ACLU Sues DHS Over Unlawful Searches and Detention

gavron writes "The ACLU has filed suit against DHS to stop the TSA from conducting illegal searches and detention. In the case at hand, TSA detained a Ron Paul staffer who was carrying $4,300 in cash in a metal box. The suit seeks to focus TSA searches on things having to do with increasing security on aircraft, instead of their current practice of 4th-amendment-violating searches, such as those of laptops, iPods, etc."

Comments

Why, oh why.

[arizwebfoot]

I hate the ACLU with a passion, however and as in this case, they have their uses.

It is not illegal to carry around large sums of money. Of course if you do, law enforcement will take it away saying it's drug related and you have to fight to get it back.

Finally, why didn't he just convert the cash to a money order or cashiers check?

Re:Why, oh why.

[HappyEngineer]

The 2nd amendment is well defended. The NRA has more than enough clout to ensure that. There is no need for the ACLU to use precious resources defending it when there are so many other constitutional issues that need defending.

Re:Why, oh why.

[rahvin112]

The ACLU like any civil liberties organization must take a definitive view of what they believe the constitution means then defend that position regardless of how other laws, congress or the courts acts on those issues. The ACLU since it's founding has taken the position that the second amendment is a collective right, not an individual right. This position was also the position of our courts since the supreme court decision in 1939 United states vs. Miller that upheld a ban on sawed off shotguns. The recent decision D.C. vs. Heller appears to reverse that position but the ACLU wouldn't be a civil rights organization if they didn't hold their own positions rather than the popular or contemporaneous answer the courts provide.

And before the page you linked was updated for the Heller decision it strictly noted that they didn't feel it was their issue to defend because organizations like the NRA are solely devoted to it and have been attempting to bring challenges to the supreme court yearly for the last 20 years (and failing every single year except for the very recent guns are a collective right. This is no way diminishes the ACLU as they still provide defense of civil liberties, just because you don't agree with their position on the 2nd amendment doesn't mean the organization is somehow less effective. In fact even though they might have a different view of the 2nd amendment than yourself this doesn't mean they are actively supporting gun control, they simply ignore the issue. In my view that is not justification to attack them as many are keen to do (until of course they need them, such as Rush's frequent diatribes on the ACLU defending bad people while at the same time he relied on them to defend him during his drug trial). The simple answer is that if you support all civil rights and gun control is an issue on your mind then you should support both the ACLU and the NRA. Not attack the ACLU and demonize them for failing to spend precious funds on 2nd amendment challenges when the NRA is already carrying that banner. I should also point out that if you don't agree with the ACLU's position on the 2nd amendment the easiest way to change it to join the ACLU and work to change their position from within the organization, not attack them and refuse to support them.

Locally the ACLU is hated because they sued the local school districts a number of times for imposing the dominant religion on all public school students. These attacks occurs even though the ACLU has actively defended this dominant faith in suits more than once where they weren't the dominant faith and were being discriminated against. I've notice many people that refer to the 2nd amendment issue, but when probed their actual hatred is usually related to the ACLU's defense of 1st amendment issues such as the recent lawsuits involving ten commandment displays where other faiths weren't given equal access. People like to pretend they support civil liberties but when it comes to true freedom of religion where all faiths have equal access in government they balk at the prospect and demonize the ACLU for forcing them to provide equal access or stop using the government to foist the dominant faith's view on the masses.

Re:Whoa...

[mcgrew]

I think "gold bouillon" is another name for beer - you know, "liquid bread".

How forfieture should work

[davidwr]

Forfeiture is rife with conflicts of interests. Those seeking forfeiture should never have more than a token stake in the outcome of the proceedings: enough to cover the marginal legal bills of prosecuting the forfeiture but not much beyond that.

For cash, burn it and destroy the ashes beyond recovery.

For everything else, sell it in a truly open auction then burn the money you raise.

Of course, this should only be done after all proceedings are final.

Re:It was for a seminar

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, Precious Metal *is* better than cash. Cash just sits there and loses value to inflation. Precious Metals (historically) don't.

Cash loses value because supply almost always increase over time. Precious metals generally do not have this problem because the supply is mostly fixed, but demand fluctuates (whereas demand for cash only increases). When the demand for precious metals declines, so does the value.

See my sig to learn more.

Shameless plug. You'll forgive me if I discount your "educational" website as bias.

Re:It was for a seminar

[besalope]

No, I am very aware of the fluctuation of pricing of precious metals. But I'm also aware that cash *never* gains value, it only loses purchasing power.

That may be the case in a standard model, but with the floating rate currency exchange system cash can indeed gain value. Since the value of currency is relative to demand for a country's exports or stability, we can actually gain if another leading country were to falter. (e.g. If Japan suddenly stopped producing automobiles, or China stopped producing steel U.S. Product demand would increase and the value of the USD would increase)

Now this model is stable in the long-run only if the governments keep their grubby little hands out of it. Sadly we've had the 'weak dollar policy' nuts in office for far too long (Looking at you Bernanke) and they have caused deflated the dollar's value to try and fix the trade imbalance. That sir is why your precious metals have increased so much in value. If the FED actually had less market interaction your metals would still be worth about ~$300/troy ounce for gold instead of the horrible inflated prices of $900~1000.

Ron Paul's precious Gold Standard would never work in an International Market. If we were isolationists it might work. Demand fluctuations in the International Market would never be factored in with a Gold Standards unless the Central Banks revised the exchange rates hourly, which defeats the purpose of the Gold Standard.

The Gold Standard was good back in the 1800~1930s but it's old and out dated as hell. Welcome to the digital age.

Re:What took them so long?

[Jane Q. Public]

The problem is that this is a tightrope walk. Police cannot give legal advice, with the possible exception of a Miranda warning. Usually, if they know the actual law under discussion they are allowed to quote it, because that is not "giving advice", but beyond that do not expect any legalese from law enforcement.

From a more practical standpoint, a police officer is not going to tell you that something he is doing is illegal or not required anyway, because that is an admission of guilt. And they know -- much better than most citizens -- how admissions of guilt work. So, in practice, a law enforcement officer who knows his/her stuff will not answer ANY questions about the legality of what they are doing.

And if you do find yourself ever being given advice from a law enforcement officer ("If you will just cooperate here I can make sure they go easy on you."), be afraid. Be very afraid. And shut the hell up.

Linguistic manipulations do not equal solutions

[joebob2000]

I-bonds are only a hedge against inflation to which the government will admit. Over the last 40 years, official measures of inflation have been massaged into disingenuous articulations that even a child could perceive.

Someone considering the use of "forever postage" as a viable store of wealth must not have much wealth to protect. Furthermore, I do not believe that there is anything that would prevent the post office from going out of business, slowing their delivery times, or for that matter decreeing that it takes more than one "forever stamp" per first class letter.

"inflation protected securities" and "forever postage" are both nice sounding names, but using these names to linguistically solve your problems is only going to lead you into trouble. Look deeper into how things work before trusting them.