The stops are shown on various websites (local authority, news, etc). So people who are in those areas shouldn't be surprised by them. And if you're so "upset" with the checkpoints, or sobriety points, or anything that is similar to this (or just checking into a flight, where they check your ID as well, do you *not* fly?) you can easily check online where they're holding the stops. It's required that they announce/post where the stops are being held. They expect and hope that not everyone has the presence of mind to check where the stops are at, that's the *point* of the stops, to find people who are not of legal status in this country.

And I bring up Illegal Immigrants, because that's the reason as to *why* these checkpoints exist. (hence why in the video they ask what the persons citizenship is)

As for the probable cause debate;
As several law journals suggest (e.g. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/probable+cause ), probable cause is subjective, there can be many instances of probable cause, but there can also be a lesser form called "Reasonable suspicion", which could essentially be used in this instance.

You simplify things way too much, the law isn't just a clear cut black and white instance. The law isn't simple, you can't quantify it in a simple explanation, and lawyers, law enforcement, judges (etc) know all this. Laws aren't water tight either, many contradict each other, or can be interpreted differently (which is why there's a supreme court, they dictate the wording and meaning of the laws).

Edit: I don't know how I got into defending the DHS or the checkpoints, as I said, I think the stops are ridiculous, and probably won't do anything worthwhile. But at this point, we're just going in circles. in the end, this video is just over-sensationalism at it's best.

Are the stops irritating to civilians in those areas (which are *very* limited, and not some wide spread epidemic as many seem to think it is)? Of course they are. Are they some form of "police state"? No, they're not (see examples above), they're localized stops, where the states have enacted laws allowing DHS / Law Enforcement to literally stop *anyone* they want and question them regarding citizenship.

last edit them I'm done, I swear
Where were all these kids and "freedom fighters" when the Patriot act was enacted, the illegal wiretaps, bugging and tracking of students and civilians happened? Oh.. that's right it was to "protect" us from the Terrorists. Everyone was OK with that....

Thanks for the quality! And you're spot on.

In reply to this comment by radx:
Hah, I was just about to submit this as well. *quality Obama, right here.

Pfc Manning has not been tried nor convicted, yet the CINC, who taught constitutional law, publicly declares him guilty. That's delicious.

To claim that you "don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate" after he decided not to prosecute Bush for all the shit, CIA officials for destroying their torture tapes, the telecoms for illegal wiretapping, etc ... that's delicious as well.

And no, the Ellsberg papers were not classified the same way as the ones Pfc Manning allegedly leaked: they were top secret, Manning's were "just" classified.

Hah, I was just about to submit this as well. *quality Obama, right here.

Pfc Manning has not been tried nor convicted, yet the CINC, who taught constitutional law, publicly declares him guilty. That's delicious.

To claim that you "don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate" after he decided not to prosecute Bush for all the shit, CIA officials for destroying their torture tapes, the telecoms for illegal wiretapping, etc ... that's delicious as well.

And no, the Ellsberg papers were not classified the same way as the ones Pfc Manning allegedly leaked: they were top secret, Manning's were "just" classified.

In many ways, I agree...he clearly -does- understand. Now, if he could just translate that understanding into -doing- what he says he'll do. So far, on every single issue I cared about, he's failed to move in the direction he said he would.

No single payer.
He voted for amnesty for telecoms who illegally wiretapped.
Nobody is going to be held responsible for the use of torture.
Guantanamo is still open.
We're still involved in two hopeless wars.
We still don't have -any- financial reform, much less something meaningful.
We still have don't ask, don't tell.
We still have the Defense of Marriage Act.
The Justice Department has -expanded- the state secrets defense even farther than the claims made by the Bush administration.

I'm not really willing to give him much more benefit of the doubt, until and unless he starts living up to at least -some- of his promises.

Interesting. Though I can't condone their actions, you have to love people who are working against the machine, be it conservative or liberal. Anyone one else find the irony in them getting arrested for illegal wiretapping by a government that illegally wiretaps? If the vote is between life being a comedy or a tragedy, I think it is the former.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
torturing innocent people to death, illegally wiretapping our communications, invading sovereign nations who posed zero threat to anyone, pillaging our treasury, running a pseudo dictatorship and delving into the absolute worst of politics -- so people, even news hosts, had every right to be incredibly @#$$ed off.
Everything you listed is an "Olbermann" level diatribic exaggeration driven by a leftist bias.

You really have no idea how biased you yourself are. I think you self reinforce your own bias by the feeling that your life is on the right track, and therefore your views and opinions are absolute and correct. You're smart enough to realize the republican party flubs up majorly, but you are obviously OBVIOUSLY biased towards the other side of the isle. There's no real in between for you. You ultimately side with the republican party's views, and you foolishly believe there's a responsible way of pulling them off.

The answer is to go with the best ideas from both parties and make that work. That I believe is how the system was meant to be set up. But now everything is polarized like a nation watching the last two football teams in existence battle it out, each of us rooting for the one team we side with.

There are no good ideas from the other party for you, you will ultimately side with pretty much every ideal the Republican's throw out, and expect every one else to live under those rules. Left, liberal, radical has become a way for you to easily dismiss ideas you're not willing to be open to... never mind the world is made up of individuals. There is good and bad in everything.

If you want to live your life pro-choice, pro-religion, pro-conservative, pro-flying spaghetti monster.. that's your right... but stop shouting in the way of the progress that needs to happen for us to move forward, taking the best of what either party has to offer and forging ahead. Republicans are disliked because it's obvious to many that they're more about winning then helping these days. I'm not saying that makes Democrats "good", but they at least seem to be looking ahead.

We need better health care. At least in the hands of the government it can be held somewhat accountable. In the hands of corporations we're at their whims. The free market will create a profit driven, competitive environment. And no, we will not have much sway in how that environment forms.. after all.. we HAVE to go to THEM.. it's not a luxury item. It's something we all need.

And btw, why are you here? Sift a video or two, geeze.

torturing innocent people to death, illegally wiretapping our communications, invading sovereign nations who posed zero threat to anyone, pillaging our treasury, running a pseudo dictatorship and delving into the absolute worst of politics -- so people, even news hosts, had every right to be incredibly @#$$ed off.

Everything you listed is an "Olbermann" level diatribic exaggeration driven by a leftist bias. I see very little difference is that kind of frothing, insanity driven dribble and Olbermann's Brown meltdown (or "Browndown"). Six of one.

But - to be perfectly honest - I don't really mind it when people gripe at politicians - no matter what side of the aisle they are on. My beef with Olbermann is not his ranting. My beef is the unequal, biased, closed-minded application of it. If he was 50% harping on liberals and 50% harping on conservatives then I'd be cool with it.

While Olbermann has been doing this schtick for a long time, at first it was because the US was doing some incredibly fucked-up shit.. like, you know, all that torturing innocent people to death, illegally wiretapping our communications, invading sovereign nations who posed zero threat to anyone, pillaging our treasury, running a pseudo dictatorship and delving into the absolute worst of politics -- so people, even news hosts, had every fucking right to be incredibly pissed off.

Yes, Olberman's "special comment" segment has been an utter trainwreck for a long time and should have retired it long ago. Yes, what once was reserved for the absolute most inhuman acts of our government is now used for petty personality pissing contsts.

Yet I think what WP willfully ignores is that there's a neverending valley of difference between the above, and just some GOP homunculus jackass winning one lousy senate seat.

But you gotta admit, the Limbaugh dig was pretty hilarious.

While I hate the NSA spy programs and the illegal wiretapping, this one strikes me as misdirected effort. Jerks running red lights kill people, traffic cameras probably aren't the best place to start the protest.

Besides there's a difference between public and private, invasive and not. I used to be more conflicted about the idea until I ran across a simple one liner I never could come up with a legitimate argument against, if you can I'd love to hear it. When you're in public people can see you.

We've got enough real invasions of privacy without getting sidetracked by the little stuff. Some of them worth sending people to prison over I'd think. This isn't one of them.

Ok I had to create a user account and logic just to respond to this statement, as a Canadian:

******Canada, never a bastion of freedom to begin with, has moved from "gay acceptance" to putting people in jail for speaking out against homosexuality as immoral or otherwise wrong. That's where America is headed with this nonsense. And it IS nonsense.******

This is biggest outright lie I have ever read. I follow the news in Canada religiously (pun intended, because I think if people followed what was going on in the world more than what was in some old book they'd be better people). Not once in Canada has anyone ever even been CHARGED with speaking out against homosexuality, never mind put in jail. Not once. This is a complete fabrication by someone who thinks that, because Americans know nothing about Canada, he can make something up and no one can contest it. This is exactly the type of BS the Yes on 8 campaign engaged in (and the Bush admin) where you spout so many lies your opponents can't debunk them fast enough and eventually some of them stick in the minds of voters.

Canada, btw, is an incredibly free country. I KNOW it to be much more so than the United States. That Americans still think they live in the freest country in the world is pure blind patriotic arrogance. In Canada, we don't have presidentally authorized illegal wiretaps on our phones. We don't have an illegal 'enemy combatant' offshore holding facility where we torture prisoners because we claim the Geneva conventions don't apply. Canada was the place African Americans fled to to escape slavery. It was and IS the place American soldiers come to to escape conscription into wars they believed were wrong. In Canada, we don't have 40 million of our citizens w/o any health care coverage.

We may not be the biggest player on the world stage, but I'd much rather be a wise advisor on the sidelines than the biggest bully in the room who got caught with their pants down.

And Canada, like Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands, has the RIGHT position on gay marriage. It's been legal here as early as 2003, and nothing bad at all has happened to straight marriage. More kids who need loving homes are being adopted by gay couples. Our society isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than the bigotry-masquerading-as-religon I see pervading yours. My apologies to all the intelligent, fair-minded Americans out there who can see through this nonsense, realize that gays deserve to marry (and that it won't lead to hell on earth) and that both Canada and the US have bigger concerns than to dwell on this issue.

Question: how did illegal telecom actions create 3000 corpses? I don't remember anyone DYING as an effect of illegal wiretaps in this case.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^ Choggie - that's just cynical blather- what's your issue/grievance with Obama? Here's some substance on why I support him.

1. Wants to get the hell out of Iraq - and was consistently against the war.
2. Has a health care plan that looks feasible and would support low-income families
3. Has a masters degree in International Relations, might come in handy
4. Has not taken any PAC money and is therefore not beholden to special interests.
5. Voted against the telecom immunity bill that just passed in the senate and gives sweeping immunity to telecoms that illegally wiretapped US citizens at behest of the Bush regime

I would like to hear a coherent response on why we shouldn't get behind Obama - not jaded ramblings on the pending apocalypse.

Very scary. This could well happen in this country if the right people got into power. And don't say it couldn't happen in the good ol' USA. If I went to you 10 years ago and told you that "In 10 years, we'll have a presidential illegal wiretapping case, thousands killed in combat over a series of lies and saying "fuck" or "shit" on TV now gets you a penalty of half a million dollars," you would have thought I was crazy. But look...

We are the frog in the pot and the heat is rising. Nobody stops to ponder and (dare I say it without offending someone) THINK anymore. Snap judgments have replaced thoughtful introspection. Dangerous.

>> ^Farhad2000:
No illegal wiretapping, spying or torture during the Cold war when the US faced possible nuclear warfare...

your naivety knows no bounds

Torture, wiretapping and spying on Americans SAVE LIVES, want proof? Can't have it. Its a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY. The equivalent of telling your physics professor you did your eassy but its contents are so radical, that grading it might create rifts in the space time manifold.

Here's a simple historical view:

No illegal wiretapping, spying or torture during the Cold war when the US faced possible nuclear warfare under the mutually assured destruction doctrine with communist USSR, possible massive armoured engagement along the Berlin wall and the iron curtain, fought a cladestine war with the KGB. Somehow mangaged to retain moral and legal dignity when it came to its own citizens (besides McCarthyism).

Wiretapping, prolonged detainment, torture fighting a 'created' war against a tactic of warfare called terrorism riding on fears post terrorist attacks on 9/11, declared war on and invaded two nations with little credibile evidence, lied about WMDs to invade another. Is less secure then it was on 9/11, with no interest in actively capturing or pursuing the leaders of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. Is attempting to spy on its own citizens while dismantling civil liberities for Americans, attempting to create a total police state.

Makes sense? You decide.