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?"

Comments

nothing to see here. move along.

[jaxdahl]

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?

Re:nothing to see here. move along.

[spleck]

As a byside.. just what is causing those error messages to come up in the first few seconds of an article going public?

It's a secret.

Re:nothing to see here. move along.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll tell you... but I have to post as an AC to avoid my identity being published and being the target of /. hitmen. ... It's the government. They don't want us to read ./ anymore. We're gaining intelligence and beginning to think for ourselves!

Re:nothing to see here. move along.

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't want us to read ./ anymore. We're gaining intelligence and beginning to think for ourselves!

Not much chance of *that* happening here!

Re:nothing to see here. move along.

[Dreamland]

I'm guessing that when you get this you've hit a machine in the round-robin/load-balancing cluster that hasn't been updated with the new article yet.

Ob

[savagedome]

First rule of the law: You do not talk about the law.
Second rule of the law: You DO NOT talk about the law.

Re:Ob

[ecklesweb]

What law?

Re:Ob

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to Bush Gardens. Your tour guide, Mr. Asscroft will be along as soon as he is finished putting pants on the orangutans.

Re:Ob

[Paster Of Muppets]

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?

Re:Ob

[LemonFire]

You have to understand that in order to defend our open society we have to have secrets!

Out of Respect of the Process

[appleLaserWriter]

Please do not post any responses to this article.

Follow that law?

[Beautyon]

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"?

Re:Follow that law?

[MooseByte]

"I refuse to obey a law that I cannot read".

Well that would certainly get the illiterates off the hook in all kinds of situations.... :-)

Re:Follow that law?

[Ironsides]

You forgot to include the author so people can find the right copy. Franz Kafka

Re:Follow that law?

[MoneyT]

And ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.

That said, neither is it an excuse for passing it, and every legislator that passes a bill before reading it should be shot.

Re:Follow that law?

[Al Dimond]

Legislators don't always have time to read every bill that comes before them. They might read a summary of it if it's not something that's of particular interest to them, and when a bill deals with something they're not really an expert on they often vote along with their party's official stance, determined at meetings with the purpose of determining these stances and strategies.

In this radio program, in Act Two (unfortunately I think you have to listen to the program on RA or something) some of this is discussed. Now the PATRIOT Act seems like a pretty big and important bill, and one that should have had more attention paid to it. Hindsight is 20/20, and obviously the people that passed it didn't realize what a problem it would become.

Re:Follow that law?

[realdpk]

"Legislators don't always have time to read every bill that comes before them."

There ought to be a law that staztes legislators must be provided with enough time to read every bill, and debate it, before it can be passed.

The legislators that do not read the bills should be forcefully removed from office. I'm serious, they shouldn't even be a part of the process once that's uncovered. Who knows why we, the people, put up with it.

Re:Follow that law?

[eofpi]

"I refuse to obey a law that I cannot read."

That certainly puts the literate at a disadvantage, though, doesn't it?

No, just the lawyers.

Re:Follow that law?

[Smidge204]

And ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.

I will agree with this only if the law is actually available for you to learn about. But if something is illegal and there is NO WAY for me to know that it is, even if I consult a lawyer or talk to a police officer or get a copy of the law from town hall... then how can I be punished for it?

If "secret laws" are valid and enforcable, then they could just as easily throw you in jail for any reason they like and claim that you broke a "secret law" (Which of course they can't tell you about because it's classified.) I think that pretty clearly violates due process don't you?
=Smidge=

Re:Follow that law?

[MoneyT]

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.

Re:Follow that law?

[Beautyon]

should be shot

Each piece of legislation should reqire that it is signed by the people who voted for it, with a statement asserting that they have read and understood the meaning of the law.

If they fail to sign it, or it can be demonstrated that they did not understand what they were signing (everone else) up for, then the law should be rendered automatically null and void.

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.

Its absurd that they should be able to sign the whole poulation over to be bound by laws that they have not read before adding them to the statue books, and it is irresponsible for anyone to obey these laws.

It just encourages them.

Re:Follow that law?

[geoffspear]

Of course, when a politician does read a law before voting, he'll be criticized for voting against it based on the crap that was hidden in it. By another politician who voted against it, if that other politician is an asshat like Zell Miller.

These days, sleazy politicians (in both parties, mind you) will do stuff like draft a bill making it a federal crime to rape your grandmother, then attach an amendement requiring a 95% cut in social spending. When someone votes against the amended bill (which they supported before it was amended), they'll be called a flip-flopper who wants your grandmother to be raped.

I don't see how you can blame everyone of voting age. Voting against one sleazy politican almost always means voting for another equally sleazy one. The ones with actual integrity come along so infrequently that you'll be lucky to have a chance to vote for one of them once in your life. Or spot them in the first place through all of the negative campaigning.

Re:Follow that law?

[cpeterso]

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

Re:Follow that law?

[bigpat]

"Well that would certainly get the illiterates off the hook in all kinds of situations.... :-)"

With laws that cannot be read we are all illiterates.

Re:Follow that law?

[MooseByte]

"With laws that cannot be read we are all illiterates."

With laws that cannot be read, we are all "as-yet-designated" terrorists, pending the whim of either political malfeasance or bureaucratic error.

To this day I still LMAO thinking of how easy it was to shut up the "keep the gov't off my back" types who claimed to be conservatives defending the Constitution. Just chant the magic word "terrorism" and they went to sleep like gassed animals at the local pound. That's right little fellah, you can have your little assault weapon. Everything's fine. Now close your eyes... relax....

I used to think my Refleco3000(tm) tinfoil hat was enough. These days I'm looking for a tinfoil bodysuit. :-/

Re:Follow that law?

[msaulters]

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?

Re:Follow that law?

[Wooo]

Most people seem to have the idea that the language used in a legal document is purposefully obtuse or is written in some language that is nigh impossible to comprehend. The reason legal contracts are worded the way they are is to prevent ANY misunderstanding or obscurity if it ever comes down to litigation. It is a language used by professionals who have spent time understanding basic concepts and jargon which apply to the legal field. You wouldn't expect the average person to be able to look at programming code or even html and understand completely what is going on.

I understand that the point you were trying to make is that the law should be easily understood by whomever wishes to take a look, but more often than not this leads to ambiguity and even larger loopholes. Reading a legal document is not impossible, they don't contain make believe words; unfortunately most people find it utterly boring to read through a legal document and therefore equate a legal document with being impossible to decipher.

How can his attorney's fight this...

[ahsile]

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!

Re:How can his attorney's fight this...

[Al Dimond]

Gilmore isn't the defendant, he's the one suing the government. So dismissing the case wouldn't really be a logical response to an unreasonable request from the defendant.

Denying the government their secret presentation of evidence might work.

Completely outrageous

[JohnGrahamCumming]

> 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.>

Re:Completely outrageous

[Lumpy]

This has been happening in the United States for almost 2 centuries now. Even back in the 2 decades after the REvolutionary war people bitched about having petty criminals held almost indefinately without being charged while the White collar criminals got a slap on the wrist and released almost right away...

Nothing new here, just standard practice for American justice for the past 200 years.

Re:Completely outrageous

[trentblase]

Regardless of whether this is "standard practice" it's still not right. I wasn't alive 100 years ago to make a fuss, but I am now. So I'm making a fuss.

Ignorance is no excuse

[kmahan]

"Don't worry, Citizen. We'll inform/arrest you when you break the secret laws. Trust us."

Re:Ignorance is no excuse

[OrangeTide]

Where is this law written down? When did it appear before the legislature. Which of our elected representives voted for it? against it?

These are questions people ask that aren't being answered.

Re:Ignorance is no excuse

[RocketScientist]

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.

Re:Ignorance is no excuse

[OrangeTide]

Why would someone asking me to do something when I board a plane suddenly make it a law?

If it's a private company requesting the identification, that's one thing. You can refuse to show ID and they can refuse service. But when you ask the airline about the ID checks, they refer to you the FAA. The FAA refers you back to the airline. I would gladly use an airline that doesn't do an ID check. But apparently one doesn't exist, and airlines claim that you cannot run an airline without checks, because it would be illegal.

The question is, we can't seem to find the law that regulates the airlines. but the airlines (and finally the FAA) both say the law exists. But a law that does not exist on paper some place is apparently impossible to debate, impossible to bring to a court, and impossible to overturn. We cannot fight what we cannot see.

Re:Ignorance is no excuse

[julesh]

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?).

"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"

Re:Ignorance is no excuse

[mec]

The FAA thinks it's a threat to America when unidentified people get on airplanes.

Well, I think it's a threat to America when unidentified people write the laws.

It doesn't how good or bad the particular law is. As a voter, I want to know who's making the laws I have to live under, so I can mod up the politicians who make laws I like, and mod down the politicians who make laws that I don't like. Modding == campaign contributions, writing to newspapers, calling into talk shows, and the ultimate mod points: ballots!

That is accountability in a democratic society.

Re:Ignorance is no excuse

[demachina]

It started with FAA security directives, SD's. The first was in 1990. There were 3 SD's in effect on 9/11 with a short list of names of people who were banned from flying because they were presumed terrorists. It wasn't actively enforced until after 9/11 though/

Here is a TSA memo describing the justification for the no fly and selectee lists. This was acquired by EPIC though FOIA requests. They weren'f very successful since you see most of the memo is censored. In particular they wanted to know who was putting names on the list and could take them off, and they wanted a copy of the list to see if the people on it are terrorists or if it includes political opponents of the Bush administration and anti war activists as anecdotal evidence suggests.

After 9/11 there was a slew of FAA directives that expanded the lists and then the TSA came on the scene, took over the lists and it ran amuck.

I'm not positive these are the basis of the ID requirement though I think they are. Since there is a list of people who are not allowed to fly and people allowed to fly only with extra scrutiny(selectees) it follows you have to submit an ID so your name can be checked against the list. It is needless to say insane to identify potentially dangerous travelers based on a simple name but the U.S. government, especially since 9/11, has gone completely insane.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

George W. Bush, December 2000

Secret Laws, Secret Courts, What happened to US?

[Facekhan]

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.

Choosing your fights

[fishbowl]

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.

Re:Choosing your fights

[Anita Coney]

But all the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks HAD VALID IDs!!!! Thus, the secret law serves absolutely NO purpose!

Re:Choosing your fights

[wass]

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?

Re:Choosing your fights

[rk]

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.

Re:Choosing your fights

[Sloppy]

Does the airline have the right to know who's on board their own airplane?

Yes, they do. But that ID requirement is a matter between the airline and a passenger. If the passenger doesn't like the terms the airline offers, he can try to go look for some other airline who doesn't ask for thes same terms.

My understanding of this case, is that the airline is passing the buck. They aren't saying the ID requirement is a (theoretically) negotiable term of business; they are saying the ID is required because of a law.

Does the airline have the right to not ask who boards their own airplane? Now there's the public safety concern.

Re:Choosing your fights

[phliar]

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?

Not Good

[Crzysdrs]

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.

Hmmmm

[GypC]

How are we supposed to follow a law when the law itself can't be disclosed?

Errr... ummm... trial and error? (pun intended)

Re:Hmmmm

[Jerf]

Which actually brings up an interesting point in my mind. How can we defend ourselves against accusations that we broke the secret law, if we don't know what the law is or what arguments are being used against us?

By no stretch of the imagination is this a "fair trial". Part of the ancient definition of "fair trial" is the right to meet your accuser.

There is precedent to seal the records of a case, though I am not familiar with the details of when it is acceptable. But to tell one side of the lawsuit that it can not hear its arguments? Absurdity!

I think the EFF ought to argue this is unconstitutional.

U.S. becoming a totalitarian system.

[suso]

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.

Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system.

[suso]

Uh, ok. Like what? My wife is from Uzbekistan, which has lots of human rights issues and their own problems with government. How is that for perspective?

Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system.

[Fnkmaster]

There should never be a law passed that is so super-secret the law itself can't be discussed or debated in an open forum, such as a court. The concept is anathema to democracy - and Republicans used to have the nerve to say that Democrats supported a "Nanny State" - note how you don't hear that attack so often any more - after their revered leader, Dubya, created a Nanny State for all of us. I am all for reasonable security measures as a New Yorker, but I'm not sure I see how asking for ID and checking it against a super-secret terrorist watch list really makes us safer (the same watch list they put Ted Kennedy on apparently, which took him months to get taken off of).

Anybody who's lived in New York for a while knows that there are about 20 thousand dudes named Mohammed Ibrahim or Mohammed Mohammed driving cabs around the city. Just having a generic Arab name on a watch list is far more likely to flag a cabbie than it is a terrorist. I'm not saying I wouldn't search every Arab looking fellow who got on a plane extra carefully, but I don't think even 5 or 10 guys with knives would be able to hijack a plane in the US, post September 11th.

Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system.

[OrangeTide]

When people realize there is no significant difference between Bush and Kerry is when people will also realize that things have gone bad. It's pretty shocking that Bush and Kerry aren't debating real issues, perhaps it's because they agree on all major points. They'd rather debate vietnam military records and what is fair and not fair in political advertising.

Ask yourself the following: Which canidate is for war in Iraq and which is against? Which canidate is for reduction in the size of the government and which is for providing more government services? Which canidate is for providing universal healthcare and which is for a free market healthcare system?

Given only two choices, Bush and Kerry. It's hard to say that you have any choice when it comes to issues.

Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system.

[LordKazan]

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

Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system.

[wedg]

The funny thing about glaciers is that they can sneak right up on you. One day it's off in the hills somewhere, and next thing you know, your grandkids are sledding down it in the back yard.

The people making moves towards a fascist/nationalist/totalitarian government are not stupid. I doubt the 'people', meaning 50-90% of the population will never notice anything: Because there's nothing to notice. They constantly hear about small changes in new laws, procedures and whatnot, which are semi-regularly talked about, i.e. DMCA a few years ago, PATRIOT after that, PATRIOT II and INDUCE, one law at a time. And one law at a time, things will gradually change, until some old bastard like me is sitting around saying how, back in my day, we were free to walk down the street without fear - not fear of terrorists or anything else - but without fear of our own government. And they won't *remember* that a mere 10, 20, or 30 years ago, our country wasn't like this.

And don't even get me started on the idea of the media's involvement in this. The fact that a handful of companies controls all the media's focus, which topics they choose, combined with the sensationalism, and lack of any attention to any one subject... Not only are we being told what's what, we're losing the attention span to remember what was.

But yeah. There won't be a realization that things went bad. They've *been* bad. It's just a matter of time before they get *so* bad that there's violence involved.

Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system.

[crazy blade]

...but I don't think even 5 or 10 guys with knives would be able to hijack a plane in the US, post September 11th.

You know what, tou couldn't be more right! The 9/11 hijackers simply surprised everyone, because no precedent existed to make people react immediately. Things are different now.

Guess what: given the 9/11, if some guys in a plane I'm in go for the cockpit holding knives, that's it for me! I'll run to grab them no matter what. And even if I'm full of &*$$%^ and don't have the courage to do so, I bet at least one person will, which will cause others to join in. It doesn't matter if the terrorists claim they have bombs on the plane, because most people will think they're as good as dead anyway! I bet you even arabs who happen to be on the flight and who are normal non-fundamentalist loonies will help!

Increasing airport security regarding dangerous objects (guns, bombs) on the plane is important. Such laws however... I don't see them helping in making flights secure. They have other goals.

Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system.

[Patrick]

furthermore there is a positive correlation (ie more a causes more b) between "More Viewing of Fox News" and "Holding Misconceptions'

Be careful not to confuse causation with correlation. Fox News may make you stupid. But it's also possible that being stupid makes you watch Fox News. Correlation alone doesn't tell you which causes which.

Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system.

[SamNmaX]

When people realize there is no significant difference between Bush and Kerry is when people will also realize that things have gone bad. It's pretty shocking that Bush and Kerry aren't debating real issues, perhaps it's because they agree on all major points. They'd rather debate vietnam military records and what is fair and not fair in political advertising.

If after four years of Bush and a lifetime of politics, you actually don't see any significant difference between the two candidates and parties, then you are the one who is ignorant. This "they are one in the same"-bullshit is rediculous, and is usually brought out by people as an excuse not to vote.

Wake up! While certainly the choice between Bush and Kerry may be the lesser of two evils, the differences are significant, and we aren't going to make any progress if we collectively give up on politics.

Ask yourself the following: Which canidate is for war in Iraq and which is against? Which canidate is for reduction in the size of the government and which is for providing more government services? Which canidate is for providing universal healthcare and which is for a free market healthcare system?

Bush created the war in Iraq, and while Kerry has certainly had some semantic sillyness in his description of his vote, we would not have had this war in the first place if he were president.

As for 'size of government', that's an extremely broad area. On the specfic issue of healthcare, the democrats in general do appear to want universal healthcare (remember, this an issue Hillary Clinton was pushing when Bill got in power) but have had trouble getting it passed and for now it's on the backburner. The Republicans are against it.

Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system.

[Fnkmaster]

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).

Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system.

[Lord Omlette]

Hello. Please vote for John Kerry, as he will fire John Ashcroft.

If you honestly think it can get worse, then fine, these things happen. But please let's not keep Ashcroft in office, k?

Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system.

[OrangeTide]

What's wrong with Ashcroft?
Ashcroft crucified as racist, but the record shows otherwise

Of course if you follow the ACLU then Ashcroft is essentially Satan.

If we are allowed to pick and choose facts as we please, then Ashcroft is either a great man or a villian. Unfortunetly for you, after reviewing the facts, he's somewhere in between.

Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system.

[Fnkmaster]

Are you one of those people who thinks we'd all be safer if everybody carried a concealed firearm too? Seriously, I've met several people who honestly think this. I mean, I don't argue that if everybody on a plane had a knife, you'd have a lot of trouble hijacking the plane (guns are a bad idea on planes for obvious reasons). The problem with this is that just like everywhere else in life, people get drunk and rowdy. The first time a drunk passenger knifes an obnoxious flight attendant, or another passenger who looks at them funny or bumps into the guy's wife, etc., everybody would stop thinking this is such a good idea.

That's the same reason we don't want everyone running around packing heat. In parts of the country where people regularly pack heat, you hear a lot more stories about somebody getting drunk at a party, getting in a fist fight and then going out to their truck to get their gun and solving their dispute with handguns, and end up hurting the other party to the dispute, themselves, or an innocent bystander. Common gun ownership is only an effective deterrent to violence when all parties involved are thinking and behaving rationally.

More intense

[MikeMacK]

Gilmore first sued the government and several airlines in July 2002 after airline agents refused to let him board planes in San Francisco and Oakland without first showing an ID or submitting to a more intense search.

Of course, "more intense" is just airline speak for "bend over, please".

Maybe they know something we don't...

[celerityfm]

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!

Re:Maybe they know something we don't...

[joranbelar]

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.

Re:Maybe they know something we don't...

[slashrogue]

Maybe when it comes to US Passports, but there's no unified method between states for how a driver's license is made, and if there was it probably wouldn't be much of a secret.

Re:Maybe they know something we don't...

[GoodNicsTken]

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!

Yea, your right, checking for ID's would stop terrorists, and make us all safer. Oh wait, the 9/11 terrorists had there ID's checked, and they were valid ID's too, and yet it didn't stop them.

The simple fact is showing your "Papers" (sounds a bit like mother Russia that way doesn't it?) to travel in your own country has nothing to do with searching for weapons, explosives, or other devices of destruction.

Join the EFF people, it's 30 bucks.

Re:Well, the EFF will hear the argument....

[tannnk]

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."

Before anyone. . .

[smooth wombat]

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.

Re:Before anyone. . .

[Phroggy]

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!

But how else could we be sure you're not Ted Kennedy?

Lawsuit website

[tsvk]

Gilmore has a website, http://www.freetotravel.org/ with more info and court documents regarding his case against the US government.

The secret Judicial system

[Eminor]

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.

Re:Two things

[GypC]

Ah, but then the cheap arline would be a threat to national security because a terrorist could slip on and bomb/fly it into a building.

Oh, that would never happen. Take off that tinfoil hat you paranoid right-wing nut-job.

You don't need to know the law, citizen!

[gatesh8r]

If you really want to know, I can refer you to the Department of Love... currently on the sunny shores of Cuba!

Re:Well, the EFF will hear the argument....

[Anonymous Coward]

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"

In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

...uhh nevermind.

The typical American cannot read the law

[0x0d0a]

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?

Re:The typical American cannot read the law

[Saucepan]

You cannot use Fahrenheit 9/11 or the Da Vinci Code for primary source material. I see this too much.

If the GP had cited f911 to argue that Saudi Arabia is controlling the president with mind-control rays then you'd have a point. But, in f911 there are congressmen on-camera admitting that they themselves did not have time to read the PATRIOT act before passing it.

While one should always keep bias in mind when considering the source, that isn't a blank cheque to dismiss entirely any source which expresses an opinion you disagree with.

Re:The typical American cannot read the law

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The typical American cannot read the law

[donutello]

Clearly the police were wrong about the law they were trying to enforce. That is the exact reason why courts exist. To provide an impartial and neutral interpretation of the law.

The Police are part of the executive branch while the courts are part of the judicial branch.

Re:The typical American cannot read the law

[royalblue_tom]

You cannot use Fahrenheit 9/11 or the Da Vinci Code for primary source material.

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?

Re:The typical American cannot read the law

[arkanes]

Congressmen(people?) have admitted it in other forums as well. But it shouldn't matter. Are you claiming that Moore falsified those interviews? Cause thats a pretty serious alegation, far more serious than creative editing or bias. You're going to need a lot more than a bitchy website for that one.

Re:The typical American cannot read the law

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The typical American cannot read the law

[metamatic]

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.

Re:The typical American cannot read the law

[antiMStroll]

That's a symptom, not an attribute. Denying citizens even the chance of understanding shifts the foundations of democracy in a way so many people here find suprisingly, frighteningly and depressingly acceptable.

Re:The typical American cannot read the law

[macrealist]

Did Kerry vote on the PATRIOT Act? If so, for or against; and did he read it?

Did Bush sign the PATRIOT Act? If so, did he read it?

Whether either voted, signed, wrote, or read the bill, at the time it was considered (by many) as essential. 9/11 shocked everyone, and quick action was seen as more important than properly debated, methodical, slow, correct, action.

If you want to decide your vote by the PATRIOT Act, it might be better to research what the two candidates think of the Act now, and if they plan on strengthing, or to weakening it.

Re:The typical American cannot read the law

[Barlo_Mung_42]

"Hell, imagine if our President had to recite the law once a year."

oh god no. Just imagining the things that would get messed because he mangled a sentence or two makes me shiver.

Re:The typical American cannot read the law

[NeMon'ess]

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

Re:The typical American cannot read the law

[metamatic]

Hey, if they were honest about it and people still voted for 'em, I'd be happy. What bothers me is when the majority get suckered into voting for their own destruction.

Secrecy cannot become the norm.

[hellomynameisclinton]

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.

Re:Secrecy cannot become the norm.

[praedor]

But those who are under the purview of secret laws themselves know what those laws are. They have to in order to be able to properly function.

I have a security clearance, by the way, and not some cheesy little secret clearance. At no point ever was I (nor anyone else I have worked with) informed of any "special laws" that apply. The only rules/laws we need to know about is that it is illegal to divulge classified material. We are also instructed (but not by law) to not divulge related, non-classified information because of the possibility of a bad actor being able to piece together a bunch of non-classified tidbits about classified X and figuring out what classified X actually is.

No secret laws, just laws that deal with secrets. It's good enough for nuke weapon handling, it's more than good enough for terrorist or "homeland security" crap (non-secret laws, that is).

Conspiracy theory

[clean_stoner]

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.

It's not a secret to me

[sockonafish]

I've already seen this law. Anyone can see this law:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/045152493 4/ qid=1094579012/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-4743479-211 2060

Secret Laws

[ackthpt]

"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."

Re:Secret Laws

[brxndxn]

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.'

Re:Secret Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

You know the mistake your buddy made?

He didn't SHUT UP the instant he was not free to leave. You might say "I want my lawyer" (And it's a very good idea to know in advance who you are going to call), but after that, you don't say *ANYTHING*.

If the police are going to arrest you, nothing you say will stop them. But anything you say, including the mere fact that you chose to speak at all, can be used against you.

Re:Secret Laws

[praedor]

Was your friend guilty of WWB? Perhaps SWB? If your friend happens to be, errm..., of the black persuasion then the mystery is solved. He was either walking while black or shopping while black or *anything* while black. This is particularly true if you are a Florida black.

If he isn't black, then perhaps he was scruffy looking in an uptight, rightwing, nutbag religious town.

Ticket Resales

[kooshvt]

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.

Re:Ticket Resales

[tktk]

...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.

Re:Secret Laws, Secret Courts, What happened to US

[LordKazan]

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'

Re:Two things

[Proc6]

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? :/

You must be new here. [Ob Quote]

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

"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."

Re:You must be new here. [Ob Quote]

[legirons]

"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.

Re:Two things

[DruidFyr]

You do realize that all the 9-11 terrorists had proper ID, right?

Re:Two things

[Prior Restraint]

One, they're not asking keeping the law itself secret, just the reasons behind it. No problems knowing what to enforce.

Actually, the whole point of the trial is that the government refuses to disclose the regulations in question. Gilmore is suing to compel the government to disclose them.

Double Secret Probation

[digitalcaffeine]

Dean Vernon Wormer: As of now they're on Double SECRET Probation!

Problems with Gilmore's story

[daveschroeder]

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.

Re:Problems with Gilmore's story

[esnible]

... or by bus or train, entirely anonymously.

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.

Re:Problems with Gilmore's story

[gargonia]

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.

Reasonable to show id?

[isotope23]

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.

Re:We

[winkydink]

That particular bit has been ruled on by the US Supreme Court. You do not have to show a cop ID, you do have to provide your name. Check the ruling.

Re:Would you people learn to read?

[karl.auerbach]

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.

By-the-way, I did a blog entry on this situation
http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000116.htm l

Even more government creepiness...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Even more government creepiness...

[celerityfm]

Here ya go http://www.times-standard.com/Stories/0,1413,127~2 896~2375599,00.html...

Re:Fear is the true terrorist.

[DAldredge]

Then explain the protester cage at the Democratic Convention.

Re:Secret Laws, Secret Courts, What happened to US

[rewt66]

"Every recount had him winning"? BULL. Or, more particularly, revisionist history.

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.

America as a fascist state?

[revscat]

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.

Re:America as a fascist state?

[Austerity Empowers]

I think we all agree on the pricipal. Yet this "secret" law does seem to serve the interest of putting asses back in airplane seats and helping the process of getting back to "normal" economically and psychologically. It's a crime thousands of people die in an act of terrorism, it's a bigger crime if the infrastructure of the country falls apart due to induced fear. As long as this condition is temprary and fades away, I see no real harm done.

I agree it's very scary to have to show your papers, and have guys with big machine guns standing in train stations (visit Penn station at some point), and I would support any and all alternatives that could accomplish the same effect. I just can't think of any off hand except give in to the many and varied demands of anyone who waves a bomb in our collective faces, and I think that will just cause more trouble, not less.

Conservative Republican, Agnostic

Re:America as a fascist state?

[praedor]

Showing your papers doesn't make your plane ride safer. That is handled by metal detectors and x-raying or chem-sniffing luggage and carry-on. Your papers are irrelevant.

This country doesn't require papers be shown at the exits/entries to each city, at the borders of each state, and only barely requires the same at the country's borders. There is NO need to show ID for a plane ride anymore than there is to ride in a car or bus. All that matters is that you have a paid-for ticket or equivalent. Beyond that, your right to anonymous in-country travel is more important than any airline's desire to make sure you are reselling your ticket (none of their business - law of first sale takes effect). It is trying to prevent you from reselling your ticket that the airlines are interested in and that's it. They know that your papers have no way of preventing a hijacking.

The world changes.

[Anonymous Coward]

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..

Re:Fear is the true terrorist.

[mikael_j]

Meet in the middle and avoid the extremes and everyone prospers. Get caught up on the fringes and you become GWBush or Stalin.

Disclaimer: I'm european.

I'm not entirely sure that (Democrat+Republican)/2 = Middle, they both seem pretty damn far out to the right from where I'm standing..

/Mikael

Re:No..

[bandy]

The airlines started asking for ID in order to restrict use [& resale value] of frequent flyer miles as well as highly-restricted [non-refundable, etc] tickets. No security involved!

Re:Secret Laws, Secret Courts, What happened to US

[thbigr]

No.

The electorial College should be removed from the constitution. It is just bad goverment.

There is no proof there is a "secret law"

[daveschroeder]

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.

Re:Well, the EFF will hear the argument....

[b12arr0]

Seems the bigger issue is the governments request/demand that the arguments be sealed. Even if Gillmore and his attorneys were able to attend, the arguments being kept from the public is still a bad thing! Hope this doesn't become a precedent for future government hearings regarding privacy/patriotism.

Second amendment?

[OrangeTide]

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 . . .

Re:Fear is the true terrorist.

[mikeplokta]

The Democrats aren't socialist, they're a party of the moderate right wing, a bit further right than your average Christian Democrat party in Europe.

Re:Two things

[StarsAreAlsoFire]

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?

Not evil

[Safety Cap]

~ are so badly educated ~.

Education cannot be bad or good. The word you want is poorly, as in:

Seriously, if the poeple in positions of power like this are so poorly educated, we are screwed.

Re:Not evil

[Geek of Tech]

Quote:

U.N. Representative : So, Mr. Evil...
Dr. Evil : It's Dr. Evil, I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called "mister," thank you very much.

And you think there is no such thing as a bad education....

And this will become a training video

[denis-The-menace]

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.

Re:And this will become a training video

[Patrick]

he was standing at the driver's side of a vehicle on a major highway which to a reasonable observer(the officer) would indiate that he was the operator.

On the contrary, he was not charged with any traffic violations, including driving without a license. So the legality of his operating the vehicle was never in question. The officer kept asking for his "papers" with the justification, "I'm investigating an investigation." It had nothing to do with him being licensed to drive. Dudley was asked to identify himself before he had been accused of anything, before there was even probable cause to accuse him of anything.

we are better off for that ruling which defines clearly what can and can't be asked for at a roadside.

But this ruling doesn't provide that! It says that being asked to identify yourself is not self-incrimination, except in those unusual cases where it is self-incrimination, of which Dudley's wasn't one. So the cops are allowed to ask who you are, unless your name itself is incriminating. This case didn't, AFAIK, determine anything else the cops can or can't ask you.

It's pretty well established that the cops can ask to see your license (and registration) if they have some question about how you're operating a motor vehicle. That was never the issue here. Dudley wasn't driving, or doing anything else that required investigation, arrest, or a license, when the cops got to him.

Welcome to the club

[Richard_at_work]

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

Re:Welcome to the club

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:Welcome to the club

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

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.

Missing the point...

[Hamster Lover]

The 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.

A more current website

[daveschroeder]

The more current website is http://papersplease.org/gilmore/

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

The law is against the law

[wurp]

I don't care what the federal government thinks its reasons are. I wouldn't care even if the number of people killed by terrorism in the US showed up as a blip on the charts in US deaths.

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:

Article [IV.]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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.

You're wrong. See for yourself

[Rikardon]

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.

Re:Would you people learn to read?

[nigelc]

Why do you think it is "reasonable" that I need to show an ID in order to board an aircraft as a passenger (ie Self-Loading Freight)? I agree that you might want to make sure that the pilot was in fact a pilot (and not just some guy who spent last night at a Holiday Inn Express), but I really don't see what value is added by saying "Papers, please" for an airplane.

And your assertion that "the law is clear" is perhaps dubious -- that's the point of Gilmore's case, that the law is neither clear nor (perhaps) the law, so show me.

I sure as heck don't need to show ID to get on a bus or a train, or even to get into a car as a passenger. (all journeys assumed to be within the confines of the continental USA for purposes of discussion, eg I'm flying the shuttle down to NYC from Boston, or taking the Acela, or the Greyhound)

Re:Not very useful.

[danimal]

yes, the current one is available at Papers Please.

You are an ignorant fuck dribble

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Two things

[tsg]

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),

The likelihood of terrorists gaining control of an airliner with box cutters again is essentially nil. The entire plan depended on the passengers believing they might live if they cooperated. Until September 11th, the majority of the flying public couldn't even conceive of someone using a 767 as a missile and the primary concern for hijackings was the lives of the passengers. It should also be noted that most of the hijackers had valid ID.

Some manner in which the plane cannot be flown by terrorists as the control over the aircraft leaves as soon as its taken over.

Very simple. Lock the cockpit door and don't open it. Even if the hijackers threaten to kill everyone on board unless the pilot opens the door, he has no reason to believe they will survive if he does.

Re:sheesh

[Sloppy]

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?

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.

By the same logic, why even have drivers licenses, if you can simply refuse to produce it?

A driver uses a public resource, and needs to be accountable, since they have power (control of car) which can end up having a lot of consequences for other people. A passenger (whether on an airplane, a bus, or in a car) has comparatively little power. Thus, they have little responsibility.

Indeed, the passenger of a car is much more likely and able to influence a car (how hard is it to reach over and grab the steering wheel?), than an airline passenger is (hijacking is pretty much your only chance of changing an airplane's course, and that is very hard, especially since 9/11/1). If airplane passengers need ID, then so do car passengers.

Re:Fear is the true terrorist.

[LordKazan]

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)

There was a secret man and he had a secret smile

[alw53]

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

Try the European Passport System Fudge

[Andy_R]

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?

Re:Try the European Passport System Fudge

[slash.dt]

"Our leaders proudly announced that European Citizens no longer need passports to travel between European states"

Actually anyone can travel between European Union states without a passport. Even travelling between France (an EU country) and Switzland (a non-EU country) can often be done without needing to produce identification.

Re:We

[fishbowl]

"Out of idle curiosity, what happens if I lie, and do so very blatantly?"

Well, you can be charged with obstruction of justice or for making a false statement to a peace officer.

If you refuse to identify yourself, that's something else entirely. You can insist that the officer identify YOU, but when you do this, you are agreeing to let them hold you for a period of time (between 24 and 72 hours), while they do this.

It's probably better to just give your name. Choose your fights. You won't win this one.

Re:Two things

[Ashyukun]

Pilot's response: "Better that than another few thousand people on the ground." *click*

You missed the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Kafka, illiteracy, and Bush's CIA guy

[kzinti]

Oh that Kafka, he's a scary one.

Considering he's been dead for 80 years, I think it would be damned scary to have Franz Kafka knock on my door in the middle of the night!

Rant...

[nuclear305]

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.

I RTFA

[Undefined Parameter]

... 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

I went and saw for myself

[roystgnr]

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.

The US Govt. won't let me fly ...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Two things

[phliar]

the cheap arline [that doesn't screen] would be a threat to national security because a terrorist could slip on and bomb/fly it into a building.

Point: A fake drivers' license may be obtained in reasonably large cities for around $50. A fake passport for some minor tiny country can't be more than a couple of hundred dollars. The gate agent that checks the "government issued ID" is just a regular person with no access to any special secret ID checking machinery. (I could just as well use a passport from the Kingdom of Ruritania as long as it looked impressive and had seals and stamps.)

So how does requiring this easily faked document prevent terrorism?

You don't even need a fake ID. If I were a terrorist legally in the country and without prior arrests etc., I could just use my regular ID -- just as the 9/11 hijackers did.

Explain to me again why "Your papers, please" prevents terrorism?

Actual Recount Information from the NYT site

[Transient0]

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.

Could Gore have stopped 9/11?

[tepples]

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?

Re:Could Gore have stopped 9/11?

[erroneus]

It is pure speculation to presume that a different person may or may not have reponded to the 9/11 attacks. We can, however, hold people accountable for what they have DONE.

The measures taken after the 9/11 attack would have done little to nothing to prevent it if these measures were in place prior to the attacks.

We have done more to erode our own rights as citizens and less to control our borders. And frankly, I don't care if a citizen is a suspected terrorist or not. It doesn't warrant making our country into a police state. The best way to deter terrorism is by not giving into them. A lot of innocent people will be hurt and killed, but eventually, it would be clear that we don't change for terrorists because of their terrifying actions. If they felt their actions were useless, they'd be less likely to take useless actions and more likely to take useful ones.

fuck the whole thing

[t_allardyce]

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.

Re:Here's a hint for you

[herc_mk2]

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.

Re:Yes..

[macdaddy]

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.

Oh Great Post Moron. . .

[GoodNicsTken]

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.

Re:Fear is the true terrorist.

[bnenning]

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)

Er, that's pretty much the definining tenet of libertarianism. Subject to frequent debates about what your rights actually are and what actions violate them, of course.

Peeling back legal precedent 2000 years

[4of12]

"Ignorantia legis non excusat."

was established at least as far back as Roman times.

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:

• Might makes right.
• It's money that matters.

IT's the Law of Commerce and Alibi

[IBitOBear]

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...

Missing the Point

[tom's a-cold]

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).

Re:1984 and the current administration

[GimmeFuel]

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.

That order was rescinded in August.

[front]

That order was rescinded:

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=News&templ ate=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentI D=72299

"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

Blame the War Powers Act

[flyneye]

C'mon does this really surprise anyone?
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 ,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.
Might as well take up drinkin,I swear......