Pick your battles wisely Posted by: McQ
on Wednesday, June 15, 2005
A "libertarian" was arrested yesterday for refusing to identify himself and refusing to allow his person to be searched before boarding an aircraft in New Hampshire:
A Keene Libertarian who tried to board a flight carrying nothing but a Bible and a copy of the Declaration of Independence was arrested yesterday at Manchester Airport.
Russell Kanning, 35, was arrested after refusing to comply with security screening procedures and refusing to leave the screening area, according to the Rockingham County sheriff's department. He was charged with criminal trespassing and was being held at the Rockingham County jail.
Kanning's wife, Kat Dillon, said her husband has refused to have his bail posted and will remain in jail until his arraignment tomorrow. She said sheriff's deputies were very kind in handling the incident.
"He went in with his Bible and his declaration, and when he refused to be patted down and all that, the sheriffs led him off and arrested him," she said in a phone interview yesterday afternoon.
Kanning, an accountant and staunch Libertarian, said last week he hoped his actions would highlight what he considers overly burdensome state intrusion.
"What he was trying to get across is that people need to be able to travel with dignity," said his wife. "They've just gotten to a point where security is ridiculous."
"We want people to think about it: Do you want to give up all your rights and live in a police state?"she said. "I don't think they can make us secure if they're bombing other countries . . . To be perfectly honest, I'm in far more danger from my own government than from any terrorist."
Well, first, you don't have a "right" to transportation. Transportation is provided privately and when you buy a ticket on an aircraft, for instance, you agree to the conditions of that sale, one of them being the requirement to show some form of identification and, if necessary, be searched in your person for weapons and contraband. If you buy a ticket knowing the conditions of sale and then refuse to comply with those conditions, the transportation company has every right to refuse you service.
Now if you don't want to do such things, well, drive. No one requires you to fly. And you can drive with all the "dignity" you can muster. No one will ask you for identification (unless you're caught breaking a traffic law), no one will search you.
Secondly, although you declare it, no one knows if you're the "peaceful" person you say you are. Identifying yourself helps make that determination, at least as it pertains to air travel.
Lastly, its a bit of overreaching to say the government is intruding when you made the choice to fly knowing full well what that involves. Sure we'd all like to have it return to the good old days, but 19 highjackes killed the good old days as well of thousands of Americans. Until it can be determined to be safe again, this is an inconvenience all of us must endure when we travel by air.
"It comes to a point that if you think something has to be done and you don't think petitioning the government will help, you have to stop complying with bad laws," Dillon said. "We don't want to hurt anybody. We don't want anybody to get hurt. We just don't want to comply."
Civil disobedience is fine if you're willing to pay the consequences of such action, that is, going to jail. That's precisely the decision the civil rights protesters made in the '60s. They had a cause which which most American's agreed. They laws they protested really did limit liberty.
My guess is few will agree with this fellow. Few will agree that his dignity is more important than their security (no matter how false a sense they get from airport security). I'd also imagine few will sympathize with his contention that his government is more dangerous than any terrorist, at least in terms of air travel.
The bottom line is this is a poor battle to pick for this sort of demonstration. While I admire his spirit, I question his judgement. Whenever there is a choice, there is no coercion (he could have driven to his destination or chosen another means of transportation).
Whenever the requirements are known well before the choice, there is no coercion if one willingly transacts the business. It would be like refusing to pay sales tax in a retail environment. He may desire not to pay taxes, but he's not going to get the product if he does so, and should he try to take it, he'd be arrested for theft. He simply chose to force his desires, and desires aren't principles.
Its another in a long line of examples of self-declared libertarians shooting themselves in the foot. Pick your battles, pick them wisely and, as we saw in the '60s, other Americans will join the fight.
UPDATE: It seems Knapster again disagrees (this is becoming a habit, Thomas). His first objection is to my point about commercial air travel not being a right:
All well and good—and all irrelevant. It wasn't the transportation company that imposed the conditions. It wasn't the transportation company that demanded identification. It wasn't the transportation company that asserted the right to conduct a warrantless search. It wasn't the transportation company that "refused [Keene] service." And it wasn't the transportation company that arrested Russell Kanning. It was the US government in all of the foregoing except with respect to the actual arrest, and it was the county government in the last instance.
Two points. Its irrelevant who or what required the check, the fact is it was a term of service. In other words, by buying the ticket you accept the terms of service, which includes a screening of your baggage and your person. If you don't like the terms, then you don't have to buy the ticket or travel by that means of transportation.
Secondly, he wasn't arrested for refusing to be searched. When he refused, as per the terms of sale, he was denied service and asked to leave. He was arrested for "criminal tresspass" when he refused to do so. Obviously it was important to him to be arrested in order to make whatever point he's trying to make, but he wasn't arrested because he refused to identify himself and be searched.
The next objection is to my suggestion he drive and the fact that he most likely will be able to do that quite easily without incident. Of course the Knappster has to ask:
I have to wonder if McQ has traveled by automobile in the last decade or more (and, if so, where he lives). I don't drive that much any more, but I've personally been pulled over, had identification demanded from me, and had my vehicle visually searched numerous times without any accusation that I had broken any law. As a matter of fact, once it was on the final stretch of road leading to an airport (Lambert Field in St. Louis), when some yahoos—not military, presumably "TSA," casually pointing M16s at me—demanded to see "my papers, please" at a roadblock.
As a matter of fact I average between 45,000 and 60,000 miles a year on the road, covering 5 states, 3 of which are in the deep south (GA, AL, SC as well as NC and TN). I've done this for well over 20 years. I've been stopped exactly once for a "license check" (well actually it was an insurance check) and that was in my home town. I've never been stopped at a roadblock, nor have I been pulled over for any reason other than the fact that I was going too fast (and I knew it). And if the retort is then, "you need to live in a big city", I live in Atlanta.
So I'd say, based on Thomas's own disclaimer that he doesn't drive much, that my expierience over 20 and about a million miles is probably much more typical than his.
Knappster then cites a comment from JWG which says, "From what I understand, he was arrested for trespassing because he refused to leave private property,... His wife makes it sound like he was arrested because he refused to be searched. Obviously, he had the right to refuse the search and just leave."
To which Knappster responds:
Well, no, he had a right to refuse the search and board the airplane.
Well, no he didn't, any more than someone has the right to buy a car and refuse to pay sales tax. Oh we'd all like to do it, but it ain't gonna happen, because the terms of the sale include the sales tax. No payee sales tax, no drivee car. No search before boarding, no boarding per the terms of sale. If you don't like the terms of sale, don't buy the item.
We then have a Godwin's law alert:
Kanning wasn't arrested for trespassing because he was on, or refused to leave, private property—Manchester airport is government-operated (there may some kind of "public-private partnership" of the type pioneered by Hitler involved, but job applicants are directed to City Hall). He was arrested for "trespassing" because charging him with the actual "offense" he's accused of committing would be problematic.
And that "actual offense" was?
Had he left, what would he have been charged with? What was his 'offense'? He refused a search. They refused him service. He leaves. End of incident.
But he didn't leave, did he? No, he kept insisting on his "right" to travel without having to be searched or identified. There was a purpose to that insistance, and it wasn't to board the aircraft. He was repeatedly denied service and told to leave. He refused.
Generally, a person commits the crime of “criminal trespass” when he or she enters or remains on another’s property without the owner’s consent. The property in question could be a house, apartment, office building, or sometimes even an automobile or aircraft.
What Does “Without the Owner’s Consent” Mean?
In many states, the law assumes that the person knew they didn’t have the owner’s consent if the owner or someone with the authority to act on behalf of the owner personally communicates this fact to her, if there is a fence around the property, or if there’s a sign or other posting on the property that’s likely to be seen by intruders.
He was told by a person with the authority to do so to leave. He refused. What would you call it?
Now, as you can see by a very quick perusal of Russell Kanning's entry on the "New Hampshire Underground" website, being arrested would seem to be exactly that for which he ws hoping. And in fact if you refer to the NH Indy media site here, he announced in May he planned on doing exactly what happened today.
"My goal is to get on the plane with no I.D. and a big goddamn gun, if it's this time or next time...I'll just keep trying to do it."
Kanning stresses that he will not resist arrest or do anything that might be perceived as physically threatening if you aren't a sissy. He says this act of nonviolent resistance will follow the model laid down by Mahatma Gandhi, who used peaceful noncooperation to expel the British from India but would have been better served by a Sten MK V submachine gun.
"We'll go slowly, we'll talk with them, we might even tell them everything we're going to do ahead of time. We're *not* trying to hurt anybody unless personal defense requires us to begin shooting," he says.
Obviously he decided to not take the gun this time, but if you think this is the speech of a 'libertarian', I'm sorry, I disagree.
Now you might wonder if "the authorities" might have been looking for him. Well, yes, and he was about 4 days late:
Summary:
What: Civil disobedience against airplane passenger I.D. requirement and anti-Second Amendment measures.
Where: Manchester Airport in New Hampshire (exact spot to be determined)
When: Saturday, June 11 @ noon
Who: Russell Kanning of Keene, NH, supporters from NHfree.com
Why: To draw attention to the fact that without a government license, you can barely go anywhere, and without a government law enforcement badge, you can't bring personal protection on to an aeroplane. You think those hijackers would have threatened anyone with a bunch of puny boxcutters if passengers could carry? NO SIR! Instead of a US Air snack box, they'da been given a lead sandwich... A few guys with office equipment should not be able to kill 3,000 people, and I for one will nevar forget.
How: By approaching a TSA checkpoint with a ticket but no I.D and a big honkin' gun, then walking forward through it until arrested or allowed to board. More contacts and details to appear in future releases, which you can find at NHfree.com and for more information about the right to bear arms on airplanes, visit keepandbeararms.com
Now, Thomas, you may feel a reason to support this stupidity, I just don't. The fact that he wimped out on the gun bit doesn't at all change the fact that it was his announced intent to take a gun on an aircraft. My guess is that might have put a few folks on edge, especially after the fact that this nimrod had previously announced "We're *not* trying to hurt anybody unless personal defense requires us to begin shooting".
Sound like the stable sort to you, Thomas? One you'd want anywhere near a crowd of people on the off chance he made good on his gun carry pledge?
Back to McQ for the wrapup: "Its another in a long line of examples of self-declared libertarians shooting themselves in the foot." Yes, McQ, it is. You might want to call your podiatrist and have that thing looked at ... or maybe reconsider your self-declaration. The shoe doesn't seem to fit very well right now, with or without that .45 caliber sized hole you just put through it.
Perceptions a funny thing, isn't it Knappster. My feet look fine from here. Hey, if you want to defend this loony tune, be my guest, but from here it looks like the holes are in your feet, not mine.
A Libertarian from Keene (New Hampshire) who tried to board a flight carrying nothing but a Bible and a copy of the Declaration of Independence has pleaded guilty to criminal trespassing.
Russell Kanning was fined a thousand dollars. Eight-hundred dollars was suspended following his plea in Derry District Court yesterday. He paid two-hundred dollars.
Kanning went to Manchester Airport on Saturday, saying he was protesting mandatory identification checks and search methods that call for security personnel to pat down passengers.
He said the search methods are intrusive and harsh.
He was ordered several times to leave the screening area of the airport, but refused.
Note the last line ... its called 'criminal tresspassing'. And boy were they brutal to the man. Ended up costing him $200.
UPDATE: More disagreement. This time from "New World Man" (Matt Barr) who says:
No, you don't have a right to transportation, but I don't think that was the point. Kanning's wife, in a phone interview, threw away the line, "We want people to think about it: Do you want to give up all your rights and live in a police state?" which McQ siezes on. It's a non sequitur.
I disagree that it's a non-sequitur. The entire point here is to claim a right to move around by whatever means chosen without any search being made or any identification being produced.
If you live in a peaceful utopia where no one has ever given you a reason to consider a search or require identification it might make sense. But we don't have that sort of a place.
Kanning isn't demanding a right to free travel. He already has that right in the US. What he's now demanding is he be able to pick the means of travel on which he can exercise that right and they must conform to his wishes. Well, it doesn't work that way. Which brings us to my point: he has a right to travel freely, but he has no right to TRANSPORTATION, thus he has no right to demand those being paid to transport him conform to his wishes.
That said, it's a strange tack for a liberty-lover, which McQ genuinely is, to take: If you don't like laws requiring you to submit to search, identify yourself, take your shoes off, be patted down... don't fly. As pro-market as I am, I still wouldn't make that argument. If the airlines themselves set identification and serch policy, not the TSA, the most successful airlines would probably have more rigorous searches. The fact is, it's not the business setting the terms of its service.
We have legal means to get rid of laws we don't like. But just because you don't see a particular need for a particular law doesn't mean a) it violates your rights or b) it's immoral. No one goes to jail for refusing to be searched. They're simply denied the service to which the requirement for a search is a part of the terms of service.
Obviously there may be reasons to engage in civil disobedience. But this is simply a person who has confused his right to travel freely with a pseudo right in which he demands others cede their right to security to his fradulent right to transportation by the means of his choice.
And anyway, if I don't want the FBI reading my e-mail, I can use the phone, and if I don't want the police searching my home, I can live somewhere else... none of those work. Why does "so don't fly"?
Now you're talking about illegal and immoral invasions of your privacy. IOW, in every case these invasions are done without your permission or the legal system's permission. If they're done with the legal systems permission, you've obviously provided them with probable cause by some other action or activity.
We're not even close to that in this case. Above you have every right to expect privacy in those activities. When you buy a ticket for an airplane trip, you have NO expectation of not having your baggage or person searched.
If the FBI illegally gets into your email, home or taps your phone line, you haven't given any tacit approval for them to do so. Buying an airline ticket not only gives tacit approval but it gives outright approval for screeners to do exactly what they do.
In the above, you have no choice, since it is most likely you won't even know its going on. In the case of air travel you make the choice knowing full well what it entails.
The point about identification helping prove you're "peaceful" fails on two levels. No one meaning any harm is going to fail to identify themselves as a "peaceful" person upon boarding an airplane. The idea that showing your papers helps rat out the terrorists is as silly as arguing the old question "did you pack your own bags?" ever caught anyone with a bomb.
A) it shows that the person holding the ticket is the person who bought the ticket (check of address on the ID with billing address on credit card which paid for it, plus a photo). You would be very suspicious if A. Smith of Main Street bought the ticket but B. Jones 3rd Ave was trying to board with it.
B) it is cross-checked with a no-fly list which contains identities which, for some or another reason, have been flagged as suspect.
The shot about civil disobedience also seems misplaced. "Civil disobedience is fine if you're willing to pay the consequences of such action, that is, going to jail." Isn't that preceisely what Kanning is doing? Why tut-tut him as though he isn't sitting in jail right now? In an update to the post, McQ acknowledges Kanning was trying to get arrested. So why the shot about taking your medicine if you want to engage in civil disobedience?
Actually civil disobedience should have a point. I just don't see the point here. Yes its a hassel. Yes it can sometimes seem intrusive. But is it something which precludes your right of free travel? No.
And to be arrested for refusing to leave? What's that?
In short, I'm not sure I see "pick your battles" as the moral of this story. Russell Kanning is not Rosa Parks, and the goal of flying without removing your shoes isn't like desegregation—to say the least—but I think the same argument could have been made about blacks in the south sitting at segregated lunch counters and hotel lobbies in 1961.
How? They actually had their right of freedom of movement (or travel) seriously curtailed. How was Kanning's? He simply didn't want to comply, which has zip to do with his right to travel. He walks out of there, gets into his car and he's on his way to wherever they wouldn't let him travel by air. And no one will stop him.
Or even better yet, he could’ve bought his own plane, gotten his own pilot’s license and flown himself. Further, if he went that route, he could’ve even given/sold flights to his friends/family/complete strangers and checked nobody’s ID if he so chose.
(I believe, but am not certain that regulations on charter airlines are significantly relaxed when compared to traditional airlines.)
I think that Jody has the right idea here. Private pilots can bring a gun along for the ride, don’t need to show any ID if they’re flying in and out of small airports domestically and so on. They’re still subject to a plethora of FAA rules, some good and some absolutely retarded and purposeless, but it is certainly a more relaxing way to fly, and you don’t have to be searched by trained monkeys to get on the plane yet.
From what I understand, he was arrested for trespassing because he refused to leave private property (not very libertarian of him to refuse to recognize someone else’s property). His wife makes it sound like he was arrested because he refused to be searched. Obviously, he had the right to refuse the search and just leave. That doesn’t sound more dangerous than terrorism to me (you don’t have the ability to refuse to be blown up and just leave).
I think the guy’s got a good target, but a bad method. The current methods of airline security are unlikely to actually prevent dedicated terrorists from getting onto aircraft with items they can use to try to secure the plane for their own use. All current airline security does is provide an opportunity for TSA personnel to augment their paycheck with interesting things they find in luggage while relying on people to assume that inconvenience=security. However, getting yourself arrested for refusing to go through those procedures doesn’t demonstrate that they’re ineffective, and is therefore a wasted protest. If you really want to demonstrate how lousy airline security is, smuggle weapons onto the aircraft (or at least past the TSA). Of course, you’re taking a much bigger risk in that case, too.
I think the big difference in airline security since 9/11 is not what happens in the airport, but what happens on the plane. If someone pulls a knife, he is likely to be beaten senseless by the rest of the passengers and crew. Prior to 9/11, the standard response to armed takeover of an aircraft was to let them have their way - and most of the people would live. Since 9/11, that is no longer an option. So if you’re going to die anyway - why not see if you can overcome your oppressors. Add to this the fact that now pilots are armed, and there are armed air marshalls (on US domestic flights at least), and you can bet that the job of taking over an aircraft has been made substantially more difficult.
Now, bringing a plane down with a suicide bomber - still a pretty easy task. But who would waste a suicide bomber on a plane when they could just as easily do it on a bus, train, or in a crowded mall, or a stadium, or whatever and have to pass through _zero_ security, and have no risk of being stopped before they meet their maker? Plus, they could build a much larger bomb in a rental truck and blow up an office building or something (school, soccer game, etc.)... It would cause more death, and wreck much more havoc on the victim culture.
Undertoad, do you have any evidence of a hijacking that has been prevented by airline security since 9/11, or are you just asking me to take that on faith?
I’m with your initial idea—no one has a right to flying in a commercial airplane.
Personally, I so strongly disagree with the BS that you have to put up with to fly that I stopped all flying commercial once those moronic regulations went into place. I simply drive.
Now, first, I happen to know the fellow who did this.
First, what’s atrange is that he is being identified as a Libertarian. He’s not, he’s a Republican.
Second, I wasn’t crazy about the choice of targets either when he chose it, but that is his choice.
But I do commend his bravery in willing to be arrested for something he believes in; I’m not sure I would be able to do that myself.
We can talk about how much airline security has been helped or hindered by further government involvement, but that is besides the point.
The fact remains that ALL 19 hijackers on 9/11 HAD valid IDs. IDs for flights did not protect us then, they will not protect us now.
The REAL ID is not the answer, with its national standards, RFID tech, etc., it may delay copying for a short while, but once someone figures out how to duplicate them (and they will), the copies will be PERFECT. Ergo, terrorists would get through security without anyone blinking an eye, because the security personnel would become so dependent on just reading what the computer says, they will forget to look for anything else. It happens - when were cashiers in stores better? When they had to manually type in numbers, or now that they just scan items? This doesn’t even bring in the issues of the REAL ID becoming a defacto national ID card. Sorry, my grandfather did not fight and become injured at the Battle of the Buldge supporting General Patton for us to ever hear the words "Your papers, please" in this country.
And the vast majority of airline pilots are NOT allowed to be armed yet. I have a friend who is an airline pilot (even flying into Iraq), and the vast majority of pilots WANT to be armed - They’re just not allowed to be yet.
And, the vast majority of people are siding with Russell on this. I’ve checked several times a day about responses to this event, and it has been overwhelming positive.
For information about someone who is going about this in a slightly different way (refusing to leave and getting arrested for trespass is just dumb), see
On the 4th of July 2002, John Gilmore, American citizen, decided to take a trip from one part of the United States of America to another. He went to Oakland International Airport—ticket in hand—and was told he had to produce his ID if he wanted to travel. He asked to see the law demanding he show his ’papers’ and was told after a time that the law was secret and no, he wouldn’t be allowed to read it.
Identifying yourself helps make that determination, at least as it pertains to air travel.
I am truly curious how this works... How exactly does identifying yourself improve security, when the screener doesn’t know you personally? Bad guys get driver’s licenses too, so a driver’s license in and of itself doesn’t tell you if the passenger is peaceful or not.
First, what’s atrange is that he is being identified as a Libertarian. He’s not, he’s a Republican.
Considering he and his wife are activists with the Free State Project, I don’t see why it is strange to call him a libertarian. Why do you find it strange? By the way, I notice that you (James Maynard) were blogging about the Keene City Council...are you friends with Russell because you are also part of the group? By denying he is a libertarian, it kind of feels like you are trying to hide something.
If anyone is interested in reading what issues are important to Russell Kanning, his wife Kat Dillon, or James Maynard, they post actively at the New Hampshire Underground website. None of them are republican in the mainstream sense. It’s possible Kanning may be registered as a republican because NH only gives three choices: D, R, I. I was only interested because of Maynard claiming it was "strange" that Kanning would be considered a libertarian. As it turns out, it’s not really strange at all.
Now if you don’t want to do such things, well, drive. No one requires you to fly.
This would be a good argument if the airports and airport security were privately run. They aren’t.
And you can drive with all the "dignity" you can muster. No one will ask you for identification (unless you’re caught breaking a traffic law)
Or unless you encounter a roadblock or license check.
Secondly, although you declare it, no one knows if you’re the "peaceful" person you say you are. Identifying yourself helps make that determination, at least as it pertains to air travel.
Sorry, but that’s just fascism. In a free country, you’re supposed to be presumed innocent and left alone unless there is probable cause or a reasonable suspicion that a crime is going to be committed.
This would be a good argument if the airports and airport security were privately run. They aren’t.
Makes no difference: when you buy the ticket you know the terms of the sale. Don’t like the terms, don’t buy the ticket.
Or unless you encounter a roadblock or license check.
I drive between 45,000 and 60,000 miles a year in 5 states. Have done so for over 20 years. In all those years I’ve only hit one "license check" and that was in my home town and I told the cop (who said "you don’t look very happy about this") what I thought of his "license check". I’ve never been stopped at a roadblock.
Sorry, but that’s just fascism. In a free country, you’re supposed to be presumed innocent and left alone unless there is probable cause or a reasonable suspicion that a crime is going to be committed.
Sorry but that’s anything but facisim (look it up before you throw it around, ok?). It’s a security check on a mode of commerical transportation you know about as a condition of the sale of the ticket. There is no requirement that you must travel by commercial air and certainly no one coerces you to buy the ticket. You make the choice of your own free will. If you don’t want to do all that, then charter a plane. But if you choose to fly commercially, that’s the procedure.
"Transportation is provided privately and when you buy a ticket on an aircraft, for instance, you agree to the conditions of that sale, one of them being the requirement to show some form of identification and, if necessary, be searched in your person for weapons and contraband. If you buy a ticket knowing the conditions of sale and then refuse to comply with those conditions, the transportation company has every right to refuse you service."
All well and good, except it is not the private provider that is demanding these conditions, it is the government.
And notice he was not charged with breaking any law about showing an ID or taking off his clothes. He was charged with a state trespassing law because they asked him to leave and he didn’t. Never mind that he had a perfectly readonable expectation to be allowed in that place with a valid boarding pass and being let through the metal detector without setting it off.
All well and good, except it is not the private provider that is demanding these conditions, it is the government.
Irrelevant. Those are the terms of sale for that ticket, terms he knew very well. So what, was he making a fradulent purchase with no intention of living up to his side of the terms?
Secondly, who coerced him to buy the ticket? Or was the purchase, knowing the terms, made of his own free will?
And notice he was not charged with breaking any law about showing an ID or taking off his clothes. He was charged with a state trespassing law because they asked him to leave and he didn’t. Never mind that he had a perfectly readonable expectation to be allowed in that place with a valid boarding pass and being let through the metal detector without setting it off.
See the update. And I don’t know the last time you were in an airport, but the only one’s allowed in the gate areas are those who have successfully passed through screening and have a valid boarding pass.
Sorry, my grandfather did not fight and become injured at the Battle of the Buldge supporting General Patton for us to ever hear the words "Your papers, please" in this country.
Do you suppose those who support Kanning’s protest also believe we should be able to bank without showing ID? If I’m reading this correctly, the government requires banks to ID their customers. Papers, please!
Gee I’ve lived in St. Louis for the last 11 years, flown out of Lambert many many times. (Twice in the last 30 days) I have NEVER seen a roadblock ever.
Gee I’ve lived in St. Louis for the last 11 years, flown out of Lambert many many times. (Twice in the last 30 days) I have NEVER seen a roadblock ever.
I dropped off some family members to fly out of Lambert a few years ago (at least 1 year after 9/11, though) and I was stopped just before the drop off point for a car search.
I dropped off some family members to fly out of Lambert a few years ago (at least 1 year after 9/11, though) and I was stopped just before the drop off point for a car search.
Probably during a heightened alert. When that happens here, the local radio stations run PSAs in which they tell people heading to the airport of the heightened alert status and what that changes in terms of security measures at the airport (i.e. the probability of car searches, etc).
Here are some points from an essay written by Kat Dillon, Kanning’s wife:
The US has not been, and should not become a country where men with guns demand, "Your papers please," at every street corner. For this, Kanning was arrested.
At this point, I know that I am in far greater danger from my own government than I am from any terrorist. Terrorists have never sat outside my home watching everything I do. Terrorists have never followed me halfway across the state. Terrorists have not locked up my husband. Yet this is what the government did to me and my family last week. If we were not meddling in the affairs of other countries, we would have very little threat from terrorism. As Thomas Jefferson put it, we should have, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." Ceasing to be the world’s bully is the answer to our terrorist problem, not more and more invasive security.
Russell believes that it is immoral to pay for the murder of Iraqi citizens. He believes that it is immoral to pay for abortions. So he does the only thing he does have power over, he refuses to pay for these things. He refuses to pay federal income taxes. Russell believes that people should be free to travel with dignity, so he is refusing to present papers and submit to invasive, unwarranted searches....We who believe this government has gone too far in its abuses of individuals’ rights and liberties can do the same: non-violent, non-cooperation. Kanning has chosen the path of Jesus, Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr.
If anyone is being oppressed by federal regulation, it is the airlines, rather than the customers. In a perfect ’libertarian’ society, the airlines would happily implement security measures themselves, as a marketing device.
In our society, federally mandated security is about as good as we’re likely to get.
"Gee I’ve lived in St. Louis for the last 11 years, flown out of Lambert many many times. (Twice in the last 30 days) I have NEVER seen a roadblock ever. WTF?"
I hadn’t really thought about when the incident in question occurred until you mentioned it. I’ve flown precisely once since 9/11, but I occasionally pick up or drop off friends who are traveling into or out of St. Louis.
Upon thinking about it, though, I recall that the roadblock, gun-waving and ID demand occurred on the one particular date that I did fly: Early April of 2003, when I was offered a speaking engagement in New York that was just too good to refuse, and for which the timeframe didn’t allow me to drive. This would have been right after the US invasion of Iraq, so perhaps TSA was expecting a Republican Guard division to advance down I-70 and assault Lambert.
« Reply #636 on: June 09, 2005, 02:30:37 PM » Maybe the next step will be trying to get on a plane with no ID and a gun.
Based on the NHU posts, I know you are personally interested in non-violence, and I think Kanning is as well. But he has brought up the point of bringing a weapon in order to make a political statement.
Apparently he has said this before. I’m sorry, that’s my mistake. I’m sure he was not serious about it though - he does joke about a lot of things.
Yes, most of us agree that everyone should be free to carry firearms at all times, though I doubt a major airline will ever allow it. We try to ensure that all of our protests are against laws and systems that are perceived as obviously unjust to many people, so we will never try anything like bringing a firearm through airport security.
I’m sorry, not _everything_ in that press release is false, but a lot of words have been added to it. It was our actual press release edited heavily by someone who I assume is opposed to our movement.
I hope I did not come across in an offensive manner in my original post, or this one.
Actually, Russ IS a Republican in the traditional sense, as are Craig Benson and Gary Johnson...... It’s the RINOs like Bush and McCain who are not traditional Republicans.
Adn who ever said the FSP was a Libertarian group? We did a survey of our members in 2003, and IIRC, nearly 40% identified themselves as Republican, with several others identifying themselves as democrats, Greens, etc. Now don’t get me wrong - We HAVE lots of Libertarians in our group, but not even a majority.
"Do you suppose those who support Kanning’s protest also believe we should be able to bank without showing ID?"
Yes, Absolutely.
"Considering he and his wife are activists with the Free State Project, I don’t see why it is strange to call him a libertarian. Why do you find it strange?"
Because, as Russ told me personally last week, not only has he never registered as a Libertarian, he has never, in his life, even VOTED for one....
"By the way, I notice that you (James Maynard) were blogging about the Keene City Council..."
Yes, I have lived in Keene for over ten years, and have been a candidate for Kene City Council twice.
"are you friends with Russell because you are also part of the group?"
Yes, I first met Russ through the FSP.
"By denying he is a libertarian, it kind of feels like you are trying to hide something. "
See above. If he were a Libertarian, I would have no trouble saying so.... He considers himself a pro-liberty Republican in the style of Goldwater, first-term Reagan, Johnson and Benson.
If he were a Libertarian, I would have no trouble saying so.... He considers himself a pro-liberty Republican
I can accept that. However, he has posted that he could consider himself a libertarian (lowercase L) and hoped (I didn’t read it as a joke) that the NH governor would be a "radical libertarian." There’s nothing wrong with that outlook, but I think there’s enough evidence to call Kanning a libertarian without considering the labeling "strange." That’s why I got the feeling you were being a little less than honest. After doing more reading and considering the points made by you and Fisher, I don’t doubt the sincerity of your intentions. Ultimately, labels are imperfect. I wish your group luck in your quests, though I am not as anti-establishment as your group appears to be (I think your battle against government requlations is on the right track, but sometimes too extreme).
