Sub-committee hearing
 

All:
Next senate hearing on aviation security is the Aviation, Operations and Security Sub-Committee of the Senate Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation will be 2 December 15 at 14:15 on "International Aviation Screening Standards"

The sub-committee has yet to publish a witness list, although my own Senator promises it will be more balanced and inclusive than the shameful hearing on the 17th in which John Pistole was the only witness.

If any of you are constituents of Sub-Committee members (member list here: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/in...etyandSecurity), please, please call and ask that they make sure to include travellers and TSA critics on the witness list, so they get a 360 view of the issue, and not TSA propaganda.

So far, nobody confirmed on the witness list, check back here.

If any of you are in Washin

Which Senator represents Qatar?

Who would be on FlyerTalk's short list of people to invite?

I would like to see the woman that was detained by the TSA for the breast milk. She's good looking and a lawyer. She'd be able to handle herself well in the hearing and has a good story to tell with video to back it up.

Bruce Schneier

I wrote to both of my Senators:
+10000000 !

This post has homepage and phone contacts for all the senators on the committee. (It refers to last month's committee meeting, but the contact info should be valid until after 20 January.)

If none of these people is "your" senator, contact the committee chair and subcommittee chair. They will definitely have a staffer who is responsible for their work in the committee with whom you can ask to speak.

What luck...Senator Klobuchar is on the sub-committee and I just handled the wedding of one of her staffers. On a side note she stood up during speeches and took over the microphone...she is an audience hound. But I digress - I'm calling my groom and bending his ear a while.

Good luck. Don't know what her opinion is on the grope, but be aware that she did co-sponsor S.3536 -- SAFER AIR Act of 2010

Look it up in Thomas

Here are some nuggets from that legislation:

My letter and subsequent follow-up phone call will focus more on the abuses at the hands of TSA rather than WBI. WBI treats everyone the same - TSA does not.

Sympathetic locals with access may not know about the hearing.

I wonder if Cantwell is actually going to show up to this one...

With only a few hours to go before the hearing, they FINALLY get around to publishing a witness list:

What a surprise -- not a single traveller or TSA critic, just the usual crowd of DHS/TSA apologists. And of course by not publishing the witness list before it is too late to complain about it, they maintain the facade of democracy.

Again, I do hope all of you that are constituents of the members of this committee call and complain loudly.

It's ridiculous that information is only being posted so late. The person to complain to is: Jena Longo - Democratic Press Office (202) 224-8374 (would be happy learn an email address, as well as one for her(?) boss).

To be fair, this hearing is supposed to address "International Aviation Screening Standards", so it's not clear that TSA is an issue here (except wrt to Canada).

That someone from GAO is testifying is generally a good sign, even if they tend to be ignored when convenient.

In any case, contact info for committee members is posted earlier in this thread.

Why on earth would a sub-committee hearing consist only of individuals with one viewpoint? Isn't the whole point of these hearings to get all sides of the arguments heard? Is there something I am missing?

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: