By Nick Dial

As Iraq becomes more vacant of U.S. troops from the draw down, man are asking the question. It’s been almost ten years, was it worth the fight and was Iraq really a threat?

To further stop terrorism, we must cut off logistic and state support of terror. Iraq has been a sore spot for many people, but many do not realize why Iraq was so relevant to The War on Terror. Terrorist cells need support. They come in various ways, but the largest support is from sponsored states. Like Iran, Iraq has had a history of supporting terrorist activity. The concern of many nations after 9/11 was that Saddam had the ambition, and weapons to deliver into the hands of various terrorists groups. The United Nations, British Intelligence, and CIA all supplied Intel stating that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical weapons. After all, he used them on his own people and gassed the Kurds. Fear of Saddam giving access of such weapons to terrorists was of major concern. As it was, Saddam had already violated every United Nations Sanction that had been put into place. He also continued to refuse U.N. inspectors to come in the country. According to the United States Government, the following 16 sanctions were violated in full. These sanctions include the possession and use of weapons of mass destruction, human rights violations, adhering to weapons inspections, and much more. The following is a list of all violated sanctions by the Saddam regime.

UNSCR 678 – November 29, 1990

• Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq’s illegal invasion of Kuwait) “and all subsequent relevant resolutions.”
• Authorizes UN Member States “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.”

UNSCR 686 – March 2, 1991

• Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
• Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
• Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.

UNSCR 687 – April 3, 1991

• Iraq must “unconditionally accept” the destruction, removal or rendering harmless “under international supervision” of all “chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities.”
• Iraq must “unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material” or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
• Iraq must “unconditionally accept” the destruction, removal or rendering harmless “under international supervision” of all “ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities.”
• Iraq must not “use, develop, construct or acquire” any weapons of mass destruction.
• Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.
• Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
• Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
• Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
• Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

UNSCR 688 – April 5, 1991

• “Condemns” repression of Iraqi civilian population, “the consequences of which threaten international peace and security.”
• Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
• Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.

UNSCR 707 – August 15, 1991

• “Condemns” Iraq’s “serious violation” of UNSCR 687.
• “Further condemns” Iraq’s noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
• Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
• Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
• Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
• Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
• Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 715 – October 11, 1991

• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 949 – October 15, 1994

• “Condemns” Iraq’s recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
• Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
• Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

UNSCR 1051 – March 27, 1996

• Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1060 – June 12, 1996

• “Deplores” Iraq’s refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq’s “clear violations” of previous UN resolutions.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1115 – June 21, 1997

• “Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access” to UN inspectors, which constitutes a “clear and flagrant violation” of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
• Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1134 – October 23, 1997

• “Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access” to UN inspectors, which constitutes a “flagrant violation” of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
• Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1137 – November 12, 1997

• “Condemns the continued violations by Iraq” of previous UN resolutions, including its “implicit threat to the safety of” aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
• Reaffirms Iraq’s responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1154 – March 2, 1998

• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the “severest consequences for Iraq.”

UNSCR 1194 – September 9, 1998

• “Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with” UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes “a totally unacceptable contravention” of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1205 – November 5, 1998

• “Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation” with UN inspectors as “a flagrant violation” of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
• Iraq must provide “immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation” with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 1284 – December 17, 1999

• Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
• Iraq must allow UNMOVIC “immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access” to Iraqi officials and facilities.
• Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
• Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.                                                                                                Source: (2008, White house).

There have been many critics on Iraq. There are various reasons why, but some of the following are the more common objections:

1. Objection: “The Bush Administration planned for an attack against Iraq before September 11th, 2001” (Iraqi Veterans against the War, 2008).

Counter Objection: “Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. These words were uttered by William Jefferson Clinton, not by George W. Bush, to explain why the U.S. launched air strikes against Saddam in 1998. But no one has accused President Clinton of distorting intelligence. It is not just the Bush and Clinton Administrations that believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence services of Britain, France, Russia, Germany, and Israel, among many others, held similar opinions” (Phillips, 2004). President Bush was picking up where Clinton left off, of course he had plans for a conflict, the administration before him concurred in the fact a threat was inevitable and needed swift action.

2. Objection: “They used the false pretense of an imminent nuclear, chemical and biological weapons threat to deceive Congress into rationalizing this unnecessary conflict” (Iraqi Veterans against the War, 2008).

Counter Objection: It is not just the Bush and Clinton Administrations that believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence services of Britain, France, Russia, Germany, and Israel, among many others, held similar opinions” (Phillips, 2004). Furthermore, according to Britt Hume, the number two man for Saddam’s Air force stated that weapons of mass destruction were secretly moved into Syria by plane (2006). The Washington post states that the CIA says they can’t rule out this move. According to the CIA the move is sufficiently creditable. This is supported by the fact there was satellite photos showing mass numbers of Iraqi military cargo trucks lined up entering the Syrian border, Syria has been a known receiver of such weapons in the past(2006).  After all, when the police are knocking down the door, the drugs are being flushed down the toilet. No one can logically argue that Saddam would leave weapons hanging around when he knew Allied Forces were coming.  Newsmax.com reported in 2005 that when Allied forces entered Iraq, they discovered 500 tons of yellow cake uranium. It was located at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Weapons Research and Development Plant just south of Baghdad (2005). This uranium is one step away from being weapons grade material, it only needs enrichment. Five hundred shells of chemical weapons were also uncovered in Iraq, one of which was located inside a roadside bomb (Washington post, 2006).

According to Newsmax “ Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb” (2005).  The article further states that a physicist tapped by Saddam Hussein stated that the nuclear program continued after the first Gulf War and was funded through 1997. Then it was put on standby, with the ability to continue at a moment’s notice. (2005). With the refusal of inspectors being able to come in, and everything that has come to light, the ingredients are here for a very dangerous situation.  Based on the above stated information, it is more than reasonable to say there was nothing “false” about such a threat.

3. Objection: “The reasons and rationale given for the invasion were fraudulent.
There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq during the time of the invasion according to US officials and former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix. The idea that Al Qeada and the 9/11 terrorist attacks were connected to Saddam Hussein and the Baath party were proven false in the 9/11 Commission Report.” (Iraqi Veterans against the War, 2008).

Counter Objection: There are serious flaws with this argument. In regards to “there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq”, see counter argument number two, There clearly were. The definition of a WMD is the following: “Any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors, a disease organism, or radiation or radioactivity” (Csa discovery guides, 2008). Everything listed in counter argument number two is by definition a weapon of mass destruction, and was found in Iraq. When it comes to the 9/11 commission report, and Saddam having ties to Al-Qaeda, the report was published in 2004. Information discovered since its release has proved otherwise. In 2008 The Sun reported the following: “A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein’s willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East” (Lake, 2008). Lake goes on to stating the following:

“The Iraqi Intelligence Service in a 1993 memo to Saddam agreed on a plan to train commandos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was founded by Al Qaeda’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri. In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to “form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia.” At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against American forces there. Saddam’s intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat” (Lake, 2008). Upon further investigation it was found that Iraqi military documents were discovered showing close links to Saddam and Al-Qaeda.  According to Scott Wheeler, with CNS News.com, He states the following: “Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein’s regime to work with some of the world’s most notorious terror organizations, including al-Qaida, to target Americans. The documents demonstrate that Saddam’s government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq- papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders” (2004).

Scott Wheeler goes on to write the following concerning the documents: “A former weapons inspector with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), a retired CIA counter-terrorism official with vast experience dealing with Iraq, and a former advisor to then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton on Iraq – were asked to analyze the documents. All said they comport with the format, style and content of other Iraqi documents from that era known to be genuine” (2004).  According to Scott Wheeler other researchers did not find this surprising, and had warned of a backlash from Saddam for the humiliation of the first Gulf War. Scott Wheeler’s article states the following: “Laurie Mylroie, who wrote the book “Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein’s Unfinished War Against America,” and advised Bill Clinton on Iraq during the 1992 presidential campaign, told CNSNews.com that the papers represented “the most complete set of documents relating Iraq to terrorism, including Islamic terrorism” against the U.S. Mylroie has long maintained that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism against the United States. The documents obtained by CNSNews.com, she said, include “correspondence back and forth between Saddam’s office and Iraqi Mukhabarat [intelligence agency]. They make sense. This is what one would think Saddam was doing at the time.” Bruce Tefft, a retired CIA official who specialized in counter-terrorism and had extensive experience dealing with Iraq, said that “based on available, unclassified and open source information, the details in these documents are accurate …” (2004). Based on this information, there were weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam had very close ties with terrorist groups including Al-Qaeda.

The war on terror is very complicated, which requires much research to accurately grasp. 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. Too many people become fixated on the location of action. Iraq is just one battlefield in a global war. With that said however, the Intel that had been provided, and the Intel that has since been found, it is safe to say that Iraq was a logical military action to stop powerful arms from getting in the hands of Islamic Jihadists.

References

(2008). Retrieved January 16, 2009, from The White House Web site:

        http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

(2005). Cia cant rule out wmd move to syria. from

                                 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/apr/27/20050427-121915-1667r/

In Csa discovery guides [Web]. Retrieved 12/03/2008, from

                                http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/terror/gloss.php

(2005). The uranium joe wilson didn’t mention. Retrieved 11,23,2008, from

                                http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml

Lake, Eli (2008). Report details saddams terroist ties. Retrieved 12/03/2008, from

                                 http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/

Hume, Britt (2006). Fox news, Wmd in syria. Retrieved 11,23,2008, from

                                 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182941,00.html

(2008). Iraqi veterans against the war. Retrieved December 13, 2008, Web site:

                                 http://ivaw.org/faq

Phillips, James (2004). Iraq: One year later. Retrieved 12/13/2008, from

                                http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/wm453.cfm

Pincus, Walter (2006). Munitions found in iraq renew debate. Retrieved 11,23,2008, from

                                http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-                        dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001528.html

Wheeler, Scott (2004). Iraqi documents show saddam possessed wmd, had extensive terror ties. Retrieved  11,23,2008, from

                                http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/10/4/141421.shtml

BY Nick Dial

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

-John Stuart Mill

If there ever was a quote that defines “the greatest generation,” this perhaps is it. For many, the reference in this quote, “better men than himself” may refer to broad range of people. For me, this represented much of my family, but especially my Uncle, June Bastian, as I spent much time interacting with him growing up.  Born in 1982, I was blessed with being brought into this world by an older father of 48. My father was born in 1934, in the midst of the Great Depression.  Growing up  in this era instilled my father with a foundation of true grit and self-reliance. As a result, I was exposed to traditional American values; a hard work ethic and a deep love for the United States. As I grew older, that love turned into appreciation as I learned the sacrifices made to keep this land free. Like millions of other Americans, my family has an intimate relationship with defending this nation. My father was drafted into the army in 1959 at the age of 25, but carried out his duty faithfully. He won first place in his company of 250 men for shooting the M1 Garand, achieving rifleman medal of “expert.” He excelled in his duties, and I am proud of his service. My father, uncles, sister, and cousins have all worn the uniform of this nation, spanning every branch of service. This has provided me with core values that have become the binding fabric that builds up my character. Our elders before us have lived amazing lives, and truly put their life upon the alter of freedom, so that you and I may stand here today as free Americans.

During WWII, My Uncle Jack was a Seabee in the Navy serving in the Pacific Theater. My great-grandfather also served as a seaman in this same theater.
My Uncle Orville was a Colonel in the Army air corps/Air force from 1937-1957. He participated in the Nuremberg War Trials and spoke with Luftwaffe Commander Herman Goering the night before his suicide. Orville later became commander of Sherman Air force Base after the war. My Uncle June was a paratrooper, and fought in the Battle of the Bulge, later becoming a POW after being wounded and surrounded by German forces. For those fortunate enough to be graced by the passion of such people, it leaves a lasting impression, and creates a hunger for wanting more. For me, this journey really began at the age of 14, and I am a better man for it.

(Top left, Lt. Colonel Orville Tangen, U.S. Air Force)

 (Immediate right, Specialist 4th Class Dallas C. Dial, U.S. Army)

 I was a young teenager, sitting at the computer desk. My Uncle June had come into town, and was in the next room. I was playing a combat video game, and the sound of machine gun fire was coming through the speakers. This caught the attention of my uncle, and he speaking saying, “war’s no game, and machine gun fire is no fun.” He had seriousness in his voice that demanded my attention. My Uncle never spoke about the war. It was something he chose not to discuss. The fact he started to talk about it took me by surprise, and I immediately gave him my full attention. As the years went by, I saw him more often during family visits to his farm. The older he became, the more he began to sharing his wartime experiences. Toward the end of his life, he began to become much more open about the war. I was an adult now, and while on fishing trips I listened attentively as he described his experiences as a soldier. This is where it really began to sink in on a personal level. As he explained stories about his brothers –in- arms and close friends  killed in combat, tears filled his eyes, and for the first time I saw real pain behind these memories. There is nothing more sobering then seeing an old  man cry over the shedding of blood spilled on the battlefield. As the saying goes, for the soldier there are two wars, the war on the outside and the war within. For the many that were laid to rest six decades ago, their war ended. However, for the WWII vets who came home and tried to move on with their lives, the war was still very real and very much alive. Many were still fighting this war, and I witnessed this fight in the tears of my uncle.

It’s a special thing to be privileged enough to hear these people’s experiences. Many have taken these opportunities for granted, however, time is running out. The Rosy the Riveters, the Woman’s Army Core (WAAC), and the men who served in every capacity of the war effort all have amazing experiences to share regarding the fight for freedom and the shaping of the America we enjoy today. More than 1000 per day are leaving us and returning home. More than ever it’s time to embrace those still with us and document their life stories to pass on to our children. When you see a WII vet, go out of your way to thank them for their sacrifice. While in a department store, I saw an old man with a hat that said “WWII Vet.” I walked up and thanked him for his service. The old man lit up and was very happy that I took the time to do this. He later told me he was in the Bataan Death March, and was lucky to have survived. Show them gratitude and thank them for what they did. Give these heroes a proper farewell for laying the foundation for a better life for us and our children. They have amazing life stories to share, and my Uncle June’s story is no exception.

June’s Story

June signed up in 1943 to become a paratrooper. He was assigned to the 513^th parachute regiment as a demolitions expert. He was deployed to the Ardennes Rhineland and fought in the Battle of the Bulge.  His company of 288 men was tasked with destroying a bridge to aid in the movement 38,000 American troops. As his company moved in the dead of night, an intense fight erupted between them and the Germans. Unable to move, they took a beating from the enemy. Of the 38,000 American troops, only 11,000 survived. June’s company had been battered. June had been wounded in battle, and they were encircled by the German Panzer divisions and troops. Of 288 men in his company, he was one of only 25 survivors. Knowing they had no other choice, they were ordered to throw their weapons down and surrender. The Germans moved in, and they were taken prisoner on Christmas Day 1944.

The U.S. government had no knowledge of June’s status, and issued a “missing in action” notification to his parents. June’s mother however never lost faith, writing to him every day, even while missing in action. They were moved to a prisoner of war camp in Limberg. Interestingly, the German officer who captured them was educated in Minnesota, and spoke excellent English. Life in the camp was hard. The focus was just to stay alive and exist. They had to sleep on hay covered ground and were provided no blankets. They had to rely on each others body heat to stay warm throughout the night. It was so crowded, men could hardly move without bumping into one another or climbing over each other. Another Problem was the bugs. Flea’s lice and other insects began to take their toll on the prisoners. When they awoke in the morning, their shirts would be covered in blood from the lice. The only food they received for the day was bread that came everyday at 4:00 PM. If you weren’t there when it arrived, you received nothing until the next day. The German prisoners would call out for a hundred men for work duty, often during the 4:00pm bread line. This caused some prisoners to hesitate, and were moved at rifle point. Some of the prisoners who hesitated were shot on the spot by the guards. The working conditions were hard, in freezing weather, and prisoners lacked adequate clothing or food. The men talked of escape, and this hope kept them alive.

As the American lines grew closer, the Germans began to prepare to abandon the camp. The prisoners noticed that the Germans were loading food in the back of trucks. That night, the Germans loaded 87 prisoners into an 8ftx40ft boxcar, and began to move them by train. The prisoners were so tightly packed, they could hardly move. The train did not go far before stopping in an Attempt to evade American P-47’s. The train stopped in a tunnel and waited for 48 hours. This put great strain on the prisoners, especially because the train was powered with coal, and black smoke from the engine filled the tunnel causing them to choke and fight for air. They were given nothing to eat or drink during this time, and the prisoners were forced to urinate and defecate among each other in the car. June managed to keep up some strength by nibbling from a piece of cheese he had hidden. The train finally began to move again, but soon came under attack from American P-38 Lightening s. The Germans had failed to mark the rain with “POW” and the planes were unaware that it was full of prisoners. The strafing from the air was intense, killing and wounding many prisoners in the attack. Men were forced to use the dead around them as shields to protect them from the incoming fire. The prisoners managed to break free from the cars, and began to take of their shirts. They used their bare backs to create more visibility, and formed “POW” with their bodies for the planes to see. The P-38’s spotted the human lettering, and tipped their wings in recognition. During the air raid there was much chaos, allowing June and two of his companions to escape by running into the marshes to evade the German guards. They asked other if they wanted to come, however they refused in fear of being found and shot by the German guards. As the Germans came out form their cover to round up the prisoners, June and his companions laid in the water of the marsh hiding from the searching German Guards.

Once the area was clear, they decide to try and reach the American lines. They walked during the night, and hid during the day. June stated “we knew they would look around rivers and streams, after all, you need water. So in the day we would hide in the middle of open fields, they never suspected someone to hide there.” Now gone for six days from camp, they took refuge in the trees. One time the Germans came so close they covered up with leaves, and remained in the woods for two days. June said “It was so cold lying under those leaves. The Germans looked all around for us but did not see us. So we got away, that was the only time I was really scared.”  They again attempted to move toward the American lines. While in route, they came across eight French soldiers who had been prisoners for eight years. They were in rags, and wore rags around their feet for shoes. Not speaking any English, they were afraid of being taken for the enemy and carried a white flag. They allowed them to join their trio, and made their way back to American lines. June stated that it felt so good to get deloused for the lice it was almost as good as having something to eat. By the time June arrived at American lines, he was so malnourished that he spent months in the hospital recovering.

My uncle moved on with life marrying my aunt, Pauline. They settled down on a quiet farm in Colville Washington, and had nine wonderful children. Growing up, I had the privilege of spending time with them at the farm, and have some much cherished childhood memories as a result. In his old age, my Uncle suffered from declining health. This hit him hard, but like any survivor, he pushed through and carried on. The last time I spent with him on the farm was great. We sat on the back balcony, and talked casually overlooking the beautiful country side. Before leaving the farm, my uncle was on his way to a doctor’s visit. While leaving myself, I felt compelled to turn around and tell him that I loved him before he left. He replied “I love you too.”

We were headed back home to Arizona, and made it to California when the news came. June had passed on and gone home. We turned the car around, and made the trip back to Washington State for the funeral. The amount of family that showed was massive, and worthy of any family reunion that ever took place. The funeral service was beautiful, and the amount of people who showed up from the community of the town was impressive. It was obvious this man touched many lives, and was very loved by those in the community around him. I couldn’t help but be overwhelmed with emotion. My grandfather had passed away before I was old enough to remember him. My uncle June was the closest person I had to a grandfather, and was a fine one at that. He loved children, and the way he touched my life as a child was nothing short of magical. As I stood there over his casket, my heavy heart lightened. He was at peace, and the emotion I saw in his eyes when talking about the war would no longer be a factor. The war he had been waging within was over and no longer had to carry the heavy burden of those horrific memories. I bent down, kissed his forehead and said goodbye. “Thank you for what you did for us June, we miss you dearly, and we love you.”

I recently published a children’s book, A full Moon’s night. I created this book to inspire and help children realize what makes them unique in the world. “A Full Moon’s Night”, is a story-time ready book, with engaging original illustrations by the author. “A Full Moon’s Night”, is both stimulating and educational to the reader. Young children’s interest will be maintained as they learn how the moon plays an important role in the world’s Eco-system by keeping the ocean’s tide in balance, and providing light to the earth during the night. This story provides a life lesson that everyone is unique and has an important role to play.

You can order a full moon’s night here from amazon.com

A Full Moon’s Night Trailer

Over the past decade, marriage has become an increasingly hot topic in the world of politics and social reform. When it comes to this topic, the nation is much divided and continues to hash out debates between various interest groups on where the government should stand. The far leftwing pushes for inclusion of gay marriage and state recognition. The far rightwing continues to push for an “official” government role in defining marriage as between “ a man and a woman.” Perhaps both sides are missing the point all together and that point is….why have government define marriage at all?

The United States is a fascinating case in man’s craving for freedom. This nation was carved out by the spirit and grit of those who came before us. Often with a longing for individual freedom and the ability to live one’s life in peace, without retribution or condemnation from others around them. After all, the pilgrims landed at Plymouth for this very reason.  In England, the religiously charged government led in the persecution of these Christians. They fled to this land in hope of a better life, where they could be free to practice out their faith in peace and without government interference. The founding fathers of this great nation did not forget these lessons of the past. Remembering the tyrannical attributes that stem from religiously motivated government, they were careful to make a clear stance in the constitution. The king of England, King Henry VIII, believing to be of divine calling, decided that he no longer needed to adhere to the counsel of the popes (there was more than one at the time). After being refused a divorce by both popes, he went forth with the creation of the Church of England. This resulted in a nationally recognized church, and became the “official” religion of the kingdom. This of course led to intolerance of other’s faiths, which in return helped shape our very constitution today.  In the first Amendment of the constitution, it states the following:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This amendment says nothing about government not being able to mention God, nor does it say that religion and government are to be alien to one another. Its purpose is to make it clear that unlike England, this nation would not have a “nationally recognized church such as the church of England.” Nor would this nation prohibit others from exercising their faith. The reason for briefly covering this history is that it is paramount to know where we have been to know where we are going. If we are to uphold the founding principles of this nation, and be true to our founding father’s vision for the future children of this great nation, we must first understand why they chose to word things as they did.

When it comes to the issue of marriage, both the hard left and the hard right seem to be missing the biggest question of all. Why regulate and define the word “marriage.” What right does government really have to interfere with the very personal choice of intimate companionship? Many groups with political motives influenced by their religious beliefs, constantly promote legislation of law based solely on their religious principles. The problem with this is that it gives favoritism of one social philosophical belief over another.  It’s ok to hold these beliefs in high regard, however when is it acceptable to push these beliefs into law, forcing others to adhere to another’s religious principles? The very group of people that often promote smaller government and less intrusion are the same people that call for government to invade our personal lives and dictate to us what an “acceptable union” is. The following argument is often declared, but does it hold up to the test of scrutiny?

This country was founded as a Christian nation, and our laws reflect that reality: This argument holds fragments of truth. This nation was indeed founded by men of great faith and belief in a divine creator, but they were not all of one faith. Just like today, they differed in their beliefs. Many were raised with the foundation of Judeo-Christian principles, however even these men were not all of one uniform belief  in Christianity. These were men of varying faiths and theology. While they may have formulated the creation of this nation in the spirit of Judeo-Christian principles, it was not in the literal sense. Social morality such as thou shall not kill of course is a religious principle that almost anyone can get behind. It is the cornerstone of Christianity however that laid much of the ground work for this nation. A belief that our rights come from our creator, and not given to us by man. We should be free to govern ourselves and not held to the arbitrary standards of another, a belief in social tolerance of others and their right to practice ones faith in peace. America represented a new beginning of social freedom. A place where many walks of life can live as one, but hold on to underlining Christian principles while doing it. It’s the spirit of these principles that helped shape America, not the literal carry-over of Christian law. Just like in law today, there is spirit of the law and letter of the law. Spirit of the law is not literally interpreting by the book, its enforcing law to reflect the true meaning behind its purpose. This helps ensure ethical treatment and avoid abuse of power. A cop issuing a ticket for one mile over the speed limit could be justified in letter of the law. However this would not be in spirit of the law, and would be an abuse of power. If one thinks this nation was founded to reflect Christian law in the literal sense, then this nation failed miserably. This would call for the illegalization of fornication, the simple act of lying, not just in court, but lying all together. A cardinal sin of course would be the denial of Christ as one’s savior. For one to argue that the nation’s laws are rooted in Christian law is short -sighted. Would this not place Jews and Muslims in direct violation due to the fact they do not believe in Christ as their savior? It is impossible for America to uphold its governing principles set forth by the founding fathers if this were the reality. Thomas Jefferson himself,  a man of great faith, believed strongly in separating rule from religion. In response to the Danbury Baptists, who felt they were being discriminated against as a minority religion in their state. Thomas Jefferson wrote the following:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” -Thomas Jefferson 1802

For America to stand on its founding principles, one must be able to separate personal religious convictions, while upholding balanced rule of law.

When it comes to the question of gay marriage or polygamy, where does the government come in? If one studies polygamy, you will find it was outlawed in 1862. Congress passed the Morril Anti-bigamy Act, which stated that polygamy would be illegal. This was a direct response to the growing LDS church of the time, and those who did not believe in the practice pushed for legislation to ban it. In 1878, the Supreme Court ruled that polygamy was not protected under the constitution based on the principle that “laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.” This statement should come with some concern. The 1^st amendment clearly sates “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, and yet they state that this religious exercise of polygamy is not constitutionally protected? To state that laws are “made for the government of actions, therefore they can interfere with practices of others” is an ambiguous statement. The 1^st amendment did not say you have a right from interference of opinion or belief, it clearly says “exercise.” According to the Webster’s dictionary, exercise is defined as “an act of employing or putting into play.” In other words, the Supreme Court contradicted the very language of the constitution based on an argument that law is made to govern the actions of others. While it’s true that law is made to govern, it should be based on sound logic and reason. Not arbitrarily put into place simply because it clashes with another’s personal convictions. With language like this, what other laws can be passed to “govern the actions of others despite the constitution?” In 1838, Missouri governor Boggs signed into law the “Mormon Extermination Order”, which led to further persecution of Mormons, legally killing them and driving them from their land. The very rights of these American citizens were violated, and yet we have another example of “laws are to govern the actions of others.”

Perhaps the government should remove itself from the act of dictating marriage. The solution is not to “legalize” gay marriage or polygamy. Instead, perhaps it should simply take a neutral position on the matter and refrain from “prohibiting” it. As Ronald Reagan once said, “the first duty of government is to protect the people, not run their lives”. If gay marriage or polygamy were legalized, it would put a burden on religious institutions who do not believe in this to uphold this law, which would be a direct violation of their constitutional rights. One must ask, what harm comes from consenting adults choosing to form a union? Regardless of the situation, as long as they’re happy and no innocent persons are harmed in the process, what right does the government, or anyone else for that matter, have to involve themselves in the business of others? Does it make sense that a man may legally live with one “official” wife, and yet can have “girlfriends” in the same home? How can it be argued by the government that this action is acceptable, but the minute they choose to try and “marry” another, it is now illegal? Where is the logic here? You could argue that  it’s more moral for these adults to want to merry rather than live among one another outside of marriage. At least they are all agreeing to form a sacred bond or formal commitment with one another. One must dig deep inside and ask themselves honestly and with conviction, do I have a legitimate complaint or am I just adhering to my own personal bias? Is it right that people of one lifestyle choice be denied basic privileges afforded to others? Such as taxes, visitation rights, custodial rights, and insurance? How is it that in 2011 we remain to have a governing body which in effect creates second class citizens based solely on the fact that people may not “agree” with their lifestyle choice? Just because one has a religious belief that this social action may be wrong, does that give them the right to legislate this belief into law? By doing so, are they not advocating the stripping of ones liberties and individual freedom, solely because they “feel” it’s wrong on a social philosophical or theological level? If one believes it’s an abomination to God, that is their right, but why not let them be free to work it out with God. Since when are we our neighbor’s keeper? Why does one feel the need to dictate individual choice to others? Does Christianity not teach that God’s plan is founded around the concept of free agency? If so, then why do many who believe this feel it’s appropriate to limit another’s free agency? If one feels it’s a crime in the eyes of God, leave that to God and the individual to settle, there is no reason for third party interference to dictate another’s social behavior, so long as it does not harm you or another.  In Mathew 7:1-5, it teaches

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

Again, when it comes to social morality, what one chooses to do is a personal one. If they’re not a religious person, there is no reason they should be held to another’s religious standards. For the religious person who feels they are sinning, they should concern themselves with their own actions, and not the social actions of another. If they truly believe in a just God, then transgressions of another will be handled in the life hereafter, there need not be any interference by them. When it comes to the action of marriage, leave it to churches and religious leaders to formerly merry couples. It could be argued the only role the government needs to take is providing a recognized civil union among consenting adults. This way, the legal issues surrounding a couple are taken care of, such as power of attorney, ownership rights, taxes, and all other legal issues pertaining to a union. Marriage itself is a religious practice, and long has been a sacred ritual. This is why the terminology of “marriage” should be reserved for religious ceremonies and practices. This will help keep the integrity of the term marriage and it’s origins intact. When it comes to the government, they should simply remove marriage from its vocabulary and use “civil union” instead. This will provide a clear distinction between a government recognized practice from a religious one. Perhaps there is no need for defining it any further. The concept of marriage and what it represents should be left between the people and their clergy of choice.

The reason this issue is somewhat of a paradox for the United States, is that this is the land of promise, the land of freedom, and the land of tolerance. Our founding fathers were prophetic in the writing of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. One should remember these words written, when this great experiment of democracy took shape.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

One should then ask…, what is “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? Is one man’s happiness the same as another’s? When gay or polygamist consenting adults wish to engage into a union together, perhaps their pursuit of happiness and liberty is to be left alone by others, and be free to be happy together without ridicule, persecution, or legislation that penalizes them for not “confirming” to mainstream society. For a nation of people that pride themself on diversity, tolerance, and above all else liberty, maybe we have lost focus of the very thing that made this nation unique in the world. We all have different beliefs when it comes to social behavior and morality. I myself am a Christian and believe in traditional family values. However when people begin to call for the legislating of their fellow American because of lifestyle choice, which dictates that they be excluded from basic privileges afforded to others, perhaps we have lost that driving force which drove us to become Americans in the first place…..freedom. 

By Nick Dial

When I went through the police academy, the subject that resonated with me the most was constitutional law, and search and seizure. Recently, California Supreme Court ruled that police do not need a warrant to search the contents of an individual’s cell phone when arrested. The logic stated by the court was that police generally are allowed to search the contents of the individual arrested, and therefore cell phones would be included. In my opinion, this is very short sighted and simplifies a much larger and more complicated issue. Cell phones today are mini computers. They contain massive amounts of private video, pictures, data, and private correspondence among many individuals, not just the owner of the phone. When discussing this issue among others in the law enforcement community, I became troubled at the various arguments I was hearing in support of the recent California Supreme Court ruling. The following are two arguments that were commonly stated.

1.      “If you have nothing to hide, why should a law abiding citizen care if the police look at their cell phone? They should welcome any liberties at the police’s disposal to prevent crime.” This argument goes all the way back to the seventieth century, in fact, Lord Camden, the Chief Justice in England made this famous statement:

“The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances, where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole.”

The obvious problem with claiming people should be willing if they have nothing to hide is that it’s a false logic. There are plenty of reasons why an individual may not want their personal belongings looked through. Regardless of those reasons, it should never be assumed by law enforcement that individuals wanting to practice their right to privacy are hiding something. In fact, it’s reasonable that someone may wish to exercise this right based on principle alone. It’s human nature to want privacy and have that privacy respected. For many, having those boundaries respected is what defines us as an individual. Having those boundaries treated as if their trivial and of no importance is not only disrespectful to the citizen, it leaves them with a sense of being devalued by those sworn to protect and uphold the very rights being called into question.  The harsh reality is that police are not infallible, and the first level of protection comes from the citizen and their understanding of their rights. If they wish to allow the police to search, that is their choice, but failing to do so should never be considered an indication of guilt or deception.

2.      “Police already can search bags and wallets incident to arrest. A cell phone is no different. Lack of red tape is a good thing for proactive policing.” It is true that police can search a car or bags and wallets incident to arrest; however these searches are for specific reasons. A bag, car, or wallet may contain a weapon, or contraband such as drugs. Using this to justify the search of electronic files on a phone is flimsy at best.  A phone does not contain a razorblade in a text message, nor does it contain drugs in a text message as well. You can easily make the argument that “search” of the phone should be restricted to physical search, i.e. opening the battery compartment to see if there is a razor blade or drug contraband contained inside the device. However, electronic correspondence itself does not pose a threat to the officer nor does is have the ability to contain an item inside like a folded piece of paper.

One might ask, when would it be reasonable to search a phone’s files?…The 4^th amendment states the following

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The 4^th amendment makes a pretty clear statement that these rights should not be infringed upon without probable cause supported by a warrant attesting to the scope of the search. It has been accepted by the courts however, that the police are permitted to search contents incident to arrest, one major reason being officer safety. However if someone is pulled over and arrested for a DUI, would it be reasonable to search this person’s cell phone and files? For what purpose would this search take place?  What relevance to the DUI would messages between various people have in this setting?  Recently, a person wrote in to a site asking for legal advice concerning an incident that took place after they were arrested on allegations of possession of stolen property. They wrote the following:

“I was arrested for possession of stolen property (Which I had receipts for). While in the back seat of the police car the 8 cops past my phone and camera around looking at nude pics of my wife. When I commented to one of the officers that was our personal property and I did not want them looking at the pic, he laughed and said we will look at whatever we want. When I got out of jail I checked my Verizon online account and there were text picture/slide show sent to personal phones while I was arrested. When I filed a report the officer told me I shouldn’t have had them on my phone I know this is not right but is it illegal?”

This is a perfect example of why restraints such as warrants are put in effect in the first place. It is to protect overreaching by the government and those in positions of authority. It also serves as a safe guard of checks and balances in keeping investigations honest, clean, and solid. The fruits of a spoiled tree will undermine a case every time and warrants help prevent this from happening. While I personally feel this example does not represent the law enforcement community as a whole, and most police officers are much more professional then this, the fact remains that the very threat of this intrusion is real, and is never acceptable under any circumstances. Was the search of his phone justified? If so, a warrant from a judge could have been easily obtained telephonically with probable cause. If there was no legitimate reason, the embarrassment experienced by him, and his wife could have been prevented and their privacy protected. As police officers, we make a commitment to uphold the constitution, and protect the civil liberties of the citizen. If the individual officer expects their civil liberties to be upheld, then they too must strive at all cost to uphold the civil liberties of others. These citizens empower us with great privilege. They are entrusting us with the authority to make ethical and just decisions on their behalf. We are servants of the people, and we must always strive to protect the civil liberties of the individual. This is the only way to ensure the integrity of our justice system. The roots behind the 4^th amendment stem to writs of assistance that were provided by the English Parliament during Colonial America. They consisted of overreaching search warrants that lacked specificity and were extremely vague. This led to unjust search and seizure in the colonies, causing much contempt for the powers that be and distrust between society and law enforcement. When the justification behind what the police do in terms of search and seizure is diminished, so too will the relationship between law enforcement and the communities in which they serve. History should be noted as a stark reminder of this, and not go unnoticed.

References

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-20/tech/tech_mobile_california-phone-search-law_1_cell-search-warrant-new-law?_s=PM:TECH

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/4th-amendment.html

By Nick Dial

“The purpose of this story is to share with others, especially my fellow disabled officers, that there are others out there. When faced with a debilitating challenge, one that brings your career to a halt, it can be devastating. I am here to say I am among those who have experienced it as well, and you are not alone.”-Nick Dial

I graduated the police academy in January of 2006. It had been a live in academy, requiring that you stay five days a week with your weekends off. I was a newlywed and faced the challenges of being away from my new wife for eighteen weeks five days a week. This however was worth the sacrifice, I had been ecstatic when I found I had been selected for hire by a local Sheriff’s Office as a Deputy, and my wife had nothing but support for my career to be.

I excelled in the academy, graduating with a 4.0 GPA. I was proud and determined to do well as a police officer and felt strongly about helping others in need. I knew I was not going to become rich by any means from this job, but that was ok. I had a strong desire to be able to look back at my life and feel I made a difference for the better. I had always had strong feelings about protecting those in need, and regardless of the dangers involved, being able to help those in my community was a huge reward that money could never replace. Handing an abused child a teddy bear after responding to a domestic violence call and being there to help them in their time of need is an experience in itself that can never be measured in financial terms. This is why we do this job, and it begins to define who we are as individuals. If there was ever a quote that defined the ambition of a police officer, for me it’s “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. -Edmund Burke. The first time I heard this quote I was inspired, once it’s in your blood, you are never the same. Just like the athlete has an internal driving force to exercise and compete, the officer has that internal force that pushes them to want to help. If there is a cry for help in the middle of the night, we want to be there.

I later transferred to a city municipality.  At the age of 24 my wife was pregnant, and I was a father to be. We had just purchased our first home within the city and things couldn’t have been more perfect. I was a five minutes’ drive from the station, and would not have to worry about a long commute home after pulling a fourteen hour shift on graveyard. I loved my new department, it was smaller than I was used too, but it had somewhat of a family feel that was very appealing to me. The sergeants were attentive and it showed how they really cared for their officers on the road. Soon after working there, they held a training class for officers to get qualified on use and carry of the TASER. We sat down, watched the video, and were encouraged to take a TASER deployment to experience the effects of the device. While I was not jumping for joy to be zapped by 50,000 volts, I surely did not want to be viewed as a sissy! Besides, I was young and invincible…right? I had an officer on each side of me to ensure I didn’t fall. They hooked the device up to my back and let it fly. All I can say was WOW! I felt like I had been folded in half and stuffed under the bed. When the ordeal ended, it was clear things were not right. My back was in horrible pain, and was throbbing as if I was being attacked by a jack hammer. My Lt. noticed I wasn’t recovering like the others had, and asked if I was ok. Of course, I said I was. I was not going to give away that I was hurt, I’m a tough guy remember?

The next morning was not so great. I had been up all night in excoriating pain. I ended up sleeping at an odd angle in a lazy boy reclining chair to take pressure off from my back. I got about 3 hours sleep, woke up and got ready for work. When I came to work, I had mentioned to my sergeant nonchalantly how I was hurting from the TASER deployment. He told me I should immediately get it looked at. I was quite surprised at how concerned he seemed, but I did as he said and went in to get it checked out. Turns out I had a severe back stain to the thoracic spine region. Due to the fact I did not want to miss work, especially as a new officer at this department, I continued on working and decided to deal with the pain.

It was about six weeks after my injury that I began to notice strange symptoms coming on. I would have the occasional spouts of dizziness accompanied by a brief shortness of breath. I shook it off and kept working as if nothing happened. Finally, one night while toward the end of my shift, I responded to a domestic violence call as a backup officer. While at the scene, I was standing outside when everything began to spin. I became dizzy, shaky, and was terrified as to what was going on. Never before had I experienced such a sensation and total loss of sensory input. I managed to clear the call, get off duty and went home. When I arrived home, my wife could tell something was wrong. With my symptoms failing to reside, she drove me to the emergency room to be seen. This is where my Journey as a disabled officer truly began.

I laid there in the hospital bed with anticipation as to what was going on with me. When the doctor finally came in, he stated everything looked fine and could find nothing wrong. I sat there both puzzled and amazed that symptoms so strong and terrifying could not be explained. I left the hospital in sour disappointment and headed home confused and rattled by my experience. The next day, things did not get better as I had expected. I woke up feeling fatigued, cloudy, and vulnerable. I felt as if I was in a dream, and everything around me was foggy and surreal. I thought perhaps I should go for a walk. I walked out the front door and attempted to go get the mail. I made it about twenty feet before I was stopped dead in my tracks. My surroundings were unstable, foggy, and left me with a feeling of being disoriented. I turned around to head back into the house, but fell to my knees as I made my way back in. Here I was, a young 25 years old police officer, in great shape, and I was crawling to get into my house! It was clear something was seriously wrong, and my quest to find an answer began. I went to my doctor who ordered everything from EKG’s, EEG’s, CT’s of the brain, heart, lungs, etc. They could find nothing clearly wrong. I became more discouraged and frustrated by the lack of information. If there was nothing wrong, why am I feeling this way? Soon after came the “it’s all in your head” mantra. Apparently many times when some doctors draw a blank as to what is happening, this becomes a popular thing to say. Of course, I knew better than this, and continued my search for answers.

This whole ordeal began to weigh heavily on my job performance and relationships at work. I began to miss a lot of work as a result, and it was affecting my popularity at work. The other officers began to view me in a negative light. They knew I had claimed I was having health issues, but they didn’t understand the extent of it or how it was affecting me. One reason for the frustration was due to the fact that we were short staffed. When I had to go home due to my condition, or was unable to make it into work, this meant that others on my squad had to pick up the slack and make up for the calls of service I would not be there to take. This resulted in an increased work load for the rest. I understood this and did not take lightly the fact I was putting a burden on my squad. This greatly affected my self-esteem along with my sense of self-worth to the department. I had been doing well and excelled while in Field Training. Now I was letting my colleagues and command staff down, and there was nothing I could do about it. If there is one thing an officer cannot stand, its loss of control and the ability to fix the situation. Here I was, trying to live up what was expected of me, and there was nothing I could do about it. My body had enacted a mutiny on my spirit, and no matter how bad I wanted to operate the ship, the crew refused. In spirit, I wanted nothing more than to go back to work and provide for my squad, department, and family. However, without my body’s cooperation, I was running on borrowed time and this reality became clearer with every passing day. I continued to push myself to get by day after day, but the more I pushed, the more I began to slip. The brain fog caused me to become forgetful. At times I would forget to turn in a report, or forget to complete a task requested by my sergeant. I had always been a happy upbeat guy, always joking around and laughing with those around me. Soon I became quiet and inverted. My sergeant asked if things were ok, he had noticed that I was not myself, and showed concern. I told him I was fine; however I was far from it. In fact, I was waging a war within myself, and it appeared I was losing.

As time went on battling this condition, I began to battle with my reputation as well. Soon, some officers at the department began to doubt me as an officer and my ability. Despite the fact I was able to maintain good patrol stats for my days on shift, I began to hear rumors that some felt I was putting up a front and faking my condition. I was devastated when hearing this. I had moved here with my wife, bought a home, and had planned to be here for the long haul. With my wife 8 months pregnant and ready to bear our child at any time, why would I risk everything, including my home? However, when faced with added pressures, people don’t often concern themselves with such logic. All they knew is that when I was not on shift that meant more work for them. To be honest, I don’t blame them for feeling this way. I understand the stresses that come with working extra calls and hours, and it can wear a person’s patience thin. What struck me at the heart however, was the cold front I received from some I perceived as being “friends”. Many I had enjoyed being around, and thought of as friends were nowhere to be found. It felt as if they had written me off, and that sense of abandonment caused me more distress than this health problem ever could. I was even told that one officer I worked with stated he would not speak to me until I “earned his respect back”. Apparently becoming ill was enough to fall out of grace with some around me. This caused even more anxiety for me. On the outside I looked healthy enough, but on the inside I was falling apart and in agony. The command staff was very understanding, and my sergeants went out of their way to help in any way they could, however this provided little comfort when I knew some of the fellow patrol officers thought low of me. I found myself slipping into a depression. I was struggling to keep up at work, I had no answers as to why this was happening, and the future of my ability to provide for my family was uncertain. What was I going to do?

On March 28^th2007, I became the proud father of a perfect little girl. For the first time in my life I experienced the amazing emotions of parenthood. The delivery of my child had conveniently called me away distracting me from my personal struggle at work, but it had been short lived. The very next day, while lying next to my wife and daughter in the hospital, my cell phone rang. It was my sergeant and he stated that they were short on manpower and really needed me to come back to work as soon as possible. He asked if he could count on me. Of course, I wanted to live up to his expectations and that of my squad, so I told him I would be there. Rather than take any maternity leave, I returned to work to help my already strained squad. I continued to work battling my health as well as the streets. Soon however, it became apparent that this may not be a safe or smart thing to do. After it appeared my symptoms became worse after eating certain things, I went to see endocrinologists. They ran labs and found that my hormone panel was severely out of harmony. My Cortisol was low, my adrenal glands were sluggish, my blood sugars were erratic, and my testosterone was low. After finding this out, I spoke with many specialists concerning this, and they were baffled as to why a young man in my shape would be suffering from severe hormone imbalances. Many of them asked if I had experienced any major trauma before my onset of symptoms. I explained that I had been subjected to TASER training which did result in a back injury. After hearing this, many doctors felt I was suffering from what is known as a hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal-axis deficiency, as well as an autoimmune disease, including fibromyalgia and chronic Epstein Barr.  They explained that when I was hit with the TASER, it may have triggered this onset of issues which manifested. They explained that just like a traumatic event to the body can cause the onset of an autoimmune disease such as diabetes, the injury I sustained and shock to the nervous from the TASER was no different. Everybody’s physiological make up differs, so the effects on the body can be tricky, especially when electricity is involved.   The TASER and any perceived negativity surrounding it for many in law enforcement is taboo. There seems to be a sense of obligation to defend the device no matter what the circumstances may be. I was even ridiculed by fellow officers about sustaining an injury even though they themselves had never taken a full hit from a TASER. I personally have met officers hurt in training by this device. One was only 25 years old when he suffered three fractured vertebras in his neck as a result from TASER training, officially ending his career.  While I think it’s a useful tool and plays an important role, I do understand the fact that like many other less lethal devices, there are risks involved, many times, these risks are unknown. I have learned this the hard way. While many may want to argue this, all I can say is, take it up with the doctors who make this diagnosis and many other officers who have become disabled due to a TASER related injury.

I was informed by my doctor that the low cortisol was a concern because it regulates many things in the body such as shock and inflammation. I asked what would happen if I was hurt at work, i.e. shot. She stated it would not be good, and my body could fall into a status of shock, resulting in death due to the inability to compensate with adequate amounts of cortisol. This raised some serious questions in my mind on what I should do about my job.

While ending my shift one morning I was dispatched to a call of an unresponsive man in a vehicle. After arriving on scene, it had become apparent that the man was deceased and most likely had been since the night before. After securing the scene I returned to the station. I was getting ready to debrief the morning shift and went into dispatch to retrieve the logs. I began to feel dizzy as if I were going to pass out. The dispatcher looked at me and said I was pale and did not look well. I walked down the hall only to stop short and ask my sergeant to call emergency medical services. Ten minutes later, I found myself in front of the morning shift sitting in a chair, no shirt, hooked up to an EKG, and getting the full triage by EMS. While it was silly to feel such a way, I couldn’t help but feel embarrassed. I felt weak, vulnerable, and all of this was in plain view for my colleagues to witness.  While overall I appeared to be ok, they said my blood pressure was very high and should get to a doctor. Later, after some testing, my BP appeared to be fine, and chronic high BP was not a concern, just simply another incident of terror with little insight as to why or how to fix the problem.

A few weeks later I was dispatched to a domestic violence call. While there I began to become dizzy, shaky, and thought I was going to black out. It had become clear to me that no matter how bad I wanted to keep working, no matter how bad I wanted to prove myself, my body was finished. It had let me down, and no longer was willing to humor me in my continued pursuit of redemption to myself or my department. The war I had been waging was coming to end, and I had to accept the fact I would need to sign papers of surrender. I thought long and hard about this decision. What would I do? How would I provide for my family? However, it was the bigger questions that made those first questions irrelevant. Could I live with myself if a fellow officer was hurt or killed? What good at all would I be to my department or my family if I were killed? Being a street cop requires you to be on the ball. You have to be ready for anything, and if you are battling a health condition that detracts away from your ability to perform, you not only put yourself at risk, you put those around you and the public at risk as well. Finally, I concluded for me to continue to push the issue was reckless and selfish; I went to my Lt. and explained my dilemma.  He understood my feelings and listened well. He encouraged me to stick it out and stated they would like for me to stay, but I knew I had to focus on myself and get my health squared away if I were ever going to continue my career. We shook hands, parted as friends, and I began the long walk down the hall as a medically resigned officer.

There was some relief in the fact that I no longer had to worry about letting down my squad, however what I wasn’t prepared for was the emotional impact of no longer being able to work. I was so sick with erratic symptoms, I could not even have a light normal job due to the fact I was simply unreliable. Many times throughout the day I would have to lie down and wait for my flare up of symptoms to pass. It would stop me cold in my tracks and leave me waiting for relief to come. While this was hard in of itself, being ripped from my career was even more painful. I would lie awake at night, thinking about calls I was missing and wishing more than ever to be able to put on my uniform and go back to work. I began to miss everything about my job. It had become such a cornerstone of whom I was that I felt as if there was a huge hole in me, and everything that went missing with that hole was effecting me severely. If this is who I am, who am I now? I am a protector, what does a protector do with no one to protect? This caused me to slip into a great loss of identity. I became very depressed, and the happy person I had been before was not looking back at me in the mirror. Instead, I saw a man who was lost and had more questions than answers. When I became ill, I lost 30 pounds in three months along with my muscle mass. I could not even fit into my uniform properly without excess material. I tried compensating by doing reserve duty, but this ultimately proved to be futile. I could not even muster the strength to get my required sixteen hours a month of patrol time in. With my wife being a stay at home mom, and myself as the bread winner of the family, I could not even provide for my own household anymore. Our new home was going to be lost to foreclosure, and there was nothing I could do to fix the situation. For someone who was use to going to work and fixing problems, I was again assaulted by the reality this was something I could not fix. This caused rocky waves in our marriage and we really had to pull together as a couple to make it through. Eventually my wife had to step up as the primary income earner for the household while I took on the role of homemaker. That in itself was a heavy psychological blow to my self-esteem and sense of self-worth.

One of the hardest parts for me to deal with was the loss of friendships. I always tried to maintain a healthy balance between my law enforcement friends and non-law enforcement friends. Sometimes officers have a tendency to surround themselves with only that of friends in law enforcement, or they lose touch with their old friends when they get into this career. While you work, it’s normal to have good working relationships and friendships with those at your agency. In fact, you could even say at times these friendships are taken for granted. While working, I enjoyed a good relationship with many at the department, but as my health declined, so did the connection between my colleagues. I went from feeling like one of the guys to feeling like a cast out. Going from socially accepted to loner is a hard thing to deal with, and I felt feelings of anxiety I hadn’t dealt with since junior high school.  I was in with the “click” so to speak, and now I felt isolated and shut out. The phone stopped ringing, the texts messages trickled to a halt, and eventually any reminder of the fact I served as an officer was limited by my memories and the unused uniform in the closet collecting dust. At times I have reached out, called, or texted to see how old colleagues have been. The few special ones I still hear from. The majority sadly faded away along with my health. Eventually, I was forced to get on disability and have been fighting my poor health for five years and counting. The big question for officers who experience this through a disability resulting from ill health or injury is what comes next? What does one do to make tomorrow the day to look forward to rather than relive the days of the past before you were disabled?

For me, the key has come down to family and keeping busy. Remember that family is number one. Without my wife there by my side when I hit my downward spiral, I would have been flying blind and may have ended up in an even darker place. Don’t be afraid to ask for help when you need it, there is no shame in wanting to talk. I have spoken to other disabled officers, and the fact there are others just like us who have gone through the exact same roller coaster of emotions is important. You’re not weak, nor are you a machine. You are human and we must remember to allow ourselves to listen to the emotional side of us from time to time. When you work as an officer, you are subjected to horrific things, and see things that many will never experience in a life time. You become all too good at shutting down that natural emotional response one gets to stress, horror and tragedy. You learn to push emotions to the back burner and lock it away for another day. When you deal with a stressful scene, an officer must be able to be the calm one that functions while everyone else loses their cool. If you lose your calm along with everyone else, then you are no good to anyone and the situation will not get resolved. Remember to continue to challenge yourself. Many of us who went into law enforcement did so setting the bar of achievement high for ourselves; it takes a lot to become an officer and is earned through hard work and dedication. Take that work ethic and apply it to other aspects of your life. I did so by touching up on things I had not done for a long time. I started to paint again and wrote a children’s book titled a “Full Moons Night”. It can be found today for sale on Amazon.com. When I became an officer I had no college degree. I realized that this is something I would have liked to have done, but the hours I was working along with having a family made it difficult. When I became ill, I decided I would not sit idly by and do nothing. I may have fallen victim to a health condition, but this did not mean I had to be a victim! I decided to go to school and earn my degree. Today I am wrapping up a Bachelor of Science degree in Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism. While applying myself, using the discipline that the police force taught me, and working when I felt well enough to get my work done, I have managed a 3.98 GPA and have enjoyed the honor of being inducted into four separate honor societies. I also learned that I enjoy writing, which resulted in the creation of the websitewww.circlethewagons.net. Here, I enjoy writing articles on many topics I take an interest in, which helps keep me busy when things are slow.  I have a beautiful wife who enjoys the fact I am alive and home, and wonderful little girl who loves her daddy. While I may never be able to get well enough to go back to patrol, which I love with all my heart, I can still take the essence of what makes a good officer, apply this, adapt, and overcome. Take what you have learned and run with it. Perhaps you can take your knowledge and educate others who are going where you have been. Educating others or even cadets who are going to the streets is always a worthy cause.

In conclusion, I was faced with some hard decisions. I pictured serving out my career for the long haul, but life can be a funny thing. We must play the cards we are dealt and most importantly, never give up. Remember back to your defensive tactics training, you are never dead. It is not over until it’s over, and becoming disabled is no different. You may be down but you’re not out. Fight back, pick yourself up and come back stronger than before. It’s easy to let the macho alpha ego get in the way of reaching out, but it’s important to remind ourselves we are human! This is why we became police officers in the first place is it not? Did we not answer the call to that human emotion to want to help others in need? I’m not saying you won’t miss the job, I’m only saying we must change our focus. I would be a liar if I told you I still don’t long to put on my uniform and climb into a patrol car. I miss it every day of my life, and even more so I miss the comradery I had with my fellow officers. What I am saying, is that you are still relevant, you are still an asset to the community, and your impact on the world is not over. I realized from my ordeal that there was not much out there recognizing the officer who becomes disabled and feels forgotten. If you are reading this and you know a disabled officer, reach out to them. If you are an officer or part of a department reading this, reach out to the disabled cops in your community, see how they are doing. If you are reading this and are a disabled officer, I wrote this story for you. I am here; others like me are here, and you are not alone.

By Nick Dial

Recently you may have heard of the botched attempt of the federal government to “track” weapons being purchased in the United States and being moved across the Mexican border. The ATF knowingly allowed these weapons to be transported across national lines, but when agent Brian Terry was killed by one of these weapons by Drug Cartel members, the debate over U.S. weapons and their impact on Mexico began all over again. You may have heard recent claims by gun control activists and politicians in support of such actions, but the claims they continue to parrot are not just factually false; they’re intellectually dishonest. To clear some of the falsehoods propagated by such groups of people, let’s take a look at the following claims.

Myth: “The violence in Mexico started when the assault weapons ban expired”-Mexican President Felipe Calderón

Fact: This statement is not only false; it’s grossly dishonest and shameless demagoguery. In no way can such a statement be supported. The Drug Wars in Mexico have a long history; cartel violence is nothing new. In fact, you may remember the 2000 movie “Traffic” starring Michael Douglas and Benicio Del Toro. This movie tackles the very issues of the increasing cartel influence and violence on our borders and in Mexico a full four years before the assault weapons ban expired. For Calderón to suggest such a thing is a blatant denial of Mexico’s own local criminal history and corruption. It should be also pointed out that the assault weapons ban had nothing to do with “assault weapons.” Often people are under the impression that weapons such as AK-47’s and AR-15’s are not legal under such a ban. This was made evident when in a 2004 debate between George Bush Jr. and John Kerry, Kerry asserted the ban needed to be renewed in order to remove and prevent weapons such as AK-47’s to be available on the streets. In reality, these firearms have always been available. The assault weapons ban limited items such as high capacity magazines, limiting the amount of rounds to 10. Collapsible stocks or mounted bayonets. If an AR-15 had a collapsible stock, under the bill, it was an “assault weapon”. The bill itself never removed the weapons. Instead, it placed arbitrary guidelines as to what was and was not considered an “assault weapon. Calderón’s statement is inflammatory, carless, and provides a perfect example of pulpit preaching for the sake of political expediency.

Myth: 90% of weapons used in Mexico to commit crime are traced to the U.S.

Fact: This statement serves as a perfect example of how to take a small bit of truth, and spin it to push an ideological agenda. Hillary Clinton, among many others, parrot this statement many times over, but do the facts support this statement? No. What one must understand is the use of the word “traced.” In 1968 the Gun Control Act was passed, and required all weapons manufactured and imported in the United States require a serial number. This serial number allows the weapon to be traced. Because we have such a requirement, it should come as no surprise that 90% of weapons “traceable” come from the U.S. The other masses of weapons have no such ability to be traced and therefore are not in the same demographic. What we have here is a case of political spin, where one takes a small truth and applies it in a general statement. For example, if you took 100 guns, and only 30 of them had serial numbers, then only those could be traced. Of those 30 guns, if 27 of them have U.S. serial numbers. This means that 90% of these weapons were traced back to the U.S. The other 70 weapons have been omitted from the equation and have left us with a statistic that gets thrown around carelessly.

“A large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.” Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market,” Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement” (Lott, 2009).

In 2007-2009, the Mexican Government reported the seizing of 29,000 guns. Of those, only 68% of the guns were not traceable. As Lott points out, “In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.” (Lott, 2009).

Another point that should be made is why Drug Cartels would, with access to Central and South American black markets, two open coastlines, and the ability move mass amounts of narcotics across land and sea resort to getting the majority of their weapons from high priced retailers in the U.S.? The answer is they wouldn’t and they don’t. No weapons manufactured or imported after 1986 in the U.S. can be an automatic, unless there is a federal class 3 license involved. The majority of weapons used by drug cartels are of military grade, including fully automatic assault rifles, grenades, and RPG’s (rocket propelled grenade launchers). The idea that an individual is walking into a U.S. gun store, and walking out with such hardware is simply false. So where do these weapons come from? According to Tim Johnson of the McClatchy Washington Bureau, many of these weapons come from Central American military weapons arsenals.

“Crime groups in cahoots with venal army officers are looting military arsenals in Central America, giving them powerful weapons that allow them to outgun police and challenge the region’s regular armies. The weapons run the gamut from assault rifles to anti-tank missiles, some of which the U.S. supplied during regional conflicts more than two decades ago. The slippage from military armories occurs regularly. The feared Mexican organized crime group known as Los Zetas has stolen weapons from military depots in Guatemala three times in recent years, Guatemalan Deputy Security Minister Mario Castaneda told an anti-narcotics conference in early April in Cancun, Mexico. In February, U.S. prosecutors unsealed a five-count indictment against a retired army captain from El Salvador for allegedly selling or offering C-4 plastic explosives, assault rifles, grenades and blasting caps to undercover agents.” (Johnson, 2011).

Not only does Central America play a massive arms role in weapons supply, but so does the black market from China, South Korea, former Soviet blocs, and Africa. All of which can bring boatloads into Cartel controlled coast lines.

The idea that the U.S. supplies Mexico’s drug war with the majority of weapons, and therefore is to blame for the violence associated with it is not only misleading, it is quite simply false. While many politicians and gun control groups love to spread these myths as if they’re stating fact, it is important that the people of the United States arm themselves with knowledge of the truth.

References

Johnson, T. (2011, April 21). Drug gangs help themselves to Central American military arsenals. Retrieved 2011 2, July, from McClatchy Washington Bureau: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/21/v-print/112616/drug-gangs-help-themselves-to.html

Lott, W. L. (2009, April 2). The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S. Retrieved July 2, 2011, from Foxnews.com: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-small-fraction-guns-mexico-come/

By Nick Dial

“We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines”- President Obama, 5/19/2011.

Speak for yourself, Mr. President. While you represent the United States as a figure head, you do not have the right to serve as a mouth piece for the American people as a whole. We have a voice of our own, and Statements such as “we” and “America believes” when dealing with our dear friend Israel, and your absurd way of selling out a faithful ally is both naive and unwarranted. When dealing with radical positions that support your picture perfect view of the world such as this, try using words like “I” or “it is my opinion or position.” After all, you have had no problem using words as “I” in the many other policies you have pushed, including the killing of Bin Laden. Why start bringing us into the mix now?

President Obama’s recent position on Israel is not just naïve, it’s extremely dangerous. Apparently Obama fails to understand the fact of what the word “security” means. This president cannot commit to securing our own borders, and yet he has the audacity to lecture a nation surround by countries that vow its destruction give up their much needed buffer zones between them and the very people that want to kill them. Has this Harvard graduate never picked up a history book? Is he not aware that Israel was attacked while holding these very borders he is pushing for them to withdraw too? This president acts as if the very discontent between the Arab nations and the Jewish state of Israel hinges upon these borders, and therefore return to these borders would magically erase the hostilities the Jewish people have faced for centuries.

Between 1947 and 1948, the Palestinians took the offensive against Israel after its declaration of a state. With over 6,000 casualties, it was among the bloodiest of conflicts to take place in the region. In 1956, Israel again was attacked, this time through organized resistance to Israel, such as the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization). In 1967, known as the Six Day War, Israel was attacked once more, this time in a combined effort by its neighbors such as Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, and once again, Israel thwarted this assault on their nation. After the six day war, Israel had gained territories which expanded their borders. In 1973, The Yom Kippur War was launched by the Syrians and Egyptians, causing Israel again to be dragged into a defensive conflict. Also, let’s not forget the ongoing acts of terror and indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israeli neighborhoods by the Palestinians and Lebanese.

I wonder… how would Obama handle such national security issues with the U.S., if our neighbors conducted themselves in such a way? What if Canada and Mexico vowed for our destruction and were headed by Al-Qaeda? Would we stand for other nations telling us how we should conduct our national security? Perhaps we would be expected to go back to pre-Mexican American war borders and expose millions of Americans? I think not, and Israel is no exception. The pre-1967 borders would leave Israel with a very thin strip of land. Looking at the below image, you can see its narrowest point at Netanya, which is a faint 9 miles wide. Israel’s main airport would be a mere 3 miles from hostile borders, well within missile range.

What President Obama is doing, is basically stating that Israel should commit tactical suicide with their national security. Lebanon and Palestine are both headed by terrorist organizations, HAMAS, and HEZBOLLA.

Following the president’s speech, HAMAS released the following statement:

Obama’s Mideast policy speech Thursday was a “total failure,” Hamas said Thursday evening.

“The (Arab) nation does not need a lesson on democracy from Obama,” said Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip, Sami Abu-Zuhri. “Rather, Obama is the one who needs the lesson given his absolute endorsement of Israel’s crimes and his refusal to condemn Israel’s occupation.”

“We will not recognize the Israeli occupation under any circumstances,” the Hamas spokesman said, while adding: “We object to intervention in our internal affairs.”

Based on what HAMAS has stated, they have made it clear that the borders of 1967 are no more relevant today than they were back in 1967. The only difference HAMAS sees is the fact they will have to cross more miles to push into the heart of Israel during an invasion. When you have Arab nations that clearly state they feel as if Israel has no right to exist at all, how can this president logically expect such nations to negotiate? The only achievement this president has done by taking this position, is validate the anti-Semitic movement of hostile Arab nations toward Israel, insult a loyal ally, and do all of this while in the safety of the United States. Perhaps if the president were personally exposed to the very real dangers the Israeli people face on a daily bases, he would not be so quick to take such foolish positions on a topic he apparently knows little about… military strategy and national security.

References:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Modern+History/Centenary+of+Zionism/The+Arab-Israeli+Wars.htm
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/05/hamas-to-obamas-anti-israel-speech-we-will-not-recognize-israel-under-any-circumstances/

By Nick Dial

Terrorism and the media have had a long-running relationship. In an imperfect world, they are, in fact, the perfect couple. The media needs terrorism to boost ratings, make money, and drive headlines. Terrorism needs the media to project fear, destruction, promote their message, and provide the ability to effect the globe through 24/7 news cycles that broadcast their horrific acts free of charge.

When it comes to terrorism, the media acts as a “force multiplier.”  A force multiplier is something that increases a group’s ability to become more powerful without increasing the size of the group. For example, if you have a squad of 4 men armed with rifles, they are a formidable force against that of fellow men. Give these same men rocket launchers and grenades on top of the rifles they possess and they have now become 3 times more powerful with the ability to engage vehicles and targets that before would have been out of their ability. The media serves a similar purpose with terrorism. The media acts as a force multiplier by taking a single act and magnifying its effects by broadcasting it for all to see.

The media, in the past 10 years especially, has allowed terror cells to use our living rooms as a stage to act out their agendas. The shocking broadcast of Daniel Pearl and his beheading laid the foundation for more gruesome acts to be carried out, filmed, and televised. A terrorist once made the comment, “I would rather kill one man on camera, then a hundred men off camera”-Unknown. This statement pretty-well sums up the relationship between terrorism and the media. To carry out an act on camera provides the group to “capture” a horrific moment forever, and save it for later use, as if it were a weapon that can be used over and over again. John R. White, author of the book Terrorism and Homeland security, States the following, “terrorism becomes more horrific to create better drama. News film is constantly replayed, giving the illusion that attacks are repeated time and time again,” (2008).  The media is considered by many terror groups a weapon, and will use it to the best of their abilities. Constantly, the media will be placed in the middle between the two as opposing forces use the media as a battleground of rhetoric and accusations. For example, in 2001 a U.S. Army helicopter crashed, and immediately the Taliban tried to claim responsibility for the event. The U.S. military however, publically denied that the Taliban played any role what so ever in the loss. An example of such action is shown below:

“An exchange of claim and counter-claim took place between Washington and the Taliban after the regime said it had recovered wreckage from a downed US helicopter inside Afghanistan.

Taliban fighters posed for television pictures next to aircraft wheels which the Taliban regime claimed had been taken from the wreckage in Helmand province, close to the southern city of Kandahar. The Al-Jazeera network showed the pieces of wreckage that the Taliban said were stenciled with words written in English.

But the Pentagon dismissed the claims, saying that none of its helicopters had been lost inside Afghanistan. The only helicopter crash, it said, was the accident in the early hours of Saturday when a Black Hawk, on standby for search and rescue for a Special Forces operation, came down inside Pakistan. Two US personnel were killed in the crash, which officials say may have been caused by a storm of dust created by the helicopter’s blades” (Buncombe, A, 2001.

This paragraph serves as a perfect example of how the media, becomes a virtual battle ground to sway public opinion and perception, as the old saying goes “those who control the media, control the war”-unknown.

Media is a central factor in any war, especially terrorism. Another factor that plays a critical role in war and terrorism as well is funding. Funding is the blood line that makes waging such actions possible, after all money makes the world go round, and funding is exactly what provides terrorism with the logistical capabilities needed to continue its agenda.

Funding for terrorism comes from several areas. Perhaps one of the largest areas of controversy is that of Islamic charities in the United States. According to the Washington post, The U.S. Government has linked many charities to supporting and funding terror groups and their activities.

“Charities based in Northern Virginia and sponsored by the government of Saudi Arabia invested millions of dollars in a company suspected of funding al Qaeda and the Islamic Resistance Movement, the government alleged for the first time yesterday.

An affidavit made public in federal court in Virginia contends that the Muslim charities gave $3.7 million to BMI Inc., a private Islamic investment company in New Jersey that may have passed the money to terrorist Islamic groups. The money was part of a $10 million endowment from unnamed donors in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, according to the affidavit filed by David Kane of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement”(Farah, D, 2003).

Many of these charities have been shut down and their accounts frozen as a result. This continues to be an ongoing problem with terrorism and its funding.

The other major funder of terrorism is that of state sponsorship. For example, Iran fights a proxy war with both Israel and the United States through funding terror via an umbrella base organization. By terror groups being satellite attachments to Iran, they can receive funding through non direct means. For example groups may meet in a mosque for a sermon, but while there they are in reality conducting business for terrorism backed by Iran. This allows Iran what is known as “plausible deniability”. In the public eye they can play the game of not being involved, but the back scenes show a different story.  An example of how an umbrella organization functions can be seen below.

(Diagram from “Terrorism: An Inconvenient Truth” By Nick Dial)

Terrorism has been, is, and will continue to be an ongoing battle. The media and funding are both key factors and critical for it to sustain its survival. While in a free society the media cannot be controlled, the largest thing that can and must be targeted is that of terrorism funding and its bloodline. The United States needs to continue to expand efforts to stop the flow of American currency into the coffers of terrorists. Whether people want to acknowledge the fact or not, every time we fill our gas tanks we fund terrorism. Terror sponsoring states continue to sell the United States oil, and gas being a essential element to modern  living, forces us to indirectly fund terror every time we purchase gasoline. One major step in the right direction choke off such proxy funding of terror is to break ground here, on our own soil, here in the U.S. By utilizing all of our resources, natural gas and most importantly, OUR OIL, we would not only strengthen our national security, we will make money doing it.

References

Buncombe, A. (2001). Us denies taliban shot down helicopter in afghanistan. Retrieved from

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/us-denies-taliban-shot-down-helicopter-in-afghanistan-632369.html

Farah, D. (2003). U.s. links islamic charities, terrorist funding. Retrieved from           http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A17354-2003Aug19&notFound=true

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

By Nick Dial

Recently Arizona passed into law a new bill, 1070. This new bill has brought on an onslaught of controversy, rumors, myths, and nonstop attacks.  The problem is, when you listen to the outlandish statements made by those who oppose this new law, it quickly becomes evident that they themselves either did not read the bill and have no understanding for how the law works in practice or they are simply ignoring the facts and dishonestly exploiting the issue for political gain.

Recently President Obama made the statement that if you “looked liked an illegal immigrant, and if you didn’t have your papers and you took your kids out for ice cream, you could be harassed,” (2010). This statement coming from a sitting president is shocking. My first question is this; tell me, Mr. President, what does an illegal alien look like? I wasn’t aware that in the United States illegal aliens were labeled as one race over another. Are there not illegal immigrants that may be Canadian, Asian, or European? The fact that now the President is insinuating the Latino race as the Poster Child for what an illegal immigrant looks like, should be troubling and offensive to all Latino people of this nation. In a debate where the word “racism” often gets thrown around, you must ask yourself, who are the ones really making race a focal point? It’s certainly not a law that only focuses on legal status. Nowhere in this bill does the law make any reference to race or skin color in any way.

President Obama’s statement also demonstrated that he either has no understanding of how law enforcement works, or he is choosing to ignore the facts and push misinformation to drive more hysteria in support for his political position on this issue. By stating that you may be “harassed” by simply going out in public is both false and inflammatory. To have the leader of our nation spread such misinformation on legislation when Obama himself was a sitting legislator displays gross negligence on his part as the representative of this nation.

To clear up some of the myths about this bill being spread by activists on the left, let’s take a look at the popular talking points being repeated.

Myth: Hispanics will be randomly stopped by police when they go out in public. Recently President Obama made the statement that if you “looked like an illegal immigrant, you didn’t have your papers and you took your kids out for ice cream, you could be harassed,” (Politcal punch, 2010).

Fact: This could not be any less true. A police officer must conduct themselves as they always have, and have probable cause for their stop. Citizenship status is not a primary infraction and therefore does not constitute probable cause for a stop. It is a secondary infraction. An officer may stop a car for a traffic violation, and then later find the driver has no legal status or identification. At this point an arrest may result after further investigation. This is no different than a drug charge. You don’t look at a car and say, “hey, they have drugs.” Once the vehicle is stopped, however, there may be other factors that indicate further probable cause to look for drugs, for example, an odor being emitted from the vehicle.

Myth: You will be questioned without just cause. “Republican governor Jan Brewer is deciding whether to sign the bill. “Reasonable suspicion” is not clearly defined. But it’s obvious that anyone who “looks” Latino, just like anyone who looked Jewish, could be stopped and required to produce documentation proving they are legally in the country.” (Valen, 2010).

Fact: Reasonable suspicion is very uniform in its application. If an officer pulls a vehicle over and the driver does not speak English, has no driver’s license, no state ID, no social security number to give, at this point there is ample reasonable suspicion for the officer to investigate further.  The officer would then run a name and date of birth check to see if any DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) records show. If this comes back blank with no record, there is probable cause to detain the individual to investigate their legal status. The argument made by the above author claims there is no definition in the state law as to what “probable cause is.” This is unnecessary. This falls under federal law which is mandated by constitutional law, which in return trumps state law.

“When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears. It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984). Probable cause exists when “the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)).” (Probable Cause, 2011).

Probable cause is clearly defined, and this argument holds no truth or merit in its current argued state.

Myth: you will now have to carry “papers” on you to prove citizenship.

“The legislation makes it a misdemeanor for foreign nationals to lack proper immigration paperwork in Arizona. But since it’s impossible to identify a foreign national by sight, it effectively mandates that all individuals in Arizona carry papers. That’s right: you, American citizen, can’t walk your dog or buy milk from the grocery store without having papers on you that confirm your legal residence. If you take your kids to the park and forget your documentation at home, you can be held in police custody until your information is verified, even if you’re a U.S. citizen.” (Menendez, 2010)

Fact: Legal immigrants are already required to carry their green card. In most states you must carry a form of ID and if an officer asks for your identification on a stop, you must give it to them. Arizona’s law is no different then what is already on the books. When you go to the DMV, you MUST provide vital records such as a birth certificate in order to obtain a valid driver’s license. If you are not a citizen, you still must have the proper paper work that shows you are in the nation legally before obtaining the license. The following are an example of some of the identification requirements provided by AZdot.gov, the Arizona State website for the vehicle Motor Division.

“Identification Requirements: You need two documents listed below-one must have a clear photo of you, or three documents listed below with no photo” (azdot.gov, 2011)

Examples of such identification include the following,

 Primary: U.S. state or territory issued driver’s license, state issued birth certificate, U.S. passport, U.S. certificate of citizenship.

Secondary: U.S. Military ID, Social Security Card, Concealed Weapon Permit, Marriage Certificate.

As you can see, the documentation required by the state of Arizona to legally obtain a driver’s license already verifies one’s legal status and would not be accessible unless they were here in the country legally. When an officer stops an individual and must enquirer into legal status, whether or not that person holds a valid driver’s license with the state tells the officer most of what they need to know. Having a valid license takes the place of a birth certificate. The notion that you would have to carry such papers is false and not supported by fact, but rather emotional sentiment and misconception.

Myth: This law will lead to racial profiling.

“The practical effect of the law will likely result in officers engaging in racial profiling by questioning and detaining individuals based on their race and ethnicity.  Even if you think that your State legislators are opposed to SB 1070, it is still beneficial for them to hear from constituents that a dangerous racial profiling law will not be tolerated” (ACTION ALERT: SAY NO TO RACIAL PROFILING: STOP THE SPREAD OF SB 1070!, 2010).

Fact: This is another empty claim with no logic attached. In fact, it’s a false logic based on ad populeum and sloganeering of racial profiling. Most police officers’ conduct themselves in a professional manner and are careful not to violate a person’s civil rights. The idea that somehow a new bill will cause racial profiling is an empty one. This statement is based on the assumption that officers who racially profile would only do so if it were “in the rules.” Racial profiling is illegal, and whether or not an officer participates in such acts is the choice of that individual. This law will no more encourage the officer who chooses to profile anymore then racial profiling being illegal will discourage it. This is like the empty argument stating that making guns illegal to carry will rid gun crime. If you’re a criminal, you don’t care about the law hence the title “criminal”, and will carry a weapon anyway regardless of what the law states. The same concept applies to the corrupt officer.  Ethics come down to the individual, not what a law may or may not state. They will either profile, or they won’t; a bill won’t change that reality.

Myth: Most illegal immigrants only want to work; the real problem is drug crime.  This bill does nothing to help fight the drug problem.

“SB 1070 did NOTHING useful to really deal with the real problem on our border. The real problem is those guys armed with AK 47s that were shooting at Pinal County deputies over by Interstate 8.We have a serious problem when drug cartel gunmen can get all the way to Interstate 8 to shoot at our deputies. Would there be a meaningful federal response if the gunmen were speaking Pashtun instead of Spanish? SB 1070 didn’t even come close to that problem” (Holub, 2010).

Fact: While this bill is not focused specifically at drugs, it does aid in the cartel drug problem in a large way. Illegal immigrants who come here to work depend on an economic system that caters to their illegal status. Their ability to find work, employment, earn an income and maintain a place to live is necessary for their survival. This bill makes it illegal for an undocumented alien to seek employment. It makes it unlawful for an employer to hire an illegal and unlawful to rent a home to an illegal. The end result of this will become a natural weeding- out process. The people, who are truly here to work, will leave on their own merit. They will have no other choice because you must be able to provide an income and shelter for families to live upon. They will either go back home or simply move to another state that is lax on immigration law. In 2008 E-verify for employment and immigration sweeps by Sheriff Joe Arpio made Arizona a more restricted place for illegal aliens to reside. Since 2008, an estimated 100,000 illegal aliens have left the state. The natural result of this will make law enforcement more effective when fighting drug and cartel crime, because people who are only in AZ to work will have to relocate, largely leaving behind the criminal elements. Illegal aliens who are here for malicious reasons, i.e. to traffic, push drugs, and run cartel errands will not need to relocate. They do not rely on legitimate work to provide an income. The lack of a general population of illegal aliens to blend in with may even result in cartels moving operations to cities and states that do not have such strict laws. Because the general population would move away, this leaves their operatives exposed for tracking and apprehension. It is much harder to blend in as just another landscaper looking for work when all the legitimate workers have moved away to other states where they can still obtain work. This will greatly aid both ICE and local law enforcement in combating cartel activity and tracking down operatives for such operations.

AZ Bill 1070 is in place simply to enable our local law enforcement with the power to enforce laws that often get neglected on the federal level. For example, one night I was driving my patrol car when I was almost T-boned. A vehicle had run a stop sign. I pulled the vehicle over and found a man who did not speak English and had no driver’s license or State ID on him. He had no DMV record, and was not a legal citizen. This man had an alcohol level of .218, and was extreme DUI. After processing, I contacted ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement). They told me they did not have the man power to send and could not pick the man up for detainment. Being local law enforcement, we had no authority to hold the man based on his citizenship and had to let him go. Do you think he showed up for court? Of course not, now this man was released back into the public and is once again a potential threat to public safety. Had the man became intoxicated again and killed someone in a fatal accident, people would have screamed at how the system failed, and the police failed to do their job. The reality was however, we did not have the tools in place to detain the man. This very situation happened in San Francisco in 2008 when an illegal alien, Edwin Ramos, gunned down a father and two sons. Edwin was found to have been arrested several times without being turned over to immigration.

“The Bologna family filed a lawsuit Tuesday alleging that the city’s sanctuary policy shielding illegal immigrants from questions about their citizenship status — even those charged with a crime — was to blame, KCBS San Francisco reported. “The city adopted and enforced a policy that was actually inconsistent with and prohibited by federal law,” Bologna family attorney Michael Kelly was quoted as saying” (Family Sues San Francisco Saying Sanctuary Law to Blame for Murder of Father, Two Sons, 2008).

If California had a law in place like Arizona’s recent passing of 1070, this horrible crime may have been prevented the first day they discovered his legal status.

The outcry against Arizona’s new law is not only silly, but is a complete demonstration of ignorance of the already existing laws of this nation. Before the passing of bill 1070 it was already illegal to be in Arizona illegally. The only difference was it was an offense and a felony on the federal level. Now, it is both a federal offense and state offense. It is nothing more than mirroring the federal law and providing our officers with the tools necessary to keep Arizonians safe. This is absolutely no different than many other laws already on the books. For example, it is a federal offense to rob a bank. However, it is also a state offense to rob a bank. If you rob a bank in any state, you will face both federal and local state charges for the crime. You can even be charged both locally and federally in two different court systems and no, this is not the same as double jeopardy.  Just like it’s both a federal and state offense to rob a bank and is illegal, Arizona’s new immigration law has made being in Arizona illegally both a federal and state offense. The question can be asked, “What’s all the fuss about?” The real answer is simple… enforcement. Illegal aliens and their supporters have long lived comfortably in the United States relying on the complacency and lack of enforcement of the federal government to thrive. Now that a border state like Arizona has made a stand to enforce the law the federal government chooses to ignore, they have no more economic collusion that came with sanctuary policies. They are angry because in Arizona, the gravy train has made its final stop, and the tax payers have had enough. There will be no more free meals; no  more living in comfort while law abiding immigrants patiently wait for their legal papers to enter this country the respectful and correct way. The message here is that we reward those who follow the rules, and tell people who cut the line and break the rules to get in the back. The first step has been taken and hopefully, many other states will soon follow suit.

References

Family Sues San Francisco Saying Sanctuary Law to Blame for Murder of Father, Two Sons. (2008, April 08). Retrieved September 22, 2011, from Foxnews.com: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513378,00.html

ACTION ALERT: SAY NO TO RACIAL PROFILING: STOP THE SPREAD OF SB 1070! (2010, May 11). Retrieved September 22, 2011, from CAIR California : http://ca.cair.com/losangeles/action_alert/action_alert_say_no_to_racial_profiling_stop_the_spread_of_sb_1070

Politcal punch. (2010, April 27). Retrieved September 22, 2011, from ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/04/president-obama-says-arizonas-poorlyconceived-immigration-law-could-mean-hispanicamericans-are-haras/

azdot.gov. (2011). Retrieved Septemeber 22, 2011, from Motor Vehicle Division.

Probable Cause. (2011, September). Retrieved Septmeber 22, 2011, from LectLaw.com: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p089.htm

Holub, H. (2010, May 23). SB 1070 does nothing to stop drug cartel gunmen. Retrieved Septemeber 22, 2011, from Tucsoncitizen.com:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja-arizona/2010/05/23/sb-1070-does-nothing-to-stop-drug-cartel-gunmen/

Menendez, A. (2010, April 23). SB 1070: A Little Bit of History Repeating . Retrieved September 22, 2011, from Laprensa-Sandiego.org

 http://laprensa-sandiego.org/editorial-and-commentary/commentary/sb-1070-a-little-bit-of-history-repeating/

Valen, C. (2010). probable Cause . Retrieved September 22, 2011, from ChristopherValen.com: http://christophervalen.com/blog/?p=259