IP: Re: Interview of Nancy Oden by Declan McCullagh

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <shap () eros-os org>
> To: <farber () cis upenn edu>, <ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com>
> Subject: Re: Interview of Nancy Oden by Declan McCullagh
> Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 11:47:33 -0500
>
>
> Indeed, perhaps we should put things in perspective.
>
>
> While the Greens themselves are decidedly non-violent, there have on
> occasion been *members* of the Green Party who are more radical. Since we,
> as a nation, have already allowed our lawmakers to give up the notion of
> "presumed innocent" or even "reasonable oversight" where terrorism is
> concerned, it is only to be exected that the Greens should come under
> scrutiny while law enforcement decides who it wishes to harass in the guise
> of antiterrorism.
>
> Even if you can stomache that, several questions need to be asked:
>
> 1. What damned fool placed the name of the head of a recognized U.S.
> political party on a list of people to be searched?
>
> 2. Who has authority over this "recommended search" list, and what is its
> oversight? McCarthy had a list too. If such a list is permitted to exist at
> all, it *must* be subject to public scrutiny and due process.
>
> 3. Once Nancy Oden was searched, and it was determined that there was
> nothing dangerous in her luggage or on her person, on what legal basis was
> her travel denied by the National Guard? Even if she was surly to the
> national guardsman (which I doubt - she is too smart for that), this is not
> a lawful justification for restricting her right to free and unimpeded
> travel within the continental United States. Such travel is constitutionally
> protected. In suggesting without cause that she not be allowed to board, the
> National Guardsman committed a federal crime.
>
> 4. On what grounds did the airline refuse her travel? Clearly there was no
> cause here, and I would like to understand the basis on which the airline
> was free to violate its contract with her for a ticket? Further, on what
> legal basis can the airline prohibit her from flying in the future with no
> cause having been demonstrated?
>
> Keep in mind that the airlines have been repeatedly underwritten with
> Federal funds. This is *not* a case of a private institution refusing to
> serve an individual. Even if it were, there are very specific conditions
> that must be met before a public business can refuse service to a customer,
> and these do not appear to have been met in this situation.
>
> 5. Finally, it appears that the airline helpfully called all the other
> airlines to blacklist her. This constitutes conspiracy to prevent lawfully
> protected travel, not to mention conspiracy to prevent her from exercising
> her constitutionally protected right of lawful assembly at the meeting in
> Chicago. It also, of course, is libelous defamation of character.
>
> I strongly urge the Greens to pursue this matter on both civil and criminal
> grounds.
>
>
> It may be that you do not care for the Greens. I certainly do not always
> agree with them. But if you stand by and allow your government to harass,
> detain, impede, an violate the constitutional rights of one political party
> leader, where will it stop? Dissent is a vital part of our culture, values,
> and system of government. If it dies, America dies with it.
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
> Jonathan S. Shapiro
> Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science
> Johns Hopkins University


For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/