bush: "Please touch my junk" Obama: "No Touch!!"

Pitt should do his homework. The underwear bomber wouldn't have been detected with these silly ass, peek-a-boo scanners...

I didn't read his whole article, only around half of it, but that was enough to see that he's not credible. He has some serious reading to do before being able to be justly considered to have a real opinion on this airport, TSA security topic of the so-called "war on terrorism".

Based on what I've read about airport security systems experts and/or what I heard one or two of them state in a video-recorded report, possibly with CBC.ca, which has done at least a full one-hour segment on this topic, airport security is the pits, botched, extremely faulty. The article by Stephen Lendman further below cites federal security officials saying that the screening fails most tests, by far most of them, 20 of 22 tests! And that's for guns and bombs, both.

And the US "authorities" knew about the "underwear bomber", having even been warned by his father a month or two beforehand. And it was found that the guy, the underwear bomber guy, didn't know how to handle explosives. He couldn't even trigger the explosive that he was purportedly carrying in his underwear.

And a lot of [false] terrorism alerts have been fabricated by the government (US) for many years now. The or a former head of I believe DHS gave his account about this, saying that he admits that he knew the alerts were bogus, but he followed the orders from the Bush administration for issuing them.

Look for articles about the "underwear bomber" at www.globalresearch.ca and give what you read there about this very careful consideration. People need to understand that most, if not all, terrorism alerts issued by the government have been bs and that 9/11 did not happen as the fabricated "official story" was designed to try to fool us into believing. And when people the State Department has listed as members of terrorist groups enter the US, then it's [often] because this is [facilitated] by the US State Department, CIA, and possibly FBI (f.e., see videos with Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and Mike/Michael Springman, sometimes spelled Springmann).

Another thing about the TSA screening is that TSA workers recently unionized and they're opposing what they're ordered to do, at least when they have to do body searches, in which case there's an issue of hygiene, because they don't change gloves, using the same and unsterilized gloves to search every person put through the body search. I just learned about that either yesterday or the day before, but don't recall which article or Web site had this.

N.J. wanted to stop the TSA screening, or aspects of the "war on terrorism" part of it anyway, and I'm not sure if this is the "x-ray" sort of screening, scanning, or the gloves, or both, but the government of N.J. was then addressed by the federal government and I'm not sure what's come of this.

Here's one article about the gloves.

"Spreadin' the glove: TSA infecting U.S.?"
WorldNetDaily, Nov. 22nd, 2010

www.sott.net/articles/show/218381-Spreadin-the-glove-TSA-infecting-U-S-

Latex coverings 'have been in crotches, armpits, touching people who may be ill'

Those latex gloves Transportation Security Administration agents wear while giving airline passengers those infamous full-body pat-downs apparently aren't there for the safety and security of passengers - only the TSA agents.

That's the word being discussed on dozens of online forums and postings after it was noted that the agents wear the same gloves to pat down dozens, perhaps hundreds, of passengers, not changing them even though the Centers for Disease Control in its online writings has emphasized the important of clean hands to prevent the exchange of loathsome afflictions.

(snip)

In fact, TSA officials in both national and regional offices declined to respond to WND inquiries about the policy for changing gloves to prevent an infection that may be on the clothes or body of one passenger during a pat-down by TSA agents from being transmitted to other passengers, including children, in line.

(snip)

Asked today about the possibility of contamination being spread from one passenger to another on the gloves of TSA agents, a spokesman for the CDC bailed.

"Please contact the Dept of Homeland Security and/or TSA on this issue," the spokesman told WND.

But in its online writings, the CDC repeatedly makes clear the importance of maintaining clean hands to avoid such transmission of communicable and contagious afflictions.

(snip)

Other health standards across the country routinely warn against hand contact with sores, lesions or other sources of viruses or contamination. The Lincoln, Neb., health site notes, "This includes hand contact."

Officials at the Canadian Center for Occupational Health noted that "hand washing is the single most effective way to prevent the spread of infections.

(snip)

On a TSA blog promoting the agency's actions and policies, one screener explained, "Changing gloves is fairly simple ... . When I gate screen I carry about 10-12 pairs in my pockets."

Respondents to the comment were outraged, "That's just plain disgusting and most certainly not acceptable ... procedures as set forth by the CDC for usage of gloves for protection," said one. "Reasoning being is that the bacteria count in your pockets is about the same is your mouth or armpit."

(snip)

I didn't find any articles about the TSA's use of gloves at any Web sites I'm familiar with, but removed the word "gloves" from the search and then checked uruknet.info for articles of this month. The following are some of them.

"Enhanced Airport Screening Controvery"
by Stephen Lendman, Nov. 26th, 2010

www.uruknet.info/?p=m72222

On November 23, Washington Post writers Jon Cohen and Ashley Halsey III headlined, "Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners," according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, even though "half of those polled say enhanced pat-down searches go too far."

A new Zogby (11/19 - 22) poll disagreed, saying:

At 61% opposed, "(i)t's clear (most) Americans are not happy with TSA and their enhanced security measures recently enacted. The airlines should not be happy with 48% of their frequent fliers seeking a different mode of transportation due to these enhancements."

Neither should passengers facing molestation and harm to their health. More on that below.

(snip)

Screening Fails the Test

An October 28, 2006 Ron Marsico Newhouse News Service article headlined, "Airport screeners fail to see most test bombs," saying:

'Screeners at Newark Liberty International Airport...failed 20 of 22 security tests conducted by undercover US agents last week, missing concealed bombs and guns at checkpoints throughout the major air hub's three terminals, according to federal security officials."

(snip)

A November 11, 2010 published report by the Airline Pilots Security Alliance headlined "The Truth about Airline Security - from the Pilots Themselves," saying:

Post-9/11, despite elaborate airport procedures, FAA tests showed "airport screeners failed to detect deliberately hidden weapons from 66% - 95% of the time, (and) new independent government reports confirm screening failures....just as high....for both weapons and explosives."

... As a result, "screening weaknesses make the system very easy to deliberately exploit."

In fact, besides being a health hazard (discussed below), it's useless and unnecessary. So-called bomb plots are fake. (my emphasis) Remember past ones, including a fake shoe bomber, a fake underwear bomber, a fake Times Square bomber, an earlier fake one there, fake shampoo bombers, a fake Al Qaeda woman planning fake attacks on New York landmarks, fake 9/11 bombers, and others in a fake democracy with fake elections and fake public servants. Now intrusive airport screening for fake security and corporate profits. More on that below.

America's war on terror was fabricated to incite fear. It's a bogus scheme to facilitate America's imperial agenda, including global wars, homeland repression, ....

(snip)

Lies, Damn Lies, and Government Pronouncements

So far, Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) systems operate at America's 68 largest airports, passengers opting out subjected to humiliating pat-downs. Those refusing both procedures won't fly. However, they'll be harassed, interrogated, possibly arrested, and fined up to $11,000 - for lawfully demanding their rights.

Yet Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano calls screening procedures effective for public safety, saying:

(snip)

She also calls AIT machines (Advanced Imaging Technology) "safe, efficient, as well as strengthen newcomer privacy. They have been exclusively evaluated by (the FDA,) a National Institute of Standards as well as Technology (and) a Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, who have all endorsed their safety."

False again, according to Johns Hopkins Lab spokeswoman Helen Worth, telling CNN: "That was not our role. We measured the level of radiation, which was then evaluated by the TSA."

Dr. Michael Love, head of an x-ray lab for the biophysics and biophysical chemistry department at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine exposed another lie about safety. On November 12, AFP quoted him saying:

"They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these x-rays. No exposure to x-ray is considered beneficial. We know (they're) hazardous but we have a situation at airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner."

Scientists at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) also raised concerns about "potential serious health risks." ....

(snip)

All travelers are at risk, especially pregnant women, their fetuses, young children, cancer patients, HIV-positive flyers, and anyone over 65. ...

(snip)

New Jersey and Idaho legislators also want enhanced screening banned. So do New York City ones, wanting them out of JFK and LaGuardia Airports. ...

(snip)

More at issue: why have what's intrusive, harmful, unneeded, and destructive of civil liberty protections! ...

A Final Comment

(snip)

The last part of the article is about RACKET. He uses Michael Chertoff as example. It's "big money". And he says that the major billionaire George Soros is in on this profit "game".

Stephen Lendman refers to part of a book by James Ridgeway on unanswered questions about 9/11, a part regarding "homeland security", or TSA, specifically, and the following is an article by him.

"Is TSA Spreading Cancer?
Invasion of the Body Scanners"

by James Ridgeway, CounterPunch.org, Nov. 24th, 2010

www.uruknet.info/?p=m72149

On the eve of some of the busiest travel days of the year, airport scanners are causing hysteria – and with good reason. Never mind the puerile TSA screeners giggling at your naked body. It turns out that the things may pose serious health concerns. In a letter to John Pistole, administrator of TSA, New Jersey Congressman Rush Holt, a scientist and the Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, raised the possibility that the machines might be carcinogenic.

"In March, the Congressional Biomedical Caucus (of which I am a co-chair) hosted a presentation on this technology by TSA, as well as a briefing by Dr. David Brenner of Columbia University on the potential health effects of "back scatter" x-ray devices. As Dr. Brenner noted in his presentation and in subsequent media interviews, the devices currently in use and proposed for wider deployment this year currently deliver to the scalp "20 times the average dose that is typically quoted by TSA and throughout the industry.""

"Dr. Brenner has pointed out that the majority of the radiation from X-ray backscatter machines strikes the top of the head, which is where 85 percent of the 800,000 cases of basal cell carcinoma diagnosed in the United States each year develop. According to Dr. Brenner, excessive x-ray exposure can act as a cancer rate multiplier, which is why our government should investigate thoroughly the potential health risks associated with this technology."

(snip)

Holt also questioned the efficacy of the body scanners, which would come as no surprise to critics who’ve been lambasting them for years. Last January, when the government’s appetite for body scanners got a big boost from the underwear bomber, there was skepticism about their ability to detect the types of explosives favored by would-be airline bombers. ...

(snip)

In my opinion, the best answer to airport security is the mass deployment of dogs. Give me a friendly German Shepherd, and I’ll gladly submit to being sniffed, rather than patted, wanded, or scanned. But unlike the scanner companies, dogs have no powerful lobbyists, like former Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, to advocate on their behalf.

James Ridgeway edits the Unsilent Generation. (linked)

READ Stephen Lendman's article and definitely read the whole of James Ridgeways, which will knock and rock'ya.

James Ridgeway refers to a CBC program about airport security and which aired in Fall 2009. It's probably, "Riding on Risk", which was originally aired on CBC's The Fifth Estate program on Sept. 25th, 2009, but which apparently is viewable online. There's a "Watch full episode" link, as well as links of clips for several interviews in the episode.

www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/riding_on_risk

"Government yells "Terrorism" to justify TSA procedures"

by Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com, Nov. 24th, 2010

www.uruknet.info/?p=m72165

I'll excerpt little from this good article in order to keep this post from getting too long.

(snip)

This is the all-justifying, cure-all solution for every problem: government officials run to the nearest media outlet they can find and anonymously scream "TERRORISM." No evidence is needed; the anonymity precludes all accountability; fear levels are quickly ratcheted up; and everything the Government wants to do then becomes justifiable in its name. That's the frightened, authoritarian society we've allowed ourselves to become. Speaking of journalists who dutifully disseminate whatever fear-mongering claims their anonymous government friends tell them to write . . . .

(snip)

William Rivers Pitt plenty of [serious] reading to do.