Straight out of 1984

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by hogger129, Oct 16, 2010.

  1. hogger129

    hogger129 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,151
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101016/ap_on_re_us/us_gps_tracking_warrants

    I thought in the United States of America, we had such a thing as the Fourth Amendment. Apparently the FBI disagrees.

    The bigger question here that scares the heck out of me is - What happens when it's us? I don't think too many people on here support the Obama agenda. So what happens when we are viewed as threats and they stick things like this on our cars?
  2. ofitg

    ofitg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,446
    A couple of weeks ago I heard that the feds have portable back-scatter X-Ray imagers installed in vans. Now they can roll around the streets and see what's inside cars, behind walls, and under pedestrians' clothes.
  3. Big ugly

    Big ugly New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,682
    Location:
    Knoxville Tennessee
    Yup the portable scanner was developed for rescue workers to locate lost souls in a burning home or in rubble after a disaster such as a tornado and hurricane. The Feds love it. That aint new though they have had that for a few years now.
  4. Millwright

    Millwright Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,886
    Sounds more like a "StarWars" fantasy to me.

    Last real, documented, info on this technology I read, it would take a small semi-trailer to tote all the hard/soft ware, computers and power supply......Not that it isn't a nifty technology for scanning containers, air passengers, luggage, etc in the right circumstances/conditions. >MW
  5. ofitg

    ofitg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,446
    X-ray vans that can see through walls--and clothes--hit America's streets. Nervous yet?


    AS&E's vans can be driven past stationary vehicles to scan their contents or parked to see the innards of passing cars and trucks.

    Privacy-conscious travelers may cringe to think of the full-body scanners finding their way into dozens of airport checkpoints around the country. Most likely aren't aware that the same technology, capable of seeing through walls and clothes, has also been rolling out on U.S. streets

    ---------------------------------------

    Full article here - http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0...homeland-security-aclu-drive-by-snooping.html
  6. Dakota Red 1

    Dakota Red 1 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2007
    Messages:
    504
    Location:
    Kansas
    Used a backscatter van a few years ago. Van sized, works OK, but you really need a good operator that knows what he is looking at or mistakes will be made. Of all the layers of security I was dealing with, a puppy dog with a good nose barked the loudest.

    On this surveillance stuff, the genie is out of the bottle. If the courts won't limit this gear through constitutional constraints, we have to elect folks who will limit it through budgetary restraints. Starve the monster.
  7. ampaterry

    ampaterry *TFF Admin Staff Chaplain* Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2008
    Messages:
    8,214
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    Boy, what an issue.

    I am torn between being a strict constitutionalist and thinking that anyone named Yasir, Muhamid or Abdulah should have a GPS chip implanted in their butt before they are allowed into our country.
  8. hogger129

    hogger129 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,151
    I am for having a "GPS chip implanted into their butt before they are allowed into our country" if it is done within probable cause and with a warrant explaining what and who they are surveilling. If they can bypass the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans named Yasir, they can just as easily undermine the Fourth Amendment rights of anybody else.

    I do think terrorism needs to be dealt with. But it can be done within the limits of our Constitution.
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2010
  9. Gun Geezer

    Gun Geezer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,194
    Location:
    Central Florida
    +1
  10. Hatch

    Hatch Former Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    287
    It's a shame they go out of their way proving they can exploit the weaknesses of our society and destroy people and opportunity instead of adapting as generations did before, and embrace a new life that isnt dictated by mullah's and figure heads of whatever else denomination....

    it's killing our country, and we have a huge segment who are cheering them on... if that's not the definition of TRAITOR then what is?
  11. noslolo

    noslolo New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,564
    Location:
    Johnstown PA
    I feel the same way ampaterry. I have mixed feelings as well. We live in a very confusing time.
  12. The_Rifleman

    The_Rifleman New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    873
    Location:
    Ohio
    Your paying... Correction. Your grandchildren are paying for it. They got plenty of money, it seems.
  13. tmaca

    tmaca New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    7
    Something I once read, referring to the NAZI exterminations in the 1930s and 1940s:

    When they came for the Jews, I did nothing. When they came for the Gypsies, I did nothing. When they came for the Catholics, I did nothing. When they came for me, there was nobody left who could do anything.

    I am continually amazed that so many people think that if the government is able to ignore the civil liberties of one group of people, it doesn't matter because that group is "bad", and "since I'm not part of that group, so it won't hurt me".

    Criminals shouldn't have any rights. Terrorists shouldn't have any rights. Well, maybe. The problem there is, who gets to decide who is in fact a criminal or a terrorist? In America, it's supposed to be a jury. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case.

    A couple of decades back a Police Chief wrote a best selling book in which he advocated eliminating rights for criminals. The problem was that it seemed, in his opinion, that a criminal was not someone who had been tried and convicted of a crime. He apparently felt that it was anyone who the police thought was a criminal. His dream seems to be coming true. Since 2001, largely because the media has managed to instill such an unthinking fear of terrorism in the American public, an incredible number of laws that completely ignore our supposed constitutional protections have been enacted. And most Americans are fine with that, because these laws are supposedly directed against terrorists, and they themselves are not terrorists.

    Unfortunately, that's not how it really works. A terror suspect can now be locked up indefinitely and held totally incommunicado. He can be refused the right to speak with a lawyer (or anyone else), and nobody, not even his wife or children, has to even be told that he has been arrested, let alone where he is or anything else. He himself does not have to be told why he is locked up, and does not have to be actually charged with anything at all in order to be kept however long they feel like keeping him. And I'm talking about months, even years, not just days or even weeks. Now this may sound fine to many people. After all, the guy's a terrorist, right? WRONG!! He doesn't have to be convicted or even, either officially or unofficially, accused of any crime. All it takes to remove every single constitutional right there is from ANY individual is a statement saying that he is under investigation for some connection to terrorist activity, signed not by a judge or even a prosecutor, but simply by, essentially, any federal officer. No need for any judge or prosecutor to even be involved. Just some federal officer. And no need for even an accusation of actual terrorist activity or involvement, just of being somehow "connected to" some unspecific and unexplained "terrorist activity". Like the guy who had this happen to him because he used a computer at a public library in Florida which had some time previously been used by the terrorists in 2001 while they were going to flight school. NOT because he used it for anything that was in any way related to terrorism, or even any other kind of crime. Just that he happened to use one of the same computers. Oh, yeah. And because he had an Arabic name.

    When all it takes is for any federal officer to be suspicious of you, for even for the stupidest of reasons, and to then sign a statement that you're being investigated for connection to terrorism, for you to be secretly locked up and held however long they wish, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. You may feel safe because you know you're not any kind of a criminal, let alone a terrorist, but under such laws you do not have to be one. You simply have to be suspected of maybe being somehow connected. And your English, French, Irish, or whatever, last name is no protection at all. Nothing in these laws says that they can only be used against people with Arabic sounding names.

    I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who wrote that he who is willing to surrender his liberty in return for security will, in the end, have neither. Unfortunately, most Americans do not know they are surrendering their liberty because they think these laws will only affect terrorists. The reality is that they affect everyone because there is no requirement that anyone prove that a person really is a terrorist, not even a requirement to show that there is probable cause to suspect some individual.

    The constitution was specifically written to protect EVERYONE. It was intentionally designed to protect against the "tyranny of the majority". It is SUPPOSED TO insure that no person or group is treated unfairly just because the winds of majority opinion have shifted to include them as some sort of "undesirable". Our government IS NOT structured for majority rule, it was never supposed to be. It was designed for majority rule restrained by specific constitutional protections, so that if enough legislators who, as an example, believed that private individuals should not be allowed to have guns (sound familiar, folks?), got elected, private possession of guns could not be made completely illegal.

    You cannot pick and choose which parts of the constitution you like. You cannot rely on the 4th amendment to let you keep your guns while you allow the protections against unreasonable search and seizure, and imprisonment, to be ignored. You cannot say that certain parts of the constitution protect you while you allow someone else, who has not been proved to be any kind of a criminal, to be stripped of those protections. The constitution either stands as a whole, and protects everyone, or it protects nobody. Otherwise, only the people who are members of whatever is at the time the "respectable" part of society, and who agree, and who the government acknowledges agree, with whatever the majority opinion is at the moment, will have reasonably free lives. And if, somehow, the majority opinion and/or the accepted definition of "respectable" shifts, as it often does, not even they will be left alone.
  14. ofitg

    ofitg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,446
    tmaca, this reminds me of some recent discussion about a "terror loophole"..... supposedly, people who are on the "terror watch" list are still able to pass the background checks and purchase firearms..... as you can imagine, the anti-gunners are trying to introduce legislation which would block this so-called "loophole". Sadly, a lot of gun-owners agree with them.

    The problem is, of course, that any one of us could be placed on the "terror watch" list at any time. No formal charges, no trial, no conviction. Just the stroke of some bureaucrat's pencil.

    If a foreigner was here on a legal visa, and his name was on the "terror watch" list, I guess we might be justified to prevent him from buying a gun. However, U.S. citizens should not have their rights denied in such a arbitrary manner.
  15. Warith

    Warith Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    289
    Location:
    Belton, Mo
    The man who trades his freedom for secutiry shall have niether.

    Man I wish people would take that quote to heart. hehe to dang old to remember who said that infact but I still remember it.

    An other good one is "more freedoms are/will be lost threw good intintions than wars'

    Both of those 'rules' are being violated every day by our leaders and we are letting them get by with it.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Finally got a straight answer? Feb 22, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum pulled straight from romneys website... May 5, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Does anybody know the straight story behind the U.N. Small Arms Treaty? Mar 20, 2010
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum When will we get some straight answers? Apr 6, 2008
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Let's get our story straight Jun 21, 2004

Share This Page