The Conscience of Abe’s Turn libertarian civil rights in America

At first, I didn’t know what to do with this blog post. It’s about the Sea-Smurfs. That is, about CCMRF teams (pronounced “C Smurf”), which stands for “CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force.” And as everyone knows, CBRNE clearly and obviously refers to “Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear or high-yield Explosive.” And as you can probably figure out by now, this has something to do with the military.

Benjamin Friedman posted on the Cato Institute’s blog an article asking “Should We Fear Sea-Smurfs?” That’s kind of hard to answer if you don’t know what they are. I’ve read the article, and I’m still not sure I know what they are. Maybe no one knows. Maybe that’s the way it’s supposed to be.

Briefly, a CCMRF is a team of soldiers trained to perform police duties. Just what we need to make our police forces more civil, huh? But will they be unleashed on the unsuspecting American public?

Sea-smurfs can then do tasks short of law enforcement, including cleaning up after attacks. If terrorist attacks qualify as an insurrection, troops could perform law enforcement tasks in their aftermath. That might explain why the Sea-Smurfs received law enforcement training, but the Army denies that the training was related to domestic duties. It is good that the ACLU is trying to figure what exactly is intended.

Even if this mission is legal, however, it does not make it wise. Homeland defense activities like storms and terrorist attacks are the job of local and state authorities, and in extreme cases, the National Guard. Historically, these forces have been sufficient.

-TimK

Relying on the word of an informant, over a dozen officers stormed into Ryan Frederick’s home on the night of January 17, 2008, in yet another botched, no-knock drug raid, looking for Marijuana. Ryan was in bed, grabbed his gun. End result: two cops dead.

Now, the prosecutor wants to move the Ryan Frederick case to a different venue because of “adverse and inaccurate publicity.” The judge said, no, we’ll try the case here.

Says Radley Balko:

I’ve never heard of a change of venue being granted to prosecutors over the objections of the defense. None of the defense attorneys I’ve asked about the case could, either.

That Ebert [the prosecutor] even tried I think shows that he knows his case against Frederick is coming apart at the seams.

On top of that, the defense is saying the warrant used for the raid was invalid, because the evidence used to support it was gotten by breaking into Ryan’s home.

Ryan’s next pretrial hearing is scheduled for December 5, and the trial is scheduled to start January 20, 2009.

-TimK

I’ve been pondering this question ever since before the election, and I have not been hopeful.

During the campaign, Obama’s “civil rights” plank had more to do with removing rights than restoring them. Quoting from that page, he wants to:  read more »

You may not have realized it, but buried in Sections 401 and 402 of Division C in H.R. 1424 (the bailout bill) are provisions giving the IRS the power to:

• set up undercover operations to entrap unsuspecting taxpayers, and
• release confidential tax returns to law enforcement and intelligence agencies

DownsizeDC has been running a campaign to reduce the chance that crap like this will happen in the future.

-TimK

When someone last week on Twitter grumbled that Alaska had elected a convicted felon to the Senate, I quipped that it was one of his job qualifications.

Now, I’m having second thoughts, because Bill Bailey (former Federal Inmate #60733-066), whom I’ve mentioned here before, set me straight.

Bill notes firstly that Ted Stevens is not actually a convicted felon (not yet, anyhow). Yes, a jury found him guilty, but he hasn’t been sentenced, and until then, he’s not convicted. He can vote. He can run for office. He can take office. He’s not a criminal—at least not officially.

More importantly, Stevens has significant grounds for appeal. There are allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, including withholding exculpatory evidence. On top of that, federal law is particularly harsh and unfairly tilted toward the government. Most of us have at one time or another, without even knowing it, committed a federal offense that could send us to prison, because there are way too many federal crimes, and they’re way too easy to prosecute, and the penalties are way too harsh. And in this case, Stevens was not accused of being corrupt. He “had failed to disclose information about his residence on his personal financial disclosure.”

But—I know you’re arguing—residences are exempt from disclosure. (Or at least you would have been arguing that if you knew.)  read more »

An anonymous commenter wrote (poorly):

I’m 48 and law enforcement subhumans have fucked with me all my life, and I don’t have a record I try to live a lawful life as best I can. I call them subhumans because to be a law enforcer you had to have been a bully as a child, why they know better to fuck with people that will harm them. When a law enforcer approaches you in there corrupt minds you are guilty of something, so even if your dead right and know it, you have to prove yourself innocent. So to save yourself money and time, just play along with yes em officer I be going home right now and will do what you say, then when they turn there back just say fuck em…

The law is on there side all of the time and on your side sometimes, remember you are guilty in the eyes of the law until you prove yourself innocent Not innocent till proven guilty as it is written.

“Subhumans…” Hmm… I might not have put it so colorfully—or maybe I would have. And I (hopefully) wouldn’t have made so many spelling errors. Regardless, there’s unfortunately a lot of truth in this tirade.

One of the blogs in my blogroll is the Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog, written by Samuel Goldberg, a criminal defense lawyer and former prosecutor. He’s always warning his readers:  read more »

The photographs show detainee abuse by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In September, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered the government to release the photos as part of an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit seeking information on the abuse of prisoners held in U.S. custody overseas. Now, the Bush administration petitioned to appeal the order.

“This petition is a transparent attempt to delay accountability for the widespread abuse of prisoners held in U.S. custody abroad by keeping the public in the dark,” said Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU. “These photographs demonstrate that the abuse of prisoners held in U.S. custody abroad was not aberrational and not confined to Abu Ghraib, but the result of policies adopted by the highest-ranking officials in the administration. The immediate release of these photos is critical to bringing an end to the Bush administration’s torture policies and for preventing prisoner abuse in the future.”  read more »

Stories like this are the reason why we have reason for optimism in this country. This story is also one of the reasons why the ACLU is listed under “The Conscience of America,” because they inform of us police-state-like actions in the U.S. and use the tools at their disposal to stop them.

In 2005, it was reported that Bush had told the NSA it could warrantless surveillance of Americans. The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request to get government documents about this spying-on-Americans program.

The government ignored them. Tactic 1: If the people ask you for internal documentation that would make you look bad, pretend you didn’t hear them.

So the ACLU sued.  read more »

The ACLU is decries that Oregon voters chose to increase mandatory minimums for drug users.

Now, mandatory minimums are generally misguided, and anti-drug laws indeed have a whole host of problems. But for our purposes, one the worst problems is that every time the government mounts a new offensive against consensual acts (like drug use), innocent people end up getting caught in the middle. So much for living in a free country.

May the Lord have mercy on the voters of Oregon, because they’ve just given their own government another weapon it can use against them.

I haven’t listened to this yet, but it sounds like a must-listen. Lew Rockwell interviewed Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst and co-host of “Brian & the Judge” radio show, on the topic of “Civil Liberties Under Obama.”

Said Stephan Kinsella, “He’s got me half-believing, half-hoping that Obama might be fairly decent in some aspects—e.g., civil liberties, executive power, interpreting the Constitution, Guantanamo—that McCain would clearly be terrible on.”

Click here to go to the podcast page.