Welcome to the Moon, Citizen. Papieren Bitte!

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:00:00 GMT
In honor of SpaceShipOne's successful sub-orbital flight yesterday:

High Flight
by John Gillespie Magee, Jr.

Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth,
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds...and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of...wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,
I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up, the long, delirious burning blue
I've topped the windswept heights with easy grace
Where never lark, nor even eagle flew.
And while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space...
...put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

From smith2004, concerning the Supreme Court ruling that you must identify yourself to the police:

"Fuck the Supreme Court. I don't live my life based on the opinions of nine political hacks in dowdy black dresses." -- Tom Knapp

From stanleyscoop:

"What I've heard is that the ISP [internet service providers] are getting hit with email bombs. There is a way to condense 90G into the size of a floppy disk 1.3MB. When the ISP tries to read the attachment for viruses -boom- It get hit with the 90Gs. It don't take many of these to cause a lot of problems." -- Tee

# Today, the first hit in a Google search for "papieren bitte" is my May 23, 2004 blog entry, "Papieren Bitte" in Boston. Hehe.

# AP via ABC News - Court: No Right to Keep Names From Police - the Supremes have ruled, in a 5-4 decision in the case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada, 03-5554, that you must identify yourself to the police. The article doesn't say whether name and city of residence is enough or whether you must now show your papers in police state Amerika. John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Stephen Breyer dissented. Thank you, sirs and Madame. May the other five roast in hell. Expect the "papieren bitte" stops to become more numerous very soon. From Dudley Hiibel's web site, entitled "America Loses": [claire]



The following is an official statement from the office of the Nevada State Public Defender, issued in response to today's Supreme Court decision in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada:

"Although we respect the decision making process of the United States Supreme Court, we are deeply disappointed in today's ruling. A Nevada cowboy courageously fought for his right to be left alone but lost. We believe the Court's holding erodes the belief in the right to privacy cherished by so many Americans. The Court's ruling represents a loss not only for Larry Dudley Hiibel, but for the constitutional liberties of all citizens of this great nation."

# Claire Wolfe - Cops and the people: "It's half-past Claire Wolfe" - indeed! Commentary on Amerika's priveleged class. [claire]

I want to ask all the cops out there: "Are you with us or against us?" But the answer is already obvious. This is not intended as a threat against anybody. It's more along the lines of a prediction, and one I really dread to make. But if you're an abusive cop or a statist judge, in the next few years you'd better get the f*k out of freedom's way.

A couple years ago, I'd have ranted fiercely today, and maybe that would have made more interesting writing. But now, it's time for quiet anger. The first time some torturer hits you you might scream. And the second. And the third. And the hundredth. But at some point the screaming stops and the real, implacable hatred begins.

# United States Supreme Court - HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, ET AL. - 390K PDF of the official ruling. The Nevada identification law on which they were ruling does not require producing identification papers, simply stating your name. An earlier ruling invalidated on vagueness a California stature requiring "credible and reliable" identification. So if asked to identify yourself, state your name, then shut up (assuming you haven't decided to shoot first and refuse to answer questions later). From the introduction:

Held: Petitioner's conviction does not violate his Fourth Amendment rights or the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on self-incrimination.
From Stevens' dissent:
Rather than determining whether the communication at issue is testimonial, the Court instead concludes that the State can compel the disclosure of one's identity because it is not "incriminating." Ante, at 11. But our cases have afforded Fifth Amendment protection to statements that are "incriminating" in a much broader sense than the Court suggests. It has "long been settled that [the Fifth Amendment's] protection encompasses compelled statements that lead to the discovery of incriminating evidence even though the statements themselves are not incriminating and are not introduced into evidence." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U. S. 27, 37 (2000)...

Given a proper understanding of the category of "incriminating" communications that fall within the Fifth Amendment privilege, it is clear that the disclosure of petitioner's identity is protected. The Court reasons that we should not assume that the disclosure of petitioner's name would be used to incriminate him or that it would furnish a link in a chain of evidence needed to prosecute him. Ante, at 12-13. But why else would an officer ask for it? And why else would the Nevada Legislature require its disclosure only when circumstances "reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime"?7 If the Court is correct, then petitioner's refusal to cooperate did not impede the police investigation. Indeed, if we accept the predicate for the Court's holding, the statute requires nothing more than a useless invasion of privacy. I think that, on the contrary, the Nevada Legislature intended to provide its police officers with a useful law enforcement tool, and that the very existence of the statute demonstrates the value of the information it demands.


The officer in this case told petitioner, in the Court's words, that "he was conducting an investigation and needed to see some identification." Ante, at 2. As the target of that investigation, petitioner, in my view, acted well within his rights when he opted to stand mute. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

Add comment Edit post Add post