#113788 - 05-12-03 05:10 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
dademz1
Member
Registered: 06-14-01
Posts: 22434
Loc: Somewhere East of Disorder
|
I saw that article this morning.....
Now that is realllllllllllllllllllly Creepy, and to deputize State officals to Cross State Lines is even worse and attacks the soveriegnity of the State of Oklahoma
Jewel, Get the Militia ready those boys from Texas are ready to invade....
_________________________
I can't believe That I may have the oldest active membership 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113789 - 05-13-03 08:49 AM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Slippy
Member
Registered: 01-23-03
Posts: 347
|
Events of 11 Sept. 2001 clinched GOP and funnymentalist determination to tighten the intolerant right-wing grip on our cherished civil rights. Our losses are coming in increments, as a fearful and cowed U.S. majority of duped citizens foolishly follows a robotic appointed president who has absolutely no feeling for any human being not of his immediate family and circle of [wealthy] friends:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/121572_gps12.html
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Court will decide if police need warrant for GPS 'tracking'
Monday, May 12, 2003
By KATHY GEORGE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
William Bradley Jackson worried that he hadn't properly concealed his victim's shallow grave. So he snuck away one quiet fall day to finish the job, unaware that sheriff's deputies had secretly attached a satellite tracking device to his truck.
Police trickery triumphed over his treachery.
Spokane County sheriff's investigators used the hidden device to retrace Jackson's path to the gravesite, where they found crucial evidence that would lead to his murder conviction in 2000.
But what if the same secret technology, called global positioning satellite tracking, could track anyone at any time?
The Washington Supreme Court will decide soon whether police agencies throughout the state may use the device freely -- without a warrant. The Jackson case is the first in the state dealing with the issue.
"Do we really want the ability to track everybody all the time, without any suspicion, or without probable cause?" asked Doug Klunder, a Seattle attorney who wrote an amicus brief, or friend of the court, in the case on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington. "How close are we to Big Brother?"
Many law enforcement agencies, including the King County Sheriff's Office and King County Prosecutor's Office, believe no warrant is needed for the tracking devices.
That's because they simply record electronically what anyone could see by following a vehicle on the public streets.
"We'd be shocked if the court said otherwise," said King County sheriff's spokesman Kevin Fagerstrom.
In Jackson's case, the state Court of Appeals in Spokane agreed no warrant was needed.
The court's opinion last year said, "A law officer could legally follow Mr. Jackson's vehicles on public thoroughfares .... The GPS devices made Mr. Jackson's vehicles visible or identifiable as though the officers had merely cleaned his license plates, or unobtrusively marked his vehicles and made them plain to see."
Critics of the Spokane court's opinion say there's a big difference between following someone's real-time movements and recording them for computer analysis later. "There's just something that feels more underhanded about it," said Klunder.
It's not just government abuse the ACLU fears. Stalkers could use GPS to find their victims, and jealous husbands could use it to spy on their wives. "If the police can do it without a warrant, then presumably a private citizen can, too," Klunder said.
But then there's Jackson's victim -- his 9-year-old daughter, Valiree. In a way, she is the poster child for secret tracking technology.
The girl with curly red hair was buried in a remote, hilly forest off an unmarked logging road. If not for the device on her father's truck, deputies may never have found her remains.
And the shocking truth -- that Jackson killed his daughter as she slept in her bed in the family's Spokane Valley home -- might never have been known.
Jackson tried hard to mislead police, court records say. The morning of Valiree's murder on Oct. 18, 1999, he called 911 and reported her missing. He went around the neighborhood, calling her name and asking if anyone had seen her. Then he took his feigned search to her elementary school.
Deputies, aided by police dogs and 44 citizen volunteers, scoured dozens of nearby homes. But their suspicions quickly turned to Jackson, court records say.
Investigators found blood on Valiree's pillow and sheet. They found her diary, which said her father wouldn't leave her alone in her room. And they learned of a possible motive -- that he wanted his daughter out of the way so he could marry his girlfriend.
Deputies impounded Jackson's 1995 Ford pickup and his 1985 Honda Accord shortly after the girl's disappearance. They attached the GPS devices to the vehicles and returned them.
The GPS recordings showed that, about three weeks after the murder, he drove to his daughter's remote burial spot and stayed for 44 minutes.
A few days later he stopped for 16 minutes at another place, where police later found two plastic bags with duct tape containing Valiree's blood and hair.
Jackson's guilt is no longer at issue. The sole question in the Supreme Court hearing May 20 is whether GPS tracking should require a warrant.
The privacy rights of Washington citizens are at stake, said Lisa Daugaard of the Seattle-King County Public Defender Association.
Following the Spokane court's reasoning, she said, "There is no constitutional barrier to the police secretly inserting a tracking device into a suspect's clothes or even his body, because for the most part, people move around from place to place in 'plain view.' "
Neither the King County Sheriff's Department nor the Seattle Police Department has used GPS tracking much.
Last fall, a GPS device helped sheriff's deputies find the remains of Ken Leopold, a Snohomish County man whose death remains a mystery, Fagerstrom said.
The device was attached to a dog as it searched for and eventually recovered the man's bones.
Cynthia Caldwell, assistant Seattle police chief, said the narcotics unit used GPS only once in the past three years, "and we did get a warrant."
Police got a warrant for GPS in Jackson's case, too.
Jackson tried to reverse his murder conviction by arguing that deputies didn't have probable cause for that warrant, but the appeals court said no probable cause was required.
If the Supreme Court agrees no warrant is needed for GPS, "this would be an unprecedented extension of governmental power to monitor citizens' whereabouts and behavior," Daugaard said.
Said Klunder of the American Civil Liberties Union: "Really, we get to the possibility of a police state."
SURVEILLANCE DEBATE
WHAT: Should a warrant be required to secretly track someone's movements with a global positioning satellite device?
WHO: The Washington Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case, which pits police and prosecutors against civil liberties advocates and public defenders.
WHEN: 9 a.m., Tuesday, May 20.
WHERE: Temple of Justice, 415 12th St. W., Olympia.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113791 - 05-13-03 09:41 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
toxteth o'grady
Uncivil Engineer
Registered: 10-24-01
Posts: 64784
Loc: At the airport
|
Originally posted by American Patriot: This, to me, qualifies as "police state" because of the brazenness. THe Texas State GOP members don't want debate, they just want bodies.
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/ap05-12-090707.asp?t=apnew&vts =51220031340
State troopers, Texas Rangers sent to arrest absent Democratic lawmakers
By CONNIE MABIN
ASSOCIATED PRESS
AUSTIN, Texas, May 12 — State troopers and the elite Texas Rangers were ordered to track down and bring in 59 Democratic lawmakers who brought the Texas House to a standstill Monday by going into hiding
- - more at link - -
Ah, Lege on the run. That happened once before in Texas, when Democrats went on the lam... from other Democrats. Considering the kind of stupid crap the Texas Legislature spits out when it has a full complement, it's probably a good thing when a few of them gum up the works by heading for the hills...
_________________________
"It's my party and I'll cry if I want to" --Abe Lincoln
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113792 - 05-14-03 06:29 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
American Patriot
Member
Registered: 08-25-02
Posts: 10128
|
I don't know if this qualifies as "police state" or "corrupt politicians getting their commuppance," but it seems to be happening a lot recently...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20030514-1439-councilraid.html
FBI agents accompanied by San Diego police raided the offices of three San Diego City Council members shortly before 1 p.m. Wednesday.
The offices being searched were those of council members Michael Zucchet, Charles Lewis and Ralph Inzunza, said Councilwoman Donna Frye.
"I have no idea what this is about,"'' Frye said.
No charges have been filed, FBI Agent Jan Caldwell said in a brief statement.
"We'll try to wrap up the investigation as expeditiously as possible," Caldwell said.
Mayor Dick Murphy held a brief news conference to announce that federal agents told him his office is not a subject of the investigation.
_________________________
GOP 2010: FEAR, IGNORANCE & DIVISIVENESS
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113793 - 05-15-03 04:00 AM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Time to repeal Patriot Act. Federal agencies may have been used to track down TX democrats:
Posted on Wed, May. 14, 2003
Eyes of Texas, U.S. on truant legislators
By Jay Root
Star-Telegram Austin Bureau
Wives have been watched. A former House speaker's plane was tracked. Federal officials have been asked to intervene. Even the El Paso Police Department has gotten involved.
The hunt for Democrats on the lam from the Texas Legislature has involved virtually every level of government, ranging from a house call by local cops to monitoring conducted -- apparently unwittingly -- by a California-based agency that normally is involved in the fight against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
snip
Vinger would not divulge details of the hunt. Nor did he shed any light on what role, if any, the federal government might have in picking up the 51 Democrats holed up in Ardmore -- a subject made all the more confusing by statements from Republican leaders in Austin and Washington.
At the Capitol in Washington, U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, said that the speaker of the Texas House in Austin, Tom Craddick, R-Midland, had asked for the FBI or U.S. marshals to intervene.
"The speaker asked the FBI and/or U.S. marshals to go up and get these members," DeLay told reporters.
But Craddick, who a day earlier had suggested the possibility of federal involvement, said Tuesday that he made no calls to any federal agencies, saying that it was an issue for the DPS.
"I'm not into that," he said.
snip
One federal agency that became involved early on was the Air and Marine Interdiction and Coordination Center, based in Riverside, Calif. -- which now falls under the auspices of the Homeland Security Department.
The agency received a call to locate a specific Piper turboprop aircraft. It was determined that the plane belonged to former House Speaker Pete Laney, D-Hale Center.
The location of Laney's plane proved to be a key piece of information because, Craddick said, it's how he determined that the Democrats were in Ardmore.
"We called someone, and they said they were going to track it. I have no idea how they tracked it down," Craddick said. "That's how we found them."
snip
web page
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113794 - 05-15-03 10:05 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
toxteth o'grady
Uncivil Engineer
Registered: 10-24-01
Posts: 64784
Loc: At the airport
|
So the DHS is hunting killer bees. They will leave no hive undisturbed.
_________________________
"It's my party and I'll cry if I want to" --Abe Lincoln
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113795 - 05-16-03 02:53 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
These folks are compiling an archive of similiar stories:
Chilling Effects of Anti-Terrorism
"National Security" Toll on Freedom of Expression
The right to free speech faces the strongest challenges during times of crisis. Whether or not any of us agree about each particular decision made to prevent public access to sensitive information, it is the Electronic Frontier Foundation's responsibility to chart any such efforts so that we as a society are at least aware of what is no longer available to us.
This page attempts to convey the chilling effect that responses to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have had on information availability on the Internet as well as some sense of the effect on people trying to provide this information.
Currently, this page tracks the following:
* Websites Shut Down by US Government
* Websites Shut Down by Other Governments
* Websites Shut Down by Internet Service Provider
* Websites Shut Down or Partially Removed by Website Owner
* US Government Websites That Shut Down or Removed Information
* US Government Requests to Remove Information
* Media Professionals Terminated or Suspended
* Other Employees Terminated or Suspended
* Related Incidents
* Related Links
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/antiterrorism_chill.html
Guaranteed to get your  into overdrive.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113796 - 05-17-03 02:47 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
pdarbyc
Member
Registered: 03-20-03
Posts: 386
|
A small but significant item:
There is a thread on this forum entitled "Vote to Impeach Bush." The same thread is running on another forum with which I am involved, and people there have stated they are afraid to vote at the impeachment site, as they fear authorities from Homeland Security might track them via their votes.
How sad and frightening. When we look back on this era in a decade or so, will we say that "we should have done something?"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113797 - 05-21-03 09:44 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
toxteth o'grady
Uncivil Engineer
Registered: 10-24-01
Posts: 64784
Loc: At the airport
|
Well, Total Information Awareness is back, in a new family-friendly version with a little smiley face on the cover. Why get your neighbors to spy on you when computers will do it without qualms?
Pentagon Details New Surveillance System
The Pentagon yesterday detailed the development of a massive computer surveillance system that would have the power to track people as never before.
It would identify people at great distances by the irises of their eyes, the grooves in their face or even their gait. It would look for suspicious patterns in video footage of people's movements. And it would analyze airline ticket purchases, visa applications, as well as financial, medical, educational and biometric records to try to predict terrorists' acts or catch them in the planning stage.
The technology does not yet exist, and no one knows whether its creation is even possible. Indeed, the very concept of what was originally known as the government's Total Information Awareness initiative raised so many privacy and civil liberties issues that, in February, Congress banned its deployment. Legislators asked for more information about the project and sought an analysis about how citizens' privacy would be balanced with the need for security.
The report that was delivered to legislators yesterday identifies the effort by a new name -- the Terrorist Information Awareness program. It sought to allay concerns about privacy by outlining policies to conduct spot audits of the data being collected and implementing technical safeguards.
"The program's previous name, 'Total Information Awareness' program, created in some minds the impression that TIA was a system to be used for developing dossiers on U.S. citizens," the Pentagon's research arm, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, said in a statement. "DoD's purpose in pursuing these efforts is to protect U.S. citizens by detecting and defeating foreign terrorist threats before an attack."...
_________________________
"It's my party and I'll cry if I want to" --Abe Lincoln
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113798 - 05-21-03 10:21 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
NYC1
Member
Registered: 01-16-02
Posts: 5534
|
Are we a Police State Yet?
Apparently not:
"Fewer than 50 people held as material witnesses in war on terror
Justice Department responds to House inquiry
Tuesday, May 20, 2003 Posted: 4:00 PM EDT (2000 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department had detained fewer than 50 people as material witnesses without charging them in the war in terror as of January and had gained 47 court-ordered delays in notifying people of search warrants, according to documents released Tuesday.
In addition, the FBI has conducted "fewer than 10" investigations involving visits to Islamic mosques, the Justice Department said. The department also said the FBI does not keep files on information collected at public places or events unless it relates directly to a criminal or terrorist probe.
The new details are part of a 60-page agency response to the House Judiciary Committee's request for information about the prosecution of the war on terror and use of the USA Patriot Act since the September 11, 2001, attacks."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/20/terrorism.patriotact.ap/index.html
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113799 - 05-21-03 10:27 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
toxteth o'grady
Uncivil Engineer
Registered: 10-24-01
Posts: 64784
Loc: At the airport
|
Hmmm - is it as few as 50 or as MANY as 50? Seems to me any number greater than 0 is a violation of the Constitution.
_________________________
"It's my party and I'll cry if I want to" --Abe Lincoln
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113800 - 05-27-03 01:17 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
"EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months."
web page
EO written in 1976, long before 9/11, and the establishment of Homeland Security:
Executive Order 11921
Adjusting emergency preparedness assignments to organizational and functional changes in Federal departments and agencies
Signed: June 11, 1976
Federal Register page and date: 41 FR 24294; June 15, 1976
Amends: EO 11490, October 28, 1969
Amended by: EO 12046, March 27, 1978
Supersedes: EO 11522, April 6, 1970; EO 11556, September 4, 1970 (in part); EO 11746, November 7, 1973
See: EO 11953, January 7, 1977; Pub. L. 94-412 (90 Stat. 1255, 50 U.S.C. 1601)
web page
More EOs:
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
web page
For a listing of Chimpy's EOs, click here .
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113801 - 05-27-03 01:31 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Slippy
Member
Registered: 01-23-03
Posts: 347
|
While our Bill of Rights is being crumpled, so-called 'state police' - like the FBI - remain incompetent and nonfeasant:
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP SAID IT BURNED HOUSES
Tue May 27, 9:18 AM ET, AP
SUPERIOR TOWNSHIP, Mich. - The radical environmental group Earth Liberation Front is claiming responsibility for fires that destroyed two houses near Ann Arbor in March.
The slogan "ELF, no sprawl" was spray painted on the garage door of a house next to one of those burned March 21 in the Mystic Forest subdivision. On its Web site, the group claims responsibility for the fires, which it says caused $400,000 in damage.
The group also takes responsibility for burning luxury homes being built near Philadelphia late last year. A picture of a burning home is featured on the Web site, along with instructions on how to start fires.
The group says no one has claimed responsibility for last summer's fires that destroyed two luxury homes under construction, but police said they suspect the ELF.
The FBI (news - web sites) has said it considers the Earth Liberation Front one of the nation's most prolific domestic terrorist organizations. The group has claimed responsibility for a series of antigrowth attacks in the past six years.
A message seeking comment was sent Tuesday to an e-mail address listed on the group's Web site but its Web site says it "uses direct action in the form of economic sabotage to stop the destruction of the natural environment."
Superior Township Fire Marshal Wayne Dickinson, whose department usually fights about three accidental house fires a year, said the arsons have people on edge.
"All of the builders are on pins and needles," he said. "They are getting security dogs and hiring people to sit in their houses because of what's going on."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp l=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=6&u=/ap/20030527/ap_on_re_us/torched_houses_2
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113802 - 05-27-03 01:40 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
NYC1
Member
Registered: 01-16-02
Posts: 5534
|
I think it is hilarious when people just copy and paste from internet sites and e-mails, without first doing a modicum of research. Zeroflux posted a hoax about an "inside trader" this morning. And I see OhMy has been doing the same with respect to Executive Orders. One short search is all that is sufficient to debunk her hilarious post. She copies and pastes the following, for example:
More EOs:
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
But when we check the text of the Executive Order (an order of President Kennedy, BTW), we see the following:
"Executive Order 10990
RE-ESTABLISHING THE FEDERAL SAFETY COUNCIL
WHEREAS section 33 (c) of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 784), declared it to be the purpose of the Congress to reduce the number of accidents and injuries among Government officers and employees, encourage safe practices, eliminate work hazards and health risks, and reduce compensable injuries; and
WHEREAS section 35 of that Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 785), further disclosed the interest of the Congress in the promotion of safety in Federal agencies and establishments; and
WHEREAS the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, as amended and as modified by Reorganization Plan No. 19 of 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), directs the heads of Government departments and agencies to develop, support, and foster organized safety promotion, and to keep such records of injuries and accidents to persons covered by the Act, and to make such statistical and other reports upon such forms as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe; and
WHEREAS the preponderance of accidents involving employees in the Federal service occur in field operations, the heads of executive departments and agencies, and through them, their supervisory staffs, including regional and field staffs, must exert leadership in the establishment of a sound accident prevention program at both the national and regional level; and
WHEREAS representatives of Federal employees should share a similar concern for the establishment of such programs; and
WHEREAS the President is authorized by the Act to establish by Executive order a safety council composed of representatives of Government departments and agencies to serve as an advisory body to the Secretary of Labor in furtherance of the safety program carried out by the Secretary pursuant to section 33 of the Act and to undertake such other measures as he deems proper to prevent injuries and accidents to persons covered by the Act:
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by section 33(c) of the Act and as President of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
SECTION 1. Establishment of Council. There is hereby established in the Department of Labor the Federal Safety Council, hereinafter referred to as the Council. The Council shall be composed of a Chairman, to be designated by the Secretary of Labor, and one qualified representative of each of the several executive departments and agencies and of the municipal government of the District of Columbia (hereinafter referred to as members). The heads of the departments and agencies and the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia shall designate the members representing them, respectively, and may also designate suitable alternate members. The Secretary of Labor may, as he deems appropriate, appoint representatives of national or international unions, having Federal employees as members, to serve as consultants to the various committees establilshed by the Council. The Chairman, members, alternate members, and consultants shall serve, as such, without compensation from the United States.
SEC. 2. Purpose and functions of Council. The Council shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of Labor in matters relating to the safety of civilian employees of the Federal government and the municipal government of the District of Columbia and the furtherance of the safety program carried out by the Secretary pursuant to section 33 of the Act. It shall advise the Secretary of Labor with respect to the development and maintenance of adequate and effective safety organizations and programs in the several departments and agencies of the Federal government and the municipal government of the District of Columbia and with respect to criteria, standards, and procedures designed to eliminate work hazards and health risks and to prevent mjuries and accidents in Federal employment.
SEC. 3. Council affiliates, committees, and officers. The Council shall include as an integral part of its organizational structure and operations such affiliates, hereafter established by the Council or now existing, in such manner and to such extent as it deems necessary properly and efficiently to perform its functions. The Council shall establish such committees, and may choose such officers (other than its chairman), as it finds necessary for carrying out its functions.
SEC. 4. Regulations. The Secretary of Labor shall prescribe appropriate regulations governing the activities and functions of the Council.
SEC. 5. Administrative and budgetary arrangementse. The Secretary of Labor shall make available necessary office space and furnish the Council necessary equipment, supplies, and staff services.
SEC. 6. Continuity. The Federal Safety Council established by this order shall be deemed to constitute a continuation of the Federal Safety Council heretofore existing under the provisions of Executive Order No. 10194 of December 19, 1950.
SEC. 7. Revocation. Executive Order No. 10194 of December 19, 1950, is hereby superseded.
JOHN F. KENNEDY
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 2, 1962."
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/jfkeo/eo/10990.htm
That's right, the FEDERAL SAFETY COUNCIL seems to be threatening to be part of the police state.
Too funny!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113803 - 05-27-03 02:11 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Not that commentary is allowed in this thread...but I offered a link to many EOs, and to the ones Bush has written. I made a notation of when the EO was written, and I offered a link.
I'm guessing that you have a specific problem with my posting links to EOs. Stick it.
Most of the EOs written, were ordered long before the institution of Homeland Security and Patriot Act, and I did note that. If you don't see how these EOs relate to the extraordinary power given to Bush, and the total lack of oversight regarding Homeland Security/PA, that's your problem.
I see some people would rather wallow in ignorance, than to know what government is doing. Again. Stick it. You'll have to excuse me, if I have no shame to offer, for posting links to NARA.
*Note: Zero, I realize my posting this is against guidelines. I am more than happy to delete it, immediately after NYC, the yapper, deletes his.*
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113804 - 05-27-03 04:34 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
pdarbyc
Member
Registered: 03-20-03
Posts: 386
|
Can't post a new thread, so putting this here, as it's important and current. Perhaps someone with new topic access could start one on this story:
U.S. Creating Death Camp.
Apparently the government is planning to turn Guantanamo Bay into a death camp for the prisoners who are now being held there in breach of the Geneva convention.
http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6494000%5E401,00.html
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113805 - 05-27-03 05:16 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
So...what does a "Red Alert" mean in terms of it's affect on you and me?
The Department of Homeland Security defines RED ALERT as a severe risk of terrorist attack and the highest level of anti-terrorist preparedness posture. According to Sid Caspersen, New Jersey's director of the office of counter-terrorism, if the nation escalates to RED ALERT, it means that YOU can be suspected by authorities to be the enemy if you venture outside your home. The former FBI agent said that RED ALERT would shut the state down. "Red means all non-critical functions cease. Non-critical would be almost all businesses, except those that are health-related. The government agencies would run at a very low threshold. The state police and the emergency management people would take control over the highways. You literally are staying home, is what happens, unless you are required to be out."
Terrorism's principal weapon is fear. Our authorities frequently go overboard on incidents - one unarmed tobacco farmer on a tractor (representing a message of Government duplicity in tobacco policies - subsidies on the one hand and prosecution on the other), paralyzed traffic in downtown Washington DC for two days this past week. We may anticipate authorities going over the top on Red Alert. The authorities and the media feed on fear, and also stimulate it, as has been done in previous wars. For individual citizens the bottom line simply is that one must be prepared to deal with it, both terrorist threats and federal, state and local over-the-top reactions. Do not dismiss those admonitions of stocking the house with a few days worth of supplies
http://www.afio.com/sections/wins/2003-11.html
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113806 - 05-28-03 02:26 AM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Fazli Sameer
Member
Registered: 03-31-02
Posts: 1670
Loc: Middle East
|
Harsh handling of Muslim traveller
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-44-686102,00.html
May 20, 2003
Harsh handling of Muslim traveller
From Mr Tony Willoughby
Sir, The head of IT at our law firm is a Muslim. He is a gentleman in every sense of the word. His fanaticism, if he has any, is restricted to cricket.
Last Sunday he went on a business trip to California. On arrival at Los Angeles he was detained and interrogated on suspicion of being a terrorist.
He has no criminal record and had with him all relevant documentation to explain his presence in the US.
He was held for 28 hours. For the first 12 hours he was refused access to a telephone. After 16 hours, not having been given any food, he asked if he could have some. He was given ham sandwiches and, when he explained that he
could not eat pork, he was told: "You eat what you are given." He did not eat. He was eventually escorted back to the airport in handcuffs and
deported.
Why he was detained in the first place is a mystery, but that is not my complaint. Part of the tragedy of the present situation is that innocent people are bound to suffer to some degree. What is inexcusable is the way he
was treated while in detention.
Treating people in a manner which demonstrates a total lack of respect for them as human beings is itself a form of terror and is calculated to provoke terror. The US authorities would do well to bear that in mind.
Yours faithfully,
TONY WILLOUGHBY,
Willoughby & Partners,
193 Marsh Wall,
Thames Quay, E14 9SG.
May 19.
_________________________
The only hope for the world is to teach the kids that war is evil
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113807 - 05-29-03 09:59 AM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
no one
Member
Registered: 09-17-01
Posts: 14086
Loc: no where
|
The title of the thread Are We A Police State yet? depends on what you accept when faced with the cold hard facts. Have you ever seen this kind of policy used in the 'Land of The Free' before this Administration?
Members Of Congress Urge John Ashcroft
To Drop Criminal Prosecution Of South Carolina Protester For Carrying An Anti-Bush Sign Outside Designated Zone
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) announced that eleven Members of the House of Representatives, including many leaders on the House Judiciary Committee and the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, sent a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft today, urging him to drop the Federal criminal prosecution of a South Carolina man who attended a Bush speech at an airport and refused to give up his sign reading, “No more war for oil.” In addition to Mr. Frank, signers on the letter include Ron Paul (R-TX), John Conyers (D-MI), James R. Langevin (D-RI), Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Howard L. Berman (D-CA), William D. Delahunt (D-MA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Melvin L. Watt (D-NC).
According to reports from protestor Brett Bursey and the press, police officers arrested Mr. Bursey for standing with thousands of Republicans welcoming the President at a Columbia, South Carolina airport because Mr. Bursey refused to change or put down his sign. Mr. Bursey reports he was told that if he wanted to protest the President, he would have to go to the designated protest site half a mile away near a highway and outside the sight and hearing of the President. “It's the content of your sign,” officials said.
Mr. Bursey was arrested and charged by the South Carolina police with trespassing. When that charge was soon dropped by South Carolina authorities, Mr. Bursey was then indicted by United States Attorney J. Strom Thurmond, Jr. for violation of a federal law that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas visited by the President. If Mr. Bursey is convicted in the non-jury trial that Mr. Thurmond is seeking, Mr. Bursey faces up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113808 - 05-29-03 05:29 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
daflyrod
Ursus arctos shamanus
Registered: 02-20-02
Posts: 422
Loc: Boise, Idaho
|
Students in an Ohio public school district will be fingerprinted to identify them in lunch lines, raising privacy concerns among parents.
Article here
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113809 - 05-29-03 07:58 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
NYC1
Member
Registered: 01-16-02
Posts: 5534
|
Democrat Senators sic the cops on a man exercising his right to free speech:
"Did Capitol cops muffle free speech?
The Capitol Police want new powers. They want to extend their reach throughout the District and surrounding suburbs. They want more officers, more staff, more everything — even a horseback patrol.
It’s all part of their mission “to protect and defend Democracy’s Greatest Symbol.” But a recent incident suggests that Capitol cops do more than just keep members of Congress safe. It appears they protect the lawmakers’ feelings, too.
But a recent incident suggests that Capitol Police officers do more than protect the members’ safety. It appears they protect the lawmakers’ feelings, too.
Early this month, Senate Democrats traveled to Cambridge, Md., for a retreat at the new Hyatt Regency resort. While the Democratic senators were there, the hotel’s lobby and public spaces were at times filled with onlookers.
One onlooker was a conservative Republican who was at the hotel with his son. As the Democratic senators — including Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Harry Reid (Nev.), Jon Corzine (N.J.) and Edward Kennedy (Mass.) — walked past, the man gave his son a running commentary on each lawmaker.
When the senior senator from New Jersey passed by, the man told his son, “That’s Jon Corzine. He bought his seat. He’s a multi-millionaire, and he literally bought his seat in the Senate.”
When the senior senator from Vermont walked by, the man said to his son, “That’s Pat Leahy. He’s the one who’s got everything bungled up in the judiciary because they don’t want to confirm the two Bush nominees” — a reference to Democratic filibusters of Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen.
As other Democrats filed past, the man made similar comments. Although he was speaking to his son, the man realized that some of the senators might have heard his words. “My voice does carry,” the man says. “I wasn’t trying to have them hear it; it just happened.”
The man says he suspected that the lawmakers had heard him when two of the senators he mentioned, Corzine and Leahy, turned to look at him as they walked by. Neither senator said anything, and there were no exchanges between the man and any of the senators.
The man thought nothing of it until 15 or 20 minutes later, when two plainclothes Capitol Police officers approached him. “They said, ‘Sir, can we see you for a minute?’” the man recalls. “They said, ‘Listen, two U.S. senators have complained that you made derogatory remarks about them, and they’re asking that you tone it down.’”
“I said, ‘Don’t I have a First Amendment right?’” the man remembers. He told the police officers that he had not used any profanity or said anything that could be construed as a threat.
The officers agreed, but added, “We’re just asking you to tone it down. They don’t like what you said.”
“I apologized and said, ‘If they want me to tone it down, I will.’” The man recalls. But he also told the officers that he was just stating the facts as he saw them about the senators.
The officers left. Later, the man went to a Starbucks in the hotel, where he bought a newspaper and sat down for a cup of coffee.
“I noticed that these two plainclothes officers came in,” the man recalls. “They sat down at the table next to me. They sat down exactly when I sat down. I was at that table a good hour, and when I finished, they got up and left.”"
http://www.thehill.com/york/052803.aspx
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113810 - 06-02-03 12:51 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Slippy
Member
Registered: 01-23-03
Posts: 347
|
MEDIA CONTROL = GOODBYE FREEDOM, Hello Police
Michael Powell and the FCC: Giving Away the Marketplace of Ideas
By Tom Shales
Monday, June 2, 2003; Page C01
Unless something dramatic and unexpected occurs to stop it, this is what will happen today in Washington: The Republican chairman of the Republican-dominated Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and his Republican majority will revise long-standing rules on media ownership in ways that will hugely benefit, among others, rich Republicans.
Revising and relaxing the rules that prohibit a single entity from controlling too large a percentage of American media will allow corporations that are already too big to become much, much bigger. Also much more powerful and much more oblivious to the common good.
The proposed changes are such a threat to First Amendment freedoms that even some Republicans on Capitol Hill have been brave enough to oppose them. And yet, a fat lot of good it does. FCC Chairman Michael Powell wants to plow ahead with his deregulation scheme no matter what. It appears he is trying to do more damage than any other chairman in FCC history.
Never mind that a diversity of voices -- voices with the ability to be heard -- is integral to the health and maintenance of a democracy. While Powell and his supporters claim that the existence of dozens, even hundreds, of channels on cable and satellite systems proves there's diversity unbound, Powell's critics note that the diversity is a mere illusion if only five fat companies own all those channels.
Maybe this isn't a "sexy" issue, and it's received only perfunctory coverage from the networks and stations affected -- because it isn't visual, or because reporters and producers know that corporate management would prefer no such stories appear. But unless the word gets around somehow, unless people wise up and rise up, they'll discover that America's "marketplace of ideas" is owned and controlled by only a handful of appallingly powerful and interdependent corporations.
America in the 21st century faces dozens of socioeconomic problems requiring prompt government attention, obviously -- but would anyone argue that expanding the power and profits of omnivorous conglomerates is among them? Maybe Powell would, because he has made relaxing the ownership restrictions an obsessive crusade, pushing the changes through with little debate, great haste and even considerable secrecy.
"I'm opposed to the changes," says Barry Diller, chairman of USA Interactive and nothing if not a media mogul himself, "but I'm much more upset that this has not produced enough conversation and dialogue. The way Michael Powell has gone about it is to hide the issue as much as possible, organizing it to avoid debate and hearings, and getting it done largely under the cover of night."
Diller calls the rule changes "dark and dispiriting -- on the merits for sure, but also on the method." He says he doesn't understand why Powell and his supporters won't stop for a moment -- even just a 30-day delay -- to give the public more input. "Why are they so afraid of a mere pause?" Diller asks. "It's not like there's a bridge on fire."
Jeff Chester, executive director of the public-interest Center for Digital Democracy, says Powell has declined even to debate Diller, among others. "He refused to conduct [adequate] public hearings, he refused to have 30- or 60-day debates on the rules, he has been unwilling to reach out to the public," Chester says. "If Saddam Hussein had stayed in business, Powell might have made a great minister of information."
Powell's motive in ramming these changes through can't have anything to do with "the public interest, convenience and necessity" that the FCC is mandated to safeguard, because it's all about corporate interest, convenience and (to stretch the term) necessity instead. Perhaps Powell, who is the son of Secretary of State Colin Powell and a communications lawyer, believes that by making this generous bequest to corporate America, he is enhancing his own political future. He may have his eyes on a cabinet-level position if Bush gets a second term, and might even imagine himself being named attorney general.
Fortunately for the country but unfortunately for Powell, his stubbornness and arrogance have antagonized groups and individuals that might otherwise not have paid that much attention to the rules being changed. And the informal coalition opposing the changes is not -- unlike the FCC itself -- drawn along partisan political lines. Thus the conservative National Rifle Association is among the groups protesting the changes, and conservative columnist William Safire has called the rule changing a "power grab" by the rich and powerful. Safire also blasted the FCC for its refusal to hold ample public hearings on "the most controversial decision in its history."
In a May 22 column in the New York Times, Safire wrote, "The concentration of power -- political, corporate, media, cultural -- should be anathema to conservatives . . . Why do we have more channels but fewer real choices today? Because the ownership of our means of communication is shrinking. Moguls glory in amalgamation, but more individuals than they realize resent the loss of local control and community identity."
Andrew Jay Schwartzman, executive director of the activist Media Access Project, says "hundreds of thousands of postcards" protesting the proposed changes have taken Powell and his two fellow Republicans on the commission by surprise.
"The Internet group 'moveon.org' got a much bigger response than they expected" when they exposed the issue on the Web, Schwartzman says. "They got 3,000 responses on the Bush tax cut, but they've received 180,000 and counting on media ownership. People may not understand the details -- things like 'lifting the cap' and 'the top 12 markets' and so on -- but they know this is bad. They know the idea of a few companies owning everything is a bad one.
"This is about democracy having as many ideas and opinions out there as possible. That's why it's so important, and people are starting to realize that."
Ted Turner, one of the most influential communications entrepreneurs in American history, has also come out against the Powell's precipitous plan. The new, relaxed rules would "stifle debate, inhibit new ideas and shut out smaller businesses trying to compete," Turner wrote in The Washington Post on Friday. "If these rules had been in place in 1970, it would have been virtually impossible for me to start Turner Broadcasting or, 10 years later, to launch CNN."
Bob Edwards, anchor of NPR's "Morning Edition," talked about the myth of media diversity in a lecture last month at his alma mater, the University of Kentucky.
"It's kind of a cruel, ironic joke," Edwards said. "The rise of cable TV and the Internet were supposed to democratize the media and give us many voices and numerous points of view. Instead, market forces and deregulation have clobbered diversity. The networks and cable channels have the same owners -- Hollywood studios, mainly -- and the most popular Web sites for news are those of organizations firmly established before the Web was spun."
Edwards used the example of the Dixie Chicks to show how monolithic media can manipulate public opinion. During that not-so-long-ago pre-war era -- before America "liberated" Iraq -- one of the Chicks uttered the now infamous opinion that as a Texan she was "ashamed" to be from the same state as Bush. There followed a huge tsunami of anti-Chicks protest. Or did there? Edwards said the supposedly populist "backlash against the Chicks" was mainly manufactured by Clear Channel Radio, a powerful and Texas-based corporation that owns 1,250 radio stations throughout the country. Songs by the Dixie Chicks, meanwhile, quietly dropped out of the playlists of many Clear Channel's country stations.
"Clear Channel loves George W. Bush," Edwards said. "Clear Channel would like the administration of George W. Bush to remove all remaining restrictions on the ownership of media properties. That is exactly what the Bush administration is considering."
If there is one public figure more than any other that symbolizes media greed and the lust for power, as well as profit, that figure is Rupert Murdoch, the megalomaniac Australian with an insatiable lust for broadcast and cable properties. Murdoch's support of the Bush administration has been rewarded over and over by non-regulating regulators and Republicans in Congress. Murdoch is poised to acquire controlling interest in DirecTV, the nation's largest satellite delivery system. This comes shortly after another company, EchoStar, was rebuffed by the Justice Department in its attempt to buy the same company. Murdoch's desire to acquire it was already well known.
Although it would be economically unwise, Murdoch could conceivably drop CNN, chief competitor to Murdoch's Fox News Channel, from the DirecTV bill of fare. However, we can all rest easy. Why? Because Murdoch says he won't do that. And surely it would be uncharitable to imagine that Murdoch's easy win on the DirecTV decision had anything to do with the conservative slant of Fox News or the fact that the channel was easily the loudest national media cheerleader on behalf of Bush's Iraq war.
Fittingly and shrewdly, a group opposing the changes in the ownership rules is using a picture of Murdoch as its symbol of power-mad gluttony in commercials designed to arouse public opinion. To support the changes, say the ads, is to give Murdoch and his empire even greater influence over American life.
Cross-ownership rules that prohibit one company from owning a TV station, radio station and a newspaper in the same market would also crumble and fall under the Powell initiative. This worries Chester, who says that while newspapers are now "the last bastion of serious journalism," making them part of the TV empire will subject them to the tyranny of ratings, lead to a "dumbing-down" of newspapers and result in news budgets being "slashed," because when corporations grow, the first thing they always do is look for ways to cut costs.
"History shows that when you borrow a lot of money to buy new properties," says Schwartzman, "you plow profits back into debt service and you cut costs. And viewers suffer."
NBC, owned by General Electric, has been permitted "temporarily" to operate three TV stations in the Los Angeles market, Schwartzman says. If Powell's rule changes go into effect, the arrangement is bound to become permanent, "and that will be the rule in the very largest markets across the country. The Tribune Company will own two stations in every market where it has a newspaper. So will Gannett."
Bigness leads to homogenization, sameness, conformity and mediocrity. And this will be some of the biggest bigness America has ever seen.
Schwartzman, for one, sees hope. Angry reaction on Capitol Hill to Powell's crusade has been "quite bipartisan," he says, and he thinks the White House may be getting "a little uneasy" about the sudden, if belated, public reaction. Such network news programs as "Nightline" and "NBC Nightly News" have even done stories on the proposals. By and large, though, the network reports have hugely underplayed the importance of the story -- and the tremendous bonanza awaiting the networks' corporate owners if Powell's public-be-damned philosophy is allowed to reign supreme.
In testimony supporting the rule changes at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, Viacom President Mel Karmazin said more deregulation of the business was overdue. Viacom owns CBS, MTV, UPN, Paramount and a herd of other cash cows. Karmazin whined that under the present rules, broadcasters are "handcuffed in their attempts to compete for consumers."
Yesterday on "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," Powell made a rare public appearance to defend the changes, saying they will be less drastic than has been speculated and necessary so that broadcasters can "remain economically viable in the advertising market."
Oh, they're really hurting. Diller scoffs. "Anybody who thinks they're in trouble hasn't read the profit statements of those companies," he says. "The only way you can lose money in broadcasting is if somebody steals it from you."
Michael Powell and the FCC are riding to the rescue of huge media conglomerates that need rescuing about as much as Spider-Man, Batman and the Terminator do. Unfortunately, you and I and the freedom of speech are the ones getting trampled in the stampede.
Staff writer John Maynard contributed research for this column.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1424-2003Jun1.html
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113811 - 06-06-03 12:37 AM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
ASHCROFT WANTS MORE POWER TO CIRCUMVENT AMERICAN'S CIVIL RIGHTS
From AOL: J. Holland /AP
WASHINGTON (June 5) - Attorney General John Ashcroft urged Congress on Thursday to expand the new anti-terror law to permit the government to hold more suspects indefinitely and extend the death penalty to more people accused of terrorist crimes.
He also said the current anti-terror law, which critics say is cramping citizens' legitimate rights, needs to be expanded to let prosecutors bring charges against anyone who helps or works with suspected terrorist groups as ``material supporters.''
Ashcroft held aloft what he said were copies of terrorist declarations of war against America. One quoted Nasser al-Fahd, a prominent Muslim cleric known to be sympathetic to al-Qaida, as saying it would be permissible if a bomb killed 10 million Americans.
Ashcroft also read aloud the names of people killed in the Sept. 11 attacks as he defended the Justice Department's use so far of anti-terrorism powers.
The USA Patriot Act has led to more than 3,000 ``footsoldiers of terror'' being stopped, Ashcroft said. But he also told the House Judiciary Committee the law ``has several weaknesses which terrorists could exploit, undermining our defenses.''
The death penalty provision would allow for executions in cases where a terrorist caused ``massive loss of life'' by attacking a military base, nuclear plant or energy plant, the Justice Department said.
Ashcroft also said some courts have said that ``going and taking training, and joining up with'' terrorist groups abroad could not be prosecuted under the current material support statute, and he wants that fixed.
``We need for the law to make it clear that it's just as much a conspiracy to aid and assist the terrorists, to join them for fighting purposes, as it is to carry them a lunch or to provide them with a weapon,'' the attorney general said.
In addition, federal suspects in gun, drug and organized crime cases ``where public safety is a concern'' automatically are held indefinitely when they are arrested, Ashcroft said. ``It seems as though the crime of terrorism should have the same presumption,'' he said.
Justice officials indicated it was unclear whether the Bush administration would request any legislative proposals before the end of the congressional session.
House Democrats, meanwhile, complained about the way the Justice Department has used its current anti-terrorism powers, especially considering a department inspector general report Tuesday that criticized the government's treatment of illegal immigrants held after the attacks.
The inspector general found ``significant problems'' in the Bush administration's actions toward 762 foreigners held on immigration violations after the attacks. Only one, Zacarias Moussaoui, has been charged in the United States with a terrorism-related crime; 505 have been deported. Some were held for up to eight months and others complained of abuse.
Ashcroft said department policy, ``for which we do not apologize,'' is to detain people who are in the country illegally for as long as it takes to clear them before they are deported.
But Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, said, ``My fear is that we may go to the point of changing the culture of America, the First Amendment protections and the Fourth Amendment protections.''
Added Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif.: ``Some of us find that the collateral damage is greater than it needs to be in the conduct of this war.''
Ashcroft said he would investigate all abuse allegations, although 14 of 18 cases referred so far already have been cleared without any charges being filed. ``We do not stand for abuse,'' Ashcroft said.
While critics complain that civil liberties are being curtailed by the anti-terrorism law, Ashcroft said without it there might have been another major attack.
``Our ability to prevent another catastrophic attack on American soil would be more difficult, if not impossible, without the Patriot Act,'' Ashcroft said. ``It has been the key weapon used across America in successful counter-terrorist operations to protect innocent Americans from the deadly plans of terrorists.''
The tougher penalties in the law have persuaded some suspected terrorists to help the federal government root out other terrorists in exchange for lighter sentences, he suggested.
``One individual has given us intelligence on weapons stored here in the United States,'' Ashcroft said. ``Another cooperator has identified locations in the U.S. being scouted or cased for potential attacks by al-Qaida.''
The law expires in October 2005, and while House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner praised Ashcroft's work so far, he added, ``My support for this legislation is neither perpetual or unconditional.''
``I believe the department and Congress must be vigilant toward short-term gains which ultimately may cause long-term harm to the spirit of liberty and equality which animate the American character,'' the Wisconsin Republican said.
06/05/03 22:32 EDT
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113812 - 06-07-03 05:49 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
 George Soros to the rescue!
After 15 years and $1 billion in charity, international financier and philanthropist George Soros bid an emotional farewell to Russia on Thursday, saying it was time to focus his efforts on a nation more in need of help -- America.
"I was led to come to Russia because of my concern for a prospering open society," Soros told students and journalists at the Higher School of Economics, which was created with his funding. "But now I have to concentrate on what goes on in America. The fight for an open society now has to be fought there," he said.
snip]
Looking forward, Soros said he was worried about the state of the U.S. media and the administration of President George W. Bush for its handling of the situation in Iraq. "It's quite wonderful to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but you can't do it the way it was done on this occasion, because now what do you do about the Turkmenbashi of Turkmenistan, or [Zimbabwe's Robert] Mugabe?"
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2003/06/06/003.html
(He also has some interesting takes on the administration's manipulation of the dollar for, what else, political ends)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113813 - 06-07-03 11:16 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Sirius Li
Member
Registered: 09-20-04
Posts: 273
|
It will be tough to become a police state if all the police depts. around the country are forced to cut their forces due to budget deficits at local and state levels, and reduced funding from the feds.
Bush has cut the Clinton program that put 100,000 cops on the street. That means small depts. in Portland and Seattle have cut back cops, froze hiring and won't be replacing those who retire.
Petty crimes won't be prosecuted due to lack of funds.
How does that translate to a police state?
As budgets shrink, cities see impact in criminal justice - and lose cops
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113814 - 06-08-03 12:02 AM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The trend towards "secret police", under the control of Rummy and Asscroft is the major concern. There are a multitude of links to the ambitions of those two.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113815 - 06-12-03 05:52 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Lawyer: Eglin inmate gets solitary for 'political' news clippings
Friday, June 6, 2003
Associated Press
EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE — An inmate serving 90 days at the federal prison camp here for protesting at another military base was put in solitary confinement because he received and distributed political newspaper and magazine clippings, his lawyer said Thursday.
web page
Damned radical!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113816 - 07-13-03 02:59 AM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
BUSH ADMINISTRATION SUED FOR ATTACK ON 1st AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF HEAD START INSTRUCTORS AND PARENTS/VOLUNTEERS
National Head Start Association Sees Obvious and Severe Free-Speech Problems with Attempt to Silence Critics of White House/GOP House Bill
WASHINGTON, D.C.///June 11, 2003/// The National Head Start Association (NHSA) filed today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia a lawsuit seeking to overturn a Bush Administration effort to chill the First Amendment free-speech rights of 51,681 Head Start teachers and more than 870,000 parent volunteers who have serious concerns about a controversial White House plan now pending before the U.S. House to dismantle the Head Start program serving one million at-risk children across America.
snip
The NHSA lawsuit states: "The Administration has proposed new Head Start legislation that would, if enacted, result in a major new role for States and diminish the rights now enjoyed by Head Start grantees and the parents of Head Start children. Although the Head Start program is well-known, specific knowledge of how the program works is largely confined to those who administer or participate in such programs - parents, staff and outside volunteers In code that is easily decipherable by Head Start grantees, the Hill letter threatens such individuals with loss of grant funding and even criminal sanctions for expressing their views on the proposed legislation. As a result, parents, staff and volunteers who ordinarily would speak out are being silenced. It is essential that this Court put a quick end to the Hill letter's unlawful suppression of speech."
The lawsuit also contains the following passage: "Such a threat necessarily has a chilling impact on the non-profit Head Start community. Funds or resources of non-profit grantees not already committed to Head Start or other similar efforts are sparse to non-existent. Many cannot even afford to hire counsel to advise them on the Hill letter, much less to defend them should any sanctions be brought by HHS. Because of this ?the Hill letter has made parents and staffs of non-profit Head Start grantees afraid to communicate their opinions concerning the proposed legislation, to Congress or elsewhere."
snip
Edward T. Waters, managing partner, Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell LLP and outside counsel for NHSA, commented: "The legal problems with the Bush Administration letter are both obvious and severe. The letter exceeds the boundaries of any conceivably applicable statute or regulation as to the actions it prevents and the sanctions it threatens. In so doing, it unlawfully chills the free expression of political speech by a grantee or parent or staff with its/their own money or on its/their own time ?
web page
Snippets from a letter (.pdf) written by Wendy Hill, Associate Commissioner, Head Start Bureau:
If information will be or has been disseminated pursuant to a request from an advocacy group, that dissemination would constitute promotion of lobbying, which is a prohibited use of Federal funds. If a grantee has done this, it must prove that Federal funds, or resources purchased with those funds—such as Head Start staff time and facilities—were not used as requested by the advocacy group.
web page
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113817 - 07-15-03 06:19 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
Thread Consolidation. Originally posted by Hershel
Felony aggravated battery for throwing a water balloon?
Apparently, Speaker Hastert got wet with a water balloon at a parade.
Yahoo
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113818 - 07-15-03 11:37 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Here's a list of 14 characteristics of Fascism.
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way about, or even approve of, torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Any of this sound familiar?
Link:
http://www.cliffpearson.com/mod.php?mod=userpage&menu=30&page_id=66
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113819 - 07-16-03 01:59 AM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
Thread Consolidation. Originally posted by pdarbyc
I would like to see anyone defend this:
http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6494000%5E401,00.html
Why does international law apply to every country except the US?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113820 - 07-17-03 04:09 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Be very, very careful about what you read in public:
You don't want that? Have I just been threatened by the FBI? Confusion and a light dusting of panic conspire to keep me speechless. Was I reading something that morning? Something that would constitute a problem?
The partner speaks up again: "Maybe a printout of some kind?"
Then it occurs to me: I was reading. It was an article my dad had printed off the Web. I remember carrying it into Caribou with me, reading it in line, and then while stirring cream into my coffee. I remember bringing it with me to the store, finishing it before we opened. I can't remember what the article was about, but I'm sure it was some kind of left-wing editorial, the kind that never fails to incite me to anger and despair over the state of the country.
I tell them all this, but they want specifics: the title of the article, the author, some kind of synopsis, but I can't help them -- I read so much of this stuff.
"Do you still have the article?" Probably not, but I suggest we check behind the counter. When that doesn't pan out, I have the bright idea to call my dad at work, see if he can remember. Of course, he can't put together a coherent sentence after I tell him the FBI are at the store, questioning me.
"The FBI?" he keeps asking. Eventually I get him off the phone, and suggest it may be in my car. They follow me out to the parking lot, where Trippi asks me if there's anything in the car he should know about.
"Weapons, drugs? It's not a problem if you do, but if you don't tell me and then I find something, that's going to be a problem." I assure him there's nothing in my car, coming very close to quoting Rudy Ray Moore in Dolemite: "There's nothin' in my trunk, man."
The excitement of the questioning -- the interrogation -- has made me just a little bit giddy. I almost laugh out loud when they ask me to pop my trunk.
There's nothing in my car, of course. I keep looking anyway, while telling them it was probably some kind of what-did-they-know-and-when-did-they-know-it article about the buildup to Gulf War II. Trippi nods, unsatisfied. I turn up some papers from the University of Georgia, where I'm about to begin as a grad student. He asks me what I'm going to study.
"Journalism," I say. As I duck back into the car, I hear Agent Trippi informing his partner, "He's going to UGA for journalism" in a way that makes me wonder whether that counts against me.
Back in the store, Trippi gives me his card and tells me to call him if I remember anything. After he's gone, I call my dad back to see if he has calmed down, maybe come up with a name. We retrace some steps together, figure out the article was Hal Crowther's "Weapons of Mass Stupidity" from the Weekly Planet, a free independent out of Tampa.
It comes back to me then, this scathing screed focusing on the way corporate interests have poisoned the country's media, focusing mostly on Fox News and Rupert Murdoch -- really infuriating, deadly accurate stuff about American journalism post-9-11. So I call the number on the card, leave a message with the name, author and origin of the column, and ask him to call me if he has any more questions.
To tell the truth, I'm kind of anxious to hear back from the FBI, if only for the chance to ask why anyone would find media criticism suspicious, or if maybe the sight of a dark, bearded man reading in public is itself enough to strike fear in the heart of a patriotic citizen.
My co-worker, Craig, says that we should probably be thankful the FBI takes these things seriously;
I say it seems like a dark day when an American citizen regards reading as a threat, and downright pitch-black when the federal government agrees.
Special Agent Trippi didn't return calls from CL. But Special Agent Joe Paris, Atlanta field office spokesman, stressed that specific FBI investigations are confidential. He wouldn't confirm or deny the Schultz interview.
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2003-07-17/rant.html
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113821 - 07-17-03 06:28 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Here's the article that the FBI found worthy of stalking Marc Shultz for reading:
http://charlotte.creativeloafing.com/newsstand/2003-06-04/news_cover.html
You have to wonder who is in charge at the FBI. I believe that:
- people who defend their right to bear arms includes the right to own rocket launchers,
- meth labs in San Bernadino,
- employees with a penchant for going postal on their co-workers,
- armed gangs roaming the streets
- child abusers,
- registered sex offenders living anywhere near my neighborhood and
- corrupt politicians
merit far more time and attention from law enforcement personnel, including the FBI, than some nerdy little bookstore owner reading an op ed piece.
I dare any news program and/or TV news magazine show to cover Marc Shultz's story.
Hey Morley Safer, Charlie Rose, Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters and the rest of you --- the guantlet has been thrown down!
The Notorious M.O.I.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113824 - 07-18-03 04:13 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
no one
Member
Registered: 09-17-01
Posts: 14086
Loc: no where
|
The title= Are we a police state?
After the vote on the resolution in the People's House today, I would say we are two thirds of the way there, if you want to go by THREE STRIKES YOU'RE OUT LAW. The Texas Republicans calling in the state police and Homeland security to arrest Democrats equals the first strike. Now we have the California Republican Ways and Means Chairman calling the police in to remove Democrats from a room is the second strike. One more strike by the Republican's and I would think it would be evident to anyone that we are indeed a POLICE STATE. Heil
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113825 - 07-21-03 11:14 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
toxteth o'grady
Uncivil Engineer
Registered: 10-24-01
Posts: 64784
Loc: At the airport
|
More on the grassroots resistance to the USA Patriot Act:
Communities shun Patriot Act
About 165 communities nationwide have passed resolutions condemning the USA Patriot Act. But one little city in northern California has taken its opposition a step further, making it a misdemeanor for city employees to cooperate in enforcing the federal antiterrorism measure.
In March, Arcata officials set down a $57 fine for those who don't "promptly notify the city manager" if federal law-enforcement authorities contact them seeking help in an investigation, interrogation or arrest under the provisions of the act.
But a city fine would be nothing compared with the penalties an Arcata official faces for obstructing a federal probe, a Justice Department spokesman said.
"Obviously, the folks [in Arcata] who voted for this ordinance haven't read the law," said Justice Department spokesman Mark C. Corallo.
"This is not the FBI or the Justice Department acting unilaterally," Mr. Corallo said. "Just like any other criminal investigation, these are tools that are not just legal, but they are constitutional and they are tools that have been available for law-enforcement authorities for decades."
The Patriot Act's most-criticized provision, for so-called roving wiretaps, merely allows investigators to "track a terrorist, instead of having to get multiple warrants for every phone the guy uses," Mr. Corallo explained.
Still, critics say, the reason so many communities are denouncing the Patriot Act is because they believe the measure — passed in the wake of the September 11 attacks — vastly expands the power of federal investigators, not only for investigating terrorism suspects, but also for probing into the lives of ordinary Americans....
_________________________
"It's my party and I'll cry if I want to" --Abe Lincoln
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113826 - 07-22-03 12:12 AM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
toxteth o'grady
Uncivil Engineer
Registered: 10-24-01
Posts: 64784
Loc: At the airport
|
Sadly, a majority of Americans have no concept of their rights, and even a sizeable number of putative libertarians profess that our rights are finite, as witnessed by this tragic example:
Re: Business School - and public school
by: friday_is_hawaiian_shirt_day (41/M/Initech) 07/20/03 07:06 pm
Msg: 63554 of 63637
He's confused, he thinks there's a ton of rights that don't exist. He doesn't understand the difference between rights and entitlements, entitlements and earning, etc.. All of that stuff that productive people understand.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 63550 by prechilill
_________________________
"It's my party and I'll cry if I want to" --Abe Lincoln
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113827 - 08-18-03 10:34 AM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
no one
Member
Registered: 09-17-01
Posts: 14086
Loc: no where
|
Are we a police state? Yes in deedy, what else could we expect once we let Ashcroft in to complete their little take over. I look to the Democrats that bent over while the takeover took place. Now that the Neo cons hve a firm grip on our government, they have no intentions of playing fair, as they don't have to. A good example is the Harris Town Meeting that was evidently paid for with tax payers money and was nothing short of a campaign, because the other side was shown the door.
web page
Democracy and Election Law Asked To Leave the Building at Katherine Harris Townhall Meeting
Just a followup to this information.
I was personally told to leave the hall by two Bradenton police officers when I asked them how they could prevent people from bringing literature into the hall. They just said, "Those are the rules." so I asked, "What rules?", "Whose rules?", and "What law is that?". They just kept repeating, "Those are the rules." So I challenged them by saying, "You can't prevent people from posessing political literature. It's in the Constitution." At that point the two officers told me that I had to leave the building. I asked for one of their badge numbers and one of them gave me his card.
Prior to this, and also not in the paper, Jan Schneider, who was narrowly defeated by Harris and who is running again, entered the hall at about 4:30 pm and started distributing her literature. Harris aides first told her that she needed to put her flyers under Harris's material. Harris had a three color folded slick brochure, paid for with taxpayer dollars, on every chair. They wanted Schneider to put Harris's propaganda on top. When Jan refused, she was told that she could not put any literature out at all. She was told by a Harris staffer that,: "We paid for this hall." Schneider asked if the Harris campaign had paid for the Town Hall meeting. If they had, that would have meant that the taxpayer-funded literature was actually campaign literature and a violation of FEC regulations. If not, they had no right to restrict access. Instead of giving her an answer, they told her that she had to leave the hall. They then collected all of her literature and deposited it on a table outside.
snip;
Check out the Washington Post tomorrow. There may be more on this.
America is really becoming a police state. The group spokespeople cited in the article are from such subversive groups as AARP and the League of Women Voters.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113828 - 08-19-03 08:32 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
They did a shitty job trimming the hedges, but at least they watered the rest of the plants.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113829 - 08-19-03 08:50 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
You know...at first, I thought Zero was giving us a little taste of our own medicine. (See: derailing threads)
But I don't think he'd derail his police state thread.
Ok, who hacked into Zero's account? Hmmm? Fess up. Caustic?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113830 - 08-19-03 09:41 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
toxteth o'grady
Uncivil Engineer
Registered: 10-24-01
Posts: 64784
Loc: At the airport
|
Nah. Not vernacular enough...
_________________________
"It's my party and I'll cry if I want to" --Abe Lincoln
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113831 - 08-21-03 12:18 AM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
toxteth o'grady
Uncivil Engineer
Registered: 10-24-01
Posts: 64784
Loc: At the airport
|
Zero, have you seen this amusing and informative website yet? My bullpucky detector went off like a siren when I hit this site. Spin alert!
The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty
Congress enacted the Patriot Act by overwhelming, bipartisan margins, arming law enforcement with new tools to detect and prevent terrorism: The USA Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357–66 in the House, with the support of members from across the political spectrum.
The Act Improves Our Counter-Terrorism Efforts in Several Significant Ways:
:rolleyes:
_________________________
"It's my party and I'll cry if I want to" --Abe Lincoln
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113832 - 08-27-03 09:31 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
toxteth o'grady
Uncivil Engineer
Registered: 10-24-01
Posts: 64784
Loc: At the airport
|
Is there any force in Washington that could unite Grover Norquist with the ACLU? Sure - the CAPPS II Program.
CAPPS Navigates Unfriendly Skies
Despite the typical August slowdown in Washington, D.C., critics have been heating up efforts to halt or modify a new airline passenger-screening program that would set up a comprehensive internal border-control system to catch potential hijackers and those accused of violent crimes.
In a televised Monday morning press conference hosted by the American Civil Liberties Union, an ideologically diverse coalition of activist groups ranging from the NAACP to the anti-big-government group Americans for Tax Reform jointly criticized the proposed Computerized Airline Passenger Pre-Screening System II, or CAPPS II.
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, called CAPPS II part of "a series of police power and informational privacy power grabs that flowed from Sept. 11."
Norquist's criticism may signal trouble for CAPPS II -- he is known for his influential, well-attended weekly Washington get-togethers where tax reformers, conservative Christian groups and anti-gun-control groups meet with congressional and White House staffers to strategize and coordinate efforts.
Nearly all of the speakers at Monday's conference accused the proposed system of "mission creep," pointing to a provision to screen passengers for outstanding warrants for violent crimes. Several also suggested the system would eventually lead to the creation of a national identification card. ...
_________________________
"It's my party and I'll cry if I want to" --Abe Lincoln
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113833 - 09-08-03 12:39 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
zeroflux
Administrator
Registered: 03-11-01
Posts: 6175
Loc: Arlington, Virginia
|
Fierce Fight Over Secrecy, Scope of Law
Amid Rights Debate, Law Cloaks Data on Its Impact
In Seattle, the public library printed 3,000 bookmarks to alert patrons that the FBI could, in the name of national security, seek permission from a secret federal court to inspect their reading and computer records -- and prohibit librarians from revealing that a search had taken place.
In suburban Boston, a state legislator was stunned to discover last spring that her bank had blocked a $300 wire transfer because she is married to a naturalized U.S. citizen named Nasir Khan.
And in Hillsboro, Ore., Police Chief Ron Louie has ordered his officers to refuse to assist any federal terrorism investigations that his department believes violate state law or constitutional rights.
As the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks approaches, the Bush administration's war on terror has produced a secondary battle: fierce struggles in Congress, the courts and communities such as these over how the war on terror should be carried out. At the heart of this debate is the USA Patriot Act, the law signed by President Bush 45 days after the terror strikes that enhanced the executive branch's powers to conduct surveillance, search for money-laundering, share intelligence with criminal prosecutors and charge suspected terrorists with crimes.
Full Article
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113834 - 09-09-03 11:47 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
toxteth o'grady
Uncivil Engineer
Registered: 10-24-01
Posts: 64784
Loc: At the airport
|
In the future, your car will snitch on you...
The Snoop in Your Coupe
On a freeway north of Los Angeles, as Ryan Evans's sleek 1998 Honda Accord coupe speeds above 70 mph, the black box tucked under his front passenger seat grumbles a grating noise, warning the 18-year-old that he's going too fast.
If he doesn't ease up on the gas pedal within 10 seconds, the warning gets nastier. That's when Evans's souped-up "event data recorder" snitches on him. It will note the speeding incident, along with other dangerous driving behaviors, in a computer file.
"Most people's first response is, 'I don't want this in my car! It's an invasion!' But that all changes," says the Thousand Oaks, Calif., teenager. After 15 months of driving under close scrutiny of the black box, he is convinced he's a better driver.
Road Safety International, a Thousand Oaks firm that has sold 10,000 of its professional-grade recorders to paramedic, police and firefighter fleets, designed the cheaper consumer model that Evans is test-driving specifically for parents to install in their teenagers' cars. The modular components record data, such as seat-belt use, speed, hard braking, hard cornering, pedal-to-metal acceleration and throttle position, that can be uploaded to home computers using software that analyzes driving performance.
Sound futuristic? The $280 RS-1000 black box went on sale yesterday after RSI's owner, Larry Selditz, unveiled it at the National Safety Council's conference in Chicago.
But that's only the beginning: In three months, an under-$200 global positioning system accessory will be available to record where the car goes, "like bread crumbs on a road map," says Selditz. Next year, the communications module will allow parents to locate their teen drivers on an online map in real time.
"If my son says he's going to a friend's house to study tonight and he ends up going to the beach, I'm going to see that. If he speeds to the beach, I'm going to see that, too," says Selditz, who had the idea for the device when his son neared driving age.
"We're not trying to make their life miserable, and I won't tell you that they love it," he says. "But it really does change driving behaviors." ...
_________________________
"It's my party and I'll cry if I want to" --Abe Lincoln
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113835 - 09-09-03 11:49 PM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
These are interesting cases of "if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail," in a sense. It's like so many other things -- once you have the technology, you rationalize reasons to use it (Hiroshima, Nagasaki).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113836 - 09-21-03 10:07 AM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
tlbshow
Member
Registered: 09-20-04
Posts: 245
|
Meet Big Brother Fritz
'Trusted computers' are a wolf in sheep's clothing
Look, I'm hardly a computer or technology expert. In fact, it's all I can do to compose a piece of writing on the computer, and attach it to an e-mail to send to my editor at Creative Loafing in a manner that actually reaches the recipient. My attempts at Web-surfing are akin to swimming in a kiddie wading pool, while my kids, grandkids, wife and everyone else in my office is doing hang-fives on the Internet.
But what I do believe in is freedom -- freedom that includes privacy, and the expectation thereof whenever I decide to use the Web. That's why I became alarmed recently when I learned of something called the Trusted Computing Platform and an organization with the mission to legislate its implementation, the Trusted Computing Group.
BY BOB BARR
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#113837 - 09-21-03 11:50 AM
Re: Are we a Police State Yet?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Good catch, tlb. The main worry that I have regarding this new technology is lack of choice -- will we be able to buy computers that don't have this stuff installed?
It is virtually inevitable, I suppose -- anything like the internet that gives ordinary people a voice, and a powerful one at that, will eventually be regulated.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Lei
|
|
