Slashdot Mirror


Federal Appeals Court Orders TSA To Explain Delay In Body Scan Public Hearing

New submitter rhsanborn writes "One year ago the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ordered the TSA to hold public comment on the use body scanners in EPIC vs. DHS. The order has been ignored prompting a WhiteHouse.gov petition asking for the Obama Administration's response. One year later, Wired reports, the court has ordered the TSA to explain why it hasn't responded to its original order (PDF). The TSA has until August 30th to respond."

40 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh, this ought to work wonderfully.

    Watch this be ignored as well.
    Obama is above the law, and the Appeals court is powerless to do anything to force the TSA's hand. How many divisions of bailiffs can the Appeals Court muster?

    The only solution to this is to get rid of the Security Theater senators and congressmen and start cutting budgets and repealing ill conceived panic legislation put in place a decade ago.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How many divisions of bailiffs can the Appeals Court muster?

      How many would it take to imprison John Pistole?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't have to arrest the entire TSA. Just one or two people will get attention.

    3. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is easy:

      1. The dog ate it.
      2. You sent it by email and Outlook ate it.
      3. Our email servers broke, again.
      4. You sent it by post and the PO lost it.
      5. What? I didn't hear you. Could you repeat that please.

      This can go on for a while. Best get some popcorn.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Force is the only language they understand.

      Arguments about what is or isn't effective mean nothing. Arguments about what is or isn't right also mean nothing. All that matters is what the real consequences (to the ones making the decisions) will be. Until there are some real consequences, they will continue to abuse their power. Count on it.

    5. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Somebody's gotta go to prison.

    6. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      6. executive order: "we don't need to explain."

      it's funny because it's legit.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    7. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 4, Funny

      6. Our justification was being delivered by courier, but he burst into flames passing thru a TSA scanner.

    8. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by fredrated · · Score: 4, Informative

      "The Court does not have the power of arrest."

      How is it then that people go to jail for contempt of court?

    9. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      and is the enforcement arm of the United States federal courts. The U.S. Marshals are responsible for the protection of court officers and buildings and the effective operation of the judiciary. The service also assists with court security and prisoner transport, serves arrest warrants, and seeks fugitives.

    10. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Stop blaming Obama for this: The TSA was Bush's pet agency, and the introduction of scanners without clear justification or consultation happened on his watch. You can blame Bush for his active role, and Obama for refusing to get involved. Let them share blame.

    11. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by icebike · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exactly.

      So many people here think this administration is playing by the rules.

      Oh yes we could, but Oh no we won't.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    12. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bush is not in office, and couldn't control the TSA if he wanted to.

      This is CLEARLY Obama's problem, and the TSA is acting EXACTLY as he has directed them to.
       

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    13. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by Dishevel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agree. Fuck Bush for the creation of the TSA.
      The creation of the TSA and pushing for the Patriot Act are the 2 worst things he ever did.
      Also though. Fuck Obama for his protection of the TSA and the fact that he allows the patriot act to continue on.
      Bush created these travesties, but make no mistake. Obama uses them for his benefit.
      If you think Obama should be shielded from a fuck him as well because he did not start it you are a fool.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    14. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by sycodon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Obama could have had these agencies dissolved and the Patriot act repealed in his first year. He had the numbers.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    15. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I blame politicians. All of them. And the panicked masses who didn't speak up when our liberties were being usurped.

      As you said, there's plenty of blame for them to share, but it goes well beyond them as well.

    16. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure they were, but unless you're telling me that the Obama administration has no power to order it's own departments to turn over court-ordered documents, then they are stonewalling. If they aren't stonewalling, they're impotent.

    17. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by Dan667 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      janet nopalito, head of homeland security, is more than likely the problem. She loves a good police state. When she was governor of Arizona she had revenue cameras put on the highways. When she left they ripped them out.

    18. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by GrumpySteen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's been over 60 years. It's long since time to stop blaming Hitler.

      Oh, wait. No it isn't. Guilty is fucking guilty no matter how much time has passed.

    19. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If the courts issue an order for arrest of TSA officials and Eric Holder refuses to enact the order, he is in violation of his core job (execute the law), and he can be impeached and removed by the Congress.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    20. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By a democratic congress?
      In an election year?
      Are you Daft?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    21. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by sjames · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, by a rabble rousing Republican minority. The Democrats have proven time and again that they are unable to defeat the Republicans when they are faced with an underwhelming minority.

    22. Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order by SydShamino · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except that the Dens had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate until Scott Brown was elected.

      But not right at first due to the extended contest ultimately won by Al Franken. He wasn't sworn in until July. That meant half the first year - and in the crucial first 100 days when a new administration can usually ride on the wave of its election and get things passed without intense opposition scrutiny and delay tactics - they didn't have the majority you claim they had.

      After that, they really lost that filibuster-proof majority when Ted Kennedy got sick, not when Scott Brown was sworn in. Checking the dates, the actual period when they could pass anything was around 14 weeks.

      Just exactly how much legislation do you think they *should* try to push through in such a short time?

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  2. Would love to see... by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would love to see some bench warrants going out on this stuff!

    1. Re:Would love to see... by operagost · · Score: 4, Informative

      The AG for the District of Columbia executes the orders of Congress.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Would love to see... by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sworn officers of the Marshal's service will execute orders from the federal judiciary, unless their bosses order them not to. If the administration ordered them not to, then the Administration is interfering. If that happens, then the judiciary holds a press conference and explains what has just happened. This is an election year, I am sure that Mitt Romney will be happy to explain how he would never use his power to invalidate a decision of judiciary and prevent the Marshal's Service from going about their normal duties.

      There are checks and balances, but it doesn't mean the Executive can always take their ball and go home. Federal officers swear to uphold the Constitution, not serve Barack Obama or Eric Holder in an extralegal fashion.

  3. So? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In case the judge is reading this, let me do your job for you. The order needs to be:

    DHS will respond by _________ or I will hold ________ in contempt and order them jailed until you respond.

    Without consequences, your order is something to laugh at, frankly. And that's what they're doing. They've been laughing at you for the last year.

  4. In unrelated news... by sconeu · · Score: 5, Funny

    All the judges on the District of Columbia Court Of Appeals have been added to the "No Fly" list.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  5. All Bark and No Bite by deweyhewson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What in the world kind of justice is this? "We're going to tell you to do something, and then, if you don't, we're going to tell you tell us why!"

    I'm sure the TSA are just quaking in their boots.

    Why don't the courts and judges grow some balls, and start issuing warrants for arrests, for contempt of court, if nothing else? At this point, the system is so laughably broken I don't know why anybody even bothers using it in the first place. Vigilante justice is more justice than this farce.

    1. Re:All Bark and No Bite by David+Chappell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What in the world kind of justice is this? "We're going to tell you to do something, and then, if you don't, we're going to tell you tell us why!"

      The court has to take this step-by-step. The TSA was told to do it, but not given a date. I year has gone by and they still haven't done it. EPIC says that this is too long. The judge has asked the TSA to try to explain why it is taking so long and when they intend to comply. Since he didn't give them a hard deadline, this is only fair.

  6. Re:Civil Disobedience Idea by danbert8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually you DON'T need to follow any TSA orders... The TSA 'officers' may not know this, but they have no legal authority to detain you as they are not law enforcement officers. The local police are the only ones who can arrest you. Of course good luck getting that to work for you in court.

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  7. Speaking of whitehouse.gov petition - wtf? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am ordinarily not a fan of e-petitions because they're generally useless; but at least the petition system at whitehouse.gov will require *some* action from the administration. Even if it ultimately serves to highlight how there is no accountability, there is value in that too.

    I know from the 'slashdot effect' that we have far more than the required 25k readers necessary to get this petition through, yet instead people would rather complain about how nobody is doing anything.

    Folks, it doesn't get any easier to "do something" than this.

    Or do you think that the BATF is going to come barging down your front doors because you gave your email address and zip code to register to sign the petition?

    1. Re:Speaking of whitehouse.gov petition - wtf? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 4, Interesting

      but at least the petition system at whitehouse.gov will require *some* action from the administration.

      REQUIRE?
      Are you Daft?

      There is nothing that requires any action, unless you consider totally ignoring the petition to be an "action".

      If a petition meets the signature threshold, it will be reviewed by the Administration and we will issue a response.

      - source

      Even if the response is not satisfactory it is still a response. Unless you know of a petition that had the required number of signatories, and was then completely ignored? (As in - *no* response issued, not merely an unsatisfactory response.)

      A response being issued - even one that says 'bugger off' - is better than nothing. Enough such responses can only serve to highlight the problems with TSA, and how they're consistently remaining unaddressed.

      But like I said, it's far easier to complain about things than make even the most trivial of efforts to effect change. We can all bitch about it to each other in comments instead, that'll do some good.

    2. Re:Speaking of whitehouse.gov petition - wtf? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes. And this is the last time I'll mention this, because people seem to be able to make only one point in this discussion: A dismissive response like that is ammunition.

      This is aside from the fact that the first petition was not as well thought out as this one - that was a general 'stop the TSA' complaint while this pertains to a specific, court-ordered action that has been ignored.

  8. Re:Civil Disobedience Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, on August 31st, when the TSA hasn't responded, how about everyone go to their local airport and just walk through security. Straight on through.

    ...singin' a bar of Alice's Restaurant, and walk out. 'Ceptin it should be done on Thanksgivin', which ain't too far from August 31st.

    You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's a 'bro and they'll just taze him. And if two people, two people do it - in harmony - they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them anywhere except Chick-Fil-A. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking through the scanner singing a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out? They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singing a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may think it's a movement.

    And that's what it is, the Alice's Restaurant Anti-TSA Movement, and all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it comes around on the guitar.

    With feeling.

    *pause*

    That was horrible. If you want to end war and stuff you got to sing loud. I've been typing this post now for twenty five minutes. I could type for another twenty five minutes. I'm not proud... or tired.

    If the TSA can't follow lawful orders from the courts why do we need to follow their orders? Mind you, this would be true civil disobedience -- you walk through security peacefully then sit down and wait to be arrested.

    Now friends there was only one or two things that Obie coulda done at the secondary inspection, and the first was he could have given us a medal for being so brave and honest at the counter, which wasn't very likely, and we didn't expect it, and the other thing was he could have made us dump out our water bottle and told us never to be seen bringin' water bottles around his station again, which is what we expected, but when we got to secondary inspection, there was a third possibility that we hadn't even counted upon, and we was both immediately arrested. Handcuffed. And I said "Obie, I don't think I can dump out the water bottle with these handcuffs on." He said, "Shut up, kid. Get in the back of the luggage cart..."

    - with apologies to Arlo Guthrie and various sources

  9. Only in Washington DC by Virtucon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "by the people, for the people" gets so corrupted in DC because of all of the lobbying and grandstanding that goes on. This whole hype of the TSA was unnecessary and now we've created a bigger bureaucracy in Washington. The whole body scan thing was a lobbied effort. Since we know nobody in DC actually does their own work and relies on lobbyists and staff to come up with things to do, twist enough arms, throw enough cash around and you can usually get what you want. Also don't forget all of those ex-government directors and leaders who've gone into lobbying for those companies as well. All under the guises of

    “Lobbyists are not the problem. Terrorists are the ones who can do harm to innocent victims."

    Really? what an astute observation from somebody who gets paid to lobby in favor of this horseshit.

    Blah

    Lobbyists and the way Washington DC operates are at the core of our greater ills and as long as we have revolving door policies allowing ex government officials to join lobbying groups and legal practices that attempt to influence our government, it will always be driven by money because we all know fear pays. Especially for Chertoff.

    Eventually people in this country will come to their senses and realize that this is all theater and doesn't make them safer, it does cost them more and makes their lives inconvenient and more exposed. So much for the land of the free.

    Until then I shall continue to work on my mind scanning device that will sense brainwave patterns and automatically recover memories and thoughts so we can weed out terrorists everywhere. Once I've figured out the electronics and made it sufficiently unsafe in terms of radiation exposure, I will then get a lobbying firm and sell it on the hill. It will eliminate the need for body scans entirely however there will be some side effects I fear: Loss of Memory, False prosecutions, Secret Lists and longer lines at the airport, bus terminal, subway and any other public transit location where people congregate.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  10. This obviously calls for escalation: by tenex · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Federal Appeals Court should repeat ultimatum in an even firmer tone of voice. Add the words, "or else".

  11. Response from the TSA... by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because fuck you.

  12. Re:Civil Disobedience Idea by WaffleMonster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not sure that slowing down airport lines for a protest is the best way to make people mad at the TSA. They're more likely to get mad at you for fucking up their travel plans. Write your damn congresscritter or protest OUTSIDE the security zone, please.

    What about going through the security line stating you don't want to be groped or scanned and then turn around and leave?

    You didn't break any laws but have the same effect. If enough people did it with insured/refundable tickets a point would be made at several levels. The airlines have bigger lobbying pockets than rape-scan.

    What the TSA is allowed to do is sick and discusting. If people are only annoyed by being inconvienced it is really rather difficult for me to to find enough sympathy to care.

  13. Re:Civil Disobedience Idea by MichaelJ · · Score: 3

    What about going through the security line stating you don't want to be groped or scanned and then turn around and leave?

    You didn't break any laws but have the same effect.

    Sure you did. Once you enter the line you must complete the security scan. You can not say no thank you and turn around. It's a $10,000 fine, too.

    --

    Michael J.
    Root, God, what is difference?