Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 25, 2017, 07:27:11 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
101802 Posts in 2375 Topics by 1089 Members
Latest Member: Sarge
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 225 226 [227] 228 229 ... 291
11301  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: December 26, 2009, 06:25:18 PM
LA has been on AQ's to do list for more than a decade. If I recall correctly, there is some evidence that some pre-attack surveillance has been done at Orange county schools for a "Beslan".
11302  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: December 26, 2009, 01:15:11 PM

Terror threats loom over Las Vegas
Officials fear blow to economy
By Steve Friess, Globe Correspondent  |  December 28, 2003

LAS VEGAS -- A year ago, just before taking office, Las Vegas's newly elected sheriff committed what has been called a major faux pas: He gave an honest assessment of southern Nevada's terror risk.

"Being America's playground, we have to be a prime target for fundamentalists whose beliefs are radically different from ours," Sheriff Bill Young said at a hotel security conference in December 2002. "If we have a terrorist attack here, we're done as a community. We have only one industry -- importing people to come here to have a good time. And it's entirely predicated on people feeling safe and secure to come here."

Those remarks -- for which Young incurred anger from Nevada's political and tourism leaders -- had renewed resonance this week when a new report identified the city as a potential target of a suspected Christmas Day hijacking plot that prompted the cancellation of six Air France flights.

While law enforcement officials, including Young, insisted Friday that the Washington Post was merely speculating when it named Las Vegas as the most likely American city for the would-be hijackers of a Paris-to-Los Angeles flight to crash the airliner, the news brought to the forefront this tourist-dependent economy's sensitivity to even rumors of its vulnerability.
11303  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: December 26, 2009, 12:47:50 PM
Can you move beyond childish macho posturing and actually contemplate policy? You might not be aware of it, but Las Vegas is a top tier target city for terror. Imagine a "Mumbai" attack on strip casinos or aircraft slamming into the MGM/New York-New York/Excalibur on a weekend night. Think the economy sucks there now? Let something like that happen and watch the ripple effects.
11304  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: December 26, 2009, 10:07:55 AM
An important freedom is not having to decide to jump to your death or burn and get crushed by the collapsing building.
11305  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: December 26, 2009, 09:38:50 AM

The spirit of flight 93.
11306  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Girl abducted in Phoenix rescued by police on: December 26, 2009, 09:02:10 AM
Girl abducted in Phoenix rescued by police
December 26, 2009 9:50 AM EST

PHOENIX (AP) — A patrol officer spotted a suspected kidnapper's car and aided in the rescue of a 5-year-old girl, who was found uninjured in what police are calling Phoenix's "Christmas miracle."

Natalie Flores was rescued at about 9:30 p.m. Friday, more than seven hours after she was scooped up by a stranger while playing with her sisters outside their Phoenix apartment building.

"She is alive and well," police spokesman Sgt. Andy Hill said.

Hill credited a "very alert" policeman with taking quick action after spotting what appeared to be the suspect's vehicle driving on a west Phoenix avenue, even though the license plate differed from reports.

Officer Mike Burns pulled alongside and "saw a suspect that matched the description and thought he saw a small child," Hill told The Associated Press.

He said the pickup sped off, and Burns gave chase and alerted the force. Officers put spike strips across the road several blocks away that punctured the suspect's tires, causing him to crash on the roadside.

The man took off on foot but was caught and arrested a block away after a brief struggle.

"She is alive and well thanks to the timely diligence of officer Burns," Hill said. "It is rare in stranger abduction cases so much time can pass without a tragic ending. This was truly a Christmas miracle."

Police said the suspect is a 45-year-old man, but they haven't released his name and or any other details.

Hill said the man was being questioned by police and held on charges of kidnapping, aggravated assault on a police officer and felony pursuit.

The sergeant said Natalie appeared to be in good shape but was being examined by health officials.

Police received the call that Natalie had been taken at about 2:15 p.m. An Amber Alert was issued, and authorities began combing the area on foot, by car and with helicopters.

Hill said the child had been playing in a common area at the apartment complex with her two sisters, ages 7 and 9, when a man parked his brown pickup in a nearby parking lot and walked over to them carrying a camera.

"He physically grabbed the 7-year-old girl and forcibly took a photo of her," Hill said.

The man then forced Natalie into the truck and drove away. Witnesses reported that as the man was fleeing, he hit a parked car before entering southbound 19th Avenue.

Natalie and her sisters had been staying at an apartment in the complex with an aunt who has legal custody of them, Hill said. The girls' parents live separately out of state.

After the abduction, Natalie's older sister went to a neighbor's apartment and pounded on the door, The Arizona Republic reported. The woman who answered, Donna Reed, said the girl was carrying a ball and appeared to be shaking.

"She said some man just took her little sister," Reed told the newspaper. "She was a nervous wreck."

Reed called 911.


AP writers Katie Oyan and Mark Carlson in Phoenix contributed to this report.
11307  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Intel Matters on: December 24, 2009, 06:08:27 PM
Very interesting.
11308  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Did Obama exempt Interpol from same legal constraints as American law-enforcemen on: December 23, 2009, 02:13:39 PM

Did Obama exempt Interpol from same legal constraints as American law-enforcement?
posted at 2:55 pm on December 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

During his presidency, Ronald Reagan granted the global police agency Interpol the status of diplomatic personnel in order to engage more constructively on international law enforcement.  In Executive Order 12425, Reagan made two exceptions to that status.  The first had to do with taxation, but the second was to make sure that Interpol had the same accountability for its actions as American law enforcement — namely, they had to produce records when demanded by courts and could not have immunity for their actions.
Barack Obama unexpectedly revoked those exceptions in a change to EO 12425 last month, as Threats Watch reports:
Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order “Amending Executive Order 12425.” It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other “International Organizations” as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.
By removing language from President Reagan’s 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates – now operates – on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests. …
After initial review and discussions between the writers of this analysis, the context was spelled out plainly.
Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an “International Organization.” In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2© and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).

And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed.
Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.
Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable. (Emphasis added.)
Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens’ Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery (“unless such immunity be expressly waived.”)
Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets – Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.
Actually, that last argument overreaches.  American law does not consider people as “assets.”  It does mean, though, that Interpol officers would have diplomatic immunity for any lawbreaking conducted in the US at a time when Interpol nations (like Italy) have attempted to try American intelligence agents for their work in the war on terror, a rather interesting double standard.
It also appears to mean that Americans who get arrested on the basis of Interpol work cannot get the type of documentation one normally would get in the discovery process, which is a remarkable reversal from Obama’s declared efforts to gain “due process” for terrorists detained at Gitmo.  Does the White House intend to treat Americans worse than the terrorists we’ve captured during wartime?
Andy McCarthy wonders the same thing:
Interpol’s property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.
Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court — which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes — i.e., for actions taken in America’s defense).
Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?
I seem to recall the Left getting hysterical over the Patriot Act extensions that Obama finally backed.  This gives Interpol a much wider operational latitude than anything contemplated in the Patriot Act, and with no accountability at all.
11309  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: States Rights on: December 22, 2009, 12:08:31 PM
Sounds good to me.
11310  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy on: December 15, 2009, 09:57:54 AM
Ok, that's a non-answer.
11311  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: December 15, 2009, 05:30:55 AM

Report: U.S. may target Taliban leadership in Quetta with drone strikes
posted at 8:04 pm on December 14, 2009 by Allahpundit

Consider this an unexpected benefit of The One’s eagerness to get out of Afghanistan. He has every incentive to do as much damage to the enemy as possible as quickly as possible, which may encourage him to make moves even Bush wasn’t daring enough to make. It’s been an open secret, and an international disgrace, for years that the Taliban leadership operates relatively freely in the Pakistani city of Quetta; I’ve written about it before but not until just recently did Pakistan itself admit the obvious. We know they’re in the city. The question is, what are we — and, more importantly, Pakistan — prepared to do about it?
Senior U.S. officials are pushing to expand CIA drone strikes beyond Pakistan’s tribal region and into a major city in an attempt to pressure the Pakistani government to pursue Taliban leaders based in Quetta.
The proposal has opened a contentious new front in the clandestine war. The prospect of Predator aircraft strikes in Quetta, a sprawling city, signals a new U.S. resolve to decapitate the Taliban. But it also risks rupturing Washington’s relationship with Islamabad.
The concern has created tension among Obama administration officials over whether unmanned aircraft strikes in a city of 850,000 are a realistic option. Proponents, including some military leaders, argue that attacking the Taliban in Quetta — or at least threatening to do so — is crucial to the success of the revised war strategy President Obama unveiled last week.
“If we don’t do this — at least have a real discussion of it — Pakistan might not think we are serious,” said a senior U.S. official involved in war planning. “What the Pakistanis have to do is tell the Taliban that there is too much pressure from the U.S.; we can’t allow you to have sanctuary inside Pakistan anymore.”…
Pakistan is working with the CIA to coax certain Taliban lieutenants in Omar’s fold to defect. U.S. officials said contacts have been handled primarily by the Saudi and Pakistani intelligence services. The results of the effort are unclear.
The fear, of course, is that drone strikes in a place as crowded as a city will produce a catastrophic misfire and a similarly catastrophic public backlash. Which is why, I assume, this is mostly a bluff aimed at scaring the Pakistanis into sending people in and taking out the leadership itself. But how likely is that? Via Bill Roggio, a bit of insight into our “friends” in Pakistan’s intel service, the ISI:
Champagne popped open this week as Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) celebrated US President Barack Obama’s announcement that American troops would start withdrawing from Afghanistan in July 2011. Despite the extra 30,000 soldiers and the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) expansion of its unmanned drone operations inside Pakistan’s tribal areas, Islamabad was jubilant. The ISI’s strategy of waiting for the Americans to leave was paying off. Soon, Islamabad would recapture Kabul after eight years of domination by New Delhi…
Clearly, the ISI runs circles around the CIA. The CIA knows it, but can do little except gnash its teeth, because it has no spies among the jihadists. The ISI doesn’t need spies; it created the Taliban.
The Americans ought to demand that the ISI demonstrate sincerity by handing over Mullah Omar, the Taliban chief. The one-eyed Mullah and his cohorts are said to have converted one of Quetta’s suburbs into a kind of mini-Taliban city; it is a place which neither Pakistani police nor journalists dare visit. Houses, shops and mosques have all been purchased by the Taliban (using ISI money, which is basically US military aid; yes, ironic). The ISI is in constant touch with the Taliban hierarchy. And even with expanded CIA drone operations, it will be difficult to get Mullah Omar; the drones have been hitting targets in the countryside and mountains, not in the cities, and even that has swelled anti-American sentiment, according to every Pakistani leader, civilian or military. Imagine what a strike in a crowded urban area would do.
ISI can tell us where they are — and it can also give us bogus information which would cause massive civilian casualties, a resulting PR nightmare, and a very rapid abandonment of the drone-strike strategy in Quetta. Which, I assume, explains why Bush never tried it: It’s likely too hard to get CIA people inside a Taliban citadel so we’re forced to rely on Pakistani intel to hand over their own proxy jihadi army, something they have little incentive to do. In fact, just today there’s a story at the Times about their refusal to crack down on Siraj Haqqani, another creation of ISI who’s been waging war on the U.S. inside Afghanistan from North Waziristan.
The core reason for Pakistan’s imperviousness is its scant faith in the Obama surge, and what Pakistan sees as the need to position itself for a major regional realignment in Afghanistan once American forces begin to leave…
Pakistan is particularly eager to counter the growing influence of its archenemy, India, which is pouring $1.2 billion in aid into Afghanistan. “If American walks away, Pakistan is very worried that it will have India on its eastern border and India on its western border in Afghanistan,” said Tariq Fatemi, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United States who is pro-American in his views.
For that reason, Mr. Fatemi said, the Pakistani Army was “very reluctant” to jettison Mr. Haqqani, Pakistan’s strong card in Afghanistan. Moreover, the Pakistanis do not want to alienate Mr. Haqqani because they consider him an important player in reconciliation efforts that they would like to see get under way in Afghanistan immediately, the officials said.
It’s a Catch-22: Obama’s eagerness to leave is aimed in part at pressuring Pakistan to help us succeed and get out, but Pakistan has less incentive to help us succeed and get out if it thinks we’re eager to leave. Which brings us back to the main question of how the U.S. can even credibly threaten to hit high-value targets in Quetta without ISI help and, indeed, with the ISI actively trying to thwart them. Presumably there have been defections to our side from inside the city giving us an intelligence presence there, or else there’s some sort of leverage we have over ISI which you and I don’t know about that would cause them to start ratting out big fish like Mullah Omar. Keep an eye out in your news-reading travails for reports of Taliban capos suddenly being arrested. It has, after all, happened before.
11312  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants on: December 14, 2009, 02:03:58 PM

Lord Monckton rules!
11313  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy on: December 14, 2009, 08:32:05 AM
How would being undercover in real life be different than being U/C online?
11314  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam the religion on: December 14, 2009, 08:10:58 AM
UK Imam: "Non-Muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying Allah and his prophet"
The Anjem Chaudary video has, of course, been circulating for quite some time -- it was already old when we posted it in December 2006 -- but it bears repeating whenever you hear a Muslim spokesman in the West claiming that Islam forbids the killing of innocent civilians. Why is it so hard to get a definition of "innocent" in this context?

"Report: Non-Muslims Deserve to Be Punished," from FoxNews (thanks to PNM):

A report posted on Islam Watch, a site run by Muslims who oppose intolerant teachings and hatred for unbelievers, exposes a prominent Islamic cleric and lawyer who support extreme punishment for non-Muslims — including killing and rape.
A question-and-answer session with Imam Abdul Makin in an East London mosque asks why Allah would tell Muslims to kill and rape innocent non-Muslims, including their wives and daughters, according to Islam Watch.

"Because non-Muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying Allah and his prophet," the Imam says, according to the report. "If you don't believe me, here is the legal authority, the top Muslim lawyer of Britain."

The lawyer, Anjem Choudary, backs up the Imam's position, saying that all Muslims are innocent.

Click here to watch the interview with Islamic lawyer Anjem Choudary.

"You are innocent if you are a Muslim," Choudary tells the BBC. "Then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are not a Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God."

Choudary said he would not condemn a Muslim for any action.

"As a Muslim, I must support my Muslim brothers and sisters," Choudary said. "I must have hatred to everything that is not Muslim."
11315  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam the religion on: December 13, 2009, 11:59:44 PM

U.S. Muslim leader explains how Fort Hood jihadist misunderstands Islam
Here is that rare thing, an attempt to show with specific Qur'anic citations how an Islamic jihadist is misusing the Qur'an and misunderstanding the true, peaceful teachings of Islam. Usually those who assert such things are extremely vague about just how Islam and the Qur'an are being misused.

Unfortunately, however, this is written by Salam al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) -- a fact that immediately arouses suspicion. MPAC, for example, has trafficked in moral equivalence between jihadists and anti-jihadists regarding Israel. It was no surprise when the organization joined CAIR and other groups in 2004 in signing a "Joint Muslims/Arab-American Statement on Israel Violence in Gaza." The organizations echoed some of the most virulent rhetoric that jihadists employ in their offensives against the Jewish state, condemning "Israel's recent indiscriminate killings of innocent Palestinians, including many children," without even mentioning the targeting by Palestinian suicide bombers of Israeli citizens on buses and in restaurants, or the Israeli government's diametrically opposed policy of never targeting civilians.

Such extreme rhetoric was nothing new for MPAC. On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, on a Los Angeles radio show, al-Maryati added fuel to the wildest, most paranoid conspiracy theories about the attacks that had just unfolded: "If we're going to look at suspects we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what's happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies."

This was not al-Maryati's only outburst of anti-Israeli malevolence. Daniel Pipes recounts a "February 1996 incident when a Palestinian named Muhammad Hamida shouted the fundamentalist war cry, Allahu Akbar (Allah is Great), as he drove his car intentionally into a crowded bus stop in Jerusalem, killing one Israeli and injuring 23 others. Before he could escape or hurt anyone else, Hamida was shot dead. Commenting on the affair, Mr. Al-Marayati said not a word about Hamida's murderous rampage but instead focused on Hamida's death, which he called 'a provocative act,' and demanded the extradition of his executors to America 'to be tried in a U.S. court' on terrorism charges."

Al-Maryati in 1996 equated violent jihadists with the Founding Fathers: "Most Islamic movements have been branded as terrorists as a result of the rising extremism from a handful of militants. American freedom fighters hundreds of years ago were also regarded as terrorists by the British."

"Repentance is the only option for the Fort Hood killer," by Salam al-Marayati in the Wall Street Journal, December 9 (thanks to all who sent this in):

[...] Maj. Hasan took an oath as a member of the U.S. military to defend our country. He also took a Hippocratic oath to protect his patients. The violation of these oaths is a violation of the Quranic principle which states that making a pledge to anyone is tantamount to making a pledge to God. The Quran states: "(Be not like those) who use their oaths as a means of deceiving one another" (16:92).
QED, eh? Salam al-Marayati would have us believe that it's very simple: the Qur'an says don't break your oaths, Hasan broke his oath, and so Hasan, despite appearances to the contrary, is a Muslim heretic, a Misunderstander of Islam.

Unfortunately, however, there are indications in the Hadith that oaths taken to Infidels don't have that unbreakable character. Muhammad, of course, said, "War is deceit." He also said, "By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath."

Muhammad said this in the context of being able to do something better for his men than what he had promised to do, and so al-Marayati may argue that shooting up Fort Hood was in no way better than remaining loyal to the U.S. military, but from the jihadist point of view a jihad against Infidels is certainly better than submitting to those Infidels. After all, Muhammad also said, when asked what was the best deed, that jihad was best after professing faith in Islam. He also recommended to his followers that they break their oaths if they found a better course of action.

Those who would say that Qur'an trumps Hadith whenever there is a contradiction, and that therefore oaths are always and everywhere binding upon Muslims, must then explain why that has never been understood as such in the Islamic world. History is full of examples of Muslims breaking oaths and treaties with Infidels. Were they all misunderstanding Islam?

In any case, al-Marayati mentions none of this. And why not? He could have given a much more convincing and honest presentation if he had acknowledged the existence within Islamic tradition of justifications for oath-breaking, and explained -- if he could -- why they did not excuse Hasan's behavior. But he didn't.

His now infamous PowerPoint presentation is rife with distortions of the Quran. Entitled "The Koranic Worldview As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military," it provides anything but a Quranic perspective. Maj. Hasan's critical fault in understanding the Quran was his failure to distinguish between two very important categories of verses: those tied to the specific context of seventh-century Arabia, and those that are absolute and permanent.
Here al-Marayati implies, without offering specifics, that the martial verses of the Qur'an that Hasan quoted are understood by mainstream Islamic theology to apply only to seventh-century Arabia. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. Very early in the history of Islam, Muslims noticed and began to grapple with how Muhammad's messages changed in character over the course of his prophetic career. Muhammad's earliest biographer, a pious Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains the progression of Qur'anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah's last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur'anic verse: "Then God sent down to him: 'Fight them so that there be no more seduction,' i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. 'And the religion is God's', i.e. Until God alone is worshipped."

The Qur'an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until "the religion is God's" - that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. Ibn Ishaq gives no hint that that command died with the seventh century.

Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history. According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh 'Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, "at first 'the fighting' was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory." He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: "(1) against them who start 'the fighting' against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur'an)." (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur'an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh 'Abdullah is referring to Qur'anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)

This understanding of the Qur'an isn't limited to the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia, to which Sheikh 'Abdullah belongs, and which many Western analysts imagine to have originated Islamic doctrines of warfare against unbelievers. Jihad theorist Sayyid Qutb, who was not a Wahhabi, subscribes to the same view of the Qur'an. In his jihad manifesto Milestones, he quotes at length from the great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350), who, says Qutb, "has summed up the nature of Islamic Jihaad." Ibn Qayyim outlines the stages of the Muhammad's prophetic career: "For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God's religion was fully established."

Qutb summarizes the stages: "Thus, according to the explanation by Imam Ibn Qayyim, the Muslims were first restrained from fighting; then they were permitted to fight; then they were commanded to fight against the aggressors; and finally they were commanded to fight against all the polytheists." He further quotes Ibn Qayyim as emphasizing the need to wage war against and subjugate non-Muslims, particularly the Jewish and Christian "People of the Book": "After the command for Jihaad came, the non-believers were divided into three categories: one, those with whom there was peace; two, the people with whom the Muslims were at war; and three, the Dhimmies....It was also explained that war should be declared against those from among the 'People of the Book' who declare open enmity, until they agree to pay Jizyah or accept Islam. Concerning the polytheists and the hypocrites, it was commanded in this chapter that Jihaad be declared against them and that they be treated harshly." Qutb says that if someone rejects Islam, "then it is the duty of Islam to fight him until either he is killed or until he declares his submission."

In fact, some classical Islamic theologians are as far from thinking that the verses commanding jihad against Infidels no longer apply in our own age as you can get. Some assert that the Verse of the Sword (Qur'an 9:5, "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them") abrogates no less than 124 more peaceful and tolerant verses of the Qur'an. Tafsir al-Jalalayn, a commentary on the Qur'an by the respected imams Jalal al-Din Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Mahalli (1389-1459) and Jalal al-Din 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr al-Suyuti (1445-1505), asserts that the Qur'an's ninth sura "was sent down when security was removed by the sword." Another mainstream and respected Qur'an commentator, Ibn Kathir (1301-1372), declares that Qur'an 9:5 "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term....No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah [the ninth sura] was revealed." Ibn Juzayy (d. 1340), yet another Qur'an commentator whose works are still read in the Islamic world, agrees: the Verse of the Sword's purpose is "abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur'an."

None of them say that the Verse of the Sword applies only to the seventh century.

Ibn Kathir makes this clear in his commentary on another "tolerance verse": "And he [Muhammad] saith: O my Lord! Lo! these are a folk who believe not. Then bear with them, O Muhammad, and say: Peace. But they will come to know" (43:88-89). Ibn Kathir explains: "Say Salam (peace!) means, 'do not respond to them in the same evil manner in which they address you; but try to soften their hearts and forgive them in word and deed.'" However, that is not the end of the passage. Ibn Kathir then takes up the last part: "But they will come to know. This is a warning from Allah for them. His punishment, which cannot be warded off, struck them, and His religion and His word was supreme. Subsequently Jihad and striving were prescribed until the people entered the religion of Allah in crowds, and Islam spread throughout the east and the west."

And so today. The Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajid (1962-), whose lectures and Islamic rulings (fatawa) circulate widely throughout the Islamic world, demonstrates this in a discussion of whether Muslims should force others to accept Islam. In considering Qur'an 2:256 ("There is no compulsion in religion,") the Sheikh quotes Qur'an 9:29, as well as 8:39 ("And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]"), and the Verse of the Sword. Of the latter, Sheikh Muhammad says simply: "This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword). These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim."

Underscoring the fact that none of this is merely of historical interest is another Shafi'i manual of Islamic law that in 1991 was certified by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairo's Al-Azhar University, as conforming "to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community." This manual, 'Umdat al-Salik (available in English as Reliance of the Traveller), spends a considerable amount of time explaining jihad as "war against non-Muslims." It spells out the nature of this warfare in quite specific terms: "the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax." It adds a comment by a Jordanian jurist that corresponds to Muhammad's instructions to call the unbelievers to Islam before fighting them: the caliph wages this war only "provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) . . . while remaining in their ancestral religions."

Also, if there is no caliph, Muslims must still wage jihad. In any case, the desire to restore the caliphate ultimately highlights the expansionist, imperialist, totalitarian, globalist aims of the jihad movement, even as today it presents itself as a defensive action against Western evils. That expansionism is based on Qur'anic passages such as 9:29 and the life and teachings of Muhammad. The Pakistani Brigadier S. K. Malik's 1979 book The Qur'anic Concept of War (a book that carried a glowing endorsement from Pakistan's then-future President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who said that it explained "the ONLY pattern of war" that a Muslim country could legitimately wage) delineates the same stages in the Qur'anic teaching about jihad: "The Muslim migration to Medina brought in its wake events and decisions of far-reaching significance and consequence for them. While in Mecca, they had neither been proclaimed an Ummah [community] nor were they granted the permission to take up arms against their oppressors. In Medina, a divine revelation proclaimed them an 'Ummah' and granted them the permission to take up arms against their oppressors. The permission was soon afterwards converted into a divine command making war a religious obligation for the faithful."

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari'ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad, in a 1994 book on Islamic law quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Abu al-Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad Ibn Rushd. Ibn Rushd reports on a consensus (ijma) among Muslim scholars on jihad warfare - and in traditional Islamic legal terms a consensus among scholars, once reached, cannot be modified. "Why wage war?" asks Ibn Rushd, and then he answers his own question: "Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah." Nyazee concludes: "This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation" of non-Muslims.

But if this is so, why hasn't the worldwide Islamic community been waging jihad on a large scale up until relatively recently? Nyazee says it is only because they have not been able to do so: "the Muslim community may be considered to be passing through a period of truce. In its present state of weakness, there is nothing much it can do about it."

Al-Marayati could, here again, have assuaged doubts by discussing Islam's martial teachings and explained -- if he could -- why Hasan was not appropriating them properly. But he didn't.

He ignores the Quranic mandates, for example, to stand for justice even if it is against your own interest, and to avoid transgression in the pursuit of justice. Yet the most troubling part of his presentation are his conclusions. One of them is: "Muslims are moderate (compromising) but God is not." There are two critical flaws in this one sentence.
First, to make any kind of declaration about God being unforgiving violates Islam's central teachings of mercy and compassion. The Quran makes it clear that human beings are meant to embody God's generous spirit. To argue otherwise is to violate God's will and Islam's goal of peacemaking.

Second, being moderate is about upholding religious values while working with other members of society for the greater good. Extremists believe they are compromising their Islamic values when living in the West. This is not true. And Muslim-haters oblige them with the converse, when they argue that the West should not tolerate Muslims. This is not just.

Maj. Hasan's hodgepodge of verses from the Quran and quotes from extremists left out the most important Quranic verse in his section on enjoining peace and forgiveness: "God invites you into the abode of peace" (10:25). Nor did he include the admonition by the Prophet Muhammad never to harm the innocent and never to target noncombatants....

Here again, it all depends on how one defines "innocent."
11316  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: December 10, 2009, 09:23:30 AM
Ok, I get that ethanol made from corn is possible because of gov't funding and not economically viable on it's own. What of using sawdust, other organic waste rather than food? Does this not work for Brazil?
11317  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America and the rest of the western hemisphere on: December 09, 2009, 02:44:36 PM
Just goes to show how incredibly stupid those "Coexist" bumper stickers are.
11318  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: December 08, 2009, 02:26:50 PM

Epic fail.
11319  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The vast left wing conspiracy: BO's friends, appts, and running dogs on: December 08, 2009, 09:22:01 AM Date: 12/8/2009 10:20:44 AM


Former organizer, negotiator, and research specialist for the Service Employees International Union
Supports federal-government control of the American health-care system
Said that "the free market is nonsense"
Said, "We kind of agree with Mao, that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun”
Became head of Barack Obama's Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry in July 2009
Became Senior Counselor to the President for Manufacturing Policy in September 2009

Born in 1956, Ron Bloom was raised in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania. During his childhood, he was deeply involved with Habonim -- "a progressive Labor Zionist youth movement that emphasizes cultural Judaism, socialism and social justice." Bloom's experience with this movement had a major influence on his personal development and worldview. Many years later, in 2009, when accepting a post in the Barack Obama administration, Bloom noted that the lessons he had learned from Habonim – “identifying with the underdog, and … observing the world through a lens [of] people who don’t have as much and aren’t as lucky” -- remained “part of what I try to do in my work life.” “That’s one of the things that made me want to work for Obama,” he elaborated.

After graduating from Wesleyan University in 1977, Bloom took a job as an organizer, negotiator, and research specialist for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). While at SEIU, he observed that many union negotiators lacked the skills necessary for bargaining effectively with management:

"Unions were being backed into corners by companies and couldn't understand on a sophisticated level, the company's arguments ... Labor needed to be armed with the equivalent skills."

After his stint with SEIU, Bloom went on to work as Executive Director of the Massachusetts Coalition for Full Employment; then as New England Regional Director of the Jewish Labor Committee.

In 1985 Bloom graduated from Harvard Business School and spent the next decade as an investment banker with several firms, most notably the New York-based Lazard Freres & Co. (where he was a vice president).

In 1996 Bloom joined the United Steel Workers (USW) union as a special assistant to the president. At that time, the USW president was George Becker, a co-founder of the Campaign for America's Future. Bloom retained his position as special assistant when Becker was replaced by Leo Gerard (who today serves as a board member of the Apollo Alliance) in 2001. Both Becker and Gerard have close ties to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Both have been honored by Chicago’s DSA chapter, for their “leadership in building working class solidarity across borders”; their “advocacy of fair trade over free trade”; and their “commitment to finding a better way to run the economy for working people everywhere.”

In June 2006 Bloom was a featured speaker at the metal industry’s Steel Success Strategies XXI conference in New York, where he said:

“The Steelworkers have some advice for industry execs on how to make sure there’s plenty for both shareholders and workers. The theme of this advice will be really quite simple -- be hard-headed and pragmatic capitalists -- run the companies and actively participate in the political process on the basis of what is good for your shareholders -- and not based on outmoded nostrums about unions, free enterprise, deregulation, free markets and free trade.

“In today’s world the blather about free trade, free markets and the joys of competition is nothing but pablum for the suckers. The guys making the real money know that outsized returns are available to those who find the industries that get the system to work for them and the companies within those industries that dominate them.”

Bloom supports federal-government control of the American health care system (“Management must support universal single-payer national health care”). He also believes the government should be authorized to regulate the production and provision of all forms of energy (“It is time to support a comprehensive national energy program”).

At a 2008 “distressed investors” forum, Bloom said:

“Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market. Or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money, ’cause they’re convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that it’s an adults-only, no-limit game. We kind of agree with Mao, that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.”

On July 13, 2009, Bloom replaced Steven Rattner as head of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry (a position popularly known as “Car Czar”). This position was created by Barack Obama to oversee federal bailouts of failing automobile manufacturers and the restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler. On September 8, 2009, President Obama appointed Bloom to an additional post -- Senior Counselor to the President for Manufacturing Policy (a position popularly known as “Manufacturing Czar”).
11320  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The vast left wing conspiracy: BO's friends, appts, and running dogs on: December 08, 2009, 08:37:42 AM broke the ACORN story. The media did their best to not cover that story, didn't they?
11321  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Citizens defend themselves/others. on: December 08, 2009, 01:18:29 AM
If you live in a blue state, the gun laws were voted into place long ago. Funny how crime has gotten worse with those laws in place.
11322  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: December 07, 2009, 07:32:22 PM
The AGW mafia can glower and threaten all they want, but the fact that they are frauds is seeping into the public consciousness. The big loser in all of this is real science.
11323  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Citizens defend themselves/others. on: December 07, 2009, 07:25:22 PM

More on the shooting above.
11324  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Citizens defend themselves/others. on: December 07, 2009, 06:59:54 PM

Why it's better to live in a red state.
11325  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The vast left wing conspiracy: BO's friends, appts, and running dogs on: December 07, 2009, 01:56:58 PM

Exhibit A for the elimination of the Dept. of Education.
11326  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: December 07, 2009, 11:02:53 AM
Just pointing out how gov't healthcare works. Rationing is inevitable.
11327  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: December 07, 2009, 11:00:03 AM
Makes sense to me.
11328  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / California moves to ration mammograms on: December 07, 2009, 10:00:35 AM

California moves to ration mammograms
posted at 10:12 am on December 7, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

ObamaCare advocates claim that putting government in charge of health care coverage and treatments won’t result in care rationing, while its opponents say rationing will be the inevitable result.  The latter can point to California as evidence for their position.  Facing enormous budget shortfalls, the state has ended subsidies for mammograms for poor women between 40-50 years of age, and will also freeze enrollments in a breast-cancer screening program for its Medicaid recipients:
The eligibility age for state-subsidized breast cancer screening has been raised from 40 to 50 by the California Health and Human Services Agency, which will also temporarily stop enrollment in the breast cancer screening program.
Advocates for low-income women, whose health care the department helps pay for, say the cuts put a two-tier system in place that is based on money rather than medical standards.
The cuts will greatly harm the clinic’s mammogram program, said Natasha Riley, manager of Vista Community Clinic’s Breast Health Outreach and Education Program.
The clinic and others like it in San Diego County provide reduced-cost care, mostly to low-income people, with money from the state and some private donations.
“More than 50 percent of the women we give breast exams and mammograms to are in their 40s,” Riley said. “The majority of our current breast cancer survivors are women in their 40s.”
The state followed the recommendation of the US Preventive Services Task Force, which claimed that regular mammograms created too much anxiety for women between 40 and 50.  It also linked the decision to declining revenues from tobacco sales — no, really — which cut into funding for anti-cancer screening programs:
In its announcement, the state said the cuts were needed because of a projected budget shortfall for the California Department of Public Health, and from declining revenue from tobacco taxes.
However, it did not say how much money it expected to save.
Gee, what else have we built on the shifting sands of tobacco taxes?  I wonder how the S-CHIP program is faring these days.
This is a great example of the difference between static and dynamic tax analyses.  The former predicts a revenue from a tax that assumes that the tax won’t change the environment which produces the revenue, while dynamic tax analysis accounts for behavior changes when tax policies are applied.  In this case, it’s actually worse; the tobacco-tax advocates argued both that increased taxes would discourage smoking while relying on a constant increase of revenue from the boost in tobacco taxes.
And now what we get is rationing, because the government created these programs based on rosy revenue projections that can’t be met.
Given Carly Fiorina’s recent statement on her experiences with breast cancer, I asked her campaign for a reaction to this decision:

“This is an example of what happens when the government’s role in healthcare decisions grows and the role of doctors and patients diminishes. With more government involvement cutting costs becomes paramount over quality of care. This situation underscores what is so critically wrong with the health reform legislation making its way through Congress now. It increases the role of government in our healthcare which is a recipe for higher taxes and lower quality of care.  Instead, Carly believes any reform to our healthcare system should be focused on market-based reforms that prioritize quality of care and increasing access and choice.”— Julie Soderlund, Deputy Campaign Manager for Communications

11329  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: December 06, 2009, 10:18:46 AM
Force Science NewsForce Science News #133: Oregon Sergeant & District Attorney use creative approaches to help spread Force Science awareness

A police sergeant and a district attorney in Oregon have independently found new ways to spread Force Science insights about officer-involved shootings to broader audiences, to the benefit of law enforcement and civilians alike. Both hope that others with a vested interest in deadly force events will follow their lead in other jurisdictions.

The sergeant is Craig Allen, training supervisor for Hillsboro PD, an agency with 185 sworn located in Oregon’s Tualatin Valley in Portland’s suburban ring. A year ago, Allen graduated from the first U.S. certification course in Force Science Analysis, conducted in San Jose, CA, by the Force Science Institute, parent entity of the Force Science Research Center.
“I was so excited about what I’d learned about the scientific truths behind force encounters that when I got home I wanted to get the word out to as many people in law enforcement as I could,” Allen says. His chief, Lila Ashenbrenner, who regularly distributes copies of Force Science News to all the department’s supervisory staff, shared his enthusiasm.

Initially, the PD contracted with the Institute to sponsor a 2-day seminar on Force Science research findings, featuring FSRC’s executive director Dr. Bill Lewinski and a staff instructor, Sgt. Joshua Lego of the St. Paul (MN) Police Dept. Quickly, more than 50 representatives from agencies throughout the Pacific Northwest signed up.

In processing registrations earlier this month, it occurred to Allen that his department’s insurer, City County Insurance Services, based in the state capital, “might want to send some risk managers over” to monitor the program. “I knew a little bit about the company because I’d done some Taser demonstrations for them,” Allen explains.

A call to Penny Marlette, manager of CCIS’s risk management services, soon resulted in a transformational change in Allen’s approach to the seminar.

At CCIS, a self-insuring trust whose pool covers some 150 Oregon law enforcement agencies, Marlette instantly became a driving force for the idea of becoming a funding partner for the seminar.

Given the reputation of Force Science research for helping improve use-of-force decision-making and investigations, that proposal “made a lot of sense,” says CCIS Deputy Director Lynn McNamara. “We’d rather put money into risk management and training than into paying claims. After all, the best claim is one that never happens.”

After internal discussion, CCIS, made this offer: the insurer would pay the $195 seminar admission fee, plus appropriate lodging, for 1 representative from any of its member agencies who wished to participate in the seminar. Any member agencies that had already registered would receive refunds.

In short, cutting-edge training on critical use-of-force research for free.

According to Scott Buhrmaster, vice president of operations for the Force Science Institute, this is the first time an insurer has offered broad-based financial support for a Force Science presentation. In Allen’s view, it was a godsend, “especially for small departments whose training money has dried up.”

In less than a week after CCIS’s underwriting partnership was announced, registrations for the program more than doubled, he says. “I have never seen a law enforcement training event that captures such a breadth of attendees: LEOs of every rank, chiefs, sheriffs, DAs, city attorneys, risk managers, human resource managers, PIOs, union reps, correctional command staff…the list goes on.”

When the seminar kicks off this week [9/29-30] at the Hillsboro Civic Center, he anticipates an audience of more than 130, over half of them paid for by CCIS. This, Allen predicts, will more than cover the cost of the seminar.

As a contribution to FSRC to further its force research, Hillsboro PD will donate the admission fees netted from registrants not covered by the insurer, along with a portion of the department’s own training budget, Allen says.

“This will be another first,” says Buhrmaster. “Until now, the only law enforcement entities contributing research funds to FSRC have been police unions in the United Kingdom. Hillsboro will be the first American department to join this important effort.”

“When we put money into a program, we try to track results,” says CCIS’s McNamara. So in the future, the insurer will be monitoring claims filed by member agencies that send attendees to the seminar vs. those that don’t, to see if there’s a detectable difference.

Meanwhile…the day after Allen’s seminar, a hundred miles away in Eugene, OR, another group will hear a special presentation by Dr. Lewinski, thanks to the efforts of Alex Gardner, the progressive district attorney for Lane County.

This gathering is intended to bring the Force Science message not only to more cops but to skeptical but influential civilians as well, including media representatives and some ardent police critics.

Eugene, the county seat, is “a very liberal town with a recent history of tension between the police and vocal sub-sections of the community,” Gardner says. “I came from a much more pro-law enforcement jurisdiction, and things that generate controversy here are sometimes hard to imagine.

“Eugene police, for example, are very conservative about Taser use, compared to what I find in many other locations. But every time a Taser is used here, it’s a media event and the police get grilled for it. The media seem always to want to create the impression that officers have done wrong.”

Gardner saw an opportunity, through Force Science, to help create a greater understanding in the community for the challenges that law enforcement faces.

A few years ago, the Oregon legislature mandated that each county in the state devise a formal protocol for dealing with OIS investigations. Lane County, Gardner says, was one of the first to compose a plan that was approved by the state’s attorney general, and it became something of a template for a majority of other jurisdictions.

“The plan includes a community-outreach element that is intended to give the public the best possible understanding of what we do when an incident arises and what we need to evaluate in assessing it,” Gardner explains.

Much of the public, he was aware, “has expectations that don’t have any relationship to reality. They expect an officer to shoot the gun out of an assailant’s hand, they think an officer needs to wait until he is shot at to respond, they’re outraged if a teenager threatening an officer with a kitchen knife is shot dead, and so on.”

Having heard Lewinski in other venues, Gardner knew he was “a stellar speaker who’s able to make the reality of force dynamics understandable to people who don’t really know anything about the subject.” With Lewinski scheduled to be in the state for the Hillsboro seminar, the time seemed right to bring him to Eugene, the second-largest metropolitan area in the state, as part of the community-outreach initiative. Executives of the county’s 3 principal policing agencies—Sheriff Russ Burger, Eugene Chief Pete Kerns, and Chief Jerry Smith of neighboring Springfield PD—wholehearted supported Gardner’s successful effort at recruiting him.

Lewinski will speak not as a spokesman for law enforcement per se but as a behavioral scientist, Gardner says. And the DA has hand-picked influential elements of the population that he particularly wants to hear the facts: local and regional politicians, media representatives, civic leaders, district attorneys from around the state, human rights commission members, even some activists who seem to be reliably skeptical of police conduct in force situations. Along with law enforcement representatives, particularly from rural agencies that are unfamiliar with Lewinski’s work, Gardner expects that as many as 200 attendees may participate.

For the first half of the day, in a conference center at a community college, Lewinski will outline some of the basic research findings regarding human behavior under the stress of a life-threatening encounter. This will range from basic FSRC findings about action/reaction time to the analysis of controversial shot-in-the-back events.

In the afternoon, attendees will be exposed to shoot/don’t shoot decisions of their own via training simulators, to better appreciate first-hand the pressures involved in armed confrontations. “Instead of Monday-morning quarterbacking, they’ll be right in the breech,” Gardner says.

Having himself been through a police academy firearms school, the DA knows “how a person’s perspective evolves through training.” After the day’s exposure to use-of-force reality, he’s hopeful that the media and other participating civilians “will have more reasonable expectations of police performance and be more fair in judging officers’ actions. Ideally, the next time a major force incident occurs, they’ll evaluate it with a more accurate perspective.”
11330  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: December 06, 2009, 09:45:33 AM
In the first stage, the "Rookie" Stage, an officer is "shocked" by the world he sees - the violence, the neglect and cruelty toward children. He sees a world that he didn't know existed. The second stage is the "John Wayne" Stage and is marked by an uncertainty as to the "balance" of the badge. The officer is filling a role as he/she understands it. The "tough" image portrayed by the media cops is all that officers may know. The officer may take pride in owning all of the police gadgets. Their communicative style is primarily one of "commanding, ordering and directing." During the third stage, the "Professional" Stage, the officer has a good sense of his/her own identity. No matter how much verbal abuse they encounter, they remain courteous and in control (e.g., responding to an angry motorist he has just ticketed, you might hear, "Well, sir, I am sorry that you are making reference to my mother right now; however, you did go through that stop sign and I am required by law to cite you"). While for appearance's sake, this may seem problem-free, in actuality what's happening is that the officer may be "numbing" his natural emotions. "Dehumanizing" citizens as a coping mechanism will cost the officer in his personal life. Defense mechanisms that help an officer adapt to the job are maladaptive in his/her personal life.

These stages do not necessarily follow a consecutive pattern. Our experience has been that officers can jump from one stage back to an earlier stage. For example, a veteran officer who is in the "Professional" Stage may revert to the "Rookie" Stage upon witnessing a gruesome, traumatic event. We found this in many officers who responded to the Air Florida crash in 1982. The carnage and death they were exposed to that night and during the body recovery days after changed their lives. Many of the officers experienced the "Burnout" Stage which is number four in our model. Anger and contempt for the criminal justice system, the Department, politicians, and the citizens highlight this stage. The officer begins to isolate from family and friends - believing that they do not "have a clue" as to what the world is really like. The fifth and final stage is full-blown "Police Trauma Syndrome®." The individual is no longer able to function effectively as a police officer. This state is characterized by sleep problems, anxiety and/or depression, flashbacks, intrusive thoughts, mood swings, rage attacks, social isolation, and a deterioration in relationships. The officer may consume alcohol or other drugs or experience an escalation in usage. Suicidal thoughts may arise. This condition is far more pervasive than one might think. Sadly, what usually happens, without intervention, is that the officer retires (if he/she can) and disappears into obscurity. We are working very hard to prevent Police Trauma Syndrome®.

JSV: What about the use of deadly force? For example, what do police officers go through after they are involved in a deadly shooting? Does the use of deadly force affect police officers more than other stressors?

BJA: Involvement in a police shooting may be the cataclysm of a police career. When I began working with officers, it was almost unheard of for an officer to be involved in a shooting. It was rare. Now in this city (Washington, D.C.), we average two police-involved shootings a week. There are many factors involved in the event that have to be examined. For example, was the officer injured? How lasting was the injury? Was the officer's partner injured or killed? Was the suspect killed? Who was the suspect - an adolescent, elderly person, a mentally ill person? How grotesque was the shooting? What was the physical proximity of the officer to the suspect? For instance, I remember one officer who told me how the suspect looked at him before he died and asked "why did you kill me?" That is what the officer will remember. Was the officer taken by surprise? For example, one minute the officer was giving directions to a citizen and the next, he has a gun pointed at him. Also, were other people in danger of being killed or injured? Was the use of deadly force appropriate or can the officer be potentially convicted of homicide? There is also the potential for civil liability. What is the officer's coping style? Is there substance abuse? Police officers oftentimes use self-destructive coping mechanisms such as drinking, gambling, workaholism, etc. What was the department's response to the shooting? Were they supportive or punitive? Some departments take an officer, remove his weapons, and place him in the back of the car. Who else goes in the back of the car? Suspects! What is the emotional impact on an officer when this happens? He feels that he must have done something wrong. Another factor that affects officers in the aftermath of a shooting is how the media handles the reporting of the shooting. So often, in their haste to report a story, the media will distort the facts and not usually to favor the police. Officers have a favorite phrase they use to describe the media, "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story."

Immediately after a police shooting, a quick response by management and mental health personnel is crucial. Counselor support within hours of the shooting as well as follow-up services send a critical message: "You are important to this Department and this community." Follow-up services should also include the family. We have prepared a booklet for officers, officials and family members that discusses how to best manage police critical incidents.

JSV: Recently, in New York, there was a very unfortunate encounter for some police officers involving "Suicide-by-Cop" in which an individual, who apparently wanted to kill himself, pointed a plastic gun at officers and was, subsequently, fatally shot. In your experience, how often does this occur and how do you assist officers who confront such an event?

BJA: This is yet another very sad fact of life for law enforcement officers - one that happens all too often. The kind of individual who uses police officers for his/her own suicide will influence the officer's reaction. Individuals who commit heinous crimes and then precipitate an officer's use of deadly force will evoke a different response from an officer than a depressed adolescent who just wants to die and doesn't have the nerve to do it himself. The natural response for the officer is often one of anger. When a person makes a decision to point a gun at a police officer, that officer must react to protect his life. The public doesn't seem to understand this. Citizens will ask "couldn't you have shot him in the arm?" or "couldn't you shoot the gun out of his hand?" Our job is to help the officer place the responsibility on the person who caused this event. At the same time, we validate the normal feelings that accompany such a tragedy.

JSV: Police officers are often portrayed in the media as the "cool" and "calm," Clint Eastwood-type. In your opinion, what effect does such a stereotype have on officers, if any?

BJA: We have worked very hard to dispel that myth and it seems to be working with our younger officers. With officers on the job ten years or so, you see that macho-mystique portrayed in the Lethal Weapon movies. I remember Mel Gibson taunting the police psychologist in one particular movie after she had voiced concern for him. That image is not helpful for the public or the police. I have yet to meet a cop who has a "make my day" philosophy of policing. However, the rigid, macho mentality that does exist is a barrier to debriefing after a critical incident. In the long run, it makes the officer more vulnerable to the cumulative effects of traumatic exposure.

11331  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: December 06, 2009, 09:42:28 AM

Trauma Response Profile
Beverly Anderson, Ph.D., B.C.E.T.S.

Joseph S. Volpe, Ph.D., F.A.A.E.T.S.
Director, Professional Development

For nearly 20 years, Dr. Beverly Anderson has provided psychological services to law enforcement agencies around the nation. She has consulted on traumatic stress to more than thirty international and national law enforcement organizations. Dr. Anderson has been a featured speaker on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) for Good Morning America, CNN, and dozens of television news stations. She is featured in the Channel 4 News video"Cops Under Fire." She has been invited to present her research on Police Trauma Syndrome® to several organizations and groups including the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. Dr. Anderson is the Clinical Director and Administrator of the Metropolitan Police Employee Assistance Program in Washington, D.C. Moreover, she is President of The American Academy of Police Psychology, an organization that is dedicated to addressing the unique concerns and stressors of the law enforcement community. Dr. Anderson is a Diplomate of The American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress and the Academy is privileged to have her serve on the Board of Scientific & Professional Advisors.

JSV: I know that you have been very committed to providing psychological services to law enforcement agencies for almost 20 years. Can you tell me about the positions that you currently hold?

BJA: I am the founding Clinical Director and Administrator of the Metropolitan Police Employee Assistance Program and have been since 1988. This program is unique in that it is a joint union-management approach to addressing the serious stress-related problems that are a direct result of policing. I do not work for the Police Department or the City. My contract is with the Fraternal Order of Police Labor Committee. The best part about this independence is that it ensures confidentiality. The records belong to me as a private clinician which facilitates trust in those whom we assist. We have 3,500 officers in the Washington Metropolitan Police Department. We are not an employee assistance program in the true sense. We are actually a long-term services program and provide individual therapy, family therapy, marital therapy, play therapy, and various group therapies including Veteran officers groups, alcoholism prevention and relapse groups, and weekly critical incident debriefing groups. With regard to this latter point, we have an average of two police-involved shootings per week. Subsequently, we have ongoing debriefings. Our police department must contend with one of the highest murder rates in the United States for a city of our size. Moreover, we have one of the highest rates of ambushes and unprovoked attacks on police officers in the nation. There is a lot of gang violence, drug-related problems and the like. We have a situation here that demands all of the emotional resources of the force. We also do a lot of training. The foundation of our comprehensive program is based on training. We have a critical incident program that begins with the recruits in the police academy and involves family members. We are on call 24 hours a day. In fact, just this morning at 1:30am, I was paged to a police-involved shooting and had to go to the Homicide Division. I sat with the officer to assist with what is best referred to as defusing. This involves debriefing the officer after the shooting and then for six mandatory meetings within three months of the shooting. We are also engaged in research. We have done work with Dr. Frank Putnam from the National Institute of Mental Health on Secondary Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in the children of police officers. We are still compiling data. In working with police families over the years, we have noted a preponderance of symptoms in the children to include hyperactivity and attentional problems. I believe that this is a direct result of experiencing the effects of parental exposure to trauma.

JSV: As you are aware, The American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress is a multidisciplinary organization comprised of professionals from over one hundred forty specialties. Many of these individuals respond on the "front lines" of risk and, at times, danger which are significant stressors. How does law enforcement stress differ from other occupational groups such as firefighters and Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs)?

BJA: The first thing that comes to my mind is the public response to firefighters and EMTs. For the most part, it is a very positive response when compared to the police. Think of being stopped by a police officer for speeding, for example, and you think that you are going to get a ticket. One of the first things that you may do is try to get out of it, be nice, or lie. The public mind set toward the police officer seems to be more negative. Although there is a clear danger potential in all of these groups, the danger is different for police officers. As the level of violence in this country escalates, the echos of that violence reverberate throughout the police community. Unprovoked attacks on police officers are at an all-time high. Just a year ago, D.C. Master Patrol Officer Brian Gibson sat in his patrol car at a stop light and was shot execution style by a young man who was put out of a local night club by a police officer. Another example is Officer Wendall Smith who was exiting his vehicle after returning home from his evening shift. When the attackers saw that he was a police officer, they shot and killed him. In 1995, Scot Lewis was shot in the head and killed by a passerby while Officer Lewis and his partner were assisting a hearing-impaired person. The assailant then turned the gun on Scot's partner, Officer Keith Deauville who returned fire, fatally wounding the attacker. In these situations, the danger is not obvious and you don't know who is going to attack you. The police officer always has to be ready. That is why officers have what I call "cop-face" (the need to be hypervigilant). They have "cop-face" because they never know (when they have to move into action). The unpredictability of the job of policing is an added stressor. This means that the stress hormones need to remain elevated at some level (recall the General Adaptation Syndrome). The police officer is always looking for what is "wrong" in the picture. Shift work and midnight duties are common to other professions but the unpredictability and the violence make police work unique. You can add to this, a revolving-door justice system, with the person you locked up today, back on the street tomorrow. A police officer also has to contend with mixed messages from police administration. On one hand they are told to lock-up and arrest those involved with crime and, on the other hand, always remain professional while doing it. There is public scrutiny of police work, and at times, media misrepresentation of events. There is always a threat of civil law suits. There is significant stress associated with the use of deadly force - having to kill another human being. I have yet to meet an officer who is emotionally ready to kill another human being. Many officers say that the first thing that came to mind after they fired the fatal bullet was "Thou shall not kill." All of these stressors make police work different from other professions. Of course, the on-going, day-to-day exposure to murders, assaults, rapes, child abuse, domestic violence and "man's inhumanity to man" intensifies this stress-related burden.

JSV: What is the most significant stressor for police officers?

BJA: If you ask a police officer about the most significant stressor of policing, they often report "police administration." However, the nightmares they experience are not about administration. These nightmares are about the use of deadly force, shooting their guns, and being shot. It becomes apparent that the most considerable stressor is the constant exposure to trauma, especially over prolonged periods of time. However, problems regarding "police administration" are very real for officers and sometimes constitute the "second wound." Officers expect that the public and the media will mistreat them; they don't expect betrayal from the very organizations they risk their lives for every day.

JSV: This is quite consistent with combat veterans who serve multiple tours of duty.

BJA: This is absolutely correct and I think that you bring something out that is so much a part of the police experience. Without minimizing the trauma of combat, consider the following. During wartime, soldiers go to a foreign land, and are likely to remain there for six months to a year. Police officers are likely to see twenty years of peacetime combat, in their own country where they do not always know who the enemy is. The enemy could be anybody.

JSV: What is "Police Trauma Syndrome®" and why do you think that it has taken so long for its wrath to be examined in the trauma literature? What are the stages leading to this syndrome?

BJA: Police Trauma Syndrome® is a diagnostic term that I authored several years ago to depict the cluster of symptoms many police officers suffer as a direct result of the job of policing. It is now a registered trademark. In diagnosing trauma-related disorders with police officers, we have found great difficulty with the criteria set forth in both the DSM-III and DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). It has been problematic for us to use the DSM-III or DSM-IV criteria for police officers because they typically do not fit into the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) criteria per se. A police officer can witness, inside of one week, more trauma than most people see in a lifetime. Not only is it qualitatively different but also, quantitatively different. They see so much trauma. If you examine the first of the DSM-IV criterion (for PTSD), it states that the person's response to the event must involve intense fear, helplessness, or horror. Police officers are more often than not, the first responders to a scene. They have been tuned to dissociate from their emotions or suppress their emotions in order to be able to endure the scene. Theoretically, in most cases, police officers would not fulfill this first criterion. They are trained to respond behaviorally (not emotionally). Also, we tend to see a biphasic response which oscillates between anger or intrusive thoughts and numbing. We see extremes in their responses. This does not imply that police officers get used to being exposed to trauma, because we know that this is not the case. Chronic, long-term and cumulative stress takes its toll on police officers. When we talk about the issue of police brutality, it becomes clearer that the effects of such stress will come out one way or another. Police Trauma Syndrome® can result after a single, catastrophic event such as when an officer witnesses his partner being killed, and then having to defend his own life perhaps by killing the assailant. This could precipitate full-blown PTSD or Police Trauma Syndrome® in an officer. On the other hand, after years of traumatic exposure, Police Trauma Syndrome® can be triggered by an incident that is not immediately life-threatening, like the following incident.

A veteran officer with young children at home got a call to respond to an unconscious person. Well, what do you think of when you hear "unconscious person" - a street person, a person who is intoxicated, a stroke or heart attack victim? There is not too much warning in these situations. The officer goes into an apartment and there he finds an eight-month-old baby with a core body temperature of 106 degrees. He immediately begins mouth-to-mouth resuscitation because the baby is not breathing. The baby vomits sour milk into the officer's mouth. The ambulance finally gets there and the baby is taken to the hospital and dies. No one tells the officer what the baby has died of. He doesn't know if the baby is HIV positive, has meningitis, or is contagious! No one will talk with him because there has not yet been an autopsy. He goes home. Can he touch his children? He cannot look at his young baby without having intrusive thoughts and overwhelming feelings about the baby who had just died. In this case, the officer had an acute reaction and this triggered memories of other experiences and he was in a full-blown crisis. Another example is the veteran officer who had been on the scene of many suicides over the years. On one particular occasion, he began to tremble and hallucinate, and he experienced panic symptoms, etc. This was a person with 22 years on the force! There are so many factors involved. The important thing to convey about Police Trauma Syndrome® is that when a clinician sees this term, consider that the individual is suffering from events experienced primarily on the job. It is a direct result of the occupation of policing. Our veteran officers group has identified several stages leading to full-blown Police Trauma Syndrome®. (This group has been meeting for four years and is comprised of officers with 17 years or more on the Department. They have all been high achievers on the job but have paid a price emotionally). They have defined a five-stage model.
11332  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: December 06, 2009, 09:16:34 AM

A little insight into the dangers related to traffic stops for those of you that haven't done the job.
11333  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: December 06, 2009, 09:12:30 AM
No apology-Ever.  The one that really screw up are usually swept under the rug.

**Really? Please cite an example and how you know this to be true.**
  I am thinking of the incident in Henderson, NV over a ticket on an ice cream truck.......... 

**Were you there? Did you see the shooting? What's your training in the realm of use of force by law enforcement? What do you base your opinion on?**

Apparently Seattle has had a few "rep enhancing" incidents too.  **Right. Again, please explain your source of information and training and experience on the topic of use of force and officer survival.**

 There is a habit of no apology, no admittance of a mistake, and no repair/ revision of policy moving forward.   It is not all the police's fault, shysters have some fault too, but there seems to be an increasing lack of accountability. **Seems, to your untrained, uninformed opinion.** 

Maybe that is a perception pushed by the press, but that is what is generally out there. **Bingo! You finally get to a bit of truth there.**

There is an incident Near Duluth, MN where a man was arrested for tresspassing on his own property.  There is a pileline right of way that was negotiated under certain terms by his father.  This guy was talking with the construction folks who were just rolling thru his property against the agreed term.  The contruction folks called the cops..........The Cops violated his rights and arrested him.  Wonderful judgement there.  The site won't allow a direct link- the picture of the guy dressed in hunting orange.

**I wasn't there, neither were you. If the arrest wasn't lawful, the arrestee will be getting a big check, most likely.**
11334  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: December 05, 2009, 10:41:00 PM
Uhhhhh..... How much do you actually remember from that period of your life?  grin
11335  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: December 05, 2009, 10:21:59 PM
Street Survival Insights
with Dave Smith 

When insanity rules and 'understanding' trumps condemnation
I don’t like to write when I’m mad, but I have just been reading the details about the four murdered peacekeepers in Washington state; that’s right my lame-brained academician friends who no doubt will celebrate our loss as a blow for the “workers” of “Amerika,” they were peacekeepers!

Related Articles:

4 officers shot dead in Wash. coffee shop 'ambush'
Manhunt continues, motive unknown in Wash. coffeehouse ambush

Although several other cities are vying for the title, one could easily argue that the epicenter of left-wing insanity is the Seattle metro area. The Seattle area’s “National Night Out Against Police Brutality” resulted in four police vehicles being bombed by a fellow who later ambushed two officers killing one and wounding the other. According to reports, the four crimefighters sitting at a table in Lakewood, Wash. were assassinated as they sat working on their computers while their marked squad cars sat outside. For those of you not familiar with this beautiful Seattle suburb it is a model of diversity, compassion, and understanding!

“Understanding.” That is the element that will take centerstage in the mainstream press — it always does when an evil dirt bag kills cops or military personnel. We will delve into the background of the miscreant and find the social evil in our capitalist hell that triggered this act against the establishment. Just as the Fort Hood shooter has been labeled everything from dysfunctional to frightened to victimized (everything but being labeled the evil terrorist that he was), the implied blame ends up not at the feet of the bad actor but on our society as a whole.

Whenever possible, the act is also to be projected onto anyone who questions the “Workers Paradise” of social planning ideas. Thus the Church, the radio host, the former Speaker, all become principles in the crime. Thus for the social programmer, killing cops and military personnel becomes an intellectual exercise in blame with a duplicitous media happy to torture logic into submission as well. After graduating from Arizona with a degree in Political Science in the height of the Viet Nam self-flagellation era, I was amazed that there were any thinkers we call Conservative on the staff at all but there were a few.

The Left was busy even then planning a revolution and I remember deputies and officers bringing heavier firepower than we were issued to work on the July 4th, 1976. We had intelligence briefings that such left wing groups as the Weather Underground, Students for a Democratic Society, and others had stockpiled weapons and bombs and were coming for us, the cops, first. It was no fictional fantasy and young crime fighters need to understand that bombs did kill us back then and police stations were attacked and open revolt was constantly being promoted by such insanely violent radicals as Bernadette Dorn and Bill Ayers.

Bombs still kill us today, and multiple police killings attest to the threat of both the Left and Right Wing extremists but the Right Wing killers are immediately and properly condemned, reviled by all. But soon their crime is projected onto all who believe in such radical ideas as a God, guns, and religion! We will “understand” all others. The bombers of the Sixties and Seventies have become tenured heroes, Chicago Citizens of the Year, and close associates of some of our nation’s most powerful. Where the hell are the “question authority” t-shirts now? I have, however, seen a multitude of Che Guevara shirts and posters over the last year and when a mass murdering physician can become an academic icon we have lost our collective minds.

What are we to do? We are to stand vigilant, which means “awake” in Latin. We must maintain a vigil and continue to hunt for those who would hurt us and the innocent. We need to think like we did in the Seventies, not paranoid, but on watch. It is time to post a lookout, not just metaphorically but physically, someone always stands watch. Sit and park with your back to the wall. I was taught to put my gun in my lap when a vehicle suddenly drove up to mine…what were you taught? What do you practice? What do you actually do?

America’s political class, especially those whose constant lamentation about the police are featured on our propaganda-spewing media, must speak out against this violence; for a people in fear are not free, and the first step in destroying that security is targeting the warriors who make the streets safe. One only needs to look at the horrific losses of the Iraqi police to see where chaos reigns and thrives. I would remind us all of our own history and how cries of “kill the pigs” rang out throughout the late Sixties and Seventies as the first step in a more “just, fair, and moral society,” but our history is being properly corrected to match the model of self-loathing that fits today’s academia and urban political class.

America is a unique social experiment, a nation based not on ethnicity, tribe, clan, or religion, but on a collective idea. Learn our history, celebrate our freedoms, protect the innocent, hunt evil, and speak out for what you believe. We suffer a terrible loss again, in a year of terrible losses and I hope this nation can unite in revulsion of these acts and reverence for the sacrifice of these brave men and women. It is the very sense of who we are as a people that is at risk when we no longer celebrate the warriors, no longer remember the sacrifice, no longer condemn the evil. It is time to stop “understanding” and start condemning. If evil has no social stigma, if it is simply understood, prepare for more.

Tell this to the people. I know you already understand...


As a police officer, Dave Smith has held positions in patrol, training, narcotics, SWAT, and management. Dave continues to develop new and innovative programs across the spectrum of police training needs designed to assist your agency and your personnel in meeting the challenges of policing in the new millennium. As a trainer, speaker, and consultant Dave brings with him unparalleled access to modern law enforcement trends. He is currently the senior Street Survival Seminar Instructor and Director of Video Training for PoliceOneTV. Visit Dave's website at
11336  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: December 05, 2009, 10:17:28 PM

Slain Wash. officers respected for careers, family life
By Jack Broom, Lynda V. Mapes, Bob Young and Susan Kelleher
Seattle Times

The four victims of Sunday morning's shooting were veteran officers who brought a range of talents to the fledgling Lakewood Police Department when it was created in 2004, according to Lakewood Police Chief Bret Farrar.

"This is a very difficult time for our families and our officers," he said. "Please keep our families and Lakewood Police in your prayers."

The slain officers "all have been outstanding professionals," he added.
11337  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: December 05, 2009, 10:04:27 PM

A good primer on law enforcement and the use of force.
11338  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: December 05, 2009, 07:53:20 PM
Traffic stops always a danger for officers
0 Comments | Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Dec 6, 2006 | by CARY LEIDER VOGRIN THE GAZETTE
There is no such thing as a "routine" traffic stop, say police officials and law enforcement organizations.

"Statistically, traffic stops and domestic disturbances are far and away the most dangerous things police officers do," said Jim Pasco, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Fraternal Order of Police, a police labor organization with 334,000 members.

"You have no idea who's in the car or what that person might have done, how they might be armed," Pasco said.

Officers stop thousands of cars each year. The 60 patrol deputies in the El Paso County Sheriff's Office issued about 17,500 traffic citations in 2005, said Lt. Clif Northam, spokesman for the department. This year, an estimated 18,000 have been written. Statistics for the Colorado Springs Police Department were not available Tuesday.

Police procedures involving traffic stops might vary slightly from department to department, but Richard Ashton of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, also in Washington, said there's one rule all officers must follow: Never be complacent under any circumstances.

"They should be thinking they want to go home safely tonight," said Ashton, who has a 33-year law enforcement background -- 24 of them as a police chief in Maryland.
11339  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: December 05, 2009, 11:41:19 AM
Was that when you were going to or coming from Woodstock?  wink
11340  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: December 05, 2009, 11:15:52 AM
Have I enjoyed a traffic stop? I've been on both sides.

Is your skin so thin that getting stopped is offensive?
11341  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: December 05, 2009, 10:29:57 AM
Right. You know this how?
11342  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: December 05, 2009, 08:55:04 AM

The war on cops
By Michelle Malkin  •  December 4, 2009 09:22 AM Maurice Clemmons had many enablers — starting in Arkansas with clemency-crazy Mike Huckabee and stretching to Washington state where he was surrounded by people who witnessed his threats against law enforcement and did nothing to stop the Lakewood PD massacre. This week, police charged four family and friends with aiding him and plan to indict two more. My column today steps back and looks at the past year of violence against police officers and the cultural war that has been waged against them for the past several decades. The Left has a popular mantra: “Stop the hate.” Why don’t they start applying it to the men and women who protect and serve?


The war on cops
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009

Faces of the fallen: Sgt. Mark Renninger, 39; Officers Ronald Owens, 37; Tina Griswold, 40; Gregory Richards, 42.

The Left’s police-hating chickens are coming home to roost. While partisan liberals have gone out of their way to blame conservative media and the Tea Party movement for creating a “climate of hate,” they are silent on the cultural and literal war on cops that has raged for decades – and escalated tragically this year.

The total number of law enforcement officers shot and killed this year is up 19 percent over last year, according to the Christian Science Monitor. More officers have died in ambush incidents this year than any other since 2000. The Lakewood, Washington massacre on Thanksgiving weekend claimed the lives of four dedicated officers getting ready for work at a coffee shop Sunday morning. Maurice Clemmons – the violent career thug who received clemency from former Arkansas GOP governor Mike Huckabee and benefited from fatal systemic lapses in the criminal justice system – had many other enablers.

Clemmons had told numerous friends and family members to “watch the TV” before the massacre because he was going to “kill a bunch of cops.” The witnesses did worse than nothing. Several have been arrested for actively aiding and abetting Clemmons – with shelter, food, money, and medical aid — before he was discovered in Seattle early Tuesday morning and shot after threatening a patrol officer investigating Clemmons’ stolen vehicle.

A militant online group called the National Black Foot Soldier Network celebrated Clemmons as a “Crowned BOW (Black on White) Martyr” and dubbed the Lakewood ambush a “preemptive strike on terrorists.” It wasn’t the only chilling propaganda cheering black-on-white police murders in the Pacific Northwest this year.

 Just three weeks before the Lakewood, Wa., massacre, the region endured another police attack. Suspect Christopher Monfort was arrested last month in the targeted shooting death of Seattle Police Department Officer Timothy Brenton and the wounding of his partner Britt Sweeney. Monfort had written diatribes against law enforcement harping against white policemen.

The leader of a Seattle hip-hop/punk band commemorated the assassination with a t-shirt depicting Monfort’s face splattered with blood and overlaid with a Seattle Police Department badge under the slogan “Deliver Us From Evil.” The other side of the shirt read “most of my heroes don’t appear on no stamp.”

From where does the deadened and deadly callousness toward the thin blue line come?

How about years of cop-bashing rap from NWA’s “F**k tha Police” and Ice-T’s “Cop Killa” to Dead Prez’s “Police State” (“I throw Molotov cocktails at the precinct”) and The Game’s “911 is a Joke” (I ought to shoot fifty one officers for the fifty one times that boy was shot in New York”)?

Try the glamorization of poisonous anti-police domestic terrorist groups like the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers. Add in the mainstreaming of anti-police demagogues Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (whose ex-wife and daughter were arrested last week after verbally abusing a Harlem cop and resisting arrest after running a red light). And toss in the global glorification of Death Row cop-killers Stanley “Tookie” Williams and Mumia abu Jamal by the Hollywood elite.

It is, in my mind, no coincidence that another of 2009’s bloodiest multiple-police shootings took place in Oakland – a hotbed of black nationalism/Free Mumia radicalism that gave us the likes of Angela Davis, Huey Newton, and Obama green jobs czar-turned-liberal think tank fellow Van Jones (whose “creative” activism and “energy” in the Bay Area won senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett’s heart). Four Oakland officers went down and one was injured when a convicted felon ambushed them during a routine traffic stop. Nearly 20,000 law enforcement officers and supporters from around the country filled a memorial event for the fallen.

President Obama — Chicago pal of police-targeting Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers and the convener of the national beer summit to indulge his race-baiting, police-bashing Harvard professor friend Henry Louis Gates — did not attend the service.
11343  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: December 04, 2009, 09:15:41 AM
I really don't know the legislative remedy for that.

The used hard drive line was funny, btw.  grin
11344  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: December 04, 2009, 12:37:58 AM
Tweakers and other vermin love people that don't shred using a crosscut shredder. Buy a good one and USE it before you get a harsh lesson in identity theft.
11345  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / There Is No Freedom Without Law on: December 03, 2009, 01:56:56 PM

There Is No Freedom Without Law
posted at 4:08 pm on November 5, 2009 by Doctor Zero

Senator Roland Burris (D-Illinois) was recently asked by CNS News to specify which part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to legally compel individuals to purchase health insurance, a key component of the last dozen versions of the twelve hundred page ObamaCare proposal. Burris replied:
“Well, that’s under certainly the laws of the–protect the health, welfare of the country. That’s under the Constitution. We’re not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country.”
This is not a new sentiment. Burris is stating one of the core principles of American liberalism: the belief that the Constitution lays out a series of general directives, rather than imposing specific restrictions on the power of government… as if “promote the general welfare” and the interstate commerce clause were deliberately written into the Constitution as secret ingredients that would vaporize the rest of the document and give the government unlimited power, once some future generation of clever liberals combined them.
Many conservatives respond to the occasional RINO stampede, such as the one which tore through New York congressional district 23 in the recent special election, by suggesting the Republicans should advance a solid conservative platform, and require all candidates to swear allegiance to it. I understand this desire, but I’ve always been uncomfortable with the notion of threatening candidates with excommunication, unless they agree to support a list of positions stapled to their foreheads.  We should all be able to come together around the defense of the Constitution, however. We need no other set of principles to guide us in repairing the damage of the past century. If the government is not restrained by loyalty to the Constitution, then its citizens are not free.
Freedom cannot exist in the absence of law. People living in a state of anarchy are not free. They live under the random tyranny of any warlord, gang, or predator who can overpower them. They also live within the prison of their own distrust for their fellow men. A code of clear, fairly administered laws enhances our ability to trust, and cooperate with, people we don’t know personally. Of course, laws restrict our actions, by punishing us for engaging in illegal activities… but they also enhance our freedom, by allowing us to work more easily with each other, and trade with confidence.
You submit to a fairly involved code of laws, backed up by steep financial penalties and the threat of deadly force, every time you climb into your car. Those very same laws make it possible for you to drive long distances quickly and easily – compared to foot or horse travel, anyway. Without those laws, the fast-moving and complex system of roads and highways would become so deadly that everyone would be afraid to use them.
This same principle applies to government. A lawless government is a tyranny, and its citizens are not free. It doesn’t matter if the lawless state was reached through a brutal thirst for power, or high-minded compassionate ideals. We wouldn’t indulge reckless defiance of the traffic laws by someone in a mad rush to make a large donation to the local Salvation Army chapter. Even ambulance drivers are expected to obey certain rules of the road, and would not be allowed to run down pedestrians in their race to the local emergency room.
Government cannot derive its legitimacy entirely from the approval of a democratic majority, as asserted by the demand that President Obama should be granted virtually limitless power over the lives of American citizens because he won the last election. This would be no less offensive to liberty if Obama had won with seventy, eighty, or ninety percent of the popular vote, instead of 52%. The need to assemble majority support cannot be the sole limit on the power of the State. If the male castaways of “Gilligan’s Island” decide to hold a purely democratic vote to enslave the women, then Mrs. Howell, Ginger, and Mary Ann are in deep trouble.
Some Democrats have responded to the Tea Party movement by whining that noisy minorities should not be allowed to interfere with governance. These are the same people who assert the power to nationalize the health insurance industry because 20, 30, or 47 million people lack adequate insurance. Freedom cannot be reduced to a struggle between whichever noisy minority puts on the biggest demonstration in Washington D.C. How much time, energy, and money has already been expended, fighting over a gigantic, ever-changing health care bill that never should have existed in the first place?
A strict adherence to the Constitution would “promote the general welfare” far more effectively than any program cobbled together in the back rooms of Congress, by saving us the waste of money and passion expended in arguing about those programs. A properly respected Constitution would be a peerless tool for bringing people together, because it would prevent government from tearing them into warring factions by offering fabulously expensive benefits to some, at the expense of others. It would reduce the level of anger and venom in our society, because no one would have to fight a desperate last-ditch battle to preserve his liberty in the voting booth. It would improve the civic pride of citizens, by giving them meaningful input into local policies, instead of demanding they submit to the agenda of distant politicians they will never be allowed to vote against, from states they might never even visit.
For too long, the Left has interpreted the Constitution as an ever-expanding warrant for the arrest of all those who dissent from its agenda. The glorious truth of that incredible document is exactly the opposite: it was designed to restrain the central government, with chains equally impervious to threats and pleading. A just government has very few laws its citizens cannot change by voting locally, or escape by moving to a different state. It cannot require the level of trust that free citizens extend only to each other. Reasoned deliberation can never involve blind votes on thousand-page bills written last week.
The Founding Fathers gave their descendants a luminous gift: a set of laws that transform a potentially tyrannical State into a mighty champion of liberty. Those laws are written on a sheet of antique parchment, which can be easily ignored by fallible men… unless other men have the courage and discipline to hold it up, and insist it be obeyed. That’s a job that every strain of conservative should be eager to rally around. Slicing our bloated, delusional government back down to something in line with the Constitution would be the work of a lifetime… and we’ve only got a few years to get it done, before its heart gives out, and we are crushed beneath it. If the Declaration of Independence was a challenge to foreign conquerors, then the Constitution is a challenge we issue to ourselves. Both documents await the signature of anyone who expects my vote.
11346  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: December 03, 2009, 01:43:55 PM
FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - '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.'

To pass muster under the Fourth Amendment, detention must be 'reasonable. ' See U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 542-44 ('85) (analyzing constitutionality of length of traveler's border detention under Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard); Caban, 728 F.2d at 75 (considering whether duration of border detention without a hearing was reasonable).

In the context of a criminal arrest, a detention of longer than 48 hours without a probable cause determination violates the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law in the absence of a demonstrated emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 670 ('91). However, the Supreme Court arrived at this rule by considering the time it takes to complete administrative steps typically incident to arrest. See id.

Unreasonable Searches And Seizures.

Non-consensual extraction of blood implicates Fourth Amendment privacy rights. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 16 ('89) ('this physical intrusion, penetrating beneath the skin, infringes [a reasonable] expectation of privacy'); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 67 ('66) (compulsory blood test 'plainly involves the broadly conceived reach of a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment').' '[f]or the Fourth Amendment does not proscribe all searches and seizures, but only those that are unreasonable.' Skinner, 489 U.S. at 619; accord Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, No. 95-590, 1995 WL 373274, at *3 (June 26,'95) ('the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a governmental search is `reasonableness''). A search's reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment generally depends on whether the search was made pursuant to a warrant issued upon probable cause. U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 ('83).

Even in the law enforcement context, the State may interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment interests with less than probable cause and without a warrant if the intrusion is only minimal and is justified by law enforcement purposes. E.g., Michigan State Police Dept v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450 ('90); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 ('68).

The gathering of fingerprint evidence from 'free persons' constitutes a sufficiently significant interference with individual expectations of privacy that law enforcement officials are required to demonstrate that they have probable cause, or at least an articulable suspicion, to believe that the person committed a criminal offense and that the fingerprinting will establish or negate the person's connection to the offense. See Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 813-18 ('85); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 726-28 ('69).

Nevertheless, everyday 'booking' procedures routinely require even the merely accused to provide fingerprint identification, regardless of whether investigation of the crime involves fingerprint evidence. See Smith v. U.S., 324 F.2d 879, 882 (D.C. Cir.'63) (Burger, J.) ('it is elementary that a person in lawful custody may be required to submit to . . . fingerprinting . . . as part of the routine identification processes'); Napolitano v. U.S., 340 F.2d 313, 314 (1st Cir.'65) ('Taking fingerprints [prior to bail] is universally standard procedure, and no violation of constitutional rights.'). Thus, in the fingerprinting context, there exists a constitutionally significant distinction between the gathering of fingerprints from free persons to determine their guilt of an unsolved criminal offense and the gathering of fingerprints for identification purposes from persons within the lawful custody of the state.

Although the drawing of blood from free persons generally requires a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a person has committed a criminal offense and that his blood will reveal evidence relevant to that offense, see Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 768-71; U.S. v. Chapel, ___ F.3d ___, slip op. at 5753-54 (9th Cir.'95) (en banc), the absence of such a warrant does not a fortiori establish a violation of the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court has noted repeatedly that the drawing of blood constitutes only a minimally intrusive search. Skinner, 489 U.S. at 625 (blood tests do not 'infringe significant privacy interests'); Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 62 ('85) (not 'an unduly extensive imposition'); Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 771 ('commonplace'); Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432, 36 ('57) ('routine' and 'would not be considered offensive by even the most delicate').

'An essential purpose of a warrant requirement is to protect privacy interests by assuring citizens subject to a search or seizure that such intrusions are not the random or arbitrary acts of government agents.' Skinner, 489 U.S. at 421-2 (holding that a warrant was not required in part because 'in light of the standardized nature of the tests and the minimal discretion vested in those charged with administering the program, there are virtually no facts for a neutral magistrate to evaluate'). The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed and expanded the principle first enunciated in Skinner, stating that, in some contexts, 'testing based on `suspicion' of [wrongful activity] would not be better, but worse' than suspicionless testing. Acton, 1995 WL 373274, at *8. In Acton, the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional a school district's practice of conducting random, suspicionless urine testing of school athletes for drug use. The Court rejected the proposition that the school district could conduct such testing only if school officials had suspicion that a specific athlete was using drugs, holding that this alternative 'entails substantial difficulties -- if it is indeed practicable at all.' Id. Accusatory drug testing would 'transform[] the process into a badge of shame' and would increase the risk that school officials would impose testing arbitrarily upon disfavored, but not drug-using, students. Id.

Except in certain narrowly limited cases, the Court repeatedly has stated its 'insist[ence] upon probable cause as a minimum requirement for a reasonable search permitted by the Constitution.' Chambers v. Moreny, 399 U.S. 42, 51 ('70). Because '[t]he integrity of an individual's person is a cherished value in our society,' searches that invade bodily integrity cannot be executed as mere fishing expeditions to acquire useful evidence: 'The interests in human dignity and privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects forbid any such intrusions on the mere chance that desired evidence might be obtained.' Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 772, 769-70.

Only when law enforcement faces an exigent circumstance, such as a need to preserve evanescent blood alcohol evidence, and has probable cause to link the sought-after information to a crime under investigation is it constitutional to conduct nonconsensual blood testing without a warrant. Id. at 770-71. Therefore, forced extraction of blood not only 'implicates the Fourth Amendment,' as the majority notes, but also falls squarely within the area of privacy interests for which the traditional probable cause requirement determines reasonableness in the law enforcement context. Forced blood extraction intrudes on the private personal sphere and infringes upon an individual's 'most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy.' Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 60 ('85).

Searches Involving Intrusions Beyond The Body's Surface.

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 69 ('66). The Schmerber Court posed two questions: (1) whether the police were justified in imposing a nonconsensual blood test and (2) whether the procedures themselves were reasonable. Id. at 768. In answering the first question, the Court recognized that it was 'writ[ing] on a clean slate' regarding the treatment of searches that involve intrusions into the human body. Id. at 767-8. It concluded that such searches require probable cause. Id. at 770-1.

Similarly, the Supreme Court in Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 ('85), recognized that Schmerber's threshold standard was a requirement of probable cause 'where intrusions into the human body are concerned,' which implicate 'deep-rooted expectations of privacy.' Id. at 761, 760. The Winston Court then acknowledged `other factors'' eyond these standards' that must be considered in determining whether a particular intrusion is reasonable: whether 'the procedure threatens the safety or health of the individual' and 'the extent of the intrusion upon the individual's dignitary interests.' Id. at 761 (emphasis added). In regard to the additional 'dignitary' factor (beyond the threshold inquiry of invasion of bodily integrity), the Winston Court noted Schmerber's recognition that blood extraction is not 'an unduly extensive imposition.' Id. at 762. The Court contrasted this lesser bodily invasion, which the Schmerber Court had upheld upon demonstration of probable cause, with the more drastic measure of dangerous surgery to recoup criminal evidence, which the Winston Court concluded would violate the individual's Fourth Amendment rights even when supported by probable cause. Thus again, the context of the quotation demonstrates that the Court places blood extraction squarely within the probable cause requirement because it is an invasion of bodily integrity, while at the same time acknowledging that it is a less extensive imposition on dignitary interests than surgical removal of a bullet.

Investigatory Stops Of Motorists At Sobriety Checkpoints.

The unique situation in which the Supreme Court has approved suspicionless searches in the traditional law enforcement context. See Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 ('90). The Sitz Court relied on well-settled law that motorists have a lessened expectation of privacy regarding stops and visual searches of automobiles on the nation's roadways. Id. at 450 (explaining the importance of the context of 'police stops of motorists on public highways'). At these sobriety checkpoints, which motorists may choose to avoid, only the initial brief stop and preliminary questioning may take place without individualized suspicion: 'more extensive field sobriety testing' requires justification. Id. at 450-2.

Like the highway sobriety checkpoints, the 'special needs beyond normal law enforcement' rationale supports searches on lesser grounds than probable cause only in a very few, carefully tailored regulatory contexts that do not involve apprehension of criminal perpetrators. See, e.g., National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 65-66 ('89) (applying the special needs exception to suspicionless quasi-consensual drug testing of Customs Service employees seeking transfer to positions having a direct involvement in drug interdiction).

The special needs exception covers testing which 'is not designed to serve the ordinary needs of law enforcement [because] . . . results may not be used in criminal prosecution.' Von Raab, 489 U.S. at 666 (emphases added). Even so, a search in the special needs context almost always requires individualized suspicion. See, e.g., Portillo v. U.S. Dist. Court, 15 F.3d 819, 823 (9th Cir.'94) (requiring individualized suspicion for urinalysis testing under the probationer special needs exception). The rare special needs cases which do not require individualized suspicion involve persons who voluntarily participate in a highly regulated context. See, e.g., Von Raab, at 671, 677 (noting that 'certain forms of employment may diminish privacy expectations' for the 'employees who seek to be promoted' to certain positions); Vernonia School Dist. v. Acton, 1995 WL 373274, *6-*7 (U.S. June 26, '95) (noting that schools are highly regulated and 'like adults who choose to participate in a `closely regulated industry,' students who voluntarily participate in school athletics have reason to expect intrusions upon normal rights and privileges, including privacy').

Nonetheless, routine searches that intrude into prisoners' bodies without probable cause may be upheld only when the search is undertaken pursuant to a valid prison regulation that is reasonably related to a legitimate penological objective. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 87-91 ('87); see, e.g., Walker v. Sumner, 917 F.2d 382, 387 (9th Cir.'90) (remanding for evidence of a specific penological objective because 'general protestations of concern for the welfare of the citizens of Nevada and the prison community are simply insufficient to render the involuntary seizure of blood specimens, even from prison inmates, constitutionally reasonable').

Individuals have a categorically different and lesser expectation of privacy in their fingerprints, visual images, or voice prints -- even when their production is compelled -- because they are personal attributes that are routinely exposed to the public at large in daily life. Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347, 51 ('67) (finding a lesser expectation of privacy in personal effects that 'a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office').

The Fourth Amendment provides no protection for what 'a person knowingly exposes to the public'. Like a man's facial characteristics, or handwriting, his voice is repeatedly produced for others to hear. No person can have a reasonable expectation that others will not know the sound of his voice, any more than he can reasonably expect that his face will be a mystery to the world.

The required disclosure of a person's voice is thus immeasurably further removed from the Fourth Amendment protection than was the intrusion into the body effected by the blood extraction in Schmerber . . . . Rather, this is like the fingerprinting in Davis, . . . [which] 'involves none of the probing into an individual's private life and thoughts that marks an interrogation or search.' U.S. v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 14-15 ('73) (quoting Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347, 51 ('67), and Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 27 ('69)) (emphases added).

'Fingerprinting' - like the compelled production of other aspects of an individual's identification that are routinely exposed to and superficially observable by the public at large, such as voice prints, handwriting exemplars, and photographs - simply belongs to a different category of search that 'represents a much less serious intrusion upon personal security than other types of searches and detentions.' Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 14 ('85).*fn10 The majority's analysis obliterates this critical constitutional distinction between coerced fingerprinting and blood extraction for DNA genetic pattern analysis.

Blanket Searches.

Blanket searches are unreasonable, however 'evenhanded' they may be, in the traditional criminal law enforcement context. See, e.g., Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91-2, 92 n.4 ('79) (invalidating a blanket patdown search of all patrons in a tavern, even though there was probable cause to search the bartender and the premises). The ill that the Fourth Amendment prevents is not merely the arbitrariness of police discretion to single out individuals for attention, but also the unwarranted domination and control of the citizenry through fear of baseless but 'evenhanded' general police searches.

In Zurcher, the Supreme Court held that a search of the offices of a university newspaper, which was not involved in any criminal activity, for photographs of demonstrators who had assaulted police officers did not offend the Fourth Amendment's ban against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court concluded: '[T]he Amendment has not been a barrier to warrants to search property on which there is probable cause to believe that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime is located, whether or not the owner or possessor of the premises to be searched is himself reasonably suspected of complicity in the crime being investigated.' Zurcher v. Stanford Daily ('78) 436 U.S. 547, 549-50.

Fourth Amendment protects the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.' The essence of that protection is a prohibition against some modes of law enforcement because the cost of police intrusion into personal liberty is too high, even though the intrusion undoubtedly would result in an enormous boon to the public if the efficient apprehension of criminals were the sole criterion to be considered. 'The easiest course for [law enforcement] officials is not always one that our Constitution allows them to take.' Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 595 (Stevens, dissenting).

A permanent resident alien is entitled to constitutional protection. See Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32-4 ('82) ('
  • nce an alien gains admission to our country and begins to develop the ties that go with permanent residence, his constitutional status changes accordingly.'). In particular, to Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful seizures. See Benitez-Mendez v. INS, 760 F.2d 907, 09-10 (9th Cir.'85) (finding that INS seizure of alien violated Fourth Amendment); see also INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 213 n.1, 215-21 ('84) (considering whether questioning of resident aliens by INS agents amounted to seizure for purposes of Fourth Amendment); Martinez v. Nygaard, 831 F.2d 822, 824, 826-28 (9th Cir.'87) (analyzing whether seizures of three resident aliens complied with Fourth Amendment).
11347  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: December 03, 2009, 12:46:37 PM

Your points are lucid, but I submit that there is something qualitatively different about being effortlessly being able to keep track of ALL of someone's movements, or to recover what they were retroactively.

**You can track's someone's phone, with some effort and a court's approval, but in most situations that isn't of much evidentiary value by it's self. It is my understanding that absent a court order or request, cell phone providers dump their records very rapidly, given the cost involved in archiving such data. So there is not much in the way of retroactive recovering of location via cell records.**

"Nothing in the Fourth Amendment prohibited the police from augmenting their sensory faculties with such enhancement as science and technology afforded them in this case."

I'm not sure that the truth of this statement, which after all is limited to the facts presented, means that it applies across the board.
**It's not absolute. Remember Kyllo v. the United States? The 4th amendment protects the reasonably expected privacy in your home from thermal imaging without a search warrant. **
11348  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: December 03, 2009, 12:19:40 PM
For a slightly different angle... Your cell phone signal and its records are private, your health care with its records are private, your banking and credit card records are private and yes, your garbage is private.  My garbage cans are on my property.  My contract with my hauler is to take it carefully and professionally and dispose of it, not to share it, sell it or data mine it.  Guess I won't be chosen for the court anytime soon.

**This is what the courts have said thus far on some of these key topics :

 Discovery of Certain Actions or Individual Characteristics do not require a Fourth Amendment "search" and are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Abandoned property. By definition, voluntarily abandoned property cannot support a reasonable claim of privacy or possessory interests, and so there can be no "search" or "seizure" of such property in the Fourth Amendment sense. See, e.g., Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 58, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924) (contraband liquor discarded in a field); Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 241, 80 S.Ct. 683, 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960) (contents of wastebasket in vacated hotel room); and California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. at 35, (trash left for collection at the curb); State v. Brunson, 13 Kan.App.2d 384, 394-95, 771 P.2d 938, rev. denied 245 Kan. 786 (1989)(car abandoned on golf course).

Open fields. "[A]n individual has no expectation that open fields will remain free from warrantless intrusion by government officers." Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 181, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984). See also Hester, 265 U.S. at 58; Dunn, 480 U.S. at 300; State v. Tinsley, 16 Kan. App. 2d 289, 823 P.2d 205 (1991)(marijuana growing in area 45 to 70 feet from house near a cattle shed); Dow Chemical v. United States, 476 U.S. 227, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1986)(no expectation of privacy from aerial surveillance & photography of smokestack emissions); United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 281-82, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1983)(person traveling on public roads has no reasonable expectation of privacy from observation of his movements).

Plain view. No legitimate expectation of privacy exists in property exposed to official observation.

It has long been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence. Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 236, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968).
    There is no inadvertence requirement for plain-view seizures. Horton v. California, 495 U.S. 128, 137, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990).
    Two varieties of plain view seizures are possible: (1) an item exposed to view in a public place may be seized without involving any search activity; or (2) an item may be seen in plain view during the course of other lawful search or-seizure activity (such as during service of a search warrant, or while requesting consent to search). In either case, the seizure of the property in plain view "involves no invasion of privacy and is presumptively reasonable, assuming that there is probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 587, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)(Emphasis added). See, especially, Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 738, n. 4, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983)("'plain view' provides grounds for seizure of an item when an officer's access to an object has some prior justification under the Fourth Amendment."); Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1987)(no seizure by recording serial numbers from stereos, but moving equipment to see numbers was a seizure).

    The use of optical aids, such as flashlights, searchlights or binoculars, do not affect the legality of observing in plain view what could lawfully be seen in daylight or at closer range. Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. at 739-740 (flashlight); State v. Epperson, 237 Kan. 707, 714, 703 P.2d 761, (1985)(same); On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747, 754, 72 S.Ct. 967, 96 L.Ed. 1270 (1952)(radio transmitter & receiver); United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559, 563, 47 S.Ct. 746, 71 L.Ed. 1202 (1927)(searchlight).
11349  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: December 02, 2009, 10:10:46 PM
Very much so:

Held: Monitoring the beeper signals did not invade any legitimate expectation of privacy on respondent's part, and thus there was neither a "search" nor a "seizure" within the contemplation of the Fourth Amendment. The beeper surveillance amounted principally to following an automobile on public streets and highways. A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements. While respondent had the traditional expectation of privacy within a dwelling place insofar as his cabin was concerned, such expectation of privacy would not have extended to the visual observation from public places of the automobile arriving on his premises after leaving a public highway, or to movements of objects such as the chloroform container outside the cabin. The fact that the officers relied not only on visual surveillance, but also on the use of the beeper, does not alter the situation. Nothing in the Fourth Amendment prohibited the police from augmenting their sensory faculties with such enhancement as science and technology afforded them in this case.
11350  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: December 02, 2009, 05:10:08 PM
UNITED STATES V. KNOTTS, 460 U. S. 276 (1983)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 460 U. S. 276

Link to the Case Preview:

Link to the Full Text of Case:

U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)
United States v. Knotts

No. 81-1802

Argued December 6, 1982

Decided March 2, 1983

460 U.S. 276


Having reason to believe that one Armstrong was purchasing chloroform to be used in the manufacture of illicit drugs, Minnesota law enforcement officers arranged with the seller to place a beeper (a radio transmitter) inside a chloroform container that was sold to Armstrong. Officers then followed the car in which the chloroform was placed, maintaining contact by using both visual surveillance and a monitor which received the beeper signals, and ultimately tracing the chloroform, by beeper monitoring alone, to respondent's secluded cabin in Wisconsin. Following three days of intermittent visual surveillance of the cabin, officers secured a search warrant and discovered the chloroform container, and a drug laboratory in the cabin, including chemicals and formulas for producing amphetamine. After his motion to suppress evidence based on the warrantless monitoring of the beeper was denied, respondent was convicted in Federal District Court for conspiring to manufacture controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the monitoring of the beeper was prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.

Held: Monitoring the beeper signals did not invade any legitimate expectation of privacy on respondent's part, and thus there was neither a "search" nor a "seizure" within the contemplation of the Fourth Amendment. The beeper surveillance amounted principally to following an automobile on public streets and highways. A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements. While respondent had the traditional expectation of privacy within a dwelling place insofar as his cabin was concerned, such expectation of privacy would not have extended to the visual observation from public places of the automobile arriving on his premises after leaving a public highway, or to movements of objects such as the chloroform container outside the cabin. The fact that the officers relied not only on visual surveillance, but also on the use of the beeper, does not alter the situation. Nothing in the Fourth Amendment prohibited the police from augmenting their sensory faculties with such enhancement as science and technology afforded them in this case. There is no indication that the beeper was used in any way to reveal information as to the movement of the chloroform container within the cabin, or in any

Page 460 U. S. 277

way that would not have been visible to the naked eye from outside the cabin. Pp. 460 U. S. 280-285.

662 F.2d 515, reversed.

REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, POWELL, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 460 U. S. 285. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 460 U. S. 287. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BRENNAN, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 460 U. S. 288.
Pages: 1 ... 225 226 [227] 228 229 ... 291
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!