*DemandProgress has a petition to stop leaders like Sen. Lieberman from outlawing WikiLeaks. Sign it.

I previously wrote about Senator Joseph Lieberman’s (I-CT) appearance on Fox News on Tuesday, December 7th, where he suggested that New York Times should be subjected to an inquiry by the Justice Department on whether they committed a crime or not by publishing or reporting on the contents of the diplomatic cables leaked by WikiLeaks. I intentionally ignored one aspect of Sen. Lieberman’s remarks on Fox News because I felt that aspect deserved its own article.

Just after addressing whether the press reporting on WikiLeaks should face a Justice Department investigation or not, Sen. Lieberman added:

“And, again, why do you prosecute crimes? Because if you don’t–Well, first you do because that’s what our system of justice requires. Second, if you don’t prosecute people who commit crimes, others are going to do it soon and again.

As someone familiar with what Bush Administration officials did when they were in power and how there are officials who should be dragged into court to face a trial for war crimes, I instantly noted the inconsistency. This remark was laughable. But, I am conscious of the fact that it also revealed those in charge of deciding who is guilty of crimes and not guilty of crimes do not think certain violations of the law are crimes.

They think waterboarding, which has traditionally been defined as torture, an act considered to be a war crime, is permissible in some situations. They think warrantless wiretapping is acceptable if there is information to be gained that could be of use (and don’t believe they should be required to prove in the aftermath that what they gained was useful). They find little problem with a CIA, which kidnaps terror suspects and uses extraordinary rendition to send them off to countries that are known to torture suspects, like Egypt. And, they are willing to have terror suspects imprisoned indefinitely in secret prisons or, in the case of detainees at Guantanamo, they are willing to prevent terror suspects from being granted due process.

On April 23, 2009, Sen. Lieberman appeared on “Fox & Friends” on Fox News. Here is a full transcript of the interview he did with host Brian Kilmeade, who expressed his gratitude for Lieberman’s lack of interest in prosecuting former Bush Administration officials:

MR. KILMEADE: Senator Joe Lieberman urging the president not to prosecute. He’s live at the Russell Rotunda. You’re a Democrat telling a Democratic president not to prosecute a Republican — that’s not a popular move. Why shouldn’t he go forward?

SEN. LIEBERMAN : I suppose that’s what it means, Brian, to be an independent Democrat. Look, in the best of all worlds, interpreting what the president said in the clip you just ran, he was deferring to Attorney General Holder to make this decision. But the three of us — Senator McCain, Senator Graham and I — think it’s a real mistake to start breaching the possibility that you criminalize a legal opinion. I mean, you could disagree with the opinions these lawyers wrote during the Bush administration about these enhanced interrogation tactics.

I disagree with some of them. I think they are reasoned opinions. It looks to me like they and the CIA people were really trying to find out exactly what would not be torture under the law of the United States. But you know, if you’re going to start — look, we had an election last year. We got a new administration. This president has prohibited these tactics from being used against suspects in the war against terrorism. So let’s move on. If we start to go back, it raises the possibility we’re going to — we’re basically going to find lawyers who wrote an opinion, that I presume they believed in, guilty of a crime –

MR. KILMEADE: Exactly.

SEN. LIEBERMAN : We’re opening a door that’s going to make it hard for any administration in the future to get the kind of legal advice that it wants, let alone deal with people who are suspects that may have information in the war on terrorism.

MR. KILMEADE: As we hear, you know, there’s going to be a time when this party is not in power and this president is not in the White House. Do you want to go back and investigate that administration? Is it ever going to end and is it going to help anyone except for people get political points? Sena what about those ranking Democrats that knew about these enhanced interrogation tactics on the Armed Services Committee and the Senate Select Committee? Should they be hauled in front of Congress and investigated?

SEN. LIEBERMAN : Well, I mean, there’s no end to this if you go on. That’s the point. Look, the American public, I think, wants us to do two things: One is to focus on the economy today and get going again — protect and create jobs; and two, defend America from the Islamist terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and are still looking for every opportunity to do it today. If we get into basically a political war here in Washington over what happened during the last eight years, it’s going to take our eyes and our attention and our effort off of what we really ought to be doing for the American people. There is simply nothing to be gained from it and it is going to have a bad effect on every administration of any party that follows in the generations ahead.

MR. KILMEADE: As chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, I’m sure he’s got to take your calls, Senator Lieberman .   Make that call to the Oval Office and spare us a long, drawn out investigation. Thanks so much for expanding on the letter your put out there with Senator Lindsey Graham, as well as John McCain. Always great to see you, Senator. [emphasis added]

Sen. Lieberman’s arguments against prosecuting Bush Administration officials for crimes could be used to argue against prosecuting WikiLeaks. Lieberman and others upset by WikiLeaks could choose to disagree but protect the actions of WikiLeaks just like leaders like Sen. Lieberman suggest we all should respect the actions and opinions of lawyers that created legal justification for torture. This could open a door that in the future makes it harder for the press to report on government and fulfill their role as a watchdog of government (it actually could mean more WikiLeaks-type organizations spring up because press do not find it safe to report on classified information anymore).

There could potentially be no end to this if Sen. Lieberman’s and others’ crusade against WikiLeaks gains further traction. What starts with WikiLeaks would have to move on to publications like the New York Times. And then, on to members of other press organizations that reported on the leaks. Perhaps, it would be used to specifically criminalize independent media like Democracy Now!. And then, would there be interest in extraditing individuals who work for The Guardian, Der Spiegel, El Pais, or Le Monde to the United States since they have been cooperating and working with WikiLeaks?

What is to be gained from this? There is no evidence to suggest that any real damage has occurred. No deaths have been reported as a result of WikiLeaks’ release of leaked documents. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that reactions over the harm that WikiLeaks’ release of documents would do to America were “significantly overwrought.” The gains from going after WikiLeaks will be further repression of press freedom, increased support for censorship and security that destroys the openness and democratic nature of the Internet, and criminalization of those who dissent against America.

Of course, this comparison requires one note be made: WikiLeaks has not committed any crimes. It has not been convicted of anything. On the other hand, former Bush Administration officials committed crimes (crimes the leaked diplomatic cables show U.S. government has been trying to cover up or blackmail people into not investigating).

The persecution of WikiLeaks is entirely political. Julian Assange may be guilty of a sex crime and, if that is the case, he will be prosecuted and face a fine or time in prison. But, Assange and WikiLeaks are not being hunted and strangled because their leader may have committed a sex crime. They are “Public Enemy No. 1″ because they have challenged America.

WikiLeaks has brought out into the open the contradiction that is the United States. Its leaders do little to challenge those who might use the scientific journalism of Wikileaks to repress press freedom and, at the same time, celebrate the fact that U.S. will be the host of World Press Freedom Day in 2011. Its leaders jabber about justice and making sure people are prosecuted so others do not commit the same crimes in the future and simultaneously ignore their history of complicity toward lawlessness and misconduct by U.S. government. And, they purport to be leaders of a free nation as they engage in acts of censorship, coercion and intimidation against American citizens who might take interest and express a desire to support WikiLeaks.

I suppose citizens of the world should expect nothing less from these American leaders. People that argue WikiLeaks is endangering lives and then change their argument to the leaks reveal nothing new clearly are doomed to an existence of contradiction.

WikiLeaks pledges to continue to fight government secrecy despite persecution by the U.S. and other countries. by R_SH

Political leaders like the tyrannical Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and complicit authoritarian Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have come out in full support of prosecuting the now-captured and arrested Julian Assange under the U.S. Espionage Act of 1917. Whether they can do so or not is of no concern to them, and don’t expect that to matter as the press repeats this idea that Assange could be prosecuted.

Sen. Lieberman, Senator John Ensign (R-Nev) and Senator Scott Brown (R-Mass) have introduced a bill that would “stop” WikiLeaks and make it “illegal to publish the names of military or intelligence community informants.” The bill known as the Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination Act (SHIELD) would amend the Espionage Act. The main problem with the act is, as Dave Weigel of Slate wrote, “the information being leaked, while embarrassing, hasn’t been highly classified. It’s been secret, or marked “NOFORN,” but it’s not classified.” Thus, it appears the act might currently be ineffective in “stopping” WikiLeaks or future releases of information by any individual, group or organization.

What these senators aim to do is guaranteed to further reduce the protections for journalists and members of the media in this country. It’s guaranteed to further create a political climate where journalists are faced with the possibility of coercive measures if they actually exercise the rights and privileges granted to them by the First Amendment. And, it’s that climate that ensures more and more individuals will leak materials to WikiLeaks instead of media outlets in America, who cannot give their sources guarantees they will be protected under the law.

Sen. Lieberman appeared on the Fox News Channel on December 7th to express his support for not only prosecuting Assange but also examining the culpability of media organizations like the New York Times, which have referenced in the leaked secrets in their news articles.

HOST: Julian Assange has written an editorial that points out or characterizes his organization as an underdog in the media world. And he’s saying that he is a journalist and he’s saying that he’s just providing information out there for the world’s citizens to see. He mentions that organizations like the New York Times have published his information, which you’re classifying as state secrets. So, are other media outlets that have posted what WikiLeaks put out there also culpable on this and could be charged with something?

LIEBERMAN: I have said that I believe the question you are raising is a serious legal question that has to be answered. In other words, this is very sensitive stuff because it gets into America’s First Amendment, but if you go from the initial crime–Private Manning charged with a crime of stealing these classified documents, he gives them to WikiLeaks, I certainly believe WikiLeaks has violated the espionage act. But then what about the news organizations, including the NYT, that accepted it and distributed it? I’m not here to make a final judgment on that. But to me the New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship, but whether they have committed a crime I think that bears very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department. [emphasis added]

In his appearance, Sen. Lieberman called the release of documents by Assange and WikiLeaks “the most serious violation of the Espionage Act” in America’s history.

Sen. Feinstein, in her editorial published by the Wall Street Journal , wrote, “When WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange released his latest document trove–more than 250,000 secret State Department cables–he intentionally harmed the U.S. government. The release of these documents damages our national interests and puts innocent lives at risk. He should be vigorously prosecuted for espionage.”

She claimed the authority to decide whether Assange is or is not a journalist, a power she and nobody in government holds. She promoted the idea that the release has hurt people, when there is absolutely no proof that anyone has been harmed as a result of these leaks. And, she concluded, “As for the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that its protections of free speech and freedom of the press are not a green light to abandon the protection of our vital national interests. Just as the First Amendment is not a license to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, it is also not a license to jeopardize national security.”

This is where we get into the real crime that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are guilty of committing. They are guilty of posing a threat to American superpower.

They have made it more difficult to wage a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture false cases for any future wars. They have made it harder to mislead Americans and other citizens of the world to believe a country poses an imminent threat to the United States. They have made it more problematic for America to use illegal detention, torture, and rendition on the world’s citizens when prosecuting the “war on terror.” They have made it more complicated for America to use spying and blackmailing when engaging countries in diplomacy. And, they have made leaders of countries in the world less willing to upset the sensibilities of people whom they govern and lie to them to prevent them from demonstrating their disapproval and outrage for going along with a ruthless superpower.

Political leaders and media pundits are disinforming the public when they talk about prosecuting Assange. Leaders like Sen. Feinstein are cherry-picking portions of a Congressional Research Service report to suit their worldview on what can and cannot be done to “protect” America. Indeed, an October report did claim there exists “ample statutory authority for prosecuting individuals who elicit or disseminate the types of documents at issue, as long as the intent element can be satisfied and potential damage to national security can be demonstrated.” But, as Evan Harper commented on one of Glenn Greenwald’s posts:

“In Feinstein’s WSJ op-ed, she claims “That he is breaking the law and must be stopped from doing more harm is clear. I also believe a prosecution would be successful,” citing a Congressional Research Service report which wrote that “there is ample statutory authority” for such a prosecution. But she very badly cherry-picked the report, which goes on to say:

‘…we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it. There may be First Amendment implications that would make such a prosecution difficult, not to mention political ramifications based on concerns about government censorship. To the extent that the investigation implicates any foreign nationals whose conduct occurred entirely overseas, any resulting prosecution may carry foreign policy implications related to the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction.’

Essentially, CRS found that a plausible reading of the Espionage Act, by itself, might find some grounds to charge Assange — but that precedent, the Constitution, and jurisdictional issues all weigh against a successful prosecution. Feinstein was grossly dishonest in eliding this.”

It’s quite telling that they would fall back on the Espionage Act as the tool that could prevent Assange and WikiLeaks from causing more damage to America’s image in the world. The Espionage Act was signed into law by Glenn Beck’s least favorite president, Woodrow Wilson, shortly after America entered World War I. The act was intended to only apply during wartime, but, like many expansions of executive power in recent American history, the act continued to be applied to dissidents who were getting in the way of military recruiting or efforts to prosecute wars.

As Neal Rockwell points out on NYC Indymedia, “Its first major test case was with a Socialist named Charles Schenck, who received a six month sentence for passing out leaflets denouncing the draft, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. There have been a number of high profile Individuals prosecuted or threatened with this law over the years. In 1918, the famed Socialist organizer Eugene Debs was given a ten year sentence for delivering an anti-war speech on the grounds that it obstructed recruitment and the war effort. His sentence was later commuted by Warren Harding in 1921, and he was released after spending thirty two months in prison. The poet E E Cummings spent a few months in jail under the Act, for speaking openly about his lack of hatred for the Germans. The Post Office was also instrumental in using this law, in that it refused to deliver materials which were deemed to violated it, thus suppressing many radical newspapers.”

Julian Assange has brought out the true spirit of America. Visa and MasterCard refuse to process donations to WikiLeaks or Assange. PayPal refuses to allow WikiLeaks to use the service for donations. Amazon censors the Wikileaks website. Tableau opts to prohibit WikiLeaks from using its graphics service for data visualizations. The School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) at Columbia University warns students to refrain from commenting on the leaked diplomatic cables on social media sites like Facebook or Twitter and not post links to the documents if they hope to ever work for the State Department (while at the same time pledging to host World Press Freedom Day in 2011). And, the Obama Administration and the Department of Defense orders hundreds of thousands of federal workers to not view the once secret cables.

The U.S.-led “war on WikiLeaks” has tacitly endorsed censorship of the Internet and taken steps that will move it further away from being an arena where all citizens of the world can act openly without fear of being met by unchecked political power. The crew of WikiLeaks has demonstrated that America is more interested in being a closed, conspiratorial, inefficient and totalitarian country instead of using the document dumps WikiLeaks have brought to the world to become more open and honest in government operations. And, those who have supported, aided or abetted WikiLeaks should be aware of how this all could steamroll into a situation where Americans are increasingly asked to take “loyalty oaths” in order to take jobs or use services on the Internet and face surveillance that will lead to persecution if found to be engaging in suspect political activity (indeed, a new round of witch hunts aimed at “disloyal” Americans is already being mounted by the FBI in this country).

Ask yourself: Will there be an agent at your door asking you, “Are you or are you not working in cooperation with Julian Assange and others associated with WikiLeaks?” And, if so, do we intend to stand up and mobilize and raise our voices high and defend our right to disseminate now-public information and utilize our First Amendment rights without threat of intimidation or criminalization?

Whether Julian Assange is guilty of rape or sexual molestation allegations is for the Swedish courts to decide. If he did in fact commit a crime, he will suffer the consequences. But, the charges increasingly appear to be part of a campaign of political persecution that is being endorsed and sponsored by a nation that wishes revenge on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks for daring to challenge American superpower.

Head of TSA, John Pistole, goes before a Senate Committee to discuss new changes to airport security, asserts that he will listen to concerns but nothing will likely change.

Head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), John Pistole, went before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, to deliver a statement and answer questions on new security initiatives–the full-body scanners (“porno-scanners”) and pat-downs (“grope-a-dopes”). The Committee, which is responsible for oversight of the TSA, attempted to address criticism from civil liberties groups, pilot and flight attendant unions, and passengers.

The hearing with Pistole opened with a statement from the Chairman of the Committee, Sen. Jay D. Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), who has in his career, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), received nearly half a million dollars in campaign donations from the air transport industry. He attempted to talk about balancing the need to protect the public with citizens’ rights to privacy but talked very little about whether the new procedures violated the Fourth Amendment or not.

Instead, Sen. Rockefeller mostly expressed his conviction that the “threats are very real and extremely ongoing and evolving every day and something hasn’t happened because the intelligence has been so good and that won’t always be the case. So, we’ve had kind of a lucky run here.” This meant normal Fourth Amendment protections might not be able to be afforded. And, why the U.S. could not expect intelligence to always be good was not explained. This seemed to be Sen. Rockefeller’s way of scaring anyone in the “traveling public” that dared to doubt the decisions behind adding the new procedures.

Sen. Rockefeller expressed great frustration, as he seemed to urge Pistole to have TSA be more totalitarian in their security.

“I don’t like going out to Dulles Airport, walking onto an airplane. Not a pat-down, they don’t even look at me,” remarked Sen. Rockefeller.

Surely, each senator or congressman could probably get themselves a personal TSA agent to meet them at the gate every time they fly out. Like at a gentleman’s club, they probably could get a favorite girl (or guy depending on whether the senator or congressman is suppressing homosexuality or not). They could run their hand up and down in a non-threatening but authoritative fashion and make sure the senators have peace of mind when traveling to their destination. If that’s what Sen. Rockefeller would like to see happen, the Ministry of Love, I mean, Department of Homeland Security could probably do that.

A round of opening statements took place after Rockefeller completed his statement in defense of government violating your civil liberties (he even slipped in a jab at Democrats who didn’t like “the FISA” because they said it violated privacy).

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) was particularly interesting because she used her opening statement to treat the many outraged constituents who have been calling her as petulant, unreasonable and unrealistic people:

“I want to say a few words on passenger screening at my own risk given the calls that have been coming into my office on these screenings. I appreciate the steps forward that you made. I have been a fan of the AIT [Advanced Imaging Technology]. I think it’s going to show things that you didn’t know about before.”

She seemed to suggest that perhaps dangerous objects or non-metallic explosives have gotten through prior to now and the escalation would now ensure those objects and explosives didn’t get through. That just sounded like more conjuring of fear with no basis in reality at all. Plus, in March, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report that said, “It remains unclear whether the AIT would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident based on the preliminary information GAO has received.”

The most awkward and revealing exchange took place when Sen. Byron Dorgan, who in his career, according to CRP, has received over $300,000 from the air transport industry, asked Pistole to explain the pat-down checks:

SEN. BYRON DORGAN: Pat-down checks. There’s reason for people to be concerned and to express that concern publicly. You explain precisely why it is necessary for us to have Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT). Have you been subjected to the law enforcement-style pat-down implemented nationally?

JOHN PISTOLE: I insisted that I receive that pat-down before I ordered that it be deployed nationwide. Also, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Loot, and other senior members of Homeland Security received that pat-down to see–not see, experience–so they would know what that involved before we rolled that out.

DORGAN: And your impression?

PISTOLE: It was thorough.

DORGAN: I understand. But, your impression beyond the fact that it was thorough?

PISTOLE: Well, the whole purpose is…

DORGAN: Did it make you uncomfortable? I mean, what was your impression personally?

PISTOLE: Yeah, yeah. It was more invasive than what I was used to. Of course, what is in my mind from almost 27 years with the FBI and all my counterterrorism work since 9/11 is what are the plot that are out there? And, how are we informed by the latest intelligence? And what do we have to do to assure the American people that we are being thorough? So, the answer is it is clearly more invasive. The purpose of that is to obviously detect those types of devices that we had not seen before, for example, last Christmas. I am very sensitive and concerned about people’s privacy concerns. And, I want to work through that as best we can. The bottom line is, we need to provide for the best possible security. [emphasis added]

Again, in March the GAO indicated they were uncertain “porno-scanners” would have detected the condom bomb the underwear bomber set off. But, more importantly, the premise of this exchange is frightening because of what it attempts to establish. Sen. Dorgan, no matter his intention, is somehow under the impression if the top officials in Homeland Security understood what the new procedures feel like to passengers then passengers would be less angry. They’d be more willing to accept the procedures and not criticize them as violations of privacy.

One might remember how news personalities like Mancow or writers like Christopher Hitchens elected to be waterboarded to see if it was “torture.” Political leaders were telling political leaders that didn’t believe waterboarding was torture to go get waterboarded. News personality Rick Sanchez had someone test a taser on him. The reactions somehow were meant to illuminate whether society was reasonable or not to react the way it was reacting to waterboarding or tasers. The public has cooled down overwhelmingly when it comes to tasers and waterboarding remains justifiable to many. And now, in this case, senators, representatives and top ranking Homeland Security officials are testing the demeaning procedure known as a “pat-down” on their selves to prove they can take it and the assumption is, if they can handle it, the public can too.

What this all seems to suggest is if people cannot get in line and get with the program and cooperate, they’re overreacting and, in some cases, may need to be dealt with for obstructing law and order (e.g. John Tyner whom TSA threatened with a civil suit and an $11,000 fine). It suggests that in some cases the people who have the most influence on public debate can decide whether the Fourth Amendment matters or doesn’t matter.

But, perhaps, the final part of Dorgan’s questioning is what said the most about the unfolding conflict between the public and the TSA:

DORGAN: And my understanding is that the October change went from using the back of a hand gliding across a person to a different approach. You might describe that–

PISTOLE: The back of the hand is still used in some aspects. I would prefer not to go into, um, specific details of in an open hearing simply because I don’t want to give a road map to say that’s exactly what the technique is and so how can we defeat that. We’ve just seen the ingenuity, creativity of al Qaeda particularly in the Arabian Peninsula with these last three attacks. I’d be happy to go into great detail in a private hearing. Honestly, any member who has not experienced that pat-down who would like to do that–I wouldn’t offer it but an experienced qualified security officer would be glad to do that.

Initially upon watching this exchange, it would seem that Pistole turned bashful when asked this question and didn’t like that the details he was being asked to provide might sound obscene (after all, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic reported from a Baltimore Airport TSA informed him the new procedure requires searching up and down a person’s thigh and between their legs until they meet “resistance”). Describing the nature of the pat-down would likely sound like sexual assault. Of course, in this case the senators understood the context of the sexual assault was security so, if meant to keep Americans safe, it could ultimately be acceptable.

Really, Pistole did what every authoritarian does when he or she is confronted with the bizarre notion that he or she must explain or justify the reasons for certain actions, policies, procedures, etc: Pistole suggested that information must remain classified.

Had this been a casual conversation perhaps in a café or bar setting, someone would have looked Pistole in the face and called him out for being fucking ridiculous. The “road map” he alluded to is no secret. It is engraved in every American’s mind that has just experienced this procedure for the first time in the past month. It has been described multiple times on blogs and in the news so if terrorists could really memorize how a TSA agent was going to grope them and develop a strategy to outsmart the agent so he or she could get through the security checkpoint the reality is this country would have probably been attacked by now. If the terrorist is part of a far-reaching network of individuals that hates us for our freedom, the moment the transition to new procedures began he or she would have hit America.

The content of the hearing only affirmed what Goldberg pointed out: “The pat-down, while more effective than previous pat-downs, will not stop dedicated and clever terrorists from smuggling on board small weapons or explosives.” Why? Because if TSA, in the pat-down, does not plan to cavity search all assholes and vaginas there will still be a risk posed to air travel.

And, if the aim of TSA is to humiliate passengers so that they use the porno-scanners, as Goldberg also suggested, then the public really has to be concerned about being conditioned to accept going through a machine that will likely pose risks because of radiation. Frequent travelers will surely begin to come down with cancer.

Cancer might be worth it to some who are not just afraid of flying but also flying and dying in midair or flying and dying as one collides into the ground or a building. But, shouldn’t one get to know exactly what Homeland Security is doing and whether the machines actually can prevent incidents like the one that touched off this escalation in security? I mean, if you’re going to get cancer to keep the greatest country on the third rock from the sun safe, doesn’t one get to know that this isn’t all just part of some government kickback to people like Michael Chertoff, who allegedly was looking for a contract for some scanning machines and exploited the shock of an incident in order to get a contract and do some profiteering?

No, because Pistole and others don’t want the terrorists to be able to use their creativity and ingenuity to get around the machines. That in authoritarian speak means the public doesn’t have a right to know because the agency in charge doesn’t want the public to know what it knows because the public might further question the agency about its knowledge. (Donald Rumsfeld might say here, “Known knowns will remain known unknowns to a public that just doesn’t have to know the knowns that we know are not unknown unknowns.”)

That means until WikiLeaks leaks a bunch of TSA reports on homeland security Americans will be expected to trust that giving up one’s Fourth Amendment rights is required in order to survive in this post-9/11 world of terror. They will be expected to submit to a security regiment that really just gives off the illusion of security because, in reality, nothing can ever be 100% safe.