What Is It Good For?

War, that is.

America's current relationship with war started after WWII, the last time the constitution was respected and war was declared. Since then, "war" has been redefined and very war-like activities and control of military actions have been delegated, by congress, to the executive branch. Over several recent administrations we've seen the executive branch taking military action without prior congressional approval and increasingly without notification. Arguably, America's use of military force has been more brazen of late, but this is a difference in degree rather than kind. 

Ever since the advent of the all-volunteer military, society's relationship with "war" has been transformed. After a few generations without a credible threat of a draft, many segments of our society, particularly the "elites" have little or no personal experience with the military, or even near adjacency. There are lots of folks, not just Gronk, who cannot get USAA insurance. Men no longer burn draft cards nor women their bras (wasn't America great back then?) and our use of the very word, war, has been transformed. Diluted. Eviscerated. 

We apply "war" to damn near anything, without having body counts recited every evening on the evening news...Goodnight Chet. We've had a war on terror, which did involve "kinetic actions" but more dangerous is applying the term "war" to non-military situations. We've had a "war on poverty." A "war on hunger." And when "just say no" fell flat and "your brain on drugs" reminded folks of a post-party WaHo breakfast, we now have a "war on drugs." 

Is anyone really surprised that the combination of concentrating power in the executive branch and the hyperbolic rhetoric around this "war" resulted in military action? Really?

Now we're confronted with deja vu, An Operational Necessity, the book, not the mission concept in OpNavInst 3710.7Q. The recent engagement in the Caribbean faintly resembles the situation in the book, with some key differences. There is no declared war. Only one participant is bringing military power to bear, though the French freighter was unarmed. In the war, the real war, the attackers were brought to justice, such as it was when the defeated faced the victorious, with the Germans fairing poorly. 

Today there will be no Nuremberg. No trials. But going forward maybe we should be a bit more careful when conflating the merely important with the truly life-threatening. 

Too Soon?

With the recent mass shootings, as with any others, the gun control crowd wants to strike while the iron is hot. While emotions run high, honest discourse is politically incorrect and an attitude of "we must do something, this is something, let's do it" might carry the day. We will hear of "common sense" gun laws without any explanation of what is "common" or what is "sensible." Proposals with so little regard for the U.S. Constitution as to smell of treason will be put forth. Reason will be in short supply.

But there are "common" gun deaths and there is some "sense" to be made. Let's look our brothers in the Second City where we find some of the strictest gun laws and yet Chicago operates on a daily basis as an ad hoc but very lethal shooting gallery. The death toll this month will exceed Dayton and El Paso combined. By the end of August well over 300 folks will have been shot and killed so far this year. In one city.

Where is the outrage? Why is there no outrage, at least none rising to the level of a one-shooter-several-victims event? Is there a racial component? Victims are largely black as are the shooters. Does that make the loss of life less important? Is there a demographic component? Is this because these are urban shootings with no connection to the deplorables and their deplorable leader? Is there a political component in addition to that inherent with the urban/rural divide? Urbanal America runs deep blue as does the political ectoplasm of the loudest voices screaming for gun control.

Why are there no learnings? Chicago's laws have done little or nothing to stop the massacre. So why are similar approaches proposed to address recent shoot-em-ups? Is it possible they are not looking to the efficacy of Chicago gun control because it would not support the anti-gun agenda and it isn't so much about saving lives as it scoring a political win?

What Constitution?

Rules have never been this City's forte. Not making them. Not enforcing them. And sure as hell not following them. This didn't start well with hiring-in-haste resulting in clearly suboptimal selections one of which we still suffer. And if one believes what is leaking from former members of the pre-city police task force, the city fathers didn't follow task force recommendations. Of course we'll never really know because their report was not made publicly available and isn't subject to open records laws. Perfectly legal, but somehow unnerving, serving as a poignant warning of things to come.

And they have arrived.

Yes we have had the aggressive persecution on DWB non-laws. We've seen the bungled daycare murder investigation and the no-progress-ever Abbott family murders. Quick-draw police involved shootings. Non-enforcement of almost any quality-of-life laws. So it comes as no surprise that a judge has recently observed that the Dunwoody PD ignored the U.S. Constitution violating the Fourth Amendment rights of residents of the City apparently because it was too difficult to enforce the law using legal means.

This is a clear failure of leadership. In the department. In the City. And on Council. Changes need to be made. Forthwith. 

Dick's Grows A Pair

Balls or boobs, the jury is still out but based on the likelihood of getting bitch-slapped the smart money is on the latter. Responding to the hashtag hysteria following yet another public school shoot-em-up[1] Dick's has decided to cease all sales of "assault rifles"[2]. Fine. It is a business and it is their business and if they want to take a product off the shelves, for any reason, that is really no one else's business.

But then they went a bridge too far. They decided that they would not sell firearms and ammo to anyone under the age of 21. Hypocritical hashtag hurrahs all around. But imagine they didn't want to sell a weapon to someone over 60 or a 20-year-old soldier, or that someone didn't want to sell a fast car to someone under 25, or an expensive house to someone of "a certain skin tone" or, hey, how about this, what would these hashtag heretics think of a baker who doesn't want to make a cake for a gay couple's marriage? Exactly! That would trample the Constitution along with the enumerated rights of several groups.

Dick's is a business, not a sovereign country and they do not get to pick and choose which laws of this land they consider worthy of their consideration or observance. The Constitution of the United States protects the 19 year old shopping in their store every bit as much as the gay couple wanting that special cake.

Even in the United States of Hashtags you cannot just make laws on your own because you're terrified of a zombie army of Twitter Stormtroopers.

[1] You know that these are drug free zones as well as gun free zones. "Soft Target" is the term nutbags use for these sites.

[2] Unlike a similarly capable "hunting rifle" an "assault rifle" has no shiny bits and is exclusively black making it the only thing left in America where it is politically correct to declare that something so black can be so evil. 

Airport Open Carry

The chazerai surrounding the bloke who toted his AR-15 thru the Atlanta Airport lobby is actually quite enlightening. Especially if being confronted with other folks' often willful ignorance is a learning experience for you. It centers around the common (mis)understanding of rights and privileges.

In a world of blurred lines between legit information and entertainment where we're bombarded with the notion that we "have the right to cable TV" and where high school graduates cannot be expected to read the front of a ketchup bottle it should come as no surprise that some folks have no ability whatsoever to differentiate between a right and privilege. This shows up a lot.

In at least one case disingenuous misrepresentation has been purposeful. To wit, the pronouncements of Gun Sense (gunsensevoter.org) representatives who have elevated a discomfort being around a visible display of weapons (when not in the hands of government agents) to a right whilst simultaneously trying to argue all constitutional rights have restrictions and the Second Amendment should not be free of the most onerous restrictions. But there is an agenda here and such deceptions and exaggerations are to be expected. They, as a small but vocal minority, would like to impose their will on a larger majority without regard for that pesky ole Constitution. Were they in the majority they would work to amend the constitution which would be the right way to do it.

More interesting are the other creepy crawlies coming out of the woodwork who somehow equate a privilege, say driving, with a Constitutional right, say "keep and bear arms." The (il)logic goes like this: "if you must have training and demonstrate proficiency to operate a car why shouldn't you have to do the same to own and carry a firearm." We'll skip the part about "not all weapons are firearms" and cut to the chase. In some states you must complete training and demonstrate proficiency to acquire a carry license. Often this is used to prevent "ordinary citizens" from obtaining a license by establishing an extremely high proficiency requirement--often significantly higher than law enforcement. Most states require a background search and fingerprinting. Not the kind of background search that will get you in the back door at the DeKalb School's palace but the FBI kind. These arguments are as easily debunked as they are silly. Since we are talking about Constitutional rights why don't we apply similar training and proficiency to other rights. How about the freedom of speech in the first amendment? Or better yet, let's tackle a sacred cow and suggest that before being allowed to vote citizens must take courses in civics and demonstrate some knowledge retention? That alone would cut the legs from under those who argue "rights be damned, guns are more dangerous than [fill in the blank]."

While it was sad and a bit silly to prance around the airport with an allegedly loaded AR-15 (did anyone actually verify there was a round in the chamber or even in the magazine?) it was indeed legal but it probably was not exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind. The elitist minority wanting to eviscerate select portions of the Bill of Rights might want to ponder that intent in the context of Ferguson, North Charleston and a host of others before they get too carried away with their pontifications.

Having A Blast?

How ironic is it that the most recent victim in what appears to be American Society's favorite drama, Cops Gone Wild, is pronounced "Boo Boo"? Some apologists would like to dismiss this as a little fuquey uppey. You know--shit happens. Others point to a trend often citing the Kathryn Johnston disaster that resulted in the temporary disbanding of the special force whose members murdered her. Sadly that group has been recently re-formed. Or they look to the strikingly similar case of Trinishia Dukes who was also bombed with a flash-bang grenade and whose lawyer has made it clear this is out of control: "It has just become 'If SWAT goes out we're using flash bangs.' They think it is a toy." It is also epidemic with Clayton SWAT grenading citizens at a rate of over one per week. For over three years.

All this leaves many of us asking:

Others are beginning to ask why but as is so often the case this can be explained by money. Drug busts lead to property confiscation with due process denied in practice and afforded only as a legal theory. Increasingly police agencies are funding not only their peccadilloes but their core operational budgets from this revenue source. Attacking the public is now for fun AND profit.

They have also co-opted confidential informants who have been falsely identifying innocents and worse yet running entrapment schemes in order to avoid threats of punishment should they not meet quotas handed out by their police handlers. Using what would normally be seen as blackmail police handlers are using these informants to violate Constitutional Rights entrapping otherwise law abiding citizens while maintaining the one degree of separation they feel indemnifies them.

In militarizing the force the police (with our negligent approval) have done what is necessary in all military conflicts: dehumanize the enemy. And in this case the public is enemy number one. They speak in vague characterizations--the Bad Guys--terms that can be applied at their discretion to anyone they see. Those that buy into this view, who bandy about the chimerical threat of these mysterious Bad Guys to assist in expanding the military nature and capabilities of what should be a civilian law enforcement operation are the real Bad Guys. The public are the Good Guys and increasing the police are, well...

Some say these are isolated incidents that are being blown out of proportion by those with anti-government proclivities. The Cato Institute begs to differ and offers an online map to help elucidate the extent of these abuses of power. This is a serious and growing problem and measures must be taken:

• Issuing no-knock warrants must be taken more seriously as it is a clear violation of Constitutional Rights. We must stop issuing these warrants to any agency below the state level--no more city or county LEO's playing warrior. Judges issuing these warrants should be at no less than the state level as well. There should also be a minimum 48 hour period between issuance and execution--if the cops are afraid the suspect will flee then that is an excellent time to apprehend--w/o a no-knock warrant. 
• A minimum of two law enforcement agencies must be involved in executing these warrants with at least one being at the state level or above. When cops misbehave (as they apparently have in bombing beds and bassinets with their flash-bangs) there needs to be someone at the scene of what has become another crime to preserve the integrity of the evidence. Yes, this will always be problematic.
• Body and vehicle cameras must be a mandatory prerequisite for mission-go and must be operational and active before vehicles roll and cannot be disabled in the field. Un-redacted video is proactively supplied during discovery and is available to the public under FOIA requests within 48 hours. 
• The use of confidential informants must be curtailed. While it has become quite the commercial ecosystem with all the for-profit operations providing training and seminars those are exactly the kinds of operations that indicate this practice has become excessive and long detached from its original usefulness. Severe penalties, greater than what the cops can hold over informants, need to be applied to cases of entrapment and equal responsibility and punishment must be afforded any handler whose informant is successfully prosecuted. Informant and handler must hang together.
• We must stop paying law enforcement to behave badly by ending property confiscation as it exists today. All confiscated assets must go to the State and not local agencies. This money must be dedicated, in order, to: a) victim compensation; and b) programs to deter or rehabilitate offenders. Any left over assets (there should be little or none) must go to the general operating fund. Furthermore any seized assets must be held in escrow (IE: impounded) until the owner of that asset has been convicted of any charges brought against them. As a part of their sentencing, the presiding judge will determine what assets can be seized, which must be returned in whole or in part to others with claims on those assets and determine the allocation of seized assets according to the guidelines above. 

This will not be well received in some quarters but let's apply the logic so often used when government wants us to freely give up our Constitutional Rights: if they're not doing anything wrong what are they afraid of? Where cooler heads prevail there will be an understanding that these efforts will do as much to protect police officers as it does anyone else. Unnecessary use of paramilitary tactics (keep in mind the Habersham suspect was captured later at a different location without the need for Seal Team Six) puts officers as much at risk as it does the public.

If we as a society do not take direct, firm action we run the risk of benignly supporting the political creation of an oppressive police state.