“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,” wrote Benjamin Franklin. Attempting to gain security by sacrificing liberty is also a foolish action, is ACLU’s stance, because it only increases the potential for harm. A short while ago a very dangerous action took place right under the noses of the people of Clatsop County and very few chose to even blink.
Our United States Constitution guarantees each of us to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that we “shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The US Supreme Court (US v. Katz 389 US 347) has made it clear that this core privacy protection does cover government eavesdropping. The law takes account of the need for emergency surveillance but the need for quick action cannot be used as a rationale for going outside the law. FISA allows wiretapping without a court order in an emergency; the court must simply be notified within 72 hours. In cases of espionage. In cases of public safety. And always, at some point, public disclosure.
Ironically, in August of 2003 the City Council of Astoria, Oregon, became the 150th local government body in the U.S. and the eighth in Oregon to declare their city a ‘civil liberties safe zone.’ Astoria’s resolution directed Oregon’s delegation to U.S. Congress to work to repeal all laws that threaten civil liberties and requested the City Manager to instruct city employees to continue favoring practices and policies protecting rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
Even more ironic the very people who, so avidly and angrily, screamed for the Patriot Act to be renounced by our local governments cheered when a local agency revealed it had turned over a list of names of people to be interrogated by an Oregon Department of Justice (ODOJ) investigator not once but twice within the last year! But these people, these “lovers” of social justice, so hated the man being hounded they felt it was okay for his civil liberties to be violated. They not only looked the other way at this barbarous act they used its rancid drippings to inflame public sentiment against the man.
Numerous local media sources reported that an ODOJ agent had received a list of names of local people from the Sheriff specifically to interrogate regarding their interaction with one man. No media source could tell its readers who had filed the complaint nor what the complaint was regarding. The Department of Justice first denied an investigation had taken place and then said it wasn’t an investigation but merely an “inquiry”. It doesn’t matter what it was labeled, folks. The fact is the agent got a list of names of people to interrogate from one of our law enforcement agencies regarding a legal citizen and no one, apparently not even the citizen, to this day know why the agent was here! Despite the fact that the Department of Justice has stated that, “Someone asked us to investigate a complaint that proved to be unsubstantiated.”
Someone? Who??? No paper trail, even though state law says there must be one. How did the Sheriff know whose names to give to the agent? Apparently, no media thought to ask him. Think about it, if this were you. If you picked up the paper tomorrow and found out that the sheriff had given an agent a list of names of people to interrogate about you. Wouldn’t your first question be, “How come the SHERIFF has such a list?” Then the next question, “Who is charging me with what?” Personally, myself, I would be more worried about the sheriff having a ready made list of people to question about my associations, lifestyle and viewpoints that he promptly handed it over to another law enforcement agency and, apparently, there is no enforceable law to keep him from doing just that.
Oregon law states that no enforcement agency can collect or maintain information about the political, religious or social views, associations or actions of any individual, group, association, organization, corporation, business or partnership unless the information was collected in a criminal investigation or reasonable grounds exist to suppose that the person is involved in criminal activities. Not violations, not parking tickets, not a building code violation. Criminal activity as defined by law. The Sheriff has repeatedly stated that the commissioner was not being investigated by his department. Why hasn’t anyone asked the sheriff the obvious question: “Why did you have a list of people to give the DOJ agent?”
Where are the voices of outrage? Silenced. The attorneys in Clatsop County silently allow this to happen, frightened to speak or else be aligned (and maligned) with the commissioner who was thrown to the jackals? Where is the Astoria City Council now? Silenced. Afraid they will be the next to be “investigated” by one man, sitting in an office, with a direct line to the Attorney General’s office?
When you go, once again, to hear the orator recite Niemöller’s First They Came, can you honestly hold your head up high? What price did you pay for this recall? What price did you pay for the imagined “safety” of the river? What price did you pay for your silence?
It’s your fear now, bought and paid for. Own it.
5 comments:
It you noticed most of our elected officials are scared to death of our current DA and wouldn't dare make the Daily A mad either.
Notice, both are da's.
It's interesting to note, that those who want courts to decide on the basis of what is right--rather than what is law--that we refer to those who only wish for the clear meaning of law to be observed and enforced, are "conservatives", while those who who want the clear meaning of the law to be ignored, only to be replaced by what they want as "liberals".
Liberal, which to me relates more to the English school, nominated by Dave Hume, used to mean something more closely akin to tolerance. To be liberal was to be befitting, or worthy of, a man of free birth; free; not servile; not restricted; as, a liberal manner. Bestowing in a large and nobleway, as a freeman; generous; bounteous; openhanded; as a liberal giver.
As time has passed, unfortunately, it seems the name libertine is more closely associated with this formerly brave badge of association. And conservative has been more and more closely related to what were traditional liberal values. The core of which is a liberal belief in the dignity of the individual as a freeman.
250 years of a liberal tradition, and the best progressives can come up with is a recapitulation of the excesses of the French commune. Those who ask for nothing more than the law, evenly applied, find that the emanations and penumbras celebrated by an earlier, distorted court have gained sway in the application of the simplest laws. When laws break down, when the clear meaning of words is no longer understood, there are a limited set of outcomes that can be expected.
During the 1930's, the Communist International described the nascent rising of national socialist parties as "reactionary". As we all know, being labeled "reactionary" is a bad thing. Add to this label, the appellation of "right-wing" and the stage has been set for decades of name calling clearly and absolutely devoid of meaning or intent.
The Nazi movement was criticized by the International Communist Party, headquartered in Moscow, Russia. As was the Fascist Party of Italy and Benito Mussolini. The major criticism of the International was that these "national" movements could, or would, serve to undermine the eventual global bliss assured us by Mssrs. Marx and Engals. Only the Soviet Union had the street cred to be teh real Communist Party.
Fast forward 50 years.
The fundamental beliefs of the communnist/socialist movement have been proven to be false. Look at it this way; you take a poll/survey and find out that some issue has a 64 to 31 percent predicted outcome, with some unknown amount (in this case, 5 percent). Then, an election takes place, and the actual result is 25 to 72 percent--the other way.
In one case, people, doing their best, are trying to predict an outcome using a statistical method. Which, due to something known as "confounding error", may or may not give you a realistic image of the way people actually would vote on an issue.
In an election something else takes place. Regardless of "counfounding error", the actual election results are "the actual" outcome.
So too, are the differences between those who would have us adopt socialism in this country, and the reality of those who have adopted socialism in recent history.
Having stood on the steps of the Kremlin, having viewed John Reed's gravesite, I know, as do my friends in the former Soviet Union, the missteps that are being offered us locally, on the state-wide level, and nationally by Liberals/Progressives/Socialists/Communists.
There is a real price for adopting socialism/communism. Not a theoretical problem. A true, historic reference was set by the former Soviet Union. Interestingly, that model is being revived by Senior Chavez in Venezuela and Mr. Mugabe of Zimbabwe. More interestingly, these current, live laboratory experiments are taking place as you read this.
The Brown Shirt tactics of Progressive/Socialist/Democrats cause no pause among the brighter members of these groups. They see themselves as advancing their agenda. And, they are doing well.
The International Communist Party had labeled the Nazis and Fascist of the 1930's as reactionary and right-wing. Who are we to deny the Communist Party? That labour unions in this country continue to label the fascists and Nazis "right-wing" and "reactionary" should be a tip-off of the goals and agenda of the union movement, the Progressive movement and the Democrat Party.
I've taken a look at the information that is available on the issues you bring up, and have referred readers to this essay:
http://tinyurl.com/5r9m5s
As the writer suggests, "There is no question that given the critical role of gatekeeper the district attorney holds in our legal system the men and women who work as prosecutors should continue to be held to the highest standards of conduct."
Amazingly, again, the district attorney who wrote this essay is currently assumed to be a "reactionary conservative" since he is regularly featured on Portland's "Lars Larson Show", described as a conservative's view of politics in Portland. What any person would ask, is how much money did this "conservative DA" give to the re-election of our MoonBat Governor, Ted Kulongoski?
Is it possible that "reactionary, right-wing" is only half of the description? And can it be that the Brown Shirt appelation may in fact be found to be more historically accurate?
The question you raise is how, within the context of unclear direction from the courts--dominated in the State of Oregon by Liberal/Progressive judges, can we ask for tort relief? When the clear meaning of words, either in law or in a brief, neither match the intent of the Progressive/Leftie, nor prayer for protection of the law is guaranteed by the miasma of current "stare decisis", what steps would you recommend for protection from those who abuse their office, those who abuse the responsibilities of a free press, whose who abjure the classic definition of liberal for tolerance in dissent in the sake of personal agenda?
The Brown Shirts of the National Socialist Party were "national communists". They were only "reactionary" and "right-wing" to the fabulists of the International Commune.
But their tactics have remained the same since the 19th Century. Tell people a lie. Repeat the lie. Teach their children the lie. And more importantly, change the clear meaning of words. Make Liberal mean Progressive. Make Reactionary mean Conservative. Make Socialist mean Freedom. And if that doesn't work, threaten them.
Make the law something you're afraid of, rather than something you can rely on.
Is that what you're refering to?
um...Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.
Carton's,
Everything you write is good reading.
Few citizens blink because so many are afraid of the District Attorney!
Thanks for writing and speaking up.
Post a Comment