• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ze Gestapo, er..DHS Strikes Again...

ChezC3

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
12,228
Reaction score
4,459
Location
The North Shore
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Maryland state police and federal agents used a search warrant in an unrelated criminal investigation to seize the private reporting files of an award-winning former investigative journalist for The Washington Times who had exposed problems in the Homeland Security Department's Federal Air Marshal Service.

Reporter Audrey Hudson said the investigators, who included an agent for Homeland's Coast Guard service, took her private notes and government documents that she had obtained under the Freedom of Information Act during a predawn raid of her family home on Aug. 6.
Click to expand...

Armed agents seize records of reporter, Washington Times prepares legal action - Washington Times

So, essentially, this whole Constitution thing, yeah, that no longer applies...
 
Heck, if the President does it, that means it cannot be illegal....
 
Update: The Coast Guard sent this statement:

"In the course of a joint Federal & Maryland State Police investigation, a lawful search warrant was served on August 6, 2013 in Shadyside, MD. The Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) was asked to participate since the search involved a Coast Guard employee. During the course of the search, the CGIS agent discovered government documents labeled FOUO - For Official Use Only (FOUO) and LES - Law Enforcement Sensitive. The files that contained these documents were cataloged on the search warrant inventory and taken from the premises. The documents were reviewed with the source agency and determined to be obtained properly through the Freedom of Information Act. The CG employee was notified that the documents were cleared and the CG employee picked them up after signing for the documents."
Click to expand...

Conservative Reporter Says Feds Took Her Files While Searching Her Home for Guns - Elspeth Reeve - The Atlantic Wire

So far, it's a he said/she said. Until some damning evidence surfaces, there's not much to see here.
 
So they got a warrant to raid her house at 5am and they happen to find journalistic research that is critical of DHS?

Yeah, that's not sketchy.
 
joG said:
If that is true and I understand it correctly the persons involved in the seizure should be punished. Should present law not allow that, the law must be changed.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that basically everything is up for grabs and the government should have no limit to its authority. Go it! :thumbs:
 
StringBean said:
So they got a warrant to raid her house at 5am and they happen to find journalistic research that is critical of DHS?

Yeah, that's not sketchy.
Click to expand...

Right not sketchy at all, go after a woman whose husband has a few scrapes with the law and who happens to be a thorn in the governments side. More than likely the suspicion wasn't of the husband's potato launcher but the dossier the wife had on DHS. She was the target all along. If you're warrant says you're looking for guns, what are you rifling through papers for?

but yet you'll find people that think this sort of behavior is OK so long as the current occupant of the WH is in charge...
 
ChezC3 said:
So what you're saying is that basically everything is up for grabs and the government should have no limit to its authority. Go it! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Is that what you read into the it? That seems odd.
 
What I read into it is trashing the memory of those who suffered under the actual Gestapo for the sake of mindless partisan point-scoring.
 
Manc Skipper said:
What I read into it is trashing the memory of those who suffered under the actual Gestapo for the sake of mindless partisan point-scoring.
Click to expand...

Well what's a thread without a little Godwin in it?
 
Manc Skipper said:
What I read into it is trashing the memory of those who suffered under the actual Gestapo for the sake of mindless partisan point-scoring.
Click to expand...

and I expect something less from those who drive on the wrong side of the road? ;)
 
joG said:
Is that what you read into the it? That seems odd.
Click to expand...


"Should present law not allow that, the law must be changed"

How odd?

what you said here is that if the law doesn't allow for it than you must change the law to allow for it. When does that end? It won't. Nature of the Beast.
 
ChezC3 said:
No, DHS confirmed they took what they took. HE and SHE both said the same thing. But of course there's nothing to see here, people just love their Big Brother...:roll:
Click to expand...

DHS says they took folders labeled For Official Use Only (FOUO) and LES - Law Enforcement Sensitive, in other words, law enforcement documents she as a reporter would not normally have. She says they took documents that had her contacts. These two things are at odds with each other, not "the same thing". He said, she said, just like I pointed out. Are we to take her at her word, just because it makes a government you don't like look bad? Like I said, I need more.
 
ChezC3 said:
Armed agents seize records of reporter, Washington Times prepares legal action - Washington Times

So, essentially, this whole Constitution thing, yeah, that no longer applies...
Click to expand...

It was on the news, it seems the search warrant was to search the premises for an unregistered firearm, her husbands not hers. What documents have to do with a firearm is beyond me. She wasn't even mentioned in the search warrant. It does seem government has gotten so big it can do whatever it wants without fear doesn't it?
 
Perotista said:
It was on the news, it seems the search warrant was to search the premises for an unregistered firearm, her husbands not hers. What documents have to do with a firearm is beyond me. She wasn't even mentioned in the search warrant. It does seem government has gotten so big it can do whatever it wants without fear doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes it does, and it seems there are more than enough "Useful Idiots" that will rationalize anything so long as it's their Party doing it... Kinda sad really...

They confiscated her guns too, doubt that they'll make a stop back at the house to give those back...

I also found the fact that the "potato gun" (i.e suppressed firearm) was actually a potato gun (i.e. contraption that shoots potato) to be another clear indicator of this government's incompetence.
 
ChezC3 said:
Yes it does, and it seems there are more than enough "Useful Idiots" that will rationalize anything so long as it's their Party doing it... Kinda sad really...

They confiscated her guns too, doubt that they'll make a stop back at the house to give those back...

I also found the fact that the "potato gun" (i.e suppressed firearm) was actually a potato gun (i.e. contraption that shoots potato) to be another clear indicator of this government's incompetence.
Click to expand...

exactly, suppression of liberty is definitely okay as long as it is your party doing it, but let the other party do it and all heck breaks loose.I think they ought to get rid of homeland security and the patriot act altogether. But that stands a snowball chance in hades.
 
ChezC3 said:
"Should present law not allow that, the law must be changed"

How odd?

what you said here is that if the law doesn't allow for it than you must change the law to allow for it. When does that end? It won't. Nature of the Beast.
Click to expand...

Changing laws to improve the functioning of society and the security of the individual against government overstep? That dance will never stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom