"Freedom to Travel" Event

[Russell Kanning]

You will have to start it.
We could find you the right bus to hop on.

[KBCraig]

i'll be in CO some this month, let me know if anything is going on that i could participate in

http://papersplease.org/davis/rally.html

WHAT: Rally for Deb Davis' stand for the Freedom to Travel

WHEN: Friday, the 9th of December at 8:30 AM

WHERE: The steps of the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, 901 19th Street in Denver.


I wonder if that's "too risky" for the FSP-CO group?

[KBCraig]

http://papersplease.org/gilmore/

Meet John Gilmore. He's a 49 year-old philanthropist who lives in San Francisco, California.  Through a lot of hard work (and a little luck), John made his fortune as a programmer and entrepreneur in the software industry.  Whereas most people in his position would have moved to a tropical island and lived a life of luxury, John chose to use his fortune to protect and defend the US Constitution.

On the 4th of July 2002, John Gilmore, American citizen, decided to take a trip from one part of the United States of America to another.  He went to Oakland International Airport -- ticket in hand -- and was told he had to produce his ID if he wanted to travel.  He asked to see the law demanding he show his 'papers' and was told after a time that the law was secret and no, he wouldn't be allowed to read it.

He hasn't flown in his own country since.

On December 8th 2005, oral arguments in Gilmore v. Gonzales will be heard before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  At stake is nothing less than the right of Americans to travel anonymously in their own country -- and the exposure of 'secret law' for what it is: an abomination.

[olehenry]

http://papersplease.org/gilmore/

Meet John Gilmore... <snipped his story (Olehenry)>


On December 8th 2005, oral arguments in Gilmore v. Gonzales will be heard before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.? At stake is nothing less than the right of Americans to travel anonymously in their own country -- and the exposure of 'secret law' for what it is: an abomination.

RE: The right to travel anonymously.

What are the options?

Does this person and/or you intend to support laws that prohibit private businesses (run and owned by individuals) from discriminating against potential travelers?

Or do we exclude the gov't as mediator and leave it to the prvate business to discriminate as each sees fit? 
example: A private airline refuses to sell a ticket to any individual for any reason.

"Right to travel anonymously".  Is there a "right" enforcer?
1) government
2) individual
3) gods

Then, can we not substitute other ideas, such as "right to shelter", "right to enter properties", "right to education", etc...

Who enforces these "rights"?
1) government
2) individual
3) gods

I doubt individuals have "rights".  I *do* know I have needs and wants.

Why rights?

Olehenry

[Lloyd Danforth]

The argument is against government demanding, or, requiring private transportation companies to demand identification.
What companies demand on their own is up to them.
I personally believe that if the government wasn't always bailing out the airlines and the airline's insurance companies had to pay all lawsuits and damages, we would all be flying naked and costs would be increased due to the thorough inspection of everything that went on the plane.

[Russell Kanning]

Hey Gilmore could head to Denver and hop a bus .... that would stir the pot.

[BaRbArIaN]

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,69774,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_3

Its getting closer and more press is picking it up.  Hopefully it will raise some good points and get people talking about them.  I don't expect the court system to do the right thing tho.

[Russell Kanning]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051207/ap_on_re_us/airplane_shooting

How many shots?
It must have been fun for the people that got their bags blown up.

[KBCraig]

Well, at least he had his ID, and that's what's important.

[Russell Kanning]

What do you do when a guy starts running around like crazy? ..... but it does seem like we overreact because a plane was involved.....he wasn't carrying a bomb after all ..... was he?

[Michael Fisher]

What do you do when a guy starts running around like crazy? ..... but it does seem like we overreact because a plane was involved.....he wasn't carrying a bomb after all ..... was he?

If a guy started running around like crazy, said he had a bomb, and threatened to kill everyone, I would probably shoot him, too.

Which would be terrible because I don't ever want to do that.

[KBCraig]

Like Mike said, he didn't get shot for "running around crazy". He got shot because he said he had a bomb and took off running into an airport terminal that was presumably crowded with people. If he'd gotten past the jetway, then 1) there was a greater risk to people if he really did have a bomb; and, 2) catching him and stopping him would have been harder and riskier because of the crowds (not to mention the risk of bystanders being hurt by bomb/gunshot/panic/being run over by responding cops.

Legally and morally, if someone threatens with a non-existent weapon, you may act as if the weapon really exists. A bank robber who gestures with nothing more than his hand in his jacket pocket is guilty of armed robbery.

Kevin

[AlanM]

This case bothers me for a lot of reasons:
1: The guy was shot as he was running down the tarmac. (not in the plane)
2. His wife was screaming about his being bipolar, that he had not taken medication. (apparently nobody paid attention to her)
3. He was shot because he wouldn't stop. ( five shots according to one witness. Law enforcement officials can kill you if you disobey them. Does that bother anyone else? If you disobey an officer, the punishment for same is not the death penalty.)

[Michael Fisher]

Maybe he has a bomb because he's bipolar.   ???

[KBCraig]

This case bothers me for a lot of reasons:
1: The guy was shot as he was running down the tarmac. (not in the plane)

He was running down the jetway, not the tarmac. (For those of you who don't fly, the jetway is the accordion hallway thing that connects the plane to the terminal.)

2. His wife was screaming about his being bipolar, that he had not taken medication. (apparently nobody paid attention to her)

Nor should they have, so long as he continued with the threat.

3. He was shot because he wouldn't stop. ( five shots according to one witness. Law enforcement officials can kill you if you disobey them. Does that bother anyone else? If you disobey an officer, the punishment for same is not the death penalty.)

If you find a burglar in your home, and order him to freeze and keep his hands in sight, and instead he reaches into a bag, would it be "the death penalty for disobeying Alan"?

Of course not. You'd be justified in shooting because he was a threat, and continuing his threatening behavior.

With the caveat of "as things have been reported until this point", this was a justified shooting. Of course, at this point of the London subway shooting, we thought the same thing. I'm not passing judgement on anything except the points that have been reported thus far.

Kevin