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?"
You forgot to include the author so people can find the right copy. Franz Kafka
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
RTFA: "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."
T!
Gilmore has a website, http://www.freetotravel.org/ with more info and court documents regarding his case against the US government.
Part of Gilmore's complaint is that there are no visible regulations or laws that compel the presentation of identification papers. In other words, not only is the law not clear, it is not clear that there is a law at all.
m l
By-the-way, I did a blog entry on this situation
http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000116.ht
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.
Amtrak, our national railway system, requires ID to ride the train: http://www.amtrak.com/idrequire.html.
On some parts of the Amtrak system passengers may board without ID. Ticket purchases onboard require ID. Tickets can be purchased by credit card without ID... but tickets purchased with cash require ID.
But if the Judge has to hear the law and the reasons behind it, then the "secret" is out - or will they appoint a "friendly" Judge (a la Hutton) or invoke the US version of the Official Secrets Act? Therefore, what is wrong with releaasing it to the general public, provided they have all signed up to the OSA? And who says the Judge won't reveal it to colleagues, who in turn reveal it to the world? In short, how can the US State Deoartment prosecute somebody for something they cannot possibly know about? And how can Judges prosecute if they don't know the law themselves?
Due to lack of disk space this user has been discontinued
Where is the law written down?
What part of the US Criminal or Civil code contains this law? When was it passed by Congress and when was it signed by the President? That's how laws happen in this country.
Oh wait. It wasn't passed by Congress.
It's a federal regulation then. Regulations happen when a federal agency is granted specific rights to create little mini-laws by Congress. So it's published in the Federal Register, as required for all federal regulations, from the EPA to HUD. Even the FAA has to publish all of their regulations on everything in the Federal Register.
Oh wait, it wasn't published in the Federal Register.
Perhaps it's an Executive Order then? The President has limited authority to do things like that within the Executive branch, which can be overturned by either Congress (by passing a law striking down the EO) or by the courts. Of course, executive orders are generally published unless there is a very good "national security" reason not to. Given that all of the terrorists on 9/11 had valid (not even faked, truly valid) ID's, this argument isn't carrying much water.
It comes down to this: Ignorance of a law is no excuse for violating the law. The only way that postulate of the legal system works is because all laws have to be published in specific ways, like the Federal Register. If there are "secret laws" that can't be read, then you could be violating it.
They don't tell you what the law is that requires ID checks. They tell you that the law requires it, but they don't tell you exactly what law requires it, the penalties for noncompliance, or even the agency responsible for enforcement of the law (is it DHS, FAA, NTSB, TSA?).
If I don't agree with the law, if I think the law isn't just, which agency do I get my congressman to go after to fix it?
There could be a secret law against eating M&M's on the day after Labor Day. Oops. Since ignorance is no excuse, the vending machine cops should be by shortly to deal with me. What if I accidentally get on a plane without and ID check? How many years can I go to jail for? What's the limits on the fine I may be forced to pay? Is it a felony, a misdeameanor, or a criminal act?
Is checking ID just required for commercial airlines, or do General Aviation pilots need to check their friend's ID before they go on a little sightseeing trip? Since the law isn't written down, nobody outside the agency responsible knows.
Disclaimer: I'm another US Citizen
The Republican party has been usurped by massive right wingers- People who think the Seperation of Church and State doesn't exist, people which thing supply-side economics work, and that might-make's right -- they think that getting ou the guns is the first option, and that if you have a different opinion than the president (protected by 1st ammendment) then you're a 'traitor'
The republican party is MASSIVELY right wing
ps on the authitarian->libertarian y, and liberal-conversative x axis plot the libertarians would got in the conservative/libertarian quadrant -- but i find most libertarians naive: the do not understand the concept of right vs license (ie the only protected exercises of a right are those exercises which don't violate the rights of others), and they don't have any conception of required-minimum public services for a functional electorate (Such as unbiased public education)
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
You don't need to. Go look up when the law was made available, and then when the vote took place (hint - hours later), and check the number of pages (hint - over 1000). How many legislators are you implying could have read it?
I watched CSPAN the day they voted for the PATRIOT act. The Speaker allotted 2 hours debate on the new bill (ignoring the one the Justice Committee had spent 3 weeks hammering out) and said copies of the bill would be available later that day, but it was vitally important that they pass it *RIGHT NOW*, so sorry, you don't get to read it.