ACLU Creates Map of US "Constitution-Free Zone" 979
trackpick points out a recent ACLU initiative to publicize a recent expansion of authority claimed by the Border Patrol to stop and search individuals up to 100 miles from any US border. They have created a map of what they call the US Constitution-Free Zone. "Using data provided by the US Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders. The government is assuming extraordinary powers to stop and search individuals within this zone. This is not just about the border: This 'Constitution-Free Zone' includes most of the nation's largest metropolitan areas.'"
Considering the last 8 years... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a list: (Score:5, Funny)
The constitution applies in the following zones:
Re:Here's a list: (Score:5, Informative)
The operation, which involves Border Patrol agents diverted from border operations, specifically targets recreational marijuana users at internal suspicionless 'immigration' checkpoints where the county sheriff has cross-certified Homeland Security agents to enforce state/county law as long as the bulk of the citations and fines end up in county coffers...This joint operation serves as a stark example of the inevitable mission creep associated with the use of suspicionless DHS immigration checkpoints against the traveling public inside the country. ...in 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court specifically struck down as unconstitutional, checkpoints used to detect the presence of illegal narcotics...
and so it goes.
Another noteworthy but absurt point is that Immigration and Customs is now going after child porn across state lines as part of their shadowy Operation Predator. These are the guys who should be AT THE BORDER checking BAGS and PASSPORTS!
Re:In order to counterpoint you: (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really want to live in a place where there's such a thing as "a perfectly legal stop to verify documentation"? That's not the America I grew up in.
Re:In order to counterpoint you: (Score:5, Insightful)
It's crazy. The police walking up to you on the street and asking, "Papers, please" used to be a ham-fisted technique for scriptwriters to illustrate precisely the difference between the Good Free Capitalist Peoples and the Evil Menace That Oppresses The World.
They do this without real authority... (Score:5, Informative)
Takes some balls to pull this IMHO...but, does show if you know your rights, you don't have to put up with this shit. Take a look at some of his videos...some are really interesting about how they try to get him to do stuff and answer questions they really have no authority to do. It is obvious because through all these stops....they finally pass him through.
Re:They do this without real authority... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In order to counterpoint you: (Score:5, Insightful)
... I thought the US *was* the evil menace that oppresses the world?
Re:In order to counterpoint you: (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, so was the use of torture.
Re:In order to counterpoint you: (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, I'm an obviously caucasian male driving a small car and I come to one of these checkpoints where they ask me a few questions and run the dogs around my car. I'm usually alone when I go through, so that rules out me smuggling aliens or being an alien myself. Okay, so I could have a kilo of cocaine hidden under my floorboard, but don't they also CHECK FOR THIS STUFF AT THE BORDER? The real-life checkpoint in question is 40 miles north of the border, up in the mountains. If they need checkpoints up to 100 miles inland, then it strongly implies that (a) they aren't doing their job right the first time, or(b) it's just an excuse for the county to earn a few bucks at the expense of recreational drug users, DUI's, and other low-hanging fruit.
There was a story in last week's reader about common law-abiding suburban guy who happened to be a card-carrying member of the ACLU who refused one of those searches and they made him get the hell out of his vehicle and sit at the side of the highway while they tore his car apart. Is that what national security is all about?
Re:In order to counterpoint you: (Score:5, Informative)
Specifically, he declined to give them permission to search, so they told him to get out of his car and brought the dogs over.
"Whaddaya know mister, the dogs smelled sumthin'. Hey, boys, looks like we got that there probable cause!"
Re:In order to counterpoint you: (Score:5, Insightful)
The Supreme Court made two seperate rulings that created the constitutional hole that is wide enough to drive a border patrol truck through.
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte is what the border patrol uses to create the 100 mile zone in which they can stop anybody -without- cause.
Illinois v. Caballes [cornell.edu] is a seperate case in which the supreme court ruled that an alert from a drug dog, even when the dog is used without cause, provides probable cause for a search.
If you read Souter's dissenting opinion it becomes pretty obvious how monumental a screw up Illinois v. Caballes is. It basically does away with the fourth amendment entirely. According to Souter drug dogs have been shown to falsely alert up to 60% of the time. Souter also stated that drug dogs are known to alert to cocaine on cash which may have passed through the hands of several people since it last touched cocaine.
Now the border patrol took both of these rulings (the power to stop anybody within 100 miles of the border, and the power to conduct warntless searches based on an animals fallable alert) and have turned them into the precedence they need to disregard the constitutional rights of any American in the 100 mile zone. Which, as the article states, 2/3's of all Americans live within that zone.
Re:In order to counterpoint you: (Score:5, Insightful)
Checking cars/people at the border helps a bit, but the good operations have a tunnel under the border.
So what? Just because you've got prohibition in your country doesn't make it right.
Re:In order to counterpoint you: (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's because that's a fucking ridiculous idea. Unless you have someone actually watching the entire length of that fence 24/7, it may as well not be there. If you've got someone watching the fence 24/7, why do you need the fence?
And what's to stop them from walking around that one? Maybe another checkpoint further up the road? Perhaps we should just install checkpoints every 50 miles on every major road just in case.
Yeah - people like this jackass, that tool Martin Luther King, Jr. and that Rosa Parks bitch should just shut up, sit down and be nice, quiet law abiding citizens.
You seem to be surprisingly accepting of genuinely gestapo methodologies.
Re:In order to counterpoint you: (Score:5, Insightful)
You've advocated fences around the country, roaming checkpoints and adopting an attitude of complacence in front of the police at all times. That sounds a lot like the definition of gestapo. In fact, that sounds an awful lot like East Germany.
You and I may agree that the police have a job to do in terms of upholding the laws of our country. I do not, however, condone the unwarranted harassment of innocent citizens in the pursuit of that goal. I'm not alone in this position, either, since the founding fathers explicitly wrote that bit into the constitution.
Re:In order to counterpoint you: (Score:5, Insightful)
But really, how would I respond to your drug-mule issue? First, I would recognize that we will never cut off the supply of drugs. And the more we do, the more rewarded individual suppliers are. Every drug bust only entices more into the trade. It's an issue of demand, not supply. No one would sell if Americans didn't buy.
Illegal immigration? Again, they come to the US because they get jobs here. Find the American companies illegally hiring these immigrants and punish them. Again, it's a demand problem.
Personally, I don't want a fence on the border, but, you're right, I'm probably insane. I just sort of figure that since an integral part of the free market is freedom of movement, then because of NAFTA, we should not only allow the freedom to move Mexican goods across the borders, but also people. It really seems unethical to me to push for a free-marketish system that restricts one of the fundamentals of the free market in such a way to almost unilaterally benefit the United States.
Re:In order to counterpoint you: (Score:4, Insightful)
Legalizing drugs? Making legal immigration easier?
Re:In order to counterpoint you: (Score:4, Interesting)
Easy. Secure the fucking border. If that requires a fence and a minefield so be it. A secure border means it is difficult to smuggle things across it.
Cool. Then when I want to smuggle drugs from Mexico into the US I'll just set up a couple of miles back and fire them over with a mortar.
Of course smuggling refugees across the border is more difficult, but I'm sure we can get them into Mexico somehow.
Re:In order to counterpoint you: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In order to counterpoint you: (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the America I grew up in
Sadly, it looks like the America you're probably going to die in though.
Re:In order to counterpoint you: (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not the America I grew up in
Sadly, it looks like the America you're probably going to die in though.
I'm glad I don't have kids. Yes, I know, people said the same thing in the fifties and sixties, with the threat of atomic war with Russia hanging over their heads and we survived the Cold War. Not that we're exactly out of the woods, but we haven't died in a nuclear holocaust. Those times were pretty damned scary, but I have to admit: if my parents had succumbed to those fears I wouldn't be here. They took the chance that life would go on, that the final conflict would never come. And it hasn't, yet.
Nevertheless, we have bigger fish to fry nowadays. We are not dealing now with an externality, such as fear of encroaching Communism that motivated our behavior during the Cold War. Yet, the problem is no less ideological in nature, and what makes it worse is that the ideologues in question happen to be running our government. Actually, "ideologue" is perhaps too mild a term. "Sociopath" comes closer to the mark, I think.
I'm not certain this trend can be reversed either, because far too many of us are in support of it. Many of us are afraid of illegal immigration (with good reason, it's true) and look upon these security "enhancements" with an uncritical eye. Others are swayed by the usual "think of the children" arguments, and again give the Government a free pass. In any case, throwing away whatever remains of our vaunted Constitution, whatever is left of our humanity, is not a viable solution. Long term, allowing our fears to be played upon by an ever-more-powerful State is going to cost us. Bigtime.
By the time the full effects are felt by most of us, well, I don't know. We may be in too deep by then. "Constitution Free Zones" show how far we've fallen in a few short years.
Re:In order to counterpoint you: (Score:5, Insightful)
That is ridiculous anti-ACLU bullshit. Please back up your retarded comment or GTFO.
Re:In order to counterpoint you: (Score:5, Insightful)
It *is* a perfectly valid Sunday activity, unless there's evidence that you're planning to hurt people. Having a car is not evidence that you're going to commit a crime. Sending someone a letter threatening to run them down with your car is.
Your cell phone is an electrical timing device. So is your kitchen timer.
And while we do regulate explosives, there are all sorts of valid reasons to have them or their components in your home or business -- maybe you blow things up for a living, or maybe you grow plants (ammonium nitrate) and heat your home (fuel oil) or run a combustion-powered equipment (diesel).
I'm sorry you're too scared of life to let anyone else enjoy it. It's sad, but I really must insist that you stop trying to terrorize the rest of the world just because you're afraid.
Re:Opposite questions: (Score:4, Informative)
And also may I point out: You are required by law in every state to carry your drivers' license, automobile registration and proof of insurance papers, if you are driving a vehicle (car, truck, minivan, etc). When such vehicles are crossing the border, the US government has a real and important interest in doublechecking that the driver is not either (a) entering or (b) leaving the country with a STOLEN vehicle.
This is false. There is no requirement for any of that to drive a vehicle.
Those requirements only apply to driving on public roads (and, in some cases, public land.) None of those apply to someone driving on private property. We allow the government to require as to have these things in exchange for the use of public facilities- it's not a blanket right of the government.
Re:Opposite questions: (Score:5, Insightful)
- Do you think the government has a real, and appropriate, interest in knowing who and what is coming in and out of the country?
We are not talking about people crossing the border.
We are talking about ordinary innocent US citizens being detained and harassed within our country.
- If so, why is it inappropriate to check at the borders (or at the nearest available transit points) that those crossing have their citizenship documentation or passport and visa documentation, as they are required to carry by law for all cross-border travel?
We are not talking about people crossing the border.
We are talking about ordinary innocent US citizens being detained and harassed within our country.
Yes, I want to live in a country where the laws are enforced.
Swell. Go move to East Germany or the Soviet Union.
Ooops, I'm sorry, they are both gone. Well I'm sure you can go find yourself some other police state to go live in.
Me, I love my country and I hold dear the rights and freedoms so many have given their blood and their lives to defend. I love the Constitution an our Liberties. I want police to pursue criminals, but only within the bounds of the Constitution and with deferrence to our Rights and Liberties, presumptively innocent citizens of a free nation. Yes, sometimes the Constitution is inconvenient to catching and prosecuting criminals. Yes, sometimes our Rights and Liberties are inconvenient to catching and prosecuting criminals. Yes, police often have a difficult job to do. Oh well, it's a difficult job. I expect them to do their job as best they can within the bounds of a free society respecting broad rights and liberties. Yes, I would rather a few more criminals go un-caught than to live in a goddamn police state.
Being "randomly" stopped on the street in the middle of the day to check that I have ID papers on me? That is inappropriate.
That is exactly what we are discussing here. Ordinary innocent American being stopped on the street without any cause whatsoever, being detained, intimidated, and threatened by gun-toting gestapo coercively demanding answers to questions that they have no right to coercively demand answers to, and coercively demanding 'voluntary' consent to searches and seizures that they have no coercively preform.
Being checked for my papers when I am doing something for which papers are required, such as traveling between two countries, is not.
We are not talking about people crossing the border.
We are talking about ordinary innocent US citizens being detained and harassed within our country.
You are required by law in every state to carry your drivers' license, automobile registration and proof of insurance papers, if you are driving a vehicle (car, truck, minivan, etc).
True. And police officers can temporarily order a limited stop for cause, subject to a great many restrictions, and demand to see your license registration and insurance. To somewhat simplify, they then pretty much have to arrest you or let you go on your way. Immigration and customs agents do NOT get to tromp around INSIDE the country seizing and searching innocent citizens in Nazi-style 'papers please' police state arbitrary intimidation and harassment.
When such vehicles are crossing the border, the US government has a real and important interest in doublechecking that the driver is not either (a) entering or (b) leaving the country with a STOLEN vehicle.
We are not talking about people crossing the border.
We are talking about ordinary innocent US citizens being detained and harassed within our country.
-
Re:In order to counterpoint you: (Score:5, Insightful)
What do YOU propose law enforcement officials do if they conduct a perfectly legal stop to verify documentation, and there is reasonable cause during the stop to suspect that other laws are being broken?
I have a solution; eliminate these immoral and impractical drug laws and arrest the people responsible for the harm caused by these laws (that is make them criminally and civilly responsible for the damage and hardship they have caused people). Punish the bad guys.
Re:Ooh pass the weed man... (Score:5, Informative)
I think we have a Ron Paul supporter.
Seriously though... you want to push for drug legalization, that's fine. But you CAN NOT tell me that drug gangs who commit all sorts of crimes (including kidnap and murder) and deliberately get people hooked on these things are somehow simply practicing "civil disobedience" by "not following the law."
There's a big difference between a 75-year-old granny with cancer who grows a couple marijuana plants so she can puff on the leaves and bake marijuana-butter brownies to keep her appetite up, and organized groups that engage in rape, murder, racketeering, smuggling, and turf wars with a side order of drug sales.
And you haven't addressed the damage caused by wage depression, theft of services, and damage to the school system caused by illegal immigration and human smuggling (which gets back to the rape/prostitution rings run by the gangs too) either.
The assumption is that the illegality of the drugs causes the violence.
Datapoint. Prohibition. Alcohol was illegal. People murdered over the control of the illicit trade. It's not illegal now, and people are not killing each other to supply it. Alcohol cost much more due to the articial scaricity.
There are people today who rob to get their alcohol to feed their addictions, but you don't hear too often about liquor store owners doing drive by shootings against their liquor store rivals.
It boils down to this : people on drugs may be dangerous depending on the drug. Drunks can be dangerous, too. We've survived the drunks. We can survive the potheads.
As for immigrants, they seem to be the hardest workers around. I think that is why people don't like them; with them, people are expected to work harder. Why, just being American means prosperity without working hard is a birthright, right?
Just allow work visas that don't guarantee a path to citizenship. That way labor laws can be enforced sensibly and taxes be collected. Like it or not, the illegals contribute a huge amount to the economy.
We should do the right thing (either crack down on illegal employment or legalize it with fair wage), and that will require us to sacrifice (oh noes) by having much higher food prices.
Re:Considering the last 8 years... (Score:5, Insightful)
And there you have modern America in a nutshell, folks.
Re:Considering the last 8 years... (Score:5, Informative)
If we have right to "lawyers" (nowhere in the Constitution) then why aren't we supporting giving arms to everyone who can't afford them?
6th Amendment:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." (emphasis mine)
I will never understand why people who are so concerned about the 2nd Amendment tend to be so contemptuous of the other nine in the Bill of Rights, and vice versa. It's all of a piece, folks. If you support all of them, you support freedom. If you pick and choose, then you support freedom only for people who think exactly like you do, which of course is no freedom at all.
Re:Considering the last 8 years... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that the unborn are deprived of life without due process?
Now you're just trying to get into a debate on when something is considered life.
I guess if you wanted to debate it, you have to first be born to become a US Citizen, so any unborn child is therefore not a citizen.
Then we could get into the definition/interpretation of the word "born" to mean either created or released into another medium (delivered) and debates on the meaning of the 14th.
Re:Considering the last 8 years... (Score:4, Informative)
I guess if you wanted to debate it, you have to first be born to become a US Citizen, so any unborn child is therefore not a citizen.
That's irrelevant. The constitutional protections apply to non-citizens, too.
Re:Considering the last 8 years... (Score:5, Insightful)
"So which of the emumerated powers in the U.S. Constitution give Federal Government the power to redistribute individual wealth,"
Amendment 16, (1913), "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Read it and weep.
Re:Considering the last 8 years... (Score:4, Funny)
"[Aren't] there some real questions of merit over whether this amendment was fully or correctly (according to the law) ratified properly?"
Sure there are questions. The answers are "no, the Amendment is valid and stands."
Re:Considering the last 8 years... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that the unborn are deprived of life without due process?
I assume you're referring to clinical abortion with your little quip there. Abortions are medical procedures, not criminal proceedings. The 5th amendment has nothing to say about that.
But in answer to why the 5th amendment might not apply to the unborn, perhaps it's the same reason you can't claim the unborn as dependents on your taxes or put them on welfare. They are not yet born. Hence the un in unborn. Not that this clears anything up though, because if you were to kill a pregnant mother in a car wreck while drinking you can be charged for two counts of homicide. So the legal status of the fetus is really up in the air.
I don't think the law is prepared to tackle this dilemma either. At what point do you consider a pregnancy to be composed of two people? I mean, the fetus is connected to the mother, shares her blood, and is inside her very body, growing from her own cells. When does she no longer have authority over that part of her body? Four weeks? Three weeks? Two? When the bastula has split for the first time? When the egg drops? Well there's sperm too, so don't go spanking your monkey unless you're prepared to stand tall before the man. And since this is now a legal life that a mother is responsible for, should we have funerals for fertilized eggs that don't attach to the uterus? Should a bastula be registered with social security as soon as the pregnancy test comes back positive? Shouldn't someone claim it as a dependent on their taxes? And get more welfare for it? And now lets say the pregnancy fails, should there be an autopsy and criminal hearings to see if the pregnant mother was criminally negligent with her diet and exercise routine? And if the mother terminates the pregnancy because of health risk, should she be put on trial?
Pro-life supporters honestly have an honorable goal, to protect life. I understand that and admire it. But the depth of pandora's box can't be ignored when we open it up and start trying to legally redefine when life starts based on the physiology of a pregnancy. The law has it about as close as it can, in my opinion. When the child leaves the womb and breathes on its own and pumps its own blood, a birth certificate is made out declaring the date and time of birth. This is when the child is legally identified as a solitary living person under the protection of a guardian. The distinction between the mother and fetus prior to that point is contentious on morality, and it should remain that way. The law of a secular society has to end at some point and let morality hold its own turf. This is one of those points.
Re:Considering the last 8 years... (Score:4, Informative)
"So which of the emumerated powers in the U.S. Constitution give Federal Government the power to redistribute individual wealth, provide for individual education, provide for individual welfare and security?"
Article I, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power...to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Providing for the welfare of the individual, as well as providing them with an education, falls under general welfare.
"Why is it that the unborn are deprived of life without due process?"
The unborn are not legally considered 'people,' so abortion isn't unconstitutional any more than hunting animals is.
Stupid Guns (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to support the Constitution? Start with supporting 2nd Ammendment.
Oh please. I'll acknowledge that you have the right to own guns for self protection and for hunting. But I'm tired of hearing the claim that private guns somehow safeguard our civil rights. Quite the opposite. As any Iraqi will tell you, rights that are enforced by private thuggery only deliver rights to those with the most thugs.
Especially absurd is the recurring theory that private guns prevent the national government from becoming dictatorship. Unless you're one of those fringe idiots who advocates private ownership of nukes and other WMDs, the idea of a some plucky band of guerillas restoring democracy is pure fantasy.
Re:Stupid Guns (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stupid Guns (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. military in Iraq is trying pretty hard not to kill people. If they weren't doing that, the few dedicated persons with nothing but small arms would be nothing but small pieces of corpses.
It is absurd to believe that would not apply even moreso to an internal conflict. It is a heck of a lot easier for otherwise reasonable men to kill people who do not look like them, do not speak their same language and do not share the same culture. Such a policy as you propose turned on american citizens by american troops would result in massive demoralization, mutiny and desertion.
Re:Stupid Guns (Score:5, Interesting)
"Especially absurd is the recurring theory that private guns prevent the national government from becoming dictatorship."
I love how people tend to forget we're a nation born of revolt and war, tempered in the fires of combat, using pretty much PRIVATE WEAPONS against a MUCH LARGER ARMY.
Pay closer attention to history. If it can happen ONCE and create a new country, it can happen again.
Re:Stupid Guns (Score:5, Interesting)
I love how people tend to forget we're a nation born of revolt and war, tempered in the fires of combat, using pretty much PRIVATE WEAPONS against a MUCH LARGER ARMY.
I love how people tend to forget that the Colonial militias were getting their asses kicked by the redcoats until a bunch of Germans and -- yes -- Frenchmen came over and taught us how to fight as an actual army.
Re:Stupid Guns (Score:5, Insightful)
But Americans can't ever remember that their freedom was handed to them by the French. That would be...unpatriotic. Like remembering the fiasco that was the war of 1812.
Re:Stupid Guns (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Stupid Guns (Score:5, Interesting)
More Polish than German, but then again the borders back then weren't the same, Germany and Italy being comprised on many little pieces. But a more important complaint: we were still losing once they taught us to fight like an Army (after all, there were ex-soldiers leading the milita). The 10,000 soldiers the French sent, the Navy, the guns and ammunition, probably all helped more than the expertse.
And you left out that the "private weapons" he mentioned included cannons (the most sophisticated weapons of the time), and other British Army weapons.
Re:Stupid Guns (Score:5, Funny)
You forgot Poland [wikipedia.org].
Apples and Nukes (Score:5, Interesting)
DISCLAIMER: I am posting from Kandahar City, Afghanistan, where I am stationed for the next little while.
The example you cite - the American Revolution - hasn't been applicable to the real world since the last years of the American Civil War.
The time period from the early 1700s to the late 1800s was dominated by the smoothbore, muzzle-loading musket, and its big brother, the smoothbore, muzzle-loading, solid-shot cannon (of which there were few in the Colonies)
An American Rebel, armed with a flintlock Kentucky Rifle, carried a weapon that was the technological equal of his British Regular Army counterpart. In some ways (range and accuracy) it was superior; in others (rate of fire) inferior. Employed properly, entirely comparable.
The success of armies in this era was largely a function of discipline, leadership, and logistics. If you had a cause sufficient to unite men in common purpose, leaders with enough tactical acumen to employ them, and paid attention to the problems of supply, it was entirely possible to go head to head with a national, professional, regular army and win outright on the battlefield - especially if your "professional" opponent was lacking in one of these vital areas.
That is no longer the case. No militia is capable of withstanding the kind of destructive force a modern combat team (a company of mechanized infantry, a troop of tanks, and two artillery pieces) is capable of putting out.
The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan die - in large numbers - any time they try to go toe-to-toe with modern combat forces. It's no contest; so hopelessly lopsided that it's almost pathetic.
The only weapon that is at all effective is the Improvised Explosive Device (basically a really big land mine) but the IED is not a decisive weapon; it is a harassment tactic, not a war-winner.
The insurgent plays off our unwillingness to inflict civillian casulties. If we take fire from a village, it is entirely within our combat power to stop the entire village flat (in seconds!) to get him. We choose not to for very good reasons.
But if a government WERE willing to inflict those kinds of casulties (and please note that I am NOT advocating such a course of action) any would-be rebels would find themselves in a world of hurt very quickly. The idea that a self-organized citizen militia could take on and defeat the US Army, Navy, and Air Force is simply laughable.
Yes, the North Vietnamese pulled it off, but that was because the will to do what was necessary to win wasn't there. Within the boundaries of the United States proper, however, it is safe to say that will exists, given that the army that has killed more Americans than all other armies in all other American wars *combined* is the US Army. Ask Lincoln and Grant if they had the will to do what was necessary to win. or better yet, ask Lee.
Your Second Amendment is nice in theory. In practice, it is a paper tiger.
DG
Re:Apples and Nukes (Score:5, Informative)
Since you chose to open with an appeal to authority I'll respond in kind. I too am a multi decade combat arms Army vet with combat experience. The wins we have made in Iraq did not happen because of our superior forces, technology and tactics but through a political choice made by many insurgents to put down their weapons and join our side. We were not going turn Iraq until that happened - mass on target doesn't work in the modern battle field. Don't kid yourself it was a holding action at best until those insurgents decided it was in their best interests to stop fighting. Asymmetrical wars can not be won via conventional means alone.
To wit, the Iraqis NEVER had air power, artillery or anything more modern than explosives (IEDs, etc.) and small arms - with the occasional special unit with a better RPG - and yet they held against the finest fighting force the world has ever seen until they CHOOSE to put down their weapons. Its the war not the battle you have to look at. Yes you can win every battle and yet still lose a war.
Lets look at it more carefully. Iraq was not won with our bad ass fighting forces alone. Armed populations will not aqueous until a time of their own choosing - smashing villages in force just keeps producing more insurgents - which is the REAL reason we don't do that. It has nothing to do with a lack of will on our part, its just good sound strategy. If you want to be percieved as the good guy, you have to act the part. So in a complicated war that involves real time propaganda - or at least video and a means to send it to the population faster than we have ever had in the past - an armed militia force can indeed win against a more advanced force. You've cited examples yourself. But lets look at your example of this not working with an army that doesn't care and WILL kill whole villages: Afghanistan circa 1980s: The Soviet Union WAS an advanced force, did wipe out whole villages, was BRUTAL to the afghans and the rag bags that took them on with nothing more than springfield bolt action rifles (which we technology superior to the AK-47 and AK-74 because they could engage beyond 400 meters, whereas the AK line could not) and guess who is NOT in Afghanistan anymore? Did the rag bags have stingers? Yes, did they have tanks? No, nor did they have any mass fire at all. Did the soviets care about civilian casualties? NO! They poisoned wells, wiped out villages, carrief out mass bombing campaigns and did this for YEARS. AND YET THEY LOST. Those ignorant mountain peasants with small arms, a handful of stingers and simple explosives got the Soviets to quit. They simply wore then down.
Another example: you mention Vietnam, yes there is another fine example of asymmetry in warfare - small arms again with some limited use of explosives. Did we bomb the hell out free fire zones - you bet your ass we did. We kills lots and lots of civilians and it made no difference. Break the enemies will and you win. You don't have to have a better, stronger or more advanced force to win a war you simply have to be more determined to win.
And if you are a military veteran (you imply that you are) then you should know about Somalia. There is black day for the US Army that should be burned into the brains of everyone in a western military force. If you recall, thats where an inferior fighting force could be argued to have won against a superior force with nothing but small arms and 2nd generation RPGs. Did they win the battle? Fuck no. But if you recall, we (the US) left because it was simply not worth it to us to continue the fight. To win against a superior force you don't have to defeat them - you simply have to get them to quit. So you miss the point of the 2nd amendment - its about being able to fight back and you miss the lesson about assymetric warfare that the founding fathers DID understand: You can lose the battl
Re:Apples and Nukes (Score:5, Insightful)
Young? I think I'm probably older than you are. 21 years in the Army, and still going, thanks.
Those lessons you are talking about with regards to asymmetrical warfare don't apply in the case of the second amendment, because it is safe to assume that the US Army would be free to smash any home-grown insurgants flat, without regard to collateral damage, because the battle-front and the home-front would be one and the same.
This is unlike every example you cited, including your own American Revolution, because in every one of those examples, the "pro" army was fighting on foreign soil and could afford to quit.
As soon as you know the enemy *can* quit, then yes, you can keep plugging away with raids and ambushes, inflicting what casulties you can, and refusing to give open battle to a superior force - until the day when they finally cross whatever threshold triggers the decision to give up and go home.
Sometimes that threshold is high - Soviets in Afghanistan, US in Vietnam. Sometimes it is much lower - US in Somalia.
But none of this applies in a "US vs US" conflict. The American government would pull no punches in an armed insurrection on American soil. That has already been demonstrated, in the American Civil War.
If you have American rebels attempting to overthrow the US government, then the government cannot afford to quit. Where can it go? It has to fight to win, and clean up the mess afterwards. That group of rebels would be facing the raw, unadulterated might of the American military machine, and it would not survive the encounter.
That being the case, the Second Amendment is toothless. Your right to own an M16 varient will do you no good whatsever against a single tank, never mind an amroured division.
DG
Re:Apples and Nukes (Score:4, Insightful)
Sera
Re:Apples and Nukes (Score:4, Insightful)
You overestimate the vulnerability of equipment to EMP.
And you underestimate the ability of armed force to intimidate a population, especially when that armed force wears the uniform of legitimate (if not necessarily moral) authority.
Let's say you form a citzen millitia. Let's say you get as much as a battalion's worth of fighters. Let's say you occupy a rural town, and declare it free of the evil influence of the federal and state governments.
When the National Guard (who, poor cousins to the real army that they may be, are still far better equipped than your rebel force can ever dream) move to retake the town, who do you think the rest of the country will be cheering for?
Will Fox News be rooting for the defeat of the National Guard?
We're not talking about the Army firing into a crowd of peaceful protesters here; we're talking about an armed insurrection on US soil. How are you going to mobilize the masses when you are the bad guys?
DG
Re:Apples and Nukes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stupid Guns (Score:4, Insightful)
If there was a revolution in the United States, it would be much different.
The government army is obviously better armed. It is also staffed entirely by volunteers. Those volunteers have friends and family in the civilian sector of the United States. That would make most of them less than willing to conduct military missions against civilians of the United States. A percentage would in turn join the people's army.
The people's army would be not so well armed, but have a vast experience base. How many veterans are there from just WWII, Korea, and Vietnam? How many are sitting on at least a few weapons? How many would lend their skills and training to protect the people of the United States of America, exactly what they intended to do when they joined the military originally?
An army of thousands, who would be quickly split, versus an army of millions. The 2005 US Census showed that there were 24.5 million US veterans, only 9.5 million are 65 or older. There are 1.4 million active duty US military.
If it were to come down to it, and I had a seasoned 66 year old veteran standing at my side, I'd have a lot of faith that he would do what he was suppose to. Defend the people of the United States. At very least, I'd rather be on the side of 25 million seasoned vets and their families, AND the available knowledge and equipment provided by dissenting military.
I agree completely, a revolution now is nothing like the American Revolution against England, nor the American Civil War. This will be a new type of war. If things aren't resolved soon, it will unfortunately be one for the history books, assuming anyone survives to write them.
Re:Stupid Guns (Score:5, Insightful)
"I'll acknowledge that you have the right to own guns for self protection and for hunting. But I'm tired of hearing the claim that private guns somehow safeguard our civil rights."
Well, do you acknowledge the right of self defense against agents of an oppressive state?
If nothing else, having a significant percentage of the population armed and trained gives pause to an oppressive regime which would use force against it's citizens.
Re:Stupid Guns (Score:5, Insightful)
This argument always goes in circles like this, doesn't it?
I don't contend for one second that me and my 'bitty cannon (or assault rifle, whatever you like) are really going to stop the US Army, BlackWater, or even local SWAT. If they REALLY want me, they can just fly over with drones and bombs, right? I mean, lets assume we repeal all weapons control laws of any kind, and the only barrier is your pocket book. Buy an Apache chopper for all I care. Well, unless your personal budget is in the billions, the US Army is gonna win that arms race. In the end, they have the bomb, right?
I say we make 'em use it. Sure, they could nuke my house. But I don't think they want to, and I don't think they have the stones for it. Can me, two buddies, and 3 AKs make SWAT go runnin' for bigger help? Sure, doesn't really even sound hard. Could we withstand a seige or greater fire power? Of course not.
But just because Big Brother can blow your house down, don't just roll over on the assumption that he will. Make him do it, and live with the consequences.
Re:Stupid Guns (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially absurd is the recurring theory that private guns prevent the national government from becoming dictatorship. Unless you're one of those fringe idiots who advocates private ownership of nukes and other WMDs, the idea of a some plucky band of guerillas restoring democracy is pure fantasy.
In order for America to turn into a dictatorship, civil unrest must be quashed by those in power. The obvious agent to perform that would be the military. It would be quite easy for the military to corral an unarmed populace with tear gas and riot gear. It would be nearly impossible, though, to convince many service members to start shooting at armed citizens that look and speak just like them, in their own country. Soldiers/etc have a hard enough time dealing with killing dehumanized enemies in foreign countries. Orders to kill Joe the Plumber would result in a quick mutiny.
Re:Stupid Guns (Score:5, Interesting)
There are a couple of weaknesses in that argument:
"look and speak like" clearly doesn't apply to the gangsters' "soldiers" in urban areas where black-on-black and brown-on-brown violence (and white-on-white in less-urban) is prevalent. Neither does it apply to an army trained in "civilian pacification" (slaughter) where the admission standards have been lowered to allow criminals to join, as in the United States Army.
History has show that US Army soldiers are quite willing to kill anyone, as ordered, in the US. From the Whiskey Rebellion, through the Draft Riots (when Lincoln first enslaved free men to fight his war), through Kent State, with a detour through the forced labor enforced by the US Army on workers at a aircraft plant BEFORE we entered WWII, there is no time when the US Army has refused to employ deadly force on US civilians.
Re:Stupid Guns (Score:5, Insightful)
The Ohio National Guard had no trouble gunning down students. Of course, the students didn't look and and speak just like them--they were "hippies." You know, them.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Stupid Guns (Score:4, Insightful)
While the self protection bit makes a LITTLE more sense, I'm pretty sure that in 1791 it was still the norm for a man to kill another man if a bloody axe wielding maniac busts through your door in the middle of the night instead of calling for help and waiting 45 minutes for 'authorized' protection to arrive. So, it is unlikely that self protection from non-government entities was a factor.
The point of the 2nd amendment was clearly intended to make sure that private citizens had arms for protection from GOVERNMENT employees. Or, better yet, to make government entities think twice before getting too far out of hand. You may agree with the founding fathers, or you may disagree, but it is clear what the point of the 2nd amendment was.
Re:Considering the last 8 years... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why such fixation on handguns?
Can you remember the last time a constitution violation has been protested by a violent mob carrying guns, shooting police officers and lynching everyone in Capitol?
Re:Considering the last 8 years... (Score:5, Informative)
Search for the "battle of athens", a post-WWII event in the continental US, where armed citizens eliminated election fraud.
Re:Considering the last 8 years... (Score:5, Informative)
The right to a defense attorney in a CRIMINAL trial is implicit...
*FACEPALM*
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy ... the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
U.S. Const., Amd VI
THIS is why our rights are eroding! Nobody even knows what they are! There is an EXPLICIT right to the assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions. Say it with me:
Explicit right to counsel! Explicit right to counsel! Explicit right to counsel!
I'm going to go cry for the future of my country now. G'bye. :-(
Re:"Implicit" is a dangerous legal weasel word (Score:5, Informative)
Except that in this case, GGPP and GPP are both wrong; the right to an attorney is explicit in the 6th Amendment. It would be really great if people making Constitutional arguments would read the thing first.
Re:"Implicit" is a dangerous legal weasel word (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks - I was going to look that up but you got there first.
For Reference Purpose: Sixth Amendement [usconstitution.net]
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence .
Pug
Re:Considering the last 8 years... (Score:5, Funny)
Bering arms? Quick, everyone vote for McCain/Palin!
Re:Considering the last 8 years... (Score:4, Insightful)
While it's phrased somewhat trollishly, parent has an excellent point. The ACLU tends to defend only those portions of the constitution they find convenient. (like nearly everyone else in the country)
Imagine the fits they'd have if the same sort of restrictions and red tape placed on gun ownership were applied to say....exercising religions other than Christianity.
There's probably a good argument to be made about the 2nd amendment being the beachhead for the erosion of the bill of rights - it was certainly being smacked around long before the gov't. had the convenient bogeyman of terrorism in its arsenal. Once they took that out in the name of public safety, it became more palatable for assembly, speech, etc. to go by the wayside.
While I'm glad to have the ACLU around to defend 95% of the constitution, unless they take a big change of course, there's always going to be a need for another org. to be there to defend that pesky 2nd amendment they wish would just go away.
Re:Considering the last 8 years... (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, from my point of view?
Because the Second Amendment partisans don't ascribe the the same theory of protection that the ACLU ascribes to the other amendments.
They see, and are quite vocal about, considering *any* legally mandated responsibility to balance out the right to bear arms as 'infringement'.
If the other rights were 'protected' with the same vapid reflexiveness the 2nd amendment is 'protected' by the NRA, then it would be perfectly legal to lie about someone publicly (Hard to enforce, but illegal), shout fire in a public theater, take illegal drugs for anything in any way related to religious activities, or any of the other thousands of 'infringements' on the other rights that are actually simply saying that you are still responsible for the consequences to your actions.
Now - maybe the problem is that the ACLU is not nearly aggressive enough and should be defending libel and slander instead of merely relying on the 'Truth as a defense' theory, or saying that human sacrifice should be fine as long as it's in a religious cause rather than agreeing "Non-religious restrictions still apply to religious activity".
But they don't.
So when someone says "gun owners should have a responsibility to register their weapons and not sell them to complete strangers at unregulated gun shows", and the 2nd amendment aficionados have screaming fits about how "If the ACLU cared about *all* the bill of rights instead of just nine of them they would be defending my right to automatic weaponry!", it rings kinda hollow.
We won't even go into the fact that the same people that reflexively consider gun ownership an 'absolute' right so often vilify the ACLU for the far more moderate stance it carries on the Bill of Rights. How many times has Gitmo been defended by fine upstanding members of the NRA?
Pug
Re:Considering the last 8 years... (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the Canadian population is also within 100 miles of the US border. Apparently we get to search you guys, too.
I like that... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The ACLU is making their point very effectively, but I think they drew up this map of theirs rather indiscriminately. I agree with their stance, but. . . their reasoning is sloppy.
I question the total coverage of Michigan, as they appear to be treating the shores of all the great lakes, including Lake Michigan, as a "costal border," even though Lake Michigan lies entirely within the United State. And they are including much more of Minnesota and Wisconsin than they should as well, again by treating the la
Re:I like that... (Score:4, Insightful)
All the lakes DO however have international shipping lanes in them which is how they could justify it
I suspect that if the Border Patrol is responsible for international ports on that lake's shore, then the Border Patrol will justify it in the exact same way.
Re:I like that... (Score:5, Informative)
Vermont is the only New England state that isn't completely encompassed. There's a small southwestern corner that's more than 100 miles from the border. It's hard to tell, but according to the pop-up, all of Massachusetts is covered. (The "Syracuse" label could be covering up a small chunk of gray in Massachusetts, it comes near the little corner of Vermont.)
So the list of "completely covered" states is:
According to the popup, Maryland is not 100% covered, but it comes close.
What about... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about... (Score:4, Insightful)
D.C. (Score:5, Funny)
You don't need to tell me that Washington D.C. is within 100 miles of the coast to prove it's a Constitution-Free Zone.
Re:D.C. (Score:5, Interesting)
Nah, the Supreme Court finally told the D.C. government that at least part of the Constitution [wikipedia.org] actually does apply there.
no, this map makes perfect sense. (Score:5, Funny)
The large interior part looks just like Palin's map of "Real America".
Re:no, this map makes perfect sense. (Score:5, Funny)
We must do this! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the only way to make Real America (TM) safe from the liberal terrorists inhabiting the border regions!
Jurisdiction (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
If he was stupid enough to make an issue of it, what could he charge me with?
Everyone has committed a number a crimes throughout their lifetime, even if they don't know it, due to the large number of laws on the books.
It's just a matter of combing through your life and finding which of those laws you've broken.
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't tell them to get stuffed. However, you could try what this guy does...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv8hoQYeVl0 [youtube.com]
One of his last ones he was stopped there for like 7 minutes until they let him go.
The first one is good too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6uw7506xMw&feature=related [youtube.com]
All major cities in Denmark are Constitution-Free (Score:5, Informative)
Here in Denmark, we have this thing called visitation zones. In visitation zones, the police are allowed to search and question you without cause.
The three biggest cities in Denmark; Copenhagen, Odense and Ã...rhus are all visitaion zones and have been for some while now, and we have no idea when this will stop.
Still is against our constitution, but apparently that dosent matter.
Re:All major cities in Denmark are Constitution-Fr (Score:5, Insightful)
we have no idea when this will stop.
It wont
Which border? (Score:4, Interesting)
Which "US land or coastal border" is Milwaukee 100 miles from? Chicago?
Face it - the States is cooked (Score:5, Informative)
Do yourself a favour: GET THE FUCK OUT NOW.
The country's been insolvent since January. [federalreserve.gov]
It's not run under the rule of law as there is no guarantee of habeus corpus. [about.com]
It invaded another country, unprovoked. [wikipedia.org]
One election was a failure. [wikipedia.org]
And another seems to have been stolen. [rollingstone.com]
and after all of this an eloquent thoughtful (and by world standards) centrist is actually facing significant opposition from a third rate pilot and POW turned right wing hack and his "prom queen" veep choice? What the fuck is wrong with you people?
If you have any sense, get out now, before the border closes, and the country sinks into a blackhole of debt, financial ruin, infrastructural collapse, and fascist tail chasing. Seriously. Just pack your bags and go. If you'e reading this site, it is likely you have skillsets that are desirable all over the world.
And if you think Obama's gonna fix it all, you're fucking dreaming.
RS
Re:Face it - the States is cooked (Score:4, Insightful)
Dear Ralph:
There's four borders in this country. Pick one and head out. We don't need whiners like you in a small mess like this. Real Americans can take a look around, and say "I've seen worse." and rebuild. If you're not interested in that, move.
signed:
Real American.
Translation: "People who complain or criticize the current state of affairs are whiners. 'Real Americans' are people who agree with me that things aren't so bad. And if you criticize the country or think that things are bad here, then you should leave."
Anyone care to explain how this got modded +5 insightful?
Re:Face it - the States is cooked (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still trying to wrap my head around a description of Obama as "Centrist."
Well, your difficulty is due to the fact that you don't have any sort of a reasonable reference.
The Republican party is essentially the far right extreme, or corporate fascist. They are out there on the fringe.
The Democratic party is essentially moderate right wing with a few centrist/ moderate left elements.
So if you hear somebody described on the media in the US as "extremely liberal", what they mean is something between centrist and moderate right.
What they'll describe as "centrist" is hard right and what they call "right" is the far right fringe of the right wing.
So Obama is pretty much centrist, although leans a bit far to the right. It's just that since WW2, after defeating the fascists (which the US industrialists at the time were rabidly opposed to. They loved fascism and wanted it here badly.) the US took a hard right turn and has continued down that path until now we're living under the system we fought WW2 against.
So, it's really easy to wrap your head around the idea that Obama is a centrist, but you have to actually understand what that means, what the left and right are and how America was designed explicitly to be neither, meaning both left and right are anti-American.
It's this deeply gross level of ignorance over basic, simple concepts which you demonstrate which is endemic in America these days and why so many weak willed fools let themselves be so easily manipulated to work against their own best interests.
If you knew anything at all about history, politics, or damn near any other related field you wouldn't have a hard time wrapping your head around a basic simple fact.
Please for everyone's sake try and learn a little bit about reality or don't vote.
Border Patrol checkpoints (Score:5, Insightful)
I grew up in Las Cruces, New Mexico, and have been through border patrol checkpoints literally hundreds of times. Since I'm white, they always just look in my car (looking for anyone that "looks" illegal, meaning brown people), and wave me on. However, I often see cars pulled over to the side being searched, presumably for drugs.
The ACLU claims that the Border Patrol regularly exceeds its authority in these checkpoints to look for things other than illegal immigrants or contraband from across the border, and they are absolutely right. It is interesting to note that occasionally one of these border patrol stations will have a sign up telling you what they've accomplished lately. It's never about how many illegal aliens they've captured, but rather how many pounds of narcotics they've confiscated. They claim the right to search your car because you are near the border, and any contraband they find is assumed to have been smuggled across the border, whether it actually was or not.
To people that have grown up around the Mexican border, it's no surprise that the border patrol can do pretty much whatever they want in these zones. They will pull you aside at these checkpoints for anything that looks suspicious, whether it's related to border security or not, especially if you are Hispanic.
These checkpoints have always been unsettling to me. While I understand that the Border Patrol needs to be able to operate at least to some degree within our borders in order to protect the border, it is ridiculous that I have to pass through checkpoints just to get from one city in America to another city in America, and that American citizens who happen to be of Hispanic descent are treated as criminals while traveling entirely within the United States just because of their skin color.
The checkpoint I've been through the most is just north of Las Cruces, New Mexico, and a good 60 miles away from the border. In order to go from Las Cruces (the second largest city in New Mexico) to points north (including Albuquerque, the largest city in New Mexico), you have to pass through this checkpoint. This means that thousands of people every day, most of whom are residents of the state of New Mexico and were not in Mexico at any point in the recent past, get to be harassed by the Border Patrol just because they want to travel within their own state.
Re:Border Patrol checkpoints (Score:4, Informative)
This may explain their actions...look how much a BP officer is paid:
Q: What is the pay and benefits package?
A: New agents are hired at the GL-5, GL-7 or GL-9 level depending on education and experience and are paid at a special salary rate for Federal law enforcement personnel. The base starting salary is GL-5 ($36,658), GL-7 ($41,729), and GL-9 ($46,542) grade levels, with excellent opportunity for overtime pay. In addition, you'll receive a uniform allowance of $1500.00 and an excellent Federal Government benefits package including life insurance, health insurance, liberal retirement benefits, and a thrift savings plan (401-K).
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/careers/customs_careers/border_careers/bp_agent/faqs_working_for_the_usbp.xml#PayandBenefits [cbp.gov]
Re:Border Patrol checkpoints (Score:4, Informative)
Earlier this year, Three friends and I packed into a Pontiac Vibe went down Route 66, and ended up crossing from Phoenix over to Roswell.
I guess when we passed through the checkpoint we were only about 20 miles from the border, here is precisely how the stop went:
(Soldier holding machine gun doesn't even approach vehicle as we pull up)
Soldier: (Yells) Y'all American Citizens?
Us: (Pause and reply) Yes
Soldier: (Yells) Okkaaayy
We leave.
Re:Border Patrol checkpoints (Score:4, Interesting)
It really was annoying. I can't imagine doing it on a regular basis, even if this only happens at random intervals. Now that I think about it, random intervals would be even more annoying.
Original 13 Colonies? (Score:3, Interesting)
What I'd like to see is an analysis of what percentage of the original 13 colonies is in the Constitution-free zone? Just eyeballing it looks like around 80%.
Re:Original 13 Colonies? (Score:5, Insightful)
These are parts of the country... (Score:5, Funny)
Map is wrong, in any case (Score:5, Insightful)
James Madison quote. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
Re:Just trying (Score:5, Interesting)
The message is simple, "You have no rights."
Seriously, does anyone think that this really has anything to do with illegal immigration? There are plenty of laws on the books to stop them from coming in and to deport them, however there is a severe lack of Federal authorities using those laws. This has everything to do with getting people used to being searched illegally.
Many times local police will pick up an illegal immigrant for drunk driving or another offense, they'll call the feds, and the feds will do nothing.
A year ago in MN a woman ran into a school bus, killing 3. It turned out she was here illegally and had been arrested before. The local police called INS (during the first arrest) and they wouldn't do anything about it.
Re:Just trying (Score:5, Insightful)
This has everything to do with getting people used to being searched illegally.
Wrong, It has to do with getting people used to being searched LEGALLY, for no particular reason, and whenever the authorities feel like it.
Because if it's legal, It must be right.
Re:The constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens (Score:5, Informative)
Strange, I took the US citizenship/naturalization practice test online out of curiosity and one of the questions was "To whom does the US constitution apply?" it was multiple choice, among the answers was "US citizens" and "Anyone in the United States"
I went with the latter and got it right. Granted there are portions of the constitution that refer to citizens specifically and those obviously would not apply. However, many portions are much more broad in their scope and the constitution as a whole is certainly applicable to all people within our border.
Re:As someone who knows a BP agent... (Score:4, Interesting)
Baton Rougue is almost 300 miles from Mexico and Cuba as the crow flies, and over 600 miles from Mexico by the shortest roads. And you are extrapolating this to say that they entire argument is crap? The simple fact that a state which does not border any country has a "Border Patrol" is ridiculous.
I live and travel in the southwest and I can tell you for a fact that it is not crap. Border Patrol has permanent checkpoints located far inland between major cities in the states, not between the border and the first major city. They stop every single car that drives through. They often have drug dogs go around and sniff cars before they let you drive on. They occasionally perform random searches on peoples cars. The only reason that this is not considered a blatant violation of constitutional limits on search and seizure, is because the courts have significantly widened their interpretation of what constitutes a customs and border search.
Furthermore, the fact is that regardless of whether the Border Patrol is exercising their power in LA, they do have that power and can choose to do so at any time.
About once every 30-50 stops, they make an arrest - a SINGLE arrest.
So by your own words they are stopping and harassing hundreds of innocent citizens for every single arrest that they make.