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.