So Much For Constitutional Protection

from JoeUser Forums

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.

17,391 views 21 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

Fear of terrorism seems to give people who want more police power to rationalize seeking it at great expense to our rights as private citizens.  I refuse to fly any more so sick am I of seeing elders in wheelchairs being searched or having some stranger seize my toothpaste as a potential exlosive device. 

Be well.

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

I agree wholeheartedly.  That's why I support the ACLU. 

Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Government regulation of everything does not appear until people take advantage of a free economy. Why regulate if everything is already working fine? But now that its not, there's no turning back.

As for the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution, well, all three branches of government seem to have forgotten that it is their responsibility to only rule under the limits of the Constitution. It's not our responsibility to challenge their laws afterwards! It's their responsibility to make sure their laws are under the law!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
all three branches of government seem to have forgotten that it is their responsibility to only rule under the limits of the Constitution.
End of quote


I agree.

It's not our responsibility to challenge their laws afterwards!
End of quote


I couldn't disagree more. It very much is our responsibility, and duty, to do just that. That's why we have a Supreme Court although sadly I think even the Supreme Court has forgotten the reason they exist.
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
One of my favorite quotes from Ben Franklin:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Unfortunately our government has been using the events of 9/11 to strike fear in the people to allow them to whittle away at our rights, and they have been very successful.

You want to know another little unpublicized invasion into our lives that the government has taken? Hidden deep in the recently passed House bill to "rescue" the housing market (the bailout of the two FMs) was a little provision that forces credit card companies to disclose all transactions to the IRS. That's right everytime you use your credit card the transaction is reported to the IRS. Talk about an illegal search and seizure if you ask me, and where was the media on this one? The only way I found out about it was because Ron Paul posted a youTube video about it.

Based on all of these offenses to our civil liberties there is not one member of congress that deserves to keep their jobs. We the people need to take back control of the government and remind these idiots who they work for. They don't work for the special interests, or the lobbyists, they work for US.

In November let your voice be heard, VOTE AGAINST ALL INCUMBENTS!!!
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

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.

Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
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.
End of quote


And don't forget the lovely little caveat that I just found out today after reading an article about the trial of bin Laden's driver that just recently finished. Even if you are lucky enough to get one of these trials and get a sentence that will allow you to leave in a relatively timely manor (the driver technically can get out in 5 months) the Pentagon can still detain you as an "enemy combatant" indefinitely if it wants to. So I ask you, what was the point of the trial in the first place if the Pentagon can simply override the verdict by detaining for as long as it wants?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I couldn't disagree more. It very much is our responsibility, and duty, to do just that. That's why we have a Supreme Court although sadly I think even the Supreme Court has forgotten the reason they exist.
End of quote


I'm just saying that they shouldn't make a law we should have to challenge, that's all. It obviously has become our responsibility as the government shirks theirs.
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top

So I ask you, what was the point of the trial in the first place if the Pentagon can simply override the verdict by detaining for as long as it wants?
End of quote

El-Duderino-

The point of the trial is the same point that kangaroo courts hold in dictatorships across the world... to at least give the impression or image that there is a functioning, impartial justice system at work. You are correct that the Pentagon has the power to detain indefinitely regardless of the verdict.

"but this will only happen to the bad guys!" folks will cry. Will it? What's to stop them from using this against political dissidents? What about anti-war activists, labor union leaders, there's a whole slough of ordinary citizens, who, under the MCA of 2006 can suddenly be labeled "unlawful combatants" and thrown in jail indefinitely with no rights or representation by a lawyer, and NO OVERSIGHT to prove that these people really are a threat or terrorists or "unlawful combatants" (whatever the heck that means, as it's essentially a term the administration made up in their so-called war against an idea)

Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top

forces credit card companies to disclose all transactions to the IRS
End of quote

 

I see this got into the senate bill, as well. Anyone know if it remained in the version just passed?

 

Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
"but this will only happen to the bad guys!" folks will cry. Will it? What's to stop them from using this against political dissidents? What about anti-war activists, labor union leaders, there's a whole slough of ordinary citizens, who, under the MCA of 2006 can suddenly be labeled "unlawful combatants" and thrown in jail indefinitely with no rights or representation by a lawyer, and NO OVERSIGHT to prove that these people really are a threat or terrorists or "unlawful combatants" (whatever the heck that means, as it's essentially a term the administration made up in their so-called war against an idea)
End of quote


And this has been my problem with the term "unlawful combatant" or "enemy combatant" neither of the terms can be adaquately defined. The Administration used fear post 9/11 to gain more power than the executive branch has ever had, and congress just let them have it because they were scared. I keep going back to a quote by Ben Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." The quote fits perfectly with the time that we are living in. If only more people listened to his advice maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top

I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I support the ACLU.
End of quote


While i agree with Mason's post, the ACLU is worse than the government.  They would have every terrorists running around with diplomatic immunity if they had their way.


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.

End of quote

Did all those talking points come from Moveon.org?  The Act applies to non-U.S. citizens.

 

 

Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top

Did all those talking points come from Moveon.org? The Act applies to non-U.S. citizens
End of quote

No, actually it does apply to U.S citizens. And they're not talking points from a democratic website, as I repeatedly state I am not a democrat and have no love for that hypocritical party. In fact I'm not even an American!!

If you actually read the act, there are areas that refer only to 'unlawful' enemy combatants, not 'alien unlawful enemy combatants'. The definition of simply 'unlawful enemy combatant' does not list U.S citizenship as a means of exclusion, therefore including U.S citizens as possible for being and unlawful combatant!

And I quote- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act#Criticism

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the MCA constituted an unconstitutional encroachment of Habeas Corpus rights, and established jurisdiction for federal courts to hear petitions for habeas corpus from Guantanamo detainees tried under the Act.[20]

Aditionally, a number of legal scholars and Congressional members—including Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R–PA)—have said that the habeas provision of the Act violates a clause of the Constitution that says the right to challenge detention "shall not be suspended" except in cases of "rebellion or invasion."[21]

In the House debate, Representative David Wu of Oregon offered this scenario:

Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, “I am a U.S. citizen”. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court.[22]

sadf

Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top

No, actually it does apply to U.S citizens. And they're not talking points from a democratic website, as I repeatedly state I am not a democrat and have no love for that hypocritical party. In fact I'm not even an American!!
End of quote

Sorry, but quoting something from Wikipedia has about as much credibility as quoting from the DailyKooks.  The Act applies to non-U.S. citizens only, this is something that is commonly left out of these "criticism".  That's what you will discover if you actually read the Act like I did earlier today.  ;)

Habeas Corpus does not apply to foreign terrorists, and it never should.  You can quote hypotheticals all day, but it doesn't change what the Act actually does.

 

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm just saying that they shouldn't make a law we should have to challenge, that's all. It obviously has become our responsibility as the government shirks theirs.
End of quote


Yep, I agree, They stopped doing their jobs a long time ago.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
And this has been my problem with the term "unlawful combatant" or "enemy combatant" neither of the terms can be adaquately defined.
End of quote


Actually both of those terms are quite well defined, but have nothing to do with this thread.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
End of quote


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.
Reply #18 from Stardock Forums Top

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!

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
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!
End of quote


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'.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
End of quote


Really? I hope you never run for office.