On 20 April 2012 the Leawood, KS home of Bob Harte's family was raided by a SWAT team who told him they were looking for drugs. None was found.
"On television, they always come to the door and say 'we have a search warrant' and hold it up. Here it is. Let us in. We were told in Kansas, they don't have to give you the search warrant until they leave," Bob Harte said...
At the end of the raid, deputies handed the warrant over to Bob. On it, they had written they hadn't seized anything. They had not found anything illegal in the home. Bob would end up taking that warrant door to door in their neighborhood to convince his neighbors nothing inappropriate had happened at their home.
After the raid, the couple thought they could access public records to find out why law enforcement suspected drugs were in their home. They told 41 Action News they were shocked to find out they could not access any of those records under Kansas law.
"We were chosen more or less at random for this drug raid and we were like 'what do you mean we can't get the records? They raided our house," said Addie.
The Hartes spent $25,000 hiring an attorney to fight to get access to the records. It took a year, but the Johnson County Sheriff's Office eventually released the records. The Hartes were surprised by what they read.
A blog on reason.com summarizes: "Eventually the Hartes learned that a Missouri Highway Patrol trooper saw Bob at the hydroponics store on August 9, 2011. Seven months later, state police passed on this hot tip to the sheriff's office, which sprang into action (after a few weeks), rummaging through the Hartes' garbage three times in April 2012. On all three occasions, they found "wet plant material" that a field test supposedly identified as marijuana...When the Hartes starting asking questions about the raid, the sheriff's office suddenly decided to test that wet plant material, which it turned out was not marijuana after all. The Hartes figure it must have been the loose tea that Addie favors, which she tends to toss into the trash after brewing."
"This not what justice in the United States is supposed to be. You shouldn't have to have $25,000, even $5,000. You shouldn't have to have that kind of money to find out why people came raiding your house like some sort of police state," Addie Harte said. Not even Kansas is Kansas any more. At least no one was killed.
#2
On The Federal Level Now We Know What the Hollow Points are For. Feds have started raiding businesses and homes, one business, one home at a time. The purchases were not defensive. The are for an offensive. A 91 year olds home was raided for his collection of artifacts a few days ago. A ammunition manufacturing business in Montana was raided last week, probably to get a list of customers.
This sinister government is going to get nasty now.
#3
In other words, if the Feds have an issue, you will not get letter in the mail, you will not get a couple of agents knocking on the door, this regime intends to come at you with a full blown raid. You are the enemy. And they will make that known to you and to the rest of America.
#4
If that's not unlawful search under the constitution it comes very, very close. Instead of paying all that money they should have gone to the ACLU and O'REilly factor and put the heat on the cheap.
That Sheriff should be forced to resign as incompetant.
#5
A sheriff resign? Surely you jest. LEO and judges are beyond criticism or blowback.
Stories like this are starting to put a new spin on the old phrase "pour encourage les autres" -- that is, terrorize the innocent population to "encourage" them to submit without question.
Alex Solzhenitsyn is said to have written a few lines starting with "And how we burned in the camps later, thinking..." Google it. I am not sure he actually wrote that, though.
#7
This wasn't the Feds, it was the County Sheriff, and with few exceptions that is an elected position. They can, and should, scream bloody murder loud and long. Might be able to get him booted come election time.
I'm sure there are other instances of questionable actions by this guy and his department.
Posted by: Secret Asian Man ||
04/03/2014 17:01 Comments ||
Top||
#8
This stems from a perverse incentive that police have in drug matters; civil forfeiture.
They raid your house and find drugs, they get the house, and your cars, and anything else they want by saying you bought it with drug money. Simple as that. The brothers in the hood another poster mentioned have no assets to seize, used car and a few $$$ laying around. Bob Harte obviously has a much more attractive asset base to plunder.
#9
...back in colonial times they (sheriff and magistrates) simply accused you of witchcraft to confiscate your property and dispose of it for gain after they disposed of you.
[DAWN] THE issue of madressah reform was raised in the National Assembly on Tuesday when the house adopted an opposition resolution demanding that the government take steps to "improve and regulate" education in seminaries.
As militancy has gained ground in Pakistain over the past few years, the role of madressahs, particularly those promoting myrmidon mindsets or worse and acting as nurseries for jihadi and sectarian groups, has come under close scrutiny.
Though it would be wrong to tar all seminaries with the same brush as many madressahs genuinely focus on purely religious studies and do not promote violence, ever since the 1980s, the politicisation of seminaries, in the shadow of the Afghan 'jihad', has resulted in some madressahs becoming hotbeds of extremism. Attempts have been made to 'reform' the seminaries, including during the Musharraf years and the last PPP government's tenure.
Yet these have made little difference mostly due to the pressure of the religious right. Religious parties feel that the government wants to control the madressahs under the guise of reforms, hence they are guarding their turf fiercely. But reforming madressahs should not necessarily be about control of institutions or doing away with religious education.
Rather, it should focus on ensuring that madressah curricula do not contain hate material, and, in fact, equip the thousands of graduates that seminaries produce every year with marketable mainstream skills that will help them get jobs in different sectors.
The fact is that madressahs have also mushroomed because the state has failed to create a viable, equitable system of public education. Our system is class-based and skewed against the poor.
Though some people do send their offspring to madressahs out of religious beliefs, many simply have no other choice. Either there are no public schools in their native areas, or the schools that do exist hardly deliver quality education.
Meanwhile, ...back at the pie fight, Bella grabbed the cocoanut cream... the free boarding and lodging many madressahs offer is an added advantage to poor parents. Madressah reform is essential and religious quarters should work with the state to bring seminaries into the mainstream.
But more important is the need for the state to overhaul the broken public school system to deliver decent education to youngsters that will help them become productive, enlightened citizens.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/03/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
The Saudis fund/teach the ideology of these madressahs but we dont do nothing to punish the Saudis.
Once we become less dependent their on oil we need the Saudis to change big time including regime change!
Posted by: Paul D ||
04/03/2014 5:46 Comments ||
Top||
[DAWN] VIOLENCE, crime and chaos have become a permanent feature of life in Bloody Karachi ...formerly the capital of Pakistain, now merely its most important port and financial center. It is among the largest cities in the world, with a population of 18 million, most of whom hate each other and many of whom are armed and dangerous... . What has also become a recurrent reality is the state's response. Since the late 1980s, various kinds of operations have been initiated involving the police, paramilitary and regular armed forces, intelligence services and special courts like the Anti-Terrorism Courts. Underlining the state's response is the 'policing theory' about the prevention of violence and crime in Karachi.
This theory is based on the fundamental assumption or myth that a radical reduction in violence and crime in Karachi is possible by merely adopting a de-politicised law-enforcement response and through an effective criminal justice system that ensures convictions. Will the present Karachi operations based on this policing theory fail or succeed? A complicated answer follows this question.
Avoiding anarchy: Karachi experienced a complete breakdown of order and violent anarchy from 2007 to 2013.
A fundamental cause of the state's complete breakdown was both its inability to deal with the causes of this anarchy and its loss over the monopoly of the means of violence. In short, Karachi was handed over to various armed political, religious and criminal gangs, with the state being just one among the gangs.
The result was expected -- a deadly, violent Karachi infected by an unending supply of weapons and bombs.
What the ongoing Karachi operations have done is to try to re-establish the state's monopoly over the means of violence with operations in various no-go areas and against various elements regarded as untouchable. This is the first step to save a divided and unequal city from complete anarchy.
In Karachi, there are no ideal choices. For the time being, the choice is between the terror perpetrated by the state and terror inflicted by other gangs. The former is preferable because at least there is some institutional control over state violence and there is nothing worse than violent anarchy in an armed and divided city.
In short, the brave police, Rangers and other personnel, who have bit the dust, have saved this city from complete anarchy.
Understanding violence and crime: But warding off anarchy does not necessarily mean a radical reduction in violence and crime. Half of the violence caused in Karachi has roots in political and religious conflicts, which cannot be solved through a policing and legal response unless the roots themselves are tackled.
As for crime and criminal violence engaged in by persons or groups for personal gain, these are committed by two distinct groups i.e. persons with a criminal record and first-time offenders.
More than a century of research in crime and crime prevention has shown that neither are persons with a criminal record, nor can first-time offenders be, deterred by strong policing and effective convictions.
For example, among the developed nations, the US has the highest percentage of violent crime despite having the largest prison population (over 2.2 million prisoners in 2011) and an effective criminal justice system but still some 67pc of the prisoners commit a crime within three years of their release.
Hence, a policing theory based on the incapacitation and deterrence of criminals will not work because it does not deter them, let alone deter first-time offenders.
Research after research has shown that the 'criminal justice prevention' approach by itself does not work unless it is combined with: a) the 'development prevention' approach that targets high-risk individuals in broken and excluded families and communities; b) the 'community prevention' approach changing socio-economic conditions especially drug abuse; and c) the 'situational prevention' approach by reducing opportunities for crime mainly through structural and technological interventions.
In short, a divided, unequal and chaotic Karachi -- a situation that results in violent crime -- cannot be fixed without political, economic and social intervention.
Same failed story: Instead of dealing with violence and crime as a political, social and economic problem, the state has again adopted the strategy of trying to eliminate terrorism and crime by destroying or incapacitating certain terrorist and criminals.
The strategy is simple. First, label people as faceless myrmidons and criminals so that they are seen as devoid of any humanity and deprived of rights and reduced to evil beings. Second, kill them in legally justified encounters, which are never investigated.
Third, torture them on the moral excuse of deterring them, collecting evidence and saving other lives. Fourth, lawfully or unlawfully detain people on the belief (as opposed to evidence) that they are terrorist and criminals. Fifth, have them convicted by special courts on little or no evidence.
As in the past, this will not work because to adapt a political saying to the Karachi situation, how many faceless myrmidons and criminals will you kill as they will emerge from other houses unless you deal with the political, economic and social causes of terrorism and crime in Karachi.
A policing strategy will be effective to reduce arms and bombs in Karachi and to avoid anarchy but weapons and bombs don't kill -- people kill people.
Unless the rich and powerful in Karachi are willing to share their wealth and power with the rest of Karachi and are willing to contribute to order and justice in this city, terrorism and crime will continue to remain avenues for persons trying to achieve the good life and power through illegal means.
As a famous American sociologist aptly remarked, Al Capone is really a capitalist by other means.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/03/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Hey, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer said the Koch brothers are "un-American."
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
04/03/2014 0:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I remember when Ronald Reagan threatened to have everyone at the State Department undergo urinalysis for drug testing. George Schultz, then Secretary of State, threatened to resign. Reagan backed down. Reagan should have insisted on Schultz coming to the White House for his test or be fired. Not one of Reagans finer moments.
Two opinions appeared today at Drudge. One opinion is that of George Soros, a leftist. The other opinion is that of Charles Koch, a conservative who is often demonized by the left. Both men are wealthier than Midas. Both tend to support the causes in which they strongly believe. It seemed to me that the opinions of these two men represent two distinct visions for the country. One view is that of a collectivists society; the other is conservative and Jeffersonian. The former viewpoint is one that is embraced by the current leadership of the country, Barack Obama. The two opinions tend to represent the crystalized viewpoints extant in our country today. With two important elections coming up; 2014 and 2016, are there more voters who tend to embrace Soros' or more that embrace Koch's view? The two viewpoints are below.
By Kelly Riddell-The Washington Times Wednesday, April 2, 2014
OPINION: George Soros
Drug Policy Alliance: Marijuana Policy Project
Billionaire philanthropist George Soros hopes the U.S. goes to pot, and he is using his money to drive it there.
With a cadre of like-minded, wealthy donors, Mr. Soros is dominating the pro-legalization side of the marijuana debate by funding grass-roots initiatives that begin in New York City and end up affecting local politics elsewhere.
Through a network of nonprofit groups, Mr. Soros has spent at least $80 million on the legalization effort since 1994, when he diverted a portion of his foundation's funds to organizations exploring alternative drug policies, according to tax filings.
His spending has been supplemented by Peter B. Lewis, the late chairman of Progressive Insurance Co. and an unabashed pot smoker who channeled more than $40 million to influence local debates, according to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. The two billionaires' funding has been unmatched by anyone on the other side of the debate.
Mr. Soros makes his donations through the Drug Policy Alliance, a nonprofit he funds with roughly $4 million in annual contributions from his Foundation to Promote an Open Society.
Mr. Soros also donates annually to the American Civil Liberties Union, which in turn funds marijuana legalization efforts, and he has given periodically to the Marijuana Policy Project, which funds state ballot measures.
Lewis, who died in November, donated to legalization efforts in his name and through the ACLU and the Marijuana Policy Project, on which he served as the chairman of the board. Lewis' estate declined to comment for this article.
"The pro-legalization movement hasn't come from a groundswell of the people. A great deal of its funding and fraud has been perpetrated by George Soros and then promoted by celebrities," said John Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under George W. Bush. "The truth is under attack, and it's an absolutely dangerous direction for this country to be going in."
Mr. Soros' Open Society Foundations have annual assets of more than $3.5 billion, a pool from which he can dole out grants to pet projects, according to 2011 tax returns, the most recent on file for his charitable organizations.
David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who often are cited for their conservative influence, had $308 million tied up in their foundation and institute in 2011.
OPINION Charles Koch: I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society
Instead of welcoming free debate, collectivists engage in character assassination.
By CHARLES G. KOCH
Updated April 2, 2014 7:47 p.m. ET
I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principlesthe principles of a free societythat have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.
Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.
A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.
More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. "The natural progress of things," Jefferson wrote, "is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." He knew that no government could possibly run citizens' lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means.
Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free societyand a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.
#2
And we wind up having to push back against all this demonization of someone who agrees more with George Soros than with us about letting the US go to pot.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
