A bunch of useless crap
Published on August 7, 2008 By MasonM In US Domestic

The Constitution of the United States of America ensures, among other things, the protection of an individual from unreasonable search and seizure. In order for the government to conduct a search and/or seizure of yourself or your property they much have reasonable cause. Right?

Nope. That's no longer the case. May as well just burn that old piece of parchment because it seems to be meaningless these days.

The Department of Homeland Security has enacted new policies that allow customs officials as a routine matter of course and without reasonable cause to seize computers, cell phones, iPods, and other electronic devices, scan and copy their contents. This is presumably being done to detect terrorists, drug smugglers, and people violating copyright or trademark laws.

Firstly, this is an obvious Constitutional violation. Is there any doubt of this? Well, according to a US Federal Appeals Court, it's perfectly ok for them to do this.

Secondly, since when do copyright or trademark laws fall under the jurisdiction of either Customs or DHS? What gives there?

Thirdly, how long do they keep our property once it's seized? According to the many articles I have read on this new policy, there doesn't seem to be a time limit on this one. They can keep your stuff as long as they feel they need to keep it. Isn't that nice?

I think the whole 'homeland security" thing is getting way out of hand. Yes, we need to take reasonable precautions to protect the nation and it's borders, but outright ignoring the Constitution and seizing people's private property and personal records without cause or warrant is not reasonable by any sane standard.

Some of our elected representatives also see this as way out of bounds and plan to introduce legislation to put a stop to it, while other elected representatives are actually defending this crap.

We The People need to voice our displeasure of our government tossing out our Constitution and employing such invasive and unreasonable tactics. We The People need to stand up and demand our rights back.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Aug 08, 2008
And this has been my problem with the term "unlawful combatant" or "enemy combatant" neither of the terms can be adaquately defined.


Actually both of those terms are quite well defined, but have nothing to do with this thread.
on Aug 08, 2008
Mason,
This is a good article! However constitutionally speaking I believe Americans have far more to worry about from the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which basically repeals the magna carta and habeaus corpus. In this little gem;
- You can be seized at any time, for any reason, on the grounds that you are suspected of being an 'unlawful' combatant. Okay, so what is an unlawful combatant? Whatever the Administration says it is. But then they would have to prove you are an 'unlwaful' combatant? Nope. They can say they have evidence that would compromise national security and therefore don't have to divulge it. In a nutshell, they can say "since we think you're a terrorist we're going to take away all your rights and do whatevah we want to you! Oh, and you can't see the evidence we have that proves you're a terrorist because it's secret"
- No notice of your arrest has to be given to your family, lawyer, and you DO NOT go before a civillian judge.
- You can be held indefinitely. No rights to a timely trial. This means they can keep you in prison for years without ever seeing a court room.
- Your lawyer is a military officer appointed for you (you have no choice in the matter)
- Your court is a military panel of officers, again you guessed, no choice in the matter as this panel is also appointed by the executive.
- During your trial, the "secret" evidence that I mentioned earlier doesn't get shown to you or your lawyer. It simply is discussed between the prosecution and the judge, all of whom are military officers appointed by the executive.
Can anyone here say kangaroo court? Can anyone here say Star Chambers that have effectively circumvented the established, CONSTITUTIONAL justice system of your great nation?
And yes, this act applies to U.S citizens, on U.S soil.


None of this has anything to do with the posted issue. Either stick to the actual topic or don't post at all. I am not interested in political agendas, just the topic at hand. In other words, stick to the point or fuck off.
on Aug 09, 2008

How is this getting off topic? Your article talks about constitutional protections and I'm agreeing with you, and adding on that I think there are far worse abuses being carried out in the name of "national security" as well!

on Aug 09, 2008
How is this getting off topic? Your article talks about constitutional protections and I'm agreeing with you, and adding on that I think there are far worse abuses being carried out in the name of "national security" as well!


Well, after re-reading it, I apologize and see that it does remotely pertain to the topic, albeit indirectly. This topic is not about enemy combatants in a war zone, it's about crossing our own border and being subjected to warrantless and unreasonable search and seizure. I can see why you would draw a correlation, but they are actually different topics as one deals with a war zone and one deals strictly with civilian border crossing.

Your statement about it applying to US citizens on US soil in not accurate. The act you reference is specifically about illegal enemy combatants in a war zone and does not apply outside of a war zone, hence the term 'combatant'.

on Aug 13, 2008
Oh its alright then. The US government can do what it whats to whom it wants when it wants so long as they aren't US citizens thats fine then. No abuse of power there at all then.
on Aug 13, 2008
Oh its alright then. The US government can do what it whats to whom it wants when it wants so long as they aren't US citizens thats fine then. No abuse of power there at all then.


Really? I hope you never run for office.
2 Pages1 2