Slashdot Log In
Widespread Spying Preceded '04 GOP Convention
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Mar 25, 2007 06:52 PM
from the protest-as-terrorism dept.
from the protest-as-terrorism dept.
Frosty Piss alerts us to a story in the New York Times reporting on details that are emerging of a far-flung spying operation lasting up to a year leading up to the 2004 Republican National Convention. The New York Police Department mounted a spy campaign reaching well beyond the state of New York. For at least a year before the convention, teams of undercover New York police officers traveled to cities across the US, Canada, and Europe to conduct covert observations of people who planned to protest at the convention. Across the country undercover officers attended meetings of political groups, posing as sympathizers or fellow activists. In at least some cases, intelligence on what appeared to be lawful activity was shared with other police departments. Outlines of the pre-convention operations are emerging from records in federal lawsuits brought over mass arrests during the convention.
Related Stories
[+]
News: Protests Move From the Streets To YouTube 156 comments
weighn writes "One factor driving the move of political statements to YouTube, and away from old-style street protest, is that on the Internet the chances of being personally associated with a protest are lower. Mounting your political message online is also safer in countries where taking part in a protest can result in your death or injury at the hands of your country's army. We've seen how street protests and online polls alike are being shunted aside and ignored. What is the future for the common person who yearns to be heard?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
This is the police. (Score:3, Insightful)
Police has no morality whatsoever; they are not sworn-in to the Constitution like the armed forces are, and so are open to perform all abuses for the rich and powerful.
Re:This is the police. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
Re:This is the police. (Score:4, Funny)
Make a huge withdrawal. Then go to the Parties.
Parent
Re:This is the police. (Score:5, Insightful)
For a couple days, half of people will get upset over the abuse of power and invasion of privacy and misuse of government while the other half excuse and justify it with comments like "if ya don't have nuthin' tuh hide" and "we're at war - you have to give up some freedoms to be safe during war!".
Some minor news organizations will make a huge deal out of it.
Most will largely ignore it and not make a story out of it.
Within 72 hours, Americans will have forgotten entirely about it and be back to fretting over the poor blond haired, blue-eyed, pretty, affluent girl that disappeared a couple years ago in Bermuda thanks to the non-stop cable news coverage (still, two years later - as of the broadcasts LASTNIGHT!).
Remember, this is America. We don't start revolutions. We don't fight for anything unless it's the last Tickle Me Elmo on store shelves at Christmas. The most effort we're willing to put into our civics and society and the most we're willing to risk of ourselves for them is a text vote or two on our cell phones.
Parent
Re:This is the police. (Score:5, Insightful)
and we'll find something else to read and rant about on
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is the police. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:This is the police. (Score:5, Insightful)
For a couple days, half of people will get upset over the abuse of power and invasion of privacy and misuse of government while the other half excuse and justify it with comments like "if ya don't have nuthin' tuh hide" and "we're at war - you have to give up some freedoms to be safe during war!".
Ah, so then by that logic, Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers and Karl Rove should be the first ones to volunteer to testify in front of the House and Senate committees investigating the federal attorney firings. After all, if they had nothing to hide, then they should have no objections to testifying under oath, in public, with published transcripts made available immediately.
Parent
Re:This is the police. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Clinton fired 92 US Attorneys (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't feed the trolls. Don't feed the trolls. Don't feed the... ah, crap.
The current controversy is because firing US Attorneys en masse in the middle of a President's term is unprecedented. Lots of presidents appoint new attorneys when they take office. If you think Clinton is getting a free pass, here's a brain twister for you: Bush did the same thing when he took office, and nobody said a thing about it. If it's really "it's okay if Clinton does it, but not Bush!" then why didn't anyone complain then? Maybe because what's happening now isn't the same thing?
Parent
Re:Clinton fired 92 US Attorneys (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no argument that USAs serve "At the pleasure of The President".
*IF* George Bush had simply asked them to resign, there would be no scandal.
*BUT* George Bush chose to lie about the reasons they were asked to leave, defaming those USAs who in fact had very highly rated performance reviews.
Pay attention to this simple fact:
It's not the action, it's the cover-up.
And the kicker here? NO COVER UP WAS NEEDED. They just did the cover-up move out of habit.
And then Gonzales lied to Congress. And it all fell apart.
Hmmm.. Why is it important for all the USAs to be "Loyal Bushies" to use the criteria Alberto Gonzales office was using according to their emails?
It's the simple fact that the entire administration is vulnerable to charges for violating 18 USC 371.
Let me excerpt a bit of Elizabeth de la Vega's book, from the Model Indictment she drew up. ( She's an ex-United States Attorney, btw. )
From USA v. Bush. http://www.amazon.com/United-States-George-Bush-a
11. Pursuant to the Constitution, their oaths of office, their status as Executive Branch employees, and their presence in the United States, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, and POWELL, and their subordinates and employees, are required to obey Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States.
12. As used in Section 371, the term "to defraud the United States" means "to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful government functions by deceit, craft, trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest." The term also means to "impair, obstruct, or defeat the lawful function of any department of government" by the use of "false or fraudulent pretenses or representations."
13. A "false" or "fraudulent" representation is one that is: (a) made with knowledge that it is untrue; (b) a half-truth; (c) made without a reasonable basis or with reckless indifference as to whether it is, in fact, true or false; or (d) literally true, but intentionally presented in a manner reasonably calculated to deceive a person of ordinary prudence and intelligence. The knowing concealment or omission of information that a reasonable person would consider important in deciding an issue also constitutes fraud.
14. Congress is a "department of the United States" within the meaning of Section 371. In addition, hearings regarding funding for military action and authorization to use military force are "lawful functions" of Congress.
15. Accordingly, the presentation of information to Congress and the general public through deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, and fraudulent representations, including lies, half-truths, material omissions, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, while knowing and intending that such fraudulent representations would influence Congress' decisions regarding authorization to use military force and funding for military action, constitutes interfering with, obstructing, impairing, and defeating a lawful government function of a department of the United States within the meaning of Section 371.
It looks like it would take a SINGLE United States Attorney with the guts to do their job, as per their oath, and the ENTIRE administration would be perp-walked at the same time.
Explains why Bush will ultimately give away whatever he's asked. That's a hella big club to hold over his head.
Parent
Re:This is the police. (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless, they were a different breed of people. Those were people who would stand up for their ideals and freedoms. They didn't have to risk losing sit-coms on television, lattes at starbucks and their 9mpg sedans for standing up for themselves. Look at the liberties we've already lost. Do we even have half of our Bill of Rights left? I don't think so. And where is the outrage? There isn't any. As long as we can still buy Pepsi from vending machines, drive whatever car we choose and wave little american flags made in China and have our Superbowl, we believe we have freedom and are better than the rest of the planet.
Parent
Re:This is the police. (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet.. at some point, I saw too much, and the scales were removed from my eyes and I saw before me a nation of horror, and no matter how hard I try I cannot put that genie back in the bottle.
I know, as does anyone who spends more than 5 minutes thinking about this, where all of this is going..
How all of this will end...
In fire.
There is only one end to what we have built. And brother, it ain't pretty.
Parent
Re:This is the police. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:This is the police. (Score:4, Insightful)
Do what you want. But tell it like it is, Those that oppose criminal and illegal activity are not opposing free speech.
Parent
Re:This is the police. (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose a police officer would get posted outside your house. He doesn't enter your private property or anything, but he stands there, and when you leave the house, he follows you; if you enter another piece of private property (one that he can't enter - your office, for example, or a friend's house, as opposed to a supermarket or a pub), he waits outside again until you come back out. He's always with you, listening to everything you say in public, compiling a file on you that gets shared with the FBI later on. Heck, for added fun, suppose he's also recording every public conversation of yours and videotaping your actions in public.
Are you OK with that?
Clearly, the same reasoning you use could be applied here: you're in public, so everything you do and say is - well - public. And if you ask the police officer why he's doing this, he will tell you that it's in the interest of "security", of course - national security, most likely. And he's sorry, but he cannot give any details, but since he's not intruding on your *private* life, there's no issue there, right?
Now suppose the same thing's happening, but he's not identifying as a police officer or letting you know he's recording your conversations etc. or compiling a file on you; in fact, you don't even notice that he's there. He's always following you, but you don't even know until you find out years later by pure coincidence. Are you still OK with that?
The problem here is that the police simply has no business interfering with the lives of people who aren't suspected of doing anything wrong. And that's DOUBLY TRUE when we're talking about protesting and political dissent, since that's arguably one of the fundamental pillars upon which democracy rests; harassing (and I intentionally say "harassing"!) innocent people simply because they intend to attend a political demonstration creates a chilling effect and is at completely odds with democracy.
THAT is what the issue is.
Parent
Re:This is the police. (Score:5, Insightful)
And truthfully, This is the exact reason Bush needs the patriot act and the secrecy surrounding holding enemy combatants. This is exactly why he needs the suspension of Habeas Corpus for some non citizens. And this is exactly why he need the process to be conducted in a secure manor.
But those of us who are not cowards would prefer to have some risk (even though even what there is is largely overblown) than to have a totalitarian society.
In fact, that's how this country came to be.
So your cowardice (don't whine ad hominem, a coward is exactly what *you* just declared yourself to be) and that of those like you is the gravest threat our nation faces or has ever faced.
Since you're too weak and cowardly to live in a free society, why don't you move to Saudi Arabia or some other country where they already live under your favored system rather than working to fuck this place as well?
Oh yeah, that would take the courage of your convictions and you've already admitted to being a coward.
Parent
NYPD once again violates Handschu Agreement.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why am I not surprised?
The Best Intelligence Agency in the US! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is yet another illustration of my point... the people that need to be in Iraq and Afghanistan are the NYPD and the LAPD. Their SWAT, negotiations, and (apparently!) intelligence teams are what's needed - these efforts ceased being appropriate "military actions" some time ago. What's needed now is an effective police force - which not the U.S. Army or Marines.
And, by the way, yes, I do agree with what will no doubt the general sentiment on there - that is an outrageous, appalling, and despicable invasion of the personal privacy rights of ordinary citizens around the globe... but, aside from whining about how corrupt our elected officials and expressing my outrage, I figured there was some small glimmer of upside in this piece.
Re:The Best Intelligence Agency in the US! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Best Intelligence Agency in the US! (Score:4, Insightful)
I take it your assertion is that China and India have ineffective, inefficient, badly run governments? Because while I sure don't agree with the means to China's ends, they don't seem to be failing at their goals or wasting their GNP.
Parent
If by "best", you mean "overzealous" (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully you don't mean to conflate "people who planned to protest at the convention" with "destructive assholes". And that's the problem here: the police are treating people with dissenting political views as potential criminals. That's an unfortunate situation in a supposedly free society: at the very least, it certainly has a chilling effect on free speech. I've lived in a country where you had to worry about whether your neighbor or some of your college buddies were reporting on what you said to the government. That's a very effective tool for keeping a populace in line and suppressing dissent, or at least driving it underground. Paradoxically, though, the more you do that kind of thing, the more likely you are to have a huge blowup (figuratively and literally) in future.
Have you ever sat around with a group of friends who you know share your opinions, and bullshitted about how you'd like to kill someone, or see them killed, or blow up something to make a point, etc.? People say that sort of stuff all the time, even quite respectable people, especially when they're young. Now imagine there's an undercover cop in the room, and what's going to go in his report. Watch the movie "A Scanner Darkly" (or read the book) to get a bit of a feel for this, it's quite accurate in that respect. Pretty soon you've got federal agents chasing shadows, and SWAT raids on innocent people's houses. That hasn't happened all that much in the U.S. recently, yet, but the way things are going, it seems like just a matter of time. Perhaps every few generations, it's necessary to rediscover firsthand why the iron fist approach to governance doesn't work.
That all said, cops still have a job to do. But when conducting operations like this one, they need to be held to a high standard. Did you RTFA? Here's a quote:
The problem is that when you give people power over other people, abuse all too easily follows. We saw that in Abu Ghraib, and it's been demonstrated over and over in psychological experiments. When you turn someone into a spy, especially someone who isn't properly trained, it can be difficult for them to remember their real mission -- suddenly, finding anything out about anyone starts to seem important. (Some special prosecutors seem to have suffered from this effect, too.) So with operations like this, real care and oversight is needed.
Parent
Re:If by "best", you mean "overzealous" (Score:4, Interesting)
That has almost nothing to do with the chilling effects of spying on legitimate political groups.
Tangentially, you're making all sorts of errors in generalizing from the behavior of the most visible protesters. I originally responded to a comment about "destructive assholes", and was pointing out that not all protesters, or political groups, fall into that category. If you conflate the two, you're helping us as a society go down the road I'm warning about, because it makes it all too easy to legitimize excessive investigative tactics.
And if that's all they did, there wouldn't be an issue. However, a point which the NYT article raises is that NYPD's collection and sharing of information went beyond this. I'm saying that this is something to be wary of, that it can very easily get out of hand. Simply saying "Yay NYPD" as the comment I responded to essentially did, is missing the point.
Parent
Yep. (Score:3, Interesting)
Previous operations of this sort (Score:5, Insightful)
* FBI abusing its snooping authority under the patriot act
* Major telecommunications companies provide secret rooms to the government to pick through Internet communications
* Al Gonzalez authorizes (illegal) collection of phone call databases
* "Total Information Awareness" (TIA) program continues to create mass associative database of all american entities (people, businesses)
* Inkjet printers embed hidden serial numbers
* Newly issued American passports leak personal information including pictures
* Government has access to all Americans' financial transactions
* US government contracts w/private companies to harvest information (which it itself can't do)
* Law enforcement infiltrates peaceful organizations (occasionally incites and/or foments violence)
* Attorney General removes Federal Prosecutor for lack of loyalty to Administration... (raising questions about those who WEREN'T fired)
* ???
* Someone profits.
Knowing what to do? (Score:5, Interesting)
(a) Ineffectual: writing or congresspersons, letters to the editor, voting.
(b) (Typically) Crazy: armed revolt.
It's like none of us (including me) knows how to navigate the territory between those two extremes. Heck, I don't even know whether or not there is any territory in between.
Is this why we're damned to stand bye, then get over these things and go watch the newest B.S.G episode to forget about the state of the nation? We're just convinced that there's no effective way to deal with these things without resorting to violence, which we're (sensibly) loathe to do?Re:Knowing what to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if the other candidate is only slightly less repugnant. Eventually you'll run the crappy people out.
Apathy is the only reason politics is in it's current cesspool state.
Parent
Re:Knowing what to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. You'll never get good citizen oversight of elected officials and the election process (at the national level) when the average Senator represents 6 million people. Politicians are not responsible to the people, they are responsible to the media who inform the people. Even most self-described "informed" voters get the bulk of their information from television.
You're right, apathy is a problem. But ignorance and miseducation are just as big a problem, as is access to media.
Parent
Re:Knowing what to do? (Score:4, Informative)
400 billion, FWIW. Javascript Ticker [nationalpriorities.org]
Parent
All that intelligence gathering for what? (Score:5, Insightful)
So all this data was gathered and used for what...to cordon off a city block with snow fence and arrest EVERYONE in that block?
Ultimately the police likely had no real way to use any of the data, and to keep their Republican guests happy they resorted instead to just rounding up as many people as they could. By the time everyone was released the convention was over. The lawsuits will drag on for years (my brother is suing the city) and cost the city a ton of money.
The police like to boast that there were no disturbances or major incidents during the convention and they take the credit. More likely the reason is that the protestors and the citizens of New York were well behaved, protested peacefully, and even welcomed many of the convention attendees. My daughters (13 and 10 at the time) and I marched in the protest on Sunday during the convention and it was a wonderful day of peaceful expression of our political feelings.
What's kind of chilling... (Score:3, Insightful)
it's not democrat or republican specifically. It just happens that the guys who were behind what happend in '72 were also behind what happend in '04. They just happened to be republican. of course, now we have the problem that most of their ilk ARE the republican party, but that's beside the point.
This Defies Rightist "Conspiracy Theory" Arguments (Score:4, Insightful)
Great Hoover's Ghost! (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem here isn't necessarily what they were monitoring, but why they were monitioring it. As the article repeatedly states, one must have grounds for an inquiry (i.e. possible illegal activity, backed up by either compelling circumstantial evidence or hard empirical evidence) before conducting a covert inquiry. As an example: it would be perfectly legal, in most cases, to begin covert surveillance of a target if the object of the investigation could in some way be demonstrated to be a possible factor involved in illegal activty, such as someone here in TN buying extremely large amounts of, say, nyquil (can be used in making crytsal methamphetamine), so long as the amounts were truly beyond any conceivable norm (compelling circumstantial evidence). While this would by no means be enough for an arrest or conviction, a judge could be convinced to allow wiretapping, diversion of assets towards surveillance, etc. However, one bottle of nyquil would not be enough (one would hope) to get this kind of permission.
In the case reported in the article, the NYPD was effectively conducting surveillance of the one bottle of nyquil people. Simply being involved in a political protest group is by no means indicitive of illegal activity; however, the police apparently deployed assets to groups with apparently peacful intentions, with no cause to suspect illegal activity (one bottle of nyquil.) Now, if the police could show that Group A. had been responsible, say, for severe property damage at the WTO riots in Seatlle, that is compelling circumstantial evidence (did it before, might do it again) that could be used in obtaining permission for covert intelligence gathering (55 gallons of nyquil, so to speak). This does not seem to be the case here, however.
The reason that this distinction is so important is that power does tend to corrupt, not necessarily morally, as the old adage is often taken to be stating, but more often ethically. You're a cop: protect and serve, preserve the peace, and all that. By the very nature of your job, if you're dedicated to it, anyways, you are going to always be pushing as close to the edge as possible. But where exactly is that edge? Where society (in the form of government, an ethical government one would hope) places it. Only when these distinctions are upheld, only when this line is constantly reinforced and restated, does the concept of checks and balances truly work. In this case, the police have overstepped their authority, it seems. Conducting an investigation with no probable cause is no different than pulling random people off of the street and interrogating them for a crime that one has no reason to suspect they comitted. Case in point: guys, how would you feel if everytime a woman was raped in your town, every male was wiretapped, followed, and snooped on? You might say that such a thing would be different, but it's not. After all, you have a penis (these people were involved in protest groups), and almost all women are raped by men (these groups are similar in form to groups that have created disruptions in the past), so all men should be surveilled equally (RTFA).
The argument can go on and on: it is logically sound. However, the thing that is most compelling to me in this instance is it reminds me of the FBI during the Cold War, expecially during the Mcarthy era, and the Vietnam war. Do we not find it disturbing that people like MLK Jr., John Lennon, and the vast majority of the faculties of NE colleges were under surveillance, that dossiers were compiled on their potential "socialist," or "Communist," leanings, due to no more evidence than that they "fit the profile,"? Same thing here. Such policies were the product of Hoover and his protegees at the FBI, which nowadays are
Key Question: "What is the next step?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Once the FSB determines who the troublemakers are, the Kremlin orders its loyalists in the city governments to suppress dissent. In fact, on March 24, Russian authorities arrested all the peaceful protestors [iht.com] before they could begin their rally.
Will Washington follow in the footsteps of Moscow and go to the next logical step after spying? I hope that the answer is "no", but I cannot be 100% certain that the answer is "no".
Parent
Re:Key Question: "What is the next step?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:AGAIN again ..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:AGAIN again ..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:AGAIN again ..... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Looks like good policework (Score:5, Interesting)
Somehow I find it unlikely that the NYPD is up to date on current law in every jurisdiction where these activities took place. The likelihood of them having violated the legal rights of citizens increased with every new jurisdiction they entered for this conduct.
It should be noted, for example, that California's Constitution has an explicit right to Privacy, and the state AG has directed local law enforcement that "it is a mistake of constitutional dimension to gather information for a criminal intelligence file where there is no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity". In other words, what these officers did is blatantly unconstitutional in California, and only questionably unconstitutional in other jurisdictions.
It's okay, I support the right of you to be a fool willing to throw out the rights of anyone other than yourself, as long as they disagree with your politics. Continue to tell yourself that 90% of the world's population and 75% of the American population is wrong about current policy and that you, in your infinite wisdom, are the only one who understand how true peace and order may be brought to the world.
Thank you! If only you'd tell law enforcement agencies that, perhaps more peaceful protests could take place and we could all forget that the phrase "agent provocateur" ever existed!
Parent
Re:Looks like good policework (Score:4, Insightful)
I watched this convention [wikipedia.org] on television and saw the mass arrests in D.C. during the Nixon years.
Police are always politically controlled and will commit any violence necessary to satisfy their masters.
When police leave criminal investigations to enforce political decisions, no one is safe.
Parent
Re:Looks like good policework (Score:4, Insightful)
It does, however, include the right to speedy processing if you are arrested.
"senior police officials had said for months that they anticipated 1,000 arrests a day during the convention" (msnbc article [archive.org]).
So police intelligence indicated as many as 1000 arrests per day, the state and courts geared up for the onslaught, and yet the police department decided just to hold everyone in a converted maintenance garage and then release without charging them with anything? Sounds like a bit like a police state to me. Thankfully "State Supreme Court Judge John Cataldo held officials in contempt of court. "These people," Cataldo said of those arrested, "have already been victims of the process.""
So the police had a wealth of info about who they should watch and arrest and yet they went over the top and arrested entire blocks of people.
Parent
Re:AGAIN again ..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? By many measures of governmental openness, this administration has surpassed Nixonian levels of secrecy. Don't forget that this administration had a long period where they controlled all three branches of government, enabling them to change policies and regulations so that secrecy became institutionalized. Nixon did not have an opportunity to do this.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's kind of annoying that extremists can't seperate themselves from peaceful protesters. I mean, if you want to throw stones at cops, do it when they are beating up on civilians, or taking bribes, or driving through red lights without the siren on. Don't go fuck up a peaceful protest.
Part of the problem is that you will still be classified as an "extremist" if you do something they don't like. FOr example, if you try to stage a peaceful public protest where the leaders in question can actually see you, rather than staying in your "free speech zone" box in the corner of a parking lot, like they told you (cough)DNC '04(cough). They consider anyone who doesn't sit quietly at home watching TV to be an extremist.
Re:Watch the Extremists (Score:5, Interesting)
And kids, don't forget, not only should we start planning how to disrupt the 2008 Republican Convention, we should make "plans" even if we have no intention of going. Make those spies earn their pay. Shouldn't be hard to get their attention, if they are willing to infiltrate the Quakers and Billionaires for Bush.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's kind of annoying that extremists can't seperate themselves from peaceful protesters. I mean, if you want to throw stones at cops, do it when they are beating up on civilians, or taking bribes, or driving through red lights without the siren on. Don't go fuck up a peaceful protest.
Funny, I always thought the guys starting those riots were undercover cops. Say, the type that would go cross country and violate who knows how many laws to spy on innocent civilians wanting to use their free speech rights.
C'
Shit-My Bad (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:The issue is? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is missing in this hysterical world is good police work. Such work requires investigation, analysis, and conclusions free of political bias. Such work is difficult, not glamourous, but must be done. So, instead of working to reduce the 80,000+ violent crimes, the nearly 900 murders, that is one every 10 hours, 3000+ forcible rapes, they decided to attend meeting, file reports, and make accusations against individuals for which they had not evidence.
Is it clear the parent did not read the article because the parent missed the whole point. Let's put this in another perspective. What the NYPD did is in effect a very expensive fishing expedition. Such work is frowned upon. For instance, police cannot enter a premises without cause. Police cannot create reports and exchange reports for innocent person. For instance, a police officer does not have the right to claim that parent poster is a murderer if not such evidence exists. For those who have forgotten history, we do this because the country we were fighting in the American revolutionary war felt like it had the right to enter where it like, take what it wanted, and hold anyone indefinitely without cause. Many thousands good people lost their life fighting England for the freedoms we know enjoy. What is sad that we are so afraid of losing our lifestyle, not out life, just our lifestyle, that we are willing to throw it all away.
I often wonder if the people who support the policy of widespread detainment and widespread police power would actually be willing to allow their property or person to be searched without warrant, or would be willing to give up all possession for the benefit of the state.
Parent
My favorite things are... (Score:4, Funny)
My other favorite thing is experiencing a laughable attempt at character assassination during the course of an argument. Oh Noam, you old guy! Let me call you a name without referencing any fact or ideology to which I can provide an intriguing counter-example! My reputation as a slashdot reader will certainly provide some credit to my unbeatable intellect!
Of course, I know your petty little mean streak is the only thing you can hold on to with any clarity. Please continue, and leave the thinking to the rest of us. (And if you are trolling, good job - and please, continue trolling slashdot and leave the thinking to the rest of us).
Parent