November 24, 2006

Doom Is Nigh - for "Movement Libertarianism"

Hatched by Dafydd

Daniel Weintraub, in his excellent Bee-blog California Insider, published a brief little post about the 92 year old woman who was shot by Atlanta police after she opened fire on them when they attempted to execute a search warrant. This is Weintraub's entire take on the matter:

The government is spying on peace protestors in Sacramento and killing a 92-year-old woman in Atlanta after breaking down her door in a "no-knock raid" while looking for a drug dealer. Maybe it is time for the government to take a time-out.

As a fellow libertarian, I found his take rather disturbing. I thought maybe he simply wasn't aware of all the facts and was just believing the liberal hype. So I sent him links to the two stories on Patterico's Pontifications that brought forward factors that should mitigate too quick a pronouncement of police brutality:

(Patterico just now put up another post, Cops in Atlanta Shouted that They Were Police and Wore Vests Labeled “Police”; but I didn't send this one to Weintraub.)

Weintraub's response confirmed what I thought originally: he e-mailed me that, since he opposed the entire drug war and supports legalization, the fact that the cops were serving a lawful search warrant when she opened fire did not change his mind at all: police shouldn't break through doors (even after identifying themselves as police) to catch drug dealers. If they had to enforce such laws (Weintraub asks), why didn't they just stake out the residence and arrest him outside?

Daniel Weintraub and I are both libertarians, and his response perfectly encapsulates the terrible crisis facing contemporary libertarianism... which will shortly kill it if not addressed. His comment, and his subsequent defense of it appealing to the libertarian impulse against anti-drug laws, has touched a raw nerve: this, on a nutshell, is why, since 9/11, I find myself reluctant to admit I'm a libertarian. Libertarianism has not responded well (or at all, actually) to the crises we face today.

First, I also support legalization of all drugs (except antibiotics). But that's not the point, and it wasn't the point Weintraub made -- no matter what he intended.

First, surely he doesn't believe that cops should only enforce laws they personally support? For a libertarian, that would be far worse than the situation now -- since a libertarian (such as myself) must assume that the laws the cops don't support are precisely those that protect our liberties from abuse by the government. Police tend to be authoritarian; that's why they're drawn to law enforcement. Do we really want them picking and choosing which laws they like?

The points about the shooting that Weintraub's brief brief missed, which Patterico brought out, are these:

  1. The police were attempting to search the premises on the basis of a legitimate search warrant -- not the "wrong house" (as early reports claimed);
  2. It was the old woman, not the cops, who began shooting;
  3. She shot three officers before they returned fire;
  4. Bullets fired by a 92 year old are just as deadly as bullets fired by a 22 year old;
  5. The police have every legal right, and 95% of Americans would say moral right, to return fire when fired upon.

If you're going to attack the cops' actions, you must respond to these points; if not, the natural response of readers who have learnt them is to dismiss you as a crank, which I'm sure was not Weintraub's intention.

He raises the question of why they didn't just arrest that one guy. But how should they know he's the only person involved in the crime? For that matter, how does Weintraub know that the old lady wasn't involved herself? Old people commit crimes too. Maybe she liked the money.

Patterico also notes that a few days ago, a Texas state trooper pulled over a motorist to cite him for violating the state's seatbelt law. Now, I oppose seatbelt laws too, though I always wear my seatbelt (and always have since long before the same law was enacted in California); but again, I hope we agree that police shouldn't get to pick and choose which laws they enforce and which they routinely ignore.

As he approached, the motorist, who later stated he thought the stop was "unconstitutional," stepped out of his car and shot the officer point blank with a Ruger Mini-14 -- a gun that is functionally identical to the semi-automatic version of the M-16. The officer died.

The motorist was 72 years old. The police video got out to YouTube, and it's clear the officer hesitated to shoot at the motorist when the guy pointed his rifle... probably because he didn't want to shoot an old man; this hesitation led to his death.

We libertarians oppose seatbelt laws; so should we blame the Texas trooper for stopping the motorist, and think he more or less got what he deserved for enforcing such an anti-liberty law as the seatbelt requirement? Is this a mature political philosophy?

Movement libertarians (as opposed to Republican libertarians -- and not just the Libertarian Party) have opposed, almost en masse, virtually every security response we made to 9/11; but they have proposed nothing to take their place. They're worse on this score than the liberals, who at least accept that we need some security. The whole L. Neil Smith/Sam Konkin/New Libertarian/New Isolationist branch of libertarianism ("movement libertarianism") flatly states that "George Bush is the real enemy," and jihadism is either ficticious -- lies spread by "the State" -- or merely the moral, libertarian response of Moslems to our "oppression" of them (which they never specify).

This puts me in a real crisis of conscience: I have considered myself a movement libertarian since I was 19 years old; but on the other hand, liberties don't just float in air: liberty and duty are the obverse and reverse of the same coin.

E.g., as a libertarian, I believe that every sane, non-criminal, mature person should be allowed to carry a concealed gun. But by the same coin, it's also the duty of every person to intervene, as best he can, to protect the innocent from criminal attack. That's the bargain, that's the duty side of the liberty of carrying a gun. Without such social trade-offs, society crashes to the ground. Even libertarian "saints" like Murray Rothbard, Friederich Hayek, and Robert Heinlein understood that.

Suppose we had a libertarian society where anyone who wanted was allowed to carried a gun. Now suppose there is a violent criminal assault against an innocent victim who cannot fight back -- a child, say, or an old person, or a petite woman who cannot handle a gun properly, or a handicapped person. If none of the smug libertarians standing around intervene to save the innocent, if they "stand on their principles" that it's the responsibility of the victim to defend himself (even if he physically can't), and if such attacks therefore become routine... how long do you think that "libertarian society" will last? A society of pure narcissism is unsustainable.

The failure to recognize any duty whatsoever (in trade for liberty) is the great failing of the contemporary libertarian movement: it has morphed from Jeffersonian liberalism to ultimate narcissism. Most libertarians today demand an end to drug laws, not because they really believe in liberty -- because if they did, they would be at war with the greatest destroyers of libertry in the world today, Communists and jihadis -- but because they want to smoke dope.

Most contemporary "libertarians" are in fact simple libertines; but a society of human beings cannot be governed by libertinism. Even those who are not libertines but actually support (verbally, that is) human freedom have been duped by libertines into believing that we can have liberty without the responsibility to defend it, by force if necessary.

But Weintraub didn't just attack the Atlanta cops; he also attacked "spying on peace protestors in Sacramento" as a similar example of (one must presume) un-libertarian activity by the State.

Can he really be unaware that many of those "peace protester" groups -- such as International ANSWER, International Solidarity Movement, and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) -- are in fact front groups for either Stalinists or jihadis? That they raise money for terrorists and aid and abet "sleeper cells?"

Don't libertarians support "spying" on people who are plotting to take away our liberty, and who have demonstrated the willingness to kill us by the thousands in order to do so?

And we know that we libertarians oppose the drug war, but what about the drug problem? Drugs do, in fact, cause terrible problems in society -- and not just those associated with the artificially high price of drugs, like burglary and robbery to support the habit.

Drugs are very dangerous and destructive. So where is the libertarian program to minimize that destruction? I have been a movement libertarian for 27 years now, ever since I read David ("son of Milton") Friedman's book the Machinery of Freedom... and I have never heard anything but mantras that people have the freedom to "kill themselves." All right in theory; but in practice, rampant drug use destroys minds, souls, and society... what are we libertarians going to do about that, to take the place of the anti-liberty "drug war?"

The sound of crickets chirping.

Weintraub fails to mention that the "92 year old woman" opened fire on the officers first while they were simply trying to conduct a search pursuant to a lawful search warrant. They didn't simply kick down a door and assassinate some random nonagenarian, which is what his phrasing implied. Do we libertarians say that the cops should just refuse to enforce laws we don't like? Or are we saying those officers got what they deserved, and in future, they should just walk away whenever someone resists using deadly force?

If libertarianism continues down the path it currently follows, it will utterly discredit itself -- and utterly discredit the principle of maximal liberty in the process. If libertarians, working hand in hand with liberals, manage to overturn all the security measures we've enacted since 9/11 woke us up (movement libertarians oppose the Patriot Act, tracking terrorist financing, aggressive interrogation of enemy combatants, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan War, and surveillance of any kind, against any target, by "our enemy, the State"), then we will get hit again and again... and the response will not be pretty.

The American people, who (quite understandably) want to survive, will demand intrusions upon our liberty so much more severe than what we have now that even liberals will look back and long for the days of the Patriot Act, NSA surveillance, and the SWIFT program.

Like it or hate it, we are at war; the war was declared by the other side in 1979; and those people have not the slightest interest in, concern for, or even the vaguest understanding of liberty for Daniel Weintraub or Dafydd ab Hugh: to them, most of Americans are dhimmis, fit only to serve the Faithful... and Weintraub and I are nothing but Zionist pigs, fit only for death, as their version of the Koran demands. Why aren't libertarians standing up as a group -- or even as individuals -- to defend liberty against these monsters?

And if we're ever going to see the day Weintraub and I both hope for, where no drugs (in his case) or only one class of drugs (in mine) are proscribed or controlled by the State, then the absolute worst way to go about it is to imply that officers who get shot while trying to execute legitimate search warrants, and who return fire against the person shooting (rather than just walking away and refusing to enforce the law), are simply assassins who like killing old women.

We cannot skate by on Harry Browne libertarianism. Now that he's dead, let's bury that crabbed and egocentric vision of libertarianism deep, at a crossroads, with a stake through its heart.

We need a robust and responsible libertarianism that equally recognizes responsibility and duty alongside liberty, tails alongside heads, the yang to complement the yin. We need a libertarianism that can identify the true enemies of liberty, not simply those closest to home. And we need a libertarianism that accepts practicality when necessary, rather than always being willing to let the other guy die for our lofty theories.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, November 24, 2006, at the time of 5:12 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1509

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Doom Is Nigh - for "Movement Libertarianism":

» t sounds like the cops where justified from Dawnsblood
At least accourding to what Dafydd found.The points about the shooting that Weintraub's brief brief missed, which Patterico brought out, are these: The police were attempting to search the premises on the basis of a legitimate search warrant --... [Read More]

Tracked on November 25, 2006 12:52 AM

» The Times - Are They a-Changin'? Not Really. from Big Lizards
The Atlanta Journal Constitution has a new story up: the informant who was said to have bought drugs at the Atlanta house that was later raided by cops, resulting in the death of 88 year old (not 92) Kathryn Johnston,... [Read More]

Tracked on November 28, 2006 2:18 AM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Robert Schwartz

Libertarianism, is a theory. And just like other theories it is only so good. When you realize that all theories are wrong most of the time, you can be a conservative.

The above hissed in response by: Robert Schwartz [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 24, 2006 6:20 PM

The following hissed in response by: Stephen Macklin

I have grown increasingly distressed by movement Libertarianism over the last few years. The decay has been startling and the pace of that rot seems to be accelerating.

Several years ago, when I first discovered blogs, one of my favorite sites to get involved in interesting if heated debate was Reason Magazine's Hit & Run. Over the last year it has become virtually unreadable and I've taken to calling it the Libertarian Underground.

Unfortunately "Republican Libertarianism" seems to have all but vanished as well.

The above hissed in response by: Stephen Macklin [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 24, 2006 6:34 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

If libertarianism continues down the path it currently follows, it will utterly discredit itself -- and utterly discredit the principle of maximal liberty in the process.
What in the world makes you think that the main thrust of Libertarianism hasn't already been discredited?!?

I think the vast majority of Conservative Republicans would gleefully embrace the cerebral basisses of Libertarianism. However, the first two things that the common big-city Libertarian says are:

1) Drugs should be legal, maaaaaaan...
and
2) The Military/Industrial Complex has unlimited power over your very thinking through the use of Mind Altering Drugs using Contrails, and have a secret plan to.... {edited for sanity}.

Libertarian tactics to achieve a common strategy are very attractive... the problem is that Libertarians now have goals that are not really all that exalted. Instead of trying to create a place where maiximal Liberty can prevail, Libertarians seem to want to indulge in personal freedoms without helping to supply it for everybody else on the way. We once, as a Nation, shared a vision of making our country a Sanctuary, a haven for the oppressed. A place where people could safely figure out how to advance the Society of Man without the need to constantly protect from the Dictator. Sure we disagreed on how it was going to be achieved, or what it would look like, but we shared the goal of achieving it! I don't know of a major political party today that is willing to sacrifice now for the potential success of the future. Heck, I don't know of one that is willing to sacrifice anything for sucess now! We have now become so spoiled that we declare basic law enforcement to be tortuous, and any act of Force is a Proof that the Man is out to get us all. We are so ashamed of the mistakes of our past that instead of learning from them and moving forward, we find a kind of cleansing grace for apologizing for merely offending other groups of people, much less pointing out their obvious self-distructive behavior.

I swear, if any half-charismic Politician came out with a plan to use Libertarian Ideals to return to the nisus towards a free, open, and uplifting Society, he would have a decent chance to become a major political party leader, if not the head of a majority party.

But without a clearly agreed upon goal to work towards, the Libertarians have indeed devolved into Narcissists.

Find something between doing what's good for yourself and painting a picture of intellectual utopia and you have a plan for sucess. Use the ideals of Libertarianism as a Strategy and you could even create an overwhelmingly popular movement. but without any kind of exalted goal beyone self indulgence you are going to turn off too many potential fellows, and run yourself down to the frustration --> helplessness --> Conspiracy Theory slope.

And you'll go there alone.

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 24, 2006 8:31 PM

The following hissed in response by: nk

Heh. So much for libertarianism or anarchism for that matter. This transcends all that. The lady was defending her home. She shot five times to wound three. They fired more than ninety times to kill one. Dwarves against a giant. Want to read i=a poem? (No representation that it's a good poem.)

The above hissed in response by: nk [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 24, 2006 8:43 PM

The following hissed in response by: DrMalaka

I have a bit of a problem with the way the police conduct the raids, not that they should enforce the laws. If we as a country insist on having these crazy drug laws then we are idiots, but if the laws are on the books you can't pick and choose. I do think however that with limited resources the citizens of this country are better served having our police working on real crime and not busting some guy for smoking a joint. Of course if the guy goes and smokes the joint in front of the cop, well then that is his problem.

My real issue is why send cops or a SWAT team to break down doors of pot dealers. How about at least staking out the house for a day or two to get a feel for what is going on inside. Wouldn't that be safer for the cops also. A few hours of watching and a little research into who lived there and they could have figured out that knocking in the middle of the day would have worked pretty well.

Once again, if cops want to conduct drug raids to enforce the law that is fine. Just use a little common sense here. A small time dope dealer is not a violent threat. Why escalate that situation to one where violence can happen. I don't want to see the cops or the people hurt. That should be the main objective, no injuries!

If you need a SWAT team for a meth lab with violent criminals then by all means use the SWAT team. But please, please, please, start using some common sense on this. We have maniacs out there trying to kill us every day, we don't need to have our cops and citizens shooting it out with each other. Low level pot dealers are not violent people in general, they want to sit on the couch, watch Cheech and Chong and eat Cheetos. Arrest them on their way to 7/11 to get their munchies for god's sake. Plus, there are innocent bystanders in the area, we can't be putting them at risk for a little weed, that just is not right.

As for Libertarians, I have had my fill of the movement too. It's like I am reading the Daily Kos when I read their stuff. What do they believe in? Do they really not think that we are at war with militant Islam? What do they want to do about it other than attack our President?

The above hissed in response by: DrMalaka [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 24, 2006 9:25 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I don't like to tell cops how to do their jobs, after all they put their lives on the line every day so that some nutcase can sit home on his computer and treat them like a bunch of nazis for retuning fire.

What the libertarians really fail to comprehend in is that in both cases cited by Dafydd, a substantial number of people would react to the stories by saying if these old people had not been armed they would not have been killed. In other words lots of folks would blame the guns.

Just like lots of folks blame the drugs when they see what meth does to people and how do the libertarians respond to that? With some utterly useless and inane yammering about how drugs should be legal etc.

What happened to that old lady was a terrible thing, it really was. But if not for some freaking drug dealer out there peddling that poison none of it would have happened at all.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 12:26 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Nick:

Your "comment" looks for all the world like a column, essay, or blogpost that you have reposted here as a column: it's extremely long, it doesn't directly respond to anything in my post, and it uses a number of loaded and conclusory terms -- for example, calling the shooting of Kathryn Johnston "murder," which could be considered a defamatory statement against the cops who shot her.

I have unpublished it; I don't object to comments, even to comments disagreeing with my point of view (see several other comments above). But I don't want my comments page to be a forum for people who either don't have their own blogs -- or who do and want free syndication!

If you can boil this down to an actual comment (not an essay), and more directly respond to what I or the commenters say, I will be happy to leave the new comment up.

Thanks,

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 1:03 AM

The following hissed in response by: SkyWatch

5. # The police have every legal right, and 95% of Americans would say moral right, to return fire when fired upon.


I have the moral right to shoot anyone breaking into my home. Cop or not. Just because someone is a hired gun does not mean that I should allow myself or family to be put in danger without even trying to fight back. In most cases, if the cops acted in a reasonable manner the best choise would be for me to comply. However, if they simply come at me in a violent manner and I feel in extreem immenent danger I will fight back. That is the way I was riased. Don't just stand there and get your back side kicked, fight back.

The other thing that really troubles me is that I have first hand experience with the hired guns (cops) getting on the witness stand, in court, under oath and lieing. It doesn't matter if you believe me or not as the two cops who lied and myself are the only ones who know the truth. There is no way that any who has run into the machine of destruction known as the court system can get a fair hearing when the people accusing you wear badges. People tend to give cops the benifit of honesty when they shouldn't.

It kind of goes back to the give someone enough power and eventually they will use it.

The above hissed in response by: SkyWatch [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 6:24 AM

The following hissed in response by: SkyWatch

The other point I was going to throw out there before I got wired up and forgot. Is that hopefully she did make society safer for the rest of us (tho I doubt it) by fighting back. Maybe the police will be more careful and think twice before they go busting in the next door.

The above hissed in response by: SkyWatch [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 6:31 AM

The following hissed in response by: DrMalaka

I have to agree with SkyWatch as well and forgot to put that in my comment. I just don't trust cops to tell the truth. This is something they have done to themselves over the years, just lying even when they don't have to lie.

Anyone who whole heartedly believes that the cops banged on that door yelling Police is a fool. Now perhaps this did happen, but we should all have our doubts. Hmmm, do we really believe a 92 year old lady would come out blazing with her little five shooter if she knew that it was the cops outside. UNLIKELY.

Furthermore, the cops never police themselves when things like this happen, the circle the wagons and cover up. The DA stalls and deflects. The story seeps out little by little, with facts that continue to perfectly fit a story that clears the cops. Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining.

We of course need to thank the drug war and bankrupt states for this. Cops never had this bad rep before they became tax collectors on the highways. The only morons who think cops are always telling the truth are traffic court judges, talk about a low life job.

I support law enforcement, but you must understand, you reap what you soe. It's not my fault cops have a bad rap and people don't trust them. The facts of this story, like every other one, fit too perfectly in order to make things appear everyone but the cops fault. I'm not buying, consider me a short seller.

The above hissed in response by: DrMalaka [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 6:58 AM

The following hissed in response by: Nick

Daffydd: Sorry you feel my comments were an essay - I will republish and hope you will put it up. It may take a while, as with my permanently maimed hand from a botched SWAT raid in which automatic weapons fire went through my house walls, through my closed bedroom doors as I slept and into my (surprised) body is still healing. Hopefully I will regain some feeling and use some day.

I guess I just get a little emotional about being nearly murdered as I was laying in bed by an out of control, mistaken SWAT Team.

The above hissed in response by: Nick [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 7:58 AM

The following hissed in response by: Nick

The Killing of Kathryn Johnston: Paramilitary Policing In America

First, let’s set aside the ruse argument of whether the “police had the legal right to enter the residence”. The police apparently had a warrant.

Second, let’s set aside the association with drugs. People see "drugs" and go “well the police were right” - not because the police's actions were correct - but because of their personal disapproval of drugs.

Third, let’s set aside personal politics.

To me none of the above are the point. The point is the ill-advised actions and abuse of our civil liberties by the police via undercover and SWAT operations.


In the recent case of Kathryn Johnston, the 92 year old Atlanta woman blown away by police, note the usual contradictory statements by authorities regarding the raid - such as "as the plainclothes Atlanta police officers approached the house about 7 p.m., a woman inside started shooting” - followed by - "the officers …knocked and announced before they forced open the door….[and] were justified in shooting once they were fired upon”. What apparently actually happened, the latter, is they were shot after they started breaking down the doors terrorizing a 92 year old woman. People naturally and legally defend themselves in this situation - they think are being attacked in a home invasion – and they are.

A typical ruse used by police in these situations is to say “well we had a warrant and the legal right” to enter. I say “ruse” because it is an argument designed to distract from the issue. Let’s extrapolate to the extreme to make the point – is it OK for the police, armed with warrants to routinely drive bulldozers, tanks or fire bazookas into houses to execute warrants? Obviously not. The point is how these warrants are executed - not whether or not a warrant exists. The routine use of paramilitary tactics is unreasonable and dangerous way to execute warrants and people are getting killed – that is the point.

The next ruse used is “we made an announcement”. Of course if a SWAT team does choose to announce who they are (and under law it is now their choice to announce) the mumbled word "police" is drowned out by the simultaneous smashing sounds of private property being destroyed, exploding flash-bang grenades and weapons fire. The fact is they don't announce themselves unless it is in the perfunctory and nugatory manner mentioned above. When there is a raid, the unwavering, moronic and illogical police statements about announcements are belied by the fact the teams are obviously opting for the element of surprise by smashing down doors - why would you negate that surprise by announcing ahead of time?

If you sadly have been attacked in an ill-advised SWAT team raid where gunfire erupts you may have gotten lucky and despite the unrecompensed destruction/theft of your property only been permanently maimed instead of killed outright. You may have been shot because you simply stood up in surprise, ran for cover, or grabbed a weapon to legally defend yourself and family from a home invasion.


The point is SWAT teams are part of the "War On (insert term: drugs, poker, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, being a student in a library at UCLA, or - trust me this happened to my friend - dating a cops ex-girlfriend, etc).”

SWAT teams are paramilitary units at war - they have enemies. "We the People" are the potential enemies - and with enemies (real or potential) in a war the rule is to shoot first and ask questions (i.e. cover-up what really happened) later.

Contrarily, a police officers primary role in society is to keep the peace and maintain order in a sophisticated, humane and Constitutional manner:

“The difference between the quasi-military and the civil policeman is that the civil policeman should have no enemies. People may be criminals, they may be violent, but they are not enemies to be destroyed. Once that kind of language gets into the police vocabulary, it begins to change attitudes.”
-- John Alderson, The Listener, 1985

So why exactly are such paramilitary teams, weapons and tactics necessary except in the most unusual of cases? FBI statistics show clearly our police are not outgunned and that SWAT team deaths are highly correlated to members shooting each other. Further, contrary to misleading publicity – a person is twice as likely to die in a traffic accident as a police officer is to being killed by a felonious act. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the “dangerousness” of being a police officer in terms of fatalities by a felonious act is nearly statistically insignificant. So why do we need all these SWAT teams? It seems to me we do not need the vast majority of them, they are dangerous, inappropriately used, often out of control and an expensive waste of taxpayer monies and police resources.

The above hissed in response by: Nick [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 8:05 AM

The following hissed in response by: GM

I have been a libertarian (both upper and lower case L) for a long time. I agree 100% with your analysis. I became a Libertarian because I believe in classical constitutional democratic republican government. I also believe that certain social problems are best handled by other non-governmental parts of civil society. I fully recognize, however, that those other parts have atrophied. I get especially concerned when candidates from the Libertarian party sound like leftists with respect to foreign policy. I certainly think we should examine the possibility of changing that policy and consider moving to something closer to the old Monroe Doctrine. I believe there is a legitimate argument for non-interventionism. However, I have not and do not consider the present foreign policy the “Bush Doctrine”. It is still the same policy that that sent me to Vietnam, i.e. the Truman Doctrine. Because of our abominable education system a large percentage of our citizenry lack any historical perspective. Internationalism vs. non-interventionism has always been an issue to some extent especially in the last century.

The Truman Doctrine came out of the trauma of WWII and is a mixture of the ideas of Wilson, FDR, and others. The conclusion at the end of that war was that the U.S. had to take an active part in the world, i.e. it had to change its foreign policy by 180 degrees (OK maybe only160). We were encouraged by other countries (primarily Britain) to assume the role of the guarantor of peace, freedom, democracy, and stability in the world. I am thinking here of Winston Churchill’s “iron curtain” speech. Maybe it was the only way forward then but that of course doesn’t mean it is today. Over the years each administration has placed its own “spin” on this doctrine (some being more aggressive than others). JFK, LBJ, and Reagan were Truman Doctrine heavy while Carter and Clinton were Truman Doctrine light. There has been a whole foreign policy establishment built up since WWII that is wedded to this doctrine albeit to different ways to implement it. I have read some articles written by Thomas Barnett for example. It seems to me that he has taken the Truman Doctrine and ratcheted it up a few hundred degrees and then mapped it over the entire underdeveloped world. Other folks like Carter and Clinton think we need to use the soft approach by talking in the UN which is a thoroughly corrupt organization and giving countries stuff so they will be nice. If you read the speeches of Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, et al you will find that Bush and Cheney sound exactly the same. To postulate anything different is patently absurd and I think dishonest. Bush and Cheney believe in this doctrine because they grew up with it just like I did and unlike me have never questioned it. Although for a time in Bush’s first Presidential campaign he did sound quasi non-interventionist like the old time Republicans a la Wendell Willkie. I do not hold Bush's and Cheney's belief in internationalism against them. My father who served in WWII firmly believed in it also. If the U.S. does not guarantee peace and stability the world will descend into chaos. I actually don’t necessarily disagree with that supposition but I don’t necessarily think it would be impossible to defend the U.S. even if such chaos ensues. How? – Possibly via massive expenditures on technology especially on energy and military technology and by an extremely aggressive defense of the western hemisphere. Is this a solution we want to consider? All citizens owe it to themselves and the country to fill in the gaps in their education on this whole subject. I am still trying to do that. We simply will not be able to have a rational argument about foreign policy if we do not.

The above hissed in response by: GM [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 9:04 AM

The following hissed in response by: Mark McGilvray

I have to say libertarians cannot even describe what they stand for, only what they oppose. I am not unsympathetic to some of their positions, but as a whole find libertarianism silly, and not viable as a political party.

Police are a cross section of society. Some are fine people; others are concentration camp guard wannabees. Judgement in the use of tactical, or "kick" entries is essential, but lacking in many instances. I will cite Waco and Ruby ridge as examples of executive police stupidity and amateurism. Professionals would have found a path of least resistance method of arresting the persons on the warrants, rather than using a siege as first option. When will some group blow a Claymore mine in the faces of a SWAT team? That would certainly cause a reevaluation of when to use tactical entries.

The above hissed in response by: Mark McGilvray [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 10:35 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Skywatch:

So cops are hired guns and it is ok to shoot at them? Tell me were the cops who ran into the WTC on 9/11 bad people, or are just all the rest of them bad people?

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 10:55 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Dr. Malaka:

And libertarians are thought by most people to be loons and if your comments are typical then I would have to say they brought that on themselves.

One of the cases Dafydd mentioned was a police officer who was shot for stopping a man who was not wearing a seat belt. So was that ok? Is that dead cop a liar too?

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 10:57 AM

The following hissed in response by: SkyWatch

I never said all cops are bad. I have known a few that were in fact great people that I am glad to know. Just the other day, I was showing my new deer rifle to one of the local cops in my area in the grocery store parking lot. That doesn't change the fact that they are hired guns. Hired by the community.
The bad thing is most police departments no longer serve the public. They serve the mayor or governor who serves which ever special interest pays them the most.
Is it ok to shoot a cop? If they need shooting yes. Did America come into exitence by the colonies bowing down to the government agents just because that is what you are supposed to do? If the government agents come into my home violently they should expect to meet what limited restince I can give. If they call me or knock on the door and say look here Elmer we have this problem that involves you and we need to take care of it, fine I'll be right with you.

The above hissed in response by: SkyWatch [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 11:15 AM

The following hissed in response by: DRJ

This is an excellent column. Thoughtful, reasonable, and well-articulated. I agree and even though I'm not a libertarian, reading this makes me feel your philosophical angst. Relativists have led liberals, libertarians and American society astray by preaching that it's enough to talk the talk of freedom. The reality is everyone - not just a few people or our military - has to walk the walk if we want freedom to prevail.

The above hissed in response by: DRJ [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 2:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

SkyWatch:

5. # The police have every legal right, and 95% of Americans would say moral right, to return fire when fired upon.

I have the moral right to shoot anyone breaking into my home.

Perhaps; depends why they're breaking in: you haven't the "right" to shoot a fireman breaking in to put out a fire, nor the "right" to shoot cops breaking in to rescue the hostage you're holding.

But I think you missed the fact that I nowhere said that Kathryn Johnston was morally wrong to shoot at the cops.

I said the cops had the legal right, and I believe the moral right to return fire (I'm in that 95%). But if Johnston believed she was being attacked, even if that belief was foolish, she has the moral right to resist.

Two people can both do what is moral, yet still end up fighting each other. This is hardly a new idea; think of the poor of Paris storming Notre Dame to rescue Esmerelda from Quasimoto, while Quasimoto hurls stones down upon their heads to save Esmerelda from the "attacking mob."

It's a fallacy to believe that if one side is good, the other must be evil; just as it's a fallacy to believe that if one side is evil -- the other must be good. In this case, nobody has been running around saying the old woman was a bad person who got what she deserved; but many have been shooting off their mouths saying the cops "murdered" her.

The other thing that really troubles me is that I have first hand experience with the hired guns (cops) getting on the witness stand, in court, under oath and lying.

Yes. There are thousands of cops in every big city, 40,000 in New York City alone, and over 17,000 separate local law enforcement agencies. There are many times more more cops in the United States than soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and coasties combined.

It's hardly surprising that out of these millions of people, you can find many cops who lie on the witness stand.

Some may lie because they're absolutely certain the accused is guilty, but they're afraid that the criminal injustice system will set him free on a technicality. Others may lie because they did something wrong, and they don't want to be punished. Others may lie for more sinister reasons.

What is the point? This would be true of any conceivable justice system, unless you found angels in the forms of police officers or a David Bowie "savior machine" to decide guilt or innocence.

So do you therefore reject all possible justice systems and prefer to settle every dispute with a duel?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 2:28 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

DrMalaka:

Furthermore, the cops never police themselves when things like this happen, the circle the wagons and cover up. The DA stalls and deflects. The story seeps out little by little, with facts that continue to perfectly fit a story that clears the cops.

Heh, you obviously do not live in Los Angeles!

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 2:31 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

SkyWatch:

The other point I was going to throw out there before I got wired up and forgot. Is that hopefully she did make society safer for the rest of us (tho I doubt it) by fighting back. Maybe the police will be more careful and think twice before they go busting in the next door.

Forgive me, but this is the most foolish comment I think I've seen in some time.

Forget morality for a moment: the most likely response whenever police get shot trying to serve a legitimate search warrant -- is for cops to go in even heavier in the future.

Yeesh.

A lot of you are making so many assumptions, it's hard even to keep track. You seem to assume:

  1. The dealer or dealers in that house were non-violent sorts;
  2. They were only selling marijuana;
  3. They had never had any previous violent run-ins with the law;
  4. Kathryn Johnston was innocent of drug dealing;
  5. Ms. Johnston didn't know they were police when she opened fire.

Do you actually know the answers to these questions? I sure don't. But I also do not assume the answers line up in the way most favorable to my point.

This is the problem with libertarians: we typically assume that all unknown facts just happen to support our theoretical case.

As someone I know likes to say, in theory, theory and practice are the same; but in practice, they're different.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 2:39 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I have known a lot of people who were not cops who lied as well. In fact a relative of mine was shot and killed by someone who was not a cop and and never served a day in prison.
Making judgments about cops like this is just like the people calling soldiers baby killers.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 2:55 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Nick:

This is still an essay, not a comment. I will let it stay up this time... but in the future, please don't post a "counter blogpost" as a comment. Honestly, I'm not as stupid as I look!

I guess I just get a little emotional about being nearly murdered as I was laying in bed by an out of control, mistaken SWAT Team.

Evidently so; you completely contradict yourself in this scant, two-sentence comment introducing your essay-comment.

First, you describe your injury as resulting from a shot going through a couple of walls and hitting you accidentally:

[M]y permanently maimed hand from a botched SWAT raid in which automatic weapons fire went through my house walls, through my closed bedroom doors as I slept and into my (surprised) body...

And then you call this being nearly "murdered." Of course you know that murder means the deliberate unlawful killing of a human being.

The police clearly didn't know you were there, didn't know their shot would hit you, and weren't trying to do so. At worst, they were reckless; but recklessness is not murder.

If you're so careless when slinging around such a terrible accusation as murder in your own case, that's grounds to suspect you're equally careless in the Kathryn Johnston case.

What apparently actually happened, the latter, is they were shot after they started breaking down the doors terrorizing a 92 year old woman. People naturally and legally defend themselves in this situation - they think are being attacked in a home invasion – and they are.

More correctly, you mean "what I would like to believe happened, since that puts the police in the worst possible light."

See above comment: even if Johnston were "naturally and legally" defending herself, that doesn't prove the cops were wrong to return fire.

I get it; you hate cops. That's irrelevant to this point. Throughout your essay, whenever you come to a point where you're unsure what happened, you seize upon the most grotesque, anti-police interpretation you can find -- and then act as if repeated pronunciamentos is a logical proof.

This is snark logic: "what I tell you three times is true."

You set yourself up as an expert authority. What is your background that we should believe you rather than the people actually involved in this case? Or believe you about cops in general? Or believe you that police consider the people to be their enemy?

You make wild, sweeping statements, and you appear to believe that their very audacity proves they're true.

This is the way liberals argue: they say, for example, that "George Bush is the biggest terrorist who ever lived; America is the most evil nation in history; Amerikkka is worse than the Nazis!" -- and think that the rest of us will find that persuasive.

In fact, most folks implicity understand that the wilder the claim, the more proof is required: "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."

Yet you supply no evidence whatsoever, not in this comment, and not in the original, longer version. This is a screed, a rant: you yell about the evil police; but nothing indicates you've looked into the issue one inch beyond your admittedly emotional reaction to having been accidentally wounded in a "botched" -- your word -- SWAT raid.

This makes you as convincing as Stephen Yagman. Do you actually have a logical argument beyond ex-cathedra judgments from on high? I'm sure you persuade those who already believe as you do. I'm equally sure your seething hatred turns off the rest of us.

Think about it: do you really want to persuade? Or do you just want to vent?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 3:15 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Mark McGilvray:

I have to say libertarians cannot even describe what they stand for, only what they oppose.

Technically, that can also be said of the Bill of Rights: it's nothing a sequence of restrictions on the authority of the State. Only one of them even says why.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 3:22 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Did anybody else read this sentence --

Just the other day, I was showing my new deer rifle to one of the local cops in my area in the grocery store parking lot.

-- and muse to himself that this sounds exactly like what some liberal (who has never owned a gun in his life) would write to convince us that he's really a conservative who has been pushed over the line by the out-of-control police?

I don't conclude that this accurately describes SkyWatch; but boy, that line just screams "seminar commenter" to me!

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 3:30 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Dafydd:

Hey some of my best friends are cops. It is that kind of snarky morally superior look at how fair minded I am, I actually talk to these bad people kind of comment that makes you wonder about the guy.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 3:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mark McGilvray

Dafydd:

I suppose you could argue that about the Bill of rights. I can argue that the first three words of your reply make no sense by themselves.

The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, which definitely does positively define the United states as an entity and an idea.

The above hissed in response by: Mark McGilvray [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 4:31 PM

The following hissed in response by: SkyWatch

Lol, I can't prove I am not a liberal but lol...I am not this was the 1st election I didn't vote straight republican. I grew up a farm boy and followed dad when he went deer and pheasant hunting since I could walk. I added that line about showing the local yocal my rifle to show in the little town I live in Arkansas we don't think twice about seeing someone with thier guns. It's natural to us. (btw the pheasant hunting was in Kansas as a little kid. I am sad to say we don't have pheasant here. Just deer. A lot of deer.)

After I grew up a little and moved out on my own I moved to Texas bought a small place in Frisco. It was a small nothing town when I moved there. After I lived there for a little over 11 years the rich folks from Dallas started wanting our land. What do you know, all of the sudden there was plenty of money in the coffers to higher extra cops and the highway patrol made a special task force just for my area. They drove all of us who had been living there peacfully for the most part out and built multi-million dollar homes (the Jerry Jones development)

The cops serve the power brokers not the regular folks.

The above hissed in response by: SkyWatch [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 4:36 PM

The following hissed in response by: Maetenloch

Dafydd, I have to agree with your comments about the problems with libertarianism. I've long considered myself a libertarian conservative, but I'm reluctant to call myself a libertarian. Mostly because the capital-L libertarians I've met in my life have ended being unreasonable absolutists, generally unpleasant people, or just plain nutjobs. I remember aguing with one Libertarian attorney who felt that stop signs and signal lights were an intrusion of the government into people's personal freedom to drive however they liked. I think he actually believed this.

A lot of Libertarians seem take the whole idea of individual autonomy to the extreme where every person is expected to look out for themselves and no one owes anybody else anything. But this goes against my personal honor code of protecting the weak and the innocent. I guess my comittment to maximum personal freedom must be weak. And you have to ask yourself - would you want to have a Libertarian as a next door neighbor?

After 9/11 the libertarian movement has been essentially worthless in helping defend the coutry or even offering proposals for defense. Too many Libertarians seem to have fallen into mindless opposition against *any* government actions. I was also surprised to discover how much overlap there was between Libertarians and the paranoid-conspiracy fringe. I know that there always were black helicopter believers within the libertarian movement, but their views of the government seem to have become mainstream since 9/11. When your attitude towards the government starts approaching that of the Kos-kids or even Al Jazeera, it might be time for a little rethinking.

The above hissed in response by: Maetenloch [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 4:36 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

A libertarian neighbor would leave you alone if you wanted to sunbathe nude or paint your house shocking pink.

Unfortunately, he would also leave you alone if your house caught on fire or burglars broke into it while you were on holiday!

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 4:54 PM

The following hissed in response by: GM

Mark McGilvray:

I have to say libertarians cannot even describe what they stand for, only what they oppose.

Libertarians stand (or at least use to stand) for limited constitutional government which implies maximum individual liberty. Libertarians, however, do believe in rules and are not anarchists anymore that Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin et al. were anarchists.

The libertarian rationale behind decriminalizing the use of drugs is that it is a victimless crime. If there is no victim, there is no crime. I think most libertarians would say the use of drugs is foolish and dangerous to your health. We are just unwilling to incarcerate people for being stupid. Civil society should handle this problem without force. I will admit, however, that much of civil society has withered. When I was young the people who used drugs were thought to be vile, worthless, losers. There was a huge social stigma to the use of illegal narcotics that does not exist today. It disappeared in the middle to late 60’s. Also, I am not completely convinced that you can say unequivocally that the use of drugs is victimless. Treason is a crime that endangers the security of all citizens. You might be able to apply a similar logic to the sale of illegal drugs. I think there should be room for compromise between traditional conservatives and libertarians on this issue. I think we all can agree that police need to use common sense and honor the Constitution in the conduct of their work and their lives. Don’t we all?

But I don’t see any of this as the central issue to the libertarian philosophy. If it has become a central feature, then there is definitely a problem. When it began back in the 70’s libertarianism was a return to the old time religion of classical liberalism. It was an effort to get back to what I like to call CCDRG (classical constitutional democratic republican government).

The above hissed in response by: GM [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 4:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mark McGilvray

GM: I am still laughing at Dafydd's libertarian neighbor above. Unfortunately, that's about as close a description of Libertarianism as one can conceive.

The above hissed in response by: Mark McGilvray [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 5:18 PM

The following hissed in response by: Walter in Denver

I'm still happy to admit I'm a libertarian, although I feel no need to apologize for every other libertarian out there. But I have to stand up for 'movement libertarians.' ( although I don't use the term myself.

First, surely he doesn't believe that cops should only enforce laws they personally support?

Well, to varying degrees, yes. I do expect police and everyone else to make moral judgements about their actions, and not commit immoral acts with the excuse that they are just following orders.

There are two main reasons to oppose the drug war. One is pragmatic, that it is counterproductive and harms society more than a legalized drug trade would. The other is for moral reasons. Putting people in jail for using unapproved chemicals is profoundly immoral.

It doesn't much matter in the moral sense if police acted legally when they killed Ms. Johnstone. They were involved in an inherently immoral activity when the shot her. They are morally, if not legally, culpable in her death.

I'm personally not interested in prosecuting all those involved in the inti-drug industry, although if these cops did abusively violate the law then hang 'em high. I'm more interested in just ending the brutality of the drug war. Declare a truce.

The above hissed in response by: Walter in Denver [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 5:21 PM

The following hissed in response by: Walter in Denver

A libertarian neighbor would leave you alone if you wanted to sunbathe nude or paint your house shocking pink.

Unfortunately, he would also leave you alone if your house caught on fire or burglars broke into it while you were on holiday!

Funny, but literally untrue. Here in Colorado I know several Libertarians who are members of volunteer fire departments. The Libertarians I hang with tend to be quite generous.

The above hissed in response by: Walter in Denver [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 5:26 PM

The following hissed in response by: Nick

Dafydd:

Thank you for allowing my post to stay up - I am new to blogging and so I apparently do yet know the appropriate etiquette - or what a snark is for that matter. But talk about making sweeping comments:

First, the SWAT team was in my house on a warrant for another person. They came to my bedroom doors and unleashed weapons fire. Some straight through my bedroom door some through a wall and then through my bedroom door - and into me. This was in repsonse to my yelling "who is there - get out of my house" as my front door was simultaneously broken down and flash-bang grenades thrown in (setting my house on fire) and the reply was NOT "it's the police" it was blind weapons fire. You're right - they didn't know who was in there (it could have been my wife and children) but they knew someone was in there and they just shot. That's pretty close to attempted murder to me- they nearly killed me.

In terms of statistics - I can point you directly to the FBI studies, the studies of bureau of labor statistics,and on and on. If you would like them I'll be glad to publish them - however - persish the thought - I would not want the post to become too long with facts backed by Government Statistics. But let me know - yes I am becomming an expert - part of the soon to be filed Federal Lawsuit. And BTW I am a republican, went to military school and my family has served in the navy for generations - including today. SO when YOU spout off broad sweeping factless statements about me and liberalism - maybe you should to check yourself first pal and practise what you preach.

I posted on your site for an intelligent discourse - but I was apparently mistaken. Let me know if you want the readily available statistics - or you can spend a little time yourself and loook it up.

The above hissed in response by: Nick [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 6:16 PM

The following hissed in response by: Nick

Dafydd:

Oh, I forgot. nowhere did I say the cops were not justified in shooting back. My point was that when you use para-military approaches to serving freaking warrants people are going to assume they are being attacked and shoot or otherwise defend themselves.

That is what is not justified - HOW the warrant was served.

Why the heck didn't they just go in regular police uniforms, and knock on the door? No they have to draw up an attack plan and dress up in their ninja costumes.

Further I made it very clear that I think many cops who serve their communities as civil policemen are a great thing. Hate cops? That's your factless spouting - not mine.

I do hate SWAT teams being used to serve simple warrants - and many people including Norm Stamper in his book "Breaking Ranks - A Top Cop's Expose' of the Dark Side of American Policing" makes the point about his personal experience with a certain element of sadistic and sociopathic personalities being drawn into SWAT teams. (Oh I am sorry, I just referenced the findings of Police Officer written after 34 years of service culminting in his becoming the Chief of the Seattle Police Department prior to retiring in 2000 - is that a respectable enough opinon for you - or are you much more of expert?)

I, like many of your commenters agree that if you come attacking my home and I have a chance (which I didn't - given I was blindly shoot within about 5 seconds after they broke down my front door)to defend it and my family - I will - I don't care who you "say" you are.

They took a violent approach to this situation and violence was the result. Got the point NOW?

The above hissed in response by: Nick [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 6:45 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

We interrupt this scintillating conversation for a quick test to make sure my comments system still works after a few tweaks:

Beep.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled verbal mayhem.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 10:45 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Nick:

In terms of statistics - I can point you directly to the FBI studies, the studies of bureau of labor statistics,and on and on. If you would like them I'll be glad to publish them - however - persish the thought - I would not want the post to become too long with facts backed by Government Statistics.

No, that would be perfectly appropriate, for two reasons:

  • It's a direct response to something another commenter wrote (namely, me);
  • It's always in order to post evidence of your central point.

It's not so much the length; it's that your essay was an independent, free-standing article not directly responding to the point of my post or anybody else's comment on my post.

This comment is more like a comment than the last one.

(When you post the statistics, be sure to include a link to the originating site -- FBI, BJS, whatever.)

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 11:02 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

One post deleted for repeated obscenities.

Please review the Big Lizards comments policy here.

Thanks!

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 11:09 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

Wow! These libertarians are really nasty. And they take themselves so seriously!

You really stirred up a hornets’ nest this time.

I know it will give you great comfort to know that I am foursquare in your corner on these issues.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 11:19 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

I had the misfortune of reading the deleted comment. Thanks for enforcing your policy.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 11:22 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dick E:

The commenter can post a rewritten version of the comment, if he/she pleases. I don't really blame the commenter: many blogs do allow obscenities in comments, and he/she/it would have had no reason to check our comment policy beforehand.

But yes, I will enforce the comment policy... ruthlessly.

(I don't know if it's a good comment or not; I didn't get past the first paragraph!)

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2006 11:47 PM

The following hissed in response by: Davod

All drugs should be legalized except anti-biotics. Personal preferance?

The above hissed in response by: Davod [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 2:45 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Davod:

All drugs should be legalized except anti-biotics. Personal preferance?

I used to say "all drugs," but a doctor acquaintance of mine convinced me that I was wrong: the misuse of antibiotics can breed supergerms that are highly resistant to all known antibiotics. This in turn can lead to a pandemic of, e.g., aerially transmitted super-typhoid fever that could kill more people than did the 1918 flu pandemic (which killed somewhere around 75 million, more than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined).

And it would only take a tiny number of miscreants and bozos to do it, too.

This is akin to another exception I make: I am a passionate believer in the RKBA... but I draw the line at allowing people to store munitions in residential neighborhoods. The first inkling anyone would have that they were stored carelessly would be when an entire city block goes up in a massive explosion.

There must always be limits on individual freedom, that being when it impinges on someone else's. But "impinges" must be interpreted to include such a potential threat that it constitutes a "clear and present danger" to others, even before it eventuates.

Thus, a man with a gun (or a hundred guns) in his house is not a clear and present danger; but a man with 50 tons of ANFO -- 20 times what McVeigh and Nicols used in Oklahoma City -- would be enough to obliterate a ghastly section of a city.

Likewise the private keeping of weaponized Anthrax or mortar rounds loaded with sarin gas: the danger to innocents is too great to justify the "liberty" to keep any armaments a person may desire.

Civil liberty is not a suicide pact; we can't allow private individuals to keep suitcase nukes (if such things existed, which they don't) or stockpile MOABs...

Or freely allow the purchase and stockpiling of antibiotics for the same reason. I think they should be more widely available -- but should still require a license.

Guns and heroin, I couldn't care less about.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 3:51 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I do not believe in legalizing all drugs. And I do not need to be reminded that Prohitbition did not work either. But there are drugs out there that are nohing akin to the occasional beer, they are dangerous and addictive and they destroy lives and communities. Say meth became legal..do you think it would be any less deadly or do you think it would be free?

No, the users would still be robbing everyone including their own families blind and they would still end up in the health care system, prison or the morgue.

I think Libertarians are by and large selfish and silly. And this current debate proves it. Too bad that old lady did not use that gun to run off the drug dealers, maybe the cops would not have been there in her house {assuming she is not dealer herself, but I doubt it...probably some helpful gangster grandson}. Oh... but then those nice drug dealers would not have even bothered to wait for her to open fire before they shot her, would they? How many innocent people are killed by these criminals everyday and yet who is it the libertarians hate? The cops. Well I am sorry but if I had a choice of a state trooper next door or a crack house, I would prefer the trooper.

And while police officers should always be careful in the use of force it is also true that cops get killed in the line of duty for doing nothing more intrusive than pulling a guy over for an expired license plate.

Libertarians have a strange enough reputation without coming off sounding like Timothy McVeigh.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 4:17 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

BTW, the use of drugs was not always illegal. Doctors use dto prescribe cocaine with brandy for nervous disorders and in the Wild West the Chinese openly ran opium dens from No Man's Land to California, but like gambling the unrestrained use of these drugs began to attract what people used to call a "bad element". Today most of the gunfights and mayhem of the times is blamed on a lack of law enforcement, but in truth drugs, booze and gambling together with the lack of law enforcement made some of those communities unfit to live in.

What was the answer? hanging Judge Parker and Wyat Earp. Individual freedom is not a bad thing, but there is such a thing as social responsibility. The founding fathers were not anarchists.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 4:29 AM

The following hissed in response by: SkyWatch

Terrye.."And while police officers should always be careful in the use of force it is also true that cops get killed in the line of duty for doing nothing more intrusive than pulling a guy over for an expired license plate."

That is true but regular people are killed everyday also. If someone kills me it's just murder. Kill a cop it's capital murder. The argument I most often heard is if someone is willing to kill a cop then they would kill anyone. My answer is if soemone kills anyone then would kill anyone. We just put the cops above ourselves.

It's pretty clear that those who have been touched by the police in dishonest ways are against giving them carte-blance and those who have not been touched by them are for it.

It is sorta like Dafydd being against the INS bacause they are all a bunch of worthless do nothings who don't care.(which I agree with) It is his experience with them that has formed his opinion of them and no amount of talking will change his mind because he has seen it with his own eyes.

The above hissed in response by: SkyWatch [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 5:45 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

SkyWatch:

Oh puhleaze. When I was 18 years old an off duty police officer working as a rent a cop at the IU bookstore manhandled me. But I was also raped by a white man who was not a cop. Does that mean every white man should carry the load for that rapist?

The truth is the penalty for killing a cop is higher because they are the ones who are required to put their lives on the line. This does not mean they can break the law, but it does mean they are duty bound to run into the kind of places you can run out of.

BTW, one of my best friends is married to a police officer and her husband does not deserve this kind of treatment from you or anyone else.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 6:40 AM

The following hissed in response by: Nick

Dafdd:

When you say my blog comments have nothing to do with this blog - go back and read - are not at least half the comments regarding about what happened to Johnston and what people would do if they encountered the same situation?

In any case here is the 2005 stats from the FBI which show the police are not outgunned, are not dying from assault rifles (there appear to be 2 or 3 in that caliber range, though), etc. The link is also included. Actually the stats on the link go back to 1996.

1. Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted 2005, Source FBI

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2005/

Table 34 Source FBI
Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed with Firearms
Number Slain by Type of Firearm and Size of Ammunition, 1996-2005
Firearm
Ammunition
Total 2005 2005 %'s 50 (100%)
Handgun 42 (84%)
.22 Caliber 2
.25 Caliber 0
.32 Caliber 0
.357 Caliber 3
.357 Magnum 1
.38 Caliber 7
.380 Caliber 5
.40 Caliber 10
.41 Magnum 0
.44 Caliber 0
.44 Magnum 1
.45 Caliber 5
.50 Caliber 0
7.62x25 Millimeter 0
9 Millimeter 7
9x18 Millimeter 0
10 Millimeter 1
Ammunition not reported 0
Rifle 3 (6%)
.22 Caliber 0
.223 Caliber 1 (2%)
.25-06 Caliber 0
.270 Caliber 0
.30 Caliber 0
.30-06 Caliber 0
.30-30 Caliber 0
.300 Caliber 0
.44 Caliber 0
5.56 Millimeter 0
7 Millimeter 0
7.62x39 Millimeter 2 (4%)
7.62x54R Millimeter 0
Ammunition not reported 0
Shotgun 5 (10%)
12 Gauge 4
16 Gauge 1
20 Gauge 0
Ammunition not reported 0

In 2005:
There were 50 deaths related to firearms, 42 (84%) were by handgun of the same or lesser caliber utilized by police forces.

Three shootings (6%) were related to rifles and 5 shootings (10%) were related to shotguns.
Police are simply not "outgunned" by suspects.


The above hissed in response by: Nick [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 9:43 AM

The following hissed in response by: Nick

Dafddy - more facts.....

How police really Knock and Announce - see the video:

1. Team huddled at door,
2. Door smashed open,
3. “Flash-bang” thrown deafening,disorientating and blinding anyone inside
4. Team storms into the house
5. Team only then makes an apparent “announcement” sounds like the word police is said once, then a bunch of yelling


Go to: http://cbs4boston.com/video

Go to date 11/17/06 and select and play "RAW VIDEO, SWAT TEAM STORMS HOME IN BROCKTON.

Still think this is right? Still wonder why people are getting killed?

There are plenty of these videos and accounts you can find.

The above hissed in response by: Nick [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 10:40 AM

The following hissed in response by: Nick

Dafddy -

Bureau of Labor Statistics Most Dangerous Jobs:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0004.pdf

You'll note police deaths are nowhere near the top 10. There were 50 deaths by homicide and a total of 123 (41% of 123 is 50) if you include traffic accidents, plane crashes, falls, cops shooting themselves, and other reasons people normally die in accidents.

Yep being a cop is SO DANGEROUS that that it surely MUST be the reason we are equiping them with M-16's and their variants, Grenades, helicopters, tanks, etc. and allowing no-knock raids etc.

Again, I am not saying I don't respect and actually admire good cops - I do have great disrespect for loss of civil liberties, and SWAT team tactics being used to mainly serve warrants.

Dangerous policies, people are dying, waste of money and resources. More facts? - hold on my friend.

The above hissed in response by: Nick [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 11:00 AM

The following hissed in response by: Nick

Dafydd -


From correspondence between myself and the editor of the Police Officer Hall of Fame:

"Jim

Thanks for the information. In the meantime I have found statistics from the FBI which show a similar although slightly different picture. As a baseline I have so far compared the results of police deaths (by felony and or by accident) to vehicle (auto & motorcycle) fatalities provided by the NHTSA.

While any life lost is a terrible thing – the good news (if it can be called that) is that our officers do not seem to be suffering an inordinate amount of fatalities. I am having trouble wording that last sentence – but from a statistical standpoint I think you understand what I am saying. My belief going in was that the risk of death would be much higher.

The FBI statistics for 2005 also show literally no statistical evidence that our police forces are being “outgunned”. Only 2 of the 50 deaths by non-accidental firearm discharge ( there appears to be 4 incidents of officers fatally shooting themselves) are associated with calibers used by assault rifles – that is another unexpected piece of good news. By far the FBI statistics show that our officers outgun the bad guys by a huge margin.

I appreciate your help and the good work and support that your organization provides.

See tables below:
Traffic Fatalities YE 2004 - the most current complete results available(Source NHTSA)




Licensed Drivers YE 2004: 198,889,000
Fatalities YE 2004: 38,444
Percent Fatalities: 0.02%
(Source NHTSA)



Police Fatalities YE 2005 (Source FBI)

Death By Felony
Registered Police Officers: 561,844
Killed by felony in the line of duty (50 by shooting): 55
Percent Fatalities: 0.01%
(Source FBI)

Police Officers death by felony are only one half as likely as is an ordinary citizen dying while driving a vehicle


Death By Accident
Registered Police Officers: 561,844
Killed by accidents (mostly travel related accidents): 67
Percent Fatalities: 0.01%
(Source FBI)


Death by Felony and Accident Combined
Registered Police Officers: 561,844

Killed by accidents and felonies combined: 122
Percent Fatalities: 0.02%
(Source FBI)

Police Officers deaths are no more likely than that of an ordinary citizen dying while driving a vehicle

Regards,

Nick Charles"


Note: Jim actually reports the number of active police officers in the U.S. is more on the order of 660,000. Per the FBI not all departments reported to their survey accounting for their figure of active officers being about 100,000 less. For the sake of being conservative, I used the lower number.

The above hissed in response by: Nick [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 11:28 AM

The following hissed in response by: Nick

This from The Times Herald - just what we need another law shielding abusive police behavior and making it impossible for people to achieve legal remedy:


"Garrity bill is simply bad public policy
State Senate legislation would cover up police misconduct

No one should dispute the important role law enforcement officers play. Since we ask them to risk their lives to protect us, we should do everything within reason to support them.

There is a line, however, that even those who want to do right by the police should never cross. As important as the men and women in blue certainly are to the public, they must be held to the same standards of public accountability as any citizen.

A proposed bill to be considered Tuesday in the state Senate Judiciary Committee would give police officers greater protection — and that should raise an alarm.

State Sen. Alan Sanborn, R-Richmond, is sponsoring SB 647, a disturbing piece of legislation that would undermine police officers’ accountability to the public they are sworn to protect and serve. Better known as the Garrity Legislation, it would give law enforcement officers extraordinary protection from self-incrimination during internal investigations. In its attempt to encourage officers to tell the truth, it would bar their admissions from the public record.

As government employees, police officers already have special safeguards. When their employer compels them to tell the truth in an internal investigation, the statements they make cannot be used against them in a criminal prosecution.

The U.S. Supreme Court made that clear in Garrity v. New Jersey. In that case, the police officers’ convictions were overturned because they were based on their forced admissions.

Sanborn’s legislation goes one step further. It prevents public disclosure of the officers’ statements. Therefore, it bars the public or even other police agencies from information about an officer’s conduct — and that’s unacceptable.

If an officer is involved in misconduct, it would be wrong to seal that information. To do so would be an affront to taxpayers and an attack on the public’s right to know.

Moreover, the measure would bar a potential victim of police abuse from access to the offending officer’s statement about the incident. Citizens deserve the right to examine such information. Preventing them from doing so not only denies them justice, it also could exempt officers from accounting for their actions.

The legislation appears to be a response to Wayne County Prosecutor Mike Duggan’s efforts to access the statements of three Garden City officers related to a December 2005 shootout that wounded one officer and killed a man who exchanged fire with police. The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in Duggan’s favor. Consequently, police associations are pressing the Legislature to strengthen police officers’ protection.

Supporters of this legislation argue it gives police officers the same rights as ordinary citizens. If an employee in the private sector engages in misconduct on the job, his or her employer can demand the employee tell the truth or be fired — and then the employee could be prosecuted. Police officers already have protection against prosecution in internal investigations.

Sanborn’s bill simply goes too far."

OK I think I've supplied enough information and sources - I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

Respectfully,

Nick



The above hissed in response by: Nick [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 11:42 AM

The following hissed in response by: Nick

A Quote Regarding Police Accountability From "Above the Law: Police and the Excessive Use of Force" by Skolnick and Frye:

"I object to the repetitious requirement for notification in writing [to citizens who have complained about police actions] at the completion of the investigation to notify and outline your reasons for the findings. I don't know of anybody in the police department who has that kind of writing ability that could clearly state why, in writing, certain conclusions have been reached."

- Chief Inspector Frank Scafidi, Philadelphia Police Department, testimony before U.S. Civil Right Commission, April 1979"

Geez - I wonder why when police do something wrong there are almost never any repercussions? I thought this self investigation stuff was supposed to work. I am sure Johnstons family can't wait for the report from the police. Hopefully, there really will be a real independent investigation to include the wisdom of using the SWAT tactics which seem to have caused a non-violent simple police work situation to escalate into shootings and killings.


Just couldn't help posting this great quote......

Nick

The above hissed in response by: Nick [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 11:54 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Nick:

Did I say the police were "outgunned?"

Did I suggest they were "dying from assault rifles" to any great degree?

For that matter, I never claimed that your comments "have nothing to do with this blog." Read more closely, please.

Your statistics are a complete non-sequitur. You titled your first essay "the Murder of Kathryn Johnston." In the one I let stay up, you changed that to "the Killing of Kathryn Johnston," but the thrust was essentially unchanged: that "undercover and SWAT operations" "abuse... our civil liberties" -- in particular, in the Kathryn Johnston case.

That is your point; that is what you must justify by evidence... not whether cops are or are not killed by "assault rifles."

The rest of your statistics and quotations are equally irrelevant to your point; they comprise variations on the data that cops aren't killed in as large a number as somebody or other expected and that they're not often killed by "assault rifles;" an unlinked editorial from some unnamed newspaper (there are dozens of "Times Heralds" in the United States) about a bill in the J-com of, evidently, the state of Michigan; and a pull-quote from some unlinked and tendentious "study" of police titled "Above the Law."

This is all meaningless to the point at issue here. Do you have any evidence that actually responds to anything in my original blogpost about this specific case?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 2:59 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

All the libertarians who have argued that the cops in this case violated the civil liberties of Kathryn Johnston should read this blogpost and answer the question at the end.

It sets up a thought experiment that will explore your moral reasoning.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 3:07 PM

The following hissed in response by: Nick

Dafydd-

I am a little tired with your spurious jousting. I guess the difference is I missed that you're all about libertarianism - and points of view you post under that banner - when disagreed with are irrelevant - since they are not necessarily about Libertarianism.

Obviously you don't read books such as the one's I have referenced. Statistics that suggest an alternative you don't like - you just dismiss. I’ve got to give it to you – you are one arrogant individual.

No, you did not say police were outgunned nor did you say they were being shot by assault rifles. Did I say that you did? No.

The point is this - is there any reason for the polices actions and policies in this or other such cases which seem to if not actually (as I believe)violate peoples rights? And are SWAT teams necessary for warrants?

Intellectually one might ask:

Is their policy of no-knock and use of high powered weapons justified in some way? What rationale could there be in play?:

1. Are criminals outgunning police causing such actions to be prudent? According to the FBI - No.

2. Are assault rifles being used against them causing them to need to do the same (really the same question as above) - according to the FBI, No.

3. Are police being massacred by criminals so that even such mundane regular civil police work such as serving warrants must be accomplished via use of paramilitary tactics? According to the FBI -No. Not even close - actually garbage collecting is in the top ten reasons for death - being a cop is actually one of the safer jobs (which surprised me). When you compare NHTSA statistics to those of the FBI one finds surprisingly that police are ½ as likely to die from a felonious act as any person driving their car. So again – No.

4. Do SWAT teams give sufficient warning and announcements before entering as per the 4th amendment? Apparently not - I sent you a video of one of their entries - there are tons of these on the net. I personally experienced such a situation. Norm Stamper's acclaimed BOOK also acknowledges this problem of thinly veiled 4th amendment violations. Isn't, as many of your blogger's have commented, it likely that Ms. Johnson could in no way have heard any announcement - because one was not made until after they were inside - for instance as in the video I sent - violating in fact or in spirit the 4th amendment?

5. Are there laws attempting to further encourage such abuse coming (this just a matter of intellectual curiosity)? Clearly. The paper was from the Port Huron, Michigan Times Herald as you apparently know - but dismiss.

6. Do the cops hide what they do? The acclaimed BOOK "Above the Law" which I cited is written by a Clare Clements Dean's Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley and by a Professor of Criminal Justice at Temple University. The answer is clearly yes. When police make mistakes they cover it up – they conduct their own internal investigations. So is it possible we don’t get the truth and people’s right may have been violated? Yes.

5. BTW on my new friend Paterrico's site states the lady was shot at 92 freaking times inside her house - I have asked him to verify. On the latter point he posted the police chief's comment which states they were inside her house when the shots were fired.
And if the 92 shots is right - well then you have in my opinion sadism and murder (but that's just me). Was excessive force, violating constitutional rights used? I believe yes - starting with the tactical planning and the forced entry which are THE proximate causes for the defensive firing by this poor lady. Firing back 92 times???

6. Did Ms. Johnston give them any reason to deploy in SWAT tactics - I have not seen anybody claim that.

SO what's the bottom line? To me you are either:

a) intellectually dishonest

b) from another country i.e. India, Saudi, etc. where arguing a point in the manner in which you do, arrogant, dismissive, flip-flopping, etc. is common. BTW: THIS IS NOT A RACIST COMMENT - IF YOU HAVE DONE BUSINESS OVER SEAS YOU COME TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS OFTEN THE WAY NEGOTIATIONS OR ARGUMENTS ARE HANDLED THERE. It is just a fact of life – they think the way we argue is weird too, BTW.

c) not very smart (although kudos on the website),

d) are a just a pompous jerk, or

e) you are actually John Cleese from Monty Python in the famous "Argument" skit where you present nothing yourself (as you have done) and just continually dismiss and contradict whatever is posited.

Now before you wet your panties: from one not very smart, arrogant, pompous jerk to the other - let's just agree to disagree as this is getting nowhere. We are talking past each other or something and I would rather discuss these issues on other sites.

I do however appreciate your site and allowing me to post my thoughts.

The above hissed in response by: Nick [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 4:46 PM

The following hissed in response by: DrMalaka

Dafydd:

My deepest apoligies. Did not know the no cussing allowed rule. As you can imagine, I get a little riled up when I recall the incident I wrote about.

Won't let it happen again. The cursing that is, not the getting riled up part.

I shall respect and abide by the rules you lay down.

The above hissed in response by: DrMalaka [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 8:46 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

DrMalaka:

No problem. As I said above, you're welcome to rewrite the comment and post it again.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 8:53 PM

The following hissed in response by: LarryD

Why I'm not a Libertarian. Actually, Maetenloch stated it well enough I'm just going to quote him:

A lot of Libertarians seem take the whole idea of individual autonomy to the extreme where every person is expected to look out for themselves and no one owes anybody else anything.

This is particularly true of the of the few Libertarian political candidates I've read of.

A more respectable position was described by a website (sorry, don't have the link anymore) that was more philosophical: The "ideal" Libertarian society would resemble the Celtic society before the Romans conquered them. But that example brings up another weakness. Celtic society could not defend itself successfully against an outside threat that was organized at a larger level. Each village/petty kingdom defended itself when the Romans got to them, and was crushed piecemeal. Only towards the end did they try to organize a larger scale defense, and it was too late then. And even that depended on charismatic leaders (Indutiomarus of the Treveri, Vercingetorix) to rally around. A parallel example from American history would be the Lakota Sioux, again too late and not even possible without Crazy Horse.

Libertarianism seems to lack the large scale sense of community (and in all too many cases even the small scale sense of community) necessary to actually make it work. It's too vulnerable to any large scale organized enemy.

The above hissed in response by: LarryD [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 7:34 AM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

Absolutely brilliant, Daffyd. You've clearly stated, better than I can myself (D**n you!), why I cannot bring myself to call myself a Libertarian today. It's a real shame because I've always thought that Libertarians had the healthiest APPROACH to government: complete distrust. The problem was always IMHO that their PROPOSALS for dealing with the admitted problems in current government approaches were either nonexistant or unrealistic to the point of insanity.

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 10:58 AM

The following hissed in response by: Nick

Johnston Case Update

Just for grins you might want to check out both Balko's and Paterrico's site regarding the Johnston case.

Looks like a lot of prior disinformation by the police, cover up, bad warrant (they are being released), and a case of dereliction of duty and abuse resulting in death are becoming more and more closer to being what actually happened. We will see what the facts are hopefully soon.

The police chief seems to be acting in a stand up fashion and perhaps we will soon know the whole truth. Just an FYI only

The above hissed in response by: Nick [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 2:27 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved