About
A progressive online community for the Granite State. More...
Getting Started
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


The Masthead
Managing Editors

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
NH Progressive Blogs
Betsy Devine
Citizen Keene
Democracy for NH
Equality Press
The Political Climate
Granite State Progress
Chaz Proulx
Susan the Bruce

NH Political Links
Graniteprof
Granite Status
Kevin Landrigan
NH Political Capital
Political Chowder (TV)
Political Chowder (AM)
PolitickerNH
Pollster (NH-Sen)
Portside with Burt Cohen
Bill Siroty
Swing State 2008

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Carol Shea-Porter
Paul Hodes
Jeanne Shaheen
Barack Obama (NH)

ActBlue Hampshire
Stop Sununu
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Bob Geiger
DailyKos
Digby
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
RSS Feed

Blue Hampshire RSS

"Law enforcement and the war on terror" in Minneapolis and elsewhere

by: hannah

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:12:25 AM EDT
It's been apparent to me for some time that the war on terror is a smoke screen for the effort to roll back the civil and human rights protections achieved by the American people in the 1960s and "secure" the population from enforcing their own laws.

hannah :: "Law enforcement and the war on terror" in Minneapolis and elsewhere
It should be noted that "to secure" means to tie down or lock up.  That the agents of law enforcement have been complicit in carrying out the security agenda is not a surprise.  There's a big difference between being the agents of law enforcement and being "the law" and many individuals are enamored with the latter.

One other point I'd make in response to the statement by the last speaker in the video and that is that neither the Constitution nor the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees or protects or imparts the right to speak freely, assemble, or distribute information.  What the Constitution does and the Bill of Rights affirms is to lay a prohibition on the agents of government--i.e. it outlines what they may not do.  The rights are natural or God-given and may not be abridged.  Does it make a difference?  You bet.  If the rights were given by the document, an amendment could take them away.  
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
"Law enforcement and the war on terror" in Minneapolis and elsewhere | 3 comments
Thank you (0.00 / 0)
I look forward to a rational discussion of these issues in the next administration.

This relates a little bit to what I was getting at in this diary:
http://www.bluehampshire.com/s...

The major media -- private corporations, most of them -- are granted privileged access by both political parties, whereas the independent/smaller media, like these guys, are given the boot. It is as pure a democratic problem as any other industry in which the most powerful forces have lobbyists. In lieu of lobbyists, the major media has their bullhorns. You can't harass David Gregory.

I still have sympathy for individual reporters, filing on deadline, trying to find the original angle on the story everyone is doing, etc. But all the "message management" the campaigns pride themselves on has its cost.

There are obvious practical limitations, in a convention setting. But then there are limitations in other settings ... and other limitations in every setting ...


Better be soon-- (0.00 / 0)

Another vignette from Denver (0.00 / 0)

Clearly, our police officers need some lessons in the law.  A "lawful order" is one that complies with the law.  Individuals cannot be removed from public property at the whim of the police and pushing them into traffic should be considered an assault.  
Considering that many offers to provide instruction in the writing of clear and accurate reports have been consistently refused and the preferred response to citizen requests for a justification of police behavior that they should "tell it to the judge," it seems fair to conclude that the failure to provide adequate legal training to the agents of law enforcement is willful--"if you don't know, they can't hold you accountable."

At the same time, law enforcement agencies at all levels are spending an inordinate amount of time on "training" that's mostly designed to satisfy liability insurance concerns.  That is, they are taught to assert themselves to have been in fear for their lives whenever they engage in an aggressive act.  So, in effect, they're being provided with the ability to make believable excuses, just like the career criminal.

The line between the police and the crook is very thin.

In the instance in the video, effecting an arrest for a simple misdemeanor two hours after the alleged act has effectively nullified the arrest.  But, the police don't care because the purpose of the arrest is to intimidate the public, not deal with miscreant behavior.

"Law enforcement and the war on terror" in Minneapolis and elsewhere | 3 comments
Powered by: SoapBlox