Suspicionless Checkpoint

Tuesday 05.26.2009 04:36PM

While listening to the Free Talk Live podcast from May 16 I was reminded of the horrible story of what happened to pastor Steven Anderson just a little over a month ago.

On April 14, Mr. Anderson was driving home from San Diego to Phoenix and was stopped at a suspicionless Border Patrol checkpoint about 75 miles east of Yuma on Interstate 8. Note, this is a checkpoint inside the United States, within 100 miles of the US/Mexico border. He declined to answer their questions or let them search his vehicle, invoking his Fourth Amendment rights. They insisted he go to secondary screening, where they brought out a dog and claimed it had alerted them there were drugs or a human in the trunk. Anderson said the dog did nothing and requested they bring the dog out again to show him the alert, but they refused.

Anderson was detained for over an hour until the Department of Public Saftey officers arrived. He again explained that the dog had done nothing. The DPS officer asked Border Patrol to bring the dog out again, but they still refused. Based on the word of the Border Patrol officers, the DPS officer said Anderson was under arrest “for failure to obey me, right now”. They warned Anderson to cover his eyes because there would be broken glass. He covered his face with his hands and leaned forward, the officers broke both the driver and passenger side windows in and shot him with two tasers. He tried to keep covering his face with his hands, but could not even control his arms because of the tasers. An officer grabbed his head and shoved it into the driver's side door where the window had just been broken out, pushing glass into his head. He was pulled out of the car, thrown on the ground, his head held down with an officer's foot, and was shot with more tasers. He was not physically resisting or fighting back at all. Finally, they handcuffed him and took him into one of the trailers, where he could see in a mirror that his face was covered with blood. He had to get eleven stitches.

Unsurprisingly, when they searched his car they found nothing. The dogs either falsely alerted, or the officers just lied about the dog alerting.

This much I have summarized from a couple videos which I recommend you watch below. The second one is actually from the car right as they break the windows and tase him. You won't really see much, but be warned that you do hear his screams of pain from the tasers and might be disturbed.

Under Supreme Court decision U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte, apparently these type of checkpoints are permitted within 100 miles of an international border, as long as they're aimed at catching illegal immigrants or smugglers. Technically, based on Census data, 190 million Americans live within this 100 mile zone of our borders and coastlines, meaning nearly two-thirds of the population could essentially be denied their Fourth Amendment rights rather arbitrarily, just by driving somewhere.

My opinion is that this was ridiculous, violent behavior exercised against someone who was not violent or threatening violence against anyone. Furthermore, it's an obvious violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be secure in his person and effects against unreasonable search and seizure, particularly lacking a search warrant. There's more reading below if you are interested. The last link is actually an opposition article, critical of Anderson and his family because they are quite “right wing.” For me, while I know I disagree with the Anderson family on some political and spiritual matters, that does not change that what happened here is reprehensible.

More reading

The camera is the new gun
Arizona DPS Delivers 'Service' With a Smile
Checkpoint Diego
Pastor Claims Abuse at Border Patrol Checkpoint on Interstate 8
Pastor Tased and “Beaten” at Checkpoint Plans to Sue; Admits He's Been Resisting at Checkpoints for Months
I knew something was wrong, but I had no idea...

Tagged: politics / liberty
comment (1) | add to del.icio.us

Late Night Thoughts

Wednesday 05.07.2008 02:42AM

I should write a blog post, eh?

I keep thinking that, but have not made the time to do it. That usually makes me think about the busyness of life and how I have not been doing well at balance, as far as being productive with my time. It is easy to let the free time slide, especially now that Spring is here and there is plenty of fun to be had. I am not too hard on myself about it, but have been breaking my to-do list into easier, discrete tasks and using rememberthemilk.com to keep on top of them.

I have not done the “No Screen Night” consistently, unfortunately. The other week I really needed it though, so disconnected for a night. Nothing interesting to report there, except that I got several things done and it was relaxing.

For some reason, I have never really jotted notes or drafts for blog posts. I should probably do that more often, then I would have more frequent posts – and of a better quality than this one.

Changes. It was back in February that I started to decrease the dosage on my anti-spasmodic prescription, and as of April 22 I am off it entirely. I have had no symptoms or side-effects during that time or since stopping entirely, so that's good. Since they do not know how my body might react after being on the medicine for about a year, I'm not supposed to drive for several months (seizure risk while driving).

My California plans are most likely on hold for a little while longer. I need to finish my degree, which unfortunately means enrolling as a returning student and putting me under a different course bulletin than I was before. It has not changed a lot and all of my courses will apply, but I will probably have to take two or three more classes instead of one. I'm ok with it, I guess. I'm not as concerned about the “safety net” of having the degree as I am just accomplishing it. Plus, I get to be around my Midwest friends a bit longer; leaving was never going to be easy.

I voted for Ron Paul today in the Indiana primary. I never got around to writing more in-depth about him and why I support him, unfortunately. Maybe I'll write something later, in retrospect (or not, since that will fall in my to-do list and disappear :). I know McCain has the nomination sealed up, but it's just a primary and Paul is still on the ballot. It was symbolic support for the message, which I always thought was more important than his chances at the nomination / Presidency.

I am excited to see that Mary Ruwart recently announced she's seeking the Libertarian Party nomination. She's the author of the book I have been reading, Healing our World in an Age of Aggression. Every article I have read (and her book) has been principled, consistent, and articulately deals with issues of liberty. She has a long history as a liberty activist and knows her stuff; I'm really hoping she gets the nomination.

And now it's quite late. Stream of consciousness over.

Tagged: general / life / health / politics
comments (3) | add to del.icio.us

My political philosophy, Volume 1

Sunday 04.13.2008 01:40AM

It was back in October that I was given a blog homework assignment about my political beliefs and how my faith has impacted them. It is a topic I have been interested in writing about, but it is such a broad topic that often I did not know how to best tackle it. Some discussions have happened recently among friends and I finally decided to just jump into it and do my best.

I do not support the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

That is about as simple a groundwork as I can lay for my political philosophy. While succinct, there are nuances to it that are commonly overlooked or misunderstood. It's known as the non-aggression principle and Wikipedia elaborates:

It holds that “aggression,” which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. The principle does not preclude defense against aggression.

This is easy to understand in simple, one-to-one, real world interactions. If Jim has an apple and John wants an apple, it is wrong for John to punch Jim and take the apple. It is also wrong for John to threaten to punch Jim unless he gives him the apple; and it is wrong for John to deceive Jim and take the apple while he is not looking. In an instance like this, the majority of people will agree with the principle. It is something we learned from a young age.

In order to consistently apply this principle, it should not change when there are more than two people. John's actions would still be wrong if he got 2 people or 1000 people to go along with him.

My faith has impacted my political beliefs, quite simply, by containing this principle as part of its core. I believe Jesus epitomized the non-aggression principle. His example calls followers to peacefully (e.g. non-aggression) spread the gospel - to use persuasion, not coercion.

Continuing with my political philosophy, it is important to understand that governments rely on force and the threat of force in order to enforce laws.

When we see a speed limit sign, most of us will make sure we are close to that limit. Why? Because we understand if a police officer catches us speeding, there are escalating penalties: there is a fine with the ticket, then there are more fines, then there is suspension of the license, then there is arrest for driving with a suspended license, and finally there is risk of bodily harm for resisting or fleeing the arrest. These penalties act as coercion and work well enough that most people will be very careful to avoid speeding in the first place, much less do anything to escalate the penalties beyond the first fine. Without these penalties – the threat of force – who would care about the speed limit? It would just be a speed suggestion.

Similarly, with income taxes, we know there are escalating penalties if we fail to file or pay: fines, interest charges, bank account seizure, liens against property, arrest, and the risk of bodily harm for resisting or fleeing arrest. Again, these act as coercion and work well enough that most people will file their taxes. Without the threat of force that we know lies implicitly behind each law, there would not be reason for people to obey them.

If it is understood that governments rely on force and the threat of force in order to enforce laws, then the next logical question should be: is it legitimate in the case of government? I have come to the conclusion that it is not, because government is just a grouping of people, and as I mentioned before, the principle should be consistently applied.

If John formed an organization that coerced Jim to give it his apples, it would be illegitimate. Even if this organization had support from a majority of the population, it would still be illegitimate. Should it change anything if John called this organization “government”?

Your thoughts and questions are welcomed. I know, from experience, that these ideas can bring up questions that head in a variety of directions. I would prefer the discussion stay roughly within the concepts of this post; others I may wait to address in future posts.

Tagged: politics / philosophy / liberty / spiritual
comments (8) | add to del.icio.us

Regulating Danger

Tuesday 10.02.2007 01:37AM

Continuing in the vein of the Good Neighbor Policy, this week's topic is the Disciples of Christ denomination pushing for the federal government to regulate tobacco products. They have joined several other faith groups in the Faith United Against Tobacco campaign.

Regulation can be a tricky topic because it seems innocuous. For example, everyone wants to eat food that is safe, so regulations on food products make sense and are necessary, right? There's nothing wrong with voluntarily seeking regulation, but imposing regulations on others breaks the Good Neighbor Policy by disrespecting their choices. Furthermore, forcing others to fund the imposed regulations disrespects their wealth and their property.

So no, I do not think it's right to seek federal regulation of tobacco. I am not a smoker, never have been, and never intend to be. I am well aware of the health hazards of smoking. Still, I think it is wrong to impose regulations on other people's peaceful choices. Imposed regulation is a lesser degree of prohibition, and neither work very effectively, as history (should have) taught us. Just as the War on Drugs has failed to stop the use of illicit drugs, FDA regulation of tobacco products will not “stop illegal sales of tobacco products to children”, (despite the campaign's claim).

Aside from all that, I must say that as a Christian, it saddens me to see other believers seeking out state regulation to be the “solution to all our problems” instead of private, individual, and voluntary alternatives. Faith United Against Tobacco says, “We believe that faith communities are uniquely situated to bring an ethical and moral dimension to the debate on how to reduce the death and disease caused by tobacco products in this country”, and the best solution they come up with is to let some bureaucrats impose regulations?

This article was originally published on INtake Blogsquad

Tagged: politics / blogsquad
comment (1) | add to del.icio.us

The Good Neighbor Policy

Tuesday 08.28.2007 01:40AM

I have been reading a great book by Dr. Mary Ruwart, “Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression”, and working on some ideas for blog posts as a result. This week's topic is a great opportunity for an introduction; hopefully I'll do it some justice.

Last week an Indy Star editorial raised questions about property tax exemptions for non-profits. The suggestion was that due to this “time of crisis” for local government, we should put more scrutiny on these exemptions and even consider changing them - possibly charging user fees for public services, or a sliding scale based on their “ability to pay.”

This topic is a good example of how to apply what Dr. Ruwart describes as the Good Neighbor Policy. To contribute to the peace, we should refrain from using or threatening force against the peaceful actions of others, and respect property that is rightfully theirs. It is a pretty simple concept, extrapolated from things most of us learned at a young age. Most of us would not steal our neighbor's car or assault him for making choices that are different from ours, nor would we join or hire a gang to do so for us.

Property taxes violate the Good Neighbor Policy by imposing force against the choices of people, and disrespecting their property. If your neighborhood wants to build a park and imposes a tax to fund it, you are forced to pay for it - even if you do not want the park and have no intention of ever using it. If you refuse to pay the tax, you risk losing your property by force to the government, even though your actions are peaceful and you have done nothing wrong. Unfortunately, the breaking of the Good Neighbor Policy usually leads to more of the same. People will pay the tax (begrudgingly) and then try to persuade the government to use its force for projects they are more interested in. The cycle of force and disrespect for property continues while we ignore whether what we are doing is even right or wrong.

I believe that's the core of this matter. Scrutiny of property tax exemptions shouldn't be what's being discussed, but whether property taxes are even right to begin with. Personally I do not see how they can be justified, but I am curious what you think and welcome discussion on the matter.

P.S. - an older version of the book is available to read for free on her web site.

This article was originally published on INtake Blogsquad.

Currently Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression

Tagged: blogsquad / politics
comments (6) | add to del.icio.us

next »

supplements