Reply With Quote
OBL is laughing his ass off at how he screwed up America while spending almost nothing himself, causing America to waste billions of $ and hours on bull like damaging passengers with radiation.
For the First Time, the TSA Meets Resistance
Oct 29 2010, 12:20 PM ET
Jeffrey Goldberg
This past Wednesday, I showed up at Baltimore-Washington International for a flight to Providence, R.I. I had a choice of two TSA screening checkpoints. I picked mine based on the number of people waiting in line, not because I am impatient, but because the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft.
Agents were funneling every passenger at this particular checkpoint through a newly installed back-scatter body imaging device, which allows the agency's security officers to, in essence, see under your clothing. The machine captures an image of your naked self, including your genitals, and sends the image to an agent in a separate room. I don't object to stringent security (as you will soon see), but I do object to meaningless security theater (Bruce Schneier's phrase), and I believe that we would be better off if the TSA focused its attentions on learning the iden y and background of each passenger, rather than on checking whether passengers are carrying contraband (as I suggested in this article, it is possible for a moderately clever person to move contraband through TSA screenings with a fair amount of ease, even with this new technology).
In part because of the back-scatter imager's invasiveness (a TSA employee in Miami was arrested recently after he physically assaulted a colleague who had mocked his modestly sized penis, which was fully apparent in a captured back-scatter image), the TSA is allowing passengers to opt-out of the back-scatter and choose instead a pat-down. I've complained about TSA pat-downs in the past, because they, too, were more security theater than anything else. They are, as I would learn, becoming more serious, as well.
At BWI, I told the officer who directed me to the back-scatter that I preferred a pat-down. I did this in order to see how effective the manual search would be. When I made this request, a number of TSA officers, to my surprise, began laughing. I asked why. One of them -- the one who would eventually conduct my pat-down -- said that the rules were changing shortly, and that I would soon understand why the back-scatter was preferable to the manual search. I asked him if the new guidelines included a cavity search. "No way. You think Congress would allow that?"
I answered, "If you're a terrorist, you're going to hide your weapons in your anus or your vagina." He blushed when I said "vagina."
"Yes, but starting tomorrow, we're going to start searching your crotchal area" -- this is the word he used, "crotchal" -- and you're not going to like it."
"What am I not going to like?" I asked.
"We have to search up your thighs and between your legs until we meet resistance," he explained.
"Resistance?" I asked.
"Your testicles," he explained.
'That's funny," I said, "because 'The Resistance' is the actual name I've given to my testicles."
He answered, "Like 'The Situation,' that guy from 'Jersey Shore?'"
Yes, exactly, I said. (I used to call my testicles "The Insurgency," but those assholes in Iraq ruined the term.)
I pointed out to the security officer that 50 percent of the American population has no balls (90 percent in Washington, D.C., where I live), so what is going to happen when the pat-down officer meets no resistance in the crotchal area of women? "If there's no resistance, then there's nothing there."
"But what about people who hide weapons in their cavities? I asked. I actually said "vagina" again, just to see him blush. "We're just not going there," he reiterated.
I asked him if he was looking forward to conducting the full-on pat-downs. "Nobody's going to do it," he said, "once they find out that we're going to do."
In other words, people, when faced with a choice, will inevitably choose the -Measuring Device over molestation? "That's what we're hoping for. We're trying to get everyone into the machine." He called over a colleague. "Tell him what you call the back-scatter," he said. "The -Measuring Device," I said. "That's the truth," the other officer responded.
The pat-down at BWI was fairly vigorous, by the usual tame standards of the TSA, but it was nothing like the one I received the next day at T.F. Green in Providence. Apparently, I was the very first passenger to ask to opt-out of back-scatter imaging. Several TSA officers heard me choose the pat-down, and they reacted in a way meant to make the ordinary passenger feel very badly about his decision. One officer said to a colleague who was obviously going to be assigned to me, "Get new gloves, man, you're going to need them where you're going."
The agent snapped on his blue gloves, and patiently explained exactly where he was going to touch me. I felt like a sop re at Oberlin.
"I'm going to run my hands up your thighs, and then feel your buttocks, then I'm going to reach under you until I meet --"
"Resistance?" I interrupted.
"Yes, resistance. Do you want to go into a private room?" he asked.
"Are you asking me into a private room?" I said. He looked confused. I said, "No, here is fine."
He felt me up good, but not great. It was not in any way the best pat-down I've ever received. The most thorough search I've ever experienced was in the Bekaa Valley, by Hezbollah security officers. That took quite awhile, and the Resistance really manhandled my Resistance. There was no cavity search, of course -- no magazine story, even one about Hezbollah terrorism -- is worth that. But it was the fairly full Monty.
I draw three lessons from this week's experience: The pat-down, while more effective than previous pat-downs, will not stop dedicated and clever terrorists from smuggling on board small weapons or explosives. When I served as a military policeman in an Israeli army prison, many of the prisoners "bangled" contraband up their asses. I know this not because I checked, but because eventually they told me this when I asked.
The second lesson is that the effectiveness of pat-downs does not matter very much, because the obvious goal of the TSA is to make the pat-down embarrassing enough for the average passenger that the vast majority of people will choose high-tech humiliation over the low-tech ball check.
The third lesson remains constant: By the time terrorist plotters make it to the airport, it is, generally speaking, too late to stop them. Plots must be broken up long before the plotters reach the target. If they are smart enough to make it to the airport without arrest, it is almost axiomatically true that they will be smart enough to figure out a way to bring weapons aboard a plane.
UPDATE: Many people are asking me if I actually named my testicles "The Resistance." Of course not. I was just messing with the guy from TSA. My testicles are actually named "Tzipi" and "Bibi."
OBL is laughing his ass off at how he screwed up America while spending almost nothing himself, causing America to waste billions of $ and hours on bull like damaging passengers with radiation.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Benjamin Franklin
Anyone with half a brain knows they are just making the lib s feel better about security.
You are so re ed and delusional it isn't even funny. Which is it, the 'lib s' are a bunch of ACLU/Al-Qaida freaks bent on destroying the United states with individual rights to privacy and such? Or are they cow-eyed and fearful sheep willing to give up everything in the name of societal safety?
In any case, the answer is far more complicated than your simple, binary intelligence will allow for. But if you're going to throw around ass ridiculous statements like the one above, I suggest you start looking for a clue by taking a long hard look in the mirror and at your own disgusting ideological cohorts. You double-think ing prat.
Are you implying that only 'lib s' fly in airplanes or that you don't even have half a brain?
So fascist govt agents herd poor, poor sheeples through fascist technology by threatening them with a copped crotch...
poor, poor sheeples are headed to in a handbasket.
And WC, what is the difference between fascist and communist?
(Going to in a handbasket, we usually say in English.)
(WC is an erstwhile <sheeple> user. I think boutons is too.)
Dont worry. Folks like the ACLU are fighting so that you wont have to show your sheeple wee-pole much longer.
I like headed in advance of . Bite me.
<In advance of.> In English we usually say, <in front of> or <before.>
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-01-2010 at 01:03 AM.
(Is English not your first language, Parker, or do you just enjoy mangling it?)
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-01-2010 at 01:02 AM.
sheeple wee-pole
(a better rhyme than it was a joke imo.)
Seriously.
Who here wants their wives and daughters going through this scanning machine?
It's ing HUMAN to think sexually. If men are the ones behind the machines....heck, the images aren't even deleted. They are saved....
As long as the pat downs on female passengers are ONLY DONE BY FEMALE EMPLOYEES, then I'm ok with that.
How many attacks have been caught with the new airport screening measures after 9/11 and without these scanners? Almost none, or they are keeping it a secret.
The number is none or at extreme max less than handful. Then the 10s of $Bs being spent on these fricking scanners and the $Bs on their eternal maintenance and replacement, is just another way for corps to fleece taxpayers and enrich Congresscritters.
There is huge controversy among science about how much radiation is acceptable. Pregnant women and children, who are known to be extreme NatSec threats, must not be radiated.
The method is America's madness is all about fleecing taxpayers. Just say "it's NatSec", and $Bs flow to the corps.
Yep. Liberals have a huge monopoly on security theater.
WC, I know you're an intelligent person, so I can't figure out why your brain just ceases to function at times. It's really, really baffling. Do you really want to put these ridiculous protocols at the feet of liberals when most of them were enacted in the Bush administration?
All I got out of this is " flying."
Pretty much. I feel sorry for business people who have no way to avoid it and must endure their tender bits being ogled at 3-4 times per week.
Say, out of curiosity, does anyone know if political figures have to endure this kind of screening? Or do they just walk through security to their own private planes?
I'd be willing to wager that they are on a TSA "Don't touch" list.
Government "by the people, for the people" indeed.
So let them have your right to travel. What will you give them next?
Airport body scanners 'could give you cancer', warns expert
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 11:25 AM on 30th June 2010
Full body scanners at airports could increase your risk of skin cancer, experts warn.
The X-ray machines have been brought in at Manchester, Gatwick and Heathrow.
But scientists say radiation from the scanners has been underestimated and could be particularly risky for children.
They say that the low level beam does deliver a small dose of radiation to the body but because the beam concentrates on the skin - one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the human body - that dose may be up to 20 times higher than first estimated
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...#ixzz143IYVQH1
My question: Why dont the resident Conservatives rail on this ? Where's all the "Don't tread on me" horse ? Are they that predictable? Do they take their entire lead from conservative media, who not only convince them of which principles apply, but also how to apply them?
Dont all the Tea-Party/Fox News principles apply to this ? Or is it just because the MIC has ties into the subject matter that Fox tells you to lay off?
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...-military.htmlSaturday, October 23, 2010
The Naked Body Scanners and the Military Industrial Complex
This is just a curiosity, but don't for a minute think the Naked Body Scanners that are being placed at airports around the country, and are technically known as backscatters, are coming from what in any way could be considered the private sector. It's tough to pin down, but around every corner of the backscatter are military men and intelligence operatives.
The backscatter X-ray was first applied as a commercial security scanning device by Dr. Steven W Smith. Smith is currently President of Spectrum San Diego, a wholly owned subsidiary of the military connected SAIC. The president of SAIC is Walter P. Havenstein.
Havenstein received a bachelor’s degree in aerospace engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy and a master’s degree in electrical engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School. He served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1971 to 1983, specializing in tactical communications and systems acquisition management, and completed his career in the Marine Corps Reserve in 1999 retiring as a colonel.
SAIC has an Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Group. Its president is K. Stuart Shea. In 2003, Shea was named to the 12-member National Commission for the Review of the Research and Development Programs of the U.S. Intelligence Community, established by Congress to review the full range of current research and development programs in the intelligence community
Smith sold his backscatter device to Rapiscan Systems, a division of OSI Systems, Inc. On OSI's board sits Dr. William F. Ballhaus, Jr. He served as director of NASA's Ames Research Center.
Another producer of the backscatter is American Science & Engineering. It is a publicly traded company and has on its board, General John A. Gordon, who, naturally, has a very strong military/intelligence background
Gordon is a General, United States Air Force (Retired) He was elected as a Director of the AS&E in November 2008, and has served on AS& E’s Science and Technology Advisory Committee since January 2006. General Gordon served in the White House as the President’s Homeland Security Advisor from June 2003 to June 2004 and as the Deputy National Security Advisor for Counter Terrorism and the National Director for Counter Terrorism from June 2002 to June 2003. General Gordon was the first administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration and Undersecretary of Energy, responsible for the entirety of the nation’s nuclear weapons program, serving from June 2000 to June 2002. Additionally, he served as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence at the Central Intelligence Agency from 1997 to 2000 and as Associate Director of Central Intelligence for Military Support from 1996 to 1997. As an Air Force four-star general, General Gordon’s thirty-two year Air Force career included assignments in research and development, strategic planning, missile and space operations, inter-governmental operations, and international negotiations. He was commissioned in 1968 following graduation from the University of Missouri with a bachelors of science degree in physics. He earned a masters degree in physics from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, and a masters of arts in business administration from New Mexico Highlands University.
Again, there are no smoking guns here of any kind, there is no direct connection, but around every corner of the backsactters is a military/intelligence man, somewhere. Big Brother is bad enough, but Big Brother with a military/intelligence man lurking around every corner is worse. Creepy
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
