Seattle becomes 11th city to boycott Arizona immigration law

the Seattle City Council unanimously voted to boycott Arizona by ending official city travel there and resolving, when practical, to cut off future contracts with Arizona-based businesses. That makes Seattle the 11th city to endorse a boycott of the state in opposition to its controversial immigration law. Five of the boycotting cities are in California: Los Angeles tops the list as the biggest, and its boycott could deliver the most painful blow to Arizona’s economy, as the city has $58 million in existing contracts with Arizona companies, according to the L.A. Times.

In pending city votes, some members of Dallas’s city council are considering a boycott, along with the municipal governments in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Berkeley, California.Tourism officials and Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer are pleading with opponents of the law not to boycott, saying innocent people could lose their jobs. But Democratic Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva has led the calls for boycotts of his own state, arguing that pressure needs to be put on officials to repeal the law, much as similar economic initiatives spurred the state to officially recognize the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday when it was the last state to withhold such recognition.

Legal challenges to the Arizona measure could well render the boycott campaign moot, however. Since the law, which makes it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant, is already facing five legal challenges, it may be overturned before it can go into effect July 23.Here’s a list of the cities that have announced travel and/or city-contract boycotts so far:

• Seattle, Washington• El Paso, Texas• Austin, Texas• Boston, Massachusetts• St. Paul, Minnesota • Boulder, Colorado• San Diego, California• West Hollywood, California• San Francisco, California• Los Angeles, California• Oakland, California

And here is a roster of groups that have announced travel boycotts, via Arizonaboycottclearinghouse.com

Los Angeles became the largest city yet to boycott Arizona business over new immigration law

LOS ANGELES  on Wednesday became the largest city yet to boycott Arizona over its tough new law targeting illegal immigration in a move that likely will affect some $8 million in contracts with the state.The City Council voted 13-1 to bar Los Angeles from conducting business with Arizona unless the law is repealed. The vote followed an emotional council discussion during which many members noted that their ancestors were U.S. immigrants.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa already has said he would approve the boycott.The proposal could affect investments and contracts worth as much as $52 million, including contracts for airport, harbor and trucking services, according to a report from the city’s chief legislative analyst. That report recommends the council consider suspending travel, cutting contracts and refraining from making any new ones with Arizona-based companies.

But Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who co-authored the resolution, said it would be impractical to cancel most of those deals and only about $7 million to $8 million in city contracts probably would be affected.

“US Airways is based in Arizona and they certainly fly in and out (of Los Angeles)” and it would hardly be feasible to end those flights, Hahn said before the council vote.Hahn said the Los Angeles boycott also won’t affect the city’s Department of Water and Power, which has wind farm and nuclear energy contracts in Arizona. Among the contracts with Arizona companies that conceivably could be terminated include those for helicopter services, Taser guns, waste management, engineering and surveillance equipment.

Hahn said “the best scenario” would be to turn around and give those contracts to California suppliers.The resolution claims that Arizona’s new law encourages racial profiling and is unconstitutional. The law, set to take effect July 29, requires police enforcing another law to question a person about his or her immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the United States illegally and makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally. Several lawsuits seeking to block its implementation are pending in U.S. District Court in Phoenix.

Some polls have shown strong popular support for the Arizona law and critics are concerned that other states may follow up with their own versions.Several cities across the country have passed resolutions or urged boycotts to protest the law, including California cities such as Oakland and San Diego. A nonbinding resolution approved Tuesday by San Francisco city supervisors urges a boycott of Arizona-based businesses and asks sports leagues not to hold championship games or tournaments there.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the boycotts are unfortunate and misguided, primarily because the law mirrors a federal requirement that legal immigrants carry immigration papers.”It’s already the law in the United States, and I have a responsibility to stand up and protect the people of Arizona and we will do that,” Brewer said Tuesday.Charges that the law will lead to racial profiling are “just pure rhetoric,” Brewer said.

“I find it really interesting that we have people out there that are attempting a boycott in favor of illegal actions in Arizona. That to me is just unbelievable.”Of the resolution in Los Angeles, Hahn said: “We want to stand back and say that we’re against it. We’re hoping that Arizona will be the last state to do this instead of just the first state to do it.”The city staged a similar economic boycott against South Africa during apartheid and against Colorado after voters in 1992 passed a state law repealing local ordinances that banned discrimination against homosexuals.(AP)

Los Angeles City Council to consider $56-million Arizona boycott over illegal-immigration law

The Los Angeles City Council could take a significant step in protesting Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigration Wednesday when it considers up to $56 million in Arizona-related investments the city could boycott.The list includes airline service into Arizona and the harbor’s clean truck incentive program.Officials are recommending that the City Council suspend travel to the state, refrain from entering new contracts and review current ones for possible termination.

Los Angeles officials joined with other cities across the country in calling for an economic boycott of Arizona after lawmakers there passed a tough immigration law that critics say will lead to racial profiling.The law, which will take effect July 23, makes it a crime for unauthorized migrants to be in Arizona and requires police to check the immigration papers of those they suspect may be in the country illegally.The report was prepared by Chief Legislative Analyst Gerry F. Miller, who recommended that the council adopt a revised resolution that expresses city opposition to the use of federal funds to implement the Arizona law, saying it encourages racial profiling, violates constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection and undermines federal authority over immigration.

The proposed resolution notes that the city imposed economic sanctions in the past to protest such actions as South Africa’s apartheid policies and Colorado’s 1992 repeal of local ordinances that banned discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“This is not just about Los Angeles; it’s a significant response to legislation that hurts a whole slice of the population,” said Councilman Ed Reyes, one of seven council members calling for a boycott. “We hope to create an economic ripple effect not only in dollars but also in sending a message to others concerning the discriminatory effect of this legislation.”

However, the Harbor Department and Los Angeles World Airports expressed concern about possible termination of their contracts with Arizona businesses. The Harbor Department, for instance, has four contracts with Arizona firms totaling $25.6 million, mostly involving a clean truck incentive program.Under the program, three Arizona firms have brought hundreds of newer short-haul trucks with significantly lower emissions into Southern California. The harbor’s $56-million program is projected to reduce port-related truck pollution 80% by 2012.

“The program has been phenomenally successful,” said Arley Baker, a port spokesman. “We don’t recommend rescinding the contracts due to adverse effects on the environment and public health.”Los Angeles World Airports has three equipment and maintenance contracts worth $77,000 and receives $22 million in revenue from two Arizona-based airlines US Airways and Mesa Air.”We need to do additional research into our ability to limit Arizona-based airlines from using LAWA airports,” said airport spokeswoman Nancy Suey Castles.

Reyes said he also supports a cautious approach to make sure the city would not be sued over any boycott action. The analyst’s report contains several caveats, such as refraining from entering new contracts with Arizona “to the extent practicable and in instances where there is no significant additional cost to the City nor conflict with the law.””We still need to be careful how we approach it so we aren’t vulnerable to legal actions that would have a whiplash effect on our general funds,” Reyes said.

President Barack Obama's major priorities dropped from the agenda of an election-year Congress facing voter disillusionment

WASHINGTON Immigration reform has become the first of President Barack Obama’s major priorities dropped from the agenda of an election-year Congress facing voter disillusionment. Sounding the death knell was Obama himself.The president noted that lawmakers may lack the “appetite” to take on immigration while many of them are up for re-election and while another big legislative issue – climate change – is already on their plate.

“I don’t want us to do something just for the sake of politics that doesn’t solve the problem,” Obama told reporters Wednesday night aboard Air Force One.Immigration reform was an issue Obama promised Latino groups that he would take up in his first year in office. But several hard realities – a tanked economy, a crowded agenda, election-year politics and lack of political will – led to so much foot-dragging in Congress that, ultimately, Obama decided to set the issue aside.

With that move, the president calculated that an immigration bill would not prove as costly to his party two years from now, when he seeks re-election, than it would today, even though some immigration reformers warned that a delay could so discourage Democratic-leaning Latino voters that they would stay home from the polls in November.Some Democrats thought pushing a bill through now might help their party. If it failed, they could blame Republican resistance, though in reality many Democrats didn’t want to deal with an immigration bill this year either.

Perhaps seeing the handwriting on the wall, top Senate Democrats released a legislative framework for immigration reforms anyway. The draft proposal, obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday, called for, among other things, meeting border security benchmarks before anyone in the country illegally can become a legal permanent U.S. resident.By Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered little hope that the issue was still alive on Capitol Hill.”If there is going to be any movement in this regard, it will require presidential leadership, as well as an appetite, is that the word? … as well as a willingness to move forward in the Congress,” she said.House Republican leader John Boehner was more blunt. “There is not a chance that immigration is going to move through the Congress,” he said Tuesday.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, the Democrats’ leading advocate for immigration reform, has said he voted for health care reform on the understanding that Obama and congressional Democrats would move a major immigration bill.Even though he would like to see Latinos turn out to vote for Democrats in 2010, Gutierrez said “many will probably decide to stay home.” However, he added, a strict, new immigration law in Arizona may change that dynamic. The law requires law enforcement officers to question anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.”On one hand you are not going to vote because you don’t believe people you voted for are doing a good enough job,” Gutierrez said. “Then you say, ‘I got to vote, because the enemy is so mean and vindictive, I got to get out there.'”The Hispanic vote is growing, largely because of Latinos’ increasing population. The 9.7 million Latinos who cast ballots in 2008 made up about 7.4 percent of the electorate, according to a 2009 Pew Research Center study.

Hispanic voters helped flip the battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico from Republican to Democratic in the 2008 presidential election.But even though Latinos’ numbers have been increasing, in some parts of the country their portions of voting populations are not large enough to affect election outcomes.

Democrats hold a 254-177 majority in the House, with four vacancies. But 48 are in districts where Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain did better than Obama in the 2008 elections.Matt Angle, a Democratic political strategist focused on Texas, said it would be worse for Democrats to propose a bill that has no hope of passing or getting Republican support. Doing so would allow Republicans to cherry-pick parts of the bill to use against Democratic candidates, he said.

The Senate also has a number of competitive races, some in states with significant numbers of Hispanic voters, such as in Nevada, the home state of Majority Leader Harry Reid. Latinos are about 12-15 percent of likely voters there.”For Democrats it is critical they can deliver if they want to continue nurturing the support they want from this community,” said Clarissa Martinez De Castro, National Council of La Raza immigration and national campaigns director.(AP)

PHOENIX,Lawsuits challenge new Arizona immigration law

PHOENIX  Anger mounted Thursday over an Arizona law cracking down on illegal immigration as a police officer filed one of the first lawsuits challenging the law and activists gathered outside an Arizona Diamondbacks game at Wrigley Field in Chicago, chanting “Boycott Arizona.”The lawsuit from 15-year Tucson police veteran Martin Escobar is one of two filed Thursday, less than a week after Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed the law that’s sparked fears it will lead to racial profiling despite the governor’s vow that officers will be properly trained.U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the federal government may challenge the law, which requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there’s reason to suspect they’re in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.Escobar, an overnight patrol officer in a heavily Latino area of Tucson, argues there’s no way for officers to confirm people’s immigration status without impeding investigations, and that the new law violates numerous constitutional rights.

Tucson police spokesman Sgt. Fabian Pacheco said Escobar is acting on his own, not on behalf of the department.The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders also filed a lawsuit Thursday, and is seeking an injunction preventing authorities from enforcing the law. The group argues federal law pre-empts state regulation of national borders, and that Arizona’s law violates due process rights by letting police detain suspected illegal immigrants before they’re convicted.

“Mexican-Americans are not going to take this lying down,” singer Linda Ronstadt, a Tucson native, said at a state Capitol news conference on another lawsuit planned by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the National Immigration Law Center.At least three Arizona cities  Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson are considering legal action to block the law. In Flagstaff, police are investigating a threatening e-mail sent to members of the city council over their opposition to the law. The author said council members should be “arrested, tried in court, found guilty of treason and hanged from the nearest tree!”

About 40 immigrant rights activists gathered outside Wrigley Field in Chicago Thursday as the Cubs open a four-game series against the Arizona Diamondbacks. A small plane toting a banner criticizing the law circled the stadium, and activist George Lieu said they’ve sent a letter to Cubs management asking them to stop holding spring training in Arizona.A Cubs spokesman declined to comment. Arizona manager A.J. Hinch says the team is there to play baseball.

On Wednesday, a group filed papers to launch a referendum drive that could put the law on hold until 2012, when voters could decide whether it is repealed.The legislation’s chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Russell Pearce, said he has no doubt voters will support the new law at the ballot box, which would then protect it from repeal by the Legislature. In Arizona, measures approved by voters can only be repealed at the ballot box.

Meanwhile, the effect of the law continued to ripple beyond Arizona.A group of conservative state lawmakers in Oklahoma are considering pushing a bill similar to Arizona’s. In Texas, Rep. Debbie Riddle, a Republican, said she will introduce a measure similar to the Arizona law in the January legislative session. And Republicans running for governor in Colorado and Minnesota expressed support for the crackdown. “I’d do something very similar” if elected,” Former Rep. Scott McInnis, told KHOW-AM radio in Denver.

Denver Public Schools is banning work-related travel to Arizona. Even though school employees are in the country legally, DPS spokesman Kristy Armstrong said officials don’t want them to be “subjected to that kind of scrutiny and search.Retired South African archbishop Desmond Tutu also chimed in, saying he supports the idea of a boycott of Arizona businesses, according to a letter he wrote that was posted Wednesday onTheCommunity.com, a website for Nobel peace laureates that promotes peace and human rights.

“I recognize that Arizona has become a widening entry point for illegal immigration from the South … but a solution that degrades innocent people, or that makes anyone with broken English a suspect, is not a solution,” Tutu saidColombian singer Shakira planned to visit Phoenix on Thursday to meet with the city’s police chief and mayor over her concerns that the law would lead to racial profiling.(Ap)

road blocks to Arizona's tough new law on illegal immigration that has thrust the state into the national spotlight

PHOENIX A referendum drive and a lawsuit have emerged as potential road blocks to Arizona’s tough new law on illegal immigration that has thrust the state into the national spotlight.The legal action set to be filed Thursday in federal court is aimed a preventing enforcement of the controversial measure, while the ballot question could put it on hold until 2012.

Signed last week by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, the law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there’s reason to suspect they’re in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.A draft of the proposed lawsuit obtained by The Associated Press shows the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders will seek an injunction preventing authorities from enforcing the law. The group argues federal law pre-empts state regulation of national borders, and that Arizona’s law violates due-process rights by allowing suspected illegal immigrants to be detained before they’re convicted.

Other Hispanic and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, are also planning lawsuits. And U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the federal government may challenge the law.On Wednesday, a group filed papers to launch a referendum drive that could put the law on hold until 2012 if organizers wait until the last minute to turn in petition signatures needed to get the measure on the ballot.

Opponents of the law have until late July or early August to file the more than 76,000 signatures  the same time the law is set to go into effect. If they get enough signatures, the law would be delayed until a vote.But the deadline to put a question on the November ballot is July 1, and a referendum filing later than that could delay a vote on the law until 2012, officials with the Secretary of State’s Office said.”That would be a pretty big advantage” to the law’s opponents, said Andrew Chavez, head of a Phoenix-based petition-circulating firm and chairman of the One Arizona referendum campaign.The legislation’s chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Russell Pearce, said he has no doubt voters will support the new law at the ballot box, which would then protect it from repeal by the Legislature. In Arizona, measures approved by voters can only be repealed at the ballot box.The clergy group’s lawsuit targets a provision allowing police to arrest illegal-immigrant day laborers seeking work on the street or anyone trying to hire them, according to the draft. It says the solicitation of work is protected by the First Amendment.

State Rep. Ben Miranda, a Phoenix Democrat who will serve as the local attorney on the case, said it was important to file the suit quickly to show local Latinos and the rest of the country that there’s still a chance the law won’t be enacted.”I think there’s real damage being caused right now,” Miranda said. “How do you measure the kind of fear … going on in many parts of this community?”At least three Arizona cities also are considering lawsuits to block the law. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon said the measure would be “economically devastating,” and called on the City Council to sue the state to stop it from taking effect.

The council rejected that idea Tuesday, yet the mayor told reporters he retained legal counsel to prepare a lawsuit to file on behalf of the city.Tucson leaders also are considering their options to block the law, and Flagstaff City Councilman Rick Swanson said the city had a duty to protect its residents who might be targeted.

Meanwhile, the effect of the law continued to ripple beyond Arizona.A Republican Texas lawmaker said she’ll introduce a measure similar to the Arizona law next year. Texas Rep. Debbie Riddle of Tomball said she will push for the law in the January legislative session, according to Wednesday’s editions of the San Antonio Express-News and Houston Chronicle.And Republicans running for governor in Colorado and Minnesota expressed support for the crackdown. “I’d do something very similar” if elected,” Former Rep. Scott McInnis, told KHOW-AM radio in Denver.

5.9-magnitude earthquake hit near the Pacific island of Tonga on Thursday

WELLINGTON, New Zealand A 5.9-magnitude earthquake hit near the Pacific island of Tonga on Thursday, but no casualties or damage were reported and no tsunami warning was issued.The quake struck 65 miles (135 kilometers) northeast of Hihifo, Tonga, at a depth of 21 miles (35 kilometers).Many residents of American Samoa felt the quake and went out to look at the ocean while listening to radio broadcasts.

“Nothing is registered on our censors for tsunami waves,” according to Carol Baqui, a forecaster with the American Samoa weather service.No tsunami warning was issued by the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii.

Police in the Samoan capital, Apia, said they had no reports on the temblor. “We didn’t feel any earthquake,” an officer, who declined to be named, said.Julie Dutton, a geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Golden, Colorado, it was a relatively small quake.”Right now we don’t have any reports of it being felt. It’s pretty far off the coast so we’re not anticipating anything damaging,” Dutton said.Preliminary estimates put the quake at 6.2, but that was later downgraded to 5.9.

A magnitude 8.0 earthquake close to neighboring Samoa last Sept. 29 killed 34 people in American Samoa, 183 in Samoa and nine in Tonga, when tsunami waves up to 46 feet (14 meters) high crashed ashore. It also created a sea floor fault up to 190 miles (300 kilometers) long and 23 feet (7 meters) deep.About 90 percent of the world’s temblors occur in the so-called “Ring of Fire” – an arc of earthquake and volcanic zones that stretches around the Pacific Rim.(AP)

difficult situation for Democrats in Congress is worsening as the 2010

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

WASHINGTON An already difficult situation for Democrats in Congress is worsening as the 2010 political season opens.To minimize expected losses in next fall’s election, President Barack Obama’s party is testing a line of attack that resurrects George W. Bush as a boogeyman and castigates Republicans as cozy with Wall Street.Four House Democrats from swing districts have recently chosen not to seek re-election, bringing to 11 the number of retirements that could leave Democratic-held seats vulnerable to Republicans. More Democratic retirements are expected.

Over the holiday break, another Democrat, freshman Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama, defected to the GOP. “I can no longer align myself with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy, and drives us further and further into debt,” said Griffith, who voted against Democrats’ three biggest initiatives in 2009: health care, financial regulation and reducing global warming.

In the Senate, at least four Democrats – including Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and five-term Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd – are in serious trouble. The party could also lose its grip on seats Obama held in Illinois and Vice President Joe Biden long occupied in Delaware.

Going into 2010, Democrats held a 257-178 majority in the House and an effective 60-40 majority in the Senate, including two independents who align themselves with Democrats.But they face an incumbent-hostile electorate worried about a 10 percent unemployment rate, weary of wars and angry at politicians of all stripes. Many independents who backed Democrats in 2006 and 2008 have turned away. Republicans, meanwhile, are energized and united in opposing Obama’s policies.

The one thing that heartens Democrats is that voters also don’t think much of the GOP, which is bleeding backers, lacking a leader and facing a conservative revolt.House Democrats began an ad campaign in December assailing Republicans for opposing legislation restructuring federal financial rules and recalling the final days of the Bush presidency, when the economy tanked.

“Remember? We all know we should never let this happen again,” the ad says. It lays into Republicans for voting “to let Wall Street continue the same risky practices that crippled retirement accounts and left taxpayers on the hook for $700 billion.”Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who heads the House Democrats’ campaign arm, said his party wants to remind voters who was on their side at a difficult time. “The Republican Party in Washington today is no different than the Republican Party that ran the Congress before,” he said.

But that was three years ago. Democrats have been in control since, and Bush is long gone. This is Obama’s country now. Democrats tried to use Bush against Republican Chris Christie in the New Jersey governor’s race in November – and Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine still lost.A top Democratic priority is minimizing losses among nearly four dozen seats the party now holds in moderate-to-conservative districts that Republican John McCain won in the 2008 presidential race. The most vulnerable in that group include Democratic Reps. Mary Jo Kilroy in Ohio, Harry Teague in New Mexico, Frank Kratovil in Maryland, Tom Perriello in Virginia and Travis Childers in Mississippi.

Reps. Bart Gordon and John Tanner, both of Tennessee, were in that group until they chose to retire. So was Griffith, before he switched to the GOP. Retirement announcements from Reps. Dennis Moore of Kansas and Brian Baird of Washington put two more Democratic seats in swing-voting districts on the GOP’s target list.

Democrats insist that Gordon, Tanner, Moore and Baird are leaving for personal reasons and are not the first ripple in a wave of retirements akin to 1994 when 28 Democrats chose not to run, and Republicans won control in part by winning 22 of those seats.”Democrats are beginning to see the writing on the wall, and instead of choosing to fight in a difficult political environment, they are taking a pass and opting for retirement,” said Ken Spain, a spokesman for the House GOP’s campaign arm.

The GOP will be defending at least a dozen open seats because of retirements, with several lawmakers leaving the House to run for higher office.The situation for Democrats in the Senate is nearly as grim as it is for them in the House.Democrats crowed after six Senate Republicans – four from swing states Florida, Ohio, Missouri and New Hampshire and two from GOP-leaning Kansas and Kentucky – announced retirements.

Spirited GOP challenges are now expected in all six states, and Republicans say they are optimistic they can retain the seats. An emboldened GOP also is looking to put a pair of senior Senate Democrats out of office.Reid, who is seeking a fifth term, is faring poorly in surveys in a hypothetical matchup with Nevada GOP chairwoman Sue Lowden, one of several Republicans competing for a chance to challenge him.

Dodd, the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee chairman who has taken heat for a discounted VIP mortgage loan he got from a subprime lender, has been consistently behind potential GOP challenger Rob Simmons in Connecticut polls. Simmons, a former House member, has his own challenger in World Wrestling Entertainment co-founder Linda McMahon, who also is seeking the Republican nomination for Dodd’s seat.

Also vulnerable are Sen. Blanche Lincoln, a moderate Democrat in GOP-leaning Arkansas, and Sen. Michael Bennet in Colorado, who was appointed when Ken Salazar became Obama’s interior secretary.

Republicans have high hopes for picking up Senate seats in Illinois and Delaware that were held by the president and vice president, respectively. Neither of their appointed successors is seeking election to the seats.

Early polling shows GOP Rep. Mark Kirk leading among Republican candidates in Illinois. Veteran GOP Rep. Mike Castle, a former two-term governor, is running for the Senate in Delaware. Biden’s son, Democratic state Attorney General Beau Biden, is considering whether to challenge Castle. (AP)

Scanners force trade-off between privacy, security

the security gate at San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco

SAN FRANCISCO  As Ronak Ray hunted for his flight gate, he prepared for the prospect of a security guard peering through his clothes with a full body scanner. But Ray doesn’t mind: what he gives up in privacy he gets back in security.”I think it’s necessary,” said Ray, a 23-year-old graduate student who was at San Francisco International Airport to fly to India. “Our lives are far more important than how we’re being searched.”Despite controversy surrounding the scans, Ray’s position was typical of several travelers interviewed at various airports Wednesday by The Associated Press.Airports in five other U.S. cities are also using full body scanners at specific checkpoints instead of metal detectors. In addition, the scanners are used at 13 other airports for random checks and so-called secondary screenings of passengers who set off detectors.

But many more air travelers may have to get used to the idea soon. The Transportation Security Administration has ordered 150 more full body scanners to be installed in airports throughout the country in early 2010, agency spokeswoman Suzanne Trevino said.Dutch security officials have said they believe such scanners could have detected the explosive materials Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab of Nigeria is accused of trying to ignite aboard a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight Christmas Day.Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport has 15 full body scanners, but none were used to scan Abdulmutallab when he boarded. In Europe and the U.S., privacy concerns over the scanners’ ability to see through clothing have kept them from widespread use.

The technology was first used about two years ago to make it easier for airport security to do body searches without making physical contact with passengers.The idea of an electronic strip search did not bother Judy Yeager, 62, of Sarasota, Fla., as she prepared to depart Las Vegas. She stood in the full-body scanner Wednesday afternoon and held her arms up as a security official guided her through the gray closet-sized booth.”If it’s going to protect a whole airplane of people, who gives a flying you-know-what if they see my boob whatever,” Yeager said. “That’s the way I feel, honest to God.”George Hyde, of Birmingham, Ala., who was flying out of Salt Lake City with his wife, Patsy, on Wednesday after visiting their children and grandchildren in Park City, Utah.”I’d rather be safe than be embarrassed,” Hyde said. Neither he nor his wife had been through a body scanner before.”We’re very modest people but we’d be willing to go through that for security.”

Trevino said the TSA has worked with privacy advocates and the scanners’ manufacturers to develop software that blurs the faces and genital areas of passengers being scanned. In all cases, passengers are not required to be scanned by the machine but can opt for a full body pat-down instead.At Salt Lake City International Airport, fewer than 1 percent of passengers subjected to the scanner chose the pat-down since the machine was installed in March, said Dwane Baird, a TSA spokesman in Salt Lake City.On Tuesday, some 1,900 people went through the scanner and just three chose not to, he said.Critics of the scanners said the option to opt out was not enough.”The question is should they be used indiscriminately on little children and grandmothers,” said Republican U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock of California. McClintock co-sponsored a bill approved by the House 310-118 in June prohibiting the use of full body scanners for primary screenings. The bill is pending in the Senate.

He said the devices raised serious concerns regarding constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.”There’s no practical distinction between a full body scan and being pulled into a side room and being ordered to strip your clothing.”To further protect passenger privacy, security officers looking at the images are in a different part of the airport and are not allowed to take any recording devices into the room with them, Trevino said. The images captured by the scanners cannot be stored, transmitted or printed in any way.But the TSA still has some public relations work ahead of it, judging by the reactions of passengers in Albuquerque, N.M., who were worried about what would happen to their images once they were scanned.”Are they going to be recorded or do they just scan them and that’s the end of them? How are these TSA people going to be using them? That’s a real concern for me,” said Courtney Best-Trujillo of Santa Fe, N.M., who was flying to Los Angeles on Wednesday.

The six airports where full body scanners are being used for what TSA calls “primary screenings” are: Albuquerque, N.M.; Las Vegas, Nev.; Miami, Fla.; San Francisco; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Tulsa, Okla.The remainder of the machines are being used for secondary screenings in Atlanta, Ga.; Baltimore/Washington; Denver, Colo.; Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas; Indianapolis, Ind.; Jacksonville and Tampa, Fla.; Los Angeles; Phoenix, Ariz.; Raleigh-Durham, N.C.; Richmond, Va.; Ronald Reagan Washington National; and Detroit, Mich.

Though most passengers interviewed by The Associated Press felt security trumped other concerns, Bruna Martina, 48, a physician from the coast of Venezuela, said the scanners still made her feel uncomfortable.”I think there has to be another way to control people, or to scan them, but not like this,” she said as she headed back home after a vacation in Miami with her husband and two sons. She also does not think the scanners will thwart another attack.”They’ll find another way,” Martina said. “There is always somebody cleverer than the rest.”(Ap)

The NASA Narrows Robotic Missions to 3 Contenders

osiris

The latter two missions would include the return of samples, while the Venusian lander would test the planet’s composition much like the Phoenix Lander did on Mars. The NASA anointing means that the teams proposing the excursions will have some money to make more detailed plans.The winning mission will be the next in a series of explorations under the New Frontiers program. New Frontiers missions have to run under $650 million and be ready to launch relatively quickly. In this case, the final pick will be made in 2011 and will launch just seven years later.While NASA personnel will be digging into the proposals to come up with the official decision, we’d like to know which proposal you like. Read up on the contenders, and vote in the poll afterwards.

Name: The Surface and Atmosphere Geochemical Explorer (SAGE)
Destination: Venus
Principal Investigator: Larry Esposito of the University of Colorado in Boulder
Plan: The SAGE mission would release a probe that would descend through Venus’ thick atmosphere to its surface. There, it would dig into the crust and measure its composition, not unlike what the Phoenix Lander did on Mars.
Why: “Venus is like a twin sister of the Earth, and it’s gone terribly bad,” Esposito told Colorado Daily. Scientists want to know what happened.

Name: Origins Spectral Interpretation Resource Identification Security Regolith Explorer (Osiris-Rex)
Destination: A “primitive asteroid”
Principal Investigator: Michael Drake, of the University of Arizona in Tucson
Plan: Osiris-Rex would fly to a primitive asteroid, orbit it, and then land on it. After collecting two ounces of material, it would fly the samples back to Earth. It’s a bit like Russia’s planned Phobos-Grunt mission, which would return samples from a Martian moon. (Osiris is pictured above.)
Why: “A primary motivation for an asteroid sample return mission is the desire to both acquire samples with known geologic context and to return materials that are either unlikely to survive passage to Earth (e.g., friable, volatile-rich material) or would be compromised by terrestrial contamination upon their fall (e.g.,
extraterrestrial organics).” — according to a description of the mission plan [pdf]

Name: MoonRise
Destination: Aitken Basin, at the Moon’s south pole
Principal Investigator: Bradley Jolliff, of Washington University in St. Louis
Plan: The mission would place a lander in a south polar lunar basin, where it would excavate about two pounds of lunar material. The samples would be returned to Earth.
Why: The area where MoonRise would dig is believed to be composed of rocks from the moon’s mantle conveniently exposed by a massive meteorite strike. Understanding the interior of the moon could help explain a lot about the formation of the solar system.