|
|
Monday, March 29, 2004
|
|
| |
Does passenger screening system target dissenters?. I was there when it happened. Our fact-finding group from TransAfrica Forum had just returned from Venezuela and was waiting for our baggage to be unloaded from the plane at the Miami International Airport. We had cleared immigration with no problem and were almost ready for connecting flights after a grueling weeklong tour.
After a significant wait, our bags eventually started to arrive on the carousel. But nothing came for Danny Glover.
The actor, known for his roles in the Lethal Weapon films, is also a human rights activist. As chair of TransAfrica Forum's board, he was a member of our Venezuela delegation. When his things finally arrived, we immediately noticed that two of his boxes had been opened by U.S. Customs officials. They were damaged and crisscrossed with green tape. He shrugged his shoulders and said, "This has been happening to me every time I return from overseas."
On each of his four most recent trips abroad, he has endured intrusive searches or extra scrutiny by Customs.
As we pushed for answers, an airline representative confirmed that Customs had indeed gone through Mr. Glover's items. Is there evidence that he is a smuggler of contraband? A security risk? An illegal immigrant? Is there any reason to suggest that his activities should be scrutinized?
For some unknown reason he has been flagged. (link)
There have been a lot of stories floating around about activists and critics of the Bush administration having trouble whenever they fly. Fun fact: Glover has endorsed Kucinich for president and done a lot of campaigning for him. [Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs]
It's not just Communist actors having trouble, either. As I wrote a few weeks ago, pro-freedom writer Frank Ney isn't just subject to harrassment--he's not allowed to fly at all.
8:53:28 PM 
|
|
Counterterrorism (by Government) is Impossible. The government can spend many years and billions of dollars preventing attacks that have already occurred by doing things it might have wished it had done years or decades ago. But note that there has been no discussion at all of the actual policies that everyone knows inspired the attacks and made them easier to carry out.
Just to mention a few: the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia, the sanctions against Iraq, the continuing intervention in the ever-lasting Israel-Palestine conflict, the propping up of secular dictatorships all over the Arab world, the raising up and funding of Islamic radicals to counter Soviet influence in Afghanistan, and the regulatory prohibitions in the US against permitting airlines to manage their own security issues. The US government cannot pursue all these policies and then react in shock when it turns out that some people exploit them with violent intent.
Many observers of these policies predicted that something along these lines would take place. You don't need to be a "counterterrorism" bureaucrat to see it. The response to the events of 9-11 around the world was very telling. While the world felt awful for America, most everyone (except Americans) believed that something like this was inevitable. As for who was responsible, the enemies of the US have become countless. The government's response was to make ever more enemies, which is what the recent US policy in Iraq has done. [Ludwig von Mises Institute]
8:43:52 PM
|
|
Freedom of the Press in Liberated Iraq. U.S. soliders shut down an Iraqi opposition newspaper. The ban, from the office of Iraqi strongman Paul Bremer, is supposed to last 60 days. [Hit & Run]
This sort of thing is likely to be representative of the sort of "democracy" the Feds plan to create--everyone will be free to vote, but the only candidates allowed will be those who the US government approves of.
6:55:34 PM
|
|
I've posted my notes from REAL World 2004 in a Stuffit file. The notes are in a "Tinderbox" document, so if you want to read them and don't already have Tinderbox you'll need to download the demo version.
6:22:15 PM
|
|
Gilmore I.D. Case Thrown Out. The lawsuit I wrote about in my August/September Reason cover story, in which John Gilmore challenged airline I.D. requirements, has been thrown out by Judge Susan Illston.
However, she admits she wasn't able to judge on one part of his complaint--that the law requiring you to show I.D.s to get on planes is void for vagueness since secret. From her decision: Because this claim squarely attacks the orders or regulations issued by
the TSA and/or the FAA with respect to airport security, this Court does
not have jurisdiction to hear the challenge. As a corollary, without
having been provided a copy of this unpublished statute or regulation,
if it exists, the Court is unable to conduct any meaningful inquiry as
to the merits of plaintiff's vagueness argument. This argument would
better be addressed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or to the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, both of which
have jurisdiction to review these matters.
But she did not buy the argument that the requirement is an illegal search, or that it unconstitutionally restricts the right to travel.
[Hit & Run]
This outcome was sadly predictable. It's not surprise that a government employee won't even consider restraining the government.
1:35:28 PM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2006
Ken Hagler.
Last update:
2/15/2006; 2:00:31 PM.
|
|
|
