If you’re detained, humiliated and humbled by LEO but not arrested and did not have your rights violated — get over it.

The Race Card on January 7, 2010 at 1:28 PM

That’s not Yon’s claim. He’s claiming that he did have his rights violated.

Any news of Yon’s official complaint or suit against TSA or its agents?

There might never be an official complaint or suit. The absence of such doesn’t imply that his rights weren’t violated.

Your penchant for telling others what they meant to say is ironic considering you have said nothing of substance yourself.

The Race Card on January 7, 2010 at 1:24 PM

I have stated volumes worth of substance. You just don’t understand any of it.

What other journalists deserve expedited treatment at our nation’s entry points?

Yon definitely doesn’t deserve expedited treatment at our nation’s entry points.

Yon definitely does deserve the right to not be unlawfully detained. But this is another concept you don’t understand.

If you’re arrested falsely, file civilly. If you’re detained, humiliated and humbled by LEO but not arrested and did not have your rights violated — get over it. Any news of Yon’s official complaint or suit against TSA or its agents?

blink on January 7, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Your penchant for telling others what they meant to say is ironic considering you have said nothing of substance yourself.

***
Michael Yon is a journalist. What other journalists deserve expedited treatment at our nation’s entry points? What other professions, first responders notwithstanding, should be granted such graces?

Hopefully somebody already said that no when you are handcuffed it doesn’t mean you’ve been arrested. It means you’ve been detained.

ac1 on January 7, 2010 at 10:32 AM

I think you mean that, in addition to being used for an arrest, handcuffs can also be used during mere detainments. If so, then yes, that point has been made a few times on these pages.

The legality of the detainment has been discussed at length.

But Chris and I have dived into this topic much deeper than this wikipedia summary provides. Also, this summary doesn’t address questioning and detainment by CBP.

Chris and Blink, I posted this yesterday. The searches at borders by customs agents aren’t subject to the usual rules:

FYI from Wikipedia:

The border search exception is a doctrine of United States criminal law that exempts searches of travelers and their property from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.

The United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a division of the United States Department of Homeland Security, is permitted to search travelers and their belongings at the American border without probable cause or a warrant. These searches are therefore exempted from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. Pursuant to this authority, CBP may generally stop and search the property of any traveler entering or exiting the United States at random, or even based largely on ethnic profiles.[1] However, CBP may only conduct searches of the traveler’s body — including strip, body cavity, involuntary x-ray, and in some jurisdictions, pat-down searches — if the Customs officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the traveler is concealing contraband.[2]

Although border-searches are exempted from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, they are still subject to the amendment’s reasonableness requirement.[3] Whether a border search is reasonable depends on a judicial analysis that balances the intrusion into an individual’s legitimate privacy and dignity interests against the government’s legitimate interest in the subject of the search.[4] In reviewing the reasonableness of border-searches under the Fourth Amendment, many courts have distinguished between “routine” and “nonroutine” searches.[5] CBP may conduct “routine” searches without any level of suspicion, while “nonroutine” searches must be supported by “reasonable suspicion”.[6] Under this analysis, searches of a traveler’s property, including luggage, briefcases, wallets, and other containers are “routine,” while searches of a traveler’s body, including strip, body cavity and involuntary x-ray searches, are considered “nonroutine.”[7]

Jimbo3 on January 5, 2010 at 10:24 PM

How much do YOU make? Homeland security has taken it upon themselves to make sure that there is enough money being made in this country evidently, as they are requiring this information from travelers at the borders. Don’t we feel more secure now? …

I simply don’t know what you’re asking.

The Race Card on January 7, 2010 at 3:07 AM

It’s easy.

Do you believe that everybody needs to go through the same protocols?

After I first questioned you about this statement, you qualified the it by excluding everybody on the no-fly list. Then, you made the statement again without qualifying it.

If you do wish to exclude everybody on the no-fly list, then I’d like to ask you about others that you think should be forced to follow different protocols.

If you’d like to get a hint at the type of follow-up questions I’ll ask, then check my comment to Esthier at,

blink on January 6, 2010 at 7:14 PM

I’ll take your etymology and raise you a contemporary connotation any day of the week!

You would lose that bet.

I don’t care what you think you know about language of yore.

That’s a shame. You could have learned something.

A thousand typing-monkeys have nothing on you.

I don’t think you understand the thousand typing-monkey metaphor. A thousand typing-monkeys can produce works of Shakespeare . . . never mind. I don’t think you’ll understand the explanation.

Read it for yourself, then marvel

I did reread and marveled at how nice I was to try to save you from future embarrassment. I am a kind genius.

Don’t feel bad for calling me a lib. Feel bad for making such a strong accusation with zero veracity.

Look if it works for you then, Yes, I’m incapable of genuine discourse. But you need to check the record. You have thousands of comments from which you may choose. Experience the incapability for yourself.

Regarding the questions(?) you posed here:

blink on January 6, 2010 at 11:48 PM

I simply don’t know what you’re asking. It sounds to me like you’re trying to support your odd posturing, but I can’t be sure. I’ll take your etymology and raise you a contemporary connotation any day of the week! I don’t care what you think you know about language of yore.

Frankly, I’d love to answer your question just to see how daft a response you will puke up. But I simply don’t understand what you’re trying to say. A thousand typing-monkeys have nothing on you.

Read it for yourself, then marvel at the drool running down your chin.

Just because I’m a nice guy – you can save yourself from future embarrassment (you can’t save yourself from present embarrassment) by instead writing that Muslim is not a nation or nationality.

Muslim doesn’t fit either of those definitions. It comes close, but doesn’t fit either requirement of: 1) fitting with the etymology “nasci, to be born”; or 2) being part, or capable of being part, of a nation state.

blink on January 7, 2010 at 12:12 AM

Thank you for your time and consideration herein. Good day kind genius.

What makes me a lib?

The Race Card on January 7, 2010 at 1:13 AM

If you’re not a lib, then I feel bad for calling you a lib.

If you just want to sling mud, the floor is yours.

And yours. Or have you already forgotten making this comment?

Effyou and your suggestion

If you’re interested in genuine discourse, I’m here.

You’re here but have proven yourself incapable of genuine discourse. But if you want to try to get into the game, then you can start by answering the questions I asked in,

blink on January 6, 2010 at 11:48 PM

Basically, anytime I dispute the party-line on race and/or gay marriage invariably some genius calls me a lib. Do you get off on that?

What makes me a lib? Please be specific. I would love for you to explain precisely what positions I have expressed that comport to your accusation. These days, the Republican label leaves a lot to be desired. But, I am nobody’s lib.

What tests is the conservative-credentialing board issuing these days? You self-important rowdies are a stain on the party.

If you’re interested in genuine discourse, I’m here. If you just want to sling mud, the floor is yours.

not impressed by your hallucinations of lower court outcomes before the facts, other than Yon’s confused lament are known.

On Watch on January 7, 2010 at 12:58 AM

That’s a fair comment (your only fair comment on this page).

I’ll restate.

If Yon is accurately presenting the facts, then I think the lower courts would decide for Yon without awarding any damages, and it wouldn’t be appealed.

Btw, most (more than half) of my comments haven’t even mentioned Yon’s situation. Many of my comments have simply been about the law.

Nobody needs a translation to know you’re wrong.

blink on January 7, 2010 at 12:45 AM

Quit playing with yourself pal — not impressed by your hallucinations of lower court outcomes before the facts, other than Yon’s confused lament are known.

“Let’s Roll”

I see, you’re from another country!

You obviously don’t see anything.

She’s not going to translate for you pal!

Nobody needs a translation to know you’re wrong.

That’s as far as I got in my thinking, when I realized that asking questions is part of running a checkpoint–but that’s interrogation, not search. A search can be compelled. A search can be conducted while the owner is absent. An owner who disrupts a search can be restrained. Interrogation is cooperative, and the Fifth Amendment guarantees a right to stand mute.

Chris_Balsz on January 7, 2010 at 12:15 AM

I’m not sure why you’re introducing all these other elements, but I agree with the interrogation comparison.

In fact, I can give you at least five reasons why a law enforcement officer that requires someone to disclose their name could be violating that person’s 5th Amendment rights.

Again, the problem is that a failure to disclose a name at a legal checkpoint or during a legal investigatory stop is suspicious and justifies further detainment.

However, if the officer tells you that his question regarding your name isn’t part of an investigatory stop then you have every right NOT to answer WITHOUT risk of further detainment.

That makes sense, but after Hamdan v US, I’m not sure the court would agree.

Do you mean Hamdi v. Rumsfeld? I’m pretty sure you don’t mean Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

I definitely don’t see the Hamdan opinion supporting your claim, but I don’t even see Hamdi supporting your claim.

Hamdi seems to support my claim that a US citizen needs to be charged or released, and I don’t see that it has any bearing on the deportation of a non-citizen.

I think that formula is bogus, but, he’s in a good position to take it to the Supreme Court.

On what basis do you think the formula is bogus?

I don’t think such a case would ever get to SCOTUS. I think the lower courts would decide for Yon without awarding any damages, and it wouldn’t be appealed.

Got that, Michelle
blink on January 7, 2010 at 12:18 AM

She’s not going to translate for you pal!

“Let’s Roll”

Get you head out of your nethers.
blink on January 7, 2010 at 12:01 AM

I see, you’re from another country!

“Let’s Roll”

Certainly, in the wake of the Christmas Airport security breech,

On Watch on January 6, 2010 at 11:46 PM

Yes, in the wake of what you call the Christmas Airport security breech, let’s all give DHS a free pass to do whatever they want.

Got that, Michelle? No more blog posts making fun of DHS’ stupid decisions in the name of security. We’re going to give them all a free pass and bow to them “in the wake of the Christmas Airport security breech.”

Under these circumstances, you’re right. Even answering a question such as, “what was the purpose of your visit?” could self-incriminate (for example, if your purpose was to purchase drugs, to bribe overseas officials, or have intercourse with minors), therefore, one is under no legal obligation to answer. However, in such circumstances, law enforcement would have every right to further detain.

That’s as far as I got in my thinking, when I realized that asking questions is part of running a checkpoint–but that’s interrogation, not search. A search can be compelled. A search can be conducted while the owner is absent. An owner who disrupts a search can be restrained. Interrogation is cooperative, and the Fifth Amendment guarantees a right to stand mute.

I think US citizens would be treated differently than non-citizens. A non-citizen could probably have visas legally revoked quickly and deported simply based on the suspicious behavior. I think a citizen would need to be charged (difficult to do without evidence) or released.

That makes sense, but after Hamdan v US, I’m not sure the court would agree.

Remember, Yon isn’t claiming that he shouldn’t have had to answer ANY questions to avoid being further detained. He is simply claiming that refusal to answer questions regarding income and passwords shouldn’t provide reasons to be further detained.

I think that formula is bogus, but, he’s in a good position to take it to the Supreme Court.

Muslim is not a race.

The Race Card on January 6, 2010 at 11:20 PM

Just because I’m a nice guy – you can save yourself from future embarrassment (you can’t save yourself from present embarrassment) by instead writing that Muslim is not a nation or nationality.

Muslim doesn’t fit either of those definitions. It comes close, but doesn’t fit either requirement of: 1) fitting with the etymology “nasci, to be born”; or 2) being part, or capable of being part, of a nation state.