Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fw: Surrendering Freedom For "Security?"

Expand Messages
  • jail4judges
    ... From: Ronald Jerome, Webber To: jail4judges Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 6:00 AM Subject: Re: Surrendering Freedom For Security? Ron This, clearly,
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 8, 2001
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 6:00 AM
      Subject: Re: Surrendering Freedom For "Security?"

      This, clearly, represents the mindset of a society bent on someone else taking care of them...believe they call themselves "socialists' and a "democracy".  All responsibility for one's life is turned over to the "proletariat", and they, in turn, become the eyes, ears, and mouth of the "Gestapo".  I am amazed how many folks will use cell phones to call in "suspicious activity" to 911, but refuse to be identified.  They will not act as witness, which is required under God's Law, but simply let "law enforcement" take care of it.  What an abomination of the Bill of Rights and the amendments to the Constitution!  Such people prefer the law enforcement to be the witness of something they didn't see, and the judicial system to mete out punishment to an event that has no accuser.
      I am not only sending this to my regular e-mail list, but I am going to copy it and send it to our local sheriff.
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 1:58 AM
      Subject: Surrendering Freedom For "Security?"

      J.A.I.L. News Journal
      Los Angeles - April 7, 2001
      Listen to HotSeat4Judges daily on Internet Radio M-Th, 6-7 pm P.T.
      For a beautiful navy blue T-shirt with "J.A.I.L." on the back and www.jail4judges.org large and visible over the pocket, imprinted in a bright yellow-gold lettering, send your check payable to J.A.I.L. for $11.95 plus $4 S&H. (Discounts on volume quantities.) Wear them to your next courthouse function and watch the reaction.
      Surrendering Freedom
      For "Security?"
      By Daniel B. Newby

      On July 2, 2000, a couple days before the anniversary of the signing of  the Declaration of Independence, my family drove up Big Cottonwood Canyon to enjoy the mountain air. Not far up the canyon, signs appeared warning us to prepare to stop and be searched, and that search dogs were in use. In stubborn fashion, I promptly made a U-turn and headed back the way I had come.

      An unmarked police vehicle soon pulled out behind our car and followed us down to the mouth of the canyon. There police lights flashed and we were pulled over. An officer in civilian clothes approached our car, asked to see my driver's license and inquired as to why I had avoided the search. In as rational and calm terms as possible, I reminded the officer of the recent Utah Supreme Court decision against such random searches and  explained that I did not want to have any part in it.

      The officer immediately became defensive. He justified the checkpoint by the number of drugs taken off the street and the safety that was being assured for people like me. I responded that it was very concerning to me that Americans would prefer this type of security over the risks associated with freedom.

      The officer explained the difficult situation the police are in: people go up the canyons, do drugs, and kill somebody on the way down, and then everyone demands to know why the police didn't do something to stop it. I
      could empathize with his predicament, but still did not agree with the supposed remedy.

      After some back and forth, the officer walked away from our car and held a discussion with another officer. Upon his return, I was given a warning ticket for making an unsafe U-turn (the officer specified that my violation was not regarding the drug search, which I presume was to avoid any legal action on my part).

      As we concluded our debate on whether freedom was more important than
      efficiency in fighting crime, I learned that we had both served in the military and had law enforcement experience. In fact, he had served in my birth nation of Germany, and my father had served as a police officer in Utah.
      As human beings we parted on friendly enough terms, but as Americans we parted with the strongest of ideological differences. As a native of Germany, I had relatives on both sides of the Iron Curtain and also frequented Berlin as a child, passing via train or car between the walls and watchtowers. I vividly remembered the searches, the soldiers with their weapons at the ready, and the intimidation. I remembered Checkpoint Alpha in Helmstedt, where Americans were briefed and prepared for the suffocating ordeal of passage. Those memories made each return to, and moment in, America all the more refreshing and wonderful.

      .... As I started my car again, visions of East German checkpoints flew through my head and I wondered to myself, "Has Utah really changed this much? Have we become so dependent on security that we no longer value freedom?"

      If traffic checkpoints represent an acceptable loss of freedom today, what will be acceptable tomorrow? If a few fundamental rights can be  rationalized away to stop the bad guys today, what additional rights will be disregarded tomorrow?

      In the February 4, 2000, Utah Supreme Court case I cited, then-Associate Chief Justice Christine Durnham poignantly argued that:

      "Broad-based, suspicionless inquiries are reminiscent of the much hated and feared general warrants issued by the British Crown in colonial days, where British officers were given blanket authority to search wherever they pleased and for whatever might pique their interest. It was precisely this type of activity that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prohibit.  Indeed, the use of general warrants was an important factor giving rise to the American Revolution. This state's early settlers were themselves no strangers to the abuses of general warrants ... A free society cannot tolerate such a practice."

      These eloquent words fell on deaf ears in Utah's law enforcement  community. Exactly one month to the day of this Supreme Court decision, the Utah Highway Patrol (UHP) operated another dragnet traffic checkpoint between Salina and Sigurd in Sevier County in blatant violation of the Supreme Court's decision. The UHP officer in charge even ordered reporters to leave the search area, stating, "No media is welcome here ... This is for troopers and officers only. This is a work area; we don't necessarily want anybody else here."

      Dragnet traffic checkpoints continue unabated in Utah.

      Two hundred years ago, American sage Benjamin Franklin predicted Utah's
      growing dilemma: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Utah should not disregard the warnings of Franklin or those who have tasted what it means to pass through Checkpoint Alpha.
      Sent by Wingsprouter, (Colorado JAILer)

      J.A.I.L. is an acronym for (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)
      JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org
      JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government.
      JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
      JAIL's is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire!
      JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
      JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
      To subscribe or be removed:  add-remove-jail@...
      E-Groups may sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
      Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com
      "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
      "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
      striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.