Skip to comments.
Grounded: Millionaire John Gilmore stays close to home while making a point about privacy
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^
| Sunday, Feb. 27, 2005
| Dennis Roddy
Posted on 02/27/2005 7:13:06 AM PST by TheBlackFeather
He's unable to travel because he refuses to present a government-approved ID
SAN FRANCISCO -- John Gilmore's splendid isolation began July 4, 2002, when, with defiance aforethought, he strolled to the Southwest Airlines counter at Oakland Airport and presented his ticket.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghpostgazette.com ...
TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dramaqueens; govwatch; homelandsecurity; johngilmore; libertarians; nationalid; patriotact; privacy; tsa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 481-494 next last
To: Old Professer
Seems like old Dad was wrong!.:0)
To: freebilly
"You want to be government cattle, be my guest."
Do you think the gov't should disclose all security measures in effect?
Lord knows there are enough Democrats that put their own self interest above the welfare of the country trying to so ......and pappers like the NYTimes and Wash. Post are all too accomadating.
222
posted on
02/27/2005 10:18:20 AM PST
by
Smartaleck
(Av "Never argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level - then beat you with experience.")
To: McGavin999
So you believe you have a right to over ride the airline's personal property rights? It's their planes and they have a right to say who does and who does not fly in them.
Of course not, it is not my airline. They should be able to pick their customers as they see fit. The question here is if we want a system of internal passports, and if we do should the regulations establishing internal passports be in the public record.
Cut away the emotions for a second, some folks were against Drunk Driving check points, because they thought they were intrusive to their privacy, a check for an internal passport as it were. Some would respond you are against Drunk Driving check points, then assume you must be for drunk drivers out killing innocent people. No ... you don't like internal passports...
223
posted on
02/27/2005 10:19:12 AM PST
by
Mark was here
(My tag line was about to be censored.)
To: Spktyr
In the case of flights and flight segments originating in the United States, the screening shall take place before boarding and shall be carried out by a Federal Government employee (as defined in section 2105 of title 5, United States Code), except for identifying passengers and baggage for screening under the CAPPS and known shipper programs While you read this as a burden on the person wishing to board it is actually the crux of Gilmore's argument for clearly the onus is on the carrier to identify both the passenger and the baggage and does not specify that the passenger must carry or present such I.D. nor does it clarify what such I.D. must or might be.
224
posted on
02/27/2005 10:24:09 AM PST
by
Old Professer
(As truth and fiction blend in the Mixmaster of History almost any sauce can be made palatable.)
To: Publius Valerius
Find it. I challenged The Creature (ping him if you want, I don't want to search out his interminably long screenname) to find it in the Declaration, the place where there is a long list of grievances against George III. It does not show up there once. Not once.
I have abridged them for space only:
- He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. [These guys sound like a bunch of "statists".]
- He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained;...[More government.]
- He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people,... [Yet more government.]
- He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records,... [Gotta have convenient government.]
- He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, [What? No government?]
- He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected;... [Who is the guy who wrote this thing? He must love government.]
- He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; [More laws. And immigrants, no less.]
- He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. [Will he not stop with the laws?]
- He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. [OK, no snarky remark here, I'm not perfect.]
- He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. [We want our own swarms of officers to harass our people and do the eating.]
- He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures. [But if he had just asked our legislatures...]
- He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. [Sounds like Tommy wants a TSA rather than the National Guard. Interesting...]
- He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution... [More government.]
- For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: [T! S! A! Civilians rule!]
- For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders... [Wants real trials, conducted by government, we must assume.]
- For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: [Bwahahahahaha! He's a free trader!]
- For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: [He tactfully buries it, but this is the biggie.]
- For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
- For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
- For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province,... [Wants English laws, fascinating.]
- For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: [Ahem!]
- For suspending our own Legislatures,... [Yep.]
- He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. [Yep, again.]
- He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
- He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries... [Undocumented, no doubt.]
- He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country,...
- He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, ... the merciless Indian Savages, [You have to admire the lack of PC, though.]
The point is that nowhere does it mention anything about privacy or asking for papers on the street or anything similar. The problem was taxation and the structure of government.
To: ActionNewsBill; freebilly
What happened to Free Republic? It used to be more about freedom. We've come a long way since: ". . . is life so dear or peace so sweet. . . ", haven't we.
226
posted on
02/27/2005 10:26:45 AM PST
by
Badray
(Quinn's First Law -- Liberalism ALWAYS generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.)
To: From many - one.
"Airlines are not government entities. If they want you to stand on your head and do push-upin order to board, that's their right." Agreed.
But the Southwest Airline ticket agent said the ID was required "by law." That is the rub.
How about a test of your conviction in the remark you made above:
I assume then, you would support an airline's decision to ask their customer's participate in the security of the airline's property and other passengers, by inviting them to bring their arms on-board to reduce the probability of an individual or group of individuals from attempting to hijack the aircraft with 10, 30, 80 armed customer's on board ready to stop that attempt?
I would. That is what free people do and this what Amendment II meant to guarantee.
227
posted on
02/27/2005 10:26:45 AM PST
by
tahiti
To: Spktyr
As usual...attacking when clueless. He cannot drive due to epilepsy (you'd know this if you actually read the article). And, you may not mind licking your masters boots and giving up your god-given rights ...but , fortunately for both me and you, this man does. And, all he wants is to "see the law". Show him the law, he'll show the ID. But, he has the balls and brains to stand up to a tyrannical system and say FU.
Good for him. I am always amazed when Freepers embrace tyranny.
228
posted on
02/27/2005 10:27:02 AM PST
by
KeepUSfree
(WOSD = fascism pure and simple.)
To: Publius Valerius
If you don't understand that this is a different time...I don't know what else to say to you...
If the hijackers on 911 had valid driver's licenses, you've proved MY argument...licenses weren't enough!
Not only that, but time and experience demands new methods.
No one knew on 911 what was going to happen, or what could happen.
Now we know...shouldn't we learn?
To: Old Professer
So Rosa Parks had no legs on which to stand?
She was in a public bus, not a privately owned plane.
Interesting how Rosa did not know about affirmative action and how seats were to be reserved by race, she has more in common with the girls who sued Michigan, than the Civil Rights establishment of today.
230
posted on
02/27/2005 10:27:45 AM PST
by
Mark was here
(My tag line was about to be censored.)
To: KeepUSfree
Good for him. I am always amazed when Freepers embrace tyranny.
The only tyranny comes from the Me-ocrat who blocks the way of lawful citizens as he whines that he was not personally consulted on the law.
To: yer gonna put yer eye out
You're out of your league, Little Chicken Hawk.
232
posted on
02/27/2005 10:29:57 AM PST
by
Old Professer
(As truth and fiction blend in the Mixmaster of History almost any sauce can be made palatable.)
To: Mrs Mark
"There is more here than consenting to a search."
As a public conveyance engaged in commerce the airlines must comply with certain government regulations.
The government does not have to necessarily "make" a passenger comply with a law but they can write one such that the airline does and the only way the airline can is making certain passenger requirements.
For example: The fed regulations state airlines must not accept shipments of hazardous materials from unknown shippers. How is an airline suppose to know their shippers? Well, requiring ID from them is one way.
Why would the laws be so fuzzy in nature? Because the Feds can regulate the airlines they can fine or withhold their operating certificates if they don't comply. The Feds don't necessarily have that power with the public since flying is a "choice".
If you can follow this then you can understand why the FAA might issue a compliance to the airlines and NOT have to tell the public and terrorist what security precautions are in place.
Some have pointed out that the identification of passengers doesn't do much....anyone can fake an ID. What's missing is the other measures being taken in conjunction with the ID.
233
posted on
02/27/2005 10:30:04 AM PST
by
Smartaleck
(Av "Never argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level - then beat you with experience.")
To: Sofa King
DMVs can give out non-drivers license ID's for people who need them but can't drive.
Sure, it was even alluded to in the article.
234
posted on
02/27/2005 10:31:10 AM PST
by
Mark was here
(My tag line was about to be censored.)
To: Old Professer
You're out of your league, Little Chicken Hawk.
Yet all you can hit is a foul ball. ;-)
To: yer gonna put yer eye out
It is always a different time when power corrupts.
236
posted on
02/27/2005 10:32:10 AM PST
by
Old Professer
(As truth and fiction blend in the Mixmaster of History almost any sauce can be made palatable.)
To: Cultural Jihad
Don't have to...I've already seen it.
Nice try on the straw man....however, stupid it was.
The exact point is that - and I will bold this for you fascists and dolts there IS no law that requires it.
237
posted on
02/27/2005 10:32:14 AM PST
by
KeepUSfree
(WOSD = fascism pure and simple.)
To: Mrs Mark
Sure, it was even alluded to in the article.
Then his alleged epilepsy and lack of a driver's license as mentioned in the article was gratuitous and unneeded.
To: Mrs Mark
Then, if a commercial aircraft is not a public conveyance how does the law apply to intrastate travel as well?
239
posted on
02/27/2005 10:33:40 AM PST
by
Old Professer
(As truth and fiction blend in the Mixmaster of History almost any sauce can be made palatable.)
To: freebilly
"If you, your luggage, etc are searched and nothing is found, how does not having ID impact airline safety?"
How do they know it's your luggage?
If the plane goes down.........how do they ID you and notifiy your loved ones? (This was a problem after 911 and prompted further regulations for ID's and a passenger manifest of those ID's. Concurrently, an accurate manifest would have narrowed down who the terrorist were that got on the plane by process of elimination. I.E. we can rule out Freebilly because the ID HE PRESENTED checks out so it must be somebody else.)
240
posted on
02/27/2005 10:35:13 AM PST
by
Smartaleck
(Av "Never argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level - then beat you with experience.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 481-494 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson