Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Government Asks Court to Keep ID Arguments Secret

Posted by michael on from the catch-22 dept.

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?"

41 of 857 comments (clear)

  1. nothing to see here. move along. by jaxdahl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  2. Two things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Two things by Proc6 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      Yea that's a tough one. On the one hand I can understand consumer choice of how "violated" your privacy is to fly on an airline. On the other hand it's the federal goverment's concern when someone obtains control over the jet and crashes it into public, private and governmental buildings killing thousands. If the airline implements these requirements, then their passengers are free of the search requirement.

      Since the government [theoretically] is only concerned when control leaves the airline and enters into the terrorist hands (because at that point the jet becomes a weapon), I'd prefer to see some requirements put in place that completely remove control of the jet from anyone on board and puts it in the hands of a security group on the ground as soon as there are any questionable issues on-board. Some manner in which the plane cannot be flown by terrorists as the control over the aircraft leaves as soon as its taken over.

      Now that doesnt prevent someone from blowing up a jet in air, but hey, at least the damage is probably going to be a lot smaller if that happens as opposed to ramming it into the WTC.

      Besides, we have Air Marshalls on jets still right? right? :/

      --

      I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!

    2. Re:Two things by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd prefer to see some requirements put in place that completely remove control of the jet from anyone on board and puts it in the hands of a security group on the ground as soon as there are any questionable issues on-board. Some manner in which the plane cannot be flown by terrorists as the control over the aircraft leaves as soon as its taken over.

      Doesn't it just blow your mind how easy the solution could be to the whole 'airplanes as weapons' problem?

      A big red button on the flight console. When the pilot pushes it the autopilot takes the plane to the nearest airport capable of taking said plane and lands. Period. End of discussion. No way to cancel the order, nadda.

      The only issue, I believe, is weather; autopilot has issues with crosswind landings? Or won't attempt them over certain parameters? Not a commercial pilot, I wouldn't know.

      Considering the ground control option.... it might be viable as a 'once the big red button is pushed option' (to handle those non-autopilot landings, lets say), but as a way to actually take control of an aircraft I would be a weee hesitant :~) And autopilot is SOOOO good, there is hardly any point in 'remote flying' except perhaps on that last mile.

      The real problem is that there is no real interest in security.. only the illusion thereof, and then only enough to convince the general public that it's safe to fly.

      As for air marshalls defending the cockpit... isn't that what first class is for?

  3. Maybe they know something we don't... by celerityfm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...
    1. Re:Maybe they know something we don't... by joranbelar · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Maybe there is something about the way legitimate IDs are made that they don't want to reveal.

      If that is the case, then they'd have to at least reveal it to those people checking IDs (otherwise, what's the point?). Given the conventional wisdom regarding the intelligence of the average airport security employee, that's not exactly keeping things secret.

  4. Re:Well, the EFF will hear the argument.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually the EFF will NOT be able to hear the arguments. According to the article, the government's arguments will be "heard before a judge outside the presence of Gilmore and his attorneys"

  5. The typical American cannot read the law by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:The typical American cannot read the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How many people can read and understand the legal codes that govern their lives?

      Not only read them, but then inturpet what they really mean.

      I got stuck in a situation in the early 90's in South Carolina.
      I had smoked headlight covers on my car. In SC, the law for headlight requirements is very specific. The headlight must be seen by a person from 300ft away. The headlight must be able to illuminate an object from 100ft away. With my headlight covers on, I easily met both of those requirements. Everything should be good to go. There is a third law that states a person can not alter the position or aiming of the headlights or physically alter the headlight assembly itself. That law sites specific examples of not moving the headlights to high, to low, or aiming them inapropriately, all related to blinding on coming drivers. Again, should be good to go. But wait, somewhere there was a forth law that only the police knew about... This one was a memo from the State Police headquarters stating headlight covers users shall be ticketed because it violated the states motor vehicle laws for headlight requirements. Yes, I got a ticket and fought it. I showed the judge my information and he showed me the letter from the the State Police. He dropped the charges because he could not tell me what part of the existing laws the headlight covers violated. The point being, even after researching the available laws and reading the examples of what the law is for, it came down to another persons interpetation completely different from mine as to what was legal and what was not.

      On a side note, at the scene, I actually recieved two tickets, one for my headlight covers and one for the fog light covers. The State Police had the same exact car as mine (91 Mustang) but they did not even have fog lights. But since I had fog lights and they were then covered, I got two tickets.

      Before any wise cracks about how headlight covers look stupid, they dim the lights to much etc.. I only used them in the day time (when i got my ticket) and they pulled right off in about 5 seconds for night driving.

    2. Re:The typical American cannot read the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Bias is one thing, credibility is another. Michael Moore has none.

      www.moorelies.com

    3. Re:The typical American cannot read the law by metamatic · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's why I like the ancient Icelandic tradition. Once a year the Law Speaker would have to recite the law. All of it, from start to finish, from memory, without a break. If he missed bits, they were no longer considered part of the law. This kept a really good control over how unwieldy and impossible to understand the law could be.

      Hell, imagine if our President had to recite the law once a year. There wouldn't be any space in that cranium for crap like the PATRIOT act.

      I'm not sure that exactly the same system is workable for a modern society, but I am sure that I would seriously favor a system where one person had to recite the entire tax law from memory each year to determine how much we all paid. I see no reason why the tax system needs to be even a hundredth as complicated as it is now.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    4. Re:The typical American cannot read the law by NeMon'ess · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course it sucks that the police will continue to issue tickets until the law or their interpretation is changed.

  6. Secrecy cannot become the norm. by hellomynameisclinton · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  7. Conspiracy theory by clean_stoner · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Okay, so now they're not even allowing us to see laws, but we are still expected to follow them. Worse, the plaintiff and his lawyers won't get to hear the government's arguements in favor of the law. Does this scream "police state" to anyone else?

    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.

  8. Re:In order to live in a free society... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Sounds so Orwellian.. "Slavery is Freedom"...

    Lets take your rights away to make you more free!

  9. Even more government creepiness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  10. The world changes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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..

  11. There is no proof there is a "secret law" by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  12. Second amendment? by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  13. Re:Secret Laws by brxndxn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This sadly reminds me of something that actually happened to my buddy.

    Without any previous charges or arrests, my buddy was once arrested for resisting arrest. He kept asking 'What am I being arrested for?' and the officer kept saying, 'You are resisting arrest.'

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
  14. And this will become a training video by denis-The-menace · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  15. Welcome to the club by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Here in the UK, laws were brought in just after 9/11 that allowed the British Government to do a number of things:
    • 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 Law
    1. Re:Welcome to the club by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hahaha, I think we have the imprisoning people on terrorism suspicion (they don't even have to be charged) including US citizens.

      Also, you can lose your citizenship for supporting "terrorist groups." Lets say that the Israeli government labels some Palestinian groups terrorist and an US citizen with family in Palestine gives their relatives money. In this instance, if the relatives contribute to that organization, the US citizen can be stripped of his citizenship because Israel is our ally. Of course, the citizen contributing directly would have the same if not more severe effects.

      If the PATRIOT Act was in place in the late 80's, American members of anti-apartheid groups could lose their American citizenship because they could and probably were labeled terrorist....(make your own conjecture here)

    2. Re:Welcome to the club by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As much as we all love the great Nelson Mandela now .. really he was indeed a terrorist.

      He was convicted for organising a group that used violence to fight to overthrow the south african government.

      Of course the South African government of the time deserved to have their asses handed to them for their racist repressions, but it doesnt change the fact that Mandela was taking part in terrorist actions. He was a good terrorist.

      What you don't seem to understand is that the Patriot Act has nothing to do with protecting the USA from terrorism. It is entirely about controlling the population of the USA.

      Bush has been fighting a war upon YOU yet most dont even see it.

      And he has won. He has kept americans perpetually scared over imaginary threats, he used that fear to attack a sovereign nation with no proof of any links to 911, or of the WMD's that were used as part of the scare tactics. He has ensured that Iraqi oil will stay off the world oil markets and kept the oil markets on edge. ... It really was Mission Accomplished. He more than doubled the price of oil, stuffing his family's pockets, and his saudi friend's pockets at YOUR expense.

      Don't believe me?

      Then why didn't the US wipe out Libya? Khadaffi funded multiple terrorist attacks around the world but Dubya holds him up as a hero.

      Why didn't the US wipe out Pakistan? All but 2 of the 911 pilots were pakistani citizens! Instead Dubya enjoyed the support of Pakistan during his half-assed search of Afghanistan for Osama.

      Why am I mad?

      Because as of today, 1000 americans have died needlessly in a war based totally on a lie.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
  16. Re:Choosing your fights by wass · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Philosophical question -
    Does the airline have the right to know who's on board their own airplane?

    That's what this all boils down to. Do you have the right to get onto someone else's private vehicle and demand anonymity? Or do the airlines have the right to demand ID to know who you are before transporting you in their own private vehicle?

    --

    make world, not war

  17. Re:Ticket Resales by tktk · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ...it allows the airlines to stop people from transfering tickets and increases their sales.

    The airlines don't need a law do that. It's already legal for them just to tell you the terms and conditions when you buy a non-refundable non-tranferrable ticket. If you end up buying the ticket, you're stuck with those terms.

    When you buy a ticket you have a short period to make changes. Once the deadline comes the airlines are keeping your money. You can make changes, but there'll be a fee. Or you can cancel the flight but there'll be a fee and you'll only get credit for the ticket. And I believe you'll have to use the credit within a year or you have nothing.

  18. Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system. by LordKazan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When they stop listening to the Rupert Murdoch Propaganda Network (Fox News and over a hundred local channels - tv and radio) -- Fox News is not news, it is not journalism - it is propagandization -- Even the Venerable Walter Cronkite is speaking out against Fox News. Fox's "Fair and Balanced" claim is the biggest piece of false advertising since Microsoft Claimed windows is secure

    thorough studies [correcting for every possible bias] have shown that 80% people listening to Fox News are hold misconceptions about the state of the world - particular the iraq war, compared to 23% of PBS viewers - furthermore there is a positive correlation (ie more a causes more b) between "More Viewing of Fox News" and "Holding Misconceptions' http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02 _03_Report.pdf

    --
    If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
  19. Re:Follow that law? by MoneyT · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Problem is, as has already been pointed out, the law isn't secret, and it can't be by definition. The law is part of a public document that is the penal code. If the law was secret, you couldn't have alawer defend you, since you can't have alwer defend you, you've been effectively denied council, for a law that isn't a law because it's not a part of the public document called the penal code and as an end result, you can't be punished for breaking it in the first place.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  20. Re:Problems with Gilmore's story by gargonia · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

    I don't think this is quite correct. You do, in fact, have to have ID in order to travel by motorcycle, car, or boat because you have to have a license on you in order to legally do so (which is a form of ID... usually photo ID). Also, I think the Supreme Court recently heard a case where a man (in Texas?) was jailed for refusing to produce ID when asked by a police officer. He was not in a vehicle at the time, so he was a pedestrian. If I remember correctly, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction stating that he did not have a right to fail to produce ID because the law had an overriding concern in establishing his identity. I personally think that this is a bunch of baloney... a pedestrian that is not breaking any laws should never be forced to show identification just because a police officer decides he wants to see some. Nevertheless, I think this pretty much destroys your initial point, and contributes to the point of the original article.

    Fact is, you can't go anywhere in the United States right now (outside of your own private property... and I wonder how much longer that will stand) and expect to have the right to not show ID at a moment's notice.

    --

    -- Gargonia
    Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.

  21. There was a secret man and he had a secret smile by alw53 · · Score: 2, Interesting


    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

  22. Re:Choosing your fights by rk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Great question. And the day the airlines quit queueing up for federal subsidy after federal subsidy, I will let them treat their planes as their private property. Until then, they can cry in their Wheaties all they want but I won't pay them a thin dime to fly if they think they can demand I pay for the ticket, show them ID, AND get supported from my income tax whether I want them to or not.

  23. I went and saw for myself by roystgnr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  24. The US Govt. won't let me fly ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The last three times (in the last 14 months) I've tried to board a flight I've not been allowed. Even the three airlines involved feel that my name is getting mixed up with someone else's but they can't fix it. I've filled out the DHS form: nothing. I've called everyone including my Congressman's and Senators' Offices and they can't fix it. I'm screwed and will be for years to come. Unless I hit the roadway I'm not going anywhere.

    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.

  25. Re:Choosing your fights by phliar · · Score: 3, Interesting
    An aircraft owned by an airline is not the same as a private vehicle. An airline is a common carrier and is different from me taking people up for joyrides in my airplane. If a passenger is caught transporting drugs on an airline, the airline is not liable; but if one of my passengers is transporting drugs the DEA can throw us all in jail and impound my airplane. On the other hand, I can say that I will not allow any Republicans on my airplane, and that is my right. An airline cannot refuse to carry you because of your political views, or national origin, or sex, or race, or...

    So why does an airline need to know my identity? Why can I not pay with cash and board anonymously? (Assuming I'm willing to submit to a reasonable search for security -- say metal detectors and/or X-ray.) I don't need to carry papers on other modes of transportation like buses, ferries, trains etc. or while walking. I bet a terrorist could kill more people by putting a bomb on a ferry in cold waters, like the Seattle-Victoria ferry. Why then do we have this hysterical attitude towards aviation?

    --
    Unlimited growth == Cancer.
  26. fuck the whole thing by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  27. Re:Follow that law? by cpeterso · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Any legislator that votes for a law that is later overturned as unconstitutional should be FIRED (or worse).

    --
    cpeterso
  28. Re:Here's a hint for you by herc_mk2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    You know, worrying about it now *before* it gets to that state is OK. Because if it ever reaches that point, we won't be discussing it on /.

    A gradual deterioration of liberty, in the long run, is just as harmful as one that happens overnight -- the end result is the same. And all of these arguments like "Well, it's not as bad here as in [insert third world country]" have a disturbing sound to me.

  29. Re:Yes.. by macdaddy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    In public you should never expect any privacy.

    Open your bag. I want to see what's inside.

    Step out of the car and show me what's in the trunk.

    Take out your checkbook and show me the entries in your register.

    I can't believe any intelligent person could take the absolutely idiotic stance you just did.

  30. Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system. by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The people who watch Fox News already agree with everything that's being said on Fox News. They watch Fox News because it doesn't challenge their assumptions about the world, which might upset them. They watch Fox News because you don't have to think hard to determine how you are supposed to feel about an issue, it's spoon fed to you (e.g. O'Reilly Factor - here's the smart, hard-hitting conservative, and the weeniest liberal we could find to "debate" him in an edited, but of course "non-partisan", forum where all points the liberal makes will be cut out!).


    I want the news to challenge my assumptions. I want investigative reporting uncovering causes and correlations that I didn't know existed before. I want open-minded reporting that doesn't bash reasonable perspectives on both sides of the political spectrum. I don't really see why the politics of the owner have to be so flagrantly reflected in the reporting - CNN was owned by Ted Turner for many years, who has many radical positions I don't agree with, but while not perfect, I've certainly never seen that kind of flagrant bias on CNN (about an equal number of people seem to accuse CNN of overly liberal and overly conservative bias as far as I can tell).

  31. Re:You must be new here. [Ob Quote] by legirons · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "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."

    "Go to the back, go to the back of the restaurant," they yelled.

    I hesitated, lost in my own panic.

    "Did you not hear me, go to the back and sit down," they demanded.

    I complied and looked around at the other patrons. There were eight men including the waiter, all of South Asian descent and ranging in age from late-teens to senior citizen. One of the policemen pointed his gun point-blank in the face of the waiter and shouted: "Is there anyone else in the restaurant?" The waiter, terrified, gestured to the kitchen. ...

    When I asked to speak to a lawyer, the INS official informed me that I do have the right to a lawyer but I would have to be brought down to the station and await security clearance before being granted one. When I asked how long that would take, he replied with a coy smile: "Maybe a day, maybe a week, maybe a month."

    - Patriot Raid, Jason Halperin, April 2003.

  32. Re:Follow that law? by msaulters · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Any legislator that votes for a law that is later overturned as unconstitutional should be FIRED (or worse).

    This is a shortsighted and simplistic view. On the one hand, a law that is *obviously* unconstitutional could be considered deserving of such treatment. But it is the purview of the courts to decide whether a law is in conflict with the Constitution. The legislature can't be expected to bat 1000 when passing laws, and if they realistically could, the judiciary would become irrelevant. Further, often it is not an entire law, but instead just a single clause that is struck by the courts. Would this justify firing? Or just a public flogging?
    --
    These people looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.