Slashdot Mirror
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."
Go die in a fire.
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So once soap box, ballot box, and jury box have failed, what is left?
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
Ammo box
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:
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
How does that work exactly ? You shoot at a border agent and then what ? Guns are not a solution to everything.
“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” Edward Abbey
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
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.
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.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
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.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
You didn't notice the sub shadowing you? The Satellite overhead that tracked your progress? You only think you were unobserved.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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..
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.
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.
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?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.