Ventura Decries "Fascist" America After Judge Tosses TSA Case

reply to post by zorgon


Good info man...

nice job

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

The patriot act does not affect domestic / state laws.

It most certainly does. PATRIOT act overrides former acts including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under the pretense of domestic security, and the provisions under the PATRIOT act, Bush has authorized unwarranted spying on virtually anyone in the US by the NSA using "net" tactics to cover vast amounts of potential targets as opposed to monitoring a specific threat.

Secondly before taking me or our laws to task, I resectfully suggest you understand what the laws in question are, how they work and when they are present or not. Please research and understand how our government works, including the 3 branches, checks and balances, as well as Federal / State differences.

I actually do study how your government acts and is intended to act. I simply do it from a realist-consequentialist standpoint, not from some sterilized establishment point of view.

The founding fathers of American independence specifically made it clear that the three branches of government are supposed to work independently for the sake of democracy. If the executive is able to dictate the actions of the judiciary or legislature, then the President becomes "another King George" as many critics call it. This realization of this authoritan politics becomes clear when Bush added his executive signing statements to well over a thousand bills passed through the legislature, effectively changing their intentions to either protect the executive from the law or to render such bills useless all together.

When you and others make blanket accusations it just reinforces the view that you guys dont really care about anything other than going after the Federal Government for every perceived wrong doing. Again contrary to popular belief just because you dont agree with the law, doesnt make that law invalid. Just because you dont agree with a law, doesnt mean you are immune from proseution for violating it.

My arguments and opinions are not products of simple reactionary feelings to some partisan depictions of political reality. I look at how things are intended to be, how they are controlled and who is involved, and the final execution of the actions (the practical reality of whatever perceived intentions the law has in mind).

Knowledge is key if an argument is going to be made against the Government actions. I dont know about you, but if we are going to challenge a person on a particular topic we should read up on that topic so when the time comes and the debate begins, we can mop the floor.

Reading is good. Here's a book for you: "Cowboy Republic - Six Ways the Bush Gang has Defied the Law" by Marjorie Cohn. Don't judge it by the title either, it's worth the read.

reply to post by zorgon

I wouldn't waste my time with that guy, he is a brainwashed sheep and believe the official story and thinks it is ok for the TSA do that crap to us. I get mad when I read his posts and I stop reading him. It is what people is saying, they are taking out freedoms away and training the sheep to accept being push around and grabbed on. It is pretty wrong what happened with Ventura and proves out government does not work for the people and turn their backs on us.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I do know for a fact that one time they wouldn't allow Jesse to even leave the area after he refused. So to say that you can leave and find another mode of transportation is not true. Unless of course it is in a police car....

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Well here in Australia and I'm sure many other countries, we don't have those full Xray machines and we don't get subjected to invasive pat downs..

It doesn't seem to be an issue and it's also been shown that for all their security, people have still managed to smuggle items through the TSA checkpoints..
A serious terrorist would easily find a way to get past security..

I guess the question is,
how much freedom are you prepared to give up for the "illusion" of security?

Star for you. Especially the last sentence, think someone famous might have said that!

reply to post by Xcathdra


Just wondering if you are ok with a rectal cavity search? Keep in mind there is no inflight meal and hot towel if you decline.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by backinblack

 

Why are people upset with TSA security, yet they say nothing when they enter a courthouse, a Federal courthouse or a clothing store with the detecors at the front to deter shoplifting

I don't know what kind of clothing stores you shop in, but the ones I go to the shoplifting detector isn't grabbing my @ss or feeling up my wife's t1ts!

Couldn't help myself, sry

reply to post by Xcathdra


"There is no law that allows an American citizen to be taken and held without charges"

Yes there is.. California penal code 849(b)(2)PC, and (b)(1) for that matter, allows for just that. Done it many many times... (b)(2), and to an extent (3), are used for 647(f)PC (public intoxication) / 11550H&S (influence controlled substance) arrests which allows the police to arrest and detain for 4+ hours 'sober up' time, then release with no charges pending..

(b)(1) allows the police to release a suspect at any time should the arresting officer / filing officer decide there are insufficient grounds for making a "criminal complaint".. aka "charges". Also known as going by way of filing.. letting the suspect go and allowing the city attorney / DDA to levy charges at a later date by mail.

For example a dirty trick of the trade is to release an injured suspect per (b)(1) the instant they are put in an ambulance.. no longer a guest of the city, they're liable for all medical / transportation fees.

www.leginfo.ca.gov...
849. (a) When an arrest is made without a warrant by a peace
officer or private person, the person arrested, if not otherwise
released, shall, without unnecessary delay, be taken before the
nearest or most accessible magistrate in the county in which the
offense is triable, and a complaint stating the charge against the
arrested person shall be laid before such magistrate.
(b) Any peace officer may release from custody, instead of taking such person before a magistrate, any person arrested without a warrant whenever:
(1) He or she is satisfied that there are insufficient grounds for
making a criminal complaint against the person arrested.
(2) The person arrested was arrested for intoxication only, and no
further proceedings are desirable.
(3) The person was arrested only for being under the influence of
a controlled substance or drug and such person is delivered to a
facility or hospital for treatment and no further proceedings are
desirable.
(c) Any record of arrest of a person released pursuant to
paragraphs (1) and (3) of subdivision (b) shall include a record of
release. Thereafter, such arrest shall not be deemed an arrest, but a
detention only.

people might as well go nude to the airport that would eliminate the molesting you have to go through.ron paul and jesse ventura presidential ticket has my vote

reply to post by GovtFlu


The statutes you provided dont allow for a person to be arrested and held indefinitely without charge, which is what people are claiming. They also dont prevent a person in custody from having access to a lawyer, which people were claiming.

The 4 hour drunk hold is goofy in and of itself. The laws regarding that used to be interpreted a different way until FEderal Appeals court rulings. In my state, we cant charge a person for public intoxication since its a status offense.

There are no laws that allow for a person to be taken into custody and held indefinitely without charge and there are no laws that prohibit access to a lawyer.

FIrst I would just like to remind everyone that these TSA employees, are just people like you and I. I know you are pissed and think they shouldn't do any of this and I am too, but they are seriously just average people trying to perform a task. They aren't evil, NWO members, waiting to rape you and your kids.

That said, I used to live in Minnesota. Make sure you do your research.

God watching the videos sure does make ones blood boil. Please remember there is a reason these videos bring out this emotion in us, it is done on purpose just like the news sensationalizes things. Watch it, think it over, then use your brain to decide what you are being told.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
It most certainly does. PATRIOT act overrides former acts including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under the pretense of domestic security, and the provisions under the PATRIOT act, Bush has authorized unwarranted spying on virtually anyone in the US by the NSA using "net" tactics to cover vast amounts of potential targets as opposed to monitoring a specific threat.

Which are Federal Laws and again, they dont allow for a person to be held indefinitely without charges or access to a lawyer. The Supreme Court addressed that issue. Secondly domestic spying has not been authorized to act with impunity and they cant just spy on everyone. FISA courts are still required if the criteria is met. The Military Comissions Act of 2006/2008/2009 in addition ot Hamdi / Hamden Vs. Rumsfeld cleared up the legal challeneges. Your description here is an over dramatized acusation that doesnt take into account current laws and rulings. Secondly it does not affect local / state law enforcement. How do I know this? Because we arent empowered to enforce Federal Law, just as FEderal law enforcement arent empowered to enforce state law.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I actually do study how your government acts and is intended to act. I simply do it from a realist-consequentialist standpoint, not from some sterilized establishment point of view.

Respectfully, you have no idea what you are talking about. Again you need to learn US law before engaging in this conversation.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
The founding fathers of American independence specifically...snipped for response.

Hence Supreme Court rulings on Executive branch actions, specifically the Military commission act of 2006 where SCTOUS stated the executive did not have the authority to establish tribunals and had no authority to declare a person an enemy combatent in the manner they were using. They also ruld that those actions and directives could not prevent the US Supreme Court from reviewing cases and complaints brought forth.

Executive signing statements are legal and allows the executive, who is responsible for enforcing the laws, to determine how the law should be enforced. Its no different than a prosecuting attorney giving an opinion on how they will prosecute a crime under an opinion based law.

The fact the patriot act was challeneged, the fact the Supreme Court stated the current setup (uner Bush) was a no go, and the fact Congress rewrote the law to address SCOTUS issues, demonstrates quite clear our checks and balances work.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
My arguments and opinions are not products of simple reactionary feelings to some partisan depictions of political reality. I look at how things are intended to be, how they are controlled and who is involved, and the final execution of the actions (the practical reality of whatever perceived intentions the law has in mind).

Which is fine for an opinion, however the law does not become void just because you or others dont like it.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Reading is good. Here's a book for you: "Cowboy Republic - Six Ways the Bush Gang has Defied the Law" by Marjorie Cohn. Don't judge it by the title either, it's worth the read.

Bush has been out of office for almost 4 years now. How about you get with the times and blame Obama and Congress and stop living in the past. Even when Bush was in officer SCOTUS and Congress made many changes to the Patriot Act as well as other federal laws. Obama pushed through the Military comissions act of 2009, ending a lot of programs Bush had set up and that the Supreme Court ruled were valid and lawful.

Seriously and respectfully, please learn how the government works, examine ALL laws as well as case law / rulings and for god sake quit blaming Bush.

Originally posted by Chopper
reply to post by zorgon

 

I wouldn't waste my time with that guy, he is a brainwashed sheep and believe the official story and thinks it is ok for the TSA do that crap to us. I get mad when I read his posts and I stop reading him. It is what people is saying, they are taking out freedoms away and training the sheep to accept being push around and grabbed on. It is pretty wrong what happened with Ventura and proves out government does not work for the people and turn their backs on us.

Then you have not read or comprehended my posts, which is sad for you. If you spent more time reading and less tiem accusing me of somethng that is untrue, you would see what im talking about.

But hey, feel free to continue your rage against anyone who doesnt agree with your opinion.

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I do know for a fact that one time they wouldn't allow Jesse to even leave the area after he refused. So to say that you can leave and find another mode of transportation is not true. Unless of course it is in a police car....

Look up what he actually did and what his actions were then get back to me.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by GovtFlu

 

The statutes you provided dont allow for a person to be arrested and held indefinitely without charge, which is what people are claiming.

Inmates in Gulagamo Bay are held indefinitely without charge (According to Alberto Gonzolas, they are Al Qaeda so Geneva conventions don't apply to them, and neither does habeus corpus apparently ). They are also tortured, brutally force-fed if on hunger strikes, humiliated, threatened, etc etc. The lawyers who volunteer to defend them are targeted for intimidation by government officials for "supporting terrorism", and they are labelled to be avoided for future business with other, non-terrorist supporting, clients.

The inmates there are sometimes tried by ad hoc military tribunals, accused of war crimes. Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen charged with killing an American medic was sent to Gulagamo at 15 years old (you can't charge child soldiers for warcrimes by the way, if you care about following international treaties) and is still being dicked around by the US government while ignored by my own Canadian government because the truth is politically inconvenient for Harper.

Oh, and there's the fact that over 80% of the detainees ever sent to Gulagamo post-9/11 were never even involved in combat. Some were even regular people plucked off the street by Pakistani bountry hunters and paid around $5000 a head by the US military.

But of course, Gulagamo detainees are foreigners and not domestics. I don't see how that makes it less scary though.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
FIrst I would just like to remind everyone that these TSA employees, are just people like you and I. I know you are pissed and think they shouldn't do any of this and I am too, but they are seriously just average people trying to perform a task. They aren't evil, NWO members, waiting to rape you and your kids.

That said, I used to live in Minnesota. Make sure you do your research.

This actually goes to the heart of my argument with people. All we see are people bitching, in this case, about the TSA and what the TSA does. What they ignore is how the TSA was created, what department it falls under and what it can and cant do.

What I mean is people bitch about the actions of Police officers for enforcing a law. Instad of actually challenging the law in court, and getting off their asses and holding their reps accountible and being involved and participating in governmen at all levels to change the law they would rather just continually moan and complain about the TSA.

The TSA is not the one who created itself.
The TSA is not the agency that established its own laws that govern the agency.

Being pissed at Law Enforcement or the TSA for whats going on now would be like being angry at law enforcement / TSA because the car you just bought has 4 flat tires and no engine.

Translation - people must learn how these agencies and government operates at all levels, and to force changes by partiucipation. They need to learn how it operates so they can put together a game plan as opposed to what they are doing now, which is complaining and whining while blaming the wrong agency for the situation.

Jesse Ventura agreed to the terms of service of both the airline and the airport VOLUNTARILY when he agreed to travel.

I'm not surprised the judge tossed the case, there were no legal grounds for the challenge.

Gov Ventura is starting to sound like a bully who can't get his way so will make sure everyone knows about it.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Just my two cents and maybe a solution that everyone can get along with.

Why dont we apply free market principles to airport security?

If we change the security screening to fall on the particular airline, then people can choose how much security one is willing to go through by which airline company they choose.

If people want the bare-minimum security screening then they can choose Airline X which has pretty lax screening.

If people want to go with the most secure airline, and the subsequent invasive security screening, they can choose Airline Y.

If people want to choose something in the middle then they can choose Airline Z.

Free market principles will dictate which airlines succeed and which fail. If the majority of people feel the invasive security is not necessary then most will choose the airlines with the most lax security screening and those airlines will make more money and succeed while those who only offer inappropriate amounts of screening will not have as many passengers and eventually go out of business if they do not change their methods.

IF there is another terrorist attack, then it will go the other way. People will start to choose the airlines that offer more invasive security screening and those airlines will make more money and succeed, eventually forcing the more lax airlines out of business because no one will fly with them.

This way, everyone is happy. Passengers have options and if they do not want to go through invasive security screening they can just go with another airliner. If a passenger wants utmost security, they can choose the service that offers that. And the airline companies will be able to market their amount of security screening and control their own policies.

Obviously, this is not an all encompassing plan. Kick it around and build on it.

Free market principles. Freedom for everyone.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Inmates in Gulagamo Bay are held indefinitely .....

People held at gitmo are not Us citizens, and as was stated before fall under the Military comission acts of 06/08 and 09, as well as the foriegn alein act. Your comment on torture is not supported by Supreme Court rulings, and again if you did research you would see how foriegn treaties are treated under the US Constitution - read up on the head money case for your answer.

Secondly the Us is at war with terrorist groups, and until such time as an end to hostilities is declared, a prisoner swap is arranged or some other agreement, the people in gitmo can be held indefinitely without charge. That is supported by US Supreme Court decisions and is in line with UN laws.

The rest is again opinion based on your morals and not on the law.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
The inmates there are sometimes tried by ad hoc .....

Since we are talking about Us Citizens, im not sure why you are bringin up gitmo or Canadians.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Oh, and there's the fact that over 80% of the detainees ever sent to Gulagamo post-9/11 were never even involved in combat. Some were even regular people plucked off the street by Pakistani bountry hunters and paid around $5000 a head by the US military.

Again, off topic and has nothing at all to do with what we are dsicussing, which was the indefinite detention of US Citizens while not charging them or allowing them access to lawyers.

People spend to much time accusing and not enough time researching, as you have done with these posts.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
But of course, Gulagamo detainees are foreigners and not domestics. I don't see how that makes it less scary though.

Again this post of yours has nothing to do iwth the topic. As has benen stated time and time and time and time again, we are discussing domestic laws and the people who make claims that arent true when it comes to those laws and Us Citizens.

REspectfully, learn the law and how the government works before delving into these conversations. Your arguments to date have been resolved either before Bush left office, or shortly after when Obama was sworn in.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Which are Federal Laws and again, they dont allow for a person to be held indefinitely without charges or access to a lawyer. The Supreme Court addressed that issue. Secondly domestic spying has not been authorized to act with impunity and they cant just spy on everyone. FISA courts are still required if the criteria is met. The Military Comissions Act of 2006/2008/2009 in addition ot Hamdi / Hamden Vs. Rumsfeld cleared up the legal challeneges. Your description here is an over dramatized acusation that doesnt take into account current laws and rulings. Secondly it does not affect local / state law enforcement. How do I know this? Because we arent empowered to enforce Federal Law, just as FEderal law enforcement arent empowered to enforce state law.

What I describe is what you consider illegal? No crap, Shirlock. Just because it is illegal doesn't mean that has stopped Bush or even current NSA datamining domestic operations.

Respectfully, you have no idea what you are talking about. Again you need to learn US law before engaging in this conversation.

Straight up, I don't think that I even need to know more about US law than you to actually have a grip on this argument. You've already proven time and again that you believe that the US government is incapable of doing illegal things intentionally, when the facts clearly show otherwise.

You know who abides by the rules? Suckers do. Those who weasel their way into dictating and enforcing the rules only need to follow them by honour alone, and trust me, nobody in that position does.

Hence Supreme Court rulings on Executive branch actions, specifically the Military commission act of 2006 where SCTOUS stated the executive did not have the authority to establish tribunals and had no authority to declare a person an enemy combatent in the manner they were using. They also ruld that those actions and directives could not prevent the US Supreme Court from reviewing cases and complaints brought forth.

Executive signing statements are legal and allows the executive, who is responsible for enforcing the laws, to determine how the law should be enforced. Its no different than a prosecuting attorney giving an opinion on how they will prosecute a crime under an opinion based law.

The fact the patriot act was challeneged, the fact the Supreme Court stated the current setup (uner Bush) was a no go, and the fact Congress rewrote the law to address SCOTUS issues, demonstrates quite clear our checks and balances work.

Funny, because it seems like your executive really didn't care if tribunals or their interpretations of "enemy combatant" were deemed unconstitutional. They still managed to justify them and still, to this day, follow the same policies.

Executive signing statements are indeed legal. No matter how you twist it, there is no excuse for the amount of signing statements that Bush has made (1,132+), compared to a handful for every president before him. This obsession with putting his own spin on the interpretation of these bills is a clear example of executive manipulation of the legislation.

My arguments and opinions are not products of simple reactionary feelings to some partisan depictions of political reality. I look at how things are intended to be, how they are controlled and who is involved, and the final execution of the actions (the practical reality of whatever perceived intentions the law has in mind).

Which is fine for an opinion, however the law does not become void just because you or others dont like it.

Your laws mean nothing when they aren't actually followed.

Bush has been out of office for almost 4 years now. How about you get with the times and blame Obama and Congress and stop living in the past. Even when Bush was in officer SCOTUS and Congress made many changes to the Patriot Act as well as other federal laws. Obama pushed through the Military comissions act of 2009, ending a lot of programs Bush had set up and that the Supreme Court ruled were valid and lawful.

Seriously and respectfully, please learn how the government works, examine ALL laws as well as case law / rulings and for god sake quit blaming Bush.

I'm living in the past? I'm living in reality.

In case you haven't noticed, your government has been hi-jacked about 12 years ago by neo-conservatives. Their manifesto is the Project for the New American Century and their mindset is to engage in aggressive foreign policy to make the US safer (economically, since that's the only significant threat to it). Bush was a puppet, and so is Obama. You can live in your delusion where new presidents mean brand new policies, but from here, nothing has changed in the direction of your nation's government.