Dustdevil Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 What are the border-guards credentials anyway? Similar to Cops, Soldiers, Security guards? A little bit of all of those, actually. Although it was recently shortened, the Border Patrol academy has always been known as the longest and most difficult of all federal agents. It's no cush job, for sure. I just don't believe it is a job for cops or security guards to begin with. And what we are currently doing does not, and never has worked. If American soldiers are good enough to protect the borders of other countries, then they are good enough to protect our own border. Violating the territorial sovereignty of a nation is just like terrorism. It's not a law enforcement or criminal justice problem. It's war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizonaffcep Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Does the "Right to remain silent" or the 5th amendment mean anything? The "Right to remain silent" is part of a person's Miranda rights...those that they still possess when they are arrested. As this person was not arrested, I'm not sure it applies. I would say, that the "Sir, please answer the question" was an order (and a reasonable one, I might add, as it required a one word answer), and I'm not sure how it would violate anyone's rights to anything. Seriously, I've gone through a check point today (not the one in the video, but one by Sierra Vista), and they were very friendly, asked what nationality I was, I said "American and Proud!", thanked him and we were on our way. The WHOLE interaction took less time than it did to type this reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizonaffcep Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 A little bit of all of those, actually. Although it was recently shortened, the Border Patrol academy has always been known as the longest and most difficult of all federal agents. It's no cush job, for sure. I just don't believe it is a job for cops or security guards to begin with. And what we are currently doing does not, and never has worked. If American soldiers are good enough to protect the borders of other countries, then they are good enough to protect our own border. Violating the territorial sovereignty of a nation is just like terrorism. It's not a law enforcement or criminal justice problem. It's war. I agree! However (I think you would know better than I, as I haven't ever been in the military), doesn't the ponce cometatus (pardon the spelling), say that the federal military can't take action against U.S. citizens, it has to be the militia or NG? Therefore, it really can't happen because of the use of U.S. citizens acting as coyotes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spenac Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 A little bit of all of those, actually. Although it was recently shortened, the Border Patrol academy has always been known as the longest and most difficult of all federal agents. It's no cush job, for sure. I just don't believe it is a job for cops or security guards to begin with. And what we are currently doing does not, and never has worked. If American soldiers are good enough to protect the borders of other countries, then they are good enough to protect our own border. Violating the territorial sovereignty of a nation is just like terrorism. It's not a law enforcement or criminal justice problem. It's war. But remember a few years ago when they did patrol our borders and shot a kid that was out checking his familys livestock. Still lot of hard feelings in the border lands. As to what will work soldiers, BP, etc, there aint no telling. Criminals will just keep finding new methods. http://tonyherrera.blogspot.com/2008/08/ba...-hernandez.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted October 27, 2008 Author Share Posted October 27, 2008 The "Right to remain silent" is part of a person's Miranda rights...those that they still possess when they are arrested. As this person was not arrested, I'm not sure it applies. On that point, this wiki article references the two videos I posted on page two of this thread. I would say, that the "Sir, please answer the question" was an order (and a reasonable one, I might add, as it required a one word answer The length of the answer determines the reasonableness of an interrogation? Forced on someone who has given no evidence of bothering anyone? Who is compelled to answer it without probable cause, a warrant, or even a charge? I can think of shorter questions that no one is obligated to answer. ), and I'm not sure how it would violate anyone's rights to anything. It violates their right to be left alone. Seriously, I've gone through a check point today (not the one in the video, but one by Sierra Vista), and they were very friendly, asked what nationality I was, I said "American and Proud!", thanked him and we were on our way. The WHOLE interaction took less time than it did to type this reply. If only justice could be measured in units of speed. Again, if the motorist was not within his rights to remain silent, why did the off-site supervisor immediately direct his interrogator to stop harassing him solely on the basis of hearing that he was a "young man with a camera"? Wasn't the supervisor exposing himself and his subordinate - on camera - to the charges of failure to arrest a lawbreaker, dereliction of duty, and potential complicity in the driver's crimes? And this is only one in a series of videos rehearsing the same scenario. Seems like more than chance that his challenge always succeeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 On that point, this wiki article references the two videos I posted on page two of this thread. Exactly. The fifth amendment has nothing to do with arrest. It is about police interrogation, which this scenario is a clear example of. As for Posse Comitatus, it applies to civil law enforcement. My point is that border protection is not law enforcement. It is national security, and therefore not prohibited. Even if Osama Obama and the ACLU were able to get border protection ruled as "law enforcement" by the Supreme Court, it would still be permissible if authorised by the Congress, as stated in the Constitution. Consequently, there is no Constitutional prohibition against the use of the Military on the border. The Coast Guard did it for a couple hundred years before being reassigned from the military to the DHS. Yes, some Marines killed an apparently innocent person during a border protection assignment. On the other hand, so have Border Patrol agents. And that particular incident -- which is certainly not cut and dried -- would be the result of poor planning and implementation of a lame plan. But Texas National Guardsmen have been doing border protection on the Texas-Mexico border since 2003 with no such incidents. Professional training, education, planning, and implementation can result in successful results. The problem is that there are no national politicians with the guts to push for it. That, in fact, is one of the main reasons that McCain has FAILED to energise his base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizonaffcep Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 It was meant as an example of a simple thing only. The question was cut and dry, so no need to think about the answer, you are or you aren't. Yes or no, not much simpler around. Where in the constitution does it state that "I have a right to be left alone?" In looking at the Bill of Rights, there is no such right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizonaffcep Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Exactly. The fifth amendment has nothing to do with arrest. It is about police interrogation, which this scenario is a clear example of. Is it? Here is the wording on the 5th amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (taken from http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm) He's not being held to answer for a crime...so no need for a Grand Jury. It's not dealing with the military at all...so that part's gone. No double jeopardy...Alex would be sad...he's not being asked to give evidence against himself in a criminal case...no deprivation of life, liberty or property (if he says yes...he goes on his way WITHOUT having to SHOW PROOF!), and no private property was taken...so where was he infringed upon? That he had to stop and say "Yes?" Come on guys. Seriously. Do you get angry when you have to stop for a train? It's infringing upon your free movement and takes a HELL of a lot more time than saying "yes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 The courts have held that police interrogation regarding any crime or potential crime falls within the scope of this provision. See Miranda and Self-Incrimination in the Wiki article already cited. If we're going to let anyone immigrate here legally, it should be former East German Border (no A in border) Guards. Let them take over CBP and show those idiots how it's done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akflightmedic Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 The "Right to remain silent" is part of a person's Miranda rights...those that they still possess when they are arrested. As this person was not arrested, I'm not sure it applies. I would say, that the "Sir, please answer the question" was an order (and a reasonable one, I might add, as it required a one word answer), and I'm not sure how it would violate anyone's rights to anything. Seriously, I've gone through a check point today (not the one in the video, but one by Sierra Vista), and they were very friendly, asked what nationality I was, I said "American and Proud!", thanked him and we were on our way. The WHOLE interaction took less time than it did to type this reply. You my friend are incorrect. There is NO such thing as a Miranda right. It is a Miranda warning which is a short summary of YOUR RIGHTS under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as an American citizen. I will be proud to be an American when I do not have to go through worthless checkpoints to verbally declare my nationality. Sounds eerily similar to past regimes that have failed, including many religious ones. Declare your belief and you may live! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts