Can't have the cattle just wandering around, now can we.
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.
Are you freaking blind, or just stupid?
Post # 44
"Seems to be a trend forming. Two for Two last week. Doesn't look good for the medical marijuana scam case coming forward."
We sure don't!
But with one knife, I can get a couple of guns. (prolly from the local constable)
From there the skies the limit! ;)
Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute
How long till it's "paerz pleaze" ?
Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute
How long till it's "paperz pleaze" ?
Then declare war. Or declare an emergency.
Otherwise the government should stay inside the lines, and not be surprised when their fingers get chopped off for going where they do not belong.
As always, the author fails to mention one instance of abuse under the Patriot Act. He doesn't understand it. Nor does he seem to have a better idea for how to protect us from terrorists.
Hey, come on!
How the heck is paronoia going to strike deep, iffin you give away legit info?
You have still failed to show how I have gone off topic or mentioned drugs in this thread. I only discussed current and recent Libertarians cases before the USSC and the trend. That is the gut issue of this thread.
Please post my post that you responded to and your response together so that everyone can see how your response bears no relationship to what I posted.
The above is self explanatory. Maybe you should explain what exactly you will do when someone less trustworthy than George W. Bush is running a government that knows no constitutional bounds to law enforcement actions.
Thank you.
The topic here is the WAR ON TERROR, not Iraq.
In neither case was there a declaration. If there was, it would be clear what could and could not be done at home. And the people of the country would demand after a time to know objectives and time tables to know when the war was over. It wouldn't have as much chance of being open ended. Then people could decide if the suspension of certain rights was appropriate or not and for how long. A free society demands it.
Congress approved the action, and that's what matters.
As explained above, it is important and not all that matters. At least to this American.
If you want to debate specifics on legislative actions, fine.
"Know your Customer" is one example. The liberals tried for years before 911 to get this intrusive government power, we thwarted them everytime. Now, we surrendered and many even embrace it. It will be used for all kinds purposes that have nothing whatsoever to do with the WOT.
"Enough" for these guys will mean at least 60 Libertarian Senators.
Jesus H Christ...you have a bad case of ad hominem today.
What the hell is it man? Did your last relationship end up in you being dumped for a libertarian? Give it a rest.
That still does not enable our government to suspend part or all of the Constitution. We must declare war and/or a state of emergency to do that.
Or, perhaps, we are already under a state of emergency that is being abused to selectively edit the Constitution.
An un-free dishonest nation isn't worth defending.
More word games from the master baiter.
Can't have the cattle just wandering around, now can we.
Not likely. If you were given 75 Libertarian senators, none would be elected to a second term.
To: Protagoras
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 11:59:00 AM CDT by cinFLA [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
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.