Soldiers in airports screening-out political dissidents

[Reese]

At 09:36 AM 11/4/01 -0800, Tim May wrote:

>Actually, a person or business can "refuse to serve" on nearly any basis 
>except race or gender or a few other politically-correct things. "Tim's 
>Surf Shop" can choose not to wax the board of Reese, for whatever reason 
>it chooses.

That's right, whether "I" like it or not.

>This is why I said in an earlier piece that the Godfrey/Oden cases 
>should not be used to further the notion of a "right to travel" (if that 
>"right" is construed as trampling on the rights of Southwest, United, 
>Tim's Surf Shop, etc. to pick and choose their customers).
>
>The focus should be on these things:
>
>-- the presence of soldiers and cops in inspection points, with way too 
>much lattitude to inspect bags, pull people out of line, question their 
>reading materials, etc.

At the moment, it's National Guard, there is a long precedent for use
of Nat.Guard troops for civil things.  So long as they do not bring in
regular active duty military, in violation of the posse comitatus act.

>-- the requirement that ID be presented, which has very little to do 
>with airline security (for reasons Cypherpunks are very familiar with)

An issue in its own right, the airlines were requiring it before 911 
and the airline requiring it is not the same as the government wanting
it.

>-- the general headlong rush into police state measures, with the 
>sheeple saying "I want to feel safer. I have nothing to hide. Please, 
>officer, take away my rights! Please, soldiers, check what we are 
>reading! I want _more_ rights taken away!!"

The Patriot Act still amazes me.  What were those congresscritters
thinking?  They weren't, just reacting blindly by the looks of things.

Reese