It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
1. An employer, as we've established, can run a background check on anyone they're considering for employment.
2. Pending via election, the presidential office is a public position, and the one hired/voted in is done so by private citizens. (Corporations? now, right?) As such, the president works for us. All of us, from his wife, to his cousins, from my family to yours, we've employed him for the position.
3. How much background should be made available and known in regards to our officials before we elect them? Where does disclosure begin and end? Where is our power to question the judments, past, and intent when it comes to people high in power?
4. How much power do common police have? Can they run background checks on anyone they feel is suspicious of crimes? Were they suspicious of him for something? What were they looking for?
Originally posted by phoenix103
Originally posted by Rockpuck
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]
Actually, the President is a public servant....
His background check is Public Information
The fact that the Gestapo was notified immediately that someone ran a background check on Mr. Obama, and proceed to "investigate" the police officers in question ... is a little disturbing. Makes me wonder how far the Gestapo's arms really stretch.
So you'll be able to supply us copies of his bank statements if everything about his life is public record?
Doesn't matter who or where it is, EVERYONE is entitled to some privacy. You don't have British police doing background checks on the Queen, do you?
Well he is tied to ACORN! Maybe they have found wrong doing by ACORN and just doing their job and investigating to see if a crime has been committed.
Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by orderedchaos
let me set you straight...
1. An employer, as we've established, can run a background check on anyone they're considering for employment.
To a point but the background checks employers use aren't like the ones the police have access to.
2. Pending via election, the presidential office is a public position, and the one hired/voted in is done so by private citizens. (Corporations? now, right?) As such, the president works for us. All of us, from his wife, to his cousins, from my family to yours, we've employed him for the position.
I am sorry but that is incorrect. You voted for a set of electors. Everyone did. You don't vote directly for the president. It is the Electors that officially vote for the president. This is how Al Gore won the popular vote in this country but still lost the presidency because he did not have enough electoral votes to make it.
3. How much background should be made available and known in regards to our officials before we elect them? Where does disclosure begin and end? Where is our power to question the judments, past, and intent when it comes to people high in power?
As much as constitutionally allowed under the 4th Amendment. In the case of Obama, you could have found out a lot of information about him here.
www.votesmart.org...
4. How much power do common police have? Can they run background checks on anyone they feel is suspicious of crimes? Were they suspicious of him for something? What were they looking for?
That is the crux of this issue. What crime could Obama have done in their jurisdiction to warrant a background check?
Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by EYEOFEAGLE
I agree with you 100%.
First off, I completely disagree that anything found in a criminal background check could be used to better assist someone in shooting the President today. I mean, how does finding out that 15 years ago in Chicago (this is hypothetical of course) Obama robbed a bank. NOW, if they find something recent -- such as since he took office -- that would be a different story. Of course, should that be the case, then intrusion of privacy is the least of our worries.
Second, this could be as simple as the cops just getting computers in their cars (for some precincts this is very new) and wanting to check it out or "take it for a ride".
Third, forgetting for a moment that HOW the officers went about it was wrong, shouldn't EVERY SINGLE THING OBAMA has ever done in his entire life now be available to the American people? We are his employers. You can argue about the electoral votes and all that nonsense, but ultimately it is the American people that put him in office. Just as we put every single other mayor, senator, governor, etc. in office.
We are trusting him to run our entire country. Some would say that he is the most powerful man in the entire world (position, obviously). And you're telling me we have no right to know what's contained within a criminal background check?
How many more things about Obama are they going to tell us to just trust that all is well -- but just don't try to see for yourself!
Originally posted by Bearack
Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by lpowell0627
Probably already been said but had to add my two cents before I gotta jet...
Using the system to do background checks for personal reasons is usually against policy. Officers, social workers, and other gov't employees aren't supposed to do that.
Against policy I can understand, but against the law??
Originally posted by Sky watcher
Hello, Its not illegal to do a background check on anyone!! I have a friend that worked for Choice Point and let me tell you that everyones info is so dam screwed up thanks to companies, now we will need a national ID system just to fix it.
The cops were dumb to use those government computers to do it and thats probably the excuse they used to put them on suspension. They are even dumber thinking they will get any real info on any database.
Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by ninecrimes
Your little background checks are NOT the same as a police background check.
Actually that is not true They are in fact the same and many times much more thorough because PIs have much more time on their hands then police departments. Private Investigation firms use the same resources (databases, courthouses, etc. as Law Enforcement and work right along side with law enforcement on many cases and do the same type of checks.
But with all that said.....department policy is one thing - and the cops should not have done it on work time and work sources....but I think anyone should have the right to run a check on the President - any president
[edit on July 30th 2009 by greeneyedleo]
Originally posted by Rockpuck
No, he is entitled to NO privacy what so ever.
In fact, it shows how little you know of the system..
Mr. Obama's financial records are already public information, and have already been torn apart by critics who found it ... amusing. He is a terrible investor (except a Bird Flu corporation he invested in, then cosponsored a bill to have the Gov by the vaccine) all his other investments were mediocre at best. He made his fortune writing one book, which it should be noted he didn't really sell an extraordinary amount until after he started running for President. His wife was technically the "bread winner" through her job at a hospital, which she received a massive pay raise once Obama was elected to the Senate (to which it should be noted he never finished).
His background check is also public information.
Ironically our last President, Bush, failed at all his business and investment endeavors as well. Why we continue to elect inexperienced buffoons to our highest office is well beyond me. Perhaps it's a mirror explanation to the rampant stupidity in America?
Originally posted by orderedchaos
Confusion here comes in the form of police, power, private citizens and public officials.
Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by EYEOFEAGLE
I agree with you 100%.
First off, I completely disagree that anything found in a criminal background check could be used to better assist someone in shooting the President today. I mean, how does finding out that 15 years ago in Chicago (this is hypothetical of course) Obama robbed a bank. NOW, if they find something recent -- such as since he took office -- that would be a different story. Of course, should that be the case, then intrusion of privacy is the least of our worries.
Second, this could be as simple as the cops just getting computers in their cars (for some precincts this is very new) and wanting to check it out or "take it for a ride".
Third, forgetting for a moment that HOW the officers went about it was wrong, shouldn't EVERY SINGLE THING OBAMA has ever done in his entire life now be available to the American people? We are his employers. You can argue about the electoral votes and all that nonsense, but ultimately it is the American people that put him in office. Just as we put every single other mayor, senator, governor, etc. in office.
We are trusting him to run our entire country. Some would say that he is the most powerful man in the entire world (position, obviously). And you're telling me we have no right to know what's contained within a criminal background check?
How many more things about Obama are they going to tell us to just trust that all is well -- but just don't try to see for yourself!
Originally posted by phoenix103
reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45
Not being a citizen a US background check wouldn't reveal much!
If you choose to have a gun then a criminal record check is the least they should be expecting to do!
The only time i've been "checked" is by DHS coming into the country...
Originally posted by rnaa
Ya reckon I've beaten that dead horse long enough?