Replies

Boo hoo. So maybe he gets the Supreme Court to mandate a more open set of laws governing airport security.

That'll be fixed in about, oh, A DAY. In fact I'll bet the Supreme Court will give the Congress and President the leeway to take care of it before they throw the airport system into a frenzy.

Please excuse me if I don't shed a tear if someone doesn't feel like identifying himself before boarding an airplane. I'm sure Mohammed Atta would have appreciated that privilege too.

Turn in your conservative membership card.

The first element of the rule of representative government is that the people have the right to actually know the laws that they must follow.

The second is that they have the right for representation in the making of those laws.

Both were violated here.

That'll be fixed in about, oh, A DAY.

Yeah, Riiight. That is why they are fighting this so hard, when it could be fixed soooo easily.

Gilmore has it right. It wasn't as if we didn't know who Mohammed Atta was.

The whole idea of internal passports is wrong. It has the potential to turn us all into slaves. If the government knows everywhere you have been, what you have bought, and from who, no one is safe, and everyone can be found guilty of some law, some where, some time.

With our increasing technology, that is where internal passports leads.

"Boo hoo. So maybe he gets the Supreme Court to mandate a more open set of laws governing airport security.

That'll be fixed in about, oh, A DAY. In fact I'll bet the Supreme Court will give the Congress and President the leeway to take care of it before they throw the airport system into a frenzy.

Please excuse me if I don't shed a tear if someone doesn't feel like identifying himself before boarding an airplane. I'm sure Mohammed Atta would have appreciated that privilege too."

His court case isn't about being required to show ID. It's about the law, which people are expected to know and obey, being actually available for the public to review.

Unless you're like some nazi SS man who expects the law to be followed because someone in the uniform says it's the law, and no, you lowly peons can't see the text of the law for yourself.

(Did you like how I equated you with a nazi SS thug the same way you equated him with a terrorist? Kinda neat, eh?)

If this happened during the clinton years, and it was janet reno saying "no, you can't see the text of the law", you and everyone else here would be up in arms. That makes you a hypocrite. If you say you wouldn't be doing that, that makes you a liar.

Please excuse me if I don't shed a tear if someone doesn't feel like identifying himself before boarding an airplane. I'm sure Mohammed Atta would have appreciated that privilege too.

From the article: The elegance of Gilmore's thinking is that knowing someone's ID does not prevent the person from committing a terrorist act. The 9/11 hijackers had driver's licenses. Knowing someone's identity, as Gilmore argues it, adds less to a security than it takes away from a traveler's protection from authority that might oppress simply because it can.

I refuse to fly until they admit that even terrorists armed with AK-47s will never be able to fully commandeer another American aircraft. If I, or any other red-blooded Amercian man or woman was on the plane, we'd swarm the bastards. They'd have to kill us all, every last one of us.

So quit grabbing the nail-clippers and pretending you're making us safe, you stupid effers.