Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the resist-delay-obstruct dept.

Privacy 186

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."

cancel ×

186 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858129)

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.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858159)

How many divisions of bailiffs can the Appeals Court muster?

How many would it take to imprison John Pistole?

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40859091)

Does it matter? Obama would just appoint someone equally bad.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40858165)

Fuck you, goyim. Don't make me shove my gold-plated, diamond-encrusted Jew dick up your ass.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40858799)

I'll see your tiny little dick and raise you a crematorium.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (4, Informative)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858191)

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

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (4, Informative)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858347)

Somebody's gotta go to prison.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858601)

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

The Court does not have the power of arrest.
The key people in the TSA have armed security details.

Just WHO were you expecting to arrest these people? The same people who appointed them?

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40858713)

Just WHO were you expecting to arrest these people?

US Marshal Service [wikipedia.org]

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858765)

Read your own link: "The Marshals Service is part of the executive branch of government"

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40858811)

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.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (-1, Flamebait)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858797)

US Marshal Service

You mean the guys who take their orders form Obama and Eric Holder? Those US Marshals?
Cute. Now run along home, sonny, your mom has your lunch ready.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (4, Informative)

fredrated (639554) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858735)

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

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

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (2, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858815)

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

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

Because law enforcement from the executive branch arrest them.
Do you see Eric Holder sending out anyone to arrest the head of the TSA?

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (3, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859873)

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.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (1)

Vermonter (2683811) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858953)

Just a guess (I know little about the intricacies of the court system), but a judge declares someone in contempt of court, which acts as a warrant, which allows the bailiff, who does have the power, to arrest the offender

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40859029)

Locally, this is pretty much it. The bailiff will be a member of the Sheriff's department and part of the executive branch and will have the duty of enforcing the decisions of the court.

At the federal level, this would be handled by the U.S. Marshal Service, also part of the executive branch and also with the duty of enforcing the decisions of the court.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859103)

I guess it's up to this guy [justice.gov] .

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859529)

I guess it's up to this guy [justice.gov] .

And who does he report to?

Why, lo and behold its This Guy [justice.gov]
Who in turn reports to This Guy [whitehouse.gov] .

Now do you see the problem?

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40859581)

I'll arrest them. Anyone have a few sets of handcuffs I can borrow?

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858205)

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.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40858293)

Maybe it's on Carl Rowes mail servers.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (4, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858433)

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

it's funny because it's legit.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (4, Informative)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858843)

Exactly.

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

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

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40859145)

The rules were made in the previous administration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration [wikipedia.org]

"The TSA was created as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, sponsored by Don Young in the United States House of Representatives[2] and Ernest Hollings in the Senate,[3] passed by the 107th U.S. Congress, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 19, 2001. Originally part of the United States Department of Transportation, the TSA was moved to the Department of Homeland Security on March 25, 2003."

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (4, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859305)

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.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859491)

inaction/not changing anything is the easiest to defend. So yes, stonewalling.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (2, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859483)

Obama has had 3.5 years.
Its long since time to stop blaming Bush.

With that line of reasoning its easy to see why you post as AC.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (3, Insightful)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859527)

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.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40859567)

When did the U.S. Congress become part of any administration? Congress makes the laws, not the executive branch. At least until Obama started treating executive orders as equivalent to congressional laws.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (4, Funny)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858501)

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

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859473)

The justification was read as a threat to national security and was confiscated. The courier was sent to Guantanamo. No trial is expected.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (1)

acid_andy (534219) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858919)

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.

6. Yeah I know, it's "in the cloud".

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (2)

Freddybear (1805256) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859509)

7. We'll investigate that right away. Get back to us after the election, OK?

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (1)

Anon-Admin (443764) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858211)

"How many divisions of bailiffs can the Appeals Court muster?"

Ill volunteer to be deputized for this duty!

Whos with me?

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40858247)

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.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (2)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858939)

I think there needs to be some kind of use of force involved regarding the executive branch. It has amassed too much power and run roughshod over Americans.

I would like to see a state call out the troopers to arrest some TSA thug or forcefully ignore an order from the feds. Perhaps if the head of the EPA, TSA, or other Brownshirt Agency was arrested and charged with a state crime due to their agency's conduct it would get everyone's attention and move the issue to the abuse of power to the forefront of public attention.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (5, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858813)

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.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858907)

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.
 

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (5, Interesting)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859363)

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.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (5, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859059)

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.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (5, Informative)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859151)

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

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859787)

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.

Future-proofing: Fuck Romney, too, for his (if elected) inevitable continuation and likely expansion of the same fucked up, anti-American policies*.


*This should, in no way, be construed as an endorsement for Obama - fuck that elitist asshole as well.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (3, Insightful)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859221)

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.

budgetary control (1)

schlachter (862210) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858967)

Court should order their budget frozen until a response is made.

Re:budgetary control (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859547)

And who will follow that order?

Why do you bring up Obama? (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859493)

The TSA was formed by the Bush Administration in 2002.

Re:Why do you bring up Obama? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40859603)

The TSA was formed by Congress, as all agencies are.

Re:Ordered to explain why it ignored the order (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40859607)

You got it.

One of these days one or two people might realize the only ones who have to obey the laws are the
wee little people who seem to think their votes make any difference what-so-ever in how things work.

Laws are for the ruling class to create, for those they wish to rule.

Would love to see... (5, Interesting)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858219)

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

Re:Would love to see... (-1, Flamebait)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858653)

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

Who would execute those warrants?
The Executive Branch?

Your naivete is so cute.

Re:Would love to see... (4, Informative)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859137)

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

Re:Would love to see... (3, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859515)

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.

Re:Would love to see... (0)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859815)

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.

Please explain that to This Guy [justice.gov] . He seems not to care about your checks and balances. He seems to be laughing at you while singing and dancing to a song made popular by This Guy [wikipedia.org] .

Lawless federal government (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40858249)

What do you expect? This corruption didn't start under Obama but sure as hell isn't slowing down what so ever.

So? (5, Insightful)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858261)

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.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40858959)

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.

I order you to hold public hearings!

If you don't obey my order to hold public hearings, I'll order you to explain yourself!

And if you don't explain yourselves, I'll order you held in contempt and arrested!

And if you don't report to jail, I'll order...

A pizza! With double anchovies! Delivered to your house! AND I WON'T PAY FOR IT!!!!! MUAHAHAAHA!

Re:So? (1)

NonUniqueNickname (1459477) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858995)

Haha what a noob judge. We will all have a good laugh at this judge's incompetence just as soon as we're done waiting in line for our mandatory irradiation and sexual molestation.

In unrelated news... (5, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858267)

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

Re:In unrelated news... (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858367)

Do you have any idea how fast that would get somebody a red card? The entire TSA would have to move their headquarters to Jagd.

Re:In unrelated news... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40858533)

The sad think is that most people think this is a joke.

I'd bet they're on the "secret" unpublished "harass this person and delay them for hours so they miss their flight" punishment list.

Re:In unrelated news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40859077)

I bet judges know for a fast track way to obtaining damages if they lose their flight due to the TSA being too "thorough". "Yes your honour, my honour had to buy a 1st class ticket in order to get to my destination. All those on-board drinks too. And the villa my honour rented was necessary for relieving the stress the TSA caused me".

Civil Disobedience Idea (2)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858281)

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. 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.

Re:Civil Disobedience Idea (4, Interesting)

danbert8 (1024253) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858325)

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.

Re:Civil Disobedience Idea (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858677)

TSA can't ARREST you, but they sure as hell can detain you, and order an airport shutdown the minute you walk past them.

Re:Civil Disobedience Idea (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859591)

However, many airports have actual police departments that have sworn officers under this or that Metropolitan Airports Authority who the TSA can probably call on their walkie-talkies, if they aren't already standing there watching the lines. You'll be detained and arrested in short order.

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.

Re:Civil Disobedience Idea (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40858459)

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 [slashdot.org] , 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 [slashdot.org] sources [slashdot.org]

Re:Civil Disobedience Idea (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858537)

That was beautiful. It actually made me read it in the proper voice and everything.

Re:Civil Disobedience Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40858649)

Came here to copypasta the same; left feeling proud. Thanks AC!

P.S., Your formatting rocks.

Re:Civil Disobedience Idea (2)

Immerman (2627577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859035)

I love it, and I think just about everybody know the song if you jog their memory, the refrain if nothing else. Add a few supporters seeded throughout the line to join in and act as agent provocateurs to make your point glaring clear and you're golden - and since they won't actually be engaged in civil disobedience themselves, just voicing support, you'll have a better chance of finding recruits. I suppose maybe they could be hauled in as "inciting to riot", but any judge worth his robes would throw such charges out the window. I don't think you can be charged with conspiracy to highlight the ridiculous. Not yet at least.

I can just imagine the whole interminable security line belting out "You can get anything you want..."

Re:Civil Disobedience Idea (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859881)

I want to make full color, glossy 8x10 pictures of this comment.. with notes and arrows and a description on the back..

All Bark and No Bite (5, Insightful)

deweyhewson (1323623) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858295)

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.

Re:All Bark and No Bite (4, Insightful)

David Chappell (671429) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858579)

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.

And if they say "no" or keep ignoring it? (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858317)

Who enforces the law? Homeland security? The courts? Who do they arrest?

Speaking of whitehouse.gov petition - wtf? (4, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858419)

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?

Re:Speaking of whitehouse.gov petition - wtf? (0)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858727)

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".

Re:Speaking of whitehouse.gov petition - wtf? (4, Interesting)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858833)

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 [whitehouse.gov]

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.

Re:Speaking of whitehouse.gov petition - wtf? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859731)

My god you are naive.

Who put that rule in place? hint [whitehouse.gov] .

Have you been asleep for the last 3.5 years?
These petitions have been systematically ignored, on all sorts of issues that the Administration does not want to deal with. Hundreds of them! Occasionally some vapid dismissive reply [irregulartimes.com] is posted, but most are simply ignored. Its a huge joke. Made for people like you who feel clicking a button counts as "doing something".

It is far more effective to bitch on the net, showing people what a two-faced government we have than it is to buy into the system and click some feel good button.

The only petition that counts is the one handed to you as you enter the voting booth.

Re:Speaking of whitehouse.gov petition - wtf? (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858751)

The administration's action will be a short statement along the lines of 'The administration has taken note of your concerns, and is entirely dedicated to protecting the American people.' That's all.

Re:Speaking of whitehouse.gov petition - wtf? (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858853)

Which provides a convenient excuse for people to do nothing - not even take 2 minutes out of their lives to attach their real name to a petition. I understand.

Re:Speaking of whitehouse.gov petition - wtf? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40859307)

The way the government's been handling people lately is reason enough *not* to attach my real name to a petition...

Re:Speaking of whitehouse.gov petition - wtf? (2)

Mitreya (579078) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859455)

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

Have you read the response to the last ban-TSA petition that already succeeded?
It was almost like the poster below suggested ("'The administration has taken note of your concerns, and is entirely dedicated to protecting the American people.'")
Except that they didn't feel the need to pretend that they have "taken note" of any "concerns". The answer was written by the TSA director and has outlined two things a) why TSA is awesome and b) what are the TSA's expansion plans for next 10 years
I didn't expect them to dismantle TSA or do anything, really, but you'd think they would say "we are working on addressing your concerns". But no one is even pretending to listen.

TSA Will Claim National Security (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40858461)

The TSA responded today that they would not respond to the order, citing issues of national security. Obama said he supports the TSA's decision, and that protecting us from terrorism is more important.

Only in Washington DC (3, Insightful)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858465)

"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. [usatoday.com] 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. [thehill.com] 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. [huffingtonpost.com]

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.

Re:Only in Washington DC (1)

Vermonter (2683811) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859005)

Lobbyist really aren't the problem - they are a symptom of corruptible, easy to bribe, representatives who care more about their checkbook than about the people they are supposed to be representing. Ever wonder how ancient Rome fell? They were a democracy, and it worked well... that is, until those in power realized they could vote themselves money. After that, Rome declined and eventually fell.

Re:Only in Washington DC (1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859589)

The easiest way to make lobbying completely ineffective is to get rid of representatives. They wouldn't have anyone in particular to lobby. So they would have to convince the general public of their idea. How novel!

You may be thinking, "how do we get rid of representatives?" I don't know exactly, but I would think if we used some math, statistics, and technology, we can have the people acting as the legislature. At least some anonymous or random representation.

This obviously calls for escalation: (5, Funny)

tenex (766192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858479)

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

Re:This obviously calls for escalation: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40859097)

Oh dear...that will make them go running for the 3 seashells!

Have a Joy Joy day citizen...

Re:This obviously calls for escalation: (1)

willaien (2494962) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859629)

If only I had mod points.

Here's the real explanation (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858483)

John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it! [wikipedia.org]

It's not a new problem: Any time the executive wants to flip off the judiciary, it can.

Re:Here's the real explanation (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858871)

It's not a new problem: Any time the executive wants to flip off the judiciary, it can.

Sure, but time was the judiciary had balls. See Watergate.

Happy (1)

efensive (2697763) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858789)

I'm just happy they were given until 08/30 this way come 8/30 they can be given another n*-$DAYS_TILL_ELECTION to resolve this mess

Response from the TSA... (4, Insightful)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858837)

Because fuck you.

Re:Response from the TSA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40859663)

Or:

"No, now go away or I shall ignore you a second time!"

(Silly American jusssstices!)

A question for law-talking guys (2)

ftp coward (245726) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858955)

Why is the court considering a writ of mandamus? Hasn't the DHS /already/ been ordered to hold these hearings? Why not an order to show cause why the DHS shouldn't be held in contempt?

Re:A question for law-talking guys (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859379)

Because they weren't told to hold them within X time periods, so they haven't disobeyed the order yet. Apparently the court is dumber than most five year olds.

I protest TSA every time I fly (1)

Angrywhiteshoes (2440876) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859327)

Every time I fly and am faced with a body scanner, I make a big stink about how I want a pat down. I make the stink loud enough that it shocks 1 or 2 people into doing the same. I say things like, "I read the MIT/Standford/Yale reports that these have not been deemed safe." Putting that little bit of fear in others who are less technically inclined but know who MIT/Standford/Yale is will sometimes follow you through a pat down.

And to add insult to injury, I wear my megusta face during the pat down.

Re:I protest TSA every time I fly (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859839)

Every time I fly and am faced with a body scanner, I make a big stink about how I want a pat down. I make the stink loud enough that it shocks 1 or 2 people into doing the same. I say things like, "I read the MIT/Standford/Yale reports that these have not been deemed safe." Putting that little bit of fear in others who are less technically inclined but know who MIT/Standford/Yale is will sometimes follow you through a pat down. And to add insult to injury, I wear my megusta face during the pat down.

Just be sure you don't gusta too much, else they may arrest you for 'sexually assaulting' a federal agent while they're feeling you up. [newsnet14.com]

You can't make this shit up...

Golden Hammer, normal fly (1)

speedlaw (878924) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859651)

Because, at the end of the day, they will have spent 100x the amount of money it would cost to screen previously, and the only thing they have to show for it are a few "tucked to the body" small pot busts.

Or what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40859669)

"The TSA has until August 30th to respond"

Or.... they'll disband it? They'll do nothing at all? What are the consequences.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>