Airport Security? More Like TSA GONE WILD

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Airport Security? More Like TSA GONE WILD

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:52 pm

no but I was on a plane when the guy in one seat up from me across the isle was watch porn videos on his lap top the whole flight..it was a bit difficult not to notice ...and the fricking idiot forgot his suit coat jacket on the plane ..I suppose he had other things on his mind. I also was on a flight one time with a completely lovely drunk who sat between me and a suit....we could have escalated the situation but instead kept him busy with kindness/small talk but when the flight ended the rest of the passengers were ready to kill him :) I told him to follow me keep walking fast! I think I saved his life
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Airport Security? More Like TSA GONE WILD

Postby 82_28 » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:03 pm

Like I intimated upthread, all airlines allow for other airline employees to ride along. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. My brother flies multiple times a month on whatever airline has an opening. Here's a fun fact (I think) de-icing is done by the company and not the airport, as I had thought. I'll have to ask him again. But I think that is what he told me. I'll have to ask him about this United thing as well.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Airport Security? More Like TSA GONE WILD

Postby Blue » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:10 pm

MacCruiskeen » Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:42 pm wrote:Has anyone here ever been actually on a plane where peaceful passengers were asked/told/bribed to vacate seats they had booked and paid for and checked through security to sit down on? I haven't, ever. And I've never heard of such a thing happening to anyone anywhere. (Finding out at check-in that the plan's been overbooked - that's something else entirely.)

It's not common practice even in the US, is it? Is this case actually unique? I don't mean the violence, I mean the request to leave the plane.


Nope. I've witnessed the bribe in the airport several times but not in-plane after everyone is seated. I did receive a free pair of tickets to anywhere (whee! won't see that ever again) after a Northwest plane broke down on the tarmac forcing me and my co-workers to spend the night in a hotel at the connector city. Although they did try to get everyone to double-up in the cheap hotel. Um, are you kidding?
User avatar
Blue
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:39 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Airport Security? More Like TSA GONE WILD

Postby Blue » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:18 pm

Iamwhomiam » Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:50 am wrote:He's still in the hospital while awaiting reconstructive surgery.

Hello Blue. The reason he went limp was because they yanked him by his legs to loosen his grip and like a pendulum, his nose smashed into the armrest, breaking and bloodying it and knocked him unconscious. Then the dragged him off the plane.

Not an $8 million loss, 82, but an $800 million blunder.


Ah, thanks for the details Iam. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if they tazed him surreptitiously. I'm not following this story so I'm wondering like Mac is asking - how the fuck was he able to get back on the plane and how did they remove him that time?

Just when I thought TSA was lightening up. The last couple of times I flew, I got the get out of jail free card and kept me shoes on and avoided the death rays.
User avatar
Blue
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:39 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Airport Security? More Like TSA GONE WILD

Postby km artlu » Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:05 pm

Any incident like this which propagates through media and social media as this one has almost demands closer examination. A portion of my mind balked at Dao's re-entry to the plane, but I shrugged it off and moved on.

But now Mac's highlighting of that part of the story has prompted more active consideration. I can think of no plausible scenario, after the initial eviction, that puts him back on that plane.

Can anyone here propose a believable sequence of events?
km artlu
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Airport Security? More Like TSA GONE WILD

Postby Iamwhomiam » Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:35 pm

While the doctor was unconscious and out of the plane, instead of handcuffing him, those who ejected him were bs-ing with each other about what a pain in the ass it was getting him out when he suddenly regained consciousness and bolted back inside the plane.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Airport Security? More Like TSA GONE WILD

Postby MacCruiskeen » Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:47 pm

km artlu » Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:05 pm wrote:Any incident like this which propagates through media and social media as this one has almost demands closer examination. A portion of my mind balked at Dao's re-entry to the plane, but I shrugged it off and moved on.

But now Mac's highlighting of that part of the story has prompted more active consideration.


Photo of the three security guards:

Image

Big, young, strong and trained. Are these guys armed, too?

km artlu wrote:I can think of no plausible scenario, after the initial eviction, that puts him back on that plane.

Can anyone here propose a believable sequence of events?


I can't. David Dao was not just a thin bespectacled septuagenerian and presumably small & slight like most Vietnamese men of his generation; he was also concussed and severely injured.

I am trying to imagine him suddenly jumping up, overcoming his three captors, dashing like a champion sprinter to the airplane door (which was presumably either now-closed or else guarded by flight attendants), bursting through it unhindered and then making it all the way down to the back of the plane. But that's the stuff of Marvel Comics, and in any case I think UA would have shared that extraordinary tale with us by now.

Nor was he "irate" or "belligerent", according to the woman in the seat behind him. Another witness "also revealed that some passengers were so upset by the incident they walked off the plane":

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... p-10216774
Last edited by MacCruiskeen on Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Airport Security? More Like TSA GONE WILD

Postby Iamwhomiam » Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:56 pm

And yet, that's what happened.

You're not suggesting the three guard were applying bloody makeup on him, so how do you explain it?
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Airport Security? More Like TSA GONE WILD

Postby MacCruiskeen » Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:01 pm

I can't explain it, as I said. Not plausibly. So maybe something implausible happened. In any case, the whole incident was presumably filmed, which is why his lawyers have filed to ensure that the evidence is not destroyed.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Airport Security? More Like TSA GONE WILD

Postby Iamwhomiam » Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:05 pm

The doctor will surely be amply compensated for his pain and suffering. They'll offer him a generous settlement in order to avoid a jury's punitory judgment .
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Airport Security? More Like TSA GONE WILD

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:02 am

Evans said the officers were ordered in January to take the word "Police" off their jackets in favor of "Security," but that nobody followed through. Millions of people saw the word "Police" on the officers' jackets in the video of Kentucky physician David Dao being dragged off the jet.

There was even confusion among officers about their duties. Jeff Redding, the deputy commissioner of security for the aviation department, said officers are instructed not to board planes unless there's an imminent threat.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/remo ... e-46790388



:P
Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Airport Security? More Like TSA GONE WILD

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:21 pm

I heard United offered all the passengers who witnessed the violence aboard that flight were given full refunds.

I guess they realized their performance wasn't up to par.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Airport Security? More Like TSA GONE WILD

Postby elfismiles » Wed May 24, 2017 2:35 pm

Get Ready to Unpack for Airport Security
Travelers should expect new procedures at TSA checkpoints later this year, with more carry-on items, like food and tablets, separated into bins
By Scott McCartney
Updated May 24, 2017 12:44 p.m. ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/get-ready- ... 1495640411
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8511
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: Airport Security? More Like TSA GONE WILD

Postby elfismiles » Thu May 17, 2018 9:07 am

Watch List Shields T.S.A. Screeners From Threatening, and Unruly, Travelers
By Ron Nixon
May 17, 2018

WASHINGTON — The Transportation Security Administration has created a new secret watch list to monitor people who may be targeted as potential threats at airport checkpoints simply because they have swatted away security screeners’ hands or otherwise appeared unruly.

A five-page directive obtained by The New York Times said actions that pose physical danger to security screeners — or other contact that the agency described as “offensive and without legal justification” — could land travelers on the watch list, which was created in February and is also known as a “95 list.”

“An intent to injure or cause physical pain is not required, nor is an actual physical injury,” according to the directive that was issued in March by Darby LaJoye, the agency’s assistant administrator for security operations.

The existence of the new watch list, which has not previously been disclosed, is expected to be discussed Thursday at a House homeland security subcommittee hearing.

So far, the names of fewer than 50 people have been put on the watch list, said Kelly Wheaton, a T.S.A. deputy chief counsel.

But two other government security officials who are familiar with the new watch list, describing it on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it, said that the number of names on the list could be higher, with travelers added daily.

According to the directive, people who loiter suspiciously near security checkpoints could be put on the watch list. So could those who present what the document vaguely described as “challenges to the safe and effective completion of screening.”

The guidelines prohibit profiling based on race, religion or gender, and said those categories could not be used as the sole reason for including a passenger on the watch list. But the directive said such factors could be used when they are relevant and fit specific intelligence.

However, on its own, the watch list cannot be used to prevent passengers from boarding flights, nor can it impel extra screening at security checkpoints, according to the document. That has raised questions about whether it serves a legitimate security purpose, and has heightened civil liberty concerns over the added government surveillance.

“If I’m running late, having a bad day and I’m rude to the screeners, do I get put on the list?” said Fred Burton, the chief security officer at Stratfor, a global intelligence company in Austin, Tex.

“The bottom line is that in the post 9/11 world, do we really need another watch list — particularly one from the T.S.A., which is not an intelligence agency?” said Mr. Burton, a former deputy chief of counterterrorism at the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service.

Mr. Wheaton said the new list aims to protect airport security screeners from travelers who previously have been demonstrably unruly at, or near, checkpoints. He said screeners were assaulted 34 times last year, up from 26 in 2016.

Matthew F. Leas, a T.S.A. spokesman, said in an email that the agency “wants to ensure there are safeguards in place to protect Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) and others from any individual who has previously exhibited disruptive or assaultive behavior at a screening checkpoint and is scheduled to fly.”

The United States government maintains a bevy of watch lists.

The most well known, maintained by the F.B.I., is a large database of the names of more than one million people — including tens of thousands of American citizens or legal residents — who are known or suspected terrorists. Officials rely on that database to compile the no-fly list that has been criticized for barring travelers based on mistaken identities, including prominent politicians, celebrities and young children.

The Secret Service maintains a watch list of people who pose a potential threat to government officials or buildings. It publicly discloses the types of information it collects in the database, but not the names that are on it.

But the new T.S.A. database, according to people familiar with it, includes travelers who have simply had a verbal altercation with security officers or have taken other actions that the agency said interferes in the screening process.

Civil liberties groups said that makes it even more likely that individuals who do pose not pose a threat to airports or planes will be swept up in the United States’ homeland security system.

“While people on the list are not necessarily subject to additional scrutiny, it seems likely that agents would single them out for additional attention, and there is no way to get off the list,” said Faiza Patel, a director of the Liberty and National Security Program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice.

She said that because the watch list will be shared with other law enforcement agencies, “it will be difficult to control the consequences.”

Federal security directors, top T.S.A. security officials at airports and top Air Marshals supervisors can nominate individuals to be put on the watch list. Only the T.S.A. administrator, his deputy and the top two officials at the agency’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis may add or remove people from the database.

The directive obtained by The Times does not specify how members of the public can appeal being included on the list.

Government watchdogs have long criticized such watch lists, especially after evidence concluding that as high as 35 percent of the names that are designated for inclusion are either outdated or added without adequate factual basis. Individuals are denied any meaningful way to correct errors and clear their names.

In recent years, the government has established rules that are intended to prevent intelligence agencies from keeping secretive, open-ended watch lists based on suspicions that are ultimately unfounded.

The T.S.A. security operations have long been criticized for targeting racial and religious minorities for extra screening. A number of African-American women have said screeners have searched their hair, even after the agency said the practice was halted.

Most recently, the agency apologized to Navdeep Bains, Canada’s minister of innovation, science and economic development, after he was repeatedly asked by screeners at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport to remove his turban. Mr. Bains, who was in the United States to deliver a speech, is a Sikh whose religion requires him to wear a turban.

The agency later admitted that surveillance video showed that the screener did not follow standard operating procedures, and said that screeners had received additional training as a result of the episode.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/us/p ... ners-.html
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8511
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: Airport Security? More Like TSA GONE WILD

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 29, 2018 8:11 pm

more info and video at link

Welcome to the Quiet Skies



This is just some of the information that federal air marshals collect on thousands of regular US citizens under a secret, domestic surveillance program.

Did you scan the boarding area from afar?

Have a cold, penetrating stare?

Sleep on the plane? Use the bathroom? Talk to others?

Welcome to the Quiet Skies

By Jana Winter

July 28, 2018

Federal air marshals have begun following ordinary US citizens not suspected of a crime or on any terrorist watch list and collecting extensive information about their movements and behavior under a new domestic surveillance program that is drawing criticism from within the agency.

The previously undisclosed program, called “Quiet Skies,” specifically targets travelers who “are not under investigation by any agency and are not in the Terrorist Screening Data Base,” according to a Transportation Security Administration bulletin in March.

The internal bulletin describes the program’s goal as thwarting threats to commercial aircraft “posed by unknown or partially known terrorists,” and gives the agency broad discretion over which air travelers to focus on and how closely they are tracked.

Silhouette of a man walking in an airport while passengers are seen waiting in the background
Brynn Anderson/Associated Press

But some air marshals, in interviews and internal communications shared with the Globe, say the program has them tasked with shadowing travelers who appear to pose no real threat — a businesswoman who happened to have traveled through a Mideast hot spot, in one case; a Southwest Airlines flight attendant, in another; a fellow federal law enforcement officer, in a third.

It is a time-consuming and costly assignment, they say, which saps their ability to do more vital law enforcement work.

TSA officials, in a written statement to the Globe, broadly defended the agency’s efforts to deter potential acts of terror. But the agency declined to discuss whether Quiet Skies has intercepted any threats, or even to confirm that the program exists.

Release of such information “would make passengers less safe,” spokesman James Gregory said in the statement.


Read the checklist
Already under Quiet Skies, thousands of unsuspecting Americans have been subjected to targeted airport and inflight surveillance, carried out by small teams of armed, undercover air marshals, government documents show. The teams document whether passengers fidget, use a computer, have a “jump” in their Adam’s apple or a “cold penetrating stare,” among other behaviors, according to the records.

Air marshals note these observations — minute-by-minute — in two separate reports and send this information back to the TSA.

All US citizens who enter the country are automatically screened for inclusion in Quiet Skies — their travel patterns and affiliations are checked and their names run against a terrorist watch list and other databases, according to agency documents.

Explore the behavior checklist

1. Subject was abnormally aware of surroundings

(If observed, check any that apply below) | Y N Unknown

2. Subject exhibited Behavioral Indicators

(If observed, check any that apply below) | Y N Unknown

3. Subject’s appearance was different from information provided

(If yes, check any that apply below) | Y N Unknown

4. Subject slept during the flight

(If observed, check any that apply below) | Y N Unknown

5. General Observations

(Provide detailed descriptions of any electronic devices in subject’s possession in AAR) | Y N Unknown

6. For Domestic Arrivals Only

(If possible, provide identifiers (license plate, vehicle description) of pick up vehicle in AAR) | Y N Unknown

The program relies on 15 rules to screen passengers, according to a May agency bulletin, and the criteria appear broad: “rules may target” people whose travel patterns or behaviors match those of known or suspected terrorists, or people “possibly affiliated” with someone on a watch list.

The full list of criteria for Quiet Skies screening was unavailable to the Globe, and is a mystery even to the air marshals who field the surveillance requests the program generates. TSA declined to comment.

When someone on the Quiet Skies list is selected for surveillance, a team of air marshals is placed on the person’s next flight. The team receives a file containing a photo and basic information — such as date and place of birth — about the target, according to agency documents.

The teams track citizens on domestic flights, to or from dozens of cities big and small — such as Boston and Harrisburg, Pa., Washington, D.C., and Myrtle Beach, S.C. — taking notes on whether travelers use a phone, go to the bathroom, chat with others, or change clothes, according to documents and people within the department.

Flying the quiet skies

Air marshals are following citizens to or from cities big and small, including these airports


Seattle

Minneapolis

Detroit

Boston

New York

Chicago

Harrisburg

San Francisco

Philadelphia

Washington, D.C.

Las Vegas

Charlotte

Phoenix

Myrtle Beach

Los Angeles

Atlanta

Houston

Miami

Quiet Skies represents a major departure for TSA. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the agency has traditionally placed armed air marshals on routes it considered potentially higher risk, or on flights with a passenger on a terrorist watch list. Deploying air marshals to gather intelligence on civilians not on a terrorist watch list is a new assignment, one that some air marshals say goes beyond the mandate of the US Federal Air Marshal Service. Some also worry that such domestic surveillance might be illegal. Between 2,000 and 3,000 men and women, so-called flying FAMs, work the skies.

Since this initiative launched in March, dozens of air marshals have raised concerns about the Quiet Skies program with senior officials and colleagues, sought legal counsel, and expressed misgivings about the surveillance program, according to interviews and documents reviewed by the Globe.

“What we are doing [in Quiet Skies] is troubling and raising some serious questions as to the validity and legality of what we are doing and how we are doing it,” one air marshal wrote in a text message to colleagues.

The TSA, while declining to discuss details of the Quiet Skies program, did address generally how the agency pursues its work.

“FAMs [federal air marshals] may deploy on flights in furtherance of the TSA mission to ensure the safety and security of passengers, crewmembers, and aircraft throughout the aviation sector,” spokesman James Gregory said in an e-mailed statement. “As its assessment capabilities continue to enhance, FAMS leverages multiple internal and external intelligence sources in its deployment strategy.”

Scott LaPierre/Globe Staff

Agency documents show there are about 40 to 50 Quiet Skies passengers on domestic flights each day. On average, air marshals follow and surveil about 35 of them.

In late May, an air marshal complained to colleagues about having just surveilled a working Southwest Airlines flight attendant as part of a Quiet Skies mission. “Cannot make this up,” the air marshal wrote in a message.

One colleague replied: “jeez we need to have an easy way to document this nonsense. Congress needs to know that it’s gone from bad to worse.”

Experts on civil liberties called the Quiet Skies program worrisome and potentially illegal.

“These revelations raise profound concerns about whether TSA is conducting pervasive surveillance of travelers without any suspicion of actual wrongdoing,” said Hugh Handeyside, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project.

“If TSA is using proxies for race or religion to single out travelers for surveillance, that could violate the travelers’ constitutional rights. These concerns are all the more acute because of TSA’s track record of using unreliable and unscientific techniques to screen and monitor travelers who have done nothing wrong.”

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said Quiet Skies touches on several sensitive legal issues and appears to fall into a gray area of privacy law.

If this was about foreign citizens, the government would have considerable power. But if it’s US citizens — US citizens don’t lose their rights simply because they are in an airplane at 30,000 feet.
— Jonathan Turley, George Washington University law professor
“If this was about foreign citizens, the government would have considerable power. But if it’s US citizens — US citizens don’t lose their rights simply because they are in an airplane at 30,000 feet,” Turley said. “There may be indeed constitutional issues here depending on how restrictive or intrusive these measures are.”

Turley, who has testified before Congress on privacy protection, said the issue could trigger a “transformative legal fight.”

Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor chosen by President Obama in 2013 to help review foreign intelligence surveillance programs, said the program could pass legal muster if the selection criteria are sufficiently broad. But if the program targets by nationality or race, it could violate equal protection rights, Stone said.

Asked about the legal basis for the Quiet Skies program, Gregory, the agency’s spokesman, said TSA “maintains a robust engagement with congressional committees to ensure maximum support and awareness” of its effort to keep the aviation sector safe. He declined to comment further.

A view from the top of dozens of passengers walking in an airport terminal.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Beyond the legalities, some air marshals believe Quiet Skies is not a sound use of limited agency resources.

Several air marshals, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly, told the Globe the program wastes taxpayer dollars and makes the country less safe because attention and resources are diverted away from legitimate, potential threats. The US Federal Air Marshal Service, which is part of TSA and falls under the Department of Homeland Security, has a mandate to protect airline passengers and crew against the risk of criminal and terrorist violence.

John Casaretti, president of the Air Marshal Association, said in a statement: “The Air Marshal Association believes that missions based on recognized intelligence, or in support of ongoing federal investigations, is the proper criteria for flight scheduling. Currently the Quiet Skies program does not meet the criteria we find acceptable.

“The American public would be better served if these [air marshals] were instead assigned to airport screening and check in areas so that active shooter events can be swiftly ended, and violations of federal crimes can be properly and consistently addressed.”

These revelations raise profound concerns about whether TSA is conducting pervasive surveillance of travelers without any suspicion of actual wrongdoing.
— Hugh Handeyside, American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project
TSA has come under increased scrutiny from Congress since a 2017 Government Accountability Office report raised questions about its management of the Federal Air Marshal Service. Requested by Congress, the report noted that the agency, which spent $800 million in 2015, has “no information” on its effectiveness in deterring attacks.

Late last year, Representative Jody Hice, a Georgia Republican, introduced a bill that would require the Federal Air Marshal Service to better incorporate risk assessment in its deployment strategy, provide detailed metrics on flight assignments, and report data back to Congress.

Without this information, Congress, TSA, and the Department of Homeland Security “are not able to effectively conduct oversight” of the air marshals, Hice wrote in a letter to colleagues.

“With threats coming at us left and right, our focus should be on implementing effective, evidence-based means of deterring, detecting, and disrupting plots hatched by our enemies.”

Hice’s bill, the “Strengthening Aviation Security Act of 2017,” passed the House and is awaiting consideration by the full Senate.


Read the bulletin
The Globe, in its review of Quiet Skies, examined numerous TSA internal bulletins, directives, and internal communications, and interviewed more than a dozen people with direct knowledge of the program.

The purpose of Quiet Skies is to decrease threats by “unknown or partially known terrorists; and to identify and provide enhanced screening to higher risk travelers before they board aircraft based on analysis of terrorist travel trends, tradecraft and associations,” according to a TSA internal bulletin.

The criteria for surveillance appear fluid. Internal agency e-mails show some confusion about the program’s parameters and implementation.

A bulletin in May notes that travelers entering the United States may be added to the Quiet Skies watch list if their “international travel patters [sic] or behaviors match the travel routing and tradecraft of known or suspected terrorists” or “are possibly affiliated with Watch Listed suspects.”

Travelers remain on the Quiet Skies watch list “for up to 90 days or three encounters, whichever comes first, after entering the United States,” agency documents show.

Travelers are not notified when they are placed on the watch list or have their activity and behavior monitored.

Quiet Skies surveillance is an expansion of a long-running practice in which federal air marshals are assigned to surveil the subject of an open FBI terrorism investigation.

In such assignments, air marshal reports are relayed back to the FBI or another outside law enforcement agency. In Quiet Skies, these same reports are completed in the same manner but stay within TSA, agency documents show, and details are shared with outside agencies only if air marshals observe “significant derogatory information.”

Front view of a plane taking off from Boston Logan airport with residential buildings in the background.
Pat Greenhouse/Globe Staff

According to a TSA bulletin, the program may target people who have spent a certain amount of time in one or more specific countries or whose reservation information includes e-mail addresses or phone numbers associated to suspects on a terrorism watch list.

The bulletin does not list the specific countries, but air marshals have been advised in several instances to follow passengers because of past travel to Turkey, according to people with direct knowledge of the program.

One air marshal described an assignment to conduct a Quiet Skies mission on a young executive from a major company.

“Her crime apparently was she flew to Turkey in the past,” the air marshal said, noting that many international companies have executives travel through Turkey.

“According to the government’s own [Department of Justice] standards there is no cause to be conducting these secret missions.”
http://apps.bostonglobe.com/news/nation ... newsletter
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests