In this day and age of airplanes and whatnot, Oklahoma isn’t that far away from Washington.
Bricker, I’ve been thinking about this news report some more and read through the article a second time. I have a few additional thoughts.
You say “no harm, no foul.” But the guy brought his lawyer into the situation. That, as you no doubt are aware, can be a significant cost, even if it’s just for a few hours of work. He basically had to. He was stopped by the police, the Secret Service came to his house and asked to look around, he considers his First Amendment rights violated, and the press got involved. This isn’t insignificant. Wouldn’t even you want a(nother) lawyer in that situation? He could be paying thousands of dollars, and had the very real possibility of something seriously fucked up happening if the Secret Service found something “objectionable” all because the police violated his First Amendment rights.
That’s not no harm. There have been significant harms here.
Also, who called the reporters here? How did they even know about this? You think the police went to NewsOK and said “hey, guess what we did today!” No, the guy wanted to bring attention to the fact that this had occurred. He obviously didn’t feel that this was “no harm, no foul.”
So really, I don’t know what I’m most disappointed in you for. For one, you create a thread so that you can a) have us agree with you and you say “see, see how much you overreacted in the Bush threads of yonder? What bias you’re showing!” or b) have us disagree (like we did) and you say “I can’t believe everyone’s getting outraged over this” despite the fact that you can read the thread yourself and know that’s not true.
Or maybe I’m disappointed in that this isn’t even a blip on the radar to you. Someone’s Constitutional rights are being violated and you start a pit thread to show that you don’t care at all about that? That you’d come in later and be confused that we’d choose to support the law over political gamesmanship? Because make no mistake, that’s exactly what’s going on. We’d rather the law be adhered to than for “our side” to have won.
Call me outraged if you feel you must, but the only thing I’m outraged over is your line of thinking in this thread.
Good on you, Bricker for admitting to your mistakes in this thread. I know more than a few posters that would have kept arguing in some vain attempt to “save face”.
As a card carrying lefty, by the way, I’m mildly annoyed that this happened. Specifically at the police officer in question, as I’m sure that his superiors and the secret service were required to report and investigate the claim, even if they thought it was silly. I don’t recall hearing about anything similar during the Bush years, but I’m pretty sure I would have reacted the same way.
Wait, no, I take that back. During the Bush administration, I think I would be a little more worried that the guy would end up on a watch list somewhere and wouldn’t be able to ever get on a plane again. I’m still mildly concerned about that, but not as badly.
Actually, I’m kind of wondering if maybe this cop had a grudge against the guy in question, and made the report to harass him, only to have it blow up in his face?
Why? The police asked him questions, he answered. The Secret Service came to check it out, and he kindly allowed them to search, and they went on their merry way. There was no threat of prosecution, no charges filed, and no lasting injury. Why would he need a lawyer?
What harm? His itty bittle hurt feelings? His own decision to hire an attorney, even though he answered all the questions and cooperated with the investigators? Those precious few hours/days without his sign? Give him $100 for wasting his time and send him on his way.
I know this is going to sound over the top, but when did we become a nation of whiners, intent on making a big deal (and a few bucks in a civil suit) over an honest mistake made by a police officer? This isn’t full fledged, warrantless wiretapping, rendition, or illegal detention. The guy was stopped, deprived of his sign for a bit, and sent on his way. Yet everyone seems to have their underwear of choice in a twist, screaming "HELP! HE’S BEING OPPRESSED!, over something that sounds like an honest mistake. No pattern of conduct. No physical abuse. Nothing even remotely like that.
God, I can’t believe you made me agree with Bricker.
What do you think the Secret Service was looking for in his house? Ice cream?
You’ve been around here long enough to know how badly things can go wrong when you consent to a search, even if you haven’t knowingly done anything wrong.
And? Did they plant something? Are they framing him? Or, as the reports I’ve read indicate, did they take a quick look around, ask a few questions, and go on their merry way, without any problems whatsoever? Do you think they’re now plotting to frame him in some nefarious conspiracy?
Seriously, he let them in, they looked around, were very polite and nice, and nothing happened. Big fucking deal.
He was stopped, detained, had his house searched and now probably has a file with the SS (at least) based on a bumper sticker. You nailed it with “big fucking deal”, but the (whatever city in OK) and the SS blew it way out of proportion.
The police officer made a mistake. The poor guy was detained for a bit, and lost use of his sign for awhile. Again, what is the big fucking deal. It was, by most accounts, an honest mistake, nothing more.
And I, for one, want the Secret Service to take potential threats against the President seriously and interview people who show up on their radar. Again, why is it such a big deal to be interviewed by extremely cautious federal agents?
At no point have I said the Secret Service wasn’t doing their jobs professionally and correctly. At no point have I whined or said the guy was being oppressed, or even suggested that he sue anybody. At no point did I state that this is anything but a mistake by the police department.
But it wasn’t a simple mistake. It wasn’t an innocent mistake. It had the potential to land this guy in some serious, permanent, Federal trouble. And I can’t believe this debate is now being steered towards your argument of “if he didn’t do anything wrong, there was nothing for him to worry about.”
At least he’s not up in arms claiming the title is misleading.
As I said in the post you quoted, I am not certain, but i assume that the Secret Service has certain policies they follow automatically, and if a law enforcement officer has actually taken action because of perceived threat, I’d guess that is the sort of thing they are obligated to follow up on.
Well, obviously the reason the national newspapers aren’t going 24/7 with it two minutes after it was reported in Bakobeyond OK is becuase of their Librul Bias. Duh!
I don’t doubt that this is the case. I do doubt that it is necessary for such to be the case. As I noted above, I’m not singling out Obama. I am concerned that the system in place operates this way.
Just so that my only post isn’t “Mad Libs,” let me assure you, Bricker, that I pride myself on consistency.* I didn’t get outraged about Clinton’s alleged evasion of service in Vietnam or drug use, and I didn’t get outraged about Bush’s alleged evasion of service in Vietnam or drug use. I don’t judge candidates based on their military service or previous “executive experience” because I know it’s a smoke screen: either party will crow about whatever their candidate’s got that the other ain’t got.
This particular incident … meh. The Secret Service has an obligation to investigate threats against the President, no matter how obscure. Considering they’ve already stopped a number of suspicious armed people from getting too close to Obama, a certain prudence is warranted. Had people made similar threats against Bush, they should have been similarly investigated.
What concerns me more is the character of the behavior pattern. Such behavior tells us much, if we pay attention. Clinton’s answers were evasive and weaselly (“I smoked but I didn’t inhale”) and Bush’s evasive and secretive (“I promise that it’s true, you’ll just have to believe me, it’s just a terrible coincidence that all the documents were secretly shredded”).
The “free speech zones” of Bush are typical of what I see as his behavior pattern: tightly control what the public is allowed to see. Don’t reveal documents of any kind, hide everything, don’t allow images of dead soldiers coming home in caskets, don’t allow anybody to see protesters. Then wrap up this policy in a bow and call it the Orwellian opposite of what it is: since it’s designed to suppress the constitutionally protected exchange of information, we’ll call it a “free speech zone.”
As far as I can tell, this guy who got investigated — while the incident is unfortunate — casts no light on any pattern of behavior by Obama or any of his minions. Your OP is just a bundle of insinuations against “liberals,” as if I’m supposed to feel guilty for what somebody else did or said.
*Except during those times that I pride myself on randomness.
What?
His so-called admission was little more than a backhanded attempt to further insult people, and while he did say that his original argument had “vanished in a puff,” he made no acknowledgment that his pre-emptive accusations of hypocrisy and political partisanship were not only wrong, but completely ill-considered and asshole behavior.
The whole style of posting that takes a single incident an loudly demands “Why aren’t you liberals/conservatives/whatever as outraged by this as you are by a bunch of other unnamed incidents?” is retarded in the extreme. This whole thread was, as Bricker admitted in the OP, not even about the incident in question, but a political pot-shot that assumed people who disagreed with this stuff under Bush would be happy to let it slide under Obama.
Its lack of comparative rigor, and its vague mention of “similar stuff” during the Bush administration, also completely elided the fact that this incident was, in fact, substantively different from many of the incidents that were discussed on this board during Bush’s presidency. I gave two examples; i’m sure there are others.
The whole pitting had nothing to do with civil liberties; it was nothing more than a shot at other Dopers. That’s not a problem; this is The Pit, after all. But when the OP has conceded that his central argument was bullshit, you’d think he’d have the stones and integrity to actually apologize, rather than shift his ridicule in the direction of people who disagree with him on the civil liberties issues.
Do you have some kind of evidence that it wasn’t an innocent mistake? I haven’t seen any. I haven’t heard anything that the officer’s motive was anything but to enforce the law. Do you have something to base this on? Because I’m not seeing it.
OOOOOOOooooo. He got GASP interviewed by the Secret Service. OOOOOOOoooooo. And he agreed to let them look around his place. OOOOOOOOOOooooooo. And there’s a two page file on him now in some government office. OOOOOOOOOoooooo. Be ascared.
Good thing I didn’t steer the debate that way. That’s your strawman, not mine.
Let’s bear in mind that the Secret Service has (at least I hope) lowered their threshold for what to be worried about regarding Obama ever since it became clear that he might be the first black President.
As for the rest of this shit: Bricker is just another troll. He’s admitted as much here. Let’s call him what he is, okay?
To be ruthlessly fair…
Given the number of utterly justifiable Pittings of the Late Infestation, it stands to reason that there must have been some insubstantial outrage. The fact that he cannot put finger to it hardly matters much. After all the crap he definitely did do, it would be hard not assume that any civic outrage, however extreme, would be beyond the pale.
So, it stands to reason that there simply must have been one or more instances of unjustifiable outrage. Pile that mound up next to the Everest of Crap that was the last eight years, and it doesn’t count for much.
But if we parse our words very carefully, squint a little…he may have a point. A puny one, to be sure, but not actually a null set.
A quick yahoo search for abortion+murder+bumpersticker yeilds:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-118&p=abortion+murder+bumper+stickers&SpellState=n-113208666_q-ohIG%2FaEl3ucjjJ7mHzdlCwAAAA%40%40&fr2=sp-qrw-corr-top
So yeah, I can see that as a simple mistake
When he provides something, we can discuss it. Since he has not, and in fact has told us he cannot, we can only discuss that.