"Your Papers, Please" -- Simplified

(A quick note: There is a brief update on the Derek Hale case at the end of this essay.)

Deltha O'Neal, the Pro Bowl cornerback for the Cincinnati Bengals, was arrested at a DUI checkpoint last December. When O'Neal showed up at he municipal courthouse in Batavia, Ohio a few weeks later to attend a pre-trial hearing, he was asked for his Social Security number by a deputy sheriff; the information was entered into a hand-held Mobilisa m2500 Sentry scanner.

“The check mark that flashed onto the device's 3.8-inch color screen indicated O'Neal had no outstanding local warrants, wasn't among the FBI's most wanted, and also wasn't on Interpol's terrorist watch list,” reported the Cincinnati Enquirer. “Data from more than 140 sources – including the US Drug Enforcement Agency and Customs Enforcement – were cross-checked by the device to determine whether deputies should detain the pro football player.”

O'Neal was permitted to pass through the metal detector and enter the courthouse without further complications. That wasn't the case for many other courthouse visitors, dozens of whom were cited or taken into custody as a result of random ID checks.

The Sentry device is a black hand-held multi-function computer that looks a bit like an over-sized hand phaser from Star Trek.

It is equipped with a scanner that can read the magnetic strip or barcode that is a standard feature in state-issued licenses and ID cards, as well as passports and military IDs. The unit can be customized for license plate recognition or crime scene documentation as well.

Database updates are downloaded by the Sentry when it is docked with its charging bay, and the unit can send and receive data through a wireless network when used in the field. The device is – to use the grotesque military neologism -- “ruggedized,” meaning that it can be used in the rain and won't be broken if it is dropped.

The Sentry scanner is, quite literally, a garrison state technology. Originally developed as a security measure for military bases, the Sentry began law enforcement field tests last September when Mobilisa donated three units to the Clermont (Ohio) County Sheriff's Department: Mobilisa chairman John W. Paxton, Sr., a former New Hampshire state trooper, lives in the county and is a personal friend of the sheriff.

Micheline Mendelsohn, Communications Director for Mobilisa, explained to me that the while the Sentry system is being used at 23 military bases (including Andrews Air Force Base), the Clermont County Sheriff's Department is the only civilian law enforcement agency to use the scanners so far. But this is likely to change soon.

“The Ohio example really excited people and started a snowball effect,” Mendelsohn told me. “And this really began with the military trials. Somebody looked at the device and said, `Hey – this would be great for law enforcement,' so we went in that direction. And it really is ideally suited for police when they're conducting traffic stops, for example, since the officer doesn't have to turn his back when he's trying to access the information.”

Mobilisa is working to make the Sentry even more user-friendly, according to Mendelsohn: “We have in development an even smaller hand-held device that would be about the size of a cell phone, and could be clipped to a belt.”

According to promotional literature from the company, in 2003 Mobilisa “requested funding for a project to secure our nation's military bases....” When asked about additional federal funding to develop and distribute the Sentry system, Mendelssohn replied, “We're just starting on that road. We've gotten great response from the military, which was the original intention behind developing the technology.”

She did agree that local police departments would find the Sentry technology a very attractive choice when looking to spend federal homeland security grants. (It's interesting that the first use of the Sentry system came during a federally subsidized DUI checkpoint in Ohio last fall.) As with other technologies, we can expect to see the Sentry become commonplace very quickly, and for police departments to resort to its use quite promiscuously.

From the perspective of those concerned with civil liberties, the real mischief inherent in this system is not found in the technology itself, but rather in the data streams it can channel to police officers considering whether or not to “detain” an individual.

There are 29 entries on Mobilisa's list of “Persons-Of-Interest Databases,” many of them drawn (predictably, given Sentry's origins) from various military investigative agencies. The FBI, ATF, DEA, ICE, and other alphabet agencies are well-represented, as are the State Department, Secret Service, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, two state Corrections Departments, and the Postal Service. The information available through Sentry, boasts the company, is "virtually limitless."

The twenty-ninth data source is the provocative catch-all category, “Various Other Local Law Enforcement Inputs.” This would include information on criminal records and driving histories, as well as other unspecified details fed into various databases by police agencies. Information of this kind has a very long half-life, and can make an individual radioactive where freedom of movement is concerned.

San Francisco Chronicle columnist C.W. Nevius recounts the experiences of several US citizens who found it difficult or impossible to visit Canada because of ancient misdeeds unearthed by the new Smart Border Action Plan, which “combines Canadian intelligence with extensive US Homeland Security information. The partnership began in 2002, but it wasn't until recently that the system was refined.”

Canadian customs officials “can call up anything that your state trooper in Iowa can,” observes Canadian attorney David Lesperance.

This is why some Americans wanting to travel to Canada on business or for recreation have been turned away, or forced to undergo lengthy and detailed additional scrutiny, because of long-forgotten drug or drunk driving convictions, or other misdemeanors. One of Lesperance's clients was turned away at the border for a 20-year-old shoplifting conviction that resulted from a fraternity prank. Another case involves an American deemed inadmissible to Canada because he was convicted of possessing marijuana more than thirty years ago.

Lesperance points out that the data-sharing agreement between Washington and Ottawa “is just the edge of the wedge,” since similar agreements are being negotiated with countries across Europe and Asia that are familiar destinations to business travelers.

Through the dubious miracle of the Sentry scanner, state troopers in Iowa and security police abroad will enjoy instant access to a data pool containing ancient transgressions of the sort described above, thereby creating all kinds of potential pretexts for harassing and detaining decent and otherwise law-abiding US citizens.

After describing the case of a friend who was denied access to Canada after the new system went into effect last January, libertarian commentator Wendy McElroy points out that data-sharing protocols of this sort mean that some “travelers may well be denied entry [to their chosen destinations] on a global level because of a youthful indiscretion or an arrest for unlawful assembly (e.g. an anti-war rally).”

Taking names? A police cruiser from Department of Homeland Security kept watch at a recent anti-war demonstration outside Speaker Pelosi's office in San Francisco. (Courtesy AntiWar.com)



McElroy's chosen example is a particularly timely one, given the recent experience of Walter F. Murphy, a retired Marine Colonel (who was decorated for valor during the Korean War) and professor emeritus of Princeton University.

As recounted in a letter posted on Mark Graber's blog, Balkinization, when Murphy attempted to check in for a March 1 American Airlines flight to Newark, he discovered that his name had been placed on a “terrorist watch list.”

“I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines,” recalled Professor Murphy. “One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: `Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that.' I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. `That'll do it,' the man said.”

Consider, briefly, what this incident says about the reasons for which a person can be detained (as Murphy was, briefly, for additional security screening) – and, therefore, the potential applications of the Sentry scanning technology:

Murphy wasn't prevented from boarding because of a crime he had committed, even a long-buried youthful indiscretion. His presence on a “watch list” didn't come about because he had been arrested for “unlawful assembly,” or even for peaceful participation in a legal protest march. His name was enrolled on that infamous list because of a speech he had given criticizing the Dear Leader.

It's likely that the identities of peace protesters – who are, remember, frequently banned fliers, according to the official with whom Murphy spoke – were almost certainly compiled by local police, including undercover operatives. Who took down Murphy's name and fed it into the database? Some low-level Republican Party functionary who read a news account of the speech, perhaps? Could it have been an overzealous campus security drone, or an offended audience member who called a hot line? We'll never know.

What we do know is that Mobilisa's uber-slick new gadget will certainly simplify things for State agents (whether here or, eventually, abroad) who trying to “find a reason” to lock up troublesome citizens – and complicate life tremendously for those of us on the receiving end of this system of human inventory control.

Derek Hale Update

The attorneys who have filed suit on behalf of Derek Hale's widow, orphaned stepchildren, and parents are working pro bono. However, there are many other expenses involved in a civil suit, particularly one filed against intransigent government agencies that can fob those costs off on local taxpayers.

Accordingly, a legal defense fund has been established on behalf of Derek Hale's survivors:


The Derek Hale Defense Fund
c/o Dr. David Crowe
1736 Broadway
Cape Girardeau, MO 63701


Stephen J. Neuberger, a Wilmington, Delaware civil rights attorney involved in the lawsuit, explained to me that Dr. Crowe "has known Derek since he was a little kid," and wants to do what he can to help his family see that justice is done. Neuberger also promised me that "Any donations to the fund will go to pay out-of-pocket costs, and not attorneys' fees."


Please visit The Right Source for the latest news from the freedom battlefront.

Resurrection Sunday: A Memo to the Loser

You lose.

In fact, you lost a long time ago.

You've never gotten it, have you? Since before time began – I'm not exaggerating one bit – you've been the poster child for Not Thinking Things Through. In your arrogant ambition you actually thought it was possible to put yourself in charge. The real tragedy is that so many people have fallen for you scam, and continue to do so.

You're weak, predictable, contemptible – and so are we when our mistakes and crimes give you a transient sense of satisfaction.

All of us have done so, and often. All except One.

The One who beat you.

I've often wondered if you knew how He would beat you – not through power, but through love and self-sacrifice, by appearing to give you the triumph that you have always craved.

You knew He couldn't be bribed, even when you offered to Him the one thing that is actually yours: The kingdoms of this world (as distinct from the earth itself, which is his and always will belong to Him).

You made use of a few who couldn't resist much smaller temptations of that kind – politicians, who are always willing to sell their souls in a buyer's market – to put Him through a burlesque of an examination and trial. “Coercive interrogation” methods representing the state of that sadistic art were applied – not to learn the truth, as no torturer is ever interested in learning it, but rather because torture always gives you pleasure.

Did you really believe, as He took the final pain-drenched steps to His death, that you could actually take His Life?

I earnestly hope that you did – because this would make your disappointment and humiliation that much more acute.

His Life was never yours to take. He gave it freely, and then took it up again.

And that's why you can't even claim credit – if that is the appropriate word – for His death, or even for putting Him on the cross.

I grant that you've had some success in convincing altogether too many people that one discrete group of us “killed” Him. Not only does this delusion engender hatred – which is the very food on which you feed – but it prevents those who succumb to it from confronting the reality of our nature, and facing the grim reckoning each of us must make for our individual responsibility in His death.

You didn't kill Him, because you couldn't. You didn't even put Him on the cross.

This guy did:

At the moment the One who beat you surrendered His Life, the reality of your miscalculation should have been obvious, but then – in light of your arrogance and foolishness -- I'm probably giving you too much credit. In any case, when He arose three days later, the truth should have been plain even to you.

You lose. All that's left for you is to propagate death, terror, sin, and misery until we're ultimately rid of you. May God hasten that day.

As the headlines never fail to illustrate, you're still firmly in control of the kingdoms of this world. Their wars – both against each other, and against the hapless individuals they rule – provide you with whatever passes for pleasure in the miserable realm you inhabit.

Sure, there's perverse delight to be found whenever you seduce an individual into sin, but the wholesale corruption, violence, and destruction wrought through the State is still your biggest source of satisfaction.

The worship of collective human power: This ancient stele is believed to depict Nimrod, founder of the Babylonian state and creator of the Tower of Babel.

You have earned some apparently unlikely allies among some of us who have professed to know the One who has beaten you; people of that sort don't understand that by expanding the power of the State, they are making human beings more dependent on you – and more vulnerable to you. If Josephus is correct, this is a trick as old as Nimrod. Like I said, you're not creative – but unfortunately, we're pretty gullible.

The ancient tower of Babel...

...and its modern equivalent.

But this doesn't change the fact that you've lost. Until the long-sought day that defeat is consummated, those of us who understand how things really are should concentrate on making life as miserable as possible for you.


You know anguish and rage every time someone turns his life over to the One who beat you. Each act of charity inflicts real pain on you. Peace and freedom are loathsome and unbearable to you. Where you thrive on hatred, forgiveness causes your influence to wither -- something that I should remind myself, since I'm as dependent on the forgiveness of others as I am reluctant to grant forgiveness where it's required of me.


None of us could beat you, nor could all of us do so together (in fact, that last notion is one of your most cunning and destructive lies). But the One who made us did, and for reasons I can't understand, He's letting us share in the victory. Which is what the shouting is all about today.


Jesus Is Risen.


And you lose.


Everybody -- except The Loser, of course -- is invited to visit The Right Source for news, commentary, our e-magazine, talk radio, podcasts, and discussion boards.

The Prosecutor as Jihadist: Andrew Thomas vs. Justice

Margaret Vitale is a 57-year-old nurse who lives with her daughter Tina in Glendale, Arizona. A while ago, Tina decided to move out, and – concerned for her mother's safety – she urged Margaret to purchase a handgun.

After Margaret tried many different handguns and found them to be unsuitable, her son John suggested that a revolver would be a good choice, and he brought an unloaded one to her apartment. With Tina and John looking on, Margaret dry-fired the revolver several times to see if its action agreed with her. When she had satisfied her concerns, Margaret put the weapon aside and had a brief conversation with Tina.

Inexplicably, John took this opportunity to load the revolver – without telling Margaret that he had done so. This was a potentially lethal violation of rudimentary gun safety protocols. Thankfully, on this occasion the worst didn't happen when – a minute later – Margaret picked up the revolver, pointed it down at a neutral location, and pulled the trigger.

The round Margaret discharged hit an appliance; the ricochet sent it through the fleshy part of Tina's calf, leaving a small but clean exit wound.

As a 20-year veteran nurse, Margaret wanted to take Tina to the hospital, and she knew that the gunshot wound would be reported to the police. So after making sure that her daughter was all right, she called 911. When the policeman arrived, he took statements from Tina (the “victim”), Margaret and John. Satisfied that no crime had been committed, the policeman left without confiscating the firearm. He did, however, write a report, which – at the insistence of the officer's supervisor -- was sent to the County Attorney's office.

That report offered an accurate and detailed account of the accident that took place in Margaret's apartment. No reasonable human being could misunderstand what happened on that occasion, or consider it a crime – particularly in light of the fact that the “victim” wasn't pressing charges, and had told the officer that her immediate concern was for the supposed offender, who suffers from high blood pressure.

Unfortunately, the Maricopa County Attorney's office is headed by the execrable Andrew Peyton Thomas, who is among the most zealous practitioners of the Republican Party's proprietary brand of paternalistic totalitarianism. Like the Grand and Glorious Decider who leads the GOP, Thomas is determined to rip up “evil” by the roots. Unlike Bush, however, Thomas has been brutally candid about what this would mean.

“The root of our crime problem,” wrote Thomas about a decade ago, “is a rights-happy radical individualism.” The solution to crime, therefore, would be to destroy individual rights – and to the extent he has been given power to do so, Thomas has made remarkable progress in that direction. His most effective weapon in the war against individualism has been to overcharge criminal defendants and use the threat of mandatory sentences to extort draconian plea bargains.

“They're overcharging for felonies that should be misdemeanors,” observes Tempe defense attorney David Cantor of Thomas's office. “Then [defendants] plead to the lead charge, but their lead charge is too stiff. This means everything goes to trial” -- unless defendants simply give up and take a deal.

This approach has been politically profitable for Thomas and his clique, and financially lucrative for defense attorneys. It has been a disaster for individual rights, of course – but then again, Thomas insists that individual rights are the enemy of the orderly society he seeks to create.

Thus when the Maricopa County Attorney's office was informed of the incident involving Margaret and Tina Vitale, it filed -- “per policy,” as one of Thomas's drones insisted – a charge of “dangerous disorderly conduct” against the 57-year-old nurse, who had done nothing wrong. This charge is a felony that would involve a mandatory prison term.

The only option offered by Thomas's office – once again, “per policy” -- was for Margaret to plead to a “designated felony” that would involve probation and a time in the County Jail system, which is operated by the squalid, senile publicity whore Joe Arpaio. Since it's not uncommon for non-violent offenders to die in Arpaio's jails, Margaret might be safer in state prison.

No crime was committed here. Margaret and Tina were involved in a bizarre accident that, thankfully, involved nothing more than a trivial flesh wound – until the State became involved.

Recounting this episode with Margaret and Tina on the Charles Goyette radio program (listen here), defense attorney Marc Victor pointed out that “Not every wrong needs to be a crime.” This is obvious for those of us who understand and cherish individual rights. Andrew Thomas, once again, is not found in that number.

Thomas's totalitarian impulses were displayed to good effect just three days ago (April 3) when his office filed terrorism charges against a 14-year-old middle school student from Mesa who allegedly pulled a knife on a female class. After being threatened, the girl ran home and called the police. When the alleged assailant didn't show up at school the next morning, the police visited his home, reportedly finding a backpack containing a handgun, chains, and a rope.

The police recommended that the youth be tried as an adult on charges of kidnapping (attempted kidnapping would be a more plausible charge, given that the girl wasn't actually abducted) and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Surely this would be sufficient to address this outrage against the person and individual rights of the traumatized young girl.

But remember – individual rights are the problem, from Thomas's perspective. Order is all that matters. And under Section 802 of the PATRIOT [sic] Act, any act of kidnapping can be defined as a form of domestic terrorism. All that was necessary to do so in this case was utter shamelessness and degenerate ambition. Andrew Thomas was up to that challenge.

Thomas is obviously a depraved fanatic. But he's also something of a pioneer: He has created what could be a self-perpetuating lawyers' cartel in Maricopa County.

“Business for Valley defense attorneys is booming,” reported the February 18 East Valley Tribune. “Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas has been cracking down on criminals since 2004, and public defenders have scrambled to keep up as prison populations have swelled.” As Phoenix criminal defense attorney Larry Debus points out: “We charge 50 percent higher fees because we have to go to trial, and trials are expensive.... I say he's a great county attorney. We charge higher fees and we go to trial more, which is what we do best.”

Marc Victor, who is representing Margaret Vitale, offers a much different view: “Andrew Thomas has been good for business, but bad for justice.” Noting that he can charge $15,000 for the same services for which his brother, a defense attorney in Massachusetts, can charge $2,500, Victor declares: “I would prefer to make less money and have more justice.”

But for Thomas, justice – the effort to vindicate individual rights – isn't the point; the point, rather, is to expand the power of the State and to uphold the interests of the political class. This is demonstrated not only by his perverse, sadistic insistence on overcharging petty criminals or – as with Margaret Vitale – manufacturing “crimes” where none exist, but also by one case in which his zeal for prosecution mysteriously evaporated.

In mid-March, Thomas announced that he was discontinuing the prosecution of the “Glendale Four,” three City Council members and a county clerk accused of felonious misconduct by falsifying some public records and destroying others in order to conceal suspected financial misconduct.

This was an authentic crime against public order of the kind only government officials can commit. Which is precisely why Thomas had no interest in the case. He is indecently eager to send innocent 57-year-old nurses to prison, and to threaten concupiscent teenage boys with life in prison for the purported crime of looking at dirty pictures. But criminals who misuse the power of the State? Well, here the totalitarian Thomas would agree with the constitutionalist Marc Victor: "Not every wrong needs to be a crime."