The terminology contained within the reported memo is indeed troubling. It labels any person who “interferes” with TSA airport security screening procedure protocol and operations by actively objecting to the established screening process, “including but not limited to the anticipated national opt-out day” as a “domestic extremist.” The label is then broadened to include “any person, group or alternative media source” that actively objects to, causes others to object to, supports and/or elicits support for anyone who engages in such travel disruptions at U.S. airports in response to the enhanced security procedures.
For individuals who engaged in such activity at screening points, it instructs TSA operations to obtain the identities of those individuals and other applicable information and submit the same electronically to the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division, the Extremism and Radicalization branch of the Office of Intelligence & Analysis (IA) division of the Department of Homeland Security.
First observation, which is almost parenthetical: the nomenclature is Soviet-redux. "Homeland Environment....Division/Extremism....Branch/Office of Analysis Division/Department of HS."Huh? FOUR levels? And we wonder why Gummint costs too much?
Second observation, not-so-parenthetical: if that includes bloggers, Steve and I are now on the list. He gets both a hat-tip AND companionship, albeit not the companionship he might really desire.
Third observation: who's the Fascist now?
A list like this can affect the employment of those of us holding security clearances with mandatory reporting requirements. So for me BOHICA is not an option, it is mandated. This despite my clearance being of a more secure level than any of the convenience store clerks at TSA.
ReplyDeleteYah. And if actual security people had their way, you'd have a higher clearance than Incompetento, too...
ReplyDeleteRemember when the left was getting its panties in a twist about listening in on phone conversations to persons overseas?
ReplyDeleteSo much for privacy.
Well there's got to be a 'law of diminishing returns' here. I mean if the greater part of the population end up on the list, what use is the list - based on the dictum that "if everybody is exceptional, then nobody really is".
ReplyDelete