] In plaintiffs' case, he was not required to provide
] identification on pain of criminal or other governmental
] sanction. Identification requests unaccompanied by
] detention, arrest, or any other penalty, other than the
] significant inconvenience of being unable to fly, do not
] amount to a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth
] Amendment. Plaintiff has not suggested that he felt that
] he was not free to leave when he was asked to produce
] [*15] identification.

In other words, the government can require ID for any purpose unless you are completely prohibited from engaging in a constitutionally protected activity if you don't comply with the ID request. The judge goes on to say that a requirement for ID checks to fly doesn't impact your freedom to travel/associate because you could reach your destination by other means.

Cross country travel by airplane takes a day, whereas driving takes a week. One must presume that the court has no concern for convenience/practicality here. Therefore it follows that the government could require an ID check with warrant/database cross reference for every form of transportation/lodging based on the theory that you can still WALK between destinations and sleep outside.

Gilmore seems like a crackpot here only because he is thinking way into the future. If the 4th amendment really is this limited, then you can rest assured that over the course of the next 20 years the ID/database requirements will fill into every crack and crevase possible without totally preventing freedom of association.

Ultimately, this is not compatible with the common people's understanding of what the 4th Amendment means, and it will result in a Constituional Amendment.

Honestly, I think that this judge is wrong. Warrant checkpoints are random searches, even if you don't have to go through them. To argue otherwise is to completely miss the spirit of the 4th amendment. If the British had told the Warehouse operators in the Boston Harbor that they could avoid random searches of their storage areas so long as they didn't transport their goods by sea I think they would have been just as angry about it.

[Politech] Judge dismisses John Gilmore's ID-required lawsuit [priv]

] It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts
] say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no
] longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief
] search of your home or business.

This is a little hard to cipher through. The crimes the perp in question is accused of cloud the issue. Basically, these two officers show up at a residence looking to question someone. They have no warrants of any kind. Someone lets them into the residence, so they go back to the room the person they are looking for lives in. The person isn't there. So they go in and have a look around. They find evidence and submit it.

The police claim they felt at risk, and were worried that the individual might be hiding. Thing is, they weren't executing an arrest warrant, so basically the person in question had every right to hide, and if they felt they were at risk snooping around for him they should have left.

Typically the police are allowed to perform a "protective sweep" of a residence if they are there executing an arrest warrant. Now, in these states, they can execute a "protective sweep" at any time if they feel the situation poses a danger. In this case they were probably justified in feeling there was a danger. However, the fact is that the police consider any situation to be risky, and rightly so. You never know when you might end up in a dicey situation. That means they can perform a search any time they enter any residence for any reason. If they want to search your residence all they have to do is question you. Good by forth.

Whats really disturbing about this is that this is the 5th circuit to come to this conclusion. These rules might already apply to you.

TheNewOrleansChannel.com - News - Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants

This is an interesting look at a specific point in history as seen from both sides of the issue. Part of the MIT OpenCourseWare initiative, this information really points out how history is really all about perspective.

[This is really neat. -t ]

Black Ships & Samurai

] But to hold Bush's eight months in office as
] having been more responsible for al Qaeda's emergence
] than Clinton's eight years in office -- not to mention the
] Carter and Reagan administrations' responsibility for encouraging
] militant Islam -- strikes us as strange reasoning. Sept. 11 was
] planned, and it was being implemented while Clinton was president.
] Bush simply adopted wholesale -- and extended -- Clinton's
] errors.
]
] This is not an argument for Clinton or Bush. Given the
] mood of the country, it is unlikely that any president would have
] done much differently.

Stratfor on the present debate in Washington. This seems a little more political then I'm used to from them. (Are they really qualified to make wholesale judgments on the management decisions made by the Bush Administration? If so, why aren't they running for office?)

However, it is interesting and there are a number of realistic observations made that many people on this site could use to read. An observation I found striking: Clinton is blaming his lack of action in the Middle East on the "public's mood." The "public's mood" was very much spun by the government at the time away from the matter at hand. But no one is going to say that in Congress. Maybe they did underestimate the problem. Maybe they were trying to deal with it using some sort of black op that ended up failing. The only certainty is that we'll never know.

[IP] Stratfor: Sorting Through the Accusations

His beautifully produced vignettes include not only the major figures like Hamilton and Jefferson, but also lesser ones like Hugh Henry Brackenridge, Eli Whitney and "a true American hustler," Cornelius Vanderbilt.

Calling CNN -- can we get Anderson Cooper to interview McDougall?

'Freedom Just Around the Corner': Rogue Nation

] NANOG actively works to produce sessions and seminars to
] help foster security on the Internet. All sessions are
] taped and converted to streaming media for all to use for
] their personal education. Slides are available for each
] session as well. Over time, this effort has generated a
] valuable online tutorial for engineers and others seeking
] to learn more about running a more secure network.

Wow. Nanog has developed an awesome collection of security presentations for previous conference.

NANOG Security Curriculum

They're back!!!!!

:: Garbage Pail Kids World ::

] Monty Python's film The Life of Brian is to return to US
] cinemas next month following the success of The Passion
] of the Christ.
]
] The Biblical satire will be re-released in Los Angeles,
] New York and other US cities to mark its 25th
] anniversary.
]
] ...
]
] Distributor Rainbow said it hoped the film would "serve
] as an antidote to all the hysteria about Mel's movie".

[ HA! Perfect. -k]

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Python film to challenge Passion

Acidus wrote:
] ] ATLANTA - Genital piercings for women were banned by the
] ] Georgia House Wednesday as lawmakers considered a bill
] ] outlining punishments for female genital mutilation.
]

Sounds like they didn't know what the hell they were passing. It'll probably get smoked in the conference committee. However, if you live in Atlanta and like piercings NOW is the time to send a very loud message to your state legislators that they are confused about this and they need to rethink it. If you wait a week you'll be out of luck.

RE: Georgia House Bans Female Genital Piercings

] The only thing this time-wasting pest Newdow has going
] for him is that he's right.

Yes indeed folks, you heard right, its circus time again! Get ready for pseudo-intellectual arguments from angry leftists who have no consideration for how people feel. Get ready for idiotic chest pounding from right wing zealots who don't see why a pesky thing like the establishment clause should prevent them from establishing a religion they see as already established.

This is a dumb question, and hence it has absolutely no good answer. When these words were added to the pledge it was establishment. It was illegal. It was wrong. It didn't even flow well. But now they've been there for 50 years. The establishment is over with. Now its part of our national tradition. So you can't change it without fucking with patriotism. You're telling a democratic people what their national symbols can and cannot be. This isn't some state flag that nobody really cares about. This is the primary source of national brainwashing, and the whole country is lathered up.

Can the Supremes really strike this decision down? If they do they are faster and looser with logic then I thought. But, then again, they managed to side against Eldred.

Can the Supremes really uphold this? If they do they'll face the unbridled furry of most of the people in this country. Those people will respond with an amendment, and it will pass faster then the repeal of prohibition.

If we're lucky, the amendment will just strike the establishment clause, or seriously weaken it, simultaneously making our country entirely inhospitable to the multicultural population that it consists of, and providing a smoking gun to every Islamist who ever entertained the notion that Americans represent a religion. Slowly this will damn us to the same perpetual hell on earth that Israel has crafted for itself.

On the other hand, maybe the Bush administration and friends will see this as the opportunity they've been waiting for to eliminate the check that the Judicial system represents on the power of the Executive, torpedoing the Constitution's real foundation and damning us even faster.

I think a positive outcome here is cryptographically improbable. There is no where to go from here but down. We may be about the witness the beginning of the end of western society.

I must strongly encourage the Supreme Court to hand down a bullshit decision. There has never been a better time or place for bullshit and hand waving then right here and now. The smart people will know why you did it.

The real problem here isn't the "under god" part of the pledge. Its the fact that there is a pledge at all. Getting people, especially children, to repeat the same slogans (or songs) over and over and over again, in unison, is how you program people. It doesn't matter if you're a crazy cult, a fascist, a Japanese corporation, a Methodist church, an army, or the United States of America. It works exactly the same way in every case. This is what brainwashing is. And there is absolutely no way an independent person can uphold this as a good thing no matter how much he or she believes in the things said people are being programmed for, because this serves no purpose other then to eliminate independent thought. Such an effort weakens your society. Sit back, pop some popcorn, grab that law dictionary, and prepare for a demonstration.

Op-Ed Columnist: Of God and the Flag