Psychiatry VS 4th Amendment, Police State

In the former USSR Psychiatry was used as a weapon to ruin political dissidents. In the post USSR, it's back. Vodka is a widely self-prescribed - God, this place sucks - fixative there. Police drag dissidents off the street as 'Mentally Ill' drunks, and off to the hospital/psych prison, for years, decades, or death.

The DSM-IV-TR qualifies Intoxication as an 'Incurable Mental Illness'. Psychiatrists Intoxicate people with toxins which for 22 years have been known to Intoxicate those people into killers.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If one cannot possess a right to be secure in their person - from being Psychiatrically Drugged into a murderer - one possesses no rights at all. This post's sole link foreshadows psych drug Intoxication even as a defense in Court being bought, right off the table.


Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk - A weekly Column

The Emerging Surveillance State

Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.

Though some opponents claimed that the only controversial part of this legislation was its grant of immunity to telecommunications companies, there is much more to be wary of in the bill. In the House version, Title II, Section 801, extends immunity from prosecution of civil legal action to people and companies including any provider of an electronic communication service, any provider of a remote computing service, “any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications,” any “parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee” of such company, any “officer, employee, or agent” of any such company, and any “landlord, custodian, or other person who may be authorized or required to furnish assistance.” The Senate version goes even further by granting retroactive immunity to such entities that may have broken the law in the past.

The new FISA bill allows the federal government to compel many more types of companies and individuals to grant the government access to our communications without a warrant. The provisions in the legislation designed to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance are full of loopholes and ambiguities. There is no blanket prohibition against listening in on all American citizens without a warrant.

We have been told that this power to listen in on communications is legal and only targets terrorists. But if what these companies are being compelled to do is legal, why is it necessary to grant them immunity? If what they did in the past was legal and proper, why is it necessary to grant them retroactive immunity?

In communist East Germany , one in every 100 citizens was an informer for the dreaded secret police, the Stasi. They either volunteered or were compelled by their government to spy on their customers, their neighbors, their families, and their friends. When we think of the evil of totalitarianism, such networks of state spies are usually what comes to mind. Yet, with modern technology, what once took tens of thousands of informants can now be achieved by a few companies being coerced by the government to allow it to listen in to our communications. This surveillance is un-American.

We should remember that former New York governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a provision of the PATRIOT Act that required enhanced bank monitoring of certain types of financial transactions. Yet we were told that the PATRIOT Act was needed to catch terrorists, not philanderers. The extraordinary power the government has granted itself to look into our private lives can be used for many purposes unrelated to fighting terrorism. We can even see how expanded federal government surveillance power might be used to do away with political rivals.

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals. If we are to remain a free society we must defend our rights against any governmental attempt to undermine or bypass the Constitution."


But if what these Psychiatrists/Drug Cos. are ..... do [ing] is legal, why is it necessary to grant them [DSM] immunity? If what they did in the past was legal and proper, why is it necessary to grant them retroactive immunity?

4th Amendment? We don't got to show you no stinking 4th Amendment. We're Psychiatrists. Take these Drugs, while we Take The Kickback Money.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." P.J. O’Rourke