Comments on: American Gestapo? http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/01/24/american-gestapo/ Life. Liberty. Property. Defending individual freedom and liberty, one post at a time. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:11:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Below The Beltway http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/01/24/american-gestapo/#comment-311 Below The Beltway Thu, 26 Jan 2006 04:19:42 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/?p=133#comment-311 <strong>Liberty vs. Security</strong> Writing at The Liberty Papers, Robert Bell of Libertopia, has a great post about this article from Paul Craig Roberts about some of the provisions in the reauthoriztion the PATRIOT Act: A provision in the "Patriot Act" creates a new federal pol ... Liberty vs. Security

Writing at The Liberty Papers, Robert Bell of Libertopia, has a great post about this article from Paul Craig Roberts about some of the provisions in the reauthoriztion the PATRIOT Act:

A provision in the “Patriot Act” creates a new federal pol …

]]> By: tkc http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/01/24/american-gestapo/#comment-310 tkc Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:39:44 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/?p=133#comment-310 The libertarian side of me says that government power should be limited as to prevent abuse. We should not give government power and then hope it is not abused but that we should limit government’s power so that they cannot abuse it. But how far should we go? I do not take this to a 100% anarchist level. Life, liberty, and property should be protected. In my view, that a police power is being bestowed, doesn’t lead me to the conclusion that a new Gestapo is being made. Can this power be abused? Certainly. But an overzealous prosecutor could go after someone on political grounds and make that person’s life miserable. However, that is not an excuse to do away with prosecutors or not to hire new ones or to never expand upon prosecutorial powers. On the same line of reasoning, it is not an excuse to do away with police powers or to not grant them where they might be of use. Is it unreasonable to say that if a Uniformed Secret Service agent sees a crime taking place right in front of him should he not be able to arrest the suspect? I don’t think it is unreasonable. Police officers do this all the time and without warrants. Mr. Roberts needs to fill in the gap between police power and Gestapo tactics with something of substance in order to make his point. Right now, he just looks paranoid to me. So I’ll agree that it is worth watching to see that this police power is not abused, but I’d say that about most government power. Come back when you have something. The libertarian side of me says that government power should be limited as to prevent abuse. We should not give government power and then hope it is not abused but that we should limit government’s power so that they cannot abuse it. But how far should we go? I do not take this to a 100% anarchist level. Life, liberty, and property should be protected. In my view, that a police power is being bestowed, doesn’t lead me to the conclusion that a new Gestapo is being made. Can this power be abused? Certainly. But an overzealous prosecutor could go after someone on political grounds and make that person’s life miserable. However, that is not an excuse to do away with prosecutors or not to hire new ones or to never expand upon prosecutorial powers. On the same line of reasoning, it is not an excuse to do away with police powers or to not grant them where they might be of use. Is it unreasonable to say that if a Uniformed Secret Service agent sees a crime taking place right in front of him should he not be able to arrest the suspect? I don’t think it is unreasonable. Police officers do this all the time and without warrants.
Mr. Roberts needs to fill in the gap between police power and Gestapo tactics with something of substance in order to make his point. Right now, he just looks paranoid to me.

So I’ll agree that it is worth watching to see that this police power is not abused, but I’d say that about most government power. Come back when you have something.

]]> By: Robert http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/01/24/american-gestapo/#comment-308 Robert Wed, 25 Jan 2006 05:42:08 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/?p=133#comment-308 No apology needed…comments are always welcome (especially thoughtful ones). By the way, I don’t disagree with your assessment of the nature of the ‘new cops’. No apology needed…comments are always welcome (especially thoughtful ones).

By the way, I don’t disagree with your assessment of the nature of the ‘new cops’.

]]> By: Mike http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/01/24/american-gestapo/#comment-305 Mike Wed, 25 Jan 2006 03:33:18 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/?p=133#comment-305 A few thoughts...first, while this does appear to be rather radical, at second look it really isn't. As any good political writer would do, Roberts doesn't include the facts that might weaken his position. If you go and look at the actual legislation, what Roberts ambiguously describes as "a variety of jurisdictions" is actually generally limited to the District of Columbia with minor exceptions such as other foreign missions outside of D.C. in the U.S. (albeit only in extraordinary situations), presidential candidates, and visiting foreign heads of state. Out of all the jurisdictions listed, the only remotely troubling one is the one that Roberts lists; namely, the "special event of national significance." In all honesty, I really don't think this is even a new development. The Secret Service already has a Uniformed Division; they're the guys dressed in black that you see walking around the White House with M-4s and MP5s. This might just redefine slightly their role and/or make them official (I'm not sure if the Uniformed Division was actually recognized by law prior to this). Regardless, this is not, as Roberts makes it out to be, a completely new police force created out of thin air. While it might seem stupid to have a Uniformed Division when, as Roberts points out, the Secret Service's guys in suits are perfectly capable of protecting the President. That might have been true 20 years ago, but in this new age the protection quadrant has been extended outward beyond the strict boundaries of the White House. Any recent visitor to D.C. can tell you this. In order to better protect the President, it's important to have an outer line of defense manned by uniformed officers, such as the Metro Police and Parks Services police. Wouldn't it make sense to include some Secret Service officers in this mix, since they are the ones tasked with protecting the President and other VIPs in Washington. And in fact, if you do go to D.C., you'll see that the outer security cordon is a mixture of Metro officers, Parks police, and Secret Service Uniformed Division. Bottom line: while this is something to keep an eye on (but that's pretty much true of any federal law enforcement expansion) it does not by any means signal an end of civil liberties. (Sorry for the length of the post, by the way.) A few thoughts…first, while this does appear to be rather radical, at second look it really isn’t. As any good political writer would do, Roberts doesn’t include the facts that might weaken his position. If you go and look at the actual legislation, what Roberts ambiguously describes as “a variety of jurisdictions” is actually generally limited to the District of Columbia with minor exceptions such as other foreign missions outside of D.C. in the U.S. (albeit only in extraordinary situations), presidential candidates, and visiting foreign heads of state. Out of all the jurisdictions listed, the only remotely troubling one is the one that Roberts lists; namely, the “special event of national significance.”

In all honesty, I really don’t think this is even a new development. The Secret Service already has a Uniformed Division; they’re the guys dressed in black that you see walking around the White House with M-4s and MP5s. This might just redefine slightly their role and/or make them official (I’m not sure if the Uniformed Division was actually recognized by law prior to this). Regardless, this is not, as Roberts makes it out to be, a completely new police force created out of thin air.

While it might seem stupid to have a Uniformed Division when, as Roberts points out, the Secret Service’s guys in suits are perfectly capable of protecting the President. That might have been true 20 years ago, but in this new age the protection quadrant has been extended outward beyond the strict boundaries of the White House. Any recent visitor to D.C. can tell you this. In order to better protect the President, it’s important to have an outer line of defense manned by uniformed officers, such as the Metro Police and Parks Services police. Wouldn’t it make sense to include some Secret Service officers in this mix, since they are the ones tasked with protecting the President and other VIPs in Washington. And in fact, if you do go to D.C., you’ll see that the outer security cordon is a mixture of Metro officers, Parks police, and Secret Service Uniformed Division.

Bottom line: while this is something to keep an eye on (but that’s pretty much true of any federal law enforcement expansion) it does not by any means signal an end of civil liberties.

(Sorry for the length of the post, by the way.)

]]>