It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Officers Run Background Check On Obama; Placed On Leave

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Officers Run Background Check On Obama; Placed On Leave


www.wsbtv.com

DEKALB COUNTY, Ga. -- Two DeKalb County police officers have been placed on paid administrative leave after an investigation revealed they ran a background check on President Barack Obama.

A representative for the DeKalb County CEO’s office identified the officers as Ryan White and C.M. Route.

Officials said Obama’s name was typed into a computer inside a DeKalb County police car on July 20 and ran through the National Crime Information Center.

The secret service was immediately notified and contacted the DeKalb County Police Department.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I'm hoping that someone can explain why two officers would be suspended simply for conducting a background check on President Obama.

Is this customary precedure?

If so, I think it's way over the top. If this is merely a case of the department punishing these officers for doing a check without proper cause, then I wonder if this would apply to anyone.

It seems rather extreme in my opinion. They ran a background check. The secret service was immediately notified at the time of the search. (Again, I guess I am rather shocked that the secret service would be privvy to information entered in a computer within a police car.)

It wasn't as if they were conducting some kind of tracking search to see where the President is at that very moment or where he was headed -- security issues that I could see the secret service getting involved in.

Is there more to this?

To me, it seems a rather innocent thing. Background check on the President. I should hope that this would have been done many times over BEFORE he was elected President.

So -- is he hiding something? Or were the cops too nosey and deserved to be placed on suspension? Thoughts?

www.wsbtv.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 30-7-2009 by lpowell0627]


+19 more 
posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


Clearly as it is a stupid, blatant and gross invasion of privacy/abuse of their authority.

Why the hell should you need it explained to you?



Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 7/30/2009 by maria_stardust]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
How would you feel if they ran a background check on you without knowing it and they had nothing to warrant running one?


They should be fired.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Interesting story. Don't mess with the almighty. Makes you wonder if there is a standing order within police departments to report such inquiries. Obama should have nothing to hide anyway.

Certainly a story to follow.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by phoenix103
 


Dont you think that was a rather rude response? Clearly the OP didn't think so and wanted to let us know that LEO's have no rights to Obama's historical record either. It would stand to reason that they used their ability to tap into his background to determine his "status". What's wrong with that? I'm as dense as the OP, so please help me out here.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
idiots.

and to think, someone gave them badges and guns.


+5 more 
posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Since they are going to get into trouble, they should at least post the results of the background check on the internet before they are silenced.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   
They broke their oaths, and more importantly federal laws.

Good riddance, piggie iggies!


+14 more 
posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I dont think what they did is wrong at all because of the fact that "president" obama is a public icon for america and should be subject to any doubt of the people. May i remind each and every one of you people that the gov't is supposed to serve the people not the other way around. I think that obama should let the police run his name because being president he "should" have nothing to hide.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


The question that needs to be asked is: Would it have resulted in their suspension if they had searched an individual's background and not the President?

I'm sure that there's got to be something that says that LEOs can't just search a person's background willy nilly - although I think it probably happens all the time. They were kind of naive in thinking they wouldn't get caught though.

As far as the secret service goes, why would you be surprised that they would immediately become aware of this?



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ninecrimes
They broke their oaths, and more importantly federal laws.

Good riddance, piggie iggies!


Oh really? They broke an "oath" by running a background check? LOL. Police can run background checks, it's what they do. My brother is a cop and he ran background checks on all the guys my sisters have dated. The only reason these cops got in trouble is because they did it on the Pres. from a PC they can be traced to.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hazelnut
reply to post by phoenix103
 


Dont you think that was a rather rude response? Clearly the OP didn't think so and wanted to let us know that LEO's have no rights to Obama's historical record either. It would stand to reason that they used their ability to tap into his background to determine his "status". What's wrong with that? I'm as dense as the OP, so please help me out here.


Not especially, it takes little more than common sense to work it out.

Why do i need to explain what is wrong with law enforcement officers abusing the trust placed in them?!

In the UK these to chancers would find themselves in jail for some time.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Hazelnut
 


probable cause? doesn't someone have to be in some form of violation to have their record ran against the criminal database? (unless voluntarily.)

now... personally i feel that anyone in public office, especially the highest office in the land, should be subject to scrutiny at any time... that by being placed in a position of PUBLIC TRUST, should have absolutely nothing to hide and be able to forfeit most of their privacy.

[edit on 30/7/2009 by gravykraken]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi

Originally posted by ninecrimes
They broke their oaths, and more importantly federal laws.

Good riddance, piggie iggies!


Oh really? They broke an "oath" by running a background check? LOL. Police can run background checks, it's what they do. My brother is a cop and he ran background checks on all the guys my sisters have dated. The only reason these cops got in trouble is because they did it on the Pres. from a PC they can be traced to.


And you find that abuse of power acceptable? I hope your brother is identified and sacked.

Thankfully, in the UK the police have to have a reason to check you out and vetting your sisters prospective partners is not one of them.

Is this the general view in privacy and state interaction in the US?


+5 more 
posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
A: They run background checks whenever they want of whomever they want. These guys got caught because Big Brother watches record access for the president. If it had been you or I they wouldn't even have registered a peep.

B: A President's privacy is supposed to be something they knowingly surrender when they become political superstars, don't think so? Guess again.

C: Obviously, rather than portray this as a symptom of growing concern over the non-issue issue of the President's past, they will ensure that the public see's this as an offense..., but only if you ask about certain people..., I guess some are more equal than others after all...


How long before the racist, partisan outcry of calls for jail time and ridicule of anyone interested enough in the non-issue issue to speak about it, or as in this case, DO something about it? But then, you never know, maybe these cops are racists and plotting a terrorist action or a threat against the president... I don't know them.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by kingoftheworld
I dont think what they did is wrong at all because of the fact that "president" obama is a public icon for america and should be subject to any doubt of the people. May i remind each and every one of you people that the gov't is supposed to serve the people not the other way around. I think that obama should let the police run his name because being president he "should" have nothing to hide.



Unless they have a valid reason to suspect someone of a crime then a criminal background check cannot be done without written permission.

Like if you are registering a pistol. A criminal background check must be done and you have to give written permission.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by gravykraken
 


In some ways i agree but there are processes for obtaining information and abusing access to a system you have through your occupation isn't one of them.

Good on the secret service. Lets hope they end up in Jail and teach any other dumb officials who might act in a similar manner that it will not be tolerated.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ninecrimes
They broke their oaths, and more importantly federal laws.

Good riddance, piggie iggies!


Could you please cite the federal laws they broke? I'm interested if you know which ones they are. Off the top of my head I can't think of one. But you must know, so please share.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by phoenix103
 


Thanks for making my point.

Jail time? are you serious?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join