A federal appeals court has now ordered the TSA to explain by August 30 why it has defied an earlier court ruling on the use of the backscatter x-ray scanners.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The law is such an inconvenient thing: A federal appeals court has now ordered the TSA to explain by August 30 why it has defied an earlier court ruling on the use of the backscatter x-ray scanners.

Share

3 comments

  • JGL

    I assume under the cause of national security / patriot act, they will not be answering.

    In a related story, I just read a story about a Muslim cleric that made a determination that in the cause of Jihad a person can endure “sodomy”

    meaning that they are allowed to insert an explosive into their rectum in the service of Jihad (sodomy is apparently strictly forbidden in Islam).

    Based on stories like that, like I said I doubt that the TSA will be explaining anything.

    We can have another conversation about the story and stories like it and there sources being valid or invalid, but we do know that there are

    people willing to do such things.

  • wodun

    We all know that militant Islamists will go to great lengths to hide explosives in their bodies but that doesn’t mean the TSA shouldn’t be upfront about the health risks associated with these full body scanners.

  • JGL

    They would be able to argue, if they chose to in some othe runiverse, that national security trumps individuals health interests.

    Well, they might not come right out and say it, they will just not reply to the demand. Congress would have to get behind the effort and how

    likely do you think that is in this instance when the logic can be supported that there is a “credible” threat ?

    Congress’s first job is to ensure the country’s security and ultimatly its survival. You , me and everyone else becomes secondary.

    You might now argue that on moral grounds a governmental agency exposing individuals to what might be potentially dangerous x-rays has

    an obligation to inform the public as to any danger.

    To argue that on moral grounds would fail, in governemnt / leadership, morality is optional.

    Consider this, here’s a quote that explains the concept, I forget who said it: First we eat, then ethics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *