Fuck you, Rep. Larry Justus (R-NC)!

Unfortunately, yes there is. Until 9/11, our liberties included the ability to carry a box-cutter onto a commercial aircraft. That turned out to be too much.

That doesn’t make a national ID any better an idea, of course, and we should be as vigilant as possible in protecting our real, important liberties.

But geez, more people died in the Trade Center alone on 9/11 than lived in the entire city of New York back when our Constitution was written. An act of the magnitude that we’ve just seen would have been, literally, unthinkable.

Now we’ve got to think it.

No, that was a security oversight that should have been caught by the boarding screeners. I’m willing to put up with inconvenience at the airport to prevent further hijackings, but I’m damned if I’ll let the government infringe on the sovereignty of the people of the United States.

I am appalled at Rep. Justus’s idea of national idea registration. What’s next, the government tracking what books I read, where I go, who I sleep with? Ari Fleischer’s comment about Americans having to watch what they say makes me wonder if anybody in the government has read the freakin’ Bill of Rights.

When and where did he say that? I don’t disbelieve you, but I’d like to know what the administration is up to…

Manhattan, I can see where you’re coming from; I really can. The problem is that, when stretched too far, it’s a dangerous attitude to have. Yes, some things were unforseeable back when the Constitution was written; and yes, the Constitution is not the Bible/Qu’ran/Torah/etc., and is therefore not infalliable. Some of the concepts, however, are pretty much inarguable, and from what I read in/about the OP, this seems to be one of those things.

I live in fear of a world where someone could pull me off the street and ask me for my papers, which–should my paranoia reign–will indicate that I, sir, am worse than Hitler (what with being a social libertarian and all). If we defer our rights out of fear, who knows when we’ll get them back.

As an aside, isn’t there something about freedom to travel in the Constitution? Or perhaps it has been applied to this in the past. . .if so, wouldn’t that sort of eliminate the possibility of having to carry identifying documents at all times? ::shrugs:: Just a thought.

Q As Commander-In-Chief, what was the President’s reaction to television’s Bill Maher, in his announcement that members of our Armed Forces who deal with missiles are cowards, while the armed terrorists who killed 6,000 unarmed are not cowards, for which Maher was briefly moved off a Washington television station?
You can find the full transcript here.
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not discussed it with the President, one. I have –

Q Surely, as a –

MR. FLEISCHER: I’m getting there.

Q Surely as Commander, he was enraged at that, wasn’t he?

MR. FLEISCHER: I’m getting there, Les.

Q Okay.

MR. FLEISCHER: I’m aware of the press reports about what he said. I have not seen the actual transcript of the show itself. But assuming the press reports are right, it’s a terrible thing to say, and it unfortunate. And that’s why there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to the people in his own party. There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is

That is factually incorrect. Prior to the 11th, it was completely legal to board an aircraft with a knife with a blade of less than 4". I routinely carried a Leatherman tool in my carry-on luggage. That was a liberty I had, and now I don’t.

I agree with you entirely. I’m just pointing out that the world has changed – the State is not the only game in town when it comes to imposing tyranny.

As much as I think Fleischer’s an asshole, I still think the just flubbed this particular one. He was trying to refer both to what that bonehead Maher said and to what that bigoted Congressman spewed, and he flubbed it.

I stand corrected. Even so, it’s a small liberty, the loss of which being no more than an inconvenience, very different from the erosion of civil liberties advocated by Justus.

Just for the record, unless something bizarre has happened in the very recent past, the supposedly Hon. Larry Justus is a member of the North Carolina House of Representatives (lower house of the state legislature) for Henderson and Polk Counties (in the mountains southwest of Asheville in the extreme west of the state), not a Congressman (member of the [Federal] House of Representatives).

And we do have some strange entities on that body – notably a gentleman representing an area in the supposedly enlightened and liberal Research Triangle who is dead set opposed to teaching “atheistic evolution” in the public schools – after all, it’s “only a theory!” (No, his name is not “Bill.” ;))

Give me a break – I’m a proud citizen of “the planet that gave us Jesse Helms” (though not for that reason! :eek: ), and we’ve finally got rid of him (as of Jan. 4, 2003). Remember the slogan of this board: “Fighting Ignorance for over 25 years – who’d have thought it would take this long?”

Let’s slow down just a second here. As far as the liberty to carry a knife on board an airliner is concerned, that liberty never existed. There is no more a Constitutionally protected liberty to possess a knife on an airliner than there is a Constitutional liberty interest in being served in a restaurant without shoes and shirt. That is a decision that the proprietor gets to make, and to the extent the proprietor is subject to government regulation and supervision, the government also gets to make. After Sep. 11, we can fairly think that small knives on airliners may present a real threat to commerce, even though that risk was not appreciated before then. In the case of restaurants, the local health officials might have a legitimate interest on a health basis pretty much without regard to the esthetics of the thing. Some restaurants require a coat and tie. Is there a liberty interest in not wearing a coat and tie?

A national ID Card is a different proposition altogether. There is a fair argument that there is a legitimate liberty interest in not being required to identify your self just because you are abroad on the public streets. Beyond that, is there to be a sanction for not having your ID Card in possession at any given moment? If there is a sanction you effectively subject everyone to a shake down for an ID Card on no greater cause than being out in public. That would seem to blow the meaning out of the Constitutional liberties to be free of unwarranted searches, to travel without hindrance, to assemble and petition and any scrap of a Constitutionally protected right to privacy. Certainly a National ID Card would make things easier for the police authorities, but so would all sorts of other stuff that have been deemed to be outside the state’s somewhat limited authority.

I agree entirely. Not surprising, since I find myself agreeing with much of what you post here.

Sorry if it seemed like I was jumping on you. But I harp on this because I think here lies the central challenge to civil libertarians for the next couple of decades. There is such a thing as “too much liberty”, and we have to admit it. The challenge lies in defining liberty as broadly as possible while still gaining some security. Unlike in the 18th century, there is in fact a tradeoff, due to the abilities of the individuals and non-State entities who seek to deprive us of our most central “liberty” of all – our lives.

Well, that’s just it. Currently, the proprietor gets to make the decision in neither case. The FAA sets the weapons rules, and the city councils set the restaurant rules. A city council that says, “No pets, but seeing-eye dogs are OK” is essentially saying, “we claim to have a health-related reason for this rule, but we really don’t since we carved out an exception. We really just think it’s gross to have dogs in a restaurant and we feel like imposing our views on everyone.” They are interfering in a proprietor’s ability to control his property without a compelling interest.

As we start to surrender some liberties as our sacrifice in this war, we should be equally vigilant about reclaiming others that the State has taken out of expedience or for some other non-valid reason.

This is a very, very dangerous time in our country. We have to get it right.

Poly, thanks for the info – it’s good to know that guys at least one level down from where we thought.

To paraphrase Franklin (I think), “He who would trade freedom for security deserves neither.”

Manny, are you really willing to give up your liberties? How about the privilege you have with your clients? How about your right to express your opinion on this very message board? Where do you stop? What rights do you think are worth security?

We’ve been through periods in this nation when disagreeing with the government is a crime. Hell, we’ve been through periods in this nation when looking different is a crime. Do you want to go back there?

Not taking sides in this conversation (yet) but:

I don’t think there is a country left that DOES NOT have a national ID card. I know not a good argument pro or con. The reason why I bring it up, is that there are countries with a national ID card and civil liberties are alive and well.

The U.S. really does have national ID cards, implicit. The driver license mixed with Social Security basically serves the same purpose. The combination of the two is used in this country like a national ID card is used in other countries. So, what’s the big deal? Perhaps I’m missing something here but somebody complained that eg. in Germany you actually have to register when you move to a new location. WTF? You have to do the same here, only for your driver license.
Really, all it takes at this point is to link all State DMV systems together and you would have a national ID.

Again, many things are different in this country and foreign examples are not always a good guideline but I have not heard one good argument why this is really a bad idea AND why people don’t recognize the current mechanisms as the same thing (Soc Sec + Driver License = national ID).

Bitch about that before you bitch about a national ID.

You paraphrase a lot - and poorly. He actually said, “They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Are the words “essential,” “little” and “temporary” wholly invisible to you?

Do you read newspapers, or should I publish the list of the ~6,000 people who lost both liberty and security this month? Forever. Do you suppose that’s what Franklin had in mind as “a little temporary safety?” Do you consider an extra wait at the airport, or even a bag x-ray before boading a flying fuel tank a violation of an “essential liberty?” What would Franklin have said at the time if a dozen whackos could obliterate the entire population of New York City in two hours?

Are you really illiterate? Was your failure to include my sentence, “The challenge lies in defining liberty as broadly as possible while still gaining some security” intentional or not?

Check my posts on this subject. No, really. I insist. Because you are either a) intentionally misrepresenting what I’m saying or b) making a knee-jerk reaction or c) among the most stupid people ever to pass through a womb. My bet is on (b). If that’s the case, you will find in your search that I’m deeply concerned about the maintenance of our liberties in the aftermath of this crisis. But right now I’ll admit that among the liberties I’d kind of like to have is a weekend without a funeral.

When, precisely, the fuck did I mention anything about any of those things at all? I simply pointed out that “there is no such critter as too much liberty” is a fallacy.

Go ahead and take your time searching – I’ll wait. I expect you to find something or post an apology.

That oft-repeated misquote of Franklin is a fallacy, regardless of source. The fact that we have a government and laws of any sort demonstrates that we have given up some theoretical freedom in order to further our security. Without some basic measure of security, we have no real liberty: we’re too busy whirling around (like Yossarian at the end of Catch-22) in case someone’s about to attack us from behind, to take advantage of any liberties that we theoretically possess.

Like manny said, “The challenge lies in defining liberty as broadly as possible while still gaining some security.”

Preach it, brother. :slight_smile: