Slashdot Mirror
Government Asks Court to Keep ID Arguments Secret
RobXiii writes " CNN has a story on privacy advocate John Gilmore (Co-founder of the EFF) taking the federal government to court, to stop the requirement of ID for in country flights. In an ironic twist, the U.S. Department of Justice is asking the court to keep its argument for the secret law secret. How are we supposed to follow a law when the law itself can't be disclosed?"
First rule of the law: You do not talk about the law.
Second rule of the law: You DO NOT talk about the law.
Free XBox, PS2
Please do not post any responses to this article.
It's a secret.
How are we supposed to follow a law when the law itself can't be disclosed?
Thats the wrong question / statement. The poster should have said:
"I refuse to obey a law that I cannot read".
For heavens sake, have you not read "The Trial"?
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
if the government argues this:
The government contends its court arguments should be sealed from public view and heard before a judge outside the presence of Gilmore and his attorneys.
Yes, tell the judge your reasons for the law... but the plaintiff and his attorneys aren't allowed to hear it. Baffling!
Find Nearby Indie Events
> for specific reasons. Persons question the redaction of this post or its original contents or its existence or <> may be held without trial. Please read the next post and forget about this one.>
"Don't worry, Citizen. We'll inform/arrest you when you break the secret laws. Trust us."
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
No matter how strong the argument may be, that the ID requirement is an excessive imposition, the compelling state interest will always win over any such argument as long as people believe that they are in danger of an air terrorism incident. In other words, don't hold your breath.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
How are we supposed to follow a law when the law itself can't be disclosed?
Errr... ummm... trial and error? (pun intended)
I don't know about you, but more and more I feel like I'm in one of those countries that the U.S. fights to "Get rid of their evil totalitarian regeim."
I wonder at what point the general american populous will realize that things have gone bad. I would say right now that more than 80% of the population is still in the dark about these problems creeping up.
My own mother doesn't believe me when I tell her about all of it.
Of course, "more intense" is just airline speak for "bend over, please".
RTFA: "The government contends its court arguments should be sealed from public view and heard before a judge outside the presence of Gilmore and his attorneys."
T!
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!
starts talking about how Gilmore is making a big deal about presenting his ID, remember this: the hijackers of the various planes on 9/11 used their own names. They did not try to hide who they were.
If my name is not on one of the secret lists the government maintains how is showing my ID with my real name going to stop me from doing anything? I'm not a list!
Besides, if I'm going to crash a plane (or car, boat, whatever), or use whatever vehicle as a mobile bomb, into a building or public gathering, why should I care if I use my real name or not? I'll be dead anyway.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Gilmore has a website, http://www.freetotravel.org/ with more info and court documents regarding his case against the US government.
The government contends its court arguments should be sealed from public view and heard before a judge outside the presence of Gilmore and his attorneys.
We also have a secret law that secret hearings are fair and just. Anyone who disagrees with our secret policies will go to a secret jail.
If you really want to know, I can refer you to the Department of Love... currently on the sunny shores of Cuba!
Karma whorin' since 1999
...uhh nevermind.
And how accessable is legalese? How many people can read and understand the legal codes that govern their lives? Our legal code is absolutely huge, even ignoring case law that forms the precedent portion of it. Hell, the PATRIOT Act didn't get read by the legislators responsible for passing it -- do you expect the *people* to do so?
May we never see th
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.
"You are under arrest, please come along quietly."
"I haven't done anything! What am I being charged with?"
"We can't tell you."
"What about my Miranda rights?"
"Ok, you may or may not be under arrest."
"I want to contact my lawyer."
"Sorry, where you're going to be held no lawyers are permitted."
"What?!? You can't do that!"
"Ah, but we can and have, it's for the good of the country, you'll understand."
"Oh, well, if it's for the good of the country... but..."
"But what?"
"The country is not the government, but people like me, how can the people be arrested and tried in secrecy for their own good?"
"You ask too many question *fwit*"
"What did you just do?"
"I played the Patriot Card, by questioning the policies and actions of the goverment you're patriotism is now officially called into doubt!"
"Unbelievable!"
"It's a brave new world."
"I'll still need to let my family know I've been arrested."
"Sorry, can't let you do that, either, it might endager their patriotism."
"How?"
"If they feel the same way about this as you, they may call us into question, thus jeopardizing their standing as patriots."
"Um, how is that again?"
"It's for their own good, you see? We need to take you in and not have our policies and procedures called into question."
"Well why am I being taken in?"
"Ok, just between you and me, you'll probably be charged with possible subversion."
"For what?"
"For questioning your arrest."
"Ah."
"Come along now, we have a nice prison to keep you in."
"It's not one of those horrid places, is it?"
"Oh, no, this is run by Halliburton, it's very nice."
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
Yea that's a tough one. On the one hand I can understand consumer choice of how "violated" your privacy is to fly on an airline. On the other hand it's the federal goverment's concern when someone obtains control over the jet and crashes it into public, private and governmental buildings killing thousands. If the airline implements these requirements, then their passengers are free of the search requirement.
Since the government [theoretically] is only concerned when control leaves the airline and enters into the terrorist hands (because at that point the jet becomes a weapon), I'd prefer to see some requirements put in place that completely remove control of the jet from anyone on board and puts it in the hands of a security group on the ground as soon as there are any questionable issues on-board. Some manner in which the plane cannot be flown by terrorists as the control over the aircraft leaves as soon as its taken over.
Now that doesnt prevent someone from blowing up a jet in air, but hey, at least the damage is probably going to be a lot smaller if that happens as opposed to ramming it into the WTC.
Besides, we have Air Marshalls on jets still right? right? :/
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
"There must have been a reason," Yossarian persisted, pounding his fist into his hand. "They couldn't just barge in here and chase everyone out."
"No reason," wailed the old woman. "No reason."
"What right did they have?"
"Catch-22."
"What?" Yossarian froze in his tracks with fear and alarm and felt hiw while body begin to tingle. "What did you say?"
"Catch-22," the old woman repeated, rocking her head up and down. "Catch-22. Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing."
"What the hell are you talking about?" Yossarian shouted at her in bewildered, furious protest. "How did you know it was Catch-22? Who the hell told you it was Catch-22?"
"The soldiers with the hard white hats a clubs. The girls were crying. 'Did we do anything wrong?' they said. The men said no and pushed them away out the door with the ends of their clubs. 'Then why are you chasing us out?' the girls said. 'Catch-22,' the men said. 'What right do you have?' the girls said. 'Catch-22,' the men said. All they kept saying was 'Catch-22, Catch-22.' What does it mean, Catch-22? What is Catch-22?"
"Didn't they show it to you?" Yossarian demanded, stamping about in ager and distress. "Didn't you even make them read it?"
"They don't have to show us Catch-22," the old woman answered. "The law says they don't have to."
"What law says they don't have to?"
"Catch-22."
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
You do realize that all the 9-11 terrorists had proper ID, right?
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.
First of all, his primary question is: Do citizens currently need to show ID in order to travel in their own country?
The answer is a resounding "no". He is free to travel by foot, bike, motorcycle, car, boat, or other device himself while not violating applicable pedestrian or traffic laws, or by bus or train, entirely anonymously.
Further, in his quest to "expose" this situation, he found at one of the largest airports in the country, San Francisco International Airport, that he WAS indeed allowed to fly without ID (if he submitted to a search).
Second, because some unnamed worker for United Airlines "told him" that there was a "secret law", are we to believe that there is, then, such a "law"? That a random United Airlines employee is the ultimate fount of information on this topic? The fact that SFO would indeed allow him to fly with no ID negates his claim that ID is required by a "secret law" on its face.
Further, claims variously made by privacy advocates assert that showing ID is worthless; that the September 11 hijackers all had valid, government issued photo ID. Sure they did. But some form of identification, fake or not, gives authorities a place to start in an investigation, rather than nothing at all.
But please, even in light of that, remember: he WAS allowed to fly with no ID at SFO, and chose not to. I expect that he thought he'd find he would be denied everywhere, but then still chose not to fly at SFO simply because he didn't want to be searched and so it wouldn't stop his little "Achtung! Papers, please!" stunt before it started. That's his choice. And if you'd argue against a search, then you might as well argue against ALL security measures at airports.
Just out of curiousity, why do you think it is reasonable to show ID to board a plane?
How exactly does that make you safer? If we were serious about airplane safety, I'd say make the cockpit a SEPERATE compartment with no access from the passengers. You realize the hijackers had and showed valid ID to board don't you? It could easily happen again as long as they pick people with no previous "alerts" tied to them. Showing ID does nothing for security.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
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.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Part of Gilmore's complaint is that there are no visible regulations or laws that compel the presentation of identification papers. In other words, not only is the law not clear, it is not clear that there is a law at all.
m l
By-the-way, I did a blog entry on this situation
http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000116.ht
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
For those with short memories: Gore asked for a recount of certain precincts. He got it. He gained a few votes, but was still losing Florida. In other words, after that recount, Gore lost the election.
Gore then asked for another recount of certain other precincts. He gained a few more votes, but still lost. So he asked for yet another recount. At this point, Bush filed suit, saying that Gore shouldn't get to selectively recount, cherry-picking his precincts. The Supreme Court agreed, 7-2. (They also ruled, 5-4, that it was too late to ask any more.)
The only recount Gore one was the one that the press conducted, which took months and recounted the whole state. Gore won that one by two votes. Ironically, Gore never actually asked for that recount.
So get off your rhetorical high horse and look at what actually happened. Every recount most certainly did NOT have Gore winning.
Here is my hypothesis: America, laregly due to fear first brought about by the cold war and now due to terrorism, has largely abrogated its dedication to a fair justice system, robust liberties, and a government that the people can meaningfully change through the democratic process. As a result, 21st century America shares more characteristics with traditional fascist states (viz. communist Russia c. 1975) than with secular democracies.
Counterpoints are welcome. And to those whose first reaction might be to call me an "America hater", I can assure you that I am not. I criticize my nation because I want it to be better. That means not ignoring it's faults when they are obvious to all.
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..
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
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
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.
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.
One balmy May evening back in 2000, Dudley was standing around minding his own business when all of a sudden, a policeman pulled-up and demanded that Dudley produce his ID. Dudley, having done nothing wrong, declined. He was arrested and charged with "failure to cooperate" for refusing to show ID on demand. And it's all on video.
On the 22nd of March 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Dudley's case, a case that will determine whether Dudley and the rest of us live in a free society, or in a country where we must show "the papers" whenever a cop demands them.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
- Hold suspects on terrorism charges for long periods of time or indefinately without trial
- Present secret evidence to the court, without the defendant or the public knowing what that evidence was or even that it was presented
Sources: Secret Courts and Detention LawI believe in rule of law. Without rule of law you have a priviledged class that gets away with pretty much anything, a middle class that can muddle through, and a minority of people who just get fucked because no one cares and the executive branch can do whatever they want. And if we're going to have rule of law, the first thing the feds have to do is follow the constitution.
I quote some pretty smart people:
No gov't official in the US has the right to stop me and search me without a good reason to believe I'm doing something wrong. No matter what. They don't even have the right to dictate that someone else search me before they can provide me some service. It's against the constitution, and if they want to change that there is a process for making constitutional amendments.
On the contrary, Gore lost nearly every recount by every common standard. Unlike you, I'm not making an empty assertion and don't expect people to take my word for it. The New York Times has a web page where you can do the recounts yourself. Choose your standards for hanging chads, optical ballots, observer agreement, whatever you like. It's been awhile since I did this, but IIRC all but one permutation returned Bush as the winner. Sometimes, admittedly, by a small margin. But to assert that Gore won every recount is simply not true.
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.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
Disclaimer: I'm another US Citizen
The Republican party has been usurped by massive right wingers- People who think the Seperation of Church and State doesn't exist, people which thing supply-side economics work, and that might-make's right -- they think that getting ou the guns is the first option, and that if you have a different opinion than the president (protected by 1st ammendment) then you're a 'traitor'
The republican party is MASSIVELY right wing
ps on the authitarian->libertarian y, and liberal-conversative x axis plot the libertarians would got in the conservative/libertarian quadrant -- but i find most libertarians naive: the do not understand the concept of right vs license (ie the only protected exercises of a right are those exercises which don't violate the rights of others), and they don't have any conception of required-minimum public services for a functional electorate (Such as unbiased public education)
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
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!
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!
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.
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?
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
After reading several posts claiming that the NYT site showed GWB winning under every (or nearly every) permutation and several claiming exactly the opposite to be true i took it upon myself to actually investigate all 24 available permutations.
Surprisingly, exactly half of them resulted in a Bush victory and half in a Gore victory. The largest margin of victory of any permutation was 493 votes (Gore) and the smallest 2 votes (Bush).
That is all. It is sad to see both sides directly linking to a data source while at the same time making ridiculously inaccurate claims about the information therein.
lysergically yours
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.
Given the secrecy of laws you'll pardon me for missing the legal interpretation where John Ashcroft repeals the Magna Carta and re-established the Divine Right of Kings and Bushes.
I guess we're going to nice simple system, easy-to-understand, based on only two precepts:
"Provided by the management for your protection."
This is a republic, not a democracy. Abridging the rights of a minority group is not OK, even if a majority group supports the idea.
live(free) || die;
That order was rescinded:
l ate=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentI D=72299
http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=News&temp
"WASHINGTON, DC - The American Library Association (ALA) today welcomed the Department of Justice's decision to rescind its request that the Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents instruct depository libraries to destroy all copies of five Department of Justice publications addressing forfeiture. The Justice Department claimed that the documents are "training materials and other materials that the Department of Justice staff did not feel were appropriate for external use." ALA disagreed with this categorization of the public documents, two of which are texts of federal statutes, and with the instruction to destroy them. ALA trusts that there will be no repetition of such unjustified instructions to destroy government information."
Though you are right in bringing it up to show what sort of "creepiness" they are trying to get up to.
cheers
front