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: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by orderedchaos
 


let me set you straight...


1. An employer, as we've established, can run a background check on anyone they're considering for employment.


To a point but the background checks employers use aren't like the ones the police have access to.


2. Pending via election, the presidential office is a public position, and the one hired/voted in is done so by private citizens. (Corporations? now, right?) As such, the president works for us. All of us, from his wife, to his cousins, from my family to yours, we've employed him for the position.


I am sorry but that is incorrect. You voted for a set of electors. Everyone did. You don't vote directly for the president. It is the Electors that officially vote for the president. This is how Al Gore won the popular vote in this country but still lost the presidency because he did not have enough electoral votes to make it.


3. How much background should be made available and known in regards to our officials before we elect them? Where does disclosure begin and end? Where is our power to question the judments, past, and intent when it comes to people high in power?


As much as constitutionally allowed under the 4th Amendment. In the case of Obama, you could have found out a lot of information about him here.

www.votesmart.org...


4. How much power do common police have? Can they run background checks on anyone they feel is suspicious of crimes? Were they suspicious of him for something? What were they looking for?


That is the crux of this issue. What crime could Obama have done in their jurisdiction to warrant a background check?




posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


Well, I think in my opinion, if they were working, caught a segment of Lou on the news, thought it had merit, that gives them probable cause to run a harmless background check on the POTUS. Maybe they were trying to help him out, or maybe they were just making sure no one overlooked the fact that in all of the emotional drama of Barack Hussein Obama / Barry Soetoro/ Barack Hussein Obama running for POTUS that everyone forgot to do a formal background check on him!!!!!

And since he will not release his ORIGINAL LONG FORM CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH from the state of Hawaii, I think that would give every law enforcement officer in the land PROBABLE CAUSE!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
In other words, you don't like the guy, so any and all rules of conduct can go out the window when it comes to him.

Thanks for clearing that up



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenix103

Originally posted by Rockpuck

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.


So you'll be able to supply us copies of his bank statements if everything about his life is public record?

Doesn't matter who or where it is, EVERYONE is entitled to some privacy. You don't have British police doing background checks on the Queen, do you?


No, he is entitled to NO privacy what so ever.

In fact, it shows how little you know of the system..

Mr. Obama's financial records are already public information, and have already been torn apart by critics who found it ... amusing. He is a terrible investor (except a Bird Flu corporation he invested in, then cosponsored a bill to have the Gov by the vaccine) all his other investments were mediocre at best. He made his fortune writing one book, which it should be noted he didn't really sell an extraordinary amount until after he started running for President. His wife was technically the "bread winner" through her job at a hospital, which she received a massive pay raise once Obama was elected to the Senate (to which it should be noted he never finished).

His background check is also public information.

Ironically our last President, Bush, failed at all his business and investment endeavors as well. Why we continue to elect inexperienced buffoons to our highest office is well beyond me. Perhaps it's a mirror explanation to the rampant stupidity in America?



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by orderedchaos
 


let me set you straight...


1. An employer, as we've established, can run a background check on anyone they're considering for employment.


To a point but the background checks employers use aren't like the ones the police have access to.


2. Pending via election, the presidential office is a public position, and the one hired/voted in is done so by private citizens. (Corporations? now, right?) As such, the president works for us. All of us, from his wife, to his cousins, from my family to yours, we've employed him for the position.


I am sorry but that is incorrect. You voted for a set of electors. Everyone did. You don't vote directly for the president. It is the Electors that officially vote for the president. This is how Al Gore won the popular vote in this country but still lost the presidency because he did not have enough electoral votes to make it.


3. How much background should be made available and known in regards to our officials before we elect them? Where does disclosure begin and end? Where is our power to question the judments, past, and intent when it comes to people high in power?


As much as constitutionally allowed under the 4th Amendment. In the case of Obama, you could have found out a lot of information about him here.

www.votesmart.org...


4. How much power do common police have? Can they run background checks on anyone they feel is suspicious of crimes? Were they suspicious of him for something? What were they looking for?


That is the crux of this issue. What crime could Obama have done in their jurisdiction to warrant a background check?

Well he is tied to ACORN! Maybe they have found wrong doing by ACORN and just doing their job and investigating to see if a crime has been committed.

PEOPLE THE TRUTH IS GOING TO COME OUT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. IF HE WAS NOT BORN IN THIS COUNTRY IT IS NOT GOING TO JUST BE OBMAMA WHO GETS IN TROUBLE, IT WILL BE EVERYONE WHO VETTED HIM WITHOUT PROPER PROTOCOL OR PROOF!!!


I would love to be the real estate agent who sold him their home in ILL. Or the loan officer who took their credit app. for the loan.

I know in my gut that something is very wrong.


WE THE PEOPLE of these UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, these are very serious questions about the man who holds the highest office in the land.

DO YOU NOT WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTHFUL ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS? ANSWERS THAT COME WITH DOCUMENTED SOLID PROOF DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE SITUATION.

I THINK EVERY AMERICAN NOW MUST KNOW THE REAL TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!

Who is this man in the OVAL OFFICE?

Wow, I wonder what old slick willy is thinking right now?

Eye of Eagle



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Well Said!

Eye of Eagle



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by EYEOFEAGLE
 


I agree with you 100%.

First off, I completely disagree that anything found in a criminal background check could be used to better assist someone in shooting the President today. I mean, how does finding out that 15 years ago in Chicago (this is hypothetical of course) Obama robbed a bank. NOW, if they find something recent -- such as since he took office -- that would be a different story. Of course, should that be the case, then intrusion of privacy is the least of our worries.

Second, this could be as simple as the cops just getting computers in their cars (for some precincts this is very new) and wanting to check it out or "take it for a ride".

Third, forgetting for a moment that HOW the officers went about it was wrong, shouldn't EVERY SINGLE THING OBAMA has ever done in his entire life now be available to the American people? We are his employers. You can argue about the electoral votes and all that nonsense, but ultimately it is the American people that put him in office. Just as we put every single other mayor, senator, governor, etc. in office.

We are trusting him to run our entire country. Some would say that he is the most powerful man in the entire world (position, obviously). And you're telling me we have no right to know what's contained within a criminal background check?

How many more things about Obama are they going to tell us to just trust that all is well -- but just don't try to see for yourself!



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
If Obama's record is so sensitive and so private why is it in any data base that can be accessed by police oir anyone else.

I believe that you can do some of these checks yourself.
Some places have a list of people who have been arrested, showing the charges, the bail and their Photo.
Google "who's in jail".
You can search for outstanding warrants for arrest, and I don't know what all.

So I do not think that the cops were out of order doing this search, or any other such.
I hope they made a print of what they found and keep it in a safe place.
There may come a time when it would be good to release it.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45
 


Not being a citizen a US background check wouldn't reveal much!

If you choose to have a gun then a criminal record check is the least they should be expecting to do!

The only time i've been "checked" is by DHS coming into the country...



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Rightly so! Nice to see there are people who value privacy and recognise their elected officials are as entitled to it as they are.

AFAIK the constitutional rights laid down for US citizens apply to everyone including the President. Rightly



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by EYEOFEAGLE
 


I agree with you 100%.

First off, I completely disagree that anything found in a criminal background check could be used to better assist someone in shooting the President today. I mean, how does finding out that 15 years ago in Chicago (this is hypothetical of course) Obama robbed a bank. NOW, if they find something recent -- such as since he took office -- that would be a different story. Of course, should that be the case, then intrusion of privacy is the least of our worries.

Second, this could be as simple as the cops just getting computers in their cars (for some precincts this is very new) and wanting to check it out or "take it for a ride".

Third, forgetting for a moment that HOW the officers went about it was wrong, shouldn't EVERY SINGLE THING OBAMA has ever done in his entire life now be available to the American people? We are his employers. You can argue about the electoral votes and all that nonsense, but ultimately it is the American people that put him in office. Just as we put every single other mayor, senator, governor, etc. in office.

We are trusting him to run our entire country. Some would say that he is the most powerful man in the entire world (position, obviously). And you're telling me we have no right to know what's contained within a criminal background check?

How many more things about Obama are they going to tell us to just trust that all is well -- but just don't try to see for yourself!


To answer the last part of your post,

Obama's SELECTIVE SERVICE REGISTRATION DOCUMENT is now being brought back into the spotlight. That has been a issue from day one.
There is some evidence showing that his reg. form is a 1990 version and it was filed using an altered 2008 serial number. I think there is a court case getting ready to be introduced or heard on this. If so there could be some serious implications for Obama if it is proven to be a fake.

For example: If Obama forged the document, felony! Forging a fed. document is a felony.
2. If someone in his staff forged it, Felony, Obama never registered for the draft or SELECTIVE SERVICE.

Either way, if this goes to court and is proven to be false or fake, this is very bad any way this ends.


Eye of Eagle



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bearack

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


Probably already been said but had to add my two cents before I gotta jet...

Using the system to do background checks for personal reasons is usually against policy. Officers, social workers, and other gov't employees aren't supposed to do that.


Against policy I can understand, but against the law??


Yes. Both. They used the NCIC, this is a database restricted to Law Enforcement organizations for law enforcement purposes. The Federal Government and every State that is a member of the NCIC have enacted enabling legislation that specifies a strict limitation on the uses it can be put and the people who can access it. Unauthorized use is a federal crime, a state crime, and a cause for departmental discipline.

This stuff is taken very seriously. There is a lot of information on NCIC that would be useful to people who are under investigation.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Hello, Its not illegal to do a background check on anyone!! I have a friend that worked for Choice Point and let me tell you that everyones info is so dam screwed up thanks to companies, now we will need a national ID system just to fix it.

The cops were dumb to use those government computers to do it and thats probably the excuse they used to put them on suspension. They are even dumber thinking they will get any real info on any database.


It is illegal for a cop to use NCIC for anything other than his official business. It is a federal crime, a state crime, and cause for departmental discipline. If the breach is bad enough the cop could go to jail.

This is not particularly serious, but the NCIC takes security breaches like this very seriously.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by ninecrimes
 




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




Actually that is not true
They are in fact the same and many times much more thorough because PIs have much more time on their hands then police departments. Private Investigation firms use the same resources (databases, courthouses, etc. as Law Enforcement and work right along side with law enforcement on many cases and do the same type of checks.

But with all that said.....department policy is one thing - and the cops should not have done it on work time and work sources....but I think anyone should have the right to run a check on the President - any president




[edit on July 30th 2009 by greeneyedleo]


You are wrong greeneyedleo. NCIC is not accessable to PI's or any other civilian agency - legally. NCIC is NOT your run of the mill database.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck

No, he is entitled to NO privacy what so ever.

In fact, it shows how little you know of the system..

Mr. Obama's financial records are already public information, and have already been torn apart by critics who found it ... amusing. He is a terrible investor (except a Bird Flu corporation he invested in, then cosponsored a bill to have the Gov by the vaccine) all his other investments were mediocre at best. He made his fortune writing one book, which it should be noted he didn't really sell an extraordinary amount until after he started running for President. His wife was technically the "bread winner" through her job at a hospital, which she received a massive pay raise once Obama was elected to the Senate (to which it should be noted he never finished).

His background check is also public information.

Ironically our last President, Bush, failed at all his business and investment endeavors as well. Why we continue to elect inexperienced buffoons to our highest office is well beyond me. Perhaps it's a mirror explanation to the rampant stupidity in America?


I've just been looking at the Washington Post's financial disclosures for Obama, I saw no bank statements. Can you provide a link? Filling out forms is very different and affords a significant degree of privacy. So if he's compelled to release them, I'll be interested in seeing them just to validate you claim. If these cannot be supplied then he clearly is entitled to some degree of privacy!

Just because he may (or may not) be a good investor and isn't independently wealthy does not mean he is a bad person for President. He is clearly articulate and intelligent (Bush, not so much- understandment), he is a visionary and engaging (again, Bush, not so much), he is aware of the rest of the world (think a trend is developing here), he was not part of the establishment and has worked his arse off to get where he has. Helping others from even less priviliged backgrounds along the way.

I tell you what, you may not support your President but a huge number of people around the world think it is the best thing the US has done in decades.


Bush was an imbecile of the lowest order and detested around the world for his narrow minded stupidity. Obama has it in his power to change the world and I believe he'll do it.

Shame we don't have any visionary leaders in the UK. If he's so bad, want to swap? You can have McDoom instead if you like?



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by orderedchaos
Confusion here comes in the form of police, power, private citizens and public officials.


YOUR confusion comes in the form that you don't realize that NCIC is NOT a public database. It is extremely sensitive, tightly controlled, and used by Law Enforcement organizations for in the line of duty Law Enforcement purposes only.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by EYEOFEAGLE
 


I agree with you 100%.

First off, I completely disagree that anything found in a criminal background check could be used to better assist someone in shooting the President today. I mean, how does finding out that 15 years ago in Chicago (this is hypothetical of course) Obama robbed a bank. NOW, if they find something recent -- such as since he took office -- that would be a different story. Of course, should that be the case, then intrusion of privacy is the least of our worries.

Second, this could be as simple as the cops just getting computers in their cars (for some precincts this is very new) and wanting to check it out or "take it for a ride".

Third, forgetting for a moment that HOW the officers went about it was wrong, shouldn't EVERY SINGLE THING OBAMA has ever done in his entire life now be available to the American people? We are his employers. You can argue about the electoral votes and all that nonsense, but ultimately it is the American people that put him in office. Just as we put every single other mayor, senator, governor, etc. in office.

We are trusting him to run our entire country. Some would say that he is the most powerful man in the entire world (position, obviously). And you're telling me we have no right to know what's contained within a criminal background check?

How many more things about Obama are they going to tell us to just trust that all is well -- but just don't try to see for yourself!


The issue is NOT Obama's information on the database. The issue is "unauthorized access to a restricted database". The entire election process was a 24 month background check. There is nothing to hide, and these guys certainly weren't going to find anything new.

The problem is that they violated the authorized use of a restricted database. NCIC is restricted by state and federal statute - it is a crime to use it for any purpose other than their authorized law enforcement duties.

Probably the only reason they got caught is because they stupidly used Obama's name, guaranteed to send up red flags in agencies whose job it is to be interested in people who are 'interested' in the President - like the Secret Service. Personal use of NCIC is a federal and state crime, the issue has nothing to do with Obama, it has to do with illegal use of NCIC.

Notice the earlier post where responses from Police forums give evidence that a similar incident happened when Bush was in office, and the Secret Service reaction was exactly the same.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenix103
reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45
 


Not being a citizen a US background check wouldn't reveal much!

If you choose to have a gun then a criminal record check is the least they should be expecting to do!

The only time i've been "checked" is by DHS coming into the country...


NCIC has a lot of info on non-citizens. The issue isn't what they could have found, the issue is non-authorized use of a restricted database.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Ya reckon I've beaten that dead horse long enough?



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
Ya reckon I've beaten that dead horse long enough?



I'd say so! I'm done with it too!



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join