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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[Meski]

That would be pursue?

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?

[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

[dbet]

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

Re:Fuck you DHS

[ConaxConax]

We've got our eye on you.

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

[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

[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

[dcollins]

[Citation needed]

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.

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...

[funwithBSD]

Not. In. Kansas.

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[dryeo]

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[LeadSongDog]

When all else fails, vote from the roof tops.

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

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.

[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.

[rubycodez]

only the losers thought that.

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

[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?

[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?

[rubycodez]

yes it does. the country is We the People.

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.

Sacre bleu!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Definition of border?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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?

[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.

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

[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"..

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.

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?

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.

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

[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]

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.

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

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!

[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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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?

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

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.

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'.

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?

Obsolete bureaucracy...

[sylvandb]

Just another obsolete bureaucracy.

One of these years they will discover the Internet and totally freak.

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

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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).

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.

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:Fuck this place already

[Jarik C-Bol]

google 'republic of texas standoff' to see how well forming your own nation works.

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: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.

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?

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"

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?

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

[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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Too bad such a beautyful country is

[overmoderated]

inhabited by such lowlifes.

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.

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.