sure the TSA probably does spend a billion overall. i think i read their budget was around 8 billion. but that isnt just because of the cancer machines.

here is some of the budget of the DHS for 2012. seems like most of the programs deal with the TSA.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/budget-bib-fy2012-overview.pdf

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dhs-2011-budget-increased-3-percent-436-billion

"DHS requested a total of $8.2 billion for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) — the agency responsible for protecting the U.S. transportation system. The total 2011 request represents a discretionary increase of $508.7 million over the TSA’s enacted budget this fiscal year."

$500 million fucking increase. $500 million.

"Domestically, $734 million will go to bolstering security at U.S. airports. Nearly a third of that proposed total is requested to buy 500 additional whole-body-imaging machines in 2011, which combined with DHS’s plan to deploy 500 would put a total of 1,000 machines in the U.S. highest-risk airports by next year."

Shocking that they wanted to spend a shitload more on machines that their friends make (and aren't effective).

IWP - They need more money as the United States is now a battlefield and the TSA needs more funding to root out the American terrorists and hold them like the Chinese hold their dissidents. Or maybe send them to Obama's new GITMO in Afghanistan. Don't you know we are overflowing with excess funds to spend?

http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news/Dallas-Teen-Is--Mistakenly-Deported--136626533.html

Good ole ICE apparently deported a 14 year old American citizen to Columbia. Good thing we have those guys right?

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/83688294/

I Wear Pants;1039474 wrote:http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news/Dallas-Teen-Is--Mistakenly-Deported--136626533.html

Good ole ICE apparently deported a 14 year old American citizen to Columbia. Good thing we have those guys right?

yeah, how dare we care about what and who comes into this country.

Glory Days;1040067 wrote:yeah, how dare we care about what and who comes into this country.

They deported a 14 year old American girl to Columbia that doesn't speak any Spanish or anything but standard American English.

But yeah, don't think about shit, just deport anyone you think is illegal.

I Wear Pants;1040118 wrote:They deported a 14 year old American girl to Columbia that doesn't speak any Spanish or anything but standard American English.

But yeah, don't think about shit, just deport anyone you think is illegal.

she gave false information, so you cant check a name, dob, or SSN. since she is 14, she wouldnt have an ID card or driver's license with any information to check. even though they took fingerprints, those are no good if you have no fingerprints to check them against. and since when was speaking a language a sign of citizenship? they could have deported her or held in her custody indefinitely, either way they lose when the public finds out.


hell, when she got to columbia she atleast got a job...thats more than you can say about her here

Glory Days;1040436 wrote:she gave false information, so you cant check a name, dob, or SSN. since she is 14, she wouldnt have an ID card or driver's license with any information to check. even though they took fingerprints, those are no good if you have no fingerprints to check them against. and since when was speaking a language a sign of citizenship? they could have deported her or held in her custody indefinitely, either way they lose when the public finds out.


hell, when she got to columbia she atleast got a job...thats more than you can say about her here

You call child services because you have a fucking 14 year old. You don't deport a 14 year old that you have no idea of the ID of. And you can check the prints because I think the person she gave the name of happened to be a wanted criminal. So you check that out. Even if it wasn't a kid you should check that out before deporting someone. It isn't rocket science.

She got put in jail in Columbia.

I Wear Pants;1040564 wrote:You call child services because you have a fucking 14 year old. You don't deport a 14 year old that you have no idea of the ID of. And you can check the prints because I think the person she gave the name of happened to be a wanted criminal. So you check that out. Even if it wasn't a kid you should check that out before deporting someone. It isn't rocket science.

She got put in jail in Columbia.

she was put in jail in columbia after the US notified them.

you keep missing the point and monday morning quarterbacking. you do not know she is 14 year old when you originally detained her, child services wouldnt even be involved. you think she is 22. and they did check her out, thats how they determined she was a 22 year old illegal immigrant. and just because you are a wanted criminal, does not mean there are prints available to check. this isnt CSI(mandatory fingerprinting would fix that though ). its not rocket science, but its far from a perfect system.

Glory Days;1040808 wrote:she was put in jail in columbia after the US notified them.

you keep missing the point and monday morning quarterbacking. you do not know she is 14 year old when you originally detained her, child services wouldnt even be involved. you think she is 22. and they did check her out, thats how they determined she was a 22 year old illegal immigrant. and just because you are a wanted criminal, does not mean there are prints available to check. this isnt CSI(mandatory fingerprinting would fix that though ). its not rocket science, but its far from a perfect system.

So you don't take any steps at all to fucking verify that someone is actually who they say before you go sending them off to different countries?

And I'm sure mandatory fingerprinting would be great, as would cameras on every street lamp, etc. Would make us all "safer".

What would have happened if the person who this girl said she was was a wanted criminal in the country that we hastily deported her to and got executed or something?

Yeah she was put in jail in Columbia and now apparently is not being released back to the US right now.

Several morals are found in this story. Don't lie about who you are to police. That's just stupid, especially if you don't know the person who's name you're giving them. And also, before deporting someone we should probably at least try to see who the fuck this person is before sending them away.

I am more shocked by the unanimous verdict than the actual decision. The Constitution gets a rare win!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/supreme-court-rules-gps-tracking-requires-a-warrant/

But the criminals win if the police can't do anything they say they need to do!

I Wear Pants;1063093 wrote:But the criminals win if the police can't do anything they say they need to do!

The answer is quite simple and has been in place for over 230 years: Get a warrant.

BGFalcons82;1063072 wrote:I am more shocked by the unanimous verdict than the actual decision. The Constitution gets a rare win!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/supreme-court-rules-gps-tracking-requires-a-warrant/

Not shocked at all...it's a no-brainer IMO. Any decent judge would issue a warrant in five minutes.

BGFalcons82;1063193 wrote:The answer is quite simple and has been in place for over 230 years: Get a warrant.

GPS has really only been around since 1994. Not sure how this has been in place for 230 years old. this is the problem with all the chicken little's in the world, they forget that everything isnt cut and dry, things change over time and new technologies come about. until this new technologies are put to use by the police and we see how it gets used, its hard to say if it will be constitutional or not.

my question is how does this effect surveillance? you can argue if the cops can go into your driveway to put the GPS on the exterior of your car, but what about if that cop just sits in the street and watches the suspects car and then follows the car everywhere it goes?

fish82;1063206 wrote:Not shocked at all...it's a no-brainer IMO. Any decent judge would issue a warrant in five minutes.

then why require a warrant? warrants are not always required.

what i always found messed about the system is that a judge is not held accountable when they sign a warrant that isnt correct or is unconstitutional etc.

Glory Days;1063212 wrote:GPS has really only been around since 1994. Not sure how this has been in place for 230 years old. this is the problem with all the chicken little's in the world, they forget that everything isnt cut and dry, things change over time and new technologies come about. until this new technologies are put to use by the police and we see how it gets used, its hard to say if it will be constitutional or not.

my question is how does this effect surveillance? you can argue if the cops can go into your driveway to put the GPS on the exterior of your car, but what about if that cop just sits in the street and watches the suspects car and then follows the car everywhere it goes?

That sounds nothing at all like putting a GPS on a car so I don't see how it's related.

Glory Days;1063212 wrote:GPS has really only been around since 1994. Not sure how this has been in place for 230 years old. this is the problem with all the chicken little's in the world, they forget that everything isnt cut and dry, things change over time and new technologies come about. until this new technologies are put to use by the police and we see how it gets used, its hard to say if it will be constitutional or not.

I recommend you read the link, then. Pay attention to Scalia's writings. He admits that the technology wasn't around at the time of the writing of the Constitution. He applies a test that basically says, if it were around at the time, how would it have been treated. He, and the 8 others, unanimously agree that placing a GPS on a vehicle is a warrantless search. If the car is under suspicion, then it shouldn't take any time at all in today's technology, to submit and receive a warrant.

You are correct in that technologies change the world we live in, almost daily it seems. The SCOTUS has correctly applied the 230 year old document to the new technology and it really isn't that difficult. If they don't follow it, then they might as well burn the parchment and elect a dictator to decree what is right and what is wrong. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of rogues whom decide for themselves what is right or wrong.

I Wear Pants;1063216 wrote:That sounds nothing at all like putting a GPS on a car so I don't see how it's related.

So if i write down in my notebook every street, every address and all the times he was on those streets and those addresses, its different from a computer logging the same data?

BGFalcons82;1063234 wrote:I recommend you read the link, then. Pay attention to Scalia's writings. He admits that the technology wasn't around at the time of the writing of the Constitution. He applies a test that basically says, if it were around at the time, how would it have been treated. He, and the 8 others, unanimously agree that placing a GPS on a vehicle is a warrantless search. If the car is under suspicion, then it shouldn't take any time at all in today's technology, to submit and receive a warrant.

why do we need a search warrant of something in plain view? referring to my post above.

Glory Days;1063247 wrote:why do we need a search warrant of something in plain view? referring to my post above.

I am in plain view when I walk on the sidewalk. Does that mean you shouldn't need a search warrant?

Glory Days;1063245 wrote:So if i write down in my notebook every street, every address and all the times he was on those streets and those addresses, its different from a computer logging the same data?

The difference is you're talking about placing a device for a specific purpose on the vehicle, and coming in contact with said vehicle. IMO, it's no different than prying open the trunk and saying "hey, look...the trunks open! I guess we can peek inside!"

Glory Days;1063245 wrote:So if i write down in my notebook every street, every address and all the times he was on those streets and those addresses, its different from a computer logging the same data?

Yes it is different. It might also be illegal (I don't know the laws on surveillance and stalking to comment).

I Wear Pants;1063249 wrote:I am in plain view when I walk on the sidewalk. Does that mean you shouldn't need a search warrant?

no, you dont. hence why if you walking with an open beer can in your hand, the cop can arrest you. they dont need to get a search warrant first. they also dont need a warrant if they are giving someone a pat down and feel a crack pipe in someone's pocket. obviously without cause, what is in your pocket is not in plain view.

I Wear Pants;1063336 wrote:Yes it is different. It might also be illegal (I don't know the laws on surveillance and stalking to comment).

its not different and you know it. once you enter a public area you have no expectation of privacy. the cops can dig through your trash without a warrant. they can goto your place of work and enter public areas without a warrant. they could sit next to you on a park bench and listen to every word of your cell phone conversation without a warrant.

whats next, you going to tell me if a cop is working undercover, he has to tell you if he is a cop if you ask?