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: 8
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


I don't see a point if you were trying to make one.

The point is that the secret service has a responsibility to protect the patsy in charge and they were acting within their responsibilities.




posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Well... if Obama really is this "Barry Soetoro" then he ain't from Kenya.

I wonder what "Obama" senior would say >.>



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Janitor From Mars
 


Actually,someone else posted on it,on what these Officers should have,and shouldn't have done.I will agree on it, with him being a "Patsy",but protocols in this instance were probably broken.Most Police Depts put their Officers on some sort of leave,or desk job pending any inquiry,especially with some high profile like the President. I also believe that ALL Presidents HAVE ABUSED their powers,and LIE.So yeah,They were checking a "CRIMINALS" back round record. Lighten up ...........



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:23 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.

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]


Easy - misuse of police resources. They can't perform background checks on anyone they want. They're supposed to investigate local crimes and criminals - not satisfy their own curiosities or personal vendettas. Since Obama doesn't have an RFID chip in his butt, how would they use a police terminal to track him? What are they looking for - his address? 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.

Cops also can't use their lights and sirens to run red lights to make a movie or dinner appointment because it's a misuse of police resources.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by EYEOFEAGLE
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!!!!!!!!!!


You obviously don't know what probable cause is. Unsubstantiated invasions of privacy in the form of unsanctioned searches through police records is not harmless - at least according the US supreme court. Unless their motivation was the legitimate investigation of a crime committed in their jurisdiction, they have no right to look into such files.

He doesn't have the long form - Hawaiian citizens can only order the short form, which is the official birth certificate of the state. The State may only release the original stored in its files if someone has a tangible legal interest.

If a cop didn't like you and decided to use his access to run a background check on you, you would consider it an unsubstantiated attack on your privacy rights. You don't care about Obama's constitutional rights because you don't care about Obama.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
You know what they say about curiosity...

It can get you killed.


Considering today's post 9/11 paranoia fueled mindset I can understand the actions of the Secret Service. There wasn't any reason for those officers to enter The President's name and THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that running an NCIC on Obama would raise red flags somewhere.


Shure would be interesting to know what they found out though...



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 



"Cops should not be running background checks or prying into people's private information unless they've been accused of a crime, period."

Obama IS being formally charged by a number of people. An investigation into the accused's background is a perfectly sound thing to do.

www.riseupforamerica.com...

Surely you don't think it's alright for someone in such an important position to hide who he is, where he's been, and who he's been with. These are things that past Presidents have been raked over the coals about, but they survived it. Now it's suddenly a "crime" to look into these things???


Those cops did exactly what more and more Americans are calling for every day. I say bully for them being the first of our law officers to take a stand for the common man.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SheaWolf
reply to post by xmotex
 



"Cops should not be running background checks or prying into people's private information unless they've been accused of a crime, period."

Obama IS being formally charged by a number of people. An investigation into the accused's background is a perfectly sound thing to do.

www.riseupforamerica.com...

Surely you don't think it's alright for someone in such an important position to hide who he is, where he's been, and who he's been with. These are things that past Presidents have been raked over the coals about, but they survived it. Now it's suddenly a "crime" to look into these things???


Those cops did exactly what more and more Americans are calling for every day. I say bully for them being the first of our law officers to take a stand for the common man.


Obama can't be formally charged by anyone except a prosecutor. Police officers, especially those acting outside their duty and jurisdiction, do not have the power to prosecute people.

As for a civil case, you need to file a formal discovery request that may be disallowed by the judge on the case.

You can't start digging around in a person's personal information without a court order or a lawful warrant.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by kingoftheworld
 


That’s not the point.
What’s that old saying?
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither?

Just because you have nothing to hide, doesn’t mean they have the right to check you out.

It was a stupid foolish move.
Criminal? probably not, which is why they are on leave, and not fired.

They're police, they are meant to uphold the laws, rules and rights no matter what their personal beliefs. They violated their oath and the communities trust in them.

Enough said.

This is not an Obama hiding facts issue, but I’m sure all the republican royals here will turn it into one.



[edit on 31-7-2009 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


The 5th Amendment of our U.S. Constitution provides that: … ‘No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.’ It doesn’t say ‘Federal’ Grand Jury, a ‘Grand Jury called and impaneled by a Judge, Special Prosecutor, or District Attorney’, nor does it say a ‘Government impaneled’ Grand Jury.

www.riseupforamerica.com...

Military law does things a bit differently than civil law and according to the oaths they took, they must act. The plain and simple fact that these men have filed treason charges against Obama and yet no action taken against them for treason speaks for itself.

Those cops took an oath to protect and serve the people of their state and county, Obama is a clear threat to the future welfare of not only their people but all people of the US.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by SheaWolf]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
It was a moronic move, and I am not surprised at any suspensions. It doesn't matter his race, party, or anything else. He is the POTA. Commander in Chief. Leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. A couple of policemen shouldn't be running background checks on him like he is a common criminal. What doofs.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

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.


I would keep the fact that your brother has broken local and federal laws by abusing police authority under your hat. I'm sure that he would really hate to lose his job because his brother outed him on ATS. Background checks can only be done with probable cause, approval of a judge in cases that may require arrest, or traffic stops in order to obtain driver information. There are a few other bits and pieces to that story, but, you get the point. If your brother is running background checks on any random person without their permission or without having probable cause, he can be terminated at any time. Its called "abuse of authority." And just because HE does it, does not mean that it is within his authority to do so. Its downright illegal, period.

There is a reason why laws are set up to protect the privacy of an individual, and your brother is shredding those laws as he sees fit.

Like I said, that is not something that you should be openly bragging about.


He is absolutely correct. Your brother should be fired and prosecuted. His department should be sued as well. Your brother gives all honest cops a bad name by abusing his authority and the pubic trust for personal gain in violation of the law.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


Since thousands of people have been asking to have his background investigated and no one who should do so, has done so, just who do you think should do it? These cops were the first to at least try to get some answers.

If "We the People" do not stand up for ourselves now, pretty soon we won't be able to stand at all. Read the fine print of the huge unread bills that were passed, read the one they are trying to pass on health care, it's a real monster.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


Cop accused of making illegal background checks

09:59 AM MST on Friday, September 19, 2008

MESA, Ariz. (AP) -- A Mesa police officer has been charged in connection with illegally checking backgrounds on 10 people, authorities said.

Daniel Albert Coronado was indicted Tuesday on four counts of computer tampering and four counts of unauthorized access to criminal history.

Authorities said the case was first investigated internally by Mesa police, but has been turned over to the Arizona Department of Public Safety.

The state Attorney General's Office is prosecuting the case.

Mesa police said Coronado, a 37-year-old Gilbert resident, has been suspended from the force.

According to the indictment, Coronado is accused of using police computer terminals to access the Arizona criminal justice information system and computerized criminal history records between January 2005 and June 2008.

The indictment accuses Coronado of illegally logging onto the computer terminals 149 times and accessing the criminal records of about 10 people.

It was not immediately clear why officials believe Coronado used the computers and whose information he looked up.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SheaWolf
reply to post by fleabit
 


Since thousands of people have been asking to have his background investigated and no one who should do so, has done so, just who do you think should do it? These cops were the first to at least try to get some answers.

If "We the People" do not stand up for ourselves now, pretty soon we won't be able to stand at all. Read the fine print of the huge unread bills that were passed, read the one they are trying to pass on health care, it's a real monster.


The law is the law. If you don't like it, lobby your state legislature rather than simply shooting someone. Can a New York police detective investigate a murder committed in California? No. It's not his jurisdiction.

If these cops were trying to "get answers," would you have permitted them to conduct a warrantless search of his home? Doubtful. Would you permit an illegal search if you could get a petition signed by a bunch of civilians? Doubtful because public opinion is irrelevant to the rights guaranteed by law and enforced by the judiciary. Only a judge or magistrate may issue warrant and only after as showing of probable cause



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


Incorrect. The POTUS can not be charged by anyone except Congress. That is it. No person citizen or judge can bring a criminal indictment against Obama.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


These are the times we live in. Not that I'm alone in this but I can recall losing my trust in elected people with Watergate. There always seems to be things swirling just under the surface and these guys got caught up in their curiosity. How trivial it must have seemed to them when they ran that background check. You might imagine they were thinking "Let's run him through for s***s and giggles and see what comes back. Maybe we'll uncover some dirt." Consider how little power they had and yet they couldn't control themselves. Imagine the power of a judge, senator or a president. We can't be trusted and it's been proven our elected officials can't be trusted. How do you restore trust?



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
While I can't stand Obama or anyone in the Federal Government at this point, it is illegal and unconstitutional to do what these officers have done. It is NOT legal or American to run people through without probable cause and a warrant, period.


Quite the contrary. Anyone with some money can have a criminal background on someone on the internet within 24 hours or less. If it were not legal then I'm sure the sites would have been shut down by now. They have been operating for years.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SheaWolf
reply to post by fleabit
 


Since thousands of people have been asking to have his background investigated and no one who should do so, has done so, just who do you think should do it? These cops were the first to at least try to get some answers.

If "We the People" do not stand up for ourselves now, pretty soon we won't be able to stand at all. Read the fine print of the huge unread bills that were passed, read the one they are trying to pass on health care, it's a real monster.


You make a good point and if you don't mind I'll take it a little further. It would seem there are more thorough background checks done on people seeking much lesser positions now. If you want to be a nanny, school teacher, cop, etc. there are checks that are relevant to the position. Should we know that President Bush was an alcoholic, was a member of a secretive fraternal order in college or how he served during the war? I think so. Should we know beyond a shadow of a doubt where President Obama, who traveled extensively in his early life, was born? How he paid for his law degree? What his relationships with various radical elements were or are? I think so. If we had more forthright answers to those questions maybe we would have more trust in and a more civil dialogue regarding the pending legislations.

These cops were not however the first to try to get to the bottom of things. They just had better connections, although more closely monitored, than bloggers and ATS denizens. "We the People" are in one of two courts. We don't believe the hype or we want to believe the hype. And that's the kernel at the center, it's hype and we all know it. Some of us hope against our better judgment.

We like our presidents like our cops are just flawed humans. Open the files, open the doors, let the cameras roll and leave the lights on. I'm optimistic though, only 8 years until we get the full Warren Commission report. If it isn't lost or erased.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SheaWolf
reply to post by fleabit
 


Since thousands of people have been asking to have his background investigated and no one who should do so, has done so, just who do you think should do it? These cops were the first to at least try to get some answers.


What are you talking about? Define 'who should do so', and justify your definition with Constitutional, Legal, and Case Law arguments. Then demonstrate how none of those who by definition should be running this background check. Then demonstrate how two beat cops have any authority to perform this Constitutional and legal responsibility you just defined.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join