SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Small Wars Participants & Stakeholders > Law Enforcement

Law Enforcement The application of law, order, and justice -- here, there, and everywhere / international.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-22-2013   #121
gute
Council Member
 
gute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
I thought the response to the Boston Bomber situation was way over the top to. You guys would laugh if I told you what I was issued when I started in LE. Vests....what are vests. The radio was in the car not on my belt.....used to carry a thing called a revolver and your extra bullets were carried in a spill pouch because that is what usually happened when you tried to use them. Most important thing I carried was my notebook and flashlight and my brains.
Brain, what's that? I think I had one when I entered the academy years ago. No, wait that was balls.
gute is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013   #122
bourbon
Council Member
 
bourbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 902
Default

Taken: Under civil forfeiture, Americans who haven’t been charged with wrongdoing can be stripped of their cash, cars, and even homes - Is that all we’re losing?, by Sarah Stillman. The New Yorker, August 12, 2013.
Quote:
Whether this should be the law—whether, in the absence of a judicial finding of guilt, the state should be able to take possession of your property—has been debated since before American independence. In the Colonial period, the English Crown issued “writs of assistance” that permitted customs officials to enter homes or vessels and seize whatever they deemed contraband. As the legal scholars Eric Blumenson and Eva Nilsen have noted, these writs were “among the key grievances that triggered the American Revolution.” The new nation’s Bill of Rights would expressly forbid “unreasonable searches and seizures” and promise that no one would be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process.” Nonetheless, Congress soon authorized the use of civil-forfeiture actions against pirates and smugglers. It was easier to prosecute a vessel and seize its cargo than to try to prosecute its owner, who might be an ocean away. In the ensuing decades, the practice fell into disuse and, aside from a few brief revivals, remained mostly dormant for the next two centuries.

Forfeiture in its modern form began with federal statutes enacted in the nineteen-seventies and aimed not at waitresses and janitors but at organized-crime bosses and drug lords. Law-enforcement officers were empowered to seize money and goods tied to the production of illegal drugs. Later amendments allowed the seizure of anything thought to have been purchased with tainted funds, whether or not it was connected to the commission of a crime. Even then, forfeiture remained an infrequent resort until 1984, when Congress passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act. It established a special fund that turned over proceeds from forfeitures to the law-enforcement agencies responsible for them. Local police who provided federal assistance were rewarded with a large percentage of the proceeds, through a program called Equitable Sharing. Soon states were crafting their own forfeiture laws.

Revenue gains were staggering. At the Justice Department, proceeds from forfeiture soared from twenty-seven million dollars in 1985 to five hundred and fifty-six million in 1993. (Last year, the department took in nearly $4.2 billion in forfeitures, a record.) The strategy helped reconcile President Reagan’s call for government action in fighting crime with his call to reduce public spending. In 1989, Attorney General Richard Thornburgh boasted, “It’s now possible for a drug dealer to serve time in a forfeiture-financed prison after being arrested by agents driving a forfeiture-provided automobile while working in a forfeiture-funded sting operation.”
A long, but important – if not infuriating – article on civil asset forfeiture. Asset forfeiture has gone from being an important law enforcement tool to an important revenue stream for law enforcement.
__________________
“[S]omething in his tone now reminded her of his explanations of asymmetric warfare, a topic in which he had a keen and abiding interest. She remembered him telling her how terrorism was almost exclusively about branding, but only slightly less so about the psychology of lotteries…” - Zero History, William Gibson
bourbon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013   #123
gute
Council Member
 
gute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bourbon View Post
Taken: Under civil forfeiture, Americans who haven’t been charged with wrongdoing can be stripped of their cash, cars, and even homes - Is that all we’re losing?, by Sarah Stillman. The New Yorker, August 12, 2013.

A long, but important – if not infuriating – article on civil asset forfeiture. Asset forfeiture has gone from being an important law enforcement tool to an important revenue stream for law enforcement.
There are many extreme cases in the article - outright abuse, but in my experience civil forfeiture works - especially with airport interdiction where you get people transporting thousands of dollars for no apparent reason. Not to sound like an a-hole, but it's all about the money & stuff and when you take it away it hurts the bad guys. Criminally indicting assets does gum up the works, but it's the price of doing business. I believe in the Constitiution and our rights and hope that I have not violated someone's rights while enforcing federal drug laws - I would be disappointed in myself.
gute is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013   #124
Steve Blair
Moderator
 
Steve Blair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 3,195
Default

I think the point here is more one of it being possibly a proper technique when used correctly, but also being aware that it is open to abuse and there need to be ways to deal with that abuse. Airport interdiction isn't the same as pulling someone over for being in the left lane for over ten seconds and then taking everything they own. The PBS NewsHour had an interview with the article's author last night and it was interesting, although not in the same detail as the article.
__________________
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Steve Blair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013   #125
gute
Council Member
 
gute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
I think the point here is more one of it being possibly a proper technique when used correctly, but also being aware that it is open to abuse and there need to be ways to deal with that abuse. Airport interdiction isn't the same as pulling someone over for being in the left lane for over ten seconds and then taking everything they own. The PBS NewsHour had an interview with the article's author last night and it was interesting, although not in the same detail as the article.
Is the point proper technique or civil forfeiture is bad? I'm not defending the egregious seizures written about in the article. I can't imagine a cop telling a couple you can keep your kids if you abandoned your money. IMO very extreme cases and I would venture that not all quoted in the article were telling the truth. Airport interdiction (not customs searches, but consensual encounters, walk & talks) pulling someone over are not much different. Instead of using a vehicle one utilizes their person, asks for consent to search their property, but pc is required for the seizure. The ten seconds in the left lane is a little ticky tack.
gute is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2017   #126
Bill Moore
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,970
Default Narconomics

Narconomics: How to Run a Drug Cartel
by Tom Wainwright

https://www.amazon.com/Narconomics-H...0&sr=1-1-spell

After reading this book, I feel fully qualified to run a drug cartel now. O.K., maybe not, but a fascinating read nonetheless that provides great insights not only into the cartel business from production to distribution, but provides great analysis based on economics on why are expensive drug war (globally, not limited to the U.S.) is failing miserably.

I would love to see this type of analysis conducted for COIN, and instead of listening to the same old tired theories being repeated, actually pull the data and analyze it objectively. It provides a very different, as it did for this study of cartels.

Not surprising, he explains how the DEA's focus for marijuana and cocaine coming from Mexico missed the shift to Meth and now Heroin. His point was the drug market changes frequently based on fads, yet law enforcement has been slow to adapt. He also points out that the crackdown on illegal immigration under Obama (yes its true) on the U.S. southern border, resulted in the Cartels moving into the human trafficking business and professionalizing it. It is a major paradigm shift from the coyotes leading people across the Arizona desert on a high risk crossing. Instead, the cartels move them to holding areas where they get three meals a day, medical care, and access to an internet caf so they can stay in contact with their families. The agreed upon prize to move them into the U.S. (roughly $1,500.00) comes with a guarantee. The traffickers will conduct as many attempts as required to get them into the U.S.

His analysis on the legalization of marijuana in Washington and Colorado was interesting. As one law enforcement explained, there is nothing stopping people from buying it legally, and then driving across the border and selling it illegally. You're average Joe Blow is creating a new gray market. They did a cost analysis on how this will impact the cartels who still move marijuana and the cartels will be less competitive in most places outside of Texas (even more so that more states have legalized it). However, if the legalization trend continues, there is no reason Mexico won't grow it legally at a cheaper price and put the U.S. growers out of business eventually. Darn NAFTA.

He covered the drug trade in New Zealand, somewhat surprising to me, but a local music star Matt Bowden in NZ established a multimillion dollar business producing synthetic drugs for legal highs, always changing the formula to stay one step ahead of the law (until he couldn't). The author points out that relative safe drugs became more dangerous over time because they safer ones were outlawed. Interesting point, considering in other countries, certain drugs like ecstasy that were relatively safe, but the crack down on it, pushed the crowd into more dangerous drugs (supply and demand).

He didn't take easy on the cartels, he provided good coverage on the violence and what drives it and what tends to bring it down. At the end of the book he cited four mistakes we are making in the war on drugs:

1. The obsession with supply: He points out that the demand for drugs is inelastic, so even if we force the price of drugs up that will simply result in more money for the cartels. The producers get paid pennies anyway and that won't change. Obviously his point is to focus on demand, but we all know that is easier said than done.

2. Saving money early on and paying for it later: Back to point one, we are cutting costs by reducing funding for prevention programs, but increasing funds for law enforcement. Our bloated prison system is very expensive (even more so that we privatized much of it). He claims we're spending enough on fighting drugs, but we're spending it on the wrong things.

3. Acting nationally against a global business: I found his comments on target in this area. The richest countries are funding the UN's efforts to eradicate the crops in poor countries, so the rich countries are happy with the way the war is being fought even though it isn't making a difference. The drugs are not valuable at the production end, they're not valuable until they're a finished product ready for distribution, but we don't focus on that. Instead we're burning bridges with countries and their citizens in multiple developing nations to protect our citizens from their own bad habits?

He does point out this is changing, because the lines between producer and consumer are blurring, as developing countries with larger middle classes are now consuming drugs at an increasing pace.

4. Confusing prohibition with control: He uses the term balloon squeezing and herding cockroaches to capture the futility of trying enforce prohibition. He suggests that the legalization of marijuana so far appears to be mostly positive compared to trying to enforce prohibition, which is a very expensive and ineffective effort. What about harder drugs, he doesn't claim to have an answer, but points out that England, Switzerland and other European countries have already legalized heroin in a very limited way. Some doctors have permission to prescribe heroin free of charge to addicts. The idea is addicts are gradually able to wean themselves off, and since it is free the government has reduced the number of robberies they committed by 90%.

I think you'll enjoy the book.

Last edited by davidbfpo; 05-14-2017 at 09:18 AM. Reason: Copied from 2017 What are you reading thread. 50,934v when reopened.
Bill Moore is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2017   #127
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 11,157
Default The Zetas: Don’t mess with us. One town's tale

A Pro-Publica report:
Quote:
In March 2011 gunmen from the Zetas cartel, one of the most violent drug trafficking organizations in the world, swept through Allende and nearby towns like a flash flood, demolishing homes and businesses and kidnapping and killing dozens, possibly hundreds, of men, women and children.

(Shortly after) But unlike most places in Mexico that have been ravaged by the drug war, what happened in Allende didn’t have its origins in Mexico. It began in the United States, when the Drug Enforcement Administration scored an unexpected coup. An agent persuaded a high-level Zetas operative to hand over the trackable cellphone identification numbers for two of the cartel’s most wanted kingpins, Miguel Ángel Treviño and his ​brother Omar. Then the DEA took a gamble. It shared the intelligence with a Mexican federal police unit that has long had problems with leaks — even though its members had been trained and vetted by the DEA. Almost immediately, the Treviños learned they’d been betrayed.
Link:https://www.propublica.org/article/a...and-the-us-dea
__________________
davidbfpo

Last edited by davidbfpo; 06-14-2017 at 03:23 PM. Reason: 54,232v. Copied to Small War in Mexico thread.
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Syria: the case for action davidbfpo Middle East 161 10-01-2013 07:30 AM
The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL jmm99 Military - Other 166 07-28-2013 07:41 PM
Wired’s 2008 Smart list SWJED Social Sciences, Moral, and Religious 19 09-26-2008 06:24 PM
LE Resources sgmgrumpy Law Enforcement 11 09-22-2007 01:41 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9. ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation