FC: Maine National Guard bars Green Party leader from flying

[Steve Schear]

[Sorry for the long delay in posting this.  It was accidentally left queued 
in my Out box.]

At 07:42 PM 11/3/2001 -0800, Tim May <tcmay at got.net> wrote:
>On Saturday, November 3, 2001, at 07:02 PM, Steve Schear wrote:
>
>>At 01:20 PM 11/3/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.wartimeliberty.com/article.pl?sid=01/11/03/1813233
>>>
>>>    Military Bars Green Party Leader from Flying
>>>    posted by declan on Saturday November 03, @12:36PM
>>>    from the airports-are-now-a-no-speech-zone dept.
>>
>>If the information provided in the article and your interview is 
>>reasonably accurate I suggest the Green Party, which is fairly popular in 
>>Maine, and others who oppose this sort of McCarthyesque law enforcement 
>>take direct action against them.  By that I mean they identify the 
>>"thugs", including towns and photos, and invite the opposition to shun 
>>them in every legal way possible (e.g., denying them service at 
>>restaurants, shops, service stations, etc.)
>
>This terrible situation shows what happens when the Government--cops, 
>soldiers, agencies--have control over who is allowed to fly.
>
>In the older system, general security was NOT tied to ID. No ID, no 
>tickets. The pressure exerted on this Green Party woman could not have 
>been applied as easily.
>
>That this woman was obviously--if we are to believe what has been 
>reported--singled out for harassment is a sign of what's to come. Consider 
>the possibilities:
>
>-- people like Cypherpunks put on a "watch list" and similarly harassed 
>and ultimately blacklisted
>
>-- journalists whose very jobs depend on airline travel may find 
>themselves less willing to criticize government, lest they be added to the 
>blacklist.
>
>-- any person on the outs with government may find himself added to the 
>blacklist
>
>It really is no business of government to know the identities of those 
>whose bags/etc.  they are checking. Having government able to single out 
>some travellers for special processing is a recipe for this kind of mischief.
>
>BTW, the _wrong_ tack to take would be some argument about a "right to 
>travel," some over-ruling of Southwest's or United's right to pick its 
>customers as it wishes. The preferred approach should be to have no ID at 
>the _security_ checkpoint and to not have any laws requiring ID tied to 
>tickets. In other words, the situation as of a few years ago. Then that 
>Green woman would a) not have been stopped in the first place, and b) 
>would have been able to hop any other flight without anyone being the wiser.

Much of this is a result of too much Federal authority, almost all of it 
based on "creative" interpretations of the Commerce Clause.  Has the FAA's 
constitutional authority ever been challenged?  Those that oppose these 
travel restrictions need an effective alternative to airlines.  Something 
along the lines of a VTOL air taxi could replace some short haul airport 
traffic.  Ideally these taxis would be entirely automated, accept cash and 
keep no record on customers.  Its too bad companies like SoloTrek 
http://www.solotrek.com/mjet/index1.html and Moller http://www.moller.com/ 
haven't been able to "get off the ground" ;-)

steve