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: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   
The officers behaved 'stupidly'.




posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jessicamsa

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.


Please understand that this was NOT a public database. It is the NCIC. Anyone with some money CANNOT run a check on the NCIC. NCIC searches must be authorized, and for a reason. The most anyone can get from the NCIC as a routine piece of info is maybe an employer, who has authorization from an employment candidate, can ask the cops if the guy is wanted. The most detailed answer is 'yes' or 'no'.

Credit info databases are privately owned and not subject to the same stringent privacy laws, but are also extremely inaccurate.

The Arizona case posted above is an instance of an officer illegally accessing NCIC (or more specifically, Arizona's database which is a full participant in NCIC).



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   
This is normal for anyone who is high profile, when I was working at a bank before, a guy there did a search on Nicole Kidman’s bank account, he was sacked (but we all peaked when it was done, lol).

I was in a team that had to find people (for people who took out loans and then ran with the money), so we had access to lots of different systems, not just the banks but also local government, electoral roll etc etc, so could search for almost anyone. But if you searched for anyone high profile then it would let someone know and you’d be questioned why.

It’s for privacy.

Michael


[edit on 31/7/2009 by Mikey84]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Actually cops run checks on names all the time. I had a scanner for year and everytime they saw someone who had a previous record for ANYTHING the name would be run and this happened sometimes several times in one night by more than one cop for the SAME NAME. Was walking home after work with a buddy and roommate said he heard my buddys name get run thrice in 20 minute period. So if you are in the system you probably get your name run everytime a cop who knows you passes by. Dont believe it then get a scanner.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
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]


Well said, have a star!

The quote is attributed to a book written by Benjamin Franklin if memory serves. A fantastic summation of the truth!



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by EYEOFEAGLE
reply to post by lpowell0627
 



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!!!!!!!!!!


"ORIGINAL LONG FORM CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH"? Ok... can you find me a state where it's called that? Does the Original have to be in the title or is that part optional?
And before you say: "You know what i meant" i would like to remind you that your main problem is supposed to be that a CoLB isn't good enough.

Anyway it's really horrifying how some folks (folks on a "NWO is out to get you"-conspiracy board no less) see absolutely no problem with police officers *ABUSING THEIR POWERS*

Newsflash: Offical Government Database != Best Database Money can buy to check your credit rating.

(!= means "not equals")
You can not buy NCIC access. No, not even if you pay that much. Your bank checking your credit rating is *NOT* the same thing.

@sheawolf: oh plz... and the term "jury" is nowhere defined in american law? It is? oh. doesnt matter? Cool! I hereby declare myself president of the united states! I shall issue a decree that the penalty for serving brocolli is Liza Minelli recordings for no less than 8 hours! Also i command the US military to bomb Luxemburg, right now! Because i want to.

... hmm...
nothing happened? whodha thunk huh? Ok. I resign.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by phoenix103
 

Lets see,these officers decided to look at the presidents criminal back round,hmmm I see no problem with it,unless they have ulterior motives.In the UK,they have a camera for every citizen,so in the UK, it is even worse then America.Who needs a back round check,when they can see everything you do,everywhere you go,all the TIME. And yes,in America or anywhere for that matter,for a price,or sometimes free,you can find out the criminal back round of many people.No harm,no foul......

Examples:

www.ncsconline.org...

wcca.wicourts.gov...

apps.supremecourt.az.gov...

www.abika.com...

Being placed on leave,until they can find out if these two officers were up to no good,or if they broke some sort of department policy is not a problem.Hopefully they will go back to work,a little wiser from the experience.....





It's true that there are far too many CCTV cameras in this country and their benefits are questionable at best.

People may misunderstand my world view given some of the threads i've participated in recently and I think clarification is important.

I believe in the absolute right to privacy of every citizen. There are times where this isn't possible and this must be justifiable and proportionate to the reason for the "invasion" of that privacy. Any "investigation" by an authorised person must be conducted in accordance with the law of the land.

Of course in the US (as in the UK) political leaders open themselves up to scrutiny that many of us will thankfully never have to. That doesn't mean every part of their lives is an open book.

The state is there to serve the citizen, we are none of us answerable for our actions unless they break the law and are investigated legitmately.

This forum is an interesting place due to the leanings of the bulk of participants and i do wonder about the cultural differences in privacy expectations as a whole between the UK/Europe and the US. It's an interesting subject for me - particularly given my previous background working with UK law enforcement in disclosure of information. Can't really say more than that about it though.

I could go on for ages on this subject but I have far too much to do today and really should log off and get on with it!



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   
LOL I do not think America is the leader of the pack anymore. Except for debt, military presence, number of people in prisons, participation in drug smuggling by govt officials, kidnappings by govt officials for the slave trade both here and abroad, the number of abuses by LEOs, propaganda in schools and MSM, number of pregnancies and abortions by minors, largest amount of gold to vanish unexplainably, food wasted each day, and the largest number of ignorant people gathered in one nation. Hmm ok so America is a leader afterall. My apologies then.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 06:42 AM
link   
What if they searched VP Biden's records instead? Would they have been punished for this curiosity? Besides, once Obama became prez, don't you think the CIA/FBI would've taken care of any smudges on his background? I guess they can't be too careful these days.

The real questions is this: Should they remain in the force knowing now that it is tilted toward the side of corruption? In the next coming months, they might be forced to do things under the command of FEMA that they do not want to do. I think these guys need to leave the force & become private investigators. THey are obviously too curious & aren't brainwashed enough to be policemen.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   
This is nothing unusual. They'd have risked being placed on leave for any misuse of Police resources. Police do it all the time, and most of the time they get away with it. If they checked out you or me, no alarms would be tripped, even though it would still be illegal. But check out the President, you're going to trigger off alarms. You're going to get caught.

These guys should have known better than to even try it. They should have known that the Secret Service would be notified immediately, and that there would be no way for the Department to cover this up once it happened.

LEO's have no right to check out Obama's record, any more than they have the right to check out yours, without good cause. It's called "invasion of privacy". It's against the law, even for public figures.

So to clarify: If some officer decides to do a background check on me without my being a suspect, or subject to an investigation, or having some official reason for the check, they will be breaking the law. If they get caught, and if for some reason the bosses can't cover it up for them, they'll be put on leave, and likely dismissed. That's because they've broken the law by invading my privacy, and they've misused Police resources for unofficial business.

If they pull this stunt with the President of the United States, they *will* get caught, no question about it. Their bosses *won't* be able to cover for them, because every news medium in the country knows about it now.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by phoenix103
 


But, I think that one of the main issues that seems to be absent from most replies is that the President is not an ordinary citizen.

Just as he releases his tax returns for public perusal, and I most certainly do not, isn't the President (and frankly other public servants elected into office) held to a higher standard?

I mean, if you want privacy -- then don't become President. Running for office is a choice, one that from that point forward opens up your entire life to public scrutiny. (at least it's supposed to).

Now, if the background check had been done on Michelle or the children -- then that's a WHOLE different story.

Obama CHOSE to run for President. He CHOSE to accept the nomination. He CHOSE to be sworn into office. From that minute on -- right up until he vacates that position -- he works for us.

And what he does and how he represents us -- is our business.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


He didn't agree to a couple of hicks spying on his records.

If they had a legitimate reason to access them in line with their access to the system that'd have been different, clearly they did not as the Secret Service and their management have made pretty clear by their response.

And he didn't just choose to be President, he was chosen.

There are proper routes for disclosure, this wasn't one of them!



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:51 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.



You are arguing for fascism... No officer of the law has a right to run a background check on anyone without a warrant or probable cause.




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.



So why don't you give up your privacy then? You got something to hide?

What a crock. People like you who don't have a clue what America stands for will be the downfall of this great nation.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by phoenix103
 


But, I think that one of the main issues that seems to be absent from most replies is that the President is not an ordinary citizen.

Just as he releases his tax returns for public perusal, and I most certainly do not, isn't the President (and frankly other public servants elected into office) held to a higher standard?



Only if you are thinking like a child and somehow think these people are different than others. No, the only standard they are held to is if they can do the job right.







I mean, if you want privacy -- then don't become President. Running for office is a choice, one that from that point forward opens up your entire life to public scrutiny. (at least it's supposed to).



Where do you get your biased information? Where does it state that running for office is "supposed to" "open your entire life to public scrutiny"?

I mean, it is a side-effect of running for office that you will be put to public scrutiny... but where does it state that "it's supposed to"?

That's just something you made up to justify your angst.




Now, if the background check had been done on Michelle or the children -- then that's a WHOLE different story.



Why would that be any different? They are living in the Whitehouse as well! They influence public policy too!

Are you just trying to sound rational so as to garner acceptance of your whacked out theory?




Obama CHOSE to run for President. He CHOSE to accept the nomination. He CHOSE to be sworn into office. From that minute on -- right up until he vacates that position -- he works for us.



Yep, and there are plenty of Secret Service to keep YOU from HIM.





And what he does and how he represents us -- is our business.



I would qualify that.... what he does in the bathroom, the bedroom, the kitchen etc is NOT our business. If he and Michelle decided to have an open marriage... that wouldn't be our business either.

How he represents us, that's a different story... that is our business. And our recourse is with the ballot.... not background checks.





[edit on 31-7-2009 by HunkaHunka]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenix103
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


And he didn't just choose to be President, he was chosen.



?

He chose to put his name on the ballot. His choice to run came well before our choice to elect him.

He was not a write-in candidate.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


"I would qualify that.... what he does in the bathroom, the bedroom, the kitchen etc is NOT our business. If he and Michelle decided to have an open marriage... that wouldn't be our business either. "

That didn't work out so well for Elliot Spitzer did it? He makes a public statemenet regarding unethical actions by some and gets politically assasinated for it. Sorry, but politicians behavior seems to be everyone's business whether or not it should be.



On February 14, the Washington Post published an editorial by Spitzer titled, “Predatory Lenders’ Partner in Crime: How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers,” which charged, “Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
link

Most of us know what happened to Spitzer's career after his "private life" was made public.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Only if you are thinking like a child and somehow think these people are different than others. No, the only standard they are held to is if they can do the job right.


Is it childish to want them to be different? Is it childish to think they should be better qualified and held to a higher standard? Perhaps if people would begin raising their standards, we wouldn't be in this mess.



I mean, it is a side-effect of running for office that you will be put to public scrutiny... but where does it state that "it's supposed to"?


I guess, from ideas like this:

"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. "

Who else does he answer to if not us?





Now, if the background check had been done on Michelle or the children -- then that's a WHOLE different story.


Why would that be any different? They are living in the Whitehouse as well! They influence public policy too!

Are you just trying to sound rational so as to garner acceptance of your whacked out theory?


Yes, you're right. I'm completely whacked out because I realize that Michelle wasn't on the ballot. WE did not vote her into office. There is a huge difference between accepting that she influences the President and voting for her to do just that.



And what he does and how he represents us -- is our business.




I would qualify that.... what he does in the bathroom, the bedroom, the kitchen etc is NOT our business. If he and Michelle decided to have an open marriage... that wouldn't be our business either.

How he represents us, that's a different story... that is our business. And our recourse is with the ballot.... not background checks.



[edit on 31-7-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Then tell me, why if what they do in the bedroom is none of our business, are so many politicians asked to resign when caught with their pants down?

[edit on 31-7-2009 by lpowell0627]

[edit on 31-7-2009 by lpowell0627]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by jjkenobi
 



And you see no problem with them running background checks on people for no reason?



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ninecrimes

Good riddance, piggie iggies!


A pity ATS allows this kind of crap posting.

As for the officers, they acted inappropriately and should face dismissal or some type of punitive action.




top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join