Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 22, 2017, 11:59:48 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
100388 Posts in 2360 Topics by 1085 Members
Latest Member: Why We Fight
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 208 209 [210] 211 212 ... 287
10451  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism: on: August 15, 2010, 01:03:52 PM
**I think this article does a good job explaining things.**

http://www.policeone.com/columnists/Charles-Remsberg/articles/1242034-Handling-Protesters-Part-2/

IMPORTANT NOTE: As with any legal advice, be sure to check with your local advisors to be certain that the principles and precedents explained here currently apply in your jurisdiction.

1. Authorities can limit public speech, and the correlative right to protest and demonstrate, to a reasonable time, a reasonable place and a reasonable manner. You'll often see this 3-part terminology in court decisions dealing with 1st Amendment freedoms. These restrictions apply to speech (and protests) in public areas like roads, sidewalks, parks or other sites that are traditionally open for citizens to gather, talk and demonstrate.

Protest can also always be restricted because of its relationship to illegal conduct. Demonstrators do not have the right to trespass onto somebody's private property to protest or to engage in assault or disorderly conduct or any other behavior that violates the law. When free expression becomes illegal conduct, it can always be restricted.

2. Any limitation has to meet these criteria:

a) It must be content neutral, meaning that you don't restrict only those groups whose message you disagree with. In enforcing a quiet zone around a hospital, for example, you are not trying to control the message put forth by demonstrators, you're trying to control the noise that interferes with people getting well. Content neutrality is THE most important factor in keeping restrictions legal.

b) Any limitation must be narrowly tailored to serve an important interest. To continue the quiet zone analogy, the zone must not extend out farther than it has to to accomplish its purpose. It can't be clear across town where it has no reasonable relation to the hospital it supposedly protects. In other words, imposition of a restriction has to closely match the reason for it.

c) Limitations must ALLOW FOR ALTERNATIVES. If a person or group is restricted from protesting 1 place, they should have ample opportunity to demonstrate some other place in town.

3. If some group wants to protest across an interstate highway because they think that will have the biggest impact, you can easily deny that. In a recent federal case, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals supported a city in Alabama that completely banned tables set up on city sidewalks to distribute literature because they were considered too disruptive to pedestrians. You can deny the right to protest during RUSH HOUR. Many cities have statutes that prohibit demonstrations within a certain distance of a CHURCH during hours of service or shortly before or after because of anticipated traffic problems.

You can also sometimes limit the SIZE of a protest group. If a group of 500 wants to demonstrate in a park that can legitimately accommodate only 100 persons, you can stop that.

Court cases suggest that you CAN'T have a complete ban on protesting in a residential neighborhood. But you can prohibit a group from focusing on a particular resident (called "focused residential picketing"). And you can stop groups from marching through residential neighborhoods in the middle of the night when the noise would disrupt privacy.

In imposing restrictions, just remember the criteria itemized in #2. You must apply objective, content-neutral limitations based on some important consideration.

4. YES, but to do so you have to meet a VERY HIGH STANDARD.

Say you want to deny the Ku Klux Klan the right to march in your town because you're worried that you won't be able to protect against a real bloodbath. Courts have said that the police (or government in combination with the police) must prove that maintaining public safety and order is beyond the reasonable ability of your officers and administrators.

The courts will ask why you couldn't get help from neighboring jurisdictions or other sources. They will ask specific reasons why your doubt of maintaining public order is accurate. They will take a very close look because obviously a lot of jurisdictions would like to say, "Hey, we just can't be safe, so you can't come here."

It is very rare that a jurisdiction is able to place a complete ban on a group's ability to protest. You might be able to move the protest, or limit the size or delay it until you have time to recruit extra help, but a complete ban will very rarely be upheld.

5. If you are faced with a problem group, like the Ku Klux Klan or Operation Rescue, wanting to demonstrate in your community and you are concerned about your ability to maintain order because the group is known for not demonstrating peacefully and legally in other communities, you can probably obtain an INJUNCTION from a local judge that will allow you to impose specific, advance limitations on the group's right to protest/demonstrate. For example, an injunction might specify that protesters can't carry weapons, even if they have permits that ordinarily enable them to do so.

This legal tactic became a very useful arrow in law enforcement's quiver with the U.S. Supreme Court's sanction in the case of Madsen v. Women's Health Center [114 S.Ct. 2516 (1994).] In this important case, the Court upheld for the first time the use of injunctions in regards to demonstrations.

A local judge will likely be sympathetic with your position because he is not going to want his own community ripped apart by the group you're concerned about. Even if it turns out later that the judge shouldn't have issued the injunction, you and your department are fully protected from liability so long as you are acting pursuant to his order.

6. Your LOCAL PROSECUTOR. If the prosecutor doesn't agree with you on the arrests you make, he is going to abandon you when you get ready to go to trial. Be sure he participates in the planning and helps you evaluate the statutes that you may want to use as foundations for your arrests. Your department legal advisor or city attorney can guide you regarding civil liability issues, but a prosecutor's input is important where possible criminal charges against demonstrators or counter-demonstrators are concerned.

Particularly if you haven't had cause to use them for awhile, take a close and critical look at your statutes on disorderly conduct, public assembly and noise (noise can be an especially useful ground for arrest in protest situations, if the statute is specific enough). In some cases, these statutes are old, confusing and vague. The language would no longer pass court scrutiny. With sufficient notice, it may even be possible to get weak statutes updated before the protest goes down.

Once a prosecution strategy is agreed upon, officers must be informed as to what's permissible arrest-wise. When Winston-Salem PD anticipates an event with potentially troublesome protesters, officers are given a booklet clearly delineating elements of the non-routine offenses they might be called upon to arrest for. They are then trained on what they will need to show in order to get a conviction for each offense.

Take full advantage of what your laws will let you do. Your prosecutor should be oriented to telling you what you can do legally, not just hammering at what you can't do.

You also want to review physical control tactics that may be appropriate in handling demonstrators. In many departments, the command staff was trained in the '70s, while line officers were trained in the '90s. You don't want commanders encouraging an obsolete "stomp-and-drag" approach--and then later using inflammatory terminology like that in court--when more currently trained officers may know of more effective, lower profile options.

7. INSULTS, YES; SPITTING, NO.

Where exchanges between civilians are concerned, courts generally have ruled that when 1 person is right up in the face of another, close enough so that fighting could occur, and that person speaks directly to the other in an insulting, threatening, provoking manner, such speech can be considered "fighting words" and can be cause for arrest. [For an explanation of "fighting words", see Newsline No. 68.]

However, law enforcement officers, unlike ordinary citizens, are generally expected because of their professional training to restrain themselves in the face of insulting language. So if you're policing a demonstration and 1 of the protesters gives you obscene gestures and nasty talk, you're expected to have a thicker skin and not punch him in the mouth.

Spitting's a different matter. A protester even preparing to spit is committing assault and can be arrested. In 1 instance, a handcuffed subject was being walked to a police vehicle when he made a gurgling sound as if getting ready to spit. An officer immediately delivered when he later called "a straight-arm stun technique designed to redirect the head," injuring the subject but preventing officers from being spit on. A federal Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit against the officer, reasoning that no police officer should be left defenseless against someone preparing to spit on him and that objectively reasonable force to prevent the spitting does not violate any legal standard imposed by the constitution.

8. One of your highest liability risks--a very, very high risk--is FALSE IMPRISONMENT or FALSE ARREST, stemming from an arrest made without probable cause. This can happen easily in a confusing demonstration situation, where you have many people engaged in various types of behavior and quite likely struggling with you. Adequately documenting who in the crowd actually did what and that you had a specific reason for everyone you took in becomes difficult, especially in mass-arrest situations.

EXCESSIVE FORCE also remains a concern. While courts are becoming more and more cognizant of law enforcement realities, they still hold officers to a fairly high standard. If you're accused of excessive force, you will need to be able to articulate why you felt the level of force you used was required.

There may also be claims that you deprived would-be demonstrators of their CIVIL RIGHTS by imposing unreasonable limitations that made the protest ineffective. Your actions will then be tested against the criteria of objectivity itemized in #2. Courts will give great latitude for your regulation of free speech in public places but they do not look favorably on totally eliminating it just because it is inconvenient, unpopular or expensive, all of which it often is. If you effectively eliminate a person's chance for public expression, you need a very strong reason for doing so.

In some state courts, the accusation of FAILURE TO PROTECT is beginning to be raised. Here the court will look for evidence of a "special relationship" between you and the protesters that gives you an exceptional need to protect. Be careful not to make promises, such as: "Yes, you can demonstrate safely because we'll certainly have enough police officers there" or "We'll be fully equipped and fully prepared to protect you, you don't have to worry about a thing."

Another liability area for administrators that has started to emerge in some states is FAILURE TO PROTECT YOUR EMPLOYEE. An officer who gets injured wants to collect beyond workmen's compensation and argues, "You [the administrator] knew perfectly well you were expecting 2,000 Klansmen and you put me out there with 3 other officers and said, 'Here, guys, hold the line'--without adequate training, proper support, proper communications or proper equipment to handle the job, knowing full well that there was potential for harm to me."

9. Videotape can help you prepare tactically for managing a protest and help you defend yourself afterwards against charges of excessive force.

If you know a particular group is coming to town, contact other jurisdictions where these protesters have been previously and ask to borrow videotapes of their demonstration. Some groups try deliberately to provoke inappropriate responses from officers so they can sue or at least so they can get more publicity for their cause. Seeing some of their tactics ahead of time can help you plan your actions better. You may also be able to go on the Internet and find out what other agencies have learned when dealing with the group you're facing.

It's a good idea, incidentally, to practice and videotape crowd control tactics in role-playing exercises, just as you practice DT moves. Make and critique your mistakes with each other so you don't make them in public. Field-test your equipment beforehand, too.

If you use pain compliance or leverage techniques (like some we demonstrate in the Calibre Press Street Survival Seminar) to move people who are blocking an area, you are likely to get allegations of improper force afterwards. If the event has been taped, you can show in court that you used only an amount of force reasonably necessary to get the job done.

Departments and officers win almost all these force cases, unless the force used was clearly outrageous. More and more judges recognize that the way to evaluate an officer's use of force is to put themselves in that officer's shoes. They recognize the officer is in a tense, rapidly evolving, often dangerous situation and that he has to make split-second decisions. Even the Supreme Court has said that not every push or shove that an officer engages in that turns out to be unnecessary violates the law. There has to be room for understanding the dynamics of force confrontations...and videotape can help make the circumstances clearer.

Videotapes you make can be used for future training, too.

10. Generally, NO. Privately owned shopping malls are not considered to be public forum areas (like streets, sidewalks and public parks are) for purposes of 1st Amendment activity. People may have the right to protest outside the mall on public property, but you can keep demonstrators out of privately owned parking areas and the mall interior completely, if owners of the mall don't want people protesting there.

The same can be true regarding private universities. If it's private property it's not public-forum property. Even public buildings, like schools and police stations, are not normally open for demonstrations.

In July, 1997, a MN judge ruled that demonstrations must be permitted inside the Mall of America, the nation's largest, near Minneapolis. But that was because government funds were used in its construction. However, the judge said that the mall has the right to determine the time, place and manner of demonstrations and ruled that some animal-rights protesters must face trespassing charges because they failed to get permission from the mall before demonstrating inside last spring.

11. NO. From a legal standpoint, the media does not have any right of access to any area of public property or to your briefings or planning sessions that the public in general doesn't have. If you set up a no-person zone, with access barred by a police line, for example, the media has no legal right to say, "We're the media, we can come in there." You may decide to let them in, to give them extra access, but that's absolutely your choice.

Sometimes to cover big events, news helicopters will fly over areas where police don't want them for safety reasons. In LA this has been dealt with on occasion by a call to the FAA. The FAA, in turn, has declared the area in question a restricted zone, and news pilots who don't get out of there are subject to losing their licenses.

12. Not really. You can charge the group, but only for the cost their activities directly create. Say you have 50 Klanspeople who want to march down the middle of Main St., crossing 4 intersections. You can charge the Klan for traffic control officers at each intersection (including extra help you bring in from other jurisdictions), provided that you likewise charge other groups comparably for the same service. You can charge the cost of clean-up, but only for the clean-up activities you can actually tie to the activities of the protesting group, not those required because 2,000 onlookers trashed the area. That all has to be absorbed by your community as a cost of doing business in a democracy.

Likewise, you cannot charge protesters for the possible reaction of those observing their protest. In the case of 50 Klanspeople and 2,000 onlookers, if most of your extra resources are to keep the onlookers from bashing in the heads of the marchers, you can't charge for that protection.

Of course you can charge an administrative processing fee for a parade permit before a march-type demonstration is held, provided the fee is set and administered in a non-discriminatory, content-neutral manner. In other words, you must charge the Girl Scouts who want to stage a parade across town the same permit fee as you do the KKK. You don't favor 1 group over another because you like 1 group and don't like the other.

You can have a provision for indigent groups if you wish, but they must meet an objective test for indigence before the fee can be waived.
10452  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism: on: August 15, 2010, 01:00:47 AM
I'm guessing this "John Bush" had no student status on the campus and had been asked to leave, refused to do so and was then arrested as a result. A press pass is not some sort of "get out of jail free" card.
10453  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: August 13, 2010, 05:44:15 PM
This assumes he didn't convert to the religion of pieces.

Not the only scenario. He could be a piquerist. This would be a very interesting case to work.
10454  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: August 13, 2010, 03:31:16 PM
It's an interesting case. I'm curious to see what the investigation brings forth.
10455  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: August 12, 2010, 02:54:38 PM
Wrong. They are not.
huh
You may not want them to be "legal citizens just like you and I" but they are.  They have EVERY right and privilege that you and I do.  That's is clearly the law;
further IMHO there will not be a constitutional amendment changing that law.

**Re-read this until it sinks in:

Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you're 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades. In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves -- many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.

The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S.
10456  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: August 12, 2010, 10:57:46 AM
Wrong. They are not.
10457  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Free Speech vs. Islamic Fascism (formerly Buy DANISH!!!) on: August 11, 2010, 04:19:18 PM
As someone who took a CAIR/USG "sensitivity" class, all I can say is it was laughable. Sadly, there are plenty of people deceived by such propaganda.
10458  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy on: August 11, 2010, 03:18:07 PM
I attended an FBI internet crimes task force presentation about 10 years ago, on a case where a search warrant on a computer in the US yielded images of children being sexually assaulted in real time. The case spanned the globe, and was ultimately tracked down to the UK, where the children were rescued and the perp arrested, by black clad, balaclava wearing, long gun toting tactical cops, no doubt.

Those that traffic in such things use every technique you mentioned. It makes tracking them difficult, but almost never impossible.
10459  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Security issues on: August 11, 2010, 01:32:57 PM
Yellow is supposed to be relaxed, yet alert.
10460  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy on: August 11, 2010, 01:24:29 PM
From the start, there was never true anonymity on the interwebs.
10461  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Color Code of Mental Awareness on: August 10, 2010, 01:58:41 AM
http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/firearms120

An nice presentation on the Color Code of Mental Awareness.
10462  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 09, 2010, 11:18:06 PM
Although AQ will return to aviation oriented attacks in the future, Beslan style or VBIED attacks are more easily done these days.
10463  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: August 08, 2010, 01:08:53 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/08/kudlow-panic-setting-in-at-wh-over-economy/

Kudlow: Panic setting in at WH over economy
10464  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Nuclear War, WMD issues on: August 07, 2010, 10:59:17 PM
Ohoh, time for a new "reset" button!
10465  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy on: August 07, 2010, 04:09:16 PM
Yes, I keep my face off the net to avoid mass waves of gastric reflux. 

I wish Ol' Radley would pin on a badge for a while to see that things aren't as simple as he thinks. Until then, he's just a virgin discussing the kama sutra.
10466  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy on: August 07, 2010, 03:01:49 PM
There aren't 14 photos of me on the internet....
10467  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Death by P.C. on: August 06, 2010, 10:36:57 AM
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/08/06/gays-and-blood-donation-sacrificing-public-safety-for-political-correctness/

Take one for the team?
10468  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: States Rights on: August 05, 2010, 08:25:19 PM
It's a newsfeed carrying media stories of accusations against law enforcement officers/officers being arrested. That tends to demonstrate that LEOs face legal sanction for misconduct, doesn't it?

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=648&issue_id=72005
10469  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 05, 2010, 02:37:28 PM
And that final line is why I geneally try and ignore you.  Too bad this bbs does not have an ignore button, every once in a while I get the urge to tilt at windmills..............and end up with the same result a certain Castillian did.

Your outlook is one of the reasons I decided NOT to continue serving the country as a cop, it is definately anti-constitutional and has way too much of the "bully" feel about it.

**If you are opposed to traffic stops, exactly what were you planning on doing as a police officer?**
10470  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 04, 2010, 10:16:05 PM
Yes FREEDOM is as tangible as that nervous feeling you get in traffic when a cop come up behind you and follows your for a couple of blocks, you KNOW you have done nothing wrong but that feeling is there..........  Freedom is the absence of that.   Right now we are not free.........   

**Well, traffic laws and traffic stops by police aren't going away in the US. So where are you moving to? I hear the tribal regions of Pakistan are lovely this time of year.**
10471  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America and the rest of the western hemisphere on: August 04, 2010, 02:22:14 PM
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/30/imam-faisal-ground-zero-mosque-money-opinions-columnists-claudia-rosett.html

Claudia Rosett does some great work here.
10472  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 04, 2010, 02:10:18 PM
I don't wander the halls of Langley or Ft. Meade, but I can tell you that for law enforcement there are strict rules and structures in place regarding intelligence systems. I recently did a 5 day course on the topic and they beat us over the head with 28 CFR 23 daily.

http://www.iir.com/28cfr/
10473  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 04, 2010, 01:20:06 PM
Oh, Sacco and Vanzetti might not be the innocents you imagine.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5245754

Sacco and Vanzetti were a cause célèbre during the 1920s. Left-leaning intellectuals, including Sinclair, championed their innocence. Their eventual execution in 1927 touched off riots in Paris and London. Upton Sinclair's letter reveals he knew more than he let on about the case. We've invited Upton Sinclair's biographer, Anthony Arthur, to tell us about it.

Hello.

Mr. ANTHONY ARTHUR (Upton Sinclair's Biographer): Hello, it's nice to be with you.

ELLIOTT: So in this letter, Sinclair describes a meeting with Fred Moore, who was Sacco and Vanzetti's lawyer at the time. They're meeting at a hotel in Denver. And he writes, quote, "Alone in a hotel room with Fred, I begged him to tell me the full truth. He then told me that the men were guilty and he told me in every detail how he had framed a set of alibis for them."
10474  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: States Rights on: August 04, 2010, 01:09:10 PM
http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/articlearchive/details.aspx?ID=205937

You might want to read up on the legal liabilities law enforcement works under. It's not how you imagine.
10475  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 04, 2010, 12:54:42 PM
I won't go into that in this venue.

BTW, aren't you outraged that fissionable material possessors might get Sacco and Vanzetti'ed by oppressive aircraft with Orwellian radiation detection equipment? Without a warrant, even!
 cry

"First, they came after those with weapons grade fissionable materials, I didn't speak up, as I had no weapons grade fissionable material....."
10476  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: States Rights on: August 04, 2010, 12:47:19 PM
http://www.policeny.com/esdtrucks1.html

Nothing new.
10477  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 04, 2010, 12:15:37 PM
In this scenario, the post-blast analysis shows that the nuclear materials were probably produced by the Soviets in the cold war. What now?
10478  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 04, 2010, 08:49:19 AM
"walk softly and carry a big stick" would mean something more like:  We ignore you as long as you do not come and attack us, however attack us and we will ERASE your government.

So big chunks of DC and Manhattan disappear in a flash. AQ releases a martyrdom video from UK and German nationals claiming credit. Who exactly are you declaring war on?
10479  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 03, 2010, 11:18:04 PM
Quote
**I guess there are very good reasons to avoid offering specfic policies, when you have nothing to offer but romantic  sloganeering, devoid of tangible concepts.**

Freedom is not a tangible concept? Interesting.

**Freedom can be very tangible, like not having radioactive ash wafting down on one's head.**

Quote
**So give me the libertarian national security model. Do it all devolve down to the Ron Paul "If we isolate ourselves, the bad people will go away and leave us alone"?

Speak softly and carry a big stick suits me.

You seem to be an all or nothing kind of guy. Is it not possible to want a strong national defense that doesn't do damage to the freedom it seeks to defend? Can one not state that US drug policy has failed without proposing something better? BHO's 2000 page healthcare takeover has yet to be implemented; do we have to wait for it to be irrevocably in place before we can object to it? I know how Stalin would answer these question, will your response be qualitatively different?

No, i'm a pragmatic sort of guy that understands that the real world don't often comply with beatiful ivory tower theory. I'm interested in protecting this nation and ensuring it's survival. We face serious existential threats from many directions and a lack of awareness and apathy from the public for the most part.
10480  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 03, 2010, 10:35:54 PM
" Please give me a law enforcement and intelligence model that deals with the current threat profile without offending libertarian sensibilities."

Two ears, one bullet.

I wouldn't have thrown Iraq away; I wouldn't tell the Taliban we're leaving; I'd cut a deal with the Pashtuns to unite Pashtunistan; I'd support the Iranian opposition; I'd get out of the way of Israel's right to self-defense including against Iran; I'd acknowledge that to the extent that Islam seeks theocracy that it is an anti-American political ideology and to that extent not protected by the First Amendment; I'd prosecute those who divulge military intelligence.

That would be before lunch on the first day.

Sounds good, but from the law enforcement perspective, how do you root out and prosecute jihadist cells CONUS prior to them going operational ? Or do we wait for the attacks before we prosecute any left alive?
10481  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 03, 2010, 10:33:05 PM
Quote
I'm pretty sure Thomas Jeferson didn't have a conceptual model of a jihadist nuke going off in an American city when he was putting quill to paper, did he?

Yes, there are always very good reasons to embrace despotism, which is why gents like Thomas Jefferson tried to make that impulse hard to realize.

**I guess there are very good reasons to avoid offering specfic policies, when you have nothing to offer but romantic  sloganeering, devoid of tangible concepts.**

We've had many versions of this conversation, and I understand you'll relentlessly embrace authoritarianism regardless of what I say, just as I'll err on the side of the founder's vision of a free society unfettered by bureaucratic scrutiny of any stripe as once you let the authoritarian djinn out of the bottle it's very unlikely it'll get stuffed back in.


**So give me the libertarian national security model. Do it all devolve down to the Ron Paul "If we isolate ourselves, the bad people will go away and leave us alone"?
10482  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 03, 2010, 04:00:58 PM
I'm pretty sure Thomas Jeferson didn't have a conceptual model of a jihadist nuke going off in an American city when he was putting quill to paper, did he?

The 4th amd is based on a "reasonable expectation of privacy". The courts have shaped what is defined as "reasonable".
10483  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 03, 2010, 12:28:14 PM
Ok, say you just got appointed Attorney General and BBG is DNI. Please give me a law enforcement and intelligence model that deals with the current threat profile without offending libertarian sensibilities.
10484  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 03, 2010, 12:03:42 PM
I don't know that the actual truth is known of exactly what the NSA has or hasn't done. I thought we were discussing the  PATRIOT act hype vs. reality.
10485  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 03, 2010, 11:32:35 AM
Not of what I'm aware of, thus far.
10486  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 03, 2010, 10:42:02 AM
I'm not talking about NSA, i'm talking about domestic law enforcement.
10487  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America and the rest of the western hemisphere on: August 03, 2010, 10:32:09 AM

in an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, Rauf told the newspaper that funding would come from Muslims in the United States and from overseas.

"Imam Abdul Rauf . . . told Asharq Al-Awsat that the Islamic center will be financed through contributions from Muslims in the US, as well as by donations from Arab and Islamic countries," the newspaper reported.

Rauf did not return a call for comment.

In interviews with US media, Rauf has insisted funds would be raised here.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/foreign_mosque_money_OSkAG6ucmWz6yPAJU61cTO?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME#ixzz0vYcJGKjZ
10488  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America and the rest of the western hemisphere on: August 03, 2010, 09:50:40 AM
The mosque is nothing more than a victory lap for the jihadists.
10489  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: States Rights on: August 03, 2010, 09:38:30 AM
The term SWAT was coined by the LAPD in 1968. The use of special units with weapons not normally in routine police service well predates SWAT. A law enforcement agency receiving federal funds does not make the officers federal by any reasonable definition. There is no funding mechanism that requires SWAT call outs to justify federal funds.
10490  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 03, 2010, 09:27:58 AM
The ability of law enforcement to subpeona library or phone records predates the PATRIOT act.
10491  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Libertarian Issues on: August 02, 2010, 07:17:25 PM


As opposed to the irrational paranoia that typically gets posted here, this is something to legitimately be pissed off at.
10492  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Self-Defense Law on: August 02, 2010, 07:08:27 PM
Meh. Minor tweaks. Nothing of importance.
10493  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Libertarian Issues on: August 02, 2010, 05:04:55 PM
Hmmmmmmmm.......
10494  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People on: August 01, 2010, 08:47:12 PM
Boyo,

There has been federal level law enforcement since the dawn of this nation, and from personal experience, I can tell you that we are better off having different agencies that fill specific roles. The BATFE has it's place, the FBI, it's, the Border Patrol, US Secret Service and others that work at the federal level do things that local/state agencies cannot. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. I support some BATFE reforms, but dissolving it won't end federal gun laws and another agency would just get tasked with enforcing those laws anyway.
10495  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender issues thread on: August 01, 2010, 08:39:23 PM
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/08/01/8-ways-fascist-feminists-are-ruining-americas-women/

Feminist cultural destruction.
10496  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Self-Defense Law on: August 01, 2010, 03:33:37 PM
One never uses force to "kill". You use force to stop an unlawful attack on yourself or a 3rd party, which may result in serious bodily injury or death to the attacker/s, but never with the intent to do anything else but stop the unlawful assault, using the appropriate force given the totality of the circumstances. Any verbal interactions with law enforcement should stress the threats you perceived and the information that allows them to understand the totality of those circumstances.
10497  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People on: July 31, 2010, 03:06:19 PM
http://www.theonion.com/articles/shiite-terrorists-cross-county-line,1636/

A local level approach to homeland security more to your liking?   wink
10498  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People on: July 31, 2010, 02:51:31 PM
The BATFE acts as a risk pool for local/state law enforcement. I'll remind you that the US Marshals were a creation of the founding fathers:

http://www.justice.gov/marshals/usmshist.html

George Washington Appoints First Marshals - 1789
 

The offices of U.S. Marshal and Deputy Marshals were created more than 200 years ago by the first Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789, the same legislation that established the federal judicial system. The Marshals were given extensive authority to support the federal courts within their judicial districts and to carry out all lawful orders issued by judges, Congress, or the President.

The Marshals and their Deputies served the subpoenas, summonses, writs, warrants, and other process issued by the courts, made all the arrests, and handled all the prisoners. They also disbursed the money.

The Marshals paid the fees and expenses of the court clerks, U.S. Attorneys, jurors, and witnesses. They rented the courtrooms and jail space and hired the bailiffs, criers, and janitors. They made sure the prisoners were present, the jurors were available, and the witnesses were on time.

But this was only a part of what the Marshals did. When George Washington set up his first administration and the first Congress began passing laws, both quickly discovered an inconvenient gap in the constitutional design of the government. It had no provision for a regional administrative structure stretching throughout the country. Both the Congress and the executive branch were housed at the national capitol. No agency was established or designated to represent the federal government's interests at the local level. The need for a regional organization quickly became apparent. Congress and the President solved part of the problem by creating specialized agencies, such as customs and revenue collectors, to levy the tariffs and taxes. Yet, there were numerous other jobs that needed to be done. The only officers available to do them were the Marshals and their Deputies.

Thus, the Marshals also provided local representation for the federal government within their districts. They took the national census every 10 years through 1870. They distributed Presidential proclamations, collected a variety of statistical information on commerce and manufacturing, supplied the names of government employees for the national register, and performed other routine tasks needed for the central government to function effectively. Over the past 200 years, Congress and the President also have called on the Marshals to carry out unusual or extraordinary missions, such as registering enemy aliens in time of war, capturing fugitive slaves, sealing the American border against armed expeditions from foreign countries, and swapping spies with the former Soviet Union.
10499  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People on: July 31, 2010, 10:16:04 AM
The BATFE enforces federal laws passed by congress concerning alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives. States may or may not choose to have their own laws, but I'd argue and I think most of the public would agree that the federal gov't has a role in enforcing those laws passed at the federal level.

Not long ago, I was in an arson investigation class where one of the instructors was a homicide detective from a big, well funded department. He worked on a double homicide that stemmed from an arson at a mega sized apartment complex (Three story, 135 units). The arson destroyed the complex, injured many people and as it turned out, killed two people that had no connection to the gangster thugs that were trying to burn other people to death (an ex girlfriend and her child).

The case was overwhelming to both fire/rescue and law enforcement. Resources were called in from surrounding agencies, state investigators and the BATFE. The BATFE flew in arson specialists from around the country to assist in processing the sprawling crime scene. When preparing for trial, the BATFE built an exact model of the first section of apartment buildings to the exact specifications of the original buildings, filled with the same electrical system, carpeting and burned it in a recreation of the arson. The film of the reconstruction and the nationally recognized arson experts testified for the prosecution in the case, resulting in the conviction of the two thugs.


Arson investigation is very complex, expensive and can happen anywhere, including jurisdictions with small, underfunded local/state level agencies. Being able to pick up a phone to call in BATFE help in those scenarios is vital to solving/prosecuting those major cases.
10500  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: July 30, 2010, 06:02:23 PM
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guides/Straight%20Talk%20on%20Homeland%20Security1.htm

Straight Talk on Homeland Security
By Heather MacDonald

City Journal
August 11, 2003

Read it all.
Pages: 1 ... 208 209 [210] 211 212 ... 287
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!