When One Person Takes a Stand Amazing Things Can Happen

[sabrina 1]

The battle with the TSA over Rapiscan's full body scanners, is not a new one. It has been going on since they were first introduced years ago and were met with almost immediate outrage from all sides of the political spectrum. Democrats, Independents, Libertarians and many Conservatives all expressed deep concerns about the creeping totalitarianism in this country under the Bush Administration all in the name of 'terror'.

There were legal challenges to keep them out of airports. And even the EU weighed in stating that they did not 'enhance the effort to fight terror'. Scientists and public health officials were also opposed to them because of the threat of harmful exposure to cancer-causing rays.

The only thing new about the controversy now is that they have finally and sadly made their way into our lives. Using the failed attempt by the Underwear Bomber to bring down a plane, advocates for these controversial scanners had a field day and within a year, they finally succeeded in installing them in over 68 Airports.



As everyone knows by now, one the fiercest advocates for their use, Michael Chertoff, was all over TV demanding that they be installed, falsely claiming they would have stopped the Underwear Bomber. He did not disclose that one of the manufacturers of the scanners, Rapiscan, was a client of his consulting firm. Like so many other fear-mongers, he had a huge financial stake in them.

His own failure to provide security for the American People during Katrina, Giuliani's failure to protect the city of NY, has not deterred these two fear-profiteers from using the tragedy of 9/11 to enrich themselves.

But the opposition only intensified by those already involved in the battle for the preservation of our rights. The 'left' has, almost unanimously, always opposed them. Now, seeing them in action, many people are realizing how far a government will go wrt destroying rights if they can get away with it.

Initially, in order to try to minimize the expected outrage, the TSA had allowed people to opt out of the screening by agreeing to a pat-down. Many people chose that option. But this past August, the TSA announced plans to introduce what they called 'Enhanced Pat-downs' for those who would opt out of the scanners.

Blogger Bob, the TSA blogger, posted this information on the TSA blog. However, Blogger Bob did not provide any information on what an 'enhanced pat-down was. This despite the hundreds of questions his post received from commenters on the blog. You can see the hundreds of comments on the TSA blog here:

The TSA Blog: Enhanced Pat-downs

RB Said...

TSA to grope flyers who don’t want to submit to naked X-ray scans
By BILL SANDERSON

Last Updated: 1:05 PM, August 27, 2010

"TSA tried out similar aggressive patdowns in 2004, but abandoned the idea after the American Civil Liberties Union began investigating.

Imposing the patdowns on people who won’t submit to full-body electronic scans would be "punitive," said ACLU legislative counsel Chris Calabrese.

"It seems like another erosion of privacy — yet another indignity the traveling public has to endure," Calabrese said. "Modesty and decency seem to count for very little, but security seems to count for everything."

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/tsa_naked_grope_flyers_who_don_want_L8TOJlYDkGzOULNhSsE6IK#ixzz0xrggZzoH

Just one of the hundreds of comments responding to the announcement. This one pointing out that this was tried way back in 2004 and failed. You can also see some of the responses from the TSA throughout the thread.

And since the word 'enhanced' has become a euphemism for 'abuse' in this country these days, as you can see commenters became concerned that the reluctance of the TSA to explain what they meant, indicated that there would be more government-sanctioned abuses.

Many of the comments from that blog posting in August as it turns out, were pretty prescient. Almost as soon as the 'enhanced pat-downs go into effect, the outraged responses from travelers began to be heard.

One group that was particularly opposed to them, were Airline Workers, especially Pilots who were expected to go through these procedures each day they showed up for work.

About four weeks ago, one of those pilots stood up and simply refused to subject himself to these abuses on a daily basis.

Pilot Refuses Full-Body Scan, Says It Would Violate His Rights

A Memphis pilot who refused an airport security search said the procedure violated his rights and wouldn't make passengers any safer.

Michael Roberts, a first officer with ExpressJet Airlines, refused to submit to a full-body scan and then to a pat-down by Transportation Security Administration officials on Friday, the Memphis Commercial Appeal reported. He left Memphis International Airport without boarding a plane.

Roberts, who has worked for ExpressJet for more than four years, was wearing a pilot's uniform and identification at the time.

The security procedures left him with the choice of being physically assaulted or having his privacy violated, Roberts said.

"I was trying to avoid this assault on my person, and I'm not willing to have images of my nude body produced for some stranger in another room to look at either," Roberts told CNN.

He is still waiting to hear from ExpressJet if this stand for privacy will cost him his job.

.......

Roberts railed against the new security measures long before he was actually selected, auto blog Jalopnik reported.

Roberts wrote a message on a pilots' forum in July calling the new security measures as an "outrage" and a "significant step" on the road to tyranny.

The new measures were simply a power grab by the state, Roberts wrote

"You'd have to have your head buried completely in the sand to believe that the Dept. of Homeland Security really gives two s---s about preventing terrorism," Roberts wrote, according to Jalopnik.

His protest was followed by others. The Pilots Union backed their pilots up, in fact this battle between Pilots and the TSA has been going for years.

Michael Roberts didn't just refuse to subject himself to the scanners, he, and another female pilot, Ann Poe, have both fialed lawsuits against the TSA for violating their rights.

This weekend, TSA's Pistole stated that the TSA would not 'back down' on the scanners or the pat-downs despite the public outrage.

But last Friday, TSA had in fact done just that:



TSA exempts U.S. airline pilots from pat-downs and body scans

Reporting from Washington — After weeks of pressure from pilot unions over controversial new airport screening measures, the Transportation Security Administration agreed Friday to exempt pilots from enhanced pat-downs and full-body scans.

........

Pilots who believe the TSA's search methods are excessive have sued the agency. Michael Roberts, a commercial pilot from Memphis, filed a lawsuit Tuesday alleging that the new procedures violate his constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

This was not the only victory for the people last week. After the filing of those two lawsuits and outraged complaints by many parents, the TSA also backed down on the abusive screening and pat-downs of young children:

No 'enhanced' pat-downs for kids, TSA says

Children going through airport security will no longer be subject to the aggressive pat-downs that have riled some passengers and will instead face less-intrusive hand searches from screeners, the Transportation Security Administration said Tuesday.

........

The TSA decision to ease screening for children came as the agency was sued Tuesday by two airline pilots seeking to block the use of body scanners and enhanced pat-downs. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., by Michael Roberts, an ExpressJet Airlines pilot who created a minor stir last month when he refused to undergo a body scan and a pat-down at Memphis International Airport, where he was trying to board a flight to his base in Houston. The other plaintiff is Continental Airlines first officer Ann Poe.

As of November 16th, Michael Roberts was still on leave of absence. He is a hero, someone who is willing to lose his job rather than assist the government to violate the rights of the American people. His actions have caused the TSA to pause and reconsider their actions.

The installation of these machines last year reversed all of the work done over the past six years. So we have to start all over again. But in just a few weeks, simply because of a few people taking a stand, progress has been made in the right direction.

I am grateful to all those who helped turn this back just a little.

Thank YOU Michael Roberts.

Thank YOU Continental Airlines first officer Ann Poe.

Thanks too to the bloggers who recorded their experiences and reported on these latest Government excesses.

And thanks to all the citizens who registered their outrage, especially parents and other child advocates who understand the kind of lasting damage these abuses would have on children.

But mostly thanks to all those Liberals who have been fighting this battle for so long, and to all those others from different political backgrounds, who joined them through-out the past several years.

This country owes so much to the 'Left' even if they do not realize it. But that's a whole other subject.

[woo me with science]

1. K&R. Excellent, excellent post! nt

[AnArmyVeteran]

32. Bobby Kennedy on what one man can do to change the world.

"Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." - RFK - 1966, Day of Affirmation speech in South Africa.

[woo me with science]

38. Beautiful. Thank you. nt

[sabrina 1]

54. That is beautiful. I had not read that before. Thank you for posting it.

It is a perfect description of what is happening now. I hope we do not lose the momemtum as there will be forces attempting to turn this into a partisan fight.

[AnArmyVeteran]

65. Be sure to read the entire 'Day of Affirmation' speech.

It was one of the best ever and it what Bobby Kennedy said in 1966 is still true today. I wish we had another Bobby Kennedy these days. After he was killed millions of Americans lined railroad tracks all across the country to watch as the train carrying his body returned from California to Bobby's home. No public figure today could ever be so respected and loved. People loved him because Bobby stood up for them. He gave voices to millions of forgotten people.

A side story, twenty years after Bobby Kennedy gave his Day of Affirmation speech many of those who were present to hear him had a reunion and they could remember every word of his speech. The South African government would not allow it to be televised to their people and even disabled the speakers outside of the building where Bobby spoke. They so feared his message that they did all they could to silence him.

Have a great Thanksgiving...

[sabrina 1]

110. I will, thank you. I will definitely do that.

That is really fascinating to hear, that those people remembered his speech so well. I think Bobby Kennedy evolved over his lifetime into having the potential to be this country's closest President to Lincoln. What a great loss his death was for this country.

[BrklynLiberal]

73. Gave me goosebumps...

[liberal N proud]

2. He was the match that ignited the fire storm

And it is a welcome fire storm at that.

[sabrina 1]

6. And I should have included a little information on the female

pilot, Ann Poe who was the second pilot to protest. She too is a hero, and has also sued the TSA. I will try to get in the OP before it is too late. She deserves the recognition also.

But yes, you are right, Michael Roberts was the spark that helped light the fire. He attracted media attention when he walked out, willing to quit his job over it. I remember reading the article and silently applauding him.

[Tansy_Gold]

3. K&R from one on The Left n/t

[Tatiana]

4. Outstanding post!

Thank you for putting all this together and thanks for reminding us how one person really can make a difference.

[ProSense]

5. You know what catches my eye:

The second link is to the NY Post and the last link is to an article dated November 17, which was last Wednesday.

Today is November 23.

[LisaL]

7. Your point being what?

This is general discussion, not breaking news.

[ProSense]

8. Is the

Wednesday, November 17: "No 'enhanced' pat-downs for kids, TSA says"

...point that hard to figure out?

[Quantess]

31. I saw a video of a little kid getting the enhanced pat-down

He definitely looked under 10.

[sabrina 1]

9. I didn't even bother. I give you credit for trying though.

Sometimes I wonder what happened to the 'left' over the past few years. I remember eg, when these scanners were first mentioned and I was posting on several Democratic boards at the time, there was not a single person out of thousands of commenters who were not on the same page as far as the potential threat to civil liberties they represented.

This post has already received unrecs as do all posts attempting to stand up for our rights. This would not have happened a few years ago. Has the left lost sight of its principles, or has the Bush administration's assault on our rights just become acceptable after so few victories? I just wonder sometimes.

[ProSense]

10. "Sometimes I wonder what happened to the 'left' over the past few years."

Some on the left still care about facts and getting the information chronologically accurate.

[sabrina 1]

14. So let's see, you read the post searching for something

you could use to distract from the issue of civil rights. The chronology of the TSA's own statements don't make sense. Pistole eg, had already caved when he claimed this Saturday that he wouldn't. But unless you want to expand on your opinion, your ctitiques etc. or your 'point', there isn't much I can do to get you to discuss the issue itself. Were you part of the fight against these scanners btw? I was, for years.

[Swamp Rat]

20. BINGO!!!

[sabrina 1]

59. Lol, perfect, Swamp Rat! n/t

[ProSense]

22. "you could use to distract from the issue of civil rights."

Civil rights is a valid issue, and so is getting the facts straight. Outrage based on distortion and ignoring existing information isn't helpful.

For example, the TSA addressed the issue related to children last week, but today, RW loudmouths are still exploiting the issue.

[sabrina 1]

26. Yes, TSA did address the issue last week, yet, Pistole on Saturday

let me post this slowly, on Saturday days after they had addressed the issue of the children, and on Friday when they addressed the issue of the Pilots, still maintained he would 'not back down'. Was that a lie? Btw, did you notice that the pilots had protested FOUR WEEKS EARLIER and THREATENED lawsuits BEFORE FILING THEM last Tuesday, so the TSA KNEW about the impending lawsuits before the addressed the children's issues.

So what was your point again? Not to mention that it is an absolute disgrace that it took public outrage to get the TSA to stop abusing children and that this administration approved of these tactics. I feel sick to think I supported these people at this point.

But again, what exactly was your point? As I said, the pilots threatened to sue, before filing. Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit? Did you know that if you are at the receiving end of one, you tend to know about it before the actual filing?

[ProSense]

29. Was it addressed? It's posted in the OP.

Btw, did you notice that the pilots had protested FOUR WEEKS EARLIER and THREATENED lawsuits BEFORE FILING THEM last Tuesday, so the TSA KNEW about the impending lawsuits before the addressed the children's issues.

So what was your point again?" <...>

What were the accusations about in the six days since the TSA addressed the issue?

Like I said, there were policy issues to address, and there still are, but why would anyone choose to ignore that the issue was addressed?

Pistole was responding to the outrage, he may not be the most articulate person in the world, maybe he became overly defensive. The fact is that the issue was addressed, but that didn't stop people from dragging the President's daughters into it or suggesting that he was a social deviant.

[sabrina 1]

52. I'll try again. Did anyone know they had addressed the issue?

I already explained to you that Pistole, last Saturday or actually Sunday, was still saying 'we will not back down on screening or enhanced pat-downs for anyone'. Why did he say that when they already had?

And if people were taking him at his word as late as Sunday, why are you blaming them? What do you have to say about HIS distortion of the facts, last Sunday? He certainly knew they had backed down on two groups of people. Was it just bravado?

I still don't know what your point is other than to blame others for the confusion caused by Pistole's own statement over the weekend.

TSA chief won't back down on pat-downs at airports

WASHINGTON — Despite the uproar over intrusive pat-downs of some airline travelers — even Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she would not want to undergo one — the policy will not change heading into the holiday travel season, the head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) said.

"Clearly, it's invasive; it's not comfortable," John Pistole said of the pat-downs Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union With Candy Crowley."

But he said the agency was trying to strike the right balance between privacy and security to protect the nation from terrorist attacks, such as the failed one last Christmas by a man who had explosives hidden in his underwear.

Please note what day that was. Several days AFTER they addressed the children's issue and at least two days after they backed down on the pilot's issue.

Now whose fault is it that no one knew they had backed down? Why didn't Candi Crowley ask him what he meant by 'not backing down' when he had? Maybe because she took him at his word also. Again, what is the point you are trying to make?

As for your statement 'civil rights are important'. We know they are. What I asked was 'did you oppose these machines throughout the Bush administration and do you still oppose them as a violation of people's constitutional rights, a position taken and acted on by practically all Liberal Democrats for the past six years, and with success. These machines did not get into airports, until we got a supposed Democratic administration and majority in Congress.

It's a simple question. I can't seem to get answers to simple questions from those who seem to me to be supporting the President's unfortunate support for these atrociously unconstitutional machines and patdowns.

[Dr.Phool]

66. You're throwing BB's at a brick wall.

They're not going to get off the diversionary talking points, no matter how much evidence you present to the contrary.

[sabrina 1]

103. Yes, it looks that way. Sad I would really like to know

where people stood on this issue during the Bush years, but I guess that's too difficult a question to answer.

[CreekDog]

62. Yes, some of us care about facts, but you care only about whatever might hurt Obama

rather than millions of travelers who are subjected to this...it is Obama's potential harm that is motivating you in these threads. this is very clear.

you'd rather millions of people submit to violative and potentially harmful screening than to have Obama's approval rating drop 1 point.

[LanternWaste]

96. Which fundamental point of the story/OP changed

Which fundamental point/aspect of the story/OP became invalidated due to the lack of accurate proofing?

[sabrina 1]

104. Thank you, I have responded to the commenter several times explaining

the chronology and why people were still demanding changes several days after they had already been made.

See my posts to him/her above.

What happened was the battle started four weeks ago with the pilots. Last week the TSA backed down, right around the time the public was beginning to feel the consequences of these tactics. Most did not know about the controversy until recently.

The backing down occurred because of the outraged reaction most of which was not covered in the media until very recently.

The real reason why people continued to demand that the issue of the children be addressed even after it was, was mainly due to Pistole last Sunday, talking to Candy Crowley who asked if he would be responding to the outrage by changing policies. He never mentioned having done that on the previous Friday with the Pilots, or a few days earlier with the children.

He simply restated what the TSA has been saying along 'no, there will be no changes as a result of the outrage'.

Candy Crowley did not correct him, she did not point out that this was not accurate because over the past several days two changes in policy had been made. Most likely she, like the rest of us, did not know that.

This commenter, Pro-sense is attempting to blame people like reporters eg, for still asking for changes AFTER they had been made. Even though I have at least twice explained to him/her that the cause of that was the TSA not making it known. Those of us who became aware of the changes, had to do the work ourselves.

So, I give up as there is no point for him/her at all. It was all very easily explained if someone just read the articles and then looked for Pistole's comments. I guess distraction was the goal, not information :-)

[Dragonfli]

16. It all becomes acceptable here when a D endorses it no matter how fascist...sadly

[ProSense]

17. Does "D"

stand for Drudge?

"It all becomes acceptable here when a D endorses it no matter how fascist...sadly"

It's not just people here who questioned the source and timing of the outrage.

[Swamp Rat]

21. Dragonfli!!

:hi: :hug:

[sabrina 1]

46. Yes, that is true I've noticed. I never thought the left

was that hypocritical. If this was Bush, this board would be on fire with outrage with not a single post defending it, or trying to minimize the damage being done or attempting to turn it into a paterson issue.

The right made that mistake when this all began, NOW they are screaming, we warned them even asked them 'what if a Democratic president gets into office and has these powers'? But they were so partisan, they could not think ahead and/or separate themselves from the party.

Today, I have some satisfaction in pointing out to them that while they may be outraged now, THEY are responsible for giving their support to what they should have known was unreasonable and unconstitutional powers to the government, just because their team was in charge.

Those on the left now doing the same thing, will be equally responsible if we cannot turn this around. Because we need numbers, I am accepting the hypocrisy of the right while being grateful for their outrage, as there is strength in numbers. Maybe temporary unity can actually achieve something this time.

[Alameda]

80. rather, I think it's trollers.

[ShamelessHussy]

11. Touch my Junk, and I'll have U ARRESTED - props to the iPhone as well that recorded the encounter

:toast:

[sabrina 1]

12. Yes, that was definitely another example of someone standing up.

He was fantastic. I didn't want to make the OP any longer but I was thinking of him when I thanked the bloggers. :-)

[ShamelessHussy]

15. Thank you for highlighting those remarkable americans who stood up

they all deserve to be noted.

:hi:

[customerserviceguy]

19. Edmund Burke had it right

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

[Hardrada]

35. I have his complete works. I really have to just sit down and read them.

[sabrina 1]

44. How true that is.

I also love this quote from Samuel Adams, and it seems appropriate to what is happening now and directed at those who would like us to remain silent:

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." --

Samuel Adams

[blackspade]

97. Sweet quote!

Sums up my feelings exactly.

[Alameda]

81. too few recognize and practice that knowledge.

.........thanks for bringing it up again...:thumbsup:

[sabrina 1]

49. You're welcome.

Sometimes I find myself wondering 'where are the heroes' because it seems as if there are none at times. The people we placed our trust in have betrayed us it seems. But then I read about people like these and I realize that there are heroes, even during the Bush administration there were many, and many of them were Republicans. It isn't written about often, but many Bush appointees to the DOJ eg, quit rather than participate in the crimes they saw there. James Comey was certainly a hero even though he was a Republican. Also, those military prosecutors who quit when they realized that the people they were being asked to prosecute in Guantanamo Bay were probably innocent and/or at least not being given fair trials.

I guess I want to think about the fact that there are so many good and decent people in this world for a while. We focus so much on the negative, not that there isn't plenty there to think about.

And also, the more people hear about them, the more courage it gives others to stand up. Being a scaredy-cat myself when it comes to people in uniform, I greatly admire those who have stood up to them and risked their jobs and even prosecution. That takes a real passion for justice and lots of courage, imho :-)

[Ikonoklast]

90. Please read this before you want to hand out the kudos:

http://www.thenation.com/article/156647/tsastroturf-washington-lobbyists-and-koch-funded-libertarians-behind-tsa-scandal

This has all been orchestrated right before the heaviest travel date in the nation by those that want to discredit this administration for something that has been going on since the TSA was created under Bush.

[sabrina 1]

92. I am well aware that we now have hypocrites on the left who

are reacting in a partisan manner to this very serious issue, as I for one predicted it would happen once the rightwing hypocrites finally woke up to the damage they have done and took the opposite position to where they were when Bush was president. It was all very predictable.

I don't care about the left's or the right's motives now. It is the issue that matters. I am completely sick and tired of hearing that we can no longer stand up against war and torture or for Civil Rights, the Rule of Law, accountability for War Criminals because we have a Democrat in office and it make our team look bad. They don't have to look bad, they just need to do what's right. That is their problem now, not ours. We still have to stand up for what is right even if they betray the people who elected them.

It is pure BS to try to turn something that has long been a cause for Liberals, civil liberties, constitutional rights, war, torture, into a partisan issue.

All the better imho, if the hypocrites on the right shoot themselves in the foot by now opposing something they supported for so long under Bush. We need the numbers to stop these abuses. Let them help, no matter their reasons.

This president has demonstrated especially on this issue, that he is not on the side of the people. It was far more stunning to me to hear him support these unconstitutional government abuses, than to see the right act like the hypocrites they are, that at least I expected.

And worse, now his motives for supporting these abuses are very, very questionable. He invited the CEO of Rapiscan to accompany him on his business trip to India! If this had been Bush, I can only imagine the outrage on the left.

I am fully aware of the positions, and the suspect motives of all sides. I really don't care, I cared about this issue six years ago, I still care about it, and I am pretty devastated that what Bush could NOT get done because of the efforts of the left to hold back the march towards Totalitarianism this Democratic president who we elected to fight against everything we hated about Bush, succeeded in setting the fight for civil liberties back nearly a decade.

Before you get distracted by these predictable attempts to defend this party's hypocrisy and betrayal of those who elected them, ask yourself, 'what is more important, a bunch of politicians doing what politicians do, or OUR Constitutional rights'.

It's a pretty sad thing to hear this president once again, take the side of the oligarchs against the rights of the American people. The right never disappoints me, I expect the worst from them, but Democrats have completely disappointed me since we helped them get elected.

It's the issue that matters and anyone on the left who tries to bury the issue by manipulating in a partisan way, those who are genuinely outraged, is also suspect to me. What a rude awakening the past two years have been.

[blackspade]

98. Right on!

Turning the erosion of our civil liberties into a 'smear job' from the right is pretty lame.
What should be happening is the left standing up and saying 'Thanks for agreeing with us'.
Because, you know what, it would absolutely kill some of these wingnuts to realize that the party that they just arrived at was being thrown by liberals and has been for years!

[sabrina 1]

101. Exactly, and point out to them they are responsible for what they

are now railing against. Maybe some of them will finally wake up. The fact that this is not what is being done, makes you wonder. There is now a concerted effort to blur the issue, and once again use Right V Left partisanship to override the importance of this issue. Just was done when the Bush administration was trying to get these machines installed.

[ShamelessHussy]

127. nothing wrong with highlighting the evils in the system

getting as much publicity is the only effective way to fight this nonsense - fyi

[somone]

13. Thanks for posting

[customerserviceguy]

18. Thanks for this post

No matter what the naysayers among us post, I will never give up my belief in freedom.

[sabrina 1]

27. Good for you. I always appreciate your thoughtful posts even

when we disagree sometimes! :-)

I am definitely with you on never giving up on believing in freedom. Thanks for your comment, customerserviceguy!

[customerserviceguy]

108. We agree on far more than we disagree

What we have a difference on, is our faith in elected officials to do the right thing. I have considerably less than you do. If the President doesn't start a "Trusted Traveler" program, and expand it to include the elderly with prosthetic items, he's going to lose even more trust than he's sacrificed already.

I truly worry about the tea party's ability to heavily exploit this issue. Only an administration that is not disconnected from the governed can prevent that from happening.

[sabrina 1]

113. Mmm, that does sound like a good idea. A trusted traveler's program.

I think this was a huge mistake. The issue has always been a big issue for the left, it is a legitimate issue and one that as a Constitutional Lawyer, he should understand the importance of. So, he has handed a legitimate issue to the tea-baggers and Republicans. They finally actually do have a legitimate issue.

I don't know who advises this president, but his claims that 'my advisers have assured me' reminds me of his flip flop on Offshore drilling and the disastrous timing of his announcement in which he once again claimed that his 'advisers' had assured him that rigs are so safe now, unlike the times when the ban was instituted.

I do agree about how disconnected he is from ordinary people. His statement about the outrage over these scanners was proof of that. HE doesn't have to use, he would not allow his wife or daughters to be treated that way, so why worry about the rest of us? Disgusting really.

And yes, we do agree on more than we disagree on ... :-)

[customerserviceguy]

118. Yeah, you start the ball rolling by financing it off business/wealthy people

These are folks who travel a lot. They'd gladly pay $1000 for something that sped them through security without a hassle. They plunk down a grand, there's a background investigation that shows they're law abiding American citizens who don't want planes to blow up, because they're a tool for business and/or pleasure. They get a card with biometric information encoded on it, and all they have to do is slip it into a machine, squint into something that does an iris scan, the machine hooks up to the master database, and they get to waltz through security.

Then, we expand the program to others, starting with elderly folks who have prosthetics, so they don't have to get hassled. We eventually cover all Americans who don't mind having all the crap the government has on them all collated together, and some bureaucrat saying, "OK, you're not a security risk."

Then we go back to being the land of the free.

[sabrina 1]

119. You found a way to make freedom profitable. It might work!

[Matariki]

23. Look at that picture. Why do you think people are required to hold their arms out like that?

I find it creepy - a psych technique of dominance & submission.

[sabrina 1]

30. It is creepy. 'dominance and submission'

A few years ago I read a very interesting article on the rise of the Nazis in Germany. It was a study of how at the same time they were on the rise, careering towards their sadistic climax, an obsession with sadism/masochism was also on the rise.

The author was exploring the relationship between the two. Consensual is one thing, but as we know, there was nothing consensual about what happened there.

I thought about that article when I first saw the Abu Ghraib photos. The point of the article was the descent into total depravity of the Third Reich and the fact that many of its leaders were cruel, sadistic, often drug-addicted, but definitely mentally sick individuals.

Whoever thinks up these abuses, in my mind, are very sick people. Interesting observation you have made. I wish I could find that article again.

[TheMadMonk]

55. And the footsoldiers actually doing the "evil things" are generally...

...ordinary people like you and I.

Read up on the Stanford Prison Experiment, the Milgram Experiment and the McDonalds (among other similar businesses) strip search hoax calls.

TWO THIRDS of all people WILL automatically defer to the voice of Authority EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE BEING TOLD TO DO IS BOTH MORALLY AND LEGALLY WRONG.

And a similar number will, when given opportunity and no checks, follow baby steps of corruption into complete depravity. Abu Grahib DID NOT HAPPEN, because Lindy England & Co. were ORDERED to do those things. Abu Grahib happened because NO ONE STOPPED THEM from meting out the first small humiliations and because, no one stopped the small day by day, week by week incremental ramping up of those humiliations, until the photos finally emerged.

And given that the above mentioned experiments and hoax revolve around exactly the same psychological nexus as MKULTRA, and this knowledge all dates back to the 50s and 60s (not to mention that it has been empirical knowlege among tortuers and drill seargants for centuries (if not millenia)) it is absolutely impossible to believe that Abu Grahib was just as case of "a few bad apples". While it is perfectly possible and almost absolutely certain that no orders ever given to abuse prisoners, EXACTLY THE SAME RESULTS can be had, simply by allowing those placed in the position of prison guard to have their head WITHOUT OVERSIGHT.

The same psychology applies to street gangs, kids in the playground and toxic workplaces.

And like it or lump it, the same psycology applies to you and I. I was absolutely horrified by the way the majority of people here laid into Lindy England and Co, I said so at the time and was abused for my efforts.

So this time let me be "amused" by the enormous majority here who NOW swear black and blue that twenty/thirty years ago they NEVER looked upon "well built" but obviously underage girls with a certain prurient interest, even if no intent.

Let me smirk knowingly at those who declare with absolute convition that THEY would NEVER participate in something like Abu Grahib. And let me remind them of the kid(s) they jeered at (or worse) back in primary/middle school with their peers for the crime of being somehow different.

Two out of three of us HAVE shouted something hurtful out a bus window; laughed at the (tripped) geek measuring his length with an armload of books strewn down the corridoor; participated in frat/apprentice hazing; etc., etc.

And of the one in three who DIDN'T: How many of you actually spoke up when the bullies were giving effeminate boys "swirlies"/"royal flushes" at school and boasting about it afterwards? How many of you TODAY will front up to a supervisor abusing a co-worker or even report that supervisor to their superiors?

Until it becomes common knowledge to the 2/3 (and fully accepted by them) that they are vulnerable to "the voice of authority" this shit will keep happening.

[blackspade]

99. I for one

Stand up to the bullies.
I was bullied for years and finally had it.
You can internalize the angst and anger, or you can let it go and actively make the world around you a better place.

[sabrina 1]

111. I have read about those experiments and they are truly

disturbing. They should have led to some really thorough research on why so many seemingly ordinary Americans were so easily drawn into becoming so abusive.

One question. Were similar tests ever conducted in other countries, and if so, were the results the same?

I'm wondering if it is a question on where the focus is when raising children in different societies, and which ones have a greater potential to be coopted into becoming such abusers.

[TheMadMonk]

117. Probably not. How do you ethically study the process of stripping away...

...ethical behaviour.

And to cite just a few of the more obvious examples: Ghengis Khan; Caligula's & Nero's Rome; Teutonic Germany and Hitler's Germany (with a few centuries of general Prussian agressiveness in between); East Berlin after the war; Stalin; Caucescu; Pol Pot; Idi Amin; Kim Jong Il; Sadam Hussein & sons.

There is nothing special about ordinary Americans (and there is nothing seemingly, they are 100% apple pie ordinary) doing these things. Two thirds of all people WILL simply go along to get along. And the ONLY DEFENCE, is making sure that the opportunity to descend into depravity unchecked is never put before an individual in the first place.

Lindy England was not just some random aberation, but nor was she specifically "chosen" for the role. However, I do believe that there was absolutely deliberate malice and forethought in the descision to not provide proper oversight in Abu Grahib.

[sabrina 1]

122. I agree with you to some extent. But if this is true, then

we are being pretty hypocritical to blame the German people for not standing up to the Nazis. Watching the support people give to politicians who are destroying our freedoms here simply because they are either Democrats or Republicans, I think it all could 'happen again'.

You would think people could be trained not to fall for propaganda, to resist becoming complicit in crimes. I do think that if people learn to have strong priniples it will be harder to get them to go along with the mob. Not everyone does. It would be interesting to know more about those who resist, and there are always resisters too.

[TheMadMonk]

125. Extremely hypocritical. Something I have said before in the past.

It I think is quite possible to train people to at least recognise propoganda and resit it. Getting them to resist complicity when faced with a choice of death (or at least penury) and "going along" is, I think, close to impossible. And even if possible, the conditioning would be a doddle to break.

However, there are not many governments that would willingly make their people harder to manipulate.

The trick is to not let the jackals rise to positions of power in the first place.


Yes, 1/3 of people will stand up to wrongful authority, at least sometimes. However, even amongst them, the number who will stand alone between a howling mob (or even gang of schoolyard bullies) and their intended victim is very very small.

THAT is not something that can really be trained into people, a willingness to sacrifice self and even family for nothing more than personal integrity. And it's not the same thing as a trooper throwing himself on a grenade to save his buddies or a massively outnumbered force making a futile last stand where mob psychology rather than individual rules.

[sabrina 1]

131. Yes, I agree that most people will not risk their lives or their families

but that doesn't mean they end up agreeing or cooperating unless threatened. Courage is rare when one's life is threatened, true. But in those experiments no one's life was threatened. I am talking about morals. About refusing to harm or bully others, even if by just walking away. Those values don't need governments to teach them. Generally families and communities teach them. I find it very hard to imagine any scenario where someone could force me to abuse another human being.

Otoh, if the situation involved dying or my family dying, I do not know what I would do, no one does, until they are in that situation. I hope I never have to find out. But I do know I would not be doing anything like that, willingly at least.

[Turborama]

24. K&R I wonder how this is going to affect tourism? It's put me off flying to the States for a visit

Also, I hope this doesn't become a worldwide norm now that Chertoff's pilot project has proved successful.

Thanks for the very insightful post, Sabrina.

[sabrina 1]

45. It would put me off going to any country that treated people

this way also, Turborama.

As for your second point, I think the goal is to make it worldwide. The more sales of this grotesque machines, the more money. They have already spent millions lobbying the Congress to get this scanners into our Airports, and they were trying to get them approved by the EU also. So, it is definitely the goal, whether it succeeds or not, all depends on how we act now.

A very bad sing was the fact that President Obama brought the CEO of one of the two manufacturers of these scanners on his trip to India with him. Can you think of any reason why this president, a Constitutional Lawyer, would have for giving a man whose very business is to destroy the Constitutional rights of the American people, on such an important trip?

It is not just Americans who need to stand up, the people of the world need to do so also as these people 'act globally'. They have no countries, they are global capitalists, and money is their goal. It is clear they have no concept of human rights.

[Turborama]

56. Shit! Do you know if he brought that CEO with him to Indonesia?

It's obviously not because I have anything to hide when I fly (felt I had to make that clear, for some reason) but if the reports coming out of the US are anything to go by, flying would become more of a nightmare than it is already. Not just the groping and invasion of privacy but the massive lines are going to mean turning up at the airport 4 hours early, not 2. I remember nit long ago it was only 1 hour.

I just don't know what I can do to stand up against it from where I live.

[sabrina 1]

57. Hi Turborama, I don't think so. According to what I've read

the CEO is named Deepak Chopra, (no relation to the famous Deepak the healer) and has been friends with Obama for several years, having given him the top donation allowed during the campaign.

He accompanied Obama to India according to all the reports I've read but there is no mention of him going to Indonesia:

Full Body Scanner CEO Very Friendly with President Obama

Deepak Chopra, Chairman and CEO, was selected to accompany US President, Barack Obama, to Mumbai and attended the US India Business Entrepreneurship meeting, which was held by the US India Business Council (US IBC). The goal of the meeting was to promote further trade between US and India.

Deepak Chopra, OSI Systems President and Chief Executive Officer, stated, "I am honored to be selected to play a role in this very important cause.

There are more links at that link explaining the relationship.

This looks terrible as people were waiting for Obama to at least do what Hillary did, admit that she believes these scanners and pat-downs are not something she herself would want to go through. Instead he came out in support of them.

I know you probably cannot do much from where are. We should probably try to contact some ex-pat sites and see if they are aware of this controversy.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

25. Thanks for a well constructed and informative OP

To all those who unwilling to lay down in capitulation, I salute you. :applause:

[defendandprotect]

28. Great post -- back tomorrow to read more of it --

but this is a battle of anti-intelligence and high paid lobbyists for corporations

against human freedom -- and our simple right to "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness."

Once again, I see corporations winning -- hope I'm wrong!

Chertoff - - bleech!!

[monktonman]

33. and you can still say no and choose not to fly

someone let me know when the law says that you must comply with a pat down and Ill get all "outraged" like the rest of the political spectrum.
in the meantime, Ill just say no and leave the airport...

[Pholus]

34. Hope you got $11k available on the old charge card if you try to walk out.

http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/11/opting-out-of-advanced-imaging.html

But honestly, I'm all for "just say no." Once the airlines go bankrupt, the new system will probably have more common sense.

[monktonman]

36. so you can see where Im going with this

I choose not to
spend
my
money

[Pholus]

37. And in terms of discretionary travel, I won't. Jobs are hard to come by though and so...

there is the problem if you have to fly for it.

So, like my answer to Nancy Reagan, my answer to you is that saying "No" is sometimes easier said than done. ;)

[monktonman]

39. fly for work???

get your big multi national company to complain for you
they have more pull than joe shmoe anyhow

this is a matter of commerce, no ones "rights" are being violated

[Pholus]

40. "There's a nasty troll here with a bloody axe,"

I loved Zork. Didn't you?

[monktonman]

72. To disagree is not to troll

how easily you throw names around

[Pholus]

75. Who is calling a name? I was asking about Zork. "You're in a maze of twisty passages..."

I loved that game.

[sabrina 1]

48. I agree people should not fly until this insanity stops, but

at least let the airlines know why you are not flying. It is wrong that so many people will end up having to chose that route. It demonstrates clearly how they are forcing people to make decisions that restrict their freedom to travel. And if they succeed with this, will they place these grotesqu machines in Malls next? Since it's all about money, you know they are thinking about it. So then we will not be able to go to the mall. Parents certainly will not want their children going there.

And that is why people must take a stand now. This has to stop, don't you agree?

[sabrina 1]

41. I don't think they are going to follow through with that threat.

But if they do, I am sure that there will thousands of people willing to donate money for that legal battle. In fact, many have offered to do so already.

There is no legal right to detain a person who has committed no crime at the airport. Those agents are not officers of the law, and in the case of the blogger, they seemed to understand that they did not have the right as they were offered the opportunity to ask for his arrest and declined to do so, as he had committed no crime. There would have to be a statute making it a crime to leave, and as far as I know there is none.

[Pholus]

42. Probably. I think it is the bluster implicit in the threat that annoys me.

[sabrina 1]

47. Yes, and you know they would do it if they could, that is also

something to worry about.

[Mimosa]

43. Did they get smart and realise a pilot doesn't need a weapon to bring down a plane? n/t

[sabrina 1]

50. Lol, that is too funny, Mimosa. You would think someone

might point that out. It does demonstrate how stupid the logic behind all of this is.

Yeah, they search pilots for weapons and explosives, then trust him with a plane-load of passengers and the ability to turn it into a weapon of mass destruction. Thanks for making that point!

[Dr.Phool]

68. There's already an example of that. Egypt Air #990, Oct 31, 1999.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990


And that was before 9/11 changed everything.

[blackspade]

100. Same with flight attendants

One step to the door and presto!
Hell, a passanger could do that!
This is all theater.

[laughingliberal]

51. K & R nt

[tavalon]

53. Yes, Keith painted this as the right wingers suddenly being outraged

and I know I've been outraged from the whole beginning of the backscatter xray machines and I'm as left as left can be.

[glowing]

61. I notice most of GE MSNBC is taking a soft approach on 4th Am. rights.

However, the GE part of the company has a lot of money to lose if people stop flying and planes need less parts... Who knows, perhaps they supply some sort of parts for these x-ray machines? I do know they supply many parts on the engine of the aircraft.

[Pholus]

78. GE makes a competing product (IonTrack), but Chertoff was a better lobbyist.

[avaistheone1]

58. Truly inspiring.

Way to go sabrini1

:kick:

[flpab]

60. Rep John Mica and his wife: ethics?

Can someone please find evidence that Patricia Mica owns 20% of one of the private screening companies that her husband is trying to push to take over the airports. Private companies would still have to follow everything that TSA does but Mica who has taken over 80,000 in contributions from these people, convenant, lockheed etc has much to gain from airports going private. Where are the ethics in DC? Tom Dashle's wife was lobbying for the scanners and Mica is doing this.

[Alameda]

86. and don't forget Kerry! I was really disgusted on learning that.

He has an estimated one million dollars invested in it....through his wife.

[burnsei sensei]

63. I really hope this problem stays in the front of the

public dialogue for a long time.
As I've said before, no searches, scanners or pat-downs are necessary.
All you need is the right person asking a few questions of each passenger and crew-member on the flight.
Nothing more.
It costs very little.
And it works. Human contact is something many Americans have too little faith in.
It has hobbled us in intelligence gathering, and it hobbles us here.

[liberal N proud]

64. You are correct

Profiling is the answer. But what does the media do with that, the run away with it and call it racial profiling.

I was that last night on MSNBC and it infuriated me. Profile of a terrorist does not have to be done by race. There are white terrorist, black terrorist, middle easter terrorist and the list goes on.

The media portrayal as racial profiling is all to lead the public to believe that we can't do that.

[burnsei sensei]

77. To profile, you have to make a few assumptions.

Those assumptions don't have to be based solely on religious, racial, or even class aggregates.
Most Muslims of Middle Eastern descent are not, in fact, involved in terrorism.
And the profiling can include that assumption also-- because if you know you are looking for the exception to the rule, then you see it more clearly when it comes.
Still, these searches are an assault on dignity for everyone.
A few simple questions and attention are needed. If we say the problem can't be solved, we fool ourselves.

[liberal N proud]

83. Proper training and follow up should solve those issues

[MsPithy]

79. Well, if the answer is to profile groups, the group that should be profiled is MEN!

If we really want to be "safe," we have to admit that not all terrorists are Muslim, like McVeigh and Rudolf, but they are all men. Those who revert to the Republican wet dream of demanding racial or ethnic profiling should be made to contemplate gender profiling as a more fool proof method.

The profiling that does work is of course, BEHAVIOR PROFILING!

[liberal N proud]

85. Racial or ethnic profiling is completely the wrong solution

But profiling based on questions asked at several points before boarding a plane should flag up people who need to be pulled aside for additional screening.

As history has proven it has always been men who have committed terrorism, one shouldn't rule out the possibility that a woman does not go down that path or that the terrorist could start recruiting women.

Just ask each passenger entering the airport the right questions at different points through the check-in and boarding process.

[MsPithy]

89. I was hoping to make the "Ethnic and racial profiling," people see how stupid that idea is.

Behavior profiling is not only the most effective security measure, it has the added benefit of working on any type of weapon the terrorists can try to sneak onto a plane. The screeners look for deceptive behaviors which all evil-doers have in common.

After some simple questioning, the behavior of loving parents traveling with children should immediately eliminate them and their kids from further screening. Even I could tell the difference between parents who would poke out their own eyes before they would harm their kids and terrorists who are using children as bombs. Need actual pictures for comparison? Photograph the faces of parents who are being threatened with an $11,000 fine unless they let a dirty gloved, uniformed, minimum wage stranger explore their child's genitals.

[liberal N proud]

91. Couldn't have said it better

[sabrina 1]

94. Make it profitable, and they will do it. Since this is all about

money, and using the techniques you mention are not money makers, it won't be done. It's sad, but clear that this government, both parties, do not care about the American people at all.

When we have a president who is a father of two girls tell other parents that he understands how 'uncomfortable' these tactics are, but too bad, his 'advisers' tell him they are necessary, and he will not be subjecting his family, wife, daughters to them? Especially when we now know of his three year friendship with the CEO of Rapiscan and his invitation to take him to India on his business trip? Is there any doubt what is motivating this president and whose side he is on? My reaction to his support for the continued mauling of children was pure disgust and anger. But when I later found out about his friendship with the Rapiscan CEO, I was speechless.

We are on our own.

[burnsei sensei]

106. The conventional wisdom used to be

that the more profit and competition in a field of endeavor, the better the product.
In the world we see now, these are turned on their heads in virtually every business, aspiration, whatever.

[manny70]

67. TSA patdowns

This is corporate cronyism at it's worst. It the same old Bush bullshit. People getting rich of their government contacts and the taxpayer picks up the tab.

[Dr.Phool]

69. Check this out in GD. It's hilarious and two years old.

And make sure you read the comments on the product!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9622129

[sabrina 1]

114. Thanks. It looks hilarious. You should

make an OP out of it now as it is very timely.

[DirkGently]

70. Great post. The pat-downs are punitive. "Submit or be humiliated."

[2Design]

71. Security Theater or Security

http://www.freelancetourist.com/security-theater-or-security

When the gen­tle­man from San Diego stripped to his biker shorts to avoid being molested again, he was told he had to put his clothes back on. http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Passenger-Chooses-Strip-Down-Over-Pat-Down-109872589.html?dr It is obvi­ous from a visual perusal of his body that he has no explo­sives or other devices on him. If this was REALLY about secu­rity that should have been enough. This is no longer about secu­rity it is about sex­ual assault, molest­ing and power.

Same story another writeup http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40314284/ns/travel-news/

A pre­tense of security.

If you require a machine to see some­one naked, or sex­ual assault renamed Enhanced Pat down, then hav­ing some­one striped down to their biker shorts allows that same view with­out molesta­tion. IF this was REALLY about secu­rity pas­sen­gers should be allowed to strip down to under­wear in order to NOT be molested.

[sabrina 1]

76. Disgusting! There is something truly disturbing about all of this.

From Abu Ghraib, to our shameful prison system to this. A decaying society which is under the control of some pretty disturbed individuals. All of it gives me the creeps.

[DemReadingDU]

124. Indeed, very disturbing

Yet, I have a sister who will do anything to be safe from the terrorists, because 9/11 changed everything.

[earcandle]

93. A further attempt to diminish our self esteem so we will roll over and walk into ovens per their

directions... keep up the protests.  Its good for the american
spirit and our independent sense of a healthy self esteem,
gone missing.  

[earcandle]

74. I will not risk skin cancer nor public molestation for the security industry. I am staying put.

no travel on planes for me. This is part of a population reduction plan to offer results in ten years.
All that money you are donating to cancer research will go here.

what a bunch of traitors our leaders are, and our sheeple circle them with adolation.

[Alameda]

82. ....plus the money you spend on treatment!

[Kalyke]

84. But everyone doesn't know that about Chertoff, now.

Hell, even Tweety didn't know and he supposed to be reporting news!!!

[suffragette]

87. Glad you brought up how they tried in 2004

then backed down and that not keeping the enhanced pat-downs then did not compromise security by TSA's own judgement.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9608293#9608997

[sabrina 1]

115. Thank you, yes. It didn't compromise anything.

Some commenters on the TSA site think they wanted to force people not to opt out of the machines so they decided to make the 'enhanced pat-downs' as intrusive as possible. After all if everyone opted out of the machines, they would not be needed.

Great comment btw, wish I had seen it earlier as all this information is so important for people to have. You should make it an OP :-). Lol, I seem to be always saying that to you, but you do the best research and make some great comments that should get more exposure, imho!

[suffragette]

120. I might just do that

But it will have to wait until Saturday since I won't be posting much the next couple of days.


Excellent OP by you.
Have to say whenever I see Chertoff's face, I think of Olbermann's "Special Comment on Katrina."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YycEdZCSKs&feature=related

[sabrina 1]

121. Send me a PM if you do so I don't miss it.

Off to view Olbermann's special on Chertoff. I was surprised to learn today somewhere, that people were not aware that when Chertoff was pushing for these scanners, he was actually working for his clinet, Rapiscan. Our media is simply hopeless.

[suffragette]

126. I shall do that

In the meantime, here's the link for the transcript from that show.
Was going to post it yesterday, but all the (many) links I found from old DU posts on it were broken. Darn MSNBC must be moving pages.

But I found it now:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9231761/

The comment (I think it was Keith's 1st one) starts near the end with:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: Louisiana is a city that is largely underwater.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: Well, there‘s your problem right there. If ever a slip of the tongue defined a government‘s response to a crisis.
Forget the history of slashed federal budgets for projects that might have saved the levees. Drop the imagery of the government watching “Monty Python‘s Flying Circus” while New Orleans drowned. Ignore the symbol of bureaucrats like Mr. Chertoff using only the future tense in terms of relief that they could have supplied Monday and Tuesday.

And a total aside, Happy Thanksgiving to you and some music for Thanksgiving:
http://susiebright.blogs.com/Arlo.mp3

[Alameda]

88. he looks so damned ghoulish!

[Greyhound]

95. The power of one does exist. I made this point ot another defender of this

obscenity a couple days ago. Everybody has a choice and carrying out or helping to carry out atrocities for a paycheck is not excusable.
:kick: & R

[sabrina 1]

107. Get ready for Democrats to be on board for these machines now.

The propaganda is already making its way into the Corporate Media. I just witnessed CNN's contribution to the 'controversy'. According to them, there is no controversy. Six years of opposition on the left to these Police State Bush era Orwellian tactics, with the left mostly joinging the fight, is quickly being eradicated.

The issue is now being presented as simply 'partisan politics'. And travelers 'have no problems with the machines' even 'parents with children'.

The money to be made from these machines is astronomical. Watching CNN doing its job for Corporate America once again, made me realize how difficult this fight is going to be.

Even 'liberal bloggers' are now being led to view this issue as a 'rightwing' issue, completely forgetting that it was our side who were on the frontlines of stopping these abuses throughout the Bush years.

With the president siding with the TSA many Democrats who initially reacted honestly, as any citizen would do, are now shifting their positions accepting the propaganda that 'if Republicans are outraged, we shouldn't be'.

Maybe it is too late to save this democracy after all. I had hopes that Democrats would be the saviors we needed, but now we've had a chance to see them in action. And I very much doubt that any Democrat with ambitions, will stand up for the rights of Americans on this issue. The memo has been delivered, CNN already received it as they when Michael Moore's movie, 'Sicko' was seen as a threat to Corporate America.

And despite how much we now know about the Corporate media, it still works. Sadly.

[Capn Sunshine]

102. OMG , all this time I thought "Rapeiscan" was a derogatory term

Really? The company is actually calling the product "Rapiscan" ?

jeese.
:rofl:

[sabrina 1]

105. Lol, yes, I first thought it was

a derogatory term also. But the company actually did name their machines, very appropriately imho, 'Rapiscans'. Kind of tells you something, doesn't it? And makes all the politically correct demands not to call them what they are sort of moot since the Co. itself seems to be very comfortable with their rapiscans. I sometimes think they do these things to see how far they can push people.

[Duppers]

109. just got back from China some weeks ago

Due to my back and knee braces, I was scanned AND patted down 9 times! I should be glowing from all the radiation!

But at my age, I have to take a flight in order to get a good groping! ;) LOL!

Seriously though, the Chinese equivalent of our TSA agents were a 1000 X's more polite than our agents, who were unbelievably rude to me. I really disliked all the radiation but, honestly, I didn't mind the "groping"--seriously, I didn't...I'm just an old, over-weight woman who doesn't give a rat's ass. ;) BUT what I HATED was the unapologetic, unabashed RUDENESS of U.S. TSA agents--all of them I incurred were rude!!
:grr:

[sabrina 1]

112. Well, it isn't so much about the groping or even the rudeness

etc. it is about the principle of giving up rights to be free from government oppression. What would have happened if you had refused? There are many people who do not feel as you do. Women who are very modest, who will be traumatized by such an invasion of their bodies. Children who have been taught not to allow any stranger to touch them inappropriately. Religious people for whom these invasive tactics are against their beliefs.

It isn't about how any individual 'feels' it is a way bigger issue than that. And each time we allow a little more government intrusion into our lives, we move closer to not being able to stop it as they grab more power over the population. And when did a totalitarian government appear out of nowhere? These things happen incrementally, often with the permission of the population who fail to see the dangers of handing over these powers. And it is always based on fear, to get a sense of security. All propagandists agree throughout history that to get the cooperation of the public as they take more and more freedoms away, the very best way to tell them they are in danger and the government is going to make them secure.

I will not be flying until sanity returns to this country. There are other ways to travel and in all conscience I cannot contribute to the removal the Constitutional rights of the American people. It isn't about how I feel as I probably wouldn't even be pulled over. I never am for some reason. It is about the preservation of our rights and if it was not okay when Bush did it, which it was not, it has not suddenly become okay under a Democratic administration.

[Duppers]

116. got ya - TSA - Take Sanity Away video

And, as you pointed out, it's unconstitutional. And I despise what they're doing to children. These agents need retraining to say the least.

TSA - Take Sanity Away ( YouTube Video ) 12 mins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdi_XLWdopk&feature=sub


Background on my attitude/defense: I flew into Heathrow Airport on 21 December 1988, the very day the Pam Am flight 103 was blown out of the sky. I flew over the crash site in Lockerbie just hrs. after it happened---it made a lasting impression on me.

[txlibdem]

123. DUers getting caught up in Teapublican manufactured outrage

I like how easily led by the nose so many Americans are. It is a true testament to the rich that they have turned so many of you into mindless lemmings who will not only follow the herd right off the cliff, but do so with such GUSTO and self righteousness.

Well done!

[sabrina 1]

128. So back in 2004 when Democrats began their opposition to these

machines, you were on Bush's side? You supported them then?

I love how party loyalists are willing to buy the propaganda from the party when the party decides to abandon an issue they spent years fighting for because now they are in power and their Corporate bosses and friends of the president stand to make a fortune from the betrayal.

And I love how easy it is for the party operatives to use the rightwing, just as predicted btw, to make people forget how important an issue used to be to them. The teabaggers weren't around helping Civil Rights orgs to stop these machines during the Bush admininstration. If they want to join the fight to preserve our rights now, I expect Democrats to be happy about that, even while pointing out their hypocrisy.

Democrats of course, would never be hypocritical like the right, would they?

[micraphone]

129. Kiwi refuses 'naked' body scan

A New Zealander who was held up at Heathrow Airport for a day after refusing to get a body scan is returning home after being put onto another flight.

Aucklander James Holder, 28, was selected at random for additional security screening after walking through the metal detector without disruption on Wednesday.

"The airline staff, while sympathetic, couldn't override the security officers."

In New Zealand the body scanners are prohibited under the Aviation Crimes Act.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/4391127/Kiwi-refuses-naked-body-scan

Good on ya, mate!

[sabrina 1]

130. N.Zealand has banned these scanners? Good for them!

Two U.S. states are planning on banning them also. So far.

And good for this guy for standing up for civil rights also