Slashdot Mirror
DHS Still Stonewalling On Body Scanning Ruling One Year Later
OverTheGeicoE writes "About a year ago, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on EPIC v. DHS, a lawsuit that sought to end TSA's use of body scanners. The Court found that DHS violated federal law by not seeking public comment before using body scanners as a primary search method. They ordered TSA to take public comment on its body scanning policy but did not require TSA to suspend its use of the scanners during the comment period. Several months later nothing had been done yet. One year later TSA has still done nothing, and even EPIC, the original plaintiff, seems to have given up. Others have apparently picked up the torch, however. Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, has posted a piece on Ars Technica about TSA's violation of the court order. He also started a petition on Whitehouse.gov asking TSA to comply with the order. An earlier petition ended with a non-response from TSA Administrator John Pistole. Will the latest petition fare any better, even in an election year?"
Ve haf vays to make you submit to full body scans. <puffs cigarette>
The signers will still vote for Obama and toe the party line.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
This is exactly the sort of shit that happened with Hoover's FBI. More and more resources and power are granted to the point where the organisation can effectively be above the law, especially local or state rulings.
This is the result of 11 years of the "war on terror". These sort of behemoth power structures were inevitable.
Can't the TSA be held in contempt of court and its officers jailed?
History teaches us that we do not learn from history.
I've experienced similar at a local level. The only way to get action is if some high level TSA official goes to prison for contempt of court.
And don't hold your breath that will even happen.
There were around 900 this morning when I signed; currently nearing 6000 out of 20,000 needed.
And the worms ate into his brain.
Isn't someone supposed to get arrested?
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
In other words, our fascist government just does whatever the hell it wants and no one can do a damn thing about it. Film at 11.
We are Germany in 1935 or so. Back then, low level German civil servants did a splendid job enforcing the fascist Nazi policies. Today, our own low level civil servants are doing the same, or well on their way.
The rise of the Nazis in Germany and oppression of Jews and others was not spontaneous. It was planned. Likewise, today in the US, though I can't prove it, we certainly seem to be in the midst of a planned manipulation of the population of the US, if not the world. Back then the scapegoat was Jews (and others). Today....maybe it's the so-called "rich"? Maybe it's the boogey-man, terrorism?
We are over taxed, over regulated, and under the ever present fear of our own government bullying citizens through intimidation from local police, TSA agents, the EPA, and on and on. It makes me sick to witness this in my own lifetime.
I wonder if anyone in the judiciary branch enforcing rulings against the TSA ends up unable to fly/etc. They would have pretty much the same recourse as the rest of us.
Don't just say "hurr guns 2nd amendment." That's stupid. That's beyond stupid, it's empty and vapid and useless.
Say: here's what we're going to do. Here's how it's going to be _better_. Here's how we're going to run the country. "Small accountable government" is nice, but empty and vapid and useless. My "small accountable government" gives free education and health care to everyone, and cuts the military to 1/1000th of its current size. I'd guess yours does something different.
Don't just offer meaningless "rah rah we need guns" nonsense. Offer new, real, detailed, focused plans on what you want to see. Get others to sign onto your plans. Describe what the transition period would look like. Offer a safe way through. (Families won't sign onto anything unless it's safe, and that's a fair requirement.) Don't just suggest an armed revolt--how moronic is that idea, anyway??--offer something on the other side. That way, we may not even need an armed revolt to get there. We may be able to just build new systems, and replace the current old-and-busted with new hotness without violence or bloodshed.
But not until we know what new hotness looks like, and I mean really looks like, down to what we'd need to do to get there, and what we'd do once we got there.
This administration has a proven track record of obstructing justice, ignoring court orders and subpoenas, and pretty much doing whatever the hell it wants and ruling by fiat with executive orders.
As far as power-consolidating dictators go, Obama makes Bush look like a rank amateur.
It's interesting that the petition served failed just as this thread was gaining steam. Big Brother is watching, and he's getting pissed.
Stay skeptical, my friends.
With an armed populace the government fears the people. This is freedom.
With an unarmed populace the people fear the government. This is tyranny.
You are a child. You may be 30, or 40, or 50 years old, but you are a child. Life is so much more complex than your simplistic little assertions. The government doesn't fear you because you're armed -- they have bigger guns, better guns, more guns. Nor does a gun give a sane man courage. A gun won't protect you from chemicals in your drinking water. It won't make the insurance company approve your claim, or stop your job from being sent overseas. The world can, and will, make you hurt and your pitiful little chunk of metal won't do anything to stop it. A rabbit's foot would be as effective.
Even if you had an army behind you, that won't give you utopia. It'll give you Somalia.
Vote no on almost every new law. Vote in every election. Vote for the nobody. Vote for the new guy.
Never vote for the incumbent. Never vote for his most likely opponent.
Simplistic rules never work. What if the law is trying to help? Do you vote no because its not perfect? What if the incumbent is better than the alternatives? Do you vote against the better candidate just because? That's not a path to improvement. You know how when people are driving, and catch themselves slipping off the road, and start a cycle of overcorrection that makes things even worse? That's what you're doing.
The path to a better country is the obvious, pragmatic one. Do your homework, and vote for the best candidate in every election. Even if you hate him, if he's better than the alternative, he should get your vote. Local elections and primaries are the best targets, as the smaller pool of voters means that motivated, informed people can make a bigger difference. The people with the money and power are playing a long game. They want you to give up hope and stop fighting for progress, which is exactly what you're doing when you throw away a vote or put your trust in guns. You must never give up. It's not gonna get better next year, or five years from now, or ten. It took over thirty years to dig the hole we're in. It'll take at least that long to get out of it.
Funny how that never happens in Australia, you have excellent public health care and none of the problems idiots in the US
claim exist with public healthcare. A society without public health care is not civilized. And why do I hear so many stories of your much vaunted private system not covering a lot of treatments. typical AC bullshit.
Posting as AC then calling someone else a coward is cognitive dissonance at its best! Obviously you do notm understand the word truth.
"People will talk a lot of shit on the internet but when it comes down to it no one will do anything because everyone is a pussy"
"Personally Id do something but"
"if the people of this country got together and went to the white house demanding we get our rights back"
"Personally Id do something but"
"americans have no backbone anymore"
"Personally Id do something but"
"its OUR fault for letting it happen"
"Personally Id do something but"
"because were all weak willed children that are scared"
"Personally Id do something but"
"go back to your game shows and video games"
"Personally Id do something but"
"you might complain about this country but you wont do anything about it"
"Personally Id do something but"
STFU! YOU are everything that you piss and moan about, moron.
The funny things is , widespread distrust and fear of the governement is typically an US thing, most people I know from other countries (European) do not distrust or fear the governement (on the contrary they trust it too much IMHO) and we do not have the right to bear arm.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
DHS and TSA are stonewalling the court, so the public should stonewall them.
Line them up against a wall. Stone them.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Maybe you're right about some in the government fearing armed citizens. But there are plenty of gun rights friendly politicians who are more than happy to intrude on individual liberty in other ways, so they at least aren't particularly scared that Americans with guns will rise up and demand their liberties. This ridiculous scanner program was started under an administration that received NRA's endorsement, and was continued under an administration that did not, so I'd say "gun rights" as defined by the premier gun rights organization in the country have nothing to do with this particular invasion of liberty.
Guns are not the sine qua non of revolution. You point out the thing we really need yourself: fearlessness, and thinking outside the framing boxes drawn by your political masters. If the US electorate had the determination and courage to use guns to bring down the government, we wouldn't need guns to bring down the government. Not until the election system is completely subverted by non-auditable voting machines. Do you want a revolution? Get people to stop paying attention to political advertising. Get them to question propaganda masquerading as journalism. Open their mind to ideas they've been taught to regard as scary. Then you'd have a revolution.
Guns are neither good nor bad. Or rather guns are in themselves *good*, but can be misused for evil. Most people who own guns own them for sport or self-defense, but obviously those same guns could be used for robbery. A gun that can be used in a democratic revolution can be used to suppress other citizens who disagree with you. So guns alone won't secure anyone's liberty. Before you can turn to the gun, you've got to free peoples' minds.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
All you would need to do is get the guys running the various bases in %area% to
1 actively support you: hint they all swore "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
2 Stand Down:not as good but would also work
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Absolutely, please mod the parent up! Before we would get 5-10% of the population ready to die in revolutionary gun battles, it would be much easier and more likely to get a majority of people ready to take some serious actions at the voting booth and clean house of these crooks from top to bottom. Vote in some true representatives of the people. People don't care because they feel powerless. If they only would realize the power of big groups acting together.
I take issue with your #3.
The most valuable form of wealth is freedom, not money. This nation was founded upon principles of freedom, not of people having the same amount of money--that's communism.
That is one of the big problems facing our nation today: people value money above all else. Not only does this lead to the rich getting richer, but it also leads to people being discontent unless they are also financially wealthy--relative to whom, I suppose, varies.
People who are demanding that wealth be redistributed from the rich to the poor are fighting for a goal of lesser importance, and one that vaguely reeks of communism. Now I will be the first to admit that there are serious problems with corporations in this nation concentrating far too much wealth and power, and with issues like CEOs' bailouts, etc. The day of the Citizens' United ruling was a sad day for our country, as it gave corporations equality with--nay, superiority to--individual citizens, who are real human beings with finite lives and natural vulnerabilities.
But there are more serious, yet subtle, issues facing our nation today. If we have not freedom, it matters not what our standard of living is; it matters not how wealthy our neighbor is; it matters not how wealthy some "VIP" is.
In the end, money is not life; it does not give life; it does not take life. Freedom is the ability to live in the pursuit of happiness according to one's free will; freedom gives life to new ideas and new possibilities; not having freedom takes away the fabric of life itself. Freedom equally benefits all mankind, irrespective of race, sex, age, beliefs, or wealth.
We should be advocates of, chiefly, freedom. Our ancestors understood this, and so they were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for us. Shame on us for allowing ourselves to be distracted by worldly things such as money; shame on us for devaluing that which was bought with blood. Lives were not willingly given for the sake of having more money, or food, or a nicer house or car, or more leisure time--they were given for the sake of freedom.
Yet, what is the loudest protest we hear? "The rich are too rich!" Such has always been, and always shall be, the case. Indeed, freedom includes the right to pursue happiness, which some people believe is best acquired by pursuing wealth. It is their God-given right to make that decision, however misguided it may be.
The rich people being rich is not a doomsday scenario. A real doomsday scenario is what people feared during the Cold War. Almost as bad is to willingly or obliviously give up that which was very painfully acquired many years ago. It will never be as possible as it was then to do what was necessary to give power to the citizens in whose hands it rightfully belongs.
Choose your priorities at your own peril. As the saying goes, "The best things in life are free." Or perhaps you are fond of the Firefly theme: "...I'm still free, You can't take the sky from me."
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Though you are modded Troll, I basically agree with this. Dynastic wealth is detrimental to society and democracy. Once a person becomes wealthy enough they can exert undue influence on society. I think we need a new (or a few more) top marginal tax rate. Set it at 90% of income over $10 million (yes, I'm pulling that number out of my ass). People can still make a lot of money. But people should not be allowed to amass unlimited wealth.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
You think this all started with Obama? You have some catching up to do...
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
With the tone you're using, I'm surprised you're not changing more minds. Do you want to speak, or do you want to be heard? If you want to be heard, insulting people will not work. Calling people drones is insulting.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
How can the TSA be imprisoned? It's not a person. How can the government imprison itself? How can the government freeze its own assets? The judicial branch does not enforce rulings, the executive branch does. How can the executive branch imprison itself? Whose responsibility is that branch? Who's responsible for replacing the TSA officials who have not complied with the ruling?
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Australia suffers from other problems which the USA does not. Censorship, for one. Choose for yourself which you value more: freedom or security.
I'm not claiming one nation to be superior--that is a matter of opinion. One should be free to choose where he lives.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
No the critical ingredient is public relations. We could have burned down 10 mosques for every dead US soldier, we could have gone house to house and shot the family of anyone found to have gun, we could have poisoned wells, we could have carpet bombed anywhere insurgents were even suspected of being.
Trying to look like the good guy mattered.
No picture it being far more personal. Lefty liberals and teabaggers hate each other, no need for goodwill when its all over because the other side will be dead.
This. If you're worried about America turning into a totalitarian police state a la 1984, it is ridiculous to think that the government would pussyfoot around wiping out a small insurgency by whatever means necessary. If you think the government would treat you with at least as much decency and humanity as it has the Iraqis or the Afghans (which may not be much, but as the parent notes, still isn't on the level of carpet bombs and poisoned water supplies), then you probably don't need to worry about turning into a 1984-style police state, because that kind of restraint is incongruous with that kind of state.
Of the candidates being offered to you, which one fills you with confidence?
Ron Paul.
If it came down to US Army and Marine units versus a semi-organized group of gun-toting libertarians, my guess is that the professionals would wipe the floor with the amateurs. That's for the simple reason that they're professionals - they've trained much more than you have, many of them have seen serious combat before, they're much better equipped than you are, and they have trained officers to lead and direct them.
Uh huh. And yet a bunch of fucking camel herders in Iraq and Afghanistan are still kicking our asses and blowing our boys' legs off to this day. How's that work? You're gonna sit there and tell me that Americans---with 10x the education, skill, resources, etc mind you---on our own turf couldn't put a bullet through politicians' head or build big ass bombs and blow shit up on a far more massive scale if shit got that bad? Have you ever even fucking met any of these "highly trained and skilled" U.S. Army dimwits you speak so highly of? LOL.
Bottom line is,
#1 you don't know what the fuck you're talking about,
#2 why OH WHY do retards like you feel the need to shout so loudly and angrily any time this subject comes up with your FALSE assertion that an armed populace couldn't beat the government? Is it because you're one of those crazy, fearful anti-gun nuts who despises all guns? Is it because you want to see the government win? WHY, idiot?
Nice way to sidestep the guy's actual argument...peon.
You must be new around here.
Yet, what is the loudest protest we hear? "The rich are too rich!" Such has always been, and always shall be, the case.
OK, so let's check some boundary conditions with you.
1. Would you approve if one man legally owned all the land available on the planet?
If the answer to that is "yes," then I give up. You and I will never find agreement.
2. How about two men, each legally owning half the planet?
Again, if that thought doesn't also send a chill down your spine, then we're not going to find agreement.
If you can answer "no" to those two questions, then we're getting somewhere. You and I can agree there should be legal limits placed on the amount of land one man should be allowed to own. Better yet, land ownership, like water rights, radio spectrum or IPv4 ownership, is exactly a "zero-sum" game. Land you have is land I don't and vice versa. Our libertarian friends love to argue that wealth is not a zero-sum game. I think the flaw in their argument is that wealth -- ultimately -- comes from mining and agriculture, both of which depend on the zero-sum equation of land ownership. "Intellectual Property and Services" are only as valuable as the actual goods they can buy. Come talk to me when you can eat a song or seek shelter under the binary digits of a software program.
OK, so if we can place limits on how much of the water or radio spectrum anyone is allowed to own, then we can take those exact arguments and apply them to land ownership. Land is a limited commodity which must be apportioned to meet the public good. This is in fact the entire reasoning behind seizure under eminent domain, so we're still within "black letter" law.
If we're comfortable saying that "No one should own all of the land in the United States," or even "No one should own all of the land within any state in the union," then let's talk acreage. What would be a reasonable limit to put on the acreage one man can own?
Well, your local realtor will tell you that a "large" lot for a single family dwelling is a quarter acre. Forty acres is the traditional size of a farm considered workable by one man. The Oklahoma land rush handed out 160 acre parcels to let the cows roam. Give a man a tractor, and he might farm a couple of hundred acres. Give that man nineteen children, each with their own tractor, and now we have twenty times two hundred acres, or four thousand acres, 6.25 square miles.
Let's triple that to 12,000 acres, or 18.75 miles. Distance to the horizon is roughly three miles, so to be "the master of all you survey," you need pi*r^2, so pi*9 or let's just call it 28 square miles, roughly 18,000 acres.
Now, one family alone can't possibly work that amount of land, and you'd be very hard pressed to even cover it all in one day on an ATV, but you can absolutely turn to your trophy wife and declaim "I am the master of all I survey," so there is that I suppose. Let's round it up. 20,000 acres. It's an absurd number, but surely we can agree that 20,000 acres would be a reasonable upper boundary on land ownership.
Let's go from the absurd to the entirely insane and multiply that number by five. 100,000 acres. That's approaching half the size of Mount Rainier National Park at 230,000 acres. Can we agree that since land is a limited, finite resource like the radio spectrum and IPv4 ownership, and is exactly a zero-sum game, can we agree that 100,000 acres in one man's hand is sufficient?
Ted Turner owns Six. Hundred. Thousand. acres of contiguous land in Colorado. 600,000 acres, almost three times the size of Mount Rainier national park. His entire holdings top . Billionaire Archie Emmerson owns 1.9 million acres.
OK, so now I hear the Libertarians snort "So what, how does that affect you?" Well, it affects me because I've been trying to find five to ten acres of arable, contiguous land to farm to feed my family.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Or perhaps you are fond of the Firefly theme: "...I'm still free, You can't take the sky from me."
You saw the movie "Serenity" right, not just the TV show? You remember the argument between Mal and Simon about River going on the job? Simon argues it's too dangerous, and Mal argues that with Alliance power has expanded so far that:
Come a day there won't be room for naughty men like us to slip about at all. This job goes south, there well may not be another. So here is us, on the raggedy edge. Don't push me, and I won't push you.
The whole point of that movie is that they took the sky from him, or did you miss the scene where Shepard Book died? We're halfway through act two, and Mal's only move left on the board is Reaver territory.
The Alliance shattered River's mind, took Simon's career and sister, took Mal's honor and turned him into a criminal, and left Zoe a widow and Wash dead.
And your answer to that is:
Choose your priorities at your own peril. As the saying goes, "The best things in life are free."
Can we mail you back to your parents in a box? Because my answer to you is "yes, in every way possible."
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Oh, Gottabeme, your politics are entirely brain-dead, and you made the rookie rhetorical mistake of quoting works you haven't completed...
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
I agree that adding noise, to ruin their data, is the best defense. it can be done at the grass roots level.
they use disinformation, as a tool. we should, too.
sadly, you won't get enough people to be true patriots and buck the system like this.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."