Slashdot Mirror
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."
... a Ron Paul staffer with cash? I thought they all carried gold bouillon.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Oh, it had to happen to someone important and/or with money.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
I know this is slashdot, but RTFA for details of how this guy was harassed. He was not kindly told to "come here an open it up for us".
Finally, why didn't he just convert the cash to a money order or cashiers check?
Well the article states that he was returning from a Campaign for Liberty event with the ticket sales, concessions, etc. so maybe he didn't have time to convert it to anything else.
Oh yeah, you gotta hate those guys who spend their time trying to stop the government from trampling on people's rights.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
If he was carrying over $10,000 they could have reminded him of his legal obligation to file a CMIR. But he wasn't. Carrying $4,700 isn't a reportable event and is none of the TSA's business. (In case you don't know banking regulations: 31 CFR 103.23 requires that a CMIR be filed by anyone who transports, mails, ships or receives, or attempts, causes or attempts to cause the transportation, mailing, shipping or receiving of currency or monetary instruments in excess of $10,000, from or to a place outside the United States. The term ``monetary instruments'' includes currency and instruments such as negotiable instruments endorsed without restriction. See 31 CFR 103.11(k).)
Finally, why didn't he just convert the cash to a money order or cashiers check?
Unless you have an account with a bank, they won't do it.
Two, that's NOT for you to say. I agree carrying that much cash isn't the wisest thing to do, but unfortunately, the way the banks are, cash gets an IMMEDIATE credit to your account whereas a check, regardless of who issues it, means at least a ten day hold on the funds. Also, maybe this guy wanted to make a political statement and actually have grounds to sue the TSA. He actually put his ass on the line and is doing something about it; which more than I can say about your typical Slashdot pontificating whiner.
Three, I hate the ACLU with a passion.
Why?!? Did they defend a certain segment of the population that you hate? Like a black person? Or a homosexual? Or is it because they fought a town for putting up a nativity scene? Or is it because of their stance on gun rights? Even then, to hate them over that?!
You listen to AM radio, don't you.
DHS is just a solution looking for a problem.
It's just take a number and they aren't finished defending the First Amendment yet.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
How can a "American Civil Liberties Union" that is really interested in protecting said liberties take a "neutral" stance on one of my liberties ... and more often than not, an anti-liberty stance, in that case?
If you are supposed to fighting for my liberties, I hope you don't take a "neutral" stance on whether or not I should receive said liberties.
The problem is, the ACLU isn't just about liberties. They have a political position, and certain things rub their political position the wrong way. They are all for liberty and freedom, to a fault IMO, with some aspects (e.g., abortion). Totally not in some other cases (e.g., homeschooling/gun laws).
I don't know. I used to work for someone who sold stuff at computer shows on the weekend. We would carry cash in a metal box. It is frequently known as a cashbox. It had a lock on the front and dividers in it to separate various denominations. I can easily see someone in the situation described transporting the money in a cahsbox (which could easily be described as a "metal box",
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
How can a "American Civil Liberties Union" that is really interested in protecting said liberties take a "neutral" stance on one of my liberties ... and more often than not, an anti-liberty stance, in that case?
Well, they do have to pick their battles. Also, nothing is stopping you from being a member (or just supporting) both the ACLU and the NRA (other than the perhaps strange looks you would get from people in both groups).
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Yeah, if ONLY there was a well funded, powerful organization that defended second amendment rights. Oh woe are me an my fellow militia men!
So you would rather the ACLU divide their resources so they can spend even less time on all the 1st amendment cases to fight for the right to bear arms when there is already several organizations that devote time and money to 2nd amendment challenges?
Personally I think if you believe that's a good idea you're a fool. If you want to devote your money to second amendment challenges then send your money into one of the dozen or more organizations solely devoted to the 2nd amendment, like the NRA. It would be foolish for the ACLU to divide their limited resources to action on the 2nd when there are so many more challenges to the 1st, 4th,, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th that they need to devote money to and there are so many other organizations whose sole focus is the 2nd. There are very few organizations that spend as much effort on 1st let alone even care about the others. Only a fool would hate the ACLU for being pragmatic about distribution of their limited funds to challenges where they are the only organization working on them.
Your statement about the ACLU working on 2nd amendment challenges is as silly as someone asking the NRA to work on 1st amendment issues.
Having spent time with the TSA, I can tell you first-hand that most TSA people are completely uninformed about their jobs, the law or just about anything they are doing. A TSA screener with half a brain wouldn't have done anything more than call in local law enforcement to perform any interrogations. There are standing instructions to inform law enforcement of anything including large quantities of cash. As to the performance of interrogations? Last time I was there, such things were never instructed. TSA screeners are not law enforcement.
The whole idea of "Department of Homeland Security" is born of a paranoid consolidation of power. It has done more to harm the efficiency of law enforcement and emergency services than it has done to help. The DHS should be dismantled and the pre 9-11 condition restored.
I am okay with government security screening, but only as far as their primary mission. If they do see anything else questionable, the ONLY proper action should be to inform actual law enforcement. "To observe and report."
I hate the ACLU with a passion, however and as in this case, they have their uses.
This is why I give money to the NRA. People like this guy are the first to form a mob when some demagogue starts telling them to go after a scapegoat. I hope if anything good is to come out of the recent wash of right-wing terrorism, it is convincing liberals of the danger of these kooks and the necessity of the second amendment to keep them in line.
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.
Cow Cube
Why should he have to pay a fee to transmute the money from one form to another? He was as a fund raising event where he was making a lot of small, cash transactions (selling t-shirts, etc.) He wasn't doing anything illegal and the money was obtained via lawful activities. This whole, "Assumed guilty until you pay a lawyer to prove otherwise" way of doing business in this country is a complete load of shit. I'm glad that the Ron Paul staffer stood up for his rights and I'm glad that the ACLU is championing his cause. The TSA is there to make sure that the planes are safe, and that the people boarding the planes aren't going to try to bring them down. Other than that, they need to GTFO with their wanna be law enforcement procedures.
To my knowledge, the only time you have to declare currency is on international flights and on amounts over $10,000.
The NRA and others already fight for those issues.
It doesn't require the ACLU to push for these things when you have Charleton Heston et al.
Hating the ACLU because they're not pushing for gun rights is kinda pointless.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
No, they ARE the problem and they are looking to create more problems. They are the solution to nothing...
-- http://anonet.org -- The internet the way it was meant to be. Check it out, you may be surprised.
You can't put a stop to official abuse unless you stand up to it. And, much as I disagree with Ron Paul and his supporters on just about every policy issue, that seems to be something that he and they understand and prioritize more than most people.
Yes, it sometimes involves personal inconvenience. That people are too interested in avoiding any inconvenience to stand on their rights is exactly what people who would whittle away at those rights rely on.
On a related note, see
United States of America v. $124,700, in U.S. Currency, United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, No. 05-3295, August 18, 2006.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
As a seasoned Internet tough guy and self proclaimed Culture Warrior (see:ireadorielly--notthetechpublisher) it is my duty to tell you the truth about the ACLU; they aren't interested in your rights, they're interested in aiding the Secular Progressive to turn America into an Atheist Communist Regigm with Rush Limbaugh as as brilliant comrade autocratic leader, and where Christians will be shot on sight -- except Muslims, they can teach Islam in school.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
I know far more people with a center or left leaning political persuasion that 'bear arms' than right wingers. They refuse to support the NRA because of its political leanings and they don't support the ACLU because it does them no good. Think of how badly the NRA's support base would be undermined if a politically neutral organization was available for second amendment support. The only NRA members left would be the right wing-nuts.
Have gnu, will travel.
If the ACLU's position was strictly, "We feel there already is a capable organisation defending this right, please see the NRA" then I'm sure the OP wouldn't have an objection. It's when they actively post a non-liberty response to the amendment that the OP is complaining about. They've chose a very restrictive view of this liberty ("restrictive" == "opposite of liberty"), and that's what the OP is complaining about.
Further, they even post that, "in [their] view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue." The OP contends that this actually is a civil liberties issue, so takes offense that the ACLU would narrowly define civil liberties to just the ones they like - which seems to be exactly the opposite of what they purport to defend. It's the American Civil Liberties Union, damnit, not the American Civil Liberties That We Like Union.
At least, that's what I think the OP meant.
I-bonds and other inflation-protected securities are are the nearly-perfect hedge against inflation. If the government defaults on those we've got worse things to worry about than inflation.
The face value of "Forever stamps" go up with postage rates, which are supposed to track inflation. The downside is they aren't very convenient to trade and store.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I hate the ACLU with a passion
Then you hate liberty and freedom. The ACLU's entire purpose is the protection of YOUR liberty.
Finally, why didn't he just convert the cash to a money order or cashiers check?
Google "Ron Paul".
Free Martian Whores!
It's also wise from a practical standpoint to either give up your rights and cooperate with the agents asking questions you have a right to not answer, or plan your itinerary such that you can miss your flight.
No, the wise thing to do is stand up and defend your rights, because if you don't, the government will continue to trample them.
FTFA: "Bierfeldt recorded the audio of the entire incident with his iPhone."
That's a felony in Illinois, and the recording would have been inadmissable in court. Yes, my legislators are liars who don't want to be caught doing something dishonest because of recorded proof. Of course, my previous Governor is headed to court (then hopefully prison) and the guy before that is sitting in prison right now.
And people wonder why our country is in such bad shape...
Free Martian Whores!
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.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It should be noted that this applies mainly to the national branch of ACLU. There are quite a few state chapters that hold strong positive views about the 2nd.
More specifically, they interpret as a collective right, which puts its outside of their mission and therefore not something that they will take action on as an organization.
While certainly one can disagree with this (and certainly, the most recent US Supreme Court decision does), the ACLU openly is about defending individual liberties as it understands them, not enforcing the current status quo declared by the Supreme Court, or defending the idea that anything anyone can imagine is in fact an individual freedom.
If one believes that things that are not within the scope of what the ACLU considers individual liberties are, in fact, individual liberties, that is a good reason to support organizations that are dedicated to protecting those things as individual liberties, but I don't see why it is a reason to oppose the ACLU. OTOH, if one opposes the things that the ACLU does consider individual liberties, that would be a reason to oppose the ACLU.
Support of an individual right to keep and bear arms is (as is, incidentally, support for every individual liberty the ACLU supports) a political position. You can't be a "politically neutral" organization and be an organization dedicated to defending or advancing a particular political position or set of political positions. What you propose is incoherent, akin to the idea of "triangle in Euclidean 2-space with interior angles summing to 240 degrees" it is a series of words which make sense individually and fit together grammatically, but which is self-contradictory and therefore meaningless.
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.
Slver, on the other hand, both increases and decreases in value over time, but on average over the last 10 years, has steadily increased:
http://66.38.218.33/scripts/hist_charts/yearly_graphs.plx
Does this mean that Silver will continue to do so? No, obviously. Silver will continue to fluctuate, and can go down as easily as it goes up. It's up to the individual investor to decide when it is time to buy or sell their metal, just as with stocks, real estate, or other investment vehicles.
As a previous commenter mentioned, precious metals are a good option to park wealth, not spending money. Historically, precious metals have never been worth $0.
Here's a graph of gold prices since 1995: http://66.38.218.33/scripts/hist_charts/yearly_graphs.plx
Have your investments done as well, as safely?
He had less than half of that 10 grand mark though...
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
The shoebomber was stopped by passengers while the plane was in the air.
Then you hate liberty and freedom. The ACLU's entire purpose is the protection of YOUR liberty.
Reread his post. He specifically states that one of the reasons he hates the ACLU is because, not only do they frequently choose not to pursue 2nd amendment liberties, but they have even opposed 2nd amendment liberties.
The ACLU's entire purpose is the protection of YOUR liberty.
Not necessarily. Their entire purpose is to further their political agenda, which frequently -- but not always -- coincides with OUR liberties. However, as OP stated, they sometimes have taken positions on issues that violated our liberties because it did not mesh with their political ideologies.
Don't get me wrong. While I sometimes (maybe even "often") disagree with the ACLU, I think the ACLU is probably a net good. But I would say that it is dangerous to assume that they -- or any other political action group -- is always entirely benevolent.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
This is just a simple case of some little dick trying to be a big dick and then cry about it when he got called.
Story time! You are on your way to Toronto to attend your cousin's wedding. But as you get into the airport, you realize you have no cash and haven't bought a wedding present yet! So you're not sure if the ATMs in Canada work for your bank and you approach an ATM. You're in a hurry to catch your flight which puts you in Toronto just to catch the wedding and in your haste, you accidentally hit an extra zero after punching in $500 and then hit enter. You're now holding $5,000 in nonconsecutive hundreds (this actually happened to my friend once).
Ok, you're not putting these in your luggage or jacket so you put them on your person and they make a noticeable bulge in the front pocket of your shirt but you don't want to lose them.
Guard notices the bulge as you walk through and asks you what's in your front shirt pocket. You look nervous and start to tell him a contrived story about being in a rush and having $5,000 on you--which is, of course, a hilarious mistake. TSA agent doesn't buy it and wants to know what it's really for. Guy wants to know who you work for. Sad thing is you were just laid off by Best Buy and the severance package of $7,000 is the only way that transaction to your checking account went through. So you tell him you're an unemployed guy going to Toronto with $5,000.
The TSA agent informs you they just arrested a guy with a bunch of cocaine on him in the airport and he's pretty sure you were his contact to make the deal and bring it over to Canada. You don't have any police record and were cleared to fly when you got your ticket but that doesn't matter. After missing the wedding and a night in jail, they can't make it stick and let you go.
You're a victim of better safe than sorry. When--guess what--it's not illegal for you to walk around with $5,000 cash on you.
Nice story, huh? Be a shame if it happened to you. But I'm sure I just have an overactive imagination and we all have nothing to worry about.
My work here is dung.
It is below the maximum amount you can take out of the country, and is well within the amount I might be willing to pay for a really neat car in another state. I'm an idiot and carry the cash on me instead of a travelers check because I'm meeting the guy late at night and the banks won't be opened and I hope to bargain the guy below the exact amount but ya never know. All of that is none of the TSA's business and they need not inspect the box beyond the fact that it contains nothing dangerous.
Why bother
That is one of the worst logical fallacies I have ever heard. Your statement is akin to saying "I killed all the tigers in Pennsylvania," ignoring the fact that there were no tigers to begin with. You can't assume the DHS is working because no attacks have been made unless you have actual evidence that the DHS is stopping the attacks, not the same safeguards that were in place before 9-11.
"Bierfeldt recorded the audio of the entire incident with his iPhone."
Need to make a record of your Constitutional rights being violated?
There's an app for that.
The intrusive security behavior of the TSA has all kinds of negative economic consequences, discouraging people from flying hurts the airlines, it also makes conducting business harder, and it separates families (with secondary but significant financial consequences). I'm very reluctant to take my family anywhere, it's such a great hassle to have your lunch and medications interrogated and seized.
And the difficulties of domestic travel are nothing compared to international. "Free Trade" makes no sense without the free-flow of people. A lot of what makes America economically appealing and strong is its openness and flexibility. I feel the travel clampdowns and growing hostility to foreigners plays a greater roll in the current economic meltdown than it gets credit for.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
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.
I have found that the best way to "store wealth" is family and community. By investing money there, wealth accrues in ways that are not affected by inflation or commodity prices.
People who think they are protecting their wealth by buying gold, because some commercial on AM radio said that "gold has never been worth nothing" are making the fundamental mistake of thinking all historical trends always continue. If there's one thing we've learned about history, it's that world-changing events that interrupt (and often reverse) those trends are the rule, not the exception. How often did you hear over the past decade that "real estate was the safest investment you could make"?
Although I initially resisted Nassim Taleb's theory of unexpected events and their impact on the way we should plan our financial lives, reflection on my own life and observation of current events have made me come around to his way of thinking.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I don't think there is a limit for domestic travel BUT it would be wise to declare it with the airlines at least 24 hours before you boarded.
For the love of everything holy, WHY?!?!?!? If there is no legal requirement to declare the money, then for what reason would it be wise to declare cash with the airlines before boarding a flight? Is the passenger sitting next to you or a flight attendent possibly going to have a reasonable fear that you might bludgeon them with a wad of cash?
It's also wise from a practical standpoint to either give up your rights and cooperate with the agents asking questions you have a right to not answer...
From a practical standpoint, maybe so, but why should we, as law-abiding citizens of what was once one of the freest nations in the world, be forced and willing to hand over those freedoms to a thug just because he wears a uniform?!?!? If I don't have a legal requirement to answer the question, you don't have a legal right to detain me. PERIOD. The sooner we as a nation start getting outraged at abuses of power and start standing up for our RIGHTS the sooner we can live in a country we are proud of again.
Unless you are deliberately out to "test the system" you will just make your life miserable with nothing to show for it.
Maybe. But maybe Bierfeldt just seized an opportunity that presented itself. I admire his courage, and hope that, should I ever be in a similar position, I would do likewise.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Interesting, because because 2001, the last hijacking of a US plain was 14 years ago (1994). That was a FedEx employee hijacking a FedEx cargo plane, so TSA/DHS wouldn't do shit to help that.
Before that, it was another 8 years (1986), and that didn't originate in the US.
So please, stop acting like plane hijackings/bombings are even nearly a threat to everyday people. You should spend your time worrying about how to protect yourself from lightning strikes, you are far more likely to be struck by lightning (on the ground, every day) than have your plane hijacked.
If the lawyers do their jobs and weed out people who can think it will be a short day for you.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The last flight hijacked that originated in the US before 9/11 was in 1976. What does that say about how they were doing their before 9/11? As we found out, it says absolutely nothing.
If other travelers were inconvenienced, they only have the TSA's unreasonable seizure and detention to blame, not the detainee.
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
Al-Qaida has attacked in the continental US twice: once in 1993 and once in 2001. After 2001, we undertook a number of activities not involving DHS with the intent of crippling the organization (such as it is). Since it's 2009, we've had about the same freedom from al-Qaida attack here that we did in 2001.
I've seen no good evidence that DHS or the TSA is doing any good.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
But if they had "stored wealth" in their community by actually improving the infrastructure prior to the hurricane then there wouldn't have been a problem, now would there?
Every time I've noticed them in action the ACLU has been defending SOMEONE's freedoms. Sometimes there is a conflict, and it's true that the ACLU's position on the 2nd amendment doesn't make sense to me. (Even if you assert that the 2nd amendment is a collective right, that doesn't mean that the government is the only entity entitled to engage in authorizing collective action.)
From my reading of history, the framers of the constitution didn't particularly trust governments, and the militias that they were talking about were local organizations that more often than not would NOT have government authorization.
P.S.: I don't believe that the 2nd amendment interpreted literally (as I tend to) would be workable in urban areas. That doesn't mean that I approve of ad hoc transgressions on and re-writing of the constitution. The constitution has defined procedures that are supposed to be followed, and just saying "I don't like this piece, so I'll say it means something else" isn't the way it's supposed to be done. Such actions are not just unconstitutional, they're anti-constitutional.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
In all seriousness, though: If you believe in liberty and small government you are called a "liberal" in Europe; in the US you are called a "libertarian" and the big-l "Liberal" term is reserved for the big-govt types...
"Liberal" is used in the US now to mean big government but it wasn't always. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other Founding Fathers of the USA were proponents of the liberalism of their tyme, which is now called Classical liberalism.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
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.
If you have any major organizations in mind that do zealously defend all civil liberties, feel free to mention them. I'm only aware of different sorts of piecemeal organizations. I pick and choose the ones that seem to best cover the range of civil liberties I care most about. In my case, the ACLU and EFF seem to most frequently defend the rights I'm most interested in (especially free speech).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
I know what you mean. The other day something remended me of another story on 60 minutes years ago about something called the "walking man" case which dealt with whether the cops could stop you and demand ID "just because". My Google-fu wasn't good enough to get past all the portable tape player links, but your reply goaded me into making an extra effort to force Google to my will and I came up with the name of the Supreme Court case from 1983, "Kolender v. Lawson". Thanks.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.