Post by: Mayo on August 01, 2008, 12:23:15 PM
"The policies cover hard drives, flash drives, cell phones, iPods, pagers, beepers, and video and audio tapes -- as well as books, pamphlets and other written materials, the report said."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin
Post by: gunug on August 01, 2008, 12:42:43 PM
Post by: Gregg on August 01, 2008, 12:56:46 PM
Post by: Mayo on August 01, 2008, 04:17:13 PM
"U.S. federal agents have been given new powers to seize travelers' laptops and other electronic devices at the border and hold them for unspecified periods the Washington Post reported on Friday.
Under recently disclosed Department of Homeland Security policies, such seizures may be carried out without suspicion of wrongdoing, the newspaper said, quoting policies issued on July 16 by two DHS agencies."
Probable Cause: Reasonable ground for a belief, as, in a criminal case, that the accused was guilty of the crime, or, in a civil case, that grounds for the action existed: used esp. as a defense to an action for malicious prosecution.
That's one more nail in the Bill of Rights' coffin...
Post by: Gregg on August 01, 2008, 04:24:20 PM
Remember that guy who got arrested before he had a chance to use the plastic explosives in his shoe? (Richard Reid, I believe was his name.) He wasn't guilty of anything prior to his arrest other than being very weird and acting suspiciously.
Post by: Mayo on August 01, 2008, 04:44:09 PM
And just in case someone requires the definition of arbitrary...
ar·bi·trar·y– adjective
1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
3. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
Post by: Gregg on August 01, 2008, 08:03:20 PM
I am not trying to persuade you, since I know that would be a fruitless effort. But, I will always come down on the side of restricting the individual (within reason) for the good of society. I know that mistakes will be made, either way a government goes. I also believe that it's possible to go too far in both directions. I'd just prefer not to hear that "we suspected he might be dangerous, but we couldn't touch him, legally" after the plane carrying 279 people is already lost.
The slope is slippery on both sides of the mesa. The trick is to not get too close to either edge.
Post by: Highmac on August 02, 2008, 04:22:48 AM
QUOTE(Gregg @ Aug 2 2008, 02:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The slope is slippery on both sides of the mesa. The trick is to not get too close to either edge.
While appreciating the origins of this thread are not political in the generally accepted sense, could I just gently remind you good folks of our guidelines and not get in too deep.... I'd rather see people agree to differ and drop the subject than end up at daggers-drawn
Post by: sandbox on August 02, 2008, 06:25:54 AM
Plastic explosives in ones shoe is hardly a comparative analysis.
The examples you're stating are all domestics. School shooters?
They built this monstrosity called Homeland Security, now they have to figure out how to use it.
"We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression"
Post by: gunug on August 02, 2008, 07:37:34 AM
:smiley tripping as he gets off the soapbox:
Post by: Gregg on August 02, 2008, 09:50:58 AM
QUOTE(Highmac @ Aug 2 2008, 04:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'd rather see people agree to differ and drop the subject ....
I think that's exactly what we have here, and in previous threads by the same participants.
Post by: Gregg on August 02, 2008, 09:57:08 AM
QUOTE(sandbox @ Aug 2 2008, 06:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Plastic explosives in ones shoe is hardly a comparative analysis.
Ah, but they're not going to write 1,432 laws to cover every nuance. It will cover "things that could blow up" not shoes, laptops, etc. Sure, specific things might be targeted, but there will always be the "catch all" language that covers the "including, but not necessarily limited to" list.
I'm certainly not in favor of searches for any reason or no reason at all, and taking your laptop for no good reason is outrageous!
Post by: gunug on August 02, 2008, 10:07:37 AM
Post by: sandbox on August 02, 2008, 01:56:15 PM
QUOTE(Gregg @ Aug 2 2008, 10:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE(sandbox @ Aug 2 2008, 06:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Plastic explosives in ones shoe is hardly a comparative analysis.
Ah, but they're not going to write 1,432 laws to cover every nuance. It will cover "things that could blow up" not shoes, laptops, etc. Sure, specific things might be targeted, but there will always be the "catch all" language that covers the "including, but not necessarily limited to" list.
I'm certainly not in favor of searches for any reason or no reason at all, and taking your laptop for no good reason is outrageous!
"probable cause" is the key, c4 in your laptop is detectable. If you have a history of bad associations, that's "probable cause" if your coming from an area in the north of Afghanistan, that's "probable cause" if your wearing a T'shirt that say I want to blow something up, that's "probable cause" but to snatch someones "stuff" without accountability is abuse of power.
Under this ruling everyone is assumed guilty and responsible for proving their innocence.
If your a reporter in theater in Iraq and someone doesn't want your story covered, they can snatch your stuff and hold onto it without justification or accountability, all in the name of HomeLand inSecurity.
We can secure ourselves from everything but fear.
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." James Madison
Post by: Highmac on August 02, 2008, 02:12:27 PM
Post by: krissel on August 02, 2008, 11:31:13 PM
Although I'm now more knowledgeable about the rulings and the history of this law, this is one of those things that I could argue from all angles and even end up disagreeing with myself.
So to avoid that slippery slope and keep the harmony here at TS, I'm leaving the thread locked for now.
That doesn't prevent anyone from protesting the government actions through the usually acceptable legal channels.
Or not.