Watch list not so exclusive a club any more

Terror watch list swells to more than 755,000 names

The government's terrorist watch list has swelled to more than 755,000 names, according to a new government report that has raised worries about the list's effectiveness.
The size of the list, typically used to check people entering the country through land border crossings, airports and sea ports, has been growing by 200,000 names a year since 2004. Some lawmakers, security experts and civil rights advocates warn that it will become useless if it includes too many people.

Know what we should do? We should all do something to get on the list. If no one can fly, the airlines take the hit. They might as well watch everyone and keep a list of people not to watch. People would have to pay a huge application fee to get on it, and they could use that money to bail out the airlines. An innovative way to tax the rich.

But they would probably just make a sublist of people to really really watch, and let the others fly. But it'd make a great paperwork bomb, nonetheless. You like the idea of peaceful revolution? Well, there you go.

Be careful not to actually break the law to get on the list. Just start all your phone conversations with the words "Bomb, bomb, bomb" so the line tap switches on.

Are you a replicant...er, a terrorist?

Security firms working on devices to spot would-be terrorists in crowd

Under Project Hostile Intent, scientists will aim to build devices that can pick up tell-tale signs of hostile intent or deception from people's heart rates, perspiration and tiny shifts in facial expressions.

This is uber-cool.

It's also horrifying, but you have to remember I'm a geek, I grew up reading science fiction, and I already know how most of these things turn out no matter which Schrodinger's branch we take: cat alive, or cat dead. Those of us who've read these books live in an ongoing world of simultaneous boredom (yeah, we knew they'd be able to do that), excitement (they can do that already?), and fear (oh, shit, they can do that ALREADY?).

So, yes, I've read books about, and seen (in movies like Minority Report, the film this article references), the different paths of consequence that will stem from the use of this technology. But Minority Report was more about ESP. The film this technology brings most easily to my mind is Bladerunner. A test to tell whether you're a replicant. How about if you're a terrorist? A test to tell whether you harbor seditious thoughts. Whether you disagree with your government, your employer, the law, or the church you've been assigned to. You know...to decide whether you're fit to live.

Dramatic...but then it should be; we're talking about movies. We are...right?

What I am certain they won't be able to do for a long time is to do it accurately, which could mean either that we won't have to worry about it for some time (the less likely scenario), or that they will rush it out there and start merrily misusing it (the more likely scenario).

For my part, I smile and wave hi at security cameras. I'm waiting for the study to come out that explains that terrorists do this, so they can take me down.

Ground Zero articles of interest:

False threat trifecta is complete

Here were the first two:

One
Two

and now, the finish:

Bomb Threat Forces Jet Back To Sea-Tac

Airport police took into custody a man who told a gate agent there was a bomb on the plane shortly after it departed, airport spokeswoman Terri-Ann Betancourt told the Associated Press.

Are we so starved for visual stimulation to accompany a news item that they have to include a slideshow of parked planes and buses on the flight line? I guess we are.

I swear to god I don't think I ever want to see another airport or another plane. I have to fight that aversion, though, because that's what They^TM are trying to accomplish by reporting this non-news: making us want to stay right where we are. Resist! Take a flight.

If you really want to stick it to Them^TM, take a flight on a foreign airline, so they only get some of the money. And if you're smart, you'll stay in whatever country you travel to.

False threat trifecta now in play

I just posted a story about a flight attendant claiming a passenger threatened her in order to get said passenger removed from the plane.

Now there's this story:

AA flight diverted to NY in "misunderstanding"

American Flight 136 from Los Angeles to London made an emergency landing "out of an abundance of caution" at JFK Airport at 2:30 a.m. after a flight attendant identified a suspicious passenger, TSA said. The flight was canceled and passengers were rebooked on other flights.

The "suspicious passenger" was instead: "Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told CNN he had received a report the man in question was an employee who was traveling in a private capacity."

Have we learned nothing from those people who call in bomb threats because they don't want to go to work? I guess we have: it works. Worth the jail time? Well, it wouldn't be to me...unless I, like, REALLY hated my job...no, not worth it.

Next?

Sue, baby, sue

Flight Attendant Boots Gwinnett Mom, Baby From Plane

Video

“As we started taxiing, he started saying ‘Bye, bye plane,’ said Penland. “At the end of her speech, she leaned over the gentleman beside me and said, ‘It’s not funny anymore. You need to shut your baby up.’

[...]“She then said, ‘You know, it’s called baby Benadryl. And I said, 'Well, I'm not going to drug my child so you have a pleasant flight.'

I have no children, so I was unaware of the concept of DRUGGING the little monsters for flights. But yes, it is happening.

Bad enough that parents are asked to -- in some cases, expected to -- drug their children when they attend school, but now you're supposed to drug a TODDLER?

Now, I have certainly doped myself for flight. With prescription medicine, prescribed specifically for me. This is my prerogative.

And it is a parent's decision whether to administer over-the-counter medication to their child. There may be something to be said for giving a child a decongestant for stuffed ears, if one can be given safely. (I don't know whether one can.) Likewise a prescribed calming agent, if a doctor deems it necessary.

But this flight attendant used coercion when she caused the passenger to be removed from the aircraft for having not silenced the child, having implied that the woman was expected to use drugs to do so.

And how did she cause it? By telling the pilot that Penland had threatened her.

If the statement was false, then this, ladies and gentlemen, is a criminal act.

The young mother said she later learned the flight attendant told the pilot that she had threatened her. Penland said that never happened.

The passengers have backed Penland up. They concur that the threat never happened.

Last time I checked -- it was, in fact, just now, right here (.PDF file) -- making false statements concerning threats to aircraft is a CRIME.

15—Threats and false statements
(1) A person shall not threaten, state that it is his intention, or make a statement from
which it could reasonably be inferred that it is his intention, to destroy, damage or
endanger the safety of an aircraft to which this Part applies or to kill or injure all or
any of the persons on board such an aircraft.
(2) A person shall not make a statement or convey information, being a statement or
information that he knows to be false, to the effect, or from which it could reasonably
be inferred, that there has been, is or is to be a plan, proposal, attempt, conspiracy or
threat to—
(a) take or exercise control, by force or violence, of an aircraft to which this Part
applies; or
(b) destroy, damage or endanger the safety of such an aircraft; or
(c) kill or injure all or any of the persons on board such an aircraft.
Penalty: Imprisonment for two years.

(bolds are mine)

The flight attendant took advantage of today's climate of fear and broke the law for her own convenience.

Don't just sue this flight attendant and her employer, Ms. Penland. Demand that criminal charges be brought.

THEN sue her.

Cirque du Terreur

A most intriguing choice of adjectives:

Secret Document: U.S. Fears Terror 'Spectacular' Planned

We've gotten "secret", "fear", "terror" -- all triggers -- along with the jarringly incongruous "spectacular", all in one headline! Cue "Entrance of the Gladiators"!

(Yes, you know "Entrance of the Gladiators." Think "circus". Hear that music? That's it.)

One question: Why has it always got to be about US?

US, the pronoun. Perhaps it's no accident that "United States" is abbreviated that way. When you go to the article (yes, I do suggest you RTFA), look at the some of the Related Articles: "U.S. Told About Glasgow Threat 2 Weeks Ago." "Heavy Weapons Teams at U.S. Airports." "U.S. Reacts to London Bombs."

You know what the U.S. is reacting to London bombs with? Jealousy. The United States thinks it is the most important thing in the universe. How dare the terrorists concentrate on Britain? It can't be because Britain is, like, important or anything. It's got to be a warm-up for attacking US. You guys might have a few exploding cars, but we're going to have a Spectacular Event! One wasn't enough! We need ATTENTION!

Our exploding cars will be full of CLOWNS!

Convenient Shocking terrorist plot foiled

There's not much I can say about this one that isn't being said all over the place right now. But as a blogger, especially a new one, I have to at least toss it up here.

4 charged with terror plot at JFK airport

I'll just encapsulate: Bush's approval ratings low, distraction needed, plot supposedly 16 months under investigation finally acted upon. There ya go.

On the other hand...

...there are some points to be made about all the things happening right now, wham wham wham, school shooting, deadly germs, terrorist attack.

In fact, I could write all day.

While you wait on the edge of your seat for me to do so, read the article below.

Ground Zero articles of interest: