Tag: Your Government Doesn’t Love You

Honduras Still Receiving Backlash for Enforcing Their Constititution

A while ago there was quite a stink over Honduras actually enforcing their Constitution and removing their then president from power. Well a lot of well respected neighboring states including Venezuela and our own government didn’t like the idea of a country actually obeying it’s own laws and threw up a stink.

Now they are threatening (promising?) to not attend the yearly European Union-Latin America summit if Honduras’s current president, Porfirio Lobo, attends. See they don’t recognize the legitimacy of Mr. Lobo’s seat because a potential dictator was removed lawfully to put Lobo in place. I love this:

An aide to Brazil’s President Lula, Marco Aurelio Garcia, said: “If Honduras attends, then at least 10 Latin American presidents will not go to Madrid, starting with the president of Brazil.”

I wonder what types of governments those 10 countries have. Probably something along the lines of what Venezuela has which is idealistically opposed to what the summit is apparently about:

But correspondents say its goals of development and democracy-building remain far off.

Yeah that’s not sounding like a threat so much as a promise.

Real Terrorist Prevention

Bruce Schneier once again points out how our government’s policies and methods for preventing terrorism are wrong. He wrote a recent article for the New York Times that describes what is being down incorrectly:

Think about the security measures commonly proposed. Cameras won’t help. They don’t prevent terrorist attacks, and their forensic value after the fact is minimal. In the Times Square case, surely there’s enough other evidence — the car’s identification number, the auto body shop the stolen license plates came from, the name of the fertilizer store — to identify the guy. We will almost certainly not need the camera footage. The images released so far, like the images in so many other terrorist attacks, may make for exciting television, but their value to law enforcement officers is limited.

Check points won’t help, either. You can’t check everybody and everything. There are too many people to check, and too many train stations, buses, theaters, department stores and other places where people congregate. Patrolling guards, bomb-sniffing dogs, chemical and biological weapons detectors: they all suffer from similar problems. In general, focusing on specific tactics or defending specific targets doesn’t make sense. They’re inflexible; possibly effective if you guess the plot correctly, but completely ineffective if you don’t. At best, the countermeasures just force the terrorists to make minor changes in their tactic and target.

Exactly. Our government agencies focus on specific threats and put in countermeasures for threats that have already been used. When somebody put explosives in their shoes TSA made you remove your shoes at their “security” checkpoints. When somebody tried using a liquid bomb on a plane TSA barred you from carrying bottled water on board (unless you purchased it at an exorbitant rate behind the “security” checkpoint). But bad guys are creative and think up new methods that avoid the implemented specific threat countermeasures.

No Miranda Rights For You

Dvorak Uncensored lead me to another reason for me to hate most of our politicians. Senator Lindsey Graham wants to deny reading Miranda rights to “suspect terrorists.” This another one of those bills that may look acceptable on paper until you look at what Senator Graham views as a terrorist:

“The homeland is part of the battlefield. So this idea that you get to America, the rules dramatically change, to the benefit of the suspect – the terrorist – makes no sense,” he said.

Yes the suspect is a terrorist. Note that wording. The suspect is not a potential terrorist, he or she is a terrorist. I’ve often argued that terrorism is akin to child molestation in this country in that you are guilty upon accusation. In either of the two cases you are pretty much screwed because even if you are found guilty the stain of the accusation is permanent and is as good as being found guilty. I will note another thing here:

Graham told POLITICO he is working on legislation that would redefine the so-called “public safety exemption” to Miranda warnings. Under current law, police can question a suspect to obtain admissible evidence without informing them of their rights if they believe that there is an “exigent danger” – like a ticking time bomb — that another crime is about to be committed.

If the suspected terrorist is an immediate threat Miranda rights can be ignore. So why do we need another law? Oh that’s right because you could avoid having to inform detainees of their rights simply by accusing them of terrorism.

Now truth be told you’re an idiot if you don’t know your rights. I’m not saying having to read Miranda rights is a good or bad thing here (personally I think they’re a good thing). What I’m saying is we shouldn’t be making exceptions like these to laws. It’s a slippery slope to say the least. The next thing that would be up I believe would be an exemption to a fast and speedy trial for suspected terrorists holding an American citizenship caught within the United States.

Likewise Mr. Graham’s attitude that suspected terrorists are automatically guilty is disturbing. Nobody who is making laws should have this attitude.

What is this Supposed to Be, Some Kind of Sick Joke

Hey want to know a secret? I hate the United Nations. Wait that’s not a secret at all. The U.N. is nothing more than a farce pretending to be an organization working for equal human rights. What they actually mean is equal human rights so long as they’re convenient to government power. That’s the joke of it all really, the U.N. is an organization made up entirely of world governments so you can guess their agenda is slightly slanted.

But this takes the cake:

High off its success in keeping Iran from joining the U.N.’s Human Rights Council, the U.S. appears to have missed its chance to object to Iran’s selection to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, which was affirmed during a so-called U.N. vote this week.

Yup Iran was elected to the Commission of the Status of Women. You know because Iran is so big on the rights of women and all.

More On Arizona SB 1070

As I mentioned earlier I do not like Arizona’s new law on grounds that it’s vaguely written and ignores presumption of innocence. Of course with all the screaming, pissing, and moaning over this bill I’ve been trying to figure out why the Hell it was passed in the first place.

Like most issues this one is not black and white. I admit I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to the crime rates of other states unless it comes up in an anti-gun article trying to use those rates to promote their campaign of disarmament. Looking further into SB 1070 the main argument appears to deal with the fact that Arizona has a slight crime problem. First and foremost Phoenix kidnapping capital of the country.

This seems to be the main justification for the passing of the bill, crime. But of course the issue isn’t black and white even with that information. See most of the kidnappings appear to be drug and gang related. But most importantly most of the crime committed by these illegal immigrants is against… illegal immigrants:

Police in the desert city say specialized kidnap rings are snatching suspected criminals and their families from their homes, running them off the roads and even grabbing them at shopping malls in a spiraling spate of abductions.

“Phoenix is ground zero for illegal narcotics smuggling and illegal human smuggling in the United States,” said Phil Roberts, a Phoenix Police Department detective.

“There’s a lot of illegal cash out there in the valley, and a lot of people want to get their hands on it.”

Last year alone, Phoenix police reported 357 extortion-related abductions — up by nearly half from 2005 — targeting individuals with ties to Mexican smuggling rings.

So now I have the justification of the new bill. By targeting illegal immigrants specifically Arizona could stand to dramatically lower their overall crime rate. The problem is the implementation still sucks as it’s vague and gives the police the authority to target individuals without anything more than reasonable suspension.

Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act

There has been a lot of hullabaloo over Arizona’s new law that has claimed to give police the right to ask for your papers so to speak. With all the hysteria surrounding the bill I decided to go read the bill for myself. I’m not a lawyer but I can generally derive laws from text to an extent. It didn’t take long for me to find the clause that’s causing all the uproar:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Talk about vague. I found nothing else in this bill that specifies what lawful contact means, what reasonable suspicion means (usually it’s a cheap cop out that gives officers the authority to make up any old reason for searching your person or vehicle), or what they mean by when practicable.

I believe there are always grounds for concern when vague laws are passed. With the wording present seems to make it perfectly legal for an officer to walk up to you and ask for your papers. As no guidelines are in the bill restricting what “reasonable suspicion” is the officer can pretty much make up any old excuse (the suspect was talking in Spanish, etc.). After carousing through the entire bill I can say that yes this is a horrible piece of legislation based on the above mentioned clause.

This law enacts a guilty until proven innocent clause. According the the Supreme Court case Coffin v. United States (and common sense):

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.

The entire text of the decision can be read here. It’s a good read as it does go over the history of presumption of innocence. And that is my major quarrel with Arizona’s new law. It violates the basic idea that a person is presumed innocent. Remember no proof of a crime needs to exist for an officer to ask for your papers, just reasonable suspicion (which could be anything really).

Whether you want stronger immigration laws and/or stricter laws against illegal aliens in this country I think you can agree that assuming guilt is no sane way to approach this topic in a free country (and if you think the idea of guilty until proven innocent is a good idea may I suggest moving to China). A person should never have to be assumed guilty without hard evidence collected tying them to the said crime. Having “reasonable suspicion” isn’t hard evidence nor does it constitute an investigation. It just means the officer had a hunch or gut feeling and was able to articulate it well enough to be considered “reasonable” (reasonable of course being different depending on the person you talk to).

Personally I think this is a horrible law that goes against the very ideas this country’s justice system is founded on.

Body Banks

I’m guessing most people reading this site don’t remember the ’80’s cyberpunk T.V. show Max Headroom. It was a great, although very short lived, show dealing with all sorts of technological issues. One thing that was prominent in the future were body banks. Body banks were where dead people were shipped to and their organs sold off for sale.

Well Uncle informs us that New York may be going that route. If Assemblyman Brodsky has his way you will become state property upon death and your organs will be dispersed.

Now I’m all for donating your organs upon death but this is outrageous. The state would be laying claim to your body making you property of the government. I’m sorry but if somebody doesn’t want to donate their organs when they die that’s their own damned business.

Blame Game is Go

Tam points out that Mayor Daley of Chicago has decided to attempt going above the authority of the Supreme Court:

Six years after the state Supreme Court dismissed his $433 million lawsuit against the gun industry, Mayor Daley today called for a change of venue — to the World Court normally reserved for disputes between nations and crimes against humanity.

Wrapping up the sixth annual Richard J. Daley Global Cities Forum, Daley convinced more than a dozen of his counterparts from around the world to approve a resolution urging “redress against the gun industry through the courts of the world” in The Hague.

Yes Major Daley, now to be known on this blog as High Priest Douche, wants to take gun industry members to the world court in The Hague. This court is generally only used for crimes against all humanity, not developing devices that help liberate humanity. The bullshit is thick with this one:

“This is coming from international mayors. They’re saying, ‘We’re tired of your guns, America. … We don’t want those anymore because guns kill and injure people,’ ” Daley told a news conference at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“If we ship over poison to a country, don’t you think we should be responsible for it? That’s what they’re saying: ‘Be responsible for what you manufacture and sell in my country.’ … You have to think outside the box. You have to be [aggressive] about how you protect your people.”

Guns kill and injure people? By that logic you guys no longer want our cars… oh wait you probably don’t. By that logic you guys don’t want cars, period.

Every time an anti-gunner brings up the phrase, “guns kill people” I present a logical experiment (because logic truly is the anti-gunner’s worst nightmare). Let’s say I sit you down at a table and on that table I place a loaded firearm pointing at you. What will happen? Nothing, you’ll be fine. Now let’s say I put a punk who wants to kill you behind that gun what will happen? You’ll probably be shot. Now let’s say I take the gun out of the picture and just have the punk across the table what will happen? He’ll probably kill you with his bear hands.

The gun is incapable of killing somebody only the person wielding it can kill somebody. Guns are not an industrial pollutant or poison. If you release cyanide into the water and people drink it they can die. If you release guns into the water nobody will die from drinking it. It’s not a poison.

But logic isn’t something High Priest Douche Daley is good with. He only knows corruption and how to avoid the law (in this case the law of the Supreme Court). He didn’t get what he wanted so he’s trying to go to somebody who he hopes will give him what he wants. What if the world court ruled against him? Would he demand a new solar system court be created with a seat on Mars? Seriously this guy is a corrupt bastard.

Finally I’m going to throw out there that instead of thinking guns are poison think of them as liberation. Guns have help citizens living under tyranny to overthrow their governments… oh yeah that’s why these international mayors don’t like guns. It would give people a fighting chance against their corrupt rule.