Police State

I am more concerned about the mysterious ether that must ooze from the interstices of the Bizarro zone, turning Conservatives and Libertarians alike into raving lunatics.

Zoinks said:

I am more concerned about the surfeit of laws and regulations that turns everyone into a law breaker if someone somewhere in government so decides. But liberals do not care about that one.

So true.

http://www.threefelonies.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html

Zoinks said:

I am more concerned about the surfeit of laws and regulations that turns everyone into a law breaker if someone somewhere in government so decides. But liberals do not care about that one.

The difference between a liberal and a conservative is which rights he'll take away from you first. We're all concerned about our civil rights, though, if we think intelligently and passionately. There is room for a lot of agreement.

Your first sentence is absolutely correct.

Right - conservatives HATE anyone but the übermenschen having any civil rights.

Left - liberals HATE anyone having economic freedom and freedom to choose things that are not left approved.

Wrong. Conservatives love to spout off about freedom in the abstract, but their idea of abstract freedom is in practice the freedom to be enslaved by those with more power.

The left loves the concept of "collective" rights because that concept requires a powerful elite to administer those "collective rights" on behalf of the masses. Thus a powerful and lucrative opportunity opens that the left and the statist turn to their advantage.

And that is tyranny just as much as any other control by a powerful elite is.

Zoinks said:

The left loves the concept of "collective" rights because that concept requires a powerful elite to administer those "collective rights" on behalf of the masses. Thus a powerful and lucrative opportunity opens that the left and the statist turn to their advantage.

And that is tyranny just as much as any other control by a powerful elite is.

Sounds a lot like the "too big to fail" banking industry.

Anyone else have a problem with? (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all)

That record, and Mr. Awlaki’s calls for more attacks, presented Mr. Obama with an urgent question: Could he order the targeted killing of an American citizen, in a country with which the United States was not at war, in secret and without the benefit of a trial?

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel prepared a lengthy memo justifying that extraordinary step, asserting that while the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process applied, it could be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch.

Mr. Obama gave his approval, and Mr. Awlaki was killed in September 2011, along with a fellow propagandist, Samir Khan, an American citizen who was not on the target list but was traveling with him.

If the president had qualms about this momentous step, aides said he did not share them. Mr. Obama focused instead on the weight of the evidence showing that the cleric had joined the enemy and was plotting more terrorist attacks.

“This is an easy one,” Mr. Daley recalled him saying, though the president warned that in future cases, the evidence might well not be so clear.

In the wake of Mr. Awlaki’s death, some administration officials, including the attorney general, argued that the Justice Department’s legal memo should be made public. In 2009, after all, Mr. Obama had released Bush administration legal opinions on interrogation over the vociferous objections of six former C.I.A. directors.

This time, contemplating his own secrets, he chose to keep the Awlaki opinion secret.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2012/aug/22/can-government-detain-you-over-facebook-posts/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2012/aug/23/judge-orders-brandon-raub-released-hospital/

Just read today that Americans are 8 times more likely to be killed by a policeman than a terrorist.

rastro said:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2012/aug/22/can-government-detain-you-over-facebook-posts/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2012/aug/23/judge-orders-brandon-raub-released-hospital/

So, if you challenge the neocon order from the left you can be arrested, but not if from the right, as the White Republican County Judge of Lubbock, Texas.

KTrama said:

Just read today that Americans are 8 times more likely to be killed by a policeman than a terrorist.

Only 8? That doesn't sound right (though I'm not doubting your info). Not because police kill people so often, but I'd have thought death by terrorist was more rare than that.

Seems like a good place to post this:

http://aje.me/NelfLx

Senator Rand Paul on the Police State....

KTrama said:

Just read today that Americans are 8 times more likely to be killed by a policeman than a terrorist.

Helen: Have you ever killed anyone?
Harry: Yeah, but they were all bad.
(True Lies)

Zoinks said:

The left loves the concept of "collective" rights because that concept requires a powerful elite to administer those "collective rights" on behalf of the masses. Thus a powerful and lucrative opportunity opens that the left and the statist turn to their advantage.

And that is tyranny just as much as any other control by a powerful elite is.

What is a better example of "collective" rights than the right of a corporation to try and buy a political candidate?

Rand Paul holds up NDAA because he wants vote on Fair Trials

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is holding up a vote on the Defense Authorization Act until he gets a vote on his amendment affirming the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution and the indefinite detention of Americans.

Paul is seeking an agreement in principle to get a vote on his amendment when the Senate takes up the defense authorization bill that funds and sets the agenda for the U.S. military....

Paul’s amendment would give American citizens being held by the military rights to a fair trial with a jury of peers and the right to confront the witnesses against him or her.

“A citizen of the United States who is captured or arrested in the United States and detained by the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense,” the amendment states.

[Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid [D-Nev.] said he hoped Republicans resolve the issue so the Senate can proceed to the Defense Authorization Act when it resumes work on Monday, Nov. 26.

Reid whined that, hey, it wasn't Democrats holding up getting this bill rushed through before Thanksgiving break. No, Sen. Reid, no it was not. And shame on you and them.

Senator Paul speaks in support of the Lee/Feinstein Amendment to the NDAA. The Amendment seeks to guarantee a right to trial for all Americans.

And the Amendment passes! Thanks to Senator Feinstein & Lee....And to Senator Paul for always being on the right side of these issues.

Again. One man stands up for our due process rights...

The coming drone attack on America

The air force document explains that the air force will be overseeing the deployment of its own military surveillance drones within the borders of the US; that it may keep video and other data it collects with these drones for 90 days without a warrant – and will then, retroactively, determine if the material can be retained – which does away for good with the fourth amendment in these cases. While the drones are not supposed to specifically "conduct non-consensual surveillance on on specifically identified US persons", according to the document, the wording allows for domestic military surveillance of non-"specifically identified" people (that is, a group of activists or protesters) and it comes with the important caveat, also seemingly wholly unconstitutional, that it may not target individuals "unless expressly approved by the secretary of Defense".

In other words, the Pentagon can now send a domestic drone to hover outside your apartment window, collecting footage of you and your family, if the secretary of Defense approves it. Or it may track you and your friends and pick up audio of your conversations, on your way, say, to protest or vote or talk to your representative, if you are not "specifically identified", a determination that is so vague as to be meaningless.

What happens to those images, that audio? "Distribution of domestic imagery" can go to various other government agencies without your consent, and that imagery can, in that case, be distributed to various government agencies; it may also include your most private moments and most personal activities. The authorized "collected information may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent". Jennifer Lynch of the Electronic Frontier Foundation told CBS:

"In some records that were released by the air force recently … under their rules, they are allowed to fly drones in public areas and record information on domestic situations."

This document accompanies a major federal push for drone deployment this year in the United States, accompanied by federal policies to encourage law enforcement agencies to obtain and use them locally, as well as by federal support for their commercial deployment. That is to say: now HSBC, Chase, Halliburton etc can have their very own fleets of domestic surveillance drones. The FAA recently established a more efficient process for local police departments to get permits for their own squadrons of drones.

Given the Department of Homeland Security militarization of police departments, once the circle is completed with San Francisco or New York or Chicago local cops having their own drone fleet – and with Chase, HSBC and other banks having hired local police, as I reported here last week – the meshing of military, domestic law enforcement, and commercial interests is absolute. You don't need a messy, distressing declaration of martial law.

Good Times...

And the risk of that? The New America Foundation's report on drone use in Pakistan noted that the Guardian had confirmed 193 children's deaths from drone attacks in seven years. It noted that for the deaths of ten militants, 1,400 civilians with no involvement in terrorism also died. Not surprisingly, everyone in that region is traumatized: children scream when they hear drones. An NYU and Stanford Law School report notes that drones "terrorize citizens 24 hours a day".

If US drones may first be weaponized with crowd-control features, not lethal force features, but with no risk to military or to police departments or DHS, the playing field for freedom of assembly is changed forever. So is our private life, as the ACLU's Stanley explains:

"Our biggest concerns about the deployment of drones domestically is that they will be used to create pervasive surveillance networks. The danger would be that an ordinary individual once they step out of their house will be monitored by a drone everywhere they walk or drive. They may not be aware of it. They might monitored or tracked by some silent invisible drone everywhere they walk or drive."

"So what? Why should they worry?" I asked.

"Your comings and goings can be very revealing of who you are and what you are doing and reveal very intrusive things about you – what houses of worship you are going to, political meetings, particular doctors, your friends' and lovers' houses."

I mentioned the air force white paper. "Isn't the military not supposed to be spying on Americans?" I asked.

"Yes, the posse comitatus act passed in the 19th century forbids a military role in law enforcement among Americans."

Meh. Rules were meant to be broken. Hey Everyone! Let's go to the mall!

What's next? Sending in Seal Team Six for unpaid traffic fines?

Texas Police Hit Organic Farm With Massive SWAT Raid
A small organic farm in Arlington, Texas, was the target of a massive police action last week that included aerial surveillance, a SWAT raid and a 10-hour search.

Members of the local police raiding party had a search warrant for marijuana plants, which they failed to find at the Garden of Eden farm. But farm owners and residents who live on the property told a Dallas-Ft. Worth NBC station that the real reason for the law enforcement exercise appears to have been code enforcement. The police seized "17 blackberry bushes, 15 okra plants, 14 tomatillo plants ... native grasses and sunflowers," after holding residents inside at gunpoint for at least a half-hour, property owner Shellie Smith said in a statement. The raid lasted about 10 hours, she said.

Local authorities had cited the Garden of Eden in recent weeks for code violations, including "grass that was too tall, bushes growing too close to the street, a couch and piano in the yard, chopped wood that was not properly stacked, a piece of siding that was missing from the side of the house, and generally unclean premises," Smith's statement said. She said the police didn't produce a warrant until two hours after the raid began, and officers shielded their name tags so they couldn't be identified. According to ABC affiliate WFAA, resident Quinn Eaker was the only person arrested -- for outstanding traffic violations.

The city of Arlington said in a statement that the code citations were issued to the farm following complaints by neighbors, who were "concerned that the conditions" at the farm "interfere with the useful enjoyment of their properties and are detrimental to property values and community appearance." The police SWAT raid came after "the Arlington Police Department received a number of complaints that the same property owner was cultivating marijuana plants on the premises," the city's statement said. "No cultivated marijuana plants were located on the premises," the statement acknowledged.

The raid on the Garden of Eden farm appears to be the latest example of police departments using SWAT teams and paramilitary tactics to enforce less serious crimes. A Fox television affiliate reported this week, for example, that police in St. Louis County, Mo., brought out the SWAT team to serve an administrative warrant. The report went on to explain that all felony warrants are served with a SWAT team, regardless whether the crime being alleged involves violence.

In recent years, SWAT teams have been called out to perform regulatory alcohol inspections at a bar in Manassas Park, Va.; to raid bars for suspected underage drinking in New Haven, Conn.; to perform license inspections at barbershops in Orlando, Fla.; and to raid a gay bar in Atlanta where police suspected customers and employees were having public sex. A federal investigation later found that Atlanta police had made up the allegations of public sex.

Other raids have been conducted on food co-ops and Amish farms suspected of selling unpasteurized milk products...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/texas-swat-team-conducts-_n_3764951.html

Well if you have half your police budget dedicated to SWAT you have to use the capability to prove you need the service.

jeffmarkel said:

What's next? Sending in Seal Team Six for unpaid traffic fines?

Mr. Bookman would have liked to have a Swat Team to collect Library Fines.

Texas swat team holds organic farmers at gunpoint, looking for marijuana, while cops give out free Doritos to attendees of marijuana festival in Seattle, where pot is legal:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/marijuana/2013/08/17/seattle-police-hand-out-doritos-at-hempfest-opening-saturday/

jeffmarkel said:

What's next? Sending in Seal Team Six for unpaid traffic fines?

Texas Police Hit Organic Farm With Massive SWAT Raid
A small organic farm in Arlington, Texas, was the target of a massive police action last week that included aerial surveillance, a SWAT raid and a 10-hour search.

Members of the local police raiding party ...

So, this doesn't fit into St. Rand's tales of Federal government actions.

Was it stupid? Yes. Was it an over-reaction? Absolutely.

Does it justify the whole "libertarian" ranting? Not at all.

That story regarding the farm is unfortunate, but it is also becoming more & more common. I almost forgot about this thread. We let this go for a while, but there has been plenty of this type of thing going on to keep the thread going over the 8 months or so. The author of the Huffington post article, Radley Balco is an expert on this type of thing & has written some worthy books on the subject.

I'm not sure how Rand fits in with this incident. I didn't hear him comment on this particular incident. Of course, this doesn't mean he hasn't. If he has, I'm not sure he would be wrong too. I would have to hear the comments to understand the link to the Federal Government. I will say this. There clearly is a link. Much of the funding for the equipment used by these more militarized police forces is from the Federal Government. Usually, it is from legislation stemming from the War on Terror.

One aspect of this that I have heard Rand Paul talk about definitely involves the Federal Government. There's this method known as Parallel Construction. Essentially, here's how it works. The NSA has spying powers for National Security. Of course, these powers have been broadened by things like the Patriot Act. But then they are used for other reasons. In many cases the War On Drugs.

So, the DEA gets information from phone/email records, wiretaps, etc by the NSA. They then use this to get someone on Drug Charges. Only they don't use this as evidence. They construct another parallel trail of evidence discovered later. They never tell the Defendant, the defense attorneys, the judges, etc. about this. This is apparently Standard Operating Procedure. From the article:

A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.

Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.

"I have never heard of anything like this at all," said Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011. Gertner and other legal experts said the program sounds more troubling than recent disclosures that the National Security Agency has been collecting domestic phone records. The NSA effort is geared toward stopping terrorists; the DEA program targets common criminals, primarily drug dealers.

"It is one thing to create special rules for national security," Gertner said. "Ordinary crime is entirely different. It sounds like they are phonying up investigations."

Here's a good bit on how it is Standard Operating Procedure(emphasis mine):

After an arrest was made, agents then pretended that their investigation began with the traffic stop, not with the SOD tip, the former agent said. The training document reviewed by Reuters refers to this process as "parallel construction."

The two senior DEA officials, who spoke on behalf of the agency but only on condition of anonymity, said the process is kept secret to protect sources and investigative methods. "Parallel construction is a law enforcement technique we use every day," one official said. "It's decades old, a bedrock concept."

A dozen current or former federal agents interviewed by Reuters confirmed they had used parallel construction during their careers. Most defended the practice; some said they understood why those outside law enforcement might be concerned.

"It's just like laundering money - you work it backwards to make it clean," said Finn Selander, a DEA agent from 1991 to 2008 and now a member of a group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which advocates legalizing and regulating narcotics.

Some defense lawyers and former prosecutors said that using "parallel construction" may be legal to establish probable cause for an arrest. But they said employing the practice as a means of disguising how an investigation began may violate pretrial discovery rules by burying evidence that could prove useful to criminal defendants.

not terrible, but not good either:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow