Just don't give them any passwords or unlock anything if you are a US citizen. Let them try to detain a US citizen indefinitely for it.
In fact you're not automatically entitled to a hearing at all, but that was the working compromise established last time this ended up in court. Given the new administration's adversarial posture towards the judicial branch on the question of immigration reviewability, this is likely to change for the worse.
. https://www.law360.com/articles/720066/2nd-circ-sets-6-month...
And to think that there are actually still people attracted to such a system and wanting to immigrate. It is amazing.
1. They need a warrant to search your phone if you don't voluntary give them access.
2. Even if they have a warrant, you can plead 5th and just not give them the pin.
The American way is all about not trusting the government, believing in conspiracy theories, and stocking up on ammo.
Even if they have a warrant, you can plead 5th and just not give them the pin.
For example, if you were an American, white college kid crossing the Canadian border into New York at a weird time, and behave in a manner that seems nervous or evasive, You're going to attract interest. If you start heading toward the Mohawk Indian reservation, you're going to get stopped as odds are good you're smuggling something.
You're celebrating pathological thinking, especially when you claim that stocking up on ammo contributes to the functioning of a nation (in the loosest sense of "nation"). The days of militias are long gone.
That's an interesting position, considering my state is still funding an organized state militia: http://www.vdf.virginia.gov/
https://www.wired.com/2008/10/aclu-assails-10/
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
In this case, the ACLU article on this topic is weasel worded and needs to be read carefully so you can seperate implication from fact.
But the 3rd bullet, which is key to the notion of the 100 mile "constitution free zone", is more mysterious. It states that Customs has "broad—though not limitless—powers" without detailing them.
Many readers of this ACLU post and coverage of it have come away with a false idea that Customs and Border Protection has some magic wand. The facts are very different.
Here are the referenced sections, forgive any formatting issues.
> - According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called a "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle.
> -Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad—though not limitless—powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary."
> -In this 100-mile zone, Border Patrol agents have certain extra-Constitutional powers. For instance, Border Patrol can operate immigration checkpoints.
> - Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred).
Technically they should probably have been formatted as subbullets of the third point, but other than that I don't see anything wrong.
Also, your para "Many readers … The facts are very different." — not apparently backed up by any details — is exactly the kind of weasel wording you decry. In fact, I think I'm being trolled here.
The moment you step outside the US, you can be killed by US a drone strike, or the CPB agent can simply shoot you if they wish.
It's a broken hole in our system that needs to change, but don't expect any change for at least 2-4 years.
Why didn't Obama do anything about it?
I didn't vote for President in the last election, because he became a clown with his antics and she (IMO) is a crook. I'm not partial to one side or the other: I hate all politicians equally.
I'd like to hear facts about what is happening in the new administration, but have had to stop listening to all media because it is so incredibly lopsided it's infuriating and only gets me agitated.
Whereas the media used to report primarily facts, it seems to me that now they primarily report opinions, speculations, and prophecies. We're not able to form our own opinions on issues based on facts, because we don't hear many facts, and the facts we do hear are definitely not in any kind of balance on the many sides of complex issues.
In general, I'd love to see us reduce our foreign military presence by 85%, and cut military spending by over 50%. Not counting other areas of the govt I'd love to see deep cuts into. End the war on drugs. End privatized prisons. The list goes on.
Sorry for the bit of a rant... I'm just kind of sick of it all, and that's only loosely following anything.
Responding to the above, Obama did do something: he presided over the first extrajudicial assassination of a US citizen by drone strike.
I fail to see the problem
Even if everyone has perfect intentions (doubtful), you need checks and balances to prevent human error.
This is for better or worse.
Extra-judicial killings happen a lot. In the case of self-defense for example. "Cop thought the suspect had a gun" is a mistake that happens often, but it can be legitimate as well.
As for your other point, self defense is a long established affirmative defense for murder, yes. However that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
If the government has a case to kill a citizen, that case needs to be made in court and evaluated by a jury of peers.
Well, the constitution is the rules and limits that apply to the US Government mainly (for the benefit of not only the US citizens).
However the Constitution is pretty much defined as the Law of the Land (Article VI https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_St... )
And if the case is as you describe then it seems it's a case for a federal prosecutor to make in Court.
> "Where high-level government officials have determined that a capture operation is infeasible and that the targeted person is part of a dangerous enemy force and is engaged in activities that pose a continued and imminent threat to US persons or interests."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justificati...
Nobody has an obligation to refuse to comply (and be detained and/or jailed) but if put in this situation I would refuse. I'm not willingly giving up my rights without a court compelling me.
but we already know there are nonrights at the border.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438...