Bolding mine.

This is government we're talking about. They could care less about any viewpoints or arguments which go against their agenda.

Democracy? It's dead in America.

So we know the elected officials all have the same viewpoint as the witnesses?

These hearings usually coincide with the public release of a GAO report. Because Steve Lord is one of the witnesses, I suspect that's the case. He would be the opposing view and would be presenting the GAO's findings and recommendations (whatever they are.) The DHS and TSA witnesses would testify about their views on the findings and recommendations. The industry guy would be the witness or the affected industry sector.

If I dig hard enough, I can try to find the GAO report in question, inless someone else wants to do it.

live on cspan 3 now http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN3.aspx

I love how they feel that if we were just educated better about the process and forwarned that the whole AIT and pat-down thing would have just be accepted by the public and we would have been happy!

Telling me for 3 months ahead of time that you tend to either see me naked or touch me intimately in order to fly doesn't make me any happier about the procedure.

Rockfeller (D-WV) continues his love for the TSA.

Privacy concerns (re: AIT) are given the standard line: privacy concerns are met... I love how I get to know that someone else, who I can't see, gets to sit in a comfy chair, gets to see me naked and not have to deal with me at all. Seems cowardly almost. They get to violate my privacy and avoid all scrutiny and responsibility. On that list of reasons I'd rather get the patdown, at least if they are going to violate my privacy, they're going to have to recognize me as a living, breathing person in front of them who they are violating.


Interesting conversation at 3:46 started by Klobacher and continued by Dorgan.
They have more sympathy for the screeners than they do for the passengers. While I'll agree that the TSA screeners have certainly felt the brunt of the passenger anger, they aren't the ones being felt-up and seen naked.

Also here:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/in...1-de668ca1978a

If you want to get an idea of where this guy's head is at: :rolleyes:


Current law stipulates that TSA look for explosives at the checkpoint. Regardless of your views on the machines or patdowns, that’s what they are doing. Considering current law, what other alternatives are there?

What if they were NOT doing this and there was another, more successful, attempt to blow up a plane in flight? What kind of discussion would we be having?

I do think it is time to re-visit the basic security laws now that we have almost a decade of post-9/11 experience.

Those who exploit this for political gain should not be taken seriously.

Those who invoke the specter of sexual abuse victims (such as the Business Travel Coalition did) to criticize the new procedures are disgusting and contemptible. I say that as someone close to someone who was a victim.

John Pistole is a real professional. A pro’s pro.

Let’s keep all those protecting us, from military and intelligence people in the field to the TSA folks in our airports and local law enforcement, in our thoughts this Thanksgiving.

I just threw up. :td:

I've also heard the term pro being used for a prostitute. I think that's pretty fitting.

Did folks really expect anything outside of a TSA love fest?

HR 2200 (which places restrictions on the TSA) has been ignored in the Senate. Indeed, it was referred to this exact Senate committee. No hearings on the legislation have been held.

Sen Amy Klobuchar co-sponsored S.3536 -- SAFER AIR Act of 2010 to make imaging the primary screening method.

Look the bills up in Thomas.

You really have to wonder how anyone who has any basic grasp on the principles of the founding of this country could actualy say these kinds of things. I just cannot believe that people can be so short-sighted. It never ceases to amaze me. :td:

For some reason this reminds me so much of the "I'm not a **ist, I have friends who are ***" defense.

"Those who invoke the specter of sexual abuse victims (such as the Business Travel Coalition did) to criticize the new procedures are disgusting and contemptible. I say that as someone close to someone who was a victim."

And of course, this means that being 'close' to someone who was a victim is basically the same as being a victim, and being a victim automatically entitles one to speak for all victims. :td::td::td: