The Police State comes to Arkansas

[ichy]

This must be a joke. Any police force that tried this would be sued to oblivion.

"They may not be doing anything but walking their dog," he said. "But they're going to have to prove it." . . .

What kind of buffoon would say something like that? This is America, people have the right not to say anything to the police.

[Fern]

Originally Posted by TastesLikeChicken

A bit of an important part of the article that seems to have been omitted by the OP and the HuffPo article:

"Stovall told the group of almost 40 residents that beginning in 2013, the department would deploy a new street crimes unit to high crime areas on foot to take back the streets."

This all sounds really ominous when that bit of info isn't included. Otherwise it's pretty meh. The police have been using that tactic for decades in high crime areas.

Yeah. Was going to post this.

Whole thing seems so weird I googled to find out WTH was going on.

Doesn't seem like a big deal once you realize it's focused on high crime areas. From what I've seen, the people who actually live in those areas often like this type of thing.

Fern

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally Posted by Fern

Yeah. Was going to post this.

Whole thing seems so weird I googled to find out WTH was going on.

Doesn't seem like a big deal once you realize it's focused on high crime areas. From what I've seen, the people who actually live in those areas often like this type of thing.

Fern

I'd bet just about everyone in those areas likes it except for the criminals.

I fail to see what the big deal is. First of all, this isn't happening to "Arkansas," it's happening to a small town in Arkansas. Nor is there anything resembling a Police State. The hyperbole needle is being pegged to maximum.

One more bit of irony in threads like this is that the anti-authoritarian types in here love to drone on about how fear is being use to control the public. And they make that point by spreading fear about authority. My shirts get perfectly pressed every time I read this kind of thread.

[ichy]

I'm generally pro-law enforcement but stopping people at random, arresting them for not showing ID and forcing them to tell you where they're going is unconstitutional. The cops can ask, but it's also people's right to refuse to answer and walk away.

Law & order means that the cops have to obey the law as well.

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally Posted by Jhhnn

Lashing out in denial, ehh?

Authoritarianism exists as a continuum, shades of grey. That's a difficult concept for black & white thinkers. If Obama is more authoritarian than I'd like, he's certainly less so than many of the heroes of Conservatives, or of the corporate authoritarian structures they often champion.

Obama supporters as Authoritarians? We're the hippy-dippy mamby-pamby Liberals, remember?

We'd support even less authoritarian figures, and often do when they present themselves. That can't be said of Conservatives.

So tell us, does the NSA illegally access Constitutionally protected private information? How do you know either way? If not, why not?

[Jhhnn]

Originally Posted by Hayabusa Rider

So tell us, does the NSA illegally access Constitutionally protected private information? How do you know either way? If not, why not?

And now, obfuscation.

If the NSA is doing such things, it's because of the Patriot act & the overblown Terrarist Threat! fearmongering of the Bush years that made it seem acceptable to the average citizen.

If it is occurring then it's always tough to quit, isn't it? particularly when congressional Repubs put the Patriot act into an all or nothing proposition, despite Dems' efforts to soften it.

If such powers are used, then the Executive gets a lot of sniping about it, and if abandoned & followed by a major terrorist attack, then the Right Wing authoritarian raving about not protecting America would be epic.

The Executive branch is stuck following the dictates of Congress in such matters, whether they want to be or not.

That's tough for a conspiracy theorist to accept, I'm sure.

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally Posted by Jhhnn

And now, obfuscation.

If the NSA is doing such things, it's because of the Patriot act & the overblown Terrarist Threat! fearmongering of the Bush years that made it seem acceptable to the average citizen.

If it is occurring then it's always tough to quit, isn't it? particularly when congressional Repubs put the Patriot act into an all or nothing proposition, despite Dems' efforts to soften it.

If such powers are used, then the Executive gets a lot of sniping about it, and if abandoned & followed by a major terrorist attack, then the Right Wing authoritarian raving about not protecting America would be epic.

The Executive branch is stuck following the dictates of Congress in such matters, whether they want to be or not.

That's tough for a conspiracy theorist to accept, I'm sure.

Nope. Completely wrong. I knew you'd "but but BOOSH". This is completely a decision made by this administration. Was it started by Obama? No, but it's lovingly embraced by him. You don't even know what the issue is, as demonstrated by your blind guesses. This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. You're playing apologist.

[Jhhnn]

Originally Posted by Hayabusa Rider

Nope. Completely wrong. I knew you'd "but but BOOSH". This is completely a decision made by this administration. Was it started by Obama? No, but it's lovingly embraced by him. You don't even know what the issue is, as demonstrated by your blind guesses. This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. You're playing apologist.

And you're playing the usual "I know a secret!" routine so loved by conspiracy theorists. What is it that you think you know about the NSA, anyway? What can you offer to back it up?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally Posted by Jhhnn

And you're playing the usual "I know a secret!" routine so loved by conspiracy theorists. What is it that you think you know about the NSA, anyway? What can you offer to back it up?

One thing I can do is read

apologize away

[bradley]

In the last fifteen years, we've broken so free from the US Constitution in a concerted Progressive effort, it's almost too late to stop these type scenarios.

[mizzou]

"We're going to do it to everybody," he said

No...No you are not...

[Screech]

Originally Posted by Hayabusa Rider

One thing I can do is read

apologize away

I would also add

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...nsadatacenter/

from the previous thread on it.

interesting stuff...

[Jhhnn]

Originally Posted by Hayabusa Rider

One thing I can do is read

apologize away

That doesn't contradict anything I've said in the slightest. The Executive branch will, by it's very nature, attempt to maintain whatever "national security" powers congress has granted it, regardless of which party is in power, for the reasons I offered above.

That doesn't mean I support some sort of massive domestic dragnet you theorize- there is no evidence to show that it is happening, but rather that you think it could be, which are entirely different things.

I support the EFF's efforts & the idea that the judge should receive evidence in camera, for starters. I also support Congress letting all of the Terrarist Threat! legislation lapse quietly into oblivion, where it belongs.

I doubt that your fellow conservatives will see it that way, at all, given their history.

[sm625]

The police state has been in arkansas for a long time now. How do you think clinton got to be president?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally Posted by Jhhnn

That doesn't contradict anything I've said in the slightest. The Executive branch will, by it's very nature, attempt to maintain whatever "national security" powers congress has granted it, regardless of which party is in power, for the reasons I offered above.

That doesn't mean I support some sort of massive domestic dragnet you theorize- there is no evidence to show that it is happening, but rather that you think it could be, which are entirely different things.

I support the EFF's efforts & the idea that the judge should receive evidence in camera, for starters. I also support Congress letting all of the Terrarist Threat! legislation lapse quietly into oblivion, where it belongs.

I doubt that your fellow conservatives will see it that way, at all, given their history.

Bad apology my neocon friend. This isn't congress, this is the executive branch, so that shoots that down. The "you don't know" is precisely the point you intentionally miss. The justice department says the eff and others need to demonstrate illegal activities and at the same time cannot get that without a successful legal challenge, a perfect catch 22.

Still you squirm by pointing to other things I never approved of. Yes, dems like you can be and are neocons. As for me I disapprove of a small community doing whats being done in Arkansas, but theres a far larger issue that you stand for. Party over all is your motto.

[cubby1223]

I leave the forum for a good while, and when I come back the quality of threads in P&N is even lower than before????

Let's actually see this plan form, let's see them actually pursue this, before jumping to the conclusion that America is bat-shit crazy?

Both the conservative and the liberal "media junkies" go off about all these events that never come to pass. There never will be a follow-up story on this, within a week it'll be completely forgotten. And the media will have pushed you onto to a new potential threat to be pissed off about.

[Jhhnn]

Originally Posted by Hayabusa Rider

Bad apology my neocon friend. This isn't congress, this is the executive branch, so that shoots that down. The "you don't know" is precisely the point you intentionally miss. The justice department says the eff and others need to demonstrate illegal activities and at the same time cannot get that without a successful legal challenge, a perfect catch 22.

Still you squirm by pointing to other things I never approved of. Yes, dems like you can be and are neocons. As for me I disapprove of a small community doing whats being done in Arkansas, but theres a far larger issue that you stand for. Party over all is your motto.

From your own link-

SAN FRANCISCO, California—Warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency began as a Bush-era program in October 2001; in 2008, the government essentially allowed the practice in the FISA Amendments Act. The same year, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed lawsuits challenging the surveillance.

So it's not just about the Executive branch, but Congress first & foremost. As I've offered & you choose to ignore, the Executive will use & try to keep any national security powers Congress grants. Period, no matter who's in the big chair.

4th amendment issues wrt electronic communication are in the process of being sorted out, with both Congress & the Executive coming down on what we both see as the wrong side of the issue.

It doesn't matter what the Executive wants if Congress allows the applicable statutes to expire- the Executive would have no legal grounds to continue, Constitutional issues aside. Only action by the Judiciary can alter that, action specifically disallowing what Congress intended when they gave questionable powers to the Executive.

I've agreed with the EFF when they offer that the judge should first view pertinent documentation in camera to determine if the govt's state secrets & national security claims are legit, and to determine if the plaintiff actually has standing, if they were, in fact, actually under surveillance.If the judge rules in favor of the EFF, then the govt will undoubtedly appeal, and legal wrangling will continue.

I do not support such surveillance, despite your claims that I do. I've pointed out that Congress can put an end to it by doing nothing, letting the supporting legislation expire. That seems unlikely, even though it's the right thing to do, for the reasons I've already laid out. Therefore, the legal battle will continue.

Which really has nearly nothing to do with the usual small southern town authorities getting all in the face of "undesirables" in "high crime areas"... like someplace a fine upstanding conservative citizen caught a whiff of marijuana smoke... where people who don't have air conditioning drink beer in public on the front porch, fer crissakes... where a person having more than one old car that won't run calls themselves a "collector"...

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally Posted by Jhhnn

From your own link-



So it's not just about the Executive branch, but Congress first & foremost. As I've offered & you choose to ignore, the Executive will use & try to keep any national security powers Congress grants. Period, no matter who's in the big chair.

4th amendment issues wrt electronic communication are in the process of being sorted out, with both Congress & the Executive coming down on what we both see as the wrong side of the issue.

It doesn't matter what the Executive wants if Congress allows the applicable statutes to expire- the Executive would have no legal grounds to continue, Constitutional issues aside. Only action by the Judiciary can alter that, action specifically disallowing what Congress intended when they gave questionable powers to the Executive.

I've agreed with the EFF when they offer that the judge should first view pertinent documentation in camera to determine if the govt's state secrets & national security claims are legit, and to determine if the plaintiff actually has standing, if they were, in fact, actually under surveillance.If the judge rules in favor of the EFF, then the govt will undoubtedly appeal, and legal wrangling will continue.

I do not support such surveillance, despite your claims that I do. I've pointed out that Congress can put an end to it by doing nothing, letting the supporting legislation expire. That seems unlikely, even though it's the right thing to do, for the reasons I've already laid out. Therefore, the legal battle will continue.

Which really has nearly nothing to do with the usual small southern town authorities getting all in the face of "undesirables" in "high crime areas"... like someplace a fine upstanding conservative citizen caught a whiff of marijuana smoke... where people who don't have air conditioning drink beer in public on the front porch, fer crissakes... where a person having more than one old car that won't run calls themselves a "collector"...

Where in the law does it require Obama to block legal challenges? Not defend against them, but step into the legal process to block even asking? "National security", the neocon ace card.

As far as the point, it has to do with small timers in arkansas as much as Mussolini condemning crying about some village locking up drunks. You'll miss that too.

You'll continue to defend the greater crime and others will too. I deplore both. You make excuses, and bad ones at that. Note no one is stepping up for you.

It's about the abuse of power.

[Zodiark1593]

Considering I always leave all forms of my ID home when I'm not the driver, glad I'm not in Arkansas.

[SandEagle]

Originally Posted by Zodiark1593

Considering I always leave all forms of my ID home when I'm not the driver, glad I'm not in Arkansas.

do you leave your brain at home as well? if this can happen in Arkansas, it can happen in any of the other states. it is the catalyst to test the waters somewhere first to see what the public reaction would be.

[Zodiark1593]

Originally Posted by SandEagle

do you leave your brain at home as well? if this can happen in Arkansas, it can happen in any of the other states. it is the catalyst to test the waters somewhere first to see what the public reaction would be.

It's purposeful. Police ask for ID, they can take a hike for all I care as I'd be doing nothing that would require me to carry it.

[SandEagle]

Originally Posted by Zodiark1593

It's purposeful. Police ask for ID, they can take a hike for all I care as I'd be doing nothing that would require me to carry it.

i understand that. i was commenting on the 'glad I'm not in Arkansas' part

[Zodiark1593]

Originally Posted by SandEagle

i understand that. i was commenting on the 'glad I'm not in Arkansas' part

Ah, ok, misunderstanding then.

[Vic Vega]

Didn't Fresno do this a while ago?

Anyone living in Atlanta in the 80s remembers when they used to CLOSE DOWN the down town area after dark and put up chain link fences around down town and setup checkpoints.

I guess a fair question is (and I am not saying this is a good or bad thing) but how bad is bad enough when something like this is required and who gets to decide?

[SAWYER]

I live 20 miniutes from this town, I would feel safe walking down any street there..what a joke.

Crime from 99-2010
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime...-Arkansas.html