DHS Can Seize Your Electronics Within 100 Mi.of US Border, Says DHS 597
dreamstateseven writes "In a not-so-unexpected move, the Department of Homeland Security has concluded that travelers along the nation's borders may have their electronics seized and the contents of those devices examined for any reason whatsoever — all in the name of national security. According to legal precedent, the Fourth Amendment — the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures — does not apply along the border. The memo highlights the friction between today's reality that electronic devices have become virtual extensions of ourselves housing everything from e-mail to instant-message chats to photos and our papers and effects — juxtaposed against the government's stated quest for national security. By the way, the government contends the Fourth-Amendment-Free Zone stretches 100 miles inland from the nation's actual border."
How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:4, Interesting)
Can they go into Canada or Mexico and seize stuff? Is this even legal? Or does it count as an invasion? Or has it got to be in the sea?
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes and no. They can cross into Canada if they're perusing a suspect and there must be R&PG according to the treaty, same applies to Canada border agents crossing into the US. To the no part, anything else is considered a violation of the border treaty and of other agreements.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Informative)
R&PG = Reasonable and Probable Grounds [wikipedia.org]
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:4, Funny)
To translate your post so Mashiki could understand it:
A. YWTSWJSTO, RTUASOA.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsense. Obscure is only a useful term in context. What web site do you think you are on? CanukShisters.org?
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:4, Insightful)
And don't forget, all your airports that serve planes that travel in/out of the country also count as being on the border, so there's a 100 mile radius around them with this constitution-free zone as well.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Informative)
What a load of bullshit and slashdot is of course gobbling it up, it's 100 miles from any land and sea border. The airports themselves are constitution free zones as well, but there's no 100 mile bubble around them. 10/10 troll good sir.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
peruse tr.v. perused, perusing, peruses: To read or examine, typically with great care. So in other words, it's pretty much what they're saying they're entitled to do.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Insightful)
The claim is that no 4th amendment right exist anywhere within the united states where the border is nearer than 100 miles.
So, for instance, where I live, which is about 60 miles south of Canada, no 4th amendment rights.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Interesting)
So it sounds like this applies to anyone living within states like Connecticut, Rhode Island, Hawaii or Florida, all of which are within 100 miles of the ocean shore. Actually, I think that all of Massachusetts (where I live) is also less than 100 miles from the shore, but I might be wrong.
I wonder what fraction of the US population lives within 100 miles of the national border. I'd guess it's well over 50%, but I don't see any easy way to find the number. Anyone know?
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Informative)
2/3rds of the US population lives within the constitution-free zone [aclu.org]
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Informative)
that map is not entirely accurate.. _official_ international borders between the u.s. and canada in the great lakes are in the water, NOT along the lakes' shores. michigan, for instance, is not entirely within 100 miles of the border; and chicago is not even close to being within 100 miles of an international border (lake michigan is entirely within the u.s. which makes the nearest border to chicago over 200 miles away, near detroit).... http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/373/greatlakeborders.png [imageshack.us]
regardless, the government has gone waaaaay too far here. i refuse to submit simply because might happen to live or travel within 100 miles of one of the great lakes or an ocean coast. i wouldn't be surprised to see them try to extend this to navigable inland waterways, too.. that would cover most of the rest of the population so they could molest and harass (and steal mp3 players, laptops, tablets, ereaders, etc, just like tsa/customs at airports, from) pretty much anyone, anywhere, without cause (as if anything is really stopping them now)
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't speak for the TSA, but if I were an honest, god-fearing, terrorist-hating TSA official, hell-bent on winning the good fight for freedom and values we're fighting against our enemies, I'd be hard-pressed not to point out to you the simple fact that terrorists can embark anywhere on the US side of the lake shores, making the shoreline the first line of d-fence. It would be obvious to me that to confront the terrorist threat along the shoreline and marine borders effectively, the 100-mile freedom zones should naturally extend from the beach inland, and not be arbitrarily defined from some imaginary liberal line you call "border".
Also, were I working for the TSA, I'd say that your soft position on the threats facing this great country makes you a help to the terrorists and a conduit of the dangers terrorism poses to the American way of life. You should repent and amend your ways.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not sure what the situation is now, but during the summer of 2002, just about 9 months after "9/11", a friend and I sailed from Kauai to San Francisco. We saw basically no one out at sea, and could have met up with anyone carrying whatever sort of munitions. When we arrived in SF, we sailed/motored to his dock, tied up, were picked up by his wife and went home. No customs agents, no TSA, no nothing. If a nuke were available, I've got no doubt that terrorists would have no trouble killing millions.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Insightful)
You didn't notice the sub shadowing you? The Satellite overhead that tracked your progress? You only think you were unobserved.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Interesting)
I regularly sail between Seattle and Vancouver, and never declare myself or register with customs. I've been doing it for decades. I once even called customs like you're supposed to when I docked, and they were confused and told me I didn't need to do anything. The coast guard has stopped me before and doesn't care.
Its not just the water either. Near Vancouver there are numerous dirt roads that simply go right across the border, and no one seems to care.
Border security is a joke.
Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
If a nuke were available, I've got no doubt that terrorists would have no trouble killing millions.
Why would they bother? Killing people is just the horrible means terrorists use to achieve their aims. The terrorists goals are usually to oppose the US' historical championing of freedom and democracy throughout the world. From what I see sitting well over 100 miles north of your border they don't need to bother anymore: if you can't support freedom and democracy in your own country you have zero credibility when you try to promote it to the rest of the world. The US might still be more free and more democratic than a lot of nations but to champion it you need a squeaky clean image not a "ho-hum and getting worse" one.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Informative)
(a)(1) External boundary. The term external boundary, as used in section 287(a)(3) of the Act, means the land boundaries and the territorial sea of the United States extending 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with international law. (2) Reasonable distance. The term reasonable distance, as used in section 287(a) (3) of the Act, means within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States or any shorter distance which may be fixed by the chief patrol agent for CBP, or the special agent in charge for ICE, or, so far as the power to board and search aircraft is concerned any distance fixed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
No, international airports does not count as an external boundary.
And no, embassies [slashdot.org] does not count as an external boundary because contrary to common misconception embassies are not foreign soil.
And no, Indian Reservations [slashdot.org] does not count as an external boundary because they are not external.
I am correcting all these misconceptions because there is no need to twist the truth when it's on our side. There's no need to make up imaginary international boundaries within our country in order to inflate the numbers; even if only 1% of the population is living in the constitution-free zone that would be far too high. The truth is on our side and we just need to present it as it is; sugarcoating it or even tempering with it simply undermine our own argument and our own credibility.
I brought up the constitution-free zone map in an argument once and my opponent immediately pointed out that the international borders cut across the middle the of great lakes. In a single stroke both ACLU and myself lost our credibility in that argument.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Informative)
My entire state, according the the ACLU map, is in this zone. Our state motto is: "Live Free or Die". I laugh, sadly, every time I hear somebody say that here with pride.
Oh, we don't have to wear seat belts though. I guess I just don't understand what "Live Free" means as obviously not being required to wear seat belts is more than an even trade for losing your 4th Amendment rights.... Riiiiiight.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:4, Interesting)
2nd as last resort (Score:5, Insightful)
You do understand that such action would be in response to abuse, not in anticipation of same, right? Right?
Even the American revolution didn't just fire up the first few times King George abused the colonists. It was a cumulative thing. Now, as to whether current events could reach such a crescendo of abuse as to actually inspire revolution... I doubt it. The average American today seems more intent on sitting in front of the television and chowing down some fast food. While the television in turn keeps them enthralled with nonsense about terrorism, saving the children, and whatnot. So I think it'll have to get quite a bit worse before anyone meaningful seriously contemplates violence.
The question seems to be, will it get worse, and just how bad would that be?
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Second Amendment is the most powerful tool we have to combat tyranny, and only the last resort in the case of tyranny that is ignoring the will of the people and has usurped democratic processes, where checks and balances have been broken down and violations of the constitution are unchecked. It does seem as though we are getting closer and closer to that point.
It is true that it is a last resort, we should not have re-elected Obama, we need to elect out people who have presided over the incursion on rights, those who want to violate the second amendment and other amendments and so on.
Because the second amendment is a deterrent, it actually can help us keep us from getting to the point where we need to use it. Notice that these egregious violaions of the constitution are increasing at the very same time that they are pushing for gun bans? They know that these violations, would anger an armed and constitution minded public, so they are pushing for abolishing the second amendment so they can continue to expand their totalitarian scheme they have already begun.
The second amendment is really all about preserving what is really the only effective deterrent to the tyranny, an armed population. Therefore, the second amendment was specifically intended that the people have military grade arms, in order that the population at large has some sort of parity against governmental power, and that the ultimate power is kept with the population rather than power consolidated into the hands of the government.
When the government is ignoring elections, the elections have been abolished or are a farce, and the government commits widespread violations of the constitution with no check against it. you really do not have any other options except the second amendment. If the elections system is broken, then pretty much there is nothing else that will restore the constitution except the second amendment solution. It is the threat of the second amendment solution, the fear of it by government, that keeps the government on its toes. A population ready to as a last resort revolt is the best defence of the constitution because the government just doesnt want to mess with the constitution and bring about the anger of the public.
So the main role of the second amendment is as a deterrent that is meant to prevent us from getting to the place where the second amendment would even need to be used.
It is sort of naive to assume that leaders have no desire to expand their poiwer. i mean, that people would think that is supreme arrogance. In fact, its human nature that once leaders get a taste of power, they want more and more of it, they become addicted to it and cannot get enough. Why wouldnt leaders want more power? They end up dreaming of the day when they have unlimited power to do whatever they want without that constitution in the way. We are very naive to think that a disturbing percentage of our leaders have never had such thoughts or such cravings. These totalitarian personalities are everywhere, they are attracted to the government, and try to work their way into it. Its basically just a fact of life. It i therefore necessary that the public is well armed, this sends a message that the people are not going to tolerate a tyranny and for the totalitarian dashes their hopes of despotism. The first thing a totalitarian will try to do therefore, is take away guns, especially the ones which are military grade, which are exactly those that presents the most threat of an armed revolt.
Anyone who thinks that governments cannot go tyrannical is also just ignorant of history. History has shown that governments which are democratic often do become tyrannies and that gun confiscation is the first step. The Nazis for instance confiscated guns as the first phases of their totalitarian agenda and schemes. There are dozens of other countries where gun confiscation has been preceded by genocide and totalitarian regimes.
Absolutely we must remain vigilant on incursions to our rigths, by electing out those who violate them, so we never end up to a point where the second amendment is the only remaining option that we have.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:4, Informative)
That info (circa 2008) is in the last link of the /. article. It's apparently 2 out of 3 US citizens.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, this includes your home. The local police have to abide by the idea that warrants are required but if the DHS decides you are a possible terrorist threat, citizen of no, you have no rights whatsoever. This was all discussed when the original 100 mile constitution free zone went into effect. And there have been examples of people who wouldn't cooperate with the local police and so, when the local police could not get a warrant of their own, they've call the DHS. The DHS needs no warrants to detain, not arrest, you, has no limits on the amount of time they can detain you, since it's a matter of national security and need no warrants to search and seize any of your property for as long as they wish. The original 100 mile zone has since been extended by various means to include pretty much all of the United States. Whether you want to agree with it or not, you're already living under martial law.
What can cure this? A population that will stand up for its rights, although that does indicate you might be a terrorist in the new FBI guidelines, electing more independents that don't tow a party line and work for their constituents instead and accepting that in order to be free you also have to accept some risk. Give up your freedom for what you think is security and you'll find you have neither. Old Ben said something like that. People should listen to him.
But it's too late to have that under this government. It's already declared martial law in a covert manner and is testing the military with the question "If your command-in-chief ordered you to fire on American citizens, would you?" The higher ranks are already being purged of those who said no.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Informative)
But it's too late to have that under this government. It's already declared martial law in a covert manner and is testing the military with the question "If your command-in-chief ordered you to fire on American citizens, would you?" The higher ranks are already being purged of those who said no.
+5 Informative for that bullshit? Come on. Prove it.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, this includes your home. The local police have to abide by the idea that warrants are required but if the DHS decides you are a possible terrorist threat, citizen of no, you have no rights whatsoever.
And, of course, there has been much discussion recently of the leaked documents outlining the policy that the US government can simply execute anyone labelled "terrorist" at any time. Granted, that hasn't been reviewed by any courts, and the Supreme Court might declare execution without trial unconstitutional. But that might not be much consolation if you're dead.
Then there's the question of where in the world this isn't true.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then there's the question of where in the world this isn't true.
How about most places? There has been a tendency for people who admit that things aren't well in the USA to tack on a "but it's like that everywhere, right?" to make it seem less bad.
The trigger for the US introducing many of these heinous laws was the 9/11 suicidal plane hijackings, which killed 0.001% of the population. In contrast, Norway was hit by a comparatively larger terrorist attack in 2011, resulting in the death of 0.0015% of the population, which resulted in no new "security" laws.
The rest of the world does not automatically become a police state just because the USA does.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Funny)
I guess living in peach is too much to ask of this country anymore.
James?
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't need all the luck in the world. They have half of the guns.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Interesting)
Washington DC is within 100 miles of the border, right? So if a DHS agent wanted to seize the laptop of a senator or representative under suspicion of bribery (a violation of 18 USC Sec. 201 [house.gov]) he or she would be within their authority to do so without needing to worry about the li'l old 4th Amendment?
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Funny)
What about anybody living within 100 miles of space? That's a border too.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think they should extend that to within 100 miles of the coast line too. I'm about 80 miles from an ocean. I wonder how much of Washington DC is more than 100 miles from the coast.
They need to walk a mile in the shoes of anyone near a boarder to realise the pain. How many illegals are in Washington DC? Maybe it is time we stopped everyone there to find out.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Interesting)
The "border" is much larger than you seem to imply.
Every airport at which international flights routinely land is also a "border". And, if a small plane from Mexico or Canada can land at a small airport, then that would be declared a "border" as well. And, if you have a few acres of land near you where an illegal flight MIGHT land, it's only a little bit more of a stretch to say that it could be an airport.
This is the slippery slope by which DHS can barge into any home in America. Any. No one is safe.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the slippery slope by which DHS can barge into any home in America. Any.
So could any terrorist. It's the duty of the citizens to protect themselves, thus we never needed a DHS in the first place.
No one is safe.
Not true. Freedom doesn't imply safety; However, by taking away freedoms the government is now fairly safe from its citizens. Life is dangerous, "safety" is a disease; Use caution instead. The DHS was founded under the guise of providing safety, see? Instead of panicking we should have just used personal caution, and not rely on others to provide non-existent preemptive safety.
If you read the US Declaration of Independence [archives.gov], down near the bottom in the list of abuses of the citizens it cites that the King of England "has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance." It's pretty much like what's happening now: We're being forced to pay for the many new offices of the DHS which only serve to harass us while eating away our sustenance in the form of taxes, and eating the funds of other beneficial programs.
I encourage everyone to read those list of abuses and compare them to events of today: "He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures." Hell, they go worse than this and simply try coming up with laws decided in Secret via treaty, remember ACTA? Kangaroo Courts, where the famous and police can get away with murder or massive fraud -- Corporations frequently try to file suits in such a way to make them more expensive to get to, just ask G.Hotz. I could go on, but it really is quite uncanny how many of the abuses listed by our forefathers are now mirrored in today's happenings. The founding fathers thought many of the practices today's people are subjected to were intolerable and that it was their duty to fight a revolution and not "suffer, while evils are sufferable", instead they chose to "right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed". If only they could see us now... The once brave now cower, because their Land of the Free isn't.
I guess some good has come of it all: If we every did want to turn it off and on again, we could simply re-use the same declaration, and just add some new signatures.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Informative)
The claim that the there is no 4th amendment right within 100 miles of a border is false. (Though the federal government may occasionally conduct illegal searches on that basis.)
As wikipedia [wikipedia.org] says, "Despite federal law allowing certain federal agents to conduct suspicionless search and seizures within 100 miles of the border, the Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent (such as international airports)."
Wikipedia offers this Supreme Court decision [google.com] as an example: a non-US-citizen was busted for marijuana possesion while driving 25 miles from the border; and the SC ruled that the search of his car could not be justified by the border provision.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Informative)
Idiot. Go back and read it again. You missed the part about the 100 miles being bullshit according to the Supreme Court. They threw the case out because it was 25 miles from the border and the exception is for THE border not miles inland. The TSA can say the moon is purple but it doesn't change the damn color of the moon does it? They can't change the Constitution either no matter how hard they try.
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck you DHS (Score:5, Insightful)
Go die in a fire.
Re:Fuck you DHS (Score:4, Insightful)
No, not violence, but creative irony (Score:4, Funny)
Instead of violence, I wish them perpetual GroundHog Day at the transparent airport security booth of the coughing Dr. Longfingers.
But not the constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
But not according to the constitution. It's more unauthorized law from the "SCOTUS says SCOTUS can say whatever it wants because SCOTUS says so" crew.
Re:But not the constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more complicated than that. The founders recognized that a nation is partially defined by how much control it has over its borders. This includes controlling what goes through the border. And in order to do that, it is necessary to be able to inspect anything. And in order to do that... well, you have to be able to do it without something exactly straddling an imaginary line. And now you're down into implementation details that have nothing to do with the constitution, SCOTUS or anyone else at that level.
Go write your congress critters that a border that is 100 miles wide makes a mockery of the spirit of the law, while still obeying the letter of the law. But that's the only way you're going to change that.
Re:But not the constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
Pointless without an envelope stuffed with money. They won't even see it.
Re:But not the constitution (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, complaining about it will probably get you put on a watch list. After all, why would you want to restrict the actions undertaken by the brave men and women of the Department of Homeland Security unless you hate the security of the Homeland because of your terreristyness?
Re:But not the constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
An envelope stuffed with money to read it, and a briefcase full of money to do anything about it...
Re:But not the constitution (Score:5, Informative)
The founders recognized that a nation is partially defined by how much control it has over its borders. ... Go write your congress critters that a border that is 100 miles wide makes a mockery of the spirit of the law, while still obeying the letter of the law.
You know, I've read over the Bill of Rights many times, and I've never seen a part that says, "These rights shall not apply within an arbitrary distance of the borders of the United States." So your "letter of the law" claim seems a bit questionable. If the founders recognized the need for an exemption in border areas (however defined) they could have written it in there.
Re:But not the constitution (Score:4, Insightful)
"The founders recognized that a nation is partially defined by how much control it has over its borders."
This is total BS, post-crazy-America revisionist history. Even just 15 years ago I could go back and forth between Maine and Canada without any search, seizure, or even paperwork on my person as often as I wished. I could hug a friend to say goodbye a foot outside the boarding ramp to an international airplane. The word "border" doesn't even appear a single time in the U.S. Constitution.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/10/04/states-vs-feds-borders-and-the-constitution/
Re:But not the constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
287 (a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 233, 8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(3), which provides for warrantless searches of automobiles and other conveyances "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States," as authorized by regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General.
The Attorney General's regulation, 8 CFR 287.1, defines "reasonable distance" as "within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States."
That's the genesis of the current state of affairs. As far as I know, it's not been tested in USSC. However, inasmuch as they've approved ex post facto laws, inverted the commerce clause (and in so doing created the legislative condition where anything they like, they can regulate), usurped article 5 powers for themselves, violated almost the entire bill of rights in other cases... this is why I blame them. If they were doing their jobs, legislators would know better than to make such as laws. As it is, legislators can expect that these absurdities may well be upheld, even though they are on the face obviously and blatantly unconstitutional. That's been no barrier to the sophists on SCOTUS in recent decades, and congress knows it.
Re:But not the constitution (Score:5, Interesting)
The Supreme Court doesn't agree about the 100 mile zone. Here is a small excerpt from one decision already rendered on the subject.
But the search of the petitioner's automobile by a roving patrol, on a California road that lies at all points at least 20 miles north of the Mexican border,[5] was of a wholly different sort. In the absence of probable cause or consent, that search violated the petitioner's Fourth Amendment right to be free of "unreasonable searches and seizures."
I guess the TSA is ignoring this which means they are laying themselves open to lawsuit. Time to call the lawyers.
Re:But not the constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
"One of the very first laws passed by the first Congress in 1787 was the provision to allow customs inspections at borders."
Hunh? Ratification of the Constitution and the first Congressional elections didn't even happen until 1789.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Congress
Even if your facts weren't like, made-up, there would still be an enormous difference between "go check out that ship" and "go empty that guy's pockets and read all his personal papers". Make-believe such as "regulating trade implies seizure of personal papers and effects" is kind of sick.
The entire country is a border then... (Score:4, Interesting)
Did this ever reach the supreme court?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ammo box
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
How does that work exactly ? You shoot at a border agent and then what ? Guns are not a solution to everything.
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you don't shoot at the drones; you take out the queen(s). And you make it known why they are being exterminated, one by one.
The Orkin Man
Re:this is going on right now (Score:5, Insightful)
there is no ammo box option. it's not an option in a civil society
That is correct. The ammo box is to be used when the society is no longer civil. For example, when your lords and masters tread upon you and enslave you. At one point it had something to do with taxes, at another - with slavery. Thirst for power also works. The society can drop the pretenses of civility very quickly (technically, at any time when civil methods are no longer advantageous.)
shooting people does what? turns you into a target for a manhunt. that's it
Largely yes, it does that. However it also tells others that their actions have consequences. Some people understand only the language of force; you can find many such people in your local MS13 gang - or, as Chris Dorner tells us, at LAPD headquarters. He may be wrong even in theory; and killing people over verbal offenses or over dismissal from a job is a terrible overreaction. He is very likely to be a mental patient because even in his manifesto you can see explosive rage where a reasonable man would record the conversation on his cell phone, then call his lawyer and get rich.
i don't really know why this stupid idea appeals to some people unless you are actually an unhinged individual
Mr. Dorner is unhinged, it is obvious from any one out of the many hints that he provided. Naturally, he is absolutely sure that he is perfectly sane and his actions are "necessary evil." All insane people are sure that they are sane. Half of his manifesto is talking about petty offenses that he was subjected to at work. He then proceeds to make a mountain out of that. A normal person would simply quit and move to a city with better PD, or he would take a different job altogether.
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
The way it works is that if enough government agents die in the course of violating the Fourth Amendment, maybe individual agents will begin to consider it too much of a risk to continue doing so. This is how it should be, and why we have a Second Amendment, after all. At the very least, if enough people stand against it, attrition will begin to become a factor and there simply won't be enough people in the Border Patrol willing to be shot at.
Unfortunately, there are far, far too many people in the country that like to talk about "liberty" and "freedom", but aren't willing to make a stand for them. It's getting close to the point where people are going to have to be willing to give their lives for such lofty ideals, or lick the hand that chains them.
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
getting? It's been at that point for a long time now. Basically since 9/11. Someone waved some dead bodies mythical enemies and everyone just rolled over, grabbed their ankles and said yes dear leader, please have your way with me.
For the all the time Americans spend looking down on North Koreans and their apparent blind allegiance, they're doing a great impression..
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Informative)
funny, what was the #1 thing the Founding Fathers gave as reason for 2nd Amendment? A: Tyranny at home. "Enemies from Abroad" was #2. What a Country, where the citizens are given the implicit right and means for violent revolution should the government turn evil.
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Interesting)
When I joined the Marine Corps, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I always figured it would be the foreign enemies I had to worry about.
There is an existing threat to the Constitution which you have sworn to defend. So... what are you doing about it?
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Funny)
"If everything people say de Tocqueville said that he didn't actually say [google.com] were put into a single book, I'll bet it would be longer than Democracy in America."
-- Julius Caesar
Re: (Score:3)
Libertarian masturbatory fantasies involving guns.
Also system theorist's tortured nighmares of an unavoidable path, repeated countless times in history.
Implied Power (Score:5, Interesting)
Further, the US Constitution doesn't grant the federal government immigration authority. It is an "Implied Power" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers [wikipedia.org]
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Informative)
The bill of rights is not the entire Constitution.
The Constitution does give the Congress the duty to secure borders and regulate commerce. In fact one of the very first acts of the first Congress in 1787 was to establish the border search provisions that you are complaining about.
100 miles inland (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, that includes all coastal cites, New York, L.A., Miami.
Re:100 miles inland (Score:4, Informative)
Well, that includes all coastal cites, New York, L.A., Miami.
Look at a map of the original United States, and then imagine a 100-mile zone inside those borders. It looks to me like virtually the entire country would have been within 100 miles of a border. Somehow, I doubt that those who wrote the Bill of Rights would have agreed that they didn't intend it to apply to 90% of their country.
Re:100 miles inland (Score:5, Funny)
Look at a map of the original United States, and then imagine a 100-mile zone inside those borders. It looks to me like virtually the entire country would have been within 100 miles of a border. Somehow, I doubt that those who wrote the Bill of Rights would have agreed that they didn't intend it to apply to 90% of their country.
I blame inflation.
I bet 100 miles in 2013 is worth no more than 2 miles back then.
How much of the nation is that? (Score:3)
Loss of Money (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, there goes $350 from me?
I was going to upgrade to a nice, shiny new Galaxy S III this Saturday, and get a data plan and everything.
I don't need either, but thought it might be nice to play around with all the cool toys, send IM and Tweets and stuff. Well. Not so nice after all.
Sorry, Samsung! Sorry, T-Mobile! I'm gonna stick with my talk & text plan on a $25 disposable that I fling down a sewer grate.
Re:Loss of Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? The guys that drew up the Bill of Rights were, as defined by the current administration, Terrorists. If they were alive today they'd stick 'em in Gitmo. They rebelled and overthrew the legitimate government of the colonies by force. I could make an argument that they actually were more free back then than we are now. If John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were alive today they'd be on the no fly list for sure.
Check out the map. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
For perspective, the entire state of Florida is included in this.
I was gonna retire there someday too...
Re:Check out the map. (Score:5, Informative)
San Diego (Score:3)
Re:San Diego (Score:5, Insightful)
As a resident of Tucson, this is alarming. If I lived farther north I'd be used to it, as Sheriff Arpaio has already made Phoenix a Fourth Amendment Free Zone.
Probable cause... (Score:3)
We are half way down the slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
So, for all the gun control fans out there, you cannot pick and choose which part of the Constitution you choose to enforce. When you start deciding that one section or another is inconvenient in the modern era you undermine everything, including the parts you like. We have a process for amending the Constitution. It is intentionally difficult.
Just as people argue about what exactly "bear arms" means, now we get to argue about what "unreasonable" means. I think they are both adequately clear. The suspension of the fourth amendment when you are actually at a boarder crossing makes sense because it is voluntary. You have a sign that says "All items entering this boarder checkpoint are subject to search". One mile away is unreasonable.
Don't worry, citizen. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is only temporary. Someday, we will increase it to 1,000 miles.
(For those who don't get the joke, except for maybe a tiny patch near Lebanon, KS, the entire continental United States lies within 1,000 miles of a border, give or take.)
But in all seriousness, nearly two-thirds the population of the United States lives within 100 miles of our nation's borders. The DHS's claims are tantamount to an outright abrogation of the fourth amendment for the overwhelming majority of Americans—an irrefutable and egregious violation of their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. So the only real question that we should be asking is this:
Freedom is a myth if our nation is unwilling to take people like this to task for wiping its a** with our nation's highest law. If we do not prosecute the DHS and anyone who commits illegal searches based on their borderline treasonous guidance, then our nation's highest law will have no teeth, and we might as well start calling ourselves the American Democratic Republic right now.
Why aren't these usurpers in jail yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't worry, citizen. (Score:5, Insightful)
And the answer is... because there are no legal penalties whatsoever defined for violating the constitution. The oath is an empty act, with absolutely no teeth behind it.
And as for the "ammo box" answer, your fellow citizens, by and large, would just as soon you attempt to gum them to death, and the government took that idea and ran with it over a half century ago in United States v.Miller.
I was detained in Charleston SC (Score:5, Informative)
My wife and I went to Charleston SC for our anniversary last year. We were just walking around downtown when a couple of DHS agents walked up to us and demanded to see our ID and our cell phones.
Without even asking, one of them snatched my wife's purse and removed her cell phone from it, and plugged it into some device.
I did not have my cell phone on me, and when I told them that, I was arrested and taken to a mobile "command center" where I was interrogated as to why I didn't have a cell phone, and subsequently stripped to my underwear because they thought I was lying about not having one.
The entire experience was humiliating.
The USA is no longer a free country. Period. And, anyone who thinks it is is deluding themselves.
Re:I was detained in Charleston SC (Score:4, Interesting)
Ten years ago, I'd have said you made that up. Even five years ago, I might have said you made that up. Last year... I believe you. And how fucking sad is that.
Re:I was detained in Charleston SC (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, too true. The post just above yours says "Even 5 years ago I might have said you made that up." Well --- as I recall (and can't take time now to search newspaper archives) -- somewhere back before the INS was part of DHS (certainly more than 5 years), an INS agent detained a well-dressed Hispanic man on the streets of downtown San Jose over the lunch hour, and asked to see his green card. The man replied that he was a US-born citizen whose family had been in California since before it was a state. The INS agent continued to hassle him -- until someone managed to whack him with a clue-bat and tell him to stop hassling the Vice Mayor of San Jose.
The attack on civil liberties in this country has gotten far, far out of hand. It is time to put a stop to it, and the best bet right now is narrow, targeted lawsuits.
Awful (Score:4, Interesting)
In US v. Boucher, DHS argues that they can COMPEL you to speak your passwords at the border.
Now, DHS is arguing that the border extends 100 miles around the whole perimeter of the US (where most of the American people live).
They ought to have serious problems with this in the federal courts.
Who the hell (Score:5, Informative)
Who the hell links to an article about the ACLU's work, without Linking directly to the work in question instead [aclu.org]
Hows that hope and change working out for ya? (Score:5, Insightful)
Reall good huh! What suckers you all were to believe the "Obama is good on civil liberties!" line. The man has proven himself by word and deed to be even more evil than Bush and Cheney. Not only does he not reverse their policies, he expands and extends them. But not a peep out of his supporters because he's "their" guy.
So let's solve the problem constructively (Score:4, Interesting)
OK so a lot of the posts here seem to be coming from the POV that the govt. has no *real* *good* reason to be doing this. It's an easy road to take, but is it right? How do we know when we don't know the nature of the threats we face? Entertain a thought experiment where actually, in reality, the world has come to the point that this law is necessary.
Imagine that it all just gets down to logisitics and time constraints of law enforcement facing off against the leverage bio-terrorism, nano-terrorism and computing power give the Bad Guys.
I am not claiming I know this to be true in reality, just asking you pretend, to be flexible and go there in your mind.
Probably, it's *going* to be true at some point in the future because offensive destructive capability always outpaces and out muscles defensive capability. Always. It's just easier to find a way to impose huge amounts of entropy on the world than to defend against that imposition. Think nuclear bombs. Think grey goo.
So pretend the shape of things to come has arrived. How can we geeks, leverage computers and technology to design a legislative/ judicial / law enforcement / social system so that we can do what we need to do to defend ourselves and still retain and even enhance our Fourth Amendment rights?
There has to be a way to defend not against a nuclear bomb but against losing what makes America America while it defends itself against a nuclear bomb, or looks for the plans for a suitcase nuke or bio-weapon or whatever on someone's computer.
There has to be a way to meet this challenge on the battlefield that *it* has chosen, where the war is *actually* taking place. What everyone 's complaints amount to a kind of griping about the battleground reality has chosen to fight on. You're *insisting* that the battle be fought *over here* on the territory you know well. That's just not the way war works. The enemy in this case is the reality of bio-terrorism and nano--terrorism and nuclear terrorism and ALSO the way that forces law enforcement's hand and ALSO what that in turn means to us. That's the battleground that reality has chosen; either you show up to the fight or you lose it.
All these arguments about the Fourth Amendment are a form of not showing up to the fight, of insisting the battle be fought on your familiar turf.
Science has taken us here, and now we are here. Reality is not going to unwind itself to preserve your idea of privacy or liberty or the Constitution or anything else. That means you have adapt to reality creatively if you want to preserve those things.
The terrorists know they have to dynamically adapt - nothing is EVER easy for them. The government knows it has to react effectively also. We're the sticks in the mud. We're the unchanging old farts who are dug in and refusing to acknowledge change. Our play in this, our imperative, is to conceive of a way to leverage technology in our affairs so that after we've done everything we need to do or can do to protect ourselves , we also can say -"Yes. I am satisfied and secure that I am protected against unreasonable search and seizure, invasion of my privacy and I *know* that my "papers" are not spied upon, the value they represent not stolen from me, or used against me in any way at all that could be characterized as "unfair" by the government. It can't be built on pure trust, on legislative fiat, because no one trusts that all people, current and future, will honor the law . It has to be built on some ground level facts about reality the way cryptography is built around some ground level facts about factoring numbers and multiplicative inverses. Trust and secrecy are bit players in public key crypto compared to what went on before with secret codes and messages. There has to be a way we can devise a system that gives law enforcement the latitude it knows or believes it needs and still unarguably preserves our way of life. We're just not being creative enough here.
We build lots of things all day long. The internet itself is so far away from anything even conceivable to our forefathers, it's effectively realized magic. There *has* to be a way we can build something that can achieve both these ends. We *have* to be that clever.
Re:Since 2008 (Score:4, Informative)
Actually they can go over 100 miles if they feel like it.
"That whenever in the opinion of a chief patrol agent or special agent in charge a distance in his or her sector or district of more than 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States would because of unusual circumstances be reasonable, such chief patrol agent or special agent in charge shall forward a complete report with respect to the matter to the Commissioner of CBP, or the Assistant Secretary for ICE, as appropriate, who may, if he determines that such action is justified, declare such distance to be reasonable."
Re:Definition of border (Score:4, Informative)
The "border" is unfortunately whatever the feds damn well say it is.
All they have to do is call you a terrorist and you can be detained indefinitely and you'll never make it to court to challenge it in the first place.
Re:So that means... (Score:5, Funny)
In Detroit? Everyone foolish enough to bring electronics into Detroit gets them taken immediately. Not by DHS agents.