judicial ruling to be secret?

[IowaStatePhiPsi]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/06/ai....ap/index.html

Government wants ID arguments secret

Monday, September 6, 2004 Posted: 4:07 PM EDT (2007 GMT)

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- The U.S. Department of Justice has asked an appellate court to keep its arguments secret for a case in which privacy advocate John Gilmore is challenging federal requirements to show identification before boarding an airplane.

A federal statute and other regulations "prohibit the disclosure of sensitive security information, and that is precisely what is alleged to be at issue here," the government said in court papers filed Friday with the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Disclosing the restricted information "would be detrimental to the security of transportation," the government wrote.

Attorneys for Gilmore, a 49-year-old San Francisco resident who co-founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, said they don't buy the government's argument and that its latest request raises only more questions.

"We're dealing with the government's review of a secret law that now they want a secret judicial review for," one of Gilmore's attorneys, James Harrison, said in a phone interview Sunday. "This administration's use of a secret law is more dangerous to the security of the nation than any external threat."

Gilmore first sued the government and several airlines in July 2002 after airline agents refused to let him board planes in San Francisco and Oakland without first showing an ID or submitting to a more intense search. He claimed in his lawsuit the ID requirement was vague and ineffective and violated his constitutional protections against illegal searches and seizures.

A U.S. District Court judge earlier this year dismissed his claims against the airlines, but said his challenge to the government belonged in a federal appellate court.

Now in his appellate case, Gilmore maintains the federal government has yet to disclose the regulations behind the ID requirement to which he was subjected.

"How are people supposed to follow laws if they don't know what they are?" Harrison said.

The government contends its court arguments should be sealed from public view and heard before a judge outside the presence of Gilmore and his attorneys. The government, however, said it would plan to file another redacted public version of its arguments.

A date for a hearing on the matter has not yet been set.

What the hell is this horseshit? The public is not afforded the proceedings on account of national security? <tinfoil hat>What's next?</tinfoil hat>

[Kevin]

If their arguments require them to disclose national security secrets, I have no problem with this. Just as long as the sentence and the reasoning of the sentence is able to be heard by the public. I think there's a greater public interest in the safety potentially provided by this process than in someone's right to fly anonymously.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/06/ai....ap/index.html



What the hell is this horseshit? The public is not afforded the proceedings on account of national security? <tinfoil hat>What's next?</tinfoil hat>

Arguments, not ruling (per: thread title), right?

I'm pretty sure that many, many elements of court proceedings are not matters of public record - to me this is most similar to closing the court to media cameras than some sort of orwellian event.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by KSig RC
Arguments, not ruling (per: thread title), right?

I'm pretty sure that many, many elements of court proceedings are not matters of public record - to me this is most similar to closing the court to media cameras than some sort of orwellian event.

Again, the fringe-left-Bush-hating media wants to turn Bush into Big Brother. Here we see another piece of garbage journalism aimed at doing just that.

[PhiPsiRuss]

This is the same type of thing that has happened everytime this nation has been at war before. Its nothing unusual.

[wrigley]

John Gilmore is correct that he has a right to sue. But what a waste of the courts time and taxpayers money.

Gee has he been to NYC or Pennsylvania lately? I'm sure a few of the 9/11 victim's families would love to explain to him why having identification is necessary when you travel.

If the nation is a going to be put a risk, then I say let that information stay out of the general public. There is a fungus among us. The decisions of the judges and result of the case aren't being kept private. There is the Freedom of Information Act but that does have it's limits.

[Kevin]

My guess is that the judges will rule that an individual's right to privacy does not outweigh the safety concerns of the general flying public.

I guess this guy has enough money to dump on on lawyers to defend this suit.

[DeltAlum]

In reality, though, what is so secret about a law that says you must show an ID?

If there are pieces of the same law that would tell about some super secret technology or technique, then the judge could/should deny that disclosure, but how can talking about some minimum wage person checking your drivers license against the name on your ticket be a problem with national security? We already know it's happening, right?

This sounds more like legal wrangling than security.

Frankly, I find some of the things that were pushed through (parts of the Patriot Act) after 9/11 to be worrisome from the standpoint of our Constitutional Rights.

I also find it interesting that those we consider Conservatives today support those abridgements. Weren't Conservatives originally the ones who steadfastly upheld strict interpratations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

[Kevin]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
In reality, though, what is so secret about a law that says you must show an ID?

If there are pieces of the same law that would tell about some super secret technology or technique, then the judge could/should deny that disclosure, but how can talking about some minimum wage person checking your drivers license against the name on your ticket be a problem with national security? We already know it's happening, right?

This sounds more like legal wrangling than security.

Frankly, I find some of the things that were pushed through (parts of the Patriot Act) after 9/11 to be worrisome from the standpoint of our Constitutional Rights.

I also find it interesting that those we consider Conservatives today support those abridgements. Weren't Conservatives originally the ones who steadfastly upheld strict interpratations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Well, the "Right to Privacy" is a non-enumerated right. And as such does not have as high a priority. In fact, our right to safety does outweigh it in most cases. It's been tried in many cases, for example, you do not have the right to privacy when a policeman asks you for identification, that's gone to the Supreme Court.

And as far as strict interpretation of the Constitution goes, there is nothing specific about a right to privacy in there.

It's the Ninth Amendment that gives these non-enumerated rights. It reads "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

-- and that's where the so-called right to privacy comes from (which is actually based on a lose interpretation).

[aurora_borealis]

I am going to guess that since this gentleman is a San Francisco resident, he is mainly flying out of SFO, and perhaps OAK and San Jose. Being that I have used the SFO airport most of my life, they seriously don't take any crap and had harsh security measures well before 9/11. There is a machine at security that is used to check for bomb residue, and three times in a row I was selected. They also were checking IDs at the gate as well as at the ticket counters and at security. Yeah it is annoying, but as long as they are consistent about it so be it. My mother had to take a flight from Oakland when my grandmother was on her death bed and since she had booked a one way flight that day with no luggage, they yanked her right out of line. My sister has also booked one way flights from Oakland to visit me (she was driving home with me) with no luggage and they drill her as well.

However I have been to other airports and it blows my mind. The last time I flew the person at the counter didn't even check my ID, and I was checking my bag late. When I asked him, he said he saw my mileage status, my first class booking, and that "I looked like a nice young lady", and wasn't concerned ! Since I am a first class passenger I got to go to the express security line as well. What didn't happen in that aiport or the other three I went through on that trip was checking my ID at the gate. What is stopping people from swapping tickets once they are through security, especially if the airport has one main security entrance?

Does this guy not get it that IDs aren't checked just for terrorist purposes, but also for record keeping? What if there is a crash or a hijacking, wouldn't he want his family to be appropriately notified? I bet if there was profiling at the airport he'd complain about that too. At least San Francisco is equal in their applications, they aren't going to wave people through that do not fit their notion of a terrorist.

[DeltAlum]

KT,

I had more in mind the relaxed rules on wiretapping, profiling and some other stuff.

I know it's a thin line between personal freedoms and national security. I am actually more concerned about the way we were rushed into some of these things than I am about the basic actions themselves.

Edited to drop an extra word.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
KT,

I had in more in mind the relaxed rules on wiretapping, profiling and some other stuff.

I know it's a thin line between personal freedoms and national security. I am actually more concerned about the way we were rushed into some of these things than I am about the basic actions themselves.

I agree that many of these concerns are well founded. I am going to trust the courts to sort it out at least for now.