News Stories

[Roger Rambo]

You're not going to fight an insurgency from the air unless you're actually willing to flat out kill everyone you see moving. Chemical weapons would probably be convenient for that strategy as well. Of course we could never get away with using such tactics.

The problem right now in my eye's, is that people seem to only understand two strategies here. Psychopathic and indiscriminate bombing of everything in a phallic display of our cock size. Or naively wimpy idea that by just treating the random Afghani villagers nicely they'll help us beat the Taliban.


The first strategy really only works if you're willing to deliberately wipe out a significant fraction of the population. Ignoring the moral implications of doing this, it's not viable due how easily information is transmitted in the modern era. The second doesn't work because no matter how nicely I treat someone, I'm pretty damn naive to think that will be enough to get them to not cooperate with the thugs with guns who show up when I'm not there.


All successful COINOP's have had controlling the population which the Guerrilla's hide in as a key factor to their success. Not bombing them from a distance. Not walking in, building a road, kissing some babies and leaving. But actually maintaining an active presence amongst the civilians.

[Samari]

Many courts on a state level have ruled that taking videos or photos of police using your phone qualifies as obstruction.

A rash of YouTube videos and pictures have captured police brutality in various areas, but now police have the legal means to threaten those who might snitch them out. In many areas even if you are snapping photos or video to use in your own defense, you will face additional charges and the media evidence will be disallowed.

Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley is among the members of the legal community fighting these provisions on the grounds that they represent a gross violation of Constitutional and legislatively-guaranteed freedoms. Turley states, "The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law - requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense."

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18838

So basically police or any other type of law enforcement party can do anything and get away with it...and if you try and stop them from doing their job the wrong way you can get in trouble as well. What is this world coming to.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Samari

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18838

So basically police or any other type of law enforcement party can do anything and get away with it...and if you try and stop them from doing their job the wrong way you can get in trouble as well. What is this world coming to.

Nothing. A guy can hide a gun and point it at a policeman from inside his coat, and if the police is filmed bashing that guy, the world still views the policeman as abusing his power.

The thing is that when near a civil enforcer, don't :

1. Act suspiciously
2. Commit a crime

The police have been trained to handle their cases well, and their bottomline job is to enforce justice, not to deal with media moguls hot for news.

It is the same over here. There's nothing wrong with this.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

I love it how the armchair tough guys are advocating genocide like it's all shits and giggles.

Look, at least be decent and keep your megalomaniac fantasies safely in video games like I do. I'd prefer it if the USA doesn't take your* advice and make me a citizen of a nation directly responsible for mass war crimes, thankyouverymuch.

*I'm not going to quote anyone here. Think for yourself about who you are and what you're suggesting.

Sadly, I think there will come a time where mass murder not only becomes reality, but also an accepted practice. Still condemned, no doubt, but no longer treated as fantasies. Planned, and executed with clockwork efficiency, which put the Nazis to shame.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

Sadly, I think there will come a time where mass murder not only becomes reality, but also an accepted practice. Still condemned, no doubt, but no longer treated as fantasies.

Stalin once said : The death of one is a tragedy. The death of a million is a statistic.

So if we put our emotions away and take a look at this statement, it is wholly and logically right isn't it?

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Stalin once said : The death of one is a tragedy. The death of a million is a statistic.

So if we put our emotions away and take a look at this statement, it is wholly and logically right isn't it?

Well, the quote was only attributed to him, but I digress.

I think Thomas Friedman made a comment which best summed up my approach to the Afghan situation: the Afghans themselves must want to change, to go beyond the tribal system and other traditions. Granted, he was talking about the Mid-East situation, but taking ownership of the problem: that is a key, I believe.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

Well, the quote was only attributed to him, but I digress.

I think Thomas Friedman made a comment which best summed up my approach to the Afghan situation: the Afghans themselves must want to change, to go beyond the tribal system and other traditions. Granted, he was talking about the Mid-East situation, but taking ownership of the problem: that is a key, I believe.

The problem is that every tribe in Afghanistan wants to take ownership of the entire land solely for the sake of power other than humanitarian issues, thus the internal conflicts.

The only one last time they came together was during the Soviet-Afghan war of 1979-1989. And that was like 20 years ago.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Nothing. A guy can hide a gun and point it at a policeman from inside his coat, and if the police is filmed bashing that guy, the world still views the policeman as abusing his power.

If the guy had a gun on him that's something the police could use to explain their actions. In many of these video recordings though, what you're seeing isn't just clearly them abusing their power, it's them committing crimes outright. The entire criminal justice community is trying to go for these kind of interpretations not because they want to avoid situations where camera's provided incomplete context (Rodney King), but rather so they can avoid ANY bad publicity. There have been cases where Officers have been brought up on criminal abuse via video recordings, but since the recording of the Officer was illegal, the guy who filmed it got arrested.

This policy is bassically designed to intimidate people from embarrassing the justice system with threats of punitive criminal charges.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

If the guy had a gun on him that's something the police could use to explain their actions. In many of these video recordings though, what you're seeing isn't just clearly them abusing their power, it's them committing crimes outright. The entire criminal justice community is trying to go for these kind of interpretations not because they want to avoid situations where camera's provided incomplete context (Rodney King), but rather so they can avoid ANY bad publicity. There have been cases where Officers have been brought up on criminal abuse via video recordings, but since the recording of the Officer was illegal, the guy who filmed it got arrested.

This policy is bassically designed to intimidate people from embarrassing the justice system with threats of punitive criminal charges.

IMO I don't think I'd have a problem with that. Lived with that kind of system for 20 years and been in and out of the police station a few times during my younger days.

Then again, it would depend if the system is working effectively or not. Currently too much power is in the hands of the civilians if you ask me : they seemingly like to abuse their ability of putting the judicial system in embarrassment so they can get away scot-free or benefit from their offences, not just crimes. The "sue the naked man in his home" case a few months ago is a good example of how screwed up the system is and lopsided to the civilians rather than the police.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The problem is that every tribe in Afghanistan wants to take ownership of the entire land solely for the sake of power other than humanitarian issues, thus the internal conflicts.

The only one last time they came together was during the Soviet-Afghan war of 1979-1989. And that was like 20 years ago.

And unless they can go beyond that, no one can help them, and I mean: no one.

[Samari]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Nothing. A guy can hide a gun and point it at a policeman from inside his coat, and if the police is filmed bashing that guy, the world still views the policeman as abusing his power.

The thing is that when near a civil enforcer, don't :

1. Act suspiciously
2. Commit a crime

The police have been trained to handle their cases well, and their bottomline job is to enforce justice, not to deal with media moguls hot for news.

It is the same over here. There's nothing wrong with this.

So basically your point is that police corruption doesn't exist and that they can do no wrong? Are you kidding me? I'm assuming you don't live in America.

Why in the world would the police be afraid to be filmed for doing their jobs correctly? How is this screwing up the officer's ability to do their job? They are public citizens just as much as we are. We actually pay their darn salaries.

And no the media isn't always going to take the public's side no matter how an officer acts. Did you not hear the media buzz surrounding the police officer punching a 17 year girl in Seattle about a week ago? About 90% of everyone has defended the policeman's actions. And you can obviously see why. People aren't as dumb as you're making them out to be as far as this matter is concerned.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I take it that you didn't serve.

I'm not a SG citizen. DUH.

[Xion Valkyrie]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Nothing. A guy can hide a gun and point it at a policeman from inside his coat, and if the police is filmed bashing that guy, the world still views the policeman as abusing his power.

The thing is that when near a civil enforcer, don't :

1. Act suspiciously
2. Commit a crime

The police have been trained to handle their cases well, and their bottomline job is to enforce justice, not to deal with media moguls hot for news.

It is the same over here. There's nothing wrong with this.

It's also important to NOT TALK to them if they question you. EVERYTHING you say will only help incriminate you, even if you don't have anything to do with the case.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Samari

So basically your point is that police corruption doesn't exist and that they can do no wrong? Are you kidding me? I'm assuming you don't live in America.

Why in the world would the police be afraid to be filmed for doing their jobs correctly? How is this screwing up the officer's ability to do their job? They are public citizens just as much as we are. We actually pay their darn salaries.

And no the media isn't always going to take the public's side no matter how an officer acts. Did you not hear the media buzz surrounding the police officer punching a 17 year girl in Seattle about a week ago? About 90% of everyone has defended the policeman's actions. And you can obviously see why. People aren't as dumb as you're making them out to be as far as this matter is concerned.

Sorry I don't live in the US : I live in a place called Singapore whose civil corruption ranks low. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist here though, however the cases aren't taken lightly even after the policemen have left the force and had committed corruption before.

One thing to take note of is something called Internal Security : there are some things which the police CANNOT touch are gray areas such as people stoking civil unrest and political espionage. I can give a few examples where the asses can get away scot-free if not for the "detention without trial" in the Internal Security Act - an opposing party politician acting like an idiot during general elections attempting to stoke unrest against the ruling part, and another guy is the infamous Mas Selamat Kastari.

If one guy is just going to film a policeman putting two rounds into a man trying to draw a knife where ONLY the latter can see from that angle, how is the public going to feel after the video is posted online? Keep in mind that not everyone attempts to see from all perspectives, we perceive things from either what is presented to us, or as we deem fit. Combined with the fact that majority opinion wins and that certain political parties will use such public cases to further their personal goals, things can turn awry, especially where politicians really play cut-throat games (see Sarah Palin and her supporters for details). Contrary to their job scopes, policemen are supposed to enforce law and order as to discretion, not to become pawns for politicians or personal bodyguards for the citizen.

Another thing : you don't pay the policeman's salary. You pay the country for allowing you to live on their land (it is called a tax). The policeman is a return on your "investment", similar to your employment, fair salary, life/financial prospects, etc. Although the contract between you and your country is defined as mutual loyalty, you always have the choice to go elsewhere you feel the grass is greener : this is called emigration. Look everywhere else in the world : each place you live in have their pros and cons.

Originally Posted by Xion Valkyrie

It's also important to NOT TALK to them if they question you. EVERYTHING you say will only help incriminate you, even if you don't have anything to do with the case.

ABSOLUTELY. Three things I have learnt during my idiot teenage days are :

1. Never talk to a policeman. You are always guilty before proven innocent.
2. Answer ONLY the question and nothing else.
3. The police officer is not an interrogator from the OpFor in a war. NO stunts or resistance please.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Another thing : you don't pay the policeman's salary. You pay the country for allowing you to live on their land (it is called a tax). The policeman is a return on your "investment", similar to your employment, fair salary, life/financial prospects, etc. Although the contract between you and your country is defined as mutual loyalty, you always have the choice to go elsewhere you feel the grass is greener : this is called emigration. Look everywhere else in the world : each place you live in have their pros and cons.

We pay their salaries. We live in this country and have a right to complain when our country is straying from its constitution. The answer isn't always emigration. If it were, no change would ever occur. Instead, we should continue to fight for our civil liberties and this ruling is absolutely ridiculous. It is unconstitutional, and it will only further the problem of police corruption we already have.

[Jinto]

[Sarcasm]
I pressume SaintessHeart rather likes to live in a dictatorship than in an democracy. In that case a military lower ranked profession might suit him too... since he only needs to obey orders, doesn't need to deicde things for his own, and accepts everything without questioning.
[/Sarcasm]

You pay the country for allowing you to live on their land (it is called a tax).

That is possibly the most moronic thing I ever read from you. Taxes are not for a country, a ruling elite or whatever... it is collected for the benefit of all citizens of a country (the people are the focus, not the system). This might be different in certain countries, but ideally in a democracy taxes are collected for the benefit of society as a whole (which includes oneself).

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Sorry I don't live in the US : I live in a place called Singapore whose civil corruption ranks low. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist here though, however the cases aren't taken lightly even after the policemen have left the force and had committed corruption before.

One thing to take note of is something called Internal Security : there are some things which the police CANNOT touch are gray areas such as people stoking civil unrest and political espionage. I can give a few examples where the asses can get away scot-free if not for the "detention without trial" in the Internal Security Act - an opposing party politician acting like an idiot during general elections attempting to stoke unrest against the ruling part, and another guy is the infamous Mas Selamat Kastari.

If one guy is just going to film a policeman putting two rounds into a man trying to draw a knife where ONLY the latter can see from that angle, how is the public going to feel after the video is posted online? Keep in mind that not everyone attempts to see from all perspectives, we perceive things from either what is presented to us, or as we deem fit. Combined with the fact that majority opinion wins and that certain political parties will use such public cases to further their personal goals, things can turn awry, especially where politicians really play cut-throat games (see Sarah Palin and her supporters for details). Contrary to their job scopes, policemen are supposed to enforce law and order as to discretion, not to become pawns for politicians or personal bodyguards for the citizen.

That doesn't mean policemen should be blindly trusted merely because they are policemen, and that they should have a right to not be filmed in the course of breaking laws themselves.

Another thing : you don't pay the policeman's salary. You pay the country for allowing you to live on their land (it is called a tax). The policeman is a return on your "investment", similar to your employment, fair salary, life/financial prospects, etc. Although the contract between you and your country is defined as mutual loyalty, you always have the choice to go elsewhere you feel the grass is greener : this is called emigration. Look everywhere else in the world : each place you live in have their pros and cons.

You've got duties (including paying taxes) and you've got rights. In modern democracies, it means, among others, the rule of law and that thugs, in or out of uniform, don't have the right to beat you up for no reason. I'm not trying to imply all policemen are thugs. But seriously, if they're doing their jobs correctly, they have little to fear from cameras. No more than the common citizen, anyway.

2. Answer ONLY the question and nothing else.

You obviously missed the point of that video. If you're ever arrested in the US, you will no doubt wind up found guilty.

[bladeofdarkness]

You pay the country for allowing you to live on their land (it is called a tax)

who was it that said "taxes are just a civilized way of demanding money with threats"

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by Jinto

[Sarcasm]
I pressume SaintessHeart rather likes to live in a dictatorship than in an democracy. In that case a military lower ranked profession might suit him too... since he only needs to obey orders, doesn't need to deicde things for his own, and accepts everything without questioning.
[/Sarcasm]

He's been brainwashed! But seriously, all students in Singapore must take this subject called "Social Studies", where they use case studies from parts of the world savory and less so, like China, Austria, Canada, etc, all to "prove" that whateer the government is doing, it is always right, never wrong. There used to be two examples on Germany and Switzerland that talked about a consitutional court and Swiss democracy respectively, but after the latest change of education ministers, the examples disappeared...!

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Xion Valkyrie

It's also important to NOT TALK to them if they question you. EVERYTHING you say will only help incriminate you, even if you don't have anything to do with the case.

This video is very informative. I especially like the second part where the cop comes on and basically agrees with everything the lawyer/professor said.