Posted on 09/24/2002 2:09:34 PM PDT by BlessingInDisguise
Colorado Libertarians amused and irritated at secret ‘spy file’ kept by Denver police
Colorado LP leaders say they are more amused than angry that a newly released Denver Police Department "spy file" describes the Libertarian Party as a "militia" type organization.
"A political party as a militia group? How ridiculous!" said John Berntson, State Chair of the Colorado LP. "Is this the quality of the law enforcement in Denver? Is Barney Fife running the shop?"
According to news reports, the Denver Police Department maintained files on approximately 3,200 Colorado citizens and 208 organizations from across the political spectrum.
The files, which were released to the public in early September, listed the Libertarian Party as a "Militia type organization, pro gun rights."
Former Colorado LP Publications Director Ari Armstrong said the analysis of the party as a militia-style group is flat out wrong.
"The Libertarian Party does not conduct or participate in military-style training," he noted. Instead, it runs candidates for public office, engages in political lobbying efforts, and "participates in peaceable demonstrations in support of individual rights.
"Why the Denver Police Department targeted for investigation the Libertarian Party for peaceably advocating the Bill of Rights remains a mystery," he said.
Overall, the revelation of a Libertarian Party police file was "not a surprise, but it's an outrage," said Armstrong. "Apparently, peaceably advocating the Bill of Rights warrants a police investigation."
The mischaracterization of the Libertarian Party's political nature does raise profound doubts about the intelligence of the Denver Police, said Berntson.
"The files themselves are laughable to the extent that they illustrate just how pathetically ill-informed the Denver P.D. is," he said. "They are also scary for the same reason.
"This is nothing more than government inefficiency and stupidity. This is Denver's tax dollars at their worst, and Denver's citizens should be appalled at their police."
The files became public knowledge this spring, and set off a firestorm of controversy throughout Colorado. Civil libertarians said the files were a worrisome invasion of privacy, similar to the surveillance files kept by former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.
In response, Denver Mayor Wellington E. Webb instructed the police department to destroy the files -- but only after giving copies to the individuals and organizations that had been monitored.
"It was very clear that something went wrong here," said Andrew Hudson, a spokesman for the mayor. "[Police] intelligence work is necessary, but has to be done right and in a way in which civil liberties aren't trampled."
Began in 1999, the spy files were in the form of a computer database. Records were kept on community activists, "social justice" organizations, and individuals who had attended political meetings and rallies.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Denver Police Department over the files.
The release of the files began in early September. About 300 people and representative of about 70 groups crowded into police headquarters to review their files.
Walter Schlomer, the Colorado LP's fundraising director, picked up a copy of the Libertarian Party's file on September 5.
"It's an outrage," said Schlomer. "In spite of no record of violence or illegal activity of any kind, the Denver P.D. felt it neessary to secretly spy on the LP and keep track of our activities."
In addition to describing the Libertarian Party as a "Militia type organization," and noting it was "pro gun rights," the brief file gave the LP a "Law Enforcement" classification. Police did not explain what that meant.
The file also listed the Libertarian Party's "AKA Name" as the "Denver Metro Libertarian Party," which is a local affiliate of the state LP. In a section labeled "Person Associations," five listings were blacked out.
"There are words and lines blacked out by what looks to be a black marker," said Schlomer. "These represent names in the first two lines and I'm not sure what in the next lines."
Responding to criticism about the files, the Denver Police Department acknowledged that some groups were improperly characterized as "criminal extremists." A police spokesman said untrained clerks mistakenly shoehorned every organization into the few options available in the software's limited menu.
The spokesman also said the department will continue to maintain "intelligence files" only on people who are suspected or convicted of criminal activity, and will have an outside consultant review the files for appropriateness.
More than that. anarcho-communism more accurately describes their viewpoint. This, as I have already pointed out, runs contrary to those of the LP.
A Libertarian Party members hates our American governments because they initiate societal force to establish and protect systems of public property.
"Public Property" is a bit of a misnomer if you think about it. Groups cannot have more Rights than any Individual it is comprised of. To assume so falls into the "democracy=mob rule" pit where 51% can vote to enslave the other 49%. If those "protection systems" destroy individual Liberty and Rights, then they have no place in our system of governance.
You fail to grasp that fact time and again. You have no interest in preserving individual Rights, but only in furthering the "Republican"-ized version of the socialist expansion taking over our government. The only thing worse than someone like you, is the liberals in the Dim and Green parties who do not hide their hate for our Country behind a thin venear of "conservatism".
This is absolutely illogical from it's foundation. It is impossible to reject all forms of authority and then have a system based on it anyway. This is pure rubbish used to con people that are motivated by emotions generated by long winded, buzz word peppered lists of lies.
Not at all. The tenets of your cult philosophy have little relationship to the real world.
"democracy=mob rule"
Anarchy=mob rule.
You have no interest in preserving individual Rights
Individual rights aren't a free lunch which falls like manna from the ghost of Ayn Rand.
"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society."
--Thomas Jefferson
Our American systems of law and government provide the greatest protections for individual rights that the world has ever known.
Libertarian Socialists and their LP cousins both seek the destruction of those systems, differing only in which end of the egg they want start with.
I agree. This is what Roscoe, and some of his ilk, here on FR are trying to pass off as the ideology of the LP. A plain reading of their party platform, or of most of the candidates running on the LP ticket, would clear up any discrepancies in most sane minded, reasonable people.
Roscoe types are not noted for being "reasonable".
Into the memory hole, spunkets?
They have usurped the word libertarian
Backwards.
Ignorant zealotry isn't a basis for property rights.
What an outrageous LIE you just threw out there. The Truth from the LP Platform page:
I. Individual Rights and Civil Order
The Right to Property
There is no conflict between property rights and human rights. Indeed, property rights are the rights of humans with respect to property, and as such, are entitled to the same respect and protection as all other human rights.
All rights are inextricably linked with property rights. Such rights as the freedom from involuntary servitude as well as the freedom of speech and the freedom of press are based on self-ownership. Our bodies are our property every bit as much as is justly acquired land or material objects.
We further hold that the owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade done in the name of national security. We also condemn current government efforts to regulate or ban the use of property in the name of aesthetic values, riskiness, moral standards, cost-benefit estimates, or the promotion or restriction of economic growth. We specifically condemn all government interference in the operation of private businesses, such as restaurants and airlines, by either requiring or prohibiting designated smoking or non-smoking areas for their employees or their customers.
We demand an end to the taxation of privately owned real property, which actually makes the State the owner of all lands and forces individuals to rent their homes and places of business from the State. We condemn attempts to employ eminent domain to municipalize sports teams or to try to force them to stay in their present location.
Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.
Already obviated:
Individual rights aren't a free lunch which falls like manna from the ghost of Ayn Rand.
"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society."Our American systems of law and government provide the greatest protections for individual rights that the world has ever known.
--Thomas Jefferson
Libertarian Socialists and their LP cousins both seek the destruction of those systems, differing only in which end of the egg they want start with.
That doesn't seem to matter to some folks around here, and sometimes I wonder why doesn't the management just delete all the libertarian types and be done with it. That certianly would make the moderator's job easier.
I mean if we really are the traitorous enemies we're made out to be, why are we still here?
The United States government will be notified monthly, starting May 15, 2002, with a copy of the petition as a lawful redress of grievances from "We the People". Failure by the government to comply with the petition by July 4, 2003, may result in the activation of the "2nd American Revolution Militia," from the individual citizens of the "Million Gun March," to insure that the current U.S. government will comply with the boundaries outlines in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will be the authorizing documents for this action. Should this action become a necessity of the people of the United States of America, at the Million Gun March, we appeal to the United States Military and the various police agencies in attendance on that day, to join with your Constitutional brethren to insure the compliance of YOUR government.
Here's a couple of serious questions for you and other folks, no flames, no barbs, no ulterior motives:
1. Would you feel FR would improve from the elimination of libertarian-leaning posts?
2. If so, what benefits would there be?
3. If not, why not?
4. If you support the removal of libertarians from FR, how should it be done?
5. Should the moderators wait until the abuse flag is called?
6. Or should the moderators be more pro-active, and remove an account for posting a libertarian position, such as an opinion critical of drug prohibition?
7. What about those people who aren't libertarians but support minor conservative politcal parties, such as the Constitution Party or the Reform Party? Should they be removed also?
8. If libertarians are in reality the traitorous enemies they are made out to be, why is the political party allowed to exist? Would you support state or federal laws outlawing the existance of the Libertarian Party?
There are my questions. I hope that you can see that this is not a mindless flame post, nor an oblique insult. I am neither insulting you nor the management of this website. I am simply throwing this out for discussion.
It is obvious that there is some serious difference of opinions among people here on FR, and I am trying to reach some point in understand what is and is not acceptable for a "grassroots conservative" website.
If libertarians are in reality the traitorous enemies they are made out to be, why are we allowed to post? For that matter, why is the political party allowed to exist?
You damned Tory sympathizers make me sick.
On the contrary, I get the distinct impression from his postings that he is an authoritarian with a hall-monitor armband and some fingerpaint.
Most self-professed Libertarians/libertarians on FR endlessly attack anyone who rejects their cult philosophy, but when subjected to criticism themselves they cry and pretend to be victims.
For example, read your own post.
Not in the slightest. Spitting isn't refutation.
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.