One of the reasons I was so upset to read about the damnable TSA conducting warrantless searches anywhere they want is the way it’s just reported as “news” after it’s a done deal.
Why wasn’t there a national debate?
Why didn’t the voters have any say in the matter?
Those who ask questions like “where was the bill authorizing this?” or “what specific language in the bill authorized warrantless searches anywhere in the United States?” might be in for a rude awakening.
It seems that the government now creates and secretly interprets laws (in secret, of course) without even disclosing the laws, because the new laws they create are secret! Therefore, we who at the receiving end of their enforcement have no right to know what they are:
According to the new American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) report, “Drastic Measures Required,” under President Obama (who had vowed to create “an unprecedented level of openness in Government” when he first took office), there were no fewer than 76,795,945 decisions made to classify information in 2010 – eight times the number made in 2001.
There are layers of secrecy that cannot even be penetrated by most members of Congress. In the recent debate over the re-authorization of three sections of the USA Patriot Act with sunset provisions, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), who is a member of the Joint Intelligence Committee, declared in the Senate in May 2011 that there was a secret interpretation of Patriot Act powers that he could not even tell them about without disclosing classified information. [2] “When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry,” said Wyden.
OK, OK. I’m stunned and angry as usual. But apparently that doesn’t count for shit. Nothing does. Citizens will be stunned and angry to be searched and arrested simply for trying to get from Point A to Point B.
Or searched even after they have completed their travels, like the family shown here being searched by the TSA after getting off a train:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1B3AubsTBo
I used to think that was the sort of thing that only happens in other countries.
Problem is, I now find myself living in another country.
As to how much it matters which party is in power, another news item that was reported online (but not in my local paper) revealed an ominous trend in state law. Louisiana has criminalized cash transactions in second hand goods: They say the goal is to deter criminals from selling stolen items, but as Howard Nemerov notes, criminals never obey the law, so it will simply criminalize ordinary citizens. And guess what? The bill had huge bipartisan support, with only one dissenter!
the bill was co-sponsored by 6 Democrats and 9 Republicans. The bill passed both houses with only one dissenting vote, and was signed by Republican Bobby Jindal.
Point 3: Republicans support bigger government when it’s for something they want. Bigger government means less power vested in the People. Period.
Where will this lead? Why, to more enforcement, naturally. All property can be seen as “suspicious,” because it might have been bought or sold for cash!
Point 4: The “unintended” (likely intended) consequence is that law-abiding people are punished, while criminals–prone to ignoring laws in the first place–continue doing business.
Point 5: This law creates more legal precedent for prostiticians in Louisiana and other states to justify and pass similar laws that do nothing but disenfranchise the law-abiding.
Point 6: Laws like this create a whole new criminal class with the stroke of a pen, creating a need for additional law enforcement and incarceration resources, producing a self-fulfilling need for more government employees.
Contact your reps today, just to say hello, like.
Saying “hello” is about all you can do. They do not listen or care.
Naturally, the bill applies to craiglist.
We are all liable to be treated as suspicious criminals, whether we know it or not. Even though we are not entitled to know.
I’ll say this for the Louisiana bill. At least the rulers were nice enough to publicly let the citizens subjects know that they are considered criminals if they use cash, even though they had no say in the near-unanimous law.
Life under double secret tyranny sure is getting complicated.
Another day, another “What can I say?” moment.
Meanwhile, as we lose our freedom, we debate bullshit.
Comments
14 responses to “Why do they do it? It’s a secret!”
I suppose this means you will need a copy of a cancelled check (or the similar) to title a used car …..
Is marijuana new or used?
The outlaw of barter next?
The end of the garage sale? ….
Required credit card payment processing account? Won’t this disproportionately affect black people who won’t qualify? Won’t this increase credit card fraud when people who shouldn’t credit card payment processing account have them?
I don’t even have a credit card or checks, cash only for me, so I’m screwed in La. huh?
Fools
I think the Louisiana law might have been intended simply to give pawn shops an edge over their competition. This type of lawmaking is normal there:
http://biggovernment.com/bewing/2010/08/12/licensing-gone-wild-monks-face-jail-for-selling-caskets/
Reporting sales daily to the man, taking down license plate numbers and other personal I.D. were already requirements for them; now everyone else carries the same burden in addition to no cash transactions (pawn shops are the only ones still allowed to pay cash for used goods).
Making everyone a criminal is probably just an unexpected side benefit of the bill.
But, what about Global Warming?
.
When was the Fourth Amendment repealed?
What you do to strike back is to openly NOT cooperate. Tell the TSA or other enforcers exactly what they are doing by trampling on individual rights. Make them as aware as possible that they have become the enemy they are purporting to protect us from. Show them absolutely no respect, even if that means a delay in your plans and possible arrest.
Do not submit to tyranny. Ever. Because at the logical end of this awaits internment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/06/arts/design/06lang.html
Here is an excellent summary of how VIPR tramples on the 4th Amendment.
http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=718
The Rutherford article on VIPR is amazing, in the worst sense of the word. I keep thinking about Eric’s discussions of his resentment about being labeled as a certain political persuasion, like “conservative” just for having certain opinions that don’t even match that description. What’s “conservative” about thinking that ordinary citizens should be left alone by their government as much as possible? What’s conservative about resisting totalitarianism? I’m now truly starting to be afraid of our government, and realize that to complain, to put myself out there as someone who advocates rolling back clear government overreach makes me “wacky” “conservative” “crazy Tea Partier” when I am not really any of those things–and I could pay a real price for expressing those opinions.
Interzone.
Alan Kellogg October 21st, 2011 (#):
When was the Fourth Amendment repealed?
For the Drug War. And some “conservatives” are still cheering that one on. As Veeshir likes to say, “funniest end of civilization ever”.
Insta-Glenn’s been referencing Heinlein’s “Crazy Years”, or some such, for a while now. It seems more and more appropriate. Although Heinlein was originally referencing the 60s (from the 40s, natch!), it seems even more appropriate to map it onto where we are now, and where we are certainly headed, if we don’t put a stop to it pretty much immediately.
How’re we going to dig ourselves out of this? I weep for my children.
Recall Heinlein also had Nehemiah Scudder being elected in 2012.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
A Nehemiah Scudder could never become a dictator, Veeshir! After all, don’t we have the Constitution to protect us?
[…] week I wrote a post about secret laws, under which the government can charge citizens with criminal offenses that are written in secret […]