by Kurt Nimmo

In an article published in the February, 2010, issue of Guns & Weapons for Law Enforcement (a print magazine not available online), Donald J. Mihalek argues that suspected criminals in the United States should be treated the same way “insurgents” are in Iraq.

	A scan of the article. Click the above image to download the article in PDF format.

“With violent crime increasing in many American cities,” writes Mihalek, “it is easy to think of criminals as an ‘insurgency’…. This growing insurgent behavior includes shootings of civilians, a growing trend of gang violence and an increase in narcotics related kidnapping. The trends point to a need for a renewed strategy to fight violent crime.”

Mihalek suggests cops borrow from General David Petraeus, who formulated an eight point counterinsurgency plan to deal with elements in Iraq opposed to the occupation of their country. Petraeus’ FM 3-24 is a final draft on counterinsurgency and spans nearly 250 pages.

Petraeus’ COIN (the popular acronym for counterinsurgency) doctrine is an extension on the Pentagon’s “full spectrum dominance” as devised by the neocons prior to and during George W. Bush’s tenure in the White House. Full-spectrum dominance is a military concept whereby a joint military structure achieves control over all elements of the “battlespace” using land, air, maritime and space based assets.

“It’s important to recognize the most important overarching doctrinal concept that our Army, in particular, has adopted — the concept of ‘full spectrum operations.’ This concept holds that all military operations are some mix of offensive, defensive, and stability and support operations. In other words, you’ve always got to be thinking not just about the conventional forms of combat — offensive and defensive operations — but also about the stability and support component,” Petraeus told Foreign Policy, a a bimonthly magazine founded by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and subsequently purchased by The Washington Post Company.

In FM 3-24’s overview, Petraeus and his coauthor write that the Iraq COIN doctrine contains both new and old elements. Traditional COIN tactics used in the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaya, Northern Ireland, Algeria, and much of the third world include population control (relocation of the population), “oil spot” (concentration of counter-insurgent forces into an expanding, secured zone), population monitoring (checkpoints and national identity cards), and cordon and search.

The U.S. COIN doctrine includes psychological warfare (planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions) and information warfare (spreading of propaganda or disinformation to demoralize the enemy and the public). Psychological and information warfare are currently used against the American public (for instance, the US Army 4th Psychological Operations Group was active at both NPR and CNN, while the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird compromised a large segment of the corporate media beginning in the early 1950s).

For COIN to work domestically, the United States will need to be turned into a police state under military occupation. Think Fallujah and the so-called “Strategic Hamlets” of Vietnam. Think Gestapo, Stasi and secret police.

In Instruments of Statecraft: U.S. Guerilla Warfare, Counterinsurgency, and Counterterrorism, 1940-1990,Michael McClintock writes about the change in COIN after World War II, particularly during the Kennedy administration. “As terror was seen as integral to guerrilla tactics, the counterguerrilla would apply counterterror; guerilla organization (e.g., recruitment surveillance) would be mimicked by counterorganization. Counterorganization, taken to its entail, could (and often did) entail placing hundreds of thousands of people under virtual totalitarian control. Which combined with the psychological warfare technique of ideological indoctrination, totalitarian potential could become reality.”

For COIN to work as Mihalek suggests the United States will necessarily become a totalitarian military dictatorship (a process already well underway, as evidenced by the the passage of the Patriot Act — now used against suspected criminals in lieu of actual terrorists — violations of Posse Comitatus, the increasing presence of military troops on the streets in collaboration with law enforcement, and the ever-encroaching high-tech surveillance grid intruding on many aspects of public and private life).

It should be noted that terrorism is part of the COIN doctrine and it was advocated by so-called terrorism experts and the defense establishment in the 1980s. Pentagon legal consultant William V. O’Brien, for instance, writing on special operations, has justified wholesale terrorism as a way to win “low-intensity” conflicts. O’Brien has advocated “exceptions to the normal moral and legal constraints” on military action. Murder and terrorism “may be presumed to be justified by a high and urgent necessity that may require sacrifice of other values such as some of the normal moral — legal constraints.”

“The suggestion that war crimes are acceptable in small doses, the selective ideal of special warfare, recalls the 1967 army manual’s warning that only selective counterterror is legitimate (’i.e. genocide is not an alternative’),” writes McClintock. “O’Brien’s warning not to go too far bears the same double message — that war crimes are to be expected but should not be excessive in number.”

Donald J. Mihalek argues that these horrendous and illegal techniques (although he does not mention them specifically) should be brought to the United States and practiced by police against “civilians” who may or may not be guilty of a crime.

That this disturbing article was published in a trade journal tailored for law enforcement is another indication that police around the country — increasingly federalized and militarized — are being indoctrinated to believe police work is related to the activities of the military.

by William Grigg
“Why did he run?” This question thrusts itself upon us every time an unarmed or otherwise harmless person is gunned down while fleeing from police.

Often that inquiry takes the form that assumes the guilt of the victim: “If he did nothing wrong, why did he run?” It’s also common for that second version to contort itself into a nicely circular argument: “Well, he ran, and resisting arrest is a crime, so obviously he got what was coming to him.”

For reasons unclear to a mind not enthralled by statist assumptions, most people simply assume that both reason and morality dictate an unqualified duty to surrender without cavil or complaintwhenever armed, violence-prone strangers in peculiar government-issued garb seek to restrain one of us.

This is why police are trained to interpret any hesitation, reluctance to cooperate, inhospitable body language, or verbal expression of resentment as “resisting arrest” and thus a justification for the use of “pain compliance” — or even lethal force. Police and their apologists likewise insist –contrary to both law and judicial precedent – that there is no right to resist even a clearly unwarranted or abusive arrest, or even for a citizen to take steps to protect himself when he’s on the receiving end of unjustified physical violence from police.

Police are constantly catechized about the dangers they encounter when they conduct traffic stops or detain people on the street. Why, the random “civilian” they encounter might be armed, trained in the use of weapons, and prepared to use violence without warning! This is to say that this hypothetical “civilian” would be …. just like the typical police officer.


“Can we assault and brutalize innocent people with impunity? Yes We Can!”

“Officer safety” must be paramount in such encounters, we are told. If a policeman is just a bit too quick to fire up the Taser or pull the trigger, it’s because he has a dangerous and stressful job.

Are we therefore to assume that encounters between police and mere “mundanes” aren’t particularly dangerous and stressful to the latter?

Given that police claim the supposed authority to pre-empt potential violence in the name of “officer safety,” we’re entitled to ask: Why isn’t “citizen safety” a legally effective defense for preemptive violence by law-abiding people to protect themselves against unjustified violence by police?

At present, the only form of “preemption” considered legally and morally acceptable is unqualified submission. People wrongfully on the receiving end of police violence are given the same advice that used to be given to potential rape victims: Don’t resist, don’t fight back — it will only turn out much worse, and you may be killed.

Anyone who doesn’t immediately submit to arrest, irrespective of the circumstances, is “going to lose and possibly hurt yourself and others in the process,” insists retired Milwaukee Police Officer Mark Zupnik. “You do not have the right to resist.”

“There are several more beneficial ways of pleading your case and challenging your arrest,” Zupnikcontinues. “Get a lawyer, file a motion in court, go to pre-trial and plead your case. Make a formal complaint challenging your arrest to the proper authority, but don’t resist or fight! It will add to your problems even if the arrest was a mistake. You don’t have the right to resist a legal arrest and it’s that simple. In most states, resisting arrest is an additional charge up to a felony, even for minor physical resistance.”

No recourse: San Jose resident Scott Wright was beaten and Tased by police, suffering a broken arm. He was then charged with “resisting arrest.” His “offense” was to reach into his vehicle to wash his dirty hands. (San Jose Mercury News photo.)

Zupnik, like others of an authoritarian cast of mind, embrace a tautological view of what constitutes a “legal” arrest: It’s any arrest carried out by a police officer, who supposedly embodies the law. This is why he warns that resistance in any situation will result in a criminal charge which will be filed before “a usually unsympathetic judge” who will perceive you as someone who “fought the law” — which is always on the side of the state’s armed enforcers, from this perspective.

Except the rarest of cases, seeking redress for an unlawful arrest from the “proper authority” is a singularly useless exercise. In some jurisdictions — such as San Jose, California, a city in which, on average, three people are arrested for “resisting arrest” every single day — it is entirely pointless to file a complaint over unwarranted arrests, since they are never upheld.

An investigation by the San Jose Mercury News found that in of the 117 cases in which a complaint was filed with the police department’s internal review board, not a single one was “sustained.” That includes incidents such as the arrest of Scott Wright, who was beaten, tased, and had his arm broken by police before being charged with resisting arrest.

At the time his valiant protectors arrived at his home, Wright was working on an old Cadillac; he provoked the gang assault by reaching into his van to wash off his greasy hands, a gesture that caused the Heroes in Blue (tm) — a timid, skittish lot, as easily frightened as a young doe — to think that he was reaching for a weapon.

As is almost always the case in such episodes, Wright was charged with resisting arrest even though no weapon was found, and no other criminal act was alleged.

Sure, that spurious charge was dismissed — after the victim had spent a great deal of money seeking treatment for the injuries inflicted on him, and another sum to pay the legal expenses incurred because the cops, in an effort to cover their tax-fattened asses, filed a “cover charge” against the innocent man. And of course, the police department cleared the assailants of any wrongdoing, because their criminal assault on Wright was in harmony with “department policy.”

He was “protected and served”: San Jose resident Joseph Ballard bleeds into the sidewalk outside a nightclub after beingtased by the police, who say that his injury was the result of a “fall.” (San Jose Mercury News photo)

“What happened to Wright is no isolated event,” the Mercury News relates. “Hundreds of times a year interactions between San Jose police and residents where no serious crime has occurred escalate into violence.”

“Many times the reason for the encounter is as innocuous as jaywalking, missing bike headlamps, or failing to signal a turn,” continues the report. “But often, as incidents develop, police determine the suspect is uncooperative and potentially violent and strike the first blow.”

Joseph Ballard was a victim of preemptive violence: Officer Justin Holliday shot him with a Taseroutside a nightclub while Ballard was running to catch a ride home. As he bled into the sidewalk,Holliday confected a story about Ballard threatening to shoot a bouncer and running to the parking lot to get his gun.

As it happens, the victim had neither a gun nor a car, and the bouncer said that Ballard had done nothing wrong — yet he was still charged with interfering with police and thrown in jail after he was released from the hospital.

After two police arrived at her home in August 2008, San Jose resident Ruth Mendiola earned an assault and a charge of “resisting arrest” when she asked to see a warrant the cops were supposedly there to deliver. She was on the phone with the police department trying to verify the identity of the officers when she was seized by one of them, who kneed her in the ribs and then threw her on a bed to handcuff her.

David Haflich – a Caucasian with light brown hair — was severely beaten by San Jose police when he was mistaken for a suspect in a child abduction — a Latino with black hair. Ordered to hit the ground,Haflich froze in his tracks, an act of insubordination serious enough, supposedly, to justify a gang-tackle and beating by police, who charged him with “resisting arrest” even though he wasn’t a criminal suspect.

In 206 court cases in which the most serious charge against the defendant was “resisting arrest,” the paper documented that “145 — 70 percent of the cases — involved the use of force by officers,” observes the Mercury News. It’s as if a street gang were routinely committing acts of criminal violence against inoffensive pedestrians, motorists, and bicyclists … which, come to think of it, isexactly what is going on.

This kind of officially sanctioned lawlessness is a general affliction.

In Ohio, police who showed up at a house fire to gawk and collect overtime tased and arrested a 19-year-old who had been helping friends and family escape the blaze. This happened after one of the torpid donut-devourers hurled profane invective at one of the residents of the burning house, a young woman, who had asked them why they were standing around in subsidized stupefaction while people were in danger.

Last May, Minneapolis resident Rolando Ruiz was stopped by a police officer, who instructed Ruiz to place his hands on the hood of the officer’s car. Ruiz cooperated — and was shot in the neck with a Taser anyway.

The Minneapolis PD’s “use of force” policy permits such gratuitous use of potentially lethal violence, and neither the policy nor any particular case is subject to civilian review or oversight.

Last June, in Everett, Washington, a 51-year-old man was gunned down in his Corvette by a police officer who had grown weary of trying to talk the intoxicated driver out of his car. At the time, the drunken driver was boxed in — parked cars on either side, a police cruiser blocking him from behind, a chain link fence in front.

The officer spent perhaps five minutes trying to reason with the driver before pulling out his Taser; the drunk reacted — understandably, if tragically — by trying, unsuccessfully, to pull out of the parking space. That provoked the officer to pull his firearm and murder the driver, firing eight shots into the car while exclaiming “Enough is enough — time to end this!”

Every death of a police officer “in the line of duty” is solemnly memorialized and carefully tabulated. However, there is no official record kept of civilians who are unjustly killed or otherwise brutalized by police.

Each encounter between the police and innocent civilians is a potentially deadly experience for the latter. Thus the real question is not “Why do innocent people flee from the police?” but rather, “What rational person would submit to the police if he had any reasonable hope of eluding or resisting them?”

by Brian W. Walsh

Needed: A ‘clean line’ to determine lawfulness

“You don’t need to know. You can’t know.” That’s what Kathy Norris, a 60-year-old grandmother of eight, was told when she tried to ask court officials why, the day before, federal agents had subjected her home to a furious search.

The agents who spent half a day ransacking Mrs. Norris’ longtime home in Spring, Texas, answered no questions while they emptied file cabinets, pulled books off shelves, rifled through drawers and closets, and threw the contents on the floor.

The six agents, wearing SWAT gear and carrying weapons, were with – get this - the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Kathy and George Norris lived under the specter of a covert government investigation for almost six months before the government unsealed a secret indictment and revealed why the Fish and Wildlife Service had treated their family home as if it were a training base for suspected terrorists. Orchids.

That’s right. Orchids.

By March 2004, federal prosecutors were well on their way to turning 66-year-old retiree George Norris into an inmate in a federal penitentiary – based on his home-based business of cultivating, importing and selling orchids.

Mrs. Norris testified before the House Judiciary subcommittee on crime this summer. The hearing’s topic: the rapid and dangerous expansion of federal criminal law, an expansion that is often unprincipled and highly partisan.

Chairman Robert C. Scott, Virginia Democrat, and ranking member Louie Gohmert, Texas Republican, conducted a truly bipartisan hearing (a D.C. rarity this year).

These two leaders have begun giving voice to the increasing number of experts who worry about “overcriminalization.” Astronomical numbers of federal criminal laws lack specifics, can apply to almost anyone and fail to protect innocents by requiring substantial proof that an accused person acted with actual criminal intent.

Mr. Norris ended up spending almost two years in prison because he didn’t have the proper paperwork for some of the many orchids he imported. The orchids were all legal – but Mr. Norris and the overseas shippers who had packaged the flowers had failed to properly navigate the many, often irrational, paperwork requirements the U.S. imposed when it implemented an arcane international treaty’s new restrictions on trade in flowers and other flora.

The judge who sentenced Mr. Norris had some advice for him and his wife: “Life sometimes presents us with lemons.” Their job was, yes, to “turn lemons into lemonade.”

The judge apparently failed to appreciate how difficult it is to run a successful lemonade stand when you’re an elderly diabetic with coronary complications, arthritis and Parkinson’s disease serving time in a federal penitentiary. If only Mr. Norris had been a Libyan terrorist, maybe some European official at least would have weighed in on his behalf to secure a health-based mercy release.

Krister Evertson, another victim of overcriminalization, told Congress, “What I have experienced in these past years is something that should scare you and all Americans.” He’s right. Evertson, a small-time entrepreneur and inventor, faced two separate federal prosecutions stemming from his work trying to develop clean-energy fuel cells.

The feds prosecuted Mr. Evertson the first time for failing to put a federally mandated sticker on an otherwise lawful UPS package in which he shipped some of his supplies. A jury acquitted him, so the feds brought new charges. This time they claimed he technically had “abandoned” his fuel-cell materials – something he had no intention of doing – while defending himself against the first charges. Mr. Evertson, too, spent almost two years in federal prison.

As George Washington University law professor Stephen Saltzburg testified at the House hearing, cases like these “illustrate about as well as you can illustrate the overreach of federal criminal law.” The Cato Institute’s Timothy Lynch, an expert on overcriminalization, called for “a clean line between lawful conduct and unlawful conduct.” A person should not be deemed a criminal unless that person “crossed over that line knowing what he or she was doing.” Seems like common sense, but apparently it isn’t to some federal officials.

Former U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh’s testimony captured the essence of the problems that worry so many criminal-law experts. “Those of us concerned about this subject,” he testified, “share a common goal – to have criminal statutes that punish actual criminal acts and [that] do not seek to criminalize conduct that is better dealt with by the seeking of regulatory and civil remedies.” Only when the conduct is sufficiently wrongful and severe, Mr. Thornburgh said, does it warrant the “stigma, public condemnation and potential deprivation of liberty that go along with [the criminal] sanction.”

The Norrises’ nightmare began with the search in October 2003. It didn’t end until Mr. Norris was released from federal supervision in December 2008. His wife testified, however, that even after he came home, the man she had married was still gone. He was by then 71 years old. Unsurprisingly, serving two years as a federal convict – in addition to the years it took to defend unsuccessfully against the charges – had taken a severe toll on him mentally, emotionally and physically.

These are repressive consequences for an elderly man who made mistakes in a small business. The feds should be ashamed, and Mr. Evertson is right that everyone else should be scared. Far too many federal laws are far too broad.

Mr. Scott and Mr. Gohmert have set the stage for more hearings on why this places far too many Americans at risk of unjust punishment. Members of both parties in Congress should follow their lead.

This is a good overview of the situation in Hardin, Montana.  I present it here as material relevant to today’s show for those website viewers who wish to participate in the show’s content.  -D.W.

by The Raw Story

A mysterious, reportedly unregistered and almost entirely unknown private security firm by the name “American Police Force” is causing a stir in a small Montana town for apparently impersonating local police.

According to a local media report, APF representatives were recently seen in the tiny town of Hardin, Montana, driving black SUV’s with a peculiar logo and, inexplicably, “City of Hardin Police Department” stamped on the door.

However, Hardin does not have a police force.

The town instead contracts with the Big Horn County Sheriff’s Department for patrols, according to KULR 8 in Billings, Montana.

According to the news agency, APF was never given permission to assume policing duties. Instead, the firm — which the Associated Press reported to be unregistered in government databases — gained its contract with the town on the promise of bringing inmates to an unpopulated prison complex.

An image on KULR’s Web site shows the insignia on the APF vehicles, which has caused some concern on the Internet as being of conspiratorial origin.

APF’s coat of arms, a clearer version of which appeared on the group’s Web site (which had been taken down at time of this writing but is viewable here), shows a double-headed eagle with a red shield and white cross borne on its breast.

The coat appears very similar to the insignia attributed to one Prince Aleksandar Karageorgevich, based on RAW STORY’s analysis of images hosted by Burke’s Peerage & Gentry International Register of Arms. The site notes the coat as hailing from the Royal crown of Serbia.

However, the significance or implied nationality of the insignia’s crown could not immediately be identified.

The double-headed eagle itself has been used repeatedly throughout history by many cultures as a symbol of empire, dominance and power.

Hardin, home to about 3,400 people, is in the state’s poorest county. Its unoccupied, 460-bed prison cost $27 million to construct. The town made national headlines earlier this year when local officials pleaded to have Guantanamo Bay inmates sent to the jail.

Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus and other Republican lawmakers have stood in the way of moving Guantanamo inmates stateside, claiming they would present an increased security risk. The political calculation has led the White House to caution that its promise to close the controversial facility in January may not materialize on schedule.

by Matthew Brown, AP

Montana’s attorney general launched an investigation Thursday into a California company that wants to take over an empty jail in the rural city of Hardin, following revelations that the company’s lead figure is a convicted felon with a history of fraud.

Michael Hilton, who formed Santa Ana, Calif.-based American Police Force in March, came to Hardin last month promising to fill the city’s never-used jail and build a large military and law enforcement training center.

Hilton has a decades-long track record of fraudulent activities and spent several years in a California prison on grand theft charges. A native of Montenegro, he uses at least 17 aliases.

Citing “significant concerns” about the city’s dealings with American Police Force, Attorney General Steve Bullock asked Hardin economic development officials to produce by Oct. 12 all documents related to their dealings with the company.

His office made a similar demand of American Police Force, including information that would back up Hilton’s claims of multiple defense contracts with the U.S government and other agencies.

The launch of the investigation came as some Hardin officials began backing away from American Police Force. The city’s Two Rivers Authority reached a 10-year deal on the jail with the company last month.

But that was never ratified by US Bank, the trustee on the construction bonds used to pay for the 464-bed facility.

Attorney Becky Convery, who helped negotiate the deal, said Hilton overstepped his bounds when he showed up in Hardin last week with three Mercedes SUVs marked with fictitious “Hardin Police Department” logos.

He pledged to donate the SUVs to the city and also offered to provide law enforcement for Hardin for $250,000 a year. That prospect has stirred suspicion among critics that rural Hardin, population 3,500, could be transformed into a privately run police state.

Convery said Two Rivers director Greg Smith had a tentative deal with Hilton’s company to provide law enforcement service, but she said it was never finalized and she was uncertain whether it would be legal.

“We are not at all pleased with American Police masquerading as if they were the police for the city of Hardin,” she said.

Yet other Hardin officials remained loyal to American Police Force despite knowing little of its origins beyond what they’ve been told by Hilton.

“I don’t know that his background has affected his position or his ability to do his work,” said Carla Colstad, a member of the Hardin City Council. “I don’t consider it relevant to what’s going on today.”

Hilton — who came to Hardin last week in a black, military-style uniform — portrayed his company as an international player in the security industry. No records have been found of the extensive U.S. government contracts he claims.

Instead, documents and interviews with Hilton’s associates revealed a history of fraud and criminal activity. That includes outstanding judgments against him in three civil cases totaling more than $1.1 million.

“Such schemes you cannot believe,” said Joseph Carella, an Orange County, Calif., doctor and co-defendant with Hilton in a real estate fraud case that resulted in a civil judgment against Hilton and several others.

Carella, described in court documents as a “pawn” in the scheme, said he was never a willing participant. But he acknowledged partnering with Hilton in other failed business deals after being won over by his charm.

“The guy’s brilliant. If he had been able to do honest work, he probably would have been a gazillionaire,” Carella said.

As for Hilton’s military expertise, including his claim to have advised forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, several associates interviewed knew of no such feats, although one said Hilton had talked of being in the special forces in Greece decades ago.

Most who knew him described Hilton alternately as an art dealer, cook, restaurant owner, land developer, loan broker and car salesman.

Hilton did not return numerous calls seeking comment this week. American Police Force attorney Maziar Mafi referred questions to company spokeswoman Becky Shay.

When asked about court records detailing Hilton’s past, Shay replied: “The documents speak for themselves. If anyone has found public documents, the documents are what they are.”

The three SUVs Hilton brought to Montana have yet to be turned over to the city, which does not have a police force of its own but is considering forming one.

At least one is being driven by Shay, a former reporter who abruptly quit her job at the Billings Gazette to work for American Police Force. She said Hilton offered her $60,000 a year.

The jail deal is worth more than $2.6 million a year, according to city leaders.

His criminal record goes back to at least 1988, when Hilton was arrested in Santa Ana, Calif., for writing bad checks. In 1993, Hilton was sentenced to six years in prison in California on a dozen counts of grand theft and attempted grand theft and other charges including illegal diversion of construction funds.