The DHS's "Constitution Free" Zones

[Blasveck]

I don't care if he was a simple soldier or a General.

War is wrong. War is hell. And nobody, NOBODY, should be able to send my son to one on a whim.

No, but if your son enlists does that automatically make him a war criminal?

1. War criminal? When did I say that?
2. He shouldn't need to enlist in the first place if other nations and politicians didnt decide to start another war every other decade.

[The Saint James Islands]

Kill it with fire. Fucking kill it with goddamned fire.
And thanks for the nausea; I feel absolutely sick to my stomach about this. It's not like I need more reason to hate my home in NC.

[Tenebriso]

Yes and no. NKVD and Gestapo weren't always considered combatants. Both the Red Army and the Wehrmacht shot enemy secret policemen on sight.

....shooting prisoners, regarding of their status, is a war crime, so moot point.

Even before the Geneva Conventions?

[Hathradic States]

Yes and no. NKVD and Gestapo weren't always considered combatants. Both the Red Army and the Wehrmacht shot enemy secret policemen on sight.

....shooting prisoners, regarding of their status, is a war crime, so moot point.

Again, won't hear argument from me on that. I am not proud of all of my ancestor's actions on the Eastern Front.

Then again, I am pretty sure it is only considered a warcrime if you lost WWII.

[Blasveck]

I don't care if he was a simple soldier or a General.

War is wrong. War is hell. And nobody, NOBODY, should be able to send my son to one on a whim.

So? It doesn't automatically make all soldiers detestable human beings.

And, if your son enlists, he is volunteering for whatever war he is thrown into.

Did I ever say that soldiers were detestable beings? No.

I'm saying the system and the people who send my son to war are detestable.

[Tenebriso]

No, but if your son enlists does that automatically make him a war criminal?

1. War criminal? When did I say that?
2. He shouldn't need to enlist in the first place if other nations and politicians didnt decide to start another war every other decade.

1) Im just saying that if your son enlists then if the government initiates a war that causes war crime, yet he doesn't commit one, is he still complacent?
2) I agree

[Agritum]

....shooting prisoners, regarding of their status, is a war crime, so moot point.

Even before the Geneva Conventions?

Read what you link. The Geneva Conventions are treaties. There was already a third one before WW2 started.

[Hathradic States]

So? It doesn't automatically make all soldiers detestable human beings.

And, if your son enlists, he is volunteering for whatever war he is thrown into.

Did I ever say that soldiers were detestable beings? No.

I'm saying the system and the people who send my son to war are detestable.

No, but you implied it.

And I agree, it shouldn't happen, but it is going to, regardless.

[Tenebriso]

Even before the Geneva Conventions?

Read what you link. The Geneva Conventions are treaties. There was already a third one before WW2 started.

I was legitimately asking a question, Im multitasking atm

[Agritum]

Read what you link. The Geneva Conventions are treaties. There was already a third one before WW2 started.

I was legitimately asking a question, Im multitasking atm

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

And it actually focuses on treatment of prisoners, too.

[Blasveck]

1. War criminal? When did I say that?
2. He shouldn't need to enlist in the first place if other nations and politicians didnt decide to start another war every other decade.

1) Im just saying that if your son enlists then if the government initiates a war that causes war crime, yet he doesn't commit one, is he still complacent?
2) I agree

I said earlier that I respected the soldier, but not the system or the people.
Unless my son violates the Geneva Conventions, I would have to say no.

This is for you too Hath.

[Hathradic States]

I was legitimately asking a question, Im multitasking atm

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

And it actually focuses on treatment of prisoners, too.

It is the reason we had a POW camp in Phoenix.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

*reclines in chair whilst chuckling*

[Tenebriso]

1) Im just saying that if your son enlists then if the government initiates a war that causes war crime, yet he doesn't commit one, is he still complacent?
2) I agree

I said earlier that I respected the soldier, but not the system or the people.
Unless my son violates the Geneva Conventions, I would have to say no.

This is for you too Hath.

The bolded part may be what I am having trouble understanding. Do you mean the politicians? Or "The People" in the abstract sense?

[Blasveck]

*reclines in chair whilst chuckling*

Knox?!??!

IT WAS YOU WHO DID THIS?!?!!!

[Blasveck]

I said earlier that I respected the soldier, but not the system or the people.
Unless my son violates the Geneva Conventions, I would have to say no.

This is for you too Hath.

The bolded part may be what I am having trouble understanding. Do you mean the politicians? Or "The People" in the abstract sense?

I mean the politicians. I mean the old men (Generalization, I know) in Washington who have the life of my son in their hands over some arbitrary war.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

*reclines in chair whilst chuckling*

Knox?!??!

IT WAS YOU WHO DID THIS?!?!!!

There's no need to get so angry, I'll have you know that the entirety of the UK is a constitution-free zone too.

[Tenebriso]

The bolded part may be what I am having trouble understanding. Do you mean the politicians? Or "The People" in the abstract sense?

I mean the politicians. I mean the old men (Generalization, I know) in Washington who have the life of my son in their hands over some arbitrary war.

Oh well then there, I entirely agree with you.

[Agritum]

Knox?!??!

IT WAS YOU WHO DID THIS?!?!!!

There's no need to get so angry, I'll have you know that the entirety of the UK is a constitution-free zone too.

I see what you did there.

[Hathradic States]

*reclines in chair whilst chuckling*

Knox?!??!

IT WAS YOU WHO DID THIS?!?!!!

I thought it was Fris.

[Benuty]

The American Free Zone must purge the Soviet-Cuban-Mexican-Nicaguaran invaders!

Oh wait wrong movie.

[Xsyne]

The report released as a result of the FOIA request by the ACLU can be found here. It should be the one called "Redacted Report", but I can't download it for whatever reason. Can anyone else?

[Regnum Dominae]

The report released as a result of the FOIA request by the ACLU can be found here. It should be the one called "Redacted Report", but I can't download it for whatever reason. Can anyone else?

Works for me.

[Xsyne]

The report released as a result of the FOIA request by the ACLU can be found here. It should be the one called "Redacted Report", but I can't download it for whatever reason. Can anyone else?

Works for me.

Well, good. What's their justification?

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

Sourceness Numbro Ein (The Daily Sheeple).
Source Numbar Dva (ACLU Website).

More Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-mill ... 38075.html
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/0 ... -seizures/

To sum it up, the Department of Homeland Security has the ability to search your electronic belongings for no reason, a clear violation of the US's 4th Amendment, within a hundred miles of the border. As you can see on the maps provided in the sources, this includes several entire states, such as Maine and Florida. At first, I was rather skeptical on this, given the original source, but the first article talked about the ACLU lawsuit over it, so I swallowed my conservative pride and checked there, where, indeed it does exist.

So, NSG, what are you thoughts on these actions? Is it reasonable, given the times we live in, or a gross breach of the US Constitution?

Myself, I find that, if the ACLU lawsuit makes it to the Supreme Court, they will likely say that, indeed, the actions are unconstitutional. Hopefully, it will do away with the policy.

I have not read this thread and do not intend to do so, so I apologize in advance if this is repetitive.

I believe there is legitimate cause for concern here and I am glad the ACLU is on top of this. However, nothing alleged comes close to the hyperbole of "DHS 'Constitution Free' Zones."

The ACLU blog is from 2008 and is based on a 2006 ACLU report. The follow-up DHS report in question is from 2009. Why The Daily Sheeple (??) appears to have gotten its bollocks in a twist this week is a mystery. As is why Wired suddenly decided this was a concern 6 months ago. The Huffington Post's article is also 6 months old.

Finally, much of what is complained about from all these sources (including the ACLU) is rather unsurprising and not disturbing. When one actually crosses the U.S. border, it has essentially always been the case that the ability of the government to conduct search and seizures is extremely broad (although the 4th Amendment clearly applies). Checkpoints within the borders and some other mentioned measures have been in place for decades and are minimally intrusive and/or already determined to be constitutional. (As a resident of San Diego, I also know that many such checkpoints and measures are technically in place, but are actually rarely actually used. The checkpoints are usually not even manned and you drive right through at highway speed.)

Be concerned, but do not be hysterical.