Gilmore v. Ashcroft

[DKSuddeth]

US gov has 'secret' law compelling patrons to show ID at airports, or do they?

Lawyers for privacy advocate John Gilmore, who is pursuing a lawsuit challenging the government's alleged requirement that airlines ask passengers for identification, filed a motion late Tuesday seeking to keep the case open to public scrutiny.

The motion opposes the federal government's request to present its rebuttal of Gilmore's case to the court alone and in secret.

Justice Department lawyers made the request to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Friday, saying that if the requirement to demand ID exists, it would be in a security directive that is classified as "sensitive security information" that it could not reveal in open court. The government did say, however, it would also file a redacted version of its arguments publicly.

Gilmore first challenged the constitutionality of requiring airlines to ask passengers to show identification in U.S. District Court in San Francisco in July 2002, but the government refused to tell that court whether the rule existed.

However, the government acknowledged that if the requirement did exist, it would be in a secret security directive that would have to be challenged in an appeals court.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston heeded that argument when she finally dismissed the original lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds in March, 14 months after hearing arguments in the case. Illston ruled that "federal law vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals over an order issued by the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) or FAA (Federal Aviation Administration)."

Gilmore appealed the dismissal in mid-August.

Jim Harrison, one of Gilmore's attorneys, lambasted the government's latest request and called it "radical" in Tuesday's filing.

"Secret court proceedings about secret laws make for a dangerous environment," Harrison said in a phone interview. "Just take a look at history."

Lucy Dalgish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, described the government's request for a secret hearing, in which Gilmore's attorneys would not be present, as "absolutely ridiculous." But she said she was not surprised, given the growing number of secret hearings post-9/11.

"This is a government and administration that places an incredibly high value on secrecy," Dalgish said. "All brilliant legal arguments aside, what do they think they are doing? This has gotten to the point of being nutty."

A Justice Department representative did not return a call for comment. A spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration -- which is responsible for classifying security directives related to transportation -- was unable to provide comment by press time.

Harrison also argues in his filing that the government should not be allowed to introduce new evidence in the appeals court, which traditionally reviews the merits of a lower court's decision without allowing new evidence.

Government lawyers asked the appeals court to rule on its motion for the secret hearing by Sept. 15, which is the deadline for the government's response to Gilmore's appeal.

Secret laws? WTF?

 

[freeandfun1]

US gov has 'secret' law compelling patrons to show ID at airports, or do they?

Lawyers for privacy advocate John Gilmore, who is pursuing a lawsuit challenging the government's alleged requirement that airlines ask passengers for identification, filed a motion late Tuesday seeking to keep the case open to public scrutiny.

The motion opposes the federal government's request to present its rebuttal of Gilmore's case to the court alone and in secret.

Justice Department lawyers made the request to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Friday, saying that if the requirement to demand ID exists, it would be in a security directive that is classified as "sensitive security information" that it could not reveal in open court. The government did say, however, it would also file a redacted version of its arguments publicly.

Gilmore first challenged the constitutionality of requiring airlines to ask passengers to show identification in U.S. District Court in San Francisco in July 2002, but the government refused to tell that court whether the rule existed.

However, the government acknowledged that if the requirement did exist, it would be in a secret security directive that would have to be challenged in an appeals court.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston heeded that argument when she finally dismissed the original lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds in March, 14 months after hearing arguments in the case. Illston ruled that "federal law vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals over an order issued by the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) or FAA (Federal Aviation Administration)."

Gilmore appealed the dismissal in mid-August.

Jim Harrison, one of Gilmore's attorneys, lambasted the government's latest request and called it "radical" in Tuesday's filing.

"Secret court proceedings about secret laws make for a dangerous environment," Harrison said in a phone interview. "Just take a look at history."

Lucy Dalgish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, described the government's request for a secret hearing, in which Gilmore's attorneys would not be present, as "absolutely ridiculous." But she said she was not surprised, given the growing number of secret hearings post-9/11.

"This is a government and administration that places an incredibly high value on secrecy," Dalgish said. "All brilliant legal arguments aside, what do they think they are doing? This has gotten to the point of being nutty."

A Justice Department representative did not return a call for comment. A spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration -- which is responsible for classifying security directives related to transportation -- was unable to provide comment by press time.

Harrison also argues in his filing that the government should not be allowed to introduce new evidence in the appeals court, which traditionally reviews the merits of a lower court's decision without allowing new evidence.

Government lawyers asked the appeals court to rule on its motion for the secret hearing by Sept. 15, which is the deadline for the government's response to Gilmore's appeal.

Secret laws? WTF?

whether it is a "secret" law or not, WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL?

 

[DKSuddeth]

whether it is a "secret" law or not, WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL?

lets see. I show my ID all the time at the airport, I couldn't care less, HOWEVER, and read carefully.....SECRET LAWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[freeandfun1]

lets see. I show my ID all the time at the airport, I couldn't care less, HOWEVER, and read carefully.....SECRET LAWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can understand if the secret law applied to individual citizens. but from what I gather, this is a "secret" law that applies to the airlines. I am sure there are a lot of secrets about the airline industry that we don't know about. Secrets that are based on security needs. Again, from what I gather, this is a law that requires the AIRLINES to check for ID's not for us to show them. If we don't show them, we just can't get on the plane. Sounds fair to me. There are a lot of "secret" laws that apply to corporations. Especially for corporations in the defense industry. They are "secret" from you and me, but not the ones that are required to abide by the laws.

Does that explanation make sense and/or make you feel any less concerned?

I could understand your concern if there was a law that could put me in jail but for which I know nothing about cuz it is "secret". This is not the case with this law. The ones to which the law applies are aware of it - as they should be.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Congress makes and passes laws, the president signs them. As our representatives, congress debates bills publicly, we should know each and every law that applies to us as citizens. If its just an airline policy to require ID or no fly, fine, but corporations don't have laws, they have regulations. Those regulations can be kept secret, but not laws because laws are written and voted on by the elected representatives of the citizens of the united states. Secret laws are the beginnings of the slippery slope.

in closing, i'll leave you with this.

"There must have been a reason," Yossarian persisted, pounding his fist into his hand. "They couldn't just barge in here and chase everyone out."

"No reason," wailed the old woman. "No reason."

"What right did they have?"

"Catch-22."

"What?" Yossarian froze in his tracks with fear and alarm and felt hiw while body begin to tingle. "What did you say?"

"Catch-22," the old woman repeated, rocking her head up and down. "Catch-22. Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing."

"What the hell are you talking about?" Yossarian shouted at her in bewildered, furious protest. "How did you know it was Catch-22? Who the hell told you it was Catch-22?"

"The soldiers with the hard white hats a clubs. The girls were crying. 'Did we do anything wrong?' they said. The men said no and pushed them away out the door with the ends of their clubs. 'Then why are you chasing us out?' the girls said. 'Catch-22,' the men said. 'What right do you have?' the girls said. 'Catch-22,' the men said. All they kept saying was 'Catch-22, Catch-22.' What does it mean, Catch-22? What is Catch-22?"

"Didn't they show it to you?" Yossarian demanded, stamping about in ager and distress. "Didn't you even make them read it?"

"They don't have to show us Catch-22," the old woman answered. "The law says they don't have to."

"What law says they don't have to?"

"Catch-22."

 

[freeandfun1]

Did you read the article you posted? No where can I find the government refering to the RULE as a "LAW".

John Gilmore, who is pursuing a lawsuit challenging the government's alleged requirement

if the requirement to demand ID exists

court whether the rule existed

the government acknowledged that if the requirement did exist, it would be in a secret security directive

order issued by the TSA

By your own admission,

corporations don't have laws, they have regulations. Those regulations can be kept secret

Where is it indicated that this "rule" or "regulation" is a law? The plaintiff says it is and so do you, but EVERYTHING else points to this as being a "rule" or "regulation" which, as you say, is okay.

I am VERY confused!

 

[freeandfun1]

From another, earlier article on the same subject:

Flight ID Fight Revived

"I'm not willing to show my passport to travel in my own country," Gilmore said in an interview. "I am not willing to have my rights taken away by bureaucrats who issue secret laws in the dead of night."

The identification requirement dates back to the Clinton administration, which put the measure in place just after the explosion of TWA Flight 800 in 1996. Terrorism was initially suspected as the cause of the disaster, though it was later determined that a faulty fuel tank was to blame.

Again, he is the only one calling this a "law". Furthermore, he DOESN'T have to show his ID to travel in the USA UNLESS he wants to get on PRIVATELY owned Airliners. If he doesn't like the rules of a restaurant, I am sure he won't eat there. So the same applies here. If he doesn't want to show his ID, they have a right to refuse to let him on the plane. To me, this guy is just looking for some excitement and publicity.

The article you posted lays this on the administration of GWB but as you can see here, it was BillyBob that implemented the "requirement" on the Airlines.

 

[freeandfun1]

just curious....

do you think I have a point? or has the paranoia worn off and so this is no longer an issue?

 

[HGROKIT]

Hey! As I see it - If it is a requirement that we show ID's and it is sourced in a written document, whether that document is a Reg, Rule or law - why the hell is it secret?

I am driving down the road - I get pulled over because my car is white and get cited for driving a white car. I ask the officer WTF? He states that there is a secret rule, reg, law, ordinance or whatever that states white cars are illegal.

Pluuuuuueeeeeze.

We are not a country that imposes restrictions in secret.

Next, RWA will come around stating we are reverting to communism.

 

[freeandfun1]

Hey! As I see it - If it is a requirement that we show ID's and it is sourced in a written document, whether that document is a Reg, Rule or law - why the hell is it secret?

I am driving down the road - I get pulled over because my car is white and get cited for driving a white car. I ask the officer WTF? He states that there is a secret rule, reg, law, ordinance or whatever that states white cars are illegal.

Pluuuuuueeeeeze.

We are not a country that imposes restrictions in secret.

Next, RWA will come around stating we are reverting to communism.

you don't get it either.....

technically, YOU are not subject to the law, rule, whatever. The AIRLINES are subject to it and THEY know about it. If you don't show your ID, the airlines then have a right to refuse service to you. Your analogy is wrong since this "rule" to check ID's does NOT apply to you. Again, it applies to the airlines.

I work in the defence industry (as a mfr's rep) and there are a LOT of laws/rules that apply to my company that do NOT apply to you.

Do you understand my point?

 

[HGROKIT]

you don't get it either.....

technically, YOU are not subject to the law, rule, whatever. The AIRLINES are subject to it and THEY know about it. If you don't show your ID, the airlines then have a right to refuse service to you. Your analogy is wrong since this "rule" to check ID's does NOT apply to you. Again, it applies to the airlines.

I work in the defence industry (as a mfr's rep) and there are a LOT of laws/rules that apply to my company that do NOT apply to you.

Do you understand my point?

I understand your point Free - but then you are incorrect in your conclusion.

If the rule applies to the airline - I refuse to show my ID and they refuse me service, then the rule DOES apply to me. The airlines are a public conveyence - they are publically held - if they have rules that apply to how they conduct business with the public, then the rules should be made public.

Do they not have rules that pertain to how they handle baggage loss claims? That rule applies to them - how they handle the claim. It then affects me - their responsibilities under these rules are on every ticket purchased.

 

[freeandfun1]

I understand your point Free - but then you are incorrect in your conclusion.

If the rule applies to the airline - I refuse to show my ID and they refuse me service, then the rule DOES apply to me. The airlines are a public conveyance - they are publicly held - if they have rules that apply to how they conduct business with the public, then the rules should be made public.

Do they not have rules that pertain to how they handle baggage loss claims? That rule applies to them - how they handle the claim. It then affects me - their responsibilities under these rules are on every ticket purchased.

There are a lot of regulations covering defense related companies that you will likely NEVER know about as they have to do with security, etc. This regulation, apparently, was part of a total security plan that was dictated by the government. Since it is a security plan, to expose the regulations required would give terrorists information on how to circumvent the rules.

That is my point. Again, Boeing, L3, and other defense industry companies have regulations imposed upon them that you will never know about. As do nuclear facilities, etc. Sometimes, their requirement to fulfill those regulations will have an effect on you.

The regulation doesn't control how they do business with you, it just states that the airlines are required to verify ID's against tickets. It is a safety precaution put in place to protect the public. Furthermore, ANY private business (publicly traded or not) has the RIGHT to refuse service to anyone as long as their refusal does not violate any discrimination laws. I don't think not having an ID is discriminatory based upon race, sex, religion, etc.

 

[HGROKIT]

I hear what you are saying, but I am not inclined to believe that the public dissemination of a reg indicating the need to compare ID to ticket is going to give terrorists' a leg up as it were.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Next, RWA will come around stating we are reverting to communism.

I don't know why you would spuriously bring me into this, especially with an assinine comment such as this.