Due to the proliferation of red light cameras, innocent motorists are slowing down precipitously at intersections, leading to greatly increased instances of rear end collisions. There is absolutely no evidence to support this conjecture, but it sounds right, so it must be true.
According to FBI Director James Comey and acting DEA chief Chuck Rosenberg, crime is on the increase because police, unhappily confronted with citizen cell phone cameras, are hesitant to get out of their cars for fear of being recorded in the performance of their duties. Although there is absolutely no evidence to support this idea, it sounds right, so it must be true.
"Well, you know," one hypothetical police officer possibly might say, "it could look bad if a film of me pushing some old black woman's face down on the sidewalk gets on the internet — but if she stops her walker in a no stopping zone, what am I supposed to do?"
Indeed, what is he supposed to do? Better to stay in his car and lay low, rather than risk embarrassment. Better yet, he should resign from the police force and stop collecting a salary for not doing his job.
Crime rates, just like death rates for middle aged white Americans, are up — and both probably are up for the same reason: more and more people are leading lives of desperation. Crime is up, along with suicide, drug abuse, family violence, and a general loss of hope.
Cameras help to slow the rate at which drivers run red lights, and the rate of deaths arising from such behavior. Cameras help to reduce the rate of police abuse of ordinary people, and the erosion of all our civil liberties. Let's keep the cameras rolling.
Showing posts with label civil liberties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil liberties. Show all posts
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
The Patriot Act
So, the Patriot Act is lapsed. Sort of. Minimally. "Grandfather" clauses permit investigations begun prior to June 1 to continue, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if just a little pre-dating went on while Congress is getting its act together.
It looks like the House's USAFreedom Act (I have no idea what strained title the acronym stands for) is likely to become the new law, and it is an improvement over the old law, albeit imperfect. There will be some attempts at amendment in the Senate, but since any changes would send the bill back to the House, thereby delaying passage and "threatening our national security" for a while longer, the odds are that no amendments will be approved. One proposed amendment I rather like would prevent the government from using evidence of crimes unrelated to terrorism from being used in criminal prosecutions. If a non-terrorist were found, for example, to be engaged in insider trading or selling counterfeit Viagra, that evidence could be suppressed in the defendant's criminal trial. (Even if the bill is amended, though, that particular amendment is dead in the water.)
Personally, I don't see any problem with "roving" wiretaps, with subpeonas targeting specific human beings rather than specific telephone numbers. I also see no problem with gathering data on "lone wolves," not that any "lone wolves" (Tamerlan Tsarnaev, for example) have been tracked to date. As far as I can tell, those so-called "lone wolves" are the only real danger at the moment, and more of them arise from the homegrown "Patriot" and "Christian Identity" movements than from Islamists.
It looks like the House's USAFreedom Act (I have no idea what strained title the acronym stands for) is likely to become the new law, and it is an improvement over the old law, albeit imperfect. There will be some attempts at amendment in the Senate, but since any changes would send the bill back to the House, thereby delaying passage and "threatening our national security" for a while longer, the odds are that no amendments will be approved. One proposed amendment I rather like would prevent the government from using evidence of crimes unrelated to terrorism from being used in criminal prosecutions. If a non-terrorist were found, for example, to be engaged in insider trading or selling counterfeit Viagra, that evidence could be suppressed in the defendant's criminal trial. (Even if the bill is amended, though, that particular amendment is dead in the water.)
Personally, I don't see any problem with "roving" wiretaps, with subpeonas targeting specific human beings rather than specific telephone numbers. I also see no problem with gathering data on "lone wolves," not that any "lone wolves" (Tamerlan Tsarnaev, for example) have been tracked to date. As far as I can tell, those so-called "lone wolves" are the only real danger at the moment, and more of them arise from the homegrown "Patriot" and "Christian Identity" movements than from Islamists.
Friday, December 9, 2011
SB 1867
It's been easy to miss, but this year's Defense Appropriations Bill includes some language that has civil libertarians in an uproar. See if you can figure out what's wrong with this section:
SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
So far, it seems almost reasonable — military detention for terrorists, right? There are a couple of little problems, though. First, there is no burden of proof involved. An accusation is enough to justify detention indefinitely, with no right to anything resembling a trial. More importantly, perhaps, it authorizes the military to exercise police powers within the borders of the United States, thereby overturning the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 — but stay tuned for the real kicker:
APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
On first reading, you might think US citizens are exempt but, as the ACLU has pointed out, the fact that there is no requirement that the military detain citizens without trial (or even a grand jury hearing) does not mean that the military cannot choose to do so — nor that the President cannot order the military to do so. Remember, all that is necessary is an accusation — no actual evidence is required.
Currently, the bill is in the hands of a Conference Committee to reconcile House and Senate versions, but there is no reason to believe that committee will do anything to ease civil liberties concerns. An attempt to amend the Senate bill to change the language failed. Our President has threatened a veto — not because he doesn't think he ought to have the powers of a military dictator, but because he sees other sections of the law as an attempt by Congress to micromanage the so-called "war on terror." Violations of roughly half the Bill of Rights don't seem to bother him.
George W. Bush began the campaign to suspend the right of Habeus Corpus. Barack Obama has continued it. Somehow, I can't see Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich sacrificing any executive powers if one of them becomes our next Commander in Chief.
SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
So far, it seems almost reasonable — military detention for terrorists, right? There are a couple of little problems, though. First, there is no burden of proof involved. An accusation is enough to justify detention indefinitely, with no right to anything resembling a trial. More importantly, perhaps, it authorizes the military to exercise police powers within the borders of the United States, thereby overturning the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 — but stay tuned for the real kicker:
APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
On first reading, you might think US citizens are exempt but, as the ACLU has pointed out, the fact that there is no requirement that the military detain citizens without trial (or even a grand jury hearing) does not mean that the military cannot choose to do so — nor that the President cannot order the military to do so. Remember, all that is necessary is an accusation — no actual evidence is required.
Currently, the bill is in the hands of a Conference Committee to reconcile House and Senate versions, but there is no reason to believe that committee will do anything to ease civil liberties concerns. An attempt to amend the Senate bill to change the language failed. Our President has threatened a veto — not because he doesn't think he ought to have the powers of a military dictator, but because he sees other sections of the law as an attempt by Congress to micromanage the so-called "war on terror." Violations of roughly half the Bill of Rights don't seem to bother him.
George W. Bush began the campaign to suspend the right of Habeus Corpus. Barack Obama has continued it. Somehow, I can't see Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich sacrificing any executive powers if one of them becomes our next Commander in Chief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)