Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Curlton Latts who wrote (13703)	1/19/2000 8:32:00 PM
From: cody andre	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Well ... he had his pants on which is an achievement ...

To: Curlton Latts who wrote (13703)	1/20/2000 4:57:00 PM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 13994

Propagandizing the Police by William Norman Grigg Leftist "watchdogs" posing as experts on extremism are advising police agencies in "preemptive" law enforcement. The resulting dragnet will increasingly target law-abiding gun owners, pro-lifers, homeschoolers, and other foes of the total state. A new state law that went into effect on October 1st permits law enforcement authorities in Connecticut to confiscate guns from anyone determined to be an "immediate danger" to himself or others. State police Lieutenant Robert Kiehm explained to the Associated Press that the purpose of the measure is to give police officers the power "to take some proactive steps instead of waiting for something to happen." Although the circumstances under which such seizures can occur are narrowly defined, the Connecticut law represents a significant advance for the ominous emerging doctrine of "pre-emptive" law enforcement. "Lawmakers in other states say the focus on prevention is the law?s strength," reported AP. "The thing that frustrates me is that when they?re pulling bodies out of a house, neighbors are telling the police, ?Yeah, the guy who shot them was nuts ? we all knew that,?" declared Illinois State Representative Tom Dart (D), who plans to introduce a similar proposal in his own state. "But everyone says that there?s nothing that they could have done to stop the shooting." "The value of this law is not so much that police will seize your guns," explained Connecticut State Representative Michael Lawlor, who sponsored the law. "It gives police a system to investigate a person who poses a threat. If the police never confiscate a person?s guns, they can at least look into the person?s behavior and perhaps prevent a tragedy by intervening." AP paraphrased Lawlor as saying that the new law could "stop people like Benjamin Smith, the white supremacist who killed two people and wounded nine during a two-state shooting spree targeting Jews, blacks and Asians. Smith?s criminal record and reputation for passing out hate literature could have prompted police to take action, Lawlor said." Lawlor?s reference to the Benjamin Smith case demonstrates that there is a political aspect to Connecticut?s model of "proactive" gun confiscation, since Smith?s abhorrent political views would have played a role in defining him as a threat to others. But would the same be true of certain political views that are merely politically incorrect or unpopular? How about political affiliations with real or perceived "extremist" groups that are tirelessly "linked" in the media with unambiguous hate groups? In principle, the Connecticut law is of a piece with recent proposals to give the FBI and other agencies enhanced power to keep political "extremists," almost always of the "right-wing" variety, under special scrutiny. Those "extremists" considered particularly prone to violence would be subject to interrogation as a means of deterring such outbursts. And, in some cases, "extremists" would find themselves denied constitutional protections such as those contained in the First and Second Amendments. In order to be effective, pre-emptive law enforcement measures would require citizens to maintain vigilance for signs of "dangerous" attitudes on the part of their neighbors and associates ? and to act as informants out of a sense of public duty. They would also require the indoctrination of police agencies regarding "danger signs" that evince an individual?s potential to carry out an armed rampage. The task of indoctrinating law enforcement officers is presently carried out by an array of left-wing "watchdog" groups such as the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the Anti-Defamation League of B?nai Brith (ADL), Political Research Associates (PRA), and the Justice Department?s State and Local Anti-Terrorism Training Program (SLATT), a quasi-private entity. These groups, as well as sundry "experts" in loose orbit around them, provide much of the law enforcement training and intelligence information dealing with the threat posed by the "radical right." (cont) thenewamerican.com