D.C. takes us right into the danger zones

Yes, I know, that's our second Kenny Loggins reference in a week, but anyway...

If city officials in Washington, D.C., get their way, much of the city will become what is perhaps America's most extensive Stalinist police state.

Under this right-wing plan, police will be able to cordon off entire neighborhoods, and they will be able to set up checkpoints and expel "unapproved" persons. Cops will demand identification from people just entering the neighborhood. People who don't show "legitimate reason" to be there will be shooed away or arrested.

In the now-familiar "war is peace" fashion, they call them "neighborhood safety zones." I call 'em neighborhood danger zones: Would you expect to feel any safer? I wouldn't. There's neighborhoods in Cincinnati that are as crime-ridden as any in D.C., but I'd feel no safer if the same plan was adopted in these parts.

In fact I'd feel much less safe. Under programs like this, almost every innocent person is considered a criminal to some extent. The "safety zones" are in fact unconstitutional under freedom of assembly. Neighborhoods are indeed public spaces and are maintained by the city's taxpayers. An Assistant U.S. Attorney has already warned the city that the danger zones are unconstitutional.

With these factors - namely, the presumed guilt, the intentional disregard of constitutional rights, and the raw power of the system - I'd say it's far more likely to be wrongly arrested or have one's rights violated under this program than to be a crime victim without this program.

But officials remain undeterred! The city's interim attorney general Peter Nickles boasted, "I'm not worried about the constitutionality of it." Hints of Marc Racicot! Apparently, Nickles considers the Constitution to be just a piece of paper and not the law of the land. However, the head of the D.C.-area ACLU said of the program, "I think they tried this in Russia and it failed."

Police chief Cathy Lanier claimed 100% of D.C. residents favor the proposal. Oh yeah? Several residents of targeted neighborhoods told Examiner.com that they know it won't work. They say that something similar but less extensive was tried in the Far Right wave of the '90s. In that round of tyranny, residents felt threatened as police brandished guns at them for trying to enter their own neighborhoods.

If the danger zones don't become a reality, it will be a victory for locals but another setback for Lanier. Recently, a public outcry forced her to scale back her unconstitutional plan for warrantless searches for contraband.

Probably neither of these ideas would have been proposed recently except there's so many liberty-hating scumbags in high places like Michael Chertoff who keep telling us we should give up our freedoms. So when someone obliges, future abuses appear less intrusive than they really are.

Papers, please?

(Source: http://www.examiner.com/a-1423820~Lanier_plans_to_seal_off_rough__hoods_in_latest_effort_to_stop_wave_of_violence.html;
http://www.examiner.com/a-1425545~U_S__attorney_questioned_constitutionality_of_sealed_safety_zones_in_May.html;
http://www.examiner.com/a-1425547~Police_checkpoints_don_t_comfort_concerned_Trinidad_residents.html;
http://dcist.com/2008/06/04/mpd_to_seal_off.php)