Forum Post: The police can accuse and arrest us of harboring terrorist and drugs.
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 28, 2011, 10:43 a.m. EST by bigbangbilly
(594)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Any countermeasures?
They can plant "evidence".
we could possibly, just for the sake of fun, . . . .
identify those demographics where such behavior is likely to occur, as a result of political pressure from entrenched right wing sources
Identify those cues that will generate predictable responses based on a faulty perception of harboring
incentivise those predictable reactions based on faulty perception of harboring
once predictable response is initiated, documentation on our part begins, coupled with allies in media who disseminate our version of reality
once our version of reality meats various tests of veracity, a collapse of the network of political influence resulting in pressure to act, culminating in humiliation of all those involved, will ensue, followed by endless lawsuit, charges and counter charges of malfeasance, corruption,
and so on . . .
how's that, billybig?
It does occur to me that folks in CopShops all across the country do have a very real opportunity to clean house, and do so in a way that leaves the blue wall itself largely untainted - after all, the fault lies with the political influence, and individual susceptibility to that influence, rather than the departments themselves.
This will hold for DA offices as well.
Generally, I kinda like the idea.
I'm glad you asked.
The original purpose of the War on Drugs was to enable federal law enforcement to get involved with local law enforcement in organizing against anti war and civil rights protest organizers. The night before a big protest the police and feds would raid the cooperative communes of organizers and ostensibly search for drugs. And they would make arrests of anyone who they had on their extremist watch lists.
There were no solutions for this then and there are no solutions for it now.
Keep drug use away from organizing meeting groups so police do not have the pretext.
Have lawyers available to fight terrorist accusations.
Enemy combatants don't have the right to legal counsel.......
[Removed]
And also convince that the war on drugs are futile and that the drug cartels are worse than the drugs. The drug cartels are the enemy not the drugs.
The enemy should be the politicians like Obama in the U.S. government who continue the anti-democracy, Jim Crow and terrorism funding War on Drugs. there would be no Taliban enemy if heroin were a prescribed medicine the way the Swiss handle the addiction problem. the Taliban, the Mexican cartels, alQaida and as many as half the terrorist organization on the planet are funded totally or in large part by profits available to them thanks to the continuation of the War on Drugs. And much of the organized drug gang activity on American streets too would disappear if it were not subsidized by drug profits thanks to Bloody Barak Obama's Drug War.
Guvmint isThe front for the cartel
[Removed]
Yeah. Don't harbor them.
Please elaborate because it is easier said than done.
[Removed]
Police don't make accusations, they make arrests. Prosecutors make accusations, and, yes, if you are harboring terrorists a prosecutor could accuse you of harboring terrorists, but, no, he or she won't accuse you of harboring drugs because drugs can't be harbored. You could be accused of possessing drugs.
What is a "terrorist" though?
The government decides what a terrorist is on a case by case basis and then punishes you for being one.
A terrorist is someone who commits terror. That definition is easy. The hard one is terror. Like many words, it's up to a great deal interpretation.
It does that for every crime. A murderer stands trial, and a judge will decide if he is indeed a murderer depending on the evidence presented in the case. There are different types of murders and some are very hard to judge. For example, an accidental murder caused by some type of irresponsibility.
As for terror, it would most likely be judged as some kind of security risk. The judge would have to look at previous cases etc... But, yes, US has pretty lame laws when it comes to protecting its citizens and its definition of terror is pretty wide. That's one of the reasons I prefer living in Canada.
This explains the problem that I'm trying to communicate:
http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1564
Also, locally, we have a law against making "terroristic threats".
People involved in ordinary street altercations & domestic disputes are routinely charged with this crime.
It involves words, not violent actions. Mind you, you won't go to Gitmo for this, but it sounds pretty ugly.
That is a comment we need countermeasures.
Counter-measusers against what? Police accusing us of harboring terrorists and drugs? I just told you that makes no sense. At this point, your best counter-measure is to read books and learn so you don't make this type of mistake again.
you are of course right in both your comments, but I fear you're wasting your time. I think you've stumbled onto someone that proves the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
True.