US Taliban in Action - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 20 (permalink) Old 02-17-2006, 11:51 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Shabah's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2004
Vehicle: 300c (1956)
Location: 19 05'40.0 N, 49 49'09 E
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
US Taliban in Action

What can I say?

Quote:
Policing Porn Is Not Part of Job Description
Montgomery Homeland Security Officers Reassigned After Library Incident

By Cameron W. Barr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 17, 2006; B08

Two uniformed men strolled into the main room of the Little Falls library in Bethesda one day last week and demanded the attention of all patrons using the computers. Then they made their announcement: The viewing of Internet pornography was forbidden.

The men looked stern and wore baseball caps emblazoned with the words "Homeland Security." The bizarre scene unfolded Feb. 9, leaving some residents confused and forcing county officials to explain how employees assigned to protect county buildings against terrorists came to see it as their job to police the viewing of pornography.

After the two men made their announcement, one of them challenged an Internet user's choice of viewing material and asked him to step outside, according to a witness. A librarian intervened, and the two men went into the library's work area to discuss the matter. A police officer arrived. In the end, no one had to step outside except the uniformed men.

They were officers of the security division of Montgomery County's Homeland Security Department, an unarmed force that patrols about 300 county buildings -- but is not responsible for enforcing obscenity laws.

In the post-9/11 era, even suburban counties have homeland security departments. Montgomery County will not specify how many officers are in the department's security division, citing security reasons. Its annual budget, including salaries, is $3.6 million.

Later that afternoon, Montgomery County's chief administrative officer, Bruce Romer, issued a statement calling the incident "unfortunate" and "regrettable" -- two words that bureaucrats often deploy when things have gone awry. He said the officers had been reassigned to other duties.

Romer said the officers believed they were enforcing the county's sexual harassment policy but "overstepped their authority" and had to be reminded that Montgomery "supports the rights of patrons to view the materials of their choice."

The sexual harassment policy forbids the "display of offensive or obscene printed or visual material." But in a library, which is both a public arena and a county workplace, the U.S. Constitution trumps Montgomery's rules.

At most public libraries in the Washington area, an adult can view pornography on a library computer more or less unfettered. Montgomery asks customers to be considerate of others when viewing Web sites. If others are put off, librarians will provide the viewer of the offending material with a "privacy screen."

Fairfax County forbids library use of the Internet to view child pornography or obscene materials or to engage in gambling or fraud. But Fairfax library spokeswoman Lois Kirkpatrick said, "Librarians are not legally empowered to determine obscenity."

D.C. library spokeswoman Monica Lewis said the system is working on guidelines for Internet use, but she added that recessed computer screens generally ensure patrons their privacy.

Although many library systems in the United States use filtering software, the D.C. and Fairfax systems do not, and Montgomery uses such software only on computers available to children. Leslie Burger, president-elect of the American Library Association, said the reality is that "libraries are not the hotbed of looking at porn sites."

Still, Montgomery plans to train its homeland security officers "so they fully understand library policy and its consistency with residents' First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution," Romer said in his statement.
I think this would be a great job for guage if he can get it. I mean wearing a cap with HS on it and telling the public to step outside, hmmm just the kind that would give guage a boner, I think the Taliban won, what do you think?
Shabah is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 20 (permalink) Old 02-17-2006, 11:53 AM
jjl
BenzWorld Extremist
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 280SE 280CE 560SEL
Posts: 978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: US Taliban in Action

'What can you say?' - how about 'what a pair of facist assholes'.
jjl is offline  
post #3 of 20 (permalink) Old 02-17-2006, 12:06 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Shabah's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2004
Vehicle: 300c (1956)
Location: 19 05'40.0 N, 49 49'09 E
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: US Taliban in Action

Quote:
jjl - 2/17/2006 1:53 PM

'What can you say?' - how about 'what a pair of facist assholes'.
A Clockwork Orange
Shabah is offline  
post #4 of 20 (permalink) Old 02-17-2006, 12:07 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: US Taliban in Action

Looks like they overstepped (goose-stepping), busted for their behavior by citizens and got caught-up short by their bosses. I think that is what is supposed to happen.
Botnst is offline  
post #5 of 20 (permalink) Old 02-17-2006, 12:14 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Shabah's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2004
Vehicle: 300c (1956)
Location: 19 05'40.0 N, 49 49'09 E
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: US Taliban in Action

Quote:
Botnst - 2/17/2006 2:07 PM

Looks like they overstepped (goose-stepping), busted for their behavior by citizens and got caught-up short by their bosses. I think that is what is supposed to happen.
Well I am glad they got stopped, but how many are out there thinking that they are on a mission for God or Bush????
Shabah is offline  
post #6 of 20 (permalink) Old 02-17-2006, 12:26 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: US Taliban in Action

Quote:
Shabah - 2/17/2006 2:14 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 2/17/2006 2:07 PM

Looks like they overstepped (goose-stepping), busted for their behavior by citizens and got caught-up short by their bosses. I think that is what is supposed to happen.
Well I am glad they got stopped, but how many are out there thinking that they are on a mission for God or Bush????
I don't know, probably not too many.

When they start planting buses on trains and subways I'll defintely start shooting the bastards.

Bot
Botnst is offline  
post #7 of 20 (permalink) Old 02-17-2006, 12:54 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Shabah's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2004
Vehicle: 300c (1956)
Location: 19 05'40.0 N, 49 49'09 E
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: US Taliban in Action

Here is another one:

http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A158729

Here is a partial converstation
Quote:
Around 2:15 p.m., Scarbrough says, he answered his office phone and found himself talking to a man who identified himself as Officer R. of the Department of Homeland Security. (I'm withholding the officer's name; you know, what with Plamegate and all.) Scarbrough was told that he was in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations, the set of rules that govern all executive departments and agencies, and that he was in danger of being cited unless he came out to the parking lot or let the officer come up to his office. Scarbrough chose the first option, and took along a co-worker--also a veteran--and, being an experienced peace activist, a tape recorder. Downstairs, they found two armed officers with "Homeland Security" insignia patches on their shoulders, waiting for them in large white SUVs. Scarbrough informed the officers that he would record their conversation, and what follows is the transcript of that recording.

Officer: Step back here please.

Dwight Scarbrough: Let's have a seat.

O: I'd like to talk to you.

DS: Let's have a seat.

O: Sir, come over here please.

DS: I don't want to come over there. I want to sit down.

O: Let me tell you what's going on here. OK, there's a violation of the code of federal regulations.

DS: For what?

O: The CFR. 41, CFR, 102, 74, 415. Posting or affixing signs, pamphlets, handbills or flyers on federal property. Do you understand that?

DS: I'm not doing anything on federal property.

O: Yes, sir, you've got signs posted on your vehicle. I'm informing you that you're in violation.

DS: That's not illegal. That's not illegal.

O: You're posting ...

DS: I ... All right.

O: Would you like to listen to me before ... sir...

DS: [To his co-worker] Would you go get [their supervisor]?

O: I need you to listen when I'm talking, sir.

DS: [To co-worker]. Would you go get [him] please? [To officer] I'm listening.

O: Okay.

DS: You're at my place of work, first of all. And you're harassing me.

O: Sir, you're in violation of the code of federal regulations.

DS: I'm not in violation.

O: You're posting signs on this property.

DS: I am not posting signs. That's on a private vehicle.

O: Sir, I'm here to tell you now that you have to remove those signs.

DS: Was the law just changed?

O: No, there was no law just changed.

DS: Then it's not a violation.

O: I just told you what the law is, sir.

DS: It is not a violation. I've read the statutes already.

O: If you do not comply with my order to remove the signs from the property, I will cite you for it, OK? Do you understand that?

DS: You know what? This is harassment.

O: No, sir, it's not.

DS: Yes, it is.

O: No, it's not.

DS: Say it again, please. (Holds up microphone.) This is harassment.

O: Do you understand what I've told you?

DS: I understand what you've told me, but I've also read the statute that as a federal employee--

O: I've just given you an order and told you to remove those signs from the property.

DS: I will move my vehicle off the property.

O: That will be fine. That will comply with it, and we don't have to ...

DS: You know this is total B.S., though. Because--will you get [his supervisor], please?--I've already had this conversation once, and we've already looked up all the statues and laws covering personal vehicles with stick ... with anything on them on government property. And it is not illegal.

O: It's in 41 CFR. Look that up.

D: "Why don't you look it up?" I have.

O: 41 CF4 102--

D: What is the violation?

O: Posting of signs on--

D: Which one?

O: I just told you the violation.

D: Those are not signs.

O: Twice now I've told you.

D: Those are not signs.

O: Yes, sir, they are. What are they then?

D: So any vehicle that comes on with, like, a police sign, or with delivery or FedEx or something, that's not a sign?

O: All signs are prohibited--

D: You know you're harassing me. You know you're harassing me.

O: No, sir, I'm not.

D: You know the Department of Homeland Security is giving me harassment--

O: Sir--

D: --because I'm a person who happens to express my viewpoints on my vehicle.

O: I need you to comply with my order and remove the signs...

D: Who has filed a complaint?

O: ...you said you'd do that, that's fine ...

D: Who has filed a complaint? Who has filed a complaint?

O: No one has filed a complaint, sir.

D: Well, then what's the complaint?

O: It's law enforcement on federal property.

D: You know this is ... I would like my supervisor down here, please.

O: This doesn't concern him at all.

D: Yes, it does, because I've already had this discussion with him, and I've already been asked to change the signs, and I did. And I looked up all the statutes.

O: (Muffled)

D: Do you have a piece of paper with the number then, please?

O: I told you the number.

D: I would like to write it down, then.

O: I will give you a piece of paper ...

D: Just write it down. That's all I'm asking.

O: But I need you to comply with my instructions to remove the--

D: You're harassing me, in other words.

O: Sir, this is not harassment.

D: It's crap, and you know it.

O: No, sir, it is not.

D: It is. Okay, go ahead.

O: 41, C-F-R...

D: 41, C-F-R...

O: 102 ...

D: 102 ...

O: 74 ...

D: 74 ...

O: Subpart C ...

D: Subpart C ...

O: Paragraph 415.

D: Paragraph 415.

O: And they are posted at the entrances to federal facilities, as they are here, and it is referenced.

D: And this defines exactly what "signs" are, right?

O: It says "signs," sir.

D: Yeah. You're harassing me. I'll be back in a minute. I don't have my keys with me.

O: Sir--

D: I don't have my car keys with me.

O: Okay.

D: I had no clue what you were here to bother me about ... (walks toward door)... this is your buddy, your boss and my boss harassing people for expressing political viewpoints. And you know it. There's nothing illegal about it. (Door beeps).
He went on to comment "This is a fascist state. At least, it's the beginning of a fascist state."

Welcome to the United States of Arabia DS, next you will be adopting the idea of having a "muttawa" force patrolling the streets for political compliance...
Shabah is offline  
post #8 of 20 (permalink) Old 02-17-2006, 01:12 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: US Taliban in Action

Was that a federal employee on federal property? If so, when he took employment he agreed to the conditions of federal employment. It looked to me like the officer was polite and doing his job. The guy with the tape recorder was goading him, to which the officer would not respond. The officer stuck with what he was doing.

The officer does not interpret the law. If the employee believes he is right he should take it up through various internal mechanisms or hire an outside attorney and fight it.

In other words, what is the big deal?
Botnst is offline  
post #9 of 20 (permalink) Old 02-17-2006, 01:14 PM
430
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Vehicle: SLK32, ML430
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 6,349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: US Taliban in Action

Quote:
Shabah - 2/17/2006 1:51 PM

What can I say?

Quote:
Policing Porn Is Not Part of Job Description
Montgomery Homeland Security Officers Reassigned After Library Incident

By Cameron W. Barr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 17, 2006; B08

Two uniformed men strolled into the main room of the Little Falls library in Bethesda one day last week and demanded the attention of all patrons using the computers. Then they made their announcement: The viewing of Internet pornography was forbidden.

The men looked stern and wore baseball caps emblazoned with the words "Homeland Security." The bizarre scene unfolded Feb. 9, leaving some residents confused and forcing county officials to explain how employees assigned to protect county buildings against terrorists came to see it as their job to police the viewing of pornography.

After the two men made their announcement, one of them challenged an Internet user's choice of viewing material and asked him to step outside, according to a witness. A librarian intervened, and the two men went into the library's work area to discuss the matter. A police officer arrived. In the end, no one had to step outside except the uniformed men.

They were officers of the security division of Montgomery County's Homeland Security Department, an unarmed force that patrols about 300 county buildings -- but is not responsible for enforcing obscenity laws.

In the post-9/11 era, even suburban counties have homeland security departments. Montgomery County will not specify how many officers are in the department's security division, citing security reasons. Its annual budget, including salaries, is $3.6 million.

Later that afternoon, Montgomery County's chief administrative officer, Bruce Romer, issued a statement calling the incident "unfortunate" and "regrettable" -- two words that bureaucrats often deploy when things have gone awry. He said the officers had been reassigned to other duties.

Romer said the officers believed they were enforcing the county's sexual harassment policy but "overstepped their authority" and had to be reminded that Montgomery "supports the rights of patrons to view the materials of their choice."

The sexual harassment policy forbids the "display of offensive or obscene printed or visual material." But in a library, which is both a public arena and a county workplace, the U.S. Constitution trumps Montgomery's rules.

At most public libraries in the Washington area, an adult can view pornography on a library computer more or less unfettered. Montgomery asks customers to be considerate of others when viewing Web sites. If others are put off, librarians will provide the viewer of the offending material with a "privacy screen."

Fairfax County forbids library use of the Internet to view child pornography or obscene materials or to engage in gambling or fraud. But Fairfax library spokeswoman Lois Kirkpatrick said, "Librarians are not legally empowered to determine obscenity."

D.C. library spokeswoman Monica Lewis said the system is working on guidelines for Internet use, but she added that recessed computer screens generally ensure patrons their privacy.

Although many library systems in the United States use filtering software, the D.C. and Fairfax systems do not, and Montgomery uses such software only on computers available to children. Leslie Burger, president-elect of the American Library Association, said the reality is that "libraries are not the hotbed of looking at porn sites."

Still, Montgomery plans to train its homeland security officers "so they fully understand library policy and its consistency with residents' First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution," Romer said in his statement.
I think this would be a great job for guage if he can get it. I mean wearing a cap with HS on it and telling the public to step outside, hmmm just the kind that would give guage a boner, I think the Taliban won, what do you think?
There can be no reasonable defense of those two 'gentlemans' actions.
430 is offline  
post #10 of 20 (permalink) Old 02-17-2006, 01:21 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Shabah's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2004
Vehicle: 300c (1956)
Location: 19 05'40.0 N, 49 49'09 E
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: US Taliban in Action

Quote:
Botnst - 2/17/2006 3:12 PM

Was that a federal employee on federal property? If so, when he took employment he agreed to the conditions of federal employment. It looked to me like the officer was polite and doing his job. The guy with the tape recorder was goading him, to which the officer would not respond. The officer stuck with what he was doing.

The officer does not interpret the law. If the employee believes he is right he should take it up through various internal mechanisms or hire an outside attorney and fight it.

In other words, what is the big deal?
Ok, Bot what if he had support our troops signs on his truck?? which I know that would be the case of many vehicles in that parking lot. Does the law apply in one direction? If they had to harrass him for a sign then they should do the same with others even if the message is pro-Bush or pro-war. doesn't the law apply equaly????
Shabah is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome