Slashdot Mirror

You're talking about two different things. This was Southwest Airlines at Oakland International Airport. United at San Francisco International Airport would let him fly with no ID. He just chose not to.

See: http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html

You're talking about two different things. This was Southwest Airlines at Oakland International Airport. United at San Francisco International Airport would let him fly with no ID. He just chose not to.

See: http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html

Sorry, that was for a Southwest flight from Oakland to Baltimore-Washington International Airport.

SFO WOULD let him fly with no ID (United).

Sounds like he's downplaying SFO.

Sorry, that was for a Southwest flight from Oakland to Baltimore-Washington International Airport.

SFO WOULD let him fly with no ID (United).

Sounds like he's downplaying SFO.

The Gilmore v Ashcroft home page, which has been the primary source of publicity about this case:

John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines.There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.

He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.

Since those two accounts vary greatly, which one is correct? Which one is the truth?

You need to RTFA at the Gilmore v Ashcroft home page, which has been the primary source of publicity about this case:

John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines.There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.

He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.

Since those two accounts vary greatly, which one is correct? Which one is the truth?

Judging from your post, I know you'll be happy to overlook this glaring incongruity - and seeming change of story - to fuel your belief that we live in a police state.

Additionally, I said I had no problem believing there were secret TSA security directives for airport and airline operations. Do you think all of them should be public? Do you think that the government should set a precedent and begin revealing secret security procedures, even for something simple? Or do you believe that it is always inappropriate for information to be secret or classified under ANY circumstances? If not, when is it okay for something to be secret? If so, then we have a fundamental philosophical difference, as I believe that some security procedures that deal with millions of people or large venues/sites shouldn't be completely public.

I mean, on one hand, we have people flipping out that our power grid is wide open, and then we have people flipping out that the TSA is trying to secure airports and air travel, since it's critical to our economy for many reasons. And then we have a guy framing it as if he can't travel *at all* without "identity papers", by any means, and people like you who think we live in 1984.

I guess you can't win.

No. His own account, on the primary Gilmore v Ashcroft home page, which has been up in this state since the beginning of his case, says:

John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines.There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.

He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.

So either he's now changing his story (a wise move, considering the first one was very contradictory), or one of the accounts is wrong. If the Gilmore v Ashcroft home page, one of the primary sources of publicity for this case, was wrong, you'd think it would be corrected, yes?

Well, his account here (Gilmore v Ashcroft home page) says this:

John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines. There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.

He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.

Wrong. The story says:

John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines.There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.

He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.

Perhaps you missed the numerous parts of my post where I said he was indeed allowed to travel by air with no ID, and that he just chose not to, by his own admission in his own account.

Since SFO would allow him to fly with no ID, that in itself proves there is no such legal requirement for him to show ID. I'm not saying it's not good he's asking these questions, or that airlines should be telling people there's a "law" if there isn't. He and everyone else should just be more honest about it. It undermines the larger idea that people - airlines/airports and customers alike - should simply be aware that there is no law requiring passengers to show ID to fly.

Think about it: the people checking in and working at the counters and as phone agents probably don't know if there's a law or not. They may have, in fact, been incorrectly told that there IS a law. And in the end, if the entire system is saying "there's a law", even if there isn't, that's all that matters. I "get" it. But that still doesn't mean there's some secret law. That means it's a broken issue that needs fixing. And yes, Gilmore's story can fix it. But not by dishonestly claiming he wasn't allowed to fly without ID and that there must be a secret law because someone at United Airlines said so.

This very page says that he would have been allowed to travel at SFO without ID if he submitted to a search. That alone devastates the "secret ID law" claim, as allowing him to fly without ID, search or not, would have been in violation of that law. More here.

Unfortunately the legal page hasn't been updated since November 2004. So what's happenin' John? Has things stalled? Has there been any more progress? If so, can you update the legal page? We are listening, and we do care. Our attention spans are longer than the average person. Why the silence?

This writeup on Gilmore v. Ashcroft is kinda interesting too as is FreeToTravel.Org that includes an FAQ from John - all of this has been around for a while, but I guess the mainstream media just "re-discovered" John's story - don't think there has been any significant change in over a year (?)

Not my assertion, but how about John Gilmore's efforts to reveal the Show ID to Fly requirement that apparently is a law we're not allowed to see. Bearing in mind that it's quite easy for conspiracy theorists to purport nonexistant secret laws, this at least has the appearance of one that does.

As for barring reading of laws to be voted on, I cannot cite a blatent example of such. However, the Patriot Act was voted on several hours after a new version was printed (running several hundred pages). It is not clear that there was full understanding of the updated text prior to the vote (this is still a subject of debate).

How about the right to anonymity? The Supreme Court ruled in the Hiibel case that US citizens must provide their name to law enforcement officers upon request.

What can they do??? You have a right to wear a party mask in public??? surely you have.. or will they make that illegal too.

No, according to two recent cases, you do not have a right to public anonymity. Cf. Hiibel v.Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada and Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kelly (the second of which specifically points to the case of wearing masks in public).

Oh no. I wonder if Gilmore v. Ashcroft's replacement will have the same ring to it? BTW, ever since they put the legal page in chronological order there hasn't been any updates.. nothing has happened for over a month? The last thing on there was petitioning the court not to seal the court records. If they sealed em would the web page even be able to tell us they did? What's going on?!

Oh no. I wonder if Gilmore v. Ashcroft's replacement will have the same ring to it? BTW, ever since they put the legal page in chronological order there hasn't been any updates.. nothing has happened for over a month? The last thing on there was petitioning the court not to seal the court records. If they sealed em would the web page even be able to tell us they did? What's going on?!

A photo ID is biometric data.

That's really stretching the definition, but I did not used to have to provide a photo ID in years past.

You can find a lawsuit about just about anything.

Quit being dismissive. The lawsuit was filed by the John Gilmore, the man who co-founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation (with Mitch Kapor, John Perry Barlow, and Steve Wozniak), the Cypherpunks (with Eric Hughes and Tim May), the ``alt'' newsgroups on the Usenet (with Brian Reid and Gordon Moffett), Cygnus Solutions (with Mike Tiemann and David Henkel-Wallace), and GNU Radio (with Eric Blossom).

Several Amicus ("friend of the court") briefs were filed in support of Gilmore's appeal. These include briefs by the American Civil Liberties Union, The Center for Constitutional Rights and Privacy Activism, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center. I suggest that you read actual information instead of wasting your time and mine with smart-assed answers.

In fact, you have to produce ID when travelling from Washington, D.C. to England, neither of which is a state.

One is a state, the other is located within a state.

England is a sovereign nation, not a state (those fireworks on July 4 are there for a reason) and Washington, D.C. is not "within a state." It shares one border with Virginia and one with Maryland. It has no voting representation in Congress and no star on the flag. It is not a state. Traveling to England is not "interstate commerce," so admit that your argument was flawed and move on.

Your answer to the clear point that something is not unconstitutional is to say that the Supreme Court is wrong.

No, I said that one of their decisions was wrong (in the sense that it runs contrary to legal precedence) and I specifically provided information on Supreme Court decisions that established and upheld a right to privacy.

You're the one who has demonstrated no knowledge of the law.

What a crock. I smacked you down hard before and I just did so again. Unlike you, I provided specific information about multiple Supreme Court decisions and pending cases. The American Civil Liberties Union, The Center for Constitutional Rights and Privacy Activism, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and John Gilmore all have far more knowledge of the law than you. They maintain that the government-mandated requirement to present a photo-ID is unconstitutional. That carries a lot more weight than your virtual jumping up and down yelling "is not, is not, is not!"

It's easy for the government to keep tabs on you through your driver's license thanks to all the "sobriety checkpoints" you see around here, where the police stop everyone travelling along a certain street, demanding to see their driver's licenses. These checkpoints are also fishing expeditions with drug-sniffing dogs engaging in what amounts to warrantless searches of every car that passes through the checkpoint. And if you see the checkpoint and turn around, you are pulled over anyway.

Yet.

You do in Nevada.

You have forgotten about Hiebel.
Your privacy ends when you walk out your door. At least for now...

Psst. hey buddy, can you spare a .sig?

The laws governing our society should be open and transparent. Secret laws should not get us in trouble. How can we break the law if we have no way to know the law exists?

Too many government secrets are considered essential to national security. If you saw all that classified BS, how much is really vital to keep the nation secure? A lot of it is just revelead to insiders for the sake of having special privleges over others. If you have a Q clearance and I don't, how come I still know how to make hydrogen bombs?

Lesson one:
There is not much information that really needs to be secret. And laws are never part of that information.

Only Congress can make laws, not the executive branch. Executive orders have no power over citizens. They can only give orders for employees of the bureaucracies that make up that branch. The FAA (for example) cannot just make up some new rule and expect anyone to follow it. If Congress does not pass the law, it does not apply.

Lesson two:
Ashcroft and Bush cannot make up their own legislation. Only Congress can pass legislation. And the judicial branch can decide if those laws violate the Constitution.

There is hope for the future.
Congress might actually start doing its job.

And the judicial branch might side with Mr. Gilmore in that case, hopefully ruling that a law must be published for the public to read, or it will not be enforced.

Cross your fingers and/or pray.

The one time I've had my Miranda rights read to me, the cops violated them and the Federal Privacy Act after we got back to the cop shop, or as the sergeant said "This isn't a threat, it's just a choice you can make". (I'd been photographing misbehaving small-town cops, and they didn't appreciate it, but this was pre- Rodney King, so it was easier for them to get away with things, and I was supposed to go on vacation the next day and didn't want to spend the weekend in jail instead of getting on my plane, which the cops were quite correct that they could do.) Charges were later dropped, but it was annoying.

Until the recent Hiibel case , the courts were really clear about this; it's an ugly mess, and the Supremes upheld an Nevada law permitting cops to ask people to identify themselves, in spite of the fact that that's not what the cop did in the events under consideration.

"No, he is interfering with a reasonable search and seizure."

From the video:
Q: "Why do you need to see my license?"
A: "Because I'm investingating an investigation."

Uhh, ok, so it becomes reasonable search and seizure because the officer wants it to be considered reasonable? The easiest way to lose our constitutional rights is to not exercise them, demanding the reason that the officer feels probable cause while not placing the officer, or other citizens in danger is just as reasonable if not more. If the officer cannot justify his reasoning, then he does not have probable cause and is therefore not conducting a reasonable search and seizure.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on Mr. Hibel stating something to the effect of "If you want to see my license, you will have to arrest me, here is my hands place the cuffs on as I am willing to cooperate fully and peacefully with you even if I have an aggitated tone of voice and then you can procure my license yourself, but at the risk of being guilty of false arrest." is not an inappropriate action.

"If that's correct, then how do you explain the discrepancy between reports?"

The 911 tape was used in the court case against Hibel's daughter who was charged with assault on an officer for opening her car door - watch the video she opens the door slowly only to have it literally slammed into her by an officer more than twice her size, knocking her completely off balance, who then immediately reopens the door and roughly drags her out by the wrist and throws her to the ground. The only person assaulted was her. The judge agreed - and threw the case against her out of court. The original call did state that the passenger (The daughter) was assaulting the driver (Mr. Hibel) but was relayed by the dispatcher incorrectly to the responding units.

"I say his behavior is entirely consistent with an intoxicated suspect."

Well, I guess you watch too much COPS or have never done any law enforcement - something I have done, and have the training to do, behavior is but one aspect officers use to determine if a suspect is under the influence - the primary aspect is smell, cooridnation, and the reactions of a suspects eye movement and speech. None of these are the case with Mr. Hibel, and the officer never even suspected him of having been drinking or under the influence.

"If one of these people immediately becomes argumentative or even puts his or her hands out of view, they're going in handcuffs."

It is not a crime to be argumentative, and Mr. Hibel immediately showed the officer his empty hands, offered himself for search, and tried to discuss the situation with the deputy calmly. The deputy's over zealous demands for ID while failing to assess the situation in front of him escalated things into the argumentative tone. Each time the officer stated that if Mr. Hibel did not comply with his request for ID he would arrest Mr. Hibel, he offered his empty palms in a slow controlled manner to be cuffed and stated plainly that if the officer felt the need to arrest him he would cooperate fully. This is the reason that he was not charged with resisting arrest. Perhaps you should take the time to watch the video at the site again or for the first time before you continue to support the loss of the fourth ammendment.

By the way, even though we are obviously on opposite sides of this fence, it's refreshing to have an actual discussion enjoying the first ammendment without it degrading into nonsense.

The points I made were perfectly reasonable, as I'm about to explain.

Of course not, and if we had only that, I would agree with you 100% (on this particular point). From the article, howerver, the very first sentence tells us "The U.S. Department of Justice has asked an appellate court to keep its arguments secret for a case in which privacy advocate John Gilmore is challenging federal requirements to show identification before boarding an airplane."

Justice wants to keep its arguments about the already-secret TSA directives secret. Is it ok for the government to have secrets? Under what circumstances? Should *nothing* be secret? These directives are intended to provide airlines and airports with guidance about security issues, some at times relating to very specific security information, are what is kept secret. These are not "laws"; they are guidance and recommendations from the agency charged with these tasks to airports and airlines.

However, I would point out here that the law itself we can read, just not the DoJ's reasons for enforcing it. Subtle, but each has entirely different (though equally chilling) implications.

Actually, the "law" itself can't be read: that's Gilmore's point: there is no such public law stating that ID must be shown to board passenger aircraft. (There are merely guidelines, and FAA and TSA "directives" alerting passengers to show ID...I agree it creates an environment where people feel compelled to show ID, and may not be aware of their rights. But that is another story...the issue here is whether there is a LAW requiring it.) His assertion is that there is, and that the law is therefore "secret" - even though SFO *would* allow him to fly with no ID:

John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines. There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly [if he submitted to a search].

Not quite the same as "some unnamed worker".

Actually, it was. His source for the assertion that this is a "secret law" came from this site, here:

At San Francisco's airport, just like the rest of the country's airports, there was a sign that began "A Notice From the Federal Aviation Administration" and includes the sentence "passengers must present identification upon initial check-in.

John worked his way up the bureaucratic chain and was eventually told by United Airlines that there were security directives that mandated the showing of ID, but that he couldn't see them.

So a United Airlines employee says there is a secret directive that mandates the showing of ID - which is already false, since they WERE going to let him fly WITHOUT ID. Second, is what a United Airlines employee says suddenly gospel? Third, there may indeed be plenty of directives and recommendations from the TSA and FAA, some even secret. That does not make them laws that American citizens are obliged to follow. As I've said in other posts, I'm glad he's asking these questions, and, fundamentally, citizens should have a clear right to know what the laws *are*, lest how are they to even be obeyed? My point is that there is NO PROOF, short of his assumptions and tenuous chain of logic from what a UA employee said, that there is any such "secret law", especially in light of the fact that they would allow him to fly with no ID.

No where does he tell us who this person was, or what position they have within UA. Not to mention that UA is NOT the authority on these matters! Therefore, "some unnamed worker". It's more fun to believe that there are secret laws, though, isn't it?

And knowi

The points I made were perfectly reasonable, as I'm about to explain.

Of course not, and if we had only that, I would agree with you 100% (on this particular point). From the article, howerver, the very first sentence tells us "The U.S. Department of Justice has asked an appellate court to keep its arguments secret for a case in which privacy advocate John Gilmore is challenging federal requirements to show identification before boarding an airplane."

Justice wants to keep its arguments about the already-secret TSA directives secret. Is it ok for the government to have secrets? Under what circumstances? Should *nothing* be secret? These directives are intended to provide airlines and airports with guidance about security issues, some at times relating to very specific security information, are what is kept secret. These are not "laws"; they are guidance and recommendations from the agency charged with these tasks to airports and airlines.

However, I would point out here that the law itself we can read, just not the DoJ's reasons for enforcing it. Subtle, but each has entirely different (though equally chilling) implications.

Actually, the "law" itself can't be read: that's Gilmore's point: there is no such public law stating that ID must be shown to board passenger aircraft. (There are merely guidelines, and FAA and TSA "directives" alerting passengers to show ID...I agree it creates an environment where people feel compelled to show ID, and may not be aware of their rights. But that is another story...the issue here is whether there is a LAW requiring it.) His assertion is that there is, and that the law is therefore "secret" - even though SFO *would* allow him to fly with no ID:

John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines. There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly [if he submitted to a search].

Not quite the same as "some unnamed worker".

Actually, it was. His source for the assertion that this is a "secret law" came from this site, here:

At San Francisco's airport, just like the rest of the country's airports, there was a sign that began "A Notice From the Federal Aviation Administration" and includes the sentence "passengers must present identification upon initial check-in.

John worked his way up the bureaucratic chain and was eventually told by United Airlines that there were security directives that mandated the showing of ID, but that he couldn't see them.

So a United Airlines employee says there is a secret directive that mandates the showing of ID - which is already false, since they WERE going to let him fly WITHOUT ID. Second, is what a United Airlines employee says suddenly gospel? Third, there may indeed be plenty of directives and recommendations from the TSA and FAA, some even secret. That does not make them laws that American citizens are obliged to follow. As I've said in other posts, I'm glad he's asking these questions, and, fundamentally, citizens should have a clear right to know what the laws *are*, lest how are they to even be obeyed? My point is that there is NO PROOF, short of his assumptions and tenuous chain of logic from what a UA employee said, that there is any such "secret law", especially in light of the fact that they would allow him to fly with no ID.

No where does he tell us who this person was, or what position they have within UA. Not to mention that UA is NOT the authority on these matters! Therefore, "some unnamed worker". It's more fun to believe that there are secret laws, though, isn't it?

And knowi

The points I made were perfectly reasonable, as I'm about to explain.

Of course not, and if we had only that, I would agree with you 100% (on this particular point). From the article, howerver, the very first sentence tells us "The U.S. Department of Justice has asked an appellate court to keep its arguments secret for a case in which privacy advocate John Gilmore is challenging federal requirements to show identification before boarding an airplane."

Justice wants to keep its arguments about the already-secret TSA directives secret. Is it ok for the government to have secrets? Under what circumstances? Should *nothing* be secret? These directives are intended to provide airlines and airports with guidance about security issues, some at times relating to very specific security information, are what is kept secret. These are not "laws"; they are guidance and recommendations from the agency charged with these tasks to airports and airlines.

However, I would point out here that the law itself we can read, just not the DoJ's reasons for enforcing it. Subtle, but each has entirely different (though equally chilling) implications.

Actually, the "law" itself can't be read: that's Gilmore's point: there is no such public law stating that ID must be shown to board passenger aircraft. (There are merely guidelines, and FAA and TSA "directives" alerting passengers to show ID...I agree it creates an environment where people feel compelled to show ID, and may not be aware of their rights. But that is another story...the issue here is whether there is a LAW requiring it.) His assertion is that there is, and that the law is therefore "secret" - even though SFO *would* allow him to fly with no ID:

John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines. There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly [if he submitted to a search].

Not quite the same as "some unnamed worker".

Actually, it was. His source for the assertion that this is a "secret law" came from this site, here:

At San Francisco's airport, just like the rest of the country's airports, there was a sign that began "A Notice From the Federal Aviation Administration" and includes the sentence "passengers must present identification upon initial check-in.

John worked his way up the bureaucratic chain and was eventually told by United Airlines that there were security directives that mandated the showing of ID, but that he couldn't see them.

So a United Airlines employee says there is a secret directive that mandates the showing of ID - which is already false, since they WERE going to let him fly WITHOUT ID. Second, is what a United Airlines employee says suddenly gospel? Third, there may indeed be plenty of directives and recommendations from the TSA and FAA, some even secret. That does not make them laws that American citizens are obliged to follow. As I've said in other posts, I'm glad he's asking these questions, and, fundamentally, citizens should have a clear right to know what the laws *are*, lest how are they to even be obeyed? My point is that there is NO PROOF, short of his assumptions and tenuous chain of logic from what a UA employee said, that there is any such "secret law", especially in light of the fact that they would allow him to fly with no ID.

No where does he tell us who this person was, or what position they have within UA. Not to mention that UA is NOT the authority on these matters! Therefore, "some unnamed worker". It's more fun to believe that there are secret laws, though, isn't it?

And knowi

No, this is perfectly correct. You do not have to present ID to anyone in order to travel via any of those means...as long as you are not violating applicable pedestrian or traffic laws, at which point you may be stopped by a governmental entity and be compelled, by law, to present ID. That's exactly why I made the reference to e.g. following applicable traffic laws in my initial post: assuming you're obeying traffic laws, you don't have to show ID anyone to travel anywhere by car, motorcycle, etc.

Also, I think the Supreme Court recently heard a case where a man (in Texas?) was jailed for refusing to produce ID when asked by a police officer. He was not in a vehicle at the time, so he was a pedestrian.

Yes, you're thinking of this case, in Nevada. This is unrelated to the previous topic. Nevada has a public law on the books that requires a person to identify themselves to a law enforcement officer when requested. This case was a test to see if the law was constitutional (currently, the court decided that it is). Yes, he was a "pedestrian"; but police don't just randomly ask people for ID. In this case, there was a 911 call from a nearby resident who reported seeing a man and a woman arguing in a pickup truck, and seeing the man hit the woman (his daughter actually hit him). The 911 operator dispatched police. The responding officer came upon the scene to find skidmarks and disturbed gravel on the side of the road, indicating the vehicle had been stopped in an aggressive manner. Coupled with the domestic violence call, the officer felt it necessary to ask the man to identify himself, as he was (and is) allowed to do under Nevada law. When he refused some 11 times, the man was arrested. So that case has nothing to do with driving or anything, and not really anything to do with the Gilmore case, since Gilmore already found he could fly without ID if he submitted to a search, and he chose not to.

yes, the current one is available at Papers Please.

However, note that he was indeed allowed to fly with no ID out of SFO if he submitted to search; he chose not to.

One balmy May evening back in 2000, Dudley was standing around minding his own business when all of a sudden, a policeman pulled-up and demanded that Dudley produce his ID. Dudley, having done nothing wrong, declined. He was arrested and charged with "failure to cooperate" for refusing to show ID on demand. And it's all on video.

On the 22nd of March 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Dudley's case, a case that will determine whether Dudley and the rest of us live in a free society, or in a country where we must show "the papers" whenever a cop demands them.

John Kerry would have.

There's more to the link than Kerry saying that he would cast the same vote again. Like how we went to war on false pretenses (Saddam *wasn't* an imminent threat).

The poor don't pay income taxes, pretty much, as a rule. The top 25% of taxpayers pay 83% of the taxes.

Don't be a boob. The poor pay plenty of taxes, just not income taxes. Medicare taxes, social security taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, gas taxes. And the rich should pay more because they get more benefit from government expenditures than the poor do.

Name five you've lost.

In addition to the others mentioned, the right to travel by air without having to show id. And while not directly related, the recent (horrible) Supreme Court decision that police officers can demand to see id without probable cause might have been swayed by the terrorism scare.

Coalition to fight in Iraq included more countries this time than in '91.

Oh, and how many of those are in name only? Are their more foreign troops there this time around? More foreign aid? I doubt there are, as we seem to be taking most of the costs and most of the casualties.

France and Germany had reasons to support Saddam's regime, namely, they were profiting from the oil-for-food fiasco. While that hasn't been thoroughly investigated yet, it's not going to be a pretty picture for our European "allies."

Right, like its going to be any better for the States. Did you forget that Saddam was our pet dictator during the 80's? Its always brought up that he "gassed his own people", but who looked the other way when he was gassing said Kurds? And who's secretary of defense is seen in a famous photograph, shaking Saddam's hand? I think France will come out smelling better than the US if Saddam's dirty laundry is aired.

or wish to take away women's rights...

Again, name five.

He's probably referring to abortion, which I'm basically neutral on. I don't think a fetus is a person until the last trimester, but as men don't have any option to sever their parental responsibilities, at any point during the pregnancy or after birth, I don't see why women should be able to.

And how many of the past presidents were in the midst of a recession when a major act of terrorism struck?

Sure, but this isn't the first crisis we've had. All the wars we've been in, not to mention the entire cold war. The economy didn't go into and stay in the crapper after the Cuban Missle crisis for example.

If you actually think politicians create jobs, there's a reason you're unemployed -- you're stupid.

True, politicians can't just waive their hands and make the economy all better. But if you think that they don't have any influence, then you are just as stupid. Rather than giving huge tax breaks to people who don't need them, they could have made cuts in payroll taxes and increased infrastructure spending. What if all the billions of dollars flowing to Iraq instead went into building roads, new research, expanding AmeriCore, and rebuilding the crab ass power grid in the north west. That could create over a million new jobs, which would obviously be good for the economy.

Actually, the US Supreme Court just decided otherwise in the case of HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY. Dudley Hiibel was approached by a cop and told to identify himself to help the cop "investigate an investigation." He was given no indication of probable cause (the cop was responding to a passerby who thought there was a "domestic disturbance" in progress, though in reality Dudley was arguing with his daughter on the side of the road.) His arrest for failing to identify himself was upheld. HE HAD COMMITTED NO OTHER CRIME! All other charges were dropped immediately. His "crime" was being John Doe, for which he was arrested, convicted and fined. See Hiibel Revisited at Slate for more analysis.

Eleven times Dove demanded Dudley show 'his papers'. Dudley asked a simple question: why?

"Because I'm investigating", said Dove.

"Investigating what?" Dudley asked.

"I'm investigating an investigation" was Dove's non-reply.

Eleven times [Deputy] Dove demanded Dudley's ID. And when the Deputy decided Dudley wasn't "going to cooperate", he cuffed, then tossed him in the back of his patrol car.

A name is a name (Jack Brown), and gives the officer something to call you besides "Hey You", but as long as we're not required to produce some sort of definitive, unique-identity-signifying number of the beast, I'm not too worried.

Are you nuts? Watch the video, then decide whether or not this should make you shit your pants. With a name, cops have the ability to look into every detail of your life. Unless they have a sound reason for it, they should leave you the fuck alone.

I recently had a cop from the Port Authority (on the NJ side of the holland tunnel) threaten to hit me with his obese SUV in the middle of a Dunkin Donuts (i.e. on video, plenty of witnesses, etc). The Police are not people you should trust blindly. A considerable amount of them are the bullies who beat you up in High School.

This post isn't directed at the parent but rather most of the tin foils that fly off without RTFA.

From papersplease.org:
Dudley was standing around minding his own business...

No, actually, he wasn't. According to this AP article, he was having an argument with his daughter. The cop didn't randomly approch him demanding ID, he was investigating a disturbance.

Did anyone even read the first line of the case:

Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault.

Further in the report:

The sheriff's department in Humboldt County, Nevada, received an afternoon telephone call reporting an assault. The caller reported seeing a man assault a woman in a red and silver GMC truck on Grass Valley Road. Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove was dispatched to investigate. When the officer arrived at the scene, he found the truck parked on the side of the road. A man was standing by the truck, and a young woman was sitting inside it. The officer observed skid marks in the gravel behind the vehicle, leading him to believe it had come to a sudden stop. The officer approached the man and explained that he was investigating a report of a fight. The man appeared to be intoxicated. The officer asked him if he had "any identification on [him]," which we understand as a request to produce a driver's license or some other form of written identification. The man refused and asked why the officer wanted to see identification. The officer responded that he was conducting an investigation and needed to see some identification.

The officer was investigating a reported disturbance, not approaching random people demanding "papers". Actually, I'm surprised this even made it to supreme court. You are obligated to identify yourself when you are under suspicion of commiting a crime. Ever been pulled over for speeding? Hell, in this case the officer even stated the fact that he was conducting an investigation. The only weak point I see here is that it (the case document) doesn't quote the officer stating the exact nature of the investigation or informing Hiibel that he was under suspicion. All it says is that he "was conducting an investigation".

I agree the outcome of this case is a blow to civil rights, however, I think the events that lead up to this case have been blown way out of proportion. In the 33 years I've been around, I have yet to see police officers approaching random people demanding "papers".

Yeah, I'm posting this a day late so no one will probably see this post anyway...

You must have reviewed a different video than I. Bold does not make your point any less invalid. Safety is a great excuse for violence. Thank God I do not live in the country you live in.

You really should watch the video. The abuse of power is more telling when you see just how the officer treats this citizen on the side of the rode. And, yet, apparently there is no recourse for how the police treated him and his daughter. Makes the law laughable when it can get away with -- even after Supreme Court review -- treating people like this.

Here's a link to Dudley Hiibel's side of the story: http://papersplease.org/hiibel/.

Thanks for fighting for my rights, Mr. Hiibel!

Yeah, it's the Hiibel case. See his website.

Oral arguments were heard before the Supreme Court last month in a case meant to try to settle this very question. Check out the defendant's web site for more details.

Executive summary (according to the defense, and copied from the web site):

Meet Dudley Hiibel. He's a 59 year old cowboy who owns a small ranch outside of Winnemucca, Nevada. He lives a simple life, but he's his own man. You probably never would have heard of Dudley Hiibel if it weren't for his belief in the U.S. Constitution.

One balmy May evening back in 2000, Dudley was standing around minding his own business when all of a sudden, a policeman pulled-up and demanded that Dudley produce his ID. Dudley, having done nothing wrong, declined. He was arrested and charged with "failure to cooperate" for refusing to show ID on demand. And it's all on video.

There are other elements to the story -- for instance, at the time of the incident he was standing at the side of a public highway next to his truck. Check out the web site for details.

It seems to me that a national ID would be an additional form, not a replacement for a state ID. Don't qualifications for a driver's license differ between states (in such things as vision testing, vehicle classifications, and so on)? In fact, it seems likely that a state ID would be one of the accepted identifiers when you apply for your NID.

Schneier's article hints that he expects such an ID system to be mandatory if implemented. That brings to mind the interesting case of Dudley Hiibel, currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Is one obligated to identify oneself at all, if one chooses not to?

The database for such a system would necessarily provide online access to state and local law enforcement, rendering it a prime target for hackers and other criminals. And can we really be certain that the Sheriff's Office or the Department of Finance of Bugtussel County can't be bribed for direct access?

A side note: The little item about license plate shields questions whether these would be legal. The last I knew, even most of the little plastic frames that carry a car dealer's name are illegal in my state, although there are millions of them - they obscure a small part of the lettering on the plate.

Guess you don't read the news: Dudley Hiibel

Well, my earlier posting didn't get voted up (at all). But back in 1988 (I looked it up) the original Nintendo Metroid game featured a main character Samus Aran who could roll into a "morph" ball. So late 80's is at least established as an earlier point of use.

--
Support Your Constitution, Americans!

The classic Nintendo game Metroid featured a morph ball mode in its original version. Anyone else remember Samus Aran rolling around and bombing her way to the next level? I think it was 1988 or so.

--
Support Your Constitution, Americans! (please, we don't want your police force running around the planet with off-kilter policies like these)

From the transcript on the video page, you can see that Deputy Dove was demanding papers: "I need to see some identification", then "I just need to see some identification", then "Show me your identification".

Not "Who are you?". But "Show me your papers!".

The standard advice from ANY lawyer is to not say anything when accosted by cops. Not even your name. And the mass of court decisions, e.g. Kolender v. Lawson, concurring opinion of Brennan state that nobody has to answer ANY of the questions a cop asks of them -- even IF the cop suspects them of a crime:

"... States may not authorize the arrest and criminal prosecution of an individual for failing to produce identification or further information on demand by a police officer."

Here's another one, Terry v. Ohio, concurring opinion by White: "[T]he person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." 88 S.Ct., at 1886 (White, J., concurring).

No, the officer actually said he was "investigating an investigation." You can see it and read it here.

==
D: Because I'm investigating an investigation
==

It's interesting how your memory rewrote what you watched.

--Dan

Imagine my surprise when the site of the article is papersplease.org.