Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Let's See Some I.D.

By Maria Luisa Tucker, AlterNet. Posted December 9, 2005.


What happens if you refuse to surrender identification when authorities demand it? You may go to jail. Or, you may not.
120905_story
Let's See Some I.D.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Maria Luisa Tucker

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

We humans are generally compliant creatures. We follow the path of least resistance, even if it's not to our advantage. We halt at stop signs even when there are no other cars around for miles. We unquestioningly accept the small "service fee" tacked on to our bills without knowing exactly what they are for. We are sheep who follow the herd -- most of us, most of the time.

This is the story of one rogue sheep.

Deborah Davis, a 50-year-old mother of four, is by all accounts an ordinary woman who worries about ordinary things like her mortgage and the safety of her middle son, who is a soldier in Iraq. To save money, she rides the bus to work in Denver, Colorado. That is, she used to ride the bus to work, until one morning in September when she dared to do what my favorite bumper sticker urges people to do: Question Authority.

Every morning, Davis's bus follows a route through the Denver Federal Center, a collection of government offices in an area with increased security. Every morning, officers from the Federal Protective Services, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, board the bus and check the IDs of all passengers, whether or not they are exiting the bus at the Federal Center. Davis found it odd and irritating that she had to get out her ID just so an officer could glance at it; not even checking it against a "no ride" list or, maybe, a "no exiting at the Denver Federal Center" list.

One September morning she decided to stop being so compliant. And that's where the story gets interesting.

Davis says her discussion with the officer went basically like this:

Officer: "Do you have your ID?"
Davis: "Yes."
Officer: "May I see it?"
Davis: "No."
Some debate ensued -- officers would later describe Davis as "argumentative" -- and then the Federal Protective Services cops tossed Davis's cell phone, physically forced her off the bus, handcuffed her and took her into custody. Ultimately, she was ticketed for violating two mundane-sounding federal regulations regarding compliance with signs and access to federal property.

"I just want to be able to ride a public bus," Davis said. "This is about freedom to travel." She felt the ID check was more about submission than security, and so she decided to dispute the ticket. The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado took up her case, along with an organization called the Identity Project, which fights for citizens to maintain the right to travel freely in the U.S.

"It took [the officers] two hours to try to figure out what regulations to write on the ticket. They had to go look for what to charge her with," said Mark Silverstein, legal director of the ACLU of Colorado. The charge that Davis failed to obey signs, Silverstein said, "begs the question" of whether officers only have the authority to make people show ID if there are signs alerting the public to that possibility.

Silverstein says the ACLU was interested in Deborah Davis's case because it exemplified the type of measures that infringe on citizens' privacy and freedom; measures justified by a post-9/11 government in the name of fighting terrorism.

"The ACLU wants to question some of these measures that we believe are not really justified in order to fight terrorism," Silverstein said. "We think a number of questions need to be asked. Does [a specific measure] actually advance safety? And if it does, how much does it infringe on citizen's right to privacy? In Davis's case, you don't even get past the first question. The ID check on the bus doesn't do anything to enhance safety. They don't check to make sure it is a valid ID. They don't even check the names against a pre-determined list of suspicious people."

Almost immediately, Davis's case became a cause celebre among the active but small contingent of Coloradoans fighting invasive security measures. When the Identity Project posted Davis's story on its website, PapersPlease.org, it received more than 1.5 million visitors in the first few days, and Davis received tons of supportive emails.

"It gives me a lot of hope. People have come out of the woodwork. People do care," Davis said, adding that she had no idea so many people would support her.

Davis's civil liberties dispute drew support from both Libertarian-leaning conservatives and liberal Democrats. "This is the first time I've seen people across the political spectrum really getting it," said Bill Scannell, media liasion for the Identity Project. "It has always been the right that has been way better on privacy rights than the left, but now the liberals and the left are really waking up to how dangerous all this stuff really is."

As the intensity of the media attention mounted, the case against Davis crumbled. On Wednesday, just two days before her scheduled arraignment, the U.S. Attorney's office decided to drop the charges due to a "technicality" regarding the official signs that Davis was supposedly disobeying by refusing to show her ID. Jeff Dorschner, spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Denver, would not say whether any changes in the signs were planned, or if Federal Protective Services officers would ticket Davis again if she refused to show ID on the bus. A spokesperson from the Federal Protective Services was not immediately available to comment.

"If they continue arresting people they will probably find themselves back in court," said Scannell. "This isn't about one woman getting uppity and getting her way, this is about making things better for everyone."

Davis's story has inspired rather dramatic comparisons to Nazi Germany, and the bus boycott begun by Rosa Parks. For most of us, though, Davis's experience evokes not a cataclysmic drama, but a sense of mundane recognition. If a police offier, security guard, or anyone else reeking of officialdom demands something, we usually give it up. Sometimes, this gives us a possibly false sense of security that our public buses, subways and airlines are safer. But at other times, it feels like we are being given a lesson in passivity, and submitting to an unnecessary reach into our privacy that may be worth protesting against.

When can you question authority without getting handcuffed and taken away? Unfortunately, there is no clear answer, despite a handful of recent cases that have tested the limits of law enforcement's right to demand ID.

Take, for example, the case of Dudley Hiibel, which is also spotlighted by the Identity Project. Hiibel, a cowboy type living in Nevada, was stopped in May 2000 by a Humboldt County sheriff's deputy when a passerby called in a possible domestic violence incident after seeing Hiibel and his teenage daughter in a heated argument while driving. By the time the deputy showed up, Hiibel had pulled over to the side of the road, and was standing outside talking to his daughter, Mimi. The sheriff's deputy approached, said he'd heard there had been some trouble, and asked to see identification.

Hiibel repeatedly asked why he had to show ID and refused, finally saying, "No, just take me to jail." And that's exactly what deputies did -- that is, after throwing Hiibel's daughter on the ground and cuffing her, too, when she began to protest her father's arrest. (Video footage of the arrest is available on PapersPlease.org.)

Dudley Hiibel was never charged with domestic violence or resisting arrest. He was fined $250 for refusing to identify himself to police. Hiibel went to court to challenge the Nevada law that allows police to demand identification pretty much whenever they want, arguing that demanding ID without reasonable cause violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. You remember those: no unreasonable search and seizure and the right to remain silent so you don't incriminate yourself.

The case eventually made it up to the Supreme Court, which upheld the Nevada law requiring people who are stopped under "suspicious circumstances" to identify themselves to a police officer. However, the Supreme Court made one exception to that law -- you do not have to identify yourself if simply giving your name is incriminating. This presents a tremendous catch-22. What do police officers do with someone who refuses to identify himself citing his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself?

Imagine one possible scenario. A police officer stops a man who is suspiciously lurking behind a dumpster at 3am. The following conversation ensues:
Cop: What're you doing back there, mister?
Mister: Just hangin' out.
Cop: Okay. Can I see some ID?
Mister: Nope. I have a legal right not to identify myself. The Supreme Court said so.
Cop: And why's that?
Mister: Because if I tell you who I am, I would be incriminating myself.
Cop: Uh, hmm. All right then, I guess I'll let you go with a warning. Don't do anything suspicious again.
Somehow I don't think that will -- or should -- happen. It is bad policing and bad policy. Under any circumstance, it remains unclear what the legal consequences are for refusing to identify yourself, whether you are incriminating yourself or not. At least 19 other states have similar laws requiring people to show identification if they are stopped under suspicious circumstances, which means thousands of law enforcement officers must attempt to comply with this confusing decision.

As for Davis, Thursday morning she was back on the bus, riding with friends and supporters in a victory lap through the Denver Federal Center. If the Federal Protective Services officers ask again for ID, chances are she won't comply. Asked whether she was prepared to go to jail for this cause, Davis said, "If that's what it takes, absolutely."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Maria Luisa Tucker is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Nice article
Posted by: Entheogenic on Dec 9, 2005 12:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Very nice article--above average even for Alternet. When you stop and think about it, it's amazing how often we comply without thinking with anything any authority figure says. That's real control, and if we end up with a totalitarian state, it'll be because of that, not because of 1984-style controls.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nice article Posted by: mazur
» RE: Nice article Posted by: mazur
» RE: Nice article Posted by: Entheogenic
» RE: Nice article Posted by: LPB
Rosa parks and nazi germany?
Posted by: oldsmobile on Dec 9, 2005 2:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Davis's story has inspired rather dramatic comparisons to Nazi Germany, and the bus boycott begun by Rosa Parks.

Oh, no wonder she is famous, I did not know that Rosa Parks started a bus boycott in Nazi Germany.

Live and learn...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most dangerous question you can ask a cop?
Posted by: owlbear1 on Dec 9, 2005 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Take another street?
Posted by: BeeGee on Dec 9, 2005 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a sense, the issue here is whether the government can demand the ID of anyone who enters Federal property. In Denver we do that any time we walk into a Federal courthouse, the Mint, or anywhere else that's formally Federal. If that ruling is just, then officials have the right to demand the ID of people on Debbie's bus. Perhaps a public bus simply shouldn't be crossing Federal property to start with.

There's a 12-step story about a person who walks down a street and falls in a hole -- several times -- and then has the bright idea of walking around it, and finally has an epiphany and takes another street. Perhaps the bus should take another street. Or perhaps we shouldn't need to show ID just to enter Federal property.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Take another street? Posted by: crusty
» RE: Take another street? Posted by: mysticpal
» RE: Take another street? Posted by: Louisa
» RE: Take another street? Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Take another street? Posted by: goldenta
» RE: Take another street? Posted by: bluegull
Hooray for Deborah...More Like her could Turn the Tide
Posted by: alicelillie on Dec 9, 2005 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have been losing our freedom here for over 150 years.

What Deborah did was very brave; we need many more like her. If you don't think you can, because you are a dissident...and, let's face it, they are trying to silence dissent...and/or you just have too many responsibilities to go to jail, then I guess the best alternative is to use a secondary route. But *don't* just fork it over!!!

But, for my take on our loss of liberty, see http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com .

Alice Lillie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reinventing the Wheel
Posted by: karyse on Dec 9, 2005 8:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, it might be better if we quit reinventing the wheel by educating ourselves. Educating ourselves includes having a reading list. I am continually amazed at the number of people who present ideas as though their idea is a new one.

Corporate Interests -- Any Karl Marx or IWW (International Workers of the World)

Purpose of Church, Media, Schools -- (ISAs Ideological State Apparatus) -- Louis Althusser
Police, Military -- (RSAs Repressive State Apparatus) Althusser

Problems of Democracy -- Federalist Papers

Christian idiocy -- any history book

Purpose of the "family" -- Wilhem Reich

Well, it's a long list, but it seems damn certain that the reason we can't do anything about anything is that we have no reading in common anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: einventing the Wheel Posted by: saretto
» RE: einventing the Wheel Posted by: owleyes
car culture problem
Posted by: mysticpal on Dec 9, 2005 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wonder what would have happened if she had NOT had an i.d. They probably would just have shrugged & gone on. I'd like to point out that this is partly a problem of ever-pervasive "car culture" in the western & southern states. Why do you need on i.d. on your person anyway unless you are driving, or buying alcohol? Living in the Boston area, riding the buses & subways, I rarely have i.d. on me ever. When I was young, cops found me a bit irritating but they always let me go (except once, when they beat me up, threw me in the paddy wagon & then let me go)... :) Simplify, simplify...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: car culture problem Posted by: saretto
» RE: car culture problem Posted by: mysticpal
» RE: car culture problem Posted by: saretto
» RE: car culture problem Posted by: specom
This is liberal nonsense.
Posted by: GayRepublicanBushLover on Dec 9, 2005 8:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clearly the writer is a ultra-liberal communist. This is a poor excuse for journalism, it is just far-fetched liberal conspiracy fluff.

She writes
"The case eventually made it up to the Supreme Court, which upheld the Nevada law requiring people who are stopped under "suspicious circumstances" to identify themselves to a police officer. However, the Supreme Court made one exception to that law -- you do not have to identify yourself if simply giving your name is incriminating. This presents a tremendous catch-22. What do police officers do with someone who refuses to identify himself citing his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself?"

There is no catch-22. If one reads the majority opinion, Kennedy writes "Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow."

Kennedy entertains that such a case may arise but also states that in that case the court will consider the case. Thus in her example, the officer would still arrest the offender, and if he refuses to give his name, his case would go to court to decide whether if admission of his name would implicate his guilt in another crime.
However, for the current crime, because the police can identify him, they don't need the criminal to state his name. So he would still be charged.

Kennedy does not give an exception, but only acknowledges that if the case arises, the courts will decide at that time, but the Supreme Court will not decide at that point in time.

If a police officer asks for ID, why should the citizen not comply? Only a liberal hippie would think not to, probably to conceal his pot stash.

It's times like these when I am thankful the Republicans are in office. Thank the Lord for Bush and protecting the country from the crazy liberals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is liberal nonsense. Posted by: GayRepublicanBushLover
» RE: This is liberal nonsense. Posted by: GayRepublicanBushLover
» RE: This is liberal nonsense. Posted by: mysticpal
» Is that you, Ed Shrock? Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Is that you, Ed Shrock? Posted by: GayRepublicanBushLover
» RE: Is that you, Ed Shrock? Posted by: mysticpal
» RE: Is that you, Ed Shrock? Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Is that you, Ed Shrock? Posted by: GayRepublicanBushLover
» RE: Is that you, Ed Shrock? Posted by: mysticpal
» RE: Is that you, Ed Shrock? Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Is that you, Ed Shrock? Posted by: bluegull
» RE:WHAT LIBERAL JUSTICES???!!!!!!!!!! Posted by: fullavit@hotmail.com
» RE: Is that you, Ed Shrock? Posted by: elmysterio
» RE: Is that you, Ed Shrock? Posted by: saretto
» You Just Don't Get it Posted by: BuckFush
» RE: This is liberal nonsense. Posted by: drcyflowers
» A GAY REPUBLICAN BUSH LOVER!!!!!!!!!!!! Posted by: fullavit@hotmail.com
» RE: This is liberal nonsense. Posted by: A. James
It's tough enough trying to strike a balance between privacy and security
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 9, 2005 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But then again, if authorities are going out on a limb persecuting folks they know couldn't possibly go against the law while at the same time being too lax about the real hideous criminals given that NV and CO have a higher stats of gun misuse and violence, it wouldn't surprise me if Osama bin Laden were given a free pass if he were to show up under them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get closer!!
Posted by: saretto on Dec 9, 2005 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My girlfriend and I have discussed it at length and we asked a simple question: Why would have buses pull up directly in front of a federal building?? Why not have the people who are going to get off there at a checkpoint AWAY from the building and check their ID there?? Instead of making a target of a bus for explosion.
I agree with the principles of this woman's decision. If she was getting off at this location then I think she should show her ID. I also think that if she wasn't then why should she have to show her ID. I think it is up to the government to be smarter about how they operate. And yes, as impossible as that is now-a-days I feel that their role as a government is to try because we as a people seemed to be impotent to embue those who make the rules with our will.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Get closer!! Posted by: krose
» RE: Get closer!! Posted by: saretto
» RE: Get closer!! Posted by: mysticpal
» RE: Get closer!! Posted by: saretto
» Step back Posted by: jwg
» RE: Step back Posted by: bluegull
They Groom our Children Not to Know Their Civil Rights
Posted by: fullavit@hotmail.com on Dec 9, 2005 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My sixteen year old son has had so many drug raids at his school that he no longer mentions them any more! And it's not just drugs they are looking for! Now it's cigarettes, video games, game cards and cell phones!

We let them use urinalsis to find drugs in the workplace. Now they are using them to find smoking and drinking. (Two legal pursuits!), and using them to fire people who smoke and drink! How long before we have Government surveilance in our homes ala 1984?

This war on terror is just like the war on drugs! Demonize something enough, We the Sheople wil just hand our rights away and call the ones that fight against them "unpatriotic"!

If standing up for my rights is unpatriotic, then sign me up!

I know a lot of my fellow progressives out there don't want to hear this, but that is so important to guard the second ammkendment! If they can toke that away, they can take them all away, and 1984 will come just a few years late!

Stoney13

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Civil rights
Posted by: Doubtom on Dec 9, 2005 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why oh why, in all the deliberations of this case, has no one pointed out that the proper place to check ID on passengers is IF they disembark the bus at the goddam federal facility?

Maybe the courts are complicit in this business of abrogating our rights. Any authority has limits or damn well should have!

The Security stooges' authority extends to protecting the facility they are hired to guard,,,not the buses. It's not as if they can't check every passenger as they get off. Anyone else is none of their business. Or they can demand that the buses stop going on Federal facilities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Civil rights Posted by: saretto
» RE: Civil rights Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Civil rights Posted by: liberalibrarian
The Right is better on Privacy Rights than the Left? WTF!?!
Posted by: BuckFush on Dec 9, 2005 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did I read this correctly, or is there a mistake?

"This is the first time I've seen people across the political spectrum really getting it," said Bill Scannell, media liasion for the Identity Project. "It has always been the right that has been way better on privacy rights than the left, but now the liberals and the left are really waking up to how dangerous all this stuff really is."

Even though the Dems usually bow like red-headed step-children to the GOP, it was the NeoCon (huge emphasis on Con) fear mongers that were fueled by 9/11 who came up with the Patriot Act, CIFA, the term enemy combatant, and the blanket catch phrase "war on terror." Which, ironically spells the phonetic version of what [WAT?]. You can't help but squint when you read it that way.

Read more of my take on this and many other grating issues that so many people choose to ignore at my blog, The Oh-Pine Tree.

[apologies for the blatant blog plug]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Police-state Dilemmas
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 9, 2005 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A nearby power plant that no longer uses oil wants to sell the land the empty tanks sit on. It's in a prime commercial location, so there are buyers who want to build a shopping mall.

A citizen whose car broke down nearby the power plant recently found himself immediately descended upon by a bevy of law enforcement. They seemed concerned that a stopped vehicle might intend to sabotage the power plant.

But the city zoning board will consider development of a shopping mall in the same location?

I repeat, Americans are too dumb to have a democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Police-state Dilemmas Posted by: saretto
» RE: Police-state Dilemmas Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Police-state Dilemmas Posted by: bluegull
damn dislexia!!
Posted by: BuckFush on Dec 9, 2005 9:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It really should be WOT......but I like it better as TWOT?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: damn dislexia!! Posted by: saretto
» RE: damn dislexia!! Posted by: jwg
» RE: damn dislexia!! Posted by: crusty
GayRepublicanBushLover???
Posted by: ihatebush on Dec 9, 2005 10:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Absolutely incredible. And I thought I heard it all. This must be a typo or something.
From: GayDemocratBushHater

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: GayRepublicanBushLover??? Posted by: mysticpal
Wanna know what happens whena greyhound bus nears the border?
Posted by: ebliso on Dec 9, 2005 1:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am 27 years old . In february of 2002 , my boyfriend and I set out from our home state of kentucky to move to a small town in arizona . It was a very disturbing time to be a young, progressive gay man living in the midwest. As the drumbeat of war growing louder, I decided I could do my part by giving up my car . We boarded a greyhound bus for a 2 1/2 day trip. Things were going swimmingly (if not a bit stinkily) until we came with 15 miles of the border..After re-boarding the bus (late-nite food stop) 2 border patrol agents came aboard and asked everyone for their ID. An elderly (probably late 70's or so) black woman at first refused this intrusion...when asked if she was a citizen, she said "what do you think?" This young , cocky border agent told her this was no joke and he'd need to see her ID. Many of us on the bus were a bit taken aback because of his aggression and rudeness....she eventually relented and showed her papers. then he came to me...he asked if I was a citizen and then asked for my ID . When I reluctantly showed it to him , he asked, and I'll never forget this "Where you from? Fairyland? " . This cocky little piece of shit with a gun was just feeling as big and tough as kong . I've never in my life had to show papers as I traveled in my own country and it scared me . I knew things were bad, but I didn't know they had gotten THAT bad. Immediately after that , I cut my driver's license into tiny pieces and threw them away. I will never forget the anxiety and fear that was present on that bus (not just from me, but from everyone) . I was ashamed of my self for not standing up , ashamed of the repression that all of gave into, and most importantly, ashamed of my government for what it had become. I still live just a few miles from the border , which is a comfort...I have in fact met more than a few people who live in southern arizona for the same reason...quick exit in case the reichstag catches fire .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» montana freeman Posted by: trace
What The Police said says it best
Posted by: fu@bardotcom on Dec 9, 2005 2:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think The Police said it best in the early 80's...

I don't want to spend the rest of my life
Looking at the barrel of an Armalite
I don't want to spend the rest of my days
Keeping out of trouble like the soldiers say

- Invisible Sun

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

drcyflowers
Posted by: drcyflowers on Dec 10, 2005 5:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I was a little kid, my parents told me how horrible communist countries were. I imagined them as places where you had to show ID to do everything.

Now I find that in the USA you have to show photo ID to do many things. There seems to be a mania for photo ID now. To get on a plane (hey, it turned out that terrorists have ID too! The airline ID rule made us a lot safer on September 11th, didn't it?) to go into a bar or nightclub even if you look 50, and, according to this article, on the goddamn Denver city bus, too! New laws are being passed to make our drivers' licenses more similar, to link up more and more information about us to the drivers' license. Silly me, I thought drivers' licenses were just for driving! Most of these new policies are being created by politicians who say they want to "get government off our backs," and who say they believe in freedom, although I don't know what freedom means to them.

Why should I ever have to prove to stupid people who I am?

At one time I lived in Australia. People there have no ID at all! The drivers' licences there have no photo on them. You don't show ID for anything. And somehow, Australia seems safer and more orderly than the United States. Australia's not the only country in which there's no real ID. No terrorism either! It seemed to me like I was freer in Australia than here in the USA.

This mania for showing photo ID everywhere you go nowadays just makes me feel like we're sliding toward fascism.

I encourage citizens to resist the ID nazis as often as possible wherever you encounter them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: drcyflowers Posted by: goldenta
» RE: drcyflowers Posted by: drcyflowers
What about writing a check?
Posted by: LPB on Dec 11, 2005 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A couple of years ago I was shopping at Beall's and found some must-have items. When I presented my check the cashier asked me for a thumb print. "Oh, we're getting big city now," she bragged. When I asked the purpose for this she said it was for my protection in case somebody stole my checks. 'Do you have fingerprint experts on staff to evaluate everyone's prints?' I asked. Of course they didn't. 'So this is really just to make it easier to prosecute someone if they catch a check thief or to help the police build a databank on the average citizen, isn't it?' I asked. The woman looked at me like I had kicked her grandchild or something for daring to question that giving my thumbprint in addition to the photo ID I had presented was a good thing. I no longer shop at Beall's, and that's a darn shame because I really liked their merchandise.

Further, at my favorite local book store it is no longer required that you fill out your own checks. Their cash register computers will do this for you, and your bank account is automatically electrically debited whether you use a debit card or not. I always insist on filling out my own check anyway, just my little resistance against Big Brother's presence. (Yes, I know, paltry resistance, but it's a start.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What about writing a check? Posted by: drcyflowers
» montana freeman Posted by: trace
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement