Security officials see renewed interest in implanted explosives

Oh boy...

Terrorists intent on striking commercial aircraft have shown renewed interest in surgically implanting explosives or explosive components in humans to conduct attacks, a U.S. security official tells CNN.

The idea of implanting bombs has been discussed in the past, but the United States has obtained fresh intelligence about the desire of terrorists, and there is new intelligence about a possible technique that could be used, according to the official, who declined to elaborate.

Hopefully nothing more will come of this. I have no idea how they'd check for bombs in recently closed surgery wounds.

Full-body scanners, or what the TSA calls "Advanced Imaging Technology," cannot detect items inserted in bodies. But the machines can help screeners detect alterations to body contours, which can be a clue that someone may be concealing a bomb. 

Source.

TSA stands by officers after pat-down of elderly woman in Florida

It's been awhile since I've posted, as I don't abide by the 'post regularly' rule of blogging. I post when I darn well want to. But that said, I couldn't pass this up. The libertarian streak in me, as (relatively) mild as it is, was a bit too offended at this latest story.

(CNN) -- The Transportation Security Administration stood by its security officers Sunday after a Florida woman complained that her cancer-stricken, 95-year-old mother was patted down and forced to remove her adult diaper while going through security.

Reports of the incident took hold in social media, with scores of comments on the topic and reposts appearing hourly on Twitter Sunday afternoon. The TSA released a statement Sunday defending its agents' actions at the Northwest Florida Regional Airport.

"While every person and item must be screened before entering the secure boarding area, TSA works with passengers to resolve security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner," the federal agency said. "We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure."

Emphasis mine.

I think the point that bothers me the most is that this was the 'proper procedure'. Here's the fourth amendment for you, in case you aren't up on your constitutional law:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So where was the probable cause the granted the TSA the right to ask an elderly cancer stricken woman to remove her adult diaper? Was she acting shading? Like she might blow up a plane? Did she look like the type to try to storm the cockpit? Did she have a rap sheet? Was she on a watch list or a do not fly list? Did she have a run in with security before going through the TSA checkpoint?

My suspicion is that the answer to all of those questions is no. The TSA, in its attempt to avoid a 'discrimination' accusation by minorities, has intentionally randomized their searches. This is in blatant violation of our fourth amendment. And having that little old lady remove her adult diaper did absolutely nothing to help secure that plane. There is ample precaution, and then their is blind, illogical procedure. The TSA routinely uses the second one. Someone ought to reign them in.

---

Completely unrelated, my 100th post. :)

TSA Could Ban Flights From Texas If State Passes Anti-Patdown Law

Well, ok. The issue is already passed, and our legislature backed down. Which, honestly, I understand why, as our state is just trying to stay afloat right now with all of the budget issues. From the article:

"The bill clearly states that an agent is exempt from prosecution as long as a constitutionally sanctioned federal law directs them to perform the invasive, indecent groping searches-including touching breasts, sexual organs and buttocks," noted State Representative David Simpson (R-Longview), the bill's author.

"Instead of threatening to shut down flights in Texas, why doesn't the TSA just show us their statutory authority to grope or ogle our private parts?" asked Simpson.

"All that HB 1937 does is require that the TSA abide by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution," Simpson continued. "We aren't even prohibiting the pat-downs, per se. We're just saying you can't go straight to third base. You have to have a reason-you have to have probable cause-before groping someone's sexual organs."

Aside from the face that Representative Simpson doesn't seem to understand what third base is, his heart is in the right place. The random aspect of the pat downs flies right in the face of the fourth amendment to the US constitution, and someone needs to challenge it in court. Contrary to what the DOJ would have you believe, the Supremacy clause isn't relevant in this case. What is relevant is that the TSA policies violate the US Constitution and they are just that, policies. Not law. You are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures without warrant under the fourth amendment, and I have yet to see a single TSA agent with even probable cause, much less a warrant. No, in fact, in their attempt to be 'fair' and random, they fly in the face of the Constitution. Where is the ACLU?

I kind of wish the legislature would have let this play out. There is no way the TSA would have cancelled all flights in and out of Texas. Our economy is way too big for them to actually do that before a major election. It would hurt the national economy and the current administrations facade far too severely. But oh well. We already backed down on threat of an empty, constitutionally ignorant, letter from the DOJ.

As an aside, has anyone heard of a single case (even one) where the pat downs actually caught a bad guy? Because every time I've heard of air terror being thwarted post TSA, it's been the efforts of civilians on the plane, and occasionally US Marshalls. The TSA has nothing to do with it. What have they prevented?