Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - Whitehouse Petition: Require the TSA to Follow the Law!

Did anyone here sign this petition?

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-transportation-security-administration-follow-law/tffCTwDd


In July 2011, a federal appeals court ruled that the Transportation Security Administration had to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking on its policy of using "Advanced Imaging Technology" for primary screening at airports. TSA was supposed to publish the policy in the Federal Register, take comments from the public, and justify its policy based on public input. The court told TSA to do all this "promptly." A year later, TSA has not even started that public process. Defying the court, the TSA has not satisfied public concerns about privacy, about costs and delays, security weaknesses, and the potential health effects of these machines. If the government is going to "body-scan" Americans at U.S. airports, President Obama should force the TSA to begin the public process the court ordered.

President Obama has always been a strong supporter of the TSA. I doubt he'll do anything to keep the TSA in check. This one will be up to either a successor administration or the courts to take care of.

*Note for the edit: While I have a very strong recollection of seeing Obama say something to the effect of, "They can take the bus," as it relates to flyers unhappy with screening measures, I've been unable to find a source video, and no one else here seems to remember it. I think I'm just losing my mind.

I did but I doubt we'll see or hear anything. We're not a minority group that he needs to get elected nor have a lobby like the AARP or UAW.

I signed knowing full well the futility of the act.

I signed knowing full well the futility of the act.

I signed too and have the same feeling.

Not worth the time, this will go nowhere and mean nothing.

President Obama once said that if Americans don't like AIT, they can take the bus.

Do you have a source on that? I'd like to see it. (Admittedly a little skeptical that those words were ever spoken by Obama, and if so, suspecting there's more to the story. He doesn't tend to say much about the TSA, and something like that would be pretty sound byte worthy.)

I doubt he'll do anything to keep the TSA in check. This one will be up to either a successor administration or the courts to take care of.

Considering Bush created the TSA, it's a safe assumption that all things TSA are not a high priority for either republicans or democrats. Courts, possibly. Administrations, unlikely.

Not worth the time, this will go nowhere and mean nothing.

Agree 100%.

Did anyone here sign this petition?

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-transportation-security-administration-follow-law/tffCTwDd
At the risk of going OMNI, I think this would need to be preceded by a petition to "Require the White House to Follow the Law." :(

Shouldn't the people who got the case before the appeals court, now, 1 year later, re-petition the court to take a "stronger stand"?
[In Brown vs. BOE (re segregation in public schools), which the Supreme Court held to be unconstitutional, might have stayed that way, had they not (later) stated that their ruling be implemented "with all deliberate speed".]

At the risk of going OMNI, I think this would need to be preceded by a petition to "Require the White House to Follow the Law." :(

And the Constitution. :(

Do you have a source on that? I'd like to see it. (Admittedly a little skeptical that those words were ever spoken by Obama, and if so, suspecting there's more to the story. He doesn't tend to say much about the TSA, and something like that would be pretty sound byte worthy.)

For the life of me, I can't find a source. All I have to go on is my memory, and I clearly recall seeing Obama on TV fielding a question about the "don't touch my junk" incident by saying that, "...if they don't like it, they can take/ride the bus." If I'm mistaken, I apologize for going from memory instead of sourcing.

For the life of me, I can't find a source. All I have to go on is my memory, and I clearly recall seeing Obama on TV fielding a question about the "don't touch my junk" incident by saying that, "...if they don't like it, they can take/ride the bus." If I'm mistaken, I apologize for going from memory instead of sourcing.

Perhaps you were thinking of this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce0Wk8z3EqI

(Admittedly just barely related to the thread at hand...) :D

Might be cool if they first actually read the laws, wouldn't it. :rolleyes:

President Obama once said that if Americans don't like AIT, they can take the bus. I doubt he'll do anything to keep the TSA in check. This one will be up to either a successor administration or the courts to take care of.

Where is the news article that backs up the first sentence above? Just interested in seeing any such thing.

No Administration is going to keep the TSA in check given the problem is not the Administration, not Congress, nor even the Courts. The problem is too few Americans willing to just accept that terrorism is a criminal nuisance and too many Americans buying into the "anything for security" mantra without realizing that "anythin for security" is a far greater danger than terrorism in the US is to the way of life.

I signed knowing full well the futility of the act.If it gets enough signatures to trigger a response, they'll just do what they did with the last TSA partition. Send it to Pistole who will vomit out something claiming that the TSA doesn't have to follow what Congress or the courts say (because it's all SSI and the courts/congress don't have the jurisdiction to see SSI).

Might be cool if they first actually read the laws, wouldn't it. :rolleyes:

You teed that one up nicely, but I'll pass.

You teed that one up nicely, but I'll pass.

A long time ago I decided it was better for my blood pressure to pass on all things posted by this gentleman.

No Administration is going to keep the TSA in check given the problem is not the Administration, not Congress, nor even the Courts. The problem is too few Americans willing to just accept that terrorism is a criminal nuisance and too many Americans buying into the "anything for security" mantra without realizing that "anythin for security" is a far greater danger than terrorism in the US is to the way of life.

I think that is a very true statement. D or R, nobody wants to be the president who makes any changes to the TSA and then suffers a terrorist attack, whether or not it had anything to do with said changes.

Mike

I think that is a very true statement. D or R, nobody wants to be the president who makes any changes to the TSA and then suffers a terrorist attack, whether or not it had anything to do with said changes.

Mike
Things might change, if Obama goes second-term. First-term presidents are usually skittish, yet second-term presidents are 4-year lame-ducks, and sometimes get a little brave about stuff like that.

Government is representative of what the citizens want. The government won't change until the citizens do.

Shouldn't the people who got the case before the appeals court, now, 1 year later, re-petition the court to take a "stronger stand"?
[In Brown vs. BOE (re segregation in public schools), which the Supreme Court held to be unconstitutional, might have stayed that way, had they not (later) stated that their ruling be implemented "with all deliberate speed".]EPIC will be doing so on the one year anniversary date. So expect to see a filing probably next week.

Might be cool if they first actually read the laws, wouldn't it. :rolleyes:What are you referring to? The appellate court told the TSA to provide a notice and comment period for its AIT. A year later, the TSA has failed to comply with the court's order. Not only has a regulation not been put in place, but a notice hasn't even been promulgated. Why does the TSA think it is above following a court's order?

What are you referring to?

United States v Davis
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/65/
United States v Hartwell
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043841p.pdf

And a nice little primer on the subject can be found here. ((http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=administrative%20search%20doctrine&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CGYQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbiotech.law.lsu.edu%2Fcases%2Fsea rches%2Fadmin-searchs.ppt&ei=fDACUKy_KKeq2QXz54y9Cw&usg=AFQjCNEVvqp-A_xWeqtaXuSTYErlz36syA&cad=rja) (PPT warning)

But I’m fairly sure most here have already seen this power point presentation, and ignored it.

United States v Davis
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/65/
United States v Hartwell
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043841p.pdf

And a nice little primer on the subject can be found here. ((http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=administrative%20search%20doctrine&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CGYQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbiotech.law.lsu.edu%2Fcases%2Fsea rches%2Fadmin-searchs.ppt&ei=fDACUKy_KKeq2QXz54y9Cw&usg=AFQjCNEVvqp-A_xWeqtaXuSTYErlz36syA&cad=rja) (PPT warning)

But I’m fairly sure most here have already seen this power point presentation, and ignored it.

here we go again. mind explaining those to us?

United States v Davis
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/65/
United States v Hartwell
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043841p.pdf

And a nice little primer on the subject can be found here. ((http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=administrative%20search%20doctrine&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CGYQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbiotech.law.lsu.edu%2Fcases%2Fsea rches%2Fadmin-searchs.ppt&ei=fDACUKy_KKeq2QXz54y9Cw&usg=AFQjCNEVvqp-A_xWeqtaXuSTYErlz36syA&cad=rja) (PPT warning)

But I’m fairly sure most here have already seen this power point presentation, and ignored it.

Ron, the appellate court told the TSA to provide a notice and comment period for its AIT. A year later, the TSA has failed to comply with the court's order. That has nothing to do with the two cases you cited (and for me the PPT document was a bad link). This is about AIT, which has yet to be litigated. Do you even remember what the requirements are for an administrative search to be legal?

Once again, Ron, any comments on this thread? (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1358637-watch-tsa-nude-body-scanners-get-defeated.html)

here we go again. mind explaining those to us?

Yes, I mind, I should not be asked to do your reading for you. But just this once…

US v Davis sets the basic precedent for the Administrative Search Doctrine. And I do mean BASIC. (Pre TSA obviously)

US v Hartwell specifically addresses the scope of the administrative search and how it applies to an airport checkpoint. Very specifically. (post TSA)

You might also want to review United States v. Marquez, 410 F.3d 612, 616 (9th Cir. 2005), Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 323 (1997), and City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 47–48 (2000) when you “do your own reading” as it has some clarifications on the Administrative Search Doctrine. All of these decisions can be found with a google search. And you could have at least gone through the powerpoint document link I provided, had you done so you would not have asked.

US v Davis sets the basic precedent for the Administrative Search Doctrine. And I do mean BASIC. (Pre TSA obviously)

US v Hartwell specifically addresses the scope of the administrative search and how it applies to an airport checkpoint. Very specifically. (post TSA)

Neither of which have anything whatsoever to do with the TSA failing to obey the court's order to engage in the public commentary period.

I just tried to sign this on Monday 7/16, but I never received the confirmation email for the registration (and, yes, I checked my spam folder)

Neither of which have anything whatsoever to do with the TSA failing to obey the court's order to engage in the public commentary period.

In case you had not noticed, I am not commenting on that. Its an open case, and neither of us knows what the eventual outcome will be.

In case you had not noticed, I am not commenting on that. Its an open case, and neither of us knows what the eventual outcome will be.

So your non-sequitur was designed to distract from the real issue being discussed in this thread, being the refusal of the TSA to obey a court order...

Once again, you've met my expectations.

In case you had not noticed, I am not commenting on that. Its an open case, and neither of us knows what the eventual outcome will be.

The court ordered TSA to comply with federal law, The Administrator Procedures Act. TSA as far as I know did not appeal.

The bottom line is that TSA Administrator John S. Pistole has demonstrated contempt towards the court, contempt for the laws of the United States, and contempt to the citizens of the United States that his TSA procedures violate daily.

TSA Administrator John S. Pistole should be found in contempt of court and confined in jail until TSA complies with the courts order.

Might be cool if they first actually read the laws, wouldn't it. :rolleyes:

What are you referring to? The appellate court told the TSA to provide a notice and comment period for its AIT. A year later, the TSA has failed to comply with the court's order. Not only has a regulation not been put in place, but a notice hasn't even been promulgated. Why does the TSA think it is above following a court's order?

United States v Davis
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/65/
United States v Hartwell
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043841p.pdf

And a nice little primer on the subject can be found here. ((http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=administrative%20search%20doctrine&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CGYQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbiotech.law.lsu.edu%2Fcases%2Fsea rches%2Fadmin-searchs.ppt&ei=fDACUKy_KKeq2QXz54y9Cw&usg=AFQjCNEVvqp-A_xWeqtaXuSTYErlz36syA&cad=rja) (PPT warning)

But I’m fairly sure most here have already seen this power point presentation, and ignored it.

Ron, the appellate court told the TSA to provide a notice and comment period for its AIT. A year later, the TSA has failed to comply with the court's order. That has nothing to do with the two cases you cited (and for me the PPT document was a bad link). This is about AIT, which has yet to be litigated. Do you even remember what the requirements are for an administrative search to be legal?

Once again, Ron, any comments on this thread? (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1358637-watch-tsa-nude-body-scanners-get-defeated.html)

Yes, I mind, I should not be asked to do your reading for you. But just this once…

US v Davis sets the basic precedent for the Administrative Search Doctrine. And I do mean BASIC. (Pre TSA obviously)

US v Hartwell specifically addresses the scope of the administrative search and how it applies to an airport checkpoint. Very specifically. (post TSA)

You might also want to review United States v. Marquez, 410 F.3d 612, 616 (9th Cir. 2005), Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 323 (1997), and City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 47–48 (2000) when you “do your own reading” as it has some clarifications on the Administrative Search Doctrine. All of these decisions can be found with a google search. And you could have at least gone through the powerpoint document link I provided, had you done so you would not have asked.

In case you had not noticed, I am not commenting on that. Its an open case, and neither of us knows what the eventual outcome will be.

An order was issued by the court as the TSA was found to have violated the APA. The order has not been complied with. Now we will see what the remedy will be.

When you state, "actually read the laws", that means the statutory law and not case law. If it had been "law", then case law could reasonably be included. So for you to come out of left field with some cases that have been discussed quite in depth in this forum and then state that, "Yes, I mind" is quite the hubris. To double down, you have a bad link to a powerpoint and then complain that we are ignoring it when the bad link has been previously noted.

Once again, Ron, any comments on this other thread? (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1358637-watch-tsa-nude-body-scanners-get-defeated.html)

EPIC has filed a mandamus petition with the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, DC to require the beginning of a public comment process on the controversial airport body scanner program.
In the petition, EPIC said that the agency's delay poses risks to travelers, defies the Court's authority, and is unlawful. EPIC asked the court to require that the federal agency receive public comments within 60 days or that it suspend the program.
http://epic.org/
http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/EPIC-Petition-for-Writ-of-Mandamus.pdf
^^^^^

An order was issued by the court as the TSA was found to have violated the APA. The order has not been complied with. Now we will see what the remedy will be.

How about holding the top guys in jail on contempt charges until the process is complete.

Not sure what your current job situation is but would you consider a supreme court position?


How about holding the top guys in jail on contempt charges until the process is complete.

Not sure what your current job situation is but would you consider a supreme court position?

I've never set foot in a law school or a law class, they don't want me.

How about holding the top guys in jail on contempt charges until the process is complete.

I could go for that.

So your non-sequitur was designed to distract from the real issue being discussed in this thread, being the refusal of the TSA to obey a court order...

Once again, you've met my expectations.

It’s the issue you personally are discussing, but not the one the thread was started with. As for expectations, well we all have them, yet most here are quite unrealistic and based on conjecture rather than facts. Its no more or less than one should expect given the history.

When you state, "actually read the laws", that means the statutory law and not case law. If it had been "law", then case law could reasonably be included. So for you to come out of left field with some cases that have been discussed quite in depth in this forum and then state that, "Yes, I mind" is quite the hubris. To double down, you have a bad link to a powerpoint and then complain that we are ignoring it when the bad link has been previously noted.

The link works fine for me, maybe you should check your system.

The cases I provided are not from left field, they are on topic and very very specific to the issue. If you read them you “should” be able to tell that, but then again maybe my expectations here are a bit high. If so then that is my fault and not yours. After all, I established the expectation that you would understand the information.

It’s the issue you personally are discussing, but not the one the thread was started with. As for expectations, well we all have them, yet most here are quite unrealistic and based on conjecture rather than facts. Its no more or less than one should expect given the history.

.

The rude-ness and lack of credibility and research of your posts notwithstanding, what you write can be easily turned around on you. You ignore facts and continue to post the same thing, albeit with a word or two moved around ignoring questions directed toward you. Don’t get angry; what is it about the TSA always getting angry and “bowed-up”, if you will, at the slightest mention of their organisations multiple failures and lack of logic. There is a reason you ranked lower than the IRS in popularity.

Now of course, I do not understand the TSA proclivities to googling lawyers but that is what you are trying to do here and you are, per normal, failing miserably.

You do not understand that; it is more than apparent from your lack of answering direct questions (standard M.O. for you) and failure to grasp even the basic concepts of law the other posters are mentioning to you. I presume you think if you mention it enough times it must come true (a TSA SOP mind you) but that is not how it works in the real world.

We do all have expectations, and the TSA meets the world's low expectations everyday. Congrats on being part of a team that has not only failed to catch actual terriorists but has missed more guns and explosives that they actually found on multiple real world and GAO tests.
Keep up the show and the googling...

and your link doesn't work because it has a double http showing up, up front. Whether that is because of flyertalk or not, who knows. One has to delete the duplicate http to get it to work.

How about holding the top guys in jail on contempt charges until the process is complete.

Jail? Put 'em in stocks in the public squares in the municipalities of their residence, and keep an eye on who shows up to feed/water them...

The link works fine for me, maybe you should check your system.

This explains in a nutshell your MO. I note the issue twice, you ignore it the first time and the second time you blame it on me. Personally if someone said my link was bad, I would have clicked on it to see if that was true. Your statement illustrates your failure to do even that minor checking. In fact, you take it an additional step and assert that "the link works fine for [you]", when that has now been shown by FlyingHoustonian not to be possible. Will you have any character to admit your mistake?

The cases I provided are not from left field, they are on topic and very very specific to the issue. If you read them you “should” be able to tell that, but then again maybe my expectations here are a bit high. If so then that is my fault and not yours. After all, I established the expectation that you would understand the information.

Thanks to FlyingHoustonian (and no thanks to you), I reviewed the PowerPoint. So exactly where were the standards as applicable to airport searches? This is more of you having a square peg (your cited cases and this powerpoint) and you wanting to pound them into this round hole (the failure of TSA to comply with the court's decision). The link is tenuous at best.

Your attacks and deflections are illustrative of, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

I did note you conveniently didn't quote this part of my post: Once again, Ron, any comments on this other thread? (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1358637-watch-tsa-nude-body-scanners-get-defeated.html)

Bump. This petition still needs 9000 signatures. Get the word out! How can it hurt to have the White House aware that 25,000 people think this is a big deal?

Certainly I signed it. The naked body scanners are unconstitutional violations of the Fourth Amendment. So are the friskings they put you through to punish you for refusing to go through the naked body scanners. Every time I am given this Orwellian choice, I send out 6 letters of protest.

1 goes to the TSA
1 goes to my congressman
1 goes to each of my senators
1 goes to the White House
1 goes to the airport administration

I have been able to get this process down to about 1 hour total. If everyone would do this, the naked body scanners would go away.

Go ahead and sign the petition - it can't hurt. But more importantly, always opt out of the naked body scanners. And then send out the 6 letters of protest.

1 goes to the TSA
1 goes to my congressman
1 goes to each of my senators
1 goes to the White House
1 goes to the airport administration

Shorten that process by leaving out the TSA and airport administration. They'll just round-file your complaint anyway.

Not worth the time, this will go nowhere and mean nothing.

I agree with the second part, but not the first part! Sometimes we just have to do what we feel is right, not what will get an immediate response. That's why I'll be voting for Gary Johnson in November. He has virtually no chance of being elected, but it's just the right thing to do.

P.S. - And yes, I did sign the petition!

I agree with the second part, but not the first part! Sometimes we just have to do what we feel is right, not what will get an immediate response. That's why I'll be voting for Gary Johnson in November. He has virtually no chance of being elected, but it's just the right thing to do.

+1 ^ ^ ^

...on everything but the "no chance of being elected" qualifier. While obviously I recognize that it's true, it's only the self-fulfilling prophecy nature of the statement that makes it so. I don't understand why so many otherwise intelligent, civic-minded, politically active people who are fed up with "lesser of two evil" choices find it so hard to refuse to be collaborators with a badly broken, severely flawed and corrupt two-party system.

Any TS&S participant that feels strongly enough about the abuse, corruption, waste, theft and assault perpetrated by TSA on a daily basis that they post here regularly should not be voting for Obama or Romney.

I posted on a different thread that if you are going to go against your usual party affiliation and vote for Gary Johnson (and, unless you are a TSO, if you are here, you should!), it is equally important that you let the major party for which you're no longer voting know exactly why they lost your vote.

+1 ^ ^ ^

...on everything but the "no chance of being elected" qualifier. While obviously I recognize that it's true, it's only the self-fulfilling prophecy nature of the statement that makes it so. I don't understand why so many otherwise intelligent, civic-minded, politically active people who are fed up with "lesser of two evil" choices find it so hard to refuse to be collaborators with a badly broken, severely flawed and corrupt two-party system.

Any TS&S participant that feels strongly enough about the abuse, corruption, waste, theft and assault perpetrated by TSA on a daily basis that they post here regularly should not be voting for Obama or Romney.

I posted on a different thread that if you are going to go against your usual party affiliation and vote for Gary Johnson (and, unless you are a TSO, if you are here, you should!), it is equally important that you let the major party for which you're no longer voting know exactly why they lost your vote.

I am definitely voting but I'm not going to vote for either Obama or Romney. I did vote for Obama previously but it's clear he's happy with anything the TSA does. Romney's just a buffoon.

22,273 down, 2,727 to go to hit 25K. This appears to be the last day. For those of you who would like to sign please do. For those who haven't gone begging yet on facebook, twitter or other sites you frequent, the time to do it appears to be now!

Edit: It looks like the Whitehouse killed it right after I posted this. I suppose this is to be expected.

A new version of the petition (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/begin-hearings-use-full-body-scanners-tsa-finding-epic-v-dhs-no-10-1157/7YpJKlKl) was just posted. Vote early, vote often :)