Border Patrol Violates Constitution, Protects Us Against Boy Scouts
Apparently there’s a new Boy Scout merit badge: Submission to Authority.
Mid-Iowa Boy Scout Troop 111 was driving to Alaska, and at the United States Customs and Border Patrol station a Scout snapped a photograph. Next thing he and his Scoutmaster knew, a Border Patrol agent drew his gun and pointed it at the Scout’s head. He then confiscated the boy’s camera, claiming the Scout had committed a “federal crime” that could get him a $10,000 fine and ten years in prison.
Back home, the Mid-Iowa Boy Scout Council applauded the Border Patrol agent’s actions. Director of Field Services Charles Vonderheid said, “We want to make sure they follow the rules. A Scout is a good citizen. It would be a great lesson in civics for that young man and that troop.”
Vonderheid’s attitude is far too common in America today, where “loyalty” and “citizenship” have apparently been redefined as “submission to authority.”
Indeed, the young Scout’s leader, Jim Fox, seems less concerned about the fear the boy must have experienced than he is about his own feelings of outrage because, he was detained by officials while thousands of miles to the south brown-skinned people keep getting through the “border sieve:”
I am outraged by the fact that, you know, we have 18 Boy Scouts that want to come home, yet we have southern borders, we have, all over our country, we have border protection, but it’s like a sieve.
The Director of the Iowa chapter of the ACLU was also interviewed by Des Moines television station KCCI and expressed outrage at this clear abuse of power and violation of Constitutional liberty. Seems the “Liberal Media” producers at Channel 8 decided not to air his comments, apparently preferring to leave viewers with the message that abuses of police power are perfectly acceptable so long as there’s a “great lesson in civics” involved.
In October 2012, the ACLU of San Diego filed suit against Customs and Border Protection for its policy prohibiting the use of cameras at border crossing points, violating the First Amendment of the Constitution, and for its policy of confiscating cameras, violating the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The two plaintiffs in that lawsuit, an environmental activist and a human rights activist, were each allegedly threatened by Border Patrol agents, though neither as egregiously as this young Scout.
The Boy Scouts’ willingness — indeed, eagerness — to sit idly by while armed adults in uniform threaten the lives of a Boy Scout is, to my mind, the most offensive part of this story.
In the 1969 film, Easy Rider, there’s a memorable campfire scene between Billy (Dennis Hopper), Captain America (Peter Fonda), and George Hanson (Jack Nicholson). The three had just been forced to leave a small, Southern town where they were treated with open hostility. Nicholson’s character says, “You know, this used to helluva good country. I can’t understand what’s gone wrong with it.” Hopper’s character replies, “Man, everybody got chicken — that’s what happened.”
Everybody got chicken. Indeed.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Russ Burgos
Interested in foreign affairs, global conflict, and political narratives and discourses
32 responses to Border Patrol Violates Constitution, Protects Us Against Boy Scouts
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
mea_mark July 23rd, 2014 at 13:06
You can’t take a picture at a border crossing? What a stupid law. Who the hell came up with that bright idea?
starskeptic July 23rd, 2014 at 14:24
It can’t be a stupid law because there isn’t any such law – Customs and Border Protection has made up its own policy which has nothing to do with the law.
fahvel July 24th, 2014 at 02:37
the sheep did.
mea_mark July 23rd, 2014 at 13:06
You can’t take a picture at a border crossing? What a stupid law. Who the hell came up with that bright idea?
starskeptic July 23rd, 2014 at 14:24
It can’t be a stupid law because there isn’t any such law – Customs and Border Protection has made up its own policy which has nothing to do with the law.
fahvel July 24th, 2014 at 02:37
the sheep did.
M A G July 23rd, 2014 at 13:31
I have no love for the Boy Scouts but this is bull. Why can’t you take a picture at the border? That just seems silly.
R.J. Carter July 23rd, 2014 at 16:16
I just found a metric ass ton of Google images of Canada US Border Patrol Stations. Someone’s got a lot of arrestin’ to get to doin’.
M A G July 23rd, 2014 at 19:42
A metric ass ton adds up to a lot of pics.
MIAtheistGal July 23rd, 2014 at 13:31
I have no love for the Boy Scouts but this is bull. Why can’t you take a picture at the border? That just seems silly.
R.J. Carter July 23rd, 2014 at 16:16
I just found a metric ass ton of Google images of Canada US Border Patrol Stations. Someone’s got a lot of arrestin’ to get to doin’.
MIAtheistGal July 23rd, 2014 at 19:42
A metric ass ton adds up to a lot of pics.
fahvel July 24th, 2014 at 02:36
shit, not pics
ChrisVosburg July 23rd, 2014 at 14:35
It’s even weirder than that.
Yes, it is the case that one scout had his camera confiscated and was told that it is illegal to snap a photo of a federal agent (it isn’t), but this particular scout didn’t have a gun pointed at him.
That was another scout, who was helpfully unloading luggage off the top of one one of the vans (the agents wanted to search it, all of it), which apparently is something only Daddy touch, honey, because that is when an unhinged agent unholstered and pointed his sidearm at the honest, brave, thrifty, etc. scout, and boy, that’ll teach the little shit to do a daily good deed.
What I believe to be the original story can be found here, o seeker of the troo fax.
And I wonder if the CBP feels that the people who took the pictures comprising a gallery page at their own website are committing a crime as well, and has confiscated their cameras.
mea_mark July 23rd, 2014 at 15:05
This appears to be the rule in question
§ 102-74.420 What is the policy concerning photographs for news, advertising or commercial purposes?
Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons entering in or on Federal property may take photographs of—
(a) Space occupied by a tenant agency for non-commercial purposes only with the permission of the occupying agency concerned;
(b) Space occupied by a tenant agency for commercial purposes only with written permission of an authorized official of the occupying agency concerned; and
(c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/41/102-74.420
ChrisVosburg July 23rd, 2014 at 20:03
That’s some mighty fine detective work there, Lou, thanks.
In an update to the story, the CBP has weighed in, saying first flatly that a border portal is federal property and a place where pictures are not allowed. Okay then.
Secondly, they have reviewed the incident, and “CBP’s review of this group’s inspection, including video footage review, indicates that our officer did not un-holster or handle his weapon as stated in the allegation. The review revealed nothing out of the ordinary.”
Also, “Attorney Angela Campbell said the fine and decade-long prison sentence isn’t accurate, and that snapping pictures of border patrol is an evolving area of the law.”
mea_mark July 23rd, 2014 at 20:22
It seems to me from reading the rule. That pretty much taking pictures outside is OK and that the agents have way overstepped their authority. I imagine the courts will have the final say in this at some point though.
mea_mark July 23rd, 2014 at 15:05
This appears to be the rule in question
§ 102-74.420 What is the policy concerning photographs for news, advertising or commercial purposes?
Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons entering in or on Federal property may take photographs of—
(a) Space occupied by a tenant agency for non-commercial purposes only with the permission of the occupying agency concerned;
(b) Space occupied by a tenant agency for commercial purposes only with written permission of an authorized official of the occupying agency concerned; and
(c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/41/102-74.420
http://www.gsa.gov/portal/ext/public/site/FMR/file/Part102-_74.html/category/21859/
ChrisVosburg July 23rd, 2014 at 20:03
That’s some mighty fine detective work there, Lou, thanks.
In an update to the story, the CBP has weighed in, saying first flatly that a border portal is federal property and a place where pictures are not allowed. Okay then.
Secondly, they have reviewed the incident, and “CBP’s review of this group’s inspection, including video footage review, indicates that our officer did not un-holster or handle his weapon as stated in the allegation. The review revealed nothing out of the ordinary.”
Also, “Attorney Angela Campbell said the fine and decade-long prison sentence isn’t accurate, and that snapping pictures of border patrol is an evolving area of the law.”
mea_mark July 23rd, 2014 at 20:22
It seems to me from reading the rule. That pretty much taking pictures outside is OK and that the agents have way overstepped their authority. I imagine the courts will have the final say in this at some point though.
Pundit456 July 23rd, 2014 at 16:10
The department of homeland security, which includes border agents, has inordinate latitude in the interest of preventing another terrorist attack..
The Boy Scouts are no longer presumed to have integrity since abandoning the moral precepts formerly considered characteristic of Boy Scouts.
Also, is some convoluted, alleged violation of the scouts constitutional rights worse than the actual violation of of the scouts?
http://wavy.com/2014/07/08/assistant-boy-scout-leader-charged-with-child-sex-abuse/
arc99 July 23rd, 2014 at 16:29
have no idea what you are talking about as far as “abandoning moral precepts” unless you can show me where anyone inside our outside of scout leadership condones these actions.
thank goodness we have the ACLU which advocates on behalf of the rights of all Americans.
Pundit456 July 24th, 2014 at 00:03
I am responding to you even though I suspect you are simply an antagonist. Fornication and sodomy are inconsistent with any moral standard. If you refer to Dale v BSA you will find that morality was the basis for rejecting sexual deviants; and that BSA’a historic adherence to a moral standard was the basis for the scotus ruling. Having won their constitutional battle in court, they voluntarily abandoned those principles.
The aclu does not advocate on behalf of all Americans. It does not defend the free exercise of religion nor any of the tenets of decent society. It works to subvert the Constitution with convoluted exploitations of gender, race and sexual preference. Every case it decides to take is controversial, meaning the case is diametrically opposed to convention.
I invite you to disprove what I say; but your opinion of me or my comment is not welcome.
fahvel July 24th, 2014 at 02:34
disprove? ya gotta be kidding – I need to wash and sterilize my hands just typing a response to your really sick perspective.
Pundit456 August 1st, 2014 at 05:24
Apparently hand-washing would be a better use of your time and hands.
Pundit456 July 23rd, 2014 at 16:10
The department of homeland security, which includes border agents, has inordinate latitude in the interest of preventing another terrorist attack..
The Boy Scouts are no longer presumed to have integrity since abandoning the moral precepts formerly considered characteristic of Boy Scouts.
Also, is some convoluted, alleged violation of the scouts constitutional rights worse than the actual violation of of the scouts?
http://wavy.com/2014/07/08/assistant-boy-scout-leader-charged-with-child-sex-abuse/
arc99 July 23rd, 2014 at 16:29
have no idea what you are talking about as far as “abandoning moral precepts” unless you can show me where anyone inside our outside of scout leadership condones these actions.
thank goodness we have the ACLU which advocates on behalf of the rights of all Americans.
Pundit456 July 24th, 2014 at 00:03
I am responding to you even though I suspect you are simply an antagonist. Fornication and sodomy are inconsistent with any moral standard. If you refer to Dale v BSA you will find that morality was the basis for rejecting sexual deviants; and that BSA’a historic adherence to a moral standard was the basis for the scotus ruling. Having won their constitutional battle in court, they voluntarily abandoned those principles.
The aclu does not advocate on behalf of all Americans. It does not defend the free exercise of religion nor any of the tenets of decent society. It works to subvert the Constitution with convoluted exploitations of gender, race and sexual preference. Every case it decides to take is controversial, meaning the case is diametrically opposed to convention.
I invite you to disprove what I say; but your opinion of me or my comment is not welcome.
fahvel July 24th, 2014 at 02:34
disprove? ya gotta be kidding – I need to wash and sterilize my hands just typing a response to your really sick perspective.
Pundit456 August 1st, 2014 at 05:24
Apparently hand-washing would be a better use of your time and hands.
fahvel July 24th, 2014 at 02:32
sadly it’snot restricted to the usa – obviously in controlled countries (china, russia) it’s been infused over a great period of time but in the usa and western europe it is a creeping terror that has oozed its way into cultures in direct parallel with the rise of global economy where this $ is all that counts and to keep it flowing up the populace needs to be retrained. – it’s not a liberal or repug/tpty thing. It is simply the ease with which the sheep are being herded.
fahvel July 24th, 2014 at 02:32
sadly it’snot restricted to the usa – obviously in controlled countries (china, russia) it’s been infused over a great period of time but in the usa and western europe it is a creeping terror that has oozed its way into cultures in direct parallel with the rise of global economy where this $ is all that counts and to keep it flowing up the populace needs to be retrained. – it’s not a liberal or repug/tpty thing. It is simply the ease with which the sheep are being herded.