Gilmore was prevented from flying by both UAL Corp.'s United Airlines and Southwest Airlines Co. on July 4, U.S. Independence Day, when he refused to produce ID or undergo extensive security screening, he told Reuters. As a result he hasn't flown since September 11 last year.

Don't know where this dumbass has been, but you've needed to show ID to get on a plane LONG before 9/11.

This is unbelievable. This guy should be laughed out of court. Since when is flying anywhere a right? By purchasing a ticket from a private carrier, you are implicitly agreeing to the rules associated with that ticket.

Worse than that, it is BS lawsuits like this that get the right wing all riled up and desensitizes people when our civil liberties really are taken away (TIPS etc.).

I agree Weaps. If all this personal data is linked together, people will be getting arrested at airports and labeled as terrorists (oh wait, that's unconstitional), just becuase they bought somehting "suspicious" at Wal-Mart last week. That's when we need to worry.

How can you not think this is frivilous? At most bars, you need to show ID to prove your age because of state drinkng laws. Is the state forcing you to present your ID? No, you do so voluntarily to be admitted to the establishment. You have every right to not show your ID to the bouncer, you just won't get in. Same deal here. You don't _have_ to show your ID at the airport, but you're not gonna fly if you don't. The government is not stopping you from travelling anonymously, you can drive there!

As for Commandant Asscrack, any man that, in this day and age, thinks calico cats are a sign of the devil does not need to have this type of power. He lost to a dead man in his home state for jebus sakes! The American people are not stupid, and we pretty much know from here on out that we are under some kind of a terrorist threat at all times. How about stopping the attacks instead of coming up with idiotic color coded charts and hysterical warnings? Besides issuing vague warnings and receiving billions of dollars, what has Uncle Tom Ridge and his "Homeland" protection squad actually done?

Weaps,
I agree with what you are saying about blindly following the gov, but I think you are making a pretty big jump. You said "...doesn't mean that I now need to carry some sort of internal passport." If someone was suggesting this, then I missed it. In my experience, airlines check your drivers license or international passport. They have done this since I can remember and WELL before 9/11. The authorities are a bit ID happy, but this instance does not constitute and illegal search and seizure because you provide the information voluntarily. I could understand if the government was requesting ID to limit basic freedom of movement i.e. checkpoints to get into your neighborhood etc. The government is not really violating anyone's rights by requiring airlines to check ID's.

Tex,
You'll school me on the law specifics, obviously, but my point was questioning whether there is any real grievance here at all. Of course you can petition the government for anything you want, but that doesn't necessarily mean there was any grievance there to begin with. I assume that is for the courts to decide. In any case, I think the reason, among many, that this will never fly is because nobody is required to ride on a plane. You voluntarily disclose certain info as a pre-condition to board. Your basic freedom of movement is not restricted because you can reach your destination by other means, just not the most convienient one.

It is a cheese issue, not a race issue.

Mess with airline security, and you're plane with fire!!

Chalk one up for the Liberatarions!!

Libertarions: 1

Republicans: 0

Democrats:-$6,133,146,456,673.25

Yes, Clinton gave us 8 years of good times, but at what price?..... [/sarcasm]

"I'm surprised you can walk across the street without a GPS microchip up your ass."

If you put a GPS up someones ass they will inevitabily sh-it it out! Didn't you learn anything from Austin Powers II? (AWWWW GOD, Fat Bastard left a floater!)

I have the constitutional right not to have some asshat fly the plane I happen to be on into a building.

If the federal government was actually concerned with security they would stop the tidal wave of illegal aliens and oust the 8-13 million already here.

Do any of you other "elderly" recall the freedoms we had teo and more decades ago? Things HAVE changed and were doing so before the WTC affair.

Of course, teo decades ago there were MILLIONS less people flooding the landscape. Crowded = Big Brotherism; think about it.

texasskeptic:

you're analogies to the civil rights movement fail. we have no discrimination here. everyone is required to show id, not suspect classes of individuals.

K-jack, obviously you didn't understand the analogies. He used the analogies to show that the suit wasn't frivolous because this is not, as he put it, a "well-settled" area of the law.

While I'd hate to see us turn into a radical police state or whatever else, I don't view proving your age as being 'searched'

K-Jack: actually, people who look middle eastern are submitted to more searches and are searched more rigorously then people of any other ethnic backround these days.

It makes some sense, but discrimination it is.

If you put a GPS up someones ass they will inevitabily sh-it it out!

Depends on how far you put it up there.

Not that I would know or anything.

The right to anonymous travel remains. You are not required to "show your papers" when travelling. You can still cross the country in a car, boat, choo-choo train, or wagon train.

You are required to "show your papers" when getting onto a plane. Travelling by air is not a right. Is a service purchased from a private company.

I think the bigger point of this lawsuit is that the laws put in place need to be legal, notice the Freedom of information bit and the register.

Look at all the crap the RIAA and MPAA are doing in trying to destroy your legal Fair Use Rights. You have the legal right to buy a cd and make a copy of it for your own use. The RIAA tends to forget this. People like John Gilmore and the EFF try to remind them. Good for them.

Hey, it coulda been worse. The government could have agreed to that national ID card proposal made last year; then we start worrying. Thankfully, Bush and his advisors were smart enough to reject it.

Regarding Ashcroft...

Desecrated: He lost to a dead man in his home state for jebus sakes! The American people are not stupid...

If they're not stupid, why did they vote for a dead guy?! No, it wasn't to spite Ashcroft; it was because they felt sorry for him and let their emotions take over. Don't believe me? It's the same reason a lot of people are being "over-patriotic" in response to 9/11 without thinking about the consequences with regards to civil rights: they're feeling, but not thinking.

And regarding the regulations:

TexasSkeptic: I am curious under what provision of the Constitution the Federal government can justify requirement of the IDs.

I think it's the airline's rules, not the governments, and since they're a private company, this is allowed. See Desecrated's second post.

I admit I haven't read the post and I'm drunk but I thought you needed a passport anyway so that has all yu details on it

"They let you travel, state-to-state, without papers?"
"State-to-state."
"I think I would like to visit . . . Montana."

good luck, dOoD

One of the aspects of the lawsuit being overlooked is that the Airlines are unable to show people the mandate that requires IDs because it's not written down. According to the lawsuit, the FAA mandates have only been communicated orally and are not available to the public. Whether or not Americans should undergo search and seizure with no probable cause, the government should not be allowed to rule us with secret, unwritten laws.

I would suggest that people read the lawsuit for better information than this article.

Most of you Farkers don't remember it but there was a time when you never had to show ID for any transportation whether air, train or bus. Just bought a ticket and went. It was not that long ago.
Just remember that what you take for security whether pro or con, its doubtful the freedom of movement you once enjoyed or ever knew will ever be restored and there is probably a self serving bureaucracy in place in the name of security that will see that it doesn't.

Desecrated, not that I necessarily agree with the suit, but I am curious under what provision of the Constitution the Federal government can justify requirement of the IDs. It is a government of enumerated powers, and if a power cannot fit (however broadly construed) among those specifically enumerated, the Tenth Amendment reserves those powers to the states (or to the people). Here's a link to the Constitution on the Library of Congress website.

The federal gov't definitely goes beyond any possible way to construe its enumerated powers at this point. Like it or not, the federal government is way more powerful than is constitutional. At this point it can basically get states to do anything. Someone should attack some government programs on the basis not of violation of some right (or fake right they whip up through strange combinations of the Amendments), but simply on the basis that the fed has no authority. Might shake things up a bit.

Not to prod TexasSceptic unduly, but are your comments so much more important than ours such that you must make them stand out by writing them in blue?

_

Doesn't everyone know by now that a good patriotic american always submits willingly to ID checks, searches, and microchip implantation. "Land of the free" means you're free to shut the hell up and enjoy that anal cavity search. Anyone who doth protest too much is obviously a terrorist loving commie homo pot smoker. Silly libertarians, don't you know that rights are only for the good white privileged christian americans?

And thank god the constitution is on the way out. It was only hampering our loving government's efforts to protect us and take care of us and wipe our collective asses, cause god forbid a man be allowed to WIPE HIS OWN ASS.

Desecrated:
How can you not think this is frivilous? At most bars, you need to show ID to prove your age because of state drinkng laws. Is the state forcing you to present your ID? No, you do so voluntarily to be admitted to the establishment. You have every right to not show your ID to the bouncer, you just won't get in.

Huh? The only reason you have to show ID to get into the bar is because of state law. You think that bars want to deny access to minors? Of course not. They have to keep kids out because if they get caught, there goes the liquor license.


This lawsuit makes sense because there is no similar law requiring (or allowing) airlines to check ID. Bars can check ID because there is a that law allows it. There is no similar law for airplane travel.

This country is becoming a totalitarian state. I hate having to go to the airport 2 hours early to make my flight. If a guy's a terrorist, he's going to use a fake ID; so what exactly is the purpose of having everyone show ID?

Plain and Simple:

Air travel is not a right. It is an optional mode of transportation. It is a luxury.
Don't need to discuss much...If you don't like the rules, then get on the bus, Gus.
Whether the Fed or the states control air travel is irrelevant. It is not a right.

The same goes for driving;It is not a right either. It may be important to you as an individual or it might even be a legitimate need.
But it is a luxury and a priviledge, and in order to drive legally you must agree to law. This includes passing tests and possesing at all times a valid driver's license. And if you don't like that...make a new plan, Stan. Hoof it.

Desecrated:
[b]"How can you not think this is frivilous? At most bars, you need to show ID to prove your age because of state drinkng laws. Is the state forcing you to present your ID? No, you do so voluntarily to be admitted to the establishment. You have every right to not show your ID to the bouncer, you just won't get in."[/b]

Huh? The only reason you have to show ID to get into the bar is because of state law. You think that bars want to deny access to minors? Of course not. They have to keep kids out because if they get caught, there goes the liquor license.


This lawsuit makes sense because there is no similar law requiring (or allowing) airlines to check ID. Bars can check ID because there is a that law allows it. There is no similar law for airplane travel.

This country is becoming a totalitarian state. I hate having to go to the airport 2 hours early to make my flight. If a guy's a terrorist, he's going to use a fake ID; so what exactly is the purpose of having everyone show ID?

grrrr....i always mess up html

Airlines remind civil libertarian of their right not to let him on their plane.

althought the airlines do require a peek at your id so do the folks admitting you to concorses in many airports. while this may initially seem like a saftey enhancing procedure, the concerns raised regarding the government breaking the rules (the constitution) are warranted. as was pointed out earlier in this discussion, the alleged 9/11 hi-jackers were carrying "id". so there is at least in part inference to an ulterior motive and obviously intention to maintain travel and other records. (regarding other instances requiring id check) i think that forcing a minimum drinking age and requiring that one prove his/her age to acquire alcohol is a ridiculous policy of the federal government. in order to force states to comply the feds have placed restrictions on the total $ a state will receive for road maintenance. so this is a very small group of individuals that have forced compliance for every state. furthermore, suggesting that the establishment you buy from is not the government so it's different is only partly true due to the fact that private companies that do not check id cards face stiff penalties and can even lose their right to sell alcohol. which when you consider most of the world's alcohol policies the us has one of the most extreme. hell, most countries have no age requirements for alcohol. but, hey, we live in the land of the "free" and apparently at quite a price.

Cclark: They are public carriers using public airways and roads, tracks and waterways under interstate Commerce. Don't be so eager to place these corporation's cocks in tour mouth. Know why, be watchful and concerned when giving away others freedom.

The best part of all..... John Ashcroft as defendant! Stick it to 'em!

Barisaxy: "Don't know where this dumbass has been, but you've needed to show ID to get on a plane LONG before 9/11."


You're a moron... that was mentioned in the article

In a more perfect world, the plaintiff in the lawsuit would win; in today's world, he does not stand a chance because the so-called federal justices are not true Justices of Law--they all are mere chancellors of non-constitutional, territorial courts, rather than true Constitutional, Judicial, Due-Process Courts of Law. In the true Courts of Law, the plaintiff would certainly win and the producing of a ticket alone would be enough to establish a right to board a plane, since a ticket is paid for in advance and in good faith.

There is not ONE court today that is a true Constitutional, Judicial, Due-Process Court of Law, NOT ONE. That is a fact. Today's courts are a far cry from true Courts of Law and far worse in terms of having one's basic Rights upheld; however, in today's phucked up world, a true Sui Juris has a snowball's chance in hell of having one's basic Rights to be upheld, like in this instant case.

Chances are that this "civil libertarian" is a US citizen, as such, he has no right to question the policies of the US government, which is, in truth, a corporation, not a true government. Read the unlawful 14th Amendment: a US citizen has no right to question the policies of the gummint; whereas, a true Sui Juris has the full rights and powers that are superior to any gummint agent because the Sui Juris is a superior political power-holder.

Today's world sucks.

It surprises me to say this, but these libertarians are right. And it makes me sad. One of the ideals our nation was founded on is the idea that we could freely travel anonymously and without harassment. But there really is no way for a person to travel these days without having to show someone working directly or by extension your 'papers'.

Tell me, how can I travel without having to carry ID on me? Airplanes, and now busses and trains require ID. Driving an automobile requires an ID. If you walk long distance, you may be required to show ID to prove you're not a 'transient'.

Personally, I really don't like that. IDs, social security numbers and the like can be faked. Honest citizens don't fake them, only criminals. These excessive security measures do nothing but make it slightly harder for terrorists but don't implicitly prevent them from doing their evil deeds, while it unconstitutionally harasses honest citizens.

It saddens me when I read people say 'oh it's a small price to pay for security and safety'. But we sit on a fine line with our government, and we have to remain constantly vigilant to ensure our government remains in its rightful position to protect us, not control us.

I like freedom, which is why I like living in America. I like the idea that I can do, go, think, and live how I want as long as I don't hurt anyone else. I like the fact that the police cannot harass me unless they have significant reason to suspect that I've actually done something wrong, and I have a right to ask them to state that reason.

But I don't like being a suspect just because I am living my life. I don't like to have somebody go through my possessions because they are afraid that I 'might' do something wrong, whether I'm getting on an airplane, going into a rock concert.

The situation on the airlines is terrible, because it comes from a perspective that everyone is suspect. I fly a lot, and I'd rather risk the very small chance that a criminal might get through and do something bad then have to live my life in fear of my government. This is because I'm an American, and a patriot.

Nanookanano
"Hunt for Red October".

Nice.

Hey, we should start a quote game.

Desecrated,
In response to your point about bars and IDs (belated, I know): the analogy between bars and airports is faulty. A bouncer might check your ID to see if you're of legal age in the state, but he does NOT compile a list of the names on the IDs he's checked, and then download the list to a Federal Bar Registry, to make sure that rowdy drunks don't get into bars.

And all this is just another example of how the Republican party embraces the concept of the free market, yet will integrate gov't and business in the most interesting ways when it sees fit.