Freedom to Travel Event, Part 2

[JonM]

Another plane on its way to the US was diverted after the government discovered a passenger on it had the name of someone on the no-fly list.? Of course, this person was a U.S. Citizen who happened to share the same name as someone on the no-fly list.

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) A Korean Air flight to California was diverted to Japan after U.S. officials refused to let it enter American airspace because they suspected a passenger might be a terrorist, airline officials said Tuesday.

The man, a U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent, has the same name as that of a suspect on the U.S. government?s no-fly list. He was allowed to reboard the flight with other passengers when it was determined he was not the suspect in question, and the flight continued to San Francisco.

The man and his family had boarded a connecting flight in Bangkok before arriving in South Korea for the flight to San Francisco.

The flight left South Korea?s Incheon International Airport at 6:15 p.m. Sunday and had completed most of the journey to San Francisco when it was ordered back. It landed at Japan?s Narita Airport early on Monday.

The no-fly list identifies individuals who have known or suspected links to terrorism or who have been otherwise identified as a threat to aviation

This is of course, nuts.? There are a few ways to correct this situation, the sane way, and the way they're going to try.? How about a nice op-ed promoting a less than sane way?? Sample rant I may attempt to submit as an op-ed to some of the nationwide newspapers:

A plane which completed most of the distance between South Korea and Los Angeles was diverted to Japan after it was discovered that a passenger on that flight had the name of someone on the United States Government?s no-fly list.  The fact that this person, a United States Citizen of Pakistani decent, only shared the name of someone on the no-fly list was likely little consolation to the passengers of that flight whose travel plans were ruined by an unlucky coincidence.

The problem with the no-fly list is that many innocent people share the same name as suspected terrorists that we cannot allow to fly into the United States.  The unfortunate consequence of the apparently inefficient system that is being used to prevent people on the no-fly list from entering the United States at the destination of their choice is that many other innocent people have their travel plans ruined when their flight is sent back or diverted to another location.  It is of course infuriating to them when they learn their business trip or vacation was ruined because someone on the plane just happened to have the same name as a person on the no-fly list and nobody noticed this before the plane took off.

Now while in a perfect world such things would be rectified before someone boarded an airplane, we know we do not live in a perfect world.  The easiest way to resolve the problem of people having the same name as someone on the no-fly list is self-evident.  Give everyone on planet Earth a unique name.  Now, as there are over six billion persons on the planet, it might be inconvenient to come up with a unique name for every one of them that is easily remembered or even pronounceable.  There also may be problems with having some agency tell John Smith that his name isn?t good enough for him anymore.   Given this problem the only natural solution is to give every person their own unique number.  Now this may seem impractical at first glance, but methods for this sort of thing have long been worked out.  By giving everyone a number we can assure that every individual on the planet will indeed be unique.  In fact, the number could easily have groupings to allow for easy reference of someone?s background and political affiliations, and ancestral history.  Now as numbers aren't always easy to remember, it may be wise to imprint them somewhere upon each individual so they will not forget their number, and to enable authorities to determine it without undue effort.  Of course, civil libertarians and religious fanatics may whine that this sort of thing is well over the line, but we have entered a terrifying new world where danger lurks beyond every corner, and we must completely change our society into something unrecognizable lest we lose all that we have created.  As for more advanced methods of addressing this issue, while it is true that the technology to implant microchips in people is progressing rapidly, the cost of chipping 6 billion people is still rather prohibitive.  Tattooing them will be far more cost effective and of course, visible.  The addition of some sort of bar code may make for easy interface with electronic equipment, speeding up processing times at checkpoints where an individual?s identity may need to be confirmed.  In time it may be wise to chip certain segments of the population deemed to require closer supervision, as these chips will allow authorities to easily track their movements with GPS satellites.

I realize that some may question the need for such reaching measures, but this is not so different than the road we have already embarked upon.  The REAL ID act recently passed by Congress is a tremendous and monumental first step towards realizing this goal.  By completely quashing the sovereignty of the states in setting the standards by which they may issue drivers licenses, the seeds of the sort of national ID needed for this effort have been sown, fertilized and placed under a grow lamp.  Of course, since almost all the terrorists purported to be a problem for our security are not United States citizens, this program desperately needs to be expanded to worldwide proportions.  Since there is only one worldwide organization that can accomplish this, we must task the United Nations to seeing that all residents of this world be numbered and cataloged under our guidance.  Only then can we truly be safe from the things that go bump in the night.


*changed it around a bit*

[Kat Kanning]

I think many people will read this,  nod and say "Yes master."

[KBCraig]

Jon, the only problem is that there are lots of people out there who won't get the sarcasm, and others who actually think such a people-tracking scheme is a good idea! (Sensenbrenner comes to mind... )

Kevin

[Michael Fisher]

Jon,

Be careful not to give people any bright ideas on how to track everyone on Earth.

Once, in high school, I told the library staff that the privacy of students is being violated by others who read through their internet history in the library computers. ?They agreed with my sentiment and approved of me installing a batch program to clear the history each time the computer is restarted.

Later, I got in trouble. ?The school was angry with me and "wondered why" I installed the program to clear the history, because now they wanted to READ IT! ?

I told them that I only brought it up a few months before in order to protect everyone's privacy. ?They claimed I was lying and they "always knew" they could read everyone's history, which was a blatant lie. ?I was forced to remove the program. ?Luckily they never called my parents about it. ?They were very mad at me.

Lesson learned: ?never give the government any ideas on how to do anything that you don't want to happen.

[JonM]

I hope there are, and I hope they write letters to the editor in fervent support of this op-ed.  There are enough triggers in that article to awaken the ire of even the most lackadaisical libertarian.  If people don't start screaming at the "methods for this sort of thing have long been worked out." line along with the tattooing reference, I'm not sure what will set them off.  I also edited one line so people who have trouble recognizing sarcasm will have an easier time seeing it with "we have entered a terrifying new world where danger lurks beyond every corner, and we must completely change our society into something unrecognizable lest we lose all that we have created."  I threw in quashing state sovereignty just in case people weren't paying attention to any of the other lines.

As for numbering people, it's happened before.  The government well knows how to do this; the problem is getting them to accept the branding.  While some people are totally incapable of seeing sarcasm, and wouldn't recognize the significance of the things I mention above no matter how much you explain it to them, keep in mind those are not the people we wish to recruit.  They're out there, and they're busy trying to implement a system not unlike what I have suggested.  Unless we wake up the latent libertarian tendencies in the rest of the populace they will get their way.

[Russell Kanning]

I think it is perfect.

[JonM]

I sent it to the WSJ.  They've published anti-REAL ID op-eds before, let us see if they like mine.  I called it "No-fly is no-good, we need a better system"

[Russell Kanning]

It really is insane that a plane gets turned back for a name mixup......what happens if a terrorist is named joe smith?

[Pat K]

Hey if your name thing gets approved, I want to be called Politicians Suck. I will then page myself alot when I am at the airport.

[ethanpooley]

I could have sworn that it's been federal law for a while now that, technically, you are required to have ID on you at all times.  The cops have the right to request your ID any time they feel like it. And if you don't have any on you, you're in trouble. Does anybody know if this is right?

Nope, that's not right. There's no federal law requiring anyone to have ID at all times.

You may be thinking of the operative Supreme Court rulings. For years, no one was required to indentify themselves to the police unless they were arrested, but, if they gave a name or ID, it had to be accurate (if you identified yourself, you couldn't lie about it).

And then there's an even newer SCOTUS ruling against Larry Hiibel, where they ruled that any time police are questioning someone and demand ID, it must be provided. http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/

Kevin

My understanding was that this case did at least a *bit* less harm than that. The Supreme Court upheld a state law requiring that ID be presented if the person has any on them at the time. But that does not create a blanket requirement in all states to produce ID upon request. It just allows states to make such requirements if they want to. In my state, Washington, I believe there is a law requiring you to (truthfully) identify yourself upon request but no law requiring you to produce ID. Therefore I would not have to produce ID in my home state, even upon request.

[Russell Kanning]

In the fight against National ID and TSA insanity, there have been many great articles written, but not much action taken.......that is why we are starting our non-cooperation campaign.

On June 11th we need to combine our efforts.....during the civil disobedience we should be handing out flyers with links to all the great websites and stories about the problems with National ID and alternatives. We also should have as many liberty lovers as possible available to talk to the media and onlookers about their thoughts on our growing police state.

Kat will be putting together a flyer before the event and would love ideas for what to put on it. We also could use as many friendly freedom lovers to spread the word at the airport.

[KBCraig]

And then there's an even newer SCOTUS ruling against Larry Hiibel, where they ruled that any time police are questioning someone and demand ID, it must be provided. http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/

My understanding was that this case did at least a *bit* less harm than that. The Supreme Court upheld a state law requiring that ID be presented if the person has any on them at the time. But that does not create a blanket requirement in all states to produce ID upon request. It just allows states to make such requirements if they want to. In my state, Washington, I believe there is a law requiring you to (truthfully) identify yourself upon request but no law requiring you to produce ID. Therefore I would not have to produce ID in my home state, even upon request.

You could be right, Ethan. I admit my outrage (and frustration) over the case tainted my ability to do objective research on it.

Outrage, because SCOTUS ruled against the right to remain anonymous when you're minding your own business and not suspected of any crime. And frustration, because this was a less than perfect case (Hiibel was drunk, verbally fighting with his daughter, and acted like a total ass to the cops).

In the end, though, I believe it was a net loss. State are free to pass laws requiring that ID be produced for any reason, no reason, or just on a whim. I believe the Hiibel ruling  would support any state passing a law requiring everyone to carry ID at all times, or be subject to arrest for "failure to provide proper identification".

Kevin

[ethanpooley]

Very true. I just wanted to make sure people knew they currently retain .0002% of their fundamental, natural rights instead of a mere .0001%. We're all pretty depressed as it is!

I hope you aren't right about the ruling supporting states that demanded ID to be carried at all times. Some court (not sure if it was SCOTUS) knocked down a CA law that attempted to do that. I think it was in the 70's or 80's. That is the most direct test that I know of, but getting old. I say I hope you aren't right, because that is one that I would go to the wall for. No way am I getting a mandatory ID card, and would even stop carrying my driver's license (except in my car) if they made ID mandatory. Hopefully a lot of other people would, too. (Because they'd be good company in jai!l)

[Russell Kanning]

Isn't the important factor not what "rights" the Supreme Court is still upholding, but how we are actually treated by police officers?

[ravelkinbow]

Isn't the important factor not what "rights" the Supreme Court is still upholding, but how we are actually treated by police officers?

That is very much the truth!  There are times at work when I have to sit with a patient and it never seems to fail that they choose to watch "cops".  I have sat in disgust so many times in watching people be treated as criminals for trying to keep their freedom.  Cars stopped and searched without probable cause but merely for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and in many cases being the wrong color.  Stopping people on the street and demanding to see their ID even thought they are guilty of doing nothing but walking on a public sidewalk.  Seeing the cops in there nazi like uniforms beating their batons on shields while they use so called "nonleathal weapons" on the crowd.  I know that you will be treated as a criminal for expressing your right to travel freely and I have the utmost respect for you and admire your courage for what you are about to do.