Police State of the USA/The loss of civil liberties at home

[MaxS]

"Utah Ravers Treated Like Terrorists"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/22/13030/7546

Police raided a legal event without a warrant and teargassed people who didnt deserve it. There is video and pictures for proof as well. ACLU is involved, and lawsuits are being filed against the city. Hilariously, security guards hired by promoters were tasked with confiscating illegal substances from partygoers, and were subsequently charged with possession by the county Sheriff.

Update - Here is the story as reported by the Tribune:

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2964938:

In the story the Sheriff's office goes so far as to deny SWAT officers used profanity in "conversing with the partygoers" even though it is clearly visible and audible in the video :grumpy:

Edit - Link to the video (which depicts the opening moments of the raid before the camera man is tackled -- reportedly his friend snatched the camera from the ground and ran off with it, the police were trying to stop any footage of the raid from coming out):

http://homepage.mac.com/apexgrin/FileSharing2.html

 

[Skyhunter]

Is this what Bush means when he says "Freedom is on the march"?

 

[MaxS]

Completely unrelated but still BS:

Pittsburgh police taser an already restrained protester.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/_images/splash/pittsburgh_justice_8_20_05.mov

"Police spokeswoman Tammy Ewin initially said no pepper spray was used on protesters, but Sgt. Clint Winkler, a supervisor on duty, told The Associated Press he tried to use pepper spray on one woman who would not leave, but it hit her glasses. She was then subdued with a Taser, Winkler said."

 

[Burnsys]

i thougth that US had a law prohibiting the military engaging the civilian population.

This kind of stuff don't even happen here in argentina, America is becoming a dictatorship..

 

[hypatia]

It did seem a bit extreme with the force but Utah is a really weird {mormon}state with laws. I can imagine that a few people will get some money from that.
I guess next time they will pull the right permits{mass gathering over 250}, and inform the local police well in advance, who should of been patrolling the roads.
They have big legal raves here sometimes, and the cops bust lots of people with drugs and underage drinking, but if ALL the permits/laws are in order, they let the party go on. They also have cops standing by the gates to haul off people with drugs and minors with liqueur. A security guard can not take possession of drugs, and only a idiot guard would. They don't have the authority.
Most state laws say that if you suspect laws{drugs} are being broken, or if minors are involved, you don't need a warrant to enter.

 

[MaxS]

i thougth that US had a law prohibiting the military engaging the civilian population.

This kind of stuff don't even happen here in argentina, America is becoming a dictatorship..

Yes well, the problem is SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) is a Police Organization, not military. Although it might as well be.

 

[russ_watters]

I guess next time they will pull the right permits{mass gathering over 250}, and inform the local police well in advance, who should of been patrolling the roads.

There are no permits for drug use though. The police raided a rave where there was a lot of drug use and underage alcohol consumption going on. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Pittsburgh police taser an already restrained protester.

A carefully edited video showing the end of a struggle. "Restrained" means she's got handcuffs on - from the video it is clear that she does not.

I love Michael Moore.

 

[Manchot]

So, how many of the fourteen defining characteristics of fascism do we now cover? Twelve? Thirteen?

 

[MaxS]

The police raided a rave where there was a lot of drug use and underage alcohol consumption going on. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

LOL Yeah, point assault rifles at peaceful civilians , tear gas some kids while they're walking out of a rave and beat the **** out of teenage girls. Oh, and try to make sure no video gets out. PERFECTLY REASONABLE.

 

[kcballer21]

There are no permits for drug use though. The police raided a rave where there was a lot of drug use and underage alcohol consumption going on. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

The police better start raiding every pre-concert tailgate. I've actually seen police in riot gear break up a tailgate. The big difference was that there was 10,000 kids there just to party 2 hours after the show started. Nonetheless, the fiasco ended with an innocent bystander losing an eye to a rubber bullet. It's ok to see the extreme nature of these things.

 

[edward]

Police have every right to raid a party, even if it is only for disturbing the peace.

I have a much bigger problem the the number of links I am finding that are similar to the one below. Both FBI and homeland security waste their time collecting data on war protestors. Your name and picture may already be on file.

For that matter they even monitor forums like this one.
All we lack are the brown shirts.



http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/03/03/29760515.shtml?Element_ID=29760515

A top official with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation admitted one of its agents was collecting information about speakers at a Murfreesboro peace rally yesterday.

 

[ray b]

this is NOTHING other than RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

As Hypatia has already pointed out the reason this most likely was handled the way it was is because we're talking about Salt Lake City Utah. The Mormons influence the laws and police there extensively and always have. It has nothing to do with the person currently in the presidencial office.

To give you an idea of what Salt Lake City is like...
You can not purchase or possesses cigarettes unless you are 19 even though federal law states 18. I think there are other places with similar laws.
You can not drink, smoke, or drink caffiene even with in a certain radius of the temple.
It is illegal to even sell caffinated beverages within a certain radius of the temple.
In a very funny turn since the Mormon Church has bought stock in Pepsico it is ok for them to drink Pepsi even though it has caffeine in it. A friend of mine told me that the last time she was there Pepsi was the only cola you could find in a resteraunt.
At any rate the point is that they have very strict laws there.

Next, whether it's true or not I'm not sure, but they apparently did not have all teh proper documents necessary for their party. They need a permit from both the land owner and the public office. Their party also apparently began to spill over off the private property onto public land.

 

[vanesch]

Both FBI and homeland security waste their time collecting data on war protestors. Your name and picture may already be on file.

That's strange if it is to reduce terrorism. After all, terrorists are in favor of the Iraqi war. It's their main business line!

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Bush is calling this a victory in the war on terror-ble music.

WTF is the cop in the background doing right of centre at 01:08?

 

[loseyourname]

A bit of a provocative title given that this raid was conducted on the county level and had nothing to do with the federal government, don't you think, Max? Notably, the video somewhat fails to corroborate the account given on Daily Kos. The cops have guns, but they aren't pointing them at anyone nor are they threatening to shoot anybody. They don't seem to be using any form of gas, nor do they even have masks. The "documented profanity" consists of an officer telling a guy to turn the music off or "I'll take your ass to jail," which he actually said in a surprisingly calm manner, given that the DJ didn't listen to him the first five times he was told to turn the music off. The continued assertion that the party was "100% legal" doesn't seem to be accurate either, as the SLT piece says that the promoter had one of the permits he needed, but was missing another.

That said, I have to admit that this looked pretty scary. I wish the video was clearer on certain things, though. It's hard to tell in the pan to the girl they have down whether they were attacking her or trying to get a dog off of her, or neither. The video definitely doesn't show any clear evidence of brutality or police misconduct, though. It just shows them being really fast and efficient at clearing everyone out. If all they have are eyewitness allegations, good luck to them proving they had any rights violated.

My advice to the promoters, musical acts, and partygoers is to not rave in Utah. Raves are held all the time in the desert and in warehouses all over Southern California and they all seem to end rather peacefully.

 

[Smurf]

One of these days I'm going to go to a Burning Man festival... one day...

 

[Locrian]

As someone who despises the populist losers who make up our current administration, I feel that the content found in the opening post here does nothing to help and almost certainly hurts any argument against them.

Is there any way I can be anti-Bush without being associated with 98% of people who use the term?

 

[Smurf]

As someone who despises the populist losers who make up our current administration, I feel that the content found in the opening post here does nothing to help and almost certainly hurts any argument against them.

Why?

Is there any way I can be anti-Bush without being associated with 98% of people who use the term?

Oh quit trying so hard to be different.

 

[Locrian]

Why?

Because it is disingenious at best and deceptive at worst. There is no evidence in the OP that civil liberties were violated or that there is a police state as of this time. Loseyourname addressed these points and no one has made any argument otherwise; nor do I expect there to be any.

If spamming poorly thought out links with deceptive titles and disinformative posts is normal (and in this forum it seems to be), then yes, I would like to be different.

 

[MaxS]

Because it is disingenious at best and deceptive at worst. There is no evidence in the OP that civil liberties were violated or that there is a police state as of this time. Loseyourname addressed these points and no one has made any argument otherwise; nor do I expect there to be any.

If spamming poorly thought out links with deceptive titles and disinformative posts is normal (and in this forum it seems to be), then yes, I would like to be different.

Where do you NOT see civil liberties impeded? How is this NOT reminiscent of a police state?

A rave is going on peacefully and it gets raided by a paramilitary organization without a warrant? The officers try to stop any video of the raid from getting out? (NO ONE SEEMS TO BE ADDRESSING THIS POINT) They threaten peaceful civilians with loaded fire arms? Yep everything seems in order to me you're right.

 

[champ2823]

Is there any way I can be anti-Bush without being associated with 98% of people who use the term?

If you find a way to do this, please let me know.

I also think that with all the information of how America is turning into a police state, this is not the best way to show how civil liberties are going down the crapper. Wouldn't a better argument be made by using post 9-11 passed legislation like the Patriot Act, National ID card legislation, and the power of the president to sign executive orders under FEMA suspending the Constitution and establishing martial law without Congressional approval for six months?

 

[champ2823]

Also I remember reading a good piece by Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas...

The Police State Act: A Report

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD



Congress passed legislation last week that reauthorizes the Patriot Act for another 10 years, although the bill faced far more opposition than the original Act four years ago. I’m heartened that more members of Congress are listening to their constituents, who remain deeply skeptical about the Patriot Act and expansions of federal police power in general. They rightfully wonder why Congress is so focused on American citizens, while bin Laden and other terrorist leaders still have not been captured.

The tired arguments we’re hearing today are that same ones we heard in 2001 when the Patriot Act was passed in the emotional aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks. If the Patriot Act is constitutional and badly needed, as its proponents swear, why were sunset provisions included at all? If it’s unconstitutional and pernicious, why not abolish it immediately? All of this nonsense about sunsets and reauthorizations merely distracts us from the real issue, which is personal liberty. America was not founded on a promise of security, it was founded on a promise of personal liberty to pursue happiness.

One prominent Democratic opined on national television that “most of the 170-page Patriot Act is fine,” but that it needs some fine-tuning. He then stated that he opposed the ten-year reauthorization bill on the grounds that Americans should not have their constitutional rights put on hold for a decade. His party’s proposal, however, was to reauthorize the Patriot Act for only four years, as though a shorter moratorium on constitutional rights would be acceptable! So much for the opposition party and its claim to stand for civil liberties.

Unfortunately, some of my congressional colleagues referenced the recent London bombings during the debate, insinuating that opponents of the Patriot Act somehow would be responsible for a similar act here at home. I won’t even dignify that slur with the response it deserves. Let’s remember that London is the most heavily monitored city in the world, with surveillance cameras recording virtually all public activity in the city center. British police officials are not hampered by our 4th amendment nor our numerous due process requirements. In other words, they can act without any constitutional restrictions, just as supporters of the Patriot Act want our own police to act. Despite this they were not able to prevent the bombings, proving that even a wholesale surveillance society cannot be made completely safe against determined terrorists. Congress misses the irony entirely. The London bombings don’t prove the need for the Patriot Act, they prove the folly of it.

The Patriot Act, like every political issue, boils down to a simple choice: Should we expand government power, or reduce it? This is the fundamental political question of our day, but it’s quickly forgotten by politicians who once promised to stand for smaller government. Most governments, including our own, tend to do what they can get away with rather than what the law allows them to do. All governments seek to increase their power over the people they govern, whether we want to recognize it or not. The Patriot Act is a vivid example of this. Constitutions and laws don’t keep government power in check; only a vigilant populace can do that.

July 26, 2005

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Ron Paul Archives

 

[champ2823]

Aw, his links didnt go through so if you want to see his essays, they are archived here...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

 

[loseyourname]

How is this NOT reminiscent of a police state?

First off, it's a county entity conducting the raid, enforcing state laws. There was no federal involvement.

A rave is going on peacefully and it gets raided by a paramilitary organization without a warrant?

Two questions:

1) Since when is the Sheriff's office a paramilitary organization?

2) Since when do authorities need a warrant to break up a party that doesn't have all the proper permits? That ridiculous. By the time they got a court order, the party would be over (unless it's one of those week-long super raves).

The officers try to stop any video of the raid from getting out? (NO ONE SEEMS TO BE ADDRESSING THIS POINT)

It's funny that you mention that, because on the video that has been released, it shows a deputy telling a man with a camera to leave. The deputy makes no attempt to confiscate the camera or the tape.

They threaten peaceful civilians with loaded fire arms?

Again, where is the documentation of this? In the video you posted, the deputies are carrying guns, but we see not one instance of a deputy pointing his gun at a partier, or threatening to shoot. Is it suddently a violation of civil liberties for an officer of the law to carry a firearm?

 

[MaxS]

First off, it's a county entity conducting the raid, enforcing state laws. There was no federal involvement.



Two questions:

1) Since when is the Sheriff's office a paramilitary organization?

2) Since when do authorities need a warrant to break up a party that doesn't have all the proper permits? That ridiculous. By the time they got a court order, the party would be over (unless it's one of those week-long super raves).



It's funny that you mention that, because on the video that has been released, it shows a deputy telling a man with a camera to leave. The deputy makes no attempt to confiscate the camera or the tape.



Again, where is the documentation of this? In the video you posted, the deputies are carrying guns, but we see not one instance of a deputy pointing his gun at a partier, or threatening to shoot. Is it suddently a violation of civil liberties for an officer of the law to carry a firearm?

These are not sheriffs you are seeing but SWAT. SWAT is paramilitary. Sheriffs were in charge of the raid but it was SWAT officers conducting it.

I am not even talking about whether or not they have permits. Use your head - Why should anyone need a permit in the first place to assemble. No where in the constitution does it say anything about a permit. This in itself prohibits free speech.

And while the incident is not federal it does not make it any less disturbing. And its funny because you seem to ignore that shortly after the man is turned to leave you can hear them shouting to tell him to turn off the camera before he is tackled to the ground. Hmm interesting little tid bit you choose to ignore I guess. (The only reason the video got out is because after he was tackled to the ground, his friend picked up the camera and ran with it).

While the video did not catch everything, There are LOTS AND LOTS of accounts of people being teargassed (coming from those who got teargassed...) and people getting weapons pointed at them.

It doesn't matter if the Sheriff's office was following the letter of the law or not because this is still a huge trampling of civilian rights regardless.

 

[Icebreaker]

The U.S. isn't a police-state? Mmm, all empirical evidence points to otherwise.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

As pointed out by Loseyourname, and myself, this is Utah we're talking about. Salt Lake City is the home of the Mormons. If you don't already know they are a religious group so anal retentive that they are not allowed to even drink caffiene. These are the people that run Salt Lake City and influence all of the laws and legislation. Believe it or not, in regards to strictness, Salt Lake City, is actually now more lax than it used to be. The way they are has little if anything to do with the Fed, Bush, or the Patriot Act. They have always been like this and worse.

From what I have been reading here and there it does seem as though the police have lied and exagerated their claims. The county commissioner for the permits they were said to have not obtained stated that the application was received and granted.
I would not put it past the ravers to have exagerated their claims either though. Aside from the inconsitancies pointed out by Loseyourname this part where the person holding the camera was tackled does not seem evident in what I have seen. The camera gets moved around in a wild fashion but never hits the ground and I hear nothing that would indicate the person with the camera was in an altercation.

 

[loseyourname]

I am not even talking about whether or not they have permits. Use your head - Why should anyone need a permit in the first place to assemble. No where in the constitution does it say anything about a permit. This in itself prohibits free speech.

I'm not going to bother responding to the rest, but are you kidding me? You think that requiring a permit for a rave is a limitation of civil rights? Guess what? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that one must wear a seatbelt, or drive slower than 65 MPH. Do you know why? For one, it isn't significant enough to make it into the Constitution, and two, cars did not yet exist when it was written. Same thing with raves. Come on, Max, at least get somewhat serious if you want to have any credibility. The First Amendment does not guarantee anybody the right to rave without a permit.

 

[MaxS]

Come on loseyourname what exactly do seatbelts and raves have in common?

Raves are an assembly of people. The permit is required for any assemblage of people greater than 250.

GREAT HUH?!

That sure as hell prohibits the right to assemble in my book. Which by the way is guaranteed in the constitution. Weird. Because no where in the constitution does it say you can drive without a seatbelt. But it does say you have the right to assemble. I wonder why that is. Hm.. Maybe because its "significant" enough to be guaranteed. Let's do some critical thinking now. Right to assemble guaranteed in the constitution. Permit required for assemblies greater than 250 people.

Yep everything seems in order what was I thinking, boy good old critical thinking.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Come on loseyourname what exactly do seatbelts and raves have in common?

Raves are an assembly of people. The permit is required for any assemblage of people greater than 250.

GREAT HUH?!

That sure as hell prohibits the right to assemble in my book. Which by the way is guaranteed in the constitution. Weird. Because no where in the constitution does it say you can drive without a seatbelt. But it does say you have the right to assemble. I wonder why that is. Hm.. Maybe because its "significant" enough to be guaranteed. Let's do some critical thinking now. Right to assemble guaranteed in the constitution. Permit required for assemblies greater than 250 people.

Yep everything seems in order what was I thinking, boy good old critical thinking.

Sorry, Max, youSTILL don't get it.

They DID have a permit.

What they didn't realize was that they needed TWO permits.

And, security guards are not enough ... they need to make sure that they hire off duty cops and SWAT officers to confiscate drugs.

Geez ... now wonder they were pissed ...

They were cutting into their moonlighting pay!

It might not be a Police State but there does seem to be a lot of rendering unto Ceasar.

(Oh, and the rules for all of this are in the citizenship manual issued with either your birth certificate or your green card. Not the constitution, silly)

 

[ray b]

raves are a kind of religion, a belife system in the brotherhood of man
the christians and their subcults [mormans] are useing lawinforcement
to supress this movement and that is wrong
sad that few can see that basic fact
it is not nessicary to have gods or written dogma to be a religion

 

[Skyhunter]

As pointed out by Loseyourname, and myself, this is Utah we're talking about. Salt Lake City is the home of the Mormons. If you don't already know they are a religious group so anal retentive that they are not allowed to even drink caffiene.

Actually, now that the church owns a significant share of Pepsico stock, it is ok for Mormons to drink pepsi.

Is this what they mean when they say religious hypocrisy?

 

[Skyhunter]

raves are a kind of religion, a belife system in the brotherhood of man
the christians and their subcults [mormans] are useing lawinforcement
to supress this movement and that is wrong
sad that few can see that basic fact
it is not nessicary to have gods or written dogma to be a religion

And I thought raves were parties where everyone took ecstasy and danced to loud music.

I must be getting old.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Actually, now that the church owns a significant share of Pepsico stock, it is ok for Mormons to drink pepsi.

Is this what they mean when they say religious hypocrisy?

Didn't we already go through this when it was revealed the Vatican Bank owned a large interest in the company that developed the birth control pill?