Homeland Security??????? For shame!!

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 09:08 PM

Jack, this thread was already in existence; I decided to use it rather than starting a new one. I wanted to outline the broad powers given to the DHS after reading yet another news item bemoaning the fact that they globally gather and sift all electronically transmitted correspondence.

Posts in this and other threads seemed to give a very limited outline of the Department's coverage (taking over security-oriented functions of 22 government departments).

If this is old news to you, disregard the thread.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 05:00 PM

OK then, Jack - how about he's using the attack on the Twin Towers- thirteen years ago - to excuse anything the Department of Hopeless Stupidity chooses to do NOW - "whatever the Dept deems necessary" ( with minimal or no oversight), whether it violates the Constitution or not.

That better?

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:45 PM

Its doesn't seem that way to me Greg. It looks like he is succinctly answering a post that we can't read. Thanks for the feedback, but I'll wait for his answer.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:33 PM

I don't understand what you [Q] are doing here.

Easy.

What Q is doing is attempting to whitewash and excuse the abuses, violations of the Constitution and idiocies of the Department of Hopeless Stupidity.

That clear it up for you?

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 02:54 PM

The previous post was addressed to Q.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 02:53 PM

I don't understand what you are doing here. I don't want to read a 7 year old thread and then try to guess.

Have I missed something? If something has been deleted, would you mind if your reply to it went as well?

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 02:45 PM

Health and Human Services, Energy and Justice, U. S. Customs and Border Inspection, Immigration and Naturalization, are all under the DHS blanket.

The UFCW suit, mentioned above, failed in the courts. The workplace is not defensible against arrest by agencies of the DHS.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 01:32 PM

Most of the above posts concern actions of one or another of the agencies overseen by DHS, Department of Homeland Security.

The DHS oversees and combines the actions of 22 government agencies.
The reorganization and combination of government agencies is a major change from the days of the National Security Act (NSA) of 1947.

The purpose is safe-guarding the United States and its territories from terrorist acts, both from abroad and internally.

In order to carry out its responsibilities, whatever is deemed necessary to ensure protection is done.
Surveillance at home and abroad is a key part of the protective measures. This includes all communications.

Congressional action to form and empower the DHS was necessitated by the strike on the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, and terrorist actions against U. S. installations and personnel abroad.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:09 PM

While the Department of Homeland Security has a legitimate function to perform enforcing the nation's immigration laws, it cannot do so by running roughshod over the well-established constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and lawful resident workers.

Amen!

And thank God for The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union!

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:01 PM

I am very proud of the organization I work for. I am proud because of this action. Sometimes, someone must do the right thing. I am posting the news release here of our action on behalf of American workers:

WORKERS SUE TO STOP MASS ARRESTS AND DETENTIONS BY FEDERAL AGENTS

UFCW suit challenges punitive immigration raids and claims violation of 4th Amendment rights

Washington, D.C. —The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), today, sought court intervention to protect the 4th Amendment rights of all Americans and enjoin the government from illegally arresting and detaining workers including U.S. citizens and legal residents while at their workplace.

The lawsuit—filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas—names the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency as defendants. The suit calls for an injunction against the excessive, illegal and unnecessary worksite raids conducted by ICE agents.

"This lawsuit is about ensuring that workers are protected and that their constitutional rights are respected," said UFCW International President Joe Hansen at a press conference announcing the lawsuit. "It is unconscionable that our government would round up hundreds, sometimes thousands, of innocent workers in an effort to target a few select individuals."

More than 12,000 meatpacking workers—including citizens, legal residents and immigrants in the process of legalization—were swept up in ICE raids on December 12, 2006, at six meat packing plants across the country. The UFCW represents workers at five of the plants including Worthington, Minn.; Greeley, Colo.; Cactus, Tex.; Marshalltown, Iowa; and Grand Island, Neb. Despite this unprecedented, unwarranted and excessive use of force, only 65 workers were indicted for identity theft.

The legal complaint contends that during the December 12th raids workers were denied access to telephones, bathrooms and legal counsel. Citizens and legal residents also were deprived of the opportunity to retrieve documents to establish their legal status. Some workers were handcuffed. Others were shipped out on buses. Families, schools and daycare centers could not be contacted to make arrangements for the children of detained workers. Families were left divided and scared—not knowing where or when they might see a missing family member again.

"When I tried to report to the cafeteria during the raid, ICE agents accused me of trying to run away. They held me in handcuffs. I'm a U.S. Citizen, born in Iowa. My parents live in Mississippi. My government treated me like a criminal, and I didn't do anything wrong. I knew our rights were being violated. What they're doing in these raids is illegal," said Mike Graves, who has lived in the United States his entire life, works at the Marshalltown, Iowa, Swift and Company plant, and is a member of UFCW Local 1149.

Peter Schey, President of the Los Angeles-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and the lead counsel in the UFCW litigation said, "The Department of Homeland Security routinely violates the Constitution and federal law when it conducts work place raids to detect undocumented workers by engaging in mass detentions of all workers without any basis for believing that they have violated any laws. Such mass detentions have long been considered unlawful by the U.S. courts. While the Department of Homeland Security has a legitimate function to perform enforcing the nation's immigration laws, it cannot do so by running roughshod over the well-established constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and lawful resident workers. If DHS Secretary Chertoff is unwilling or unable to stop the unconstitutional conduct of his agents, then we are sure the federal courts will step in to do so."

The lawsuit also includes in its complaint that union lawyers and representatives were not given prompt access to UFCW members during and immediately after the raids. In many cases, union lawyers were denied access to UFCW members, a direct violation of a worker's right to legal counsel.

"Work is not a crime, and workers do not leave their constitutional rights at the plant gate," said Hansen. "To inflict this kind of enforcement on innocent workers—to arrest and illegally detain massive numbers of people against their will, to treat them as criminals—is not just unacceptable, it is un-American."

The UFCW expects members of the union, civil rights, religious, and immigrant rights communities to file amicus briefs on behalf of the UFCW suit.

In addition to the class-action lawsuit announced today, the UFCW will continue to hold field hearings across the country to investigate and expose these punitive actions against hardworking families. The UFCW also will press Congress to hold hearings into the issue and to renew its efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

The UFCW represents 1.3 million workers across the country, including 250,000 in the packing and food processing industries.

# # #

A copy of the lawsuit is available at www.ufcw.org

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 10:03 AM

Now these:

1. Doug, did you bother to read the thread so far?
2. Do you suppose you could contribute in an intelligent manner,

in light of past experience, obviously must be rhetorical questions.

And this

3. Just once, DougR, I wish you would surprise me.

a forlorn hope, if ever there was one.

Its a constant source of wonder how some people can be kicked by a jackass time and time again and yet not learn to expect and anticipate it.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 01:34 AM

No country I know of has an "open border" policy, Doug. No country would dare to. The number of people favoring such a policy would, I think, be miniscule...and not worth worrying about.

I would favor open borders IF....and only if....ecomomic and social conditions were equalized around the world, and everyone had a decent, peaceful, and prosperous society to live in, without fear. Then there would be no problem with an open border policy, because most people would be happy to stay in the culture they were born in.

We are so far away from that that it could be centuries away...or millenia...or maybe never.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: DougR
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 01:27 AM

Well, I don't know, L.H., there are folks who favor "open borders" you know. Want to come to the US? Come on over!

DougR

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 11:25 PM

There is an element of homeland security in all of this. Many of us feel that unbridled human population growth will, in the not too distant future, destroy the entire planet.

                   In an effort to save the planet, maybe it would make sense for the Department of Agriculture to offer grants for farmers to mechanize their planting and harvesting techniques. That would reduce some of the unskilled jobs in America.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 09:46 PM

Well, okay, to be fair.... ;-)

The FIRST of those 3 questions was the kind that deserved a totally flippant answer, because NO ONE is in favor of the "huge migration of illegal aliens into the US" except the employers who take advantage of their cheap labor...and the illegal aleins themselves.

It was therefore a completely pointless question to even ask.

As for the other two, they are worth some discussion all right, and I'm sure a lot of reasonable views could be offered in answering either one of them.

I just couldn't resist the opportunity for a little satire there, Doug. That first question was such a crass thing to ask anyone.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 09:31 PM

Oh, those were the famous questions? Heh! My, my...how tough they are to answer. Let's see...

"Are you in favor of the huge migration of illegal aliens into the US?"

Duh!!! Why, of course! (grin) I'm also in favor of wife-beating, kicking dogs, stealing candy from babies, embezzlement, child abuse, sedition, rape, high treason, and violent pornography. What didja think? I am the godless liberal anarchist monster your momma warned you against when you were a little boy!


"If you do not want this migration to continue, what do you feel should be done?"

Well, the answer to that is simple really. Those damn wetbacks will NEVER stop coming here until we are as dirt poor and desperate as they are, and that ain't gonna happen. So the only real solution is to build a 20 high electrical wall along the entire US-Mexican border and fry them as they try to cross...or send out some B-52 squadrons down to Mexico and just nuke 'em all. Whichever is cheaper. The hot radiation belt in what was left of Mexico after that would keep the rest of the Latinos from coming north for a long time, so I think the nuclear attack is really the way to go.

Doug: I shall pose myself an additional questiion. "Do I feel those migrants who are already here should be granted amnesty?"

Hell no! Like I said...just kill 'em all.


There. You now have answers on the same dumbass, simple-headed, reactionary level as the original questions were.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 08:39 PM

Just once, DougR, I wish you would surprise me.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: DougR
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 08:32 PM

My, my, my, the "lefties" are in good form aren't they? So kind, so considerate of the opinions of others. So crass. So insulting.

Mick: I didn't answer pdq's questions becauses he didn't pose them to me. However, I will be absolutely delighted to do so.

The questions: "Are you in favor of the huge migration of illegal aliens into the US? My answer: No! And I would venture to guess that that attitude reflects the majority of opinion of legal citizens of my state, Arizona.
"If you do not want this migration to continue, what do you feel should be done?" Secure our borders, and enforce our current laws related to immigration. Hold employers responsible for hiring those who break our laws and impose harsh penalties on them.

I shall pose myself an additional questiion. "Do I feel those migrants who are already here should be granted amnesty? Hell no! They should go back to their country of origin and apply for entry behind all of those who have been waiting years to enter our country legally.

DougR

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 06:02 PM

What I'd like to see is a string of manufacturing factories on the south side of the US/Mexico border, factories that pay well and therefore the jobs are vied for. Then, when the US needs workers for its jobs that are not being filled, the US industries will have to offer good wages to entice workers across the border.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 02:38 AM

"To my mind, what's wrong is the idea of stopping these people who just want to work. Why not set up a system that allows people to cross the border more freely if there's work for them in the U.S.?"

Ah, then they would have to be paid a proper 'legal' wage, whereas if they are 'already illegal' then those crminal (already rich and powerful from these activities) thugs who love to sponge off the weak and disadvantaged can get a clear run...

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 12:59 AM

Well, it's one of those things that keeps happening isn't it? The problem with discussions here is...way too many participants...as in, "too many cooks spoil the broth".

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 12:35 AM

LOL.... OK. But don't you just love folks that jump in, not to join the discussion, but to just beef about the folks they are opposed to.

Doug, did you bother to read the thread so far? Why don't you answer the questions posed by pdq, and myself? But you have to read them first.

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 12:31 AM

Mick, if you are going to keep saying "Bite me!" to people on this thread, I wonder if you would be willing to say it to my dog? ;-) He just loves it when people say that...

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 11:52 PM

Bite me, Doug. I answered them a number of posts back. Do you suppose you could contribute in an intelligent manner, or are you just back to shill for the neo cons?

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 11:47 PM

Yes. Unbelievably crass. You're not supposed to make such embarrassing observations, Ebbie. It'll scare him away.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 11:19 PM

Would it be crass of me to note that DougR has NOT answered pdq's questions himself?

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 09:34 PM

DougR:

Nice to ee your gnarly hand on the threads, again. But I would like to point out that I did in fact answer PDQ's questions and even apologized when I was rude to him.

A

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: pdq
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:43 PM

Hi, DougR.

I plan to honor the thread-starter's request and not post to this thread again. He says it's not about immigration. Far be it for me to disagree.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: DougR
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:12 PM

pdq: I am not surprised that you received so few responses to your two very simple questions that do not require a college degree to reply. Most of these folks just don't know how to reply without looking a bit er..ah..well, obtuse.

So rather than addressing your questions what do they do? What they always do, attack!

DougR

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 06:18 PM

"Bill, this is not an immigration problem, granted there is that problem though."
....well, Barry,this thread shows that the problems are intertwined. We cannot possibly discuss one without being aware of the other. If all people are saying to me is 'this thread is not the place to discuss 'X', when 'Y' is the issue, I must respectfully disagree...and others have posted about the whole scope of various sides of the issue.

If the government IS indeed " trampling of civil rights & liberties ", then of course we need to both protest and get it stopped!

Up above, I see Joe Offer saying he finds support for the worst of these accusations only in a couple places. Are some papers and websites ignoring the truth? Just how widespread IS this detaining of folks without warrent or judicial procedure?
   I am off to read more about the assertions....admitting up front that even one instance would be too many.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 05:52 PM

Bill, this is not an immigration problem, granted there is that problem though. This is a problem were our government is trampling of civil rights & liberties & they're walking over our Constutition to do it. There is no excuse for that. That's a different ball of wax & it's not that big of a problem. It can be dealt with but that's not what our government wants.

Barry

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 05:51 PM

3 minutes in the Washington Post archives

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 05:45 PM

"And folks still haven't answered the question (although Bill started to) as to what exactly is the problem that is so pressing as to allow the 4th Amendment to be violated. He alludes to schools, hospitals, social services, but brings no facts to the table. "

*sigh*...I was far too busy yesterday to bring precise quotes & web sites to support my worries....but I have heard TV interviews with politicians and social service administrators from various states explaining this very problem.
   And I'm 95% sure *I* posted something here a few months ago about a hospital near me..Holy Cross, in Silver Spring, MD. which was stating that they were either 'about to' or 'considering' quotas on emergency room services, because in the last few years they were under GREAT strain from increased demand by uninsured folks. I am trying to find the article or other information to see if they identified the groups by ethnicity..etc.

I would bet that 10 minutes on Google with some creative search terms would find enough 'facts' to cover the table. Social services in border states ARE struggling to deal with budgets, teacher shortages, textbook controversies, medical care crunches, prison population growth and other dire situations directly related to the rise of immigrant populations.
....I will see if I can find some of these statistics, but they are out there, whether you get the data from me, or from somewhere else.

I have no wish to see ANY child denied an education or medical care...but I think it IS reasonable to ask how we are supposed to give it to them in this state of chaos.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 05:34 PM

For no reason that I can think of, this poem I learned some time ago, just came to me. I think it wants to be included in this thread. So here goes:

OUTWITTED
He drew a circle that shut me out--
Heretic, a rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in!

Edwin Markham

http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/mark01.html

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 01:29 PM

That is one of my main contentions, Barry. Folks keep justifying the actions of ICE, in conflict with the 4th Amendment, on the basis that we have a problem on the border, hence it is OK to violate the persons and rights to solve it. That isn't the rock upon which this country was built. Once you allow a government or an administration to do this, then the next step is but a moment away. It is why folks are misguided when they attack the ACLU. Civil liberties are a precious jewel, not to be carelessly tossed aside. And folks still haven't answered the question (although Bill started to) as to what exactly is the problem that is so pressing as to allow the 4th Amendment to be violated. He alludes to schools, hospitals, social services, but brings no facts to the table. If folks did, they would see that there is, indeed a problem, and one that needs addressing, but nothing that would justify automatic weapons, detention without cause/proof/justifiable suspician, fear, and inhumane treatment. And what really becomes apparent is that the administration and this Agency, is using the latent racist tendencies of the general public to misdirect their attention away from the real problem. It is easier for folks to point at "those people" than it is for them to realize that in their quest for low taxes, and no government involvement, and laws passed with no funding for enforcement of same, we have not only failed to improve the plight of the workers in Mexico, we have actually exacerbated the problem.

Sure we have to get control of the border, but let us not mix all this into one big stew. The same game they have played with Iraq (just saw the ad on TV this morning where a lady was linking 9-11 with victory in Iraq) on this issue. My wonderful Irish Gran used to tell me that when a man seemed a wee bit too cute and was trying to get ye to look to yer left, look right. These folks are trying to get you to look so carefully at the color of the skin, and throwing bogus, and specious, information out there, that you don't see that the real agenda.

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 01:20 PM

Their alleged tactics sound an awful lot like stuff I've seen in a vast number of Hollywood action movies. Is it surprising that young men in uniform will act out the popular macho fantasies of their culture when given the opportunity and the authority to? They always think they are the "good guys" and the people they're doing it to are the "bad guys"...and it's supposedly quite all right to mistreat "bad guys", isn't it? "I mean, hey...they do it in all the movies... What would Clint Eastwood do? What would Steven Segal do? What would Rambo do?"

So, it's not surprising. Neither, however, is it excusable or tolerable.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 01:14 PM

It's not legal or illegal immigration that's the crux of the problem here, thought it is a related problem, it's the rights of citizens & non citizens. It's not about terrorism, it's about the type of erosion of our civil liberties, the constant knawing away at our freedoms, freedom of speach, the right to work without fear, the right to assembly, & our protections against the infringments on these rights. This is not about a group of people being targeted this is about an attack on the righs of all Americans. Soon we won't have the ability to protest these infringments if we stay on this path. This is only happening in the work place now but it will move & spread to other areas or our lives & it will start to become more inclusive or others rather than just Mexicans & Latinos. Fear of snakes is unreasonable but it's not unreasonable to fear the poisonious ones or the ones that would cursh you. One needs to know what it is that we need to fear & in this case it is that we are losing our rights, our freedoms & our way of life. This is not about border patrols or fences, it's not about immigration, it's not about terrorism but you can throw all those things into this to muddy the waters. This is about how this government treats it's people, ALL it's people. When you unjustly harm one of us it is an affront to us all. You cannot treat the symptoms, we need to seek the root of the problem & correct it, not with knee-jerk reactions like these raids & these are criminal actions. There was a time when we needed just cause, a warrant for reasonable cause to search or raid, this was not a coke factory.

My Brother-In -Law is Porto Rican, vice president of a very well to do bank, he looks as if he could be Mexican, his daughter, my niece does she now have to fear being rounded up in a raid on her work place. She does now if she's working with a lot of other Latinos. She has a justifyable fear now & so do I. They are citizens, they were born citizens, there parents were born citizens. This is a blow to the nation not just to those that aren't white. This is what we brings us to are knees, it's not immigration or terrorism we need to fear it's ourselves, we are our own worst enemy & that's a weakness anyone can exploite, espically from within, it has mostly been expolited from within.

I'm just plain dam sick & tired of this shit, were are the WMD when you realy need them.

Barry

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 11:51 AM

Thanks.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 10:47 AM

See the next to the last sentence of my last post. I was not calling these ICE wokers vigilantes. However, by implication at least I meant that their alleged tactics and racial profiling reminded me of vigilantes such as the KKK.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:42 AM

I am not sure how you arrived at vigilantes, Azizi. There are vigilantes involved (a group known as The Minutemen, whom we confronted in Omaha) but no one is calling the ICE agents vigilantes. Am I missing something?

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:15 AM

For some reason, the thought popped into my mind that we don't need vigilantes, What we need is to be vigilance to protect our-and other's human rights.

This article is related to that thought:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/ccjs/security-cjm-2007.html

"Security and Surveillance - calls for vigilance
Embargo: 00.01 hours, Tuesday 24th July 2007

Leading academics and practitioners raise a number of concerns about the extension of surveillance and security measures in the latest edition of Criminal Justice Matters, the quarterly magazine of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College, London.

The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, says 'we need to be more discriminating, more focused as to the purposes, the benefits, the raison d'etre for every piece of surveillance, whether its in the street or in shopping centres, cameras in stations and so on, before its actually deployed'. He says the 'jury is still out' on the role of CCTV cameras in the prevention of crime and also calls for the 'very tightest control framework' for techniques that attempt to predict the criminals of the future.

Professor David Lyon of Queen's University Ontario, one of the world's leading academics in the study of surveillance, warns that 'fear and suspicion' are being reinforced by new surveillance technologies and calls for 'alternatives that promote trust, inclusion, recognition and respect'.

Reporting on a study of children and young people's views of the government's new information sharing database 'ContactPoint' which will contain records of every child, researchers Zoe Hilton and Chris Mills highlight how concerns about the quality of data and how it might be used. The study concludes that the government needs to 'devise information sharing initiatives which will win the support of children and young people'.

Dr Basia Spalek of the University of Birmingham and Bob Lambert examine Muslim communities under surveillance arguing that anti-terrorism policies and increased police activity have alienated Muslims and failed to improve national security. They call for 'a more enlightened counter-terrorism policy that empowers all sections of Muslim communities, rather than one that empowers one section against another'.

Professor Mike Nellis of the University of Strathclyde, a leading expert on electronic monitoring assesses the effect of satellite technology on the supervision of offenders. He highlights its limitations noting that electronic monitoring 'merely facilitates data gathering about someone rather than knowledge of someone, and it entails a dyadic link between a single authority and a subject, rather than multiple links within a network'.

Professor Richard Ericson of the University of Toronto reviews the changing face of the law relating to security and surveillance. He concludes that 'when law and other democratic institutions are most threatened by seemingly intractable problems, the response is to devise new forms of counter-law that further threaten those institutions ... Security trumps justice, and insecurity prove itself'."

-snip-

I get the impression that Professor Ericson was not saying that "Security trumping justice, and insecurity proving itself" is an a condition or an outcome that he supported. Rather he was warning us about this.

**

Btw: According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante a "vigilante is a person or persons who ignore due process of law after a crime has been committed, instead enacting their own form of justice when they deem the response of the authorities to be insufficient."

This term actually doesn't fit the men in black who work for ICE [in the incident that is the focus of this thread, and probably other incidents} as 1} they weren't certain that a crime had been committed by all of those persons who they detained and treated so inhumanly and 2} these ICE officers were working as part of our USA government when they committed those heinous acts.

For shame!!!

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 03:19 AM

Well, I guess I'm torn. I've always been torn on this issue. I've seen the Border Patrol/ICE agents at work many times, and I've investigated the on-duty and off-duty activities of many of them - and very few of them were bad apples. And yes, I heard reports similar to Mick's six years ago, when I was still working as an investigator - and it didn't jive with my considerable experience with the program.

I know of other aspects of the immigration program that were hoplessly fouled in bad morale and mismanagement, and I'd expect that anything could happen in those programs.

So, Mick, I hear what you say and I do respect your word, but what you say is foreign to my experience. I'd like to hear the other side of the story. How can U.S. law enforcement officers detain citizens without evidence of a crime? I'm sorry, but it just sounds too preposterous to believe. The Washington Post article about the raids says nothing about the detention of citizens. Same with the Rocky Mountain News although there is an implication that resident aliens may have been detained. There's another Washington Post article here, and here's the USA Today article. The Unitarian complaint against the raid also makes no mention of detention of citizens, but this union report seems to back up Mick's allegations, as does the article in the Minneapolis-St. Paul StarTribune. And article in the Dallas News gives a lot of information. The Denver Post says that Swift sued ICE to try to prevent the raid before it happened. There's lots of infromation from a local perspective in the Greeley (Colorado) Tribune.

And while I hesitate to believe charges of widespread inhumane misconduct by agents in immigration raids, I disagree profoundly with our nation's immigration policy. I think the policy is unjust, racist, and demeaning - and unnecessary and wasteful. I think the fact that our government carried out these raids is appalling - but I see little evidence that the federal agents violated the law, failed to follow long-established proceduces, or acted inhumanely.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 12:38 AM

Hey, Mick, I agree wholeheartedly with everything you've said on this thread. I do get your point.

It just kind of jumped out at me when I read that one line you wrote:

"This isn't just about some internet forum and showing each other how bright we are..."

I thought, "Wow!...you don't hear the unvarnished truth like that very often!" It kind of got my funnybone. Because, frankly, I think that's one of the main if not the PRIMARY impulses driving a great many of the posts on this forum...precisely that impulse you named in that line. It ends up mostly being just a bunch of yakking people showing each other how bright they are, and trying to prove that the other person isn't nearly AS bright as they are or he would agree with them. That's exactly how the human ego tends to work. It wants to be "right" and it wants somebody else to be "wrong".

Most talk ends up being just talk.

Be that as it may, I DO get your point, I know this is very important to you, and I understand why. It speaks well for you.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 11:01 PM

wow...this is one of the few times in 11 years here that I have seemimgly gotten on the 'wrong' side of a debate with a number of people I usually agree with. I tried to offer a couple of analogies, but I guess I didn't hone them well, as they were either not understood, or were taken out of context to defend a point.

Joe...I did NOT suggest that "private property" was legally the same as US territory...merely that viewpoints change according, as they say, "to whose Ox is being gored".

but finally, I see something with meat on it that can BE discussed as a possible remedy, rather than just moral exhortations about sad treatment of disenfranchised people:

Joe Offer: "Why not set up a system that allows people to cross the border more freely if there's work for them in the U.S.?"

Ron Davies: "So it seems obvious that what we have to do is increase the means of legal immigration."

...now we are getting somewhere, but all is not roses.

Sure...it makes perfect sense to set up a system to allow people to cross the border in a legal, organized way to do jobs that we need them for. In fact, I believe that basic idea was suggested by several politicans recently.
   What I do not see is the answer to to the question of how to deal with those who do NOT wish to adhere to the official, legal system, and who do NOT intend to work at the jobs sanctioned, but simply wish to do as they are doing now, and exist on the fringes of society, taking illegal jobs, and testing the limits of the social services.

   Frankly, I don't remember reading in all the long posts from Mick, Joe, Ron or others, any clear answer to the issues of schools, medical treatment, language, taxes...etc.
   Folks...I am not against poor people OR Hispanic people...I see a growing problem, and I do not see simply pointing to obvious abuses OF these people by various authorities as answers....OF COURSE we should restrain the idiots who mistreat those they are told to arrest....now..what are we to do with them if we we get the authorities to treat them kindly & humanely?
   Should we or should we NOT be able to control the rate & type of immigration, so that everyone benefits under the system? *IF* you advocate no controls....that is, open, unrestricted immigration, I predict that you will eventually regret that opinion.

I submit that we would be doing no favor to ourselves OR the immigrants by allowing unlimited, uncontrolled border crossings...eventually, those who entered in 2001 will feel overwhelmed by those seeking to cross in 2027...etc.

(remember the signs & bumper stickers..."Don't Californicate Colorado"? It often DOES devolve to "Whose Ox is being gored"!)

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Peace
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 10:35 PM

Something that may have been missed in this equation: The folks who are in your country illegally have found work (mostly honest, just like the rest of us), places to live and things to do to keep below the radar of your country's laws--else they'd BE discovered as illegal aliens. If the folks are already there and doin' OK, hell, they are enterprising and eager for work--something there ain't enough of in Mexico--and very much like any average American.

Someone I know (dead now) was asked as the last question on his citizenship test in Canada, "What's is the biggest river in Canada." His answer was, "The San-ta Laurenca." The reply from the exam officiator was, "Spoken like a true Canadian. Welcome to Canada!"

The two paragraphs relate somehow, I think.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 10:16 PM

Egregious thread creep though it was and still is, the subject has been raised. Jan and I were talking and we admit pdq was right--she did marry down. But of course so do all Englishwomen who marry Americans--right, Kendall? But it's happening a lot, it seems--there are 2 other couples of that description right on our street. We have decided it must be the weather--though I wouldn't think DC summers are a big enticement. Still, mad dogs and Jan do go out in the midday sun--I think she just likes the sun. But she does have a lot of (really good) suggestions for improving life here in the howling wilderness--starting with a real pub. (End of unforgivable thread creep).



Back to topic: It's clear that the analogy of neighbors who don't take care of their place, then come and trash yours is completely off base. Au contraire, these neighbors have skills the neighborhood really needs. We'd be utter fools to try to get them out of the neighborhood.

The problem with limiting the discussion to the jackboot approach of "Homeland Security" is that everybody on all sides of the issue will say stormtrooper techniques are unacceptable. That does not address the core issue--which is illegal immigration itself.

As I and many others have said more than once, nobody is in favor of illegal immigration--not even the illegal immigrants. They would much rather be legal. So it seems obvious that what we have to do is increase the means of legal immigration.

We also do have to deal with the illegals now here. Again, it seems blazingly clear that the only ethical--and sensible--way to do it is to set them--all--on a path to citizenship. As I said earlier--not on a silver platter--but also not an absurdly burdensome list. No "touchback" for one. English competence, yes. Back of the line behind all legal immigrants, yes. Fines as part of the process, no. Etc. It should be possible to work out a reasonable procedure.

The lifeboat allegory doesn't fit. The idea that illegal immigration will make the US "a 3rd world slum" would be laughable--if it wasn't that some people actually seem ready to vote on that basis. It's interesting that absolutely no evidence has been yet introduced in this thread--of over 100--to back up the "3rd world slum" suggestion.

It would seem time for people who believe this sort of thing to come up with some evidence.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: curmudgeon
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 08:32 PM

While I read most political threads down here in the abyss, I rarely venture a comment, as I am unlikely to change anyone's mind , nor to have mine changed.

However, in this instance, I must plead with those here assembled to get back to Mick's main point, as I see it. The current administration and its goons are desecrating the Constitution and its intent by their very actions.

We're not talking about immigrants, legal or otherwise, but human beings who have the absolute right to be left alone unless they are blatently commiting an illegal act, for which act there must be some iota of evidence to demonstrate same.

I grew up in the 40s and 50s. One clear message I got from the TV programs of that time was that only in foreign despotic countries were citizens required to show their "papers" to the police. Such a practise was clearly "unamerican."

Now, when I need to go to the local IRS (they're all really nice helpful folks there) or to Social Security (my age), I try to leave most of the metal in my pockets in the car so as to make getting through the checkpoint easier. Of course with a pacemaker, I can't just wlk through the gate, but have to be "wanded" with due care. This of course, means that they forget to ask for an ID.

All this latter stuff aside, bear in mind -- when YOU have to produce "papers" for any official, it will be too late to change anything -- Tom

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Azizi
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 08:19 PM

Here's an excerpt from an online website that is pertinent to this discussion:

"Religious, Labor and Civil Rights Organizations Call for an Immediate End to Immigration Raids


Statement
Philadelphia [January 3][2007] — The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) and more than 60 human rights organizations across the country urge President Bush to issue an executive order that declares an immediate moratorium on community and work site raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Our organizations, representing labor, religious and civil rights groups across the country, urge the administration to work with Congress to build humane, rational and fair immigration policies. We call for this action after witnessing the worksite raids that occurred at Swift meatpacking facilities in Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas and Utah.

We call upon the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Office of the Inspector General of Homeland Security to immediately investigate allegations of civil rights violations, including the racial profiling of the more than 1,200 workers apprehended in the raids.

Strong-arm tactics and the excessive use of force in the raids were evident. Workers who appeared to be Latino were separated from non-Latino looking workers. Federal officials refused to provide timely information to family members, clergy or attorneys, and in some cases threatened to arrest those seeking information about their loved ones.

Some of those detained were relocated to Camp Dodge, a military detention facility. Attorneys and clergy were not allowed into the detention center for several days. The ICE national telephone inquiry line did not provide information to relatives or attorneys about the whereabouts of detainees for nearly 48 hours.

Workplace raids continue a campaign of terror that criminalizes workers who are only seeking jobs and a better life. They do nothing to fix the nation's broken immigration system and only serve to polarize how immigrants are perceived. They promote discrimination and racial profiling, and sow fear and uncertainty in the nation's immigrant communities. Such actions weaken the social and economic fabric of our community and threaten the basic civil and human rights of immigrant and non-immigrant communities alike.

The December 12 raids occurred on an important religious holiday for many families — a day to pay tribute to the Patroness of the Americas, Our Lady of Guadalupe. To target Latin American immigrants, many of whom are Catholic, on such an important religious holiday shows a grave disrespect for their religious beliefs.
With Congress poised to address immigration reform in the new year, if the administration is truly committed to a fair immigration policy and justice for the nation's families, workplace and community raids must be stopped now.

Campaign Endorsers
In the spirit of the season and our nation's commitment to justice for all, we urge the Bush administration to take immediate and decisive leadership to address this deplorable community crisis and inhumane action. We urge organizations and individuals alike to join us in this call for an immediate halt to immigration raids and to urge the Bush administration and Congressional leaders to take immediate actions that produce a constructive and fair policy resolution to the nation's immigration debate.


-snip-

Click http://www.afsc.org/immigrants-rights/news/groups-call-for-end-to-raids.htm
for the list of this campaign's endorsers.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 07:45 PM

Can't agree, Joe. Surrounding a factory, holding the employees in detention and cuffed, denying them restroom facilities, and when you allow them to finally use them you watch, badgering folks that have worked there for 20+ years, confronting them in black with automatic weapons ...... it is all about the execution of things.

I would ask you, what I have asked pdq. If this is about checking for folks documentation, why the Rambo routine? Why automatic weapons and fiber cuffs? Why detention without charges, until the folks could prove they were citizens? Isn't that the process turned inside out? Shouldn't the feds have cause, in other words proof that someone isn't a citizen? It appears that the attitude is that illegal immigrants are Mexican, therefore we have the right to detain and harass all folks who look like Mexicans. Even if a mass checking of documents was justified, why not just come in and line these folks up and ask? Why all the scare tactics? If it was you being detained for no other reason than your ethnic background, even with your service time and history, how would you react? I repeat, less than 4% of the folks checked were undocumented, the rest were all law abiding folks just going to work. Can't buy it, Joe. No matter what your view of the illegal immigration problem is, you should be outraged at this. Isn't it funny that the big business right wingers, and the neo cons aren't concerned about the 4th Amendment rights of these folks? Of course not, because they take advantage of them.

Mick

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 07:34 PM

They're the same people, Mick - just different names. Yes, the Bush Administration has politicized border enforcement just like they've tried to tie everything else to their ideology - but the people doing the job still do it more-or-less the same.
It's not so much the execution of things that's haywire - it's the philosophy behind it. I suppose that it may be different in raids in large meat processing plants away from the border, where agents don't have experience in doing raids day after day - but my experience in California is that Border Patrol agents are pretty professional in the way they do things.
-Joe-