Airport ID Checks Constitutional 807
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."
ID Check Legal, What about baggage? (Score:4, Interesting)
Constitutional Right to Hide in a Corner (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Baggage Search (Score:2, Interesting)
two problems (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Missing the Point (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Airport security should be checking cargo, not IDs (Score:3, Interesting)
This is old news, but (bomb + altimeter + airmail) == gaping hole in airport security. [senate.gov] 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.
Re:Makes Total Sense (Score:2, Interesting)
You planning on saying that to someone in the state of Hawaii too?
Swim it!
Or perhaps you'll suggest they cross a nontrivial slice of the pacific in a raft they construct themselves? There is a good chance someone will survive if enough try.
And if they don't like it then they're just being diffult and 'choosing' to restricted to the island. Nothing the government should be concerned about.
In fact, Hawaii looks to be a great place to relocate political dissendents.
I can hear it now... "No, no, they're not "imprisoned" they can leave whenever they like... except by air... or ship. They aren't granted a constitutional right to those modes of travel after all, and so us denying them those priviledges is not really imprisonment at all! They're just choosing to stay."
Link to Opinion (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
ID checks vs. detectors vs. strip-searches... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
ID not checked anymore, and why would that help? (Score:4, Interesting)
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..
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:2, Interesting)
Drivers licenses are on the verge of becoming much less state documents, as states are facing down expensive compliance with the Real ID Act. According to the terms of this 2005 law-- which was (coincidentally?) part of a big military spending bill-- states will have until 2008 to issue federally-approved licenses and ID cards, and such ID will be required to do all sorts of things: to fly, to open a bank account, and so forth. Now, this might not constitute an official Federal ID Card, but it sure is a de facto federal ID card. States are miffed because compliance will cost many many millions of dollars of state money.
Search Real ID Act for details.
Not your father's drivers license.
how driving became a "privilege" (Score:3, Interesting)
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.")
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:0, Interesting)
I for one will not sacrifice another's son so I can live in "luxery", nor would I kill my own son for another. But this is exactly what's happening today, right now. We let the barbarians kill 3,000 of our neighboors on September 11th. You are willing to let a neighboor die so you can have this "free speech"? How arrogant of you. How selfish of you. How evil of you. The government will never kill us because we say Bush has a coffee stain on his shirt, yet you would kill your neighboor?
God commands us to revere life and to love our neighboor as we love our God, I for one would not condem God to die so that I may have sex with a snake. Would you?
This is a discussion which needs to occur, troll rate me if you must but sooner or later you will come around to my point of view.
Re:wtf (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, what Gilmore probably tried to prove (haven't seen the case briefing) was that it is Constitutionally required that citizens be able to travel in such-and-such a way without ID. I don't recall if this is established anywhere. However assuming it was, this cannot, via the Constitution, be considered a mandate to force private carriers to comply with the Constitution. That is another hurdle entirely. Getting a ruling on this matter would surely step on more than a few big toes. Also, this is really two issues: travel and ID. That's a recipe for indirection by the defense.
What we need is a case scenario where 1)this law is required by existing statutes to be available upon request (i.e. as part of a contract or something), 2)the law/directive is withheld by the government, 3)the law breaks existing statutes, and 4)the law withholds something which is linked to a Constitutional right, by intent or effect.
An even better scenario is where a carrier disobeys the government directive, the government reprimands them, and the carrier counters with a suit (the government might then open multiple cases against them to revoke their operations license). That would be like IBM telling the patent office to void their claims though. It would also really hurt any good will in Congress, which carrier corporations periodically need.
What's the real problem here? Executive orders and lesser "directives" are not well integrated into the legal system. The Executive branch is not really regulated, but it clearly needs it. Part of this has to do with foriegn policy interests, national security, and a bunch of other ares where the U.S. government is less than democratic. The Supreme Court rarely, if ever, touches executive branch directives unless they are in clear violation of the Constitution (not just any law) and previous SC rulings in particular.
So, if we need existing laws to be broken in order for this case to get to court, it is imperative that the executive branch policies be the only reason for this disjunction. The problem is, I'm not sure this has ever been established. Government action is well protected here through private business. It's a two-layer game that is difficult to play ball in unless you already have judges on your side.
ok, so by that logic... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sorry, but you're wrong... (Score:4, Interesting)
Heh. What amuses _me_ (amuses because I'm a cynical bastard) is that a US federal organization (I have no idea which one) arrested a US citizen, held him illegally without providing legal counsel, without charging him with anything in particular and without even recognizing his human rights (much less any US constitutional rights), for an extended period of time, eventually concluded he probably wasn't all that dangerous anyway, and then finally released him on the explicit condition that he renounce his US citizenship. That this became publicly known and that no one in the US really cared much about it.
Not only do US citizens not have any rights in the practical sense these days, but they don't even seem to care about it in the least.
(The idealist in me is begging for someone to speak up and prove this story to be wrong in some important way . .
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:5, Interesting)
"The lengthy piece of legislation would let police arrest people in public places who will not give their names, address and birth dates, even if they are not doing anything wrong.
WEWS reported it would also pave the way for everyone entering critical transportation sites such as, train stations, airports and bus stations to show ID."
http://nievedenoche.gnn.tv/headlines/6851/Show_ID
Most cops in any state now will arrest you for not providing name and birthdate, regardless of if there is a law requiring it.
Do what I do. (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:how driving became a "privilege" (Score:2, Interesting)
My grandfathers drivers license in Kansas cost $1. Its irrevocable, still legal and its transferrable.
Re:Ummm (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't imagine that it hasn't happened to anyone else on here. It has happened to me.
Minding your own business, causing no trouble, cops come up, and demand your papers. They detail you, question you about your intentions in a particular location and use your identification to establish if you have any wants, warrants, or are a known criminal type who may be in the area to cause trouble.
Unamerican, huh?
Two years ago, exactly this happened to me.
One night, my girlfriend, some friends, and I wanted to go play pool and have a couple drinks. We walked down to Charles Billards, at 222 N. Brand Blvd, Glendale, CA [google.com]. It's a nice area, with no real crime to speak of. The house we lived in at the time was less than a mile from here, so we frequently walked the area. Charles has a bouncer at the front and back door to keep kids out, being that they do serve alcohol also.
I stepped outside to smoke, and talk to a kid with a motorcycle. It was a nice bike, and a good excuse for a cigarette break. The others stayed inside and kept playing.
We had a nice conversation, and after a few minutes the guy with the bike left. I stayed outside smoking my cigarette. I was in plain view of the bouncer, standing where I was obviously causing no trouble.
Two police officers pulled up dramatically, and demanded my identification. "It's inside, the bartender has it.", I explained. Policy at Charles is that you give them your ID, and they'll give you the pool balls. I told them either they could check with the bartender for it. They refused. They continued for about 30 minutes, where I was searched, threatened with arrest, bullied, and otherwise harassed me.
I made the mistake of asking "What did I do?"
I did nothing. According to the police, I "fit the discription of someone they were looking for." No futher reason was given. I told them that I had been playing pool for a couple hours. The bartender knew it. The bouncers knew it. My friends knew it.
I intentionally didn't reference my friends. They did come out at one point to smoke also. Later, they told me, they came out looking for me, because I had been gone for so long. As soon as they saw I was with the cops, they knew there was trouble. No one trusts the police.
After about 30 minutes, they finally left me alone, so I could go play pool again. Why did they waste my time? Why was I interrogated like a criminal? To flex their "we control you" muscles. People are not to have the impression that they have any freedoms in this country, without wondering, "Will I get arrested today?"
An "arrest" by definition is being detained and not being free to leave. When a law
enforcement officer stops you anywhere, and you are not free to walk away, you are technically under arrest. If you don't believe it, try walking or driving away next time a law enforcement officer asks you to stop. You'll then be charged with any of a variety of charges, which will land you in jail for months to years.
Most people feel good in that they were stopped and interrogated by the police, but not taken to jail. That's wrong. You should feel good in knowing that the police are there to protect you. Seeing a law enforcement officer drive by shouldn't bring on feelings of fear.
I fear law enforcement. I've never had a law enforcement officer do anything "good" for me. I've had cars and houses broken into. I've had property damaged and destroyed. I've had friends arrested on false charges. Not once have I had the experience of a law enforcement officer doing something good for me. "Hey, we caught they guy who broke into your house", or "hey, here's your lost cat." Nope. Never happened.
Re:Your papers are not in order! (Score:4, Interesting)
If John purchased the ticket online or by phone, and the airline mailed it to him from another state, then interstate commerce would be involved, so the government could regulate the sale of the ticket. But that doesn't give them any basis for a regulation requiring presentation of ID to board the aircraft, as the act of boarding the aircraft is not commerce.
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, it's funny. Iw as talking to someone on the phone this evening. I didn't mention this story to him.
He was a passenger in a car this evening. They rolled through a just turned red light (just before the opposing traffic had a green light). Of course, as fate would have it, there was a cop sitting at the intersection waiting for the green light.
The driver was of course identified, but my friend, the passenger, was also identified. He argued a little, but they're in the North, and it was too cold out to keep the window open to argue very long.
They were detained about 1/2 hour, before being allowed to continue. No citation was issued.
Why was the passenger required to show identification? Just because. They were suspect for running a red light. It was two older gentlemen, not your usual troublemakers (geez, two retirees in a car, there's real trouble).
I would suspect though, that's been entered into NCIC, where they were identified being in the same car, in that particular place, on that date.
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:5, Interesting)
From here [suite101.com].
Re:let's simplify (Score:2, Interesting)
A similar experience for me was finding out about the "drop gun" -- the gun that police carry in the trunk to drop next to someone they shoot if he isn't carrying a weapon. (It's the reason why police are required to carry only their service firearm, but when cops get caught on that one they're usually let off.)
Re:Nothing for you to see here. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:3, Interesting)