US Customs destroying person property without reasonable suspicion

[short 215]

Probably because they are made of unprocessed plant material and not allowed into the USA. Probably the same rules in most other western countries. Same reason you are not supposed to bring live orchids back.

 

 

If that is the case, then how come they destroyed only one set of the mats and not all three that I had?

[SmellyFarang 57]

That said, porno of any kind on your cam or laptop will no doubt excite further interest in you if they get that far. But why have it there?

 

Maybe because it's one's constitutional right as a US Citizen to have it if one wants?

 

Though that pesky US Constitution doesn't count for much in the post-Bush/Cheney Amerika.

 

Prediction: within a few years US Customs will also search your computer for illegal/pirated mp3 & movies unless you can prove legal purchase...

[tomcat76 327]

Maybe because it's one's constitutional right as a US Citizen to have it if one wants?

 

Though that pesky US Constitution doesn't count for much in the post-Bush/Cheney Amerika.

 

Prediction: within a few years US Customs will also search your computer for illegal/pirated mp3 & movies unless you can prove legal purchase...

 

Oh stop whining about Bush & Cheney. Obama's in his 2nd term now. Sheesh. Move on! He's had the power for 4+ years now to do whatever he wants, to/for whomever he wants, and proven his willingness to exercise those prerogatives, for over 4 years.

 

If you wanna' stand on principle with CBP in a post-911 world, knock yourself out. And it does sort of come across that that's what you're about. That train has left the station. Travel, like privacy, property, and soon the right to defend yourself, are no longer rights, but privileges. Keep electing big govt liberals, and you can expect more of the same.

Edited January 6, 2013 by tomcat76

[kosman 35]

If that is the case, then how come they destroyed only one set of the mats and not all three that I had?

 

That was just my guess, but if you and I both know you cannot apply logic to the borders. Perhaps they found nothing wrong with the first set and decided to let the others go through, perhaps they were just being dickheads. My vote would probably be on the latter but i am just in a pissy mood with over 50 days to go before my trip to Pattaya. Will someone please drink a Long Island Ice Tea and tell me all about it

[tomcat76 327]

That was just my guess, but if you and I both know you cannot apply logic to the borders. Perhaps they found nothing wrong with the first set and decided to let the others go through, perhaps they were just being dickheads. My vote would probably be on the latter but i am just in a pissy mood with over 50 days to go before my trip to Pattaya. Will someone please drink a Long Island Ice Tea and tell me all about it

 

Had one - er, three actually - in Udon at that bar with a live band across the street from UD Town. Very good. Maybe the best I've had in Thailand. Never had one in Pattaya I'd go back for. The ones in that relatively new 2nd floor pub in the Avenue Mall on 2nd Rd aren't too bad.

Edited January 7, 2013 by tomcat76

[kosman 35]

Had one - er, three actually - in Udon at that bar with a live band across the street from UD Town. Very good. Maybe the best I've had in Thailand. Never had one in Pattaya I'd go back for. The ones in that relatively new 2nd floor pub in the Avenue Mall on 2nd Rd aren't too bad.

 

Thanks! The thing about Long Island Ice Teas are that if the first one is not very good, the second is always better.

[tomcat76 327]

Thanks! The thing about Long Island Ice Teas are that if the first one is not very good, the second is always better.

 

Yeah, if you do the Happy Hour 241 at that 2nd Rd pub, I wouldn't plan on a late evening...

[kaiser71 30]

If that is the case, then how come they destroyed only one set of the mats and not all three that I had?

I saw a show recently where they caught a guy bringing in a couple hundred feet of climber's rope impregnated with drugs.

[jacko 8,815]

I saw a show recently where they caught a guy bringing in a couple hundred feet of climber's rope impregnated with drugs.

So he was going to use the rope to get high!

[Samsonite 181]

We have gone over this before, but Clinton signed an amendment to the Human Trafficking Act that didn't go into effect until two years after he left office. Basically, REGARDLESS of the law in the country you are in, if you engage in "commercial sex" the other party has to be at least 18 years of age. If the U.S. authorities were to somehow find out you engaged "commercial sex" with someone under the age of 18, you can be prosecuted upon your return to the U.S.

You can look it up at the Department of State's web site.

[kaiser71 30]

So he was going to use the rope to get high! :leaving" class="bbc_emoticon" src="http://www.pattayatalk.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/leaving.gif" />

5 kilos of liquid cocaine. People get tricky when the rewards are high.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/videos/liquid-cocaine/ Edited January 11, 2013 by kaiser71

[roorsoldja 325]

I hate LAX , been threw three times all three times sucked , just a terrible layout with even worse supervision IMO . but they never went threw or broke anything of mine.

[nkped 1,208]

 

Though that pesky US Constitution doesn't count for much in the post-Bush/Cheney Amerika.

 

Prediction: within a few years US Customs will also search your computer for illegal/pirated mp3 & movies unless you can prove legal purchase...

Actually, the border search authority goes back a long way, as customs used to be the primary source of government income. Historically, if you were crossing the border, the search was reasonable. The authority is more constrained now than it was in the past.

[tomcat76 327]

Actually, the border search authority goes back a long way, as customs used to be the primary source of government income. Historically, if you were crossing the border, the search was reasonable. The authority is more constrained now than it was in the past.

 

Hard to believe. They may be limited in their authority to detain you (beyond what's necessary to make you miss your flight), but seems like they can do most anything else... Blaming this state of affairs on Bush & Cheney is just juvenile crying fit though.

Edited January 14, 2013 by tomcat76

[jacko 8,815]

.. Blaming this state of affairs on Bush & Cheney is just juvenile crying fit though.

No it is democrats at work!

[tomcat76 327]

No it is democrats at work!

 

Or at least Big Government at work. Too bad most republicans jumped on that bandwagon decades ago.

[ttk 236]

What these people don't know (and I'm talking in non specific terms) is regardless of it being "legal" in the country they just came from, does not matter. They are still held to the strict guidelines of what may or may not be considered legal activity in the United States

 

 

Good thing Joe-It-All is no longer with us. I had a running battle with him on this and he never would admit that any other law but Thailands would apply.

[tomcat76 327]

We have gone over this before, but Clinton signed an amendment to the Human Trafficking Act that didn't go into effect until two years after he left office. Basically, REGARDLESS of the law in the country you are in, if you engage in "commercial sex" the other party has to be at least 18 years of age. If the U.S. authorities were to somehow find out you engaged "commercial sex" with someone under the age of 18, you can be prosecuted upon your return to the U.S.

You can look it up at the Department of State's web site.

 

Kind of alarmist. You still get a jury trial, and the "guilt beyond reasonable standard" still applies. IOW, they still have to prove it. If you've engaged in commercial sex, but not with someone underage, an actual indictment is unlikely I think. Bringing in porn on your laptop or PDA is probably just asking for scrutiny in the 1st place. So, once again, there's no US federal law against prostitution per se. Yes, you can be arrested for pedophilia , as well as mere possession/importation of child porn. So, don't do that.

Edited February 3, 2013 by tomcat76

[short 215]

Good thing Joe-It-All is no longer with us. I had a running battle with him on this and he never would admit that any other law but Thailands would apply.

 

The US doesn't have jurisdiction in Thailand. But it does in the US and that is why the law is worded "TRAVELING for the purpose of having sex with a minor". You don't have to leave the US or do the act to be guilty under US law.

[tomcat76 327]

The US doesn't have jurisdiction in Thailand. But it does in the US and that is why the law is worded "TRAVELING for the purpose of having sex with a minor". You don't have to leave the US or do the act to be guilty under US law.

 

You'd have to provide some case law to show that anyone ever gets indicted for the "travelling" part withOUT the "sex with minor" part, which sounds like what you're trying to suggest... Am I misreading something?

[short 215]

From the internet (it never lies)

 

In 1994,

Congress added subsection 2423(sorry the number is being interpretted as a smiley), which made it a crime to transport

oneself across state or national borders with the intent to have sex with

a minor.

Edited February 9, 2013 by short

[steamer 158]

From the internet (it never lies)

 

In 1994,

Congress added subsection 2423(sorry the number is being interpretted as a smiley), which made it a crime to transport

oneself across state or national borders with the intent to have sex with

a minor.

 

 

Not suggesting for one minute that having sex with a minor is kosher but don't they have to prove your intent was to indeed search out and have sex with minors rather than just fall into it with say a 17 yo?

[tomcat76 327]

Of course. The question isn't being answered. The situation with US Customs is bad enough without creating bogeyman stories. We KNOW there are laws against sex with children ( as well there should be); that doesn't mean consensual sex with adults is now a federal crime, too. Have media on your laptop or other digital device suggesting sex with young ladies, and you just have to expect "interest", but even that doesn't mean the govt doesn't have to prove guilt in any criminal proceeding it decides to undertake.

Edited February 9, 2013 by tomcat76

[nkped 1,208]

You'd have to provide some case law to show that anyone ever gets indicted for the "travelling" part withOUT the "sex with minor" part, which sounds like what you're trying to suggest... Am I misreading something?

76's point about the case law can't be overemphasized, but just to set it forth, here is the text of 18 USC 2423

§2423. Transportation of minors

 

(a) Transportation With Intent To Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity.—A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.

(b)Travel With Intent To Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct.—A person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

© Engaging in Illicit Sexual Conduct in Foreign Places.—Any United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence who travels in foreign commerce, and engages in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

(d) Ancillary Offenses.—Whoever, for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, arranges, induces, procures, or facilitates the travel of a person knowing that such a person is traveling in interstate commerce or foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

(e) Attempt and Conspiracy.—Whoever attempts or conspires to violate subsection (a), ( , ©, or (d) shall be punishable in the same manner as a completed violation of that subsection.

(f) Definition.—As used in this section, the term “illicit sexual conduct” means (1) a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or (2) any commercial sex act (as defined in section 1591) with a person under 18 years of age.

(g)

Defense

.—In a prosecution under this section based on illicit sexual conduct as defined in subsection (f)(2), it is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant reasonably believed that the person with whom the defendant engaged in the commercial sex act had attained the age of 18 years.

For the obsessive/compulsive, the link is http://www.gpo.gov/f...117-sec2423.htm. No smilies on the government site.

Edited February 9, 2013 by nkped

[tomcat76 327]

...so don't have sex with anyone under 18... Not really a US Customs issue, is it?