Feeling Nervous? 3,000 Behavior Detection Officers Will Be Watching You at the Airport This Thanksgiving

By Liliana Segura, AlterNet. Posted November 24, 2009.

Nearly 100,000 passengers were pulled aside by TSA behavior watchers last year, and it remains to be proven whether you can spot terrorists by the looks on their faces.

Here's a question to ponder the next time you're taking off your shoes at airport security: Can you spot terrorists by the look on their faces?

For the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the answer is yes. For the past few years, airports across the country have been using what many call "behavioral surveillance" to weed out potential hijackers among us, by covertly examining travelers' facial expressions and body language as they go through security. Unlike those airport employees who herd us along as we remove our shoes and relinquish all liquids over three ounces (with dubious results), this new program, named "Screening Passengers by Observational Techniques," or "SPOT," is carried out by TSA employees who have been trained to monitor travelers' faces and movements. As Americans head out of town this holiday season, more than 3,000 "Behavior Detection Officers" will be at 161 airports nationwide, watching our every move.

Read on...

Federal Court Rules Bush Administration Must Justify Scholar’s Visa Denial

ACLU Hails Victory, Says U.S. Must End Censorship At The Bord

BOSTON - December 8 - A federal court today ruled that it has the power to review whether the Bush administration has a valid reason for denying a visa to respected South African scholar Adam Habib. The decision comes in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Massachusetts challenging the State Department's refusal to grant Professor Habib a visa based on unsubstantiated national security claims. Habib remains banned from the country and unable to attend speaking engagements in the United States.

"Today's ruling reaffirms that the Bush administration cannot manipulate immigration laws to silence critics of U.S. government policy and then shield their actions from scrutiny by the courts. The government cannot cherry pick whose voices we are allowed to hear," said Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project who argued the case in court. "As the court recognized, the government cannot bar Professor Habib from speaking in the U.S. without any explanation or substantiation whatsoever. Today's decision is a major victory for judicial review and a significant blow to the administration's failed attempt at stifling debate by banning a prominent critic of U.S. policy." Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the First Amendment requires the government to provide a valid, substantiated reason for excluding a scholar invited to speak to U.S. audiences. Writing that "the government has not given a reason for the denial," Judge O'Toole allowed the ACLU's challenge to move forward. In late 2007, the State Department refused Habib a visa after months of inaction, claiming that he is barred because he has "engaged in terrorist activities," but the government failed to explain the basis for its accusation, let alone provide any evidence to prove it.

Read on...

It is funny how suddenly a lot of court decisions are starting to go against the Bush administration. Makes you wonder why the courts were more Bush-friendly for the last 8 years. Tom