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 ...
Irrational? Ballistic?
Nope. just calm and matter of fact, actually.
If my intent was to cause harm, why would I announce it?
And quite often, I do cash checks without ID. I do a lot of things against protocol. I'm just a charming, lovable, but harmless little teddy bear.
John Gilmore
12 Sept 96
When Gilmore opened his laptop for inspection by airport personnel at San Francisco International last month - as requested - but refused to turn the machine on, the cops were called. When he then refused to show identification to airport police, "they put the handcuffs on me and hauled me off," he told The Netizen.
Gilmore's arrest came after President Clinton tightened airport security in response to the TWA Flight 800 disaster and the Atlanta Olympic Games bombing. Now the anti-terrorism drumbeat in the nation's capital is starting again, and it's louder and more ominous than ever. It reached a fevered pitch Monday, when Clinton called for an increase of more than one billion dollars to be spent on anti-terrorism measures, especially airport security.
Clinton based his request on the unsurprising recommendations of a commission created by executive order in August, staffed by spooks and headed by Vice President Gore. The group's proposal includes a plan allowing the CIA and FBI to "develop a system" to screen passengers who fit certain profiles as potential terrorists.
There's more to it than what the paper says. But you knew that right?
http://freetotravel.org/legal.html
Contributions?
GILMORE, JOHN
SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94117
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION/CO-F
2/18/2004
$5,000
Marijuana Policy Project
GILMORE, JOHN
SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94117
SELF-EMPLOYED/ENTREPRENEUR
10/28/2003
$5,000
Marijuana Policy Project
GILMORE, JOHN
SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94117
DECLINED
7/1/2000
$2,000
Howell, Carla
Massachusetts: Society and Culture:
Politics: Candidates and Campaigns: Governor: Howell, Carla
GILMORE, JOHN
SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94117
SELF EMPLOYED/LABORER
4/16/2002
$1,000
Lee, Barbara
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA LEE, Democrat of Berkeley, was the only member of Congress who refused to defend her country under attack.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4520
GILMORE, JOHN H B
SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94117
ENTREPRENEUR
1/26/2002
($1,000)
Cloud, Michael
Declare a Drug Peace," says Michael Cloud, Libertarian for US Senate in Massachusetts.
"End Drug Prohibition
GILMORE, JOHN N
SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94117
BUSINESS ENTREPRENEUR
10/2/2002
$5,000
Natl Org for Reform of Marijuana Laws
Seems like a pretty unbiased treatment. The judge can't even figure out what he wants. LOL
http://www.reason.com/0308/fe.bd.suspected.shtml
Just thinking out loud how the gov't is to identify illegal aliens if they can't request such information.
Immaterial to the issue he raises.
Of course, they realize that the security of their nation is at stake. For us, it's just a jobs program for morons, half wits, and thugs to exercise a bit of power in their otherwise pitiful existences.
One last time; no simple, single document is an assurance of true and complete identification.
I met one fool who proffered this same belief. He was certifiable. They toss around terms without even knowing their meaning.
Then again, some of them consider Thomas Jefferson a communist. They'd probably still regard George Washington as a traitor to the crown, even though the US has been a sovereign nation for over 200 years.
LOL I may have missed some of Jefferson's weaker moments, but I'm not familiar with any communist tendencies.
I'll grant that he was revolutionary in his thinking, but that is the extent of any similarities.
Indeed. Idiots, fools, and posers abound.
Always the big picture..my friend. He has an agenda and its not Bush friendly. However he is UN friendly. His "accomplishments" do not impress me. His money does not impress me. And his website does not impress me.
Unfortunately, most of your fellow Americans can neither see the principle, nor do they have any desire to "avoid the consequence by denying the principle".
That is too good to let pass without quoting the entire passage.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthen itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle."
That's about the only point in the article I agree with. IMHO Gilmore isn't being denied a Constitutionally guaranteed right by being forced to show ID in order to travel in the manner he prefers. It isn't up to him to decide if the law makes sense, if the law was duly enacted and doesn't violate any of the people's rights that are protected by the Constitution his approval isn't necessary to establish it's validity.
The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, so it has authority to set the rules for interstate airline travel. Those rules do not deny Gilmore's right to travel from state to state, they only restrict his access to privately owned facilities such as airlines and passenger trains. He, or any of us, may object to those rules and believe they are stupid and useless, but they were made by our elected representatives and it must be presumed that they reflect the will of the people. If not, they are subject to revision or revocation if the majority of voters make their will known to their representatives, or failing that, at the next election. The system is called representative government, and it has served the republic pretty well for over 200 years.
Just because some of the people don't agree with a law doesn't make it null and void for those people, it applies equally to those who approve it and those who don't. Mr Gilmore has the right to challenge the law in court if he disagrees with it or believes it to be unconstitutional, but he still must obey it until it is either struck down by the judicial branch or repealed by the legislative branch.
After having said all that, I want to affirm that I fully believe we have the right to see and read the laws which we are required to live by, and I support Gilmore's attempt to challenge that part of the law which denies him, and all of us, that right. IOW. although I don't agree with his contention that his rights are violated by the law, I fully agree that he has the right to see and read the law. Gilmore's situation regarding the air travel security regulations is essentially the same as that of someone being arrested for speeding on a public street where the speed limit is deliberately kept secret from the motorists who use the street.
I don't understand the point that you are trying to make.
He has brought an issue to light, none the less, and while his other exploits may be in question, this particular issue is important.
If you want to 'shoot the messenger', be my guest.
Given the latter part of your statement, what are your thoughts on the National Firearms Act of 1934?
You mean that mere citizens acutally challenged the almighty government's 'right' to ride roughshod over people and property. How dare they?
Can you see the dripping sarcasm?
Are you against showing ID at the polls under the pretext that it violates the Bill of Rights or should just anyone be able to vote?
Watch yourself. You've slid all the down the slope and almost said the "D" word.
WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!
My rights are not subject to anyone's vote even if they go thru the entire amendment process and are successful. My rights are mine by virtue of my birth and are unalienable. Government may choose to violate them, but they do so at their peril.
That is true, but the laws Congress' wishes to have the President enact, still cannot violate the Bill of Rights.
For example, according to your remark, the Congress has the power to "regulate" a newspaper. But Amendment I prohibits Congress from regulating the content of a newspaper.
I also would like to ask you the following question:
The "commerce clause" states:
" To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"
When and how did a US business, owned privately by the citizens, become either a "foreign nation(s)" or one of "the several state(s)" or an "Indian tribe(s)?"
The truly sad part: Some of these folks are invoking the commerce clause. An intentionally ( or unintentionally ) are making the same rationale that was made during FDR to greatly expand government power at the expense of the people.
I absolutely believe that a valid photo ID should be shown before voting. I don't even have a problem with purple ink on the finger.
I further belief that anyone who is found guilty of voter fraud should be subject to the same penalties as those who commit treason. The effect on the country is potentially the same.
But you offer a straw man when none is needed.
If I am being searched prior to boarding an aircraft and found not to be a threat, what difference does it make to anyone what my name is?
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.