View Full Version : Police State USA
Police State USA
Congressman Ron Paul | August 10 2004
Last week’s announcement that the terrorist threat warning level has been raised in parts of New York, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C. has led to dramatic and unprecedented restrictions on the movements of citizens. Americans wishing to visit the U.S. Capitol must, for example, pass through several checkpoints and submit to police inspection of their cars and persons.
Many Americans support the new security measures because they claim to feel safer when the government issues terror alerts and fills the streets with militarized police forces. As one tourist interviewed this week said, “It makes me feel comfortable to know that everything is being checked.” It is ironic that tourists coming to Washington to celebrate the freedoms embodied in the Declaration of Independence are so eager to give up those freedoms with no questions asked.
Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. This doesn’t stop governments, including our own, from seeking more control over and intrusion into our lives. As one Member of Congress stated to the press last week, “people who don’t want to be searched don’t need to come on Capitol grounds.” What an insult! The Capitol belongs to the American people who pay for it, not to Congress or the police.
It is worth noting that the government rushes first to protect itself, devoting enormous resources to make places like the Capitol grounds safe, while just beyond lies one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the nation. What makes Congress more worthy of protection from terrorists than ordinary citizens?
To understand the nature of our domestic response to the September 11th, 2001 attacks, we must understand the nature of government. Government naturally expands, and any crises – whether real or manufactured – serve to justify more and more government power over our lives. Bureaucrats have used the tragedy of 9/11 as an excuse to seize police powers sought for decades, such as warrantless searches, Internet monitoring, and access to bank records. It should be no surprise that the recently released report of the 9/11 Commission has but one central recommendation: bigger government and more spending at home and abroad.
Every new security measure represents another failure of the once-courageous American spirit. The more we change our lives, the more we obsess about terrorism, the more the terrorists have won. As commentator Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig von Mises Institute explains, terrorists in effect have been elevated by our response to 9/11: “They are running the country. They determine our civic life. They shape our private life. They decide how public resources are spent. They may dictate who gets to be the next president. It should be obvious that the government doesn’t object. Not at all. The government benefits, by getting ever more reason for ever more money and power.”
Every generation must resist the temptation to believe that it lives in the most dangerous time in American history. The threat of Islamic terrorism is real, but it is not the greatest danger ever faced by our nation. This is not to dismiss the threat of terrorism, but rather to put it in perspective. Those who seek to whip the nation into a frenzy of fear do a disservice to a country that expelled the British, fought two world wars, and stared down the Soviet empire.
Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
HardJedi
08-10-04, 03:32 PM
OMG! I don't have time toi read this right now, but I will later. Just saw the title of the thread and who posted it and knew it woud be crazy! ;)
tracrat
08-10-04, 05:57 PM
"When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage."
Great, looks like I am out of a job as a cop. Hmm, wonder when the national government will start to pay my salary. I bet we even get issued "brown shirts." And what a long day i spent NOT manning any check points, NOT looking at who is doing what on the internet, and NOT randomly conducting searches for no legal reason. Strange that people hate the police until we are needed.
HardJedi
08-10-04, 08:30 PM
Wow. I finally got a chance to read this.
Ok, so lets start at the whole protecting the capitol thing. Well hell, guess we should just take the metal detectors and security of any type out of ALL government buildings and courthouses, huh? I mean, after all, they BELONG to US, the taxpayers, right? So why should I suffer the indignity of walking through security to get into these places?
For that matter, lets remove security from our military bases here in the US. after all, THEY belong to the taxpayers as well, right?
Thje author IS right in ONE thing. "the more we obsess about terrorism, the more the terrorists have won" . I WILL agree with that fragment of his statment.
Hell, he even states this little nugget of wisdom, ". America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government." Well, in that case, I guess we should just all band together and try to over-throw the current government by starting a NEW revolutionary war. Of course, then this jerkwad won't be getting a paycheck for a few months work a year( if that) and he will have something NEW to whine about.
yellowwing
08-10-04, 09:54 PM
"Strange that people hate the police until we are needed." - You mean like when we call you when we think a crack-head is in our house? :)
I was thinking about all this earlier. This might be an important question, operationally and tactically, is Al Qaeda much different than the USA gangs?
How would you protect City Hall if the Crips and Bloods wanted to take it down? How would you prepare your division if the Hells Angels wanted to attack Jeb Bush?
tracrat
It's not about hating police. It's about trying to find a balance between liberty and protection. Right now we are on the slippery slope to a police state. People will probably be begging for and welcoming martial law when the next big terrorist attack happens. People nowadays care more about their safety than the liberties that our founding fathers fought and died for. I don't think it will be too long before we're being asked to show our papers. Maybe it's paranoid thinking, but that's the future I see coming out of this neverending war on terror.
Foundations Are In Place For
Martial Law In The US
By Ritt Goldstein
The Sydney Morning Herald
www.smh.com.au
7-27-2
Recent pronouncements from the Bush Administration and national security initiatives put in place in the Reagan era could see internment camps and martial law in the United States.
When president Ronald Reagan was considering invading Nicaragua he issued a series of executive orders that provided the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with broad powers in the event of a "crisis" such as "violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition against a US military invasion abroad". They were never used.
But with the looming possibility of a US invasion of Iraq, recent pronouncements by President George Bush's domestic security chief, Tom Ridge, and an official with the US Civil Rights Commission should fire concerns that these powers could be employed or a de facto drift into their deployment could occur.
On July 20 the Detroit Free Press ran a story entitled "Arabs in US could be held, official warns". The story referred to a member of the US Civil Rights Commission who foresaw the possibility of internment camps for Arab Americans. FEMA has practised for such an occasion.
FEMA, whose main role is disaster response, is also responsible for handling US domestic unrest.
From 1982-84 Colonel Oliver North assisted FEMA in drafting its civil defence preparations. Details of these plans emerged during the 1987 Iran-Contra scandal.
They included executive orders providing for suspension of the constitution, the imposition of martial law, internment camps, and the turning over of government to the president and FEMA.
A Miami Herald article on July 5, 1987, reported that the former FEMA director Louis Guiffrida's deputy, John Brinkerhoff, handled the martial law portion of the planning. The plan was said to be similar to one Mr Giuffrida had developed earlier to combat "a national uprising by black militants". It provided for the detention "of at least 21million American Negroes"' in "assembly centres or relocation camps".
Today Mr Brinkerhoff is with the highly influential Anser Institute for Homeland Security.
Following a request by the Pentagon in January that the US military be allowed the option of deploying troops on American streets, the institute in February published a paper by Mr Brinkerhoff arguing the legality of this.
He alleged that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which has long been accepted as prohibiting such deployments, had simply been misunderstood and misapplied.
The preface to the article also provided the revelation that the national plan he had worked on, under Mr Giuffrida, was "approved by Reagan, and actions were taken to implement it".
By April, the US military had created a Northern Command to aid Homeland defence. Reuters reported that the command is "mainly expected to play a supporting role to local authorities".
However, Mr Ridge, the Director of Homeland Security, has just advocated a review of US law regarding the use of the military for law enforcement duties.
Disturbingly, the full facts and final contents of Mr Reagan's national plan remain uncertain. This is in part because President Bush took the unusual step of sealing the Reagan presidential papers last November. However, many of the key figures of the Reagan era are part of the present administration, including John Poindexter, to whom Oliver North later reported.
At the time of the Reagan initiatives, the then attorney-general, William French Smith, wrote to the national security adviser, Robert McFarlane: "I believe that the role assigned to the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the revised Executive Order exceeds its proper function as a co-ordinating agency for emergency preparedness ... this department and others have repeatedly raised serious policy and legal objections to an 'emergency czar' role for FEMA."
Criticism of the Bush Administration's response to September11 echoes Mr Smith's warning. On June 7 the former presidential counsel John Dean spoke of America's sliding into a "constitutional dictatorship" and martial law.
Ritt Goldstein is an investigative journalist and a former leader in the movement for US law enforcement accountability. He revealed exclusively in the Herald last week the Bush Administration's plans for a domestic spying system more pervasive than the Stasi network in East Germany.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/27/1027497418339.html
To what end? Well it IS unfortunate that in todays world we are the target. You, me , our families, everyone at the mall etc. When does it stop? It doesn't it slowly gets worse, the key is you do what you have to to protect life. We are a smart enough nation to be able to entitle freedoms to our nation and still provide security to protect those that live freely. It doesn't have to become a police state. For those that cry that, come up with a better plan. The fact is that we have to protect US citizens first. Our founding fathers didn't invision planes flying into buildings, or flying for that matter, things change. WE protect our freedom, not the Government. The Gov provides the meens.
I'm all for getting all legal citizens and residents an ID of some type. It doens't hinder my freedom to have an ID card that prooves who I am. I already have a driver license, what's the difference. Very little. I've worked for the Fed's and now for the state as law enforcement. I as well as all of my collieges, have beter things to do than harass people for no reason. This is not the middle ages. Does abuse of power happen? Yes, seldom but it does. Is it because we give police power...No! It stems from the cop being a bad PERSON who got into the wrong job not because WE allowed someone to have too much authority. What about the other 1000's of cops? Prime example LAPD. 7,000 cops, 14 brought up on carges, They all look bad.
We, here take the extra step to at least learn what our government is doing, we are the watchful eyes that keep Gov honest.
tracrat
08-11-04, 07:59 PM
yellowwing, if there is a "crack head" in your place, just extend a warm welcome with the business end of a 12 gauge, I will be more than happy to clean up the mess...and if the crips and bloods want city hall, they can take it quite easily...not much in the way of security....and as far as preparations, that is a sore point with me about my department..we sorely lack training in this type of stuff...we did some after the incident at Columbine a couple of years ago but have had no refresher since.. we are just now getting rifles (though waiting on policy decisions before they are distributed) just so we can come up to a level of firepower the bad guys have enjoyed for years....we have a long way to go still....
eddief...i alreay ask people for their papers and have been since 1994...The US Supreme Court says that I can...and we all have some form of identification, especially if you want to legally drive...the world of law enforcement is always changing to meet the demands that the citizens require from us, for their safety...if the citizens don't like something then they should change it via the voting system...I have to disagree that we are on the verge of a police state...I just don't see it...being on the inside, I have seen nothing to that end..we are not being trained on how to man road blocks or check points, we do not enter into someone's home without a warrant or in fresh pursuit...believe me, the 4th Ammendment is still very much alive and kicking....and my comrades that do violate a persons rights, they will usually pay for it...its not a perfect system of course, and abuses do occur, but those individuals will and should be ferretted out and dealt with as the law prescribes...
tracrat
The 4th amendment is almost dead. It's barely hanging onto life support right now. The treasonous 5th Circuit Court of Appeals turned their backs on the Constitution.
Bill of Rights no longer valid in Louisiana
Off the cuff
By Jared Sexton
March 31, 2004
One week ago today, on March 24th, the New Orleans based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a ruling effectively giving Louisiana cops the green light to conduct searches of personal residences and businesses without a search warrant.
The ruling in United States v. Kelly Gould was in response to an appeal made by a Mr. Gould after three firearms were found in his residence following an illegal search, but Wednesday's ruling did more than just defeat Gould's case. In fact, this seemingly small case has handed a potentially dangerous loss to the Bill of Rights, and the particularly vulnerable citizens that it protects.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The language is very clear, and very devoid of any small room for interpretation: it is my right, and your right, to never have you, or your property, searched without the issuing of a search warrant, after, and only after, probable cause has been presented.
Almost as frightening as this horrendous decision is the staggering amount of apathy that has resulted from it. CNN barely mentioned it in its infinitely annoying ticker, and Headline News had a brief sixty-second story before going to their batch of "wacky, but true" stories.
Where is the outrage? When such an important right is stricken down in such a careless manner, where are the concerned citizens?
Perhaps this silence stems from a society so self-concerned that quotes like "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about anyway" are being used to rebuff any worry this new precedent might cause. And that is not the case.
Any personal right ever infringed, whether by friend or enemy, upstanding citizen or dangerous criminal, must be addressed and rectified. Any attempt to rationalize the loss of rights by subjective thought, by personal importance, is one more foot in the grave for civil liberties, and it most definitely will not always be the criminals being wronged. This is one of those slippery slopes actually worth worrying about, and best summarized by one dissenting Louisiana judge, who projected that his associates may have opened the "path to hell."
Perhaps it shouldn't serve as such a surprise that a nation which so easily demonized the American Civil Liberties Union would find it such an easy pill to swallow. The ACLU, which dedicates itself to defending the rights of every citizen, has been turned into a far-left organization, a haven for kooks and crazies, by the American public. No longer does it stand for continuing America's long ballyhooed freedom as much as it is now a national inside joke, and that's so very unfortunate considering the causes in which they are active in.
Depressingly, the ACLU might not even be able to have this decision overturned, but even more frightening is the prospect that no one outside of that particular organization really cares anyway. Following the limiting of freedoms since the inception of the Patriot Act citizens are less inclined to consider personal freedoms that important, and so the slope is slippery, and it looks like someday we will actually see what's at the bottom.
HardJedi
08-12-04, 02:50 PM
Ya know, normally this is where I spout off somthing sarcastic and incendiary. Not today. All I can say is this. Look at the name of the column this guy writes for. " Off the Cuff" In other words, requirinf no THOUGHT or RESEARCH. Just his opinion. As for the ACLU? The quicker it dies off, the better.
Lets see the EXACT WORDING of this apeals court descision before we declare part of the constitution dead, and not some left wing nuts OPINION ;)
Okay, here is a report from news media and not an editorial. This comes from Channel 6 News WDSU in New Orleans. I happen to agree with the two dissenting judges on the court.
Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants
The New Orleans Channel | March 27 2004
NEW ORLEANS -- It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business.
Leaders in law enforcement say it will provide safety to officers, but others argue it's a privilege that could be abused.
The decision was made by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two dissenting judges called it the "road to Hell."
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed in Denham Springs in 2000.
New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new power will go into effect immediately and won't be abused.
"We have to have a legitimate problem to be there in the first place, and if we don't, we can't conduct the search," Defillo said.
But former U.S. Attorney Julian Murray has big problems with the ruling.
"I think it goes way too far," Murray said, noting that the searches can be performed if an officer fears for his safety -- a subjective condition.
Defillo said he doesn't envision any problems in New Orleans, but if there are, they will be handled.
"There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justce system works in an effective manner," Defillo said.
The Militarization of 'Mayberry'
Exploding Number of S.W.A.T. Teams Set Off Alarms
Critics See Growing Role of Heavily Armed Police Units as 'Militarization' of Law Enforcement
[Washington Post - 6/17/97] FRESNO, Calif. -- Sgt. Wade Engelson is preparing his new recruits for war.
Dressed in fatigues, sporting buzz hair cuts, the new men are being trained in the use of submachine guns, explosives and chemical weapons. They have at their disposal a helicopter and, soon, an armored personnel carrier.
Engelson's men are not Navy Seals or Army Rangers. They are members of the Fresno Police Department, whose enemy will not be found in faraway lands but in the neighborhoods where the police routinely patrol -- fully armed and in urban camouflage.
In their expanding strength and mission, the SWAT team in Fresno mirrors a growing trend in U.S. law enforcement -- the rise in the number of police paramilitary units across the country and a rapid expansion of their activities, a controversial trend that police scholars refer to as "the militarization" of civilian police.
The explosive growth and expanding mission of SWAT teams has, in turn, led to complaints that an occupying army is marching through America's streets -- that they are too aggressive, too heavily armed, too scary -- and that they erode the public's perception of police as public servants.
"It's a very dangerous thing, when you're telling cops they're soldiers and there's an enemy out there," said Joseph McNamara, former chief of police in San Jose and Kansas City who is now at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. "I don't like it at all."
In a new study, police researcher Peter Kraska and his colleagues have documented the explosive growth of SWAT, which stands for Special Weapons and Tactics. In a nationwide survey of 690 law enforcement agencies serving cities with populations with 50,000 or more, the researchers found that 90 percent now have active SWAT teams, compared with 60 percent in the early 1980s.
Even in rural communities and smaller cities, the researchers have found that two of every three departments now boast a SWAT team -- a phenomenon Kraska compares to "militarizing Mayberry," he said referring to the fictional small town in the Andy Griffith television show.
Yet more important than the raw numbers, Kraska says, the SWAT mission has expanded. Once limited to highly specialized actions, such as dealing with barricaded gunmen or hostage-takers, the SWAT teams are now increasingly engaged in more standard police work. There is a boom in "high risk warrant work," including "no-knock entries." The work is mostly related to the war on drugs, and by extension, "gang suppression."
"Where the SWAT teams were once deployed a few times a year, they are now used for all kinds of police work -- dozens of calls, hundreds of calls a year," said Kraska, a professor of police studies at Western Kentucky University. "In SWAT units formed since 1980, their use has increased by 538 percent." And some units, like those in Fresno, are being deployed full time as roaming patrols.
The 30 members of Fresno's Violent Crime Suppression Unit now patrol crime-ridden neighborhoods day and night, serving warrants at homes of suspected drug dealers and criminals, stopping vehicles, interrogating gang members, showing a presence.
As they move through the city of 400,000 people, they wear subdued gray-and-black urban camouflage and body armor, and have at the ready, ballistic shields and helmets, M17 gas masks and rappelling gear. More equipment is carried in a mobile command SWAT bus that roves the city. The deparment is purchasing an armored personnel carrier.
The tactical police here also carry an assortment of weaponry denied the normal beat cop -- battering rams, diversionary devices known as "flashbangs," chemical agents, such as pepper spray and tear gas, and specialized guns, including assault rifles and, most famously, the Heckler and Koch MP5, the short, highly accurate 9mm, fully automatic submachine gun used by the Navy Seals.
...
"Despite the conventional wisdom that community policing is sweeping the nation, the exact opposite is happening," said McNamara. "The police and their communities ought to think seriously about this. Is there a need for SWAT teams? Yes, for highly specialized functions. But the police love these units, and this is a disastrous image to project."
McNamara and other police scholars say that the positive impact of the SWAT teams on reducing crime is most likely short-lived -- and that the pressure must be maintained. They also fear that heavily armed, commando-style police -- if they remain in a neighborhood for long -- will eventually be seen as an occupying army.
Kraska said his research shows that the rise in SWAT activities has closely followed the increased resources applied to fight illegal drug use.
"The drug war created the atmosphere for this kind of pro-active policing," Kraska said. "We have never seen this kind of policing, where SWAT teams routinely break through a door, subdue all the occupants and search the premises for drugs, cash and weapons."
Between 1980 and 1995, for example, Kraska found that SWAT units were employed in their traditional roles only for a minority of call-outs. Some 1.3 percent of their work was to quell civil disturbances; 3.6 percent for hostage situations; 13.4 percent for barricaded individuals. But 75 percent of their mission is now devoted to serve high-risk warrants, mostly drug raids.
...
Kraska's survey of police departments finds many SWAT teams are instructed by active and retired U.S. military experts in special operations. The SWAT teams also receive training not only from the FBI, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and National Tactical Officers Association, but in classes organized by private companies.
One of the most popular courses is offered by Heckler and Koch, which trains hundreds of SWAT officers a year. The company also offers the units discounts on its popular weapons, such as the MP5. Kraska points to the private companies role in the encouragement of SWAT response as part of a new "crime control industry."
Larry Glick, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association, said that some of the private training seminars are taught by "retired military personnel who don't know what they're doing." The training offered by Heckler and Koch is "very successful and credible, among the best," he said. "Their ultimate goal is to sell their guns."
Kraska and other police scholars said that even with the most community-sensitive training, the new weaponry and paramilitary-style tactics of the SWAT units attract a different kind of officer -- less the cop as social worker and more the cop as an elite special 'ops' soldier. And most SWAT officers are paid a premium for the work.
"The SWAT teams love this stuff," Kraska said. "It's fun to fire these weapons. It's exciting to train. They use 'simmunition' -- like the paint balls and play warrior games. This stuff is a rush."
.
HardJedi
08-12-04, 03:36 PM
WHY is swat dangerous? isn't one of THE basic principals of ANY type of defense, whether personal or on a national level, the projection of strength? it's doesn't matter, for the most part, what these"swat" teams are capable of. It is the IDEA of thier presence that is supposed to be a DETERRENT.
Through the mere PROJECTION of strnegth, it is often possible to avoid conflict altoghether, ESPECIALLY when dealing with western civilizations.
I wouldn't want SWAT teams in my neighborhood. The fact of the matter is that SWAT isn't in the suburbs or the gated communities. They're in the barrios and the ghettos and they are there to intimidate criminal and civilian alike. How would you like to live in a neighborhood where the police were dressed up in paramilitary gear? Would it give you a warm and fuzzy feeling inside? Like the article says, there is a time and place for SWAT such as hostage situations and barricaded gunmen situations.
HardJedi
08-12-04, 03:49 PM
in a word " YES!" wanna see why? check out this thread eddie
http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14984&perpage=15&pagenumber=1
Here's an article that focuses on Iran Contra figure Poindexter and his Information Awareness Office and the Homeland Security Act in general.
Police State USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 19, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
While the Democrats controlled the U.S. Senate, they blocked the Homeland Security Act from approval -- for all the wrong reasons.
They insisted on assurances that those employees hired in the creation of the new Cabinet-level department would be under the dominion of their constituents in Big Labor. Of course, this would have meant higher costs to taxpayers, more inefficiency, waste, fraud, corruption and abuse and less security.
That's not what America needs in its life-and-death struggle against the global jihad of Islamist terrorism.
But that doesn't mean the current Homeland Security Act is a good thing for the country. It is, as crafted, deeply flawed, dangerous and a cure worse than the disease, as New York Times columnist William Safire showed in his recent column, "You are a suspect."
Now that Republicans are about to assume control of the U.S. Senate, it's time to focus attention on the real problems with the Homeland Security Act. It is nothing short of a prescription for a full-scale police state in the USA.
"Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every website you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend – all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as 'a virtual, centralized grand database,'" writes Safire.
And that's not all.
"To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you – passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the FBI, your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance – and you have the supersnoop's dream: a 'Total Information Awareness' about every U.S. citizen," he continues.
And who hatched such an Orwellian plan? The Bush administration – and, more specifically, one Adm. John Poindexter, famous for authoring the Iran-Contra Scandal during the Reagan administration. That's right. He's back. Now he heads the "Information Awareness Office" in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
It's something of a surprise that Poindexter would ever be trusted with such a sensitive post. After all, he was convicted in 1990 of five felony counts of misleading Congress and making false statements – before an appeals court overturned the verdict because Congress had given him immunity for his testimony. Iran-Contra was perhaps the biggest scandal of the Reagan administration, and Poindexter was its author.
"Even the hastily passed USA Patriot Act, which widened the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and weakened 15 privacy laws, raised requirements for the government to report secret eavesdropping to Congress and the courts," explains Safire. "But Poindexter's assault on individual privacy rides roughshod over such oversight."
This is the Pentagon's version of Hillary-Care. This is a power grab of unprecedented proportions. These kinds of civil-liberties abuses should not be condoned even in time of war.
Once again, we see the administration looking in all the wrong places for security threats.
Our war on terrorism will not be won by a government intent on total control over the population. Our war on terrorism will only be won by a government enlisting the people in that fight. More powerful than any database is a motivated and informed populace that understands the threat. This fact was never more apparent than in the recent Beltway sniper search. All the police power in the world couldn't find the culprits. They couldn't be found with massive law enforcement manpower. They couldn't be found with AWACs flights. But they were found and apprehended with the help of motivated private citizens armed with information.
Poindexter's motto – emblazoned in his Pentagon office – reads "Scientia Est Potentia," or "knowledge is power." It's certainly true. The question is whether we as a free society can afford to entrust government with all the knowledge, or whether is it wiser to entrust the people with that knowledge.
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and chief executive officer of WND and a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. He is also the founder of WND Books. In addition to his daily column in WND, he writes a nationally syndicated weekly column available to U.S. newspapers through Creators Syndicate.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franlin
He must be turning over in his grave.
HardJedi
08-12-04, 04:34 PM
I see you didn't address the fact that YEs i would accept swat teams in my neighborhood, and WHY i would. Even WITHOUT the threat of terrorsits. Did you read that other thread?
HardJedi
I read it but I don't understand why you think the police would help in that situation. All that's needed is a personal firearm and that punk would be six feet under. Ultimately we're responsible for our own self preservation. The police are only a reactionary force when it comes to home invasions and most other crime. They can't be there when you most need them. They'll get there in time to make a chalk outline of your body though. This is not to say that police aren't out there doing their jobs. It's just to say that there are limitations as to how well they can protect. As for SWAT in your neighborhood, do you really think they could be right there at the exact moment they're needed? They would probably be busy knocking down some crackhead's door at the time you need them.
HardJedi
08-12-04, 04:46 PM
QUOTE "The question is whether we as a free society can afford to entrust government with all the knowledge, or whether is it wiser to entrust the people with that knowledge."
oh, and for trusting PEOPLE with the power? what? the appathetic fools too lazy to go out and vote? The lifetime welfare recipients to lazy to get a job and too stupid to stop having kids?. Yeah, lets trust Them.
Quote""Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every website you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend – all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as 'a virtual, centralized grand database,'" writes Safire. "
A paranoid flame fanners nightmare. nothing more.
Once again, info by a mud slinging journalist who makes his money selling fear. Not impressive.
From Tommy Franks, a doomsday scenario <br />
<br />
St. Petersburg Times <br />
<br />
The doomsday scenario was laid out by Gen. Tommy Franks, the recently retired head of CentCom, in of all places the December...
HardJedi
08-12-04, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by eddief
HardJedi
I read it but I don't understand why you think the police would help in that situation.
They'll get there in time to make a chalk outline of your body though.
This is not to say that police aren't out there doing their jobs. It's just to say that there are limitations as to how well they can protect.
EXACTLY !TOO MANY LIMITATIONS! and SOME of those limitations NEED to be removed. and if there were enough cops with enough power, then they WOULD be able to respond FASTER to ALL situationas
HardJedi
I will never be able to trust the government. History shows that governments that are given increased powers do not use it benevolently. If you think these powers will not be abused then you are historically naive.
HardJedi
I guess what you're saying is that you want a powerful police state to make you feel safer. Do you really have that much trust in government? I don't trust them, so I'll rely on myself for my own protection.
HardJedi
08-12-04, 04:57 PM
ME? a HISTORY major? historicaly niaive? I really don't think so. I understand that YES, sooner or later, the american way of life that we know WILL change. This I do not dispute. it is as sure as death. NO empire is forever, and that is what we are.
History ALSO shows that those who do not take steps to PROTECT their way of life, do not hold on to ANY life at all.
The problem here is not increased security, or lessend freedoms, but where to draw the line.
and to answer your question, I have nothing to fear from a police state, because I have nothing to hide. Do I WANT a police state? No. I just want laws that allow the police to do their jobs.
I wouldn't trust the government to draw the line. In the end you might not like where that line has been drawn, but by that time it's just too damn late.
HardJedi
08-12-04, 05:11 PM
nope. that is what revolutions are for. :)
That's something we both can agree on, HardJedi. Thanks for the spirited debate. You have a good evening Marine.
eddief: the only reason SWAT units are called out is because normal police presence has been deemed unable or incapable of completing the task at hand; i.e. stop a criminal activity or apprehend dangerous felons. They are not dangerous but numerous situations have forced certain law enforcement units to train and prepare for activity that can or has placed the cummunity in danger! Most of the time they are able to put an end to hostile situations without firing a shot! They are as likely to be utilized in a large metropolitan area as they are in a small town. The fact that they are more likely to be seen in a ghetto attests to the fact that crime is more likely to take place in those areas.
Arlene Horton
08-12-04, 10:22 PM
I guess I agree with Toby re:SWAT teams needed to be present to put an end to hostile situations without firing a shot. Lately we had two really nasty gang attacks in the "ghetto". A sweet, gentle mentally challenged man in his 50's was attacked by at least 6 or 8 hoodlums who beat him to death. Throughout the beating this poor soul was clutching his Bible. He never had a chance. A week or so later a 16 year old boy was attacked by a mob of about 8 or more "heroes" who beat him senseless with not only their hands but also large pieces of wood and kicked him when he was on the ground. He was accused of calling another young "man" of being a "fag" according to some of those "heroes". He spent several weeks in the hospital until he came out of a coma and will need extensive surgical repair to his face and jaw. This was a case where someone should have called the police, but, as all too often, nobody wanted to get involved. The usual excuse came up that things like those beatings would probably become rare if there were more opportunities for the youth in the Central city to work off some of their "excess energy" in facilities where they could be taught and monitored by concerned citizens in gyms & meeting rooms where they could do more activities that were not dangerous to innocent civilians. The best thing that could happen would be to have their parents meet with responsible citizens of the community, with their sons & daughters, and work out a plan to get these kids interested in something other than assaulting and robbing inoffensive members of the community. Personally I would suggest having those kids enlist in some military group where they would really get to work off that energy. Not our special Corps...we are "The Proud, The Few, The Marines! Semper Fi!
We wouldn't need many SWAT teams if people would just lock and load on these scumbags. If you live in a high crime area without a piece then you're stupid. I also believe that the war on drugs has been a colossal failure. You're not going to police it out of existence.
I know a lot of you are just going to love this- more secret police on our streets. This will start out as anti-terrorist operations, but then it will eventually escalate into putting down dissidents.
Goss Wants CIA as Domestic Stasi
Newsweek | August 12 2004
Rep. Porter Goss, President Bush’s nominee to head the CIA, recently introduced legislation that would give the president new authority to direct CIA agents to conduct law-enforcement operations inside the United States—including arresting American citizens.
The legislation, introduced by Goss on June 16 and touted as an "intelligence reform" bill, would substantially restructure the U.S. intelligence community by giving the director of Central Intelligence (DCI) broad new powers to oversee its various components scattered throughout the government.
But in language that until now has not gotten any public attention, the Goss bill would also redefine the authority of the DCI in such a way as to substantially alter—if not overturn—a 57-year-old ban on the CIA conducting operations inside the United States.
The language contained in the Goss bill has alarmed civil-liberties advocates. It also today prompted one former top CIA official to describe it as a potentially "dramatic" change in the guidelines that have governed U.S. intelligence operations for more than a half century.
LONEEAGLE
08-14-04, 08:23 AM
eddief? I know and can understand how ya feel about this almost "WIDE OPEN, DO AS YOU PLEASE, HOMELAND SECURITY ACT." The "PEOPLE" will eventually see what is really going on and will not allow it to happen. All it's goin' to do is take a couple law suits. But, you must remember, there are cells of Al Queda in America somewhere. I'd rather be stopped and checked, as long as they don't go beyond my legal and constitutional rights, than to let a Terrorist, who could look like me, a white male, late 50's, and we have had one, "THE SHOE BOMBER." Don't get too paranoid yet. The American people love their freedom, and won't let the Gov't go to far, believe me. But I enjoyed all your posts.
eddief,
I know lots of people feel as if the sky is going to fall but it won't. The American people are smart enough to not allow that to happen. When you look to the possiblilty of "something bad MAY happen", well then just give up on everything.
Let me make a couple of points: 1)The Patriot Act. Some are screaming that it violates their "civil rights" and give too much power to the Gov. NOONE has made one legitimate claim as to how their rights have been violated, yet you still hear the cry. We already use the same standard for drug dealers and embezzlers, why not for terrorism.
2) Many cops and feds are prior veterans ( not to take away from non-vets). The same vets as you and I that have stood up for this country and will always stand up for this country. We've defended it before and if our/ or our families liberties are being threatened, do you not think that WE would be the first to raise the flag.
I hear it all the time: I know my rights- sorry but most people truly don't (too much TV). I know their rights better than they do, and because I do and I protect their rights I don't get sued by some crazy fanatic lawyer trying to make a buck. The fact is cops (all types) work within the law and seldom violate it as they will with this new legislation. Is it too much to ask to allow those same peolple the ability to use whatever resource neccesary to protect citizens of this country. Let me know the next time a cop stops you for no reason and searches you and your stuff. I'd like to hear about it.
David Jameson
10-25-06, 03:17 PM
Eddief,I do not feel that increased police patrols in major met areas (targets) is athreat on anyones rights .It my get worse. thats the reality of the threat.The sky is not falling.There are a lot of people that could use some watching.Thats my oppinion.I would not get pariniod.(spelling) opps
Zulu 36
10-25-06, 05:10 PM
I hear it all the time: I know my rights- sorry but most people truly don't (too much TV).
Brother, ain't that the truth. I don't know how many times I was told about "rights" that don't exist. My favorites are the "Constitutional right" to a phone call, or if an officer doesn't read Miranda Rights, it becomes a "false arrest."
:p
yellowwing
10-25-06, 05:12 PM
Good one David! A timely and relevant blast from the past!
Someone brought up earlier more public police cams on street corners. That sounds like a good passive security measure. Aren't cameras widely used in the UK? It seems to be working fine for them, no protests from the Brits on invasion of privacy.
drumcorpssnare
10-26-06, 11:53 AM
eddief- Okay, we'll get rid of all the SWAT teams. Then, the next time there's a Columbine school situation, or a Hollywood robbery with AK-47's and body armour, we'll just send in Barney Fife. Remember him? Carries one bullet....in his shirt pocket.
Then, would you feel like we had less of a police state?
In the past 20 or so years, America has grown away from the Mayberry RFD mindset, and is now closer to the "Escape From New York" mindset. Our law enforcement needs to change with the times, or be left in the dust.
For more than a century, London 'Bobbies' carried only nightsticks and whistles. Now, they ALL carry weapons. Times change.
OLE SARG
10-26-06, 12:39 PM
You'd better check this SWAT thing out - MOST ALL metropolitan area Police Depts have SWAT Teams!!!!! Most of our Counties here in Missouri have SWAT Teams!!!!
Just think, we have communities here in the good ole USA where you have the police in paramilitary gear ALL THE TIME!!!!
We can thank the aclu for most of the crap and rights for the murders, rapists, perverts, etc. I compare the aclu to dog **** - it needs to be put down the sewer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SEMPER FI,