It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Mimir
The big difference between America and any other country that may be suffering from the same fate isthat we are armed.
I hope that makes a difference.
Google has been asked by a US law enforcement agency to remove several videos exposing police brutality from the video sharing service YouTube, the company has revealed in its latest update to an online transparency report.
Another request filed by a different agency required Google to remove videos allegedly defaming law enforcement officials. The two requests were among 92 submissions for content removal by various authorities in the US filed between January and June 2011. Both were rejected by Google along with 27 per cent of the submissions.
The IT giant says the overall number of requests for content removal it receives from governmental agencies has risen, and so has the number of requests to disclose the private data of Google users.
POLICE STATE: US Cops Tried to Erase Online Evidence of Brutality
(H.R. 3162, the "USA PATRIOT Act") would allow law enforcement agencies to delay giving notice when they conduct a search. This means that the government could enter a house, apartment or office with a search warrant when the occupant was away, search through her property and take photographs, and in some cases seize physical property and electronic communications, and not tell her until later.
The major rationale for requiring a warrant before conducting a search is to ensure that a neutral and detached third person - usually a magistrate - will review a warrant prior to issuance. The invasion of privacy must be held to a minimum. In a covert search warrant, there are often no limitations on what can or will be searched. Any protections afforded by a warrant are meaningless when the searching officer has complete and unsupervised discretion as to what, when and where to search and the individual owner is not provided notice so cannot assert and protect her rights. How the USA-Patriot Act Expands Law Enforcement "Sneak and Peek" Warrants
Originally posted by Aestheteka
reply to post by beezzer
Britain was armed until about 30 years ago. Then we had the Hunggerford massacre and they took all assault rifles away. Then we had Dunblane and they took all the pistols away. Then we had the teenage knife fights so they banned knives. First time someone uses a kebab in a lethal manner and they'll be blacklisted too.
Curved swords (focus on katanas) were banned 2 years ago - the irony being they couldn't ban straight swords because the Freemasons need them for their ceremonies.
But what use are rifles when you're fighting against high altitude drone strikes and sound weapons and biochemical 'pacification' releases?
Originally posted by Aestheteka
Britain was armed until about 30 years ago.
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
At least Iran has full time tv, radio and electricity and full time unfiltered internet.
The expansion of the CIA’s undeclared drone war in the tribal areas of Pakistan required a big expansion of who can be marked for death. Once the standard for targeted killing was top-level leadership in al-Qaeda or one of its allies. That’s long gone, especially as the number of people targeted at once has grown.
The CIA is now killing people without knowing who they are, on suspicion of association with terrorist groups. The article does not define the standards are for “suspicion” and “association.” CIA drones kill larger groups