In a blazing, and somewhat surprising, common sense ruling, the Supreme Court has ruled that a school's strip search of a middle school girl for ibuprofen 6 years ago was in fact illegal:

The Supreme Court ruled by an 8-1 vote Thursday that the strip search of a middle-school girl for prescription-strength ibuprofen violated her privacy rights.

The decision in an Arizona case requires administrators nationwide to weigh more carefully how intrusively they search for drugs.
...
A school official must have, Souter wrote, a "reasonable suspicion of danger" regarding the contraband sought and a belief that it could be in the student's underwear before making "the quantum leap from outer clothes and backpacks to exposure of intimate parts."

In October 2003, after obtaining an unverified tip from another student that eighth grader Savana Redding might have ibuprofen and finding none in her backpack, Safford Middle School assistant principal Kerry Wilson asked a school nurse and administration assistant to search Savana in the nurse's office. The two women had Savana take off her shoes and socks, then her shirt and pants. They then directed her to pull out her bra and pull open her panties to see if she was hiding any pills. None were found.
...
Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter. He said the majority opinion "grants judges sweeping authority to second-guess the measures that these officials take to maintain discipline in their schools and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge."

I blogged about this case a couple years ago.  Clarence Thomas should be absolutely ashamed of himself.  The idea that requiring school administrators to use some basic common sense before humiliating and violating a young girl is too much... well... he has as little common sense in this area as they when the search was performed.  It's important to note, that had the search not been performed at all, the health and safety of students would not have been compromised.  Ibuprofen is a perfectly legal and safe, over the counter drug.

Although I think Thomas should be ashamed, I am not surprised by his ruling.  He very consistently sides with government agencies that act in a law enforcement capacity.  Because the courts rarely throw out charges when searches are performed illegally, the police do not have an incentive to follow the law.  This is a rare instance when our basic freedoms have been protected by the court.  Unfortunately, in a seperate vote, the court also ruled that the administrators could not be held liable.  So one wonders how much protection this ruling will really give.

And a hell of a lot more often than people want to admit.  In fact, John McAdams seems to think that we need to be killing more murderers in jail... because "apparently" we have yet to kill an innocent man.  Now then, are there guilty people on death row?  Absolutely.  But there are also people who have been convicted of murder who are innocent.  Take for instance, this gentleman:

At age 17, I was wrongfully convicted of murder and rape, despite a negative DNA test and hair found on the body that did not match mine. My conviction was based upon a coerced, false confession, the fabrication of other evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and fraud by the medical examiner. I was cleared 16 years later - almost three years ago - when further DNA testing reaffirmed my innocence while identifying the real perpetrator, who subsequently confessed and was sentenced.

The story goes on to describe how the appeals system worked against him at every turn, despite the strong evidence of his innocence.  This case is even more interesting because one of the appeals judges was Sonia Sotomayor, who was willing to let this innocent man stay in jail because he missed an appeals deadline by four days, only because the clerk of a court gave his attorney the wrong deadline.  So much for empathy.

The fact is, once you are found guilty, nobody wants to look at your case any more, and very few people want to reconsider the decision of the jury.  The fact is, we haven't found an innocent person on death row yet because, very few people bother to look.  The sad fact is, most people would rather bury their heads in the sand about the injustices that happen in our justice system, because we don't want to think about innocent people who may be wrongfully imprisoned.

Sometimes the evidence against these people is so flimsy that it's shocking.  Take for instance this story out of Florida, where testimony from a "wonder dog" put at least 3, and possibly as many sixty men, in jail wrongfully.  The dog handler was able to convince juries that his dog was able to track a suspect to the scene of the crime montys after the crime.  This is something that is so crazy, I am shocked that a jury would have bought it.

A wonder dog helped convict all three men: a German shepherd named Harass II, who wowed juries with his amazing ability to place suspects at the scenes of crimes.

Harass could supposedly do things no other dog could: tracking scents months later and even across water, according to his handler, John Preston.

If it sounds hard to believe, there's a good reason.

After providing prosecutors with testimony for years, Preston was finally discredited by a judge who had the sense to do what others had not: test the dog for himself.

But not until after Preston and his dog had appeared in dozens of cases.

We know that at least three of those cases were overturned - after the defendants collectively spent more than a half-century in prison.

What is even scarier is that the Attorney General for the state has no real interest in going back and seeing if any other guilty people were put in jail because of this crack pot dog handler.  And we wonder why we haven't found any innocent people on death row yet?  Once again, the people who are in the best position to check, because they have the most information about the case, are not interested in checking.

For my part, I have no problem with the death penalty in theory.  I think the idea of killing someone as punishment for killing is perfectly acceptable.  However, the problem is that because of the finality of that punishment, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is no long sufficient for that punishment.  You have to be absolutely, 100% sure, otherwise the risk is too great.  And since it is nearly impossible to practically create a law where you would only send 100% guilty murderers to death, its simply safer to not do it at all.

Here is a detailed story about the wrong door SWAT raid on the mayor of a town, where his two dogs were killed.  It has a lot of details, and it absolutely heart breaking.  The saddest part, is that none of it had to happen.  Their lives were torn upside down, and two beloved dogs were killed by the police for no good reason.  To say that the police involved were irresponsible and lazy would be putting it mildly.  But we have to win the War on Drugs^TM at all costs I guess... even if we destroy the very thing we're trying to protect while we do it.

To date, the arrogance of the police involved is incredible.  They have acknowledged the mayor did absolutely nothing wrong, but refuse to acknowledge that the tactics employed were not appropriate, or that they did anything wrong in the investigation.  Serving and protecting indeed.

Another small victory for liberty, as another provision of the Patriot Act, which Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner claims doesn't violate any civil liberties, was ruled to viotate civil liberties:

A federal appeals court today upheld, in part, a decision striking down provisions of the Patriot Act that prevent national security letter (NSL) recipients from speaking out about the secret records demands. The decision comes in an American Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union lawsuit challenging the FBI's authority to use NSLs to demand sensitive and private customer records from Internet Service Providers and then forbid them from discussing the requests. Siding with the ACLU, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the statute's gag provisions violate the First Amendment.
...
The appeals court invalidated parts of the statute that wrongly placed the burden on NSL recipients to initiate judicial review of gag orders, holding that the government has the burden to go to court and justify silencing NSL recipients. The appeals court also invalidated parts of the statute that narrowly limited judicial review of the gag orders – provisions that required the courts to treat the government's claims about the need for secrecy as conclusive and required the courts to defer entirely to the executive branch.

Of course, as I've argued before, the very idea of a "National Security Letter" itself spits in the face of the 4th Amendment, as they do not require propobable cause in order to get.  But at least if you receive one, you are allowed to talk about it.  Not only that, but now a bank, or an ISP, is allowed to disclose to its customers that your personal data was given to the government.  I guess that's something.  Now you can know that your personal banking information might be on a laptop that the government seems to be constantly losing, unencrypted, at airports.

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an extremely important case that will decide many important aspects regarding the extent to which Executive Authority can extend:

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide the most fundamental question yet concerning executive power in the age of terrorism: May the president order the indefinite military detention of people living legally in the United States?

The case concerns Ali al-Marri, the only person on the American mainland being held as an enemy combatant, who is in custody at the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. Mr. Marri, a citizen of Qatar, was legally in the United States when he was arrested in December 2001 in Peoria, Ill., where he was living with his family and studying computer science at Bradley University.

Eighteen months later, when Mr. Marri was on the verge of a trial on credit card fraud and other charges, President Bush declared him an enemy combatant, moving him from the custody of the Justice Department to military detention. The government says Mr. Marri, who has been held in isolation for more than five years without being charged, is a Qaeda “sleeper agent” sent to the United States to commit mass murder and disrupt the banking system.

The central question in the case is whether Mr. Marri should be treated as an enemy soldier who may be held until hostilities end or as a criminal like Timothy J. McVeigh, who was convicted in a civilian court of blowing up the Oklahoma City federal building.

His is not exactly an isolated case, but it certainly is the most clear cut for over reach.  He was in the United States legally, and though he likely committed a crime, he should still be protected by the Constitution.  That means allowing for habeas corpus, as well as a presumption of innocence and trial by jury.  The basic premise behind a trial by jury and presumption of innocence is that we assume that the government is wrong, and has to prove it's case, because the government has the power to detain.  There is already a huge imbalance of power between the government and citizens.  These protections are all we have.  We should protect them very carefully.

After all, if we starting saying that the Constitution doesn't apply to legal residents when they are accused of terrorism, how long before terrorism becomes a rationale to suspend the Constitution for citizens?

Maryland officials now concede that, based on information gathered by "Lucy" and others, state police wrongly listed at least 53 Americans as terrorists in a criminal intelligence database -- and shared some information about them with half a dozen state and federal agencies, including the National Security Agency.

Among those labeled as terrorists: two Catholic nuns, a former Democratic congressional candidate, a lifelong pacifist and a registered lobbyist. One suspect's file warned that she was "involved in puppet making and allows anarchists to utilize her property for meetings."

And that was just surveillance.  Of course, then they got listed as "terrorists" in state and national databases.  Many of these people work with members of Congress and lobbying groups.  So it would seem that they wanted to list peopel who disagree with current policy as terrorists.  I'm more than likely on a list myself if that's the definition.

The Bush Administration, it would seem, not only wants to hold these people for the duration of The War on Terror^TM, which is more of a slogan that a defined war, but now it also wants to define the battlefield as everywhere in the world.  That is a formula for abuse, and one which I hope the Obama Administration will not continue.  I didn't trust the Bush Administration with that power, and I don't trust an Obama Administration with that power either.

75 years ago today, the 21st Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, which repealed the 18th Amendment... rolling back the terrible practice of prohibition.  In recognition of this, many members of Congress are celebrating repeal day and created this Resolution patting themselves on the back.  It reads in part:

Whereas prior to the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which established Prohibition in the United States, abuses and insufficient regulation resulted in irresponsible overconsumption of alcohol;

Whereas passage of the 18th Amendment, which prohibited 'the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors' in the United States, resulted in a dramatic increase in illegal activity, including unsafe black market alcohol production, organized crime, and noncompliance with alcohol laws;

Whereas everything mentioned above also applies to our foolish War on Drugs^TM.  Everything that is said about alcohol prohibition applies to the Drug War.  It is dangerous folly, which has cost us trillions of dollars, destroyed many of our rights, makes innocent people subject to brutal police tactics, made drugs more dangerous and created black markets, and has done absolutely nothing to curb their use.

Yet the same people who are celebrating the 21st Amendment with a drink would never consider doing anything to stop the War on Drugs^TM.  So please, do have a drink tonight, and then think about the costs incurred when we attempt to prohibit something which is at it's core, is a personal vice.

I wrote on Friday about how random sobriety checkpoints were not only unconstitutional searches, but were also ineffective.  The only reason that police organizations support them is because it allows them to randomly search for other things (drugs, people without licenses, etc) without needing probable cause.  They're simply taking advantage of people being afraid of drunk driving, to leverage more power for themselves which they normally would not be allowed to have.

Of course, drunk driving is not the only scare tactic that police organizations use in their attempts to get around the 4th Amendment.  In Washington D.C., they're using terrorism as an excuse to randomly check people's backpacks:

Metro officials announced today that they will begin randomly inspecting backpacks, gym bags and any other containers that riders carry with them onto the bus and rail system, in an effort to deter possible terrorist attacks.
...
The inspections will take place when transit police determine that circumstances -- such as an elevated threat level -- warrant heightened vigilance. They will not be announced ahead of time. Inspections will be conducted by five to eight specially trained Metro Transit police officers and a police dog trained to sniff for explosives.
...
In the searches, transit police will choose a random number ahead of time, such as 17. Then they will ask every 17th rider step aside and have his or her bags searched before boarding a bus or entering a rail station.

Police said the inspections would take between 8 to 10 seconds. Those who refuse will not be allowed to enter the system with their carry-on items but will not be detained.
...
If transit police find illegal items such as drugs, the item will be seized and the person will be arrested. But Metro officials today emphasized that the purpose of the search is not focused on drugs or contraband.

This is essentially the same as a sobriety check point.  There is no evidence to suggest that this will have any effectiveness.  What if the terrorist is the 16th individual in line, and not the 17th?  Oh well?  More importantly, this would only catch stupid terrorists.  If they have a bomb in their bag, and are stopped by the police, they are allowed to refuse the search, and walk away.  So all the terrorist would then have to do is wait half an hour, or go to a different train station and then try again.  The odds are with him that he won't be the 17th individual (or whatever random number they choose) the second time, and so his attack will still be successful.  The cost of failure for a terrorist attempt is zero, while the cost to us for trying to stop terrorism is high, and we have to be perfect and lucky every time.  It just doesn't make sense.

At the same time, we will have pulled individuals away from other jobs where they might be more effective.  Those people manning the checkpoints would do better looking for suspicious behavior or detering crime that is more common on train systems like theft.  But of course, if we happen to catch someone with drugs in their bag during our illegal searches, we will arrest those people.  But hey, we're really doing it to fight terrorism, not drug use, so that makes probable cause requirements go away by magic.

Via Reason.

It seems that the British are attempting to accomplish the technological and political feat that the Stasi were never quite able to do in East Germany, and create a total surveillance state:

Ministers are considering spending up to £12 billion on a database to monitor and store the internet browsing habits, e-mail and telephone records of everyone in Britain.

GCHQ, the government’s eavesdropping centre, has already been given up to £1 billion to finance the first stage of the project.

Hundreds of clandestine probes will be installed to monitor customers live on two of the country’s biggest internet and mobile phone providers - thought to be BT and Vodafone. BT has nearly 5m internet customers.

As Jacob Sullum points out, the UK already has the largest number of cameras per capita.  Because George Orwell, author of 1984, was born in England, many people like to compare these types of news items to his famous book.  But to be honest, I don't think that goes nearly far enough, nor does it have the correct impact.  1984 was a fictional story, and many people can simply say, "but we'll do it better."

Instead, I prefer to compare this to a real life endevour by a government to spy on its people... the East German Stasi.  The East German secret police were increcibly good at what they did, especially given the technology they had at their disposal at the time.  They monitored millions of hours of telephone calls (mostly international ones), and monitored (by some counts) half of all regular mail correspondence, both foreign and domestic.  They had machines designed to unseal and reseal envelopes after inspection.  They even went so far as to collect "the smells" off of people in case they needed to be tracked by dogs.

Of course, the East German's also knew they were being spyed on, which led in many cases to a distrustful populace that was often times willing to report (many times erroniously) on their neighbors in order to divert suspicion from themselves.  We should also remember that between 150 and 200 people died in escape attempts from East Berlin alone.  Hell, was the Cold War not in part fought because we had to battle against the "Evil Empire"?  How does it honor those who fought and died in that undeclared war if one of the greatest Western Empires turns Evil themselves?

Congratulations MI5 ... you just turned yourselves into the Stasi.

It's stories like this that make it no surprise that the William Ayer's "domestic terrorism" story has no impact:

A George Rogers Clark High School junior arrested Tuesday for making terrorist threats told LEX 18 News Thursday that the "writings" that got him arrested are being taken out of context.

Winchester police say William Poole, 18, was taken into custody Tuesday morning. Investigators say they discovered materials at Poole's home that outline possible acts of violence aimed at students, teachers, and police.

Poole told LEX 18 that the whole incident is a big misunderstanding. He claims that what his grandparents found in his journal and turned into police was a short story he wrote for English class.

"My story is based on fiction," said Poole, who faces a second-degree felony terrorist threatening charge. "It’s a fake story. I made it up. I’ve been working on one of my short stories, (and) the short story they found was about zombies. Yes, it did say a high school. It was about a high school over ran by zombies."

Even so, police say the nature of the story makes it a felony. "Anytime you make any threat or possess matter involving a school or function it’s a felony in the state of Kentucky," said Winchester Police detective Steven Caudill.
...
"It didn't mention nobody who lives in Clark County, didn't mention (George Rogers Clark High School), didn't mention no principal or cops, nothing," said Poole. "Half the people at high school know me. They know I'm not that stupid, that crazy."

On Thursday, a judge raised Poole's bond from one to five thousand dollars after prosecutors requested it, citing the seriousness of the charge.

Emphasis mine.  He will now more than likely be entered into a wonderful national database, as a potential terrorist... all because he wrote a short story about zombies.  I had a grade school teacher who once asked the entire class to write a scary story the week before Halloween.  I wrote my story about zombies too (does that make me a terrorist?).  If she were to do the same thing today, would she be arrested for inciting terrorism, or giving aid and comfort to terrorists?  Do I need to be worried that a company I work for will think I'm a terrorist because I once posted this video by Jonathan Coulton about zombies overrunning an office?

Is Jonathan Coulton a terrorist?  (Cue angry email from Elliot because Melinda has the song stuck in her head again).  Via Radley Balko.

Another small county has decided to beef up their arsenal by buying a used Armored Personnel Carrier, and converting it for SWAT team use.  This one is in Georgia:

Don’t be surprised to see an Army tank rolling down a street near you.

The Cobb County police department has refurbished a donated Armored Personnel Carrier for officers to use in SWAT situations.

The vehicle, which retails for $500,000, is a Light Armor Vehicle that was used by the U.S. Army in Panama. The county paid $45,000 to upgrade the vehicle for police use.

Equipped with thermal sensors, computerized tracking devices, night vision, tear gas launchers and other gadgets, the all-black six-wheel unit can hold up to nine SWAT officers.

In case you're wondering, the population of Cobb County is less than 700,000 and they had a total of 36 murders for the entire county last year.  I made this demotivator for the occasion:

Via Radley Balko.

This story about a doctor specializing in pain treatment really got to me:

The popular perception, particularly among board examiners and federal regulators, is that chronic pain patients are "legal drug addicts" and their physicians are "pill pushers," Noblett said. Opioids are addictive, and in the past decade, painkillers such as OxyContin have become more abused and used recreationally, a hot party drug for kids who have increasingly become overdose victims. Cutting up time-release pills for quicker rushes or mixing them with alcohol can be lethal.

But for Noblett and other chronic pain patients, oxycodone is a miracle drug when used correctly. Now the federal government is cracking down, and the state medical board is following that lead in Texas. The medical board, which got in deep trouble a few years ago for its lax treatment of corrupt and incompetent doctors, has changed its tune — so much so that one national doctor’s group believes it has gone overboard in the other direction, suspending and removing doctors’ licenses without cause. Caught in the crossfire are the patients.

"There is a huge difference between a drug addict and a legitimate, bona fide chronic pain patient," said Noblett, who sustained severe back injuries in the Vietnam war that gave him decades of agony. "A drug addict takes medication in order to cop out, to escape. A pain patient takes medication so that they can get back on their feet and be a productive member of society and support and provide for their families."

Take the time to read the whole story.  The parts about the Vietnam vet who led the charge fighting for his doctor was probably the most touching, and the saddest in the end.  This is the War on Drugs^TM at it's absolute worst, and is costing real innocent people the ability to live their lives to any reasonable degree.  Since this doctor lost his license, 4 of his patients have committed suicide because the pain they deal with is so bad, and there are no other doctors in their area willing to risk prescibing the pain medication they need.

This is not an isolated case either.

This time in New York.  A naked man was perched precariously on a fire escape, holding only a florescent light bulb as a weapon, and was ranting (I'm not making any of this up), when police tased him, causing him to lose muscle control and fall 10 feet of the fire escape railing.  He later died in the hospital due to the fall.

What did the police think was going to happen when they tased him?  Could they non anticipate the danger that he would fall off the fire escape?  If you go to the story, you will see a picture of him standing on the railing (they blurred out portions thankfully).

Poor training, and poor understanding of when and how to use a taser are obvious factors here.  Two officers involved have been placed on administrative leave pending an investigation.  Taser International makes these things seem so harmless, that they are being deployed in all the wrong situations, and used far too frequently.  These are not stun guns, but they're being treated that way.

One of the important founding traditions of this country is that of seperation of military, civilian and police powers.  In fact, one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights is specifically dedicated to this:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Most people today don't worry about a soldier knocking on their door and demanding to be given food and shelter for an unspecified period... but there was a time in our history where this was common place.  It was common place for them to kick you out of your home while they use it.  Others are perhaps more familiar with the Posse Comitatus Act.  Posse Comitatus was passed after the Civil War, and was intended to create a "wall of seperation" if you will between civian policing and the military.  It says that except by a specific act of Congress, the military are barred from acting in a law enforcement capacity.  Changes were in fact made to this in 2006, as well as the Insurrection Act, that would have made it even easier to break down this wall, but thankfully they were repealed a year later.

The reason for all of this is simple.  The police are tasked with serving and protecting the people, us.  The military is tasked with destroying the enemy, them.  We train the police, or at least ought to, not only how to stop and investigate crime, but also what limits they have in order to protect our civil liberties.  Of course in practice the police often times don't respect those liberties, or view them as a hinderence to their job, but in theory they are supposed to.  The military on the other hand have no such training.  Their job is to accomplish whatever military goals they are ordered to, with minimal losses on their side, and if possible the other side as well, but that's a secondary consideration.

In times of National Emergency, we depend on the National Guard... citizen soldiers.  They are called upon by state governors to help, mostly in the case of a natural disaster like major floods or hurricanes.  Their time on station is limited, and they are often times trained specifically for this task.  Of course, the goal of having a seperate National Guard is lost on many people these days, as guard units are Federalized more often to serve in foreign combat zones.  They are becoming less and less citizen soldiers, and more into regular army with all of their inherent problems when they are deployed at home.

So what is all this leading up to?  Well, it seems that the Defense Department is doing away completely with the idea of only using the National Guard at home, and starting next month will begin deploying active duty army forces at home.  No... seriously:

The 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they're training for the same mission - with a twist - at home.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.
...
It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.

But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.
...
In the meantime, they'll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it.
...
The 1st BCT's soldiers also will learn how to use "the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded," 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.
...
The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.
...
The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced "sea-smurf").

The Consequence Management Response Force?  I didn't realize George Orwell wrote for the Army Times.  Maybe their first "training mission" will be in Chicago.  Or perhaps they'll start being used in drug raids.  And Sea-Smurf?  Really?  Are they going to wear Blue Helmets?

It's one thing to have the legal framework in place such that you declare marshal law (we've had that for more than a century).  It's another to train and make so many plans for something we intend to be such a rare event to this extent.  This type of planning and deployment sends the wrong signals, and is often times used as an excuse to use forces anyway at a later date when its not appropriate.  That's how the misuse SWAT teams began.  Cities justify their existance by talking about the need to stop rare armed stand offs and terrorist attacks, and then all of a sudden they're being used to serve search warrants on non-violent suspects, because as long as we have them, we might as well use them.

It concerns me that we choose to federalize more and more of our National Guard units for foreign deployment.  They are the units that ought to stay home in case of national emergency.  It seems stupid to me to send our National Guard units away, and then use regular army units here.  That is exactly backwards of how it should be.

This is some potentially fucking scary shit.  Via The Agitator.

A new standard phrase in my arsenal has became "When everything is an emergency, then nothing is an emergency."  Saying that something is "super critical" or an "emergency" is supposed to raise its importance above tasks... in order to set priority.  But when you call everything an emergency, then no tasks are made to be more important compared to the others, and thus nothing is an emergency.

This is how we're beginning to treat the word "terrorism".  Take for example, this case in Roanoke:

Two Pembroke teenagers have been charged in connection with a series of playing cards that were defaced with threatening writing and left at stores in Christiansburg and Pearisburg -- a gesture police said the teens admitted had been inspired by this summer's Batman movie, "The Dark Knight."

Justin Colby Dirico and Bryan Eugene Stafford, both 18, admitted to leaving cards that bore handwritten messages inside the Pearisburg Wal-Mart, according to police Chief J.C. Martin.

Martin would not say how they identified the suspects but said the teens admitted Tuesday during police interviews they were responsible for the cards, which they patterned after elements of "The Dark Knight." Both were charged with conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism.

These are two kids who were playing a really bad, distasteful prank.  They've been charged with terrorism.  This is a charge that has often come to mean decreased civil liberties for those who are charged with it.  We've been promised that we'd only use this for the worst of the worst, because we have no choice, and the consequences are that dire.  Unfortunately, as is always the case, when you give the government an inch with your civil liberties, they take a mile.

When everything is terrorism, nothing is terrorism.  Via Hit & Run.

If the claims in this lawsuit prove to be true, this is an extremely troubling misuse of paramilitary police forces in Milwaukee.  Apparently the timeline unfolded along these lines.  Approximately 9 days before a no-knock raid was executed against a Franklin house, the sister of the homeowner alleged that her son (the home owner's nephew) was threatened by the homeowner and had illegal weapons.  The Milwaukee Police, without consulting Franklin police, nor interviewing the nephew, got a no-knock warrant for the house.  The husband, apparently thinking his house was being robbed, got a handgun and called out to find out who was there, and was shot by the police.  After the arrest, they were then detained without counsel, and the woman, who has a heart condition, was denied medical treatment.

What get's me here is the 9 days between the threat and the SWAT raid.  If this couple was found to be so dangerous as to require the use of a SWAT team and a no-knock warrant, why on Earth would they wait nine days?  And more importantly, why did they never contact the Franklin police or interview the nephew during this time?  The Franklin police could have verified whether the couple had previous issues in the community which the sister alleged, and surely you'd want to verify the validity of the threats with the boy before embarking on an incredibly dangerous paramilitary operation... wouldn't you?