Forum Post: Public Enemies List
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 6, 2011, 1:15 p.m. EST by WatTyler
(263)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Hidden in this thread –
http://occupywallst.org/forum/personal-public-naming-is-what-the-elite-fear-the-/
Among what I personally consider paranoid conspiracy theories is also something I consider a really good idea.
People who do bad things generally don’t like others to learn of them. The mainly corporately controlled media, excepting the two public venues, only occasionally offer brief snippets of egregious decisions that the powerful in both business and politics make that harm the American people. If these actions could be compiled and cataloged in a database, and then used to create a Public Enemies List, it might serve to hold them better accountable for their actions.
The FBI has historically used such a list to make the American public aware of criminals who illegally rob and kill their fellow Americans. Would it be less than simple justice if such a list were maintained for those who USE the law to rob and kill their fellow Americans?
Credit Card Companies - should be on that list http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/07/pf/credit_card_interest_rate/index.htm
December 11 2011 Balance Transfer Day
Here is a list: http://home.ptd.net/~aahpat/aandc/congcrash.html , that I composed for the 2010 elections of all of the still sitting in 2010 members of congress who voted in 1999 for S-900. There are also links to the official vote for S-900 so people can see the politicians who today are governors and or elected or appointed officials who, back in 1999, voted for the law that empowered and enabled the financial collapse of America in 2008.
S-900, The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (three Republicans), repealed Glass-Steagall. This set the stage for the creation of "too big to fail" banks.
This law did three things that directly contributed to the real estate collapse.
S-900 repealed Glass-Steagall. In doing this the law opened the door for "too big to fail" combinations of commercial and investment banks.
S-900 lowered regulatory standards for "toxic derivatives" that these banks then used in these fraudulent ways with impunity.
S-900 reorganized the Community Reinvestment Bank by lowering borrowing standards and allowing the kinds of predatory mortgage practices that recent federal law suits against major banks assert defrauded Fannie May and Freddie Mac out of hundreds of billions of dollars. More important, defrauded millions of tax paying Americans out of billions in accumulated home equity and savings power.
Not so coincidentally of the thousands of people who have passed through congress since 1999 nine of the twelve members of the congressional debt super committee voted in favor of S-900 in 1999.
S-900, The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, created "too big to fail" banks by its repeal of Glass-Steagall. S-900 also expanded use, by those banks, of what are now known as "toxic" derivatives. The instruments that the banks used to steal trillions of dollars in accumulated home equity of millions of honest Americans. And S-900 reorganized government lending programs making it easier for predatory lenders to con honest Americans out of the accumulated equity they had in their homes.
Members of the Congressional Budget Super Committee who voted for S-900:
Toxic Pat Toomey - PA (R)
Sen. Kyl, Jon [R-AZ]
Rep. Camp, Dave [R-MI-4]
Rep. Upton, Fred [R-MI-6]
Sen. Murray, Patty [D-WA]
Sen. Baucus, Max [D-MT]
Sen. Kerry, John F. [D-MA]
Rep. Clyburn, James E. [D-SC-6]
Rep. Becerra, Xavier [D-CA-31]
My freshman U.S. senator "Toxic" Pat Toomey, was in the House in 1999 and stood on the floor to defend both the repeal and the derivatives.
Here is his floor speech:
"The repeal of Glass-Steagall is necessary so that consumers can get the products and services they desire and American financial firms can compete in the global marketplace.
Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight just one small part of this sweeping legislation. I am particularly pleased that this bill includes an important provision regarding certain derivative transactions, especially credit and equity swaps. These somewhat obscure products are actually very important tools used by businesses, including financial service firms, to manage a variety of risks that they face. This bill reaffirms that swap contracts are legitimate bank products that can be executed and booked in banks and are adequately regulated by and will continue to be regulated by banking supervisors."
Very helpful. Thank you.
Is that a hit list?
Identifying politicians who need to be removed from office for causing harm to the nation is no "hit list". It is legitimate political activity in a free and democratic society.
Are you really in a free and democratic society?
Sounds great in theory. But it depends on who controls the list. Who would you TRUST to keep the list and how would you determine who get on the list?
Thank you. Those are good but difficult questions. Off the top of my head, while such a list would need to include only accurate information, it would not need to be comprehensive in including all possible offenders. Exposing the sociopathic actions of only a small number of individuals would likely have a disproportionate inhibiting effect. It could begin with a small number, and if two or three a month were added, that might be sufficient.
Your two questions are really one; the list would have to be controlled and compiled by an individual or individuals who are trusted by a majority of the people whose interests are negatively affected by this sociopathic behavior. Certainly I’ve been reading of committees being formed within OWS to accomplish various tasks. Applying that method to my suggestion wouldn’t, at first look, seem like a bad idea.
Irrespective of the methodology, any list is to some degree subjective, one of this sort, inherently so. I believe a disclaimer by whatever organ publishes such a list that is the opinion of the individuals that compiled would be essential for a variety of reasons. What is most needed is credibility and the resultant exposure that would ensue.
I recently went on the White House site to suggest an opposing list-- one that acknowledges GOOD corporate citizens. Would that not be a better ideal? How about both lists?
I admire your motivation. And I normally would much rather emphasize positive rather than negative contributions. But I consider our circumstances so dire and the risk of inaction so great, that I think tools such as a Public Enemies List are needed. It's a sad characteristic of human nature that in the short term we are wired to more accutely respond to the negative. I.e., existential threats.
We may be the 99% but unfortantely I fear that many in that 99% are asleep.
"He who knows and knows not that he knows is asleep—wake him."
America doesn't know what it knows. I believe an alarm call with specific, factual information of the deliberate actions of the powerful that harm the collective welfare of America is needed. And well deserved.
You have a point, but emphasizing the negative also causes more negative reactions. We need a balanced approach. Publicly acknowledge the good and shame the bad (and punish). Maybe a Presidential Good Corporate Citizen Award for businesses (large and small) that pay living wages, clean up the environment, and hire people. Publicly announcing fines and (higher tax) sanctions on those who display immoral acts, such as pollution, corporate greed, health and safety violations, etc...The main problem I see with today's situation is a lack of historical perspective. If you use the word union most people have a very negative reaction. This is partially the result of greed and corruption within the unions. But what most people have forgotten is that unions were a reaction to the abusive and exploitative actions of businesses in the past. Conditions that we Americans tend to associate with third world nations were once the norm here in America (child labor, near slavery, slavery, dangerous work conditions). Those who fail to learn from history are damned to repeat it. And we are!
Thank you for such a detailed and thoughtful critique. I think your suggestions contain some wonderful ideas –
Publicly awarding businesses that contribute to general American welfare as recognized through tax policy.
Publicly recognizing such businesses in a public forum.
And continuing to shame businesses and policy makers who make choices that harm America.
I agree that unions can and must play a vital role in American life. I have experienced both sides of the issue, from unions that were little more than a front for organized crime to those that through parochial self-interest were as harmful to general American interests as the moguls they contest. I believe unions are essential, but they also may well be in need of reform.
What I am proposing is no more or less than public shaming. It has a venerable and successful tradition in many cultures, including most Western cultures. And while it can be abused, any tool can be abused in the hands of those with evil intent. But I do not envision such activity as one that should reside in government, not least because government should not be immune from such criticism. But I rather see it become the province of a small, non-governmental entity with this process as its prime responsibility.
I also think it’s important to think of our progress in phases. This is close to the first. This is the phase were many of the 99% are asleep. They know things aren’t right, but they don’t why, or who is responsible. This is a tool to help tell them. It is a tool to incite change.
[Removed]
Self-imposed Orwellian nightmare.
While you're at it, how about a list of virgins?
I think you need to reread Orwell.
Virgins???
I think a world where all the crimes we commit are rendered public is pretty Orwellian. I thought Facebook had privacy issues, but this is ridiculous.
A virgin is typically a woman who has never had sexual intercourse.
Biology-101
A virgin is typically a "person" who has never had sexual intercourse.
The rest of us were all there at some point in our lives. You may well be an exception. Are you Catholic?
The definition comes from the Oxford dictionary. You have to study the etymology of the word to understand why it typically refers to women.
I'm not Catholic. I'm anti-religious, and ignostic.
it is spelled agnostic -- one who has an open mind one the issue of god's existence
No, I meant ignostic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
My copy of the Oxford American College Dictionary starts with:
"A person, typically a woman..."
My American Heritage Dictionary offers this:
"1. A person who has not experienced sexual intercourse.
I am surprised that these dictionaries are so sexist. But both start out referencing "person" and I believe first reference is always highest in priority order. For what that's worth. I've never been much of a sexist so these references are a surprise to me.
The word virgin was originally only used for women. It's not a question of sexism, but of etymology.
Guilty conscience?
Thank you for clearing that up about women. I was always curious.
It's not about having a guilty conscience. There are many repercussions that you have not thought about.
And thank you to for readng my mind.
No problem. Thank you for thinking through your idea before posting it.
So, if I disagree with you, or anyone disagrees with you, it's only because they haven't though it through? Any other perspective is invalid?
This perspective is invalid. Iv'e only come up against this lack of thinking issue in this particular thread. In 99% of the cases, the posters I have replied to had forged strong ideas from strong arguments and had posted after thinking. I didn't always agree, but we were able to discuss the issue. In this case, we have reached a dead end since you have yet to take the proper time to comprehend the vast repercussions of your suggestion.
And you know this, how? Please explain these "vast repercussions" since you are obviously gifted with foresight.
I propose only telling the truth. Why should you find that such a fearful thing?
Such a fearful thing? Where did you get that idea? I simply wanted to provide you with some time to think things through.
Our legal system punishes an individual for his crime. Once he has done his time, or paid a fine, he is in most cases considered off the hook. He has repaid his debt to society and can start fresh again. This is a very important concept. It is an idea of forgiveness and moving on. The criminal and the society can turn the page which plays a big part in his reintegration within society. A criminal that is always targeted years after his crime can never regain the status of a normal citizen. This hurts us all. Our primary focus should be to rehabilitate criminals, and not burn an X on their heads. What kind of society are we if we put revenge before forgiveness? What kind of society indeed.
In the rare cases that we are dealing with dangerous mental illnesses and a case in which a proper authority deems the criminal likely to act again, then it could be argued that he be held behind bars a while longer. If he really must be let out, I don't have a problem with letting the public know. We can think of sexual predators for instance, or psychotic murderers. However, as previously noted, this is for specific cases and should not apply to the vast majority of lesser crimes.
Another problem is that such a database would create a confusion between criminals considered dangerous and those with minor offenses. It is not hard to imagine huge logistical problems.
You also have the issue of people having to pay for crimes done during their youth for the rest of their lives. A man robed a car when he was 18. He is now 40 and has a hard time finding a job because this offense still lingers in the database.
Another problem is that people who are not guilty are stigmatized for the rest of their lives. Jack was accused of rape, and was found guilty. He didn't do it, but he has to serve 15 years. He does. His crime has been repaid in the eyes of society, but now he's still being stigmatized for the rest of his life. He cannot find a job.
Then, you have the problem of the government cutting special deals with people to get them out of the database. Enters corruption after corruption. Mike has suffered the last 15 years because he smoked weed when he was 15 and it's in the database. He witnesses a crime and now the cops want him to talk. He didn't see much, but the cops offer to removing him from the database if he can identify someone. He just makes it up.
Then you have those who plant offenses in the database to create problems for others. Again, this increases corruption on the sides of the cops. They can threaten people. If you don't do this, we will put you in the database.
Then there is the problem of hacking. Some nitwit hack hates a few people and messes up their names by adding them to the database.
Of course, now that background checks can be done by every citizen, every part of society is clogged by logistics. You want an apartment. The owner checks you out. You want a job, they check you out. A lot of time wasted.
Another major issue is that most people who have committed crimes are people who have had minor issues when they were young. Most of the serious criminals are behind bars anyways. These errors of youth cost everyone in society since many people are restricted to doing what they could. An honest smart and promising politician loses his career because he set off illegal firecrackers when he was 17.
Many get trapped by the system. They have done their time, and now cannot find a job. They go back to crime as the only option. Crime is increased.
Hierarchies are created. We can categorize the crimes by seriousness and make a database search. Mike is a level 3 criminal, Jack is a level 2 criminal, Tom is a level 7 criminal. This stratifies society into more classes causing more problems.
For it to be useful, the database must also contain the addresses of the criminals. Suddenly we have Google maps that show all the people in your neighborhood and all the offenses they committed; minor or major. Hey look, my neighbor got caught with a DUI 10 years ago. Hey look, my other neighbor got caught not paying his child support. Criminals can use this information to recruit. We need a hitman. Let's check google maps for all the murders that have been freed this year. Oh look, there are a few around here, let's go talk to them.
Etc...
Sounds like what the Nazis did with lists of Jewish people. You OWS folks are really sick.
Yeah, making American aware of deliberate actions that directly affect their welfare would be a terrible thing.
All you are doing is feeding hatred. Your movement has already shown its propensity for violence and now you propose making a list of people that YOU think are evil. It's not a very big step from your list to someone using your list as a hit list to kill people. We've already seen OWS people knocking elderly women on the ground,attacking police,vandalizing private property and looting,infringing on peoples freedom,putting small children in harms way. There is no reason whatsoever to think that OWS is going to be peaceful since they already aren't. Trust me,much more of the 99% is against you than is with you.
So then you disapprove of the democratic concept of an INFORMED ELECTORATE if it means Americans will come to know and dislike the economic predators who have harmed both them and our nation.
I don't have a problem with people being informed. I have a problem with OWS violence which your list would promote.
That is a ludicrous assertion.
How is that? OWS has already shown it can and will be violent. The facts don't lie my friend...it's all there if you choose to BE INFORMED.
Don't complain to me.
All of these names were gotten from the Congressional Record and the official vote tally. The names of the super committee members was published in all of the major newspapers in America. All of the members of the super committee were on C-Span last week in an open hearing.
Any American, including #Occupy members, have a Constitutional right to gather and distribute these names of public officials in an effort to encourage like minded Americans to vote these minions of Wall Street out of office.
You are crazy, childish and silly. You are at least as crazy as Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachman who coined the term "Second Amendment remedies" and directed it publicly at American government officials. Had I included that inflammatory remark in the list you would have reason to be concerned. But other than your contrived paranoia this thread is about POLITICAL ACTIVISM. I leave the Second Amendment threats to tea party leaders and candidates.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
I abhor violence, and condemn it and any who perpetrate it. Your deliberate attempt to shift the discussion from making Americans aware of the behavior of those who truly have power over their lives to the powerless is telling. The truth is a fearful thing to the man who has evil in his heart.
You can make people aware.However with OWS violence increasing your so called list would turn into a "hit list" . What I'm saying is that you are going to create more violence doing this and who are you to say who is evil? You think you would be doing this great thing when in fact you would be stoking the fires. How would you feel when someone on the list was murdered? I know a lot of OWS would laugh and say "they deserved it". Kind of sad for a supposed non-violent (too late OWS is already violent) protest isn't it?
The only violence I've heard in this thread is yours. Those who commit violence upon others should be punished.
I see no reason why truth should engender violence; it should engender change.
I wonder who some of these proponents of violence are, and where they are from. Perspective seems like his perspective is certainly skewed. But this is the type of backlash I was referring to. You idea of a non-governmental organization is a good one. Maybe a 501C. Get a prominent public persona to be the public face. Hire a team of researchers. It shouldn't be all that hard to start.
More good ideas!
He sounds like a spinster from some neocon stink-tank to me.
Lol,married 30 yrs (to the same woman mind you) with two sons. So you are wrong on all counts. :-)
One need only look at all the videos available to see OWS is violent. Facts are facts. BTW everyone's perspective is "skewed" as you say due to the fact that no one sees things the same way,hence the word perspective. I chose this as my name because I find it interesting to see/hear other people's perspective on things.
let me guess, you are e tea party person afraid of people on the "other" side organizing too. well let me try to reassure you, no one here ( on this thread at least) is professing any particular political agenda other than making government more accountable.