Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Wouldn't it be easier to make a "Constitution Applies" zone?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I like that Michigan is one of the few elite states that is entirely within the constitution free zone. WOOO go us!
Airports?
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
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.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
The large interior part looks just like Palin's map of "Real America".
The constitution applies in the following zones:
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
It's the only way to make Real America (TM) safe from the liberal terrorists inhabiting the border regions!
That is all.
What happens if I'm 50 miles away from the border and I tell some nosy Border Patrol agent to get stuffed, I'm under no obligation to answer his questions. If he was stupid enough to make an issue of it, what could he charge me with? I legally don't have to talk to my state and local police, other than to identify myself.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
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.
Which "US land or coastal border" is Milwaukee 100 miles from? Chicago?
Do yourself a favour: GET THE FUCK OUT NOW.
The country's been insolvent since January.
It's not run under the rule of law as there is no guarantee of habeus corpus.
It invaded another country, unprovoked.
One election was a failure.
And another seems to have been stolen.
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
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
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.
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%.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
that are not the real America. Only in pro-America America does the Constitution apply. The rest of America hates America.
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.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
we have no idea when this will stop.
It wont
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
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.
Lake Michigan is entirely within the bounds of the US. Chicago is nowhere near the border.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Claiming that something is "implicit" is the way that Supreme Court usually rules that a right is not a right, even though the COTUS says that it is a right. For example, it was considered "implicit" in the Kelo v. New London ruling that simply generating more tax revenue was a public use of land, and thus any seizure of land that could generate more revenue in someone else's hands was a public use of that land that allowed eminent domain.
I happen to think that it's a great idea to guarantee legal counsel. However, the fact of the matter remains that it is not objectively required in order to provide due process of law. The main reason it's required today is that we have an overly complex legal code that sometimes Windows' source code look lightweight and elegant, and juries that often uncritically accept whatever bullshit a prosecutor tries to feed them. Ain't much use for a public defender when you have juries that believe stuff like the argument one prosecutor made in a case I read where he said that an auto mechanic booked a flight from one end of the state to the other, shot his ex-wife and snuck back home to have dinner with his girlfriend. Oh, and he had no flight record either to prove his "theory."
We're often much better off when the judiciary **advices** that something is implicit, than when the judiciary actually acts on that. Too often that's just the judges legislating from the bench.
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.
Keep posting so we know exactly when they come and haul you away.
you know, I was actually kind of hesitant to post this half-joke, but you see, that is the problem.
The USA is not a place where one should be worried about what one says; Especially when it is in defense of the constitution. I'm not going to be cowed into speaking of this crap in hushed tones.
Posting to forums and other distributed places gives a much louder and far-reaching voice than any megaphone or soapbox could offer. So I will explicitly state that I think when rights of US (and all free) citizens are taken, there is a point where the country is no longer itself.
If this house falls, it is our duty to rebuild it whatever the cost.
I am ready for that lame event and willing to take action, but I'm sure not eager!
I just hope the foundation holds.
Read my Very Short "Stories"
My mental definition of "border" means where the US abuts another country. While I agree with the ACLU's idea, shading in all three coasts seems like gilding the lily, or do the new Border Patrol rules apply to coastlines as well? If not, the numbers quoted are SUBSTANTIALLY lower.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
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.
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.
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
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.
To reply to you as well as your comment's parent Moryath, I understand that there's a lot of border-related crime going on, but I am mostly concerned with the checkpoints' effects on the common law-abiding American citizen.
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?
That's not the America I grew up in
Sadly, it looks like the America you're probably going to die in though.
Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
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.
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
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
"There are specific checkpoints in place along the routes, where the border patrol makes a stop of these buses, and they run citizenship checks. About once every 30-50 stops, they make an arrest - a SINGLE arrest."
"In short - the only people really being stopped by the border patrol are buses that they know cater to illegal immigrants. Ordinary citizens, as the ACLU claims, are not being stopped and harassed by border patrol agents - its simply not happening."
That has to be the best example of XOR I've seen an a while
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.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
That is ridiculous anti-ACLU bullshit. Please back up your retarded comment or GTFO.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
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.
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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!"
... I thought the US *was* the evil menace that oppresses the world?
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.
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.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
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.
Culture is more than commerce
Here's a better example of the insane inconsistency of the immigration goons.
Basically, ICE(immigration/customs) recently raided an Ohio meat-packing plant for employing a large number of illegal immigrants.
Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, proud immigrants(many of them illegal) march downtown every year in protest of immigration law. L.A. is notorious for being an illegals' stronghold, but does ICE crack down there? Hell no, even though they could make a much better example with thousands upon thousands of arrests.
Then again, so was the use of torture.
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.
Ahhh, yes. He must have pushed an officer just so he could get some publicity! Genius! I'm sure the ACLU didn't look into any of the police reports!
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.
Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
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.
Culture is more than commerce
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.
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.
Currently in New York City it is law that cops can stop you and search "backpacks or other large containers". The Second Amendment for years http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_3_52/ai_59243533>has only been The First Amendment can be restricted at the pleasure of politicians to avoid uncomfortable press in cities across America since the invention of the "First Amendment Zone"
Maybe that's what Governor Palin means when she says small towns are more pro-America, she means they are still protected by the Constitution.
We are all just people.
If they're using tunnels don't you think they're smart enough to avoid these checkpoints?
This is exactly what was warned against in 1984 and Fahrenheit 451. It seems the US Constitution isn't worth the paper it was written on.
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.
Legalizing drugs? Making legal immigration easier?
Circumcision is child abuse.
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).
I like having food in the fridge, illegal immigrants were critical to growing and harvesting that food. So no, I *don't* want the law enforced.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
Where as I agree with you, and note you probbly understand this.. I wanted to make it clear, the Constitution does not grant you rights. It places a restriction on only government but grants you nothing.
Tomorrow congress could pass an amendment saying..
"All previous amendments to this document are void, and generous amounts of lube shall not be applied."
You still have rights. Bush could BURN the Constitution and you still have rights.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
I think the current events confirm my belief that, for all our song and dance about the free market, we only implement it insofar as it benefits us.
Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
There've been reported incidents with the border patrol around here too, but "around here" is Upper Michigan.
This is hardly an erosion of rights. You have a choice--you don't have to use the subway or go to the baseball game or when you do go, don't carry bags. An inconvenience, yes, but not a loss of rights.
I live in NYC, and to say "don't use the subway" is tantamount to saying "don't drive on public roads". The use of the subways is economically unavoidable for most non-rich NYC residents. Daily use of cabs or having a car (and a place to park it) in the city require a fair amount of wealth. The subways are partly funded with tax money, the ball parks are partly funded with government money. They are public spaces. They should not be Constitution Free Zones. I don't object to bomb sniffing dogs hanging out near the subway turnstyles, I appreciate that the NYPD makes a real effort to protect such a likely bomb target. But the bag searches turning up small amounts of pot, or previously open alcohol bottles or other non-terrorism causes for arrest is inevitable. Sure, anyone getting caught for a non-terrorist offense was still breaking a law in the first place, but then the same logic would extend to allow search checkpoints everywhere across America. A significant number of terrorist attacks have been made by driving a car full of explosives into a crowded environment. How would you feel about having your car searched when you went to the grocery store or the mall or to pick up you kids from school? This is definitely an erosion of Rights, one with a justification but an erosion none the less.
We are all just people.
If I drive from Tucson to San Diego on I-8,besides the AZ/CA border at Yuma, I typically pass through about 3 of such checkpoints. There it is not uncommon to be asked for ID, and if you have an accent (as my parents do) for a passport/green-card. If I drive to Sierra Vista from Tucson (nearer the border) I sometimes get stopped at a "mobile" checkpoint and get asked for ID, what I'm doing, etc. The point is, none of that activity has anything to do with crossing borders, but occurs near the border, and I would argue does not qualify as "something for which papers should be required", beyond presumably a driver's license.
- 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.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
So why does your fruit need to be picked by illegal immigrants? Why not just have it picked by immigrants on a temporary work visa?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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 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.
The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
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.
That is ridiculous anti-ACLU bullshit.
His post may have been, but your hysterical defense of them was almost as bad.
If the post is ridiculous, I don't see how his defense can be hysterical. You completely avoided justifying the retarded comment about C4. Until anyone does, its really hard to call his defense hysterical. I anticipate some idiot responding to my post and never defending the original retarded claims about C4.
Just callin' it like I see it.
Even scarier - we only implement in so far as it appears to benefit certain segments of the voting/donating population.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.