Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Security Transportation United States News

TSA Got Everything It Wanted For Christmas 338

Posted by timothy
from the nothing-to-hide-enjoy-the-massage dept.
OverTheGeicoE writes "It looks like Congress' recent jabs at TSA were just posturing after all. Last Friday, President Obama signed a spending act passed by both houses of Congress. The act gives TSA a $7.85 billion budget increase for 2012 and includes funding for 12 additional multi-modal Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams and 140 new behavior detection officers. It even includes funding for 250 shiny new body scanners, which was originally cut from the funding bill last May."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TSA Got Everything It Wanted For Christmas

Comments Filter:
  • Well, (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Samantha Wright (1324923) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @05:45PM (#38531424) Homepage Journal
    damn.

    Can we just... start over?
    • Re:Well, (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ClintJCL (264898) <clintjcl+slashdotNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday December 29, 2011 @05:48PM (#38531474) Homepage Journal
      Yes. Revolution is an extension of evolution.
      • by Gription (1006467)
        You have now been marked for elimination.
        (resistance is futile!)
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Revolution is a word tossed around by wannabe anarchists who make a show of desiring change but lack the commitment to actually enable any change. It's hip, it's fashionable, and it's anti-establishment so people feel empowered by endorsing revolution.

        Moving towards the less mature arenas, on college campuses you see people promoting revolution and hinting at violence as a component of it. It's another false sense of empowerment; the idea that violence can create real and permanent change is mostly untrue i

        • Re:Well, (Score:5, Insightful)

          by RoknrolZombie (2504888) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @07:37PM (#38532916)
          No big surprise that you posted this as AC...don't want to claim your own opinions? Revolution is necessary in a large number of situations - generally speaking, when all other avenues have been exhausted. The United States is not - YET - at that point, however (as many) I'm seeing the same trends happening around the world and, let's face it, the United States is not full of leaders. We are not, as you say, "stuck" with what we have. We have had (and continue to have) opportunity to effect positive change. We also have probably the worst case of National Apathy that I've seen in a long time. When people get pissed off ENOUGH, then the Apathy will go away out of necessity. I see this playing out in one of three different ways (there may be more, lists are for goobers): 1) Citizens pull their heads out of their asses, get educated, and start participating in effecting positive change. That needs to happen before: 2) The Government manages to strip the last of our remaining rights away. If #1 doesn't happen, then #2 certainly will. As soon as people wake the fuck up, then we can expect to see: 3) People rebelling against the government that treats them as a consumable to be bought, sold, and abused as They see fit. I can't say that there will or won't be a revolution, but I will say that it's likely to help things more than hinder them (in the long run)
        • Re:Well, (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ClintJCL (264898) <clintjcl+slashdotNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday December 29, 2011 @08:44PM (#38533760) Homepage Journal
          "the idea that violence can create real and permanent change is mostly untrue in modern times in the Western world" Yup. Nothing violent has created any permanent changes in the world. That's why there's no wars or terrorist attacks.
        • Re:Well, (Score:5, Insightful)

          by msobkow (48369) on Friday December 30, 2011 @02:51AM (#38536078) Homepage Journal

          George Orwell was an optimist.

          The fact that the people of the United States not only tolerate but encourage chicken little security theatre over respecting their own Constitutional rights is a sad testament to a people who've forgotten who they were before 9/11.

          Who've they stopped so far? An underwear bomber whose bomb wouldn't go off. Some guy with a car dealership who was theoretically contacted and working for an unbelievably incompetent and mismanaged foreign nation's security forces.

          Yet they didn't stop the homegrown terrorism of that fellow who shot and killed a half dozen people or so recently. They haven't stopped the terrorism of gangs that control entire cities. They haven't leashed the horrors of oxycadone addiction in the general population. People in Iraq are still being blown up by crazed lunatics who fantasize of being rewarded by their God for murder and suicide. The Afghanistan conflict shows no signs of ending soon.

          What, precisely, have the American people gained by giving up their right to be protected from unlawful searches and seizures? Even the Nazis only asked for papers at checkpoints; the police can harass you anytime, anywhere in the states to identify yourself and explain why you're where you are, and no one says boo about it.

          How sad to see a nation fall prey to the manipulation of those who instill fear and distrust of a vaguely identified "other" to justify their abuses of the rights of the people.

        • by 7-Vodka (195504)

          It's better to use one's time and money to make corrective measures to the existing system.

          What corrections? The system is working just fine for the people with money. The best estimate of the Rothchild family wealth is at $21 Trillion. They're just one of the players.

          Yes, your life IS a game of monopoly with funny money and someone else already owned all the squares on the board when you joined the game (including the police station, the square you pass to start again and the printing press that prints all the cards with the rules on them. Good luck!

    • Re:Well, (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 29, 2011 @05:51PM (#38531516)

      But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

      Just sayin'.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Not likely to work. The culture of fear has taken hold. People want the comfort of being taken care of.

      • Re:Well, (Score:5, Insightful)

        by lightknight (213164) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @07:00PM (#38532486) Homepage

        That is what I thought. However, recent evidence points to the obvious problem -> people become used to the current level of fear. Which means you are either in a race to continuously pop out a larger and stronger crisis, or you have to pull back for a bit. Right now, people are losing their life savings -> in the end, the people upstairs have ensured that the people downstairs have *nothing* to lose.

        And people enjoy comfort only so long as it doesn't chafe their freedoms. So, you get a few years out of the trade before people want to switch back. Why? Because after the trade, the comfort slowly gets cut back. Happens every time. The thinking of the people here seems to be one of "I'll have them trade their freedom for comfort, then I'll bolt the door, and take back the comfort. Win! Win! Win!" when reality dictates that removing their comfort, at the point, tends to sober them up. Then you're stuck in the room with someone who is pissed at you, and again, has nothing to lose.

        What I see now, going on with the global economy / politics, is something out of a video game -> FF7, to be exact. The {new} people {currently} in charge have decided to control through 'fear,' instead of money, because they think it's cheaper and just as effective. They are obviously too lazy / stupid to have read a history book, to realize how many other people throughout history have attempted the same, succeeded, then were found murdered in their beds. Yes, people will try to kill you whether you are a good or evil person, no, you do not need to provide them with additional reasons to come after you.

    • It's starting to feel like that's the only way.
    • Re:Well, (Score:4, Insightful)

      by smelch (1988698) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @06:01PM (#38531706)
      Sadly, I'm not sure that starting over is a great idea. Have you seen the majority of people in the states? I wouldn't trust them to rebuild after a revolution. I think we should just split up the US in to 2 - 4 sections and let them progress in their own ways.
      • Re:Well, (Score:5, Funny)

        by ArsonSmith (13997) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @06:06PM (#38531778) Journal

        better yet, lets have it split into 50 sections then have a small union bound by a written document with very explicitly limited powers to keep them together and playing nice.

        • That sounds awfully like it's been tried at least twice...

          • Re:Well, (Score:5, Informative)

            by toriver (11308) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @06:23PM (#38531990)

            You guys are way behind: The French are already on their fifth republic...

        • by smelch (1988698)
          I think it'd be better to not have anything binding them to playing nice, it apparently leads to them playing too nice and forming a conglomerate/monopoly and acting the exact same way. If anything, we should have a document making them play dirty with each other.
    • Re:Well, (Score:4, Interesting)

      by waveclaw (43274) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @07:50PM (#38533094) Homepage Journal

      $7.8 billion

      Think of the science NASA could do with that cash being wasted to frisk old people for their pill bottles!

      Or, if you're one of the NASA haters, think of all the children who won't get an adequate education/vacination/lunch/foodstamps for that money.

      But damn tootin' if one of them grandmas thinks she can pass off a bottle of Midol, our Skies Are Safe(tm)*

      * (For values of safe equal to We Covered Our Butts come election time. Deal not available in major markets, near large cities or in New York state. Remember: you only need to give up a little freedom or the terrorists win. Vote TSA again, next election.)

  • by ToiletBomber (2269914) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @05:46PM (#38531438)
    ...to welcome our new freeway groin-grabbing, tit-feeling overlords.
  • Meet the new boss (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cosm (1072588) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (3msoceht)> on Thursday December 29, 2011 @05:48PM (#38531462)
    ...same as the old...oh fuck it. I'm starting my own country in Antarctica. This place is burning.
  • by Yvanhoe (564877) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @05:49PM (#38531476) Journal
    All of that because one democrat Senator died at the wrong time...

    Damn.
    • Re:How ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BobZee1 (1065450) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @05:52PM (#38531550) Journal
      I thought Barack Obama was a democrat.
    • by cosm (1072588)

      All of that because one democrat Senator died at the wrong time... Damn.

      Even if that one senator had lived, congress/senate/executive office would still get to win more douchery eventually. All of that because the house, senate, and executive office is still alive and dicking, takin' our internets and grabbin our crotches. Give it 30 years and hopefully the next batch of politicos will be....nevermind.

      I'll just go long on Brawndo stock.

    • Parties? Plural? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @05:57PM (#38531636)
      When did the difference between Democrats and Republicans amount to anything more than a distraction? We have a one-party system, except that the one party happens to be somewhat divide on minor issues like gay marriage and abortion rights. People are easily distracted, which is how these crooks get away with so many abuses of power.
      • by artor3 (1344997) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @06:25PM (#38532014)

        One party fought for public option health care. They fought for increased taxes on those who can afford it, rather than insisting that taxes only ever go down. They fought against the enormous and expensive blunder that was the Iraq war. They fought against allowing unlimited corporate money to influence politics. They fought against torture. They fought against teaching creationism in school. And despite your hand-waving dismissal, they fought for the rights of gays and women, who probably don't view themselves as minor issues. And that's just off the top of my head.

        Saying the parties are the same is just the excuse of the lazy, trying to rationalize why they don't bother voting.

        • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @06:42PM (#38532268)
          Really? The democrats fought against the Iraq war? That explains the bipartisan support for the war in 2003. Healthcare would have been a good move...except that we do not have it, and a democratic majority failed to delivery it. Corporations wield just as much power over congress today as they did during the Bush and Clinton presidencies.

          They fought against torture

          While failing to fight against the prison-industrial complex, and while fighting for NDAA.

          despite your hand-waving dismissal, they fought for the rights of gays and women, who probably don't view themselves as minor issues

          Sorry, but gay marriage is a pretty minor issue by comparison with the other problems facing this country. What do you consider to be more important, allowing people to marry members of the same sex, or not being the world leader in imprisoning people? When we stop having law enforcement officers that carry M-16s on a day-to-day basis, maybe gay marriage will move up a notch.

          While you were busy cheering for the democrats pulling our troops out of Iraq (after nearly a decade spent in Iraq, and the approval of the democrats for the invasion in the first place), they were busy establishing more surveillance, more law enforcement power, more curtailments of your rights, more hand-outs for large corporations, more union busting policies, more censorship, and more imprisonment -- just like the republicans. It was not a republican president whose drug czar interfered in popular TV show scripts for the purpose of spreading propaganda.

          Yeah, I see what you mean about them being different from the republicans. After all, the republicans try appealing to the religious sentiments of middle America, while the democrats only use racial prejudice and fear. Republicans overtly support big business, while the democrats quietly support big business. As someone with liberal leanings, I guess it is clear that I should stop voting third party and start voting for the democrats, right?

          • Re:Parties? Plural? (Score:5, Informative)

            by artor3 (1344997) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @07:02PM (#38532506)

            On the Iraq war: Democrats were opposed 126-82, Republicans in favor 215-6. If Democrats had controlled congress, it would never have happened.

            On public option healthcare: It was filibustered to death. It had support of 100% of Senate Democrats, but was opposed by 40 Senate Republicans plus Lieberman, who is an independent. One more Democrat in the Senate, and it would have passed.

            On torture and the prison-industrial complex: They fought against torture. The fact that they didn't do some other good thing does not erase the good thing that they did do.

            On gays and women (and immigrants and Muslims, for that matter): When a large segment of the population is used as a political punching bag and denied basic rights and control over their lives, that IS a big deal. It's not like the government can only do one thing at a time, and we must solve one problem before moving on to another. We can help millions of people right now, but it seems you'd rather let them suffer because you can't get some other things you want first.

            On unions: You accuse them of union busting. That's just shocking. They fought for EFCA, but it was filibustered to death by the Republicans. Also I seem to recall some Democrats fighting like hell in Wisconsin to protect the unions, only for the Republican governor to circumvent the law and pass his union busting bill illegally, and then have a Republican state supreme court judge give it the okay.

            The Republicans are out to break your spirits. They want you to give up on the Democrats so that they can take power. That's been their goal for years, and it's perfectly clear to anyone paying attention. Stop falling for it.

            • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @07:30PM (#38532830)

              On the Iraq war: Democrats were opposed 126-82

              That does not sound very united to me. Suppose the democrats had a simple majority in congress; if they are 3-2 against the war, what makes you think the measure would not pass? They would need a pretty significant majority in congress for 3/5 of the democrats to prevent us from going to war in Iraq, although maybe my ability to multiply and add fractions is on the fritz.

              They fought against torture

              So the fact that the Chinese do not even come close to imprisoning as many of their citizens as we do means nothing, because we are nice about imprisoning people. Additionally, the Democrats have only expressed opposition to waterboarding, but not to other forms of torture used in our prison system:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitary_confinement [wikipedia.org]
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_therapy [wikipedia.org]

              When a large segment of the population is used as a political punching bag and denied basic rights and control over their lives, that IS a big deal

              Gays are not denied their rights anymore, and neither are women (??). The last, very minor right that gays were denied was the right to express who they are attracted to while they are serving in the military -- hardly a big deal issue, and hardly one that justifies voting for democrats. What rights are women currently being denied by the government, and what are your beloved democrats doing about it?

              We can help millions of people right now, but it seems you'd rather let them suffer because you can't get some other things you want first.

              Gay marriage is a nice concept if you are a romantic, but I am not going to vote for people who support gay marriage while simultaneously supporting the war on drugs, the militarization of the police, the military industrial complex, and the prison industrial complex, when I could vote for someone else. Some issues are minor, and some are not minor, and gay marriage falls squarely in the "minor" category. It is not that it is not something worth addressing, but given the choice between living in a country where gays can marry each other an the police drive around in tanks (see link) and a country where people can only marry members of the opposite sex but the police are not a paramilitary force, I choose the country without gay marriage.

              http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41912754/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/why-do-americas-police-need-armored-tank/ [msn.com]

              Also I seem to recall some Democrats fighting like hell in Wisconsin to protect the unions

              Meanwhile, in New York State, Andrew Cuomo pushes hard to break the unions:

              http://nyceducator.com/2011/11/governor-one-percent-discreetly-pulls.html [nyceducator.com]

              ...just like his democrat predecessor:

              http://nyceducator.com/2005/12/dear-attorney-general-spitzer.html [nyceducator.com]

              Stop falling for it.

              I am not the one claiming that gay marriage is important enough to outweigh the support among democrats for the various fascist domestic policies that they have been pushing.

              • by artor3 (1344997) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @09:01PM (#38533926)

                On the Iraq war vote: Yes, the mixed numbers make it so that they'd need a large majority (~80% if my math is right) to stop the war. Honestly, given how bad Republicans have been for the country, the Dems ought to have that many. Or better still, have the Dems have half of Congress with a new party to their left controlling the other half, so that the American left is no longer to the right of most country's conservatives. But that's a pipe dream. The fact is, the statement that the parties are the same is false.

                On torture: I've never said that the amount of prison time handed out in this country is okay. But the claim being discussed is: "The parties are the same." One party actively supports torturing people, the other doesn't. That strikes me as a difference.

                On gays and women: Gays in many places can't visit loved ones in the hospital, or adopt children, and only thanks to the Democrats can they serve in the military. Women can have abortions, for now, but the Republicans are curtailing that right at every step of the way, and if a liberal Justice has a heart attack while a Republican is in the White House, that can change in a jiffy. Tell a 16 year old girl who just had her entire life screwed up over one mistake, all because the government is kowtowing to a religious group, that her rights aren't being denied by the government, then get back to me.

                On unions: I'm aware of what Cuomo is doing... my dad is an affected union member (and, ironically, a Republican). I don't like it, but what he's doing isn't union busting. He is a tough negotiator with PEF, but there's a world of difference between taking a hardline stance in negotiations and taking away your opponent's right to negotiate at all.

                On overall approach to politics: You have strong morals and are fighting for what you want. I get that. I don't like the war on drugs (along with its militarization of the police force) any more than you do. But if you want to see this country get better, you can't keep wasting votes on third parties. Vote for Democrats, primary for liberals, and drag the Overton window back to the left. The reason the conservatives have been able to do so much harm is because they understand that sometimes you need to hold your nose and vote in lockstep.

                You're never going to hit that home run to fix the country all at once. You have to learn to play small ball. It took decades to create this mess, and it'll take decades to work our way out.

        • by BoberFett (127537)

          Do you really believe what you just wrote? The party you're referring to did nothing of the sort, they were complicit in everything the other party did.

        • Re:Parties? Plural? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Bob9113 (14996) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @07:51PM (#38533102) Homepage

          One party fought for public option health care.

          Not very hard, and what they passed instead is a bloated taxpayer funding of giant lobbyists (insurance and pharma).

          They fought for increased taxes on those who can afford it,

          Not very hard, they have one house and the Presidency, and they gave in.

          rather than insisting that taxes only ever go down.

          Not very hard. In fact, they pushed for some of the tax cuts.

          They fought against the enormous and expensive blunder that was the Iraq war.

          Not very hard. They signed the paper that gave Bush and the Neocons the authority to do whatever they damned well pleased. Obama even started some new policies, like summary execution of United States citizens.

          They fought against allowing unlimited corporate money to influence politics.

          Not very hard. They said they were fighting for it, but when Citizens United went through the Supremes, they threw up there hands in surrender.

          They fought against torture.

          Not very hard. We're still doing it.

          They fought against teaching creationism in school.

          This is one of the theatrical wedge issues. Notice how, for all the stage presence they demonstrate in the fight, no actual policy changes have happened?

          they fought for the rights of gays and women

          This is also a theatrical wedge issue. The only slight difference is that public opinion fell heavily on the "change the military policy" side, so one tiny corner of gay policy got changed. Until gays have they same rights as non-gay citizens, they are still not showing true support. How many of them are fully invested in truly equal rights for gays? How's Obama's position on gay marriage? They don't even get the half-a-loaf that is civil partnerships. Has there been a single substantive change in non-military policy regarding gay rights?

          That is why we call this political theater. Because all the supposed support amounts to sound and fury signifying nothing.

          Gridlock, you say? Hardly! We have made enormous changes in our policies, domestic and foreign. We have signed treaties and created sweeping new laws. We have completely revised our interpretation of the Bill of Rights. We have discarded any notion of respect for the War Powers Resolution.

          All the truly significant changes in United States policy, happening at a truly blistering pace, are authoritarianism and expansion of monopolies and barriers to entry (copyright, patents, trademarks, insurance, drugs importation). The dramatic changes are all one of two things; the ability to control dissidents (enemy or patriot, foreign or domestic), and government influencing cashflow into the pockets of major corporations that do a lot of lobbying.

          Look at the substantive change. If the substantive change does not match the rhetoric, questions must be raised. Show me substantive change, and I will believe that the rhetoric is more than theater.

        • Re:Parties? Plural? (Score:4, Informative)

          by Rockoon (1252108) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @07:59PM (#38533208)

          One party fought for public option health care.

          In the House, 100% of the Aye votes for the health care bill that passed were Democrats. [house.gov]

          If you want to blame the Republicans for something, at least have the fucking decency and intellectual honesty of finding one of the many things that they are actually guilty of. All those back room deals over the health care bill that completely castrated it and sold us all out, that wasn't to get enough Republicans on board, that was to get enough Democrats on board. You shouldnt need a citation since I just gave it.

          Then you have the balls to call out the Republicans on the Iraq war when more Republicans voted against that than had voted for that pig of a health care bill you just fucking complained about?

          This year they were overwhelmingly in favor of pushing 'In God We Trust' on school children. [house.gov] Thats both Democrats and Republicans.. yet you are going on about how the Democrats were against teaching creationism which wasnt even a matter in front of either House or Senate? ..that maybe in two states total some single politician floated a bill that had zero chance of passing? Really?

          Your problem is that you listen to what the Democrats say, but never bother to pay attention to what they actually do. Your priorities are fucked up. You care about what the media is talking about, rather than what the politicians are passing into law. That makes you the problem.

    • by DaHat (247651)

      I'm still trying to find the voting record on this... but somehow I have a hard time beleiving that this passed by only a single vote and had Scott Brown not taken the place of Kennedy... it would have been defeated.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 29, 2011 @05:52PM (#38531540)

    ...Not going to education, science, health care, yadda yadda because that would 'cost too much money'

  • by snarkh (118018) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @05:53PM (#38531568)

    $7.85 billion is the budget, not the budget increase.

  • Misleading Summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by Entropy98 (1340659) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @05:53PM (#38531570) Homepage

    The TSA didn't receive a $7.85 billion budget increase, according to the article, their total budget is $7.85 billion with an increase of $153 million over the previous year.

  • Yet more proof that the machine is still churning. Cosm, you taking applications? ;-)
  • by Cstryon (793006) <CstryonNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday December 29, 2011 @05:55PM (#38531602)

    Here we are owing all sorts of money, and now we are giving a whole lot of money that doesn't exist, to a program that has yielded no worth? What's to gain? I've heard all of the bad news about TSA, and all the molesting, and violations that they commit, with no reprocutions. But please, someone explain to me what is it that the Government really benefits from this.

    Perhaps a bad comparison, I support owning a firearm. I have family and friends who have use their guns in defense, so I see some benefit, among all the risks. But I do not own a gun, or have one in my home. Why? Because I have never been in a situation that I required a gun.
    This is like posting armed guards in my upper middle class neighborhood home!

    • I'm with you 100% on the doesn't work. They hid some bombs on some unsuspecting people to test the system, 95% got through. It only made the news because one of the people made it home with his :P
  • by Ecuador (740021) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @05:56PM (#38531620) Homepage

    If you actually RTFA the increase is $153 million and the entire budget for the TSA is $7.85 billion.
    Of course it still is a huge amount, considering that the TSA is simply a security theater and ALL that money goes to waste. Plus, that money is close to half of the entire NASA budget... Yeah, way to go for ROI!
    And all that does not make it right for the summary to be so off, but this is slashdot!

  • It also gropes or irradiates.

    Personally I'd opt for the groping, embarrassing but safer.

  • I've got a better idea, how about Congress gives every active user of /. a measly $50,000 or so and we all go buy ourselves a shiny terrorist-repelling rock. It would probably be just as effective.
    • I've got a better idea, how about Congress gives every active user of /. a measly $50,000 or so and we all go buy ourselves a shiny terrorist-repelling rock. It would probably be just as effective.

      I'd prefer the rock! It wouldn't grope or irradiate me, and if something really went down I could at least chuck it at somebody.

  • by steveha (103154) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @06:07PM (#38531788) Homepage

    I'm not thrilled with the security checkpoints at airports, but I do understand that an airplane can be turned into a giant guided missile that can take down a skyscraper. It may be that extreme measures are appropriate for security at an airport.

    But how does it make sense to send a VIPR team to search people getting on or off a train? How do you justify that? Are they going to drive the train off the tracks and blow up a building?

    "Oh maybe someone has a bomb in his luggage." How often do trains get blown up in America? What are the odds here? And even if the security becomes 100% effective on trains, what about bombs set on the train tracks? Searching train luggage seems completely futile to me.

    Has a VIPR team ever caught a terrorist or found a bomb, ever?

    Remember, we send people to prison for not paying taxes, or maybe take their homes away. Should we really be using tax dollars for VIPR teams?

    steveha

    • I'm not thrilled with the security checkpoints at airports, but I do understand that an airplane can be turned into a giant guided missile that can take down a skyscraper. It may be that extreme measures are appropriate for security at an airport.

      But how does it make sense to send a VIPR team to search people getting on or off a train? How do you justify that? Are they going to drive the train off the tracks and blow up a building?

      It's for all those people who last year proudly said "Then don't fly!"

    • by Microlith (54737) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @06:21PM (#38531970)

      I do understand that an airplane can be turned into a giant guided missile that can take down a skyscraper. It may be that extreme measures are appropriate for security at an airport.

      This has not been true since Sept. 11, 2001 when people decided that letting a terrorist hijack a plane was no longer a good idea. Of course, the measures taken do precisely shit for security.

      But how does it make sense to send a VIPR team to search people getting on or off a train? How do you justify that? Are they going to drive the train off the tracks and blow up a building?

      Because everything is justified by the "War on Terror" even if no logic or data exists otherwise.

      Has a VIPR team ever caught a terrorist or found a bomb, ever?

      Nope, and they never will.

      But you can bet your ass that some contractors and equipment vendors will make a lot of money off of this. And I suspect, like Chertoff, it wouldn't be hard to trace the contracts that are inevitably issued back to the senators who support this garbage.

    • But how does it make sense to send a VIPR team to search people getting on or off a train? How do you justify that? Are they going to drive the train off the tracks and blow up a building?

      There's a reason it's referred to as security 'theater,' Broseph.

    • by PortHaven (242123)

      No it can't. There is zero threat of a passenger liner being used as a missile ever again.

      Americans won't allow. We know the option. We'll die to stop it. As was done on the 4th plane.

    • by aztektum (170569)

      Has the TSA ever caught a terrorist or found a bomb, ever?

      People have gotten on their flights with loaded pistols in their carry-on (easy Google find). The whole operation should have been shutdown the minute that happened.

    • and the London subway (tube) bombings probably convinced some other people.

      on the other hand, VIPR has expanded to just about everywhere, including sporting events, ports, etc, and has been criticized by congress and by professional police for being a gigantic clusterf***.

      my main interest in VIPR is to record the system of human organization, especially those justified by security. i wrote the wikipedia article on it for the same reason i helped organize the articles on the various obscure bureaucratic stru

  • Nice.

    If Corzine goes through one, hopefully the TSA can recover MF Globals money.

    -Hackus

  • not voting for obama again. so much potential, so little result
    • by Greyfox (87712)
      Enjoy "President Gingrich".
    • Re:obama (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PortHaven (242123) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @06:56PM (#38532444) Homepage

      You know, there was a candidate who wanted to end the wars. Close Gitmo & the TSA. Who felt the government shouldn't have any role in marriage.

      That candidate does happen to be running in this election. And may in fact place 1st or 2nd in our first state election.

      Just saying...

      (And no, I don't agree with all his policies. But dammit, I so wish him upon Congress. Congress so deserves Ron Paul.)

  • How about take a fraction of that budget and start programs that informs/teaches the public how to spot and handle terrorist/terrorist activities? Seams like the average Joe is doing a pretty good job of this already.

    F@ck, I hate our politicians.

  • We are the enemy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by koan (80826) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @06:30PM (#38532074)

    It's pretty clear that the primary threat the Think Tanks envision is not shoe wearing, scrotum burning terrorist but rather the US population and what's likely to happen when it becomes obvious to every unemployed dolt that we are in a serious depression, that the chance of a multiple massive riots/race war/civil war starting is high and the sheer volume of military weaponry owned by the average citizen makes it a certainty that it will be bloody, very bloody.
    From the nut job militias, (Idaho, Utah and elsewhere) massive illegal immigration, record gun sales and ammunition sales, to the fact that the membership of the 18th street gang in L.A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_Street_Gang) is more than twice that of the police force, and that's just one gang, it's become clear that we are in serious trouble and it won't take much to set off the powder keg.

    I hope I'm wrong about this and it's really just some large corporate contract raping the wallets of the American people again but things are looking grim.

  • by forkfail (228161) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @07:03PM (#38532530)

    at $7.85B, that's $25.87 per person in the US per year.

    On the other hand, a family of four might pay $180 per year for HBO, which makes about $45 per year per person.

    So, really, Security Theater (tm) really is a better deal than HBO.

  • I'm all for this (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jd2112 (1535857) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @07:10PM (#38532608)
    As long as a tsa checkpoint is required to board Air Force One. (even for the Persistent)

Somebody ought to cross ball point pens with coat hangers so that the pens will multiply instead of disappear.

Working...