You can choose to ignore the obvious exceptions...

You are wrong.

When have we ever offered habeus corpus to prisoners captured in war? Never. Because they're not criminals, being held for trial or for punishment. They're enemy combatants being held for the duration, or until they can be repatriated to their home governments.

Yes, it's true, most of these folks would be executed if repatriated, but that's not our problem.

Right, I forgot the exceptions... What were those again?

Jews?
Gypsies?
White supremists?
Black people?
"Terrorists"?

If my open carry strikes terror in a soccer mom, I guess that has made me a terror-ist.
The list above have all been classes who were denied due process before judgement was passed and executed, at the open consent of corrupt govenment, as well as in secret. A generation ago we called them Nazis, Communists, and other dirty names.
What is the qualification, exactly? Suspicion? Fine! Prove it in a court of law then! Where everyone can see!

I was always under the impression that suspicion, accusation, and evidence were the reason for trial, at which point the accused suspect is determined guilty or innocent based on that available evidence.

I find it hilarious that the argument is made for indefinite imprisonment without trial because, well, a public trial might show there is no evidence, and then people we don't like would have to go free.

Wtf?

I can accept that as a valid argument, but the problem is, a war on fear will never be won, and there is no defineable enemy. Thus we end up with indefinite imprisonment, in addition to an ever expanding definition of what a terrorizer is. It's the perfect solution for a state in search of ever expanding power and control, and results in the diminishing of the liberty of it's citizens and progressive establishment of tyranny.

There is a war on drugs. By that logic everyone arrested on a drug related offence should be held until the duration of the war is over. How many decades has that been on now, with no end in sight?

It's flawed logic. You cannot have a war on terror (fear) any more than you can have a war on courage. What you can have is a war on a nation, when once defeated, it's national POW's are returned, having fought for their nation and lost. I agree with you very much in that aspect of international relations. Unfortunately, that is not even close to what we have going on here.

This is a really bad road America is on, and I fear the direction can no longer change without the shedding of blood.

Folks we capture on a foreign battlefield?

Fair enough. Then, like you said, send 'em back.

One of the few things Bush was right about, was his Mission Accomplished banner 3 or 4 weeks into the fray. That was it. Done. Should have packed up and gone home. Threat over. No WMD. Soldier's job is done. POW's returned.

If they ever managed to somehow get their act together and become a threat in the future, go in and do it again. But right now (dare I say it to the joy of every liberal, and flame of every neocon), the US are occupiers in Iraq, and own all the problems that come along with it.

That's probably enough out of me on this!

[/threadjack off] We now return to our regularly scheduled programming of armchair QB'ing by telling tman065 and his colleagues how their jobs ought to be fixed.

Allow me to interject a comment on Tman's character. Having met him in a NRA class, and interacted with him here, I've come to the conclusion that he IS one of the good, service oriented officers we're all hoping for.

Some of the things that are being discussed here would do more to drive away good applicants as catch poor cops ... Which seems to be self defeating solution ...

I like the heart of the idea, but as usual it's the details that screw up the execution of it ...

...and so it begs the question, from a good, service oriented LEO...

How would you go about weeding out the unfit, non-service oriented, disgrace to the uniform type individuals?

Tman makes a good point, for good cops. But I read nothing about a suggestion for improvements on the bad ones.

Obviously there are bad ones out there, of that nobody can argue. So lets hear it. Or, are we just screwed because we can't step on the toes of the good guys?

Yes a cop does have to put up with some shit, it comes with the territory. You picked the job. You put up with the duties and restrictions. All jobs come with liability. In a perfect world there would be no bad cops, and therefore you would put up with less shit. Let me know when that happens. Until then some sort of remedy is needed.

If I had the answser to that question, I'd write the book and retire.

I appreciate the dialog. Even that with which I disagree.

Every once in awhile here, I feel the need to counterattack.

To "change" any organization, you need to change the leadership, and the hiring practices.

If the Chief is a "Badged Cowboy" instead of a "Service Oriented LEO", and if the hiring team is more interested in an applicant's football experience than his experience building Habitat houses, you'll get more of the same.

In any organization, if you change the value system, some folks will quietly accept new things, and some folks will vehemently resist. A turnabound manager is a tough guy. But it happens all the time in private organizations. The first guy fired is the CEO. (It's starting now with GM. Next the Unions will lose power.)

It's harder in public organizations. The unions and tenured employees will certainly resist and try to undermine new management and they cannot just be fired. They can file grievences and get union help, and it's not possible to just fire them or push them out quickly.

Too, a typical cop will have a personality that is much tougher to manage than a typical worker; a boss will have to gain respect, if not agreement. Older cops are often cynical and burned out, and even if they agree with some changes, will not believe it possible.

But it's possible to get folks who dream of improving their world, instead of kicking doors and using their tazers, I think.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but some of us already do put up with this on a daily basis. Where I work, there is constantly a camera looking over my shoulder. People are constantly scrutinizing my every move; keeping tabs on when I go to and come back from lunch, keeping tabs on when I go to the bathroom, keeping tabs on how quickly I respond to my calls and keeping tabs on how quickly I get my job done. There are enough cameras in my place of employment to recreate my daily on-the-job activities in a Matrix-like "bullet-time" documentation.

I and about 3,500 other people willingly accept this as a condition of our voluntary employment. When we're on the clock, we're on one of several thousand cameras. A great majority of them are mic'd.

It's called accountability to my employer. In my case, my employer is a security conscious private enterprise.

In the case of law-enforcement, the employer is the public. The public. Every man, woman and child. Everyone who pays tax, everyone whose life is impacted by the activities of the employee (in this case, the cop).

You get the point.

The fact that your employer does it and that you put up with it doesn't make it a good thing.

Unless you're working at the Fed or a casino, that's well beyond what I'd accept at work.

I like having an office with a door that closes.

Agreed, but not his point.

I submit, that a security conscious private enterprise with a shitload of cameras (the majority of them mic'd) is not the same.

I deal with, besides my own privacy issues, the privacy of others.

I understand that you expect the worst. And that's where I disagree. I also understand and accept that I will not change your mind.

And, Dick is right. Change the leadership & get the rest of the organization to accept the change. "Aye, there's the rub..."

Sure. With one caveat: the leadership has to have the power to insist on the changes -- by firing the recidivists, if necessary. Where the top brass doesn't have that power, they don't matter so much -- it's why, for example, the MPD is probably not fixable, but cities/towns where the chief can fire people probably are.

(I think it's possible, in some circumstances, for the top brass to insist on changes without necessarily being able to fire people -- but we haven't, say, seen any MPD chief assign, say, Mike Sauro to supervising the coffeemakers.)