TSA to have DHS to llist and label refusals as Domestic Extremeists

[Bidah]

I saw this, and it seems a little vague.  OTOH, I can see where they would do this too.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30286

DHS & TSA: Making a list, checking it twice
By Doug Hagmann Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Following the publication of my article titled “Gate Rape of America,” I was contacted by a source within the DHS who is troubled by the terminology and content of an internal memo reportedly issued yesterday at the hand of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. Indeed, both the terminology and content contained in the document are troubling. The dissemination of the document itself is restricted by virtue of its classification, which prohibits any manner of public release. While the document cannot be posted or published, the more salient points are revealed here.

The memo, which actually takes the form of an administrative directive, appears to be the product of undated but recent high level meetings between Napolitano, John Pistole, head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA),and one or more of Obama’s national security advisors. This document 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 introductory paragraph of the multi-page document states that it is issued “in response to the growing public backlash against enhanced TSA security screening procedures and the agents conducting the screening process.” Implicit within the same section is that the recently enhanced security screening procedures implemented at U.S. airports, and the measures to be taken in response to the negative public backlash as detailed [in this directive], have the full support of the President. In other words, Obama not only endorses the enhanced security screening, but the measures outlined in this directive to be taken in response to public objections.

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) division of the Department of Homeland Security.

For “any person, group or domestic 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 (as defined above) in response to the enhanced security procedures, the [applicable DHS administrative branch] is instructed to identify and collect information about the persons or entities, and submit such information in the manner outlined [within this directive].

It would appear that the Department of Homeland Security is not only prepared to enforce the enhanced security procedures at airports, but is involved in gathering intelligence about those who don’t. They’re making a list and most certainly will be checking it twice. Meanwhile, legitimate threats to our air travel security (and they DO exist) seem to be taking a back seat to the larger threat of the multitude of non-criminal American citizens who object to having their Constitutional rights violated.


I wonder if they would add you to the list just for asking to get groped?

-Bidah

[kmitch200]

I saw this, and it seems a little vague.  OTOH, I can see where they would do this too.
<snip>
It would appear that the Department of Homeland Security is not only prepared to enforce the enhanced security procedures at airports, but is involved in gathering intelligence about those who don’t. They’re making a list and most certainly will be checking it twice. Meanwhile, legitimate threats to our air travel security (and they DO exist) seem to be taking a back seat to the larger threat of the multitude of non-criminal American citizens who object to having their Constitutional rights violated.

Janet Napolitano as gov of AZ was all in favor of using technology to chip away at citizens rights. As head of DHS she must be like a kid in a candy store. 

[Ichiban]

"Domestic Extremist".... That has a nice ring to it. 

[tombogan03884]

"Domestic Extremist".... That has a nice ring to it. 

Yes it does Kind of like that other bad word "PATRIOT".

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Declaration of Independance

[fightingquaker13]

Sounds like the bad old days of Hoover's FBI. Remember COUNTERINTELPRO? They were sending in not only infiltrators, but agents provocateur into everything from the civil rights movement to the anti-war movement to feminist groups. It was not only wrong, but a waste of resources. The KGB was hardly organizing sit ins at Berley and if they were? Good, better that than doing something that mattered.
Same deal today. We know who the enemy is. I doubt Al-Queda is trying to organize civil disobedience at airports. If they are? Again, good. Let them stay busy with that.
Honestly this is just what happens when cops and politicians get their authority challenged. There can obviously be no legitimate reason for doing so.Those who do must be unpatriotic enemies of the state. I can live with that title.
FQ13

[Sponsor]

[deepwater]

There can obviously be no legitimate reason for doing so.Those who do must be unpatriotic enemies of the state. I can live with that title.
FQ13

how's that?  
actually, most of these people that are complaining and voicing their outrage against the gov for violating their rights probably don't consider themselves 'patriots' but 'citizens' that are being screwed over. I prefer to be signaled out for being a patriot though.    

deepwater

[tombogan03884]

FQ, the current political climate in America tends to prove that Hoover ,and McCarthy were correct in their claims of communist infiltration of America. COINTELPRO and HUAC are programs we should in fact bring back. Starting with the Democratic party and the MSM.
After that we should proceed to the NEA.

[fightingquaker13]

We've argued about this before Tom. Honestly, I don't think it was communists that pissed off J. Edgar Hoover. I think what pissed him off was anybody who challenged his authority. I think he regarded the Constitution the same way Rockefeller regarded compettition and the free market. Same deal applies today. Bureacrats get tetchy when you tell them no.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

FQ, There really is no legal or Constitutional prohibition against the FBI reading your mail.
The SCOTUS decisions about cell phone monitoring and tracking devices are based on "expectation of privacy".
The way I understand it, wire taps and hidden mics need a warrant, because inside your home or with a direct wire connection on a single party line you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but when, as with Cell or radio communications, you are simply broadcasting on a common channel, that expectation goes away.
While the Constitution does guarantee your right to be "Secure in your person and papers" , that applies to the ones in your house, not so much to ones you drop in a box on some street corner, or leave in a box on the edge of the road.
Careful study would show that despite what people commonly think, while a "Democracy" may not have many options to protect itself from the type of subversion that has afflicted us, the Constitutional Republic We were intended to be does have the ability and authority to neutralize those who wish to destroy it.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

[fightingquaker13]

True. But I still maintain that it doesn't give the government carte blanche to what it wants to save us from ourselves either. If we all had to fly naked and every piece of checked baggage had to be sifted through we'd be safer. I don't want to go there. There is a point where you tell the Doctor, "Thanks, but I'll still eat a cheeseburger" and the government "Thanks for your concern, but its not your business".
FQ13