May I see your papers?

[Stonehead]

Curious, what you folks might think about this. Is this issue merely academic, something not worth thinking about, or is this truly important?

 

On the 16th of August, John Gilmore filed his case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Gilmore vs. Ashcroft, et.al). His case stems from the following event:

 

On the 4th of July 2002, John Gilmore, American citizen, decided to take a trip from one part of the United States of America to another. He went to Oakland International Airport -- ticket in hand -- and was told 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.

 

John politely refused to show his ID and was not allowed to fly.

 

John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines. There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.

 

He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.

 

Gilmore asks two questions in his suit: 1) Do citizens currently need to show ID in order to travel in their own country? 2) If the answer is 'yes', is this constitutional? Gilmore claims that the restriction on his free travel within the country involves constitutional issues primarily the First Amendment right to freely assemble and the Fourth Amendment concerning search and seizure.

 

Gilmore brings up the point stated by some people, “if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear”. He counters by asking why did the founding fathers insert the Fourth and Fifth Amendments into the Bill of Rights. In his words, “After all, nobody who hasn't done anything wrong needs to worry about being searched or being forced to testify against himself.”

-- source (see home page)

See this link also.

 

Another recent legal case surrounding the identification issue was Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, a case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling in this case upheld the constitutionality of yielding to a police request for identification.

-- commentary here and here.

 

Also here's an interesting story about the importance of providing identification to Forest Service agents. The writer lists Brown vs. Texas (1979), a case in which the court ruled that a suspect has no obligation to provide his name to police.

 

So, does this have any significance in regard to the terrorist threat and government demand for citizen identification, an issue discussed here (What's In a Name?).

 

Other related cases:

Terry vs. Ohio (1968)

Kastigar vs. United States (1972)

Kolender v. Lawson (1982)

[ashw_justin]

Also here's an interesting story about the importance of providing identification to Forest Service agents.

 

Man that was long, a good dense read. Damn that evil Didier!

[MervGriffin]

Grow up, Stonehead. Showing your I.D. is a small price to pay for a little more security on your airplane. You can blame those knuckleheads from 9-11 who woke us up from our complacency to the fact that there are actually untrustworthy and dangerous people within our borders. In other countries with terrorist potential, (.e.g Israel) you are issued a national identity card to be shown on demand. Fortunately, we haven't reached that stage yet, but it's been discussed. At this point, we don't necessarily have the luxury to board a plane without showing I.D. (which by the way, is far less intrusive then removing your shoes, being patted down, etc. which is also regularly part of the process), but you can sure go to and fro most places in this country without much of a hassle as long as you don't drive drunk or break the speed limit. You also show your I.D. when you cash a check at the bank, etc. What's the problem? Idealism needs to be tempered with a little realism on occasion. Just my opinion.

[ashw_justin]

Checking ID's isn't going to save us from the terrorists.

[MervGriffin]

Checking ID's isn't going to save us from the terrorists.

 

Actually, it probably already has had a worthwhile effect along with a good number of other security measures. It certainly isn't as easy to get on a plane to cause mayhem as it used to be. So roll your eyes, cowboy, and pretend it's all a waste of time.

[RobBob]

Airlines are not public transportation, therefore the suit has no basis. He'd have more basis IMO if he complained that as a motorist he was stopped in random traffic stops while traveling across the country on public highways.

[DPS]

Seems to me that showing your ID to prove that you are the owner of the ticket is a reasonable request of the airlines. Occasionally I am asked for my ID when I use my credit card, seems like the same issue.

[rbw1966]

I agree with RobBob. Airlines are not owned by the government, just subject to government regulation. If they want you to show ID to board a plane then do it. If you don't want to show ID you are free to choose another mode of transport.

 

I require all my passengers to present ID prior to boarding.

[Greg_W]

Airlines are not public transportation, therefore the suit has no basis. He'd have more basis IMO if he complained that as a motorist he was stopped in random traffic stops while traveling across the country on public highways.

 

Agreed. He is choosing to engage in commerce with a private entity. In doing so, he has entered a contract; the airline requires, as part of the contract, that he show ID. If he doesn't want to, he should take the train or the bus or simply drive.

[Off_White]

Airlines are not public transportation, therefore the suit has no basis. He'd have more basis IMO if he complained that as a motorist he was stopped in random traffic stops while traveling across the country on public highways.

 

I agree, but have a question as to whether there really is a "secret law" requiring this of all airlines. (I admit that sounds strange to me, more like obstreperous customer service than reality) If it's simply company policy of the various carriers, that's fine and dandy. If it's a legal or regulatory requirement of the federal government, then then the constitutionality is a valid question.

 

Personally, I think all the airline security hoopla is just a dog and pony show intended to boost traveller confidence rather than any real deterrent. Fake ID is not hard to come by if you're a professional, and searching my 86 year old mother in law and confiscating her nail clippers doesn't make the world one whit safer.

[rbw1966]

Fuck yeah it does. I don't want granny getting medieval on the Airbus, slashing stewardesses with her nail file when she starts jonesin' for her Haldol.

[murraysovereign]

Showing your I.D. is a small price to pay for a little more security on your airplane. You can blame those knuckleheads from 9-11 who woke us up from our complacency...

 

It's worth remembering, too, that we've been asked to show ID at check-in for years now, long before 9/11. It's just that, prior to the Patriot Act, no-one saw it as a sinister government plot to imprison us all. But in the paranoid atmosphere these days, every little thing casts a much longer shadow and looks far scarier than it used to.

[Greg_W]

Showing your I.D. is a small price to pay for a little more security on your airplane. You can blame those knuckleheads from 9-11 who woke us up from our complacency...

 

It's worth remembering, too, that we've been asked to show ID at check-in for years now, long before 9/11. It's just that, prior to the Patriot Act, no-one saw it as a sinister government plot to imprison us all. But in the paranoid atmosphere these days, every little thing casts a much longer shadow and looks far scarier than it used to.

 

And I think that is because the Federal Government took over the security screening process.

[Off_White]

And I think that is because the Federal Government took over the security screening process.

 

Yeah, come to think of it, there's two times you've gotta show id at the airport: at check in with the airline, then in the screening process with TSA. There must be some loophole though, since one of my employees lost his wallet while at a wedding in Sitka, and they did let him fly home. Maybe the return leg of a roundtrip ticket can get you a little slack?

[RobBob]

Before TSA took over, I think a lot of the show-your-ID was to stop the ticket swapping that used to take place.

 

Nothing like a nighttime traffic stop in Latin America, complete with machine guns, to get the old blood pumping. It's happened to me twice...one was in a taxi between the Panama City airport and downtown. Unsettling.

[Stonehead]

Grow up, Stonehead. Showing your I.D. is a small price to pay for a little more security on your airplane. You can blame those knuckleheads from 9-11 who woke us up from our complacency to the fact that there are actually untrustworthy and dangerous people within our borders. In other countries with terrorist potential, (.e.g Israel) you are issued a national identity card to be shown on demand. Fortunately, we haven't reached that stage yet, but it's been discussed. At this point, we don't necessarily have the luxury to board a plane without showing I.D. (which by the way, is far less intrusive then removing your shoes, being patted down, etc. which is also regularly part of the process), but you can sure go to and fro most places in this country without much of a hassle as long as you don't drive drunk or break the speed limit. You also show your I.D. when you cash a check at the bank, etc. What's the problem? Idealism needs to be tempered with a little realism on occasion. Just my opinion.

 

Merv, thanks for your opinion. My first thoughts were in line with what you stated, i.e., having to compile with identification requirements is a comparatively minor inconvenience, just a small sacrifice that must be made for the general welfare and safety of the masses. I wonder though if that is true then why did Gilmore, who does not appear unintelligent, file the case? If it's such an open and shut case with regards to what your common sense tells you, then why bother?

 

Am I also to assume that you support an national identity card and if you do, do you support having such information such as your religious identity, ethnic background, political views, etc. linked via database to that card? Do you see no danger to liberty in this?

 

Has the spirit of our Founding Fathers been superceded by the current realities of what constitutes life today? Will we see our Bill of Rights subverted in the name of the War on Terrorism? And a related question: Expediency is more important than Due Process, I mean, you should be judged potentially dangerous based on your reading habits? Remember when the FBI issued an alert to watch for people carrying a Farmer's Almanac as a sign of a potential terrorist? Questions...I only have questions.

[Alpinfox]

Ben says, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

[Stonehead]

Hmm...this doesn't seem to be an issue that concerns anyone judging by the majority of responses. I guess I'll take the blue pill.

 

BTW, if anyone's interested here's some background material on John Gilmore-- interview with Gilmore in NeoFiles .

 

Oh yeah, and here's a bit of humor--- from the ACLU.

Edited September 3, 2004 by Stonehead

[rbw1966]

[Greg_W]

The man on the left was also a communist - J. Edgar Hoover said so.

[rbw1966]

Hoover also wore women's underpants. The similarities between you and he are striking.

 

[Greg_W]

Hoover also wore women's underpants. The similarities between you and he are striking.

 

 

The important difference is that I wear them as a hat after I've taken them off with my teeth!

[foraker]

Greg_W: Master of the Comedic Loophole. :-)

[Greg_W]

Greg_W: Master of the Comedic Loophole. :-)

 

Could I get that as a title? Minx? IG?

[rbw1966]

You make your own title when you are a donor.