Shouldn't this come with a warning...
Something along the lines of: may offend those, without a sense of humor.
The story earlier this week on the deportation from the US of A of two Brits who ill-advisedly tweeted they were off to "destroy America" left a few readers pretty shaken up at the way the Department of Homeland Security handles potential terrorist threats. Trust us, you don't know the half of it. Today, we publish exclusive …
Ruthless state officials (in every country) don't have a sense of humor. They have a "more than its their jobs worth attitude". The state officials are not thinking about other people, they are thinking about themselves. They take the very literal line, that if something were ever to go wrong, (that the person they should have stopped done wrong), then however unlikely that is, they risk being told off about letting that person through. So to defend against that ever happening, (no matter how remote a possibility it could ever be), they therefore behave with an absolute ruthlessly unthinking attitude in their clamp down to control what anyone says (and can possibly do), in case it could ever reflect badly on them being told they have not done their job.
Even worse they also want to show they are doing their controlling job, because ultimately they want to keep their position of power to be able to control others. Worse still they can (and all too often do) even just pick on people to make examples of them, to make themselves look like they are doing their job. Even worse is how so often these punishment methods don't even require a court of law to decide the punishment. The officials are judge and jury and the punishments are already allowed to be given out by the officials rules and regulations which give them power, (which they don't use against most people), but always have the option to choose to use against almost anyone, if they wish.
Added to this (as the news keeps showing), these ruthless state officials are able to act these days with almost impunity and that has to be stopped. These ruthless bastards are increasingly making our world a growing endlessly controlled nightmare for all of us and their power to control is growing year by year. But then the more knowledge they have on people the more ways they have to punish people and they are using their ability to punish as far as they can to twist laws and rules to suit whatever they want to do.
We would never have heard the story
We would never had known their names
As far as we know they would never have existed
While being flown on a whistle stop tour of the worlds torture centres by unlisted aircraft on unlisted routed with unlisted flight plans.
Because rendition does not and has never existed.
We probably would not have heard about the story unless maybe we lived in Asia and they reported it in the Asian press, never having been there I assume they have newspapers and the like.
I'm not sure why you'd expect to hear about incidents involving Americans and Asians in the European press?
Similarly, I had a friend who mentioned that during the reporting of the Costa Concordia incident that the numbers breakdown mentioned Spanish, British, Italians etc. the rest of them were apparently Asian.
I would expect the Asian press to break it down similarly, so there were Chinese, Korean, Indian etc., the rest were from somewhere else.
I think you may be a British with Asian origins or an Asian living in Britain who's a bit disgruntled about the lack of Asian reporting, don't take it so personally, it's just a different part of the world.
near '<accent type="american">'
Error 531: "american" is not a valid value for enumeration accent.type. Perhaps you meant one of:
or the other 231 accents which contain the text "american"?
Please consult FakeTML Schema Reference Addendum 26, "Exhaustive List of Accent Types (English Language)".
They're not U.S. citizens. American law enforcement agencies - and, in fact, Americans in general - have long been very clear that all those nice rights belong to *Americans*. No-one else has any rights other than to do exactly as the nice Homeland Security agent tells them to.
For a while US courts took pains to interpret "citizen" literally so there was a reasonable trade in medical experiments non-citizens, ie. immigrants. But some courts did develop cold feet / grow a pair depending on your perspective and so the authorities rediscovered the joys of extra-territoriality and extraordinary rendition to keep those pesky human (note not citizen's) rights people at bay and thus was born Guantanamo and lots of containers at foreign aiports...
@ Lester: fan-fucking-tastic collection of piciures. Who says investigative journalism is dead?
The courts have ruled (oddly, I might add) that border areas are not US soil and constitutional rights don't apply. Even if it's in the middle of the airport in the middle of the US..... This is true for both citizens and non-citizens, it's why they can search your laptop and you have no rights.
I would point out that this has always been the case in most countries, but it has only recently been actually clarified by US courts. Previous to those rulings, it was sorta a gray area...
Besides, it's also the case that border control in the US is a Faraday cage, so you have no way to contact outside help - you're pretty much at the mercy of whoever is detaining you.... constitutional rights or not.
Chris_Maresca, would you please provide a case name having a judgement that determined that US border areas are not US soil?
The reason why certain searches and seizures in the US are considered reasonable at ports of entry (including inland international airports), yet unreasonable elsewhere in the country, ultimately dates back to the First Congress: namely to the Act of July 31, 1789 (two years before the ratification of the US Bill of Rights). The powers of border guards approached their current scope with the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, enacted by overriding Truman’s veto during the era of McCarthyism.
This post has been deleted by its author
AdamWill, would you please provide evidence that a person going through immigration at a US port of entry on US soil (including inland international airports) is not in the US?
Regarding the Fourth Amendment right of anyone in the US, citizen or not, to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", US ports of entry on US soil are places where a different standard of "unreasonable" has applied since there were only eleven states in the Union.
"AdamWill, would you please provide evidence that a person going through immigration at a US port of entry on US soil (including inland international airports) is not in the US?"
I'm not AdamWill, but I will offer a reference that at least clarifies the claim. As near as I can tell - and this isn't my field much less am I the specialist who should be answering this question - the points of entry in question are most definitely U.S. soil - but a number of what the standard American assumes applies to them ANYWHERE in America (if not the whole damn world in some cases) is totally meaningless until you've been cleared for entry. If you want more information, reference the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), § 235 [8 U.S.C.].
Daniel 4, thanks for your reply. You are certainly correct in noting that the typical Yank tends to believe that his constitutional rights remain the same at all times and places in the US, despite common knowledge of situations where this is not the case, e.g. freedom of speech not extending to causing panic by shouting “Fire!” in a packed movie theater. (Cue the Big Brother icons decrying the imminent annihilation of the First Amendment.) A person’s Fourth Amendment rights are similarly curtailed at US ports of entry on US soil, and are restored once one passes through CBP’s gate.
Please note that the formal name of McCarran-Walter (in my reply above to Chris_Maresca) is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. (There was a large amending act of the same name in 1965.) I’ll point you in turn to §287 (a) of McCarran-Walter for a list of powers that the immigration people can wield without requiring warrants, or even probable cause.
....so that'll be.....fuck all then! Behaved `belligerently` towards the state? I reckon these two probably qualify.
Good luck lads, they're going to make a massive mountain out of this! Be prepared to become an example to the rest of us! Time to go back to the oldschool - Get out there with stencils and spraypaint and posters. The internet is a dangerous place to post political polemic - too many paranoid freak governments these days... feeling control slipping away from them....they don't like it!
This post has been deleted by its author
"Yes, yes there is - scores of them. But as they have clues, they're not permitted anywhere near policy-makers nor allowed to be part of decision making processes.
Mostly, they're exiled to squalid little cubbies, where they crank out reams of analysis reports - which are then used to fuel the furnaces.
Another pretty unambiguous collection of two words. Maybe you can have a t-shirt made with them printed on it?
You need to read more headlines and look up the term "crash blossoms" while you're at it.
All terrorists must, by law, wear clothing that clearly identifies them as such and behave in the prescribed manner.
...the Troglodites who arrested these folks carry loaded weapons. Those idiots are FAR MORE dangerous than those two kids.
And by the way...just because it's "beer time" on YOUR side of the pond...have a little pity on those of us who still have 5 hours to go. OK? Cheers everyone!!
This post has been deleted by its author
Really? They think the US has a better sense of humour about these things than we do? Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we recently send a bunch of smart arses to the big house for writing jolly japes like "let's start a riot in Basildon" on social media websites? Yeah, I get it, the comments were too moronic to be taken seriously, but when you consider they went to a country not well known for having too much on top.. hopefully we sent them right back to the US for being too stupid to be British.. they'll fit in nicely.
One hundred miles is sometimes termed 'The Constitution Free Zone'. Something like two-thirds of the US population live within this zone. Of course it's only ever applied on quiet back roads to people that look vaguely Mexican, strangely foreign, or have the gall to back-talk about "rights". They're not stupid enough to set up immigration roadblocks on (for example) Fifth Avenue, NYC.
Anonymous Coward, this “Constitution-Free Zone” meme also has its origins in McCarran-Walter (i.e. it’s been on the books for nearly 60 years), namely §287 (a) (3), where the border patrollers were granted the power “within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle” without warrant. Its constitutional effect is only on the Fourth Amendment definition of “unreasonable” for searching for persons; note that the definition of unreasonable seizures is unaffected, as well as the definition of unreasonable searches of houses, papers, and effects.
(Due to the current limit of 2000 characters per comment, some definitions will follow in a subsequent post.)
Another power granted in McCarran-Walter §287 (a) (3) is that border patrollers are “within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States” without warrants. This is what allows border patrols to happen at all on private land.
Ultimately, it goes back to whether a single definition of “unreasonable” should apply at all times and all places within the US. The answer to that has been “no” since the summer of 1789.
The terms “reasonable distance” and “external boundary” are defined in 8 C.F.R. §287.1: the latter is defined as “the land boundaries and the territorial sea of the United States extending 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with international law”, and the former is defined as “within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States”. An air mile is not a statute mile of 5280 feet (1609.344 m), but is in fact identical to the (international) nautical mile of 1852 m (a bit over 6076 feet). Thus, 100 air miles is 185.2 km, or slightly more than 115 statute miles, from land boundaries; but in the case of coastlines, the 100 air miles start twelve nautical miles offshore, leaving 88 air miles (162.976 km, or around 101.25 statute miles) on land. Conversion to linguini is left as an exercise to the reader.
They probably cleared the issue quickly. Most of the time was required to "convince" those tourists to never disclose what they really meant. To prevent the frontpage headers next day from being about them: "Two tourists and their dog try to destroy America by drinking all its whiskey reserves. The Threat is taken SERIOUSLY."
The gut who was was arrested for drunk driving, charges dropped but the prison kept him in solitary for 20 years. He just won 22million USD. The prison is appealing the award saying they legal loophopes they have found.
If this were a democracy the prison warden, the medical staff and the guards on that woing should end up in cells as they have obviously broken the law.
Then we have the UK doing this to try and save a few pennies
while at the same time the foreign office is giving the indians 280millions which they turned down. The fCO had to beg them to take it. - wonder what excuse they will come up with now
the indians have stated they dont want ti and it is "peanuts".
I know a good few SMB's that could use this sort of money in research tax credits etc.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022