Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » {uZa}GENERAL FORUMS » The Lounge




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: How long will it be until {uZa} is considered a threat?
 Post Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:10 pm 
Offline
Mucho Posto!
Mucho Posto!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:12 pm
Posts: 891
Location: Indiana, USA
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.h ... 60,00.html


From Fox News:

'Fusion Centers' Expand Criteria to Identify Militia Members
Do you like Ron Paul or oppose abortion? You may be a member of a militia, according to a new report by a government information collection agency.
By Joshua Rhett Miller

FOXNews.com

Monday, March 23, 2009

FILE: Beware if you like third party candidates. You could be a member of a militia.

If you're an anti-abortion activist, or if you display political paraphernalia supporting a third-party candidate or a certain Republican member of Congress, if you possess subversive literature, you very well might be a member of a domestic paramilitary group.

That's according to "The Modern Militia Movement," a report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), a government collective that identifies the warning signs of potential domestic terrorists for law enforcement communities.

"Due to the current economical and political situation, a lush environment for militia activity has been created," the Feb. 20 report reads. "Unemployment rates are high, as well as costs of living expenses. Additionally, President Elect Barrack [sic] Obama is seen as tight on gun control and many extremists fear that he will enact firearms confiscations."

MIAC is one of 58 so-called "fusion centers" nationwide that were created by the Department of Homeland Security, in part, to collect local intelligence that authorities can use to combat terrorism and related criminal activities. More than $254 million from fiscal years 2004-2007 went to state and local governments to support the fusion centers, according to the DHS Web site.

During a press conference last week in Kansas City, Mo., DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano called fusion centers the "centerpiece of state, local, federal intelligence-sharing" in the future.

"Let us not forget the reason we are here, the reason we have the Department of Homeland Security and the reason we now have fusion centers, which is a relatively new concept, is because we did not have the capacity as a country to connect the dots on isolated bits of intelligence prior to 9/11," Napolitano said, according to a DHS transcript.

"That's why we started this.... Now we know that it's not just the 9/11-type incidents but many, many other types of incidents that we can benefit from having fusion centers that share information and product and analysis upwards and horizontally."

But some say the fusion centers are going too far in whom they identify as potential threats to American security.

People who supported former third-party presidential candidates like Texas Rep. Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr are cited in the report, in addition to anti-abortion activists and conspiracy theorists who believe the United States, Mexico and Canada will someday form a North American Union.

"Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups," the report reads. "It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty or Libertarian material."

Other potential signals of militia involvement, according to the report, are possession of the Gagsden "Don't Tread on Me" flag or the widely available anti-income tax film "America: Freedom to Fascism."

Barr, the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential nominee, told FOXNews.com that he's taking steps to get his name removed from the report, which he said could actually "dilute the effectiveness" of law enforcement agencies.

"It can subject people to unwarranted and inappropriate monitoring by the government," he said. "If I were the governor of Missouri, I'd be concerned that law enforcement agencies are wasting their time and effort on such nonsense."

Barr said his office has received "several dozen" complaints related to the report.

Mary Starrett, communications director for the Constitution Party, said Baldwin, the party's 2008 presidential candidate, was "outraged" that his name was included in the report.

"We were so astounded by it we couldn't believe it was real," Starrett told FOXNews.com. "It's painting such a large number of people with a broad brush in a dangerous light."

Michael German, national security policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the report "crosses the line" and shows a disregard for civil liberties.

"It seems to implicate people who are engaging in First Amendment protected activities and suggest that something as innocuous as supporting a political candidate for office would mean that you're harboring some ill-intent," German told FOXNews.com. "It's completely inappropriate."

German, who claims the number of fusion centers nationwide is closer to 70, said the centers present several troubling concerns, including their excessive secrecy, ambiguous lines of authority, the use of data mining and military participation.

"No two are alike," German said. "And these things are expanding rapidly."

But MIAC officials defended their report, saying it's not a basis for officers to take enforcement action.

"These reports sometimes mention groups or individuals who are not the subject of the document, but may be relevant to describing tendencies or trends concerning the subject of the document," MIAC said in a statement.

"For example, a criminal group may use a particular wire service to transfer funds, but the mention of that wire service does not imply that it is part of that group, or a criminal enterprise.

Nor does it imply that all individuals who use that service are engaged in criminal activity."
The statement continues, "We are concerned about the mischaracterizations of a document following its recent unauthorized release and we regret that any citizens were unintentionally offended by the content of the document."

Donny Ferguson, a spokesman for the Libertarian Party, said he was concerned by the report's "poor choice of words," among other things.

"Unfortunately it is so broadly worded it could be interpreted as saying millions of peaceful, law-abiding Americans are involved in dangerous activities. These mistakes happen and we hope Missouri officials will correct the report," Ferguson wrote in an e-mail. "The Libertarian Party promotes the common-sense policies of fiscal responsibility and social tolerance. We are the only party in America who makes opposition to initiating violence a condition of membership."

Bob McCarty, a St. Louis resident who blogged about the MIAC report, said he's afraid he may be targeted, since he's previously sold Ron Paul-related merchandise.

"[The report] described me, so maybe I need to get a gun and build a shack out in the woods," McCarty said facetiously. "It's certainly an attempt to stifle political thought, especially in Missouri. It definitely makes me pause, if nothing else. Maybe Missouri is just a test bed for squelching political thought."

ACLU officials blasted a Texas fusion center last month for distributing a "Prevention Awareness Bulletin" that called on law enforcement officers to report activities of local lobbying groups, Muslim civil rights organizations and anti-war protest groups.


Last edited by {uZa}Studdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How long will it be until {uZa} is considered a threat?
 Post Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:59 pm 
Offline
Mucho Posto!
Mucho Posto!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:57 pm
Posts: 659
Location: Midlothian, VA
The founders of this nation were a militia so we are in good company. :D

Sic Semper Tyrannis! b03

_________________
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium!

I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery!

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How long will it be until {uZa} is considered a threat?
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:56 am 
Offline
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:19 am
Posts: 466
Location: Indiana
Gee where have I heard this before?..... A ruling government tries to suppress all opposition. It says to protect the country for harm. A government labels all other points of view a DANGEROUS. Hmmm I wonder if this has ever happened in history with another country b04 . Get ready guys and gals I think it's gonna get worse before it gets better> n6



The above is not an actual opinion of 1terribleshot and should not be taken as so. If any authorities question 1terribleshot about the above comments, he will deny all of the above comments, (unless you have proof). PLEASE dont put me on the list now. b11

_________________
b30 I wasn't there..... and you can't prove it. b19

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How long will it be until {uZa} is considered a threat?
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:59 pm 
Offline
Mucho Posto!
Mucho Posto!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:57 pm
Posts: 659
Location: Midlothian, VA
What scares me as much as anything else is the fact that sworn police officers (who swore to UPHOLD the Constitution) are allowing themselves to be used to suppress the very citizens they swore to protect. Who are these officers and why don't they stand against this subversion of the Constitution? "All that is necessary for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing." b04 :-*

_________________
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium!

I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery!

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How long will it be until {uZa} is considered a threat?
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:19 pm 
Offline
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:16 pm
Posts: 199
Location: Southern California
You need to remember Floyd, Most Law Enforcement personnel are not privy to what & where the info came from. We get a bucket full of fliers from the FBI, Secret Service, Etc on a daily basis. I dare say 90% of your average patrolmen/women have no idea about any of this. Hell I did not know about this until I read your post. I don't watch the news or read newspapers, I have far too much reality in my professional life and don't need anymore in my private life. Yeah I guess you could say I put my head in the sand when it comes to issues. My wife reads the paper and watches the news, and she keeps me up to date. You know what I am talking about, you have been there before! I also say that 99% of the men & women working the patrol shifts, defend the constitution every day, but do not know what is behind what they are doing. We take what is told to us as "well it must be true". I wonder how many administrators in agencies even know about this? I'd be willing to bet less then 10% and I think that is even stretching it. Anyway that is my humble opinion. b01

_________________
Image

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How long will it be until {uZa} is considered a threat?
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:42 pm 
Offline
Mucho Posto!
Mucho Posto!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:57 pm
Posts: 659
Location: Midlothian, VA
I hear ya, Steve, but the fact is that due to the importance of their jobs, and the fact that they can restrict people's freedom, I think policemen have an obligation to keep up with the political scene. This is not just for the sake of the average citizen, but so that they themselves are not duped and used as tools for a totalitarian regime. It would be a lot more difficult for administrators to use their police forces illegally if those on the force knew they were being fed a bunch of bullshit.

I'm just saying...

n8

_________________
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium!

I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery!

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How long will it be until {uZa} is considered a threat?
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:57 am 
Offline
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:19 am
Posts: 466
Location: Indiana
Problem is that whatever party is incharge of Govt is the ones that make the laws and or decifers them. Unfortunately whether we agree with them or not we have to enforce them. Like if I personally don't agree with abortion, but there are protestors on the courthouse square blocking doors or causing sometype of problem and I have to hook someone I'm gonna have to do it. Now when I get to court thats when the judical system will tell me if I violated someones rights, usuallu through a motion to supress or something like that. I just we as a society could elect or find a politician that was more worried about the people than his or his parties agenda. I'm just sayin in LE your trained to do like in the military do what your told or trained or people can be injured thats a hard thing to turn off. And a few in LE are there just for a paycheck to and arn't worried about helpin anyone anyways, and thats a whole different sad story.. b23

_________________
b30 I wasn't there..... and you can't prove it. b19

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How long will it be until {uZa} is considered a threat?
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:31 am 
Offline
Mucho Posto!
Mucho Posto!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:57 pm
Posts: 659
Location: Midlothian, VA
Again, I hear what you're saying, but like the military there is a conscientious objection rule. If you are given an illegal or unethical order you are not obligated to follow it. Blindly following orders is the excuse that Hitler's officer corp and SS Officers used to explain away their atrocities. Now, I AM NOT comparing you or other law enforcement officers to Nazis (I am a big proponent of supporting our law-enforcement), what I am saying is that if you are educated and up-to-date on the political scene in your area/nation, then you are less likely to be "used" by the powers that be. When given an order that you know abuses the Constitution you can then stand up and say, "NO! I will not enforce that order as I know it to be wrong!"

The problem that following such orders creates for those in LE is that it only serves to diminish you and your reputation in the eyes of the citizenry. Law-enforcement should be on the side of the Constitution and liberty, not its enemy. I have worked in law-enforcement, too, and I am all too familiar with the various types of people who hold those jobs. All I am saying is that we need for those men of good conscience in LE to stand against further erosion of our liberties and the Constitution and not allow themselves to be used as the agents of its further destruction.

_________________
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium!

I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery!

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

Board index » {uZa}GENERAL FORUMS » The Lounge


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron