Slashdot Mirror
Government Asks Court to Keep ID Arguments Secret
RobXiii writes " CNN has a story on privacy advocate John Gilmore (Co-founder of the EFF) taking the federal government to court, to stop the requirement of ID for in country flights. In an ironic twist, the U.S. Department of Justice is asking the court to keep its argument for the secret law secret. How are we supposed to follow a law when the law itself can't be disclosed?"
That was funny to see that error message come up on this particular article.
As a byside.. just what is causing those error messages to come up in the first few seconds of an article going public?
First rule of the law: You do not talk about the law.
Second rule of the law: You DO NOT talk about the law.
Free XBox, PS2
Please do not post any responses to this article.
... so they should just make it publicly available and face the consequences.
If the EFF *doesn't* hear the argument, then.... well, we've known we've had a problem with Big Brother, but it's just gotten a lot worse.
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
How are we supposed to follow a law when the law itself can't be disclosed?
Thats the wrong question / statement. The poster should have said:
"I refuse to obey a law that I cannot read".
For heavens sake, have you not read "The Trial"?
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
if the government argues this:
The government contends its court arguments should be sealed from public view and heard before a judge outside the presence of Gilmore and his attorneys.
Yes, tell the judge your reasons for the law... but the plaintiff and his attorneys aren't allowed to hear it. Baffling!
Find Nearby Indie Events
One, they're not asking keeping the law itself secret, just the reasons behind it. No problems knowing what to enforce.
Two, I think they should let the airlines set policies for themselves. Consumers can pick the cheap airline that doesn't screen, or the more expensive one that does.
> for specific reasons. Persons question the redaction of this post or its original contents or its existence or <> may be held without trial. Please read the next post and forget about this one.>
"Don't worry, Citizen. We'll inform/arrest you when you break the secret laws. Trust us."
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
A man is sueing because there is a secret law/rule that requires the airlines to check id before you can board a plane. Remember a few years ago when you did not have to show id to board the plane?
The government is arguing that this secret rule should be discussed in a secret court, so secret that the plaintiff in the case will not be allowed to hear the government's argument.
Are you scared yet or do you want to wait till the news starts referring to Bush as "Great Leader". Isn't bad enough they refer to him as the President when he lost the election.
you do not talk about Fight Court.
The second rule of Fight Court is - you DO NOT talk about Fight Court.
This Like That - fun with words!
No matter how strong the argument may be, that the ID requirement is an excessive imposition, the compelling state interest will always win over any such argument as long as people believe that they are in danger of an air terrorism incident. In other words, don't hold your breath.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
This is not setting a good precedent for future laws. The Government is keeping even the guythat broke this 'supposed' law and his lawyers outside of the courtroom. I hate to sound paranoid, but this could lead to some 'police state' kind of thought.
How are we supposed to follow a law when the law itself can't be disclosed?
Errr... ummm... trial and error? (pun intended)
Perhaps we should wait for US politics/law to settle down before we spawn a separate /. "Politics" section.
I don't know about you, but more and more I feel like I'm in one of those countries that the U.S. fights to "Get rid of their evil totalitarian regeim."
I wonder at what point the general american populous will realize that things have gone bad. I would say right now that more than 80% of the population is still in the dark about these problems creeping up.
My own mother doesn't believe me when I tell her about all of it.
Of course, "more intense" is just airline speak for "bend over, please".
This seems to indicate something that we don't know about the effectiveness of asking for ID for flights. Maybe there is something about the way legitimate IDs are made that they don't want to reveal. In any case the idea of making a private argument is insane because, of course, the other side will not have a chance for a rebuttal!
...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
Oh come on people, you have to give up rights to live in a free society....
Im a complete advocate of The Republic of America's rights to take freedom to make freedom.
starts talking about how Gilmore is making a big deal about presenting his ID, remember this: the hijackers of the various planes on 9/11 used their own names. They did not try to hide who they were.
If my name is not on one of the secret lists the government maintains how is showing my ID with my real name going to stop me from doing anything? I'm not a list!
Besides, if I'm going to crash a plane (or car, boat, whatever), or use whatever vehicle as a mobile bomb, into a building or public gathering, why should I care if I use my real name or not? I'll be dead anyway.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
That's FLIGHT court not FIGHT court.
SteveM
Gilmore has a website, http://www.freetotravel.org/ with more info and court documents regarding his case against the US government.
The government contends its court arguments should be sealed from public view and heard before a judge outside the presence of Gilmore and his attorneys.
We also have a secret law that secret hearings are fair and just. Anyone who disagrees with our secret policies will go to a secret jail.
what the "secret" punishment is then.
I say we just grow up, be adults and die.
If you really want to know, I can refer you to the Department of Love... currently on the sunny shores of Cuba!
Karma whorin' since 1999
Worse? Can you imagine being in court charged under a law you are not allowed to know about? This is on par with just arresting people and not having a reason.
This is a American, please have your papers ready for inspection.
...uhh nevermind.
And how accessable is legalese? How many people can read and understand the legal codes that govern their lives? Our legal code is absolutely huge, even ignoring case law that forms the precedent portion of it. Hell, the PATRIOT Act didn't get read by the legislators responsible for passing it -- do you expect the *people* to do so?
May we never see th
Seems we worked so hard to break up the totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union because we wanted to be the ones to do that stuff. Yeah us!
It seems more like error and trial
In Canada, if they THINK you are a terrorist, they arrest you, lock you up, have trial were you are NOT allowed to know the charges and eventually deported to a country of Canada's chossing.
posting anon just in case...
Like you said, Gore lost the court case. However, you neglect to mention that Gore won the popular vote and that Bush Jr. wasn't elected into office.
It's not uncommon for there to be secret/unknown laws and rules that some people must abide by - if they're workers with security clearances. However, it's absurd to make secret laws the norm and take proceedings that should be part of the public domain (ie most parts of terrorism trials) behind closed doors. When everyone has to abide by a rule at pain of prosecution, then it quickly becomes trivial to figure out what the rule is.
The default manner to develop and issue policy should never be behind the veil of secrecy.
What I see happening: Bush will "win" the upcoming election, and promptly (or possibly towards the end of his second term) declare himself Emperor. Viva la resistance.
Sigs are for the weak.
Bob Dole lost the election, but was able to recover through the use of Viagra.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
I've already seen this law. Anyone can see this law:
3 4/ qid=1094579012/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-4743479-211 2060
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/04515249
The law is not secret. The law is clear - you must show identification before being allowed to board an airplane. The gov wants to keep their argument in support of the law secret. This I find as absurd as most people here. (Double meaning intended) Being required to provide ID before boarding an airplane in todays day is entirely reasonable. Personally I think the EFF needs to join the 21st century and realize that they're being profoundly stupid fighting against this.
Gore may have lost in Florida but he did receive more votes overall than Bush did.
This shows why, once again, the electoral college should be abolished. Only in this country can you have a leader who received fewer votes than the second place contender.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
What makes you think that this law was written with the intent that you should obey it?
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
"Where are your PAPERS?"
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
And the republican party uses their new tool very well.
Republicans are facist (nazi germany, italy under mussolini)
Democrats are socialist (ussr communist aka socalist, china)
Meet in the middle and avoid the extremes and everyone prospers. Get caught up on the fringes and you become GWBush or Stalin.
"You are under arrest, please come along quietly."
"I haven't done anything! What am I being charged with?"
"We can't tell you."
"What about my Miranda rights?"
"Ok, you may or may not be under arrest."
"I want to contact my lawyer."
"Sorry, where you're going to be held no lawyers are permitted."
"What?!? You can't do that!"
"Ah, but we can and have, it's for the good of the country, you'll understand."
"Oh, well, if it's for the good of the country... but..."
"But what?"
"The country is not the government, but people like me, how can the people be arrested and tried in secrecy for their own good?"
"You ask too many question *fwit*"
"What did you just do?"
"I played the Patriot Card, by questioning the policies and actions of the goverment you're patriotism is now officially called into doubt!"
"Unbelievable!"
"It's a brave new world."
"I'll still need to let my family know I've been arrested."
"Sorry, can't let you do that, either, it might endager their patriotism."
"How?"
"If they feel the same way about this as you, they may call us into question, thus jeopardizing their standing as patriots."
"Um, how is that again?"
"It's for their own good, you see? We need to take you in and not have our policies and procedures called into question."
"Well why am I being taken in?"
"Ok, just between you and me, you'll probably be charged with possible subversion."
"For what?"
"For questioning your arrest."
"Ah."
"Come along now, we have a nice prison to keep you in."
"It's not one of those horrid places, is it?"
"Oh, no, this is run by Halliburton, it's very nice."
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Isn't bad enough they refer to him as the President when he lost the election.
oh PLEASE.
It's not exactly cut-and-dry whether George W. Bush was the rightful victor in the 2000 presidential election. The recounts showed Bush got a handful more votes in Florida, but well within the margin of error. So we will never know who more people INTENDED to vote for.
That was nearly four years ago now. Can we just let it go already? Can we "Move On"?
One of the major reason to keep the requirement to show ID on domestic flights is it allows the airlines to stop people from transfering tickets and increases their sales. If you buy a non refundable ticket and your plans change you can't sell the ticket to someone else to get your money back, the best you can do is pay a fee to change your flight times or buy another ticket. Not that I agree with this, it is just one of the possible reasons from the airlines perspective.
IIRC, the only requirement is for some sort of ID, no mention of picture. It was the airlines who insisted on linking ticket and picture ID so that they could prevent a secondary market in tickets.
I've said enough :)
And buddy, I most certainly will not get over the damage done to our democracy by that act of blatant criminality. My forefathers died so that the people could have a voice in government. When Republicans -- or anyone else -- usurp those rights then the appropriate response is most certainly NOT to "get over it."
he didn't lose teh recount - the recount was stopped -- third party recounts counting all ballets showed gore winning
then there is the one case of ballots that some county sherrif loaded into his truck and drove off with and never returned - so we'll never know the actual outcome
or the diebold machine that malfunctioned and returned about -65000 (yes negative) votes for gore - so all votes tabulated on it had to be discounted
or the hanging chads crap, etc
PS: when Bush's 1st Cousin in the tabulation room at Fox News decided to call the election for bush (when the data clearly showed 'too close to call') that's when things went down hill
on a side note: the electoral collage, since it has obviously failed in it's purpose: due to never being implemented properly due to vaugness in it's constitutional description, should be eliminated: direct popular vote, no more 'ballot dilution'
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
I second the parent's vote to get over it, and I'll now interject a completely random joke I heard from some talkshow host somewhere back this spring.
/bad humor: off //at home sick and drugged up
"Man, what's been up in Saddam lately? You know, he goes into hiding for months and noone hears a word from him. Today, we see him for the first time in nearly a year in court. He gets on TV and all he does the whole time is insist that he's the president...
Jeeze, it's kinda like Al Gore."
-Bucky
"There must have been a reason," Yossarian persisted, pounding his fist into his hand. "They couldn't just barge in here and chase everyone out."
"No reason," wailed the old woman. "No reason."
"What right did they have?"
"Catch-22."
"What?" Yossarian froze in his tracks with fear and alarm and felt hiw while body begin to tingle. "What did you say?"
"Catch-22," the old woman repeated, rocking her head up and down. "Catch-22. Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing."
"What the hell are you talking about?" Yossarian shouted at her in bewildered, furious protest. "How did you know it was Catch-22? Who the hell told you it was Catch-22?"
"The soldiers with the hard white hats a clubs. The girls were crying. 'Did we do anything wrong?' they said. The men said no and pushed them away out the door with the ends of their clubs. 'Then why are you chasing us out?' the girls said. 'Catch-22,' the men said. 'What right do you have?' the girls said. 'Catch-22,' the men said. All they kept saying was 'Catch-22, Catch-22.' What does it mean, Catch-22? What is Catch-22?"
"Didn't they show it to you?" Yossarian demanded, stamping about in ager and distress. "Didn't you even make them read it?"
"They don't have to show us Catch-22," the old woman answered. "The law says they don't have to."
"What law says they don't have to?"
"Catch-22."
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Maybe this just comes from years having to show my ID card to buy a pop at the commissary or something, but looking at this article I don't understand how or why this guy got his panties in a knot over having to show some identification to get on an airplane. Now OTOH, if we're expected to abide by a law it had damn well better be something we can see for ourselves. That secret shit just doesn't fly.
It seems to me that the entire reason there was a court case was because there was a legitimate dispute. Gore lost the court case because the court was stacked.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/U.S.-pres idential-election,-2000
he wouldn't have lost a statewide complete recount of the ballots in florida. that doesn't say how many other close states might have swayed either way, but to hold so many ec votes on so few people with such a flawed counting mechanism in place is ludicrous.
DoJ: "Ok, Judge your honor... with this war on terror... we don't know who THEY are... THEY really have us by the balls on this one... the white house is breathing down our necks... We're grasping at straws here... this whole secret plan thing is just to keep the people from going into panic."
Please say it's Petoria. Please say it's Petoria...
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
sorry /. seems to munge the url.
here's the link
I don't understand the government's reasons for wanting to keep this secret. I mean, the argument is kind of obvious, isn't it? They probably have a database of names and other info, and check the ID against that database. Whether that's OK or not is a separate question, but why bother making a big secret out of it? Is there some non-obvious point I'm missing?
Dean Vernon Wormer: As of now they're on Double SECRET Probation!
... just not applied to computers in this case, but the principle is the same. We all know very well the arguments against this kind of model, yet people still insist on using it and trying to protect the 'obscure' part instead of developing better methods.
First of all, his primary question is: Do citizens currently need to show ID in order to travel in their own country?
The answer is a resounding "no". He is free to travel by foot, bike, motorcycle, car, boat, or other device himself while not violating applicable pedestrian or traffic laws, or by bus or train, entirely anonymously.
Further, in his quest to "expose" this situation, he found at one of the largest airports in the country, San Francisco International Airport, that he WAS indeed allowed to fly without ID (if he submitted to a search).
Second, because some unnamed worker for United Airlines "told him" that there was a "secret law", are we to believe that there is, then, such a "law"? That a random United Airlines employee is the ultimate fount of information on this topic? The fact that SFO would indeed allow him to fly with no ID negates his claim that ID is required by a "secret law" on its face.
Further, claims variously made by privacy advocates assert that showing ID is worthless; that the September 11 hijackers all had valid, government issued photo ID. Sure they did. But some form of identification, fake or not, gives authorities a place to start in an investigation, rather than nothing at all.
But please, even in light of that, remember: he WAS allowed to fly with no ID at SFO, and chose not to. I expect that he thought he'd find he would be denied everywhere, but then still chose not to fly at SFO simply because he didn't want to be searched and so it wouldn't stop his little "Achtung! Papers, please!" stunt before it started. That's his choice. And if you'd argue against a search, then you might as well argue against ALL security measures at airports.
Just out of curiousity, why do you think it is reasonable to show ID to board a plane?
How exactly does that make you safer? If we were serious about airplane safety, I'd say make the cockpit a SEPERATE compartment with no access from the passengers. You realize the hijackers had and showed valid ID to board don't you? It could easily happen again as long as they pick people with no previous "alerts" tied to them. Showing ID does nothing for security.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
The website is a year out of date... that makes it only moderately useful, at best.
The government is arguing that this secret rule should be discussed in a secret court, so secret that the plaintiff in the case will not be allowed to hear the government's argument.
Are you scared yet or do you want to wait till the news starts referring to Bush as "Great Leader".
I fear that this is above Bush's head. The man just does as he's told by whoever is really pulling the strings. Also, whether Bush or Kerry wins the election, nothing is going to change. It's all smoke and mirrors. We will lose our rights and there's nothing we can really do about it, short of revolution.
KVB (Kerry Vs. Bush)
Whoever wins, WE LOSE!
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
This reminds me of an editorial in the Chicago Tribune (written by Molly Ivins) last Thursday:
"The Department of Justice has asked the Government Printing Office "to instruct depository libraries to destroy five publications the department has deemed 'not appropriate for external use.' Of the five publications, two are texts of federal laws. They are to be removed from libraries and destroyed, making their content available only to a law office or law library," according to the American Library Association. All the documents concern either federal civil or criminal forfeiture procedure, including how to reclaim items that have been confiscated by the government during an investigation."
What possible reason could there be to destroy federal legal publications? Thank you, Adolf, ahem, I mean John Ashcroft.
-Mark
They threw out all the abstentee ballots in all recounts. And generally republicans use abstentee ballots since they are willing to do the extra paperwork to have the convenience.
Black voters had their votes thrown out? Yea. It's all just a big racist republican conspiracy to you isn't it?
Please stop pretending that Bush must have somehow cheated to win. Face reality, the electoral voting system is outdated and needs to be replaced. Bush won justly, given the current system. In a different system, the imaginary system that conspiracy theorists believe we have, then Gore would have won.
Well I didn't vote for Bush or Gore, what's unfair is 3rd party and indepedent canidates don't have a chance and by voting for who I want to win my vote was literally ignored given the current voting system. And in my particular case my vote was lumped in with democrats. I didn't vote for Gore but my vote counted for him. That's not fair at all.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It's Double-Secret Probation.
'Thank you, sir! May I have another!'
Oh that Kafka, he's a scary one.
Seriously, if the people in positions of power like this are so badly educated, we are screwed.
Republicans are facist (nazi germany, italy under mussolini)
Democrats are socialist (ussr communist aka socalist, china)
You obviously don't know the meaning of the word facist or socialist, because you've used them interchangeably, while trying to make out that they're different things.
The Nazis were facist AND socialist - the name of the damn party translated into "NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY" (NA-ZI)
The USSR under Stalin was both socialist, communist, AND facist.
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and most of Europe is socialist right now - and they don't have the problems the US is having.
Please, do everyone a favor and actually learn the meaning of words before you use them.
In Solviet Russia, the Government requests the secrecy of you?
What has become of the great freedom nation?
The preceding message was based on actual events. Only the names, locations and events have been changed.
They didn't say the law will be secret..they said that the reason tehy NEED the law is a secret....
and I sure hope my American neighbors won't put up with THAT.
Part of this, of course, is because for a long time it was perfeclty legal to fly without showing ID... in fact it was actually ILLEGAL for the airlines to refuse to let you to board for NOT showing ID.....but nobody knew this, because the airlines and everyone else pretended it was such a high and holy thing to ask for ID.
I believe the word you are looking for is the noun "people" as in "American people" not the adjective "populous", which means "densely populated".
Populous is an adjective -- from m-w.com which has no listing for populous (noun) but only one for populous (adjective):
"Populus" is another word altogether (no "ou") and it is a latin word meaning "the people". Sometimes that word is used in English, but "populous" strictly is an adjective.
President Bush WON the electoral college vote count, and that is all that matters when it comes to figuring out who won the election.
If you're an American and don't like the electoral college, then start a movement to get rid of it.
Hell, there are no rules here. We're trying to accomplish something. - Thomas Edison
The electoral college is not described at all in the Constitution; it was a later addition.
Direct elections would cost the sparsely populated states what little influence they have in the electoral college system already.
For those with short memories: Gore asked for a recount of certain precincts. He got it. He gained a few votes, but was still losing Florida. In other words, after that recount, Gore lost the election.
Gore then asked for another recount of certain other precincts. He gained a few more votes, but still lost. So he asked for yet another recount. At this point, Bush filed suit, saying that Gore shouldn't get to selectively recount, cherry-picking his precincts. The Supreme Court agreed, 7-2. (They also ruled, 5-4, that it was too late to ask any more.)
The only recount Gore one was the one that the press conducted, which took months and recounted the whole state. Gore won that one by two votes. Ironically, Gore never actually asked for that recount.
So get off your rhetorical high horse and look at what actually happened. Every recount most certainly did NOT have Gore winning.
Here is my hypothesis: America, laregly due to fear first brought about by the cold war and now due to terrorism, has largely abrogated its dedication to a fair justice system, robust liberties, and a government that the people can meaningfully change through the democratic process. As a result, 21st century America shares more characteristics with traditional fascist states (viz. communist Russia c. 1975) than with secular democracies.
Counterpoints are welcome. And to those whose first reaction might be to call me an "America hater", I can assure you that I am not. I criticize my nation because I want it to be better. That means not ignoring it's faults when they are obvious to all.
Security through obscurity doesn't work. Same applies to software designs.
This is precisely the kind of request that any judge worth the title should reject with a withering rebuke.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The difference between the popular vote in Florida was within the margin of error for the election proccess. As a result, the entire election was a crapshoot.
One of many reasons why the current state of the Electoral College is dumb as nails.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Actually, the grandparent was looking for the word "populace", derived from the Latin populus. Damn homonyms.
I remember when we used to be make fun of secret laws in The Soviet Union back in the eighties. The commies also tortured political dissidents. Now it has all turned around. The USA is where you have secret laws, have to carry papers around, and can be detained and tortured idefinetly without a court order.
And all this changed after the Bush coup in 2000. Think about it..
Hey thanks. I didn't know that.
;-)
I wonder how many people have to misuse a word for it to generate a new definition for it.
They were serfs who overthrew the govenment because of secret laws.
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
Am I missing something? It seems to me that being asked for identification when traveling is a pretty reasonable request, regardless of current terrorism politics. It serves to validate that you have the right to board. What's to stop a thief from stealing a ticket and simply using it, if they are not asked to prove they are who they say they are? And I don't buy the arguments that not requiring identification would be no less secure - sure it can be done now, but why is making it easier a good idea? Should Microsoft just realize that Windows is an insecure piece of shit, and give up trying?
By the same logic, why even have drivers licenses, if you can simply refuse to produce it? Why not just have an anonymous certification that you are fit to operate a motor vehicle? I'm sure a lot of teenagers would love this sort of argument. "Mister Bouncer, I refuse to show you my ID. Please take my word that I'm 21."
Take off your tin foil hats.
How will law enforcement know if the law has been broken ?
Direct elections would cost the sparsely populated states what little influence they have in the electoral college system already.
Well, yeah; the citizens of those states are over-represented.
I don't know why people keep talking about how Gore won the popular vote - it just doesn't matter.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
No.
The electorial College should be removed from the constitution. It is just bad goverment.
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
On the contrary, it shows why the electoral college was established in the first place. It insures that smaller states like North Dakota and Alaska have a stake in deciding our national destiny, and keeps it from being steered entirely from California, Texas, and New York.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
I agree, it was a travesty... but kennedy did it in the 60's and the world didn't end :(
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
And how are electoral votes won? Yeah, with the popular vote. Bush lost Florida and should not have gotten their electoral votes.
I realize that statement is somewhat circular, as if the law is indeed "secret", we wouldn't know about it.
But Gilmore's whole assertion rests on the claim that there is, in fact, a secret law requiring a person to show ID to fly.
He already proved to himself that this was false, as he says in his own description of events that SFO would have allowed him to fly with no ID if he submitted to a search. He chose not to. If there WERE a "secret law" requiring ID, San Francisco International Airport would not have allowed him to fly without ID, as they were going to let him do.
Ridiculously, his whole claim about this "secret law" is because some random, unnamed United Airlines employee told him there was. Huh? So all of the ticket agents and working slobs within the airlines are just amazingly informed on these topics? I think not.
There are some discrepancies here, most likely because of lack of communication or lack of proper specific words used to define things. First, I have no problem believing that the TSA directives are secret. But they're not "laws". That's why they're called security "directives". These directives instruct the airlines and airports in terms of how to handle security; they're not arbitrary requirements that passengers must submit to or know about ahead of time: they are guidelines and directives for the handling of security issues, some routine and some special or time-specific, within airport and airline processes. That's the TSA's job. And didn't we call for the federalization of airport security?
However, I've seen nothing that indicates there is ANY such "secret law", and the fact that SFO - the second airport he tried - would indeed allow him to fly with no ID devastates his claim.
I'm glad he's asking these questions, but I wish he'd be less sensationalistic and tinfoil-hat about it - especially since his primary claim is that he can't travel anonymously, which is not only tremendously wrong considering there are so many other public and private means to travel with no ID, but also because, to repeat, he would indeed have been able to fly with no ID.
And as I said in another post, yes, all the 9/11 hijackers had valid IDs. So what? The ID requirement doesn't pretend to "prevent" issues; it's simply a place to start for investigators AFTER an incident, regardless of whether the IDs were real or fake...enabling investigators to get a list of names (again, real or not), issuing agencies for the IDs, and sometimes even pictures (which are many times real, even if the ID itself is fake). This information could be critical to an investigation when other lives may be at stake.
But, in case this point is lost on you, HE ALREADY FOUND HE COULD TRAVEL, BY PLANE, WITHOUT ID.
I guess that you can blame the current administration for this type of mess. Though, to be fair, this type of secrecy and in camera nonsense has been going on for quite some time now.
I *do* hope that the current administration does not get in for another four years. That would mean an escalation of hostilities between it and the resident population.
Way to drown your valid point in useless flamebait. You've been taking lessons from the media, haven't you?
I, for one, am thankful that you have the guts (and cash) to do this.
More power to you!
so they don't have to serve you if they don't want to, as long as they are not violating the Constitution.
Also, maybe the federal rule is said to be "secret" because there is no secret.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Instead of showing ID to stop terrorists, how about pilots have guns and just shoot anyone who jumps up on a plane waiving a bomb/knife/gun/whatever shouting "Allah Akbar!"
. . .
Perhaps we could make ID an option, if you want to carry a gun on a plane, you need to show ID and sign a waiver. Then not only can the pilot shoot the terrorists so can citizens and filght attendents.
You might think I'm kidding
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Oh yeah it's populace.. you are right. Populus is latin but populace is English with just about the same meaning. Populous is a game and also an adjective.
Damn homonyms indeed!!
Since the flight recorders are un-usable for all three planes (first time ever?). I can make suggestions as to what I "think" happened and you cannot prove me wrong.
Ok, Here goes. The planes can already be controled from the ground. The young Republicans, working for Bush, took control and crashed the planes. Thus, Bush gets control of lots of Oil/Money....
On the other hand. It would be easier (and safer) to hijack a plane from the ground if you didn't have to die when it crashed.
{Takes of tin foil hat.}
Yeah, right.
Any ID requirement doesn't necessarily pretend to "prevent" issues; it's simply a place to start for investigators AFTER an incident, regardless of whether the IDs were real or fake...enabling investigators to get a list of names (again, real or not), issuing agencies for the IDs, and sometimes even pictures (which are many times real, even if the ID itself is fake). This information could be critical to an investigation when other lives may be at stake.
So, you're right: showing ID does little for security, but it provides an important investigative avenue AFTER an incident that may be helpful in preventing others that may be in the works at the time.
But remember: Gilmore found that he could indeed fly without ID at SFO, if he submitted to a search. It was his choice not to submit to said search; but it's clear that there is no sensational "secret law" since he, in his own quest on this agenda, found that he could, in fact, fly without ID.
The link you provided says *NOTHING* about having a trial where you're not allowed to know the charges.
It says that he was arrested and not charged.
But contrast with the guys at Guantanmo Bay, who aren't told the charges against them, and are the subjects of physical and emotional torture.
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.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
- Hold suspects on terrorism charges for long periods of time or indefinately without trial
- Present secret evidence to the court, without the defendant or the public knowing what that evidence was or even that it was presented
Sources: Secret Courts and Detention LawThe only reason that John Gilmore is pursuing this in court is the "regulations" that require ID before boarding a plane are, in fact, secret. So secret that the FAA is not allowed to even say if such regulations exist, even though law requires that all FAA regulations must be made public. See the problem? The FAA must publish all regulations and the regulation that requires ID does not exist, therefore according to law, the regulation does not exist. That is what he is trying to prove in court.
If you have read previous articles you would have known that he was previously permitted on planes without showing ID simply by asking the airline to point out the regulation that requires them to ask for ID. Since the regulation is secret (however that is possible), there is no way of knowing whether the regulation exists or not.
What hypocrisy!!! Slashdot talks about "Your Rights Online" while it just blocked me from posting saying "Too many bad posts from your IP"!! So we now have a censor on slashdot!!
Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, comment posting has temporarily been disabled. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner . If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair, please email moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID, which are "a46007c47b8cc22be92f05cfc2b8d53f" and "5cafcfa784832e2ea282bbcac252620d" and (optionally, but preferably) your IP number "202.xx.xx.xx" and your username "losttoy".
And guess what, I was trying to post to "Your Rights Online", my karma is positive and I have moderator points!!
The electorial College should be removed from the constitution. It is just bad goverment
People seem to make this blanket statement all the time with no reasonable argument for it.
The fact is that the Electorial College was created because our country is NOT a group of people.... It is a group of STATES. In essence, the STATES elect the president, not the individuals within those states. And I agree with whomever said it earlier.... if you abolish the electoral college, no cantidate will CARE about any state except the top 3 in terms of population.
I fear that this is above Bush's head. The man just does as he's told by whoever is really pulling the strings. Also, whether Bush or Kerry wins the election, nothing is going to change. It's all smoke and mirrors. We will lose our rights and there's nothing we can really do about it, short of revolution.
That would not be such a wrong thing to do. What America needs, is a multi party system, with parties having public balance books and vastly reduced and law-enforced budgets, that come from the government, and are based on the number of voters for that party. Dompanies helping or donnating to the party would be considered highly illegal, and all campaign spending should be officially declared.
This means parties can monitor their adversaries on a financial basis, and protest in the event of fraud. It also means more parties will be founded, since every vote brings money. And it also means the big Enron's and all the other corporate mob consortia can no longer manipulate the world's most powerfull office decisions. And to top it off, you get a truely complex political debate.
With great power comes great electricity bills.
"That was nearly four years ago now. Can we just let it go already? Can we "Move On"?"
Not until we learn from our mistakes. Does anyone believe the 2004 election will be handled better than the 2000 election? Nothing has improved, and now Diebold has a stronger hold on the elections outcome.
However, note that he was indeed allowed to fly with no ID out of SFO if he submitted to search; he chose not to.
I believe in rule of law. Without rule of law you have a priviledged class that gets away with pretty much anything, a middle class that can muddle through, and a minority of people who just get fucked because no one cares and the executive branch can do whatever they want. And if we're going to have rule of law, the first thing the feds have to do is follow the constitution.
I quote some pretty smart people:
No gov't official in the US has the right to stop me and search me without a good reason to believe I'm doing something wrong. No matter what. They don't even have the right to dictate that someone else search me before they can provide me some service. It's against the constitution, and if they want to change that there is a process for making constitutional amendments.
On the contrary, Gore lost nearly every recount by every common standard. Unlike you, I'm not making an empty assertion and don't expect people to take my word for it. The New York Times has a web page where you can do the recounts yourself. Choose your standards for hanging chads, optical ballots, observer agreement, whatever you like. It's been awhile since I did this, but IIRC all but one permutation returned Bush as the winner. Sometimes, admittedly, by a small margin. But to assert that Gore won every recount is simply not true.
Me thinks you better read the Constitution and the Amendments.
Nowhere does it say that the part about electing the president via an electoral process was added later. In fact, Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3 lay out how the President is elected.
The 12th Amendment to the Constituion does modify the third paragraph of Article 2 to include voting for a Vice-President as well but it does not change the fact that the electoral college has been around since day one.
Read the third link (.pdf file) from this site about the reason behind the electoral college.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
is that the Bush Administration, notorious for needlessly classifying thousands of documents more than any other previous Administration, just likes things being secret because then they have to explain less.
I stopped using Reason to try to determine the Bush Adm's motivation for its actions and switched to pure cynicism. Since then it's gotten so much easier.
From the Washington Post article entitled, 'Secrets' Perplex Panel, Classified Data Growing to Include 'Comically Irrelevant'
"The tone is set at the top," Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) said.
"This administration believes the less known, the better," added the Connecticut Republican, noting sadly he was speaking of a GOP administration. "I believe the more known, the better."
Btw, is everyone registered to vote, by absentee ballot where possible? I only ask because, in our current situation, it might be useful information, MAYBE
HE was the one who chose not to fly! Are you insinuating that he might not actually have been allowed to fly after all?? HE was the one who chose not to fly, my friend. I flew with absolutely no ID after I had lost my wallet - no credit cards, no business cards, no nothing. All I had was a boarding pass and my luggage. I had to submit to a search as well, and no, it wasn't convenient, but I was certainly allowed to fly with no ID. *Sigh*
And again, the TSA security directives, which 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.
I never quite understood how elections work in the US, but it seems excessignly complicated. Why would you even have to find out who people INTENDED to vote for?
Why can't you just have a ballot with 2 squares "Check here if you want Bush for president" and "Check here if you want Kerry for president"? I dare you to misinterpret that.
Can we just let it go already? Can we "Move On"?
Considering the fact that there is an upcoming election; considering the fact that Voting machines are unreliable; considering the fact that Bush could just as well steal another election in a couple of months, then no, we cannot move on quite yet.
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
I'm sorry but if you don't know that:
1) Cousin Jeb ordered the FLA state police to park their cars in front of precincts in black (democratic) areas; lights flashing, police standing next to the cars with batons out;
2) The company that wrote the software to determine voter eligibility put bugs/features in the code that favored eliminating black democrats from the voting roles. There are numerous links between the company's executives and the state republican party...and a number of "tests" were done to determine the accuracy of the software.
One black woman, never arrested, in fact a leading community member (and the f*cking head of a major voting precinct) was astonished when she arrived at the polls and was not allowed to vote...because of "her criminal record"--she didn't have one.
The state of FLA was sued by the NAACP and settled out of court. The terms were not made public. The evidence against the state was overwhelming.
If you do not understand exactly how far the USSA has sunk, exactly how corrupt the government is now, if you haven't even bothered to read what happened in the 2000 election...your fucking stupid, even for an American.
The Constitution begs to differ.
Unless we have a repeat of 2000 (popular vote* is different than electoral college), if the current administration "gets in for another four years", the hostilities would be between it and a minority segment of the population.
* The popular vote doesn't mean dick, so who cares what it is anyway. You don't like it? Amend the Constitution. Good luck!
You don't have to show your ID to anyone to use a motorcycle, car, or boat - that is why I said "as long as you obey applicable traffic laws", because it is only when you don't obey applicable laws that you may be stopped and required to present ID by a governmental entity.
Out of curiosity, why do you feel that citizens in Alaska or North Dakota should have a greater say in who the president is then citizens in California or New York? Are some citizens "more equal" than others?
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
All this concern over privacy and the invasion of by the state often makes me want puke or kill someone. I haven't decided which. Why is it an invasion of your privacy to show ID? More to the point HOW is this an invasion of privacy? If you don't have ID then you can't show it. The fellow's name was "Blank Reg". Interesting concept, remove all references to your very existance. But I digress. If you are so concerned about your privacy being invaded, please do the law abiding citizens a favor and stay at home, with doors locked and curtains closed. And when next you board an airplane with no ID and it crashes and kills all on board, your family will never know you're dead. It is after all your right to privacy of course.
P.S. Even the Ostrich occassionally has to pull his head out of the sand for air. P.P.S Please do us a favor and leave your head stuck right where it is, you're curing your own hemerrionds and perhaps you'll take yourself out of the gene pool.
That certainly puts the literate at a disadvantage, though, doesn't it?
Thanks to public schooling, that isn't an issue.
Wrong -- one two counts
First that's not the primary reason the electoral college was established
Second, and more importantly: even with the electoral college system California, Texas and New York dominate -- infact they would dominate _less_ in a direct popular because it wouldn't be a "you got 51% of california votes, so you get all 52 electoral votes" it becomes "you got 51% of california votes, average them in with the rest of the country"
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Then how does this stand up to a defendant's Fifth Amendment right to a public trial in the United States?
They're calling it catch22
-major major major
"I wonder how many people have to misuse a word for it to generate a new definition for it."
It happened to "presently" and to "gay".
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
What has happened to the Brave Free World?
Anyone?
Maybe after we are secretly arrested and secretly tried we can spend some time in one of the new secret internment camps:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps_confirmed.htm
I don't see why people in smaller (less populated) states should get a vote that's weighed more heavily than mine (NY). By giving North Dakota a higher "electoral vote per capita" we are essentially saying that their vote is more important than mine.
The entire government looks like the private business of a few cowboys.
you're right -- my bad
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Exactly! It's honestly beyond my comprehension as to why people think that the citizens of those states should get a more heavily weighted vote than I do. These are usually the same people who have epileptic fits at the mention of affirmative action.
The marshalls would presumably be in plain clothes. Though, of course, the crew of the plane would presumably know who they are, and terrorists could use this to their advantage (e.g., I will burn this stewardess with hot coffee unless you tell me who the sky marshall is).
My other first post is car post.
...it's my understanding that laws cannot legally be secret.
Can someone please research this?
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
that's great insight
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
on a side note: the electoral collage, since it has obviously failed in it's purpose: due to never being implemented properly due to vaugness in it's constitutional description, should be eliminated: direct popular vote, no more 'ballot dilution'
No, the problem is that we've lost all sense of why we have a federal government. The federal government fundamentally exists to fill a few select roles. Principly these are national defense, foreign relations, and to resolve disputes among the states. Also included are establishing a postal network and a system of copyrights and patents. And that's it. The majority of the absurd bills the congress passes are under the auspices of the interstate commerce clause (Article 1, Section 8, clause 3: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes") The 10th amendment explicityly states that rights not granted to the feds are reserved to the states. The federal government is meant to represent the states, and as such, the electoral collage is fundamentally necessary. How the states appoint their electors and how they are required to vote is entirely left to the states themselves.
bance.net
That would be 'tyranny of the minority' right? So you are saying that my vote from California is worth less than someone else's vote and that is a good thing? Am I less of a person? What did I do to deserve this disenfranchisement? Can you back this up with historical evidence?
There is some good evidence that the 'real' reason for the electoral college was to give the whites in the slave holding south (and especially Virginia) more power in choosing our president. Maybe this should be another censored news story.
Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org
It does matter. It's a perfect example of why we should get rid of the electoral college. I'm not saying that we should have broken our laws in 2000, but the events of 2000 are a great reason to change them.
Our leaders proudly announced that European Citizens no longer need passports to travel between European states.
Of course you do need to prove you are a European Citizen to take advantage of this new right.
Guess which document you use to do that?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
That would not be such a wrong thing to do. What America needs, is a multi party system, with parties having public balance books and vastly reduced and law-enforced budgets, that come from the government, and are based on the number of voters for that party. Dompanies helping or donnating to the party would be considered highly illegal, and all campaign spending should be officially declared.
I agree, but how do we (as American citizens) break up this Duopoly that runs our country? I think Perot was the only person that close enough to threatening its existance so they swiftly destroyed his credibility. Same thing happened with Nader. Immediately after announcing his running for president, the republicans started to get people to think of him as a joke, whereas the democrats started calling him a 'spoiler' and went after him with litegation, anytime he made any progress (I'm not much of a Nader fan but I hope you can see where I'm going with this).
IMHO, I think both parties are really working as one. They still pretend to be separate just to distract us with their promises/lies. They both point fingers at each other when things go wrong, when in reality as our so-called leaders. They are equally responsible. I have yet to see a politician truly take responsibility for any wrongs they have made against our country. But then, they would get voted out of office and lose all that money and power.
When they get tired of pointing fingers at each other, they start blaming the media, claiming the other party controls the whole thing. Yes, I know the media isn't with some bias, but this whole thing that the liberals or conservatives control the whole media is ridiculous, more smoke and mirrors.
Then there is the whole talk radio thing. They are there to get people riled up and destract them from the ugly truths I mentioned above. Each side takes turns seeing who can shout the loudest and get more people (who already sway their way or are total against them) riled up.
'Freedom' as the politicians like to call it, is just an illusion. If they don't like you have to say, you will be silenced. If you aren't part of the upper class, you will be ignored or squashed. They go out of their way to make sure that lower class or middle-class Americans never make it to the upper-class and if by some miracle, you do, you better follow their rules or they will take it all away from you.
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
I'm almost disappointed that the info in your link is fake... (camps shown are in eastern europe, didn't even bother to disguise the names)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0451524934
./ space adder to kick in because of the long words.
It's much easier and doesn't cause the
The more populare states DO get more attention. I am in Ohio and MAN should you see the attention. Just because we are leaning both ways and have a lot of electorial votes. Which we don't compare to Calf. or N.Y. of course.
The way it is done it does APPROXIMATE a populare vote. Why Approcimate? Make it honist and make it a populare vote.
Question, What two presidents in recient history have won by the electorial college but lost the populare vote?
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
A recent post by Dan Wallach to the RISKS digest describes how Dan managed to fly from Houston to Chicago, visit Fermilab, and fly back to Houston without having to show a photo id.
In the article, Gilmore's quotations lead me to believe that the government is concealing the actual text of the law/regulations. However, the poster leads us to believe that it is only the government's reasonings behind the law and their case for it in court that is being requested to remain secret. Which is the case? Is the text of the airline regulations for identification/documentation before boarding a flight publicly available?
I wonder if the government wants its reasonings to remain secret for a reason -- the 9/11 Commission Report mentions a computer system called CAPPS (Computer Assisted Prescreening Passenger System) whose sole purpose is to identify passengers who should be subject to special security measures. I'm not sure how this system works, but I wouldn't be surprised if ethnicity and country of flight source/destination plays into the algorithm's decision making. Maybe a similar vague/biased approach is used in determining the required identification papers necessary to board a plane.
In court, it could be argued that this is unconstitutional and could be a big media mess for the government and the FAA. Crummy situation -- only another tossup of decreased privacy vs. increased sense of security. Not sure if I really care anymore on any of these types of situations.
So, ummm, then why is this lawsuit going forward?
You want to fly on a commercial flight then you show ID. End of story, end of suit.
Thanks.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
So far...
They did have proper ID because they were in the country legally. This is a whole issue, student visas, etc.
i n324476.shtml
What if an ID was not required? How would we know who was on the plane when it crashed? Would we know who the hijackers were? I can not understand how the EFF could argue against this. I get checked for ID at Wal-Mart when I buy music. Riding on a airplane is much more serious than buying music.
I believe the law should be out in the open. In this case like many others the government is being an asshat.
Privacy has never existed. As long as you live in a society you should never expect total privacy. In public you should never expect any privacy. On an airplane there should be NO PRIVACY. (Except in the little bathrooms) There should be background checks done on everyone who flies. We should model our security around that used by Israel. You can read more about it here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/15/60II/ma
Bias is one thing, credibility is another. Michael Moore has none.
You entirely missed the point. The poster was not talking about some piece of information gleaned/interpretted by Michael Moore. He was referring directly to interviews in which those who had voted for PATRIOT admitted that they had not fully read the act.
Bias does not magically change video tape. You can discount whatever spin you find in f911, but please dont deny flat-out evidence. PATRIOT is bad, was passed in a time of desperation, and is now being reconsidered. This is a Good Thing. Introspection and questioning MAKES democracy!
You know, the one thing that irks me the most is all this post-9.11 crap that people must endure in their daily lives now...
Is presenting ID THAT big a deal? Has anyone ever bothered to think about what airline security, etc was like before 9/11? IIRC the nice(or not) lady/man at the counter would ask for my ID and ticket(s) while checking my baggage in. This certainly isn't something *new* except that maybe now some people on the Hill want to make it federal law rather than corporate policy.
What's next, are we going to fight the law that requires people to show ID when purchasing alcohol or tobacco? Yes, in reality you cannot compare the two...but think about it, we're given state ID/Driver's Licenses for a reason--just like passports. Last time I checked I didn't have anything on any form of identification (except military id [ssn]) that isn't public record.
Further up I saw a post that other methods of travel do not require identification. What do you think the license plate on your car is for? Sure, those can be fake--just like id cards--but the fact is those numbers and letters attached to your car identifies you to anyone willing to look up the information.
Most K-12 schools now have identification cards. Does that mean that the evil administrators of that district are sitting in their offices tracking the whereabouts of the students? Unlikely--in this case those cards provide a variety of functions such as meal purchases and entrance into the building. Colleges have had the same for a while now as well.
My view may be crazy, and a minority one at that...but I feel that some people need a reality check to realize that not everything is Evil, not everything is the result of Terrorism, and the Government couldn't really care less about what you do in your bathroom.
If you sit and think for more than 30 seconds, you'll realize that in the great US of A, you have to present identification in one form or another for just about everything you do that has a financial liability or carries some type of responsibility with it. Why should this be any different from boarding an airline; not only because you don't want terrorists getting on a plane, but because you want to make sure the person who purchased the ticket is the one using it, and heck...what about the few individuals that have a history of unruly behaviour during flight? I could go on, but I see the sun outside and would rather enjoy it than debate such a futile argument.
...in Argentina at least. Since they are secret nobody is oblied to follow them. They are used for:
- Rise salaries or benefits to politician or military.
- Sell weapons to another country. The buyer country won't like his new wepons to be disclosed.
- Add or remove people to/from SIDE (our CIA like agency).
DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
... As well as the FAQ at the plaintiff's website. From what I understand, the effect of the law (don't show an ID or permit a "more intense" search) is known, but the actual law itself is not.
My grandfather, a man who had been both a judge and an attourney, once told my mother that ignorance of a law is no excuse for breaking it. I have to wonder what he would say about enforced ignorance about a law; were I able to visit his grave, I'd ask him. In this case, my gut feeling and my own opinion will have to suffice.
At the moment, both are that a law that cannot be known cannot be a law at all.
I have willingly volunteered to subject myself to the "more intensive search" I believe is referenced. I was not pulled out of line, but volunteered to do it when a friend was selected, so that I could keep said friend in sight. It was a matter of security agents rifling through my carry-on baggage and passing a metal-detector wand over the entirety of my body, as far as I recall.
Though I object to the secrecy of the law, I find myself ambivalent about the practice of the law as I know it thus far. I don't need to show my state-issued ID so long as I put myself through more of a search. I can understand the search, and I can show my ID, and I can see how both would help stop a terrorist intent on boarding and destroying a plane. (Though the 9/11 hijackers used their own IDs, it doesn't mean that some jerk won't try to board a plane with a ticket in someone else's name and try to hijack it or whatnot.) Then again, I'm far from being an expert, and I readily concede that there may be other, better ways of protecting people in an airport or on a plane.
~UP
Eat the Path.
Any ID requirement doesn't necessarily pretend to "prevent" issues; it's simply a place to start for investigators AFTER an incident, regardless of whether the IDs were real or fake...enabling investigators to get a list of names (again, real or not), issuing agencies for the IDs, and sometimes even pictures (which are many times real, even if the ID itself is fake). This information could be critical to an investigation when other lives may be at stake.
So, you're right: showing ID does little for security, but it provides an important investigative avenue AFTER an incident that may be helpful in preventing others that may be in the works at the time.
But remember: Gilmore found that he could indeed fly without ID at SFO, if he submitted to a search. It was his choice not to submit to said search; but it's clear that there is no sensational "secret law" since he, in his own quest on this agenda, found that he could, in fact, fly without ID.
The first permutation I tried was: "Any optical marks indicating choice, two or more observers agree, chads detached at two corners". That came out for Gore by 105 votes.
The second permutation I tried was "Filled ovals or completed arrows, all observers agree, full punches, statewide recount". That came out for Gore by 134 votes.
The last thing I tried was (on the "What if..." tab) "Statewide recount using the standards of each county's election officials", which came out for Gore by 171 votes.
Ironically, the most important alternate standards by which Bush would have still won (you're right, and the person you replied to is wrong: Gore didn't win every recount) are "Gore's request" (an apparant attempt to increase Gore votes by only recounting some heavy Democrat-voting counties) and "Florida Supreme Court recount", the one interrupted by a partisan US Supreme Court vote.
Personally, I'm not too bothered by the Florida debacle: even if more precise counting would have led to a Gore victory, the results are clearly within the margin of error in either case. The only electoral votes that Bush/Cheney clearly should have lost are the ones coming from Texas, whose electors should have been prohibited by the 12th Amendment from voting for a President and Vice President who were both inhabitants of Texas. Granted, the 12th isn't very high on my list of "parts of the Constitution I wish the US government wasn't violating", but I still hate seeing that list get longer.
Considering one of the flights was for a job interview this really sucks. The funny/sad thing is at a previous job about seven years ago I had a DOE Class Q clearance. Now I can't even get on a plane and no one [claims] they can fix it.
Real people are getting hurt and hurt badly because of this law. I hope Gilmore prevails.
Did you actually worry in the least bit about your physical safety while you made that post?
Did you worry that you or any member of your family might be dragged out of the house and raped or shot?
Perhaps you should reevaluate your feelings a bit.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
...the laws of physics, thermodynamics, and ballistics. Joe Average can still understand those adequately for most situations.
Most people seem to think "fascist" is a synonym for "totalitarian" these days. c.f. the neologism "islamo-fascist"
I'm afraid the semantic shift may be irreversible at this point, however.
DNA just wants to be free...
The parent is marked as funny. It's both funny and alarming.
You already have secret detainees at a non-secret base being held for publically undisclosed stuff by a person whose executive order says that "unlawful combatants" belong in such places and don't get lawyers or review.
A lot of people are starting to think those secret police and secret jails would happen if the government could figure out how.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
After reading several posts claiming that the NYT site showed GWB winning under every (or nearly every) permutation and several claiming exactly the opposite to be true i took it upon myself to actually investigate all 24 available permutations.
Surprisingly, exactly half of them resulted in a Bush victory and half in a Gore victory. The largest margin of victory of any permutation was 493 votes (Gore) and the smallest 2 votes (Bush).
That is all. It is sad to see both sides directly linking to a data source while at the same time making ridiculously inaccurate claims about the information therein.
lysergically yours
It's not a matter of the relative "say" of the citizens in a state. The U.S.A. is a union of States. The States decide the President of the union. The fact that, as regards the Federal Govt., the States rights are distinct from the people's rights is a simple concept that is too often muddled by those who think the U.S.A. is a simple democracy as opposed to a Representative Republic.
Hmm, I will have to go over to Ft Huachuca and
see if I can get a shot of the one that I've read is over there...
Sad to respond to myself, but in order to (attempt to) head off the obvious correction: The States select the members of the Electoral Collage, who then select the President. The States get to decide how they select those members. There is nothing in the Constitution that requres the States to allow their citizens to participate in the selections of Electors, except in that it prohibits the denial of any right to vote based on sex or race.
Why do you think it matters what recount method Al Gore wanted to use? It's ironic that his own recount method showed him losing, but it's irrelevent to the question of whether or not he actually won. The only thing that matters to me is the full recount, and that Gore won (by more than two votes, but still a very small amount in a country of hundreds of millions).
The Florida Court agreed, and wanted a full state recount, that was cut short by the SCOTUS decision to stop the clock.
The enemies of Democracy are
As Christian Parenti has documented, the "war" on drugs has been laying this groundwork for decades. In the Reagan years we were already at a point where people's goods or persons could be carted off and locked up merely as a result of someone (not even a government employee) saying, "That guy is a drug dealer."
Oh, go on, check out my job.
Quite obviously, it's not meant to be followed, it's meant to be infringed, and to determine punishment for those infringers.
And all this changed after the Bush coup in 2000. Think about it
Do I smell a post hoc fallacy? Had Al Gore won Florida and thus the Presidency, wouldn't his adminstration have responded to an attack on the World Trade Center by beefing up airline security in much the same way?
In Florida, 10 candidates were on the ballot as running for US President. In some other states, that list can get up to 30 or so candidates.
There's also more than one item on the ballot. Imagine that there are 20-30 or so offices on the ballot, and another 20-30 or so resolutions or ammendments to vote on.
With 30 candidates for just one of the offices, and over 50 things to vote on in total--well, you simply can't do that with a simple two-checkbox ballot.
WTF there is secret law?? that does it, you guys go right now and storm the white-house and drag bush kicking and screaming to the wall round the back, secret law = facist dictatorship.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Crap, out of mod points. Wish I could mod this up.
Normally I post a link to the NORC Florida Ballots Project, which is the underlying study I think NYT (and all the other organizations that reported "Bush would have won") used. But it's such a pain getting their stupid Access database working, I doubt most bother looking.
Interesting that there's no discussion of over-vote counting methods, which made a difference the last time I got NORC working. This one only seems to cover the possibility of undervotes.
But I've been trying out that link, and the strictest and most lenient standards both show Gore wins. What are the "common standards" you're referring to?
The enemies of Democracy are
A man was sueing because his children were taken away and put to sleep because the local Citizen Corpse blockwatcher reported them as unsupervised during the day.
Remember a few years ago when they oculdn't take away your children and kill them?
___
Okay... So this is parody but still, a couple years back the parent post would have sounded just like this parody. We're sliding down a very slippery road here into a police state far worse than either East Germany or the Soviet Union itself was. Those two regimes pulled the same kind of stunts Bush, Kerry and the rest are pulling (secret courts, secret laws etc.). The only reason people could halfways breathe in such totalitarian regimes was because the power of the state was limited by the technology they had at their disposal. There were only so and so many tape recorders to record phone conversations, their best computer equipment was S/370 ("ESER") or a couple of stolen VAX 780s. We have an ever growing web of wireless/wired data services, more computing power than ever, exabytes of datawarehouse storage and petabytes of archives. Think about that.
look at what actually happened. Every recount most certainly did NOT have Gore winning.
Not looking at what actually happened, but at what you wrote down.
Every recount you cite has Gore winning.
So get off your rhetorical high horse
Right...
You can't take the sky from me...
That is an argument in-favor of ID, from the airline's point of view. It is not something the public has an interest in. The airlines and their customers can decide how important theft is. We don't need laws that require people to protect themselves against theft, because the victims already have adequate incentive.
You seem to claim that it's the passengers' responsibility to be diligent in protecting their tickets from theft. However, if the passengers feel that they can delegate some of this diligence to the airline, they'd be more willing to choose to fly. Compare TV commercials for debit cards and traveler's checks, both of which can be canceled and replaced by the issuer if stolen, unlike cash.
I meant to say "the United States education system is broken."
Oops. Mea culpa.
and equating the conditions.
Additionally, under what scenario do you see anything like that ever coming to pass here in the United States? With the system of checks and balances that in place the idea/concept of such a totalitarian regime coming into power is laughable.
The legislative branch is busy gridlocking the executive branch while the judicial branch would seem to be going its own way with legal interpretations.
Here we have a private citizen who simply wanted to make a stupid point who is blowing everything completely out of proportion. (It turns out he could fly if he submitted to a search instead of producing ID.)
This is not the stuff of totalitarian governments.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
The form of government used in the US works, precisely because it doesn't. In every arena there are obstacles. 3 branches, 2 houses, the electoral vote, etc 6 year terms, 2 year terms, 4 year terms, life terms. ALL of these conspire together to produce a government which effectively changes every 2 years.
Revolution you say?? ok, vote the losers out. look we've changed our government and there aren't dead people in every street.
Bad law. change it.
Yes, the two party system appears to have problems, YES there isn't substantial choice, but that is why the system works... it is handicapped and broken and that is it's great strength.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Next time a cop asks you for your ID - and they ask people to show ID *ALL THE FREAKIN TIME* - tell him/her you don't have to give them your ID because the Supreme Court says you don't.
I would love to be there to see the look on your face just before the nightstick impacts your skull.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
Please visit http://www.house.gov/ and bring this to the attention of your local representative!
Our Mission
We believe the federal government has grown too large, too intrusive, and too expensive. We believe in constitutional limits, small government, civil liberties, federalism, and low taxes...
Typical Republican, "Michael Moore Lies!" Click on this link to buy my book that shows you how he lies. What is so complicated that he can't put it in an HTML document? Humm, maybe it could be read by everyone, and debated openly?
Meanwhile Moore has every source for every comment posted here:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/
There was no lie in the face of that congressmen, when he asked if his kids were going to enlist in the military. It was utter panic. You could see, "Are you stupid? Why would I do that?" written on his face.
The electorial College should be removed from the constitution. It is just bad goverment.
That's a debateable point which I won't get into. But had there been no Electoral College in the 2000 election, both campaigns would have been run very differently (they would have paid attention to voters in Texas and New York, for example), and there's no way you can say with any confidence what the result would have been.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
At the same time, Uzbekistan is one of the countries that could most easily reform, with a pretty high education level and many people who groks democracy, it should be a smooth transition (as opposed to Iraq, where just a small elite groks democracy).
Just after 911, many democratic leaders in Uzbekistan welcomed America, and thought that America's entry to Central Asia would rapidly bring about reform.
Instead, I've read many saying Karimov has gone from a soviet-style autocrat wannabee too a full-fledged dictator, with Bush's support.
What is your wife's opinion on this?
Of course, I have also noted that the Bush administration stopped an economic aid program recently.
Does she see this is as a genuine change of policy, one that would actually help, or has the Bush administration missed its chance?
Really, if I were Kerry, I would have made the handshakes Bush and his administration had with Karimov a major topic in the campaign, for it much resembles those Rumsfeldt and the Reagan administration had with Saddam in the mid 80-ties.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
third party recounts counting all ballets showed gore winning
I find it quite likely that Gore attended more ballets than Bush, although I don't quite see the relevance...
PS: when Bush's 1st Cousin in the tabulation room at Fox News decided to call the election for bush (when the data clearly showed 'too close to call') that's when things went down hill
Hmm, I wonder what had a greater impact, mistakenly calling Florida for Bush in the middle of the night, or mistakenly calling Florida for Gore while the polls were still open.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say 'Ashcroft'.
Yes, but in his very statement he says that he could fly without ID from San Francisco airport.
So if there IS a secret law, and I highly doubt there is, it's not enforced anyway.
He's just being paranoid, and all of Slashdot is being paranoid with him. Slashdot loves to be paranoid.
Comment of the year
as all is said in the subject, this pointless text is brougth to you by the secret laws of slashdot's posting system.
...when you consider that this is pretty much their job.
Given the secrecy of laws you'll pardon me for missing the legal interpretation where John Ashcroft repeals the Magna Carta and re-established the Divine Right of Kings and Bushes.
I guess we're going to nice simple system, easy-to-understand, based on only two precepts:
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Congratulations! You found an army training range. This facility is nothing more than an area for war games, as evidenced by the shoddy signs in a foreign language and the 5.56mm (M16 rifle) blanks.
You'd think somebody in the 'Missisipi State Militia' would have identified the facility as such, but I guess none of them have spent a lick of time in the real military.. Is their membership bored rednecks tired of cowtipping and wanting something more exciting to shoot at then racoons?
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
Gore asked for a recount of certain precincts. He got it. He gained a few votes ...
...
Gore then asked for another recount of certain other precincts. He gained a few more votes
The only recount Gore one was the one that the press conducted, which took months and recounted the whole state.
So out of three examples, three times a recount actually gave Gore more votes. And this does NOT bother you?
I stand corrected, thanks.
I love the fact that the DOJ doesn't just want to keep their arguments secret from the public, they also want to keep them secret from the plaintiff and his attorneys. It's perfect. They'll never be able to beat us if they don't get to hear our arguments. Brilliant!
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...who is Michael Badnarik...
"The ID requirement doesn't pretend to "prevent" issues; it's simply a place to start for investigators AFTER an incident, regardless of whether the IDs were real or fake...enabling investigators to get a list of names (again, real or not), issuing agencies for the IDs, and sometimes even pictures (which are many times real, even if the ID itself is fake). This information could be critical to an investigation when other lives may be at stake."
More people die in auto accidents than on planes. The OKC bombing proved that autos could be used just like airplanes to destroy buildings. You should be required to show ID to drive or ride in a car. That way if something went wrong, investigators have a place to start. How about a scanner to open each door for you to swipe your ID (travel Papers), then the car could report wirelessly who is traveling along what road. Think of the lives that could be saved! It would be great!
The fact is, this law is BS was put in place after the TWA bombing that looked like a terrorists attack that turned out to be dangerous cargo. He was denied over 10 years ago and hasn't flown since, try that today, what do you think would happen?
Maybe if yuo find out what the law is you can let us know too.
Maybe Mr. Gilmore would take a slightly different position if his wife/kids were on one of the four planes that were hijacked on 9/11. Or maybe Mr. Gilmore would like to be subjected to a full body cavity search in lieu of showing an ID.
I am a foreigner in this country, and frankly I think the security people at the airport are doing a good job. Yes, I do have to take off my shoes once in a while, and it is a hassle to have to put all my electronic items in my backback before going thru the metal detector. But if that were NOT happening, I would really really be scared to get on a plane after 9/11.
I don't want any "constitutional protection" that is going to increase the probabbilty of me getting killed.
Mr. Gilmore ... take a hike.
Denial is not a river in Egypt
Serious question - which laws were broken during 2000? The only one that I know of is when the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the date of 'validating' the votes (I forget the exact term) wasn't going to be the one in the lawbooks, but rather a date a few weeks later... After that everything seemed to go downhill...
Hell, there are no rules here. We're trying to accomplish something. - Thomas Edison
...if you broke the secret law, the duck would come down and give you 50 dollars.
If it was strictly popular votes, how many states wouldn't get any attention at all?
Your example above is a pretty interesting one , but as soon as you start applying 100% of the most populous state to one candidate, well, anything goes then! It's a pretty contrived situation that would never occur... I bet there are others that swing the other way.... Oh wait, just switch Bush and Gore!
Hell, there are no rules here. We're trying to accomplish something. - Thomas Edison
Seriously, worry about this election. Not the one that happened four years ago. You can make a difference in this one, but not the last one.
Hell, there are no rules here. We're trying to accomplish something. - Thomas Edison
Greetings Citizen, my name is Wheream-I-ATT, and this is the great and wonderful world of the computer, of Alpha Complex, of PARANOIA!
Huh? This is a game right?
Game, Citizen? What game? This is Alpha Complex, the world of the computer, and you are a citizen of it. I assume you are new to your clonedom and will forgive your almost traitorous tone.
Citizen? Computer? Troubleshooter? Clone? Traitorous tone?!? What are you talking about?
Tsk tsk, citizen. You must've been influenced by some subversive commie mutant traitor plot. Perhaps mind control. Ah well, we shall start your education from the beginning. The most important things to remember are The computer and Alpha Complex.
This is the Computer. The Computer runs Alpha Complex. Alpha Complex is where we live. It's where we die. The Computer runs every part of Alpha Complex, and every part of your life. You, and every other clone in Alpha Complex serves the Computer, and the Computer, in turn, makes sure that you are safe, happy, clean, productive, and not a commie, mutant, or traitor.
Ok, so the computer is the big boss, and this "Alpha Complex" is the big city we live in. Is there anything outside of Alpha Complex?
That's WAY above your security clearance, citizen.
My WHAT? What's a security clearance?
Security Clearances are the way the Computer makes sure that no one is exposed to information or items that doesn't concern them. Citizens start out at Infrared, which technically is black. So a citizen of infrared clearance is only allowed to touch things colored black, eat foods that are dyed black, and wear black clothes. These are the happy rabble at the bottom of the clearance list. The list then goes up from there through the color spectrum. The full list is:
Understand?
Gleefully stolen from An Introduction to Paranoia
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
Verifying IDs against purchased tickets does theoretically guarantee that a valid passenger manifest is available in the event of a Mishap. Assuming all passengers presented valid IDs, the feds could root about and figure out the likely passengers that may have caused said Mishap, then track down their friends, etc. The issue then becomes: is the possibility of effective ID fraud high enough among these theoretical evildoers that the ID checks will be useful? My guess is that the answer is "yes" but only by a slight margin.
But the real issue is why the text of this law must be kept secret. I can think of two general reasons: if the text of the law reveals something that may allow evildoers to circumvent the law itself, or if publicizing the text of the law could cause a panic. Since I find it unlikely that knowing the reasons IDs should be checked would allow would-be terrorists any advantage (unless it includes a list of suspected terrorists), my conclusion is that there is likely something in the text of the law that could cause a panic. Still seems like a dumb reason to necessite the secrecy of a law, but then the government doesn't always act in a sensible manner.
Which is pretty much exactly what I meant. (OED also gives "rather badly" as part of one definition of "poorly", by the way -- go recursiveness.)
First of all, the law itself isn't secret. The government is asking that their argument for its need be kept secret. Please be more accurate in posting stories.
Second of all, if they stop requiring IDs for flights, I'm going to stop flying. All you privacy advocates say what you want, but I'm comforted to some degree (though not a great deal) by the fact that ID is required to fly and I sure as hell would feel less comfortable if they removed that requirement. I want the airlines and the government to take at least the most minimal steps to figure out who the hell is on my flight.
If you value your privacy more than your life, don't fly.
Personally, I don't know that many people who care that they have to show ID to get on a flight. On the other hand, I know a LOT of people who would be up in arms if the government and airlines removed the requirement.
Why are you guys so paranoid that the government might know where you're flying? Do you think they're following you? Don't you know you'll be safe as long as you keep your tin foil hat on?
The ID check "law" is almost certianly the "magic regulation" that lets the Airlines be able to make sure you didn't transfer that "non transferable ticket." I mean goodness, I could buy a ticket to the next Super Bowl todya, and SCALP it later and the Ariline wouldn't see a dime of that extra revenue. Oh the humanity... 8-)
The Airlines probably asked for this law.
The other probable law is the unwritten law of Alibi. If they don't check the ID's then I could buy a ticket to Desmoins and send a random stranger or good friend on a round-trip in my name while I go out and kill my ex-wife. Then the "I went to Desmoins, here are my canceled airline tickets" alibi wouldn't work. In the existing system I'd have to get a fake ID, or an illigimate real ID, and we *know* that isn't possible...
oh, wait...
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
"Every recount you cite has Gore winning."
selective editting.
in the first 2, poster clearly states that Gore lost those recounts.
I concede defeat and wish to sign up to your newsletter.
I now understand that since one can find a plethora of sundry words in the dictionary, one can use any of them and converse as if one were highly educated.
Yeah, right.
I knew this was going to happen- whether or not it's true or not matters little, it's going to happen like this or worse at the rate things are going. Time to let the Congresscritters know that if they voted this atrocity in, especially if they didn't read the damn thing and understand what they were voting for, that they're OUT. They knowingly violated their oath of office enacting this law that blatantly violates the Fourth Ammendment.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
hmmm, is it just me, or is the Department of Justice starting to sound more like the "Minestry of Love" every day?...
Open the Door!
Ohh piss, Thought Police are here, and I haven't even submitted yet!!
Look at what happens as a result of all the security at airports. Businesses that operate within the zone can (and do) charge extortionate prices since they have a captive clientele to prey on. Similarly, airlines require ID mainly to prevent a secondary market in airfares that is not subject to their current highly-evolved system of price discrimination.
Checking ID does nothing for security. But since when has the government cared about the security of anyone but the elite? This is about getting us used to intrusive control. The controlled areas (airports, theme parks, shopping malls, the prison system) will gradually expand, genuine life will be increasingly marginalized, and we will be increasingly administered in the interest of corporations. Asymmetric information is power. Therefore we should deny them information, even if (as is not proven in this case anyway) this increases our personal exposure to risk.
In order to get a true idea of risks, you have to compare the risk of not being tracked (and all its consequences) against the risks of being tracked (and all those consequences).
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
This is a republic, not a democracy. Abridging the rights of a minority group is not OK, even if a majority group supports the idea.
live(free) || die;
That order was rescinded:
l ate=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentI D=72299
http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=News&temp
"WASHINGTON, DC - The American Library Association (ALA) today welcomed the Department of Justice's decision to rescind its request that the Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents instruct depository libraries to destroy all copies of five Department of Justice publications addressing forfeiture. The Justice Department claimed that the documents are "training materials and other materials that the Department of Justice staff did not feel were appropriate for external use." ALA disagreed with this categorization of the public documents, two of which are texts of federal statutes, and with the instruction to destroy them. ALA trusts that there will be no repetition of such unjustified instructions to destroy government information."
Though you are right in bringing it up to show what sort of "creepiness" they are trying to get up to.
cheers
front
It's a good thing, then, that we still have the right to bear arms!
Of course, we won't stand a chance with our glorified versions of a pellet gun against the new energy beam, sonic, and mind control weaponry that the government has recently developed.
Besides, we won't be have a chance at organizing since we'll never know who we can trust. We might as well just bend over and open up for our new overlords.
If the law's so secret. how come this Gilmore character knows enough about it to file a lawsuit?
Maybe he will sue the next grocery that asks for his drivers license when he tries to cash a check.
Being asked to provide evidence that you are who you were said you when when you bought your ticket has nothing at all to do with privacy.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
You are correct that the other person is wrong about the recount (Gore would have lost under many recount schemes). But he would have won if all of Florida had been recounted. Even with the absentee ballots (but only the ones with postdates on or before the election day. Your little diatribe is trying to completely change history. Bush attempted to block recounts at various levels. Exactly how to recount was debated and implemented differently in almost every way possible. It was a mess and not nearly as clean as you portray. Bush also asked for recounts, but different ones than Gore. The state eventually said they weren't going to do any more recounts or certifications and that is when the courts started to get involved.
The problem is that you are phrasing this as an airline requirement. But it's a governmental requirement. Governments and private enterprises have different standards to adhere to. For example, my employer can say that I can't say "I hate work" on the job. But if the government did that, it would be prior restraint of speech.
So to answer your questions:
Yes, airlines have the right to ask for id, and to refuse service if it is not provided.
No, I don't have the right to get onto someon else's private vehicle and demand anonymity (well, it actually depends... I have freedom to demand whatever I want, that doesn't mean I will get it. But it would be trespass to enter the vehicle if I'm doing so against the wishes of the owner).
But those aren't the right questions.
The questions are: Can the government require owners of private vehicles to demand ID from every passenger? Can the government prevent people from travelling inside the country if they refuse to provide identification?
C'mon does this really surprise anyone? ,technically,we have been at war with north Korea since the Korean war.Yes,we have a treaty that doesnt end the war so much as just call a halt to the shooting.George and the boys didnt need this iraq/terrorist gig to do what they want but I'm sure it makes it look more valid than the excuses (korea) that all the other administrations have since used for secret naughtiness and other unconstitutional acts against the citizens of the several states.
Lets review,
during times of war the government has given itself the power to DO ANYTHING IT WANTS.
Those of you with a short attention span will please note that
Might as well take up drinkin,I swear......
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
It's not exactly cut-and-dry whether George W. Bush was the rightful victor in the 2000 presidential election. The recounts showed Bush got a handful more votes in Florida, but well within the margin of error. So we will never know who more people INTENDED to vote for.
Wrong.
The recounts the way Gore asked for had Bush winning. If the whole state was recounted, Gore won.
The fact that Gore was a fuckwad about it doesn't change the facts.
Add in the thousands of illegally disenfranchised voters and the -14,000 votes for Gore from a Diebold machine, and you have a complete subversion of the democratic process. Now we are 4 years down a path of laws we can't see, disagreement = treason, and wars based on falsified evidence.
So, no. No decent patriotic American will let this go.
If your intelligence services work correctly (and they know *who* the bad guys are) then knowing *where* they are might be of benefit.
On the other hand, most people accept credit cards signed "Mickey Mouse" so it all depends.
ignorance of the law is no excuse??
We're fucked!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
By US law, you have to carry your drivers license when driving, whetether you break laws or not.
One common instance of having to show it without breaking any law is when you're involved in an accident.
In Soviet Russia, the Law follows YOU!
You are most certainly right.
You actually voted that guy in.
I wouldn't boast
Really, if it's THAT disturbing to you then just drive your car.
BTW, you do have to carry ID when you do that (a license) and surrender it upon demand to a law enforcement officer.
This of course has been happening for an awful long time here in the US and we haven't fallen upon fascist times yet...
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Add in the fact that most of those smaller states take more away from the rest of the country than they give and you have a really bad situation. You have people whose lifestyles depend on those in the other states getting a greater say. Curiously, most of the welfare states are Republican states. They vote against the very things that allow the Liberal states to create such vibrant economies out of small minded ignorance.
Trult pathetic.
Great answer. Not to mention that it's the government asking for all this data from the airlines. So however bad is for the airline to ask for ID, it's a lot worse because they send all that data to Big Brother.
If we were talking about a contract to which the legislators themselvs would personally be bound, you can be sure thhat if they did not read it personally, they would get thier lawyers to read it before they signed it.
Isn't that what they do with their staffers? I understood it is such that staffers read the legislation and make summaries and recommendations.
CEO's don't read all the contracts their companies sign, they delegate. Incompent lawyers/staffers get fired.
Unfortunately the firing can happen too late - it's fun to imagine a political system where one can change his vote at any time while still in office!
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I don't mean to kick you when you're down, but what you say is what the root of the problem is: nowadays Americans talk about real people, as if there are different classes of people.
I think the poster meant "real people" as opposed to "theoretical people we invent for the purposes of political arguments" - not "people who aren't A-rabs".
Freedom: "I won't!"
karma galore: Just stick your exact post in every political thread. Mods will eat it up. Score:5 everytime.
Welcome to Bush Gardens. Your tour guide, Mr. Asscroft will be along as soon as he is finished putting pants on the orangutans.
Fix your spell checker. It's spelled Asscruft.
Dude, LONE GUNMEN, 6months before WTC/911, what was the pilot episode about?
7 88 7
http://imdb.com/title/tt0243069/board/nest/1010
yes, a plane flying towards WTC to be crashed into it.
Whats the point of locking the cockpit door, the dudes will just threaten to open a side door and really screw things up, or find a standard wall power socket (yes planes have them, how else do you think vacume cleaners work, but they are covered after use, look near the door on the floor for a socket cover )
What you need in a plane is an automated way by the pilot to put sleeping gas in the plane to KNOCK everyone out with in seconds, then you can walk in , and tie em up. How about a RED panic button near each door like trains have STOP pulleys, just put those on the plane and it will dump sleeping gas everywhere but the cockpit.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
I here you and agree. I don't under stand how the strange electorial college is an example.
Its just old and strange. Why is every one afraid of change? Change is good. LEts just try it for one election. It won't effect anything realy and then we can move on.
Move on? sorry...
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
It allows the potential for the scattered few to have the same power as the consolidated many. It is the final barrier of state vs federal rule. Historically there were other barriers, but time and various wars have eroded some of those barriers.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Ok, then make it a 30-checkboxes ballot. Check one and that's it. Why should having to vote on 50 things make the interpretation of who you voted for more confusing?
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
Second, because some unnamed worker for United Airlines "told him" that there was a "secret law", are we to believe that there is, then, such a "law"? That a random United Airlines employee is the ultimate fount of information on this topic? The fact that SFO would indeed allow him to fly with no ID negates his claim that ID is required by a "secret law" on its face.
;-) database with all sorts of names on it (terrorist, muslims, congressmen, double names, unlucky fellows, you name it and try to get your name of that list). So i guess terrorists would be forced to use false IDs if they don't want to jeopardize their plans. Of course, these are not hard to obtain...Well, you decide.
;-)
Well, the Department of Justice won`t tell the judge to keep their arguements for a 'secret law' secret if their arguements are along the lines of "He was bulled by this employee. There is no such law!". So my guess is: yes, there is a secret law (or regulation or whatever).
Also you have the right to NEITHER show ID or get searched without reason.
On the other hand i think you have a valid point in stating that this is not a request by the police but part of the aviation security system, like metal detectors. So one might ask "Does it make sense to check for ID? Is it worth the costs of personal freedom?"
Lots of people mentioned that the 9/11 hijackers had valid IDs, but one shouldn't forget that this was before 9/11. By now there is a HUGE (and secret
But the real issue here is not wether you have to show your ID or not. The point is "secret laws". Objecting people to laws that they are not entitled to argue or even hear about simply doesn't work out for a democratic society. But it does well for dictatorships.
Even if you can elect your dictator
Brainteaser: what is so fucking secret about a law asking you to show id? Could it be that as few people as possible should know about it because it might be considered unconstitutional? Naaaa!
But you could still have what you want and I want. You could allocate the alectorial votes based on the populations vote in each state?
There you would have a state controled popular election. Which is what the electorial college was ment todo.
Even in the first elections nobody actually voted for an "elector", they voted for a president. Why not let the election actuall choise who you vote for?
I find all the arguments quite flat. The don't realy seem to make a good argument for the current process. The thought that we would give up the election to federal powers is realy moot. There is no difference when it comes to a federial election.
Respond to my main argument. The electorial process id designed to emulate a populare vote and it allmost always does? Why not simply make it a populare vote? It works in MANY other democracies, including the oldest, greece.
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
Um, you are aware that the product page to which you link is not for a firearm? It's a *storage cabinet* for a firearm.
Stand your LART on end and lower yourself gently down upon it.
With 300 checkboxes, you simply won't get clear, unambiguous results 100% of the time.
If voters were given one big sheet of paper to write checkmarks on, you'll get some ballots back with random marks on them. I know I'd probably hold the uncapped pen in one hand while checking that I hadn't missed any offices/referrendums I knew of or that were on my cheat-sheet I had brought with me, and I'd be likely to make a random mark somewhere on the ballot. Even if I didn't mess up and write an unnoticed stray mark somewhere, someone else probably will do so.
I live in Georgia, where we've moved to the no-paper-trail electronic voting machines, so it's now not possible for a voter to submit such an ambiguous ballot to the voting machinery. (Of course, it's now possible for the voting machinery to undetectably log a completely different ballot than the one submitted, so that one improvement in the process is more than outweighed by the fact that Georgia election results can no longer be trusted, but that's a different story.)
But before we switched over, most counties used a punchcard like system, similar to Florida's. After I punched my entries, I'd always pull out my punchcard from the older punch-machine, and run through the entire list again, making sure that the punched holes matched up with the numbers on the printed ballot, and that they were fully punched out. (It wasn't until after the Florida debacle that I found out that not everyone does this.) Everyone is now aware of the different sorts of errors this system can introduce.
So the fact of the matter is that neither make-a-mark-in-boxes, or punch-holes-in-boxes is going to be 100% foolproof. So saying "just make checkboxes" isn't a real solution.
I think that about the only way you can mostly get rid of these technical problems is to have a paper ballot (possibly automatically printed with electronic voting machinery), that is validated when the voter submits it to a central box.
But if you don't have such a system, you will get ambiguous ballots, and that means that you will need a rule to deal with them. If you throw them out, then in a sense you're disenfanchising voters. If you go by an "intent of the voter", you wind up with a subjective mess.
At least if we ever get voter-verified, machine-validated paper trails added into the electronic voting machines that are the current mania, we could reduce this sort of annoying error down to almost nothing.
Apparently not all airlines require passports for internal flights in the UK; some accept various other forms of photo id (such as an armed services card or a drivers license).
Here, you have to provide proof of entitlement to live in the country when you accept a job or open a bank account, enrol in a class or collect benefits. If a bank/employer finds out you don't have the right papers they in theory are supposed to tell on you. The "id card" debate in the uk is about making this all fit together using a master system, and many people object to it.
I would have assumed that whereever they find you using a Ruritanian passport here for serious ID checking (i.e. bank account rather than blockbuster account) they should check it to see if you are an overstayer, but IIRC they have rather a large backlog of that sort of thing.
US immigration does seem strange to me. They check you on the way in but not on the way out, so they don't know who is in the country.
mistakenly calling Florida for Gore
Except they were not mistaken -- numerous independant recounts attest to this
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
If there's an actual written law, you can know what the rules are, obey them if you think they're acceptable in a free society, and you can challenge them in court if you think they're not, and you don't have to do anything that's not mandated by law. If there's a secret law, the Rent-A-Feds at the airport gates can order you to do anything they feel like and you aren't allowed to challenge them without being harassed, because you're not allowed to know what really is or is not the law.
Gilmore's doing an abolutely necessary thing here.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks