Journal Corporate Troll's Journal: Trolling the TSA 10
Absolutely brilliant idea... As far as I heard though, airports are constitutional-free[1] zones, so it's complaining for nothing.
[1] Also note I'm no US citizen and probably don't understand the US constitution and it's not applicable to me. They can take me, torture me, hack me up in small pieces and it's all legal
The protections of the US Constiitution (Score:2)
Are extended to PERSONS - not to citizens. Rights to vote and hold office are the only restrictions that require citizenship and / or native birth.
The most egregious harm done to the rule of law in by the US includes the obfuscation of this recognition, by the current and previous executive administration - and their attendant Congresses.
It was the personhood of black Africans which was debated - allowing them rights as provided under the constitution, or not.
Corporate Troll was trolling (Score:1)
As a matter of fact, I did know that. I have not studied the US Constitution (and don't feel the need to), but I did pick up a lot on slashdot.
That said, I have met US citizens who think EXACTLY that... Given the TSA employees are low-wage, low-education people and the way the US Constitution is treated within the US, I'm pretty sure my statement applies. I would just be chalked up as "unexplained disappearance". Yes, I do indeed have that much confidence in the powers that be.
Re: (Score:2)
Trolling?
If it's Tuesday, this must be Belgium! ;-)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064471/ [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:1)
weirdness (Score:2)
This is highly inaccurate. First, there is no such thing as a "constitution free zone", neither in airports nor anywhere else though certain rights can be reduced or eliminated in certain crisis-situations.
Second, your citizenship is irrelevant. Though offcourse if you never go near any area controlled by the USA, then it becomes more irrelevant for you. But the constitution is equally valid for an American and for a tourist visiting USA.
Re: (Score:1)
As far as I understood, there is a constitution free zone. It is defined as "anything outside of the US". Airports, ports, etc... are defined as no-mans-land and thus are constitution free zones. In any other case, your constitution is worth Zilch anymore given what is happening at airports.
Re: (Score:2)
You understood wrongly then. True, the US consitution only applies to people and places that are under US jurisdiction, but that includes tons of places that are outside USA, like for example American military bases all over the world.
There's a few rules where citizenship matters, true, namely you can't hold certain positions of power if you're not a citizen. But that's not really relevant here.
Also, I'm not American, I'm Norwegian, so it's hardly -my- constitution.
Re: (Score:1)
... but there are tons of places where it doesn't apply and the question is: "Do Airports (and similar) apply?". Some say no, some say yes... Who knows? Always assume the worst, meaning: you have no rights. That is the most sane thing to do.
Sorry, I assume everyone on slashdot to be US American by default.
Re: (Score:2)
Who are these 'some' who say no ? I've never met anyone, anywhere, who believes that there exists on this world land which is under US control, but where the constitution does not apply. Indeed the constitution is the supreme law of the land, with no other law above it, thus this could only be true if the constitution itself had such exemptions, which it doesn't.
I disagree it's most sane to assume you generally have no rights, and I sure hope you don't recommend that strategy generally. Because that idea te
Re: (Score:1)
The actions at the US borders suggest otherwise. Gunatanamo suggests otherwise. Laws are only as "useful" as the adherence of the citizens/govenment (since the US Constitution has most to say about what government can and can't do) of these laws.