Civil Rights

Reason has an excellent (but lengthy) article on the return of the militia scare.  

It seems that even granting police dramatic stop-and-search powers doesn't prevent being mugged from being a part of everyday life.  However, at least the stop-and-search powers are being abused in a racially balanced manner!

Probably not, even after watching this training video... especially as the training video covers "extremist views" rather than terrorism.  No doubt the kids will be turning in anyone who advocates that they defend themselves from the playground bully. 

... I wrote up a post on statistics and the assault weapons ban.  Someone else with a bit of an education has applied statistical reasoning to the list of car dealerships being shut down.  The theory is that the Obama administration is shutting down dealerships (in connection with the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies and bailouts) that are political opponents (ie, Republicans or who contribute to Republicans).  It turns out that there's nothing to most of the conspiracy theories...

... but Clinton donors tend not to get shut down, at a p value of .125.  That's a 12.5% chance that the correlation with Clinton donors was attributable to chance, compared to p values of about 50% with other variables.  As the person who did the research points out, a 5% chance is the "gold standard" for this sort of work, but 10% is sometimes used, and 12.5% is unusual in the context of the others.  It's not proof, but it's food for thought.

I should mention also it's not clear what other variables were being measured.  Looking at the geographic data, that could perhaps explain the correlation -- a lot of political attention from Clinton during the primary campaign plus a decision making criteria emphasizing "one dealer per region".  There's nothing solid here -- yet.  But these initial results do suggest that there is something going on that should be explained, even if that explanation is innocuous.

UPDATE: Lott doesn't think there's anything to this claim as it applies to Republicans, but doesn't say anything about the possible Clinton donor angle.

Earlier, I wrote about a case where a student's use of the command line prompt was judged to be "evidence of computer expertise" and that evidence was used as probable cause to search and seize his computer equipment and terminate his network access.  The theory was that he might have sent a (relatively harmless, not threatening) hoax email that Boston College was investigating. 

The EFF got behind the student and it looks like the correct outcome has resulted.

Nonetheless, one conclusion is inescapable.  The Internet used to be a place where minimal regulation was the order of the day; people cooperated willingly on core protocols and dealt with problems by adapting the technology rather than relying on the heavy hand of government regulation.  For a brief time, the Internet was the frontier: new, exciting, unregulated.

That age is over. 

The Texas Libertarian Party is opposing State Senate Bill 298, which would impose sobriety checkpoints.  Their research references the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, which includes this quote:

Used to deter drinking and driving, sobriety checkpoints are related more directly to educating the public and encouraging designated drivers, rather than actually apprehending impaired drivers. Typically, sobriety checkpoints do not yield a large volume of DUI arrests. Instead, they offer authorities an educational tool. Education and awareness serve as a significant part of deterrence. Frequent use of checkpoints and aggressive media coverage can create a convincing threat in people's minds that officers will apprehend impaired drivers -- a key to general deterrence.

You didn't actually think that sobriety checkpoints were about catching drunk drivers, did you?  Nope. Yet another instance of security theater.  Not to mention harassing honest citizens and eroding the fourth amendment.

Another revealing quote:

If an agency's goal is to reduce the number of impaired drivers over time, it should use both sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols, as well as any other available methods. The bottom line is to do something "do everything" to remove impaired drivers from America's highways.

The bottom line is, apparently, who cares if it works?  Who cares about the constitutional rights of drivers?  Who cares about the inconvenience to honest citizens?  Evidently, not the FBI, and not local police forces either.  The article quotes Mothers Against Drunk Driving 4 times, and National Commission Against Drunk Driving 3 times -- combined, more footnotes to special interest groups than to actual police or law enforcement sources.

At Boston College, a Linux user had all of his computer equipment confiscated by the campus police.  They were seeking to determine whether he had sent an email "outing" another student as being gay to a campus mailing list.  Never mind that doing so is not a crime.  What's more worrisome is what was listed on the search warrant as supporting elements for probable cause:

"[The student] is a computer science major who is considered a master of the trade amongst his peers... it is not uncommon for [the student] to appear with unknown laptop computers which he says are given to him by Boston College for field testing or he is "fixing" for other students.  [The student] uses two different operating systems to hide his illegal activities.  One is the regular B. C. operating system [presumably windows] and the other is a black screen with white font which he uses prompt commands on."

So using Linux, or even DOS (which would equally fit that sparse description), is now grounds for probable cause?

... it's an FBI investigation, too.  That started as far back as December.  That's before Obama took office, but after the election, so no doubt the career civil "servants" were trying to adjust their political position with reports like this. There's a particularly good quote:

"This is an assessment of things just to be wary of, not to infringe on constitutional rights, certainly not to malign our veterans," [Napolitano] said on NBC's Today Show.

Be wary of people who believe in federalism and small government?  Be wary of people who just finished risking their lives for our nation?

... whether the Homeland Security report on "right-wing extremists" is worth getting worked up about, here's one more data point: Janet Napolitano, head of the agency that released the report, has been forced to apologize to veterans and admitted that the department disregarded warnings from their internal civil liberties watchdogs.

Janet Napolitano, head of Homeland Security:

"We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not -- nor will we ever -- monitor ideology or political beliefs," Napolitano said in a statement amid charges that the department had done just that.

Right.  That's why you release a report on "rightwing extremists" that claims anyone who believes in gun rights or small government is a terrorist threat.  There was almost nothing in that report other than ideology.  Granted, we have some national history with violent racism, but you don't get to lump political ideology in with the racists. 

Not in my book, but notorious conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has received a publication purporting to be an official Missouri police document describing "The Modern Militia Movement" as a terrorist threat.

In my book, there's a huge difference between believing that our current government has exceeded it's Constitutional authority and advocating armed resistance.  I believe the former, and reject the latter.  But that may not be enough.  After all, "These groups communicate through forums, yahoo groups, blogs, and social networking sites."  Does this blog make me a terrorist?  After all, "Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups.  It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material.  These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr."

I never realized that supporting Libertarian candidates and viewpoints could get me classed as a terrorist.  Learn something new about the First Amendment every day, I guess. 

It's probably important to note that while the original report came from Alex Jones, not exactly a source with a reputation for accurate reporting, the agency in question has admitted that the documents are authentic, and withdrawn them. 

But even withdrawn documents have consequences in how the police treat ordinary citizens who have done nothing wrong.

... honestly, this isn't really news.  It's obvious that many local police agencies overreached dramatically following 9/11 and in the increasingly paranoid security climate over the next few years.  Maryland isn't exactly brimming with terrorists looking for targets, but all that juicy anti-terror funding can surely induce police to label activists and protesters as security threats.

Police have acknowledged that the monitoring, which took place during the administration of then-Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R), spiraled out of control, with an undercover trooper spending 14 months infiltrating peaceful protest groups. Troopers have said they inappropriately labeled 53 individuals as terrorists in their database, information that was shared with federal authorities. But the new documents reveal a far more expansive set of police targets and indicate that police did not close some files until late 2007.

The surveillance ended with no arrests and no evidence of violent sedition. Instead, troopers are preparing to purge files and say they are expecting lawsuits.

The key thing to remember here is that the Fourth Amendment's protections require probable cause of a crime and a warrant in order to search someone's person or property.  But attending a public meeting?  Fair game, according to the law.  Nonetheless, most people expect the police to exercise more discretion, and not actually send out undercover officers to spy on peaceful activists without something actually illegal to investigate.  

Bruce Schneier, a security expert, has been complaining about the TSA's security theater for years.  Now, a journalist has put some of his ideas into practice -- and the TSA has egg on its face.

... so free that we can't tell fiction from terrorism.  So writing a short story now makes you a felon.

... when did the Fourth Amendment stop applying to American citizens crossing the border into the US after travel abroad?

It turns out that the police probably used burglars to obtain probable cause for their search warrant in the case.  Not a burglar they happened to have arrested... rather, a burglar they told to go out and get the evidence they would need for a police raid.

It may not be nearly so bad as other places, but when a police officer can detain, physically strike, and then arrest a citizen for not pulling up their pants... something is badly wrong.  The Constitutional fig leaf here is presumably a law that requires people to wear their pants properly pulled up rather than low on the hips; ostensibly it regulates "gang signs" but in practice it appears to allow police to harass anyone they see violating the law.  After all, there is a "violation" in plain sight which eliminates any need for probable cause of a more serious offense. 

Once the initial contact is made the officer can respond to backtalk however he chooses... up to and including deciding to actually write out a ticket for the low-riding pants, and as soon as he decides to do that, he's justified searching anyone on the scene for "officer safety".  Even if he doesn't find anything he's just spent 15-30 minutes harassing a citizen with threat of violence for not obeying a dress code.  In the United States of America!

The cop in the video was fired.  Which is comforting until you realize this is probably not the first time he's done something like this.  

Over at The Agitator, Radley has a SWAT training video for warrant service.  He points out a couple significant flaws with the training depicted from a civil rights perspective.  Among others, the identification of the team as police officers is not made until after the door has been smashed in with a battering ram.  The officers do appear to be in uniform, but the uniform does not appear to have any indication that the officers are actually police -- it's basically camoflage under body armor.  That by itself has dangerous military implications.

SaysUncle linked to a thoughtful piece on the nexus between police abuse and overregulation.  "Impossible missions" to impose the will of a slim majority upon a large minority are doomed to failure.  Prohibition and the war on online gambling are cited as examples -- as is the possibility of a true "war on guns" looking more like a low-grade civil war than law enforcement.  In light of the recent controversy over Mike Vanderboegh's letter, I'd like to use this article as an example of how to do it right.  We're a long way from nationwide "gun prohibition" and it's important to make that clear.  

Witness this blog on officer.com, which covers the Heller case, the recent "crime quarantine" proposals whereby DC police would cordon off whole neighborhoods, and additional projects to install thousands of cameras to monitor public places.

DC has now decided to violate the 4th Amendment.  Emulating a program that I first heard about in Boston, they will be sending police door-to-door "asking" for permission to search homes for guns and drugs.  They spin it as an amnesty, but they indicate that guns seized in these searches will be tested to see if they had been used in crimes, and investigations will be opened if so.  The only amnesty appears to be for the "crime" of simple possession, which the Supreme Court will likely be striking down shortly in any case.

The program will begin March 24 in the Washington Highlands area of Southeast Washington, where officers will go door to door asking residents for permission to search their homes. It will then expand to other areas of the city.

I really don't have a clue what they think they will accomplish with this.  The only thing that maybe makes a little bit of sense would be an attempt to confiscate as many firearms as possible while they are still "illegal" (ie, before the Supreme Court can rule on the Heller case, and while the opinion from the DC Appeals Court is stayed pending the appeal to the Supreme Court).  If they sweep the whole city for firearms, confiscating as many as they can find, they can then make it hard to replace those firearms legally. 

It's already very, very hard to legally acquire firearms in the District, even of those types supposedly permitted.  If they can keep that process in place they can make it difficult for residents to legally replace firearms they had owned previously (perhaps illegally, but with honest intentions).  There are likely to be a lot of prominent people who fall into that category, more than most would realize.  In addition, I would not be surprised if the police kept records of guns they confiscated, and treated possession of an "illegal" firearm discovered in this search as a reason to deny someone's application to purchase a firearm in the future.

I see a major civil rights lawsuit in my crystal ball over this one.
Anyone want to be a plaintiff? 

Also... it should be completely obvious to everyone that the criminals with guns in DC will have no problem replacing theirs using their existing sources.  As with all gun control the only people inconvenienced will be honest citizens. 

Oh, and one more point.

The police find it necessary, in a city where handguns have been banned for 30 years and all legally-owned firearms registered for much much longer, to initiate door to door searches for firearms.

That should give you an idea how effective their draconian gun control policies have been.

I got the link from Ravnwood originally.

Patterico links to some very, very disturbing allegations concerning the military tribunals at Guananimo Bay.  While I support the general idea that battlefield captures should be treated as POWs (for those following the Geneva convention rules) and that combatants who operate outside those rules have pretty much voluntarily chosen to forfeit the protections accorded to civilians and uniformed soldiers by civilized society, it's nonetheless important to make sure that those we are putting into that category deserve to be there.

So, while I'm not going to argue that there must be a certain number of acquittals, and it's entirely possible that there aren't any innocent people imprisoned at Guatanimo, it is absolutely vital that we have a fair and honest process for answering that question accurately on an individual basis.  There's room for debate on the question of whether to include classified evidence, or evidence obtained from waterboarded prisoners, or the like.  These are process questions that may be tough to answer fairly, but it is still possible to have a fair and honest result.

It's not possible to have a fair and honest result if there is a political demand for convictions regardless of the facts.

I'm not sure what the appropriate recourse here is, but this issue definitely needs to be investigated and resolved.

Earlier, I posted about an organization that did an investigation of complaint policies for police departments in Florida.  They sent in an undercover investigator who requested a complaint form.  All the investigator wants is a form -- not to "talk to" an officer about the complaint or otherwise be subjected to pressure not to file one.  He just wants the form.

Responses were mixed.  None of the officers he interacted with were willing to just let him leave with a form.  Some threatened the investigator with arrest.

Following the release of a short video documenting what they had done, the same organization tried it in Independence, Missouri.  Their investigator was arrested, violently enough to need medical care afterwards, and charges are being filed against him.  What those charges are is not specified, but watching this video should be enough to open the eyes of anyone who is still under the delusion that police officers are there to "protect and serve" the people. 

With some exceptions, they are there to keep us in line.

Hat tip to The Agitator.

.. whenever I read about something like this:

The story reads like a sitcom. A bad one. The cops arrive, and the kid whose folks own the place is outside. She quickly locks the door and refuses the cops permission to enter. She insists there's nobody there, despite the cars parked around the house and the cops being able to see and hear kids inside.

I have to give the cops credit -- they actually didn't just force their way in. They knocked and called into the house. They phoned the house. They even ran the plates of the cars in the yard, contacting the registered owners and tried to get their help. In the end, though, they did get a search warrant and broke into the house. Seven teenagers, including the girl whose parents own the home and who stood on the porch and refused the cops, ended up arrested.

Those cops showed a hell of a lot more patience than I would have.

What exactly is the crime here -- suspicion of having fun?  Suspicion of an unauthorized party?  What exactly was happening that prompted such a strong effort to obtain "permission" from people probably not authorized to give it, and that eventually lead to a search warrant?  What judge would issue a search warrant for a private home based on such allegations?  I mean, dear god, they might be having fun in there!  It must be stopped!

And then a pundit writes the concluding sentence in the quote, and I find myself asking where American's tradition of freedom went... because it sure as hell isn't here anymore.

John Gilmore, a libertarian activist and one of the founders of Sun Microsystems, has has a lawsuit working its way through the courts challenging the TSA's security regulations as unconstitutional because they are secret.   One of the government's representatives said this in response to an appellate ruling dismissing the case:

Justice Department lawyer Joshua Waldman argued that demanding identification "promotes the right to travel by protecting everyone's safety."

How much more Orwellian can you get?  Protecting a right by restricting it?