5 ms·

As a citizen of the US I hate how SCOTUS has ground the fourth amendment down to practically nothing. It's absurd how people want the constitution to only apply

by ethin 1y ago

As a citizen of the US I hate how SCOTUS has ground the fourth amendment down to practically nothing. It's absurd how people want the constitution to only apply to citizens, when IMO what makes the US unique is that it's constitution and the rights it grants are assumed to already exist for everyone, and all it does is acknowledge and respect them and order the government to do likewise. I very much doubt this will change anytime soon. At this point I'd be all for just abolishing the DHS and everything under it -- I don't think the DHS has, since it's inception, actually done anything that protects the homeland in any capacity. I could be wrong, but if it has actually done something, it's so inconsequential that nobody talks about it.

OutOfHere 1y ago
Pretty much the basis for the DHS was 9/11 and terrorism, but terrorism exists in the first place due to US support for Israel and unnecessary interference in the Middle East. I don't particularly like the Islamic nations one bit, but even I see the connection of pointless US foreign policies to terrorism. Moreover, Israel is in large part militarily capable of defending itself. As such, the argument for DHS was all very circular. If you take away the circles, there's nothing left. A country that so hates its own constitutional democracy cannot possibly support the democracy of other nations.
- ethin 1y ago
  This. I will continue maintaining the opinion that the US needs to just stop supporting Israel. Seriously. Israel can fight it's own religious wars and I see no reason for us to be backing that when our very constitution says "Hey, no endorsing any religion!" If I remember right, Israel has only been able to do half the things it's done with respect to wars because we've just kept giving them weapons and supplies in the first place.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  > terrorism exists in the first place due to US support for Israel and unnecessary interference in the Middle East. I'm no fan of being Israel's sugar daddy but that's a gross mis-characterization of the situation. The terrorism landscape of the 80s through 2010s has to do with the cold war, the post-colonial governments of the middle east, etc, etc. It's not a simple problem. But yeah we should def stop supporting Israel. Not our sandbox, not our problem.
  - neom 1y ago
    From my memory of our history class in Canadian high school: Russia invaded Afghanistan -> U.S. armed Islamic fighters -> radical networks formed seemed to be the genesis?
    - OutOfHere 1y ago
      That's half of the picture. The radical networks didn't target the US just randomly or for nothing. It is specifically because of the US interference in the Middle East and its avid and persistent support for Israel that the US was targeted by Al-Qaeda.
      - neom 1y ago
        I think that's true although I'm not an expert, my point was kinda just the straight line to Osama bin Laden who was a fighter during that earlier period and 9/11 but your additional context is appreciated. :)
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      You don't get to the "radical islamists wage jihad on US dime" step without the "corrupt post-colonial governments leave citizens dissatisfied, citizens turn to religion" step.
      - text0404 1y ago
        Who installed the corrupt post-colonial governments? Who destabilized middle eastern countries to create an opening for those governments to take power? Who funded the groups who ended up taking power? It's the same folks who invented the word for the phenomenon we're currently discussing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)
        potato3732842 1y ago
        >Who installed the corrupt post-colonial governments? Ugh, mostly the British and the French though I supposed Ike got conned into helping the Brits with one of them. >Who destabilized middle eastern countries to create an opening for those governments to take power? rofl, everyone, but mostly their neighbors >Who funded the groups who ended up taking power? Same answer as above. But I get it, reality is complex and "murka bad" is simple. If you want that narrative stick to latin america.
- lenerdenator 1y ago
  > A country that so hates its own constitutional democracy cannot possibly support the democracy of other nations. The whole "support democracy" thing has been a ruse for a while now. Democracy has become a synonym for "human rights", and that's always been for sale. Not just in the US, either. The last 35 years have been characterized by exporting economic infrastructure from the US (and West at large) to a place that specifically does not support democracy because, hey, it's cheaper to make stuff there, and line need go up. Hell, touching on the Middle East, the only reason the region has a seat at the international table at all is because we're willing to look past the abysmal human rights record so long as the oil stays cheap. Otherwise it's a bunch of arid land with very strict rules. Not exactly the kind of place progress and development flock to. This isn't just an American thing, but it's certainly applicable here.
  - bongodongobob 1y ago
    You've got to be kidding me. If anything, the synonym would be "allows US business interests to pillage their resources." Every time a foreign nation attempts to nationalize a resource, we come in and destabilize their government, install a western friendly autocrat, and install our global businesses to extract their resources.
    - lenerdenator 1y ago
      If we were as venomous as you seem to charge, China wouldn't look anything like it does today, but otherwise, you're saying much the same thing as I am.
      - bongodongobob 1y ago
        I couldn't tell if you meant human rights sarcastically or not. It's hard to tell these days.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
TZubiri 1y ago
Disclaimer: not an american, but I too am a citizen of a country with borders. As far as I understand, there's 3 categories here, citizens, non-citizen residents, and non-citizens non-residents. The greatest spikes in constitutional and legal rights and guarantees come from being a resident. Being a citizen gives you political rights like voting and participating in the three branches sure, but for the average man it's nothing compared to the rights bestowed by simply walking down a street freely and engaging in free commerce. This might be one of those restrictions of freedom that allow for greater freedoms to be guaranteed down the line. Once a non citizen goes through the border, they enjoy a huge spike in rights and guarantees, if you losen the border, you dilute the rights of the residents and citizens, and you add costs (especially if you let aliens in that don't even pay taxes, enjoying only rights but no responsibility) Ironically, if you value your freedoms as a resident, you should value restricting freedoms at the border. Similar to how GPL briefly restricts user rights by requiring them to share the source code.
- ethin 1y ago
  > Ironically, if you value your freedoms as a resident, you should value restricting freedoms at the border. Can you clarify this? This doesn't make any sense to me. Freedoms like those granted in the US bill of rights are specifically designed to be universally applied regardless of citizenship status as long as you are within the geographical boundaries of the US or otherwise subject to it's jurisdiction, from my understanding.
  - TZubiri 1y ago
    Correct, we are in agreement. As a resident or citizen you get most consitutional rights. Before they cross the border they don't have those rights, the moment they cross the border, non-citizens enjoy those rights (looks possible to reverse or deny resident rights by deporting). So just by crossing the line into the US a person would enjoy almost all of the rights of a citizen. But critically, they don't have these rights BEFORE crossing the border, the border control is the point at which those rights are granted. IANAL
    - 1y ago
jacobolus 1y ago
The DHS is an umbrella organization with a huge number of parts under it, including stuff like FEMA (emergency management), customs, the coast guard, the secret service, monitoring of agricultural pathogens (formerly part of USDA), infrastructure protection (formerly part of FBI), federal law enforcement training, etc. Abolishing "everything under" the DHS would do incredible damage. The various agencies lumped under the DHS could plausibly be re-organized again, though I'm not sure it would serve much purpose. The biggest problem is that voters keep putting incompetent ideologues in charge of the federal government.
- ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
  >Abolishing "everything under" the DHS would do incredible damage. As we're seeing with cuts to anything other than programs enabling masked, jackbooted thugs to beat/harass/disappear brown people.
  - jacobolus 1y ago
    Okay, but again, the problem causing the jackbooted thugs is poor voter choices in the recent presidential election, ongoing citizen apathy, a Supreme Court enabling it, and a GOP which is thoroughly corrupted from top to bottom, not Customs inspections, FEMA disaster assistance, or Coast Guard rescues. The fix to this is to swap out the nation's leaders, not to throw away every governmental institution with any relation to public safety.
    - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
      >Okay, but again, the problem causing the jackbooted thugs is poor voter choices in the recent presidential election, ongoing citizen apathy, a Supreme Court enabling it, and a GOP which is thoroughly corrupted from top to bottom, not Customs inspections, FEMA disaster assistance, or Coast Guard rescues. Right, and funding for customs inspections, FEMA disaster assistance and the Coast Guard are all already being cut in favor of jackbooted thugs. >The fix to this is to swap out the nation's leaders, not to throw away every governmental institution with any relation to public safety. I never suggested that DHS should be abolished. That was someone else[0]. You might take that up with them instead. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44963940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44963940

by ethin 1y ago

OutOfHere 1y ago

Pretty much the basis for the DHS was 9/11 and terrorism, but terrorism exists in the first place due to US support for Israel and unnecessary interference in the Middle East. I don't particularly like the Islamic nations one bit, but even I see the connection of pointless US foreign policies to terrorism. Moreover, Israel is in large part militarily capable of defending itself. As such, the argument for DHS was all very circular. If you take away the circles, there's nothing left. A country that so hates its own constitutional democracy cannot possibly support the democracy of other nations.

ethin 1y ago
This. I will continue maintaining the opinion that the US needs to just stop supporting Israel. Seriously. Israel can fight it's own religious wars and I see no reason for us to be backing that when our very constitution says "Hey, no endorsing any religion!" If I remember right, Israel has only been able to do half the things it's done with respect to wars because we've just kept giving them weapons and supplies in the first place.
potato3732842 1y ago
> terrorism exists in the first place due to US support for Israel and unnecessary interference in the Middle East. I'm no fan of being Israel's sugar daddy but that's a gross mis-characterization of the situation. The terrorism landscape of the 80s through 2010s has to do with the cold war, the post-colonial governments of the middle east, etc, etc. It's not a simple problem. But yeah we should def stop supporting Israel. Not our sandbox, not our problem.
- neom 1y ago
  From my memory of our history class in Canadian high school: Russia invaded Afghanistan -> U.S. armed Islamic fighters -> radical networks formed seemed to be the genesis?
  - OutOfHere 1y ago
    That's half of the picture. The radical networks didn't target the US just randomly or for nothing. It is specifically because of the US interference in the Middle East and its avid and persistent support for Israel that the US was targeted by Al-Qaeda.
    - neom 1y ago
      I think that's true although I'm not an expert, my point was kinda just the straight line to Osama bin Laden who was a fighter during that earlier period and 9/11 but your additional context is appreciated. :)
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    You don't get to the "radical islamists wage jihad on US dime" step without the "corrupt post-colonial governments leave citizens dissatisfied, citizens turn to religion" step.
    - text0404 1y ago
      Who installed the corrupt post-colonial governments? Who destabilized middle eastern countries to create an opening for those governments to take power? Who funded the groups who ended up taking power? It's the same folks who invented the word for the phenomenon we're currently discussing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)
      - potato3732842 1y ago
        >Who installed the corrupt post-colonial governments? Ugh, mostly the British and the French though I supposed Ike got conned into helping the Brits with one of them. >Who destabilized middle eastern countries to create an opening for those governments to take power? rofl, everyone, but mostly their neighbors >Who funded the groups who ended up taking power? Same answer as above. But I get it, reality is complex and "murka bad" is simple. If you want that narrative stick to latin america.
lenerdenator 1y ago
> A country that so hates its own constitutional democracy cannot possibly support the democracy of other nations. The whole "support democracy" thing has been a ruse for a while now. Democracy has become a synonym for "human rights", and that's always been for sale. Not just in the US, either. The last 35 years have been characterized by exporting economic infrastructure from the US (and West at large) to a place that specifically does not support democracy because, hey, it's cheaper to make stuff there, and line need go up. Hell, touching on the Middle East, the only reason the region has a seat at the international table at all is because we're willing to look past the abysmal human rights record so long as the oil stays cheap. Otherwise it's a bunch of arid land with very strict rules. Not exactly the kind of place progress and development flock to. This isn't just an American thing, but it's certainly applicable here.
- bongodongobob 1y ago
  You've got to be kidding me. If anything, the synonym would be "allows US business interests to pillage their resources." Every time a foreign nation attempts to nationalize a resource, we come in and destabilize their government, install a western friendly autocrat, and install our global businesses to extract their resources.
  - lenerdenator 1y ago
    If we were as venomous as you seem to charge, China wouldn't look anything like it does today, but otherwise, you're saying much the same thing as I am.
    - bongodongobob 1y ago
      I couldn't tell if you meant human rights sarcastically or not. It's hard to tell these days.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

TZubiri 1y ago

Disclaimer: not an american, but I too am a citizen of a country with borders. As far as I understand, there's 3 categories here, citizens, non-citizen residents, and non-citizens non-residents. The greatest spikes in constitutional and legal rights and guarantees come from being a resident. Being a citizen gives you political rights like voting and participating in the three branches sure, but for the average man it's nothing compared to the rights bestowed by simply walking down a street freely and engaging in free commerce. This might be one of those restrictions of freedom that allow for greater freedoms to be guaranteed down the line. Once a non citizen goes through the border, they enjoy a huge spike in rights and guarantees, if you losen the border, you dilute the rights of the residents and citizens, and you add costs (especially if you let aliens in that don't even pay taxes, enjoying only rights but no responsibility) Ironically, if you value your freedoms as a resident, you should value restricting freedoms at the border. Similar to how GPL briefly restricts user rights by requiring them to share the source code.

ethin 1y ago
> Ironically, if you value your freedoms as a resident, you should value restricting freedoms at the border. Can you clarify this? This doesn't make any sense to me. Freedoms like those granted in the US bill of rights are specifically designed to be universally applied regardless of citizenship status as long as you are within the geographical boundaries of the US or otherwise subject to it's jurisdiction, from my understanding.
- TZubiri 1y ago
  Correct, we are in agreement. As a resident or citizen you get most consitutional rights. Before they cross the border they don't have those rights, the moment they cross the border, non-citizens enjoy those rights (looks possible to reverse or deny resident rights by deporting). So just by crossing the line into the US a person would enjoy almost all of the rights of a citizen. But critically, they don't have these rights BEFORE crossing the border, the border control is the point at which those rights are granted. IANAL
  - 1y ago

jacobolus 1y ago

The DHS is an umbrella organization with a huge number of parts under it, including stuff like FEMA (emergency management), customs, the coast guard, the secret service, monitoring of agricultural pathogens (formerly part of USDA), infrastructure protection (formerly part of FBI), federal law enforcement training, etc. Abolishing "everything under" the DHS would do incredible damage. The various agencies lumped under the DHS could plausibly be re-organized again, though I'm not sure it would serve much purpose. The biggest problem is that voters keep putting incompetent ideologues in charge of the federal government.

ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
>Abolishing "everything under" the DHS would do incredible damage. As we're seeing with cuts to anything other than programs enabling masked, jackbooted thugs to beat/harass/disappear brown people.
- jacobolus 1y ago
  Okay, but again, the problem causing the jackbooted thugs is poor voter choices in the recent presidential election, ongoing citizen apathy, a Supreme Court enabling it, and a GOP which is thoroughly corrupted from top to bottom, not Customs inspections, FEMA disaster assistance, or Coast Guard rescues. The fix to this is to swap out the nation's leaders, not to throw away every governmental institution with any relation to public safety.
  - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
    >Okay, but again, the problem causing the jackbooted thugs is poor voter choices in the recent presidential election, ongoing citizen apathy, a Supreme Court enabling it, and a GOP which is thoroughly corrupted from top to bottom, not Customs inspections, FEMA disaster assistance, or Coast Guard rescues. Right, and funding for customs inspections, FEMA disaster assistance and the Coast Guard are all already being cut in favor of jackbooted thugs. >The fix to this is to swap out the nation's leaders, not to throw away every governmental institution with any relation to public safety. I never suggested that DHS should be abolished. That was someone else[0]. You might take that up with them instead. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44963940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44963940