I guess that dissent is no longer the highest form of patriotism:
”The Secret Service called and said they were at my house,” Harrison said.
After talking to his attorney, Harrison went home where he met the Secret Service.
”When I was on my way there, the Secret Service called me and said they weren’t going to ransack my house or anything … they just wanted to (walk through the house) and make sure I wasn’t a part of any hate groups.”
I suspect that it won’t be long until people who don’t go along with the party line are part of a “hate group” by definition.
[Update a while later]
The ever-expanding definition of “hate speech.”
Whenever I hear anyone use the phrase, I automatically cease to take them seriously. The word “hate” has become as devalued as “racist.”
So, a cop in Oklahoma City pulls a guy over and (presumably) sends a report to the Secret Service. The Secret Service, doing their job, follow up on the report, find nothing to worry about, and leave.
Seems to me the only person in the wrong here is the city cop. (Unless you want to tell me that Obama just nationalized the Oklahoma City PD without anybody knowing about it.)
I would have gladly pulled over and talked to Officer Obie, but he WOULD NOT have gotten my sign. Under what authority does he to take the sign, but not arrest the person committing the “threat”? Seems the LEO was wrong on both sides of this. He would have had to arrest my fat ass.
Had that happened, the guy would have had a case.
Where’s the outrage? Why isn’t the Left screaming over this piece of Bushitlerian fascism stifling free speech? Isn’t dissent the highest form of patriotism and aren’t we supposed to speak truth to power? We need to indict Cheney and his trained chimp. Now!
Oh, right, we’re now in a new era of Hope and Change and Unicorns and Stimulus and Don’t You Dare Not Love Our Dear Leader.
The Secret Service were called off by the OKC PD Internal Investigations department, yet still searched Mr. Harrison’s home afterwards.
The Secret Service were called off by the OKC PD Internal Investigations department, yet still searched Mr. Harrison’s home afterwards.
Yes, it seems that there was plenty of time to get a warrant, if they had probable cause (which they don’t seem to have had). But the Fourth Amendment is only important when the BusHitler is in power.
Leland and Rand – the Internal Affairs guy called Harrison, who was (apparently) at work, and said he called off the Secret Service.
Then the Secret Service called from Harrison’s house to Harrison, saying they were already there.
A more reasonable interpretation of the events would be that the Secret Service guys had left before the Internal Affairs guy called.
An even more reasonable interpetation would be to ask how any of this is related to a decision by any politician.
Rand – also, if you grant permission to search, a search warrant is not needed. You have waived your 4th Admendment rights, which I am sure Harrison’s lawyer told him.
An even more reasonable interpetation would be to ask how any of this is related to a decision by any politician.
How is that an “interpretation” at all, let alone a “reasonable” one?
The point is actually more about media coverage than anything else. If this had happened during the BusHitler administration, there would have been cries of “Fascism!,” “Stifling of Dissent!”
What do you imagine would have happened had he denied permission?
The point is actually more about media coverage than anything else.
It did get “media coverage.” If this guy shows up on a no-fly list or other action is taken, it will get more coverage.
What do you imagine would have happened had he denied permission?
Since I doubt they could have gotten a warrant, the matter would have ended. It’s not like the Secret Service doesn’t have thousands of more serious incidents, for lack of a better word, to run down.
It did get “media coverage.”
Not the kind it would have gotten under the previous president.
In response to the update, it is key to note that the Secret Service apparently weren’t concerned about the threat, but whether he belonged to a hate group.
Let’s assume he was a member of a hate group, what ever that might be. What’s the crime?
Leland: Who said anything about a crime?
The Secret Service investigates (among other things), potential threats to the President.
There is, to my knowledge, neither statute, Constitutional requirement, nor common-law prohibition on them investigating such reported threats without any crime being necessarily involved.
I imagine they wanted to know if he was a member of such a (nebulously defined) group in order to help gauge the probability of threat – which they evidently quite reasonably estimated at zero, in the end.
Sigivald, I’m not aware that any law enforcement agency had the right or reason to search a home without probable cause of a crime. I’m referring to Amendment 4 of the US Constitution.
All I have is Mr. Harrison’s words, but he suggests the Secret Service told him that didn’t consider his sign a threat, but wanted to know if he belonged to a hate group. I’m not arguing that Mr. Harrison abdicated his rights here, but if he didn’t (which was my assumption for discussion), what about him belonging to a hate group constitutes probable cause? What constitutes a hate group?
Perhaps you should click the link in the update before responding.
Leland – the police always have a right to ask questions. Citizens have a right to either answer or say “none of your business.”
Gauging the probability of a threat is not “probable cause.” Even if Harrison had a “White Power Forever” flag on his front lawn, that’s not probable cause. (I am not a lawyer, so I express my personal opinion, not a legal one.) That would, however, suggest to a reasonable person that maybe they ought to take a closer look at Harrison.
Yes, such groups are nebulously-defined. But since when did the career Secret Service start taking their definitions of “hate groups” from some obscure office at UCLA?
Gerrib, I’m asking the theoretical question. My point is that had he, as you suggest, a “White Power Forever” sign (the actual sign was “Abort Obama, not the unborn”), then how is that probable cause? Your answer of “that’s not probable cause” is what I’m thinking as well.
And let’s not forget that original officer did pull over Mr. Harrison (and confiscated his property) improperly as there was not adequate probable cause as determined by the OKC PD IID. FWIW, I disagree with Glenn Reynolds comment on his blog that paints a wide brush over all OKC PD. I also think the SS acted more professionally than the original officer. There actions should certainly clear up any perception (exception for Jim) of wrong doing on Mr. Harrison’s part.
The fallacy, Chris, is if they didn’t deem him a threat, as they said then there was no need to walk through his house. Which BTW is quite a bit different than asking questions. Once in his house anything they see is fair game. So an even MORE reasonable interpretation would be they were going to look regardless. That BS excuse the agents had already left ignores that cell phony thingy in their pocket. They got to go on a fishing trip through his house by intimidation all because of that sign. If law enforcement is going to be hyper-sensitive then they will have a chilling effect on free speech
I think this is the first time I’ve heard a pro-life guy argue that “abort” does not mean “kill”.
Even pro-life people realize that the meaning of the word depends on the context. It’s silly to think that the word means “kill” in reference to someone outside the womb.
I think this is the first time I’ve heard a pro-life guy argue that “abort” does not mean “kill”.
Maybe we should check to see if this guy is building a time machine. After all, abort means killing the unborn so you’d have to go back in time to abort Obama before he was born.
It’s interesting to note that had abortion been legal in 1961, it’s quite possible that Barack Obama might not have been born.
Rand,
That would be a funny bumper sticker. Neither side could figure it out.
If he’s pro-life, he’s pro-life. Killing is anti-life.