Secret Drone War in Yemen Continues

priceofliberty:

The U.S. drone campaign in places like Yemen is still technically secret. From Reuters:

At least four people were killed and a number of others wounded in a drone strike on a vehicle carrying suspected al Qaeda members in southern Yemen, a local official said on Saturday.

The official said the strike took place at dawn on Saturday on a road to the north of Jaar in Abyan Governorate, near Aden. He did not say who was behind the strike, but previous drone strikes have been carried out by the United States.

An alleged foiled terrorist plot by Al-Qaeda in Yemen reported by the AP last May is likely the story behind the DOJ’s seizure of the media organization’s phone records.

Last month, Yemeni writer Farea al-Muslimi testified in a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing about drone strikes in his country. Reuters again:

He said the target of the strike [in his hometown a week before the hearing] was known to many in the village and Yemeni officials could easily have arrested him.

“The drone strikes are the face of America to many Yemenis. If America is providing economic, social and humanitarian assistance to Yemen, the vast majority of the Yemeni people know nothing about it,” he said.

“Everyone in Yemen, however, knows about America and its drones.” Al-Muslimi said that allows the Yemen-based al Qaeda affiliate to “convince more individuals that America is at war with Yemen.”

There have been at least 45 (and up to 92) drone strikes in Yemen since 2002  according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, all but one occurring since President Obama took office in 2009.

truthstream: Our modern-day version of WWII-era U.S. military recruitment propaganda.
View Separately

truthstream:

Our modern-day version of WWII-era U.S. military recruitment propaganda.

Congressman Introduces Bill That Would Cut Foreign Aid to Countries That "Undermine US Foreign Policy Objectives"

priceofliberty:

Thursday, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) introduced H.R. 1922, known as the Foreign Assistance Under Limitation and Transparency Act (FAULT) Act, which would limit foreign assistance to five countries that “undermine U.S. foreign policy objectives.” The five countries mentioned in the bill are Iran, North Korea, Syria, Egypt, and Pakistan.

From the press release from Gosar’s office:

“Sending billions of taxpayer dollars overseas to hostile countries is unconscionable. Yet, only in Washington, D.C. does it make sense to pay other governments to undermine our foreign policy objectives.”

Rep. Gosar continued, “When countries like Iran, North Korea, Syria, Egypt, and Pakistan act like enemies rather than friends toward the United States and our allies, the time to cut them off from U.S. taxpayer dollars is now.”

What is interesting is that all of the countries referenced by the FAULT Act, except North Korea, were all mentioned in a study outlining which countries have been complicit in the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program, which presumablybenefited what some officials thought were the “U.S. foreign policy objectives.” Given that Obama has not ended extraordinary rendition (but has made some changes), perhaps some officials in the Obama administration still think a similar program serves some purpose. 

Iran was involved in the capture and transfer of people that were held in secret detention, and Egypt, Syria, and Pakistan were all involved in the torture and detention of people that were subject to the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program while also allowing the U.S. to use their airspace for that purpose.

While most of the countries outlined in Gosar’s FAULT Act countries do have unpleasant or fragile governments, history suggests American officials can find them useful in achieving particularly unpleasant foreign policy objectives.

moralanarchism:

The Boston Bombing, the CIA, and the US Empire | Sibel Edmonds


Sibel Edmonds tells Lew Rockwell what’s really happening in Central Asian Caucasus.

Sibel Edmonds website: http://www.classifiedwoman.com/

Journalist Tom Mullen rightly observed, “The Bill of Rights was already on life support before this tragedy. Before the dust settled after 9/11, the 4th Amendment had been nullified by the Patriot Act."

beatyourselfup:

AUSTIN, April 20, 2013 - The always patriotic U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham says the Boston bombing “is Exhibit A of why the homeland is the battlefield.” In an interview with the Washington Post:

“It’s a battlefield because the terrorists think it is.” Referring to Boston, he observed, “Here is what we’re up against,” and added, “It sure would be nice to have a drone up there [to track the suspect.]” He also slammed the president’s policy of “leading from behind and criminalizing war.”

On Twitter, Graham suggested the Obama administration arbitrarily toss the court system and Constitution for “intelligence gathering purposes.” According to Graham, accused bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, should be held as an enemy combatant. This legal status has been mostly reserved for al Qaeda captured abroad or foreigners, such as those held without charge for the last decade in Guantanamo Bay’s military facility.

Senator Graham is a known proponent of military-style detention for American suspects merely accused of terrorism. During debates regarding indefinite detainment provisions in 2011, which effectively invalidated the Bill of Rights, he notoriously bellowed that Americans accused of a terrorist-related crime should be denied Due Process. “When they say I want a lawyer you say, “Shut up! You don’t get a lawyer”.

He was also a most vocal critic of Senator Rand Paul’s 13-hour filibuster designed to demand answers regarding the Obama administration’s domestic drone program. When the tide of public opinion turned against him, he stopped vocally defending the “homeland battlefield” ideology, but Graham never lets a crisis go to waste.

These statements are a lame attempt to justify the further militarization of the American justice system. While most Americans are content with disregarding this typical chickenhawk rhetoric, this narrative becomes increasingly more dangerous.

All Americans should be wary when congressional leaders like Graham attempt to justify 12th century-style military custody.

As journalist Tom Mullen rightly observed, “The Bill of Rights was already on life support before this tragedy. Before the dust settled after 9/11, the 4th Amendment had been nullified by the Patriot Act. The 5th and 6th Amendments were similarly abolished with the Military Commission Act of 2006 and the 2012 NDAA resolution, which contained a clause allowing the president to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil without due process of law.”

How much further can we move to invalidate our entire legal process? If we are at war with radical individuals and America is a battlefield, then why pretend we have laws? Why didn’t we just call in a few Apaches and dispatch the suspects promptly, as we do in war? Why bother with arrest and detainment, evidence or trial?

raphaels: This is how it works.
View Separately

raphaels:

This is how it works.

What You Need To Know About Why The Boston Bombing Suspect Hasn’t Been Read His Miranda Rights

thepoliticalfreakshow:

Despite initial reports to the contrary, FBI agents did not read Boston Bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights immediately after he was taken into custody. Instead, they invoked what is known as the “public safety exception” to delay reading those rights to the alleged bomber. Here’s what you need to know about this narrow […]


Despite initial reports to the contrary, FBI agents did not read Boston Bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights immediately after he was taken into custody. Instead, they invoked what is known as the “public safety exception” to delay reading those rights to the alleged bomber. Here’s what you need to know about this narrow exception to the Miranda rule:

The Public Safety Exemption Is Real

The Supreme Court first held that there is a public safety exemption to Miranda in a 1984 case known as New York v. Quarles. In Quarles a woman told police that a man with a gun raped her, and that he’d run into a nearby grocery store. Police quickly found the suspect within the store, arrested him after a brief chase, handcuffed him, and discovered that he was wearing an empty shoulder holster. Before reading him his rights, an officer asked him where the gun was, and the suspect told the cop where to find it. After retrieving the gun, police then read the suspect his Miranda rights.

Although the Constitution generally forbids law enforcement from interrogating suspects in custody without first reading them their rights, the Court held that a narrow “public safety exemption” permitted the limited questioning that occurred in Quarles. As the Court explained, “procedural safeguards which deter a suspect from responding were deemed acceptable in Miranda in order to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege; when the primary social cost of those added protections is the possibility of fewer convictions, the Miranda majority was willing to bear that cost. Here, had Miranda warnings deterred Quarles from responding to Officer Kraft’s question about the whereabouts of the gun, the cost would have been something more than merely the failure to obtain evidence useful in convicting Quarles. Officer Kraft needed an answer to his question not simply to make his case against Quarles but to insure that further danger to the public did not result from the concealment of the gun in a public area.”

As the Court emphasized, this exemption is “narrow.” It permits police to ask a limited range of questions for the purpose of removing any imminent threats. It does not permit wide-ranging questions intended to build a case against the suspect.

FBI Guidelines Apply The Public Safety Exemption Aggressively In Terrorism Cases

A 2011 FBI memorandum says agents may delay reading Miranda rights to a suspect in “exceptional cases” when the FBI “conclude[s] that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat.” According to a DOJ spokesperson, this guidance exists because “the threat posed by terrorist organizations and the nature of their attacks—which can include multiple accomplices and interconnected plots—creates fundamentally different public safety concerns than traditional criminal cases.” Needless to say, this guidance is controversial, as it extends the public safety exemption beyond truly imminent threats to encompass more distant — but also potentially more deadly — future threats.

In any event, it is worth emphasizing again that the public safety exemption does not allow broad ranging questions for the purpose of building a criminal case. Even if the Obama Administration is correct that the exemption can be applied more broadly to suspected terrorists, law enforcement may only invoke the exemption to ask “questions necessary to secure their own safety or the safety of the public.”

The FBI Cannot Indefinitely Delay Reading Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights

Because the public safety exemption is rooted in the “need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety,” it is only temporary. Eventually, it may become clear that no such threats exist (or at least any that Tsarnaev is capable of providing information about). At that point, he must be read his Miranda rights even under the most lax plausible understanding of the exemption. Additionally, if law enforcement wishes to ask Tsarnaev questions geared towards gathering evidence to use against him at trial, they must read him his Miranda rights.

Stop Granting Special Privileges to the Police

beatyourselfup:

America’s cops need more oversight, not more leeway to evade the law.

The horrific Boston bombings already have led to irrational calls for more security cameras and more police officers, with some Democrats absurdly using this tragedy as a reason to stop the slight sequester-mandated cuts in federal spending growth.

Never mind that police spending primarily is a local matter. The bigger questions that Americans have rarely asked, especially following the 9/11 attacks: Do we really want the government to hire new armies of police officers? Do we really want to pay the price for this?

Knowing my views on the growing public-pension crisis, most readers probably think the “price” I’m worried about the nation’s multi-trillion-dollar unfunded pension liabilities driven largely by the “3 percent at 50” pension deals that cost taxpayers millions of dollars for each “first responder” who retires at 50 after 30 years of service.

That’s a huge problem — the result in part of Americans’ irrational embrace of the “more police” logic after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. But that’s not the main source of my concern. My real concern involves our safety and civil liberties given that police officers, and other groups of public employees, have become a protected class that does not have to follow the same rules as the average citizen.

Read More

Reporter Asks White House if U.S. Airstrikes That Kill Afghan Civilians Qualify as 'Terrorism'

by Rania Khalek on April 17, 2013

Matthew Keys, the social media editor at Reuters, posted audio of a reporter asking White House Press Secretary Jay Carney if U.S. bombings that kill innocent civilians in Afghanistan constitute an “act of terror” given the labeling of the Boston Marathon bombing as “terrorism”. She specifically refers to a U.S. airstrike earlier this month that killed 11 children, just the latest in a seemingly endless line of Afghan civilian deaths at the hands of the U.S. government.

Carney completely dodged the questions, pointing instead to the 9/11 terrorist attacks to justify U.S. bombings in Afghanistan. After a long-winded answer excusing U.S. conduct, Carney concludes, “ we take great care in the prosecution of this war.”

Tell me, does this look like “great care” to you?

The lifeless bodies of Afghan children lay on the ground before their funeral ceremony, after a NATO airstrike killed several Afghan civilians, including ten children during a fierce gun battle with Taliban militants in Shultan, Shigal district, Kunar, eastern Afghanistan, Sunday, April 7, 2013. (AP Photo/Naimatullah Karyab)

I transcribed the exchange in full:

REPORTER: I send my deepest condolence to the victims and families in Boston. But President Obama said that what happened in Boston was an act of terrorism. I would like to ask, Do you consider the U.S. bombing on civilians in Afghanistan earlier this month that left 11 children and a woman killed a form of terrorism? Why or why not?

JAY CARNEY: Well, I would have to know more about the incident and then obviously the Department of Defense would have answers to your questions on this matter. We have more than 60,000 U.S. troops involved in a war in Afghanistan, a war that began when the United States was attacked, in an attack that was organized on the soil of Afghanistan by al Qaeda, by Osama bin laden and others and more than 3,000 people were killed in that attack. And it has been the President’s objective once he took office to make clear what our goals are in Afghanistan and that is to disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat al Qaeda. And with that as our objective to provide enough assistance to Afghan National Security Forces and the Afghan government to allow them to take over security for themselves. And that process is underway and the United States has withdrawn a substantial number of troops and we are in the process of drowning down further as we hand over security lead to Afghan forces. And it is certainly the case that I refer you to the defense department for details that we take great care in the prosecution of this war and we are very mindful of what our objectives are.


At the very least, this serves as another example of the utter meaninglessness of the word “terrorism”.

* * * *

UPDATE: The reporter who asked the question is Amina Ismail, a journalist at McClatchy. I urge you to thank her for asking it (her twitter handle is @AminaIsmail) because I can’t imagine it was easy given how extremely rare and frowned upon it is to challenge the dominant “war on terror” narrative, especially as a female reporter with an Arab-sounding name. And Amina, if you’re reading this, thanks for kicking ass!

(via ex-ist)

infowarsdotcom:

The FBI Fosters, Funds and Equips American Terrorists

Infowars.com
April 19, 2013

James Corbett
GRTV.ca
April 17, 2013

People around the world watched in horror this week as explosions rocked the finish line of the Boston Marathon, turning a day of sportsmanship and celebration into one of shock, grief and outrage. As with all such events, the desire to discover who was behind this cowardly act has driven many into a speculative frenzy. And, in a sad reminder of the indoctrination that the Western world has been under for over a decade now in the mythical “war of terror,” it did not take long at all before the collective finger of the mob was pointed squarely in the direction of Muslim terrorists.

Within hours of the blast, fear spread throughout the international Muslim community that the bombing would be connected to an Islamist extremist. A Libyan Twitter user touched a nerve—and received thousands of retweets and worldwide media coverage—by tweeting “Please don’t be a ‘Muslim.’” The backlash began shortly thereafter, with the New York Post falsely implying that a Saudi national was being questioned for his possible role in the attack. The next day, a plane departing Boston Logan Airport returned to the gate and two passengers were forcibly removed because they had been overheard speaking Arabic before takeoff.

As data continues to pour in regarding the bombing and who may be behind it, it is instructive to take a moment to step back and consider this knee-jerk tendency to conclude that this is the work of Islamic radicals. In the minds of millions of Americans, bombs targeting innocents on US soil are inextricably linked with the image of the bearded, turban-wearing boogeyman that has become the shorthand for evil in this age of terror.

This association is not only incorrect, it is dangerously incorrect because it signally fails to identify the one unifying thread between all of the recent terror plots in the US. Lurking behind the shadowy armies of would-be jihadis in the popular imagination is the sober reality that every single major terror bust in the United States since 9/11 has sourced back to the same group, a single entity that has in every single case funded, equipped and even incited the would-be terrorists into action: the FBI.

In 2005, federal prosecutors charged Michael Reynolds, a 47 year old drifter living with his elderly mother, of attempting to wage jihad on the US by blowing up fuel facilities. In reality, his plan for jihad was little more than a series of conversations he had on a Yahoo! Chat room with a US judge posing as a militant. He was arrested after agreeing to meet with an FBI informant who had promised him $40,000 for his cause, and two months later the FBI quietly announced he was likely mentally ill. He was eventually convicted and is curently serving 25 years in jail.

In 2007 the so-called “Fort Dix Six” were nabbed in a much-hyped FBI terror bust after allegedly hatching a plan to attack a US military base and kill the soldiers there. At the time, a 26-page indictment revealed that the group had “no rigorous military training” and “did not appear close to being able to pull off an attack.” The next year it wasrevealed that the FBI informant who had infiltrated the group had in fact offered to organize the members and lead the plot itself.

In 2009 the Newburgh Four were arrested for an alleged plot to blow up synagogues and shoot down military airplanes in Newburgh, New York. The group was a ragtag bunch of poor black men, at least one of whom was mentally unstable and stored his own urine in jars around his apartment. The group’s fifth member, Shahad Hussein, turned out to be an FBI informant who had promised the members hundreds of thousands of dollars to carry out the plot. In sentencing the defendants, Federal Judge Colleen McMahon said:

“[The government] created acts of terrorism out of [the defendant’s] fantasies of bravado and bigotry, and then made those fantasies come true. The government did not have to infiltrate and foil some nefarious plot – there was no nefarious plot to foil.”

In November 2010 the FBI busted the so-called Portland Christmas Tree Bomber, who was allegedly attempting to bomb the lighting ceremony at Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse Square. “The threat was very real,” the FBI intoned at the time. “Our investigation shows that Mohamud was absolutely committed to carrying out an attack on a very grand scale.” The alleged bomber, Arthur Balizan, turned out to be a teenager who bragged to undercover agents that he could get a gun because he was a “rapper” and wrote an article on workout tips for jihadis.

In 2011 the FBI arrested a man that they themselves had supplied with a remote controlled plane and C4 explosives in a harebrained attempt to bomb the Pentagon. In 2012 they busted another would-be jihadi that they again had supplied with a fake gun and suicide vest. Also in 2012 the FBI busted a group of five “anarchists” who were allegedly going to bomb a bridge in the Cleveland area, although it was quietly admitted that the FBI informant who had infiltrated the group had in fact initiated the contact with them and been present at the meetings where they developed the plan to blow up the bridge.

One of the most ridiculous examples of this pattern dates back to 2006, when the DOJ attempted to make it seem as if they had just nabbed a group of dangerous jihadis who were preparing a full ground war against the United States.

The picture that is painted by these facts is as overwhelming as it is difficult for much of the public to comprehend. The conclusion, nevertheless, is incontrovertible: that without the FBI, many of the so-called “terrorist cells” that have been hatching their inept, bumbling schemes against the United States for decades might never have existed at all.

Despite what many would believe, this conclusion is not even controversial. Rather, it has been backed up time and again by evidence in the official record and multiply attested to by FBI insiders and whistleblowers themselves.

Given all of this damning history and insider whistleblowing, it is vital that the Western public break out of their media-induced programming and question the core assumptions of the war on terror paradigm that we have been programmed with for decades now. If there is to be speculation at all over events like these, and if there is any group that has to present a thoroughgoing case for why it is NOT responsible for this atrocity, surely it is the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Having been at the heart of so many terror plots in the past, both the hilariously inept and the chillingly successful, how could the public refuse to even interrogate the organization that has the most to answer for?

The simple fact of the matter is that the history of the modern age of terrorism has proven time and again that the FBI is the prime suspect in any terrorist atrocity that takes place on American soil. Let us all keep this in mind as the details of the investigations into this (and all other) American terrorist incidents begins to emerge.

whatiscapitalism: A “COEXIST” bumper sticker on the car stolen by Islamic terrorists. Ohhh I can barely handle the irony.
View Separately

whatiscapitalism:

A “COEXIST” bumper sticker on the car stolen by Islamic terrorists. Ohhh I can barely handle the irony.

David Koresh’s Revenge: Waco and 20 Years of State Terror by Anthony Gregory

There is something about April. From Columbine to Virginia Tech, from Oklahoma City to Boston, mid-to-late April occasions some of the most infamous massacres on U.S. soil. At least, these are the ones we are told to focus on. The killers are called terrorists. Unless they wear uniforms, as they did on April 19, 1993, just outside Waco, Texas. That time, as we are urged to believe, the terrorists were the ones who died. In all these massacres, regardless of specifics, the government portrays itself as all that keeps chaos at bay.

The state claims to stand against terrorism, but killing people is its stock in trade. Slaughters come in various forms, almost all of which feed the health of the state. The state conducts much killing outright. The state officially poses against other killing, while nevertheless encouraging it through its own violence. Even the killing that the state has no hand in serves as a pretext for the state to grow.

In Boston this Monday, someone left bombs that murdered three people, including an eight-year-old boy, and injured 176 others. President Obama called the crime an “act of terrorism.” The establishment definition of “terrorism” was always flawed, in that it categorically absolved the government, but at least it specified the targeting of civilians for political goals. Yet these days, even before the motive is known, such as at Boston, or when the targets are not civilians, such as American soldiers abroad, the U.S. government calls any dramatic acts of violence of which it disapproves “terrorism.”

This February, they called ex-cop Chris Dorner a terrorist. Then the police surrounded him in a cabin to burn him alive, asking the media to cover its eyes like at Waco. Everyone who knew how the state operates had no reason to expect he would get due process. They were going to hunt him down and kill him no matter what. The media dropped the formality of calling him an “alleged” murderer. The LAPD tried and convicted and executed him all on the same day and no one batted an eye. Meanwhile, liberals say all talk of American tyranny is irresponsible and conservatives continue to worship law enforcement.

Today, violent resistance to the state is called terrorism. Many of the “terrorists” rounded up and imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay were at most guilty of defending their country against an invading army. Some of these people continue to languish in that dungeon, seeing their desperate hunger strike in protest of declining conditions go unanswered, except by an administration willing to cut off their water.

Liberty Tumblr. ⒶⓋ⚔: Syria Campaigns to Persuade U.S. to Change Sides

antinwo:

As Islamists increasingly fill the ranks of Syrian rebels, President Bashar al-Assad is waging an energized campaign to persuade the United States that it is on the wrong side of the civil war. Some government supporters and officials believe they are already coaxing — or at least frightening — the West into holding back stronger support for the opposition.

// read more.. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/world/middleeast/syria-campaigns-to-persuade-us-to-change-sides.html?hpw&_r=0

image

// RELATED.. Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/

inothernews: BREAKING NEWS:  Charges against Boston bomber Dzhokar Tsarnaev announced by the US Attorney in Massachusetts… via Twitter.
Pop-upView Separately

inothernews:

BREAKING NEWS:  Charges against Boston bomber Dzhokar Tsarnaev announced by the US Attorney in Massachusetts… via Twitter.

beatyourselfup: priceofliberty: Armored vehicle intended for standoffs, dangerous situations It’s 11 ½ feet high, weighs more than 18 tons and can transport 15 people comfortably or cram in up to about 30 in a pinch. The Helena Police Department on Thursday unveiled its new BEAR, or Ballistic Engineered Armored Response vehicle, slated for use in a variety of situations from standoffs and hostage situations to officer transport, incident command and rescues of civilians. “This vehicle has a multitude of uses,” said Lewis and Clark County Sheriff Leo Dutton. Maybe most importantly, it could prevent injury to officers and civilians, Dutton said. In a few past incidents, officers have been injured who probably would not have been if the vehicle was available. “We need this,” Dutton said. “We need to keep our citizens safe and our officers safe, and this will do it.” The vast majority of the cost of the vehicle, more than $400,000, was supplied by a grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the Montana Disaster and Emergency Services. The city of Helena added funds for some add-ons. The bullet-resistant vehicle — each door weighs about 800 pounds — will allow officers to get right up next to a building safely when they are facing unknown situations. Police Chief Troy McGee, who led the effort to secure the federal grant, told the Helena City Commission last year that the vehicle was not intended for crowd control in demonstrations and other incidents, except that it could be useful for transporting officers to a scene. It can detect certain explosives and chemical, radiological and biological hazards, has its own on-board air supply and powerful heating and cooling systems. It has all-wheel drive and is equipped with tire chains. “The vehicle is designed for Montana,” said Capt. Corey Livesay of the police department. It will be used jointly by the police department and sheriff’s office and could also help neighboring jurisdictions. Law enforcement agencies in Yellowstone County, Kalispell and Missoula have similar vehicles. Area officers have already been trained in its operation. The vehicles was manufactured by Lenco Industries of Pittsfield, Mass., on a Freightliner chassis. I am getting so sick of this shit. Look it up for yourself. Helena Montana only has 28,180 people as of the 2010 census. I’ve seen more people at a Metallica concert that didn’t warrant this type of equipment. Yet, they need war vehicles because people in po-bunk Montana must be FUCKING RIOT CRAZY CRIMINALS WHO SHOULD BE TREATED LIKE TERRORISTS. What’s next? Flame throwers? They already have fucking grenade launchers, fully automatic assault rifles, helicopters, tanks, sniper rifles, police dogs, you-fucking-name-it. This militarization of police is a violation of the spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act. Anyone who says any different is lying to you. All cops are fucking bastards… and especially you, Chief McGee.
Pop-upView Separately

beatyourselfup:

priceofliberty:

Armored vehicle intended for standoffs, dangerous situations

It’s 11 ½ feet high, weighs more than 18 tons and can transport 15 people comfortably or cram in up to about 30 in a pinch.

The Helena Police Department on Thursday unveiled its new BEAR, or Ballistic Engineered Armored Response vehicle, slated for use in a variety of situations from standoffs and hostage situations to officer transport, incident command and rescues of civilians.

“This vehicle has a multitude of uses,” said Lewis and Clark County Sheriff Leo Dutton.

Maybe most importantly, it could prevent injury to officers and civilians, Dutton said. In a few past incidents, officers have been injured who probably would not have been if the vehicle was available.

“We need this,” Dutton said. “We need to keep our citizens safe and our officers safe, and this will do it.”

The vast majority of the cost of the vehicle, more than $400,000, was supplied by a grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the Montana Disaster and Emergency Services. The city of Helena added funds for some add-ons.

The bullet-resistant vehicle — each door weighs about 800 pounds — will allow officers to get right up next to a building safely when they are facing unknown situations.

Police Chief Troy McGee, who led the effort to secure the federal grant, told the Helena City Commission last year that the vehicle was not intended for crowd control in demonstrations and other incidents, except that it could be useful for transporting officers to a scene.

It can detect certain explosives and chemical, radiological and biological hazards, has its own on-board air supply and powerful heating and cooling systems.

It has all-wheel drive and is equipped with tire chains.

“The vehicle is designed for Montana,” said Capt. Corey Livesay of the police department.

It will be used jointly by the police department and sheriff’s office and could also help neighboring jurisdictions. Law enforcement agencies in Yellowstone County, Kalispell and Missoula have similar vehicles.

Area officers have already been trained in its operation.

The vehicles was manufactured by Lenco Industries of Pittsfield, Mass., on a Freightliner chassis.

I am getting so sick of this shit.

Look it up for yourself. Helena Montana only has 28,180 people as of the 2010 census. I’ve seen more people at a Metallica concert that didn’t warrant this type of equipment. Yet, they need war vehicles because people in po-bunk Montana must be FUCKING RIOT CRAZY CRIMINALS WHO SHOULD BE TREATED LIKE TERRORISTS.

What’s next? Flame throwers? They already have fucking grenade launchers, fully automatic assault rifles, helicopters, tanks, sniper rifles, police dogs, you-fucking-name-it. This militarization of police is a violation of the spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act. Anyone who says any different is lying to you.

All cops are fucking bastards… and especially you, Chief McGee.