Police Work, Politics and World Affairs, Football and the ongoing search for great Scotch Whiskey!

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

What''s Going on in the World 131125



Associated">Associated Press – (Pennsylvania) No charges in Pa. VA hospital Legionnaires’ case. Federal authorities announced November 21 that after a 9 month investigation, no criminal charges will be filed in connection with an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease that killed 5 patients and sickened 21 from water that was not properly treated at a Pittsburgh Veterans Affairs hospital


Sudan's Economic Decay


Vietnam''s Long Search for Partners

Ukraine's Balance Between the EU and RussiaEUROPE

Ukraine's Balancing Act Between Russia and the EU


India: Nuclear-Capable Missile Test Successful November 23, 2013

The Indian military successfully test-fired its nuclear-capable Dhanush ballistic missile from a naval ship off the Odisha coast on Nov. 23, the director of the army's Integrated Test Range in Chandipur said, The Times of India reported. The surface-to-surface missile, a naval variant of India's indigenously developed Prithvi missile, is capable of carrying a conventional or nuclear payload of 500 to 1,000 kilograms and hit both land and sea-based targets.


In Honduras, Major Changes Are Unlikely to Follow Elections


Afghanistan: President Karzai Plays Realpolitik at the Loya Jirga

Elders Back Security Pact That Karzai Won’t Sign

KABUL, Afghanistan — An angry President Hamid Karzai, at times openly hostile to his American allies, on Sunday rejected the final recommendation of a four-day Afghan grand assembly that he should promptly sign a security agreement with the United States.

Even though he had convened the assembly, or loya jirga, to ratify his decision to sign the agreement, Mr. Karzai told the assembled elders that he would do so only after further negotiations.

He also demanded that American forces cease raids on Afghan homes immediately, saying that he would nullify any bilateral security agreement if there was even one more such raid.

In practical terms, that would mean an end to the last remaining combat missions American troops are regularly carrying out: raids by elite units aimed at capturing high-profile insurgents.

“From this moment on, America’s searching of houses, blocking of roads and streets, military operations are over, and our people are free in their country,” Mr. Karzai said, his voice filled with emotion....




Next Steps for the U.S.-Iran Deal

What was unthinkable for many people over many years happened in the early hours of Nov. 24 in Geneva: The United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran struck a deal. After a decadelong struggle, the two reached an accord that seeks to ensure that Iran's nuclear program remains a civilian one. It is a preliminary deal, as both sides face months of work to batten down domestic opposition, build convincing mechanisms to assure compliance and unthread complicated global sanctions.

That’s the easy part. More difficult will be the process to reshape bilateral relations while virtually every regional player in the Middle East seeks ways to cope with an Iran that's no longer geopolitically encumbered.

The foreign ministers of Iran and the six Western powers that constitute so-called P-5+1 Group clinched a six-month deal that begins the curtailment of Iran's nuclear program while relaxing as much as $6 billion in sanctions -- basically those embargoes that do not require U.S. President Barack Obama to secure approval from Congress. Allowing Iran to enrich uranium to “civilian” levels while making sure the know-how is not diverted military purposes will be complex.






Russia Mends Ties With the Vatican

Russia's View of the Iran Deal and U.S. Plans for Central Europe

Russia: Wanted Militant Killed By Own Bomb November 24, 2013

The man killed Nov. 23 in the North Caucasus region as he was preparing an improvised explosive device was identified as wanted militant Suleiman Magomedov, according to Russia's National Anti-terrorism Committee, RIA Novosti reported Nov. 24. Magomedov had been linked to previous terrorist attacks, including the female suicide bomber who blew up a bus in Volgograd on Oct. 21.


Syria: More Than 75 Dead In Damascus Clashes November 24, 2013

Fighting between rebels and forces loyal to the al Assad regime in the Ghouta area east of Damascus has resulted in more than 75 dead, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and activists in the country Nov. 24, AP reported. The attempt by rebels to break a government blockade that has been preventing food, water and other supplies from reaching the opposition-held suburbs has led to a spike in violence


Army on ‘alert’ after Benghazi clashes

Libya’s army has declared a “state of alert” and ordered all troops to report for duty after clashes with a militant group in Benghazi led to the death of at least nine soldiers on Monday, military and medical officials said.

Gunfire and explosions could be heard in the city and thick smoke rose from the Ras Obeida area, witnesses said told Reuters.

“A violent clash has been taking place for several hours between our forces and an Ansar al-Sharia cell,” Colonel Milud al-Zwei, spokesman for Libya’s special forces, told Agence France-Presse.

The interior minister said nine people were killed and 49 others wounded, updating an earlier toll, AFP reported.

Libya has been plagued with a recent surge of violence over the past few weeks.

Libya’s government announced plans last Tuesday to remove militias from the capital and eventually integrate them into the security forces, after a weekend of deadly clashes between militiamen and residents.

At least 45 people were killed and around 400 were wounded in street gun battles between Libyan militiamen and residents in the capital Tripoli last week which were sparked by a protest against the former rebels who played a role in Libya’s 2011 revolt against former leader Muammar Qaddafi....

Egypt: Constitutional Referendum Expected In Late January November 25, 2013

Interim Egyptian Prime Minister Hazem el-Beblawi said Nov. 25 that he expects a referendum on the constitution in the latter half of January, Reuters reported

Polio in 2013

A Middle Eastern Polio Outbreak Could Hamper Schengen Expansion

Except where noted courtesy STRATFOR.COM

Sunday, November 24, 2013

I wonder if anyone will ask Jessee and Al about this…..

Will Jessee pay for her education and prison cost while in the big house….or will Al Sharpton be asked about supporting a lying felon who is now a murderer.

I won't hold my breath.

DURHAM, N.C. (AP) — The woman who falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of rape has been found guilty of second-degree murder in the stabbing death of her boyfriend.

The jury deliberated for about six hours over two days before reaching their verdict in the trial of 34-year-old Crystal Mangum, who was sentenced to between 14 years and 18 years in prison.

Mangum was on trial in the death of 46-year-old Reginald Daye. He was stabbed on April 3, 2011 and he died of complications 10 days later...

The following are courtroom clips showing the moment Mangum heard her verdict read, as well as statements from the victim’s family:

Hey, hey, hey! Who let you in here!

What happens in our bedroom is no one's business but ours!  

Let's give the dirty old men and women at the park a government issued pistol….

That will help stop terrorism in our skies.

I'm not much of a fan of the Department of Homeland Security in general and of TSA in particular. I don't question terrorism in the continental United States must be confronted, but prior to 9/11 that was the responsibility of the Department of Justice. In typical government fashion, instead of fixing the problems and limitations of DoJ in combating terrorism, we simply make another cabinet department. And an outgrowth of that spawn is the TSA, Transportation Screwup Administration.

The stories of feeling up old ladies and five year old children make the dirty old men in the parking lot of the neighborhood park turn green with envy. Not that it will stop Middle Eastern males between the age of 17 and 38. We let them slide. All the time while paying these people with weeks of training several times the money the rent-a-cops they replaced so they can steal from travelers and harass people in buses, trains and while driving, all the time giving us less security.

With that as background, we see the latest idiocy from the minds of DC. They wanna give these rent-a-cop wanna-bes pistols. Man, this is too good.

Arming TSA officers hits resistance on the Hill

…(The November first) slaying of a Transportation Security Administration officer at Los Angeles International Airport is fueling calls from union leaders to give some of the agency’s employees guns, handcuffs and the power to make arrests.

But that would be a tough sell for many conservatives in Congress, where some lawmakers until recently were trying to take away TSA agents’ badges.

The fatal shooting of Gerardo Hernandez and the ensuing gunfight at LAX called attention to a long-running debate over the powers of TSA, whose screeners aren’t considered law enforcement officers even though many of them wear badges...

…Both lawmakers and the Obama administration have called for reviewing airport security procedures after the shooting spree. But union officials are already offering a concrete proposal: create a new category of TSA agent in addition to the 45,000 existing screeners. People in the new positions would be law enforcement officers, who could carry handcuffs and firearms as well as make arrests.

Union leaders say the enhanced status would help protect an unfairly demonized workforce, as well as security checkpoints like the one where Friday’s mayhem began.

“We feel a larger and more consistent armed presence in screening areas would be a positive step in improving security for both [security officers] and the flying public,” said J. David Cox, president of the American Federation of Government Employees. “The development of a new class of TSA officers with law enforcement status would be a logical approach to accomplishing this goal.”

On Friday, union officials initially suggested simply giving every agent arrest powers. But they said Monday that that would be only a half-step.

“Just saying you can arrest somebody, how far is that going to get you?” asked AFGE general counsel David Borer. “The focus needs to be on how do we deliver the right amount of security at the checkpoint.”…
Thankfully this stupidity seems to have died but it will be back. As a Texas Peace Officer, I am required to have three months of training to get my license. My agency requires around three months more to get on the street with your firearm. Then there is three months of field training and a membership program afterwards. These morons want to give these idiots this powers without going through a background check like ours, nor the training. Sounds like the wet dream of a moron in the Congress.

I pray a conservative congress and president in the future eliminates this agency from it's critical job of harassing the traveling public. Whenever someone says we can't but the federal budget, here is the greatest example of where to start.

Friday, November 22, 2013

Geopolitical Weekly: The U.S.-Iran Talks: Ideology and Necessity, November 12, 2013

By George Friedman

The talks between Iran and the Western powers have ended but have not failed. They will reconvene next week. That in itself is a dramatic change from the past, when such talks invariably began in failure. In my book The Next Decade, I argued that the United States and Iran would move toward strategic alignment, and I think that is what we are seeing take shape. Of course, there is no guarantee that the talks will yield a settlement or that they will evolve into anything more meaningful. But the mere possibility requires us to consider three questions: Why is this happening now, what would a settlement look like, and how will it affect the region if it happens?


It is important to recognize that despite all of the other actors on the stage, this negotiation is between the United States and Iran. It is also important to understand that while this phase of the discussion is entirely focused on Iran's nuclear development and sanctions, an eventual settlement would address U.S. and Iranian relations and how those relations affect the region. If the nuclear issue were resolved and the sanctions removed, then matters such as controlling Sunni extremists, investment in Iran and maintaining the regional balance of power would all be on the table. In solving these two outstanding problems, the prospect of a new U.S.-Iranian relationship would have to be taken seriously.

But first, there are great obstacles to overcome. One is ideology. Iran regards the United States as the Great Satan. The United States regards Iran as part of the Axis of Evil. For the Iranians, memories of a U.S.-sponsored coup in 1953 and Washington's support for the Shah are vivid. Americans above the age of 35 cannot forget the Iranian hostage crisis, when Iranians seized some 50 U.S. Embassy employees. Iran believes the United States has violated its sovereignty; the United States believes Iran has violated basic norms of international law. Each views the other as barbaric. Add to this that the ideology of radical Islamism regards the United States as corrupt and evil, and the ideology of the United States sees Iran as brutal and repressive, and it would seem that resolution is impossible.

From the American side, there is precedent for reconciling national differences: China. When the United States reached out to China in the 1970s, Beijing was supplying weapons to the North Vietnamese, who used them against American troops. China's rhetoric about U.S. imperialism, replete with "running dogs," portrayed the United States as monstrous. The United States saw China, a nuclear power, as a greater threat for nuclear war than the Soviet Union, since Mao had openly stated -- and seemed to mean it -- that communists ought to welcome nuclear war rather than fear it. Given the extremism and brutality of the Cultural Revolution, the ideological bar seemed insurmountable.

But the strategic interests of both countries superseded ideology. They did not recognize each other, but they did need each other. The relative power of the Soviet Union had risen. There had been heavy fighting between China and the Soviet Union along the Ussuri River in 1969, and Soviet troops were heavily deployed along China's border. The United States had begun to redeploy troops from Europe to Southeast Asia when it became clear it was losing the Vietnam War.

Each side was concerned that if the Soviet Union chose to attack China or NATO separately, it could defeat them. However, if China and the United States collaborated, no Soviet attack would be possible, lest Moscow start a two-front war it couldn't win. It was not necessary to sign a treaty of military alliance or even mention this possibility. Simply meeting, talking and establishing diplomatic relations with China would force the Soviet Union to consider the possibility that Washington and Beijing had a tacit understanding -- or that even without an understanding, an attack on one of them would trigger a response by the other. After all, if NATO or China were defeated, the Soviets would be able to overpower the other at its discretion. Therefore, by moving the relationship from total hostility to minimal accommodation, the strategic balance changed.

In looking at Iran, the most important thing to note is the difference between its rhetoric and its actions. If you listened to Iranian government officials in the past, you would think they were preparing for the global apocalypse. In truth, Iranian foreign policy has been extremely measured. Its one major war, which it fought against Iraq in the 1980s, was not initiated by Iran. It has supported third parties such as Hezbollah and Syria, sending supplies and advisers, but it has been extremely cautious in the use of its own overt power. In the early days of the Islamic republic, whenever Tehran was confronted with American interests, it would pull closer to the Soviet Union, an atheistic country making war in neighboring Afghanistan. It needed a counterweight to the United States and put ideology aside, even in its earliest, most radical days.

New Strategic Interests

Ideology is not trivial, but ultimately it is not the arbiter of foreign relations. Like all countries, the United States and Iran have strategic issues that influence their actions. Iran attempted to create an arc of influence from western Afghanistan to Beirut, the key to which was preserving and dominating the Syrian regime. The Iranians failed in Syria, where the regime exists but no longer governs much of the country. The blowback from this failure has been an upsurge in Sunni militant activity against the Shiite-dominated regime.

But the arc of influence was interrupted elsewhere, particularly Iraq, which has proved to be the major national security challenge facing Iran. Coupled with the failures in Syria, the degradation of Iraq has put Iran on the defensive when, just one year earlier, it was poised to change the balance of power in its favor.

At the same time, Iran found that its nuclear program had prompted a seriously detrimental sanctions regime. Stratfor has long argued that the Iranian nuclear program was primarily a bargaining chip to be traded for guarantees on its security and recognition of its regional power. It was meant to appear threatening, not to be threatening. This is why, for years, Iran was "only months" away from a weapon. The problem was that despite its growing power, Iran could no longer withstand the economic repercussions of the sanctions regime. In light of Syria and Iraq, the nuclear program was a serious miscalculation that produced an economic crisis. The failures in foreign policy and the subsequent economic crisis discredited the policies of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, changed the thinking of the supreme leader and ultimately led to the electoral victory of President Hassan Rouhani. The ideology may not have changed, but the strategic reality had. Rouhani for years had been worried about the stability of the regime and was thus critical of Ahmadinejad's policies. He knew that Iran had to redefine its foreign policy.

The United States has also been changing its strategy. During the 2000s, it tried to deal with Sunni radicals through the direct use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq. The United States could not continue to commit its main force in the Islamic world when that very commitment gave other nations, such as Russia, the opportunity to maneuver without concern for U.S. military force. The United States did have a problem with al Qaeda, but it needed a new strategy for dealing with it. Syria provided a model. The United States declined to intervene unilaterally against the al Assad regime because it did not want to empower a radical Sunni government. It preferred to allow Syria's factions to counterbalance each other such that neither side was in control.

This balance-of-power approach was the alternative to direct military commitment. The United States was not the only country concerned about Sunni radicalism. Iran, a Shiite power ultimately hostile to Sunnis, was equally concerned about jihadists. Saudi Arabia, Iran's regional rival, at times opposed Islamist radicals (in Saudi Arabia) and supported them elsewhere (in Syria or Iraq). The American relationship with Saudi Arabia, resting heavily on oil, had changed. The United States had plenty of oil now and the Saudis' complex strategies simply no longer matched American interests. On the broadest level, a stronger Iran, aligned with the United States, would counter Sunni ambitions. It would not address the question of North Africa or other smaller issues, but it would force Saudi Arabia to reshape its policies.

The Arab Spring also was a consideration. A mainstay of Washington's Iran policy was that at some point there would be an uprising that would overthrow the regime. The 2009 uprising, never really a threat to the regime, was seen as a rehearsal. If there was likely to be an uprising, there was no need to deal with Iran. Then the Arab Spring occurred. Many in the Obama administration misread the Arab Spring, expecting it to yield more liberal regimes. That didn't happen. Egypt has not evolved, Syria has devolved into civil war, Bahrain has seen Saudi Arabia repress its uprising, and Libya has found itself on the brink of chaos. Not a single liberal democratic regime emerged. It became clear that there would be no uprising in Iran, and even if there were, the results would not likely benefit the United States.

A strategy of encouraging uprisings no longer worked. A strategy of large-scale intervention was unsustainable. The idea of attacking Iran was unpalatable. Even if the administration agreed with Israel and thought that the nuclear program was intended to produce a nuclear weapon, it was not clear that the program could be destroyed from the air.

Therefore, in the particular case of Iran's nuclear program, the United States could only employ sanctions. On the broader issue of managing American interests in the Middle East, the United States had to find more options. It could not rely entirely on Saudi Arabia, which has dramatically different regional interests. It could not rely entirely on Israel, which by itself could not solve the Iranian problem militarily. These realities forced the United States to recalibrate its relationship with Iran at a time when Iran had to recalibrate its relationship with the United States.

All Things Possible

The first U.S.-Iranian discussions would obviously be on the immediate issue -- the nuclear program and sanctions. There are many technical issues involved there, the most important of which is that both sides must show that they don't need a settlement. No one negotiating anything will simply accept the first offer, not when they expect the negotiations to move on to more serious issues. Walking away from the table for 10 days gives both sides some credibility.

The real negotiations will come after the nuclear and sanctions issues are addressed. They will pertain to U.S.-Iranian relations more broadly. Each side will use the other to its advantage. The Iranians will use the United States to repair its economy, and the Americans will use the Iranians to create a balance of power with Sunni states. This will create indirect benefits for both sides. Iran's financial woes will be an opportunity for American companies to invest. The Americans' need for a balance of power will give Iran weight against its own enemies, even after the collapse of its strategy.

The region will of course look different but not dramatically so. The balance of power idea does not mean a rupture with Saudi Arabia or Israel. The balance of power only works if the United States maintains strong relationships on all sides. The Saudis and Israelis will not like American rebalancing. Their choices in the matter are limited, but they can take comfort from the fact that a strictly pro-Iranian policy is impossible for the United States. The American strategy with China in the 1970s was to try to become the power that balanced the Soviet Union and China. After meeting with the Chinese, Henry Kissinger went to Moscow. Thus, in terms of bilateral relationships, U.S.-Saudi and U.S.-Israeli relations can stay the same. But it now creates another relationship and option for the United States. In the end, Iran is still a secondary power and the United States is the primary power. Iran will take advantage of the relationship, and the United States will manage it.

It is hard to imagine this evolution, considering what the United States and Iran have said about each other for the past 34 years. But relations among nations are not about sentiment; they are about interest. If Roosevelt could ally with Stalin, and Nixon with Mao, then it is clear that all things are possible in U.S. foreign policy. For their part, the Persians have endured for millennia, espousing many ideologies but doing what was necessary to survive and prosper. All of this may well fall apart, but there is a compelling logic to believe that it will not, and it will not be as modest a negotiation as it appears now.

The U.S.-Iran Talks: Ideology and Necessity is republished with permission of Stratfor.

You deserve a break today…..

Last month a McDonald's in Houston (and in my former beat) has a sign telling young men to pull their pants up before walking in or to not come in. For the most part, the feedback has been positive as this is an effort to keep problem children out of the restaurant. Well another McDonald's is trying something else.
McDonald's restaurant turns to opera to drive out loitering teenagers

A McDonald's outlet in Australia has begun playing classical musical and opera late at night to deter young people from loitering around the restaurant.

Fed up with their outlet's nocturnal transformation into an unofficial youth club, the store adopted the tactic a few weeks ago and says it has significantly reduced the number of loiterers, particularly around the car park. The strategy has reportedly been tried before by a local council at a car park in Australia, though previous efforts involved blaring songs by Barry Manilow.

Matthew Watson, the operations manager at the Mt Annan McDonald's on the outskirts of Sydney, said the music had been a successful deterrent.

"We've noticed a reduction in the number of young people hanging around, but we'll have to reassess it properly in a couple of weeks," the store's operations manager, Matthew Watson, told the Macarthur Chronicle newspaper.

"We play a range of classical and opera music and so far it seems to be working..."

Great way to keep the problem away from your business. Great work Mr. Watson.

Why women don't belong in combat units…from a female Marine combat vet.

The destruction of the US military, started under the Clinton years, has gone into overdrive since January 2009. The Army is looking at loosing two more divisions and at least one Navy carrier is on the chopping block. So what does the Obama regime think is the biggest issue for the Pentagon: Women in the infantry.

Last year (if memory serves) the Marines sent two female officers to their infantry officers basic course. They lasted a week. But that will not stop the Obamaites and their mission to turn the military into a big social experiment.

A few days ago I got this from Facebook and it's an excellent piece from a female Marine on why women don't need to be in direct combat units. Some excerpts:
The Problems of Women in Combat – From a Female Combat Vet

It’s not all about qualification. I’m speaking as a female Marine Iraq war vet who did serve in the combat zone doing entry checkpoint duty in Fallujah, and we worked with the grunts daily for that time. All the branches still have different standards for females and males. Why? Because most women wouldn’t even qualify to be in the military if they didn’t have separate standards. Men and women are different, but those pushing women into combat don’t want to admit that truth. They huff and puff about how women can do whatever men can do, but it just ain’t so. We’re built differently, and it doesn’t matter that one particular woman could best one particular man. The best woman is still no match for the best man, and most of the men she’d be fireman-carrying off the battlefield will be at least 100 lbs heavier than her with their gear on.

Women are often great shooters but can’t run in 50-80 lbs of gear as long, hard, or fast as men. Military training is hard enough on men’s bodies; it’s harder on women’s. And until women stop menstruating, there will always be an uphill battle for staying level and strong at all times. No one wants to talk about the fact that in the days before a woman’s cycle, she loses half her strength, to say nothing of the emotional ups and downs that affect judgment. And how would you like fighting through PMS symptoms while clearing a town or going through a firefight? Then there are the logistics of making all the accommodations for women in the field, from stopping the convoy to pee or because her cycle started to stripping down to get hosed off after having to go into combat with full MOP gear when there’s a biological threat.

This is to say nothing of unit cohesion, which is imperative and paramount, especially in the combat fields. When preparing for battle, the last thing on your mind should be sex; but you put men and women in close quarters together, and human nature is what it is (this is also why the repeal of DADT is so damaging). It doesn’t matter what the rules are. The Navy proved that when they started allowing women on ship. What happened? They were having sex and getting pregnant, ruining unit cohesion (not to mention derailing the operations because they’d have to change course to get them off ship.)...

...Women have many wonderful strengths, and there is certainly a lot of work for women to do in the military. But all the problems that come with men and women working together are compounded in the war zone, destroying the cohesion necessary to fight bloody, hellish war. We are at war; and if we want to win, we have to separate the wheat from the chaff. And the top priority should be military readiness and WINNING wars, not political correctness and artificially imposed “equality” on the military.

The Problems of Women in Combat – Part 2

...I talk about several of the female-only issues for which extra accommodations have to be made in my previous article. We are not equal except in our rights under Constitutional Law. Nature has no regard for equality, and each one of us is born differently from each other. We are diverse and dissimilar in our talents, physical aspects, intellect, and emotions; and the sexes are inherently different. We know, for example, that women are much more prone to certain types of infections. For a woman on patrol, setting up an ambush (or, as the infantry do, living in abandoned buildings with no running water), hygiene is a constant problem. A urinary tract infection can quickly become a kidney infection (debilitating in itself) and then kidney failure if left unchecked. Suddenly, a woman needs to be evacuated for a problem that has nothing to do with combat and to which men are not susceptible.

Then there’s pregnancy. Margaret Wente writes: “One study of a brigade operating in Iraq found that female soldiers were evacuated at three times the rate of male soldiers – and that 74 percent of them were evacuated for pregnancy-related issues.”

It costs approximately a million dollars per individual to get trained through bootcamp and to be made ready for deployment. Those are taxpayer dollars spent on someone who has to turn around and leave the combat zone to have a baby (for which our tax dollars also pay), having nothing to do with combat.

Changing Our Best Instincts: Protecting Women, Mothering Children

We know that rape is a tool of torture for the already savage enemy we’re fighting. In one TV interview, a woman suggested that if women are willing to take that risk, we should let them. She also absurdly claimed that men are raped as much as women when captured, which is patently false. But the idea that men shouldn’t worry any more about women in battle goes against the very best primal male instinct. In every country from Canada to Israel where women are in combat (and in American units where women are in theater), the men will tell you they are more protective of the women. It’s different from men’s protection of each other, and it distracts from mission completion. The pro-WICs would have men thwart this wonderful and thoroughly ingrained instinct. A world in which men don’t feel a strong need to protect women when they’re in the most dangerous and hostile of environments would be a nightmare. We would rightly call those men brutes.

We’re also thwarting mothers’ nurturing instincts. Women are already training to kill and leaving their children to deploy, even when they are the sole caregiver (turning care over namely to grandparents). This sets a bad precedent and hurts children. There will always be war, and it’s bad enough for fathers to leave their children to fight necessarily; but to allow mothers to choose this path over motherhood is bad for everyone. There are many noble capacities in which women with children can fight for this country, such as administrative jobs stateside. We don’t need to deploy mothers to battle; we shouldn’t…

The full article is over three web pages and it's well worth the read. One thing the author mentions is how the Israeli's discovered that no matter what you do to indoctrinate men, the natural inclination of a man to protect a women will take over. And that can be extremely destructive to unit cohesion and effectiveness. To add to that, IMHO, a society that will treat it's women so poorly is not worth saving.

Thanks Bryan G for the link.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Patrolman Edward A. Wehe
Delaware County Pennsylvania Courthouse and Park Police Department
End of Watch: Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Age: 57
Tour: 18 years
Badge # 80

Patrolman Edward Wehe suffered a fatal heart attack shortly after clearing the scene of a protest at the Delaware County Prison.

He had been dispatched to the prison to assist in removing the protesters, who had not obtained the proper permits to assemble. He was able to clear the scene after approximately four hours. He went to a local restaurant where he ran into his daughter and, while speaking with her, suddenly collapsed. His daughter immediately initiated CPR until medics arrived. He was transported to Riddle Memorial Hospital where he passed away.

Patrolman Wehe was a U.S. Navy veteran. He had served with the Delaware County Courthouse and Park Police Department for 18 years, and also served as a part-time officer with the Marcus Hook Police Department. He is survived by his daughter, granddaughter, fiancee, and brother.
Rest in Peace Bro…We Got The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh. 

Another example of something that makes you say "this is happening in my country"?

I loved doing DWI investigations while on the street. A lot of my buddies hated them because they were time consuming if you were not experienced, but I've had a bit of a personal ax to grind. I've been hit twice by drunk drivers. That being said the report has to be a bit more than "Saw drunk, arrested same."

To start the process I have to justify, aka have "reasonable suspicion" to initiated a traffic stop. Things that do that include driving the wrong way on a one way street, no headlights while driving at night and unable to maintain a single lane. Then I have to articulate why I needed to do a field sobriety test (e.g. "Strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on driver's breath, unbalanced in walk" etc.

Well, I"m all for getting drunk drivers off the road, but this ain't doing it. It's not a means of that goal. And more to the fact, it's wrong.
North Texas Drivers Stopped at Roadblock Asked for Saliva, Blood | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

Some drivers along a busy Fort Worth street on Friday were stopped at a police roadblock and directed into a parking lot, where they were asked by federal contractors for samples of their breath, saliva and even blood.

It was part of a government research study aimed at determining the number of drunken or drug-impaired drivers.

"It just doesn't seem right that you can be forced off the road when you're not doing anything wrong," said Kim Cope, who said she was on her lunch break when she was forced to pull over at the roadblock on Beach Street in North Fort Worth.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is spending $7.9 million on the survey over three years, said participation was "100 percent voluntary" and anonymous.

But Cope said it didn't feel voluntary to her -- despite signs saying it was.

"I gestured to the guy in front that I just wanted to go straight, but he wouldn't let me and forced me into a parking spot," she said.

Once parked, she couldn't believe what she was asked next.

"They were asking for cheek swabs," she said. "They would give $10 for that. Also, if you let them take your blood, they would pay you $50 for that."

At the very least, she said, they wanted to test her breath for alcohol.

She said she felt trapped.

"I finally did the Breathalyzer test just because I thought that would be the easiest way to leave," she said, adding she received no money.

Fort Worth police earlier said they could not immediately find any record of officer involvement but police spokesman Sgt. Kelly Peel said Tuesday that the department's Traffic Division coordinated with the NHTSA on the use of off-duty officers after the agency asked for help with the survey.

"We are reviewing the actions of all police personnel involved to ensure that FWPD policies and procedures were followed," he said. "We apologize if any of our drivers and citizens were offended or inconvenienced by the NHTSA National Roadside Survey."

NBC DFW confirmed that the survey was done by a government contractor, the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, which is based in Calverton, Md.

A company spokeswoman referred questions to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

An agency spokeswoman sent an email confirming the government is conducting the surveys in 30 cities across the country in an effort to reduce impaired-driving accidents.

She did not respond to another email from NBC DFW asking specific questions about the program..

But a Fort Worth attorney who is an expert in civil liberties law questioned whether such stops are constitutional.

"You can't just be pulled over randomly or for no reason," said attorney Frank Colosi.

He also noted the fine print on a form given to drivers informs them their breath was tested by "passive alcohol sensor readings before the consent process has been completed."

"They're essentially lying to you when they say it's completely voluntary, because they're testing you at that moment," Colosi said.

He also questioned the results of the "voluntary" survey -- speculating that drivers who had been drinking or using drugs would be more inclined to simply decline to participate.

Cope said she is troubled by what happened.

"It just doesn't seem right that they should be able to do any of it," she said. "If it's voluntary, it's voluntary, and none of it felt voluntary."

Asked Tuesday if she accepted the police department's apology, Cope said she would wait to see what the review showed.

"They need to make sure this doesn't happen again," she said.

There is no "reasonable suspicion" to stopping someone just for driving. Granted, police can operate a road block if the standard for the stop is completely objective, such as stopping every fifth car. But that is for local police to do, not for the feds.

Monday, November 18, 2013

Does you K9 like kids?.....

I love a good K9 on my scene. Nothing, with the possible exception of a shotgun getting racked opens the eyes and adjust the attitude of a turd like the sound of a K9 barking. That four legged police animal can change with one word from his handler from a friendly doggie to the most merciless creature a suspect will every know. So I have to say I look at this with reservations.
Advocates ponder use of K-9s to protect schools

The idea for K9s4KIDs grew out of school shootings and suggestions on applications for police dogs

LOS ANGELES — While some say school safety hinges on guns, cameras or alarms in classrooms, Mark Gomer and Kristi Schiller think specially trained dogs should take point in preventing violence in schools.

Gomer's for-profit company has sent a gun- and drug-detecting dog to patrol the halls of an Ohio high school, while Schiller is launching a nonprofit in Houston to give schools the trained canines for free. Their programs are still in their infancy, so questions remain about dogs that can distract, scare or send kids into sneezing fits. But they think they can cultivate their ideas to help schools across the country stay safe.

Gomer's first full-time safety dog is a year-old Dutch shepherd named Atticus, who reported to duty this school year at Oak Hills High School in Green Township in southwest Ohio.

The dog trained at the school before the summer break, said Gomer, co-owner of American Success Dog Training in Bridgetown, Ohio. As part of the company's School Protection Dog program, Atticus learned on the job about marching bands and school bells and the thunk of books hitting a locker.

Gomer, who has trained about 8,000 dogs over 20 years and has three children in the school district, suggested the dog after 20 students and six teachers were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

Atticus has won over students, parents, teachers and district Superintendent Todd Yohey, who initially worried what people would think of him spending $10,000 on a dog.

Gomer has talked to a lot of parents and faculty, and they are saying it was money well-spent, he said.

Atticus spends his days on a leash with two security guards and goes home with Principal John Stoddard at night. Messages left for Stoddard were not immediately returned.

For her part, Schiller is looking to provide safety dogs to schools free of charge. She hopes her new initiative, K9s4KIDs, does for schools what her K9s4COPs did for police departments. She has placed more than 60 dogs with agencies in three years.

"These canines are extremely social, yet highly qualified warriors that are accustomed to going straight to the source of a threat or shooter and disengaging the suspect armed with the weapon," said Schiller, a Houston mother and philanthropist....
When I have a dog on scene I will like to play with him a bit but first thing I do is ask the handler "Can I approach him?". K9 friendly may confuse you for a bad guy and the results won't be nice. Too many kids may not realize this is not a pet.

And the part about the dog going home with the principle is not good IMHO. He should have a handler and meld with him and the handler's family. The dog is as much a part of the family as his kids.

Hey, I'm hopeful this works. Anything that can adjust the attitude of the punks who inhabit our inner city schools is good.

Sunday, November 17, 2013

After a long and stressful night on the job….

I come home to the latest issue of Playboy!

As usual, I got straight to the interview and I have the distinct pleasure to read a good dialogue with New York’s outgoing top cop, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly.

Now anyone who knows me knows I despise Mikie Bloomberg. His nanny state crap makes one think he was trained by J Edgar Hoover and a group of pedophiles. The hypocrisy of the man having armed guards left and right while trying to disarm law abiding citizens is incredible. But I’ll give him this, he continued the policing policies of his predecessor, Rudolph Giuliani. Bloomturd, you only succeeded a real man, you never replaced him.

But I digress. I read the interview with the Kelly and it has a strong defense of the “stop and frisk” policies that have led to a great drawdown in crime since the early 1990s. Gee, go after suspects and criminal, put them in jail, crime goes down and life goes up. Who would have every thunk it?

From Mr. Kelly:

PLAYBOY: What’s your view of failed mayoral candidate Bill Thompson? He said, “Our kids should never be targeted for the color of their skin. I’ll end racial profiling and stop-and-frisk and get illegal guns off the street.”

KELLY: How? Nobody asked him how.

PLAYBOY: And Democratic nominee Bill de Blasio said, “Millions of innocent New Yorkers—overwhelmingly men of color—have been illegally stopped.” What were they talking about?

KELLY: They were talking about election-year politics. They were pandering to get votes. Whoever wins the primary always attempts to run back to the center and disavow the impact of what they’ve said...

...PLAYBOY: We’ll swing back to your plans later, but for now, does criticism over stop-and-frisk disturb you?

KELLY: Look, I can understand the fascination with it, but it’s just one tool in a toolbox that has many other crime-fighting measures in it. What about our Real Time Crime Center, the first centralized technology giving us instant data to stop emerging crime? Or Operation Crew Cut, a successful effort to curtail gang activity, or Operation Impact, a unit that deploys officers to high-risk neighborhoods when there’s a spike in crime? I’d add that over the course of 12 years the NYPD became the most racially diverse department in the nation. We expanded our ranks with officers from 106 countries. We now have more black, Asian and Hispanic officers than white.

PLAYBOY: Are you getting the attention you think you deserve for that?

KELLY: Good news is not news. Bad news sells. Confrontation sells. And that’s what the press is always looking for. Look, I’m not bragging, but I have the highest job-approval rating of any public official in the city. And I’ve had it consistently. The approval rating for the police department is 70 percent. This notion that stop-and-frisk has torn the community apart is false.

PLAYBOY: Many mayoral candidates agreed with the federal judge that stop-and-frisk is unconstitutional and that it must be overhauled.

KELLY: Notice what they never talk about—the lives being saved. During the past 11 years we had 7,363 fewer murders than we had in the 11 years before. Last year the homicide rate was the lowest in at least 50 years. And this year we’re running about 30 percent below that. You haven’t heard one candidate talk about that or what they would do to keep this record going forward. I know we’re saving lives, and I know we’re doing the right thing.

PLAYBOY: Then why, according to an exit poll of Democrats taken on primary day in September, did 59 percent deem the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policy excessive?

KELLY: What you have is government by advocacy group. Among the people, there’s no groundswell against stop-and-frisk—certainly not in minority communities. I’m there all the time. They want more proactive policing.

PLAYBOY: You’re basically talking about parents, right?

KELLY: Parents, yes, because they are being victimized. They are the losers in this if their son or daughter is killed. The lives saved are largely those of young men of color.

PLAYBOY: Then why did a federal judge deem the policy unconstitutional?

KELLY: That’s a question for her. In the court case, the plaintiffs’ expert looked at 4.4 million stops and found only six percent were “unjustified.” In the court case, the judge looked at 19 stops and found 10 of them were constitutional.

PLAYBOY: So she made her ruling on——

KELLY: The flimsiest of evidence. And the decision deserves to be appealed.

PLAYBOY: So what are the criteria for a police officer to stop someone on the street?

KELLY: You can be stopped if a police officer reasonably suspects a crime is about to be committed, is being committed or has been committed. Every law enforcement agency does it. It’s essential to policing.

PLAYBOY: So you didn’t invent it.

KELLY: No. There is a 1968 Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio, that validates this procedure. Virtually all states use some variation of it.

Gee, you mean it's within the law? Again, who would have thunk it with every TV show and movie saying cops need "probable cause" to ask you the time of day. A police officer must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has, is being, or will be committed before he can detain a man on the street. And yes, we can oblige you to identify yourself, pat you down and if the situation is because of officer safety, handcuff you. But don't tell the ACLU, LULAC, The Race, err La Raza, the US Department of (In)Justice or Hollywood that.
PLAYBOY: Since 86 percent of the 5 million people stopped in the past 11 years were black or Latino, how is this not racial profiling?

KELLY: What criteria do you use? The federal judge says you look at the census data of a particular neighborhood and at overall crime to determine whether racial profiling is going on. That makes no sense, because half your stops would be women. In New York, 70 to 75 percent of the descriptions of perpetrators of violent crime are black men; the vast majority of the remainder is Latino. And 97 percent of shooting victims are black or Latino. Our stops are 53 percent black and roughly 35 percent Hispanic.

And I hate to tell you this Playboy, blacks and hispanics commit a disproportionate around of the violent crime in the country. Guess where the murders occur? The ghetto. More on that to come.

PLAYBOY: On Nightline last spring you stated that African Americans are actually being “understopped.” Do you stand by that?

KELLY: I don’t like the term understopped because it seems pejorative. I would say our stops comport to the population of the perpetrators of violent crime as described by the victims themselves.

PLAYBOY: So you’re not overdoing it?

KELLY: Right.

PLAYBOY: Can you understand how some young men of color who have been stopped for no reason may hate your guts?

KELLY: I don’t agree. The notion of hatred has been stirred up by a small number of advocacy groups that have done a great job at marketing this concept. You might read something snarky on Twitter, but I could take you right now to 125th Street in Harlem and young men will stop me for my picture and give me a very favorable and friendly greeting. They understand that we’re saving lives in their community, that they’re the ones at risk.

PLAYBOY: To be clear, what are the officers not allowed to do?

KELLY: They’re not allowed to stop someone based on their race. They’re not allowed to stop someone based on less than reasonable suspicion.

PLAYBOY: But you focus your efforts in black and Latino neighborhoods.

KELLY: Well, that’s where the crime is. That’s where the shootings are. That’s where the violence is. And that’s where we put our resources.

Like trying to fish for trout in the middle of downtown Houston. Or as John Dillinger was asked why he robbed banks, "Because that's where the money is." Why do we patrol "Da Hood"? Because that is where the crooks are.

PLAYBOY: Put yourself in the shoes of a 17-year-old black teenager dressed in a hoodie and baggy pants, earplugs in, listening to music, a can of Coke in his pocket. You’re on your way home and haven’t done anything wrong. Out of the blue, cops stop you. Is that fair?

KELLY: It depends on why he’s being stopped. Was there a description on the radio of somebody committing a crime who looked like that young man? Was somebody fleeing a particular area? Is there gang activity there? Or did they think his can of Coke was a weapon? Stopping him is a legitimate law enforcement function.

PLAYBOY: But he won’t be stopped just because he’s black or because of what he’s wearing?

KELLY: No, absolutely not. You need reasonable suspicion.

PLAYBOY: Are you saying it has never happened that someone was stopped for no reason?

KELLY: I can’t say it has never happened. We have hundreds of thousands of stops a year. But generally stops happen for a legitimate reason, with reasonable suspicion.

PLAYBOY: And the criteria for a frisk?

KELLY: Frisks happen in about half the stops and only when the officer can articulate a fear for his or her safety, and it is a limited pat-down, not a search.

PLAYBOY: What’s the limit on the pat-down?

KELLY: Exterior clothing.

PLAYBOY: They don’t go into private areas.

KELLY: Right.

Hello, Hollywood, are you listening? No, truth is not required for a Law and Order plot…

Great personal quote:

PLAYBOY: ...What about Bush 43?

KELLY: He was always friendly and funny. I was once in a car with him here in New York, and he said, “Kelly, you ever notice when I’m driving down the block, everybody’s giving me the finger?” I said, “They’re just saying you’re number one, Mr. President.”

A great interview with a great man and as his predecessor and favorite President, Teddy Roosevelt, he was in the arena, he was a ...man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Thank you Mr. Kelly for your true public service and I hope to see more of you in the future.

PS: I heard Playboy is putting pictures in the magazine now…you know, they may be onto something now! :<)

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Officer Down

Reserve Officer Robert Libke
Oregon City Oregon Police Department
End of Watch: Monday, November 4, 2013
Age: 41
Tour: 4 years
Badge # 51035
Cause: Gunfire
Incident Date: 11/3/2013

Reserve Officer Robert Libke succumbed to a gunshot wound sustained the previous day after responding to a house fire on Linn Avenue at approximately 1:00 pm.

As emergency crews arrived at the scene they were informed the occupant was armed. Officer Libke was one of the first officers on scene and confronted the man at gunpoint, ordering him to drop his gun. The 88-year-old subject instead opened fire with a revolver, striking Officer Libke in the head. Officer Libke was unable to return fire.

The subject committed suicide at the location a short time later.

Officer Libke was flown to Legacy Emanuel Medical Center in grave condition. He passed away the following day after being taken off of life support.

Officer Libke had served with the Oregon City Police Department for four years. He is survived by his expectant wife.
Rest in Peace Bro…We Got The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh. 

I generally don't approve of this but I gotta say it, Sherlock Rocks

I've often lamented how there is little originality in Hollywood these days. And as a rule I don't care for remakes but this is awesome. The BBC has produced a new version of Sherlock Holmes and Dr John Watson and it is great.

The wife told me about this and after she got me off my ass I got on Amazon.com and I watched A Study in Pink. a revision of the original A Study in Scarlett. I have to say it made being brainy intriguing, or as one reviewer said, sexy.

The BBC version updates the pair to modern day London, with John Watson being a British army veteran suffering from PTSD and meting the consulting detective Sherlock through a mutual friend. The interaction between the two men comes up immediately and, thank God, the special effects are limited. Unlike the recent movies based on Conan Doyle's works, this series doesn't show people jumping across building or other stupidity that breaks the laws of physics.

In one episode after another, a reader of the original works will recognize the basic plot updated with the use of cell phones, an updated magnifying glass, Holmes trying to quit smoking and only alludes to his cocaine habit. His brother Mycroft his introduced as one of his routine antagonist and used just enough to make it interesting. And Dr Watson records their adventures in a blog today, not on paper.

There have been three actors who have played "The Great Detective" over the years. Sir Basil Rathbone in a British produced series from 1939 to 1946 and then Jeremy Brett starred in the 1980s and 1990s remake from Canadian broadcasting. Of these three men I would say Rathbone played to character closest to the "real" Holmes, while Brett somewhat modernized him. Each was excellent in their own way, but their greatness was born from a simple way. If you have a great story, let it play out and preform the acting well. Something Hollywood should remember these days.

Sir Basil Rathbone

Jeremy Brett

Well, got through the first season this morning and I'll start season two this week. Sherlock, unfortunately, doesn't have that many episodes. They are 90 minute long but the BBC only produces three shows a season. A little Sherlock goes a long way. Wets the appetite for more. Perhaps the entertainment industry should remember that.

And I'm adding a blog onto my blog list on A Cop's Watch…too cool not to put Dr. Watson on! :<)

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

How technology can let a civilian see what a cop sees….

I am for embracing technology to improve performance, not for the sake of buying a new toy. Digitizing reports, forms and imagery is a godsend with all we do.

I have occasionally used digital recorders to take statements and I have a small body camera I bought from Amazon.com for DWI investigations. Nothing impresses a jury member like the sight of the driver at the scene, intoxicated.

With that as the background, you need to see this:

'The video is unbiased'
Daytona's police chief says the cameras prove that most officers are following the law.

In the video Daytona Beach released Wednesday, officers are captured as they kick in the front door to force their way into the home on Magnolia Avenue in Daytona Beach.

As three officers entered, Green ran into a bedroom and pulled his victim on top of him as he held a knife to her chest.

After police repeatedly told Green to let the woman go, Green shoved the knife down in an attempt to stab her. That's when two officers opened fire.

Green was shot several times, and the woman was struck once in the right arm. They both survived.

"I think they followed policy and the law," said Chitwood. "I was very proud of everything they did."

Danny Banks, the special agent in charge for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's Orlando region, said this kind of video is valuable when it comes to investigating the behavior of officers.

FDLE investigators review more than 20 shootings involving law-enforcement officers in Central Florida region every year, Banks said.

In each case, agents interview officers and witnesses in an attempt to recreate the scene and determine if the shooting was justified.

"The video is unbiased," Banks said. "It's the closest that we have right now to actually giving us the perspective that the officer was seeing."

This gives one the view of how fast a cop can need to investigate an incident and then take action. Literally in seconds the officer has to decide to shoot or not shoot as a man holds a knife to a woman. A very common scenario used in training, but this is very real.

Now fast forward this to three months from now when the suspect lawyer is complaining about excessive force and of course wants a multi-million dollar settlement with the city and wants the officers prosecuted for excessive force, etc. A grand jury will look at that video and likely "no-bill" in a matter of minutes as there was reasonable fear of for loss of life or serious bodily injury on the part of the woman. And the fact this video is available (and will get presented to the plaintiff in the civil trail) may convince the defendant a civil action is a worthless effort, saving money and time.

This video came from PoliceOne.com and the referenced article shows some of the issues with body cameras (cost, storage issues, etc).

We have advanced from the days of "Press hard, you're making four copies". Now if we could come up with a Phaser! :<)

Officer Down

Police Chief Steven Fleming
Gainesville Texas Police Department
End of Watch: Friday, November 1, 2013
Age: 44
Tour: 22 years
Badge # 29
Incident Date: 10/25/2013

Police Chief Steven Fleming succumbed to injuries sustained one week earlier when he fell form a ladder at the police department's evidence building on October 25th, 2013.

He was transported to a local hospital, where he remained until succumbing to the injuries on November 1st, 2013.

Chief Fleming had served with the Gainesville Police Department for 22 years. He is survived by his wife and daughter.
Rest in Peace Bro…We Got The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh. 

Security Weekly: Selling Security, November 7, 2014

By Scott Stewart

In last week's Security Weekly I briefly mentioned that one of my mentors had taught me some important lessons on selling security to people who mistakenly believe they do not need it. Some of the people who read last week's analysis have asked me to talk a bit more about selling security, so this week I will endeavor to do so.

Like most security professionals, I have faced the challenge of selling security throughout my entire professional and personal life, in a wide variety of contexts. In my capacity as a Diplomatic Security Service special agent I was responsible for the security of many diplomats, aid workers, family members and Peace Corps volunteers who believed that security was antithetical to their respective missions. As a member of a corporate executive protection team I protected a CEO who was young, had a very young family with active lifestyles and who did not want himself or his family to be encumbered by security. As a church board member and short-term mission team leader I have had to work to convince people that taking practical steps to protect yourself is not an indication that you lack faith. As a dad -- and now father-in-law -- I have also had to convince my kids to take prudent security measures. And finally, as an author and a Stratfor terrorism and security analyst I have spent many years trying to help educate people regarding the need to practice appropriate and sustainable situational awareness, adopt the proper mindset regarding threats and prepare contingency plans for instances when things do go bad.

Throughout this time I have had the good fortune to have worked for, and with, many people who have shared a great deal of wisdom concerning how to sell security. However, I want to make it clear up front that while I can lay out a few key principles here, selling security is not some sort of simple three-step process; it is really a complex art that cannot be fully delineated in a few pages.

First Things First

Undoubtedly the greatest problem that disconnects security programs from those they seek to protect is communication. To quote Strother Martin's warden character in the movie Cool Hand Luke, "What we've got here is a failure to communicate." Perhaps this communication gap is due to the personality types who tend to be drawn to security and security management jobs. Or maybe it is because so many security managers tend have military or law enforcement backgrounds. But no matter what the cause, security managers tend to be poor communicators.

This communication breakdown is perhaps most evident in the fact that many security professionals do not feel the need to explain the "why" behind the security measures they institute. In a law enforcement or military context, rules and regulations are normally the law of the land and are beyond question. A police officer writing a traffic citation or a military non-commissioned officer enforcing a military regulation does not need to explain "why" the law or regulation is valid. It is what it is and it must be complied with. But security regulations are different -- especially in the non-governmental security setting. This is because security directors in most companies set and then enforce security policy and standards.

Setting and enforcing company security policies is very different from enforcing the law of the land passed by a state legislature or a regulation passed by the Department of the Army, but in many cases security managers fail to make this distinction. I refer to company policies here, but the need to make this distinction is also very relevant to post-specific security regulations at an embassy or consulate that are set by the regional security officer, and this obviously applies to non-governmental organizations, too.

Security managers who hold this law of the land attitude tend to adopt a "you will do this because I say so" mentality, and then attempt to force people to comply with security measures without explaining the reason why they are instituting such a rule. Now, this approach is generally acceptable when you are dealing with an infant -- or an army recruit -- who needs to be told they can't do something they want to do, but most adults deeply resent being treated in this manner. This resentment creates a lot of hostility toward security -- a deeply ingrained attitude that is readily apparent in many people and widely reflected in television shows and movies.

So, the most critical component of selling security is communication, and the most important things that must be communicated are: 1) the nature of the threat facing an institution and its people, and 2) how the security measures being implemented will help protect the institution and its people.

Basic Questions

Of course, before security managers can explain the threat to others, they need to take the time to understand it for themselves. This understanding needs to start with some very simple questions that unfortunately sometimes are not asked. The first question should obviously be, "What are we trying to protect?" For example, an embassy or a development laboratory where there is classified or proprietary information requires measures to protect information. A consumer products company may be extremely focused on protecting its product in a warehouse or in transit, while a school or missionary organization has little to protect in terms of information or material goods, but is very concerned about protecting its people.

The next question is, "What are we protecting against?" Different types of institutions will require very different security plans and, depending on where the institutions are located, the threat against them could be extremely diverse. There is also a vast difference in security measures depending on whether you are protecting against a terrorist threat, a criminal threat, an intelligence threat, or even a combination of all three -- not to mention natural disasters. Even when analyzing criminal activity, an environment where armed robbery, carjacking and kidnapping is common is different from one where the main threat is pickpocketing. So quantifying the threat requires some homework in order to dig into the complexion and character of the various dangers. If security directors do not intimately understand the threat they are facing, there is no way that they can rationally and reasonably explain that threat to others. Besides, if a security manager does not intimately understand the threat, he or she is in no position to institute security measures to guard against it.

Once security managers and their staffs have studied and thoroughly understand the threat, they are then in a position to educate their constituencies, either through briefings, written bulletins or by some other means. I have personally found informal brown bags or "come have coffee with the security director" meetings to be very effective. This educational process is an important part of selling security and must be approached seriously instead of in a cursory manner. Such briefings, and other communications such as security alerts, need to be presented in a professional way. Professional presentations not only educate people about the threat but they also allow employees to see that the security staff understands the risk. It is important that the security measures being put in place are thoughtful and based on a solid understanding of the threat rather than something haphazardly slapped into place. If you know what you are talking about, that goes a long way in building trust. By being accessible and making themselves available to the employees, security managers can build relationships that allow people to see their competence.

Honesty and candor are extremely important during this education and communication process. Hyping up or embellishing a threat will quickly erode people's trust in a security manager -- as will condescension. As a security professional, trust is critical; if people can't trust you to accurately portray the threat, there is no way they are going to trust the measures you are instituting to guard against it.

When it comes to security measures that are put into place, security managers also need to explain to people how specific measures will help prevent or mitigate a threat. The rationale behind measures such as the requirement to display employee identification badges would seem to be self-evident, but some people simply do not make the connection between the threat and security measures, so it is important to explicitly explain such linkages in a non-condescending fashion. When it comes to security measures, security managers need to be reasonable and logical in light of what is being protected and the threat environment. The security measures also need to be as unobtrusive as possible. Providing security for a corporate CEO is very different from providing security for the U.S. president or secretary of state, and the security measures surrounding the CEO should reflect that reality.

Another problem that confronts security managers is denial. "Sure, they had a workplace shooting there, but it can't happen here." Overcoming this sense of denial is difficult. As Fred Burton and I recently discussed in a video, denial can be deadly, and it is hard to counter such a mindset. Perhaps the most effective way to counter denial is with objective evidence. Whenever possible, security education materials should include credible third-party studies on occurrences like kidnapping or violent incidents in the workplace. Media reports of crime in the area, or of criminal activity directed against a similar institution elsewhere, can also be helpful. When possible, the use of photos and videos can also be very powerful. A video of a person entering a facility and stealing a purse or a laptop, or footage of a person being express kidnapped off the street, are powerful ways to convey a threat that exists.

As noted above, people generally have a bad attitude toward security, and those holding such attitudes tend to be resistant to security measures -- especially when the measures are inconvenient. They like to be able to sneak out the back door, propping it open with a trash can during smoke breaks, because they don't like to walk all the way around the building to where the card readers are. People don't want the hassle of asking a person who tailgates them through the door to show an employee ID badge. But by educating people about the threat, security managers can help explain why such actions are potentially harmful to the company -- and to the employees' own safety.

Will there be some people who blatantly disregard security rules and regulations even when there is a valid threat, and even when the reason for the security measures has been thoroughly explained? Sadly, yes -- but hopefully company management has given the security manager some means to address employees who flagrantly ignore security policy. If not, it is time to look for another security manager position. Additionally, if a security manager does a good job communicating and educating people about the threat, peer pressure from concerned colleagues can be a good way to help counter problem people.
Selling Security Copyright: STRATFOR.COM

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Sometimes we are our worse enemy….

Discretion is the better part of valor, also helps with prevent stupidity like this. Granted, I don't know the full story (this is only one side) but how is this a hazard to anyone.


A San Diego Chargers fan was fined $280 for throwing a football in the parking lot of Qualcomm Stadium, the stadium where the Chargers play. Cops gave Jesse Unger a $60 ticket last month before the Chargers-Colts game for throwing the football in the parking lot while he was tailgating, but he realized the ticket was $280 when he looked it up online. That is when Unger decided to challenge the ticket.
According to U-T San Diego:

The actual law, per San Diego Municipal Code 59.0502, says that one cannot "intentionally throw, discharge, launch or spill any solid object (including footballs, baseballs, frisbees and other such devices) or liquid substance or otherwise cause subject or substance to be thrown, discharged, launched, spilled, or to become airborne.”

And according to Unger, the judge said that the law was in place for the sake of public safety – that footballs flying everywhere posed a danger to drivers navigating the lot.

The judge said that he would suspend the fine if Unger pleaded guilty to "throwing the football."

“I plead guilty to throwing the football, Your Honor," Unger told the judge.

Unger told U-T San Diego that the Judge dismissed the ticket and then started talking about San Diego's running game.
Three other stadiums in the NFL have similar rules for tailgaters: "LP Field in Tennessee, Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, and CenturyLink Field in Seattle."
Is this beyond POP (Pissing Off Police), no. By that I mean when someone demands to have a ticket, e.g. when I pull someone over they scream "Why the fu&* you stopping me, you're worthless sack of s%^&, go after real criminal…." Those are words I've heard doing my jobs. Again, don't have the full story. But is throwing a football around the parking lot a real hazard?

I swear ossifer, I'm not as think as you drunk I am!"

"One shot." Usually the answer to the question "Have you had anything to drink tonight?" is "A couple of beers…" My usual answer is "A couple of what? Forty ounces, six packs, keys?" Or on the "Walk and Turn", I ask them to put their left foot down and it's a challenge, my normal comment is "Your other left…" If they don't get it it's even more fun"

On my first DWI back in 2000 or so, it took 20 minutes for the jury to convict. I asked the DA what caused that and he said, "Honesty the video from the intox center. Put that in front of twelve people and they say, "Looks like a drunk, acts like a drunk, sounds like a drunk, that's a drunk!"

Small world. Two weeks ago I was in a cigar shop on my him from work and a man said "It's you!" He was the father of the young lady who was involved in that accident. He recalled I didn't' wear glasses back then. Damned, I wish I had that memory.

Monday, November 11, 2013

What's going on in the World Today 131111

This past weekend I attended the Council of Colonels, a reunion of friends from the reserves. We meet every Veterans Day weekend, eat too much, drink too much, watch football, tell lies about how great we were, etc. Things to be expected from middle aged men.

One conversation stood in my mind. I was explaining to a new member, or should I say "first time attendee" of the group on how all these men went forward in 2001-2003, during the shooting war. I was mobilized 2003-04 but I joked about it being in a much scarier place, New Orleans. He told me his similar story: "Mike I got in just after Vietnam and when I told one of the vets about feeling weird around them, having not gone to the shooting war, he said to me. "You stood the watch!"

So for everyone who has worn a uniform, picked up a weapon, gone where your country called, saluted your flag and stood the watch over America, Happy Veterans Day.

PS: LSU and Texans sucked, but Saints kicked little Tony Romo's ass all up and down the Dome! :<) HYPERLINKS MAY REQUIRE AN EMAIL:

Navy benches admirals in scandal.

The U.S. Navy's widening scandal involving prostitutes, cash bribes and the fat-cat defense contractor who allegedly supplied them for sensitive military information just expanded to colossal proportions. The Navy announced Friday night that it has suspended access to classified information for two senior intelligence officers, effectively relieving them from duty. It's all part of the ongoing investigation into global defense Glenn Defense Marine Asia.

Vice Adm. Ted Branch, ...and Rear Adm. Bruce Loveless -- the service's director of naval intelligence and director of intelligence operations, respectively -- have not been charged with any crimes. But the suspension "was deemed prudent given the sensitive nature [of] their current duties and to protect and support the integrity of the investigative process," said Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Navy's top spokesman, in a statement....

...Already, three Navy officials and two Glenn Defense executives have been charged in U.S. federal court in connection with the case. All three other Navy personnel -- two active-duty commanders and a senior agent with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service -- are accused of sharing sensitive or classified information with Glenn Defense CEO Leonard Glenn Francis in exchange for prostitutes, cash and other favors. Francis allegedly used that information, in turn, to overbill the U.S. military millions of dollars while servicing Navy ships in ports across the Pacific.

The Navy also relieved of command Capt. Daniel Dusek, the captain of the amphibious ship Bonhomme Richard, in connection with the investigation. He has not been charged with any crimes, but officials said that commanders lost confidence in him...


East African Infrastructure Development, Part I: The Central Corridor

Egypt: Cairo To Expand Cooperation With Russia November 9, 2013

Egypt will expand cooperation with Russia as a result of the diplomatic tensions with the United States, Cairo's long-time ally, Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy said Nov. 9, AFP reported. Strained relations with Washington, which suspended some of its military aid to Cairo after Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi was ousted by the military, improved after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visited a week ago, Fahmy said. Nonetheless, Egypt is taking a more independent tack and broadening its choices, he said. Just as the United States is demonstrating a new willingness to challenge Egypt, the Egyptian military seems equally willing to test the United States on its strategic commitment to the region.



Iran: Tehran Offers India Free Crude Delivery November 7, 2013

Iran is offering free delivery of crude oil to India, Reuters reported Nov. 7, citing industry sources. Because Western sanctions have cut its exports in half, Iran is offering deep discounts on oil and free delivery to India, one of its major energy markets, in an effort to increase sales. Iran is also offering Indian buyers discounts on larger quantities of oil in order to persuade them to increase their purchases.


Conversation: France's Struggles With the European Crisis

Explaining France's Protest Culture


Mexico Boosts Security in a Critical City

Mexico's Military Secures an Essential Port

Colombia: The Impact of Reviving the Magdalena River

Colombia's River Revitalization Plan




Energy Price Reform in China


Iran and West Narrow Differences, but Negotiations to Continue

Iran: Official Slain In Tehran November 11, 2013

Iranian Deputy Minister of Industry Safdar Rahmat Abadi was shot dead Nov. 10 by unidentified attackers in Tehran, Reuters reported Nov. 11, citing state news agency IRNA.




Iran: Israel Reportedly Surprised By U.S. Diplomatic Course November 9, 2013

The Israeli government is surprised by the diplomatic course being taken by the United States during nuclear negotiations in Geneva, including the decision to offer Tehran minor sanctions relief, unnamed officials told Israel radio on Nov. 9, Jerusalem Post reported. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the plan during a meeting on Nov. 8. After the meeting, Netanyahu criticized the prospective deal, saying that Iran is getting everything it wants at this stage and not giving anything in return, despite being under intense pressure. U.S. President Barack Obama and Netanyahu spoke later in the evening, with Obama underscoring his strong commitment to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Iran has demanded assurances that its facilities would not be damaged during inspection and that the United States would protect Iran from any military reprisals by Israel.





Syria: Rebels Retake Strategic Northern Base November 9, 2013

Syrian rebels retook an important base near Aleppo's international airport following heavy fighting on Nov. 9 that left more than 50 people dead, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said, AFP reported. Syrian troops backed by fighters from Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah captured large parts of Base 80 in an assault on the morning of Nov. 8. The rebel force, which included al Qaeda loyalists, counter-attacked after dark, using Grad rockets against the army's tanks, and recovered all of the lost ground. The rebels has held Base 80, which serves as a garrison for the both the international airport and the adjacent Nayrab military airfield, since February. The battle for Aleppo is a central one in the Syrian civil war.


The Reality of Reported Saudi-Pakistani Nuclear Cooperation
COMMENT: Quote of the story
Since the 1980s, the Saudis have fielded a number of CSS-2 missiles purchased from China. The CSS-2's inaccuracy limits its utility in a conventional role, but accuracy is somewhat less of a concern when using nuclear warheads.



Except where noted courtesy STRATFOR.COM