More Civil Liberties destroyed....
- 06-26-2005, 11:02 AM
More Civil Liberties destroyed....
- 06-26-2005, 12:02 PM
- 07-02-2005, 07:33 PM
I don't see how this has anything to to with civil liberties. Most people around the world are used to carrying their passports when they go from country to country.
But I suppose if I lived in the southwest and went to Mexico a lot it might be a little annoying.
07-02-2005, 07:56 PM
07-02-2005, 10:51 PM
This is not a civil liberty being taken away... this is just good sense. Everywhere else in the world... if you leave a country... you will need a passport. Why mexico was any different was always beyond me... terrorist come from all over. Say a terrorist had a fake drivers liscense from the US... then flew into mexico... he could go right over the border, and do his damage.Originally Posted by bjjones
I say bout time.
07-03-2005, 02:20 AM
Actually in Europe you don't need a passport when travelling from one EU member to another usually.
This will hurt the Mexican tourism industry for sure. But then again, I don't really give a crap about the Mexican tourism industry.
07-03-2005, 11:10 AM
Im stationed in germany right now... and everytime I leave here... to ANY other country... I have to have either my passport, or military ID with Leave papers with me to get back in. And this is to other EU countries also.Originally Posted by Nullifidian
07-03-2005, 01:18 PM
That was what I was thinking also.. I know it was always like that when I was in Germany but that was 87-89
07-03-2005, 02:41 PM
07-04-2005, 12:33 AM
And again, in any case, how is requiring a passport to travel to and from Mexico an infringement on civil liberties?
07-04-2005, 12:45 AM
well I don't see how it does.. makes crossing the border a bigger pain but to me that is not that big of a deal.. I have never really enjoyed customs anyway..
07-04-2005, 03:18 AM
Definition: Civil liberties - Freedoms that protect the individual from arbitrary government interference (as with the freedom of speech and movement).
First and foremost, this new passport requirement does not just apply to Mexico, but to Canada, the Carribean, Panama and Bahamas as well. Furthermore, this is a issue regarding civil liberties, due to the fact that this is one of the many attempts since the Patriot Act to track and monitor U.S citizens travel habits. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA, also known as the 9/11 Intelligence Bill), signed into law on December 17, 2004, mandated that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a plan that required U.S. citizens and foreign nationals to present a passport, or other secure document when entering the United States.
07-04-2005, 12:09 PM
Note the word "arbitrary" in that definition. Arbitrary means "Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle."Originally Posted by bjjones
Requiring a passport traveling to and from a foreign country seems to me something that is a result of reason and principle, and probably necessity in this day and age. Hardly seems like something required because of chance, whim, or impulse.
The 4th Amendment's requirement of probable cause and a warrant before police can search someone's home is a perfect example. Requiring a duly issued warrant sworn before a neutral magistrate makes the police demonstrate necessity and/or reason, and prevents them from acting on a whim or chance.
07-04-2005, 12:39 PM
That's funny, seeing as how those laws are constantly trampled on, and in recent years states have passed laws which allow cops to search a car or home based on "reasonable suspicion" which is a much more lenient standard than "probable cause." Basically, cops and the government they work for can get away with almost anything, and this has been proven time and again. This new passport requirement is no surprise.The 4th Amendment's requirement of probable cause and a warrant before police can search someone's home is a perfect example. Requiring a duly issued warrant sworn before a neutral magistrate makes the police demonstrate necessity and/or reason, and prevents them from acting on a whim or chance.
07-04-2005, 01:04 PM
Seeing as how the people in question are not suspected on any level of committing a crime, it seems rather arbitrary to me. Unless of course everyone is a suspect now, which wouldn't surprise me. What I would find totally, utterly and unbelievably shocking is if a terrorist could get ahold of a fake passport, or some other means to circumvent this infallible and effective policy. And once that happens the answer the government will come up with is more arbitrary power over citizens who are not now, nor ever will be a threat of any kind to society. And when the next attack comes, people will finally, hopefully, question why the government is spending billions upon billions of dollars tracking and spying on its own law abiding citizens when the threat is so obviously located somewhere else. Or maybe it's just a gauge of who the government really thinks the enemy is.Originally Posted by jrkarp
the neutrality of magistrates is highly doubtful, and there are a lot of convenient 'exceptions' to the fourth ammendment these days. Like the drug exception for example. Magistrates are just as suceptible to wanting to support this or that cause as anyone else.The 4th Amendment's requirement of probable cause and a warrant before police can search someone's home is a perfect example. Requiring a duly issued warrant sworn before a neutral magistrate makes the police demonstrate necessity and/or reason, and prevents them from acting on a whim or chance.
07-04-2005, 02:59 PM
I must have been mistaken. Isn't a passport a pretty common requirement when traveling from country to country?Originally Posted by CDB
07-04-2005, 03:05 PM
07-04-2005, 03:06 PM
Actually the reasonable suspicion standard comes from case law not statute and refers to cars and people walking down streets, where people have a diminished expectation of privacy. There is never any reasonable suspicion standard for searching homes. There are circumstances in which a warrant is not required to enter a home, such as exigent circumstances like chasing a fleeing felon, emergency situations where it is necessary to protect a person from harm, and to prevent the destruction of certain types of evidence.Originally Posted by Brooklyn
Like I've said before, to you everything is a conspiracy, so nothing I say is going to make a difference. But what you said above is blatently wrong.
And once again, how is subjecting US citizens to a requirement that is minimally invasive and commonplace throughout the world a bid deal?
07-04-2005, 03:07 PM
07-04-2005, 03:15 PM
Yes. What does that have to do with it? If warrantless searches were pretty common in a lot of countries, would that make them okay? Freedom of movement is the issue. That being, I'm not breaking any laws nor am I planning on doing so, nor have I given anyone cause to think I am going to do so, so where I'm going, what I'm doing and how long I plan to do it is none of the government's business. Nor do I see how tracking law abiding citizens will help fight terrorists, or even domestic criminals of any kind. The government has this kindergarden, gym class mentality towards citizens. One or two **** up and the whole class needs to be punished. It's wrong, ethically, morally and legally, and it's dangerous too.Originally Posted by jrkarp
Laws that are too easy to break to be reasonable, or that are unnecessary and ineffective breed disrespect for the law and the government that enforces the law. And rightly so.
07-04-2005, 03:31 PM
07-04-2005, 04:37 PM
The convenient way that normal fourth ammendment protections seem to get ignored in drug cases. Don't answer within ten seconds of a knock, expect to have the door busted down. Does your usage of power fall within a certain pattern? Expect to have your door kicked down. Don't expect the police to identify themselves, just submit to the ninja looking jackbooted thugs tear assing into your house with automatic weapons. The "drug exception to the fourth ammendment" is a loose way of referring to how drug prohibition and similar laws erode constitutional protections, in that almost any case you look up involving fourth ammendment issues and drugs always seems to favor the state unless the violation is so blatant it can't be ignored. It's a commonly used piece of legal jargon, I'm surprised you haven't heard it. Look up the case of Donald Scott, California. He was killed by police is a very, very questionable drug raid. Thankfully this one actually got some attention.Originally Posted by jrkarp
07-04-2005, 04:40 PM
I got plenty more. My collection of avatars just topped 100 as I was doing laundry this morning.Originally Posted by AgnosticFront
07-04-2005, 06:14 PM
Exactly how are they tracking you??? With a passport??? You're mistaken then... cause then you show your passport, no information is taken, it is just put beneath a blacklight for authenticity, stamped, and your send on your way... NO information is ever recorded to "Track your movment"Originally Posted by CDB
07-04-2005, 07:00 PM
Warrantless searches are prohibited by our constitution. Travel without a passport is not.Originally Posted by CDB
Your argument is fatally flawed and makes no sense. There is no liberty interest in unrestricted international travel. Passports are a common, universally accepted requirement for international travel. They are minimally intrusive and what burden does it impose on you to have to carry one?
There are certainly threats to our civil liberties but requiring passports for international travel is not one of them.
07-04-2005, 07:05 PM
There are certainly abuses of power that go on... It is common anytime power is vested in any human being. However, they are far from universal and they are blown out of proportion by the media. If you knew the scope and extent of the protections that we enjoy you would be amazed.Originally Posted by CDB
Improperly seized evidence is commonly suppressed (thrown out) by trial level judges. There are more checks on police power than you realize. I have read far more cases than you have and you would be surprised how often they go against the state.
And frankly, if the police have a warrant and the suspect doesn't answer a knock, they are jusitified in forcing entry. Would you prefer that they give the suspect time to arm himself and set up an ambush? Police have a job where every day they go to work could be the last day of their lives.
07-04-2005, 07:06 PM
07-05-2005, 12:06 PM
I'm a fan of tits and ass. Just so relaxing to look at.Originally Posted by jrkarp
As for the other issues, we disagree because at heart, at the base our beliefs we're totally different it seems. Minimally intrusive doesn't matter to me. If I haven't hurt anyone or their property, nor have I given any hint that I'm about to, any intrusion is too much in my mind. Maybe I'm too antisocial, maybe others are too submissive. Bottom line though is that if I'm minding my own business and not bothering anyone, I expect the government to do the same thing. They can pave roads and hunt down robbers, rapists and murderers to their hearts' content and I won't object, but anything beyond that gets my balls in a knot.
07-05-2005, 12:09 PM
07-05-2005, 02:48 PM
I agree with what you say. The thing is that if you are crossing international borders, you are not minding your own business like you are when you are sitting on your back porch. You are voluntarily engaging in an activity that can present a significant security risk to this country and its citizens, as 9/11 taught us. Passports are a common and unburdensome way to help ensure better border security. Do you think that we should not require driver's licenses for people to drive? Should we not require people engaging in the practice of medicine or law to have licenses?Originally Posted by CDB
I firnly believe that unreasonable and burdensome government regulation and interference with people going about their day to day lives is contrary to the spirit of what this country stands for. However, reasonable, unintrusive or minimally instrusive regulation of things like border crossings hardly counts. If the government required US citizens traveling abroad to account for their movements, plans, hotel reservations, meals, expenditures, etc when going to and coming from a foreign country, I would be among the most outraged. However, since passports are a universally accepted requirement for international travel, requiring them now is hardly different from requiring drivers to have a driver's license and is not an infringement on our liberty.
Similar Forum Threads
- By windwords7 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 12Last Post: 07-24-2007, 11:02 AM
- By destro19 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 28Last Post: 04-15-2003, 11:43 AM
- By windwords7 in forum General ChatReplies: 82Last Post: 12-30-2002, 03:38 AM
- By pjorstad in forum AnabolicsReplies: 3Last Post: 12-20-2002, 06:58 PM
- By hamper19 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 19Last Post: 11-04-2002, 08:54 AM