Papers,
In North Korea, you need an internal passport in order to travel between cities. If you are stopped away from home without an internal passport, even on foot, you will be arrested.
This is a typical element of a modern fascist state. The U.S.S.R. had the same system, and remnants of another system remain in modern China. Travel restrictions are a natural outgrowth of the expansive state control of the citizens of these former communist states. South Africa also had an internal passport system to help enforce apartheid.
The right to travel is a basic freedom. In a democracy with respect for freedom, the state should only be able to require identification papers in very specific cases. One situation typically considered valid is during a legal traffic stop, where the police can request to see proof of your permit to drive. Another case is during the crossing of international borders.
Yesterday, the supreme court of the United States made a decision that has serious implications for our right to travel freely.
In the case Gilmore v. Gonzales, (more info about the case at this site) the Supreme Court was asked to reveal the secret law that requires airlines to obtain ID from everyone who flies in the US commercial air system, so the law could be challenged in court. From news.com:
‘The Bush administration … claims that the ID requirement is necessary for security but has refused to identify any actual regulation requiring it. … The Justice Department has said it could identify the secret law under seal, which would be available to the 9th Circuit but not necessarily Gilmore’s lawyers. But any public description would not be permitted, the department said.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court, by refusing to hear the case, decided that not only is it ok to require ID from every air traveler in the US, but it’s ok to have a secret law. We’ll leave the “secret law” part to another post: the case is too complicated to cover in full here.
Don’t ID requirements keep us safer? No, not at all. You may ask: “But what if terrorists want to fly?” Well, that’s a good point. Maybe we should do something about that. You know…like metal detectors and searches. And armor on the cabin doors. If someone was going to go through the trouble of plotting a bombing, they would also go through the trouble of obtaining ID. All of the 9/11 hijackers had valid ID.
An ID check does not make us safer at all. It does, however, make our lives more difficult. It’s more lines at the airport, and heaven forbid if you happen to share a name with a suspected terrorist, or happen to have the name of “Mohammad.” And yet, when we mention this, they ridicule our interests as insignificant. The threaten us. “Papers, Please,” they demand — and we lower our eyes and obey.
ID checks contribute to the culture of fear. It makes it easier to control us. They do not make us any safer. So why do we submit? Why do we tolerate those who force us to submit?
3 Comments so far
Leave a reply
Comparing travel passports in North Korea and the U.S.S.R. to requiring ID to fly is extreme. It is not government control of internal travel. You do not need permission from the government to board a plane. And there are other ways to travel from one place to another. ID checks at airports are by no means a complete government restriction on travel, as it is in North Korea.
–Victor
Except for the fact that some people (like Cat Stevens) are being restricted from flying at all. The point of the restrictions, the point of the ID requirements is that they are trying to keep us afraid.
Airport security is a waste of time and effort. Certainly it is worthwhile to check for drugs and other smuggled goods, and to keep a basic watch for firearms and explosives, but if someone wants to destroy an airliner, a SAM is not overly difficult to obtain in some parts of the world. I would be far more concerend about the prospect of al-Quieda purchasing a large collection of shoulder-launched SAMs, and smuggling them into the country by boat. Setting up in a rented house near an airport, a large nuber of airliners could be destroyed, especilly if the stack is within range. If you remember that these people are willing to give thier lives for their cause, this is not that unreasonable, and would be far more effective than putting bombs onto planes.
It is a well known truism that no amount of security can protect someone from a sufficintly intelligent and determined person willing to trade his life for his target. Loading bombs onto planes in the luggage is a rather amateur technique.
GThe only ID which should be required is enough for billing purposes, and no more.