It is worth noting that both the "shoe bomber" and the "jock strap bomber" were halted by passengers, after the TSA let them board.

Perhaps TSA should tend to its own knitting.

What is a "blogger"? How many posts do you need to have had to be a blogger? Or if I know I'm going to be leaking sensitive info, should I pump out a couple blog posts first about the developments of the NHL or Idaho city government and then let out the real info and claim "I'm a blogger, I'm shielded!"

I understand the argument, but it's much harder to be a "journalist" than a "blogger".

Too much time on my hands today, I've been thinking. Too much TSA time seems to be spent on "gun cotrol". I think I realised this when they took my moustache scissors.

What we are concerned with is "terrorists", it is they that kill people and they happen to use weapons. When we reach the point that a "box cutter" is a weapon, we must concentrate on very miniscule items.

This latest "terrorist" was flagged all over the place, including a report from his own father. The first question must be "how did he get on the flight?". The nature of his device, and how he got on board with it, are quite secondary.

"the Transportation Security Agency is trying to force a pair of bloggers who reported on changes to TSA security procedures following Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempted bombing of a Christmas Day flight to Detroit to reveal their sources..."

Thanks for posting this, Andrew. This action by the TSA has been puzzling me.

Before we get to the question of shielding bloggers (and I agree with Patrick there is a difference between bloggers and journalists), there is the question of why the TSA undertook this action to begin with.

1.) Wouldn't the TSA WANT news that there are extra security measures in place to be publicized? So why go after someone who was helping to spread the word?

2.) Didn't everyone, including prospective terrorists, simply assume that extra measures were in place? So was this blog breaching a major secret?

We don't need "more security," we need "better security." It's important to remember that the reason all this Patriot Act/water bottle confiscating nonsense started with the events of 9/11, of which the government already had more than enough information to stop ahead of time as it was, if only it weren't so grossly incompetent. What we have now is just another excuse for government to expand its own influence, create more useless bureaucracies, and hire more private sector washouts to put on their theater of security, accomplishing absolutely nothing except expansion of the state and higher taxes.

Even assuming that a "shield law" is necessary, a proposition with which I do not agree, the obsfuscation over "bloggers" and "journalists" is just hot air.

The only serious difference, as I see it, is that one reports on paper, the other on the 'Net. How does one define a "Journalist" (formerly a "reporter")? Is a "J school" diploma necessary? Does one obtain protection the first day on the job with "MSM"? How about the "free lance journalist", does he/she obtain any protection?

If the "scoop" reported was obtained in the commission of a felony, is the journalist not abetting it? Perhaps what we need is greater protection for "whistleblowers"?

I saometimes suspect that "journalists" prepared to go to jail to "protect sources" are simply attempting to become the "news".

The TSA has now dropped the subpoenas, declaring that victory is nearly at hand ...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100101/D9CUKTGO0.html

We need reporter. blogger, etc. shield laws badly in this country.
Patrick Lynch was one of about five AGs across the country who refused to sign on to a petition supporting federal shield laws. That explains why I'm not voting for Lynch no matter the circumstances.

I'd like to point out that not one commenter from Anchor Rising on this particular post questioned if the Dec. 25th TSA Security Directive SD 1544-09-06 was a marked "Classified", "For Official Use Only", "For Internal Use Only", or "Sensitive but unclassified" document not to be released into the general public or the World Wide Web known as the Internet for terrorist or adversary viewing.

Release of information of this type jeopardizes the health, safety and welfare of all Americans traveling on commercial airlines including your direct or related family members, foreign nationals and members of the local and federal government including the USA military.

Happy New Year and hope you and family have a safe year 2010!

"Patrick Lynch was one of about five AGs across the country who refused to sign on to a petition supporting federal shield laws."

lol

Rhody, that's because he was clinging to the desperate hope that he could retain the ability to lock up any reporter who had the nerve to report on some of the sleazy ways he carried out (failed to carry out, more precisely) his official duties.