Your papers,please. (?)

[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 Constitution

Just like many others of us have...

have a bit more practical experience in the real world

Just like many others of us have...

and understand the need for security measures, such as a simple photo ID check

I understand the need for security measures that actually accomplish something other than assuring compliance

-- that clearly don't impose even a minor inconvenience on citizens

Personally 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? 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...

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?

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 charges

Charges? 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.>