Get Dialed In With Nick Dial

Terrorism: Why Profile?

On 02.28.10, In Get Dialed In With Nick Dial, By dialn

By Nick Dial

The debates people have over airport security consist of profiling, invasion of privacy, and check- in time.

“Profiling” has become a buzzword in today’s media with such a derogatory connotation it has become something of a dirty word. Today, profiling immediately gets related to abuse of power and unjust treatment. The fact is that profiling is necessary to effectively perform any real security and determent of crime.

On January 28, 2008 a covert tester for the Transportation Security Administration was able to sneak a mock bomb past airport security checkpoints undetected. According to CNN:

“ Jason – that’s the name CNN was asked to call him – slides a simulated explosive into an elastic back support. The mock bomb is as slim as a wallet; its fuse, the size of a cigarette. He wraps the support around his torso, and the bomb fits comfortably into the small of his back” (Meserve, Jeanne, Ahlers, Mike, 2008).

What is a “mock bomb?” It is a small, concealable device with a fuse that is replicated to look and feel as its real counterpart. The scary part is that this stealthy act of terrorism can be executed at any time.

In the days following 9/11 people were willing to sacrifice small inconveniences in the exchange for added security and peace of mind. People are starting to forget the issues that surrounded 9/11 and the reason added security was necessary. Since there has not been another successful attack since 9/11, awareness has dropped and complaints have come in earnest about the added security. George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. In this case, the complacency beginning to be displayed only invites another attack – and once again, history repeats itself.

Racial profiling is a touchy topic, but one that should be examined thoroughly and honestly. The problem with discussions of profiling today is that people are not applying critical thinking to the topic. For example, police officers must profile when they patrol. They are, in fact, paid professional profilers. Every time they patrol they are observing their surroundings for activity that is suspicious. There are many factors that come into play that must be addressed, and yes, race is one of them. For example, let’s say an officer is patrolling in the middle of the night in a known predominately black neighborhood. The officer knows the history and surroundings of the area. He may also know that there is a rift between a white gang and black gang in that area. The white guy is wearing dark baggy clothing. At this point the officer must ask them self the following questions:

Are white people commonly in the area?
Are people normally in the area in the middle of the night?
Do members of the rival gang wear baggy dark clothing, or clothing of similar appearance?
Are the chances of this person being in this area going to lead to a confrontation?

These questions need to be examined critically and analytically. If most or all of these questions can be answered “yes”, would the officer be unjustly racially profiling for stopping the person to speak with them? The answer is no. There is a difference between profiling strictly based off of race, and profiling based on multiple factors. Race may be a contributing factor, but it is not the only factor. In this example, there is more than reasonable probable cause for the officer to suspect an issue may be at hand. The suspect is not breaking any laws by being there, however it is not unreasonable to engage the person in conversation in order to investigate. If nothing else the officer may offer to give the man a ride or notify him of the dangers of being in an unsafe part of town. The job of the officer is to protect all of the public, even if the man is a gang member.

With the previous example in mind let’s shift the situation to an airport. We must use what we currently know to combat the threats to the air traveler – in this case terrorism. We place a lot of responsibility on TSA, and they are charged with keeping hundreds of thousands of travelers safe as they go through these ports. To realistically combat the threat of terror, we must have guidelines in place to narrow down the search for the best results. If TSA treated an eighty year old grandmother as a suspect, we would be wasting valuable resources unless there was reasonable suspicion ahead of time to investigate such a person. With the issue of terrorism, here is what we know. There have been many terror attacks worldwide in the past 20 years. Of those, several have been directed toward the United States. The U.S.S. Cole was bombed by young Middle Eastern men. The First World Trade Center bombing was carried out by young Middle Eastern men. 9/11 was perpetrated by young Middle Eastern men, Arabs to be specific, and the recent plot of 2006 in England, where British authorities prevented the bombing of several U.S. bound planes, was being attempted by young Middle Eastern men. According to the Washington Post “Three of the four suicide attackers who killed 52 passengers in London’s transit system last summer were British citizens of Pakistani origin, investigators concluded. The fourth was identified as a Jamaican-born convert to Islam” (Ward, John, 2006). Based off this information, the ongoing perception of terror plots being carried by young Middle Eastern men or of Middle East decent is a correct one. They clearly state that three of the four men were of Pakistani decent, and the fourth was of Jamaican decent.

We know terror is real, and we know its threat continues to push our security to the limit. History shows a clear correlation between young men recruited by terror cells, especially men of Middle Eastern decent. Is it unreasonable for their age and ethnicity to be a red flag? Some may say yes, some may say, no. It could be argued that history shows it’s not illogical to place this at the top of many considerations when investigating a suspect. To disregard this fact would be foolish and naive. There is a clear history of bank robbers wearing ski mask, and if you walk into a bank with a mask on, it’s almost a guarantee you will be profiled and treated with apprehension from the moment you walk in the door. This is only logical- and what we know from history supports this apprehension.

When it comes to security and expectations of the public, we must remember we do not live in a perfect world. While “political correctness” works on paper, it rarely applies in real world security situations. If we want our safety guaranteed, or at the very least have our safety a top priority, then we must be willing to make certain compromises. We can’t have it both ways and expect an effective outcome.

References

Meserve, Jeanne, and Mike Ahlers. “TSA tester slips mock bomb past airport security.” CNN (2008): n. pag. Web. 24 Sep 2009.

Ward John, . “Plot to bomb U.S. bound jets is foiled.” Washington Pots (2006): n. pag. Web. 24 Sep 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081000152.html

Origins of Modern Terrorism and Legislation to Combat It

On 02.20.10, In Get Dialed In With Nick Dial, By dialn

By Nick Dial

Many people may not be aware that terrorism has a long history. While there has been a steady history of atrocities committed, it is the advent of modern day technologies that brings terrorism to our living rooms for all to see. It can no longer be ignored or neglected as much as it was before. To better understand modern terrorism, you must first take a look at the history behind it.

Terrorism has a long history, getting its roots during the French Revolution. The term terrorism was coined by Edmund Burke in the 18^th century. He was referring to the brutal reform that had taken place by the revolutionist. They had decapitated thousands in public with little trial or justice of any kind. Since then, the term terrorism has taken many different meanings. Napoleon referenced resistance fighters during his world conquest as “terrorist”. The Germans did the same during WWII referring to any resistance, which was not recognized by an official military or government as “terrorist”. Today the meaning is drastically different. The FBI defines terrorism as the following: “The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (White, 2008, P. 7). Depending on where you live in the world may bring different definition of terrorism. The popular saying “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” may ring true in some cases, however I would argue Islamic jihad terrorism does not fall into this category. A freedom fighter must fight for true freedom, such as the French Resistance did against the Nazi occupation. Militant Islamic Jihad fights for the spread of Islamic purity law and Jihad (struggle or effort, now referred to as holy war). This law allows the oppression, abuse, and murder of women. Women cannot vote, drive, or move freely in public. This law even goes to extremes such as not allowing someone to carry tomatoes and cucumbers in the same basket, for this is a “sexual innuendo”. This law has no tolerance for people of diverse faith. All who oppose this ideology, Muslim included are regarded as enemy and therefore need to be eliminated, only then will true Islam be restored. The most who suffer from this ideology are Muslims themselves.

Modern day terrorism is dominated by Islamic Jihad. This wasn’t always the case. During the 60’s and 70’s, Latin American terrorism was very active. Its structure was founded from Marxist and socialistic values. The organization of those groups is mimicked today by Islamic Jihadist groups. Many may not be aware of the roots of Militant Islam, so to better understand the roots of this ideology, an over view will be provided. Ibn Taymiyyah was an Islamic scholar in the 13^th century. He sought to find a solution to the carnage during the crusade wars. He felt through prayer, he was enlightened to bring about Jihad. He felt that Muslims had lost their way, and need to seek purification from the inside out. He referred to this as the sixth pillar of Islam and called for the destruction of all opposition. Most Muslim scholars view Jihad as a struggle against evil. Taymiyyah took this and expanded it into more militant terms. Jonathan R. White, an expert in terrorism states the following: “Ibn Taymiyyah expanded the meaning of jihad by advocating attacks on none believers and impure Muslims” (White p. 193, 2008). The only tolerance he provided was for Muslims who conformed to this ideology. Since him, there have been various philosophers such as Abdul Wahhab, and Sayyid Qutb. Influenced by Taymiyyah, these philosophers have expanded on Taymiyyah’s militant theology and have had great influence on modern day terrorism. Osama Bin Laden is a devote follower of Qutb. Qutb teaches that all Islamic nations should impose Islamic purity law. When this is achieved, they should confront the world. Islamic terrorist leaders and organizations worldwide use these philosophers and their views as justification for their action.

Since the world trade center attacks of September 11^th 2001, new legislation was passed known as the patriot act. This legislation opened the door for various agencies’s to go after terrorism and take an aggressive offensive role. According to www.whitehouse.gov, the official website for the white house, the patriot act accomplishes the following: “The Patriot Act Eliminates Double Standards By Allowing Agents To Pursue Terrorists With The Same Tools They Use Against Other Criminals. Before the Patriot Act, it was easier to track a drug dealer’s phone contacts than a terrorist’s phone contacts, and it was easier to obtain a tax cheat’s credit card receipts than to trace the financial support of an al-Qaida fundraiser. The Patriot Act corrected these double standards – and America is safer as a result” (The white house, 2008).

Basically the patriot act has allowed such things as expediting the process of intelligence gathering. Before, the judicial process took so long to obtain warrants, that the risk of losing the information or evidence was too great. By the time they would get approval, the evidence was long gone. This allows Agency’s to get started on the Intel gathering while the warrant is being obtained. This way they don’t lose the evidence. There still needs to be an approval for the warrant at however, and any evidence gathered with failure to obtain a legal warrant will result in invalid evidence. This is referred to as “sneak and peaks”. This has become an issue of controversy in the country. Many people feel that it violates civil rights. The problem is that people are forgetting one key thing. Agencies are going after enemy combatants in this country, in the past, they would have been called SPIES! When you have national security threats from an enemy combatant, domestic civil law is often not applicable or insufficient. There is a whole new range of federal anti-espionage and foreign threat laws that come into play.

Recently the Supreme Court decided that enemy combatants on foreign battlefields will be afforded the same rights as criminals within the United States borders. This is the first time in history this has been decided. The problem with this is the enemy will use our legal system, (which is in place to protects citizens) to exploit our media and judicial system. They don’t play by the rules, but will use the rules to work against the United States. Sometimes common sense needs to take over. This is our Achilles heel, and they will cut it every chance they get. Many argue that the patriot act does nothing to secure our safety, and that we are more vulnerable than before. According to the Heritage foundation (2007), 19 terrorist attacks have been thwarted since 9/11, some even “homegrown” right here in the United States (James J. 2007). With the rise in terror attacks all through 2009, we should be more perseverant now than ever. Fort Hood, the Christmas bomb attempt, the shooting of military recruiters, and several more plots foiled, should serve as a clear testimony that the fight is far from over. Only through strong will and a desire to succeed will we as a nation rise above this radical ideology.

References

Carafano, James J. (2007). U.s. thwarts 19 terrorist attacks against america since 9/11. Retrieved 12/01/2008, from

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm

The white house. Retrieved December 7, 2008, from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/patriotact/

White, J. (2008). Terrorism and homeland security (sixth edition). Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth cengage learning.

Tagged with: 9/11 • patriot act • terror • terrorism • terrorist • terrorists

TASER: An Officer’s Perspective and a Jolt of Reality

On 01.06.10, In Get Dialed In With Nick Dial, By dialn

By Nick Dial

I graduated from the police academy in 2006, and worked both as a deputy for a sheriff’s office and police officer for a municipal city. I was trained in the use of a TASER and carried one on duty. I never deployed it while on patrol, but have had a fair amount of exposure to the device and the implications surrounding it.

The TASER has been an issue of increased debate and the more this device is being implemented into mainstream society, more negative effects regarding its use are being reported. This topic is often one filled with emotion and fear among officers. The more controversial the TASER becomes, the more there is fear of losing it as a tool. This anxiety is reasonably understandable, but that doesn’t take way from the fact there are serious issues that should be addressed surrounding this device and its use in the field. Regardless of one’s feelings on the TASER, there is one remaining consistency – people are sustaining injuries and death after its use. This of course is no different than when regular tactics used by the police not involving the TASER are implimented. After all, some people do get hurt and some die by the police as well. The key points to remember, however, is how these people are being injured or dying.

When people are physically hurt or killed by police in situations where a TASER was not used or present, the individuals most likely arrived at that point by behaving in a disruptive or dangerous manner. The problem that is taking place more frequently with the TASER, is that people are being subjected to this device much too early. Before this is discussed further, one must understand the use of force continuum, what it is, and how it is applied.

Use of force continuum: The use of force continuum is a system used by law enforcement to calculate the appropriate use of force in any given situation. Generally speaking, the rule of thumb is that the suspect, not the officer, is in charge of how high the use of force continuum advances. If the suspect continues to rise in hostility, the officer must raise the force to counter the actions of the suspect. Some use of force policies may differ between departments, and from state to state in small detail, but generally speaking, most use of force continuum polices are the same. These policies are as follows:

Officer presence
Verbal commands
Soft hands (control tactics/wrist locks/OC spray)
Hard hands (strike points/impact weapons)
Lethal force (firearm/strike points to vital areas)

For a clear understanding of this policy, reference the use of the following force continuum chart.

use of force continuum The reason the TASER has become so controversial is because it is often being used in situations where the TASER was unnecessary. If the TASER were only being used in situations where the only other option was hard techniques or lethal force, there wouldn’t be such a public outcry. In my opinion the majority of police officers show sound judgment and use good common sense, however there appears to be an increase where people are being exposed to the TASER on very low levels of force continuum. Many people think the TASER was designed to be a replacement to lethal force. This is false. What the TASER does do, is allow the officer options in which to neutralize a situation more safely and efficiently. If there is a situation where the life of the officer or another is in danger, you do not want an officer reaching for the TASER when they should be reaching for their firearm. The reason for this is because the TASER does not always deploy successfully, and this could result in the officer or a third party severely hurt or killed as a result.

The correct location for the TASER should be placed on level four under hard techniques. If an officer reaches a point where techniques such as hard strikes and impact weapons such as the baton must be utilized, this is an appropriate situation to deploy the TASER. An officer has many tools that can be used against them in a physical struggle, such as their firearm. Many officers have been shot with their own weapon, therefore, when faced with a combative suspect, the TASER is a reasonable tool for such an application. Unfortunately, an increasing number of officers will use officer presence, verbal commands, and then TASER. This is where the true controversies set in because either it is used prematurely, or as a compliance tool - both of which is inappropriate application of the device.

A good example of misappropriation of the TASER is the “don’t tase me bro” incident that took place at a John Kerry Speech. The officers had the suspect detained and on the ground. The officer threatened use of the TASER if he kept moving (compliance). The suspect then cried out, “Don’t TASE me.” At this point the TASER had done its job. It had intimidated the suspect into submission and there was no threat. The officer used the TASER anyway. This, in my opinion, was nothing more than grand- standing for the audience. There was no need for deployment of the TASER, even if it were only a drive stung (deployment without the cartridge).

Another example is that of a 14 year old girl. She was attempting to run from a police chief in New Mexico when he shot her from behind with the TASER. One of the barbs hit her in the head, penetrating her skull. “The girl slowed down, but became scared after Hatcher yelled at her to stop and threatened force with the taser. She started to run again. “Hatcher said he attempted to catch up to the girl by foot but was unable to do so and believes he had no choice but to fire a Taser dart to stop her” (14 year old girl shot in head with taser. 2009). This could have been potentially fatal, and had the officer realized the potential harm the TASER was capable of, he most likely would have not deployed the TASER in the first place.

Another example of misuse is that of Kathryn Winkfein. Kathryn was a 72 year old great -grandmother who was stopped for doing 65 mph in a 45 mph zone. According to MSMBC,” Sgt. Maj. Gary Griffin of the Travis County, Texas, Constable’s Office told NBC News that Bieze acted appropriately.“He mitigated this event safely, effectively and efficiently. Nobody sustained any injury,” Griffin said. (Celizic, M., 2009). Even if a 72 year old woman in not cooperating ,how can it ever be argued that it’s ok to TASER a woman that is 72 years old? If a male officer cannot effectively subdue women at the age of 72, they have no business being a law enforcement officer in the first place. A baton would have been out of the question, but lighting her up with 50,000 volts is acceptable? There is a serious lack of judgment and logic in this scenario. I hate to be critical of fellow officers, but criticism should be applied where criticism is due. Other wise there is no way to learn and adapt to such situations.

There are an increasing number of deaths per year following TASER deployments, and as the years continue to go by, so do the number of injuries and deaths associated with this device. Does this mean the device should be removed from law enforcement? No. What it does mean, is that the TASER must be respected as a serious tool that can cause harm, or even in some cases, kill. Therefore, it should be deployed tactfully in appropriate situations. Using the TASER as a compliance tool is simply bone – headed and dangerous to the general public. Police officers are there to protect the public from harm. Using a device without knowing or understanding the possible consequences can be serious, and the public should not serve as a test bed for this device. If an officer realized that this device could kill, they would most certainly be more careful to ONLY deploy it when necessary - not because a suspect is passively resistant. Passively resistant is when a suspect is verbally defiant, or may not co-operate with an order, i.e. pulling away or shrugging as an officer grabs them, or failing to complete the officer’s verbal demands. A perfect example of a Taser deployment during a passively resistant suspect can be seen here. A woman is ordered to complete several requests by an officer. She is being argumentative, but is not assaulting the officer in anyway. He could easily have used control tactics to detain her, but instead relies on the TASER.

With the many cases of misuse, one must ask, why? The answer is pretty simple – training. TASER International is the one providing the supposed non-biased data along with training criteria to the various police departments on the proper use and safety of the TASER. For a long time TASER International took the position that their device is completely safe and could not cause cardiac arrest. This has recently changed. In October of 2009, TASER International released a document instructing officers not to aim at the chest. This of course caused controversy. In the past, coroner reports have ruled cause of death to be from the TASER. TASER International responded by filing a lawsuit against the coroner’s office demanding the report be changed as to its findings. As a result, doctors spoke out against TASER, stating these were unethical strong- arm tactics of corporate intimidation. Infowars.com states the following:

“Doctors have condemned as corporate “intimidation” a court decision ordering a chief medical examiner to remove any reference to the use of a taser as an antecedent in the deaths of three men.

Ohio examiner Dr. Lisa Kohler had noted in her autopsy reports that electrical shocks from Tasers were partially to blame for the deaths of individuals in three separate confrontations with police.

Taser International, now notorious for its stern legal defense having won 68 out of 68 lawsuits, filed and won a civil suit, forcing Kohler to delete all mentions of the weapons and to term the deaths “accidental”

Jeffrey Jentzen, president of the National Association of Medical Examiners, an organization that represents the majority of medical examiners in the United States, has warned that the actions of Taser International and the court ruling have set a dangerous precedent:

“Our membership is very concerned about these cases and the reaction of Taser to these cases,” he said last night.

“Our membership is looking into the area and although Taser has developed its own opinion, there are certainly opposing opinions as to their involvement in causing sudden death in individuals.

“Our organization feels that it violates the physician’s ability to make a medical decision. Ordering a professional physician to change or alter their records is in violation of their right to practice medicine.

“Taser has sued a number of medical examiners for making informed medical opinions in an attempt, I think, to both protect their product and send a threatening message to medical examiners.

“It is dangerously close to intimidation,” he said. “They are attempting to send a message to medical examiners that if they elect to make that determination they may face a civil suit.” (Watson, S, 2008).

Now, in 2009, TASER International has flipped their position. According to the Arizona Republic, “The maker of Taser stun guns is advising police officers to avoid shooting suspects in the chest with the 50,000-volt weapon, saying that it could pose an extremely low risk of an “adverse cardiac event.”

The advisory, issued in an Oct. 12 training bulletin, is the first time that Taser International has suggested there is any risk of a cardiac arrest related to the discharge of its stun gun.

But Taser officials said Tuesday that the bulletin does not state that Tasers can cause cardiac arrest. They said the advisory means only that law-enforcement agencies can avoid controversy over the subject if their officers aim at areas other than the chest. (Anglen, R, 2009).

As the above states, “Taser officials said Tuesday that the bulletin does not state that Tasers can cause cardiac arrest”. This is completely false. The following is taken from the training bulletin released by TASER International, “while it may not be possible to say that an ECD could never affect the heart under any circumstances, the risk of VF is extremely rare and would be rounded to near zero” (Taser training bulletin, 2009).

In a media interview, a spokesman states, “No where did they say the Taser could cause cardiac arrest”, and here as you can see, the bulletin clearly states it can happen, even though TASER claims the chances are low. Low or not, they are still stating it can happen. The hypocrisy, however, does not stop there. The bulletin also states the following:

“Should Sudden Cardiac Arrest occur in an arrest situation involving a TASER® electronic control device (ECD) discharge to the chest area – plaintiff attorneys will likely file an excessive use of force claim against the law enforcement agency and officer and try to allege that the TASER ECD played a role in the arrest related death by causing ventricular fibrillation (VF), an arrhythmia that can be fatal without intervention. The available research does not support this” (Taser training bulletin, 2009).

TASER states in their bulletin that “the available research does not support this”. This is another complete false statement and misleading. There have been numerous studies done with TASERS, and experts have come forward warning of the possible dangers of TASER and cardiac arrest. CBC News reported in 2008, a team of doctors and scientists at the trauma center at Cook County Hospital conducted tests on pigs with the TASER device. The results were shocking – literally.

“The team of doctors and scientists at the trauma centre in Chicago’s Cook County Hospital stunned 11 pigs with Taser guns in 2006, hitting their chests with 40-second jolts of electricity, pausing for 10 to 15 seconds, then hitting them for 40 more seconds.

When the jolts ended, every animal was left with heart rhythm problems, the researchers said. Two of the animals died from cardiac arrest, one three minutes after receiving a shock” (Chicago study calls taser safety claims into question, 2008).

Police officers need to be aware of the dangers says the experts,

“Dr. Andrew Dennis, a Chicago-based trauma surgeon and police officer who worked on the study, said if Tasers can affect pigs, more research needs to be done to study how safe the stun guns are. In the meantime, police should question when, and on whom, they use the devices, he said.

“The officers need to question themselves and ask themselves, ‘Is this the appropriate situation for this device?’ “Dennis said. “They need to have the understanding that this is not a truly benign device” (Chicago study calls taser safety claims into question, 2008).

TASER International hit back with the following statement:

“Rick Smith, the CEO of Taser International and company co-founder, doesn’t think much can be concluded from the Chicago study because it focused on pigs that weigh less than 100 pounds and have a very different physiology from humans.

Smith said studies done on humans have shown Tasers don’t pose a serious health threat.

“The human studies are clearly much more relevant to policy-makers, and to people that are interested in the science of how Tasers affect people,” he said” (Chicago study calls taser safety claims into question, 2008).

Again, however, we see more hypocrisy on the side of TASER International. As CBC News correctly points out, “pig studies have been used as evidence in arguments for and against stun guns in the past. Even the Taser International website points to studies on pigs in which the outcomes suggest the stun guns aren’t a serious safety risk” ” (Chicago study calls taser safety claims into question, 2008).

Evidently, it’s ok for TASER International to promote testing with pigs when it’s in their favor, and to dismiss it when it is not. So far much of TASER’S positions on the issue have been nothing more then double talk and misinformation, this is in my opinion is very concerning. They say no research is available to support the dangers of cardiac arrest, yet we have a study they commented on and attempted to refute. They say that pig studies are not creditable, yet they promote it when it’s in their favor with the findings. How can a police officer confidently use such a device in a real world setting when the very manufacturer continues to shift its position on what the device is,or is not capable of? The real problem is that if TASER were to admit to such an issue, millions of dollars would be at risk. There have been many lawsuits against Taser International, many of which are actually police officers who were hurt during training. A study in 2006 found that many of the devices on the street were more powerful then TASER International claimed they were capable of.

“A study measuring electric shocks from a Taser stun gun found that it was 39 times more powerful than the manufacturer claimed, raising new questions about the weapon’s safety.
The study, published last month in the peer-reviewed Journal of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers, concluded that the shocks are powerful enough to cause fatal heart rhythms. It is one of the few scientific studies of Taser’s electric jolt in which the company did not participate.

“The findings show the energy delivered by the weapon to be considerably understated by the manufacturer,” the Journal study said. “These findings place the weapon well into the lethal category” (Study raises concern over Taser’s safety, 2006). Canada removed many Tasers from use on the street as a result of finding Tasers that were emitting too much power.

In 2007, Pamela Schrieiner, a former employee of TASER International, testified in an affidavit about her experience while working at TASER. Pamela stated in 2004 she was hired as an executive legal assistant for the executive team at TASER International. She states “I reported to Doug Klint, corporate counsel, rick Smith, CEO, and Tom Smith, the company’s president.” Pamela states she was assigned to organize a large number of volunteer exposure reports that were located in boxes scattered throughout the offices. Volunteer reports are documents filled out by police officers exposed to the effects of the TASER. Pamela states “while creating the spreadsheet, I became aware that there were hundreds, if not thousands, of injuries noted on the volunteer exposure reports”. According to Pamela, Doug Klint and Rick Smith became very upset at this. The company was under investigation by the Security and Exchange Commission, and the Department of Justice concerning the safety of TASERS. Pamela states” Mr Klint and Mr. Smith told me to remove the data from the spread sheets for most of the injuries which I had entered. They then shredded most of the reports showing injuries, bringing in dumpsters to dispose of the paper. Many of the destroyed documents contained reports of injuries to the back”.

Pamela states that in late 2004 there was a meeting held about information being leaked to the media. TASER had hired some off duty police officers to investigate the issue. Pamela states she was accused of leaking information by the officers, and even though she claimed her innocence, she was forced to resign. Pamela says since leaving TASER International, she has been threatened by people hired by TASER. She states that people she has never met would come up to her in the grocery store, and tell her “it’s not a good idea testify against TASER”. Pamela ends her testimony by stating the following:

“Rick Smith, Tom Smith, and Doug Smith are responsible for hiding and covering up information on the extent of injuries to officers during TASER trainings. I know this because I was instructed to alter the spreadsheets and saw them destroy documents. Doug Klint told me that the lawsuits against TASER would go away because there would be no documents to prove that TASER knew that injuries were happening”.

Pamela is set to testify on behalf of a case involving a Georgia State Trooper. According to RMCP watch.com, the following has taken place:

“Ms. Johnson, the lawyer representing the Georgia state trooper, filed an emergency motion for a protective order from the court regarding the expected deposition of Ms. Schreiner. The woman did not wish to testify in the Phoenix area, “due to the previous threats and harassment by members of the law enforcement community in the Phoenix area on Taser’s payroll,” the motion says.

Since then, Taser has been asking numerous “intrusive and harassing questions” about Ms. Schreiner’s finances and private medical history, according to Ms. Johnson’s motion. The company has subpoenaed her tax returns, bank account statements, phone bills and documents reflecting “your diagnosis of and treatment for cancer” for the years 2004 and 2005” (ex-taser worker alleges she was threatened, 2009).

The fact TASER International is demanding such irrelevant history about Mrs. Shriener demonstrates troubling lengths in which they will go to somehow destroy a person’s creditability. RMCP Watch.com goes on to state the following:

“The Georgia case that includes Ms. Schreiner’s allegations involves claims of a debilitating back injury sustained by David Wilson, a former Georgia State Trooper, during his training on how to use the device.

That case, launched last year, is similar to one filed by RCMP Constable Dan Husband, who was stationed in Revelstoke, B.C., when he suffered a back injury after a voluntary Taser strike, he claims. Officers are encouraged to experience a Taser shot as part of their training, the suit says. Const. Husband’s suit was filed a year ago but only made public this week in the National Post.

There have been at least 10 training-injury lawsuits filed against Taser since 2003, according to the company. They are among the more than 100 product-liability suits it has faced, according to the company’s most recent filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. stock market regulator.”

“Lawyers for Taser, who are defending against the Georgia suit, filed weighty legal arguments trying to keep a jury from hearing Ms. Schreiner’s allegations. Taser said in court she resigned after working for nine months when she was accused of providing false information during a corporate investigation and that her affidavit contradicts her earlier statements”(ex-taser worker alleges she was threatened, 2009).

These issues are very concerning considering many officers have been injured in training after being encouraged to take such a hit from the TASER. I, myself, was hit with the TASER in training and suffered a severe back strain to my upper back that required medical attention resulting in missed work. Had I known about such cases involving officers being hurt in training beforehand, I certainly would have made a different decision. The risk of injury vs. no benefit to receiving a hit in my opinion is not worth it. The fact TASER allegedly destroyed such information that should have been shared with officers, including myself, is even more concerning. I am not unique in this regard. One such example is that of a 38 year old officer in 2007. This officer volunteered to demonstrate the safety of the TASER for the British Metropolitan Police. After being hit with the device he was rushed to the hospital with severe back fractures. Janes.com sates the following:

“A police officer in the US who volunteered to be the subject of a Taser demonstration has suffered possibly lasting damage including spine fractures after receiving a five-second discharge, according to a respected medical journal.

The 38-year-old victim was rushed by ambulance to hospital where a scan showed he suffered compression fractures in his spine caused by muscle spasms triggered by being Tasered in a training class.

The case has now entered medical literature after being written up in the eminent American College of Emergency Physicians journal which released the details

Supt Charlie Hill, staff officer to the ACPO police use of firearms working group, said the case underlined the need to move with caution until more can be discovered about the potential side effects of using Tasers”(Officer injured in taser demonstration, 2007).

A more recent case is that of Utah man, 32year old Brian Cardall. Brian had a history of mental illness. While on a road trip from Arizona with his wife, he became agitated. Brian had stripped his clothes off and began having an episode. His wife called for the police to come help detain him. When the police arrived they TASERED him, knocking Brian unconscious. He died shortly after at a nearby hospital. Brian’s wife was pregnant when he passed, leaving behind three children and a wife. Had the police been aware that the device could kill Brian, or if it was found that the mentally ill are more susceptible to the TASER, they almost certainly would have used another method (Non-lethal weapon kills utah man, 2009).

In conclusion, should the TASER be taken off the street? In this peace officer’s opinion no. It can still serve as a good tool in law enforcement as long as it is used appropriately and respectfully. People reading this article should understand I am not anti-TASER. I am however for doing what I believe is morally and ethically right by putting the safety of fellow officers in training and the safety of the general public first and foremost. In my opinion the following should take place concerning the TASER:

There should be a federal investigation into the legitimacy of Mrs. Schriener’s testimony and validated whether or not important evidence of the device’s safety has been withheld and destroyed.
There should be federal and private sector independent testing of the device. It is not ethical that the general public be used as a test bed for the TASER, while TASER International continues to change their policies and positions as people suffer the consequences after being exposed to the device.
The number of officers injured during “safe” taser training must be taken seriously. This device must be respected. It is not a toy, and officers should not be encouraged to take a hit. We don’t shoot each other with our firearms and bean bag rounds, and we don’t hit each other with our batons.
The TASER should be moved up on the use of force continuum to hard techniques. Passive resistant suspects do not warrant use of the TASER and the TASER should not be used as a compliance control device.
New training methods and procedures regarding use of the Taser should be implimented.

The above stated points should be addressed. The longer this device is used without proper testing, study, care, and respect, the longer people will unintentionally suffer unwarranted injury or death as a result. There are now many cases pending regarding people who died shortly after being hit with the TASER – and it was in situations where lethal force would not have been used or permitted. One thing should be remembered above all else- as law enforcement officers, we commit to protect the public and to serve. It is a cause greater than ourselves. The TASER is a tool, not a symbol of loyalty. There is no reason why law enforcement cannot take grounded approach to the issues discussed here concerning the TASER. We are loyal to the oaths we take and that includes getting to the bottom of how safe this device truly is before we subject someone to its use unnecessarily.

References

14 year old girl shot in head with taser. (2009). Retrieved from

http://current.com/items/90490049_14-year-old-girl-shot-in-head-with-taser.htm

Anglen, R. (2009). Taser advises police not to aim at chest. Retrieved from

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/10/21/20091021taser1021.html

Celizic, M. (2009). Great-grandma dared cop to tase her, so he did. Retrieved from

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/31202935/

Chicago study calls taser safety claims into question. (2008). Retrieved from

http://www.ppao.gov.on.ca/pdfs/sys-tas-cbc1.pdf

ex-taser worker alleges she was threatened. (2009). Retrieved from

http://www.rcmpwatch.com/ex-taser-worker-alleges-she-was-threatened/

Officer injured in taser demonstration . (2007). Retrieved from

http://www.janes.com/news/lawenforcement/pr/pr071011_1_n.shtml

Study raises concern over taser’s safety. (2006). Retrieved from

http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11338

Taser training bulletin . (2009). Retrieved from

http://www.fbinaa.org/files/public/TaserTraining_Bulletin_MEMO_10_14_09%5B1%5D.pdf

Non-lethal weapon kills utah man. (2009). Retrieved from

http://blogs.sltrib.com/slcrawler/index.php?p=741&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Watson, S. (2008). Doctors condemn “threatening” taser court ruling. Retrieved from

http://www.infowars.com/doctors-condemn-threatening-taser-court-ruling/

Tagged with: excessive force • police • TASER • Taser abuse • Taser injury • TASER International • use of force continuum

Terrorism Wake Up Call: Man Caused Disaster Strikes On Christmas Day 2009

On 12.27.09, In Get Dialed In With Nick Dial, By dialn

time_bomb On March 17^th2009, Janet Napolitano stated terrorism is a man caused disaster. On August 7^th 2009, the Obama administration officially announced that the U.S. is no longer at war with terrorism. They stated the U.S. is no longer at war with Jihadist as well. On December 25^th 2009, the Nigerian man on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 must have not received the memo. As the plane descended, passengers began to smell smoke and noticed an odd glow. “It sounded like a firecracker in a pillowcase,” said Peter Smith, a passenger from the Netherlands. “First there was a pop, and then (there) was smoke.” Smith said one passenger, sitting opposite the man, climbed over passengers, went across the aisle and tried to restrain the man. The heroic passenger appeared to have been burned. (Irwin, J, 2009).

The Nigerian man claimed he had been sent to destroy the plane on orders of Al-Qaeda. What could have been a very terrible disaster during “the most wonderful time of the year” ended in success as the passengers of flight 253 swarmed the terrorist as the explosives failed. Christmas miracles do exist after all. The plane was able to land with no life- threatening injuries.

The reason this event is one of massive significance is due to the fact that the world and even the U.S. is increasingly falling into a state of malaise and denial. A pre-9/11 mentality is taking hold and rhetoric such as “man caused disaster” is taking the place of common sense. Is it really going to take the periodical terror attack to remind the world that there are people with a violent agenda? The World Allies need to step up to the plate, and quit acting as if this is a law enforcement issue. This issue is one of massive scale, and the perpetrators have made it very clear they are at war.

One issue that seems to confuse people is the concept of terrorism itself. People must realize that after 9/11 the world changed. It will never go back to a pr-9/11 state. While you would think this was clear, many just seem not to comprehend this. They speak about “winning” the War on Terror as if there is one leader who is going to sign terms of surrender. This is false, and the sooner people wake up to this the better. This is not a war in the traditional sense. In terms of terrorism, it never will be.

When many think of the War on Terror, they often think of roadside bombs, air strikes and the engagement of military powers. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, war is defined as follows: “a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>” (Merriam-webster online dictionary, 2008). Much like The War on Drugs, or The War on Disease, The War on Terror is a fight against an ideology. Fighting does take place, but it is a class war in the true sense. You have opposing philosophies squaring off to do battle. In this case the United States and her allies believe in human rights, the freedom of religion, happiness, and a world free of oppressing theology. The other fights for an Islamic world- wide government that will rid the world of all non believers, Muslims included.

Obama and his administration must wake up before harsh lessons of the past are repeated. The War on Terror is very complicated, which requires much research to accurately comprehend.. There are mass amounts of disinformation, mainstream “talking points”, and popular clichés that all fail to accurately bring the situation to the table. Iraq clearly had much ambition to further its threat to the West. When 9/11 took place, a great game of chess was unleashed on the world and threats needed to be prioritized. With the Intel that had been provided, and the Intel that has been found since, it is safe to say that Iraq is a logical military action determined to provide arms into the hands of Islamic Jihadists. Before 2001, history shows that the United States suffered from constant terrorist attacks. Since going on the offensive, there have been minor attacks throughout the world, and none on United States soil. This fact cannot be ignored. The War on Terror is effective, working, and necessary to secure the safety of this nation and her Allies. This is a world issue, not just a United States one. While the world continues to turn a blind eye, rogue nations of the world continue to arm themselves. History should serve as the ultimate guide when dealing with such issues. Hitler was ignored and not taken seriously at face value. His intentions were not hidden, and yet nations continued to ignore the warnings. That ignorance was paid by the blood of fifty million people whose lives were lost during WWII; all of which could have been avoided with proper intervention and action. Action is the key word in that statement. Sometimes it is not enough to sit back and talk; at times action must be taken and someone will have to do the heavy lifting. People must wake up. It should not take the occasional man on a plane trying to blow us up, or a terrible car bomb to remind us that these people are real and are bent on doing us harm. Ignorance and complacency may be comfortable and convenient, but it comes with a price and it is a luxury we can no longer afford.

References

Irwin, J. (Photographer). (2009). passengers help foil attack on detroit-bound plane. [Web]. Retrieved from

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091226/D9CR18JO0.html

Merriam-webster online dictionary. (2008). . Retrieved from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/WAR

Tagged with: al-qaeda • Christmas bombing • flight 253 • Nigerian • Northwest Airlines • terrorism

Fort Hood Massacre: A Political Correctness Nightmare

On 11.14.09, In Get Dialed In With Nick Dial, By dialn

By Nick Dial

When does political correctness reach a point of total insanity? No longer is political correctness just lip service to the easily offended, it now comes with the price of lives lost or endangered.

According to this new administration, we are no longer in a war against terror; we are in an “overseas contingency”. Acts of terrorism are now labeled as “man caused disasters” and we are no longer at war with Jihadist- only Al-Qaeda. Is Al-Qaeda not a group of Jihadist? In the name of political correct rhetoric and agenda driven spin, we have now reached a point where nothing is what it seems and everything is spun to deflect away from what it truly is. The only thing missing from this scenario is a white rabbit wearing glasses and a bottle that says, “drink me.” Only when you drink this liquid, you don’t grow in size – you simply march in step with the rest of the mainstream pundits of the media. Oh, how collective our society has become! Alice chasing the rabbit down this twisted trail of illusions in what is now The United States of Wonderland.

On November 5, 2009, an Army Major, Nidal Hasan Hassa, opened fire in the Soldier Readiness Center of Fort Hood. The shooting was said to have lasted approximately 3 minutes. By the time the shooting stopped, 13 were dead and 30 wounded. Immediately afterward, questions began to fly as to what the motive might have been. The mainstream media, however , and the liberal left, wasted no time projecting their hypothesis into the mix. Headlines started to fly such as “War on Terror Takes Its Toll”, implying that it was not the shooter that was at fault, it was the stress of the war. Claims were made from “post traumatic stress disorder,” even though Hasan was never in combat, to he simply “snapped”. Everything and anything was thrown into the mix to derive away from what this truly is. It is none other than an act of domestic Islamic Terror.

According to the FBI, the definition of terrorism is as follows:

“The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

Given the above stated definition, we must ask ourselves, does Hasan fit this definition? Before deciding, let’s take a look at some of the factors surrounding Hasan and his actions.

Before Hasan opened fire that day, there had been reports among colleague that Hasan showed contempt for the War on Terror, and the Role the U.S. was playing. According to Bloomberg.com, a doctor who was in a graduate program with Hasan stated he called the War on Terrorism “a war against Islam.” Bloomberg.com goes on to state the following:

“While studying for a masters degree in public health in 2007, Hasan used a presentation for an environmental health class to argue that Muslims were being targeted by the U.S. anti-terror campaign, said Val Finnell, a classmate.

“He was very vocal about the war, very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second,” said Finnell, 41, a preventive medicine doctor in Los Angeles, in an interview yesterday. He was always concerned that Muslims in the military were being persecuted.” Others who worked with Hasan stated that when he was challenged on such views, he became sweaty, flustered, and visibly upset.

The questionable behavior surrounding Hasan doesn’t stop with the above information. According to The Telegraph.CO.UK, the following was discovered about Hasan and his behavior in the military:

“Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America’s Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats”.

“He also told colleagues at America’s top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.

Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe”.

Obviously Hasan shared the same belief in Wahabbi driven Islam as his Al-Qaeda counter – parts. As additional information comes forward dealing with Hasan, continuing details lead to the fact that this was indeed, an act of a lone wolf domestic terrorist. A lone wolf terrorist is someone who acts alone in carrying out an act that is social or political in nature. A perfect example of a lone wolf is Timothy McVeigh and his 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City. His positions were clearly anti- United States Government; can the same not be said about Hasan? According to ABC, Hasan, in fact, tried to contact Al-Qaeda directly. ABC reports the following:

“U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with an individual associated with Al- Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News”.

It is not clear if much came from his attempts to contact Al-Qaeda, but the fact he tried speaks volumes regarding the motivation of his actions against the military.

Now that some of Hasan’s actions and behavior have been covered, a recap would be helpful in examining the intent behind his actions. Hasan did the following:

Stated he is a Muslim first and an American second.
Stated the war on terrorism was “a war against Islam.”
Stated that Muslims were being targeted by the U.S. anti-terror campaign.
Became sweaty, flustered, and visibly upset when challenged on his views.
Gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said “non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.”
Told colleagues at America’s top military hospital that “non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire.”
Gave medical colleagues an extremist interpretation of the Koran which lasted approximately an hour.
Attempted to contact Al-Qaeda before the event took place.

Based on the above overview, is it fair to suggest and conclude that Mr. Hasan was indeed a lone wolf terrorist acting in the name of radical Islam? Again, the definition used by the FBI of terrorim states the following, “The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” Force was used against both government and civilian personal. It was clearly in opposition to the War on Terror and to promote Islamic Jihad and its values. Based on everything covered and the definition given, this a clear case of Terrorism.

Based on the above reported behavior leading up to this event, many may ask how did it get this far in the first place? This is where political correctness comes in and rears its ugly head. When red flags are ignored to such an extent in the name of political correctness, a serious look should be taken at how similar situations will be handled in the future. According to Fox News, the warning signs were there, but political correctness kept any serious inquiries from moving forward. Fox reports the following:

“There were definitely clear indications that Hasan’s loyalties were not with America,” According to Lt. Col. Val Finnell, Hasan’s classmate at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He and Hasan were students in the school’s public health master’s degree program from 2007-2008.

“The issue here is that there’s a political correctness climate in the military. They don’t want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody’s religious belief, or they’re afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit.

“I want to be clear that this wasn’t about anyone questioning his religious views. It is different when you are a civilian than when you are a military officer,” said Finnell, who is a physician at the Los Angeles Air Force Base.

“When you are in the military and you start making comments that are seditious, when you say you believe something other than your oath of office. Clearly, someone needed to ask -why is this guy saying these things?

“He was a lightning rod. He made his views known and he was very vocal, he had extremely radical Jihadist views,” Finnell said. “When you’re a military officer you take an oath to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.

“They should’ve confronted him — our professors, officers — but they were too concerned about being politically correct.”

Unfortunately, we have reached a point in society where political correctness has superseded common sense. When people are injured or lose their life due to incompetence fueled by political correctness, society as a whole must take a hard look in the mirror of life. Life is not fair, nor is it a “politically correct” world. There are losers and winners, there is friend and foe, there is dark and light, and there is safety and danger. The time has come to quite playing childish games. The real world is hard and full of danger. We must stop trying to project a fabricated image of “perfect unity,” where questioning topics that are uncomfortable and provocative are avoided. This isn’t Kindergarten. In the real world not everybody gets the same amount of jelly beans and not everybody is a “friend”. Perhaps the nation needs to go back to grade school and retake courses in “stranger danger.”

Tagged with: Army • Fort Hood • Fort Hood Massacre • Fort Hood shooting • Hasan • news • Nidal Hasan Hassa • Politics • shooting

Where’s The “Hope” For U.S. Troops?

On 10.16.09, In Get Dialed In With Nick Dial, By dialn

sunset_soldier1

By Nick Dial

Troop morale in Afghanistan is reportedly low. Before asking why this would be, let’s look at some of the events that have transpired in the last year. Obama announces he will close Guantanamo bay with no preformulated plan on how this would be achieved. He then decides to suspend military tribunals in favor of civil criminal approaches, which would result in detainees having the advantage due to the fact they were not captured on a battlefield and not in a situation where police conduct a formal investigation and tag evidence. Obama then pushes for Miranda rights to be read to prisoners captured on the battlefield; something of which they have no constitutional entitlement to in the first place.

With this alone, one must question; what, exactly is the tact being used here? Obama changed the rules of engagement for U.S. troops, stating they cannot fire on a structure from which they are receiving fire. They must first see the enemy, something which more often than not is impossible when taking hostile fire from a structure 300 plus yards away. According to one report in Afghanistan, “U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village”. These new rules resulted in the death of several marines when they became pinned and ran low on ammunition. Fact is, a president that has never served in combat is dictating how our troops should conduct themselves in combat and as a result they are dying.

The questionable decisions, however, don’t stop there. Obama has cut funding for research and development, insulted our European allies with denial of the promised missile shield, and continues to drag his feet with Afghanistan. President Obama personally picked General Mcchrystal and yet he does not show much interest in meeting General Mcchrystal’s recommendations. General Mcchrystal requested troops in August of this year, yet it took the president until October to meet with him for a mere twenty- five minutes. General Mcchrystal requested 40,000 troops and what does Obama do after procrastinating for more than a month? Nothing, he stalls more saying he must wait for a clear election in Afghanistan. The president has repeatedly shown that other priorities come before the troops. How do you explain to your military that booking seven talk shows to promote health care and flying to Copenhagen to promote the Olympics in Chicago is more important than addressing the war in Afghanistan in which our troops are fighting and dying? The president has stated that we are no longer “at war with terror”, acts of terror are “man caused disasters” and “we are no longer at war with Jihad”. Perhaps the troops and the enemy didn’t get that message, because we have dead heroes coming back home in caskets from fighting Islamic Jihadist!

When does incompetence turn into all out betrayal? Earmarks and pet projects are nothing new when it comes to Washington, but what about when funds for the military are taken away from our troops and given to pet projects instead? According to the Washington Times, “Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis” (2009). The article goes on to state “$25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat” (2009). This recent act is simply a slap in the face to the troops by this administration. How can we expect the morale of our troops to be high when this administration continues to put its own self -serving interest before the troops? Have they no shame?

References

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/troop-funds-diverted-to-pet-projects/

Tagged with: Afghanistan • Funds • General Mcchrystal • Mcchrystal • military • news • Obama • Obama and Afghanistan • Pet projects • Politics • Pork Barrel • Troops • U.S. Funds • U.S. Military

Who Needs A Missile Shield When Ignorance Is Bliss?

On 09.23.09, In Get Dialed In With Nick Dial, By dialn

By Nick Dial

On September 17^th, 1939, Russia forcefully invaded Poland storming the borders along with Hitler’s Germany during the start of the Second World War. Russia had inflicted unspeakable acts against Poland’s military personal after being defeated and apprehended. In 1940, The Soviets had executed approximately 25,700 Polish officers. This event came to be known as the Katyn Massacre. The Russians put the blame on the Nazis, but after the fall of the Soviet Union and an admitted testimony by Gorbachev, the truth was finally settled on who was really behind this horrific act. To say the least, the Polish people have not forgotten the oppressive nature of the Russian government and their lust for power in that geographical region of the world. For others around the world not bearing the scars of the Soviet Union, to remind them of the Kremlin’s long history of deviant actions, just take a look at the Georgian- Russian conflict that transpired this last year in 2008. Russia had indiscriminately fired on non military targets in cities, killing civilians. Russian troops were caught on camera pillaging towns of goods and private property. Video of Russian military vehicles were seen towing away private boats and cars. Surveillance footage even revealed Russian troops robbing banks at the height of the conflict. This behavior only goes to show the old ways of the Red Block are still in full force and provide testament to the brutality and lack of honor the Russian government and military still possesses to this day.

The reason the aforementioned history is important, is because one should understand the history in that region to comprehend ,if anything, why this issue should be handled with the upmost care. Unfortunately, it would appear that the Obama Administration does not care for such formalities and are so eager to distance themself from Bush implemented programs, that they continue to wreak havoc in their haste and throw histories hard learned lessons to the wayside. September 17^th was the 60^th anniversary of the invasion of Poland by the Kremlin. What does the administration do? They give the Russians a gift by telling our allies we will no longer go forward with the scheduled missile shield that was promised by the Bush Administration. Russia has been beating their chest ever since the plan was announced and even threatened a nuclear strike against Poland for having such a facility. Their excuse was that they would not tolerate an offensive missile system in Poland. Problem was, however, the missile shield was not offensive in any way; it was defensive and designed to protect the U.S. and her allies from any rogue nations that would fire a missile. Nations such as North Korea, Iran, and even Russia if it were to happen. That was the key issue though; Russia did not like the fact that a system threatened their power and influence in the region. Plainly put, Russia does not want their power challenged in any way and like a typical bully, they began to intimidate any nation that would cooperate with NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), seek NATO membership, or cooperate with the U.S. in hosting any missile defense.

The Obama Administration has stated their reasoning for such a move is because reports have come out that Iran cannot yet reach far enough into Europe. While this is debatable, there are several other questions that must be addressed. Just because they can’t now, doesn’t mean they won’t be able to five years from now. What about North Korea’s hostile behavior? China is a rising military power that is often on shaky ground. What about the fact that Russia may one day become a hostile factor again? They at the very least should have sat down with our allies and discussed any issues. Instead, they disrespectfully betray them in a move to appeal to “Russia’s better nature” as this administration put it. The last time a nation attempted to “appeal to Russia” in good faith was in 1945. At the close of WWII, Russia was struggling to create a jet fighter with a reliable and powerful engine. In good faith, Britain provided the Russians with a Rolls-Royce jet engine. The Russians took the engine, copied it and never looked back. What did they do with the gift they had received? American pilots quickly found out in Korea when Russian Mig-15 fighters began attacking them over Korean airspace. A hard lesson had been learned about trusting this “ally”- and it was trouble ever since.

Obama claims that cost is a factor for scrapping missile defense. They say that it is not economical to fire a $70 million dollar missile to destroy a $15 million dollar missile. With this logic, they are actually saying American lives along with the lives of our allies are simply not worth the money. After all, what is the alternative? Without this system in place ,in the event of a missile fired, things will go boom and people will die as a result. The other problem with this stated position is the fact that this administration is so willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on pet projects, but continues to act as if national defense is a luxury that is a waste of both time and money. Let’s break this down. The following list was taken from the Stimulus Bill - all things that congress and this administration considered so important, that it had to be passed right away or face terrible consequences, remember?

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees…

• $150 million for Smithsonian Museum facilities.

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

• $75 million for “smoking cessation activities.”

This is just a small sample of the pet projects that was rolled into a “stimulus bill”; a bill aimed at creating jobs. As you can see, almost none of these do anything to create jobs and yet a system that is designed to defend the nation and protect human life is not economical? It’s a good thing their spending 600 million on hybrid vehicles for federal employees. This will stop a missile threat. In fact, the 600 million spent on hybrids would pay for 8.5 of those missiles designed to shoot down ballistic missiles in case of a launch.

Part of this administrations largest problem is in two key areas. One, they don’t study their history. Two, they lack any sort of significant foresight on matters of national defense. Recently Obama stated he was scrapping the F-22 Raptor, the most advanced fighter in the world. He states it costs too much and there is no need for us to have such advanced weaponry. Once again, lack of foresight. China and Russia are both trying very hard to catch up to us in regarding military technologies and are working hard to build a fighter to match it. Air dominance is the key to winning today’s wars and the point to remember is that we build weapons to fight tomorrow’s wars, not today’s.

Once again. we must look into the pages of history. In the 1930’s Germany was leading the world in military technologies. A major example of the Obama Administration’s attitude with defense can be taken right from history. The Germans had the wisdom and fortitude to realize that tanks were the future in ground combat. The United States was still caught up in the old ways of infantry and continued to have horse mounted calvary rather than investing in tanks. When Germany launched their Blitzkrieg campaign in 1939, the world watched in horror as these perfected steel monsters rolled across Europe unchallenged. The Germans had provided a perfect example of military technology taking the lead. The United States was forced to scramble in an effort to catch up for the time they had lost, and the result was an inferior tank that was vulnerable to the German counterpart. Many men died as a result. The German tanks were so superior to the Allies, the Germans called the American Sherman tanks “Tommy Cookers”, due to the way they lit up after taking a hit. The German tanks were so advanced they actually achieved a 10 to 1 kill ratio in combat.

Because of the hard learned lessons of WWII, the United States made great efforts to never again be caught at such a disadvantage. The evidence of how important this factor was came to light during the Gulf War. Iraq had the 4^th largest army in the world at the start of the war. Our stealth bombers were able to penetrate heavily defended air space and disable Iraqi forces, something that would have proved very difficult with conventional aircraft. Our M1-Abrams were so advanced to the Iraqi Russian built tanks that they were able to engage the Iraqi tanks a full mile before the Iraqi tanks were in range to fire back. The result was the defeat of the 4^th largest military in just 6 short months.

Today Russia is jockeying around for power. They are aiding the Iranians in developing nuclear capabilities, oppose to any sanctions on Iran, and continue to undermine the United States in regards to national security. The Kremlin has made inflammatory statements against NATO Western Allies. They are becoming very friendly with Cuba and Venezuela, both ant- United States, and to top it off, they have recently sold Iran one of the most sophisticated anti-air missile systems in the world, the S-300. Given Russia’s continued behavior that constantly undermines the interest of the United States, why would we want to cozy up to such a government, all while insulting our allies in the process? My question is this; with all the billions being spent on frivolous pet and ear marked projects, an amount that could have paid for missile defense many times over, what will be this administration’s excuse if a missile is fired? I can hear it now, “don’t worry about the carbon from the mushroom cloud, we bought our federal employees hybrids to offset the carbon footprint!”

Tagged with: Kremlin • missile • missile shield • news • Nuclear • Obama • Poland • Politics • Russia

Iran and Israel: Time Is Running Out

On 09.16.09, In Get Dialed In With Nick Dial, By dialn

By Nick Dial

As each month dwindles by, so does another month with no progress made towards countering Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The situation is becoming grave and the sands of time are beginning to run low. Iran has made no attempt at hiding its intentions towards those who oppose its quest for nuclear nirvana. Repeated threats of wiping nations of the map appear to be common place with Iran’s regime. Ever since the 1979 takeover of Iran, Its people have been strongly oppressed by the Mullahs. While it’s safe to say that a great deal of the Iranian people do not support Iran’s current nuclear venture, they continue to be held hostage by a rogue group of dictators and thugs that constantly thumb their nose at the world in defiance. So far, what has the world shown in return? Apathy. Clear and simple apathy with no will to hold a nation at face value for its words or actions.

In 1945 The United Nations was created to deter such issues from taking place. The world had just been through a horrible world war and the thoughts of smooth talking demagogues that commanded powerful armies with advanced weapons were fresh in the world’s minds. Hitler had left a scar on the world and had proven how apathy from Europe and failure to react to the red flags clearly being presented, cost the world in blood. Humanity had been pushed to its very limits and if you try just a little, you can still see, feel, and listen to the aftermath of that horrible event. Today, it would seem that scar has faded away. Instead of the U.N. proudly displaying this scar to remind the world of its existence and why never again such an action should take place, they choose to cover it up with a little make up and put on a smile. Sure the U.N. is large and it can have quite a bark, but all too often there is never any bite. Instead we get an organization that is so corrupt it could rival ACORN, pitching nations against one another for veto power and serving their own self interest. What once started with good intentions has now turned into nothing more than a world class dog and pony show. Look no further then the Rwanda atrocities to find an example of their incompetence. Let’s not forget the Oil for Food scandal, where Russia, China, and Germany had illegal deals with Saddam. It’s no wonder they didn’t want us to go into Iraq, They were afraid we would find out the truth and they would have egg on their face. Turns out, they were corrupt and hid behind the disguise that they opposed the War on Terror because it was “unjust” when in reality they had their reputations on the line and were afraid of getting exposed. The reason the United Nations doesn’t work is because you have multiple countries with vast differences and agendas, especially Russia and the NATO west. They never agree and do nothing but out vote one another and jockey for position. When you can constantly veto your advisory, why vote in favor of helping them when it may make them stronger in the long run? The countries of the U.N. all have their own interest in mind, talking rather than acting and innocent people pay the price in blood and oppression for such incompetence.

In June of 2009, Iran faced a massive demonstration of the human spirit. When an evident case of election fraud re-elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, The Iranian people took to the streets and faced brutal resistance from the Mullah Regime. People were shot, beaten, and even had acid poured down on top of them from helicopters. Despite all of this , they continued to persevere. The one true image being seen that the mainstream media could not, was right in front of them. Iranians were holding signs of protest written in English. What many Westerners may not realize is the fact that most of these people do not speak English and had to go out of their way to accomplish this. This was a clear message to the western world, “We are here, and we want democracy too”. It was a cry for help, even if only to get moral support for the cause of freedom.

During the protest, what did we see from the Obama administration? Finally after much hesitation he “condemned” the brutal tactics of the Mullahs, but did nothing to really give moral support to the people fighting for a noble cause. The world sat back and watched as a people were brutalized. Many times before this event took place, Obama and his administration had made repeated attempts to have “talks” with Iran, only to be slapped away and publicly belittled for trying. Once again, an attempt has been made to negotiate with Iran and once again they simply said, “no.” What has Obama decided to do? The administration has stated they will be holding talks in October of 2009, talks of which Iran has made clear they want no part of in regards to their nuclear program. This is like scheduling a phone call with someone who says they won’t pick up. How many times does this administration need to be publicly humiliated before they realize they are having a one way conversation?

This administration is quick to reprimand the likes of Honduras, a nation that ousted a true tyrant, Manuel Zelaya, in the name of freedom to preserve their constitution, yet fumbles on supporting the people of Iran. Instead, they side with leaders like Chavez and Castro. Obama has been openly critical toward Israel and has done little to show them good faith in protecting their borders with an ever growing threat, Iran. One thing Israel should have done was pick up the ball that Obama dropped. For over a year, Iran and its nuclear venture has been front and center. Obama should have supported the Iranian people and put added pressure to topple the Iranian regime. We could not have asked for a better situation. Here was a golden opportunity to help the implosion of a rogue nation without the use of a massive military operation. That window is now most likely closed. Israel could and should have reached out to the people of Iran and built a bridge of moral support to fight against the Mullahs. Unfortunately this option may no longer be achievable and time is not on Israel’s side. A choice will have to be made. As months continue to go by, so does the deadline for Israel in making a decision. Strike them first, or wait for the worst. The United Nations played a key role in the creation of the Zionist state in 1948 and yet now, the U.N. seems so willing to offer this nation up on the altar of sacrifice as they sit back and do nothing. No doubt if Israel is forced to take action, the world will look upon them with damning eyes, very reminiscent of the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War, regardless of the fact that Israel was fired on repeatedly before taking action. In the World’s eyes, Lebanon was portrayed widely as the victim. The fact they elected Hamas, a known terrorist group into government rule, seemed to have no contributing responsibility. In reality, Lebanon themself had brought this aggression on through acts of violent aggression of their own. Even to this day, Israel is still fired on with random rockets hitting their inner cities. Will Israel ever be given the respect to defend herself that so many other nations on the world stage are privileged to do? Or, will they continue to be treated as some bastard stepchild who must always look down at the ground and only speak when spoken to?

Tagged with: Iran • Iran and Israel • Iranian • Irans Nuclear Program • Israel • news • Nuclear • Politics • Protest • United Nations

Back to Basics: Saving Tomorrows Generation Today

On 09.13.09, In Get Dialed In With Nick Dial, By dialn

sea001

By Nick Dial

When I was a child, my favorite holiday was the Fourth of July. Sparklers burned, flags waved, and all was good in the world. Today, the nation is stuck in a malaise. Somehow along the way we have lost the meaning of what a privilege it is to be an American. Of all the nations in the entire world, truly the few and the proud can call themselves American. We are a nation that stands for more than just self interest. We stand for that moral question of what every human being longs for…freedom. The freedom to self govern our live as we choose, and to only call on the government for things that are necessary, such as national defense.

Our youth today seem to have no concept of such views. They never lost touch because they were never connected in the first place. Today’s generation is a reflection of a society that judges success by the fruits of materialistic objects. The flashy car, the mini mansion, the fancy clothes, all in the name of keeping up with what pop culture deems as success in today’s fast paced world. What are we to expect? Our government is acting as if the parents went away for the weekend and left the credit card behind for the kids to find. Everything is charge it now, with little consideration for the long term implications of what such careless behavior will bring. What will our future generations do when they are a product of being reliant on big government and have no understanding of what it means to be self reliant? It wasn’t that long ago when the fruits of success were measured in sweat after a full day of honest work in a field and when the rain came down to compliment your hard work, it all came together and paid off.

As the father with a young daughterl, I take our nation’s future seriously. I want her to inherit a safe United States. I have never been in combat, but I have seen what we can do to one another right here at home. As a police officer, I have seen horrible things in our own streets. I am aware of the kill or be killed ways of the world. Myself and others who have served, can testify, evil is real. We have seen it firsthand with our own eyes. What I want to do is share some awareness with you. We live very busy safe lives as Americans. We are very much involved in pop culture, gossip magazines, and tabloid media. We get advice from Hollywood actors about topics 0n they have no expertise or understanding . We have become a nation of superficial obsession. All these things are possible because we have always had a strong deterrence to anyone wanting to do us harm. A strong military is the foundation of freedom and safety. Without that, we have nothing. There would be no job security, no guarantees, and no pursuit of happiness. No one knows this better then the men and women of the 1940’s, who lived in the shadow of the Third Reich. If you get a chance, ask a WWII vet how they feel. Ask them how it was to endure food and material rations for the war effort with no sure outcome of a winner and the knowledge if we lost the war, we lost our way of life with it.

The problem is while we are encased in this “safe” nation of ours, the world outside our borders is preparing for conflict. Mexico is on the verge of collapse and is losing a war with drug cartels. I have dealt with this as a Police Officer and have tried to give warn of its implications. Iran has made threat after threat and will soon have a nuclear weapon along with the means to deliver it. North Korea has test launched ballistic missiles that are capable of hitting our west coast. Russia and Putin are extremely anti – west, and becoming a world power again. They hold a monopoly on the oil reserves in that part of the world and are becoming very wealthy. They have paid monies to Kyrgyzstan not to allow us to continue using Air bases to serve the Afghanistan region. Russia has stated that they will match every NATO ship in numbers. Russia has supplied Iran Nuclear technologies and surface to air missiles to defend against the United States or Israel. Russia is also touring their navy in South America and is renewing Cold War ties with Cuba and Venezuela ; both anti-American. Russia has threatened preemptive nuclear strikes against Poland and has caused Obama to back down from missile defense. Russia has also announced they are building 70 more nuclear weapons. China is a rising power that already rivals us. There is a storm rising and we cannot continue to back shelf these issues until they come full circle. We owe it to our children and their children’s children. It’s time to stop with the petty party pandering and get back to what it truly is to be an American – proud, free, and self reliant.

Tagged with: Debt • Goverment • Politcs • Spending

Obama to pledge 900 million to Hamas: The Iran Connection and The Revolving Door

On 09.10.09, In Get Dialed In With Nick Dial, By dialn

by Nick Dial

The connection between Israel and Palestine concerning terrorism in the Middle East is a long bloody road. Since 1947 ,with the introducton of Israel by the United Nations, the countries of the Middle East have been more inflamed then a serious case of hemorrhoids. In the end, the British felt like good chaps with the Balfour Declaration, while the Muslims felt betrayed. Israel became immediately under attack as a bastard nation of the west. Soon Israel had to earn their right to exist in blood. From Black September to the Six Day War, Israel was pushed into a sink or swim situation. The result of this has led to a nation that requires every citizen to serve in the military, an open carry policy for weapons, and an ever aggressive military constantly training. The difference of life or death literally relies on Israel’s ability to react quickly and powerfully. The tensions between Jews and Muslims are nothing new. however. They go back to biblical time and now where a saber was once used, F-16 fighting falcons and hellfire missiles take its place. The weapons may have changed with the times, but ,unfortunately, the ideology and inability to show tolerance for others has not. The rhetoric of the past has stayed the present and continues to shed blood on the very same sand that was repeatedly stained red centuries before. If the land was not so engulfed with bigotry and fertilized with the blood of the innocent, perhaps more would grow in the region then palm trees.

Today, Iran is the undisputed champion of funding terror. In the name of God this nation provides training, money, weapons, and good old fashioned propaganda for one purpose and one purpose only - to wipe Israel off the earth, kill infidels and all who support Israel’s existence, and to take a global grasp in the name of Islam so Mohammed can one day return and rule in all his glory. Iran’s cleric leadership looks at this as their divine duty, and will stop at nothing. Hamas, which comes from Egypt, and Hezbollah which comes from Iran, have something in common. They are both located in Gaza, they both hate Israel, they both receive funding, training and men from Iran, and Hamas is the “elected” government of Palestine. Asia Times stated the following:

“Although Hamas was a Sunni party and the Tehran government wanted to spread a Shi’ite Islamic revolution, the two parties were working together, each for personal reasons. Hamas wanted a regional heavyweight to supply it with arms. Iran wanted a military group to lean on in Palestine, just like it had Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Badr Brigade in Iran.” (Moubayed, Sami 2008).

If anyone wishes to understand Middle Eastern culture and survive, they must comprehend one thing above all. This part of the world does not respond to talk. It only responds to force and knows such. Talk has been attempted for centuries, but always comes down to a fight. Talking is perceived as a sign of weak ness and projecting such a weakness in this region leads to increased aggression by the other party. When the bull is staring you down, most times you have to smack him on the nose to get the point across. Recently, our new president and administration has been pushing for what history shows to be a big mistake. They wish to kiss the cobra on the nose and expect not to get bit in return. Despite warnings from Israel, President Obama attempted to talk to Iran with negations. According to News Vrine, Israel stated the following:

“President Obama’s policy of direct diplomacy with Iran may buy Tehran enough time to produce nuclear weapons, Shabtai Shavit, former chief of the Mossad intelligence agency, warned in an exclusive WND interview today.
“I don’t believe there is a political solution which can be achieved through negotiations with Iran,” he said.
“My concern is that until Obama finishes his learning curve of the subject, the Iranians are going to have maybe the first or even more nuclear bombs” (2009) .

“Learning curve” is the key word in this citation. Despite warnings from the older and wiser, our nation has foolishly elected a president who ran on rhetoric equivalent of high school student body speeches of chocolate milk for all and apparently learning on- the -job is ok. Obama sent Iran a letter, requesting talks with the nation. What was their response to Obama? Iran stated the following televised to the masses. “This means western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed” (Shepherd, Noel, 2009). If this was not enough to raise an eyebrow, the following will certainly ruffle a feather or two. President Obama and his administration are pledging to give nine hundred million dollars to Hamas. ( That’s right, as in the terrorist organization. ) The logic for such an action is to buy off loyalty. By providing money, they expect to have Hamas rely less on Iran and hopefully earn a soft spot in Hamas’s fluffy rocket shooting heart. Obama defends this action by stating that the money will not be given to “militants”. He declares the funds instead will be transferred to the United Nations Relief and Work Agency, also known as UNRWA. Therefore ,the money will be used for legitimate purposes, right? Unfortunately, like many Americans, Obama should have taken a history class or two. UNRWA has very friendly and close ties with Hamas. According to WorldNet Daily,

“On July 6, 2001, Hamas convened a conference in the UNRWA school in the Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza, with students, teachers, and school administrators in attendance. Yassin presented his ideology and then an official named Saheil Alhinadi, who represented the teaching sector of UNRWA, praised students who had recently carried out suicide attacks against Israel, declaring “the road to Palestine passes through the blood of the fallen and these fallen have written history with parts of their flesh and their bodies” (2009)

I’m sure given the mild language of the UNRWA, they would be more then ethical in the disbursement of these funds. A rocket, ….a hum,…I mean shovel for every man. The article goes on to state about intelligence reports that indicate weapons storage and firing of rockets from various UNRWA camps.

Let’s pretend for one minute that all the nine hundred million dollars were to go to honest use. There is one big loop hole that people have not addressed. Hamas is the elected government and much of its budget has to go toward community services such as school, medical, construction, etc. The money in their budget they would have spent for repair and rebuilding is now free. They get to take all their funds and simply shift it to militant use. Thanks to the United States taxpayers and their generous President, they will be killing more Jewish men, women, and children in no time. Courtesy of the red, white, and blue. The phrase “the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air” will take on a whole new meaning as rockets explode in Israeli neighborhoods once again.

References
(2009). Hamas happy with obamas 900 million dollar pledge. Worldnet Daily, Retrieved 03/07/2009, from
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89949
(2009). Israeli warning to obama: Your talk gives iran nukes. Newsvine, Retrieved 03/07/2009, from
http://calbarran.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/19/2454507-israeli-warning-to-obama-your-talk-gives-iran-nukes
(2008). Who are hezbollah?. BBC, Retrieved 03/07/2009, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/43

14423.stm
Eberthart, Dave (2008). Terror expert: Wmd attack on u.s. inevitable. Newsmax, Retrieved 03/07/2009, from
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/cetron_terror_attack/2008/09/10/129636.html

Tagged with: 900 million • Hamas • Iran • Israel • Obama • Obama to pledge 900 million to Hamas • Palestine • terrorism • UNWRA

« Previous Entries

CircleTheWagons.net

United We Speak.

Terrorism: Why Profile?

Origins of Modern Terrorism and Legislation to Combat It

TASER: An Officer’s Perspective and a Jolt of Reality

Terrorism Wake Up Call: Man Caused Disaster Strikes On Christmas Day 2009

Fort Hood Massacre: A Political Correctness Nightmare

Where’s The “Hope” For U.S. Troops?

Who Needs A Missile Shield When Ignorance Is Bliss?

Iran and Israel: Time Is Running Out

Back to Basics: Saving Tomorrows Generation Today

Obama to pledge 900 million to Hamas: The Iran Connection and The Revolving Door

Recent Posts

Article Columns

Supporting Sites

Videos/Media

March 2010
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Feb
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31