Political retaliation by the Biden-Harris Administration - exceedingly dangerous and very wrong.

Please watch before voting.

Based on information available up to September 6, 2024, Tulsi Gabbard, a former U.S. Representative and presidential candidate, has claimed that she was placed on a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) watchlist, often referred to in reports as a "terrorist watchlist" or the "Quiet Skies" program, following her criticism of Kamala Harris. Here's a summary of the situation:

• Claim of Inclusion on Watchlist: Gabbard alleges that she was added to this list the day after she criticized Kamala Harris on a Fox News interview for her ties to the military-industrial complex. This incident reportedly occurred on July 23, 2024.
• Legal and Political Reactions:
• Legality: The legality of such an action, if true, would hinge on whether the inclusion on the watchlist was based on legitimate security concerns or was indeed politically motivated. The TSA operates under the Department of Homeland Security, and its watchlisting processes are meant to be based on security threats, not political views. However, the specifics of how individuals are added to or removed from such lists can be opaque and are often criticized for lacking transparency and due process.
• Weaponization of Government: Critics, including Gabbard herself and several Republican lawmakers, argue that this represents a weaponization of government agencies against political opponents. They claim it exemplifies how the Biden-Harris administration might misuse power to retaliate against critics. This perspective is based on the timing of her addition to the list and the lack of public explanation from TSA.
• TSA's Quiet Skies Program: The Quiet Skies program involves enhanced screening for individuals who might not be on the No Fly List but are still considered to warrant additional security measures. Critics argue that this program lacks sufficient oversight and could be misused for political purposes.
• Public and Political Response:
• There has been significant outcry from some quarters of the political spectrum, particularly among conservatives and libertarians, viewing this as an abuse of power.
• Hawaii lawmakers and other political figures have demanded explanations and called for her removal from the list, suggesting that if her inclusion is politically motivated, it's an overreach of government authority.
• Legal Challenges and Investigations: There have been mentions of legal actions and inquiries, like those by Senators Rand Paul and Chuck Grassley, seeking clarity on TSA's practices regarding watchlists.
• Discourse on X (formerly Twitter): Various posts on X reflect a mix of support for Gabbard and criticism of the administration, highlighting the political divide over this issue. Users have pointed out the potential infringement on civil liberties and the dangers of government overreach.

The legality of placing someone on a watchlist like Quiet Skies typically revolves around whether there's a legitimate security reason. If Gabbard's claim holds and there was no security basis but rather political retaliation, this could indeed be seen as an abuse of power. However, without a formal investigation or more transparent disclosure from the TSA, these remain allegations. The situation underscores broader concerns about government transparency, the balance between security and civil liberties, and the potential for political weaponization of administrative powers.