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

once upon a time

Expand Messages
  • worksntv@aol.com
    Once upon a time I was in a public park shortly after dark with my then girlfriend and now wife. The park, as it turned out, was closed at that time of day.
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 28 9:00 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Once upon a time I was in a public park shortly after dark with my
      then girlfriend and now wife. The park, as it turned out, was closed
      at that time of day. The officer who informed us of this fact
      requested to see our identification, which my wife did not happen to
      have with her. We were duly informed that it is required that one
      carry identification at all times, as my blond and blue-eyed wife
      could have been an illegal immigrant from, um, er, well, Canada
      maybe.

      This incident with the police officer illustrates, in a way which my
      wife and I found amusing, how a measure implemented in good-faith can
      have repercussions against innocent people. Imagine this same
      scenario if we become required to have a national identification card
      as part of the crackdown by the new Office of Homeland Security. Just
      for kicks, let's assume our policeman friend is going through a
      bitter divorce, earlier in the day spilled hot coffee on himself, and
      is generally in a bad mood. Perhaps this time my wife's failure to
      carry proper identification results in handcuffs and a trip to the
      city jail. Somehow it's not so funny anymore.

      A national identification card, much like random roadblocks to check
      for seatbelt violations and drugs and other `Suspect every Citizen'
      programs, would be a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment of the
      Constitution. It states that "The right of the people to be secure in
      their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
      searches and seizures, shall not be violated." If one must produce an
      identification card upon demand without demonstrable reason for
      suspicion, then one's right to be secure in one's person is
      conditional. If this condition can be imposed, additional conditions,
      such as curfews, or the requiring of permits, can be put in place as
      well. You'll then have the `right' to go where you please so long as
      you obey the hours of travel rules and have the proper documents,
      paying the proper fees of course, and have them in order for every
      checkpoint along the way.

      Now some people may consider me an alarmist and claim that the
      scenario I describe would never happen. Maybe they're right. Of
      course, Franklin Roosevelt promised Social Security funds would never
      be touched for anything else. Woodrow Wilson promised to keep us out
      of war. Gov. Roy Turner promised the state of Oklahoma that our
      turnpikes would become free roads when the bonds used to fund them
      were paid. The elder George Bush promised no new taxes. But still,
      maybe you should trust government not to unnecessarily impede your
      right to go where you choose. Just don't forget your papers.

      September 28, 2001

      by Christopher Powell, Vice-Chairman of the Oklahoma Libertarian
      Party. He lives in Bethany with his wife and two children.

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/powell1.html
    • Filipe Santos
      Well, I am not against Govermnent control over individuals. After all, we are not talking fascist police in a dicatorship goverment, but the FBI, a police
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 28 1:19 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Well,

        I am not against Govermnent control over individuals. After all, we are not
        talking fascist police in a dicatorship goverment, but the FBI, a police
        which must obbey the same laws the govermnent does to its citizens.
        I am in favor of everything that can help the FBI. Wire all the cell phones,
        all the emails, check all bank accounts. If this helps them finding
        terrorists, mafia men, organized gangs, traffic deallers, this will be good.

        Me for example, have nothing to hide. So I don't mind volunteering in
        allowing the FBI to search all my bank accounts without any need of a
        warrant from a Judge or whatsoever. If this helps them taking me from a
        phedophile suspect, and therefore, catch the real criminal more quickly, I
        would be proud.

        People in the USA are so worried about personal freedom, that they use it
        selfishly, allowing innocent civilians die while they could be saved if the
        bureau had the proper tools. I don't mind having a percentage of my personal
        freedom taken, to assure that you, and all the people, have your/their own.

        Will the FBI use the info taken uncorrecly? Sure, corruption is everywhere.
        But they will also be punished as any individual would. Remember Rodney
        King? Police got to the court for every misconduct they had. So would the
        FBI if that happened...

        A strange analogy, just to see how americans are "paranoid" about this
        freedom stuff...If the Mayor of New York, seeing so much crime in the
        streets, promised 10 policemen for every NY street, people would be
        thrilled. But if we are talking about Cyber-streets (eg: email
        communications) and the govermnent puts a cyber-cop (eg: carnivore) in it,
        we hate it...It seems that in cyberspace, we still love the western style
        kind of life: the strong will overcome the weak!

        Filipe.


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <worksntv@...>
        To: <wtcattack@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 5:00 PM
        Subject: [wtcattack] once upon a time


        > Once upon a time I was in a public park shortly after dark with my
        > then girlfriend and now wife. The park, as it turned out, was closed
        > at that time of day. The officer who informed us of this fact
        > requested to see our identification, which my wife did not happen to
        > have with her. We were duly informed that it is required that one
        > carry identification at all times, as my blond and blue-eyed wife
        > could have been an illegal immigrant from, um, er, well, Canada
        > maybe.
        >
        > This incident with the police officer illustrates, in a way which my
        > wife and I found amusing, how a measure implemented in good-faith can
        > have repercussions against innocent people. Imagine this same
        > scenario if we become required to have a national identification card
        > as part of the crackdown by the new Office of Homeland Security. Just
        > for kicks, let's assume our policeman friend is going through a
        > bitter divorce, earlier in the day spilled hot coffee on himself, and
        > is generally in a bad mood. Perhaps this time my wife's failure to
        > carry proper identification results in handcuffs and a trip to the
        > city jail. Somehow it's not so funny anymore.
        >
        > A national identification card, much like random roadblocks to check
        > for seatbelt violations and drugs and other `Suspect every Citizen'
        > programs, would be a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment of the
        > Constitution. It states that "The right of the people to be secure in
        > their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
        > searches and seizures, shall not be violated." If one must produce an
        > identification card upon demand without demonstrable reason for
        > suspicion, then one's right to be secure in one's person is
        > conditional. If this condition can be imposed, additional conditions,
        > such as curfews, or the requiring of permits, can be put in place as
        > well. You'll then have the `right' to go where you please so long as
        > you obey the hours of travel rules and have the proper documents,
        > paying the proper fees of course, and have them in order for every
        > checkpoint along the way.
        >
        > Now some people may consider me an alarmist and claim that the
        > scenario I describe would never happen. Maybe they're right. Of
        > course, Franklin Roosevelt promised Social Security funds would never
        > be touched for anything else. Woodrow Wilson promised to keep us out
        > of war. Gov. Roy Turner promised the state of Oklahoma that our
        > turnpikes would become free roads when the bonds used to fund them
        > were paid. The elder George Bush promised no new taxes. But still,
        > maybe you should trust government not to unnecessarily impede your
        > right to go where you choose. Just don't forget your papers.
        >
        > September 28, 2001
        >
        > by Christopher Powell, Vice-Chairman of the Oklahoma Libertarian
        > Party. He lives in Bethany with his wife and two children.
        >
        > http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/powell1.html
        >
        >
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > wtcattack-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        >
      • Clif Spires
        We re practically at that point now, you know. Try to write a check without a driver s license. My wife and teen-age son are both non-drivers. They finally
        Message 3 of 3 , Oct 2, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          We're practically at that point now, you know. Try to
          write a check without a driver's license. My wife and
          teen-age son are both non-drivers. They finally went
          and got ID cards from the Ohio Bureau of Motor
          Vehicles just so they would have some ID. I share your
          concerns, to a degree, but in times like these, I
          think I would rather have all of us, including the
          terrorists, carrying some kind of IDs. If their fake
          ID isn't a good one, it ups the odds for catching them
          before they hijack the plane, I would think.


          --- worksntv@... wrote:
          > Once upon a time I was in a public park shortly
          > after dark with my
          > then girlfriend and now wife. The park, as it turned
          > out, was closed
          > at that time of day. The officer who informed us of
          > this fact
          > requested to see our identification, which my wife
          > did not happen to
          > have with her. We were duly informed that it is
          > required that one
          > carry identification at all times, as my blond and
          > blue-eyed wife
          > could have been an illegal immigrant from, um, er,
          > well, Canada
          > maybe.
          >
          > This incident with the police officer illustrates,
          > in a way which my
          > wife and I found amusing, how a measure implemented
          > in good-faith can
          > have repercussions against innocent people. Imagine
          > this same
          > scenario if we become required to have a national
          > identification card
          > as part of the crackdown by the new Office of
          > Homeland Security. Just
          > for kicks, let's assume our policeman friend is
          > going through a
          > bitter divorce, earlier in the day spilled hot
          > coffee on himself, and
          > is generally in a bad mood. Perhaps this time my
          > wife's failure to
          > carry proper identification results in handcuffs and
          > a trip to the
          > city jail. Somehow it's not so funny anymore.
          >
          > A national identification card, much like random
          > roadblocks to check
          > for seatbelt violations and drugs and other `Suspect
          > every Citizen'
          > programs, would be a clear violation of the Fourth
          > Amendment of the
          > Constitution. It states that "The right of the
          > people to be secure in
          > their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
          > unreasonable
          > searches and seizures, shall not be violated." If
          > one must produce an
          > identification card upon demand without demonstrable
          > reason for
          > suspicion, then one's right to be secure in one's
          > person is
          > conditional. If this condition can be imposed,
          > additional conditions,
          > such as curfews, or the requiring of permits, can be
          > put in place as
          > well. You'll then have the `right' to go where you
          > please so long as
          > you obey the hours of travel rules and have the
          > proper documents,
          > paying the proper fees of course, and have them in
          > order for every
          > checkpoint along the way.
          >
          > Now some people may consider me an alarmist and
          > claim that the
          > scenario I describe would never happen. Maybe
          > they're right. Of
          > course, Franklin Roosevelt promised Social Security
          > funds would never
          > be touched for anything else. Woodrow Wilson
          > promised to keep us out
          > of war. Gov. Roy Turner promised the state of
          > Oklahoma that our
          > turnpikes would become free roads when the bonds
          > used to fund them
          > were paid. The elder George Bush promised no new
          > taxes. But still,
          > maybe you should trust government not to
          > unnecessarily impede your
          > right to go where you choose. Just don't forget your
          > papers.
          >
          > September 28, 2001
          >
          > by Christopher Powell, Vice-Chairman of the Oklahoma
          > Libertarian
          > Party. He lives in Bethany with his wife and two
          > children.
          >
          > http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/powell1.html
          >
          >


          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
          http://phone.yahoo.com
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.