Use of Students as Confidential Informers -- Dangerous and should be illegal!

On December 7 2015, CBS "60 Minutes" show reported on the unbelievable amount of use of college students as confidential informers (CIs).  Police apparently set up extortion-like situations to persuade students to serve as confidential informers.  Then they require the students to make a fixed number (like 10) drug buys with "wires" to help make arrests.  Because of this pressure, CI recruits may set up friends or associates as patsys in order to meet their quota.  Working as a CI is incredibly dangerous, and student CIs have been murdered when their police role was discovered.

The police claim that the informers are critical to their operation. By using a CI, the police are able to dramatically increase the number of arrests while using much less police labor.   It is clear from the interviews, that the police are most concerned about making "drug busts."  They admit that the use of CIs help them increase the statistics on the number of arrests, which, in turn, helps them obtain more "grants" from Federal or State agencies.  With more money from grants, they can increase pay, hire more police and increase their "status" within the police hierarchy. Because of this, the police, and police organizations lobby to try to prevent any restrictions on recruitment of CIs.  They appear to hide behind an argument that they feel they are protecting their community and the country from the "evil of drugs."   In another breath they say that all they are doing is enforcing laws that are on the books, and that they don't need to justify the laws.

There are possibly as many as 100,000 confidential informers in the US.  Most of them are students and most are "recruited" with charges related to marijuana, rarely any of the "harder" drugs.  In most states there are no laws to protect or control the use of CIs.  To recruit a CI, the police don't have to formally charge the student.  They don't have to "Mirandize" the student by explaining they  have the right to obtain a lawyer.  They apparently can also lie to the students by telling them that they would go to jail if they don't cooperate and become a CI.  The recruited CIs are also told they are not allowed to tell anyone, including their parents, that they are working as a CI.   The CI is given no training, and even though the police may promise to provide protection for the CI in dangerous situations, they don't always follow up and provide that protection.  So the CI role can be extremely dangerous.

I think the use of students as CIs in college or high schools "stinks," is un-American, and may even be unconstitutional. Other organizations, such as Drug Policy Organization, have the same opinion: http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/sickening-use-young-people-confidential-informants-drug-war.   However the police love to do it, because, as was stated on 60 minutes, the police are addicted to the money involved in the drug war as much as the actual addicts are addicted to their drugs.

I believe that we do need some laws, probably at the Federal level to put some reasonable controls on the use of CIs.  Some of the reasonable controls should include:

1. Police should be required to tell the "truth" when recruiting CIs.  In particular they need to be required to tell the truth about the likely penalties that the recruit might encounter if convicted. I was astounded when I learned that people can be charged with a crime of "lying to police" -- but police can lie to citizens as much as they want! 
2. Use of a CI is something very close to entrapment, and similar to use of a wiretap, since the CI is "wired" when meeting with the dealer.  Therefore, it seems that a judge should be required to sign off on both the recruitment of a CI and each use of the CI.  For each "assignment" for the CI, the judge should also be provided the police plan to make sure that the CI will be protected. 
3. If the CI being recruited is under the age of 21, they should be required to tell the person that they should obtain a lawyer, or get their parents involved in making the decision to become a CI. 

  

US Prison Population and Drug Offenses

I saw an editorial in the Union Tribune, which was apparently originally written on October 14 2015 in the Washington Post by Charles Lane. His position is that if we ended the war on drugs, and let all of the previous drug offenders out of prison, we still wouldn't significantly reduce the prison population.

Charles Lane pointed out some possible exaggerations in statements recently made by politicians, such as Carly Fiorina's claim that “two-thirds of the people in our prisons are there for nonviolent offenses, mostly drug-related.” He then stated that 46 percent of all state and federal prisoners are there for violent crimes. That clearly conflicts with Fiorina's claim of 66% in prison for non-violent crimes. He also says that only 19.5% of the prisoners are there for drug offenses. It amazes me that the statistics can be so different! The drugwarfacts.org website says 50% of federal prisoners are there for drug violations.  The Huffington Post agrees with that number.  I think the problem is that we don't have standard definitions of what a "drug-related" offense is, nor can we easily tease out the "violent" offenses that are drug related from all other violent offenses.  A lot of burglary, robbery, car theft, weapon offenses, could be caused by drug addicts trying to obtain money to feed their habit of drugs that are only expensive because of our prohibition laws.  Many non-violent crimes, such as income tax evasion, money laundering, credit card fraud etc are also possibly drug-related.  Remember Al Capone was finally convicted for income tax evasion.  That probably would have been called a non-violent, and "non-alcohol" related crime, while his "empire" was all about alcohol, and one of the most violent crime organizations.  

The statistic that is currently being touted by many, including Bernie Sanders and President Obama is that the US has 5% of the world population but 25% of the world's prisoners.  I get the impression that Charles Lane does, somehow agree this is a problem.  But his arguments against relaxation of drug laws makes him appear to be a strong supporter of the drug war.  At the end of his column he wrote of the US incarceration rate: "The only way to lower it dramatically would be to reduce the frequency and duration of imprisonment for violent crimes, while continuing to reduce violent crime itself. If any of the candidates has a plan to do that, he or she should speak up."    So it is clear that Charles Lane doesn't have a real solution to the problem. If he does, he probably wouldn't want to advocate it because it could alienate his readership.  As soon as anyone proposes reducing the frequency and duration of imprisonment for violent crimes, his fellow right-wingers scream "soft on crime" and complain that releasing prisoners will unleash a huge rash of crime in the US,  There are now so very many people making so much easy money as part of the "war on drugs" that they will certainly push the politicians to continue the war.  In the 1960's many Americans complained about the Military-Industrial complex that caused us to buy weapon systems we maybe didn't need.  Now we have a "Drug-war-Industrial Complex" that advocates for continuation of the drug war.   This complex may be larger and much more powerful than the military-industrial complex.  They include high tech companies who make spy and surveillance equipment, border patrol, FBI, NSA, CIA, DEA, Police, prison guard unions, builders of prisons, judges, prosecutors, and even defense attorneys.  They all enjoy relatively high paying positions and are willing to put money into politics to advocate for increasing the war on drugs. 

There could be some changes in the laws that will help reduce the US prison population.  See this article:   However, it would seem that the various organizations that keep statistics on prison populations do need to get together and come up with better definitions and better ways of maintaining the statistics.  If we are going to make any progress on reducing the incarceration rate, we need to be able to have a way of measuring our progress.  It will also be interesting to see if state prison populations change in states that have legalized recreational use of marijuana, like Colorado.  If so, that might prove, or disprove the assumption that relaxing laws on drugs could reduce the incarceration rate.  

One way of trying to figure out why we have such a high incarceration rate is to ask: "What makes the US so different from the rest of the world?"  Is it our drug laws?  We aren't much tougher on drugs than any other nation.  Some, like Indonesia have the death penalty for drug law violations.  Is it our "second amendment" that allows everyone to have unfettered access to guns?  That doesn't seem to be the case from prison population counts. Is it our education level?  We aren't the best or the worst educated country in the world.  Is it our racial and cultural mix?  It is hard to see how that would be connected.   Is it our freedom of religion?  Or our lack of a strong religious "moral compass?" is it our TV & Movies that glamorize drugs and violence?  Our movies and TV are shown all over the world, so how could it be unique to the US?   Somehow, I'd think that the many sociologists, criminologists, political scientists,  and other similar professionals would, by now have some solid, scientific-based recommendations to resolve this problem.

Chicago Police "Disappeared 7000 people" in Homan Square

Spencer Ackerman in the Guardian reported that Chicago police set up a "secret" warehouse called Homan Square where they brought people "snatched" off the street and interrogated them for hours or days, without giving them access to lawyers, or letting their family know where they were. According to this amazing Guardian website,  most of the people they took there were black, and according to the report, they were treated badly.  I found that this past March 2015, the Chicago Police Department published a "fact sheet" that disputed all of the claims against Homan Square, and claimed that it was not a "secret" location, and that they treated all people brought there for questioning fairly and in accordance with the law.  Around that same time, Nicholas Roti, the Chicago Police commander who managed the Homan Square site abruptly quit (see this article).  It is difficult to figure out if the Guardian is just simply sensationalizing a reasonable effort being done by the police, or if, in fact, Chicago Police may have overstepped the law in their attempt tocontrol crime.  If so, what they are doing sounds like something that is done in foreign countries to rival political parties.
Somehow this sort of treatment goes against everything I thought America stood for.  According to the article, it appears that most of the interrogation involved suspicion of production, sale, transporting or using illegal drugs.  The Chicago Police Department is trying to crack down on drugs as part of our country's absurd "war on drugs."  I'm sure the police probably think they are doing their city a service, and I suspect that they don't think much of the people they drag in for questioning.  Many of them may deserve harsh treatment.  But in addition to being illegal to bring people in for questioning without booking them and giving them access to lawyers, it also alienates the citizens against the police department.  If I, or a relative or friend had undergone such a treatment, I would probably harbor a resentment against the police for the rest of my life.  I would no longer assist them, I would not respect them and I might do what I could to interfere with them doing their job.  Likewise, if the police are, in fact, breaking the law by what they are doing, they also should be punished for doing it.  I would expect that the police have video of all interrogations, and can produce all of the proper booking information to dispute the charges from the Guardian.  I would expect also that the Illinois Attorney General, and/or the US Attorney General would have investigated, since this has been in the news for quite a while.  It will be interesting to see how this story progresses.

What worries me is that if the Police can treat citizens for relatively minor suspicion of illegal drugs, what would they do for suspicion of terrorism?  Could police round up and "disappear"  large numbers of our citizens for demonstrating against a war or some other policy and treat them as suspected terrorists?

Carlsbad Police Beat a Woman for No Apparent Reason

I read an article in the Coast News this week (Mid October 2015) about a lady named Cindy Hahn who was beaten by police for filing a complaint.  This situation sort of brings the Rodney King or Ferguson MO issue very close to home. Carlsbad borders on my city of Oceanside.

See these youtube videos from local TV stations about the situation:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW-oXRvue3Y
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeBKYfHL2uw
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecWeIBWWL6U

After the incident, the police booked Cindy for resisting arrest and then the police testified in court.  After the police testified, Cindy's lawyer showed the DA the video taken by a spectator, and the DA dropped the charges. There is a gap before the video started which would be interesting to see.  Hopefully some of the bystanders who watched the scene are available to explain what they saw happen.  Did Cindy provoke the officer in some way?  Were photos taken of Cindy's bumps and bruises as a result of her altercation?  .
It appears that all of the police and Cindy Hahn were white race, so there probably was no "racial bias" in the situation.  I think if the Cindy had been black there would have been a LOT more press and maybe even demonstrations.   I think video is making everyone be a little more careful about what they say and do in stressful situations.  Hopefully Carlsbad police are "armed" with personal video systems.
Based upon the story, there are some facts that the police department needs to answer:
1. There must be recordings of the messages passed over the radio to the officers.Did the police officer get word from dispatch that a complaint was filed against him prior to the seat belt violation traffic stop?  

• If so, that seems like a bad procedure for the department, since it could lead to retribution. You would think that complaints like that should go to a supervisor for later follow-up
•  If not, then the assumption that the officer followed her for retribution may be false.

2. Why did the police attempt to arrest Cindy Hahn in the first place?  What was in the officer's police report?  What did the officer or officers say to the DA and the court?
3. Why were they hitting her?
4. Why did additional police officers get dispatched to the scene for such a trivial situation?
5. When the other police arrived and saw the first officer beating up the lady, why didn't they restrain the officer and help the lady?

I also think the DA should answer at least one important question:. Why after seeing the video and hearing the police officer lie on the stand, didn't the DA file charges against the officer?

The City of Carlsbad apparently didn't discipline the officers involved and now say they won't comment until they get into court. I would bet that the City will stretch it out for another year or so.  I'd hate it if the City agreed to an undisclosed settlement and all information was kept secret.  If the police, in fact, were out of control, they should be disciplined in some way.  If they weren't determined to be out of control, it means that the rest of us had better avoid Carlsbad!

Toward a 'More Just' Justice System

October 4 2015 Editorial by the San Diego Union Tribune commented on Gov Jerry Brown's veto messages written on a series of bills that proposed to create new crimes. 

The editorial said that possibly the article written by Alex Kozinski concerning the unfairness of our justice system may have been one of the reasons for his vetoes.

Kozinski was the Chief Justice of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and his "Criminal Law 2.0" article in the Georgetown Law Review pointed out the serious flaws in our US system of justice and made a series of recommendations.

I believe I agree with Kozinski's findings and recommendations.  While I have not been in any courts other than a few times on jury duty, I do recognize from the news all of the many injustices that take place.  Prosecutors seem to be anxious to "win at any cost" which gives them a built-in conflict of interest when it comes to justice.  

The US really does need to figure out why we have more people in prison than any other country of the world both by percentage and by total numbers.  Our laws need to narrow down the scope to focus on crimes that actually affect us.  For example, it seems that far too much emphasis is placed upon crimes that occur among consenting adults that incur minimum of harm to others -- obviously drugs, gambling and prostitution.  All of them could easily be regulated, controlled and taxed and it would much better protect the sellers, and buyers.  In the name of protecting the public from these "vices" the Government has then justified defining many more crimes to include RICO, anti gang laws, money laundering laws, restrictions on buying/selling of chemicals that could be used for making or refining drugs, human trafficking (which would be reduced or eliminated if prostitution were legalized), 

The problems created by "illegal gambling" were significantly reduced when legal casinos were built throughout the country.  Now it is a very minor problem.  When prohibition ended, the problems of illegal alcohol almost went completely away.  Yes, we still have problem with DUIs which is a difficult situation for society.  However I believe the "self driving cars" on the horizon will start to resolve that problem long before our justice system will be revised.  

That leaves illegal recreational drugs and prostitution as the only remaining issues that seem to contribute to a very high percentage of our prison population. According to drugwarfacts.org website around 50% of the inmates in the US are there for some sort of drug violation.  These statistics appear to be related to direct drug offenses, and not "secondary" drug offenses.  For example, people could be arrested for gun offenses, or other violent crimes that were a result of disagreements related to drugs.  People could be arrested for money laundering, which could be due to moving drug money.  Gang related arrests and convictions are related to illegal drugs, because so much of a gangs power and finances seem to revolve around marketing of illegal drugs.  I think if all of those causes were included in the statistics, the percentage of drug-related inmates would be much higher.

Police swarm Sacramento --they want to be able to steal our stuff!

Steven Greenhut wrote a column today about the extreme pressure the state and local police departments are putting on the state legislature to prevent passage of a law to put controls on police forfeiture.  See this link  --His title:  Forget Justice:  Cops just want money!

Police departments like the additional money they are able to take from people they think might be drug dealers.  They can use the money anyway they want.  They can pay overtime, give bonuses, or buy shiny new cool weapons and devices.  All of those expenditures, of course, are outside of the normal budget approval process.

Conceptually, it sounds really good!  If a criminal steals money or sells drugs the police should confiscate those proceeds.  Why should the criminal get rich and keep the fruits of his crime?  The trouble is that while the police say they need this "tool" to go after the big "organized crime drug lords" -- they actually most often use it against the "little guy" who doesn't have the money to defend themselves.  People with $10,000 in cash going to buy a car, can be accused of having the cash for illegal purposes and the cash can simply be taken by police!  The person then has to hire lawyers to get it back, and the cost in time and money may be more than the person can afford --and maybe more than the value of the money they are trying to get returned!  Greenhut cites a situation where the police tried to take a $1.5M piece of real estate because one tenant was accused of selling drugs!  Note, there is no determination that a person is guilty to confiscate the assets!  The police just take it and keep it!

We all need to call and write our State Representative and State Senator and tell them to vote FOR SB443!   The Federal Government also needs some sort of control on their similar practices.  

Police Body Cameras Going the Wrong Way?

The San Diego Union Tribune had an editorial today (Sep 1 2015) that pointed out that the "police camera" revolution that had looked like it was going to help resolve the conflicts over police violence may be stopped in its tracks by new legislation.  See this link.  Steven Greenhut also addressed the subject in his column yesterday.  There has been a series of bills proposed in the California State Legislature (AB66, SB175, AB69) that attempted to put some controls on how the cameras are to be used and how/when data can be viewed or shared with the officers and public.  However the powerful police officers unions have apparently lobbied to stop or "water down" the proposed legislation.  Some have decried "thug cops" for stopping the legislation.
We need our police forces to be admired and respected, not feared and hated.  For years the police have confiscated cameras from bystanders who recorded what they were doing.  I've never heard of a police officer being indicted for doing that, even though it is a crime.  Police departments still confiscate videos of police arrests or police misconduct and then try to bury it.    I believe the state needs to establish some standards that treat the officers and citizens fairly and equally when reporting or documenting crimes.  If the police are permitted to view footage before writing their report, then accused citizens should have the same right before being interviewed by police.  If not, then neither should have access.  If the state does not establish standards, then maybe the Federal Government should draft some standards for use by Federal law enforcement agencies, and then it might become a "defacto" standard for states.  I think FBI, DEA, Border Patrol, Coast Guard, and TSA officers should also all have body cameras turned on during activities, and that citizens involved should also be treated fairly and uniformly when in comes to access to those videos. 

Trishawn Carey, a mentally ill woman is charged with assault for raising a police baton

The LA Police Department and Prosecutors don't have enough to do.  They have filed "3-strike" charges against a homeless, mentally ill woman for picking up a policeman's baton or "night stick" waving it around and then dropping it.  A good front-page headline article in July 24 2015 LA times by Marisa Gerber and Richard Winton explains the situation.
I think LAPD and Prosecutors are abusing the intent and spirit of the 3-strikes law and they should know better than do this to a person known to be mentally ill.  It seems crazy and expensive to taxpayers to spend the money to have a court trial for such an insignificant charge.  It seems also crazy to send her to prison for 25 years.
On the other hand -- maybe there is more to the story.  Maybe she actually "WANTS" to be in prison where she can get her three square meals, a bed, and her proper medications, rather than live on the street.  

House should Join Senate in Torture Ban

Today's Union Tribune had an oped by Dr. David Debus, a San Diego psychologist who has been active in the anti-torture movement.
See this link:  http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/jul/23/cia-torture-ban-legislation/
Dr Debus is asking the US House of Representatives to pass a bill (McCain-Feinstein Bill) that has already passed the Senate that will ban the CIA from torturing people.  I am writing my congressman, Darrell Issa to ask him to vote for it, and I hope others will encourage their representatives to do likewise.  I tend to doubt that Issa will vote for it, because he has generally voted with all of the right-wingers in favor of torture.  He certainly supported all of Bush/Cheney's torture efforts including rendition, and Guantanamo.  We can hope he might have a change of heart?
I think that the US torturing people is an embarrassment for the US and it violates everything our country stands for. Of course, nobody in the military would be permitted to torture someone, because it is against the US law, and international law, and an order to do so, would be an illegal order.  If we do it to people from other countries, then it would make it "ok" for other countries to do it to our soldiers and citizens when captured abroad.  Apparently, the US even did it to American citizens.  It isn't clear to me why CIA employees should have been "exempt" from US law in the first place.  I have a hard time understanding why nobody has ever been prosecuted for torturing prisoners.
In the series "24" We all saw how torture was dramatized in situations where information might be needed to prevent an imminent disaster that could kill millions. Would torture in that type of situation make sense?  I don't know!  --but keeping people prisoners for years and torturing them seems like punishment, and not a valid method for extracting useful information.

FORFEITURE BILL WOULD HELP TAKE PROFITEERING OUT OF POLICING | SanDiegoUnionTribune.com

I've been a critic of asset forfeiture by law enforcement since it first started.  It seems like a great idea!  If a criminal acquires assets such as homes, cars, or land, using funds obtained illegally, then they should not be entitled to keep those assets.  That, in principle, makes perfect sense!  The assets then should be used to compensate those injured by the criminals.  If the assets were stolen, then they should be returned to the people they were stolen from.  However if the assets were obtained from an illegal activity such as drugs, prostitution, or gambling, who should get the "loot" from the forfeiture?  It would seem logical that the Government should receive the assets, as a representative of the people.  However which Government should get the loot?  City, State, or Federal?  Also how should those funds be used?  Somehow, our laws got twisted to make our Police forces benefit from "looting and pillaging" citizens so the police forces were entitled to take an keep any assets they could "capture" without any judicial process.  They could pull over a car for a "fuzzy dice hanging from mirror" violation, toss a small bag of marijuana in the back and then claim the owner was a "drug runner."  Then they could confiscate and keep the car, and the poor owner would have to spend their own money to hire a lawyer to get their car back.  The car would be "guilty until proven innocent" --.!! There have been notorious cases where drug enforcement agencies have seized valuable real estate when pot plants (wild or planted) were discovered on the property.  Forfeiture makes sense if we thought that the police forces would only use the right when they really were dealing with a criminal.  But who determines that the person is a criminal, unless the person is charged and convicted of being one?

That is not the way our justice system is supposed to work!

It does make sense for the Government and Police to "capture" and "freeze" any assets at the time of the arrest.  I'm sure police and prosecutors don't like the thought that a drug dealer might hire an expensive lawyer to defend them using proceeds from their drug business.  However, who separates the funds obtained illegally from those that might be legal?  The whole process needs to be "adjusted" to protect citizens from police abuse. Changes need to be made to protect citizens, but also capture those assets that might have been obtained illegally before they can be liquidated.  It is a shame that police and prosecutors take laws that make sense when passed and then abuse them against good judgement.  The "Three Strikes Law" made good sense when we passed it in California, and it was advertised and sold to the public as a way to get people who commit three "violent crimes" off the street.  Then the police forces started using it to extort confessions out of people charged with non-violent crimes, and sent far too many people to prison for extended sentences for minor crimes, such as use or sale of recreational drugs.  The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) law was passed in 1970 as an attempt to combat the Mafia.  Police forces and prosecutors used that law far beyond what it was intended, and now use it against kids neighborhood clubs, which they call "gangs."  That has further violated many of our bill of rights freedoms.  Now our California legislature is considering a bill (Senate Bill SB443) that will help reduce some of the unchecked powers our police forces have with asset forfeiture.  The bill makes sense!  See this article by Steven Grenhut in today's Union Tribune:

FORFEITURE BILL WOULD HELP TAKE PROFITEERING OUT OF POLICING | SanDiegoUnionTribune.com

However, it is clear that the Police forces really do like "looting and pillaging" their neighbors.  They are fighting hard to keep the right to steal our stuff for their own use, and try to prevent us from getting it back without hiring lawyers at our expense.  I really do hope that the bill passes!

National security measures more invasive than effective | UTSanDiego.com

Ann McFeatters had a well-written column in Sunday's San Diego Union Tribune that pointed out the dilemma that we have in trying to stop terrorism.

National security measures more invasive than effective | UTSanDiego.com

She explained that TSA caught her gift of perfume that was slightly more than the 3 oz maximum, but apparently misses many of the guns and knives that their own inspectors are able to pass through the airport inspections. Apparently bomb-making materials got through 67 out of 70 attempts.   The good news is that TSA does have a program to "test" their inspection system.  I hope their statistics improve!  I wonder if they are too focused on collecting up the loose change ($675,000 in  year) and miss doing what they are supposed to be doing (See this link).   I've often thought that TSA designed the airport checkpoints to maximize opportunity for people to leave change and valuables.  It is also now reported (Ashley Halsey, Washington Post) that TSA is trying to catch whoever "leaked" the report on the results of the security tests with guns & knives. It appears to me that again, the Government is trying to "kill the messenger" by finding the "leaker" rather than correcting the problem.  NSA did the same thing with Snowden, who reported the Government was spying on Americans.  Of course nobody in NSA has been prosecuted for violating the law, or lying to congress, but they do want to catch Snowden!

It is obvious that it is much easier for a terrorist to cause damage, death, or injury, than it is to defend against the terrorism.  To a terrorist, every place and every person is a target.  To the defenders, a target terrorist could be anyone, and their weapon could be almost anything!  It could be a liquid, a solid, a powder, a knife, a gas, or even a sharp stick!  That's what makes terrorism so easy to do, and difficult to defend against. When a terrorist is willing to give up his life, it is even more difficult!

The terrorists have seemingly "won" most of the war so far.  They have successfully caused all citizens in almost all countries to take expensive and cumbersome actions which have reduced our freedoms.  Perversely, terrorist organizations can then say that the governments in our countries are taking away freedoms, and use that as a rallying cry for recruitment!  Government now spies on our bank accounts, our internet usage, our telephone calls, and our location, all in the name of fighting terrorism.  We and our vehicles are searched at transportation nodes, and our computers can be searched at any time.  Yes, the terrorists have caused all of us to lose many freedoms.  We have also had to pay for all of this additional layer of security.  The cost of the immense amount of additional security has become a huge tax on our economy.  Think of the salaries paid to all of the additional TSA, FBI, CIA, NSA, and border patrol employees involved with physical inspections, and sitting in rooms listening to all of our telephone calls and internet use!.  The latest Gallup Poll shows that a majority of the US believes we should worry about protecting our rights more than protecting against terrorism.  However it does amaze me that there are a lot of people who are willing to give up their privacy to protect against terrorism.  It is funny how people think.  So many people won't fly because they are afraid of a one in a million crash, but will buy a lottery ticket for that one in a million chance of winning.  So they are willing to give up all of their personal and financial privacy to help protect them from that one in a million chance of being a victim of terrorism

I'm afraid that a lot of these techniques that are being used to counter terrorism are being done to make the public think that we are safer because of them. It is clear that the TSA airport inspections aren't all that effective. But it does give travelers the feeling that something is being done for their safety.  Maybe that's why TSA wants to keep their "testing program" secret!  I'm not sure that they will do all that much to actually stop it.  I sure wish there were an easier answer!

'I am a citizen': when border patrol agents violate the rights of US residents | US news | The Guardian

I can understand the need for having a good screening system at the US-Mexico border.  It is important to make sure that people crossing the border have correct papers, and to verify that they aren't smuggling.  It takes significant time to perform all of the necessary checks for each person entering the country.  Because of that, and the appearance that the border patrol is "under-staffed" there are often huge hours-long waits at the border crossings.

That is one reason I have been a critic of the two major "border checkpoints" on Interstate 5 and Interstate 15 north of San Diego.  The checkpoints are not always in operation, but it is impossible to guess when they will be in operation.  Because the checkpoints can cause a delay in travel of  15 to 30 minutes, there is no way to plan trips for work or appointments without allowing an additional 30 minutes, just in case the checkpoint is in operation.  So not only are people delayed by the checkpoints when operating, they also have to allow for the checkpoint, so they end up wasting time by being "early" when the checkpoint isn't in operation.   When the checkpoint is in operation, cars move slowly past a border patrol agent who looks very bored and simply waves each car forward -- no apparent rationale for allowing cars to pass or stop them.

It is pretty clear that the checkpoints each employ a lot of people by the number of employee cars parked at each checkpoint, and I really don't see those employees being very productive.  It would seem that those employees would better serve the country if they were assigned to the actual US/Mexico border to assist with the border crossing inspections to reduce the wait time, or to actually patrolling the border for illegal crossings.



Over the past 20 years, I have written to my US Senators, and my Congressman (Randy "Duke" Cunningham) and since 2001, Darrell Issa about eliminating the border checkpoints to save taxpayer money and eliminate the annoyance to San Diego citizens when we travel to Orange or Riverside Counties. I've never received a rational explanation, nor has there ever been any action taken.  I believe many other people have also written and complained to no avail.  The checkpoints are an annoyance to everyone who travels North from San Diego County.  There are many daily commuters!



This article in Guardian points out that there are MANY other similar checkpoints on our side of the border that are continually annoying American citizens in the area.  A lot of the checkpoints are down closer to the border, and directly affect the residents in those areas.  In addition, as is probably expected, the border patrol stops people who appear to be Latino much more frequently than people who don't.  See this article:

'I am a citizen': when border patrol agents violate the rights of US residents | US news | The Guardian  Is it racial profiling?  Or is stopping people who look Latino just common sense?  Do we really need to show "our papers" at every checkpoint?  Do we need to allow our car to be searched?



I don't believe that most of the border checkpoints, particularly the ones on I-5 and I-15 are needed to control immigration, nor are they really used for that purpose.  I believe the purpose of those checkpoints are to allow the Government to "legally" stop drug courier suspects who may have been identified elsewhere using spies or informants inside drug organizations or electronic eavesdropping technology.  By catching the suspects at the border checkpoint, the Government prosecutors can claim that the person was caught during a "random border inspection" and not have to give away informants or "technical means."  Some of those "technical means" may not even be legal, and, even if it is legal, the Government doesn't want that information to be exposed during court proceedings.  In order to make the "random checkpoint" argument believable, the border patrol has to randomly open and close the checkpoint even when there are no suspects passing through just to maintain the charade.



If I were in charge of the Border Patrol, DEA and FBI, I would probably do exactly what they are doing if I wanted to continue the "war on drugs" as we have for the past 60 years.  Yeah, why not put "border checkpoints" all through the 100 mi area North of the border?  We could set up random checkpoints all over the region.  Would that help fight the war?  Or would it violate more of our citizen's rights?    However, I don't believe the US correctly fighting the drug war.  The methods being used are extremely expensive and end up violating the rights of all of us.  We would be much better off with programs that included treatment, licensing, taxing, standardizing doses, education, and spending much less on interdiction and law enforcement.  I believe the reason we are using the current strategy is because there are so very many businesses, leaders and government employees who are profiting from it.  For example, the prison guard unions would probably put money up to fight against any effort to legalize drugs.



I believe our Federal and State politicians understand this.  However they like receiving the campaign funds from the drug-war profiteers, and they don't have the guts to do what is right!   One clear example is that in the states where Marijuana has been legalized for medical or recreational use, it required a vote from the people to change the law, rather than a simple vote by the legislature and signature from the governor.  So even when it is the "will of the majority of the citizens" -- their representatives didn't have the guts to pass the law without a referendum first.

"Pay to Play" Police Volunteers Article in The Guardian

I've had friends who worked as police volunteers, and have seen police cars around Oceanside with "volunteer" printed on the side of the cars.  I've also seen older folks in police uniforms sauntering up and down the strand sidewalk and the beach on busy days. Sometimes, I've seen them cruising the beach in City of Oceanside "dune buggies" which sort of looked like fun.   I imagined they could work to enforce the rules about no smoking, drinking or dogs on the beach, if nothing else.  After reading about the accidental Tulsa shooting by Bates, a volunteer, I researched information about the City of Oceanside's "Senior Volunteer" program:  --Pretty impressive! 100 volunteers over the age of 50! It does say that volunteers are not put in "confrontational situations" --   I also discovered the "Volunteers In Police Service" or VIPS program sponsored by the US Department of Justice actually promotes the concept of putting volunteers in local police forces.  On the surface, this sounds like a great idea!  Expanded police force with little cost to Government.  Brilliant!

I've often thought it was probably useful to have additional, visible, police presence around the community to help citizens, and provide "eyes and ears" for the professional police whom the volunteers could call if needed.  I wondered a little about the cost to the City for maintaining the volunteer forces.  After all, they would need uniforms, radios, and vehicles, but volunteers probably would only be working a few days per week. A good staff of well-trained volunteers could supplement the force, and also serve as a "reserve surge" if and when a crisis occurred.  During fires, earthquakes, or floods, we need all of the trained help we can get!  I wondered if the volunteers were compensated at all.  This article amazed me!

150 cops, population 300: pay-to-play policing, from Tulsa to Kid Rock's town | US news | The Guardian

Who knew that citizens would actually pay money (or bribes to campaign funds) in order to be a member of the "volunteer" police force?  Is it really that much fun that people would pay money to be able to walk around in uniform and annoy their neighbors?  Is it really possible that a town of 300 could have 150 cops (albeit part-time, and many are non-resident)?

There have been many science-fiction books written that have focused upon the notion of a surveillance society with everyone spying on their neighbors.  Some books have added the concept of electronic tracking and video surveillance with chips inserted into citizen's bodies and pervasive video camera tracking systems. The book 1984 by George Orwell is one of the most notable.  Quite a few of those books were made into movies.   Those stories seemed hard to believe!  First of all, the electronics seemed far to0 difficult and expensive for a society to install.  The data collected would be much too much for anyone to ever be able to track a single individual, and where would a community every get a force of volunteers to spy on their neighbors?  Wow!  It came true!  We now have pervasive electronic systems that can track our every move continuously, as well as almost everything we do.  Our cellphones are tracked, our license plates are read and tracked, our debit and credit cards track what we buy, and internet tracks products we buy, facts we research, movies we watch, music we listen to, and friends we connect with using email or text.  Big Data analysis software can now sort through that massive amount of information and produce maps of where we've been, what we've done,  and generate large charts showing all connections to our friends and relatives. That analysis is getting cheaper and cheaper as computers and software get better.  Now, to top off all of that, the Federal Government is building a huge network of volunteers in all levels of police forces to serve as additional eyes and ears "on the ground" to track individuals.  I believe President Bush implemented this system as a response to the 9/11 attacks.  With the excuses of a "war on drugs" and a "war on terrorism" our nation has given up most of what we stood for to the "right wingers"... So we have lost our war for freedom.

I would like to know how much of our Federal, State, and local police efforts and expenditures are in support of the "war on drugs."  We know that most of our Homeland Security efforts (including Coast Guard, FBI, CIA, NSA, Border Patrol, Customs and Coast Guard are involved in drug interdiction.  However, even at the local level, our volunteers are apparently involved in DUI checkpoints, sniffing out marijuana smokers, and ticketing people drinking beer or smoking on the beach -- all aspects of the "war on drugs."

Video shows California deputies beating suspect after he flees on horseback | US news | The Guardian

The latest video of California deputies beating a suspect shows that police brutality is common across the country.

Video shows California deputies beating suspect after he flees on horseback | US news | The Guardian

I think that the use of video is now starting to show what has been going on for a century.  When police have an opportunity, they will take revenge upon suspects.  By "police" we also include FBI, DEA, Border Patrol, Military Police, and all state and local forces.  When convenient video first became available, police would try to stop observing citizens from taking video, confiscate their cameras or intimidate them into giving up their media.  Why did they do this?  Of course, to hide what they were doing!  Now that everyone has a video camera on their phone, it is much more difficult to stop from happening.  Now we are hearing (and seeing) a lot more about this going on.

I think it is absolutely absurd that the Rodney King police got off scott free for the beating they engaged in.  That set a precedent that made them think they could get away with anything.  The lack of an indictment in the Ferguson case gave the police the impression they could even get away with murder if they could somehow claim they "feared for their life"...

I can sympathize with police -- it is a dangerous job!  When a suspect is carrying a gun and might point it at them, they do need to defend themselves!  I can also understand that after a long difficult chase, as this one was, they might be very angry, exhausted, and have a lot of adrenalin flowing in their bodies.  They just might want to "take it out" on the suspect.  That is certainly a difficult thing to stop!  However I think our US system of Justice requires restraint and discipline on the part of our officers.  Officers who participate or who observe and don't try to prevent a beating should be disciplined in some way.  The public should be aware the the discipline occurred to help maintain confidence on our police system.  I wonder if what we all see in movies and TV (for example "Dirty Harry") helps set the public image for how police should act?  Do our police believe that it is OK to beat up suspects because they've seen it happen so much on TV and in movies?

Fair treatment for school students

I can sympathize with school principals and police.  They believe their job is to identify the guilty as quickly as possible. They understand that their te is valuable, and paid by taxpayers.  Obtaining a confession is the best and quickest solution.  However, the techniques they may be using do not necessarily stand up to rules of American justice & fair play.  See this article in Guardian:  Adult interrogation tactics in schools turn principals into police officers http://gu.com/p/46n22

I think techniques like this could be used by schools, but only if video recorded and if a parent or guardian is viewing it while it is being done....with some reasonable rights to veto or terminate the process.

General Petraeus

The LA Times published an editorial critical of the light sentence proposed for General David Petraeus who was found guilty of releasing classified information to his mistress

A double standard on government secrets for David Petraeus http://lat.ms/1CK1Bzs

I agree with the LA Times editorial board. The crime of releasing classified data should not be one of "degree" --who knows what information could end up being critical?  Petreaus certainly knew better and knew the law. The fact that up to then he did a good job could apply yo many other defendants.

U.S. judges see 'epidemic' of prosecutorial misconduct in state - LA Times

February 1st 2015 Sunday LA Times had an article by Maura Dolan about a Federal Court of appeals citing misconduct by prosecutors:  U.S. judges see 'epidemic' of prosecutorial misconduct in state - LA Times
I think this was an important event.  Deputy Attorney General Kevin R. Vienna wanted the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court to "rubber stamp" a murder conviction of Johnny Baca when there had already been significant evidence that the prosecutors in the case had presented false evidence in the original trial --and the prosecutors knew about  it!  The article quotes the three judges on the court of appeals: Judge Alex Kozinski, Judge Kim Wardlaw, and Judge William Fletcher.  They also pressed the Deputy Attorney General to make sure that his boss, Kamala Harris, was aware of the situation.  Apparently Harris was not aware, and stopped Vienna.  Probably a smart move, since Harris is one of the leading candidates for US Senator, or Governor and probably doesn't want to be involved in such a scandal.

Maura Dolan, in her article,  described an "epidemic" of prosecutorial misconduct, with no discipline against the prosecutors.

Yes, I understand that our Police and Prosecutors have a very difficult job, with seemingly too many arcane rules about how they do their job.  However it is clear that there are many cases where police and prosecutors violate the law and get away with it.  That has an effect of "poisoning" the jury pool.  If we, as jurors, can't trust the police and prosecutors to tell the truth, how can we make a good decision?  All it takes is a few "bad apples" to provide citizens with a little bit of "reasonable doubt" that will let a criminal get off.

I've only served as a juror about 4 times in my life.  As a juror, we understand that we are making a decision based upon incomplete data.  So we have to evaluate the veracity of the witnesses for the prosecution and the defense. We also understand that if, for any reason, it turns out that additional information or evidence is discovered AFTER we make our decision, that if we found a defendant guilty, that the decision can be corrected after the fact.  There have been MANY situations where new evidence has been discovered years, or even decades after a person was found guilty, that clearly shows that the defendant was, in fact, innocent.  In almost all of these situations, I'm astounded that the prosecutors and judges who were involved in the original conviction seem to do everything they can to prevent the overturn of the decision.  They also seem to try to delay any decision--they seem to want their erroneous decision to not be overturned, rather than correct the situation and allow justice to occur.  What is wrong with them?

I believe that prosecutors think of their job as a game rather than an important role in achieving justice.  They don't want to "lose" a battle, even if they know that it would result in fairness to everyone.  When they have either been negligent or intentionally violated the law, they know that there is no recourse. They won't lose their license, won't be fined, and will not be sent to prison.  Somehow there needs to be a way that these VERY high paid government employees can be forced to have some "skin in the game" -- so that if they, in fact, lie, cheat or in some other way cause someone to go to prison who doesn't belong, that they will be also given an equivalent punishment for such misconduct.  Not a "mistake" -- but a situation where the police or prosecutors know that vital evidence is being withheld to strengthen their case.

Serial --Thorough Journalism documenting difficulty of delivering justice

My son, Sean, told me about the Serial Podcast he and Manon had listened to on their trip to Lake Tahoe.  So I started it.  Wow! I found it to be a very interesting, well-produced show.  It is also excellent documentation of how difficult it is to achieve justice. In the podcast Sarah Koenig describes research and analysis that she did over several years into the conviction of Baltimore area high school student Adnan Syed for the murder of an ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee.

The podcast is excellent, and I highly recommend it.  There are lots of other websites that provide additional information: The Daily Dot, Wikipedia, and Serial Wiki.

The murder case and conviction took place 15 years ago, and I don't think I heard anything about it at the time.  Now, this podcast series has rejuvenated interest in the case.  The prosecutor on the case has made a statement, and Huffington Post has had articles about it:

Of course, the podcast was produced as a form of entertainment.  Even though it appears to have been presented in a way that was fair to all sides in the case, it may have twisted or distorted the facts.  I can't be sure.  However, from the information presented in the podcast, it is clear to me:

1. The defense attorney for Adnan may have been "one of the best" --but possibly due to declining health, did not do as good of a job as she should have in this case.
2. The prosecution clearly distorted some of the facts in such a way to make their case stronger, and the defense was ineffective or negligent in not pointing out the problems
3. The prosecution violated some basic rules of courtroom ethics by providing a lawyer to the other prime suspect, Jay.
4. There were many, important, off-the-record negotiations between police and Jay in which it is likely that the police "led" Jay to testify  in such a way that it incriminated Adnan.
5. The Judge was negligent in this case for allowing some of the prosecution shenanigans.
6. The sentence given to Adnan (life plus 30 years) for a murder conviction seems totally out of line, even if it was clear that Adnan had committed the crime.  It seems to me that people convicted of murders that were much more heinous than this one have received less severe sentences.  

It will be interesting to continue to follow what happens in this case.  I hope the DNA tests will be performed and uncover new evidence.  There were those several "outlier" pieces of evidence that seem to confound other theories.  For example if the "serial killer's" DNA is found on Hae, then how would Jay know where Hae's car was located?

I was sorry to see the end of the podcast.  I believe there would be some other interesting areas to explore that could be subjects for future episodes of this series concerning Adnan.  Some of those areas could be:

1. Detailed analysis and description of the history of the judge, prosecutor, and detectives involved with this case.  For example was there any sign of racial prejudice?  Were any of them disciplined?  
2. It isn't clear why the two detectives refused to be interviewed.  They said they weren't permitted to do so?  Who wasn't permitting them to do it?  Did they have something to hide?
3. Has anyone drawn up a physical map of the area with the particular cell tower hits and events and tied them together with travel times?
4.  More of the biography/history of some of the witnesses.  
5. What was Jay now doing?  Has he stayed on the straight and narrow path?  
6. Is there the possibility of using voiceprints technology to determine of some of the recorded answers during interviews or testimony could have been deceptive?
7. Even though Adnan's lawyer died, the staff may have additional information protected by attorney-client privilege.  With permission from Adnan, would there be any value in exploring any of that information?  His lawyer, for example may have had notes that aren't public.  .