PDA

View Full Version : We Wont Fly. Act Now. Travel With Dignity. Jam TSA Checkpoints By Opting Out Until Removal of Scans



Magda Hassan
11-14-2010, 12:38 AM
Home (http://wewontfly.com/)
Nov 24: National Opt Out Day! (http://wewontfly.com/opt-out-day/)
Blog (http://wewontfly.com/blog/)
About (http://wewontfly.com/about/)
Subscribe (http://wewontfly.com/feed/)


Take Action: Defeat the Scanners and Gropers


How to Raise Hell



Participate in National Opt Out Day (http://wewontfly.com/opt-out-day/) at any local airport.
Stop flying.
OPT OUT of the scanners. EVERY TIME!
Educate yourself, your family, friends and neighbors.
Organize an educational event at your local airport for National Opt Out Day, Nov 24 (http://wewontfly.com/opt-out-day/).
Create a video saying why you wont fly. And send us a link (http://wewontfly.com/contact/)!
Protest to the airlines (http://airtravel.about.com/od/basedinnorthamerica/tp/top10na.htm).
Make a fuss to the hotels (http://travel.latimes.com/articles/la-trw-ultimatehotels8-2009feb08?content=+Inn+%28Choice%29%3C%2Fp%3E%0A%3 Cp%3E%28877%29+424-6423&single_page=y#show).
Complain to the government (http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml).
Report your experience to EPIC (http://epic.org/bodyscanner/incident_report/).
File a complaint with the ACLU (https://secure.aclu.org/site/SSurvey?JServSessionIdr004=204slaluy1.app226a&ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&SURVEY_ID=1440).
File a TSA Civil Rights complaint (http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/civilrights/travelers.shtm).
File an online TSA complaint (https://contact.tsa.dhs.gov/DynaForm.aspx?FormID=10).
Tell We Wont Fly your TSA story (http://wewontfly.com/tell-your-story/).
Tweet your feelings with hashtag #wontfly (http://twitter.com/#search?q=wontfly)
Like our Facebook page. (http://www.facebook.com/wontfly)
Connect with us on Twitter (http://twitter.com/WeWontFly).
Post to Facebook. (http://facebook.com/)
Blog or make a video about your feelings and experiences.
Ask local media to cover this story.
Got more ideas? Share them!


The Plan is Simple



If you absolutely, positively must fly, opt out of the scanners. Do it to protect your health and privacy.
If you can avoid flying, dont fly. Hit the airlines in the pocketbook until the scanners and gropers are gone. Make the airlines work for us.
Raise holy hell. Register your disapproval of the scanners and gropers to your airline, your hotel and all government officials who claim to work for you. Educate your community.

For your Health


Tweet (http://twitter.com/share)

Backscatter X-ray uses ionizing radiation, a known cumulative health hazard, to produce images of passengers bodies. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with defective DNA repair mechanisms are considered to be especially susceptible to the type of DNA damage caused by ionizing radiation. Also at high risk are those who have had, or currently have, skin cancer. Ionizing radiations effects are cumulative, meaning that each time you are exposed you are adding to your risk of developing cancer. Since the dosage of radiation from the backscatter X-ray machines is absorbed almost entirely by the skin and tissue directly under the skin, averaging the dose over the whole body gives an inaccurate picture of the actual harm. In their letter of concern (http://news.ucsf.edu/news-briefs/details/ucsf-scientists-speak-out-against-airport-full-body-scans/), the UCSF faculty members noted that the dose to the skin could be dangerously high. The eyes are particularly susceptible to the effects of radiation, and as one study found allowing the eyes to be exposed to radiation can lead to an increased incidence of cataracts.
http://wewontfly.com/wp-content/themes/thesis_18/custom/rotator/no-warrantless.jpg
For your Privacy

Aside from the health risks of these devices, the fact remains that they allow strip searches to be conducted on a wide-scale level. That they are automated and mechanical in no way changes the fact that when a government agent looks beneath your clothing you are being strip searched. These strip searches are being performed without any probable cause or reasonable suspicion, as primary screening. A recent article in the San Diego Entertainer on August 31, 2010 (http://www.sdentertainer.com/news/tsa-installs-body-scanners-san-diego-international-airport/) stated that the scans are detailed enough to identify a persons gender to identify a passengers surgery scars, or to discern whether a woman is on her menstrual cycle or not. Although the TSA purports to be staffed by highly trained professionals who respect the privacy and dignity of travelers, TSA Screener Rolando Negrin was ridiculed by other TSA screeners for having a small penis after being imaged by an AIT device (AKA porno-scanner).
For your Personal Property

There are also property risks. During the time that a person is inside the full body imaging machine, it is impossible to maintain a line of sight to his or her belongings. Remember that because you cannot have anything in your pockets during the scan, this will include all your identification, money, and all personal items. Numerous thefts have been reported at security checkpoints, including incidents that led to the firing of four TSA employees at JFK as ABC News reported (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/investigators&id=7447038).
The Scanners are Ineffective and Unproven Anyway

From the Vancouver Sun: Full-body scanners are waste of money, Israeli expert says
(http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Full+body+scanners+waste+money+Israeli+expert+says/2941610/story.html)
CNN catches TSA in a lie.


A leading Israeli airport security expert says the Canadian government has wasted millions of dollars to install useless imaging machines at airports across the country.
I dont know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747, Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.
Thats why we havent put them in our airport, Sela said, referring to Tel Avivs Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.
Sela, former chief security officer of the Israel Airport Authority and a 30-year veteran in airport security and defence technology, helped design the security at Ben Gurion.
How to Opt Out: Say I Opt Out



Should you decide to opt out, you must be aware that the TSA will perform a pat down instead of subjecting you to the WBI/AIT (AKA porno-scanner). The TSA may try to pressure you into submitting to the scanners . You are not required by law to submit to imaging, however, many TSA employees may attempt to intimidate, coerce or insist that it is required. You will need to be firm, and sometimes will not be allowed to opt out unless you state in exactly these words I opt out. While you should be able to opt out using your own terms, such as requesting a pat down instead, or stating that you will not be photographed nude, remember that not all screeners will be respectful of your decision. They may continue to insist until you say I opt out. In these cases it is up to the individual traveler to determine whether to stand firm or to use the TSAs preferred wording.
WARNING: Enhanced Pat Down

Be aware that the TSA is using what they call an enhanced pat down in many instances. These pat downs are much more rigorous and often include the TSA using their palms to touch your genitals in a manner that could feel like sexual assault. If you feel that you or your child were inappropriately touched during the enhanced pat down, call for a law enforcement officer.
Alternatives to Flying

Coming soon. Can you write this section?
We Can Do it

A few committed individuals are working together to effect positive change. If we dont take action, however meager and ineffective it may seem at first, the ability to opt out may soon disappear. We may soon find these porno-scanners on our roads, in our train stations and sports stadiums. We must end this dangerous and invasive technology here and now! Join us!
Connect with other We Wont Flyers



http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/hs463.snc4/50270_109580362442913_1951523_q.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/wontfly)We Won't Fly on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/wontfly)
Like

You like We Won't Fly.Unlike Admin Page ErrorYou like this.Unlike Admin Page Error





2,9562,955 people like We Won't Fly.





Facebook social plugin (http://developers.facebook.com/plugins/?footer=1)
http://wewontfly.com/

Peter Lemkin
11-14-2010, 03:32 AM
Good idea. Now, need to expand that to almost all things instituted since 9-11! Personally, I wish they'd bring back ocean going ships. The only ones now are expensive cruise ships that will not take dogs and cost a small fortune for the human. TSA nearly killed my dog last time I flew and there was nothing I could do but file a 'complaint' that went into the bin. I always get my luggage searched - just a coincidence, I'm sure! Police state built on the lie of 9-11 and much that followed. What little real 'terrorism' there is, IMO, is legitimate response to our state terror. End the first and there won't be the second.

Magda Hassan
11-14-2010, 03:41 AM
Ooh, yeah, I love sailing. A boat trip is so much nicer. Human paced. Peter, I think it has gotten worse since you traveled last. If that is even possible.

Ed Jewett
11-14-2010, 04:45 AM
There was an incident, with cellphone video, at the Chattanooga airport in which a 3-year old girl, held by her mother, was "groped" while she screamed at the top of her lungs "Get your hands off of me!" They had already taken her teddy bear away from her. The local TSA cretin-in-charge said he'd consider reviewing the child sensitivity training. Janet Napolitano is already on record as stating she and Der Heimat Security won't back down. I haven't flown in two years and don't expect to soon.

Magda Hassan
11-14-2010, 04:50 AM
I saw that. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TCHSGvNwRY&feature=player_embedded Bloody disgusting. And her father works for the tv station so it got the air time but how many other has this happened to and they don't have the media contacts?
Pack of sick perverts and paranoids. Getting the people used to the idea that it is okay for 'officials' feel you up where ever they like. Next the electrodes.

Ed Jewett
11-14-2010, 07:21 AM
It's positively revolting... which, hopefully, we soon will be.

Ed Jewett
11-14-2010, 09:11 AM
After Encounter with TSA, Man Decides Not to Fly, Government Goon Threatens to Sue for $10,000 (http://cryptogon.com/?p=18756)

November 14th, 2010 Via: Insert Title (http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html):
At this point, I thought it was all over. I began to make my way to the stairs to exit the airport, when I was approached by another man in slacks and a sport coat. He was accompanied by the officer that had escorted me to the ticketing area and Mr. Silva. He informed me that I could not leave the airport. He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. Having left the area, he stated, I would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine. I asked him if he was also going to fine the 6 TSA agents and the local police officer who escorted me from the secure area. After all, I did exactly what I was told. He said that they didnt know the rules, and that he would deal with them later. They would not be subject to civil penalties. I then pointed to Mr. Silva and asked if he would be subject to any penalties. He is the agents supervisor, and he directed them to escort me out. The man informed me that Mr. Silva was new and he would not be subject to penalties, either. He again asserted the necessity that I return to the screening area. When I asked why, he explained that I may have an incendiary device and whether or not that was true needed to be determined. I told him that I would submit to a walk through the metal detector, but that was it; I would not be groped. He told me that their procedures are on their website, and therefore, I was fully informed before I entered the airport; I had implicitly agreed to whatever screening they deemed appropriate. I told him that San Diego was not listed on the TSAs website as an airport using Advanced Imaging Technology, and I believed that I would only be subject to the metal detector. He replied that he was not a webmaster, and I asked then why he was referring me to the TSAs website if he didnt know anything about it. I again refused to re-enter the screening area.
The man asked me to stay put while he walked off to confer with the officer and Mr. Silva. They went about 20 feet away and began talking amongst themselves while I waited. I couldnt over hear anything, but I got the impression that the police officer was recounting his version of the events that had transpired in the screening area (my initial refusal to be patted down). After a few minutes, I asked loudly across the distance if I was free to leave. The man dismissively held up a finger and said, hold on. I waited. After another minute or so, he returned and asked for my name. I asked why he needed it, and reminded him that the female supervisor/agent had already taken a report. He said that he was trying to be friendly and help me out. I asked to what end. He reminded me that I could be sued civilly and face a $10,000 fine and that my cooperation could help mitigate the penalties I was facing. I replied that he already had my information in the report that was taken and I asked if I was free to leave. I reminded him that he was now illegally detaining me and that I would not be subject to screening as a condition of leaving the airport. He told me that he was only trying to help (I should note that his demeanor never suggested that he was trying to help. I was clearly being interrogated.), and that no one was forcing me to stay. I asked if tried to leave if he would have the officer arrest me. He again said that no one was forcing me to stay. I looked him in the eye, and said, then Im leaving. He replied, then well bring a civil suit against you, to which I said, you bring that suit and walked out of the airport.

David Guyatt
11-14-2010, 11:43 AM
I think the only power any of us have anymore is our purchasing power.

If we collectively cease purchasing airline seats, this entire police state network will implode within weeks, as the airlines couldn't survive financially.

The same is true of almost everything else too: don't like it, don't buy it.

Keep your card in your wallet and move on to something else.

Christer Forslund
11-17-2010, 09:07 AM
TSA to investigate body scan resister Oceanside man took a stand against security, went viral

By Robert J. Hawkins (http://www.signonsandiego.com/staff/robert-hawkins/),
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 7:59 p.m.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...scan-resistor/ (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/15/tsa-probe-scan-resistor/)


http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/photos/2010/11/15/john-tyner_t352.jpg?980751187beea6fc26a3a9e93795d379f58 af1c4 (http://www.signonsandiego.com/photos/2010/nov/15/261694/) / Family photo
John Tyner of Oceanside.




http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/photos/2010/11/15/screen_t352.jpg?980751187beea6fc26a3a9e93795d379f5 8af1c4 (http://www.signonsandiego.com/photos/2010/nov/15/261884/) Photo by John Gastaldo
An unidentified passenger raises his arms in the body scan machine on Monday as TSA employees work in a secure area at Lindbergh Field's Terminal 1.




Read John Tyner's blog (http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/).
Listen to the audio of John Tyner's encounter with the TSA (http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html).



The Transportation Security Administration has opened an investigation targeting John Tyner, the Oceanside man who left Lindbergh Field under duress on Saturday morning after refusing to undertake a full body scan.
Tyner recorded the half-hour long encounter on his cell phone and later posted it to his personal blog, along with an extensive account of the incident. The blog went viral, attracting hundreds of thousands of readers and thousands of comments.
Michael J. Aguilar, chief of the TSA office in San Diego, called a news conference at the airport Monday afternoon to announce the probe. He said the investigation could lead to prosecution and civil penalties of up to $11,000.
TSA agents had told Tyner on Saturday that he could be fined up to $10,000.
Thats the old fine, Aguilar said. It has been increased.
Tyners stand tapped into an undercurrent of resentment toward the TSA and how security checks are conducted at the nations airports. Those commenting about Tyners experience at SignOnSanDiego.com told their own stories of personal humiliations and invasive body searches.
TSA chief John Pistole was grilled about Tyners case Monday on CNN.
The bottom line is, if somebody doesnt go through proper security screening, theyre not going to go on the flight, Pistole said.
Other news websites, from gri.pe to Yahoo! News to Drudge Report, have consumed Tyners tale and recirculated it to millions of readers. On Monday, Tyner spent the entire day fielding interviews from television, radio and news agencies.
Tyner, 31, was on his way to South Dakota on Saturday to go pheasant hunting. He was chosen for a full-body scan and opted out because he thought it was invasive. He was then informed that he would be subjected to a body search. He told the TSA agent, "You touch my junk and I'm going to have you arrested.
Tyner likened the proposed search procedure to a sexual assault.
When he tried to assert his rights, Tyner was told by a TSA supervisor on tape, By buying your ticket you gave up a lot of rights.
Aguilar says that Tyner was facing nothing more than the traditional pat-down that TSA has used for some time, and not a more aggressive body search in effect since late October.
In the end, security escorted Tyner out of the airport, after American Airlines refunded his ticket.
According to Aguilar, Tyner is under investigation for leaving the security area without permission. Thats prohibited, among other reasons, to prevent potential terrorists from entering security, gaining information, and leaving.
Since Saturday, Tyners story has added fuel to the Opt Out Day movement which is calling on air travelers to choose not to undergo the full-body scans on Nov. 24, the day before Thanksgiving and traditionally one of the years top travel days.
Since the rollout of the imaging scanners there has been controversy over the quality of the images, which show limited details of a persons entire body, and the possible saving of the images something TSA has denied is possible.
The level of exposure to radiation has also been an issue for many.
Aguilar cautioned against the scanner boycott. He said he is aware of a backlash.
Let me paraphrase our new administrator, John Pistole, said Aguilar. It really is irresponsible to encourage anyone to opt out of a technology that is there in place specifically to protect the public.
In late October, TSA added another layer of security, the resolution pat-down, which requires TSA agents to grasp the body of the subject more firmly when running hands over limbs and also requires probing up to the genital areas of the body.
Aguilar said that once a passenger enters the security area, there is a legal obligation to follow through with the process.
While a passenger can, like Tyner, ask to opt-out of the full body scan, they must walk through the traditional metal scanner and then, at the discretion of the TSA, undergo a pat-down search.
Aguilar said the aggressive body search is not designed as an inducement for passengers to opt into the full body scan. Aguilar said that since the resolution pat-downs began, there have been only four in San Diego.
And even though there are 10 full-body scanners stationed throughout San Diegos airport, it is rare to see more than one in operation in a security area. The TSA staff does not yet have enough trained people to operate them, Aguilar said.
Only about 4 percent of San Diegos passengers undergo the full body scan at this point, Aguilar said.

Jan Klimkowski
11-17-2010, 06:24 PM
a TSA supervisor (said) on tape, By buying your ticket you gave up a lot of rights.

The Man speaks.

It's 2010 and you don't need LSD to spot that authentic, unthinkingly fascist, leer.

Meanwhile: "The TSA is not going to do sex to me"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko8uwkmMQ9E

David Guyatt
11-17-2010, 07:21 PM
Another very heavy hitting cartoon.

And as the cartoon character says, in that case "I'm not going to fly".

Quite right.

Jan Klimkowski
11-22-2010, 08:55 PM
Trains and subway systems appear to be next up for Volkland Security:



TSA Searches: Are Trains and Subways Next?

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
November 22, 2010

John Pistole, the TSA boss, has implored activists to rethink their opt-out protest this week. Pistole warns that the national protest against naked body scanners and intrusive pat downs at airports would be a mistake and will only serve to tie up people who want to go home and see their loved ones, according to the Associated Press.

If John Pistole and the federal government have their way, we may have to opt-out of taking the subway or riding a train in the near future.

I understand peoples frustrations, said president Obama from Lisbon over the weekend. Obama said at present naked body scanners and pat down searches bordering on sexual molestation are the best way to prevent Muslims in caves from attacking the American people. Secretary of State Clinton told Meet the Press on Sunday that everyone, including our security experts, are looking for ways to diminish the impact on the traveling public and that striking the right balance is what this is about.

For now, that balance means a near minimum wage TSA worker will fondle your testicles and there is nothing you can do about it. Protesting will only slow down traffic and prevent people from visiting their family and friends.

Obama and Clinton expect you to bite the bullet and accept what amounts to sexual molestation in order to board a commercial airplane in the United States. Pistole said it really is not a big deal because a very small percent of people are subject to the process of submission and humiliation.

If past comments made by Mr. Pistole are any indicator, however, the government would like to see naked body scanners and intrusive pat downs expand from airports to train stations and subway platforms.

Soon after taking over the TSA earlier this year, the former FBI deputy director Pistole told USA Today that he will work to expand airport Gestapo zones. Protecting riders on mass-transit systems from terrorist attacks will be as high a priority as ensuring safe air travel, the new head of the Transportation Security Administration promises, the newspaper reported on July 17.

Given the list of threats on subways and rails over the last six years going on seven years, we know that some terrorist groups see rail and subways as being more vulnerable because theres not the type of screening that you find in aviation, Pistole said. From my perspective, that is an equally important threat area.

In addition, Pistole said he would like to see TSA workers, including 47,000 screeners at 450 airports, to operate as a national-security, counterterrorism organization, fully integrated into U.S. government efforts. He wants to take TSA to the next level.

Earlier this month, the TSA implemented the enhanced security procedures that are now coming under fire and have resulted in countless people refusing to fly and the roll out of the national opt-out campaign that will commence on November 24 across the country.

If John Pistole and the federal government have their way, we may have to opt-out of taking the subway or riding a train in the near future.

It may not be long before you are forced through a naked body scanner or obliged to have your genitals groped in order to visit the local market to buy food and necessities. Considering the trajectory the TSA and the government are on, you may have to submit to a body cavity search at the local mall.

The Pentagon and local law enforcement are ahead of the curve. As the privacy controversy around full-body security scans begins to simmer, its worth noting that courthouses and airport security checkpoints arent the only places where backscatter x-ray vision is being deployed. The same technology, capable of seeing through clothes and walls, has also been rolling out on U.S. Streets, Andy Greenberg wrote for Forbes in August. While the biggest buyer of AS&Es [roving x-ay] machines over the last seven years has been the Department of Defense operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, Reiss says law enforcement agencies have also deployed the vans to search for vehicle-based bombs in the U.S.

There are few if any vehicle-based bombs on U.S. roads, not that this fact has prevented the government from claiming it is a threat. The DHS released a memo stating that terrorists may try to kill innocent women, children and men in the United States by hiding IEDs in luggage left at airports, Fox News reported not long after patsy and barbeque grill gas canister non-bomber Faisal Shahzad was arrested.

If you think this is simply more fear-mongering, consider that the TSA has already beta tested searching Greyhound bus terminals in Florida. In 2005, the agency used the Madrid bombings as an excuse to train officers to use bomb sniffing dogs in mass transit stations. The agencys broader role overseeing all forms of public transportation and the increased terrorist threat to mass transit indicated by train bombings in Madrid and London have caused the canine program to expand significantly in recent years, the TSAs Web site reports, according to the U.S. Air Force.

Kurt Nimmo edits Infowars.com. He is the author of Another Day in the Empire: Life In Neoconservative America.

http://www.infowars.com/tsa-searches-are-trains-and-subways-next/

Jan Klimkowski
11-22-2010, 09:13 PM
Protecting the Volkland through molestation:


Miernik said the worst experience she had came when her 7-year-old granddaughter was at the airport with her. When her granddaughter saw the pat down, She went Grandmama, they touched you on your special girl spots.

Miernik was mortified, as was her granddaughter, she said.. She believes the pat downs are unnecessarily intrusive, and she hasnt even experienced the more aggressive pat downs the TSA started employing Oct. 29.

If this happened to me in college on a date, I would have called the police, Miernik said.

TSA, though, has maintained the aggressive pat downs are an important measure in preventing any exploding device from making it onto a plane.

On Saturday, President Obama said the pat downs cause huge inconveniences for all of us, adding that he understood peoples frustrations.

Miernik said she once wrote a letter to TSA complaining about the pat downs. She said they responded that, as an American, she didnt have to submit to the body scanners or the pat downs. They added, though, that she would have to find a different form of transportation.

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_pasco/new_port_richey/woman-on-tsa-pat-downs:-'i-feel-molested'-

Peter Lemkin
11-23-2010, 07:28 AM
The next 'logical' (sic) step is obviously an internal X-ray or CT-scan to make sure you haven't swallowed or hidden in some body cavity...even had surgically implanted [or had from birth] inside you a bomb or other 'device'. I predict this will be in place within the next year or three - and also apply to trains, subways, long-distance buses, trams in Europe, maybe even clearance needed to walk/cycle in the central part of a city, or near Heimat infrastructure and facilities. Welcome to the Brave New World......"may I take your hat and goat?......"

Magda Hassan
11-23-2010, 08:29 AM
On Saturday, President Obama said the pat downs cause huge inconveniences for all of us, adding that he understood peoples frustrations.

Sure. Like he has ever been subjected to this crap.

Keith Millea
11-23-2010, 04:21 PM
HEY!Nobody touches the Presidents junk.I think it's written into the Constitution.:goodnight:

David Guyatt
11-23-2010, 04:45 PM
HEY!Nobody touches the Presidents junk.I think it's written into the Constitution.:goodnight:

Caption:

Prez's Package Patted-down by Plane Police

Sub:

Prez Prostrate and Palpitating by Pigs Palm-off.

Peter Lemkin
11-23-2010, 06:17 PM
The Shoe Bomber got us to have to take off our shoes at airports.

The Underpants Bomber got us to have to have backscater X-ray or grope-the-groin at airports.

And what is to stop someone from having false teeth filled with explosives, so I suggest peremptory dental exams and X-rays.

I'm sure they'll soon come up with a bomber caught just in the nick of time with a bomb in his anus, so we'll all have to have rectal exams at airports.

Hey, fact is, as I stated before, the only way to be sure is to CT-scan everyone*, including the kids, dogs and baggage...oh what fun it is to fly these days....please someone bring back non-luxury liner ocean-crossing boats!

*anything suspicious looking would be dealt with with surgery at gunpoint - and no opting out!!

It might just be easier and quicker to either waterboard everyone a few times, and ask them if they have any explosives and packed their bags themselves - or - cancel aviation altogether - the safest solution of all.

Jan Klimkowski
11-23-2010, 06:42 PM
I'm sure they'll soon come up with a bomber caught just in the nick of time with a bomb in his anus, so we'll all have to have rectal exams at airports.



In Kent, the coppers call it the "Chatham Pocket".

Very funny and slightly nauseating UK Channel 4 documentary clip, featuring interviews with custody officers, here:

The Chatham Pocket (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb04QbB7Fw0)

Peter Lemkin
11-23-2010, 09:24 PM
I'm sure they'll soon come up with a bomber caught just in the nick of time with a bomb in his anus, so we'll all have to have rectal exams at airports.



In Kent, the coppers call it the "Chatham Pocket".

Very funny and slightly nauseating UK Channel 4 documentary clip, featuring interviews with custody officers, here:

The Chatham Pocket (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb04QbB7Fw0)

Oh Jan, How could you point me to that url....I had to wash my brains with lye and don't feel like a virgin anymore!:vollkommenauf: Please don't let Homeland Security or its UK equivalent see that!

....not being British I miss any in joke or slight to a locale by the use of the term C.P.

Jan Klimkowski
11-23-2010, 09:40 PM
Oh Jan, How could you point me to that url....I had to wash my brains with lye and don't feel like a virgin anymore!:vollkommenauf: Please don't let Homeland Security or its UK equivalent see that!

....not being British I miss any in joke or slight to a locale by the use of the term C.P.

Peter - sorry if you found it, ahem, too much.

The programme was broadcast in the 9pm slot here in Blighty, and billed as landmark factual documentary by public service broadcaster Channel 4.

Once you've finished squirming uncomfortably, the unfortunate truth is that the forces of law and order are perfectly prepared to conduct rectal examinations of those suspected of, well, pretty much any minor infraction....

Peter Lemkin
11-24-2010, 05:02 PM
Oh Jan, How could you point me to that url....I had to wash my brains with lye and don't feel like a virgin anymore!:vollkommenauf: Please don't let Homeland Security or its UK equivalent see that!

....not being British I miss any in joke or slight to a locale by the use of the term C.P.

Peter - sorry if you found it, ahem, too much.

The programme was broadcast in the 9pm slot here in Blighty, and billed as landmark factual documentary by public service broadcaster Channel 4.

Once you've finished squirming uncomfortably, the unfortunate truth is that the forces of law and order are perfectly prepared to conduct rectal examinations of those suspected of, well, pretty much any minor infraction....

It crossed my mind today [as they do the same in American Prisons and Jails] that the real message with the new airline security procedures was that we are all 'prisoners' and will be subject to invasive and degrading searches, just as all prisoners are subjected to when we 'leave and return from the cell block'!

Jan Klimkowski
11-24-2010, 05:41 PM
It crossed my mind today [as they do the same in American Prisons and Jails] that the real message with the new airline security procedures was that we are all 'prisoners' and will be subject to invasive and degrading searches, just as all prisoners are subjected to when we 'leave and return from the cell block'!

Yup - an astute thought.

Nothing like a bit of Pavlovian conditioning for the masses - in this case, of learned helplessness.

Also, security guards - be they airport scanning staff or police custody officers - seem quickly to adapt to performing rectal examinations and the like until it becomes all in a day's work.

Little kid: "What did you do today Mommy?"
Mommy: "I spent the entire day working with assholes...."

:nurse:

Ed Jewett
11-24-2010, 05:57 PM
>TSA Administrative Directive: Opt-Outters To Be Considered "Domestic Extremists" (http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-administrative-directive-opt-outters-to-be-considered-%e2%80%9cdomestic-extremists%e2%80%9d.html)

If the information recently acquired by Doug Hagmann of Northeast Intelligence Network (http://homelandsecurityus.com/) is accurate, then something really big is happening in America right now and it's most certainly not a step towards individual liberty (http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/lt-gen-ret-boykin-marxism-in-america_11012010).

According to Mr. Hagmann, he was contacted by a source within the DHS who provided an alarming memo detailing a new administrative directive agreed upon by DHS chief Janet Napolitano and the head of TSA John Pistole. The memo, according to Doug Hagmann, "officially addresses those who are opposed to, or engaged in the disruption of the implementation of the enhanced airport screening procedures as 'domestic extremists'."

The memo leaves no doubt as to who, exactly, is leading the charge to label Americans who refuse current security measures due to health and privacy concerns as extremists. "The measures to be taken in response to the negative public backlash as detailed , have the full support of the President," it says.

Under the new labeling procedures, those who choose to opt-out or are perceived as being troublemakers will be detained, questioned and processed for further investigation:


The terminology contained within the reported memo is indeed troubling. It labels any person who "interferes" with TSA airport security screening procedure protocol and operations by actively objecting to the established screening process, "including but not limited to the anticipated national opt-out day" as a "domestic extremist." The label is then broadened to include "[I]any person, group or alternative media source" that actively objects to, causes others to object to, supports and/or elicits support for anyone who engages in such travel disruptions at U.S. airports in response to the enhanced security procedures.

For individuals who engaged in such activity at screening points, it instructs TSA operations to obtain the identities of those individuals and other applicable information and submit the same electronically to the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division, the Extremism and Radicalization branch of the Office of Intelligence & Analysis (IA) (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1220886590914.shtm) division of the Department of Homeland Security.

The United States government, under complete control and direction of our elected President, is now actively labeling anyone who exercises their 4th amendment Constitutional right which protects against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures as, essentially, engaging in terrorism as defined by Section 802 of the USA Patriot Act:


Section 802 [USA Patriot Act (http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html)]

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended
'(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that
'( http://commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif appear to be intended
'(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
'(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

Though it may seem a broad interpretation, the definitions for domestic terrorism are very vague, allowing for a variety of views depending on who happens to be making the decisions. The very fact that TSA is allegedly going to label opt-out travelers as 'domestic extremists' suggest that they are, by today's standards, considered no different than terrorists and thus may have their Constitutional rights stripped and be held without trial. In a previous article we discussed Matt Kernan (http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/man-upholds-his-constitutional-rights-allowed-to-pass-without-backscatter-or-groping_11232010), who may have found a Constitutional argument that works to avoid enhanced security in the airport. But, what if the-powers-that-be determined, by whatever vague definition, that the Constitution doesn't apply?

With the outrage from American travelers and the pressure being put on corporate profits, the President and TSA may eventually change their tune. But if they don't, then we can expect more intrusive checkpoints from our government in the very near future. Ms. Napolitano has already publicly stated that DHS is looking at other mass transit systems like buses and trains as the next target.

Something big is happening. And either the American people are going to force the change starting with each individual making a personal decision to stand up against policies that can be described as nothing less than tyrannical or the expansion of surveillance and control systems will continue to spread.

If the American people fail this time as we did with bailouts and healthcare, the end result will be backscatter machines in schools, malls, stadiums, and any other public venue which is deemed a security threat by our government.

Sources: Northeast Intelligence Network (http://homelandsecurityus.com/), Electronic Privacy Information Center (http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html)

Color emphasis added in my repost

David Guyatt
11-24-2010, 06:58 PM
Bloody hell Ed, that's Hitler's Germany circa 1937/8?

Ed Jewett
11-24-2010, 07:11 PM
Yes, that's the point I was trying to make in the thread at CGCS (where I am Magmak1) on that topic: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=127499 I just posted an old paraphrase of Milton Mayer's that I had posted in my blog many years ago.

'What happened was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret, to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. I do not speak of your little men, your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to They kept us busy with continuous changes and crises and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the national enemies, within and without, that we had no time to think about those dreadful things that were growing little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?

To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it please try to believe me unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, regretted that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these little measures that no patriotic citizen could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.'

paraphrased from Milton Mayer (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html)


It seems also, via the PATRIOT ACT and the DHS (Der Heimat Security), we have now been branded domestic terrorists by dint of our associations, memberships, words, advocacy and refusal to submit.

Peter Lemkin
11-24-2010, 07:13 PM
Bloody hell Ed, that's Hitler's Germany circa 1937/8?

Velkomin Herr Guyett, We've moved the location a bit West and expanded our viewpoint and technology, but I think you'll find we are the same lovely Reich of yore.....hope to be seeing you soon on a waterboard or rack soon, Zu unserem Treffen WIEDER Bald werden wir HOFFNUNG! :goodnight:

Magda Hassan
11-24-2010, 11:04 PM
TSA Gestapo Empire

by Paul Craig Roberts

November 23, 2010




It doesnt take a bureaucrat long to create an empire. John Pistole, the FBI agent who took over the Transportation Security Administration on July 1 told USA Today 16 days later that protecting trains and subways from terrorist attacks will be as high a priority for him as air travel.
It is difficult to imagine New Yorkers being porno-screened and sexually groped on crowed subway platforms or showing up an hour or two in advance for clearance for a 15 minute subway ride, but once bureaucrats get the bit in their teeth they take absurdity to its logical conclusion. Buses will be next, although it is even more difficult to imagine open air bus stops turned into security zones with screeners and gropers inspecting passengers before they board.
Will taxi passengers be next? In those Muslim lands whose citizens the US government has been slaughtering for years, favorite weapons for retaliating against the Americans are car and truck bombs. How long before Pistole announces that the TSA Gestapo is setting up roadblocks on city streets, highways and interstates to check cars for bombs?
That 15 minute trip to the grocery store then becomes an all day affair.
Indeed, it has already begun. Last September agents from Homeland Security, TSA, and the US Department of Transportation, assisted by the Douglas County Sheriffs Office, conducted a counter-terrorism operation on busy Interstate 20 just west of Atlanta, Georgia. Designated VIPER (Visible Inter-mobile Prevention and Response), the operation required all trucks to stop to be screened for bombs. Federal agents used dogs, screening devices, and a large drive-through bomb detection machine. Imagine what the delays did to delivery schedules and truckers bottom lines.
There are also news reports of federal trucks equipped with backscatter X-ray devices that secretly scan cars and pedestrians.
With such expensive counter-terrorism activities, both in terms of the hard-pressed taxpayers money and civil liberties, one would think that bombs were going off all over America. But, of course, they arent. There has not been a successful terrorist act since 9/11, and thousands of independent experts doubt the governments explanation of that event.
Subsequent domestic terrorist events have turned out to be FBI sting operations in which FBI agents organize not-so-bright disaffected members of society and lead them into displaying interest in participating in a terrorist act. Once the FBI agent, pretending to be a terrorist, succeeds in prompting all the right words to be said and captured on his hidden recorder, the terrorists are arrested and the plot exposed.
The very fact that the FBI has to orchestrate fake terrorism proves the absence of real terrorists.
If Americans were more thoughtful and less gullible, they might wonder why all the emphasis on transportation when there are so many soft targets. Shopping centers, for example. If there were enough terrorists in America to justify the existence of Homeland Security, bombs would be going off round the clock in shopping malls in every state. The effect would be far more terrifying than blowing up an airliner.
Indeed, if terrorists want to attack air travelers, they never need to board an airplane.
All they need to do is to join the throngs of passengers waiting to go through the TSA scanners and set off their bombs. The TSA has conveniently assembled the targets.
The final proof that there are no terrorists is that not a single neoconservative or government official responsible for the Bush regimes invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the Obama regimes slaughters of Pakistanis, Yemenis, and Somalians has been assassinated. None of these Americans who are responsible for lies, deceptions, and invasions that have destroyed the lives of countless numbers of Muslims have any security protection. If Muslims were capable of pulling off 9/11, they are certainly capable of assassinating Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Libby, Condi Rice, Kristol, Bolton, Goldberg, and scores of others during the same hour of the same day.
I am not advocating that terrorists assassinate anyone. I am just making the point that if the US was as overrun with terrorists as empire-building bureaucrats pretend, we would definitely be experiencing dramatic terrorist acts. The argument is not believable that a government that was incapable of preventing 9/11 is so all-knowing that it can prevent assassination of unprotected neocons and shopping malls from being bombed.
If Al Qaeda was anything like the organization that the US government claims, it would not be focused on trivial targets such as passenger airliners. The organization, if it exists, would be focused on its real enemies. Try to imagine the propaganda value of terrorists wiping out the neoconservatives in one fell swoop, followed by an announcement that every member of the federal government down to the lowest GS, every member of the House and Senate, and every governor was next in line to be bumped off.
This would be real terrorism instead of the make-belief stuff associated with shoe bombs that dont work, underwear bombs that independent experts say could not work, and bottled water and shampoo bombs that experts say cannot possibly be put together in airliner lavatories.
Think about it. Would a terror organization capable of outwitting all 16 US intelligence agencies, all intelligence agencies of US allies including Israels Mossad, the National Security Council, NORAD, air traffic control, the Pentagon, and airport security four times in one hour put its unrivaled prestige at risk with improbable shoe bombs, shampoo bombs, and underwear bombs?
After success in destroying the World Trade Center and blowing up part of the Pentagon, it is an extraordinary comedown to go after a mere airliner. Would a person who gains fame by knocking out the world heavyweight boxing champion make himself a laughing stock by taking lunch money from school boys?
TSA is a far greater threat to Americans than are terrorists. Pistole has given the finger to US senators and representatives, state legislators, and the traveling public who have expressed their views that virtual strip searches and sexual molestation are too high a price to pay for security. Indeed, the TSA with its Gestapo attitude and methods, is succeeding in making Americans more terrified of the TSA than they are of terrorists.
Make up your own mind. What terrifies you the most. Terrorists, who in all likelihood you will never encounter in your lifetime, or the TSA that you will encounter every time you fly and soon, according to Pistole, every time you take a train, a subway, or drive in a car or truck?
Before making up your mind, consider this report from Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com/) on November 19: TSA officials say that anyone refusing both the full body scanners and the enhanced pat down procedures will be taken into custody. Once there the detainees will not only be barred from flying, but will be held indefinitely as suspected terrorists . . . One sheriffs office said they were already preparing to handle a large number of detainees and plan to treat them as terror suspects.
Who is cowing Americans into submission, terrorists or the TSA Gestapo?
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/11/23/tsa-gestapo-empire/

Peter Lemkin
11-25-2010, 05:21 AM
TSA Gestapo Empire

by Paul Craig Roberts

November 23, 2010




It doesnt take a bureaucrat long to create an empire. John Pistole, the FBI agent who took over the Transportation Security Administration on July 1 told USA Today 16 days later that protecting trains and subways from terrorist attacks will be as high a priority for him as air travel.
It is difficult to imagine New Yorkers being porno-screened and sexually groped on crowed subway platforms or showing up an hour or two in advance for clearance for a 15 minute subway ride, but once bureaucrats get the bit in their teeth they take absurdity to its logical conclusion. Buses will be next, although it is even more difficult to imagine open air bus stops turned into security zones with screeners and gropers inspecting passengers before they board.
Will taxi passengers be next? In those Muslim lands whose citizens the US government has been slaughtering for years, favorite weapons for retaliating against the Americans are car and truck bombs. How long before Pistole announces that the TSA Gestapo is setting up roadblocks on city streets, highways and interstates to check cars for bombs?
That 15 minute trip to the grocery store then becomes an all day affair.
Indeed, it has already begun. Last September agents from Homeland Security, TSA, and the US Department of Transportation, assisted by the Douglas County Sheriffs Office, conducted a counter-terrorism operation on busy Interstate 20 just west of Atlanta, Georgia. Designated VIPER (Visible Inter-mobile Prevention and Response), the operation required all trucks to stop to be screened for bombs. Federal agents used dogs, screening devices, and a large drive-through bomb detection machine. Imagine what the delays did to delivery schedules and truckers bottom lines.
There are also news reports of federal trucks equipped with backscatter X-ray devices that secretly scan cars and pedestrians.
With such expensive counter-terrorism activities, both in terms of the hard-pressed taxpayers money and civil liberties, one would think that bombs were going off all over America. But, of course, they arent. There has not been a successful terrorist act since 9/11, and thousands of independent experts doubt the governments explanation of that event.
Subsequent domestic terrorist events have turned out to be FBI sting operations in which FBI agents organize not-so-bright disaffected members of society and lead them into displaying interest in participating in a terrorist act. Once the FBI agent, pretending to be a terrorist, succeeds in prompting all the right words to be said and captured on his hidden recorder, the terrorists are arrested and the plot exposed.
The very fact that the FBI has to orchestrate fake terrorism proves the absence of real terrorists.
If Americans were more thoughtful and less gullible, they might wonder why all the emphasis on transportation when there are so many soft targets. Shopping centers, for example. If there were enough terrorists in America to justify the existence of Homeland Security, bombs would be going off round the clock in shopping malls in every state. The effect would be far more terrifying than blowing up an airliner.
Indeed, if terrorists want to attack air travelers, they never need to board an airplane.
All they need to do is to join the throngs of passengers waiting to go through the TSA scanners and set off their bombs. The TSA has conveniently assembled the targets.
The final proof that there are no terrorists is that not a single neoconservative or government official responsible for the Bush regimes invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the Obama regimes slaughters of Pakistanis, Yemenis, and Somalians has been assassinated. None of these Americans who are responsible for lies, deceptions, and invasions that have destroyed the lives of countless numbers of Muslims have any security protection. If Muslims were capable of pulling off 9/11, they are certainly capable of assassinating Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Libby, Condi Rice, Kristol, Bolton, Goldberg, and scores of others during the same hour of the same day.
I am not advocating that terrorists assassinate anyone. I am just making the point that if the US was as overrun with terrorists as empire-building bureaucrats pretend, we would definitely be experiencing dramatic terrorist acts. The argument is not believable that a government that was incapable of preventing 9/11 is so all-knowing that it can prevent assassination of unprotected neocons and shopping malls from being bombed.
If Al Qaeda was anything like the organization that the US government claims, it would not be focused on trivial targets such as passenger airliners. The organization, if it exists, would be focused on its real enemies. Try to imagine the propaganda value of terrorists wiping out the neoconservatives in one fell swoop, followed by an announcement that every member of the federal government down to the lowest GS, every member of the House and Senate, and every governor was next in line to be bumped off.
This would be real terrorism instead of the make-belief stuff associated with shoe bombs that dont work, underwear bombs that independent experts say could not work, and bottled water and shampoo bombs that experts say cannot possibly be put together in airliner lavatories.
Think about it. Would a terror organization capable of outwitting all 16 US intelligence agencies, all intelligence agencies of US allies including Israels Mossad, the National Security Council, NORAD, air traffic control, the Pentagon, and airport security four times in one hour put its unrivaled prestige at risk with improbable shoe bombs, shampoo bombs, and underwear bombs?
After success in destroying the World Trade Center and blowing up part of the Pentagon, it is an extraordinary comedown to go after a mere airliner. Would a person who gains fame by knocking out the world heavyweight boxing champion make himself a laughing stock by taking lunch money from school boys?
TSA is a far greater threat to Americans than are terrorists. Pistole has given the finger to US senators and representatives, state legislators, and the traveling public who have expressed their views that virtual strip searches and sexual molestation are too high a price to pay for security. Indeed, the TSA with its Gestapo attitude and methods, is succeeding in making Americans more terrified of the TSA than they are of terrorists.
Make up your own mind. What terrifies you the most. Terrorists, who in all likelihood you will never encounter in your lifetime, or the TSA that you will encounter every time you fly and soon, according to Pistole, every time you take a train, a subway, or drive in a car or truck?
Before making up your mind, consider this report from Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com/) on November 19: TSA officials say that anyone refusing both the full body scanners and the enhanced pat down procedures will be taken into custody. Once there the detainees will not only be barred from flying, but will be held indefinitely as suspected terrorists . . . One sheriffs office said they were already preparing to handle a large number of detainees and plan to treat them as terror suspects.
Who is cowing Americans into submission, terrorists or the TSA Gestapo?
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/11/23/tsa-gestapo-empire/

Great article and amazing to me how relatively silent and accepting the Sheeple are being. We now have a virtual police state [actually, take out the term virtual] - the reason everyone felt justified in fighting WWII - and people accept [apparently] the fake 'justifications' for it, much as the Germans did in the 1930s. It is a HORRIBLE history repeating itself. Only aliens from outer space can save the USA now - unless the sheeple revolt!

Peter Lemkin
11-26-2010, 05:14 AM
Ron Paul in speech to Congress lambasts scanners, says Americans are now treated "like cattle" :bandit:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.aspv=29ADB2913D928C19D8E7E945B932232B

Christer Forslund
11-26-2010, 07:18 PM
Dr. Blaylock: Body Scanners More Dangerous Than Feds Admit (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=15107)


Dr Russell Blaylock NewsMax November 24, 2010
http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/health_stories/blaylock_TSA_scan_safety/2010/11/24/363489.html?s=al&promo_code=B2F7-1

Dr. Russell Blaylock is a nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, lecturer, and editor of The Blaylock Wellness Report (http://www.blaylockreport.com/).
The growing outrage over the Transportation Security Administrations new policy of backscatter scanning of airline passengers and enhanced pat-downs brings to mind these wise words from President Ronald Reagan: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: Im from the government and Im here to help you.
So, what is all the concern really about will these radiation scanners increase your risk of cancer or other diseases? A group of scientists and professors from the University of California at San Francisco voiced their concern to Obamas science and technology adviser John Holdren in a well-stated letter back in April.
The group included experts in radiation biology, biophysics, and imaging, who expressed serious concerns about the dangerously high dose of radiation to the skin.
Radiation increases cancer risk by damaging the DNA and various components within the cells. Much of the damage is caused by high concentrations of free radicals generated by the radiation. Most scientists think that the most damaging radiation types are those that have high penetration, such as gamma-rays, but in fact, some of the most damaging radiation barely penetrates the skin.
One of the main concerns is that most of the energy from the airport scanners is concentrated on the surface of the skin and a few millimeters into the skin. Some very radiation-sensitive tissues are close to the skin such as the testes, eyes, and circulating blood cells in the skin.
This is why defenders using such analogies as the dose being 1,000-times less than a chest X-ray and far less than what passengers are exposed to in-flight are deceptive. Radiation damage depends on the volume of tissue exposed. Chest X-rays and gamma-radiation from outer space is diffused over the entire body so that the dose to the skin is extremely small. Of note, outer space radiation does increase cancer rates in passengers, pilots, and flight attendants.
We also know that certain groups of people are at a much higher risk than others. These include babies, small children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with impaired immunity (those with HIV infection, cancer patients, people with immune deficiency diseases, and people with abnormal DNA repair mechanism, just to name a few).
As we grow older, our DNA accumulates a considerable amount of unrepaired damage, and under such circumstances even low doses of radiation can trigger the development of skin cancers, including the deadly melanoma. I would also be concerned about exposing the eyes, since this could increase ones risk of developing cataracts.
About 5 percent of the population have undiagnosed abnormal DNA repair mechanism. When exposed to radiation, this can put them at a cancer risk hundreds of times greater than normal people.
It also has been determined that when skin is next to certain metals, such as gold, the radiation dose is magnified 100-fold higher. What if you have a mole next to your gold jewelry? Will the radiation convert it to a melanoma? Deficiencies in certain vitamins can dramatically increase your sensitivity to radiation carcinogenesis, as can certain prescription medications.
As for the assurances we have been given by such organization as the American College of Radiology, we must keep in mind that they assured us that the CT scans were safe and that the radiation was equal to one chest X-ray. Forty years later we learn that the dose is extremely high, it is thought to have caused cancer in a significant number of people, and the dose is actually equal to 1,000 chest X-rays.
Based on these assurances, tens of thousands of children have been exposed to radiation doses from CT scanners, which will ruin the childrens lives. I have two friends who were high-ranking Environmental Protection Agency scientists, and they assure me that in government safety agencies, politics most often override the scientists real concerns about such issues.
This government shares House Speaker Nancy Pelosis view when she urged passage of the Obamacare bill sight unseen Lets just pass the bill, and we will find out what is in it later.
When the real effects of these scanners on health become known, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and the rest of the gang who insist the scanners are safe will be long gone.

(http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/health_stories/blaylock_TSA_scan_safety/2010/11/24/363489.html?s=al&promo_code=B2F7-1)

Peter Lemkin
11-26-2010, 07:33 PM
Group slams Chertoff on scanner promotion


WASHINGTON - Since the attempted bombing of a US airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports.


What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. Chertoff disclosed the relationship on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question.

An airport passengers rights group on Thursday criticized Chertoffs use of his former government credentials to advocate for a product that benefits his clients.

Mr. Chertoff should not be allowed to abuse the trust the public has placed in him as a former public servant to privately gain from the sale of full-body scanners under the pretense that the scanners would have detected this particular type of explosive, said Kate Hanni, founder of FlyersRights.org, which opposes the use of the scanners.

Chertoffs advocacy for the technology dates to his time in the Bush administration. In 2005, Homeland Security ordered the governments first batch of the scanners - five from California-based Rapiscan Systems. Rapiscan is one of only two companies that make full-body scanners in accordance with current contract specifications required by the federal government.

Currently 40 body scanners are in use among 19 US airports. The number is expected to skyrocket, at least in part because of the Christmas Day incident. The Transportation Security Administration has said it will order 300 more machines.

In the summer, TSA purchased 150 more machines from Rapiscan with $25 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. Rapiscan was the only company that qualified for the contract because it had developed technology that performs the screening using a less-graphic body imaging system, which is also less controversial. (Since then, another company, L-3 Communications, has qualified for future contracts, but no new contracts have been awarded.)

-- Washington Post [an old article (10 months old)..now there are many hundreds sold and thousands ordered.]

Peter Lemkin
11-27-2010, 05:01 AM
Airports using the machines: [as of a few weeks ago]
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1138014-complete-list-airports-whole-body-imaging-advanced-imaging-technology-scanner.html
ABQ - MMW used in all C/P lanes
ATL - South C/P - 2 devices installed in the DL F/Elite line - Two MMW @ Concourse E C/P after Customs - Central C/P has MMW
BDL - BKSX used occasionally. FTer reports that the device is installed @ Concourse A (main C/P). Not used very often.
BIS - Receiving devices within the next year
BNA - MMW installed in all lanes. Occasionally roped-off. C C/P has 4 MMW installed
BOI - **More Information Requested, please click here to PM - BKSX
BOS - Term. A, Term. B (US Shuttle, AA), Term. C, UA, B6, Term E. INTL - Left lane of UA C/P (TERM C) does not have a NoS..
BRO - **More Information Requested, please click here to PM
BUF - Five BKSX Installed!
BWI - Only the C Gates (AA,DL) are free of the NoS. All other gates have MMW
CLE - C/P for B gates has two MMW - C/P for C gates also has MMW - Unsure of A gates C/P - Both C/Ps can be used for access to all gates - MMW
CLT - BKSX Installed @ Concourse A, B, D - Concourse C C/P is SAFE!
CMH - Concourse B has machines installed. Pax can self-select NoS or WTMD line, though still run the risk of being redirected - BKSX
CRP - BKSX in use at the only C/P
CVG - AA/UA/US Terminal 2 & DL (Term. 3) have BKSX installed
DCA - DL/CO Terminal C/P (gates 10-22), Also installed at Gates 35+, Terminal A C/P is safe
DEN - Two MMW at Bridge C/P. MMW also used at East & West C/P
DFW - MMW in use @ ALL D C/Ps - Installed @ A21, A36, C8, C21, C31 (left/main lane) - SAFE A12, B9, B19, B33, C31, E8, E15, E16, E33 - B24 in progress
DTW - Used @ (DL) McNamara Terminal - Primary at the N. Terminal C/P (AA, CO, LH, UA, US, WN). Westin C/P has MMW - Used for incoming INTL pax - MMW
ELP - Screening clerks were forcing pax to use the NoS over the summer. According to Blogdad Bob, all pax can opt-out. YMMV. - BKSX
EWR - NoS now in operation! - Terminal A (AA) gates 30-39 do not have the NoS - Term. B MMW @ DL Gates B40-B47
FAR - Receiving devices within the next year
FAT - According to TSA @ FAT, NoS in use. MMW
FLL - BKSX installed @ Concourse C C/P, DL Terminal 2 & 3 E/F Fates. - BKSC PRIMARY FOR ALL PAX
FWA - Replaced one of the two WTMD with a MMW - WARNING: Clerks have been sending all pax through the MMW. YMMV..
GEG - Horizon Air (Term C) SAFE - Far lane @ C/P for A & B using BKSX
GFK - Receiving devices within the next year
GPT - One BKSX in use
GRR - NoS installed, and in use!
HNL - C/P # 3 @ Lobby 5 & 6 has four MMW - C/P 5 @ Lobby 7 & 8, MMW in use @ elite line, left-most lane. If elite, use gold line, then self-select WTMD
HRL - **More Information Requested, please click here to PM
IAD - BKSX installed in Diamond Line & Crew Lanes downstairs; main C/P Unknown - Crew line is the only lane open overnight...
IAH - Term. A, one MMW Term. B has two MMW. Two WTMD still setup. Term. C has MMW installed. Terminal E, but easy to avoid - MMW - INTL Arrivals has 3 MMW
IND - A & B C/P 3 installed - MMW
JAX - Two MMW @ both left and right C/Ps
JFK - Terminals 1-8 have separate C/Ps, with no way to transfer airside. T8 has BKSX in all lanes Safe = B6 (T5) & UA (T7)
LAS - Multiple MMW @ A/B/C C/P. Old C C/P also has MMW. Most of the WTMDs @ D C/P also have MMW. Old A/B C/P has MMW, T2 (INTL) - Be observant!
LAX - T1 (US & WN) -- T3 (AS,VX) T4 (AA), T5 (DL,AM), T6 (CO) right side of C/P BKSX, T7 (UA) Left Lane - TBIT C/P has BKSX - T2 has 3/4 BKSX
LGA - BKSX in use on the farthest lane to the right @ Concourse D. Use the elite line to avoid. Central Term. Conc. (A-D) No airside transfers
LIH - Used at the main C/P
LRD - **More Information Requested, please click here to PM
MIA - Terminal J has MMW in use. -- Terminal E (AA) is SAFE! - AA Term. D C/P has one MMW - H C/P has WTMD, no NoS
MCI - Left side of WN C/P - Term. B - DL Gates @ Term B has BKSX - Terminal A & C Safe! - MMW
MCO - BKSX in use @ West End C/P (Gates 1 - 59) - One BKSX to the extreme left side entrance, and two near extreme right entrance. Center section still has WTMD.
MDT - MMW installed @ only C/P. Pax are constantly sent into the machine
MFE - **More Information Requested, please click here to PM
MEM - Used at A/B/C C/P - BKSX
MKE - Concourses C & D - MMW
MSP - In use at C/P 10, C/P 2 has two NoS, C/P 6 has NoS in use. Avoid by using C/P 1 or 5. All C/Ps lead to the same area. - MMW
MSY - MMW Located @ Concourse C & Concourse D C/Ps. - Unsure of MMW @ Concourse B.
OAK - In use at Terminal 1, 3 installed @ Terminal 2 (WN) C/P - BKSX
OMA - BKSX used @ AA gates (1-8) C/P
ORD - T1,T2,T3(2 @ K C/P) (Backscatter)
PIT - Devices are installed at both the main and alternate C/P (BKSX)
PBI - MMW in use at all C/Ps. Concourses A,B,C - Concourse C MMW on the 2 right hand lanes of the C/P - Avoid by using Elite/Crew lanes on main level
PHL - Terminal A & F has one MMW - Terminal B, C, D, & E are SAFE - Use Term D to access all gates - PHL is expecting one @ each C/P in 1-2months
PHX - C/P B & D Terminal 4 - BKSX
PVD - Main, and only, C/P has received a Backscatter
RDU - 4 MMW installed @ Terminal 2 C/P. Entire C/P rearranged, possibly for opening of new terminal
ROC - Machine in use. Staff are rude to opt-outs MMW
RIC - MMW installed @ Concourse A, B & C C/P
SAN - BKSX installed @ UA C/P, Commuter Terminal, DL C/P @ Term @, Gate 1A/1/2 C/P for WN - T1 WN is SAFE!
SAT - NoS is now in use. BKSX - LOCATION UNKNOWN. PLEASE PM DETAILS.
SEA - A (South) C/P (DL) has the NoS, Central/Main C/P has the NoS, C gate C/P & D/N gates C/P has BKSX.
SFO - 3 MMWs in INTL Terminal C/P, 1 MMW in Terminal 1 C/P for AS,CO,US,WN. MMW is in use @ AA gates T3 60-67
SMF - B2 C/P has the NoS
SJC - BKSX at all lanes, except for the family line. - Terminal B has eight lanes @ the C/P, and 4 BKSX, X-RAY machines in odd lanes feed to WTMD
SJU - BKSX installed @ Concourse B
SLC - Terminal 2 (DL) - Terminal 3 has a single line for the C/P - MMW @ both C/Ps
STL - 2 BKSX installed at Terminal 1 A C/P - BKSX @ Term. 2 (East Terminal)
TPA - Airside A & Airside E C/P (AC, DL, UA) - MMW
TUL - All lanes have the MMW


US & International Airports receiving the NoS soon

DAY - Receiving before Thanksgiving, and in use by Christmas
HOU -
ICN - According to airport information, receiving devices "soon". None installed as of November
LGA -
MDW -
ONT - Receiving within the next few weeks
SPN -


International Airports using the NoS

AMS - Two MMW per gate for US-bound departures. One MMW @ C/P for crossing from non-schengen to schengen. Avoid by staying to the right
DME - One MMW in the business security area of the international terminal
LED - MMW - Screener looking at images is right in front of you...
LGW - MMW - Details pending
LHR - MMW @ Terminal 1 Main C/P - Nothing @ Transit C/P for T1 - No NoS, T3 C/P - No NoS, T5 - NoS in use! - Used for secondary/random no opt-out
HAM - Testing the NoS, entirely optional!
MAN - T2 has NoS in use, while T3 does not - CNN Reporting that NoS will be up and running before the end of the year
PVG - Machines used sporadically and only in certain lanes. Not in family lane
YEG - MMW in use for domestic/transborder flights. Random, but opt-out permitted
YHZ - MMW in use in domestic/international departure area. All lines have WTMD. Unsure of transborder departure area.
YOW - 1 NoS in the Domestic/Intl C/P - Appears to be used for secondary screening - TYPE UNKNOWN
YUL - MMW in far left lane being used on all pax. OPT OUT Permitted
YVR - US-bound pax use the MMW, randomly determined by a machine - Domestic, C gates has a MMW for "random selectees" - OPT-OUT POSSIBLE!
YYC - US-bound pax use the MMW, randomly determined by a machine - OPT-OUT POSSIBLE!
YYZ - T1, US Departures has the NoS for SSSS/Random Selection/Resolution of WTMD alarms - T1 Domestic - 2 MMW for Secondary only. None in NEXUS line, not always in use - MMW - YYZ Concourse Level (between Arr/Dep) C/P has the MMW, usually sits idle
YXU - Installed @ Transborder terminal


Domestic & International airports not using the NoS

ABE -
ACY -
AKL -
ASU - (South America)
AUS -
BTR -
BUR -
CLD -
COS -
DAY -
DUB -
ECP -
EZE -
GTR -
HPN -
ICT -
JAN -
KOA -
MDW - According to reports, this airport will be a disaster once BKSX or MMW is installed
MEL -
MSN - Receiving within one year
NRT -
OKC -
ONT -
ORF -
PDX -
PEK -
PER -
PHF -
PUQ -
PVG -
PWM -
SAV -
SBP -
SCL -
SNA - still safe!
SYD -
SYR -
TUS -
TVC -
ZRH -

Glossary of Abbreviations Used

AA - American Airlines
AC - Air Canada
AS - Alaska Airlines
B6 - JetBlue Airways
CO - Continental Airlines
DL - Delta Airlines
UA - United Airlines
US - US Airways
VX - Virgin America
WN - Southwest Airlines

C/P - Checkpoint
MMW - Millimeter Wave
BKSX - Backscatter
TERM - Terminal

Peter Lemkin
11-27-2010, 05:12 PM
EPIC (http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_dhs_suspension_of_body.html) has filed a lawsuit to suspend the deployment of body scanners at US airports, pending an independent review. On July 2, 2010, EPIC filed a petition for review and motion for an emergency stay, urging the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to suspend the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) full body scanner program. EPIC said that the program is "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective." EPIC argued that the federal agency has violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment. EPIC cited the invasive nature of the devices, the TSA's disregard of public opinion, and the impact on religious freedom.
Top News

EPIC Demands Documents from DHS about Mobile Body Scanners, Use of Devices at Trains Stations and Stadiums: EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Homeland Security, demanding that the agency turn over documents concerning the use of body scanner technology by law enforcement agencies in surface transit and street-roaming vans. EPIC cited previous DHS testing of body scanners on New Jersey's PATH trains and the development of street-roaming backscatter vans. EPIC has also filed a lawsuit to suspend body scanner program. EPIC has called the devices "invasive, inefffective, and unlawful." For more information, see: EPIC: Whole Body Imaging and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS. (Nov. 24, 2010)
Majority of Americans Now Oppose Body Scanners and TSA Pat Downs: A new poll by Zogby International finds that 61% of Americans polled between Nov. 19 and Nov. 22 oppose the use of full body scans and TSA pat downs. Of those polled, 52% believe the enhanced security measures will not prevent terrorist activity, almost half (48%) say it is a violation of privacy rights, 33% say they should not have to go through enhanced security methods to get on an airplane, and 32% believe the full body scans and TSA pat downs to be sexual harassment. The Zogby Poll is the most recent survey of American opinion on the new airport screening procedures. Combined with earlier polls by USA Today and the Washington Post-ABC News, the Zogby Poll reflects declining support for the TSA program. (Nov. 23, 2010)
EPIC Releases Analysis on TSA Body Scanner Program - "Deployment and contracting for body scanners should be suspended": EPIC is making available to the public today the report EPIC prepared in January 2010, following the release of documents from the DHS in an open government lawsuit. The analysis, based on the internal records obtained from the agency, reveals that the "device specifications, set out by the TSA, include the ability to store, record, and transfer images, contrary to the representations made by the TSA...include hard disk storage, USB integration, and Ethernet connectivity that raise significant privacy and security concerns...include "super user" ("Level Z") status that allows the TSA itself to disable filters and to export raw images..." The EPIC memo states "Based on the materials received to date, EPIC concludes that further deployment and contracting for body scanners should be suspended until the privacy and security problems identified are adequately resolved." The documents were obtained in EPIC v. DHS (FOIA) EPIC has since filed papers in federal court to suspend the program. See EPIC v. DHS (body scanners). (Nov. 22, 2010)
Congress Raises New Questions About Airport Screening Procedures: Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS) and Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), two leading members of Congress, have sent a letter to TSA Administrator John S. Pistole, objecting to the new airport screening procedures. Reps. Thompson and Lee wrote, "we are concerned about new enhanced pat down screening protocols and urge you to reconsider utilization of these protocols." Reps. Thompson and Lee further said that "the TSA should have had a conversation with the American public" and should have ensured that "these changes do not run afoul of privacy and civil liberties." EPIC has filed a lawsuit against the TSA for failing to provide an opportunity for public comment, which is required by law, and implementing a screening procedure that violates privacy. EPIC President Marc Rotenberg has called the new screening procedures "invasive, unlawful, and ineffective." For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS. (Nov. 21, 2010)
EPIC Files FOIA Suit to Force Disclosure of Body Scanner Radiation Risks: EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, seeking records concerning radiation emissions and exposure associated with airport full body scanners. The Department recently implemented the scanners as a primary screening mechanism for all airline travelers. In August, many senators questioned the safety of the scanners. In September, Ralph Nader also sent a letter to the Senate expressing concern about radiation exposure. Earlier this year, EPIC requested DHS to release all information about radiation emissions. DHS failed to respond to EPIC's FOIA request and when DHS also failed to reply to EPIC's administrative appeal, EPIC filed a lawsuit in federal court. Earlier EPIC FOIA lawsuits uncovered evidence that body scanners can store and record images and that the Marshals Service had captured more than 35,000 images. For more information see, EPIC v. DHS (Body scanner images) and EPIC v. DOJ (Body scanner images). (Nov. 19, 2010)
Rep. Ron Paul Introduces Bill to Halt Body Scanner Program: Representative Ron Paul introduced a bill that would hold TSA agents legally accountable for airline screening procedures. Rep. Paul cited abusive screening procedures as the reason for the legislation, titled the American Traveler Dignity Act. In a floor speech, Representative Paul also endorsed National Opt-Out Day, a grassroots movement of passengers who plan to refuse the devices on November 24th. EPIC is suing in federal court to suspend the body scanner program. For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS. (Nov. 18, 2010)
New York City Moves to Ban Body Scanners: Members of the New York City Council announced today that they would introduce legislation to ban the use of body scanners in New York City. Councilmember David Greenfield said, "I am deeply troubled that we are subjecting New Yorkers to this humiliating process, which breaches the most basic privacy rights." EPIC President Marc Rotenberg joined the Councilmembers on the steps of City Hall for the announcement. For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program). (Nov. 18, 2010)
Senators Grill TSA Official About Airport Body Scanners: In a hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Sentors asked TSA Administrator John Pistole tough questions about the privacy and health implications of airport body scanners. Senators also asked about the invasiveness of pat-downs and the problems that the machines pose for religious objectors. Pistole failed to provide proof of independent studies regarding radiation risks and consistently downplayed privacy and religious concerns. EPIC has filed a lawsuit to suspend the body scanner program, calling the program "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective." For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program). (Nov. 17, 2010)
Senate to Hold Hearings on TSA, Congress to Examine Impact of Body Scanner Program on Airline Industry: The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will hold an oversight hearing on the Transportation Security Administration on November 17, 2010. Hon. John S. Pistole, the TSA Administrator, is expected to testify. EPIC has filed a lawsuit to suspend the body scanner program, calling it "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective." Opposition to the program is growing. The Libertarian Party, the American Pilots Association, Airline CEOs, flyers rights organizations, religious groups, and others are calling for an end to invasive searches at airports. A National Opt-Out Day is scheduled for November 24. For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program). (Nov. 15, 2010)
Government Seeks to Exclude Religious Objectors from EPIC Body Scanner Challenge, EPIC Opposes DHS Motion: In a motion filed in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the Department of Homeland Security has attempted to exclude religious objector Nadhira Al-Khalili from EPIC's body scanner lawsuit. Ms. Al-Khalili is Legal Counsel for the Council on American Islamic Relations, one of the organizations that supported EPIC's petition, which is the basis for the challenge to the body scanner program. Ms. Al-Khalili's claims are based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Islamic modesty requirements. EPIC has opposed the government's motion and stated that the agency is "simply afraid to have the Religious Freedom Restoration Act claims heard by this Court." EPIC further argued that "Respondents hope by seeking to exclude Ms. Al- Khalili . . . they will avoid judicial scrutiny of an agency practice that substantially burdens the free exercise of religion in violation of federal law." For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Emergency Stay, Body Scanners) and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology. (Nov. 9, 2010)

Background

In 2005, the Transportation Security Administration, a component of the US Department of Homeland Security, began testing passenger imaging technology - called whole body imaging, "body scanners," and "advanced imaging technology" - to screen air travelers. Body scanners produce detailed, three-dimensional images of individuals. Security experts have described whole body scanners as the equivalent of "a physically invasive strip-search." The agency operates the body scanner devices at airports throughout the United States.

As part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC obtained documents which established that the TSA required that have the ability to store, record, and transfer detailed images of naked air travelers. EPIC also obtained hundreds of pages of traveler complaints, which described the invasive program and the lack of proper signage and information regarding the machines. The images captured by FBS devices can uniquely identify individual air travelers. The TSA uses body scanners to search air travelers as they pass through the TSAs airport security checkpoints.

The TSA recently established body scanners as primary screening. Complaints obtained by EPIC as part of its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit also revealed that the body scanner screening is effectively mandatory because the agency routinely denies air travelers alternative screening.
EPIC's Lawsuit

EPIC's Emergency Motion

In July 2, 2010, EPIC, human rights advocate Chip Pitts, and security expert Bruce Schneier petitioned the D.C. Court of Appeals for review of three DHS actions one failure to act, one agency Order, and one agency Ruleof the TSA, a DHS component. The petitioners filed a motion for emergency stay, urging the Court to shut down the program as soon as possible in order to prevent irreparable harm to American travelers.

In EPIC v. DHS, No. 10-1157, petitioners argue that DHS violated the Administrative Procedures Act when it failed to act on EPIC's May 31, 2009 petition to the agency and when it refused to process of EPICs April 21, 2010 petition. The Administrative Procedures Act states that each agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule. Courts have found that petitioning parties are entitled to a response on the merits. Agencies are obligated to respond within a reasonable time. EPIC argued that because TSA failed to deny or grant either of EPIC's two petitions, the agency has violated the Administrative Procedures Act.

EPIC, et al. also argued that the DHS Privacy Office failed to comply with its statutory mandate to protect travelers privacy. EPIC argued that the DHS Chief Privacy Office prepared an inadequate Privacy Impact Assessment of the TSAs body scanner test program which failed to identify numerous privacy risks to air travelers. EPIC also argued that the DHS Chief Privacy Office failed to prepare any Privacy Impact Assessment concerning the TSAs current body scanner program. The TSAs current body scanner program is materially different from the TSAs body scanner test program. The program erodes, and does not sustain, privacy protections relating to the use, collection, and disclosure of air travelers personal information.

EPIC asserted that the body scanner program violates travelers' Fourth Amendment rights. Courts have required that airport security searches be ;minimally intrusive, well-tailored to protect personal privacy, and neither more extensive nor more intensive than necessary under the circumstances to rule out the presence of weapons or explosives. Searches are reasonable if they escalate in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening discloses a reason to conduct a more probing search. EPIC argued that the TSAs body scanner program fails to meet these standards because the TSA subjects all air travelers to the most extensive, invasive search available at the outset. EPIC asserted that the TSA searches are also far more invasive than necessary to detect weapons. Alternative technologies, including passive millimeter wave scanners and automated threat detection, detect weapons with a less invasive search.

EPIC argued that the TSAs body scanner program violates the Privacy Act because it creates a system of records containing air travelers personally identifiable information. The system of records is under the control of the TSA, and the TSA can retrieve information about air travelers by name or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. However, EPIC argued, the TSA failed to publish a system of records notice in the Federal Register, and otherwise failed to comply with its Privacy Act obligations.

Lastly, EPIC asserted that the TSAs body scanner program violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which bars the government from placing a substantial burden on a person's exercise of religion even if the burden arises from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates a compelling governmental interest, and uses the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The TSA's use of body scanners violates the RFRA because the capture and transmission of naked images of individuals offends the sincerely held beliefs of Muslims and other religious groups. Muslims believe in maintaining modesty and covering their bodies. Body scanners enable the capture and viewing of naked human images that violates this belief and denies observant Muslims the opportunity to travel by plane in the United States as others are able to do.

EPIC urged the Court to act as soon as possible to prevent irreparable injury to the the public.
Litigation Documents

EPIC v. the Department of Homeland Security, Case No. 10-1157 (D.C. Cir. filed July 2, 2010).
EPIC's Opening Brief
Department of Homeland Security's Motion to Exclude Religious Objector Nadhira Al-Khalili As a Party
EPIC's Opposition to Department's Motion
EPIC's Petition for Review(pdf)
EPIC's Motion for Emergency Stay(pdf)
Exhibit 1: EPIC: Petition to the DHS Regarding Body Scanners, May 31, 2009
Exhibit 2: TSA: Letter to EPIC, June 19, 2009
Exhibit 3: EPIC: Petition to DHS Regarding Body Scanners, April 21, 2010
Exhibit 4: TSA: Letter to EPIC, May 28, 2010
Declaration of Petitioner Bruce Schneier
Department of Homeland Security's Opposition to EPIC's Emergency Motion(pdf)
Exhibit 1: Privacy Impact Assessment, January 2, 2008
Exhibit 2: Privacy Impact Assessment, July 23, 2009
Exhibit 3: Privacy Impact Assessment, August 17, 2008
Exhibit 4: Backscatter Sign
Exhibit 5: Millimeter Wave Sign
EPIC's Reply(pdf)
Exhibit 1: Image from Body Scanner Machine
Exhibit 2: USA Today: Backlash Grows Against Full Body Scanners in Airports
Exhibit 3: TSA Operational Requirements
Exhibit 4: TSA: Procurement Specifications
News Stories

Administration to Seek Balance in Airport Screening, Scott Shane, New York Times, November 21, 2010.
Protest Over Airport Body Scanners, Press Association, November 21, 2010.
Obama Says Understands Ire Over Airport Screenings, Julie Pace, Associated Press, November 20, 2010.
Ron Paul Introduces the American Traveler Dignity Act, E. D. Kain, Washington Examiner, November 19, 2010.
Incoming Speaker Takes Commercial Flight, but Skips the Pat Down, Jeff Zeleny, New York Times, November 19, 2010.
Lawmakers Jump Late into Airport-Scanner Uproar, Carol Pucci, Seattle Times, November 19, 2010.
New York Lawmakers Try to Ban Body Scanners From Airports, Amar Toor, Switched, November 19, 2010.
TSA Pat-Downs 'Overly Intrusive,' Key Lawmakers Say, Alan Levin, USA Today, November 19, 2010.
Pilots to be Exempt from Airport Scanners, Intrusive Pat-Downs, Brad Knickerbocker, Christian Science Monitor, November 19, 2010.
Pat-Downs at Airports Prompt Complaints, Susan Stellin, New York Times, November 18, 2010.
Nader: TSA is Delivering Naked Insecurity, Ralph Nader, USA Today, November 18, 2010.
U.S. Must Improve Traveler Privacy After Pat-Down Backlash, Lawmaker Says, John Hughes, Bloomberg News, November 17, 2010.
'Sully' Joins Opposition to Heightened Airport Security Measures, CNN, November 17, 2010.
Body Scanners, Pat-Downs Violate Law and Privacy, Marc Rotenberg, CNN, November 17, 2010.
Napolitano 'Open' to Fliers' Gripes Over Screening, Charisse Jones, USA Today, November 17, 2010.
TSA Backlash Grows Over Leaked Body Scans, Many Other Scandals, Max Fisher, The Atlantic, November 16, 2010.
Screening Protests Grow as Holiday Crunch Looms, Joe Sharkey, New York Times, November 15, 2010.
Oceanside Man Challenges Airport's Full-Body Scan, Los Angeles Times, November 15, 2010.
Growing Backlash Against TSA Body Scanners, Pat-Downs, Phil Gast, CNN, November 14, 2010.
'Invasive' Airport Screening Stirs Backlash Among Airline Passengers, Stephen Clark, Fox News, November 12, 2010.
Ralph Nader and EPIC Take On Full-Body Airport Scanners, Neal Ungerleider, Fast Company, November 8, 2010.
Airline Pilots Boycott Full Body Scanners, Sara Yin, PC Magazine, November 8, 2010.
Group Slams Airport Naked Body Scanners, Dan Goodin, The Register, November 3, 2010.
New Uproar over Security Scanners After Agency Acknowledges Storing Images, Mary Forgione, Los Angeles Times, August 9, 2010.
Group Concerned Airport Security Scanners Capture Nearly Naked Images, NBC, August 5, 2010.
Feds Admit They Stored Body Scanner Images, Despite TSA Claim the Images Cannot be Saved, Aliyah Shahid, New York Daily News, August 4, 2010.
Lawsuit Challenges Airport Full-Body Scanners, Katie Johnston Chase, The Boston Globe, August 4, 2010.
Body Scan Images From Security Checkpoints Were Saved By Feds, Bianca Bosker, Huffington Post, August 4. 2010.
Feds Admit Storing Body Scan Images, Declan McCullagh, CNET, August 4, 2010.
EPIC Files Suit Against the Deployment of Full Body Scanners in US Airports, Yosie Saint-Cyr, Slaw (Blog), July 15, 2010.
EPIC Files Lawsuit Against Airport Body Scanners, Growing Consumer Backlash, Consumer Federation of America, July 13, 2010.
Backlash grows against full-body scanners in airports, Gary Stoller, USA Today, July 13, 2010.
Privacy Group Files Lawsuit to Block Airport Body Scanners, Roger Yu, USA Today, July 9, 2010.
Civil Rights Coalition: TSA Violates Travelers' Rights, Amy E. Ferrer, Bill of Rights Defense Committee Blog, July 6, 2010.
Full-body security scanners scrapped at Dubai airports, officials say the device "contradicts Islam", Aliah Shahid, New York Daily News, July 6, 2010.
Sikh concerns delay hand search plans at UK airports, Dil Neiyyar, BBC News, June 30, 2010.
Body Scanner Resources

EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology (Body Scanners)
Spotlight on Surveillance, Body Scanners
EPIC v. DHS (FOIA, Body Scanners)

Magda Hassan
11-29-2010, 08:01 AM
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/985.html
Lying dogs and useful dogs.

Peter Lemkin
11-29-2010, 08:37 AM
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/985.html
Lying dogs and useful dogs.

Good. And as much as I don't much like Police and Intel People, I have noticed that those in Canine Units treat their dogs very well - better than they treat most humans they contact outside of their buddies. A good idea.....but too cheap to convince those who stand to profit financially and by the hightened fear. Dogs don't up the ante of fear at an airport or other facility.

Magda Hassan
11-29-2010, 08:52 AM
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/985.html
Lying dogs and useful dogs.

Good. And as much as I don't much like Police and Intel People, I have noticed that those in Canine Units treat their dogs very well - better than they treat most humans they contact outside of their buddies. A good idea.....but too cheap to convince those who stand to profit financially and by the hightened fear. Dogs don't up the ante of fear at an airport or other facility.
A lot of them are attracted to those units, dogs, horses and search and rescue because they are a bit different from the rest of the institution. Far less corruption too. One member of my family specifically sought out such a unit because the alternative if they stayed where they were was a life of crime in uniform.

Ed Jewett
12-02-2010, 05:40 PM
TSA Frisks Groom Children to Cooperate with Sex Predators, Abuse Expert Says (http://cryptogon.com/?p=19049)

December 2nd, 2010 Via: Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/airport-patdowns-grooming-children-sex-predators-abuse-expert/):
An expert in the fight against child sexual abuse is raising the alarm about a technique the TSA is reportedly using to get children to co-operate with airport pat-downs: calling it a game.
Ken Wooden, founder of Child Lures Prevention, says the TSAs recommendation that children be told the pat-down is a game is potentially putting children in danger.
Telling a child that they are engaging in a game is one of the most common ways that sexual predators use to convince children to engage in inappropriate contact, Wooden told Raw Story.
Children dont have the sophistication to distinguish between a pat-down carried out by an airport security officer and an assault by a sexual predator, he said.
The TSA policy could desensitize children to inappropriate touch and ultimately make it easier for sexual offenders to prey on our children, Wooden added.
Following an outcry last month over the use on children of enhanced pat-downs which involve the touching of genitals the TSA announced a new modified pat-down for children under 12. However, as the LA Times noted, the new rules are unclear on whether TSA agents can touch childrens genitals.

Peter Lemkin
12-03-2010, 09:26 AM
"Will that be naked pictures, or being fondled, with your flight ticket, miss?"

We've all heard about it of course, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) x-raying under people's clothes or groping them like on a clumsy second date. Maybe the new security procedures will finally disturb enough people enough times so that they'll start to raise the issue that dare not speak its name: What can we do to stop creating all the anti-American terrorists we're now engaged full time in protecting ourselves from?

As despicable as their philosophy and actions are, anti-American terrorists are not just mindless, evil madmen from another planet. They are not motivated by hatred or envy of American freedom or democracy (as George W. liked to tell us), or of American wealth, secular government, or culture. They are instead motivated by decades of terrible things done to their homelands by US foreign policy. There should be no doubt of this, for there are numerous examples of terrorists explicitly citing American policies as the prime motivation behind their acts.2 It works the same all over the world. In the period of the 1950s to the 1980s in Latin America, in response to a long string of hateful Washington policies, there were countless acts of terrorism against US diplomatic and military targets as well as the offices of US corporations. 9/11 was a globalized version of the Columbine High School disaster. When you bully people long enough they are going to strike back.

The US bombing, invasion, occupation and/or torture in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia in recent years, as well as the eternal Israeli-US genocide against the Palestinian people, have created countless new anti-American terrorists. We'll be hearing from them for an awfully long time.

Following an act of terrorism, we rarely receive from our officials and media even a slightly serious discussion of the terrorists' motivation. Was there any kind of deep-seated grievance or resentment with anything or anyone American being expressed? Any perceived wrong they wished to make right? Anything they sought to obtain revenge for? And why is the United States the most common target of terrorists?

But such questions are virtually forbidden in the mainstream world. At a White House press briefing in January concerning an attempt to blow up a US airliner on Christmas day 2009, conducted by Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security John Brennan, veteran reporter Helen Thomas raised a question:

Thomas: "What is really lacking always for us is you don't give the motivation of why they want to do us harm. ... What is the motivation? We never hear what you find out on why."

Brennan: "Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents. ... [They] attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that [they're] able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death."

Thomas: "And you're saying it's because of religion?"

Brennan: "I'm saying it's because of an al Qaeda organization that uses the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way."

Thomas: "Why?"

Brennan: "I think ... this is a long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland."

Thomas: "But you haven't explained why." 3

Osama bin Laden, in an audiotape, also commented about the Christmas Day would-be bomber: "The message we wanted you to receive through him is that America shall not dream about security until we witness it in Palestine." 4

We have as well the case of Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, a Jordanian doctor-turned-suicide bomber, who killed seven CIA employees at a base in Afghanistan last December 30. His widow later declared: "I am proud of him. ... My husband did this against the U.S. invasion." Balawi himself had written on the Internet: "I have never wished to be in Gaza, but now I wish to be a ... car bomb that takes the lives of the biggest number of Jews to hell." 5

It should be noted that the CIA base attacked by Balawi was heavily involved in the selection of targets for the Agency's remote-controlled aircraft along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, a program that killed more than 300 people in the previous year. 6

So, feel-ups of our private parts and involuntary disrobing are the price we pay for waging war against the world. We get our cavities probed because our victims get predator drones up their asses. 7
"Thank you for not putting a bomb in your luggage."

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real."

General Douglas MacArthur, 1957 8

Do you remember the "shoe bomber"? Richard Reid was his name and he was aboard an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami on December 22, 2001; he tried to detonate explosives hidden in his shoes, didn't succeed, and was overpowered by attendants and passengers. It's because of him that we have to take our shoes off at the airport.

There was also "the underwear bomber", Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian, referred to above. On Christmas Day, 2009, he tried to set off plastic explosives sewn in his underwear while aboard a Northwest Airlines flight as the plane approached the Detroit airport. But he failed to detonate them properly, producing only some popping noises and a flame; another passenger jumped him and restrained him as others put out the fire. It's because of him that we now have to, virtually, take our underwear off at airports.

Then there was Faisal Shahzad, the "Times Square bomber", who on May 1 of this year parked his car in the heart of New York City, tried to detonate various explosive devices in the car, but succeeded in producing only smoke. He then walked away from the car, leaving it to lead to his arrest. It's because of him that cars are no longer permitted in Times Square. (No, that's a joke, but maybe not for long.)

The incompetence of these three men in being unable to detonate their explosives is remarkable. You'd think they could have easily gotten that critical and relatively simple part of the operation down pat beforehand. What I find even more remarkable is that neither of the two men aboard airplanes thought of going into the bathroom, closing the door, and then trying to detonate the explosives. An eight-year-old child would have thought of that. Are we supposed to take these guys and these incidents seriously? Are we supposed to take the "threat" posed by such men seriously? A month before the Christmas incident Abdulmutallab's father had gone to the US embassy in Nigeria to express concern that his son was in Yemen and had fallen under the influence of religious extremists.9 Moreover, the New York Times later reported: "In early November, American intelligence authorities say they learned from a communications intercept of Qaeda followers in Yemen that a man named 'Umar Farouk' ... had volunteered for a coming operation." 10

And yet Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had no problem getting on an American airplane in Amsterdam and flying to the United States.

The latest example of the terrible terrorist threat was in late October when we were told that two packages addressed to Chicago had been found aboard American cargo planes, one in Dubai, the other in England, containing what might, or might not, be an explosive device; which might, or might not, have exploded. Authorities said it was not known if the intent was to detonate the packages in flight or in Chicago.

Now get this. Terrorists, we are told, are shipping bombs in packages to the United States. They of course would want to make the packages as innocuous looking as can be, right? Nothing that would provoke any suspicion in the mind of an already very suspicious American security establishment, right? So what do we have? The packages were mailed from YEMEN ... and addressed to JEWISH SYNAGOGUES in Chicago. ... Well folks, nothing to see here, just keep moving.

Is it also perhaps of interest that L'Affaire Package Bombs took place less than a week before election day, perchance focusing the American public's mind away from things economic?

Magda Hassan
01-14-2011, 03:03 AM
JANUARY 13--The woman who sued the Transportation Security Administration after her breasts were exposed during a frisking at a Texas airport will receive a “nominal” payment from the government as part of a legal settlement, The Smoking Gun has learned.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/assets/murleyfacebook.jpgThe settlement was disclosed (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/tsa-exposure-suit?page=0) in documents filed last week in U.S. District Court in Amarillo, where Lynsie Murley last year filed a lawsuit (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/tsa-exposure-suit?page=1) accusing the TSA of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress in connection with the May 2008 incident at the Corpus Christi airport.
Murley’s lawyer, Jerry McLaughlin, declined to disclose the exact amount of money that his client is receiving, but termed the payout a “nominal settlement.” Asked if the amount hit six figures, McLaughlin laughed loudly and said the negotiated payment was “way less than that. It wasn’t a whole lot of money.” Murley, he said, “was never interested in the money,” and would not have filed a lawsuit if TSA officials had simply sent her a letter of apology.
Murley is pictured above in a photo from her Facebook page.
The 24-year-old Murley alleged that after being “singled out for extended search procedures,” a TSA agent frisked her and “pulled Plaintiff’s blouse completely down, exposing Plaintiff’s breasts to everyone in the area.” Her complaint noted that, “as would be expected,” Murley was “extremely embarrassed and humiliated.”
Murley charged that TSA employees “joked and laughed about the incident for an extended period of time.” After leaving the security line to be “consoled by an acquaintance who had brought her to the airport,” Murley returned to the line, where a male TSA worker said that he had wished he was there when she first passed through. The employee, Murley recalled, added that “he would just have to watch the video.”
The court settlement was reached shortly after government lawyers deposed Murley. The agreement, McLaughlin said, “got her some justice.” (5 pages)


http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/tsg_logo.png (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/)
DOCUMENT: Stupid (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/stupid) TSA Pays Off In Breast Exposure Suit

Texas woman, 24, receives “nominal” settlement


http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/175xUnlimited/photos/tsapatdownfront.jpg
View Document

TSA Exposure Suit



http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/150x210/documents/1tsasettlement.jpg (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/stupid/tsa-pays-breast-exposure-suit%20#lightbox-popup-1) TSA Exposure Suit

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/tsa-exposure-suit?page=0

http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/750x970/documents/1tsasettlement.jpg





TSA Exposure Suit
http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/150x210/documents/2tsasettlement.jpg (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/stupid/tsa-pays-breast-exposure-suit%20#lightbox-popup-2) TSA Exposure Suit

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/tsa-exposure-suit?page=0

http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/750x970/documents/2tsasettlement.jpg





TSA Exposure Suit
http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/150x210/documents/3tsasettlement.jpg (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/stupid/tsa-pays-breast-exposure-suit%20#lightbox-popup-3) TSA Exposure Suit

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/tsa-exposure-suit?page=0

http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/750x970/documents/3tsasettlement.jpg





TSA Exposure Suit
http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/150x210/documents/4tsasettlement.jpg (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/stupid/tsa-pays-breast-exposure-suit%20#lightbox-popup-4) TSA Exposure Suit

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/tsa-exposure-suit?page=0

http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/750x970/documents/4tsasettlement.jpg





TSA Exposure Suit
http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/150x210/documents/5tsasettlement.jpg (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/stupid/tsa-pays-breast-exposure-suit%20#lightbox-popup-5) TSA Exposure Suit

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/tsa-exposure-suit?page=0

http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/750x970/documents/5tsasettlement.jpg





TSA Exposure Suit

Peter Lemkin
01-14-2011, 08:57 AM
Why does this repeat about ten times above?