Police Brutality and The Copycat Connection

Over the past 3 months, I have written about many American and global conflict causing events. Each event discussed has caused quite a bit of talk among the American public, politicians, and government leaders. For this blog post, I would like to “hit home” with an issue that has been in the Americans eyes since anyone can remember, police brutality.

There was recently a video of released that showed a San Antonio school police officer body-slamming a 12 year-old female student. Why was this necessary? Isn’t another means of discipline more effective? The San Antonio Independent School District spokeswoman spoke out about the incident, “And while we want details, I want people to know that excessive force will not be tolerated in this district.” This leads to another question, shouldn’t have the rule of not using excessive force on school students have been an unspoken rule?

The article including this video states that this isn’t the first time excessive force has been used in school districts by police. Back in October 2015, a student in a South Carolina school district was violently arrested in school and a video caught the action in progress. The police officer was fired after the video circulated on social media outlets and later news outlets. This school district also made a similar statement to the San Antonio district. The superintendent of the South Carolina school district stated, “The district will not tolerate any actions that jeopardize the safety of our students”.

Here we have two incidents occurring in less than a year of each other. After each incident occurs a school representative later stating that the district does everything its power to insure the safety of its students and does not condone excessive force. This brings into question, shouldn’t the school district outline the type of discipline and the probable incidents a police officer can use these types of discipline in the contract before the police officer is hired?

With the microscope being on police, their interactions with people, and their probable brutality, you would think specific contract negotiations would be at the forefront of school districts minds.

Are we giving to much attention to police brutality and police officers’ interaction with people in general? Wouldn’t the best way to get rid of the idea of brutality as a method of discipline be to stop giving media and nationwide attention to it?

For instance, I am a firm believer that much of the terroristic crime and racial issues we have in the world, would be decreased if we ceased to talk about and ceased to hear about it daily. There are many copycats in this world and this would be a way to decrease the copycats of not only police, but also students acting out against police.  Humans learn by what they are surrounded by in their environment. If they see the news saying police officer’s brutal force is bad and should be banned when a person acts out against police. Doesn’t that indirectly reinforce the behavior of acting out because people know punishment won’t go any further?

I also remember my parents telling me stories of when they were in school. They said teachers would spank student’s behinds on a daily basis. Would this have been seen as brutality? Probably. I am one to believe that many people wear too much sensitivity on their sleeves. Why was spanking “ok” in the 1970s and 1980s, but it is not “ok” to use today to keep students in line? Is it better to rule in fear of a rather painful experience occurring, then to just get a “stern talk”?

I would like to stick with my copycat theory rather then the sensitivity to punishment idea. An idea the could counteract the copycat movement, if a young person is influenced by media to act out against police, would be media showing friendly interactions between the public and police. Not all people the do something unlawful act against the police. Many people, once arrested, confess their guilt and peacefully accept the punishment.

This idea of not publicizing so many negatively driven events ties into all my discussions of events in this blog. In Korea, if we would not publicize the event, maybe we could take action quicker to eliminate the missile threat. In San Berandino, publicizing the event may have already led to many similar terrorists using the same methods to conceal data. For the immigrants, maybe the striking worry of being deported not being publicized would encourage more policy to allow them to become citizens.

That’s all for now.

Restricted Access

Imagine this, you wake up in the morning and you cannot access any sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, and most information on Google, which you once previously could. Only after many weeks, do you find out that your country’s government blocked the satellite signals for news spreading sites.

This discussion continues to be surrounded by tension with many world powers facing many tough decisions; therefore, continuing with this blogs theme of discussing many controversial issues, which have arose throughout the past few weeks. As a follow up to my last civic issue blog post on the North Korean test missile launched a few weeks ago, I will talk about the controversy surrounding the new advancement in the North Korean missile scares.

As of 3:18 AM Eastern Time according to an article publishedby ABC News, North Korea has officially announced that it has blocked Facebook, Twitter, and South Korean websites “in a move underscoring its concern for the spread of online information. 

According to another ABC News article, “North Korea fired a short-range missile into the sea and tried to jam GPS navigation signals in South Korea on Friday (April 1^st)”. This was only “hours after U.S South Korean and Japanese leaders pledged to work closer together to prevent North Korea from advancing its nuclear and missile programs”.

Many North Koreans do not have the luxury of Internet Access. Usually when North Koreans use the “Internet”, they use is a “sealed-off, government-sanctioned intranet”. However, “foreigners had previously been able to surf the Web with almost no overt restriction, though most likely with behind-the-scenes monitoring of their Internet activities”.

The missile launch and consequent web-jamming would make it more difficult and albeit impossible for “foreign residents in North Korea to post real-time information about the country to the outside world, and will further limit the ability of North Koreans with Internet access to view information about their country posted elsewhere”.

Last blog post, the potential that a block signal could happen was mentioned. However, at that time, we did not know if any further missile action would be taken and if there were action, what type of consequence that action would hold. 

Now, we know that North Korean leadership (Kim Jong Un) wants to exercise their power in increasing shows of force. 

However, is North Korea really the only bad guy, when playing around with Internet censorship?

The ABC News article referred to above mentions that North Korea’s now new restrictions mirror the restrictions of the Beijing area of China, and some restrictions mirror South Korea.

South Korea is deep within the Internet web and interests, yet they ban North Korean websites and government-deemed adult content.

We must keep in mind that while the control of what we see and what we can use on the Internet may be appalling because we are United States citizens [and dwellers] and have the right to this content, the rest of the world does not have rights in place that keep them from losing their privilege of seeing internet content. What is our right truly is their privilege. 

I think what is most striking in the fact that there are already so many restrictions on North Koreans, unlike their South Korean counterparts, that the implementation of these now new and stricter standards is well past excessive.

In one of my passion blog posts, I mentioned the sociocultural divide, Air Force Lt. General Weinstein mentioned in his speech to Air Force ROTC cadets, that North Korea and South Korea have been experiencing. He said that back in the 1970s and 80s many South Koreans still had hope that North Korea would join them into one country again. Now, the General mentioned, South Korea is very patriotic for their side of Korea and does not see the rejoining of the countries in the future.

The general mentioned that with this divide and the suppression of the North Koreans by Kim Jong Un, there have been language changes and their have been extensive cultural changes.

My question is do you think that the greater restriction of the Internet will create a greater divide of culture and understanding for the North Koreans in the future?

North Korea, South Korea, and the DMZ; We're All Eyes and Ears

During the past two posts on this blog, the issues discussed were around tragic events that caused many arguments among the American people. The first blog post on the Syrian immigrant crisis dicussed the tensions among the American public on the influx of refugees that may come into our country with government approval. The second blog post discussed the tragedy of the recent San Berandino attack. Both posts are connected in the sense that they discuss terroristic events that occurred inside and outside the United States that have been heavily debated upon. For this blog post, the recent launching of a ballistic missile by North Korea will be discussed in terms of the issues concern to the United States.

As of March 17^th, 2016, CNN posted an article that stated that it was confirmed that North Korea launched a ballistic missile of the east coast of the peninsula last Friday (confirmed by Joint South Korean Chiefs of Staff). The missiles flew a distance of 800 kilometers.

The article notes: “the action is the latest display of military power that roils with tension”. “Tensions have heightened on the Korean Peninsula since a fourth North Korean nuclear test and joint U.S.- South Korean military drills.”

Courtesy of CNN

The reason why there is so much concern on what seemed to be a test launch is that the launch occurred just after “a North Korean claim that it had miniaturized nuclear warheads to fit on ballistic missles”. North Korea also had a successful hydrogen bomb test in February.

It is important to note that the United States has not only started to take note of North Korea since the recent testing conducted there. North Korea has been of concern for quite some time. However, the dynamic of North Korea and its relationship with South Korea has changed over the years.

To interject a personal note, I recently had the opportunity to hear a three star Air Force general speak about missiles and his concerns, especially in North Korea. He suggested that we should not only be scared of North Korea as a singular country, but of its culture and the culture of its leader, Kim Jong-Un. The general spent some time in South Korea when his career first started. He told us a story of how when he was over there a few decades ago, the South Korean people had a lot of pride in the idea that North Korean would join them once again to become Korea. Now, the South Koreans do not want to be associated with North Korea in many ways. 

He also stated that because of the prolonged suppression and isolation of North Koreans, their language has even started to morph from South Korea’s.

The stem of concern that is most known is the background of the very young leader of North Korea and his influence on the country. The one detail that scares many people is that he went to school in Switzerland.

Why is this a problem?

Because of the time he spent in Switzerland, Kim-Jong-Un not only knows what the Eastern side of the world is like, or even just his country, but he also has experienced how the Western side of the world conducts business and operates.  Much of his life has also been a mystery, as a PBS Frontline article recognizes, “As a boy he was never seen in public. Only a handful of Kim Jong-il’s top officials were even allowed to meet him.”

Courtesy of PBS Frontline

As the world watches on we become increasingly concerned of happenings in the East, especially with the ruler surrounded by such an air of mystery.

Do you think we should move our military focus towards the Korean area and away from the Middle East in light of these progressing events?

Apple, The Apple of the Media's Eye and San Berindino's

I walk out of my Wednesday morning Security and Risk Analysis class and past the TV screen which usually has some CNN News flashingupon the screen. I usually walk past it, but this time it caught my attention. News headlines of Apple refusing to help the FBI unlock the San Bernardino attacker’s iPhone flash upon the screen. This controversial and civic security issue drags me in; I watch the TV and read the subtitles that scroll across the screen so long that I am almost late to my next class.

I did not even know about the San Bernardino attacks before the headline flashed across the screen on Wednesday morning. I guess I have been stuck in the Penn State Blue and White Bubble that the news I hear about is the news that blows up or the news that I want to hear. This blog has helped really come to terms with the fact that I should be keeping up on issues and evaluate the different opinions about the issue at hand to form my own educated opinion, not just an opinion of someone else.

Let’s go back to December, what was the San Bernardino attack and who was it targeted against?

The attack took place on December 2nd, 2015. Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, opened fire around noon on group of San Bernardino County Public Health Department workers during their holiday party that morning. They killed 14 people and wounded around 20 people; making the attack, the biggest and most devastating since the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.

What this have to do with Apple?

If you haven’t read Apple’s Letter to their Customers, then here is the lowdown. Farook, the male attacker, possessed an iPhone. The authorities including the highlighted authority, the FBI, have been using GPS tracking and other information from sites like Facebook to gather information about the attackers, as they were not involved with the law before this incident. Up until this point, Apple, according to its letter and many news outlets, has been chill with helping out the FBI in investigations with its devices.

Now, Apple feels that the FBI has crossed a line of privacy. This time, they think that the only way they can give the FBI what they want/need is by creating a “backdoor” to Apple devices in a whole new version of the operating system. The FBI wants to be able to use a computer that will go through every combination of lock numerical password combinations, so that it cannot unlock the phone and the FBI can see who Farook called or where he went.

You ask, why can’t they do that now?

Do you remember that fancy little message that popped up when you try to “hack” into your best friend’s phone and fail multiple times? You know the message in red that says, you have 10 attempts and then this iPhone will auto-erase. AUTO-ERASE, is the key here. The FBI cannot use a password cruncher if the iPhone erases after 10 times, then all the evidence will be compromised.

There are two sides to this issue, the Apple side and the victim side. Many of the victim’s and the FBI believe that Apple refusing a judge’s request to help unlock the phone severely undermines national security. Many of the victims are outraged because not only do they want some sort of conclusion, but they believe it may provide further insight into how we can protect our country.

Google supports Apple in its decision to not create something that would compromise personal security. Along with the likes of Edward Snowden, who spoke out about Google’s silence on Twitter, before they spoke out. He said, “This is the most important tech case in a decade. Silence means @google picked a side, but it is not the public’s.”

Does keeping silent really speak louder than words? Personally, for this issue, it does.

Both sides of the issue, the Apple side and the victim side, both want the same thing security, but they want in different ways.

I feel as though Apple’s way is cautious and the safe way and the best way to go. I personally do not want my personal information that I keep on my phone, vulnerable to attacks or spying, “big brother” eyes. Opening a backdoor or even the opportunity for one not only creates a way for the FBI to get into the attackers phone, but it also creates future opportunity and temptation for our government and other governments to expand their rights and invade our privacy.

We, The Immigrants, Of The United States

A major debate among presidential candidates, congress, and the public is based around the question of whether or not we should allow Syrian Refugees to take sanctuary and build a life in the United States.

A CNN article published in November of 2015, exclaims that 31 states do not welcome Syrian refugees. Back in November, “authorities revealed that at least one of the suspects believed to be involved in the Paris terrorist attacks entered Europe among the current wave of Syrian refugees. He had falsely identified himself as a Syrian named Ahmad al Muhammad and was allowed to enter Greece in early October”.

The CNN article continues to paint the picture of the forefront of the issue by stating that since 2011 only 1,500 Syrian refugees have been allowed into the US; however, the Obama administration was going to allow 10,000 Syrians entry this year.

The conflict of opinion seems as though it arises from the lack of knowledge among the American people, as well as the concentrated media coverage of what we should be focusing on in terms of letting in refugees.

Over 100,000 civilian Syrians have already been killed in the fight in Syria. Many are worried that it will be their last night alive. Despite the amount of hardship we know the Syrians are facing we continue to become increasingly less supportive of refugees of any kind coming into our country. In 1979 57% of Americans did not support allowing Vietnamese refugees into the United States. A poll taken in November of 2015 reported that more than 60% of Americans did not favor taking in Syrian refugees.

Have the American people become desensitized to the world around them? Do we only take concern when people are flanking our country by taking a “not-in-my-country” stance? Do we not remember what our history was and that our ancestors were all immigrants once? Do we think that our ancestors only moved “just because”?

Focusing on the “not-in-my-country” stance, should we really be concerned about terrorism by Syrian Muslims? The answer is maybe. No one can have a percentage of Muslim terrorists, but that is not to say that Syrian refugees can’t be terrorists. Should America live in fear of the possibility of 10,000 refugees being terrorists? The answer is not simple. Many state governors argue that refugees pose too great of a risk to national security. But what makes it ok for many countries in Europe to offer refuge? Why does religion scare us so much? Why aren’t we more focused on the terrorism that is based off of extremist religious beliefs rather than generally collect all types of the Muslim religion under the terrorist category?

Take for instance this article with the headline: “No Christians: All 132 Syrian Refugees Admitted to U.S. Since Paris Attacks are Sunni Muslims”.

Shouldn’t we be asking if we can actually deal with influx of refugees expected to come, rather than focus on extremist egocentric ideas?

Well, if you are not asking this question, here is the answer from a Business Insider Article from September 2015. Since 2011, most refugees are living in camps on Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt and Iraq, where the UN registers them as refugees. At the time of the article, 18000 of the most vulnerable refugees were referred to the U.S, where the United States Department of Homeland Security screens and interviews them. “Each case file is reviewed by the National Counterterrorism Center” and other agencies. The procedure takes anywhere from 18 to 24 months. “Once refugees are approved, the State Department pays the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to fly them to the United States.” The cost for the screening alone costs the US government, thus far, $1.1 billion dollars resettling 70,000 people.

With an issue like the Syrian Immigrant Crisis continuing to be on the rise. We must put all the facts out on the table before sound opinion can be made. We must weigh the costs and the benefits and really leave all things considered.