Officers Run Background Check On Obama; Placed On Leave

Originally posted by phoenix103
reply to post by lpowell0627

 

Clearly as it is a stupid, blatant and gross invasion of privacy/abuse of their authority.

Why the hell should you need it explained to you?



Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 7/30/2009 by maria_stardust]

it's not invason anymore 'cause of the patriot act, oh wait i forgot the government is above the law along with the bankers who run this world

Originally posted by jibeho
Interesting story. Don't mess with the almighty. Makes you wonder if there is a standing order within police departments to report such inquiries. Obama should have nothing to hide anyway.

Certainly a story to follow.

The same exact protection of your privacy would be afforded to you if they had run the check on you. Why the double standard? As for having nothing to hide? Wow...so it's okay that your civil liberties and rights are violated by the cops acting illegally because you have nothing to hide? That just blows my mind. And how or why you got any stars for this post does too.

reply to post by g2


Once again, failure to see the bigger picture on this.

I'm absolutely gobsmacked at the ignorance that makes up the birther movement.

Its safe to say that if the cops were wasting taxpayer money, then all the secret service that spent time calling and responding to this were also wasting taxpayer money probably way more, than these officers did.

The response of the secret service for this case probably cost us $10K for only god knows why.

really goes to show how untouchable they really are. we all see cops cruise past us on the freeway, and get that feeling of their lawlessness. These guys smack cops around!

Clearly we dont need to know his "past" to understand he is not different than the rest.

The campaign Obama would have invited these cops to the white house for a cold beer.



[edit on 31-7-2009 by Mailman]

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Mailman]

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Mailman]

This, like the Gates arrest, shows the type of police-state we live in. Cops ARE the law, the don't merely enforce it. At least that's how they act. Thankfully in this case they weren't the highest law. And they were caught. Boo on cops. I don't like them personally and I feel that the type of people who choose this as a career are inherently authoritarian bullies who are ALWAYS going to view their infrigements of our rights as their right. Boo on cops.

Again, people just don't get it.

You mess with the POTUS, you deal with what you reap.

I may not agree with the president but I do not need to snoop on him either.

Maybe this sparked their interest in doing what they did?



www.scribd.com...



Eye of Eagle

reply to post by EYEOFEAGLE


No, that's just yet another birther dead in the water lawsuit. It will go nowhere just like the others. Sorry pal, the guy was born in Hawaii just get used to it.

I asked one of my law enforcement friends about this, and apparently its not against the law for them to NCIC anyone they want, but it is against Police internal procedures. Years ago, I asked one of my friends to look up something for me, and they refused because they could get in trouble for it. From what I understand, the policy is that they can only run an NCIC check on an active case, like when they run your tag at a traffic stop.

The reason is twofold: First, because it eats up the bandwidth of the NCIC system, and secondly, because other agencies regularly flag certain files for ongoing investigations. The latter is to promote interagency cooperation, and the ensure that one agency does not step on the toes of another agency. So for example, if a traffic officer pulls over someone that is being looked at by the Feds, when the officer runs that NCIC on that person, it automatically shoots off an indicator to the feds letting them know what is going on. This is so that the local officer does not interfere with another bigger ongoing case. For example, it keeps a traffic cop from ruining a large multi-million dollar drug sting by making a simple traffic stop.

One friend told me that a local cop here got in trouble for running the FBI’s 10 most wanted through NCIC. The reason he got in trouble was when he hit those files, which the FBI had tagged, the FBI contacted the local police department wanting to know if that officer had found information pertinent to one of those open cases. They did not do this to be malicious and get the officer in trouble, it is simply standard operating procedure to contract the other agency when a flagged file is accessed.

I hope that helps clear this story up some.

reply to post by whatukno


Yep.

Let's get back to worrying about swine flu vaccines, aliens, putting a roof over our heads, etc.

You know, # that could REALLY hurt people. Not stupid birther #.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by phoenix103

 

I do agree with you. I understand privacy, security, etc.

My point is that this information SHOULD be public knowledge.

Think about how much waste and corruption could have been avoided had we known what politicians were CROOKS before they ever got into office.

And again, if there's nothing to hide....

My argument is and will remain, no matter what names people continue to call me, that until we start demanding that these politicians answer to a higher standard, we will never achieve a higher standard.

And I don't know about you, but as far as I'm concerned, the current standard is completely unacceptable.

You continue to miss the point completely.

It is likely that any information about Obama that is on NCIC is probably already in the public domain. The kind of info that is kept on file can be found here.

I'm sure you have nothing to hide either, but you wouldn't let a cop search your house just because he thought it would fun to randomly pick a house on a random street and you were the lucky one. A warrant is required, or a damn good probable cause, and if you let the guy in you are making a big mistake.

The NCIC has privacy rules embedded in legislation specifically to prevent unwarranted access.

Whether or not there is anything to hide is irrelevant. That the subject of the search was the President is also irrelevant. The point of the problem is that it was an illegal, even unconstitutional invasion of privacy. It is against the law and the LEO's departmental rules.

If there was evidence of a politician's crookedness on NCIC before he gets elected, it means that there is an ongoing investigation and making it public would put that investigation in jeopardy. I expect there are even more secure databases for that kind of info though because Organized Crime 'owns' too many cops for any sensitive investigation details to stay 'hidden' in NCIC for very long.

I expect that every LEA has 'traps' in the system to alert them when people they are particularly interested in are the subject of a search. The FBI probably has terrorism suspects flagged, local cop shops undoubtedly have alimony skippers flagged, and the Secret Service would have its set of 'names' they are interested in. You don't think the Secret Service wants to know if a cop makes a traffic stop and the driver claims to be B. H. Obama?

If you don't think LEA's take some 'jokes' very seriously indeed you might like to see what happens when you make a joke about a bomb in your shoes next time you are going through the airline security check.



[edit on 1/8/2009 by rnaa]

Whats really funny to me and that NO ONE has seem to have brought up is the fact that I can call any PI that i know right now and have ANYONE i want run for a background check including their record........WEIRD!

Oh wait.......better just go arrest me now wouldnt want to "break" the law



Its all B.S and hypocrisy........I didnt see any of the left screaming about how it was a breach of privacy when they looked up BUSH's criminal record for his DUI's and everything else?


Why does this guy get all the privacy treatment hmmm? B.S.

You can call it "birthers" or whatever slang term you have assigned to anyone who is concerned about their nations welfare.....but i didnt hear you cry foul when you were doing it to the last POTUS......sorry.....IF IT APPLIES TO ONE IT APPLIES TO ALL!

Get over yourselves......we deserve to know all about him we can and the more he tries to hide the more we will dig and the more skeletons it looks like hes trying to hide....I tire of the double standard

If you people were really objective then you would be questioning everything he does.....just like any other person in power over your laws and RIGHTS as a people.......stop the nonsense

As far as I am concerned, Obama gave permission, the day he was sworn into public office.

As an employee, I must agree to background checks and things of that nature if I wish to keep my job. Obama is our employee. He is my employee, your employee, and those police officers employee. He took the job, if we want to know about our employee, where he has come from, what other names hes lived under, if hes a criminal, etc. etc. we should be able to find out.

reply to post by rnaa


You missed what my point is entirely.

I understand these cops were wrong. Privacy, etc.

My point is that the President of the US is not your average citizen. I feel that the minute a person decides to run for office, and in turn making the American taxpayer their employer, these records should be opened up for all to see. Period.

Don't want your records open and scrutinized? Good -- then don't run for office!

People seem to forget that being a politician is a CHOICE. And that these politicians work for US.

Perhaps if we were more demanding when it comes to the standards that we are willing to accept in our politicians, we wouldn't be in the state we are in now.

And again, I would argue that conducting a search of the President's background in no way jeopardizes his safety while in office.

Bottom line: I'm sick and tired of gov't telling me what I can and can not know about THEM as they take more and more of my money to pay THEIR salaries. Yet if someone is a returning veteran, bible thumper, Republican, Muslim, southerner, or the like, they can be classified as "possible extremists" and subjected to whatever method of monitoring that the gov't sees fit.

Originally posted by Hazelnut
reply to post by phoenix103

 

What's wrong with that? I'm as dense as the OP, so please help me out here.

Well let me put it this way...part of my job is screening folks for employment. In order to run criminal and credit checks I had to have someone from the company that provides those reports visit my office and evaluate how I stored records, whether I owned and used a shredder, whether our building had an alarm system etc.

And then I had to sign several documents saying I would NEVER run a check unless authorized in writing by that individual and to do otherwise would be breaking the law and I would be prosecuted.

These two "officers" obviously knew they were breaking the law...at best it was illigal and stupid...at worst it could have been construed as some extremist group doing research to obtain a list of the Presidents family members, home addresses or other useful information.

So from someone that has and does these checks...yes it is an invasion of privacy without authorization, is against the law and these idiots deserved to be suspended.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by rnaa

 

You missed what my point is entirely.

I understand these cops were wrong. Privacy, etc.

My point is that the President of the US is not your average citizen.

I can only hope that the gov has removed neccessary info from the Presidents files.

Like I explaned above...I have and do run these reports and if I ran one on you...I would have your social security number, date of birth, your phone numbers past and present and addresses past and present, the phone number and address of your parents or anyplace you have called home and a lot of other uncomfortable information...

No...just becuase he is President does not mean that the phone numbers and addresses of his family members should be made public...just the opposite.

Well Honestly i gotta say that if my employer wants to do a background check n me why shouldn't i be able to do a background check on the people that my tax dollars pay? I think this is being blown out of proportion, it's not like we don't know where the president lives already, it's not like we don't know where and who he works for, well we think he works for us but we all know deep down it's wall street, but nonetheless who cares if some bonehead cop typed in Obama's name it's about the equivalent to googling yourself!! OR Obama we know he's rich and there is nothing in that background check that anyone cares about, it's about what's NOT in the background check that worries me!!

I'm hoping that someone can explain why two officers would be suspended simply for conducting a background check on President Obama.

Is this customary precedure?

Actually I am pretty sure it is. While I don't think it crosses the line of "unconstitutional" I cant Imagine that it would be legal for the police to start investigating random people. And even if its not illegal its 100% certainly unethical.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Whats really funny to me and that NO ONE has seem to have brought up is the fact that I can call any PI that i know right now and have ANYONE i want run for a background check including their record........WEIRD!

Oh wait.......better just go arrest me now wouldnt want to "break" the law

Yep and a policeman have a license to kill, but I don't.

What's your point?

I do think they broke the law and abused the power they have however anyone can go to certain sites and pay for background checks on another person. I have done it. I got one on an ex and with good reason. He never knew but I found out what I needed and moved on. So if anyone can get background checks on another citizen why is the President exempt?? I do want to say that the way they went about it was wrong but what harm did it do?