by East County Magazine and Liberty One Radio

By Miriam Raftery

September 11, 2009 (San Diego) – “Long-range acoustic devices [LRADs] for crowd control can be extremely dangerous. These are used in Iraq to control insurgents. They can cause serious and lasting harm to humans…We want to know WHY our Sheriff Dept has this weapon,” Sal Magallanez of San Diego-based Liberty One Radio said in an e-mail sent to East County Magazine, prompting a joint investigation.

The device was stationed by San Diego County Sheriff deputies at a recent town hall forum hosted by Congresswoman Susan Davis (D-San Diego) in Spring Valley and at a subsequent town hall with Congressman Darrell Issa (R-San Diego). The Davis Rally drew an estimated 1,300-1,500 people, including vocal conservative and liberal protest groups.

A public records search conducted by East County Magazine has confirmed that the device is an LRAD 500-x manufactured by San Diego-based American Technology Corporation (ATC). Capable of use as an effective loudspeaker, the LRAD also has the ability to emit a deafening tone aimed at incapacitating and dispersing a crowd without use of lethal force.

“It’s very concerning,” Kevin Keenan, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said. “ It is fine for the Sheriff’s Department to have new less-than-lethal weapons, but for their interactions with individuals these still-dangerous weapons need to be used only as substitutes for firearms. They can’t be used as just another tool on the tool belt. As we’ve seen with tasers and pepper spray, these types of weapons are being used to subdue people even though they pose the risk of serious physical harm.”

He added, “Even more concerning is having these weapons for public order policing. I can imagine no situation, or am not aware of any situation that’s ever happened in San Diego County or is likely to happen that would justify using these weapons for public order policing to control a crowd. The main effect of having those weapons at public events is to chill people and chill free speech and free association.”

LRADs were developed by ATC at the request of the U.S. Navy after the attack on the U.S.S. Cole as a means of dissuading hostile invaders. ATC founder Elwood “Woody” Norris is a pioneer in sound technology who has also been instrumental in development of ultra-sound and ground penetrating radar.

Cruise ship Captain Michael Groves successfully repelled pirates off the Somali coast using non-lethal weapons including an LRAD. Groves has since filed suit against Carnival Cruise Line, claiming he suffered permanent hearing loss as a result, the BBC has reported.  Navy News describes the LRAD as “louder than a jet engine” and helpfully explains that it overwhelms its targets with “sound so loud they hear it inside their heads.”

ATC initially sold LRADs primarily to the U.S. military, but has since sold products internationally and domestically. The company and its representatives have not limited sales to military, maritime and law enforcement personnel, however. Local lifeguards and even Liberty One Radio are among potential customers to whom ATC’s sales force has attempted to peddle LRADs.

Liberty One Radio host Mike Copass, a former Democratic Congressional candidate who ran against Davis, tried to interview the Sheriff’s officer who appeared to be in charge of the device, which was mounted on a Rhino all-terrain vehicle. But Magallanez said the official “acted as if he didn’t know what it was.”

East County Magazine contacted Lieutenant Anthony Ray at the Lemon Grove sheriff substation. “I was the incident commander,” said Ray, who confirmed that the device was an LRAD but was not sure of the model. “It’s a really loud speaker,” he said, adding that the device is used to assure that announcements can be heard over the din of a crowd. “We’ll often use a helicopter, but this is something portable,” he explained. The device has also been present at a sand-castle building competition in Imperial Beach and could be deployed at any large event locally, since the Sheriff’s office is sometimes subcontracted by other cities within San Diego County to provide security.

Asked if he was aware that the device had a deterrent capability that includes a directed sound loud enough to cause hearing loss, he replied, “You mean like they use in Iraq? I can’t imagine we’d do that, because it would hurt our own people at the same time…I can’t believe that we would use the kind of thing on a crowd that the military does,” he said, adding that the deputy on the Rhino was not wearing protective earphones. “There were deputies right in front, too,” he observed, but added that he would have to “go home and look this up on Google” to learn more.

In an interview last week with newly appointed Sheriff Bill Gore, formerly the Undersheriff, East County Magazine posed the following questions about LRADs.

ECM: Crowd control has been in the news with the Francine Busby pepper spray incident. Now some have expressed concern after spotting long-range acoustical devices (LRADs) at Congressional members Susan Davis and Darrell Issa town hall forums on healthcare. We understand these devices can be used as loudspeakers, to avoid need for a helicopter to address large crowds—

GORE: That’s not the primary purpose.

ECM: They’re also called sonic cannons, capable of directing a deterrent sound. They’ve been used in IRAQ on insurgents and to repel pirates.

GORE: That’s a precaution in case you need it.

ECM: LRADs can cause permanent hearing loss and other health problems. What make and model LRAD do you have, what are the guidelines for when these may be used, what training is provided, and how can you assure that your deputies and innocent bystanders won’t be hurt?

GORE: Our deputies have the required training.

He indicated that he did not consider LRAD technology to be a non-lethal weapon, such as tasers and pepper spray, then deferred other questions on this topic pending results of a public records request submitted by ECM.

However, Defense Update, a British defense contracting publication, lists LRADs as “non-lethal directed energy weapons. The publication states: “LRAD works like a highly directional, high power megaphone, able to blast sounds (such as crowd-dispersal instructions in Arabic) in a narrow beam and with great clarity at a deafening 150 decibels (50 times the human threshold of pain). LRAD can also create deafening noises which can incapacitate people within 300 meters by “firing” short bursts of intense acoustic energy.”

An article from Atomic Scientists at describes the device’s “ear-piercing siren” and confirms it has been used by U.S. Marines in Fallujah. The device has also been used by New York City Police for crowd control during the Republican National Convention. A technology article at GovPro.com states that the LRAD system “transmits powerful deterrent tones, by which piercing sound can cause pain, nausea, disorientation and possibly even hearing damage.”

Our records search confirmed that the Sheriff’s Deparment purchased an LRAD 500-X and on-site training instruction for $37,500 on July 21, 2008 supplied by the Lorimar Group, which signed an LRAD reseller agreement with ATC in 2006. In responses to questions asking whether the deterrent sound feature has been deployed locally or whether any complaints of harm have been received, the Sheriff’s office responded that no such records are available.

The manufacturer’s specifications indicate that “The superior voice intelligibility and clarity of LRAD 500X provides a directional audio beam that can communicate with 100% intelligibility over 88 dB of background noise beyond 300 meters and capable of communicating over 2000 meters away in a benign environment. LRAD 500X operators have the ability to issue clear, authoritative verbal commands, followed with powerful deterrent tones to enhance response capabilities.” Moreover, the spec sheet indicates the device has a frequenty range of +/- 5dB over a 500 to 5kHz range, with a maximum volume of 148dB at 1 meter continuous and over 95 dB at 300 meters.

Ironically, the devices positioned at healthcare reform rallies hosted by Congressional members Susan Davis and Darrell Issa have the potential to cause serious health harm if its sonic crowd control feature is deployed, one medical professional informed East county Magazine.  Dr. Mike Copass Sr. (father of radio personality Mike Copass) confirmed that “148 db, the max sound of the 500x ATC LRAD, will damage/destroy human hearing and damage, potentially, the brain.”

That detail hasn’t deterred sales.  ATC media and industrial relations representative Robert Putnam informed Liberty One Media that “Business is looking really good.” He said thousands of LRAD models have been sold worldwide, hundreds have been sold in California, and that two or three units have been sold within San Diego County, but declined to release agency names.

At least one use of an LRAD deterrent sound system used against a civilian crowd of demonstrators by riot police in the former Soviet-block nation of Georgia has been recorded on video.

In an interview with East County Magazine, Putman initially denied that the Sheriff’s office had been sold an LRAD made by ATC. But when informed that Sheriff’s documents confirm the purchase, he said the company uses distributors—raising the question of how many more devices have been sold—and to whom. “ATC has 95% of the LRAD market which we helped create. Before, there was really no acoustic hailing and warning device,” he added.

Putnam objected to the term “sonic cannon”, responding, “It’s not a sound cannon. It gets their attention and hopefully gets them to comply.”

He also denied that the company’s LRADs can cause hearing problems or other health concerns. “No, not true,” he said. “You’d have to be in close proximity for several minutes in order to have any damage at all. If you willingly stand in that beam for an extended situation, then that’s your choice. There’s no way a large crowd would stay.” He said the company provides hands-on training to customers and has not had any lawsuits filed over damaged related to LRADs. The company is now offering a hand-held model, he added, which costs about $5,000 and can emit noise levels up to 135 dB. The device can also be adapted to have a high-powered light, infrared night vision, or the ability to translate commands into a foreign language.

Bullhorns are ineffective in large crowds, carrying only 20-25 yards and suffering distortion, he said. “With our LRAD, you are good to up to three kilometers. The 500-x is good for about a kilometer or a kilometer and a half.” Activation of the deterrent tone is a function of the volume control, not a separate switch, he confirmed. “But they are also highly directional, so people operating them don’t get anywhere near.”

He defended use of the technology as a non-lethal way to provide warnings and to prevent innocent people from being harmed, such as fishermen who venture too close to a military vessel, international border, or nuclear station. “The whole point is to save lives,” he said. “If you’re a bad guy and keep coming, or wear protective headgear and keep coming, then you know they are not there innocently and you ratchet up the response.”

He also revealed potential new domestic uses for the LRAD technology. “We are also excited to save wildlife,” Putnam said. “We are working on trial tests to clear birds out of runways because when a jet is taking off or landing, that’s when it is most vulnerable to a bird strike.” Such technology could potentially save passenger and crew lives as well. He also predicts the technology could be useful to prevent bird deaths from drinking tainted water at mining tailing ponds or flying into wind turbine blades at wind farms, as well as preventing damage to solar panels from bird defecations. Birds would not suffer damage unless exposed to the deterrent signal tone for several minutes, added.

Seattle Weekly has warned that an LRAD device could be “an extremely attractive implement of torture in the wrong hands—or an equally alluring engine of light terrorism in others. Imagine how easily a miscreant could trash any sort of outdoor gathering.”

That concern raises troubling questions about just how closely ATC screens potential buyers of its long-range acoustical devices.

San Diego Life Guard Mike Russell told Liberty One Radio that life guards were approached by ATC about purchasing an LRAD unit similar to the LRAD-500x seen at the Susan Davis rally.  An ATC sales represented “tried to sell it to the Lifeguard service for focused warnings in the middle of crowds or in the water,” he recalled, adding that the equipment was not purchased due to the high cost.

Asked by East County Magazine whether the sales rep disclosed the unit’s weapons capacity, Russell replied, “I was just told that it could be used “like an audio laser-beam” to speak to an individual or small group up to 300 yards away, without disturbing the people all along the beach. This seemed like great potential, people entering ripc urrents, or even in rip currents, could be communicated with, without disturbing the rest of the beach with the traditional loud speakers.” He added, “I wasn’t informed about any dangers to hearing, but I was just listening to the sales pitch guy indirectly…Perhaps the senior staff were informed.” A call to a senior lifeguard official was not returned by press deadline.

Liberty One Media (a politically progressive media outlet currently posting podcasts online while raising funds to purchase a broadcast station) sent an e-mail to ATC inquiring about purchasing an LRAD for use at concerts. The manufacturer sent sales literature, including a technical specification sheet, without warning about potential weapons usage—or inquiring about backgrounds of those seeking to purchase the product.

The ACLU’s local director voiced serious concerns over ATC’s efforts to market acoustic weapons to lifeguards and radio stations.  “I think it’s inappropriate for commercial or private use, “ Keenan concluded. “There should be laws restricting it to law enforcement or military purposes.”

by Chelsea Schilling

Pandemic bill allows health authorities to enter homes, detain without warrant

by Nicholas Monahan

This morning I’ll be escorting my wife to the hospital, where the doctors will perform a caesarean section to remove our first child. She didn’t want to do it this way – neither of us did – but sometimes the Fates decide otherwise. The Fates or, in our case, government employees.

On the morning of October 26th Mary and I entered Portland International Airport, en route to the Las Vegas wedding of one of my best friends. Although we live in Los Angeles, we’d been in Oregon working on a film, and up to that point had had nothing but praise to shower on the city of Portland, a refreshing change of pace from our own suffocating metropolis.

At the security checkpoint I was led aside for the “inspection” that’s all the rage at airports these days. My shoes were removed. I was told to take off my sweater, then to fold over the waistband of my pants. My baseball hat, hastily jammed on my head at 5 AM, was removed and assiduously examined (“Anything could be in here, sir,” I was told, after I asked what I could hide in a baseball hat. Yeah. Anything.) Soon I was standing on one foot, my arms stretched out, the other leg sticking out in front of me à la a DUI test. I began to get pissed off, as most normal people would. My anger increased when I realized that the newly knighted federal employees weren’t just examining me, but my 7½ months pregnant wife as well. I’d originally thought that I’d simply been randomly selected for the more excessive than normal search. You know, Number 50 or whatever. Apparently not though – it was both of us. These are your new threats, America: pregnant accountants and their sleepy husbands flying to weddings.

After some more grumbling on my part they eventually finished with me and I went to retrieve our luggage from the x-ray machine. Upon returning I found my wife sitting in a chair, crying. Mary rarely cries, and certainly not in public. When I asked her what was the matter, she tried to quell her tears and sobbed, “I’m sorry…it’s…they touched my breasts…and…” That’s all I heard. I marched up to the woman who’d been examining her and shouted, “What did you do to her?” Later I found out that in addition to touching her swollen breasts – to protect the American citizenry – the employee had asked that she lift up her shirt. Not behind a screen, not off to the side – no, right there, directly in front of the hundred or so passengers standing in line. And for you women who’ve been pregnant and worn maternity pants, you know how ridiculous those things look. “I felt like a clown,” my wife told me later. “On display for all these people, with the cotton panel on my pants and my stomach sticking out. When I sat down I just lost my composure and began to cry. That’s when you walked up.”

Of course when I say she “told me later,” it’s because she wasn’t able to tell me at the time, because as soon as I demanded to know what the federal employee had done to make her cry, I was swarmed by Portland police officers. Instantly. Three of them, cinching my arms, locking me in handcuffs, and telling me I was under arrest. Now my wife really began to cry. As they led me away and she ran alongside, I implored her to calm down, to think of the baby, promising her that everything would turn out all right. She faded into the distance and I was shoved into an elevator, a cop holding each arm. After making me face the corner, the head honcho told that I was under arrest and that I wouldn’t be flying that day – that I was in fact a “menace.”

It took me a while to regain my composure. I felt like I was one of those guys in The Gulag Archipelago who, because the proceedings all seem so unreal, doesn’t fully realize that he is in fact being arrested in a public place in front of crowds of people for…for what? I didn’t know what the crime was. Didn’t matter. Once upstairs, the officers made me remove my shoes and my hat and tossed me into a cell. Yes, your airports have prison cells, just like your amusement parks, train stations, universities, and national forests. Let freedom reign.

After a short time I received a visit from the arresting officer. “Mr. Monahan,” he started, “Are you on drugs?”

Was this even real? “No, I’m not on drugs.”

“Should you be?”

“What do you mean?”

“Should you be on any type of medication?”

“No.”

“Then why’d you react that way back there?”

You see the thinking? You see what passes for reasoning among your domestic shock troops these days? Only “whackos” get angry over seeing the woman they’ve been with for ten years in tears because someone has touched her breasts. That kind of reaction – love, protection – it’s mind-boggling! “Mr. Monahan, are you on drugs?” His snide words rang inside my head. This is my wife, finally pregnant with our first child after months of failed attempts, after the depressing shock of the miscarriage last year, my wife who’d been walking on a cloud over having the opportunity to be a mother…and my anger is simply unfathomable to the guy standing in front of me, the guy who earns a living thanks to my taxes, the guy whose family I feed through my labor. What I did wasn’t normal. No, I reacted like a drug addict would’ve. I was so disgusted I felt like vomiting. But that was just the beginning.

An hour later, after I’d been gallantly assured by the officer that I wouldn’t be attending my friend’s wedding that day, I heard Mary’s voice outside my cell. The officer was speaking loudly, letting her know that he was planning on doing me a favor… which everyone knows is never a real favor. He wasn’t going to come over and help me work on my car or move some furniture. No, his “favor” was this: He’d decided not to charge me with a felony.

Think about that for a second. Rapes, car-jackings, murders, arsons – those are felonies. So is yelling in an airport now, apparently. I hadn’t realized, though I should have. Luckily, I was getting a favor, though. I was merely going to be slapped with a misdemeanor.

“Here’s your court date,” he said as I was released from my cell. In addition, I was banned from Portland International for 90 days, and just in case I was thinking of coming over and hanging out around its perimeter, the officer gave me a map with the boundaries highlighted, sternly warning me against trespassing. Then he and a second officer escorted us off the grounds. Mary and I hurriedly drove two and a half hours in the rain to Seattle, where we eventually caught a flight to Vegas. But the officer was true to his word – we missed my friend’s wedding. The fact that he’d been in my own wedding party, the fact that a once in a lifetime event was stolen from us – well, who cares, right?

Upon our return to Portland (I’d had to fly into Seattle and drive back down), we immediately began contacting attorneys. We aren’t litigious people – we wanted no money. I’m not even sure what we fully wanted. An apology? A reprimand? I don’t know. It doesn’t matter though, because we couldn’t afford a lawyer, it turned out. $4,000 was the average figure bandied about as a retaining fee. Sorry, but I’ve got a new baby on the way. So we called the ACLU, figuring they existed for just such incidents as these. And they do apparently…but only if we were minorities. That’s what they told us.

In the meantime, I’d appealed my suspension from PDX. A week or so later I got a response from the Director of Aviation. After telling me how, in the aftermath of 9/11, most passengers not only accept additional airport screening but welcome it, he cut to the chase:

“After a review of the police report and my discussions with police staff, as well as a review of the TSA’s report on this incident, I concur with the officer’s decision to take you into custody and to issue a citation to you for disorderly conduct. That being said, because I also understand that you were upset and acted on your emotions, I am willing to lift the Airport Exclusion Order….”

Attached to this letter was the report the officer had filled out. I’d like to say I couldn’t believe it, but in a way, I could. It’s seemingly becoming the norm in America – lies and deliberate distortions on the part of those in power, no matter how much or how little power they actually wield.

The gist of his report was this: From the get go I wasn’t following the screener’s directions. I was “squinting my eyes” and talking to my wife in a “low, forced voice” while “excitedly swinging my arms.” Twice I began to walk away from the screener, inhaling and exhaling forcefully. When I’d completed the physical exam, I walked to the luggage screening area, where a second screener took a pair of scissors from my suitcase. At this point I yelled, “What the %*&$% is going on? This is &*#&$%!” The officer, who’d already been called over by one of the screeners, became afraid for the TSA staff and the many travelers. He required the assistance of a second officer as he “struggled” to get me into handcuffs, then for “cover” called over a third as well. It was only at this point that my wife began to cry hysterically.

There was nothing poetic in my reaction to the arrest report. I didn’t crumple it in my fist and swear that justice would be served, promising to sacrifice my resources and time to see that it would. I simply stared. Clearly the officer didn’t have the guts to write down what had really happened. It might not look too good to see that stuff about the pregnant woman in tears because she’d been humiliated. Instead this was the official scenario being presented for the permanent record. It doesn’t even matter that it’s the most implausible sounding situation you can think of. “Hey, what the…godammit, they’re taking our scissors, honey!” Why didn’t he write in anything about a monkey wearing a fez?

True, the TSA staff had expropriated a pair of scissors from our toiletries kit – the story wasn’t entirely made up. Except that I’d been locked in airport jail at the time. I didn’t know anything about any scissors until Mary told me on our drive up to Seattle. They’d questioned her about them while I was in the bowels of the airport sitting in my cell.

So I wrote back, indignation and disgust flooding my brain.

“[W]hile I’m not sure, I’d guess that the entire incident is captured on video. Memory is imperfect on everyone’s part, but the footage won’t lie. I realize it might be procedurally difficult for you to view this, but if you could, I’d appreciate it. There’s no willful disregard of screening directions. No explosion over the discovery of a pair of scissors in a suitcase. No struggle to put handcuffs on. There’s a tired man, early in the morning, unhappily going through a rigorous procedure and then reacting to the tears of his pregnant wife.”

Eventually we heard back from a different person, the guy in charge of the TSA airport screeners. One of his employees had made the damning statement about me exploding over her scissor discovery, and the officer had deftly incorporated that statement into his report. We asked the guy if he could find out why she’d said this – couldn’t she possibly be mistaken? “Oh, can’t do that, my hands are tied. It’s kind of like leading a witness – I could get in trouble, heh heh.” Then what about the videotape? Why not watch that? That would exonerate me. “Oh, we destroy all video after three days.”

Sure you do.

A few days later we heard from him again. He just wanted to inform us that he’d received corroboration of the officer’s report from the officer’s superior, a name we didn’t recognize. “But…he wasn’t even there,” my wife said.

“Yeah, well, uh, he’s corroborated it though.”

That’s how it works.

“Oh, and we did look at the videotape. Inconclusive.”

But I thought it was destroyed?

On and on it went. Due to the tenacity of my wife in making phone calls and speaking with relevant persons, the “crime” was eventually lowered to a mere citation. Only she could have done that. I would’ve simply accepted what was being thrown at me, trumped up charges and all, simply because I’m wholly inadequate at performing the kowtow. There’s no way I could have contacted all the people Mary did and somehow pretend to be contrite. Besides, I speak in a low, forced voice, which doesn’t elicit sympathy. Just police suspicion.

Weeks later at the courthouse I listened to a young DA awkwardly read the charges against me – “Mr. Monahan…umm…shouted obscenities at the airport staff…umm… umm…oh, they took some scissors from his suitcase and he became…umm…abusive at this point.” If I was reading about it in Kafka I might have found something vaguely amusing in all of it. But I wasn’t. I was there. Living it.

I entered a plea of nolo contendere, explaining to the judge that if I’d been a resident of Oregon, I would have definitely pled “Not Guilty.” However, when that happens, your case automatically goes to a jury trial, and since I lived a thousand miles away, and was slated to return home in seven days, with a newborn due in a matter of weeks…you get the picture. “No Contest” it was. Judgment: $250 fine.

Did I feel happy? Only $250, right? No, I wasn’t happy. I don’t care if it’s twelve cents, that’s money pulled right out of my baby’s mouth and fed to a disgusting legal system that will use it to propagate more incidents like this. But at the very least it was over, right? Wrong.

When we returned to Los Angeles there was an envelope waiting for me from the court. Inside wasn’t a receipt for the money we’d paid. No, it was a letter telling me that what I actually owed was $309 – state assessed court costs, you know. Wouldn’t you think your taxes pay for that – the state putting you on trial? No, taxes are used to hire more cops like the officer, because with our rising criminal population – people like me – hey, your average citizen demands more and more “security.”

Finally I reach the piece de résistance. The week before we’d gone to the airport my wife had had her regular pre-natal checkup. The child had settled into the proper head down position for birth, continuing the remarkable pregnancy she’d been having. We returned to Portland on Sunday. On Mary’s Monday appointment she was suddenly told, “Looks like your baby’s gone breech.” When she later spoke with her midwives in Los Angeles, they wanted to know if she’d experienced any type of trauma recently, as this often makes a child flip. “As a matter of fact…” she began, recounting the story, explaining how the child inside of her was going absolutely crazy when she was crying as the police were leading me away through the crowd.

My wife had been planning a natural childbirth. She’d read dozens of books, meticulously researched everything, and had finally decided that this was the way for her. No drugs, no numbing of sensations – just that ultimate combination of brute pain and sheer joy that belongs exclusively to mothers. But my wife is also a first-time mother, so she has what is called an “untested” pelvis. Essentially this means that a breech birth is too dangerous to attempt, for both mother and child. Therefore, she’s now relegated to a c-section – hospital stay, epidural, catheter, fetal monitoring, stitches – everything she didn’t want. Her natural birth has become a surgery.

We’ve tried everything to turn that baby. Acupuncture, chiropractic techniques, underwater handstands, elephant walking, moxibustion, bending backwards over pillows, herbs, external manipulation – all to no avail. When I walked into the living room the other night and saw her plaintively cooing with a flashlight turned onto her stomach, yet another suggested technique, my heart almost broke. It’s breaking now as I write these words.

I can never prove that my child went breech because of what happened to us at the airport. But I’ll always believe it. Wrongly or rightly, I’ll forever think of how this man, the personification of this system, has affected the lives of my family and me. When my wife is sliced open, I’ll be thinking of him. When they remove her uterus from her abdomen and lay it on her stomach, I’ll be thinking of him. When I visit her and my child in the hospital instead of having them with me here in our home, I’ll be thinking of him. When I assist her to the bathroom while the incision heals internally, I’ll be thinking of him.

There are plenty of stories like this these days. I don’t know how many I’ve read where the writer describes some breach of civil liberties by employees of the state, then wraps it all up with a dire warning about what we as a nation are becoming, and how if we don’t put an end to it now, then we’re in for heaps of trouble. Well you know what? Nothing’s going to stop the inevitable. There’s no policy change that’s going to save us. There’s no election that’s going to put a halt to the onslaught of tyranny. It’s here already – this country has changed for the worse and will continue to change for the worse. There is now a division between the citizenry and the state. When that state is used as a tool against me, there is no longer any reason why I should owe any allegiance to that state.

And that’s the first thing that child of ours is going to learn.

from Daily Liberty Research

This is not the first time I’ve seen a story like this, it is apparently typical hiring policy for police in many areas. Let’s face it, they want a dumbed-down police force that’s just smart enough to follow orders. We just can’t have our police thinking too much or questioning procedure!

This story says that the average I.Q. for a cop is 104, if that is accurate it means there are thousands of police with I.Q.’s in the 80-100 range. Is it any surprise then thatincidents of police brutality and abuses upon citizens (as well as the Constitution) are now so frequent?

From Ananova:

A US man has been rejected in his bid to become a police officer for scoring too high on an intelligence test.

Robert Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took an exam to join the New London police, in Connecticut, in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125.

But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Mr Jordan launched a federal lawsuit against the city, but lost.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Mr Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

He said: “This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class. I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action and has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.

The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

by Matthew Rothschild [seriously?!]

The Pentagon has approached Congress to grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to post almost 400,000 military personnel throughout the United States in times of emergency or a major disaster.

This request has already occasioned a dispute with the nation’s governors. And it raises the prospect of U.S. military personnel patrolling the streets of the United States, in conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

In June, the U.S. Northern Command distributed a “Congressional Fact Sheet” entitled “Legislative Proposal for Activation of Federal Reserve Forces for Disasters.” That proposal would amend current law, thereby “authorizing the Secretary of Defense to order any unit or member of the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Navy Reserve, and the Marine Corps Reserve, to active duty for a major disaster or emergency.”

Taken together, these reserve units would amount to “more than 379,000 military personnel in thousands of communities across the United States,” explained

Paul Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America’s Security Affairs, in a letter to the National Governors Association, dated July 20.

The governors were not happy about this proposal, since they want to maintain control of their own National Guard forces, as well as military personnel acting in a domestic capacity in their states.

“We are concerned that the legislative proposal you discuss in your letter would invite confusion on critical command and control issues,” Governor James H. Douglas of Vermont and Governor Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the president and vice president of the governors’ association, wrote in a letter back to Stockton on August 7. The governors asserted that they “must have tactical control over all . . . active duty and reserve military forces engaged in domestic operations within the governor’s state or territory.”

According to Pentagon public affairs officer Lt. Col. Almarah K. Belk, Stockton has not responded formally to the governors but understands their concerns.

“There is a rub there,” she said. “If the Secretary calls up the reserve personnel to provide support in a state and retains command and control of those forces, the governors are concerned about if I have command and control of the Guard, how do we ensure unity of effort and everyone is communicating and not running over each other.”

Belk said Stockton is addressing this problem. “That is exactly what Dr. Stockton is working out right now with the governors and DHS and the National Guard,” she said. “He’s bringing all the stakeholders together.”

Belk said the legislative change is necessary in the aftermath of a “catastrophic natural disaster, not beyond that,” and she referred to Katrina, among other events.

But NorthCom’s Congressional fact sheet refers not just to a “major disaster” but also to “emergencies.” And it says, “Those terms are defined in section 5122 of title 42, U.S. Code.”

That section gives the President the sole discretion to designate an event as an “emergency” or a “major disaster.” Both are “in the determination of the President” alone.

That section also defines “major disaster” by citing plenty of specifics: “hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought,” as well as “fire, flood, or explosion.”

But the definition of “emergency” is vague: “Emergency means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.”

Currently, the President can call up the Reserves only in an emergency involving “a use or threatened use of a weapon of mass destruction” or “a terrorist attack or threatened terrorist attack in the United States that results, or could result, in significant loss of life or property,” according to Title 10, Chapter 1209, Section 12304, of the U.S. Code. In fact, Section 12304 explicitly prohibits the President from calling up the Reserves for any other “natural or manmade disaster, accident, or catastrophe.”

So the new proposed legislation would greatly expand the President’s power to call up the Reserves in a disaster or an emergency and would extend that power to the Secretary of Defense. (There are other circumstances, such as repelling invasions or rebellions or enforcing federal authority, where the President already has the authority to call up the Reserves.)

The ACLU is alarmed by the proposed legislation. Mike German, the ACLU’s national security policy counsel, expressed amazement “that the military would propose such a broad set of authorities and potentially undermine a 100-year-old prohibition against the military in domestic law enforcement with no public debate and seemingly little understanding of the threat to democracy.”

At the moment, says Pentagon spokesperson Belk, the legislation does not have a sponsor in the House or the Senate.