Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 05, 2015, 11:29:13 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
88000 Posts in 2283 Topics by 1070 Members
Latest Member: Nexquietus
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 190 191 [192] 193 194 ... 254
9551  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 25, 2009, 05:18:24 PM
The US has laws that forbid such things, and rightly so.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/topics/CI_Paper_0703.pdf

While intelligence plays a key role in law enforcement operations,
history tells us that it can also be the instrument of abuse if
such operations are not properly organized, focused and directed.
Particularly during times of national emergency, one must be
particularly vigilant to prevent aggressive enforcement and intelligence
gathering from becoming incursions upon constitutional
rights. Aggressive intelligence gathering operations that resemble
fishing expeditions have been employed improperly in the
past to garner sensitive or confidential information on individuals
for whom there is no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Once documented, such information can develop a life of its
own if sufficient safeguards are not built into screening, review
and management of intelligence files. If passed on to other law
enforcement agencies as intelligence, it can form the basis for
abuse of civil liberties and potential civil liability.
In the same manner, intelligence operations are misguided
that directly or indirectly gather information on persons based
solely on their dissident political activities or views, because they
espouse positions or philosophies that are perceived to threaten
conventional social or political doctrine, traditionally accepted
social mores or similar societal values or institutions, or because
they have cultural connections with terrorists. Use of law
enforcement intelligence resources to intimidate, inhibit or suppress
such activities or harass such individuals under the pretext
of legitimate police concern for maintaining social order are at
best misguided and, in the worst case scenario, constitute a threat
to the principles of law enforcement in a democratic society.
Additionally, misguided intelligence gathering is a waste of valuable
resources that are desperately needed to ferret out wrongdoers
and persons who pose real threats to national and local
security.
9552  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: November 24, 2009, 07:47:33 PM
http://thehill.com//homenews/house/69295-dems-push-wall-street-150b-stock-tax

More from the Cloward-Piven playbook.
9553  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: November 24, 2009, 06:32:54 PM
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/11/iowahawk-geographic-the-secret-life-of-climate-researchers.html

Iowahawk rules!  grin
9554  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The vast left wing conspiracy: BO's friends, appts, and running dogs on: November 24, 2009, 12:47:21 PM

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967

Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis


First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called "crisis strategy" or "Cloward-Piven Strategy," as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven's early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.

The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare -- about 8 million, at the time -- probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls."  Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level."

Their article called for "cadres of aggressive organizers" to use "demonstrations to create a climate of militancy." Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of "a federal program of income redistribution," in the form of a guaranteed living income for all -- working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act.

This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements -- mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown -- providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.

Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). His tactics closely followed the recommendations set out in Cloward and Piven's article. His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States -- often violently -- bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law "entitled" them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a dues-paying membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation.

Regarding Wiley's tactics, The New York Times commented on September 27, 1970, "There have been sit-ins in legislative chambers, including a United States Senate committee hearing, mass demonstrations of several thousand welfare recipients, school boycotts, picket lines, mounted police, tear gas, arrests - and, on occasion, rock-throwing, smashed glass doors, overturned desks, scattered papers and ripped-out phones."These methods proved effective. "The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley's wildest dreams," writes Sol Stern in the City Journal.  "From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city's private economy."As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down with it. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness.

The Cloward-Piven strategy depended on surprise. Once society recovered from the initial shock, the backlash began. New York's welfare crisis horrified America, giving rise to a reform movement which culminated in "the end of welfare as we know it" -- the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Both Cloward and Piven attended the White House signing of the bill as guests of President Clinton.

Most Americans to this day have never heard of Cloward and Piven. But New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani attempted to expose them in the late 1990s. As his drive for welfare reform gained momentum, Giuliani accused the militant scholars by name, citing their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage. "This wasn't an accident," Giuliani charged in a 1997 speech. "It wasn't an atmospheric thing, it wasn't supernatural. This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare."

Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as candidly as they had in their 1966 article. Even so, their activism in subsequent years continued to rely on the tactic of overloading the system. When the public caught on to their welfare scheme, Cloward and Piven simply moved on, applying pressure to other sectors of the bureaucracy, wherever they detected weakness.

In 1982, partisans of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new "voting rights movement," which purported to take up the unfinished work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like ACORN, the organization that spear-headed this campaign, the new "voting rights" movement was led by veterans of George Wiley's welfare rights crusade. Its flagship organizations were Project Vote and Human SERVE, both founded in 1982. Project Vote is an ACORN front group, launched by former NWRO organizer and ACORN co-founder Zach Polett. Human SERVE was founded by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, along with a former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James.

All three of these organizations -- ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE -- set to work lobbying energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which Bill Clinton ultimately signed in 1993. The Motor-Voter bill is largely responsible for swamping the voter rolls with "dead  wood" -- invalid registrations signed in the name of deceased, ineligible or non-existent people -- thus opening the door to the unprecedented  levels of voter fraud and "voter disenfranchisement" claims that followed in subsequent elections.

The new "voting rights" coalition combines mass voter registration drives -- typically featuring high levels of fraud -- with systematic intimidation of election officials in the form of frivolous lawsuits, unfounded charges of "racism" and "disenfranchisement," and "direct action" (street protests, violent or otherwise). Just as they swamped America's welfare offices in the 1960s, Cloward-Piven devotees now seek to overwhelm the nation's understaffed and poorly policed electoral system. Their tactics set the stage for the Florida recount crisis of 2000, and have introduced a level of fear, tension and foreboding to U.S. elections heretofore encountered mainly in Third World countries. 

Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros's Open Society Institute and his "Shadow Party," through whose support the Cloward-Piven strategy continues to provide a blueprint for some of the Left's most ambitious campaigns.
9555  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: November 24, 2009, 09:22:12 AM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/34040009

The 'Real' Jobless Rate: 17.5% Of Workers Are Unemployed
Published: Thursday, 19 Nov 2009
CNBC.com

As experts debate the potential speed of the US recovery, one figure looms large but is often overlooked: nearly 1 in 5 Americans is either out of work or under-employed.
9556  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 24, 2009, 09:07:36 AM
I get the impression from the first of your two posts that

a) they were specifically watching his particular email, and
b) the email communication was international.

It seems so.
9557  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 24, 2009, 08:40:03 AM
Do I want a GPS tracker on everyone's car? No. For law enforcement purposes, it would normally be used as a tool to assist in a physical surveillance, not a substitute for "tailing" a suspect in a crime. You need to be able to testify that your suspect was the driver of the car at the time the car was used in a criminal act. Otherwise your surveillance is worthless because of the "soddi" defense.
9558  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Brits interfere in privacy, religious expression on: November 24, 2009, 02:03:21 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6533021/British-intelligence-cracks-trans-Atlantic-terrorist-network.html


They are reticent on how Zazi was identified but admit it was through an “intercepted communication."


After Vinas was detained, a number of arrests followed in Belgium in December and in April this year Greater Manchester Police arrested 12 Pakistani students after GCHQ intercepted emails about girls and cars that were allegedly code for a planned attack.
9559  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Brits interfere in privacy, religious expression on: November 24, 2009, 01:42:31 AM
**Help ! Help ! I'm being oppressed !"**

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6529436/British-spies-help-prevent-al-Qaeda-inspired-attack-on-New-York-subway.html

9560  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 24, 2009, 01:26:40 AM
http://www.policeone.com/law-enforcement-and-the-economy

A recent poll by the Police Executive Research Forum found that more than half the agencies questioned had been "bracing for funding cuts during the upcoming year."
9561  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The vast left wing conspiracy: BO's friends, appts, and running dogs on: November 24, 2009, 01:17:06 AM
November 23, 2009
Cloward-Piven Government
By James Simpson

It is time to cast aside all remaining doubt. President Obama is not trying to lead America forward to recovery, prosperity and strength. Quite the opposite, in fact.


In September of last year, American Thinker published my article, Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis. Part of a series, it connected then-presidential candidate Barack Obama to individuals and organizations practicing a malevolent strategy for destroying our economy and our system of government. Since then, the story of that strategy has found its way across the blogosphere, onto the airwaves of radio stations across the country, the Glenn Beck television show, Bill O'Reilly, and now Mark Levin.


The methodology is known as the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and we can all be grateful to David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks for originally exposing and explaining it to us. He describes it as:


The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.


Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were two lifelong members of Democratic Socialists of America who taught sociology at Columbia University (Piven later went on to City University of New York). In a May 1966 Nation magazine article titled "The Weight of the Poor," they outlined their strategy, proposing to use grassroots radical organizations to push ever more strident demands for public services at all levels of government.


The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces ... for major economic reform at the national level."


They implemented the strategy by creating a succession of radical organizations, most notable among them the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), with the help of veteran organizer Wade Rathke. Their crowning achievement was the "Motor Voter" act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 with Cloward and Piven standing behind him.


As we now know, ACORN was one of the chief drivers of high-risk mortgage lending that eventually led to the financial crisis. But the Motor Voter law was another component of the strategy. It created vast vulnerabilities in our electoral system, which ACORN then exploited.

ACORN's vote registration scandals throughout the U.S. are predictable fallout.


The Motor Voter law has also been used to open another vulnerability in the system: the registration of vast numbers of illegal aliens, who then reliably vote Democrat. Herein lies the real reason Democrats are so anxious for open borders, security be damned.


It should be clear to anyone with a mind and two eyes that this president and this Congress do not have our interests at heart. They are implementing this strategy on an unprecedented scale by flooding America with a tidal wave of poisonous initiatives, orders, regulations, and laws. As Rahm Emmanuel said, "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste."


The real goal of "health care" legislation, the real goal of "cap-and-trade," and the real goal of the "stimulus" is to rip the guts out of our private economy and transfer wide swaths of it over to the government to control. Do not be deluded by the propaganda. These initiatives are vehicles for change. They are not goals in and of themselves except in their ability to deliver power. They and will make matters much worse, for that is their design.


This time, in addition to overwhelming the government with demands for services, Obama and the Democrats are overwhelming political opposition to their plans with a flood of apocalyptic legislation. Their ultimate goal is to leave us so discouraged, demoralized, and exhausted that we throw our hands up in defeat. As Barney Frank said, "the middle class will be too distracted to fight."


These people are our enemies. They don't use guns, yet, but they are just as dangerous, determined, and duplicitous as the communists we faced in the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and bush wars across the globe, and the Nazis we faced in World War II.


It is time we fully internalized and digested this fact, with all its ugly ramifications. These people have violated countless laws and could be prosecuted, had we the political power. Not only are their policies unconstitutional, but deliberately so -- the goal being to make the Constitution irrelevant. Their spending is off the charts and will drive us into hyperinflation, but it could be rescinded, had we the political power. These policies are toxic, but they could be stopped and reversed, had we the political power. Their ideologies are poisonous, but they could be exposed for what they are, with long jail sentences as an object lesson, had we the political power.


Every single citizen who cares about this country should be spending every minute of his or her spare time lobbying, organizing, writing, and planning. Fight every initiative they launch. It is all destructive. If we are to root out this evil, it is critical that in 2010 we elect  competent, principled leaders willing to defend our Constitution and our country. Otherwise, the malevolent cabal that occupies the government today will become too entrenched.


After that, all bets are off.


Businessman and Examiner.com columnist Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst. You may read more of his articles on his blog, Truth and Consequences.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/clowardpiven_government.html at November 24, 2009 - 12:02:36 AM EST
9562  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 24, 2009, 01:00:26 AM
What state? No matter the technology involved, it boils down to flesh and blood humans doing the job. Now more than ever, there are less doing law enforcement and greater demands on those doing the job. My state invests little in law enforcement in the best of times, as a result, outlaw motorcycle gangs have set up shop here as they discuss how it's a safe state from them to operate in.
9563  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Lime Jello, Sardines, Buttermilk, & Tomato Paste on: November 23, 2009, 11:47:41 PM
Nah, I think they should be forced to wrestle members of Code Pink in a vat full of lime jello, sardines, buttermilk, and tomato paste. Work for you?

And are you ceding that the NSA peruses American originating sigint? Or are we talking about disbanding the NSA for things they haven't done?

**Given that neither one of us get to wander through the bowels of Ft. Meade and that the intertubes don't have clearly demarcated borders, it's not possible to know what has happened and hasn't. Yes? Although it's my understanding is that friendly foreign intel agencies do sift through US domestic sigint and tip off US law enforcement on the federal level when they spot something worth investigating. What are you going to do to stop GCHQ from reading your global warming posts?**

I've got an uncle (second cousin, actually) who was a Wisco politician who palled around w/ Proxmire and at one point was considering a run from governor. He use to argue with me about my Libertarian ways, claiming that you needed to work within a party structure to achieve your ends, doing a lot of compromising along the way. I replied that there was a long, honorable history of citizens fighting losing battles in defense of unadulterated liberty and, in losing, making sure those who play fast and loose with the nation's founding principles understand their shenanigans are understood and being monitored.

**Ah yes, the Libertarians, changing the world, one losing candidate at a time.**  grin

I suffer no illusion that my mewlings will cause the NSA to change its course, and here and now the benefit cost analysis perhaps favors the status quo. It's my hope, however, that defining the issues to small audiences in my inimitable fashion will help to ensure I'm not the only one monitoring these concerns.

Steeling myself for the next stark question. . . .

Edited to add: Off to KY in the a.m. where I'm second in command and cook for an expedition where the leader just came down w/ H1N1. Have a bunch of balls in the air most of the week so I'm not sure when I'll be back to the fray.

Be careful when in a part of the country where "Deliverance" is in the romantic-comedy sections of the video stores.
9564  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 23, 2009, 11:36:34 PM
American law enforcement is being hollowed out as we speak. Lots of veteran investigators are pulling the pin and taking their institutional knowledge with them and those that remain are being put back into uniform. As a result, only the low hanging fruit of stupid street criminals will face investigation and complex/organized crime will face little to no prosecution.

Surveillance is how you will tend to establish probable cause that a crime was/is being committed. You can raise the bar so that all but the most basic police services are impossible to provide. It's good news for the real world Tony Sopranos/Avon Barksdales out there.
9565  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A dose of reality from the POTH on: November 23, 2009, 12:08:31 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/business/23rates.html?pagewanted=print

November 23, 2009
Payback TimeWave of Debt Payments Facing U.S. Government By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON — The United States government is financing its more than trillion-dollar-a-year borrowing with i.o.u.’s on terms that seem too good to be true.

But that happy situation, aided by ultralow interest rates, may not last much longer.

Treasury officials now face a trifecta of headaches: a mountain of new debt, a balloon of short-term borrowings that come due in the months ahead, and interest rates that are sure to climb back to normal as soon as the Federal Reserve decides that the emergency has passed.

Even as Treasury officials are racing to lock in today’s low rates by exchanging short-term borrowings for long-term bonds, the government faces a payment shock similar to those that sent legions of overstretched homeowners into default on their mortgages.

With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.
9566  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: November 23, 2009, 12:07:16 PM
No, but with this president, it might as well be.
9567  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 23, 2009, 11:58:26 AM
So the answer is to scrap the NSA?

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-29610.html

A nice primer on the topic of privacy and email.
9568  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 23, 2009, 11:45:30 AM
Should a warrant be required to physicallly surveil a suspect? If not, why? What's the difference?
9569  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Nuclear War, WMD issues on: November 23, 2009, 11:43:02 AM
To get us to concede East Europe to its sphere again, and to control the gas supplies of Central Asia (the Georgia issue can be seen in this context).

===================

Exactly.
9570  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: November 23, 2009, 11:41:27 AM
Am I surprised?

Not. One. Bit.
9571  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 20, 2009, 09:02:54 AM
Crafty,

Without seeing all the reports, and especially seeing all the crime scene photos, it's impossible to say that it's not a suicide unless the GSW was positioned in such a manner as to make it impossible that it was self inflicted. A contact GSW looks the same, no matter if it was self inflicted or done by someone else. Now if it wasn't a contact/close range GSW, then you have something....
9572  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 20, 2009, 08:27:19 AM
No I don't have a better method, though it annoys me to be told someone is dishing up tasty omelets while being assured no eggs were broken in the process. You can't have it both ways by posting all the constraints intelligence agencies are supposedly operating under and then bragging on results that clearly had to involve a lot of sifting before archiving the data for several years.

**What are the 4th amendment protections enjoyed by British nationals emailing Pakistanis?**
9573  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 19, 2009, 10:41:43 PM
Can you show me the source docs? People TEND to shoot themselves with their dominant hand, however that alone is not evidence of homicide.
9574  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: November 19, 2009, 10:24:20 PM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/american-convert-to-islam-says-it-is-not-permissible-for-muslims-to-join-an-infidel-army.html

American convert to Islam says it is not permissible for Muslims to join an Infidel army


Wait a minute. I thought only greasy Islamophobes believed that there was any problem with Muslims in the military. Will Honest Ibe Hooper of CAIR denounce Umar Lee as an "Islamophobe"?

Glossary: Kaafir, kufr = Infidel. Deen = religion. Ummah = global Islamic community. Ulamaa = Islamic scholars. Al wala wal bara = "Love and hate," i.e., love for Muslims and hatred for non-Muslims.
9575  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 19, 2009, 08:14:48 PM
And you've got a better method you'd wish to be used? I'd love to hear it.
9576  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: November 19, 2009, 04:15:52 PM
Power Line Blog: John Hinderaker, Scott Johnson, Paul Mirengoff
http://www.powerlineblog.com

Trying KSM: Why? An insane protocol
   
November 18, 2009 Posted by Scott at 3:18 PM
In his press conference this past Friday and in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, Attorney General Holder has explained his decision to refer KSM and his 9/11 co-conspirators to trial based on a "protocol" released in July.

What protocol? I don't recall reading anything about it at the time it was released, or seeing anything about it in connection with Holder's decision to deliver KSM et al. to federal court in New York for trial cloaked with the constitutional rights of American citizens.

I called the Justice Department this morning to ask for a copy of the protocol and was directed to the document in issue. It is titled "Determination of Guantanamo Cases Referred for Prosecution." The first paragraph describes a process for determining which cases are to be referred for criminal prosecution. The second paragraph sets forth the "Factors for Determination of Prosecution." It reads as follows:

There is a presumption that, where feasible. referred cases will be prosecuted in an Article III [federal] court, in keeping with traditional principles of federal prosecution. Nonetheless, where other compelling factors make it more appropriate to prosecute a case in a reformed military commission, it may be prosecuted there. That inquiry-turns on the following three broad sets of factors, which are based on forum-selection factors traditionally used by federal prosecutors:

A. Strength of Interest. The factors to be considered here are the nature of the offenses to be charged or any pending charges; the nature and gravity of the conduct underlying the offenses; the identity of victims of the offense; the location in which the offenses occurred; the location and context in which the individual was apprehended; and the manner in which the case was investigated and evidence gathered, including the investigating entities.

B. Efficiency. The factors to be considered here are protection of intelligence sources and methods; the venue in which the case would be tried; issues related to multiple-defendant trials; foreign policy concerns; legal or evidentiary problems that might attend prosecution in the other jurisdiction: and efficiency and resource concerns.

C. Other Prosecution Considerations. The factors to be considered here are the extent to which the forum, and the offenses that could be charged in that forum, permit a full presentation of the wrongful conduct allegedly committed by the accused, and the available sentence upon conviction of those offenses.




Despite the bare bones nature of the enumerated factors and the lack of detail regarding how they are to applied, this is a shocking document. The operative presumption is a rule in favor of criminal prosecution. Nothing could more clearly indicate the Obama administration's treatment of the war on terrorism as a venture in aw enforcement. In the words of the late John Lennon: "WAR IS OVER! (if you want it)."

Given the referral of the case against KSM et al. for prosecution in federal court, we can do a little reverse engineering to figure out how the enumerated factors are apparently applied by the Obama administration. If the attack occurred in the United States, it weighs in favor of criminal prosecution. If the attack focused on American civilians, it weighs in favor of criminal prosecution. (It is less clear to me how the other factors are weighed and applied in practice.) Application of these factors can convert heinous acts of war and war crimes into criminal offenses with respect to which the perpetrators are subject to the protections of the Constitution of the United States.

That way madness lies. The Obama administration is engaged in a venture that will simultaneously undermine the prosecution of the war in which we are engaged while it blurs the distinction between war and crime. It is a venture that works a great burden on the federal courts and prosecutors. To what end?

With a few exceptions, Attorney General Holder has been exceedingly wary of articulating the application of the "factors" to KSM et al. other than by general reference to the "protocol." As we pointed out, what Holder has said about application of the factors makes no sense at all. Attacks on Americans in the United States are presumably to be treated as crimes subject to prosecution in federal court. Why? What is the underlying rationale? Again, Holder has been wary of articulating it.

Whatever it is, notice should be taken. The Obama administration's "protocol" sends up a red flag signaling a great danger to the people of the United States.

UPDATE: Andrew McCarthy comments here.
9577  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 19, 2009, 03:42:47 PM
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/09/nsa-email/

NSA-Intercepted E-Mails Helped Convict Would-Be Bombers
By Kim Zetter  September 8, 2009  |  6:26 pm  |  Categories: Surveillance

The three men convicted in the United Kingdom on Monday of a plot to bomb several transcontinental flights were prosecuted in part using crucial e-mail correspondences intercepted by the U.S. National Security Agency, according to Britain’s Channel 4.

The e-mails, several of which have been reprinted by the BBC and other publications, contained coded messages, according to prosecutors. They were intercepted by the NSA in 2006 but were not included in evidence introduced in a first trial against the three last year.

**HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM**
9578  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: November 19, 2009, 09:08:17 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2009/11/10/GA2009111000920.html

See it yourself.
9579  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: November 19, 2009, 08:58:50 AM
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34479

Nidal Hasan’s Ominous Islam
by  Robert Spencer

11/19/2009


Before he killed or wounded 54 Americans at Fort Hood on November 5, army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan had raised eyebrows with his Islamic proselytizing, which he carried on even when he was supposed to be conducting medical briefings. One such presentation has come to light: the June 2007 briefing which Hasan gave to other doctors at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Hasan’s PowerPoint slides say many of the same things found in jihadist literature and propaganda throughout the Middle East and among its apologists here in America.   

Hasan’s Islam is rooted in traditional understandings of the faith as taught by the authoritative schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence. It also is the same Islam that is taught by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Al-Qaeda.
9580  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 18, 2009, 10:49:38 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-michael-scott-deathnov18,0,3218383.story

Just reading this, it doesn't seem atypical.
9581  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 18, 2009, 05:26:58 PM




TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I § 1809. Criminal sanctions
 (a) Prohibited activities

A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.
(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1801
(a) “Foreign power” means—
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.
(b) “Agent of a foreign power” means—
(1) any person other than a United States person, who—
(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;
(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person’s presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or
(C) engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore; or
(2) any person who—
(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
(c) “International terrorism” means activities that—
(1) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State;
(2) appear to be intended—
(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(C) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and
(3) occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.
(d) “Sabotage” means activities that involve a violation of chapter 105 of title 18, or that would involve such a violation if committed against the United States.
(e) “Foreign intelligence information” means—
(1) information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against—
(A) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
(B) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or
(C) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power; or
(2) information with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to—
(A) the national defense or the security of the United States; or
(B) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.
(f) “Electronic surveillance” means—
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;
(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;
(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or
(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.
(g) “Attorney General” means the Attorney General of the United States (or Acting Attorney General), the Deputy Attorney General, or, upon the designation of the Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General designated as the Assistant Attorney General for National Security under section 507A of title 28.
(h) “Minimization procedures”, with respect to electronic surveillance, means—
(1) specific procedures, which shall be adopted by the Attorney General, that are reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance, to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information;
(2) procedures that require that nonpublicly available information, which is not foreign intelligence information, as defined in subsection (e)(1) of this section, shall not be disseminated in a manner that identifies any United States person, without such person’s consent, unless such person’s identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance;
(3) notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), procedures that allow for the retention and dissemination of information that is evidence of a crime which has been, is being, or is about to be committed and that is to be retained or disseminated for law enforcement purposes; and
(4) notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), with respect to any electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802 (a) of this title, procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.
(i) “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title Cool, an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
(j) “United States”, when used in a geographic sense, means all areas under the territorial sovereignty of the United States and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
(k) “Aggrieved person” means a person who is the target of an electronic surveillance or any other person whose communications or activities were subject to electronic surveillance.
(l) “Wire communication” means any communication while it is being carried by a wire, cable, or other like connection furnished or operated by any person engaged as a common carrier in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications.
(m) “Person” means any individual, including any officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any group, entity, association, corporation, or foreign power.
(n) “Contents”, when used with respect to a communication, includes any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication.
(o) “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and any territory or possession of the United States.
_____________________________________________________________________________________


But hey, they are from the government and are here to help. No doubt I should cease my ruminations and find a public teat to suckle on or something.

**Suckle on whatever you wish. It's a free country.   grin **
9582  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 18, 2009, 05:08:41 PM
Ah, I see. I'm 'sposed to be comforted by their incompetence and misallocation of resources. Got it.

**Well, unless you think Maj. Hasan was missed because the N-VA. JTTF was too busy parsing through your posts on global warming, yes.**
9583  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 18, 2009, 04:52:09 PM
The current administration makes a lot of hay out of right wing extremists. The spook agencies work for that administration. Do you need me to connect the dots?

**You're going to need a lot more dots to bridge that gap between those two data points. As much as Barry and Rahm would love to do something to quiet the critics, us individuals on the interwebs can say what we will, short of violating an actual law. The CIA, NSA or other such entity can't arrest us. KSM is getting a lovely show trial with full discovery of all sorts of vital national security secrets to be burned, with ACLU types chomping at the bit to spin legalistics webs around the federal prosecution.
With the terrorists that butchered 3000 of us on one morning getting the full measure of protection usually afforded to shoplifters, I'm not going to worry about how the new Stasi will be coming for me anytime soon.**
9584  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 18, 2009, 04:38:53 PM
Perhaps here, perhaps now. It certainly not the case in Russia, China, and many other places. Are you of the opinion it could never happen here?

**It could happen anywhere, including here. Thankfully, we are far away from any real threat of it happening here anytime soon. Let me know when Glen Beck gets frogmatched off to the gulag.**
9585  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 18, 2009, 11:32:27 AM
You just used the L word again! I can hear all the good little bureaucrats jumping up and down with glee! Another reason to raise taxes, become more overbearing with the use of force to tell more people how to run their life!

**And instead of the rule of law, you'd prefer what?**

The property owner puts up whatever cameras he sees fit, it is his land.  The cops like those cameras, it helps them to remember to toe the line (a good thing) and also serves to document various aspects of their job- fine.  I know I am being surveyed, the cop is in my business. 

It is all the other stuff.  A cop cruising around with a license plate scanner "looking for business" is definitely going to be one of the ones I am going to dislike. 

**Actually, doing traffic is one of the best ways to catch fugitive felons and roll up crimes before they happen. The career criminal stopped for a minor traffic violation that ends up getting arrested isn't free to victimize you the next day.**


Most of that equipment is more for revenue collection than actual crime catching anyway. 

**Wrong, as pointed out above.**

 The speeding cams, the stop sign cams.  The speed traps, the attitude that everyone is a crook.

**The stop sign cameras save lives. Speed enforcement saves lives. Like it or not, those are the laws created by state legislatures and signed by governors and upheled by the courts. Law enforcement just enforces those laws.**

  The stopping of random people behaving "suspiciously" and checking pockets, they behave suspiciously because 2 funny dressed goons from the govt are here using force against innocent citizens. 

**First read up on a Terry Stop. Facts are good. Having an informed opinion is a good thing, you'll find.  My kingdom for a libertarian that can debate from facts rather than emotion.**

Cops are walking with their hand on their gun way to often, that is almost a direct threat of anyone within sight. **Uh huh. What's you training and experience in the use of defensive firearms. Are you a criminal? What do you frighten so easily?**  Unethical when police are the disturbance of the peace even though they are the LAW. ** Really? Please cite the statute you are alleging was/is being violated?**

I do not need anyone to watch over me,

**Really? for such an independent tough guy, you seem to get scared awful easy.**

 I would gladly embrace the privilege of a free man to starve to death if he cannot find a way to eat.

**Well, based on your prior post where you state that you can't afford a bus pass, it's seems you are well on your way there.**


 It solves a whole bunch of problems rather nicely.  I never want to be a burden thru taxes that are taken by force from another person for welfare.  Taxes are required by LAW, I am stealing indirectly thru a proxy.  That is still as unethical as stealing a pie of the neighbors windowsill.  I do not need someone to protect me, any one who attacks me is assuming the risk of losing the fight. I do not need anyone to tell me who initiated the attack first.  All a cop should do is verify "fair fight", and tell the kin where to pick up the looser (hospital, or morgue).  The crowd will know who the criminal is and point that out if I fail to protect my right to life.  It is unethical to remove a persons ability to defend himself, by requiring me to run away and call a cop, that is exactly what is being done, because there is often no option to run (bullets are pretty fast, knives/rocks can be thrown, etc.).

Yeah it is the LAW but an unethical law is worse than no law at all, and that is why laws are observed more in the breaking than the keeping.


**Rather than be angry at law enforcement, you should focus that rage on whomever was supposed to educate you. Print out a copy of your posts and take them to an attorney so they can file a tort claim on your behalf. **
9586  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 18, 2009, 11:07:06 AM
Cost Benefit does not apply to people, it has already been determined that lives are not bought and sold.  

**I was discussing the use of cameras vs. hiring more police officers as a budgetary matter, although I will point out that lives saved or lost do figure into the equasion.**

I do not trust human beings to get it right with any kind of predictability.  The old Lady in Florida and the Kids in New England are simply too much used of SWAT levels of force.  

**Ohhhkayyyyyy. What old lady in Florida? What kids in New England? What does "are simply too much used of SWAT levels of force." mean?**

Regular beat cops screwed up recently in Henderson where someone appears to have ended up dead over a parking ticket and a language barrier.  (Henderson cops in nNevada have had a "rep." for years, they really stepped in it this time)

** And you know the Henderson cops screwed up how, exactly? You were there? What is the basis for you to judge the use of force by a law enforcement officer. What's your training and experience on the topic?**

The camera surveillance is to invasive, yes there is no expectation of privacy, but to be on camera just because you are in public?  No that is not an answer either.  Cameras at ATMs and Banks and places where there is an "expectation of monitoring' is fine, but generic authorization for general surveillance, nope I do not agree with that.
**And your policy solution is what?**
9587  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Yottabyte Me on: November 18, 2009, 10:56:46 AM
I'm feeling kinda silly these days. I'm something of a geek and a big time early adopter so I've glommed on to a Google Voice account as well as Google Wave, and have all the above integrated with various others stuff. I'll be out in bum fornication Kentucky next week but will have about six integrated ways to keep in touch with work including by video if need be.

I mention all this because of a paranoid fantasy:

**I'm glad you have the insight to recognize this is a paranoid fantasy.**


what if Google was a wholly owned subsidiary of some spook agency? Someone leaves a voicemail on my Google Voice account and it gets transcribed into a text email that finds me wherever I am. If they can transcribe a voicemail that quickly they could certainly do the same to any conversation I route through them. They have my web history, and as I start getting into Wave they'll have those collaborations too. Expect they have some of my shopping and doubtless other stuff; link it all together and a pretty complete picture of me emerges.

**And aformentioned spook agency would care why?**

Well Google doesn't have to be wholly owned as there is the Patriot Act and FISA amendment that allow the feds to co-opt just about any communications resource to their end. NSA is building a new storage facility in Utah rumored to have yottabytes (1 yottabyte=1,000,000,000,000,000GB) of drive space where all sorts of electronic utterances could be stored and collated. The thought of my accreted internet wanderings and warblings being stored somewhere and then used for who knows what end down the line give me the willies. Plenty of times and places where my anti-federal, anti-authority, well-armed, somewhat trained perspectives and predilections would have lead to a gulag or worse.

**Yeah, they'll get to you as soon as they roll up the muslim army majors who just happen to be dialoging with AQ affilitated imams about jihad.**

I say all this as a reaction to some of the discussion occurring currently and as preface to this CATO piece. Said piece has a lot of links to Electronic Frontier, Wired, and other sources that are will worth exploring. I fret for a country that has yottabytes of data about their citizens stored and I fear the day looms when a politician will put said data to a mass, malign use.

**Please cite the source where the yottabytes will be used to document our collective warblings.**

CATO piece follows

A Handy PATRIOT Act Cheat Sheet

Posted by Julian Sanchez

While there are a slew of USA PATRIOT Act reform bills buzzing about Capitol Hill, the focus in Congress is now on two chief contenders, reported out by the House and Senate judiciary committees respectively. The very very short version is that the Senate version renews expiring PATRIOT powers with very few modifications, and that the House version includes an array of moderately more robust civil liberties safeguards. As Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has argued cogently, these differences are really far less important than the need to reform the FISA Amendments Act, which vastly expanded the surveillance powers of the National Security Agency, in effect permitting the Bush administration’s program of warrantless wiretapping to proceed with some cosmetic trappings of oversight. Still, the House bill does go some ways toward restoring the quaint notion that government should pry in to the private records of its citizens only when some evidence exists to provide grounds for individualized suspicion.

The Obama administration, alas, has decided to back the Senate’s bill, though the Justice Department also expressed “concerns” about the handful of actually-substantive checks on government spying power, and made clear that it intends to continue “working with the Committee” to gut those before the bill reaches the floor. For those with a taste for the gory details, Wired points to CDT’s handy dandy cheat sheet comparing the main provisions of the two bills.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/16/a-handy-patriot-act-cheat-sheet/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Cato-at-liberty+%28Cato+at+Liberty%29


9588  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: November 18, 2009, 10:46:01 AM
How does this apply to law enforcement?
9589  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 16, 2009, 06:22:45 PM
I'm unaware of anywhere in the US where one is constantly under scrutiny, especially government scrutiny. I'm curious what sort of legislation you'd suggest to restrict the use of cameras. Does the local stop-n-rob or Walmart get to keep their cameras? Howabout the security cameras at schools? Do Private Investigators working insurance fraud cases get to use cameras? Does a patrol car keep it's cameras?
9590  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 16, 2009, 02:18:56 PM
I think we should look at the topic from a cost/benefit analysis. Outside of certain specific environments, I'm thinking the money would be better spent on police officers.
9591  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Self-Defense Law on: November 16, 2009, 11:27:56 AM
It has always seemed strange to me that it seems to come down to where you happen to be standing as to what actions you can (legally) do to defend yourself. If I'm in Pennsylvania, by the time I worked out whether or not I was actually being threatened and to what degree, I'd be dead - at least I think I would, since I'm not an attorney and can't really interpret the law well enough where I would be sure that my opinion would hold up in court.

Home in Missouri, though, I have the state's castle doctrine and -- I believe much more important, I know most of the people at the Sheriff's department -- so when a couple patrol cars show up, they're going to have at least a preliminary idea that me, the old guy with the gun, is probably the good guy.

Another question in an earlier post, what's a threat? Somebody in my home is a threat and I'm not talking to them. My home, so I'm just attacking whatever my German Shepherd is biting. But, and this did happen, some clown showed up late one night and tried to kick in the front door. Threat? Not at all. I got a shotgun and the big dog and my wife called 911. Fifteen minutes later, two cars showed up from one direction and then another car from the other way (our neighbor, also a deputy, decided to get up and see what was going on). The guy who had attempted to break the door down didn't realize the door is steel with reinforced everything and I guess he broke his knee or something, the deputies found him outside in the yard. Oops. No threat. Had he made it through the door, which I thought was extremely unlikely, I'd have taken some action, but again, didn't think that was possible unless he had some kind of breaching tools.

I think that had I shot through the door, that would have been excessive and unwarranted. Perhaps that isn't the way to look at the situation, but as long as I consider myself "safe," then I don't see any reason to attack. I'm sure various laws will castigate me both ways..........

It's all about ABILITY, OPPORTUNITY and JEOPARDY.

Did the bad guy act in a manner where a reasonable person would fear for their life?
9592  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 16, 2009, 11:18:34 AM
As far as cameras everywhere, in the US the vast majority of the cameras are privately owned and thus not subject to the 4th amendment. Cameras in public spaces are no different than having a police officer view what is open to anyone in that public place.
9593  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 16, 2009, 11:03:12 AM
Do you think the court decided correctly in Kyllo?

As for your mockery of "Oh my god, the police have a camera!"-- yes you bring lucid rejoinders, but IMHO we also need to address the profound implications of CAMERAS EVERYWHERE, RECORDING MOST EVERYTHING.

Yes, the court was correct, although I'd actually draw a different bright line rather than "not currently in the general public's use". Rather, I'd use a standard that the 4th applies equally to a police officer physically intruding into a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, or by any technological means, breaching that privacy. A search is a search, no matter if it's "actual" vs. "virtual".
9594  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 16, 2009, 09:31:42 AM
Kyllo v. United States

Facts of the Case:
A Department of the Interior agent, suspicious that Danny Kyllo was growing marijuana, used a thermal-imaging device to scan his triplex. The imaging was to be used to determine if the amount of heat emanating from the home was consistent with the high-intensity lamps typically used for indoor marijuana growth. Subsequently, the imaging revealed that relatively hot areas existed, compared to the rest of the home. Based on informants, utility bills, and the thermal imaging, a federal magistrate judge issued a warrant to search Kyllo's home. The search unveiled growing marijuana. After Kyllo was indicted on a federal drug charge, he unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized from his home and then entered a conditional guilty plea. Ultimately affirming, the Court of Appeals held that Kyllo had shown no subjective expectation of privacy because he had made no attempt to conceal the heat escaping from his home, and even if he had, there was no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy because the imager "did not expose any intimate details of Kyllo's life," only "amorphous 'hot spots' on the roof and exterior wall."

Question:
Does the use of a thermal-imaging device to detect relative amounts of heat emanating from a private home constitute an unconstitutional search in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion:
Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that "[w]here, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant." In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the "observations were made with a fairly primitive thermal imager that gathered data exposed on the outside of [Kyllo's] home but did not invade any constitutionally protected interest in privacy," and were, thus, "information in the public domain."

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for Kyllo, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment
9595  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 16, 2009, 09:22:39 AM
I will point out that we have not extensively covered law enforcement practices. Mostly it's been "OMG, the police have a camera! We are but minutes away from an orwellian dictatorship!" And then me trying to inject a dose of reality into the discussion.
9596  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 16, 2009, 08:54:32 AM
Although not a law enforcement practice, I have condemned Kelo. Does that count?  grin
9597  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: November 16, 2009, 08:48:58 AM
I will point out that i'm a small "l" libertarian. I don't want an orwellian police state. However, a key concept often forgotten is there is no freedom without the rule of law. Unless the laws are enforced, then individual freedoms are lost.
9598  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 16, 2009, 08:25:38 AM
If something is seized as evidence, it is retained until all legal avenues are exhausted.

best evidence rule

A rule of evidence that demands that the original of any document, photograph, or recording be used as evidence at trial, rather than a copy. A copy will be allowed into evidence only if the original is unavailable.
9599  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: November 16, 2009, 08:05:05 AM
Rarick,

It's not a matter of not having respect for you as a person, but not having respect for an uninformed opinion. I get really tired of libertarian armchair theories on policing based on emotion and the most cursory of legal knowledge.
9600  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: November 16, 2009, 04:11:41 AM
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/13/a_web_of_lone_wolves

A Web of Lone Wolves
Fort Hood shows us that Internet jihad is not a myth.
BY EVAN KOHLMANN | NOVEMBER 13, 2009

Upon learning of the reported "missed" link between the alleged culprit responsible for the massacre at Ft. Hood -- Maj. Malik Nidal Hasan -- and Anwar al Awlaki, my heart sank for a multitude of reasons. Al Awlaki is an infamous character in the halls of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and he has been for several years at least. The cleric's recurring presence again in the Ft. Hood case seems to be powerful and disturbing evidence of how fringe extremists -- who otherwise might remain in obscurity with no real means of living out their private jihadi fantasies -- are quite literally being equipped for battle by so-called "theological" advisors known only to them through the Internet. In short, it is a reminder of how real online terrorism networks have become.
Pages: 1 ... 190 191 [192] 193 194 ... 254
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!