Government Asks Court to Keep ID Arguments Secret 857
RobXiii writes " CNN has a story on privacy advocate John Gilmore (Co-founder of the EFF) taking the federal government to court, to stop the requirement of ID for in country flights. In an ironic twist, the U.S. Department of Justice is asking the court to keep its argument for the secret law secret. How are we supposed to follow a law when the law itself can't be disclosed?"
Ob (Score:5, Funny)
Second rule of the law: You DO NOT talk about the law.
Re:Ob (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ob (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ob (Score:4, Informative)
Out of Respect of the Process (Score:5, Funny)
Follow that law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats the wrong question / statement. The poster should have said:
"I refuse to obey a law that I cannot read".
For heavens sake, have you not read "The Trial"?
Re:Follow that law? (Score:5, Funny)
"I refuse to obey a law that I cannot read".
Well that would certainly get the illiterates off the hook in all kinds of situations.... :-)
Re:Follow that law? (Score:4, Insightful)
With laws that cannot be read we are all illiterates.
Re:Follow that law? (Score:5, Insightful)
"With laws that cannot be read we are all illiterates."
With laws that cannot be read, we are all "as-yet-designated" terrorists, pending the whim of either political malfeasance or bureaucratic error.
To this day I still LMAO thinking of how easy it was to shut up the "keep the gov't off my back" types who claimed to be conservatives defending the Constitution. Just chant the magic word "terrorism" and they went to sleep like gassed animals at the local pound. That's right little fellah, you can have your little assault weapon. Everything's fine. Now close your eyes... relax....
I used to think my Refleco3000(tm) tinfoil hat was enough. These days I'm looking for a tinfoil bodysuit. :-/
Not evil (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Kafka, illiteracy, and Bush's CIA guy (Score:5, Funny)
Considering he's been dead for 80 years, I think it would be damned scary to have Franz Kafka knock on my door in the middle of the night!
Re:Follow that law? (Score:5, Informative)
The typical American cannot read the law (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The typical American cannot read the law (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only read them, but then inturpet what they really mean.
I got stuck in a situation in the early 90's in South Carolina.
I had smoked headlight covers on my car. In SC, the law for headlight requirements is very specific. The headlight must be seen by a person from 300ft away. The headlight must be able to illuminate an object from 100ft away. With my headlight covers on, I easily met both of those requirements. Everything should be good to go. There is a third law that states a person can not alter the position or aiming of the headlights or physically alter the headlight assembly itself. That law sites specific examples of not moving the headlights to high, to low, or aiming them inapropriately, all related to blinding on coming drivers. Again, should be good to go. But wait, somewhere there was a forth law that only the police knew about... This one was a memo from the State Police headquarters stating headlight covers users shall be ticketed because it violated the states motor vehicle laws for headlight requirements. Yes, I got a ticket and fought it. I showed the judge my information and he showed me the letter from the the State Police. He dropped the charges because he could not tell me what part of the existing laws the headlight covers violated. The point being, even after researching the available laws and reading the examples of what the law is for, it came down to another persons interpetation completely different from mine as to what was legal and what was not.
On a side note, at the scene, I actually recieved two tickets, one for my headlight covers and one for the fog light covers. The State Police had the same exact car as mine (91 Mustang) but they did not even have fog lights. But since I had fog lights and they were then covered, I got two tickets.
Before any wise cracks about how headlight covers look stupid, they dim the lights to much etc.. I only used them in the day time (when i got my ticket) and they pulled right off in about 5 seconds for night driving.
Re:The typical American cannot read the law (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell, imagine if our President had to recite the law once a year. There wouldn't be any space in that cranium for crap like the PATRIOT act.
I'm not sure that exactly the same system is workable for a modern society, but I am sure that I would seriously favor a system where one person had to recite the entire tax law from memory each year to determine how much we all paid. I see no reason why the tax system needs to be even a hundredth as complicated as it is now.
Re:The typical American cannot read the law (Score:5, Insightful)
While one should always keep bias in mind when considering the source, that isn't a blank cheque to dismiss entirely any source which expresses an opinion you disagree with.
You missed the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
You entirely missed the point. The poster was not talking about some piece of information gleaned/interpretted by Michael Moore. He was referring directly to interviews in which those who had voted for PATRIOT admitted that they had not fully read the act.
Bias does not magically change video tape. You can discount whatever spin you find in f911, but please dont deny flat-out evidence. PATRIOT is bad, was passed in a time of desperation, and is now being reconsidered. This is a Good Thing. Introspection and questioning MAKES democracy!
Re:The typical American cannot read the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The typical American cannot read the law (Score:4, Informative)
Oh Great Post Moron. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile Moore has every source for every comment posted here:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/
There was no lie in the face of that congressmen, when he asked if his kids were going to enlist in the military. It was utter panic. You could see, "Are you stupid? Why would I do that?" written on his face.
Re:The typical American cannot read the law (Score:5, Informative)
You don't need to. Go look up when the law was made available, and then when the vote took place (hint - hours later), and check the number of pages (hint - over 1000). How many legislators are you implying could have read it?
Re:Follow that law? (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, neither is it an excuse for passing it, and every legislator that passes a bill before reading it should be shot.
Re:Follow that law? (Score:5, Insightful)
I will agree with this only if the law is actually available for you to learn about. But if something is illegal and there is NO WAY for me to know that it is, even if I consult a lawyer or talk to a police officer or get a copy of the law from town hall... then how can I be punished for it?
If "secret laws" are valid and enforcable, then they could just as easily throw you in jail for any reason they like and claim that you broke a "secret law" (Which of course they can't tell you about because it's classified.) I think that pretty clearly violates due process don't you?
=Smidge=
Re:Follow that law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Each piece of legislation should reqire that it is signed by the people who voted for it, with a statement asserting that they have read and understood the meaning of the law.
If they fail to sign it, or it can be demonstrated that they did not understand what they were signing (everone else) up for, then the law should be rendered automatically null and void.
If we were talking about a contract to which the legislators themselvs would personally be bound, you can be sure thhat if they did not read it personally, they would get thier lawyers to read it before they signed it.
Its absurd that they should be able to sign the whole poulation over to be bound by laws that they have not read before adding them to the statue books, and it is irresponsible for anyone to obey these laws.
It just encourages them.
Re:Follow that law? (Score:4, Interesting)
Any legislator that votes for a law that is later overturned as unconstitutional should be FIRED (or worse).
Re:Follow that law? (Score:3, Insightful)
There ought to be a law that staztes legislators must be provided with enough time to read every bill, and debate it, before it can be passed.
The legislators that do not read the bills should be forcefully removed from office. I'm serious, they shouldn't even be a part of the process once that's uncovered. Who knows why we, the people, put up with it.
Re:Follow that law? (Score:3, Funny)
How can his attorney's fight this... (Score:4, Insightful)
The government contends its court arguments should be sealed from public view and heard before a judge outside the presence of Gilmore and his attorneys.
Yes, tell the judge your reasons for the law... but the plaintiff and his attorneys aren't allowed to hear it. Baffling!
Re:Maybe they know something we don't... (Score:3, Interesting)
If that is the case, then they'd have to at least reveal it to those people checking IDs (otherwise, what's the point?). Given the conventional wisdom regarding the intelligence of the average airport security employee, that's not exactly keeping things secret.
Completely outrageous (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Completely outrageous (Score:4, Informative)
Nothing new here, just standard practice for American justice for the past 200 years.
Re:Completely outrageous (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignorance is no excuse (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ignorance is no excuse (Score:3, Insightful)
These are questions people ask that aren't being answered.
Missing the point... (Score:3, Informative)
If you have
Re:Ignorance is no excuse (Score:5, Informative)
What part of the US Criminal or Civil code contains this law? When was it passed by Congress and when was it signed by the President? That's how laws happen in this country.
Oh wait. It wasn't passed by Congress.
It's a federal regulation then. Regulations happen when a federal agency is granted specific rights to create little mini-laws by Congress. So it's published in the Federal Register, as required for all federal regulations, from the EPA to HUD. Even the FAA has to publish all of their regulations on everything in the Federal Register.
Oh wait, it wasn't published in the Federal Register.
Perhaps it's an Executive Order then? The President has limited authority to do things like that within the Executive branch, which can be overturned by either Congress (by passing a law striking down the EO) or by the courts. Of course, executive orders are generally published unless there is a very good "national security" reason not to. Given that all of the terrorists on 9/11 had valid (not even faked, truly valid) ID's, this argument isn't carrying much water.
It comes down to this: Ignorance of a law is no excuse for violating the law. The only way that postulate of the legal system works is because all laws have to be published in specific ways, like the Federal Register. If there are "secret laws" that can't be read, then you could be violating it.
They don't tell you what the law is that requires ID checks. They tell you that the law requires it, but they don't tell you exactly what law requires it, the penalties for noncompliance, or even the agency responsible for enforcement of the law (is it DHS, FAA, NTSB, TSA?).
If I don't agree with the law, if I think the law isn't just, which agency do I get my congressman to go after to fix it?
There could be a secret law against eating M&M's on the day after Labor Day. Oops. Since ignorance is no excuse, the vending machine cops should be by shortly to deal with me. What if I accidentally get on a plane without and ID check? How many years can I go to jail for? What's the limits on the fine I may be forced to pay? Is it a felony, a misdeameanor, or a criminal act?
Is checking ID just required for commercial airlines, or do General Aviation pilots need to check their friend's ID before they go on a little sightseeing trip? Since the law isn't written down, nobody outside the agency responsible knows.
Re:Ignorance is no excuse (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't tell you what the law is that requires ID checks. They tell you that the law requires it, but they don't tell you exactly what law requires it, the penalties for noncompliance, or even the agency responsible for enforcement of the law (is it DHS, FAA, NTSB, TSA?).
"They don't have to show us Catch-22," the old woman answered. "The law says they don't have to."
"What law says they don't have to?"
"Catch-22"
Re:Fear is the true terrorist. (Score:3, Informative)
Disclaimer: I'm european.
I'm not entirely sure that (Democrat+Republican)/2 = Middle, they both seem pretty damn far out to the right from where I'm standing..
/Mikael
Re:Fear is the true terrorist. (Score:5, Informative)
The Republican party has been usurped by massive right wingers- People who think the Seperation of Church and State doesn't exist, people which thing supply-side economics work, and that might-make's right -- they think that getting ou the guns is the first option, and that if you have a different opinion than the president (protected by 1st ammendment) then you're a 'traitor'
The republican party is MASSIVELY right wing
ps on the authitarian->libertarian y, and liberal-conversative x axis plot the libertarians would got in the conservative/libertarian quadrant -- but i find most libertarians naive: the do not understand the concept of right vs license (ie the only protected exercises of a right are those exercises which don't violate the rights of others), and they don't have any conception of required-minimum public services for a functional electorate (Such as unbiased public education)
Re:Fear is the true terrorist. (Score:3)
Choosing your fights (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Choosing your fights (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no proof there is a "secret law" (Score:3, Interesting)
But Gilmore's whole assertion rests on the claim that there is, in fact, a secret law requiring a person to show ID to fly.
He already proved to himself that this was false, as he says in his own description of events that SFO would have allowed him to fly with no ID if he submitted to a search. He chose not to. If there WERE a "secret law" requiring ID, San Francisco International Airport would not h
Re:Choosing your fights (Score:4, Interesting)
Does the airline have the right to know who's on board their own airplane?
That's what this all boils down to. Do you have the right to get onto someone else's private vehicle and demand anonymity? Or do the airlines have the right to demand ID to know who you are before transporting you in their own private vehicle?
Re:Choosing your fights (Score:4, Interesting)
Great question. And the day the airlines quit queueing up for federal subsidy after federal subsidy, I will let them treat their planes as their private property. Until then, they can cry in their Wheaties all they want but I won't pay them a thin dime to fly if they think they can demand I pay for the ticket, show them ID, AND get supported from my income tax whether I want them to or not.
Re:Choosing your fights (Score:4, Interesting)
So why does an airline need to know my identity? Why can I not pay with cash and board anonymously? (Assuming I'm willing to submit to a reasonable search for security -- say metal detectors and/or X-ray.) I don't need to carry papers on other modes of transportation like buses, ferries, trains etc. or while walking. I bet a terrorist could kill more people by putting a bomb on a ferry in cold waters, like the Seattle-Victoria ferry. Why then do we have this hysterical attitude towards aviation?
Hmmmm (Score:5, Funny)
How are we supposed to follow a law when the law itself can't be disclosed?
Errr... ummm... trial and error? (pun intended)
Re:Hmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
By no stretch of the imagination is this a "fair trial". Part of the ancient definition of "fair trial" is the right to meet your accuser.
There is precedent to seal the records of a case, though I am not familiar with the details of when it is acceptable. But to tell one side of the lawsuit that it can not hear its arguments? Absurdity!
I think the EFF ought to argue this is unconstitutional.
U.S. becoming a totalitarian system. (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder at what point the general american populous will realize that things have gone bad. I would say right now that more than 80% of the population is still in the dark about these problems creeping up.
My own mother doesn't believe me when I tell her about all of it.
Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody who's lived in New York for a while knows that there are about 20 thousand dudes named Mohammed Ibrahim or Mohammed Mohammed driving cabs around the city. Just having a generic Arab name on a watch list is far more likely to flag a cabbie than it is a terrorist. I'm not saying I wouldn't search every Arab looking fellow who got on a plane extra carefully, but I don't think even 5 or 10 guys with knives would be able to hijack a plane in the US, post September 11th.
Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask yourself the following: Which canidate is for war in Iraq and which is against? Which canidate is for reduction in the size of the government and which is for providing more government services? Which canidate is for providing universal healthcare and which is for a free market healthcare system?
Given only two choices, Bush and Kerry. It's hard to say that you have any choice when it comes to issues.
Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system. (Score:4, Funny)
If you honestly think it can get worse, then fine, these things happen. But please let's not keep Ashcroft in office, k?
Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system. (Score:4, Interesting)
thorough studies [correcting for every possible bias] have shown that 80% people listening to Fox News are hold misconceptions about the state of the world - particular the iraq war, compared to 23% of PBS viewers - furthermore there is a positive correlation (ie more a causes more b) between "More Viewing of Fox News" and "Holding Misconceptions' http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_0
Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system. (Score:4, Insightful)
Be careful not to confuse causation with correlation. Fox News may make you stupid. But it's also possible that being stupid makes you watch Fox News. Correlation alone doesn't tell you which causes which.
Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system. (Score:5, Interesting)
I want the news to challenge my assumptions. I want investigative reporting uncovering causes and correlations that I didn't know existed before. I want open-minded reporting that doesn't bash reasonable perspectives on both sides of the political spectrum. I don't really see why the politics of the owner have to be so flagrantly reflected in the reporting - CNN was owned by Ted Turner for many years, who has many radical positions I don't agree with, but while not perfect, I've certainly never seen that kind of flagrant bias on CNN (about an equal number of people seem to accuse CNN of overly liberal and overly conservative bias as far as I can tell).
Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system. (Score:5, Insightful)
The people making moves towards a fascist/nationalist/totalitarian government are not stupid. I doubt the 'people', meaning 50-90% of the population will never notice anything: Because there's nothing to notice. They constantly hear about small changes in new laws, procedures and whatnot, which are semi-regularly talked about, i.e. DMCA a few years ago, PATRIOT after that, PATRIOT II and INDUCE, one law at a time. And one law at a time, things will gradually change, until some old bastard like me is sitting around saying how, back in my day, we were free to walk down the street without fear - not fear of terrorists or anything else - but without fear of our own government. And they won't *remember* that a mere 10, 20, or 30 years ago, our country wasn't like this.
And don't even get me started on the idea of the media's involvement in this. The fact that a handful of companies controls all the media's focus, which topics they choose, combined with the sensationalism, and lack of any attention to any one subject... Not only are we being told what's what, we're losing the attention span to remember what was.
But yeah. There won't be a realization that things went bad. They've *been* bad. It's just a matter of time before they get *so* bad that there's violence involved.
Re:U.S. becoming a totalitarian system. (Score:3, Informative)
More intense (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, "more intense" is just airline speak for "bend over, please".
Before anyone. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
If my name is not on one of the secret lists the government maintains how is showing my ID with my real name going to stop me from doing anything? I'm not a list!
Besides, if I'm going to crash a plane (or car, boat, whatever), or use whatever vehicle as a mobile bomb, into a building or public gathering, why should I care if I use my real name or not? I'll be dead anyway.
Re:Before anyone. . . (Score:4, Funny)
But how else could we be sure you're not Ted Kennedy?
Lawsuit website (Score:5, Informative)
Gilmore has a website, http://www.freetotravel.org/ [freetotravel.org] with more info and court documents regarding his case against the US government.
The secret Judicial system (Score:4, Funny)
We also have a secret law that secret hearings are fair and just. Anyone who disagrees with our secret policies will go to a secret jail.
You don't need to know the law, citizen! (Score:4, Insightful)
In Soviet Russia... (Score:3, Funny)
Secrecy cannot become the norm. (Score:3, Interesting)
The default manner to develop and issue policy should never be behind the veil of secrecy.
It's not a secret to me (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/04515249
Secret Laws (Score:5, Funny)
"I haven't done anything! What am I being charged with?"
"We can't tell you."
"What about my Miranda rights?"
"Ok, you may or may not be under arrest."
"I want to contact my lawyer."
"Sorry, where you're going to be held no lawyers are permitted."
"What?!? You can't do that!"
"Ah, but we can and have, it's for the good of the country, you'll understand."
"Oh, well, if it's for the good of the country... but..."
"But what?"
"The country is not the government, but people like me, how can the people be arrested and tried in secrecy for their own good?"
"You ask too many question *fwit*"
"What did you just do?"
"I played the Patriot Card, by questioning the policies and actions of the goverment you're patriotism is now officially called into doubt!"
"Unbelievable!"
"It's a brave new world."
"I'll still need to let my family know I've been arrested."
"Sorry, can't let you do that, either, it might endager their patriotism."
"How?"
"If they feel the same way about this as you, they may call us into question, thus jeopardizing their standing as patriots."
"Um, how is that again?"
"It's for their own good, you see? We need to take you in and not have our policies and procedures called into question."
"Well why am I being taken in?"
"Ok, just between you and me, you'll probably be charged with possible subversion."
"For what?"
"For questioning your arrest."
"Ah."
"Come along now, we have a nice prison to keep you in."
"It's not one of those horrid places, is it?"
"Oh, no, this is run by Halliburton, it's very nice."
Re:Secret Laws (Score:4, Interesting)
Without any previous charges or arrests, my buddy was once arrested for resisting arrest. He kept asking 'What am I being arrested for?' and the officer kept saying, 'You are resisting arrest.'
Ticket Resales (Score:5, Insightful)
You must be new here. [Ob Quote] (Score:5, Insightful)
"No reason," wailed the old woman. "No reason."
"What right did they have?"
"Catch-22."
"What?" Yossarian froze in his tracks with fear and alarm and felt hiw while body begin to tingle. "What did you say?"
"Catch-22," the old woman repeated, rocking her head up and down. "Catch-22. Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing."
"What the hell are you talking about?" Yossarian shouted at her in bewildered, furious protest. "How did you know it was Catch-22? Who the hell told you it was Catch-22?"
"The soldiers with the hard white hats a clubs. The girls were crying. 'Did we do anything wrong?' they said. The men said no and pushed them away out the door with the ends of their clubs. 'Then why are you chasing us out?' the girls said. 'Catch-22,' the men said. 'What right do you have?' the girls said. 'Catch-22,' the men said. All they kept saying was 'Catch-22, Catch-22.' What does it mean, Catch-22? What is Catch-22?"
"Didn't they show it to you?" Yossarian demanded, stamping about in ager and distress. "Didn't you even make them read it?"
"They don't have to show us Catch-22," the old woman answered. "The law says they don't have to."
"What law says they don't have to?"
"Catch-22."
Problems with Gilmore's story (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is a resounding "no". He is free to travel by foot, bike, motorcycle, car, boat, or other device himself while not violating applicable pedestrian or traffic laws, or by bus or train, entirely anonymously.
Further, in his quest to "expose" this situation, he found at one of the largest airports in the country, San Francisco International Airport, that he WAS indeed allowed to fly without ID (if he submitted to a search).
Second, because some unnamed worker for United Airlines "told him" that there was a "secret law", are we to believe that there is, then, such a "law"? That a random United Airlines employee is the ultimate fount of information on this topic? The fact that SFO would indeed allow him to fly with no ID negates his claim that ID is required by a "secret law" on its face.
Further, claims variously made by privacy advocates assert that showing ID is worthless; that the September 11 hijackers all had valid, government issued photo ID. Sure they did. But some form of identification, fake or not, gives authorities a place to start in an investigation, rather than nothing at all.
But please, even in light of that, remember: he WAS allowed to fly with no ID at SFO, and chose not to. I expect that he thought he'd find he would be denied everywhere, but then still chose not to fly at SFO simply because he didn't want to be searched and so it wouldn't stop his little "Achtung! Papers, please!" stunt before it started. That's his choice. And if you'd argue against a search, then you might as well argue against ALL security measures at airports.
Re:Problems with Gilmore's story (Score:5, Informative)
Amtrak, our national railway system, requires ID to ride the train: http://www.amtrak.com/idrequire.html [amtrak.com].
On some parts of the Amtrak system passengers may board without ID. Ticket purchases onboard require ID. Tickets can be purchased by credit card without ID... but tickets purchased with cash require ID.
Even more government creepiness... (Score:5, Interesting)
"The Department of Justice has asked the Government Printing Office "to instruct depository libraries to destroy five publications the department has deemed 'not appropriate for external use.' Of the five publications, two are texts of federal laws. They are to be removed from libraries and destroyed, making their content available only to a law office or law library," according to the American Library Association. All the documents concern either federal civil or criminal forfeiture procedure, including how to reclaim items that have been confiscated by the government during an investigation."
What possible reason could there be to destroy federal legal publications? Thank you, Adolf, ahem, I mean John Ashcroft.
-Mark
America as a fascist state? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is my hypothesis: America, laregly due to fear first brought about by the cold war and now due to terrorism, has largely abrogated its dedication to a fair justice system, robust liberties, and a government that the people can meaningfully change through the democratic process. As a result, 21st century America shares more characteristics with traditional fascist states (viz. communist Russia c. 1975) than with secular democracies.
Counterpoints are welcome. And to those whose first reaction might be to call me an "America hater", I can assure you that I am not. I criticize my nation because I want it to be better. That means not ignoring it's faults when they are obvious to all.
Re:America as a fascist state? (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree it's very scary to have to show your papers, and have guys with big machine guns standing in train stations (visit Penn station at some point), and I would support any and all alternatives that could accomplish the same effect. I just can't think of any off hand except give in to the many and varied demands of anyone who waves a bomb in our collective faces, and I think that will just cause more trouble, not less.
Conservative Republican, Agnostic
The world changes. (Score:5, Interesting)
And all this changed after the Bush coup in 2000. Think about it..
Second amendment? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps we could make ID an option, if you want to carry a gun on a plane, you need to show ID and sign a waiver. Then not only can the pilot shoot the terrorists so can citizens and filght attendents.
You might think I'm kidding
And this will become a training video (Score:5, Interesting)
On the 22nd of March 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Dudley's case, a case that will determine whether Dudley and the rest of us live in a free society, or in a country where we must show "the papers" whenever a cop demands them.
Welcome to the club (Score:5, Interesting)
- Hold suspects on terrorism charges for long periods of time or indefinately without trial
- Present secret evidence to the court, without the defendant or the public knowing what that evidence was or even that it was presented
Sources: Secret Courts [bbc.co.uk] and Detention Law [bbc.co.uk]Re:Welcome to the club (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, you can lose your citizenship for supporting "terrorist groups." Lets say that the Israeli government labels some Palestinian groups terrorist and an US citizen with family in Palestine gives their relatives money. In this instance, if the relatives contribute to that organization, the US citizen can be stripped of his citizenship because Israel is our ally. Of course, the citizen contributing directly would have the same if not more severe effects.
If the PATRIOT Act was in place in the late 80's, American members of anti-apartheid groups could lose their American citizenship because they could and probably were labeled terrorist....(make your own conjecture here)
The US Govt. won't let me fly ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering one of the flights was for a job interview this really sucks. The funny/sad thing is at a previous job about seven years ago I had a DOE Class Q clearance. Now I can't even get on a plane and no one [claims] they can fix it.
Real people are getting hurt and hurt badly because of this law. I hope Gilmore prevails.
Peeling back legal precedent 2000 years (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the secrecy of laws you'll pardon me for missing the legal interpretation where John Ashcroft repeals the Magna Carta and re-established the Divine Right of Kings and Bushes [pewforum.org].
I guess we're going to nice simple system, easy-to-understand, based on only two precepts:
Re:nothing to see here. move along. (Score:5, Funny)
It's a secret.
Re:nothing to see here. move along. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well, the EFF will hear the argument.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well, the EFF will hear the argument.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:1984 and the current administration (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Two things (Score:5, Interesting)
Yea that's a tough one. On the one hand I can understand consumer choice of how "violated" your privacy is to fly on an airline. On the other hand it's the federal goverment's concern when someone obtains control over the jet and crashes it into public, private and governmental buildings killing thousands. If the airline implements these requirements, then their passengers are free of the search requirement.
Since the government [theoretically] is only concerned when control leaves the airline and enters into the terrorist hands (because at that point the jet becomes a weapon), I'd prefer to see some requirements put in place that completely remove control of the jet from anyone on board and puts it in the hands of a security group on the ground as soon as there are any questionable issues on-board. Some manner in which the plane cannot be flown by terrorists as the control over the aircraft leaves as soon as its taken over.
Now that doesnt prevent someone from blowing up a jet in air, but hey, at least the damage is probably going to be a lot smaller if that happens as opposed to ramming it into the WTC.
Besides, we have Air Marshalls on jets still right? right? :/
The law is against the law (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe in rule of law. Without rule of law you have a priviledged class that gets away with pretty much anything, a middle class that can muddle through, and a minority of people who just get fucked because no one cares and the executive branch can do whatever they want. And if we're going to have rule of law, the first thing the feds have to do is follow the constitution.
I quote some pretty smart people:
No gov't official in the US has the right to stop me and search me without a good reason to believe I'm doing something wrong. No matter what. They don't even have the right to dictate that someone else search me before they can provide me some service. It's against the constitution, and if they want to change that there is a process for making constitutional amendments.
Re:Two things (Score:4, Insightful)
The likelihood of terrorists gaining control of an airliner with box cutters again is essentially nil. The entire plan depended on the passengers believing they might live if they cooperated. Until September 11th, the majority of the flying public couldn't even conceive of someone using a 767 as a missile and the primary concern for hijackings was the lives of the passengers. It should also be noted that most of the hijackers had valid ID [house.gov].
Some manner in which the plane cannot be flown by terrorists as the control over the aircraft leaves as soon as its taken over.
Very simple. Lock the cockpit door and don't open it. Even if the hijackers threaten to kill everyone on board unless the pilot opens the door, he has no reason to believe they will survive if he does.
Re:Two things (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the whole point of the trial is that the government refuses to disclose the regulations in question. Gilmore is suing to compel the government to disclose them.
Re:Two things (Score:3, Funny)
Ah, but then the cheap arline would be a threat to national security because a terrorist could slip on and bomb/fly it into a building.
Oh, that would never happen. Take off that tinfoil hat you paranoid right-wing nut-job.
Re:Two things (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Two things (Score:5, Insightful)
So how does requiring this easily faked document prevent terrorism?
You don't even need a fake ID. If I were a terrorist legally in the country and without prior arrests etc., I could just use my regular ID -- just as the 9/11 hijackers did.
Explain to me again why "Your papers, please" prevents terrorism?
Reasonable to show id? (Score:5, Insightful)
How exactly does that make you safer? If we were serious about airplane safety, I'd say make the cockpit a SEPERATE compartment with no access from the passengers. You realize the hijackers had and showed valid ID to board don't you? It could easily happen again as long as they pick people with no previous "alerts" tied to them. Showing ID does nothing for security.
Re:Would you people learn to read? (Score:5, Informative)
By-the-way, I did a blog entry on this situation
http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000116.ht
Re:We (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Secret Laws, Secret Courts, What happened to US (Score:5, Informative)
For those with short memories: Gore asked for a recount of certain precincts. He got it. He gained a few votes, but was still losing Florida. In other words, after that recount, Gore lost the election.
Gore then asked for another recount of certain other precincts. He gained a few more votes, but still lost. So he asked for yet another recount. At this point, Bush filed suit, saying that Gore shouldn't get to selectively recount, cherry-picking his precincts. The Supreme Court agreed, 7-2. (They also ruled, 5-4, that it was too late to ask any more.)
The only recount Gore one was the one that the press conducted, which took months and recounted the whole state. Gore won that one by two votes. Ironically, Gore never actually asked for that recount.
So get off your rhetorical high horse and look at what actually happened. Every recount most certainly did NOT have Gore winning.
Actual Recount Information from the NYT site (Score:4, Informative)
Surprisingly, exactly half of them resulted in a Bush victory and half in a Gore victory. The largest margin of victory of any permutation was 493 votes (Gore) and the smallest 2 votes (Bush).
That is all. It is sad to see both sides directly linking to a data source while at the same time making ridiculously inaccurate claims about the information therein.
Re:No.. (Score:3, Insightful)