I will be curious to see statistics from past years. I'm wondering if this is a new thing. I'm pretty sure US customs and border patrol have always had this power. I think basically every country exercises this power
"It has always been this way, this is normal" is the typical first response to tyranny. It puts you on their side, which is fine if that's where you want to be. Just be aware of it. If you think it's wrong, you definitely don't want to be taking the side of "it's normal," because whether or not it's normal is irrelevant when your government is doing immoral and tyrannical behavior in your name.
Asking whether or not something is new or how frequently it's been done in the past isn't saying it's acceptable nor does it put them on the side of tyranny. In fact, a sign of tyranny would be a significant uptick in the number of these searches, and how else would you be able to see that worrying signal without answering the question they asked?
You quoted something that wasn't part of the question, which was "I'm wondering if this is a new thing".
Their impression was that it wasn't and that other countries do similar things. Stating your understanding of a situation helps guide discussion and helps people answer your inquiries. Doing that should be encouraged, not somehow treated as an endorsement of tyranny.
I guess the question is whether the reporting is politically motivated because someone doesn’t like the current admin or grounded in historical fact.
I get what you’re saying and agree. But if there is no statistically significant jump in the number from historical data for previous administrations then I can conclude that the reporting is politically motivated.
Sure but that means November will have no impact on what CPB does. It’s always happened and will continue to happen just like stock trading with insider information by congress members will continue to happen regardless of November results. The vote came up and it was voted down and I don’t see that changing. I don’t see the spying on citizens changing. The NSA spied on Congress and they did nothing about it.
It’s disingenuous to imply that November will have an effect on either of those topics.
My math teacher used to say that “obviously” means “I don’t know how to prove” and “trivially” means “tenuously at best”. Thanks for the demo of this in action.
Enough alarm bells are ringing to suggest that this is not normal. The persecution of political enemies isn't even a veiled threat, they are spoken outright in public.
Right like the ~400 subpoenas on Republican lawmakers by Jack S with the tenuous linkage to the Jan riot. You might have reason to subpoena 10 or even 30 lawmakers who may have had some linkage but going after ~400 seems dubious.
An event like the Jan 6th putsch attempt would, in pretty much every democracy that has got some sense of self-preservation, result in at the very least intense public hearings, and outside of the European Union that bans the death penalty under all circumstances, followed by the chief perpetrators getting strung up at the same gallows they brought to hang Mike Pence off of.
The fact that barely any consequences came for those instigating the putsch, except a few of those dumb enough to do stuff like parade around in front of cameras, is completely inexcusable.
The brought a mock up of a gallows -the same kind other protesters bring to anti-Trump rallies. Should we punish people who went into the Congressional buildings? Yes! (Keep in mind we have hosted protests in Congress too) Do they need to subpoena ~400 lawmakers and $10 donors to the campaign? I think it’s obvious that that is overreach and intimidation.
> The brought a mock up of a gallows -the same kind other protesters bring to anti-Trump rallies.
I'm not aware of this being a widespread practice at anti-Trump rallies.
> Do they need to subpoena ~400 lawmakers and $10 donors to the campaign? I think it’s obvious that that is overreach and intimidation.
Well... it's not unlikely that there might have been "inside help" from lawmakers and/or their staff or even general Congressional staff. The purpose of an investigation is to go, dig deep and fully take apart whatever conspiracy there was.
As for the donors - anti-terrorist laws in pretty much every country don't care if it was just a $10 donation. Donate to a cause that ends up being terrorists, be labeled as a terrorism supporter.
the gallows mockup was one of the reasons for the reaction to the Jan 6th stuff.[0] , although as far as what political party the owning group is using it for or against is sort of up for grabs.
Rioting is not terrorism. Terrorism usually involves conspiracy and planning they're typically not one-time, ad-hoc events. I know governments all over the world like to go overboard with that terms since Sep 11 because it's a get-them for free kind of card, but to me it means actual infliction of terror. A mock gallows is not. If it were, lots of protests with burning effigies, etc. could quite possibly be considered terroristic events.
Subpoenas are an investigating tool. It's part of gathering the data. I think you may be confused. It's not in any way a punishment.
Do you think at that point he had it out for Republicans in general? Republican congressmen were appalled by what happened on Jan 6th, and it was only because they thought Trump would just go away that he wasn't convicted in the Senate.
Trying to frame that investigation as some sort of political witch hunt is ridiculous.
It has always been this way; but for the hundreds of years before computers that fit in the palm of your hand that have your entire life on them, it was to ensure you weren’t bringing dangerous goods or produce into the country. It was a physical search of physical items.
The issue now is that my entire life is literally on my phone.
Now, within 100 miles of the border, should CBP choose to, they can search me without a warrant and search everything in my phone, and even retain it if they’d like. If I want to challenge that, I need tens of thousands of dollars and time.
This is the very definition of an unreasonable search; but to change that we have to change the politicians and change the judiciary. It’s up to us, but until we get it changed, we may as well consider the 4th amendment a dead letter, and that means trouble for all of us.
Wikipedia's map is wrong. The "border" includes international airports. There is very little of the population that is not within 100 miles of this "border."
The map also does not show Hawai'i, which would be one green blob, there is no part of Hawai'i not 100 miles from the border. All of the New England states are similarly small enough to be completely covered, even by the erroneous picture of the physical border.
You basically get a few, mostly uninhabited spots out in the West that aren't covered.
> It has always been this way; but for the hundreds of years before computers that fit in the palm of your hand that have your entire life on them
Or, maybe it might help to stop putting our entire lives on our phones.
If a border patrol agent coerces access to my phone, they're not going to find much. A few default apps, Lyft, an a music player. They're not going to find any social media, any photo album full of personal pictures, any banking apps or really anything that helps them understand what kind of person I am. I'm not going to like them going through it, but the blast radius is limited.
And that's me, a regular Joe, not wanted by Interpol. If you're at high risk, you should already have normalized this "app minimalism" mentality.
Why should people give up their right to free expression and being secure in their papers simply because you have voluntarily given up that right in advance?
I agree with both of those things! I'm just suggesting a precaution. People SHOULD be able to cross the road without getting run over, but we look both ways as a precaution. We shouldn't have to, but we do.
This is probably true of everyone's phone. Most phones will have a comprehensive profile of who you are, where you live, where you frequent, who you associate with, and what you like to do. Along with specifics even you don't realize.
I've been hearing about the US searching phones for many years, but not a single time for any other (non-dictatorship) country. The advice for travelling to the US in my circles is "wipe your device, install some believable bullshit, restore from backup when you're through". Not for any other "normal" country.
Only new-ish because cell phones are now not only ubiquitous but also contains troves of typically private information. Historically, individuals didn't have their entire lives, financial details, personal details, etc on their bodies when traveling. The border exception to the 4th was used primarily for enforcing customs/trade regulations. That carve out is now used to harass citizens.
Not to blame the victim, but maybe we should not be keeping so much personal information about our lives on a device that is at risk like this. A border patrol agent who gains access to my phone is going to be pretty disappointed to find basically nothing about me on it.
It is pretty certain that not every country exercises this power, though it seems that a few other English-speaking countries also do this.
During the last quarter of century, in many hundreds of border controls through many countries of Europe and Asia, including in places with tight security like Israel, I have never seen any case of searching for information in any belongings of the travelers, like computers or smartphones or even notebooks or the like.
Israel is a country that long before 9/11 had extremely effective methods for testing travelers at border control, and unlike the Americans they kept their methods unchanged after 9/11. Unlike USA, they have never relied on technical means, like X-ray scanners or SSD/HDD searching, but they have relied on trained humans who interviewed the travelers and assessed whether they lie about their purpose or not.
« unlike the Americans they kept their methods unchanged after 9/11 »
That's a good one :) It shows a couple things, like:
• a certain independence from Uncle Sam (like they displayed when they bombed the USS Liberty in 1967)
• that their own population was already sufficiently propagandized into paranoia mode (fear and loathing of “evil muslims”) in order to never make peace and keep the hate up
• and of course that they knew there was nothing to worry about wrt the 9/11 hoax
You're getting downvoted because you didn't anticipate and properly defend yourself against angry people who don't understand the is/aught fallacy. They mistake "is this true?" for "this should be true". Actually, it's not even the is/aught fallacy, it's something weirder. I have yet to figure it out. Still working on that one.
There are some instances where powers need to be exercised in a hurry, but there should always be proper reporting and a paper trail, with stiff reprimanded for misuse or abuse of the system. Accidents can happen, but they should be infrequent and should follow protocol.
It would be great if citizens had more direct involvement in these cases too. I don't see why egregious abuses shouldn't be tried by jury.
Police and intelligence agency employees should be held to a higher standard than civilians (like military personnel are subject to UCMJ), and breeches of protocols should lead to harsher punishments imposed upon them. It would be fine to pay them more if it required more training and accountability.
They don’t get tried in part because of Qualified Immunity (which has some rationality but I think we’ve taken it much too far), and in part because the structure of the system doesn’t incentivize it.
The people who would charge the officers are the same people who rely on the police to provide evidence. Both groups work closely together. Malfeasance by police typically provides the prosecution with evidence they want or people to charge. There’s no incentive other than morality to charge them, and a lot of reasons to find a way to rationalize it as untrue, or necessary, or whatever.
In most of Europe, police carry guns. But they are afraid to fire those guns, because there will be a disciplinary process and they are likely to lose their job or go to jail if they can't show there was no other alternative. But if there is a situation where it is necessary to fire the gun, it will be.
45x included accidents. I'll compile the citations, one moment.
> "From 2014 through 2023, the South region had the most line-of-duty deaths yearly compared to other regions. There was a 38% decrease in line-of-duty deaths in the region in 2023 (20 deaths) compared to 2022 (32 deaths). Last year marked the lowest number of line-of-duty deaths in the South since 2015 (19 deaths)."
> "A look at police crime statistics shows that fatal attacks on police officers are relatively rare. While violent acts against police officers are increasing overall—last year the statistics recorded 38,960 cases, a rise of 0.8 percent—no more than two police officers have been killed in the line of duty in any year since 2011." (Translated)
Your comparison to Germany with "30x" the risk is pointless when less than two are murdered per year. Measure that against police misconduct that results in bodily harm/death per year.
Those terms need to be clearly defined. SCOTUS has declared that the police actually have no duty to protect and to serve the people.
And with an overwhelming amount of evidence, the police operate with effectively no accountability and repeated demonstrate that they abuse their powers freely.
So yes, laws without teeth are pointless but the state's monopoly on violence should only be granted when it can be demonstrated to not be abused.
The question is whether the people who control the police are subject to democratic processes. They are not. We live in an oligarchy whose control over the government is exercised through two small private clubs who have written themselves into the law. To which it has been decided that infinite money can be donated, that money given without explicit quid pro quo is simply a gift, and that money given after something has been done is simply a "gratuity."*
It's an evil country, and the most lucrative middle-class profession is to generate daily the vocabulary to justify its evil acts.
I can tell you who doesn't ever get searched at the border. In fact, I bet you could tell me. Peter Thiel doesn't get searched at the border. Kamala Harris doesn't get searched at the border. Jeffrey Epstein never got searched at the border. Tom Cruise doesn't get searched at the border.
