As I have previously noted, there has been an ugly tendency since 9-11 to define terrorism so broadly that it includes not merely groups like al-Queda that seek to change American policy through threats of violence against civilians, but any kook with a weapon and a grudge. We can now add delinquent teenagers to that list:
Two Pembroke teenagers have been charged in connection with a series of playing cards that were defaced with threatening writing and left at stores in Christiansburg and Pearisburg — a gesture police said the teens admitted had been inspired by this summer’s Batman movie, “The Dark Knight.”
Justin Colby Dirico and Bryan Eugene Stafford, both 18, admitted to leaving cards that bore handwritten messages inside the Pearisburg Wal-Mart, according to police Chief J.C. Martin.
Martin would not say how they identified the suspects but said the teens admitted Tuesday during police interviews they were responsible for the cards, which they patterned after elements of “The Dark Knight.” Both were charged with conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism.
Since 2002, an act of terrorism is defined as follows in Virginia*:
“Act of terrorism” means an act of violence as defined in clause (i) of subdivision A of § 19.2-297.1 committed with the intent to (i) intimidate the civilian population at large; or (ii) influence the conduct or activities of the government of the United States, a state or locality through intimidation.
The article never describes exactly what was written on the Joker-inspired playing cards, but I would bet good money that it was something far closer to a simple threat of violence (assuming it even went that far). Suffice to say, I am strongly inclined to believe that the Commonwealth — which knows something of real terrorism — could throw the book at the these kids without invoking this clause.
Which they shouldn’t do, and not just for semantic reasons. Our government retains the right to throw American citizens arrested on American soil into military detention without charge if the president deems them an enemy combatant, i.e., a terrorist. So far — and largely thanks to the fact that, despite all his faults, George W. Bush is a fundamentally decent guy — this has only happened a twice, but the cat’s out of the bag and unlikely ever to be put back.
I’m not saying that these kids are not going to be sent to Gitmo; I’m saying that foolishly prosecuting punk kids who — as best I can gather — made a bomb threat they had neither the means nor intention to follow-through on as terrorists invites future government abuses of our freedoms. A nation of laws such as ours should not be so dependent on the benevolence of its leaders.
*NB: This is a fine definition. My objection is its application in this case.
Tom posted this at 1:24 PM EDT on Wednesday, August 20th, 2008 as The Law Is An Ass--An Idiot, Liberty and/or Security
2 Comments »
Drudge today has an update on a story Tom posted a few days ago. The update is galling.
Porter, 50, was cooking artichokes in the kitchen and screamed when she saw the approaching masked men with guns.
The door was kicked in and gunshots rang out, Calvo said. Police killed one dog, Payton — named for football running back Walter Payton — even though Porter was standing next to him.
Good-effing-Gawd. The cops didn’t announce themselves. They were just masked gunmen kicking in the door and shooting. The people in the house would have had every right in the world to return fire on these thugs. When cops put themselves in a situation in which innocent people would be justified (legally and morally - this even passes the stupid test for self-defense proposed by the DC city council) in shooting and killing the cops, then the cops are doing something terribly wrong. Heads should roll and regulations should change.
I note in passing that Maryland in general and PG County in particular has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
That was probably only a marginal factor in letting the cops feel that they could commit this crime. The primary factor is a culture within law enforcement where seeing someone with no other known connection to criminal activity receiving a package of drugs in the mail (what could this guy have done to avoid having his door kicked in and his dogs shot?) constitutes a legitimate reason for a no-knock raid. It’s becoming apparent to me that our law enforcement community cannot fight the drug war and remain respectful of civil liberties.
Apollo posted this at 11:04 PM EDT on Thursday, August 7th, 2008 as Liberty and/or Security
1 Comment »
Let this be a lesson to every dog with the nerve to accost an armed policeman who busts down his masters’ door after his master brazenly carries a package indoors…a package addressed to his spouse.
A police SWAT team raided the home of the mayor in the Prince George’s County town of Berwyn Heights on Tuesday, shooting and killing his two dogs, after he brought in a 32-pound package of marijuana that had been delivered to his doorstep, police said.
Mayor Cheye Calvo was not arrested in the raid, which was carried out about 7 p.m. by the Sheriff’s Office SWAT team and county police narcotics officers. Prince George’s police spokesman Henry Tippett said yesterday that all the residents of the house — Calvo, his wife and his mother-in-law — are “persons of interest” in the case.
The package was addressed to Calvo’s wife, Trinity Tomsic, said law enforcement officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the case is ongoing.
…Calvo described a chaotic scene, in which he — wearing only underwear and socks — and his mother-in-law were handcuffed and interrogated for hours. They were surrounded by the dogs’ carcasses and pools of the dogs’ blood, Calvo said.
Spokesmen for the Sheriff’s Office and Prince George’s police expressed regret yesterday that the mayor’s dogs were killed. But they defended the way the raid was carried out, saying it was proper for a case involving such a large amount of drugs.
Sgt. Mario Ellis, a Sheriff’s Office spokesman, said the deputies who entered Calvo’s home “apparently felt threatened” by the dogs.
I’m sure they did.
H/T: Amber
UPDATE: More seriously, some questions:
1) Who was the judge who granted the no-knock warrant and what were reasons for granting it to the SWAT team? Did he fear the mayor would open fire on the police officers? If so, why?
2) Considering that they had staked the place out, the police presumably knew the dogs. Even assuming the dogs acted violently — which doesn’t appear to be the case — shouldn’t the cops have been prepared to use something less-than-lethal force on them? This may be a snarkybastard precedent, but wouldn’t a TASER have been a better choice?
3) A quick google search turned up little of interest about Sheriff Jackson, other than to imply that he’s a stand-up guy, secure in his job, and rather involved politically (all of which is normal). If, however, his office can’t formulate a better response to this, I hope someone runs against him in ‘10.
Tom posted this at 3:04 PM EDT on Monday, August 4th, 2008 as The Law Is An Ass--An Idiot, Liberty and/or Security
1 Comment »
As of yesterday, this was my understanding of where things stood with regards to the Heller decision:
US Constitution: You have the right to own a gun.
Dick Heller: Sweet!
DC City Council: Oh no he doesn’t!
SCOTUS: Oh yes he does!
Dick Heller: Sweet!
Turns out the drama isn’t over. Unwilling to concede defeat, the council has apparently managed to pass a new set of laws that — while granting residents the right to own a gun — deny them any opportunity to use them:
City leaders say the legislation goes as far as it can on gun regulations while respecting the high court’s ruling. Weapons must be unloaded, disassembled or trigger-locked, except when there is a “threat of immediate harm to a person” in the home.
The legislation also requires that guns remain inside homes.
Moreover, DC will — effectively — limit gun ownership to revolvers:
On Thursday, Mr. Heller attempted to register another pistol he owns, a .45-caliber Colt Model 1911 semiautomatic, knowing he would be turned away, to draw attention to an aspect of the D.C. gun law that remains contentious.
Semiautomatic weapons are still banned in the District on the grounds that they can accommodate modified magazines allowing them to shoot 12 or more rounds without reloading. Under D.C. law, these weapons are considered machine guns, even though they are not fully automatic.
Mr. Heller said Thursday he was trying to register the semiautomatic even though he did not bring it with him, saying he feared prosecution.
I involuntarily cringe when the press uses the word “semiautomatic”; they usually use it in a way that implies that this is a particularly powerful weapon, as opposed to a standard, modern handgun. Television anchors also have a habit of pronouncing it with the same malevolence usually reserved for worlds like “torture,” “child rape,” or “Paul Wolfowitz.”
It’s worth noting that a clip-loading handgun can be an extremely powerful weapon, far easier to use to kill multiple people than with a revolver; Seung-Hui Cho could never have murdered so many if he had had to manually reload each bullet, as he would have had to with a revolver. As such, one can sympathize with DC’s intent to limit handgun ownership to revolvers while simultaneously bristling at the attitude that a good citizen is “entitled” to only the narrowest interpretation of the law as possible.
But while handguns can be more dangerous if used offensively than revolvers they also have one huge advantage over revolvers: you can load the magazine without loading the gun. In an emergency, it takes only a few seconds to slide the magazine into the handle, cock the gun and remove the safety, though it also adds enough steps to make it far more difficult to accidentally shoot someone.
But under the new DC law, this is irrelevant because you can’t own a handgun. And if you do own a revolver you have to keep it 1) Either trigger-locked, safe-locked, or disassembled, and 2) unloaded. As if that isn’t bad enough, you also can’t legally load your revolver unless you are certain you’re under threat. As Jacob Sullum describes it:
The new law “clarifies that no carry license is required inside the home” to move a gun from one room to another. It also “clarifies” the District’s firearm storage requirements, saying a gun may be unlocked and loaded “while it is being used to protect against a reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person” in the home.
Much hinges on what counts as a “reasonably perceived threat.” If you’re awakened in the middle of the night by a crash, may you carry a loaded gun with you as you investigate? Evidently not. The Washington Post reports that D.C.’s acting attorney general, Peter Nickles, “said residents could neither keep their guns loaded in anticipation of a problem nor search for an intruder on their property.” According to Nickles, if you see an armed criminal charging your home, or in the event of “an actual threat by somebody you believe is out to hurt you,” you’re allowed to get your gun, unlock it, and load it. (emphasis added)
If I were a criminal in DC, I’d be slightly more wary of a home invasion. But not much.
Tom posted this at 9:08 AM EDT on Wednesday, July 23rd, 2008 as We don't need no stinkin' Constitution, Liberty and/or Security
2 Comments »
Yesterday morning on NPR, this guy was discussing the results of Boumedeine. He was describing a future where the government had to go before a judge to justify every single person detained in a war: to prove that the detainee had some sort of belligerent connection, and to prove that the detainee was dangerous enough to justify locking up. He then said that the government would have to reaapear before the same judge periodically and justify not releasing the detainee.
To be clear, this applied both to people arrested on the street and to people captured on the battlefield. And, to be clear, this prospect made the commenter giddy.
The longer Boumedeine sets in on me, the more it becomes apparent that it may very well be the single greatest shift of power from one branch to another that our government has ever seen. It happened without a vote being cast, and there are those in this country who have allowed their dislike of the current president to lead them to cheering on the Supreme Court’s usurpation of war fighting powers.
For the first time, I’ll define a Supreme Court decision as scary. Both in its hamstringing of a legitimate war effort, and the in the inter-branch power struggle that will most assuredly result from it. If the judiciary insists on maintaining the unstated premise of Boumedeine - that they are supreme over the wartime decisions of the president regarding how to fight a war - they will lose.
The Founders defended the lack of limits placed on the federal judiciary by pointing out that it was naturally the weakest branch, controlling neither the military nor the treasury. Some on the court seem to remember how ill-prepared they are for a real fight with the other branches. That the wisdom of the Founders is lost on the current Court should come as no surprise.
Apollo posted this at 7:04 AM EDT on Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008 as We don't need no stinkin' Constitution, I, For One, Welcome Our Judicial Overlords!, Liberty and/or Security
2 Comments »
One of the things I’ve always found most attractive about McCain is that he has all of President Bush’s resolve in the war on terror without the weird excesses. Jacob Sullum has evidence that I may have been wrong in this:
…I noted that John McCain seemed to have a less expansive view of presidential authority than George W. Bush. Now the distance between them seems to be shrinking. In a recent letter to National Review Online, McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin reported that the Arizona senator believes President Bush acted within his constitutional authority when he violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by approving warrantless monitoring of international communications involving people in the United States. According to Holtz-Eakin, who was responding to an NRO post by Andrew McCarthy that questioned whether McCain was sufficiently supportive of Bush’s position on this issue, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate believes “neither the Administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the ACLU and the trial lawyers, understand were Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001.”
Holtz-Eakin added that as president, “John McCain will do everything he can to protect Americans from [terrorist] threats, including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.” The reference to Article II clearly implies that McCain would feel free to violate any statute he believed impeded his ability to conduct anti-terrorist surveillance.
…
There is no ambiguity as to whether FISA required warrants for the sort of surveillance Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct, and the argument that Congress unintentionally amended FISA when it authorized the use of military force against Al Qaeda and the Taliban does not pass the laugh test. The only real issue is whether the president has the constitutional authority to disregard statutes such as FISA when they get in the way of actions he considers necessary to prevent terrorist attacks. In December, McCain said the president does not have that authority; now he says “there’s ambiguity about it.”
Dammit, John. When it comes down to it, the actual wiretapping probably isn’t the hugest deal in the world, though I’ll add that that hardly makes it right. What kills me about the whole business, though, is that the president — upon realizing that the FISA bill was antiquated and unduly impeded necessary surveillances of terrorists — decided to simply ignore it. It never even crossed their minds to go to Congress and say, “Hey, this FISA thing is a disaster. We need to change it.” Unfortunately, this sort of “It’s my constitution, I’ll do what I want!” attitude is perfectly justified in America today, so long as you can plausibly tie it to fighting terrorism.
Tom posted this at 11:38 AM EDT on Thursday, June 12th, 2008 as George Bush Sucks!, Audacity of Hype, Liberty and/or Security
No Comments »