Total Police State Takeover???

Discussion in 'Politics' started by trader556, Jul 2, 2003.

  1. Be careful what you ask for! you may get it.:(

    SECTION 122 gggg what's next? a minicam in your bedroom, so the gov't can protect you from inappropriate conduct?

    "Under Section 501 a US citizen engaging in lawful activities can be grabbed off the street and thrown into a van never to be seen again. The Justice Department states that they can do this because the person “had inferred from conduct” that they were not a US citizen. Remember Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act states that any violation of Federal or State law can result in the “enemy combatant” terrorist designation

    SECTION 103 allows the Federal government to use wartime martial law powers domestically and internationally without Congress declaring that a state of war exists.

    SECTION 106 is bone-chilling in its straightforwardness. It states that broad general warrants by the secret FSIA court (a panel of secret judges set up in a star chamber system that convenes in an undisclosed location) granted under the first Patriot Act are not good enough. It states that government agents must be given immunity for carrying out searches with no prior court approval. This section throws out the entire Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    ***SECTION 109 allows secret star chamber courts to issue contemp charges against any individual or corporation who refuses to incriminate themselves or others. This sections annihilate the last vestiges of the Fifth Amendment.

    SECTION 110 restates that key police state clauses in the first Patriot Act were not sunsetted and removes the five year sunset clause from other subsections of the first Patriot Act. After all, the media has told us: “this is the New America. Get used to it. This is forever.”

    SECTION 122 restates the government’s newly announced power of “surveillance without a court order.”

    SECTION 127 allows the government to takeover coroners’ and medical examiners’ operations whenever they see fit. See how this is like Bill Clinton’s special medical examiner he had in Arkansas that ruled that people had committed suicide when their arms and legs had been cut off.

    SECTION 128 allows the Federal government to place gag orders on Federal and State Grand Juries and to take over the proceedings. It also disallows individuals or organizations to even try to quash a Federal subpoena. So now defending yourself will be a terrorist action.

    SECTION 202 allows corporations to keep secret their activities with toxic biological, chemical or radiological materials.

    SECTION 205 allows top Federal officials to keep all their financial dealings secret, and anyone investigating them can be considered a terrorist

    SECTION 322 removes Congress from the extradition process and allows officers of the Homeland Security complex to extradite American citizens anywhere they wish. It also allows Homeland Security to secretly take individuals out of foreign countries.

    Usually, corrupt governments allow their citizens lots of wonderful rights on paper, while carrying out their jackbooted oppression covertly. From snatch and grab operations to warantless searches, Patriot Act II is an Adolf Hitler wish list."

    SECTION 103 is really scary. Do you know the ramifications of marshal law? man-o-man :mad: :mad: SECTION 109 sets us up for worst that COMMUNIST STATE? No due process no rights? Some SOB makes a decision and you are put away? With no defense? Be careful what you ask for. :( :( This is even worst than Patriot Act I (AND THE WAY IT WAS PASSED!) remember the anthrax letters to congress right after 9/11, DNA proved it was from our own labs and they stopped once the acts were signed.

    Lest not forget:

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin
    #11     Jul 3, 2003
  2. 556 - You have a serious problem with honesty. Why not just admit your liberal/ socialist convictions instead of trying to sound concerned about government control and intervention. If the liberals were doing the same things you would love their actions because that is the goal of liberal socialists. Under the previous administration, even without 9/11, they did everything to subvert private property and personal freedoms they could get away with. The lower level bureaucrats they hired are the absolute epitome of dishonesty and I can prove that on a daily basis. Remember WACO, Ruby Ridge, Elian Gonzalez, and the lynx hair hoax all liberal initiated and run. Liberal deception for 50 years is starting to be exposed and it is about time. They have to run on lies because no one would vote for them if they told the truth.
    #12     Jul 3, 2003
  3. msfe


    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than
    those who falsely believe they are free."

    Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

    A police state exists when federal and state police mechanisms:

    Serve the central government instead of serving the citizens

    Enforce the policies of the central government instead of responding primarily to criminal misdeeds

    Spy on and intimidate citizens

    All these conditions now exist in the United States!
    #13     Jul 3, 2003
    #14     Jul 3, 2003
  5. msfe - I don't know what planet you're on but you obviously don't know squat about the bulk of the USA. You better subscribe to some small town rural newspapers in the US west and mid west and get something besides the garbage you espouse.
    #15     Jul 3, 2003
  6. maxpi


    Here's the difference between liberals and conservatives: let's say you are 100 feet offshore and yelling for help because you can't swim. A conservative will throw you 50 feet of his own rope and tell you to swim half way and he will pull you the rest of the way. A liberal will throw you 100 feet of somebody else's rope but won't hang on to his end.

    #16     Jul 3, 2003
  7. Man, you are on target and delivering serious firepower. You point out something that most voters overlook. When they vote for a Democrat for president, they're also voting to give enormous power to their cadres of extremist socialists who do the dirty work and are typically much more activist that the candidate. By contrast, the Republicans typically fill these jobs with corporate white bread types, who don't have a political agenda and even if they did, would find themselves constrained by the liberal career civil servants who fill most agencies.
    #17     Jul 3, 2003
  8. +========
    Don't need a national ID:
    50 state drivers liscense are fine + yes that muslim will have to take off her veil for picture.

    Interesting article on 2nd ammendment , tradermac,;
    that law breaker killer killed himself also.

    Ed Seykota on risk control;
    ''A community in which citizens are allowed,even required to possess guns might be a less risky place to live than one without''

    ''Big government isnt the solution it is the PROBLEM !''
    President Ronald Reagan, NRA member.

    :cool: :cool:
    #18     Jul 4, 2003
    #19     Jul 4, 2003
  10. msfe


    US anti-war activists hit by secret airport ban

    By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
    03 August 2003

    After more than a year of complaints by some US anti-war activists that they were being unfairly targeted by airport security, Washington has admitted the existence of a list, possibly hundreds or even thousands of names long, of people it deems worthy of special scrutiny at airports.

    The list had been kept secret until its disclosure last week by the new US agency in charge of aviation safety, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). And it is entirely separate from the relatively well-publicised "no-fly" list, which covers about 1,000 people believed to have criminal or terrorist ties that could endanger the safety of their fellow passengers.

    The strong suspicion of such groups as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is suing the government to try to learn more, is that the second list has been used to target political activists who challenge the government in entirely legal ways. The TSA acknowledged the existence of the list in response to a Freedom of Information Act request concerning two anti-war activists from San Francisco who were stopped and briefly detained at the airport last autumn and told they were on an FBI no-fly list.

    The activists, Rebecca Gordon and Jan Adams, work for a small pacifist magazine called War Times and say they have never been arrested, let alone have criminal records. Others who have filed complaints with the ACLU include a left-wing constitutional lawyer who has been strip-searched repeatedly when travelling through US airports, and a 71-year-old nun from Milwaukee who was prevented from flying to Washington to join an anti-government protest.

    It is impossible to know for sure who might be on the list, or why. The ACLU says a list kept by security personnel at Oakland airport ran to 88 pages. More than 300 people have been subject to special questioning at San Francisco airport, and another 24 at Oakland, according to police records. In no case does it appear that a wanted criminal was apprehended.

    The ACLU's senior lawyer on the case, Jayashri Srikantiah, said she is troubled by several answers that the TSA gave to her questions. The agency, she said, had no way of making sure that people did not end up on the list simply because of things they had said or organisations they belonged to. Once people were on the list, there was no procedure for trying to get off it. The TSA did not even think it was important to keep track of people singled out in error for a security grilling. According to documents the agency released, it saw "no pressing need to do so".

    It is not just left-wingers who feel unfairly targeted. Right-wing civil libertarians have spoken out against the secret list, and at least one conservative organisation, the Eagle Forum, says its members have been interrogated by security staff.

    The complaints by the ACLU form part of a pattern of protest since the 11 September attacks, with the Bush administration repeatedly under fire for detaining people on the flimsiest of grounds in the name of the "war on terror". Many Muslims have had a hard time, especially if they have a surname such as Hussein.
    #20     Aug 4, 2003