TheAgitator.com
28 Responses to “Matt Fogg, U.S. Marshal, Member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Site Features
- Home
- About Radley Balko
- Publications
- Speaking Info
- Multimedia
- Resume
- Picasa Photos
- Recommendations
- RSS Feed
- Buy Agitator Gear
-
-
$12/month Recurring Donation
$6/month Recurring Donation
- My Amazon wishlist
-
Site Credits
Thanks Radley. It’s nice to be reminded not all cops are corrupt.
these LEAP guys seem pretty impressive.
Ethnic cleansing! Amen!
Nice.
However, the TX border guards just got their sentences commuted by Bush.
That’s a shame about the border guards.
It’s nice to hear that ACORN is actually working on something worthwhile, though I still think they’re a bunch of douchebags (see, e.g., when they sought to exempt themselves from the very living wage ordinance they worked to pass in the first place).
Before watching the video, which I’m sure is as excellent as all LEAP speakers I’ve ever seen, I’d just like to note the humor of the ACLU meeting under a huge, somewhat creepy crucifix.
Thanks for bringing me back to reality Edmund, I was starting to feel all warm and fuzzy about our law enforcement.
At least it was “only” a commutation. They’ll still never where a badge again.
–ARCraig#7–That is a pretty awesome crucifix, but you’re not suggesting that there’s something inconsistent or ironic about the ACLU having their meeting in a church, or in the same building as a giant odd looking crucifix, are you? I’m not sure I get the joke, but maybe I’m just taking things a little too seriously.
Without looking at the video, I’m betting from the look of the crucifix that it’s a Unitarian-Universalist church.
Is there any interesting backstory on how/why Fogg became a former marshal?
Oddly, he’s the agent that comments about the Elian Gonzalez capture for CNN. Search his name on Google.
The big telegenic cross in the background…nice touch. Going for the Huckabee effect. Smooth move ACLU. .I thought the ACLU melted at the sight of a cross. I stand corrected.
http://www.rightklik.net/
I understand he has a conscience. It’s a definite handicap in law enforcement.
Great speech..
He received 4 million in a settlement? I would like to know more about what happened.. if anyone has a link.
peace..
Brian
I like this man. And I like what he has to say, right down to the ground.
I’d be proud and honored to shake his hand.
“Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice, and when they fail in this purpose, they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Thanks for featuring Matt Fogg, Radley. This is a most relevant post for Martin Luther King day. Mr. Fogg, thank you for your service, thank you for your candor, and thank you for your courage!
I just started the New Year right by donating to LEAP. I am currently an Associate Member of LEAP, and I will become a regular member if I become a law enforcement officer in the near future (right now I’m a private officer at a midwestern hospital, but I don’t believe I can accomplish my goals in the private sector). I cannot thank LEAP enough for the work they are doing. In the lead up to the inauguration, I have heard that old phrase about standing on the shoulders of giants more than once. That is how I feel when I see speakers from LEAP. If the drug war is to be curtailed, peace officers of good will won’t be able to wait for politicians, or even fellow citizens, to make the case. We will have to take it upon ourselves! When the common foot soldier tells the people that the war is an abject, immoral, failure, then the legitimacy of that war will finally be called into question by society at large.
If I begin serving as a peace officer soon, I will stick to my guns and continue to oppose the “drug war” and other aspects of American policing which threaten our liberties and alienate our communities. And I will have the courage to do so, because people like Matt Fogg and others affiliated with LEAP have led the way for a new generation of officers/ deputies/ troopers/ agents, etc. to openly oppose policies that are ineffective, counterproductive, and unethical.
I also have Mr. Balko and regular readers of the Agitator to thank. Everyone should be able to step back and examine his profession from a critical perspective, and visiting this blog on a regular basis has certainly helped me in that endeavor. So let’s keep up the fight, until justice rolls on like rivers, and righteousness flows like a mighty stream.
The Mexicans are starting to catch on that the drug cartels and government are in league. So, everyday people are now taking matters upon themselves.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090119/wl_nm/us_mexico_drugs
I will watch with interest. My money’s on the government treating the vigilantes like the CIA treats its “guests.”
#1 | nobahdi | January 19th, 2009 at 11:44 am
“Thanks Radley. It’s nice to be reminded not all cops are corrupt.”
The only cops who are corrupt are the ones who accept payment in the form of tax dollars.
How many incorrupt cops does that leave?
#19 Cynical: “The only cops who are corrupt are the ones who accept payment in the form of tax dollars.
How many incorrupt cops does that leave?”
Cynical, are you familiar with the phrase “buzz kill?”
Look, unless you want to contribute to the police bake sale or chilli supper, I guess the cops (and firefighters in departments of any size) are going to have to rely on tax dollars to fund public safety operations for awhile. I’m all for finding ways to reduce the tax burden (especially income taxation; remember, I have Georgist tendencies!) and I get frustrated when PD’s and other govt. entities are wasteful. But even if we end the wars on drugs and vice tomorrow, there will still be bar fights, people will still beat their spouses, children and dementia patients will still wander off, and drunks will still get behind the wheel. What shall we do then? Draw straws to see who gets to break up the drunken mob. Politely knock on your neighbors door and ask him to stop throttling his wife? Flash your lights at the drunken driver in the hopes that he will swerve in the other direction instead of hitting you?
And don’t forget, Cynical, cops are taxpayers too. Yep, they contribute to their own salaries. Trust me on this one, my father was a police officer, and I saw him filling out tax forms every year. It’s not as if they get a free pass just because they are the POlice! Ok, I’m done now. But instead of taking pot shots at the police for showing up for work, maybe you could offer some practical suggestions for reducing the costs of law enforcement.
#18 Cynical: “The Mexicans are starting to catch on that the drug cartels and government are in league. So, everyday people are now taking matters upon themselves.”
Or the Mexicans are starting to catch on that the drug cartels and THEIR government are in league. Maybe people are “taking matters upon themselves” because THEIR government is corrupt and is not protecting them. It doesn’t necessarily follow that the people are endorsing anarchism. I think you may be conflating your desires with those of a people currently under siege. They are just tired of their family, friends and co-workers being kidnapped and killed by gangsters. I sympathize with these folks, and I support the right to self-defense. But where do you draw the line?
I certainly support the right of these folks to band together to protect each other from the drug gangs. But is it ok for them to do “pre-emptive strikes?” Would it be ok for them to torture people who may or may not be involved w/ drug cartels? Would it be permissible for these businessman to start killing family members of drug lords? Tit for tat, body for body. Where do you draw the line?
There should be minimum standards of behavior for private citizens and government officials, Cynical. On The Agitator, we constantly see examples of what happens when government agencies/agents are not held accountable. But what about private citizens? Justice is a very subjective concept. If someone breaks into my car, I would ask for restitution and pehaps a brief period of monitoring for the offender (probation). Others would go all Hammurabi on the the burglar. You know, lopping off hands, whipping, disemboweling, etc..
Minimum standards, Cynical! That is why I support the existence of some government, mostly involved in matters of public health and safety. As Paine suggested governments aren’t formed because we are perfect angels. It should exist to restrain people from hurting or defrauding their neighbors, and to aid citizens in the event of other emergencies. And in turn, the people must also have the tools to restrain their government. Therein lies the challenge.
“instead of taking pot shots at the police for showing up for work, maybe you could offer some practical suggestions for reducing the costs of law enforcement.”
First, it is simply a fact that taxes are armed robbery. Nothing in the world can change that. If you want to argue that the world needs to be ordered by violence, then speak up and say it instead of hiding behind fancy words like tax, democracy, etc. It is all VIOLENCE.
Second, I have offered practical sugggestions for reducing the cost of law enforcement, as have countless other anarchist thinkers and economists — privatize everything. No government. If there is a market for a good or service, then the market will be the most efficient and least violent method of providing the good or service.
Helmut, you could accuse me of the same thing, but you are stuck in your ideology. At least be honest about it and admit that you see violence as a necessity of human coexistence.
“There should be minimum standards of behavior for private citizens and government officials, Cynical.”
There you go, Helmut, using the word “should,” aka “ought.” Who decides? Everything is subjective. There are no normative opinions, much as you would like to think there are.
In the Statist system, the powerful decide. And they ALWAYS decide according to their own best interests.
If you are arguing that the Mexican citizen vigilantes are merely replacing the existing drug cartel/government State with their own State, then I agree with you. Unless the violence ends at some point and they learn to cooperate voluntarily.
I have admitted to extreme pessimism in the past, my opinion has not changed. Recognizing the problem is the first step to recovery, and that requires an adherence to truth.
Social norms arise through cooperation, and they arise through violence. Which is preferable?
As for restraining government, it is impossible. There is no way to create a minarchy and keep it that way. Power always institutionalizes itself and then seeks to maintain the institution at all costs.
You call it a challenge. I call it insanity. I lay the miserable condition of human society at the State’s feet.
Oh well, I guess we agree to disagree.
I bet he is a former US Marshal and not a currently serving one.
Cynical in California: “First, it is simply a fact that taxes are armed robbery.”
It is a fact in YOUR mind. Do you speak of direct income taxation (the “fruits of one’s labor”) or are you also including excise taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc. I believe there are fairer ways to fund basic government services (that’s why I’m interested in land rent, an idea that pops up not just in Georgist circles, but in Paine’s Agrarian Justice). But if you are suggesting that we should suddenly de-fund government, you are probably condemning a lot of people to death, so it may be premature for you to mount your moral high horse.
In this way, you are the Right-wing cousin of the Left-wing Anarcho-Primitivists (think Ted “The Unabomber” Kawzynski), who would put an end to the industrial age, and kill millions in the process so they can organize (peacefully, they assure us) their beloved autonomous collectives. They would say that “property is theft.” I believe both propositions are extremist slogans, and sloganeering doesn’t solve anything. Often, it just alienates your potential allies.
“Helmut, you could accuse me of the same thing, but you are stuck in your ideology.”
Precisely. You are stuck in your ideology. We are simply talking past each other. Actually, I think at this point I have given more consideration to your ideas than you have to mine. I would also add that the divide between people like me (liberals who are moving back to the classical interpretation of the word) and anarchists like you is more cavernous than I anticipated. I was naive.
“Oh well, I guess we agree to disagree.”
I don’t know if that’s possible. When someone claims that if I enter a field I am rather well trained for that I will AUTOMATICALLY become a corrupt thug, then I can’t exactly take that lying down. I am used to being verbally abused, and sometimes it is best to ignore slights and insults. But there are times when I believe a response is imperative. For example, I won’t let people suggest that I’m a racist or a sexist without responding. This is a similar situation. I can’t just brush of being identified as a criminal, just because of the career I (may) choose. I have seen the limitations of private “law enforcement” first hand. That is the main reason I insist that your preferred solution won’t work. And as for violence, I will close with a quote from George Orwell: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
The vigilantes will end up getting themselves and their family killed. This will actually lead to more deaths. Why do they think they can take on a well armed, well paid narco militia? Death toll 10,000 in Mexico next year? Death of many more innocents will occur because of all this lunacy!
Helmut good luck if you go LEO. I’m ex and it would seem, with your values, you will have about the same success I had.
When confronted with verbal or written abuse, always remain above the fray.
And, never feed the anarchist trolls. Their hunger knows no bounds.
Edin, thanks for the (measured) encouragement, brother. Ditto for the advice. I checked out your blog, and that means a lot coming from a guy with your background. I know the road ahead could get rocky, which is why I’ll make sure to have plan B, C, etc.. Forgetting my principles, however, will not be an option. But as someone recently advised, I’ll also make sure not to go in appearing to self-righteous or dogmatic.
As for my responses to Cynical, all I can say is that I think I gave it an honest shot. If there’s one thing I have in common with the new Prez (there are probably a few things; I remain cautiously optimistic) it is the desire to talk to and debate people from various ideological backgrounds. I tried to remain above the fray and go point by point, but I’m sure I faltered a bit.