PDA

View Full Version : Missouri Highway Patrol rescinds controversial militia report




bobbyw24
03-26-2009, 05:36 AM
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/missouristatenews/story/A8718605909247EB862575850003B8B4?OpenDocument
Missouri Highway Patrol rescinds controversial militia report
By Roseann Moring
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Thursday, Mar. 26 2009
Jefferson City — A report about modern militia activity will no longer be
distributed to Missouri law enforcement officers after receiving nationwide
criticism that it contains political profiling.

The decision came Wednesday, hours after Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder called for
Department of Public Safety Director John Britt to be placed on leave because
of the report, which said followers of third-party political candidates might
be militia members.

But the superintendent of the Missouri Highway Patrol said Britt wasn't to
blame. Instead, Col. James Keathley said, the issue is a flawed oversight
system, which will be revamped. Keathley said the report was sent to highway
patrol members without being reviewed by him or Britt.

Since the report was leaked to the public earlier this month, it has been
criticized by conservatives and third-party candidates.

The report was produced by the Missouri Information Analysis Center as a guide
for state troopers. The center, created by the Department of Homeland Security
after Sept. 11, is a means to share security information between different
entities.

The report, titled, "The Modern Militia," specifically mentioned 2008
presidential candidates Republican Ron Paul, Libertarian Bob Barr and the
Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin. It said that militia members "most commonly
associate with 3rd party political groups."

Britt apologized on Monday to the three candidates for the inartful way in
which one section of the report was written.

"Upon review and reflection, it is the judgment of the Department of Public
Safety that the report should have made no reference to supporters of Ron Paul,
Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin or of any other third-party political candidates,"
wrote Britt, who is a former Secret Service agent.

In the letter to the three candidates, he promised to redact the section in
question.

Missouri Libertarian Party spokesman Mike Ferguson said his party is happy with
Britt's apology, although they support the efforts of other groups to look at
other parts of the report.

The response hasn't satisfied Kinder. He criticized the public safety
director's apology for not mentioning another aspect of the report, which
included militant anti-abortion as an ideology sometimes espoused by militia
members. Kinder pointed to other groups, such as eco-terrorists, not mentioned
in the report.

"There was no mention of this, because apparently it's more important to focus
on pro-lifers," he said.

Kinder spokesman Gary McElyea said Keathley's statement doesn't change Kinder's
position. "The buck stops with him (Britt) and the governor, and either the
governor or Britt should be willing to sit down and answer these questions,"
McElyea said.

Keathley didn't make it clear which parts of the report or which complaints his
statement addresses. State patrol Capt. Tim Hull said this center produces such
reports independently, meaning neither Nixon nor Britt asked for the data.

Nixon spokesman Scott Holste said the first time the governor saw the report
was when it showed up in the media, and the office supports Keathley's changes.
Holste said the governor would leave the enforcement of the new policies to
Britt.

The report first appeared on the website of conservative radio commentator Alex
Jones. Jones said a law enforcement officer gave it to him.

Department spokesman Mike O'Connell said the department isn't debating the
accuracy of the version online, but wouldn't provide a copy of the report.

Post-Dispatch reporter Tony Messenger contributed to this report.

undergroundrr
03-26-2009, 06:19 AM
bump

acptulsa
03-26-2009, 06:25 AM
W00T! Ha! Take that, foes of represenative government!

Just like holding a giant magnifying glass over Jefferson City! Let the light of day shine in and watch the totalitarian ants scurry!

The damned button came off my pants just about the moment I got to work and I thought it was going to be an awful day. I stand corrected! :)

Kudos all around!

Minarchy4Sale
03-26-2009, 06:25 AM
not enough. This incremental approach is BS. The Governor needs to repudiate this report publicly and completely and apologize for his minions even going there.

undergroundrr
03-26-2009, 08:30 AM
bump

beerista
03-26-2009, 08:42 AM
Who else reads this "apology"/"retraction" as the state of Missouri and Homeland Security saying: We're really sorry (that you all found out) and we promise to do better in the future (to ensure that the many similar reports we will produce are not leaked)?

donnay
03-26-2009, 08:54 AM
not enough. This incremental approach is BS. The Governor needs to repudiate this report publicly and completely and apologize for his minions even going there.

I agree 150%!

Not only was this memo libelous to the people named, it is akin to inciting harm and contempt at a certain group or groups. The author of this memo should be heading to jail. :mad:

LittleLightShining
03-26-2009, 09:05 AM
However...
not enough. This incremental approach is BS. The Governor needs to repudiate this report publicly and completely and apologize for his minions even going there.I agree.


Who else reads this "apology"/"retraction" as the state of Missouri and Homeland Security saying: We're really sorry (that you all found out) and we promise to do better in the future (to ensure that the many similar reports we will produce are not leaked)?
I totally read it that way. The sunshine requests still need to be addressed and the sources exposed.

Carole
03-26-2009, 09:13 AM
The entire report is full of political profiling and warnings against ordinary citizens who are pro-life, who dispute environmental issues, who support third parties, who defend the Constitution, etc.

This entire report is likely typical of many reports of which we are never made aware. It is a good thing that at least this one came to light.

MelissaCato
03-26-2009, 09:20 AM
Who else reads this "apology"/"retraction" as the state of Missouri and Homeland Security saying: We're really sorry (that you all found out) and we promise to do better in the future (to ensure that the many similar reports we will produce are not leaked)?

I agree. A simple apology and retraction isn't enough. Everyone involved should be fired asap. The intentions in the report are clear. The only thing they are sorry about is they were cought. Typical criminal.

Hummm so why did he refuse to give a copy of the original report ? Sounds fishy.

pcosmar
03-26-2009, 09:41 AM
Who else reads this "apology"/"retraction" as the state of Missouri and Homeland Security saying: We're really sorry (that you all found out) and we promise to do better in the future (to ensure that the many similar reports we will produce are not leaked)?

Yup my thought as well.
I like your wording, I used it in my blog post. :D

Bern
03-26-2009, 09:45 AM
I tried to leave the following comment for the article:
Didn't Missouri get the memo? They are supposed to wait until the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 becomes law before they start the political profiling.but, I keep getting an error message when I click submit:
error4: Unspecified error. possible cause: This page must reside in stltoday.com for this function to work properly.
h: 230px
w: 310pxDamn javascript.

Original_Intent
03-26-2009, 09:45 AM
It may be a small win, but I will take it. Great job by everyone that brought this to light and took action to not let it go away.

UtahApocalypse
03-26-2009, 11:07 AM
This is a great win..... however sdo not stop the effort. The person in charge needs to resign, and they need to have the Governor make a full press conference announcing that Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty is no threat and is bringing some much needed visitor money to St. Louis. They need to next sign a declaration that completely rescinds the document and imposes swift and strict repercussions to anyone that uses, or follows the MIAC paper. The also need to identify Who wrote it, An complete a full investigation.

Dont't let them sweep this under the rug by givining us a statement.

acptulsa
03-26-2009, 11:15 AM
True. This is one battle, not the war. If worst comes to worst, we need to see to Nixon's defeat. And southwest Missouri (the most conservative corner of the state) is close enough to me, I may just be exporting myself on the weekends.

ronpaulhawaii
03-26-2009, 11:31 AM
http://photos-c.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sf2p/v647/148/29/13303243/n13303243_33313906_2432927.jpg

IMO - We can and should increase the pressure. ISTM- This is just solid evidence of a long term effort to discredit the "militia of the several states", (which is _necessary_ for the our security in a free country.) There are other large organizations getting involved; we can support them in their heavy lifting while exploring other ways to turn this event for maximum advantage

I am going to repeat this repeatedly, but the fact that the MIAC document has a full paragraph on http://www.committeesofsafety.org (http://www.committeesofsafety.org/) is very telling. It's inclusion should also (perhaps mainly) be addressed.

We can use this event to promote a national discussion on effective "Homeland Security"; point out the flaws and dangers of our present course, and explain why the constitutionally mandated Militia IS the most effective way to enforce law, provide first response in emergencies, etc. - And, in conjunction with a strong ass Navy (w/Marines and Air) ensure our common defense from all enemies (EXCEPT apathy), both foreign, and domestic.

Read - Constitutional Homeland Security Vol 1 - by Dr. Edwin Vieira, and learn why this scares SPTB ;)

busy busy...

beerista
03-26-2009, 03:40 PM
Yup my thought as well.
I like your wording, I used it in my blog post. :D

I'm honored.