War and Christianity

I agree Rose. I know that my jaw dropped when I heard about it. I was ashamed that a fellow American would do such a thing when we hold ourselves up to be beyond such barbaric behavior. Every man, woman and child should be outraged.

Let's give it a little time to see how many heads roll because of this. Hopefully we can save some dignity out of this by the way we deal with the offenders. I hope they throw the book at everyone with knowledge. They deserve no less.

It still amazes me that it even happened. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING??? What horrible behavior. What fools. They should go to prison for a very long time.

One bad thing is that a result, many Muslims now think that this is the "American" way of treating prisoners. If they only knew the truth which is that Americans will not stand for such behavior regardless of nationality.

I just ask you to cut Bush some slack here on this issue. If it is proven that he knew and approved of this I will be on your side and call for his head. Until then, I will not hold him at fault here and neither should you.

As a christian I really don't think I'd have it in me to kill a man. I don't think I'd make a good soldier, though I totally recognise the importance of what soldiers do.

I guess my question would be, how could the rank and file (folks like me, anyway) have any way of knowing the truth? Presented with dire consequences for non-action, many of us had no choice but to accept what Colin Powell and George Bush were pushing as justification for war. Further, how could we have known what was going on at Abu Graib? Once those issues became known, I'm quite certain that the congressional switchboard was blowing more than a few circuits!

If anything bothers me about the current regime in Washington, it's that it seems they really do think they know better than "the people." I remember when the doomsayers were predicting that it would be the liberal elite who would trample all over the little guy. Seems they got the prediction right; just had the wrong political faction in mind.

Billy,

re: sword

The word sword is an allegory with a few meanings. In Revelations Christ's tongue is "a double sided sword" - and very directly Christ was most likely indicating that he was bringing his teachings into the world.

For those who believe that the Catholic Church suppressed a Jesus bloodline, "Sword" has another meaning - that of the beginning of a holy bloodline. I mention this only in passing because of how highly controversial this subject is.

re: The Temple being violence.

Dude, seriously. Did you not get what I said? There's a huge difference between Jesus ridding the Temple of money-changers, and Jesus using "violence."
In the Gospel, Jesus goes into a temple where he sees some people basically doing banking and lending, overturns some tables, throws some money scales on the floor, and tells people to leave. This is a FAR cry from "using violence". For that matter, you could argue that since Christ ate meat, and you have to kill animals, that is an example of violence.

You miss the point entirely. Jesus never showed any violence against man. He showed that even when people strike you, you should not strike them back.

re: creation

Okay, I missed the statement in between the one I responded to and my own, where you said that you were okay with a unification of science and religion's explanation of creation.
Sorry.

re: Saddam the world's most dangerous man.

I noticed you failed to respond to my rebuttal to your assertion. As someone else said - why would we go after Saddam when we still had to get Osama? For that matter, why did we go after Saddam when North Korea and Iran are clearly more immediate threats to America's security.

@Others - fascinating thread we got going on here.

I'll just add, Hiro, that what Jesus did in the temple is generally referred to as, "righteous indignation." Jesus' wrath was, generally speaking, directed toward people such as the duplicitous temple leaders who purported to be spiritual icons, but were in reality quite corrupt.

Here's an interesting passage for consideration. I don't remember if Billy already posted this, but it does indicate that peace wasn't Jesus' only goal on earth.

Matthew 10
32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Yes, I agree. The sword has many meanings when referred to in the Bible. It also stands for the Bible itself. “The sword of truth” is referred to at least once and I think more times than that. I have not heard the one about the bloodline but take you for your word. Ya learn something new every day. It also literally means a sword sometimes. Let’s look at this passage again.

Matthew 10:34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

If it was referring to the Bible only I would think it would say “a sword of truth” instead of simply a “sword”. Here is what I think. I think it means all 3. The written as well as spoken word of God, sharp as a sword, a truth that surely will even divide families. But He makes the statement “I do not come here to bring peace”. If it is not bringing peace then it is bringing war, the opposite of peace. If Jesus were to truly be a complete pacifist, not condoning war in any circumstance, He would have said that He DID come to bring peace but here he clearly says that he is not. I think the sword refers to all 3.

Here is a nice example in the Old Testament. In Exodus as they Jews were fleeing Egipt they were attacked by the Amalekites at Rephidim. Here are some of the actual passages:



In the next passages the Lord speeks to Moses, proclaimed that He, meaning the Lord, will blot out the memory of the Amalek from under heaven. In other words, they will not only be destroyed by the Lord, at the hands of the Jews in this fight, but that none will be left to even remember. They will be completely wiped out.



Clearly, the Lord is at “war” statement supports the Jews in their effort. If “no reason” is acceptable for war as you hypothecate then tell me why the Lord not only was in favor of this war with the Amalekite’s but He was helping them win in a devastating fashion?

There are more stories like this one but I will leave it at this one for now.


I am not equating clearing the temple with actual war. Maybe I was not as clear as I should have been. I was in fact refuting your statement that Jesus was “NEVER” violent. That is not true by your own admission.

Jesus or anyone else killing animals and eating meat has nothing to do with war or fighting so I am not sure of your point there.


WOOO HOOO!!! One for me… hehe.


Being that I am “fair and balanced” I admit that my statement was a little ambitious. The “most” dangerous man I will admit is wrong. I will say that he was “ONE” of the worlds most dangerous men. Surely you can compromise with me and agree with that.

I am repeating myself here but I agreed with Rose earlier about going after Osama first. Maybe that would have been better, who knows. I can agree with that. It would be ill advised to go after Koria or China at this time too and as for Iran I probably agree with you too. Iraq then Iran or the other way around, I am not sure what would have been better but Saddam’s actions precluding the war are what probably put Iraq on the top of the list.

At a minimum, maybe we should have had another target first, who knows how that would have worked out but I am hoping you can admit that Saddam needed to go too.


I agree and much of this thread has been very amicable when others have broken down with personal attacks. I applaud everyone for being civil in stating their case and yes, this is an interesting thread we have here.

Paolo as you say, we [the American People] could not have known that this was happening. However, once the pictures came and and the American people became aware of what was happening it is my opinion that the top guy (Secretary of Defense) should have personally began looking into the situation and he should have said much, much more than the has. AND that the American people should have been doing a lot more to put pressure on the senate and congress to make sure that he [Rummy] is doing something.

Stars should have immediately been ripped from several generals uniforms and strips from other officers, because even if they played no part in the torture, they were in charge of the men and women who were torturing prisoners.

Not only that, but the incredable stupidity of allowing objects capable of digital photography into the area alone was reason enough to strip these officers of some rank due to incompetency alone!

Instead, from what I can see, the entire issue has been swept onto the shoulders of a few low ranking soliders, who, in my opinion, were probably ordered to do what they did anyway.

I have written to my senator and congressperson about my opinion on this. I hope that others write in too.

I concur, Rose. Well said.

He was very dangerous to his own people, but to the rest of the world? pffft. Hardly. How long did it take us to roll into Baghdad? Where were his chemical weapons? Oh that's right, he didn't have any! Colin Powell was on camera just a couple of months before 9/11 commenting on how well the sanctions were working and stating that he posed no threat to his neighbors or anyone else. Explain that please. I think it's obvious. 9/11 and the resulting fear of terrorism were blatantly used as an excuse and a cover for making a grab for oil, and knocking over an easy target in accordance with the neo-con belief in middle east domino theory (install a democracy and it will spread through the middle east). We're beginning to see with disturbing clarity just how misguided that notion was. Hussein was in no way one of the world's most dangerous men. He'd already been reduced to an impotent tin pot dictator, and that's precisesly why we picked him off. He was an easy target.

Chip - I do think that, from a "moral" standpoint, there was some duty on the part of the international community to come to the aid of the suffering people of Iraq. Maybe not in the form the US chose to take, but something more than the benign (and as we now know, corrupt) sanctions. Heck, I would have been on-board for an invasion based on human rights violations. But, yeah...this whole terrorism/WMD/evil dictator pretext is and was a Greek tragedy in the making.

Well I agree with you to an extent Paolo, but the "freeing the people" line doesn't wash either. There are far worse humanitarian tragedies in the world that are being completely ignored. Too bad there's no oil in Africa

Yeah, no doubt. I don't think that the US should ever have gotten into the role of "world policeman." Even so, there are times where I think we simply must intervene. Problem is, the US government only chooses to do so in cases where there are underlying benefits to the US...

Gotta start somewhere. If as you point out ,Iraq was an easy target and it indeed would benefit us the most because of oil, (which I have no problem with us benefiting btw) why not start there? Seems a logical choice to me.

I contend that it would not matter where President Bush started, he would be vilified by the liberal left anyway.

Seems to me the logical choice would be to start at home:

US prison population—over 2 million—hits new record
12 percent of black men in 20s and early 30s incarcerated
By Kate Randall
10 April 2003

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

The ostensible reason for the US military conquest of Iraq—named “Operation Iraqi Freedom”—is to dispense the blessings of American-style democracy over the ruins of bombed-out cities and the corpses of untold thousands of “liberated” Iraqis.

A new report on the US prison population sheds light on the brutal reality that underlies the supposed blessings of contemporary democracy in capitalist America for broad sections of the US working class. The Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics’ report—“Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2002”—shows that as of midyear 2002 a record 2,019,234 prisoners were incarcerated in American state and federal facilities.

The US has a higher percentage of its citizenry in prison than any other country in history, and accounts for an astonishing 25 percent of the world’s prison population.

The report points to some truths, at once staggering and damning, about the social and political conditions facing the most impoverished and oppressed sections of the working class. More than a quarter of US inmates in mid-2002—a total of 596,400—were black males between the ages of 20 and 39. This means 12 percent of black men in their 20s and early 30s—more than one in ten—are in jail or prison. The report calculates that over the course of a lifetime, 28 percent of all black men will have spent some time behind bars.

Since 1990, the prison population has exploded, almost doubling from 1,148,702 in 1990 to 2,019,234 in mid-2002. While the stock market boom of the 1990s meant super-enrichment for the upper layers of society, growing numbers of people—a disproportionate number of them young and African-American— were being locked up in the nation’s prisons and jails.

The numbers of inmates held in local and county jails rose by 5.4 percent last year, rising to 665,475, the largest growth in the jail population in five years. The majority of people sent to jail are awaiting trial or serving sentences of a year or less. This increase is directly related to the deepening economic slump affecting working and poor people, with the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicating that the increase is most likely due to a growth in poverty-related crimes, such as burglary.

The growth of the federal prison population accounts for a disproportionate share of the increase. In 1990 there were 58,838 prisoners in federal custody; in 2002 this number grew to 148,783. In the 12 months ending June 30, 2002, 8,893 additional prisoners came under the jurisdiction of the federal system. Some of this increase can be accounted for by the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ takeover of prisons operated in Washington DC. But it is also a result of measures enacted by Congress increasing the number of federal offences, including many related to drug crimes and gun possession.

In the 12 months ending June 30, 2002, several states experienced substantial increases in their prison populations, including: Rhode Island, up 17.4 percent; New Mexico, up 11.1 percent; and West Virginia and Maine, up 8.7 percent each.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics report also shows that the rate of imprisonment varies widely based on where a person lives. The three states with the highest rates of incarceration were all in the South—Louisiana, with 799 sentenced prisoners per 100,000 state residents, Mississippi (72 and Texas (685). This contrasts with much lower rates in three Northern states: Maine, with 137 sentenced prisoners per 100,000 state residents, Minnesota (139) and North Dakota (167). It is noteworthy that these three Northern states are among 12 states without the death penalty, while Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas all practice capital punishment.

Relative to their number in the US population, men are about 15 times more likely than woman to be imprisoned. However, “equal rights” for women is slowly gaining momentum, with the average annual growth rate in the number of female inmates averaging 5.4 percent, compared to the 3.6 percent average annual increase for men. Just as women are now “free” to serve—and die—in military combat, their numbers are gradually increasing in the prison population.

The US is a leader not only in incarceration, but also in capital punishment. There are more than 3,600 condemned inmates on death rows across the US. On March 19, on the eve of the Bush administration’s attack on Iraq, federal death row inmate Louis Jones, 53, was put to death. Jones was a veteran of the 1991 Gulf War, and his lawyers argued that he suffered from Gulf War Syndrome, which made him violent and drove him to rape and murder a young servicewoman. President Bush rejected his appeal for clemency.

Since the war on Iraq began, the state of Texas has passed a grisly landmark. On March 20, Keith Clay became the 300th person put to death in the state. Of the 839 individuals executed since the US Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, 301 have been sent to their deaths in Texas. George W. Bush, during his five years as Texas governor before assuming the presidency, presided over 152 of these state killings. These executions included women, the mentally impaired and those sentenced to death for crimes committed as juveniles.

The huge and growing prison population in the US testifies to the unprecedented level of social inequality that constitutes the single most significant aspect of American society. Fantastic levels of wealth for a privileged elite go hand in hand with worsening economic insecurity for the broad masses, and chronic poverty for tens of millions of the most oppressed—the breeding grounds for petty crime, drug abuse and all of the other symptoms of a dysfunctional and diseased social order. This oligarchic social structure is increasingly maintained by means of repressive laws, police violence and racism.

The steady rise in the US prison population has continued under Democratic and Republican administrations alike, as the two parties vied to champion repressive “law-and-order” measures, while funneling ever greater shares of the national wealth to the uppermost social layers.

And then some specific cases:

Inside the US prison system—frame-ups, brutality and murder
By Kate Randall
22 July 1999

Use this version to print

America's prison system is notorious around the world for both its vast scale—more than 1.6 million people, enough to comprise the country's fourth-largest city—and for the savagery of its treatment of prisoners, culminating with the barbarism of capital punishment. Five examples of conditions in the prisons are culled from news reports over the past week.

Thousands wrongfully imprisoned would be exonerated by DNA testing

The Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in Manhattan, co-directed by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, has utilized DNA testing to investigate crimes and criminal convictions. Scheck reports that 64 people have had their convictions overturned as a result of the testing, half of them as a result of the intervention of the project. Eight of these people have been on death row. In 70 percent of cases which they want to investigate, the necessary evidence is unavailable.

Since 1989 the FBI has been using DNA testing for suspects arrested or indicted in connection with rape and rape-homicide cases. In 25 percent of the cases where they are able to obtain results, the primary suspect is excluded. These are cases which could potentially result in long prison sentences or the death sentence. According to Scheck, if even 1 percent of these people were eventually convicted it would amount to thousands of innocent people in prison.

Even a DNA test does not mean automatic exoneration for the wrongly accused. Vincent Jenkins, a prisoner in upstate New York, received a life sentence on a rape conviction and has served nearly 17 years in prison. DNA testing has conclusively ruled out Jenkins as the man who committed the crime, but the Erie County District Attorney's office is still unwilling to admit that he was prosecuted and convicted in error. They will most likely allow his conviction to be vacated in state court, but they have opposed Jenkins's lawyers efforts to have a federal judge rule that he should be freed because he is innocent.

25 years to life for stealing food

Gregory Taylor, 37, is serving 25 years to life in California's Corcoran State Prison as a result of the state's "three strikes" law. The law mandates a life sentence for anyone convicted of two "serious or violent" felonies, followed by a third felony of any kind.

Taylor's crimes? Fifteen years ago he snatched a purse containing $10 and a bus pass. A year later he and a friend, unarmed, were convicted of attempted robbery. His third offense was breaking into a church kitchen to steal food. Taylor's lawyer Graciela Martinez argued that even if Taylor had tried to break into the church, which he denies, it was simple trespassing. Martinez said, "He did not have a violent nature. He was just poor and hungry. Now he has 25 to life."

Guards union halts plan to probe brutality cases

The California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA), the union representing prison guards, has successfully lobbied to prevent passage of a bill that would have placed investigation of prison brutality cases under the jurisdiction of the state Attorney General's office.

Investigation of corrupt guards will remain in the hands of local prosecutors. Despite the shooting deaths of 39 inmates and the wounding of 200 more over the last 10 years in the state's 33 prisons, no district attorney in the state has ever prosecuted a guard.

Investigations of police brutality have centered around Corcoran State Prison in San Joaquin Valley. Last year four prison officials were indicted in connection with a rape case against Corcoran's so-called "Booty Bandit," a prisoner who reportedly raped "problem" prisoners under the direction of prison staff in exchange for extra food and other perks.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer reported, "The CCPOA torpedoed this thing. One of the assemblymen who voted against it, Jim Battin, pulled me aside and said, 'Bill, sorry, but I'm whoring for the CPPOA.'" Last year the guards union contributed about $2 million to support Democratic Governor Gray Davis.

Florida prison guards suspended following prisoner's death

Nine Florida prison guards have been suspended following the death of Frank Valdez, 36, a prisoner on the state's death row at Florida State Prison. The Florida Department of Corrections released a statement saying Valdez died "under suspicious circumstances" on Saturday. The guards were placed on administrative leave with pay, pending the outcome of an investigation.

Valdez was sentenced to died by the electric chair for the killing of a Palm Beach County prison guard during an attempt to free a friend from the prison.

All executions in the state take place at Florida State Prison. Since 1924, 240 inmates have died in Florida's electric chair, the state's sole method of execution. Florida Governor Jeb Bush has defended the exclusive use of the electric chair despite two recent gruesome, prolonged executions.

California prisoner dies fighting wildfire

A state prison inmate died July 18 while being put to work to contain a wildfire in Southern California. The inmate was among approximately 50 prisoners assigned to fight the 2,000-acre fire. He was operating a chainsaw in the early morning hours when he fell over a 150-foot cliff.

California state prisoners are routinely used to fight wildfires and other natural disasters. The name of the victim has not yet been released.

Thanks for those articles, Isis. I, for one, have been deeply troubled by America's prison system. I think it all began when I watched Tom Selleck's "An Innocent Man" (I think?) back in the late '80s or early '90s. While not directly related to war and Christianity, I do think this is a topic worthy of exploration.

You know what I think? I think the American public is really just a bunch of frogs in a pot of simmering water that is slowly approaching the boiling point...

Omg Paolo...I have been saying that forever. We are far less free than we think we are. All these wars against others only hide the fact that we have alot of 'splainin to do (to quote Ricky). My main problem is that we somehow think that we are better than "them". We put all of our energy into this egomaniacle struggle against "those people" and forget our neighbor. And it is directed towards the war because this war is based the fact that a government was oppressing and brutalizing prisoners. It is based on Christianity for the simple fact that we should have clean hands before going into such a self righteous battle. How can Christians be for a war in another land when the land they live in is so full of brutality and injustice? I don't know but it is worthy of the question.

Oh, absolutely! There is legislation to regulate virtually everyone and every thing in the US of A. Pretty much any US citizen can become a "criminal of convenience." That is to say, anything we do or say can, when it suits a particular whim or purpose, be twisted into some prosecutorial juggernaut. Somehow, I don't think this is the America envisioned by Jefferson, Franklin or Washington...

I could not agree more either. This is a non-partisan stand as well because I think it has been happening for decades. Laws pertaining to privacy and domain have either been overridden by corporations or by the U.S. Government (as requested by corporations).

People used to say that not even your house is sacred anymore. Well it has gone far beyond that, not even your body is sacred anymore.

Think about it:

1. The FBI can now enter your home without presenting a warrant, without you being home and can covertly search your domicile.

2. Your local law enforcement agency can actually confiscate your home [property] even if they do NOT find drugs on the conviction that you MIGHT have had them and it is your responsibility to go to court to reclaim your property. (I have multiple examples of this if anyone is interested).

3. The city or state can confiscate your property on the premise that putting a mall or multilevel development there would be better for the city. (I have examples of this too).

4. Your employer can demand that you not smoke, drink or take drugs and demand urine or blood from your body to prove that you are not and if you do not provide this, they can take away your right to work in your profession.

5. Your insurer can demand to monitor your driving habits (see American Insurance Company) where they place a black box in your car now and upload where and how you drive and you get a discount for allowing this.

6. Your health insurer can simply deny you coverage at will. Now, you don't even have the right to sue them.

7. Soon, they will be monitoring your cheese burger intake and how many peds you put in for the day.

The list of personal property and privacy rights that we have given up in the last three decades goes on and on.

We continue to create laws and they continue to be selectively enforced and we, in doing so, have created an underclass of people. These people have been robbed of all rights and privacy in prison and this continues after they leave prison when they try and find housing and employment.

While many feel that if you do the crime you deserve the time - that's all in good, until you are the one who has made a mistake or has been falsely accused and have lost your home and everything you own trying to defend yourself.

Ironically, the people who really have done things where in my opinion, they never should have gotten out of prison (like the guy who raped a 14 year old girl and chopped off both her arms afterwards) - they get out of prison because there is not enough room in prison to hold all the people in there on drug convictions.

BTW - the guy mention in the above paragraph killed a woman in Tampa shortly after he was let out of prison.

Prison has become a BUSINESS not a punitive measure. The courts have become a BUSINESS, not a means of administering justice. Prosecutors and judges have become politicians rather than public servants and are more concerned with appearence and conviction than truth. Defending attorneys have become bottom feeders and ambulance chasers.

Funny - I think that with privatization of things like law enforcment, prisons and general public services and gated communities, that we are moving rapidly toward the sort of society described in Neal Stephens book Snow Crash.

While this probably does not fit in within the title of War and Religion, I think that it does pertain to basic human rights.

Scary, scary, scary.

Holy smokes Rose! I wasn't aware that things had gone so far in some of those areas. Could you please provide examples of #2 and #3? Does #4 apply to any profession/employer? Must such measures be agreed to in the employees contract?
I don't quite understand what you mean by #7, could you eleborate please?

There is one that comes to mind specifically because as of last year, the owners wife STILL had not been given back her home in Mallibu:

The Police Murder of Donald P. Scott in Malibu, California

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b675f4506ce.htm

This is the district attorneys report - which is awful even though still biased toward law enforcment.

Lists of some Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuses (references in foot notes at the bottom)

Two different articles reported that the cops in Volusia County, Florida are highway robbers. [The] "sheriff's department set up a "forfeiture trap" to stop motorists traveling Interstate 95 and seized an average of over $5,000 a day from motorists between 1989 and 1992--over $8 million dollars total." Reported James Bovard.(9) If police stop you, even for a minor traffic violation, on I-95, they ask, "How much cash are you carrying?" Said Jarret B. Wollstein(6) "If your answer is more than a few hundred dollars, they routinely [steal] it." "Volusia police say that carrying more cash is "suspicious behavior."..."suspicion is all they need to confiscate your property. If you are also carrying valuables — such as jewelry, or driving an up-scale car, they often confiscate that as well. In the last four years, these legalized highway robberies have brought in $8 million for Volusia County."

Bovard(9) reported, "The In three-quarters of the seizures, no criminal charges were filed. An investigation by the Orlando Sentinel revealed 90 percent of those seizure victims were black or Hispanic.[14] When confronted with this statistic, Volusia County Sheriff Bob Vogel said, "What this data tells me is that the majority of money being transported for drug activity involves blacks and Hispanics."
These cops are nothing but armed robbers--highwaymen with badges. If there were private bandits robbing people on the highways the media would be all over it and there would be a national demand for more police on the streets to stop it, but who do you call when the police are the robbers?

Volusia County political gangsters also operated an extortion racket. Even when they realized they had confiscated the money of honest people, they would offer "settlements" to some drivers whose money they seized. They said they'd return a percentage of the money if the drivers would sign a promise not to sue. These cops act like the cowardly schoolyard bully who takes kid's lunch money and then gets scared and promises to give back part of the money if the kid won't tell on him.

Last June a Georgia trooper stopped a car for speeding on I-95. After the driver and passengers gave conflicting stories, the trooper searched the car and found a hidden compartment containing $7,000, which the driver said was from savings. The patrolman stole the money and turned it over to the DEA, which in January returned $5,440 to the patrolman. Under Georgia law forfeited money should go to the state's general fund, so he even broke his own state's law. No one was charged in the incident.

Charlotte Carroll, a disabled, 64-year-old Maryland woman, could lose her house because police found a third of an ounce of cocaine and other drugs that some of her children left there. Despite the fact that under Maryland law, a house can't be forfeited without a criminal conviction. So the police used federal procedures to seize her home, which has been in Carroll's family for a century. "I got sick, so sick in my stomach and started crying," Carroll said. "I'm just praying."

"The state can't take her house, so they run to the feds," said the attorney, Stephen F. Allen. Her attorney said she is suffering from osteoarthritis and receives $500 a month from Social Security disability, has never been convicted of a crime.

Fairbanks police had seized $44,850 in cash from Perry Johnson after finding cocaine in his home. But charges were dismissed because of an illegal search. The Police knew they couldn't keep the money under state law, so they gave it to the DEA for "adoption". Johnson sued and the state Supreme Court ruled in '93 that police had no right under state law to seize the money. But since the money had been "adopted" by the Feds they couldn't get it back so Alaska stole from taxpayers $58,654, which included interest to pay Johnson back. But the DEA seized that money, too, saying it could be traced to drug transactions. In reality it can be traced to robbery because it was taken from taxpayers.

The Justice Department says that from October 1996 through March 1999 it accepted $208,454,000 in seizures from state and local police. But that figure is almost certainly low, its still being audited because the Justice Department has not published an annual forfeiture report since '96, although the law requires a report each year.

In '97-'98, the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department received back more than $2.5 million.

In '98, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation took back $1.7 million.

In Kentucky, no forfeited money has gone into a substance abuse fund for at least four years, even though some should under state law.

The U.S. Justice Department has an Asset Forfeiture Fund which paid $24 million to informants in 1990 as their share of the loot. "One Hell's Angel became a millionaire by informing." "Airport-counter clerks, operators of security x-ray machines report "suspicion" persons paying tickets in cash. Many are minorities. Clerks for carriers such as UPS and Continental Airlines' Quik Pak have been known to open "suspicious" packages and report their findings to the police. Rewards to informants amount to ten percent of the value of confiscated property," according to Otto Scott. (5)

"The Pittsburgh Press produced 40 tabloid-sized pages of them. The seizures have included planes, boats, cars, houses — all from average citizens without criminal records, amounting to millions of dollars." The Pittsburgh Press reported, "80 percent of the people who lost property to the federal government were never charged. And most of the seized items weren't the luxurious playthings of drug barons, but modest homes and simple cars and hard-earned savings of ordinary people."

Jarret B. Wollstein wrote(6) "More and more government agencies are joining in this feeding frenzy. You and I are the prey." Federal pirates include the FBI, DEA, Coast Guard, the FDA, Treasury Dept., the U.S. Post Office, the Bureau of Land Management, the SEC, and the Department of Housing-- plus thousands of state and local police departments. "According to the Washington Post, the U.S. Marshall's Service alone, now has an inventory of over 30,000 confiscated, homes, cars, boats, and businesses."

Bovard(9) said, "Police sometimes "settle" the forfeiture cases by allowing the auto owners to buy back their car for half the car's value."

Albuquerque politicians gave the police the license to seize entire homes if underage kids have a party in it that includes alcohol. The measure is intended to coerce homeowners into cracking down on kids' drinking parties.
This addition to the nuisance-abatement ordinance, also allows the police to seize houses "known" for drug dealing and prostitution. But they don't necessarily have to prove the owner was involved. Councilor Mike McEntee, who cast the lone vote against the bill said he agreed underage drinking is a problem but, "What we need is more and better enforcement of laws we have."

"This gives us a hammer," City Attorney Bob White (10)said, "We would work with the parents who may not know their house is a party house."
I also consider it the responsibility of parents to prevent their kids from using intoxicants, but this measure, like the other asset forfeiture provisions, will most likely lead to innocent people, some of whom may not have even known of the parties (such as being out of town at the time), having their homes seized. It has happened numerous times around the country with drugs. This act, like other similar ones, does not require the police to file charges against the homeowner to seize the property.

Mr. Wollstein described (6) how "In 1989, police stopped 49-year old Ethel Hylton at Houston's Hobby Airport and told her she was under arrest because a drug dog had scratched at her luggage. Agents searched her bags and strip-searched her. They found no drugs. They did find $39,110 in cash, money she received from an insurance settlement and her life savings. Ms. Hylton had accumulated this money through over 20 years of hard, physical work, as a hotel housekeeper and hospital janitor. Ethel Hylton completely documented where she got her money. She was never charged with a crime. But police kept her money anyway. Nearly four years later, she has little hope of ever getting her money back."

"Hundreds of similar home confiscations without trial are taking place every week. To confiscate your home, all police need is a tip from an anonymous informant that a family member or friend once had drugs, pornography, or unregistered guns in your house. Once the accusation is made, they can confiscate your home at their discretion. The burden of proof is then on you to prove that the government's charges are false." It said in the article. (6)

Mr. Wollstein wrote (6) about an incident "In December 1988, Detroit police raided a supermarket to make a drug bust, but did not find any drugs. When police dogs reacted to traces of cocaine on three $1.00 bills in the cash register, they seized the entire contents of the store's registers and safe, totaling $4,384. Using "drug residue" as a criterion, police could seize all of the cash in the country. According to a seven year study by Toxicology Consultants, "An average of 96 percent of all the bills we analyzed from 11 cities tested positive for cocaine." "A series of studies recently completed for the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing reveal that rollers in 15-27% of the government's presses that print our currency, are also contaminated with cocaine."

Wollstein (6) tells of "A new offense that can trigger total confiscation of your assets is the crime of "structuring." Structuring is arranging your bank deposits or withdrawals to avoid filing an IRS Currency Transaction Report (CTR). If you have recently deposited or withdrawn as little as $3,000 in cash in your bank account without filing a CTR, you are probably guilty of structuring. The penalty is a fine of up to $250,000 and five years in prison.
"A few years ago, a 65-year-old Alabama physician had his life savings seized by the IRS because of alleged structuring. The doctor got into trouble when he consolidated his savings at a new bank opened by a friend. The banker made the mistake of suggesting that the doctor deposit his funds gradually, so he wouldn't have to file CTRs and attract IRS attention. But according to the government, simply acting in a way that falls outside their reporting requirements is itself a crime! Using money-laundering statutes, a United States Attorney seized this elderly doctor's entire savings. The doctor is now a pauper, and could still be imprisoned for five years."

"If you have a party at your house, and one of your guests gives a single marijuana cigarette to another guest, that is enough for police to confiscate your home. If you own a business and one of your employees uses the company telephones or fax machine to place an illegal, off-track bet, that is enough for the government to confiscate your business." Warns Jarret B. Wollstein. (6)

If the thieves with badges covet your property and they can't steal it with court orders or anonymous informants, they may just kill you to to get it. In Malibu, California, the National Park Service tried repeatedly to buy the 200-acre home of retired rancher Don Scott (61), to incorporate it into a surrounding national park. Scott refused to sell. On the morning of October 2, 1992,(1) a task force of 26 LA county sheriffs, DEA agents and other cops broke into Scott's living room and shot him to death. Police claimed to be searching for marijuana which they never found. Ventura County DA Michael Bradbury concluded that the raid was "motivated at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government. [The] search warrant became Donald Scott's death warrant." A Sixty Minutes report of April 2, 1993, uncovered police planning documents for the raid that make it clear that police were searching for evidence to justify confiscating Scott's ranch.

Piracy has become the preferred method of getting additional revenue for police departments across the country. "Financially strapped states and municipalities are now making next year's planned confiscations a growing item in their budgets. As government regulation and taxation destroy productive enterprise, government at all levels will rely more and more on direct confiscation of property for revenue."

"A whole industry is evolving around asset confiscation. Police and government agencies love it because it is a cheap and easy way to increase their revenues. Informants and crooks love it — some of them now make up to $780,000 a year entrapping and turning in neighbors and former friends. Judges love it because they typically get 20% of the forfeited property for their courts. Sheriffs and DEA agents love it because they get first pick of confiscated assets." Says Mr. Wollstein.(6)

"More and more police chiefs these days are driving around in confiscated Jaguars, BMWs and Mercedes. Confiscated country clubs have been turned into "police training facilities." Confiscated cash and expensive stereos and TVs tend to disappear quickly from police lockers."

"It not surprising that civil-asset confiscations are now doubling every year. In 1985, the government seized $27 million in property. In 1992, they seized $1.2 billion. That's an increase of 4,400% in seven years. At the current rate of growth of confiscations, all property in America will belong to the state within seventeen years." It said in the article.(6)

"The Crime Control Act of 1993, now before Congress, allows the government to confiscate homes, cars and bank accounts of individuals and groups whose publications, speeches or assemblies might encourage violence or "coerce legislation." A similar law has also been introduced in Arizona." He said.(6)

This is an extreme police-state action that threatens to make free speech a de facto "crime" but under asset forfeiture rules, they don't have to charge you with anything, they can just steal your property to punish you for speech they don't like.
He wrote, "Modeled on existing drug laws and asset-forfeiture laws, under the new political-forfeiture legislation, all the government would need to confiscate your property is to "suspect" that you or your organization tend to encourage violence. You are then presumed guilty, your property would be confiscated, and you, penniless, would have to prove your innocence."

A total of $2.6 billion in U.S. citizens' assets has been seized since 1985, 80% of these seizures never resulted in an arrest or conviction — indicating that most are being taken from innocent people. According to USA Today, there are now 1,000 forfeitures per week in the U.S., or 52,000 per year.

In Iowa, a woman accused of shoplifting a $25 sweater saw her $18,000 car, which had been specially equipped for her handicapped daughter, seized as the potential "getaway vehicle."2)

In Portland, Oregon, the police raided a bar and arrested a bartender (not the owner) on suspicion of bookmaking. There was zero evidence pointing to the bar owner's involvement — the police documents didn't even mention him. But the police seized his business anyway. The deputy district attorney in charge said she didn't have evidence to press criminal charges against the owner "so we seized the business."

"According to a recent article in USA Today, in 1992, 65 informants made over $100,000 each by simply alleging to police agencies that their friends, neighbors, and/or business associates had committed crimes. And no, when you go to trial, you don't have the right to confront the informant in court. The reason: it's a civil, not a criminal proceeding." Wrote Mr. McAlvany (7)

In 1998, the Justice Department seized $449 million of assets linked to supposed criminal activity.

Federal agents moved to steal an entire hotel because they claim that the owners (who were not charged with a crime) of the Houston Red Carpet Inn had "tacitly approved" of the drug activities on the premises "by not implementing security measures suggested by police, like raising room rates, adding video cameras to monitor a parking lot and hiring more guards" the Houston Chronicle( reported, "Attorneys for the owners said threatening to take property because the owners didn't follow police advice on preventing crimes was outrageous."

In some poor minority neighborhoods, the police sometimes stop people, frisk them and steal whatever cash they're carrying -- the cops figure if you're carrying a considerable amount of case in a poor neighborhood then you must be a drug dealer -- but they don't have to prove this.

In Detroit, the police robbed a grocery store during a raid after police dogs detected the scent of drugs on some cash. (4)

Jarret Wollstein(3) reported, "In Monmouth, New Jersey, Dr. David Disbrow was accused of practicing psychiatry without a license. His crime was providing counseling services from a spare bedroom in his mother's house. Counseling does not require a license in New Jersey. That didn't stop police from seizing virtually everything of value from his mother's home, totaling over $60,000. The forfeiture squad confiscated furniture, carpets, paintings, and even personal photographs."

Now the thugs with badges consider speaking a crime. Be careful when giving any advise to anyone, even counseling a friend or a child, the cops might find out about it and come after you. Of course, the "crime" charge is just a front for armed robbery. The United States is quickly becoming an intolerable police state to rival the Soviet Union in its totalitarian tactics.

Rats have more rights than humans
Farmer had his tractor seized for accidentally running over endangered rats and now faces prosecution and prison for farming his own land. Incredibly, if the farmer had accidentally ran over a person, he would not face prosecution.

compiled by Gregory Flanagan

1 - USA Today, January 11, 1993, page 1
2 Gary Fields, "'Robbery with a Badge' in the Nation's Capital," USA Today, May 18, 1992.
3 - The Looting of America - by Jarret Wollstein; May, 1997
4 - Civil Asset Forfeiture - Fred Foldvary; The Progress Report
5 - Laws That Are Criminal - Otto Scott, October 1993
6 - How Police Confiscation is Destroying America: - Jarret B. Wollstein, October 1993
7 - Toward an American Police State - Donald S. McAlvany, November 1993
8 - Government to bear burden of proof in seizures: Red Carpet Inn case brings change in civil asset forfeitures - Michael Hedges; Houston Chronicle; Aug. 19, 2000
9 - Seizure Fever: The War on Property Rights - James Bovard; The Foundation for Economic Education
10 - City Can Seize Homes Where Kids Drink - Olivier Uyttebrouck; Albequerque Journal: Aug. 22, 2000

Point #7 was sarcasm sort of, but take note at what your health insurance companies do in the next couple of years. It will start with your being offered a discount for maintaining a healthy weight (this is already happening with Cigna) and then move to a penalty when you don't and then will move to stopping your health care at some point (in my opinion).

Point #4 - how many major U.S. companies can you name that do not require a urine test for drugs before you are hired?

Many, add nicotine and alcohol to those tests as well.

My point is that in order to work at any profession this will be (and often is) a requirement. So I ask... who really does own your body?

No private property safe from GovCo

House bill will let cities give your home to big business

Imagine you live in Greensboro and you receive the following notice in your mailbox:

"You are required to move within 90 days. If you remain in possession of your property at that time, Federal Express will have you and your belongings removed by the Sheriff."

Not in America, you say? If the General Assembly passes the Economic Development Eminent Domain Act (H119), notices similar to this could start going out across the state as early as this summer.

Sponsored by Rep. Ronnie Sutton (D-Robeson), this bill adds to the list of reasons why cities and counties can seize private property through eminent domain. The new law would allow local governments to condemn and take any real estate "for economic development activities."

There are already nine reasons why local governments can seize your property. That’s nine too many, according to the Libertarian Party.

"It’s bad enough that government can pave over your neighborhood for a new highway," said Sean Haugh, State Chair of the Libertarian Party. "At least under the current law, governments must claim some public purpose for this action. But stealing property from people to just to hand it over to favored businesses is a whole new level of corporate welfare."

Libertarians point out that similar laws have already been struck down in other states. For example, last year the New Jersey Supreme Court stopped Donald Trump from evicting people from their homes to expand his casino in Atlantic City.

"This is the logical next step in North Carolina’s corporate giveaway program," said Haugh. "Taxpayers already pay to lure companies here. We pay again for the roads and utilities they need to operate. Then we pay to train their employees, and on top of it all, we keep paying taxes while these corporations are given exemptions. We might as well rename Hertford County as ‘Nucor County’ while we’re at it."

The Libertarian Party urged legislators to abolish corporate incentives, not expand them. "We believe that the people are a much better judge than government of what businesses deserve support," said Haugh. "Our government is supposed to a democracy that protects individual rights, not some misguided ‘public-private partnership.’ There are words to describe such a form of government, but ‘democracy’ isn’t one of them."

Ameh... if the "them" is Saddam and his form of government and the "we" is President Bush and our form of governemnt... "we" ARE better than "them" Isis.