American Civil Liberties Union : Surveillance Society Clock
2008/10/24/1413RTFA: http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/areyoulivingina…
Using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.
The government is assuming extraordinary powers to stop and search individuals within this zone. This is not just about the border: This ” Constitution-Free Zone” includes most of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas.
We urge you to call on Congress to hold hearings on and pass legislation to end these egregious violations of Americans’ civil rights.
Thanks to John Taplin for the pointer. From WIRED:
Government agents should not have the right to stop and question Americans anywhere without suspicion within 100 miles of the border, the American Civil Liberties Union said Wednesday, pointing attention to the little known power of the federal government to set up immigration checkpoints far from the nation’s border lines.
The government has long been able to search people entering and exiting the country without need to say why, which is known as the border search exception of the Fourth Amendment.
After 9/11, Congress gave the Department of Homeland Security the right to use some of its powers deeper within the country, and now DHS has set up at least 33 internal checkpoints where they stop people, question them and ask them to prove citizenship, according to the ACLU.
I can vouch for the existence of these checkpoints: I was stopped (along with every other driver on the highway) while driving in Vermont, while driving from Nevada to California, and while driving from New Mexico to Texas. If it sounds a little strange that these checkpoints weren’t along the border with Canada or Mexico, that’s because it is strange that these checkpoints were completely within the borders of the United States. In the Vermont case, I seem to recall that this was identified as “border patrol” whereas the other two may have been state initiatives - I’m not certain. I’ve been stopped at DUI checkpoints as well.
The point is, folks, that you can’t fly or drive in this country without carrying your identifying papers at all times. You can’t opt out, and you never opted in. I’m a proud US citizen by birth, so I’m ashamed to have allowed our liberties to deteriorate to the point that checkpoints are a common, unquestioned, and sometimes unrecognized fact of traveling inside our country, within our own borders.
This isn’t an argument about protecting our borders - I’ll easily concede that it’s appropriate to have customs checks at international airport terminals. To be clear, this entirely concerns the right of US Citizens to be secure in their papers and persons from unreasonable search.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I’m certain we can find someone who will argue that it is reasonable to search everyone who chooses to engage in domestic travel (and whether that travel be by car or by plane is irrelevant). However, that person cannot make the argument while faithfully adhering to the principles and language of the US Constitution.
We’ve all heard the argument that if you’re not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear. That argument has also been readily debunked, and here’s a reality check for people who “have done nothing wrong.”
The fact of the matter is that in February of 2008, over 900,000 names have been added to the FBI Terrorist Screening Database, and the list is growing at a rate of 20,000 names per month. A representative from the FBI Terrorist Screening Center revealed that 15,000 of these names are actual US Citizens.
From the FBI Terrorist Screening Center FAQ, a common question is whether or not you can find out if you are on the list. The short answer is, “no.” The long answer is:
The TSC cannot reveal whether a particular person is in the TSDB. The TSDB remains an effective tool in the government’s counterterrorism efforts because its contents are not disclosed. If TSC revealed who was in the TSDB, terrorist organizations would be able to circumvent the purpose of the terrorist watchlist by determining in advance which of their members are likely to be questioned or detained.
The US Supreme Court recently heard several fourth amendment cases:
…one involving the application of the exclusionary rule to cases in which an arrest and search are based on police error, and the other concerning justification for the exception to the warrant requirement in the case of a vehicular search incident to arrest.
In Herring v. United States, Bennie Dean Herring challenged a search incident to an arrest that was made based on the erroneous information that he had a warrant on file. At issue was whether the evidence found during that search should be excluded because the warrantless arrest violated the petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Watch out for the decision in Herring v. United States, which should happen some time this Fall.
So we’re clear, these are examples of erroneous data leading to the suspicion of otherwise innocent people. Are you certain you have nothing to fear? No, because you cannot be certain that you are considered to have done nothing wrong, irrespective of whether or not you have actually done nothing wrong. Herring v. United States wouldn’t have percolated up to the Supreme Court level if there weren’t some juicy facet, and here it is that the unreasonable search found illegal material in the car. Do you still have nothing to fear? Perhaps the newly instituted Copyright Czar has some questions about those burned CDs you’ve been listening to while driving?
If only for this reason alone, the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution is a critical rule for creating a free society that is able to be law abiding. It is currently irrelevant if you follow the law or not. Simply by traveling, you are a suspect. Simply due to error, you may be suspected of specific crimes. On this basis alone, you may be unreasonably deprived of your liberties. If this were merely “paranoia,” there would not be numerous, conspicuous instances of the problem.
When it becomes unreasonable to defend the constitution, or to argue about the constitutionality of obviously questionable practices, this is evidence of a serious deterioration of the the liberties that US Citizens are entitled to. Such a condition is ultimately an insult to every citizen - the diminishment and tarnishing of the title of US Citizen - and is tantamount to the actual assault, abduction, and detention of justly free citizens, resulting in and deriving from the deprivation of such fundamental liberties as initially justified the creation of the United States of America! People, be citizens again!