How did a law originally enacted to target poaching of migratory birds evolve to authorize an armed raid of a guitar factory in search of wooden veneers imported without the proper paperwork? The Lacey Act was the first federal wildlife conservation statute, narrowly targeted at the interstate sale in poached game. But in the century since its enactment, the statute’s scope has been enormously expanded to the point that it now incorporates the wildlife and trade laws of every foreign nation. As a result, it has become a trap for the unwary, placing honest businessmen and businesswomen at risk of criminal liability for unknowing violations of hyper-technical foreign laws and regulations. In short, the Lacey Act has become the poster child for the phenomenon of overcriminalization and should be at the top of Congress’s list for reform.VLS Journal: Preview "The Lacey Act: From Conservation to Criminalization"
Thursday, May 10, 2012
VLS Journal: Preview "The Lacey Act: From Conservation to Criminalization"
Quoting from the following article from the Heritage Foundation on an example of overcriminalization by the Federal Government.
Monday, April 23, 2012
"Russian Spies Haven't Gone Away"
Russia--Friend or Enemy? Read this article by Michelle Van Cleave in the Wall Street Journal (April 21, 2012). Ms van Cleave was the head of U.S. Counterintelligence during President George W. Bush's Administration, then you decide. Complacency is a destructive habit.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Hezbollah terror-threat | Homeland Security News Wire
My fear is that in the United States we have once again become somewhat complacent about terrorism. We have had no major attacks since 9/11, we are in denial about the lone wolf attacks, such as Major Hasan killing several of his fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood, TX, we see the success the FBI has had in stopping terrorist plots before they have happened, and we have been clearly lucky with incompetently planned and executed terror plots, such as the Christmas Day bomber. These things all lead to a false sense of security. We are also in denial about the multiple threats we face. Hezbollah is not a new threat. They have been operating and preparing in this country for years. They have carried out terrorism worldwide for years. And what country sponsors and supports Hezbollah--Iran. The country that is about to be added to the list of countries with nuclear weapon capability.
Hezbollah terror-threat | Homeland Security News Wire
Hezbollah terror-threat | Homeland Security News Wire
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Stand Your Ground authors: Trayvon Martin’s shooter should likely be charged, avoid immunity - Florida - MiamiHerald.com
First, we must remember that everyone in this country is innocent until proven guilty. The NY Times, Miami Herald, and most news media networks forget this when it comes to incidents like this. A media indictment and conviction fits the anti-gun template. Second, the "Castle Doctine" and "Stand Your Ground" laws make for good law and government policy. Citizens should not face criminal indictment and prison for defending themselves against violent attack. Third, the shooter in this case will likely have to face a criminal trial, because if you believe what has been reported in the news media (always a tricky thing to do), then the facts as presented so far do not support a legal defense for use of deadly force and a criminal prosecution should proceed in Florida state court. Fourth, if he is guilty he should be punished, but that is not a reason to alter or repeal "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" laws. To do so would be an emotional overreaction rather than thoughtful consideration of the value of such laws. Fifth, do not forget the political angle to this incident. Politicians and the news media often use such isolated incidents to make changes to law and public policy by appealing to the emotional response of the public rather than making rational decisions on effective public policy. Sixth, even though there is a local police investigation still underway, and Florida Gov. Scott has authorized the FDLE to assist in the local investigation, the Attorney General Eric Holder has now ordered the US DOJ and FBI to investigate based on a civil right violation. This is a classic political overreaction. No question the DOJ/FBI can investigate, but why consider a federal prosecution when this is clearly a state case. If after a state trial in Florida, the DOJ thinks the case was not handled properly they could then proceed with a federal prosecution.
Stand Your Ground authors: Trayvon Martin’s shooter should likely be charged, avoid immunity - Florida - MiamiHerald.com
Stand Your Ground authors: Trayvon Martin’s shooter should likely be charged, avoid immunity - Florida - MiamiHerald.com
Friday, January 27, 2012
"The Third Jihad"
This video was used in training for NYPD officers until it became public, then the NYPD backed from using it any further. The video depicts the concept that radical Islamic jihadists are waging a "third jihad" to to create worldwide Islamic domination. Video Link: http://vimeo.com/6469419
Friday, December 2, 2011
Talking Tough to Pakistan
Talking Tough to Pakistan: "The United States gives Pakistan billions of dollars in aid each year. Pakistan returns
the favor by harboring terrorists, spreading anti-Americanism, and selling nuclear technology abroad. The bribes and the begging aren’t working: only threats and the determination to act on them will do the job. Washington must tell Islamabad to start cooperating or lose its aid and face outright isolation."
the favor by harboring terrorists, spreading anti-Americanism, and selling nuclear technology abroad. The bribes and the begging aren’t working: only threats and the determination to act on them will do the job. Washington must tell Islamabad to start cooperating or lose its aid and face outright isolation."
Friday, August 6, 2010
FOXNews.com - Va. police: Illegal immigrant charged with killing nun and injuring 2 others in car crash
FOXNews.com - Va. police: Illegal immigrant charged with killing nun and injuring 2 others in car crash
This case involves what is referred to in immigration enforcement as "catch and release." Unfortunately not unlike some criminals charged with other crimes and released on bond, illegal immigrants frequently do not report back for a deportation hearings. Why should they? There is no incentive to do anything other than evade subsequent arrest, because there are no real penalties for not reporting. In fact, if they remain undetected to the next round of government amnesty programs, then they are rewarded for their elusiveness. Tragically, there are unintended victims of the federal government's negligence in the enforcement of federal law in a manner that protects U.S. citizens. Far too many illegal aliens also engage in various crimes, thus victimizing law abiding U.S. citizens. Sister Denise Mosier is just one example. In 2006, I wrote an article titled, Ethical Analysis Related to the Involvement of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies in the Enforcement of Immigration Law (Homeland Security Review, Fall 2006, Vol. 1. No.2), that focused on ethical aspects of the failure to enforce federal immigration law at all levels of government. It seems disingenuous when politicians propose immigration reform or new immigration enforcement mandates while the federal government refuses to effectively and consistently enforce the laws currently on the books. The American people are led to believe that if an illegal alien is apprehended in the U.S. the result will be deportation. This does not always happen. Under current application of the federal law Carlos Montano exploited the weakness in the federal government's resolve to enforce immigration law. Mr. Montano disregarded our law by physically being in this country, he repeatedly disregarded our laws by driving under the influence, and he disregarded the law again by killing Sister Denise Mosier through his wanton conduct. Our federal government, through negligent inaction, serves to protect the criminal alien instead of the innocent U.S. citizen. This is just one of many stories of the harm that has resulted from this negligent behavior. There are too many stories like this and there will continue to be until the federal goverment lives up to the obligation to enforce the laws enacted by the U.S. Congress.
This case involves what is referred to in immigration enforcement as "catch and release." Unfortunately not unlike some criminals charged with other crimes and released on bond, illegal immigrants frequently do not report back for a deportation hearings. Why should they? There is no incentive to do anything other than evade subsequent arrest, because there are no real penalties for not reporting. In fact, if they remain undetected to the next round of government amnesty programs, then they are rewarded for their elusiveness. Tragically, there are unintended victims of the federal government's negligence in the enforcement of federal law in a manner that protects U.S. citizens. Far too many illegal aliens also engage in various crimes, thus victimizing law abiding U.S. citizens. Sister Denise Mosier is just one example. In 2006, I wrote an article titled, Ethical Analysis Related to the Involvement of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies in the Enforcement of Immigration Law (Homeland Security Review, Fall 2006, Vol. 1. No.2), that focused on ethical aspects of the failure to enforce federal immigration law at all levels of government. It seems disingenuous when politicians propose immigration reform or new immigration enforcement mandates while the federal government refuses to effectively and consistently enforce the laws currently on the books. The American people are led to believe that if an illegal alien is apprehended in the U.S. the result will be deportation. This does not always happen. Under current application of the federal law Carlos Montano exploited the weakness in the federal government's resolve to enforce immigration law. Mr. Montano disregarded our law by physically being in this country, he repeatedly disregarded our laws by driving under the influence, and he disregarded the law again by killing Sister Denise Mosier through his wanton conduct. Our federal government, through negligent inaction, serves to protect the criminal alien instead of the innocent U.S. citizen. This is just one of many stories of the harm that has resulted from this negligent behavior. There are too many stories like this and there will continue to be until the federal goverment lives up to the obligation to enforce the laws enacted by the U.S. Congress.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Dorothy Rabinowitz: Liberal Piety and the Memory of 9/11 - WSJ.com
Dorothy Rabinowitz: Liberal Piety and the Memory of 9/11 - WSJ.com
There seems to be a legitimate First Amendment argument for allowing a Mosque on property at Ground Zero in NY City. But this does not mean it should be built at Ground Zero. There is a legitimate argument for requiring the building of the Mosque at another location. The location of the proposed Mosque is within the Ground Zero area, and as such there must be some level of common sense applied to selection of the location for this Mosque. It would seem that we need not prove to anyone our commitment to freedom of religion. No other country in the world has a similar level of religious freedom. There are already 46 other Mosques in NY City. This is ample evidence that Islam is alive and well in this city. We need not discard common sense by allowing the 47th Mosque to be erected in a place that is sure to create intense turmoil and provide a symbolic landmark for the radical jihadist elements of Islamic world . Which raises the point of why even proposing a Mosque at this location? The answer seems obvious. Placing a Mosque at this location transmits the message to all Radical Islam Jihadist that we are a weak nation, crippled by our own extreme tolerance of anything, no matter how outrageous, and unable to discern when tolerance and freedom should be moderated by public safety and national security. At minimum there should be further investigation of the ties the Imam has to Hamas and other Radical Islamic Jihadist organizations. Such investigation may be revealing of the true intent of building a Mosque at Ground Zero.
There seems to be a legitimate First Amendment argument for allowing a Mosque on property at Ground Zero in NY City. But this does not mean it should be built at Ground Zero. There is a legitimate argument for requiring the building of the Mosque at another location. The location of the proposed Mosque is within the Ground Zero area, and as such there must be some level of common sense applied to selection of the location for this Mosque. It would seem that we need not prove to anyone our commitment to freedom of religion. No other country in the world has a similar level of religious freedom. There are already 46 other Mosques in NY City. This is ample evidence that Islam is alive and well in this city. We need not discard common sense by allowing the 47th Mosque to be erected in a place that is sure to create intense turmoil and provide a symbolic landmark for the radical jihadist elements of Islamic world . Which raises the point of why even proposing a Mosque at this location? The answer seems obvious. Placing a Mosque at this location transmits the message to all Radical Islam Jihadist that we are a weak nation, crippled by our own extreme tolerance of anything, no matter how outrageous, and unable to discern when tolerance and freedom should be moderated by public safety and national security. At minimum there should be further investigation of the ties the Imam has to Hamas and other Radical Islamic Jihadist organizations. Such investigation may be revealing of the true intent of building a Mosque at Ground Zero.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Cal Thomas: Daring to call it a war on radical Islam | Washington Examiner
Cal Thomas: Daring to call it a war on radical Islam | Washington Examiner
AEI - Scholars - Newt Gingrich
Cal Thomas summarizes the position Newt Gingrich had the courage to convey in his speech last week before the American Enterprise Institute. "Radical Islam is a clear and present danger to America." The concept should be so self-evident that any thinking American would share this position; however, a segment of America supported by the progressive left wing of the Democrat Party have become adverse to identifying the most obvious enemies of the U.S. The trail of violence by Radical Jihadists against America began long before 9/11/2001, but become most evident on that day, and continues today. We not take the work of American politicians, newspaper columnists, or talk show hosts, we need only listen to the public proclamations, web sites, and writings of the Radical Islamists to determine their intent to destroy America and all the freedom and liberty we enjoy based on our form of government, our Constitution, and our culture. They hate us. They hate our form of government, our financial systems, our fundamental Judeo-Christian roots, and our culture in general. They are not covert in this hate. Unfortunately, many in the U.S. cannot bring themselves to see the evil intent of Radical Islamists, using violent terrorist methods to methodically destroy America. Appeasement of these radical jihadists will not work, for they see appeasement as weakness, and weaknesses are something to exploit in an enemy. President George W. Bush understood this siginificant threat and ardently vocalized this position during his presidency. It has now fallen to other strong American leaders to make sure that Americans wake up and take notice on this continuing threat to our existence. We should thank those leaders such as Dr. Gingrich who have the courage of their convictions to convey this message so we may make sure we can properly defend ourselves against these threats.
AEI - Scholars - Newt Gingrich
Cal Thomas summarizes the position Newt Gingrich had the courage to convey in his speech last week before the American Enterprise Institute. "Radical Islam is a clear and present danger to America." The concept should be so self-evident that any thinking American would share this position; however, a segment of America supported by the progressive left wing of the Democrat Party have become adverse to identifying the most obvious enemies of the U.S. The trail of violence by Radical Jihadists against America began long before 9/11/2001, but become most evident on that day, and continues today. We not take the work of American politicians, newspaper columnists, or talk show hosts, we need only listen to the public proclamations, web sites, and writings of the Radical Islamists to determine their intent to destroy America and all the freedom and liberty we enjoy based on our form of government, our Constitution, and our culture. They hate us. They hate our form of government, our financial systems, our fundamental Judeo-Christian roots, and our culture in general. They are not covert in this hate. Unfortunately, many in the U.S. cannot bring themselves to see the evil intent of Radical Islamists, using violent terrorist methods to methodically destroy America. Appeasement of these radical jihadists will not work, for they see appeasement as weakness, and weaknesses are something to exploit in an enemy. President George W. Bush understood this siginificant threat and ardently vocalized this position during his presidency. It has now fallen to other strong American leaders to make sure that Americans wake up and take notice on this continuing threat to our existence. We should thank those leaders such as Dr. Gingrich who have the courage of their convictions to convey this message so we may make sure we can properly defend ourselves against these threats.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
New US Supported Path to Citizenship for Illegal Aliens
null
The US government in collaboration with Los Angeles city government has provided the illegal immigrant community with a new path to citizenship that circumvents US immigration law. Now an illegal immigrant can claim to be a crime victim, testify against the alleged perpetrator, and earn a visa and eventual citizenship. Does common sense and good judgement identify a problem with this policy? Other than on face value it seems to circumvent (or violate) federal immigration law, it opens up opportunity for false allegations of victimization and since it takes a prosecution to invoke the privilege of a visa for the alleged crime victim, there must be an identified perpetrator. This creates the potential for false allegations against innocent people for the purpose of illegal immigrants receiving legal status in this country. Sound far-fetched? Wait for the results. The concept is to provide protection for the illegal immigrant community against crime victimization by taking away their fear to come to the police to report crimes where they have been victimized. This is on its face not a bad outcome, but there are potential hazards that can create opportunity for manipulation of the criminal justice system. It is another example of an outrageous attempt to avoid actually enforcing federal immigration law. In this world turned upside down, the US government offers legal protection for the criminal (illegal immigration)and amnesty for being victimized in a country where they are not legally supposed to reside, while opening up opportunity for fraud and victimization of legal citizens who might be falsely accused of crimes. Even a recent law school graduate could easily discredit the illegal immigrant's testimony in court on the basis of the perceived benefit they would derive from thier testimony, even if the testimony were true. But if a person is falsely accused as a result of the manipulation of this policy, even if acquitted, there still is tremendous damage to the accused's reputation and finances.
The US government in collaboration with Los Angeles city government has provided the illegal immigrant community with a new path to citizenship that circumvents US immigration law. Now an illegal immigrant can claim to be a crime victim, testify against the alleged perpetrator, and earn a visa and eventual citizenship. Does common sense and good judgement identify a problem with this policy? Other than on face value it seems to circumvent (or violate) federal immigration law, it opens up opportunity for false allegations of victimization and since it takes a prosecution to invoke the privilege of a visa for the alleged crime victim, there must be an identified perpetrator. This creates the potential for false allegations against innocent people for the purpose of illegal immigrants receiving legal status in this country. Sound far-fetched? Wait for the results. The concept is to provide protection for the illegal immigrant community against crime victimization by taking away their fear to come to the police to report crimes where they have been victimized. This is on its face not a bad outcome, but there are potential hazards that can create opportunity for manipulation of the criminal justice system. It is another example of an outrageous attempt to avoid actually enforcing federal immigration law. In this world turned upside down, the US government offers legal protection for the criminal (illegal immigration)and amnesty for being victimized in a country where they are not legally supposed to reside, while opening up opportunity for fraud and victimization of legal citizens who might be falsely accused of crimes. Even a recent law school graduate could easily discredit the illegal immigrant's testimony in court on the basis of the perceived benefit they would derive from thier testimony, even if the testimony were true. But if a person is falsely accused as a result of the manipulation of this policy, even if acquitted, there still is tremendous damage to the accused's reputation and finances.
Louisville Metro Police Officer Charles Moore has lengthy history of misconduct
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100731/NEWS01/308010027/1008/NEWS01/Louisville+Metro+Police+Officer+Charles+Moore+has+lengthy+history+of+misconduct
Here is a case of a police officer who should have been terminated years ago but a lack of leadership, especially on the part of the current chief of police, has protected this officer from significant discipline or termination. It is even more incredible that Chief White in defending his failure to terminate this officer has admitted there are many other officers just as bad who also remain on the job because he has failed in his responsibility to the community as chief of police. His admission, meant as a defense of his action and an indictment of the newspaper for picking on this officer, only demonstrates Chief White's failure in leadership. Chief White tries another defense of his actions by blaming the union contract that limits him to considering the last three years of disciplinary action when imposing new punishment. In this case the newspaper reporters accurately countered by listing a significant disciplinary record in the last three years before dispensing his last discipline on Officer Moore. Where is the accountability in a police agency if a police officer with such a poor record remains employed as a police officer? One should note the C-J writers failed to ask the mayor for his comment on this situation. Could it be because the C-J did not want to implicate the mayor in this situation when he is in his last six months of office and running for KY lieutenant governor? Chief White has held his position since the consolidation of city and county government and the merger of city and county police departments. He has been a finalist for several major city police agencies. The mayor should ask for his resignation and appoint an interim chief until the new mayor can appoint a new police chief.
Here is a case of a police officer who should have been terminated years ago but a lack of leadership, especially on the part of the current chief of police, has protected this officer from significant discipline or termination. It is even more incredible that Chief White in defending his failure to terminate this officer has admitted there are many other officers just as bad who also remain on the job because he has failed in his responsibility to the community as chief of police. His admission, meant as a defense of his action and an indictment of the newspaper for picking on this officer, only demonstrates Chief White's failure in leadership. Chief White tries another defense of his actions by blaming the union contract that limits him to considering the last three years of disciplinary action when imposing new punishment. In this case the newspaper reporters accurately countered by listing a significant disciplinary record in the last three years before dispensing his last discipline on Officer Moore. Where is the accountability in a police agency if a police officer with such a poor record remains employed as a police officer? One should note the C-J writers failed to ask the mayor for his comment on this situation. Could it be because the C-J did not want to implicate the mayor in this situation when he is in his last six months of office and running for KY lieutenant governor? Chief White has held his position since the consolidation of city and county government and the merger of city and county police departments. He has been a finalist for several major city police agencies. The mayor should ask for his resignation and appoint an interim chief until the new mayor can appoint a new police chief.
Bing nominates convicted murderer for police board | detnews.com | The Detroit News
Bing nominates convicted murderer for police board | detnews.com | The Detroit News
This decision on its faces seems to disregard common sense and responsible good judgement. What are Mr. Johnson's qualifications for membership on the Police Board? Is it his 12 years in prison or his success as a motivational speaker? Are either sufficient for this important post? Are there no better qualified candidates in the city of Detroit? Does Mayor Bing not think this will enrage police officers? Placing a convicted felon on the Police Board does not seem to be a significant step toward improving law enforcement in the city of Detroit. This appointment would seem to only distract efforts for police reform. Reforming a police agency struggling with multiple ethical issues, incidents of corruption, and suffering from a leadership void requires a change in organizational culture through the development of support for officers within the police department who reflect excellent behaviors of policing. This appointment certainly will only alienate even the most ethical officers and further delay much needed reform.
This decision on its faces seems to disregard common sense and responsible good judgement. What are Mr. Johnson's qualifications for membership on the Police Board? Is it his 12 years in prison or his success as a motivational speaker? Are either sufficient for this important post? Are there no better qualified candidates in the city of Detroit? Does Mayor Bing not think this will enrage police officers? Placing a convicted felon on the Police Board does not seem to be a significant step toward improving law enforcement in the city of Detroit. This appointment would seem to only distract efforts for police reform. Reforming a police agency struggling with multiple ethical issues, incidents of corruption, and suffering from a leadership void requires a change in organizational culture through the development of support for officers within the police department who reflect excellent behaviors of policing. This appointment certainly will only alienate even the most ethical officers and further delay much needed reform.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Welcome to the VLS Journal
I created this blog to provide an outlet for me to discuss issues related to criminal justice, homeland security policy, law, and political issues. None of the comments I make on this blog reflect the views or policies of my employer. I intend to post my comments based on facts and analysis, not emotion. If you post responses to my comments, please do the same.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
