4 ms·

These officers refused to identify themselves to me at all, which is interesting " Is that even legal?

clowd 10y ago
And if it isn't, what's anyone going to do about it? Those officers were "never there," and that part of the encounter "never happened," and no one can prove otherwise. Welcome to America, your cell is down the hall...
- lolikoisuru 10y ago
  >and no one can prove otherwise. Someone could, but does anyone dare to? Airports have a ton of CCTV cameras.
syshum 10y ago
Since when has something being legal or illegal ever stopped US law enforcement. There is no actual accountability, so why should they care if what they do is illegal. They are the law, and they make shit up as they go
- gorbachev 10y ago
  Border entry points aren't legally in United States and you have absolutely no rights whatsoever, even if a US citizen, when at those locations. There is nothing new about this, but it's been getting worse ever since the evul hackers started subverting the US Government by encrypting and leaking the Government's illegal activities.
  - zeroer 10y ago
    I missed that part in the constitution where it said these rights not available in all areas.
    - rhizome 10y ago
      Not in the Constitution per se, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
      - zeroer 10y ago
        That was kind of my point. It's not in the constitution and conflicts with the constitution.
        Nrsolis 10y ago
        It doesn't conflict with the Constitution and this is a common misunderstanding by laymen about how the law works in the USA. "Case Law" vs "Statutory Law" is the name of the game here. To not beat a dead horse: every single decision made by the Supreme Court is effectively in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Any part of the Constitution can be interpreted, modified, or nullified by a decision of the Supreme Court. So, when the SCOTUS decides that an exemption against prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure applies at the border, you can be assured that they view it as "constitutional".
        syshum 10y ago
        Which is contrary to how many of the framers wanted the nation to be run... I cite Jefferson >>"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson [1804] >>"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson [1820] >>"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson [1825] Over the last 200 years to much reverence and power has been placed in the hands of the Supreme Court, and the federal government in general.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Border entry points aren't legally in United States Yes, they are. > and you have absolutely no rights whatsoever, even if a US citizen, when at those locations. Also incorrect, though there are a number of limitations in the practical application of generally applicable rights in the context of the border (and not just official "entry points".)
    - stefantalpalaru 10y ago
      > a number of limitations in the practical application of generally applicable rights in the context of the border That's one way to put it. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone : > Federal border agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing, and often in ways that our Constitution does not permit.
- avenoir 10y ago
  You probably have more wiggle room with law enforcement than you do with Border Patrol or US Customs. These guys have free reign and can do whatever the fuck they want, especially after 9/11. I'm sure there is accountability at some level, most likely unattainable by mere humans.
seanp2k2 10y ago
They did it and I guarantee no one will be held accountable for it, so what would it being illegal matter in this case? They do whatever they want to you if the state really wants to harass you, laws be damned.
psybin 10y ago
Guess what, absolutely nothing will happen if the border guards do anything wrong. You're the criminal, not them.
alasdair_ 10y ago
If he felt strongly about it, simply saying something like "I don't believe that you are a police officer" and refusing to obey would probably eventually work. (And yes, I know that CBP are not the same thing as police but this seems to more reasonably be the sort of thing that someone would say.)

clowd 10y ago

And if it isn't, what's anyone going to do about it? Those officers were "never there," and that part of the encounter "never happened," and no one can prove otherwise. Welcome to America, your cell is down the hall...

lolikoisuru 10y ago
>and no one can prove otherwise. Someone could, but does anyone dare to? Airports have a ton of CCTV cameras.

syshum 10y ago

Since when has something being legal or illegal ever stopped US law enforcement. There is no actual accountability, so why should they care if what they do is illegal. They are the law, and they make shit up as they go

gorbachev 10y ago
Border entry points aren't legally in United States and you have absolutely no rights whatsoever, even if a US citizen, when at those locations. There is nothing new about this, but it's been getting worse ever since the evul hackers started subverting the US Government by encrypting and leaking the Government's illegal activities.
- zeroer 10y ago
  I missed that part in the constitution where it said these rights not available in all areas.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    Not in the Constitution per se, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
    - zeroer 10y ago
      That was kind of my point. It's not in the constitution and conflicts with the constitution.
      - Nrsolis 10y ago
        It doesn't conflict with the Constitution and this is a common misunderstanding by laymen about how the law works in the USA. "Case Law" vs "Statutory Law" is the name of the game here. To not beat a dead horse: every single decision made by the Supreme Court is effectively in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Any part of the Constitution can be interpreted, modified, or nullified by a decision of the Supreme Court. So, when the SCOTUS decides that an exemption against prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure applies at the border, you can be assured that they view it as "constitutional".
        syshum 10y ago
        Which is contrary to how many of the framers wanted the nation to be run... I cite Jefferson >>"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson [1804] >>"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson [1820] >>"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson [1825] Over the last 200 years to much reverence and power has been placed in the hands of the Supreme Court, and the federal government in general.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Border entry points aren't legally in United States Yes, they are. > and you have absolutely no rights whatsoever, even if a US citizen, when at those locations. Also incorrect, though there are a number of limitations in the practical application of generally applicable rights in the context of the border (and not just official "entry points".)
  - stefantalpalaru 10y ago
    > a number of limitations in the practical application of generally applicable rights in the context of the border That's one way to put it. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone : > Federal border agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing, and often in ways that our Constitution does not permit.
avenoir 10y ago
You probably have more wiggle room with law enforcement than you do with Border Patrol or US Customs. These guys have free reign and can do whatever the fuck they want, especially after 9/11. I'm sure there is accountability at some level, most likely unattainable by mere humans.

seanp2k2 10y ago

They did it and I guarantee no one will be held accountable for it, so what would it being illegal matter in this case? They do whatever they want to you if the state really wants to harass you, laws be damned.

psybin 10y ago

Guess what, absolutely nothing will happen if the border guards do anything wrong. You're the criminal, not them.

alasdair_ 10y ago

If he felt strongly about it, simply saying something like "I don't believe that you are a police officer" and refusing to obey would probably eventually work. (And yes, I know that CBP are not the same thing as police but this seems to more reasonably be the sort of thing that someone would say.)