(continued conversation from http://videosift.com/video/Democracy-Now-A-Massive-Surveillance-State-Exposed. Feel free to join in.)

@enoch - Specifically, what new power has the government gained here? (this is not a rhetorical question)

I'm with you on torture, warrantless wiretaps, illegal wars, assassinations (in general, thought I think Al Alakwi was justified considering the body count he had racked up), persecution of whistleblowers, persecution of journalists

The current NSA scandal encompasses none of these things. If they want to record your phone calls, they need a warrant. They didn't under Bush - but they do now - and PRISM can't go after your internet data at all.

Even if they did want to grab everyones' information, can you see how difficult it would be to pull off? How many phone calls are made in a day? (millions?) How many warrants would it take to get access to all those calls? How many man hours would it take to record and listen to all those calls? Even if the NSA were full of villainous mustache twirlers, doesn't that seem like a futile task? 99.9999% of the information would be useless.

I believe that the NSA genuinely works to stop terror attacks. I know there has been much bullshit done in the name of the "war on terror", but I believe there is a genuine need for an Agency that deals with National Security. I would imagine most countries have some kind of similar body.

I don't have a problem with information gained through search warrants. My major complaint is that this stuff is not better explained to the public. I know that there is plenty of specific information that needs to be kept secret in order to not blow the cover of agents who are wiretapping suspects, but I think the broad strokes should be put out there. Here's what we are doing. Here's why. Here are the problems we've had. Here are the successes we've had. How are we doing? How can we improve this?

I also think there would be far less need to monitor if drugs were legalized and the war on terror ended.

Anyway, I think this kind of surveillance is going to become status quo, will not be overly problematic and will be completely uncontroversial in a few decades. As far as abuse goes, you don't need any of these high tech contraptions to listen to people's phone calls and track internet usage. These things can be done fairly easily with comparatively primitive tech that can be bought legally at spy stores.

http://www.spy.th.com/audiocat.html

@criticalthud I don't disagree with what you say. My point is that judge approved wiretaps and internet surveillance should be a legal part of the law enforcement/National Security arsenal. How to do it best is beyond me. I think warrants and constitutional protections are decent checks and balances, but I know they are not infallible. As I mentioned to enoch, if someone wants to listen to your calls, be that person a high ranking government agent or your grumpy neighbor, it can be done easily with low tech. Killing these guidelines would do nothing to protect you from a rogue agent or personal vendetta.

If all this leads to a real discussion on the war on terror or the war on drugs, I'd be thrilled. My prediction is that it will just be used as a politicians electoral bludgeoning device until everyone gets sick of hearing about it and it slides off the radar screen.

@enoch - Specifically, what new power has the government gained here?

I'm with you on torture, warrantless wiretaps, illegal wars, assassinations (in general, thought I think Al Alakwi was justified considering the body count he had racked up), persecution of whistleblowers, persecution of journalists

The current NSA scandal encompasses none of these things. If they want to record your phone calls, they need a warrant. They didn't under Bush - but they do now - and PRISM can't go after your internet data at all.

Even if they did want to grab everyones' information, can you see how difficult it would be to pull off? How many phone calls are made in a day? (millions?) How many warrants would it take to get access to all those calls? How many man hours would it take to record and listen to all those calls? Even if the NSA were full of villainous mustache twirlers, doesn't that seem like a futile task? 99.9999% of the information would be useless.

I believe that the NSA genuinely works to stop terror attacks. I know there has been much bullshit done in the name of the "war on terror", but I believe there is a genuine need for an Agency that deals with National Security. I would imagine most countries have some kind of similar body.

I don't have a problem with information gained with search warrants. My major complaint is that this stuff is not better explained to the public. I know that there is plenty of specific information that needs to be kept secret in order to not blow the cover of agents who are wiretapping suspects, but I think the broad strokes should be put out there. Here's what we are doing. Here's why. Here are the problems we've had. Here are the successes we've had. How are we doing? How can we improve this?

I also think there would be far less need to monitor if drugs were legalized and the war on terror ended.

Anyway, I think this kind of surveillance is going to become status quo and will be completely uncontroversial in a few decades. As far as abuse goes, you don't need any of these high tech contraptions to listen to peoples phone calls and track internet usage. These things can be done fairly easily with comparatively primitive tech that can be bought legally at spy stores.

@criticalthud I don't disagree with what you say. My point is that judge approved wiretaps and internet surveillance should be a legal part of law enforcement/National Security arsenal. How to do it best is beyond me. I think warrants and constitutional protections are decent checks and balances, but I know they are not infallible. As I mentioned to enoch, if someone wants to listen to your calls, be that person a high ranking government agent or your grumpy neighbor, it can be done easily with low tech. Killing these guidelines would do nothing to protect you from a rogue agent or personal vendetta.

If all this leads to a real discussion on the war on terror or on the war on drugs, I'd be thrilled. My prediction is that it will just be used as a politicians electoral weapon until everyone gets sick of hearing about it and it slides off the radar screen.

Past rulings, from California and elsewhere, recognize that "probable cause of ongoing spousal abuse at a residence warrants immediate police intervention."

Basically if there is any call on domestic violence made, be it to any age person in the house, police can and will enter the home without a search warrant. You can resist, but the courts will side with the police.

In this case, the police had the authority to do what they did because our courts have been dumb enough to give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety.

Yes my bit on getting search warrants was a bit of a stretch i agree.

Getting a warrant to search a house isn't that simple. It takes more time than they had plain and simple. I can't fathom how anyone could think that police, having reasonable grounds to believe that an armed suspect who had committed several murders of innocent civilians in the previous hours is contained in a specific neighborhood, should stop, contain and commence writing search warrants for every house they want to search. Each one taking at minimum 1-2 hours to type, and additional time to be read and approved by the Judiciary. In fact, it would be reckless and irresponsible to do this and allow any other people to be killed in the meantime. This is why exigent circumstances clauses exist. It has never been seen on this scale before and that is due to the extraordinary circumstances.

To argue there shouldn't be an "exigent circumstance" clause, is also ridiculous. If police believe on reasonable grounds, that a suspect is in his house they need a warrant. If they believe he is currently destroying evidence of the crime for which he is a suspect, they do not need a warrant. But rest assured, the police MUST articulate their use of exigent circumstances every time it is used and the scrutiny from lawyers and judges will be fierce. People seem to think that it is a free pass for police to do what they want with no recourse. It is not.

As tough as I'm sure it is to go through, and as much as I'd hate it to happen to me (especially with two tiny children in the house), it is legally permissible and these were definitely exigent circumstances. From WikiPedia (where else?):

An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.

Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact. There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.

September 1, 2011 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- A South Side Chicago man who admitted shooting and wounding two Chicago Police officers has been found not guilty and released from custody. In this Intelligence Report: How did the shooter's lawyer manage to win such a case?

Twenty-one-year-old Kenneth Green was asleep in his Roseland apartment two years ago when a Chicago Police team showed up with a search warrant for drugs.

Cops used a battering ram to get in.

When police kicked through the bottom of Green's bedroom door, he shot through the door wounding two of the officers. Despite admitting all that, Green got off claiming self-defense.

The early morning raid by police on Green's Roseland apartment building ended in almost three dozen shots fired, mostly by police, after veteran officers Scott McKenna and Danny O'Toole were wounded through the door. The officers would survive, but that day in 2009, Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis used the incident to take a stand.

"People are trying to murder police officers left and right," Weis said.

After he shot two policeman, Green was arrested on the spot and charged with attempted murder, aggravated battery with a gun and held without bond.

Last week, after a several day trial, Green was found not guilty. His attorney, Marcus Schantz, told the I-Team that he convinced the jury that Green didn't know they were police outside his door executing a legal search warrant.

http://videosift.com/video/SWAT-Team-Raids-House-at-6-AM-for-Student-Loan-Debt

Someone else posted this vid and killed it, had the text of the news article, including these declarative sentences:

"The Office of the Inspector General has a law enforcement branch of federal agents that carry out search warrants and investigations.

Stockton Police Department said it was asked by federal agents to provide one officer and one patrol car just for a police presence when carrying out the search warrant.

Stockton police did not participate in breaking Wright's door, handcuffing him, or searching his home."

So it was the feds. And it looks like the title to this vid is incorrect -- SWAT? What SWAT?

Now I AM outraged. What the hell? It's a civil matter, a financial matter. Are banks allowed to break down doors to collect debts? Then the federal government shouldn't be allowed to break down doors.

(And the guy still is entertaining -- and he needs to go to the feds for the apology and the new door, if that is really all he wants. Maybe the ACLU will get involved and help change procedures.)

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
>> ^Sarzy:
Umm... I know we're supposed to automatically be outraged in cases like this, but if I have the story right, the man was pointing an AR-15 at the cops as they came through the door. Google that -- it's a pretty serious looking gun. Were the police supposed to wait until he started shooting at them and only then fire back? They had the siren going before they came in, they yelled something before they broke the door down, so what else were they supposed to do (other than not be there at all)?

What they were supposed to do, is try to get the man out of the house through some non-violent means.

So the fact that the man had an enormous assault rifle and was pointing it at the cops as they came in the door means nothing?
All I'm saying is that I don't think the cops who actually pulled the trigger are at fault here. Should they have even been there in the first place? Probably not. But that's not their call. Someone should be held accountable for this, but it's not those cops.


Sure they are. Why did they lie and say he fired at them first? Why did they seal the search warrant after the case starting getting publicity? Why were they ignorant to the fact of who lived at the house? Why wasn't Guerena's name on the search warrant if he was a suspect of criminal activity? Why is paramilitary police busting down his door and 4 or 5 others that day for marijuana? (Forget the fact they found NOTHING) Why did they have the urgency to bust down his door but then the "SWAT" team decides to clear the house with some sort of robot? Why did they deny paramedics access to Guerena for over an hour? Why did they change their story multiple times and now claim he was a suspect for home invasions?

You seem to be giving the cops a pass and blaming their superiors. I guess we should've applied that to those Third Reich officers that were only following orders too. The cops took an oath to uphold the constitution, so any abridgement of the 4th amendment rests squarely on their shoulders. And any law enforcement agency that makes excuses for it or tries to hide the truth about it is utterly corrupt. Honest and moral people are not going to carry out the orders of tyrants. If the people in charge are violating The Law, then the subordinates by default are going to be lawless thugs "just following orders".

The SWAT team had a ballistic shield, busted the door, and stood on the outside shooting in. Guerena may have a had a gun pointed at them but he never fired and still had the safety on. The SWAT team never clearly identified who they were, and just starting shooting. Even if this wasn't Guerena and it was a drug smuggler with a house full of drugs and money, what the SWAT team did is straight up murder and disregard for human rights.

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^Sarzy:
Umm... I know we're supposed to automatically be outraged in cases like this, but if I have the story right, the man was pointing an AR-15 at the cops as they came through the door. Google that -- it's a pretty serious looking gun. Were the police supposed to wait until he started shooting at them and only then fire back? They had the siren going before they came in, they yelled something before they broke the door down, so what else were they supposed to do (other than not be there at all)?

If the man was pointing a rifle at the swat/door, then the shooting is comprehensible. There is quite a difference between this and the downright manslaughter without justification in this video.
Where I live, we have the opposite problem: cops can barely defend themselves without the general public going ape-shit and instantly siding with the alleged culprits. In Geneva, a group of gangsters robbed an exchange bureau with automatic rifles, came out guns blazing at the cops during traffic hour (i.e. many civilians around...)
and now one of them is attacking the Geneva police in court, because he was shot although allegedly unarmed. (article en français)


That's only true if the cops had reason to be there in the first place. Which brings me to another problem, the issuance of search warrants without due diligence by judges. Proposed amendment to the 4th should be

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, on the penalty of perjury , and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. In the event that a search warrant is found to have been enacted wrongly and bodily harm is caused to the defendant, or anyone associated at the time and place of the warrants execution, the executing officers, all present at the time of execution, are to be be punished for whatever harm has come upon the defendant and or any associates. The minimum penalty for a wrongful death shall be a charge of manslaughter. Furthermore any property damages, including livestock, or household pets, shall also warrant appropriate restitution and punishment.

They lied about the shooting, they haven't said whether they found drugs or not. I'm inclined, as I always am, to not believe a word of what an officer says; let alone the organization they work for.

In short, full on criminal investigation into every, fucking, one of the bastards. The people deserve, no, are guaranteed the right to be safe in their persons, and properties.

>> ^rogueWRX:

>> ^marinara:
>> ^rogueWRX:
Currently the best explanation I've seen is that his wife basically precipitated the situation, screaming about "men with guns" and getting her husband into a defensive state of mind, thinking his family was being threatened... for no reason.

Meh. Should his wife had had combat training also? Maybe she should have learned battlefield hand signals in order to deal w/ the police. If Mr. Guerena really did sleep through the sirens, exactly how could he have reacted differently.
I don't have the answers. Sounds like just another random government shooting of a citizen.

Ugh.
Let's not make this a "government vs civilians" thing. And no one said the wife had to have COMBAT TRAINING. I'm not combat trained, but I know what 20 cops with cars and lights and "POLICE, SEARCH WARRANT" means.


Yup I bet you do. Specially when you are woken up from a dead sleep. I'm sure you are fully aware of everything that's going on around you from the second you open your eyes, right?

Easy to say what you'd do or what you think you'd do when you aren't directly in said situation my friend.

>> ^marinara:

>> ^rogueWRX:
Currently the best explanation I've seen is that his wife basically precipitated the situation, screaming about "men with guns" and getting her husband into a defensive state of mind, thinking his family was being threatened... for no reason.

Meh. Should his wife had had combat training also? Maybe she should have learned battlefield hand signals in order to deal w/ the police. If Mr. Guerena really did sleep through the sirens, exactly how could he have reacted differently.
I don't have the answers. Sounds like just another random government shooting of a citizen.


Ugh.

Let's not make this a "government vs civilians" thing. And no one said the wife had to have COMBAT TRAINING. I'm not combat trained, but I know what 20 cops with cars and lights and "POLICE, SEARCH WARRANT" means.

"No verbal warning?"

We can hear them shouting "POLICE SEARCH WARRANT" several times before they kick in the door. The audio is obviously from the helmet cam inside a car, so it's a bit muffled, but still... turn up your speakers.

They announced themselves.

Currently the best explanation I've seen is that his wife basically precipitated the situation, screaming about "men with guns" and getting her husband into a defensive state of mind, thinking his family was being threatened... for no reason.

I remember when search warrants didn't require SWAT teams.

Never said I did. At least I know that there are other people that are different than me.

Sure it's probably very easy to rob me. I don't live in a bad neighborhood, so I don't expect to have to fight for my safety. My life is more important that material objects that they are after.

If you live in a bad neighborhood, popping out of a corner with a golf club without knowing what you are up to is not the smartest thing. Might work if you hear a silent breaking and entering since they obviously don't want to be heard and you may scare them off. But these officers were LOUD. If you want to protect yourself which you have the right to, maybe pack some heat. Again you have to smart about using it.


>> ^gwiz665:

And you clearly do? If all they yelled were "SEARCH WARRANT" and busted down the door, I don't know what I would have done. If I had lived in a bad neighborhood, why should I believe they were actually cops and not robbers? They didn't even give him a chance to lower his stick or what it was in his hands. They shot him and then said get on the ground.
You must be very easy to rob.
>> ^rellik:
Umm no I would NOT have done the same thing. I would still be in shock and would have complied with whatever was shouted at me. Police or intruder.
You use the term "most people" very lightly and you clearly don't represent "most people".

>> ^gwiz665:
Put yourself in his place. Would you now have done the same thing he did? I would certainly have grabbed something and tried to scare off the intruders. I think most people would have done that, and then most people would have been dead.