 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Police and Terrorism |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Copyright © 2006 - 2011 - Barry M. Baker - CareerPoliceOfficer.com |
| Disclaimer |
| CareerPoliceOfficer.com is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. Links are provided only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by this site. |
The
GITMO Paradigm
GITMO Paradigm
You might be wondering what the debate over Gitmo, the terrorist detention center
at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, has to do with your career as a police officer?
Gitmo is one of those rare instances where government created and implemented an
efficient way of doing things. When it comes to issues of public safety, government
only responds efficiently when those issues are perceived as urgent and important.
The terrorist attacks on 9/11 certainly met that criteria, and a lot of ideas were
rapidly implemented. The success or failure of all the other ideas is overshadowed
by the brilliance and success of the Gitmo Paradigm.
Constitutional issues are most often cited as the reasons for the elimination of
Gitmo. There are a lot of people who think they’re really smart for realizing that
the primary reason for locating the terrorist detention center at the naval base in
Cuba was to deny those who want to destroy America all the constitutional rights
enjoyed by Americans. Aside from the fact that no precedent exists to extend
constitutional rights to those detained at Gitmo, the main reason for the location
was to avoid confusion created by those who are creating the confusion anyway.
The main reason for the confusion exists because of ideologies. One believes that
no real war against terrorism exists. The more light thinking among us usually look
back to December 8, 1941 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt uttered these
words, “I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly
attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between
the United States and the Japanese Empire.” The argument goes that since the
United States Congress has not “declared war” against anyone, no “war” exists. In
regard to the terrorist attack of 9/11, the Congress passed legislation, S.J.Res. 23,
on September 14, 2001, authorizing the President to “use all necessary and
appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons....” Now, it could
just be me, but I don’t see much difference between the first and the latter. In fact,
the authorization given to the President for response to the attacks of 9/11 could be
viewed as more expansive than the declaration of war [authorization] of 1941.
This ideology also maintains that any terrorist, no matter where that terrorist is
apprehended, be treated the same as any criminal suspect apprehended inside the
United States. Let’s do this. Instead of sending soldiers and marines to battle
terrorists, we could collect police SWAT teams from across the country from New
York to Los Angeles and send them after the terrorists. After each firefight, those
terrorists captured could be given their Miranda Warnings right there on the
battlefield. Of course, it could be really difficult to find lawyers and judges willing to
follow the SWAT teams to file and hear the various legal motions. That’s right, the
lawyers and judges could stay at home and wait for the terrorists to be shipped back
to the United States and placed in various federal detention centers across the
country. The lawyers and judges could handle the motions in the comfort of well
guarded courthouses with running water. But, there’s another problem. When you
become a police officer, you’ll soon learn how touchy judges are about your prompt
appearance in court when summoned. You’ve just returned to your job policing San
Francisco when you receive a summons to testify on a motion for an arrest you
made in Afghanistan. The only problem is that the terrorist you arrested is having
his motion heard in a courtroom in Philadelphia.
Okay, I know it’s silly. But, how silly is it to apply constitutional rights to terror
suspects captured outside of the United States? A lot of people forget that the
United States Military has its own constitutional justice mechanism. Could money,
with its accompanied power and influence, have anything to do with treating foreign
terrorists as Americans? After all, an army captain, who’s a lawyer in JAG (Judge
Advocate General), defending a terror suspect, is paid the same as a captain
commanding a company of infantry.
Put aside all the constitutional arguments against GITMO and realize just one
thing. Whether you’re involved in fighting international terrorists, domestic
terrorists, or any other stripe of criminal, success is often just as damaging to your
efforts as failure. While failure provides an easy reason to change things, changing
a successful policy just requires a lot of creative obfuscation.
at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, has to do with your career as a police officer?
Gitmo is one of those rare instances where government created and implemented an
efficient way of doing things. When it comes to issues of public safety, government
only responds efficiently when those issues are perceived as urgent and important.
The terrorist attacks on 9/11 certainly met that criteria, and a lot of ideas were
rapidly implemented. The success or failure of all the other ideas is overshadowed
by the brilliance and success of the Gitmo Paradigm.
Constitutional issues are most often cited as the reasons for the elimination of
Gitmo. There are a lot of people who think they’re really smart for realizing that
the primary reason for locating the terrorist detention center at the naval base in
Cuba was to deny those who want to destroy America all the constitutional rights
enjoyed by Americans. Aside from the fact that no precedent exists to extend
constitutional rights to those detained at Gitmo, the main reason for the location
was to avoid confusion created by those who are creating the confusion anyway.
The main reason for the confusion exists because of ideologies. One believes that
no real war against terrorism exists. The more light thinking among us usually look
back to December 8, 1941 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt uttered these
words, “I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly
attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between
the United States and the Japanese Empire.” The argument goes that since the
United States Congress has not “declared war” against anyone, no “war” exists. In
regard to the terrorist attack of 9/11, the Congress passed legislation, S.J.Res. 23,
on September 14, 2001, authorizing the President to “use all necessary and
appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons....” Now, it could
just be me, but I don’t see much difference between the first and the latter. In fact,
the authorization given to the President for response to the attacks of 9/11 could be
viewed as more expansive than the declaration of war [authorization] of 1941.
This ideology also maintains that any terrorist, no matter where that terrorist is
apprehended, be treated the same as any criminal suspect apprehended inside the
United States. Let’s do this. Instead of sending soldiers and marines to battle
terrorists, we could collect police SWAT teams from across the country from New
York to Los Angeles and send them after the terrorists. After each firefight, those
terrorists captured could be given their Miranda Warnings right there on the
battlefield. Of course, it could be really difficult to find lawyers and judges willing to
follow the SWAT teams to file and hear the various legal motions. That’s right, the
lawyers and judges could stay at home and wait for the terrorists to be shipped back
to the United States and placed in various federal detention centers across the
country. The lawyers and judges could handle the motions in the comfort of well
guarded courthouses with running water. But, there’s another problem. When you
become a police officer, you’ll soon learn how touchy judges are about your prompt
appearance in court when summoned. You’ve just returned to your job policing San
Francisco when you receive a summons to testify on a motion for an arrest you
made in Afghanistan. The only problem is that the terrorist you arrested is having
his motion heard in a courtroom in Philadelphia.
Okay, I know it’s silly. But, how silly is it to apply constitutional rights to terror
suspects captured outside of the United States? A lot of people forget that the
United States Military has its own constitutional justice mechanism. Could money,
with its accompanied power and influence, have anything to do with treating foreign
terrorists as Americans? After all, an army captain, who’s a lawyer in JAG (Judge
Advocate General), defending a terror suspect, is paid the same as a captain
commanding a company of infantry.
Put aside all the constitutional arguments against GITMO and realize just one
thing. Whether you’re involved in fighting international terrorists, domestic
terrorists, or any other stripe of criminal, success is often just as damaging to your
efforts as failure. While failure provides an easy reason to change things, changing
a successful policy just requires a lot of creative obfuscation.
| Learning Things the Hard Way |
It is the nature of people to learn things the hard way.
When you become a police officer, there’ll be times when
you’ll give a person any number of chances to walk away
from his or her irrational and illegal behavior. In the end,
Mr. or Ms. Hardhead will run out all the rope you’ve
provided, and you’ll arrest that person. This is an example
where you’ve provided both positive and negative solutions
with Hardhead choosing the latter.
When it comes to irrational and illegal behavior on a
national or international scale involving special interest
groups and nations respectively, a lot of people get
confused, and they endlessly argue about what is irrational
or illegal. As a police officer, you’ll practice diplomacy
everyday. When you think about it, a police officer is the
ultimate diplomat. When your effort at diplomacy begins to
falter or fail, you are the sole decision maker on how and
when to exercise raw power to achieve an acceptable
outcome that your diplomatic effort failed to produce.
Unlike the generic diplomat, you’ll be the one to personally
exercise power.
As a police officer, you’ll learn sooner than anyone else the
limitations of diplomacy. While I didn’t make too many
mistakes during my career, one of those mistakes nearly
cost a man his life:
I responded to a call for a domestic disturbance where both
the husband and wife were intoxicated. Both were small in
stature, and it was clear that the female was the dominant
force in that household. A female officer responded as a
back-up, and she stood by as I exercised my diplomatic
resolution to the disturbance. During the session of
“conflict resolution,” the wife became frustrated at one
point, and she slapped the husband’s face.
Now, remember this, had the husband slapped the wife, I
wouldn’t have hesitated for a second in abandoning
diplomacy and going straight to power in the form of
handcuffs on the husband. But, hey, this was a little
woman, and the guy was so drunk, he probably didn’t even
feel any pain from the assault on him. In the end, both
were calmed down, and I turned to leave the house. The
female officer stopped me and asked, “Aren’t you going to
lock [her] up?” I replied with some it’s not a big deal
response, and the female officer sighed and said, “Okay.”
No more than five minutes after clearing the call, a second
call was dispatched to the same address for an assault. I,
and the same female officer, returned. We were met at the
front door by the wife who started a rerun of her complaints
about her “worthless” husband. When we entered the
living room of the home, we saw the husband sitting in a
recliner. He didn’t look any different than when we’d left
him expect for one thing; he had half the blade of a steak
knife planted firmly in the top of his head.
As I suffered the “I told you so” looks from the female
officer, I was glad she had returned to back me up, for I
needed a second pair of handcuffs for the husband. Dumbo
had no idea what had happened to him, and I was afraid he
would pull the knife from his head. Fortunately, his injury
turned out to be much like those publicized from time to
time where surgeons successfully remove a blade from a
person’s brain with no resulting permanent injury.
The lesson I learned from that experience so many years
ago was to arrest anyone who had the nerve, drunk or
sober, to assault another person right in front of me.
Okay, I know that you might find it hard to compare or
apply the carrot and stick / diplomacy and force boundaries
of individual police officers on a macro level. But, you
should understand that diplomacy as a tool to achieve just
ends is absolutely useless without the means and willingness
to use force at the right time. In the personal example I
just described, my means and willingness were intact. It
was the timing of my willingness that really sucked.
Force will always be problematic, whether micro or macro,
to people who believe that force is never justified. While
those people will insist that it is not their belief, they never
seem to be able to identify a situation or circumstance
where they would approve of force. They’ll whine that the
question is hypothetical, and use of force is too important
on which to hypothesize.
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 brought a
perpetual reality into clear focus. That reality
demonstrated – again – that there are plenty of people who
will use any means to inflict death and destruction on
massive scales to achieve their goals. It also brought into
focus those nations which support and protect terror and
terrorists.
While 9/ll evoked a strong and forceful response from the
United States, time influenced by success does fade the
focus. If you do become a police officer, you’re going to
enjoy a special benefit. Your focus will not fade, and it will
only sharpen as your career progresses. Your continual use
of diplomacy and force will provide you with a unique
appreciation of both. That appreciation will give you the
ability to avoid learning things the hard way… again… and
again.
When you become a police officer, there’ll be times when
you’ll give a person any number of chances to walk away
from his or her irrational and illegal behavior. In the end,
Mr. or Ms. Hardhead will run out all the rope you’ve
provided, and you’ll arrest that person. This is an example
where you’ve provided both positive and negative solutions
with Hardhead choosing the latter.
When it comes to irrational and illegal behavior on a
national or international scale involving special interest
groups and nations respectively, a lot of people get
confused, and they endlessly argue about what is irrational
or illegal. As a police officer, you’ll practice diplomacy
everyday. When you think about it, a police officer is the
ultimate diplomat. When your effort at diplomacy begins to
falter or fail, you are the sole decision maker on how and
when to exercise raw power to achieve an acceptable
outcome that your diplomatic effort failed to produce.
Unlike the generic diplomat, you’ll be the one to personally
exercise power.
As a police officer, you’ll learn sooner than anyone else the
limitations of diplomacy. While I didn’t make too many
mistakes during my career, one of those mistakes nearly
cost a man his life:
I responded to a call for a domestic disturbance where both
the husband and wife were intoxicated. Both were small in
stature, and it was clear that the female was the dominant
force in that household. A female officer responded as a
back-up, and she stood by as I exercised my diplomatic
resolution to the disturbance. During the session of
“conflict resolution,” the wife became frustrated at one
point, and she slapped the husband’s face.
Now, remember this, had the husband slapped the wife, I
wouldn’t have hesitated for a second in abandoning
diplomacy and going straight to power in the form of
handcuffs on the husband. But, hey, this was a little
woman, and the guy was so drunk, he probably didn’t even
feel any pain from the assault on him. In the end, both
were calmed down, and I turned to leave the house. The
female officer stopped me and asked, “Aren’t you going to
lock [her] up?” I replied with some it’s not a big deal
response, and the female officer sighed and said, “Okay.”
No more than five minutes after clearing the call, a second
call was dispatched to the same address for an assault. I,
and the same female officer, returned. We were met at the
front door by the wife who started a rerun of her complaints
about her “worthless” husband. When we entered the
living room of the home, we saw the husband sitting in a
recliner. He didn’t look any different than when we’d left
him expect for one thing; he had half the blade of a steak
knife planted firmly in the top of his head.
As I suffered the “I told you so” looks from the female
officer, I was glad she had returned to back me up, for I
needed a second pair of handcuffs for the husband. Dumbo
had no idea what had happened to him, and I was afraid he
would pull the knife from his head. Fortunately, his injury
turned out to be much like those publicized from time to
time where surgeons successfully remove a blade from a
person’s brain with no resulting permanent injury.
The lesson I learned from that experience so many years
ago was to arrest anyone who had the nerve, drunk or
sober, to assault another person right in front of me.
Okay, I know that you might find it hard to compare or
apply the carrot and stick / diplomacy and force boundaries
of individual police officers on a macro level. But, you
should understand that diplomacy as a tool to achieve just
ends is absolutely useless without the means and willingness
to use force at the right time. In the personal example I
just described, my means and willingness were intact. It
was the timing of my willingness that really sucked.
Force will always be problematic, whether micro or macro,
to people who believe that force is never justified. While
those people will insist that it is not their belief, they never
seem to be able to identify a situation or circumstance
where they would approve of force. They’ll whine that the
question is hypothetical, and use of force is too important
on which to hypothesize.
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 brought a
perpetual reality into clear focus. That reality
demonstrated – again – that there are plenty of people who
will use any means to inflict death and destruction on
massive scales to achieve their goals. It also brought into
focus those nations which support and protect terror and
terrorists.
While 9/ll evoked a strong and forceful response from the
United States, time influenced by success does fade the
focus. If you do become a police officer, you’re going to
enjoy a special benefit. Your focus will not fade, and it will
only sharpen as your career progresses. Your continual use
of diplomacy and force will provide you with a unique
appreciation of both. That appreciation will give you the
ability to avoid learning things the hard way… again… and
again.
12/7/1941
9/11/2001
?/?/20??
| Pirates = Terrorists |
On April 15, 2009, only days after the U.S. Navy shot three of their comrades dead, Somali pirates, previously
announcing their intention to “slaughter” Americans, attempted to hijack another American flagged merchant
ship.
The Liberty Sun, like the Maersk Alabama, carried a crew of 20 Americans. The pirates fired on the ship with
AK-47’s and RPG’s (shoulder fired rockets). Only evasive maneuvers by the Liberty Sun prevented the pirates
from boarding the ship. One has to wonder what the fate of the Liberty Sun’s crew would have been had those
pirates, turned self avowed terrorists, successfully boarded the ship.
Never fear. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the United States Secretary of State, immediately announced that she would
seek “consultation with allies,” and the creation of a “commission” to address the pirate problem. I’m certain
that every American merchant seaman breathed a sigh of relief knowing that Secretary Clinton is looking out for
them as they sail through terrorist infested waters.
Simple Solutions
Politicians hate simple solutions. Even in Washington D.C., where gun control laws are draconian, armored truck
guards servicing banks are allowed to carry guns. Why shouldn't American flagged merchant marine ships,
particularly those sailed by American crews, be allowed to maintain armories with sufficient fire power to repel
terrorist / pirate attacks?
Oh, yes. There’s the problem with insurance. The ship owners worry about the liability that might result should
American merchant seamen kill a terrorist / pirate. It’s a valid concern since it’s perfectly likely that the family
of a terrorist could find, with little trouble, an American lawyer or lawyers to sue the ship company. Since the
Somali terrorists / pirates are relatively young, the lifetime earnings of the pirate based on the number of ships
he could hijack during his career could be substantial.
Congress could help. The U.S. Congress has shown that it’s capable of passing massive amounts of legislation in
days without even bothering to read what they enact into law. It should be relatively simple to pass legislation
holding harmless from liability merchant seamen, and their companies, if they kill or injure terrorists / pirates
when acting in self defense. They could even go further by eliminating the corporate tax for American flagged
ship companies; thereby, bringing hundreds of merchant ships back under the American flag and creating
thousands of jobs for American merchant seamen. Stop… stop. I know… I’m nuts. These solutions are far too
simple and inexpensive.
Let’s just hope that Somali terrorists / pirates never capture an American merchant ship sailed by an American
crew. Somehow, I think American crews now have the same mindset learned by American airline passengers
after September 11, 2001.
announcing their intention to “slaughter” Americans, attempted to hijack another American flagged merchant
ship.
The Liberty Sun, like the Maersk Alabama, carried a crew of 20 Americans. The pirates fired on the ship with
AK-47’s and RPG’s (shoulder fired rockets). Only evasive maneuvers by the Liberty Sun prevented the pirates
from boarding the ship. One has to wonder what the fate of the Liberty Sun’s crew would have been had those
pirates, turned self avowed terrorists, successfully boarded the ship.
Never fear. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the United States Secretary of State, immediately announced that she would
seek “consultation with allies,” and the creation of a “commission” to address the pirate problem. I’m certain
that every American merchant seaman breathed a sigh of relief knowing that Secretary Clinton is looking out for
them as they sail through terrorist infested waters.
Simple Solutions
Politicians hate simple solutions. Even in Washington D.C., where gun control laws are draconian, armored truck
guards servicing banks are allowed to carry guns. Why shouldn't American flagged merchant marine ships,
particularly those sailed by American crews, be allowed to maintain armories with sufficient fire power to repel
terrorist / pirate attacks?
Oh, yes. There’s the problem with insurance. The ship owners worry about the liability that might result should
American merchant seamen kill a terrorist / pirate. It’s a valid concern since it’s perfectly likely that the family
of a terrorist could find, with little trouble, an American lawyer or lawyers to sue the ship company. Since the
Somali terrorists / pirates are relatively young, the lifetime earnings of the pirate based on the number of ships
he could hijack during his career could be substantial.
Congress could help. The U.S. Congress has shown that it’s capable of passing massive amounts of legislation in
days without even bothering to read what they enact into law. It should be relatively simple to pass legislation
holding harmless from liability merchant seamen, and their companies, if they kill or injure terrorists / pirates
when acting in self defense. They could even go further by eliminating the corporate tax for American flagged
ship companies; thereby, bringing hundreds of merchant ships back under the American flag and creating
thousands of jobs for American merchant seamen. Stop… stop. I know… I’m nuts. These solutions are far too
simple and inexpensive.
Let’s just hope that Somali terrorists / pirates never capture an American merchant ship sailed by an American
crew. Somehow, I think American crews now have the same mindset learned by American airline passengers
after September 11, 2001.
Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and The Torture Memos
Magicians are frequently maligned when politicians are described with terms rightfully belonging to magicians.
Contrary to the beliefs of some, there’s nothing magical about magicians or any politician. Politicians do strive to
accomplish two goals of the professional magicians… the art of misdirection and celebrity status. Unlike
magicians, however, politicians fail terribly when it comes to guarding the secrets that make their acts
successful. While magicians may be jealous of the competition’s success, revealing the secrets of the tricks is not
in their bag of tricks.
When it comes to interrogating terrorists, the Bush Administration developed a bag of tricks called “enhanced
interrogation techniques.” The misdirection from the program worked so well that political opponents couldn’t
contain themselves with their cries of torture… torture! It evidently worked pretty well on the terrorists who
succumbed to the techniques, and the absence of terrorist attacks within the United States or on American
interests was further evidence of the program’s success.
Then… the Obama Administration comes along and dumps the bag for the world to see all the elements of the
misdirection. After exposing the benign nature of those elements, hilariously dubbed, “the torture memos,” the
new political crowd in power launched its own campaign of misdirection through the Department of Homeland
Security. They warn of the dangers of domestic right wing extremism including the dangers posed by returning
Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans.
The new campaign of misdirection is designed to shift focus away from external threats to internal ones defined
by political ideologies and speculation rather than by that pesky detail called evidence. The President further
shifted the focus by graciously declaring that CIA officers would not be prosecuted for their participation in the
“torture memos” caper. This position does avoid any debate about with what criminal charges would apply since
the techniques were legal when practiced. It also avoids release of the heavily redacted portions of the “memos;”
wherein, the successes of the program are allegedly contained.
Most people would agree that the maiming or removal of body parts would be acts of torture. Would the threat to
maim or remove a body part be an act of torture? I would maintain that the latter is not torture, but there would
be those who would disagree with me. But, herein lays the point. As methods of interrogation descend from acts
of obvious torture all the way down to those exposed in the “torture memos,” definitions of torture will become
ever more subjective as the order descends. In the end, any definition of interrogation methods can pass as
torture based solely on any absurd point of view.
It’s unfortunate that politics has once again transcended a more important issue – in this case, national security.
But, let’s not be pessimistic. As Osama Bin Laden sits in his hideout reading the “torture memos,” there’s
always the possibility – as remote as that possibility may be – that he’ll laugh himself to death.
Contrary to the beliefs of some, there’s nothing magical about magicians or any politician. Politicians do strive to
accomplish two goals of the professional magicians… the art of misdirection and celebrity status. Unlike
magicians, however, politicians fail terribly when it comes to guarding the secrets that make their acts
successful. While magicians may be jealous of the competition’s success, revealing the secrets of the tricks is not
in their bag of tricks.
When it comes to interrogating terrorists, the Bush Administration developed a bag of tricks called “enhanced
interrogation techniques.” The misdirection from the program worked so well that political opponents couldn’t
contain themselves with their cries of torture… torture! It evidently worked pretty well on the terrorists who
succumbed to the techniques, and the absence of terrorist attacks within the United States or on American
interests was further evidence of the program’s success.
Then… the Obama Administration comes along and dumps the bag for the world to see all the elements of the
misdirection. After exposing the benign nature of those elements, hilariously dubbed, “the torture memos,” the
new political crowd in power launched its own campaign of misdirection through the Department of Homeland
Security. They warn of the dangers of domestic right wing extremism including the dangers posed by returning
Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans.
The new campaign of misdirection is designed to shift focus away from external threats to internal ones defined
by political ideologies and speculation rather than by that pesky detail called evidence. The President further
shifted the focus by graciously declaring that CIA officers would not be prosecuted for their participation in the
“torture memos” caper. This position does avoid any debate about with what criminal charges would apply since
the techniques were legal when practiced. It also avoids release of the heavily redacted portions of the “memos;”
wherein, the successes of the program are allegedly contained.
Most people would agree that the maiming or removal of body parts would be acts of torture. Would the threat to
maim or remove a body part be an act of torture? I would maintain that the latter is not torture, but there would
be those who would disagree with me. But, herein lays the point. As methods of interrogation descend from acts
of obvious torture all the way down to those exposed in the “torture memos,” definitions of torture will become
ever more subjective as the order descends. In the end, any definition of interrogation methods can pass as
torture based solely on any absurd point of view.
It’s unfortunate that politics has once again transcended a more important issue – in this case, national security.
But, let’s not be pessimistic. As Osama Bin Laden sits in his hideout reading the “torture memos,” there’s
always the possibility – as remote as that possibility may be – that he’ll laugh himself to death.
| Equal Treatment Under the Law |
What is the one thing that governments; politicians; judges; prosecutors and police officers have in common
with… terrorists? While you’re thinking about that one, ask yourself this, what is the main difference between
the two groups? While the lawyers, psychologists and sociologists could go on for hours proffering and debating
dozens of answers, one word can answer both questions accurately and definitively. The answer to both questions
is… power.
The dirty secret, which is actually no secret at all, is that the acquisition and exercise of power dictates the
direction and quality of life for every living being on the planet. The laws of nature are harsh and unforgiving,
but the laws of nature are applied universally without prejudice for anything or anyone. Of course, nature does
not recognize any inalienable right; thus, the oft spoken phrase, “survival of the fittest.” Human beings, on the
other hand, have the unique ability to create and maintain civilizations under man made rules of law where
objective reasoning can ensure that every person is treated equally under those laws.
Enter: Empathy [Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.]
First of all, there is no such thing as equal treatment under the law. When you become a police officer and you
begin spending a lot of time in court rooms, you’re going to be struck at just how unequal people are treated. I’m
not talking about how a first time offender may be treated versus a three time loser; although, you’ll see a lot of
repeat offenders treated as though they’re entering the criminal justice system for the first time. Why do you
think legislatures enact laws requiring mandatory prison sentences under particular circumstances?
You’ll be entering your police career when empathy is all the rage, and a President of the United States even
believes that judges should include empathy into their judicial decision making processes. Let me put it to you
this way. When you become a police officer, let empathy influence how you enforce laws. Now, if the prosecutors
and judges who get your cases share your empathy, you might get by. However, if you have prosecutors and
judges who know what they’re doing, you’ll be slapped down and embarrassed; until, you get the message.
Here are some facts. Police officers; prosecutors and judges have enormous power over people. While you, as a
police officer may share the power, you don’t even come close to sharing the level of immunity which is extended
to prosecutors and judges when that power is misused.
Objective reasoning and empathy are incompatible.
Since you’re a human being, you will possess empathy – hopefully on a high level of morality. There will be many
times when empathy will influence how you treat people. As long as the empathy you show toward one person
does not negatively impact another, the empathy you extend can be positive. However, when your empathy
affects your decision making where objective reasoning is required, someone, in all likelihood, will not be getting
equal treatment under the law.
As a police officer, your ability to reason objectively should be right at the top of your list of things to master.
Unlike the prosecutors and the judges, you’ll be the first line defender of life, liberty and the Constitution. The
prosecutors and judges can gush with all the empathy they want since their involvement comes well after the
flashpoint of perceived or real crisis. When things go badly, your sound objective reasoning will save you. If you
rely on empathy being shown toward you for your empathy based decision, you’re going to be sorely disappointed.
Getting back to the terrorists… While it’s obvious that the acquisition and use of power to kill and maim are the
top priorities for terrorists, what is the single biggest factor affecting their desire to pursue a path of death and
destruction? If you don’t figure this out in the next three seconds, go back to the top of this article and reread
the definition of empathy.
with… terrorists? While you’re thinking about that one, ask yourself this, what is the main difference between
the two groups? While the lawyers, psychologists and sociologists could go on for hours proffering and debating
dozens of answers, one word can answer both questions accurately and definitively. The answer to both questions
is… power.
The dirty secret, which is actually no secret at all, is that the acquisition and exercise of power dictates the
direction and quality of life for every living being on the planet. The laws of nature are harsh and unforgiving,
but the laws of nature are applied universally without prejudice for anything or anyone. Of course, nature does
not recognize any inalienable right; thus, the oft spoken phrase, “survival of the fittest.” Human beings, on the
other hand, have the unique ability to create and maintain civilizations under man made rules of law where
objective reasoning can ensure that every person is treated equally under those laws.
Enter: Empathy [Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.]
First of all, there is no such thing as equal treatment under the law. When you become a police officer and you
begin spending a lot of time in court rooms, you’re going to be struck at just how unequal people are treated. I’m
not talking about how a first time offender may be treated versus a three time loser; although, you’ll see a lot of
repeat offenders treated as though they’re entering the criminal justice system for the first time. Why do you
think legislatures enact laws requiring mandatory prison sentences under particular circumstances?
You’ll be entering your police career when empathy is all the rage, and a President of the United States even
believes that judges should include empathy into their judicial decision making processes. Let me put it to you
this way. When you become a police officer, let empathy influence how you enforce laws. Now, if the prosecutors
and judges who get your cases share your empathy, you might get by. However, if you have prosecutors and
judges who know what they’re doing, you’ll be slapped down and embarrassed; until, you get the message.
Here are some facts. Police officers; prosecutors and judges have enormous power over people. While you, as a
police officer may share the power, you don’t even come close to sharing the level of immunity which is extended
to prosecutors and judges when that power is misused.
Objective reasoning and empathy are incompatible.
Since you’re a human being, you will possess empathy – hopefully on a high level of morality. There will be many
times when empathy will influence how you treat people. As long as the empathy you show toward one person
does not negatively impact another, the empathy you extend can be positive. However, when your empathy
affects your decision making where objective reasoning is required, someone, in all likelihood, will not be getting
equal treatment under the law.
As a police officer, your ability to reason objectively should be right at the top of your list of things to master.
Unlike the prosecutors and the judges, you’ll be the first line defender of life, liberty and the Constitution. The
prosecutors and judges can gush with all the empathy they want since their involvement comes well after the
flashpoint of perceived or real crisis. When things go badly, your sound objective reasoning will save you. If you
rely on empathy being shown toward you for your empathy based decision, you’re going to be sorely disappointed.
Getting back to the terrorists… While it’s obvious that the acquisition and use of power to kill and maim are the
top priorities for terrorists, what is the single biggest factor affecting their desire to pursue a path of death and
destruction? If you don’t figure this out in the next three seconds, go back to the top of this article and reread
the definition of empathy.
| The Twilight Zone |
When you become a police officer, you’ll be entering a career that will give you a unique insight on good and evil,
government and politics, the corrupting power of power, and the implementation of irrational solutions to
problems complicated by inexperienced problem solvers.
So, what else is new? Well, what’s new in the United States is an unprecedented growth in government with no
end in sight. Aside from all the folly associated with bigger and bigger government, there are two indispensable
functions of government that only government can address… the maintenance of internal civil order and the
defense of the nation from external threats of violence… or, more simply put, crime and war.
There’s been a lot of conversation and debate about the “war on terror.” Most of the discourse revolves around
whether or not there is a real war and whether or not that war can be won. When it comes to labels, there’s no
question that the word war has been misused and overused… war on poverty; war on crime; war on drugs.
Stay with me on this. A real war has a beginning and end. Some wars are short in duration while others may last
many years. The real measure of war is the continuation of armed conflict between or among groups of
combatants using various levels of organized tactics to achieve political goals through total victory. War cannot
be logically applied to things like poverty, crime, and drugs since these are perpetual social conditions that can
only be suppressed to a level where their adverse effects will not overwhelm normal social progress.
Up until September 11, 2001, the United States treated terrorists and terrorism as a problem to be addressed by
law enforcement. Of course, that position strained logic after the massive loss of life and property which occurred
on 9/11. Despite the fact that the current war on terror certainly looks like war and worthy of the war label, FBI
agents are now reading Miranda Warnings to terrorists captured on battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Let’s just hope that the dangers associated with international state sponsored terrorism are really figments of
Americans’ collective imagination, and the emerging policies of our government are not taking us on a journey
into “The Twilight Zone.”
government and politics, the corrupting power of power, and the implementation of irrational solutions to
problems complicated by inexperienced problem solvers.
So, what else is new? Well, what’s new in the United States is an unprecedented growth in government with no
end in sight. Aside from all the folly associated with bigger and bigger government, there are two indispensable
functions of government that only government can address… the maintenance of internal civil order and the
defense of the nation from external threats of violence… or, more simply put, crime and war.
There’s been a lot of conversation and debate about the “war on terror.” Most of the discourse revolves around
whether or not there is a real war and whether or not that war can be won. When it comes to labels, there’s no
question that the word war has been misused and overused… war on poverty; war on crime; war on drugs.
Stay with me on this. A real war has a beginning and end. Some wars are short in duration while others may last
many years. The real measure of war is the continuation of armed conflict between or among groups of
combatants using various levels of organized tactics to achieve political goals through total victory. War cannot
be logically applied to things like poverty, crime, and drugs since these are perpetual social conditions that can
only be suppressed to a level where their adverse effects will not overwhelm normal social progress.
Up until September 11, 2001, the United States treated terrorists and terrorism as a problem to be addressed by
law enforcement. Of course, that position strained logic after the massive loss of life and property which occurred
on 9/11. Despite the fact that the current war on terror certainly looks like war and worthy of the war label, FBI
agents are now reading Miranda Warnings to terrorists captured on battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Let’s just hope that the dangers associated with international state sponsored terrorism are really figments of
Americans’ collective imagination, and the emerging policies of our government are not taking us on a journey
into “The Twilight Zone.”
| The Police State |
It’s not fair, but you, as a police officer, will be the face of a police state to the elitist intellectual – and others who
think they’re intellectual – at one end of the social scale and to those along various levels on the scale who will
always resist conforming to polite social behavior. The career criminal will give little, if any, thought to the issue
of a police state, because he’ll be putting all of his intellectual power into avoiding you. The terrorist will either
avoid you or kill you depending upon strategic and tactical considerations and his current desired target for
destruction.
The good news is that most Americans have a favorable view of the police officers in their communities. The
single most important reason why Americans have favorable views toward their police is because there are over
40,000 police departments in the United States. The majority of law enforcement agencies in the United States
are controlled by state and local governments – not an all powerful central government.
America looked a lot different over two centuries ago when a group of men came together to form a new nation.
While times may have been different then, the people weren’t any different than they are today. Some of the
Founding Fathers argued for a strong central government; however, the majority opted for limited powers for the
central government. The majority of that time would be appalled to see how the clear, simple meanings of their
words in their new nation’s Constitution would, over time, be twisted or ignored to create some of the most
absurd interpretations by politicians and judges to expand the powers of the Federal [central] government.
While no one can foresee the future, America’s Founding Fathers knew that time and progress would change a
lot of things. However, they knew what wouldn’t change… some people’s addiction to power. Why do you think
the Constitution’s First Amendment ensures free speech? Why do you think they paid so much attention to a
framework for separation of powers among co-equal branches of the Federal government? They created the best
system they could to ensure that no one or group of ideologues could simultaneously be in control of speech and
all branches of the central government. They knew that America could never become a police state as long as
power existed to check power.
Now, let’s look at the issue of Islamist terrorism. Don’t you just love the view “one man’s terrorist is another
man’s freedom fighter?” I suppose if you take the view that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are fighting to deny
others their freedom, you could in some perverted way argue that simplistic view. The truth is that America is
the target of Islamist terrorism precisely because America projects the human benefits of freedom. The last
thing Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and any dictator wants is any impediments to their pursuit of totalitarianism. The
Islamist part to today’s foremost terrorists is simply a cloak of religion to obfuscate their criminality and pure
political power motives.
Aside from the obvious physical dangers from terrorism are the dangers resulting from how a free society
responds to acts of terrorism. The Patriot Act is a good example of actions resulting in unintended
consequences… or… at least I hope are unintended. I’m sure many of the Founding Fathers would be scratching
their heads and asking, “Why.”
After all, they already made it pretty clear that the executive branch of government is responsible for protecting
the country from foreign attack. Why should the legislative branch corrupt their clear language regarding
something as important as search and seizure by codifying into law actions that clearly violate the Constitution?
But… wait a minute – silly me and those silly Founding Fathers. Today’s Constitutional revisionists have decided
that terrorist attacks planned, financed and implemented by foreign terrorists are not acts of war but simply
criminal acts to be addressed by law enforcement. So, it should be obvious to anyone that some freedoms for
Americans need be altered in order to combat terrorism. The truth is that the Patriot Act was a result of one
branch of government encroaching on the power of another branch with American citizens paying the price for
power and influence with freedoms.
Americans don’t understand the true nature of a police state, because they’ve not yet had to live in one. The
beginning of the 21st Century is turning out to be a true test for the Republic. There’s no question that the
Federal government’s quest for more power began long ago even before the ink was dry on the Constitution. The
big question is when that quest will be checked.
If the American police officer ever does become the true face of a police state, you’ll know that all has been lost,
because America’s police will be the last building block put in place to complete an all powerful central
government.
think they’re intellectual – at one end of the social scale and to those along various levels on the scale who will
always resist conforming to polite social behavior. The career criminal will give little, if any, thought to the issue
of a police state, because he’ll be putting all of his intellectual power into avoiding you. The terrorist will either
avoid you or kill you depending upon strategic and tactical considerations and his current desired target for
destruction.
The good news is that most Americans have a favorable view of the police officers in their communities. The
single most important reason why Americans have favorable views toward their police is because there are over
40,000 police departments in the United States. The majority of law enforcement agencies in the United States
are controlled by state and local governments – not an all powerful central government.
America looked a lot different over two centuries ago when a group of men came together to form a new nation.
While times may have been different then, the people weren’t any different than they are today. Some of the
Founding Fathers argued for a strong central government; however, the majority opted for limited powers for the
central government. The majority of that time would be appalled to see how the clear, simple meanings of their
words in their new nation’s Constitution would, over time, be twisted or ignored to create some of the most
absurd interpretations by politicians and judges to expand the powers of the Federal [central] government.
While no one can foresee the future, America’s Founding Fathers knew that time and progress would change a
lot of things. However, they knew what wouldn’t change… some people’s addiction to power. Why do you think
the Constitution’s First Amendment ensures free speech? Why do you think they paid so much attention to a
framework for separation of powers among co-equal branches of the Federal government? They created the best
system they could to ensure that no one or group of ideologues could simultaneously be in control of speech and
all branches of the central government. They knew that America could never become a police state as long as
power existed to check power.
Now, let’s look at the issue of Islamist terrorism. Don’t you just love the view “one man’s terrorist is another
man’s freedom fighter?” I suppose if you take the view that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are fighting to deny
others their freedom, you could in some perverted way argue that simplistic view. The truth is that America is
the target of Islamist terrorism precisely because America projects the human benefits of freedom. The last
thing Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and any dictator wants is any impediments to their pursuit of totalitarianism. The
Islamist part to today’s foremost terrorists is simply a cloak of religion to obfuscate their criminality and pure
political power motives.
Aside from the obvious physical dangers from terrorism are the dangers resulting from how a free society
responds to acts of terrorism. The Patriot Act is a good example of actions resulting in unintended
consequences… or… at least I hope are unintended. I’m sure many of the Founding Fathers would be scratching
their heads and asking, “Why.”
After all, they already made it pretty clear that the executive branch of government is responsible for protecting
the country from foreign attack. Why should the legislative branch corrupt their clear language regarding
something as important as search and seizure by codifying into law actions that clearly violate the Constitution?
But… wait a minute – silly me and those silly Founding Fathers. Today’s Constitutional revisionists have decided
that terrorist attacks planned, financed and implemented by foreign terrorists are not acts of war but simply
criminal acts to be addressed by law enforcement. So, it should be obvious to anyone that some freedoms for
Americans need be altered in order to combat terrorism. The truth is that the Patriot Act was a result of one
branch of government encroaching on the power of another branch with American citizens paying the price for
power and influence with freedoms.
Americans don’t understand the true nature of a police state, because they’ve not yet had to live in one. The
beginning of the 21st Century is turning out to be a true test for the Republic. There’s no question that the
Federal government’s quest for more power began long ago even before the ink was dry on the Constitution. The
big question is when that quest will be checked.
If the American police officer ever does become the true face of a police state, you’ll know that all has been lost,
because America’s police will be the last building block put in place to complete an all powerful central
government.
| Interrogations and Second-Hand Smoke |
As the President and his Attorney General keep everyone confused over the subject of prosecuting CIA
interrogators and others, the media jumped on a story where two CIA interrogators admitted that they blew cigar
smoke in the face of the terrorist who masterminded the bombing of the USS Cole resulting in the murder of 17
American sailors. I don’t know what to say. I suppose rude behavior rises to the level of torture these days. In
addition to being rude, I’m sure that the terrorist and some misguided Americans found the interrogators’
behavior toward the terrorist as demeaning and humiliating. Aside from the torturous torture debate, the good
news for the Attorney General is that he’s got a slam dunk case against those two interrogators for lighting up
within a federal facility… it’s against the law!
While this CIA torture and interrogation thing could turn on a dime next week, or in the next 24 hours for that
matter, keep in mind that all the confusion has nothing to do with terrorism or any present or future threats
posed by terrorists. It’s just a break from the war on terror in favor of a war on domestic political opponents.
When you become a police officer, you’re also going to become an interrogator. You probably won’t be very good
at it in the beginning, but you’ll watch and learn from others. Some police officers will be poor interrogators in
the beginning, and they’ll stay that way throughout their careers while others will hone their interrogation skills
to levels nothing short of impressive. You’ll also learn that there is no one size fits all when it comes to the art
of interrogation. As long as you don’t have the occasion to interrogate a terrorist, you’re ongoing development of
effective interrogation techniques probably won’t place you in a career ending situation.
interrogators and others, the media jumped on a story where two CIA interrogators admitted that they blew cigar
smoke in the face of the terrorist who masterminded the bombing of the USS Cole resulting in the murder of 17
American sailors. I don’t know what to say. I suppose rude behavior rises to the level of torture these days. In
addition to being rude, I’m sure that the terrorist and some misguided Americans found the interrogators’
behavior toward the terrorist as demeaning and humiliating. Aside from the torturous torture debate, the good
news for the Attorney General is that he’s got a slam dunk case against those two interrogators for lighting up
within a federal facility… it’s against the law!
While this CIA torture and interrogation thing could turn on a dime next week, or in the next 24 hours for that
matter, keep in mind that all the confusion has nothing to do with terrorism or any present or future threats
posed by terrorists. It’s just a break from the war on terror in favor of a war on domestic political opponents.
When you become a police officer, you’re also going to become an interrogator. You probably won’t be very good
at it in the beginning, but you’ll watch and learn from others. Some police officers will be poor interrogators in
the beginning, and they’ll stay that way throughout their careers while others will hone their interrogation skills
to levels nothing short of impressive. You’ll also learn that there is no one size fits all when it comes to the art
of interrogation. As long as you don’t have the occasion to interrogate a terrorist, you’re ongoing development of
effective interrogation techniques probably won’t place you in a career ending situation.
| Webinar Briefings |
| HENLEY-PUTNAM UNIVERSITY HOSTS FREE PUBLIC WEBINAR BRIEFINGS |
| Miranda Warnings and Terrorists |
U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.
Take a few minutes and read the Fifth Amendment. Dissect and analyze this simple paragraph, because it covers
a lot of ground. When you read, “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,”
you should recognize the essence of the Miranda Warnings:
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning.
If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
This is just the short version of Miranda. Miranda warnings are often verbose to avoid suppression challenges.
In short, Miranda is simply an expansion of the Fifth Amendment’s right against self incrimination for those who
are too stupid to understand one sentence containing fourteen words.
Now, after two hundred plus years, the Fifth Amendment has accumulated a lot of baggage in the form of
legislation and case law:
a lot of ground. When you read, “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,”
you should recognize the essence of the Miranda Warnings:
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning.
If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
This is just the short version of Miranda. Miranda warnings are often verbose to avoid suppression challenges.
In short, Miranda is simply an expansion of the Fifth Amendment’s right against self incrimination for those who
are too stupid to understand one sentence containing fourteen words.
Now, after two hundred plus years, the Fifth Amendment has accumulated a lot of baggage in the form of
legislation and case law:
Indictment by Grand Jury
Double Jeopardy
Development and Scope
Reprosecution Following Mistrial
Reprosecution Following Acquittal
Acquittal by Jury
Acquittal by the Trial Judge
Trial Court Rulings Terminating Trial Before Verdict
Reprosecution Following Conviction
Reprosecution After Reversal on Defendant's Appeal
Sentence Increases
''For the Same Offence''
Legislative Discretion as to Multiple Sentences
Successive Prosecutions for ''The Same Offense''
The ''Same Transaction'' Problem
Self-Incrimination
Development and Scope
The Power to Compel Testimony and Disclosure
Immunity
Required Records Doctrine
Reporting and Disclosure
Confessions: Police Interrogation, Due
Process, and Self-Incrimination
The Common Law Rule
McNabb-Mallory Doctrine
State Confession Cases
From the Voluntariness Standard to Miranda
Miranda v. Arizona
The Operation of the Exclusionary Rule
Supreme Court Review
Procedure in the Trial Courts
Due Process
History and Scope
Scope of the Guaranty
Procedural Due Process
Generally
Administrative Proceedings: A Fair Hearing
Aliens: Entry and Deportation
Judicial Review of Administrative Proceedings
Substantive Due Process
Discrimination
Congressional Police Measures
Congressional Regulation of Public Utilities
Congressional Regulation of Railroads
Taxation
Retroactive Taxes
Deprivation of Property: Retroactive Legislation
Bankruptcy Legislation
Right to Sue the Government
Congressional Power to Abolish Common Law Judicial
Actions
Deprivation of Liberty: Economic Legislation
National Eminent Domain Power
Overview
Public Use
Just Compensation
Interest
Rights for Which Compensation Must Be Made
Consequential Damages
Enforcement of Right to Compensation
When Property Is Taken
Government Activity Not Directed at the Property
Navigable Waters
Regulatory Takings
Double Jeopardy
Development and Scope
Reprosecution Following Mistrial
Reprosecution Following Acquittal
Acquittal by Jury
Acquittal by the Trial Judge
Trial Court Rulings Terminating Trial Before Verdict
Reprosecution Following Conviction
Reprosecution After Reversal on Defendant's Appeal
Sentence Increases
''For the Same Offence''
Legislative Discretion as to Multiple Sentences
Successive Prosecutions for ''The Same Offense''
The ''Same Transaction'' Problem
Self-Incrimination
Development and Scope
The Power to Compel Testimony and Disclosure
Immunity
Required Records Doctrine
Reporting and Disclosure
Confessions: Police Interrogation, Due
Process, and Self-Incrimination
The Common Law Rule
McNabb-Mallory Doctrine
State Confession Cases
From the Voluntariness Standard to Miranda
Miranda v. Arizona
The Operation of the Exclusionary Rule
Supreme Court Review
Procedure in the Trial Courts
Due Process
History and Scope
Scope of the Guaranty
Procedural Due Process
Generally
Administrative Proceedings: A Fair Hearing
Aliens: Entry and Deportation
Judicial Review of Administrative Proceedings
Substantive Due Process
Discrimination
Congressional Police Measures
Congressional Regulation of Public Utilities
Congressional Regulation of Railroads
Taxation
Retroactive Taxes
Deprivation of Property: Retroactive Legislation
Bankruptcy Legislation
Right to Sue the Government
Congressional Power to Abolish Common Law Judicial
Actions
Deprivation of Liberty: Economic Legislation
National Eminent Domain Power
Overview
Public Use
Just Compensation
Interest
Rights for Which Compensation Must Be Made
Consequential Damages
Enforcement of Right to Compensation
When Property Is Taken
Government Activity Not Directed at the Property
Navigable Waters
Regulatory Takings
Just for the fun of it, go to the link I’ve provided on the left
to Confessions: Police Interrogation, Due Process, and Self-
Incrimination. You’ll soon realize just how something
simple can get really complicated. When you become a
police officer, you’re going to learn that there is nothing
you do that isn’t going to be complicated by others. Don’t
forget, you’re going to be doing your job in a society where
lawyers actually outnumber police officers.
Miranda is not a Big Deal
You have to ask the question, “Why do we have Miranda?”
Prior to Miranda, every incriminating statement your
suspect made to you could be used as evidence against him
in court. This was not a good situation for the suspect, but
more importantly, it was not a good situation for the
attorney defending the suspect/defendant in court. The
lawyers and the judges – lawyers in robes – simply used
Miranda as a means to give lawyers an edge in gaining
acquittals for their defendants. Initially, Miranda was
beneficial to defendants and their lawyers, but once police
devised and perfected procedures for adhering to Miranda,
its adverse effects to prosecution and beneficial effects for
defendants and lawyers became negligible.
When you start interrogating suspects, you’ll probably be
surprised how little, if any at all, Miranda will affect your
suspect’s willingness to talk to you. Every now and then,
you’ll run into a suspect who will not talk. This suspect fits
a type. He could be completely ignorant of the Fifth
Amendment and Miranda, but he’ll be smart enough to
know that talking to you is not in his best interest.
One of the reasons why Miranda is ineffectual is that it is so
ingrained in our culture. For many people, familiarity with
anything will tend to diminish its importance. But, the
biggest pitfall for Miranda is human nature. Most people
have a natural urge to respond to accusatory statements or
questions. Even if a suspect exercises his right to remain
silent, there are no prohibitions for you, the interrogator, to
remain silent. A skilled interrogator, armed with relevant
information, can talk to a suspect in custody indefinitely
without ever asking a question. That same interrogator,
even with an attorney present, can phrase statements and
questions in ways which makes the suspect’s urge to
respond overwhelming notwithstanding his attorney
repeating, “Don’t answer that.” Remember, a key element
to any successful interrogation is custody. You have a –
literally – captive audience, and the interrogation isn’t over;
until, you say it’s over.
When it comes to terrorism and terror suspects, there are
plenty of valid arguments for treating terror suspects
differently from what we’d consider generic criminal
suspects. However, when any investigation attains a high
public profile, everything becomes more complicated. Let’s
take the case of Faisal Shahzad, the suspect charged in the
May 1, 2010 attempt to explode a car bomb in New York
to Confessions: Police Interrogation, Due Process, and Self-
Incrimination. You’ll soon realize just how something
simple can get really complicated. When you become a
police officer, you’re going to learn that there is nothing
you do that isn’t going to be complicated by others. Don’t
forget, you’re going to be doing your job in a society where
lawyers actually outnumber police officers.
Miranda is not a Big Deal
You have to ask the question, “Why do we have Miranda?”
Prior to Miranda, every incriminating statement your
suspect made to you could be used as evidence against him
in court. This was not a good situation for the suspect, but
more importantly, it was not a good situation for the
attorney defending the suspect/defendant in court. The
lawyers and the judges – lawyers in robes – simply used
Miranda as a means to give lawyers an edge in gaining
acquittals for their defendants. Initially, Miranda was
beneficial to defendants and their lawyers, but once police
devised and perfected procedures for adhering to Miranda,
its adverse effects to prosecution and beneficial effects for
defendants and lawyers became negligible.
When you start interrogating suspects, you’ll probably be
surprised how little, if any at all, Miranda will affect your
suspect’s willingness to talk to you. Every now and then,
you’ll run into a suspect who will not talk. This suspect fits
a type. He could be completely ignorant of the Fifth
Amendment and Miranda, but he’ll be smart enough to
know that talking to you is not in his best interest.
One of the reasons why Miranda is ineffectual is that it is so
ingrained in our culture. For many people, familiarity with
anything will tend to diminish its importance. But, the
biggest pitfall for Miranda is human nature. Most people
have a natural urge to respond to accusatory statements or
questions. Even if a suspect exercises his right to remain
silent, there are no prohibitions for you, the interrogator, to
remain silent. A skilled interrogator, armed with relevant
information, can talk to a suspect in custody indefinitely
without ever asking a question. That same interrogator,
even with an attorney present, can phrase statements and
questions in ways which makes the suspect’s urge to
respond overwhelming notwithstanding his attorney
repeating, “Don’t answer that.” Remember, a key element
to any successful interrogation is custody. You have a –
literally – captive audience, and the interrogation isn’t over;
until, you say it’s over.
When it comes to terrorism and terror suspects, there are
plenty of valid arguments for treating terror suspects
differently from what we’d consider generic criminal
suspects. However, when any investigation attains a high
public profile, everything becomes more complicated. Let’s
take the case of Faisal Shahzad, the suspect charged in the
May 1, 2010 attempt to explode a car bomb in New York
City’s Times Square. Even though Shahzad was given Miranda Warnings; the United States Department of
Justice was quick to announce that Shahzad was still talking. That announcement could be true and it probably is
true. The one thing that terror suspects have in common with other despicable criminal suspects is that they are
all people.
Personally, I’m in the camp with those who think a terror suspect associated with any terrorist network should be
treated differently from other criminal suspects. You probably don’t find that view surprising coming from a
career police officer, but it’s a position I don’t take lightly. I take individual rights and due process very
seriously; however, I also know that the goal of organized terrorism is to destroy the United States and all the
individual rights we enjoy.
Treatment of terror suspects did change after 9/11, but 9/11 is in the rear view mirror, and those charged with
protecting the country from terror attacks have determined that terror suspects should be treated like any other
criminal suspect. I just hope that another 9/11 by another name does not occur to change that view. If it does,
Miranda Warnings for terrorists still won’t be a big deal.
Justice was quick to announce that Shahzad was still talking. That announcement could be true and it probably is
true. The one thing that terror suspects have in common with other despicable criminal suspects is that they are
all people.
Personally, I’m in the camp with those who think a terror suspect associated with any terrorist network should be
treated differently from other criminal suspects. You probably don’t find that view surprising coming from a
career police officer, but it’s a position I don’t take lightly. I take individual rights and due process very
seriously; however, I also know that the goal of organized terrorism is to destroy the United States and all the
individual rights we enjoy.
Treatment of terror suspects did change after 9/11, but 9/11 is in the rear view mirror, and those charged with
protecting the country from terror attacks have determined that terror suspects should be treated like any other
criminal suspect. I just hope that another 9/11 by another name does not occur to change that view. If it does,
Miranda Warnings for terrorists still won’t be a big deal.
| Times Square Bomb - Was It A Dirty Bomb? |
Have you ever stopped to think how difficult it is for terrorists to make real, and more importantly lasting,
impacts on the United States? Here in Baltimore over the 2010 Memorial Day weekend, twelve people were shot
in eleven separate incidents; eight fatally. While that’s a bad weekend even for Baltimore, it’s not unusual.
It’s pretty amazing how much tolerance people can develop for violence. But…keep in mind that there are two
types of tolerance. If you’re a person who lives or works almost continuously in an environment where violence
is common, you’ll develop personal strategies and tactics to avoid becoming a victim. This type of tolerance is
born out of a simple realization of reality and your inability to change that reality. The second type of tolerance is
easy to develop if you’re a person whose only contact with violence comes in the form of network or cable
television reports of violence and the injuries and deaths associated with the violence. You can shake your head
and comment on how terrible it is and then go back to your day to day activities. As problematic as violence is in
the United States, most Americans fall into the second type of tolerance paradigm.
Herein lay the problem for all the Osama bin Laden disciples or any other pathological killers intent on effecting
their warped concepts of change through acts of terror. The terrorist attacks on 9/11 certainly got everyone’s
attention… at least for a while. But, people are people, and Americans are no different from any other people
when it comes to short spans of attention. As bad as 9/11 was, most Americans will never be able to fully
conceptualize that event except for those who actually were there to experience and survive the carnage.
Then comes May 1, 2010 when a Nissan Pathfinder is parked in New York City’s Times Square containing
fireworks; propane; gasoline; fertilizer and some other items:
One CBS News story described the cost of the items found in the Nissan:
“The M88 fireworks were purchased for $95 in Pennsylvania. A gun safe similar to the one found in the Nissan
can be purchased for about $290.00.
Then we estimated the cost of the other bomb components: eight bags of fertilizer $160.00, 3 Propane Gas
Canisters, $149.00, two alarm clocks, $15.00, two five-gallon gas canisters, $26.00, and gasoline for the canisters,
$34.00.
Grand Total - about $2,100.00”
When I heard the news reports describing the bomb which failed to detonate, my interest was immediately drawn
to what was generally described as a 70 pound gun safe. Evidently, CBS found the same type of gun safe – more
accurately a gun fire safe – as I found on the Internet at 69 pounds and retailing for $289.00. News reports would
subsequently reveal, according to government sources, that the gun safe contained fertilizer. Here’s the
interesting thing about the gun fire safe that I found… the interior dimensions of the safe – 7.09”H x 11.81”W x
8.86”D – is not a lot of room. Even if you believe New York Mayor Bloomberg’s description of the bomb as
“amateurish,” it strains logic to believe that the safe contained fertilizer. What I found “amateurish” was the
media’s lack of curiosity for an item which seemed so out of place in the construction of a car bomb… or was it
out of place?
Remember, 9/11 placed the bar really high for terrorists. New York City remains a prime target for terrorists. If
terrorists can make successful strikes against New York, they can exhibit their ability to strike anywhere. While
the detonation of a car bomb in New York City’s Time Square resulting in any significant loss of life would be
viewed as a success by terrorists, it would still fall far short of a 9/11; unless, something contained in that car
bomb could leave behind a long lasting negative effect on lives and the city’s economy.
Every item described was, in and of itself, an item which was designed for anything other than a bomb. News
reporters and pundits talked about the common nature of the bomb components, but little time was devoted to
that out of place “gun safe.” Where was the discussion of the possibility of the gun safe containing radiological,
chemical, or biological material? If indeed the safe contained material to facilitate a “dirty bomb,” my money
would be on chemical or biological. That gun fire safe could protect the material from being destroyed by the
initial fire ball created by the propane and gasoline.
Okay, my speculation that the Times Square bomb could have been a dirty bomb is just that… pure speculation.
After all, the only information forthcoming is from government sources filtered through the media; neither of
which can be viewed as possessing a high level of credibility.
The truth of the matter is this. Anytime you, as a police officer, encounter a crime scene, the information
coming out of that scene will depend upon the amount of interest from other police officers, investigators,
politicians and media. Let’s say you respond to a location in a seedy part of town to investigate a possible
overdose. You find a body, and you observe evidence – suspected controlled dangerous substance(s);
paraphernalia, etc. – to indicate that the person may have died from an overdose. The victim appears to be a
regular drug user evidenced by the track marks on his arms. The victim also sadly appears to be of no obvious
importance in the societal scheme of things. You go about following procedures and documenting your actions and
collection of evidence. The body goes to the medical examiner who will eventually confirm the cause of death
from the results of the autopsy, and the information provided from your investigation.
Now, let’s change this drug overdose scenario just a bit. The possible overdose you’re investigating is now located
in the room of a downtown four star hotel. The victim is a person of national celebrity. Aside from the location
and the victim’s social status, this scenario is exactly the same as the first. While the first scenario didn’t even
draw the interest of another police officer, the second one is going to draw plenty of attention from all quarters.
Unless the investigation is snatched away from you, you’re going to go about things exactly as you did in the first
scenario. However, when you begin hearing media reports regarding the incident, you may not recognize much of
what you hear.
The scenarios I just described have one very important thing in common with the attempt to bomb Times Square;
that one important thing is… how important an event is perceived to be. If the media were really interested in
the first scenario, they might be allowed to get information directly from you. Even if there’d be a filter in the
form of a public information officer, that would still be only one layer of bureaucracy, and while they’d still
probably get something wrong, most of the information would be disseminated and reported accurately. The
second scenario would be a whole different story. You can only imagine how many layers of bureaucracy would be
involved, and how many sources of information would be developed among people who may, or may not, have any
accurate information to share.
There’s no question that the Times Square bomb was one very important event, and that gun safe – if indeed it
was a gun safe – will always be a source of curiosity for me. However, I’m just glad that the bomb failed, and I’ll
just have to live with my curiosity. If the alleged bomber, Faisal Shahzad, was not, in fact, the bumbling fool the
government would like us to believe, and he succeeded in constructing a dirty bomb, the fact that the information
would not be shared with the public is not a bad thing.
impacts on the United States? Here in Baltimore over the 2010 Memorial Day weekend, twelve people were shot
in eleven separate incidents; eight fatally. While that’s a bad weekend even for Baltimore, it’s not unusual.
It’s pretty amazing how much tolerance people can develop for violence. But…keep in mind that there are two
types of tolerance. If you’re a person who lives or works almost continuously in an environment where violence
is common, you’ll develop personal strategies and tactics to avoid becoming a victim. This type of tolerance is
born out of a simple realization of reality and your inability to change that reality. The second type of tolerance is
easy to develop if you’re a person whose only contact with violence comes in the form of network or cable
television reports of violence and the injuries and deaths associated with the violence. You can shake your head
and comment on how terrible it is and then go back to your day to day activities. As problematic as violence is in
the United States, most Americans fall into the second type of tolerance paradigm.
Herein lay the problem for all the Osama bin Laden disciples or any other pathological killers intent on effecting
their warped concepts of change through acts of terror. The terrorist attacks on 9/11 certainly got everyone’s
attention… at least for a while. But, people are people, and Americans are no different from any other people
when it comes to short spans of attention. As bad as 9/11 was, most Americans will never be able to fully
conceptualize that event except for those who actually were there to experience and survive the carnage.
Then comes May 1, 2010 when a Nissan Pathfinder is parked in New York City’s Times Square containing
fireworks; propane; gasoline; fertilizer and some other items:
One CBS News story described the cost of the items found in the Nissan:
“The M88 fireworks were purchased for $95 in Pennsylvania. A gun safe similar to the one found in the Nissan
can be purchased for about $290.00.
Then we estimated the cost of the other bomb components: eight bags of fertilizer $160.00, 3 Propane Gas
Canisters, $149.00, two alarm clocks, $15.00, two five-gallon gas canisters, $26.00, and gasoline for the canisters,
$34.00.
Grand Total - about $2,100.00”
When I heard the news reports describing the bomb which failed to detonate, my interest was immediately drawn
to what was generally described as a 70 pound gun safe. Evidently, CBS found the same type of gun safe – more
accurately a gun fire safe – as I found on the Internet at 69 pounds and retailing for $289.00. News reports would
subsequently reveal, according to government sources, that the gun safe contained fertilizer. Here’s the
interesting thing about the gun fire safe that I found… the interior dimensions of the safe – 7.09”H x 11.81”W x
8.86”D – is not a lot of room. Even if you believe New York Mayor Bloomberg’s description of the bomb as
“amateurish,” it strains logic to believe that the safe contained fertilizer. What I found “amateurish” was the
media’s lack of curiosity for an item which seemed so out of place in the construction of a car bomb… or was it
out of place?
Remember, 9/11 placed the bar really high for terrorists. New York City remains a prime target for terrorists. If
terrorists can make successful strikes against New York, they can exhibit their ability to strike anywhere. While
the detonation of a car bomb in New York City’s Time Square resulting in any significant loss of life would be
viewed as a success by terrorists, it would still fall far short of a 9/11; unless, something contained in that car
bomb could leave behind a long lasting negative effect on lives and the city’s economy.
Every item described was, in and of itself, an item which was designed for anything other than a bomb. News
reporters and pundits talked about the common nature of the bomb components, but little time was devoted to
that out of place “gun safe.” Where was the discussion of the possibility of the gun safe containing radiological,
chemical, or biological material? If indeed the safe contained material to facilitate a “dirty bomb,” my money
would be on chemical or biological. That gun fire safe could protect the material from being destroyed by the
initial fire ball created by the propane and gasoline.
Okay, my speculation that the Times Square bomb could have been a dirty bomb is just that… pure speculation.
After all, the only information forthcoming is from government sources filtered through the media; neither of
which can be viewed as possessing a high level of credibility.
The truth of the matter is this. Anytime you, as a police officer, encounter a crime scene, the information
coming out of that scene will depend upon the amount of interest from other police officers, investigators,
politicians and media. Let’s say you respond to a location in a seedy part of town to investigate a possible
overdose. You find a body, and you observe evidence – suspected controlled dangerous substance(s);
paraphernalia, etc. – to indicate that the person may have died from an overdose. The victim appears to be a
regular drug user evidenced by the track marks on his arms. The victim also sadly appears to be of no obvious
importance in the societal scheme of things. You go about following procedures and documenting your actions and
collection of evidence. The body goes to the medical examiner who will eventually confirm the cause of death
from the results of the autopsy, and the information provided from your investigation.
Now, let’s change this drug overdose scenario just a bit. The possible overdose you’re investigating is now located
in the room of a downtown four star hotel. The victim is a person of national celebrity. Aside from the location
and the victim’s social status, this scenario is exactly the same as the first. While the first scenario didn’t even
draw the interest of another police officer, the second one is going to draw plenty of attention from all quarters.
Unless the investigation is snatched away from you, you’re going to go about things exactly as you did in the first
scenario. However, when you begin hearing media reports regarding the incident, you may not recognize much of
what you hear.
The scenarios I just described have one very important thing in common with the attempt to bomb Times Square;
that one important thing is… how important an event is perceived to be. If the media were really interested in
the first scenario, they might be allowed to get information directly from you. Even if there’d be a filter in the
form of a public information officer, that would still be only one layer of bureaucracy, and while they’d still
probably get something wrong, most of the information would be disseminated and reported accurately. The
second scenario would be a whole different story. You can only imagine how many layers of bureaucracy would be
involved, and how many sources of information would be developed among people who may, or may not, have any
accurate information to share.
There’s no question that the Times Square bomb was one very important event, and that gun safe – if indeed it
was a gun safe – will always be a source of curiosity for me. However, I’m just glad that the bomb failed, and I’ll
just have to live with my curiosity. If the alleged bomber, Faisal Shahzad, was not, in fact, the bumbling fool the
government would like us to believe, and he succeeded in constructing a dirty bomb, the fact that the information
would not be shared with the public is not a bad thing.
Evidence is Evidence... but
There are so many reasons why every
American should be grateful that he or she is
an American. One of those reasons is a
criminal justice system that is fairer to those
accused of crimes than any other justice
system in the world. In fact, it’s so fair that
even if a mountain of evidence exists to
convict a person, a portion of that evidence –
or even the entire mountain – may not be
admissible in court to be used against a
criminal defendant.
One has to wonder when a good thing
becomes too much of a good thing. When
you become a police officer
you’re going to lose cases simply because of
inadmissibility of evidence you’ve seized or
collected. The inadmissibility of the evidence
need not have anything to do with the quality
or veracity of the evidence. In most
instances the inadmissibility will be
determined by how, and under what
circumstances, you seized or collected the
evidence.
In the beginning, your lack of knowledge and
experience may cause you some confusion in
understanding why some evidence is excluded
from a prosecution. As time goes by and
your knowledge and experience expands,
you’ll master the constitutional processes
that dictate how you collect and seize
evidence. You should, and I emphasis
should, also come to appreciate the rights
guaranteed under the 4th, 5th, and 14th
Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
However… as you become grounded in the
rational applications of evidence collection
and admissibility, you will experience some
frustration when you see how some lawyers
and judges apply their own theories and
interpretations to admissibility issues.
Politics has everything to do with every
aspect of the criminal justice system, and it’s
always been that way. When I began my
police career in the early 1970’s, everything
was subject to hyper-technical
interpretations. As the years passed and
crime rates dictated a more rational
application of criminal justice, things got a lot
better.
However… everything is cyclical, and I fear
that you’ll be facing a repeat of the hyper-
technical interpretations of the past. When I
began my career, the debilitating debate was
rehabilitation versus punishment. Today,
political correctness is the monster in the
room where everything is what it is, but it’s
something different. An illegal alien has
become an undocumented immigrant, and
the term “enemy combatant” has been
ceremoniously removed from the lexicon. It
won’t be long before the television pundits
will be identifying terrorists and terrorism as
the “T Word.”
When it comes to the terrorists… er…
detainees still in custody, the problem of
admissibility of evidence really
won't be a problem. You see, the War on
Terror ended on January 20th, 2009, and
nobody even noticed.
American should be grateful that he or she is
an American. One of those reasons is a
criminal justice system that is fairer to those
accused of crimes than any other justice
system in the world. In fact, it’s so fair that
even if a mountain of evidence exists to
convict a person, a portion of that evidence –
or even the entire mountain – may not be
admissible in court to be used against a
criminal defendant.
One has to wonder when a good thing
becomes too much of a good thing. When
you become a police officer
you’re going to lose cases simply because of
inadmissibility of evidence you’ve seized or
collected. The inadmissibility of the evidence
need not have anything to do with the quality
or veracity of the evidence. In most
instances the inadmissibility will be
determined by how, and under what
circumstances, you seized or collected the
evidence.
In the beginning, your lack of knowledge and
experience may cause you some confusion in
understanding why some evidence is excluded
from a prosecution. As time goes by and
your knowledge and experience expands,
you’ll master the constitutional processes
that dictate how you collect and seize
evidence. You should, and I emphasis
should, also come to appreciate the rights
guaranteed under the 4th, 5th, and 14th
Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
However… as you become grounded in the
rational applications of evidence collection
and admissibility, you will experience some
frustration when you see how some lawyers
and judges apply their own theories and
interpretations to admissibility issues.
Politics has everything to do with every
aspect of the criminal justice system, and it’s
always been that way. When I began my
police career in the early 1970’s, everything
was subject to hyper-technical
interpretations. As the years passed and
crime rates dictated a more rational
application of criminal justice, things got a lot
better.
However… everything is cyclical, and I fear
that you’ll be facing a repeat of the hyper-
technical interpretations of the past. When I
began my career, the debilitating debate was
rehabilitation versus punishment. Today,
political correctness is the monster in the
room where everything is what it is, but it’s
something different. An illegal alien has
become an undocumented immigrant, and
the term “enemy combatant” has been
ceremoniously removed from the lexicon. It
won’t be long before the television pundits
will be identifying terrorists and terrorism as
the “T Word.”
When it comes to the terrorists… er…
detainees still in custody, the problem of
admissibility of evidence really
won't be a problem. You see, the War on
Terror ended on January 20th, 2009, and
nobody even noticed.