TSA Violated Privacy Act 315
pin_gween writes "Remember when the TSA said they wanted info on travelers last year? They said they were only using names to test new software. Apparently, they lied. The Guardian has an AP wire about a Congressional report on the TSA. From the article: 'The agency actually took 43,000 names of passengers and used about 200,000 variations of those names - who turned out to be real people who may not have flown that month, the GAO said. A TSA contractor collected 100 million records on those names.' They also 'published a second notice indicating that it would do the things it had earlier said it wouldn't do.' A TSA spokesman said the info will be destroyed when the test is over. My question -- will the test actually end?"
Lies, lies and more lies. (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO: "There is UNIX code in Linux"
Bush: "We will get the WMD out of Iraq"
etc etc.
Nobody really cares in the end, it's all so easy to forget being blatantly lied to as long as things are mostly OK in the end.
Right?
The reason that we must not give up our freedoms (Score:2, Insightful)
Who is suprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did anybody believe them anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
We must always remember that a commitment from a company is not worth the electrons over which it is communicated.
Contempt for Law (Score:5, Insightful)
I can certainly understand that law enforcement wants to "get the bad guys". Unfortunately, so much of today's law enforcement activity has little or nothing to do with actual criminals and spends most of its time operating against ordinary citizens. If you think this is limited to terrorism, think again. The Illinois State Police where I am routinely set up "seat belt enforcement zones" where people are pulled over and forced to prove that they aren't law breakers. It's similar to more and more "checkpoints" that are set up for all sorts of things and a presumption on the part of the police that they have the right to search you just to find out if you are doing anything wrong. That puts the 4th amendment on its head, and unfortunately our courts have gone along with it. Unless you are actually in your home, you can probably assume you can be investigated, searched, questeioned, etc. by the cops for any reason or for no reason at all.
So I don't see the TSA as some unique manifestation of anti-terror laws or a rogue agency. I see them as very symptomatic of what has been going on in law enforcement for a long time. This is just the next chapter.
Wake the fuck up (Score:1, Insightful)
now do you understand the distrust? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, profiling IS bad. Not because we are a happy feely culture that thinks race should never be identified, but because if there are a handful of "triggers" that automatically get one searched instead of random searches then "the terrorists" will just figure out those triggers and send up people that don't meet those triggers. It would end up being easy for true terrorist organizations to avoid while ONLY catching regular people (and really stupid terrorists).
Don't assume for a second that all terrorists are men between 20-35 years old with long beards and "ethnic" clothing.
Re:Fly Safe .... (Score:3, Insightful)
As a somewhat regular air-traveller, allow me to be the first to say noooooooooooo!
I do not wish to be locked in an aircraft at 30,000 feet with a bunch of sweaty, naked, ugly people rolling on E.
Re:Lies, lies and more lies. (Score:2, Insightful)
Terror Is as Terror Does (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, it's completely obvious that, except for the Qaeda and the Taliban, that slogan about "the post-9/11 world" everyone on TV chants, "everything changed", is total BS. Nothing changed, except the ability to scare people into submission went off the charts. People who wanted war in Iraq, no matter what, got their war. People who wanted giant defense budgets got them. People who wanted to discard habeas corpus protections got rid of them. People who wanted Republicans to control all the branches of government got them. People who wanted an excuse for a broken economy, to cover up offshoring, inadequate education, failed confidence from Enron, WorldCom, ArthurAndersen, and a generation of Wall Street snake oil salesmen, got their excuse. People who wanted tax shirking got it. People who wanted racial profiling and massive privacy invasion got it. People who wanted government handouts to their welfare states, at the cost of $trillions in debt, got all that. And all the oil profiteers got $60:barrel oil, which costs little more to extract and sell than when it was $25. And of course they got federal tax credits for buying SUVs that get <15MPG, rather than 50MPG alternative energy vehicles.
But only if you embraced terror: became a terrorist. People who didn't, like the Democrats, didn't get what they wanted. They didn't get their candidate in the White House, because they didn't get a big noise in the media about how the Qaeda specifically planned to avoid attacking the US [pnionline.com]. Freedom lovers haven't gotten the rest of the 1990s "peace dividend", like forcing China to stop its tyranny with the "market power of the US" - because the businesses which own the new Chinese industries, and their American markets, are profiting from the fear that distracts from the perpetual terrorism that keeps their Chinese slaves in line. And we didn't get Osama bin Laden. WHERE'S OSAMA? Where's that "democratic Iraq", the "quelled Iraqi threat to American security"? It's with those who failed to embrace terror: on the ash heap of history.
The lists of who got what, and who didn't, line up perfectly on who "embraces and extends" terrorism, and who doesn't. And it's not just "who's for and who's against". Because Democrats, the losers in the political duopoly, have been just as "against" terrorism in their laws and policies, as Republicans. Republicans, however, have cast Democrats as preferring "therapy" to "killing" for terrorists, though that's a vicious lie. But that way to scare Americans about Democrats is successful terrorism, using planebombs as fuel for political power. Really, there's little difference between the Qaeda and the Bush uses of terrorism. The planebombs and tube-bombs are attacks, they're sabotage of our essential infrastructure. But they're really just the necessary spark for the actual terrorism, the terror perpetuated in the media and among people. Just like the Taliban who conquered Afghanistan on the spark of repeling the Soviets with "Islam", the neocons are conquering America on the spark of repeling the "liberals" with Christian evangelism: the Christaliban who back Bush with faith. Regardless of what you believe about conspiracies among people in Washington to allow or encourage a "Pearl Harbor event" to justify their neocon agenda, it's undeniable that some have rode the wave of fear with skill and aplomb. So we're going to get nothing but more terrorism, with the minimum of actual bombs that destroy corporate property. We're going to get more fear, more lies, more abuse. Until we wake up and reject the terror, dispelled by knowledge, and eradicate the terrorists. Starting with those in Washington and the corporate media who are closest, and doing most of the damage. Cleansing the TSA of thse lying tyrants would be a good start.
Government is the Ultimate Mulitnational Corp. (Score:1, Insightful)
Look at the world today. There are at least as many examples of public sector failures as private (our public schools being a great example). Many of the most polluted sites on our country were made that way by government agencies such as the US military. And of course let's not forget such shameful items as the Tuskegee Experiment.
The fact is, government is almost exactly like a large corporation in every respect - only on a larger scale. As I've often argued, government is the ultimate multi-national corporation. Both corporations and goverment are nominally controlled by their owners (the shareholders or voters) but the reality is that entrenched management really runs the show most of the time. Both are characterized by a bureaucratic mindset.
One big difference is that if a corporation does something wrong, it is much easier to hold accountable. You can sue a corporation who hurts you - governments can only be sued if they decided they want to let you (sovereign immunity). Governments have regulatory oversight of corporations, but there is little oversight of the government itself. Corporate officials who screw up can be sued personally for damaged (e.g., the Enron board). Public officials are immune from lawsuits related to their jobs by law. Also, corporations can rarely force you to do business with them (with some notable exceptions), but the government is generally your supplier of its services whether you want it or not.
Overall, I think we'd be better served with most serviced provided by a competitive private sector market, with vigorous public oversight to hold the providers accountable.
Re:The reason that we must not give up our freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
That is what worries me- How thoroughly are the contractors being vetted? If you visit the Federal Biz Opportunities site http://fbo.gov/ [fbo.gov] you will see that the gov't contacts out incredible amounts of work. I trust the US Military with my security (We could argue about the military and privacy all day so lets not bring that up), but why is our security being contacted out? That is what worries me. Where is the accountability???
What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of thing is not surprising... Not the part about the TSA violating the law, but the part about them screwing up data, and not knowing when the test will end.
Have any of you who are flinging around "evil conspiracy" crap ever worked on large government software projects?
Those things go on forever, rescoping, changes, rewrok, bugs, idiot specifications that have to be met even though they dont make sense... the list goes on and on. Its usually because of some law or another that mandate the software have a given function in it (even if it makes no sense), and the management is far from sterling - and the bureacracy that sits astride it moves at a glacial pace, making it nearly impossible to get design changes approved in any kind of timely fashion - I'm talking months not weeks, for even minor changes.
Thats been my experience nearly every time when working as a government employee. And this was at a federal defence agency that actually is known for getting things done fairly well and relatively quickly. (and this also explains why I am no longer a government employee - you can only take so much before your head asplodes).
Remember when they formed that TSA, it was carved from people who were tossed out of other agencies (remember, government agencies fight like mad to keep the best from leaving) - usually that means those are people the other agencies wanted to get rid of -- making the TSA a potential dumping ground for incompetents, malcontents, and desk-sitter-do-nothings-deadwood.
So don't attribute to malice what is far, far more likely to be incompetence. Especially at a new agency.
Re:Contempt for Law (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Contempt for Law (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I would have to say that HERE I would err on the side of freedom. The fact of the matter is that while I, personally, would not and do not drive without a seatbelt on, it really gets on a nerve that it is NOT my choice.
As for insurance not paying off...It would depend on the contract. If the contract says they will pay, no matter what...then, they should pay. If there is a provision that this is voided by refusing to use safety measures...that is fine too. Freedom is good, but it is not safe.
Perhaps there could be a double tier of insurance, with folks that use seatbelts and such given lower premiums, etc.
As for not paying out. the fact of the matter is that many insurance agents go out of their way to find reasons to NOT pay anything out at all, and, failing that, to minimuze the amount paid out. Part of the motivation for this is, I believe, the fact that for years now insurance has been a profit center. Any time a business ends up with investors or public shares, it ceases to focus its attention on its job, and, instead focuses its attention on making as much money for its investors as possible.
regards
Dave Mundt
We did it to ourselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Huge personal info databases? We created the technology and wrote the code to make it possible. We gave the information when asked, because we didn't want the hassle that would occur when we said "no, that's none of your business."
We accepted the notion of Social Security and believed the government when they told us that SS#s would *never* be used for identification [epic.org] except by the SSA.
We elected officials based on the performance of the economy ... which encouraged them to stay out of the way of businesses as they tracked, junk-mailed, and spammed us.
We accepted the transition from cash to credit cards because we liked the convenience ... never blanching at the fact that we were leaving a paper trail for ourselves every month.
We accepted the notion that the First Amendment was all about the right to any kind of free speech whatsoever, even commercial junk mail by corporations, who are persons only as a legal convenience.
We were so scared of sexual predators in our schools that we willingly asked the government to take fingerprints of every school employee to match against their databases.
And above all, we clamored for greater security in our own country -- we accepted the 9/11 commission report -- because losing all of our rights seemed more palatable and *less likely* than our becoming the next Twin Towers victims.
Has government and business taken away our privacy? Yes -- but only because we wanted them to.
Re:Contempt for Law (Score:1, Insightful)
You make a wonderful argument against government health care. It will be used to outlaw "risky behavior" or at best "tax" the hell out of it by requiring premiums that will never pay out. Of course a blood test will be required because why would I volunteer that fact that I smoke or eat a cuisine that doesn't quite fit into this years food pyramid.
I sure the hell don't want to pay healthcare costs of a generation betting on pharmaceuticals to neutralize Doritos.
If by 'we' you mean... (Score:1, Insightful)
No, the fear-mongering media and the pussified general public caused this to happen.
I was bitching since the first plane hit that this would happen...you probabler were too.
Re:The TSA (Score:4, Insightful)
However, if someone is walking around wearing a hat and heavy jacket in the middle of summer when it's 85 degrees and 80% humidity, and seeming to deliberately avoid the security apparatus, there may be some interest in talking to him. It's still profiling, because his behavioral profile is suspicious.
Re:The reason that we must not give up our freedom (Score:1, Insightful)
this is exactly how some soldiers feel in iraq
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/war
I'd comment on this but (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The TSA (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's see, many migrant laborers routinely crossing the Mexican border illegally and making their way all the way north to Idaho farms every year.
People illegally cross down from the Canadian border too. I remember hearing one story of a stupid drug runner that was crossing the border in a canoe filled with drugs...when a forest service ranger was in sight, the drug runner called to the ranger and admitted to what he was doing.
Finally, remember the damage that diesel fuel and fertilizer can do in the hands of a misguided citizen.
I wish that my tax dollars would not be wasted to give people a false impression of security because such power is inevitably going to be mis-used.
Re:The TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
That seems so right, until they shoot him 5 times [bbc.co.uk] and then issue an apology [bbc.co.uk].
Re:Terror Is as Terror Does (Score:3, Insightful)
Perikles was so rich, so influential, and so powerful that, at one point, the his mere suggestions would sometimes move the Athenian citizenry to move quickly against their own wishes. Case in point: The Athenian people wanted a temple, but did not want to raise the taxes necessary to fund its completion. Perikles offered to fund the construction, on the condition that he be allowed to put his name on the temple--something that the tyrants would do to show their power prior to the revolution that turned Athens into a democracy. The Athenians immediately voted the tax increase into law, rather than face the reality that their democracy had faded until it had ceased to exist in all but name.
My points, as I think you can see, are that political culture can change subtly and quickly, and that human nature can promote such changes against the will of the majority of the people who comprise that political culture. People everywhere should realize that a dictatorship or oligarchy, even if not apparently present, is always possible, with time; that time is ever fleeting; and that the combination of those two facts means that they should ever be alert for even a subtle tyranny, though never in fear of one. (As FDR once said, "there is nothing to fear but fear itself.")
~UP
Re:Terror Is as Terror Does (Score:5, Insightful)
But there is a distinction between the attack and the terror it causes. The causal relationship not only unites the attacks and the terror, it distinguishes between them. Which is an essential distinction. Because the attackers were dead after the attack was complete, after the planes hit the buildings. After that, the terror was carried and spread by us, the targets. We had no control over the attackers, at least once they'd hijacked the planes. But we do have some degree of self-control. When we recognize that the fear is doing even more damage than the planebombs - the Iraq War, for example, and the ongoing destructions of rights and property in the name of the Terror War - we have to recognize that we're attacking ourselves with the perpetuated fear. Which is something we have some control over, so we must stop it.
All fear comes from ignorance. Most fear comes from the unknown, and the mind's projection of "worst case" overkill in searching for solutions to problems that at least won't be "too weak". Fear perpetuates a state of irrationality, which prevents learning the knowledge that could stop the fear cycle, so the fear->ignorance->fear cycle gets locked in. And even fear of real threats comes from ignorance of the effective defense. The only way to fight the fear is at its root, with knowledge. That knowledge lets us react with focus and clarity, actually solving the real problem.
Like forcing Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to stop creating terrorists and sponsoring their networks. Not invading Iraq to create new ones. Not locking down our societies into a Christian version of the medieval fear camps in which the Taliban fester. The reactions we've taken in the US are the reflexes of fear, striking at the inner monsters we had already, regardless of their relation to the Qaeda and their network of attackers.
Britain has more experience with terrorism than does the US. The IRA, centuries of defense from asymmetric warfare, the levelheaded, understated manner that keeps emotions from spiraling into counterproductive control of the situation. My words might fall on ears deaf from the screams in the London tube stations. But that grip of fear must last only briefly. If we want to beat the fear, beat the terror, beat the terrorists, we must learn to keep our heads, and not do most of their dirty work by spreading the terror ourselves. We can be angry, we can be violent, but only if we counterattack the actual causes of the fear will we stop the fear itself.
Re:Its all about Bush, isnt it (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me a break! This is an example of Republican brainwashing of the ignorant masses. Your party has no claim to God, there are good dedicated Christians in every political party. Perhaps you mean you are the party of radical Christian fundalmentalists which feel free to ram their religious beliefs down everyone else's throat. There are many Middle Eastern countries which have fundalmentalist leaders who also consider themselves the 'Party of God.' You have more in common with those close-minded mullahs than you would like to believe.
Re:Contempt for Law (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are rich enough, you will mostly fly private jets, and avoid all of this sillyness with the TSA. Most top executives do, if only under the guise of "convenience" of scheduling. (It's true. If you bill $400-$1000/hr, waiting hours for a plane flight and connections will cost more than your private charter).
If you are rich enough, you can pretty much avoid all scrutiny. Sen.Bob Dole doesnt' ahve to mess with all the money hassles of credit cards and spending tracking. He pays in cash*. In fact, he was flagged once because he withdraws several thousnd dollars of pocket money each month. Of course, he has influnce, too, to he whipped out his Senator ID and told the gov't he wasn't a terrorist, so they went away.
You see, there is no special club of elites, but they do exist. They have people to deal with the day to day stuff, and should they get in a jam, they just whip out the "I'm Teddy Kennedy, godddamnit" line and get on the airplane. And have that person fired later. The rest of us have to deal with this crap.
*Bob Dole pays for everything with cash, by his own admission, because he doesn't want people knowing how he spends his money. I don't have the link to the article handy. After I found out his spending habit, it made the Visa Check card commercials that much funnier (since he would never use one).
Re:Terror Is as Terror Does (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's a testament to Americans' basic sense that Republicans are able to win only by such small margins. 2% victory over Kerry, with the media and the money on their side? When as many people abstain from the vote to reelect a president as vote for him, that makes meaningless a 2% statistical margin over those who oppose.
Consider that Ohio was lost by 120K votes, meaning that 60K people determined that election. How many Kerry votes were destroyed in the counting, between registration fraud/dumping, shorting Democratic district machines to keep voters waiting over 6 hours in the cold rain (or going home in droves), Diebold ballot rewriting, and other fraud. It was pretty obvious on Election Day that Republicans, whose Ohio Sect'y of State oversaw that election while running Bush's campaign, had rigged it. But now, with Ohio awash in Republican criminals, their gangster control of the state is undeniable. That state alone would have put Kerry in the White House. And how many millions of other "Republican" votes around the country, especially in Florida, where there's even more evidence of vote fraud in 2004, were also just accepted, while Ohio stole the limelight this time? How many extra thousands in Texas, which no one questions because it's "Bush country", were just padding? How about in gigantic California, where a safe Kerry victory makes the extra Republican votes safe from challenge? They all add up in the "popular vote" total, making it seem like Bush won the popular vote by 2%. Well, I look at the trends, I look at the evidence, and I say that Kerry won Ohio. He won Florida. He won Nevada. He won New Mexico. Once you factor in a few percent in the "swing states" for Bush's fraud operation, all those weirdly 50:50 splits turn to Kerry victories. And they finally make sense: they're so close to 50:50 because it's so expensive and complex to produce those extra Bush points. So once they get across the goal line, they stop, to work on the next one that's not yet in the bag.
This country has become based too much on trust. Bush looks at his job as squeaking by his "accountability moment", one day to beware among the three thousand in which he wears the crown. Republicans preside over a government where their Congress doesn't, couldn't possibly, even read the laws their corporate lobbyists write for them. They appoint judges and officials under cover of meaningless, mediagenic "moral character", arguing against accusations of abuse in their record, in the name of civility. They gerrymander districts to pad Congress with representatives unaccountable to bizarre synthetic constituencies, creating extra electoral votes merely by reducing their constituency populations to the minimum, dividing them among more districts. Which also divides neighbors from unity in opposing their runaway representatives. Every tactic that removes feedback from political action to the politician is exercised with absolute aggression.
This isn't the first time this has happened in America. I don't know the details, but I expect that FDR used his wealth and class during the Depression to keep the White House locked up indefinitely: president for life. If Nixon hadn't been so paranoid of Howard Hughes blackmailing him over cash bribes that he scheduled the Watergate breakin, Liddy's "plumbers" might have succeeded wi
Re:Its all about Bush, isnt it (Score:4, Insightful)
No Shit. I appluad your big balls to put this so clearly.
This nation was started with a religious belief in tolerance. Tolerance of religion was a big one. Does this mean that the Founding Fathers meant tolerance of religion just so long as you weren't a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist...? Probably not.
I consider any political party that tends to align itself with any church doctrines or promotion of religious ideals onto the country at large to be as threatening as the Iranian Mullahs in power there. It's the belief in a religiously based morality that is not so threatening provided that it is compatable with, or overridden by the ideal of Freedom of Religion or Seperation of Church and State.
Just to be annoying, I do not believe that this applies to religious beliefs consistent with Satanic cults or human sacrifices. How do I draw that distinction between one religion and another? Because of my own moral fiber based on my own religious beliefs. So my tolerance of Relious practices is itself flawed because I demand some compliance to my beliefs at the same time.
But at least I can be consistent and recognize that I do not have a perfect system. But there is a common thread through all major religions with a long lifespan and that is, "Don't be an Ass."
Re:Lies, lies and more lies. (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not know Bill Gates personally, but the timing of said large contributions is funny at best. Maybe I am a cynic after all these years, but when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, one tends to think it is a duck.
Microsoft has done good things. They have also done incredibly illegal and bad things. Which way you place your bet on their future conduct depends on how much faith you have in them and how you interpret their past conduct. I tend to think once a criminal, best bet is on future criminal activity. Businesses are not in business to follow the law and be good citizens, unless it is profitable to do so.
I know many teachers in business and ethics, and many business leaders argue otherwise. I would like to believe them, but the actions of too many companies (and politicians) leave me no doubt about the way I think. There is a reason for the expression "actions speak louder than words".
InnerWeb
Re:Its all about Bush, isnt it (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why religion and politics should NEVER meet. What have the Christians traded for the "right to life" by sleeping with the dogs of corporate greed? If you are known by the company you keep, is it any surprise that being led around by a group of lying scumbags has so severely hurt the image of Christianity in the eyes of many?
Religions are compromised by compromise. Trading away your moral values for a vote means you don't value your morals very highly.
"right to life" (Score:3, Insightful)
Most Christians tend to be conservative though, because we believe in the right to life. So when given a choice between a liberal and a conservative, it isn't very surprising that the conservative, who also happens to be Republican, is chosen by more Christians.
I'd bet if you took a poll or survey most of those who support the death penality call themselves Christian forgetting Christ supposedly said to turn the cheek and for those without sin to cast the first stone or some such. Didn't he also say to give Caesar his due?
FalconAnybody remember this [new-life.net] study? (Score:3, Insightful)
How about this:
The Wave [geocities.com] or The Wave [imdb.com]
To explain to his students the atmosphere in the 1930's Nazi-Germany, history teacher Burt Ross initiates a daring experiment. He declares himself leader of a new movement, called 'The Wave'. Inspired, he proclaims ideas about Power, Discipline and Superiority. His students are strikingly willing to follow him. Soon the entire school is under the spell of 'The Wave'. Anyone who refuses to be a part of the Movement, faces threats or worse. Ross himself gets carried away by his own experiment. Or has it turned into something more than an experiment? A climax is unavoidable, resulting in a hard lesson for both Ross and his students...
FalconRe:Its all about Bush, isnt it (Score:3, Insightful)
.
Well duh. A Fatwah is a legal opinion or ruling issued by an Islamic scholar[WordNet]. Aren't a lot if Islamic scholars among American Christians
Perhaps you were overgeneralizing and are really refering to a few specific Fatwahs which were issued to justify a death sentence against Rushdi or the one's Al Qaeda have issued to justify there actions. They were issued by extemists and its debatable if they really confrom to Islamic law. Whatever they are pretty exceptional.
American Christian's don't quite do Fatwas because their isn't nearly as much Christian law as their is Islamic law, especially once you get past the ten commandments.
But Christians do most assuredly exact revenge on opponents, launch Jihads and kill the enemies of their faith. Thats petty much what the Crusades were multiple times, over hundreds of years. Crusaders did round up, slaught and brutalize people for their faith. Christians over the centuries have done it just as much as any religion.
I'd be inclined to say the Bush administration basicly issued a Fatwah against Saddam Hussein, and Manuel Noriega and when the U.S. issues a Fatwah it has the weapons to make it stick.
I'd say all the multimillion dollar rewards for the capture of terrorist like Bin Laden are pretty much modern Fatwah's backed by cash, just like the one issued against Rushdi. For some reason the Fatwah against Bin Laden and his right hand man hasn't worked. I wonder why that is?
I'd say the semi secret Rendition program is an exceptionally good Fatwah program. The Christians in Washington identify a potential Muslim enemy anywhere in the world, and they are all Muslim. a jet with a team of masked men sweep in, snatch him and send him to be tortured for his sins. Same...Same.
"They don't force women to wear veils"
Well it sure is a common practice at Christian weddings. Granted its over the top when women are forced to wear veils, especially burka class, but dude that is part of culture. Most cultures and religions have quirky traits that have been there for centuries to millenia. It obviously ticks you off because you want everyone else to adopt your cultural standards, but some people find American cultural standards offensive too. You can't really get all holier than thou about women's rights. Women have had rights in the U.S. for a VERY brief period by historical standards. I'm sure you want to force this very new standard on the world very fast because American's tend to be in a hurry, just beware cultures that have been around for a thousand years or more may not appreciate you trying to inflict your very new culture on them overnight. The U.S. tried it in Iraq. What did you do. You took Iraq from a secular dictator where women had more rights than in most Muslim countries, didn't wear burkha, had careers, and turned it over to a Shia majority which is as we speak is writing a consitution based on Islamic law and are MAKING women wear veils when the didn't have to under Saddam. I gather Basra, the Shia heartland is starting to resemble Afghanistan under the Taliban.
"don't carry out suicide bombings for the sake of their cause."
They don't have to, they have F-16's and Apache helicopers to drop the bombs without the suicide part. Suicide bombings are the last resort of desperate people, sometimes brainwashed but not always, who are severely outgunned, mostly by the U.S. and Israel. Affluent American Christians are fat, happy and in power. You don't get suicide bombers from that demographic. If American Christians were run out of their homes at the end of gun, pushed in to refugee camps in grinding poverty, had what homes they have bulldozed, spat on and killed by occupying soldiers, they would be suicide bomber too. Please stop the holier than thou crap. Its easy to be sanctimonious when you are rich, well fed and powerful.