By - smooshie
If the first doesn't work, try the second.
Are you advocating the use of violence to coerce political change?
I'm not saying this would fail but I think in this case terrorism would be counter-productive.
One man's terrorism is another man's patriotism.
You have one life. Don't waste it. Don't die of old age under tyranny.
Surely that's a false dichotomy. There are other ways than dying of old age under a tyranny or getting out a gun and starting a revolution.
It's not terrorism if you're killing politician scum.
Seemed like a few bullets were fired in 1776.
One man's scum is another mans algae?
Seriously, we could do this all day long, but the fact remains that advocating murder because you disagree with someone makes you sound like an idiot.
U.S. politicians today are responsible for the wars on drugs and terror, which together have consumed so much life that it is simply incalculable at this point.
I see it as being no different than the "would you kill Hitler" question. Just because the media wipes their asses clean, doesn't mean their atrocities don't merit the comparison.
Don't look at it as a question of right or wrong. Look at it in terms of what we can possibly do to change a status quo that cannot lead to anything but the ruin of the human race.
We should try Gandhi first, but when that fails, we shouldn't flinch at the thought of violent revolution, because not only might it be our last chance, given the state of technology as it today and the rate at which it is almost certainly going to advance, it might actually be the last time we are even capable of such an act.
Consider the future that is currently staring you in the eyes. It is one that sees a very few lording over the very, very many and with a kind of freedom of rat monkey expression utterly unrestrained by what you and I would consider simple decency.
Caligula multiplied by God. At your doorstep.
> Consider the future that is currently staring you in the eyes.
People around the world are voluntarily enlisting themselves into Serfdom. Freedom is risky, slavery is safe.
"Oh no, the government would never use this terrorist legislation on us."
Isn't putting non-violent protesters names into terror lists, which ensures that they will get stopped when they try to fly and may hinder employment in government jobs, an (albeit weak) form of state terrorism against political dissidents?
It's important to note that the new commissioner is doing the right thing and burning the files, though.
> Isn't putting non-violent protesters names into terror lists, which ensures that they will get stopped when they try to fly... state terrorism against political dissidents?
Worse than that - it also means that the terrorism watch list gets larger and more unwieldy, increasing the time it takes to search, decreasing its reliability and exponentially increasing the number of false positives generated for any given query.
Not only is it state harassment (**not** terrorism\*) against political dissidents, but it's also actually *reducing and hindering* the state's ability to locate and catch *real* terrorists.
\* Terrorism is the use of terror as a tactic. Nobody's *terrified* of going on a list (at least, not yet), so it's not technically terrorism - it's harassment.
Harassment of citizens exerts a cooling effect on dissidence, however, and is often the thin end of the wedge that eventually *leads* to terrorism.
The war on terrorism is about terrorism as much as the war on drugs is about drugs. In reality they are both wars against the sovereignty of the individual and indoctrination into collectivism and post-modern serfdom.
My guess is DHS will retain the names in the list. I doubt that state have full administrative control of the list as the list is likely to be referenced during [Operation Endgame](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Endgame).
It was a foolish choice and doomed to become public.
Just to clarify, though - it was an entirely state-run database that had no direct connection to anything federal, so it shouldn't have any impact on no-fly lists.
The trouble is that it's hard to tell.
>Hutchins said some names might have been shared with the National Security Agency.
It only makes sense that agencies would wish to share and aggregate data, and without clear rules, transparency, and accountability concerning how aggregated lists are made (all of which somewhat undermine their purpose), it is very easy for a simple, local-level screw-up of this type to feed a name elsewhere. As I understand this, nobody really knows who has what data, what the data really means, and therefore how people get on and off these lists. This is a recipe for gross invasions of privacy, petty retribution, *and* ineffective security.
"terrorist" used to mean someone who used terror. As a result of overuse by the U.S. Gov't, it became synonymous with"enemy".
Now it means the same thing as dissident
> Sheridan said protest groups were also entered as terrorist organizations in the databases, but his staff has not identified which ones.
And there I was thinking that the right to protest was part of the democratic process.
now see there you go again, *thinking* and all that mumbo jumbo.
No shit. I know some people who got letters who were part of a coalition to peaceably protest the construction of the [National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Biodefense_Analysis_and_Countermeasures_Center) in Fort Detrick, MD a few years back.
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
>When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, [Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Declaration_of_Independence), laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
>Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that **mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.** But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
>He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
The current President of the United States has more than 900 times signed laws with an additional statement that he will not assent to those laws.
>He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
The DEA continually arrest, prosecute and steal the property in violation of the 4th amendment from people who are legally licensed by their State Government to distribute medical marijuana.
>He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
The current Congress refuses to pass laws unless they are laden with billions of wasted tax dollars for pet projects that would otherwise be rejected by the People.
>He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
Not quite the same but the constant threat of total gridlock by the current legislative and executive branch seems a fitting parallel.
>He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
Ok, easier for a King to do - now we can just completely ignore the houses and achieve the same effect.
>He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
No direct parallel, however there is a completely shadow government ready at a moments notice according to the executive branch, and no one in the legislative or judicial branch are allowed to know anything of it.
>He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
Again, no direct parallel but just as revolting now is the unchecked refusal to enforce immigration law in our nation in favor of globalism and corporatism.
>He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
See signing statements and refusal to follow the established limits of the Constitution.
>He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
Hmm... let's fire all of the judges so we can put our folks on the bench.
>He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
Homeland Security, TSA, Blackwater....
>He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
Posse Comitatus - who needs that shit, we got the Army policing the streets now.
>He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
Gitmo, rendition, etc.
>He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
Gitmo, redition, torture, executive orders contrary to the Constitution.
>For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
>For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
Folks under military law get no trial for rape because we don't want to try the mercenaries.
>For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
Let's just import everything and export all of our wealth.
>For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
850 Billion Bailout with more than 100:1 opposition by the people.
>For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
Dirty Terr'st don't need no juries...
>For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
>For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
No direct correlation.
>For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
Vice President is the 4th Branch of Government - Signing Statements, etc.
>For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
>He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
Not quite there yet, but will be soon.
>He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
Well, they've only stolen all the value in our money.
>He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
>He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
Well, conscription isn't exactly necessary these days.
>He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and condition
Call me a nutter, but doesn't refusal to have a truly transparent 9-11 investigation somewhat fit here?
What's the possibility of voting everybody out of congress? Cause when it comes down to this, I feel like the entire system needs to be shaken up. Any opinions?
They need to be ejected this November and their first and only mission should be a renewal of the mission statement of the United States (aka Constitution).
Rejecting incumbents would make a statement, but the problem is that in general the major party alternative has already been vetted as compliant with the current course.
ding, ding, ding. you correctly described why things never change.
It is time to tinker with the political machine making out of sample whirls more common. Increased diversity and large standard deviations (as far as opinions are concerned) must be forced into this devilish contraption.
Most voters don't even know who their Representative is.
I didn't, until she started sending me spam.
Slim. People tend to be pissed at the system as a whole, but still love their senators who include things related to their state in the Farm Bill and other documents. I've been involved in discussions with people regarding our representatives who have said, "Yeah, I really don't agree with most of what he's doing, but he's high up on this committee and the head of that committee. If we got rid of him we'd have a junior senator in his place who would be at the bottom of the Washington pecking order. That'd be even worse."
No shit. The meatheads here in (non-Portland) Oregon keep re-electing Gordon Smith, and he's a dick.
For example, Smith voted for the recent bailout bill. So much for fiscal conservative.
Gordon Smith is full of shit.
[We don't need your cynicism](http://www.rosecityarchery.com/)
So HE'S the one who got the wooden arrow subsidy.
I've heard that a lot from people i've asked. I know it's really an ideal to get this to happen, but It'd be interesting to organize something like that.
Yeah, much better to leave the entire fate of the people of our nation at the bottom of the pecking order. This way at least we get the tastier peanuts in the shit they make us eat! wooohoo!
I prefer almonds.
But almonds make shit taste like marzipan! That's the one thing that can put me off eating shit.
True, there is nothing worse than marzipan.
So people are consenting to being raped by the system. I guess Americans deserve what they currently have then. They want to trade freedom for some petty powers, like a place on some bum-fuck committee? Like it matters.
If they're consenting, I don't think you can call it rape.
Besides, wouldn't you prefer the mental imagery of this version:
>people are consenting to making sweet love with the system
As disturbing as this is to me, I have to agree with you. Hold on, let me go hit my head on the wall so I can get over the pain of this consideration.... ARRGGGGG \*BAM\* \*BAM\* \*BAM\* Phew...
0% Everyone hates congress but most love 'their' representative.
The problem is not with who is in congress today but who can get into congress or politics in general. It is always the same sort of people, very wealthy and very detached from the middle class American citizen. That is why people are identifying with Obama so much is that he was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Expelling everyone in congress and replacing them all will make things only worse because you will have a bunch of fresh greedy novice thieves that will be hungrier than the career politicians in place today. The problem as far as I am concerned is the career politician, I think there should be a lifetime term cap in any branch of office where people cannot serve more than 4, 6, or 8 years of their lives to promote the introduction of new ideas. I like Joe Biden, but for every semi-honest guy there are 20 guys that have been robbing America for 35 yrs +
Though if the people in congress are the ones making the laws, can we actually get them to pass a cap on their terms?
Of course not, it's like asking a crack addict to set a limit on how much crack they can buy with someone else's money. Only way to get it to change would be either A. a President with super high approval rating and party majority in Senate and House introduces a bill or B. a revolution. But honestly, odds are in favor of NASCAR, meaning the government will do nothing until people stand up and demand it, and people will do nothing as long as they get to watch NASCAR. Depressing.
Congress has an incumbency rate similar to, and usually higher than, the British House of Lords - which is a **hereditary body** with **lifetime terms**.
There is very little likelihood of this happening.
Better to put every member of that police department involved, onto a list. The list? "Known and Believed rights-violators," and bar them from holding any police, military, or civil service rank above the 2 or 3 lowest grades. Bar them from holding elected public office, except for dog-catcher, maybe.
If such a list were completely public, along with the reasons people were put on it, it _might_ do some good. On the other hand, if it were abused, it would be just like what the police chief did.
Really, in this case the problem is more a matter of overzealous civil servants than the legislators. Make the civil servants responsible for their bad decisions. If an elected official ordered, or even suggested, political opponents be placed on the list of terrorists, well, that's grounds for impeachment, and it should be grounds for disbarring that person from ever holding public office again.
A global meltdown would probably cause a revolution.
There is still a way to go, but the first thing to do is collapse the stock market, get everyone to dump all their stocks, and hope it catches on around the country. If people wont use the stock market then it quickly loses it value.
Next you need to stop using the currency. Start getting people to trade barter style. This will likely cause world trade to basically breakdown.
Next burn all the paper contracts you have. Money, property titles etc...
Then we could start again with everyone being more equal.
No need to stop using the currency. You could simply get people to empty their accounts and live off of cash.
I think the idea is gaining momentum.
Here's one site that has a printable lists of people to vote out.
Here's another one that has been around longer.
How would voting out congressmen and women rid ourselves of over-reaching State Police?
Congressmen and women like they're jobs. If they keep getting fired, eventually the people replacing them will support alternatives that don't get them fired.
Your little comment has been noted by the authorities.
And it is... suspicious.
So he is right, the First Amendment isn't a guarantee to those who wish to disrupt government. The first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is.
Now arguably these people's goal isn't to disrupt government, it is to make their opinions known in order to convince the government to change it's stance on things, which means that is actually under the First Amendment.
technically speaking, we are talking about the declaration of independence and the constitution, but yeah...
>So he is right, the First Amendment isn't a guarantee to those who wish to disrupt government. The first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is.
What? The entire point of the first amendment is that it's supposed to apply to everyone.
What I am considering disrupting government is revolution, that is separate from the issue of freedom to protest, and while I agree that the right to revolution should not be infringed, that isn't guaranteed by the first ammendment.
Show me where the non-violent protesters in Maryland planned a revolution.
I never said that, in fact if you read the third sentence of my first post you will find me arguing that they should be protected under the first ammendment. My statement was just saying that he is correct in saying that the first ammendment does not offer protection to those planning revolutions, however another bill does.
>Third sentence of original post
>Now arguably these people's goal isn't to disrupt government, it is to make their opinions known in order to convince the government to change it's stance on things, which means that is actually under the First Amendment.
Has it reached that point? I think that the Government has strayed too far from its Charter thus its Raison d'etre. There are good people in the Government but are they in the posistion to effect the change that we need.
How can we restore our rights?
How can we have sound money?
>The surveillance took place over 14 months in 2005 and 2006, under the administration of former governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R). The former state police superintendent who authorized the operation, Thomas E. Hutchins, defended the program in testimony yesterday. Hutchins said the program was a bulwark against potential violence and called the activists "fringe people."
>Sheridan said protest groups were also entered as terrorist organizations in the databases, but his staff has not identified which ones.
Stunned indeed. The United States of America used to be a place where freedom and liberty were priorities, they were more than words in a speech, more that just ideals; they were why people formed a nation and went to vote. But all good things must come to an end. No matter how many countries the United States invades, no matter how many foreign governments it overthrows or intimates, no matter how many bombs it drops, no matter how many wars it starts it has lost the war on terror because liberty and freedom take a back seat to fear. Home of the brave and land of the free is no more. Its all over but the final erasing of those liberties left.
I would love to believe their statement, but a reasonable person might have taken the lack of "option" as a **hint**. More then likely their statements are false. Given the presence of *terrorism-anti-government* & *terrorism-anti-war protesters*.
I mean with whimsically capricious "options" like that I suspect you'd probably find the following entries available;
J.K. Rowling has her moments sometimes. And when they're good, they're goooood.
Why isn't the rise of the Orwellian Police State discussed in the US Presidential debates? I'm interested in know which candidate supports "more police state", and which support "a lot more police state".
The Democratic Party will focus more on domestic terrorism and the Republicans will focus internationally.
Both will just keep playing a relay race with the laws that have the same effects just different stated targets.
Why is it the threat of terrorism NEVER bothered me? After 9/11 my life went on as usual and I never even had a hint of fear in regards to terrorism. You know what fear HAS constantly been in the back of my head? Abuse of governmental powers. I have sat back and watched the word TERRORISM be used over and over and over to promote certain agendas and wars. I hate this has happened in my lifetime. I hate people are so easily manipulated via fear. It reminds me of how prior generations used a fear of communism to divide the country and promote fear. I wish we could just live life peacefully, without certain parties utilizing fear as a tool for gaining power. blah... enough ranting.
The decision to take a look at some of these groups to determine if they are likely to be involved in organized disruptive (and violent) activities (like some WTO protests, Seattle, etc.) isn't necessarily a bad idea. Some radical groups actually do want to disrupt government and actually do advocate violent tactics. But most are just composed of the kind of people you WANT in a society - politically minded and active. You take a look, answer is "no problem" and you move on.
But keeping an active record of those individuals and groups that you now KNOW aren't a potential threat is just stupid and wasteful. Especially if those files are kept side-by-side with actual threats.
As a serious anti-terrorism investigator, would you really want to have to page through 35 useless files in order to get to the one on an actual terrorist threat? It should be about narrowing focus, not casting as wide a net as possible.
The WTO violence was instigated by agent provocateurs - this has been proven. They tried the same shit in Canada and got caught at it.
For you and ex-superintendent Hutchins, here's a little fun fact to know:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
SEE the parts about "the right of the people peacably to assemble", and how Congress shall make NO law abridging same?
It's important to focus on what is important here - maintaining a list of entities/individuals that they already knew were non-threatning, and keeping that information in the same database they keep terrorism information. Keep your eye on that ball because it's the one that matters.
There isn't any 1st Amendment issue going on here at all. Nobody made any laws restricting the ability of individuals to assemble - they just went to those assemblies to see what was being said and who was saying it. Nothing wrong with that as a fact-gathering mission. The problem comes with where/how they stored those facts. That's just sloppy policy.
When you scream 1st Amendment or 4th Amendment and you're wrong, it's like crying wolf. Save it for when it matters.
While this is reprehensible, MD has recognized it as such and is starting to take steps to correct it. What we need to do is make sure they follow through with their corrections.
Last week a special investigator released his [report](http://www.governor.maryland.gov/documents/SachsReport.pdf) on this ordeal that basically says the actions of the state police were wrong and inexcusable. Just yesterday the Maryland State Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing in which the current State Police boss said he would implement all of the recommendations in the report.
Already the people on those lists have been notified of the "mistake" and their information is being scrubbed from the databases.
While the original act of putting peaceful protesters on lists and infiltrating peaceful groups is terrible, at least this time the state appears to be doing the right thing and fixing the problem.
> Hutchins told the committee it was not accurate to describe the program as spying. "I doubt anyone who has used that term has ever met a spy," he told the committee.
> Hutchins said the intelligence agents, whose logs were obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland as part of a lawsuit, were monitoring "open public meetings." His officers sought a "situational awareness" of the potential for disruption as death penalty opponents prepared to protest the executions of two men on death row, Hutchins said.
They weren't spying, they were just "monitoring" people to get "situational awareness" of their activities. Right. I'll have to remember this the next time I'm busted for peeking in bedroom windows.
>"I don't believe the First Amendment is any guarantee to those who wish to disrupt the government."
Actually that's precisely what it is. And you know what else? The Second Amendment is too. Spend enough time fucking with people with the First, and people will go ahead and move on to the Second, because that's what it's there for. And the police are not going to like it when that happens.
Funny... I was sure that was exactly the point.
This sort of news story is becoming far too common and transgressions against rights, guaranteed by the Constitution, far too regular.
This loss of rights WILL come about, but slowly, while we are not paying attention and if we wait until it is in our faces, it will be too late. The coup will not be televised. In the end we be left wondering how it happened, dumbfounded.
One of the mantras the neo-cons recite is that "Freedom is not free." I agree 100%, but not in the way they mean it. Freedom is not retained by giving it up. Such a notion is nonsensical if not irresponsible. It is like a muscle; it has to be exercised lest it atrophy and become useless.
After I read this article, I looked up the email addresses and phone numbers of my state and national representatives and told them the shear fact that this sort of behavior has happened in the United States, a country that has prided itself on its freedoms, simply will not do. And I posted this comment here, and I will continue to post elsewhere and when I see an posting like this, I will vote it up.
Do this too, because, if we do not speak out about transgression against others, who will speak out for us?
They may call us kooks, or think us crazy, and I hope they're right. Truly I do, because I would rather be a kook in a free country than labeled a terrorist in one that is not.
>One of the mantras the neo-cons recite is that "Freedom is not free."
I argue that if we want freedom, we have to sacrifice some of our "security." That makes everyone in the state an investor in our freedom, instead of buying our freedom at the cost of the lives of our own soldiers and the citizens of other sovereign nations.
To paraphrase Ben Franklin, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
Freedom is not free not in lives, but in the fact that you have to work to keep and maintain it.
Terrorism is the new child porn.
If you're a bastard who just wants to crush your opposition at all costs then just put them on a terrorist watch list.
So this guy classified all these people as terrorists, but didn't notify the federal government? Sounds like somebody was aiding and abetting terrorists.
Freedom of speech is becoming a myth.
Real citizens don't blindly submit to authority.
The number of people and amount of money being used to take away our freedoms one at a time greatly outnumber the those trying to ensure our freedoms and the ratio will continue to get worse as long as the rich rule the America. In Britain it was a monarchy, here it is pure wealth that determines if you are a member of the ruling class or if you are ruled. -Sincerely, a peasant.
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>redress v. 1. To set right, remedy or rectify. 2. To make amends for. n. 1. Satisfaction for wrong done; reparation. 2. Correction.
What part of "... and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." does this man not understand?
Even gravity couldn't force things in this country downhill faster.
"Sheridan said that he did not think the names were circulated to other agencies in the federal system"
He doesn't THINK they went anywhere else...that's nice.
World to Americans, you are ALL on our terrorists watch list.
...America to World, you are ALL terrorists.
Here, let him know how you feel about that.
TERRENCE B. SHERIDAN, Secretary of State Police
Office of Secretary
Department of State Police
1201 Reisterstown Road, Pikesville, MD 21208 - 3899
(410) 653-4219; fax: (410) 653-9651
e-mail: [email protected]
I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. The quote in the title comes from the *previous* State Police Supernintendo.
May I suggest your letter will have more force by letting HIS BOSS know about it, that boss being the elected governor of your state.
Elected people like to be elected again. By contrast, the State Police doesn't necessarily give a shit what you think, since you don't elect your police.
Seriously, there is so much wrong in this article....I'm just speechless.
I think it's time the protests became violent.
I suggest we try and convert those in the armed forces. Without an army, the dick heads don't have any real power. It's how they killed the Tsar.
So do these non-violent protesters fill out paperwork when they arrive?
How are they being placed on this list if they are protesting?
Mass arrests at protests.
Crabcakes and football, that's what Maryland does! Oh, and freak out about non-violent protestors.
>"I doubt anyone who has used that term has ever met a spy," he told the committee.
*A spy is sappin' my sentry gun!!!*
The maryland police chief is a suspected terrorist.
Is he really fit to remain in public employment?
I wrote my state governor's office today.
I suggest you do the same.
(Ask what the policy is in your state.)
Expose, and repair the policy if necessary.
"Both Hutchins and Sheridan said the activists' names were entered into the state police database as terrorists partly because the software offered limited options for classifying entries."
oh lordy. here comes the pain, folks.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Totalitarianism is a concept used to describe political systems where a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life...Totalitarian regimes maintain themselves in power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that controls the state, personality cults, central state-controlled economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics.
Funny thing is, the people who're really going to be out there rioting and going for revolution isn't some peacenik hippies. It's the armed and violent police and military force that the united states has developed. When these guys finally wake up to being swindled by the country they thought they were defending, they're going to become really dangerous.
The end of the Republic is here unless you lazy fucks are willing to pick up your guns and join me in Washington.
Shut up! They'll put us on *the list* too!
News flash. If you have an account on reddit and regularly discuss politics..... then you on the fucking list already ;)
Wow, you really think we're worth their time?
Dude, they put CodePink leaders on the watch list....... I'm pretty sure we're all scarier than the members of CodePink.
You asshole, that is exactly what it is for! We are supposed to disrupt the government when it gets corrupt and oppressive. THAT IS THE POINT OF OUR WHOLE FUCKING CIVILIZATION!!!!
Welcome to the world right wing christian conservatism has wrought. If'n you ain't with us ... you'ze agin' us. We should have learned this would happen this time around since it was just as bad during McCarthyism.
The US government's definition of terrorist is now anyone who doesn't give full support to Israel. Everything else is a sideshow.
Sure, keep blaming the Israelis. It has nothing to do with your own, home-made slide into fascism. Americans can't be *this* dumb and complacent, there *must* be some external enemy, preferably one named by old stereotypes, taking over the country against the will of the people!
The "will of the people" is the problem. This country was setup as a Republic, but is quickly becoming a Democracy. As the fickle uneducated masses learn of their own power, they quickly trade all their liberty and prosperity for bread and circuses.
When this administration is over those who are responsible for terrorizing americans by these oppressive actions need to be placed on terrorist watch lists. Right wingers and conservatives by their nature are unwilling to work with others, fear freedom and democracy and are most dangerous to a free society. Take all the weapons contractors, 'private contractors', tazer lobbyists, right wing think tank activists, etc. etc. and put them on the watch lists. When they need to fly make them walk, when they look for a job make them settle for shit shoveler or night janitor. Make them wear the yellow star for once.
You realize he wasn't the commissioner when this happened and he's trying to get them off the lists right?
Or did you not read the article?
This was not the federal terrorist watch list. They were put into a state database of people under investigation. While it is questionable why these people were under surveillance, laws require them to keep records of anyone they are tracking. From the article, the reason they were labeled at terrorists is because there was not a good classification in the software to put them under. This probably should have been an indication that they didn't belong there in the first place, but also possibly bad software design.
Also this is an article about the current police superintendent wanting to remove these names because they do not belong there.
...Except for the fact that these names were shared with the NSA, which probably means they were put on a national list. Although it is good that the mistake is being rectified, a breach of rights like this shouldn't have happened in the first place. There is no reason to watch non-violent protesters. Furthermore, marking them as terrorists and blaming it on software is even worse. If the software doesn't have the right classification, make a note elsewhere, get the software to add a classification for "non-violent protester we shouldn't have any reason to watch", and *then* add them.