ACLU Creates Map of US "Constitution-Free Zone"

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.'"

Comments

Praise be to Obama ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who will stop the Bush administration's never ending destruction of the Constitution.

Am I trolling? Why, yes I am.

Re:I like that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Michigan? why not ?
What town in Michigan likely houses the highest number of terrorists in the USA ?
, GEEZ think man.
  If homeland security didn't put a 60 foot wall around that one town and an army of undercover police it would be criminal,
If you can name the town I'm tailing about, then you know what I mean ,

In order to counterpoint you:

[Moryath]

- There are a large number of Mexican criminals (Mexican mafia, drug gang members, murderers, rapists, etc) who have slipped into the US to avoid prosecution in Mexico.

- Border checkpoints work both ways. We're responsible for our criminals slipping into Mexico trying to avoid prosecution too.

- The US has a large problem with drug importers on every border.

- 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? Remember, under the law as decided by the Supreme Court, all that is required is reasonable suspicion.

Slashdot story should be reworded to read: "American Criminal Liberties Union Upset Over Nothing Again."

Re:In order to counterpoint you:

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

This is the ACLU. They used to have something with freedom. Then the loonies took over.

Now they're fighting for the "right" for people to scream "allahu akbar" in their garage while constructing an electrical timing device in a location where C4 is found - you know, your perfectly normal sunday activity.

It's "constitutionally protected" freedom, you know. "Until it actually kills others", you know.

Got any spare kids ? The ACLU needs lots of them.

Re:In order to counterpoint you:

[Moryath]

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?

Much of the time, the border check is circumvented - drug mules or human smugglers "walk" their cargo across the border a few miles and then meet up with a car or truck further into the country, past the on-the-border checkpoint. How would YOU respond to that? The second simplest way is a secondary, redundant checkpoint.

The actual simplest way would be a good solid fence, but there are people who hate that idea with a passion bordering on insanity for some reason (such as, they don't actually WANT the law enforced).

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.

No, it's a reaction to the smugglers who are trying to circumvent the at-the-border searches.

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.

Link Please. If he was really a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" I'm willing to bet he was trying to provoke a "story" and did something else, like start physically pushing the officers at the stop, to give police probable cause to detain him while they got a search warrant.

Re:In order to counterpoint you:

[Moryath]

You seem to be surprisingly accepting of genuinely gestapo methodologies.

You have yet to provide any evidence of "gestapo methodologies."

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.

The more hurdles you put in place, the harder it is for the smuggling to go on. Will it ever be perfect? I never claimed it would. You adjust your tactics to the situation at hand, you watch the data, and you keep tuning the system as best you can. The smugglers' current tactic is to walk people across the border in a non-checkpointed location, then hook up with a carrier to try to go to cities. If the smugglers change tactics, we have to adapt methods as well.

Two checkpoints beats the one static "at the border" checkpoint. Making the secondary checkpoints mobile makes it harder for the smugglers to plan swap-offs and march their cargo around the second point, and when you see someone come up to a checkpoint and turn around to route around it, you had better send someone to pull them over and search them.

And before you whine about them "not doing anything wrong" if they turn and flee the mobile checkpoint, remember: The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that flight from the police is, itself, sufficient Probable Cause for a search. (Terry v. Ohio, Illinois v. Wardlow).

Re:In order to counterpoint you:

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, you truly don't understand what the parent is trying to say ...

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.

That's just freedom of speech. When you're threatening someone the ACLU doesn't like ... like a republican ... or a jew (oh right we should say "israeli" these days, because that makes all the difference in the world) ... or any group that gets ignored by the press in general ...

When you're saying, however that a muslim, should probably either drop his belief about a certain state system which currently calls itself a religion for convenience, or get out, that, however, is a heinous crime.

Your cell phone is an electrical timing device. So is your kitchen timer.

And when wires come out of those things and have the exact advised voltage to set off C4, which is also found in the same premises as said kitchen timer, you're probably not making popcorn.

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).

There is *no* reason to have C4 other than "I need to blow something up and I can't have people see me put the stuff there". Any business would use economical explosives, not just look for smallest to transport with biggest bang, damn all that cost stuff.

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.

Just wondering ... what, according to you, happened on 9/11 ? I mean other than an attack on the united states by a foreign military force ?

How come that, while people are complaining like hell about Bush' policies, they seem to have prevented a repeat, despite repeat after repeat of people like you that they'd make things worse ?

If Obama gets elected, another attack will occur, just as soon as the muslims realize he's not going to implement sharia law in the US, that even he is actually going to try to stop them. And because Obama has relaxed security, the attack will be all the worse. Or he will do something truly stupid, like retreating from Iraq then "save money" by withdrawing american protection from the Persian gulf and "inadvertently" kill the oil trade dead, possibly he'd be stupid enough to let "normal" piracy (for that region, or should I say religion, because it's not exactly limited to that region, it *is* limited to that "religion" however) kill it. And, despite the green lunatics calling for savings on oil use, I can guarantee that 5 minutes after the first oil shipment comes late, every last green lunatic will join the military voluntary, merely to increase the chance for a resume of the oil trade.

And what will Obama do ? Exactly what a demagogue does at that time, pick an external enemy and tell them to start killing.

That, lowering basic protections by a democrat got the US into WWII. It will get the US into WWIII.

But hey "at the moment it makes you feel good". If that's how you select policy, you deserve exactly what you'll get.

I think what the parent is really trying to say is that you should open a history book and start reading. Who are these people that attacked you ? What has happened to them in the past ? What have they done ? Did America fight them before ? (yes) What happened ? How was that war conducted ? What was the cause (the slave trade conducted by those muslims). What ... first read up

Considering the ACLUs opposition to the 1st and 2n

[Iowan41]

One has to take their claims with a huge grain of salt.

Re:Considering the last 8 years...

[TimSSG]

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.

So, you kids make sure you a a valid birth certificate or your parents can kill you at any time till your are 18. Or, does it go past 18 years of age? Tim S

Re:I know someone who was affected by this!

[cdrguru]

No one expects to be randomly checked inside their own borders and to be harassed by federal agents.

Wrong. Almost every other country on the planet has serious enforcement of immigration laws, most of which are far, far more restrictive than those in the US. Are you thinking that the entire country is a safe zone that once someone gets across the border or overstays their visa they are free to do whatever they please?

Someone from a Phoenix radio station drove down to Mexico not too long ago and crossed the border at some unattended area. Illegally. They drove into some small town not far over the border. Within 30 minutes they were surrounded by miltary vehicles - the Mexican Army was there defending their border. Is the US not entitled to defend its border similarly?

Re:Here's a list:

[gregorio]

I had to stop reading your comment after this, since the absolute ignorance displayed in it so dumbfounded me. You and people like you are the reason for the War on Drugs and failures far worse than ever happened during Prohibition. You are the reason criminal enterprises make vast sums of money from black market substances.

The reason why criminal enterprises are making a lot of money is this whole "recreational use" bullshit. All these selfish "recreational" yuppies don't give a rat's ass about all the lives destroyed in Mexico just so they can get their drugs. To them, it's all about being "trendy", and "modern", while in fact is just the old attempt of escaping from a very sad life. Most of them have goob jobs and attended good universities, yet can't manage to find something (other than drugs) to fill their void. That's why people dying in Mexico is a non-issue: those "recreational" idiots are also trying to survive.

A recreational drug user is the same thing as a social drinker. Someone who occasionally consumes alcohol, but rarely if ever drinks enough to go over the legal limit, let alone get hammered. There are lots of nice folks leading happy, productive lives who are social drinkers, just as there are lots of nice folks leading happy, productive lives who occasionally use marijuana (typically what people mean when referring to recreational use). Your proclamation that such people don't exist doesn't make it true, it just makes you look like a fool to all the people who know otherwise.

Alcohol is also a destructive substance, with lots of issues related to it. But, it lacks most of the extremely powerful chemically-addictive characteristics of modified Marijuana, which is filled with additives to make its use more interesting. I don't actually care if people use this kind of thing, if they don't try to convince me that they're super-smart people "just having fun".

Given your ludicrous statement coupled with the fact that alcohol is a drug the same as any other legal or illegal drug, you must also believe that there is nobody who drinks alcohol who also leads a happy, productive life without letting their use of alcohol interfere. Itching for a return to Prohibition as well?

I don't give a crap about adult people being able to use alcohol, marijuana, cocaine or even nasty things like LSD. In fact, I would love if the common man started to use such things in excess: it's a pretty good business opportunity and it would make competition much easier in terms of achieving better job positions or outperforming other companies.

You can bash me for taking a "please, think of the children" approach, but I'm not currently a fan of this "recreational use" bullshit mostly because it creates a culture (and also a market) that allows teenagers to inherit this kind of behaviour. The other reason is that drugs ARE illegal and the only way of purchasing them involves financing criminals. I will never, I repeat, never, agree with somewhone who finances murder and destruction of lives just because they want to have some fun.

Build a system that actually forbids people under (put any age here) to buy alcohol and I will happilly defend your right to stay all night on the street, shaking from your nice dose of drugs. In fact, if drug legalization happens one day, I would be more than glad to SELL them to you.