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."
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
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
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
Why would you be any safer if everyone around you had an ID card? What are you going to do, hold it up in front of you as a shield against harm? Why are you safer if you know who you are travelling with?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
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?
Unfortunately, it just goes on and on...
If there is "even a small chance" you are talking to a terrorist then we should all have our phone calls monitored.
If there is "even a small chance" of terrorism then we should all be forced to carry identification papers.
If there is "even a small chance" you may have searched for porn then we all should have our Google searches stored and analyzed.
You may want to ignore the minor issues, but eventually they will become major issues and then it will be too late.
My thought: we should start working on an Amendment to Constitution that makes a "Right to Privacy" explicit instead of depending on the judicial branch's interpretation of the 4th Amendment. At least it would be a worthwile campaign unlike the never ending battle to create an amendment to ban flag burning at gay marriage ceremonies. This is not my idea, by the way, this was proposed by Dan Savage in a NYT editorial last year (I think).
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
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.
Rights inline? As far as I know, you can still skate without having to have ID.
Better have health insurance, though...
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?
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.
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!
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.
I thought that the TSA employees were federal employees now. When I fly domestically not checking in luggage nobody is checking my ID except TSA. The only ID check that is being done is at the security line to get to the gates. No one checks ID when I get onto the plane anymore.
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.
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!
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.
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
You're missing Gilmore's point, which was not that the government had no right to ask for ID, but rather that a free people should not be subject to secret laws. He asked to see the statute that allowed them to check for IDs, and they refused to show it to him. If they can do this, than they can claim ANYTHING they want is authorized by the secret law. For instance, airport security could claim that attractive women are required to give screeners oral sex to prove they are not terrorists, or else they will not be allowed to board the plane. This is very different from a traffic citation, wherein the officer will state the specific statute violated on the ticket, which can then be looked up in any library.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
psssst: The US Constitution already does this:
Amendment X
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.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
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.
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.
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
it's not fascism if we do it.
I'm betting the agent was just blowing him off. Her job says to check for ID, not get into a debate over policy, and she's probably had enough angry customers to deal with earlier in the day.
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.
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.
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"
Mohammed Atta had a passport and credit cards, and there's no indication that he was reluctant to show them as he got on a plane at Logan airport on 9/11. Same with the shoe bomber.
Maybe checking ID doesn't really help.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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 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.
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.
The word citizen, in the Constitution, is only used in reference to appointment requirements, voting, and... citizen rights. The existence of the word in the Constitution itself does imply that if the word citizen is applicable to a phrase, it would have been used. Hence, "We the People of the United States of America" means, basically, us. Videlicet, who lives here. IANAL, of course.
Ninjas and pirates. How piquant.
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.
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.
No. That will just exacerbate the problem. The twisted logic people keep using -- assuming that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant you some right, then you don't have it -- is utterly wrong. It's backwards!! And it confirms the fear of the original framers that were opposed to adding the "bill of rights" in the first place: that it could be construed to mean that citizens' rights are limited to those that were spelled out.
So - where in the Constitution is the GOVERNMENT granted the right to know the identity of travellers? Where is this type of authority implied? Regulating interstate commerce is authorized, but that only applies to goods transported across state lines.
The point is, you have the right to travel anonymously because the government has NO RIGHT to stop you.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I am less concerned about having to show ID at the airport than I am about things like CAPS-II which could deny people the right to travel. While the court did not rule on CAPS-II, this opinion seems to make it harder to challenge these larger policies.
If you go and read the Supreme Court majority opinion in "Plessy v. Fergusson" you will be struck by how seemingly narrow and reasonable the ruling seems to be on the surface, and yet when you see how it became the foundation for segregation in our society. So too although this ruling seems on it surface reasonable and narrow, it seems to allow the government to take away certain forms of interstate travel, such as by airline, without due process, and there are often circumstances (such as business trips) where the airplane has become the *only* viable means of travel across our country. While it still leaves open a challenge to CAPS-II, I am concerned that the challenge left open is sufficiently narrow to make the case difficult to argue.
No, I didn't read TFA, but I did go to Findlaw and read the opinion.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
"Wild, unfounded and paranoid speculation."
Really? You could have said the same thing ten years ago about American citizens being held indefinitely without being charged and without being allowed legal representation. It's happening now. The Bush administration justifies this action by telling us that they're only doing this to "terrorists." Yeah, great. If you're ACCUSED of being a terrorists they can make you disappear.
Twenty-five years ago it would have been laughable to suggest that the government could take away your private property without due process. Now they simply "arrest your assets" thus taking your property without giving you due process.
"Glad to see that you want to give away all of our classified information to our enemies. You *definitely* need information on how to infiltrate the NSA headquarters. Yeah. That's totally a constitutional right. And giving that information out will be so helpful."
If you read my post carefully you would have noticed that I said "any regulation that effects me." I don't care to know the floor plans to the NSA headquarters. I do have a right to know about any thing that effects me.
"It's still laughable, as it's never happened."
As I said above, people being made to disappear hadn't happened before either. American citizens are not suppose to be spied on without a court order but King Bush doesn't think the constitution is anything but a "God damn piece of paper." as he put it.
Yes, that's right. When an aid told the President that: "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
Bush replied: "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, It's just a god damned piece of paper!"
So go ahead and mock all you want but this Administration has our civil liberties in its cross hairs!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!