[mdlug] OT - IR jamming

[Aaron Kulkis]

Dave Arbogast wrote:
> 
>>>>>>           
>>
>> I'm a very strict Libertarian who actually reads the Constitution.
>>
>> The government has certain powers.  Searching all that crosses
>> the borders (both inbound and outbound) is one of those powers.
>>
>> Suppose the communication in question were not by telephone because
>> the technology were not available -- is there *ANY* doubt that
>> the government would be within its Constitutional Powers to
>> search any envelope with a return address of any person KNOWN
>> to be at war with the country?
>>
>> This has NOTHING to do with the rights of citizens, and
>> EVERYTHING to do with the Government's first and foremost
>> responsibility of protecting the citizenry's right to life.
>> ("The right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"...
>> yes, that's in the Declaration of Independance, but the
>> arguments based on the DoI is accepted by the Supreme Court).
>>
>>   
> Hi Aaron. This too really shocks me too. ALL of the people I know in the 
> Militia are also strict Libertarians. I usually vote Libertarian in an 
> election if I don't know any of the candidates. Are you joking about 
> this ? If not, I suppose Ron Paul is the person you would vote for next 
> ? By definition I think he should be on the Libertarian ballot.
> 

I would never joke about an issue so serious.

I spent 6 months in Operation Noble Eagle, working in a Port of
Entry.  Until a person is ADMITTED into the country, the government
recognizes very few rights.  You can be detained without warrant,
or even probably cause.  At a Port of Entry, you have no right to
free speech, nor a right to remain silent.  Nor do you have a right
to an attorney while in a port of entry (If you are charged with a
crime, you will then be turned over to another law enforcement,
at which point you will THEN have a right to an attorney, but not
while in the port of entry).  The only right you do have is a
right to life...provided you don't provoke ICE to shoot you.

As to anything in your possession, or anything coming into or
leaving from the country, it MUST be made available for
inspection by Customs.  This includes ALL communications.
Customs has Constitutional authority to seize objects,
(including communications) -- not merely to reject it, but
to seize it the object is either prohibited from entering
into the United States (which includes any communication for
the purpose of overthrowing the U.S. government, which is a
long term goal of the Islamic terrorists.  If you don't think
it can happen here, look at what is happening in London--
things have progressed to a state in which the Archbishop of
Canterbury was inspired to remark that he thinks that sooner
rather than later, the UK will have to recognize Sharia law
courts which operate entirely outside of the UK legal system.
The UK's political system is slowly but surely being
subverted by a civilian invasion of people who move to
England, but apparently want to pretend that they still
live in Pakistan, egged on by a few organized radicals
who take advantage of the same knee-jerk sympathies of
the "multi-culturalist" nihilists who are just as bad
in the UK as they are here.).


*IF* you depart or arrive from say, any old dock, and visit,
for example, Canada, you are legally required to report the
departure and/or arrival to Immigration, and to report any
and all items which left or entered the country (for these
purposes, any substance or item which you leave and return
with is not considered to be leaving or entering the country.
Same thing goes for anything which a visitor brings with
them, and then takes with them when they depart).

The *ONLY* exception to warrantless search and even seizure
of communications recognized by *ANY* country is the
diplomatic pouch.

Like all national governments, our Federal governments is
a sovereign power.  It retains those powers SO THAT IT MAY
FULFILL ITS OBLIGATIONS.

The Constitution is *NOT* a one-sided suicide pact.
[I.e. it was never intended to be a tool for another
nation or ideology to destroy the very society which
the Constitution protects.]

> Have you heard this short address to Congress about this topic we have 
> been debating ?

No.

But I read the Constitution, and there is NOTHING about the
monitoring of international communications which violates the
Constitution in any way.

The Constitution prohibits UNREASONABLE searches and seizures.

Tapping the telephone call originating from a telephone
number found in the cell phone of a known terrorist does
not constitute in any way an UNREASONABLE search any more
than intercepting enemy communications in written form.

The federal government even has the right to censor the
mail of ITS OWN SOLDIERS who are overseas.

Since the federal government has the legitimate power to
censor (read, and even redact) MY mail when I'm overseas
in a war zone, then it is most illogical to assume that
there is no legitimate authority and power to do the same
to all communications coming originating from people or
addresses (which in this case, would be a telephone
number) known to be associated with the activities of
a movement which is at war with the United States (and
in fact, almost every other government more moderate
than the Taliban).

Follow-ups pointed at mdlug-discuss

> 
> http://factbeat.com/get_story.php?id=245#comm
> 
> -dave