Friday, July 11, 2008

DHS Science & Technology Spokesman refutes TSA bracelet story as "false"

The other day I made a post about a new DHS technology reported about on a Washington Times blog. To my complete suprise, a DHS comment appeared to call the story, "Shocking but false." I checked around today, and this commentor went to several other blogs that linked to the WT blog and pasted in the exact same thing that was pasted into mine.

http://hoodathunk.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/a-method-to-ensure-ill-never-fly-a-passenger-carrier-again-updated/

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=10010348

Here's the DHS blog about this "shocking but false" story on July 10:

http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/07/shocking-but-false.html


While some commentors ridicule the gullible people who believed such a thing was even possible, others make some astute observations about TSA's expanding powers, like the one who said, "After all, three years ago nobody ever would have believed TSA would ban water."

What I find most interesting about this, is that of ALL the things I write about the emerging communitarian government powers, this is the ONLY time I've ever got a rebuttal from an official government source. I post the UN-U.S. blueprints for sustainable development, I expose global U.S. Communitarian Law and how it's being introduced across the world, and I've even suggested more than once that Amitai Etzioni is either the top Israeli spy in the White House (known to the FBI as "Mega") or he knows who it is, but they've never bothered to comment or make a statement that my allegations were false, not even once. In fact, Etzioni's initial response to our manifesto was to put a link to it on his blog titled, "and now a word from our detractors." He quickly removed the link to the ACL from his blog, but it's remained on the Communitarian Network's Links page since April 2003.

Maybe someday Etzioni will leave a comment and reassure us about any other "shocking but false" things we link to at the ACL.

1 comment:

Bobby Garner said...

"In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context." - Straw Man

DHS or some affiliate leaks a story to the Washington Times about airline passengers being required to wear shock bracelets. This is the strawman fallacy.

"The hypothetical use of the bracelet would have been for transporting already apprehended prisoners and detainees at prisons and border patrol facilities, and DHS was looking to see if there were potential air travel applications for apprehended suspects." - DHS-S&Tspokesman

Attacking a distorted version of an argument destroys the straw man (all passengers wearing shock bracelets), but fails to address the "entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context" of the argument.

The context of course is the "entire situation of the argument" pertaining to the loss of liberties, the right to travel and be left alone among others, since the declaration of the War on Terror particularly and since the adoption of UN/Local Agenda 21 generally. The loss of the basic Right to not be detained, herded and processed by DHS while boarding a plane at airports, apprehended, or transported without warrant to jails, prisons or border patrol facilities, to be held indefinitely without charge of any crime, confiscations of property, and the right to a speedy trial denied.

Hypothetically of course, any one of us may appear to be suspicious to anyone at any time, and reported. This qualifies us to have our mug shot appear on TV and characterized as a "suspect" where the audience is invited to cast a vote based entirely on the bogus "evidence" presented by the authority holding the "suspect".

We should never suspect them of lying about their real intentions and plans because they never discuss them. Straw Men are much easier to burn, and they don't compromise any secrets.