*Although the file finds no criminal activity by me or members of my immediate family, it remains open because I am a “person of interest” who has “written and promoted opinions that are contrary to the government of the United States of America.”*(Read more...)
Seconding Katherine Brakora, I can't believe this either. Seconding John Letendre, I don't. Go to Capitol Hill Blue's homepage. This is a fringey leftist rag that plays to adolescent persecution fantasies.
Silly and discredited though the source may be, Adam Reed posted it because he believed that it carried a warning. Assuming that it does carry a warning for him, what then, of Adam Reed's claim in the "Anarcho Miniarchist" thread that governments exist to protect rights? Why does the journalist not simply sue the FBI to make them obey the law? (Okay, you can stop laughing now...)
Let's keep a semblance of proportionality. Being a "person of interest" is bad, but - if the actual history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is any guide - being imprisoned for life, on the whim of any one of several dozen guys with their own dungeons and private armies, would have been worse.
Privacy would go out the window under multiple agencies. With one government, at least we have a chance at limiting what can go into databases kept on us, what grounds to start one, when it must be tossed, etc. Under competing agencies, all of them would keep more extensive databases on all of us; it certainly would make sense for them to do so—if competitive, efficient police work is their business. There would be no way to stop them from doing so, or to place any limits on the practice.
Andre, they probably do that to save themselves the trouble of actually having to check to see if they have a file on you. If they open a file on anybody who asks if there's a file on them, they answer all such queries, "Yes, we have a file on you, and we know you read Playboy and write a complaint to the editor every time the magazine puts a blonde in the centerfold."
It is truly pathetic...but then, look at Armed Forces Radio. On CSPAN the other night, they were discussing putting people who weren'tspeaking on behalf of Bush and his blind sheep. The Republicans responded that in order to be on Armed Forces Radio, you had to have at least 1 million listeners and be nationally syndicated. Randi Rhodes, Ed Shultz, and Al Franken (among others outside of the Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Ruth group) have over a million listeners and are nationally syndicated. Funny...that doesn't seem to matter to them. It doesn't surprise me that the FBI red-flag's dissenters...I mean, they won't even let their army be privy to the truth in news!
The sick thing about people in power abusing their authority goes right back to the story of the boy who cried wolf. If we know that the FBI.....or the government....or those in jobs of power have been unethical in one situation (ie: red flagging those excercising their freedoms and their ability to think), then when they find a real criminal--someone who actually has cause for flagging, then what can we believe? Even worse, how will they take care of those who are really a danger to our free living if they're so damn buzy muzzling anyone not in their little club?
I agree with Jon and Robert. I can only conclude that those expressing outrage on this thread disapprove of the police actions on this thread. Because it’s likely the Australian federal police used a similar database tool to identify those suspects.