The Judge Asks, Where is the OutRage?

Murfy

Well-Known Member
are you sure?-


[h=2]
The Judge Asks, Where is the OutRage?[/h]
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano taking the Hardline Conservative approach to the coming issue of drones, and even more over expanding reach of Uncle Sam.

And I'm called the crazy one worried our government is taking advantage of me and next my children. WAKE THE FUCK UP People.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...re-is-outrage/


Where is the outrage?

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Published June 07, 2012
FoxNews.com

For the past few weeks, I have been writing in this column about the government's use of drones and challenging their constitutionality on Fox News Channel where I work. I once asked on air what Thomas Jefferson would have done if -- had drones existed at the time -- King George III had sent drones to peer inside the bedroom windows of Monticello. I suspect that Jefferson and his household would have trained their muskets on the drones and taken them down. I offer this historical anachronism as a hypothetical only, not as one who is urging the use of violence against the government.


Nevertheless, what Jeffersonians are among us today? When drones take pictures of us on our private property and in our homes, and the government uses the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson understood that when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent of violence against us. The folks who hear about this, who either laugh or groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored and photographed by the government.





Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...#ixzz1x7peWFdI





 

bob harris

Well-Known Member
There are at least two known incidents of "government" paying people to broadcast their "views", The one that comes to mind is Armstrong Williams and the "no child left behind" "scandal" where Bush paid him to promote the program on television and radio. I cannot recall the name of the other individual. If there were two there may well have been others.
Two whole instances..an outrage..and on topics so vile as "leave no child behind"....You guys win..I'm pissed now...lol
 

purklize

Active Member
Considering a full 80% of the military will Desert if they are commanded to raise arms against the citizens of this great country.


That is why they will first convince them that the citizens they are oppressing are rogue communists, a threat to the "real" America.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Two whole instances..an outrage..and on topics so vile as "leave no child behind"....You guys win..I'm pissed now...lol
Now Bob, this is typical, oh so typical. The challenge was to show ANY incidences - as though none ever happened, now you are moving the goal posts because they have happened. It matters not what the topic is - and I misposted here - it was at least three, Williams, McMannus and Maggie Galagher. You seem to have quoted a different post than I posted.
 

bob harris

Well-Known Member
That is why they will first convince them that the citizens they are oppressing are rogue communists, a threat to the "real" America.
[/B]
If the army were asked to intervene against civilians, it would be because the 'civilians' had already proven themselves dangerous. Remember the riots in the late 60's? Kinda like that....you know, when Detroit was burning?
 

purklize

Active Member
Bob, they will first provoke them into doing such things. You know what started those riots, right?

In the early hours of Sunday, July 23, 1967, Detroit police officers raiding the unlicensed club expected to find only two dozen people inside, but instead there were 82 people celebrating the return of two local veterans from the Vietnam War. Despite the many people, police decided to arrest everyone present. A crowd soon gathered around the establishment, protesting as patrons were led away.
 

stumpjumper

Well-Known Member
If the army were asked to intervene against civilians, it would be because the 'civilians' had already proven themselves dangerous. Remember the riots in the late 60's? Kinda like that....you know, when Detroit was burning?
They had every right to riot and it was justified. They should've done a better job of burning down Detroit as far as that goes.
 

bob harris

Well-Known Member
They had every right to riot and it was justified. They should've done a better job of burning down Detroit as far as that goes.
Justified Riots? whaaaat? From a mod?...now I know there are few reasonable people here..please ban me so I quit torturing myself...
 

SketchyGrower

Well-Known Member
Events
The Detroit Riot of 1967 began when police vice squad officers executed a raid on an after hours drinking club or “blind pig” in a predominantly black neighborhoods located at Twelfth Street and Clairmount Avenue. They were expecting to round up a few patrons, but instead found 82 people inside holding a party for two returning Vietnam veterans. Yet, the officers attempted to arrest everyone who was on the scene. While the police awaited a “clean-up crew” to transport the arrestees, a crowd gathered around the establishment in protest. After the last police car left, a small group of men who were “confused and upset because they were kicked out of the only place they had to go” lifted up the bars of an adjacent clothing store and broke the windows. From this point of origin, further reports of vandalism diffused. Looting and fires spread through the Northwest side of Detroit, then crossed over to the East Side. Within 48 hours, the National Guard was mobilized, to be followed by the 82nd airborne on the riot’s fourth day. As police and military troops sought to regain control of the city, violence escalated. At the conclusion of 5 days of rioting, 43 people lay dead, 1189 injured and over 7000 people had been arrested.
Causes of the Detroit Riot
The origins of urban unrest in Detroit were rooted in a multitude of political, economic, and social factors including police abuse, lack of affordable housing, urban renewal projects, economic inequality, black militancy, and rapid demographic change.
Police Brutality
In Detroit, during the 1960s the “Big Four” or “Tac Squad”roamed the streets, searching for bars to raid and prostitutes to arrest. These elite 4 man units frequently stopped youths who were driving or walking through the 12th street neighborhood. They verbally degraded these youths, calling them “boy” and “nigger”, asking them who they were and where they were going. (Fine 1989:98). Most of the time, black residents were asked to produce identification, and having suffered their requisite share of humiliation, were allowed to proceed on their way. But if one could not produce “proper” identification, this could lead to arrest or worse. In a few notable cases, police stops led to the injury or death of those who were detained. Such excessive use of force was manifested in the 1962 police shooting of a black prostitute named Shirley Scott who, like Lester Long of Newark, was shot in the back while fleeing from the back of a patrol car. Other high profile cases of police brutality in Detroit included the severe beating of another prostitute, Barbara Jackson, in 1964, and the beating of Howard King, a black teenager, for “allegedly disturbing the peace”. (Fine 1989:117) But the main issue in the minds of Detroit’s black residents was police harassment and police brutality, which they identified in a Detroit Free Press Survey as the number one problem they faced in the period leading up to the riot. (Detroit Free Press 1968, Fine 1989, Thomas 1967). According to a Detroit Free Press Survey, residents reported police brutality as the number as the number one problem they faced in the period leading up to the riot. (Detroit Free Press 1968, Fine 1989, Thomas 1967).
Housing
Affordable housing, or the lack thereof, was a fundamental concern for black Detroiters. When polled by the Detroit Free Press regarding the problems that contributed most to the rioting in the previous year, respondents listed “poor housing” as one of the most important issues, second only to police brutality. (Detroit Free Press 1968, Thomas 1997:130-131). Detroit had a long history of housing discrimination stretching back to the turn of the century when black migrants first arrived in the city and middle-class African Americans sought to integrate predominantly white neighborhoods. During the 1940s and 1950s white Detroiters sought to block the entry of blacks into their neighborhoods by legal and extra-legal means, in one instance building a six-foot high, one-foot wide concrete wall along Eight Mile Road, to separate themselves from potential black neighbors. In a similar vein, white residents engaged in several bitter campaigns during the 1940s and 1950s to prevent the integration of public housing located in predominantly white areas (Farley et al. 2000:154-161) By the 1960s, despite with the movement of some blacks into formerly white neighborhoods, fact segregation had become more pronounced. The quality and cost of housing differed substantially for blacks and whites in Detroit, with black residents paying considerably higher rents than their white counterparts for equivalent accommodations. Only 39 percent of African Americans owned their own homes in 1960, as compared with the 64 percent of whites who were homeowners.
Urban Renewal
In Detroit, the shortage of housing available to black residents was further exacerbated by “urban renewal” projects. In Detroit, entire neighborhoods were bulldozed to make way for freeways that linked city and suburbs. Neighborhoods that met their fate in such manner were predominantly black in their composition. To build Interstate 75, Paradise Valley or “Black Bottom”, the neighborhood that black migrants and white ethnics had struggled over during the 1940s, was buried beneath several layers of concrete. As the oldest established black enclave in Detroit, “Black Bottom” was not merely a point on the map, but the heart of Detroit’s black community, commercially and culturally. The loss for many black residents of Detroit was devastating, and the anger burned for years thereafter.
Economic Inequality/Relative Deprivation
As an internationally recognized as a center of the automobile production, Detroit seemed to fare a little better economically than other American industrial cities in the immediate post-war era. But beginning in the 1950s, the big car manufacturers, Ford, Chrysler and GM began to automate their assembly lines and outsource parts production to subcontractors located in other municipalities and foreign countries. (Sugrue 1996:128) Detroit, like other cities, was deindustrializing and black workers, who had less seniority and lower job grades than white workers “felt the brunt” of this change. Young black men were particularly hard hit by the combination of deindustrialization with historical job discrimination in the automobile industry. According to historian Thomas Sugrue, young workers, especially those who had no post-secondary education, found that entry-level operative jobs that had been open to their fathers or older siblings in the 1940s and early 1950s were gone. “By the end of the 1950s, more and more black job seekers, reported by the Urban League, were demoralized, ‘developing patterns of boredom and hopelessness with the present state of affairs’ The anger and despair that prevailed among the young, at a time of national promise and prosperity, would explode on Detroit’s streets in the 1960s. (Sugrue 1996:147) Yet black Detroiters had higher incomes, lower unemployment rates and higher levels of education relative to their peers in other cities. Nonetheless these measures paled in comparison with the gaps in income, employment, and education in Detroit among whites and blacks. According to one long-time community activist, blacks in Detroit did not compare themselves to blacks in other cities. Rather, they compared themselves to whites in Detroit. Relative deprivation helped give rise to black militancy in Detroit.

Black Militancy
Despite the election of a liberal Democratic mayor who appointed African Americans to prominent positions in his administration, and despite Mayor Jerome Cavanaugh’s good working relationship with mainstream civil rights groups, a significant segment of the black community in Detroit felt disenfranchised, frustrated by what they perceived to be the relatively slow pace of racial change and persistent racial inequality. Local militant leaders like the Reverend Albert Cleague spoke of self-determination and separatism for black people, arguing that whites were incapable and or unwilling to share power. The civil rights movement was deemed a failure by these young leaders in the black community. At a black power rally in Detroit in early July 1967, H. Rap Brown foreshadowed the course of future events, stating that if “Motown” didn’t come around, “we are going to burn you down”.
Demographic Change
Like Newark, Detroit was swept by a wave of white flight. During the 1950s the white population of Detroit declined by 23%. Correspondingly, the percentage of non-whites rose from 16.1% to 29.1%. In sheer numbers the black population of Detroit increased from 303,000 to 487,000 during that decade. (Fine 1989:4) By 1967, the black population of Detroit stood at an estimated 40% of the total population. (National Advisory Committee on Civil Disorders 1968:89-90). As in Newark, some neighborhoods were more affected by white flight than others. This was particularly true for the Twelfth Street neighborhood, where rioting broke out in the summer of 1967. “Whereas virtually no blacks lived there in 1940 (the area was 98.7% white), the area was over one-third (37.2%) non-white in 1950. By 1960, the proportion of blacks to whites had nearly reversed: only 3.8 percent of the areas residents were white. Given that the first blacks did not move to the area until 1947 and 1948, the area underwent a complete racial transition in little more than a decade.” Sugrue 1996:244)
This rapid turnover in population in the neighborhood brought with it the attendant ills of social disorganization, crime and further discrimination. It’s impact in the 12th street area was devastating. According to Sidney Fine, “The transition from white to black on Detroit’s near northwest side occurred at a remarkably rapid rate…In a familiar pattern of neighborhood succession, as blacks moved in after World War II, the Jews moved out. The first black migrants to the area were middle class persons seeking to escape the confines of Paradise Valley. They enjoyed about “five good years” in their new homes until underworld and seedier elements from Hastings Street and Paradise Valley, the poor and indigent from the inner city, and winos and derelicts from skid row flowed into the area. Some of the commercial establishments on Twelfth Street gave way to pool halls, liquor stores, sleazy bars, pawn shops, and second hand businesses. Already suffering from a housing shortage and lack of open space, Twelfth Street became more “densely packed” as apartments were subdivided and six to eight families began to live where two had resided before. The 21,376 persons per square mile in the area in 1960 were almost double the city’s average” (Fine 1989:4) This neighborhood would serve as the epicenter of the 1967 riot.
 

Wordz

Well-Known Member
[video=youtube_share;GcdgymFW5Xo]http://youtu.be/GcdgymFW5Xo[/video]

let me play you a song of my people.
 

purklize

Active Member
If you'd ever been at a protest that turned into a riot, you'd understand. It always begins with the cops attacking the protestors, and then the protestors take the bait and flip out, which gives the cops the excuse for a brutal crackdown, while simultaneously discrediting the protestors.
 

Murfy

Well-Known Member
rand paul to the rescue-

[h=1]Senate bill aims to crack down on domestic drone surveillance[/h]

[h=2]Feds would need a warrant in most circumstances.[/h] by Cyrus Farivar - June 14 2012, 12:00pm EDT

44

The Brookings Institute
On Tuesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a bill in the United States Senate that would prohibit the domestic warrantless use of unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly identified as “drones.”
Specifically, the bill states that other than given exceptions involving border patrol, “exigent circumstances,” and “high risk” of terrorist attack as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, “a person or entity acting under the authority, or funded in whole or in part by, the Government of the United States shall not use a drone to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a statute or regulation except to the extent authorized in a warrant that satisfies the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
As usual, the bill will need to be met by its legislative counterpart in the House and signed by the president before it becomes law. The introduction of the “Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012” came the same day that Public Intelligence, a nonprofit advocacy group, released a map showing 64 current and 22 planned military drone bases around the United States.
The bill seems to have drawn some initial support from civil libertarians and other experts that have paid close attention to drone use.
“I think that the current legal framework is not sufficiently protective for observations from above in a world where UAVs are common and inexpensive," John Villasenor, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told Ars on Wednesday.
Villasenor recently authored a piece for Scientific American, in which he described the pending landscape of drones in the stratosphere that could stay aloft for weeks or months at a time.
In February 2012, President Obama signed the FAA Reauthorization Act, which accelerates the domestic use of drones, whose use originated in foreign military war theaters. A new poll released Tuesday by the Monmouth University Polling Institute of New Jersey also showed that Americans are generally in favor of expanded drone use domestically, with 67 percent of respondents opposed to their use to catch speeding drivers, and more opposed to drone use as part of routine police activity.
Currently, American military forces are generally forbidden from operating on American soil without express consent from Congress or powers granted from the Constitution under the Reconstruction-era Posse Comitatus Act. However, there is no evidence so far to suggest that the military has been using the drones to conduct surveillance on Americans, but there is some concern that as part of their military missions that they may accidentally collect information.
In April 2012, a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation revealed that the Federal Aviation Administration has issued 300 current Certificates of Authorization, which allow for drone operation. That list included entities as diverse as the University of Colorado and the town of Otter Tail, Minnesota (population: 572) about 200 miles south of the Canadian border.
Beyond the presence of drones around the country, there is currently one criminal case in North Dakota involving the first use of drones in a criminal investigation. The bizarre case involves a search for missing cattle that had run astray in June 2011 on a neighbor’s ranch. Last summer, when the Nelson County Sheriff Kelly Janke and his men were sent with a search warrant to the Rodney Brossart ranch, they were chased off by three rifle-toting men. Janke then called in reinforcements from the highway patrol, the local SWAT team, and even a Predator B drone off of the Canadian border area. With the help of the drone, three arrests were made.
This week, though, the judge in that case said he’d rule within a month on a new motion to dismiss the case, which largely revolves around seemingly excessive government surveillance action.
Last year, the Los Angeles Times reported that local police in North Dakota “say they have used two unarmed Predators based at Grand Forks Air Force Base to fly at least two dozen surveillance flights since June [2011].”
"We don't use [drones] on every call out," said Bill Macki, head of the police SWAT team in Grand Forks, told the Times. "If we have something in town like an apartment complex, we don't call them."
UPDATE: Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union, told Ars on Wednesday that his organization applauded this new bill: “We do not want drones flying over willy-nilly with no predicate and we don’t want there to be an assumption that general surveillance is ok.”
 

Murfy

Well-Known Member
rand paul to the rescue-

[h=1]Senate bill aims to crack down on domestic drone surveillance[/h]

[h=2]Feds would need a warrant in most circumstances.[/h] by Cyrus Farivar - June 14 2012, 12:00pm EDT

44

The Brookings Institute
On Tuesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a bill in the United States Senate that would prohibit the domestic warrantless use of unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly identified as “drones.”
Specifically, the bill states that other than given exceptions involving border patrol, “exigent circumstances,” and “high risk” of terrorist attack as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, “a person or entity acting under the authority, or funded in whole or in part by, the Government of the United States shall not use a drone to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a statute or regulation except to the extent authorized in a warrant that satisfies the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
As usual, the bill will need to be met by its legislative counterpart in the House and signed by the president before it becomes law. The introduction of the “Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012” came the same day that Public Intelligence, a nonprofit advocacy group, released a map showing 64 current and 22 planned military drone bases around the United States.
The bill seems to have drawn some initial support from civil libertarians and other experts that have paid close attention to drone use.
“I think that the current legal framework is not sufficiently protective for observations from above in a world where UAVs are common and inexpensive," John Villasenor, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told Ars on Wednesday.
Villasenor recently authored a piece for Scientific American, in which he described the pending landscape of drones in the stratosphere that could stay aloft for weeks or months at a time.
In February 2012, President Obama signed the FAA Reauthorization Act, which accelerates the domestic use of drones, whose use originated in foreign military war theaters. A new poll released Tuesday by the Monmouth University Polling Institute of New Jersey also showed that Americans are generally in favor of expanded drone use domestically, with 67 percent of respondents opposed to their use to catch speeding drivers, and more opposed to drone use as part of routine police activity.
Currently, American military forces are generally forbidden from operating on American soil without express consent from Congress or powers granted from the Constitution under the Reconstruction-era Posse Comitatus Act. However, there is no evidence so far to suggest that the military has been using the drones to conduct surveillance on Americans, but there is some concern that as part of their military missions that they may accidentally collect information.
In April 2012, a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation revealed that the Federal Aviation Administration has issued 300 current Certificates of Authorization, which allow for drone operation. That list included entities as diverse as the University of Colorado and the town of Otter Tail, Minnesota (population: 572) about 200 miles south of the Canadian border.
Beyond the presence of drones around the country, there is currently one criminal case in North Dakota involving the first use of drones in a criminal investigation. The bizarre case involves a search for missing cattle that had run astray in June 2011 on a neighbor’s ranch. Last summer, when the Nelson County Sheriff Kelly Janke and his men were sent with a search warrant to the Rodney Brossart ranch, they were chased off by three rifle-toting men. Janke then called in reinforcements from the highway patrol, the local SWAT team, and even a Predator B drone off of the Canadian border area. With the help of the drone, three arrests were made.
This week, though, the judge in that case said he’d rule within a month on a new motion to dismiss the case, which largely revolves around seemingly excessive government surveillance action.
Last year, the Los Angeles Times reported that local police in North Dakota “say they have used two unarmed Predators based at Grand Forks Air Force Base to fly at least two dozen surveillance flights since June [2011].”
"We don't use [drones] on every call out," said Bill Macki, head of the police SWAT team in Grand Forks, told the Times. "If we have something in town like an apartment complex, we don't call them."
UPDATE: Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union, told Ars on Wednesday that his organization applauded this new bill: “We do not want drones flying over willy-nilly with no predicate and we don’t want there to be an assumption that general surveillance is ok.”
 

Murfy

Well-Known Member
sorry for the double post-

the site was actin up earlier. i swear im goin crazy, the shit i see plain as day is eery any more. i can't talk to anyone about shit. i am suurounded by trifles.

any way. does it seem like the past few meaningless US conflicts have been nothing more than giant research and development campaigns? during which technology was used experimentally on friendly and combatant forces, resulting in millions of casualties. then ultimately being brought home and assimilated?
 
Top