uses.
|
|
| | | 89 | weykool
ID: 21114561
Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 02:10
|
Wrong.
I dont support the Republicans who are for this bill.
Unfortunately, I dont see your side coming out against the Democrats who are supporting it.
To try and make this a partisan issue like the other left-wingers have done is despicable.
Asking Democrats to refrain from partisan arguments is like asking a dog not to lick its own azz.
Pointless.
|
|
| | | 90 | sarge33rd
ID: 321137711
Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 02:14
|
so where I have called for a veto of this bill, you blast the Dems. Partisan apologist hack WK...thats all you are.
|
|
| | | 91 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 07:50
|
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-James Madison
|
|
| | | 92 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 16:23
|
Either way, I want it vetoed, killed, dead, DOA
Something Sarge and I agree on, politically.
and if you don't think the Republicans will (stupidly, I agree) try to use that veto against him, you're kidding yourself.
Stopping the partisan politics has to start somewhere. Where better than right here amongst us? With the way it was posted and brought up there was no reason to even broach a finger-pointing post on this. Re-reading it today I may have read a bit more into Sarges post than I should have. But he did still go straight for a partisan blame game.
These war mongers have to go. This alleged war on terror has to go. It's rediculous.
I think hell froze over, thawed and froze again.
The link I posted in 79 has a listing of every senator in the 112th Congress along with contact information. This is a great time to use that information, regardless of political ideology and let those who we elected to represent us know that they need to represent us.
|
|
| | | 93 | sarge33rd
ID: 251133912
Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 16:36
|
actually Khahan, what I was doing; was playing Devils Advocate and trying to guess at strategic reasons for NOT vetoing the thing. The logical one, is that it allows the GOP to advertise, that Obama vetoed the Defense Appropriations Act and denied our troops in the field, material and resources. I do not believe, that you or anyone else here, will deny that if he vetoes it,m that is EXACTLY the ad we will see come election cycle.
|
|
| | | 94 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 16:36
|
I wrote to Bob Casey already. I realize he's going to go through re-election next year, but what a stupid way to prove he values constituent concerns than to authorize government to grab constituents off the street for the mere suspicion of working with terrorists.
|
|
| | |
| | | 96 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 13:06
|
I'd venture that a lousy economy has more to do with it, not to mention consistently lousy service from airlines paring back to deal with lost customers due to the ongoing crappy economy -- but the increased security measures at airports certainly is all part of the overall package of inconvenience.
|
|
| | | 97 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 13:25
|
Dana Loesch, famous conservative radio personality and Tea Party luminary
|
|
| | | 98 | Frick
ID: 52182321
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 13:26
|
I would say the lousy economy coupled with better technology. Businesses are using technologies like Skype to have face to face meetings without having to leave their offices. That is a pretty big cost savings. Does anyone decide not to go visit grandma because they have to deal with the TSA?
|
|
| | | 99 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 13:28
|
Dana Loesch, famous conservative radio personality
She's hardly famous.
|
|
| | | 100 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 13:30
|
Speak for your own side.
|
|
| | | 101 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 13:41
|
So obviously not a liberal
|
|
| | | 102 | Frick
ID: 52182321
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 13:46
|
Famous? In the St. Louis area maybe, since that appears to be the only area her radio show is aired.
|
|
| | | 103 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 13:52
|
Speak for your own side.
She's not famous. If you asked 100 Americans who she is, maybe 2 would know. She's not even syndicated, only broadcasting in St Louis on radio.
|
|
| | | 104 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 13:53
|
I choose to drive rather than fly to Idaho these days. The scales were tipped towards flying pre-9/11.
If only there were still a train...
|
|
| | | 105 | Tree
ID: 17039238
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 16:20
|
never heard of her.
apparently, from what i've seen in the internet:
1. She used to be a liberal.
2. she dropped out of community college
3. she was hired by CNN over a year ago. and i still have never heard of her.
4. she parted ways with her local tea party movement a few months ago.
5. She said "i'd drop trou and do it too", in reference to US Marines desecrating corpses (ok, now i see why loves her.)
6. Apparently, there is a dearth of attractive Conservative women, as Baldwin feels the need to post lecherous posts and numerous photos every time he discovers one. he also feels the need to insult liberal women, implying that they can't possibly be attractive, which likely speaks to his own shortcomings.
|
|
| | | 106 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 18:05
|
Never heard of her either. Hardly her target audience, however. Since I don't live in St. Louis.
|
|
| | | 107 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 20:27
|
Not quite in Malkin/Ingram territory but gaining. Liberal perceptions on this issue are irrelevant.
|
|
| | | 108 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 21:15
|
You call someone famous, nobody outside of a limited market area has ever heard of them, and you call THAT FACT...irrelevant. smdh
|
|
| | | 109 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 21:35
|
Liberal perceptions on this issue are irrelevant.
This is nonsense. The more "liberals" hate her, the more you love her. You've admitted on these very boards that you consume news and information based upon the rejection of the premises by "liberals."
|
|
| | | 110 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 21:40
|
Granted there are people who barely know who the president is, they are so politically illiterate. For politically aware conservatives Loesch is usually in their top ten female commentators. I've watched lots of youtube on her and I don't expect you liberals to have a clue about her.
|
|
| | | 111 | Frick
ID: 52182321
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 22:12
|
So she is in the top 10 female commentators of politically aware conservatives. That is of course the definition of famous. I'm glad you didn't feel the need to limit the list further by saying only radio hosts or females with brown hair.
|
|
| | | 112 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 22:19
|
Ah, nice. Boldwin is a hipster conservative now. It isn't that she's obscure. Oh no. Its that we don't have a clue about her.
|
|
| | | 113 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 22:54
|
There are a whole lotta things liberals don't have a clue about.
|
|
| | | 114 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 22:55
|
well then pray tell...why is Tom Brady famous? He may or may not be a conservative, I truly dont know. But he is not female and doesnt have a political talk show on TV or radio...anywhere.
|
|
| | | 115 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 23:16
|
#113: Like the conservative fixation with male anal sex. The ability of middle and lower class whites to vote against their best interests. And the willingness of conservatives to toss away political philosophical consistency in exchange for short-term, self-generated, "righteous" anger?
Yup. "Liberals" don't have a clue.
|
|
| | | 116 | Tree
ID: 17039238
Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 23:21
|
It isn't that she's obscure. Oh no. Its that we don't have a clue about her.
actually, based on some of his posts, i think it has less to do with her visibility, and more to do with her viability as spank material.
|
|
| | | 117 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 09:30
|
But she's been good.
|
|
| | | 118 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 11:34
|
re 112: It all comes together and makes perfect sense now.
|
|
| | | 119 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 11:43
|
:)
|
|
| | | 120 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718
Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 13:42
|
that would of course, explain B's blindness on issues.
|
|
| | | 121 | Tree
ID: 25171613
Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 14:12
|
120, FTW.
|
|
| | | 123 | Tree
ID: 17039238
Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 17:45
|
aside from being used for masturbatory material (as indicated above by Baldwin), Conservatives must also like Dana Loesch because she says incredibly dumbs things.
yep, she compared a forced trans-v@ginal ultrasound with consensual sex. lovely woman, she is.
the word filter on this board is amazing. i can say sn*tch. i can say p*ssy. i can say tw*t. but i can't say v-a-g-i-n-a.
(previous post removed because i forgot to self-censor tw*t)
and way. Dana Loesch. numb. skull.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 126 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Tue, Jul 31, 2012, 18:47
|
Yeah!
|
|
|
|