Mediaboss Marketing

(artstreet/Getty Images)

At the Bulwark, Jim Swift writes:

As the Wall Street Journal has reported, one idea that the White House and congressional Democrats have proposed for closing the tax gap involves giving the IRS the ability to get more data about bank accounts with a value over $600specifically to see the amounts of money flowing in and out.

After dismissing a cherry-picked set of criticisms and ignoring that, thus far at least, even Democrats in the House have rejected this proposal Swift concludes that:

What the Democrats want to do is give the IRS more knowledge about where and how money flows. As the IRS commissioner wrote last month, more and better data will provide the IRS with a lens into otherwise opaque sources of income with historically lower levels of reporting accuracy. In opposing this measure, Republicans claim they are standing up for privacy and for people who dont yet have bank accounts but hypothetically might somedaybut they are really covering for tax cheats.

Ah, yes. That old chestnut! Favor restrictions on government power? Youre not just wrong; you must be a wannabe criminal.

Swifts view has a long pedigree in unthinking and reactionary circles, being of a piece with the notion that if you expect the Fourth Amendment to be rigorously enforced you have something to hide, or that if you plead the Fifth in a courtroom you must be guilty, or that if you hope to uphold the First Amendment so that you can speak as freely as you wish, youre probably just a bigot. There is, in fact, no area to which it cannot be stupidly applied.

It is true, of course, that limiting government power sometimes helps bad actors. But it is rarely true that helping bad actors is the aim of those who wish to limit government. Supporters of the exclusionary rule are not motivated by a desire to help the guilty, but to raise the cost of government malfeasance. Advocates of robust mens rea requirements are not motivated by a desire to make prosecutors jobs more difficult, but by a desire to limit punishment to those who knew they were breaking the rules. Proponents of unanimous juries are not seeking to let malefactors go free, but to ensure that the harshest sanctions our society imposes are levied only when it is sure. The ACLU did not defend the marchers at Skokie because it hoped to hear more from neo-Nazis; the ACLU defended the marchers at Skokie because it did not want the government to have the power to silence anyone.

There is nothing at all unusual or pernicious about the pro-privacy stance that has upset Swift. Right or wrong, it is about as American as stances get. The IRS has an enormous amount of power, and, especially given some of its recent behavior, it is entirely natural for Americans to oppose expanding that power so that it is permitted to monitor every bank account in the country. That Jim Swifts first reaction upon hearing that there was opposition to this absurd proposal was to call its opponents tax cheats speaks volumes about him as well as about what, at this point, might only charitably be described as his political worldview.

Continue reading here:
No, You Dont Have to Be a Criminal to Want to Limit Government - National Review

Image courtesy of CNN

By Fabrizio Gowdy

This week, we marked twenty years since 9/11. With each passing year, an uncomfortable truth becomes more obvious: the terrorists won, not because of what they did on September 11, 2001, but rather as a result of the United States response in the months and years after the attack. We plunged into costly, prolonged military intervention in the Middle East.

Domestically, we quickly surrendered our liberty and privacy rights for the promise of security. And on the most fundamental level, we seem to have accepted a new permanent status quo of surveillance and paranoia that represents a departure from the American cultural identity and way of life. Our response to 9/11 has made us weaker, poorer, and less free.

On September 10, 2001, America stood atop the world, a lone superpower still basking in its triumph over the USSR. September 11th should be considered the beginning of our decline from the height of our global power. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, wars that to date have cost American taxpayers $2 trillion and $2.3 trillion respectively. An estimated 801,000 Afghans and Iraqis perished in these wars, 335,000 of whom were civilians.

In the end, what did we achieve? We handed Afghanistan back to the Taliban, only now they have billions of dollars worth of state-of-the-art military equipment.

We also rarely consider the possibility that our constant meddling in the Middle East is the cause of much of the anti-American sentiment in the region. We cant expect to strip people of their sovereignty and control other nations domestic affairs without experiencing massive blowback. In 1953, the U.S. engineered a coup and installed the Shah in Iran; 26 years later angry Iranians took our embassy and 66 hostages.

Our failed invasion and occupation of Afghanistan will be remembered for its hubris, especially in regards to our ill-advised attempt to install a Western-style democracy. How arrogant is the U.S. to think that it can defy all historical precedent? Why did the U.S. Military think it could march into the graveyard of empires, politically unify a country that has consisted of feuding warlords for virtually all its history, and establish a democracy where one has never existed?

Democracies cannot be willed into existence; they develop painstakingly slowly along with cultural attitudes and views on individual rights and human liberty. Britains democracy is healthy and functioning because it has 800 year-old roots going back to the Magna Carta.

Afghanistan has no such history. Furthermore, why is it our role to go around forcing democracy on people who do not want it? Many undemocratic countries exist today; we dont possibly have the money or manpower to invade and occupy them all for decades on end until Western democracy flourishes. Empires die when they overextend and spread themselves too thin militarily, incurring massive debt in the process and neglecting domestic issues.

Ironically, as we were busy trying to secure freedom and democracy for the people of Afghanistan, our government was actively restricting American citizens freedoms. The 2001 USA PATRIOT Act, the most unpatriotic of acts, as Kentucky Senator Rand Paul dubbed it, quietly authorized unconstitutional operations of mass surveillance against the general American populace and allowed for bulk data collection.

The act was an assault on the Fourth Amendment; if widespread, indiscriminate surveillance and collection of Americans activities and records is not unreasonable search and seizure, then what is? Rather than prosecuting whistleblower Edward Snowden, we should give him a pardon and a medal of freedom for defending Americans constitutional rights.

The FISA courts meant to check the surveillance state have proved to be a rubber stamp, denying just 12 warrants out of over 33,000 requested. The framers specifically included the 4th amendment because of the British writs of assistance, essentially generalized search warrants. The British officials who broke down colonists doors and trifled through their papers would be envious of the ease with which the NSA can monitor millions of Americans.

On a deep, cultural level, 9/11 caused a shift in the way Americans view and assess risk. Since 2001 the balance between freedom and security has slanted heavily in the direction of security. Weve become a far more paranoid and risk-averse society, which runs contrary to Americas notorious history of pioneers, risk-takers, and daredevils.

Weve accepted heightened security measures at airports, concerts, and sporting events. Weve accepted a stringent new regime of anti-money laundering laws meant to prevent financing of terrorism, laws that have hurt American banks and compromised our financial privacy. Even the Statue of Liberty, one of Americas most iconic and recognizable monuments, did not escape this cultural shift. Following the 9/11 attacks, the National Park Service permanently closed the statues crown to visitors, citing security concerns.

Now two decades out from 9/11, we are in need of a course correction, both domestically and with regards to our foreign policy. Lets stop deploying troops all over the world and consolidate our attention on true national security threats, like the rising Peoples Republic of China. Lets protect the Fourth Amendment by rolling back the powers of the NSA. Rather than living in fear and embracing the surveillance state, the best way to honor the legacy of those killed on 9/11 is to defend the American way of life and the freedoms our country was founded upon.

More:
The Terrorists Won - Catholic University of America The Tower

By TCR Staff | September 16, 2021

Experts and advocates have raised concerns about a growing trend among law enforcement agencies to use Geofence location warrants, reverse search warrants, and keyword search warrants to target and track individuals based on their data usage, often making them suspects in crimes they have nothing to do with, reports The Guardian. Google revealed for the first time in August that it received 11,554 geofence location warrants from law enforcement agencies in 2020, up from 8,396 in 2019 and 982 in 2018.

Experts argue that geofence and other broad warrants such as those that ask companies to sift through keywords people searched for are akin to a general warrant, made illegal by the fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Unlike other kinds of search warrants, which are targeted and seek information about people who law enforcement has probable cause to believe has committed a specific crime, these warrants dont have a particular person in mind. While there is legislation in the works that would impose safeguards on other means of getting hold of vast swaths of sensitive location data, such as cell site simulators and the outright sale of that information, there isnt currently a publicly known congressional effort to do the same for geofence warrants.

Read the original post:
Privacy Experts Alarmed By Police Use of Google Locating and Search History - Crime Report

Atatiana Jefferson

The family of Atatiana Jefferson, the Texas woman who in late 2019 was shot and killed at 28 by police in her own home, is suing the city and the officer who fired his weapon over the emotional trauma inflicted on Jeffersons young nephew, who was in the same room as his aunt at the time she was killed.

The complaint was filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas by one of Jeffersons older sisters, Amber Carr, on behalf of her minor son, Zion Carr. In addition to former Fort Worth Police Officer Aaron Dean, who shot Jefferson, the named defendants to the action are the city of Fort Worth, former Police Chief Ed Kraus, and the citys former Mayor Betsy Price.

Carrs mother alleged multiple violations of her sons Fourth Amendment rights resulted in him suffering extreme and severe mental and emotional distress, anxiety, terror and agony.

As previously reported by Law&Crime, in October 2019, Jefferson was watching Zion at the home shared by her and her mother because Amber had been hospitalized due to medical issues. Jefferson and her nephew had stayed up late and were playing video games in the living room and left the front door to the house opened to allow a cool breeze into the home, according to the complaint.

At approximately 2:30 a.m. on Oct. 12, 2019, a neighbor called the Fort Worth Police Departments non-emergency line to report that Jeffersons door had been left open (the doorwas usually closed at that hour). Responding to the call, Dean and his partner parked around the corner, then opened a closed fence leading to Jeffersons backyard and began peering into the windows.

Ms. Jefferson became aware that someone was lurking outside, but had no way of knowing who or why was someone was outside, the complaint said. Ms. Jefferson went to the window to investigate. When Ms. Jefferson looked out the window, Officer Dean immediately flashed a light on her, shot her, and killed her.

The allegations in the filed complaint appear to coincide withbodycam footage released in the wake of the shooting. The tape showed Dean searching the perimeter of the home then moving to the backyard. Seconds later, he can be seen shining his flashlight through the window and yelling, Put your hands up! Show me your hands! He then fired a fatal shot through the windowpane.

At the age of 8, [Zion] was forced to watch the murder of his aunt, Atatiana Jefferson, at the hands of Fort Worth Police, the complaint claimed.After Officer Dean shot Ms. Jefferson, he and his partner entered the house and attempted to give CPR to her as she bled on the floor of her own home in front of [Zion]. [Zion] was forced to watch his aunt die in front of him.

The suit additionally alleged that, following the shooting, Zion was threatened by Officer Dean and then unconstitutionally interrogated by police without parental consent.

Defendant Officer Dean engaged in a course of conduct that violated Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights which began with his unlawful entry onto the property and culminated with him murdering Ms. Jefferson in front of [Zion] and assaulting [Zion] by threatening him with a deadly weapon, a firearm, the suit stated.

Dean, who had been on the force since 2018, was arrested and charged with murder days after shooting Jefferson. He was released after posting bond of $200,000. A trial date has not yet been scheduled.

The police department, and the public officials in charge at the time of the shooting are culpable for displaying a consistent and systematic failure to properly train and supervise its officers on the proper use of force, and techniques and principles of de-escalation. Such failures have resulted in numerous incidents of officers unnecessarily using force resulting in serious bodily injury and death, particularly against people of color, the complaint alleged.

Policymakers Chief Kraus and/or Mayor Price knew of the failures of the Fort Worth Police Department as discussed herein but failed to take the necessary steps to rectify the failures and adequately protect the constitutional rights of the people of Fort Worth, the complaint added. These failures and the refusal to rectify them were the moving force behind the deprivation of [Zions] constitutional rights.

The suit seeks a judgment for an untold amount in damages as well as medical bills and attorneys fees.

Jeffersons relatives in November filed a separate wrongful death suit against former Officer Dean.

Read the full lawsuit below.

[image via Inside Edition screengrab]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Originally posted here:
8-Year-Old Boy Was Forced to Watch the Murder of His Aunt by Police in Texas, Lawsuit Alleges - Law & Crime

T

he Kalispel Tribe of Indians of Washington State received approval on Wednesday to allow sports wagering on tribal grounds, effective as of September 15.

According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Fourth Amendment in the Tribal-State Compact between the Tribe, which runs the Northern Quest Casino, and Washington state was approved at the tribes gaming facilities.

The amendment applies to Class III Gaming, which according to the Washington State Gambling Commission includes lotteries, casino games, house-banked card games, machine gaming, and other forms of gambling. With sports wagering now available, bettors will be able to bet on professional sports, the Olympics as well as other international events, however, they cant wager on in-state college teams.

The Tribe reached a tentative agreement with the gambling commission earlier this year to add sports betting. However, it had to go through the legal steps before bets could be placed. Northern Quest has been revamping its Turf Club to welcome sports gamblers, reports the KXLY.

See more here:
Washington State tribe granted approval to offer sports betting - Yogonet International