More on CBP's war on US pilots traveling to Mexico

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Remember how easy it used to be to re-enter the U.S. from Canada or Mexico. You did not need anything, you just came home. Now, if your papers are not in perfect order, see how easy it is.

Have you ever walked across the boarder from the U.S. into Mexico, then walked back? It's like leaving a high security prison, iron bars, razor wire, armed guards, cameras, x-ray machines, and so on. You had better have your passport and drivers license with you. When I was a kid, everyone just walked back and forth between the two countries. Yup, I feel like some freedom is missing.

This whole thread was originally about pilots attempting to fly across the U.S./Mexico border. It seems several are being encountered by armed, aggressive agents from our government. Some are having weapons pointed at them, their aircraft searched. These are not Americans trying to re-enter the U.S. they were Americans trying to leave. Somehow, I'll bet they probably felt some of their freedoms have been lost.

How about the Muslim Americans that have been subjected to wire taps, endless repetitive questioning, being held indefinitely with no charges filed against them. I wonder if they feel that some of their freedoms have been lost?

It occurs to me that Americans who have undergone strip searches in our own domestic airports while trying to travel unimpeded between the states, they probably felt some of their freedoms have been lost, don't you think?

Is everything OK with America as long as those things just happen to people other than ourselves? Are we a free people because we have the freedom to look the other way?

John

Quite literally, none of what you have written involves any kind of freedoms or rights. Seriously - none. Privileges is arguable, but not "freedom" or "right."

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

John just to travel between states now in a commercial airline you have to show a government issued photo idea and the name on it has to match your ticket perfectly. "papers please" is the new TSA phrase that pays.

What right or freedom does that affect?

 

[ScottM]

What right or freedom does that affect?

1st Amendment; to peaceably assemble. Restriction of flight could severally impact that right.

 

[SCCutler]

But in my view, to presuppose that our government (which is, after all, comprised of fellow citizens) is acting out of any malicious intent with regard to these security policies -- let alone that its malevolence rises to a level that meets or exceeds that of terrorists, for God's sake -- isn't a responsible exercise in any of the above. Nor is it, IMO, a rational view of the simple reality of the matter. I'm even more certain that relaying that presupposition of malevolence in communicating opposition to these measures is counterproductive, and serves only to discredit those who are lodging otherwise legitimate, important criticisms.

WADR, Rev, you miss the point; the government's intent is irrelevant; with the very best of intentions, they can still cram us all down into little boxen, and I truly believe it is happening. That said, it is certainly the manifest intent of the virtually all bureaucrats to seize and maintain control over as much resources and power as they can manage to get, and the overwhelming majority of elected representatives (especially at the national level) are complicit in this effort - this is the unyielding nature of government power.

 

[murphey]

I applaud your calls to action. However if you want to change the way government operates, you need allies, and plenty of them. That's what spreading the word on Internet forums accomplishes. It's not enough to be outraged by government misbehavior. You need to get a lot of other people outraged about it too.

It's not an either-or situation. Complaining to government and complaining to each other BOTH serve a purpose.

More important - very large campaign contributions.

 

[murphey]

John just to travel between states now in a commercial airline you have to show a government issued photo idea and the name on it has to match your ticket perfectly. "papers please" is the new TSA phrase that pays.

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and
eat out their substance...."

(gold star if you know who & what I'm quoting)

More relevant, a historic Supreme Court ruling:

“This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.”

394 U.S. 618, Shapiro v. Thompson, 1969

Unfortunately, this ruling related to a family moving from one state to another and the impact on welfare benefits. But the quoted phrase is just so appropriate....

 

[ReverendSlappy]

WADR, Rev, you miss the point; the government's intent is irrelevant;

I have to disagree. When comparing the government to terrorists, of all things, to wholly disregard the fact that the government lacks the malicious (better, homicidal; best, genocidal) intent that terrorists generally possess is flatly absurd. It's like comparing a traffic ticket to a nuclear explosion. It makes no sense. None.

with the very best of intentions, they can still cram us all down into little boxen, and I truly believe it is happening.

Perhaps it is. But, again, if that is happening, it's still an entirely different ballgame than terrorism. As I mentioned, it's not even the same league, or the same sport.

That said, it is certainly the manifest intent of the virtually all bureaucrats to seize and maintain control over as much resources and power as they can manage to get, and the overwhelming majority of elected representatives (especially at the national level) are complicit in this effort - this is the unyielding nature of government power.

That's debatable. But even if it were true -- again -- it's still not in the same realm as terrorism.

 

[John Baker]

I'm not a lawyer, I am sure that is obvious, however, it seems to me that traveling unimpeded between the states is mentioned in our bill of rights somewhere.

I also seem to remember that spying on American citizens without a warrant is mentioned somewhere as well.

Isn't there something about unreasonable searches and seizure?

I am probably wrong about all of this. I do know that the law library in San Diego covers half a city block and is something like five or six stories high. I do know that due to the sheer magnitude of our laws and regulations, attorneys have to specialize in small areas of our legal system. I do know that the Bar exam in California is one of the toughest exams in the country. I also know that every year, an average of one thousand new laws and regulations go into effect in California.

I am pretty darn sure that the average citizen can not use the lack of knowledge of the law as an excuse in a courtroom.

Whatever is going on in America to make the layman feel uncomfortable when officers of the law stick a loaded weapon in their face, and yell at them to shut up, is all perfectly legal.

John

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I'm not a lawyer, I am sure that is obvious, however, it seems to me that traveling unimpeded between the states is mentioned in our bill of rights somewhere.

It is indeed - but there's no right to travel by a particular means.

I also seem to remember that spying on American citizens without a warrant is mentioned somewhere as well.

The "spying," if memory serves, was on conversations between American citizens and someone overseas. Granted, that's really close to the line. But, if it's ever challenged in a court, I suspect the result will be that it's not unconstitutional, but that the result of the information gained can never be used against the American. For more on those lines, google "exclusionary rule" and "fruit of the poisonous tree." Despite the cheesiness of that latter term, it's the actual term used by the courts.

Isn't there something about unreasonable searches and seizure?

Which doesn't prohibit, in any way, reasonable intrusion. It also doesn't prohibit "unreasonable" intrusion - it just requires some level of cause for it.

I am probably wrong about all of this. I do know that the law library in San Diego covers half a city block and is something like five or six stories high. I do know that due to the sheer magnitude of our laws and regulations, attorneys have to specialize in small areas of our legal system. I do know that the Bar exam in California is one of the toughest exams in the country. I also know that every year, an average of one thousand new laws and regulations go into effect in California.

I am pretty darn sure that the average citizen can not use the lack of knowledge of the law as an excuse in a courtroom.

Whatever is going on in America to make the layman feel uncomfortable when officers of the law stick a loaded weapon in their face, and yell at them to shut up, is all perfectly legal.

John

Everyone feels uncomfortable when dealing with a police officer. I know I do, and I know the 4th Amendment inside and out. It's just the way it is, there's no getting around it. It doesn't make what the police officer's doing unconstitutional or wrong.

Now, with all of that in mind, I'll say that I don't like a thing about the Patriot Act or a lot of the other things you've mentioned. I don't like them at all. But, that doesn't make any of them unconstitutional or illegal.

 

[ScottM]

Now, with all of that in mind, I'll say that I don't like a thing about the Patriot Act or a lot of the other things you've mentioned. I don't like them at all. But, that doesn't make any of them unconstitutional or illegal.

Not all parts of it. The section 157 stuff in the Patriot Act where without warrant, your reading lists could be taken by any federal officer were rip for a 1st Amendment argument and was heading towards the SCOTUS until that section was deleted in the renewal of the act.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Not all parts of it. The section 157 stuff in the Patriot Act where without warrant, your reading lists could be taken by any federal officer were rip for a 1st Amendment argument and was heading towards the SCOTUS until that section was deleted in the renewal of the act.

I don't see that as a First Amendment issue - what expression are you making by checking out books? Now, the argument I would make is that the 1st Amendment is designed to protect the free flow of ideas, and that allowing the gov't to know what ideas you're interested would have a "chilling effect" on the free flow of ideas. But, the USSC would have to create a whole new legal theory for that, which is done hesitantly. But, that would be a case for it.

Instead, I'd say the 4th Amendment would be a better challenge there - it's government intrusion into your private life. But, the question is, do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your library list? You are, after all, borrowing books from a government organization (most times, aren't most libraries public institutions?). I'd say that you don't, being as you're willingly exposing your private interests, both to a government organization and to government employees (the librarians who work there). But, I could see a good argument going the other way, as well.

 

[ScottM]

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and
eat out their substance...."

A seditious letter sent out by a bunch of traitors to their country, to the legal and rightful leader of their country.

 

[ScottM]

I don't see that as a First Amendment issue - what expression are you making by checking out books? Now, the argument I would make is that the 1st Amendment is designed to protect the free flow of ideas, and that allowing the gov't to know what ideas you're interested would have a "chilling effect" on the free flow of ideas.

That is the argument right there. One that had been effectively made up and until the US Patriot Act.

By allowing the government to have free unfettered access to what information that you may be seeking it results in censorship.

As Sen Sam Irvin said "Throughout history, official surveillance of the reading habits of citizens has been the litmus test of tyranny"

 

[dmccormack]

A seditious letter sent out by a bunch of traitors to their country, to the legal and rightful leader of their country.

Sorta.

The Continental Congress was formed as a reaction to Parliament's power grab. The colonies were chartered prior to the Glorious Revolution.

The Declaration of Independence was addressed to the King. The Congress thereby provided a back-handed assertion that the King -- not Parliament -- was surpreme.

 

[steingar]

I liken the government's actions in response to the terror attacks of 911 to an inflammation. Often, when there is a wound or other homeostatic dysfunction immune cells get to work causing programmed cell death and tissue remodeling. The inflammation can be far worse than the actual injury in many cases.

To call the government's response to the terror attacks poorly thought out is an insult to poor thinking. Most of it was very expensive window dressing that did not address the root causes of the intelligence gaps that allowed the attacks. If someone really wants to say we haven't lost any freedoms I say BS, loud and clear. I've been on the wrong end of the weapons used by security personnel. Please don't even try and tell me freedoms haven't been lost. I can't even leave the country in my aircraft without asking someone's permission.

Is this some malicious plot aimed at the general populace? Of course not; all these people are doing what they think is right. Could these new powers be used maliciously? Of course! For example, a candidate on the wrong side of things could find him or herself accidentally placed on the no fly list. Gosh it sure takes a long time to clear that up. In the meantime good luck making the campaign schedule. And just wait until they start extending this nonsense to trains, busses, and eventually cars. Who says they won't.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

More people were killed on US roads in one year that killed by terrorists and killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

So are you now "more afraid" of roads than government?

Damn skippy I am! Actually, it's not the roads that I'm afraid of, it's the drivers. I *have* been almost killed on the roads.

You're dealing in hyperbole. I'm in agreement with RevSlap's post in response to your expression of "fear."

I'm not shaking in my boots. I'm not really afraid of either. But in relative terms, I'm more afraid of the gov't than terrorists. That's all.

 

[John Baker]

There was a story in the San Diego Reader, more than a few years ago, about how the San Diego police raided a home in North Park looking for drug dealers. They bashed in the front door and encountered a couple in their seventies. With weapons drawn they screamed at both of them to get face down on the floor. They then proceeded to search and ransack the entire house. It was only after a complete search that included overturning furniture, breaking keepsakes and other property that they discovered they had raided the wrong house.

During the search, one officer found an old Playboy magazine from the early 1960s out in the garage. Although the police admitted raiding the wrong house, in their news release they claimed they had found a collection of pornography in the home. This, they felt, justified terrorizing a couple of senior citizens in an old, established neighborhood.

I am sure there are countless similar stories. What is frustrating is there is not a thing we can do about it, other than writing letters to the media or our Representatives. Overzealous police and security forces can do pretty much whatever they like, then worry about the consequences later, which seem to be all to few.

I think most of this police aggressiveness started back in the early days of SWAT teams. Civilian police officers got to get all dressed up as real soldiers and act out playing warrior. Now it is the norm throughout the country. Battering rams, flash bang grenades, assault weapons, etc.

Police are no longer considered public servants, they are more our masters. Your attitude plays an important part in any dealings with a peace officer, or any other government agent. Use the word "Sir" as much as you can, act subservient and respectful. Do not argue, do as you are told.

John

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I hesitate to jump in here, and hesitate even more to agree with Kent, whose shrill hysteria borders on 16-year-old-girlishness

Shrill hysteria? C'mon, Spike. I'm not afraid of anything to the point that I'm running in the streets screaming. I'm not afraid of government or terrorists to the point that it affects my daily life, or even anywhere close.

I don't fear terrorists. Not one iota. Zip, zilch, nada. I do fear the government, just a teeny, tiny bit, because they seem to have gotten a bit out of control in the last 8 years. But I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat or buying up guns and ammunition as fast as I can, so clearly there are many other people who fear the government MUCH more than I do.

So, saying I am more afraid of the government than I am of terrorists is not hyperbole at all, it's 100% true. You must remember, "more" is a *relative* term. If you come up to me and ask if I'm afraid of the government, I'll say "no" because the tiny inkling of fear that I do have is insignificant. If you ask if I'm *more* afraid of gov't than terrorists, I'll say "yes," because I am not afraid of terrorists whatsoever.

Maybe it's because of a philosophy I was taught as a teenager and still live by: For things you directly affect, you must do your best always, or you are letting yourself down. For things you influence, you must do your best or you are letting yourself and others down. (gov't fits there) Things that you do not have any influence over, you should not expend any energy or worry on, since it will be wasted. (terrorists fit there)

 

[dmccormack]

Damn skippy I am! Actually, it's not the roads that I'm afraid of, it's the drivers. I *have* been almost killed on the roads.

Me too -- in cars, motorcyles, and bicycles.

(It REALLY freaked the kid out when I --on a road bicycle -- caught him at the light 7 miles from where he tried to clip me with the side of his pickup. The only reason I didn't pull his throat out of his neck was an old guy yelling at me to take it easy).

I'm not shaking in my boots. I'm not really afraid of either. But in relative terms, I'm more afraid of the gov't than terrorists. That's all.

Good for you -- you don't live and work in Manhattan or DC.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Good for you -- you don't live and work in Manhattan or DC.

Nope... And if I did, I'd probably be more afraid of terrorists.

My whole point in this argument is that it is quite possible to be more afraid of gov't than terrorists and not have it be "hysterical hyperbole." That's all.

 

[dmccormack]

Nope... And if I did, I'd probably be more afraid of terrorists.

My whole point in this argument is that it is quite possible to be more afraid of gov't than terrorists and not have it be "hysterical hyperbole." That's all.

Then change your metric.

"More afraid" implies a greater fear of one than the other.

Now, on a secondary note, I think healthy citizenship requires that I think and be concerned about things which may be beyond my own little sphere of existence.

 

[ScottM]

I am still missing why anyone is afraid of the government. The politicians are frightening, but the government is us and what we let it be. To be afraid of the government is to be afraid of yourself.

Our government can change and if the will of the people is strong enough that happens and has happened. We can overthrow our elected officials on a regular basis without fear of reprisal.

Someone mentioned not being afraid of cars but being afraid of drivers. Same analogy here, the car is to our government as driver is to politician.

 

[gprellwitz]

I am still missing why anyone is afraid of the government. The politicians are frightening, but the government is us and what we let it be. To be afraid of the government is to be afraid of yourself.

Our government can change and if the will of the people is strong enough that happens and has happened. We can overthrow our elected officials on a regular basis without fear of reprisal.

Someone mentioned not being afraid of cars but being afraid of drivers. Same analogy here, the car is to our government as driver is to politician.

Well, not quite. The government is comprised not only of politicians, but also of bureaucrats and other worker bees. They may do things with the laws that the legislators (a particular sub-species of politicians) didn't envision. So I think it is accurate to say "government" in this context. Though I suppose you could say "the people in the government" if you wanted to be pedantic about it.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Then change your metric.

"More afraid" implies a greater fear of one than the other.

Uhhh, yeah. Not afraid of one - Just slightly afraid of the other. "More afraid."

Now, on a secondary note, I think healthy citizenship requires that I think and be concerned about things which may be beyond my own little sphere of existence.

I think about terrorists, I'm concerned about them - But I'm not afraid of them. And if you're truly *afraid* of terrorists, then they have won.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Nope... And if I did, I'd probably be more afraid of terrorists.

My whole point in this argument is that it is quite possible to be more afraid of gov't than terrorists and not have it be "hysterical hyperbole." That's all.

Still, saying "Thing A, which has no aim to kill me is more dangerous than Thing B which is defined by that aim" just doesn't add up. It's like saying a pencil is more dangerous than a hand grenade, just because you happen to write with one a lot.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Still, saying "Thing A, which has no aim to kill me is more dangerous than Thing B which is defined by that aim" just doesn't add up. It's like saying a pencil is more dangerous than a hand grenade, just because you happen to write with one a lot.

Did I say the government is "more dangerous" than terrorists? No.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Did I say the government is "more dangerous" than terrorists? No.

So you're saying you're more afraid of something that's less dangerous?

 

[ScottM]

Nope... And if I did, I'd probably be more afraid of terrorists..

I am still not sure if I am following where the potential terrorists fall into this.

On the less afraid to most afraid scale it is terrorist, then potential terrorists, and then government?

So yes, I do fear our government more than I fear potential terrorists.

 

[dmccormack]

I think about terrorists, I'm concerned about them - But I'm not afraid of them. And if you're truly *afraid* of terrorists, then they have won.

Not really.

I'm sure WW2 Infantrymen were "afraid" of the SS.

But the GIs still won.

 

[steingar]

I am still missing why anyone is afraid of the government. The politicians are frightening, but the government is us and what we let it be. To be afraid of the government is to be afraid of yourself.

Our government can change and if the will of the people is strong enough that happens and has happened. We can overthrow our elected officials on a regular basis without fear of reprisal.

Unfortunately, the government often functions in response to specific events. The results of the response can linger for a very long time; the government rarely gives up anything even though it is the desire of everyone for it to do so. Example abound; we've known for decades that federally subsidized housing projects do not do what they were intended to do, but HUD is still going strong. the terrorist networks in the ME have been largely routed, but DHS and its subsidiaries will never quit. Everyone wants less government, but no one wants to give up their particular piece of the pie.

 

[ScottM]

Unfortunately, the government often functions in response to specific events. The results of the response can linger for a very long time; the government rarely gives up anything even though it is the desire of everyone for it to do so. Example abound; we've known for decades that federally subsidized housing projects do not do what they were intended to do, but HUD is still going strong. the terrorist networks in the ME have been largely routed, but DHS and its subsidiaries will never quit. Everyone wants less government, but no one wants to give up their particular piece of the pie.

We respond that same was too. Look at post 9/11 when over 90% of the people in this country demanded solutions such as the TSA. SIGH!

Now we need another outpouring of will to fix these things.

The people in government are the same as any of us. I am sitting at a table with several of them right now and they are not scary aliens at all. I do fear anyone of the politicians that is working only in their own self interests. Just as I fear an idiot self promoter in the work place. They tend to leave a wake of damage behind them. At least I can vote the politicians out.

 

[dmccormack]

the terrorist networks in the ME have been largely routed, but DHS and its subsidiaries will never quit.

Really?

How did this occur?

 

[steingar]

We respond that same was too. Look at post 9/11 when over 90% of the people in this country demanded solutions such as the TSA. SIGH!

Now we need another outpouring of will to fix these things.

The people in government are the same as any of us. I am sitting at a table with several of them right now and they are not scary aliens at all. I do fear anyone of the politicians that is working only in their own self interests. Just as I fear an idiot self promoter in the work place. They tend to leave a wake of damage behind them. At least I can vote the politicians out.

Oh of course, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Actually they can be quite scary when they have firearms pointed at you. However, you cannot vote out the bureaucrats, and it is very difficult to get rid of the bureaucracies. The power we gave them could enable them to do quite a bit of harm, if they so chose or were directed by someone with malicious motives.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

... if they so chose or were directed by someone with malicious motives.

Fortunately, they haven't, rendering them quite a bit less dangerous than even your garden variety terrorist.

 

[dmccormack]

Fortunately, they haven't, rendering them quite a bit less dangerous than even your garden variety terrorist.

Yeah -- in fact I can think of few other groups with less bent towards Global Domination than DC functionaries.

 

[AdamZ]

You know, I really probably should be a law school professor...you don't really have to teach anything, just tell your students to read some cases, and then ask them to explain it, and make fun of them when they can't.

That right there was one of the best descriptions of law school I've heard. Bravo David!

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Yeah -- in fact I can think of few other groups with less bent towards Global Domination than DC functionaries.

Which shouldn't be surprising. The larger the company (in my experience, anyway), the more likely it is that the amount of Dead Weight is going to equal or surpass the Go Getters, for lack of a better term. I'm not sure why anyone would expect the public sector -- particularly at the federal level -- to be any different.

 

[dmccormack]

Which shouldn't be surprising. The larger the company (in my experience, anyway), the more likely it is that the amount of Dead Weight is going to equal or surpass the Go Getters, for lack of a better term. I'm not sure why anyone would expect the public sector -- particularly at the federal level -- to be any different.

The 80/20 rules applies across every social organization.

Even ho-aah Infantry units have studs and duds.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

The 80/20 rules applies across every social organization.

Even ho-aah Infantry units have studs and duds.

True (though I can't speak from experience on the latter.) However I can say that I'm more afraid of an Infantry platoon than I am of, say, a Finance Department. Call me crazy.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

True (though I can't speak from experience on the latter.) However I can say that I'm more afraid of an Infantry platoon than I am of, say, a Finance Department. Call me crazy.

To borrow from Jack Handey, my biggest fear is a shark riding an elephant. Just trampling and eating everything they see.