How is this not in violation of international law, especially the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [1] article 17, which would apply to US citizens as well as non-US citizens?
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
Maybe even article 9 if the law does not clearly establish what is allowable.
Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
EDIT: Turns out the US did not really ratify this treaty. [2] So no human rights in the US, or at least not all of them enforceable in court. There may of course be similar rights from other laws or treaties.
No offense, but I don't put much weight on international law. In order for a law to have impact, someone has to enforce it. Who will enforce international laws? The UN?
In this case it would be every country that ratified the treaty itself. This kind of international treaty just becomes more or less national law. But I just read that the US did not really ratify this one, it ratified it and added five reservations, five understandings, and four declarations. So this one has probably not much effect in the US. But usually you can just go to national courts if you see a violation of international law like this.
Yes, any treaties or laws ratified by congress have the full legal weight as any national law. They must be upheld by our nation; otherwise, it's unconstitutional.
Yes, but then you're asking countries to police themselves. If following the law is not in the countries best interest, they won't do it unless someone else forces them to.
I think the American mindset in regards to the law and the state itself, especially that set forth by the founding fathers, is that the people are those who make laws and enforce them, so this mindset asks for a revolt to the state as a reply to such acts.
The US can easily claim it's not "arbitrary" because they've been selected by their systems for complete roto-rooter inspection, and it's not "unlawful" because the US laws could allow it.
If software identifies you as potential criminal or terrorist at the border, the following search is not "arbitrary" by any means. The state should not be transparent about the exact reasons why you were chosen (e.g. the social media post or phone call), apart from pointing out the law based on which they are acting.
Only if the software or procedures do a reasonable job at selecting people. It is hard to tell from the outside whether this is the case but the cases that became publicly known at least suggest that the system is not flawless and also seems to pick people with opinions or doing things the US disapproves but which are not illegal.
How much information must be provided is certainly debatable. Article 9 continues as follows.
Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.
So what are reasons? You are in violation of US law? You are in violation of US law X? You are in violation of US law X because you did Y? You are in violation of US law X because you did Y and we know because of Z? How much reason is enough reason?
Actually, if you are only detained for some time, then there re probably no charges. Unfortunately my understanding of law has a lot to be desired. How much inference is allowed without charges?
And thinking about it again, nobody, as far as I can tell, heavily complains about your bags getting searched, for security or customs. So it seems indeed more of a matter of degree what kind of search is acceptable.
On the other hand getting your bags searched is about imminent dangers and crimes, downing the airplane, smuggling illegal things, evading taxes. Inspecting your digital life seems hard to justify from that perspective unless you think people are regularly posting on Facebook that they are about to cross the border with a bag full of drugs hidden so well that they can not be found.
I would be kind of okay with this if I could just turn around. We think you are a risk, either show us your phone - and we may or may not allow you to enter after looking at it - or take the next airplane home. It would be nice, if you would tell me this before I waste my time and money to go on the flight so that I can decide in advance if I am willing to find out how looking at my phone will influence your assessment of me. But I certainly see how telling this in advance would be problematic or undesirable.
But once you start to arrest me, I really want to know why you are doing this and I surely think that I am entitled to get this information. You don't have to tell me which undersea cables you tapped to get your information but just telling me that you think I am violating an unspecified law certainly doesn't cut it.
I am still a human not found guilty by any court and you need good reasons to take away my freedom, citizen or not. And you owe me an explanation so that I can take appropriate measures to resolve the situation.
The country you're travelling to doesn't owe you anything. In some areas of the world, border guards will shoot or rob you.
If you don't take part in any shit that annoys the powers that be, you will most likely never be approached by border guards at all. I really think that as citizens of the western world we are in no position to argue that travelling between countries is bad or cumbersome for us.
Edit: To answer your reply, it is not a human right to be allowed to go into a certain country.
Every country owes you basic human rights. Sure, even basic human rights are just a concept humans invented and you can certainly have a country that just says no, we believe the idea of basic human rights is wrong. That would certainly be a very nice place to live. I on the other hand would certainly refrain from visiting it.
So I should probably bring guns and explosives to the airport to lend some weight to my rights in case somebody has a differing opinion. That could turn out quite interesting...
And now I am left wondering if comments like this make it harder to get through the airport. How humorless and paranoid is the system?
Well there are few penalties for ignoring international law, so while I share your love of the concept I have to recognize that without teeth international law isn't going to protect you from a bad government, wherever that happens to be. A few people have been prosecuted in the International Criminal Court, but I don't think that's a serious deterrent to most international actors.
If all that counts is the safety of your citizens, why would anyone ever be allowed to enter a country, unless they were there to perform a life-saving operation or a similar good?
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
Maybe even article 9 if the law does not clearly establish what is allowable.
Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
EDIT: Turns out the US did not really ratify this treaty. [2] So no human rights in the US, or at least not all of them enforceable in court. There may of course be similar rights from other laws or treaties.
[1] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civi...