DHS Can Seize Your Electronics Within 100 Mi.of US Border, Says DHS

dreamstateseven writes "In a not-so-unexpected move, the Department of Homeland Security has concluded that travelers along the nation's borders may have their electronics seized and the contents of those devices examined for any reason whatsoever — all in the name of national security. According to legal precedent, the Fourth Amendment — the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures — does not apply along the border. The memo highlights the friction between today's reality that electronic devices have become virtual extensions of ourselves housing everything from e-mail to instant-message chats to photos and our papers and effects — juxtaposed against the government's stated quest for national security. By the way, the government contends the Fourth-Amendment-Free Zone stretches 100 miles inland from the nation's actual border."

Comments

How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[fufufang]

Can they go into Canada or Mexico and seize stuff? Is this even legal? Or does it count as an invasion? Or has it got to be in the sea?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Mashiki]

Yes and no. They can cross into Canada if they're perusing a suspect and there must be R&PG according to the treaty, same applies to Canada border agents crossing into the US. To the no part, anything else is considered a violation of the border treaty and of other agreements.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[fyngyrz]

The claim is that no 4th amendment right exist anywhere within the united states where the border is nearer than 100 miles.

So, for instance, where I live, which is about 60 miles south of Canada, no 4th amendment rights.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[jc42]

So it sounds like this applies to anyone living within states like Connecticut, Rhode Island, Hawaii or Florida, all of which are within 100 miles of the ocean shore. Actually, I think that all of Massachusetts (where I live) is also less than 100 miles from the shore, but I might be wrong.

I wonder what fraction of the US population lives within 100 miles of the national border. I'd guess it's well over 50%, but I don't see any easy way to find the number. Anyone know?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[fyngyrz]

2/3rds of the US population lives within the constitution-free zone

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[anagama]

Just click the second link in TFS. Nice diagram with the stats.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Jaysyn]

That info (circa 2008) is in the last link of the /. article. It's apparently 2 out of 3 US citizens.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[belphegore]

Don't forget a 100 mile radius around inland international airports.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[bbelt16ag]

Ok guys i got a question. Does this include your home residence as well? can DHS enter you home at any time? I have heard of the sneak and peak and of other things they can use to enter with out probable cause or a warrant...

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[balsy2001]

International waters don't start until 12 nautical miles off shore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_waters). So maybe the constitution free zone only extends 86 statute miles inland from the shore. I wonder if the constitution-free zone is based on nautical miles or statute miles. Not that this matters because this is pure BS.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Inf0phreak]

And that map isn't even complete. It's missing some 100 mile radius disks centred at inland international airports.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

"perusing" a suspect? How does that work?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[uncqual]

It's what the TSA does to passengers.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also missing areas around embassies which are foreign soils.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[SteveFoerster]

peruse tr.v. perused, perusing, peruses: To read or examine, typically with great care. So in other words, it's pretty much what they're saying they're entitled to do.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Technician]

I think they should extend that to within 100 miles of the coast line too. I'm about 80 miles from an ocean. I wonder how much of Washington DC is more than 100 miles from the coast.

They need to walk a mile in the shoes of anyone near a boarder to realise the pain. How many illegals are in Washington DC? Maybe it is time we stopped everyone there to find out.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[manu0601]

What is R&PG? Wikipedia did not help me parsing that acronym.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this includes your home. The local police have to abide by the idea that warrants are required but if the DHS decides you are a possible terrorist threat, citizen of no, you have no rights whatsoever. This was all discussed when the original 100 mile constitution free zone went into effect. And there have been examples of people who wouldn't cooperate with the local police and so, when the local police could not get a warrant of their own, they've call the DHS. The DHS needs no warrants to detain, not arrest, you, has no limits on the amount of time they can detain you, since it's a matter of national security and need no warrants to search and seize any of your property for as long as they wish. The original 100 mile zone has since been extended by various means to include pretty much all of the United States. Whether you want to agree with it or not, you're already living under martial law.

What can cure this? A population that will stand up for its rights, although that does indicate you might be a terrorist in the new FBI guidelines, electing more independents that don't tow a party line and work for their constituents instead and accepting that in order to be free you also have to accept some risk. Give up your freedom for what you think is security and you'll find you have neither. Old Ben said something like that. People should listen to him.

But it's too late to have that under this government. It's already declared martial law in a covert manner and is testing the military with the question "If your command-in-chief ordered you to fire on American citizens, would you?" The higher ranks are already being purged of those who said no.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Runaway1956]

The "border" is much larger than you seem to imply.

Every airport at which international flights routinely land is also a "border". And, if a small plane from Mexico or Canada can land at a small airport, then that would be declared a "border" as well. And, if you have a few acres of land near you where an illegal flight MIGHT land, it's only a little bit more of a stretch to say that it could be an airport.

This is the slippery slope by which DHS can barge into any home in America. Any. No one is safe.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[__aaltlg1547]

Can they go into Canada or Mexico and seize stuff? Is this even legal? Or does it count as an invasion? Or has it got to be in the sea?

It's obvious that considerations of what is legal are out the window. If they try it, just tell them that the Constitution applies to everywhere in the USA and to American citizens no matter where they are. If they really believe that they can do this legally, they're going to be telling it to a judge and that judge will not be the least bit sympathetic to the claim that the 4th Amendment doesn't exist in places like San Diego and Seattle.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[rrohbeck]

What about anybody living within 100 miles of space? That's a border too.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, under International treaty, the maritime borders of the US start 200 miles out at sea. Unfortunately I'm still within 100 miles of an International airport.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Mashiki]

R&PG = Reasonable and Probable Grounds

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[bbelt16ag]

Benji was the man, I have to give him creds on the stuff he did and said I wish we had more people Like him today. I suppose its too late to leave now right? I guess living in peach is too much to ask of this country anymore. I am going to have to go all Brave Heart on their butts.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Mashiki]

In Canada persue via the case law is defined as following a suspect within the bounds of arrest. Following CC.495, which means that the person has committed, or about to commit a I/O(indictable offence aka felony).

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

But it's too late to have that under this government. It's already declared martial law in a covert manner and is testing the military with the question "If your command-in-chief ordered you to fire on American citizens, would you?" The higher ranks are already being purged of those who said no.

+5 Informative for that bullshit? Come on. Prove it.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[nothings]

The claim that the there is no 4th amendment right within 100 miles of a border is false. (Though the federal government may occasionally conduct illegal searches on that basis.)

As wikipedia says, "Despite federal law allowing certain federal agents to conduct suspicionless search and seizures within 100 miles of the border, the Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent (such as international airports)."

Wikipedia offers this Supreme Court decision as an example: a non-US-citizen was busted for marijuana possesion while driving 25 miles from the border; and the SC ruled that the search of his car could not be justified by the border provision.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[fyngyrz]

I suppose its too late to leave now right?

Well, the question then becomes, where would you go? If your objection is that the government isn't following the constitution, then, in a world where that constitution is wholly unique (it is, believe me... other countries took the idea and turned it into a way to codify much more government-centric rule)... you kind of end up thinking there's nowhere else to go, and hope that somehow, some day, our constitution is taken as written instead of as if willful children had read it, and then forgotten most of it.

Even though there's no evidence at all that such a change is ongoing -- or likely.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah. You would think someone would just spell that out, rather than using an obscure acronym.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[jasno]

It is within 100 miles of the coast as well.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

To translate your post so Mashiki could understand it:

A. YWTSWJSTO, RTUASOA.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[detritus.]

Any Great Lakes state is especially screwed.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[sdnoob]

that map is not entirely accurate.. _official_ international borders between the u.s. and canada in the great lakes are in the water, NOT along the lakes' shores. michigan, for instance, is not entirely within 100 miles of the border; and chicago is not even close to being within 100 miles of an international border (lake michigan is entirely within the u.s. which makes the nearest border to chicago over 200 miles away, near detroit).... http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/373/greatlakeborders.png

regardless, the government has gone waaaaay too far here. i refuse to submit simply because might happen to live or travel within 100 miles of one of the great lakes or an ocean coast. i wouldn't be surprised to see them try to extend this to navigable inland waterways, too.. that would cover most of the rest of the population so they could molest and harass (and steal mp3 players, laptops, tablets, ereaders, etc, just like tsa/customs at airports, from) pretty much anyone, anywhere, without cause (as if anything is really stopping them now)

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[djl4570]

200 miles is the economic exclusion zone. Territorial waters extend twelve nautical miles from the mean low tide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zonmar-en.svg

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[esldude]

I don't like it either, but it isn't news. This linked article is from 2008.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[hpa]

Given that the standard definition of space (the Kármán Line) is 100 km above mean sea level, *everyone* lives within 100 miles (160 km) of space...

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Washington DC is within 100 miles of the border, right? So if a DHS agent wanted to seize the laptop of a senator or representative under suspicion of bribery (a violation of 18 USC Sec. 201) he or she would be within their authority to do so without needing to worry about the li'l old 4th Amendment?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to know the population percentage that was close when the constitution was written. I'm assuming its upwards of 90 percent.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[sesshomaru]

Maybe he means this? Obama relents on drone guidelines details

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[PNutts]

I guess living in peach is too much to ask of this country anymore.

James?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[jc42]

Yes, this includes your home. The local police have to abide by the idea that warrants are required but if the DHS decides you are a possible terrorist threat, citizen of no, you have no rights whatsoever.

And, of course, there has been much discussion recently of the leaked documents outlining the policy that the US government can simply execute anyone labelled "terrorist" at any time. Granted, that hasn't been reviewed by any courts, and the Supreme Court might declare execution without trial unconstitutional. But that might not be much consolation if you're dead.

Then there's the question of where in the world this isn't true.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was coming here to make that same point... starts with this, next step is they say it applies to airports too. We're so fucked.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this includes your home.

I wish them all the luck in the world trying to enforce this in the Detroit metro area. I'll treat them as an uninvited armed intruder if they try it at my house.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

The part you should be bolding there is "and their functional equivalent (such as international airports)." Care to wager what percentage of the population lives within one hundred fucking miles of a major airport?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[rrohbeck]

Yup.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[mellon]

Iceland.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[siddesu]

I don't speak for the TSA, but if I were an honest, god-fearing, terrorist-hating TSA official, hell-bent on winning the good fight for freedom and values we're fighting against our enemies, I'd be hard-pressed not to point out to you the simple fact that terrorists can embark anywhere on the US side of the lake shores, making the shoreline the first line of d-fence. It would be obvious to me that to confront the terrorist threat along the shoreline and marine borders effectively, the 100-mile freedom zones should naturally extend from the beach inland, and not be arbitrarily defined from some imaginary liberal line you call "border".

Also, were I working for the TSA, I'd say that your soft position on the threats facing this great country makes you a help to the terrorists and a conduit of the dangers terrorism poses to the American way of life. You should repent and amend your ways.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[HornWumpus]

Nonsense. Obscure is only a useful term in context. What web site do you think you are on? CanukShisters.org?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[davester666]

And don't forget, all your airports that serve planes that travel in/out of the country also count as being on the border, so there's a 100 mile radius around them with this constitution-free zone as well.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

85% of New York State is within 100 miles of Canada. New York City and surrounds are within 100 miles of the ocean. We're screwed.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[rthille]

Not sure what the situation is now, but during the summer of 2002, just about 9 months after "9/11", a friend and I sailed from Kauai to San Francisco. We saw basically no one out at sea, and could have met up with anyone carrying whatever sort of munitions. When we arrived in SF, we sailed/motored to his dock, tied up, were picked up by his wife and went home. No customs agents, no TSA, no nothing. If a nuke were available, I've got no doubt that terrorists would have no trouble killing millions.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Man On Pink Corner]

They don't need all the luck in the world. They have half of the guns.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[amiga3D]

You didn't notice the sub shadowing you? The Satellite overhead that tracked your progress? You only think you were unobserved.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[black6host]

My entire state, according the the ACLU map, is in this zone. Our state motto is: "Live Free or Die". I laugh, sadly, every time I hear somebody say that here with pride.

Oh, we don't have to wear seat belts though. I guess I just don't understand what "Live Free" means as obviously not being required to wear seat belts is more than an even trade for losing your 4th Amendment rights.... Riiiiiight.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they can't go into Canada or Mexico (no matter what some zealots might think, they can't). The blurg stated that the DHS operations are inland. If I were American, I would be quite worried. When a branch of the US government can arbitrarily ignore parts of the US constitution, the gun nuts shouting "Protecting ourselves from the government" might just have a point. I live on the other side of that border, and no branch of the Canadian government can ignore the Canadian Constitution (and within Canada illegal search and seizures are not legal).

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[MichaelSmith]

Surely that brings you to 90% of the population.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[amiga3D]

Idiot. Go back and read it again. You missed the part about the 100 miles being bullshit according to the Supreme Court. They threw the case out because it was 25 miles from the border and the exception is for THE border not miles inland. The TSA can say the moon is purple but it doesn't change the damn color of the moon does it? They can't change the Constitution either no matter how hard they try.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Sabriel]

Yeah, I had the same reaction. Citation needed, for sure.

Though as an ignorant foreigner I'm now wondering: how *does* the US military reconcile its oath to defend the Constitution with the DHS's stance that the Constitution (at least, the 4th) does not apply (within 100 miles of the border) on US soil? What happens when a DHS agent tries a warrantless search on a US soldier and wants to seize their laptop/phone?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[dryeo]

Has to be for terrorism related reasons and there's probably a rule that by definition a senator or representative is not a terrorist. Government usually excepts themselves from this kind of thing.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSinOEvD-kQ

Easy to find, at the moment on youtube but I do notice that copies of it are starting to disappear.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[tftp]

You only think you were unobserved.

It doesn't matter. He bypassed the customs and border guards. He could carry *anything* in his boat - or anyone, to that matter.

However I don't know how could the border guards tell the difference between his boat (that came from the outside of the invisible line) and any boat that never left the US territory. There are thousands of those boats in water on any given day, all moving chaotically and reporting to no one. You cannot tell the difference between the boat that came to LA from Hawaii and the boat that came to LA from San Diego. Even the satellite observation is pointless if two identical boats approach the same point at the border and then "turn around" and go back where they came from. Especially at night. You have to be on site to notice that the boats did not turn around; the only things that did come back were the captain and the vessel's paperwork.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, hey. There's a good way to get the US on board with stopping climate change. Tell your congressmen that melting polar ice caps are causing the oceans to rise, thereby allowing global warming to annex US shorelines. They will declare a war the likes of which drugs and terrorism have never seen in order to protect US soil.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[tftp]

What stops DHS from continuing to arrest people wherever they want? Was anyone at DHS *punished* for this drug bust? Possession is 90% of the law, and DHS has you cuffed on the ground. Supreme Court is far away.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Rudisaurus]

I wonder what fraction of the US population lives within 100 miles of the national border. I'd guess it's well over 50%, but I don't see any easy way to find the number.

I'm just glad it doesn't extend 100 miles beyond the border. Easily 90% of the population of Canada lives along a 100 mile-wide strip of the Canada-US border -- including me.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in the US. Technically. We covered this when Assange was hiding out.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[shking]

AT the border, not near the border, Mr. Troll

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[amiga3D]

Most likely not. The thing is though that if they continue to do it after getting slapped down for it they can be sued. That will generally bring a stop to it.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Cidtek]

And don't forget, all your airports that serve planes that travel in/out of the country also count as being on the border, so there's a 100 mile radius around them with this constitution-free zone as well.

BS - do you just make this crap up?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

By which you mean, you'll quail in fear and call the police and hope the police get there in time to save you?

If there's one thing that's always true on Slashdot, it's that liberals abhor restrictions of their freedoms, and liberals hate guns so much that they've begged the government to restrict their freedom to own guns. Conservatives, on the other hand, LOVE the fascist police state, and hate restrictions on any gun ownership, and feel it's their god-given right to own any weapon they want, up to and including nuclear-tipped ICBMs.

So, given your response to this police state action, we can conclude you're not a conservative, and so you're unarmed. Which means you're trying to sound tough, but we see right through your foolishness to the hand-wringing, limp-wristed cunt behind the keyboard.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

"In Canada persue via the case law is defined"

Must be a British English term. In the US, it's spelled "pursue".

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[ChrisMaple]

Also missing Indian Reservations.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[ChrisMaple]

If you voted for Lynch or Shaheen you deserve it.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Easy to find, at the moment on youtube but I do notice that copies of it are starting to disappear.

An anonymous source who only talks to a discredit internet crank. It is hard to imagine weaker evidence.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/citizens.asp

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[ChrisMaple]

Time for the old standard: "The law is what the cop on the beat says it is." If you live long enough to get a lawyer and a trial, you have the opportunity to bankrupt yourself to get out of jail. Good luck.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the US border include any embassies or areas that aren't technically US soil?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

I regularly sail between Seattle and Vancouver, and never declare myself or register with customs. I've been doing it for decades. I once even called customs like you're supposed to when I docked, and they were confused and told me I didn't need to do anything. The coast guard has stopped me before and doesn't care.
Its not just the water either. Near Vancouver there are numerous dirt roads that simply go right across the border, and no one seems to care.
Border security is a joke.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[DMUTPeregrine]

I wonder if they count embassies, since those are always considered the territory of the nation they represent.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

> R&PG is as obscure as WYSIWYG.

No, it's not. I'll let you do a search for the acronym usage statistics. Get back to me when you figure out how wrong you are.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Kjella]

What a load of bullshit and slashdot is of course gobbling it up, it's 100 miles from any land and sea border. The airports themselves are constitution free zones as well, but there's no 100 mile bubble around them. 10/10 troll good sir.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

By which you mean, you'll quail in fear and call the police and hope the police get there in time to save you?

If there's one thing that's always true on Slashdot, it's that liberals abhor restrictions of their freedoms, and liberals hate guns so much that they've begged the government to restrict their freedom to own guns. Conservatives, on the other hand, LOVE the fascist police state, and hate restrictions on any gun ownership, and feel it's their god-given right to own any weapon they want, up to and including nuclear-tipped ICBMs.

So, given your response to this police state action, we can conclude you're not a conservative, and so you're unarmed. Which means you're trying to sound tough, but we see right through your foolishness to the hand-wringing, limp-wristed cunt behind the keyboard.

lol, says another AC. Registered and unregistered firearm owner here. Am I a member of the NRA? No. Will I be? No. Am I a conservative? No. So you got it half right. Am I armed? See above. Do I know how to use my weapons? Absolutely. You can be somewhere in the middle politically, you know? It's not black and white like so many people want to make it.

Once we lose (one of!) those freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights and the rest of our constitution, it's over. We'll have to start all over again, if we can manage to break free from our new oppressors intact. Mutually assured destruction. If/when that happens, guns will help the side who wants to win.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Jane Q. Public]

"Time for the old standard: 'The law is what the cop on the beat says it is.'"

That's a good formula for the cop himself to get beat.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[VortexCortex]

My entire state, according the the ACLU map, is in this zone. Our state motto is: "Live Free or Die". I laugh, sadly, every time I hear somebody say that here with pride.

Oh, we don't have to wear seat belts though. I guess I just don't understand what "Live Free" means as obviously not being required to wear seat belts is more than an even trade for losing your 4th Amendment rights.... Riiiiiight.

Sounds like someone ought to be doing some dying...

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[VortexCortex]

So, what you're saying is that we actually lost the cold war? When the Berlin Wall came down it was because the statist regimes were already in place everywhere... Makes sense.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[quenda]

Ah. You would think someone would just spell that out, rather than using an obscure acronym.

R&PG is as obscure as WYSIWYG.

You seem to be mistaking your local slang for global English. WYSIWYG has entered the English language, R&PG is "rules and policy guidelines" according to the top results on google, though there was one Canadian website with the above usage.

And isn't it an odd term? If the police have probable grounds for arrest, what makes them reasonable or unreasonable? Do the police have to decide if it is a stupid law?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[overmoderated]

If I'm walking in my city, let's say, 1 mile away from the US embassy complex, and a US official tries to pull some shit on me in my own country, I swear that he will end up in a hospital at best and that a surgeon will be needed to extract the diplomatic passport his ass. I don't care about their arrogant laws or their fascism.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[sumdumass]

Why? what color is he now?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you see the dates on those articles? One was 2008.

Anyway, since we've claimed the territory within 200 miles of the coastlines as U.S. territory, how can the land 100 miles inland be considered borderland?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[VortexCortex]

This is the slippery slope by which DHS can barge into any home in America. Any.

So could any terrorist. It's the duty of the citizens to protect themselves, thus we never needed a DHS in the first place.

No one is safe.

Not true. Freedom doesn't imply safety; However, by taking away freedoms the government is now fairly safe from its citizens. Life is dangerous, "safety" is a disease; Use caution instead. The DHS was founded under the guise of providing safety, see? Instead of panicking we should have just used personal caution, and not rely on others to provide non-existent preemptive safety.

If you read the US Declaration of Independence, down near the bottom in the list of abuses of the citizens it cites that the King of England "has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance." It's pretty much like what's happening now: We're being forced to pay for the many new offices of the DHS which only serve to harass us while eating away our sustenance in the form of taxes, and eating the funds of other beneficial programs.

I encourage everyone to read those list of abuses and compare them to events of today: "He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures." Hell, they go worse than this and simply try coming up with laws decided in Secret via treaty, remember ACTA? Kangaroo Courts, where the famous and police can get away with murder or massive fraud -- Corporations frequently try to file suits in such a way to make them more expensive to get to, just ask G.Hotz. I could go on, but it really is quite uncanny how many of the abuses listed by our forefathers are now mirrored in today's happenings. The founding fathers thought many of the practices today's people are subjected to were intolerable and that it was their duty to fight a revolution and not "suffer, while evils are sufferable", instead they chose to "right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed". If only they could see us now... The once brave now cower, because their Land of the Free isn't.

I guess some good has come of it all: If we every did want to turn it off and on again, we could simply re-use the same declaration, and just add some new signatures.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then there's the question of where in the world this isn't true.

How about most places? There has been a tendency for people who admit that things aren't well in the USA to tack on a "but it's like that everywhere, right?" to make it seem less bad.

The trigger for the US introducing many of these heinous laws was the 9/11 suicidal plane hijackings, which killed 0.001% of the population. In contrast, Norway was hit by a comparatively larger terrorist attack in 2011, resulting in the death of 0.0015% of the population, which resulted in no new "security" laws.

The rest of the world does not automatically become a police state just because the USA does.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh well, that's okay then. Never mind.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S. Sen. Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy said yesterday that he was stopped and questioned at airports on the East Coast five times in March because his name appeared on the government's secret "no-fly" list."

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Mindcontrolled]

Lol. That 2nd amendment bullcrap sure has saved you from tyranny and kept up the freedom right there, no?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Mindcontrolled]

Addendum for fairness - actually I can't afford the snark. We have the same shit in Europe under the Schengen treaty.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[isorox]

Maybe he means this? Obama relents on drone guidelines details

Probably referring to the recent attack helicopters shooting blanks in downtown Miami

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is so stupid. If you're on the U.S. side of the border, you are by definition in U.S. territory and all U.S. laws should apply - the highest of which is the Constitution.

The whole point of having a border is to divide "their jurisdiction" from "our jurisdiction" fer Chrissakes...

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[cgimusic]

Obviously it is not to do with US embassies in other countries.It is to do with other countries embassies in the US.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[cgimusic]

But peruse!=persue.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

The part of mt state I live on is onlr 40 miles wide, at most. So how far do territorial waters extend? Well, they did put the entire state under martial law not that long ago, only on the basis that they could not trust US citizens.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[TitusGroan8856]

under international law embassies are not foreign soil.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[wonkey_monkey]

False.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[wonkey_monkey]

I swear that he will end up in a hospital at best

Masculinity issues much?

I don't care about their arrogant laws

You'd probably soon find yourself taking a keen interest in the laws against assault.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[fyngyrz]

Or, perhaps he's referring to the confiscation of private citizen's arms during Katrina.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[fyngyrz]

You can only afford to sue them if you have money; that limits the pool of potential claimants rather thoroughly.

In addition, in cuffs on the ground or in a cell, bringing suit is somewhat difficult. In the interim, you lose your home, your job, your possessions, you concern yourself with your family...

In the US, being "right" only means "I managed to pay the legal costs."

Re: How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think so many drugs are trafficked into the US in this fashion?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[sa1lnr]

The U.S.A. and international law, haha. good one. :)

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It should be at the customs point, and that's it. If they think they goofed and let someone through with something, tell it to a judge and get a warrant.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[bythescruff]

"... and the Supreme Court might declare execution without trial unconstitutional."

Without meaning to criticise what you said, the fact that you had to say that is very telling about how far the USA has fallen.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because "Fuck You. That's Why."

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

You weren't even there. There's only a not-unreasonable possibility that tracking happened.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it only covers where 2 out of every 3 Americans live. Not that bad.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

So pretty much the entirety of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and New York City.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[WOOFYGOOFY]

If your command-in-chief ordered you to fire on American citizens, would you?" The higher ranks are already being purged of those who said no.

I defy you to substantiate this from something other than a right wing paranoid website.

Consider yourself called out, fraud. Fabulist. Spreader of paranoiac lies.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realise that the Whitehouse is auto exempt from any border patrol legislation and powers, you see, National Security trumps border control any day of the week, and I'm not joking either.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[tqk]

CanukShisters.org?

You couldn't even spell shysters correctly?!? I know it's early Saturday morning, but even I'm doing better than that, and I've only had about two hours sleep. Geez, mon!

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[WWJohnBrowningDo]

From The Attorney General's regulation, 8 CFR 287.1:

(a)(1) External boundary. The term external boundary, as used in section 287(a)(3) of the Act, means the land boundaries and the territorial sea of the United States extending 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with international law. (2) Reasonable distance. The term reasonable distance, as used in section 287(a) (3) of the Act, means within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States or any shorter distance which may be fixed by the chief patrol agent for CBP, or the special agent in charge for ICE, or, so far as the power to board and search aircraft is concerned any distance fixed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.

No, international airports does not count as an external boundary.

And no, embassies does not count as an external boundary because contrary to common misconception embassies are not foreign soil.

And no, Indian Reservations does not count as an external boundary because they are not external.

I am correcting all these misconceptions because there is no need to twist the truth when it's on our side. There's no need to make up imaginary international boundaries within our country in order to inflate the numbers; even if only 1% of the population is living in the constitution-free zone that would be far too high. The truth is on our side and we just need to present it as it is; sugarcoating it or even tempering with it simply undermine our own argument and our own credibility.

I brought up the constitution-free zone map in an argument once and my opponent immediately pointed out that the international borders cut across the middle the of great lakes. In a single stroke both ACLU and myself lost our credibility in that argument.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Florida and Hawaii are constitution-free states?

I'm sure that will go over well...

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[tqk]

... next step is they say it applies to airports too.

... and bus stations, train stations, football stadiums, ...

We're so fucked.

Yes, you are. Welcome to that long, dark night. I feel sorry for all of you.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[corbettw]

DHS doesn't enforce bribery laws so the answer would be no in this instance. However, they could seize the devices if they "suspected" they contained illegal material (eg, kiddie porn, pirated movies, etc.).

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Seumas]

Oh, I thought it was an initialism of what they call the Canadian guys with the huge hats that ride horsies.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Seumas]

Why can't you let us have any fun?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[tqk]

You only think you were unobserved.

How big is an IED or a dirty bomb? I suspect I could fit five of the former in the pack I carry around with me. Their boat might contain five hundred or a thousand. TSA! [$chuckle].

"Imbeciles! Ultra-maroons!" -- Bugs Bunny.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[hedwards]

Freedom to drive without seat belts is unlikely to be something that was considered when the state was choosing a motto. Also, seat belt laws are typically a state law rather than a federal one.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

You make me laugh, citizen. Don't you realize that the powerful and well off get to live by a far more lax and privileged set of rules?

Re: How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even then it is outrageous violation of international law and sovereignity of other countries.
Hovewer - nobody in US care about international laws anymore.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

It does cover protecting the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. So what do you think?

If any soldier, marine, or sailor is brought to court on this, it should be a valid enough argument that they were upholding their end of the bargain.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please refrain from false dichotomies. The 2nd Amendment doesn't mean We're All As Free As On Day One or it doesn't work. It's entirely possible the 2nd Amendment has encouraged more than one potential dictator to refrain from, delay, or enact less-infringing laws in the hopes of further infringements later.

That said they are getting more and more bold

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm confident that in 1792 it was over 50%. the 100 mile zone accurately reflects what the supreme court has said, but i think it is wrong. this could be fixed by legislation. i was subjected to such a search while driving in texas. -arbitrary aardvark

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Eravnrekaree]

The Second Amendment is the most powerful tool we have to combat tyranny, and only the last resort in the case of tyranny that is ignoring the will of the people and has usurped democratic processes, where checks and balances have been broken down and violations of the constitution are unchecked. It does seem as though we are getting closer and closer to that point.

It is true that it is a last resort, we should not have re-elected Obama, we need to elect out people who have presided over the incursion on rights, those who want to violate the second amendment and other amendments and so on.

Because the second amendment is a deterrent, it actually can help us keep us from getting to the point where we need to use it. Notice that these egregious violaions of the constitution are increasing at the very same time that they are pushing for gun bans? They know that these violations, would anger an armed and constitution minded public, so they are pushing for abolishing the second amendment so they can continue to expand their totalitarian scheme they have already begun.

The second amendment is really all about preserving what is really the only effective deterrent to the tyranny, an armed population. Therefore, the second amendment was specifically intended that the people have military grade arms, in order that the population at large has some sort of parity against governmental power, and that the ultimate power is kept with the population rather than power consolidated into the hands of the government.

When the government is ignoring elections, the elections have been abolished or are a farce, and the government commits widespread violations of the constitution with no check against it. you really do not have any other options except the second amendment. If the elections system is broken, then pretty much there is nothing else that will restore the constitution except the second amendment solution. It is the threat of the second amendment solution, the fear of it by government, that keeps the government on its toes. A population ready to as a last resort revolt is the best defence of the constitution because the government just doesnt want to mess with the constitution and bring about the anger of the public.

So the main role of the second amendment is as a deterrent that is meant to prevent us from getting to the place where the second amendment would even need to be used.

It is sort of naive to assume that leaders have no desire to expand their poiwer. i mean, that people would think that is supreme arrogance. In fact, its human nature that once leaders get a taste of power, they want more and more of it, they become addicted to it and cannot get enough. Why wouldnt leaders want more power? They end up dreaming of the day when they have unlimited power to do whatever they want without that constitution in the way. We are very naive to think that a disturbing percentage of our leaders have never had such thoughts or such cravings. These totalitarian personalities are everywhere, they are attracted to the government, and try to work their way into it. Its basically just a fact of life. It i therefore necessary that the public is well armed, this sends a message that the people are not going to tolerate a tyranny and for the totalitarian dashes their hopes of despotism. The first thing a totalitarian will try to do therefore, is take away guns, especially the ones which are military grade, which are exactly those that presents the most threat of an armed revolt.

Anyone who thinks that governments cannot go tyrannical is also just ignorant of history. History has shown that governments which are democratic often do become tyrannies and that gun confiscation is the first step. The Nazis for instance confiscated guns as the first phases of their totalitarian agenda and schemes. There are dozens of other countries where gun confiscation has been preceded by genocide and totalitarian regimes.

Absolutely we must remain vigilant on incursions to our rigths, by electing out those who violate them, so we never end up to a point where the second amendment is the only remaining option that we have.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

post is modded +5 insightfully wrong

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[guruevi]

There may not be a bubble but they have jurisdiction in and around any transport hub (busses, trains, planes, shipping centers, post offices...) and through the VIPR program they also have jurisdiction ANYWHERE as long as they 'coordinate' with local or federal law enforcement.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 : it's not because your are paranoid that they are not really after you...

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[mariox19]

That 1st Amendment bullcrap sure has saved them from tyranny and kept up freedom, dontcha think—ha-ha, LOL, and all that crap.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[citizen.jones]

Interesting question. I suspect this may apply to anyone riding in a car, or walking in the street, within the 100 mile zone. But, does it apply to someone at home, inside her own house, within the 100 mile zone? I suspect that may be different.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[shentino]

Congress critters are part of the elite. They are immune from such things.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit that. Article I, Section 6 (from the unamended constitution) prevents that. It keeps the president from arresting members of Congress to manipulate the votes there.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are making fun of people because they are not willing to kill in the name of iPhone privacy. Think about that for a while.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I first heard the term Department of HOMELAND Security I thought that it sounded dangerously close to the term Fatherland from Nazi Germany. I really expected Americans to throw a shit fit when the US Government created that agency. If there was every a reason for the 2nd amendment you folks missed the memo. And then you co-operated with body searches a boarder points and DHS agents checking 'your papers'. The spirits of 1776 must be spinning in their graves.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[DarkOx]

The SCOTUS won't help. They have shown over and over they are willing to do the same intellectually dishonest mental gymnastics to ensure the government can do whatever it wants. They slap whoever the current administration is around a little bit once and awhile to flex their muscle and ensure their own power is protected but that is about it.

In this case they will just toss any case you could bring against them for lack of standing. If they do something obvious to you, then your killed or help at some black site indefinitely without trial, guilty or not since that can't be established. If you may have been the victim of an illegal search and cant be sure of it such as a wiretap, GPS on your car etc they won't confirm it.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[dcollins117]

It just means you need to amend your state motto to reflect current conditions.

"We will sometimes complain when our consistutional rights are taken away."

You're free to use that one. You're welcome.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[bitt3n]

Give up your freedom for what you think is security and you'll find you have neither. Old Ben said something like that.

wow I need to watch star wars again

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[sjames]

As best as I can determine, the terrorist group I have the most reason to fear is called DHS.

Unlike al-Queda, DHS really does hate our freedom.

Al-Queda hasn't had any success in America since 9/11, but DHS has been delivering the death of a thousand cuts day in and day out ever since.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[celle]

"...than an even trade for losing your 4th Amendment rights.... Riiiiiight."

        You haven't lost your 4th, or any, amendment rights. The 4th and other constitutional amendments are a prohibition on the government taking your natural privacy and other rights away. It just means the government is ignoring the constitution. If any government officials try to ignore it, remind them of your natural rights by blasting their treasonous ass back to DC or be even more patriotic by just killing them for violating the public trust.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[celle]

"Also, were I working for the TSA, I'd say that your soft position on the threats facing this great country makes you a help to the terrorists and a conduit of the dangers terrorism poses to the American way of life. You should repent and amend your ways."

      As a member of the freedom loving public you are supposed to serve I say:

              You Can't Defend The Constitution By Violating It!!

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Em Adespoton]

You do realize that you're proving their point, right? THIS is why they want the 100 mile zone; so that if they suspect something fishy, they don't have to catch you at the border, but can follow up after the fact. Thus, they don't catch you smuggling beer across the border via boat/dirt road; they just gather the reports that you make regular trips, and then visit your home shortly after one of those trips should have occurred... and confiscate any Canadian beer they find on suspicion of smuggling (as you haven't declared it at the border).

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Culture20]

The Royal Panadian Gounted-police?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is true that it is a last resort, we should not have re-elected Obama, we need to elect out people who have presided over the incursion on rights, those who want to violate the second amendment and other amendments and so on.

But the news said he supported our rights! Both can't be true.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

... does not ... become a police state just because the USA does ...

Yeah, the USA is trying to fix that. We just got 'better' body scanners at our airports. Plus airlines have to tell the USA the names of their passengers.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[FooRat]

The 2nd Amendment is not going anywhere, so just get over it ... as long as there are fascists like you trying to violate the rights of others, there will be people fighting for freedom.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Mashiki]

You seem to be mistaking your local slang for global English.

I guess if "local slang" means used in the court of law, case law, and all evidence books in Canada then I guess so. Never minding that it's also used in most countries that were part of the commonwealth.

I guess that just leaves americans out in the dust like usual in believing that they know all.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

In space, no one can hear you **whooooooosh**

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow you sure got him good! Oh boy I bet he's peeing in his pants curled up in the fetal position underneath his desk with that hum dinger!

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[hermitdev]

Though as an ignorant foreigner I'm now wondering: how *does* the US military reconcile its oath to defend the Constitution with the DHS's stance that the Constitution (at least, the 4th) does not apply (within 100 miles of the border) on US soil? What happens when a DHS agent tries a warrantless search on a US soldier and wants to seize their laptop/phone?

Such an order would be unlawful, and the soldier has the duty to lawfully disobey the unlawful order.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

that's why i want, neigh, deserve: my own personal SAM site. for when the drones of tyranny come, i will be prepared. everyone deserves one too. and personal nukes. gotta have those.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[crovira]

Hmm. Since most (80+%) of the population on Canada list within 100 miles of the US border we're pretty much doing to march back down to Washington and set it on fire again. (Look it up Yanks. You do NOT wanna screw with us.)

I like Americans, but every now and again they need to get a swift kick in the ass to remind them to get their heads out of there.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[hermitdev]

But the news said he supported our rights! Both can't be true.

Actions speak louder than words. Obama also stated he'd "help" small businesses. Apparently the only small businesses he cares about are accountants and lawyers, because in a single year (2012), he increased the number of regulations, laws and taxes on small businesses by 12%.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[shutdown -p now]

So does the CBP actually do unconstitutional stops and searches in your state? Or is it only theoretical so far, them claiming that they could do it if they just wanted to?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[shutdown -p now]

Suppose they stopped and searched you. How would you prove that you're in the country legally?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[HornWumpus]

I'm just glad you slogged though and figured out what I meant.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

They've had their stupid checkpoint set up around exit 30 in/near thornton, which is about 100 miles as the bird flies from the canadian border. Only a couple times a year, not all the time. They ask one question - "are you a citizen" and you are free to answer "none of your business", or to just drive off. They don't pursue, because they're not allowed to... yet. It's conditioning people, it has nothing to do with security.

I wouldn't be surprised if eventually they get the state police helping them do this shit but so far i've only seen border patrol cars there.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[quenda]

Nope, it is just a Canadian thing.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[tmosley]

You will be among the first to enter the death camps, then.

Did I say death camps? I meant happy camps...

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Mindcontrolled]

Lol, I am a fascist now, sure. Dude, from an US perspective, I am so far to the left that you'd shit your pants.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[overmoderated]

I would like to see that happen.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Or, perhaps he's referring to the confiscation of private citizen's arms during Katrina.

Huh? Either you are pulling a Poe's Law or you are a nutbag. One - confiscation of arms is not the same thing as shooting people and Two - Obama wasn't even president during Hurricane Katrina.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[GodGell]

Hang on, I thought "constitution-free zones" were just a sarcastic term to illustrate the tragicomedy of your airports. You're making it sound like it's actually a real thing! Is it? Do they seriously call it that? That is surprisingly honest.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If your command-in-chief ordered you to fire on American citizens, would you?"
If the movies are correct, when you swear in as an officer you swear to defend and uphold the constitution of the United States or something to that effect. So you could honestly say "yes" provided you know that the "American citizens" in question were going against the constitution. Of course, the officer decides who is violating the constitution not the "commander in chief". The officer had better have pretty solid proof.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S. borders need to go on U.S. real-estate checklists as places to avoid -- like flood zones, superfund sites, or dangerous chemical plants. Don't buy or lease within 100 miles of the border.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rape & Pillaging in Groups.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also missing Indian Reservations.

Indian Nations are Nations still held under seige.
Now their coming for you!

My Cherokee Grandfather always told me that one day everyone would be in the pickle barrel. I appaers that day is come.

Native America
Fighting Terror since 1492

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly what I was thinking. I know they come up here and seize people, so why not electronics.

Re: How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's what a bull does to a cow.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

R&PG = Reasonable and Probable Grounds

OIC I thought 100 miles was a bit far for an RPG. I thought their range was about 300 yards or so. ;-)

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[metrix007]

Well, no, because 100KM is only 62 miles

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[zipn00b]

And if things keep going the way they are we'll be even more constitution-free.
At least Florida has better gun laws that Hawaii currently but in this climate that may not last........

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

> History has shown that governments which are democratic often do become tyrannies and that gun confiscation is the first step.
> There are dozens of other countries where gun confiscation has been preceded by genocide and totalitarian regimes.
Can you name just one, other than Nazi Germany?

Consider the level of paranoia in your message, it's irrational.
Certainly power corrupts, but that's been known for thousands of years. The genius of our founders was that a balance of power is the only thing that can contain it. That is what kept the cold war from turning hot, it's what's prevented the use of nukes in warfare, and it's what's preserved our system of government for over 235 years. We have the vote, we have the power of the courts, and we have 535 elected representatives to protect us against true tyranny. The second amendment was about militias, and "well-regulated" ones at that. It's absurd to think that an armed populace will somehow be able to resist the strongest military in the world. It's also absurd to think that a government leader bent on being the next Hitler could achieve the mindshare needed to get the military and police forces to cooperate in a war against their neighbors and families.

Think about the closest parallels to your scenario throughout our recent history, which would be examples of federal troops exerting force upon the populace. The most severe examples are narrow actions against nut cases - Randy Weaver and his militia, Waco, etc. Actions to enforce civil rights in the south were aimed at PROTECTING the people - federal troops were the good guys. The big exception was Kent State, and that was a watershed event that made everyone sit up and take notice that we needed to re-examine our priorities as a nation. And it led to the end of the Vietnam war and strong laws protecting our rights and our privacy. Time has caused some of those memories to fade, but any moves back in the direction of tyranny (Patriot Act, drones, the present discussion on borders) are being debated and will be resolved based on national dialogue and consensus - not based on whether you have an AR-15 in your closet.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Meski]

That would be pursue?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

From The Attorney General's regulation, 8 CFR 287.1:

(a)(1) External boundary. The term external boundary, as used in section 287(a)(3) of the Act, means the land boundaries and the territorial sea of the United States extending 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with international law.

(2) Reasonable distance. The term reasonable distance, as used in section 287(a) (3) of the Act, means within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States or any shorter distance which may be fixed by the chief patrol agent for CBP, or the special agent in charge for ICE, or, so far as the power to board and search aircraft is concerned any distance fixed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.

No, international airports does not count as an external boundary.

And no, embassies does not count as an external boundary because contrary to common misconception embassies are not foreign soil.

And no, Indian Reservations does not count as an external boundary because they are not external.

I am correcting all these misconceptions because there is no need to twist the truth when it's on our side. There's no need to make up imaginary international boundaries within our country in order to inflate the numbers; even if only 1% of the population is living in the constitution-free zone that would be far too high. The truth is on our side and we just need to present it as it is; sugarcoating it or even tempering with it simply undermine our own argument and our own credibility.

I brought up the constitution-free zone map in an argument once and my opponent immediately pointed out that the international borders cut across the middle the of great lakes. In a single stroke both ACLU and myself lost our credibility in that argument.

Its not worth it!

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[lsatenstein]

R&PG = Reasonable and Probable Grounds

===
who determines this? Is it a judge, or the whim of the homeland insecurity?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Washington DC is within 100 miles of the border, right? So if a DHS agent wanted to seize the laptop of a senator or representative under suspicion of bribery (a violation of 18 USC Sec. 201) he or she would be within their authority to do so without needing to worry about the li'l old 4th Amendment?

Our elite carry different colored passports, and for some reason, are treated very differently.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[Phreakiture]

If it should ever serve the purpose of such government agency as may wish to access your home, I think it is a pretty solid prediction that they will try it.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[coinreturn]

Given that the standard definition of space (the Kármán Line) is 100 km above mean sea level, *everyone* lives within 100 miles (160 km) of space...

Time to dig yourself a VERY deep bunker!

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[fyngyrz]

It doesn't matter. He bypassed the customs and border guards. He could carry *anything* in his boat - or anyone, to that matter.

No, doesn't follow. The boat may have been allowed to pass, having been scanned for nuclear materials, for instance. Not being stopped isn't the same thing as not being examined. You might be quite surprised at some of the surveillance tech in use.

Even the satellite observation is pointless if two identical boats approach the same point at the border and then "turn around" and go back where they came from.

No. Just... no. That wouldn't be true even if you had said "cats" instead of "boats."

Re: How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[fyngyrz]

Because it's of huge benefit to the US government, that's why.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[BeatTheChip]

That's interesting. Everett is about 102 miles from the US Canadian border. If CBP and Canada's mounties were pushing their administrative luck that day they would move in on Boeing adjacent bedroom communities on the Puget Sound and go house to house collecting laptops. If they got really bold they might stretch their luck right into Everett and sieze all of Boeings electronics. If they were insane they'd go an extra 30 miles and try door-to-door laptop sweeps right up to Seattle's Eastide communities (Redmond, Bellevue, Medina, Lynnwood,Kirkland) where Microsoft and Google affiliates are located.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[tftp]

You might be quite surprised at some of the surveillance tech in use.

There is no technology, outside of Star Trek, that would have detected chemical and biological weapons in that boat at a distance of a mile. Nuclear weapons don't radiate that much either (until they are used.)

Also, if we believe the TSA, the survival of this country hinges on the fact that every incoming laptop and every Flash disk must be examined by professionals for traces of terrism. (I'm not professional enough to figure out what can anyone find on a multi-GB Flash that is full of binaries.) This vital task cannot be done remotely.

That wouldn't be true even if you had said "cats" instead of "boats."

It's the oldest trick in spy movies. Why wouldn't that work if far more worked for the boat that came from Hawaii? Satellites have to be there to observe, and they have to be actually *used* to look at *that spot* instead of a billion other spots, and they have to see in darkness or through the cloud cover. Additionally, you don't have to swap ships, you can just swap the cargo if it is small and valuable. The cargo can be submerged under a pontoon, and you only throw the tow rope from one ship to another. You can even leave the pontoon in the sea, with a small, low power beacon that sends the GPS position, and the other ship will collect it in a few hours. Possibilities are endless. Why would none of that work?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border?

[LienRag]

Well, Italia sentenced their secret service head of office to 10 years for the help he provided to the kidnapping of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr by CIA agents, and sentenced in absentia said CIA agents to 8 years.
That's quite a start...

Fuck you DHS

[Anonymous Coward]

Go die in a fire.

Re:Fuck you DHS

[Anonymous Coward]

Appropriate use of AC

Re:Fuck you DHS

[balsy2001]

I was going to make some comment about sacrificing freedom for security, but your comment will do.

Re:Fuck you DHS

[Anonymous Coward]

I want Bis Sis to die of prostate cancer and terminal jock itch.

Re:Fuck you DHS

[dbet]

They won't unless you light it under their feet.

Re:Fuck you DHS

[Anonymous Coward]

Go die in a fire.

Now you've gone and done it. Just for that, make sure you backup your computer before flying with it or taking it within 100 miles of the border!

Re:Fuck you DHS

[ConaxConax]

We've got our eye on you.

Re:Fuck you DHS

[Anonymous Coward]

While your sentiment is spot on, it in turn does nothing for the very real physical problem now glaring at us. In fact, I regard this issue to be far more important and dangerous than the current broohaha spinning around the 2nd Amendment.

If individual and private home security is not attainable in light of this countries spirit, birth, and foundation of Liberty, how can I truly support and defend it when I have lost all respect for it? And it, for me?

Re:Fuck you DHS

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm rather worried the fumes from their combustion will be so toxic all life on Earth will die if they do so.

But not the constitution

[fyngyrz]

According to legal precedent, the Fourth Amendment — the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures — does not apply along the border.

But not according to the constitution. It's more unauthorized law from the "SCOTUS says SCOTUS can say whatever it wants because SCOTUS says so" crew.

Re:But not the constitution

[oodaloop]

Has this gone to the Supreme Court? I wouldn't doubt they would say something asinine like this, but it didn't say in TFS.

Re:But not the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

So where's the constitutional enforcement division of the FBI when you want them? That's right, there ain't one!

No point in even having one anymore.

Re:But not the constitution

[NeutronCowboy]

It's more complicated than that. The founders recognized that a nation is partially defined by how much control it has over its borders. This includes controlling what goes through the border. And in order to do that, it is necessary to be able to inspect anything. And in order to do that... well, you have to be able to do it without something exactly straddling an imaginary line. And now you're down into implementation details that have nothing to do with the constitution, SCOTUS or anyone else at that level.

Go write your congress critters that a border that is 100 miles wide makes a mockery of the spirit of the law, while still obeying the letter of the law. But that's the only way you're going to change that.

Re:But not the constitution

[fyngyrz]

287 (a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 233, 8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(3), which provides for warrantless searches of automobiles and other conveyances "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States," as authorized by regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General.

The Attorney General's regulation, 8 CFR 287.1, defines "reasonable distance" as "within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States."

That's the genesis of the current state of affairs. As far as I know, it's not been tested in USSC. However, inasmuch as they've approved ex post facto laws, inverted the commerce clause (and in so doing created the legislative condition where anything they like, they can regulate), usurped article 5 powers for themselves, violated almost the entire bill of rights in other cases... this is why I blame them. If they were doing their jobs, legislators would know better than to make such as laws. As it is, legislators can expect that these absurdities may well be upheld, even though they are on the face obviously and blatantly unconstitutional. That's been no barrier to the sophists on SCOTUS in recent decades, and congress knows it.

Re:But not the constitution

[fyngyrz]

Go write your congress critters

Pointless without an envelope stuffed with money. They won't even see it.

Re:But not the constitution

[__aaltlg1547]

No, they just made this shit up. The first judge who sees such a case is going to throw it out.

Re:But not the constitution

[meta-monkey]

Also, complaining about it will probably get you put on a watch list. After all, why would you want to restrict the actions undertaken by the brave men and women of the Department of Homeland Security unless you hate the security of the Homeland because of your terreristyness?

Re:But not the constitution

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The founders recognized that a nation is partially defined by how much control it has over its borders. ... Go write your congress critters that a border that is 100 miles wide makes a mockery of the spirit of the law, while still obeying the letter of the law.

You know, I've read over the Bill of Rights many times, and I've never seen a part that says, "These rights shall not apply within an arbitrary distance of the borders of the United States." So your "letter of the law" claim seems a bit questionable. If the founders recognized the need for an exemption in border areas (however defined) they could have written it in there.

Re:But not the constitution

[the eric conspiracy]

The Constitution also gives Congress the power to regulate trade. You cannot do that without the ability to inspect items coming into the US.

One of the very first laws passed by the first Congress in 1787 was the provision to allow customs inspections at borders.

What people are complaining about here is US law that is just as old and well established as the Constitution itself.

Re:But not the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. Thanks for the laugh.

Re:But not the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

I must have missed that part where regulation of trade required suspension of 4th Amendment rights. When they enter my home to "inspect", it will not be accepted as lawful.

Re:But not the constitution

[sesshomaru]

An envelope stuffed with money to read it, and a briefcase full of money to do anything about it...

Re:But not the constitution

[Jarik C-Bol]

An envelope of money to get it in the front door, a briefcase full of money to read it, and a city bus full of money to do anything about it...

Re:But not the constitution

[amiga3D]

The Supreme Court doesn't agree about the 100 mile zone. Here is a small excerpt from one decision already rendered on the subject.

But the search of the petitioner's automobile by a roving patrol, on a California road that lies at all points at least 20 miles north of the Mexican border,[5] was of a wholly different sort. In the absence of probable cause or consent, that search violated the petitioner's Fourth Amendment right to be free of "unreasonable searches and seizures."

I guess the TSA is ignoring this which means they are laying themselves open to lawsuit. Time to call the lawyers.

Re:But not the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

...and if I already have the money from the envelope, why would I read the letter?

Re:But not the constitution

[dcollins]

"The founders recognized that a nation is partially defined by how much control it has over its borders."

This is total BS, post-crazy-America revisionist history. Even just 15 years ago I could go back and forth between Maine and Canada without any search, seizure, or even paperwork on my person as often as I wished. I could hug a friend to say goodbye a foot outside the boarding ramp to an international airplane. The word "border" doesn't even appear a single time in the U.S. Constitution.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/10/04/states-vs-feds-borders-and-the-constitution/

Re:But not the constitution

[dcollins]

"One of the very first laws passed by the first Congress in 1787 was the provision to allow customs inspections at borders."

Hunh? Ratification of the Constitution and the first Congressional elections didn't even happen until 1789.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Congress

Even if your facts weren't like, made-up, there would still be an enormous difference between "go check out that ship" and "go empty that guy's pockets and read all his personal papers". Make-believe such as "regulating trade implies seizure of personal papers and effects" is kind of sick.

Re:But not the constitution

[roman_mir]

Ah, you see, I make the argument that the Constitution is not in fact a "living, breathing, malleable document", that it is to the government what criminal code is to an individual.

The Constitution is the law and when the government officials say that the law needs to be interpreted rather than clarified and amended if it is unclear on something, what they are saying and doing is they are breaking it.

A murder trial involves figuring out whether murder was committed and whether the individual in front of the judge and jury did it and what the punishment should be. Of-course jury can nullify the law, but so far I hear that nobody tried doing that during a murder trial. So the trial does not include figuring out whether murdering people is bad, whether the legislature that set the law meant for people to be murdered under certain circumstances, if the person murdering them was doing it while pursuing criminals (or terrorists) as a government official for example.

Same thing must be done in case of the Constitutional law, same thing exactly - if something is unclear in the Constitution it needs to be clarified IN the Constitution.

However the Constitution must be followed, it is the chains around the hands and the legs of the government. It is supposed to be the chains that hold government within its limits. But what happened to that idea? The politicians figured out that amending the Constitution is too damn hard, they would rather break the law and call that "an interpretation".

Re:But not the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

What degenerate retards modded this down?

Re:But not the constitution

[the eric conspiracy]

So the date is wrong by two years

It is STILL a fact that one of the first acts of Congress, the FIFTH, actually, was establishment of the Customs Service which enabled inspections at ports of entry to enforce collection of tarriffs. (July 31 1789).

And it does and has allowed seizure of personal effects since the very founding of the Republic. After all contraband and articles subject to tarrifs can and are often smuggled in personal effects.

To protest otherwise exposes your ignorance.

Re:But not the constitution

[dcollins]

[Citation needed]

Re:But not the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

watch your mouth

Re:But not the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a Congress and a United States before the Constitution, you know...

Laws weren't scrapped in 1789. Whether his facts are correct or not, your response is incorrect.

Re:But not the constitution

[JoshuaZ]

Don't blame SCOTUS. The Supreme Court has actually said this isn't ok with a similar case involving someone 25 miles from the border. See Almeida Sanchez v. United States: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6933260753627774699 The bottom line is that the Court has already said that DHS can't do this. It doesn't matter how much DHS says they can, when it gets to a court any search based on this sort of thing will be thrown out.

Re:But not the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the Constitution, the Constitution has a voice, and that voice is known as SCOTUS. So, like it or not, what the SCOTUS says is what the Constitution says. If you want your interpretation of the Constitution to the THE interpretation of the Constitution, get yourself nominated by the POTUS to be part of SCOTUS, get confirmed by congress, then find four more people that share your interpretation to do the same. Until then, your interpretation is as effective as your ability to vote, and only as effective.

The entire country is a border then...

[sabri]

Well, doesn't their reasoning make the entire country a border? Because an international plane (helicopter) can land virtually anywhere.. What protection does the fourth amendment give?

Did this ever reach the supreme court?

Re:The entire country is a border then...

[corran__horn]

Technically a international airport is considered part of the border. So yes, almost all out the continental US is a "Border".

Re:The entire country is a border then...

[funwithBSD]

Time to move to Kansas. No International Airports.

Re:The entire country is a border then...

[zieroh]

Why does this not surprise me?

Re:The entire country is a border then...

[mdmkolbe]

The Kansas City airport is an International Airport. (Yes, technically the airport is in Missouri, but it's less than ten miles from the border.)

Re:The entire country is a border then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't live within 100 miles of KC then. Technically KCI is an international airport, still have customs folks running around, and there's some international freight that still "arrives" here, even if the plane has landed other places in the US first.

Re:The entire country is a border then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to move to Kansas. No International Airports.

No so fast Dorothy! Kansas City International Airport (MCI)

Re:The entire country is a border then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does this not surprise me?

Maybe because Kansas is smack in the middle of the US which is the last place you'd put an international airport?

Re:The entire country is a border then...

[funwithBSD]

Not. In. Kansas.

Re:The entire country is a border then...

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL supreme court, you must not read much of what they get away with. the constitution might as well only exist as novelty toilet paper they print up for the bathroom on air force uno. the fourth amendment is great, but you better have the money and will power to take a case to the supreme court if you want to actually challenge the administration. the fact is that nobody cares anymore and even if a small piece of the pie knows what is happening, try telling that to the rest of them who live comfortably in the society we allowed to take shape, or are not properly educated on why the nation decided to "do their own thing" back in the 1770's.

Bullshit.

[jcr]

According to legal precedent, the Fourth Amendment — the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures — does not apply along the border.

The failure of the court to enforce the fourth amendment against government usurpation does not change what it says. There is no "border exception" in the bill of rights.

-jcr

Re:Bullshit.

[tepples]

So once soap box, ballot box, and jury box have failed, what is left?

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ammo box

Re:Bullshit.

[bondsbw]

Jail box.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear lord, the worse part is that this people not playing right with mathematics.

Next amendment: For an infinitely thick border, borders cease to exist, therefore, unreasonable searches and seizures are allowed everywhere.

100 miles? I hope they start exercising this on ALL Washington D.C., which seems to fall in the premises.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

So once soap box, ballot box, and jury box have failed, what is left?

So once soap box, ballot box, and jury box have failed, what is left?

1. Bribery

2. Blackmail with Eastern Europen prostitues

3. Conning a bunch of suckers with AR-15s that they need to fight for "Freedom" and if they actually pull it off, place yourself as dictator of the new Republic. History is filled with examples of charismatic people who con a bunch of folks to fight and die for "freedom" only to take over in the end.

Re:Bullshit.

[Nimey]

Libertarian masturbatory fantasies involving guns.

Re:Bullshit.

[foobsr]

So once soap box, ballot box, and jury box have failed, what is left?

Imagine the FED goes bankrupt, not able to pay the military.

CC.

Re:Bullshit.

[oodaloop]

When I joined the Marine Corps, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I always figured it would be the foreign enemies I had to worry about.

Re:Bullshit.

[Bob9113]

Libertarian masturbatory fantasies involving guns.

Also system theorist's tortured nighmares of an unavoidable path, repeated countless times in history.

Re:Bullshit.

[Bomazi]

How does that work exactly ? You shoot at a border agent and then what ? Guns are not a solution to everything.

Re:Bullshit.

[Bodhammer]

Government is the largest mass murder in history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder#Mass_murder_by_a_state

World total 1900-1999 262 Million: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

And who is going to send them to jail? You? The Public? Don't make me laugh...

Re:Bullshit.

[evil_aaronm]

“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” Edward Abbey

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you don't shoot at the drones; you take out the queen(s). And you make it known why they are being exterminated, one by one.

The Orkin Man

Re:Bullshit.

[cdrudge]

You don't even need to shoot them. They are shooting themselves.

Re:Bullshit.

[jcr]

On a related note, when De Tocqueville said: "“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money”, he wasn't expecting the public’s money to go to the rich.

-jcr

Re:Bullshit.

[rubycodez]

funny, what was the #1 thing the Founding Fathers gave as reason for 2nd Amendment? A: Tyranny at home. "Enemies from Abroad" was #2. What a Country, where the citizens are given the implicit right and means for violent revolution should the government turn evil.

Re:Bullshit.

[the eric conspiracy]

The bill of rights is not the entire Constitution.

The Constitution does give the Congress the duty to secure borders and regulate commerce. In fact one of the very first acts of the first Congress in 1787 was to establish the border search provisions that you are complaining about.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

The way it works is that if enough government agents die in the course of violating the Fourth Amendment, maybe individual agents will begin to consider it too much of a risk to continue doing so. This is how it should be, and why we have a Second Amendment, after all. At the very least, if enough people stand against it, attrition will begin to become a factor and there simply won't be enough people in the Border Patrol willing to be shot at.

Unfortunately, there are far, far too many people in the country that like to talk about "liberty" and "freedom", but aren't willing to make a stand for them. It's getting close to the point where people are going to have to be willing to give their lives for such lofty ideals, or lick the hand that chains them.

Re:Bullshit.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

"If everything people say de Tocqueville said that he didn't actually say were put into a single book, I'll bet it would be longer than Democracy in America."

-- Julius Caesar

Re:Bullshit.

[camperdave]

When I joined the Marine Corps, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I always figured it would be the foreign enemies I had to worry about.

There is an existing threat to the Constitution which you have sworn to defend. So... what are you doing about it?

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

How does that work exactly ?

For this guy, something like this, so far:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/08/us/lapd-attacks/index.html

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean denial, anger, binging, depression, and acceptance, hope this helps.

Re:Bullshit.

[Redmancometh]

I'm a libertarian myself (though not radical...I even have liberal views on quite a few social issues) but this hits the nail on the head!

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then get busy leaking, soldier.

Re:Bullshit.

[dryeo]

The problem is that the founding fathers had no experience with an actual violent revolution. They successfully waged a war of separation and won their independence but never even got within 3000 miles of the capital of the Empire, little well dispose the King.
Violent revolution always seems to go bad and even non-violent revolution often ends up worse then pre-revolution.

Re:Bullshit.

[dryeo]

Wasn't that before the Bill of Rights was added? Can't break the 4th amendment before it exists.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no "assult rifle" exception to the bill of rights.
There is no "anti-Citizen's united" exception to the bill of rights.
There is no "any religion unless it is against abortion and birth control" exception to the bill of rights.

Yet most here will scream till they are red in the face that those "limitations" are reasonable. Now that we have defined that there are "reasonable" limitations to the bill of rights it is just a fight on how far those limitations can be taken. Here is a hint, they are never reduced.

Not sure why everyone here is against this when they are for every other overreaching of the government. Half the country is begging for things like this, in a democracy that means this is what happens.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, you just made a watch list. You're now unofficially a terrorism suspect. For the near future, your actions will be subject to intense scrutiny, looking for any possible threat.

Re:Bullshit.

[dcollins]

"In fact one of the very first acts of the first Congress in 1787 was to establish the border search provisions that you are complaining about."

The Constitution wasn't passed, nor first Congressional elections held, until 1789.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Congress

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

... if enough government agednts die ...

First: The gubermint will just claim martyrdom for the law-abiding bureaucrat. Then demand the constitution has to be shredded again so the patriotic aren't killed by terrorists who "hate our freedoms".

Second: This a "tree of liberty" idea which suffers from three problems.
1: When, a mass-murderer takes 50 people hostage, the correct solution is for the hostages to rush him with the individual hope that he will be part of the 75% that survive the assault. But some hostages have a clever thought, 'stay at the back and the other 49 people will risk their lives saving me'. The result being everyone cowers at the back and everyone dies.

2: People get comfortable first. Most dissidents are too busy paying the bills and looking for sex to argue with their congress critters or support a grass-roots party. Thus congress realizes the sheeple don't matter and new parties are over-run by extremists.

3: While politicians admit their need to oppress the general population, the sheeple can't identify their enemy: Look at the 'occupy wall street' movement; no goal, no structure, no voice, no identifiable enemy.

Re:Bullshit.

[ChrisMaple]

The Revolution was to free the land where they lived and was brilliantly successful for about 120 years. Stop making stupid hair-splitting neologisms.

Re:Bullshit.

[crossmr]

getting? It's been at that point for a long time now. Basically since 9/11. Someone waved some dead bodies mythical enemies and everyone just rolled over, grabbed their ankles and said yes dear leader, please have your way with me.
For the all the time Americans spend looking down on North Koreans and their apparent blind allegiance, they're doing a great impression..

Re:Bullshit.

[slugstone]

No, you don't shoot at the drones; you take out the queen(s). And you make it known why they are being exterminated, one by one.

The Orkin Man

Your the cause of Honeybee colony collapse disorder.

Re:Bullshit.

[dkf]

the citizens are given the implicit right and means for violent revolution should the government turn evil

Technically, they have the right independent of what the constitution says; it merely recognizes the fact and restricts what the government can do to change the fact. That's the way that the bill of rights works.

But you'd better believe that violent revolution or civil war will be painful and will result in a lot of deaths among those who consider themselves to be patriots. (Which would be both sides, of course...)

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

How does that work exactly? You shoot at british soldiers and then what? Guns are not a solution to everything.

when every other solution has failed, you can kneel down and lick boots or you can pick up a gun.

to be honest, i'm already pretty sure which one you'll be.

Re:Bullshit.

[Grayhand]

How does that work exactly ? You shoot at a border agent and then what ? Guns are not a solution to everything.

God made man but Colt made all men equal

Re:Bullshit.

[Grayhand]

“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” Edward Abbey

The Founding Fathers realized there is an inherent entropy in government where governments decay to the point where they no longer represent the people. We are essentially there since few laws benefit the average person and most rules are to benefit corporations. Little things like the FDA trying to pass a law that would require every chicken be RFID tagged except for factory chickens that are raised in batches, they would only need one tag for the whole barn. It would double cost for free range organic growers and have no affect on factory farms. Corporations now use the government to attack small business to get rid of competition. Why is this important? It shows clearly we are becoming a Fascist state. Corporate government with the average citizen heavily controlled. Americans have sadly gotten fat and lazy and they'll put up with a loss of rights rather than stand up to their government. It's the Roman Bread and Circuses. They feed us junk food to keep us fat and reality TV to keep us lazy and stupid. 30 or 40 years ago most everyone read a daily paper. Two elections ago Sarah Palin did a deer in the headlights when asked what newspapers or magazines she read. In truth she's not the exception most would do the same. It's the reason this quote is so important, “I would rather have free a press and no government, than a government and no free press.” Thomas Jefferson. An uninformed public is easy to control.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

1: When, a mass-murderer takes 50 people hostage, the correct solution is for the hostages to rush him with the individual hope that he will be part of the 75% that survive the assault. But some hostages have a clever thought, 'stay at the back and the other 49 people will risk their lives saving me'. The result being everyone cowers at the back and everyone dies.

people have a herd mentality.. if just a couple of those 50 hostages rush the mass murderer, the vast majority of the rest will follow.

if you've ever watched the show "what would you do", you can often see this in action. most people will not act, they will stay quiet, mind their own business, until one person acts and it opens the flood gate. other people are doing it, so it's okay for me to join in.

most people are followers.

another great example is 9/11. three entire planes of people held captive by a few guys with boxcutters. on the fourth plane? there was at least one leader.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm, I expect that this will create a group of angry and frightened border patrol guards who will :
- Demand and get support for higher level of security which has to be paid for in several ways (not limited to but including tax money and more laws concerning how you can behave in those zones) by the public.
- Be more willing to use deadly force themselves in anything seeming like a possible dangerous (to themselves) situation.
- Lose any and all respect for the cause you are fighting for.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how it should be, and why we have a Second Amendment, after all.

And, of course, the Second Amendment is entirely safe from such manipulations.~

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't even need to shoot them. They are shooting themselves.

Not efficiently enough. I suggest somebody should offer them a helping hand.

Re:Bullshit.

[fyngyrz]

Half the country is begging for things like this, in a democracy that means this is what happens.

But in a constitutional republic, that isn't supposed to be what happens.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

So once soap box, ballot box, and jury box have failed, what is left?

When all else fails, vote from the roof tops.

Re:Bullshit.

[drinkypoo]

Imagine the FED goes bankrupt, not able to pay the military.

haha "goes bankrupt" let's study history, shall we? they just print more money until we get a depression. then they'll hold a war to dispose of the excess population and redistribute various private lands and properties to the already-rich. On the block right now are the klamath-siskiyous, and the california state parks. I'm sure we can imagine more stuff "they" plan to seize, but this stuff is a for-certain.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill yourself, retard.

Re:Bullshit.

[the eric conspiracy]

Yes, you are right. It was 1789. It was actually the 5th act of Congress to establish the customs service and begin collecting taxes on imported goods.

Re:Bullshit.

[the order of His Maj]

I was go to go for the pillory... *g*

But I figure (desperately hope?) eventually, the various congresscritters will eventually remember the various French revolutions, since our own history seems to elude them so.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

When I joined the Marine Corps, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I always figured it would be the foreign enemies I had to worry about.

Problem is that you don't get to decide who the enemy is, your commander in chief does. What happens when he decides that drug dealers are a domestic enemy? Do you violate the laws that prohibit the US military from operating against its citizens?

Re:Bullshit.

[sjames]

Sure, it has the power to control the borders, but that power is constrained by the absolute prohibitions of the Bill of Rights.

In fact one of the very first acts of the first Congress in 1787 was to establish the border search provisions that you are complaining about.

And then, in 1791, the Bill of Rights came into effect. Meanwhile, nobody is claiming there can be no search at the border, just that they at least need probable cause (a fairly low bar).

Re:Bullshit.

[91degrees]

Sadly though, for practical purposes, the law is what's enforced rather than what's written.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good grief, you moron. Read the damn Constitution sometime. One of the articles states that Supreme Court precedent is equivalent to the Constitution itself. So the Bill of Rights isn't limited to merely the words of the amendments themselves, but also includes all Supreme Court rulings regarding it. How do you get off arguing about the country's governance when you don't have the slightest clue how it works?

Re:Bullshit.

[celle]

"Guns are not a solution to everything."

        Yes they are. Real power is firepower as the US government constantly proves. If anyone tells you anything else, they're trying to sell you something. You don't shoot at a border agent, you kill him and any of his compatriots that try to defend his actions. That's how you fight a war and when the guns come out that's what it will be. Two sides that violently disagree and neither willing to give in. that's a war.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

So once soap box, ballot box, and jury box have failed, what is left?

Imagine the FED goes bankrupt, not able to pay the military.

CC.

Imagine you learn some economics. You might say fewer moronic things.

Re:Bullshit.

[rubycodez]

the U.S. civil war made the country better for more people. The British Empire fell anyway over the next 120 years

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except what are the last four words of the 4th Amendment?

"Shall not be violated."

  That does not leave a lot of room for exceptions.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Alexis de Tocqueville, actually.

Re:Bullshit.

[LeadSongDog]

When all else fails, vote from the roof tops.

Well, if you must, but please try not to land on anyone.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

But my home is not the border though it is within 100 miles of the ocean. And while Congress may have the power to control the border, according to the Constitution, they do not have the authority to rifle through my belongings. What part of "Shall not be violated" do you fail to understand.

Re:Bullshit.

[jcr]

The way it works is that if enough government agents die in the course of violating the Fourth Amendment, maybe individual agents will begin to consider it too much of a risk to continue doing so.

Solzhenitsyn made the point in The Gulag Archipelago, in the chapter called “the arrest”, that the men who showed up at the door to kidnap people and send them to Stalin’s death camps had no fear of being shot by their victims. He wondered how many instances of people fighting back would have been enough to stop the slaughter.

-jcr

Re:Bullshit.

[jcr]

I’m not sure it was leadership or just the fact that the people on the fourth plane had found out that the perps intended to crash the plane somewhere in DC, and they realized they had nothing to lose. The 9/11 perps pretty much ended hijacking as we had known it up to that point. It used to be that “just do what the bad man says” left a plausible chance of survival. Since 9/11 though, passengers are no longer docile, as was demonstrated by the reaction to the shoe bomber and the underpants bomber.

-jcr

Re:Bullshit.

[jcr]

Incidentally, the lack of any further attempts at hijacking since the underpants bomber, would seem to indicate that the perps have decided that their chances of success in attacking a plane are too low now. If they attack planes in the future, they’ll probably revert to the Libyan bomb-in-the-luggage strategy, or using the shoulder-launched missiles that the USA once gave to Al-Queda.

-jcr

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

So go ahead and do it. Or are you all talk?

Re:Bullshit.

[dryeo]

The US civil war was another war of separation.

Re:Bullshit.

[dryeo]

Don't you mean that it was about getting land for free? King proclaims that the native Americans are equal subjects and a bunch of land speculators freaked out, riled up the common people and revolted. It was a horror story for those people who lived on that land and it was also a nightmare for quite a few other people who were declared sub-human.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Revolution or acceptance are the only steps left..pick one.

Re:Bullshit.

[rubycodez]

only the losers thought that.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I respectfully disagree. The solution is within the states themselves. We need to maintain local government with enough integrity and backbone to support the citizens, and recognize that any federal agent acting outside their authority under the constitution is by definition no longer acting as a federal agent, and must be treated as a criminal.

If the states reject the federal government, then the federal government is neutered. They can sue all they want, but they state can tell them to go to hell, and if they have a problem with it, the state should impose sanctions -- i.e. Withold all income tax until the Federal government complies with the contract of statehood (the Constitution).

NYC in the 100mi zone?

[Anonymous Coward]

LA too? Since they are both on the coasts which acts as a natural border?

100 miles inland

[Dr. Tom]

Well, that includes all coastal cites, New York, L.A., Miami.

Re:100 miles inland

[aardvarkjoe]

Well, that includes all coastal cites, New York, L.A., Miami.

Look at a map of the original United States, and then imagine a 100-mile zone inside those borders. It looks to me like virtually the entire country would have been within 100 miles of a border. Somehow, I doubt that those who wrote the Bill of Rights would have agreed that they didn't intend it to apply to 90% of their country.

Re:100 miles inland

[Jaysyn]

Or you can look at the map that is linked to at the bottom of the /. article.

Re:100 miles inland

[immaterial]

Didn't realize that was a map of the original 13 colonies. My history classes must have been wildly inaccurate!

Re:100 miles inland

[guttentag]

Yes, but conveniently puts Washington D.C. dangerously close to and possibly inside the constitution free zone, depending on how far the actual border is considered to extend into the ocean from the shore. Because that would be awkward for laws to be written and constitutional issues decided in a place where the constitution does not apply.

Re:100 miles inland

[Mitreya]

Look at a map of the original United States, and then imagine a 100-mile zone inside those borders. It looks to me like virtually the entire country would have been within 100 miles of a border. Somehow, I doubt that those who wrote the Bill of Rights would have agreed that they didn't intend it to apply to 90% of their country.

I blame inflation.
I bet 100 miles in 2013 is worth no more than 2 miles back then.

Re:100 miles inland

[rubycodez]

no, look at their definition: 100 miles from each port of entry, e.g. international airports. we have 329 of those "ports of entries" everywhere, in all major cities.

Re:100 miles inland

[Jaysyn]

Ha, I completely glazed over that part of your sentence.

Re:100 miles inland

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet 100 miles in 2013 is worth no more than 2 miles back then.

A mile then was a genuine gold standard mile, not your modern fiat miles that aren't worth the signs they're printed on.

Re:100 miles inland

[Floyd-ATC]

Well isn't that great? Now those evil terrorists know they can only legally operate within less than 10% of US territory or they risk having their consumer electronics taken away from them. That should make them think twice, I'm sure.

That might be news...

[Anonymous Coward]

to people living in Seattle, San Diego, Cleveland, or Detroit.

How much of the nation is that?

[oodaloop]

Just eyeballing a map of the US, I'd estimate that 100 miles in covers at least a quarter of the country. Anyone have a more accurate proportion of how much the country this covers?

Re:How much of the nation is that?

[fyngyrz]

Anyone have a more accurate proportion of how much the country this covers?

Sure do.

2/3rds of the US population lives within this zone.

Re:How much of the nation is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

The north-south length of New Hampshire is 190 miles (Wikipedia). So take half that and imagine a thick border across the northern edge of the US, and another in the South where we border Mexico. That's a lot, but no where near a quarter either in area or population.

Re:How much of the nation is that?

[Miseph]

Unless it covers coastlines, which are also borders, and along which the majority of the US population lives.

It gets even bigger if every international airport counts as a border and gets a 100 mile radius 4th Amendment-free zone as well, covering virtually every major city in the nation.

Re:How much of the nation is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Throw in "International Airports" (Denver, St. Louis, etc.) and you've covered a lot more of the nation.

AC

Re:How much of the nation is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a map of the US showing the 100 mile zone.

http://tinypic.com/r/2re6sjr/6

Re:How much of the nation is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

population != country.

Re:How much of the nation is that?

[rubycodez]

yes it does. the country is We the People.

Re:How much of the nation is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're correct that population does not equal country but the question is pretty simple to interpret. They were wondering how many of the nation's people are affected by this and that, originally came out to 2/3 but with recent extensions to the logic of what's a border area you might as well think in terms of the whole country and all the population. That makes it simple.

Re:How much of the nation is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it does cover coastlines as well. If it didn't how would they control ocean traffic coming in through ports on the coasts away from the land borders. That's why you can say that in controls 2/3 of the population Most of the population doesn't live along the border with Canada or Mexico (although a great deal of the population of Canada does live along the border with the US. :-) it lives along the coastlines. Think New York, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, etc. All on the coast and away from the land borders.

Re:How much of the nation is that?

[fyngyrz]

population != country.

Well, inasmuch as the issue at hand here is (basically) 4th amendment rights, i fail to see what relevance BLM land, populated exclusively with cactus, has to do with either the question or answer. It's about people; 2/3rds of the people live in the zone; that's the point of relevance.

Re:How much of the nation is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he participates in the Degree Confluence Project and he wants to know which fraction of the US locations he can visit without risk. You shouldn't second-guess people. If he wanted to know the proportion of the population he would have used the word "population" in his question.

Re:How much of the nation is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://newsjunkiepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ACLU-constitution-free-zone.gif

Re:How much of the nation is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Something like... : http://www.flickr.com/photos/politibear/8459433662/in/photostream

Re:How much of the nation is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just eyeballing a map of the US, I'd estimate that 100 miles in covers at least a quarter of the country. Anyone have a more accurate proportion of how much the country this covers?

According to the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone): What we found is that fully TWO-THIRDS of the United States’ population lives within this Constitution-free or Constitution-lite Zone. That’s 197.4 million people who live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.

Sacre bleu!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for conjecture, Burlington, VT, Rochester, NY, Cleveland, OH are well within 160km (100 miles) of the Canadian border.

does the coast count as a border?

[Anonymous Coward]

if so pretty much all major economic centers in the u.s. would be subject to this shit...

Re:does the coast count as a border?

[anagama]

That isn't "would be subject to this shit" that's IS subject to this shit and have been for years. The second article in TFS is from 2008 -- half a decade ago. Why is it taking so long for people to wake up to what is going on?

Definition of border?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, does the border include the coast?
If so, that covers a large part of the population.

Re:Definition of border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the border includes the coast.

Yes, more than 68% of the US population lives in Constitution-free areas of the country.

Yes, this has been successfully used to seize vehicles that were driving between San Diego and Los Angeles, and which came no where close to crossing the border, or were in any way involved in anything having to do with the border.

Is anyone surprised? This has been going on a least since 2008.

Re:Definition of border?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, does the border include the coast?
If so, that covers a large part of the population.

I'm not 100% sure, but Territorial waters extend 24 nautical miles from the coastline by International convention so you could probably argue that even if the coastlines are included, it's not a full 100 miles inland from them. However, in the context of what this article discusses it's more likely to mean within 100 miles of a land-based border, as the DHS has never had the ability to enforce coastal boundaries... that's Coast Guard and US Navy jurisdiction.

Re:Definition of border?

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, are a liberal toady living in another world and trying to make this seem less horrible than it really is.

In case you didn't know, just about every national, not local police forces but national, law enforcement agencies were integrated into the DHS. In other word, the border guards, the Coast Guard, immigration, and a host of others are all included in the DHS now. Strangely, the original org chart on the government website has disappeared but an approximation can be found on Wikipedia.

Re:Definition of border?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, does the border include the coast? If so, that covers a large part of the population.

...the DHS has never had the ability to enforce coastal boundaries... that's Coast Guard...jurisdiction.

The Coast Guard is part of DHS. Sigh.

Loss of Money

[IonOtter]

Well, there goes $350 from me?

I was going to upgrade to a nice, shiny new Galaxy S III this Saturday, and get a data plan and everything.

I don't need either, but thought it might be nice to play around with all the cool toys, send IM and Tweets and stuff. Well. Not so nice after all.

Sorry, Samsung! Sorry, T-Mobile! I'm gonna stick with my talk & text plan on a $25 disposable that I fling down a sewer grate.

Re:Loss of Money

[Chubby_C]

replying to undo an incorrect moderation

Re:Loss of Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow I think you're wrong.

Re:Loss of Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Shame that there's no branch of government left that would actually have teeth to bite the government over an infraction to the constitution.

No, the supreme court doesn't have the power to enforce ANYTHING against the government anymore, a bit of sleuthing around will prove that.

Re:Loss of Money

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a border patrol guard and 95% of the people coming through have a smart phone, the 5% who don't would stand out.

Re:Loss of Money

[amiga3D]

Really? The guys that drew up the Bill of Rights were, as defined by the current administration, Terrorists. If they were alive today they'd stick 'em in Gitmo. They rebelled and overthrew the legitimate government of the colonies by force. I could make an argument that they actually were more free back then than we are now. If John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were alive today they'd be on the no fly list for sure.

Re:Loss of Money

[blind biker]

Well, there goes $350 from me?

I was going to upgrade to a nice, shiny new Galaxy S III this Saturday, and get a data plan and everything.

I don't need either, but thought it might be nice to play around with all the cool toys, send IM and Tweets and stuff. Well. Not so nice after all.

Sorry, Samsung! Sorry, T-Mobile! I'm gonna stick with my talk & text plan on a $25 disposable that I fling down a sewer grate.

Marekting people at Samsung, after reading your comment: "Looks like we have yet another challenge in the US marketplace!

Re:Loss of Money

[GameboyRMH]

I've been aiming to drive in One Lap of America, my plan is to take only my N900, I'd wipe it clean before flying and after arriving restore it from an encrypted backup, either transferred over the Internet or hidden on my person. Same procedure for flying back.

Re:Loss of Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? The guys that drew up the Bill of Rights were, as defined by the current administration, Terrorists. If they were alive today they'd stick 'em in Gitmo. They rebelled and overthrew the legitimate government of the colonies by force. I could make an argument that they actually were more free back then than we are now. If John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were alive today they'd be on the no fly list for sure.

The saving grace here is that by the time they presented their plans, most of the original government was ready to admit that the current plan was unworkable. Heck, that's part of the reason we had so many of the original goverment working on the new (not yet legal) plan.

Check out the map.

[cinghiale]

http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/homeland-security-assuming-broad-powers-turning-vast-swaths-us

Re:Check out the map.

[RandomFactor]

For perspective, the entire state of Florida is included in this.

I was gonna retire there someday too...

Re:Check out the map.

[Relic of the Future]

Money quote: "nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population live within this "Constitution-Free Zone." That’s 197.4 million people."

Re:Check out the map.

[Relic of the Future]

As well as all of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island (the southwest corner of Vermont is the only thing keeping all of New England from being Constitution-free), New Jersey, and Delaware. The largest city that's safe, is Phoenix.

Re:Check out the map.

[Mitreya]

The largest city that's safe, is Phoenix.

Hooray, let's rally the resistance fighters in Phoenix!
Oh, wait, does Phoenix have an international airport? Because apparently that can count as a border, too.

Has this arbitrary bullshit of a definition with 100 miles been tested in supreme court?

Re:Check out the map.

[Cimexus]

Map in that article is inaccurate when it comes to the Great Lakes area. The 'border' is not the shore of the lakes - it runs through the middle. Also, Lake Michigan is entirely within the US. So for instance, that map includes Chicago, most of Wisconsin etc. in the "border" zone, when in fact, they aren't.

Still the point stands of course. Was just pointing out a slight inaccuracy. And if we're counting international airports, O'hare basically throws all that area back into the 'border' anyway...

Re:Check out the map.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Phoenix has an International Airport. That's a border. 100 mile radius around the airport, please...

Off you go.

AC

Re:Check out the map.

[Anonymous Coward]

Phoenix has an international airport. So that's out too.

Re:Check out the map.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to forget foreign consulates and embassies. They are foreign territory.

Re:Check out the map.

[zaren]

Thank you for this information. I was looking for a way to see how much of Michigan was covered... and now I see that the entire state is affected. Guess it's time to spread the word :p

San Diego

[theArtificial]

Sucks to live in San Diego, California, Yuma or Tucson Arizona etc. I wonder of the typical sarcastic response is along the lines of "It's cool, I wasn't using my rights anyway"

Re:San Diego

[foofish]

As a resident of Tucson, this is alarming. If I lived farther north I'd be used to it, as Sheriff Arpaio has already made Phoenix a Fourth Amendment Free Zone.

Re:San Diego

[flimflammer]

San Diego resident here. This is indeed quite alarming to hear.

Re:San Diego

[Anonymous Coward]

Stay in Tuscon, drone cool-aid drinkers have nothing to worry about.

Re:San Diego

[Anonymous Coward]

As a native San Diegan, it does suck. And yes, I'm leaving - for Idaho.

The #1 refrain I hear from my friends: "what happened to this place"?

San Diego in the 1970s was heaven on earth. Ain't worth it any more.

Re:San Diego

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try, but fail.

He is not stopping anyone specifically to look at their citizenship papers, just verifying ID when stopped for other reasons (which is where the probable cause comes in). By your logic, it is a violation of the constitution for any cop anywhere to ask for your license and registration when you're pulled over for breaking the law.

Probable cause...

[yerktoader]

I thought this applied to probable cause. Wouldn't seem necessary if they don't need probable cause. I've also head that around 70% of our population lives within 100 miles of the borders. Can anyone provide cites for these? Thanks.

Since 2008

[mill3d]

http://arstechnica.com/security/2008/10/aclu-23-of-us-population-lives-in-constitution-free-zone/

Re:Since 2008

[the eric conspiracy]

Actually they can go over 100 miles if they feel like it.

"That whenever in the opinion of a chief patrol agent or special agent in charge a distance in his or her sector or district of more than 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States would because of unusual circumstances be reasonable, such chief patrol agent or special agent in charge shall forward a complete report with respect to the matter to the Commissioner of CBP, or the Assistant Secretary for ICE, as appropriate, who may, if he determines that such action is justified, declare such distance to be reasonable."

We are half way down the slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

So, for all the gun control fans out there, you cannot pick and choose which part of the Constitution you choose to enforce. When you start deciding that one section or another is inconvenient in the modern era you undermine everything, including the parts you like. We have a process for amending the Constitution. It is intentionally difficult.

Just as people argue about what exactly "bear arms" means, now we get to argue about what "unreasonable" means. I think they are both adequately clear. The suspension of the fourth amendment when you are actually at a boarder crossing makes sense because it is voluntary. You have a sign that says "All items entering this boarder checkpoint are subject to search". One mile away is unreasonable.

Re:We are half way down the slippery slope

[mark-t]

Just as people argue about what exactly "bear arms" means

I thought it meant I had the right to have arms like a bear. Big and furry.

Re:We are half way down the slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep arguing that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply today, but that the 4th amendment does.

Get back with me on how that works out for you, that is if the 1st amendment still applies then.

Re:We are half way down the slippery slope

[bythescruff]

A country's constitution is important, but "what's morally right" is important, too, and "moral" essentially means you cause the least suffering for the fewest. Over-permissive gun laws cause harm to many, and so do over-reaching search and seizure powers. There is a strong case against both.

Re:We are half way down the slippery slope

[shutdown -p now]

It should be noted that there's nothing wrong with opposing the 2nd amendment (or the 4th, or the 1st) per se. If someone thinks that there is no natural right to own weapons, and that federal government should have the power to decide who gets them and who doesn't, they're absolutely entitled to believe so and to voice their opinions. What's wrong is when people call for legislative action that ignores the amendment, or, worse yet, legislation by executive order to circumvent even the popular vote. The right and proper way to go about this is to demand another constitutional amendment that would repeal the 2nd (or change it into something you prefer). Back in the day, when the country decided to ban alcohol, it took a constitutional amendment to give the Feds the power to do so - and that is how it should be. If you can convince enough of the country to ban guns, then that's the republican system of government working as designed.

Definition of border

[michaelmalak]

I'm unable to find the definition of "border" anywhere on dhs.gov. Does it include the coasts? Does it include airport international arrival terminals? In both cases, is there a radius, such as the oft-touted 100-mile radius?

Based on some Googling just now, my guess is that the 100-mile border range including coasts -- popularized by the ACLU in 2008 -- comes not from DHS or Executive Order, but rather from proposed-but-not-passed Congressional bills, such as 2011 HR 1505 (and other bills stretching back to 2008). But I also guess that now that DHS has decided this, Congress will just pass a bill that expansively defines the border.

Re:Definition of border

[shentino]

The "border" is unfortunately whatever the feds damn well say it is.

All they have to do is call you a terrorist and you can be detained indefinitely and you'll never make it to court to challenge it in the first place.

Re:Definition of border

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the "United States" anyway? A closer reading of the Constitution clearly states where the United States is actually located.

They can fucking try

[Anonymous Coward]

They keep pushing people, and someone, somewhere is going to push back. And it won't be pretty. DHS might even lose.

Don't worry, citizen.

[dgatwood]

It is only temporary. Someday, we will increase it to 1,000 miles.

(For those who don't get the joke, except for maybe a tiny patch near Lebanon, KS, the entire continental United States lies within 1,000 miles of a border, give or take.)

But in all seriousness, nearly two-thirds the population of the United States lives within 100 miles of our nation's borders. The DHS's claims are tantamount to an outright abrogation of the fourth amendment for the overwhelming majority of Americans—an irrefutable and egregious violation of their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. So the only real question that we should be asking is this:

• Why aren't these usurpers in jail yet?

Freedom is a myth if our nation is unwilling to take people like this to task for wiping its a** with our nation's highest law. If we do not prosecute the DHS and anyone who commits illegal searches based on their borderline treasonous guidance, then our nation's highest law will have no teeth, and we might as well start calling ourselves the American Democratic Republic right now.

Re:Don't worry, citizen.

[fyngyrz]

Why aren't these usurpers in jail yet?

And the answer is... because there are no legal penalties whatsoever defined for violating the constitution. The oath is an empty act, with absolutely no teeth behind it.

And as for the "ammo box" answer, your fellow citizens, by and large, would just as soon you attempt to gum them to death, and the government took that idea and ran with it over a half century ago in United States v.Miller.

Re:Don't worry, citizen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom is a myth ...

That's right, freedom IS a myth.

The best thing you can do is leave the country now while you still can.

Good luck taking much in the way of liquid assets with you though. You might find
you don't have the 'freedom' to do that.

My favorite part of all this is that most of you fuckwits voted for the very people who
are doing this to you. So you fucked yourselves. Put that in your pipes and smoke
it, you fucking sheep.

Re:Don't worry, citizen.

[Anonymous Coward]

True. You cannot take more that $10,000 in cash across the border out of the country without declaring it and, of course, if you did a bank transfer that would be recorded and inspected. However, you could fall back to the old method of carrying your assets with you and buy jewelry, gold and gems, the gaudier the better and carry it out of the country by wearing it like costume jewelry.

Doomsday preppers keep a supply of simple gold rings for the time when the paper currency becomes worthless.

Re:Don't worry, citizen.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the answer is... because there are no legal penalties whatsoever defined for violating the constitution. The oath is an empty act, with absolutely no teeth behind it.

The Constitution *IS* the United States, it is the document that defines what the US is. All Federal agents, Congressmen, military personnel, Presidents, Federal Judges, etc. are all required to swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Since the TSA (and Obama and many congressmen) are making deliberate and overt war against the Constitution, the charge is defined in the Constitution itself (Article III section 3) as High Treason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States) and is one of the few crimes that can carry a death penalty (though I believe the Rosenburgs were the last to be executed for treason in the US in the early 50's).

Re:Don't worry, citizen.

[Anonymous Coward]

there is NO place within the continental u.s. that is not within 1000 'air' miles of a border or coastline.. the furthest you can get from either, anywhere in the country, is closer to 700 miles... which is a lot closer than '1000 miles give or take'

Re:Don't worry, citizen.

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who don't get the joke, except for maybe a tiny patch near Lebanon, KS, the entire continental United States lies within 1,000 miles of a border, give or take.

So you're saying that if I want my rights I have to move to Lebanon? Sounds about right

Re:Don't worry, citizen.

[nadaou]

because there are no legal penalties whatsoever defined for violating the constitution.

I believe it's called "treason".

Re:Don't worry, citizen.

[dgatwood]

Close enough for government work.

Re:Don't worry, citizen.

[fyngyrz]

No. Treason is defined in the constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Internal violations of the law for the benefit (or to the disadvantage) of citizens is not treason.

Sorry. Really, I am sorry, I wish that read "or any public official intentionally violating the constitution"... but it doesn't.

Re:Don't worry, citizen.

[drinkypoo]

Sorry. Really, I am sorry, I wish that read "or any public official intentionally violating the constitution"... but it doesn't.

If they can read the ICC as "congresss shall pass any law they like" then I can read "levying war against them" or "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" as "attacking the constitution". The government is always declaring war on things like drugs or poverty. Well, they created both of those problems, so I must conclude those are wars on the populace. They are making war against us. They're just about all traitors in that fucking building.

Re:Don't worry, citizen.

[oreaq]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Slightly off topic but the war on drugs is a war against the people and kills more Americans than any other war the government is currently waging. So, yeah, treason it is.

Re:Don't worry, citizen.

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that America is a Democratic Republic, right? We "elect representatives to power to speak for us. So really what you would call the new United States of America should be something along the lines of, "The New Peoples Republic of America" or the "United Republic of America" or "America, Fuck Off And We Will Drone Strike The Shit Out Of You." my vote is for that last one.

Re:Don't worry, citizen.

[dgatwood]

Pro tip: Countries with "Democratic Republic" in their names tend to be neither.

Re:Don't worry, citizen.

[celle]

"... because there are no legal penalties whatsoever defined for violating the constitution. The oath is an empty act, with absolutely no teeth behind it."

        Yes there is. It's treason and the penalty is death.

Re:Don't worry, citizen.

[shutdown -p now]

No, it's not called treason. The constitution specifically defines what "treason" means, and violating it is not included.

Thank good for the NRA

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why we NRA members keep our guns: to defend our freedoms from the government!

As we speak millions of NRA members are marching weapons in hand, erh, what was that... Imean thousands are marching,... come again, not that many? ok hundreds are marching..., no? not even that? ok Right now as we speak some of us NRA members are even thinking about doing something about this, which is why we keep our weapons ready!

this is like that stargate episode

[cenerentolo]

cant remember if it was atlantis or sg1, they were looking for some artifact of the ancients. there was this whole treasure path they had to take, it might have been with claudia black (woof), which makes it sg1... it was long and laborious. first they had to want the right thing, and to have a pure heart... and, dude, like have you ever had to truly change your heart? not easy in 6 seconds..... THEN they had to solve like IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES....... THEN.... they had to move through this invisible time dilation maze... where if they got trapped, they would be frozen forever in time... it has LONG AGO gotten to the point where these types of encroachments from habeas corpus to wiretapping to seizure of property now, that there is NO FUCKING WINNING, and if they are gonna fuck with ya they are gonna fuck with ya. this is the beginnings of a fascist culture.. beginnings, who the frack am i kidding???? we are full throes of this fucking thing. ONE MUST NAVIGATE AN INVISIBLE TIME DILATION MAZE to get out of the liberty encroachments these paper liars are proud to be spooging on humanity. god help us.

this is a very bad sign

[Presto Vivace]

I hardly know what to say.

Why aren't these usurpers in jail yet?

[Presto Vivace]

In jail? They were just reelected.

Re:Why aren't these usurpers in jail yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, more often than not, the courts have given them a pass on this nonsense.

Re:Why aren't these usurpers in jail yet?

[dkleinsc]

Well of course they were just re-elected. How could they not be?

Look at the recent complete non-scandal over a memo from the "Justice" Department that states that the President can decide to kill any American he wants to under any circumstances he wants to by accusing him of being a terrorist, without presenting a shred of evidence to anybody. The very next day, all the congressional leaders from both major parties made a public statement in support of that policy. The courts, when presented with a challenge to that policy by the father of someone known to be targeted by it, threw the case out of court by claiming that the only person with standing to file suit was the target, ignoring the argument that if the target had tried to enter the US for any reason he would have been shot on sight.

Ron Paul might have stopped the trend if he had won the presidency, but I'm not convinced that even he could do so with Congress, the bureaucracy, and the courts all trying to stop him. But neither the Republican Party as a whole nor the Democratic Party as a whole want to put any kind of stop to this, and the Republicans and Democrats will always cooperate to prevent any other party from gaining any kind of power.

Fight terrorists with terrorist methods

[Anonymous Coward]

Encrypt you drives, remove access to all ports, thread and glue all screws. And just for civilized justice, lace the electronic with explosives in case the damn thing is pried open,

The top brass in government feels everyone below should be treated like a criminal or a terrorist ? Then they deserve the monsters they feel all are.

seems arbitrary

[Libertarian001]

100 miles, you say? Seems a bit arbitrary. Almost like someone just pulled the number out of their ass. Or looked at a map to see where huge portions of the population lived and figured they'd just unilaterally start excluding those inconvenient Amendments.

I wish they'd be done with it already and just state that the Constitution doesn't apply within 100,000 miles of Washington D.C. because, you know, terrorists.

Re:seems arbitrary

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish they'd be done with it already and just state that the Constitution doesn't apply within 100,000 miles of Washington D.C. because, you know, terrorists.

That's exactly why they won't do that. If they go too fast people will notice. This process has been going for years, nobody would dare risk everything just to save a few years. Remember this is all for freedom. If you don't do as you're told the communists will win. Sorry, terrorists. The terrorists will win.

Implied Power

[Electrawn]

Further, the US Constitution doesn't grant the federal government immigration authority. It is an "Implied Power" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers

Re:Implied Power

[Anonymous Coward]

> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
>To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

That sounds like explicit power to control immigration to me

Re:Implied Power

[jcr]

A power to control the borders doesn’t imply a license to ignore the bill of rights.

-jcr

Re:Implied Power

[rubycodez]

becoming a naturalized citizen != immigration. look up "resident alien"..

Re:Implied Power

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know ET had came to stay...

What Say the Courts?

[hduff]

Or have they been targeted by drones to keep them quiet?

As a Citizen of the State of Florida.

[trout007]

Crap.

2030: A Really Backwards Border

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect future border crossings, perhaps as early as 2030,
will feature people parking their cars along a moving
sidewalk, then lining up, men in one line and women
in another, and stripping naked, swaying backwards
towards the border guard, bent over with their buttocks spread
wide so their anus is in full view, while coughing.

COME AND GET THEM....

[Anonymous Coward]

And have fun decrypting them, while you're at it.

This includes more that half of people's homes

[Anonymous Coward]

According to NOAA, more that 50 percent of the population lives within 50 miles of the border.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html

This is common for any banana republic.

[Anonymous Coward]

The statist government ratches the noose tighter just a little at a time.

Our grandchildren will be born slaves and curse our names because would could have done something to save our freedom.

All the foreign terrorists had real paperwork from the federal government.

All the foreign terrorists were protected from local law enforcement by the federal government.

All the domestic terrorists were government employees - including the latest rogue cop.

Look up the numbers - US citizens are more likely to be murdered by their own government than by foreign terrorists and military combined and it's been that way for decades.

The government doesn't protect us from danger - the government is the danger.

Re:This is common for any banana republic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well maybe if you hill billy ayn rand freaks would stop crying about "illegal immigrants" constantly we wouldn't have a police state on the border? oh no, but then a mexican might take your minimum wage job!

Re:This is common for any banana republic.

[Anonymous Coward]

(different AC here)

let me make it clear that I'm no fan of Ayn Rand. i think her ideas are harmful. with that said, you obviously know nothing about ayn rand except what you read on leftist websites. she was pro-immigration, especially having been a recent immigrant from the USSR herself directly/indirectly experiencing what had happened over there.

most conservatives (the voting base) are definitely not randroids. you obviously still disagree with them, and that's your business, but you should at least understand what you're talking about. it's the intellectuals, the neocon talking heads, and etc. of the republican and libertarian parties that are huge fans of Rand.

mummy why do the terrorists hate us

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we are free to be boot licking corporate lackeys darling.

USA,USA!

Our discussion

[Anonymous Coward]

God forbid they catch you with a link to this slashdot thread in your web browser, or an archive of these comments. I dont think i will travel within 100 miles of the border with a mobile device. I have a stationary desktop computer, my cell phone is crap, but i do have a digital camera. I will NOT demand a warrant, but i will suggest very politely that most interpretations of the 4th amendment dont allow for "amendment-free zones", and perhaps be willing to stay at a local hotel, pay the bill, and give them my ID until they can get a warrant. I dont want them angry at me. My country really scares me now, and i remember thinking that Reagan scared me. I would give anything to have all the people in govt replaced by reagan republicans, who were relatively sane compared to these nutbags. Barack Obama KNOWS this is illegal, hes a constitutional law scholar, so wtf? he must be insanely evil, only possible conclusion. I think i may have just become a tea partier/progressive democrat...

I was detained in Charleston SC

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife and I went to Charleston SC for our anniversary last year. We were just walking around downtown when a couple of DHS agents walked up to us and demanded to see our ID and our cell phones.

Without even asking, one of them snatched my wife's purse and removed her cell phone from it, and plugged it into some device.

I did not have my cell phone on me, and when I told them that, I was arrested and taken to a mobile "command center" where I was interrogated as to why I didn't have a cell phone, and subsequently stripped to my underwear because they thought I was lying about not having one.

The entire experience was humiliating.

The USA is no longer a free country. Period. And, anyone who thinks it is is deluding themselves.

Re:I was detained in Charleston SC

[Areyoukiddingme]

Ten years ago, I'd have said you made that up. Even five years ago, I might have said you made that up. Last year... I believe you. And how fucking sad is that.

Re:I was detained in Charleston SC

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit... is this for real? How the fuck have we let this place degenerate to a real, actual police state under martial law?

Re:I was detained in Charleston SC

[Jarik C-Bol]

I assume, because of how you where treated, you are a brown person, which is of course, almost a hanging offense in this country now. Not that it counts for anything, but I am deeply sorry we let things get this far down the drain, and I deeply regret how much farther they are going to go before we get off our asses and fix the problem.

Re:I was detained in Charleston SC

[dbc]

Yes, too true. The post just above yours says "Even 5 years ago I might have said you made that up." Well --- as I recall (and can't take time now to search newspaper archives) -- somewhere back before the INS was part of DHS (certainly more than 5 years), an INS agent detained a well-dressed Hispanic man on the streets of downtown San Jose over the lunch hour, and asked to see his green card. The man replied that he was a US-born citizen whose family had been in California since before it was a state. The INS agent continued to hassle him -- until someone managed to whack him with a clue-bat and tell him to stop hassling the Vice Mayor of San Jose.

The attack on civil liberties in this country has gotten far, far out of hand. It is time to put a stop to it, and the best bet right now is narrow, targeted lawsuits.

Re:I was detained in Charleston SC

[Anonymous Coward]

I love it. This is just exactly the kind of thing that more people should hear about. It proves exactly just how bad the situation has gotten.

Re:I was detained in Charleston SC

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how many others who experience similar events turn into the dark side..

Re:I was detained in Charleston SC

[Anonymous Coward]

racial profiling? whites are almost a minority there. so a white couple sightseeing downtown might look suspicious in charleston

Re:I was detained in Charleston SC

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you give me a citation for that? I did a quick google and couldn't find anything related. (I'm interested from a sociology of society viewpoint, particularly as race relates to class in US)

Re:I was detained in Charleston SC

[Anonymous Coward]

What did you do about it? Did you contact the media to share your story? Did you get an official explanation for your treatment? Have you filed a lawsuit? I'm skeptical that this actually happened since you leave us hanging.

Re:I was detained in Charleston SC

[dbc]

Sorry, I don't have a citation. It was a number of years ago... back when I read dead-trees newspapers. I vaguely recall that it was in an Op Ed in the San Jose Mercury News.

BFD

[__aacvzh55]

Cause that is what the bureaucrats who come up with this kind of shit say.

They don't care if they are wrong since there is no process to give a shit if they are wrong.

Our constitutions were written in a day (even 50 years ago) and an age where integrity mattered and we all had beliefs which we stood up for and defended proudly. Not so today. Constitutions without consequence are meaningless, in my country and in all countries on this planet.

This is very convenient for Canada and Mexico

[Anonymous Coward]

It's less of a step for them to claim that 100 miles as theirs. It's not covered under the constitution, so you don't have the right to arms as part of your "militia" so you may as well start eating tacos and saying Eh? That's how the terrorists won. They took your country 100 miles at a time from within your own government.

Fourth Amendment Free Zone

[the eric conspiracy]

It's my understanding (and I've seen this in ACLU publications and so on) that the 4th amendment free zone only applies at entry points.

The 100 mile range applies more to issues like immigration stops visa checks etc.

http://www.visaserveblog.com/tp-110714115312/post-121023152428.shtml

Re:Fourth Amendment Free Zone

[rubycodez]

oh, if true that makes us feel much better and is a much smaller area. NOPE! http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/contacts/ports/

Re:Fourth Amendment Free Zone

[the eric conspiracy]

As a matter of fact 329 ports of entry is a far smaller area than a 100 mile wide swath around the entire periphery of the United States.

Re:Fourth Amendment Free Zone

[rubycodez]

the country is the people. land doesn't have a Bill of Rights

Re:Fourth Amendment Free Zone

[Anonymous Coward]

So is this permanent Border Patrol Interior Checkpoint located on the highway at White Sands (70 miles from El Paso) an entry point?

http://goo.gl/maps/b5Tcm

Re:Fourth Amendment Free Zone

[Anonymous Coward]

full URL http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=las+cruces&hl=en&ll=32.764975,-106.182003&spn=0.035041,0.042572&sll=-33.796924,150.922433&sspn=2.216199,2.724609&hnear=Las+Cruces,+Dona+Ana,+New+Mexico,+United+States&t=m&z=15

beware San Diego!

[__aaltlg1547]

Cities within the 'zone': San Diego, Escondido, Chula Vista, California Yuma, parts of Tucson, Las Cruces, Douglas, Arizona El Paso, Presidio, Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Laredo, McAllen, Harlingen, Brownsville Texas A bunch of little burgs in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo New York, Cleveland, parts of Akron and Toledo Ohio, Detroit, Michigan Lots of little places along the border of Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and Washington Bellingham, Washington Juneau, Alaska If they count coasts as borders, add half of our major cities, if not more. And what law, exactly, negates the 4th Amendment?

Re:beware San Diego!

[EmagGeek]

Haven't you been paying attention? The Law is whatever Obama wants it to be. He rules by Executive Order and doesn't give two shits about the Law or the Constitution.

Re:beware San Diego!

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't you been paying attention? The Law is whatever Obama wants it to be. He rules by Executive Order and doesn't give two shits about the Law or the Constitution.

How come you only started paying attention when the black guy showed up?

Re:beware San Diego!

[Anonymous Coward]

I got my Obama phone! Fuck you racists!

Re:beware San Diego!

[TheGratefulNet]

you dislike obama. we get it.

you think that anyone else in this position would really get rid of powers that the position has, now?

really?

In other news...

[eksith]

"...the sale of Iron-oxide and Aluminum powder has increased dramatically as more and more people have started to make Thermite. Officials believe, this is due to the ease of destruction of hard drives and other storage media in the extremely high temperatures. No word yet on the number of estimated house fires next year, however it is expected to increase dramatically."

This should be modded up.

[xmark]

All out of mod points or I would do it myself.

No, not violence, but creative irony

[Tablizer]

Instead of violence, I wish them perpetual GroundHog Day at the transparent airport security booth of the coughing Dr. Longfingers.

It's Probably

[Greyfox]

I expect they're anticipating big budget cuts when the sequester kicks in and are looking to find a way to keep them in laptops. People have wised up to crossing the border with shiny new hardware, so they need to widen the net.

This is so 2008!

[Anonymous Coward]

Old news slashdot... wake up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPOuj-WzAoA

Wired Scaremongering

[Anonymous Coward]

The parts about the phones are true (because it has yet to reach SCOTUS) but the DHS stuff is good ol' scaremonger-trolling for clicks.

Time for court

[Anonymous Coward]

That's about enough.

Time for injunctions, protests, and de-funding.

here in san diego

[Anonymous Coward]

we knew about this a few years ago as there was an article in the newspaper(remember those) about a trial involving some guys laptop and i think the border patrol found that it had a bunch of cp on it, and even though he was well away from the actual border and a us citizen he challenged the border patrols authority to even search him for any reason- dozens of miles from the border .that was the first time i recall hearing of the 100 mile rule and the guy was convicted but, if i remember it right it was stated that this " law " had been in effect for some time and was not new at that time, it was just the first time i remember hearing that it had been challenged in court

captcha=dollar

in mourning for the land of the once-free

[charlesr44403]

so I, living 55 miles south of Lake Erie all my life and haven't left the USA since a brief visit to the Canadian side of Niagara Falls almost 50 years ago, now have no fourth amendment rights at all. When I fought the then-new seatbelt laws 30 years ago I said it would lead to much worse but I never imagined this.

Forgive my ignorance here...

[mark-t]

... but why call it "constitution-free"?

I mean, is the constitutional bill of rights such a house-of-cards that tampering with even one of them *guarantees* that the rest will fall? While I can get that such a consequence is something to perhaps watch out carefully for in the future and certainly try to prevent, the reaction that a single right from the constitution being suspended should somehow necessarily invalidate any or all of the others to be a bit... uhmm.... needlessly melodramatic.

Re:Forgive my ignorance here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if they can ignore one in what is very clearly an illegal move there is nothing stopping them from ignoring the rest.

Re:Forgive my ignorance here...

[Anonymous Coward]

... but why call it "constitution-free"?

I mean, is the constitutional bill of rights such a house-of-cards that tampering with even one of them *guarantees* that the rest will fall? While I can get that such a consequence is something to perhaps watch out carefully for in the future and certainly try to prevent, the reaction that a single right from the constitution being suspended should somehow necessarily invalidate any or all of the others to be a bit... uhmm.... needlessly melodramatic.

I don't think it's guaranteed to fall, but once I chop off one of your fingers and you don't protest, I'm more likely to chop off the next one until they are all gone.

Sorry this isn't a car analogy.

Re:Forgive my ignorance here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if they can change one, they can change the rest. And if they can change any of them whenever they feel like it, it might as well be written on toilet paper.

Re:Forgive my ignorance here...

[mark-t]

Of course I'm going to protest.... but I'm going to protest that you chopped of my finger, not that you chopped off my whole hand.

Re:Forgive my ignorance here...

[Anonymous Coward]

And that gives people license to exaggerate why, exactly?

I get that it's an important issue... but being melodramatic about it and suggesting that this is even remotely similar to complete abandonment of the constitution is, to be quite frank, an overreaction

That it's just one right doesn't mean it's not serious... and I'm not for a second saying that people don't have any right to complain, and bitch about it quite loudly for that matter, but for crying out loud, would it really kill people to actually just fucking say the truth instead of looking like they are only trying to create an emotional response by comparing to something that is too extreme to *not* produce some sort of emotional reaction.

Re:Forgive my ignorance here...

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, is the constitutional bill of rights such a house-of-cards that tampering with even one of them *guarantees* that the rest will fall?

Yes; because if one right can be compromised outside the established procedures for doing something (the process of amending the Constitution, which is annoyingly difficult for good reason), then any right can be compromised.

Re:Forgive my ignorance here...

[Anonymous Coward]

if you tamper with #2, the rest will surely fall.

#2 is the stop gap measure to ensure the rest survive.

Re:Forgive my ignorance here...

[Anonymous Coward]

>I mean, is the constitutional bill of rights such a house-of-cards that tampering with even one of them *guarantees* that the rest will fall?

When tampering pretty much means completely ignore, then yes. There is nothing in the constitution about a 100 mile zone. Congress/WhiteHouse invented it and the supreme court rubber stamped it. This process has happened before and will continue to happen until there is nothing left of the original constitution.

Watch the NDAA, as it's another example of destroying an amendment (the 8th this time). In case you haven't been following it, Obama is literally fighting for the right to execute american citizens without a trial.

It's all falling like a house of cards right now and has been for some time.

Re:Forgive my ignorance here...

[mark-t]

Please.... that sort of exaggeration is tantamount to saying that Connecticut shooter last December killed everyone in the entire school.

He didn't... he killed 26 people, plus himself. Yeah, it's serious... yeah, it's something that people can be rightfully upset about, but for chrissake, it doesn't hurt a damn thing to say what it is...

The areas within 100 miles of any border are not in any way, shape, or form *REMOTELY* constitution-free. They are, however, 4th-ammendment rights free, and that's quite reasonably a serious issue.

Calling it constitution-free smacks strongly of trying to incite some sort of emotional sympathy without needing any logical basis, even if there might happen be one. and worse yet, it can cause a person to overlook the *real* reason that there is to be upset about this. Unreasonable search and seizure is an extremely serious issue all by its bloody self, and you don't need to have the threat of the failing of the entire US constitution to have any justification to be incredibly upset about it.

So what I'm suggesting then is that people ought to let *THAT* be the reason for fighting against those who would cause it... not something that hasn't even actually happened, anywhere... and only looks ridiculously made-up to people who actually understand what is going on... and at worst only serves to spread disinformation to the general public about why this is actually a problem.

Re:Forgive my ignorance here...

[misexistentialist]

"Rights free" might be more accurate since without freedom from arbitrary search/seizure/detention you really don't have any kind of person-hood. I guess you're right that extreme claims are less believable (though that's kind of like telling an anti-Nazi activist that no one will believe Jews are being exterminated so they should just publicize how they are being fed poorly or something), but on the other hand most people don't understand the significance of the Bill of Rights. Talk about government searches and 3/4 will drone on about "having nothing to hide". And meanwhile the government will be telling lurid tales of terrorists, drug-crazed maniacs, child sex slaves, etc. that will make your concerns seem extremely petty. Really, it doesn't matter how the objection is stated, because there are just too many malicious people.

Re:Forgive my ignorance here...

[mark-t]

Talk about government searches and 3/4 will drone on about "having nothing to hide".

To anyone that says such a thing, I would ask them this question, which would hopefully enlighten them about why that's a problematic belief: "Why are you wearing any clothes right now? Is it because there's something wrong with your naked body, or is because your naked body is private?" The notion that you must have to have done something wrong to have something to hide is nothing but a fallacy, plain and simple.

Re:Forgive my ignorance here...

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, is the constitutional bill of rights such a house-of-cards that tampering with even one of them *guarantees* that the rest will fall?

Yes. It works because it lays out a set of rules that government must follow, and everyone agrees that government must follow these rules. It also lays out a clear process for changing the rules if we don't like them. If we decide that government can simply ignore one of the rules because someone in power doesn't like it, then by the same standard a future leader can ignore any other rule or all of them. Without the mutual agreement that the rules need to be followed, there is nothing to uphold the rules.

Re:Forgive my ignorance here...

[mark-t]

Two main problems with that...

1. Can is not the same thing as will.

But even more importantly...

2. The issue is serious enough all by its bloody lonesome, and doesn't necessitate that every other constitutional right be voided in order to have a justifiable cause to be upset. Somehow implying that suspension of one right will necessarily lead to the utter ruin of the entire constitution can easily cause people to not see the seriousness of what might seem like the smaller issue of what is really only one amendment being affected. If you're going to fight for your rights, you should know what you are really fighting for, or else you're just going to end up sounding like an idiot to people who actually know what this is about.

Re:Forgive my ignorance here...

[mog007]

is the constitutional bill of rights such a house-of-cards that tampering with even one of them *guarantees* that the rest will fall?

Yes.

Loss of one right is as wrong as loss of all rights.

Re:Forgive my ignorance here...

[mark-t]

Just as bad as, perhaps... but still not the same thing.

The notion that these affected areas are somehow supposedly "constitution free'" is nothing but a blatant appeal to emotion (a fallacious line of reasoning, even if the underlying point is factual), an to suggest that they are can easily lead to people overlooking that just just this one right being suspended *IS* sufficient reason, all by its bloody lonesome, to warrant outrage.

Really... is honesty in reporting *THAT* criminal?

Canadain law about this

[Anonymous Coward]

YES they can come , YES they can FOLLOW but thats it they cant touch you OR its technically assault, what they have then to do is get or convince a cop, CSIS , RCMP person to then arrest said person based on OUR laws not yours.
THATS the rub a lot of crap you morons do doesn't fly here.
the majority of this govt is not very big and you start messing badly and your pipeline goes poof and it all goes to china and eastern canada
seriously fuck off an dyes ive known since 90's that 290 fbi agents wander about....
FACT is they have no authority to do any more then a citizens arrest.

Awful

[MarkvW]

In US v. Boucher, DHS argues that they can COMPEL you to speak your passwords at the border.

Now, DHS is arguing that the border extends 100 miles around the whole perimeter of the US (where most of the American people live).

They ought to have serious problems with this in the federal courts.

Who the hell

[7-Vodka]

Who the hell links to an article about the ACLU's work, without Linking directly to the work in question instead

Re:Who the hell

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot.org

Re:Who the hell

[Anonymous Coward]

That WAS linked directly, if you read the original post.

The revolution is waiting on a revolutionary...

[Anonymous Coward]

The revolution is waiting on a revolutionary who doesn't suck. As somebody else put it wrt to our once great nation, "too late to vote, too early to shoot". If you try to fight this enemy now, what steps up as the 2nd republic is most likely to be our version of the Moslem Brotherhood: fundamentalist Christians. Bend over and kiss pictures of women's ankles good-bye. Either that, or it'll be Libertarian whack-jobs who are stunned to find out that shangri-la doesn't emerge when you go back to using jingle-jangle for currency and put a gun in everybody's hands. Then there are the ever-present communists. Quite possibly you end up with regions dominated by such groups. Great. Civil war all over again. Fuck. You sound like a good guy. If it comes to that, I just hope you can find a commander under a good revolutionary. One who doesn't suck.

So that means...

[Jafafa Hots]

The entire cities of Detroit and Buffalo? Everyone in those cities can have their electronics taken?

Re:So that means...

[russotto]

The entire cities of Detroit and Buffalo? Everyone in those cities can have their electronics taken?

In Detroit? Everyone foolish enough to bring electronics into Detroit gets them taken immediately. Not by DHS agents.

Re:So that means...

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you know its not by DHS agents?
Can't tell the bloody difference nowadays.

Enforce This

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead, make my budget cuts.

Any Idea?

[Jawcracker Fuzz]

What "electronics" is? Anything with a battery?

Re:Any Idea?

[Jarik C-Bol]

if it uses electricity. Good luck when they confiscate your pacemaker.

Re:Any Idea?

[0111 1110]

Our hearts and brains also use electricity.

Re:Any Idea?

[Jarik C-Bol]

better hand those over also then. Listen, its just so they can keep you 'safe'.

Constituition free zone

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, any agent of the federal government can strictly ignore any 4th amendment limits on government power within 100 miles of a border with canada or mexico and can search you and your personal effects without cause.

Wait... they can't. Bitch about your government all you want but at least be factual. The 100 mile legislation only applies to the border patrol, not state or local officials, not to dea, or secret service, or any other government agency, and even then the border search only applies tothose people entering the country outside of a port of entry who have not made any stops in the country on the way. It also doesn't apply to any international airport.

So yes, if the border patrol witnesses you crossing the border, maintains visual of you the entire time and brings you into custody without you having stopped anywhere along the way, then yes, per SCOTUS, you are in the constitution free zone. And subject to those circumstances only, the border patrol and only the border patrol, can search you to their hearts content.

If you have made legitimate entry into the U.S. there is no law enforcement agency in the country that has the right to search you or your belongings at will, much less for being within 100 miles of a border. There's so much wrong with this country, at least deal with the real problems, not made up paranoia.

Re:Constituition free zone

[Jarik C-Bol]

Unfortunately, I doubt those detailed rules will be applied, even marginally well, and we're going to have every Joe Yokel cop doing 'constitution free' searches.

Re:Constituition free zone

[0111 1110]

Citation? That's not my understanding. Also, good luck proving to them that you didn't cross the border recently. Because that is the least of what they will demand. Then they will search you anyway. If you resist them in even the most subtle way you will be arrested. Are you under the impression that law enforcement in the US respects the law themselves? Well, they don't. They will do whatever they think they can get away with, which at least away from civilian witnesses, is pretty much anything up to and including murder.

Curious

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the Exclusive Economic Zone, only within the actual boarder.

So this zone is in effect a DMZ: De-constitutionalized Military Zone, where all rights, those of the USA and States and International Rights are forfeit. Therefore, killing USA citizens IS allowed by Federal, State and Local 'Authorities' without legal constraint, ethic nor moral impediments.

Perhaps there is an on-going DoD and DoJ operation and we will know when the USA citizen(s) is murdered in the name of NATIONAL SECURITY.

Enemy Of The State

Fuck this place already

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time to get together, pool a shitload of cash, buy adequately sized piece of land and form a sovereign nation that actually gives a fuck about liberties.

(captcha already knows your response: missile)

Re:Fuck this place already

[Jarik C-Bol]

google 'republic of texas standoff' to see how well forming your own nation works.

DHS is illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

'All laws that are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void' Supreme Court Ruling, 1803.

Re:Thanks Faggots

[Anonymous Coward]

So Mister Anonymous Coward what have you done to help against tyranny besides whine on a public forum?

Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Claiming to free people by taking away their rights is complete bullshit. Sorry, I will always follow the constitution, the DHS and any other institution which tries to trample on my rights can see me in court.

Re:Ironic

[fyngyrz]

Well, yes, they will. They'll see you in leg irons and handcuffs. Then you'll go back to the cellblock, where Bubba is waiting to introduce you, again and again, to the pleasures of anal sex. Without lube. Or a reach-around. Or your consent.

See, that's the problem. You contemplate resisting? They have something very, very, very bad they can introduce you to. For months. Perhaps years. As your case drags on.

This is reality. Whatever you might want to do other than play in the courtroom, you can't do it from jail; and you can arrive in jail on the very thinnest of pretexts. Once you're playing in the courtroom, it's their rules; their timing; their decision if and when you get to talk to a lawyer, or if you do at all.

It's happened before...

[mschaffer]

It's happened before. Ever hear of the Pancho Villa Expedition?

4+ years ago...?

[Redmancometh]

Not that it makes it any less awful but this article is from 2008...

Re:4+ years ago...?

[Redmancometh]

Wow looked through the comments to see if it had been pointed out...missed the comment right above mine.

The nation of Me

[technosaurus]

When traveling outside of the US, my vessel shall be considered the nation of Me.
Any vessel attempting to come within 100 miles of the nation of Me without prior consent will be considered an invasive force and open to being sunken, seized, boarded or otherwise obliterated immediately and without warning.

Re:The nation of Me

[fyngyrz]

"They" have fighters, frigates, submarines, and if you were to really make them annoyed, torpedos and cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. And satellites to watch you. And SONUS to track you.

Now. What do you have? A gaff?

A Federal Police Force...

[Anonymous Coward]

The government is building it's population control army with our money, in front of our noses. They know they will one day cross a line and cause civil unrest and they're prepared to lower the boot. We are as stupid as any other nation who has fallen under tyranny. After all, "it can't happen here.. and not with OUR guy in power!"

Obsolete bureaucracy...

[sylvandb]

Just another obsolete bureaucracy.

One of these years they will discover the Internet and totally freak.

AYDABTU

[Anonymous Coward]

All Your Data Are Belong To US!

this is going on right now

[circletimessquare]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/us/for-some-suspects-charges-of-police-racism-resound.html

this dorner guy is systematically going after those whom he has targeted as being responsible for grave wrongs in the lapd

and a lot of people sympathize with him

the problem is, you don't actually solve any of the problems he's complaining about by shooting people

we live in a civil society. if you want to change a law, you change it. if you want to change a status quo, you agitate

shooting people does what? turns you into a target for a manhunt. that's it

you don't solve these problems with a gun. sorry

i don't really know why this stupid idea appeals to some people unless you are actually an unhinged individual

and yet your comment is modded +5 insightful? seriously?

all this tells me is there are far too many unstable people with guns in this country

there is no ammo box option. it's not an option in a civil society

really

and if you believe the ammo box is still an option, YOU are yet another problem the rest of us sane people who are pissed off with the DHS have to deal with

put away the fucking guns, you fucking wackjobs

not an option

Re:this is going on right now

[tftp]

there is no ammo box option. it's not an option in a civil society

That is correct. The ammo box is to be used when the society is no longer civil. For example, when your lords and masters tread upon you and enslave you. At one point it had something to do with taxes, at another - with slavery. Thirst for power also works. The society can drop the pretenses of civility very quickly (technically, at any time when civil methods are no longer advantageous.)

shooting people does what? turns you into a target for a manhunt. that's it

Largely yes, it does that. However it also tells others that their actions have consequences. Some people understand only the language of force; you can find many such people in your local MS13 gang - or, as Chris Dorner tells us, at LAPD headquarters. He may be wrong even in theory; and killing people over verbal offenses or over dismissal from a job is a terrible overreaction. He is very likely to be a mental patient because even in his manifesto you can see explosive rage where a reasonable man would record the conversation on his cell phone, then call his lawyer and get rich.

i don't really know why this stupid idea appeals to some people unless you are actually an unhinged individual

Mr. Dorner is unhinged, it is obvious from any one out of the many hints that he provided. Naturally, he is absolutely sure that he is perfectly sane and his actions are "necessary evil." All insane people are sure that they are sane. Half of his manifesto is talking about petty offenses that he was subjected to at work. He then proceeds to make a mountain out of that. A normal person would simply quit and move to a city with better PD, or he would take a different job altogether.

Re:this is going on right now

[ChrisMaple]

we live in a civil society

HA ha haha ha ha ha Ha ha haha hahaha haha ha ha ha ha ha snerk ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha.

Re:this is going on right now

[Anonymous Coward]

you don't actually solve any of the problems he's complaining about by shooting people

You have to admit, it worked for the IRA.

Re:this is going on right now

[Anonymous Coward]

we live in a civil society.

With the % of people we have incarcerated, and based on the laws we have? LOL.

Re:this is going on right now

[sjames]

When the government ignores it's own charter (the only thing that grants it existence), civil society is already gone.

Re:this is going on right now

[Sanat]

What you say is all well and good; however, we may eventually have to put our actions where our mouths are... and most will not be willing to stand behind their threats... some will though and whether they will be the heroes or not remains to be seen. Names like Jim Bowie, Davie Crockett, and William Travis all come to mind as well as Patrick Henry.

Bureaucracy Rises ...

[redelm]

Hmm ... DHS used to claim only 10-15 miles, enough to cover checkpoints along I-10 around El Paso, TX. Papers, please!

Now some enterprising wonk has pushed this 10x in claiming 100mi. No doubt including coasts and international airports (Denver, St.Louis, Atlanta, Memphis, ...) Nevermind the court decisions to the contrary.

These officials have sworn to uphold and defend the Constiution and then set about violating it, gives a measure of their honesty, integrity and honor -- ie - NIL . It is a sad oversight the US Constitution does not consider an offical's violation of their oath of office as treason. So mostly they face no consequences and will often take these fliers.

Re:Bureaucracy Rises ...

[fyngyrz]

Now some enterprising wonk has pushed this 10x in claiming 100mi.

The "enterprising wonk" was congress. Who gave the authority to define the size of the zone to the attorney general. Who did so. 100 miles.

Hows that hope and change working out for ya?

[Lawrence_Bird]

Reall good huh! What suckers you all were to believe the "Obama is good on civil liberties!" line. The man has proven himself by word and deed to be even more evil than Bush and Cheney. Not only does he not reverse their policies, he expands and extends them. But not a peep out of his supporters because he's "their" guy.

Re:Hows that hope and change working out for ya?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of Mussolini.

Re:Hows that hope and change working out for ya?

[hedleyroos]

As a non-US observer who grew up believing in the greatness of America (thanks Hollywood) I sadly agree.

Re:Hows that hope and change working out for ya?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well of course not - that's kind of the definition of supporters; and those of us that used to support him and are disgusted by his actions are no longer supporters.

Re:Hows that hope and change working out for ya?

[Grayhand]

Reall good huh! What suckers you all were to believe the "Obama is good on civil liberties!" line. The man has proven himself by word and deed to be even more evil than Bush and Cheney. Not only does he not reverse their policies, he expands and extends them. But not a peep out of his supporters because he's "their" guy.

You lost me at "even more". For all the Republican moaning and whining Obama has largely kept the Bush/Cheney policies in tact and anything added was in keeping with what Bush and Cheney would have done. The myth this explodes is their ridiculous claim that Obama is the most liberal President ever. No true liberal even considers him a liberal. Clinton was far more liberal. Obama is a right leaning centrist. That's the truth.

Re:Hows that hope and change working out for ya?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only does he not reverse their policies, he expands and extends them.

Ofcourse, neither of the two you named has done anything of the kind ? They only kept the status-quo their predecessor left behind ? :-)

A president would not (be fit to) be one if he did not try to get/make the best outof the situation. And that includes making choices not liked by all of the country.

Your mom did the same when you where little and you complained bitterly when she said that you had to eat those greens. Not to punish you, but to make sure you would stay strong and healthy.

But not a peep out of his supporters because he's "their" guy.

But a lot of "peep" from you, because he's not, and has probably never been, "your" guy ? How are you different from them ? Pot, meet kettle.

P.s.
What have you done to get a "better 'merica" ? Voted ? Become an active member of a party ? Went into (local) politics yourself ?

Or are you just one of the majority who likes to complain, but at the same time demands that somebody else solves all problems ?

P.p.s.
Bush ? Isn't that the president who got in trouble because he took "the truth" to a whole new level when he was asked about his relationship with an intern named Lewinsky ? Yeah, that certainly was one of "the good" presidents. :-)

Re:Hows that hope and change working out for ya?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? You think its Republicans moaning about this? Get a grip. Republicans in private are praising Obama (how else do you think Chuck Hagel signed up with Obama to be his SecDef nominee?).

It was the left that in the months leading up to the 2008 election saw Obama as this agent of change and progress. Since Obama has shown his true colors as Bush 2.0, the left has kinda been silent or only mildly critical of him; nowhere near as critical as they were of Bush. The mendacity and hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

Re:Hows that hope and change working out for ya?

[fyngyrz]

The point to be made here, however, is, would a right wing nutjob like (well, any of the republican candidates) done any better? Or would they have done more of the same, while in the meantime, trampling on the progress made in the last four years, such as in consumer credit laws, the ACA, gay rights, etc.

See, speaking AS an Obama supporter, I did not vote for the man because I was under any illusion he was going to roll back Bush's policies. No, I voted for him because I was pretty sure (and still am) that he'd do less damage than the republicans would have, and there were no other choices.

Re:Hows that hope and change working out for ya?

[drinkypoo]

I voted for him because I was pretty sure (and still am) that he'd do less damage than the republicans would have, and there were no other choices.

They gave us bush twice though we never elected him because it was in the script. We got Obama twice because it was in the script. It doesn't actually matter how you voted, because we were never going to have the other guy. The other guy was repeatedly handed last-minute scripts for speeches to make him look like more of an asshole. Which one? Both of them. Don't fall for this shit.

Re:Hows that hope and change working out for ya?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a peep from the Repubs either - because they want the power for themselves. And the NRA, supposed defenders of the Constitution, nowhere to be seen or heard. All they are interested in is their own personal weapons.

Re:Hows that hope and change working out for ya?

[Lawrence_Bird]

I would add that not all "R"'s are praising, even in private, what Obama has done. You may recall that while it took a while, R's did start to distance themself from Bush after 2005, not in mass but a fairly good minority, and not just on the economic front. Unfortunately, the most visible R's and the leadership (ie, those who get on TV a lot) are the worst of the neocons.

What is so utterly depressing is the way the Dems, in general, love to beat Bush and republicans on Iraq and Patriot Act but not their leaders who voted in mass for the same, multiple times now. Nor do they call out the current leadership on expanding the write of DHS, FBI and other agencies under P.A. and hidden executive orders.

Re:Hows that hope and change working out for ya?

[Lawrence_Bird]

You mean as opoosed to the "left wing nutjobs" who ran in 2008 and in 2012? Certainly Paul would not have expanded and would have reversed, if only be executive order, as much as he could. I think Mr. 999 also would have been more careful, at least domestically. Romney? Who knows where he really stood. Might he have tried to do what Obama has? Sure. But keep in mind too that whatever R would have been elected would have faced an impossible hurdle in the Senate. Obama has had the advtanage of a still large neo-con contingent in the house and his cronies in the senate to pass whatever he wants... that he doesn't just do by EO.

Your argument on choice is wrong - there are always other choices, one of which was to vote for Romney because he would not be able to get what he wanted out of the senate and might ultimately motivate enough to vote D in the midterms to retake the house too. I guess the weakness in that argument is that Bush rolled the Dems even when they had both houses.

Re:Hows that hope and change working out for ya?

[GameboyRMH]

I'm sure Bush would have done just as bad, but he wasn't President to do it. Obama did those things, therefore he did do worse than Bush and Cheney did.

Just as I'm sure McCain or Romney would have done *even worse* but they weren't president to do it either, so Obama has also done worse than either of them.

Re:Hows that hope and change working out for ya?

[fyngyrz]

You mean as opoosed to the "left wing nutjobs" who ran in 2008 and in 2012?

No. When I say "nutjob", I'm talking about things like not knowing how the reproductive system works; not knowing where strategic countries are located; pushing for more warfare and more fronts and more troops and more military under conditions where we clearly need less of all of those; where candidates spout such gems as "you're entitled to the best education you can afford"; anything at all that came out of Bachman's mouth; "Corporations are people"; that sort of thing. The republicans fielded an entire class of idiots this year, and it didn't help at all that the republican dominated congress was screwing up left, right and center.

While I'm not happy with either party when it comes to personal liberties and military adventurism, lately, I'm not happy with the republicans on any issue. They literally seem to me to be nuts, or if not nuts, then terminally stupid. Most likely, both.

Certainly Paul would not have expanded and would have reversed, if only be executive order, as much as he could.

Paul was utterly, completely unelectable. If I thought he had even a ghost of a chance, and he had stayed in there, and he'd had an understanding that the ACA (or something better) is needed, I'd have voted for him. But he didn't. He doesn't give a crap about anyone who isn't moneyed, and even if he did, there are not even close to enough voters who will step out of the democratic / republican veins. That's not even counting the fuckery that went on at the convention, and the outright blockage the media engaged in.

Paul is strong on military reductionism, currency control and civil liberties, all of which I like, but he's batshit crazy on healthcare and religion, and the topping on the sundae is he's simply unelectable.

there are always other choices, one of which was to vote for Romney because he would not be able to get what he wanted out of the senate

No. Romney is a cast iron idiot and would have been either a terrible president or a puppet president like Bush (and that would mean we'd have had Ryan running things... omFg.) He could have screwed up the ACA, something the country desperately needs, in any number of ways. Just that alone disqualified him. Presidents can do a lot to get in the way of progress. Veto funding bills, issue executive orders, etc. Just as bad, the president has a great deal of autonomy in foreign relations, and Romney is a senseless hawk. Between the two positions, that means he didn't want to spend where we should (ACA) and he did want to spend where we shouldn't (military.) If republicans want the presidency, they're going to have to come to terms with the fact that it's not all about making war.

I guess the weakness in that argument is that Bush rolled the Dems even when they had both houses.

You mean Cheney. Bush could barely pick his nose, let alone spell it correctly. Bush was and is a superstitious, culturally clueless man with a mouth full of marbles and a head full of cocaine voids. Cheney was responsible for the most massive intrusion on civil liberties since WWII, something we still haven't extricated ourselves from. They put the "terrorist, omg" earworm in the low functioners, and it stuck like glue. Not to mention putting the economy into a tailspin that didn't even begin to recover until Obama took office. Now we have the homeland security jackboots, the TSA, hammered travel, search, privacy and court rights... Bush's reign was indeed a nightmare, but Cheney gets all the credit in circles more sophisticated than the Fox news droolers.

This last election, the only reason the republicans retained the lower house was gerrymandering. They lost the presidency handily. They couldn't win the upper house. Hell, in my state, Montana, a very

Re:Hows that hope and change working out for ya?

[Lawrence_Bird]

This last election, the only reason the republicans retained the lower house was gerrymandering. They lost the presidency handily. They couldn't win the upper house. Hell, in my state, Montana, a very

I hope you realize that hte only reason most politicians stay in power is gerrymandering. Whenever either party has the opportunity to take advantage of it they absolutely run with it. The problem is that those times happen infrequently and people forget by then what the other party did when it was their turn. Heck I've seen districts changed to include areas 5 or more miles away across a body of water in order to help the current in-power party candidate (D at the time).

Secede

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's about time the states started seceding. Slavery is behind us and there is absolutely no good reason to not redeclare sovereignty at this point. Imagine your own country with gay marriage, universal single payer health care, no fiat currency, no DMCA or CFAA, no Patriot Act, no NDAA, no FCC censorship, no political party duopolies, no warrantless surveillance, no endless military budgets and drone killings, no draconian drug laws, nothing.

Becoming a sovereign nation and building international relations with other countries. I think the rest of the world would embrace such a move with open arms.

Re:Secede

[fyngyrz]

no endless military budgets and drone killings, no draconian drug laws, nothing.

I immediately imagine it invaded and conquered.

If someone threatens you, and your response is to draw a line on the ground and assert it can't be crossed, without having force to back you up, guess what happens next?

Re:100 miles inland = Civil War power grab

[flyingfsck]

Exactly. The 100 mi includes about 99.999% of the USA population. So this is a huge power grab of the Federal gov over the States. Smacks of a return of Civil War Martial Law - the whole USA now answers to Washington DC.

Article four years old

[Anonymous Coward]

Why a post on a four year old article? Is there really no articles that are more recent?

TrueCrypt

[Anonymous Coward]

Use TrueCrypt... it creates an encrypted partition, with a real and a dummy password. If they ask for a password, you give them the dummy one, and it reveals a dummy partition... the authorities have no way of telling that there is another one.

Iceland

[fyngyrz]

Iceland? Really? They have a "state church" (Lutheran, therefore Christian); they regulate and license firearms (unconstitutional practices here in the US); their president can dissolve their congress, subject only to having to have new elections within 45 days, so the executive leg there is much stronger than the congressional leg; and they have an "anti" 1st amendment that gives the government the right to restrict speech on "moral" grounds, as well as others.

If that's what you want for you and yours, then... I guess. Me, I'd rather have what the US constitution says, although I'm perfectly up front in admitting that we don't have it, not by a long way. Too many sleazy lawyers and judges declaring black is white, up is down and "enumerated powers" means "we can do anything."

On the other hand Iceland has nice auroras. Sigh.

Re:Iceland

[nonicknameavailable]

they tell FBI to leave the country

Re:Iceland

[fyngyrz]

But they have their own law enforcement, who are authorized powers our law enforcement are not (which is not to say they don't exert them anyway.) So are you really winning if you move there?

I don't know. Sometimes it's tradeoffs. I don't see anything (other than auroras) in Iceland that calls to me, and I see some things that leave me wary.

For you, maybe it's perfect. I'm ok with that, too.

Re:Iceland

[pjt33]

they regulate and license firearms (unconstitutional practices here in the US)

That's not true. The US constitution prohibits blanket bans on firearms, but it doesn't prohibit regulation and licensing. Hawaii has mandatory registration of firearms and licensing of owners; so does the District of Colombia, in response to the Supreme Court overturning its blanket ban in DC vs Heller.

Re:Iceland

[Kyusaku Natsume]

Did you know that Iceland is the oldest democracy in existence? And, by the treatment received by bankers and politicians during the most recent financial crisis, it is the best performing democracy too.

Re:Iceland

[company suckup]

Did you know that Iceland is the oldest democracy in existence? And, by the treatment received by bankers and politicians during the most recent financial crisis, it is the best performing democracy too.

+1000

Uk

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be funny in the UK as nowhere is more than 60 miles from the coast...

Nazis

[Anonymous Coward]

That is all.

Microsoft's datacenters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft maintains a major datacenter in Canyon Park/Bothell WA. This is about 98mi from the Canadian border. I wonder if MSFT legal has an opinion about this?

Re:Microsoft's datacenters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though our courts have been largely a rubber stamp for federal abuses, even I tend to think that a court would loathe to permit the DHS to search a stationary datacenter (i.e. something that doesn't have legs and couldn't be reasonably accused of recently having crossed a border) without a warrant or even probable cause based on the mere fact that it is within the 100mi exclusion zone.

Pacemaker

[ChrisMaple]

That's electronics. Not going to give it to us? We'll seize it. Just rip it right out of your chest.

We're the government and we're here to help you.

[lexsird]

Hello, I'm Bob Roberts of the Department of Redundancy Department. We're sorry, your Constitution is being updated, thank you for your patience as this update is being updated. We are sorry for your loss of liberty, life, property, and health. Any side effects should be reported.

We have done this for your own good, and trust us, it was for your own good. We have knowledge that they are also working with them, making them they and they will be them. They don't know that we know this, nor do they know that we know that they don't know. They know nothing yet. But let me tell you, nothing will get their way. Nothing. But they don't even know that.

Thank you and may your liberties be wisely burned.

An idea for the UK

[thsths]

That would let them do a lot more searching...

Time to rename it the Gestapo

[Grayhand]

I'm looking at buying land 10 miles from the Canadian border. So they are telling me my electronics can be seized at anytime without cause or warrant? We have no rights. The government has been using the Constitution for toilet paper so long they have forgotten what it was even meant. They treat it like a list of quaint suggestions from a more naive time. The truth is the Founding Fathers would have never stood for much of what they have done so they were better men than the men and women that now run the country. The paranoid and the power mad are in control and we are viewed as peasants. Remember this every year there are more laws not less. Once a right is gone it's gone forever. If we give up our privacy we'll never get it back. Already they are preparing to fly tens of thousands of drones over US soil. Why? To look for bad guys? They don't sun themselves in their backyards with signs that say "Bad Guys". This is about keeping an eye on everything you do. We also have black boxes in most every new car so our movements can be traced and they don't seem to need a warrant to access that information either. There are devices to see through walls and cameras everywhere watching us. It's the frog in the pot of boiling water. Can you imagine people standing for all this 30 or 40 years ago? There would have been rioting in the streets. Today we accept it without a whimper. It's sad to see the country I grew up is fade into a fascist state.

How long till it's 200 miles? 300 miles?

[Nyder]

Nice, so now we have a Fourth Amendment Free zone for 100 miles around our borders. How long before they decide it's 200 miles? 300 miles?

You think they won't? Please, this is a test of what we are willing to give up. If we let this go, then it's just the start.

OK

[spiritplumber]

DHS is free to try to steal my stuff. They will fail, and I will laugh at them after they do (and put it on youtube to share the mirth).

2nd as last resort

[fyngyrz]

That 2nd amendment bullcrap sure has saved you from tyranny and kept up the freedom right there, no?

You do understand that such action would be in response to abuse, not in anticipation of same, right? Right?

Even the American revolution didn't just fire up the first few times King George abused the colonists. It was a cumulative thing. Now, as to whether current events could reach such a crescendo of abuse as to actually inspire revolution... I doubt it. The average American today seems more intent on sitting in front of the television and chowing down some fast food. While the television in turn keeps them enthralled with nonsense about terrorism, saving the children, and whatnot. So I think it'll have to get quite a bit worse before anyone meaningful seriously contemplates violence.

The question seems to be, will it get worse, and just how bad would that be?

Re:2nd as last resort

[FooRat]

If one opens a history book, one thing one learns is that NEVER in the history of oppressed peoples, ever, did the oppressed people entirely stop fighting for their freedom. Ever. It's never happened. So it might seem like Americans have turned into a bunch of couch potatoes, but those eager to destroy the Bill of Rights should not get too excited thinking that it's about to happen now for the first time in history that the victims just roll over. Not gonna happen. As long as there are infringers of freedom, there will be freedom fighters - it is in human nature.

Re:2nd as last resort

[countach74]

Yes, there are freedom fighters.. but the vast majority don't care. And I think it can be argued that at no time in history has there been such a prevalence of tools to keep the sheep stupid and distracted as now. While a wonderful thing, technology has this uncanny ability to be very useful to those who want to be in power and control others.

Re:2nd as last resort

[zipn00b]

Yeah I think even the most vitriolic Harlan Ellison hater would have to admit he's correct about the "glass teat"

My particles

[Anonymous Coward]

If one can pick evidence without a warrent, they can plant it too.

So tell the NRA already.

[Anonymous Coward]

they ONLY consider the right to bear arms.

Tell them that the amendments are all to be protected.

Are you full retard or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Prograssives and liberals have been lambasted by the Democratic party leadership since about 6 months into their first term for picking on the president and complaining about his lack of change.

Yet YOU think that this hasn't happened?

Are you running on full retard?

The ONLY reason Obama got back in was because the GoP went Ultra-Retard and completely unable to be voted for.

So let's solve the problem constructively

[WOOFYGOOFY]

OK so a lot of the posts here seem to be coming from the POV that the govt. has no *real* *good* reason to be doing this. It's an easy road to take, but is it right? How do we know when we don't know the nature of the threats we face? Entertain a thought experiment where actually, in reality, the world has come to the point that this law is necessary.

Imagine that it all just gets down to logisitics and time constraints of law enforcement facing off against the leverage bio-terrorism, nano-terrorism and computing power give the Bad Guys.

I am not claiming I know this to be true in reality, just asking you pretend, to be flexible and go there in your mind.

Probably, it's *going* to be true at some point in the future because offensive destructive capability always outpaces and out muscles defensive capability. Always. It's just easier to find a way to impose huge amounts of entropy on the world than to defend against that imposition. Think nuclear bombs. Think grey goo.

So pretend the shape of things to come has arrived. How can we geeks, leverage computers and technology to design a legislative/ judicial / law enforcement / social system so that we can do what we need to do to defend ourselves and still retain and even enhance our Fourth Amendment rights?

There has to be a way to defend not against a nuclear bomb but against losing what makes America America while it defends itself against a nuclear bomb, or looks for the plans for a suitcase nuke or bio-weapon or whatever on someone's computer.

There has to be a way to meet this challenge on the battlefield that *it* has chosen, where the war is *actually* taking place. What everyone 's complaints amount to a kind of griping about the battleground reality has chosen to fight on. You're *insisting* that the battle be fought *over here* on the territory you know well. That's just not the way war works. The enemy in this case is the reality of bio-terrorism and nano--terrorism and nuclear terrorism and ALSO the way that forces law enforcement's hand and ALSO what that in turn means to us. That's the battleground that reality has chosen; either you show up to the fight or you lose it.

All these arguments about the Fourth Amendment are a form of not showing up to the fight, of insisting the battle be fought on your familiar turf.

Science has taken us here, and now we are here. Reality is not going to unwind itself to preserve your idea of privacy or liberty or the Constitution or anything else. That means you have adapt to reality creatively if you want to preserve those things.

The terrorists know they have to dynamically adapt - nothing is EVER easy for them. The government knows it has to react effectively also. We're the sticks in the mud. We're the unchanging old farts who are dug in and refusing to acknowledge change. Our play in this, our imperative, is to conceive of a way to leverage technology in our affairs so that after we've done everything we need to do or can do to protect ourselves , we also can say -"Yes. I am satisfied and secure that I am protected against unreasonable search and seizure, invasion of my privacy and I *know* that my "papers" are not spied upon, the value they represent not stolen from me, or used against me in any way at all that could be characterized as "unfair" by the government. It can't be built on pure trust, on legislative fiat, because no one trusts that all people, current and future, will honor the law . It has to be built on some ground level facts about reality the way cryptography is built around some ground level facts about factoring numbers and multiplicative inverses. Trust and secrecy are bit players in public key crypto compared to what went on before with secret codes and messages. There has to be a way we can devise a system that gives law enforcement the latitude it knows or believes it needs and still unarguably preserves our way of life. We're just not being creative enough here.

We build lots of things all day long. The internet itself is so far away from anything even conceivable to our forefathers, it's effectively realized magic. There *has* to be a way we can build something that can achieve both these ends. We *have* to be that clever.

Re:So let's solve the problem constructively

[Anonymous Coward]

... How do we know when we don't know the nature of the threats we face?

That's easy: Imagine all men are rapists, all secrets incite terrorism. It's easy if you try. There's no need to determine which threats are real or what level of destruction will occur.

... where the war is *actually* taking place ...

Where is the battlefield in the 'war on drugs'? As a patriot you need the police to fight this war in your kitchen and your car.

... the reality of bio-terrorism and nano--terrorism and nuclear terrorism ...

That's always been the case (since such weapons were built). It's just become possible for anyone to do this. How does government ensure everyone is an obedient patriot?

characterized as "unfair" by the government

King John never claimed it was unfair to imprison lords and knights. Should you be treated like a lord or knight? Politicians demand the law be fair to 'someone else', never the law be unfair to you.

... because no one trusts that all people, current and future, will honor the law.

Again, that's always been the case. Yet western civilization is built on trust using very wide-reaching principles. That everyone will treat a specially printed piece of paper as valuable. That everyone will protect my rights, like the right to hold and keep property. IE. Shops have glass fronts and people without weaponry carry personal items that cost hundreds of dollars.

... a system that gives law enforcement the latitude it ... believes it needs ...

How did the police catch criminals before digital communication and remote cameras made it necessary to spy on everyone? You've demanded powers for the police which simultaneously don't upset people.

You're conflating the need to regulate all things with a need to harass and spy on all people. I am not convinced.

Re:So let's solve the problem constructively

[WOOFYGOOFY]

>>

That's easy: Imagine all men are rapists, all secrets incite terrorism. It's easy if you try. There's no need to determine which threats are real or what level of destruction will occur.

The point is that it's precisely the fact that all men don't HAVE to be dangerous in order to have a civilization-ending terrorist threat. Only a handful. That is a new fact about the world which has no correlate in the past.

The point is precisely that ALL secrets don't have to be nuke how-tos in order to have one be such and for that one secret to fuck us all. That is a new fact about the world which has no correlate in the past.

Where is the battlefield in the 'war on drugs'? As a patriot you need the police to fight this war in your kitchen and your car.

Your literal interpretation of the idea of "war" and concomitant demand to be shown the location of this *war* is not a standard you hold yourself to, yet you mock me for not locating the war I am describing. *Where* is the war on your civil liberties? Where is the battleground? Indeed, where are you civil liberties anyway?

"Point to one", says a hypothetical despot, "and I'll see that it's well guarded."

If you're too literal minded to understand what was a very clear point (I re-read it again to be sure) then you're too literal minded to participate in your democracy and too literal minded for anyone to care what your opinion is.

That's always been the case (since such weapons were built). It's just become possible for anyone to do this. How does government ensure everyone is an obedient patriot?

No, how do WE ensure that no one uses these weapons. We, who want to go on living in a free society, where both "living" and "free" are equally important.

You're doing exactly what I said - you're describing an old threat and saying that the old system handled the old threat. We have a new threat which is sui generis and which requires fundamental change in society just because the fact that the vast majority of people are good DOES NOT suffice to maintain security anymore.

What about International Airports?

[Anonymous Coward]

An International Airport is as much a border crossing as a border between the U.S. and Canada, so can DHS also claim they can randomly detain and search anyone within 100 miles of an International Airport as well?

DHS already does random detain and searches along interstate highways and at train stations.

And I wish to remain anonymous because even just posting a message like this let alone THINKING such thoughts will only attract the attention of the DHS

Your papers are NOT in order

[Anonymous Coward]

Comrade....

And terrorist have won

[lapm]

Sad sad day when you realise that terrorist have won. US is changeing how they live in responce to terrorist fear, terrorist they created in first place :P

Constitution?

[Anonymous Coward]

What constitution? The US president has declared it is legal for him to murder anyone anywhere in the world without due process. Congress, in appointing Brennan and accepting the statements in the leaked memo regarding murder by drone, have or will agree that this is legal. That is the very definition of tyranny. The US president is currently a wimpy democrat, imagine what it will be like when a full-blown nutjob like McCain gets the position.

Why bother?

[Roger W Moore]

If a nuke were available, I've got no doubt that terrorists would have no trouble killing millions.

Why would they bother? Killing people is just the horrible means terrorists use to achieve their aims. The terrorists goals are usually to oppose the US' historical championing of freedom and democracy throughout the world. From what I see sitting well over 100 miles north of your border they don't need to bother anymore: if you can't support freedom and democracy in your own country you have zero credibility when you try to promote it to the rest of the world. The US might still be more free and more democratic than a lot of nations but to champion it you need a squeaky clean image not a "ho-hum and getting worse" one.

Re:Why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

If a nuke were available, I've got no doubt that terrorists would have no trouble killing millions.

Why would they bother? ...

Exactly, the atomic threat is one that rings true to the 80's generation, the generation that grew up in perpetual fear of being instantly killed in mass. However, if you want to kill some people to get your message across, you don't need such expensive or exotic weaponry. In today's day and age, a simple rifle will get you a week's worth of air-time provided you use it in an educational setting. We have the threshold of "free press" for any cause set dangerously low.

yea change!

[Anonymous Coward]

/sarc

No more Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The right to reasonable conduct is a fundamental right in any ethical legal system, arising under the 9th Amendment in the USA Bill of Rights. The failure of a legal system to recognize the right to reasonable conduct is unethical conduct on the part of the legal professionals involved in creating and operating the legal system, as this creates an artificial demand for the services of legal professionals as a class in society.

In this day and age, reasonable conduct includes the right to carry personal electronics without interference from government, irregardless of where one happens to be physically located, whenever such carry would be considered reasonable by ordinary people.

It is not within the legal authority of any branch of the government to decide that the Bill of Rights does not apply to it, or to authorize any other branch of the government to infringe the Bill of Rights. No entity whose members swear oaths to uphold the Constitution, including the Supreme Court, may do this without violating those oaths.

If this policy was proposed by members of the government, then those people are now former members of the government. Anyone stupid enough to enforce such an illegal policy immediately and permanently ceases to be a government official. Any judges ruling to the contrary are in violation of their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights, the rulings are immediately rendered null and such people making such ruling immediately and permanently cease to be government officials and cease to be authorized to engage in the practice of law.

The right to not have one's time wasted by the government is also a fundamental right. Any individuals who have their time wasted by government officials attempting to implement such an illegal policy have a right to be compensated from the personal funds of the government officials physically implementing the illegal policy, and those executives who should have made sure that no illegal policies get implemented by the government.

Re:No more Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this create a new example of "carrying concealed", not weapons but your electronic devices? Will you start to need a permit to carry an electronic device in the constitution free zone? You're already required to carry a federally recognized ID such as a passport even if you are a citizen.

Any big corporations harmed by this?

[Anonymous Coward]

If any of the super-rich corporations are negatively impacted by this practice, we can expect some effective lobbying to get this changed.

If it is just us little-guys though, well, we will probably just have to live with yet another abuse of freedom, since we seem completely incapable of banding together and effecting positive political change these days.

Counter Productive

[Anonymous Coward]

So DHS is targeting airports: Huston, TX, New Orleans, Tampa, FL, Miami, FL, Reagen Nat., Dulles, Newark, NJ, JFK&LaGuardia, Buffalo, NY, Cleveland, OH, Detroit, MI, LAX, SFO, and Portland, OR. These are too few in number to help DHS raise their cash from black market sales from
the stollen merchandise and stollen cash/credit cards.

Going house to house to rob and kill USA citizens is also counter productive: costs and personnel needed exceed capabilities.

Seems Janet 'Planet' Napolitano and her lap dog Mr. Pistol are ingesting too much cocaine and LSD these days to be effective administrators.

XD

APB: Kevin Hussein al-Mitnick

[mariox19]

Perhaps these terrorists have learned to launch nuclear weapons from their iPhones!

Hmm, what's the appropriate response?

[Patrick May]

Oh yeah, I know: Fuck you DHS. "Terrorism" is not the root password to the constitution.

Seizure of Electronics, etc. within borders...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a definite Constitutional violation of rights ! It should be challenged ! NO arbitrarily declared boundaries may be modified or infringed !

"refuse to submit" == get beaten or shot.

[Anonymous Coward]

you have no legal right to refuse,
you will be beaten if you try,
and they have the right to shoot you repeatedly if you resist,
and you will probably be charged for obliging them to beat or shoot you.

Wake up.

East Germany would have orgasmed endlessly over what the US, UK, China, Australia, Russia, and other countries are doing against that same terrorism *"rights"* stuff that that convicted terrorist "Jesus" used, through ... you know, free speech, free healthcare, forgiveness of what is past IF one is committing good now, positive reinforcement, global availability of this "god" stuff, treating women as people, and other terrorisms...

Convicted by Jury, too!
( due process )

Grow up.

Rights are illegal, and will be murdered by the ruling gang's law.
as will defenders of "rights".
Unless you are part of the ruling gangs, you are subject to the gang's rule.

Nothing changed, except the labels...

5000 years of "progress" all a fraud, human nature is the same as it ever was...

( what the hell was that book that stated this blatently, that the "law abiding citizen" was a crock, that average meant committing everything one felt comfortable getting away with, and the more the "better", while pretending to respect or value "honor"?
damn, I wish I remembered... )

You want rights?

try videoing police while they commit a crime, and see how long you still have teeth, and no criminal record.

There are good cops, there are excellent cops, there are awesome cops, there are cops who probably can be saints and can be seen to be divine saints, but what I've seen is that the rotten ones rule, and the good ones just shut up and don't stick their necks out pointlessly.

iow, gangs rule.

there was a posting somewhere here on /. a short while ago about some jurisdiction eradicating the police cruiser cameras because it was costing enforcement 90% of its cases...

accountability is the one thing murder hates more than any other threat to its authority.

go ahead, just try making the secret police authorities, or any other branch of the rights removing gangs accountable...

i dare you

because it's pointless for a few individuals to do it

if many did it, maybe it could get traction and survive for awhile,
but really, you are in East Germany and making believe otherwise...

cheers

capt'n obvious

Re:How long till it's 200 miles? 300 miles?

[EmagGeek]

It'll be 200 miles the day after they find an illegal immigrant terrorist 200 miles inside the border.

It'll be 300 miles the day after they find an illegal immigrant terrorist 300 miles inside the border.

Sedition

[DarkOx]

Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.

be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Clearly members of the executive branch are undermining the constitution they take an oath to uphold; with their routine twisting well understood meanings and flagrant abuse. The same goes for assassination of citizens through the CIA's drown program. These could be considered seditious acts.

We in the public should start demanding possibly dangerous criminals Holder, Brennan, Obama, and Napolitano be tried.

Clear notice to DHS: I will not comply

[BubbaDave]

I will not comply with a checkpoint not at the border.

I will not submit to a DHS/TSA/VIPR search not at the border

Clear notice: I will not submit.

Bring you best, I'm pretty fucking good behind the wheel.

When cornered, I'm pretty fierce, though I carry no weapons.

The chase will be epic.

I will go to jail or die.

But I will not comply.

You cannot imprison a free man, you can only kill him.

This is my creed. This is what I pledge. I will live free until you come to kill me.

A Compromise on Bush/Obama..

[bradorsomething]

How about this... we democrats will say Obama is as bad as Bush on civil liberties, if you republicans say Bush is as bad as Obama.

I think we can all meet in that middle ground.

Deal?

So by extension..

[daq man]

Does 100 miles from the border also imply 100 miles from the coast? If so that covers most major population centers on the East and West coasts.

Re:Thanks Faggots

[Anonymous Coward]

How about bitching to my congressman, and making sure I put my money where my mouth is so he actually hears me.

I was also involved in his election campaign, standing out on a street corner with him holding a sign for hours in the fucking middle of summer.

What the fuck have you done?

Hope for the best

[Anonymous Coward]

Change for the worst.

The real border that matters for data...

[LeadSongDog]

... is the internet. Now go ahead. Find an electronic device that's more than 100 miles from that.

100 miles?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just grepped 100 miles in a searchable text file that contains the constitution. Odd no hits..

Grepping the word "hundred" turns up some hits tho..

"the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed"

"thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and"

"Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred"

So I'm not a lawyer, I don't pretend to be one. I know jack schitt about the law... Yet I am strangly amused and awed by legal concepts developed by the very same people who seek to benefit from them. Like DoJ figuring out a way whereby kill lists of US citizens programmed into drones can be constitutional. ..then it hit me...I do these kinds of things all the time just for amusement...

Its called hacking. Its no different than greping thru code for instances where the format specification of printf is user controlled.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This is a bit like walking up to a clueless coder, commenting out _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS and seeing how many seconds it takes to find a vulnerability. Its not even worth your time to try.

At some point it ceases to be about what the law really says and more about what you can make it say given sufficient resources and motivation. When people do shit like this they only undermine their own legitimacy.

Too bad such a beautyful country is

[overmoderated]

inhabited by such lowlifes.

Gun Owners

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are all the 2nd Amendment gun owners, ready to use their guns to form militias to protect the nation's 4th Amendment rights???

TSSA

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a "S" missing from TSA. It should read "Transport SchutzStaffel Agency". TSSA.

Not my fault

[Anonymous Coward]

I voted for the rich white guy. Did you vote for the revolutionary intellectual?

National Police

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember Obama's 2008 campaign? He pushed for a national police force. Sounds like he is implementing one

If you don't like it...

[ToddInSF]

Write your congress person that made this happen.

You can blame the President, blame a particular party, blame anyone randomly that you want.

The authority to permit this lies in Congress; THEY allowed this to happen, it's THEIR responsibility to fix it, and OURS to demand that they do.

For all the bitching here, I don't see anyone actually making any suggestions or efforts. Whining just makes you a whiner. DO something that actually matters.

Bizarro world

[Anonymous Coward]

I grew up during the cold war. I remember clearly someone on TV saying that if we were to lose to the Soviets, we'd end up in a police state. All our phone calls would be recorded by government spy agencies. There would be cameras everywhere. The police would stop you for no reason and ask to see your papers.

We won, didn't we?

DHS

[Anonymous Coward]

gosgog:
Ha! Ha! Land of the FREE....bullshit, this is not the America I left the U.K. For back in 1958 to Canada & ultimately to the U.S., in 1960.
Back then you could become whomever & do whatever you wanted (within the bounds of the existing laws at the time). Now, the Terrorist have won...totally! You can't even get on a plane without taking off your shoes, No, the U.S. is no longer the "LAND OF THE FREE" and why ? Because y'all were too busy watching Football on 40" screens with a can of bud in your hand and voting the same assholes into D.C., that did this to you! If you dont kick 'em out of office next time around you're gonna lose your guns and then you might as well become Chinese!

That's highly interesting...

[neminem]

Highly interesting, considering the heart of San Diego is less than 20 miles from Tijuana. Does that mean police anywhere in San Diego can now seize anybody's electronics for no reason with no warrant? I'm sure their police department would be happy to hear that.

Florida

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess this applies to the entire state of Florida...

Over the edge!

[Anonymous Coward]

The little piggies get more bold every day - What next? They already fondle your wife and kids at the airport not to mention the x rated pics!! O boy! What the hell does it take? Enough!! I live within 100 miles of the border and i will kill the first motherfucker that tries to take anything from my house, electronic or otherwise.w