Homeland Security, Border, sabotage of energy, transportation, environment

[Chad]

TSA Administrative Directive: Opt-Outters To Be Considered “Domestic Extremists”
Posted By Mac Slavo On November 24, 2010 @ 2:29 am In Headline News | 40 Comments

If the information recently acquired by Doug Hagmann of Northeast Intelligence Network [1] is accurate, then something really big is happening in America right now - and it’s most certainly not a step towards individual liberty [2].

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 [in this directive], 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 “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) [3] 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 [4]]

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
‘(5) the term `domestic terrorism’ means activities that–
‘(B) 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 [5], 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 [1], Electronic Privacy Information Center [4]

Article printed from SHTF Plan - When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You: http://www.shtfplan.com

URL to article: http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/tsa-administrative-directive-opt-outters-to-be-considered-domestic-extremists_11242010

URLs in this post:

[1] Northeast Intelligence Network: http://homelandsecurityus.com/
[2] not a step towards individual liberty: http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/lt-gen-ret-boykin-marxism-in-america_11012010
[3] Office of Intelligence & Analysis (IA): http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1220886590914.shtm
[4] USA Patriot Act: http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
[5] Matt Kernan: http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/man-upholds-his-constitutional-rights-allowed-to-pass-without-backscatter-or-groping_11232010
Click here to print.

Copyright © 2010 SHTF Plan - When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You. All rights reserved.

Visit www.SHTFplan.com for more!

[G M]

Douglas Hagmann is far from credible. I do not doubt that individuals who cause a disturbance in a screening area will result in those individuals facing potential civil and criminal liability for those acts, and their information will be available through TSA's internal channels. I doubt very much the term "domestic extremists" would be used.

[G M]

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/11/tsa-outrage-theres-no-there-th.html

TSA "outrage": There's no "there" there.
1:11 PM Wed, Nov 24, 2010 | Permalink
Eric Torbenson/Reporter    Bio |  E-mail  |  News tips

A couple of hours at D/FW Airport this morning proved to me, at least, that the "fury" on the part of the passenger rights crowd about screening scanners and enhanced pat-downs seems essentially manufactured. And that the reliable media fell for it again.

Here's Howie Kurtz on the same subject.

Here's the Poynter Institute, our leading light in media self-examination, on the run-up and how mainstream media may have "missed" this issue initially. I'm quoted in this piece too saying how we would have liked to have jumped on it sooner, which is true in a sense that it was a topic worth exploring.

What I also expressed to that writer was the concern on my part that there's no real way of us knowing how "real" this "uprising" was because we had blog posts and loud voices on TV like Kate Hanni and some Twitter traffic and some outraged anecdotes, all of which seemed to point to some sort of groupthink uprising that would boil over on Wednesday, National Opt Out Day, at airports across the country.

Here's what's happened so far today at U.S. Airports: Absolutely nothing out of the ordinary for a Thanksgiving travel day.

Unless, of course, you believe everything the TSA is saying is lies. But other media haven't exactly found a different narrative.

Here's even more, this time from the NYT.

I guess we have to remove the fish hooks from our mouths as media.

My counter to the good folks at Poynter who suggest that the Fifth Estate is more nimble at seeing trends than the mainstream media is that what is really more likely the case is that bloggers and the Social Media sphere, at least to me, seem infinitely more likely to be hoodwinked and bamboozled seeing they generally lack any truth-finding powers and seem especially susceptible to Trending Twitter topics, a stray anecdote told through Facebook, a random link to a YouTube video that purports to show one thing, but actually isn't anything like what it appears to be at all.

Statistical significance still matters. Outliers are interesting and exciting, but they are nothing more than outliers and those who don't know the difference between significance and outliers are driving the narrative. It makes for headlines; does it make for better information?

It's exciting to be on that edge because of the speed and newness of finding out new information. The key to understanding what is really happening vs. some flash of insight is what we're still calling reporting and experience and context. That's still on our menu here at the DMN and in other places.

I stand ready to be wrong if there's some sort of surge of problems along the East Coast related to this. The day is still young. But so far it's a reminder that the loudest voices can be heard, but may not represent much more than a few people being loud.

[Rarick]

Nah, not posting what I think, too much abuse by the statists.........I guess they win, feel better?

[Chad]

Douglas Hagmann is far from credible. I do not doubt that individuals who cause a disturbance in a screening area will result in those individuals facing potential civil and criminal liability for those acts, and their information will be available through TSA's internal channels. I doubt very much the term "domestic extremists" would be used.

I concede I jumped the gun on this one. SHTF I found out is a kook site.

[G M]

There is a frustration that we aren't smarter than terrorists, we are a step behind them, to them this is laughable, we have fallen into their traps to the point of hating, scanning and fondling each other, there is no easy answer, but worst I think is that we are not doing EVERYTHING ELSE we can do to make our nation safe BEFORE we need to touch and scan each other (such as secure the borders, crack down on existing laws etc.).

**The lack of border security is a legitimate issue. There is no excuse for it not having been secured years ago. Not only are the SIAs and OTMs serious potential threats, the more conventional illegals are also presenting serious threats to Americans. Border security as it is or as it should be, we still have to secure our aviation system.**

Imagine the uproar right now if George Bush was President during this! Imagine the leftist equivalent of a comment Rush L. made yesterday...

RUSH LIMBAUGH: "Remember when Obama went swimming in the Gulf with his daughters to show it was safe during the oil spill? How about taking his daughters through a screening? How about Obama take his daughters to the airport and have a TSA groper go through the exact routine everyone else is going through right now to show it is safe...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/23/rush_obama_should_take_daughter_through_tsa_to_show_its_safe.html
-----
Only over the top if you think nothing is wrong with current procedure.

It may be a standard LE pat down, except that is done as I understand it with suspects, not all victims, witnesses, bystanders, etc.  Our county government center now has a security check metal detector, but not the full pat down.  Flying is 'optional' but not really for some jobs or for some people to be with family over the holidays.  Appearing in a county courthouse can be mandatory and unavoidable in some situations.

**The leaked photos from courthouse security were from a federal courthouse. I doubt very much that many, if any non-federal courthouses use similar technology. People are free to choose to fly or not. If the current situation is untenable, then one is free to find other transportation. I personally hate flying and do so only when there is no other viable option.**

[G M]

http://blog.tsa.gov/

[Crafty_Dog]

"People are free to choose to fly or not."

As Glenn Beck would say "Oh, really?"

I have a seminar in Vancouver the end of January and a seminar in Chicago the following week.  What are my options other than flying?

[G M]

Drive, charter a plane, Greyhound, hitchhike, train, horseback, get a canoe and paddle up the coast.

Some are easier and cheaper than others. Chose what works best for you.

[Crafty_Dog]

GM, you are a bright guy and unusually well-informed, however what you just said is quite glib and facetious.  Those are not realistic alternatives.

[G M]

http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak

Departs: 10:15 AM
Wed Jan 26 2011
Los Angeles, CA - Union Station  (LAX)
Station News
Arrives: 8:45 PM
Thu Jan 27 2011
Seattle, WA  (SEA)
Station News
PT38H5M Duration: 34 hr, 30 min

Departs: 9:15 PM
Thu Jan 27 2011
Seattle, WA  (SEA)
Station News
Arrives: 12:20 AM
Fri Jan 28 2011
Vancouver, BC  (VAC) Vancouver, BC
Vancouver
(VAC)

Station News
Duration: 3 hr, 5 min

[Crafty_Dog]

Smart ass  

Cost?  Plus income not earned while I'm travelling?  Time away from my family?  Additional food costs while on the train?

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2010/11/18/
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2010/11/19/
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2010/11/23/

[G M]

In your situation, I'd probably fly and go though the irritation of TSA screening, weighing it against the cost/benefit of other travel alternatives. But, you have choices that you can choose from according to your personal values.

I can say personally that I'll choose to be patted down rather than Rapiscanned when I have to fly. Yes, I'd rather not be pat searched, or screened. I'd also prefer not to be scattered human remains scattered amongst aircraft wreckage as well.

[G M]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/what-can-u-s-learn-from-israel-airport-security-1.326599

The possibility of adopting Israeli security methods has become a hot topic in the U.S. media as millions prepare to travel by air for the Thanksgiving holiday this weekend.

But while Israelis may enjoy the resulting prestige and commercial payoffs, there are those who doubt their methods would translate to places like the United States.

Differences in scale, budgets and sensitivity to accusations of "racial profiling" may be insuperable, they say. "

"We're not the smartest in the world, and I'm not sure I would even describe ours as the absolute best security in the world," a senior Israeli transport official said. "What we do have, though, is suited for our needs -- and that's enough."

Those needs centre on Ben-Gurion Airport, Israel's core international gateway. There's no full-body scanner yet -- one is to be installed next year -- and while staff are empowered to frisk and even strip-search passengers, most generally endure only the standard walk-through metal detectors.

Yet this overall painlessness is the end-product of a powerful, probing and often unseen screening system that kicks in before travelers have even set foot in Ben-Gurion.

Israeli intelligence agencies, working in lock-step with airport security, flag travelers deemed potentially dangerous -- a designation applied most readily, and controversially, to Arabs who make up 20 percent of the Jewish state's population.

Commensurate scrutiny follows: from the rifle-carrying guards that question the drivers of incoming cars, to the unsmiling sentries who eye passengers as they wheel in their luggage, to the security interrogations in the check-in lines.

As a last resort, on Israeli airlines at least, undercover sky marshals can be seated next to passengers seen as risky.

Budgets at U.S. airports -- especially international hubs that dwarf the mid-sized Ben-Gurion -- may not allow for qualified security personnel in such numbers, said Shlomo Dror, an Israeli defence official with extensive aviation experience.

[Crafty_Dog]

GM:

You make many points well, but

a) I repeat the line of inquiry about corruption: former DHS head Cherthoff (sp?) representing Rapiscan
b) I repeat the point made by Rapiscan's VP that Rapiscan will shortly have scanners that simply report anomalies and their general location-- which certainly would vitiate the issue of nudie pictures and what happens to them
c) As evidenced on the Privacy thread on our SCH forum and on this thread here, I think you fail utterly to appreciate that a goodly part of what motivates those here who disagree with you is not stupidity or the inability to follow a logical line of thought, but rather where your logic will take us when followed to its logical conclusions-- to a state where we are followed and recorded for posterity by cameras and microphones wherever we go and even the privacy of our own bodies is outweighed by the logic of eliminating all risk.

TAC,
Marc
====================
WSJ

By JOHN FUND
As millions of Americans travel to be with family on Thanksgiving, many will encounter the Transportation Safety Administration's new full-body scanners and pat-down searches at airports. Complaints are piling up and a new Washington Post poll finds 50% of Americans say the pat-down searches "go too far" in violating civil liberties.

But if you think TSA is dysfunctional and unpopular now, wait until it unionizes. This month, the Federal Labor Relations Authority ruled that 50,000 TSA personnel will be allowed to vote on whether or not to join a union with full collective bargaining rights. The American Federation of Government Employees and the National Treasury Employees Union are already gearing up their campaigns to win over the screeners.

After 9/11, Congress wisely decided to forbid TSA employees from coming under union work rules out of fear that it could compromise security. Imagine if every change in procedures had to be cleared with union shop stewards. While it is not easy to fire TSA personnel now, just think how difficult it will be to remove bad employees if they are covered by union job protection agreements.

But in 2007, the new Democratic Congress eliminated the ban on collective bargaining, and as soon as Barack Obama became president in 2009 his appointees began pushing unionization for TSA. Last year, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano admitted in Congressional testimony that she backs collective bargaining rights for TSA employees, overriding the considered judgment of all previous TSA administrators that such rights are at cross-purposes with the flexibility TSA needs to meet certain threats.

John Mica of Florida, the new GOP chair of the House Transportation Committee, told me last month that we should have followed the advice of Israeli security experts and used private contractors and psychological tests to counteract terrorism in the wake of 9/11. At least one busy airport -- Orlando International -- is preparing to dump TSA in favor of a private security company, which is allowed under an opt-out provision in the federal law governing airport security. "Having TSA going towards unionization is just the wrong way to go," said Mr. Mica.

[DougMacG]

The alternative to flying to your business appointments is not canoeing up the coast or bicycling to Chicago.  Like the goal of cap and traders, your alternative is to abandon much of your productive business activities.  Shrink your business and shrink the business of everyone you touched along the way.  Live in a failed economy and a bankrupt state because the terrorists in fact were smarter than us.  But the flights that remain will still search grandmas visiting grandchildren with equal zest to the searches of young males with loose ties to terror camps.

Greyhounds do not travel at even the speed of driving.  They get up to speed and then exit again at the next town and take union based driver breaks along the way.  If we constructed high speed rail across the country, the terror threat would move right over.

[G M]

a) I repeat the line of inquiry about corruption: former DHS head Cherthoff (sp?) representing Rapiscan

**The Brits, the Dutch and Nigerians have or are adopting the RapiScan Secure 1000. I can't say that I know much about the procurement policies for those various nations, but I doubt Michael Chertoff's past with DHS would be that important to them.**

b) I repeat the point made by Rapiscan's VP that Rapiscan will shortly have scanners that simply report anomalies and their general location-- which certainly would vitiate the issue of nudie pictures and what happens to them



http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/how_it_works.shtm

c) As evidenced on the Privacy thread on our SCH forum and on this thread here, I think you fail utterly to appreciate that a goodly part of what motivates those here who disagree with you is not stupidity or the inability to follow a logical line of thought, but rather where your logic will take us when followed to its logical conclusions-- to a state where we are followed and recorded for posterity by cameras and microphones wherever we go and even the privacy of our own bodies is outweighed by the logic of eliminating all risk.

**My logic has never been that which favors a dystopian surveillance state. My logic is to apply the current case law and constitutional protections to emerging technology, not irrational hysteria that insists that any use of technology by law enforcement means we are but minutes away from rectally implanted GPS beacons and laser-etched bar codes on our foreheads.**

[G M]

The alternative to flying to your business appointments is not canoeing up the coast or bicycling to Chicago. 

**How was business travel on 9/12/2001? There wasn't any by way of commercial aircraft, was there? I bet that hurt a lot of bottom lines of businesses, large and small.**


Like the goal of cap and traders, your alternative is to abandon much of your productive business activities. 

**No, my goal is to balance the need to travel in commercial aircraft with the need of surviving the flight. Again, having law enforcement pick your body parts out of aircraft wreckage is bad for your productive business activities, is it not?**

Shrink your business and shrink the business of everyone you touched along the way.  Live in a failed economy and a bankrupt state because the terrorists in fact were smarter than us.  But the flights that remain will still search grandmas visiting grandchildren with equal zest to the searches of young males with loose ties to terror camps.

**Depending on what's known about a young male's ties to a terror camp he might be on the no fly list in the first place. Keep in mind that the 2006 UK transatlantic plotters were planning on taking their families along for a ride to the right hand of allah. Do not assume that there aren't grandmotherly jihadists.**

Greyhounds do not travel at even the speed of driving.  They get up to speed and then exit again at the next town and take union based driver breaks along the way.  If we constructed high speed rail across the country, the terror threat would move right over.

**The point being is that there are travel alternatives, they may not be great alternatives, but they exist. As I'm sure you know, high speed rail probably isn't economically viable, and AQ is more than happy to target railways as you said.**

[Crafty_Dog]

Replying to your prior post:

Regarding the last point first, I know that you don't want a dystopian surveillance state.  My point is that the interface of the accelerating march of technology in this area and your conceptual framework is, in fact, headed that way.

Having the scanners upgrade from programs that show nude pictures to ones that simply report anomalies and their locations will meet the objections of many people.

Regarding safety, I sent you earlier a letter from scientists in a format that I can't post here the gist of which is that the apparently low radiation numbers are misleading because they are unlike the numbers to which they are being compared; the other numbers are for radiation which goes through the body, whereas here they all come to rest on the skin and that therefore the science on the safety/danger of this technology does not really exist yet.

For me, I think I will opt-out of the scanner and do the dance as the TSA agent grabs my pants.  It irks me mightily that in making such a decision I have to wonder if this will put me forever on some DHS data base of "domestic extremists"

[G M]

Regarding the last point first, I know that you don't want a dystopian surveillance state.  My point is that the interface of the accelerating march of technology in this area and your conceptual framework is, in fact, headed that way.

**By following the 4th amendment case law as it's been decided until now?

Having the scanners upgrade from programs that show nude pictures to ones that simply report anomalies and their locations will meet the objections of many people.

**Well, according to the TSA, that's what they are doing.

Regarding safety, I sent you earlier a letter from scientists in a format that I can't post here the gist of which is that the apparently low radiation numbers are misleading because they are unlike the numbers to which they are being compared; the other numbers are for radiation which goes through the body, whereas here they all come to rest on the skin and that therefore the science on the safety/danger of this technology does not really exist yet.

For me, I think I will opt-out of the scanner and do the dance as the TSA agent grabs my pants.  It irks me mightily that in making such a decision I have to wonder if this will put me forever on some DHS data base of "domestic extremists" angry

**You'll note that several time here I have posted that the next time I'm forced to fly, I will choose to be pat searched rather than x-rayed, as until we don't have long term data on their safety, I'm just going to assume they are not unless proven otherwise. As long as you don't do something that generates paperwork, you won't be flagged by TSOC. Choosing to be pat searched does not meet that criteria.**

[Crafty_Dog]

a) As we have discussed in the privacy thread, IMHO the correct Constitutional analysis does not limit itself to the 4th; it includes the 9th, which IMO most certainly includes a right to privacy.  Your analytical model allows for everyone to be tracked and recorded everywhere they go whenever they step outside their door.

b) In the VP of Rapiscan interview, the Veep said that they WILL be coming out with this program, not that they have already done so.

c) I certainly hope you are right, but in my travels I have had to deal with some serious TSA cases of cranial rectal interface.

Anyway, here's this from Stratfor a few years ago:

The Case for Screening Air Passengers Rather than Belongings
August 18, 2006 | 2319 GMT
PRINT Text Resize:   
ShareThisIrish airline Ryanair issued an ultimatum to the British government Aug. 18 to restore normal airport security measures within a week or risk being sued by the company for compensation. Ryanair said it faces more than $3.7 million in losses from disrupted flight schedules in the aftermath of the plot to destroy aircraft in flight using liquid explosives. In announcing the foiled plot Aug. 10, the British government immediately banned passengers from bringing carry-on luggage and liquids of all kinds aboard planes originating in the United Kingdom.

Liquid explosives do pose a serious threat to airliners in flight, although a review of previous plots against planes indicates these types of explosives are not the only thing security services need to be concerned about. Moreover, militants can be expected to adapt to evolving airline security measures.

The British case is reminiscent of Operation Bojinka, a plot to use a modular explosive device made of a doll stuffed with nitrocellulose and augmented by a bottle of liquid explosive. North Korean agents used liquid explosive PLX, disguised as a fifth of liquor, to destroy KAL Flight 858 in 1987. A number of other powerful, commercially manufactured liquid explosives also could be used to attack an airliner, such as nitroglycerine and Astrolite. Improvised versions of these explosives also can be manufactured.

Creative bombmakers have hidden explosives in a number of imaginative ways, perhaps most notably the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), which did some outside-the-box thinking when it melted the explosives TNT and Composition B and cast them into a variety of shapes, including a tea set. PFLP-GC also hid Semtex and other plastic explosives in a variety of items, including running shoes and electronics.

In fact, electronics also have been a popular choice for bombmakers looking to smuggle an improvised explosive device (IED) aboard planes. Perhaps the most famous case is the Libyan-constructed device concealed inside a Toshiba radio cassette player that was used to bring down Pan Am Flight 103. Similar devices hidden in another model of Toshiba cassette player were found in a raid on a PFLP-GC safe house in Germany a few months before the Pan Am 103 bombing.

In the 1987 KAL case, the firing train and a small charge of C-4 hidden inside the radio were used to initiate the PLX. In a London case in 1986, Nezar Hindawi, a Jordanian who later acknowledged working for Syrian intelligence, gave his unwitting and pregnant Irish girlfriend an IED concealed in bag to take on an El Al flight from London to Tel Aviv. The timer and detonator for the device were concealed in a pocket calculator. El Al security detected the device before it could be taken aboard the plane, and Hindawi was quickly arrested. In 1996, Israelis used an IED concealed in a cell phone to assassinate Yahya Ayyash, aka “The Engineer,” an infamous Hamas bombmaker.

These are only past IED incidents involving airplanes, though it is important to point out that, as security measures change, terrorist tactics also will adapt, much as narcotics “mules” have adapted to efforts to prevent them from bringing narcotics aboard planes by using everything from body cavities to dead babies.

In addition to Richard Reid’s infamous shoe bomb, there are many other ways in which explosives could be “worn” onto a plane. In the bombing of Philippine Airlines Flight 434, Abdel Basit and his associates used nitrocellulose camouflaged inside a doll, though nitrocellulose also could be easily hidden in any number of clothing items that have fiber filling, such as mittens and winter coats. Additionally, the design of the ubiquitous suicide vests and belts could allow explosives to be walked through a magnetometer if all the metal components were removed. In August 2004, Israeli authorities found explosive underwear on a young Palestinian attempting to enter Israel at the Erez border crossing. Because of the Reid plot, all passengers must remove their shoes. Had the Palestinian been attempting to board a plane, there is no telling how the incident would now affect passengers at airline security checkpoints.

It is virtually impossible to use technical screening measures to absolutely prevent explosive material from being brought on board an aircraft. Prison authorities using magnetometers and strip searches have failed to completely prevent all contraband from slipping through. The need for a greater reliance on other methods — such as name checks, interviews and behavioral profiling — to keep airplanes safe seems apparent.

[G M]

a) As we have discussed in the privacy thread, IMHO the correct Constitutional analysis does not limit itself to the 4th; it includes the 9th, which IMO most certainly includes a right to privacy.  Your analytical model allows for everyone to be tracked and recorded everywhere they go whenever they step outside their door.

**Please show me the caselaw related to law enforcement search and seizure that cites the 9th. I have not seen it. My model assumes that local government decides if cameras are posted and how they are use, if they are. Community values and local control and all that good stuff.

b) In the VP of Rapiscan interview, the Veep said that they WILL be coming out with this program, not that they have already done so.

According to TSA, all the TSA officer in the remote room viewing the RapiScan backscatter images sees is the "ghost" outline with any potential threat images. http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/how_it_works.shtm

c) I certainly hope you are right, but in my travels I have had to deal with some serious TSA cases of cranial rectal interface.

**Unless a TSA supervisor shows up to do paperwork, you can probably assume that there is not a TSOC report being made.


"It is virtually impossible to use technical screening measures to absolutely prevent explosive material from being brought on board an aircraft. Prison authorities using magnetometers and strip searches have failed to completely prevent all contraband from slipping through. The need for a greater reliance on other methods — such as name checks, interviews and behavioral profiling — to keep airplanes safe seems apparent."

**We already do name checks. If someone seems enough of a threat, then they can be placed on a no fly list. Again, in the US system, you cannot compel someone to speak to you. TSA has Behavioral Detection Officers already in many airports. Just how big of a domestic intelligence agency do you want? Do you wish to negate the civil liberty/privacy protections in place that regulate law enforcement intelligence databases in the US?

[DougMacG]

"How was business travel on 9/12/2001?"  - 100% true, but my point is that we do not succeed if we inflict the same economic damage on ourselves that they were trying to do.

"Do not assume that there aren't grandmotherly jihadists"   - That is the same level of intelligence as finding a terrorist from a photo.  Some grandmas will never be terrorists and I know several.  We are already incorporating some intelligence information.  It needs to do better and same goes for borders, sanctuaries, released terrorists, any case law regarding fairness or anti-discrimination that hampers intelligent security, and a census that finds every person then shares no useful information to law enforcement, ICE, IRS or the intelligence agencies. If we are going to radiate ourselves and photograph and touch our mothers and daughters genetilia, then this is war and wartime rules and strategies should apply IMHO.  In other words, if we are going to harass 100% of the innocent, we need to throw the full force of our four trillion dollar federal government plus state and local at the known guilty.  For one example, how many hijackers had expired visas?  How many expired visas are out there today?  24 recent al qaida related arrests in the twin cities alone - I assume they did not get all of them - and these people were traveling freely back to join wars in their homeland or plot things here, going through the same treatment as grandma and the Obama daughters if their dad did not have a taxpayer plane.

Regarding alternatives, Crafty already said it well but the business schedule alternative to flying is not going.  I am currently not flying but my business lacks any energy or benefit it could attain from a seminar or conference in Vancouver, Chicago or Slovenia.  

Pulling a partial sentence out I found a point maybe intended facetious but that I think I agree with: "we are but minutes away from rectally implanted GPS beacons and laser-etched bar codes on our foreheads".  How much worse is that than the status quo?

"Just how big of a domestic intelligence agency do you want? Do you wish to negate the civil liberty/privacy protections in place that regulate law enforcement intelligence databases in the US?"

Can't speak for others but a 'voluntary' check fora  frequent flier isn't any further out of bounds than authorizing a background check for employment (IMO) as you would have at the airline or the TSA.  How do YOU know that the guy watching the scanner isn't the jihadist if every grandma could be one?

[G M]

"How was business travel on 9/12/2001?"  - 100% true, but my point is that we do not succeed if we inflict the same economic damage on ourselves that they were trying to do.

**That is why the TSA attempts to balance the need to travel with the need to arrive alive at your destination.**

"Do not assume that there aren't grandmotherly jihadists"   - That is the same level of intelligence as finding a terrorist from a photo.  Some grandmas will never be terrorists and I know several.  We are already incorporating some intelligence information.  It needs to do better and same goes for borders, sanctuaries, released terrorists, any case law regarding fairness or anti-discrimination that hampers intelligent security, and a census that finds every person then shares no useful information to law enforcement, ICE, IRS or the intelligence agencies. If we are going to radiate ourselves and photograph and touch our mothers and daughters genetilia, then this is war and wartime rules and strategies should apply IMHO.  In other words, if we are going to harass 100% of the innocent, we need to throw the full force of our four trillion dollar federal government plus state and local at the known guilty.  For one example, how many hijackers had expired visas?  How many expired visas are out there today?  24 recent al qaida related arrests in the twin cities alone - I assume they did not get all of them - and these people were traveling freely back to join wars in their homeland or plot things here, going through the same treatment as grandma and the Obama daughters if their dad did not have a taxpayer plane.

**As of 2005, there are about 799,659    local level law enforcement officers. 101,752 for State level and 154,298 Federal. This covering a nation of 310,779,000 isn't much at all. The vast majority of the state and local level officers are uniformed, doing basic patrol level services. What if the gave a dystopian police state and no police came? Look at our current budget crises at all levels of gov't. You are seeing less cops being hired, if any and you are seeing specialized units being gutted to put bodies into uniforms to catch calls for service. You'll also note that in most cases, local/state level cops are forbidden from enforcing immigration laws.

Because of due process/equal protection concerns, even putting your local level, semi-literate gang-banger into your local gang database is time consuming and creates potential liability for the officer and their agency if all the I's are not dotted and T's crossed.See below for an example. For US LEOs, recognizing a gang or STG for inclusion in an intel database generally requires a "reasonable suspicion" standard.**

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' ";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts".
____________________________________________________________
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/gangs/faq.html

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did the Florida Legislature address the criminal street gang issue?

    * To maintain public order and safety.
    * To respond to the ever increasing crime caused by street gangs that threatens and terrorizes peaceful citizens.
    * To stop this mounting criminal activity.
    * To provide for increased penalties for those found guilty of criminal gang involvement and eliminate the patterns, profits, and property helping criminal street gang activity, including street gang recruitment.

What is a criminal gang?

A formal or informal ongoing organization, association, or group that has as one of its primary activities the commission of criminal or delinquent acts, and that consists of three or more persons who have a common name or common identifying signs, colors, or symbols, including, but not limited to, terrorist organizations and hate groups.

Who is a criminal gang associate?

"Criminal gang associate" means a person who:

   1. Admits to criminal gang association; or
   2. Meets any single defining criterion for criminal gang membership described in subsection (3).

    "Criminal gang member" is a person who meets two or more of the following criteria:

       1. Admits to criminal gang membership.
       2. Is identified as a criminal gang member by a parent or guardian.
       3. Is identified as a criminal gang member by a documented reliable informant.
       4. Adopts the style of dress of a criminal gang.
       5. Adopts the use of a hand sign identified as used by a criminal gang.
       6. Has a tattoo identified as used by a criminal gang.
       7. Associates with one or more known criminal gang members.
       8. Is identified as a criminal gang member by an informant of previously untested reliability and such identification is corroborated by independent information.
       9. Is identified as a criminal gang member by physical evidence.
      10. Has been observed in the company of one or more known criminal gang members four or more times. Observation in a custodial setting requires a willful association. It is the intent of the Legislature to allow this criterion to be used to identify gang members who recruit and organize in jails, prisons, and other detention settings.
      11. Has authored any communication indicating responsibility for the commission of any crime by the criminal gang.

When we talk about the gang and security threat group subculture, what are the main gang categories or influences?

The world of gangs and threat groups can become very complex. Knowing this, it helps to divide these groups into some basic categories that will form a firm foundation to learning and understanding. Most gangs or STGs you will encounter will fall into one of these basic categories:

    * Street Gangs
    * Prison Gangs
    * White Supremacy Groups
    * Motorcycle/Biker Gangs
    * Subversive Groups
    * Cult Groups

Why is there a Security Threat Group Management program in the Department of Corrections?

To ensure the safe, secure, and orderly operations for staff, visitors, and inmate/offenders throughout the department by identifying, validating, and certifying STGs and their members and monitoring STG activities.

What is a Security Threat Group (STG)?

Formal or informal ongoing groups, gangs, organization or associations consisting of three or more members who have a common name or common identifying signs, colors, or symbols. A group whose members/associates engage in a pattern of gang activity or department rule violation.

Why do we call them STGs?

To eliminate any recognition these criminals may draw from publicity about their gang or its activities. Also, STG accurately describes how these groups can impact the security of institutional operations.

How does the STG member certification process work?

The STG validation process involves, but is not limited to:

    * Identifying individual gang members, not gangs themselves;
    * Observing behavior;
    * Locating graffiti;
    * Observing scars, marks and tattoos;
    * Noticing certain clothing arrangements; and
    * Gathering information from reliable sources.

Information collected is then assigned a point value through a validation work sheet. When a suspect reaches a certain point value, he/she is certified as either a suspect member or confirmed member based on their accumulated point value.

Can I get information about a specific inmate's gang involvement?

No. Although we are committed to sharing information related to gangs that are active within our state, specific intelligence related to a particular inmate's involvement is confidential and for law enforcement use only. Criminal justice agencies, please contact us for more information.

[G M]

http://www.azcorrections.gov/adc/STG/Jeff_STG.aspx

Security Threat Group Unit
This section contains some mature content


    * Frequently Used Terminology
    * STG Earmarks
    * Membership Validation Criteria
    * Security Threat Groups
    * Associated Sites
    * FAQs
    * Contact



The Security Threat Group Unit collects information and intelligence on prison gang members and validates inmates as being members of prison gangs.

What is a Security Threat Group?
Any organization, club, association or group of individuals, either formal or informal (including traditional prison gangs), that may have a common name or identifying symbol, and whose members engage in activities that include, but are not limited to planning, organizing, threatening, financing, soliciting, committing or attempting to commit unlawful acts that would violate the Department's written instructions, which detract from the safe and orderly operations of prisons.

Frequently Used Terminology

    "AIMS": Adult Information Management System
    "GRITS": Gang Related Inmate Tracking System
    "S": Suspect- Have at least 2 points of validation criteria evidence
    "V": Validated - Validated member with 10 or more points
    "D": Debriefed
    "STG Unit": Investigations staff
    "SSU": Special Services Unit. Uniformed staff on unit level that monitor STG activity
    "SSU Lt": Complex Lt. Coordinating SSU's collection of STG validation evidence on STG members

Return to top
STG Earmarks

    * Bylaws or a Constitution: Usually will include a "Blood In/Blood Out" rule
    * Tattoos, logos, symbolism: Members will display STG specific tattoo.
    * Drawings (art work, graffiti) of STG specific symbols will be found
    * Rank Structure; Council system, La Mesa (The Table), Military type rank system, One Man Leadership, etc
    * Membership Rosters
    * Leaders, members, probates, associates, wannabes, dropouts, debreifers (defectors), & enemies
    * May develop a "hit list"
    * Will usually establish "missions" for members and/or probationary members to follow inside/outside of prison

Return to top
Membership Validation Criteria

    * Self admission = 5 pts
    * Tattoos = 7 pts
    * Symbolism = 2 pts
    * Documents = 5 pts
    * Publications = 1 pt
    * Authorship = 7 pts
    * Court Records = 9 pts
    * Group Photos = 2 pts
    * Association = 2 pts
    * Contacts = 2 pts
    * C/I/ Information = 2 pts
    * Membership = 9 pts
    * Other Agencies = 8 pts
    * Media = 5 pts

Return to top
Security Threat Groups
STGs Certified   STGs Monitored

    * Arizona Aryan Brotherhood
    * Border Brothers
    * "New" Mexican Mafia
    * "Old" Mexican Mafia
    * Grandel
    * Mau Mau
    * Warrior Society
    * Surenos
    * Dine' Pride

   

    * African American Council
    * La Raza
    * Nazi Low Riders
    * Skinheads
    * Westside City


 STG Artwork and Tattoos
Return to top
Associated Sites
You may find these sites on the web helpful in furthering your understanding of gangs and security threat groups:

National Major Gang Task Force page. National Level Gang Investigators Association. Listing of State leadership. An excellent contact source

    * Arizona Gang Investigators Association
      http://www.arizonagia.com

    * Rocky Mountain Information Network
      http://rmin.rissinfo.com/

    * California Gang Investigators Association page
      http://www.cgiaonline.org

    * Anti-Defamation League. Good Hate Group site
      http://www.adl.org

    * Midwest Gang Investigators Association page. Midwestern STG and Street Gang information
      http://www.mgia.org

    * Florida Gang Investigators Association page. Good source for East Coast Gang information page
      http://www.fgia.com

    * Texas Gang Investigators Association page. Good information on Southwest STG's and Street gangs in Texas area
      http://www.tgia.net

Return to top
Contact ADC's STG Unit
You may contact the Arizona Department of Corrections STG Unit at:

Arizona Department of Corrections
Security Threat Group Unit
Mail Code 930
1831 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Tel. (602) 771-2100 ext. 324

email:azprisongangs@hotmail.com

[G M]

Pulling a partial sentence out I found a point maybe intended facetious but that I think I agree with: "we are but minutes away from rectally implanted GPS beacons and laser-etched bar codes on our foreheads".  How much worse is that than the status quo?

**Uh, much worse. Despite the hysteria expressed by some, there are still very concrete constitutional protections and limitations on law enforcement in the US, and if you'll look at the powers granted to law enforcement of other nations, especially related to terrorism you'll see that the US is far from becoming like the UK or France, much less Russia or China.**

"Just how big of a domestic intelligence agency do you want? Do you wish to negate the civil liberty/privacy protections in place that regulate law enforcement intelligence databases in the US?"

Can't speak for others but a 'voluntary' check fora  frequent flier isn't any further out of bounds than authorizing a background check for employment (IMO) as you would have at the airline or the TSA.  How do YOU know that the guy watching the scanner isn't the jihadist if every grandma could be one?

**Well, the vetting for TSA employment involves extensive background checks.**

https://hraccess-assessment.tsa.dhs.gov/TSOFAQs/BackgroundRequirements.pdf

The mission of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is to protect the United States
transportation systems. To ensure the accomplishment of this mission, TSA requires each and every
employee to be reliable and trustworthy. To meet these standards, all TSOs must pass a very stringent
background review process.
First, to become a TSO, you must be a U.S. citizen or a U.S. National.1 If you are not a U.S.
citizen or a U.S. National, you are not eligible for employment with TSA. Next, as a part of the
application process, you will be required to pass an Enter-On-Duty (EOD) Suitability Determination,
which is based on criminal history records checks (including FBI fingerprint submissions) and local law
enforcement agency information. By law, TSA is prohibited from employing persons with certain
convictions, which are identified below. In addition, the EOD Suitability Determination will include an
evaluation of your credit report to determine if you have disqualifying financial delinquencies. Lastly, the
EOD Suitability Determination involves a review of information provided by you in a Declaration for
Federal Employment (OF306) form, which you will be required to complete later in the application
process if you are called for an interview.
A final suitability determination will be made after you enter-on-duty and have undergone a
background investigation conducted by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. You will be required
to complete a Standard Form 86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF86) to initiate the
background investigation.
TSA is very serious about the reliability and trustworthiness of individuals hired into the
Agency. Below is a list

**Here is the SF-86 mentioned above.**

http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/SF86.pdf

 "How do YOU know that the guy watching the scanner isn't the jihadist if every grandma could be one?"

**You'll note that the TSA has the TSA officer monitoring the images from the RapiScan 1000 in another room, with the facial images blurred by the software. Maybe they though this through and looked to make it harder for a compromised officer to wave a IED through screening.**

[G M]

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/11/fbi_thwarts_terrorist_bombing.html

The FBI thwarted an attempted terrorist bombing in Portland's Pioneer Courthouse Square before the city's annual tree-lighting Friday night, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Oregon.

A Corvallis man, thinking he was going to ignite a bomb, drove a van to the corner of the square at Southwest Yamhill Street and Sixth Avenue and attempted to detonate it.

However, the supposed explosive was a dummy that FBI operatives supplied to him, according to an affidavit in support of a criminal complaint signed Friday night by U.S. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta.

Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, a Somali-born U.S. citizen, was arrested at 5:42 p.m., 18 minutes before the tree lighting was to occur, on an accusation of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. The felony charge carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a $250,000 fine.

The arrest was the culmination of a long-term undercover operation, during which Mohamud had been monitored for months as his alleged bomb plot developed.

"The device was in fact inert, and the public was never in danger," according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney's Office.

The investigation involved the FBI, Oregon State Police, Portland Police Bureau, Corvallis Police Department and Lincoln County Sheriff's Office.

[DougMacG]

"A Corvallis man... Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, a Somali-born U.S. citizen"

a) male, and
b) 19 yrs old, and
c) Somali born, and
d) interested in explosives - "classmates recalled he once gave a presentation on how to make an explosive device" - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40389899/ns/us_news-security/, and
e) interested in Jihad: "Mohamud said he had been interested in jihad since an early teen even writing for a jihadist website", "friends say Mohamud... would joke about being a terrorist. they thought nothing of that until now.

Nice job by the FBI with timely work! Whatever profiling or infiltrating they were doing to find this guy - I likely approve.  I note that they did not give up their methods in the news story.

In other news, no examples of:
a) female, and
b) Jewish or Lutheran, and
c) active in her faith, and
d) over 50,
e) with 7 or more grandchildren... (or draw your own profile criteria here)
ever bowing up an airliner full of innocent men, women and children.

Note the logic string connector 'and'.  No one said looks Muslim or looks white, or person of certain age, gender or ethnicity alone.
--------

Regarding TSA vetting, I only meant that if vetting is possible it could be applied to our extremely frequent fliers on a voluntary basis as well and free up more resources for the unrecognized fliers, like me.

TSA vetting isn't foolproof either: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/25911785/detail.html 
TSA security worker accused of abducting and sexually assaulting a woman had previously been convicted of misdemeanor harassment and stalking. (Atlanta 11/24/2010)...  King (previously) was charged with nine offenses of harassment and stalking by communication in January 2001. A court clerk told Regan that King pleaded guilty and spent three months in jail for skipping a court appearance.

TSA has a long list of “disqualifying offenses” for employment at the federal agency that operates airport security. Those offenses include felonies, violent crimes, theft, and crimes involving security and transportation. Regan checked the list and found that it did not include misdemeanor offenses of harassing and stalking.

[G M]

**Colleen LaRose is 47 years old.**

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/jihad-jane-husband-speaks-terror-suspect/story?id=10080443

The former husband of "Jihad Jane," the Pennsylvania woman whom authorities accused of helping terrorists and plotting to kill a Swedish cartoonist, said she used to be a Bible-carrying churchgoer and "a good person."

"I don't know what happened over the years," Rudy Cavazos said in an exclusive interview with ABC News.

Colleen LaRose was indicted Tuesday on charges she tried to help recruit Islamic fighters and plotted to kill a Swedish cartoonist who made fun of the Muslim prophet Mohammed. But the woman who faces these allegations bears no resemblance to the one to whom he was married for a decade, Cavazos said.

Indeed, he said, LaRose used to carry a Bible and attended church regularly.

"We used to go to church on Sundays and pray … just like everybody else," he said.

"She was a good person. … I don't know what happened over the years."

Federal authorities said they have an idea.

LaRose, 46, of Montgomery, Pa., conspired to provide material support to terrorists and to kill in a foreign country, court papers allege. LaRose reached out through the Internet to jihadist groups, saying she was "desperate to do something to help" suffering Muslim people, and that she desired to become a martyr, according to the papers.

Her indictment shocked people across the nation and in her community.

Neighbors describe LaRose as an average "housewife." To federal authorities, though, the woman is better known as Fatima Rose or Jihad Jane, the latter a moniker she apparently coined herself.

**Snip**
By 2008, FBI agents said, LaRose was working with radicals on the Internet to recruit candidates for suicide missions. She and others plotted to kill Lars Vilks, a Swedish cartoonist who depicted Mohammed as a dog in 2007, authorities allege.

Vilks' actions offended many Muslims, earning him death threats and setting off protests around the world.

[G M]

Public Law 107-71
107th Congress

``Aviation and Transportation Security Act''

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ71/html/PLAW-107publ71.htm

`(A) Qualifications.-- <<NOTE: Deadline.>> Within
                30 days after the date of enactment of the Aviation and
                Transportation Security Act, the Under Secretary shall
                establish qualification standards for individuals to be
                hired by the United States as security screening
                personnel. Notwithstanding any

[[Page 115 STAT. 617]]

                provision of law, those standards shall require, at a
                min-
                imum, an individual--
                          ``(i) to have a satisfactory or better score
                      on a Federal security screening personnel
                      selection examination;
                          ``(ii) to be a citizen of the United States;
                          ``(iii) to meet, at a minimum, the
                      requirements set forth in subsection (f);
                          ``(iv) to meet such other qualifications as
                      the Under Secretary may establish; and
                          ``(v) to have the ability to demonstrate daily
                      a fitness for duty without any impairment due to
                      illegal drugs, sleep deprivation, medication, or
                      alcohol.
                    ``(B) Background checks.--The Under Secretary shall
                require that an individual to be hired as a security
                screener undergo an employment investigation (including
                a criminal history record check) under section
                44936(a)(1).
                    ``(C) Disqualification of individuals who present
                national security risks.--The Under Secretary, in
                consultation with the heads of other appropriate Federal
                agencies, shall establish procedures, in addition to any
                background check conducted under section 44936, to
                ensure that no individual who presents a threat to
                national security is employed as a security screener.

[G M]

DEFINITION clean-skin ter•ror•ist n. A potential attacker with a spotless record whose documents don't arouse suspicion

CONTEXT U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a British newspaper that the U.S. fears its next major terrorist attack could be carried out by "clean-skin terrorists" in Europe who feel they are treated as second-class citizens. He warned that the visa-waiver program, which allows citizens from some European countries to enter the U.S. without a visa, could be an open door for the terrorists.

USAGE The term clean-skin, once used to describe drug traffickers without a record, morphed in the late 1990s to characterize potential terrorists who weren't on any watch lists. But several have already proved their deadly capabilities: the British government classified the four July 2005 London train bombers as clean-skins. Richard Reid, the would-be shoe bomber, was a clean-skin as well.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1609777,00.html#ixzz16bf9R8eJ

[DougMacG]

GM,  I assume you (re)posted that (Jihad Jane) to bolster my point.  

Close but does not fit the sample criteria I laid out, I think she hit one of my 6 criteria - she is female. I assume Jihad Jane ("a moniker she apparently coined herself") was not an extremely frequent flyer and would not have submitted to or passed a voluntary frequent flyer background check that I suggested.  If 'Jihad Jane' was so clean that she would pass all our tests (and I don't think she would) then she could also be the attendant at the search or scanner when 'Jihad Joe' goes through with the liquids, the whole purpose of the gropedown is negated.

Once again, for the 4th or 5th time, I did not say judge them by their appearance.

[G M]

You want to fight the last war, or do you want to anticipate future threats, Doug?

It's a matter of numbers. The more people you feed into a system, the greater the opportunity for the terrorist infiltrator to gain access. Jihad Jane was focused on killing a Mohammed cartoonist, but there is nothing to say that she might not have decided to become a martyr by IED on an aircraft, had the FBI not intervened.

AQ and other terror groups are constantly learning and adapting to law enforcement's investigative and protective measures. If Jihad Jane were not so obvious in her internet postings, she might have well avoided detection until it's too late.

In the US, we don't track people religious activities. There is no central database to verify someone's Jewish or Lutheran status and degree of activity within the religion.

[G M]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Headley-posed-as-Jew-for-Nariman-House-recce/articleshow/5293911.cms

'Headley posed as Jew for Nariman House recce'


MUMBAI: Laskhar-e-Taiba (LeT) operative David Headley, posing as a Jew, had visited Nariman House in the first half of last year. The statements of some of the witnesses who had either seen or accompanied Headley to Nariman House, also known as Chabad House, have been recorded by the investigating agencies. A rabbi and his wife were among the six killed in the 26/11 terror attack at Nariman House last year.

The attack by LeT terrorists in the five-storeyed house, which can be approached only through narrow lanes and by-lanes of Colaba, had led the security agencies to deduce that a proper recce had been conducted before the srike.

One of the witnesses told the investigators that Headley went inside the house and interacted with the residents for a long time. Another witness recalled that Headley had taken a round with him around the area to ascertain the entry and exit points of the Nariman House, sources said.

Headley, who was arrested by the FBI at the airport in Chicago in October for allegedly plotting to carry out terror strikes in India and Denmark, had told his investigators that he had learnt praying like Jews at the instance of a former Major General Sajid Mir of Pakistan army, who was now emerging as one of the masterminds behind 26/11. Mir wanted Headley to learn praying like Jews so that he could conduct a recce of Nariman House, sources said, adding that he has been arrested in Pakistan. However, this could not be independently verified.

[G M]

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/asia_pacific/david+headley+stranger+than+fiction/3511057.html

David Coleman Headley, aka Daood Syed Gilani, has a half-brother in Pakistan who is the Pakistan prime minister's press secretary.  Danyel Gilani said that he last saw his half-brother in Pakistan a few days after their father, Syed Saleem Gilani, died, in December 2008. That was just one month after the Mumbai attacks. Headley is apparently not related to the Pakistan Prime Minister himself, Yousaf Raza Gilani.

**Snip**
Indian and Israeli intelligence claim that while conducting surveillance in India for the jihadi group Lashkar-e-Toiba, David Headley posed as a Jew, even entering Mumbai's Jewish centre, passing himself off as a potential donor. The FBI says that after his arrest, a book entitled "How to Pray Like a Jew" was found at his home in Chicago.

[G M]

Fast Facts:
• Born Daood Gilani in Washington, D.C., in 1960 to a Pakistani father and an American mother. Lives with his wife and children in Chicago.

• After his parents' divorce, returned to Pakistan with his father and was raised in a traditional Muslim household until moving to Philadelphia at age 17 to live with his mother.

• Attended the Community College of Philadelphia, but left school before receiving a degree.

• Worked in a bar and a series of video stores after leaving school.

• Convicted on heroin-smuggling charges in 1998; served 15 months in prison. Headley later worked for the Drug Enforcement Administration, in part to avoid a lengthier jail sentence.

• Allegedly received training from Kashmiri separatist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) from February 2002 to December 2003. The group, which aims to drive Indian forces out of the disputed territory of Kashmir, is considered a foreign terrorist operation by the U.S. government.

• Changed his name to David Headley (Headley being his mother's maiden name) in 2005. Authorities say the change was made to ease travel and make him seem more American while working for LeT.

• Since his alleged training with LeT, has traveled frequently between Pakistan, India, the Middle East and the U.S.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1946462,00.html#ixzz16c23k4k3

[G M]

Christian Ganczarski, a 36-year-old German citizen of Polish descent


http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,891855,00.html

German police questioned Ganczarski last year about the Djerba attack after it was established he had telephoned with one of the suicide bombers shortly before the attack. He was detained but then later released when no direct involvement in the incident could be found. Shortly thereafter he moved to Saudi Arabia.

 

Although during his time in training camps in Afghanistan he was known as “Ibrahim the German,” Ganczarski is of Polish descent. Born in southern Poland in 1966, he later moved to Germany with his parents and became a naturalized citizen. He and his wife are converts to Islam. Trained as a locksmith, he eventually became know as a “computer expert” in extremist circles.

 
Germany has been a focal point for investigations into al Qaeda terrorist activity ever since it was discovered that several of the key figures in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States had lived in Hamburg for years.

 

Ganczarski is suspected of having contact with the Moroccan Mounir El Motassadeq, a Hamburg resident who has been sentenced to 15 years in jail for supporting some of those involved in the attacks on New York and Washington.

 
Ganczarski also reportedly knows another Moroccan extremist named Karim Mehdi, who was detained at Charles de Gaulle on June 1. Mehdi, who has lived in Germany for years, was allegedly plotting attacks on the island of La Reunion in the Indian Ocean and against U.S. military bases in Germany. French authorities say he has alleged that Ganczarski also had a role in the planning of the attacks, though they never happened.

[G M]

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-39511-6.html

Christian Ganczarski, seen here in a December 2001 file photo, has denied any connection with the Djerba plot.

[G M]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,605911,00.html

02/06/2009
 
18 Years for Al-Qaida Member
Paris Court Finds German Guilty of Tunisian Attack

A French court on Thursday found a German man guilty of plotting a deadly 2002 Tunisian terror attack where a gas-laden truck smashed into a synagogue, killing 21 people. Christian Ganczarski was sentenced to 18 years -- but his lawyer pledged to appeal the "unacceptable" verdict.

A French court on Thursday ruled that a German al-Qaida member had played a central role in the deadly 2002 suicide bombing of a Tunisian synagogue which killed 21 people. Christian Ganczarski, a 42-year-old Islamic convert who had visited Afghan and Pakistani militant camps and had met Osama bin Laden, was found guilty of being complicit in the murders and of membership of a terrorist group. He was given an 18-year sentence.

The attack, which was claimed by al-Qaida, targeted the historic Ghriba synagogue on the Tunisian island of Djerba, a magnet for tourists. Suicide bomber Nizar Naouar slammed into the building in a fuel tanker laden with explosives. In total, 14 German tourists, five Tunisians and two French nationals were killed and many more people were injured. The trial started in January.

[G M]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3201462/Muslim-convert-admits-attempted-suicide-terror-attack.html

Nicky Reilly, 22, who uses the Muslim name Mohamed Abdulaziz Rashid Saeed-Alim, pleaded guilty to launching the failed attack on a busy family restaurant at the Princesshay shopping centre in Exeter in May this year

Reilly researched how to make a bomb, acquired the components and made three devices using caustic soda, paraffin and aluminium foil, along with nails, which he had put in glass soft drink bottles.

But when he attempted to assemble one of the soft drink bottle bombs in the lavatory cubicle of the restaurant it exploded in his hands.

[G M]

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/07/ibrahim-islams-appeal-and-captain-hook.html

In recent headlines, three American converts to Islam—Gregory Patterson, Levar Wasington, and Kevin James—were recently arrested and tried for intending to wage jihad against the U.S. They are by no means the first American converts to Islam to go terrorist.

There was Christopher Paul, who was tried for conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction; John Walker Lindh, who, as a “warrior of Islam,” was captured post 9/11 fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan; “Azzam the American” (formerly “Adam Gadahn”) who, after being graciously introduced by al-Qaeda leader Aymin Zawahiri on a video made some months ago proceeded to harangue and mock his fellow Americans—including JW’s own Robert Spencer—into abandoning Christianity and submitting to Allah; and Jose Padilla (aka “Abdullah al-Muhajir”).

Then, of course, there are the countless European converts. There’s the British “shoe-bomber,” Abdul Rahim (formerly “Richard Reid”) who attempted to achieve “martyrdom” by detonating explosives in his shoes while aboard a passenger aircraft; the late Abdullah Shaheed (formerly “Germaine Lindsay”) who did achieve “martyrdom” by killing himself and 56 of his fellow citizens, and injuring over 700, in the London bombings of 2005; and Abu Abdullah (original name unknown), the native Briton turned fiery Islamist preacher who, before finally being arrested, made no secret of his vitriolic hatred of the West (all, of course, while enjoying Western liberties, such as freedom of speech).

At any rate, what causes such men, born and raised in the West, often from Christian backgrounds, to abandon their heritage, embrace Islam, and conspire to kill the very people they grew up with?

As for Islam’s “intrinsic” appeal, it has long been argued that, unlike Christianity, which can be "heavy" on theology, Islam is relatively simple and straightforward. So while Christianity revolves around metaphysical concepts and topics, such as the Trinity, Christology, the nature of salvation, grace, free-will vs election, and the futility of the law, Islam, in black and white terms, commands its adherents to do this and not do that. In fact, the Arabic word “sharia,” that comprehensive body of laws Muslims must follow, means the “pathway”—as in, “the pathway to paradise.” (In pre-Islamic Arabic, of course, it specifically means pathway to water for camels.)

[G M]

http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/new_jersey_al_shabaab.htm

New Jersey Residents Arrested for Attempting to Join Somali-Based Terrorist Group

Updated: September 20, 2010
Posted: June 7, 2010

   

Two Americans who allegedly planned to kill American soldiers overseas are the latest in a wave of Americans traveling to Somalia to fight with an Al Qaeda-linked terrorist group.

 

A criminal complaint unsealed in a New Jersey federal court on June 6, 2010, charged Mohamed Mahmood Alessa, 20, and Carlos Eduardo Almonte, 24, with conspiring to kill, maim, and kidnap persons outside the United States.  The men, who planned to travel to Somalia to fight with Al Shabaab, an Al Qaeda-linked terrorist organization based in Somalia, each face a maximum sentence of life in prison if convicted.

 

Alessa, an American citizen of Palestinian descent, and Almonte, a naturalized U.S. citizen from the Dominican Republic, were arrested at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport on June 5, 2010, as they attempted to board separate flights to Egypt.  According to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, the men planned to travel from Egypt to Somalia to join Al Shabaab.

 

Federal authorities began investigating Alessa and Almonte, a convert to Islam who goes by the name Omar, in October 2006 after receiving a tip through the FBI's Web site about the men's online activities.  "All they look for is all those terrorist videos about the Islam holly [sic] war and where they kill US soldiers," the tip read, "they keep saying that Americans are their enemies, that everybody other than Islamic followers are their enemies…and they all must be killed."

 

An undercover officer from the New York Police Department's intelligence unit subsequently recorded numerous meetings and conversations with the men.  According to the affidavit, the recordings show Alessa and Almonte discussing ways to prepare themselves to "wage violent jihad" and to kill American troops who they thought would soon be deployed to Somalia to help fight Al Shabaab.  "My soul cannot rest until I shed blood," Alessa said in November 2009 before threatening to "start doing killing here" if he and Almonte fail to join the terrorist group overseas.

 

Alessa and Almonte allegedly engaged in paramilitary training by shooting paintball guns and practicing other attack techniques, including hand-to-hand fighting tactics and shooting and crawling positions.  Additionally, the men physically conditioned themselves by hiking in snow and mud and by lifting weights.  The affidavit also alleged that Alessa and Almonte procured military gear and engaged in "simulated combat" using first-person-shooter computer software, which allows users to employ a variety of realistic weapons and simulate combat experiences from the perspective of a soldier.

 

The affidavit further outlined Alessa's and Almonte's extensive use of the Internet to view various documents and recordings that promoted "violent jihad," including documents authored by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's second-in-command.  The men also allegedly watched videos of Al Shabaab fighters in Somalia and other videos depicting attacks on uniformed personnel in Iraq. 

                                                 

Alessa and Almonte also watched video and audio recordings by Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Muslim cleric living in Yemen who targets English-speaking Muslim audiences with radical online lectures that encourage attacks against the West and non-Muslims.  In May 2010, for example, Alessa and Almonte watched a video interview in which al-Awlaki warned of future attacks against Americans both in the U.S. and abroad.  "Oh America, if you attack us, we will attack you, and if you kill us, we will kill you… These American soldiers heading to Afghanistan and Iraq will be killed. We will kill them if we can, there in Fort Hood, or we will kill them in Afghanistan and Iraq."

 

Alessa and Almonte also listened to another al-Awlaki sermon entitled, "Constants on the Path of Jihad."  In the lecture, which has been posted on several Web sites commonly used by Muslim extremists and is based on the writings of Yousef al-Ayyiri, the founder of Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, al-Awlaki says, "Jihad will also carry on until the Day of Judgment since we are told to wipe out kufr [non-Muslims] from the world." 

 

Al-Awlaki has been linked to several other accused terrorists who have carried out attacks against the U.S., including Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged gunman who killed 13 people at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas in November 2009.  In the weeks following the shooting at Fort Hood, Alessa allegedly threatened to "do twice what he [Hasan] did."

 

According to the affidavit, Alessa and Almonte were also influenced by several other American-born Muslim ideologues who have encouraged attacks and provided ideological motivation for engaging in terrorist activities.  In March 2010, the men viewed an Al Qaeda video in which Adam Yahiye Gadahn, an American Muslim convert from California who joined Al Qaeda in the late 1990s, encouraged followers to carry out attacks against high-value targets in America and the West to "further our global agenda and long-range strategic objectives." The men also watched videos featuring Omar Hammami, a Muslim convert from Alabama who has appeared in a number of online videos urging Americans men "to come and live the life of a mujahid [Muslim warrior]" in Somalia and join Al Shabaab.

 

In addition to their online activity, both Alessa and Almonte attended a number of events held by the Islamic Thinkers Society (ITS) and Revolution Muslim (RM), New York-based groups that justify terrorist attacks and other forms of violence in order to create a global Islamic state. At one of the protests, on May 23, 2010, against the Israeli Day Parade in New York, Alessa led a chant with the anti-Jewish slogan, "Khaibar, Khaibar ya Yahud, jaish Muhammad sawfa ya'ud," evoking the Quran's account of a battle between the Prophet Muhammad and the Jews of the town of Khaibar, which resulted in the subjugation of the Jews of Arabia.

 

Alessa also attended ITS and RM rallies in Washington, D.C. in March 2010, where he appeared in videos standing next to emerging RM leader Zachary Chesser, an online blogger who has distributed jihadist materials and promoted violence against non-Muslims through a variety of online platforms.  Chesser has since been arrested and charged for attempting to join Al Shabaab in Somalia. 

**Note that Zachary Chesser was a Jew prior to his "reversion" to the religion of pieces.**

In addition, Almonte posted a picture on his Facebook profile of himself at another anti-Israel rally in December 2008, attended by members of ITS and RM, where he is carrying a sign that reads, "Death to All (zionist) Juice."

 

Alessa and Almonte had previously traveled to Jordan and attempted to cross the border into Iraq to join terrorist groups, according to New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly.  Almonte later told the undercover police officer that he and Alessa sought unsuccessfully to become "mujahideen," or Muslim warriors, when they traveled to Jordan in February 2007.

 

In September 2010, New Jersey resident Mohamed Osman, 19, pleaded guilty to lying to federal authorities investigating Alessa and Almonte. When questioned by federal authorities three months earlier, Osman denied knowing about Alessa and Almonte’s plans to travel to Somalia to fight against government and multinational peacekeeping forces.
   
   

[G M]

Reading the FBI affidavit describing Islamist terror suspect Mohamed Osman Mohamud's plan to bomb a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland's Pioneer Courthouse Square is a chilling experience.  Mohamud, a Somali-born naturalized U.S. citizen who attended Oregon State University, told undercover FBI agents he dreamed of performing acts of jihad in which hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Americans would die.  "Do you remember when 9/11 happened when those people were jumping from skyscrapers?" Mohamud asked the agents, according to the affidavit.  "I thought that was awesome."

In months of preparation with men he thought were co-conspirators but were in fact undercover agents, Mohamud backed up his talk with action.  After initially making email contact with Islamist radicals in Pakistan, he took part in constructing what he hoped would be an extraordinarily powerful bomb, scouted the best location for the attack, parked the van containing the bomb near the Christmas tree crowd, and, finally, dialed the cell phone number he believed would detonate the explosives. "I want whoever is attending that event to leave either dead or injured," Mohamud said of the 25,000 people expected to take part in the event.

That Mohamud was arrested and no one was hurt is a testament to good intelligence and law enforcement work.  Having Mohamud behind bars has undoubtedly saved lives in Portland; had he not encountered the undercover FBI agents, he might have worked with actual terrorists to construct a bomb, or he might have simply gotten a gun and carried out "an operation here, you know, like something like Mumbai," as he told the agents.

What is ironic is that the operation that found and stopped Mohamud is precisely the kind of law enforcement work that Portland's leaders, working with the American Civil Liberties Union, rejected during the Bush years.  In April 2005, the Portland city council voted 4 to 1 to withdraw Portland city police officers from participating in the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. Mayor Tom Potter said the FBI refused to give him a top-secret security clearance so he could make sure the officers weren't violating state anti-discrimination laws that bar law enforcement from targeting suspects on the basis of their religious or political beliefs.

Other city leaders agreed.  "Here in Portland, we are not willing to give up individual liberties in order to have a perception of safety," said city commissioner Randy Leonard.  "It's important for cities to know how their police officers are being used."

Local officials were also angry about the FBI's mistaken arrest of Brandon Mayfield, a Portland lawyer and convert to Islam, for the 2004 train bombings in Madrid, Spain.  But well before the Mayfield case, Portland had a history of rejecting Bush administration efforts to fight terrorism.  "Portland's decision would not be the first time the city has taken a contrary stand in the war on terrorism," the Los Angeles Times reported in 2005.  "In the months after Sept. 11, city leaders refused to cooperate with federal efforts to interview thousands of local Muslims. In 2003, the City Council criticized and called for radical changes in the USA Patriot Act, the much-debated federal anti-terrorism legislation."

In the Mohamud case, it appears that Portland's anti-law enforcement stand might actually have influenced Mohamud's decision to undertake an attack in the city.  According to the FBI affidavit, the undercover agents asked whether he worried that law enforcement would stop him. "In Portland?" Mohamud replied.  "Not really.  They don't see it as a place where anything will happen.  People say, you know, why, anybody want to do something in Portland, you know, it's on the west coast, it's in Oregon, and Oregon's, like you know, nobody ever thinks about it."


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/11/politically-correct-portland-rejected-feds-who-saved-city-terrori?#ixzz16cPl2xCz

[Body-by-Guinness]

I'm back from my journeys, and a bit worse for wear due to 'em, so bear with me as I make a scattershot response to some of the points raised since my absence.

Case law. I've read case law declaring blacks to be 3/5's of a human being. Don't really care what case law says about why a bunch of federal employees can grope or irradiate my kids towards ends that are likely more theatrical than practical. The Bill of Rights was written for a reason and creating various zones where it's clear goals are rendered meaningless would make the framers cringe.

Oregon kid arrested. More theater, IMO. Notice how every couple months we have a new sap, or set of saps, paraded in front of the media? Looks like the feds go trolling for yo yos who don't do a very good job of keeping their mouths shut, and 3 or 4 times a year give 'em a dummy bomb to not detonate that leads to an arrest and another passion play. Whatever happened to the Huatree militia anyway?

Fighting the last war. Is exactly what we are doing, frisking grandmas and kids while toner cartridges for known terrorist hotbeds are put on planes unexamined. The only reason we have not lost a plane of late is that our enemies have chosen not to try to do so. When they decide to do so, they will using a method that would not have been caught by irradiation or groping.

Hysteria. Why is that term so commonly applied to any benefit/cost analysis where freedoms lost are compared to supposed security gains? I mean airports are now the nanny state incarnate where freedoms, dignity, means of self defense, time, comfort, and so on are all surrendered to the state on the assumption nothing bad will happen, yet when it does those efforts are redoubled. It's hysterical to look at all the time, energy, and surrendered freedoms? Just how many terrorists has the TSA caught anyway?

[G M]

"Case law. I've read case law declaring blacks to be 3/5's of a human being."

**I haven't seen case law that said that. I have seen this: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Where did I see that? Article I. Section II of the constitution. Perhaps less time wrapping yourself in it and more time reading it would be helpful? The point of it being a way to keep slave states from being over-represented in the House, not as a comment on the humanity of slaves or indians.

[Crafty_Dog]

The last sentence there is a point worth noting.

[G M]

"Oregon kid arrested. More theater, IMO. Notice how every couple months we have a new sap, or set of saps, paraded in front of the media? Looks like the feds go trolling for yo yos who don't do a very good job of keeping their mouths shut, and 3 or 4 times a year give 'em a dummy bomb to not detonate that leads to an arrest and another passion play."

**After 9/11, a decision was made that the FBI wouldn't just wait for the next mass casualty attack so they could sweep up the body parts and process the crime scene. Rather than being a mostly neglected duty, it was to be one of the Bureau's primary jobs and done as to roll up attacks before there were more smoking craters in our cities. So they look for those predisposed to doing such things and then give them enough legal rope while controlling the situation so that no actual smoking craters happen. Should the FBI just have sat back until our Somali friend hooked up with real bomb makers or figured out how to make a functional device on his own? I guess there would be a lot less liberal voters in Portland after that. Probably more money for law enforcement in the aftermath of a mass fatality even in the pacific northwest. So in preventing such a thing, it's again their own interest and allows critics such as yourself to continue denying that there is a real threat that has to be addressed.



"Whatever happened to the Huatree militia anyway?"

**Still going through pre-trial motions. Still indicted, still awaiting their time in court.

[Body-by-Guinness]

After 9/11, a decision was made that the FBI wouldn't just wait for the next mass casualty attack so they could sweep up the body parts and process the crime scene. Rather than being a mostly neglected duty, it was to be one of the Bureau's primary jobs and done as to roll up attacks before there were more smoking craters in our cities. So they look for those predisposed to doing such things and then give them enough legal rope while controlling the situation so that no actual smoking craters happen. Should the FBI just have sat back until our Somali friend hooked up with real bomb makers or figured out how to make a functional device on his own? I guess there would be a lot less liberal voters in Portland after that. Probably more money for law enforcement in the aftermath of a mass fatality even in the pacific northwest. So in preventing such a thing, it's again their own interest and allows critics such as yourself to continue denying that there is a real threat that has to be addressed.

Wow, how's that for overwrought? Nothing like citing smoking craters and body parts spread thin to breath life into the tale of a dumba$$ who likely couldn't assemble an explosive device in the first place. Just hope all the time and energy spent creating perp walks for the media to hold in thrall doesn't distract the Bureau from interdicting folks who actually have the ability to create the smoking holes you are so fond of citing.

As for the whole against their own interests actions allowing critics like me--who can see the difference between a schnook groomed for the cameras and a true terrorist threat--somehow making it more difficult for the FBI to address this true threat . . . huh? Pointing out security theater is security theater does this how? Maybe it would be simpler to state "if you aren't with us then you are against us." Or is dissent no longer allowed?

[Body-by-Guinness]

Where did I see that? Article I. Section II of the constitution. Perhaps less time wrapping yourself in it and more time reading it would be helpful? The point of it being a way to keep slave states from being over-represented in the House, not as a comment on the humanity of slaves or indians.

It was also cited in Dred Scott, both in the court actions leading up to and in the Supreme Court decision.

But I'll make you a deal, you quit shredding the constitution for reasons of expediency and I'll quit trying to stitch it back together and causing you distress by "wrapping" myself with the results.

[Body-by-Guinness]

My last cooking job was 20 odd years ago working at Dulles airport for a very poorly managed operation. I only lasted a couple months and walked out over a disagreement about serious quality control issues. Be that as it may, those few months were eye opening, the folks I worked with could just walk out the back door on to the tarmac, and after I stormed out and the company tried to collect my security credentials I told 'em they could send someone out to pick 'em up as I wasn't setting foot in that hellhole again. Still have the credentials.

TSA's double standard
In the uproar about scanners and pat-downs, no one seems to have noticed that one group is exempt from inspection
BY PATRICK SMITH

AP/Jeff Roberson
Baggage handlers at Lambert St. Louis International Airport.
Late last week, the Transportation Security Administration, bowing to controversy and the threat of lawsuits, ruled that airline pilots will no longer be subject to the backscatter body scanners and invasive pat-downs at TSA airport checkpoints.

For pilots like myself this is good news, though at least for the time being we remain subject to the rest of the checkpoint inspection, including the X-raying of luggage and the metal detector walk-through. Eventually, we are told, the implementation of so-called CrewPASS will allow us to skirt the checkpoint more or less entirely.

Not everybody agrees that air crews deserve this special treatment. That's not an unreasonable point of view, and I don't disagree with it, necessarily. As security experts like Bruce Schneier point out, if you are going to screen at all, it is important to screen everybody, lest the system become overly complicated and prone to exploitable loopholes.

(Incidentally, the requirement that crews undergo checkpoint screening was imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration after the crash of a Pacific Southwest Airlines flight in 1987. A recently terminated flight attendant, David Burke, used his credentials, which the airline had failed to recover, to carry a concealed handgun onto Flight 1771 from Los Angeles to San Francisco. En route, he shot both pilots and nosed the airplane into the ground near Harmony, Calif., killing all 44 on board.)

But this is a useful approach only if the system is rational and effective to start with. As a pilot I would have no problem going through screening together with everybody else -- just not the screening we currently have in place, with its bullying and its mindless protocols and its wasteful obsession with minutiae.

And by "contradictory," here's some blockbuster news: Although the X-ray and metal detector rigmarole is mandatory for pilots and flight attendants, many other airport workers, including those with regular access to aircraft -- to cabins, cockpits, galleys and freight compartments -- are exempt. That's correct. Uniformed pilots cannot carry butter knives onto an airplane, yet apron workers and contract ground support staff -- cargo loaders, baggage handlers, fuelers, cabin cleaners, caterers -- can, as a matter of routine, bypass TSA inspection entirely.

All workers with airside privileges are subject to fingerprinting, a 10-year criminal background investigation and crosschecking against terror watch lists. Additionally they are subject to random physical checks by TSA. But here's what one apron worker at New York's Kennedy airport recently told me:

"All I need is my Port Authority ID, which I swipe through a turnstile. The 'sterile area' door is not watched over by any hired security or by TSA. I have worked at JFK for more than three years now and I have yet to be randomly searched. Really the only TSA presence we notice is when the blue-shirts come down to the cafeteria to get food."

Actually, this is something I wrote about, to no measurable reception, in a column over five years ago.  Little has changed since then. With all of the recent talk about airport security, this ought to be a bombshell of a story. Every media outfit in the country should be covering it. It undermines almost everything TSA has told us from the beginning about the "need" to screen pilots and flight attendants, and if there is a more ringing "let me get this straight ..." scenario anywhere in the realm of airport security, I’d like to hear it.

This is one of the reasons I've been somewhat disappointed by all of the recent attention and controversy over body scanners and pat-downs. Sure, the deployment of the scanners is rightfully controversial; the devices raise important privacy issues, and possibly health issues as well. (And, yes, it is heartening that finally, after almost 10 years, we're seeing a groundswell of resistance against TSA.) The downside to this conversation, however, is that it distracts us from asking important questions about the agency's approach to security overall.

The purpose of highlighting this loophole is not to scare or sensationalize, and enacting yet another layer of zero-tolerance screening, this time for ground workers, is possibly the exact wrong response. The answer, if you ask me, rests in the middle. I would propose somewhat tougher screening for underwing employees, while ratcheting down somewhat the overzealous scrutiny of pilots and flight attendants. You may or may not agree, but in the meantime one thing is certain: This is, for now, a double standard so brazen and hypocritical as to be almost unbelievable.


Patrick Smith is an airline pilot. More Patrick Smith

http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_the_pilot/2010/11/22/tsa_screening_of_pilots/index.html