when do we build our own iron curtain?

[DKSuddeth]

news link

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that people do not have a constitutional right to refuse to tell police their names.

The 5-4 decision frees the government to arrest and punish people who won't cooperate by revealing their identity.

Privacy advocates have argued such a ruling could let the government force people who have done nothing wrong to submit to fingerprinting or give up more personal information.

Police had argued that identity requests are a normal part of their work, including efforts to get information on terrorists.

The ruling upholds a Nevada rancher's misdemeanor conviction. He was arrested after he told a law officer he didn't have to reveal his name or show an ID. The dissenting justices say the rancher acted "well within" his rights.

 

[dilloduck]

Are we guaranteed in the Constitution the right to anonymity. If everyone had this right and used it to its full extent, what would we be left with? John and Jane Does I guess. It's just not practical IMHO.

 

[DKSuddeth]

what we're losing is the ability to keep government out of our lives. as americans become more comfortable with being an 'open book' to law enforcement while they chant 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' and accuse others of hiding something, when they hold those personal rights near, we will cease to be a free nation with a government elected by the people and we'll become a people ruled by a tyranny.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
what we're losing is the ability to keep government out of our lives. as americans become more comfortable with being an 'open book' to law enforcement while they chant 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' and accuse others of hiding something, when they hold those personal rights near, we will cease to be a free nation with a government elected by the people and we'll become a people ruled by a tyranny.

Yes. Our right to withhold our identification from law enforcement is certainly worth getting in a hissy over. NOT! And how dare Howard Stern not be allowed to say TITTIES over the airwaves. CENSORSHIP!

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
what we're losing is the ability to keep government out of our lives. as americans become more comfortable with being an 'open book' to law enforcement while they chant 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' and accuse others of hiding something, when they hold those personal rights near, we will cease to be a free nation with a government elected by the people and we'll become a people ruled by a tyranny.

Although I am not entirely convinced about the tyranny part, I do agree with the underlying premise of the post.

If I am walking down the street, minding my own business, have done nothing wrong, no one, not even the cops have a right to query me about my identity. There is no probable cause.

However, the man discussed in the article was stopped pursuant to probable cause (definition and explanation http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/315/315lect06.htm ) of assault. His assertion at a later time was that his 4th and 5th amendment rights were being violated. Here I agree with the court. If probable causes exists and is sufficient, then the cops should be able to determine who you are.

"Routine" requests however should be denied IMO and I will do so when asked; unless the cop can comple me otherwise .

There was a thread on this a couple weeks ago? Maybe I am just confusing it with an article I read dealing with the same subject, but in this article, the author clearly stated precedent that protects someone that chooses not to identify themselves or something to that effect. I will search and see if I can find it as it was interesting.

 

[DKSuddeth]

you are right. It was argued more than a year ago about showing ID, with probably cause, and as far as the rancher in question goes he didn't really have an argument. What the court has done today is opened the doors up for random ID spot checks, much like they cleared the way for random checkpoints on highways a few years ago.

 

[5stringJeff]

DK, I agree with you. It would be one thing if you tried to withhold your identity if you were being arrested. But no one should be forced to identify themselves to authorities on demand.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
you are right. It was argued more than a year ago about showing ID, with probably cause, and as far as the rancher in question goes he didn't really have an argument. What the court has done today is opened the doors up for random ID spot checks, much like they cleared the way for random checkpoints on highways a few years ago.

Which opens up a whole new can of worms.

In the couse of checking an ID the citizen is subject to host of other intrusive measures... what's that I smell? What's that in your pocket? Why are your eyes glazed over?

Dammit just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water!

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
you are right. It was argued more than a year ago about showing ID, with probably cause, and as far as the rancher in question goes he didn't really have an argument. What the court has done today is opened the doors up for random ID spot checks, much like they cleared the way for random checkpoints on highways a few years ago.

I think this is what I remember reading http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...oc+personal+identification+requirements&hl=en

I think it is gemane to this thread as it appears contradictory to what the courts have ruled.

Explain to me how the court can state that an individual must show an ID on demand, but most of our states do not reuire ID to vote. This is where I beging to have severe problems with what our government does and how it functions. Kind of like the left hand right hand - and who the hell is in charge?

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
DK, I agree with you. It would be one thing if you tried to withhold your identity if you were being arrested. But no one should be forced to identify themselves to authorities on demand.

That is part of what I am trying to find.

 

[OCA]

Well as being one of the only conservatives here who was against the Patriot Act this crap just brings me down. As conservatives aren't we supposed to be against government intrusion into our lives? Seems like everyday there is just a little bigger government no matter what party controls government.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

All of you in your zeal to be sophisticated little contrarians are forgetting one thing; SECURITY is one the most important and LEGITITIMATE functions the government performs. How can police accomplish anything if they can't even get your name?


You guys are losing focus.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by OCA
Well as being one of the only conservatives here who was against the Patriot Act this crap just brings me down. As conservatives aren't we supposed to be against government intrusion into our lives? Seems like everyday there is just a little bigger government no matter what party controls government.

This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.....

I guess if one has nothing to hide, what is the big deal? If you fear the police that much then either a) you do have something you want to hide or b) the police have become so distrustful that one is afraid of what the cops might make up.

Either position represents a sad commentary on the state of our nation.

Either so many of us are doing illegal things that we are afraid of being found out on or we fear our police so much that our cops have become the enemy. Scary!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yes. Government is too big; let's eliminate all the officials in administration of all the various governmental Affirmative Action programs. The federal government shouldn't fund race-based discrimination.

I just think fighting the police on their ability to collect citizen identities is not the battle to choose, for any rational person.

How about the intentional wall the the clinton administration erected between domestic and foreign security forces: The famous Gorelick Wall? We should be pissed at that.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The Gorelick Wall. That is OUR Iron cutain. The wall, placed by the left, to end freedom.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.....

I guess if one has nothing to hide, what is the big deal? If you fear the police that much then either a) you do have something you want to hide or b) the police have become so distrustful that one is afraid of what the cops might make up.

Either position represents a sad commentary on the state of our nation.

Either so many of us are doing illegal things that we are afraid of being found out on or we fear our police so much that our cops have become the enemy. Scary!

It has nothing to do with something to hide on my part but everything with more government intrusion. So now the cops can put you away for a little bit for refusing to give your name, WOW! I am all for less government intrusion into lives and all these things that seem insignificant lead to something greater IMO.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Yes. Government is too big; let's eliminate all the officials in administration of all the various governmental Affirmative Action programs. The federal government shouldn't fund race-based discrimination.

I just think fighting the police on their ability to collect citizen identities is not the battle to choose, for any rational person.

How about the intentional wall the the clinton administration erected between domestic and foreign security forces: The famous Gorelick Wall? We should be pissed at that.

Nice try RWA. First eliminate Big D type thinking then we'll think about your proposal, deal?

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by OCA
It has nothing to do with something to hide on my part but everything with more government intrusion. So now the cops can put you away for a little bit for refusing to give your name, WOW! I am all for less government intrusion into lives and all these things that seem insignificant lead to something greater IMO.

I understand you point. I am just saying that it is pretty sad that as a nation we have begun to fear our government so much that we are afraid to answer a simple question such as "who are you". How is that an intrusion unless you don't trust those that you give the information to. If you don't trust your government, then you can't trust anybody. That is all I am saying. Hell, you give away your ID everytime you use a credit card.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
I understand you point. I am just saying that it is pretty sad that as a nation we have begun to fear our government so much that we are afraid to answer a simple question such as "who are you". How is that an intrusion unless you don't trust those that you give the information to. If you don't trust your government, then you can't trust anybody. That is all I am saying. Hell, you give away your ID everytime you use a credit card.

My only point is and I got no problem telling the police who I am is that I don't think they ought to be able to lock you up for that, they should take you downtown, fingerprint ya and if you are good to go set you free. Heck when they fingerprint ya they'll find out if you're hiding something.

 

[freeandfun1]

The ruling did not say they can detain you. It said they have a right to ask you to produce ID and that you must comply. You are really stretching the ruling to include fingerprinting, incarceration, detention, etc.