Who Trains the Watchmen?

Meg Stalcup and Joshua Craze have a fascinating feature in The Washington Monthly about the alleged experts in counterterrorism who have been training the country's cops. Turns out that many of them "have limited background in U.S. counterterrorism and domestic law enforcement, and little patience for the rules and conventions that govern both fields," and that they often see the war on terror as "a conflict against Islam that involves everyone, without distinction between combatant and noncombatant, law enforcement and military."

Some of them are also prone to getting their facts wrong:

That afternoon, [Sam] Kharoba offered more tips on how to detect violent Muslims. "You remember the Alligator Alley incident?" he asked.

He was referring to the events of September 13, 2002, when three Middle Eastern men at a Shoney’s restaurant in Calhoun, Georgia—one Jordanian, one Pakistani, and one Egyptian—were overheard talking about "bringing it down" to Miami. A nearby diner, one Eunice Stone, became alarmed and contacted the Georgia highway patrol. In what became a terrorist scare with national coverage, the police pulled the three men over on Alligator Alley, the long section of Interstate 75 that cuts west across Florida. For thirteen hours, the police combed the vehicle for explosives.

Kharoba projected a picture of Ayman Gheith, one of the arrested men, onto the screen. "The first thing is facial hair," Kharoba said. "Do you see how the moustache is trimmed, and the beard is in a cone shape? It is very common to have this beard, and the moustache will always be the same, just like Muhammad."

There is only one problem with the Alligator Alley case—a problem Kharoba never mentioned to the class. The incident was a false alarm. The "terrorists" turned out to be medical students on their way to a conference in Miami. They were innocent. After thirteen hours of interrogation, the police released them. Kharoba, however, taught the class that Ayman Gheith was a "textbook case" of Islamic fanaticism.

Another choice moment:

[John] Giduck recounts giving a presentation on the 2002 hostage crisis at the Nord-Ost Theater in Moscow. After most of the terrorists were knocked unconscious by the gas that security forces pumped into the building, Spetsnaz, the Russian special forces, came through, methodically shooting each of the terrorists once in the back of the head. Giduck is convinced that as Americans we could do better: we could shoot them twice. Giduck writes of being alarmed when a policeman came up to him after the talk and said that not one of the cops in the room would ever have considered doing this. "I think the first thing we need to do is pass federal legislation exempting law enforcement from any civil or criminal prosecution, any liability at all, for what they do if there is a terrorist attack on U.S. soil," Giduck writes.

Read the whole thing here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Bee Tagger||

    "Do you see how the moustache is trimmed, and the beard is in a cone shape?

    Yet not a word about the terroristic assault on comedy that cone-shaped heads produces.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    A Jordanian, a Pakistani and an Egyptian walk into a bar. The domestic law enforcement officer takes one look at them and says, "They look like terrorists." The counterterrorism expert says, "Then they are."

  • Giduck||

    Better shoot 'em to be safe. Twice.

  • ||

    A Jordanian, a Pakistani and an Egyptian walk into a bar, each carrying a duck under his arm. The Jordanian orders a mineral water while the Pakistani and the Egyptian both order double-whiskey's.

    OK, someone please finish the joke. I can't get past the set-up.

  • Rich||

    A Jordanian, a Pakistani and an Egyptian walk into a bar, each carrying a duck under his arm. The Jordanian orders a mineral water while the Pakistani and the Egyptian both order double-whiskey's. The bartender says, "What is this? A joke?"

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The bartender says, "I'm hearing too many quacks in here." At which point the foreign medical students storm out, leaving their ducks behind.

  • Almanian||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Oooooh, dear. WAY better than Friday "Funnies".

  • ||

    "I think the first thing we need to do is pass federal legislation exempting law enforcement from any civil or criminal prosecution, any liability at all, for what they do if there is a terrorist attack on U.S. soil," Giduck writes.

    What do they want to do, give Radley an aneurysm?

    Of course, there's no way that would EVER be abused. Nope. None at all.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    That legislation would be redundant.

  • ||

    Well yes, but right now it's unsaid. Somehow it might be worse if it were actually codified into law. Maybe.

  • cynical||

    For a while, but maybe we'd finally go Egypt.

  • ||

    OK, this really does make a lot of sense dude. Wow.

    www.privacy-tools.cz.tc

  • ||

    Bad anon-bot. Fail.

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    After most of the terrorists were knocked unconscious by the gas that security forces pumped into the building, Spetsnaz, the Russian special forces, came through, methodically shooting each of the terrorists once in the back of the head.

    Didn't the russian counter-terrorist forces kill a whole bunch of the hostages with that gas? And didn't they then wind up shooting a bunch more?

  • LEO||

    And? What's the problem with a little collateral damage?

  • Matrix||

    Killing hostages is acceptable, so long as we kill dem dur terrists!

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    From the intertubes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.....cal_attack

    At least 33 terrorists and 129 hostages died during the raid or in the following days.[49] Doctor Andrei Seltsovsky, Moscow's health committee chairman, announced that all but one of the hostages killed in the raid had died of the effects of the unknown gas rather than from gunshot wounds.[50] The cause of death listed for all hostages was declared to be "terrorism", claiming they died from heart attacks or other physical ailments.[51] Among the fatalities, 17 were Nord-Ost cast members, including two child actors.[52] Of the foreign nationals, three were from Ukraine, one was American, and the others were citizens of Austria, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Netherlands.[53] About 700 surviving hostages were poisoned by gas, and some of them received injury leading to disabilities of second and third class (by the Russian/ex-Soviet disability classification system; indicate medium- and maximum-severity and debilitation). Several Russian special forces operatives were also poisoned by the gas during the operation. According to court testimony from Prof.A.Vorobiev, Director of Russian Academic Gemology Center, most if not all deaths were caused by suffocation when hostages collapsed on chairs with heads falling back or were transported and left lying by rescue workers on their backs; in such position, tongue prolapse causes blockage of breathing venues.[54]. Thus, part of casualties can be attributed to accident but at least some to unprofessional rescue efforts.

    >>>>
    Apparently the Moscow watchmen get their training from the Reno sheriff's department.

  • ||

    Prof.A.Vorobiev, Director of Russian Academic Gemology Center,

    Did they bring him in to identify what was real or costume jewelry?

    "Meanwhile, the head of Russia's School of Medicine is due to release his long-awaited report on oil and mineral exploration in the Siberian fields. Film at eleven."

  • ||

    Whether civilian casualties are a bug or a feature to Russian security forces is something of a mystery.

  • Achmed the Dead Terrorist||

    I have several co-workers that were still living in Moscow at the time of this event. They universally seemed to think that the authorities did the right thing. "Most" of the hostages emgerged unharmed -- so the collateral damage was deemed acceptable.

  • Achmed the Dead Terrorist||

    Fucking "remember my name" function, how does it work.

  • Abdul||

    It's well-established that the only thing worse than being taken hostage by Chechens is to be rescued by Russians.

  • ||

    Win.

    (Come to think of it, I believe the Russian Special Forces have also killed hostages in several cases that did not involved the Chechens.

  • T||

    Kill them all. The lord will recognize his own.

  • ||

    Giduck is convinced that as Americans we could do better: we could shoot them twice.

    Now that's some new professionalism right there.

  • fish||

    "I think the first thing we need to do is pass federal legislation exempting law enforcement from any civil or criminal prosecution, any liability at all, for what they do if there is a terrorist attack on U.S. soil," Giduck writes.

    I can't wait for the spike in terroristic related traffic stops.

    Giduck = coward!

  • Ice Nine||

    BFD on the Alligator Alley deal. What, cops aren't supposed to investigate? These three guys were investigated, they were cleared, and they were released. I'm sorry they were inconvenienced. But, they said more suspicious stuff than "bringing it down to Miami," bomb dogs pointed on both of their cars (yes, I'm aware of the false positive statistics), and they did happen to look like the assholes that had just fried 3k Americans a few days before. Of course they should have been investigated. Are we stupid or something? Were that there had been a bit more of this in the months before 9/11/01.

  • ||

    Don't be an ass. The point is that they were totally cleared, yet the instructor acts as if they were confirmed terrorists, making the class believe it also. If you can't see why that's utterly and totally wrong, there's really no help for you.

  • Ice Nine||

    Don't be an ass (Whoops, sorry; that seems to be your job here). I do understand the point. I was commenting on the event itself. Not sure why that wasn't clear to you.

  • ||

    From the responses to your post, it seems that a lot of people feel you didn't get the point.

    But you just go on being an ass who thinks your racist overtones aren't clear to the rest of us.

  • Ice Nine||

    Oh no! I'm a racist, too? The horror! That's sort of a standing joke around here, isn't it.

  • ||

    Let's see:

    they did happen to look like the assholes that had just fried 3k Americans a few days before. Of course they should have been investigated

    So they have similar skin and facial features, so they should be investigated. Your words. That's not racist?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Ice Nine||

    It's about as racist as a police APB specifying to be on the lookout for a "white male, 6'2", wearing...). But, hey, we mock here every day the fact that any dickhead can conjure racism out of any mention of any racial characteristic or commonality - so have at it.

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    I think you're missing the point. The point is that the people who overheard them in the restaurant had a particular kind of mustache, and the terrorist specialists are correctly pointing out that citizen informants with facial hair are always to be trusted.

  • In Time Of War||

    I have a mustache. I can't be trusted. Now what?

  • ||

    Me too. I can't be trusted--but my mustache can.

  • Jesse Walker||

    Ice Nine: Let's stipulate that that's all true. Would you then turn around and teach the case as though the students had in fact been guilty, telling cops to be on the lookout for people with similar facial hair? Because that's what this guy did.

  • Ice Nine||

    Probably not. I'm a firm believer in profiling but that one does seem a bit silly, doesn't it.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Translation: I'm in favor of a heavy handed police state, provided controls are in place to make sure that I'm unlikely to be the one being heavy handed.

  • In Time Of War||

    Or mistakenly shot in the back of the head by SF troops with a license to kill.

  • ||

    Or mistakenly shot in the back of the head by SF troops with a license to kill.

    SugarFree has an army now? Run for teh hillz!!!

  • fish||

    SF Troops...! No that's San Francisco troops...err...troupes!

    You don't want to know what just hit you in the back of the head.

  • ||

    they did happen to look like the assholes that had just fried 3k Americans a few days before.

    The 19 hijackers of 9/11 made a point of NOT being conspicuous. Check their photos via Google if you like, but none of them would appear out of place on any street in the USA.

    As for the comments that were heard - we don't know the context - but on any given day's posts, 90% of H&R commenters post something that, taken out of context, is far more alarming than "bringing it down to Miami." That particular phrase could refer to a kitten, FGS.

  • ||

    Now had they said they were taking their talents to South Beach, I would have been concerned.

  • Ice Nine||

    You're right about the 9/11 guys. My bad. However, as I said, "bringing it down to Miami" was not all they were heard to say. They also said, "Americans had mourned on 9/11 and would mourn again on 9/13. Hey, make of it what you will. Just please don't say that in the aggregate there wasn't a reason for at least a modicum of suspicion.

  • ||

    Eunice Stone, who was sitting at a nearby table, claims she heard the men talking about a planned terrorist attack. Stone told Fox News she heard one of the men say: “They think they were sad on 9/11, wait until 9/13.” The three men have insisted that “9/11” was never mentioned in their conversation. They were discussing plans to transport a car—not carry out a terrorist attack.

    Do you think it is possible that Mz. Stone was experiencing mass hysteria, and perhaps she heard what she wanted to hear? Or that she made it up to present a threat born of her own prejudice as more credible?

  • Ice Nine||

    I think that both scenarios are quite possible. Do you think that either one would/should/could have affected the cops' (who would have been none the wiser) legitimate decision to investigate?

  • ||

    Well yes, but are you investigating because there is a credible tip of a terrorist attack, or because the guys have the same skin tone as the 9/11 attackers.

  • ||

    oops---> strike[.], add [?]

  • Ice Nine||

    Well, I think we're getting pretty far into the subjunctive since we are discussing a hypothetical thought that might have dwelt in the woman's head. Determining the credibility of the tip would be an important part of the investigation, I would think- something that doesn't happen right away when the supposed possible terrorists are heading toward their supposed target.

    As to the second point, you are hardly investigating simply because of skin tone when a tipster reports an alarming conversation and your bomb dogs go positive on the suspects cars.

  • ||

    This of course still is off point. The issue that the instructor was implying they were terrorist when they were not. Not to mention how wrong he got the Russian school incident. The guy is just wrong and he's training people with guns.

  • Ice Nine||

    Agreed. Never said otherwise.

    "Off point"? Off the point of the original article indeed but not off the point I was making. Hey, it's not exactly as though that were the first digression or OT post to have ever been seen on H&R or something.

  • ||

    Fair enough.

  • imhotep||

    "and they did happen to look like the assholes that had just fried 3k Americans a few days before"

    They were white males in their sixties wearing decent suits with american flag pins on their lapels?

  • ||

    Oh boy! A troofer!

    Don't you have an "Elvis is Alive" forum to visit?

  • ||

    I assumed he was playing the 'truther' angle for the humor, which did make a pretty good joke.

  • ||

    At least they weren't kept as material witnesses, right? Right?

    C'mon, Ice. A waitress at Shoney's overhears you say, "I'm gonna kill her," to a buddy when talking about your wife's spending habits. You end up with a no-knock raid on your house when the waitress calls local PD with your credit card # and says she heard you say you were gonna kill someone. The raid leaves you with a busted front door, a dead dog, a trashed house, a lecture from the SWAT commander telling you to watch what you say in public and the potential charges for whatever they feel like manufacturing from the search.

    Yeah, more infringements on our civil liberties based on anonymous tips from waitresses who overhear snippets of a conversation. That sounds like a great idea.

  • Ice Nine||

    You and I feel the same about all the excessive no-knock SWAT shit, Sloop - in spite of that sterling straw man you just constructed up there.

  • ||

    You see no similarities because you refuse to open your eyes. How many stories do we read on here where people have had their property raided based on anonymous tips? How many times do those searches result in collateral damage/death?

    My argument must be the Pinocchio of strawmen because this happens with regularity.

  • Ice Nine||

    See no similarities? I see one similarity - a waitress overhearing "They're gonna mourn again on 9/13" and a waitress overhearing "I'm gonna kill her." The rest was straw man, having no similarity whatever with the Alligator Alley activities pursuant to the waitress' report.

    We read here lots of stories here about anonymous tips. What does that have to do with a specific, named waitress in a specific place giving a tip?

  • ||

    ""Were that there had been a bit more of this in the months before 9/11/01.""

    You mean something like American intel folk tracking at least one of terrorists, or perhaps an FBI agent raising the flag on someone taking flying lessons and not interested in landing the plane? Those things would do more than stopping a few guy that "look" like terrorist.

  • Ice Nine||

    Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. But I'd have been happy with their pursuing of anything remotely suspicious as well.

  • ||

    They didn't pursue those things. If they did, 9/11 might not have happened. What good is it to think an instructor teaching from incompetence would have made the outcome better?

  • Ice Nine||

    Does someone here think that? I missed it.

  • ||

    and they did happen to look like the assholes that had just fried 3k Americans a few days before.

    Maybe the article was written incorrectly, but it says the Alligator Alley incident took place on September 13, 2002. So that's one year and "a few days before"

  • ||

    "I think the first thing we need to do is pass federal legislation exempting law enforcement from any civil or criminal prosecution, any liability at all, for what they do if there is a terrorist attack on U.S. soil," Giduck writes.

    From reading Balko's posts here, I am fairly sure that that condition already exists in fact, if not in law.

  • a||

    Is John one of these counterterror trainers? He has the same concern for facts, civil liberties, basic decency, etc.

  • The Gobbler||

    Asshole much?

  • a||

  • a||

    Also, this "X much?" thing is plaaaayed out. Gotta love people who are so desperate to sound hip that they try to work cliches into their every utterance.

  • Sam K.||

    "The first thing is facial hair," Kharoba said. "Do you see how the moustache is trimmed, and the beard is in a cone shape? It is very common to have this beard, and the moustache will always be the same, just like Muhammad."
    ...

    There were other signs, too. “From the perspective of operational security, there are two things I am always looking out for: a shaved body and moving lips,” he explained.

    See that funny facial hair? TURRIST
    See how he's shaved? TURRIST

    Heads I win, tails you lose :)

  • Stretchy||

    How do we know what Muhammad's facial hair looks like? To my knowledge there are no images of the prophet.

  • ||

    I thought the same thing. Could someone post a picture or perhaps make a drawing and put it online or in a newspaper so the world can see it?

  • Pip||

    http://www.google.com/images?q.....aql;=&oq;=

    I'm partial to the fourth row, far right image.

  • ||

    I'm actually not opposed in principle to profiling (limited resources, bang for buck, etc.), but pulling over and detaining somebody over this is just stupid:

    , when three Middle Eastern men at a Shoney’s restaurant in Calhoun, Georgia—one Jordanian, one Pakistani, and one Egyptian—were overheard talking about "bringing it down" to Miami

  • kinnath||

    Profiling has become a bad word because of abuse of profiling techniques resulting in harassement of minorities. But in reality, every aspect of investigation that is based upon heuristics is actually profiling.

  • ||

    I think that we should all agree on a specific definition for profiling.

    I would argue that after a particular crime has been committed and the police know the general description of the perpetrator that looking for people that fit that physical description is NOT profiling; ala Ice Nine's "6'2" white male" example from above.

    In contrast if the police are targeting a certain ethnic group either because of some statistical significance or a stereotype based fear then that would be profiling, and that I would disagree with(whether it be done systematically or by individual officers).

  • kinnath||

    statistical significance does not equal stereotype-based fear

    The former may have merits depending on the statistic in question and how significant it is. The latter is never an acceptable basis for pursing an investigation.

  • ||

    I never suggested that the two were identical, hence the 'or'.

    The kid of statistical significance that I speak, and disagree with using of would be akin to this hypothetical:

    X% of black males have stolen cars yet only (X-Y)% actually own a car, therefore if you see a black male driving a car he has more likely than not stolen it. Thus, cops are justified in pulling over any black male driving a car even if the man they pull over is doing nothing wrong.

    I just don't see the moral justification for assigning collective guilt to individuals no matter how compelling the statistical information. Unless you want to approach it from a utilitarian standpoint as minge is want to do.

    Notice though that in my hypothetical a specific crime by a perpetrator with identifiable parameters hasn't been committed, but that the black male is suspected of some crime solely on the likelihood that any random black male would commit a crime.

  • kinnath||

    X% of black males have stolen cars yet only (X-Y)% actually own a car, therefore if you see a black male driving a car he has more likely than not stolen it. Thus, cops are justified in pulling over any black male driving a car even if the man they pull over is doing nothing wrong.

    This would be an example of using statistics to justify bigotry.

    The vast majority of homocide victims arekilled by someone they knew (family or friends).

    So when a middle-aged women is murdered, the first thing the police do is go talk to the husband/boyfriend. Is this profiling or not?

  • Paul||

    , when three Middle Eastern men at a Shoney’s restaurant in Calhoun, Georgia—one Jordanian, one Pakistani, and one Egyptian—were overheard talking about "bringing it down" to Miami

    Clearly, they were talking about "The Funk".

  • ||

    ""I'm actually not opposed in principle to profiling (limited resources, bang for buck, etc.),""

    Prior to 9/11 profiling was a big no no, ask the NJ state police. Of course that back when people thought society didn't benefit from it.

  • ||

    We could have had a much cleaner narrative in the Alligator Alley story if the police had shot them all in the back of the head on the side of the road and then planted bomb-making materials in their car.

    What's wrong with you pussies?

  • ||

    Dunno 'bout y'all, but these amateur counter-terrorism activities* do not make me feel one bit safer.

    * Including FBI stings on 20 year old doofusses (doofi?) where the feds provide the target, the intel, moral support and the explosives, then claim they thwarted another dastardly cas of domestic terrorism.

  • ||

    doofim

  • Kolohe||

    amateur counter-terrorism activities*

    It's not amateur when you're getting paid.

  • ||

    Including FBI stings on 20 year old doofusses

    Which will be used by True American Patriot Peter King as clear proof the scary Mooslamoterrrruhists are under every bed (and lurking in every train station).

  • ||

    the vetting of police "academics" (iow those who teach), is about as rigorous as "academic academics" to coin a phrase that is kind of whoopiesque.

    we've all read the metric assloads of incidents (and those are just the outed prof's) of prof's who don't know fuck all about the subject they teach, who needlessly inject bias and hyperbole to suit their agenda, and whose credentials are suspect to say the least.

    i've had some cop instructors who certainly fi that mold. the most irksome was an instructor in an interrogation class who actually was teaching that the purpose of an interrogation is to get a confession.

    um, no

    the purpose is to try to get the truth. getting a confession from an innocent is NOT the goal. quite the opposite. and an interrogator should always be on the lookout for cues consistent with an innocent as he is with cues consistent with the guilty.

    that's as much a mindset problem as a knowledge problem, but it just underscored to me that this guy should not be teaching this class. of course he was also a typical cop-o-crat, in that he hadn't done many, if any ACTUAL interrogations, but had spent most of his career in the "training track".

  • Paul||

    of course he was also a typical cop-o-crat, in that he hadn't done many, if any ACTUAL interrogations, but had spent most of his career in the "training track".

    Fucking teachers...

  • ||

    those who can't... teach!

    except for me, of course :p

  • Almanian||

    You can't do OR teach? Shocker...

  • ||

    correct. that's why i blog

  • ||

    ""those who can't... teach!""

    And those who can't teach, teach gym.

  • ||

    Uh-uh. Those who can't teach teach teachers.

  • hmm||

    I can't stand academics as a rule. But you show me one fucking cop that has a published academic paper currently teaching academy.

    The people who train cops aren't required to have a Ph.D. They don't have to publish, they don't have to defend publication, they aren't significantly scrutinized by their professional field nationally...

    Seriously you aren't that fucking important and no where near as well trained as you think you are. Don't compare yourself or your chosen profession to being a professor. It's laughable and embarrassing. And that's with me detesting most professors and academics in general.

  • ||

    ""The people who train cops aren't required to have a Ph.D."'

    Neither do people who train our troops.

    Sometimes, experience beats a college degree. However, corrupt experience can lead to corrupt training.

  • hmm||

    I wasn't faulting the use of experienced people. The comparison he made was absurd. Most that train anything even remotely difficult in the military have proven their ability several times over. I'm pretty sure the standard in cop school is a little lower given there are hundreds if not thousands of them. On top of that the military often uses private contractors or PhDs for upper level training or training in many fields.

    Kinda seems like apples and oranges to me all the way around.

  • ||

    the comparison i made was spot on. how much time have you spent IN academia? regardless, we can probably agree that police instructors are often not well trained/qualified enough to be instructing what they instruct. as a firearms instructor, i was required to

    1) be a good shot (meet a higher standard than an average cop needs to qualify and we lost 1/3 of our instructor class in the first hour of assessing. it was pretty strict)
    2) understand adult learning theory and course development. in our case, we have to take a mind boggingly boring 80 hr instructor development class
    3) take a handgun instructor class. iirc it was 6 days, but don't quote me on that.Might have been 5
    4) go through my dept's range orientation for instructors, which is 16 hrs
    5) assist in teaching at least one 'glock school' with an experienced instructor

    that's fine for teaching basic handgun assessments, running the range, teaching glock school, helping officers correct basic errors (sight picture, trigger control, etc.) etc.

  • ||

    please show me some valid evidence that having a Ph.D makes one better at training, for instance, interrogation technique, firearms technique, patrol tactics, crisis intervention etc.

    i am comparing cop instructors to profs, in that both can be ignorant of their subject, have falsely inflated credentials, and have an agenda tangential to the stuff they are supposed to be teaching.

    spare me the professor worship.

  • Pip||

    "i've had some cop instructors who certainly fi that mold. the most irksome was an instructor in an interrogation class who actually was teaching that the purpose of an interrogation is to get a confession.

    um, no

    the purpose is to try to get the truth."

    I would venture that someone who has stated here on H&R that he has never seen a fellow officer break the law, doesn't give a fuck about the truth.

    Epic. Fucking. Pig. Fail.

  • ||

    epic troll fail.

  • Paul||

    the Russian special forces, came through, methodically shooting each of the terrorists once in the back of the head. Giduck is convinced that as Americans we could do better: we could shoot them twice.

    Only twice?

  • hmm||

    The funny thing is that I think the autopsy said they all died from the gas and not the bullet wound.

  • T||

    So it's just like the firearms training industry? Any dipshit can hang out a shingle and be a 'counter-terrorism expert'? And the goobers he's teaching won't know enough to be able to evaluate his performance?

    Sweet. I'm gonna get some business cards printed up.

  • ||

    Are you calling for (god forbid) GOVERNMENT REGULATION? :)

  • Almanian||

    While I'm here, Comprehension Fail, dumphy. No, that's not what he said.

    Now run along to the LEO thread, and tell us all how they're not "experts".

  • ||

    I can tell an ignoramus the truth all i want, but it's pointless. it's like dressing up a pig. but here, i'll try again - the vast majority of cops are not firearms experts. courts, shooting associations, and the literature agrees with me. NONE claim that the average cop is a firearms expert.

    facts are uncomfortable things, almanian. deny them, ridicule them, or deflect all you want. the truth has a dignity all its own

  • ||

    Oh, look, dunphy's here to tell us how professional he is.

    Eat shit and die, dunphy.

  • ||

    troll-o-meter: .001 (up to 4 significant digits on new troll-o-meter)

  • Almanian||

    You're needed on another LEO thread. Run along like a good jackbooted thug and defend your own.

  • ||

    except i don't "defend my own". when I see police misconduct here, which is often, i criticize it. I do not defend misconduct and I challenge you to show me where i have done that.

  • ||

    Make sure those jackboots are shiny, Officer Thug.

  • ||

    i work in the Pac NW. We wear patrol sandals. with sox.

  • hmm||

    Nord-Ost theater, what great example of incompetence. 30 hostages down, 130 civilians down and 700 people poisoned leading to varying degrees of life long illness. I don't think they had any dogs in the theater.

    great fucking example

  • Anonymous Coward||

    "I think the first thing we need to do is pass federal legislation exempting law enforcement from any civil or criminal prosecution, any liability at all, for what they do if there is a terrorist Communist Nazi Japanese Prussian Spanish Confederate MexicanBritish attack on U.S. soil,"

    Why can I imagine this statist clown existing at every point in American history?

  • ||

    Is this Dunphy hate nothing but guilt by association?

    Most of his posts over the months have been pretty libertarian.

  • ||

    a libertarian cop throws many reasonbloggers into fits of cognitive dissonance inspired frothy incoherent rage.

  • hmm||

    I don't hate on him. I will ride him like a rented mule if he says something silly like the cops at cop camp are like professors.

  • ||

    you can try to ride me, but if you do, i will BESTRIDE YOU LIKE A COLOSSUS OF YORE!!!!!!

  • ||

    September 13, 2002

    Mere days after 9/11.

  • ||

    John Giduck has absolutely zero experience in combat or hostage rescue. He is not a "former Special Forces operator", has never served in any military, and his claims of having trained with Russian Special Forces are specious, at best. Seriously, how many people are gullible enough to believe that a former lawyer with zero military experience would be permitted to participate in actual special forces training with classified military units? It's sort of like an accountant claiming they trained with SEAL Team Six for the assault on UBL's compound, and about as believable. Giduck's book, "Terror at Beslan", is a collection of second and third-hand information artfully compiled to make it appear as if he was actually present during the siege. His suggestion that "American law enforcement must realize they are no longer police officers but soldiers in a war" borders on the retarded. There is no "war" in the Continental United States, and the average police officer has neither the training nor the mindset for combat, hostage rescue, or CQB. "Taking the shot" might work for some, but the average police officer lacks the marksmanship skills to hit a head-sized target at 10 meters, especially when under stress. If you go into a hostage situation with the idea that it's acceptable for you to kill or wound hostages to save them, you will. What's the threshold for hostages killed versus hostages saved? Is it OK to kill a third of them to save the rest? Half of them? The correct number is zero. You train for zero. You plan for zero. You execute for zero. If your objective is to stop a vehicle full of hostages, you disable the vehicle, not shoot into the passenger compartment hoping the hostages aren't injured or killed. "Luck" is not a tactic. "Hope" is not a method.

    I haven't used my real email address for one reason: John Giduck and associates have a habit of threatening legal action against anyone questioning his trumped-up credentials.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement