[Sindawe]

DEB DAVIS LIKES to commute to work by public bus. She uses the time to read, crochet or pay bills. It's her quiet time. What with the high price of gas, she saves money, too: a week's worth of gas money gets her a month's worth of bus rides.

Deborah Davis defends freedom at home while her son serves abroad in Iraq.
The bus she rides crosses the property of the Denver Federal Center, a collection of government offices such as the Veterans Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and part of the National Archives. The Denver Federal Center is not a high security area: it's not Area 51 or NORAD.

On her first day commuting to work by bus, the bus stopped at the gates of the Denver Federal Center. A security guard got on and demanded that all of the passengers on this public bus produce ID. She was surprised by the demand of the man in uniform, but she complied: it would have meant a walk of several miles if she hadn't. Her ID was not taken and compared to any "no-ride" list. The guard barely glanced at it.

When she got home, what had happened on the bus began to bother her. 'This is not a police state or communist Russia', she thought. From her 8th grade Civics class she knew there is no law requiring her, as an American citizen, to carry ID or any papers, much less show them to anyone on a public bus.

She decided she would no longer show her ID on the bus.

Continues at: http://www.papersplease.org/davis/index.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I dunno about this one. I know the Fed Center is .gov property, but what is not clear from the site is if her job is ON the property, or if her bus just happend to cross it.

Thoughts?

[Old Dog]

Showing ID to access a federal installation is nothing new. Those who live around military bases know that when public transit goes aboard the bases, everyone onboard must display ID. It's a simple security measure, and has zilch to do with a "police state" mentality. Here's simply another case of a misguided person seeking her 15 minutes of fame ...

[R.H. Lee]

I don't know what she's complaining about. These are dangerous times that demand we know who everybody is. The war on terra and all that ya know......

[pax]

Old Dog ~

What potential crime or terrorist event would showing ID prevent?

Could a terrorist falsify an ID?

Was anyone keeping a list of the names of people who rode the bus?

Was there a list of people prohibited to enter the facility, against which names were checked?

The answers to these questions should tell you something about what was, and what was not, being accomplished by the ID check.

pax

[Old Dog]

Pax, I totally disagree. Are you suggesting that public transportation be allowed to access any federal installation without even cursory ID checks? Look, these ID checks won't stop a determined criminal or terrorist, but they're simply an easy first step in the series of security measures. If someone can't be troubled to display a photo ID when passing through a federal installation, that's not a display of principle, it's a display of stupidity.
Was anyone keeping a list of the names of people who rode the bus?

Was there a list of people prohibited to enter the facility, against which names were checked?It's basically a check to to ensure there's no one aboard the bus who might look a little hinky. Believe me, security at any federal center or military base not only has lists of prohibited people, but photos when possible, too ...

[pax]

Old Dog ~

You could not disagree with what I said, because I made no argument. I simply asked a pointed question.

Let me ask again: exactly what crime would showing an ID prevent?

pax

[KCMO]

Questions:
#1 Why is a public transport bus traveling through a federal installation when the end-destination is obviously not a federal installation?

#2 I assume the law is a bit muddy here;
It’s not her fault that this bus passes through a federal installation.
Can someone please explain what rights an American citizen loses when traveling through a federal installation?

#3 When I was in the U.S.N. we made some awesome fake-ID's (for beer acquisition purposes only ;) ).
What good does checking ID's do?

[Henry Bowman]

Let me ask again: exactly what crime would showing an ID prevent?I think Old Dog answered your question: None.

What it does is give them a chance to scrutinize you and for you to show nervousness that might arouse some unspecified suspicion.


Take a different bus that doen't have this unnecessary delay.

[rick_reno]

This will get easier once she has been "chipped". She won't have to show ID, they should be able to read her ID from outside the bus and speed this process up. It'll make us all safer and if our President - the greatest one of our time - doesn't have to worry about who is on that bus he can concentrate on catching Bin Laden.

[Old Dog]

You could not disagree with what I said, because I made no argument. I simply asked a pointed question(emphasis mine) Aw, c'mon now, Pax ... you were clearly trying to make a point with your questions, and I responded to the tone of your post. I know what you were saying, and you know what I was saying; no need for semantic games. You also asked:
Let me ask again: exactly what crime would showing an ID prevent?And, well, I did say:Look, these ID checks won't stop a determined criminal or terrorist, but they're simply an easy first step in the series of security measures.

This Davis woman's situation is in no way an abrogation of her rights as a citizen of the United States. If you think a five second check of your photo ID constitutes "an American citizen losing rights" ... when one is voluntarily passing through a federal installation, I'm not sure what anyone could tell you to sway your opinion.

For cryin' out loud, just take the express bus!

[grimjaw]

This will get easier once she has been "chipped". She won't have to show ID, they should be able to read her ID from outside the bus and speed this process up. It'll make us all safer and if our President - the greatest one of our time - doesn't have to worry about who is on that bus he can concentrate on catching Bin Laden.

:scrutiny: I'm not sure if this is intended as sarcasm or not.

As for the Denver Federal Center, I've never been there so I don't know.

This website (http://www.lakewood-colorado.org/business_parks/denverfedcenter.asp) says it's a 'secured Federal facility', and I would expect to be challenged for identification at the entry point, whether or not it's justified or legal. If it's an entry gate for vehicles, it would probably also state that you could be searched at any time, yadda yadda yadda, like most federal or military installations.

Do they check everyone's ID that runs that route, or just the people on the bus? If they check every vehicle passing through, then it seems like someone didn't know that and thought it was unlawful. Was it random ID inspection? Checking identification as a security measure hardly seems secure (reference 9/11), and random identification checks is completely useless. I can see where legal eagles would watch for things like profiling at such a checkpoint. My federal ID badge has to be visible at all times while I'm at work (Department of Energy facility), and to work there I implicity agree that my person or vehicle can be searched at any time security feels that it's warranted. If someone challenged me for ID and I didn't show it, I'd most likely be arrested. I can even be challenged by other employees to show my identification if it's not present; we are encouraged to do so in training.

If she didn't want to show ID to enter, she should have been given the option to get off the bus and leave. If she was given the option and didn't take it, well, that would probably make me a cranky federally contracted security checkpoint person, too. If she wasn't given the option to leave, I believe she should have that right, and it was an oversight on the part of security. I know at the military base I used to work at (post 9/11), if I didn't have ID, I could turn around and leave to go get it.

I think, however, the article was written by a lawyer or mouthpiece for a movement, and it wouldn't mention anything like the above because it would hurt the case or movement.

jmm

[pax]

Old Dog ~

Pretend for a moment that it's really a question.
Look, these ID checks won't stop a determined criminal or terrorist, but they're simply an easy first step in the series of security measures.
If it's a first step, you've got to believe that the ID check does something. So let me ask again: what, exactly, does a simple ID check accomplish?

If it's a first step, where's the next one -- and what does the first step accomplish by itself, in the absence of another one?

pax

[Old Dog]

Pax, I know you know the answer to that one ... You don't really need someone such as me (who happens to have spent more than a few years involved in security of government installations) to tell you that there is a continuum of security measures. what, exactly, does a simple ID check accomplish?As noted before, routine ID checks let regular passengers know that they're being let through the installation as a courtesy; the ID checks will weed out the amateurs (remember the guy who got nailed at the Port Angeles ferry terminal with a trunkload of high explosives?) ... Security personnel (such as the folks we have guarding our nuclear submarine base up here), as I'm sure you well know, are typically observant, and believe me, they are quite good at picking out strangers who are trying to access areas they should not be accessing. If it's a first step, where's the next one -- and what does the first step accomplish by itself, in the absence of another one?The first step, in and of itself, is relying on the memory and the intuition of the security personnel checking the IDs ... The next steps are cameras, sign-in logs, baggage/belongings/vehicle inspections ... I'm sure someone shortly will proclaim that the ID checks (being as IDs can be counterfeited) is simply a "feel-good" measure to provide the "illusion" of security. Go for it. Those in the security business understand that the full spectrum of security measures begin simply.

[Brick]

If she's voluntarily boarding a bus and entering an establishment where ID could be checked, I don't see anything wrong as long as it's voluntary.

Dudes, come on. ID is hokey. What if I'm jogging and a cop screeches tires and draws to demand ID because I may be a "terrorist" and I don't have ID?

In this lovely state of Kalisickifornia, you must have ID on you. But I rarely carry ID with me...DL is in the car, and the ID is in the wallet. But the wallet usually comes with me only when I might make a purchase. Otherwise, it's in the car too.

And what if I refuse to identify myself? :what:

[pax]

Old Dog ~

Thanks.
As noted before, routine ID checks let regular passengers know that they're being let through the installation as a courtesy;
So the purpose is to, well, intimidate, the passengers. And you think of that as a good thing.
the ID checks will weed out the amateurs (remember the guy who got nailed at the Port Angeles ferry terminal with a trunkload of high explosives?) ...
Stopping stupid criminals is a worthwhile endeavor, though I'd like to point out here that stopping stupid people doesn't usually take any special effort. (Remember that guy who got nailed at the Port Angeles ferry terminal...?) ;)
Security personnel (such as the folks we have guarding our nuclear submarine base up here), as I'm sure you well know, are typically observant, and believe me, they are quite good at picking out strangers who are trying to access areas they should not be accessing.
And they cannot do that without glancing at a driver's license?

pax

[Old Dog]

So the purpose is to, well, intimidate, the passengers. And you think of that as a good thing.Oh, for heaven's sake, no ... but if you want to consider getting asked for an ID intimidation, well ...
And they cannot do that without glancing at a driver's license?Nope. Not these days, regrettably.

And I actually have fond memories of the days when many of our military bases were open to the public, and Joe Taxpayer could come aboard and look at all the pretty airplanes and ships, even snapping a few pics with his Kodak Instamatic. (As an aside, we had a lot more females in our clubs in those days ...) And I well remember the days before metal detectors and armed security at the doors of our federal buildings. It's a different world.

[pax]

Old Dog ~

Yep, I do consider that it's an attempt at intimidation. The thought apparently is (and I'm paraphrasing you here, so please correct me if I'm wrong!), that those who are planning or plotting something will act hinky when asked for ID at the gate, and thus set off the guard's spidey-sense and justify further intrusions into the citizen's private world.

Unspoken is the assumption that only guilty people will act uncomfortable or unhappy or guilty in such a circumstance.

Since asking for ID accomplishes nothing in and of itself, it's an attempt to intimidate stupid guilty people into acting like it -- a bluff.

I'm not quite old enough to join you in missing the good old days (37 is not old, no matter what my children say!). But I am old enough to have observed that even though government rules might change, human nature never has.

pax

[Old Dog]

Yep, I do consider that it's an attempt at intimidation.Okay. But let's not forget, that if you're not entering a federal installation voluntarily, you're probably being taken in wearing handcuffs ... You have the choice to not display ID, and you have the choice to not access the installation ... As far as the rest of your remarks, yes, that's all part of the process.

But, just to show you where my heart is ... My military retirement ceremony is off-base, so as not to trouble any of my civilian guests (believe it or not, many of my friends are actual real live civilians) to have to show ID at the gate, get checked off a list and be otherwise intimidated ...

[KriegHund]

The guard called in federal cops, and she was arrested and charged with federal criminal misdemeanors after refusing to show ID on demand.

WHAT!?!?!?!

That angers me greatly. I hope this woman wins and sues the heck outta whoevers at fualt for this.

[pax]

Old Dog ~

No way! Real, honest-to-Vishnu civilians? That's ... strange. ;)

Seriously, thanks for your service. And for the thought provoking conversation.

pax

[grimjaw]

RE: intimidation, it has been my experience with most security details (I have not been one myself but have worked with several) that they *want* to be intimidating and in control.

routine ID checks let regular passengers know that they're being let through the installation as a courtesy

You go where I let you. I am in control. If security isn't in control, who is? Not trying to say it's a bad thing, Old Dog, but that's what I see, and had explained to me. It's part of the job. I would say that's the impression given off by security, police, military, etc, and I understand the reasoning behind it.

If someone in security is demanding my identification and I wasn't aware that I was doing anything wrong or that I was entering a facility where it was required, that would be intimidating.

No?

I still think the lady knew, though, and I don't think she was intimidated. She was on her cell phone talking when the 2nd or 3rd officer showed up.

RE: guilt, I have alot of that left over from my mother, so I always look guilty, even when I have my ID. :o

jmm

[Flyboy]

Looks like it's time for a quick grammar lesson:

In German, all nouns are capitalized, not just proper nouns. For example, "Guten Abend, Herr Offizer. Meine Papieren sind hier in Ordnung."

(Translation: "Good evening, Mr. Officer. My papers are here and in order.")

I hope this is of service; I'd hate for people to look illiterate when they're writing their confessions.

[Old Dog]

You guys kill me sometimes, what with things such as this oh-so-subtle comparison of Nazi Germany to a requirement to show photo ID for access a U.S. federal installation ... Y'all need to get out more.

[Standing Wolf]

It's a simple security measure, and has zilch to do with a "police state" mentality.

It's a simple measure, all right, but has nothing to do with genuine security. Checking driving licenses does nothing to prevent crime, especially since fakes are so cheap and readily available. There's no realistic chance the person checking licenses is going to remember the name of someone who later turns out to be a criminal. What's really going on is fake security or ritual security: the appearance of efforts to secure an area.

I believe government is "checking" just because it can, just to remind the commoners it's decided it has power to toss out the Fourth Amendment.

I'd be more inclined to call it statist parasitism than Nazi parasitism; realistically speaking, however, parasites are parasites.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

What I hate about security (ID checks, metal detectors, searches, etc) is the assumption that I'm a criminal. They basically demand for me to prove that I'm not a threat.

It doesn't matter what's in my pockets. It could be anything from a bit of lint to an atomic bomb. Either way, nobody is going to get hurt. You see, I'm not a murderer. No matter what's in my pockets, I'mnot going to use it to hurt people. It pisses me off that they think I would, and that I must be "made safe" by searches, ID checks, and so forth.

It oughta be the other way around. If they wanna search me, they need to show some particular reason why I'm a threat first.

What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"???

[Flyboy]

a requirement to show photo ID for access a U.S. federal installation
Go re-read the article and tell me where she tried to access a federal installation; as near as I can tell, she wanted to stay on the bus. It wasn't her fault, design, or idea for the public transportation to run through the federal facility. If the Feds are going to allow traffic--such as city buses--to drive through their facility, then they need to check the passengers as they depart the bus, rather than harassing everybody. If the facility needs to be that secure, perhaps the Feds ought not allow public buses through the gate in the first place.

Also, I didn't see anything in the story about the bomb-sniffing dogs, mirrors under the bus, searching under seats/in cargo bays/etc. Granted, they might have happened and not been mentioned, but I'm more inclined to think this is a combination of "Security Theatre" and "Get Back In Your Place, Peon!"

And, for the record, I only meant to invoke images of authoritarianism and internal checkpoints, not Nazism specifically; unfortunately, my Russian, Chinese, Korean, and such are all much weaker than my German, so German will have to do.

--Flyboy, who has worked at federal installations before, including in a supercomputer center that processed classified (and highly classified at that) data

[QuickDraw]

Eventually, they wrote up several tickets, took her outside and removed the handcuffs, returned her belongings, and pointed her toward the bus stop. She was told that if she ever entered the Denver Federal Center again, she would go to jail.

She hasn't commuted by public bus since that day

I think she gets it now.

QuickDraw

[Flyboy]

I think she gets it now.
Yup. Citizens who have the temerity to stand up for themselves aren't entitled to use public facilities (like city buses) the same way that subjects are.

[Tharg]

I came to this thread late... so can't comment on all of it...

but can say that yea... even if they don't "compare" the id etc... they aren't really lookin fer that i don't think... they are looking for the same thing cops are lookin fer when they pull you over for "deviating lanes" or "yer right tail light is out" ... looking for those nerves that don't compare to all the OTHER times they've pulled someone over for nothing. (not nothing... how about ... nothing really...)

Looking for people who might have a reason to hide who they are... or who are shaking in a way that ain't normal compared to experience in doing these "checks"... sure as old dog? said... it won't stop a hardened criminal, or that guy who's spent the last 5 years training to blow up something or whatever, but it might stop the guy who decided to throw in his lot with "those of his faith" or something like that... something that might tip off Joe Soldier that something is up ... and heck ... could save said "no longer going to show my ID" ladies life...

but as usuall - people take the stand of "its not liberty" until something bad happens... and then its "why didn't they do more?!!?"... we can't win no matter what way we go sometimes i think... When a simple check to see yer picture... on an ID that you prolly carry every day anyway... is too much

ye haw...

One has to ask one's self - where is the high road in all that? is it with her... or with the guys on the military base who are tasked with doing what they've been ordered to do, or the guys who did the ordering. I showed my military ID EVERY SINGLE TIME I EVER ENTERED a military base of any kind. <shrug> and civilians with me had to sign in, and present a drivers license etc... even in the foriegn country where my girl was the ex-RAF commander's daughter... rofl. Be glad they don't say - you can't run that bus through here instead of being picky about showing yer dang ID.

J/Tharg!

[sturmruger]

Until the Federal LEO asked her for ID I can see why she didn't not want to comply, but the Supreme Court recently ruled that LEOs can ask for ID and we are required to give it to them. This is a pretty open and shut case I don't see how she can fight it and win. This exactly what happened to the guy down in Texas if my memory serves me correctly.

[gc70]

Silly woman; she obviously needs a remedial lesson in "shut up and do as you are told."

[epijunkie67]

Personally I think the fault here lies with the bus service. I understand a federal facility wanting to secure it's entrances. If I want to enter one then I expect to have to show ID. That's fair. But if I board a public bus and am not exiting that bus on federal property I shouldn't expect to have to "produce papers" either. She was only being asked for them because the bus enters federal property which she had no interest in entering.

Some people here have said she should have just taken a different bus. I used to ride the bus a lot (though it was in a different city) and frequently you CAN'T take a different bus because only one goes to where you need to go.

I agree with a previous submitter here. If the federal facility is so security conscious they feel the need to board the bus and check the ID of every single person on the bus then maybe they don't need to allow public transportation to transit the propery.

[David W. Gay]

...but the Supreme Court recently ruled that LEOs can ask for ID and we are required to give it to them. ... This exactly what happened to the guy down in Texas if my memory serves me correctly.Not quite - the ruling was, if memory serves me correctly :), that one must identify oneself to an officer, if requested, with a name and address, no ID required.

[Nematocyst]

...Pax.

Sindawe, you stirred up an excellent discussion. ;)

Nem

[mindpilot]

We are more Socialist then Democracy evcery day since 9/11

[Nematocyst]

We are more Socialist then Democracy every day since 9/11 Ain't that the truth?

What's next?

[mindpilot]

ususally communism :what: :what: :what: :what: :eek:

[Nematocyst]

usually communism :what: :what: :what: :what: :eek: I don't think that could happen in the US in this climate.

Something else, maybe, but not commieville.

Extreme rightwingism? Yeah.

Leftmania? Yeah?

But true communism, where everybody gets an equal share of the pie? No way.

Capital One would not allow it.

What's in your wallet?

[Nematocyst]

Have you ever backed a Wolverine into a corner? Your chances aren't much better with me. :D

[mindpilot]

HA Actually I have 3 capital one credit cards. am I bad or what!??:banghead:

[SRYnidan]

Folks let me throw a little more fuel on this fire. This is not a new question in Denver area. Years ago when Lowry AFB was still alive and well RTD (the regional transportation district a government entity) used to have a bus route that ran through the center of the base. The answer they came up with was that as the bus entered the base a guard would get on and ride until the bus left the base at which time they got off at the gate shack. I you wanted to get off while the bus was on the base the guard would check your military ID before allowing you off the bus.

We all need to keep in mind that when the federal security types allowed the bus route to run through they accepted some things.
If they put conditions on RTD and RTD saw fit to make those conditions for using that route they have to inform their riders of this restriction.
The court has ruled on must Identify ones self to LEO but not that you must have or carry ID. Particularly a bus passenger has no need of a drivers license nor a duty to carry one.

FLyboy +1

[O.F.Fascist]

Not quite - the ruling was, if memory serves me correctly :), that one must identify oneself to an officer, if requested, with a name and address, no ID required.

You are correct.

And further more the Supreme Court ruling didnt automatically grant all LEOs that power, it merely affirmed that the particular state law in Nevada IIRC was constitutional.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by David W. Gay
Not quite - the ruling was, if memory serves me correctly , that one must identify oneself to an officer, if requested, with a name and address, no ID required.

You are correct.
No, you're not. (For reference, http://straylight.law.cornell.edu is a wonderful site, with full transcripts of Supreme Court opinions--majority, concurring, dissenting, all of them--and synopses of the cases.)

I went back and re-read the case (Hiibel v. Nevada). SCOTUS said that the Nevada law, which required citizens to identify themselves to cops, was constitutional. The majority opinion noted that the Nevada statute did not require the citizens to present ID cards, but merely to give information verbally, or by other means, as the citizen chose. Thus no decision has been made on whether a requirement to show ID papers would be constitutional. (OK, maybe in one of the other cases the Court referenced, but not in this one). The question of whether ID papers can be required is still unsettled.

And I, for one, find that pretty unsettling.

[KCMO]

Thanks FlyBoy, I hope this topic doesn't die.

Orwell was only twenty-something years wrong

[drinks]

First, how could the transportation system have not posted the requirements where everyone could see them before boarding the bus?
Second, there is no requirement to have ID on you, 2 or 3 years ago a member of the Houston KGapo stopped a black jogger and demanded ID, the jogger told him he did not have any and did not have to have any!
The JBO hauled the jogger's sweaty butt off to jail, after they got there, the jogger called a lawyer buddy to get him out.
When he got out, he sued Houston up one side and down the other and got,I believe, $80,000 in damages.
The jogger was a federal judge.
I was really pleased by this happening.
Of course, Houston types do not have a lot of respect for a law they do not care for, the DA has decided the recent change in the traveling with a concealed handgun law is null and void in Houston, so he plans to prosecute anyone found to have a concealed handgun in their vehicle if found in Houston.
The Government is a really scary thing, even more scary, are the apologists who try to justify the tyrannical actions of the burecrats , If you are one of those, you might need to reexamine your positions.
We are rapidly becoming a democracy, we are supposed to be a constitutional representative republic.
A democracy is a tyranny of the majority, a recent example is the vote in San Francisco, hopefully, someone will bring this to the SC and finally squash the demosocnazi anti constitutionalists. :fire:

[solareclipse]

I failed to read where the bus entered a federal area. stopping on a public
road next to some building is quite not the same as entering the building/premises..

anyhow, why even bother.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

We are rapidly becoming a democracy, we are supposed to be a constitutional representative republic.
I find this rather insightful.

[Leatherneck]

So what would you have the security folks do?
Disclaimer: I have to carry so many different IDs for my work that I set off metal detectors a block away! I'm in every fed.gov database known (and some unknown, I'm sure).

The security forces--federal, state, and local have been given the assignment to enhance security during the GWOT. Granted, some of them carry the baggage of a gestapo-like mentality, but most do not.

As Old Dog pointed out early in the discussion, there is a spectrum of security measures that begins with observation, progresses to confrontation, and goes on to active measures. Each level supposedly has some deterrent value.

When does the right of a citizen to travel freely without interference or confrontation from security forces end in an era of heightened threat? I fear the days of an unrestricted right to go where you want and tell a LEO to stuff the ID are waning away.

I don't know of a better alternative that would be practicable these days.:(

TC

[Flyboy]

I don't know of a better alternative that would be practicable these days.
How about the methods already proposed?

Check people getting off the bus, rather than those just passing through
Don't let public buses go through the facility

Would those achieve a level of security equivalent to (or better than) the paperwork checkpoint presently in use? Almost certainly, and they'd do it without stepping on the rights of innocent, uninvolved citizens.

That last bit, of course, is the kicker.

[Werewolf]

ID checks aren't about security - they're about control and compliance. Get the people used to accepting that they are controlled and must comply to all government orders. That's the ultimate goal.

Chip...
Chip...
Chip...

The mountain of liberty we used to have continues to be slowly chipped away.

And what's so sad about all this is that folks just refuse to recognize the Death by a Thousand Cuts that is occuring in our country today. What is even sadder is that some sworn to defend our country and constitution are among those who most ardently defend the actions of those with the hammer all in the name of security. I believe Ben Franklin had something to say about that...

The only difference between what's happening today and what happened in Germany 70 years ago is that the US government has learned from history and is being more subtle in its actions and more patient in its timetable than the Germans.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see...

[Old Dog]

What is even sadder is that some sworn to defend our country and constitution are among those who most ardently defend the actions of those with the hammer all in the name of security.Well, since this seems to be a direct slam against those such as myself, I would respond thusly: Perhaps some of us who've sworn to defend our country and our Constitution have a bit more practical experience in the real world and understand the need for security measures, such as a simple photo ID check -- that clearly don't impose even a minor inconvenience on citizens -- while many internet keyboard commandos sadly seem to lack some of this experience and understanding ...

I believe Ben Franklin had something to say about that...And I believe, if one does a bit of historical research, one would discover the fact that even our Founding Fathers, and those on the side of our Founding Fathers, understood the need for such simple security measures as knowing who is visiting one's bases. There was quite a bit of spying going on during the Revolutionary War, and more than a bit of credential-checking ... And, sadly, our foe today is much less honorable (targeting women, children and non-combatants by terrorist methods), so I believe a few, not-very intrusive precautions when people are accessing our government facilities would be understood completely by Mr. Franklin.

[Werewolf]

Perhaps some of us who've sworn to defend our country and our ConstitutionJust like many others of us have... have a bit more practical experience in the real worldJust like many others of us have... and understand the need for security measures, such as a simple photo ID checkI understand the need for security measures that actually accomplish something other than assuring compliance -- that clearly don't impose even a minor inconvenience on citizensPersonally I resent being treated like a criminal by a government that I voluntarily served for 13 years. Take meaningful measures and I'll back them 100%. ID checks aren't meaningful in the case being scrutinzed by this thread - they're BS compliance actions, that's all and the reactions and actions of the police in this case proove it (and the term police is used loosely out of deference to this being THR). -- while many internet keyboard commandos sadly seem to lack some of this experience and understanding ...Somehow you believe you are the only one here who has ever served his country and placed his life in danger for it. Somehow you believe that makes your take on this sacrosanct. Well I got news for ya Old Dog you're not the only one here who's put his life on the line for his country and some of us who have don't agree with your statist notions about how things ought to be run.

You still have yet to answer Pax's question. What exactly does checking ID's at the Denver facililty accomplish other than intimidation? How does it make that installation more secure? Stop beating around the bush, apologizing for the government's reprehensible behavior and answer the question.

The Denver Federal Compound isn't a nuclear facility where an ID check to verify authorized entry is totally appropriate. Instead, the Denver facility is open to the public for all practical purposes. Asking for a citizen's papers accomplishes nothing more than to intimidate and acclimate citizens to unnecessary harassment. Hell, the JBT's (sorry but their actions define their description) who over reacted by manhandling the lady and handcuffing her couldn't even figure out what to charge her with at first and the charges they came up with are little more than a BS charge like spitting on the sidewalk.

There are statists willing to violate every right and freedom in the name of security. Then there are those that prefer liberty to some false sense of government provided security.

I know which side I'm on...

[DRZinn]

Do the ID checks really accomplish anything? Not really, except perhaps the aforementioned chance to see who's more nervous than they should be. Are they a violation of rights? Well, the riders on that bus, whether they intend to disembark or not, are entering a federal installation - and as such are subject to all kinds of security measures, including random searches.

The assumption is not that you are a criminal, it is that a criminal might very easily look like you do. Or like the guy sitting next to you, or the woman behind you.

Really, they should just not let the bus pass through.

[Flyboy]

except perhaps the aforementioned chance to see who's more nervous than they should be
And just how nervous should you be when a government official demands to see your papers before you're allowed to ride public transportation?

Before you answer, consider that this is the same government that somehow managed to identify a US Senator as belonging on the "no-fly list." I don't like his politics, but Ted Kennedy is hardly Osama. And, even as a senator, with direct access to the director of Homeland Security, it still took a couple of weeks to clear the mess up.

Consider that this is the same government that held a citizen for three years--denying it entirely for the first year--before being bothered to press charges against him, and then only because it expected to lose the Supreme Court case, and didn't want the damaging precedent.

Consider that this is the same government that this is the same government that has decided your rights need to be suspended in the name of security, and you're at a security checkpoint.

No, I wouldn't be nervous at all....

[DRZinn]

And just how nervous should you be when a government official demands to see your papers before you're allowed to ride public transportation?Not even a little bit - I'd be incensed. But that's hardly the same thing.

[Old Dog]

Werewolf, now you're beginning to really crack me up. Let me ask you this: are the only "facts" you know about the Davis case from what you've read on "The Official Website of Deb Davis?"

Now, there may well have been some overreaction on the part of one or more of the law enforcement personnel who originally arrested Davis. But the underlying question, which is the real substance of the whole issue, is, should citizens who are voluntarily accessing a federal government installation be required to show photo ID? ... followed up by the questions (1) is this really an infringement on one's civil rights? and (2) is the request for display of a photo ID really a valid security measure?

You may argue 'til the cows come home that all Americans should have the freedom to roam unquestioned across any government property, into and around any government buildings, bases, etc. But the answer to question (1) is an emphatic NO; the answer to question (2) is, absolutely, this is a valid security measure, however simplistic it may seem, and the first layer in the continuum of security measures.

What exactly does checking ID's at the Denver facililty accomplish other than intimidation? How does it make that installation more secure? Stop beating around the bush, apologizing for the government's reprehensible behavior and answer the question. First of all, I answered that question more than once. Really. Permit me to observe, though, that if you are intimidated by being asked to show your driver license or library card, whatever, to go into a federal building, I'm sorry; life must be tough for you.
Personally I resent being treated like a criminal by a government that I voluntarily served for 13 years.Come now, how is being asked to show ID to get into a government facility "being treated like a criminal?" During your 13 years of serving your country, I'm sure you had to show some ID every now and then -- were you offended then? What's the difference now?

actions of the police in this case proove it Now, I will agree with you that the actions of the police in this case (assuming Davis' website is reasonably accurate -- but it is the internet, after all) don't appear to pass the common sense test. However, Asking for a citizen's papers accomplishes nothing more than to intimidate and acclimate citizens to unnecessary harassment. (my bold) -- do you really believe that the folks who run security at the Denver facility are asking for ID from folks entering the place in order to acclimate citizens to unnecessary harassment?

Somehow you believe you are the only one here who has ever served his country and placed his life in danger for it. Somehow you believe that makes your take on this sacrosanct. No, no, no. My remark was made simply to state that I've had a bit of experience trying to keep the bad guys away from good citizens of this country (and others) ...
some of us who have don't agree with your statist notions about how things ought to be run.And isn't that one of the things that makes this country so great?

Hey, needed to edit and re-post the following comment I'd made in response to your comment "I believe Ben Franklin had something to say about that..." since you neglected to critique this one:And I believe, if one does a bit of historical research, one would discover the fact that even our Founding Fathers, and those on the side of our Founding Fathers, understood the need for such simple security measures as knowing who is visiting one's bases. There was quite a bit of spying going on during the Revolutionary War, and more than a bit of credential-checking ... And, sadly, our foe today is much less honorable (targeting women, children and non-combatants by terrorist methods), so I believe a few, not-very intrusive precautions when people are accessing our government facilities would be understood completely by Mr. Franklin.

[Flyboy]

You may argue 'til the cows come home that all Americans should have the freedom to roam unquestioned across any government property, into and around any government buildings, bases, etc.
But that's the thing--this isn't like a military base, and she didn't necessarily want to go there. This is a facility that's so secure that public buses are allowed to travel through it. I'm not arguing against ID checks at military bases and such--the people being checked are choosing to enter that property, and they made that choice because they have business there. In this case, Deb probably has no desire to be anywhere near the federal facility, and doesn't have business to conduct there; if she had her way, I'm sure she'd avoid it altogether. Unfortunately for her, the public bus--that is, the government transportation service--she was riding goes through the facility. Not entirely her choice.

Your argument boils down to "if Deb Davis wants to use the public services which her local government provides--and which her tax dollars fund--she'd better shut up and show her papers."

If the "federal facility" wants to keep playing Security Theatre, it needs to find a way to leave uninvolved people alone. And that includes passengers on a city bus.

[Werewolf]

Old Dog,
You are a man of strong convictions. You stand your ground as one of strong convictions should.

We are obviously on different sides of the convictions fence and that fence seems to be rather large and impenetrable; a barrier across which neither of us is willing to pass which is why I actually hesitated to respond. But hey! What the hell - it's Friday, I'm off and don't have anything better to do right now.

That said the issue under discussion on this thread is not a black and white one. Unfortunately the nature of the thread has lead to a level of polarization that can't be reversed.

First: To answer your question about being subject to ID checks when I served (Army and Navy) of course I was subject to ID checks but I volunteered for that. Entering a Federal facility open to the public is not the same as entering a nuclear weapons storage facility, communications center in an embassy, theatre level command center or even your plain vanilla military base - not even close. I think you know that.

The need for ID checks is purely situational. Your threshold for need is just much lower than mine. You see them as a security measure (as do I if access to an area is limited to an annotated list of persons) and for all practical purposes admit that they were performed in the case under discussion as pure intimidation. That my friend, is little more than an exercise in maintaining authority and control over the people by the government. What else could it have been?

The officer conducting the search, according to the article, barely glanced at the ID, didn't check it against a no entry list or take any other action with the ID. He simply wanted compliance. The 4th Amendment is supposed to protect us from unreasonable search and seizure. Is a need for compliance to government authority lacking probable cause that a crime has been commited or is about to be commited now reasonable?

I'm a civilian now. When I'm in public, even on Federal property open to the public, commiting no crime, minding my own business and not acting in a suspicious manner I fully expect - and not unreasonably - that the 4th Amendment apply. ID checks under those conditions are an unreasonable search and seizure of my person and a violation of my 4th Amendment rights. I've said it again but it bears repeating: ID checks under those conditions are exercises in maintaining authority and control over the people by the government.

Actually I understand exactly why the government acts as it does/did. The government cannot be effective if people feel free to tell it NO! So the government - understandably - trains the people to not say no. Unnecessary ID checks are an easy way to do it. It's what governments are, it's what they do. Fact of life and history.

Understandable - YES. Right - NO!

Unfortunately the Supremes don't seem to agree so even civil disobedience in regards to something as innocuous as an ID check becomes a waste of time. All that's left is the right to bitch and complain about it - which I do and will continue to do.

I see the abbrogation of the 4th as similar to Gun Control. I remember the 60's when one could walk into any hardware store and buy a firearm without showing anything more than your cash or even order one thru the mail. Not so today.

Incrementalism has destroyed the 2nd Amendment (though I imagine you'd disagree with the term destroyed). Incrementalism will destroy our 4th Amendment rights too.

The sky's not falling but the supporting beams are starting to sag under the weight of incrementalism.

I'll leave the potential future that will result to your imagination.

[Old Dog]

The officer conducting the search, according to the article, barely glanced at the ID, didn't check it against a no entry list or take any other action with the ID. He simply wanted compliance. Not to get too fixated on this one situation (I did agree that the law enforcement response could have been an overreaction and a demonstration of total lack of common sense) ... but, as I'm sure you know, some days, a guard may only give casual appearance of going through the rote ID checking (especially if the subject in question is a 50-year-old white female), other days, the check may appear more meaningful. None of this means that the security measures in effect at the location in question are in place simply to cow the civilians coming through and just to have the citizens exercise compliance. After the OKC bombing (also essentially a non-secure building with a bunch of federal administrative offices -- and a childcare facility) don't you think there is any merit whatsoever in having even minimal security measures in effect?

The government cannot be effective if people feel free to tell it NO! So the government - understandably - trains the people to not say no.Argh! Just can't agree with you there. Our system is predicated on citizens having the right to examine and voice their opinions on government actions -- and citizens also have the right to vote out the knuckleheads who are not representing the best interests of the citizenry. The fact is, most people who work in government would much rather feel the support of the people they directly deal with -- it makes their jobs much easier. The folks down at the Social Security Administration, the DMV, the IRS, etc., really are not having fun dealing with angry citizens.

Finally (and I don't know how many people you may now know in government service), most folks in civil service (and the military as well) are now evaluated on how much money they, in their positions, can save the government -- and how well they can streamline procedures and increase efficiency of their organization. This is a very real fact of government service (and I'm standing by for your incredulous disbelief on this one) these days. Creating jobs to hassle innocent civilians costs money, and security incidents, complaints and lawsuits are also not part of good business practices.

I see the abbrogation of the 4th as similar to Gun Control.You may find this difficult to believe, but I agree with you here. However, my concerns as far as our 4th Amendment rights go are more directed at the rampant, uncontrolled technological advances that have stripped all of us of every last vestige of privacy and useless legislation (such as the Patriot Act) that does nothing except create additional layers of bureaucracy while truly having a chilling effect on our real 4th Amendment rights -- not ID checks at the gate ...
Incrementalism has destroyed the 2nd Amendment (though I imagine you'd disagree with the term destroyed). No, I would agree that the entire spirit and intent of the 2nd Amendment has been destroyed.
Incrementalism will destroy our 4th Amendment rights too. And here again, I agree with you; I just don't agree that simple, non-invasive security measures such as routine ID checks -- at the gates of federal facilities -- are a symptom of the creeping incrementalism (now, it'd be a different story if we're talking about random stops of citizens on the streets of our cities simply to "check papers"). They are, however, a symptom of the times we live in, and believe me, I wish none of these security measures were necessary -- speaking from the viewpoint of one who has had to enforce them (and dealt with his share of angry citizens).

[Werewolf]

Our system is predicated on citizens having the right to examine and voice their opinions on government actions -- Sure it is... Just like a teenager has the right in most households to question the decisions and proclamations of his parent. Doesn't mean the parent has to listen or act and neither does the government (listen or act)and citizens also have the right to vote out the knuckleheads who are not representing the best interests of the citizenry.True but for all practical matters the country is run by the bureauocracy and the Knuckleheads have limited power to control that. Oh sure they can impact the bureaucrats thru the budget process but we both know that doesn't happen - often anyway. Or they could eliminate them - that's never happened to the best of my knowledge. OR even pass laws forcing them to act in accordance with the intent of congress - that's happened on occasion. It all still boils down to the inarguable fact that at the micro level the bureacrats run the country and that's who the people mostly have to deal with - the bureaucrats and their employees. The fact is, most people who work in government would much rather feel the support of the people they directly deal with -- it makes their jobs much easier. The folks down at the Social Security Administration, the DMV, the IRS, etc., really are not having fun dealing with angry citizens.Been to the post office lately? :evil: They don't care whether you're angry or not - they mostly just ignore you as long as they can.Finally (and I don't know how many people you may now know in government service), most folks in civil service (and the military as well) are now evaluated on how much money they, in their positions, can save the government -- and how well they can streamline procedures and increase efficiency of their organization. This is a very real fact of government service (and I'm standing by for your incredulous disbelief on this one) these days.I know what you've said to be true. My eldest daughter was a GS12 with USDA and one of my son in laws is a technician at Tinker AFB.

The office my daughter worked in still used 50's and 60's techniques to monitor sales of cattle and hogs at the OKC stockyards when she started there. She averaged a spot bonus of $500 a month for about a year just by computerizing the records for easier retrieval and analysis. I created an Excel spreadsheet for her that predicted cattle prices going out a year based on the futures market. She got a $2000 spot bonus for that and a promotion. Her boss couldn't believe that such a thing was even possible. The office used Oracle - the morons who ran it (in Omaha I believe) didn't have a clue that one could interface MS Office products directly to the database. They do now though. The whole time she worked for USDA she was fought tooth and nail by the other employees - why - because what she was doing was going to eliminate jobs and it did - 3 of them. Her boss loved her - her fellow employees hated her. She finally just said screw it and quit after her tires were slashed for the third time. So I'm not so sure how well the government's efficiency program is working - at least in that USDA office.

My son in law at Tinker has told me more than once that all he has to do to stay employed is pretty much show up for work and make an effort. He's a worker - a good one - and it pisses him off that others in his shop pretty much do nothing other than show up and they're still there after many years.

Back in the 70's my father was the Directorate of Distribution and Supply for Tinker. He used to go in on the midwatch and catch numerous civilian employees sleeping - no attempt at hiding their worthless asses at all. He couldn't get 'em fired no matter how hard he tried. According to my son in law it's still the same.

So though I believe that government employees at some level are trying to make changes I have serious doubts any real progress is being made. The level of training and expertise even in something as simple as the capabilities of modern software is sorely lacking. Business experience is completely lacking. The problem I see is that there may be good intentions but those there have no idea that there's a better way to do things other than the ways they've been done for the past 40 or 50 years. SAD. If the government was a business it'd gone bankrupt years ago because it just couldn't compete.

The US government bureaucracy is no different from any other today or in history. It exists to perpetuate itself and take more and more power unto itself.Creating jobs to hassle innocent civilians costs money, and security incidents, complaints and lawsuits are also not part of good business practices.IF ONLY THE GUBMINT RAN ITSELF LIKE A BUSINESS but it doesn't and never will. The bureaucrats don't care about costs - it's not their money they're spending. Maybe if their salaries and continued employment depended on minimizing expense and maximizing service they'd change but that notion would never get by Congress let alone the parasitic bureacrats.

[Old Dog]

Ah, but just to address these two statements you made, Werewolf --
Sure it is... Just like a teenager has the right in most households to question the decisions and proclamations of his parent. Doesn't mean the parent has to listen or act and neither does the government (listen or act)
True but for all practical matters the country is run by the bureauocracy and the Knuckleheads have limited power to control that. Oh sure they can impact the bureaucrats thru the budget process but we both know that doesn't happen - often anyway. Or they could eliminate them - that's never happened to the best of my knowledge. OR even pass laws forcing them to act in accordance with the intent of congress - that's happened on occasion. It all still boils down to the inarguable fact that at the micro level the bureacrats run the country and that's who the people mostly have to deal with - the bureaucrats and their employees.
-- the fact is, the process for citizen review and action on government activity is still there -- the problem is, collectively, the American citizenry does not exercise this power because it's so apathetic, so wrapped up in the materialistic pursuit of creature comforts, so focused on mindless entertainment -- that the people are not exercising their power.

This is why, for every citizen activist who is more concerned about government power, ideology and the direction we as a nation are headed, and actually getting off his (or her) a$$ to voice an opinion and become engaged in the process -- there are 100,000 citizens who are worried only about the $1600 worth of rims on their SUVs or their new 72 inch plasma screen television or when the new XBox is coming to their local mall or which movie star is sleeping with with what movie star ...

It's time to stop blaming government for acting like a government; we need to put the blame for government excess on all the apathetic people we're forced to share oxygen with ...

[dpesec]

Until the Federal LEO asked her for ID I can see why she didn't not want to comply, but the Supreme Court recently ruled that LEOs can ask for ID and we are required to give it to them. This is a pretty open and shut case I don't see how she can fight it and win. This exactly what happened to the guy down in Texas if my memory serves me correctly.
Yes, but I think there's a difference. The LEO was responding to a crime. I don't think there was a crime committed here.

[Werewolf]

It's time to stop blaming government for acting like a government; we need to put the blame for government excess on all the apathetic people we're forced to share oxygen with ...Common ground at last... :eek: :D

Then again I find that I am forced to wonder:
Does the government act like a government because the people are apathetic or are the people apathetic because the government acts like a government? :evil:

Or to put it more simply - which came first the chicken or the egg. ;)

[Flyboy]

Old Dog, you still haven't answered my charges. I agree with you that checking ID at, say, a military base is acceptable. I even agreed when I worked on one. This is not, however, a restricted facility. It's a place where government does business with the public, and the roads are apparently not restricted (at least not so much so that a public bus is denied entry).

This is equivalent to my local municipal complex here in Norman: the Post Office, government offices, courthouse, library, police station, and such are all located together. There's a small street, West Tonhowa St., that runs through the complex (use Google Maps for map and satellite view). This is equivalent to the Norman PD demanding ID from anybody using that street, irrespective of whether or not he planned to stop at a government office. Further, we'd have to run a city bus down the street--a bus with a route set by the local government, and beyond the control of the riders (who, I might add, are also the constituents, patrons, citizens, and taxpayers). Now, in this parallel scenario, if I'm going to ride the public bus that I paid for, I have to show my ID because I'm driving past--not going into, just driving past--some government buildings.

And you don't have a problem with that?

Actually, the problem goes deeper: why should I have to show ID to go into the buildings? They're there to do business with the public. Do I have to show ID to do business with the government? What if I'm going to, oh, I don't know, get an ID card? Can I be arrested for trying to get ID without having ID? Should I have to show my papers to do business with the government? I don't think so.

And what about the fact that the cop's first question was "do you have ID?" What if she hadn't? Would she have been arrested for not carrying her papers? You don't need a driver's license to ride the bus, so what ID would she be required to have on her person? Or do we have a bus rider's license of which I've not heard?

Bottom line is, this provides no security that can't be provided by other methods that don't harass people who have no desire to do anything with the Feds (I've detailed a couple of those methods previously). It's nothing more than Security Theater, a bunch of window dressing designed to show the People that the Politicians are Doing Something. Even if the methods were productive--a point which I'm not willing to concede--the same (lack of) result could easily be achieved without harassing the innocent and uninvolved by simply applying a little bit of creative thought.

[Old Dog]

Old Dog, you still haven't answered my chargesCharges? Look, most federal installations contract out their security; there's always pretty thorough study done on local threat level and what type of security measures will be put into effect, what the first levels of security will be, etc. I'm sure none of this is new to you. Probably the folks who ran security at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building were pretty confident that their facility wouldn't be a target for any type of terrorism. Where does one draw the line? To me (and, I'm sure most others), routine ID checks for entrance on to the grounds of a federal facility are a pretty minimalist, non-intrusive measure. To you, obviously, it's offensive and a violation of your civil rights. If you want to believe this is the first step toward a "police state," you certainly may ... If you want to believe you're giving up your liberty by having to show ID to voluntarily enter a government facility (in which you probably have no idea what agencies in residence therein may be doing), fine.
Actually, the problem goes deeper: why should I have to show ID to go into the buildings? They're there to do business with the public. Do I have to show ID to do business with the government? What if I'm going to, oh, I don't know, get an ID card? Can I be arrested for trying to get ID without having ID? Should I have to show my papers to do business with the government? I don't think so.Methinks you're grasping at straws here.
It's nothing more than Security Theater, a bunch of window dressing designed to show the People that the Politicians are Doing Something. Even if the methods were productive--a point which I'm not willing to concede--the same (lack of) result could easily be achieved without harassing the innocent and uninvolved by simply applying a little bit of creative thought.Life is full of theater, if this is what you chose to believe. Let's hear your creative thoughts on how security should be handled at high-traffic federal installations.

[Old NFO]

I'm coming in late, but I am one of "those" federal employees- Denver IS a Federal Campus and IS gated access. The requirement is for valid photo ID for access to the campus, that is posted at all gates; just like it is for 99% of federal and military installations. And yes, there are other places where the bus runs onto a facility, and yes, everyone's ID is checked. That is level 1 security, as required after 9/11. As level increase, buses are banned, folks without military or federal ID's are banned, up to the point that ONLY people with access to that specific facility are allowed past the gates. I'm sorry this offends some of you on this board, but after 33 years plus of active duty and government service, I'm not complaining. I prefer to make it home at night, rather than be a wet spot on the concrete because someone's feelings got hurt.

[MechAg94]

I tend to agree with what I saw above. This federal facility is already compromising their security by allowing a public bus to roam unescorted through its facility. They are already accepting a compromised security plan. If they really want full security, they would let the bus ride through like that. There are other ways they can accomplish the same thing. If they really want to ID everyone entering the gate, then they shouldn't allow the bus to enter at all. The city transit service itself shouldn't be running buses through a secure area anyway (assuming it is a secure area).

That bus could be full of citizens who would completely fail a security background check. Everyone on board could be on the no-fly list due to ties with foreign terrorist organizations, but as long as they had a legal ID, it is apparently okay for them to pass through.

[MechAg94]

No probem with that hear Old NFO. In that case, the bus system shouldn't be routing buses through that facility, IMHO. Since you normally don't need an ID to ride the bus, I am trying to understand how the city or that facility handles that? Do they detain everyone who can't show ID?

[Old NFO]

No probem with that hear Old NFO. In that case, the bus system shouldn't be routing buses through that facility, IMHO. Since you normally don't need an ID to ride the bus, I am trying to understand how the city or that facility handles that? Do they detain everyone who can't show ID?

Agreed! In all probability, the routing is a "short cut", just to make things easier, and at least some of the riders are employees. At least two bases that I know of, the people are taken off the bus and escorted back out the gate (the checks are done at the main gate in both cases).

[Flyboy]

Let's hear your creative thoughts on how security should be handled at high-traffic federal installations.
OK.

Check ID as they get off the bus, if they get off the bus
Don't let the bus drive through--treat it as a secure facility.

I still haven't seen a good explanation of why those wouldn't work.

You still keep missing the point that she's only trying to use a public bus, and doesn't care one whit about the Federal facility. You say I'm grasping at straws by asking the question of "what if she doesn't have ID," but I'm not: a lot of people ride the bus because they don't have or don't want a driver's license. What do the Feds do about that? Refuse to allow them on the pubilc bus? What about those who, for whatever reason, don't own a car, and thus have to depend on the bus to go to work? Are you going to argue that they're voluntarily entering a Federal facility?

[odysseus]

If you think a five second check of your photo ID constitutes "an American citizen losing rights" ... when one is voluntarily passing through a federal installation, I'm not sure what anyone could tell you to sway your opinion.

Now I am very late to this conversation, and I would like to add there are very good points on both sides of this story. However the glaring point of logic that certainly should be obvious is why is a public bus allowed to breach through an area needed to be "secure"? You drop off those needing entry into an area in front and them check them into the area. If "they" really care about security enough to have to ID everyone who is on a PUBLIC bus, anything outside of that seems idiotic and a waste of everyone's time and money. Especially in light that they historically didn't do this normally nor consistently shows that something here doesn't seem sound.

So obviously I think that charging this woman who failed to comply with showing an ID on this PUBLIC bus simply because it was driving in an area is also idiotic. Of course one should show ID if entering a secure government facility, as a SOP. Here's another example: If I am walking down a street from point A to point B, and the walkway happens to pass by a Federal building, should they now stop me for no apparent reason and ask to identify myself (and be recorded) because I am walking next to the building, does that still sound reasonable? What if they ask me what is in by briefcase - again only becuase I am near their building walking by it to work? Where is the line us citizens are so now closely pressed against?

As stated by Pax, I fully agree that no security was done here and this is an ample example of a show of force against an individual, and charging her is again to make an example out of her to us all. Are we getting the message?

[Zundfolge]

Last time I went to this same federal complex (the USGS is located there and my company does business with them) the only person who was asked for ID was the driver of the car ... the rest of us weren't.



Good thing this lady doesn't have a CCW. Can you imagine not knowing that the bus you're on is going to go into a Federal installation and you become an instant felon just for sitting there?

[Blue Jays]

Hi All-

This is clearly an example of government overstepping its boundaries.

From what I understand in reading the account, the bus simply transits government property. It isn't like the bus is making a stop inside the Oval Office or something. This would be similar to Washington, D.C. police requesting identification from tourists riding buses that stop at national monuments.

The government knows that many people would be upset if the Fourth Amendment was suddenly reversed...which is why they perform these spineless little tests to check the water. Here is another example:

I've been stopped twice within five miles for so-called "Driver License, Insurance, Registration, & Vehicle Inspection" checkpoints. If you think they're voluntary, try pulling a U-turn within a quarter-mile of one of these traffic snares. My clients don't want to hear that I'm late with attending to their business because I'm being delayed by not one, but TWO police agencies. I feel for this woman's plight.

~ Blue Jays ~

[Sheldon J]

Yup. Citizens who have the temerity to stand up for themselves aren't entitled to use public facilities (like city buses) the same way that subjects are.
Good thing no one told that to Rosa back in the 60's she might have ended up owning the bus line instead of just getting her rights confirmed.

[Flyboy]

Well, yeah, but things were different then. We weren't fighting a Global Struggle Against Extremism.

And Old Dog, you asked for my "creative" solutions. I posted them, and you've said nothing. <Rudeness removed by Art.>

[cropcirclewalker]

When you said,No, no, no. My remark was made simply to state that I've had a bit of experience trying to keep the bad guys away from good citizens of this country (and others) ... It made me think of the time they sent me out off the East Coast (I was a helicopter crewman) to photograph a Russian Trawler that had antennas out the wazoo.

They had babes (well, not really babes) on it. They all came to the rail to watch me photographing them out the side door of the SH3-A that I was flying in (a crew member). I was shooting (with the camera) like a sumbitch and I guess the rotor wash was splashing salt spray on them so one of the babes flipped me off.

I went forward and got a hard-boiled egg and one of those little 6 oz. cans of grape fruit juice that they always put in the box lunches and brought them back to the open door, wound up and pitched them (one at a time) at the commies on the trawler.

My only hostile action of my military career.

Granted only 4 years, one month and three days, not a lifer like you, but I still must ask, give us an example of how you protected us dumb assed citizens from the bad guys of which you speak.

How many of these bad guys did you save us from by asking for their ID on a bus entering a federal facility.

Just curious.

Honesty is the best policy.

[Old Dog]

Oh my, the thread was resurrected ... Gee, Flyboy, your suggestions were just dandy ... perhaps for the Denver facility. However, from the tone of your comments (and Mr. Cropcirclewalker's) I don't believe that either of you closely read the entire thread all the way through from the beginning and actually noted all of my comments. If you did, and simply don't want to try and understand what physical security is all about, fine, just lose the snide comments, please.

Some of us approached this thread as being about concepts of security vis a vis federal facilities and the impact (or not) on civil rights. You choose to view it solely in the context of the Davis woman's ridiculous overreaction, the absurd reaction of the Denver facility's security (in pressing charges) ...

but I still must ask, give us an example of how you protected us dumb assed citizens from the bad guys of which you speak.

How many of these bad guys did you save us from by asking for their ID on a bus entering a federal facilityYou're just not adding anything to the thread by attacking another poster rather than attacking an argument ...

[cropcirclewalker]

Was that the answer to my question?

How many bad guys have you protected us from by demanding their ID on a bus entering a federal facility?

[Old Dog]

How about asking some relevant questions? I've been engaged in physical security on military bases, security on military assets and ships for a number of years; my statement was made only to indicate that I've had experience in security work. I'll say again, read all the posts on the thread and put them in context.

[cropcirclewalker]

I read the whole string. I am of limited skills. I tried my best to remember wherin you described saving us from the bad guys trying to gain access to a federal reservation by riding busses and not being ID checked.

I admit that I am fallible. Please paste the quote wherin you did so.

I fervently await.

Please do not assume that I am not in favor of National Security. I am a USN vet who joined up to protect and defend my constitution.

They say the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I am only asking for the proof.

Has it worked?

[cropcirclewalker]

Just thinking.......

Last July I went down to West Plaines (a city in southeastern Missiouri) to apply for my socialist security benefits. I didn't get there till like 0815 because it's far, far away.

The parking lot mighta held 20 cars with maybe 2 cars in it, it was small and when I walked in to the waiting room there were 3 people in there. They were all old people.

I noted the office was posted "No Concealed Weapons", but it didn't matter to me, since I knew that no informed citizen would try something as stupid as asserting his 2A rights in a .gov building so I left my piece in the car.

Heck, I guess I am an old person too except that they looked old.

So I walk in and there are 3 old people sitting on the chairs and one armed guard. He looked me over real close and I tried to look him over too, since I had a natural affinity to shootin' irons, I wondered what he was carrying.

Smith Mod 66 in stainless with a nice holster and aftermarket grip.

He looked real serious so I did not engage him in shootin' iron talk. I did not want to appear to be a member of the "Gun Culture". I walked up to the babe at the reception desk and told her who I was and that I had an appointment.

I also noted that there was a sign on the wall that said, "Turn off your cell phone". It didn't say "Please" Not a problem for me, since I don't have a cell phone.

I thought it strange, however, since I never heard a telephone ring the whole time I was there. I had called their office the day before and had gone through the inevitable computer phone voice tree and had been put on musical hold for like 15 minutes before it inexplicably hung up on me. You know the drill.

Time passes.

This little old lady comes out of the door to the main office and sort of like hobbles (you know the way old people walk) toward the door. She musta been 85. The armed guard speaks, in an authoritative, command voice, "Please close the door." Not a request, a command.

The little old lady goes back and closed the door (it had a key pad on it to prevent it from being opened by your local terrorist, I guess) and the armed guard says, "Thank you, we have to maintain security."

Time passes.

About 0900 the armed guard gets up, walks over to the locked door, types in the secret code, opens it up, goes in and that is the last I see of him. I guess It was coffee break time.

About 0910 a babe comes out and asks for me. I stand up, she escorts me into the main office and we do our business. I never saw him (the armed guard) again.

Mr. Old Dog, Was that you?

[Old Dog]

Ah, Cropcirclewalker, you are obviously a man of dry wit and droll humor ... Most entertaining story, that. I, too, noticed the armed security guard at my local Social Security office (though to digress a bit, I was not applying for benefits as I'm not quite that old; I simply had occasion to pay them a few visits in a vain attempt to correct one of the SSA's inexplicable errors), noticed his cobwebbed holster and thought his presence was a bit over the top, especially given the nature of the office's typical clientele (most of whom were using walkers or wheelchairs) ... Although, who knows, there may be someone out there (without the patience I demonstrated in my dealings with the SSA) with a grudge against these folks, hence the need for token security to deal with pissed-off 85-year-olds ...

As far as the original case that started this thread ... (sigh) ... you have a case where a women, clearly of strong conviction and ideals, deliberately attempted to provoke a situation when entering a federal installation. She knew ID was required to transit through the facility, she purposely refused to accomodate the the request, with inevitable results. The outcome of not providing identification when one voluntarily enters a clearly marked federal installation is preordained, particularly if one is trying to make a stand and not simply claiming that one either does not have photo ID, forgot it, lost it, etc.

Should every federal government facility require identification for access? Certainly there exist some that, in all actuality, just don't need to ... Unless one is operating under the presumption (rightly or wrongly) that every federal government building is a potential target of violence, in which case, as I apparently failed to communicate to you in previous posts, ID checks are a simple, low-cost, non-invasive first step in a continuum of security measures. If you don't believe ID checks are in any way, shape or form effective at all, then you either have no experience in physical security, law enforcement or you, like so many others, may simply chose not to believe that something as simple as cursory, routine ID checks can actually work as a first line of security and nothing I can tell you will change your mind.

[White Horseradish]

Hm. So I guess this boils down to faith. You believe the ID checks do something, a bunch of people here don't.

I don't really have any interest in convincing anyone of anything regarding this, and I am not trying to cast doubt on your credentials, but I am curious about something. Has there been any study or any other kind of analysis on the effectiveness of ID checks? Or is this something the security professionals accept as a given?

[cropcirclewalker]

I was trying to subtully get you to evaluate the performance of our "National Security" efforts.

I am told and apparently you believe that confronting everyone for identification on a public transit as it transverses a .gov reservation is productive.

It's like the shoe bomber. He successfully evades security with his bomb. The passengers (not security) jump him as he tries to light the fuse.

Now everybody that boards a plane has to have their shoes scrutinized by some fat TSA type (yes, I took my daughter to the airport at the loo and every TSA uniform I saw was wrapped around a fat person).

You may or may not know, since you are in the security game, but I suspect that the success rate of the shoe inspections has been 100 percent. I would call it a 100 percent failure rate. Namely not one more shoe bomber has been caught even though millions of passengers get to be humiliated and have their feet fondled.

(never say never. They may have caught another one, (actually a first one), I don't know, but I do know that a determined shoe bomber getting caught by one of these fat screeners could out run any of them, barefoot)

So this guy is walking down the corrider of the airport (not in the secure area) with a hard hat on. On top of the hard hat is a yellow rotating beacon and a tornado siren, both in operation. A local airport police, not TSA, confronts him with his fingers stuck into his ears and shouts, "Why are you wearing that goofy looking head gear?

The man replies, "It's a Polar Bear repellant."

Guard says, "There are no Polar Bears around here."

The man says, "See? It works."



Yes, we have armed guards at all of the Socialist Security Offices. What is their performance record?

How many pissed off 85 year olds did they prevent from going postal vs how may they just pissed off?

I am trying to get you to evaluate the performance record of the security measures you so ardently defend.

How many bad guys get caught vs how many citizens just get pissed off?

[Old Dog]

Cropcirclewalker, now you state,
I am told and apparently you believe that confronting everyone for identification on a public transit as it transverses a .gov reservation is productive. Well, if you read my post, you would not have concluded that. Your deliberate attempt to appear obtuse is growing wearisome.

Just please get one thing straight: Not all security measures are installed for matters of national security or are aimed at preventing terrorism. If you want to evaluate ID checks at entrances of government facilities on that criteria, sure, you may decide that ID checks are not an effective deterrent against a determined terrorist.

Sometimes (you may find this difficult to believe), an organization is simply trying to prevent, say, substance-abusing or mentally ill homeless people from establishing residence in its facility ... or perhaps, just trying to cut down on littering or pedestrian traffic in order to free up employees to do more productive labor ... or possibly, there's a problem with drug-dealers, winos, transients, or whatever in the area ... In this regard, the ID checks are typically effective.

The ID checks normally are used simply to ensure that folks accessing the installation are coming onboard for a reason ... It's that simple. Now, if you're coming in, and for some reason, you don't have ID, but you do have business on the facility, in that office, whatever, there is always an alternative for getting in (which, yes, may be a hassle and time-consuming or involve someone else having to sign you) and conducting your business. Davis deliberately ran afoul of the posted, and known, security measures for accessing the Denver facility, simply to promote her own agenda.

[riverdog]

It seems to me that running federal security on public transportation riders is over the top. The public transportation folks don't require ID, so why should all riders be forced to show ID because they enter a facility which is not their destination? Not a Q for you Old Dog, I know your answer :rolleyes: I work on one of those Federal facilities and you don't get on without proper ID; a state drivers license is not proper ID -- go to security and get processed.

The solution to this is for Denver to not take their busses onto the Federal property. If that inconveniences a few government employees who are trying to get to work -- good. It will prevent little old ladies who don't want to be on Federal property from being harrassed.

BTW, I'm retired active duty Navy. I've been in more than my share of (very) high security facilities both in the States and abroad. BTDT, don't tell me I don't understand.

[cropcirclewalker]

I am real sorry that I have worn you down. I am not trying to be obtuse, maybe I just am.

I am on a real slow dial up, but I took your advise and clicked on the extension of the story. I read the pages and pdfs.

Yes, she is guilty of being uppity. Not enough groveling and compliance.

Trouble is, I think she will beat the rap because in the writings of the arresting officer he screwed up by stating that the driver and the security guard both knew who she was and that she had reluctantly showed them her ID in the past.

The arresting officer just admitted that he knew (or the rentacop and driver) knew who she was.

Down here in the Ozarks we call that........ID.

Yes, she did the unexcusable crime of not following stupid orders.

Since I wore you down without getting you to honestly evaluate the fallaciousness of the "security" concept of requiring people you know to show you ID, I won't bother you again on this matter. I think you have answered my question by your failure to answer.

It's a dominance thing.

Like the big dog humping the little dog. Just because he can.

[Blue Jays]

Hi All-

It is absurd that a bus travels a route where armed agents need to board and request identification. The darn bus should just make a scheduled stop a few blocks from the facility and the government employees can walk for five or ten minutes to reach their offices.

cropcirclewalker...I believe your viewpoint on this issue is completely accurate. The government agent in the original account enjoys the holstered gun on his hip, the badge, the swagger, and the attitude. See my post earlier in this thread regarding similar situations that I've personally experienced. This woman's situation is unfortunately not unique.

~ Blue Jays ~

[Flyboy]

Oh my, the thread was resurrected ... Gee, Flyboy, your suggestions were just dandy ... perhaps for the Denver facility. However, from the tone of your comments (and Mr. Cropcirclewalker's) I don't believe that either of you closely read the entire thread all the way through from the beginning and actually noted all of my comments. If you did, and simply don't want to try and understand what physical security is all about, fine, just lose the snide comments, please.
Yes, I understand why physical security is all about It's about denying people access to places they're not supposed to be. Checking their ID while they're still on the bus, versus checking it as they get off the bus, doesn't seem to make much difference as to whether or not they get into the facility. If you really don't want people in the facility, it seems like not allowing the public bus in at all would be a much more secure solution. You still haven't told me how my solutions would fail to provide equivalent security--or, in the case of changing the bus route, better security.

[Old Dog]

Checking their ID while they're still on the bus, versus checking it as they get off the bus, doesn't seem to make much difference as to whether or not they get into the facility. If you really don't want people in the facility, it seems like not allowing the public bus in at all would be a much more secure solution.
Sorry, Flyboy, I should have been more clear about indicating that I do, in fact, agree with that ...

[Art Eatman]

Arrrrggghhhhhh!!!

Art

[Hawkmoon]

Until the Federal LEO asked her for ID I can see why she didn't not want to comply, but the Supreme Court recently ruled that LEOs can ask for ID and we are required to give it to them. This is a pretty open and shut case I don't see how she can fight it and win. This exactly what happened to the guy down in Texas if my memory serves me correctly.
Please cite case. If you are thinking of Hiibel, I believe you are misrepresenting what the decision said.

[cropcirclewalker]

Like I said in a previous post. The renta cop knew who she was. He had asked her for the ID previously and remembers the hassle she put up and then reluctantly provided the ID.

The renta cop and the driver of the bus both knew who she was. She had identified herself to them before.

Can't you statists see? This is not a case of her not identifying herself. They knew who she was. This is a case of her not groveling properly.

This is a case of a person who fails to properly submit to the authority having jurisdiction. They asked her to jump and she told them to piss off.

She thought she was free.

[Blue Jays]

Hi All-

I don't know who is worse...liberals or conservative statists.

~ Blue Jays ~

[Old Dog]

This thread is fascinating, sort of like a scab one tries to ignore, but picks at anyway ...

Can't you statists see? This is not a case of her not identifying herself. They knew who she was. This is a case of her not groveling properly. No, this is a case of a stupid woman who decided to pick a fight and then didn't even go about it properly ... As the arresting documents stated, she refused to acknowledge or listen to the law enforcement agent who responded to the original security guard's call, got on her cell phone when they were trying to speak to her, and acted belligerently (as she apparently had before, according to the bus driver and the first security guard).

If one is going to engage in civil disobedience, at least be polite about it.

She thought she was free.Oh, puh-LEEZE! Davis was the one who planned to make a scene, voluntarily and knowingly entered the federal reservation, knowing she'd be asked to present ID, knowlingly failed to comply with a simple, non-invasive request to show ID ... She'd probably already paid for her web-site, had her ACLU attorney standing by and a press conference scheduled BEFORE she even got on the bus. The results of Davis' act were preordained before she even got on the bus ... Freakin' publicity stunt, is all this was.

[cropcirclewalker]

Oh, puh-LEEZE! Thank yew Mr. Old Dog, I see that you are recuperated. Welcome back.

I remember the tv commercial where the famous guy tried to buy something and the dumb a$$ed clerk wouldn't take a check because the famous guy didn't have an ID.

I don't watch enough tv to remember who the famous guy was, maybe Michael Jordan or David Letterman or Oprah or somebody famous, but the rediculusosity of the situation remains.

This Davis babe made herself known to the guy whose job it was to come aboard the bus and intimidate the passengers into providing their ID. She had reluctantly and not without creating a scene presented identification to him in the past.

He knew who she was.

Back in yon days of yore, when I was a dumb a$$ed sailor in sonar school in San Diego they would make us stand guard duty at the gate. They told us......."You check the ID of the enlisted men coming in the gate."

(We could tell by looking at the bumper sticker whether the driver was an officer or enlisted)

Then they said, "Just waive the officers through with a snappy salute."

Sure, you can hassle us enlisted men, that's what's you do, but, listen up, a citizen is not enlisted. The citizen is she, whom you statists are here to serve.

If it was Hillary who was asked to provide the ID there would be hell to pay.

If it was Dubya asked to present his ID there would be hell to pay.

You statists need to remember.......Hillary and Dubya are public servents. They are not royalty.

They are employees of us, the citizens.

puh-LEEZE! Try and remember your station.

[fjolnirsson]

And I well remember the days before metal detectors and armed security at the doors of our federal buildings. It's a different world.

It's a different world, all right. It's a different world, because the PTB want it to be a different world. All these "security" measures? 99% are just feel good measures. We aren't a bit safer than we were before 9/11. In fact, I feel we are less safe, due to these measures.
I love the polar bear hardhat analogy.:p

[riverdog]

Yep, Federal rentacops going through the motions to give the appearance of security, but not checking names against any list (the first time she rode the bus) and giving her a pass the next couple times she "forgot" her ID. Either you need ID or you don't and those few times she went through the checkpoint without ID means she didn't really need it.

Take it to a jury, I'm sure the ACLU would love another soapbox. Meanwhile reroute the bus to avoid the stop on Federal property.

[Manedwolf]

This will get easier once she has been "chipped". She won't have to show ID, they should be able to read her ID from outside the bus and speed this process up. It'll make us all safer and if our President - the greatest one of our time - doesn't have to worry about who is on that bus he can concentrate on catching Bin Laden.

Bin who?

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
4/8/02

Oh, yeah, right, right..the guy who DID 9/11 four years ago... oh, right, he's still alive instead of in bullet-riddled pieces. Why's that, again?

[Manedwolf]

It's a different world, all right. It's a different world, because the PTB want it to be a different world. All these "security" measures? 99% are just feel good measures. We aren't a bit safer than we were before 9/11. In fact, I feel we are less safe, due to these measures.
I love the polar bear hardhat analogy.:p

If you want to see how "secure" we are, go down to your local seaport and see the massive container ships of thousands of cargo containers from nowhereistan and the people's republic of tinpot and wherever.

Unchecked.

There's a cautionary film on DVD out there called "Last Best Chance" that explains how easy it would be for someone to get a simple gun-type uranium collision device (like the Hiroshima bomb) the size of a small car's transmission into the country via that sort of route. Scary.

[Al Norris]

Something has been bothering me about this whole thing.

On another forum, I asked whether or not this was a city road. You know, a bonafide city causeway. A person, allegedly from Denver replied that it was a city road. The the Federal "enclave" was built up around it and that only the city bus is stopped. No gates. Regular cars, zip right on by.

Here, another poster replies that this is a gated stop.

Who do I believe?

'Cause if this is a city street, then the feds don't have a leg to stand on. If the City gave up their right of way, and it is a gated stop, then why aren't there big ole signs on that particular bus, informing the people of the stop and ID check point? (Don't know that there isn't, just is never mentioned by anyone) Better yet, why didn't the city just route the bus around the block(s)?

Ah well. I'll have to give my sister a ring. She lives over in Commerce City, just a few minutes from downtown Denver. Maybe she can tell me what's up with the bus route....

[jefmad]

By the way people are only required to show ID to enter closed federal facility. My understanding is that in times of higher security the bus is detoured around the facility(closed). Then when public transportation is going through the facility is it not by definitition "open" and not subject to the ID requirement?
Also if she did break the law by not showing ID why did they not charge her with that but instead with disorderly conduct and other BS charges?

[White Horseradish]

Old Dog, has there been any study or any other kind of analysis on the effectiveness of ID checks? Or is this something the security professionals accept as a given?

[Old Dog]

has there been any study or any other kind of analysis on the effectiveness of ID checksYes, many. DoD, DoJ, DoT, NRA (the nuke folks, not the gun folks) and many others have commissioned contract studies, in-house studies and surveys, think-tank studies, so on and so forth, on security measures for military bases, federal installations, power plants, chemical plants, etc.

One thing to remember is, the "cursory" ID checks are mainly instituted simply to protect against the lowest-common denominator threat, i.e., a bunch of homeless folks, winos, bums or petty criminals accessing your area of responsibility and interfering with your business, littering, vandalizing or committing petty crimes like burglaries ... It's simply basic housekeeping.

And yes, in that regard, ID checks at access-control points have proven effective ...

But if one wants to believe they're there simply to allow some private security guard with a badge and gun the opportunity to harass citizens and ensure that all passers-by are exercising their compliance to govt', hey, have at it ...

Doubt you'd find any security professionals who regard ID checks at access points as an effective deterrent against a determined terrorist, but ya gotta start somewhere...