PDA

View Full Version : Gun Control Leads to Militarized Law Enforcement


gunsmith
05-11-2010, 7:31 AM
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/crime/3524-gun-control-leads-to-militarized-law-enforcement
Gun Control Leads to Militarized Law Enforcement
f you needed another example of public officials woefully unaware of restraints on government power, look no further than the city of Chicago. The Austin Weekly News reported on April 28th that State Representative LaShawn Ford (D) is calling for the deployment of National Guard units on the streets of the Windy City to deal with escalating gang violence. Ford wants the military to augment the 13,400 strong Chicago Police Force, which is already the second largest in the nation.

Ford, along with fellow State Rep. John Fritchey (D), is encouraging Illinois Governor Pat Quinn to work with Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley to militarize the streets of the nation's third-largest city. In a press release, Ford reasoned that local law enforcement should be backed up with armed forces because “we cannot accept it as a normal situation that someone is shot and killed in Chicago almost every day, with the West Side citizens whom I represent being affected at a much greater rate.”

Sadly, based on Ford’s press release, it is apparent that he is not familiar with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 that strictly prohibits the deployment of federal armed forces from exercising normal state law enforcement functions. Proponents argue that the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to Ford’s suggestion because the Act only prohibits National Guard units from direct involvement in local law enforcement when they are federalized, and Ford is requesting it be done solely under state authority. Such an argument overlooks the obvious fact that state national guards units are already federalized. For a long time, “state” National Guard units have been “state” entities in name only. Between the huge portion of federal funding for state guard units and the fact that units are actively deployed under federal direction in foreign war zones, the Founders’ ideas of state militias of old are as dead as the dodo bird.

Ironically, the state authority defense is clearly disingenuous, as supporters of the initiative specifically cite the foreign combat training of the Guard, under federal direction, as a chief reason to deploy them domestically. Rep. Ford actually believes the fact that these units will be coming back with war experience from the battle field is a good thing. “We know the U.S. troops have been winning the hearts and minds in Iraq, they stabilized those communities, those communities are safe and that's what we want right here in Illinois for the National Guard to come in and help stabilize the community with the Chicago police department.”

Ford’s like-minded associate and former assistant attorney general, Rep. Fritchey, repeated similar sentiments. “As we speak, National Guard members are working side-by-side with our troops to fight a war halfway around the world. The unfortunate reality is that we have another war that is just as deadly taking place right in our backyard.” Yes, you read that correctly! The top advocates for deployment of National Guard units to conduct law-enforcement in a major U.S. city actually cite the war tactics of National Guard units as a benefit. Can these two actually want the same occupation strategy of “clear and hold” used on Iraqis and Afghanis to be used for Americans?

In the Chicago Tribune, The National Black Police Association (NBPA) reacted with outrage at Ford’s suggestion in an April 29th op-ed piece written by a member of NBPA who also served in the U.S. Marines:

A police department's officers are trained to enable Constitutional due process safeguards. Armies are not designed with this purpose — armies are trained to kill.… [O]ur members know that there is stark difference between military duties and police duties.

Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis weighed in on Ford’s suggestion by reminding the people that the military does not operate under the same constitutional restraints as local law enforcement and mentioned the Kent State shootings in 1970 where National Guardsmen fatally shot four student protesters and seriously injured others (which, ironically, was just revealed by declassified FBI records to be instigated by a federal provocateur ). “[W]hen you mix military functions with law enforcement functions, there is sometimes a disconnect.” Weis then went on to display the same mindset that has contributed to the increasing violence by calling for “tougher gun control laws” which have been echoed by the Mayor of the city and other public officials.

Already referred to as the “U.S. gun control capital,” Chicago has banned the private ownership of handguns and rifles since 1982 with some of the most stringent gun laws in the country. The city’s excessive gun ban is currently under fire in the top Second Amendment case in the country, McDonald v Chicago, which is presently before the Supreme Court. And now, with nearly 30 years of failure and violence rising to astronomical proportions, local residents are left longing for the pre-gun control days with lower levels of violence.

Even with such blatant facts plainly staring them in the face, officials are ratcheting up their anti-gun rhetoric and renewing calls for more drastic efforts to strip citizens of the right to bear arms. Mayor Daley even advocated that globalist institutions like the World Court allow “plaintiffs” to sue U.S. gun manufacturers for exorbitant amounts during the Global Cities Forum at the University of Illinois-Chicago on Monday, April 26. Daley's end goal being to effectively ban the production of guns for civilians globally. Not only does Mayor Daley refuse to face the obvious facts about his own city’s abysmal failure with gun control, he seeks to spread his misery around to the entire planet.

The unfortunate occupants of Chicago have a bleak future, indeed, as one public official after another seems committed to a policy of more government and fewer individual rights. The ideas of Daley, Ford, and their ilk for possible solutions are the “pick-your-poison” variety of more gun control or a police state lockdown on the city — with the strong likelihood that both scenarios will come to pass if they get their way. Could Chicago be only a glimpse of what the rest of America will eventually look like: a hyper-violent, militarized region constantly under martial law and plagued with civil unrest? If America continues to follow the same draconian policies as Chicago, then, regrettably, it seems the answer may be "yes."

The Director
05-11-2010, 8:33 AM
Yeah, it sucks.

One point of contention that I have, though, is that the dude that wants to call the NG is actually right. The author makes the case that the NG is federalizd - and it's clearly not.

The commander in chief on the NG soldiers in Illinois is the Governor - period, end. ONLY the Illinois Guardsmen who have been given orders to deploy federally are no longer under his control.

I imagine that there are quite a few Guardsmen available to the state on short or no notice with which to carry out this plan. It may be draconian and unjust, but my guess is that Illinois can absolutely deploy guardsmen to Chicago and completely avoid Posse Comitatus issues.

Probably the police commissioner is up in arms because most likely the NG will do a far better job of getting control of some of those neighborhoods than the cops can - mainly because deployed NG troops don't worry to much about that pesky Constitution thing. The worst areas in Chicago (hate to say it) might need a little martial law for a couple weeks or so to round up the thugs.

Big E
05-11-2010, 9:00 AM
Wow, have I been under a rock or what?:sleeping: I didn't realize things in Chicago had progressed that far. Thanks for the heads up.

Big Jake
05-11-2010, 9:03 AM
Chicago is notoriuosly corrupt. The city has a long history of screwing up everything it touches. This will be no exception!

loather
05-11-2010, 9:16 AM
The commander in chief on the NG soldiers in Illinois is the Governor - period, end. ONLY the Illinois Guardsmen who have been given orders to deploy federally are no longer under his control.

Don't be so sure about that. All the state national guards are funded almost entirely with Federal dollars. While the Governor does have immediate control in times of state emergency, there has to be a state emergency to deploy them. Crime being out-of-control is hardly reason enough to declare state emergency. If the Governor does deploy the guard against American citizens on American soil, I'd view that as an act of treason.

One of two things is going to happen here if the NG is deployed on domestic soil: Either the people are going to demand the NG leave town and call for the mayor's (and the Governor's) head, or the President will get involved and (as the commander in chief of *ALL* the US Armed Forces) will order the Guard to stand down and return to base.

This is Mayor Daly's downfall.

nick
05-11-2010, 9:39 AM
Chicago is notoriuosly corrupt. The city has a long history of screwing up everything it touches. This will be no exception!

Yep, the cleanup needs to start at the top (with the mayor, etc.), otherwise it can't succeed as it will not deal with the root cause of the problem.

nick
05-11-2010, 9:43 AM
This is Mayor Daly's downfall.

Nah, he'll survive. He's got friends in high places, and in today's America no amount of stupidity, incompetence, or corruption can dislodge a well-connected politician, as long as he stays away from sex scandals. It's the only thing that can dislodge a well-connected politician, sadly.

POLICESTATE
05-11-2010, 10:00 AM
Chicago would be a good city to shoe-horn militarized police into the rest of the country.

From this: http://parkwestgallery.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/0203110_rock.jpg

To this: http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/police-state.jpg

I don't think most of America even notices the difference, sure the older generations do, but they seem to have lost their will to speak out, or maybe no one listens to them anymore.

I grew up with the idea that policeman were like the Norman Rockwell painting, today's kids are going up with the idea that policeman are like stormtroopers in black.

Double-plus good!

The Director
05-11-2010, 10:12 AM
Don't be so sure about that. All the state national guards are funded almost entirely with Federal dollars. While the Governor does have immediate control in times of state emergency, there has to be a state emergency to deploy them. Crime being out-of-control is hardly reason enough to declare state emergency. If the Governor does deploy the guard against American citizens on American soil, I'd view that as an act of treason.

One of two things is going to happen here if the NG is deployed on domestic soil: Either the people are going to demand the NG leave town and call for the mayor's (and the Governor's) head, or the President will get involved and (as the commander in chief of *ALL* the US Armed Forces) will order the Guard to stand down and return to base.

This is Mayor Daly's downfall.

See that's where you're wrong. They won't be deployed against Americans...they will be deployed as peacekeepers, standing on corners while heavily armed and armored, driving around in Humvees with the occasional APC rolling around. That's why this plan will succeed, and the Governor will absolutely be within his authority to deploy them in such a role.

And honestly....in that role...in the worst neighborhoods where people die every day, I would probably agree with that. Some of those bangers need a good, hard military lesson.

It's also possible that the citizenry might be emboldened enough to actually turn these thugs in to NG troops without the immediate fear of retribution from the thugs themselves.

I may be different than most - but I believe when you make your life into one of habitual crime, terror, preying upon innocent people, violence and acting to the detriment of society, you forfeit your constitutional rights. When you exist for nothing more than to sell drugs, run whores, etc, the constitution no longer applies to you and if we have to use the military to come in and kick your a** then so be it. You made your bed, now sleep in it.

Fyathyrio
05-11-2010, 10:29 AM
^^^WOW! I'm flumoxed!^^^

So you believe the constitution can be selectively applied to the citizens based on some arbitrary set of personal feelings?

Maestro Pistolero
05-11-2010, 10:35 AM
. . . standing on corners while heavily armed and armored, driving around in Humvees with the occasional APC rolling around. That's why this plan will succeed, and the Governor will absolutely be within his authority to deploy them in such a role.It will not succeed. It can't ever fix the root causes of Chicagos woes, of ignorance, poverty, and the breakdown of the family unit. This is not the way Americans live. The minute the NG is withdrawn it will be back to business as usual for these communities, until there is fundamental change from within the communities and the individuals themselves. If we started now, it would take a couple of generations to have a significant impact.

Let's not kid ourselves. know exactly who these forces would be deployed against. And it's not white, middle class America. 'Nuff said.

The Director
05-11-2010, 10:52 AM
Let's not kid ourselves. know exactly who these forces would be deployed against. And it's not white, middle class America. 'Nuff said.

I agree.

The Director
05-11-2010, 10:56 AM
^^^WOW! I'm flumoxed!^^^

So you believe the constitution can be selectively applied to the citizens based on some arbitrary set of personal feelings?

No - not arbitrary at all. I think there are known crack houses, prostitution rings, and all kinds of other illegal activity that is 100% known to police that they cannot do a thing about because they're hamstrung.

I've been around neighborhoods like that. I KNOW the locals know exactly which house on the street is the local crack house - they can point it out to you! And said crack house should be overrun, and the people carted away, no questions, no papers, etc.

Yes, it's a double edged sword.

loather
05-11-2010, 11:42 AM
I don't even know how to begin to respond to The Director's comments.

So wrong, on so many levels. "Oh, he's a criminal. He doesn't deserve RIGHTS." Gimme a break. Just wait until the no-knock, no-warrant arrest gets served on you and see how that changes your tune. What? You want rights? Oh, but you're a suspected criminal. You don't get any. Right, like that won't be abused. Get a clue.

If we allow our rights to be selectively applied, we will lose them forever. This is why the Constitution and the rights which it protects are inalienable. Rights don't just exist when they're convenient, and cannot be suspended when they're inconvenient. Part of having rights is knowing that there will be some who will abuse those rights by infringing upon the rights of others. We have a perfectly reasonable way of dealing with that, too: when convicted of a crime in a court of law, rights are lost for a period of time. I'm OK with that.

The Director
05-11-2010, 12:09 PM
I don't even know how to begin to respond to The Director's comments.

So wrong, on so many levels. "Oh, he's a criminal. He doesn't deserve RIGHTS." Gimme a break. Just wait until the no-knock, no-warrant arrest gets served on you and see how that changes your tune. What? You want rights? Oh, but you're a suspected criminal. You don't get any. Right, like that won't be abused. Get a clue.

If we allow our rights to be selectively applied, we will lose them forever. This is why the Constitution and the rights which it protects are inalienable. Rights don't just exist when they're convenient, and cannot be suspended when they're inconvenient. Part of having rights is knowing that there will be some who will abuse those rights by infringing upon the rights of others. We have a perfectly reasonable way of dealing with that, too: when convicted of a crime in a court of law, rights are lost for a period of time. I'm OK with that.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then.

The framers never envisioned the Constitution as a tool with which to protect criminals. If Chicago's problems of today were set in, say, 1800, a band of armed militiamen would've gone to the offending problem areas and taken care of it. That's how it worked back then. The Constitution is not your free pass to continue a life of crime.

The OP's article centered around the use of the National Guard as a type of militia. I see nothing wrong with them handling Chicago's worst offenders like a military operation. Recon is performed. Intelligence is gathered. Enemies are engaged and eliminated.

This is what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Replace "Kandahar" with Chicago, replace "insurgent hotbed" with bad neighborhood, replace "Insurgent" with Common street thug, and you have the answer, applied sparingly, and with much oversight. We don't read them Miranda rights over there - in case you were wondering. We eliminate our enemies while sparing the citizenry and causing as little collateral damage as possible.

Habitual gangsters, thugs, drug dealers, etc, aren't American anymore, at least in my book.

It's extreme, but it's a valid viewpoint. I'm sure if General Washington was around and was told of the type of evil going on in some of those neighborhoods, he would have put an end to it as well.

Gray Peterson
05-11-2010, 12:37 PM
I may be different than most - but I believe when you make your life into one of habitual crime, terror, preying upon innocent people, violence and acting to the detriment of society, you forfeit your constitutional rights. When you exist for nothing more than to sell drugs, run whores, etc, the constitution no longer applies to you and if we have to use the military to come in and kick your a** then so be it. You made your bed, now sleep in it.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Strike down Chicago's handgun ban, and strike down their laws against carry, and actively recruit the good neighborhood folk into a watch group who can carry for their personal protection, and it'll solve this entire problem. This should be an example of when a city and state doesn't allow carry for personal protection, this is what happens. We talk about what other civil liberties we are willing to "lop off" to ineffectively deal with the problem.

tiki
05-11-2010, 12:55 PM
Strike down Chicago's handgun ban, and strike down their laws against carry, and actively recruit the good neighborhood folk into a watch group who can carry for their personal protection, and it'll solve this entire problem. This should be an example of when a city and state doesn't allow carry for personal protection, this is what happens. We talk about what other civil liberties we are willing to "lop off" to ineffectively deal with the problem.

I agree. What they need to do is form an old fashioned militia of armed locals. Forget the NG, get citizens to do it themselves. We don't need an occupying force in a U.S. citiy. That crap right there is why the 2nd Amendment exists. To me, the NG would be an occupying force. It doesn't matter where it comes from.

madmike
05-11-2010, 12:58 PM
The Constitution applies to EVERYONE, EVERY TIME, or it's meaningless.

-madmike.

CCWFacts
05-11-2010, 1:03 PM
The US has had a lot of militarization of the police over the past 10 year or so. Most of it is from the War on Drugs. The War on Terror has added a big dollop of cash and "anything goes".

Somehow when you put people in military uniforms, give them military equipment and military training, they stop regarding "civilians" as human beings. For the military, this is necessary. Any morally-normal person has a deep reluctance to shoot at other human beings, and the military must overcome that reluctance. But when law enforcement starts viewing "civilians" that way, and has the sweeping immunity that they now have, it's a tragedy for society.

I'm very pro-LEO but they need to return to the days of acting professionally and respectfully, not as a military force that can serve no-knock warrants and can get away with use of any amount of force. It's a danger to everyone, including to LEOs, and it shatters the mutual trust and support that should exist between communities and their LEOs.

POLICESTATE
05-11-2010, 1:11 PM
The Constitution applies to EVERYONE, EVERY TIME, or it's meaningless.

-madmike.

IMO COTUS should only apply to US Citizens.

POLICESTATE
05-11-2010, 1:15 PM
But when law enforcement starts viewing "civilians" that way, and has the sweeping immunity that they now have, it's a tragedy for society.


Law enforcement ARE civilians themselves. There is really no difference in the quality of their citizenship and rights from a construction worker, or a garbage collector, rocket scientist, small business owner. The idea that a person is better than another simply because they put on a badge... whatever.

-hanko
05-11-2010, 1:17 PM
Somehow when you put people in military uniforms, give them military equipment and military training, they stop regarding "civilians" as human beings...But when law enforcement starts viewing "civilians" that way, and has the sweeping immunity that they now have, it's a tragedy for society.
Might be a lot to ask, but cops need to remember they're civilians too.

-hanko

The Director
05-11-2010, 1:29 PM
I agree. What they need to do is form an old fashioned militia of armed locals. Forget the NG, get citizens to do it themselves. We don't need an occupying force in a U.S. citiy. That crap right there is why the 2nd Amendment exists. To me, the NG would be an occupying force. It doesn't matter where it comes from.

I agree with you on this 100%. My point is, however, a militia of armed citizens who self police will most likely result in more constitutional breaches than the NG would.

I don't imagine a bunch of armed citizens who go in there to clean the place up will care too much about evidence, trials, or witnesses.

The Director
05-11-2010, 1:30 PM
Might be a lot to ask, but cops need to remember they're civilians too.

-hanko

Cops never remember this. They go around calling US civilians. If you're not subject to the UCMJ then you're a civilian, period, end.

gtturborex
05-11-2010, 1:30 PM
I agree with The Director to a point. If the NG was "deployed" into the streets of Chicago it might empower the law abiding citizens to do their part and turn in the known criminals. Just them knowing they have protection, unlike what we get from police, might allow the NG to take care of this problem while following the COTUS.

Even though they are criminals they still have rights. We just have to take the first step to get them off the streets and into a court room. The NG could help with this. Then maybe the younger generation bangers will see that its not such a good idea to "bang".

M198
05-11-2010, 1:31 PM
I may be different than most - but I believe when you make your life into one of habitual crime, terror, preying upon innocent people, violence and acting to the detriment of society, you forfeit your constitutional rights. When you exist for nothing more than to sell drugs, run whores, etc, the constitution no longer applies to you and if we have to use the military to come in and kick your a** then so be it. You made your bed, now sleep in it.

Thank god I have the constitution to guard me from people like you and the gun grabbers.

JDoe
05-11-2010, 1:33 PM
Wow, I see a lot of inflammatory language but for those who favor the NG being sent into Chicago:


What would the rules of engagement be if the National Guard were sent into Chicago neighborhoods?

What weapons would the NG be carrying?

How would the NG communicate efficiently and effectively with the Chicago police force?

Is it possible that the criminals in Chicago would see the NG as a good source of equipment? (I'm serious. Being heavily armed and armored is no defense while standing on a street corner potentially surrounded by a dozen unarmed civilians any one or all of which may suddenly put a brick in your brain and jack your equipment.)

What is the exit strategy?

POLICESTATE
05-11-2010, 1:33 PM
I bet Military Police get a chuckle when they see regular police referring to people as "civilians"

Harrison_Bergeron
05-11-2010, 1:36 PM
The framers never envisioned the Constitution as a tool with which to protect criminals.

The 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments say you are wrong.

Big E
05-11-2010, 1:37 PM
As I recall, there have been four times in recent history where the NG was called to combat uprisings 1) NY 1964 (Riot), 2) Watts 1965 (Riot), 3) Kent State 1970 (War Protest), and 4) LA 1992 (Riot). We all know what a disaster Kent State was and I think the NY and Watts Riots had the same results as the LA Riots where peace was restored with some bloodshed and deaths. Three of these four examples were cases of heavy distress and anarchy. So what happens if the NG is sent to a City with no riots, but gang wars? Do the gang bangers hide until the NG leave or do they focus their violence on the NG? I’m just not sure the NG is the solution, but obviously it is too much for the police. Trust me, if a gang banger has a gun, and he has shown his intention to use it, he’s going be shot on the spot. So how are the police/NG going to tell the gang bangers from the person trying it exercise their 2A right protect themselves, their family, and their home? I see trouble written all over this.

Ed_in_Sac
05-11-2010, 1:44 PM
That one use of the NG would be to go house to house in high crime areas confiscating any weapons found... I don't think their PD would want this onerous task and can't really blame them!

The Director
05-11-2010, 1:44 PM
Thank god I have the constitution to guard me from people like you and the gun grabbers.

Hey buddy - it's a viewpoint - fodder for debate. Don't call me "people like you" as you have no idea what kind of person I am.

Also, I submit to you that frontier justice as executed in the 1800s applied very little of the constitution to the criminals they rounded up.

Again, just a discussion point - don't make this personal.

JDoe
05-11-2010, 1:49 PM
I agree with The Director to a point. If the NG was "deployed" into the streets of Chicago it might empower the law abiding citizens to do their part and turn in the known criminals. Just them knowing they have protection, unlike what we get from police, might allow the NG to take care of this problem while following the COTUS.

Perhaps the people you are thinking about in Chicago don't think like you think they do. If the people in question are used to not having the police protect them, used to not having the police even show up if they call them, used to having the police tell them "there isn't much we can do about it unless we catch them in the act", used to having politicians make promises and then fail to deliver, used to being abused and terrorized and used to seeing criminals retaliate against people trying to "do the right thing" why should they believe things will be any different because the NG are deployed temporarily?

The necessary prerequisite of trust is integrity. Without firmly entrenched integrity, trust will be absent. The politicians and other "leaders" in Chicago appear not to have the integrity required to create the trust necessary for change to occur.

The Director
05-11-2010, 1:52 PM
^ excellent counterpoint.

CCWFacts
05-11-2010, 1:54 PM
Law enforcement ARE civilians themselves. There is really no difference in the quality of their citizenship and rights from a construction worker, or a garbage collector, rocket scientist, small business owner. The idea that a person is better than another simply because they put on a badge... whatever.

Sure, that's my point. Police shouldn't see themselves as being apart from, or privileged over, anyone else in their communities. The fact that attitudes have changed is worrying to me.

M198
05-11-2010, 1:57 PM
Hey buddy - it's a viewpoint - fodder for debate. Don't call me "people like you" as you have no idea what kind of person I am.

Also, I submit to you that frontier justice as executed in the 1800s applied very little of the constitution to the criminals they rounded up.

Again, just a discussion point - don't make this personal.

By people like you, I meant people who are willing to disregard parts of the constitution at a moments notice in order to achieve something they see as a worthy end (i.e. banning guns to end gang violence or rolling in the military to kill criminals on sight to end gang violence). As far as the 1800's, most of the "wild west" weren't states until after 1850 and the romanticized idea of hanging horse thieves by posse has no bearing on modern rule of law.

The Director
05-11-2010, 2:03 PM
Well, I for one am partial to the idea of "hanging horse thieves".

I think this idea boils down to a simple scenario, that is a yes or no question, really:

If it was within your power to form a posse (for lack of a better word) and execute swift justice upon a group of known criminals, but in doing so, would rob them of their constitutional rights....would you?

The Director
05-11-2010, 2:11 PM
This is what happens when people decide to make a stand....

SAN FRANCISCO VIGILANCE MOVEMENT

WHEREAS it has become apparent to the citizens of San Francisco, that there is no security for life and property, either under the regulations of society as it at present exists, or under the law as now administered; Therefore the citizens, whose names are hereunto attached, do unit themselves into an association for the maintenance of the peace and good order of society, and the preservation of the lives and property of the citizens of San Francisco, and do bind ourselves, each unto the other, to do and perform every lawful act for the maintenance of law and order, and to sustain the laws when faithfully and properly administered; but we are determined that no thief, burglar, incendiary or assassin, shall escape punishment, either by the quibbles of the law, the insecurity of prisons. the carelessness or corruption of the police, or a laxity of those who pretend to administer justice.

I love it.

More here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Vigilance_Movement)

M198
05-11-2010, 2:22 PM
Well, I for one am partial to the idea of "hanging horse thieves".

I think this idea boils down to a simple scenario, that is a yes or no question, really:

If it was within your power to form a posse (for lack of a better word) and execute swift justice murder upon a group of known criminals, but in doing so, would rob them of their constitutional rights....would you?

Fixed that for you.

It's certainly within my power to do it any time I want. I certainly have the hardware and access to the Megan's Law website. Almost anyone could posse up and do what you are advocating. The thing is, I'm not a murderer, so I wouldn't do that. No posses or lynch mobs for me, I believe in the rule of law and due process as all Americans should. For those that don't, we have laws to deal with them.

tuolumnejim
05-11-2010, 3:02 PM
Fixed that for you.

It's certainly within my power to do it any time I want. I certainly have the hardware and access to the Megan's Law website. Almost anyone could posse up and do what you are advocating. The thing is, I'm not a murderer, so I wouldn't do that. No posses or lynch mobs for me, I believe in the rule of law and due process as all Americans should. For those that don't, we have laws to deal with them.

And they have failed on so many fronts, it may not be nice,but then again I'm not nice. :43:
Thugs want to go out and be gang banging thugs, publicly hang them on the spot.

yellowfin
05-11-2010, 3:19 PM
Sure, that's my point. Police shouldn't see themselves as being apart from, or privileged over, anyone else in their communities. The fact that attitudes have changed is worrying to me.Agreed, and that has largely arisen from the differentiated treatment under laws, especially firearms laws. There should be zero difference your ability to own, possess, and carry arms and theirs both in the law and public perception. We have lost what and when we have because of the tolerance for that differentiation and that was a horrible mistake on our parts. Why that mistake was made I don't know but we're at a steep disadvantage because it has been allowed to go uncorrected for as long as it has.

kcbrown
05-11-2010, 3:38 PM
"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." -- quote from William Adama in the series Battlestar Galactica.

The Constitution is both the supreme law of the land and the law dictating how the federal government shall operate. As such, it not only applies to everyone on U.S. soil, it dictates the restrictions the federal government shall always operate under.

That means that the rights we have, particularly those described in the Constitution, are rights that the federal government has no legitimate power to infringe upon even if the person in question is not on U.S. soil. The Constitution makes no explicit mention of exceptions to those limits on the basis of "on U.S. soil", and therefore those exceptions do not legitimately exist.

Needless to say, the federal government has largely ignored the restrictions on its power as detailed in the Constitution, but that doesn't mean that it should do so.

It surprises me greatly that some here argue that there "should be" situations in which the Constitution does not apply and that there "should be" situations in which a person's rights no longer exist without prior due process. Would these same people argue that there "should be" situations in which a person no longer has the right to keep and bear arms without prior due process? In that direction lies totalitarianism of the worst sort.

Rights aren't really rights unless everyone, and I mean everyone, has them (subject to due process, of course).

jtyner
05-11-2010, 3:43 PM
IMO COTUS should only apply to US Citizens.

I'm interested to hear why that is.

Well, I for one am partial to the idea of "hanging horse thieves".

I think this idea boils down to a simple scenario, that is a yes or no question, really:

If it was within your power to form a posse (for lack of a better word) and execute swift justice upon a group of known criminals, but in doing so, would rob them of their constitutional rights....would you?

The application of justice (or as M198 pointed out, the use of force) is something that is reserved to the State. That is, what sets a nation-state apart from the rest of society is its monopoly on the use of force. Under our Constitution, the people have granted that monopoly to their government, but in exchange for that power, strict limits have been put in place to ensure that it is not used arbitrarily (e.g. the Bill of Rights, which is a bit of a misnomer in my opinion).

We are a country of laws, laws that protect everyone not only from the state but from each other, and under those laws, there is a process by which we determine whether or not someone is a "criminal". Furthermore, it is only after that determination has been made that justice (swift, or otherwise) can be served upon them.

So, in answer to your question, I would answer, emphatically: no.

That said, I understand the point you're making, and I offer the following advice: If you are going to "round up a posse to serve swift justice on some known criminals", you should be prepared to be subject, yourself, to the laws that govern this country and hope to hell that your jury is familiar with the concept of jury nullification. ;)

Trigger Guard
05-11-2010, 3:47 PM
As I recall, there have been four times in recent history where the NG was called to combat uprisings 1) NY 1964 (Riot), 2) Watts 1965 (Riot), 3) Kent State 1970 (War Protest), and 4) LA 1992 (Riot). We all know what a disaster Kent State was and I think the NY and Watts Riots had the same results as the LA Riots where peace was restored with some bloodshed and deaths. Three of these four examples were cases of heavy distress and anarchy. So what happens if the NG is sent to a City with no riots, but gang wars? Do the gang bangers hide until the NG leave or do they focus their violence on the NG? I’m just not sure the NG is the solution, but obviously it is too much for the police. Trust me, if a gang banger has a gun, and he has shown his intention to use it, he’s going be shot on the spot. So how are the police/NG going to tell the gang bangers from the person trying it exercise their 2A right protect themselves, their family, and their home? I see trouble written all over this.

I was there for the LA riots and the only thing that stopped the madness was the arrival of welfare checks and check cashing wagons. It had nothing to do with the NG.

macadamizer
05-11-2010, 4:00 PM
Well, I for one am partial to the idea of "hanging horse thieves".

I think this idea boils down to a simple scenario, that is a yes or no question, really:

If it was within your power to form a posse (for lack of a better word) and execute swift justice upon a group of known criminals, but in doing so, would rob them of their constitutional rights....would you?

What's a "known" criminal?

A lot of people think openly carrying a firearm in California -- or owning a black rifle -- is illegal. Should they be able to form a posse and string up an UOCer or black rifle owner, because they are "known" criminals?

Sure, they would be mistaken. But couldn't your posse be mistaken too?

There is a reason for due process, for the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." If you are willing to give up that for a little "swift justice," you shouldn't be so hard on people willing to give up, say, their right to bear arms, because at that point, it's just a matter of deciding which rights you are willing to give up...

POLICESTATE
05-11-2010, 4:16 PM
I'm interested to hear why that is.



I support full rights for citizens, and partial rights for non-citizens. The rights I would not extend to foreign nationals are voting, ownership of property and some restrictions on their ability to provide campaign funding to politicians. That's pretty much it.

I would also support harsher penalties for felonies committed by illegal aliens, whether they overstayed a visa or whatever. But that is not a COTUS matter, that would simply be adjustment to regular penal codes.

macadamizer
05-11-2010, 4:18 PM
I support full rights for citizens, and partial rights for non-citizens. The rights I would not extend to foreign nationals are voting, ownership of property and some restrictions on their ability to provide campaign funding to politicians. That's pretty much it.

The first and third restrictions make sense, but what's wrong with noncitizens owning property?

POLICESTATE
05-11-2010, 4:21 PM
The first and third restrictions make sense, but what's wrong with noncitizens owning property?

Because it gives foreign powers the ability to own a piece of our country, either directly or by proxy.

robcoe
05-11-2010, 5:04 PM
to me two quotes from Benjamin Franklin seem appropriate to the idea of bringing in the military to act as police.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
"
and

"Even peace may be purchased at too high a price."

Nose Nuggets
05-11-2010, 5:23 PM
The key flaw i see in The Directors arguments is the assumption made about why the crime exists in the first place. You think all these people chose a life of crime and actively pursue it by choice? A lot of the crimes, being substance related or prostitution shouldn't be illegal to begin with. I think the whole ****ty situation exists almost entirely due to the existing of government in the first place, not due to a lack of laws or a lack of police. now, im not proud to say it, but i know some less then savory individuals. not a one of them would keep a life of slinging drugs and purse snatching if the prospect of a respectable career was attainable. lets face it, a large amount of people in these run down Chicago neighborhoods just done have the resources and ability to be the upstanding people we expect them to be, sometimes by no fault of their own. people rarely do evil things just for the sake of being evil, a lot of it happens because self preservation is a biatch.

jtyner
05-11-2010, 5:28 PM
I support full rights for citizens, and partial rights for non-citizens. The rights I would not extend to foreign nationals are voting, ownership of property and some restrictions on their ability to provide campaign funding to politicians. That's pretty much it.

I would also support harsher penalties for felonies committed by illegal aliens, whether they overstayed a visa or whatever. But that is not a COTUS matter, that would simply be adjustment to regular penal codes.

Why is a crime committed by an illegal alien any more heinous than one committed by a citizen? How does this position square with the 14th amendment: "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"?

Because it gives foreign powers the ability to own a piece of our country, either directly or by proxy.

Can I assume then that you're against the placement of U.S. military bases in foreign countries?

bambam8d1
05-11-2010, 5:29 PM
Wow, I see a lot of inflammatory language but for those who favor the NG being sent into Chicago:


What would the rules of engagement be if the National Guard were sent into Chicago neighborhoods?

What weapons would the NG be carrying?

How would the NG communicate efficiently and effectively with the Chicago police force?

Is it possible that the criminals in Chicago would see the NG as a good source of equipment? (I'm serious. Being heavily armed and armored is no defense while standing on a street corner potentially surrounded by a dozen unarmed civilians any one or all of which may suddenly put a brick in your brain and jack your equipment.)

What is the exit strategy?


im interested in hearing the answers to these

POLICESTATE
05-11-2010, 5:34 PM
Why is a crime committed by an illegal alien any more heinous than one committed by a citizen? How does this position square with the 14th amendment: "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"?



Can I assume then that you're against the placement of U.S. military bases in foreign countries?

#1. Hmmm, omg, I'm in quite a pickle... oh wait, no I'm not. That doesn't mean that we can use special enhancement sentencing like we do already for various crimes as relates to circumstances during their commission.

#2 Yeah I don't think we should have military bases in foreign countries. But this is not a discussion of our foreign policy.

The Director
05-11-2010, 5:54 PM
The key flaw i see in The Directors arguments is the assumption made about why the crime exists in the first place. You think all these people chose a life of crime and actively pursue it by choice? A lot of the crimes, being substance related or prostitution shouldn't be illegal to begin with. I think the whole ****ty situation exists almost entirely due to the existing of government in the first place, not due to a lack of laws or a lack of police. now, im not proud to say it, but i know some less then savory individuals. not a one of them would keep a life of slinging drugs and purse snatching if the prospect of a respectable career was attainable. lets face it, a large amount of people in these run down Chicago neighborhoods just done have the resources and ability to be the upstanding people we expect them to be, sometimes by no fault of their own. people rarely do evil things just for the sake of being evil, a lot of it happens because self preservation is a biatch.


Oh, I get it. You subscribe to the "Their environment makes them be that way" philosophies.....

kcbrown
05-11-2010, 6:17 PM
Oh, I get it. You subscribe to the "Their environment makes them be that way" philosophies.....

While I'm sure there are a few people whose choices are to either commit certain types of crimes or to die, I expect that is not the case for the vast majority of the criminals out there. That is, I expect there is an element of real choice for most of them.

For instance, I'd bet most of them chose to drop out of school instead of working hard enough to graduate. I'd bet most of them chose to screw around while in school instead of actually trying to learn something.

That said, the more important question is what options those people have now. Can they turn their lives around and become productive members of society? Perhaps. I expect it would take tremendous effort, thanks to their prior choices. But that's what happens when you make bad choices.

Most of them are probably criminals as a result of some combination of it being "easier" in the short term and it being more instantly gratifying. Often, the right choice is the hardest one, and I expect that's largely true of the people we're talking about.

Regardless, they are now parasites within society and need to be dealt with somehow.

jtyner
05-11-2010, 6:39 PM
#1. Hmmm, omg, I'm in quite a pickle... oh wait, no I'm not. That doesn't mean that we can use special enhancement sentencing like we do already for various crimes as relates to circumstances during their commission.

I, personally, think those kinds of laws are ridiculous... as if a murder committed by itself is somehow better than one committed during a robbery.

#2 Yeah I don't think we should have military bases in foreign countries. But this is not a discussion of our foreign policy.

Nor do I intend it to be. It's just rare, in my experience, to find people who actually hold consistent views regarding how "foreigners" should act and be treated vs. how U.S. citizens should.

The Director
05-11-2010, 7:01 PM
Most of them are probably criminals as a result of some combination of it being "easier" in the short term and it being more instantly gratifying. Often, the right choice is the hardest one, and I expect that's largely true of the people we're talking about.

Regardless, they are now parasites within society and need to be dealt with somehow.

Agreed.

Most of these gang types are shameless and brazen. Take MS13 for example.....these are cold, heartless, brutal killers who have found a way to work the judicial system and remain mostly free. Jail time is a badge of honor for them; cop killing a commendation.

Reread the SF Vigilance declaration again....brilliance!

but we are determined that no thief, burglar, incendiary or assassin, shall escape punishment, either by the quibbles of the law, the insecurity of prisons. the carelessness or corruption of the police, or a laxity of those who pretend to administer justice.

aileron
05-11-2010, 7:28 PM
The framers never envisioned the Constitution as a tool with which to protect criminals.
The 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments say you are wrong.

Thank you for saying that.

Colt-45
05-11-2010, 7:44 PM
A poll should be added to this. I'd like to know how many are in favor and how many are against.

sandman21
05-11-2010, 7:50 PM
to me two quotes from Benjamin Franklin seem appropriate to the idea of bringing in the military to act as police.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
"
and

"Even peace may be purchased at too high a price."

First quote is from Richard Jackson "An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania" not Benjamin Franklin. Every time it is used I find it very ironic.

jtyner
05-11-2010, 7:52 PM
A poll should be added to this. I'd like to know how many are in favor and how many are against.

You mean whether or not people are for against militarized law enforcement (like the original topic :)) or if people are in favor of "vigilante" justice?

advocatusdiaboli
05-11-2010, 8:47 PM
The framers never envisioned the Constitution as a tool with which to protect criminals.

Yes, they did--that's why the rights are inalienable. Look up that word: inalienable. It means they can never, ever be taken away by anyone--period. The framers knew that if they created exceptions then some despot would come along and use them to take away rights.

No posses or lynch mobs for me, I believe in the rule of law and due process as all Americans should. For those that don't, we have laws to deal with them.

+1. We are a nation of laws with the rule of law and once we start on the slippery slope of denying them it will expand, trust me. Ever hear of the French Revolution--it degraded because they had only know a monarchy--never the rule of law. While the American colonies had already had the rule of law apart from the monarchy locally. That's what made our revolution turn out differently.

robcoe
05-11-2010, 9:36 PM
First quote is from Richard Jackson "An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania" not Benjamin Franklin. Every time it is used I find it very ironic.

It was written as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly in Febuary of 1775. Collected and published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin in 1818.

There is a certin ammout of debate about whether he was quoteing someone else or if it was an original line, but either way he did say it.

Mssr. Eleganté
05-11-2010, 10:48 PM
Chicago can win its war on drugs the same way it won the war on bootleggers back in 1933. :)

duldej
05-11-2010, 11:29 PM
the military is governed, to wit, by the cia where police sheriff and marshall are governed by fbi.
maybe they need the intelligence? maybe there's a problem that's domestic vs international.

yellowfin
05-12-2010, 4:40 AM
+1. We are a nation of laws with the rule of law and once we start on the slippery slope of denying them it will expand, trust me. Ever hear of the French Revolution--it degraded because they had only know a monarchy--never the rule of law. While the American colonies had already had the rule of law apart from the monarchy locally. That's what made our revolution turn out differently.Yet here we see ourselves in a state of government that has absolutely no respect for the rule of law. Instead, they see themselves as a ruling class above the law just as the French had. The first four decades of the 20th century saw removal of the lock and chain binding the federal government. Just what do we do now?

1_Grendel
05-12-2010, 7:35 AM
as in Chicago as in California

The people get what /who they vote for

GutPunch
05-12-2010, 7:51 AM
While I'm inclined to disagree with The Director's points, I'm left wondering if it still isn't necessary due to the fact that their local and state government FAILED. Lets not kid ourselves here. The government is completely ineffective at accomplishing its primary objective: keep the people safe and establish order. Once the government does that then its not worth keeping around.

But until people suffer enough to want to pay attention to who they elect then they need to continue to suffer.

Big E
05-12-2010, 8:47 AM
I was there for the LA riots and the only thing that stopped the madness was the arrival of welfare checks and check cashing wagons. It had nothing to do with the NG.

I was there as well (actually the next city over from where violence was taking place in Long Beach). I do remember the NG coming down the 91 Freeway on Saturday, May 2. I don't remember any checkcashing wagons or people stopping to cash welfare checks. Why do you think this? Because it was the 1st of the month and that's when welfare checks arrive? So all the rioters were on welfare? No, the not guilty verdict was read on the 29th and rioting happened immediately following. Why would the rioters care about the welfare checks, they could cash them anytime. Looting is a crime of opprotunity.

Here is a summary straight from Wikipedia:
Fourth Day (Saturday, May 2)
On the fourth day, 4,000 Soldiers and Marines arrived from Fort Ord and Camp Pendleton to suppress the crowds and restore order. Soon after the military arrived, order was restored. With most of the violence under control, 30,000 people attended a peace rally. By the end of the day a sense of normalcy began to return.

Fifth Day (Sunday, May 3)
Overall quiet set in and Mayor Bradley assured the public that the crisis was, more or less, under control. In one incident, National Guardsmen shot and killed a motorist that they said tried to run them over.

Sixth day (Monday, May 4)
Although Mayor Bradley lifted the curfew, signaling the official end of the riots, sporadic violence and crime continued for a few days afterward. Schools, banks, and businesses reopened. Federal troops did not stand down until May 9; the state guard remained until May 14; and some soldiers remained as late as May 27.

So in the LA riot one person was killed by the NG while 53 were killed during the riot itself. IMHO - I think the NG did a great job. I'm just expressing caution in using them in Chicago to deal with gang wars. Now, if it is gangs vs law abiding citizens, and not gang on gang violence, I say sure send them in. I didn't get that message when reading the OP.

Maestro Pistolero
05-12-2010, 8:57 AM
The government is completely ineffective at accomplishing its primary objective: keep the people safe and establish order.Keeping the people safe is their own responsibility, not the police, who are under no obligation to do so. The government is responsible for national security.

GutPunch
05-12-2010, 9:36 AM
Keeping the people safe is their own responsibility, not the police, who are under no obligation to do so. The government is responsible for national security.

I agree about the national security part. However, because we decided that anarchy wasn't the answer, we agreed as a people to a set of laws which are to be enforced by the government. Laws that say murder, theft, and drugs are illegal. That is the job I was discussing - the job at which they are failing.

loather
05-12-2010, 12:35 PM
"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." -- quote from William Adama in the series Battlestar Galactica.

The Constitution is both the supreme law of the land and the law dictating how the federal government shall operate. As such, it not only applies to everyone on U.S. soil, it dictates the restrictions the federal government shall always operate under.

That means that the rights we have, particularly those described in the Constitution, are rights that the federal government has no legitimate power to infringe upon even if the person in question is not on U.S. soil. The Constitution makes no explicit mention of exceptions to those limits on the basis of "on U.S. soil", and therefore those exceptions do not legitimately exist.

Needless to say, the federal government has largely ignored the restrictions on its power as detailed in the Constitution, but that doesn't mean that it should do so.

It surprises me greatly that some here argue that there "should be" situations in which the Constitution does not apply and that there "should be" situations in which a person's rights no longer exist without prior due process. Would these same people argue that there "should be" situations in which a person no longer has the right to keep and bear arms without prior due process? In that direction lies totalitarianism of the worst sort.

Rights aren't really rights unless everyone, and I mean everyone, has them (subject to due process, of course).

Spot on, my friend. This is exactly what I attempted to articulate with my earlier post. If the Constitution is not universally applied, our identity as Americans is lost and we step closer towards tyranny and totalitarianism. This is why all criminals must be read their rights and afforded fair trials, and also why the police cannot simply arrest someone they "know" is breaking the law without proof.

This is why the United States of America is is so great. If we do not pay attention to our history and the past mistakes of other nations (and our own!) then all that America has stood for will be meaningless and hopelessly lost.

I think it's apt to mention an article written by Bruce Schneier of computer security fame. I find it directly applicable because no-knock warrants, entering peoples' homes without warrants, etc. and all the things some people wish would happen amount to desecrations of privacy *and* security.


The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do something wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.

Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." Watch someone long enough, and you'll find something to arrest -- or just blackmail -- with. Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies -- whoever they happen to be at the time.

Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.

We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need.

A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to the framers of the Constitution that it never occurred to them to call out privacy as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility of their being and their cause. Of course being watched in your own home was unreasonable. Watching at all was an act so unseemly as to be inconceivable among gentlemen in their day. You watched convicted criminals, not free citizens. You ruled your own home. It's intrinsic to the concept of liberty.

For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable.

How many of us have paused during conversation in the past four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly altered.

This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And it's our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives.

Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.

madmike
05-12-2010, 2:27 PM
[QUOTE=loather;4276762] ...

Originally Posted by Bruce Schneier
The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do something wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.

Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." Watch someone long enough, and you'll find something to arrest -- or just blackmail -- with. Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies -- whoever they happen to be at the time.

Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.

We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need.

A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to the framers of the Constitution that it never occurred to them to call out privacy as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility of their being and their cause. Of course being watched in your own home was unreasonable. Watching at all was an act so unseemly as to be inconceivable among gentlemen in their day. You watched convicted criminals, not free citizens. You ruled your own home. It's intrinsic to the concept of liberty.

For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable.

How many of us have paused during conversation in the past four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly altered.

This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And it's our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives.

Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide./QUOTE]




Is there a "round of applause" smiley that I'm not seeing? :clap::clap::clap::clap:
This is the best I came up with.
Very well said!

-madmike.

Glock22Fan
05-12-2010, 2:52 PM
Well, I for one am partial to the idea of "hanging horse thieves".

I think this idea boils down to a simple scenario, that is a yes or no question, really:

If it was within your power to form a posse (for lack of a better word) and execute swift justice upon a group of known criminals, but in doing so, would rob them of their constitutional rights....would you?

I thought people, however suspect, were presumed innocent until found guilty by a jury of their peers, having had chance to offer evidence themselves that the charges are unfounded.

There have been any number of cases recently when swat teams, convinced that they were entering the homes of known criminals, have got the wrong address, including one member of this forum (who, I believe, just hid his gun in time). Ask him if the swat team should have executed swift justice on their incorrect belief in his criminality.

And so, you find a bunch of horse thieves raiding your herd. You render "swift justice," hanging them all, ignoring their pleas of innocence. Well done. You've just executed an undercover FBI agent.

SVT-40
05-12-2010, 2:58 PM
I bet Military Police get a chuckle when they see regular police referring to people as "civilians"

"Regular" police get a chuckle when "civilians" make a big deal about the use of the word "civilian".

But I digress...

The "government" has not failed Chicago. The community members of Chicago have failed to act as proper law abiding citizens. Mainly family's have failed each other. Many gangs have generations of members. So how can you expect the police or the national guard to "fix" a problem over which they have no control.

If a family condones criminal activity within it's self there is no amount of "help" you can give a family to fix the problem. The amount criminality within the family just grows and grows until you have the problems like Chicago.

gunsmith
05-12-2010, 3:35 PM
The "government" has not failed Chicago. The community members of Chicago have failed to act as proper law abiding citizens. Mainly family's have failed each other. Many gangs have generations of members. So how can you expect the police or the national guard to "fix" a problem over which they have no control.

If a family condones criminal activity within it's self there is no amount of "help" you can give a family to fix the problem. The amount criminality within the family just grows and grows until you have the problems like Chicago.

true enough, my comment is their reliance of gun control encourages lawlessness, the law abiding are victims and targets, safety in Chicago means being a cop or a gang member. regular civvies are revenue for both. militarized LE is one the results, & gun control needs swat teams etc to enforce it.

HokeySon
05-12-2010, 6:53 PM
See that's where you're wrong. They won't be deployed against Americans...they will be deployed as peacekeepers, standing on corners while heavily armed and armored, driving around in Humvees with the occasional APC rolling around. That's why this plan will succeed, and the Governor will absolutely be within his authority to deploy them in such a role.

And honestly....in that role...in the worst neighborhoods where people die every day, I would probably agree with that. Some of those bangers need a good, hard military lesson.

It's also possible that the citizenry might be emboldened enough to actually turn these thugs in to NG troops without the immediate fear of retribution from the thugs themselves.

I may be different than most - but I believe when you make your life into one of habitual crime, terror, preying upon innocent people, violence and acting to the detriment of society, you forfeit your constitutional rights. When you exist for nothing more than to sell drugs, run whores, etc, the constitution no longer applies to you and if we have to use the military to come in and kick your a** then so be it. You made your bed, now sleep in it.

Thats how rights are eroded: people thinking that its okay when the infringment happens to someone else because the probably deserved it. One can always find a rationalization as to whyothers are treated as they are. However, our founders were smart guys and realized that even bad guys have to have rights. And it is important for them to have rights, so that I do too.

lrdchivalry
05-12-2010, 10:08 PM
There have been any number of cases recently when swat teams, convinced that they were entering the homes of known criminals, have got the wrong address, including one member of this forum (who, I believe, just hid his gun in time). Ask him if the swat team should have executed swift justice on their incorrect belief in his criminality.

Attatched is an excellent report by the Cato Institute that discusses the abuses of no knock warrants and how swat teams have raided the wrong house and killed innocent people. It even talks about swat units executing no knock warrants on the wrong house and the owners engage the police in a gunfight, and the police want to criminally charge the homeowner for defending themselves and their families against an unknown assailant.

Scratch705
05-12-2010, 10:28 PM
wait... the director is arguing about suspending constitutional rights for a known criminal, but yet was here illegally for years and justified it b/c he had a visa beforehand but blamed the slowness of the bureaucracy for the delay in getting his legalization papers?

oh the irony!

cfm117
05-12-2010, 11:43 PM
Wow, I see a lot of inflammatory language but for those who favor the NG being sent into Chicago:


What would the rules of engagement be if the National Guard were sent into Chicago neighborhoods?

What weapons would the NG be carrying?

How would the NG communicate efficiently and effectively with the Chicago police force?

Is it possible that the criminals in Chicago would see the NG as a good source of equipment? (I'm serious. Being heavily armed and armored is no defense while standing on a street corner potentially surrounded by a dozen unarmed civilians any one or all of which may suddenly put a brick in your brain and jack your equipment.)

What is the exit strategy?


Im reflecting back on a movie called "The Siege" with Denzel.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c292/cfm117/9_-The-Siege-1998_imagelarg.gif

gorblimey
05-13-2010, 12:47 AM
This is what happens when people decide to make a stand....

SAN FRANCISCO VIGILANCE MOVEMENT

WHEREAS it has become apparent to the citizens of San Francisco, that there is no security for life and property, either under the regulations of society as it at present exists, or under the law as now administered; Therefore the citizens, whose names are hereunto attached, do unit themselves into an association for the maintenance of the peace and good order of society, and the preservation of the lives and property of the citizens of San Francisco, and do bind ourselves, each unto the other, to do and perform every lawful act for the maintenance of law and order, and to sustain the laws when faithfully and properly administered; but we are determined that no thief, burglar, incendiary or assassin, shall escape punishment, either by the quibbles of the law, the insecurity of prisons. the carelessness or corruption of the police, or a laxity of those who pretend to administer justice.

I love it.

More here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Vigilance_Movement)


Good times in old San Francisco, why not indeed. But do you not see the gaping chasm of a difference between citizen action to take care of a known local thug or two, and that of quasi-federal storm troopers imposing martial-law-lite?

gorblimey
05-13-2010, 2:10 AM
The deployment of the guard for open-ended police duties, whether it's sold as gang interdiction or as something else, would indicate to me that the end of the republic is finally in visual range.

An initial deployment to a cesspool such as Chicago or LA would seem common-sensical or at least justifiable to the average sheep/dimwit. After the resultant wave of outrage from the libertarian/constitutionalist corner dissipates, habituation sets in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habituation

The notion of having the military on the street doesn't seem so outrageous anymore. Checkpoints for the new National ID become almost routine within these special police action zones. "Yeah, it's a drag, but think of the children!"

It would only remain to activate provocateurs (yet again, for the Nth time), orchestrate a false flag event or three, and trot out Napolitano's mile-wide "domestic terrorist" brush.

I believe that heading down this path is a foregone conclusion, because the government is utterly broke, and the only pool of wealth outside the largely untouchable oligarchy belongs to the rapidly diminishing middle class. The majority vote of the underclass will trade away remaining liberty (for all) for its redistribution.

We the middle class are to accept confiscation via inflation/taxation with resignation and deference, but if we should resist in a meaningful way, the newly elevated police/military caste will eagerly lick at the hand of their master and demonstrate their skill and loyalty.

Given the compound debt trap we're in, the demographic trends, and the projected oil extraction rates, I'm thinking 2015-2020 is the window for the commencement of heavy-handed pacification of confiscation/tyranny resisters, I mean, "domestic terrorists."

A side-note on gangs and the drug trade. These are highly useful tools for the statists, providing justification for much graft/militarization/surveillance, and being very profitable for the banks and conglomerates. Gangs will not be dealt a crippling blow until they've outlived their usefulness.

HokeySon
05-13-2010, 2:15 AM
Agreed.

Most of these gang types are shameless and brazen. Take MS13 for example.....these are cold, heartless, brutal killers who have found a way to work the judicial system and remain mostly free. Jail time is a badge of honor for them; cop killing a commendation.

Reread the SF Vigilance declaration again....brilliance!

as I recall the first and second committees of viligence hanged a couple of innocent men.

More than that, I always laugh when people claim, as they did, that guilty people are getting away with it because of technicalities or "quibbles of law" as they put it. those techinicalities wxist to protect us all from government power. I am also always reminded in these instances of the dialogue of Sir Thomas Moore in the play a man for all seasons:

Sir Thomas More: What would you do? Cut ... through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? ... [D]o you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

RandyD
05-13-2010, 5:31 AM
I was there for the LA riots and the only thing that stopped the madness was the arrival of welfare checks and check cashing wagons. It had nothing to do with the NG.

Thanks for saying that. For years I have been informing/reminding people that when the U.S. Post Office stopped delivering mail (welfare checks) that was the beginning of the end of the riots. The end of the riots started with peaceful assemblies outside the post office. This little known fact went largely unreported by the media, but you can assure yourself that it was noted by our politicians. What is concerning is that our politicians learned that they can control large masses of unruly people by paying out a couple hundred dollars per person.

BobB35
05-13-2010, 6:21 AM
The deployment of the guard for open-ended police duties, whether it's sold as gang interdiction or as something else, would indicate to me that the end of the republic is finally in visual range.

An initial deployment to a cesspool such as Chicago or LA would seem common-sensical or at least justifiable to the average sheep/dimwit. After the resultant wave of outrage from the libertarian/constitutionalist corner dissipates, habituation sets in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habituation

The notion of having the military on the street doesn't seem so outrageous anymore. Checkpoints for the new National ID become almost routine within these special police action zones. "Yeah, it's a drag, but think of the children!"

It would only remain to activate provocateurs (yet again, for the Nth time), orchestrate a false flag event or three, and trot out Napolitano's mile-wide "domestic terrorist" brush.

I believe that heading down this path is a foregone conclusion, because the government is utterly broke, and the only pool of wealth outside the largely untouchable oligarchy belongs to the rapidly diminishing middle class. The majority vote of the underclass will trade away remaining liberty (for all) for its redistribution.

We the middle class are to accept confiscation via inflation/taxation with resignation and deference, but if we should resist in a meaningful way, the newly elevated police/military caste will eagerly lick at the hand of their master and demonstrate their skill and loyalty.

Given the compound debt trap we're in, the demographic trends, and the projected oil extraction rates, I'm thinking 2015-2020 is the window for the commencement of heavy-handed pacification of confiscation/tyranny resisters, I mean, "domestic terrorists."

A side-note on gangs and the drug trade. These are highly useful tools for the statists, providing justification for much graft/militarization/surveillance, and being very profitable for the banks and conglomerates. Gangs will not be dealt a crippling blow until they've outlived their usefulness.

What he said....but I also have it on good authority from the posters here that after the deployment when the NG is told to go round up all the guns to protect the people they will all say no...and then the police will say no...and everybody will sit down and sing kum-by-ya. Right....

BobB35
05-13-2010, 6:24 AM
"Regular" police get a chuckle when "civilians" make a big deal about the use of the word "civilian".



I am sure they do chuckle, but you not understanding or caring why they do make a big deal, is an indication of how bad things have gotten. It is easy to look down on the "little" people from your lofty perch and chuckle, but then don't be surprised when the rocks start flying up toward the perch.

Stealth
05-13-2010, 8:42 AM
Criminals take the path of least resistance. That path leads to Chicago and it's guided by heavy anti-gun laws. Hopefully this ends in June.

If these public leaders were savy on their history they would be good to remember the Boston Massacre. In 1770 the Redcoats were dispatched to Boston to enforce the Townsend Act. An altercation with the Redcoats keeping the peace and some citizens of Boston lead to Redcoats killing 5 people.

Nothing good can come from a Military force occupying a city.