I, a U.S. citizen, was arrested by a U.S. Border Patrol Agent today

page: 26
45
<< 23  24  25    27  28 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 




Let's recap the debate. I stated American's were being detained. You stated they weren't unless a dog "tagged" them. I stated they were being detained by not being waived through. You stated that the laws of physics do not constitute detainment. I responded that it wasn't laws of physics I was referring to but the fact that an individual wasn't free to leave because of an agencies claimed jurisdiction.

And you respond with this:



Not claimed, established jurisdiction. Big difference. Anyone can claim they have jurisdiction, but only when it is established, regulated, monitored, funded and a host of other things creating that group as a viable entity; does it become established. Which is to say, while Joe on the street can not declare himself as having jurisdiction, the Border Patrol is established as a viable entity and can claim jurisdiction; as long as it falls under their Operational Mandate.


What does it matter. The issue we were discussing is American's being detained. They claim to have jurisdiction. Whether or not they actually do does not mean it is inaccurate to state they claim to have it.




I will also say, that should civilization utterly collapse, that I would support any form of stability or government that would allow my family the best level of protection.


You understand what you are when you have lost all ability to protect and provide for you and your family and are completely dependent on another?




Which I would more than agree with; but then I do not see the stops as the point where rights are briefly encroached, but rather the various visual searches (non physical searches) and the 'sniff checks', as being the point where the encroachment takes place. A life time of 'Hurry up and wait,' makes stops and delays nothing more than an inconvenience, but clearly not detainment; in the sense that I understand the concept to be.


Well the supreme court would disagree with you.


(c) Under the circumstances of these checkpoint stops, which do not involve searches, the Government or public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen. Pp. 428 U. S. 560-562.





I think your statement here is erroneous, in that they are not allowed to nullify the Constitution itself. But rather they do have the responsibility to interpret laws for fairness under the 'guidance' of the Constitution; and when a law is determined to be Unconstitutional, they are empowered to rule such laws as void. Then legislation is enacted to strike the unfair law from the books, and or a better one is drafted. However, a 'precedence' is created in such instance and follow on laws or regulations are tested against that as well.


My friend. Under Constitutional law the Government receives it's authority civilly through the Constitution. They do not have the authority to only use it as "guidance".




I would posit that it changed slowly, that there isn't a clear point when it truly happened. Though I think largely it grew out of necessity and was a natural evolution of basic Human and States rights that impacted how the Federal Laws were enacted and balanced against. Which is to say the process started long before the Civil War, and the Freedom of the Slaves was just a logical progression of such growth. (Though part of that was punitively tied into economics as well.)


Well you would posit wrong. There was a clear point when this changed. However individuals that share your view point could care less where their law makers derive their authority. Whether derived civilly or not, as long as they are offered food and protection, they serve the corporate interest unquestionably. If master says it's best...









[edit on 8-8-2009 by harvib]

[edit on 8-8-2009 by harvib]




posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
omg who really cares what he had in his car anyways? the war on drugs is as useless and pointless as they come.

to arrest anyone for some simple thing is unheard of an a moneymaking scheme.

A drug dealer in mexico thanked the united states government for making drugs illegal all this time because it made him billions of dollars.

he wouldnt have made that money if drugs were legal in america and people wouldnt be going to jail every damn day if they would just lighten up on the drugs issue.

everyone has the right to do what they do in their own home and privacy. thats my opinion.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by earthship35
 

Amen to that brother!

Many are missing the point of this post.
So sad.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigdog36
reply to post by earthship35
 

Amen to that brother!

Many are missing the point of this post.
So sad.


Many are not missing the point of this post. They simply don't agree.

AND - - NO ONE is saying it is OK to have - - any form of "law enforcement" doing anything to anyone at anytime for any reason.

Those are probably the ones who get loud and obnoxious saying: "Where is a cop when you need one. They are never around when you need one"



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib




I will also say, that should civilization utterly collapse, that I would support any form of stability or government that would allow my family the best level of protection.




You understand what you are when you have lost all ability to protect and provide for you and your family and are completely dependent on another?


Yes I would be a survivor. However in your mistaken belief, you presume much about how I would or would not act in such a scenario. Also you presume that I would be an idle participant in the reconstruction; someone who contributes nothing. And you would be wrong.



Well the supreme court would disagree with you.


(c) Under the circumstances of these checkpoint stops, which do not involve searches, the Government or public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen. Pp. 428 U. S. 560-562.



I think you need to review that paragraph again.


(c) Under the circumstances of these checkpoint stops, which do not involve searches, the Government or public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen. Pp. 428 U. S. 560-562.


In which part are my statements in disagreement with that? They agree that the stops outweigh the constitutional protected interests (EG. rights) of the private citizen. What is not listed or made clear in that brief excerpt is what right they are talking about.

What rights and interests are likely impeded? Let us reveiw:

Privacy, in that they likely ask your destination and where you are going from from, much less your nationality.
Protection from illegal 'search' in that the canine is indiscriminate in picking the scent(s), (EG the dog can not define the difference from a vehicle or a person having the pot in/on them.)
The right to free travel, again I don't really see a issue here.

And most importantly here, what do the checks give us in return?

Security.
Protection.
Peace of mind.
Confidence that a part of the government is actually doing their job.
Fairness, in that everyone (or some set ratio) is checked in a consistent manner.




I think your statement here is erroneous, in that they are not allowed to nullify the Constitution itself. But rather they do have the responsibility to interpret laws for fairness under the 'guidance' of the Constitution; and when a law is determined to be Unconstitutional, they are empowered to rule such laws as void. Then legislation is enacted to strike the unfair law from the books, and or a better one is drafted. However, a 'precedence' is created in such instance and follow on laws or regulations are tested against that as well.


My friend. Under Constitutional law the Government receives it's authority civilly through the Constitution. They do not have the authority to only use it as "guidance".




I would posit that it changed slowly, that there isn't a clear point when it truly happened. Though I think largely it grew out of necessity and was a natural evolution of basic Human and States rights that impacted how the Federal Laws were enacted and balanced against. Which is to say the process started long before the Civil War, and the Freedom of the Slaves was just a logical progression of such growth. (Though part of that was punitively tied into economics as well.)




Well you would posit wrong. There was a clear point when this changed. However individuals that share your view point could care less where their law makers derive their authority. Whether derived civilly or not, as long as they are offered food and protection, they serve the corporate interest unquestionably. If master says it's best...


If you mistake me for a servant or an obedient lap dog, you only belittle yourself; and make a mockery of your own intellect.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by harvib]

[edit on 8-8-2009 by harvib]


American history is not just built on our laws, nor are our laws grounded 'just' in the Constitution. Nor is the Constitution an abandoned document, yet while it is part of our legal system, it is not the entirety of it. Our legal system while it has flaws, it evolves, shifts and grows to meet the needs of the peoples in which it protects.

If you are trying to destroy the system, to tear it down, rather than to change it to make something better; more fool you. If how ever you are actually working to improve the system and trying to better society with your actions, I will salute you and support you.

However, that does not mean you (or anyone else) can ruin my rights and privileges or the rights and privileges of others in efforts to 'fix things.' We don't need that kind of help....

M.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Moshpet - - thank you for your logic in this discussion.

Respecting Anarchy is one thing - - - thinking it has any possibility of working - in a large diverse population is pure insanity.

Reality is Reality.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



Well put, Annee. Anarchy is quite a force. It would drive people to be so much smarter and more aware than they are now.

It IS true that some agencies are acting out of jurisdiction. (IE: A ridiculous concept in any case)

And about WHY? Well... some dogs WILL "tag" randomly, or because of subtle cues. If in your case, the dog found something it was supposed to, then Im sorry you were caught. Just be a bit more carefull next time about your smuggiling operations! (Kidding)


OH! And about the abuse of power? No surprise matey! I hate everyone of those bastards (abusive people) and I pray our system, one day, will change. Best to ye'!


-Ze'Jesta

[edit on 8-8-2009 by ~ATS~]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 





In which part are my statements in disagreement with that?


This one:




but then I do not see the stops as the point where rights are briefly encroached, but rather the various visual searches (non physical searches) and the 'sniff checks', as being the point where the encroachment takes place.


Clearly the Supreme Court believes the "encroachment" to take place because of the nature of the "check point". It is the detainment that is unconstitutional.

However for you to believe there may be other Constitutional violations and still be in support of such "measures" is scary to say the least.




American history is not just built on our laws, nor are our laws grounded 'just' in the Constitution. Nor is the Constitution an abandoned document, yet while it is part of our legal system, it is not the entirety of it. Our legal system while it has flaws, it evolves, shifts and grows to meet the needs of the peoples in which it protects.


Again the Government gains it authority civilly through the Constitution. It is a rule by consent. When the Government begins to disregard the Constitution they have begun to rule by conquest. But again I don't think many people care so you can take comfort in the majority view point.




However, that does not mean you (or anyone else) can ruin my rights and privileges or the rights and privileges of others in efforts to 'fix things.' We don't need that kind of help....


Yes! Now you've got it! This is the attitude of an American.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





Respecting Anarchy is one thing - - - thinking it has any possibility of working - in a large diverse population is pure insanity.


I hope you aren't referring to me. I neither respect anarchy nor believe it has any possibly of working. If this is what you have you have gained from my post then you have misunderstood my points. I just have trouble accepting the concept that in order to keep us "free" we must give up our "freedoms". It seems a little counter intuitive. Best wishes.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib

I hope you aren't referring to me. I neither respect anarchy nor believe it has any possibly of working. If this is what you have you have gained from my post then you have misunderstood my points. I just have trouble accepting the concept that in order to keep us "free" we must give up our "freedoms". It seems a little counter intuitive. Best wishes.



Who's and What Freedoms are you talking about?

This discussion is about an area near where I live. I WANT the check points. I find them incredibly annoying - - but I am smart enough to understand their importance and value.

No One has convinced me even the slightest - - that any thing was done wrong or against the constitution. I see only adaptation to need.

This reminds me of those who - interpret - pick and choose from the bible.

Personally - none of your arguments hold any validity for me.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 






Who's and What Freedoms are you talking about?


Aren't you under the impression these measures are being done to "protect" you. To keep you "safe". To keep you "free". We have established the Supreme Court views these checkpoints as an infringement on our Constitutionally protected rights.




No One has convinced me even the slightest - - that any thing was done wrong or against the constitution. I see only adaptation to need.


Again the Supreme Court disagrees. They did find it to be a violation of your Constitutionally protected rights.




This discussion is about an area near where I live. I WANT the check points. I find them incredibly annoying - - but I am smart enough to understand their importance and value.


Understanding there importance and value you must then be in support of these measure being used in increasing numbers and for various other crime prevention purposes. I believe random house checks may also be effective. Why not support measures such as those?



[edit on 8-8-2009 by harvib]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
Again the Supreme Court disagrees. They did find it to be a violation of your Constitutionally protected rights.


It certainly does disagree:


In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down another drug checkpoint proposal in Indianapolis vs. Edmond. In the landmark case, Indianapolis police set up roadblocks staffed by dogs and their handlers, ultimately busting about 50 people with drugs.

The Supreme Court had, in the past, found two major exceptions to its general disapproval of police checkpoints. In 1990's Michigan Dept. of State Police vs. Sitz, the High Court allowed DUI checkpoints. And in 1976's United States vs. Martinez-Fuerte, it gave the Border Patrol the right to set up checkpoints that seek to uncover illegal immigrants — with the secondary purpose of finding drugs.

"We have never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing," the Supreme Court majority wrote in the Indiana case. "The [Indianapolis] checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment."

The notion of a checkpoint where police can pull over every single vehicle and search it chills many Americans. Justice Clarence Thomas, no beacon of liberal thought, made that clear in his dissenting opinion in the 2000 case. Though Thomas felt compelled to side with the Indianapolis police because of court precedents, he challenged the basis of the precedents strongly.

"I am not convinced that Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte were correctly decided," Thomas wrote. "Indeed, I rather doubt that the framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered 'reasonable' a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing."

The new agreement with Yuma County blurs the distinction between drug and immigration checkpoints.

www.phoenixnewtimes.com...


Again, they are using a loophole to basically operate a checkpoint that is no longer uncovering illegal immigrants due to new fencing in the area, and is stopping and targeting U.S. citizens, not suspected of wrongdoing. They are using a loophole to override the supreme court's decision, and i'm pretty sure that if this checkpoint made it there, it would be struck down like the Indianapolis case.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by 27jd]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


Where do you guys get your information the supreme court has decided border agents have the rights to detain you! if your going to try to tell people there rights at least be accurate!

UNITED STATES V. ARVIZU: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS VALIDITY OF BORDER PATROL STOP
Immigrants' Rights Update, Vol. 16, No. 1, February 28, 2002




In the Supreme Court decision yesterday, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger held that the test was not whether there was ''probable cause to conclude the vehicle they stopped would contain a group of illegal aliens.''
Rather,'' he wrote, ''the question is whether, based on the whole picture, they as experienced Border Patrol agents, could reasonably surmise that the particular vehicle they stopped was engaged in criminal activity.''

Theres all ready been challenges to border patrol stops and guess what its legal. They can stop you if theres reasonable suspicion of a crime they can detain you. Just so you know reasonable suspicion can have a broad range of reasons thought they smelled pot. Person was acting suspicious whatever. And they have the right to arrest you Has nothing to do with this county so stop trying to say border agents are different here then anywhere else there not.

The op is whining about his rights well the reality is he doesn't have the right to smoke pot its not legal and now its time for him to man up and pay his fine and stop whining about whats legal i just proved its perfectly legal!



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 





They can stop you if theres reasonable suspicion of a crime they can detain you.


But here's the thing. I think you, like others, are under the impression that the detainment process begins when they decide to search or question you. This is not so. The detainment process begins when you are not waived through. Please don't ask me to re-present why this is so as I have done so several times in this thread. The Supreme Court agrees with this assessment as well as stating it's infringement on Constitutionally protected rights. Best regards.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 





In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down another drug checkpoint proposal in Indianapolis vs. Edmond. In the landmark case, Indianapolis police set up roadblocks staffed by dogs and their handlers, ultimately busting about 50 people with drugs.


Good find!




"I am not convinced that Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte were correctly decided," Thomas wrote. "Indeed, I rather doubt that the framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered 'reasonable' a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing."


Couldn't agree more!



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


What your doing is called splitting hairs.Obviously the border patrol agent would have to stop you to decide if there going to detain you asking you to step out of the vehicle. When the supreme court made there decision i dont think they pictured the border patrol agent running beside your car as you drove by! Read the decision i posted the supreme court decided the border patrol can stop you and detain you or arrest you if need be no more to be said. Id love to see how that rolling questioning would occur officer running beside car.

Sir wheeeze wheeze are you a huff huff United caugh caugh citizen. Sir can you sloooooowwww down i just ate.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   
The solution to this, difficult as it might seem, is to replace the Arizona state government. The only reason the "Feds" do this is because they are being allowed to by the State. The state should not be tolerating the abuse of their citizens and the infringement on their constitutional rights. Make an effort to run for state office or find people who will operate on a platform and work for the cause of no more treason by the state. Get a candidate on the ballot and you a voice in the candidate profiles to tell the truth to everyone allowed to vote in the state. The state and the individual have the higher power. It is a combination of Illuminati infiltration, economic blackmail and political blackmail that is responsible for this. It should not be tolerated. Drugs, like illegal aliens are just a ruse for the feds to systematically condition people to feeling dependent on the fed and think of themselves as helpless and subvervient. While at the same time, of course, the fed runs the drug war and the drug peddling industry and the importation of illegals.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


this in no way applies to the border patrol and the supreme court decision was more concerned with police jurisdiction.In this decision they were unwilling to give them the rights of the border patrol fearing cops could set up road blocks for any infraction of the law. In hind site though this was later over turned the argument was made that the supreme court had already made it legal for sobriety check points. Ever wonder why the dog stays in the police car until after they speak with you. The reason simple they don't bring out the dog to check the car unless there is a suspicion of wrong doing. Again they were unwilling to broaden the scope of police powers in effect making them border patrol agents! And law school pays off again!



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 





Read the decision i posted the supreme court decided the border patrol can stop you and detain you or arrest you if need be no more to be said.


That case doesn't appear to have anything to do with a check point. My argument is in regards to the nature of these "check points". Interesting case though.


Edit to add: Reading beyond the syllabus it appears a sensor was tripped alerting agents to a car on an unpaved road. This case is very interesting.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by harvib]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   
most important thread on ATS. and a fine read (for the first 9 pages anyways). i am posting to show my support of the OPs position.

i watched the video posted back on page 2. for anyone that missed it, and does not know how to properly react to one of these unconstitutional searches, i HIGHLY recommend that you go back to here:

link: www.abovetopsecret.com...





top topics
 
45
<< 23  24  25    27  28 >>

log in

join