Strong Cities Network the global police force

[crin63]

I have not researched this as I'm on my phone.


http://abcnewsgo.co/2016/08/ag-lynch-announces-global-police-force-partnership-with-un/

[jimnyc]

What a surprise, she can't do shit so she wants to bring in the UN to help? There are plenty here that are capable of doing her job for her - or skirting her responsibilities as she does. :(

[revelarts]

Police are always all good all the time the only people that complain about police are liberals and criminals or people making excuses for criminals. And of course those that HATE police.
If people aren't doing anything wrong then whats the problem?! Federal, state, local or U.N. police are all putting their lives on the line to protect us. Why are people complaining:mad:! Police should only be praised and revered. They should be listened to and obeyed without hesitation when they speak. And their words and actions never questioned. 99.99% of police are great heroes and never make mistakes or abuse their power. And the UN police will be just like that. So whats the problem?

"law and order" is what Trump is calling for and even though the U.S. crime rates are lower than they've ever been since the 1970's. And there's LESS terrorist acts in the U.S. since the 1970s. People are "concerned" SO we need MORE Policing and therefore more U.N. jails and prisons in the U.S..
Plus it's ONLY for "violent extremism" right?! Since they've narrowed it to that legally clear specific area we can be ASSURED that the U.N. Police will never ever be used in any other way. the gov't should be trusted.

I'm not sure why some police HATE the police.

[jimnyc]

Police are always all good all the time the only people that complain about police are liberals and criminals or people making excuses for criminals. And of course those that HATE police.
If people aren't doing anything wrong then whats the problem?! Federal, state, local or U.N. police are all putting their lives on the line to protect us. Why are people complaining:mad:! Police should only be praised and revered. They should be listened to and obeyed without hesitation when they speak and their words and actions never questioned. 99.99% of police are great heroes and never make mistakes or abuse their power. and the UN police will be just like that. So whats the problem?

"law and order" is what Trump is calling for and even though the U.S. crime rates are lower than they've ever been since the 1970's. And there's LESS terrorist acts in the U.S. since the 1970s. People are "concerned" SO we need MORE Policing and therefore more U.N. jails and prisons in the U.S..
Plus it's just for "violent extremism" right?!

I'm not sure why some police HATE the police.

Sarcasm aside - - - - OUR police. We don't need NON Americans policing us. NOT ONCE do I believe that when anyone ever referred to "police" when discussing things here did they mean foreign police.

[revelarts]

Sarcasm aside - - - - OUR police. We don't need NON Americans policing us. NOT ONCE do I believe that when anyone ever referred to "police" when discussing things here did they mean foreign police.

sounds like you just hate the police to me.
just admit it.
"OUR police"? As if other well trained heroes can't come here and police?! English, German Mexican, Nigerian, Chinese, Japanese, Saudi... Heroes All.
Bottom line if people just listen to the police NOTHING will go wrong. ever.
if it does it will be the perps fault, cops just doing his job. Perp probably deserved it since they committed crimes 3 months earlier... or looked like an evil deadly criminal threat. Bottom line, the more police the better!

Plus Foreign police already train with our police and visa versa from time to time. They also train with the military of foreign nations as well from time to time. Plus "violent extremism" is what we're talking about here NOTHING ELSE ever.
Have you ever heard of MUSLIMS! And the New Black Panther Party... and BLM... and occupy wall street... and riots in Ferguson and everywhere!.. even after football games in college towns!... and people trying to keep their guns after Hurricane Katerina... and maybe not so much klansmen and neo nazis... but some PTSD addled vets... and illegal gun owners etc etc .

Threats are everywhere Jim! Are you going to pick up a weapon and stand to post!? huh? huh?!! will ya! With more prisons and MORE police then we have "LAW and ORDER" buddy. People just need to STHU and obey the law ...and obey the police no matter what they say or do. If people don't, well then, they deserve a proper beat down.

[jimnyc]

sounds like you just hate the police to me.
just admit it.

What a shame. A bright person. Someone who can contribute if he wants. But even after your sarcasm, I tried to ignore it, and then you come back with more.

Have a good day, buddy!

[revelarts]

What a shame. A bright person. Someone who can contribute if he wants. But even after your sarcasm, I tried to ignore it, and then you come back with more.

Have a good day, buddy!

I am making a point.
A point about a mindset that's common here, a POV that's less than objective when it comes to police issues.
I hope to at least put a mirror on it.

[jimnyc]

I am making a point.
A point about a mindset that common here, a POV that's less than objective when it comes to police issues.
I hope to at least put a mirror on it.

But can't you do so to the right people? I say similar to what you wrote, but when deserving. You try to stretch it here and make it sound like a joke. I also take the side of the "perpetrator" when the police are clearly wrong. So I really am not sure what and who you are directing this at, and not sure if it really has anything to do with UN police.

My POV on police, I believe, is spot on. I take each case INDIVIDUALLY and not collectively. If the cop is wrong, I'll be glad to say so. If the perp is wrong, I'm happy to say so. IMO, over many years, it just so happens that the perps are in the wrong the overwhelming majority of the time.

In this case, it was ONE post, not even a debate yet, no one said anything about the police - bad or good - and you're jumping the gun.

I'm assuming, since I'm the ONLY person who posted about the article, that your comments are directed at me, but who knows anymore.

[Kathianne]

Maybe it's me, but it appears the real issue is whether or not 'global entities' should have any business in our domestic concerns? I say, no.

Everyone should know though that this 'story' is on something that's going on for nearly 2 years at this point. It's not a new story.

[revelarts]

If you notice some of my reply also sounds like other DP posters as well.
But to be clear I'm making a GENERAL point... admittedly jumping off of your comments above.

But I think I did make a clear point on the U.N police as well.
Police are Police at this point.
If the Fed gov't authorize them to patrol/investigate U.S. streets WHY NOT? They have been trained ... just like "OUR Police" right? the war on musli... i mean terror must be fought right?
Our police aren't obeying the constitution so we can't hold U.N. police to that standard. If U.N. officers feels their lives are threatened then they've got a right to shoot 1st and ask questions later just like OUR police. If they aren't obeyed instantly or get back talk or ask why they are being arrested then the perps deserve an Arse kicking and even death for "resisting arrest". With ZERO consequences to the officer. whatever the uniform state federal local or even train security.
If i remember correctly you think the police were justified in killing Michael Brown. Am i right? I'm not sure what your take on the kid with the toy gun is. But if those police actions and similar don't bother people then i don't understand why U.N. cops doing the same to protect the homeland would be problem. LAW and ORDER right?

Plus the Obama Admin SAYS they will ONLY be used for "extremist violence". the go'vt means that right. Just like all the 911 laws haven't been used for other issues right?
I have to wonder if Trump had made the suggestion instead of Obama if you'd have much of a problem with it.
As long as the U.N. Police are vetted. and they'll be coming in legally as well!

[jimnyc]

Maybe it's me, but it appears the real issue is whether or not 'global entities' should have any business in our domestic concerns? I say, no.

And I couldn't agree more. NO FOREIGN ENTITY should ever have any type of control within our borders.

[Kathianne]

If you notice some of my reply also sounds like other DP posters as well.
But to be clear I'm making a GENERAL point... admittedly jumping off of your comments above.

But I think I did make a clear point on the U.N police as well.
Police are Police at this point.
If the Fed gov't authorize them the patrol U.S. streets WHY NOT? They have been trained ... just like "OUR Police" right?
Our police aren't obeying the constitution so we can't hold U.N. police to that standard. If U.N. officers feels their life is threatened then he's got a right to shoot 1st and ask questions later just like OUR police. If they aren't obeyed instantly or talk back or ask why they are being arrested then the perps deserve an Arse kicking and even death for "resisting arrest". With ZERO consequences to the officer. whatever the uniform state federal local or even train security.
If i remember correctly you think the police were justified in killing Michael Brown. Am i right? I'm not sure what your take on the kid with the toy gun is. But if those police actions and similar don't bother people then i don't understand why U.N. cops doing the same to protect the homeland would be problem. LAW and ORDER right?

Plus the Obama Admin SAYS they will ONLY be used for "extremist violence". the go'vt means that right. Just like all the 911 laws haven't been used for other issues right?
I have to wonder if Trump had made the suggestion instead of Obama if you'd have much of a problem with it.

My reaction would be the same. Likely tying the two of them together.

[jimnyc]

Police are Police at this point.
If the Fed gov't authorize them the patrol U.S. streets WHY NOT? They have been trained ... just like "OUR Police" right?

I disagree 100% on this one.

They are NOT Americans and have NO interest in America. Might as well just send in foreign troops.

Seriously, Rev, I KNOW you see the difference between local precincts patrolling the roads - and some sort of foreign folks. If not, I'm awfully confused.

[jimnyc]

I have to wonder if Trump had made the suggestion instead of Obama if you'd have much of a problem with it.
As long as the U.N. Police are vetted. and they'll be coming in legally as well!

I could just ignore you entirely if all you are capable of is sarcasm?

I don't think this is a matter AT ALL of who it was who put the idea out there. It's simply not a good idea to bring in foreigners to help with ANY type of policing issues on our soil.


My reaction would be the same. Likely tying the two of them together.

I hope you don't seriously believe that I would be in favor of the UN policing us somehow, just because it was Trump's idea. I've NEVER EVER come close to thinking something like that was ever a good idea. Hell, I disagree with foreigners controlling the internet. I disagree with pretty much ANYTHING the UN does and find them almost useless. Just because I find yet something else I don't want them involved in, that doesn't mean that I would suddenly reverse course if Trump were the one coming up with the idea.

[Kathianne]

I could just ignore you entirely if all you are capable of is sarcasm?

I don't think this is a matter AT ALL of who it was who put the idea out there. It's simply not a good idea to bring in foreigners to help with ANY type of policing issues on our soil.



I hope you don't seriously believe that I would be in favor of the UN policing us somehow, just because it was Trump's idea. I've NEVER EVER come close to thinking something like that was ever a good idea. Hell, I disagree with foreigners controlling the internet. I disagree with pretty much ANYTHING the UN does and find them almost useless. Just because I find yet something else I don't want them involved in, that doesn't mean that I would suddenly reverse course if Trump were the one coming up with the idea.

Jim, I was replying in the first person, not for anyone else. Note that I even stated what I'd likely do in such an event?

[jimnyc]

Jim, I was replying in the first person, not for anyone else. Note that I even stated what I'd likely do in such an event?

Speed reading this morn, or maybe jitter reading from the coffee. I thought you were agreeing at first glance, that somehow I would have a different view of things depending on who announced such.

[revelarts]

I disagree 100% on this one.

They are NOT Americans and have NO interest in America. Might as well just send in foreign troops.

Seriously, Rev, I KNOW you see the difference between local precincts patrolling the roads - and some sort of foreign folks. If not, I'm awfully confused.

i see it very clearly. My point is I'm having a hard time seeing the difference in APPLICATION.
Neither the foreign entity or the current local entities seems bound by constitutional restraints.
The idea that the citizens are KING. And that citizens are innocent until proven guilty. And citizens of a community are the bosses of the police that patrol and not the other way around.
It seems to me many on the right WANT a police state.
And DON'T want Constitutional rules to "tie the hands" of police.
it seems to me ANYTHING less than constitutional policing is already "foreign" .

[revelarts]

Maybe it's me, but it appears the real issue is whether or not 'global entities' should have any business in our domestic concerns? I say, no.

Everyone should know though that this 'story' is on something that's going on for nearly 2 years at this point. It's not a new story.


This is a story that's percolating for decades.
The much maligned "Conspiracy Theorist" have been warning of this since the 1980s.

the setting of the people in the U.S. willingly... GLEEFULLY... chucking the constitution (so as not to tie officials hands) when it comes to policing is part of the process.

[jimnyc]

i see it very clearly. My point is I'm having a hard time seeing the difference in APPLICATION.
Neither the foreign entity or the current local entities seems bound by constitutional restraints.
The idea that the citizens are KING. And that citizen's are innocent until proven guilty. And citizens of a community are the bosses of the police that patrol and not the other way around.
It seems to me many on the right WANT a police state.
And DON'T want Constitutional rules to "tie the hands" of police.
it seems to me ANYTHING less than constitutional policing is already "foreign" .

I don't see a police state currently, but definitely a bunch of issues with various officers. Some huge changes need to be made in teaching and such for new officers, and also with those currently serving. But I do not see them all somehow running around stepping on the constitution left and right. Some bad eggs out there? Absolutely, and they should be handled appropriately.

FIX the bad cops, make changes within the force - and also stop blaming ALL police forces within America. Changes need to be made from BOTH sides. The innocent police trying to help certainly don't need to be attacked when trying to help.

[Kathianne]

I don't see a police state currently, but definitely a bunch of issues with various officers. Some huge changes need to be made in teaching and such for new officers, and also with those currently serving. But I do not see them all somehow running around stepping on the constitution left and right. Some bad eggs out there? Absolutely, and they should be handled appropriately.

FIX the bad cops, make changes within the force - and also stop blaming ALL police forces within America. Changes need to be made from BOTH sides. The innocent police trying to help certainly don't need to be attacked when trying to help.

I think the Dallas Chief voiced some of the concerns on issues: The police are not social workers, yet they get thrown in the role. They are not parents, yet get thrown in that role. They are not politicians, yet the communities and SSJW throw them in that role. He also challenged those unhappy with the police to become 'part of the solution and get an application.' Many did, those that actually want change took a step in the right direction.

[revelarts]

I don't see a police state currently, but definitely a bunch of issues with various officers. Some huge changes need to be made in teaching and such for new officers, and also with those currently serving. But I do not see them all somehow running around stepping on the constitution left and right. Some bad eggs out there? Absolutely, and they should be handled appropriately.

FIX the bad cops, make changes within the force - and also stop blaming ALL police forces within America. Changes need to be made from BOTH sides. The innocent police trying to help certainly don't need to be attacked when trying to help.


I think the Dallas Chief voiced some of the concerns on issues: The police are not social workers, yet they get thrown in the role. They are not parents, yet get thrown in that role. They are not politicians, yet the communities and SSJW throw them in that role. He also challenged those unhappy with the police to become 'part of the solution and get an application.' Many did, those that actually want change took a step in the right direction.


so you both think the constitution is followed by 95%+ of U.S. police forces?
and that federal police spying, jailing without charges, etc is NOT going on?

that the death of M.... Eric Garner was not BAD policing... or maybe it was just "bad training" (even though the hold was banned) or maybe that one cop was a bad cop but he still did not deserve punishment for killing a man over cigerretes he didn't have?

i'm just trying to get a handle here.

I've posted about 6 to 10 items where police themselves describe BETTER policing... where they've demonstrated constitutional and MORE effective policing. But i got crickets. And was still told i hated police by one. I complain about Unconstitutional acts by police spying on mosque and other groups. And that the feds are unconstitutional against americans in MANY areas including spying, targeted killings and torture and i'm told i want terrorist to win.

what's the reality here folks?

i hear a lot of good sounding words but when i ask you to apply the constitution to certain cases and groups, people go silent or get mad at me.
And NOW you tell me that We're NOT really in a police state and the constitution is Not being run over.
Somewhere we have a disconnect here.

[Kathianne]

so you both think the constitution is followed by 95% of policing. and in police forces.
and that Federal police spying, jailing without charges, is NOT going on?

that the death of Michael Brown was not BAD policing... or maybe it was just "bad training" (even though the hold was banned) or maybe that one cop was a bad cop but he still did not deserve punishment?

i'm just trying to get a handle here.

I've posted about 6 to 10 items where police themselves describe BETTER policing... where they've demonstrated constitutional police. But i got crickets. And was still told i hated police. I complain about Unconstitutional acts by police spying on mosque and other groups. that the Feds are unconstitutional in MANY areas including spying, targeted killings and torture and i'm told i want terrorist to win.

what's the reality here folks?

i hear a lot of good sounding words but when i ask you to apply the constitution to certain cases and groups, people go silent or get mad a me.


I was addressing this topic, not all you've posted over the years. If you wish to use the constitution to illustrate how using UN as a vehicle for US policing problems, please do.

[jimnyc]

so you both think the constitution is followed by 95% of policing. and in police forces.

First off, I never said that. But I do think that the overwhelming majority of shootings by police are legitimate.


and that Federal police spying, jailing without charges, is NOT going on?

Never even posted about this.


That the death of Michael Brown was not BAD policing... or maybe it was just "bad training" (even though the hold was banned) or maybe that one cop was a bad cop but he still did not deserve punishment?

Brown was a thug that committed robbery. He tried to take away the officers gun from him. The CLOSEST thing to "wrongdoing" was some claiming he was shot in the back, but even that turned out to be lies. After all the facts were in, I see nothing wrong with this shooting. You try to steal a gun from a cop, the result WILL be bad.


i'm just trying to get a handle here.

By what, bringing up things that have nothing to do with the UN and the article that Crin posted?


I've posted about 6 to 10 items where police themselves describe BETTER policing... where they've demonstrated constitutional police. But i got crickets. And was still told i hated police. I complain about Unconstitutional acts by police spying on mosque and other groups. that the Feds are unconstitutional in MANY areas including spying, targeted killings and torture and i'm told i want terrorist to win.

I don't think it was by me, but VERY difficult to assess when you continually quote people in OTHER threads without a link/quote. But you're likely right, some better training for those bad eggs would in fact be a good idea, as well as all incoming recruits. But I stand by what I said about the majority of shootings, and I stand by what I believe about the overwhelming majority being within the COTUS.


what's the reality here folks?

We have some bad eggs. As a result there are many that blame ALL police officers and ALL white non-police for whatever reason. That's the CURRENT reality.


i hear a lot of good sounding words but when i ask you to apply the constitution to certain cases and groups, people go silent or get mad a me.

For starters, use quotes, but we already know that. In THIS thread, how about address the UN, and them having some sort of authority within our borders?

[crin63]

I have friends who are LEO's yet I have an extreme distrust of police. Stems from growing up a long-haired white boy with a 4x4 truck in a hick town. I was constantly being pulled over just so they could harass me and teach me a lesson. It happened so often that I get nervous every time I'm around a cop even today. That would change if I saw police refusing to abide by gun control laws here in California, but instead they wait outside the gun show and gun range to pull people over when they are leaving. It's reported that they were writing down license plate numbers as people were leaving the gun show in Ontario as an act of intimidation.

That aside my wife and I bought dinner for a couple sheriffs last week. As I was paying for our meal when they came in so I doubled what I paid for dinner and told the owner it was for them. Not knowing the owner I informed the officer and left.

There is absolutely no reason to ever allow any type of foreign military or police to act in an official capacity on our soil against Americans. Our non-Muslim allies are welcome to come in to teach us or train to tactics home but if they try to enforce laws on Americans I predict there will be blood in the streets. I'm of the opinion it is to skirt the Posse Comitatus Act and to use force to eventually try to disarm Americans.

[revelarts]

I was addressing this topic, not all you've posted over the years. If you wish to use the constitution to illustrate how using UN as a vehicle for US policing problems, please do.


I've addressed the topic. specifically and in a broad way.

Crin didn't really comment. (until above)
Jim only said that the Lynch isn't doing her Job and that She wants help.
You said You don't think global entities should have a say in our domestic concerns.

I said i don't think they should either, based on the constitution. BUT since the federal, state and local LEOs aren't following the constitution as they should anyway I'm not sure why U.N. police shouldn't be added to the domestic mix. If LAW and ORDER is what people in the U.S. are really looking for anyway instead of honestly and evenly applied constitutional law and law enforcement.

I said it in round about and in a strait forward way ... all ON Topic replies.

My secondary point simply ask folks to show me what the real problem is with UN police since the constitution is NOT a serious issue in law enforcement or in many cases elsewhere. 'I don't like foreign police' seems a pretty thin complaint when the GOAL is Law and order and stopping "violent extremist."

Jim chimed in that he didn't really think that U.S. LEOs are THAT far gone constitutionally. Kath you seemed to agree.
I gave a few examples.

the topic is STILL U.N. police.

[revelarts]

I have friends who are LEO's yet I have an extreme distrust of police. Stems from growing up a long-haired white boy with a 4x4 truck in a hick town. I was constantly being pulled over just so they could harass me and teach me a lesson. It happened so often that I get nervous every time I'm around a cop even today. That would change if I saw police refusing to abide by gun control laws here in California, but instead they wait outside the gun show and gun range to pull people over when they are leaving. It's reported that they were writing down license plate numbers as people were leaving the gun show in Ontario as an act of intimidation.

That aside my wife and I bought dinner for a couple sheriffs last week. As I was paying for our meal when they came in so I doubled what I paid for dinner and told the owner it was for them. Not knowing the owner I informed the officer and left.
:cool:


There is absolutely no reason to ever allow any type of foreign military or police to act in an official capacity on our soil against Americans. Our non-Muslim allies are welcome to come in to teach us or train to tactics home but if they try to enforce laws on Americans I predict there will be blood in the streets. I'm of the opinion it is to skirt the Posse Comitatus Act and to use force to eventually try to disarm Americans.

Bush and congress have already gutted the Posse Comitatus a few years ago.
...2006: On the Eve of the Midterm Elections (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._congressional_elections_in_20 06), PCA Nullified
Recently, Congress passed a controversial bill which grants the President the right to commandeer Federal or even state National Guard Troops and use them inside the United States. This bill, entitled the John Warner Defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Warner_Defense_Appropriation_ Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2007) (H.R. 5122.ENR), contains a provision, (Section 1076) which allows the President to:
“...employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to...


restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States..., where the President determines that,...domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order;
suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy...” [3] (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.05122:)

Senator Patrick Leahy (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Leahy) and others have condemned Section 1076 because it effectively nullifies the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. 331-335) and gives the President the legal ability to define under what conditions martial law (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Martial_law) may be declared. [4] (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SMI20061107&articleId=3749)
H.R.5122 was signed into law by President Bush on October 17, 2006, and will take effect October 1, 2007 (unless an earlier effective date is established by regulation). "On the same day, Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006), which abolishes the legal protection of habeas corpus, authorizes the president to detain and jail anyone (even US citizens) without charge and subject them to harsh interrogation that may or may not involve torture." [5] (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SMI20061107&articleId=3749)...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php..._Comitatus_Act (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Posse_Comitatus_Act)


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?40864-Pentagon-Unilaterally-Grants-Itself-Authority-Over-%91Civil-Disturbances%92&highlight=Comitatus


USNORTHCOM attained initial operational capability on Oct. 1, 2002, and full operational capability on Sept. 11, 2003.
Brigade homeland tours start Oct.
3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army
By Gina Cavallaro - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Sep 30, 2008 16:07:12 EDT
<form id="hidden" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></form>The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.
Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.
Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.
It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.
But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.
After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one....
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/0...eland_090708w/ (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/)
...“We’re excited about obtaining a ready and capable team that we can quickly activate and deploy as part of a federal response package when responding in the aftermath of catastrophic events,” Boatner said. “This response force will not be called upon to help with law enforcement, civil disturbance or crowd control, but will be used to support lead agencies involved in saving lives, relieving suffering and meeting the needs of communities affected by weapons of mass destruction attacks, accidents or even natural disasters.”...


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,527181,00.html

...the question and answer choices were obviously deliberately designed to lead the exam taker/DoD employee to choose “Protests” as an example of “low-level terrorism” inasmuch as the other answer choices are all obviously not low-level acts. All of the others are very violent attacks. Finally, as I pointed out in my article, the term “low-level terrorism” appears to be a “term of art” within security agency circles given that a scholarly paper delivered in February of 2009 at an international conference incorporated it into its title as such:
“Vinthagen, Stellan. ‘Labeling “Low Level Terrorism:” The Out-Definition of Social Movements’ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 50th ANNUAL CONVENTION ‘EXPLORING THE PAST, ANTICIPATING THE FUTURE’ New York Marriott Marquis, NEW YORK CITY, NY, USA, Feb 15, 2009.
“Abstract: This paper explores current state security tendency to label ordinary protests and opposition as "low level terrorism" or social movements as "terrorist environments" and the political and democratic consequences of such a politics of fear. The judic [the abstract cuts off here.]”
The problem at its heart, in other words, is that this particular question in the DoD training exam is merely a glaring individual example of a larger trend and mentality – the criminalization of protest and dissent and its relegation to a category of “terrorism,” legitimating the repression of dissent and free speech and assembly,...
http://open.salon.com/blog/dennis_lo...roblems_remain (http://open.salon.com/blog/dennis_loo/2009/06/22/dod_deletes_protest_terrorism_problems_remain)

Foreign Troops ... I mean police just might be more willing to "FOLLOW ORDERS" than domestic police/troops.
Especially If the people aren't long haired white guys or black and brown people.

[jimnyc]

Jim only said that the Lynch isn't doing her Job and that She wants help.

Tongue in cheek, as I know we have more than enough help, and don't need the UN's involvement in any shape or form.


Jim chimed in that he didn't really think that U.S. LEOs are THAT far gone constitutionally. Kath you seemed to agree.
I gave a few examples.

In the past few decades I HAVE seen some unconstitutional things take place, absolutely. But again, looking at each case individually, the majority of things I think are fine. That's not to say that it NEVER happens, as it does. But some would have you believe that it's every other interaction with the police, which is very far from the truth. And enough issues to even think about getting help outside of the country? I would personally find that laughable, especially if it were the UN.


the topic is STILL U.N. police.

We should NEVER bring in outside entities on our soil for such reasons.

In addition, the UN is useless.

[revelarts]

Tongue in cheek, as I know we have more than enough help, and don't need the UN's involvement in any shape or form.

In the past few decades I HAVE seen some unconstitutional things take place, absolutely. But again, looking at each case individually, the majority of things I think are fine. That's not to say that it NEVER happens, as it does. But some would have you believe that it's every other interaction with the police, which is very far from the truth. And enough issues to even think about getting help outside of the country? I would personally find that laughable, especially if it were the UN.

We should NEVER bring in outside entities on our soil for such reasons.

In addition, the UN is useless.

I'm not sure who has ever said that EVERYTHING the police do is unconstitutional or unlawful.

But i think it's more than clear the U.S. LEOs ...from the feds down... do in fact operate on a REGULAR basis outside of clear constitutional boundaries.

how many examples do we need before it's considered a soft "police state" or "generally unconstitutional"?
Believe it or not many probably MOST of the laws and police in China, Cuba or old East Germany weren't/aren't that bad.
Does that mean THEY aren't totalitarian states?

the bill of rights and our laws are clear where the lines are supposed to be drawn in the US.

Searches, seizures, warrants, probably cause, reasonable suspicion, right to trial, due process, right to travel, right to protest, no cruel punishments ,right to assemble etc etc

I think we all can sight where all of the above have been ...as a matter of COURSE... and recent legal additions/interpretation assumed unnecessary for LEOs to adhere to in the pursuit of law and order.
Wire tapping, by the feds down, is allowed if not thought "legal". that's defacto Police State activity by any definition.
At the least we called it that when the USSR and the East Germans where doing it. But somehow it's taken as a matter of policy now.
Police track cell phones and break into them without warrants. Seizure laws/assets forfeiture have been expanded beyond "drug lords" while even there it was questionable constitutionally. But now cops are robbi... i mean seizing cash on the roads from those that have "large amounts" because it's PROBABLY drug money.
TSA and Cops are stopping and frisking people without ANY suspicion let alone reasonable. and even jailing them over night without charge and it's thought of as part of our regular "JUSTICE" system. As Crin mentioned police are making LIST of those who leave gun shows. This is not police state activity? that's Constitutional citizens have the right to bear arms and be secure in the persons and possessions good law enforcement? Is the gov't tracking your purchases NOT police state activity? What about keeping all your phone calls on record? And police check points on random roads, demanding I.D before passage or you're threatened with jail and/or a "DESERVED" beat down? collectively that's not police state unconstitutional activity?

should we name a few more?
you know i can.

As far a Law enforcement goes there are several problems going on and some can be looked at on an individual basis but some issues are broad and go to the SYSTEM not whether this or that cop is a "bad apple"... or the need for a bit of extra training and "understanding".
the system has turned.
and U.N. troops FIT RIGHT INTO that new Unconstitutional system.

[Elessar]

Well....
She is full of crap! She would condone the UN to oversee our LE people?
That is bullshit. We can take care of our own. Thank God she is short-termed.

Nice pick Obama. You have an AG that cannot even mind her own store!

[Kathianne]

I've addressed the topic. specifically and in a broad way.

Crin didn't really comment. (until above)
Jim only said that the Lynch isn't doing her Job and that She wants help.
You said You don't think global entities should have a say in our domestic concerns.

I said i don't think they should either, based on the constitution. BUT since the federal, state and local LEOs aren't following the constitution as they should anyway I'm not sure why U.N. police shouldn't be added to the domestic mix. If LAW and ORDER is what people in the U.S. are really looking for anyway instead of honestly and evenly applied constitutional law and law enforcement.

I said it in round about and in a strait forward way ... all ON Topic replies.

My secondary point simply ask folks to show me what the real problem is with UN police since the constitution is NOT a serious issue in law enforcement or in many cases elsewhere. 'I don't like foreign police' seems a pretty thin complaint when the GOAL is Law and order and stopping "violent extremist."

Jim chimed in that he didn't really think that U.S. LEOs are THAT far gone constitutionally. Kath you seemed to agree.
I gave a few examples.

the topic is STILL U.N. police.

You can address issues with your local police force by making your complaints known to the city-fire/police commission, speaking with your neighbors, running for offices that interface with police.

Good luck with dealing with the UN.

[revelarts]

You can address issues with your local police force by making your complaints known to the city-fire/police commission, speaking with your neighbors, running for offices that interface with police.

Good luck with dealing with the UN.

Just so we're clear. i agree with that 100%.
having said that. I go back to sarcastic mood.


Ahem..
What do you MEAN COMPLAIN?!
The local, state federal or even the U.N. Police, or the US. military if the they are called on to police the homeland, are HEROES!
:saluting2:

And the only people who will complain about cops all the time just HATE the POLICE!! and want to tie their hands! :tank::thumb:.
And excuse me Kath um but the last i checked there are good well trained never do wrong apple pie U.S. soldiers fresh from serving Iraqi and Afghanistani neighbhoods in the U.N. forces TOO!
:salute:
THEY'LL make sure that things are done right.http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/yes.gif no need for REAL concern.http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/no.gif
Of course they'll be a few bad apples but not to worry it's such a SMALL percentage of problems it's not worth mentioning since 99% or more are heroes putting their lives on the line dispensing good ol fashion LAW and ORDER.
:gunner3:
And Anyway If U.N. Police are so HORRIBLE and people want to complain SO MUCH how about we if have NO POLICE AT ALL?? HUH!?! :mad::mad::mad::mad:

[Kathianne]

Just so we're clear. i agree with that 100%.
having said that. I go back to sarcastic mood.


Ahem..
What do you MEAN COMPLAIN?!
The local, state federal or even the U.N. Police, or the US. military if the they are called on to police the homeland, are HEROES!:saluting2:

And the only people who will complain about cops all the time just HATE the POLICE!! and want to tie their hands! :tank::thumb:.
And excuse me Kath um but the last i checked there are good well trained never do wrong apple pie U.S. soldiers fresh from serving Iraqi and Afghanistani neighbhoods in the U.N. forces TOO!
:salute:
THEY'LL make sure that things are done right.http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/yes.gif no need for REAL concern.http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/no.gif
Of course they'll be a few bad apples but not to worry it's such a SMALL percentage of problems it's not worth mentioning since 99% or more heroes putting their lives on the line.
And Anyway If U.N. Police are so HORRIBLE and people want to complain SO MUCH how about we if have NO POLICE AT ALL?? HUH!?! :mad::mad::mad::mad:

If you live somewhere that the police or your local government is so unresponsive to the citizens and is abusing said citizens, you need to go to state or federal authorities.

I'm grateful I do not and have not lived in such an area. The police here are often found in parking lots, helping open car doors when the people have locked themselves out.

When I came home from surgery and my friend accidently messed up the settings on my sling, we called for paramedics to help. The police also responded. Indeed it was a police officer that ran to the gas station and brought back a 10lb bag of ice for my ice machine. Where I lived previously some of the police regularly showed up at the high school, middle school, and park district to 'work out' or play a basketball game or wherever they could insert themselves into interactions with the kids. I know the time they took and fun they had doing 'positive policing' which is preventative as my brother had spent years doing so and wrote a manual on why and how to do just that.

He started several 5 and 10k runs/walks in the city and county for many of the same reasons-to be involved in the communities, even those he didn't live.

So no, I don't think that police in general are out to hurt and bring more mayhem to the communities. Are there some out there that shouldn't be in uniform, much less carry a gun or have any power over others? No doubt. They should be rooted out and punished if they have been able to harm. They should be held to higher standards.

If you have a police force that is made up of such bad actors, I would do what I could to find a higher authority to root them out, AFTER I got out of there.

[revelarts]

Kath i think cops in many if not most communities are great.
But I think the whistle blower Baltimore cop kind of outlined how it works in too many communities.
In the "nice" areas cops treat people one way . and in other areas the SAME police treat people in a way they wouldn't consider treating those in the nicer areas.
It's very convenient to assume our experience with the police is typical, whether our treatment has been mostly negative or positive.
People like yourself might be surprised to see the nice cop with the bag of ice yesterday who today is gruffly responding to another women with broken tail light and taking her to jail for disrespecting him. Or the nice cop simply ignoring/overlooking the other cops who do treat people like crap.

there's a lot of factors but here's one that doesn't get much attention either.
Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops
A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.
“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”
He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.
Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.
Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.
But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.
Jordan has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

[Kathianne]

Kath i think cops in many if not most communities are great.
But I think the whistle blower Baltimore cop kind of outlined how it works in too many communities.
In the "nice" areas cops treat people one way . and in other areas the SAME police treat people in a way they wouldn't consider treating those in the nicer areas.
It's very convenient to assume our experience with the police is typical, whether our treatment has been mostly negative or positive.
People like yourself might be surprised to see the nice cop with the bag of ice yesterday who today is gruffly responding to another women with broken tail light and taking her to jail for disrespecting him. Or the nice cop simply ignoring/overlooking the other cops who do treat people like crap.

there's a lot of factors but here's one that doesn't get much attention either.
Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops
A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.
“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”
He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.
Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.
Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.
But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.
Jordan has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836


Sounds weird to me too. 49 year old looking to be a police officer? Cut off for taking the exam in the areas I'm familiar with is around 33-35. I'd be looking more at why they'd even consider hiring someone that old, as most officers are off the street by then.

[revelarts]

Sounds weird to me too. 49 year old looking to be a police officer? Cut off for taking the exam in the areas I'm familiar with is around 33-35. I'd be looking more at why they'd even consider hiring someone that old, as most officers are off the street by then.
the fact that he's 49 is the weird thing here?

[Kathianne]

the fact that he's 49 is the weird thing here?

It would be if you were paying the taxes. Most police are retired by 58 and many before. 50 year old rookies is not the norm. Something is wrong with the story.

As for not getting on a force with 125 IQ? That is plain weird. The exam should focus on basic academics, then it's looking for the factors that lend themselves to quick judgements; being able to work as a team and individual; have ethics; leadership skills; etc.

The entrance test is followed by physical tests on whether or not one can qualify with training.

If both of those are passed, then the psychological tests are scheduled.

Entrance exam scores are used in conjunction with performance reviews, testing for specific promotions, and recommendations. I would think in most professional police departments one wouldn't find white shirts with less than 125-140 IQ. I doubt though that the entrance exam would qualify as an IQ exam.