Coloradan faces jail for refusal to show ID

The Washington Times ^ | 11-30-05 | Valerie Richardson

[steve-b]

What on earth is happening to the America I used to know?
Has it occured to you that the Muslim world wants to kill us all??

Oh, puh-leeze. The Soviet Empire was a thousand times more dangerous than the Wahabiwackos dream of being, and yet the country managed to maintain a distinction between alertness and panic.

[steve-b]

If you're traveling through a federal center, I don't have a problem with a requirement for ID.

If the government believes that the federal center requires such a level of security, public buses should not be permitted to go through it. If the employees are so physically unfit as to be incapable of walking from the front gate to the buildings, the center can run its own secured shuttle with as many your-papers-please rituals as deemed necessary.

[steve-b]

Again, there is no legitimate reason for any public bus route to enter a secure facility. (Creating a situation where random citizens who have no business at the facility may be required to show ID dosn't count as "legitimate".)

[RogueIsland]

I remember a time when we used to criticize the former Soviet Union for such practices as "internal passports" and aggressive Gestapo-like police with chips on their shoulders that could harass little old ladies or anyone they didn't like the looks of.

Yup, used to be the charicature of totalitarianism to depict the sneering guard saying, "Vere are your papers? Your papers, zey are not in order." I think we used to consider that one of the big differences between "them" and "us".

[steve-b]

I think certainly there is concern about a bus entering a 'secure' facility. What do you suggest, that everyone hoof it to and from work

I suggest that everyone hoof it to and from the front gate of the secure facility (beyond which public buses should not, for obvious reasons, be permitted).

[On the Road to Serfdom]

There are at least three potential policies, listed from most intrusive to least intrusive:
1. No public buses allowed
2. Allow one of the many public bus routes to enter but check ID’s. Post a warning on this particular bus so everyone knows what to expect and can pick another bus if they have a problem showing ID. Federal Employees are dropped off at their buildings.
3. Allow public buses to enter with no passenger ID Checks.

I can see a very good reason not for 1. If many Federal employees take this bus why not drop them off at their buildings within the complex? Given this, I can also see why 3 might not be the best either. Why exclude a reasonable middle position and make it a false choice between 1 and 3?

[steve-b]

If many Federal employees take this bus why not drop them off at their buildings within the complex?

If it's a SECURE COMPLEX, then NO ONE should be admitted without showing that he belongs there, period. If you're going to set aside security for a trivial convenience, then you don't really have any security at all, and should stop wasting time and money on the illusion thereof.

[steve-b]

Allow one of the many public bus routes to enter but check ID’s. Post a warning on this particular bus so everyone knows what to expect and can pick another bus if they have a problem showing ID.

Why pay to run twice as many buses as needed (some going through the complex, some bypassing it) merely to save the employees the terrible burden of walking a few yards from the front gate to the buildings?

I'm sure that many of the people who pay their salaries have to walk farther than that, simply because the bus route doesn't happen to conveniently run door-to-door from their home to their workplace.

[InsureAmerica]

There was none that you know of. We are in circles now and back to the fact that neither you nor I were there.

I have written a multitude of scenarios on this thread about potential threats, etc. enough already.

[jess35]

Who in the hell said it was a "secure complex"? It doesn't need to be a "secure complex" or whatever little code words you care to invent, for their to be a requirement for identification. Why don't you barge onto the nearest military base or demand access to the White House if you think you're under no obligation to identify who you are. Let us know how that goes, okay?

Our government has an obligation to protect federal sites and the citizens who work there. They are put at a higher risk because they work at a federal facility...and not just by terrorists, by also by nutjobs who sit around shrieking about their rights all the time without ever fulfilling any of their responsibilites. You can be asked to present ID when entering federal facilities AND when entering private buildings. It's not "the man" or "the establishment" trying to "bring you down". This is a non-issue and the wrong hill to die on.

[steve-b]

Why don't you barge onto the nearest military base or demand access to the White House if you think you're under no obligation to identify who you are.

I would not expect to be admitted to a military base of the White House without producing identification and evidence that I have business there. Those places are...

...wait for it...

...[ DRUM ROLL ]...

SECURE FACILITIES

Duh.

[steve-b]

I have written a multitude of scenarios on this thread about potential threats, etc.

If they're so worried about potential threats, they should close the place to public buses.

[InsureAmerica]

Call them up and let them know about your suggestion. I am sure they have not though of it.