CATHARINE YOUNG, NEW YORK SENATOR, ALLEGED "REPUBLICAN, CONSERVATIVE, INDEPENDENT", BACKS ORWELLIAN REGISTRY TO TRACK ACTUAL & "POTENTIAL" TERRORISTS AS DEFINED BY ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL BUREAUCRATS
NEW YORK TRASHES DUE PROCESS,
CREATES TERROR DATABASE
Modeled after the Sex Offender Registry
BY KURT NIMMO
SEE: http://www.infowars.com/new-york-trashes-due-process-creates-terror-database/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The New York Senate has passed legislation creating a database for suspected terrorists modeled after the Sex Offenders Registry.
“This would give local law enforcement the tools that they need so that they are aware if there is somebody in their community that has been convicted of terrorism who still may be a threat to the safety and security of Americans,” State Senator Cathy Young told WGRZ, a CBS affiliate.
Cathy Young mischaracterized the registry. An individual does not need to be convicted, merely suspected of terrorism.
According to a subsection included in the bill, a person
…identified by the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States Department of State, the United States Department of Justice, the United States Department of Defense or any of its armed services, the United States Central Intelligence Agency, and/or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as a person who has committed a terrorist act against the United States or any of its citizens,and/or who is a member of a designated terrorist organization pursuant to section 1189 of title 8 of the United States Code.
In other words, if you are on one of the federal government’s numerous secret terror lists—added without due process or the ability to challenge the inclusion—or you are a member associated with a group identified by the government as terrorist, you will be included.
Official government documents list a large number of domestic political organizations and groups as extremist or terrorist (the words are interchangeable, according to the state). Michael Snyder lists 72 here. Groups dedicated to constitutional and individual rights as well as those advocating “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable” are considered terrorist by the state.
Individuals listed on the sex offender registry are not permitted to live in certain neighborhoods and have other restrictions placed on them. The New York terrorist database is expected to do the same without the benefit of due process or a conviction for criminal activity.
Additionally, the database will be accessible on the internet. “Your name, description, address, occupation, and photo would all be available to anyone with Internet access: your neighbors, employers—anyone,” writes Bonnie Kristian.
Increasingly, under the largely manufactured and hyped climate of terror, America is morphing into a police state. It may soon be indistinguishable from other police states where political criminals were dealt with harshly by the state—from forced labor in gulags and detention in concentration camps to outright disappearance and execution.
_________________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court Guts Fourth Amendment, Sanctions Police Fishing Expeditions, Giving Police More Leeway to Stop, Arrest and Search Citizens
BY JOHN WHITEHEAD
SEE: http://freedomoutpost.com/u-s-supreme-court-guts-fourth-amendment-sanctions-police-fishing-expeditions-giving-police-more-leeway-to-stop-arrest-and-search-citizens/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
WASHINGTON, DC — In a 5-3 ruling in Utah v. Strieff, the U.S. Supreme Court has opened the door for police to stop, arrest and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
In a blistering dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the court for holding “that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights.” Sotomayor further warned, “[t]his case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong… So long as the target is one of the many millions of people in this country with an outstanding arrest warrant, anything the officer finds in a search is fair game for use in a criminal prosecution. The officer’s incentive to violate the Constitution thus increases: From here on, he sees potential advantage in stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion—exactly the temptation the exclusionary rule is supposed to remove.”
“With this ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has effectively stripped Americans of their Fourth Amendment rights and provided police with even greater incentives to erode our freedoms, undermine our sovereignty, abuse our trust, invade our privacy and generally operate above the law,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “By giving police a green light to illegally stop any American for any reason, arrest them for any minor outstanding violation, and embark on a fishing expedition of one’s person and property, the Supreme Court has rendered us completely vulnerable to the whims of any cop on the beat.”
Utah v. Strieff arose in 2006 when police detective Douglass Fackrell, who had been monitoring an apartment building for possible drug activity, stopped Edward Strieff as he exited the building. Fackrell proceeded to question Strieff and ran his identification through the police database, whereupon he learned that Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant for a minor traffic violation. Using the traffic warrant as a pretext to arrest and search Strieff, the police officer found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in his possession. At trial, Strieff challenged the legitimacy of the stop and asked that the drug evidence be suppressed. The trial court denied his request and convicted Strieff. The Utah Supreme Court subsequently overturned the lower court decision on the grounds that the evidence was tainted by an illegal stop and should have been suppressed.
In voicing her opposition to the Supreme Court majority’s ruling in Utah v. Strieff, which found that no “flagrant” police misconduct had occurred, Justice Sotomayor concluded: “By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged. We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are ‘isolated.’ They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere. They are the ones who recognize that unlawful police stops corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives. Until their voices matter too, our justice system will continue to be anything but.”
Article reposted with permission from The Rutherford Institute
