The Phil Mocek Incident

[pmocek]

Anyways personally not bringing ID does sound to be intentional baiting that goes too far

Yikes. The TSA guy who lied about TSA photography policies -- Jonathon Breedon -- testified on the witness stand that people fly without ID all the time. They have a procedure for dealing with the situation, and it seems to begin with them completing a form based on your answers to your questions, then having you sign it. (That form -- the one this guy was going to present to me for signature, that had been sitting on the counter right there where anyone passing could see it -- was what he claimed he was concerned about me photographing. Ha!)

i dont see anything unreasonable about requiring ID

You're not alone. Many, many, people feel that way. Please see "What's wrong with showing ID?" by the Identity Project for a great view of why it's unreasonable, why we shouldn't allow it, and how it makes us all less safe.

I strongly oppose the implication that we should just suck it up, smile, and move on instead of challenging the system when we feel a violation against our rights has been committed.

I'm glad you feel that way, and I appreciate you publicly stating such.

[pmocek]

Nick, [Phil D.], do you believe this incident would have gone differently had there been no witnesses and / or recording devices?

If I hadn't used my camera to record my interaction with the security guards and police officers -- then undeleted the video after the police tried to erase it while I was in jail -- I almost certainly would have been convicted of things I did not do. Everyone I've spoken who is familiar with what happened agrees on that point. Officer Dilley was extremely slick, and a very skilled liar.

[pmocek]

I would ask to leave a plane if I found out someone had just boarded that was allowed onboard without having to show their ID.

Knowing someone's name (or rather, knowing what name was printed on that card that any college student can purchase to buy beer with), doesn't make him or her any less of a danger. I don't care if it's Osama Bin Laden's ghost sitting next to me if he's not carrying weapons or explosives.

[pmocek]

[Do] you really think that by rebelling against the TSA we are somehow going to head off some doomsday scenario where all of our rights are taking away[?]

I think that if police officers are held personally accountable for doing TSA's dirty work -- enforcing rules that are made up on the fly, that neither we nor the police are allowed to read, if they exist at all -- they may stop helping with TSA's increasingly-lawless behavior.

how do you propose we can travel safely?

Reinforce cockpit doors and teach passengers to fight back in the event of a hijacking attempt.

[gonzalu]

Phil I am neither on your side or against you. I do, however, believe strongly in protecting the rights others have even when they conflict with my own views or beliefs. I come from a place where there are few rights and one surely cannot express their views, even to close friends for fear that they themselves will turn you in. So I take my respect for the rights we have very seriously REGARDLESS of what I believe in or not. I am originally from Cuba and while I enjoyed a wonderful childhood, I also know from my family and from learning about my country from the outside, that it isn't as great as children are led to believe.

While I carry ID and readily produce such when asked and have no reason not to, if it is NOT required by law, why should I impose my views upon someone who does not? In this country, the way we IMPOSE our views is as a collective and then only upon consciously and actively convincing the majority to vote for and elect and pass and convince others to change the laws to allow for that to happen.

I can find many examples of things we take for granted everyday that if we were asked to change them without a law, many here would not be happy to comply with if asked just to do it [because] without a law requiring it. Let's take spotting ...


Q: If we were asked by an NYPD or NCPD or PANYNJPD Officer to only take pictures of airplanes from at least 5 miles away from the airport perimeter, would you comply each and every time?

[pmocek]

This made for some interesting reading.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/daily...oint_trial.php

Especially this part.

Mocek is being represented in court by

Nancy Hollander

, a New Mexico defense attorney renowned for representing two Guantanamo Bay detainees

My lawyers, Molly Schmidt-Nowara and Nancy Hollander, did excellent work. I like them both a lot, and I enjoyed working with them. I still owe them nearly $20,000 of the $34,000 their services cost me. I'm not wealthy, and making those monthly payments is difficult, but I wouldn't change things if I could go back and do it again. Facing the potential for thousands of dollars of fines and months in jail, with a bunch of cops and federal agents who were willing to commit their lies to paper, I sought the best legal assistance I could. Good lawyers take difficult cases.

I also found this funny.

When police were summoned, Mocek refused to give his name and other personal information, and as a result he is referred to as "John Doe" in places in the reports. He was ordered to leave the airport and refused, after which he was arrested.

That's inaccurate. The only order I refused that day was TSA shift manager Gerald Romero's, and he had no authority to issue it. He told me to put my camera down. I said, "I'd prefer not to," and continued documenting what was happening.

[pmocek]

If we were asked by an NYPD or NCPD or PANYNJPD Officer to only take pictures of airplanes from at least 5 miles away from the airport perimeter, would you comply each and every time?

Not a chance. It's ridiculous that we're asked to refrain from photographing something that thousands of people can see, remember, take notes about, or photograph with their phones while it looks like they're talking on them.

Thanks for giving us your take on why it's important to stand up for our rights.

[NIKV69]

TSA folks use lots of euphemisms to keep us from thinking about their intrusive and unconstitutional practices.

It's the law of the land. Don't like it? Then vote people in office that will let you just walk on a plane without being screened. Unfortunately Ron Paul is running dead last right now.

I don't know you, of course, but it sounds as if you're being manipulated by fear. If there were mad bombers lurking around every corner hoping to kill large numbers of people, they would detonate their bombs in restaurants, in stadiums, in public parks, on busy street corners, or in the line of people waiting to have their shoes X-rayed and water bottles confiscated just outside of airport security. But those things aren't happening. I don't believe that all these would-be mass-murderers are insistent upon executing their devilish plans specifically on commercial aircraft

Unfortunately past history would prove you wrong.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reidhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallabhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ti...ombing_attempt

What makes you say that? I was trying to get home from a conference. I ended up in jail for a day and a half because TSA staff lied about their own policies, then some police officers were bothered by my lawful and respectful behavior.

Oh come on, you orchestrated this whole incident. You weren't just trying to get home. You're an activist pushing an agenda. Not to mention aligning yourself with a terrorist sympathizer attorney doesn't help your cause either.I also don't call refusing to give your name to police respectable behavior. In fact you were looking for a fight with law enforcement and you got it.

No. It's very, very, easy to take it with you. Traveling without ID is hard. Being diverted to another line for extra searches is hard. Being threatened by people who can stop you from traveling, or by other people who carry guns and have the authority to lock you in a cage, while taking a principled stand when you could suck it up and voluntarily surrender your rights, is hard. Flexing your rights when you think you don't need them in hopes that they'll still be around when you do is hard.

What I love is how you have totally ignored my questions about how to protect the flying public from the ever present danger that exists. Again you are involved with people who sympathize with people who want to kill us so your total disregard for flying safety is hardly a surprise. The government doesn't share this view and it is why we have the TSA. Again far from perfect but they are doing the job. People are getting to and fro alive. So they need to be listened to. You could have brought your ID and this would have never been an issue. Our rights aren't going anywhere. That is just propaganda and fearmongering. If anyone is scared it seems to be you.

Reinforce cockpit doors and teach passengers to fight back in the event of a hijacking attempt.

Oh yea I can see it now, during the Flight Attendants safety demo before the flight they can give us a quick course in fighting a terrorist with a bomb in flight. Mr. Mocek activism is great but when it crosses the line into paranoia and insanity we all lose. I am sorry I wasted this time out of my life to try to have a normal conversation. I think your actions, affiliations and above comment shows this is impossible. Good luck in the future.

[pmocek]

It's the law of the land.

You've touched on a major part of the problem. As far as we can tell, most of TSA's policies are not based in law. They require us to follow rules we are not allowed to read. How can we ensure that we're in compliance if we're not allowed to read the rules? How can we know the rules are just and constitutional? How can we tell what's legally required of us and what some security guard like this Breedon guy jus

Unfortunately Ron Paul is running dead last right now.

While I don't agree with him on everything, I think I agree with Paul on a lot. I love that he finally has some influence in the Republican debates, bringing up issues that the party-line-toeing droids would otherwise never touch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ti...ombing_attempt

Those are three examples. It's hardly indication that there are bogeymen hiding around every corner as the U.S. government would have us believe. I refuse to be manipulated by fear.

Oh come on, you orchestrated this whole incident. You weren't just trying to get home. You're an activist pushing an agenda. Not to mention aligning yourself with a terrorist sympathizer attorney doesn't help your cause either.

I did not orchestrate the incident. I went into that airport intending to board my flight after some of the hassle I'd experienced numerous times before. When Dilley and Wiggins marched me into the police office, I thought they'd fill out some paperwork and I'd be back in time to make my flight. I am an activist -- it's hard not to be these days if you have the luxury of working just one job and you pay attention to what's happening.

As for the "terrorist sympathizer" thing, Nancy wrote a great op-ed about that ("A Terrorist Lawyer, and Proud of It," by Nancy Hollander, New York Times, March 26, 2010). In it, she begins:

I am a criminal defense lawyer. Over the past 32 years I have defended people and institutions charged with a myriad of crimes in the United States and I have consulted on criminal cases in Europe.

When I defended someone charged with raping a baby, no one thought I might have raped my own. When I defended someone charged with murder, no one searched my closets for skeletons. When I defended someone charged with a drug crime, no one accused me of using narcotics.

And even when I defended those accused of espionage for attempting to sell America’s nuclear secrets, no one questioned my loyalty to my country.

No longer. Now that I am defending those accused of terrorism, some people assume that I have stepped over an imaginary line and become “soft on terrorism” or worse, that I support terrorism and am providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

So let me say it: I am a terrorist lawyer, if that means I am willing to defend those accused of terrorism. I am currently defending two men imprisoned in Guantánamo and I defend others accused of terrorism.

She concludes:

Every day political figures in the United States continue to use fear in an effort to convince Americans that danger lies in protecting the very freedoms, rights and principles we value.

Those who are shouting the loudest today to limit the rights and protections available to my clients include some who may find themselves on the other side of the law in the future.

Whom will they call should the day come when they are charged with crimes as a result of lying to get the United States into war in Iraq, or permitting prisoners to be tortured, or illegally wiretapping our citizenry?

I also don't call refusing to give your name to police respectable behavior.

As I wrote a few minutes ago: The only order I refused that day was from the shift manager guy who told me to put my camera down -- after the other guy lied about their policies, and after both of them tried to take the camera away from me. He had no authority to compel me to put it down. He had good reason to do so, though -- it would prevent other people from seeing the truth about what happened. Nobody asked my name until after I was in jail, and nobody ever demanded that I identify myself. The police repeatedly asked, then demanded, that I present a document that I did not have.

What I love is how you have totally ignored my questions about how to protect the flying public from the ever present danger that exists.

Sorry, but our posts must have crossed. If you scroll up, you'll see that I said we should reinforce cockpit doors and teach passengers to fight back in the event of hijacking attempts.

You could have brought your ID and this would have never been [a problem].

You're probably right about that. I don't claim to have taken the easy route.

[pmocek]

I hope I haven't come across as combative here. I broke some serious rules of netiquette by not lurking a while to get a feel for things before jumping into the discussion. I'm happy to chat more about this if anyone is interested. I'll check in tomorrow evening.

Here's a five-minute interview I did with Judge Napolitano on FOX Business' show, "Freedom Watch," a few days after my trial: http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/45158...ling-the-tsa-/

And here's a much more thorough interview I did for the Fully Informed Jury Association a few months later:

[gonzalu]

Phil, as you state in your video above, you wanted a jury of your peers to see the evidence and find you not guilty for reasons of you believing you were within your rights. If the jury had not found in your favor, how would you have felt? How would you have reacted? Would your life or views have changed as a result? I ask because it sounds from your tone and demeanor that you are genuinely interested in what's right and wrong. I have always shown a great personality trait of right and wrong and a sense of righteousness. I also strongly believe that if I am wrong, I will and would accept it and learn any lessons, pay any burden and move on. I would love to hear your opinion if the decision by the jury had been for the plaintiffs?

Thank you for taking the time to openly discuss this case as well as your beliefs with us. I do not believe we owe you nor you us anything so it is in the interest of free and open discussion that I ask.

[megatop412]

Knowing someone's name (or rather, knowing what name was printed on that card that any college student can purchase to buy beer with), doesn't make him or her any less of a danger. I don't care if it's Osama Bin Laden's ghost sitting next to me if he's not carrying weapons or explosives.

As much as it may be seen as a simple "hoop" to jump through, given the choice, I'd rather be on a plane full of folks that carry ID with them than one where anyone can get on just holding a ticket(If nothing else, I'm not stuck on a plane full of people who don't feel any accountability to their fellow passengers). You're not getting on a bus- there's a higher standard we should be holding air travel to due to its inherent vulnerability that other forms of transportation don't have- namely, one's inability to escape from the environment should a problem occur, in combination with how problems at 35k can lead to death much more easily and quickly. I'm not saying it's foolproof, we all know it isn't, but it's better than just saying the hell with ID's altogether.

Again, I think what you went through regarding the filming piece was pretty ridiculous, but carrying ID is an accepted practice pretty much everywhere you go except for something like the Burning Man festival where I think it's actually frowned upon! But I fail to see how carrying ID forfeits any liberties that my father bombed the Nazis to protect.

[Gerard]

. No ID required for me to drive a huge U-Haul truck to Manhattan from Albany and right through Times Square, Wall Street and The Village ...

But dont you need ID (Drivers license) to rent that U-Haul and you need to have that license with you while driving.
And not sure if I missed this but Mr. Mocek do you carry an ID with you? Do you have a drivers license?

[gonzalu]

But dont you need ID (Drivers license) to rent that U-Haul and you need to have that license with you while driving.
And not sure if I missed this but Mr. Mocek do you carry an ID with you? Do you have a drivers license?

Gerard, no, not at all... ANYONE could rent it, and I do not need a license to drive it there... Actually, I was not tested ONCE! If I confused you, my meanign is that whoever rents it does not have to be the one driving it and certainly you do not need the ID to drive it. IF you get pulled over and you do not have a license is a different story but I certainly don;t need it to get in the truck and drive it. When was the last time you showed your ID t o anyone to do anything? Do you ever show ID to drive from NY to LA? It may be assumed but that does not mean you needed it to actually do it. Just think about it...

BTW, I am only making an argument... I for one have ID, carry it and show it readily ... that's me. But, if I do not HAVE to it is nice to know.

William, does the screening process itself do nothing for your feeling of safety? Is it simply ID? So you;re saying that you do NOT trust TSA and the security checkpoints UNLESS it is accompanied by an ID check? Do you actually think the ID is checked against ANY database upon your passing through security? My actual identification, my real identification has NEVER been checked. I mean, they look at my driver's license, then at the ticket, and I move on... there is no computer, no list, nada.

I am shocked I am ever allowed though security... my passport picture looks nothing like me now. I rather the screening process and actual X-Rays, Bodyscans, etc. as as good as possible to make sure NOTHING that could be used as a weapon or explo s ive can get through! THAT is far more important. If the person next to me is John Doe but he is well screened, I am much more comfortable than if I knew him to be Joe Plumber but he just walked from the curb to the seat un checked!

[Gerard]

When was the last time you showed your ID to anyone to do anything?

The last time I flew. LOL!! When I got my boarding pass when I checked in my luggage. Then when I rented my car in Phoenix. And some
stores have started asking to see your license when you use a credit card. And last summer when I went to buy a beer at Yankee Stadium. They
check EVERYONES ID. If I didnt I dont get service. Of course I readily complied in ALL instances. Especially with the beer.
Like you said I carry it wherever I go and have no issue showing it.