lawsuit: ID checks unconstitutional

[flynhigh31]

this is hardly a violation of the constitution. its just an ID check, a small step in security. its there to protect you and the other passengers, its not some major consipracy for the government to monitor everyone for some evil plot.

I bet this guy is willing to give up all freedoms in the fight for security. There are better ways for our government to fight this issue. And they don't even have to take away the freedom that you are so willing to give up.

 

[flynhigh31]

By the way... Before you start throwing the Declaration of Independence around, make sure you know how to spell it properly.

Work hard....people on welfare depend on you.

You really should check yourself before you critisize someone else.

By the way... To HELL with everyone on welfare. It is not my responsibility nor is it their right.

 

[chperplt]

You really should check yourself before you critisize someone else.

Point out my error... and critisize is spelled criticize.

By the way... To HELL with everyone on welfare. It is not my responsibility nor is it their right.

Yea... That was kind of my point. You're not a Mensa member, are you?


http://www.mensa.org/

 

[A Squared]

I've gotta side with flynhigh, skypine and Dogg on this one.

It's astonishing what a bunch of sheep we've become, how willing we've become to invite the government one level deeper into our lives...and deeper.....and deeper....when is it going to end?

We all sit here and complain about mindless, ineffective and intrusive "security", then when someone tries to actually do something about it, he's a "moron" or a "numbnuts". He should just shut up like the rest of us and accept an increasingly intrusive government.

Tell me, who is it that determines that things are "priveliges" not "rights" ? Hmmmm....could it be the government? and could it be because it is convenient for the government for driving, and flying and such to be "priveleges" and subject to immediate and arbitrary suspension? It certainly doesn't serve the people to have things be "priveleges", and not rights.

So, let's think about the current situation:

You need government issued ID to get on an airplane. You need Government issued ID to get on a bus or train. You need Government issued ID to drive on the public highways. The police have the "right" to demand government issued ID from all occupants of a car, not just the driver, and you are subject to arrest if you don't comply. You may be requred to show govvernment issued ID when you are merely walking in public. Alright put those thoughts on hold, and think back in time a little. Remember how shocked you were to find out that a Soviet citizen needed an internal passport to travel within his own country? Remember how amazed you were at the lack of freedom?

Now, how far from internal passports are we, in real terms, if we need government issued Identification to be allowed the privelege of using ANY form of travel in the US, including WALKING. Is that really what our founding fathers envisioned? Government ID required for walking? What's the next step? a visa to visit your parents in the next state? Think it can't happen? really? why not? All the government has to do is declare it a privelege, not a right. After all, visiting family isn't one of the rights listed in the constitution.

We as citizens of the United States have the *right* to travel freely within the US, right? But, if each and every individual means of travel is a privilege, then the *right* to travel isn't much of a right after all.

think about it guys, maybe when someone pushes back against the ever expanding, ever encroaching government, we ought to cut him a little slack, instead of expecting him to bow his head, and follow the Judas goat, just like the rest of the sheep.

regards

 

[chperplt]

A Squared

You make some very good points. However, I would disagree that requiring a photo ID to board an airplane is the same as being required to hold an internal passport.

All an airline is doing by asking for you to produce an ID is to verify that the name on the picture ID is the same as the name on the ticket. Your ID can be bogus, as long as the name matches.

Airlines have always required ID. Either you showed it at the ticket counter, or you showed it at the gate. Now you show it a few more times. It's just another way for an airline to make sure that the person they sold the ticket to is the person using it. Tickets have never been transferable, and now there isn't any way around it.

 

[skypine69]

A Squared,

Thank you for making my point much more eloquently than I ever could! The bottom line is I am very suspicious of people that do not allow others to question authority. I am not much into history but I believe that some people questioned the authority of the British crown and next thing you know, We have a new country!
I wonder how this guy fighting this will affect anyone else in a negative manner?
Anyway, carryon.....fantastic discussion!

Oh and by the way, ID checks have NOT always been mandatory. It was started shortly after the TWA 800 crash. Tickets have not been tranferable, but until that point there was no way for an airline to verify who is traveling.

 

[A Squared]

chperplt,

>>>>I would disagree that requiring a photo ID to board an airplane is the same as being required to hold an internal passport.

Yes, I didn't say it was the same. WHat I meant was that *functionally* it is getting very close to it, a lot closer than I'm comfortable with.

I'll restate my point, as you seem to have missed it.

In the Soviet Uninon, you were required to have a Government ID to travel within the union.

Here, you don't have to have a Government ID to travel....BUT you do have to have a government ID to use any means of public or private travel, including riding in a private auto, and walking.

So, again, I ask what is the REAL differnce? Not just the semantics of whether the ID is a passport or not, not just whether it's permission to travel in general, or permission to use a specific mode of travel, what is the REAL difference? I think it's only a matter of degree, and a level of enforcement. I personally an not comfortable with slowly, bit by bit getting closer to the way things were in the Soviet Union. I've travelled in the Former Soviet Union, and I've seen the checkpioints at all the road intersection. I don't want a bunch of sheep to slowly rationalize our way to that same type of society.

regards

 

[chperplt]

I'll restate my point, as you seem to have missed it.

Thanks... but I didn't miss the point. You do make good points, but I simply disagree with them.

 

[Timebuilder]

Someone mentioned that the courts have determined that
the producing of ID does not constitute a seach. This is correct.

Although we have a "right" to travel freely, the type of traveling we undertake is a priviledge, and is subject to security guidelines. These include identifying passengers in order to keep the bad guys off the aircraft. When innocent citizens are asked to produce identification, they become a part of the teamwork necessary to protect our skies, our passengers, and our jobs.

Imagine what would happen if all travel was subject to identification. I submit that Samantha Runion, the little girl found dead in California would be alive, and Elizabeth Smart would be having dinner with her parents tonight. As a society, we are not ready to so actively protect our innocents. Our children will be ready.

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. We, on the other hand, having refused to control our borders, not to mention our criminals, are faced with ID checks in order to preserve our freedom.

It is by any definition, an irony.

 

[flynhigh31]

Errors noted below.....

The safety of the public is a little more important that the "rights" your perceive the Declaration Of Independence gives you.

It really isn't a big deal. But if you critiCize someone, expect the same in return.

 

[Timebuilder]

Where are the errors you are noting?

 

[Freight Dog]

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.

Suit challenges airline ID requirements

July 19, 2002 Posted: 9:40 AM EDT (1340 GMT)

SAN FRANCISCO, California (Reuters) -- A prominent civil libertarian sued the U.S. government and two major airlines Thursday, claiming that security requirements that compel U.S. citizens to show identification before flying are unconstitutional.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco, John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said that... blahblahblahblahblahblah

San Francisco, that should tell ya something... isn't that the home of Jihad Johnny and the most overturned court in the country?

___________
Obesity is the leading cause of fat ass.

 

[wingnutt]

whats black and brown and looks good on a lawyer?


...a doberman

 

[dash8driver]

I bet this guy is willing to give up all freedoms in the fight for security. There are better ways for our government to fight this issue. And they don't even have to take away the freedom that you are so willing to give up.

you, like this litigious john gilmore, take things a little too far. the way you bet, you shouldnt go to vegas. i never once implied nor did i give the impression that i'd give up all freedoms for security. i'm not sure how you got there, but i think this is probably what you have to resort to to "win" arguements.

since when is agreeing with the airlines requirement for an ID check an all out endorsement for "1985"? i can see the usefulness of asking for ID at the ticket counter and other places. i am against an all out lockdown on people. i am not against tightening up security and such when the times call for it, and loosening it when its not needed anymore. i, like most people can adjust with the need and not throw tantrums and lawsuits.

ID checks keep people from using stolen tickets, cashing stolen checks, using stolen credit cards, getting too far in the car someone stole from you, just to name a few. ID checks are a small price to pay for the security it brings. gilmore would probably sue the bank if they let someone cash a bunch of his checks without ID. probably right after he got out of court with UAL and SWA.

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, which the ACLU would jump all over. the ACLU will win that one, they have more power than gilmore. i dont see anything wrong with limited profiling. no one should be immune to security though, its everyone or no one. profiling should be used to enhance security, to more carefully scrutinize higher risk profile pax.

i think all these frivolous cry-baby lawsuits all started with that 7 million dollar cup of mcdonalds coffee. what a shame.

if you lack the ability to see between the extremes, then there's nothing i can do for you...

 

[A Squared]

Dash Driver,

So you think objecting to demands for ID with no probable cause is "take(ing) things too far". And those who do, are "unable to see between the extremes" ?


Really? My friend, if you don’t consider the current situation extreme, how bad does it have to get?

I recall a time when an airline passenger merely walked into the waiting area, along with anyone who came along to see them off. To get on the plane, you just flashed your ticket at the agent and walked on. Then came the metal detectors, the x-ray machines.

Today, the waiting lounge is like a fortress, passengers and pilots alike are searched, harassed. Personal belongings are confiscated. Both pilots and passengers are arbitrarily subjected to strip searches, with absolutely no probable cause. Persons daring to complain or suggest that this is unreasonable are arrested, hauled off in handcuffs and charged with a crime.

Now, back in the days of innocence, if someone had warned that we were headed for the situation which exists today, I’m sure there would have been plenty of people like you to jump up and accuse them of "take(ing) things too far" and being "unable to see between the extremes"

Freedom isn’t lost all at once, it’s lost bit by bit, step by step, one little inconvenience, followed by a minor intrusion, just another check, It’ll make life safer, more secure...on and on, until one day we wake up and we’re no longer free, and we wonder how that happened.

This morning I woke up to a world where in order to travel on a public conveyance, or even to operate it, I have to show government issued ID, my belongings will be searched, perfectly harmless possessions are confiscated, I may be strip searched for no reason at all, and if I express the opinion that there is something wrong with this, I may be arrested and charged with a crime. This isn’t some exaggeration, this isn’t some over dramatization, this is happening, this is real. Everything I’ve described can be found in the archives on this bulletin board.

Yet despite the situation, when someone protests, or files a lawsuit, or stands up and says "this is wrong" , you attempt to silence them, saying it’s better to accept, go along.

OK, I ask you, and this is a real question, I’d like an answer; How bad do things have to get before you will agree that it’s time to protest? When is the right time for civil libertarians, or just ordinary citizens to file lawsuits?

We’ve got the required Government ID for travel.

We’re got the random strip searches.

We’re arresting people who peacefully express an opinion.

What more do you need before you think it’s ok to protest?