 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Police and Terrorism |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Copyright © 2006 - 2009 - Barry M. Baker - CareerPoliceOfficer.com |
| Disclaimer |
| CareerPoliceOfficer.com is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. Links are provided only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by this site. |
| 100% Online Bachelor and Master of Science (BS/MS) Degrees in Intelligence, Counterterrorism,and Protection from Henley-Putnam University |
| Henley-Putnam University is a leading educational institution in the field of Strategic Security. Henley-Putnam's degrees in Intelligence, Protection, and Terrorism and Counterterrorism Studies prepare law enforcement, military, intelligence community, and private industry professionals with the network, skills, and insights to advance in their careers and protect the future. Henley-Putnam, an accredited member of DETC, offers Online BS/MS Degree Programs. For more information on Henley-Putnam University, call 888-852-8746 or visit us online at http://www.henley-putnam.edu/. |
| HENLEY-PUTNAM UNIVERSITY HOSTS FREE PUBLIC TELECONFERENCE BRIEFINGS |
Teleconference Briefing on "The Best
Kept Secret in Law Enforcement"
Kept Secret in Law Enforcement"
Teleconference Briefing on "Why 'Bad
Guys' Like the U.S. Postal Service"
Guys' Like the U.S. Postal Service"
| HENLEY-PUTNAM UNIVERSITY FIRST TO OFFER A DOCTORATE DEGREE PROGRAM IN STRATEGIC SECURITY |
The Doctorate in Strategic Security is for
board room level leaders and managers (or
their government or military equivalents)
who oversee personnel who comprise the
strategic security industry. Graduates will be
able to coordinate effectively a wide range
of strategic security resources and
personnel, across multiple agencies if
necessary, to produce timely, objective, and
accurate intelligence and other
security-related services. They will be able
to communicate their information to top-level
policy and decision makers clearly and
coherently. Graduates will also be adept at
managing assets and adjusting strategies in
dynamic security environments.
board room level leaders and managers (or
their government or military equivalents)
who oversee personnel who comprise the
strategic security industry. Graduates will be
able to coordinate effectively a wide range
of strategic security resources and
personnel, across multiple agencies if
necessary, to produce timely, objective, and
accurate intelligence and other
security-related services. They will be able
to communicate their information to top-level
policy and decision makers clearly and
coherently. Graduates will also be adept at
managing assets and adjusting strategies in
dynamic security environments.
| Archived |
| MORE... |
The
GITMO Paradigm
GITMO Paradigm
You might be wondering what the debate over Gitmo, the terrorist detention center
at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, has to do with your career as a police officer?
Gitmo is one of those rare instances where government created and implemented an
efficient way of doing things. When it comes to issues of public safety, government
only responds efficiently when those issues are perceived as urgent and important.
The terrorist attacks on 9/11 certainly met that criteria, and a lot of ideas were
rapidly implemented. The success or failure of all the other ideas is overshadowed
by the brilliance and success of the Gitmo Paradigm.
Constitutional issues are most often cited as the reasons for the elimination of
Gitmo. There are a lot of people who think they’re really smart for realizing that
the primary reason for locating the terrorist detention center at the naval base in
Cuba was to deny those who want to destroy America all the constitutional rights
enjoyed by Americans. Aside from the fact that no precedent exists to extend
constitutional rights to those detained at Gitmo, the main reason for the location
was to avoid confusion created by those who are creating the confusion anyway.
The main reason for the confusion exists because of ideologies. One believes that
no real war against terrorism exists. The more light thinking among us usually look
back to December 8, 1941 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt uttered these
words, “I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly
attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between
the United States and the Japanese Empire.” The argument goes that since the
United States Congress has not “declared war” against anyone, no “war” exists. In
regard to the terrorist attack of 9/11, the Congress passed legislation, S.J.Res. 23,
on September 14, 2001, authorizing the President to “use all necessary and
appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons....” Now, it could
just be me, but I don’t see much difference between the first and the latter. In fact,
the authorization given to the President for response to the attacks of 9/11 could be
viewed as more expansive than the declaration of war [authorization] of 1941.
This ideology also maintains that any terrorist, no matter where that terrorist is
apprehended, be treated the same as any criminal suspect apprehended inside the
United States. Let’s do this. Instead of sending soldiers and marines to battle
terrorists, we could collect police SWAT teams from across the country from New
York to Los Angeles and send them after the terrorists. After each firefight, those
terrorists captured could be given their Miranda Warnings right there on the
battlefield. Of course, it could be really difficult to find lawyers and judges willing to
follow the SWAT teams to file and hear the various legal motions. That’s right, the
lawyers and judges could stay at home and wait for the terrorists to be shipped back
to the United States and placed in various federal detention centers across the
country. The lawyers and judges could handle the motions in the comfort of well
guarded courthouses with running water. But, there’s another problem. When you
become a police officer, you’ll soon learn how touchy judges are about your prompt
appearance in court when summoned. You’ve just returned to your job policing San
Francisco when you receive a summons to testify on a motion for an arrest you
made in Afghanistan. The only problem is that the terrorist you arrested is having
his motion heard in a courtroom in Philadelphia.
Okay, I know it’s silly. But, how silly is it to apply constitutional rights to terror
suspects captured outside of the United States? A lot of people forget that the
United States Military has its own constitutional justice mechanism. Could money,
with its accompanied power and influence, have anything to do with treating foreign
terrorists as Americans? After all, an army captain, who’s a lawyer in JAG (Judge
Advocate General), defending a terror suspect, is paid the same as a captain
commanding a company of infantry.
Put aside all the constitutional arguments against GITMO and realize just one
thing. Whether you’re involved in fighting international terrorists, domestic
terrorists, or any other stripe of criminal, success is often just as damaging to your
efforts as failure. While failure provides an easy reason to change things, changing
a successful policy just requires a lot of creative obfuscation.
at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, has to do with your career as a police officer?
Gitmo is one of those rare instances where government created and implemented an
efficient way of doing things. When it comes to issues of public safety, government
only responds efficiently when those issues are perceived as urgent and important.
The terrorist attacks on 9/11 certainly met that criteria, and a lot of ideas were
rapidly implemented. The success or failure of all the other ideas is overshadowed
by the brilliance and success of the Gitmo Paradigm.
Constitutional issues are most often cited as the reasons for the elimination of
Gitmo. There are a lot of people who think they’re really smart for realizing that
the primary reason for locating the terrorist detention center at the naval base in
Cuba was to deny those who want to destroy America all the constitutional rights
enjoyed by Americans. Aside from the fact that no precedent exists to extend
constitutional rights to those detained at Gitmo, the main reason for the location
was to avoid confusion created by those who are creating the confusion anyway.
The main reason for the confusion exists because of ideologies. One believes that
no real war against terrorism exists. The more light thinking among us usually look
back to December 8, 1941 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt uttered these
words, “I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly
attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between
the United States and the Japanese Empire.” The argument goes that since the
United States Congress has not “declared war” against anyone, no “war” exists. In
regard to the terrorist attack of 9/11, the Congress passed legislation, S.J.Res. 23,
on September 14, 2001, authorizing the President to “use all necessary and
appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons....” Now, it could
just be me, but I don’t see much difference between the first and the latter. In fact,
the authorization given to the President for response to the attacks of 9/11 could be
viewed as more expansive than the declaration of war [authorization] of 1941.
This ideology also maintains that any terrorist, no matter where that terrorist is
apprehended, be treated the same as any criminal suspect apprehended inside the
United States. Let’s do this. Instead of sending soldiers and marines to battle
terrorists, we could collect police SWAT teams from across the country from New
York to Los Angeles and send them after the terrorists. After each firefight, those
terrorists captured could be given their Miranda Warnings right there on the
battlefield. Of course, it could be really difficult to find lawyers and judges willing to
follow the SWAT teams to file and hear the various legal motions. That’s right, the
lawyers and judges could stay at home and wait for the terrorists to be shipped back
to the United States and placed in various federal detention centers across the
country. The lawyers and judges could handle the motions in the comfort of well
guarded courthouses with running water. But, there’s another problem. When you
become a police officer, you’ll soon learn how touchy judges are about your prompt
appearance in court when summoned. You’ve just returned to your job policing San
Francisco when you receive a summons to testify on a motion for an arrest you
made in Afghanistan. The only problem is that the terrorist you arrested is having
his motion heard in a courtroom in Philadelphia.
Okay, I know it’s silly. But, how silly is it to apply constitutional rights to terror
suspects captured outside of the United States? A lot of people forget that the
United States Military has its own constitutional justice mechanism. Could money,
with its accompanied power and influence, have anything to do with treating foreign
terrorists as Americans? After all, an army captain, who’s a lawyer in JAG (Judge
Advocate General), defending a terror suspect, is paid the same as a captain
commanding a company of infantry.
Put aside all the constitutional arguments against GITMO and realize just one
thing. Whether you’re involved in fighting international terrorists, domestic
terrorists, or any other stripe of criminal, success is often just as damaging to your
efforts as failure. While failure provides an easy reason to change things, changing
a successful policy just requires a lot of creative obfuscation.
Back-up
your files
your files
Help protect
your identity
your identity
Evidence is Evidence... but
| Learning Things the Hard Way |
It is the nature of people to learn things the hard way.
When you become a police officer, there’ll be times when
you’ll give a person any number of chances to walk away
from his or her irrational and illegal behavior. In the end,
Mr. or Ms. Hardhead will run out all the rope you’ve
provided, and you’ll arrest that person. This is an example
where you’ve provided both positive and negative solutions
with Hardhead choosing the latter.
When it comes to irrational and illegal behavior on a
national or international scale involving special interest
groups and nations respectively, a lot of people get
confused, and they endlessly argue about what is irrational
or illegal. As a police officer, you’ll practice diplomacy
everyday. When you think about it, a police officer is the
ultimate diplomat. When your effort at diplomacy begins to
falter or fail, you are the sole decision maker on how and
when to exercise raw power to achieve an acceptable
outcome that your diplomatic effort failed to produce.
Unlike the generic diplomat, you’ll be the one to personally
exercise power.
As a police officer, you’ll learn sooner than anyone else the
limitations of diplomacy. While I didn’t make too many
mistakes during my career, one of those mistakes nearly
cost a man his life:
I responded to a call for a domestic disturbance where both
the husband and wife were intoxicated. Both were small in
stature, and it was clear that the female was the dominant
force in that household. A female officer responded as a
back-up, and she stood by as I exercised my diplomatic
resolution to the disturbance. During the session of
“conflict resolution,” the wife became frustrated at one
point, and she slapped the husband’s face.
Now, remember this, had the husband slapped the wife, I
wouldn’t have hesitated for a second in abandoning
diplomacy and going straight to power in the form of
handcuffs on the husband. But, hey, this was a little
woman, and the guy was so drunk, he probably didn’t even
feel any pain from the assault on him. In the end, both
were calmed down, and I turned to leave the house. The
female officer stopped me and asked, “Aren’t you going to
lock [her] up?” I replied with some it’s not a big deal
response, and the female officer sighed and said, “Okay.”
No more than five minutes after clearing the call, a second
call was dispatched to the same address for an assault. I,
and the same female officer, returned. We were met at the
front door by the wife who started a rerun of her complaints
about her “worthless” husband. When we entered the
living room of the home, we saw the husband sitting in a
recliner. He didn’t look any different than when we’d left
him expect for one thing; he had half the blade of a steak
knife planted firmly in the top of his head.
As I suffered the “I told you so” looks from the female
officer, I was glad she had returned to back me up, for I
needed a second pair of handcuffs for the husband. Dumbo
had no idea what had happened to him, and I was afraid he
would pull the knife from his head. Fortunately, his injury
turned out to be much like those publicized from time to
time where surgeons successfully remove a blade from a
person’s brain with no resulting permanent injury.
The lesson I learned from that experience so many years
ago was to arrest anyone who had the nerve, drunk or
sober, to assault another person right in front of me.
Okay, I know that you might find it hard to compare or
apply the carrot and stick / diplomacy and force boundaries
of individual police officers on a macro level. But, you
should understand that diplomacy as a tool to achieve just
ends is absolutely useless without the means and willingness
to use force at the right time. In the personal example I
just described, my means and willingness were intact. It
was the timing of my willingness that really sucked.
Force will always be problematic, whether micro or macro,
to people who believe that force is never justified. While
those people will insist that it is not their belief, they never
seem to be able to identify a situation or circumstance
where they would approve of force. They’ll whine that the
question is hypothetical, and use of force is too important
on which to hypothesize.
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 brought a
perpetual reality into clear focus. That reality
demonstrated – again – that there are plenty of people who
will use any means to inflict death and destruction on
massive scales to achieve their goals. It also brought into
focus those nations which support and protect terror and
terrorists.
While 9/ll evoked a strong and forceful response from the
United States, time influenced by success does fade the
focus. If you do become a police officer, you’re going to
enjoy a special benefit. Your focus will not fade, and it will
only sharpen as your career progresses. Your continual use
of diplomacy and force will provide you with a unique
appreciation of both. That appreciation will give you the
ability to avoid learning things the hard way… again… and
again.
When you become a police officer, there’ll be times when
you’ll give a person any number of chances to walk away
from his or her irrational and illegal behavior. In the end,
Mr. or Ms. Hardhead will run out all the rope you’ve
provided, and you’ll arrest that person. This is an example
where you’ve provided both positive and negative solutions
with Hardhead choosing the latter.
When it comes to irrational and illegal behavior on a
national or international scale involving special interest
groups and nations respectively, a lot of people get
confused, and they endlessly argue about what is irrational
or illegal. As a police officer, you’ll practice diplomacy
everyday. When you think about it, a police officer is the
ultimate diplomat. When your effort at diplomacy begins to
falter or fail, you are the sole decision maker on how and
when to exercise raw power to achieve an acceptable
outcome that your diplomatic effort failed to produce.
Unlike the generic diplomat, you’ll be the one to personally
exercise power.
As a police officer, you’ll learn sooner than anyone else the
limitations of diplomacy. While I didn’t make too many
mistakes during my career, one of those mistakes nearly
cost a man his life:
I responded to a call for a domestic disturbance where both
the husband and wife were intoxicated. Both were small in
stature, and it was clear that the female was the dominant
force in that household. A female officer responded as a
back-up, and she stood by as I exercised my diplomatic
resolution to the disturbance. During the session of
“conflict resolution,” the wife became frustrated at one
point, and she slapped the husband’s face.
Now, remember this, had the husband slapped the wife, I
wouldn’t have hesitated for a second in abandoning
diplomacy and going straight to power in the form of
handcuffs on the husband. But, hey, this was a little
woman, and the guy was so drunk, he probably didn’t even
feel any pain from the assault on him. In the end, both
were calmed down, and I turned to leave the house. The
female officer stopped me and asked, “Aren’t you going to
lock [her] up?” I replied with some it’s not a big deal
response, and the female officer sighed and said, “Okay.”
No more than five minutes after clearing the call, a second
call was dispatched to the same address for an assault. I,
and the same female officer, returned. We were met at the
front door by the wife who started a rerun of her complaints
about her “worthless” husband. When we entered the
living room of the home, we saw the husband sitting in a
recliner. He didn’t look any different than when we’d left
him expect for one thing; he had half the blade of a steak
knife planted firmly in the top of his head.
As I suffered the “I told you so” looks from the female
officer, I was glad she had returned to back me up, for I
needed a second pair of handcuffs for the husband. Dumbo
had no idea what had happened to him, and I was afraid he
would pull the knife from his head. Fortunately, his injury
turned out to be much like those publicized from time to
time where surgeons successfully remove a blade from a
person’s brain with no resulting permanent injury.
The lesson I learned from that experience so many years
ago was to arrest anyone who had the nerve, drunk or
sober, to assault another person right in front of me.
Okay, I know that you might find it hard to compare or
apply the carrot and stick / diplomacy and force boundaries
of individual police officers on a macro level. But, you
should understand that diplomacy as a tool to achieve just
ends is absolutely useless without the means and willingness
to use force at the right time. In the personal example I
just described, my means and willingness were intact. It
was the timing of my willingness that really sucked.
Force will always be problematic, whether micro or macro,
to people who believe that force is never justified. While
those people will insist that it is not their belief, they never
seem to be able to identify a situation or circumstance
where they would approve of force. They’ll whine that the
question is hypothetical, and use of force is too important
on which to hypothesize.
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 brought a
perpetual reality into clear focus. That reality
demonstrated – again – that there are plenty of people who
will use any means to inflict death and destruction on
massive scales to achieve their goals. It also brought into
focus those nations which support and protect terror and
terrorists.
While 9/ll evoked a strong and forceful response from the
United States, time influenced by success does fade the
focus. If you do become a police officer, you’re going to
enjoy a special benefit. Your focus will not fade, and it will
only sharpen as your career progresses. Your continual use
of diplomacy and force will provide you with a unique
appreciation of both. That appreciation will give you the
ability to avoid learning things the hard way… again… and
again.
12/7/1941
9/11/2001
?/?/20??
| Pirates = Terrorists |
On April 15, 2009, only days after the U.S. Navy shot three of their comrades dead, Somali pirates, previously
announcing their intention to “slaughter” Americans, attempted to hijack another American flagged merchant
ship.
The Liberty Sun, like the Maersk Alabama, carried a crew of 20 Americans. The pirates fired on the ship with
AK-47’s and RPG’s (shoulder fired rockets). Only evasive maneuvers by the Liberty Sun prevented the pirates
from boarding the ship. One has to wonder what the fate of the Liberty Sun’s crew would have been had those
pirates, turned self avowed terrorists, successfully boarded the ship.
Never fear. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the United States Secretary of State, immediately announced that she would
seek “consultation with allies,” and the creation of a “commission” to address the pirate problem. I’m certain
that every American merchant seaman breathed a sigh of relief knowing that Secretary Clinton is looking out for
them as they sail through terrorist infested waters.
Simple Solutions
Politicians hate simple solutions. Even in Washington D.C., where gun control laws are draconian, armored truck
guards servicing banks are allowed to carry guns. Why shouldn't American flagged merchant marine ships,
particularly those sailed by American crews, be allowed to maintain armories with sufficient fire power to repel
terrorist / pirate attacks?
Oh, yes. There’s the problem with insurance. The ship owners worry about the liability that might result should
American merchant seamen kill a terrorist / pirate. It’s a valid concern since it’s perfectly likely that the family
of a terrorist could find, with little trouble, an American lawyer or lawyers to sue the ship company. Since the
Somali terrorists / pirates are relatively young, the lifetime earnings of the pirate based on the number of ships
he could hijack during his career could be substantial.
Congress could help. The U.S. Congress has shown that it’s capable of passing massive amounts of legislation in
days without even bothering to read what they enact into law. It should be relatively simple to pass legislation
holding harmless from liability merchant seamen, and their companies, if they kill or injure terrorists / pirates
when acting in self defense. They could even go further by eliminating the corporate tax for American flagged
ship companies; thereby, bringing hundreds of merchant ships back under the American flag and creating
thousands of jobs for American merchant seamen. Stop… stop. I know… I’m nuts. These solutions are far too
simple and inexpensive.
Let’s just hope that Somali terrorists / pirates never capture an American merchant ship sailed by an American
crew. Somehow, I think American crews now have the same mindset learned by American airline passengers
after September 11, 2001.
announcing their intention to “slaughter” Americans, attempted to hijack another American flagged merchant
ship.
The Liberty Sun, like the Maersk Alabama, carried a crew of 20 Americans. The pirates fired on the ship with
AK-47’s and RPG’s (shoulder fired rockets). Only evasive maneuvers by the Liberty Sun prevented the pirates
from boarding the ship. One has to wonder what the fate of the Liberty Sun’s crew would have been had those
pirates, turned self avowed terrorists, successfully boarded the ship.
Never fear. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the United States Secretary of State, immediately announced that she would
seek “consultation with allies,” and the creation of a “commission” to address the pirate problem. I’m certain
that every American merchant seaman breathed a sigh of relief knowing that Secretary Clinton is looking out for
them as they sail through terrorist infested waters.
Simple Solutions
Politicians hate simple solutions. Even in Washington D.C., where gun control laws are draconian, armored truck
guards servicing banks are allowed to carry guns. Why shouldn't American flagged merchant marine ships,
particularly those sailed by American crews, be allowed to maintain armories with sufficient fire power to repel
terrorist / pirate attacks?
Oh, yes. There’s the problem with insurance. The ship owners worry about the liability that might result should
American merchant seamen kill a terrorist / pirate. It’s a valid concern since it’s perfectly likely that the family
of a terrorist could find, with little trouble, an American lawyer or lawyers to sue the ship company. Since the
Somali terrorists / pirates are relatively young, the lifetime earnings of the pirate based on the number of ships
he could hijack during his career could be substantial.
Congress could help. The U.S. Congress has shown that it’s capable of passing massive amounts of legislation in
days without even bothering to read what they enact into law. It should be relatively simple to pass legislation
holding harmless from liability merchant seamen, and their companies, if they kill or injure terrorists / pirates
when acting in self defense. They could even go further by eliminating the corporate tax for American flagged
ship companies; thereby, bringing hundreds of merchant ships back under the American flag and creating
thousands of jobs for American merchant seamen. Stop… stop. I know… I’m nuts. These solutions are far too
simple and inexpensive.
Let’s just hope that Somali terrorists / pirates never capture an American merchant ship sailed by an American
crew. Somehow, I think American crews now have the same mindset learned by American airline passengers
after September 11, 2001.
Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and The Torture Memos
Magicians are frequently maligned when politicians are described with terms rightfully belonging to magicians.
Contrary to the beliefs of some, there’s nothing magical about magicians or any politician. Politicians do strive to
accomplish two goals of the professional magicians… the art of misdirection and celebrity status. Unlike
magicians, however, politicians fail terribly when it comes to guarding the secrets that make their acts
successful. While magicians may be jealous of the competition’s success, revealing the secrets of the tricks is not
in their bag of tricks.
When it comes to interrogating terrorists, the Bush Administration developed a bag of tricks called “enhanced
interrogation techniques.” The misdirection from the program worked so well that political opponents couldn’t
contain themselves with their cries of torture… torture! It evidently worked pretty well on the terrorists who
succumbed to the techniques, and the absence of terrorist attacks within the United States or on American
interests was further evidence of the program’s success.
Then… the Obama Administration comes along and dumps the bag for the world to see all the elements of the
misdirection. After exposing the benign nature of those elements, hilariously dubbed, “the torture memos,” the
new political crowd in power launched its own campaign of misdirection through the Department of Homeland
Security. They warn of the dangers of domestic right wing extremism including the dangers posed by returning
Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans.
The new campaign of misdirection is designed to shift focus away from external threats to internal ones defined
by political ideologies and speculation rather than by that pesky detail called evidence. The President further
shifted the focus by graciously declaring that CIA officers would not be prosecuted for their participation in the
“torture memos” caper. This position does avoid any debate about with what criminal charges would apply since
the techniques were legal when practiced. It also avoids release of the heavily redacted portions of the “memos;”
wherein, the successes of the program are allegedly contained.
Most people would agree that the maiming or removal of body parts would be acts of torture. Would the threat to
maim or remove a body part be an act of torture? I would maintain that the latter is not torture, but there would
be those who would disagree with me. But, herein lays the point. As methods of interrogation descend from acts
of obvious torture all the way down to those exposed in the “torture memos,” definitions of torture will become
ever more subjective as the order descends. In the end, any definition of interrogation methods can pass as
torture based solely on any absurd point of view.
It’s unfortunate that politics has once again transcended a more important issue – in this case, national security.
But, let’s not be pessimistic. As Osama Bin Laden sits in his hideout reading the “torture memos,” there’s
always the possibility – as remote as that possibility may be – that he’ll laugh himself to death.
Contrary to the beliefs of some, there’s nothing magical about magicians or any politician. Politicians do strive to
accomplish two goals of the professional magicians… the art of misdirection and celebrity status. Unlike
magicians, however, politicians fail terribly when it comes to guarding the secrets that make their acts
successful. While magicians may be jealous of the competition’s success, revealing the secrets of the tricks is not
in their bag of tricks.
When it comes to interrogating terrorists, the Bush Administration developed a bag of tricks called “enhanced
interrogation techniques.” The misdirection from the program worked so well that political opponents couldn’t
contain themselves with their cries of torture… torture! It evidently worked pretty well on the terrorists who
succumbed to the techniques, and the absence of terrorist attacks within the United States or on American
interests was further evidence of the program’s success.
Then… the Obama Administration comes along and dumps the bag for the world to see all the elements of the
misdirection. After exposing the benign nature of those elements, hilariously dubbed, “the torture memos,” the
new political crowd in power launched its own campaign of misdirection through the Department of Homeland
Security. They warn of the dangers of domestic right wing extremism including the dangers posed by returning
Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans.
The new campaign of misdirection is designed to shift focus away from external threats to internal ones defined
by political ideologies and speculation rather than by that pesky detail called evidence. The President further
shifted the focus by graciously declaring that CIA officers would not be prosecuted for their participation in the
“torture memos” caper. This position does avoid any debate about with what criminal charges would apply since
the techniques were legal when practiced. It also avoids release of the heavily redacted portions of the “memos;”
wherein, the successes of the program are allegedly contained.
Most people would agree that the maiming or removal of body parts would be acts of torture. Would the threat to
maim or remove a body part be an act of torture? I would maintain that the latter is not torture, but there would
be those who would disagree with me. But, herein lays the point. As methods of interrogation descend from acts
of obvious torture all the way down to those exposed in the “torture memos,” definitions of torture will become
ever more subjective as the order descends. In the end, any definition of interrogation methods can pass as
torture based solely on any absurd point of view.
It’s unfortunate that politics has once again transcended a more important issue – in this case, national security.
But, let’s not be pessimistic. As Osama Bin Laden sits in his hideout reading the “torture memos,” there’s
always the possibility – as remote as that possibility may be – that he’ll laugh himself to death.
| Teleconference Briefings |
| Listen in on our free monthly teleconference briefings. Call now to reserve your space 408-453-9900 ext. 9949. |
There are so many reasons why every American should be grateful that he or she is an American. One of those
reasons is a criminal justice system that is fairer to those accused of crimes than any other justice system in the
world. In fact, it’s so fair that even if a mountain of evidence exists to convict a person, a portion of that
evidence – or even the entire mountain – may not be admissible in court to be used against a criminal defendant.
One has to wonder when a good thing becomes too much of a good thing. When you become a police officer
you’re going to lose cases simply because of inadmissibility of evidence you’ve seized or collected. The
inadmissibility of the evidence need not have anything to do with the quality or veracity of the evidence. In most
instances the inadmissibility will be determined by how, and under what circumstances, you seized or collected the
evidence.
In the beginning, your lack of knowledge and experience may cause you some confusion in understanding why
some evidence is excluded from a prosecution. As time goes by and your knowledge and experience expands,
you’ll master the constitutional processes that dictate how you collect and seize evidence. You should, and I
emphasis should, also come to appreciate the rights guaranteed under the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
However… as you become grounded in the rational applications of evidence collection and admissibility, you will
experience some frustration when you see how some lawyers and judges apply their own theories and
interpretations to admissibility issues. Politics has everything to do with every aspect of the criminal justice
system, and it’s always been that way. When I began my police career in the early 1970’s, everything was subject
to hyper-technical interpretations. As the years passed and crime rates dictated a more rational application of
criminal justice, things got a lot better.
However… everything is cyclical, and I fear that you’ll be facing a repeat of the hyper-technical interpretations of
the past. When I began my career, the debilitating debate was rehabilitation versus punishment. Today, political
correctness is the monster in the room where everything is what it is, but it’s something different. An illegal
alien has become an undocumented immigrant, and the term “enemy combatant” has been ceremoniously
removed from the lexicon. It won’t be long before the television pundits will be identifying terrorists and
terrorism as the “T Word.”
When it comes to the terrorists… er… detainees still in custody, the problem of admissibility of evidence really
won't be a problem. You see, the War on Terror ended on January 20th, 2009, and nobody even noticed.
reasons is a criminal justice system that is fairer to those accused of crimes than any other justice system in the
world. In fact, it’s so fair that even if a mountain of evidence exists to convict a person, a portion of that
evidence – or even the entire mountain – may not be admissible in court to be used against a criminal defendant.
One has to wonder when a good thing becomes too much of a good thing. When you become a police officer
you’re going to lose cases simply because of inadmissibility of evidence you’ve seized or collected. The
inadmissibility of the evidence need not have anything to do with the quality or veracity of the evidence. In most
instances the inadmissibility will be determined by how, and under what circumstances, you seized or collected the
evidence.
In the beginning, your lack of knowledge and experience may cause you some confusion in understanding why
some evidence is excluded from a prosecution. As time goes by and your knowledge and experience expands,
you’ll master the constitutional processes that dictate how you collect and seize evidence. You should, and I
emphasis should, also come to appreciate the rights guaranteed under the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
However… as you become grounded in the rational applications of evidence collection and admissibility, you will
experience some frustration when you see how some lawyers and judges apply their own theories and
interpretations to admissibility issues. Politics has everything to do with every aspect of the criminal justice
system, and it’s always been that way. When I began my police career in the early 1970’s, everything was subject
to hyper-technical interpretations. As the years passed and crime rates dictated a more rational application of
criminal justice, things got a lot better.
However… everything is cyclical, and I fear that you’ll be facing a repeat of the hyper-technical interpretations of
the past. When I began my career, the debilitating debate was rehabilitation versus punishment. Today, political
correctness is the monster in the room where everything is what it is, but it’s something different. An illegal
alien has become an undocumented immigrant, and the term “enemy combatant” has been ceremoniously
removed from the lexicon. It won’t be long before the television pundits will be identifying terrorists and
terrorism as the “T Word.”
When it comes to the terrorists… er… detainees still in custody, the problem of admissibility of evidence really
won't be a problem. You see, the War on Terror ended on January 20th, 2009, and nobody even noticed.
| Certificate Programs are offered in the following areas: |
Executive Protection
Intelligence Analysis
Counterterrorism Studies
Security Management
Intelligence Collection
Strategic Intelligence
Intelligence and Counterterrorism Profiling
Intelligence Analysis
Counterterrorism Studies
Security Management
Intelligence Collection
Strategic Intelligence
Intelligence and Counterterrorism Profiling
Henley-Putnam's Certificate Programs are
designed for the student who cannot devote
the time to full course studies and still
receive certification for the studies
completed.
Not only are these certificates germane to
specific needs, they are being taught by the
same experienced instructors as our degree
courses and they offer the same number of
course credits.
designed for the student who cannot devote
the time to full course studies and still
receive certification for the studies
completed.
Not only are these certificates germane to
specific needs, they are being taught by the
same experienced instructors as our degree
courses and they offer the same number of
course credits.
| Equal Treatment Under the Law |
What is the one thing that governments; politicians; judges; prosecutors and police officers have in common
with… terrorists? While you’re thinking about that one, ask yourself this, what is the main difference between
the two groups? While the lawyers, psychologists and sociologists could go on for hours proffering and debating
dozens of answers, one word can answer both questions accurately and definitively. The answer to both questions
is… power.
The dirty secret, which is actually no secret at all, is that the acquisition and exercise of power dictates the
direction and quality of life for every living being on the planet. The laws of nature are harsh and unforgiving,
but the laws of nature are applied universally without prejudice for anything or anyone. Of course, nature does
not recognize any inalienable right; thus, the oft spoken phrase, “survival of the fittest.” Human beings, on the
other hand, have the unique ability to create and maintain civilizations under man made rules of law where
objective reasoning can ensure that every person is treated equally under those laws.
Enter: Empathy [Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.]
First of all, there is no such thing as equal treatment under the law. When you become a police officer and you
begin spending a lot of time in court rooms, you’re going to be struck at just how unequal people are treated. I’m
not talking about how a first time offender may be treated versus a three time loser; although, you’ll see a lot of
repeat offenders treated as though they’re entering the criminal justice system for the first time. Why do you
think legislatures enact laws requiring mandatory prison sentences under particular circumstances?
You’ll be entering your police career when empathy is all the rage, and a President of the United States even
believes that judges should include empathy into their judicial decision making processes. Let me put it to you
this way. When you become a police officer, let empathy influence how you enforce laws. Now, if the prosecutors
and judges who get your cases share your empathy, you might get by. However, if you have prosecutors and
judges who know what they’re doing, you’ll be slapped down and embarrassed; until, you get the message.
Here are some facts. Police officers; prosecutors and judges have enormous power over people. While you, as a
police officer may share the power, you don’t even come close to sharing the level of immunity which is extended
to prosecutors and judges when that power is misused.
Objective reasoning and empathy are incompatible.
Since you’re a human being, you will possess empathy – hopefully on a high level of morality. There will be many
times when empathy will influence how you treat people. As long as the empathy you show toward one person
does not negatively impact another, the empathy you extend can be positive. However, when your empathy
affects your decision making where objective reasoning is required, someone, in all likelihood, will not be getting
equal treatment under the law.
As a police officer, your ability to reason objectively should be right at the top of your list of things to master.
Unlike the prosecutors and the judges, you’ll be the first line defender of life, liberty and the Constitution. The
prosecutors and judges can gush with all the empathy they want since their involvement comes well after the
flashpoint of perceived or real crisis. When things go badly, your sound objective reasoning will save you. If you
rely on empathy being shown toward you for your empathy based decision, you’re going to be sorely disappointed.
Getting back to the terrorists… While it’s obvious that the acquisition and use of power to kill and maim are the
top priorities for terrorists, what is the single biggest factor affecting their desire to pursue a path of death and
destruction? If you don’t figure this out in the next three seconds, go back to the top of this article and reread
the definition of empathy.
with… terrorists? While you’re thinking about that one, ask yourself this, what is the main difference between
the two groups? While the lawyers, psychologists and sociologists could go on for hours proffering and debating
dozens of answers, one word can answer both questions accurately and definitively. The answer to both questions
is… power.
The dirty secret, which is actually no secret at all, is that the acquisition and exercise of power dictates the
direction and quality of life for every living being on the planet. The laws of nature are harsh and unforgiving,
but the laws of nature are applied universally without prejudice for anything or anyone. Of course, nature does
not recognize any inalienable right; thus, the oft spoken phrase, “survival of the fittest.” Human beings, on the
other hand, have the unique ability to create and maintain civilizations under man made rules of law where
objective reasoning can ensure that every person is treated equally under those laws.
Enter: Empathy [Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.]
First of all, there is no such thing as equal treatment under the law. When you become a police officer and you
begin spending a lot of time in court rooms, you’re going to be struck at just how unequal people are treated. I’m
not talking about how a first time offender may be treated versus a three time loser; although, you’ll see a lot of
repeat offenders treated as though they’re entering the criminal justice system for the first time. Why do you
think legislatures enact laws requiring mandatory prison sentences under particular circumstances?
You’ll be entering your police career when empathy is all the rage, and a President of the United States even
believes that judges should include empathy into their judicial decision making processes. Let me put it to you
this way. When you become a police officer, let empathy influence how you enforce laws. Now, if the prosecutors
and judges who get your cases share your empathy, you might get by. However, if you have prosecutors and
judges who know what they’re doing, you’ll be slapped down and embarrassed; until, you get the message.
Here are some facts. Police officers; prosecutors and judges have enormous power over people. While you, as a
police officer may share the power, you don’t even come close to sharing the level of immunity which is extended
to prosecutors and judges when that power is misused.
Objective reasoning and empathy are incompatible.
Since you’re a human being, you will possess empathy – hopefully on a high level of morality. There will be many
times when empathy will influence how you treat people. As long as the empathy you show toward one person
does not negatively impact another, the empathy you extend can be positive. However, when your empathy
affects your decision making where objective reasoning is required, someone, in all likelihood, will not be getting
equal treatment under the law.
As a police officer, your ability to reason objectively should be right at the top of your list of things to master.
Unlike the prosecutors and the judges, you’ll be the first line defender of life, liberty and the Constitution. The
prosecutors and judges can gush with all the empathy they want since their involvement comes well after the
flashpoint of perceived or real crisis. When things go badly, your sound objective reasoning will save you. If you
rely on empathy being shown toward you for your empathy based decision, you’re going to be sorely disappointed.
Getting back to the terrorists… While it’s obvious that the acquisition and use of power to kill and maim are the
top priorities for terrorists, what is the single biggest factor affecting their desire to pursue a path of death and
destruction? If you don’t figure this out in the next three seconds, go back to the top of this article and reread
the definition of empathy.
| The Twilight Zone |
When you become a police officer, you’ll be entering a career that will give you a unique
insight on good and evil, government and politics, the corrupting power of power, and the
implementation of irrational solutions to problems complicated by inexperienced problem
solvers.
So, what else is new? Well, what’s new in the United States is an unprecedented growth in
government with no end in sight. Aside from all the folly associated with bigger and bigger
government, there are two indispensable functions of government that only government can
address… the maintenance of internal civil order and the defense of the nation from external
threats of violence… or, more simply put, crime and war.
There’s been a lot of conversation and debate about the “war on terror.” Most of the
discourse revolves around whether or not there is a real war and whether or not that war can
be won. When it comes to labels, there’s no question that the word war has been misused and
overused… war on poverty; war on crime; war on drugs.
Stay with me on this. A real war has a beginning and end. Some wars are short in duration
while others may last many years. The real measure of war is the continuation of armed
conflict between or among groups of combatants using various levels of organized tactics to
achieve political goals through total victory. War cannot be logically applied to things like
poverty, crime, and drugs since these are perpetual social conditions that can only be
suppressed to a level where their adverse effects will not overwhelm normal social progress.
Up until September 11, 2001, the United States treated terrorists and terrorism as a problem
to be addressed by law enforcement. Of course, that position strained logic after the massive
loss of life and property which occurred on 9/11. Despite the fact that the current war on
terror certainly looks like war and worthy of the war label, FBI agents are now reading
Miranda Warnings to terrorists captured on battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Let’s just hope that the dangers associated with international state sponsored terrorism are
really figments of Americans’ collective imagination, and the emerging policies of our
government are not taking us on a journey into “The Twilight Zone.”
insight on good and evil, government and politics, the corrupting power of power, and the
implementation of irrational solutions to problems complicated by inexperienced problem
solvers.
So, what else is new? Well, what’s new in the United States is an unprecedented growth in
government with no end in sight. Aside from all the folly associated with bigger and bigger
government, there are two indispensable functions of government that only government can
address… the maintenance of internal civil order and the defense of the nation from external
threats of violence… or, more simply put, crime and war.
There’s been a lot of conversation and debate about the “war on terror.” Most of the
discourse revolves around whether or not there is a real war and whether or not that war can
be won. When it comes to labels, there’s no question that the word war has been misused and
overused… war on poverty; war on crime; war on drugs.
Stay with me on this. A real war has a beginning and end. Some wars are short in duration
while others may last many years. The real measure of war is the continuation of armed
conflict between or among groups of combatants using various levels of organized tactics to
achieve political goals through total victory. War cannot be logically applied to things like
poverty, crime, and drugs since these are perpetual social conditions that can only be
suppressed to a level where their adverse effects will not overwhelm normal social progress.
Up until September 11, 2001, the United States treated terrorists and terrorism as a problem
to be addressed by law enforcement. Of course, that position strained logic after the massive
loss of life and property which occurred on 9/11. Despite the fact that the current war on
terror certainly looks like war and worthy of the war label, FBI agents are now reading
Miranda Warnings to terrorists captured on battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Let’s just hope that the dangers associated with international state sponsored terrorism are
really figments of Americans’ collective imagination, and the emerging policies of our
government are not taking us on a journey into “The Twilight Zone.”
| The Police State |
It’s not fair, but you, as a police officer, will be the face of a police state to the elitist
intellectual – and others who think they’re intellectual – at one end of the social scale and
to those along various levels on the scale who will always resist conforming to polite social
behavior. The career criminal will give little, if any, thought to the issue of a police state,
because he’ll be putting all of his intellectual power into avoiding you. The terrorist will
either avoid you or kill you depending upon strategic and tactical considerations and his
current desired target for destruction.
The good news is that most Americans have a favorable view of the police officers in their
communities. The single most important reason why Americans have favorable views
toward their police is because there are over 40,000 police departments in the United
States. The majority of law enforcement agencies in the United States are controlled by
state and local governments – not an all powerful central government.
America looked a lot different over two centuries ago when a group of men came together
to form a new nation. While times may have been different then, the people weren’t any
different than they are today. Some of the Founding Fathers argued for a strong central
government; however, the majority opted for limited powers for the central government.
The majority of that time would be appalled to see how the clear, simple meanings of their
words in their new nation’s Constitution would, over time, be twisted or ignored to create
some of the most absurd interpretations by politicians and judges to expand the powers of
the Federal [central] government.
While no one can foresee the future, America’s Founding Fathers knew that time and
progress would change a lot of things. However, they knew what wouldn’t change… some
people’s addiction to power. Why do you think the Constitution’s First Amendment
ensures free speech? Why do you think they paid so much attention to a framework for
separation of powers among co-equal branches of the Federal government? They created
the best system they could to ensure that no one or group of ideologues could
simultaneously be in control of speech and all branches of the central government. They
knew that America could never become a police state as long as power existed to check
power.
Now, let’s look at the issue of Islamist terrorism. Don’t you just love the view “one man’s
terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter?” I suppose if you take the view that Al Qaeda
and the Taliban are fighting to deny others their freedom, you could in some perverted way
argue that simplistic view. The truth is that America is the target of Islamist terrorism
precisely because America projects the human benefits of freedom. The last thing Al
Qaeda, the Taliban, and any dictator wants is any impediments to their pursuit of
totalitarianism. The Islamist part to today’s foremost terrorists is simply a cloak of
religion to obfuscate their criminality and pure political power motives.
Aside from the obvious physical dangers from terrorism are the dangers resulting from how
a free society responds to acts of terrorism. The Patriot Act is a good example of actions
resulting in unintended consequences… or… at least I hope are unintended. I’m sure
many of the Founding Fathers would be scratching their heads and asking, “Why.”
After all, they already made it pretty clear that the executive branch of government is
responsible for protecting the country from foreign attack. Why should the legislative
branch corrupt their clear language regarding something as important as search and seizure
by codifying into law actions that clearly violate the Constitution? But… wait a minute –
silly me and those silly Founding Fathers. Today’s Constitutional revisionists have decided
that terrorist attacks planned, financed and implemented by foreign terrorists are not acts
of war but simply criminal acts to be addressed by law enforcement. So, it should be
obvious to anyone that some freedoms for Americans need be altered in order to combat
terrorism. The truth is that the Patriot Act was a result of one branch of government
encroaching on the power of another branch with American citizens paying the price for
power and influence with freedoms.
Americans don’t understand the true nature of a police state, because they’ve not yet had
to live in one. The beginning of the 21st Century is turning out to be a true test for the
Republic. There’s no question that the Federal government’s quest for more power began
long ago even before the ink was dry on the Constitution. The big question is when that
quest will be checked.
If the American police officer ever does become the true face of a police state, you’ll know
that all has been lost, because America’s police will be the last building block put in place to
complete an all powerful central government.
intellectual – and others who think they’re intellectual – at one end of the social scale and
to those along various levels on the scale who will always resist conforming to polite social
behavior. The career criminal will give little, if any, thought to the issue of a police state,
because he’ll be putting all of his intellectual power into avoiding you. The terrorist will
either avoid you or kill you depending upon strategic and tactical considerations and his
current desired target for destruction.
The good news is that most Americans have a favorable view of the police officers in their
communities. The single most important reason why Americans have favorable views
toward their police is because there are over 40,000 police departments in the United
States. The majority of law enforcement agencies in the United States are controlled by
state and local governments – not an all powerful central government.
America looked a lot different over two centuries ago when a group of men came together
to form a new nation. While times may have been different then, the people weren’t any
different than they are today. Some of the Founding Fathers argued for a strong central
government; however, the majority opted for limited powers for the central government.
The majority of that time would be appalled to see how the clear, simple meanings of their
words in their new nation’s Constitution would, over time, be twisted or ignored to create
some of the most absurd interpretations by politicians and judges to expand the powers of
the Federal [central] government.
While no one can foresee the future, America’s Founding Fathers knew that time and
progress would change a lot of things. However, they knew what wouldn’t change… some
people’s addiction to power. Why do you think the Constitution’s First Amendment
ensures free speech? Why do you think they paid so much attention to a framework for
separation of powers among co-equal branches of the Federal government? They created
the best system they could to ensure that no one or group of ideologues could
simultaneously be in control of speech and all branches of the central government. They
knew that America could never become a police state as long as power existed to check
power.
Now, let’s look at the issue of Islamist terrorism. Don’t you just love the view “one man’s
terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter?” I suppose if you take the view that Al Qaeda
and the Taliban are fighting to deny others their freedom, you could in some perverted way
argue that simplistic view. The truth is that America is the target of Islamist terrorism
precisely because America projects the human benefits of freedom. The last thing Al
Qaeda, the Taliban, and any dictator wants is any impediments to their pursuit of
totalitarianism. The Islamist part to today’s foremost terrorists is simply a cloak of
religion to obfuscate their criminality and pure political power motives.
Aside from the obvious physical dangers from terrorism are the dangers resulting from how
a free society responds to acts of terrorism. The Patriot Act is a good example of actions
resulting in unintended consequences… or… at least I hope are unintended. I’m sure
many of the Founding Fathers would be scratching their heads and asking, “Why.”
After all, they already made it pretty clear that the executive branch of government is
responsible for protecting the country from foreign attack. Why should the legislative
branch corrupt their clear language regarding something as important as search and seizure
by codifying into law actions that clearly violate the Constitution? But… wait a minute –
silly me and those silly Founding Fathers. Today’s Constitutional revisionists have decided
that terrorist attacks planned, financed and implemented by foreign terrorists are not acts
of war but simply criminal acts to be addressed by law enforcement. So, it should be
obvious to anyone that some freedoms for Americans need be altered in order to combat
terrorism. The truth is that the Patriot Act was a result of one branch of government
encroaching on the power of another branch with American citizens paying the price for
power and influence with freedoms.
Americans don’t understand the true nature of a police state, because they’ve not yet had
to live in one. The beginning of the 21st Century is turning out to be a true test for the
Republic. There’s no question that the Federal government’s quest for more power began
long ago even before the ink was dry on the Constitution. The big question is when that
quest will be checked.
If the American police officer ever does become the true face of a police state, you’ll know
that all has been lost, because America’s police will be the last building block put in place to
complete an all powerful central government.
| Interrogations and Second-Hand Smoke |
As the President and his Attorney General keep everyone confused over the subject of prosecuting CIA
interrogators and others, the media jumped on a story where two CIA interrogators admitted that they blew cigar
smoke in the face of the terrorist who masterminded the bombing of the USS Cole resulting in the murder of 17
American sailors. I don’t know what to say. I suppose rude behavior rises to the level of torture these days. In
addition to being rude, I’m sure that the terrorist and some misguided Americans found the interrogators’
behavior toward the terrorist as demeaning and humiliating. Aside from the torturous torture debate, the good
news for the Attorney General is that he’s got a slam dunk case against those two interrogators for lighting up
within a federal facility… it’s against the law!
While this CIA torture and interrogation thing could turn on a dime next week, or in the next 24 hours for that
matter, keep in mind that all the confusion has nothing to do with terrorism or any present or future threats
posed by terrorists. It’s just a break from the war on terror in favor of a war on domestic political opponents.
When you become a police officer, you’re also going to become an interrogator. You probably won’t be very good
at it in the beginning, but you’ll watch and learn from others. Some police officers will be poor interrogators in
the beginning, and they’ll stay that way throughout their careers while others will hone their interrogation skills
to levels nothing short of impressive. You’ll also learn that there is no one size fits all when it comes to the art
of interrogation. As long as you don’t have the occasion to interrogate a terrorist, you’re ongoing development of
effective interrogation techniques probably won’t place you in a career ending situation.
interrogators and others, the media jumped on a story where two CIA interrogators admitted that they blew cigar
smoke in the face of the terrorist who masterminded the bombing of the USS Cole resulting in the murder of 17
American sailors. I don’t know what to say. I suppose rude behavior rises to the level of torture these days. In
addition to being rude, I’m sure that the terrorist and some misguided Americans found the interrogators’
behavior toward the terrorist as demeaning and humiliating. Aside from the torturous torture debate, the good
news for the Attorney General is that he’s got a slam dunk case against those two interrogators for lighting up
within a federal facility… it’s against the law!
While this CIA torture and interrogation thing could turn on a dime next week, or in the next 24 hours for that
matter, keep in mind that all the confusion has nothing to do with terrorism or any present or future threats
posed by terrorists. It’s just a break from the war on terror in favor of a war on domestic political opponents.
When you become a police officer, you’re also going to become an interrogator. You probably won’t be very good
at it in the beginning, but you’ll watch and learn from others. Some police officers will be poor interrogators in
the beginning, and they’ll stay that way throughout their careers while others will hone their interrogation skills
to levels nothing short of impressive. You’ll also learn that there is no one size fits all when it comes to the art
of interrogation. As long as you don’t have the occasion to interrogate a terrorist, you’re ongoing development of
effective interrogation techniques probably won’t place you in a career ending situation.
| INTELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO LEAD INSIDER’S GUIDE CAREER WEBINAR SERIES |
As part of a new, exclusive series, former
intelligence and federal law enforcement
officers who are faculty members of Henley-
Putnam University will host free “Insider’s
Guide” webinars to discuss education and
career opportunities in federal law
enforcement, intelligence, terrorism and
counterterrorism, and personal protection.
The series launches November 12th at 11am
PST with the Insider’s Guide to Careers in
Federal Law Enforcement webinar, led by
Colonel Michael Angley, former U.S. Air
Force Special Agent and Public Relations
Officer for Henley-Putnam University.
intelligence and federal law enforcement
officers who are faculty members of Henley-
Putnam University will host free “Insider’s
Guide” webinars to discuss education and
career opportunities in federal law
enforcement, intelligence, terrorism and
counterterrorism, and personal protection.
The series launches November 12th at 11am
PST with the Insider’s Guide to Careers in
Federal Law Enforcement webinar, led by
Colonel Michael Angley, former U.S. Air
Force Special Agent and Public Relations
Officer for Henley-Putnam University.
The webinar series presents an opportunity
for those interested in Strategic Security
careers to benefit from the unique, hands-on
experience of Henley-Putnam’s faculty,
comprised of former members of the CIA,
Secret Service, FBI, and intelligence and
federal law enforcement community.
for those interested in Strategic Security
careers to benefit from the unique, hands-on
experience of Henley-Putnam’s faculty,
comprised of former members of the CIA,
Secret Service, FBI, and intelligence and
federal law enforcement community.
During the webinar on November 12th, Col. Angley will provide an overview of the law enforcement community;
what it means to be a federal agent; a breakdown of agencies and career options within the field; significant
changes to law enforcement following the attacks of September 11, 2001; essential qualifications and skills
required by each agency; the best educational and degree options available; and benefits and tuition
reimbursement available per the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
what it means to be a federal agent; a breakdown of agencies and career options within the field; significant
changes to law enforcement following the attacks of September 11, 2001; essential qualifications and skills
required by each agency; the best educational and degree options available; and benefits and tuition
reimbursement available per the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Those interested in participating in the webinar should register at www2.gotomeeting.com/register/998553210. The
webinar is open to the public and completely free of charge.
webinar is open to the public and completely free of charge.