Click Here to Read the Commentary
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
I received a copy of your article, condensed via email, from 'Western Journalism' and 'World Net Daily.' After reading their short version, I found your full article. It 'says it all' ...if only people would read'n heed.
I often repost emails that I receive on to my blog and forward some of them to others, which I did for the condensed version email version of your article that I received from WJ/WND; however, after reading your complete article, I felt that by adding it on to my blog it would be futher disseminated and read by folks who visit my blog (not many, but everyone counts.)
First, let me say as that I was encouraged by your article in that it lets me and friends know that we are not alone in our view of the "state of America." Media pundits abound, but few have come close to expressing some of our concerns as well as you have done.
I'm retired from U.S. Customs in 1993 as a Special Agent (after 23 years.) I worked at New Orleans, St. Thomas, Jacksonville, Fl, HQ, the D.C. field office, at the Glynco National Training Center, and last here down in the Imperial Valley of California along the Mexican/American border in Internal Affairs until I retired. Having gotten lots of search warrants, made many arrests, seizures, fines, penalties at various duty stations, law enforcement and its application on the citizenry is 'old hat' so-to-speak.
As my police experience grew, I noticed a gradually change in federal law enforcement's expansion of "power" over 'ordinary citizens.'
Early on around 1970-1972, while stationed in New Orleans, some of us agents participated in a minor way, in testing the then new passenger 'walk through' metal detectors. I was becoming somewhat suspicious of what I now call, "unintended consequences" of the potential to eliminate, what until the early 70's what was normal for the times which was the ablility of a passenger with a picture ID to carry firearms on board an commercial aircraft. I presumed, rightly, that with the advent metal detectors, along with the then threat of Muslim terrrorists 'tail wagging the dog' results of their hijacking, that carrying a weapon on a flight was to be short lived. It was.
Back in the early 70's, before the days of 'sky marshalls', there was a (then) secret program of putting some of us Treasury agents (and a few FBI) on international flights to counter hijackers. I never quite understood the basis of our 'bottom line' authority, though it seemed a logical thing to do; however, the rules of engagement were telling. In order of priority from most important (1) to least important (4):
1. Don't screw the stewardesses.
2. Don't drink before (as I remember) 8 hours before a flight.
3. Don't fall asleep on the plane.
4. If you shoot, kill on the 1st shot.
Luckily, none of us that I flew with encountered a terrorist.
Later, in the mid-70's we were briefed on the then new, Currency and Transaction Reporting Act (COTR) which was supposedly written specifically to target the remnants of the 'La Cosa Nostra.' Some of us asked the U.S. Attorneys during training sessions on the new law as to whether we had to identify targets as being criminals or would the law applied generally to all citizens. Some hmm-hawwing later ...all citizens.
It wasn't long before anyone traveling in/out of the U.S. had to declare any money/negotiable instruments over $10,000. (Of course, we were to tell the citizens that IRS wasn't involved. (That too, went by the wayside later.)
Somewhere around the late 80's, we were briefed occasionally on changes about how we could develop probable cause to obtain search warrants in situations with in the past required us to clearly, without a search warrant, to stay off of a person's private property. The "new" training was about how we could intrude onto peoples personal property (curtilage), without warrant, to observe 'suspicious activity' in order to develop "probable cause" for search warrants. This was explained as even allowing us to cross on to personal property regardless of how it was physically protected, fenced...walled...etc., and to move right up to any opening (e.g. window with partly opened shade) and to even 'press our nose' on a window' and peer in to a home/building (after what in the past would have be considered 'violating curtilage') and if we observed 'suspicious activity' use that to develop from 'articulable circumstances' to 'suspcious cause' to 'reasonable cause' then on to 'probable cause', depending on the situation ...of course.
As I approached retirement, I began to question, especially being a border agent which gave me the authority (within the defined confines of a border area) to search to whatever extent I felt (being able to articulate my reasoning) to search of any item, vehicle, person, or dutyable object including mail crossing the border. It was when I first was transferred down along the Mexican border that I encountered my 1st "Border Patrol/INS Inland Checkpoint." Even as a federal agent, while traveling along a U.S. highway, being forced to stop and I and each passenger individually being forced to declare our citizenship or suffer the potential of a vehicle and body search was unnerving. I had not experienced outside the confines of an actual legally defined border area such unannounced, random, stop'n search situations. Except maybe 'drunk driver' road blocks which seemed intrusive enough.
Then, after 9.11 when the government wanted to create a 'computer database surveillance' system to monitor all databases in the U.S. for "anti-terrorist" purposes it didn't take long for me to realize that the government's appetite for monitoring and ultimately controlling all aspects of citizens' lives was at hand. Luckily, at least I think, that project was squashed; however now, as your article so clearly explains, Big Brother is upon us, face-to-face. From my experience in federal law enforcement, as a Customs Officer with more broad search authority (back then and within the narrowly defined confines of a border area) than any other law enforcement officer, I see not just a slow erosion of personal rights under the 4th Amendment, but all personal rights that were guaranteed under the Constitution are being systematically removed from the 'real world' experiences of all of us.
A friend, one of the people who reads my emails and blog, recently gave me a copy of a book entitled "Unintended Consequences." It is directed against the assault against the 2nd Amendment. I in no way condone the author's scenario to resolve the government's efforts to eliminate the 2nd Amendment; however, it did present an historical/modern view of how government power over citizens increases, how it increases exponentially and, as you point out, is almost impossible to remove once it is established.
I hope you will allow me to keep your article posted and also that you have some email means of allowing myself and friends to follow your writings.
I posted your article on my blog at: http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2011/07/warning-vipr-searches-and-american.html.
Please let me know if you want it changed in any way or removed.
Please excuse my rambling, but I have a few folks with whom I exchange messages and many of them I forward or post on my blog. Your article is important.
Given the current political climate in D.C. and that of some liberal states and federal court districts, times don't look good for us. Hopefully, a needed "change" will take place in November 2012.
Sincerely,
Robert
No comments:
Post a Comment