This Is What You Get With Tyranny
by Big Dog on Apr 7, 2015 at 18:56 Political, Tyranny
The federal government has a closely held plan known as SOP 303 which allows it to disrupt cellular service in a geographic area. The plan was requested under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request but the government agrued and the court agreed that disclosing the plan would put people in danger.
I am not sure how knowing about the plan would put people in danger. It seems to me that a government disrupting cellular (actually any wireless signal) in an area would be much more dangerous.
[note]Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ~ Benjamin Franklin[/note]
The government argued that it needs to be able to do this in case of emergency like if there is a bomb that will be detonated by a wireless device. The claim is that the government can disrupt the signals and keep people safe.
Before I move on to other parts of this let that stated purpose sink in. Then ask yourself when government ever knows about the bombs before they go off. The only times we see where government stops a bomber is when they stop people they hooked in and provided the bomb to. They had no idea about the Boston Marathon bomber until the bomb, you know, detonated.
The only way they can ensure that a bomb does not go off in a crowded or sensitive area is to shut off the wireless signals during the entire period people are there. Do not put it past government to do just that, for your safety and all.
The stated intent of the SOP is just a smoke screen. It is unlikely, absent a complete blanket when danger might be present, the government will know of a bomb and be able to shut the signals before it goes off. So the reality is in addition to shutting off all service when the government is worried about a threat, there must be another goal.
This entire issue started because of the transit authority in San Francisco disrupting service in order to disperse a protest. You got that? It was not to stop a bomb it was to stop a protest probably by keeping people from contacting others to join in and to keep them from communicating with those there.
What would stop the government from using this disruption whenever it wanted to achieve a goal that had nothing to do with a bomb. Suppose the government decided to impose martial law for one reason or another and people were intent on disobeying. Government could disrupt the communications of the people trying to organize resistance.
Suppose there was another attack on this nation or some other catastrophic event (or government committed atrocities) and the government did not want people communicating this with others?
Governments become tyrannical. Eventually all governments become too big, too bloated and too powerful and they all begin to impose their will on the people. Governments eventually put their collective boots on the throats of the people in order to control them.
Our government is no different. We have plenty of people in office who want to rule over us. It is why they tell us what we can eat, drink, smoke and use. It is why they indoctrinate our children with revisionist history that raises a generation of compliant robots. It is why government runs health care and wants to take firearms away from people.
It is all because government wants to control us and lord over us.
All governments eventually end up this way. One day you are free and the next day you are living in a nation where jack booted government agents are shooting you and your family in the back of the head.
And they will block the cell signals so no one else will know.
Until it is too late.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: cellular disruption, government, liberty, lies, sop 303, tyranny
It seems that when there is a bomb, that is the time people need communication the most.
But that aside, when the honorable rabble that coincidentally looked like Obama’s son was tearing up Ferguson, they did use cell phones to warn each other where the police were located. I just mean, not all phone use during protests are for lawful ends.
I do agree on the onerousness of the law; to have the power to stop all wireless communication is not the answer. Especially when communication itself is not the crime, but what liberals and other hooligans are communication about.
It falls in line with the fact that everyone is searched at the airport, not just the one’s who are remotely potential of being dangerous. It is very bigoted and racist to suspect a little old white granny the same as a young muslim male, for example. Equally, it is casting the net of “guilt” over all people in a case where a bomb may be set off by wireless device. If they know there is a bomb, then defacto they know the perp, as well.
These are some interesting points. I understand that not everyone at the Ferguson Obama family reunion was using phones legally but blanket turing them all off is not the answer. They don’t stop everyone from driving because a few get DUIs.
Yes, everyone is searched at the airport (I disagree with much of what they do) but you are not forced to go to the airport and fly. You kind of know what you will endure and agree to it by purchasing the ticket. If the cops decided to disrupt phone service in an area because a bomb might be there (I agree with your assessment on this) they will disrupt many people not involved or near the area. In a protest people driving through who might be getting attacked will not be able to call for help.
It is messy but I do not think cops should have the ability to turn off all wireless commo in the area..
If a bomb is discovered and in the process of being analyzed and (hopefully) deactivated then any wireless communication in the general area can be dangerous and set the bomb off (certain ones, obviously, not all). In this small and narrow instance, a wireless block of a certain radius might be advantageous but hardly likely to happen in a timely fashion to make a difference, to be perfectly honest. I agree that this is just a further attempt at maintaining power over the plebes by the royalty. Let’s face it – we have become (for the most part) glued to our phones…it’s a lifeline to the world most times. Shutting that down would be catastrophic for businesses not to mention teenagers…and me. It would certainly be a great bargaining chip for whoever has the switch at the ready.
This is more creeping incrimentalism – where they are inching further and further into our liberties “for our own good” and trying to take over every aspect of our lives and regulate it. I’m sick of it personally and think we need to get back to the core of our government including all 3 branches staying in their lanes and using effective checks and balances to ensure that this power grab does not continue or happen again. The Legislative Branch has been turning over its power for far too many years and now everyone but them is involved in making laws. It’s disgraceful.
When Cheney claimed that during war a POTUS has near unlimited powers i can’t recall too many on the right speaking up
The single most common way of setting off IEDs is with a phone.
When probable cause to search a person or a car was OK without a warrant signed by a judge if a dog said so i can’t recall anyone complaining
When Americans didn’t stand up then they lost rights they will never get back, but it seemed OK because those people weren’t us
As far as protesters remember when that crowd at Clive Bundy’s aimed their weapons at law enforcement ? Can you imagine what would have happened at Ferguson if something similiar happened ?
I do not recall Cheney claiming that during war the POTUS had unlimited powers to do things to US citizens in this country but to ease your mind I have never agreed that the POTUS (any POTUS) has unlimited powers because they do not. Powers are limited by the Constitution.
It matters not what the most common way to set of an IED is. Unless they know for certain it is there and where it is then they should not be disrupting any service. That power leads to people claiming they thought there was a bomb so they disrupted service when the real intent was to just disrupt the service and what the people were doing. The single most common factor in mass shootings is a liberal with an illegal firearm. Should we ban all liberals (illegally owning firearms is already against the law)? Hell, the most common reason for drunk driving is alcohol consumption. Should we ban all alcohol because some folks drink and drive. You really do not think this through now do you? Sheep led by the nose you are.
Clive Bundy was having his property trespassed on by federal agents and people defended him. They pointed firearms at officers who were pointing firearms at them. That is how you deal with an obtrusive government. Follow the money and figure out how Harry Reid stood to make money by invading that land. In Ferguson the people were destroying the property of OTHERS and breaking the law by rioting so if they had pointed firearms at the police they would have been committing a crime. The police stayed back and let them burn the place to the ground. Good move now let them eat dirt. In Ferguson some shop owners and their friends stood watch with firearms and their businesses were not destroyed.
Probable cause to search a car does not require a warrant in some cases. If items are in plain sight or a person has committed a felony. Otherwise the police need a warrant or the permission of the occupant to search the car. I have stated this before so just because you have not seen it does not mean it does not exist.
You have no right to drive a car but you have some rights with regard to it being searched as I explained.