lawsuit: ID checks unconstitutional

[flynhigh31]

i'm not sure how you got there, but i think this is probably what you have to resort to to "win" arguements.

the other thing he wants is only suspicious people to be screened. well, tell me, who is in charge of determining who is suspicious and who is not? will you and gilmore come to his aid when he's attacked and sued for picking on people? to comply with this demand we would have to implement profiling,

A Squared couldn't have said it better.

It's not about who wins the argument, but who sees the bigger picture. If you give the government an inch, they take a foot....yada, yada, yada.

The government, unfortunately, is in charge of determining who is suspicious and who is not. The problem is that there are too many leftist bedwetting democrats worried about peoples feelings getting hurt to implement profiling, which is what needs to be done to combat the terrorist situation. For the past 30 years we Americans have seen terrorism at its best. Who, I ask, have these terrorists been?.........not grandma with pins in her knees setting off the security alarms, and not little jonny with his stuffed bear, or even the man who refused to show I.D., because it is Constitutionally wrong, but instead, it is ARAB MUSLIM MEN who are the terrorists. So why are we looking at everyone equally? Because our government is scared of hurting peoples feelings. I say screw the peoples feelings of being hurt due to racial profiling.

 

[skydiverdriver]

You might be correct that ID checks may have saved the lives of some abducted children. Of course, it could also cause more deaths, as making it easier to identify someone makes them more likely to kill someone who can identify them.

Have you seen the movie "Minority Report?" Everyone gets eye scanned at every store and every form of travel. This is frightening. Of course, it may solve some crimes, and save some lives, but the really scary part is what might happen if our government went bad. This is how things started for countries like the USSR and Nazi Germany.

Of course, we all are subject to an illegal search each time we are random drug tested. I know, I know, the Supreme Court said it was Constitutional. Well, they can be wrong, just like they were in the Dred Scott case. Good luck to all.

 

[dash8driver]

A Squared couldn't have said it better.

It's not about who wins the argument, but who sees the bigger picture. If you give the government an inch, they take a foot....yada, yada, yada.

The government, unfortunately, is in charge of determining who is suspicious and who is not. The problem is that there are too many leftist bedwetting democrats worried about peoples feelings getting hurt to implement profiling, which is what needs to be done to combat the terrorist situation. For the past 30 years we Americans have seen terrorism at its best. Who, I ask, have these terrorists been?.........not grandma with pins in her knees setting off the security alarms, and not little jonny with his stuffed bear, or even the man who refused to show I.D., because it is Constitutionally wrong, but instead, it is ARAB MUSLIM MEN who are the terrorists. So why are we looking at everyone equally? Because our government is scared of hurting peoples feelings. I say screw the peoples feelings of being hurt due to racial profiling.

i agree, profiling is the way to go, but not the only way to go. not all arab muslims wear signs to identify them, and if they want to they can really blend in with the american public, so i believe that its not the only solution. at the same time i dont think id checks are out of the question. it seems to be ok for buying beer and cigarettes, cashing checks, using credit cards, etc.

squared:

you accuse me of trying to shut him up? i never implied such a thing, i am merely expressing my opinion which i have just as much of a right to do. please try not to accuse me of things i'm not doing/saying...its really bad form.

also, he's not protesting the strip searches and such, he's just protesting the ID check.

i'm just not paranoid enough to think that continuing id checks is the start of the end of our freedom. since we are using examples... back in WWII the US locked down security on japanese, they were put into internment camps and their rights were stepped on just about more than anyone elses (as a group, by the US) in recent history. are they still in camps? did it go farther than that? was it a gateway to more japanese oppression in the US? no. it was a security measure the US took (before you elude to it, no i dont think its a good idea, i dont support it and i dont think its acceptable or OK), and when there was no need for it anymore, they gave it up.

sometimes we have to tighten security to protect ourselves, and that usually means you have to give up a few things for a little while. that doesnt mean its automatically a runaway train of civil rights abuses. if ID checks were such a horrendous violation why wasnt anyone all over it when they have to show it to cash checks, buy beer, etc?

i'll try to use an analogy.. a boxer doesnt always walk around with his guard up, and he doesnt go into fights with his guard down. he puts his guard up when the fight is on, and when its over he puts his guard down

since you assume that i am all for a nazi state (which is far from the truth). since you claim "give an inch...etc...", may we assume that you want 0 security for all? we can let anyone on the plane, no matter who they are or what they got? hey, we have a right to bear arms? so anyone should be able to carry a gun on the planes.. some us citizens that are al queda operatives should be able to bring em on the plane too.. any attempt to stop them would be a violation of the constitution and sending us down the road to losing all our rights? we can all cash whoevers checks without ID, get rid of the cops becuase they are a form of security.

just where does it stop? when is the right time to protect ourselves? just how many more people have to die before you think its ok to do something to try to stop/limit their ability to attack us?

 

[Caveman]

A lot of individuals and airlines have insinuated to their advantage that travel by air is such an intrinsic part of our daily lives that government intervention is required to keep supposedly private companies solvent. If that's true then I could also argue that if air travel is in fact so intrinisic that any governmment imposed restriction on my ability to travel by air is an illegal and unreasonable demand.

I'm in the libertarian camp on this one. I shouldn't have to show my 'papers' to move freely about my own country. If I'm suspected of wrongdoing or there is a REASONABLE suspicion that I might be dangerous then get a warrant and have me searched. Until then keep the feds out of my luggage and my rights to travel freely unencumbered by regulations that serve no other purpose than to make incompetent security folks look like they are actually doing something productive.

 

[A Squared]

>>>you accuse me of trying to shut him up?

Ok perhaps "attempt to silence them" was a poor choice of words. I apologize, but certainly you reacted with anger and outrage that someone would object to mandatory ID checks.

>>>>"ok, WTF, over?!?! who is this loser and how much gall do you have to have to think like this after what just happened? i would like to find out how to contact this guy and send him a letter... what an idiot."

I guess this isn't exactly an attempt to silence him, but I think it's pretty clear that you don't think he should be doing what he's doing. So, you aren't *trying* to shut him up, but can we agree that you think he *should* shut up?

>>>>since you assume that i am all for a nazi state.

No I don't assume that, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that. I would hope that you would be as opposed to a police state as I am. What I am saying, is that if we take your approach and let our civil liberties be suspended, one by one, each for a good cause, of course, then one day we won't have any left.

You seem certain that once there is no longer need for a given suspension of a civil liberty, then it will be automatically returned to us. I don't share your optomism.

I am not advocating anarchy, as you suggest (who is putting words in who's mouth now) I'm saying we have to strike a balance. I would draw the line differently than you would, and Mr. Gilmore would draw it in a different place. I don't necessarilly agree with him 100 percent. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is more about Mr. Gilmore and his ego, than about ID checks. Having said that though, I would much rather have someone resisting the erosion of our freedom, than someone advocating it.

To answer your question, I don't know how many more people have to die. I do know that I don't ever want to live in a country where a terrorist wouldn't be able to commit a terrorist act. Not because I sympathize with terrorists, but because a police force which had the power to detect and prevent 100 percent of terrorist plots would have such awesome powers, that we would indeed be in a police state. Unfortunately, one of the prices of freedom is that we will always be somewhat vulnerable to lunatics. The only way a government can make each and every one of us safe from others or ourselves is to lock us all in individual padded cells. I would choose freedom, along with it's inherent dangers.

I ask you again, as you have failed to answer the question:

The police are arresting and charging with crimes, pilots, like you and I, who have peacefully and non-violently protested absurd security procedures. How much closer to a police state does it have to get before you think it is appropriate to protest?

a) Arresting them and beating them?

b) Arresting them and incarcerating them indefinately with no trial?

c) Arresting them then executing them?

d) Something even more heinous which I haven't thought of yet?

regards

 

[Five-O Pilot]

A couple of items . . .

First, I am currently a police officer and I am working toward my dream of becoming a professional pilot.

It has been previously stated in this thread that a person is required to present "government issued identification" if contacted by the police while walking down the street. This is not the case. As a police officer I can walk up to any person that I choose and ask them their name, etc., and ask them their business in that particular neighborhood. That person can refuse to talk to me and walk away. Now, I can continue to walk alongside that person and try to get that person to talk to me, but they do not have to talk.

In order to stop that person (the word stop having a special meaning with the court, i.e. detain) I have to have a "Reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime." (U.S. Supreme Court, Brown v. Texas)

I think the important point, at least concerning this thread, is that a person does not have to provide a government issued I.D., they just have to supply their name and date of birth, as well as an explanation for being at the particular location. And again, only if the police officer has "reasonable suspicion."

Now a question: Can someone please explain to me the charges filed against a person refusing to submit to a search/identification check?

It has been mentioned, several times on this thread, that a person/pilot, "peacefully and non-violently" protesting security measures, is arrested and charged with a crime. I would be interested in hearing the nature of the crime that they are charged with, if anyone has that particular information.

I'm also not sure whether an airport, seeing as they are so heavily regulated by the government, is still considered private property. If it is considered private property (and I think that it would be), then the airport authority has the right to not let a person onto their property for any reason they want, similar to the "We reserve the right to refuse service. . ." that you see at many restaurants, bars, etc. This would then extend to the right to ask a person to leave the property. If that person then refuses to leave the property, even if they are being peaceful, then they are trespassing and are subject to arrest. Again, all predicated on the airport property being private, not public/gov, in nature.

I am sure that UAL and Southwest are private companies, though regulated by the gov., and as such can set what policies they will, as long as they aren't illegal and don't violate a person's rights (Southwest's two-seat policy for obese people). If they choose to require identification prior to allowing a person to board their aircraft, and that person does not want to show an I.D., then the person can choose another airline/mode of transportation that does not require any identification. As stated before, walking does not require identification.

Let me finish by clarifying my position. I agree that Mr. Gilmore has the right to file the lawsuit, as well as the right to express his opinions concerning airline policy. I also believe that this is a retarded lawsuit that should be thrown out of court (and in fact that it will be thrown out of court) at the first possible opportunity. There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees a person the right to fly on an airline. If you don't like the airlines' requirements concerning identification, etc., then don't fly. Last time I checked you didn't have to have an I.D. to ride a bike, or take a cab, and as I stated earlier, you don't need one to walk.

5-O

 

[Caveman]

5-0,

Good post, but as far as choosing not to fly if you don't like the airlines I.D. policy, well, there's the rub. It isn't the airline's policy. It's a policy mandated and imposed on a private enterprise by the feds. They don't have a choice but to enforce it under penalty of law. Trust me, they would prefer to cut out some of the security BS in order to make things more efficient but it's not up to them. The feds say do it or else.

 

[Timebuilder]

Considering the events of September 11th, and the Feds mandate to provide for the common defense, the government is in the right on principle.

It's the way in which they are approaching the problem that is all wrong. Let's really enhance security, but not be off the chain about it. This means a willingness to do what works, and as of yet, we are not "willing."

 

[Pilotadjuster]

ID checks

Just as an aside, what the hell does the security guard actually look at on my ID? that i look like the guy in the photo? it really is a feel good check and nothing more useful. In the past 4 months, in conjuction with my day job I have been inside the local IRS office, Federal Building and several courts. All checked my drivers license and gave me an ID badge. I guess a real bad guy would have "bad guy" written on his license??

my .02

 

[A Squared]

five-o

I'll defer to your in depth knowledge of what a police officer may and may not demand of a person walking on the street.

I will modify my statement from

"you must posses a government issued ID for every form of travel including walking"

to

"you must posses a government issued ID for every form of travel except walking"


>>>>Now a question: Can someone please explain to me the charges filed against a person refusing to submit to a search/identification check?

Yes, I was the one who mentioned that. It is based on two occurences. Both were posted and discussed pretty thouroughly on this forum. They should still be in the archives.

If I recall correctly, in one instance, a pilot refused to remove his hat at a security checkpoint. I believe that he was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct

The other instance, a pilot commented on the absurdity of taking nail clipers away from the person who would be flying the airplane. He too was hauled off in handcuffs. I don't recall what he was charged with.

Timebuilder,

>>>>Although we have a "right" to travel freely, the type of traveling we undertake is a priviledge

Yes, and if each individual form of travel is declared a privelige, then the right to travel isn't much of a right, is it?

Similarly, we have a right to assemble peacefully,

but if it is declared a privelige to assemble in a park and a privelige to assemble in a town square, a privelige to assemble in a church, and a privelige to assemble in a private home, and a privelige to assemble in a farmer's field, then suddenly the right to peaceful assembly isn't a right after all.

We have a right to bear arms, right? But if we make it a privelige to bear arms manufactured of metal, and a privelige to bear arms manufactured of wood, and a privelige to bear arms manufactured of plastic, the the right is pretty hollow.

The right to travel freely as long as it isn't by airplane, bus, train or automobile, isn't much of a right at all, is it?

>>>>>A lot of people compare our ID checks with european security made famous in the Germany and Russia of the Cold War. They usually did this for the purpose of oppressing their dissidents, suppressing freedom.

Yep, but they always had nifty justifications for every thing.

The Berlin Wall was to protect the good citizens from the evil western influence.

Dissidents were confined to insane asylums to protect them from their own deranged minds.

The thing is, there are always justifications for suspending civil liberties: To stem the flow of drugs, to ensure security, to protect the children, whatever the boogeyman du jour is, he can always be defeated by giving up a little more freedom.

I fear the government which can prevent terrorist attacks much more than I fear terrorists. I fear the government which can stop the cocaine trade much more than I fear the druglords.

regards