Ashcroft back in court

Granted he is the Attorney General of the United States of America, but how often can you possibly sue this man? Actually, by virtue of his office I’m sure his name gets plastered on innumerable lawsuits brought by citizens, groups, etc., claiming all manner of things. John Gilmore has added another one to the pile and this time it’s getting lots of press.

Way back in 1996 airlines began to require people traveling by air to show photo identification and Gilmore claims there is no published law that gives this requirement and that such a condition on travel represents an unconstitutional search and seizure and 1st amendment violation. The Transportation Security Administration agrees that no published directive requires ID to travel but if there were such a law it would be in a classified security directive. Gilmore is suing to see the directive and to have it declared unconstitutional by the courts.

His website makes some good points, including: how can there be a government issued ID requirement when citizens aren’t required to have any such ID? No law says I have to carry a driver’s license, passport, or state ID card and there are no national “papers,” as he calls them. So mandating that US citizens show ID they don’t have to carry places an undue burden on the right to travel, in his estimation.

I agree with Gilmore on most counts — I should not have to show my passport to travel in my own country and such a requirement does not seem to create a much safer travel environment. As we have seen, those willing to commit acts of terror have the resources and the means to get hold of false documents, or in some cases authentic ones.

Personally I don’t mind having to show my ID to travel, although in principle it does seem wrong to require it, or to require a highly intrusive search in lieu thereof. What troubles me is that, if it exists at all, the law is secret. There are many implications of secret laws that make them abhorrent to American sensibilities (or should).

Secret laws allow government officials to issue mandates by fiat and then obscure their actions from the judicial process by shrouding them in classified status. How can we argue against a law that we cannot say exists? How can we hold accountable those who promulgate such regulations if we are unable to investigate their origins or even their existence?

Also, what danger is their is exposing the directive that requires passengers to show identification when its consequences are clearly out in the open? We can clearly see that everyone must provide state-issued ID, so we can deduce that such a requirement exists. Knowing without a doubt enables us to fight the law, but it give terrorists nothing extra.