Municipal Wi-Fi is a bad idea

Every now and then a city will announce plans to provide free Internet access points around the city, and there will often be praise from the hi-tech community.  Or a state will move to ban such initiatives and heaps of scorn will be heaved on top of them and the local cable and DSL provides.  That's a mistake.

While I realize folk love to hate their cable companies (often with good reason) and the woeful state of broadband in this country, having the cities provide the access is worse idea.

Once municipal broadband is wide spread and available at no additionl cost than the taxes people are already paying, then the rational, individual decision is to stop paying Comcast or someone else for Internet access.  With enough people doing that, residential broadband from private companies will eventually go away.

That may be fine, assuming the municipalities allow free and open Internet access, but I'm not convinced they will. There are many great things on the net, but there are many foul ones as well.  We already see debates in favor of blocking undesirable websites at libraries and schools.  Will a vocal minority really allow the city to make such content available in homes?

Obviously the first target will be block already illegal or obscene content. I can't imagine many city councils will oppose a determined group of citizens who want to prohibit the city from "supplying" child pornography.  You can already imagine the campaign ads.

So what's next? Should the city be in the business of sending regular pornography into homes? Can't children see it then? Is that how we want to use tax money?

Porn is an easy target for those who want to restrict access to content. And a city blocking such content from it's own service may not be in the business of censorship.  After all, it's not like their banning the content.  They're simply choosing not carry it on a municipal service.

So what's next?  In many places, it's probably hate speech.  Should the city be facilitating content that is racist or misogynistic?

There are extremes on both the right and left of our political landscape that would like to see certain content go away.

Many would argue that the city should block sites that enable violence -- perhaps content related to building explosives and fighting a government force.  But what about sites that promote non-violent political unrest?

At this point I think it's safe to say that no city would ban a legitimate new site's content from it's service.  But then who is determining  the legitimacy of a new site?  I think CNN and Fox would be safe from calls to ban it from the city's service, but what about Al Jazeera?

In the recent uprisings in the middle east, one of the first things dictators try to do it cut off 'net access for the people. Can we count on local governments there to not do that if pressed?

The Internet is a powerful tool because of both the good stuff and bad stuff that's on it.  And I trust the users of the Internet, and, yes, many of the private party ISPs out there, to deliver a free 'net experience much more than I trust a city council trying to stand up to a vocal group of citizens barking their vocal call to, "Think of the children!"

More fun TSA stuff

Lately there are more stories appearing in the media about the disgusting behavior of TSA.  Here's one more stumbled across.

It's a lengthy post, so here's a summary:

1. Guy goes to the airport 
2. Guy declines the nude-o-scope (AKA virtual strip search, AKA Back Scatter X-Ray) 
3. Guy declines "enhanced pat down" 
4. TSA informs him he can't fly as a result
5. Guy says OK.
6. Guy gets escorted out of the secure area.
7. As guy tries to leave the airport, as TSA already instructed him, another TSA guy tries to stop him from leaving and threatens a civil penalty of $10,000.

You can read the whole post here.

Choose: Strip Search or Molestation

Do you want to be strip searched by the Back Scatter X-Ray or molested with TSA's "Enhanced Pat Down" at Seatac?

TSA is now installing the strip-o-matic machines at the North Satellite security check point. These machines use back scatter X-Ray technology to conduct a virtual strip search of passengers.You can see samples of these strip searches by doing a simple Google Image Search.

Some might say the images aren't so bad. Afterall the agent seeing them will never see the passenger being screened and will not be allowed to have any recording equipment in the room where they view the strip searches. Which, of course, confirms their explicitness.

TSA also claims the machines can't record images.

From the Seattle PI:

Regarding privacy, Parker said images from the machine go to a separate room, where a screener can radio back to the checkpoint if there's something suspicious. She said the screeners who see the passenger never see the image, while those who see the image never see the passenger.

The machines have no capacity to store imag [sic], and the screeners in the room may not have any cameras, cell phones or other recording devices. The TSA also applies a "privacy algorithm" that makes the images less explicit.

The don't appear to be segregating the machines and screeners by gender. You can't be sure who's looking at you and your kids.

Of course the claim that they don't store the images offers little reassurance. It's only a policy decision not to do it. It's not a hardware limitation.

In fact, the US Marshals service used similar machines in Florida at a courthouse.

From CNN:

The U.S. Marshals Service is confirming that it has stored more than 35,000 "whole body" images of people who had entered a U.S. courthouse in Orlando, Florida.

The images captured by millimeter wave technology are more ghost-like and far less detailed than those produced by "backscatter" machines commonly used by the Transportation Security Administration at airports nationwide.

Do you trust TSA to be more respectful or airline passengers than the US Marshals are of courthouse visitors?

Of course, it's entirely "optional." If you don't want TSA member virtually undressing you from a hidden room, you can opt instead for an Enhanced Pat Down. What is that like?

From The Consumerist:

"To call it a pat-down is a euphemism," said a spokesman for the ACLU in Massachusetts. "They really go for it."

He says that -- unlike the antiquated pat-down, which required TSA screeners to use the back of their hands when searching sensitive regions of your person -- the enhandced pat-down allows them to use their palms and fingers to feel and prod passengers.

One traveler who got the deluxe treatment at Logan sums it up thusly: "If anybody ever groped me like that in real life, I would have punched them in their nose."

From the Boston Herald:

Logan airport security just got more up close and personal as federal screeners launched a more aggressive palms-first, slide-down body search technique that has renewed the debate over privacy vs. safety.

For now, you can avoid this disgusting choice at SEA by not using the North Security Checkpoint. You can access all gates by clearing security at any checkpoint.

From the Seattle PI:

Starting Sunday, Sea-Tac Airport will close the North Security Checkpoint while the TSA reconfigures the layout to include the new scanners. Officials expect the closure to last approximately two weeks but say it should not cause delays because TSA will open extra lanes at the other checkpoints and have extra staff on hand to guide travelers.

So for you now, those who pay attention to the farce that is TSA do not have to make that choice at SEA. The only people subject to the strip search or TSA molesting will be those non-frequent travelers who are not familiar with the airport.

This insanity needs to stop. Treating everyone like they are being arrested is not going to help aviation security.  It's not making us safer.

And it is certainly not protecting our freedoms.

Not only airplanes divert

I've had my share of flight delays. Sometimes they annoy me; most of the time I just shrug them off. Diversions, delays, random routes, and strange cities are just a normal part of flying for business.

My GF doesn't have as many flight issues as I do. She gets to deal with an entirely different mode of transit -- she rides the bus.

And today, is her first Guest Post on Cromely's World. So welcome her to the blog and maybe she'll share more stories in the future.



This morning I was waiting for the bus as usual on 1st Ave., on my way to work, when suddenly a helicopter was flying overhead.

I didn’t think much of it at first. I thought maybe it was a news copter reporting on traffic. But then I began to suspect something when the copter remained in position up above. I looked at the people around me, also waiting for the bus, and people walking across the street. They were all looking up, looking in wonderment at the copter just above us. I looked down the street to see if I could get a glimpse of what was happening. I couldn’t see.

I had a bad feeling about this.

My bus finally came, only about 5 minutes late (that’s pretty good!). I hopped on and the bus continued down 1st Ave on its regular route.

About 5 blocks along on my journey, my instincts were confirmed. The Federal building came into sight, and the whole block was shut down, guarded by police. Yellow caution tape lined the block.

The bus had to take an emergency re-route and leave 1st Ave, since we couldn’t get past the police barricade. Traffic was stopped. Some people opted to get off the bus and walk the rest of their journey. I considered it, since my office was only about a mile away, but decided to stay on the bus to see what would happen.

The bus turned onto 2nd Ave and drove a couple of blocks (with cars honking the entire way because the 60’ articulated bus I was riding took command of the road and disregarded the rest of the traffic flow) and turned back onto 1st again, after we had passed the mess around the Federal building. I got off at my usual stop, a block away from my office.

I still heard the copter overhead. Looking behind me, it looked like the flow of traffic was getting better, which indicated that the incident was over, and they were letting traffic through again. I walked into my office, only 15 minutes late (not bad, under the circumstances). I immediately booted up my computer and checked the news.

“Breaking Story: Suspicious package briefly shuts down street near the Federal building. A police bomb squad was called in to check out a suspicious package at the Federal Building in downtown Seattle Wednesday morning. Spokeswoman Renee Witt says federal police called at 6:30 a.m. Wednesday to report finding the package in a window well. Police closed First Ave. between Marion and Madison as a precaution. The bomb squad ultimately rendered the package safe at about 8 a.m. Police describe the package as a plastic bag containing a canvas bag.”

So, it wasn’t a sleeping bag again (like last year). But it may as well have been. On to work as usual.

You can read a little more about the incident here.

Channel 9 and 9-11

I don't fly United often, but when I do, I enjoy listening to Channel 9.

Channel 9 is the channel (obviously) on the plane's inflight entertainment system that broadcasts the plane's radio communication with Air Traffic Control. You can list to the ATC centers across the country as they tell your pilots what to do and where to go. You listen in as your pilots talk back to ATC. And you can listen to all the ATC communications with other planes in your area and on your frequency.

It's in the arcane language of ATC-Pilot speak, but after a little while you can figure out most of what they're saying.

I'm amazed at how fast the flight seems when I zone out listening to the hypnotic rhythms of flight levels, turbulance warnings, directions, and assorted heading requests.

Seven years ago this morning, Channel 9 users had a different experience. I wasn't flying that day, but Putt4Eagle was on a flight from Chicago to Phoenix. A few years ago, in a chilling post on Flyertalk.Com, he recounted his experience listening to Channel 9 as the FAA shut down all US air travel for the first time in history.

On 9/11, I was listening to Ch. 9. I was on a flight out of ORD to AZ (757) seated in 5F. We had just taken off and where climbing to cruise. A flight out of Rockford, IL was squeezing between us and the UA in front of us. I watched as he lined up to get on the highway westbound. Then, abruptly, the Rockford flight called ATC and requested immediate clearance to return to home. ATC responded with some quick direction and asked if they were experiencing trouble. No, just directed to return home by company pronto. Hmmm, strange I thought.

Then the UA in front of us requested emergency clearance back to ORD. Loooong pause from ATC. Now, this is Chicago Center air space. There are no pauses. Certainly not 30-40 seconds of dead air. Hmm, man that is weird, I thought. Then like a starters pistol went off, the comm light up. Another plane req. clearance, then another, another.... boom, boom, boom. Nothing from ATC. I nudged the guy next to me and said put on Ch. 9. He could see by the expression on my face, I was serious.

ATC got on the air and started by saying this was going to go quick and pilots needed to listen up. "Protocol responses are not required, just do exactly as I say quickly". Then it began. "UA ###, turn right heading blah, blah expect Springfield airport. SWA ###, turn left heading blah, blah expect Rockford. Delta ###...." This went on for about 3 solid minutes before I rang the bell for the FA who was passing out breakfast. Our number had not yet been called. The FA came by and I said "We are all going back to O'Hare, they are landing every plane in the sky. What is going on?!?" She looked at me in disbelief and kind of leaned down to look out the window. I could see that she was about to start to tell me not to worry about it when we pitched right at about 45*s. It was so quick it nearly dumped the FA in my lap.

...More

I don't know Putt4Eagle, but this post stayed with me from the first time read it.


My Mother was in lower Manhattan that morning. Her story is here.

The Presidency has limits

On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in BOUMEDIENE ET AL. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. and in doing so restored one of them most precious rights to the country.

Petitioners are aliens detained at Guantanamo after being captured in Afghanistan or elsewhere abroad and designated enemy combatants by CSRTs. Denying membership in the al Qaeda terrorist network that carried out the September 11 attacks and the Tali-ban regime that supported al Qaeda, each petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court, which ordered the cases dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Guantanamo is outside sovereign U. S. territory. The D. C. Circuit affirmed, but this Court reversed,holding that 28 U. S. C. §2241 extended statutory habeas jurisdiction to Guantanamo.

This is good news for all of us, not just those out to harm the US as some commentators claim. The decision essentially over turns key parts of the Military Commissions act of 2006, which said in part:

(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

What sometimes gets lost with the phrase Habeas Corpus and assorted Latin terms is what this actually means. Essentially the right of Habeas Corpus means that someone who is arrested gets to go before a judge to challenge that arrest.

Without that right, the President can imprison anyone forever -- not trial, no testimony, no evidence. It's entirely at the executive's whim.

Now many will say that wasn't true. In fact the act above says it only applies to an enemy combatant.

The problem is there was no review.

So say for example, an natural born US citizen says something the President doesn't like. Maybe that person tells jokes on TV or perhaps just blogs occasionally about politics. Or maybe they painted their house an offensive color. It doesn't really matter what they did.

If the President got upset, he could have declared that person a non-citizen enemy combatant and locked them up in Guantanamo. Before this new ruling, that person would be there until the administration changed it's mind.

Some might say this is impossible because the person clearly is not an enemy combatant and is absolutely a US citizen. They can't be detained.

The problem is that without Habeas Corpus, there is no way for that citizen to make that argument. They can't go to court to challenge that detention. They are detained because the President said so and there is no way to object to that. Without Habeas Corpus there is no way to challenge an error by the administration or to challenge wrong doing by the administration.

This is why the ruling was so critical. Independent judicial review is essential to the survival of our country. The long history of separation of powers is what keeps us from turning into Zimbabwe. Our President shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily detain anyone he chooses without independent review.

I'm not saying that President Bush used this power in an aritrary way like the examples is used above. What is terribly frightening is that he could have. He could have thrown Scott McClellan, Cindy Sheehan, Nancy Pelosi, Al Franken, or anyone else in prison with no judicial review.

That is a a power no President should ever have.

TSA Slammed in Times OPED

It's reassuring to know that more people than ever are becoming aware of just what a sham TSA really is. Here's a recent OPED piece in the NYT taking TSA to task for its ludicrous liquids ban.

Screening Dreams

By Clark Kent Ervin

If you are someone who suspects that what is billed as “aviation security” is often more show than substance, you are not alone. In fact, you are part of what Nixon aides used to call the “silent majority.” The security bureaucracy seems to think that as long as it is seen as doing something, and so long as another terror attack does not occur, the public will at least feel secure enough not to insist that it do whatever needs to be done actually to make us secure.

...More

The author is not just a frustrated traveler. He is part of the Homeland Security industry:

Clark Kent Ervin was the first inspector general of the United States Department of Homeland Security, where he served from January, 2003 to December, 2004. He is the Director of the Aspen Institute’s Homeland Security Program and the author of “Open Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack.” He lives in Washington.

And remember -- the "attack" that started this whole liquids fiasco never would have succeeded, anyway. I ranted about that last year.

If TSA really thought those liquids were dangerous and explosive, then maybe, just maybe, asking all passenger to dispose of their liquids in a trash can in the middle of a crowded security screening area isn't such a good idea.

If they're dangerous, don't pile them all up together in the middle of a crowd. That's stupid. If they're not dangerous, then let me take my Mountain Dew through security. And quit confiscating the gel insoles from my shoes.

Was he pledging a frat?

BERLIN -- A man nearly died from alcohol poisoning after quaffing a liter (two pints) of vodka at an airport security check instead of handing it over to comply with new carry-on rules, police said Wednesday.
...More

While I am convinced the whole liquid ban for air travel is all for show, liquids have now shown themselves to be dangerous at airports.

I'm not sure who to be more annoyed with in this story -- the German authorities for adopting the ridiculous liquid rule, or the idiot who decided to chug a liter of vodka rather than check it.

Though I do feel bad for the people who were stuck in line behind him. I just hope they made their flights.

You can be arrested for bad thoughts

An Oak Creek High School teacher has been arrested after authorities said he posted comments online in a debate about teacher salaries, saying the Columbine High School shooters were heroes.

James Buss, 46, of Cudahy, was arrested Thursday by West Bend police and released after posting $300 bail. He has been suspended from his job. He could face criminal charges.

...More

Could face criminal charges for posting offensive comments? Do we arrest people now just because they might at some point have to face criminal charges?

And those criminal charges would be related to offensive comments?

Outrages like this are becoming more common. While Buss's comments may have been inappropriate, arresting someone for praising criminals is fundamentally wrong and is more offensive than his praise of the Columbine killers.

We have to protect offensive speech. That's why we have the first amendment. Those protections were added to our most important national document to protect the unpopular and offensive. Popular and politically correct speech doesn't need protection. The unpopular statements need to be protected.

Buss deserves a large settlement from the department that had him arrested. Elected officials who approve the arrest of people who simply post their thoughts on line need to be recalled or voted out of office.

I'm afraid it won't be long before something like this would be considered subversive and arrestable:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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.

Suicide Bombers in Video Games

Clive Thompson wrote an interesting piece for Wired.

He discusses how he gained some understanding of real world suicide bombers by resorting to similar tactics in video games.

Obviously the stakes are quite different, but his point is that when options are limited, people will make desperate choices.

The person who is most dangerous is often the person who had nothing to lose.

So after a few weeks of this ritual humiliation, I got sick of it. And I devised a simple technique for revenge.

Whenever I find myself under attack by a wildly superior player, I stop trying to duck and avoid their fire. Instead, I turn around and run straight at them. I know that by doing so, I'm only making it easier for them to shoot me -- and thus I'm marching straight into the jaws of death. Indeed, I can usually see my health meter rapidly shrinking to zero.

But at the last second, before I die, I'll whip out a sticky plasma grenade -- and throw it at them. Because I've run up so close, I almost always hit my opponent successfully. I'll die -- but he'll die too, a few seconds later when the grenade goes off. (When you pull off the trick, the game pops up a little dialog box noting that you killed someone "from beyond the grave.")

It was after pulling this maneuver a couple of dozen times that it suddenly hit me: I had, quite unconsciously, adopted the tactics of a suicide bomber -- or a kamikaze pilot.

It's not just that I'm willing to sacrifice my life to kill someone else. It's that I'm exploiting the psychology of asymmetrical warfare.

...More

This is just disgusting

Oct. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Three of the largest U.S. telephone companies declined to answer lawmakers' questions about Bush administration efforts to spy on Americans' phone calls and e- mails, saying the government forbade them from doing so.

...More

Dawson's Field Hijackings

From Wikipedia:

In the Dawson's Field hijackings (September 6, 1970) four jet aircraft bound for New York City were hijacked by members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

• TWA Flight 74 from Frankfurt am Main and Swissair Flight 100 from Zürich-Kloten Airport landed at Zerqa, also known as Dawson's Field, a remote desert airstrip in Jordan formerly used as a British Royal Air Force base.
• The hijacking of El Al Flight 219 from Amsterdam was foiled; hijacker Patrick Arguello was shot to death and his partner Leila Khaled was subdued and turned over to British authorities in London. Two hijackers prevented from joining the El Al flight instead hijacked Pan Am Flight 93, a Boeing 747, diverting the large plane to Beirut and then Cairo rather than the small Jordanian field.
• A fifth plane, BOAC Flight 775 from Bahrain, was hijacked on September 9 by a PFLP sympathizer and brought to Dawson's Field in order to pressure the British to free Khaled.

...More

A couple weeks ago, Tivo decided I would like to learn more about one of the most notorious assaults on civilian aviation. It recorded Hijacked, an documentary from the PBS series, The American Experience.

The show follows the story as it evolved, from the initial hijacking, to the trials in the desert, to the harrowing escapes in Cairo, to the high-level political discussions, and even to the street battles in a Jordan teetering on the brink of collapse.

While the passengers survived, Palestinian terrorists destroyed 4 aircraft and thrust middle east tension into the attention of the American people.

What I am still trying to figure out, however, is why I never heard about the hijackings until this month.

Regardless, if you can catch the PBS Documentary, it's worth the viewing time.

European Threat Level

This is making the rounds of the 'net today. I don't know who wrote it, but you go:

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." Londoners have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to a "Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was during the great fire of 1666.

Also, the French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Surrender" and "Collaborate." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

It's not only the English and French that are on a heightened level of alert.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout loudly and excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose."

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Who Planted the Car Bombs?

Generally, I am not a Tin Foil hat kind of guy. I laugh at most conspiracy theories. While I'm certain the Bush administration hasn't told us everything they know about 9/11, I am convinced based on all I'm read that the Towers were brought down by aircraft, the PA plane was driven into the ground by the terrorists, and I'm fairly certain the AA plane did hit the Pentagon (seriously, though, Mr. President, you really should release all that confiscated security footage).

But I have to question the news coming out of Britain. I already ranted about the Fake Liquid Bomb scare from last summer. This week I am also dubious.

Right now, I have 80% confidence that those two car bombs in London were part of a terrorist plot. But I think there's a 20% chance they were staged by some political, governmental, or other intelligence agency.

Bush's poll numbers are at an all time low. The US population is increasingly opposed to the war in Iraq. It looks like the Congress might try to restore some of our constitutional rights.

At the same time, the Congress is pushing ahead with measures to reign in an Executive Branch that has a Vice President who seems convinced he is part of some mythical fourth branch of US Government.

Britain just brought in a new Prime Minister who needs to demonstrate how tough he will be on terrorists.

And there is nothing like an imminent threat to make general populace give the executive whatever he wants to keep them safe.

So now we have two car bombs show up in London. The heroic British police deactivate them and save hundreds of lives.

No one got hurt. The police are heroes. The executives reinforce the need for strong security measures. And hopefully, the populace goes along with it all.

You wouldn't need many people involved in the plot to fake it, so it's possible.

Odds are, it was a real plot by terrorists. But I am not convinced.

Flying the Flag

This article has an interesting discussion about what it means to fly the flag at half mast.

Half-Staff Flags Stir Meaningful Debate
By GRETCHEN PARKER The Tampa Tribune

Published: Jun 10, 2007

Historically, flying your nation's flag at half-staff meant one thing.

Surrender.

Even before the white flag came to signal a request for truce, lowering the national flag over a battlefield was a darker expression of hopelessness. It meant, simply, a bitter end.

Now, we lower the U.S. flag to signify a nation in mourning. In a way, it's a carryover from the old tradition. It's a symbol of death - the ultimate submission.

... More

Bush Appoints War Czar

In the newly created position, Lute would serve as an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser, and would also maintain his military status and rank as a three-star general.

The White House has avoided the term "war czar" to describe the position. Bush called Lute the "full-time manager" for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

...

The White House has sought a war coordinator to eliminate conflicts among the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies. Lute will seek to cut through bureaucracy and deliver fast responses when requests come in from U.S. military commanders and ambassadors.

...more

It's great that the administration though about this. If only the founding fathers had thought to enshrine such a position in the Constitution -- someone with the authority to execute a military operation, manage the federal beuracracy, and who would ultimately be accountable for it and accountable to the American people.

Perhaps some sort of Commander-in-Chief...

Confess-o-matic

State bank on 9/11 terrorists' hit list
Confession by suspected mastermind released
...
The transcript also makes clear that al-Qaida wanted to down a second trans-Atlantic aircraft during would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid's operation.

Mohammed said he was involved in planning the 2002 bombing of a Kenyan beach resort frequented by Israelis and the failed missile attack on an Israeli passenger jet after it took off from Mombasa, Kenya. He also said he was responsible for the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia. In 2002, 202 were killed when two Bali nightclubs were bombed.

Other plots he said he was responsible for included plans to attack the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Empire State Building and New York Stock Exchange, the Panama Canal, and Big Ben and Heathrow Airport in London -- none of which happened.

He said he was involved in planning assassination attempts against former Presidents Carter and Clinton, attacks on U.S. nuclear power plants and suspension bridges in New York, the destruction of American and Israeli embassies in Asia and Australia, attacks on American naval vessels and oil tankers around the world, and an attempt to "destroy" an oil company he said was owned by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger on Sumatra, Indonesia.

He also claimed he shared responsibility for assassination attempts against Pope John Paul II and Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf.
...

Later, he claimed responsibilty for Adam Walsh's disappearce, said he admired the view from the Grassy Knoll, admitted to bombing an aircraft in New Mexico in 1947, and explained how he carried Syphilis to the new world in the 15 century.

"Kip Hawley is an Idiot": Phrase is a threat to Homeland Security

I've been reading this thread on Flyertalk since if first popped up. Ryan Bird, the passenger detained reports his story in the first post of the thread. Now it's on CNN, too.

A Frequent Flyer wrote "Kip Hawley [TSA Head] is an idiot" on his clear baggies that contained his toiletries. Because this form of political speech is apparently they same as making a joke about a bomb or an imminent act or terrorism, TSA and the sheriff's department detained him.

'Idiot' barb gets passenger detained
POSTED: 9:34 p.m. EDT, September 28, 2006
From Mike M. Ahlers
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Wisconsin man who wrote "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" on a plastic bag containing toiletries said he was detained at an airport security checkpoint for about 25 minutes before authorities concluded the statement was not a threat.

Ryan Bird, 31, said he wrote the comment about Hawley -- head of the Transportation Security Administration -- as a political statement. He said he feels the TSA is imposing unreasonable rules on passengers while ignoring bigger threats.

Given the stupidity and pointlessness of the current liquids/gels ban, this statement really is nothing more than saying the Emperor Has No Clothes. But that kind of dissent isn't really being tolerated by TSA anymore.

At this point, it comes as no surprise the the British terror plot in August was pretty much a joke. It simply would not have worked. More and more news outlets are starting to publish stories like this:

"So who came up with the idea that a bomb could be made on board? Not Al Qaeda for sure. It would not work. Bin Laden is interested in success not deterrence by failure," Wylde stated.

"This story has been blown out of all proportion. The liquids would need to be carefully distilled at freezing temperatures to extract the required chemicals, which are very difficult to obtain in the purities needed."

Once the fluids have been extracted, the process of mixing them produces significant amounts of heat and vile fumes. "The resulting liquid then needs some hours at room temperature for the white crystals that are the explosive to develop." The whole process, which can take between 12 and 36 hours, is "very dangerous, even in a lab, and can lead to premature detonation," said Lt. Col. Wylde.

Yeah. No one's going to notice if you try that in an airplane bathroom.

So rather than addressing the underprotected chemical plants in the country, the nation's major shipping ports, or even commercial air cargo, DHS has decided I can't take shampoo on the plane because somehow it might be used in an impossible plan. Good work, guys. That right there is tax payer money well spent.