The Victorious Opposition

The military tribunal system, although not perfect, is a workable model for trying the 9/11 plotters.  The more Obama’s anti-terror methods resemble Bush’s—and sometimes exceed them—the more I like it.

Top advisers to President Obama are close to a decision recommending that the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks be prosecuted in a military tribunal, The Washington Post reported Friday, citing unnamed administration officials.

When Hamdan had his tribunal, I was impressed both by how effectively the judge handled Hamdan’s hysterics as well as the prosecution’s fumbling of evidence.  It was a fair trial in a venue that met the demands set by the federal courts, and resulted in an equitable sentence.  Furthermore, it demonstrated that the use of coercive interrogation techniques can still result in a conviction even if they are barred from evidence.  Critics of the tribunal system falsely claim that torture would somehow be condoned with these tribunals.  It’s just not so.

Bush, for his faults, gave Obama all the tools he needs to fight and control international terrorism.  The curve has been sharp, but Obama and the Democrats are learning to accept and use them properly.  If this actually comes to pass (it is, after all, in the rumor stage), I’ll say “kudos” to Obama for managing to make the right choice despite his best efforts not to.

UPDATE: Two of them actually.  One is that dwex has correctly pointed out that the Obama Administration never ruled using military tribunals; only that they’ve never been clear about who or under what circumstances the proceedings would be used.  A more accurate headline would be “Obama Administration Will Subject KSM to a Tribunal After All”.  My own observation is that there are so many different versions that this Administration has presented regarding its attitude toward tribunals that it has been impossible to know for sure if they’ll actually do one.  However, dwex is entirely correct that it has been the stated policy of the Obama Administration to not rule out the use of military tribunals since last year.

Second thing is that Senators McCain and Lieberman are preparing a bill that may take discretion away from the White House in prosecuting terrorists with regard to federal trials vs military tribunals:

Under the proposed legislation, individuals who are deemed to be “suspected unprivileged enemy belligerents” would be held in military custody, interrogated for possible intelligence and tried in a military court

...

(Critics have) expressed concerns that some proposals in Congress could delay interrogations of suspects and that prosecutorial discretion has been a function of the executive branch and Congress should not restrict it.

It’s basically another balance of power issue similar to the one dwex and I have been having over the Executive branch against the Judicial.  This one is Executive against Legislative.  I favor the use of these tribunals for the battlefield detainees, naturally, but I don’t think it’s a great idea to take away the Administration’s discretion with regard to guys like Abdulmullatab.  Yes, he had significant al-Qaeda ties and direction, but there are enough special circumstances in his case (e.g. the suspect’s father’s assistance in gaining cooperation) that it would be better to leave it to a federal court.  For circumstances like KSM, when the defendant is clearly going to try to create a circus and there are huge security concerns, it’s impossible for me to imagine anything but a military tribunal.

Manwhore asked me to post my thoughts about this:

After six years of protracted litigation, women in Maricopa County Jail — you know, the one run by the infamous Sherriff Joe Arpaio — have finally (hopefully) secured their constitutional right to obtain an abortion.

Arpaio has been sued and lost several time, including having the SCOTUS refuse to hear his appeals. So he simply disregarded the court orders. And so he created a new roadblock - making the women pay, up front, for their own transportation. And got sued again. And lost (last October). At the time he threatened to appeal, but now it appears that he’s not going to.

Most likely he’ll throw up some new obstacle and get himself sued again.

This one is an interesting challenge for those who believe in the rule of law. Abortion is legal; it’s the law of the land. A court has ordered him to provide access, and he’s flaunting the court’s order. If you believe in the rule of law, what Arpaio is doing is wrong. He doesn’t get to choose which laws he will enforce and which he won’t, or which court orders he will follow and which he won’t. Given Arpaio’s history of flaunting the law, this isn’t really surprising. I know his constituents are big fans of his thumbing his nose at the law, but that doesn’t make them right.

Man o’ man, this story is a pretty damning accusation.

A San Antonio police officer was arrested Thursday night after a transgendered man accused him of rape while the officer was on duty, authorities said.

Officer Craig Nash, 39, has been charged with sexual assault and official oppression. Bail was set at $27,500. He was released from Bexar County Jail after posting a bond. Police said Nash does not have a history of disciplinary action. He is the second San Antonio police officer arrested this year.

Last month, Bandera County deputies arrested Joe Angel Serrato, 36, on a charge of driving under the influence.

“This is a slap in the face to every good police officer, every command officer, to the public and to the victim,” said Police Chief William McManus, who was visibly frustrated as he announced Nash’s arrest Friday morning. “This is about as hard a slap in the face as you could possibly get.”

McManus said the incident wasn’t reflective of the department’s culture but was instead the result of a single officer’s bad behavior.

I’ve got to give this chief his credit, he admonished the idea and distinguished this guy from the rest of the pack. If this happened out here in Los Angeles we wouldn’t get much out of the chief aside from a letter to recite from the Union.

The evidence used to book “Dan-o” here is pretty damning:

The complainant, who authorities say is a prostitute, told police that Nash handcuffed him in the back of a marked patrol car before taking the him to an unknown location and forcing him to engage in multiple sexual acts, the affidavit states. Nash reportedly was wearing his police uniform at the time.

The man told police that after the assault occurred, the suspect dropped off the victim at a nearby school on Guadalupe Street.

The affidavit states that the alleged victim then took a bus to a police substation to report the incident, telling officers Nash “wasn’t going to get away with this.”

The affidavit states the complainant was able to pick Nash out of a police lineup and that police used a Global Positioning System to confirm that Nash’s vehicle was in the area at the time of the alleged incident.

Nash has been placed on administrative leave with pay pending the outcome of an investigation.

I both love and hate the idea that his GPS is being used against him in the case, but it’s not his property, it’s the property of the city I would assume. One more thing that I’d like to point out is the “paid administrative leave” we see here again. This is a travesty I hope to see removed for any cop under investigation for wrong doing. This happens here in Los Angeles and it frosts my ass. They should be on un-paid leave until the investigation is over.

I’m a little late to the game on this one, wanting to review the entire final commentary Associate Deputy AG David Margolis. A large number of outlets have been reporting this as a vindication of Yoo and Bybee. It’s not. It’s an severe indictment of the OPR process (or more correctly, lack thereof), and it overrules their recommendation to refer Yoo and Bybee to their state bar associations for professional misconduct. But Margolis concludes that these memos are highly flawed, particularly Yoo’s positions on executive authority. The basic conclusion is that error and flawed argument do not rise to the level of professional misconduct, and that if the state bar associations want to look into the matter, they should, but the DoJ won’t refer Yoo and Bybee to the bar.

You can get review all of the OPR documents at this House Judiciary Committee link. Margolis’ report is the one titled “Memorandum for the Attorney General”; it’s a 70 page PDF file and not a horrible read.

Before I go into my review, let me throw out this caveat. I am really confused about something stated by both the OPR’s report and Margolis’ review thereof, and I’m hoping that someone with more experience with clearances and document confidentiality can clear this up for me. I might change my opinions of the results if someone explains this to me in a way that changes my understanding of process. Specifically, the initial Bybee memo was created in two versions - a classified version (the one that reviewed the details of the specific techniques identified by the CIA) and an unclassified one (which covered the general principles and the law, without discussing specifics). Both OPR and Margulis contend that these two documents must be reviewed together to draw conclusions. This doesn’t make any sense to me. Isn’t the entire purpose of having a classified and an unclassified version so that the documents can be reviewed by different audiences, the audience for the unclassified document being broader than that for the classified one? Otherwise, why would there be two versions?

Before you begin, I want to state that this video is real violence. For our resident security people, I wanted to ask a question about who gets charged in this situation. I did have it that the black guy hit first, but when the old guy gets up, he unloaded a can of whoop ass on the black guy. I don’t know if that could be considered excessive, but I do feel like the black guy got what he was asking for. An ass kicking.

I couldn’t quite make out the very beginning of the tape, or whether it was provoked by some race baiting coming from the old dude. In the end, to me, this is one of those life lessons in under estimating people. That old timer meant what he said, and even reminded the black dude after he whipped his ass like he owed him money. “I told you not to f*ck with me!,” the old dude proclaimed.

He meant it.

Update:
I’m adding another video below the fold, this one from a black guy that agrees with me. This isn’t really some racial incident, this is two people getting into a fight and one man getting his block knocked off by a crazy old timer. The guy in the next video points out that the old timer has a Marine tattoo on his arm.

I’d like to add that the funniest part of the video is where the O.G. basically tells the black dude “This old man’ll whip yo’ Ass!!” He was warned. 

Update:
Exclusively at the VO, may I present to you Epic Beard Man’s doodle page. What an artist he is.

Stripper, prevaricator, and all round POS Crystal Mangum still can’t seem to get a break. Having her Duke lacrosse rape claim pot of gold dry up, she now is in trouble for not obeying that classic parental warning, do not play with matches.

Durham police arrested Duke lacrosse accuser Crystal Gale Mangum, 33, late Wednesday after she allegedly assaulted her boyfriend, set his clothes on fire in a bathtub and threatened to stab him.

Her bond was set at $1 million. Mangum has been appointed a public defender and is scheduled to appear in court on Feb. 22.

Police charged her with attempted first-degree murder, five counts of arson, assault and battery, communicating threats, three counts of misdemeanor child abuse, injury to personal property, identity theft and resisting a public officer.

Class act, I must say. While it is no surprise that Crystal and bad luck are joined at the hip, this whole episode is yet another reminder that we still have no laws in place that prohibit human excrement from breeding and raising children. This women sowed 3 kids, innocents who had no say in who their mother would be yet will be forever handicapped by the process. Talk about starting life with two strikes against you.

We are also reminded of that whole sordid mess at Durham, thoroughly chronicled in this book that I read a few years ago.

Not only do we witness the ugly side of diversity, the liberal politically correct mentality of most humanities studies in our universities, but the mob mentality in action and how a rush to judgment is so easy in an environment that fosters victimhood and reparation. We see an out of control district attorney and police department, who had made up their mind due to what was politically expedient to their careers and went out of their way, even breaking the law, in fulfillment of their own agenda. We see media whores like that pig Wendy Murphy, a self proclaimed champion for victim’s rights (who had no sympathy for the real victims here) going on Foxnews, CNN, and MSNBC extolling the guilt of these rich kid frat boys, even backing Niphong when it as clear he was breaking the law.

Some good did come out of this, a jailed, disbarred and disgraced D.A., a Durham Police Department being federally investigated and placed on a 10 year supervisory probation, and the 3 victims being financially remunerated through a civil suit against the university and their cowardly president. But no jail time for Crystal, no apology for making the whole thing up and ruining the lives of three kids, and no contrition.

Justice may be slow and plodding, but hopefully it will be equitable, and deal with Crystal now, as she needs the attention.

There are times when you have to evaluate where you stand in your career and decide if it’s time to try something different; explore new opportunities.  Other times, you figure out that you just suck at your job and really need to do something else.  For this guy, it was when a septagenarian beat his punk ass while he was robbing a store.

Watch here.  Fox News embedded videos have been known to cause problems on the VO Home Page so I’m just using a link.

I wonder if the Seattle Transit Authority will call her up?

I really would like to know.

...the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their–or at least their cell phones’–whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that “a customer’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records” that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

Understand that I think the DOJ has it right.  If the phone company is willing to voluntarily GIVE those records to investigators, no warrant is needed.  The records belong to the phone companies, not the persons under surveillance.

Humorously, this was the same argument Bush’s NSA used for the electronic surveillance program and it was correct then too.  Only now, it’s not being used for intelligence gathering but for prosecution of American common criminals.  It leads me again to ask the question: is this what you Obama supporters thought would happen?  Please tell me how you feel about this.

UPDATE:   I should probably qualify one part of this.  Last night, I delved a bit deeper into this case and recognized a difference between this situation and the NSA program.  The Obama DOJ is still getting court orders to review the records while the Bush NSA didn’t get warrants or court orders; the telecoms freely provided the information on request (except for Qwest) in the latter case.

The use of court orders doesn’t really change anything here from a 4th Amendment perspective.  As federal law puts it:

A governmental entity may require a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications) only when the governmental entity…obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section;  A court order for disclosure…may be issued by any court that is a court of competent jurisdiction only if the governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.

This is less than the “probable cause” standard needed for a warrant.  Differences between a court order and a warrant are that law enforcement does not need to provide advance notice with a warrant and the telecoms can challenge an order before complying with it.  Overall, it’s in their best interest to comply with an order since they get complete immunity and compensation for doing so.  So I have to admit that I was wrong when I wrote that the telecoms can simply “give” the information to law enforcement.  They can’t in criminal investigations.  I got thrown off because I was still trying to have the old NSA warrantless wiretapping argument (where that was being done).

Still, the Obama DOJ and I both agree that the information regarding a suspect’s calls from past locations belongs to the telecoms and they may release it without a warrant.  There is no 4th Amendment issue here.

Thousands of protesters formed a human chain in Dresden on Saturday, determined to stop neo-Nazis from exploiting the German city’s painful history on the 65th anniversary of its deadly Allied bombing in World War II.

I say “ironically” because the anti-Nazi protestors don’t seem to be strangers to Brownshirt tactics themselves:

There were some minor skirmishes, with some barricades set ablaze but quickly extinguished, and a car flipped over. A busload of far-right supporters was turned back after its headlights and windows were smashed.

Police reported some minor injuries, including people hit by rocks, but said the opposing sides were largely kept separated.

Several uniformed Nazi Party members were forced to jump off a bridge and into a river after two Caucasian men dressed like “Hasidic diamond merchants” driving in a 1974 Dodge Monaco plowed their vehicle toward them.

I probably added that last sentence.

Another ironic aspect of this is that the Nazis were the ones responsible for Dresden being destroyed in the first place thanks to their hero’s reckless aggression.  Not being content with having started the war and waged terror bombing of London with relish, they now want to wear the victim mantle?  Fuck ‘em. 

Just in case you’ve been taking Obama’s advice and not watching CNN or Fox News, here’s the video and article.

Now, I know it looks bad and there has been no consensus even among my immediate coworkers about whether or not the security guards did the right thing or not.  In my opinion, they did do the right thing and I’ll explain why.

First of all, unless it is expressly written into the security post orders that guards can use physical force to defend others; the security guards risk being held personally liable for claims of excessive force, wrongful detention, battery, etc.  It appears that these guards were limited in that way.  Had they intervened, they would have been violating work rules and probably would have gotten fired.

Second, an organization’s decision to use security guards who are only supposed to “observe and report” is usually based on cost.  Insurance companies that provide liability insurance for guard services (and I think there are only two in the US) will increase premiums for security companies that authorize use of force.  Consequently, many security providers and clients try to be as restrictive as humanly possible on ever going hands-on.  In this case, it would be best to blame the transit authority for going with the lowest bidder.

Third, the security guards were outnumbered.  It wasn’t simply a fight between two girls.  There was a whole pack of (what the law considers to be) adults watching and waiting in the wings.  I’ve personally witnessed instances of security officers jumping into fights and getting attacked by bystanders sympathetic to the bad guys.  If the guards weren’t trained or equiped to handle even a low level of violence (and it doesn’t appear that they were), they could have gotten seriously hurt by intervening.

Finally, the only thing security guards (like any other citizen) are obligated do when they witness a crime is call 911.  That’s really it.  If they do that, they’ve done their job and the career of any would-be Paul Blart’s frequently get cut short.  I’ve worked armed security and witnessed all sorts of violence firsthand but often chose only to summon aid without even trying to stop it.  Usually, it was because of tactical considerations since I did have the backing of policy, training, and equipment to deal with most incidents; but when it came to deadly force, our company policy was that we could only shoot someone if ourselves or another security officer were in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm.  Beyond that, we could watch someone get shot down in the street 50 feet away, write down what details we could, notify the police, and nobody could tell us we were wrong.

Given the simultaneously violent and over-litigious society we live in, I cannot find fault with those three guards. 

OK, the images were not of Naomi Watts ( that’s the only Aussie babe I could think of), more like Asian porn? I can’t tell.

But this is just too good for words and it begs the question ,“What was this guy thinking?”. There is clearly at least two women working on the floor in close proximity (that I counted) which would be fast tracking their butts right to H.R. if they saw any of this. Aside from goofing off at work, fostering a hostile work environment ( I believe that is the correct parlance ) is something management every where goes ballistic over.

And how about that ,“Oh, shit” look we get at the end?

I see ‘roo poaching in this guy’s future.

I can understand if he was ogling naked pics of Chris Bath…...............crikey!!!!!

Many of the ill informed, those that think “Training Day” is accurate and shows how it really is done on the streets, may harbor some bogus ideas on what the police can and can not do, allow me to help out.

First, remember this:

In cop world, this is as good as it gets, being left alone, not being shot at, being far removed from smelly obnoxious drunks, imbibing and nourishing one’s self with the nectar of the gods. And yes, it is bad form to crack any donut jokes in our presence, despite the fact that we know every donut created by man and can give you a minute breakdown at to when the local places remove the fresh baked every day, we don’t want our noses rubbed in it. We carry PR-24’s and have the power to pretty much F__k up your entire day, so be civil.

One of the best web sites ever made has a very insightful piece on 7 bullshit police myths that everyone should be aware of, take notes.

Hollywood has never been afraid to sacrifice realism for the sake of an entertaining story. And since pretty much every movie or TV show features the police in some way, we as an audience get fed a lot of total horseshit about how the law works and how cops operate in the USA.

But as most of us are on the outside of the judicial system (for the moment) we usually don’t even realize that what we’re being told is incorrect.

It’s worse than that, blogs have done more than their fair share of spreading dis information, stuff that will empower you right into a smelly jail cell. All this stuff here is pretty accurate. Although different states have different rules, there is a uniformity since most procedures and guidelines are mandated by federal law.

Regarding #7, when dealing with physical evidence at a crime scene, it is important to understand that when somebody enters your crime scene, they are bringing stuff in that does not belong there, same with leaving, they are taking something out that might help you. This is why they try to preserve it and keep out the fire guys and the paramedics, if at all possible.

Regarding #5, I have read of certain hubris on blogs (maybe some think so here as well)  of certain people possessing the opinion that nothing good can come from talking to cops and that they will never ever saying anything to them, even when stopped. I have never understood this attitude. As the article makes clear, there are times when you are required to discourse, and if not, off you go. But there are many legitimate reasons why you would want to help, if you witness a crime or can provide material information that would help a victim. Or, if narcissism is you motto in life and you find yourself on the wrong end of an accusation, and you are innocent, by all means, blab away.  Say you are driving home from a late night business meeting,  stopped a mile from home by the cops and get pulled out the wing window by gunpoint, if your attitude is ,“I ain’t saying shit”, then you will get your car impounded and will spend the night in the slammer. But if your brain works somewhat logically and you demand to know whats going on, they will inform you that 15 minutes ago there was a liquor store robbery in the area and a guy matching your description fled the scene in a car kinda like this one. You then identify yourself, explain that you were in a business meeting, here is the address and phone number, and after a few minutes of corroboration, you are uncuffed and sent on your merry way with an apology. So let’s see, a good story to tell the wife, or a bad experience that you will remember for the rest of your life?

All of the other ones are also accurate and informative. The only quibble I would have with #2 is that Miranda will usually be read even to already arrested suspects, both to inform about the attorney being provided and if any other questions need to be asked, which is usually always the case.

I’m not going to say ,“we are here to help you”, as with government, any exertion of authority should not be taken lightly, but certain common sense things like not spitting into the wind or tugging on Superman’s cape should be re iterated from time to time. I have never ever heard anyone regale with an arrest story with a punctuation of “Good Time”.

It appears that at least part of the reason for the uptick in bombings in Baghdad may be due to the Iraqis having been sold a completely bogus explosive-detection device at $40,000 each - more than $80MM worth. Basically a dowsing rod for explosives. Watch this BBC video and be really, really angry.

If you ever doubt whether there are people sufficiently evil to warrant the death penalty, this should answer the question.

He’s been arrested for fraud, but is out on bail. I want to know why he wasn’t arrested for giving aid to terrorists, murder, conspiracy, etc.

H/T: TechCrunch

The case is United States v. Comstock. The question briefed was:

Whether Congress had the constitutional authority to enact 18 U.S.C. 4248, which authorizes court-ordered civil commitment by the federal government of (1) “sexually dangerous” persons who are already in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, but who are coming to the end of their federal prison sentences, and (2) “sexually dangerous” persons who are in the custody of the Attorney General because they have been found mentally incompetent to stand trial.

This case is interesting because it pits a “law & order” view of the role/responsibility of government against the “limited powers” view of government in a way that makes both the “traditional left” and “traditional right” have to answer some really tough questions. For example, if “law & order” takes precedence in your thinking, you might think this is a good law - even though it can be seen as a large Federal overreach. Conversely, if “defendants’ rights” takes precedence for you, you might find this a horrible law - even though overturning it means curtailing the power of Congress.

As a libertarian, I find this a horrid law, period. I think the idea of committing someone this way is a legal fiction - if they are really a persistent danger to society, man up and change the criminal code to keep them incarcerated, don’t game the system. And I also find this sort of thing a large overreach, a kind of double-dip that violates a basic Constitutional premise about double jeopardy.

This review of the oral arguments indicates that this may well get decided on “scope of Congressional powers” grounds rather than “law & order”/“defendants’ rights” grounds:

It is also an opportunity for the court to clarify its vision of the scope of the Constitution’s necessary and proper clause. The clause gives Congress the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution ... powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States.”

...

Mr. Dubois urged the justices to reject such an expansive view of the necessary and proper clause.

Justice Antonin Scalia was an enthusiastic ally for Dubois.

At one point he told the solicitor general: “This is a recipe for the federal government taking over everything.”

Justice Scalia said the necessary and proper clause doesn’t exist in the Constitution to authorize the federal government to do whatever is necessary and proper for the good of society. Rather, he said, the clause is designed to authorize federal action tied to an enumerated power of the national government.

...

On the other side of the argument, Justice John Paul Stevens expressed skepticism of Dubois’s narrow conception of federal power under the necessary and proper clause. What if a prisoner has a communicable disease? Justice Stevens asked. Can the Bureau of Prisons keep him behind bars beyond his prison term to protect the community?

Justice Stephen Breyer asked whether the federal government had the power to set up a series of mental hospitals across the country to facilitate the civil commitment of individuals threatening suicide or murder.

“I don’t think the federal government has that power,” Dubois answered.

Why? Breyer asked. “Where in the Constitution is it prohibited?”

To be honest, I find a certain degree of merit in both sides of that argument. Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy had this analysis:

Just based on my recollections of the argument, I thought SG Kagan made a much broader Article I power argument at oral argument than was made in the Government’s brief. Indeed, her argument struck me as sort of shockingly broad: She argued that the Constitution gives the federal government the general power “to run a responsible criminal justice system,” and that anything Congress plausibly thought a part of running a “responsible criminal justice system” was within the scope of federal power. Justice Scalia would have none of it, as you might imagine, but I couldn’t tell if he had any other votes.

My guess from the argument is that the Court will uphold the statute on the narrower grounds offered by the Government’s brief. If I had to make a more specific guess on a vote and opinion assignments, I would guess that it ends up being 7–2, with Scalia and Thomas dissenting. And I’ll go out on a limb and say Chief Justice Roberts will assign the majority opinion to Alito or Kennedy. But these are obviously just guesses, which I’ll remind you of if I get it right but forget if I get it wrong.

I read that analysis as perhaps indicating that the “law & order” conservative Justices will join with the “expansive powers” Justices to uphold the law. It’s an interesting take. I’m not expert on these matters, but if I had to guess, without having seen that analysis, I would have predicted this to be another 5-4 decision with Kennedy as the swing vote, and not really sure which side he’d vote with.

To the untrained eye, this may look like all fun and games, but Haz mat spills can be a very risky. There is a lot of bad shit out there being transported on our highways and 2000 lbs of spilled slut is about as bad as it gets. Just the notifications necessary is mind boggling, Caltrans, EPA, CDC, Fish and Game, even the Coast Guard (any of those skanks falls into the water supply…..Armageddon).

Thank God there was a light pole in the area, turn on a little “Girliscious” on the PA and they all get out of the roadway, negating any traffic hazards.

BTW, good advice from that female newscaster at the end. And you guys wonder why we drink.

H/T: theonion