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?"
The signers will still vote for Obama and toe the party line.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I remember a country called the United States of America. It never really lived up to its boasted promise or potential, but hey! It was something at one time, you know?
Now it's gone. So it really doesn't matter, I guess.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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.
History teaches us that we do not learn from history.
What amazes me is how many waste their time with those stupid petitions. I mean after the first two or three prettily worded 'Fuck you peasant LOL" responses shouldn't everyone have learned by now those things are as fucking worthless as a suggestion box with a waste basket for a bottom?
The sad part is there really isn't any choice anymore, hell you may as well not even vote. I mean WTF are you gonna vote FOR? Rich money whoring sellout A, or rich money whoring sellout B? Does anybody think a McSame presidency would have been any different from a Nobama? Or that Mittens will do ANYTHING differently, other than put a different spin on it?
Lets face it folks, until things get bad enough we have a full on collapse and an Arab Spring all we are gonna get is what the 1%ers want us to have, nice little corporate puppets that do what they are told and heel when their chains are yanked. In the end we'll end up with MORE draconian laws, MORE power and control for those at the top and LESS for everyone that isn't in their little club. As Buffet said years ago "There has been class warfare for years, and we've won"
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Isn't someone supposed to get arrested?
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
It's easier to do nothing.
Personally, I only see 3 possible end games:
1. We take back our society by voting.
2. We take back our society by (violent) revolution.
3. Some horrible doomsday scenario where the rich people are rich until the world ends.
If you don't want to try option 1, all that's left are 2 and 3. I really don't like those options, and thus don't see the need to give up on voting and educating the public just yet. Obama IS better than the alternative, he's just not jesus.
Thank you, citizens, we now have your names for our no-fly, terrorists, and political enemies lists.
Obama's stance on copyright is every bit as draconian. He doesn't care about the constitution at all. Neither do his opponents.
In other words, our fascist government just does whatever the hell it wants and no one can do a damn thing about it.
You don't think this is anything new, do you? The federal government has been ignoring court decisions that it doesn't like since at least 1832.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Oh... But we're CRAZY! Didn't anyone ever tell you we are CRAZY?! Go ahead THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY! IT'S A TWO (snicker) PARTY SYSTEM!
--libertarian
Lets be honest, many of the 99% are just as culpable. They continue to believe the lie that there is a free lunch and they can continue to get something for nothing. There is no NEED for the two parties to change because the 99% will continue to vote depending on who has the R or D in front of their name. If the masses of people really wanted change then Ron Paul or whoever would win as a write in candidate and nobody could stop them.
The only way I see the system changing right now is when we go the way of the Soviet Union. The current system is a sinking ship, the mistakes have already been made, the only question worth discussing is how bad things will get. Had we started transitioning 15-20 years ago, like Canada did, things would not have been so bad and we would have had time to fix other problems. Unfortunately now, no matter what we do, a lot of people are going to get soaked.
To be honest, I think the answer may be to vote for a third party (Green, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, etc.) and look at places to live elsewhere. Despite what the media tries to tell you, the "third world" isn't just grass huts and civil wars. Granted, you might not have a Starbucks every 3 blocks but most of those countries are truly more free and they have many more opportunities. Plus the cost of living is much lower.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I've heard it said that Democracy depends on four boxes; soap, ballot, jury and ammo, use in that order.
It's up to each individual to decide where they stand in this order.
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.
Which is why we're screwed. The 99% have the soap and the ballot. The 1% have the money to heavily influence the soap and the ballot and they have all the money for the jury and ammo.
only 5 seconds to get your name added to a gov watchlist.
(no, I'm not at all kidding)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I've been running my mouth online and signing petitions online (and not online) since I don't know when and I'm not on any no-fly list. I may well be on the political enemies list, though. I've never decided to FOIA myself, since I figure that's a bigger, redder flag than anything I've done yet.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Yes, because it doesn't matter how bad he is on other issues, as long as he fucks over those rich people...
Who don't pay income taxes...
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
I'm simply looking at this from the single perspective of "Could the ammo box be of use?
Nope. Collect enough ammo boxes and the ATF / FBI / other alphabet soup agencies will storm your location and preemptively kill you and your family. Because you're obviously a subversive domestic terrorist, and due process is for pussies.
Michigan Militia, Ruby Ridge, Rainbow Farm... the list grows and grows.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Given a choice between A who has a terrible stance on copyringt and wants to play reverse Robin Hood with taxes and B who just has a terrible stance on copyright, I'll take B thank you. That's not to say I wouldn't prefer C who wants to reform copyright, hold Wall Street accountable, and tax the rich appropriately, but that offer doesn't seem to be on the table.
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."