Welcome to amerika, folks; where 2 out of 3 people no longer have full 4th amendment rights. At the moment it applies to "electronic devices". How long will it be until it extends to 150 mi....200 mi and applies to everything. So if I understand this correctly, anyone in Houston can be stopped and have their electronics searched for no real reason???? I can see the possible need for it on border searches, but the 100 mile inclusion zone disturbs me. DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border "“We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits,” the executive summary said." "The President George W. Bush administration first announced the suspicionless, electronics search rules in 2008. The President Barack Obama administration followed up with virtually the same rules a year later. Between 2008 and 2010, 6,500 persons had their electronic devices searched along the U.S. border, according to DHS data. According to legal precedent, the Fourth Amendment — the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures — does not apply along the border. By the way, the government contends the Fourth-Amendment-Free Zone stretches 100 miles inland from the nation’s actual border." ACLU Assails 100-Mile Border Zone as ‘Constitution-Free’ – Update
Going forward on all the tapping, drone and drug threads; let's just post stuff from the ACLU or court opinions and holster the whiny (and/or bigoted) Dem hypocrite or Nazi stuff.
I think all these things are done as a measure to catch people they already suspect, not to prey on the innocent. This is fine by me.
That is insane. It should never be okay to anyone to have their bill of rights limited. I don't care what the purpose is... The innocent should not have to forfeit their rights to make capturing the guilty easier. These rights are there to protect the innocent. Taking them away takes away some of the protection of the innocent. I'm sorry that's okay with you or anybody.
Ok. Let me first state that I understand your point of forfeiting rights. I also don't want to come off as 'raging' in my points because all these political debate become that rather fast. You are right, we should be free to have discussions and communicate with out peers without any viewing or supervision from law enforcement. Now to my thinking. I personally have nothing to hide and I trust our government to use these regulations in a proper fashion. The same trust I have in this government is the same trust you are placing in a government that created the bill of rights. I see this as a chance to prevent crime, be it terrorist attacks, drugs, whatever...this just gives police the right in court to obtain knowledge on a phone instantly. This helps take away power from greedy lawyers who know how to play the system and take bad people off the street. I do not see this as people being pulled over all the time and detained.
I agree with you from a Bill of Rights perspective and historical American rights perspective. That said, there is a reason why they're doing this. It's a weighing of values. Sure, it's a step towards tyranny. Sure, it's not what this country was intended to be. Sure, it's unconstitutional. But, seriously, it will help DHS agents catch bad guys and the real-world sacrifice is potentially having your electronics searched at the border. The real-world impact is about whether or not you're dealing with honorable DHS agents on a good day or shady DHS agents on a bad day.
I agree. Call me naive possibly, but I think this is a way for them to get information they are actively seeking, not to pester innocent citizens. The DEA and law enforcement KNOW all of the major players in the drug game, they just have to build a case against them. This could drastically help in this example.
Maybe I'm just being selfish, but the people they are after haven't harmed me. They are a minority. Odds are, I won't be affected by them. But everyone is affected by losing your rights. I would prefer to keep my rights in tact.
Being somewhat devil advocate, although it is my opinion as well...the chance at preventing a bombing, shooting, or 9 11 isn't worth the potential of having your phone searched? Drastic cases obviously, but if there is a chance to prevent it I say go for it. This measure can't be any worse than the practical strip search that happens every time at the airport.
This was everyone's argument for the Patriot Act by Bush. Its everyone's argument for the complete disregard of habeas corpus by Obama. At some point it becomes too invasive.
Ben Franklin said it beset "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
But we are not trading Liberty. Maybe a piece, which is in addition to a piece of liberty we have already sacrificed. It is also not for temporary security.
The millions who have fought for our rights is a poor argument. I give it to you that people in the Revolution fought for our rights, but we haven't been fighting for our rights in wars for quite some time.
I don't care what Ben Franklin said, nor did he ever come close to understanding the complexities of today's world. Also, wasn't he a big time orgy guy, which is fine with me, but I'm pretty sure those rights he loved most would still be protected. Now I apologize if I'm getting my historical figures kinky facts bank mixed up. Anyhow, my perspective is built on the fact that as a business owner and Houstonian growing up and living most of my life here. I've met and still know criminals, business criminals, cops, DHS agents, military people, border agents, illegal immigrants (some in my own and extended family), legal immigrants, just all sorts of people. I'm trying to see things from all sides and look at the real world impact. This is really not that much about terrorist plots imo. Even though that's the end-goal, remember this article posted on here: http://news.yahoo.com/intelligence-effort-named-citizens-not-terrorists-234755138.html This is true to the best of my knowledge. Are feds trying to catch terrorists? Sure, and it happens. But this is mainly about drug traffickers, human traffickers, and other major crimes. Damn, I'm still annoyed at pulling the Franklin quote. What the hell does he know about Ipads and cell phones? Is that even applicable? Infringing liberty back his day was really infringing liberty...limiting what people are allowed to say and do and not be locked up. Why the hell would you pull that quote in reference to cell phone searches in the borderlands? That's like a high school LD debate move that I used to crush all the time as a bad analogy. I digress...sorry for the rant...I just don't see his quotes applying. Anyhow, back to the real use of this law. It's not really about terrorism, even though that's the hope. And so I can see how people are against it and even more so, those who believe in traditional american rights should be against it. It does violate the Bill of Rights. But for me, I know feds who have been murdered, straight up murdered by drug dealers once their cover was blown. Criminals can be nice people, but they do terrible crap because they're making money and taking advantage of not following the law the way most of us do. If feds, which I believe most are good and trying to do good things, are allowed more tactics (like searching electronics at the border), then I can also see how this is a good thing. Can it be abused? Yes. Bad feds will do bad things. This isn't a black and white issue...it's very gray and it's about what you value most. It's not absolute freedom vs absolute security. These are real world situations that are hard to balance. I tend to side with the good feds...they're not out to screw with people. There just needs to be a very hard check to make sure the bad feds don't take advantage of these powers.
I want to prevent those things as well. I just don't believe that sacrificing who we are as a nation is a suitable price to pay. I think there are other steps we can take to make improvements in stopping drug trafficking, mass shootings, terrorist attacks etc. Again, my perspective might be different and selfish. I'm not harmed or affected directly by drug trafficking, and there is a very miniscule chance I'll be affected by a mass shooting, or terrorist attack. Even if this measure will definitely make an improvement, it isn't worth it to me to take the chance.
