I’m not talking about spelling.
Again, I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
DougBH
123
Oh sure I can. Someone is organizing these caravans that lead to illegal entry. Are these people involved? There is a fine line between advising people on the laws of asylum and assisting them to create fraudulent asylum applications.
To bring this back to the topic at hand.
This isnt about an “investigation”. This is about civil rights.
Your imagination is not enough probable cause to detain and search American citizens.
DougBH
126
That’s nearly the phrase Steele used in trying to legitimize his fraudulent dossier. The one that the FBI used to back up their investigations with the FISA jusge.
DougBH
127
There are specific rules at points of entry. I don’t believe these are the same as arrests.
The rules at points of entry do not trump the Bill of Rights.
DougBH
129
Ok. Then you are fine with their investigations.
DougBH
130
Of course not. I’m sure thats not what border agents are claiming.
Look if you want to argue the legitimacy of the Trump investigations start your own thread about it. You are arguing that they should not be investigating Trump. I am arguing that the government is illegally detaining, questioning and gathering information on people who are not suspected of doing anything?
Why is that so hard.
If any such investigations exist, I would have to know additional details as to whether I thought they were “fine”.
But “investigations” are not the issue here. Detainment and search and seizure are.
DougBH
133
You would be ok if they were suspected of doing something? What something? And is suspecting enough? Apparently the current standard is indeed that unfounded suspicion is enough to investigate.
That is what you appear to be claiming.
I have already posted applicable standards of the 4th amendment. But like Trump, you gloss over the constitution and its amendments.
Yes…because that is how the law works. They are suspected of no crime and still are being detained. There does not seem to be any reasonable suspicion or probable cause for these people is there?
How many times do you have to say it?
They have more information on these journalists than the kids they separated from their parents.
1 Like
DougBH
139
“(d) With respect to the checkpoint involved in No 74-1560, it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for limited inquiry on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving patrol stop, since the intrusion is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it. Pp. 428 U. S. 563-564.”
Exactly how are their rights being violated specifically?
Have you ever crossed the US border or flown internationally?
You get questioned when coming back to the US.
Hell, you get questioned at the border patrol check points well inland of the borders if you pass through them.
The issue here seems to be a misunderstanding as to how the criminal legal system works - at the most basic level. TV Show basic level.
Think about the TV show “Law and Order”.
Some guy stumbles into a bar bleeding from a head would, says a name, and keels over dead. Dun-Dunnnn
Cue opening credits.
There’s no proof that a crime has been committed. There’s no direct evidence that a crime has been committed. There is not “probable cause” to believe that a crime has been committed. But there is undoubtedly reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
That’s the standard for an investigation.
Later in the episode, Detectives Briscoe and [insert rotating lead detective], after following numerous dead leads, finally find that the dead guy’s neighbor’s gardener owed a lot of money to a mob boss who the dead guy was about to testify against, and they find a bloody handprint on the wall of the gardener’s shed.
“Wake up a judge”, Briscoe says into the phone. “We’ve got probable cause to bring him in and search his phone”.
In this case, there’s no proof that the gardener killed the dead guy. There’s no direct evidence that the gardener killed the dead guy. But there is probable cause to detain him and search his cell phone.
That’s the difference here.
