Airport Body Scanners: Basic Decency Denied
On December 25th of last year came a curious holiday gift wrapped in a Nigerian man's undergarments and delivered aboard Northwest Airlines. Who can forget the so-called "Underwear Bomber"? A bizarre incident which really evokes a deep down sense of absurdity...but treated with such seriousness by the government and media and finally by a public who is again admonished to keep remembering and believing in the imminent threat of Islamic terrorism.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was supposedly on a terrorist "watch list"... the US government apparently saw no need to revoke his visa anyway because, they tell us, they were tracking his movement to learn more about him. Seems reasonable... unless you're one of over a million Americans who have been put on no flight lists because you're a veteran or a member of a militia or just caught disliking government policies a little too much. Then it might seem somewhat ludicrous that the government has no qualms about letting a foreign man fly on US planes who is deemed to be a known Islamic extremist.
Then there's Kurt Haskell...the man who witnessed the entire embarkation of the Underwear Terrorist. His story completely disregarded by government and media alike, he witnessed the Nigerian being escorted by a well dressed, wealthy looking man who was clearly not an employee of the airline. Though appearing Indian, the man spoke English like any American and reasoned with the airline concerning the Nigerian's lack of a passport "we do this all the time".
"The FBI visited my office on December 29, 2009, and showed me a series of approximately 10 photographs. None were of the SDM. I asked the FBI if they brought the Amsterdam security video to help me identify the SDM, but they acted as though my request was ridiculous. The FBI asked me what accent the SDM spoke in and I indicated that he had an American accent similar to my own. I further indicated that he wore a tan suit without a tie, was Indian looking, around age 50, 6'0" tall and 250-260 lbs. I further indicated that I did not believe that he was an airline employee and that he was not on our flight...
"On January 20, 2010, current Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Michael E. Leiter, made a startling admission. Leiter indicated that: "I will tell you, that when people come to the country and they are on the watch list, it is because we have generally made the choice that we want them here in the country for some reason or another...
"Could the SDM have been a U.S. Government official? He dressed in a suit and not a security uniform. Check. He indicated we do this all the time. Could "we" be the U.S. Government? Check. He spoke English with an American accent. Check. Would he need to convince the ticket agent that this was a normal procedure to allow boarding without a passport? Check. Would he have the ability to obtain such clearance? Check. Could he enter this security area even though he wasn't a passenger? Check. Would the ticket agent likely refer this request to a manager? Check. Would the U.S. Government not want this information public and try to hide it? Check."
- Kurt Haskell
http://haskellfamily.blogspot.com/2010/01/truth-about-flight-253-ha...
The incident hit the media outlets like alarm bells for the next 9-11. Ignoring every indication of a carefully engineered plan to just this end, the masses barely flinched when immediately airport security went from highly inconvenient to downright abusive overnight. Enter the backscatter x-ray full body scanner.
If you were under the impression that the airport body scanner became a reality as a result of a sudden need for higher security, you'd be mistaken. These invasive little devices are the creation of a client company of one Michael Chertoff, former head of Homeland Security who took advantage of this very convenient underwear episode months after the company, Rapiscan, sold 25 million dollars of the technology to TSA. What a timely sale.
If there is any right which sums up the most basic of freedoms, it has to the right to one's own body. Nothing is more personal, nothing else is more truly in any persons possession than their own flesh. It must certainly be a sort of canary in the coal mine where it comes to personal freedoms when the majority are willing to submit their right to their own body to strangers who claim an authority over it in the name of....defending the Land of the Free?
When it is suddenly OK that airports demand to see a person nude in one of their ionizing backscatter scanners, does it ever occur to the populace that hypothetically being conquered by Islamo-fascists could be any worse? At least they tend to agree we should keep our clothes on. Hence i consider it the height of hypocrisy when someone declares of the present ongoing "war on terror" and the military involvement in it as "defending our freedoms". Stripping people (literally) of their humanity is a path to freedom in what reality?
At the risk of sounding old fashioned... back in the day, when "men were men", it would be a cold day in a very hot place when anyone's wife or child or elderly mother would be allowed to be subjected to a strip search by people who's moral character was unknown at best and extremely questionable at worst. They, after all, are not criminals...they are average citizens simply trying to travel and they are subject to the sorts of abuses which literally are criminal in any other context. If the idea of a neighbor with high powered binoculars spying on one's wife or child while dressing is disturbing...this should be more so by virtue of the fact that it is condoned by those in "authority".
All common decency and dignity aside...this device is an X-ray. It works by way of ionizing radiation, a serious cumulative health hazard in spite of the assurances of the FDA and government spokesmen. The FDA being the same organization who feels no need to warn people on food labels of eating genetically manipulated organisms, who approve thousands of brand name drugs that are later shown to cause numerous fatalities...these are the people the public trusts when it comes to irradiating their bodies at the airport.
Ionizing radiation is known to cause chromosome damage. Even the supposedly innocuous "background" radiation which passes through Earth's atmosphere and reaches Earth is not so harmless... it too, eventually breaks the body down and causes aging.
Most of the radiation from a backscatter scanner is concentrated on the surface of the skin and the fatty layer just below it... the potential risk for skin and breast cancer is especially concerning. The FDA claim that it would require some 5,000 scans per year to reach any level of threat, even if generally correct (and evidence would suggest it isn't) does not account for the 1 in 20 people who are genetically highly sensitive to radiation or the fact that children are all much more sensitive to radiation than adults as they are still growing.
Ionizing radiation is comprised EM waves or subatomic particles that basically rip the electrons from the atoms and molecules in one's cells. If it sounds like bad news, that's because it is.
The risks, the "experts" say, are outweighed by the benefits. The benefits are that people are supposed to feel more secure. Secure from what, i wonder? Secure from the one terrorist who did not get the memo on the new technology? The next obvious step, if one buys into the terrorist threat line, is that they will inevitably begin stowing their explosive devices, etc. in body cavities. What then? Are you really ready for a full cavity search in order to board a plane? Are you living in a free country when survival at any cost is the new definition thereof? Is there anyone left who feels basic human rights are worth a little risk if there is some?
Having rolled over like cowering puppies, the public has not purchased peace of mind, they've simply helped the government up the ante on paranoia. Compliance to body scanners has proven that Fear and Cowardice are the real slave masters of the masses and that they will bow before any oppressor who serve their tools, Tyranny and Corruption. They will allow their wives, their kids, their old mothers and fathers to be manhandled, insulted, poked, irradiated, stared at in the nude and reduced to tears.
Don't be fooled by the assurances TSA has given that the images cannot be stored or transferred or that the images themselves are not well defined and photograph clear. TSA's own documents clearly specify that the machines must have both image storing and sending ability. The images the machines produce must be able to focus in on the most private details of the body in order to be able to identify any suspicious item attached to the body.
There is technically an opt-out option for the scanners. This "opting out", however, simply puts one in a position to choose between a nude picture of themselves viewed by multiple strangers or an incredibly personal pat down which includes a startlingly thorough feel-up of one's most private areas. That's called "molestation" anywhere else on earth. The obvious intent of such a horribly intrusive pat down is to ensure that the body scanner remain the preferable option for most people. Most people would rather pose for an embarrassing picture than subject themselves to a legalized sexual assault.
If you think we've reached the absolute limit in denying citizens a right to basic privacy, try to imagine a future when this is the norm in a wide variety of public places: court rooms, libraries, bus stations, schools, sporting events, etc. Now ask yourself if you think you have the courage to resist before that becomes a reality. Please, American citizens,...at least for the sake your kids and your elders, have the guts and the decency to refuse this perverse form of oppression.
"Defend the poor and fatherless. Do justice to the afflicted and needy.
Deliver the poor and needy. Free them from the hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3,4
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was supposedly on a terrorist "watch list"... the US government apparently saw no need to revoke his visa anyway because, they tell us, they were tracking his movement to learn more about him. Seems reasonable... unless you're one of over a million Americans who have been put on no flight lists because you're a veteran or a member of a militia or just caught disliking government policies a little too much. Then it might seem somewhat ludicrous that the government has no qualms about letting a foreign man fly on US planes who is deemed to be a known Islamic extremist.
Then there's Kurt Haskell...the man who witnessed the entire embarkation of the Underwear Terrorist. His story completely disregarded by government and media alike, he witnessed the Nigerian being escorted by a well dressed, wealthy looking man who was clearly not an employee of the airline. Though appearing Indian, the man spoke English like any American and reasoned with the airline concerning the Nigerian's lack of a passport "we do this all the time".
"The FBI visited my office on December 29, 2009, and showed me a series of approximately 10 photographs. None were of the SDM. I asked the FBI if they brought the Amsterdam security video to help me identify the SDM, but they acted as though my request was ridiculous. The FBI asked me what accent the SDM spoke in and I indicated that he had an American accent similar to my own. I further indicated that he wore a tan suit without a tie, was Indian looking, around age 50, 6'0" tall and 250-260 lbs. I further indicated that I did not believe that he was an airline employee and that he was not on our flight...
"On January 20, 2010, current Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Michael E. Leiter, made a startling admission. Leiter indicated that: "I will tell you, that when people come to the country and they are on the watch list, it is because we have generally made the choice that we want them here in the country for some reason or another...
"Could the SDM have been a U.S. Government official? He dressed in a suit and not a security uniform. Check. He indicated we do this all the time. Could "we" be the U.S. Government? Check. He spoke English with an American accent. Check. Would he need to convince the ticket agent that this was a normal procedure to allow boarding without a passport? Check. Would he have the ability to obtain such clearance? Check. Could he enter this security area even though he wasn't a passenger? Check. Would the ticket agent likely refer this request to a manager? Check. Would the U.S. Government not want this information public and try to hide it? Check."
- Kurt Haskell
http://haskellfamily.blogspot.com/2010/01/truth-about-flight-253-ha...
The incident hit the media outlets like alarm bells for the next 9-11. Ignoring every indication of a carefully engineered plan to just this end, the masses barely flinched when immediately airport security went from highly inconvenient to downright abusive overnight. Enter the backscatter x-ray full body scanner.
If you were under the impression that the airport body scanner became a reality as a result of a sudden need for higher security, you'd be mistaken. These invasive little devices are the creation of a client company of one Michael Chertoff, former head of Homeland Security who took advantage of this very convenient underwear episode months after the company, Rapiscan, sold 25 million dollars of the technology to TSA. What a timely sale.
If there is any right which sums up the most basic of freedoms, it has to the right to one's own body. Nothing is more personal, nothing else is more truly in any persons possession than their own flesh. It must certainly be a sort of canary in the coal mine where it comes to personal freedoms when the majority are willing to submit their right to their own body to strangers who claim an authority over it in the name of....defending the Land of the Free?
When it is suddenly OK that airports demand to see a person nude in one of their ionizing backscatter scanners, does it ever occur to the populace that hypothetically being conquered by Islamo-fascists could be any worse? At least they tend to agree we should keep our clothes on. Hence i consider it the height of hypocrisy when someone declares of the present ongoing "war on terror" and the military involvement in it as "defending our freedoms". Stripping people (literally) of their humanity is a path to freedom in what reality?
At the risk of sounding old fashioned... back in the day, when "men were men", it would be a cold day in a very hot place when anyone's wife or child or elderly mother would be allowed to be subjected to a strip search by people who's moral character was unknown at best and extremely questionable at worst. They, after all, are not criminals...they are average citizens simply trying to travel and they are subject to the sorts of abuses which literally are criminal in any other context. If the idea of a neighbor with high powered binoculars spying on one's wife or child while dressing is disturbing...this should be more so by virtue of the fact that it is condoned by those in "authority".
All common decency and dignity aside...this device is an X-ray. It works by way of ionizing radiation, a serious cumulative health hazard in spite of the assurances of the FDA and government spokesmen. The FDA being the same organization who feels no need to warn people on food labels of eating genetically manipulated organisms, who approve thousands of brand name drugs that are later shown to cause numerous fatalities...these are the people the public trusts when it comes to irradiating their bodies at the airport.
Ionizing radiation is known to cause chromosome damage. Even the supposedly innocuous "background" radiation which passes through Earth's atmosphere and reaches Earth is not so harmless... it too, eventually breaks the body down and causes aging.
Most of the radiation from a backscatter scanner is concentrated on the surface of the skin and the fatty layer just below it... the potential risk for skin and breast cancer is especially concerning. The FDA claim that it would require some 5,000 scans per year to reach any level of threat, even if generally correct (and evidence would suggest it isn't) does not account for the 1 in 20 people who are genetically highly sensitive to radiation or the fact that children are all much more sensitive to radiation than adults as they are still growing.
Ionizing radiation is comprised EM waves or subatomic particles that basically rip the electrons from the atoms and molecules in one's cells. If it sounds like bad news, that's because it is.
The risks, the "experts" say, are outweighed by the benefits. The benefits are that people are supposed to feel more secure. Secure from what, i wonder? Secure from the one terrorist who did not get the memo on the new technology? The next obvious step, if one buys into the terrorist threat line, is that they will inevitably begin stowing their explosive devices, etc. in body cavities. What then? Are you really ready for a full cavity search in order to board a plane? Are you living in a free country when survival at any cost is the new definition thereof? Is there anyone left who feels basic human rights are worth a little risk if there is some?
Having rolled over like cowering puppies, the public has not purchased peace of mind, they've simply helped the government up the ante on paranoia. Compliance to body scanners has proven that Fear and Cowardice are the real slave masters of the masses and that they will bow before any oppressor who serve their tools, Tyranny and Corruption. They will allow their wives, their kids, their old mothers and fathers to be manhandled, insulted, poked, irradiated, stared at in the nude and reduced to tears.
Don't be fooled by the assurances TSA has given that the images cannot be stored or transferred or that the images themselves are not well defined and photograph clear. TSA's own documents clearly specify that the machines must have both image storing and sending ability. The images the machines produce must be able to focus in on the most private details of the body in order to be able to identify any suspicious item attached to the body.
There is technically an opt-out option for the scanners. This "opting out", however, simply puts one in a position to choose between a nude picture of themselves viewed by multiple strangers or an incredibly personal pat down which includes a startlingly thorough feel-up of one's most private areas. That's called "molestation" anywhere else on earth. The obvious intent of such a horribly intrusive pat down is to ensure that the body scanner remain the preferable option for most people. Most people would rather pose for an embarrassing picture than subject themselves to a legalized sexual assault.
If you think we've reached the absolute limit in denying citizens a right to basic privacy, try to imagine a future when this is the norm in a wide variety of public places: court rooms, libraries, bus stations, schools, sporting events, etc. Now ask yourself if you think you have the courage to resist before that becomes a reality. Please, American citizens,...at least for the sake your kids and your elders, have the guts and the decency to refuse this perverse form of oppression.
"Defend the poor and fatherless. Do justice to the afflicted and needy.
Deliver the poor and needy. Free them from the hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3,4
Views: 108
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Kathy on
-
" You shouldn't have to check your rights when you check your luggage."
$11,000 fine, arrest possible for some who refuse airport scans and pat downs
If you don't want to pass through an airport scanner that allows security agents to see an image of your naked body or to undergo the alternative, a thorough manual search, you may have to find another way to travel this holiday season.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is warning that any would-be commercial airline passenger who enters an airport checkpoint and then refuses to undergo the method of inspection designated by TSA will not be allowed to fly and also will not be permitted to simply leave the airport.
That person will have to remain on the premises to be questioned by the TSA and possibly by local law enforcement. Anyone refusing faces fines up to $11,000 and possible arrest.
"Once a person submits to the screening process, they can not just decide to leave that process," says Sari Koshetz, regional TSA spokesperson, based in Miami.
Koshetz said such passengers would be questioned "until it is determined that they don't pose a threat" to the public.
Palm Beach Sheriff's Office spokesperson Teri Barbera said PBSO deputies stationed at the airport would become involved when requested by the TSA.
"We will handle each incident on a case-by-case basis," she said.
No one will be forcibly searched or arrested "just because they refuse to go through the security procedures," Barbera said. "That may rise to the level of suspicious behavior for the TSA, but it wouldn't rise to the level of suspicious behavior for a deputy," she said.
But Barbera said that if a person is judged to be a possible threat, deputies are legally permitted to detain and search that individual. "The deputies will do it at the airport just as they would do it anywhere else," she said.
Once cleared by the TSA and deputies, the people will be allowed to leave, she said.
Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union was urging Americans to petition the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the TSA, to change the new policies.
"All of us have a right to travel without such crude invasions of our privacy," the ACLU said in a statement. "Tell DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to put in place security measures that respect passengers' privacy rights. You shouldn't have to check your rights when you check your luggage."
The ACLU outlined ways for citizens to respond to TSA demands at checkpoints and also provided a form letter for filing complaints.
But the TSA stuck to its guns. Testifying before Congress Wednesday, TSA Administrator John S. Pistole said inspectors at the nation's airports would enforce the new policies despite complaints that the search methods are too invasive.
"We have to ensure that each person getting on every flight is secure," Pistole said.
Asked by U.S. Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) about groups that objected to all forms of bodily search on religious grounds, Pistole didn't waiver: "While we respect that person's beliefs, that person's not going to get on an airplane."
In March, the TSA introduced AIT scanners -- also known as "nude body" or "whole body' scanners -- and now uses them in more than 60 airports, including South Florida airports: Six each at Palm Beach International and Miami International and 10 at Hollywood- Fort Lauderdale.
The machines project a black and white image of a passenger's naked body to a screen in a separate, private room where it is studied by a TSA agent.
No face is visible and the agent never sees the person being scanned.
TSA officials say the new technology is necessary because it detects not just metal but other potentially dangerous materials, including plastic explosives.
Koshetz said the TSA goal is for as many passengers as possible to pass through the AIT machines, rather than the less revealing traditional metal detectors.
A recent CBS poll found that 81 percent of people questioned did not object to the AIT system. But some do and an online group called National Opt-Out Day is encouraging passengers to refuse the AIT screening on Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving, which would force TSA to perform many more manual searches and probably cause long delays.
They may be letting themselves in for more than they expect. A policy enacted in the past month allows agents to perform manual searches of passengers, including their private areas, which are much more invasive than the back-of-the-hand technique most often used in the past. Some critics have referred to the technique as "groping."
One critic of the TSA is Jon Corbett, 26, of Miami Beach, who this week requested that a U.S. District Court judge in Miami grant an injunction to block the new security methods. Corbett said he plans to fly to New York Thanksgiving Day and had hopes the court would respond before that.
"But I'm not sure that will happen," he said.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/sfl-airport-scans-pat-downs-re...
-
AdminPermalink Reply by Prodigal Son on -
Elderly woman asked to remove adult diaper during TSA search
"A woman has filed a complaint with federal authorities over how her elderly mother was treated at Northwest Florida Regional Airport last weekend.
Jean Weber of Destin filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security after her 95-year-old mother was detained and extensively searched last Saturday while trying to board a plane to fly to Michigan to be with family members during the final stages of her battle with leukemia.
Her mother, who was in a wheelchair, was asked to remove an adult diaper in order to complete a pat-down search.
“It’s something I couldn’t imagine happening on American soil,” Weber said Friday. “Here is my mother, 95 years old, 105 pounds, barely able to stand, and then this.”
Sari Koshetz, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration in Miami, said she could not comment on specific cases to protect the privacy of those involved.
“The TSA works with passengers to resolve any security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner,” she said."
full article: http://www.newsherald.com/news/mother-94767-search-adult.html
-
AdminPermalink Reply by Bean on -
“The TSA works with passengers to resolve any security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner,” she said, failing to note the definitions of respectful and sensitive have been changed to arrogance and lack of compassion.. freedom is slavery.
95 and dying, American.. and it's doubtful she had a rap sheet of priors to warrant any suspicion.. especially since Michigan is such a known hot target (?)
would anyone, even people who are only barely in their right minds, think to do such a thing to this woman? it just seems like the agents must be told to target elderly invalids.. that way people who aren't malicious will be more afraid, and people who are malicious can just breeze through.. war is peace.
-
AdminPermalink Reply by Sinclair on -
I hate to say it but the airport might really have a security issue if i had to see something like that happen.
-
AdminPermalink Reply by Sinclair on -
" Airport security: You ain't seen nothing yet
Despite 10 years of changes, experts predict a very different future
Some security analysts foresee a bumper crop of futuristic detection methods — from biometrics to electronic fingerprinting to behavioral analysis — and predict smoother, nimbler and less-intrusive airport walkthroughs in the coming years.
Still others envision Big Brother’s even Bigger Brother: chip-embedded passports that someday tell the federal transportation watchdogs all about your daily commutes to work, the mall — even to parties.
Gazing into the future
And then there are experts like Ed Daly who peer into the next two decades of public travel and forecast two possible scenarios — breezy yet virtually bomb-proof security checkpoints or, depending on events yet to come, a far harsher reality that includes a welcome-to-the-airport greeting in the vein of: “Please drop your drawers if you want to get on this plane.”
full article - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44149385/ns/travel-news/#.UJwjqmcf7-8
-
FounderPermalink Reply by Cyprium on -
"TSA ridiculously instructs Disneyland employees to flag "excessive laughter" or "wearing a disguise" as signs of terrorism
(NaturalNews) America's agency of federally approved airport perverts, itchy-finger crotch-grabbers and power trip egomaniacs now has a whole new job: brainwashing the minds of Disneyland employees with its quack science "behavior detection program" to spot terrorists.
"Yes, the Transportation Security Administration's embattled $900 million behavior detection program, called Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques, or SPOT, is not just used at airports. It's also used at theme parks," writes Jana Winter of The Intercept.
"They have plainclothes people at Seaworld and Disney doing the same behavior detection, looking for the same indicators we look for at the airport," a source told The Intercept.
No doubt the TSA also trained Tilikum the killer whale to spot terrorists, too. That's what happened, actually: one day the trainer laughed a little too loud and the killer whale ATE HIM.
Excessive laughter and wearing a disguise are both "suspicious behaviors" at Disney theme parks
The TSA -- which stands for Transportation Security Agency -- is supposed to only be concerned with transportation security, not theme park security. Somehow, the TSA has convinced itself that Disneyland's rides qualify as "transportation." (After all, in the Small World ride, you're in a boat, right?) So it has begun teaching Disney's security employees how to identify so-called "suspicious behaviors" which include:
• Excessive laughter
• Wearing a disguise
What this means is that, according to the TSA, Goofy is a terrorist because he exhibits both of these suspicious behaviors...."
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/049394_Disneyland_TSA_behavioral_profili...
© 2024 Created by Cyprium.
Powered by
