Gilmore vs. Ashcroft

Posted to the cryptography discussion list:

Subject: Air ID: Gilmore v. Ashcroft: Friday AM hearing in SF
From: John Gilmore

My case against John Ashcroft, TSA, and various other agencies will
have its first hearing at 9AM on January 17, 2003 in San Francisco.
You-all are encouraged to attend if you're nearby. We'll be arguing
about whether the case should be thrown out as invalid.

I'm asking for a declaration from the court that would overturn the
unconstitutional requirement that US persons must show ID to travel
throughout the US. Not only airplanes, but trains, buses, cruise
ships, and major hotel chains are now enforcing ID requirements,
largely at the behest of the Federal Government. Many skyscrapers
also demanded ID for a time after 9/11; I refused, and eventually most
of them have relented. I have not flown in the US since 9/11/01, and
I've recently been denied lodging as well as travel, for my refusal to
present ID on demand. (Note that this is a *separate* issue from the
government's recent demand for more information from citizens who
enter or exit the US border. That's a bad idea too, but raises
different issues.)

We free citizens not only have a constitutional right to travel
throughout the US without government-imposed restrictions, but also a
constitutional right to refuse to identify ourselves to government
agents unless there is probable cause to suspect us of a crime. These
aren't made-up issues. There are many legal cases that uphold them in
the last few decades, as well as more than a hundred years ago. Read
our reply brief for a guide to these cases:
http://cryptome.org/gilmore-v-usa-god.htm

We citizens also have a right to know what the laws are that affect
the general public. There is no such law requiring IDs of travelers,
and TSA won't publish their secret regulation that purports to require
ID. So nobody actually knows whether ID is required, in what
circumstances, what kinds of ID are OK or not, what options people
without ID have, etc. (By nobody, I really mean nobody -- not even
the people "enforcing" this "rule" know what the "rules" are. Try
refusing to show ID on your next flight, and when they tell you that
you can't board, ask them what regulation requires you to show ID to
board a plane. I did this on July 4, 2002. The resulting confusion
of different answers from each person in authority would be very
amusing if it wasn't an unconstitutionally vague infringement of our
right to travel.)

The government and airlines responded to my lawsuit with a motion to
dismiss the case. Here are their arguments: I can't challenge
anything but the demand for ID, not what they do with it after getting
it (thus I can't challenge or inquire into the "no-fly list" and other
database lookups that *motivate* the demand for ID). I can't
challenge anything at all in this court, because the Courts of Appeals
have exclusive jurisdiction over TSA orders. The government need not
publish a rule like this, because (1) TSA security directives are
exempt from FOIA by statute, and (2) no other reason requires them to
publish the law. The airlines' "request" for ID does not infringe my
right to travel, even if they don't let me travel when I "decline". I
can't challenge the ID demand on trains, buses, or cruise ships
because I didn't actually go down and get rejected by a train, bus, or
cruise line, even though their web sites told me I'd be rejected. The
First Amendment is not involved, even though I can't assemble with
others, speak at conferences, or petition the government for redress,
without traveling. Anything they do to anyone in an airport is exempt
from the Fourth Amendment if they claim it relates to "security".
That's the short version; you can read the long version here:
http://cryptome.org/gilmore-v-usa-fmd.pdf , and their later reply here:
http://cryptome.org/gilmore-v-usa-drp.pdf

The government gave away their real motivation on the last page of
their brief, though:

"If a passenger refuses to provide or verify his or her identity,
airline security officers cannot determine whether the passenger is
among those individuals 'known to pose, or suspected of posing, a risk
of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger
safety.'"

In other words, the demand for ID is integral to building a dragnet. They
have a little enemies list of "suspected" "threats", and they need our
ID to check us against the list. (How you get on and off this list is
dubious and secret, but many documented cases exist of innocents being
harassed, searched, and denied boarding, due to errors in it.) The
constitutional catch is that the government can't set up a dragnet and
demand that every passerby identify themselves -- not in airports, and
not anywhere else unless there's an exigent emergency (e.g. a bank was
just robbed down the block by someone matching our description). A
demand for ID is a search under the Fourth Amendment, and they have no
probable cause to search us.

We will argue that the case should not be dismissed, in the courtroom
of Judge Susan Illston, on the 19th floor of the San Francisco Federal
Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue at Polk St, at 9AM on January 17, 2003.

If you think airport security is out of hand, show up. If you think
Total Information Awareness is a terrible idea, show up. (CAPPS 2 is
the version of TIA they'll roll out in airports in 2003, and it all
hangs on the demand for your ID.) If you think John Ashcroft is a
traitor to the Constitution he swore to uphold, show up. If you think
every "free" citizen should not be routinely treated like a suspected
terrorist, show up. Wear good clothes and be polite. Impress the
judge with the seriousness of your interest in these issues. Oh yes,
you'll have to show ID to get into the Federal Building. That's
unconstitutional too, but not the subject of this particular case.

You can read all the case documents at:

http://cryptome.org/freetotravel.htm

Thank you.

John Gilmore

posted by Michael Curry at 8:18 PM

A very evil State of the Union address

Someone has created a brilliant remix/edit of President Bush giving a State of the Union address. Go watch it!

Available in:
Quicktime
Windows Media
Realplayer

posted by Michael Curry at 7:53 PM

Not a war

"This is not a war. Iraq will not be a war. Do we understand this? We do not seem to understand this. This is heavily corporatized power brokers killing each other for oil and capital. Oh yes it is.

Let's be perfectly clear. You cannot have a war when the so-called enemy has done nothing to provoke you and is absolutely no threat to your national safety and has no significant military force and has negligible chance of even setting off a firecracker near your own overwhelming death machines, and whose only weapons of minimal destruction are the rusty short- range warheads and biochemical agents we sold him 20 years ago, and kept selling to him, even after we knew he was gassing his own people.

You cannot have a war when there is nothing to fight against, when it's essentially going to be a huge U.S. military stomping/bombing exercise, when, just like Afghanistan, we stand to suffer zero U.S. casualties (except for those we seem to kill ourselves), and we just bomb and bomb and kill and kill and shrug."

Mark Morford has an excellent column in SF Gate (the San Francisco Chronicle's web arm) in which he really tears into the whole idea of a war with Iraq. It's an entertaining, and highly recommended, read.

Read it here.

posted by Michael Curry at 9:04 PM

Governor Ryan does the right thing

"All prisoners in the US state of Illinois awaiting execution have had their death sentences commuted. Governor George Ryan, a Republican who leaves office on Monday, told 156 inmates on death row that they no longer face dying by lethal injection. The unprecedented move, the most radical since the death penalty was reintroduced in 1976, is likely to spark a furious debate across the US.

'I'm going to sleep well tonight knowing that I made the right decision,' said Governor Ryan.

'Because the Illinois death penalty system is arbitrary and capricious - and therefore immoral - I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death,' he said."

Governor Ryan believed in the death penalty when he was elected, but years of seeing how the system really worked changed his mind. Even if you think the guilty deserve death (something I don't agree with), how can you think that it's okay to sacrifice the lives of those innocent men who end up there because of police misconduct or incompetent lawyers?

Read the rest of the BBC article here, and read more about the subject here and here.

posted by Michael Curry at 8:52 PM

More on Bush's economic plan

"The centerpiece of the Bush economic program is permanent repeal of the tax on corporate dividends, falsely advertised as an economic 'stimulus.' The Bush plan would reduce revenues by $670 billion over 10 years, about half just from repeal of the dividend tax.

The proposal is bad economics and irresponsible budget policy. Two-thirds of the benefit would go to the wealthiest 5 percent. About half of all Americans have some money in the stock market, but most small investors have their money in IRAs, Keoghs, and 401(k) plans, which are already tax exempt. Bush is betting that small investors will misunderstand the law and identify with big investors."

The more you learn about the details of what Bush is proposing, the more obvious it becomes that his plan disproportionately benefits the very wealthiest Americans. At the same time, he's going to drive the deficit through the roof again with his tax cuts and his war against Iraq.

Read more from Robert Kuttner's piece on the subject here.

posted by Michael Curry at 8:18 PM

The Boondocks

There have been a couple of especially good Boondocks cartoons during the past week. Check them out here and here.

posted by Michael Curry at 8:08 PM

Joseph Lieberman for President?

"So, what's not to like about Joe? Well, once you get beyond his style and his Big Money prowess, he looks nearly identical to George W. Bush on most key issues: Iraq, trade, missile defense, homeland security, corporate tax favors and faith-based gestures. He's positioned himself to run to the right of Bush on war and the military and to his left on the environment and abortion. Whether this poll-driven Republican-lite posture can work politically remains to be seen. What's clear, however, is that at a time when the nation desperately needs a fundamental debate about core issues -- how to meet real security threats, how to get the economy working for working people, how to defend America without trampling the very liberties that define America -- Lieberman would rather waltz than fight."

Since Senator Lieberman declared today that he is officially in the race for the Democratic nomination, I thought this would be a good time to post this piece from tompaine.com . Lieberman is just about the last man the Democrats should be running for President, and even if he did get elected he would do pretty much nothing to reverse the disastrous course that Bush Jr. has set this country on. I've never liked him as a Senator from my state, I didn't want him as the VP under Gore, and I don't him as President. Just say no to Joe!

Read the whole piece here.

posted by Michael Curry at 7:58 PM

Freedom Illustrated

"In the aftermath of September 11, freedom of speech has been under attack. Political cartoonists are not immune. In some cities cartoonists have been fired or lost freelance jobs because of cartoons critical of U.S. policy or for using 'wrong' metaphors. Even nationally-known artists, such as Boondocks cartoonist Aaron McGruder and Ted Rall have been censored or repudiated.

In response, cartoonists Gary Huck, Mike Konopacki, Matt Wuerker and writer Alec Dubro put together a show of cartoons from 41 editorial cartoonists from the U.S. and Mexico. This unique show premiered at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC. June 21, 2002."

The ACLU has now put the cartoons from this show up on their web site. They're definitely worth a look.

See them all here.

posted by Michael Curry at 7:45 PM

An anonymous rant

A rant I saw posted anonymously over on the cypherpunks list last week. While I don't agree with one hundred percent of it, I do agree with some. Plus, I just like it...

"I regret to inform you that henceforth, the Constitution
and derivative laws will be used only in a public relations
sense as a symbol of the legitimacy of the government, rather
than as a written delineation of the firm limitations on the
powers of government.

Previously, the United States Government claimed a monopoly
on intimidation and violence within its borders, and it
occasionally added other locales such as Latin America,
Southeast Asia, etc.

Currently, it is extending that claim of monopoly world wide,
and it is adding to its proscribed list any 'precursors' that
could aid, support, fund, hide, protect or otherwise further any
power to intimidate and apply violence other than that of the
United States and its surrogates, most notably the UK.

The precursors will include privacy, in any form, particularly
encryption (unless its use is deemed a worthwhile flag for
focused surveillance); associations with others, such as any
loyal following or set of like-minded independent people that
might be led in some direction not of Washington's choosing;
information about the actions and plans of government, since
that enables interference and could damage public acquiescence
to necessary national security measures; financial resources,
other than those that pass through verified identity gatekeepers;
knowledge of the law, and the process of capturing, obtaining
intelligence through torture, and imprisoning people, as that
gives a balance of power and a sympathetic public forum to
targets; and so on.

Intersections of those precursors, such as privacy and financial
resources, or information and private associations, will be
particularly attacked.

Not even a massive database on Americans designed by a former
disgraced National Security Advisor who was convicted of 5 felonies
involving shipping shoulder fired missiles to Iran, lying to Congress,
funding US-supported terrorism in Nicaragua that was prohibited by
law, seems to earn any concern from the sheep. Not even the
selected suspension of Habeas Corpus draws a crowd in opposition.

It is quite interesting to see how the evisceration of the Bill
of Rights is essentially accepted unopposed. No marches in the
streets, no demonstrations, no uproar from the liberal media, no
effective political opposition as the Democrats and Republicans
are competing only in which can be most draconian, as they
practiced in setting the imprisonment penalties in the 'war on
drugs'.

The frog is being boiled by upping the thermostat a degree at a
time, and it is just happily basking in the warming waters,
trusting its attendant to protect its interests, in the name of
National Security.

Lest one blame this president or his party, consider that there
is no daylight between the parties on these measures.

The only debate we hear among our politicians is whether or not
to preemptively do a Pearl Harbor on Iraq with or without a UN
stamp of acquiescence. A war must be fought to provide a clearer
reason for and distraction from the rise of fascism. If the people
can be rewarded with cheaper gas at the pump as a bonus, then
the highly-favorable body bag count of an imminently-videoable
war from 40,000 feet and cheaper energy will ensure a continuing
grant of carte blanc to the government.

Have you heard Gore or Kerry or Edwards or Daschle or Gebhardt
or others bemoan the designation of Americans as "enemy
combatants"? Have the Democrats opposed the "USA Patriot Act"?
Have the minority members of intelligence commitees demanded
information on how powers of grabbing bookseller and library
records is being used? No. This competition is one between free
people and government-in-lockstep, and almost all of the people
accept the ever-warming impositions of government out of custom,
accepting the terrorism fear-mongering and long practice, further
advanced by a gross ignorance of history.

We are witnessing the rise of a fascist state unlike any other
in history, in that this fascist state is the world's sole superpower,
positioned by technology, wealth, and military might to prevent
the rise of any competing superpower.

And domestically, as penalties for various behaviors are
increased, and those behaviors penalized are multiplied
exponentially, it becomes a simple matter to build a model of
optimization: Choose between confessing to a plea bargain (in
spite of your innocence) that will make you a felon, but which
will allow you to remain outside the walls of a prison under
close supervision and harsh restrictions or spend a half million
dollars (or accept the public defender's efforts) over a couple
of years in legal processes in which your opponent has unlimited
staff, information resources, funding and power to reward its
collaborators, during which you are jailed, facing a 20% chance
that you will be convicted in spite of your innocence and then
face a judge with the power to incarcerate you until the day you
die in prison.

At some point, are you going to love Big Brother?" -- Anonymous

posted by Michael Curry at 7:36 PM