Slashdot Mirror
Airport ID Checks Constitutional
chill wrote to mention the decision handed down from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of appeals in the case of Gilmore vs. Gonzales. The court found in the government's favour, saying "We hold that neither the identification policy nor its application to Gilmore violated Gilmore's constitutional rights, and therefore we deny the petition ... The Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation."
"You don't need to see his identification."
"Nothing for you to see here. Stick around."
Is there currently any form of travel where you don't have to submit to a "Papers Please" check? You have to have a driver's license to drive. We know about airplanes. If busses and trains also require ID, then how can you travel anonymously? I suppose that most taxi drivers won't check your id, but they'll sure want to check your checkbook before driving you cross-country.
If you can't travel anonymously, then you in fact do not have an independent right to petition your government.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Your papers ... NOW, sir.
Aside from the fact that this has nothing to do with your rights online:
I personally have no problem with this. Given even the small chance of someone attempting to do something on a plane when i'm flying, i don't see a problem with them checking my or anyone elses ID and denying someone that flight based on a suspision. Of course one can never say "this is what i would do" until they are in that situation.
IMHO: This is a relatively minor issue anyway in the big scheme of "rights." That's just me maybe...
This was a no brainer. The airline industry is a private corporation, not a federally run operation. (Yes, they are regulated by the FAA, a governmental agency). He didn't have to travel by air. It is like driving a car. It is not a right but a privledge. Travel by airline is not federal transportation, it's just more convienent.
What is more disturbing is the trend that if you walk down the street and are required to present identification by police. That is closer to the "let me see your papers" problem as there is a right to freely walk without problems.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
FC Closer
"The Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation."
Time to get out the horse and buggy, with that federal logic...
From the Website: "A decision is expected within the next few months. At stake is nothing less than the right of Americans to travel anonymously in their own countr"
I'm sorry, but case after case has shown that Anonymity is not constitutionally protected. If you can get someone to front for you (e.g. a newspaper), then they may choose to withhold your identity; possibly facing legal pentalities when they are court ordered to provide it. People seem to have this idea in their heads that Freedom of Speech == Freedom of Anonymity. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
This case states that checking ID is legal, however I am wondering if they tried the same thing against "random" baggage searches, would it hold up? According to this ruling, since there are other means of transportation, the airlines can dictate checking IDs. However, the people who are checking the IDs and the baggage work for the government, so couldn't this be considered an unconstitutional search, especially in the baggage scenario?
Johnkoerner.com
It seems your legs have become broken somehow during your temporary detention. But that's okay, you can always freely travel in a wheelchair, or some other mode of transportation.
Now, move along. Nothing to see here.
...so if they want to check your id before they let you onboard, its their right.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
I would hardly consider myself a conservative (at least in the Neocon sense), but it is a but discouraging to have individuals keep asserting "constitutional" rights which are completely illusory.
There is no constitutional right to complete anonymity, there never was. There is protection in the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure. Asking for your identification before boarding a plane is no more unreasonable than asking for your ID when making a credit card transaction, if for nothing else to ensure you are not stealing somebody else's ticket (notwithstanding the security issues).
When the EFF (or anybody else) raises a fit over something that is this unobtrusive, it makes it more difficult for voices to be heard when our government is so outside the law it feels the need to bypass warrants, even those issued from secret rubber-stamping courts. Those who argue "security above all else" simply lump civil libertarians in with nut jobs who want to be as anonymous in real life as they are when playing Warcraft.
I did some more research,and Amtrack requires a photo ID. Greyhound does not obviously require a photo id from reading their website. In practice they may have the same secret law requirements; who can say, since it's a secret?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Just because it's "legal" or "constitutional" for the government to do it doesn't mean we have to accept it.
It was "constitutional" and "legal" to own slaves, so what? Does that mean it's ok?
"Sorry, Mr. Blackguy but no where in the constitution does it state that you have a right not to be a slave to stop bitching you hippy, I know since I wrote it!" George W.
The Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation
Well, does the constitution guarantee the right to be allowed on the front of a bus? Or on a bus it all? Does it guarantee the right to visit a grocery store?
Maybe, just maybe, the DEFAULT should be that everything is allowed (isn't that called freedom?), except for those specific things that harm society in general.
"Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
My step-father was in the "decontamination zone" of a very busy airport and was stopped by airport security who stopped him to do a search. They didn't say what they were searching for. They said they were conducting the search because they received a "tip." He didn't want any trouble and had nothing to hide so he let them do what they wanted to do. They searched him right there in front of many people. They did not even offer to do it privately. Kind of embarrassing. Not sure if this is legal or not. Anyone have any info on these type of searches?
The airline industry is a private corporation, not a federally run operation.
So is the phone company. So what?
The airlines are "common carriers" and receive major subsidies from the government (in the form of airports and air traffic control, just to name two). As part of being common carriers they are limited in their ability to arbitrarily refuse passengers. They must treat all comers equally.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Pros:
Cons:
On second thought, I must stop and ask how well this will catch on; I am afraid we'll be doomed to be on the fringe forever.
--
http://wi-fizzle.com Wi-Fizzle Fo' Shizzle Dizzle!
Censorship is obscene. Patriotism is bigotry. Faith is a vice. Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
Britain is somewhat ahead of the USA in this regard. Because ID checking is legal and accepted at airports, the authorities are keen to introduce it at railway stations, before boarding a train, and on journeys by coach. From there it is only a small step to require some kind of prior notification, so that the police will know who is on a train or coach before it leaves.
I doubt that Gilmore vs Gonzales will look quite so benign if the USA goes down the same route, which it looks like doing. Then, people may find themselves legally obliged to fill out a long form before catching a train or coach to see their folks for the weekend, and wait in a queue for a couple of hours while their luggage is put through a scanner on the platform or roadside.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
Nice. The home of the free. Like they're going to stop terrorism by catching bad guys boarding planes without ID's. Any terrorist worth his or her salt would have plenty of fake ID's. I really doubt that the terrorists will be flying planes into buildings anymore, there's lots of other ways to wreak havoc. If the government and airlines were really worried about security in the air then they would seal the cockpits before any passengers boarded and not open them up until the plane has landed safely. But that would require spending money. I flew back from Texas recently and realized after boarding the plane that I had showed the security person my boarding pass from the previous flight I had taken TO Texas. "You are now not free to move about the country."
I have two problems with this decision. First, while I won't argue that there is an absolute right to anonymity, I have yet to hear an argument for the proposition that checking ID makes flying safer. The 9/11 terrorists had valid ID. If the government is using ID as a substitute for searches or X-ray or whatever is actually needed, they're kidding themselves.
The larger problem with this decision is the court's acceptance of the claim that there can be secret laws and regulations and specifically that this regulation is legitimately secret. The very idea of secret laws and regulations is inconsistent with open, democratic government. Moreover, not a shred of justification has been offered for the secrecy of this particular regulation. (The only situation I can imagine in which a secret regulation might be legitimate is when it has to mention something whose existence is a legitimate secret, but even then it would seem that the regulation could be revealed to those that it affects (since they would know about the secret anyhow) and that it should be possible to publish the regulation in a more abstract form (e.g. classifying some class of weapons).) What conceivable basis could there be for classifying a regulation requiring passengers to produce ID?
No, it's true that we are not guaranteed freedom of travel by any particular means which means I could potentially and legally be denied the right to get into someone's POV without an I.D. or something, but this is the government stepping into a private industry, regulating it and then denying us our constitutionally guaranteed rights. The government which is supposed to ensure our constitutional rights regulating our freedom of travel by denying us anonymous purchasing.
Now would we get the same ruling if we couldn't get into a taxi cab without an ID? I'm starving for examples where we can actually travel without I.D. at some point any longer. Can you still get on a bus without an I.D.? I can see a reason for traveling into the country requiring valid I.D. I can't see one for leaving and I can't see one for travel within the country. The fact that it's on a plane versus a bus is simply ridiculous and for a constitutional court to attempt to make that distinction is complete B.S. since specific modes and technologies could not and should not be addressed in constitutional law. We either have the right to travel anonymously or we don't. The mode of travel is and should be irrelevant.
Visa and Mastercard think it's unreasonable, boss. If you ask for an ID with a credit card, and that card is signed on the back, you can loose your merchant account. That's how my contract reads anyway. I think that's pretty standard though. You don't need an ID to use cash, therefore, they don't want merchants requiring it for card transactions either. Ultimately, it's the merchant that gets hung with no goods and no funds in a fraudulent transaction, so they don't really care about anything besides that.
You need a drivers license to drive a car, but you don't need to register a travel route to drive from coast to coast. Avoid toll roads (toll booths with cameras / EZPass) and your car isn't "tracked." Pay cash at the gas station and even your credit card company won't know where you've been.
Also, just because you have a driver's license doesn't mean you actually drive anywhere.
From the article:
"He asked to see the law demanding he show his 'papers' and was told after a time that the law was secret and no, he wouldn't be allowed to read it."
The constitution may no guarantee that a person be allowed to travel in any particular manner but I'm pretty sure "secret laws" are not constitutional and that is the real issue here.
US Gestapo: "Sir you are under arrest."
Victim: "What for?"
US Gestapo: "You broke the law Sir"
Victim: "What law?"
US Gestapo: "The secret law that we won't tell you about."
Victim: "I didn't know we even had secret laws!"
US Gestapo: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse Sir. Come with us."
Victim: "I want my lawyer!"
US Gestapo: "We aren't charging you Sir and you don't get to talk to your lawyer. Come with us."
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
"The Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation."
Ahem.. 9th Amendment verbatim:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
aka, just because a right is not written in the Constitution does not mean we don't have it. We do have it.
Oh and the tenth:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
To the Supreme Court we go..
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights only apply to technologies present in 1789.
All the leading justices say so.
For the same reason, that it's optional. The limitation on search and seziure has been interpreted to mean that police can just go and search your house and such for no reason, not that they can't ever search you or your things.
Also the amount of reason needed is variable. Since your home is considered to be very private, a warrant is mandidated. Cars are much less private, so probable cause is usually the standard (varies by state). Means the police need a specific reason and something to back it up, but they don't have to go in front of a judge first. Now if you go some place like a courthouse, then it's not a question, you WILL be searched, and so will your bags.
"You've been identified as having more than 1/32 of arabian heirtage, and thus is considered as a potential terrorist."
... work camp for your own protection, please step take a refreshing shower ... right this way ..."
"Before we move you to a
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
So, is there a law saying you can only have one legal identity?
This is all begging the question of how you would legally obtain an alternate valid id, that was not tracable to the real you...
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Is it me or is this a disturbing precedent? Just one step closer to "Papers, comrade" everywhere you go...
I would agree with Gilmore if it was public transportation, the government's invasion of privacy is getting out of hand, but the case had to be decided this way. Airlines are private companies: they can require their customers to balance a ball on their nose and bark like a seal if they so wish. We really need to worry when the government starts regulating what private businesses can do.
The EFF would disagree with you, oh and so would the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court has upheld anonymity throughout history, give or take. It's a subset of free speech. That's not to say that you can fly anonymous, but you can certainly speak you mind in anonymity if you wish.
The driving controversy in the case was not necessarily the ID requirement but that the regulations requiring ID are technically illegal under FAA regulations that require all regulations to be publically available. The ID requirement is secret. A secret law in a free country. Now that should give you pause.
Unbelievable. This is the US 9th Circuit? From the Peoples Republic of California? They must be "pod people". Either that or they now realize that with the changes in the Supreme Court they're going to be overturned on a regular basis and have decided that it's time for them to finally go mainstream.
I thought the issue was about the secret law that the TSA said you had to submit to. I remember a posting on /. some years ago about how the TSA was enforcing a secret law that you weren't allowed to read the text of, namely showing ID...
Actually the question is "What federal law guarantees you the right to travel by other than your own means, that is, your own feet?"
The simple answer is none, because it is a NATURAL RIGHT. E.G. people are born with the right to travel freely and should not need permission to do so. This is one of those rights which clearly should fall under the 9th and 10th amendments. Remember the constitution DOES NOT grant rights. It merely lists a few of them that the framers thought were important, and which might not be self-evident.
Sadly it seems many of these rights are not self evident to the asshats in all three branches, and to many modern americans.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
A PDF of the 9th Circuit Court Opinion is available at the link.
This guy hit the nail in the head.
Somewhere in the airlines rules there must be some rule stating that the passengers' lives are to be guarded carefully.
If you refuse to go thru the extra security check, you are a potential threat to the other passengers (who knows if you have a gun hidden somewhere?). But you DO have a choice: Either go to the extra security check, or go elsewhere.
Now perhaps the issue is not about the extra security check, but about humilliation / economical losses due to this extra security check (why would i have to be humilliated / lose additional money if i paid for the service anyway?) - case in which you could sue the airline.
I say humilliation because of the recent trend of "see-thru-clothes" devices. I'm sure that if people are given the choice between walking through the devices or be thoroughly examined, people wouldn't mind about being seen naked with an x-ray machine. It is their choice.
So, if the passengers are given a choice, there shouldn't be any fuzz about anything, don't you think?
How are we know that you are in fact an American Citizen,to whom these rights apply,if you don't prove it? Big Brother already knows you are traveling, your name is printed on the ticket.
We are all just people.
The article and the summary are missing the point. This was Gilmore v. Gonzales, not Gilmore v. the airlines. The argument, as I understand it, is that there is no published law or rule that says passengers have to show identification. The TIA says there is such a rule, but that it's a secret for security purposes. Gilmore argues secret laws are unconstitutional. I tend to agree with Gilmore.
...right after submitting this story I left for lunch and ran some errands. One of which was to transfer title to myself on a used car I just purchased from a friend, register it and get some new license plates.
At no time during the transaction with the Idaho DMV was I asked for ID. Nor was the VIN on the car verified. I merely signed the registration receipt and presented them with a pre-signed auto title. Just as a datapoint, my signature is totally illegible.
The previous time I titled a car, it was a Jeep with some seriously large tires. Being a real Jeep, there is no VIN plate on the door. The woman at the DMV was in heels and couldn't climb up to verify the VIN, so she had me do it for her. Same State, different county.
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Read the story and the case on John's website. He asked the ticket agent, "Is this an airline policy or a US Government requirement?", the agent responded, "This is a US Law." Her further asked, "May I see the law?" The response was, "No. This is a secret law."
How can anyone be expected to follow secret laws?
And that same law can then say, "You have to carry everyone, provided that they show your their ID."
Even granting airlines common carrier status, I don't see how that gives you basic constitutional rights to fly on a private corporation's plane if you don't comply with the rules.
To go back to your phone example, just because the RBOCs are common carriers doesn't give you constitutional rights to phone service.
This is old news, but (bomb + altimeter + airmail) == gaping hole in airport security. We know about it, just like we knew about lax screening at airports before 9/11. Nothing is being done. Nothing will be done until commercial airliners start to explode.
But having secret laws is totally, categorically unacceptable. There should be a Constitutional amendment against these sort of regulations. This isn't similar to a police state tactic, it is a police state tactic. There is no slippery slope; there is a motherfucking cliff that is being jumped off blindly in the hopes that there will be water instead of rocks at the bottom so we might only injure ourselves instead of dying.
English is easier said than done.
If you can't travel anonymously, then you in fact do not have an independent right to petition your government.
Can you please:
1) Explain how my inability to travel anonymously prevents my petitioning the goverment for the redressing of grievances
2) Point to where in the constitution they said you were guaranteed anonymity
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I play Nerd-Folk!
The CB App. What's your 20?
why there's so much bitterness when a Supreme Court Justice is nominated.
"The Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation."
So if I snag someone off a dark alley, rob him and kill him, it's constitutional, since, after all, The Constition does not gurantee the right to travel in dark alleys, you should've been elsewhere.
Well thanks for this precedent devoid of any logic.
since this governs your rights waiting on line for your flight.
sulli
RTFJ.
Before everyone freaks out, kindly RTFOpinion. Then you can freak out intelligently.
6 AE4C85241C517C88257101007B72EB/$file/0415736.pdf?o penelement
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A
Yes, some blithering idiot of a government employee told Gilmore there was a secret law. And yes, at trial, the government lawyers - in an act of stupidity unparalleled since Michael Brown was appointed to head FEMA - refused to admit or deny that the law existed. However, the FAA subsequently acknowledged that the law existed.
What's troubling is that Gilmore had to litigate up to the court of appeals to get the government to admit the regs existed.
If the whole point of not having secret laws is so the public is aware of the process by which the government governs, then not disclosing them until you're several years into litigation doesn't really help, does it?
The government plays a sort of shell game here - no access to the rule, no access to object to the rule because it is disclosed during litigation. Sort of like how the government tried to game the federal courts by transferring Padilla - they manufacture mootness to avoid review.
I think the 9th Circuit should have refused to let the government off here, but they did - dismissing the whole secrecy issue in a couple of footnotes. It may be that Gilmore's lawyers didn't argue that because they thought those arguments were weaker. But in the end, that's what bother me - and far more so than the identity requirement.
With 20-20 hindsight, perhaps he should have initially sought to compel production of the secret regs, and pinned the government down on that first, and then litigated its constitutionality.
But the whole right to travel argument is thin. I mean, Gilmore never tried to travel any other way? Did he take a Greyhound? Amtrak? NO! Also, Gilmore was told he could fly without ID if he subjected himself to a search. Not that it makes it any better, but still, it is not as absolute as presented.
Ultimately, this isn't as bad as Hiibel, the case that precipitated the whole "papers please" concern. In light of domestic wiretapping and civilian espionage, its clear that this administration is absurdly cavalier about civil rights (no, really, trust us... we're good guys... Four legs good, two legs bad, yada yada). The idea that this restricts Gilmore's right to travel is dubious.
And government victories over weak claims like this are what future injustices will be built upon.
As someone who flies a lot, the real problem as I've seen it is underpaid / undertrained staff who all of a sudden have authority and decide randomly to ruin people's days just to pass the time.
From (pre 9/11) "you can't buy that ticket for cash, it's against the law." "How about my credit card." "No." - so I buy the ticket over the phone to ruin her day -
To walking on a airplane with a bag of wires and batteries (audio gear) while they are practically strip searching the elderly man in front of me. On the plane I realized I had wire cutters and screwdrivers (long day) none of which was noticed while grandpa had his shorts gone through.
As a (lefty) aside, if you feel this won't be abused, remember some kids kept Ted Kennedy off the same plane he had been taking from DC to Boston for a few days. Seems the name 'Ted Kennedy' had ended up on a DHS list.
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
I'll have to say that this lawsuit was made in poor judgment. The government & business has every right to expect you to produce identification before boarding an airliner. This ID check is not unreasonable nor troublesome to any passenger. Getting stopped/delayed from boarding because a single-dimensional ID check matched on a suspect ID is just stupidity on the part of the TSA.
Being subject to having carry-on baggage searched and walking through a metal detector also is not particularly unreasonable. Neither, IMHO, would be being scanned with a hand detector and/or 'sniffer' device (to detect drugs/explosives handling). It would be normal security for what amounts to being transported in a flying bomb with no/limited in-flight security.
A strip-/cavity-search would be where I would draw the line. Unless you provide me with very detailed information about your suspicions about what I am supposedly hiding on/in my body, I am not going to cooperate in any way whatsoever. If I passed a metal detector test, a hand scanner test and a 'sniffer' test, then you will not be able to provide me with any reasonable explanation for needing a strip-search (get a warrant for a cavity-search). Barring any reasonable explanation, it is a fourth amendment buster and I will not submit to it. I will leave and expect a full refund from the airline and/or TSA (or search authority) and that they should expect a lawsuit.
For the record, I am an independent with liberal leanings. I defend my civil, political and human rights when I believe they are being threatened.
Linky
Personally, sure, having ID checks is a pain - but I think they both make sense, and more importantly, are completely constitutional. Nothing in the Constitution, or anything since, would even hint at a right to fly - or even to travel - anonymously.
Incorrect. Please read the 9th Amendment of our Constitution or go the fuck back to your A-rab lands.
For a while now, when flying domestic the airlines have not been checking ID. ID is only checked by the TSA.
Anyhow, how can checking ID possibly help stop terrorism?
1. Boarding cards, especially online are incredibly easy to fake.
2. Fake ID is easy to come by.
3. If someone has decided they are going to fly a plane into a building and kill themselves in the process why would they care about showing their ID? Or buying a ticket with their real name on it?
4. etc..
Better flight searching coming soon.
I'm sick of this "it's not a right it's a priviledge" concept. Is that really the law? I always considered it a ploy used by the DMV to scare teenagers into driving safely.
You actually more or less hit it on the button. The idea that driving is a "privilege" was an innovation of the late 1950-1960's, when motor vehicle safety advocates were trying to push certain types of safety initiatives (which were apparently more palatable if the concept of driving were reinvented.)
I did my research in Ohio, a state which didn't introduce driving licenses until 1933--well past the time of the Model T--when driving became a normal thing to do. There *were* driving laws and regulations, but, once meeting those laws and regulations (such as license plates, fitness, age...etc) any Ohioan just got into their car and drove. For the people of that time, driving was clearly a right. The creation of the driver's license didn't make it any less of a right.
Even after 1933, the motor vehicle code was littered with text that used the term "driving rights" (like...situations in which driving rights could be suspended.)
By the 1960s this language disappeared.
I vouch that, yes, historically, it was a right. One which you could lose, and one whose exercise required meeting common sense laws and regulations. As time went on, people let it become something less.
Now having said that, law dictionaries consider "right" and "privilege" to be synonymous. It's the connotative meaning of "privilege" which is being used popularly but not necessarily accurately (at least, in a legal context.) Privilege is undeniably a word used by people in power against those not (consider the fact that no one ever says "we reserve the privilege.")
The court apparently ruled that the ID requirement is not unconstitutional because the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of tranportation. This is entirely irrelevant. The Constitution is a limit on the powers of government, not a grant of rights to the people. None of the powers of government enumerated in the Constitution or Amendments give the government the power to restrict US citizens from traveling within the United States by any means they desire. In particular, the government cannot require a passport for domestic travel, yet that is what this requirement does.
Furthermore, the Constitution does not give the government the power to enact and enforce secret laws or regulations. The very concept is anathema to the Rule of Law. If the government did any legitimate power to compel domestic travellers to present identification, it could only exercise that power by publishing laws or regulations that are subject to public scrutiny and judicial oversight.
I very much hope that Mr. Gilmore will appeal this ruling.
IANAL....
119 STAT. 312 PUBLIC LAW 109-13--MAY 11, 2005
(1) DRIVER'S LICENSE.--The term ''driver's license'' means
a motor vehicle operator's license, as defined in section 30301
of title 49, United States Code.
(2) IDENTIFICATION CARD.--The term ''identification card''
means a personal identification card, as defined in section
1028(d) of title 18, United States Code, issued by a State.
(3) OFFICIAL PURPOSE.--The term ''official purpose'' includes
but is not limited to accessing Federal facilities, boarding federally
regulated commercial aircraft, entering nuclear power
plants, and any other purposes that the Secretary shall determine.
(4) SECRETARY.--The term ''Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Homeland Security.
"...any other purposes..." Hmmmmm. Kinda vague, no?
Full text of the law is here:
http://tinyurl.com/9y4gk
The above link will bring up a PDF file. Search it for "Real ID". It will take you to almost the end of the 93 page document. The law is a rider on a defense appropriations bill. There is also stuff in there to beef up US border security.
The article I read about the national ID is here:
http://tinyurl.com/aln9j
--NS
"Policing is only easy in a police state" -- Austin Hill
This is only the 9th circuit of appeals, which has been known for their poor interpretation of law in the past. It is far from over, and very likely will make it to the supreme court. Honestly I am surprised that people wouldn't expect this from the 9th circuit court.
Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
The job of *any* court is to protect individual rights. In fact, it's the only reason we have courts. It's the reason we have juries, capable of determining both law and fact. And it's the reason the Federal government, at least, can't even accuse someone of wrongdoing without the assent of a jury: to protect individuals from government.
He is only interested in upholding existing law
The judiciary is a third branch of government. It does not exist to cater to the whims of Congress. It exists to hold the Executive and Congress to the Constitution.
and existing Constitutional interpretation (such as it is).
This tradition of deferring to higher courts on "decided" matters, though it may be practical at times, is by no means required. Judges make their own decisions all the time, even most Supreme Court justices have voted to reverse decisions that were previously thought "decided".
The fact that the Federal system may not be working right, that Congress may have no interest in individual rights, etc. does not change the job of an appeals court.
Congress never has an interest in individual rights. It was never designed to. What isn't working here isn't just Congress, it's the poor quality and education of lawyers. In fact, it's that we rely on lawyers at all to tell us what our rights are. That's the real problem here.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
I guess all we will be left with is our feet..
At least until you get stopped by a cop for being 'different'.. And once again demanding your papers.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
But the secret police can arrest you if you don't.
And you'll be detained in secret. (Guantanamo or secret prisons in where ever.)
Possibly tortured in secret.
Tried in secret.
And punished in secret.
Welcome to the what the conservatives call democracy in the United States.
it's not fascism if we do it.
The airline industry is a private corporation, not a federally run operation.
As others have noted, the claim was made that this was a government rule, not an airline specific rule.
There's actually huge amounts of gray area, and I'm not sure if that's because the rule is flexible or the airlines have a lot of discretion. For instance, in Continental Airline's ID Requirements page you'll see that you could fly as a normal passenger with a non-photo ID (for instance, with a Mastercard and a Social Security Card.) I'd presume that if you did show those documents, barring the computer choosing you as a Selectee, you'd undergo normal security procedures.
The idea of requiring ID to travel started after TWA 800. Airlines "claimed" that the rule was put in place by the government as a security procedure. In reality, I don't believe the government cared about ID and travel until 9/11.
The hypothesis by some is that the airlines (who were trying to create their own rules on requring ID to travel as early as 1994) needed the requirement in order to prevent the resale of discount tickets. By forcing people to travel with the name on the ticket, those travellers unlucky enough to need to fly to Miami tomorrow had to buy the $1200 fare, as opposed to buying it off any old John Smith who bought the ticket 3 months ago for $200.
The airlines couldn't actually make up the rule themselves, at risk of cheesing off their customers, so they took advantage of the mysteriousness of TWA 800 and pretended it was a security thing required by the government.
If that's true (and I'd love to prove that) then the government happened to forget that the ID requirement was not security related at all, so it's probably not a good idea to rely on it so much. In particular because it introduces the needless contradiction that people who fly without ID are put through stricter security procedures, which implies that people with ID are somehow less dangerous than those without.
You are confused, at best.
Traveling by air is NOT a privilege. Granted, it may not be an explicit Constitutional right. But equally so, there is nothing in the Constitution to support such a decision.
Certainly, it is not a privilege by common parlance. You have the right to travel by any means affordable to you! Period.
STOP THE INSANITY! The airlines are NOT the ones request ID. Period. Full stop.
In the past, I might have chosen to disagree without being disagreeable, but radically-increasing plutocratic behaviors cause me to find that position less and less tenable. Reconsider your stance or Fuck You!
Every month we seem closer to the need for each *thinking* individual to decide how to react to this perversion. They think we are pussies. Are we? They are not stopping. It saddens me that They want this fight. Who will do what? No one nothing?
I cannot and would not presume to speak for you.
So let's stop pretending that if only Americans knew exactly what the government was doing that they would demand change, much less accountability. The Right has won by demonizing anyone who is skeptical of government power as anti-American, liberal, terrorist-sympathizing, and so on. By the time that whitebread, middle-class Americans are pissed off by the "show me your papers or go to jail for an indefinite length of time, and no we don't have to charge you with anything" state that America is moving towards, that apparatus will be too entrenched by precedent and public apathy and it will be too late to undo it completely. There may be a symbolic backlash a few years from now, but the recovery of civil rights will be less than the loss, and the progression will be ever downward.
Freedom requires a skepticism of government power. Every law, every prerogative of the police, every restriction, has to be greeted with a raised eyebrow and "why do you need that power?" for freedom to survive in society. That spirit is hard to find in Americans, and you can't kindle it in someone who doesn't have it.
One of my first jobs was with an electronics company that made circuit boards for cameras that went in police cars. If the flashing lights were on, then the camera was on. My second week on the job I remember the boss saying that the police departments had requested a modification--they wanted a way to turn off the camera while the flashing lights were still on. The first thing that popped into my mind was "why would they want to turn off the camera?" My entire political philosophy is built up from that question, but if your instincts are more trusting and credulous when it comes to government, then the question would never occur to you. Freedom requires skepticism of government motives. People have to understand and believe that, like Lord Acton said, power does corrupt. Not might or could, but does.
Schedule B
...
Constitution Act, 1982
Enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11, which came into force on April 17, 1982
PART I
Canadian charter of rights and freedoms
6.(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
here are some more unconstitutional laws: Requiring ID at the movie theater to verify age. Requiring ID when buying alcohol Requiring ID when buying cigarettes Requiring ID when buying firearms Requiring ID in order to get a drivers licence and so on and so forth. As has been pointed out, there's nothing unconstitutional about requiring someone to present their identification in order to get access to a service. What WOULD be unconstitutional is if you could be arrested for the "crime" of deciding not to show your ID. In other words, say I go to buy beer, or a movie ticket, or board a plane. The clerk asks me for ID, I say no and attempt to walk out. A cop tackles me and drags me off to jail, based solely on the fact that I did not present my ID. THAT would be unconstitutional. As long as I still have the right to say no and walk away, none of my rights are being violated.
Actually, it says "These are the things that the Government is allowed to do." Anything that the Constitution doesn't specifically grant the Legislature, the Executive, or the Judiciary is entirely outside their authority. Unfortunately, however, the framers of the Constitution employed a number of ambiguous phrases, such as the "elastic clause", which can be (mis)interpreted to grant nigh-infinite powers to various Government branches, limited only by the few explicit statements of rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights themselves.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
I'm still waiting for the supporters of the 2nd Amendment to rise up against the tyranny of the government. After all, they're partly to blame for this administration.
1> George Bush will be called a wanna be dictator who will take away your rights
Well isn't he?? Saying that he is above the law and can execute wiretaps as he chooses on any american?? And if you disagree you are either "unpatriotic" or "a terrorist"??
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
"Our laws are not generally known; they are kept secret by
the small group of nobles who rule us. We are convinced
that these ancient laws are scrupulously administered;
nevertheless it is an extremely painful thing to be ruled
by laws that one does not know."
Completely off topic, but I have a proposal:
Lost (especially misdirected) baggage should accumulate frequent flier miles, creditable to you when (if) you get them back.
I've flown a lot in the last year, and if this rule were implemented I think I'd increase my frequent flier miles by 50% or so.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
There, the Bill of Rights (amendments to the Constitution) specifically state that other rights may exist and just because they aren't specifically mentioned does not mean they do not exist.
BY THE PEOPLE
So, any judge who says that there is not a Constitutional Right to "X" is lying.
for american democracy. Run away federal power, secret prisons, the death of habeas corpus, military courts, checks that bounce instead of balancing and now the effective death of privacy? You have no one but yourselves to blame. At least you still have your beloved second ammendment - you can always blow your head off. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin "If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking is freedom." --Dwight Eisenhower
Thanks, RAH.
And, worse (bold is again mine):
Let's quickly recap what this all means in handy bullet-point format:
This court case tells us there are secret laws on the books, and we as citizens covered under them are not privy to them. This is bad, bad news.
The consitionality of refusal to submit to id checks is not in it self the problem. "The" problem is the morality and legality of said checks as well as the morality and legality of said persons who proposed said checks without saying what the problem(s) with the 'old' system(s) Were. I'm much more concerned about drivers than I am about the slight chance my plane may go hurtling into a building because some weredo's sliped through the cracks. I have an idea: lets apply the same paranoid zeal to everything! Want to get onto the internet? Learn to love OpenBSD. Want to breathe? Call Bush and company---personally. No realy lets just start calling him to ask if it's ok to breath, fart, bathe, shower, cook, eat, go to work, ask your boss for clarification, drive. get reemed by the Franchise Tax Board, etc. I'm shure that if enough people started doind this either: one he'd go even more nuts. Or he(they) might just might loose enough sleep to change these silly paranoid schitzofrenic laws.
The point is that certainty is missing, that secret law governs what happens, and that there is no recourse. Unlike any other transport service, I can't count on being allowed to fly, even with a contract for that service in place. Calling the airlines private at this point is silly - they are all but nationalized - bailouts whenever needed, security all but outsourced, and plenty of congresscritters to buy them the legislation they want.
And that's before I bitch about the specific requirements and creeping TOA/BB/SS/Whatever you want to call it.
For them wot care, take a look at a different view of how airline regulation, secret law, and the airline cartel's cozy relationship with government is working out.
Truly, we are approaching a situation in which certainty of contract and basic privacy is reserved for those wealthy enough to use blinds, have a share of a plane, the money to create a trust for private finance, etc. And the cost is going up.
If you feel protected, you're deluding yourself.
I forget what 8 was for.
I have always thought of the right to travel as one of the Big Three, along with bearing arms and speaking. After all, if you have those three the others tend to follow.
A guard at the border is the first thing a tyrant wants.
They didn't put "the right of a citizen to move freely among the several states, and to leave and return to the United States" in the Constitution explicitly because it underpins, and is implied by, the others. They should have, and we should do it now.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
Been there, done that.
well, number one came true.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I remember hearing (quick ref: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/006987.html) that you *are* required to show ID on demand by a law enforcement officer. I know around here (in NY) you *will* be arrested if you refuse.
Thus, there is apparently no right to even *be* in a public place without ID/anonymously, much less travel.
The right to breathe is not in the constitution... ;-)
Oh well, what the hell...
While I totally agree with you... (I refuse to even get a driver's license so I'm a certified wacko), let me tell you a little story about how asinine airport ID checks are.
My mother was added to the "terrorist watch list" at the airport a few months ago. Why? For wearing a bunch of very anti-Bush political pins and for "daring" to carry some silver dollars with her and having a copy of the constitution with her. The ID she used it one I printed up. There was nothing illegal about it. It wasn't a fake. It was just a little church ID I made up and up until that point they never bothered her using it. (They've never bothered me.)
Two trips later, my mom was given the "uber search" each time. So, I took her ID and changed the name on it to her middle name instead. Guess what? No problems since.
What's ridiculous is that the IDs I use everywhere are ones I make. I never lie. I never use them to defraud anything. But if I can do this with a $200 Epson Printer... I think well funded terrorists can do better. Seriously, this isn't about terrorism... it's about getting Americans used to exactly what you said: showing their Nazi fucking papers.
Thankfully, my mom was contacted by the ACLU the other day after a local writer put her story in an editorial and she's being brought on board a class action suit over this kind of harassment in the airports.
Say hello to the Facist States of America.
I think the real tragedy here is Mr. Gilmore's haircut.
it is of course not as simple as a matter of religion.
There is the matter of whether or not an unborn fetus is a person. Hell, there's the matter of whether or not a BORN fetus (which most of us call a "baby") is a person. Honestly. Take the RvW debate all the way to the left and the question becomes "hell, why stop at the vagina?"
The real question is whether or not the crime of premeditated murder is occuring every time a fetus is aborted. The line separating "clump of cells" from "human being" is not even close to solid and defined, and the debate about this line is more than enough for some people to demand the banning of abortion not on the grounds that God Said So, but based on the idea that every abortion may ethically be a murder.
That said, I don't agree with that view. But it's not cut-and-dried.
+++ATH0
From the Gilmore website:
This is mostly right. Travel and assembly are related. Travel and free association are related. The last argument, however, is totally specious. No one told Gilmore he couldn't go to Maryland, they only said he couldn't do it (1) by airplane (2) without showing ID. This is not unreasonable given the current so-called state of war, and in any event it's certainly not unconstitutional. Denial of a particular mode of travel is not the same as denial of travel. This is substantially what TFA said. This one is trickier. The Fourth Amendment only applies to government actors. I can decide to not let you into my birthday party until you show me ID. That's fine, and it's not unconstitutional, because I'm not the government. The first answer to Gilmore's statement is that airlines are private companies, hence not government actors. However, there's an agency argument to be made, that the airlines are acting on behalf of the government, when they comply with federal regulations. Assuming the airlines are government actors, the Fourth Amendment applies only to unreasonable searches and seizures. Reasonability of the search itself turns on whether there is a socially reasonable, legitimate, or justifiable expectation of privacy. Read United States v. Knotts . Does society at large think it unreasonable, illegitimate, or unjustifiable to have to show ID to board airplanes? The very fact that Gilmore's case is news seems to indicate the answer is 'no'. The core issue that the right to travel isn't at stake here has been obscured by rhetoric. Travel by airplane isn't a right, it's a convenience, and the constitution doesn't deal in conveniences. This is right on the money. Secret law is the purview of tyrants and dictators. If the federal government wants to regulate the airline industry by passing a law requiring ID checks, it is entirely within their power to do so.IMHO: Judges are smart, and they can see through rhetoric. This isn't an issue of freedom to travel, it's an issue of secret regulations and star chambers. The Bush administration will be remembered for two things: the so-called 'war on terror', and the vast and secret power grabs by the executive branch in order to fight that war. Maybe if Gilmore had focused his primary attack on the secret law angle, he might have had better success. Instead, he treated it as a "side issue".
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Random searches are done all the time in airports. The other day I got tested for explosive residue, also on another flight I got "patted down". However, they explained to me that you always have a right to have the search done in private if you so wish. If you deny them then they have the right to refuse you travel. This was in Australia but I'm fairly certain the same thing occurs in USA.
So in answer to your question, searching is legal, but your step-father has the right to ask the search to be done privately. I'm not sure if they have to explicitly state that though, but it should be required, because I'm sure many people don't know. I got told when they did it to me.
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
... it's only legal if the Government does this
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
Reuters - In an unprecedented, co-ordinated action in the USA, Canada, France and UK, authorities have captured more than 150,000 enemy combatants. The leaders of the rag-tag group, one Commander Taco and Cowboy Neal are still at large. When pressed for information, the Whitehouse spokesman said that he cannot comment, since all the details are secret. An unconfirmed source indicated that it concerns the discussion of classified information on a public bulletin board. We will*&@#!!$%^&)(*...[NO CARRIER]
Oh well, what the hell...
As if the airline has a choice. It would be nice to see what happened if an airline decided it no longer needed to check ID, a de facto passport, or baggage on domestic flights.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Asking for ID when making a credit card transaction IS UNREASONABLE.
I ALWAYS refure to show it.
Read it again dope. I said I showed it to the security person. You're talking about the person who collects the boarding tickets at the plane. Care to explain why you're so stupid that you type faster than your brain can process the information?
"This is where the grey area lies. The airlines should have the right to refuse to allow you to board... as long as they refund your ticket with no penalty.
If a company accepts payment for a service (such as transportation from point A to point B), then either they must provide that service or refund the payment in full."
If the contract you agreed to says you need to identify yourself when you paid the money, then you broke the contract, and therefore don't get a refund.
Vote for Pedro
Actually, I've heard an interesting quote attributed to him. This really deserves its own story, but I'll start small.
What does having and ID or not have to do with carrying a bomb on board of a plane. Are you f*cking stupid or just retarded? Sure, checking ID's will really make us completely safe, Stinky.
So since fake ID is so easy to come by, why complain when they ask for some? Just use your fake card. With your fake boarding pass if you're really hard up. Then go have a nice meal at the concourse McDonalds.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Identification does not indicate intent, never has never will.
I can see it now...."Can I have the Terrorist ID card please, I'm a bad person and I want everyone to know."
LOL, yeah right.
Why would you be any safer if everyone around you had an ID card?
Because there are some people who you do not want to fly with, and some of them are known to authorities.
Yes the no-fly list has some people on it who should not be there. But that does not mean the no-fly list is composed entirely of people you'd want to fly with.
Also is has caught some average run-of-the mill criminals before as they attempted to leave the country after comitting a crime. I'm pretty happy they were caught rather than getting away because the identities of everyone trying to baord a plane was anonymous.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So they check your ID and what good does it do?
Well for one if you've recently comitted a crime they can pull you to the side before you head off on your one-way trip to the carribean. This does happen from time to time. Locally we had a pair of kids working at a ski resort who decided to rob a bank and then head home for Australia. They picked them up before they got on the plane because they knew who they were from resort badges and picked them up by ID.
Everyone's so focused on terrorism they forget there's lots of other people you don't want to get on planes either and knowing who is who can help a great deal with that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And wholly unsuitable if you are going any great distance, are in a hurry, in inclement weather, need to carry something other than what will fit in a backpack, or any combination thereof.
For me, getting to work and back on a bike would be 4 or 5 hours of my day. And I'm sure as hell not going to haul around great big sheets of plywood in anything but the bed of my truck. And that constitutes 90% of my time on the road on weekdays and weekends, respectively.
Dyolf Knip
Oh yeah, like riding a bike is a bad thing...
1. Secret law? There's so many conflicts right there alone, this should have been the first thing in the courts, not the actual ID bit.
2. US Airport security is nothing more than a joke. It's designed to make people "feel" safer, not actually "be" safer. Big difference.
Anyone who has been to any airport knows how weak it is.
The 9/11 Terrorists realized to get past security they needed 1 thing. And they could buy it at walmart: A razor blade. As long as they shaved, they weren't suspicious.
No matter what the US does, until they thoroughly check every passenger, it's just a matter of time. The only reason we haven't had another attack, is nobody has been in the mood to attack. Nothing more. There's no possible way to dispute that. There are as many chances to attack as their are flights in the US.
No matter what the technique to security is, unless it covers everyone, and everything, they will succeed.
I love the racial profiling idea... how stupid that is. Remember this guy? Any idea what they were planning to do with him? Yea... get past security. And the State Dept. said at the time there were dozens of Americans "missing" in similar situations in that area.
Until you have 360 degrees of security, your still easily attacked. It just involves your enemy taking the extra step of walking around you first and finding that hole.
THIS is why I can't stand American politics... it's all designed to "FEEL GOOD". Nobody gets anything done.
It's political masturbation.
I have it on personal authority that this guy and Mary Mapes are pals. In fact, that where she got the fake, but accurate, National Guard papers.
Don't believe me? Well, don't believe everything you read.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"Sorry, but you can't get there from here."
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
Absolutely the right ruling.
1) you can always choose to travel by other means. Airlines are not run by the government, therefore they are not "public" entities. They are private businesses who may set their policies however they like. If their policies are draconian and restrictive (as I'm sure all the Chicken Littles crying here believe), choose a different mode of transport.
2) If you feel it's SO important and SO onerous, get George Soros to fund you and bankroll your own airline, one where there are NO SECURITY CHECKS AT ALL. Let me know in a year if you have any passengers.
Yes, how DARE private businesses enact strict policies to protect their multimillion dollar investments and the consumers who pay for the use of said systems. That's like...crazy talk!
-Styopa
The judge claims:
"it does not follow that Defendants violated his right to travel, given that other forms of travel remain possible."
So yah, you can bike across the country or get someone else to drive you the whole way. It is possible. But just as with the right to free speech a restriction on the ability to use that right is just as unconstitutional as violating that right straight out.
Unfortunately, while the opinion by Judge Paez is largely idiotic, he does have one nail which is big enough for the whole coffin.
"The identification policy requires that airline
passengers either present identification or be subjected to a
more extensive search. The more extensive search is similar
to searches that we have determined were reasonable and
'consistent with a full recognition of appellant's constitutional
right to travel.'"
The ID requirement is unconstitutional. No doubt about it. However it has this other option, "or get searched," which IS constitutional and frankly good sense. Showing an ID doesn't stop you from blowing up the plane. Hijacking kits come standard with valid photo ID. However getting thoroughly searched might stop someone. (Maybe)
So when you factor in that you can still fly without an ID his right to travel/petition aren't being violated...just abused.
This will go to the SC where it will be 9-0 against.
-Ian
It's the 9th Circuit Court, what did you expect? A judge who can tell the difference between a privilege and a right? Not in the 9th! And how disingenuous: "it's not in the Constitution". Of course not! It's in the Northwest Ordinances... specifically Article 4. And lets not forget that treaties trump anything in the Constitution. Says so right in the Constitution.
Most laws stated here as "fact" are in fact laws most likely very closeley resembling purpose/intent of laws elseware in the country do in fact differ from other states quite frequentley
The ninth amendment ONLY applies when there isn't a law authorizing the government entity to restrict something, but in this case there clearly and obviously is. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 114(s)(1)(C), the Transport Security Administration has the authority to issue secret regulations regarding security procedures at airports.
If you read the sources provided, it becomes abundantly clear that not only does the TSA have authority to issue regulations, but that (DUH) they have regulations requiring ID unless you're willing to go through other more thorough searches (which Gilmore was offered as a "Selectee").
Did you honestly think that there weren't laws in place authorizing the TSA to issue such policies? You'd have to be a moron, especially if you're a paranoid conspiracy nut, to not realize that such policies would exist.
These were all enforced by Southwest and United Airlines employees. They required ID even before these regulations anyway and constitutional rights don't apply to private organizations so it would be a moot point anyway.
Applicable here are the TSA identification policy, CAPPS and CAPPS II, and No-Fly
and Selectee lists.
Here is some information obtained from an official court document (linked below):
*"The airline security personnel could not, according to the Government, disclose to Gilmore the Security Directive that imposed the identification policy because the Directive was classified as "sensitive security information" ("SSI")."
*3. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 114(s)(1)(C) (2005), the Under Secretary of the TSA "shall prescribe regulations prohibiting the disclosure of information obtained or developed in carrying out security . . . if the Under Secretary decides that disclosing the information would . . . be detrimental to the security of transportation." This information is called "sensitive security information." 49 C.F.R. 1520.5(a) (2005). The Under Secretary classified as SSI "[a]ny security program or security contingency plan issued, established, required, received, or approved by DOT [Department of Transportation] or DHS [Department of Homeland Security], including . . . [a]ny aircraft operator, airport operator, or fixed base operator security program, or security contingency plan under this chapter" and "[a]ny Security Directive or order . . . [i]ssued by TSA." 49 C.F.R. 1520.5(b)(1)(i), (b)(2)(i) (2005).
4. The No-Fly and Selectee lists are Security Directives. They were issued by TSA pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 114(l)(2)(A) (2005), which authorizes the TSA Under Secretary to issue Security Directives without providing notice or an opportunity for comment in order to protect transportation security.
Sources:
-Gilmore v. Gonzales CV-02-03444-SI Opinion [pdf]
-TSA: How the Process Works
-TSA: Passenger Security Checkpoints
-The Status Of The Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II)
http://flexyourrights.org/
"Just say no to police searches"
This is a neat little site that details what your rights are in vasious situations, how to walk away from the police, and how to decline searches. (Basically, ask if you are free to go, if you aren't, don't say anything till you see a lawyer. Be polite.) It also has a number of useful videos for download. (samples of their DVD)
This is information every american should have.
Since a bunch of people who haven't researched the matter are relying on testimony from the man himself, I have made this automated reply debunking the completely and utter FUD.
There is no secret law. There is the law 49 U.S.C. 114(s)(1)(C) which authorizes the TSA to issue regulations that are kept secret.
Are you going to argue that you are allowed to know the security regulations of, for example, the NSA headquarters? Why should they make it any easier for you to break their security? It is obvious that they have a policy for ID checking, otherwise the the ***airline employees*** (who are the ones that did the actual checks in this case--RTFD) wouldn't be checking IDs. The details of the security procesudres are secret as "sensitive security information," however the actual information that they check IDs in the first place is NOT secret.
He was not punished or arrested. He was simply denied the ability to fly ***unless he underwent a "Selectee" process where he'd undergo more thorough checks in place of an ID***. THat's right, they gave him the chance to fly without ID if they did other checks. He refused. He did not commit a crime. No one is asserting that. He was pressed with no charges.
Quote from an official court document: "Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 114(s)(1)(C) (2005), the Under Secretary of the TSA "shall prescribe regulations prohibiting the disclosure of information obtained or developed in carrying out security . . . if the Under Secretary decides that disclosing the information would . . . be detrimental to the security of transportation." This information is called "sensitive security information." 49 C.F.R. 1520.5(a) (2005). The Under Secretary classified as SSI "[a]ny security program or security contingency plan issued, established, required, received, or approved by DOT [Department of Transportation] or DHS [Department of Homeland Security], including . . . [a]ny aircraft operator, airport operator, or fixed base operator security program, or security contingency plan under this chapter" and "[a]ny Security Directive or order . . . [i]ssued by TSA." 49 C.F.R. 1520.5(b)(1)(i), (b)(2)(i) (2005)."
Read this comment for more information.
What you are discussing is security through obscurity. It is bad in this case for the same reason it is bad for computers.
There may be a flaw in the system that allows it to be exploited. For instance, all doors in an airport may have the same code. If the details of the system are public, then such flaws may be found and removed. If the details of the system are hidden, then the bad guys may still get them in many ways (bribery, actually working at the airport, or so on; any of the ways used by spies throughout the ages).
The Dutch republic? The French republic? The Republic of Ireland? The Democratic People's Republic of Germany?
What the fuck are you talking about?
Dear Citizens of the World,
I believe the time has come to reveal to you some of the perplexities you have faced in recent decades.
It is well for you to understand some of these things so that you might know how to behave in the New Order now taking shape in the earth. We want you to be able to become fully involved and integrated into our new society. After all, this is for your best interest if you will do this.
First of all, it is well that you understand some of our purposes so that you may more fully cooperate. I cannot tell you the hard times you will face if you resist us.
We have ways of dealing with resisters. I am only telling you this now, since it is much too late to turn things around. The days of putting a stop to us have long since past.
We have full control of the earth and its finance, along with the major media propaganda, and there is simply no way any nation or power can defeat us.
We have eyes in every level of government in every nation of the world. We know what is being planned, for our ears and eyes are ever present. State secrets are fully known to us.
China recently accused the media in the U.S. of lying about Kosovo.
Oh, you silly people, of course we lie. In this way we can keep the people unbalanced and always facing controversy which is very helpful to us. Have you not seen the talk show spectacle?
Some of you believe we are the liberals and the good people are the conservatives. In reality, both serve our purposes. Each camp merely serves with the stamp of our approval but they are not allowed to present the real issues.
By creating controversy on all levels, no one knows what to do. So, in all of this confusion, we go ahead and accomplish what we want with no hindrance.
Consider the President of the United States. Even though he regularly breaks every known check on his power, no one can stop him. He goes ahead and does whatever we want him to do anyway.
The Congress has no power to stop him. He does what we want since he knows if he does not, because of his rather dark character, we can have him removed in a moment's time. Is not that a rather brilliant strategy on our part?
You cannot take us to court because you can't see us and the courts are our servants as well. We run everything, yet, you do not know who to attack. I must say this invisible hand is wonderfully devised and without any known historical precedent on this scale. We rule the world and the world cannot even find out who is ruling them.
This is truly a wonderful thing. In our media we present before you exactly what it is we want you to do. Then, as if in a flash, our little servants obey.
We can send American or European troops to wherever we like, whenever we like, and for whatever purpose we like, and you dutifully go about our business. How much more evidence do you need?
We can make you desire to leave your homes and family and go to war merely at our command. We only need to present some nonsense to you from the president's desk or on the evening news and we can get you all fired up to do whatever we like. You can do nothing but what we put before you.
Your Vain Resistance
When any of you seek to resist us, we have ways of making you look ridiculous as we have done with your militia movement. We have delighted to use this movement to show the world how impotent any resistance is.
They look so silly marching around with their guns as if they were some match for our military. Look at what we did near Waco. Did the Davidian's little store of weapons help them?
We have generously taxed you and used that money to make such sophisticated weapons you can in no way compete. Your own money has served to forge the chains we bind you with, since we are in control of all money.
Some of you think you may escape by buying some land in the country and growing a garden. Let me remind you that you still pay us ground rent. Oh, you may call it property taxes, but it still goes to us.
"the Constitution guarantees no right..."
Of course it doesn't, rights are not given or guaranteed by the Constitution, rights exist by themselves completely independent of any legal document. The Constitution merely affirms those rights, and in addition affirms those rights which aren't specifically listed (see the 9th Amendment).
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Your rather absurd example is in fact covered by the Fourth Ammendment and the penumbras of privacy if you like too. Though it is worth pointing out that you can lose that right when sent to prison or detained in jail.
Reducto ad absurdum is a bad way to make an argument.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Usually cheap to fix and insure, and you can get a better equipped model than if you bought new. Plus, you're not pissing away money trying to impress someone you don't know with a shiney new auto. Depreciation is a bitch, and used car dealers? Bahahahah...yeah...funny how those pre-owned warranties are so tough to claim against. Besides, you can shine up your used car for a fraction of the price.
Blar.
Besides, the best way to protest is to move. very. slowly. If I feel some GED-bearing TSA employee is singling me out, I just begin to talk slowly, respond slowly, walk slowly. I tell anyone who asks about it that I have a terrible migraine headache.
If everyone did this, things would change.
Blar.
Actually, it says first, "These are the ONLY things the government IS allowed to do." And then, in the amendments, it says "Here are some things it IS NEVER allowed to do."
"The Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation." First it doesn't guarantee the right to travel by any particular from of transportation, next they notice how it doesn't guarantee the right to travel at all, except in certain cases where you are traveling to accomplish something that is expressly given to us as a freedom in the constitution. This is a huge loss for personal freedoms.
Unless its a cash transaction of 10 grand ( unless that has been lowered ).
in that case they are obligated to take ID and report the transaction.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Here's an idea for a democratic poll of sorts:
Everyone choose the option to undergo stricter searches. The
airline industry would grind to a halt.
Who had to renounce their citizenship? Do you mean Padilla?
The root problem here is that public (and now, judicial) interpretation of the Constitution has shifted from "Except for these few things, you can't tell us free men what to do" to "This is the list of what you're *allowed* to do".
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Also, as of Dec. 30th, there was a bill on Gov. Bill Taft's desk, called the Ohio Patriot Act which would require citizens to show ID upon request or face being arrested.
Well, Bob (not Bill) Taft also has the lowest approval rating of any governor in the country. It's 6.5%. He wouldn't be governor at all if he weren't a Taft.
From the full opinion: "'[A] request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure.' INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216 (1984). Rather, '[a]n individual is seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.' United States v. $25,000 U.S. Currency, 853 F.2d 1501, 1504 (9th Cir. 1988)." So, even if we assume that the airlines are governmental actors for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, there's no search/seizure going on, because Gilmore was free to walk away at any time (which is what he actually did).
The terrorists that commited the 9/11 act HAD valid ID, etc. Checking for ID doesn't do anything of what they stated. Niether would the current searches, etc. In fact, many of the enacted policy items from the DHS has been "feel-good" things to make it look like the Government is "Doing Something". This is not to say that they're not actually doing some valid things (They are- but the stupid things offset all of those to make it at least a wash...), but they're scurrying about, instituting policies that wouldn't have done any better than what was in place to have prevented 9/11 from happening. There's some critical paths that aren't protected (I'm not saying what- more for reasons that we're trying to get the DHS on board with right now...) and they're in desperate need of that- we shouldn't be wasting as much of the time and energy that we are on checking ID's, searching luggage (in the manner we're doing it...), searching people (in the manner we're doing it...), etc...
Realize this one fact:
Not ONE thing instituted by the government to date from after 9/11 would have prevented it from occuring.
That's a dead certain fact. In fact, most of the government will agree with that statement, actually... Once you understand this, you see that all of this stuff we're discussing is really something to make the populace feel good- because it's "cheaper" than the real solutions in most cases.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
You'd think that, but most of the boarding agents check ID (At least on the flights I've been on, and I've flown to a lot of places since 9/11, including to the DC area... While I agree that most of the security measures in most places are largely useless, the ones the implemented for coming and going out of the DC area are, while obnoxious, something that would have been effective against a 9/11 style attack coming back into the Capital from either of the airports in the area- but they're kind of time consuming (moreso than the other stuff we've been forced to endure) and at least a little more expensive to implement.) to ensure that the person matches the boarding pass these days. Except for Southwest, which hands you this silly little plastic placard as your boarding pass.
In theory, it's a problem, but the Airlines are trying to ensure this as their own policy (I asked 'em...) for their own security. I've no problems with that one, really- it's their own policy for their own security reasons; and that's fine by me. Not for 9/11, but for liability, etc. reasons that they do this nowadays.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
That is really weird. 50% Flamebait and 50% Insightful yet it is marked as "Flamebait". Shouldn't it be "FlameSight" or maybe "InSightFlame"? And why, if it is 50/50 does Slashdot take the negative aspect over the positive? Hmmmmm..... Too many things to ponder. :-)
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
So you are telling me that I don't have the RIGHT to travel out of state? What if something in my state is illegal and I want to move to a state with more sane laws? What if the only doctor that can save my life is at a hospital in another state? Am I just out of luck. I don't understand your logic or what it's based on, but it scares me.
I agree that travelling by bus, plane, train, car, etc are not "necessary". But at the very least, I should have the right to walk wherever I want as long as I'm not breaking the laws of the land (killing, stealing, etc)or trespassing on private property. Unless you live in a large city, it is not really possible to travel by foot or bicycle because bicycles are not allowed on most interstate highways. Neither are pedestrians. There's no guarantee that you can get from point A to point B without illegally using an interstate highway or tresspassing on private property.
By your own words, you are demonstrating that the America we were "sold" in civics class and the America we actually received are two radically different places.
Just adding the obligatory IANAL disclaimer....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
To be honest, the court affirmed something that was denied as part of the basis--that you do NOT have to provide an ID. In the events leading up to this, Gilmore had been denied the right to board a plane without providing an ID, DESPITE agreeing to a search. Now it is revealed that the regulations provide for this, which is more than what was revealed before. The real problem with hidden rules is the public can't tell if they are being followed. In this case, a valuable piece of information has been provided that wasn't provided before, and NOW the ruling can be used in case someone is denied the ability to NOT provide an ID for boarding the plane.
We have that same law here in Italy. If a policeman asks you for your ID, you must provide him with it, or he will take you to the jail.
A friend of mine refused to show him his ID, and they took it to the police station, and they recorded the fact on it's criminal record. Now he won't be able to work in any public agency because he has a record.
Just for information, the aforementioned law was created during the fascism, some other european countries like France and Holland don't have anything like that.
giandrea
Last I checked we still all need PERMISSION to travel to certain countries of the GOV's choosing. Currently I think its only Cuba but who is to say that there could not be more. Is it truly freedom when I have to ask my government permission to travel to another country?
Finaly a way to get around that pesty "freedom of speech" thing as well. It does not say anything about Internet, so no rights there.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Incidentally, the "one shot explosive decompression" myth comes from the 1964 movie _Goldfinger_, and was busted in episode 10 of the Discovery show MythBusters.
I play Nerd-Folk!
"There is no secret law. There is the law 49 U.S.C. 114(s)(1)(C) which authorizes the TSA to issue regulations that are kept secret."
It makes me feel so much better that these are secret "regulations" rather than laws.
It always starts out as word games and then it gets serious. The fact that he wasn't "punished" this time doesn't mean that people won't be thrown into prison or just made to disappear when they refuse to bow down to secret "regulations" in the future.
"Are you going to argue that you are allowed to know the security regulations of, for example, the NSA headquarters?"
Yes! Absolutly an "regulation" that effects me I have a right to know about!
The scenario that I outlined would have been laughable prior to the Bush Administration but now it's a real and dangerous possibility!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Gilmore refused to show ID, so they refused to let hime fly. Had he refused to pay, the consequences would have been the same.
TFA reads to me as Gilmore is an basically attention whore.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0415 736p.pdf (warning, pdf file)
Long story short:
Asking for identification at the airport is not unduly burdomsome beacause asking for ID is reasonable, and giving him the option to be searched instead of having to produce his ID is reasonable.
The burdens on a single form of interstate travel does not implicate the fundemental right to interstate travel. Furthermore, a request for ID is not a seizure under the 4th Amendment.
Well, why don't we start requiring ID for purchases at all fast food restaurants? I'm sure it would catch a hell of a lot more criminals with outstanding warrants than just checking at the airport.
Because after they eat they are still there.
Once they are on an airplane, they are probably out of reach of the law or at least out of the jurisdiction of the police there.
It's just a slightly different case between using a transportation system that can move you thousands of miles in a matter of hours, vs. slightly lowering your life expectancy.
There actually is a much better example to use in trying to make your point, I leave you to it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Not on a domestic flight which is the only case under discussion.
If I steal money from a bank and fly to some other state it's essentially the same thing as flying overseas as far as easy apprehension goes.
By "Still there" I kind of implied the same city. I apologize for not making that clearer, I had assume since airplanes left the city you would pick up on that.
Fuck examples and analogies, you can't read them anyway. What it boils down to is that society does not exist to make police enforcement easier. You want to make life easy for the police - you get a police state.
No, that wasn't the argument that made any sense - sorry you'll have to try harder. Or not that hard since the example I had in mind is pretty freaking obvious. But then you are not interested in rational discussion, only filling you mind with hate and then releasing it on any that cross your path. Good luck with that! I reccomend avoiding salt as you'll naturally have a lot of hypertension.
I'll let you have the last word, I have no need to read any more of your oh-so witty cuss-filled conversation though as I see you are determined not to have any reasonable discussion. What a shame as I thought that was actually going somewhere.
P.S. - the example was a greyhound bus, for future reference. Next time avoid the swearing and try to have a real conversation. You can still take your life back.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Except that's EXACTLY what the neo-cons want to do. For instance, they can't pass a law to drug test everybody, but they can pass a law that any company that wants Federal business has to test their employees. They are useing EXACTLY the argument you suggested and the courts have whole-heartedly accepted that argument. Sad thing is, the civil rights movement was built on using that tool. It wasn't enough to call all men "equal" the courts kept ruling the Feds couldn't enforce the states from passing distrinimation laws. Fast forward to today and the idea of federal contract has fingers into everything. Airlines have to follow FAA directives. if the directive says make security guidelines like this, then they have to do that.. but the guidelines the airline itself makes are "secret" for security so they can't tell you.. and of course the "directive" is a "private" communication between the FAA and the airline heads so that's "secret" too. Make everybody beholden to a corporation and you can sidestep the constitution all you want!
Armed conflict is power of might over right. And minority over majority. It's , by nature, anti-democratic. And , as far as I can tell, a majority of Americans picked this administration - twice. So what you're basically saying is, if I don't agree with everyone else, I'll just have to kill them to get my way.
My point: There have been lots of bloody revolutions, most of which left things in worse shape than before. Oh, sure, they were one step to an eventual "better world", but I don't think you'd like to live in France during Robespierre, nor a businessman in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution. Speaking of that one, Russia arguably is still looking for that "better world"; I don't think it's a stretch to argue that particular revolution was for the worse.
My second point - lots of regimes have fallen in recent years due to non-violent resistance, which also seems to be very effective.
-Stu
I can't go into lengthy detail here as it would not fit... But... Get out there, watch some of the underground documentaries, pay attention. Download the recording of CNN at the Pentagon where they are talking about how there's NO PLANE THERE. This was immediately after it hit. CNN declined to ever play the clip again.
Please don't try to argue it with me here. Look for the facts yourself.
Also, in terms of current events, ask yourself how did all these emotional cell-phone calls happen before the planes hit, when they are only now outfitting airplanes with booster hardware to make cell calls available? A minor point, but a current one what with CNN stories on "oooh look, soon we're gonna be able to use cellphones on TV!"
This is all part of a global, dare I say it, conspiracy to take our rights away from us.
And remember, a conspiracy doesn't have to be a room of shadowy men in dark suits sitting in a dark room conspiring. A conspiracy can be a faceless representation of abstract ideas represented by arbitrary groups of people. The beast does not have to have a face to be real.
And remember: Bush's grandfather got wealthy doing business with the Nazi's in the 1940s! It's no coincidence. Look it up at the oldest newspaper in the country, established before 1776. I wont tell you what it is; you have to learn to find the facts yourself.
And remember: Many of the "hijackers" are alive: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/15591 51.stm
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Fuck you, society is NOT set up to make it hard for police to abuse their power. Take your fucking rose-tinted glasses off; you are the most pathetic person I've seen on slashdot all day (and I'm catching up on 4 day's reading).
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Where did you get it?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com