Kafka’s K would feel right at home in the US these days. If you don’t understand the irony of that statement, Google Franz Kafka and his book, The Trial, and be suprised how much we’ve become like the world its character, K, lived in nearly 100 years ago.
Does the government have the right to keep secret a law that is applied to millions of Americans every day? That’s the question John Gilmore has asked the Supreme Court to decide in his petition to the Court, filed on the 4th of August 2006.
When John, an American citizen, decided to take a trip to Washington, DC back on the 4th of July 2002, he was told at Oakland International Airport that he had to produce his ID if he wanted to travel. He asked to see the law demanding he show his ‘papers’ and was told after a time that the law was secret and no, he wouldn’t be allowed to read it.
He hasn’t flown in his own country since.
He has fought in the courts for his right to travel freely in his own country for over four years, but the bottom line is that none of his Constitutional rights to Speech, Travel, and Assemble can be exercised if the government denies him his basic right of Due Process. John – and every other American – should have the right to know what the law is.
By choosing to hear Gilmore v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court can and should expose Secret Law for what it is: an abomination.
John worked his way up the bureaucratic chain and was eventually told by United Airlines that there were security directives that mandated the showing of ID, but that he couldn’t see them. These secret directives, issued by the Transportation Security Administration, are revised as often as weekly, and are transmitted orally rather than in writing. To make things even more confusing, these orally transmitted secret rules change depending on the airport.
I’m all against invisible laws and the federal ‘no-fly’ list is a joke. However, I just don’t see a problem with presenting proper identification to people in authority who ask for it in the normal execution of their duties. Also, As I don’t pick up stangers that are hitchhiking, airlines have a right to know the identity of the people who travel on their planes. Declaring your true identity doesn’t not restrict your freedoms or expectation of privacy.
I have NO problem showing my ID to anyone who wants to see it. The airline has a right to know WHO is flying on their planes, and I want to know that they are doing what they can to make the experience safe for me. End of story.
Those who choose to give up liberty for security deserve neither!
Welcome to the Fascist States of American.
The terrorists won! This kind of shit is exactly what they wanted to happen!
This country is not free anymore.
The airlines have EVERY right to protect their investment in their planes by knowing exactly who is flying on them.
There probably is no LAW specifying that “papers” are needed to fly but it may be that airlines need to be able to identify anyone on their planes for public safety or protection from lawsuits.
I’m also against the government having “secret laws”. If there were really some secret conspiracy going on, there’d be “check points” on our highways. Last I checked, I didn’t need to show anybody my “papers” to drive from state to state.
I guess you’ve never been through one of the “sobriety” checkpoints they set up in Texas. Where the cops pull everyone over and see if the’ve been drinking. “Show us your papers!” Driver’s license, registration, Insurance, papers papers papers…
The issue here is not whether being required to show your ID is reasonable or not. The issue is whether or not the government should be able to have “secret” laws.
Not really, this is not a law. A law has to be passed by Congress. This is a security mandate, or regulation. Much like FDA requirements for “Grade A” eggs aren’t laws…..they are regulations. There is a slight difference.
That being said, this is no abridgement of your freedom to travel. If you charter a plane it is up to the owner of that plane whether to trust you or not…..he is not required by law to check your “papers”. You could walk from L.A. to N.Y. without any papers at all.
I didn’t see anyone screaming about their abridgement of freedoms when they were told they would be required to have a licence on them at all times to operate a car.
I think airlines are common carriers. They’re required to take anybody who shows up and pays the fare.
“He asked to see the law demanding he show his ‘papers’ and was told after a time that the law was secret and no, he wouldn’t be allowed to read it.”
For years, I have been demanding to see the law that makes me put my tray table up, and they told me that was secret, too! And what about my inalienable right to tamper with an airplane bathroom smoke detector?
There are serious civil liberties issues afoot today, but the requirement that you show an ID at the ticket counter and checkpoint ain’t one of them.
I believe the FAA falls under the Executive Branch. Assuming that is the case, then no law is necessary to institute regulations enforcing ID checks, bag checks etc.
Regarding drunk driving stops, since driver’s licenses are a privledge and since drivers agreed to provide their identification to law enforcement whenever stopped when they applied for their license, officers are well within their right to ask for identification. *However*, what is questionable is whehther they can stop people without probable cause and *that* has been fought successfully in relation to drunk driving stops. Since a drunk driving stop is just arbitrarily stopping everyone, no probable cause is ever being sought.
#8 I’d be willing to bet big $ that you (or anyone) could NOT walk from NY to LA without papers.
Stories every week about people being stopped on bridges and roads to have their “papers” checked.
I don’t know if this country is becoming more like the USSR was or WWII germany…either one is bad, and they both justified the bad things they did in the name of the “homeland”
With the current composition of the supremes, this will be defeated, reinforcing the developing police state. We need to stop this while we still have the freedom to do so.
8 Much like FDA requirements for “Grade A” eggs aren’t laws…..they are regulations..
With the notable exception that FDA publishes those requirements, with Congress having a say in what they regulate i.e. Tobacco is not regulated as a drug.
I didn’t see anyone screaming about their abridgement of freedoms when they were told they would be required to have a licence on them at all times to operate a car.
You remember when that started? You’ve talked to people affected when that was instituted? Or are you referring to anyone trying to drive after that point in time?
And, correct me if I’m wrong, but those regulations are published.
No one addressed the issue of “public” transportation. What about buses and subways? Do we allow city governments to check for ID on local transit?
Airlines are private companies and should be free to check ID. But what if those same airlines got bailout $ from the Federal Government?
How does a person’s name make them more or less secure to ride your plane? Without secure identification, will they start forcing us to give our fingerprints to board?
15. fundamentally, it means that someone who is a suspected terrorist gets flagged before they are allowed on a plane. me, I think this is a good idea.
16. So what happens when someone blows up a plane and his name is “doug generic” or “John Smith”, what then? Eventually the “no fly” list will fill up with conventional, non Arab names and we would still not prevent any terrorism based on checking IDs.
Sorry, but names mean nothing in security if you want to hurt people bad enough. Are we going to start a “no view” list for sporting event spectators? Or a “no party” list for your local night club? Or maybe a “no ride” list for buses and a “no fare” list for cabs…etc…etc…etc
There is no substitution for good intelligence, unfortunately our government has none.
It is the TSA that is issuing the secret rules and “laws” not the FAA. The TSA is a division of Homeland Security, which is a policing authority. No policing authority can make their own laws or regulations for the citizens. Policing authroities can only make citizens abide by the laws and rules.
ID checks do not provide enough information to verify if someone is a bad person. The background check should have been done at the time of purchasing the ticket. The ID check would only show that you are the one that bought the ticket. It is the background check that would catch the bad people.
The airlines are in the business of making money by providing transportation. They will only provide enough security measures that will allow for the most customers with those customers feeling reasonably safe.
The TSA is applying stricter regulations on the airlines which is cutting into the airline’s customer base. Less customers, less profit. With less profit, means laying off employees. Some of the employees are aircraft maintenance workers.
So which is worsein safety, bad people or faulty aircraft?
I don’t want to live in a Nanny state, but I do expect reasonable measures to be taken to protect my safety while traveling on public transportation.
Now, I do know about driver’s checkpoints. They don’t bother me at all. I don’t drive drunk.
Maybe if they would stop letting government agencies issue new laws that were never passed by Congress, they couldn’t get away with secret laws. Did Congress pass a mandate fo air bags?