you mean guys like Army Col. Stuart Herrington and Colin Powell? gotcha chief.
Bush to approve torture tomorrow, leader of free world
- Thread starter Spytheweb
- Start date
you mean guys like Army Col. Stuart Herrington and Colin Powell? gotcha chief.
alright...i have about an hour...so i`ll take some time with you...cause i like you...and it`s worth trying to ween you away from the mind control that this little p.o.s. stw has obviously imposed upon you...
say you go into your local emergency room after overdosing on something...hell,say it`s tylenol...
you will have a tube shoved down your throat,into your stomach,have water pumped in and removed....then a tube will be snaked down your nose and you`ll be infused with a charcoal solution...
if you resist,you`lll be restrained...
in some cases,they may have to paralyze your muscles and put you on a ventilator that will determine when and how much you breathe(depending upon what you`ve taken)......
pretty invasive?...distressing?...absolutely...but,it`s perceived as necessary to save your life.....
why wouldn`t an intervemtion such as waterboarding not be accepted if it`s done in order to save the lives of innocent citizens?....waterboarding involves no lasting physical harm...
what is coersion?...to impose an undesirable consequence for undesirable behavior...it ranges from mundane stuff like parking tickets to penalties assessed for sexual assault and murder....
the guiding principle is that the method of coersion is appropriate to the situation....in the case of terror attacks, the measures involved obviously escalate according to the imminence of the threat.....
coersion isn`t bad...it`s inherent in a society of laws....
the key here is necessity, and it is the nature of the threat and the conduct of the interrogatee who will determine that factor.....and again,THREE times on al qaeda honchos isn`t excessive...
when you weigh the well being(mentally,not physically) of a terrorist mastermind vs the lives of potentially thousands of american citizens,you`d have to be either stupid or uninformed to not put the safety of your own peeps ahead of the peace of mind of some terrorist savage trying to kill us...
there i`ve broken it down in a nice way so i don`t offend your fragile sensibilities.....
and i blame the bush adm. for not being able to articulate doing what`s necessary...that`s a real problem for this administaration...
now.....what "i" really feel is that i thought war was all about belittling, humiliating and killing the enemy until the enemy didn't want to be belittled, humiliated and killed any more...
that's what our enemies have always tried to do to us.... they'll waterboard the last drip of snot out our people, that's for sure(if we`re lucky...but we`re not,they just murder us)...
why are we worrying about our military procedures? ....more importantly, why is our military actually worrying about what we think....
why is this stuff even public.....why?.....because political gain is vastly more important to some than the security of the country....they know everything we do...
mark bowden, author of blackhawk down, had an excellent article in the "atlantic monthly" several years ago called "the dark art of interrogation." ...
he said the that "the human mind can endure anything but uncertainty"....
well,thats not an option thanks to outfits like the n.y. times...
personally,i want our military to belittle, humiliate and kill the enemy until the enemy doesn't want to be belittled, humiliated and killed anymore. ......
theres the politically correct view,and gardenweasel`s view...
all that for you,cause i like like you despite the insults,that i know you don`t mean...
you know i`m right...
say you go into your local emergency room after overdosing on something...hell,say it`s tylenol...
you will have a tube shoved down your throat,into your stomach,have water pumped in and removed....then a tube will be snaked down your nose and you`ll be infused with a charcoal solution...
if you resist,you`lll be restrained...
in some cases,they may have to paralyze your muscles and put you on a ventilator that will determine when and how much you breathe(depending upon what you`ve taken)......
pretty invasive?...distressing?...absolutely...but,it`s perceived as necessary to save your life.....
why wouldn`t an intervemtion such as waterboarding not be accepted if it`s done in order to save the lives of innocent citizens?....waterboarding involves no lasting physical harm...
what is coersion?...to impose an undesirable consequence for undesirable behavior...it ranges from mundane stuff like parking tickets to penalties assessed for sexual assault and murder....
the guiding principle is that the method of coersion is appropriate to the situation....in the case of terror attacks, the measures involved obviously escalate according to the imminence of the threat.....
coersion isn`t bad...it`s inherent in a society of laws....
the key here is necessity, and it is the nature of the threat and the conduct of the interrogatee who will determine that factor.....and again,THREE times on al qaeda honchos isn`t excessive...
when you weigh the well being(mentally,not physically) of a terrorist mastermind vs the lives of potentially thousands of american citizens,you`d have to be either stupid or uninformed to not put the safety of your own peeps ahead of the peace of mind of some terrorist savage trying to kill us...
there i`ve broken it down in a nice way so i don`t offend your fragile sensibilities.....
and i blame the bush adm. for not being able to articulate doing what`s necessary...that`s a real problem for this administaration...
now.....what "i" really feel is that i thought war was all about belittling, humiliating and killing the enemy until the enemy didn't want to be belittled, humiliated and killed any more...
that's what our enemies have always tried to do to us.... they'll waterboard the last drip of snot out our people, that's for sure(if we`re lucky...but we`re not,they just murder us)...
why are we worrying about our military procedures? ....more importantly, why is our military actually worrying about what we think....
why is this stuff even public.....why?.....because political gain is vastly more important to some than the security of the country....they know everything we do...
mark bowden, author of blackhawk down, had an excellent article in the "atlantic monthly" several years ago called "the dark art of interrogation." ...
he said the that "the human mind can endure anything but uncertainty"....
well,thats not an option thanks to outfits like the n.y. times...
personally,i want our military to belittle, humiliate and kill the enemy until the enemy doesn't want to be belittled, humiliated and killed anymore. ......
theres the politically correct view,and gardenweasel`s view...
all that for you,cause i like like you despite the insults,that i know you don`t mean...
you know i`m right...
Last edited:
much love,bro.....
i have the welfare of every decent dewd in this forum(and there are many) in mind......believe that...
:toast:
i have the welfare of every decent dewd in this forum(and there are many) in mind......believe that...
:toast:
Well Jabbers you danced around that pretty good switiching to rape then to healthcare.
I'll ask you one more time---
Would you volunteer to be waterboarded to save the life of one child.
If not continue your rant--
If you would--your arguement is shot to hell.
______________________________
While on subject of terrorist--believe these boys would would opt for a little boarding over whats in store for them--
China: Terrorists targeted Olympics
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_re_as/oly_china_terror;_ylt=AvUAkv3PK.cpQsd7F_aNFdZ34T0D
I'll ask you one more time---
Would you volunteer to be waterboarded to save the life of one child.
If not continue your rant--
If you would--your arguement is shot to hell.
______________________________
While on subject of terrorist--believe these boys would would opt for a little boarding over whats in store for them--
China: Terrorists targeted Olympics
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_re_as/oly_china_terror;_ylt=AvUAkv3PK.cpQsd7F_aNFdZ34T0D
Last edited:
I did not say anything about healthcare. This thread is about torture. For the third time, as quoted in my original post
Whatever the US policy is regarding torture it should be discussed and decided upon through open debate and codified. The secretive, double talking, covert insidious way it is being carried out under this administration is not what an open democracy is all about. I don't think any reasonable person would object to a practice of water boarding in appropriate situations. It just needs to be out in the open imo with some level of review and control.
Whatever the US policy is regarding torture it should be discussed and decided upon through open debate and codified. The secretive, double talking, covert insidious way it is being carried out under this administration is not what an open democracy is all about. I don't think any reasonable person would object to a practice of water boarding in appropriate situations. It just needs to be out in the open imo with some level of review and control.
say you go into your local emergency room after overdosing on something...hell,say it`s tylenol...
you will have a tube shoved down your throat,into your stomach,have water pumped in and removed....then a tube will be snaked down your nose and you`ll be infused with a charcoal solution...
if you resist,you`lll be restrained...
in some cases,they may have to paralyze your muscles and put you on a ventilator that will determine when and how much you breathe(depending upon what you`ve taken)......
pretty invasive?...distressing?...absolutely...but,it`s perceived as necessary to save your life.....
..
This thread feels like waterboarding, or what I would imagine it feels like:s1:
We don't really do this much anymore, gw. If the patient isn't intoxicated, they have rights. We can "imprison" them against their will for a psych eval, but they can refuse this other stuff. Usually causes more problems than it solves.
I've seen another doctor actually paralyze an AWAKE patient that was completely unruly........and it led to a Katie-Bar-the-Door right there in the trauma bay. My attending and I matched up vs a Trauma Team and it was ugly.....can you imagine? Right here in the good ole USA, tacit approval of something we wouldn't even do (maybe) to a "terrorist"........under the pretense of care for the patient, but we could've easily had him completely sedated in a minute, then paralyze him and tube him so the rest of the job could get done. Can you imagine? Wide awake and slowly but surely you can't breath? Waterboarding has got nothing on this technique. This cvnt was proud of himself for doing this! "Fvck him!" were the exact words.......and I had problems with this guy for a year-and-half after for every little thing b/c we dug in that night and got him reprimanded.
With that said, the perception that we may do it is enough most of the time to get patients drinking the charcoal on their own .....we can make it tolerable, if not downright tasty:SIB. The bluff is enough, and if they're still unruly, just put them to sleep peacefully.
My point is......both sides are right and both sides are wrong. Of course we would want to save lives, and by God by any means necessary. Send Jack Bauer in there, b/c he gets the job done! I don't think, or really even know if it works, but if it can save one life.......the end justifies the means.
......but we should be above torture. You can't run on the high road and the low road at the same time. Where do you draw the line on torture? Who has the balls to determine which methods are acceptable and which aren't? That's where I have problems with where we're going on this topic.
I saw the headline and instantly got pissed b/c I'm pissed off about a lot of other things this administration has done.
I ran into this website today and thought I would copy it to provoke some thought about this topic and several others in recent threads.....this is a conservative orginization, btw.
The American Freedom Agenda?s (AFA) mission is twofold: the enactment of a cluster of statutes that would restore the Constitution?s checks and balances as enshrined by the Founding Fathers; and, making the subject a staple of political campaigns and of foremost concern to Members of Congress and to voters and educators. Especially since 9/11, the executive branch has chronically usurped legislative or judicial power, and has repeatedly claimed that the President is the law. The constitutional grievances against the White House are chilling, reminiscent of the kingly abuses that provoked the Declaration of Independence.
The 10-point American Freedom Agenda would work to restore the roles of Congress and the federal judiciary to prevent such abuses of power and protect against injustices that are the signature of civilized nations. In particular, the American Freedom Agenda would:
--Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;
--Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;
--Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President?s say-so;
---Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;
--Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President?s say-so in violation of federal law;
--Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;
--Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;
--Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;
--Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;
--Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence.
:0corn
-A bit to deep for me Doc--I'm more of situational person.
Am for protection of rights of people--but when it comes to terrorist rights at expense of we the people--or criminal rights vs victims--I have to draw the line.
already stated stance on waterboarding-
On eavedropping--if pres or personally--would much prefer consequences of a few complaints than the other consequences.
The attorneys for terrorist totally warps me--can't imagine in Viet Nam my having to offer captured soilder attorney before I could question him.
I might add in year plus there I never saw a prisoner abused--and being the medical member in our 6 man team--I workied just as diligently on enemy as I did on our own--they did go to end of the line however.
I might be wrong--but I think the situation/enemy/consequences dictates the methods used.
Was nice read you put up-thank you
had to lok up a few terms to get the general idea however
--on diff sidenote--I don't know what they teach field medical personel now days in training--but sure regret they didn't teach us to put in chest tube. Saw this procedure done on medivac later and looked pretty simple--could have saved one of our team had I saw it done before I believe.
Am for protection of rights of people--but when it comes to terrorist rights at expense of we the people--or criminal rights vs victims--I have to draw the line.
already stated stance on waterboarding-
On eavedropping--if pres or personally--would much prefer consequences of a few complaints than the other consequences.
The attorneys for terrorist totally warps me--can't imagine in Viet Nam my having to offer captured soilder attorney before I could question him.
I might add in year plus there I never saw a prisoner abused--and being the medical member in our 6 man team--I workied just as diligently on enemy as I did on our own--they did go to end of the line however.
I might be wrong--but I think the situation/enemy/consequences dictates the methods used.
Was nice read you put up-thank you
had to lok up a few terms to get the general idea however
--on diff sidenote--I don't know what they teach field medical personel now days in training--but sure regret they didn't teach us to put in chest tube. Saw this procedure done on medivac later and looked pretty simple--could have saved one of our team had I saw it done before I believe.
"The 10-point American Freedom Agenda would work to restore the roles of Congress and the federal judiciary to prevent such abuses of power and protect against injustices that are the signature of civilized nations.".....
doc,i hope you didn`t miss my point by trying so hard to pick apart this layman`s medical expertise....
this is a different kind of war...there are no applicable rules that apply to our enemies...at least,not as far as their treatment of our people...we die....that`s basically their set of rules...
from this type of enemy,i`m sure we get much dependable information from just sitting down and having a conversation and treating them like human beings in a businesslike manner...wouldn`t you say?...
obviously ,you think a bunch of grandstanding politicians and politically appointed judges telling our psyops professionals what types of coercive interrogation techniques they can and cannot use will do more good than harm...
i don`t...we will agree to disagree...
by the way, the issue here isn't "legalizing" waterboarding.....it was "banning" waterboarding....
so it "couldn`t" be used under ANY circumstances.......couldn`t have been used the whole "3 times" we used it and gained important intel from al qaeda honchos.......
exactly three terrorists, all of whom had vitally important information on attacks in the planning stages.....
thankfully,some dems used their heads and bush`s veto wasn`t overridden...
i`m sure your intentions are noble,though...unlike the initiator of this thread........
doc,i hope you didn`t miss my point by trying so hard to pick apart this layman`s medical expertise....
this is a different kind of war...there are no applicable rules that apply to our enemies...at least,not as far as their treatment of our people...we die....that`s basically their set of rules...
from this type of enemy,i`m sure we get much dependable information from just sitting down and having a conversation and treating them like human beings in a businesslike manner...wouldn`t you say?...
obviously ,you think a bunch of grandstanding politicians and politically appointed judges telling our psyops professionals what types of coercive interrogation techniques they can and cannot use will do more good than harm...
i don`t...we will agree to disagree...
by the way, the issue here isn't "legalizing" waterboarding.....it was "banning" waterboarding....
so it "couldn`t" be used under ANY circumstances.......couldn`t have been used the whole "3 times" we used it and gained important intel from al qaeda honchos.......
exactly three terrorists, all of whom had vitally important information on attacks in the planning stages.....
thankfully,some dems used their heads and bush`s veto wasn`t overridden...
i`m sure your intentions are noble,though...unlike the initiator of this thread........
Last edited:
Weasel, you really believe that in all of the CIA Black site "secret prisons" scattered across the globe the extent of US torture is that 3 people were waterboarded?
honestly,wocky,i don`t want to know....i won`t have the chance to enjoy these theoretical discussions with you academics if i`m dead...
i don`t like the idea of us giving the store away...very publicly...
many of these military, mental and mumbo-jumbo storehouse of interogation methods are coyly-crippled simply by discussing them....
if this debate needed to be made(and i don`t agree that it should even be an issue),it should be argued offstage....
this is why i hate democratic politicians...they leak this stuff to earn political points...
if other methods fail and then it needs to be done,so be it....we are dealing with mass murderers who will use whatever means to kill significant numbers of civilians.....
i`ve seen the constitution mentioned in this thread....well,to roughly paraphrase, "our constitution is not a suicide pact" and fortunately, we are able to sleep peacefully at night because rough men are willing to hurt those men that want to harm us..........
I'll side with the rights abuse on this one---
Radley Balko: Senseless Overkill
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
By Radley Balko
ADVERTISEMENT
Imagine you're home alone.
It's 8 p.m. You work an early shift and need to be out the door before sunrise, so you're already in bed. Your nerves are a bit frazzled, because earlier in the week someone broke into your home. Oddly, they didn't take anything; they just rifled through your belongings.
But the violation weighs on your mind. At about the time you drift off, you're awakened by fierce barking from your two large dogs. You hear someone crashing into your front door, as if he's trying to separate it from its hinges. You grab the gun you keep for home defense and leave your room to investigate.
This past January that scenario played out at the Chesapeake, Va., home of 28-year-old Ryan Frederick, a slight man of little more than 100 pounds. According to interviews since the incident, Frederick says when he looked toward his front door, he saw an intruder trying to enter through one of the lower door panels. So Frederick fired his gun.
The intruders were from the Chesapeake Police Department. They had come to serve a drug warrant. Frederick's bullet struck Detective Jarrod Shivers in the side, killing him. Frederick was arrested and has spent the last six weeks in a Chesapeake jail.
He has been charged with first degree murder. Paul Ebert, the special prosecutor assigned to the case, has indicated he may elevate the charge to capital murder, which would enable the state to seek the death penalty.
At the time of the raid, Ryan Frederick worked for a soft drink merchandiser. Current and former employers and co-workers speak highly of him. He also recently had gotten engaged, a welcome lift for a guy who'd had a run of tough luck.
He lost both parents early in life, and friends say the death of his mother hit particularly hard ? Frederick discovered her in bed after she had overdosed on prescription medication.
Friends and neighbors describe Frederick as shy, self-effacing, non-confrontational and hard-working. He had no prior criminal record. Frederick and his friends have conceded he smoked marijuana recreationally. But all ? including his neighbors ? insist there's no evidence he was growing or distributing the drug.
According to the search warrant, the police raided Frederick's home after a confidential informant told them he saw evidence of marijuana growing in a garage behind the home. The warrant says the informant saw several marijuana plants, plus lights, irrigation equipment and other gardening supplies.
After the raid, the police found the gardening supplies, but no plants. They also found a small amount of marijuana, but not much ? only enough to charge Frederick with misdemeanor drug possession.
Frederick told a local television station that he was an avid gardener. A neighbor I spoke with backs him up, explaining that Frederick had an elaborate koi pond behind his home and raised a variety of tropical plants. He'd even given his neighbors gardening tips on occasion.
One of the plants Frederick told the local television station he raised was the Japanese maple, a plant that, when green, has leaves that look quite a bit like marijuana leaves.
So far, Chesapeake police have given no indication that they did any investigation to corroborate the tip from their informant. There's no mention in the search warrant of an undercover drug buy from Frederick or of any extensive surveillance of Frederick's home.
More disturbingly, the search warrant says the confidential informant was inside Frederick's house three days before the raid ? about the same time Frederick says someone broke into his home. Frederick's supporters have told me that Frederick and his attorney now know the identity of the informant, and that it was the police informant who broke into Frederick's home.
Chesapeake's police department isn't commenting. But if true, all of this raises some very troubling questions about the raid, and about Frederick's continued incarceration.
Chesapeake's lawyer, Paul Ebert, said at a recent bond hearing for Frederick that Shivers, the detective who was killed, was in Frederick's yard when he was shot, and that Frederick fired through his door, knowing he was firing at police.
Frederick's attorney disputes this. Ebert also said Frederick should have known the intruders were police because there were a dozen or more officers at the scene. But some of Frederick's neighbors dispute this, too. One neighbor told me she saw only two officers immediately after the raid; she said the others showed up only after Shivers went down.
What's clear, though, is that Chesepeake police conducted a raid on a man with no prior criminal record. Even if their informant had been correct, Frederick was at worst suspected of growing marijuana plants in his garage. There was no indication he was a violent man ? that it was necessary to take down his door after nightfall.
The raid in Chesapeake bears a striking resemblance to another that ended in a fatality. Last week, New Hanover County, N.C., agreed to pay $4.25 million to the parents of college student Peyton Stickland, who was killed when a deputy participating in a raid mistook the sound of a SWAT battering ram for a gunshot and fired through the door as Strickland came to answer it.
So in the raid where a citizen mistakenly shot a police officer, the citizen is facing a murder charge; in the raid where a police officer shot a citizen, prosecutors declined to press charges.
Over the last quarter century, we've seen an astonishing rise in paramilitary police tactics by police departments across America. Peter Kraksa, professor of criminology at the University of Eastern Kentucky, ran a 20-year survey of SWAT team deployments and determined that they have increased 1,500 percent since the early 1980s ? mostly to serve nonviolent drug warrants.
This is dangerous, senseless overkill. The margin of error is too thin, and the potential for tragedy too high to use these tactics unless they are in response to an already violent situation (think bank robberies, school shootings or hostage-takings). Breaking down doors to bust drug offenders creates violent situations; it doesn't defuse them.
Shivers' death is only the most recent example. And Ryan Frederick is merely the latest citizen to be put in the impossible position of being awakened from sleep, then having to determine in a matter of seconds if the men breaking into his home are police or criminal intruders.
How many people can honestly say they'd have handled it any differently than he did?
Radley Balko: Senseless Overkill
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
By Radley Balko
ADVERTISEMENT
Imagine you're home alone.
It's 8 p.m. You work an early shift and need to be out the door before sunrise, so you're already in bed. Your nerves are a bit frazzled, because earlier in the week someone broke into your home. Oddly, they didn't take anything; they just rifled through your belongings.
But the violation weighs on your mind. At about the time you drift off, you're awakened by fierce barking from your two large dogs. You hear someone crashing into your front door, as if he's trying to separate it from its hinges. You grab the gun you keep for home defense and leave your room to investigate.
This past January that scenario played out at the Chesapeake, Va., home of 28-year-old Ryan Frederick, a slight man of little more than 100 pounds. According to interviews since the incident, Frederick says when he looked toward his front door, he saw an intruder trying to enter through one of the lower door panels. So Frederick fired his gun.
The intruders were from the Chesapeake Police Department. They had come to serve a drug warrant. Frederick's bullet struck Detective Jarrod Shivers in the side, killing him. Frederick was arrested and has spent the last six weeks in a Chesapeake jail.
He has been charged with first degree murder. Paul Ebert, the special prosecutor assigned to the case, has indicated he may elevate the charge to capital murder, which would enable the state to seek the death penalty.
At the time of the raid, Ryan Frederick worked for a soft drink merchandiser. Current and former employers and co-workers speak highly of him. He also recently had gotten engaged, a welcome lift for a guy who'd had a run of tough luck.
He lost both parents early in life, and friends say the death of his mother hit particularly hard ? Frederick discovered her in bed after she had overdosed on prescription medication.
Friends and neighbors describe Frederick as shy, self-effacing, non-confrontational and hard-working. He had no prior criminal record. Frederick and his friends have conceded he smoked marijuana recreationally. But all ? including his neighbors ? insist there's no evidence he was growing or distributing the drug.
According to the search warrant, the police raided Frederick's home after a confidential informant told them he saw evidence of marijuana growing in a garage behind the home. The warrant says the informant saw several marijuana plants, plus lights, irrigation equipment and other gardening supplies.
After the raid, the police found the gardening supplies, but no plants. They also found a small amount of marijuana, but not much ? only enough to charge Frederick with misdemeanor drug possession.
Frederick told a local television station that he was an avid gardener. A neighbor I spoke with backs him up, explaining that Frederick had an elaborate koi pond behind his home and raised a variety of tropical plants. He'd even given his neighbors gardening tips on occasion.
One of the plants Frederick told the local television station he raised was the Japanese maple, a plant that, when green, has leaves that look quite a bit like marijuana leaves.
So far, Chesapeake police have given no indication that they did any investigation to corroborate the tip from their informant. There's no mention in the search warrant of an undercover drug buy from Frederick or of any extensive surveillance of Frederick's home.
More disturbingly, the search warrant says the confidential informant was inside Frederick's house three days before the raid ? about the same time Frederick says someone broke into his home. Frederick's supporters have told me that Frederick and his attorney now know the identity of the informant, and that it was the police informant who broke into Frederick's home.
Chesapeake's police department isn't commenting. But if true, all of this raises some very troubling questions about the raid, and about Frederick's continued incarceration.
Chesapeake's lawyer, Paul Ebert, said at a recent bond hearing for Frederick that Shivers, the detective who was killed, was in Frederick's yard when he was shot, and that Frederick fired through his door, knowing he was firing at police.
Frederick's attorney disputes this. Ebert also said Frederick should have known the intruders were police because there were a dozen or more officers at the scene. But some of Frederick's neighbors dispute this, too. One neighbor told me she saw only two officers immediately after the raid; she said the others showed up only after Shivers went down.
What's clear, though, is that Chesepeake police conducted a raid on a man with no prior criminal record. Even if their informant had been correct, Frederick was at worst suspected of growing marijuana plants in his garage. There was no indication he was a violent man ? that it was necessary to take down his door after nightfall.
The raid in Chesapeake bears a striking resemblance to another that ended in a fatality. Last week, New Hanover County, N.C., agreed to pay $4.25 million to the parents of college student Peyton Stickland, who was killed when a deputy participating in a raid mistook the sound of a SWAT battering ram for a gunshot and fired through the door as Strickland came to answer it.
So in the raid where a citizen mistakenly shot a police officer, the citizen is facing a murder charge; in the raid where a police officer shot a citizen, prosecutors declined to press charges.
Over the last quarter century, we've seen an astonishing rise in paramilitary police tactics by police departments across America. Peter Kraksa, professor of criminology at the University of Eastern Kentucky, ran a 20-year survey of SWAT team deployments and determined that they have increased 1,500 percent since the early 1980s ? mostly to serve nonviolent drug warrants.
This is dangerous, senseless overkill. The margin of error is too thin, and the potential for tragedy too high to use these tactics unless they are in response to an already violent situation (think bank robberies, school shootings or hostage-takings). Breaking down doors to bust drug offenders creates violent situations; it doesn't defuse them.
Shivers' death is only the most recent example. And Ryan Frederick is merely the latest citizen to be put in the impossible position of being awakened from sleep, then having to determine in a matter of seconds if the men breaking into his home are police or criminal intruders.
How many people can honestly say they'd have handled it any differently than he did?
Um, yeah
Um, yeah
Go look up "convention" at dictionary.com.
Then go look up "jurisprudence" at wikipedia.org.
Third, go do a lexis-nexis search for "irregular forces".
Then go get a degree in international law specializing in the human rights of non-signatories to international treaties and international bodies of law.
After you do those things, you'll see that torture isn't illegal.
Have a nice day.
Um, yeah
Go look up "convention" at dictionary.com.
Then go look up "jurisprudence" at wikipedia.org.
Third, go do a lexis-nexis search for "irregular forces".
Then go get a degree in international law specializing in the human rights of non-signatories to international treaties and international bodies of law.
After you do those things, you'll see that torture isn't illegal.
Have a nice day.
