View Full Version : Police State?
Some examples of increasing concern from various spectrum. :munchin
Maher On Boston Manhunt: "This Country Is Becoming A Police State (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/27/maher_on_handling_of_boston_manhunt_this_country_i s_becoming_a_police_state.html)"
FBI Conducting Gun Sweeps in Oakland (http://www.eutimes.net/2013/04/fbi-conducting-gun-sweeps-in-oakland/) - probably less reliable than InfoWars.com.
Linsky Files Gun Violence Legislation (http://natick.patch.com/articles/rep-linsky-files-legislation-aimed-at-reducing-gun-violence)
Surveillance state no answer to terror (http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/23/opinion/richards-surveillance-state) on CNN!?!
Surgicalcric
04-27-2013, 22:16
With the continued militarization of SWAT type elements within local and federal LE agencies, cameras at every corner in large cities, and pushes for more surveillance I would say we are headed down the police state road and picking up steam with each incident. Couple the aforementioned with the incessant pleas from the citizens, who believe erosion of rights is a just trade for [perceived]safety, and they may get a police state. By the time many realize what they asked for it will be too late.
Ye olde argument - too much police = police state v too little police = greater degree of lawlessness.
The Maher roundtable was a pretty good overview of the argument - except he called the MAANG HMMWVs "half-tracks" and erroneously claimed the British police aren't armed. The pics he showed also show where the FEMA grant $$ went for the local/state LEOs purchasing of the up-armored vehicles everyone was clamoring about being done for BHOs "private army."
There was a huge argument recently over the use of RPAVs by LEOs. After watching the response to the Boston bombing, who needs to spend the $$ on them when everyone anywhere near the event with a cell-phone camera will voluntarily send in their videos/pics upon request when there's an incident of this type.
IMO it bears our continued vigilance, but I don't feel as if we're stepping through a 'portal to 1984'...yet.
However, YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
IMO it bears our continued vigilance, but I don't feel as if we're stepping through a 'portal to 1984'...yet.
However, YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Back up your perspective, say, 40 years and do a relative comparison.
We've gone past "1984" in loss of individual liberty, IMO, in many ways. I believe it's due to a collapse of standards in honor and morality, and it's being programmed into our kids.
On the flip side, the prevalence of CCW laws provide some social system stability, because CCW-holders are held to a higher standard; it's a standard everybody should assume, IMO.
GratefulCitizen
04-28-2013, 09:28
On the flip side, the prevalence of CCW laws provide some social system stability, because CCW-holders are held to a higher standard; it's a standard everybody should assume, IMO.
Not sure I follow your logic.
Chicago has extraordinarily high standards for someone to even possess a gun, much less carry concealed.
Arizona has very low standards CCW (you only need to be legal to possess, no permit required).
Compare gun violence.
With the continued militarization of SWAT type elements within local and federal LE agencies, cameras at every corner in large cities, and pushes for more surveillance I would say we are headed down the police state road and picking up steam with each incident. Couple the aforementioned with the incessant pleas from the citizens, who believe erosion of rights is a just trade for [perceived]safety, and they may get a police state. By the time many realize what they asked for it will be too late.
I agree with you, 2 years ago about the only traffic camera near by was about 7 miles to the East on the other side of the State line. Since that time, especially in the last year I cannot drive a a single block in any direction without running into one. And the local PD now even has a armored van that looks like something out of a Mad Max flix.
I call in to question as to whom is making the pleas. There are some common folks who masqueraded around for promotional purposes, but for the most part the pleas I see being made are by people like Pete King, Chuck Schummer, Bloomberg and the lobbiest who sell the hardware, and it is all about CASHING IN.
There is a small company in a adjacent city that has made a killing producing multi-capable cameras for a long list of Local, State, Fed entities and agencies.
Add to that Petraeus discussed surveillance through household appliances:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/
The NSA Super center in Utah:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/
Cradle to grave monitoring is well on it's way imo.
Back up your perspective, say, 40 years and do a relative comparison.
We've gone past "1984" in loss of individual liberty, IMO, in many ways. I believe it's due to a collapse of standards in honor and morality, and it's being programmed into our kids.
I would suggest the same of you. I was a young SF Medic serving in SEA then and remember the times well.
The economy was stagnant, there was a pending global fuel crisis, America was withdrawing from its long-time commitments to SEATO, the military was struggling mightily from a loss of public and governmental trust, virulent nationalist terrorist groups were actively engaged in seeking to change our society, there was a constitutional crisis and little faith in our governmental system as the Republican Party and its leader (RMN) were being 'pounded' by the MSM for illegal electioneering activities, and so forth.
I try to make such comparisons as an on-going part of my thought processes when evaluating the 'news' of today, and think you should maybe attempt to do the same and avoid what I perceive to be your worm's-eye views of History compounded with a penchant to romanticize the past while "catastrophizing" the future.
Reflexively, as I read throughout the blogosphere today, I often wonder if we can pinpoint a place/event in the timeline of our history where America seems to have gone from a collectively optomistic to such a pessimistic view of its future. :confused:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Reflexively, as I read throughout the blogosphere today, I often wonder if we can pinpoint a place/event in the timeline of our history where America seems to have gone from a collectively optomistic to such a pessimistic view of its future. :confused:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
What you call pessimistic I call pragmatic.
It will be on an individual and family leadership level that we re-foster optomism as a cultural behavior, though.
Concur. The sooner the better
Old Dog New Trick
04-28-2013, 12:23
Reflexively, as I read throughout the blogosphere today, I often wonder if we can pinpoint a place/event in the timeline of our history where America seems to have gone from a collectively optomistic to such a pessimistic view of its future. :confused:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
That's a very interesting POV. IMHO and since my birth in 1962 (that makes me younger than some and older than others here) it probably began about that same time.
The generation that came back from WWII had a different view of the world than their children did after that. Being part of the next generation and the generation that grew up with the Vietnam war on the six o'clock news has I believe had a greater affect during the late sixties and throughout the seventies. By the time Reagan took over his policies to spend our way back influenced many young people to believe anything was possible. Unfortunately that same euphoria then has left us with the IOUs created back then and lately its been time to pay for that.
It's no longer USA Hell Yeah, it's been changed to USA Oh Sh!t! Well unless NASCAR is racing this weekend.
The family values and morality of the past has been replaced with two working parents, latchkey kids, or the forced acceptance of every special class of individual freedom crowd.
I'm not optimistic about the future, it is going to be a struggle to live and raise a child in this ever increasing world of zero tolerance/zero defect. Human's aren't wired that way...to fail or falter is one of the key learning processes and the government is reaching too far into the personal and private domain of individual freedom to provide "control" over our lives from cradle to grave.
JMHO - and I'm a glass half full kind of person. :D
I've been to Oakland many times to serve Search Warrants for our agency and to help Oakland serve thier own warrants during what the public calls "sweeps".
Oakland is a shit city, not enough officers, too much crime, etc. The article is not clear if the warrants were initiated by Oakland, Federal, or State level so I can't comment on that until there is more information. Last "sweep" that we helped Oakland was in March and Oakland initiated 23 warrants that had to be served all at the same time. The big agencies had the difficult warrants to serve (fortifications, etc). the work up period by Oakland PD to serve 23 warrants was a lengthly period that took several months to plan.
Old Dog New Trick
04-28-2013, 14:12
Was going to add:
We are saturated with fear and mongering about everything from safety to financial collapse.
Turn on any continuous cable news network and you will find someone selling the coming apocalypse and what you should do to protect yourself - lock your doors and hide in the closet.
The government's plan is that the citizens are incapable or not trustworthy to protect themselves or their neighbors and therefor should be the lead agency in restoring order and peace. Evidence: the aftermath of any man-made or natural event of the last 20-years or longer. They just cannot fathom that people are better suited to pick up the pieces afterwards than waiting for the government to come in and provide everything for them.
There is a natural order to things and they don't just happen for a reason. That reason is beyond the scope of the lawmakers limiting individual rights for community policing.
In response to Richard's question on the loss of optimism in America, Peter Thiel teaches a course CS183 at Stanford on entrepreneurship, (he isn't just an academic he founded Paypal). Lecture notes are easily found on the web, Lecture "13" was on luck vs skill in successful start ups. His view is a lot of this depends on your view of the future, do you think you control your fate ( determine vs indeterminate) and if so then do you think the future is optimistic or pessimistic. He forms a four part grid and argues where societies fall on this spectrum, contrasting the US, Europe, China, and Japan. He feels the US crossed over from optimistic determinate to optimistic indeterminate in about 1982 fwiw.
That's a very interesting POV. IMHO and since my birth in 1962 (that makes me younger than some and older than others here) it probably began about that same time.
The generation that came back from WWII had a different view of the world than their children did after that. Being part of the next generation and the generation that grew up with the Vietnam war on the six o'clock news has I believe had a greater affect during the late sixties and throughout the seventies. By the time Reagan took over his policies to spend our way back influenced many young people to believe anything was possible. Unfortunately that same euphoria then has left us with the IOUs created back then and lately its been time to pay for that.
It's no longer USA Hell Yeah, it's been changed to USA Oh Sh!t! Well unless NASCAR is racing this weekend.
The family values and morality of the past has been replaced with two working parents, latchkey kids, or the forced acceptance of every special class of individual freedom crowd.
I'm not optimistic about the future, it is going to be a struggle to live and raise a child in this ever increasing world of zero tolerance/zero defect. Human's aren't wired that way...to fail or falter is one of the key learning processes and the government is reaching too far into the personal and private domain of individual freedom to provide "control" over our lives from cradle to grave.
JMHO - and I'm a glass half full kind of person. :D
I was in college when you were born, and don't subscribe to your lack of optimism. Every generation of my family has done better in life than the previous ones.
I was in college when you were born, and don't subscribe to your lack of optimism. Every generation of my family has done better in life than the previous ones.
Well, providing the future generations don't marry within the same sex, that tradition should continue. :)
Old Dog New Trick
04-28-2013, 17:03
I was in college when you were born, and don't subscribe to your lack of optimism. Every generation of my family has done better in life than the previous ones.
As I said then you were the first new generation after WWII and I'm in the second.
Our lives have been better than those before us and we are the product of that improvement. But I suggest the pendulum has swung hard the other way of the last ten to twenty years.
I am personally an optimistic person. Have a good job post retirement. Raising a healthy busy six-year-old boy, and married to a good woman. My toys and hobbies are, well, very nice!
However, having said that I don't see our national pride and self-worth swinging back to the good fortune we experienced. My son will have to be multi cultural, multi lingual and have at least a masters degree to be competitive in the job market in twenty years when he enters it. That is kind of disappointing but he's already at least got two of the three going for him - he's multi lingual and multi cultural already.
I feel for the "Millennials" that are today graduating from college with little hope for a good place to start and are still living at home because they have to.
Unfortunately, due to an unprecedented period of world peace during our lives, (sans the last eleven years) the educated and developed modern world has given people a false sense of security and a heavy reliance on government and the police to provide them their safety. The government nor the police can do that prior to an event, they are reactionary and come in force - overwhelming force!
We've gone past "1984" in loss of individual liberty, IMO, in many ways.
What you call pessimistic I call pragmatic.
Thinking "'We've gone past "1984"...'" is being "pragmatic"? :confused:
Hunh.
I guess I should read your edition of Orwell's seminal work; any I've ever read don't even come close to supporting such claims.
Richard :munchin
Thinking "'We've gone past "1984"...'" is being "pragmatic"? :confused:
Hunh.
I guess I should read your edition of Orwell's seminal work; any I've ever read don't even come close to supporting such claims.
Richard :munchin
What? lol You're grouping two statements with different inferences so that neither make sense.
ZonieDiver
04-28-2013, 20:43
What? lol You're grouping two statements with different inferences so that neither make sense.
Trust me, at least ONE of those statements (the "1984" one) doesn't make ANY sense - all by its lonesome!
The Reaper
04-28-2013, 20:50
Big brother IS watching you.
More of us every day, in fact.
TR
ZonieDiver
04-28-2013, 21:30
Big brother IS watching you.
More of us every day, in fact.
TR
I'm pretty sure most people would agree with those two statements.
However, if our society had "gone past '1984' " as regards "individual liberty" in "many ways" (or ANY ways, says I), I doubt this forum would exist in its present form, or that most of the people who inhabit it would be "around" to post in it, regardless of the form it took.
I'm pretty sure most people would agree with those two statements.
However, if our society had "gone past '1984' " as regards "individual liberty" in "many ways" (or ANY ways, says I), I doubt this forum would exist in its present form, or that most of the people who inhabit it would be "around" to post in it, regardless of the form it took.
Regardless whether a forum like this which serves as a medium for expression of opinion exists, there will always be the person who obliquely couches his views for fear of displeasure or recrimination, and the one who states his beliefs frankly until that liberty is removed. Then he fights to get it back.
People either hate a person like that, or love him; it depends on their point of view.
What? lol You're grouping two statements with different inferences so that neither make sense.
My point - making the "1984" claims about the current state of American civil liberties and then labeling such thinking "pragmatic" does not make any sense...except in a 'newspeak' way.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
PedOncoDoc
04-29-2013, 07:02
My point - making the "1984" claims about the current state of American civil liberties and then labeling such thinking "pragmatic" does not make any sense...except in a 'newspeak' way.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
It sounds like Richard finds this line of thought doubleplusungood. ;)
ZonieDiver
04-29-2013, 09:53
Regardless whether a forum like this which serves as a medium for expression of opinion exists, there will always be the person who obliquely couches his views for fear of displeasure or recrimination, and the one who states his beliefs frankly until that liberty is removed. Then he fights to get it back.
People either hate a person like that, or love him; it depends on their point of view.
We can agree on that.
However, how does your statement above back up the veracity of this previous statement?
We've gone past "1984" in loss of individual liberty, IMO, in many ways.
Would you delineate the areas in which we have gone past "1984" in that regard?
We can agree on that.
However, how does your statement above back up the veracity of this previous statement?
Would you delineate the areas in which we have gone past "1984" in that regard?
Well, compare the Telescreen and Public Telescreen to the plasma TV. Instead of observing us 24 hours a day, (Big Sis is coming along in that regard with CCTV-Bloomberg demands more constantly), the government uses the press to mislead, misdirect and connive its viewers. Many are on the tit, many are ignorant, and many have been programmed by their educators to suck up whatever bullshit the government/media feeds them. So, to me, what with pap like reality, judge and vampire shows occupying the time of the mindless to the point that they can’t or refuse to wake up to the destruction of individual freedom and responsibility happening right under their noses, the 2013 Telescreen is worse.
The monitor you’re looking at right now takes a picture of you via sending key words you write to certain agencies who decide whether you bear further scrutiny. It looks like a TV, huh?
Today’s Dream Police will scowl at you for saying “Siamese” instead of “conjoined” when you’re talking about twins, label you a homophobe if you abhor what was deemed abominable a generation ago, and ostracize you if you think the Boy Scouts shouldn’t allow gays or an A Team shouldn’t allow a female. The Dream Police today are the “normal”, run-of-the-mill progressive liberals you meet every day-even on this board. Don’t let your son dream about squirrel hunting and accidentally go “kapow” with a pointed finger; the lib educator is going to send your kid’s ass home.
Newspeak isn’t as bad as “PCspeak”, to me and other Conservatives or Constitutionalists. There are so many obvious examples of political correctness f.cking up our Country, I shouldn’t have to mention any, but I’ll throw this one in: The Washington Redskins will probably have to change their name.
“Who controls the past controls the future…”
Puleez. Davy Crockett, George A. Custer, Columbus and many others (I could go on for days on this subject) have had their historical records revised so drastically that many kids probably consider anybody but MLK and Abe Lincoln to be a right-wing villain (pink). Just watch the History channel if you want to see how they revise it. Educators do the same thing. Kids aren’t even being taught many important historical facts because it clashes with lib political thought processes. There’s more.
Stiletto11
04-29-2013, 11:45
Well, compare the Telescreen and Public Telescreen to the plasma TV. Instead of observing us 24 hours a day, (Big Sis is coming along in that regard with CCTV-Bloomberg demands more constantly), the government uses the press to mislead, misdirect and connive its viewers. Many are on the tit, many are ignorant, and many have been programmed by their educators to suck up whatever bullshit the government/media feeds them. So, to me, what with pap like reality, judge and vampire shows occupying the time of the mindless to the point that they can’t or refuse to wake up to the destruction of individual freedom and responsibility happening right under their noses, the 2013 Telescreen is worse.
The monitor you’re looking at right now takes a picture of you via sending key words you write to certain agencies who decide whether you bear further scrutiny. It looks like a TV, huh?
Today’s Dream Police will scowl at you for saying “Siamese” instead of “conjoined” when you’re talking about twins, label you a homophobe if you abhor what was deemed abominable a generation ago, and ostracize you if you think the Boy Scouts shouldn’t allow gays or an A Team shouldn’t allow a female. The Dream Police today are the “normal”, run-of-the-mill progressive liberals you meet every day-even on this board. Don’t let your son dream about squirrel hunting and accidentally go “kapow” with a pointed finger; the lib educator is going to send your kid’s ass home.
Newspeak isn’t as bad as “PCspeak”, to me and other Conservatives or Constitutionalists. There are so many obvious examples of political correctness f.cking up our Country, I shouldn’t have to mention any, but I’ll throw this one in: The Washington Redskins will probably have to change their name.
“Who controls the past controls the future…”
Puleez. Davy Crockett, George A. Custer, Columbus and many others (I could go on for days on this subject) have had their historical records revised so drastically that many kids probably consider anybody but MLK and Abe Lincoln to be a right-wing villain (pink). Just watch the History channel if you want to see how they revise it. Educators do the same thing. Kids aren’t even being taught many important historical facts because it clashes with lib political thought processes. There’s more.
Those who advance the PC are what Marx called useful idiots.
ZonieDiver
04-29-2013, 13:07
Those who advance the PC are what Marx called useful idiots.
Yeah, but if Marx is so smart, why didn't he come up with a system that works?:D
Old Dog New Trick
04-29-2013, 13:08
Those who advance the PC are what Marx called useful idiots.
It takes a village of idiots to raise a moron! :p
Speaking of something Dusty said. My six y/o (Kindergartener) got kicked off the big school bus because he was shooting his arm (gun) - "I will shoot you - pew, pew!" There were other less desirable words and actions, but none the less: Zero Tolerance! He's fricking SIX.
When would be the last 'most recent' time everyone was up in arms about the coming "Police State?"
I'd say the late sixties and early seventies (1968 DNC, Kent State, End of Segregation, etc...)
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/bill-maher-boston-police-90700.html
“I want to talk about the police, who I am a supporter of… Look at this, I mean if this is what you have – why don’t you invade a country? …. I mean go up to Canada – take their oil… This country is becoming a police state. And it is very troubling to me,” Maher said, while showing pictures of police officers patrolling the city and searching for Tsarnaev.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/bill-maher-boston-police-90700.html#ixzz2RskSJPcO
Even Bill Maher thinks "we" are becoming a polce state. :munchin
This is idiotic.
Unless your six y.o. has been recruited for Adult Monitoring Duty by the Secret Police... ;):rolleyes:
How far off could we be when libs already concur that kids belong to the state and not the parents? That Klingon chick was no exception, she's the rule.
The Reaper
04-29-2013, 17:06
Yeah, but if Marx is so smart, why didn't he come up with a system that works?:D
He didn't say Marx was smart, he said that Marx called them useful idiots.
TR
ZonieDiver
04-29-2013, 18:01
He didn't say Marx was smart, he said that Marx called them useful idiots.
TR
Thanks for the clarification. I grasped his meaning.
However, I reject all the tenets of Marx and Marxism, including who he considers to be 'useful idiots'.
Others may accept any or all of his flawed thinking as they so choose.
Even Bill Maher thinks "we" are becoming a polce state.
Bill Maher also thinks HMMWVs are "half-tracks", too. :rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
Post #27
You should write a book. Such 'pragmatic dystopianistic views' are "in" right now.
"2084" might be an appropriate title, and future generations can look back and compare your vision with that of Orwell and the reality of whatever comes to be as an essay for an AP English Lit exam.
Richard :munchin
The Reaper
04-29-2013, 18:41
Thanks for the clarification. I grasped his meaning.
However, I reject all the tenets of Marx and Marxism, including who he considers to be 'useful idiots'.
Others may accept any or all of his flawed thinking as they so choose.
Here are a few more you might appreciate, from another famous socialist.
"The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation."
"One man with a gun can control 100 without one."
"Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted."
"The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency."
"There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel."
"A revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, not every revolutionary situation leads to revolution."
"The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses."
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
I am beginning to think that these old commies may have been listened to by some of our current leaders.
TR
You should write a book. Such 'pragmatic dystopianistic views' are "in" right now.
"2084" might be an appropriate title, and future generations can look back and compare your vision with that of Orwell and the reality of whatever comes to be as an essay for an AP English Lit exam.
Richard :munchin
You get so ascerbic when you've been had. :D
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/29/ron-paul-police-manhunt-boston-marathon-bombing-su/
The terror attacks on April 15 in Boston killed three and injured 264.
Mr. Paul, a former libertarian political candidate who served in Congress as a member of the Republican Party, said the door-to-door searches police conducted in Watertown for the bombing suspects were particularly alarming.
They reminded of a “military coup in a far off banana republic,” he said, Politico reported. “Force lockdown of a city.
Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down.”
Mr. Paul reminded the surviving suspect, 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was ultimately discovered by a civilian, and not due to police crackdown, Politico reported.
“He was discovered by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police,” he said. “And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police.”
"May we search your house?"
"No."
"Why not? If you have nothing to hide....."
"Because of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution."
"We're searching anyway."
Move out of the way. Hire ACLU. Sue.
Orwell was just jacking with everybody, anyway-judging from this quote:
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." ~George Orwell
You get so ascerbic when you've been had. :D
From an incongruant angst based upon generalizations of the 'potential' vs the 'reality' of governmental abuse of civil liberties (to whom do the 'airways' of the nation belong) in an increasingly technologically complex globally interconnected society and a view that a few 'cherry-picked' for instances of poor judgment among the nation's over 132,000 schools amounts to a national trend?
I was being serious about the book. I would purchase a copy.
Richard :munchin
From an incongruant angst based upon generalizations of the 'potential' vs the 'reality' of governmental abuse of civil liberties (to whom do the 'airways' of the nation belong) in an increasingly technologically complex globally interconnected society and a view that a few 'cherry-picked' for instances of poor judgment among the nation's over 132,000 schools amounts to a national trend?
I was being serious about the book. I would purchase a copy.
Richard :munchin
OK, but you and I obviously have a polarity in opinion when it comes to the "reality" of government abuse of civil liberties. Homosexual marriage, por ejemplo, isn't a representation of liberty, to me.
A semanticist such as yourself named S. I. Hayakawa had a microcosm of our Country much as it is today to control when he took over SF State back in the late 60's. He cut the student activity fee down to one dollar, forcing the pro agitators to get off their asses and get a job. It worked.
It would work here, too. Too many people have too much time to bitch about the lack of collective liberty because the government facilitates it.
Doing all that and telling them that you don't consent protects you from the "anything else they find in the house" angle as they have to have probable cause to enter in the first place. this gets discussed by the LE bubbas on SOCNET all the time. The Boston bomber hiding "somewhere in Watertown" is not PC to look specifically in your house unless they can articulate that they suspected him to be, specifically, in your house.
miclo18d
04-30-2013, 08:34
For example, many Republicans are fine with things like stop-and-frisk laws, not reading the Miranda Warning to the Boston terror suspect initially, trying terrorists in military tribunals, etc...but yet then the Right get upset over many things as well, some things the Left are fine with (such as gun control), but also some similar things, such as the perceived militarization of police forces, cameras everywhere, etc...
"stop-and-frisk laws" = Terry Stops* (, and I for one DON'T agree with them. They are an affront to the Constitution under the guise of officer safety. If the officer doesn't feel safe when he makes the stop or questions an individual he can call for back up or not conduct the interview. And just because I may be armed doesn't make me dangerous.
"not reading the Miranda Warning to the Boston terror suspect initially" -- There is an exception to the Miranda Warning dealing with domestic or foreign terrorist. The exception to the Miranda Rule is, The Patriot Act. Under the Patriot Act if a person is taken into custody as a terrorist, either domestic or foreign, they do not have the same rights as a state or federal criminal. Meaning if you are detained or arrested under this act you have no legal right to Miranda, legal counsel, and habeas corpus. The easy explanation for this is: you have no legal constitutional rights granted via “The United States Constitution” and “The Bill of Rights”. -- on that I don't agree with TPA either and think its usefulness has ended.
"trying terrorists in military tribunals" -- if they are caught on a foreign battlefield, they are POWs/EPWs/Detained by military powers and therefor if they committed a crime in combat zones, they they can and SHOULD be tried by military tribunals.
I would be what you could call a "righty" and I don't like militarized police or video cameras all over the place either. I don't know what you meant by this paragraph but these are not right/left issues, these are Constitutional issues, these are issues about our freedoms.
* Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."
* Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."
Just because the supreme court said so doesn't mean they are right. They are humans also. Think Dred Scott decision.
The local Sikh community has an athletic field behind my property and twice a year hold a regional weekend athletic event which brings teams in from SoCal to Oregon.
I was here remodeling the ranch house last fall in preparation for our move from Texas when their festival was taking place. The entrance to their temple/athletic fields is from another road and was blocked because of all the cars parked there. The Sheriff's Dept was talking of shutting the festival down because their access route was blocked for any emergency vehicles.
They came and asked if I would allow them to use my road (1/4 mile gravel with single-lane wooden bridge crossing a large creek) for access for their deputies and emergency vehicles only. I told them OK and left the gate closed but unlocked for them.
They were very respectful of my wishes to keep the gate closed - which meant they had to stop, open it, drive through, and stop and close it before continuing - and to drive slowly to keep the dust down.
A couple of them had known I had been renting the property and had been involved in the eviction process of my renters, and I showed them around to let them see the damages done to the property and what I was doing in order to move home.
I still see one of them every now and then when I go have breakfast at Mel Dog's (local cafe owned by twin daughters in their early 30's of an old family friend), and we always chat about how things are going in the neighborhood and whether the Sikh's are being "good neighbors" or not. When the next fest comes around and if he's on duty, I'll show him what I've done to the place over the last six months.
IMO, developing such local relationships - personal and professional - are important in developing and maintaining a community, and maintaining an 'acceptable' state of police balance.
Richard :munchin
Sikh post.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, there.
Old Dog New Trick
04-30-2013, 09:44
"stop-and-frisk laws" = Terry Stops* (, and I for one DON'T agree with them. They are an affront to the Constitution under the guise of officer safety. If the officer doesn't feel safe when he makes the stop or questions an individual he can call for back up or not conduct the interview. And just because I may be armed doesn't make me dangerous.
"not reading the Miranda Warning to the Boston terror suspect initially" -- There is an exception to the Miranda Warning dealing with domestic or foreign terrorist. The exception to the Miranda Rule is, The Patriot Act. Under the Patriot Act if a person is taken into custody as a terrorist, either domestic or foreign, they do not have the same rights as a state or federal criminal. Meaning if you are detained or arrested under this act you have no legal right to Miranda, legal counsel, and habeas corpus. The easy explanation for this is: you have no legal constitutional rights granted via “The United States Constitution” and “The Bill of Rights”. -- on that I don't agree with TPA either and think its usefulness has ended.
"trying terrorists in military tribunals" -- if they are caught on a foreign battlefield, they are POWs/EPWs/Detained by military powers and therefor if they committed a crime in combat zones, they they can and SHOULD be tried by military tribunals.
I would be what you could call a "righty" and I don't like militarized police or video cameras all over the place either. I don't know what you meant by this paragraph but these are not right/left issues, these are Constitutional issues, these are issues about our freedoms.
* Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."
You should look up Illinois vs Lidster. SCOTUS ruled in favor or the state under the "Reasonableness Standard" that in certain grave cercumstances the police can conduct searches for public safety.
And Fourth Amendment reasonableness is that point at which the government’s interest advanced by a particular search or seizure outweighs the loss of individual privacy or freedom of movement that attends the government’s action, Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 427 (2004)(“in judging reasonableness, we look to the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty”).
This is probably where the police justified the Watertown lockdown and house to house. But there are probably other case laws that would have allowed them to supersede the 4A during the search.
miclo18d
04-30-2013, 09:45
Yes, but certain Constitutional issues are embraced more by each side it seems (gun rights for example, which the Left see as an abomination that are okay to ignore, even though gun rights at core are a populist issue and neither really left nor right). I should have been more clear about "the Right," as there are the righties who are okay with giving the police more powers and letting the government be tougher with terrorists and then there are the libertarian right who can be much different on such issues.
I am no libertarian, I'm not a republican't either. I'm a run of the mill conservative. I don't like the government in my business any more than a hippy does, but I DO believe in killing terrorists, I'm part of that club already. If the government wants to put up a camera, they better have damn good reason to put it up other than public safety.
What is going on right now is a power grab under the guise of keeping us safe from terror. As I saw mentioned somewhere, most people fear big government more than they fear terrorism. Terrorism is bad and should be eradicated ala Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates, ala Gen Sherman and Georgia, ala Patton and Nazis, what we are doing in Afghanistan is a reflection of our pussy whipped society, if we were serious we would have gone in there kicked the crap out of them and left.
Now we are under some BS called the "Powell Doctrine", that is basically, you break it, you buy it. I say you break it and then break it some more to make sure they don't want anymore and then you break it just a little more.
miclo18d
04-30-2013, 09:52
Just because the supreme court said so doesn't mean they are right. They are humans also. Think Dred Scott decision.
All,
My post was in response to Broadsword saying that republicans agree with these things. I was pointing out what he said was a "stop and frisk" is called a Terry Stop. I pointed out it fell under Terry v. Ohio AND that I didn't agree with it.
Sorry if my post was slightly jumbled. I'm still working on getting it clearly from my head to the screen, through my **** beaters.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/346871/rand-paul-warns-1984
Unrelated to Watertown, but pertinent to the topic.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f48_1367872895 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f48_1367872895)
Some of you may have already seen this video of a recent incident in Omaha.
I suppose you have your 10% everywhere...
Question to the LEOs on the board: Were the officers within their rights to chase the onlooker into his house simply for filming the incident and asking questions?
mark46th
05-07-2013, 10:27
The original reason Law Enforcement agencies wanted the cameras everywhere was for CYA. Everything they should have done to prevent a criminal act becomes evidence against them in a civil suit. One of a city's biggest fears is a multi-million dollar law suit so, they spend the money on cameras and other ELINT to keep an eye on things. After they start to get this info, they realize how much power it has given them and how easy it is to abuse that power...
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers..." Henry VI, Part 2.
ddoering
05-07-2013, 13:36
A pattern is developing here. Government wants item (in this case cameras) to protect themselves yet don't want citizens to have them......
You should look up Illinois vs Lidster. SCOTUS ruled in favor or the state under the "Reasonableness Standard" that in certain grave cercumstances the police can conduct searches for public safety.
This is probably where the police justified the Watertown lockdown and house to house. But there are probably other case laws that would have allowed them to supersede the 4A during the search.
We are seeing this in Maryland too. Public safety and public interest according to state attorney general has precedence over BOR and constitution.
I personally don't agree. Like being searched by TSA at airports, lockdown or search from house to house. Government needs a 'search warrant'.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
"We're training for an incident that could happen anywhere,"
An upset father arrives in the office of the Western Washington Fairgrounds Academy, demanding to speak with the Dean of Students about the suspension of his son from the football team, which is currently ranked in the national polls. The father is irate and extremely agitated that his son's future is being affected by the Academy's Board of Standards to suspend his son from the team. The board chair is the Dean of Students. The Dean is called into the office, but the secretary also calls the local police department out of concern for the father's behavior.
http://puyallup.patch.com/articles/photos-law-enforcement-agencies-train-for-violent-incidents#photo-14305927
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2xsPaFjslZM#t=6s
Maybe it is different in Washington State, but this scenario would not be in the Top100 list of potential threats to me and my family living in Kansas. Around here hostilities related to youth sports occur at the events themselves. These altercations have been in most instances been limited to screaming and yelling. In very rare instances there has been physical contact.
But never guns, knives or any other dangerous device that would require deadly force from the LEO's.
Say, "Cheese!"
DARPA's ARGUS - 1.8 billion pixel resolution camera for UAVs capable of storing 1 million terabytes of imagery per day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHrZgS-Gvi4
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin