TSA tells congress to fuck off

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
TSA still refuses to release scanner safety reports.....to congress

The chairman of a House oversight committee on homeland defense has labeled “inexcusable” the TSA’s continued refusal to release it’s internal reports on the safety of radiation firing airport body scanners.

“The public has a right to know, and there isn’t something so sensitive that requires holding it back,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah. tells USA Today.

The newspaper filed Freedom of information requests for the reports over two months ago, prompting members of congress to get involved, with a group led by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass, demanding that the TSA release the documents.

Two months on, the TSA says it is still reviewing the documents to ensure they do not contain any sensitive information that could be a threat to national security.

TSA spokeswoman Giselle Barry told USA Today that the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general is investigating the adequacy of the TSA’s X-ray inspection program at the request of Markey, yet still refused to confirm when the safety reports would be made available.
Click to expand...

congress needs to be filled with people like me, because I have the perfect fix. cut all TSA funding.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so sad that freedom and liberty are extreme views. oh, and constitutional powers.
Click to expand...

your stance on police is extreme. sure there are bad cops, but you try and make it out as if every cop is bad. i don't recall you ever saying anything positive about the government, doesn't mean you haven't, i just don't recall it.

does our government serve an important function? the police? would you defund all the police forces? would you have zero security at airports?
 
Yurt said:
your stance on police is extreme. sure there are bad cops, but you try and make it out as if every cop is bad.
Click to expand...
one person commits a shooting massacre with an extended magazine, so large portions of people want to ban them. one person is just a bad apple, but we all have to pay? is there a difference?

Yurt said:
i don't recall you ever saying anything positive about the government, doesn't mean you haven't, i just don't recall it.
Click to expand...
government is a necessary evil. that is my belief. it isnt' any different than what the founders believed. is that wrong?

Yurt said:
does our government serve an important function? the police? would you defund all the police forces? would you have zero security at airports?
Click to expand...
they are supposed to serve an important function, but they don't. they are nothing more than revenue collectors for their own entity and survival. I would defund all police forces because they don't provide the 'protection' that they are believed to. On top of that, they aren't liable for their failure to do so.
 
E=SmarterThanYou;771823]one person commits a shooting massacre with an extended magazine, so large portions of people want to ban them. one person is just a bad apple, but we all have to pay? is there a difference?
Click to expand...

what?

government is a necessary evil. that is my belief. it isnt' any different than what the founders believed. is that wrong?
Click to expand...

the founders believed the government was an evil? really....


they are supposed to serve an important function, but they don't. they are nothing more than revenue collectors for their own entity and survival. I would defund all police forces because they don't provide the 'protection' that they are believed to. On top of that, they aren't liable for their failure to do so.
Click to expand...

thats extreme. and they are liable. absolute immunity is a misnomber, police can and are found liable. so are the counties that employ them.

enjoy the roads you travel on. enjoy the mail you get. etc......etc....no, nothing beneficial about the governnment at all....
 
Yurt said:
what?
Click to expand...
should have known that this would be missed. everybody wants to blame a whole group of people if one incident happens, i.e. the VT massacre or columbine, or any other mass shooting becomes the fault of the NRA or gun nuts because we demand 'shall not be infringed' mean exactly that, so it's against 'common sense' or some other shit. It's not any different with police officers, except people like you demand that it's only a few bad apples without seeing the bigger picture.

Yurt said:
the founders believed the government was an evil? really....
Click to expand...
yes, the framers of the constitution, though they believed that government was necessary, that it was a necessary evil.

Yurt said:
thats extreme. and they are liable. absolute immunity is a misnomer, police can and are found liable. so are the counties that employ them.
Click to expand...
wrong, wrong, and wrong. Warren v. District of Columbia and DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services have clearly outlined that police have no obligation to protect individuals from crime. the ONLY liability they are held responsible for is for people already in their custody. the governmental entities that are responsible for them can sometimes be held responsible for them, only if a clear violation of law can be shown.

Yurt said:
enjoy the roads you travel on. enjoy the mail you get. etc......etc....no, nothing beneficial about the governnment at all....
Click to expand...
so I should be thrilled that they actually do follow through on some of their responsibilities?
 
E=SmarterThanYou;771833]should have known that this would be missed. everybody wants to blame a whole group of people if one incident happens, i.e. the VT massacre or columbine, or any other mass shooting becomes the fault of the NRA or gun nuts because we demand 'shall not be infringed' mean exactly that, so it's against 'common sense' or some other shit. It's not any different with police officers, except people like you demand that it's only a few bad apples without seeing the bigger picture.
Click to expand...

really...everybody? are you sure about that? if you can find a post where i blamed a whole group of people for the action of one individual, link it. i don't believe that and have never advocated such a ridiculous position. you're confusing me with someone else.

yes, the framers of the constitution, though they believed that government was necessary, that it was a necessary evil.
Click to expand...

where do you get this authority from? where did they say that?


wrong, wrong, and wrong. Warren v. District of Columbia and DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services have clearly outlined that police have no obligation to protect individuals from crime. the ONLY liability they are held responsible for is for people already in their custody. the governmental entities that are responsible for them can sometimes be held responsible for them, only if a clear violation of law can be shown.
Click to expand...

protecting is not the same thing as liable. surely you know the difference. if they violate your rights, they are or should be found liable. you are not guaranteed vis a vis the constitution to be free from any and all crime. i suspect that is why those courts ruled that way. iow....if the police had a duty to protect you from all crime, then anytime you are the victim of a crime, you could sue the government.


so I should be thrilled that they actually do follow through on some of their responsibilities?
Click to expand...

i don't care how you feel about it, as long as you recognize it.
 
Yurt said:
really...everybody? are you sure about that? if you can find a post where i blamed a whole group of people for the action of one individual, link it. i don't believe that and have never advocated such a ridiculous position. you're confusing me with someone else.
Click to expand...
you should know as well as I do, that are individually stated ideals against mainstream thought are meaningless. thus are my accusations against law enforcement.

Yurt said:
where do you get this authority from? where did they say that?
Click to expand...

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. - thomas paine


Yurt said:
protecting is not the same thing as liable. surely you know the difference. if they violate your rights, they are or should be found liable. you are not guaranteed vis a vis the constitution to be free from any and all crime. i suspect that is why those courts ruled that way. iow....if the police had a duty to protect you from all crime, then anytime you are the victim of a crime, you could sue the government.
Click to expand...

explain qualified immunity to me then.

Yurt said:
i don't care how you feel about it, as long as you recognize it.
Click to expand...
oh joy, i'll throw parties when government accomplishes its constitutional responsibilities, what should we do when they fail?
 
OTE=SmarterThanYou;771842]you should know as well as I do, that are individually stated ideals against mainstream thought are meaningless. thus are my accusations against law enforcement.
Click to expand...

?

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. - thomas paine
Click to expand...

so one founder equals founders? thanks for the cite though. i guess driving is a necessary evil as well...i mean, we could go on with what is a necessary evil. we don't live in a utopia. i don't think government is an evil.

explain qualified immunity to me then.
Click to expand...

i missspoke earlier, i think i said absolute immunity, but its qualified.....and that does have limits. do police get away with what they should not? yes. so do criminals. its an imperfect system.

oh joy, i'll throw parties when government accomplishes its constitutional responsibilities, what should we do when they fail?
Click to expand...

if they fail to protect us of all our rights and are so bad, then we rise up as jefferson said. we aren't anywhere near that point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top