TSA scanners - owned by former Chief Chertoff

http://gawker.com/5437499/why-is-michael-chertoff-so-excited-about - full+body-scanners
Heading up the renewed push for those controversial, clothes-penetrating scanners at airports is former homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff. His consulting firm represents companies who make the scanners, but you wouldn't know it from reading the papers.
But when Chertoff launched into his pitch for full-body scanners on Campbell Brown tonight, we learned that he is paid by the very companies who make the penetrating devices
In 2009, Chertoff founded the Chertoff Group, a security consulting agency. The Chertoff Group's client list is unknownChertoff refused to talk about it in an interviewbut he admits in the clip above that some of his clients manufacture full-body scanners.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Reminds me of the Carlyle group trying to ram the Crusader weapons system down the country's throat back in 2002. Primary shaker and mover? Frank Carlucci, former SecDef.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/22/2010 2:21 AM, Robert Green wrote:

Proof that in America you can be anything you want to be, after you have held public office. Everyone else can network via Facebook and My Space and hope to attain the same. :o)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What worries me is all the people in Federal regulatory positions that are eyeing their afterlife out of government service. They might be tempted to "go easy" on companies they hope to land a post-retirement job with.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net wrote:

Greed and fear, the greedy make a lot of money from other's fear.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You forgot gay closet Republican politicians like Larry Craig who are afraid they will give themselves away by giving the TSA gropers a "zipper salute." Why *else* would Republicans demand we back off on such a proven safety technique like patting down your junk?
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green wrote:

"Proven safety technique"? Has this "technique" actually, like, CAUGHT anybody?
In medicine, for example, if you have a test that always returns a negative, there's probably something wrong with the test.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How else would they have amassed the world's largest collection of nail clippers, lighters and pen knives? Every one of those could have been used to bring a plane down if someone got out of the plane and poured them in a jet engine all at once. The TSA does manage to nail nutjobs. And there hasn't been a hijacking since 2001. Who knows why?
In reality, they've confiscated loads of real weapons that were probably not meant to do any evil at 40,000 but that got their owners in some real legal do-do.
LATEST TSA SLOGANS ...
Can't see London, can't see France, not till we see your underpants
If we did our job any better we'd have to buy you dinner
Don't worry, my hands are still warm from the last guy
Wanna fly? Drop your fly
We are now free to move about your pants
It's not a grope, It's a freedom pat
When in doubt, we make you whip it out
You were a virgin?
We handle more packages than UPS....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RobertPatrick wrote:

Yep. Chertoff was a federal appeals court judge and an assistant U.S. Attorney General. He also served as Secretary of Homeland Security. He was one of the main authors of the Patriot Act.
Contrast that with the current Secretary, whose claim to fame was that she was a governor.
Since leaving government service, Chertoff formed a company to advise on security matters.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Americans.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We do try to conduct screening in the most professional manner.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

should respect the wishes and instructions of our nation's leader.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The Supreme Court gets to decide that, should someone make a "federal case" out of this.
My take is that the Constitution only prohibits criminal prosecutions based on Constitution-prohibited searches. Someone I know says that if TSA catches you with the Hope Diamond, or the International Prototype of the Kilogram, or the (now obsolete but valuable) International Prototype of the Meter, they lacked "probable cause" - meaning "constitutionally illegal search" - they are only supposed to search for weapons and threatening objects. So, it appears to me that "according to strict construction", you can get out of criminal prosecution if you don't insist against such item being confiscated for return to rightful owner.
Then again, the Supreme Court could easily rule that widely-broadcast searching techniques are reasonable due to being easily predictable. If you wanna steal the Hope Diamond or the IPK or the IPM, transport it to your "fence" by highway or watercraft. (International border crossings are another matter - USA Constitution does not apply to any foreign country or foreign country flag ship or aircraft on/over "high seas" if you are smuggling out the Hope Diamond. USA Constitution also does not apply to those coming into USA from outside until they get "cleared" by Customs or legally acknowledged to have landed in USA. One thing to note - when flying into USA from Toronto's major airport, passengers must be "cleared" by US Customs before getting on the plane - on the Canada side of the border.
--
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Klipstein wrote:

Assume a legal search takes place, say with a search warrant, and a particular thing is the subject of the search. If, during the search for that particular thing, the law enforcement agent sees another thing which is illegal, that other thing is admissable for a completely separate crime.
For example, suppose the cops have a search warrant for illegal drugs. Further suppose that during the search they find an illegal weapon (maybe a machine gun). The illegal weapon is valid evidence for charging a completely different crime than that originally contemplated.
The 4th Amendment has two separate and distinct applications. The first is a prohibition against "unreasonable" searches. The second is that search warrants be issued only for probable cause. The courts have held that when a search is "reasonable," no warrant is require.
In the T&A search protocol, they are looking for weapons or destructive devices. If, during the search, they find contraband (something illegal on its face) such as drugs, they cannot ignore this new finding, but instead call the real cops.
There was a famous case a little over a year ago where the T&A crowd found almost $5,000 in a flyer's briefcase. They took him aside and vigorously interrogated him for some time as to the source of the cash. He continually demanded to know by what authority they needed to know this information.
Fortunately, the flyer had an audio recorder running and he recorded the entire interrogation. You can listen to it here: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/audio-recording-aclu-client-steve-bierfeldts-detention-and-interrogation-tsa
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

where the cops can stop for a reasonable suspicion that something nasty is going on. When doing so, they can perform a quick surface search (interesting point in this day and age and thread) looking for weapons. Anything they find they can use. Although since this is screening and not bases on a reasonable suspicion, that might not be followed. Overall, there is a long line of cases stretching back to the 70s that says airport searches are legal. In fact this one (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/08/10/0410226.pdf ) says specifically that evidence seized secondary to the search is admissible (the dude had no ID and then tried to get a meth pipe and some stuff through security. Got what he deserved).

some places in the Caribbean (for instance in Nassau since we started going there in the early 80s and Aruba (or was it Curacoa??) we cleared customs and immigration both). This is done more to help the airlines since if you have cleared customs there, they can fly you back home directly East Horsefly, without having to go to an International Airport.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.