Saturday, June 8, 2013

Obama And Republicans Surveillence Fascists Police State

Larry Johnson -  Some Republicans and Democrats are fascists. They do not give a damn about the Constitution and use the pervasive threat of fear to justify giving the Federal Government unlimited power to pry into your life. The despicable, loathsome members of Congress–McCain, Graham, Mike Rodgers and Diane Feinstein, to name a few–happily insist that allowing the government to circumvent the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is a necessity because of our fear of terrorism, which Obama insisted a couple of weeks back is a receding threat.
Here’s a great explanation of the Fourth Amendment:
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The American Revolution was fought, in part, to create a system of government in which the Rule of Law would reign supreme. The rule of law is often identified with the old saying that the United States is a nation of laws and not of men. Under the rule of law, the actions of government officials are prescribed by the principles and laws that make up the U.S. legal system and do not reflect the Arbitrary whims and caprices of the government officials themselves.
A distinction is sometimes drawn between power and authority. Law enforcement officers are entrusted with the powers to conduct investigations, to make arrests, and occasionally to use lethal force in the line of duty. But these powers must be exercised within the parameters authorized by the law. Power exercised outside of these legal parameters transforms law enforcers into lawbreakers, as happened when Los Angeles police officer Laurence Powell was convicted for using excessive force against rodney king, who had been stopped for speeding. Powell repeatedly struck King with his night-stick even though King was in a submissive position, lying prone on the ground.
The Fourth Amendment was intended to create a constitutional buffer between U.S. citizens and the intimidating power of law enforcement. It has three components. First, it establishes a privacy interest by recognizing the right of U.S. citizens to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” Second, it protects this privacy interest by prohibiting searches and seizures that are “unreasonable” or are not authorized by a warrant based upon probable cause. Third, it states that no warrant may be issued to a law enforcement officer unless that warrant describes with particularity “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The Framers drafted the Fourth Amendment in response to their colonial experience with British officials, whose discretion in collecting revenues for the Crown often went unchecked. Upon a mere suspicion held by British tax collectors or their informants, colonial magistrates were compelled to issue general warrants, which permitted blanket door-to-door searches of entire neighborhoods without limitation as to person or place. The law did not require magistrates to question British officials regarding the source of their suspicion or to make other credibility determinations.
The writ of assistance was a particularly loathsome form of general warrant. The name of this writ derived from the power of British authorities to enlist local peace officers and colonial residents who might “assist” in executing a particular search. A writ of assistance lasted for the life of the king or queen under whom it was issued, and it applied to every officer and subject in the British Empire. In essence, such a writ was a license for customs officers tracking smugglers and illegally imported goods.
Shame on the neocons and other Bush cheerleaders who continue to defend using the power of the Federal Government without regard to legal constraints. Dick Cheney and enablers like John Yoo stridently insisted that waterboarding and detention without habeus corpus were okay as long as your heart was pure and your target was Al Qaeda. Of course, left unsaid, was the understanding that you had to “trust” them.
I trust none of them. Neither Democrats nor Republicans. I trust the law and the limits the Constitution imposes on what the Federal Government can do to person. I am with Rand Paul on this. He is one of the few to speak the truth consistent with the Constitution.

No comments:

Post a Comment