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 ...
The police dept has a mandate to keep the public safe. A serial killer has committed several murders.
The police chief issues an order to not speak publicly about who is under investigation. He further issues and order to withhold evidence about the crime. (Read, undisclosed regulations.)
No it is not a good analogy. The police chief is operating under work instructions that are public documents. These instructions allow the police chief enough discretion to catch the serial killer. The rules are for collecting the data or evidence, the actual data itself can be released at the discretion of the investigators. The data is not the work instructions. You are told to measure the diameter of a rod using a micrometer and record the result in a chart showing you made the check. You record .499 as your check. Is your measurement result .499 a work instruction? Is .499 analogous to or a regulation? Of course it is not.
Does the public have a right or even a need to know about these orders? Do we need to know who they're investigating?
No the public only has to know that the Police Chief is operating under public work instructions, and has to stay within the instructions he was given. He can not conduct certain searches with out a warrant, or torture suspects, for example.
What if the killer works for an airlines and the police are working with the FAA and airlines. Does the public have a right to know that they are trying to identify an employee they think might be a serial killer?
The public is paying for the investigation, the public should expect the investigation to keep data learned private, if it will prevent the money spent from being wasted and allow for the capture of the bad guy.
Should the police dept be required to disclose to the serial killer that they're looking at him?
If you are a serial killer you should always assume the police are looking for you.
We live in a time when a cab company or a pizza place may not come to a residence if they can't make an ID such as that afforded by caller ID.. No law, no disclosure ......just doing business and protecting workers. ;-)
You are absolutely right, people do not have a right to pizza delivery.
Think terrorist attacking the country.
"Do want to be subject to arrest and not know the charges against you?"
You'll be told. Those that have, it's in the news.
Well guy.... sorry but there is no "right" to be kept safe. This is certainly a responsibility of our government to work toward, but don't confuse it with a basic right guaranteed by our constitution. Confusing "safety" with rights is not unlike expecting "decent and affordable housing" or "free medical care" to be treated as "rights".
I'd like to draw attention to one other statement in the article which clarifies the point Mr. Gilmore is trying to make and one which I wholeheartedly agree with;
- I'd rather see us go through a real debate that says we want to introduce required identity papers in our society rather than trying to legislate it through the back door through regulations that say there's not any other way to get around,"
The real issue at stake here, is NOT whether photo IDs are a good idea before allowing a passenger on a domestic flight. No, the issue being debated here is whether the government is respecting basic constitutional rights in the process. Properly legistlated, this requirement likely does pass constitutional muster, but the way this is done will not and it's refreshing to see that someone out there still understands the core principals involved.
"You should work that up into a full comedy routine."
And your direct experience working with a regulatory body is........
"The police chief is operating under work instructions that are public documents."
The Dept. of TRansportation, FAA, Transportation Security Administration, Homeland Security all work under public documents..... Keep the flying public safe.
Okay, I am curious and asking. Have a link or a story?
Stand by, though, I have a feeling this thread is on the way to the Smokey Back Room.
It seems like an eternity since I have been on an actual Free Republic 'purse fight' thread complete with all the usual suspects from the Freeper Flying Monkey Squad.
Best regards,
He is an idiot and I did read the entire article. He can get an ID without having a driver's license. I travel quite frequently and with ease. He chooses to make it an issue. I do not. That's the difference.
Thank you. I try to save the term "idiot" just for people like this individual. Appears he has a lot of time on his hands. ;)
Jefferson would be a freaking communist today. Don't you know he was the father of the left? I don't know why he is so revered.
Think free people-militia-self defense-open carry.
ho hum...with all that money he supposedly has he can charter a plane or can purchase his own. I don't feel sorry for the guy..yawns again.
"Think free people-militia-self defense-open carry."
Close. Just use the words in the Constitution as meant. No need to change them.
???
I never said I felt sorry for him. He's just doing what most conservatives would like to do if they had the guts and the money to back it up. It's called "freedom is being left the h*ll alone." I don't fly because I won't put up with that crap either.
That's YOUR choice, some of us need to fly for whatever reason..job, family, vacation. I enjoy the ease of taking a plane to whatever destination I so choose. This individual can sit in his lawn chair in front of his poster and protest. That's his right.
Regards,
fight_truth_decay
I don't believe Mr. Gilmore expects or even wants anyone to "feel sorry" for him. This is a case of attempting to hold on to constitutional rights and ask that the government please follow the process when there is a need to curb those rights in the name of public safety.
I'm quite happy to see someone with the ability to support himself taking up the cause.
He certainly marches to a different drummer. He picked this issue for a reason, and he broke no law. If it opens the debate on internal passports, fine. I was naturally against National ID cards, but the recent election changed my opinion. Do we dare leave our house without our ID card? Maybe we can not, and those who choose not to comply are just idiots, I do not know.
Actually I don't understand the logic behind it and I don't understand how you or anyone else can understand the logic behind it.
The 9/11 terrorists all had driver's lecenses that were obtained legally.
What the terrorists did not have was an expectation that they would be opposed by Sky Marshals or that their luggage and carry-ons would be scanned to reveal the boxcutters they were carrying.
I am a loss to understand why our government doesn't rely on scanning and air marshals to preempt an in-air attack by terrorists.
The whole business of background checks on the citizenry reeks of intrusion and Big-Brother projection. It is surely more expensive to build an IT inrastructure for monitoring the population than it is to fund and train expert scanners and air marshals.
The background checking does not make me feel safer.
You present a logical argument for requiring each citizen to have identification at all times. However, there is no such enumerated power in the US Constitution. The government has no authority to require such a thing.
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.