Edward Snowden offered asylum by Venezuelan president...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...nezuela-asylum
This is even better...!
The sound file at the link is INCREDIBLE. Hear a journalism student calling out the NSA.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/shor...ruitment-drive
pan down a little...(click the orange play button on the player)
is this where we are heading...
The Militarization of our Civilian Law Enforcement.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion...1b1f2cdc0.html
We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull.
~ George Orwell ‘1984’
To add check this out...
Constitutional Law
Nevada Family Says Police Occupation of Homes Violated the Third Amendment
Jacob Sullum|Jul. 5, 2013 10:00 am
You don't often hear about lawsuits based on the Third Amendment, the one that says "no soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law." That usually overlooked provision is cited in a federal lawsuit recently filed by Anthony Mitchell and his parents, Michael and Linda Mitchell—an oddity for which we can thank the Henderson, Nevada, police department. The Mitchells, who live in separate houses near each other in the Las Vegas suburb, were forcibly evicted from their homes on July 10, 2011, by police officers responding to a domestic violence report involving one of their neighbors. Here is how it all started, according to the complaint:
At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a "tactical advantage" against the occupant of the neighboring house. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call.
The cops did not take no for an answer:
[Henderson police officers] banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence. Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.
Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room. As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor. Fearing for his life, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell dropped his phone and prostrated himself onto the floor of his living room, covering his face and hands.
Addressing plaintiff as "*******," officers, including Officer Snyder, shouted conflicting orders at Anthony Mitchell, commanding him to both shut off his phone, which was on the floor in front of his head, and simultaneously commanding him to 'crawl' toward the officers. Confused and terrified, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell remained curled on the floor of his living room, with his hands over his face, and made no movement.
Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple "pepperball" rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain.
The cops pepperballed Mitchell's dog for good measure, even though she was "cowering in the corner when officers smashed through the front door." They charged Mitchell with...wait for it..."obstructing an officer." His father, Michael, faced the same charge after he tried to leave a police command center to which he was lured under false pretenses while the police took over his house as well. The two men were jailed for nine hours before making bail, and the charges ultimately were dismissed with prejudice. The lawsuit argues that police filed the unjustified charges "to provide cover for defendants' wrongful actions, to frustrate and impede plaintiffs' ability to seek relief for those actions, and to further intimidate and retaliate against plaintiffs." In addition to Third and Fourth Amendment violations tied to the warrantless occupation of their homes, the Mitchells say the police are guilty of assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence, and infliction of emotional distress.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/05/ne...occupation-vio
We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull.
~ George Orwell ‘1984’
LOL As you wish oh OligarchOriginally Posted by atmjjc
Yes comrade whoknows, but all the people work for us so is your free will just an illusion and freedom to do as one chooses an illusion within an illusion. Not even in your mother’s womb were you ever free and then there is big brother who watches over us and decides what is free in this illusion. Think you caught him with his pants down but remember he made you look…was that not his plan all along. <satire>
IMO, TpTB figure this is to valuable a tool to give up without a fight.
Will this hoopla blow over? Imagine, (as I understand it) only ONE FISA document was revealed by Snowden, out of 1800 issued warrants in the past 12 months. Have to wonder what OTHER secrets are being kept from the American people by our own government.
Protests against the NSA spring up across U.S.
By Heather Kelly
Anti-NSA protesters took to the streets in cities across the United States on Thursday, using the Independence Day holiday to call attention to recent disclosures about the U.S. government's telephone and Internet surveillance programs.
The movement, called "Restore the Fourth," says the government programs such as Prism violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures without warrants. Specifically, it wants the National Security Agency's surveillance programs shut down.
"It's important that we speak up and let our elected officials know that our rights are being violated," said Kyle Smeallie, a protester in San Francisco.
Online, popular websites such as Reddit showed support for the protesters by embedding Restore the Fourth images emblazoned with a hashtag. Story Continues
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
progress. -- Joseph Joubert
Attachment 1008
Perhaps in time, these protests will grow in size.
The Third Amendment in this case does not apply. Nobody was being posted to live in the house. It is strictly Fourth Amendment violation: at the very least we need to reinstate the ability to sue cops that go rogue like this.
Well yes and no the 3rd amendment will be argued in court but what you have is sworn to oath uniform armed officers who physically occupied under arms the man’s domain against his objections and arrested and charged the man with criminal complaint.
No doubt the man’s 4th amendment rights were clearly violated against unlawful search and seizure without court order.
We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull.
~ George Orwell ‘1984’
http://www.offthegridnews.com/2013/0...r-force-bases/
BREAKING: Strange Planes Landing At US Air Force Bases
For every action, there is a corresponding over-reaction. -- Anonymous
Bill of Rights of the United States of America, 1791.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, 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.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Reference: Click here for Bill of Rights Institute.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
