The DHS's "Constitution Free" Zones

[Byzantium Imperial]

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

I stopped reading there

[Yanalia]

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.

Well, except for the fact that "crossing the border" has been interpreted as "living within 100 miles of it."

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

I have not read this thread and do not intend to do so

I stopped reading there

Goody for you. Your deliberate ignorance is most commendable.

[Yanalia]

I stopped reading there

Goody for you. Your deliberate ignorance is most commendable.

So is yours?

[The Orson Empire]

Ahh, another example of how the U.S. is becoming a police state.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

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.

Well, except for the fact that "crossing the border" has been interpreted as "living within 100 miles of it."

I am aware that is the concern -- although it is an exaggeration. No one is actually claiming that the border is 100 miles wide or that merely living within 100 miles of the border is the same as crossing it. Something absurdly along that lines is being asserted, but there is a distinction.

Otherwise, the relevant portion of my post referred to "much of what is complained about" and at least tried to make clear the distinction between "actually crossing the border" and internal checkpoints, etc. I apologize for any confusion. I was, for example, meaning to note that specific "horror stories" given in the various articles referred to those actually physically crossing the precise U.S. border.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

Goody for you. Your deliberate ignorance is most commendable.

So is yours?

Fair point.

I am not, however, ignorant on this subject. (Which is not an implication either way as to you, Byzantium Imperial, or any other poster.) I am familiar with this subject matter for many reasons and read all the linked OP sources (and links therein). It may be that there is information in this thread of which I am unaware and I could learn from reading it, but that is usually not the case with NSG -- particularly with threads that start from false premises.

[The Ben Boys]

Well, shit.

I'm going to go delete my browsing history now...

[Blakk Metal]

Finally we can deport California.

[Phing Phong]

At least you have a Fourth Amendment and Constitution which will hopefully smack the DHS back into shape. In the UK there is nothing to stop the government doing this if it so chooses.

Well, shit.

I'm going to go delete my browsing history now...

I hope you know how to delete it from the NSA databases as well.

[Muzzak]

glad you all voted/supported obama now huh

[Mavorpen]

glad you all voted/supported obama now huh

Yes.

[Blakk Metal]

glad you all voted/supported obama now huh

This has nothing to with Obama. As all the Libtards say, both sides are the same.

[Genivaria]

glad you all voted/supported obama now huh

Obama doesn't pass laws, Congress does.

[Greed and Death]

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.

If you keep calming people down I will be forced to up my hyperbole and poes to make them panic.

[Maineiacs]

Regnum, we live in occupied territory.

I just hope Michigan is given to Canada at this point. I'd welcome the Canadian overlords.

Same for Maine.

[Muzzak]

glad you all voted/supported obama now huh

Yes.

so your happy your rights ar being taken away correct?

[Blakk Metal]

Yes.

so your happy your rights ar being taken away correct?

Romney and McCain would've done the same. Gas chamber for the lot of them.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

glad you all voted/supported obama now huh

Um. Given that the so-called "DHS 'Constitution Free' zones" were in place before 2006 and President Obama was elected in 2008 (took office in January 2009), perhaps you should reconsider such off-topic trolling.

Granted, to the extent these policies continue and are objectionable, the Obama Administration is culpable, but the notion that John McCain or Mitt Romney would have ceased such policies (instead of expand them) is laughable.

[Hallistar]

I remember when this was first brought up back in 2006 on some news articles, and what's sad is the frequency of things like these that slip under the radar because people don't feel that such a thing could happen in the first place. For the record, the US is not the only country guilty of trying to pull crap behind the scenes. The UK, Australia, NZ, Germany, Canada, South Korea, Japan, France, Greece, UAE, Turkey, Russia, Mexico (Although then again people seem to expect the latter two to be among the most corrupt anyways), and on and on have also passed controversial bills and legislation and seedy action that also infringed on personal freedoms and privacy that have also drawn the rightful ire of people. Nevertheless, this is still disgusting. I'm not in the zone but still.

[TotallyNotEvilLand]

Despite the fact that I'm not in this zone.

What the fuck, America? You're becoming the same thing you claimed to fight against all these years. What happened to your freedom-loving ways? Oh, sure, we're more free than the USSR or North Korea could ever dream of being, but you're on a steady path to becoming an all-controlling shithole. I sincerely hope that if goes too much further the people will revolt before they assume total control of the country. This simply cannot be allowed to continue.

[Yanalia]

Despite the fact that I'm not in this zone.

What the fuck, America? You're becoming the same thing you claimed to fight against all these years. What happened to your freedom-loving ways? Oh, sure, we're more free than the USSR or North Korea could ever dream of being, but you're on a steady path to becoming an all-controlling shithole. I sincerely hope that if goes too much further the people will revolt before they assume total control of the country. This simply cannot be allowed to continue.

The freedom-loving ways never really existed. They just have the tech to do it differently now.

[New Chalcedon]

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.

Gross breach of the Constitution.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

It's almost as bad as the TSA gropecheck-points at airports. Then again, virtually the entire security-state apparatus is grossly un-Constitutional: doesn't support the Supremes supporting it on a regular basis.

After all, this is the Roberts Court: rights are for corporate persons only; biologicals can just suck it up.

[Malfyria]

US government: Spies on people....Pope: Catholic......Bears: shit in woods.

More breaking news at 10:00.

[Benuty]

Change Spike Jones " In Der Fuhrers Face" to "In the Presidents Face''. Then change some of the lyrics and insert a " Shove it up your kumquat DHS" every now & then, thus you have the new song.