John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation among other virtues, has filed a lawsuit against the US government challenging as unconstitutional the requirement to show ID before boarding a US domestic plane.

At issue is a series of secret security directives issued by the Federal Aviation Administration and/or the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), in consultation with the Department of Justice and the Office of Homeland Security.  The directives appear to require US airlines to demand identification before allowing customers to travel.  Because the directives are secret, no citizen actually knows what they require.

Such regulations are unconstitutional because they are unpublished; require government agents to search and seize citizens who are not suspected of crimes; burden the rights to travel, associate, and petition the government; and discriminate against those who choose anonymity.

I’m a die-hard civil libertarian, but even I found this a bit to hard to swallow. If you do as well, I urge you to read the FAQ, which spells out what was news to me: flying without ID isn’t against the law. No law from Congress, no Executive Order. What forbids it are various secret rules promulgated by—well, no one’s quite sure. And what the Supreme Court has stated in no uncertain terms is that Americans have the right to anonymity, and the right to travel.

I thought this was an interesting case. Don’t dismiss it before you’ve read the site.

Returning to the US after a trip overseas—in this case a nine-day trip to England—always brings with it a mild readjustment factor. Remembering which way to look when crossing the street. Pulling out greenbacks instead of queenbacks at Starbucks, and not having to do conversion math on the dollar-seventy price. At least for my trip to Italy in two weeks, I’ll be able to continue thinking one-to-one thanks to the weakness of the dollar, which will be an advantage over dividing by 1,850.

But the biggest shift is coming back to US political philosophy. The radical left-wing fringe here is comfortably center-left over there, so once again I must don the persona of the marginalized lunatic.

I left with the SEC scandal in early full swing, and was hoping to return to at least a debate on whether the foxes are guarding our henhouses. But W’s teflon suit, inherited from Reagan with tailoring by Bill, shows few signs of hand-me-down wear. Yesterday’s Washington Post reports Bush approval ratings still in the 72 percent zone, and W is handily beating most Democratic contenders in their home states in fictitious one-on-one matchups. In the face of an issue that is perhaps the best of all possible tailor-made scandals against the administration for the Democrats, the polls show only ineffectual peeping rather than full-blown resonance.

A Brit asked me last week, “If Gore had been President during 9/11 and the aftermath, the Republicans would have utterly eviscerated him. Why is your left so ineffectual?” My best response was complete political incompetence. It is one thing to form coalitions for national unity and interests of security; it is another to be cowed into silence.

So what is causing the silence? Michael Kelly offers the obvious answer in yesterday’s Post op-ed, titled “Two-Edged Weapon”. After an interesting summary of Bush’s actions involving Harken—including some follow-on shenanigans with the Texas Rangers that I hadn’t previously heard—Kelly suggests that the Democrats are also tarred by this scandal. Terry McAuliffe, current chair of the DNC, was offered $100,000 in Global Crossing pre-IPO stock, which he cashed out for approximately $10 million. Democracy 21 reports corporate donations over ten years to the Republicans at $636 million; to the Democrats, $449 million. Therefore, we are led to conclude, the Democrats have no moral standing to question whether the Republicans are too much in bed with the corporate sector.

Which, of course, is very convenient for the perpetrators of abuse. We are systemically ensured of never having a moral paragon on this issue come to the fore—only a statesman who is not affiliated with the major parties and who never accepts money from corporations (or those employed by them) could say such. These people are comfortably mired at the local dogcatcher level; it is not possible to became a US representative or senator without a few million dollars at your disposal.

So we the people should stop affecting our comfortable black-and-white opinions and sound bites and start firing up some neurons on this. There is more than a semantic issue at stake when comparing a recipient of a sweetheart deal to a former member of the audit committee of a corporate board of directors. If we can all agree that the Republicans are more disposed to the unfettered and unregulated free actions of corporations than the Democrats, we should not then conclude that all politicians are alike when those free actions result in scandal and economic repercussions.

Those who benefit most from the status quo maintain their power when the rank-and-file meekly accept the system. Those in power benefit most from the presumption that there is no credible opposition or alternative. 2002 is an abnormally good year for the voters to be heard, with great shifts of power possible in key elections across the country. Make some noise.