"Unidentified Flying Objector" arrested

[shanek]

Well, they interviewed the UFO on Tuesday's Free Talk Live. I just got through listening to it. Some points of info:

• His purpose in doing this was to find out if there was a Federal law requiring citizens to show ID to board a plane. There apparently isn't, evidenced by both their failure to charge him with it and point #2:
• He was allowed to go through without his ID as long as he submitted to a more thorough search. He refused to undergo any search that involved the removal of clothing or involved any kind of touching. He had already agreed to, and passed, the metal detector and the wanding.
• The reason why he pled guilty was that it was just such a small offence and not what he was figuring he'd get arrested for anyway. Besides, there was no jail time and they suspended his fine.

You can listen to the archive here:

http://freetalklive.com/files/FTL061405A.mp3

It should be up until next Tuesday or Wednesday.

Also, for the heckuvit, here's photos of the event:

http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/tiki-browse_gallery.php?galleryId=28

 

[shanek]

You missed my point; although I may be misunderstanding yours also. You talked about "fight[ing] a bad law," and I pointed out that criminal trespass isn't a bad law (and isn't what Kanning was objecting to.) I think that you simply misspoke,

You're right. I should have said "the bad application of a law" or somesuch.

The problem is that fighting a local misdemeanor charge isn't going to have any impact on the federal regulations.

Right. That, as I posted above, was why he just pled guilty. There was no jail time and the fine was suspended; it would have been a great investment of time and expense to fight it with no real impact even if he won.

In short: If Kanning was fighting federal airport security regulations, then he went and got himself arrested for the wrong crime.

That appears to be the case.

 

[shanek]

It seems to me that in this case the airline made an offer,

Did the airline have the choice of including the ID check and search in the offer, yes or no?

 

[Santa666]

Not at all. I want to know where/how I agree to these terms by purchasing a ticket. Citing a law doesn't do anything to support that, as laws are not agreed on, but applied by force.

(Although it would be nice if you could show me where in Article I Section 8 the government has the power to do this, particularly since they're directly prohibited from doing so by the 4th Amendment...)

No, since it's there under duress. Any clause of any contract placed there under duress is void.

You stated you wanted to know where/how you agree to such terms by purchasing a ticket, below is a link to Delta's conditions of contract. They state, when you purchase a ticket, you agree to these terms. One of which is an agreement to adhere to ALL government regulations regarding travel and security. There is it, spelled out for you. The airlines themselves are are stating all passengers must comply with the government.

http://www.delta.com/home/notices/conditions/index.jsp

Now, another issue. You have made it clear, Shanek, your opinion on how far the goverment has been reaching its hand into the lives/rights of private citizens. This issue, though, IS government domain. The airport is (likely) goverment owned property, you could say the airlines should simply pool their resources and build their own airport. That would solve the problem, then they would be free to institute whatever security measures they deem necessary. But, since the airport is also goverment property, they are free to institute regulations regarding how you travel through their property.
Air travel itself, however, is ALSO, goverment regulated, by the FAA. Air space is also regulated by the government; there are certain areas over which you CANNOT fly your plane. The whole gambit of travelling by air reeks with goverment interference and while you may disagree with it, that is they way it is.

You have stated the situation involves an assumption of guilt that the passenger must "prove" wrong. Asking citizens not carry weapons or explosives onto an air craft carrying hundreds of people, and requiring them to submit to a search to make sure they are not really carrying said items is not an assumption of guilt, its being proactive. Its the government's property, they are allowed to proactively protect those persons using the airport. Ok, I have said my share for now.


Santa (needs to get to 50 posts so he can have his own avatar) Clause

 

[RandFan]

Judging from the article Shanek linked to, the person in question was demonstrating because he felt airport security had gone too far, not because he felt the government didn't have the right to ensure airport security:

"Kanning, an accountant and staunch Libertarian, said last week he hoped his actions would highlight what he considers overly burdensome state intrusion.

"What he was trying to get across is that people need to be able to travel with dignity," said his wife. "They've just gotten to a point where security is ridiculous."

Emphasis mine. There's a difference between objecting to what one percieves as ridiculous and overly burdensome government enacted security (like this person does) and objecting to government enacted security on a general principle (like Shanek does.)

Yeah, I agree. Thank you.

 

[Leif Roar]

I don't know why you insist on being so pigheaded.

Because you keep insisting on being mistaken about what constitutes duress.

So let me spell out the difference YET AGAIN:

In a normal contract, I am free to either contract with that person OR TO CHOOSE SOMEONE ELSE OFFERING THE SAME SERVICE. If I am coerced into CHOOSING THAT ONE PARTICULAR PROVIDER, then that is duress.

In two words: Utter bollocks.

Government restrictions on the terms of the agreements that are offered to you is not duress, because you are free to refuse the offered terms.

But I am NOT free to choose from other people offering the same service.

Yes, you are. There are several competing airlines, and there are other forms of transportation competing with air travel.

This "choice" is FORCED—F-O-R-C-E-D—at GUNPOINT—on anyone entering into such a contract. That is CLEARLY duress, and no amount of spin you try and apply to it will change that.

You are not forced to buy an airline ticket if you do not want to buy an airline ticket. Ergo, no force, no duress.

 

[shanek]

You have made it clear, Shanek, your opinion on how far the goverment has been reaching its hand into the lives/rights of private citizens. This issue, though, IS government domain. The airport is (likely) goverment owned property, you could say the airlines should simply pool their resources and build their own airport. That would solve the problem, then they would be free to institute whatever security measures they deem necessary. But, since the airport is also goverment property, they are free to institute regulations regarding how you travel through their property.

That's just bogus excuse-making. The fact of the matter is, they AREN'T ALLOWED TO DO SO!!! As I keep pointing out. That makes all the difference in the world.

Besides, counterclaim: the government owns the public schools, so they should be able to teach creationism as science and lead kids in prayer if that's what the politicians want...right? I mean, private schools have that right, and the government also can do that since they own the public schools, right?

No?

And that's in a case where there is at least a choice. The government has to play by different rules, and those rules are in the Constitution.

The whole gambit of travelling by air reeks with goverment interference and while you may disagree with it, that is they way it is.

"That's the way it is" is no justification for "that's the way things should be."

Asking citizens not carry weapons or explosives onto an air craft carrying hundreds of people, and requiring them to submit to a search to make sure they are not really carrying said items is not an assumption of guilt, its being proactive.

Balderdash. The only way the government can restrict your freedom is by due process of law. That's in the fifth amendment. You can't deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property except by due process. If they confiscate your nail clippers, they're depriving you of property. If they're preventing you from moving to your destination on a plane which you paid the ticket for, they're depriving you of liberty. And there's no judge or jury around anywhere when they do that.

 

[shanek]

Government restrictions on the terms of the agreements that are offered to you is not duress, because you are free to refuse the offered terms.

We are not free to negotiate such a contract without those terms. Why do you keep ignoring that?

Yes, you are. There are several competing airlines,

None of whom are any freer than the first one to remove that condition.

and there are other forms of transportation competing with air travel.

None of which is as efficient.

Stop with the pathetic freedom-hating excuse-making. THIS IS DERIVING PEOPLE OF LIBERTY. There's no way around that.

 

[Leif Roar]

We are not free to negotiate such a contract without those terms. Why do you keep ignoring that?

I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying that it does not equal duress.

None of whom are any freer than the first one to remove that condition.

Which does not change the fact that you are not "coerced into choosing one particular provider." Ergo, no duress.

None of which is as efficient.

Which does not change the fact that you have other options, and do not need to accept the terms of an airline ticket. Ergo, no duress.

Stop with the pathetic freedom-hating excuse-making. THIS IS DERIVING PEOPLE OF LIBERTY. There's no way around that.

Perhaps it's deriving people of liberty, but it is not duress.

 

[shanek]

Perhaps it's deriving people of liberty, but it is not duress.

If it's depriving you of your liberty, then how can you be said to have agreed to it? Agreement requires that you have the liberty to negotiate the terms of the agreement. That is gone here.

 

[Leif Roar]

If it's depriving you of your liberty, then how can you be said to have agreed to it?

By the fact that you, knowing the conditions, still bought the ticket. That's agreement, right there.

Agreement requires that you have the liberty to negotiate the terms of the agreement. That is gone here.

No, it doesn't. Agreement merely require that you accept the terms.

 

[Santa666]

That's just bogus excuse-making. The fact of the matter is, they AREN'T ALLOWED TO DO SO!!! As I keep pointing out. That makes all the difference in the world.

Besides, counterclaim: the government owns the public schools, so they should be able to teach creationism as science and lead kids in prayer if that's what the politicians want...right? I mean, private schools have that right, and the government also can do that since they own the public schools, right?

This comparison is not between two equal things. The teaching of creationism and leading or prayer is not an issue of safety. Look at interstate highways. These are goverment owned property, and they institute a SPEED LIMIT. The speed limit is in place for the safety of others and is a proactive approach to preventing injury and death. This is the same as ensuring that citizens are not carrying unauthorized weapons or exposives onto an aircraft. Both the highway and the airport are goverment property, both have regulations in place to proactively prevent problems. We all have the CHOICE not to use the airlines for travel if we do not agree with these rules, we all have the CHOICE not to travel the highways if we do not wish to adhere to the speed limit. Are those people who wish not adhere to the speed limit under duress to drive the speed limit because there are no other highways to travel? Of course not.

And you still did not address the issue that the airport is a government facility, the airlines are using said facility and have DOCUMENTED in their CONTRACT that when customers purchase a ticket, they are agreeing to adhere to ALL goverment regulations regarding security. You state they do this because they do not have a choice. I would disagree. Using your same logic, if the airlines refused to use the goverment facility, they could fight this. Why don't they. Because they don't want to. It is cost efficient for them to allow the government to run security. You will of course tell me "That's not the point, the government SHOULD NOT be running said security." and I will counter with, the government runs their own security in federal buildings and on the highways, why not the airport?

"That's the way it is" is no justification for "that's the way things should be."

I agree with you here, perhaps I should not resort to the just deal with it principle, that is not why we are having this discussion. I will refrain from this in the future.

Balderdash. The only way the government can restrict your freedom is by due process of law. That's in the fifth amendment. You can't deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property except by due process. If they confiscate your nail clippers, they're depriving you of property. If they're preventing you from moving to your destination on a plane which you paid the ticket for, they're depriving you of liberty. And there's no judge or jury around anywhere when they do that. [/B]

I will have to say this is partly true. The problem is as follows. The really are not preventing YOU from moving to your destination on a plane which you paid the ticket for. The contention here is they are making sure it is JUST YOU and not any weapons are explosives which could harm others. I understand the events of 9/11 have increased "some" awareness about security, and that awareness has caused the goverment to interfere in places it does not belong, but answer this for me. Would you willingly get on a plane with another person carrying an explosive device? He has a right not to allow the goverment to search him for said devices, and now he is boarding your plane.

You say that if the goverment were not instituting these safety regulations, then the airlines would. We just don't know that to be true. Enough from me now.

Santa (wishing I wasn't just a myth) Clause

 

[Ed]

Just out of curiosity, why didn't the airlines reenforce cockpit doors on their own pre- 9/11? Certainly that was an obvious weak point when it came to airborne malfactors.

 

[shanek]

This comparison is not between two equal things. The teaching of creationism and leading or prayer is not an issue of safety.

"Those who would give up their essential liberty in order to obtain safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." —Benjamin Franklin

Look at interstate highways. These are goverment owned property, and they institute a SPEED LIMIT. The speed limit is in place for the safety of others and is a proactive approach to preventing injury and death.

There was a period of time when Montana had no speed limits on its interstates and rural highways. Traffic fatalities went down, only to go back up again once speed limits were reinstated.

This is the same as ensuring that citizens are not carrying unauthorized weapons or exposives onto an aircraft.

Yes, it is.

Both the highway and the airport are goverment property, both have regulations in place to proactively prevent problems.

And neither one works.

Using your same logic, if the airlines refused to use the goverment facility, they could fight this. Why don't they.

Because they get zillions in subsidies from the government. They're not gonna bite the hand that gives them welfare.

I will have to say this is partly true. The problem is as follows. The really are not preventing YOU from moving to your destination on a plane which you paid the ticket for.

No, they're just subjecting you to search as a condition...without probable cause, again in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

 

[shanek]

Just out of curiosity, why didn't the airlines reenforce cockpit doors on their own pre- 9/11? Certainly that was an obvious weak point when it came to airborne malfactors.

That's a good question. I don't know the answer, but I will say that the airlines reinforcing the cockpit door is one of two things that have actually made us safer and basically ensured that nothing like 9/11 will ever happen again, the other being the passengers who brought down the fourth plane. Now, potential hijackers know we're not going to just sit there and take it.

Those are the reasons why we're safer now. And netiher one of them has the first thing to do with government.

 

[Ed]

That's a good question. I don't know the answer, but I will say that the airlines reinforcing the cockpit door is one of two things that have actually made us safer and basically ensured that nothing like 9/11 will ever happen again, the other being the passengers who brought down the fourth plane. Now, potential hijackers know we're not going to just sit there and take it.

Those are the reasons why we're safer now. And netiher one of them has the first thing to do with government.

Why didn't they do it pre 9/11? Perhaps depending on the (strapped) airlines is dangerous.

 

[shanek]

Why didn't they do it pre 9/11? Perhaps depending on the (strapped) airlines is dangerous.

Probably because the government was always telling everyone it was best to just go along with whatever the hijacker wants...

 

[CFLarsen]

There was a period of time when Montana had no speed limits on its interstates and rural highways. Traffic fatalities went down, only to go back up again once speed limits were reinstated.

False.

In the years of the no-speed limit, there was a sharp increase in the number of traffic casualties:

Source: National Center for Statistics and Analysis of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
Analysis of Speeding-Related Fatal Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes

 

[Ed]

Probably because the government was always telling everyone it was best to just go along with whatever the hijacker wants...

So what you are saying is that they did not do the right thing. After all, the government is always going to have an opinion. It does not say much for the dependability of the airlines.

 

[Ed]

That's a good question. I don't know the answer, but I will say that the airlines reinforcing the cockpit door is one of two things that have actually made us safer and basically ensured that nothing like 9/11 will ever happen again, the other being the passengers who brought down the fourth plane. Now, potential hijackers know we're not going to just sit there and take it.

Those are the reasons why we're safer now. And netiher one of them has the first thing to do with government.

Just to be clear, the government mandated this installation.

On Oct. 9, 2001,the FAA published the first of a series of Special Federal Aviation Regulations (SFARs) to expedite the modification of cockpit doors in the U.S. fleet. This “Phase I” fix included installation of steel bars and locking devices.

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/factsheets/2002/factsheets_020905.htm