Circuit Boards + Soldering Iron == Terrorist?

Search and Seizure asks: "This week, the local police contacted one of my co-workers and informed him that they had been contacted by the FBI who requested that they investigate his apartment. According to the police, while his apartment repair staff were checking his smoke alarm, they had noticed suspicious looking items in his kitchen and had called the FBI because they suspected that he might be a terrorist. What do you do when your landlord suspects that you might be a terrorist and reports you to the FBI?" If the law comes a-knocking, always remember that you can politely ask for a warrant. "The police officer went on to explain that my co-worker had two choices:

1) Let the local police take a look and explain what the 'suspicious' items were for.
2) Don't let the local police in. The police will let the FBI know, and they will use 'Homeland Security' to come in and do a full search.

He opted for the less drastic choice, and showed the officer the digital camera guts, his in-progress circuitry to take automatic pictures, the tethered balloon that he was going to hook them up to so he could take overhead pictures, and the beer keg that he used to store his beer.

The police officer accepted his explanations and it appears to have turned out okay, but the whole situation is a little disturbing.

What rights do we have to experiment and create in this age of paranoia?"

Comments

Rights?

[Gossy]

Well, the guy was still able to carry on "experimenting and creating", so his rights to do so weren't violated. This rights haven't changed.

Privacy rights however are obviously something completely different, and 'in this age of paranoia', your right to privacy is one of the first victims.

Re:Rights?

[amarodeeps]

Privacy rights however are obviously something completely different, and 'in this age of paranoia', your right to privacy is one of the first victims.

Yes, exactly. And now the government has a record of some of the interesting activity he's been engaging in. Perhaps he's gone in a file somewhere, a separate memo has been sent to some higher up State or Federal organization, he's being catalogued in a database...

I think the thing that really scares the shit out of me is the implicit threat and removal of rights that the police officer put forth. Previously, from what I understand, someone could demand that they see a warrant, a judge would have had to specifically grant that warrant, and some rights were preserved. There were some checks and balances in place. Now, all of a sudden, the executive branch can just say "hey, we need to see your stuff, and if you don't let us do it, we'll get someone else to do it. Sucks to be you." Police state, you're looking more and more similar to what we have...

Re:Rights?

[dubl-u]

The only things you have to worry about these databases is that they don't get into the wrong hands. Any other worrying would be because you either did something wrong, or are thinking about it.

That's some pretty big handwaving there. The ordinary citizen probably doesn't have to worry; nobody will bother digging up the dirt on them. But what if you decide to become politically active? Or if you get in the way of somebody with a lot of money and few scruples?

It's a guarantee that databases like this will be misused; the only question is how much it happens.

Re:Rights?

[abreauj]

The only things you have to worry about these databases is that they don't get into the wrong hands.

You say that as if it were only a minor concern, as if the notion that the data could fall into the wrong hands is farfetched. That's kind of like saying not to worry about poisonous cleaners under the kitchen sink, because it's only a problem if the baby is curious and tries to taste them.

This is odd

[rigau]

What is intetersting about this is that the FBI asked him anything. They have the ability to perform a sneak-and-peek search without the need to show a warrant beforehand and they can also have the search happen and show the warrant much later. It seems strange that they would call ahead of time and give the suspect time to dispose of any incriminating evidence. The whole thing is odd.

Re:This is odd

[SagSaw]

It probably goes something like this.

1. Maintainance worker sees circuit boards, gas baloons, etc. in circuit-board-guy's apartment.

2. Thinking he's a hero and is about to foil a major terrorist plot, worker over-reacts and calls the FBI. (Note that the appropriate action if the worker suspects illegal activity would most likely be to call the local police.)

3. FBI takes worker's report, along with many other reports of people possing items that might be used in an attack, but are probably harmless. They don't want to pull resources off of other, probably more important tasts, in order to check out circuit-board-guy. Instead, they relay the report to the local police (who should have been contacted instead of the FBI in the first place), just in case circuit-board-guy really is planning some kind of attack.

4. Local police also assume that circuit-board-guy is harmless, but want to go take a peak just to be sure.

5. Local police show up at circuit-board-guy's door. They tell him what's going on (why not, he's probably innocent). Circuit-board-guy explains his hobby, and everybody goes away happy.

They way I read it, the FBI and the local police handled it well. Nobody had their door kicked down or property searched/seized involuntarily. The only place where something went wrong was worker's decision to call the FBI over a circuit board.

There are a number of comments to the effect that circuit-board-guy should have told the police to f*** off unless they had a warrant. While that would have been circuit-board-guy's right, I don't think it would have helped anything. By letting the police in and explaining his activities, circuit-board-guy did two good things. First, he defused suspicion (hopefully) that he might be planning some kind of attack. Second, showed the police that there are valid reasons for innocent people to have circuit boards and soldering irons hangin around their homes.

Re:This is odd

[op00to]

They asked because they didn't have any evidence. It's an old cop trick. When in doubt, ask if you can violate the subject's rights to fish for evidence. When the cops say "Now, we will either have to get a warrant to come into your house or you can let us in peacefully..." What they're really saying is "We don't have anything on you, please please be stupid enough to let us in to fish for evidence!"

Re:This is odd

[alienw]

Just so you know, the PATRIOT act does not require them to have a warrant. And the cops can really fuck up you, your house, and your life if you piss them off. You would be stupid to piss them off without any reason to do so.

Re:This is odd

[Halfbaked Plan]

The people who I know who've told the police to fuck off always get a weekend in jail. I've been confronted with the same exact situation and because I was polite and respectful (not 'submissive' so much as I treated the police officer like a human being, even though I had specifically been caught doing something illegal) I was just given a warning.

Probably the police should get smarter about these things. The asshole who rants and raves and fights like a libburtardian on crack is probably not the guy they need to catch. They're after terrorists, not crackpots who troll Usenet and online forums about their 'beliefs.' The real terrorist will know enough to be cooperative, polite, and probably not even be written a ticket.

Re:This is odd

[Anonymous Coward]

This libertarian is smart enough to know:

- Respect the police. They're the only guys that can arrest you.

- Never say anytning definite to the police. "Okay." and "Sure." are great answers that diffuse suspicion, while NOT leaving the officer with good notes to prosecute you, should they over-react like the person calling.

- Control the police while they check your home. Lead them to the area in question, tell them they're allowed to check anything they see, and request that they ask you if they want to check anything that's not in plain sight, or outside the room. If they ask why, say "I keep... uhmm... well... I got these boobie magazines, and well... uhhh... you know". Trust me, no police officer wants to check through your porn stash. :-)

There's co-operative, and then there's retarded. Co-operative is:

"Maam, did you know you were doing 65 km/h in a 50 km/h zone?"
"No. Thanks for reminding me of the speed limit."

Retarded is:

"Maam, did you know you were doing 65 km/h in a 50 km/h zone?"
"65 km/h in a 50 zone? Gee, I thought it was 70 km/h here. Sorry! I won't speed again, honest. Can you PLEASE let me off? I really won't do it again!"

One of them gives you the chance of fighting the ticket in court. The other, well, you just hung yourself. Get your wallet out and pay, bitch. Same thing with being careful what you show and say to the police. It's only prudent. Not "libburtardian", which, I assume, is someone who isn't a true libertarian, but someone who likes to annoy the police pointlessly.

Re:This is the problem

[amarodeeps]

Maybe it's more complex than that. Maybe the people their targetting are generally selectively chosen based on race and religion. Maybe the people being targetted are being detained without their rights being recognized. Maybe these are people who are never getting into the position where they CAN fight it all the way to the supreme court. Maybe their citizenship is dubious or new, maybe their interaction with the larger mainstream society is such that they are not yet familiar with the way things can work. Maybe it costs a lot of freaking money to fight it all the way to the supreme court. I don't know, I'm just throwing some possibilities out there--because it seems like what you are talking about is easier said than done.

Idiots are our greatest threat

[Mr. Piddle]

Just like zero-tolerance policies in schools, when a person puts themselves into a situation where they are governed by idiots (in this case, an idiot landlord or idiot repair people), just living their ordinary life becomes a risk.

E.g.: "Oh dear, little Johnny boy brought nail clippers or Advil to school, so we just have to punish and expel the bastard for his evil deeds. May little Johnny boy burn in eternal hell for wanting to be well groomed."

Re:Idiots are our greatest threat

[katdillon]

Vote in November? What the %^%&& is that supposed to do? Neither of the major candidates will oppose the Patriot Act. You could vote Libertarian, who vehemently oppose the Patriot Act, and other intrusions on our rights. My solution: join the Free State Project. We're getting 20,000 liberty lovers together to move to New Hampshire to reduce the government to its constitutional bounds. Local authorities do have the power to reject the Patriot Act, or provisions of it they find intolerable. Look at all the major cities that have done so...my own Dallas being one of them.

Check it out: http://www.freestateproject.org

Kat Dillon

Re:This is the problem

[rigau]

The USA PATRIOT Act is not unconstitutional. Maybe sections of it are but the whole thing is not. If you were to go to court on an issue revolving around the act more likely than not the courts would rule only on the section that deal with your particular problem not on the whole act. Courts tend to keep their decisions limited in scope and will only rule on the particular facts of the case at hand unlike a legislative body that passes laws that have a much more broad application.

This is of course a generalization. Sometimes courts will decide on more general issues but it is ussualy done when the legislatures have avoided -most of the time on purpose- dealing with the issue themselves.

New acronym - SINALF

[Mordant]

Slashdot Is Not A Law Firm. ;>

The first time I had a fully automatic rifle

[Inoshiro]

.. pointed at me, was when I walked across the Peace Arch crossing from Canada to the US.

The US is a rogue state, with a military police mentality running everything, along with paranoia and hysteria rampant. The terrorists won a long time ago, and all that's happening now is that the US has to live in the bed it's made by not going through resistance to the crazy, right-wing that dominates everything.

If this example shows anything, it's that there needs to be another American revolution, one which breaks up the Union into a set of smaller unions where the federal government isn't so separated from the people as to allow these constant abuses of the original US constitution. I like a strong federal government as much as the next person, but only in the cases where it makes sense (such as actually instituting proper public health care), not in cases where people have their landlord call the fucking FBI on them.

Re:The first time I had a fully automatic rifle

[ivan1011001]

Sorry, but no.

Americans these days don't give a damn. And the ones that do, are intermingled around with those that don't. They could never be unified enough to rebel. A civil war in America is quite impossible.

America may be divided, but not down the middle. We are more divided like a shattered windshield. We could never unite around one, two, or even three (semi-)common goals.

You were crossing a border slappy!

[Syncdata]

I am 26 years old, have lived in the US my entire life, and have never had a firearm of any kind pointed at me. That said, were I crossing a border into another nation, say mexico, there is an understanding that firearms might be present.

As for having the rifle pointed *at* you, I strongly suspect that you are exagerating, or made one of those hilarious jokes that security folk love so much, like "Look out for the bomb in my luggage."

If you're curious why America is so "militant", it's because not too long ago, over 3 thousand people died in an attack that destroyed more commercial space then exists in all of San Francisco. Ask yourself how you might feel if, oh, say, downtown Ottowa was utterly leveled.

I'm no fan of certain clauses of the patriot act, including the allowance for feds to search property without presenting a warrant. But to suggest that there is no reason for this, other than to create a militant police state ignores facts which are fully in evidence.

But I forgot, that I'm not allowed to cite the events of September 11th, because doing so makes me a Jingoist. Curse our surly, greedy, unrefined society!

Re:You were crossing a border slappy!

[Fjandr]

Bring on the "Troll" mods, 'cause my post is certainly vitriolic enough to warrant them. :)

Note: I use "American" to mean "the U.S.A." and I put this note here because it is a very ego-centric use of the term, but it only occurred to me in hindsight. As most people in the Western Hemisphere know, other than U.S. citizens, many individuals who live in the Western Hemisphere claim the title of "American," simply because we all live in the Americas.

"Slander" would not be the term you're looking for. "Libel" would be correct for the idea that you were attempting to convey.

Let's see, US territory has been attacked by (and I'm not making a distinction between provoked and unprovoked attacks here) Spain, Britain, France, and Japan. All other attacks have occurred when "we" weren't at home (i.e. we were in someone else' country). I'm pretty sure I haven't left any out, because it hasn't happened very often. That's my definition of "starting shit." If you're using another definition, such as being belligerent while not even remotely possessing the ability to "start shit," (i.e. Iraq, Vietnam, every Central American country, many South American countries, many African countries, etc) then I'm not interested in your opinion in the slightest, and will not further reply.

Moving on, there's a reason why the rest of the world hates the US. Actually, there are many reasons. You seem to imply that I am a socialist and anti-defense, but this is an assumption on my part since you don't come right out and say it. If this assumption of mine is correct, you sir, are an idiot. You know the routine: Ass-u-me. Well, I take out the "me" part, because assumptions just make an ass out of the assumer, unless they spell out that they're making assumptions.

I do make my own world a better place, by removing as much support as I possibly can from the US government. I do it with a smile on my face and a song in my heart. My better world is a world without an unaccountable global policeman, where empires are gutted and left to rot in the wind, and the arrogant warmongers have no support, and hence no power. This country was built on broken promises and blatant double-dealing (every treaty ever made with the natives), hypocrisy (the slave-holders signing the Declaration of Independence), religious intolerance (way too many things to count), and every other manner of bad behaviour that one could think of. The only thing that lends this country any credence is that it has always had a handful of individuals willing to actually live by the ideals it was founded on. What takes away that credence is the mass of others who hold up those ideals and cry that they are hated for them, when they are never lived by them in the first place. Kind of like a certain religion I know...

"America" as an amorphous entity does not exist. "America" is a political illusion. It is a shield for those who wish to cover their actions with the will of "the people." There is no "us," are no "we, the people," only a group of individuals who may or may not be spoken for when "our" interests are invoked. I know my interests are never invoked, but that's not what I want. I don't want some figurehead putting words in my mouth. I don't want to take the reins, I want them taken off the fucking horse.

You're right, America is not the be-all-end-all, and it never will be. However, there are those who want it to be, and they'll ride that horse until they're forced off or it drops dead under them. Someone (or in this case, some country) that assumes leadership without being asked is an idiot for complaining about the conditions. Anyone who supports the U.S. has no right to complain about not receiving any support in turn. Very few outside the U.S. asked for a leader, protector, or welfare agency. Those who did rarely had the authority to ask for it on the behalf of others. Anyone who whines about the U.S. not being supported is naive in the extreme. Individuals tend not to support those who declare themselves "l

Re:This is the problem

[secolactico]

Maybe it's more complex than that. Maybe the people their targetting are generally selectively chosen based on race and religion.

You hit the nail right on the head. Maybe the poster's co-worker was muslim, or had features similar to those of middle-eastern origin.

Circuit boards and soldering iron doesn't sound threatening (can't really form a full opinion without hearing all parts), but given today's state of mind, his appearance might have tipped the repairmen's resolve to report him.

Re:Well

[fmaxwell]

If "your friend" hasn't done anything, "he" shouldn't have anything to worry about.

You aren't doing anything illegal when you go into the bathroom to take a dump, so you have nothing to "worry about" if the FBI wants to send agents in to watch you. You aren't doing anything illegal when you dress up like Tinkerbell and prance around your house, so you shouldn't mind Homeland Security agents watching you doing it. If you aren't doing anything illegal, you should not mind the government sending agents over to read your e-mail, rifle through your personal belongings, listen to your phone conversations, and tail you when you drive somewhere.

I recognize the humorous aspect of your post, but that first sentence really summed up a scary, but all-too-commonly-voiced, sentiment about this subject.

Crossing a border doesn't give anyone the right to

[Inoshiro]

point a loaded weapon at me.

I'm in no way exagerating. I was walking across the grass field under the peace arch with my then girlfriend. We were travelling from Vancouver to Seattle to catch a plane at Seatac. As I didn't feel like spending 400$ on a cab between Vancouver and Seattle, I arranged to have a friend from the US pick me up at the border crossing, and took a (less expensive 80$) cab from Vancouver to the arch.

We apparently chose the cars-only side to walk up to, because a solier inspecting a car snapped up from his work, aimed his automatic rifle at us, and yelled at us to go around to the other side. When I tried to talk to him, to ask him to put the gun down among other things, he just screamed harder at me.

When we did go inside, the US military guys tried to play good cop/bad cop on why I felt the need to enter the United States. It was complete BS, and an example of exactly how silly US customs is. On the way back, the Canadian border guard was nothing but courtieous to us. I don't even think they had M-16s!

As for Sept 11, Canada had the whole FLQ thing in the 1970s. Trudeau invoked the war measures act. However, once the situation was taken care of, the war measures act went away. Why isn't the patriot act going away? Why must the US continue to militarize and occupy foreign nations not related to the terrorist attack?

Re:This is the problem

[sweetooth]

Most people don't have a clue about circuit boards and soldering irons except what they've seen in some stupid action flick. It is highly plausible that some people would just assume that "there is some really wierd shit going on this apartment look at all these tools and wires and uhm... stuff I better call the FBI this looks like the bomb I saw in ."

Re:Hysteria

[mcrbids]

In the end, this incident just wasted some public servant's time. Same as the circuit board incident. Unless or until people get good at recognizing what a bomb detonator really looks like, things like this are bound to happen.

Since you are obviously expert in all things bomb-detonator, what does an "average" bomb detonator look like?

Oh... wait! I remember - I saw it in a movie! A "Bomb detonator" is that black box, about 9 inches long, 4 inches wide, and about 2 inches tall, with the big, red lettering on the top that says "Bomb Detonator" on the top of it, and has a few red and white snap wiring terminals on the side, right?

No?

Are you sure?

We live in a modern-day paranoia. We've been abusing the people of the Middle East selfishly for decades in order to satiate our wasteful addiction to crude oil, and now we pay the price of bad karma.

What really sucks is that there are real solutions to our energy needs. Linked is but one example with a total initial cost of about $169 billion, about as much as the $162 billion the most recent Iraq war cost to wage that would almost completely eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and dramatically reduce the Carbon Dioxide production of the United States.

I just hope and pray that someday, we find a leader that will actually lead us towards a better world, because we sure as hell don't have one today.

Re:Crossing a border doesn't give anyone the right

[Fjandr]

Why must the US continue to militarize and occupy foreign nations not related to the terrorist attack?

Because the US populace is a bunch of ignorant sheep, who will go with whatever someone in their local group hears on the news and passes on to those who think the news is morbid or uninteresting. But then, that's how it is in most countries. The US is really no different, it just happens to be the big dog on the block right now.

Like all would-be (or actual) empires, the US populace and leadership will get theirs. No empire in our recorded history has stood the test of time, and the US won't either. It will either fall easily (and relatively peacefully) like the British Empire, from the inside under the weight of its own incompetence and corruption like the USSR, or to near annihilation via nuclear/chemical/biological attacks from external locations. It just depends on the course of history and the choices of its leadership and populace in general which one becomes a reality.

Re:This is the problem

[miu]

People have no balls. We all know this homeland security BS is totally unconstitutional, its not even a question. Here's what I would have done in the guys situation.

Are you ready for the storm of hate they will pour down on you?

Are you ready for anything wrong or embarrassing you've ever done to become fodder for the press. Have you ever downloaded porn? Have you ever cheated on your spouse? Do you have any relatives who are mentally ill? Are you non-white? Are you non-Christian? Do you have the money and connections to hire a good lawyer? Can you afford to take the time off work?

Sure standing up to an evil system is exhilarating, but few people could stand up to the kind of microscope the government can put on your entire life, and then deal with the consequences of having the details broadcast. There is no moment of truth - no heroic battle, instead there is a wearing away of your will over a timescale dictated entirely by your enemy.

And I was in Germany (circa 1985)

[brian0x00FF]

It was Frankfurt airport and I was getting on a plane to JFK. I was only 17 years old, but I was wanded, my carry-on was searched, and I had to identify my bags on the tarmack before they were loaded and I was able to board the plane. You know how many other people had to do the same? All of them.

Three years earlier I flew into Brussels from London without any such searches. That time I missed seeing a car bomb detonated in Belgium by 30 minutes. It is very strange to see the alley side of two building ripped open.

The point is that when someone has declared war against you... like the socialist/communist terrorist groups did in Germany during the 70s and 80s and islamic terrist have against the US in the 80s 90s and 00s. There are going to be times when in public places and entry and exit points you have to deal with security.

The same does not apply in your home. If the cops do not have a warrant, only can give up your right. That doesn't mean you need to be an asshole, but you certainly do not need to give into the the 'if you don't have anything to hide' mind game.

Re:This is the problem

[shaitand]

No worries here, under the partiot act the entire case is classified, nobody will even know your fighting until the supreme court makes it decision.

His mistake is assuming the supreme court is actually an instrument of justice anymore.

Re:This is the problem

[miu]

No worries here, under the partiot act the entire case is classified, nobody will even know your fighting until the supreme court makes it decision.

Even if it stays out of the papers the FBI is gonna be blundering through your life, knocking things over, harassing your family and co-workers, and making certain that your life is a mess even if you are found innocent.

His mistake is assuming the supreme court is actually an instrument of justice anymore.

The current SC is packed with conservative hardliners, but at least they are not neo-cons - there is a chance that they will choose law over politics, their interpretation of law will be from the hard right, but at least it is based on the rule of law.

Re:Hypothetical Legal Question

[michael_cain]

Let's say a police officer were to appear at my door without a warrant, wanting to search my house. If I allow him to enter, can he use anything incriminating that he finds as evidence, even though he conducted the search without a warrant?

In the days of my youth (sharing a house with two other guys who might have who knows what kind of illegal substances about), the conventional wisdom was that once you let the officer in the front door there was little you could do to constrain their subsequent actions. When the police knocked at my door last year (looking for a reported runaway who was friendly with my daughter), I still found myself automatically saying, "I'll be happy to step outside and discuss matters with you officer." But without a warrent, they don't come through the door. At some point I expect (or at least I hope) that the portions of the Patriot Act that allow officers to enter and search without showing a judge sufficiently probable cause to get a warrent are ruled unconstitutional.

Re:This is the problem

[stevew]

Only a couple problems with concept.

1) The patriot act won't be found un-constitutional.
2) You probably don't have the funds to afford the lawyer.

Isn't it just easier to tell the cops you are a hobbiest trying to fix his camera and put the matter to bed?

Flow on effect

[Stillman]

Now, I don't want to come off as anti-american (though it is fairly easy to feel that way these days), but do you US citizens realise that this sort of stuff is starting to flow on to the rest of the world? Many of us live in countries not governed by religious, paranoid, low-iq, war-fetishists. We like that we don't need to go around pretending there are terrorists everywhere in order to "exact vengeance" for ONE incident (which, lets face it, PALES next to some of the things that the US have done to other countries) 3 years ago.

Because the US is so influential on the western political stage though, we almost have to fall in line with your head lunatic. PLEASE get rid of this fucker. PLEASE vote for someone with some intelligence. And also, if you know your neighbours or friends are morons who will vote for any asshole who can wave a flag and spout some jingoistic bollocks, please have them killed. Cheers.

Re:Flow on effect

[mrpuffypants]

Dude. We're trying. Not all of us feel the way that way about the rest of the world and actually DO see the far-reaching consequences of our current administration's actions, coupled with a long-standing attitude in America about the rest of the world.

Mark my words. Rome fell. Greece fell. The british empire fell. The USA will rot from within, eventually collapsing on itself. I hate to say that, but without radical changes NOW then nothing can save us from the grip of people who only want money and power.

Your Friend Was Presumed Innocent

[nathanh]

Look at it like this. If the police really thought your friend was a terrorist, there's no way they would have given him a warning. They would have just called Homeland and his house would have been searched while your friend was away from home.

The fact that they turned up, asked nicely, and gave him a choice, means that they thought your friend was innocent but they were under an obligation to investigate all reports.

Annoying, yes. But when I was a youngster I once got stopped by the police at 2am while I was walking home. They asked me who I was, where I was going, asked to search my backpack (and I let them), etc. I fumed and thought "fascist pigs" at the time but in hindsight, they did the right thing. Here was me wandering around suburbia at 2am with a big backpack and computer gear under my arm. Suspicious? I think so. The police would have been remiss if they hadn't asked nicely. They probably thought "he's too dorky to be a thief, but we better check anyway, because THAT IS OUR DUTY".

Same here with your friend. Somebody reported him. It's not up to the police to ignore reports from the public. They _should_ investigate. That is their purpose.

Re:This is the problem

[astar]

Problems with the supreme court are a little more fundamental. You might note that the Nazis had a rule of law. Some of the laws they kept secret, because they were so bad that even the "good" German would be outraged. We are so degenerate that we make equivalent laws public, and few protest. But it was a rule of law. Their law theory came largely from a guy named Carl Schmitt who later went to the United State and was moderately influencial. Some like Rinquist use arguments identical to Schmitt.

When you hear about some case that was decided on a "positive law" theory, you are hearing about something that is indistinguishable from Schmitt theories.

Put another way, there was a fascist architecture and there was fascist music, hmm, see my web site and look at the Wagner article someone submitted. And there was fascist law, justified by a fascist theory of law, and that theory now pretty well dominates the US Supreme Court. And that fits, because the laws we are getting are in prominent occasions fascist laws. You are probably thinking I am thinking about the Patriot act, but what I have most clearly in mind is a civil service reform recently done at the federal level.

The US is "administratively" fascist. What we are missing is a fascist mass movement. And it might be a left movement or a right movement. Then thing will really pop. The dynamics look like this: institutions continue to collapse, economic shocks dominate, people look for solutions and so new institutions come into existence. If there is not a vigorous positive alternative institution coming into being, then the fascist mass movement will take off instead. Do a reality check when oil hits seventy dollars a barrel.

yes

[Kanasta]

you have the right to ask for a warrant, and we will come back using some national security law and turn your house inside out.

Or you can just let us in now voluntarily without a warrant.

Doesn't that sort of remove the point of having a system of needing warrants?