DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

ERASER · 02-09-2013, 06:45

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...cid=co5746764#

ithaca_deerslayer · 02-09-2013, 06:53

No 4th amendment if you live within 100 miles of a border?

How is that constitutional?

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?

ERASER · 02-09-2013, 06:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer

No 4th amendment if you live within 100 miles of a border?

How is that constitutional?

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?

And how long until the 100 miles becomes 1000 miles?

***.264 magnum*** · 02-09-2013, 07:01

Folks we are simply giving away what so many have fought and died for-. We suck.

Fear Night · 02-09-2013, 07:04

Well at least we are "safe."

Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

RonS · 02-09-2013, 07:33

My uncle was in the Army for a couple of years before Pearl Harbor. He served throughtout the war in the South Pacific, declining a battlefield comission along the way. He served in Korea as well, again turning down a commission. He served in Vietnam three times. As an observer, an advisor and the third of his extended tours was with MACV-SOG. (I don't know about the first two, he didn't leave anything laying around those times, or I was too young to know what it meant.) He retired as a Master Sgt (with a Masters Degree) after 32 years of service and then served as our county veterans service officer until his untimely death from a heart attack probably caused by years of malaria problems.

I do not look forward to explaining the last few years to him.

DanaT · 02-09-2013, 07:53

Thank this guy

He has caused so much crime, that we need to be ever vigilant and have our protectors keep us safe.

poikilotrm · 02-09-2013, 08:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by .264 magnum

Folks we are simply giving away what so many have fought and died for-. We suck.

Giving it away to whom?

Bren · 02-09-2013, 08:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer

No 4th amendment if you live within 100 miles of a border?

How is that constitutional?

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?

There is no 4th Amendment in fictional stories from tinfoil hat land.

Notice how they start by converting "crossing the border" to "travelling along the border" right in the title, to give you a false idea of what they are talking about.

It's as false as the claim that the 4th amendment requires probably cause for all searches, even though that has never been the law.

Bren · 02-09-2013, 08:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by .264 magnum

Folks we are simply giving away what so many have fought and died for-. We suck.

We're not so much giving it away, in this case, as lacking the ability to understand the difference between reality and what we read on the internet.

fgutie35 · 02-09-2013, 08:56

I live along the border. Never heard such thing. People would have made a huge scandal like when the Gov. Tried to expropiate land from ranchers along the border to build the fence. That didn't go well for the Gov.

***.264 magnum*** · 02-12-2013, 12:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by poikilotrm

Giving it away to whom?

A big .gov.

Dennis in MA · 02-12-2013, 12:53

I live within 100 miles of the border! Atlantic Ocean, that is.

***.264 magnum*** · 02-12-2013, 12:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bren

We're not so much giving it away, in this case, as lacking the ability to understand the difference between reality and what we read on the internet.

What am I missing?

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-tech...r-v-napolitano

ETA - I agree that the story headline is overcooked.

Dennis in MA · 02-12-2013, 12:56

Sounds like the Civil Liberties Impact Team needs to stop acting like a bunch of em.

Assuming this is true: I love how, yet again, Obama railed against Bush-era policies that he either endorsed or expanded during his first term.

Bren · 02-12-2013, 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by .264 magnum

What am I missing?

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-tech...r-v-napolitano

ETA - I agree that the story headline is overcooked.

You seemed to be missing that the entire story was fiction. They took a story about searching people entering the country at border checkpoints and changed words to imply that DHS was patrolling along the borders seizing things from people inside the US.

Dennis in MA · 02-12-2013, 13:11

Are you sure?

(from the ACLU)
"DHS claims it has the right to conduct these invasive searches whenever it likes, to whomever it likes, and without having any individualized suspicion."

I'm not saying they are stopping "am I being detained" people and grabbing lappy-toppies. But it appears from their language, they feel well within their rights to do so. THAT scares me.

Cali-Glock · 02-12-2013, 13:11

Holy crap! That is all of San Diego and Imperial Counties plus!!

Cali-Glock · 02-12-2013, 13:18

According to the ACLU this applies to coastal borders... Hmm did no think of that - using this logic apparently almost 2/3 of the population lives within 100 miles of a border....

countrygun · 02-12-2013, 13:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis in MA

Are you sure?

(from the ACLU)
"DHS claims it has the right to conduct these invasive searches whenever it likes, to whomever it likes, and without having any individualized suspicion."

I'm not saying they are stopping "am I being detained" people and grabbing lappy-toppies. But it appears from their language, they feel well within their rights to do so. THAT scares me.

Ask yourself,

"Am I quoting what the DHS said, or am I quoting what the ACLU decided to tell me about their interpretation of the DHS statement?"