George W. Obama's War On Rights
The New York Times has an op-ed about how "hope and change" about civil liberties has degraded into more of the same...and more beyond that:
The Obama administration has long been bumbling along in the footsteps of its predecessor when it comes to sacrificing Americans' basic rights and liberties under the false flag of fighting terrorism. Now the Obama team seems ready to lurch even farther down that dismal road than George W. Bush did.Instead of tightening the relaxed rules for F.B.I. investigations -- not just of terrorism suspects but of pretty much anyone -- that were put in place in the Bush years, President Obama's Justice Department is getting ready to push the proper bounds of privacy even further.
Attorney General John Ashcroft began weakening rights protections after 9/11. Three years ago, his successor, Michael Mukasey, issued rules changes that permit agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to use highly intrusive methods -- including lengthy physical surveillance and covert infiltration of lawful groups -- even when there is no firm basis for suspecting any wrongdoing.
...Take, for example, the lowest category of investigations, called an "assessment." The category was created as part of Mr. Mukasey's revisions to allow agents to look into people and groups "proactively" where there is no evidence tying them to possible criminal or terrorist activity. Under the new rules, agents will be allowed to search databases without making a record about it. Once an assessment has started, agents will be permitted to conduct lie detector tests and search people's trash as part of evaluating a potential informant. No factual basis for suspecting them of wrongdoing will be necessary.
If this is true, it's a travesty that needs to be rectified. However, I don't smell truth here. I think you're probably going off the rails again. It's just a sense I'm getting.
whistleDick at June 19, 2011 4:40 AM
whistleDick,
Since this has been abundantly reported, Amy is not "going off the rails."
We're living in a police state.
To repeat the quote -- a police state doesn't exist because the government arrests everyone; it exists when the government can arrest everyone.
Lisa Simeone at June 19, 2011 5:11 AM
It will end when we start doing continuous assessments of every public official. They aren't terrorists, but they have access to tax money, and since no factual basis for suspecting them of wrongdoing needs to exist...
MarkD at June 19, 2011 5:19 AM
"We're living in a police state."
No. We're not. That's just the thing. We're not living in a police state and anyone who says we are is most certainly off the rails.
whistleDick at June 19, 2011 5:21 PM
wD, what are the criteria for that police state?
Right now, if you want to merely step onto an airplane, you will be strip-searched - because of what someone else has done. With all sorts of modern technology available, you still cannot avoid it, regardless of your security clearance, ID or qualification.
If you want to buy a firearm from a dealer - unless you have already stepped through all sorts of hoops to get a concealed carry permit in your state - you will have to get permission from the FBI for each purchase - because of what someone else has done. No matter how many other guns you might have.
If you are stopped on the highway for any reason whatsoever and you have a large amount of cash, it will be taken from you, regardless of doumentation you might have with you that says what it is for or where it came from.
If your vehicle is involved in some kinds of crime, in that someone possessed drugs while riding in it - or merely having arrived in it - it will be taken from you.
Are you really missing all the cases where guilt - your guilt - is presumed?
Go ahead. Attract the attention of ANY police officer and refuse to identify yourself. You will see what the jail looks like, because you must have papers in the USA.
Radwaste at June 19, 2011 5:49 PM
Rad, it's true what you say about having ID. My sister's husband got questioned by police while waiting for my sister in a convenience store parking lot. The only reason he got questioned was because he had dropped her off at the door and then backed into a space so they could get what they needed and leave quickly to get home so my sister could go to work. The cops told him he "looked suspicious" backing into a space and the cop "saw no reason for him to have to do so." When the cops asked him for ID, my sister's husband reached for his wallet and realized he had left it at home. Even though he gave his real name, social security number, address, and phone number, he still got hauled to jail for a night. So don't EVER forget your wallet, because if you don't have ID and happen upon an asshole cop who feels the need to overanalyze everything he sees, you will have an arrest record.
Jessica at June 20, 2011 12:17 AM
@WhistleDick -
Not a police state, yet voice communications and internet communications are funneled into government computers for review, using the well-known Room 641A in San Francisco, CARNIVORE, and ECHELON - and that's the stuff they admit to.
Not a police state, yet the Constitution, supported by the Supreme Court's decision, allow citizens to keep and bear arms, unless one of the myriad minor felonies have been committed, in which case the right cannot be reinstated simply because Congress refuses to fund the reinstatement program at BATF. That's right. A bean counter subverted your Constitution, and you can't do anything about it. Who do you think told the bean counter what to do?
Naked x-rays of little children at the airport displayed to giggling perverts at the TSA are a-ok with you?
Sorry, WhistleDick, but the evidence is in. We're not in charge of our country any more.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 20, 2011 10:48 AM
Leave a comment