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: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by phoenix103
 


The president of the US is a public figure elected by the people is not reason why a background check can not be performed by the people to see if he is worthy of serving in the highest office of the nation unless he is hidding something.




posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


do US police REALLY have the powers to background gech any one , any time , any reason ?

In the UK - there are so quite stringent regulations - that basically demand some evidence or logical deduction linking the person being checked to an officers current caseload



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   

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

Good riddance, piggie iggies!


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Can you please show us (with links to sources) the oath and federal laws they broke?

Thanks



As part of my job, I have run many many background checks on people. Anyone can do it. Breaking department policy, is one thing. But doing a background check on someone - I have to tell you - it can be done anytime on anyone.

Im not sure what the "laws" are on doing one on the president - but he is the President and is subject to his personal life being an open book!! We the people have the right to know ALL of the President. And we all know, he hides tons from the people.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




[edit on July 30th 2009 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627

I'm hoping that someone can explain why two officers would be suspended simply for conducting a background check on President Obama.

Because it is illegal to access NCIC for no reason. It is a privacy issue, illegal search, abuse of power, against department rules. If the department cannot be trusted to keep the database secure, they will be banned.


Is this customary precedure?

If they get caught, yes. NCIC links all Law Enforcement organizations in the US, including the Secret Service. They would be most interested in whether or not such a use of the NCIC was authorized by the department.



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.

Yes, it applies to anyone. Not all unauthorized checks are caught, but if you are caught running a check on your sisters boyfriend with no more reason than that, you will be disciplined. Do you not watch TV? Have you never seen a crime show where the rogue cop calls into his buddy for an unauthorized number plate check? And doesn't the buddy always, ALWAYS, complain that he'll lose his job if you don't have proper authorization? For some searches, a warrant may be required.


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.)

NCIC is the National Crime Information Center, when a cop issues a request for 'wants and warrants' on Joe Bloggs that request is sent to ALL member Law Enforcement Agencies' computers. One of those members is the Secret Service, because they need to check up on people they want to keep tabs on just like a 'regular' police organization. I expect it raises some pretty big flags when the president or members of his family gets such a request. Shouldn't surprise you at all.


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.

NCIC doesn't have that kind of info anyway. It lists stolen cars, people wanted for bank robbery, check kiting, whatever, criminal stuff.


Is there more to this?

Only that the dummies probably thought that they were doing it as a joke, maybe showing the system to their little brother, and thought that Obama would be a 'safe' person to check up on.


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.

It is NOT a simple thing. Abuse of power. Invasion of privacy. Violation of their sworn oath. Whether or not a background check 'should' have been done before the election by someone, it simply is NOT their job to do it without probable cause.



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

Is who hiding something? Obama? You think he might be hiding that he stole a car last year or something? You really think there might be some legal peccadillo stored on NCIC that has somehow been kept away from the papparazzi? Get real.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


You run a background check without written permission?

second line.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


You run a background check without written permission?

second line.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Of course.

There are plenty of sites online to run background checks on people - you have to pay for it though and they are never accurate. But in my previous job, it was my job to run background checks on people.

It was my job to do, as I worked for a private investigation firm, worked for attorneys and other clients for various cases - and did employment screenings for companies (those, the potential employees know about it).

I dont do it now. Now im a student



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


[edit on July 30th 2009 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
It will be interesting what the officers say their reasons for doing it. I just think they thought it would be funny to do and really did not think about the implications of their actions. Just bored and messing around on their computer. I am sure they regret it now. I would like to know if they found anything out though.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenix103
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


I know many people in the US don't approve of Obama but most of us around the world thing he's the best President since Kennedy - perhaps even Lincoln. He needs to be protected so he can fulfil his future - to the benefit of all of us.


*snip*

We don't need you telling us Obama is the best thing since sliced bread. We can make up our own damned minds. It really is insulting for one so ignorant of the U.S.A. to tell us how we should think. Comparing Obama to Lincoln is insane. Even a educated black man agrees.

Walter E. Williams

I wish I could put the whole article up but here's a smidgen:




President Obama can be forgiven for celebrating the hypocrisy of Abraham Lincoln because the victors of wars write their history and glorify the winners. The recognition that slavery is a despicable institution does not require hero worship of a president who made the largest contribution to the unraveling of our Constitution. After all when it is settled by brute force that states cannot secede, as they thought they had the right to in 1787, then the federal government can ride roughshod over states and their people's right -- in a word make meaningless the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.


Emphasis mine.

It's bad enough we have the brainwashed folks in this country to contend with, now we have you telling us how to run our country? Just let Obama be, he's doing it in our best interest and don't question a damned thing? If you were from this country I would say shame on you. It is our right and duty as citizens of this country to question everything - and I do mean everything - our leaders do and say. Go read some quotes from Jefferson and see how foolish you sound. Here's just one:




"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."


If these cops thought - and I do concede they may have been just doing this for kicks or whatever - but if they thought that there was a crime committed, EVEN BY THE PRESIDENT, then it is their duty to investigate that. Would you have told Woodward and Bernstein - journalist, I know and the rules are different for them, but still - to stop investigating the crime when the trail led to Nixon?

This President has obfuscated everything about his past and that is, very simply put, bad. The $64,000 question in my mind about this story is - What did those cops find that they had to be silenced so quickly?

So they ran the Pres. Big deal. Cops are people and screw up from time to time. They got bored and ran the Pres, give them two weeks desk time for being idiots - IF THEY DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING - and let them off.

If I had any money and were the betting type, I would bet on the cops but the Ministry of Truth scrambled the Thought Police to the scene really quick so we may never know what they came up with.

Anyone notice how RIGHT Orwell was in 1984? Who needs Nostradamus, eh?


Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.
Please stick to the topic at hand and refrain from personally attacking fellow ATSers.

[edit on 7/30/2009 by maria_stardust]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Can you please show us (with links to sources) the oath and federal laws they broke?

They were (presumably) "sworn law enforcement officers". "Sworn" means they are under oath to perform their duty. It would be worthless if that oath didn't include a clause binding them to uphold the laws of the community, state, and United States of America to the best of their ability. And I would expect it would bind them to obedience to Departmental policy as well. You could contact their department to determine the wording of their oath.

The federal laws they broke would have to do with unauthorized access to the National Crime Information Center

Notice that the use of the database is restricted to criminal justice objectives, and that the list of authorized agencies is defined.

"Disclosures of information from this system, as described above, are for the purpose of providing information to authorized agencies to facilitate the apprehension of fugitives, the location of missing persons, the location and/or return of stolen property, or similar criminal justice objectives."

Note also the requirements under the section labeled Safeguards. Agencies are required by law to protect the information to authorized users. Unauthorized use can lead to all sorts of complications like compromised investigations as well as simple privacy suits.



Thanks


You are welcome. Google is your friend.



As part of my job, I have run many many background checks on people. Anyone can do it. Breaking department policy, is one thing. But doing a background check on someone - I have to tell you - it can be done anytime on anyone.

Unless you are a member of an authorized Law Enforcement agency defined by the NCIC enabling legislation, you have not used NCIC (legally).



Im not sure what the "laws" are on doing one on the president - but he is the President and is subject to his personal life being an open book!! We the people have the right to know ALL of the President. And we all know, he hides tons from the people.

That is NOT true, the President does not give up his civil liberties just because he is the president. You are NOT entitled to peruse his medical records any more that you are allowed to peruse anyone else's. And you are not entitled to run NCIC background checks on him with out 'probable cause'. If you are a cop, and catch him speeding, by all means check his wants and warrants. Somehow I don't think he'll be driving much for the next 7 and a half years though.

[edit on July 30th 2009 by greeneyedleo]

[edit on 30/7/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Simply put this was a gross violation and abuse of police power.

1) Were the officers investigating a criminal case involving the President?

2) Were the officers ordered to do a background search of the President?

If the answer is no then they should be suspended. I don't think they should be fired by any means. But just a slap on the wrist.

They crossed a line, not a major one. But they broke a couple rules.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLoony
If these cops thought - and I do concede they may have been just doing this for kicks or whatever - but if they thought that there was a crime committed, EVEN BY THE PRESIDENT, then it is their duty to investigate that. Would you have told Woodward and Bernstein - journalist, I know and the rules are different for them, but still - to stop investigating the crime when the trail led to Nixon?

They have to have "probable cause" to make an NCIC request. A couple of cops sitting in their car don't have "probable cause" to run a private investigation of the president. Street cops don't run investigations. Street cops write traffic tickets and bust up domestic fights. Think about what you are saying for crying out loud.



This President has obfuscated everything about his past and that is, very simply put, bad. The $64,000 question in my mind about this story is - What did those cops find that they had to be silenced so quickly?

So they ran the Pres. Big deal. Cops are people and screw up from time to time. They got bored and ran the Pres, give them two weeks desk time for being idiots - IF THEY DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING - and let them off.


They may get off with a reprimand, this isn't a case of murdering somebody on the Oakland subway. The issue isn't that they ran the President, they could have been running the State Governor or their next door neighbor. The issue was that they broke departmental policy and the legislated fair use policy of a federally owned database. and the issue is also that they were so stupid that they thought they wouldn't raise a flag at the Secret Service headquarters.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Check out the replies from this forum run by and for Police Officers:


When I was working as an MP at Ft. Hood, TX, we had a Desk Sergeant at the Provost Marshal's Office (PMO) run a DL check on George Bush, Sr.

Secret Service was swarming all over the PMO within an hour.

Did not turn out well for the Desk Sergeant. "Stupid is as stupid does, sir."



I have read about Officers doing it before and each time they get their a--'s handed to them by Secret Service and FBI. Why and the world would you run NCIC on the POTUS.....Just plain dumb.



Yep, back when I got my NCIC/MDT cert, they talked about some people who had ran the then-POTUS...I hear that it sends some big red flags up rather quickly



Originally Posted by tkg85
I can see why there would be no reason to do so, but why is this such a big deal? Is it really any sort of threat? Is there ANY info on a president that cant be found via google these days?

Possibly, yes - especially on NCIC.

Besides, everyone with access to NCIC has it drilled in their heads that it's for official police business only.


Etc etc etc.

forums.officer.com...



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Maxmars
 


do US police REALLY have the powers to background gech any one , any time , any reason ?

In the UK - there are so quite stringent regulations - that basically demand some evidence or logical deduction linking the person being checked to an officers current caseload


Forgive me for giving you that impression.

Just as in the UK they are not empowered to carry out such queries of the national databases. However, authority notwithstanding, they do have ACCESS to do it. The 'consequences' occur only AFTER the fact.

It's not like they have to enter a warrant number or some special code which relates to the suspect individual. They can simply log on and access the data. 'Law enforcement' comes with risks, and privileges; being able to check up on a neighbor is one of the privileges that some officers TAKE.

And unless the subject individual has the protection of an organized police force devoted to their protection, NO ONE will know. When was the last time anyone heard of an audit of the database access records? Never!

Why? Because then it would be embarrassingly evident just how frequently people are the subject of casual checks for no legitimate law enforcement reason.

Politicians are especially prominent beneficiaries of these 'tax-payer-funded' databases. I shouldn't have to prove this point. Where do you think politician's get their 'dirt' on opponents or potential allies?



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


Probably placed on leave for misappropriation of law enforcement resources. And legitimately so! The tools he used to run a background check are for the sole purpose of crosschecking potential criminals within THEIR JURISDICTION. I doubt Obama was in his jurisdiction...if he was, I doubt he was pulled over under suspicion of committing a crime.

Just my 2-cents



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


Tells you how powerful the NSA and their tecnological spieing programs are.

I know it is illegal, but with all the patriot act crap going on (listening to Americans phone calls, searches without warrants etc., etc.,).

It would be interesting to see what they came up with. Probably nothing though. If there were anything it probably was erased long ago...



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I wish the country was as concerned over the government slowly whittling away at our rights as they are at peon cops infringing upon the President's.

So many things are backwards.

This is but one.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenix103
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]


Actually, the President is a public servant....

His background check is Public Information

The fact that the Gestapo was notified immediately that someone ran a background check on Mr. Obama, and proceed to "investigate" the police officers in question ... is a little disturbing. Makes me wonder how far the Gestapo's arms really stretch.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


They stretch pretty far. Some information pertaining to the/any president will always be kept under wraps. Like locations of family members etc.

What would happen if someone were to kidnap a member of the president's family? This is the kind of thing that the secret service would want to curtail.

I still think the officers in this case slipped up and crossed a line. I think to be fair maybe a week or two off. and a mark on their record.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


True, that is their intended purpose.. I really hate to see when they arrest school children for speaking out against the President, or officers for running a background check (which is public information), or any other variety of stupidity that the Gestapo does.

Hope someone uses the Freedom of Information Act to acquire a copy of the background check... I am interested to see what he had to hide.

And the only thing the officers did wrong, imo, is abuse of the computer in that they obviously were forsaking other duties to be dicking around on the computer looking at Obama's background check.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

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

Good riddance, piggie iggies!



Can you please show us (with links to sources) the oath and federal laws they broke?

Thanks



As part of my job, I have run many many background checks on people. Anyone can do it. Breaking department policy, is one thing. But doing a background check on someone - I have to tell you - it can be done anytime on anyone.

Im not sure what the "laws" are on doing one on the president - but he is the President and is subject to his personal life being an open book!! We the people have the right to know ALL of the President. And we all know, he hides tons from the people.




[edit on July 30th 2009 by greeneyedleo]


Your little background checks are NOT the same as a police background check.

That is the difference, my friend.

As for them breaking their oaths, they swore to protect and to serve. By taking the time out of their day to run a BG check on someone they had no involvement with, they broke their oaths. And that is on the most simplistic level... they have broken it in several other ways, as well (invasion of privacy, etc).

Please, think before you ask.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join