Plans In Washington D.C. To Seal Off Neighborhoods

[Tea Time]

This has some similar aspects to WarmCyanide's safety checkpoint poll, but it is different so I thought I'd start a new thread...

They are planning to block off high-crime neighborhoods entirely and set up checkpoints at the entrances where they will stop and "demand identification" (<- Their Words) from anyone coming in or out of these neighborhoods.

Looks like we're moving closer and closer to a police state everday...


Washington D.C. To Seal Off Neighborhoods Using Checkpoints (http://www.examiner.com/a-%201423820~Lanier_plans_to_seal_off_rough__hoods_i n_latest_effort_to_stop_wave_of_violence.html)


Washington D.C. To Seal Off Entire Neighborhoods Using Police Checkpoints

Washington D.C. - D.C. police will seal off entire neighborhoods, set up checkpoints and kick out strangers under a new program that D.C. officials hope will help them rescue the city from its out-of-control violence.

Under an executive order expected to be announced today, police Chief Cathy L. Lanier will have the authority to designate “Neighborhood Safety Zones.” At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesn’t live there, work there or have “legitimate reason” to be there will be sent away or face arrest, documents obtained by The Examiner show.

Lanier has been struggling to reverse D.C.’s spiraling crime rate but has been forced by public outcry to scale back several initiatives including her “All Hands on Deck” weekends and plans for warrantless, door-to-door searches for drugs and guns.

Under today’s proposal, the no-go zones will last up to 10 days, according to internal police documents. Front-line officers are already being signed up for training on running the blue curtains.

Peter Nickles, the city’s interim attorney general, said the quarantine would have “a narrow focus.”

“This is a very targeted program that has been used in other cities,” Nickles told The Examiner. “I’m not worried about the constitutionality of it.”

Others are. Kristopher Baumann, chairman of the D.C. police union and a former lawyer, called the checkpoint proposal “breathtaking.”

Shelley Broderick, president of the D.C.-area American Civil Liberties Union and the dean of the University of the District of Columbia’s law school, said the plan was “cockamamie.”

“I think they tried this in Russia and it failed,” she said. “It’s just our experience in this city that we always end up targeting poor people and people of color, and we treat the kids coming home from choir practice the same as we treat those kids who are selling drugs.”

The proposal has the provisional support of D.C. Councilman Harry “Tommy” Thomas, D-Ward 5, whose ward has become a war zone.

“They’re really going to crack down on what we believe to be a systemic problem with open-air drug markets,” Thomas told The Examiner.

Thomas said, though, that he worried about D.C. “moving towards a police state.”

[insomnolent]

The Metropolitan Police Department has essentially been doing that for years, just not with a physical checkpoint. Basically, if you do not fit the profile of someone that lives neighborhood with drug/violence issues, they will pull you over and grill you for being in a quote "high-drug area" and find any reason to search your vehicle. It's happened to me before when I had a legitimate reason to be in a particular area (work), as well as my best friend's dad whom repairs Xerox machines -- he drove around the block twice looking for the office he was supposed to report to in Southeast DC and then four squad cars were pulled all around him for being in a "high-drug area", whereas they illegally searched his vehicle, threatened him and then actually made him call his job, then hand the phone over to the officer to prove he was supposed to be there to repair a copier.

Not to mention the time I was arrested in DC a little over a year ago on a bullshit charge after I was pulled over for no apparent reason, told to "shut the fuck up and get out of the vehicle" when I asked why, then had my car searched illegally while a valiant officer of the MPD produced a bag of white powder from his squad car and threatened to plant it on me if I didn't "tell them where it was", whereas they happened to illegally find paraphenelia in the car and arrest me without ever reading me my Miranda rights.

Of course, once I got to court the case was thrown out and a complaint was filed against the Seventh Ward police station. Oh, and I can't forget to mention the time my grandparents came down to visit me and got lost, then thought another wonderful officer of the MPD would direct them back to the beltway. He told two polite senior citizens from rural Delaware that he didn't have time for their shit and to get out of the neighborhood. :mad:

[nick]

There's this prof of addiction studies in Glasgow who advocates seperate,segregated housing for addicts.This guy also wants to put oral contraceptives in 'done.

Google Prof Neil McKegney.This guy is the ultimate drug warrior.

[candyshop]

HOLY SHIT!!!!! USA 2008=Germany 1940

I am really really scared

and researching places to seek political asylum

HEY NICK- can i set up a yurt in your garden?

[nick]

HOLY SHIT!!!!! USA 2008=Germany 1940

I am really really scared

and researching places to seek political asylum

HEY NICK- can i set up a yurt in your garden?

Of course you can luv.

[candyshop]

AWESOME!! I will bring my kid and my compost pile/worm bed-

[southernbelle]

This is getting really scary. Can we come too? And how long do the cats have to stay in quarintine? That is, if I can talk him out of moving to Brazil...

[Nate]

Wow....thats fucking retarted...

I need a roomate, come on up to Canada.

[Tea Time]

Yeah this sets a scary precedent. I know that they have done things like this all over the country unofficially, but for them actually issue an executive order and make it official is dangerous ground. It is almost as if they are testing the water. If they try this and they are successful, it will open the door for them to try other "unconventional" (read: illegal and unconstitutional) tactics to reduce violent crime and even "drug-related" crime.

I used to get hassled often while I was growing up. I am hispanic, but I have a light complection. I lived in a predominantly black neighborhood (The RedBird area in Southwest Oak Cliff) and anytime the cops would see me driving through the neighborhood, they would stop me because they assumed that a "white" person in that neighborhood was only there to buy drugs. I can't even recall how many separate times I was harassed by the Dallas Police Department...:mad:

[Coddfish]

wow. more people in prison per capita than any other country. legalized torture w/o law talking guys. neighborhood police checkpoints. mandatory minimums.

land of the free.

hail hynkel.

[WarmCyanide]

Some residents expressed support for the plan yesterday, saying they are willing to submit to the checks if it makes the neighborhood safer. "We can't endure any more homicides," said neighborhood activist India Henderson.

But others said they were disappointed police have not developed relationships that would allow them to gather information and find criminals without resorting to the stepped-up tactics.

in two months the Trinidad neighborhood has had seven homicides, 16 robberies and 20 assaults with dangerous weapons. thats alot, guys for such a small area:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2002_dc_ward_map_trinidad.jpg


but the checkpoint thing is the wrong answer. also the 'stop snitching' bullshit isn't helping that neighborhood im sure. the people on my street/neighborhood wouldn't put up with that shit. i'm in an average neighborhood with all races around.fuck not being able to have my kids play outside. we scrub our walls before the spraypaint dries.

[SeVeN]

This has some similar aspects to WarmCyanide's safety checkpoint poll, but it is different so I thought I'd start a new thread...

They are planning to block off high-crime neighborhoods entirely and set up checkpoints at the entrances where they will stop and "demand identification" (<- Their Words) from anyone coming in or out of these neighborhoods.

Looks like we're moving closer and closer to a police state everday...


Washington D.C. To Seal Off Neighborhoods Using Checkpoints (http://www.examiner.com/a-%201423820~Lanier_plans_to_seal_off_rough__hoods_i n_latest_effort_to_stop_wave_of_violence.html)

My God.

Dont get me wrong if youve been to washington DC and I dont mean the capital, the best thing you can do is just keep driving until your the fuck outta their.

A perfect example of our nation, the rich politicians all on the inside with death poverty and war around them.

America is close to over and were losing rights and liberties every day. I think its time for a real revolution.

[starglazer33]

This all just ffrightens the hell out of me. I am doing everything I can to move to Europe. Just gotta get it together.



Soon.

[SeVeN]

This all just ffrightens the hell out of me. I am doing everything I can to move to Europe. Just gotta get it together.



Soon.

Right.....because most of Europe is really any better?!

[Tea Time]

Some residents expressed support for the plan yesterday, saying they are willing to submit to the checks if it makes the neighborhood safer. "We can't endure any more homicides," said neighborhood activist India Henderson.

A quote by Ben Franklin has always seemed more relevant today than it probably did back then:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

But others said they were disappointed police have not developed relationships that would allow them to gather information and find criminals without resorting to the stepped-up tactics...but the checkpoint thing is the wrong answer. also the 'stop snitching' bullshit isn't helping that neighborhood im sure. the people on my street/neighborhood wouldn't put up with that shit...

The problem here is that the police want a quick, easy fix. They don't want to have to put in the time and effort to develop relationships within the neighborhood to try to fix these problems. They don't want to have to follow those pesky "laws" that do nothing but get in the way...evidence of this is the fact that they wanted to do warrant-less door-to-door searches for weapons, drugs, and people with warrants!

Shit, they will probably do this "unofficially" anyway, but they actually tried to include this in the executive order. That is scary! Can anyone imagine that happening legally in an American city? I am sure that stuff like that does happen, but the ones responsible for it have been rogue cops willing to bend the rules to enforce the law - whatever sense that makes.:mad: But if this police chief would have gotten her way, groups of police would go door-to-door (without a warrant) and they would rifle through any and every house on the block that they wanted to (whether they had any probable cause or not) just to see if there were any drugs, guns, or citizens with warrants inside.

I mentioned earlier that the police wanted a quick, easy fix for this problem. Even if they are successful with this "program," it doesn't take a genius to realize that any reduction in crime will not be long-lasting. The crime-reduction will last just as long as the "checkpoint" program does and shortly after the program stops, things will be right back to the way they were previously.

What they should be doing is looking at other cities that have had serious problems with violent crime. For example, the city of Dallas led the country in murders and violent crime a few years back. In addition to getting more police officers on the street, they started Neighborhood Policing Organizations. I know that this isn't any radical new approach, but it works. They divided the rougher neighborhoods into smaller sections and assigned the smaller sections to a group of Neighborhood Patrol Officers. The also started the Crime Watch and Citizens On Patrol programs back up and most importantly of all, they spent time in these neighborhoods and really got to know the residents and know what their problems were. Before very long, the police knew who had a legitimate reason to be in the neighborhoods - without racial profiling. Because these police established relationships with the citizens, it broke down some of the barriers that might have existed otherwise and the results were significant. Violent crime has gone down significantly every year.

If D.C. really wants to make an impact, they will look for long-term, more permanent solutions instead of "quick fix" solutions.

[clinton]

this is a joke, contRolling who leaves and enteRs, can i see youR id siR?
soRRy i dont appRove of you enteRing this neighboRhood.....tuRn aRound and go home.
this is so anti ameRican and people will just sit theRe and take it,and it wont end theRe....

[jdub]

We should go try and enter the neighborhoods, Clint. This is so sick. In SF we have the opposite prob. the police do SHIT.

[WarmCyanide]

A quote by Ben Franklin has always seemed more relevant today than it probably did back then:


Quote:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.



Quote:
But others said they were disappointed police have not developed relationships that would allow them to gather information and find criminals without resorting to the stepped-up tactics...but the checkpoint thing is the wrong answer. also the 'stop snitching' bullshit isn't helping that neighborhood im sure. the people on my street/neighborhood wouldn't put up with that shit...
The problem here is that the police want a quick, easy fix. They don't want to have to put in the time and effort to develop relationships within the neighborhood to try to fix these problems. They don't want to have to follow those pesky "laws" that do nothing but get in the way...evidence of this is the fact that they wanted to do warrant-less door-to-door searches for weapons, drugs, and people with warrants!

i dont think ben franklin quote really works in our modern world today. plus ben franklin was no saint. Have you ever stepped through a metal detector at an airport? That metal detector prevents (in99%ofcases) some crazy fucker from bringing a live grenade on a 747 because "satan told him to"

so we all have violated Ben Franklin's view on government.


its never going to be a police state in America because our framers protect us from this. It's all "the end is nigh" thinking in my opinion

as far as a relationship in that area, i believe the community has failed as well as the local law enforcement.

If D.C. really wants to make an impact, they will look for long-term, more permanent solutions instead of "quick fix" solutions
in two months the Trinidad neighborhood has had seven homicides, 16 robberies and 20 assaults with dangerous weapons. two months isn't long term.

the Local Police and That Neighborhood not working together. it's not like the cops are creating that cesspoll, they're just reacting to it. What do we think the cops should do?
go door to door asking for to increase the peace?

the checkpoints are extreme.

[clinton]

he'd be a hypocrite if he stepped through a metal detector at an airport.
__________________






huh? what do you mean?

[WarmCyanide]

huh? what do you mean?


i was responding to teatime's quoting ben franklin's outdated view on liberty.

picture Ben Franklin stating this as he's going through the motions at an airport:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

next time you go through an airport boarding gate. tell the TSA that ben franklin says you don't have to step through a metal detector to board an airplane.

it's not a conspiracy, it's safety. there are crazy motherfuckers out there, ya know. and don't look at me as riding Uncle Sam's dick.. i think the seatbelt law is too much. what would Ben Franklin think of that?

[clinton]

an opiated ben franklin would be too busy participating in satanic sex rituals with the 18th century european hellfire club to give a good answer

[jdub]

an opiated ben franklin would be too busy participating in satanic sex rituals with the 18th century european hellfire club to give a good answer

Ha!

[Tea Time]

an opiated ben franklin would be too busy participating in satanic sex rituals with the 18th century european hellfire club to give a good answer

:D:D:D

...i dont think ben franklin quote really works in our modern world today...

For the record, I don't think that what Franklin said was "gospel" or anything like that...I just think it is something that should be food for thought. You are taking the quote way too literally. Do you at least think that there is some validity to this quote?

Think about it like this: The trinidad neighborhood has had seven homicides, 16 robberies, and 20 assaults with dangerous weapons. You could seal off the entire neighborhood and have checkpoints requiring strip-searches, identification, and fingerprinting at each entrace.

Even better: let's build a wall around the neighborhood to prevent people from coming in and out without going through the checkpoints.

Also at each entrace you could have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors. You could have roving SWAT teams throughout the entire neighborhood. For the safety of those in the neighborhood, the police could enter ANY house for ANY reason at ANY time without a warrant to locate drugs, guns, or citizens with warrants.

You could have the police inspect all mail coming into and leaving the neighborhood. To make things safer, you could have all of the people that have a legitimate reason to be in the neighborhood wear a "uniform" so that police would have an easier time identifying who belongs inside the neighborhood. They could also monitor all phone calls to try to identify criminal activity.

Would all of this have an effect? Yeah probably. It would bring those crime statistics WAY down. But at what cost? You would have turned the "neighborhood" into a prison. Literally. Yeah the neighborhood would be crime-free, but it's citizens would have to live in a prison just to "stay safe." What's the point of living in a crime-free neighborhood if you have to be a prisoner with no freedom?

Like I said, the Franklin quote is not meant as the final word or anything like that. It is not something to be interpreted literally.

Of course everyone wants to live in a "safe" area. But how much of your freedom are you willing to give up for that to happen? I'm sure everyone has a different answer. Personally, I think that metal detectors are okay. I'm willing to pass through a metal detector to ensure that I'm safe while flying.

But I'm not willing to pass through a checkpoint to go into my neighborhood just because it "might" reduce crime.

its never going to be a police state in America because our framers protect us from this. It's all "the end is nigh" thinking in my opinion

Really? You think that I'm over-reacting a little bit? Am I being alarmist? The problem is that our government consistently takes away rights and freedoms in the name of protecting us, but they do it ever so slowly. With each day that goes by we lose more and more freedom. It might not seem like a big deal, but compare the rights and freedoms that a citizen had when this country started compared to now...Keep in mind: The "War on Drugs" is just another erosion of personal freedoms. The government has made certain substances illegal in order to protect us from ourselves.

Do you really think that our "framers" anticipated the need to have identification checkpoints within the neighborhoods that we live? Obviously not. They were trying to escape from such tyranny. Do you think that they anticipated people flying planes into skyscrapers? Do you think they anticipated secret prisons and accused terrorism suspects being tortured in guantanamo bay where they are subjected to "enhanced interrogation" and prevented from seeking legal counsel?

They obviously didn't. This is where the problem lies. Everytime we come across a situation that is not explicitly detailed in the constitution, the people in power have to set a new precedent and make decisions on the fly. Sometimes they are right. Sometimes they are not.

What do you think our "framers" would think of the country's current state of affairs? Do you think they would be pleased? Would they be content with the situation? I seriously doubt it. I have to think that the "framers" would consider our country's current state of affairs to be a police state in their minds.

as far as a relationship in that area, i believe the community has failed as well as the local law enforcement.

I agree completely.

in two months the Trinidad neighborhood has had seven homicides, 16 robberies and 20 assaults with dangerous weapons. two months isn't long term.

No two months isn't long term. But do you want to stop the crime temporarily or make a more permanent impact?

[Tea Time]

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to post another article to give you an idea how far overboard the D.C. Metro Police are going.

D.C. Metro Police Will now be carrying AR-15 semiautomatic rifles. Yes AR-15's. And no, not the SWAT team...regular patrol officers will be carrying AR-15's. In the article it said that one reason the weapons were being used now was so that they could obtain slings for officers to wear over their shoulders to carry the weapons and secure locks for them to be carried in police cruisers.

I know that D.C. has a crime problem. But it is far from the worst in the country. There are several cities that have more serious issues with violent crime than Washington D.C. But does this not sound like a war-zone to ANYONE else?

There are several neighborhoods that will be sealed off from the surrounding public. Only people deemed to have a legitimate need to enter the neighborhoods will be allowed access. They were trying for warrant-less door-to-door searches but were denied. And now the local beat cops will be carrying semiautomatic rifles over their shoulders?!?! Is that REALLY necessary?!?!


Washington Post - D.C. Police To Carry Semiautomatic Rifles On Patrols (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8051603682.html)


D.C. Police to Carry Semiautomatic Rifles On Patrols

By: Allison Klein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 17, 2008; Page B01

Washington, D.C. - The D.C. police department's decision to arm patrol officers with semiautomatic rifles is promoted by commanders as a way to stay ahead of criminals. But it is raising concerns among civil rights groups and others, who question whether the weapons are necessary.

Hundreds of officers will be issued AR-15 rifles starting this summer, and police say the guns will be a better match for criminals. Although Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier was unable to provide an example of when such firepower would have been needed in the recent past, she said police should not be caught off guard.

Police have about 500 of the weapons, and 352 officers have been trained to use them. Special units have used high-power guns for years, but officials said they wanted more officers to have access to the weapons. This is the first time AR-15s will be available for routine street patrols.

"We want to be prepared," Lanier said. "I want officers to have what they need to be safe."

Police officials said the rifles offer greater speed and accuracy, firing about 3,000 feet per second - almost three times as fast as the average police pistol. Officers who get the lightweight rifles will carry them in addition to their 9mm Glock handguns, Lanier said.

The Washington leader of the American Civil Liberties Union criticized the move, and a D.C. Council member is calling for a more measured approach.

"Against a backdrop of danger and harm that could result from high-powered weaponry, it doesn't seem to make sense," said Johnny Barnes, executive director of the ACLU of the National Capital Area. "I wonder why at a time when we're trying to get guns off the street, we're putting more guns on the street."

Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) said he is concerned that residents will get the wrong message when they see officers carrying the weapons on the streets.

"It's more intimidating to have an officer on the corner with a long arm," said Mendelson, head of the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary. "That may be appropriate in certain circumstances, but we're not in a police state. We don't want police officers walking the street with long arms."

The debate has parallels to the one in the late 1980s, when police officials were warning that officers could be outgunned. At that time, the department switched from six-shot, .38-caliber revolvers to the semiautomatic Glocks, which fire more rapidly and hold more ammunition. The change came as the city was dealing with a surge in violence brought on by the crack cocaine epidemic and drug dealers were carrying semiautomatic weapons. Maurice T. Turner Jr., chief at the time, said of the Glocks: "This gives us more parity with all the drug dealers."

D.C. police created a gun recovery unit in November, and its officers have since gotten 255 guns off the streets, including 13 assault weapons.

The city got the AR-15 rifles from the Department of Defense for free as military surplus items. Police are waiting for mounts so the weapons can be securely locked in police cruisers and slings for officers to carry them over the shoulders.

Lanier said it is not unusual for criminals to have body armor and higher-powered guns in street robberies, bank heists and drive-by shootings. Police said the rifles would be useful when officers respond to bank robberies or hostage situations, as well as worst-case scenarios such as the massacre last year at Virginia Tech, when a gunman killed 32 people before killing himself. Seung Hui Cho carried out those crimes with two handguns.

Other police departments nationwide equip officers with semiautomatic rifles, including in Dallas, Los Angeles and Miami. In some of the District's neighboring counties, such as Montgomery and Prince George's, some patrol officers carry the weapons.

Assistant Police Chief Patrick Burke, who is in charge of special operations and homeland security, said protocols are being put in place to cover the use of the rifles and promised that officers will be "accountable for every shot."

"I wouldn't expect to see foot beat officers with them unless there's a specific need, like a barricade situation or a bank robbery," Burke said. "Officers will have to use discretion as to what is appropriate use of force."

The guns were ordered two years ago by then-Chief Charles H. Ramsey at the request of Lanier, who at the time was head of homeland security. The shipment came in a year ago, but D.C. police have been working to convert the weapons from automatic to semiautomatic use. An automatic gun fires multiple rounds when the trigger is pressed; a semiautomatic rifle fires one round for each trigger pull.

"People have the impression of police with machine guns and all sorts of crazy things," Burke said. "That's just not true."

Although the overwhelming majority of D.C. homicides are committed with handguns, criminals have used powerful guns in recent years in some high-profile cases in the Washington area. A team of commando-style robbers carried out a string of bank heists in the District and Maryland in 2004, armed with assault rifles and handguns. At the time, police feared the crimes could be fatal, but the robbers were caught before anyone was seriously hurt.

Lanier referenced a 1997 bank robbery in Los Angeles, in which two men armed with AK-47 assault rifles engaged in a shootout with police. Seventeen officers and civilians were injured in the incident, which was captured on videotape. The case set off a debate about the need to better arm police.

"They crushed the police," Burke said. "If you were to look at one incident in America that got every single police department to look at their weapons, that's it."

Assistant Chief Joshua Ederheimer, who is in charge of the police academy, said officers have been "very well trained."

"We want to be prepared to respond to a threat," Ederheimer said. "Hopefully, we'll never have to use them."


my freedom to walk on a plane without emptying my pockets is not essential.

my freedom to simply walk or drive through a neighborhood, whether to visit a friend or just obserce a part of this nation's capital city, could be considered, I think, essential.

this sets a nasty precedent. the fact that this chick tried to institute warrantless door to door searches should let people know where she's coming from.

I agree completely. This sets a very nasty precedent. If it is even remotely effective in D.C. it will be just a matter of time before it starts happening in Dallas and Detroit and St. Louis and Los Angeles and New York City and Houston and...any city that thinks that they have a crime problem.

[Coddfish]

my freedom to walk onto a plane without emptying my pockets is not essential.

my freedom to simply walk or drive through a neigborhood, whether to visit a friend or just observe a part of this nation's capital city, could be considered, i think, essential.

this sets a nasty precedent. the fact that this chick tried to institute warrantless door to door searches should let people know where she's coming from.

[Tea Time]

Another thing about the police being armed with AR-15's - Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like this constant "pissing contest" between the police and criminals is what has caused so many problems. Police "say" (without any evidence to back it up) that criminals are better armed than they are...so what do they do? They start carrying AR-15's. What is the logical response?

It seems obvious to me at least. If the regular beat cops are carrying AR-15's on their patrols, then a criminal is going to *NEED* to carry something equal to/greater than an AR-15 to stand a chance.
And who ends up suffering because of this misguided arms race? The innocent civilians and property owners - that's who. They are the ones that will suffer as a result...

[SynthMorph]

It's funny when a few years ago people that mentioned "police state" or "Orwellian" were considered paranoid. Now look, look at your beautiful police, war zone state now. Americans seriously need to fight for their freedoms and get them back. This is absolutley terrible and shouldn't be tolerated for a single moment. There should be protests, people going ape shit, everything. America is democracy no more, its looking more and more like a dictatorship under the guise of democracy, like Russia. These changes were all made by the way, as an excuse to provide security after the hysteria of 9/11. The American people were played like puppets and watched their freedoms vanish before their eyes never to return. The terrorist threat was grossly exagerated and everyone bought into it. Some people saw it for what it was and called for action but the brainless majority said, "I have nothing to hide, take away my freedoms!" It's horrible such a great nation is now becoming a government full of control freaks and the citizenry is becoming more afraid of its own government. It'll only get worse the wheels are in motion for total denial of rights and ultimate goverment control. It's funny even now some people still don't see it and think, "you're over-reacting, this could never happen in America," like its somehow immune from the thirst for power of its leaders.

[WarmCyanide]

I have a different take on it. first off 9/11 was not an excuse for additional security measures. I believe certain security measures are valid and necessary. thats where i differ. I remember that bank robbery near where i used to live where the police were outgunned and even had to break into local gun store to get the necessary firepower. I stand firm in my belief that our country will not become the police state some of you say it is becoming. I know i'm in the minority here but i just disagree with that. I still love my country as imperfect as it is.

and heres a pefect example of it:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e58_1208235516

[rockbottom]

i've been caught in street sweeps in L.A. and Denver. cops seal both ends of a block long street. demand everyone down then bust all the dealers and buyers and me just happening to have outstanding warrents both times. the trip was, the Denver street was in a good middle class neighborhood and everyone! even people out walking their dogs had to get down and when the cops got to them produce ID. and wait while they ran it. This has been going on in L.A. for 30 years. is it just now getting around the country. We lost many rights with the patriot act but even b-4 then cops have always been corrupt:cool:

[Tea Time]

It's funny when a few years ago people that mentioned "police state" or "Orwellian" were considered paranoid...

I really wonder what our founding fathers would think of the country today. There's no way to know for sure as they couldn't possibly have anticipated some of the things that happened, but I can't think that they would be too happy with the state of our country...

We lost many rights with the patriot act but even b-4 then cops have always been corrupt.

Yeah corruption has been around ever since even the idea of "power" or "authority" have been around. As soon as the first person was put in a position of authority, I'm sure that they immediately started to think about abusing their authority for their own benefit.

I believe certain security measures are valid and necessary. thats where i differ...

Actually WC, I agree with you. Certain basic security measures are not only valid, but necessary as you say. I agree completely. The tough thing is to decide which measures fall into this category. Where do we draw the line?

As I said, the Franklin quote is not meant to be taken quite so literally. It is just supposed to provoke thought as to where this line should be drawn. How much freedom are we really willing to give up for safety? Unfortunately, there is no "right" answer and opinions can vary drastically from person to person - as we saw here.

I remember that bank robbery near where i used to live where the police were outgunned and even had to break into local gun store to get the necessary firepower.

I think we both agree that the neighborhood checkpoints are extreme. I personally think that the AR-15's for patrol officers are extreme as well. I am familiar with the shoot-out that you are talking about and yes, it was shocking. The police were totally out-gunned. But that is an extreme situation...a *VERY* extreme situation. There hasn't been a similar situation since then and there weren't many similar situations before. So I think putting 500 semiautomatic assualt rifles out on the streets in the hands of patrol officers is going way overboard.

Like I mentioned in my previous post, I think putting the AR-15's in the hands of patrol officers will have the wrong effect. Whereas the LA Bank Robbery (with the suspects wearing body armor and armed with AK-47's) was an isolated incident, I think that incidents like that one will become more common because patrol officers are armed with semiautomatic rifles. Sure it is possible that having this information out there might deter some criminals from committing violent crimes, it won't deter all of them. And I think that it is likely that the ones that aren't detered will ensure that they have comparable weapons when committing their crimes so that they are not out-gunned by the police.

I will try to find a link, but I remember reading something years ago where incidents involving assault rifles and automatic weapons increased shortly after the Dallas Police Department upgraded their weapons. This article looked at the statistics and were able to conclude that when the police upgraded their weapons, the criminals did so as well.

I stand firm in my belief that our country will not become the police state some of you say it is becoming. I know i'm in the minority here but i just disagree with that.

Fair enough. I understand your thought process and how you arrived at your conclusion. I don't think that we will wake up tomorrow in an all-out police state, but I think it is obvious that more and more of our rights are being taken away each day. I don't want to make it seem like I'm being paranoid or anything, but I'm just being realistic. Certain aspects of the patriot act, sealed executive orders, the possibility of military action without congressional support, martial law - all of these are things that I am concerned about. I'd like to believe that our government would never manipulate us or violate our rights. I'd like to believe that our government would do their best to protect our rights and ensure that they are protected. But wouldn't rule out the possibility completely. The government is susceptible to corruption and abuse of power just like any other organization. The only difference is that the consequences could be much, much worse...

I still love my country as imperfect as it is.

I do to. I love my country. I am proud to be an American. That is why I am ashamed of some of our recent actions abroad. As an American I am very disappointed with our foreign policy. If I didn't care about my country, I wouldn't bother discussing it. If I didn't love my country, I wouldn't care that our rights are being flushed down the toilet. I also wouldn't care that our leaders are using their own interpretations of the constitution (instead of accepted interpretations) to further their own agendas.

It reminds me of another quote that I like.

"The opposite of "love" is not "hate." The opposite of "love" is "indifference."

I think that it's the same for the rest of the people that are unhappy with the way issues are being handled. If we didn't love our country and we weren't proud to be citizens, we wouldn't be discussing or debating these issues.

[WarmCyanide]

but I think it is obvious that more and more of our rights are being taken away each day.
you mean our constitutional rights?

yeah. i'd like to see that article on the ar-15s.

as far as our foreign policy and us killing terrorists abroad, i love it. our surge in the war on terrorism started when we were attacked on 9/11. wow. here it went from police checkpoints to foreign policy. there's so much to hash through on each point. it'd take so lonng.
bottom line is that I believe the USA may be the greatest country in the world and i always see it being portrayed as the worst.

[drugsaregood]

Before you know it drug addicts will be required to have a tattoo on their wrist or even an RFID implant. I've heard of cops stopping people like this (not officially of course) in the local trailer park here...

By them doing this they're going to push the drug dealers out of a known area and have them dispersed all over. They can't do business like this...I wouldn't be surprised if a rise in violent crime\robberies increased too. Dude with nothing to loose can't score from his guy, or any of his guys? He's probably going to rob a pharmacy\old innocent people.

Can't one just say they're seeing their visiting their friend? Thus they have a reason to be there...

I've seen something like this on courttv before. A little girl was kidnapped and officers setup a check point, and made it clear to who they stopped that it's voluntary for them to search, they're just looking for the little kid and they don't care what they find in there. (Yeah, right...). And you know if you refuse a search your instantly a suspect just as if you were to refuse giving DNA..

The way the economy is going, the constant loss of our rights due to "terrorism" and everything else I wouldn't be surprised if some mad max\post apocolyptic pirate like shit goes down. Revolt. ;P

[clinton]

does this count?

you mean our constitutional rights?



On Oct. 17, 2006, President Bush signed a law suspending the right of habeas corpus to persons "determined by the United States" to be an "enemy combatant" in the Global War on Terror. President Bush's action drew severe criticism, mainly for the law's failure to specifically designate who in the United Stateswill determine who is and who is not an "enemy combatant."
"What, really, a time of shame this is..."
To President Bush's support for the law -- the Military Commissions Act of 2006 -- and its suspension of writs of habeas corpus, Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University stated, "What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and value

[WarmCyanide]

does this count?



On Oct. 17, 2006, President Bush signed a law suspending the right of habeas corpus to persons "determined by the United States" to be an "enemy combatant" in the Global War on Terror. President Bush's action drew severe criticism, mainly for the law's failure to specifically designate who in the United Stateswill determine who is and who is not an "enemy combatant."
"What, really, a time of shame this is..."
To President Bush's support for the law -- the Military Commissions Act of 2006 -- and its suspension of writs of habeas corpus, Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University stated, "What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and value

what makes you think an "enemy combatant" deserves constitutional rights? its a war. these douchebags dont wear uniforms. ...where were nick berg's rights? or Paul Johnson's? how bout that evil Daniel Pearl? what's next mirandizing terrorists in combat? i'm sure they all have Geneva cards in their back pockets.

when losing your rights i'm referring to examples of American citizens losing their rights. not muslim extremists/terrorists

BTW that beautiful law was signed on my birthday:deal2:

edit.. none of this is personal towards anyone. just my opinion.

[Tea Time]

yeah. i'd like to see that article on the ar-15s.

It is quoted in post #24 on this thread. Here's a link:

Washington Post - D.C. Police To Carry Semiautomatic Rifles On Patrols (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8051603682.html)

bottom line is that I believe the USA may be the greatest country in the world and i always see it being portrayed as the worst.

Agreed. I don't think so much that it is portrayed as the worst country in the world. I do however think that it is under far more scrutiny than any other country in the world though. Every decision made by our leaders is examined under a microscope not only by Americans, but by citizens and the leaders of pretty much every other country in the world.

Also when a country has a reputation as being the "land of the free" and a champion of democracy and individual rights for all people, they tend to be treated more harshly when things like this are exposed.

Can't one just say they're seeing their visiting their friend? Thus they have a reason to be there...

I seriously doubt that this would work...otherwise everyone could just say that they were visiting a friend and gain access.

The way the economy is going, the constant loss of our rights due to "terrorism"...

That's the thing - most of these rights are being taken away in the name of the "war on terror." The Patriot Act and several other executive orders have violated citizens privacy in the name of identifying terror suspects. The sad thing is that once the precedent is set, whether it be terror-related or not, it can be used against ANYONE including american citizens who have no ties to terrorism.

Certain things like "sneak-and-peak" warrants and other information that law enforcement obtained through provisions in the Patriot Act are being used in regular criminal investigations. That's what my main problem with all of this is. Once a precedent is set, it is extremely difficult to reverse later on.

edit.. none of this is personal towards anyone. just my opinion.

Definitely. I don't view any of this as personal at all. I always find it very interesting debating and discussing issues like this when they are done in a mature way. It is very interesting hearing everyone's opinion about issues like this. Even if you don't necessarily agree with a person's opinion, you can usually at least understand where they are coming from...

[clinton]

because americans lost their rights as well..
there was a big stink about it awhile ago, an american citizen born and raised was supposedly involved in this mess....i dont care if he did it or not, hes an american and no matter what he did these rights should be there for him,thats one of the things that made/make this country
great, all citizens were/are innocent until proven guilty ,thats the ideal at least.
lets not stray away from this.no matter how heinous the crime is..it should be equal
for all americans

[Coddfish]

when there is no set measuring stick for measuring an enemy combatant, then there is no real description of one. wc, you don't know if they have uniforms or not. you don't no know what they look like. they could look like tea time or, god forbid, coddfish spouting off on a message board.

there are things that CANNOT CANNOT be compromised in american law/goverment without weakening some pillars. telling the rest of the world they have no rights if the us gets ahold of them--and the us has a pretty long reach--is gonna cause backlash.

like i said. land of free, beacon of democracy. whatever.

[WarmCyanide]

because americans lost their rights as well..
there was a big stink about it awhile ago, an american citizen born and raised was supposedly involved in this mess....i dont care if he did it or not, hes an american and no matter what he did these rights should be there for him,thats one of the things that made/make this country
great, all citizens were/are innocent until proven guilty ,thats the ideal at least.
lets not stray away from this.no matter how heinous the crime is..it should be equal
for all americans

you refering to john walker Lindh?

when there is no set measuring stick for measuring an enemy combatant, then there is no real description of one. wc, you don't know if they have uniforms or not. you don't no know what they look like. they could look like tea time or, god forbid, coddfish spouting off on a message board.

there are things that CANNOT CANNOT be compromised in american law/goverment without weakening some pillars. telling the rest of the world they have no rights if the us gets ahold of them--and the us has a pretty long reach--is gonna cause backlash.

like i said. land of free, beacon of democracy. whatever.

telling the rest of the world they have no rights... ok. fight against the military in (nameyourcountry) and we'll see what rights we would have. probably just the right to be summarily executed.

[Princess]

We have something similar, yet a bit different going on in Arizona.

There is a place which is technically in Tempe, AZ which is called "The Town of Guadalupe". They have their own cops, etc.. It is a hispanic community/town. The lovely Sheriff Joe has put Deputies all over this town looking for undocumented Mexicans. People are afraid to go to church. They've made several dozen arrests. They 'claim' they are looking for criminals who are hiding out....

Now, if you're white and driving through Guadalupe to score (and you can score) they don't pull you over. Interesting, eh?

I'm all for people coming here LEGALLY, but this is the wrong way to go about it.

This country is starting to scare me.

[Tea Time]

We have something similar, yet a bit different going on in Arizona.

There is a place which is technically in Tempe, AZ which is called "The Town of Guadalupe". They have their own cops, etc.. It is a hispanic community/town. The lovely Sheriff Joe has put Deputies all over this town looking for undocumented Mexicans. People are afraid to go to church. They've made several dozen arrests. They 'claim' they are looking for criminals who are hiding out....

Now, if you're white and driving through Guadalupe to score (and you can score) they don't pull you over. Interesting, eh?

I'm all for people coming here LEGALLY, but this is the wrong way to go about it.

This country is starting to scare me.

I actually heard about this. A suburb of Dallas actually is doing some similar things. One thing they did was pass city ordinances against renting or selling property to illegal immigrants and there would be huge fines and legal issues for breaking this ordinance. There were also ordinances against employing illegal immigrants, etc. They also had the police doing the same thing: racially profiling hispanics to verify if they were legal immigrants. LULAC and the ACLU went apeshit and now they have shot the rental/sales ordinance down but the other ones are still going on.

Wanna know the worst part about all of it? The city council man (he has now been elected mayor) that proposed all of the ordinances/law changes is named Tim O'Hare. His grandfather was an illegal immigrant from Ireland. How's that for hypocrisy?!?!

[Coddfish]

telling the rest of the world they have no rights... ok. fight against the military in (nameyourcountry) and we'll see what rights we would have. probably just the right to be summarily executed.
you've pretty much hit on what happens to people who're captured by the us. tortured. imprisoned without legal recourse. executed.

if the us is the same as every other country, then what makes it the best? i'm serious, why do you think it's better than others?

[WarmCyanide]

you've pretty much hit on what happens to people who're captured by the us. tortured. imprisoned without legal recourse. executed.

if the us is the same as every other country, then what makes it the best? i'm serious, why do you think it's better than others?

I DONT think it is the same as every other country.

name another country and we'll compare it to the United States' liberties. Lets pick..hmm.

freedom of speech. let's start there.

Coddfish does the Geneva convention state that POWs need to be mirandized or whatever you mean be "legal recourse".. are you kidding me? taking an enemy on the battlefield and giving him "Legal Recourse" go back to WWII. every Nazi soldier we detained needed a full court trial? how is that possible?

[Somanax]

The 2nd 3rd 4th 5th amendment's

Are in critical danger :(:mad:

[Coddfish]

wc, that's just it, according to the us the geneva convention doesn't apply to combatants . they aren't legally anything. that is what i mean by legal recourse, that they actually are a legal entity with SOME rights, whether by geneva or whatever.

have you actually travelled outside the us, wc?

[WarmCyanide]

wc, that's just it, according to the us the geneva convention doesn't apply to combatants . they aren't legally anything. that is what i mean by legal recourse, that they actually are a legal entity with SOME rights, whether by geneva or whatever.

have you actually travelled outside the us, wc?

what do you mean by "not legally anything?"

and yes i have travelled outside of the USA. why?

[nick]

what do you mean by "not legally anything?"

and yes i have travelled outside of the USA. why?

Mexico doesn't count bro............just ask the mexicans.


All I'm saying on the subject is "America is the last and greatest hope for mankind." -Brendan Behan(he was probably drunk at the time.)

It would be heartbreaking for America to screw up and sleep walk into being a police state.

[Tea Time]

It would be heartbreaking for America to screw up and sleep walk into being a police state.

Agreed. I don't think so much that it is portrayed as the worst country in the world. I do however think that it is under far more scrutiny than any other country in the world though. Every decision made by our leaders is examined under a microscope not only by Americans, but by citizens and the leaders of pretty much every other country in the world.

Also when a country has a reputation as being the "land of the free" and a champion of democracy and individual rights for all people, they tend to be treated more harshly when things like this are exposed.

Yup. That's what I was trying to say earlier Nick. Because of the United States' history and it's moniker of the "land of the free," it would be especially disheartening to see the US become just another country that treats it's citizens like criminals. There are already way too many of those in this world.

The US has a long track record of standing up for the rights of not only it's citizens, but the rights of people all over the world. The US is often criticized for interfering with situations in other countries - especially pertaining to the spread of democracy. Maybe for the time being, our great country should focus less on spreading democracy across the planet, and more on ensuring that the constitutional rights and freedoms of our own citizens are protected...

[WarmCyanide]

Mexico doesn't count bro............just ask the mexicans.


All I'm saying on the subject is "America is the last and greatest hope for mankind." -Brendan Behan(he was probably drunk at the time.)

It would be heartbreaking for America to screw up and sleep walk into being a police state.

har de har

[Mcdom]

I really have a bad feeling about this - sets a hell of a precedent doesn't it.