NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/activism/19790

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 7.3 KB

Xref: sparky alt.activism:19790 alt.politics.usa.misc:711 talk.politics.misc:65191
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!princeton!phoenix.Princeton.EDU!niepornt
From: [e-mail] (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: What is United States of America like?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: news@nimaster
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: phoenix.princeton.edu
Organization: Princeton University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:22:07 GMT
Lines: 133

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Veal) writes:
>In<[e-mail]> [e-mail] (PAUL D CHAPIN) says:
>>David Veal ([e-mail]) wrote:
>>: In article <[e-mail]> (PAUL D CHAPIN) writes:
>>: >Jyrki Kuoppala ([e-mail]) wrote:

>>: >: I hear reports of kids trained to inform to the officials about their
>>: >: parents.

>>: >That's plan silly.

>>:        I take it, then, that you've missed all the news reports on children
>>:turning their parents in, usually for drug abuse, sometimes for other things?

>>That wasn't the claim.  The claim was that they were "trained".  This implies
>>a program of instruction.  That's plain silly.

>       I take it then, you have also missed out on all the entertaining
>programs going on in elementary schools these days, designed to help
>children "help" their parents when "they've got a problem."  You've
>apparently also missed the teary-eyed boy who, after the police showed up
>and took his parents away in handcuffs was devestated, because he'd only
>done "What they said in school he should do."

Even worse, they didn't have enough cause to get a warrant.  But you
don't need a warrant to search a place if you're allowed in.  So the
police waited until the parents weren't around, then got the *kid* to
let them in.  They searched the place, found the drugs, waited around
until the parents came home, and then arrested them.

Furthermore, the kid now says that they're lying.  The police claim the
kid asked them to arrest his parents for their own good; he says he
thought they were just going to talk to his parents and tell them not to
use drugs, that he NEVER wanted them arrested.

>>: >: I hear reports of proposed legislation to required every telephone or
>>: >: other communication network operator be required to build taps for the
>>: >: Government on all equipment.

>>: >Tapping a phone is not that difficult.It can be done anywhere.This country
>>: >requires a court order in all but a few extreme cases.

>>:        There's been far too much "Oops, you mean we were supposed to get
>>:a court order?"  Anyway, what with the advances in technology, it is getting
>>:harder and harder to do taps.  That's part of the big stink over encryption.
>>:Even if they can do the taps,they want to be able to read the communications.

>>If the court order isn't obtained, the evidence can't be used.

>       Really?  But you know what the amusing thing is?  You know what you
>need to get a court order these days?  An anonymous tip will do it in most
>cases.  What protection is a court order that is that easy to get?

>>It's called
>>the exclusionary rule, I believe.  Authorities have got enough to do to spend
>>much time gathering evidence they can't use.

Um, you have a little too much faith in politicians, don't you?  Have
you heard of the New Improved Exclusionary Rule?  It says "Illegally
obtained evidence can't be used, unless we feel like it."  Actually,
they call it the "Good Faith Exception" which the pro-fascism wing of
the government has been pushing.  As long as the police didn't *mean* to
violate our rights, they're allowed to.

Furthermore, there are incentives to seize the evidence illegally
anyway.  You see, the Exclusionary Rule only applies at trial.  So
they've evolved a new strategy.  They don't bother with trials.  They
simply seize your property and dare you to try and get it back.

>       Which would, I suppose, explain the vast number of people with their
>homes, cars, and cash confiscated based on their electric bills, illegal
>searches, etc. who were never charged in in court, but can't get their
>property back?  Uh-huh.  Not using it in court *really* helped.

>>: >: I hear reports of a war being declared and fought in USA - a war
>>: >: against "drugs", with the Bill of Rights being the major casualty.

>>: >Bullshit.  The Bill of Rights is alive and well.

>>:         No, the Bill of Rights is dead and buried.  There are wisps of the
>>: first still hanging around for, I would guess, sentimental value, but the
>>: second through the tenth are, for all practical purposes, gone completely.

>>Then why are conservatives still screaming tha the police had be handicapped
>>by it?

>         Social inertia.

Politics.  Who cares whether the police are handicapped?  The question
is, can you get elected by calling your opponent pro-criminal,
soft-on-crime, an L-word, or a card-carrying-member-of-the-ACLU?

>>The only one I know that could be questioned is the interpretation
>>of the due process clause.  Everything else is doing fine in my neighborhood.

>         Uh-huh.  Due process has come to mean "Congress has passed a law."
>The fourth amendment is gone.  The police don't need warrents much anyway.
>"Probable cause" will do.  And when they do get a warrent it's often an
>anonymous tip, of they won't tell the people they're serving it against who
>swore it out, despite their being entitled to face their accuser.  Money and
>property is "arrested" in clear violation of the fifth amendment.
>         Doing fine.  Right.

You forgot no-knock entry.  Mandatory drug-testing.
As well as the seizure of property without trial.  Not before trial.
    But without any trial at all.
And it's worse than anonymous tips.  They don't need any tips at all.
    Profile stops are good enough.  Do you carry cash?  Buy plane
    tickets with cash?  Fly to major cities?  Fly from major cities?
    Get off a plane?  Own expensive *looking* items when you don't
    look like you can afford them?  Are you Latino?  Black?  Do you
    own some land the government wants for something?  Own a greenhouse?
    Have a Grateful Dead sticker on your car?  Look suspicious?
Any of these things provide enough probable cause for the police to
    *take* your property.

Freedom of speech?  Not for legalizers.  Try and get equal-access to schools,
    as required, as the Pro-WOD people.  Try and get time on TV.

Cruel and unusual punishment?  Happens all the time.  Possessing a small
    amount of LSD will get you more MANDATORY prison time than *MURDER.*

Double jeopardy?  Even if they *do* decide to try you, if they can't
    convict you, they'll *still* keep your property.

Right to an attorney?  Sure.  But when they take all your assets so you
    can't hire one, it doesn't do you much good, does it?

--
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina