Let's see if we can reconstruct the chain of events, shall we? The US uses the CIA to overthrow the lawful government of Iran, and installs the Shah. Years later, the Shah is ousted in a coup d'etat and replaced with a regime unfriendly to the US (surprise). The US then uses the CIA to overthrow the lawful government of Iraq and installs the butcher Sodamn Insane. This was done to counter the influence of Iran (that fell because of interventionist policy). Next, the US uses the CIA to train Osama bin Laden and his ilk to fight the commies in Afghanistan. Then Klinton bombs him to wag the dog to avert attention from a certain stained blue dress.
Now, we complain that the enemies that we trained are out to kill the masters who trained them. Pity.
Today's issue with the USA PATRIOT (sic) Act is the fact that it is an implementation of executive authority pursuant to law martial rule of necessity in the face of a Clear and Present Danger. It does not matter that it is decades of American Hegemony and interventionist foreign policy that created the situation (or is it?)
American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 396 (1950):
The Court sustained a law barring from access to the NLRB any labor union if any of its officers failed to file annually an oath disclaiming membership in the Communist Party and belief in the violent overthrow of the government.
For the Court, Chief Justice Vinson rejected reliance on the clear and present danger test. "Government's interest here is not in preventing the dissemination of Communist doctrine or the holding of particular beliefs because it is feared that unlawful action will result therefrom if free speech is practiced. Its interest is in protecting the free flow of commerce from what Congress considers to be substantial evils of conduct that are not the products of speech at all. Section 9(h), in other words, does not interfere with speech because Congress fears the consequences of speech; it regulates harmful conduct which Congress has determined is carried on by persons who may be identified by their political affiliations and beliefs. The Board does not contend that political strikes . . . are the present or impending products of advocacy of the doctrines of Communism or the expression of belief in overthrow of the Government by force. On the contrary, it points out that such strikes are called by persons who, so Congress has found, have the will and power to do so without advocacy."
The test, rather, must be one of balancing of interests. "When particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public order, and the regulation results in an indirect, conditional, partial abridgement of speech, the duty of the courts is to determine which of these two conflicting interests demands the greater protection under the particular circumstances presented." Inasmuch as the interest in the restriction, the government's right to prevent political strikes and the disruption of commerce, is much more substantial than the limited interest on the other side in view of the relative handful of persons affected in only a partial manner, the Court perceived no difficulty upholding the statute.
So, in the current climate of a Clear and Present Danger, political speech has now been relegated to a loyalty test. A test to see if the people will blindly follow a sucession of leaders who drew us into this situation in the first place.
So now the friends of my enemies are my enemies, and the First Amendment be damned if it questions the authority of the butchers living in the District of Criminals.
While the truth about flight 93 will never be known, as the voice recorders are "missing," and the wing is in a completely different place from the rest of the wreckage (giving rise to questions as to whether it was truly shot down, instead of brought down from within), it does point out one very glaring fact:
It is the people who are personally responsible for their own safety. The "government" has neither the capability nor the incentive to protect you and me. Only we can do that.
To that end, I propose that all able bodied men and women who know how to use a personal firearm carry one. Everywhere.
While I would not have hesitated too long before flinging myself upon the hijackers in order to overcome them, I would certainly prefer to take a head shot from 25 feet.
I was working on a client server project up in Michigan. Oracle/Delphi. They had wonderful development boxes, but the rest of the company had 486 or PI machines. They were getting to the testing phase and one of the users wanted to try it out on her machine - no dice. The company was in such a tizzy because to upgrade all of their boxes it was going to be mucho buckos.
I suggested that they output the screens in html and just use a browser for read only. What a concept. For a company where the hardware is ancient, an application development environment based on Mozilla makes a lot of sense.
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act creates a federal crime of "domestic terrorism" that broadly extends to "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws" if they "appear to be intended...to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," and if they "occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." How much more vague can you possibly get? This is going to end up being carte blanche.
Any political activist that chains himself to the doors of the local courthouse can be deemed a domestic terrorist. There goes Political Speech. This is the modern Alien and Sedition Acts.
Section 411 of the Act also poses an ideological test for entry into the United States that takes into consideration core political speech.
Section 213 of the Act authorizes federal agents to conduct "sneak and peek searches," or covert searches of a person's home or office that are conducted without notifying the person of the execution of the search warrant until after the search has been completed. Section 213 also authorizes the delay of notice of the execution of a warrant to conduct a seizure of items where the court finds a "reasonable necessity" for the seizure. Normal search warrants have to be conducted under the supervision of an appointee of the one being searched and anything seized must be inventoried and the inventory given.
Under Section 215, the Director of the FBI or a designee as low in rank as an Assistant Special Agent in Charge may apply for a court order requiring the production of "any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)" upon his written statement that these items are being sought for an investigation "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." A judge presented with an application under Section 215 is required to enter an order if he "finds that the application meets the requirements of this section." Normally, an affidavit of probable cause by a 3rd party with first hand knowledge of the facts is required. No longer. As a result, Section 218 allows law enforcement agencies conducting a criminal investigation to circumvent the Fourth Amendment whenever they are able to claim that the gathering of foreign intelligence constitutes "a significant purpose." In doing so, Section 218 gives the FBI a green light to resume domestic spying on government "enemies"-a program that reached an ugly apex under J. Edgar Hoover's directorship.
Under Section 216 of the Act, courts are required to order the installation of a pen register and a trap and trace device31 to track both telephone and Internet "dialing, routing, addressing and signaling information" anywhere within the United States when a government attorney has certified that the information to be obtained is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." No affidavit of probable cause is required. Once installed on an Internet Service Provider (ISP), Carnivore devours all of the communications flowing through the ISP's network-not just those of the target of surveillance but those of all users-and not just tracking information but content as well.
Section 203 of the USA PATRIOT Act authorizes the disclosure, without judicial supervision, of certain criminal and foreign intelligence information to officials of the FBI, CIA, and INS, as well as other federal agencies, where receipt of the information will "assist the official... in the performance of his official duties." So now, when the people cannot be spied upon by domestic agencies, they will acquire information from FORIEGN intelligence agencies that are spying on us. We reciprocate by sharing with them intelligence about their citizens, upon whom they are barred from spying.
Section 412 vastly inflates the Attorney General's power to detain immigrants who are suspected of falling into a class of persons engaged in terrorism. Upon no more than the Attorney General's unreviewed certification that he has "reasonable grounds to believe" that a non-citizen is engaged in terrorist activities or other activities that threaten the national security. The A.G. can effectively detain an immigrant forever.
Not expressly stated in the Act, but already in use by the federales is the labelling of a citizen as an "enemy combatant," scooping him up without a warrant, no affidavit of probable cause, no counsel, no charges, no bail, commit him to a FISA military tribunal, try him without counsel, refuse him an opportunity to introduce evidence that can impeach adverse witnesses, find him guilty, sentence him to death and execute him.
Those of us who remember the mistakes of history are doomed to be subjected to idiots who alow them to be repeated.
There is no statutory or regulatory requirement for anyone to show a government issued ID in order to fly domestically. The only reason they can use to not board you is if you refuse to consent to a search or if you refuse to show "positive" identification.
There is a security directive (which is not published in the Federal Register, and so cannot be applied to the public) that says that if you do not show government issued ID, they can search your bags, but they are going to randomly do that anyway.
The ID requirement is from the airline's Contract of Carriage, aka Tariff. The CoC's all say "positive" identification, not "government" identification.
I fly with my Sam's Club card. I generally do not get rousted, as I display my Sam's card in a yellow six-pointed star that I hang around my neck.
One ticket agent said, "Cool, that's a good idea. Now you don't have to drag it out every time we want to see it." I asked her what she knew of Germany from 1938 to 1944 and she became very quiet.
Because I do not carry government issued ID (I can't get any because I have no SSN), I ALWAYS get searched.
Consider how long this foolishness would last if only 10% of you did the same thing I do. It take about 10 minutes for them to hand check you and your bag at the gate. Imagine 20 people at every flight having to be hand checked. Do the math, 200 minutes.
It would back up the boarding and the planes would have to leave late. The airlines could not afford this for very long and would be forced to rebel against the TSA requirements of the National Socialists currently in power. Civil disobediance at its best.
Also, if the person in front of you or behind you is pulled aside for a search, and he/she turns to you and says, "I would like to commission you as a witness. Do you accept your commission?" Please say yes. I will do the same for you. It keeps the nazis at bay when we watch over each other.
Also advise the nazis that if they touch your person with that wand or with their hands without express permission, that you will consider that to be an assault, and you have a witness. They will become very, very polite. Also, if they ask to touch your person, they can only do it with the backs of their hands. They can only search under your clothing by touch if their wand alerts. No alert, no probable cause for a more intrusive search.
For those of you sheople who think this is an imposition upon your time, I say to you: My essential liberty is more important than your temporary safety. Unless you can guarantee that I will not be subject to a terror attack if I throw away all of my rights, then get out of my way.
For those of you sheople who think that this will make it easier for terrorists, I say to you: Let me carry my pistol and I will protect your feeble arse.
There are so many things wrong with this, I can't even begin to start.
Well, I wish someone would. I'm moving to California in three weeks, and they require a thumbprint on your driver's license. I'm not comfortable with this, and I don't know what law enforcement purpose it serves, but on the other hand I really haven't been able to think of any concrete objections to it. How could it be abused? In what way is my privacy harmed? Anyone?
The issue here is that they are attempting to co-opt your personal property for public use. This cannot be done without compensation, unless you waive this; reference Article I, Section 19 of the California constitution:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 19. Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation.
I would sue the California Department of Transportation over this matter (if they are the licensing entity).
However, please note well that only California "resident" aliens are required to get a license. As a citizen of one of the states of the Union, I am not a "resident" alien. There is a difference between citizens and "resident" aliens, reference Vattel's Law of Nations, and the Constitution of Wisconsin, in the Declaration of Rights.
Also, the California Administrative Procedure Act requires that administrative agencies promulgate regulations in order to show the "general effect" of statutes, or if the agency intends to "affect substantive rights." In this case, the substantive right is my right to liberty upon the public easements that you and I grant to each other for access and egress. Check the regulations, and I will bet that the only licenses mentioned are COMMERCIAL driver's licenses, which makes sense, as artificial persons engaged in commerce upon the public easements do so as a privilege.
Practically, however, unless you are prepared to learn what it takes to stop the juggernaut of the Law Enforcement Growth Industry, I would be a good little slave and waive my right to compensation for my personal property and beg the STATE OF CALIFORNIA (which differs from the California republic), to grant me permission to use my own roads.
By the way, when you get the license, will they accept gold or silver coin in tender of payment for the debt imposed by the license fee? hmmmm? I thought not. Well, if they are making something other than gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debt, then they cannot very well be the state, can they?
What are they?
They are multi-jurisdictional municipal corporations that merely masquerade as lawful governments.
This ball of wax is akin to the "Thumbprint Signature" that banks are "requiring" of non-account holders to cash checks drawn on their bank. e.g. You pay me with a check, I take the check to your bank and try to cash it. I do not have an account, so they want my thumbprint.
The Uniform Commercial Code, within the Negotiable Instruments article, states that they can require "reasonable identification." Identification requires that they have some record against which a comparison can be made. Thumbprint collection does not fall into this category, as they do not have my thumbprint on file, so they cannot do a comparison in order to use it for identification.
The issue is that they are collecting evidence in anticipation of a crime. Because the multi-jurisdictional municipal corporations that masquerade as governments cannot lawfully compel you to provide a thumprint (self-incrimination), the banks cannot force this type of information collection.
However, it is difficult to fight this legal battle as it stands. The way I approach this is to say: Fine, I will allow the bank to borrow my private property until the check is finally cashed. I will provide the thumbprint in order to cash this check so long as the bank enters into an agreement with me that it will not release my private property to anyone. The check, when finally processed, will be released to me, or it will be destroyed in my presence, and further the bank agrees that should my private property be released to any 3rd party without my written permission, they are liable to me for $1M in the event of a breach of contract.
I do this because if I put my thumbprint on a check, it could end up at a crime scene tomorrow.
Now, the bank is in a conundrum. It can refuse to safegaurd my personal property, but then it is not I who has refused to provide a thumbprint, it is they who have refused to exercise reasonable care when I entrust them with my personal property.
If they refuse to cash the check under these circumstances, I sue their customer (you) for issuing a check that your bank refuses to accept and pay under the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code. I cannot sue the bank, as I am not their customer.
In such a case, your cause of action is against your bank, for failure of fiduciary responsibility. So you sue them, and the banks end up having to drop this foolishness.
Alcohol prohibition was not repealed because of public debate. Alcohol prohibition was repealed because the Department of Justice had to handle 70,000 civil complaints filed each year for breaches of civil rights under color of law by their enforcement officers.
Yes, I do offer to open an account so that I can be a customer and not have to post a thumbprint, but they do not want to open accounts for citizens who have no SSN.
The new and improved Alien and Sedition Acts?
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 1
He who fails to learn from the lessons of history is doomed to repeat them.
http://www.constitution.org/rf/vr.htm The Virginia Report, J.W. Randolph, ed. (1850) -- Documents and commentary arising out of the controversies attending the Alien and Sedition Acts, including the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 and the Virginia Resolution of 1798, which set forth the "Doctrine of '98" concerning constitutional interpretation, and led to the "Revolution of 1800", the dominance of the Jeffersonians, and the demise of the Federalist Party.
The issue is not whether sensitive information should or should not be disseminated - it should not. The issue is precisely WHAT comprises sensitive information.
It is beyond the authority of CONgress to make such a determination, when the information fails to cross the line past which enemies are given strategic or tactical information.
Is W channelling George Orwell, or just plagerizing him?
By the way, on what day precisely did CONgress declare this current War?
Google suppresses liberty
on
Mr Anti-Google
·
· Score: 1
This article, linked from the RKBA site shows that Google chooses not to do business with the "gun culture."
http://www.bowmansbrigade.com/google1.htm
Not that I am a member of the "gun culture." I just believe that I have the right to keep and BEAR my arms on my person without the permission of the municipal corporations that masquerade as governments.
Google refuses to contract with gun stores to be "featured" sites. This limits the liberty of all Americans.
Anarchy is an absense of any organized government. Neither I, nor anyone I know advocates such a thing. I just want the beast back in the box surrounded by the Constitution.
As to your first issue:
I do not see any reason for me to participate in a National ID system. Nor do I see that it has any benefit vis a vis security issues.
No matter what kind of ID is being proposed, imposed, whatever, it can be faked, duplicated, forged, whatever. So it immediately loses its usefulness.
Given the fact that I cannot be required to produce any identification unless a criminal investigation is underway (Brown v Texas), I see no need to submit to a registration system akin to tatooing some number on my arm, as was done to some of our forebears.
Revelation (13:16-17) warns against the mark of the beast "in your hand" (like an ID) or "in your forehead" (as though reciting from memory), in order to be able to buy or sell.
It is hard enough for me to live in the land of my birth without an SSN. Why are you so determined to make it impossible?
I responded point for point to your post. Read each of your paragraphs and then mine.
Why would you want criminals to know that people must be unarmed in a particular type of establishment?
That's almost as bad as a sign out in front of a school that says "Gun Free School Zone."
As far as I am concerned that creates a posted "Victim Rich Kill Zone."
Mass shootings are minimized in states where people can carry their arms freely.
If only 10% of the teachers at Columbine had been armed, how many kids would have been saved?
Instead, you create a place where people must be defenseless. Do you seriously think that criminals will check their guns at the door?
Your premise is that security is a function of the state.
My premise is that the state has no capacity or incentive to make us secure--except to enslave us. The responsibility to protect ourselves, our kin and our nation is ours alone.
A cell phone dialing 911 or a Sig 239? I know what I would prefer.
The solution is for the people to accept personal responsibility for their own security and carry their handguns.
I don't have a driver's license and cannot get one. Cops will have to be satisfied with the ID that I made myself and attested to by two people I know. I do not need a license to travel upon the public easements we grant to each other for access and egress. Check the original acts of your state legislature (not the code) to see that it is artificial persons engaged in commerce that are being regulated.
I have no SSN because of my religious beliefs and colleges or corporations cannot discriminate against me due to these beliefs.
Identification is not the issue. I can make an affidavit with a photograph and my name and address on it, have two witnesses who know me attest that the information is correct, put a notary seal on it, laminate it, and presto - ID. It satisfies all requirements of same. I do not see that I need to register as a "resident alien" in the land of my birth.
The solution is not further restriction of my liberty. My essential liberty is far more important than your temporary safety. You cannot show me how I would be safer if I were to participate, so I will not participate. My liberty will not be compromised. Neither you nor CONgress have that authority.
There are already laws on the books (The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended) that are being eroded day by day by idiots who pretend to place my safety as a priority. I value my safety, which is why I carry a Sig 239.
You must be kidding that "this can't happen in America." Sorry, it already has. Japanese internment camps. Ruby Ridge, Waco, OKC (the American Reichstag) and now the Pearl Harbor (that they most certainly knew about and did not prevent) of 9/11/2001. The government has already been overthrown, or can you please give me the date and time that CONgress declared "War on Terrorism?"
Here is what I want: I will carry my pistol because it is my personal responsibility to protect and defend myself, my kin, and my nation. I want people like me to be able to carry our pistols onto airplanes and anywhere in public that we want. The "authorities" have neither the capability nor the incentive to protect us. Only we can do that.
Or would you prefer to abdicate this responsibility?
paranoia Pronunciation Key (pr-noi) n. A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason. Extreme, irrational distrust of others.
If there is someone persecuting you, then you cannot be paranoid. qed
The clue here is in the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Register Act. The APA says that in order for a body of "basic law" to have "general effect" or to "affect substantive rights," the administrative agency must promulgate regulations. No regulations, no enforcement.
The RA says that the complete text of all regulations must be published. No exceptions. The Security Directives between the FAA and the airlines are not published. Erego, they cannot affect substantive rights, such as the right to be free from "unreasonable" search and seizure.
The rub is that the Supremes define "reasonable" as just about anything that CONgress says it is.
The administrative agency promulgates regulations by proposing them for comment. Then CONgress and the public will review them. CONgress can either vote against the regulations, or let them go into effect by doing nothing. In this manner, the regulations are de facto acts of CONgress.
Also, there is the matter that there is a difference between national law and federal law (the difference between Article I, Section 8 (I:8) and I:8:17/IV:3:2). Read Balzac v Porto Rico, Hooven & Allison v Evatt, and Downes v Bidwell. Pay close attention to Harlan's dissent in the Downes case - quite prophetic.
In order to discern which acts of CONgress are limited in territorial jurisdiction to the federal zone, and which laws apply to you and I within the states of the Union, check the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules in the Index volume of the Code of Federal Regulations. The regulations listed are those that have "general effect" (within the states).
For grins, take a look at the enforcement statutes within Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code). Now go to the PTAR and note well that all of the criminal statutes (willful failure to file, tax evasion), are referenced to Title 27 in the PTAR. Title 27 is ATF.
If you want learn more about the proper application of the law, see http://www.lawresearch-registry.org
The Contract of Carriage is the agreement between you and the airline. You buy the ticket, you agree to the terms and conditions of the contract.
The ariline must file its CoC with the FAA. This CoC becomes known as the tariff. Contract law is defined by the four corners doctrine. Within the four corners is the contract. Nothing outside can be assumed.
Within the CoCs that I have read, there are only a few reasons that the airline can use to deny boarding to a passenger. Within this set of reasons is the ID requirement, however, they all say "positive" identification, not "government" identfication.
When I fly, I use my Sam's Club card. It has my picture on it, although the name is misspelled.
I can only be refused boarding if I refused to present any "positive" identification. As there is no definition of this term in the contract, it is vague and thereby unenforcable.
Are you a Fully-Informed Passenger?
Did you know there is no Act of Congress or FAA regulation that requires you to display upon demand Government-Issued photo ID for domestic flights?
Is this America, or is this AmeriKa?
Ask any Holocaust survivor if (s)he felt safer because everybody had to show their papers upon demand.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin (1759) -
Title 49 United States Code.
Sec. 44902. - Refusal to transport passengers and property
(a) Mandatory Refusal. -
The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall prescribe regulations requiring an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier to refuse to transport -
(1) a passenger who does not consent to a search under section 44901(a) of this title establishing whether the passenger is carrying unlawfully a dangerous weapon, explosive, or other destructive substance; or
(2) property of a passenger who does not consent to a search of the property establishing whether the property unlawfully contains a dangerous weapon, explosive, or other destructive substance.
(b) Permissive Refusal. -
Subject to regulations of the Administrator, an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier may refuse to transport a passenger or property the carrier decides is, or might be, inimical to safety.
(c) Agreeing to Consent to Search. -
An agreement to carry passengers or property in air transportation or intrastate air transportation by an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier is deemed to include an agreement that the passenger or property will not be carried if consent to search the passenger or property for a purpose referred to in this section is not given.
Title 49 United States Code.
Sec. 44901. - Screening passengers and property
(a) General Requirements. -
The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall prescribe regulations requiring screening of all passengers and property that will be carried in a cabin of an aircraft in air transportation or intrastate air transportation. The screening must take place before boarding and be carried out by a weapon-detecting facility or procedure used or operated by an employee or agent of an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier.
(b) Amending Regulations. -
Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, the Administrator may amend a regulation prescribed under subsection (a) to require screening only to ensure security against criminal violence and aircraft piracy in air transportation and intrastate air transportation.
(c) Exemptions and Advising Congress on Regulations. -
The Administrator -
(1) may exempt from this section air transportation operations, except scheduled passenger operations of an air carrier providing air transportation under a certificate issued under section 41102 of this title or a permit issued under section 41302 of this title; and
(2) shall advise Congress of a regulation to be prescribed under this section at least 30 days before the effective date of the regulation, unless the Administrator decides an emergency exists requiring the regulation to become effective in fewer than 30 days and notifies Congress of that decision.
14 CFR 107.1 Applicability and definitions.
(b)(6) Sterile area means an area to which access is controlled by the inspection of persons and property in accordance with an approved security program or a security program used in accordance with Sec. 129.25.
14 CFR 107.20 Submission to screening.
No person may enter a sterile area without submitting to the screening of his or her person and property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area under Sec. 108.9 or Sec. 129.25 of this chapter.
14 CFR 108.9 Screening of passengers and property.
(a) Each certificate holder required to conduct screening under a security program shall use the procedures included, and the facilities and equipment described, in its approved security program to prevent or deter the carriage aboard airplanes of any explosive, incendiary, or a deadly or dangerous weapon on or about each individual's person or accessible property, and the carriage of any explosive or incendiary in checked baggage.
(b) Each certificate holder required to conduct screening under a security program shall refuse to transport--
(1) Any person who does not consent to a search of his or her person in accordance with the screening system prescribed in paragraph (a) of
this section; and
(2) Any property of any person who does not consent to a search or inspection of that property in accordance with the screening system prescribed by paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Except as provided by its approved security program, each certificate holder required to conduct screening under a security program shall use the procedures included, and the facilities and equipment described, in its approved security program for detecting explosives, incendiaries, and deadly or dangerous weapons to inspect each person entering a sterile area at each preboarding screening checkpoint in the United States for which it is responsible, and to inspect all accessible property under that person's control.
(d) Each certificate holder shall staff its security screening checkpoints with supervisory and non-supervisory personnel in accordance with the standards specified in its security program.
14 CFR PART 129--OPERATIONS: FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS AND FOREIGN OPERATORS OF U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON CARRIAGE
[note: this regulation is not applicable to domestic flights within the United States.]
Can you find a mandate from Congress or from the Administrator of the FAA that authorizes the airlines to require that the people show government-issued photo ID in order to travel within the states of the Union?
The people will only retain those rights they are willing to enforce.
Are you going to retain your right or lose it?
What does this mean?
Neither Congress nor the Administrator of the FAA require you to show a government issued photo ID to anyone.
Neither Congress nor the Administrator of the FAA authorize the airlines to require you show a government issued photo ID to anyone.
The Supreme Court of the United States says that law enforcement officers can require you to show identification only if they are conducting a criminal investigation.
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)
If you show privately issued ID, instead of government issued ID, you cannot be refused boarding simply for this reason.
The statutes and regulations show that you can only be refused boarding if you refuse to consent to a search of your person or your property.
If you show a private ID, then you are assured of having your person and property hand searched by security personnel prior to boarding at the gate.
If enough of us show up without government issued photo ID, they will not have time to search us all, which means that their procedures will then be "arbitrary" instead of "regular" or "random".
I am sorry, but my essential liberty is far more important than your temporary safety.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see if we can reconstruct the chain of events, shall we? The US uses the CIA to overthrow the lawful government of Iran, and installs the Shah. Years later, the Shah is ousted in a coup d'etat and replaced with a regime unfriendly to the US (surprise). The US then uses the CIA to overthrow the lawful government of Iraq and installs the butcher Sodamn Insane. This was done to counter the influence of Iran (that fell because of interventionist policy). Next, the US uses the CIA to train Osama bin Laden and his ilk to fight the commies in Afghanistan. Then Klinton bombs him to wag the dog to avert attention from a certain stained blue dress.
Now, we complain that the enemies that we trained are out to kill the masters who trained them. Pity.
Today's issue with the USA PATRIOT (sic) Act is the fact that it is an implementation of executive authority pursuant to law martial rule of necessity in the face of a Clear and Present Danger. It does not matter that it is decades of American Hegemony and interventionist foreign policy that created the situation (or is it?)
American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 396 (1950):
The Court sustained a law barring from access to the NLRB any labor union if any of its officers failed to file annually an oath disclaiming membership in the Communist Party and belief in the violent overthrow of the government.
For the Court, Chief Justice Vinson rejected reliance on the clear and present danger test. "Government's interest here is not in preventing the dissemination of Communist doctrine or the holding of particular beliefs because it is feared that unlawful action will result therefrom if free speech is practiced. Its interest is in protecting the free flow of commerce from what Congress considers to be substantial evils of conduct that are not the products of speech at all. Section 9(h), in other words, does not interfere with speech because Congress fears the consequences of speech; it regulates harmful conduct which Congress has determined is carried on by persons who may be identified by their political affiliations and beliefs. The Board does not contend that political strikes . . . are the present or impending products of advocacy of the doctrines of Communism or the expression of belief in overthrow of the Government by force. On the contrary, it points out that such strikes are called by persons who, so Congress has found, have the will and power to do so without advocacy."
The test, rather, must be one of balancing of interests. "When particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public order, and the regulation results in an indirect, conditional, partial abridgement of speech, the duty of the courts is to determine which of these two conflicting interests demands the greater protection under the particular circumstances presented." Inasmuch as the interest in the restriction, the government's right to prevent political strikes and the disruption of commerce, is much more substantial than the limited interest on the other side in view of the relative handful of persons affected in only a partial manner, the Court perceived no difficulty upholding the statute.
So, in the current climate of a Clear and Present Danger, political speech has now been relegated to a loyalty test. A test to see if the people will blindly follow a sucession of leaders who drew us into this situation in the first place.
So now the friends of my enemies are my enemies, and the First Amendment be damned if it questions the authority of the butchers living in the District of Criminals.
Kansas
http://www.house.gov/paul/cr090502.htm
While the truth about flight 93 will never be known, as the voice recorders are "missing," and the wing is in a completely different place from the rest of the wreckage (giving rise to questions as to whether it was truly shot down, instead of brought down from within), it does point out one very glaring fact:
It is the people who are personally responsible for their own safety. The "government" has neither the capability nor the incentive to protect you and me. Only we can do that.
To that end, I propose that all able bodied men and women who know how to use a personal firearm carry one. Everywhere.
While I would not have hesitated too long before flinging myself upon the hijackers in order to overcome them, I would certainly prefer to take a head shot from 25 feet.
I would not have missed.
Who created bin Laden?
Who created Saddam Hussein?
Who created the Shah of Iran, which gave rise to the Islamic takeover of Iran?
Who created Noriega?
Look in the mirror.
Each of the above were created and installed into power by western intelligence (sic) agencies.
What do you expect bin Laden to do after we teach him to fight the commies in Afghanistan and then turn our backs on him?
What do you expect him to do after he gets bombed in a wag the dog because of a stained blue dress?
The pendulum of a half century of foreign interventionism is swinging back.
The beast has come home to roost.
I was working on a client server project up in Michigan. Oracle/Delphi. They had wonderful development boxes, but the rest of the company had 486 or PI machines. They were getting to the testing phase and one of the users wanted to try it out on her machine - no dice. The company was in such a tizzy because to upgrade all of their boxes it was going to be mucho buckos. I suggested that they output the screens in html and just use a browser for read only. What a concept. For a company where the hardware is ancient, an application development environment based on Mozilla makes a lot of sense.
Those of us who remember the mistakes of history are doomed to be subjected to idiots who alow them to be repeated.
Start
here and
here.
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act creates a federal crime of "domestic terrorism" that broadly extends to "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws" if they "appear to be intended...to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," and if they "occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." How much more vague can you possibly get? This is going to end up being carte blanche.
Any political activist that chains himself to the doors of the local courthouse can be deemed a domestic terrorist. There goes Political Speech. This is the modern Alien and Sedition Acts.
Section 411 of the Act also poses an ideological test for entry into the United States that takes into consideration core political speech.
Section 213 of the Act authorizes federal agents to conduct "sneak and peek searches," or covert searches of a person's home or office that are conducted without notifying the person of the execution of the search warrant until after the search has been completed. Section 213 also authorizes the delay of notice of the execution of a warrant to conduct a seizure of items where the court finds a "reasonable necessity" for the seizure. Normal search warrants have to be conducted under the supervision of an appointee of the one being searched and anything seized must be inventoried and the inventory given.
Under Section 215, the Director of the FBI or a designee as low in rank as an Assistant Special Agent in Charge may apply for a court order requiring the production of "any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)" upon his written statement that these items are being sought for an investigation "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." A judge presented with an application under Section 215 is required to enter an order if he "finds that the application meets the requirements of this section." Normally, an affidavit of probable cause by a 3rd party with first hand knowledge of the facts is required. No longer. As a result, Section 218 allows law enforcement agencies conducting a criminal investigation to circumvent the Fourth Amendment whenever they are able to claim that the gathering of foreign intelligence constitutes "a significant purpose." In doing so, Section 218 gives the FBI a green light to resume domestic spying on government "enemies"-a program that reached an ugly apex under J. Edgar Hoover's directorship.
Under Section 216 of the Act, courts are required to order the installation of a pen register and a trap and trace device31 to track both telephone and Internet "dialing, routing, addressing and signaling information" anywhere within the United States when a government attorney has certified that the information to be obtained is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." No affidavit of probable cause is required. Once installed on an Internet Service Provider (ISP), Carnivore devours all of the communications flowing through the ISP's network-not just those of the target of surveillance but those of all users-and not just tracking information but content as well.
Section 203 of the USA PATRIOT Act authorizes the disclosure, without judicial supervision, of certain criminal and foreign intelligence information to officials of the FBI, CIA, and INS, as well as other federal agencies, where receipt of the information will "assist the official... in the performance of his official duties." So now, when the people cannot be spied upon by domestic agencies, they will acquire information from FORIEGN intelligence agencies that are spying on us. We reciprocate by sharing with them intelligence about their citizens, upon whom they are barred from spying.
Section 412 vastly inflates the Attorney General's power to detain immigrants who are suspected of falling into a class of persons engaged in terrorism. Upon no more than the Attorney General's unreviewed certification that he has "reasonable grounds to believe" that a non-citizen is engaged in terrorist activities or other activities that threaten the national security. The A.G. can effectively detain an immigrant forever.
Not expressly stated in the Act, but already in use by the federales is the labelling of a citizen as an "enemy combatant," scooping him up without a warrant, no affidavit of probable cause, no counsel, no charges, no bail, commit him to a FISA military tribunal, try him without counsel, refuse him an opportunity to introduce evidence that can impeach adverse witnesses, find him guilty, sentence him to death and execute him.
Those of us who remember the mistakes of history are doomed to be subjected to idiots who alow them to be repeated.
There is no statutory or regulatory requirement for anyone to show a government issued ID in order to fly domestically. The only reason they can use to not board you is if you refuse to consent to a search or if you refuse to show "positive" identification.
There is a security directive (which is not published in the Federal Register, and so cannot be applied to the public) that says that if you do not show government issued ID, they can search your bags, but they are going to randomly do that anyway.
The ID requirement is from the airline's Contract of Carriage, aka Tariff. The CoC's all say "positive" identification, not "government" identification.
I fly with my Sam's Club card. I generally do not get rousted, as I display my Sam's card in a yellow six-pointed star that I hang around my neck.
One ticket agent said, "Cool, that's a good idea. Now you don't have to drag it out every time we want to see it." I asked her what she knew of Germany from 1938 to 1944 and she became very quiet.
Because I do not carry government issued ID (I can't get any because I have no SSN), I ALWAYS get searched.
Consider how long this foolishness would last if only 10% of you did the same thing I do. It take about 10 minutes for them to hand check you and your bag at the gate. Imagine 20 people at every flight having to be hand checked. Do the math, 200 minutes.
It would back up the boarding and the planes would have to leave late. The airlines could not afford this for very long and would be forced to rebel against the TSA requirements of the National Socialists currently in power. Civil disobediance at its best.
Also, if the person in front of you or behind you is pulled aside for a search, and he/she turns to you and says, "I would like to commission you as a witness. Do you accept your commission?" Please say yes. I will do the same for you. It keeps the nazis at bay when we watch over each other.
Also advise the nazis that if they touch your person with that wand or with their hands without express permission, that you will consider that to be an assault, and you have a witness. They will become very, very polite. Also, if they ask to touch your person, they can only do it with the backs of their hands. They can only search under your clothing by touch if their wand alerts. No alert, no probable cause for a more intrusive search.
For those of you sheople who think this is an imposition upon your time, I say to you: My essential liberty is more important than your temporary safety. Unless you can guarantee that I will not be subject to a terror attack if I throw away all of my rights, then get out of my way.
For those of you sheople who think that this will make it easier for terrorists, I say to you: Let me carry my pistol and I will protect your feeble arse.
There are so many things wrong with this, I can't even begin to start.
Well, I wish someone would. I'm moving to California in three weeks, and they require a thumbprint on your driver's license. I'm not comfortable with this, and I don't know what law enforcement purpose it serves, but on the other hand I really haven't been able to think of any concrete objections to it. How could it be abused? In what way is my privacy harmed? Anyone?
The issue here is that they are attempting to co-opt your personal property for public use. This cannot be done without compensation, unless you waive this; reference Article I, Section 19 of the California constitution:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 19. Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation.
I would sue the California Department of Transportation over this matter (if they are the licensing entity).
However, please note well that only California "resident" aliens are required to get a license. As a citizen of one of the states of the Union, I am not a "resident" alien. There is a difference between citizens and "resident" aliens, reference Vattel's Law of Nations, and the Constitution of Wisconsin, in the Declaration of Rights.
Also, the California Administrative Procedure Act requires that administrative agencies promulgate regulations in order to show the "general effect" of statutes, or if the agency intends to "affect substantive rights." In this case, the substantive right is my right to liberty upon the public easements that you and I grant to each other for access and egress. Check the regulations, and I will bet that the only licenses mentioned are COMMERCIAL driver's licenses, which makes sense, as artificial persons engaged in commerce upon the public easements do so as a privilege.
Practically, however, unless you are prepared to learn what it takes to stop the juggernaut of the Law Enforcement Growth Industry, I would be a good little slave and waive my right to compensation for my personal property and beg the STATE OF CALIFORNIA (which differs from the California republic), to grant me permission to use my own roads.
By the way, when you get the license, will they accept gold or silver coin in tender of payment for the debt imposed by the license fee? hmmmm? I thought not. Well, if they are making something other than gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debt, then they cannot very well be the state, can they?
What are they?
They are multi-jurisdictional municipal corporations that merely masquerade as lawful governments.
This ball of wax is akin to the "Thumbprint Signature" that banks are "requiring" of non-account holders to cash checks drawn on their bank. e.g. You pay me with a check, I take the check to your bank and try to cash it. I do not have an account, so they want my thumbprint.
The Uniform Commercial Code, within the Negotiable Instruments article, states that they can require "reasonable identification." Identification requires that they have some record against which a comparison can be made. Thumbprint collection does not fall into this category, as they do not have my thumbprint on file, so they cannot do a comparison in order to use it for identification.
The issue is that they are collecting evidence in anticipation of a crime. Because the multi-jurisdictional municipal corporations that masquerade as governments cannot lawfully compel you to provide a thumprint (self-incrimination), the banks cannot force this type of information collection.
However, it is difficult to fight this legal battle as it stands. The way I approach this is to say: Fine, I will allow the bank to borrow my private property until the check is finally cashed. I will provide the thumbprint in order to cash this check so long as the bank enters into an agreement with me that it will not release my private property to anyone. The check, when finally processed, will be released to me, or it will be destroyed in my presence, and further the bank agrees that should my private property be released to any 3rd party without my written permission, they are liable to me for $1M in the event of a breach of contract.
I do this because if I put my thumbprint on a check, it could end up at a crime scene tomorrow.
Now, the bank is in a conundrum. It can refuse to safegaurd my personal property, but then it is not I who has refused to provide a thumbprint, it is they who have refused to exercise reasonable care when I entrust them with my personal property.
If they refuse to cash the check under these circumstances, I sue their customer (you) for issuing a check that your bank refuses to accept and pay under the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code. I cannot sue the bank, as I am not their customer.
In such a case, your cause of action is against your bank, for failure of fiduciary responsibility. So you sue them, and the banks end up having to drop this foolishness.
Alcohol prohibition was not repealed because of public debate. Alcohol prohibition was repealed because the Department of Justice had to handle 70,000 civil complaints filed each year for breaches of civil rights under color of law by their enforcement officers.
Yes, I do offer to open an account so that I can be a customer and not have to post a thumbprint, but they do not want to open accounts for citizens who have no SSN.
He who fails to learn from the lessons of history is doomed to repeat them.
http://www.constitution.org/rf/vr.htm
The Virginia Report, J.W. Randolph, ed. (1850) -- Documents and commentary arising out of the controversies attending the Alien and Sedition Acts, including the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 and the Virginia Resolution of 1798, which set forth the "Doctrine of '98" concerning constitutional interpretation, and led to the "Revolution of 1800", the dominance of the Jeffersonians, and the demise of the Federalist Party.
The issue is not whether sensitive information should or should not be disseminated - it should not.
The issue is precisely WHAT comprises sensitive information.
It is beyond the authority of CONgress to make such a determination, when the information fails to cross the line past which enemies are given strategic or tactical information.
Is W channelling George Orwell, or just plagerizing him?
By the way, on what day precisely did CONgress declare this current War?
This article, linked from the RKBA site shows that Google chooses not to do business with the "gun culture."
http://www.bowmansbrigade.com/google1.htm
Not that I am a member of the "gun culture."
I just believe that I have the right to keep and BEAR my arms on my person without the permission of the municipal corporations that masquerade as governments.
Google refuses to contract with gun stores to be "featured" sites. This limits the liberty of all Americans.
I will address your second issue first:
Anarchy is an absense of any organized government. Neither I, nor anyone I know advocates such a thing. I just want the beast back in the box surrounded by the Constitution.
As to your first issue:
I do not see any reason for me to participate in a National ID system. Nor do I see that it has any benefit vis a vis security issues.
No matter what kind of ID is being proposed, imposed, whatever, it can be faked, duplicated, forged, whatever. So it immediately loses its usefulness.
Given the fact that I cannot be required to produce any identification unless a criminal investigation is underway (Brown v Texas), I see no need to submit to a registration system akin to tatooing some number on my arm, as was done to some of our forebears.
Revelation (13:16-17) warns against the mark of the beast "in your hand" (like an ID) or "in your forehead" (as though reciting from memory), in order to be able to buy or sell.
It is hard enough for me to live in the land of my birth without an SSN. Why are you so determined to make it impossible?
I responded point for point to your post.
Read each of your paragraphs and then mine.
Why would you want criminals to know that people must be unarmed in a particular type of establishment?
That's almost as bad as a sign out in front of a school that says "Gun Free School Zone."
As far as I am concerned that creates a posted "Victim Rich Kill Zone."
Mass shootings are minimized in states where people can carry their arms freely.
If only 10% of the teachers at Columbine had been armed, how many kids would have been saved?
Instead, you create a place where people must be defenseless. Do you seriously think that criminals will check their guns at the door?
Your premise is that security is a function of the state.
My premise is that the state has no capacity or incentive to make us secure--except to enslave us. The responsibility to protect ourselves, our kin and our nation is ours alone.
A cell phone dialing 911 or a Sig 239?
I know what I would prefer.
The solution is for the people to accept personal responsibility for their own security and carry their handguns.
I don't have a driver's license and cannot get one. Cops will have to be satisfied with the ID that I made myself and attested to by two people I know. I do not need a license to travel upon the public easements we grant to each other for access and egress. Check the original acts of your state legislature (not the code) to see that it is artificial persons engaged in commerce that are being regulated.
I have no SSN because of my religious beliefs and colleges or corporations cannot discriminate against me due to these beliefs.
Identification is not the issue. I can make an affidavit with a photograph and my name and address on it, have two witnesses who know me attest that the information is correct, put a notary seal on it, laminate it, and presto - ID. It satisfies all requirements of same. I do not see that I need to register as a "resident alien" in the land of my birth.
The solution is not further restriction of my liberty. My essential liberty is far more important than your temporary safety. You cannot show me how I would be safer if I were to participate, so I will not participate. My liberty will not be compromised. Neither you nor CONgress have that authority.
There are already laws on the books (The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended) that are being eroded day by day by idiots who pretend to place my safety as a priority. I value my safety, which is why I carry a Sig 239.
You must be kidding that "this can't happen in America." Sorry, it already has. Japanese internment camps. Ruby Ridge, Waco, OKC (the American Reichstag) and now the Pearl Harbor (that they most certainly knew about and did not prevent) of 9/11/2001. The government has already been overthrown, or can you please give me the date and time that CONgress declared "War on Terrorism?"
Here is what I want: I will carry my pistol because it is my personal responsibility to protect and defend myself, my kin, and my nation. I want people like me to be able to carry our pistols onto airplanes and anywhere in public that we want. The "authorities" have neither the capability nor the incentive to protect us. Only we can do that.
Or would you prefer to abdicate this responsibility?
http://www.projectsafeskies.org
... if no one is really out to get you.
paranoia Pronunciation Key (pr-noi)
n.
A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.
Extreme, irrational distrust of others.
If there is someone persecuting you, then you cannot be paranoid. qed
The clue here is in the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Register Act. The APA says that in order for a body of "basic law" to have "general effect" or to "affect substantive rights," the administrative agency must promulgate regulations. No regulations, no enforcement.
The RA says that the complete text of all regulations must be published. No exceptions. The Security Directives between the FAA and the airlines are not published. Erego, they cannot affect substantive rights, such as the right to be free from "unreasonable" search and seizure.
The rub is that the Supremes define "reasonable" as just about anything that CONgress says it is.
The administrative agency promulgates regulations by proposing them for comment. Then CONgress and the public will review them. CONgress can either vote against the regulations, or let them go into effect by doing nothing. In this manner, the regulations are de facto acts of CONgress.
Also, there is the matter that there is a difference between national law and federal law (the difference between Article I, Section 8 (I:8) and I:8:17/IV:3:2). Read Balzac v Porto Rico, Hooven & Allison v Evatt, and Downes v Bidwell. Pay close attention to Harlan's dissent in the Downes case - quite prophetic.
In order to discern which acts of CONgress are limited in territorial jurisdiction to the federal zone, and which laws apply to you and I within the states of the Union, check the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules in the Index volume of the Code of Federal Regulations. The regulations listed are those that have "general effect" (within the states).
For grins, take a look at the enforcement statutes within Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code). Now go to the PTAR and note well that all of the criminal statutes (willful failure to file, tax evasion), are referenced to Title 27 in the PTAR. Title 27 is ATF.
If you want learn more about the proper application of the law, see
http://www.lawresearch-registry.org
The Contract of Carriage is the agreement between you and the airline. You buy the ticket, you agree to the terms and conditions of the contract.
The ariline must file its CoC with the FAA. This CoC becomes known as the tariff. Contract law is defined by the four corners doctrine. Within the four corners is the contract. Nothing outside can be assumed.
Within the CoCs that I have read, there are only a few reasons that the airline can use to deny boarding to a passenger. Within this set of reasons is the ID requirement, however, they all say "positive" identification, not "government" identfication.
When I fly, I use my Sam's Club card. It has my picture on it, although the name is misspelled.
I can only be refused boarding if I refused to present any "positive" identification. As there is no definition of this term in the contract, it is vague and thereby unenforcable.
Are you a Fully-Informed Passenger? Did you know there is no Act of Congress or FAA regulation that requires you to display upon demand Government-Issued photo ID for domestic flights? Is this America, or is this AmeriKa? Ask any Holocaust survivor if (s)he felt safer because everybody had to show their papers upon demand. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin (1759) - Title 49 United States Code. Sec. 44902. - Refusal to transport passengers and property (a) Mandatory Refusal. - The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall prescribe regulations requiring an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier to refuse to transport - (1) a passenger who does not consent to a search under section 44901(a) of this title establishing whether the passenger is carrying unlawfully a dangerous weapon, explosive, or other destructive substance; or (2) property of a passenger who does not consent to a search of the property establishing whether the property unlawfully contains a dangerous weapon, explosive, or other destructive substance. (b) Permissive Refusal. - Subject to regulations of the Administrator, an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier may refuse to transport a passenger or property the carrier decides is, or might be, inimical to safety. (c) Agreeing to Consent to Search. - An agreement to carry passengers or property in air transportation or intrastate air transportation by an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier is deemed to include an agreement that the passenger or property will not be carried if consent to search the passenger or property for a purpose referred to in this section is not given. Title 49 United States Code. Sec. 44901. - Screening passengers and property (a) General Requirements. - The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall prescribe regulations requiring screening of all passengers and property that will be carried in a cabin of an aircraft in air transportation or intrastate air transportation. The screening must take place before boarding and be carried out by a weapon-detecting facility or procedure used or operated by an employee or agent of an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier. (b) Amending Regulations. - Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, the Administrator may amend a regulation prescribed under subsection (a) to require screening only to ensure security against criminal violence and aircraft piracy in air transportation and intrastate air transportation. (c) Exemptions and Advising Congress on Regulations. - The Administrator - (1) may exempt from this section air transportation operations, except scheduled passenger operations of an air carrier providing air transportation under a certificate issued under section 41102 of this title or a permit issued under section 41302 of this title; and (2) shall advise Congress of a regulation to be prescribed under this section at least 30 days before the effective date of the regulation, unless the Administrator decides an emergency exists requiring the regulation to become effective in fewer than 30 days and notifies Congress of that decision. 14 CFR 107.1 Applicability and definitions. (b)(6) Sterile area means an area to which access is controlled by the inspection of persons and property in accordance with an approved security program or a security program used in accordance with Sec. 129.25. 14 CFR 107.20 Submission to screening. No person may enter a sterile area without submitting to the screening of his or her person and property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area under Sec. 108.9 or Sec. 129.25 of this chapter. 14 CFR 108.9 Screening of passengers and property. (a) Each certificate holder required to conduct screening under a security program shall use the procedures included, and the facilities and equipment described, in its approved security program to prevent or deter the carriage aboard airplanes of any explosive, incendiary, or a deadly or dangerous weapon on or about each individual's person or accessible property, and the carriage of any explosive or incendiary in checked baggage. (b) Each certificate holder required to conduct screening under a security program shall refuse to transport-- (1) Any person who does not consent to a search of his or her person in accordance with the screening system prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section; and (2) Any property of any person who does not consent to a search or inspection of that property in accordance with the screening system prescribed by paragraph (a) of this section. (c) Except as provided by its approved security program, each certificate holder required to conduct screening under a security program shall use the procedures included, and the facilities and equipment described, in its approved security program for detecting explosives, incendiaries, and deadly or dangerous weapons to inspect each person entering a sterile area at each preboarding screening checkpoint in the United States for which it is responsible, and to inspect all accessible property under that person's control. (d) Each certificate holder shall staff its security screening checkpoints with supervisory and non-supervisory personnel in accordance with the standards specified in its security program. 14 CFR PART 129--OPERATIONS: FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS AND FOREIGN OPERATORS OF U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON CARRIAGE [note: this regulation is not applicable to domestic flights within the United States.] Can you find a mandate from Congress or from the Administrator of the FAA that authorizes the airlines to require that the people show government-issued photo ID in order to travel within the states of the Union? The people will only retain those rights they are willing to enforce. Are you going to retain your right or lose it? What does this mean? Neither Congress nor the Administrator of the FAA require you to show a government issued photo ID to anyone. Neither Congress nor the Administrator of the FAA authorize the airlines to require you show a government issued photo ID to anyone. The Supreme Court of the United States says that law enforcement officers can require you to show identification only if they are conducting a criminal investigation. Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) If you show privately issued ID, instead of government issued ID, you cannot be refused boarding simply for this reason. The statutes and regulations show that you can only be refused boarding if you refuse to consent to a search of your person or your property. If you show a private ID, then you are assured of having your person and property hand searched by security personnel prior to boarding at the gate. If enough of us show up without government issued photo ID, they will not have time to search us all, which means that their procedures will then be "arbitrary" instead of "regular" or "random". I am sorry, but my essential liberty is far more important than your temporary safety.
Forcing everyone to show identification certainly will cut down on air piracy? How? I can get an ID easily that shows I am somebody else. So can you.
Don't you think the terrorists had ID?
Did that stop them?
Is a known terrorist going to travel using ID that shows the known name?
Before people were prohibited from carrying their private handguns onto aircraft, there were NO hijackings. Ponder that.
Taking over an airliner for the purpose of using it as a missile will never happen again. Even unarmed passengers will stop it.
I would, however, prefer to take a head shot from 25 feet away. I won't miss.
http://www.projectsafeskies.org