well now 2/3 of the american populace no longer has rights.
if they dont bitch about it then they're not really americans

This can't be the whole story. You'll forgive me if I don't take what the ACLU says as Gospel truth.

@invictus why not just respond properly and intelligently rather kinda of ironically agreeing with sicarius

i was writing my post as invictus was typing i apologise :p

where do you live invictus

The irony of that post telling me to respond properly and intelligently is beautiful.

I live in Illinois. Right now I'm outside it. But this is obviously a heavy handed anti-immigration program they have to authorize nationwide to not appear discriminatory.

No place within the United States can be Constitution Free Zones, since the constitution creates the system of government, and if there is no constitution there then those places have the right to create their onw government. In fact Michigan, New Jersey, Delaware, connecticutt [sic], Rhode Island, Massachussetts, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Maine and Florida are all no longer governed by the constitution! Looks like states can finally be independant.

well now peopel in chicago and miami and new york and LA and seattle and new orleans and tuscon and on and on, have no rights

Yes, but here in Minneapolis we have plenty of rights. I guess those people whould just move.

And they have Rights under their own respective governments. Their just not rights as under the constitution.

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/37293res20081022.html

Click one fucking link on the page and 'real' discussions can actually form. This describes the real extent of what's going on. "Constitution Free Zone" is just negative spin. Most constitutional rights are still enforced. IMO it should still be sorted out though.

A serious problem is that 2/3 of Americans can be subject to random and arbitrary searches. Something apparently unconstitional under the 4th ammendment.

"The bottom line is that the extraordinary authorities that the government possesses at the border are spilling into regular American streets." Pretty clear really. Should be changed or limited - maybe a few miles from northern and southern borders? 100-miles from all borders is just stupid.

just move???

thats 2/3 of americans man.

regardless of what rights their local government grant them, this doesnt set off a little alarm in your head? the constitution no longer applies to 194 million americans!

@Sicarius: I agree completely. This is very disturbing, and I'm with you on opposing this sort of thing.

@valoishapsburg: That being said... The Supreme Court has ruled that 4th amendment rights against search and seizure don't necessarily fully apply at border crossings, which I suppose is, on it's face, somewhat reasonable (though the 4th amendment doesn't actually say anything about exceptions). What is unreasonable is this sort of expanding of the area covered.

For a bit more info check out this article: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081023-aclu-23-of-us-population-lives-in-constitution-free-zone.html

yeah and they're even ussing water borders,

columbus OH? I mean come on.

@Sicarius: To be fair, it's not that the whole constitution is being interpreted as not applying to 2/3rds of the population, just the 4th amendment.
That being said, I'm still very much against this, and certainly don't like the slippery slope of trying to suspend one part of the constitution for hundreds of miles around border crossings.

regardless of which amendment is being violated, amendments are being violated!!!

Im Sorry sicarius, Im a very sarcastic person, and my comment about moving was just that. Anchonix is right, if you actually read some of the information of the site, it is not actually a constitution free zone. Its simply a large scale violation of the 4th amendment. It is something that should be stopped, but I dont find it surprising that the government would try to curtail any of my rights in the name of national security. That's what governments do when they are allowed to be unchecked. Extending our "border" as far in as 100 miles is ridiculous.

@Sicarius: When creating threads can you link to some of the more complete articles? There were about ten inane posts before 5 of us posted more complete views based on the links within minutes of each other.

a large scale violation of an amendment with defined borders is a constitution free zone. besides thats what DHS calls it.

well you know what Franklin said, those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither

@Sicarius: Sorry if I wasn't hysterical enough in my condemnation of the violation of rights for you. I'm outraged about this. I'm simply pointing out, for the sake of accuracy, that "constitution free zone" is a bit of a misnomer. But don't let that fool you into thinking I'm any less outraged about this. I just try to approach these sorts of discussions calmly and rationally, and think that these discussions are best held with the most accurate facts possible. Yelling excitedly about "constitution free zones" and such, has the exact opposite effect you are looking for, and has the effect, demonstrated above by some of the responses, of making people either tune you out, or just assuming that it's not true or somehow false.

Telling people exactly what is happening, and why it's horrible/illegal however I think is much more likely to get people mobilized and upset. They can't (as easily) just dismiss you, if you give them accurate facts, and not hysterics.

I actually think the 4th amendment is one of the most important parts of the constitution. And as I said, I don't like the precedent it sets at all! This needs to be changed right now, ideally in such a way that it could not easily be changed back. (This unfortunately may require a lawsuit, in which a federal judge, ideally the Supreme Court, rules this to be unreasonable and a violation of the fourth amendment.)

To be fair, Constitution Free Zone makes it seem more dramatic than it actually is. Its spin doctoring. Like using anti-choice or anti-life depending on what view you want to pass on abortion. If this becomes a big issue then the government will give it some other name, like ' border security zone' or something like that.

It is both a 'Border Security Zone' and a 'Constitution Free Zone' but neither of the statements fairly represents either side. Neither 'name' simply pushes the idea that its an area of the US within which the 4th ammendment does not apply.

@ DrOct
yes I see what you mean

@Archonix - I'd amend that last sentence to say "...area of the US within which *it is claimed that* the 4th amendment does not apply." ;)

I just don't quite want to cede yet that they are right, and that the 4th amendment actually DOESN'T apply. I beleive this is actually unconstitutional.

our governments pretty used to wiping their ass with the constitution anyway

President Palpatine: People of the Republic, We are in a state of emergency in the Middle East. I wish to propose that we enter into a state of emergency and that all of you give up your rights "temporarily". I president palpatine wish for your well being and while we are in the state of emergency and none of you have rights, I will declare myself Emperor of the Republic to protect every one of you.

Everyone: (Applause)

EmperorPalpatine's thoughts: Everyone just applaused their democracy away forever!!!!!

I hope to God that no one is stupid enough to think that this is a good Idea. No matter what the situation no one should have their rights denied. It should not even be an option. I dont care if it is in Guantanomo Bay or Duluth, MN, rights should not be violated.

I dont think the language used by the ACLU is quite the way I would label what is going on, but no matter what you call it is still unacceptable

agreed

we should all "support move" Sicarius to attack this horrific policy!!

hahaha, 149 million support moves against the government, does that compare to the A-bomb?

sometimes i wonder if DC looses touch with the public after being stuck in the city for years

there should be a new requirement that all politicians should spend one day a week to listen to public opinion and needs. Screw the advisors who only care about their own interets.

or they could spend 6 days a week listening to public opinion and needs. Of course, public opinion can always be manipulated

Hahaha EmperorPalpatine, genius.

Support move to fight horrific policy from Sicarius.

But yeah, ever exaggerated, but still alarming. I've got a neat idea, move to Canada! Americans need to boycott America! ; )

Don't do that! Then Canada would be filled with all the Americans! Only come here to visit and spend money, then go back and elect some democrats.

I can see that working.
and we'll have sit-ins in all the nations cornfields...

canada is too cold

canada may not work so well because then the politicians will conquer canada in the name of National Security. I am surprised they havent conquered the whole world in the name of national security.

Uncle Sam: knock knock

American Family in the kitchen table: Who's there?

Uncles Sam: Me taking your dinner in the name of national security.

Imagine if we could do that. We find this random hot person in the street and say, "excuse me, you need to take off your clothes for me in the name of national security. Do it nice and slowly!"

This thread has gotten rather silly, but the threat to liberties is indeed real.

This is an example of what is going on at a 'temporary' (yeah right) suspicion-less 'border' stop near where I live:
http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2008/09/268768.shtml

What I find frustrating, yet fascinating, is the moral gray-zone the DHS is operating in. The 4th amendment guarantees the right not to be searched without cause, yet immigration is empowered to act within 100 miles of the border. So in videos like this, and many others, the first question they ask is "Are you an American citizen?" If you answer yes, you have rights. If you answer 'no' you have none. His strategy here is clear, by NOT answering the officers' questions, they are unable to proceed. They cannot stop him, detain him or search him, etc until they establish his citizenship, yet they are required to do so (legally).