Posted on 06/29/2004 9:27:45 AM PDT by ksen
Police state, ho!
by John Whitehead
6/28/04
With each passing day, America is inching further down a slippery slope toward a police state. Soon, we’ll have picked up so much momentum that there will be no turning back.
Incredibly, not too many people appear concerned. Bombarded by media images and a mind-numbing entertainment culture, people seem to be so distracted that they do not even realize that our civil liberties are slowly and stealthily eroding away.
Yet the signs of a police state are everywhere. They have infiltrated all aspects of our lives, from the mundane to the downright oppressive. We were once a society that valued individual liberty and privacy. But in recent years we have turned into a culture that has quietly accepted surveillance cameras at traffic lights and in common public areas, drug-sniffing dogs in our children’s schools, national databases that track our finances and activities, sneak-and-peek searches of our homes without our knowledge or consent and anti-terrorism laws that turn average Americans into suspected criminals.
In our post-9/11 world, government officials have effectively used terror and fear to subdue any public resistance to legislation like the Patriot Act, which embodies the heavy-handed empowering of government intrusion into our lives. Our police officers have become armed militias, instead of the civilian peacekeepers they were intended to be. Now, even average citizens—those that should have nothing to fear or worry about—are becoming unwitting targets of a government seemingly at war with its own people. Understandably, fear and paranoia rule the day.
Now with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, we have reached yet another milepost on our journey to a police state. A majority of the high court agreed that refusing to answer when a policeman asks “What’s your name?” can rightfully be considered a crime under Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute. Nineteen other states already have similar laws on their books. No longer will Americans, even those not suspected of or charged with any crime, have the right to remain silent when stopped and questioned by a police officer.
The case arose after Larry D. Hiibel, a Nevada cattle rancher, was arrested and convicted on a misdemeanor after refusing to tell his name or show identification to a sheriff's deputy. By requiring individuals to identify themselves on pain of arrest, this ruling turns Americans innocent of any wrongdoing into immediate suspects. Indeed, it is hard to ignore the similarity to the police states found in countries like China and North Korea. It can only be a matter of time before we are required to carry identification at all times. With all the talk of digital chips and national IDs, it may not even be so far-fetched to think that someday our slightest movements will be tracked by government satellites.
We are fast becoming the police state that Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tx.) warned against in his June 2002 address to the House of Representatives. His words painted a chilling portrait of a nation willingly allowing itself to be monitored, tracked, fingerprinted and controlled. “Personal privacy, the sine qua non of liberty, no longer exists in the United States. Ruthless and abusive use of all this information accumulated by the government is yet to come.”
“It’s the responsibility of all of us to speak the truth to our best ability,” cautioned Paul, “and if there are reservations about what we’re doing, we should sound an alarm and warn the people of what is to come.”
Although the alarm has been sounded repeatedly from critics on all sides of the political spectrum, is anyone listening? If they were, every piece of legislation that tightens the government’s stronghold on American citizens would be considered an affront to freedom. And every court decision that weakens the right of each American to privacy and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures would be considered an attack against individual liberty.
Politicians love to boast about how far we’ve come since 1776. Yet sadly, we seem to have lost the love of freedom that laid the groundwork for the American Revolution. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 have further confused the situation. In fact, it is common to hear both our elected officials and citizens state rather bluntly that it’s time to relinquish some of our freedoms in order to feel more secure.
This kind of sentiment was completely foreign to those who founded this country. Obviously, those who fought the arduous battles to preserve our freedom had a different concept of what a society should be and what it meant to be a good citizen.
Vested with the deep-seated belief that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, those who founded America took a courageous stand for their right to freely pursue life, liberty and happiness. And when their outcries were ignored by Great Britain, they declared that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government.” This led to the drafting of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
It has been said that on a sunny day in Philadelphia in 1787, just after the Constitutional Convention had finished its work, a woman approached Benjamin Franklin and asked, “Mr. Franklin, what kind of government have you given us?” “A Republic, madam,” Franklin quickly answered. “If you can keep it.”
I only hope that we have the wisdom and the courage to keep it.
LOL
Hey, ActionNewsBill, 'splain to me what is wrong with the right to carry?
It is quite different, but STILL no excuse for eradicating the Constitution. Matter of fact, stronger enforcement of the BoR and the REST of the Constitution will tend to PREVENT AND DETER more acts of terrorism in this country. If you feel it acceptable to abrogate our rights, you are far closer to John Hilary Clierry than to the Founders.
Stop trying to hijack this thread.
Anyways, those who are statists are very patient types, they know they can slip stuff through here and there, both at the local and national level (research just how much passes through Congress without really being scrutinzed, you'll be shocked). As long as Joe Blow is happy, and has his Big Mac, his Coke, and his reality TV shows, he won't care.
It's amazing how easily people will give up this or that, either because they don't care, or because Republicans are in office (regardless of the fact that the liberals could be back in office in another election cycle).
"Congress today cut $800 Billion in spending over the next 4 years by completely eliminating several large Federal programs...".
Like I said, they would never be elected to a second term.
Quit trying to hijack this thread.
For one thing, the "right to carry" is a misnomer.
In America today, one must ask permission from his goverment masters and pay a fee in order to esercise the rights that the constitution guarantees.
Other than the fact that the "right to carry" is really permission to carry, I have no problem with it.
If others wish to ask permission from the Gov't so that they can exercise their rights...that's fine.
I prefer to carry without getting a permission slip from the Gov't.
As your referenced Article 1, Section 9 applies ONLY to Habeas Corpus, why do you pluralize the word "right" when you speak of curtailments? ONLY THAT ONE RIGHT may be curtailed and then only in cases of rebellion or INVASION, when it is OBVIOUS that the public safety requires it, and that is a determination that should be made by the CONGRESS, not by the executive. Especially not by As*croft. BTW, except for the infiltration of homicidal hijackers, we have NOT been invaded. And a proper enforcement of the provisions of the BoR will surely deter the most ardent invader, anyway!
In fact, it is common to hear both our elected officials and citizens state rather bluntly that it’s time to relinquish some of our freedoms in order to feel more secure. This kind of sentiment was completely foreign to those who founded this country.
And I'm simply pointing out that the claim is incorrect.
I wouldn't be too sure that Justice Thomas will vote to overturn. In US vs Lopez he wrote:
Our construction of the scope of congressional authority has the additional problem of coming close to turning the Tenth Amendment on its head. Our case law could be read to reserve to the United States all powers not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Taken together, these fundamental textual problems should, at the very least, convince us that the "substantial effects" test should be reexamined.
"You should be familiar with this poster's tactics by now...he rarely stays on topic, and has an unhealthy obsession with drugs.
Please show where I have gone off topic or mentioned drugs in this thread. hmmm."
Anything to oblige:
To: Protagoras
"Another day and another defense of the suspension of rights. Seems to be a trend forming."
Another day and another socialist 9th CC ruling overturned. Seems to be a trend forming. Two for Two last week. Doesn't look good for the medical marijuana scam case coming forward.
37 posted on 06/29/2004 9:59:00 AM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
How much MORE off topic can you get?
Seeing that this thread is about the USSC overturning the 9th, my post seems to be right on topic.
Paranoia is an ugly thing, isn't it.
I've run into this same issue on another forum and the majority of the people have done the same thing: Jump on this as proof of an approaching police state. The same people are also big followers of Michael Moore and his type of conspiracy garbage.
The ruling changes nothing. If you live in a state that has a similar law, it still has the same law, though now backed up constitutionally. If your state doesn't have the law, it still doesn't. Nothing's changed.
The ruling and the law both clearly state that the officer has to be in the process of conducting an investigation. I think that is a very good safegaurd against abuse because I don't think judges/juries would be very happy with attempts to use the law wrongfully.
Ding ding, we have a winner!
"How long till it's "paperz pleaze" ?"
Problem is, 1/2 of them don't have any balls.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.