51–60 of 139 posts
Aren't they just going to lose this at court? The degree of suspicion required for different kinds of border searches is something that has already been tested before SCOTUS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Obama was worlds different from Romney, and that comparing Obama to Bush was lunacy Amazingly there is a middle ground. Yes, Obama is taking after Bush in scary ways. It makes me sick and it's why I voted third party in the re-election. That having been said, it's terribly reductionist to say that "Romney and Obama are the same" and anyone who is a woman or gay will almost surely agree with me. >I have to wonder wha…
"anyone who is a woman or gay will almost surely agree with me." Only because politicians pander to their perceived voting blocks. Is there any evidence, out side of statements made during the campaign, that Romney actually holds views towards gays and women that are substantially different than Obama's?
As governor, Romney spoke out against same-sex marriage and tied to get an amendment passed to ban same-sex marriage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Sam...
>“We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits,” Well frankly, in that case, I don't give a shit what you conclude, because you're mentally incompetent. "We also conclude that following the Constitution for Americans reentering the…
This doesn't seem much different.
I was just wondering: In the case that the confiscated electronic devices are encrypted, are you obliged to decrypt them or do you have the right to politely refuse ? If not would claiming plausible deniability (I.e I don't know the password) be a viable alternative?
This is what TrueCrypt is for: giving you plausible deniability.
Didn't DHS also declare that 100 mile range from the border is basically Constitution-free? This is mighty convenient, as they can now search everyone like this within that 100 mile range.
DHS can say whatever it wants, but SCOTUS says that the search has to actually take place at the border. See for instance Almeida-Sanchez v. US . "Constitution free" is obviously hyperbolic.
Nothing personal, but you seem to pay more attention to what the law says then what actually ends up happening. This is a common issue in American politics
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they can force you to login to your laptop could they not also force you to login to your Dropbox account?
If they can force you to login to your laptop, they usually don't have to force you to login to your Dropbox account: Most users are already logged in to Dropbox and all Dropbox data is available in the Dropbox folder by default anyway.
For example, I have heard of border agents taking phones and calling contacts on them. This is a way of getting data about you from another location. From there it seems like a small step for border agents having the right to get access to your data at the border if it is available to you when you are crossing the border regardless of its physical location.
So, remember a few months ago, when people like me were saying that the third parties are the only hope in America's democracy? Then a bunch of people said that Obama was worlds different from Romney, and that comparing Obama to Bush was lunacy. I have to wonder what happens when those Obama supporters with left-wing sentiments read an article like this.
Most liberals I know just shrug. It's why the far left has so much contempt for liberals in general.
Every time I criticize Obama, I have to go out of my way to qualify that I'm _not_ a Republican, either.
>“We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits,” Well frankly, in that case, I don't give a shit what you conclude, because you're mentally incompetent. "We also conclude that following the Constitution for Americans reentering the…
The Constitution does not forbid the government from conducting searches without warrants at the border. The word "reasonable" is in the 4th Amendment in order to defer judgement about what searches are and aren't constitutional to the the courts. Unfortunately for your argument, SCOTUS has for many many decades held that border searches are, subject to some limitations, reasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"anyone who is a woman or gay will almost surely agree with me." Only because politicians pander to their perceived voting blocks. Is there any evidence, out side of statements made during the campaign, that Romney actually holds views towards gays and women that are substantially different than Obama's?
Is there any evidence, out side of statements made during the campaign, that Romney actually holds views towards gays and women that are substantially different than Obama's? As governor, Romney spoke out against same-sex marriage and tied to get an amendment passed to ban same-sex marriage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Sam...
It sounds like he supported equal rights and benefits but opposed the use of the term "marriage" being applied to gay couples. Still seems like a superficial difference to me.