Federal Court Nixes Weeks of Warrantless Video Surveillance 440
An anonymous reader writes with this news from the EFF's Deep Links:
The public got an early holiday gift today when a federal court agreed with us that six weeks of continually video recording the front yard of someone's home without a search warrant violates the Fourth Amendment. In United States v. Vargas local police in rural Washington suspected Vargas of drug trafficking. In April 2013, police installed a camera on top of a utility pole overlooking his home. Even though police did not have a warrant, they nonetheless pointed the camera at his front door and driveway and began watching every day. A month later, police observed Vargas shoot some beer bottles with a gun and because Vargas was an undocumented immigrant, they had probable cause to believe he was illegally possessing a firearm. They used the video surveillance to obtain a warrant to search his home, which uncovered drugs and guns, leading to a federal indictment against Vargas.
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
If he's an undocumented immigrant, why don't they just deport him instead of going through all of this?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
In general, it is illegal for law enforcement to use ANY means that is not available to a casual passerby on the sidewalk, to see what is happening on private land. Using a stepladder on the sidewalk to look over the back fence is illegal without a warrant, as is the use of a drone, or even just standing in front of a house and peering through the front window with binoculars.
In general, the activity is undertaken specifically in order to see what cannot be casually seen, or is done over a period of time ("surveilling"), it is illegal without a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
If he's an undocumented immigrant, why don't they just deport him instead of going through all of this?
Because it's impossible to secure 3,000 miles of border, and he would just sneak back in if that's all we did.
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because it's impossible to secure 3,000 miles of border, and he would just sneak back in if that's all we did.
Pardon me, but that's bullshit.
Let's just take the forces we already have today. We have 1.4 Million in active duty military personnel and 850,000 reserves. Obviously we can't take every single one, so let's take half: 1.1 Million people. Now stick them on a 3-man rotation minus 1/3 for duty rotations and leave and spread them out across the 1,954 mile border with Mexico. That puts 125 people plus their equipment per mile of border, plus all their R&D budget going into technologies to increase protection. Those personnel aren't just idle all day; they're building fences, digging trenches, laying sensor grids, and basically doing all the stuff that completely shut down the San Diego zone for crossings and they're doing it 24/7/365 at 125 per mile or one person every 14 yards.
I think that's all way overboard for what we'd need to actually secure (~99% reduction in successful unauthorized crossings) that border, but in any event, don't try to say it's impossible to do. Say we lack the political will. Say we choose not to do it. Say we just aren't interested enough in the problem to do what's necessary to solve it. But don't say it's impossible; that's absurd. I'm not even getting terribly creative here; just sticking boots on the ground and a whole lot more boots than we'd ever actually need at that.
Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)
Won't work, the US military is too busy 'securing' other countries...
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
That read like an XKCD What If? response.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you, I'm quite flattered by the comparison.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You have the political will to gun down/blow up kids running for the fence? That's what Eastern Germany did.
You are making a strawman argument. Never did I suggest doing any such thing.
Funny, that's what Eastern Germany said too. Fat lot of good it did them trying to keep people in.
You can attempt to draw all the offensive comparisons you want while ignoring the fact it isn't a terribly challenging problem to solve when your wall isn't right through the middle of a major city and isn't easily climbable and isn't the only line of defense. Look at what happened when they put in a complex fencing system in the San Diego zone in the mid 90s: suddenly crossing attempts dropped by over 90%. Nobody got through there
Re: (Score:3)
Sure it's easy to stop 90% or 99% of illegal immigration if you are willing to do at all costs. But we are not willing to do it at all costs. What is the point of spending all this money to build a giant fence, when the net harm caused by illegal immigration is no where near the cost of the fence?
This is like spending $100K on a security system that stops $5K of damage/theft over it's lifetime
All this is assuming *that* illegal immigration is harmful on average. Maybe it is, but the evidence is not convi
Re: (Score:3)
They are finishing things that SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STARTED.
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
Notably us white Northerners were not suddenly beset with swarthy skinned Southerners taking our jobs.
Which explains why David Cameron is trying to amend the freedom of movement to gain the ability to deport EU nationals that move to the UK without first securing employment. Or the borderline racism I personally observed in Sweden and Finland directed at EU nationals who moved there from the former Eastern Bloc.
You might ask why your American governments don't afford you the same freedoms.
You can freely move through the 50 States with more ease than EU nationals can establish themselves in another EU State. Common language and all, plus there's no such thing in the States as a residency permit for American citizens. But don't let the facts get in the way of your conceptions. :)
Re: (Score:3)
Mexico's Immigration requirements are what we should all aim for. But if we did what Mexico does, we would be labeled "racists" by La Raza (literally "the Race") crowd who want unfettered and open boarders to America, but not the inverse where Americans could invade Mexico. BTW, poor Mexico also has VOTER ID requirements that make America's whining about having to get off their lazy asses so that they can vote. It is pathetic.
The US and Canada, have a much more polite (thanks Canadians!) relationship.
Re: (Score:3)
The great wall of china is 5,500 miles long. If they could build that a thousand years ago, surely we could do better now?
Because the Great Wall was never intended to keep out people. The purpose was to keep out horses (and their riders).
Re:What? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because nowhere in the Constitution does the government have the authority to decide who is worthy to live here, and who is not.
Re: (Score:3)
FWIW, the Constitution does make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens in regards to rights, evidenced in the Amendments - some of them only apply to citizens (ie the 2nd), whereas others (5th, 6th) specifically point out that the right belongs to everyone within US borders, citizen or otherwise.
Not sure if or how that augments the argument, just making a statement of fact.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to start an argument, but are you sure about the 2nd amendment?
I'm a documented permanent legal alien here (Green Card); I own numerous guns. While as a non-citizen I have to show one extra piece of ID when purchasing a firearm, even in California (known for restrictive gun laws) I have the ability to purchase every firearm that a citizen can. I've never seen any indication of permanent residents being treated differently in terms of the ability to own firearms compared to citizens, and it feels like
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
Anything not forbidden to the Federal Government by the Constitution is allowed, assuming the appropriate laws are passed
You have this backwards. Everything is forbidden to the Federal Government, except that explicitly granted by the Constitution.
No, You are All Misinformed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
He must have been reading the Chinese constitution which reserves all power and has a lengthy list of freedoms which are granted to the people.
Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)
Anything not forbidden to the Federal Government by the Constitution is allowed, assuming the appropriate laws are passed
This is incorrect, anything not allowed the Federal Gov by the Constitution is forbidden. That's the opposite of what you said. The 9th and 10th amendments were added to clarify this point. This is why we have arguments about the scope of things like the general welfare clause.
Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)
Anything not forbidden to the Federal Government by the Constitution is allowed, assuming the appropriate laws are passed.
Uhh, no. Rather it is quite the opposite.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." http://www.law.cornell.edu/con... [cornell.edu]
Limited government, and explicitly so at the Federal level
"powers not delegated reserved to States, people" (Score:4, Informative)
The powers of the federal government are lusted in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution says:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts ...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You might want to read that last part twice. Anything not explicitly allowed to the feds is reserved to the states and the people.
By 1819, Chief Justice Marshall said the meaning of that is so clear that McCulloch didn't need to spend time belaboring the point, everyone knows the feds can only do what they are specifically authorized to do. Marshall wrote:
"This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
why is that so hard to do in america???
Because there are many of us that believe that America should be a free country, and welcome anyone who wants to come here and build a better life for themselves and their families. So we are willing to throw any monkey wrench we can into the machinery of deportation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please quote the part of the Constitution that is relevant here.
Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint (Score:5, Insightful)
"...he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed [cornell.edu]..."
Re: (Score:3)
Do you let random people walk into your home any time of the day or night without knowing who they are?
If not, why should the United States?
Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint (Score:4, Informative)
Do you let random people walk into your home any time of the day or night without knowing who they are?
If not, why should the United States?
Because a free market in labour is as important as a free market in goods.
Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint (Score:5, Interesting)
Which has nothing to do with the question I asked.
No one is saying people from other countries shouldn't be allowed to work in the U.S. (I'm not), what is being asked is they do it legally and with proper documentation.
So again, I ask the question, do you let random people walk in and out of your place without knowing who they are?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But the children are American citizens because of the Constitution. You can't deport American citizens
You can give passports to american citizens, regardless of age, so they can have a choice to stay or go to the other country to stay with their parents.
Re: (Score:3)
Mexicans come here to bring a piece of Mexico with them, wanting bilingual schools and lots of other accommodations
This is complete nonsense. Bilingual education is deeply unpopular among Latinos, who overwhelmingly prefer English immersion for their kids. Latinos are transitioning to English just as quickly as other waves of immigrants in the past, such as Italians, Germans, etc. You should read some history books on the Italian speaking tenements in Brooklyn a century ago. People then were spouting the same xenophobic nonsense that you are today.
this is ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:this is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it is different. For one thing, even an unmarked car sitting there 24/7 is going to raise eyebrows, as well as probably get the police some phone calls for suspicious activity.
Mounting a camera 24/7 at his house lowers the cost barrier - eventually it will be cheap enough to do this to everyone. You can be sure that, at that point, there will be selective enforcement. After all, if they enforced every law on the books on everyone, the only people who wouldn't be in jail would be???
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No problem if plain sight from public property, but if they stuck it on the pole to see in the backyard that's otherwise obscured, that's a violation of privacy.
Actually, it is still a problem. Cyber-stalking, for one thing. The cops, without a warrant, have no more right to stalk someone than you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Mounting a camera 24/7 at his house lowers the cost barrier - eventually it will be cheap enough to do this to everyone.
The Brits already do this.
Re:this is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The cop in in a car is a little more obvious than a camera mounted on a pole. Depending on the size of the equipment (think: GoPro that's a small enough to hold in your hand), it could be effectively invisible, especially when compared against a Crown Vic with police markings, lights and a siren. Since it's evidently a rural location, even a unmarked car parked on the side of the road for a month would be rather obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for the forth amendment and all, but having a camera pointed to the outside of his house is no different than having a cop sitting outside the house in a car.
Your Comment Subject is correct, but only if it's referring to your comment. There are huge differences. Six weeks of 24/7 undercover surveillance for a petty drug dealer. That would be the equivalence you're drawing.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't 24/7 videotape a petty drug dealer to catch a petty drug dealer.
You do it to catch a much bigger criminal.
Do the police need a warrant to set up shop in the building across the street? If my neighbor is already recording the street in front of his house with his home security system, and volunteers to turn over angles that cover my house, do they need special permission to look at that? If my house is next to a traffic camera, can they look at all the background photos captured when someone runs
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting on this point.
One of the clients that I manage, the cops came to their house. They asked the resident to allow the cops to setup security video cameras in my client's back yard. The client's back yard faced the back yard on the next street over of a suspect of a crime (not sure if drugs or something else). The cops came in and installed all their own video equipment to point at this other house to monitor them 24/7, from my client's property, NOT from a public location.
So, this is like your scen
Re:this is ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
It is now cost effective for governments to micromanage EVERYONE'S life.
If you you don't recognize that this is the most dangerous thing that has happened to liberty and civilization in general you aren't awake. If they felt that this person was dangerous enough that they were willing to pay for a manned 24/7 stakeout then that has already introduced a massive self limiting level of restraint on the process. Popping something on a pole for a cost that is less then one day's wages and then letting it mop up anything is not remotely like a stakeout.
Be very clear about this: A government is a hierarchy. A hierarchy is just an organizational construct. By definition a hierarchy CANNOT HAVE A MORAL CONSCIOUS!. Only an individual can be moral. The basic drives and influences of a person in a hierarchy is not remotely focused on exercising morality. It is focused on power dynamics of having someone above you and someone below you. (Not a great way to exercise "morality" ehh?!)
Always remember: If you had a teenaged child with the same fiscal responsibility and penchant for dancing around the truth as ANY government you would ground them for life.
(And I have to listen to people who want to give up MY rights because they believe an organization chart called "government" will magically take care of things for them. Shheeeshh!!!)
Re: (Score:2)
It is now cost effective for governments to micromanage EVERYONE'S life.
The cameras may be next-to-free, but the cost to review their video and type up laborious transcripts isn't...yet.
Huge difference... (Score:3)
Add to this the rapid development and falling cost of machine intelligence with video processing and you are looking at the beginning of a totalitarian "video state
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for the forth amendment and all, but having a camera pointed to the outside of his house is no different than having a cop sitting outside the house in a car.
As long as the car was 2 inches tall and could perch on top of a utility pole. The police would have gotten a warrant if they had any real evidence against this guy. Perhaps they just wanted his money.
Re:this is ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
I'm all for the forth amendment and all, but having a camera pointed to the outside of his house is no different than having a cop sitting outside the house in a car.
The courts are starting to recognize that using technology in ways like this is different. They've decided that placing a GPS tracker on your car is different than than following you around, and that using infrared scanning of your house is different than a visual inspection, and that searching through your smart phone when they arrest you is different than looking through your wallet.
The reason these things are looked at differently is that courts have recognized that our privacy protections, as conceived in the 18th century, still need to be enforced, and that technology makes violating privacy a lot less costly for law enforcement. That is, there were natural protections due to resource constraints - pervasive surveillance of every citizen was simply not possible. Just because a technology comes along that eliminates those resource requirements does not mean that privacy is no longer protected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we know there simply aren't enough cops to sit in front of every house. Video monitoring needs to be restricted because there are enough cameras to watch every house, and the police will do it. They'll give you a surveillance state that would rival a Las Vegas casino.
Re:this is ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
tl;dr: Many functions are non-linear
Once upon a time, I owned a VCR and could have time-shifted shows whenever I wanted. All I had to do was set up the timer once, then when it was time to record a show, make sure there was a tape in there, and push a couple of buttons to define the start time, end time, and channel. I could watch the show just by finding the right tape (which took all of 5 seconds to label properly), inserting, spending less than a minute or so to rewind to the proper place, and watch the show.
Now I have a DVR and I can still time-shift, although it is a bit easier. Instead of finding the correct time and station in the TV Guide magazine, I use the on-screen guide to find it, push the appropriate button, then (generally) click straight through the defaults and it will record the show. To watch, I press the "DVR" button, scroll around until I find the show, and press play. It's probably a total difference of 2 minutes to program the VCR vs 30 seconds to record on a DVR.
But when I had a VCR, I almost never time-shifted, but with a DVR, I almost never watch live tv. Sometimes what appears to be a slight change in the quantitative cost of something can lead to a large qualitative change in behavior. And the difference between surveillance by squad car and having cameras everywhere is like the difference between a 4000 lb VCR versus a DVR that records every station all the time.
If you point the camera on a politician.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you point the camera on a politician you won't have to wait a month to watch a crime to happen.
Re:If you point the camera on a politician.. (Score:5, Insightful)
if you point a camera or mic at any of us, sooner or later we'll all be guilty of some crime on the books.
its by-design, too. have so many laws that, if 'the man' wants to come after you, there is always a reason he can find.
THIS is why it should not be allowed. plus, well, its NOT the kind of world we would want to live in. we get the world we want, and do we (as a people, human beings) want to live in a world where this is allowed to happen?
we better stop this invasive spying shit. its already gone on more than it should. will we, as a people, have the wisdom and forsight to stop this before we truly become an orwellian society, in every literal sense of the word?
Re:If you point the camera on a politician.. (Score:5, Interesting)
If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged.
—Cardinal Richelieu (allegedly)
Re: (Score:2)
Although it doesn't really fit the quote, one theory is that what's actually meant is that six lines is a decent amount on which to base a forgery, with which to condemn.
Re:If you point the camera on a politician.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you point the camera on a politician you won't have to wait a month to watch a crime to happen.
If you point a camera at a politician, you won't have to wait a month to see the camera removed.
Re: (Score:3)
And if you pointed a camera at a police station ... you are not going to last very long at all.
Because to the police, they can point a camera at you, but if you do it to them you've committed a crime. Just look at how many police try to confiscate/delete video taken of them, despite being repeatedly told they have no legal authority to do that.
Because apparently the police neither know nor care what the law says
Re: (Score:2)
Problem with body cams is the same as with dash cams - somehow they'll either be conveniently turned off, or facing the wrong way, when an officer is accused of wrongdoing.
What REALLY needs fixed is the cultural belief that law enforcement officers are above the punishments they dole out to others. Until that happens, the "commit a crime - get 2 weeks paid vacation - go back to work and commit another crime" cycle will never end.
Re: (Score:2)
And because body cams are turned off when the evidence can be used against the officer but on when the evidence can be used against the people, body cams only give the police more power. That makes them worse than nothing, at least until their footage is automatically backed up to the cloud, permanently archived (incapable of being erase
Re: (Score:3)
We could also fix it by simply making a rule that "malfunctioning" camera + complaint of misconduct = bullet between the cop's eyes.
Papers please, comrade ... (Score:5, Insightful)
America is rapidly deciding that her guiding principles are optional, and that the law only applies if law enforcement says it does.
Wide spread warrantless wiretapping, surveillance, and parallel construction all say that the police and government will do whatever the hell they like, and your rights be damned. And if they have to lie to the court to get what they want, that's OK too.
And for all of those who claim you still have free speech and all that ... the answer is simply for now. When it becomes expedient to take away that right, they will.
Land of the free, home of the brave. If it wasn't so scary it would be hilarious.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. (Score:3)
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. However, if you go to court, you will be informed that you are not qualified to defend yourself because your knowledge of the law is limited.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with Law in the United States is that it's based not on the SPIRIT of the law but the LETTER of the law, so if some lawyer happens to get some weird ruling then it's on the books and then it's citable as law... and so the system grows on itself.
The laws are Byzantine and increasingly unimportant, it's all about who can pay for the best representation, even basics like Civil Rights are virtually non-existent.
Watching this decline is disturbing and saddening.
Criminal law, I find, is pretty straightforward at the local and state level.
I'm amazed anyone can do their taxes, however.
lazy cops (Score:3)
It is very rare that judges do not approve requests for warrants from police departments. The fact that they did what they did without going through the proper channels proves that they're lazy.This guy Vargas is a drug-dealing asshole, and he should hang. Police laziness means he gets to walk. That's not a Christmas gift - that's a lump of coal.
They Dropped The Ball (Score:4, Insightful)
Even though police did not have a warrant,
And that deserves a Darwin award. Seriously, couldn't they have gotten one in the first place? I seriously doubt, if they had well documented reasons to believe something was up, that they wouldn't have been able to find one.
This case was in the bag (or would have been in the bag), but authorities dropped the ball. I've been on jury duty, and I've seen this before. Cops drop the technical ball, and we in jury duty have to say "not guilty" even though we know deep in our guts that the guy on the stand did it.
It is annoying, but this is how the law is meant to operate in a civilized country. This just stresses the point that authorities need to do their shit better, all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
From a front door pointing camera they saw him shoot a gun at bottles??? I'm not from the US but is that considered ok and safe to shoot stuff in front of your house with neighbors around?
Depends on the location. It's perfectly legal for me, because "in front of my house" is still way far away from my neighbors.
But for the same reason you couldn't perform video surveillance on my front yard from any publicly accessible location.
So in this particular case, it does seem highly likely that it would be dangerous and illegal.
Or maybe it's a one-story house and a high utility pole and they also got footage of his back yard. It would be nice to know a bit more than what the very thin article says.
Re: (Score:2)
You know the addage about the debate as to the sound made by a tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it?
Without evidence of a wrongdoing even as simple as a report by a witness, the police are not supposed to be able to act. If the only evidence they has was their now-ruled-illegal video, then everything from the tipping point of the video onward is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and is not admissable.
I'm a little surprised that the recent ruling about
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The article mentions that the house was in rural Washington. It's entirely possible that the neighbor's house was quite a distance away. My in-laws live in rural western New York on 10 acres of land. They are largely surrounded by farms and forest. It's very common for people to be out shooting guns, especially in hunting season. It's not unusual to hear guns going off, or see people in hunting attire walking along the road or in a field with a firearm. I've also lived in the southern and western US and sim
Re: (Score:2)
No. He's out in the country. There probably aren't any neighbors around.
Re: (Score:3)
Because before you can win the war you have to win a first battle.
If I were that man I would have shot out the damn camera before doing anything at all on my front porch.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Warrants can be a catch-22. To get a warrant one needs evidence that a crime has been or is beginning committed which is difficult to get if a warrant is needed to gather evidence that a crime has been or is beginning committed. In my opinion anything visible from the street is fair game.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's a good thing. You can't simultaneously use the evidence collected againts this guy but not allow the police to collect evidence this way in the future. The police knew it was illegal.
Re:So if I've got this right... (Score:4, Insightful)
A cop bought a video camera to catch an illegal alien unloading a firearm at bottles on his own porch, among other things...catches the guy, along with a significant drug operation no less...and the court "nixes weeks of warrantless video surveillance" is a GOOD THING? You'll notice they aren't nixing the YEARS of warrantless surveillance that every citizen of the U.S. has been under, nor the YEARS of collusion with friendly nations to extend that surveillance program to every citizen, worldwide. No, they're nixing the one bit of fucking video that might actually have been worth recording in the fucking first place. Footage of a criminal, committing a crime. How novel.
The EFF logo for this story was perfect, "extremely fucking foolish" was the first thought that came to mind.
It's simple enough. This was a local police department in a small rural area, so they were held to the rules. If they were a national agency with an effectively unlimited budget, ties to major military-industrial corporations, and loads of political clout, the courts would have performed some mental gymnatics and invented a bullshit reason why that inconvenient Fourth Amendment doesn't really apply. Currently "anti-terrorism" is popular.
Re:undocumented immigrant (Score:4, Interesting)
This is part of the reason why so many peopel got upset by the 'black sites' used to hold those grabbed in 'extraordinary rendition' protocols and held, and likely tortured, it was an attempt to get around the Contitution's rules regarding the treatment of people by keeping them off of US soil. What was argued and is still argued, is that those engaging in the business of the United States of America, whether on American soil or abroad, should still be bound by the Constitution and laws when working in their official capacity. This is also why rules of war matter, as those rules are what are supposed to allow for different treatment.
But we haven't declared war since WWII if memory serves, so I guess in practice, those conditions have been eroding since the Korean War.
Re:undocumented immigrant (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does the fourth amendment apply? If he is not a citizen of the US, our laws shouldn't protect him.
Did you think about the consequences of what you are saying even for a second?
Re:undocumented immigrant (Score:5, Funny)
I hear it's open season on tourists. I'm going to Vegas to hunt me some Brits.
Re: (Score:2)
But our rights are endowed by our Creator, and apply to everyone, not just American citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
But our rights are endowed by our Creator, and apply to everyone, not just American citizens.
There is an obvious flaw in that argument, namely that there is no such thing as our Creator.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? If you don't believe in god then you have to at least admit that your mom created you and thus endowed you with rights as a human being.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But our rights are endowed by our Creator, and apply to everyone, not just American citizens.
There is an obvious flaw in that argument, namely that there is no such thing as our Creator.
Am I to understand that you do not exist, having never been created?
Re: undocumented immigrant (Score:2)
It is not actually necessary to have/believe in a creator in order to have a concept of right and wrong. There are many places without a concept of a judgement at death that have well developed (and followed) moral systems.
And oddly for your point you seem to be the one that is making the "might makes right" argument in the idea that there needs to be an enforcer for most people to do right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:undocumented immigrant (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does the fourth amendment apply? If he is not a citizen of the US, our laws shouldn't protect him.
Because the Constitution is a document describing what powers the government has and how these powers may be used. It's like a default-deny firewall: the government has no powers whatsoever, except these enumerated powers. The Constitution is emphatically not a document describing what rights a person (citizen or not) has and when they will be honored.
The document was written based on the idea of "natural rights". You have certain rights simply because you are a human being; the government either recognizes that or it becomes dysfunctional and fails to fulfill its major purpose, which is to protect your natural rights. The Founders (mostly Deists) explained it in terms of us having been "endowed by our Creator" with such rights. You could also remove the Creator-concept entirely and argue that such a system simply works better and does the greatest good for all involved, and thus is inherently superior to systems that reject the concept of natural rights.
You don't have rights merely because the government deigned to let you have them, or decided that depriving you of them wasn't worth the trouble. A system where that's the foundational principle has lost even the pretense of human dignity. That kind of system wouldn't even have to bother with the incremental "hey we have an excuse that sells (protect the children! stop the terrorists!)" encroachment of liberty that we're seeing now. It could just go straight into open tyranny without having all those little baby steps for naive people to ignore.
You may wish to brush up on a little American history, specifically why the Tenth Amendment was written. It affirms that the federal government has only those powers which are delegated to it, with the rest being reserved by the states and the people. I'm all for deporting this guy, by the way. We should either enforce our immigration laws (like Mexico and every other sovereign nation) or repeal them, but if we're going to arrest this man, there's a process that must (and should) be followed.
Re:undocumented immigrant (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh look at the poor persecuted "christian" that is so bent out of shape because his publicly funded school or courthouse doesn't have a monument to the 10 commandments. Paying 5 or 6 figures for a monument, as has happened in the past, is an endorsement.
Look, numbnuts, it's not "your" school or courthouse, it's our school and our courthouse, and "us" includes atheists, hindi, buddhists, jews, etc., as well as christians, or so-called "christians" that have completely forgotten the Sermon on the Mount.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You want to know something scary?
Alberto Gonzales, the moron who was Bush the 2nd's Attorney General ... he once said that habeus corpus wasn't a right [sfgate.com]. So the legal advice he was giving Shrub? Entirely based on a complete lack of understanding of the law and the Constitution.
Government has reached the point that if they can get a lawyer to craft an opinion about what is legal, it's valid.
Which is how you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So let me get this straight, so people with visas and greencards can be deported for many reasons including petty crimes or mistakes on applications, which has happened, but this illegal immigrant is complaining that his rights have been violated?
People with visas etc. sign away their right to contest deportation when they fill in their landing card (or click "I agree" on the new electronic system) - along with declaring that they're not a drug dealer, convicted felon, terrorist or war criminal (so, if you turn out to be any of those, they can book you for giving false information whether or not you've actually committed any other crime in the US).
Re:hum (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you are missing the point of the story. Nobody really gives a flying fuck whether this one guy happens to get deported or not, because he's no longer an interesting or important part of it. What happened is that the government Got Caught, yet again, doing illegal shit. Whoever they were investigating during the commissions of their own infractions, is irrelevant. It doesn't have anything to do with Latin-vs-other, or even presidents. It was a local PD that got caught acting like criminals. That's bad, because we want PDs to be fighting crime, not being the crime.
It will also continue as long as there is no real penalty for getting caught. If a cop breaks the rules in this manner, the worst that happens is the case gets thrown out and the defendant goes free. Start throwing these cops in state penitentiaries for a year or two, making sure they go in the general population and get no special treatment, and you will see an immediate and drastic decline in this kind of abuse. And why shouldn't we do this? Cops who engage in this behavior are violating the very highest law of the land. That should carry a penalty.
The way I see it, when a cop breaks the law it's much worse than when an ordinary citizen breaks the law, because the cop is entrusted with special powers and has sworn to uphold the law. It follows that cops should be punished much more harshly when they break the law than a citizen who does the same thing. There is no other way you're going to return to being a free nation.
Talk to old people sometime about what cops used to be like. They were once genuine public servants. If you had a problem, you could find a cop and he'd help you. Average people didn't fear the police the way they do now. That's what we should return to.