Month: October 2008 Page 4 of 12

A couple of developments on the travel monitoring “security” front have made the news, lately.  First, the Department of Homeland Security, come January, will:

take over responsibility for checking airline passenger names against government watch lists beginning in January, and will require travelers for the first time to provide their full name, birth date and gender as a condition for boarding commercial flights.

Even assuming that DHS can use this to better filter its “No Fly” list of false positives, we’re still left with the question – how can the government know someone to be so dangerous that they cannot be allowed onboard a plane, yet they cannot arrest them?  My view is that they can’t, and that this is merely another bit of security theatre.  It has the added bonus, however, of permitting the gradual building of an all-encompassing monitoring structure that I’m sure will never be abused.

The second story speaks to the “all encompassing monitoring structure”, too.  The ACLU highlights recent government efforts to create what the ACLU is calling a “Constitution Free Zone” that is defined as 100 miles inland from the external borders of the US (including coasts).    The ACLU summarizes the issue:

• Normally under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the American people are not generally subject to random and arbitrary stops and searches.
• The border, however, has always been an exception.  There, the longstanding view is that the normal rules do not apply.  For example the authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a “routine search.”
• But what is “the border”?  According to the government, it  is a 100-mile wide strip that wraps around the “external boundary” of the United States.
• As a result of this claimed authority, individuals who are far away from the border, American citizens traveling from one place in America to another, are being stopped and harassed in ways that our Constitution does not permit.
• Border Patrol has been setting up checkpoints inland — on highways in states such as California, Texas and Arizona, and at ferry terminals in Washington State. Typically, the agents ask drivers and passengers about their citizenship.  Unfortunately, our courts so far have permitted these kinds of checkpoints – legally speaking, they are “administrative” stops that are permitted only for the specific purpose of protecting the nation’s borders.  They cannot become general drug-search or other law enforcement efforts.
• However, these stops by Border Patrol agents are not remaining confined to that border security purpose.  On the roads of California and elsewhere in the nation – places far removed from the actual border – agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing.

Yesterday, the ACLU held a press conference to illustrate some of the results of this expansive view of the border and related powers:

Vince Peppard, a retired social worker, told of being stopped and harassed by the border authorities at least 15 miles from the Mexico border with his wife, Berlant.

Craig Johnson, a music professor at a San Diego college, told how he participated in a peaceful demonstration near the border to protest against the destruction of a state park so that offense could be constructed along the U.S. border. CBP agents monitored the protest and collected the license plate information of those who participated. Since this protest, Mr. Johnson has twice crossed the U.S.-Mexico border and, each time, he has been pulled aside for additional screening. He was taken to another room, handcuffed and questioned. On his first crossing, he was also partially stripped and subjected to a body cavity search. A CBP agent also told Mr. Johnson that he was on an “armed and dangerous” list. Before the protest, Mr. Johnson crossed the U.S.-Mexico border numerous times without incident. It is difficult to believe that his subsequent harassment at the border is unrelated to his protest activity. If it is related, that would constitute a significant abuse.

This is something to take seriously.  The grip of the state on individual freedoms has been tightening, and there’s no reason to believe that trend will reverse without significant public attention.  Obama is not going to wave a magic wand and make this all go away in January.  It’s up to you and me.

(And in case you’re wondering why I focus so much on these issues, this might help explain.)