Just as a side note this would only affect military personnel who are under laws a normal citizen would not be bound to - the UCMJ which actually take's away many rights.

I don't know if they "legally" can fire him for the sole reason of his KKK membership. Although I believe he should be fired for his involvement with the KKK. Isn't there a background check asking officer's if they are racist? I recall someone I know wanted to become an officer and they asked him all sorts of questions about his background and attitude toward criminals.

I highly doubt being a card carrying member of the KKK will not affect your decision making process while performing your duties, whether at work or at home.

An interesting concept, but how exactly do we constitute the Thought Police to determine who the "hate groups" are?

How about Tolerance.Org?

They've listed the following as "hate groups":

Traditional Values Coalition

American Border Patrol

Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints

Save Our State

National Policy Institute

Sorry, but I disagree that they are that different. Whether elected or appointed/hired, they are charged by the citizenry to perform certain duties on our behalf. It is the potential for real or perceived wrongdoing in the performance of those duties, not the method of hire (election vs. civil service) that is the basis for the arguments to can the man, including yours. Now, if you want to argue that because Nebraska has soundly and explicitly rejected any KKK members at the ballot box, it would not be unreasonable to assert that they would also reject one as a trooper. Thus far, no one has made that argument, one that clearly wouldn't fly in either West Virginia or Louisiana.

I'd classify hate organizations as those which advocate violence and have a known history of violence against groups of people based solely on their religion, sex, or ethnicity. Doesn’t seem a terribly difficult hurdle. If an accused could use testimony that his/her arresting officer was a member of such a group in a court of law, and receive acquittal based on that testimony on reasonable grounds of bias, then such membership interferes with the officer’s job and compromises the security of the public.

I won't argue that we should have higher standards for those we elect to office. I disagree that the fact that we hold our elected officials to low standards indicates that anyone else in a position of authority is exempt from higher standards. Currently, a convicted felon could run for office, or a gambling addict, or a drunk for that matter. Setting the bar so low presents some obvious practical limitations.

The fact is, in the interest of security we screen for the “potential of real or perceived wrongdoing in the performance of duties” all of the time. It’s the reason hospital staff and military are required to take urine drug tests…even if they show no signs of a problem or likely ever would, it’s the risk which is unacceptable for certain fields where so much is at stake. It’s the reason the military doesn’t condone fraternization or adultery, for that matter…the potential deleterious effects on morale and conflict of interest, not to police sex acts or hinder freedom of association.

Yeah, what about those previously listed "hate groups?" Do they deserve to be negatively labeled like that?

In reverse order of appearance:

National Policy Institute: White Americans have been led to believe that "diversity" and "multiculturalism" are sacred. We're conditioned to be shy when it comes to standing up for our own beliefs. But doesn't every race, ethnic subculture, and special interest—from left-handers to lesbians—have all sorts of organizations working for them?

Public institutions named for such Founding Fathers as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are being renamed for radicals like Malcolm X and Cesar Chavez—even the holiday that honors America’s discoverer, Christopher Columbus, is now under attack.

Young people are trained to be sensitive towards “oppressed minorities,” but are stripped of pride for what their own people have accomplished. This anti-white—anti- American—campaign of an intellectual elite is waged in the most vicious language and it assigns collective guilt to our kinship in a way that would be considered intolerable if directed at other groups.

Under the guise of protecting racial minorities, government laws, programs, and practices discriminate against white Americans: in hiring and promotion, in access to loans for business and housing, in college admission and scholarships, and in numerous other ways that affect our lives and our livelihoods. These policies are applied against all whites, regardless of age, class, income, and national origin, at the same time that they privilege recent nonwhite immigrants as well as the minorities they intended to compensate.

And, even as prejudice against racial minorities shrinks and disappears, legally mandated antiwhite discrimination is mushrooming, threatening not only America’s historic majority, but our children’s futures as well.

Save Our State: Save Our State is committed to creating a New Paradigm, one that consists of one singular tenet: the transference of pain. Our enemies in the open borders lobby are not going to change their policies or behavior unless we make it painful for them to continue propagating their anti-American agenda.

Sadly, California is filled with these “sunshine patriots” who are weak and unwilling to wage battle against the Mexican racialists and the vast open borders lobby. Years of inculcation by the doctrines of political correctness have left you emasculated and impotent, silenced by the thunderous chants of "racist" and "bigot." And there you stand and watch, paralyzed by fear, as your community is ravaged by the illegal alien invasion and turned into a Third World cesspool.

Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints: In its spring 2005 "Intelligence Report," The Southern Poverty Law Center named FLDS to its "Hate Group" listing because of the church's racist teachings, which include, among other things a fierce condemnation of interracial relationships. "Prophet" Warren Jeffs has said, among other things, "The black race is the people through which the devil has always been able to bring evil unto the earth."

Critics claim that Warren Jeffs has indicated his desire to reintroduce the 19th-Century Mormon doctrine of "blood atonement", in which serious sins can only be atoned by the sinner's death. Former church member Robert Richter reported to the Phoenix New Times that Jeffs repeatedly alluded to this doctrine in church sermons. Richter also claims that he was asked to design a thermostat for a high temperature furnace that would be capable of destroying DNA evidence if such "atonements" were to take place.

Allegations of welfare fraud, tax fraud, incest, statutory rape, physical, emotional and psychological abuse--hidden by a veil of secrecy, isolation, and deprivation--in the FLDS dominated communities have been widely reported in 2004 throughout United States media. It has been estimated that 33% of the men, women and children in the group are receiving state and federal aid, though 0% unemployment was reported in the 2000 census.

Warren Jeffs, the leader of the FLDS, was arrested in southern Nevada on the evening of August 28, 2006, though news of his arrest wasn't broadcast until the following day. According to FBI spokesman David Staretz, Jeffs was taken into custody after he, one of his brothers, and one of his wives were pulled over shortly after 9 p.m. PDT by a Nevada Highway Patrol trooper on Interstate 15 just north of Las Vegas. The leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was wanted for the alleged sexual assault of a minor in 2002 and for one count of conspiracy to commit sexual assault with a minor that same year, as well as federal charges of flight to avoid prosecution. The alleged offenses took place in the vicinity of Colorado City. Additionally, Jeffs is wanted in Utah as an accomplice to rape. For nearly two years Jeffs had been a fugitive and from May of 2006 until August 28, 2006, he was on the FBI's Ten Most-Wanted list, with a $100,000 reward offered for information leading to his capture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalis...tter_Day_Saints

American Border Patrol: Glenn Spencer is an anti-illegal immigration activist who advocates greater vigilance in securing the United States–Mexico border against illegal immigration. He calls for maximum deportation efforts for all illegal immigrants, and supports an English only, government language policy. Spencer is the founder of the American Border Patrol group based in Sierra Vista, Arizona. American Border Patrol is a private, non-governmental, organization with the stated purpose of assisting the United States Border Patrol in apprehending individuals illegally crossing the US/Mexican boarder. It is known for using small, radio-controlled aircraft and ground sensing equipment to track illegal immigrants, and then relaying that information to the US Border Patrol. Spencer also has assisted with the Minuteman Project and worked closely with anti-illegal immigration activist Roger Barnett.

Spencer has a long history of association with the white nationalist magazine American Renaissance (often abbreviated as Amren). It describes itself as a "literate, undeceived journal of race, immigration, and the decline of civility", while its detractors accuse it of being racist and white supremacist. Jared Taylor, its publisher stated in May 2006: “I started American Renaissance 17 years ago in order to awaken whites to the crisis they face and to encourage them to unite in defending their legitimate interests as a race.”

Spencer was one of the keynote speakers at the fifth biennial American Renaissance Conference held February 2002. The theme of the conference was “In Defense of Western Man”, and was advertised as "In all parts of the world, whites are afraid to speak out in their own interests. The costs of 'diversity,' racial differences in IQ, the threat of non-white immigration — politicians and the media are afraid to discuss what these things mean for whites and their civilization." [[8]] Spencer’s talk was titled “The Second Mexican-American War” in which he warned that Mexican immigration into the Southwest is nothing less than an unarmed invasion to reconquer land lost in the first Mexican-American War. By failing to halt illegal Mexican immigration, the United States is importing poverty, turning California into a Third-World nation, and inviting secession. In effect, Mexico is supporting the ethnic cleansing of the American Southwest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Spencer
Glenn Spencer's site

Glenn Spencer of AmericanPatrol. com expanded on this theme in remarks on “The Second Mexican-American War.” Mr. Spencer warned that Mexican immigration into the Southwest is nothing less than an unarmed invasion to reconquer land lost in the first Mexican-American War. By failing to halt illegal Mexican immigration, the United States is importing poverty, turning California into a Third-World nation, and inviting secession. Mexican irredentists, active in groups like MeCha and La Raza, have won elective office in California, and Mr. Spencer effectively demonstrated the threat by playing recordings of inflammatory speeches by Hispanic leaders.

Mr. Spencer believes tension on the border will inevitably lead to bloodshed. He noted that Spanish language television encourages Hispanics to hate whites. Historical resentments, Mexican government propaganda, and anti-American Hispanic intellectuals have set the tinder, and all that is missing is the spark. Mr. Spencer thinks that could come in the form of a confrontation between US border agents and Mexican police or military forces, both of which have fired on the border patrol in the past. Mr. Spencer put the odds of such a violent confrontation—followed by large-scale anti-white rioting—at better than 50-50 by 2003.

http://www.amren.com/0204issue/0204issue.html

Traditional Values Coalition: Homosexual activists deny that they target children for seduction into the homosexual lifestyle, but the evidence is overwhelming that this is a lie.

There is an ever-increasing effort among homosexual organizations to target public school children, to abolish age of consent laws, and to publish “studies” that purportedly show that adult/child sex is not harmful.

The following reports provide clear and convincing proof that homosexual pedophiles (called pederasts) want children. Homosexuals should not be given special federal protections under “hate crime” laws; they should not be free to promote homosexuality in public schools; nor should they be allowed to marry or adopt children. Many homosexuals are sexual predators who prey on children.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/homosexua...and_pedophilia/

If one does a bit of checking it is readily apparent that each and every one of the aforementioned groups has roots in racism, homophobia, nativist vigilantism and White supremacy. I would have to say Tolerance.org was dead on it when it describes these organizations as being anything but tolerant.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to take a shower. I've just waded through an hour's worth of wretched hatred and pure unadulterated filth.

I'm just holding you to your own standards (something you absolutely can't stand, I know). You said that you assumed your opponents will defend their statements when challenged, but you refuse to defend yours. Instead, you just make dismissive replies and overwrought chest-thumping. You don't like the term "strawman"? Too bad, because when you make utterly ridiculous statements like "Oh, but as long as Trooper Henderson is a bigot based on color and not overtly anti-Jewish, he's cool," strawmanning is exactly what it is. You're making a comparison you know perfectly well is false just so you can feign an air of moral indignation. And this is what you call "debate"?

But you're right about one thing. I think I did speak a bit too soon when I called your previous post defensive. Your latest post to me has shown me what a defensive post really looks like.

We can all despise the KKK but if they are (as an organization) sponsoring criminal acts then it IS a free speech issue. The people who burned and killed in the sixties and 70s are dead or in jail.

The big question I have is will he be defended by the ACLU????

It depends- the ACLU has defended a great many KKK folks when thier constitutional rights have been comprimised.

Public Safety is allowed to have more strigent standards in hiring than is allowed in other jobs. That is why they have urine tests, psych tests etc. Even where you have been employed may make you inelligble for hire, and "conduct unbecoming" is grounds for dismissal in most departments.

Public Safety is held to higher standards, and there are numerous decisions upholding this issue.

I am with you but you would think that just belonging to this organization would not fall under any of these restrictions. So where is the ACLU? Is this not a violation of the mans rights?

The ACLU is consistant in this case- pubic safety is allowed to be held to a higher standard of employment- what is your point?

The kkk manifesto would preclude any of its members of holding a peace officers position ,one would hope.
As the manifesto of the KKK clearly would be in violation of his sworn duties as a peace officer.
it is tantamount to allowing a black panther to become a peace officer in an all white neighborhood or anyother member of an extremist group for that matter
the way I would approach it would be to fire him on the spot it is the only way to purge our civil servants of people that have an extremist nature

A police officer although a servant of the people like a senator is not elected he is hired and subject to screening if Nebraska was 100% white and also all belonged or at least the majority belonged to the KKK then there would be grounds for keeping him on as a public servant

the line that distinguishes what is acceptable is thin to say the least but that line would also be subject to
the make up of its peoples
America is today a multi cultural entity would an Italian hater be allowed to police little italy in NY
that this debate is even being performed in this day and age is a testament to how America is still not fully
purged of it's racists I would say it was long over due and unacceptable

Well does anyone here know anything about this man?like why he join the kkk. being a 47 year old white man that lives in Alabama, i have never,never meet a klansman and i couldn't tell you where any groups are located.but i have see them on the news(not lately)but they are mixed up with the shinheads.but i have to ask one question about this officer,"why did he join the klan"if it was because he hates all races(but white),if so fire him.., but if he join the klan,so he can help whites younths to act better and learn how to get along with others,then fine,and he might just be a good man...90% of the people i know(mixed races) don't buy into the hate...

Of course unless we're attempting to get promoted in a government job, applying for a university education, seeking a government loan/grant, playing basketball at the local gym, etc, etc, etc, etc.....

Color-blind society will happen as soon as certain people stop making it an issue in our society. I can think of a handful of us that really don't think about it unless responding to certain posts on AD. I didn't wake up and think as I drove down 635 that it was great to be white and that speeding was ok... in fact, I get tickets as much or more than anyone I know.

However, the point being made is that so long as people like Ali Mohammed can enlist in the US Army, while openly being a proponent of Jihad... why can't a Klansman be a state trooper? Oh- because the double standard only applies to non-caucasians.

I'd be perfectly happy with disallowing all racially charged remarks or association of public servants with racially centered groups. However, that would require people like Ray Nagin to step down... keep anyone that's in LULAC or the NAACP out of office. Sure- they don't have the history of blowing things up... but this man hasn't been convicted of any wrong doing and no one has even complained. I have a prejudice against people that smoke in public places, but I don't discriminate against smokers that work on my team.

I know for a FACT that if this was a black man muslim who joined the Black Panthers... he'd still have a job. Point blank. America has become a pariah of political sensitivity to groups that bear their teeth specifically when its in their interest. What if this man had been a part of "The Brotherhood of White _ _ _ _(insert word)" that was an alternatively non-Klan based white-power group. What if this group hadn't ever been Klan-associated and never had blown anything up (or had other violent acts?). What if they were just an aryan power based group... listened to that putrid "hate rock" crap, and otherwise were a bunch of fruit cakes? ... would that be pallatable? Would he still lose the job? OF course... because that's how America works. All for one... so much for one for all...

Could you please provide evidence that this is the case? I find this very hard to believe. Even a basic security guard can be obliged to pass a polygraph test, background checks, ect. I doubt that anyone in any organization that is associated with violence would be accepted in such a position of authority. Certainly they shouldn't be.

One could make a case with EEOC guidelines themselves. It would be hard to prove that a Black Panther is associated with violence...


Basic background checks won't usually show any type of association of this kind either.
Check out this link. Most background checks only unearth specifics, such as criminal or employment related topics. You can't really ask if anyone has associations to certain groups, nor can you openly discriminate against anyone unless explicitly stated in the job description.

According to the above guideline you've listed, a paraplegic could serve as a police officer. Is that the case? The Black Panther organization not only has a history of violence, they have a history of violence against policemen in particular. I honestly doubt any member of this organization would pass the selection process, unless they hid their affiliation.

And you would be correct Mrs P- in fact, they can "discriminate" against many things- as long as it isn't religion, gender or race- APD doesn't hire to many "lower 48" officers of large cities- because of ethical lapses of those departments. For instance, it is okay to accept a free cup of coffee as an officer in New York- but absolutely a termination offense here.

There are psych tests, physical tests etc to be a policeman- though, "reasonable accomadations" can be made for certain minor handi-caps, you have to be reasonably physically fit to be in the APD.

I think Aevens argument is full of it, no way a black panther OR a KKK member would keep his job here- as both are organizations that advocate breaking the law in both actions and material they have printed- and that alone disqualifies them- to belong to an organization that encourages breaking the law is not compatable with law enforcement, now is it?

What do you know, I agree with the very first reply. I think whether or not his firing would be justified depends on his involvement in the KKK. If he is a passive member who perhaps attends meetings and nothing else, then no. If he is a member who engages in public demonstrations and marches, then yes. If he has done anything more extreme, then yes as well.

That sounds like a tremendous waste of resources. The solution is to constantly monitor the man's private activity? If he is seen at a public march that's overboard, if he isn't caught at a march, everything is square? Honestly, if there is nothing wrong with his involvement in a racial hate group, there must be nothing wrong with marching and chanting racial hate speech out-of-doors. It isn't against the law.

But, again, it certainly might interfere with a job that requires a postion of higher authority over the population at large and harm his credibility in a big way.

Yesterday, a group of Klan and Neo-Nazi knuckle-draggers held a rally on the steps of City Hall. Both the racists and the protestors were outnumbered by the police who erected a chain link fence to keep the opposing sides apart.

http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?sto...0924-C5-00.html

It is estimated that it cost the city $10,000 to close the streets, police overtime and erecting a fence. Oh well, that's just the price of democracy, right?

What I always find amusing is how these Ku Klux Klowns have to hide behind cops---including Black and Hispanic and Jewish cops. I wonder how they feel listening to the ranting and ravings of hate-filled goons who rely upon the very people they despise to keep them safe from harm.

Which only reinforces my conviction that law enforcement is no place for people with conflicting and dubious loyalties.

An African-American man such as yourself, Nighttimer suggesting that the police are the only thing that stand between the KKK and physical harm is absurd. The white policemen are mostly in lock step with the Klan.

The majority of civilized human beings are opposed to hate-filled and/or unjust violence. Which is usually what you get from white police officers. Harassment for driving while black and unfilmed Rodney King style beatdowns are more common than the law enforcement officials would like to admit. Make an honest assessment of the situation, if it wasn't for the police, these Klan members would not be organizing and protesting they would be lynching and killing. The only thing truly protecting minorities is the will of the civilized people.

The Klan is a terrorist organization that spreads a message of hate and bigotry. Any position of power, elected or appointed, should not be held by a barbarian Klansman.

You mention that there are Black, Hispanic, and Jewish cops, all of which are targeted by Klan literature. I would guess that those cops are as angry about protecting the Klan as the white cops were that had to provide security at Ice-T's Cop Killer concert.

Law enforcement is a dubious occupation, for the most part it has little to do with Law and far more to do with money and power. Imagine if you could for a second the utter hypocrisy of a group of cops discussing a drug bust of some 'crackhead' over a beer and a cigarette. Or every time you see a cop temporarily turn on his cherries long enough to go through a red light that he did not feel like waiting for only to later pull over someone for doing the exact same thing. Or getting a ticket because you did not pay the police officer enough respect during your traffic stop. Furthermore, the police department is the main drain on our tax dollars, always investing in new technology to 'test' on the public. Batons, guns, cuffs, mace, tasers, sand-bag shotguns, M-16 assault rifles. I mean seriously, how many times do police officers use these weapons? Not very many, if you exclude 5 year old black kids. The average police officer is armed to the teeth with zero justification for having such weapons. Maybe I went off there but the police are the number one impediment to true freedom in our society.

Would you allow a member of Al qaida to join the CIA? What about a member of NAMBLA being a kindergarden teacher?

What if they were just 'passive' members who just went to the meetings, but had as of yet committed no known crimes?

Membership in a violent terrorist organisation is a choice, and if you make that choice that already says a great deal about the kind of choices you make, and upon what you base those choices.

I haven't felt the desire to post in this thread, because no matter the grey area of who should determine who serves on a police force, the whole notion of a klan member upholding the laws of a civil and equal society has been a major *duh* for me............and most 'ers it would seem.
However.......


There is so much wrong with these three sentences, I almost don't know where to start. Have you ANY..........ANY evidence to validate that white police officers are in lockstep with the klan? If it were true, then wouldn't it be also fair to say that most black officers are in brotherhood with the Black Panthers? And most latino officers allied with MEChA? Given the factual accuracy of your statement, all of the above would be equally true.

Are your statements racist in nature or simply based on some anecdotal evidence appreciable only by you? If one were to draw a conclusion from your point of view, it might seem that, given your way, there would be no white police officers. Wouldn't that be just as despicable as denying law enforcement employment to minorities based on a set of criteria similar to yours?

Frankly, I see no difference between your viewpoint and that of allowing a klan grand dragon to serve in the police force.

All extremists groups even those that are extremist in opposing them are targets of law enforcement
This is a white mans world
the king of england sits on the throne of jahovah untill such time re returns

england is ruled through white hall
the united states is ruled through the white house
are you seeing a similarity
these are facts that can not be brushed aside
the people in power and I submit you don't know who they are
it is the golden rule
those with the gold rule
we are peons mere serfs
if we dont behave they will implant you with a chip and watch you
very very closely
Think about it and you may understand all is not as it appears
in fact what we see is a veneer only
the KKK is still here it never went away it is stronger than ever
no it is not out in the open as much but none the less it is part of the power structure as it always was
those men of the 50's and 60's
dressed in hoods were not a militant under class but were all part of main stream society
judges,police chiefs,bankers etc...
think about it
the learning process isnt hearing what others say on an issue it would behoove you to get well educated in
what is going on in the world

Ok i'm just going to quietly add my two cents into this matter.

Can the Nebraska State Patrol remove the officer because he is a member of the KKK?
Would membership in the compromise the Officer's ability to do his job and make him a liability? example easier to overturn his cases in court.

Like many members said, you cannot remove him just because he is a member of the KKK. He can only be removed if he shows continual negligent towards minoritys.

Does that liability give the Nebraska State Patrol solid ethical and legal standing to remove him given that he could be a liability to their ability to effectively do their job?
In a way yes and in a way no. They once again must be able to prove to the company that he is a liability.

This does violate his 1st Amendment Rights, but given the position of a Law Enforcement Officer with its powers, Should this be an exception?
No this should not be an exception. It violates the constitution last time I checked, the constitution was not limited to one type of group eg. law enforcement. He has freedom of speech and if he wants to be a KKK member then be one. But once/if he starts to break the law, I expect the SAME punishments to be given unto him.

BTW your sources links are gone, I went to google to find a chache of it

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:kwI-T...t=clnk&cd=1

You all are completely missing the point. YOU CAN'T ASK THOSE QUESTIONS!!!!!! It's completely ILLEGAL!!

If you could ask these things, people could be discriminated against for being a part of the NAACP, LULAC, the ACLU, or whatever else that would be particular benign. There CAN be boxes for questions about professional affiliations, etc.

Consider the notion that if you could ask about these types of affiliations, that people could make cases for LULAC and riots, etc. It's just a part of American employment law.

Get real Aevans176. We don't debate feelings, gut instincts or woulda/should/coulda. We don't debate "What If's" here. We debate "What Is" and unless you can produce something besides "I know for a FACT..." then you're building on a foundation of wet sand.

When is a fact not the truth? When it's as vague and insubstantial as "I know for a FACT..." and then no facts are provided.

The central FACT here is a state trooper with a clear-cut conflict of interest that his superiors say would call into question his objectivity. You're straining to find a comparable scenario and your fictional "black man muslim who joined the Black Panthers" just ain't cuttin' it.

When you entered the service, didn't they ask you a lot of personal questions? Do a personality profile? When my husband went in, they not only required him to take a polygraph, but government agents interviewed some of our neighbors as well as people we knew that he had placed as a reference on a required list. When he went to weapons' school they looked into his background much more extensively.

Like an airforce officer, a police officer is in a position trust. Any casual observor of the obvious can recognize that this is the case. A clue: They carry a gun all of the time...even inside buildings where and when others are not allowed (even with the second amendment intact) to do so. They yell at you to pull over in your car and you actually have to pull over. They are entrusted, and actually required to use violence to keep the peace, whereas others are not authorized such a position of authority.

Their job description is a bit different than a secretary's, and ergo, the criteria is different. Please spare me the false dichotomy charges of "OH! They could ban all Catholics/ACLU members/et al from employment." I have already addressed that. The reasoning is no different than "Hey! If a functioning drug addict can't be a surgeon then a coffee drinker can't!"

Good grief. If this person wishes to have freedom of association with hate groups, he can find a job where he isn't given a position of authority over the public trust. His freedom of association is limited by his responsiblity to the public. JUST AS, for rough instance, a soldier's freedom of association (and speech for that matter) is limited by his/her position of responsibility. No fraternization, no publically speaking against the Commander in Chief, ect.....

I am very unsure about that. Here I express a certain degree of ignorance, as I am not ultra-familiar with US labour laws. However, I can say that I worked for several years for Canada's civilian intelligence agency, and in the course of that I needed to get a certain level of security clearance. During the course of this clearance, which took 8 months, not only did they ask me ALL kinds of questions far more personal than that, but they did a detailed investigation of my background and contacts, including ex-girlfriends (which was hell).

Furthermore, since 1996, I know that security checks in Canada and in the US have been harmonised. I also know that in my dealing with members of US sister agencies, their security checks were at least as probative, if not more.

Does being a police officer require a security check in the US? Absolutely.


So though I cannot say for sure what is and is not done in background and security checks in the US, I am quite confident that not only this kind of question, but frankly far, far more personal ones are allowed.

This is not some interview for a grocery clerk. This is a secure position which requires an extensive background check, and in those cases, the situation is very different.


That is why a member of Al Qaida, even one who 'just attends the meetings' but has taken no criminal action, will NEVER be allowed to work for the NSA. Exactly the same situation. Or do you think that is unreasonable as well?

Actually Aevens- the police department can and does ask physical requirments questions- the only thing they can't discrminate on is gender, race and religion- that is all- everything else is fair game.

In fact, if you have a disability- a "reasonable accomodation" has to be made to allow you to perform the job duties- but if the job duties are impossible with your disability, then you can be terminated OR refused hire-

If the guy were say, a warehouse worker- I would tend to agree with your argument- but public safety, security etc has always been upheld to have a higher standar than more "common" (sorry, I couldn't think of another way to put it) employment?

UGH...seriously. What do physical disabilities have to do with EEOC rules? Well, first of all if the disability impedes a BFOQ (bonafide occupational qualification), then you can discriminate.

However, what I'm saying is that no application is going to say "hey, by the way, do you spend Sat nights in a white hood?" For the reasons I listed... please debate those, not other notions that I never mentioned. These laws have good reason, and again... I've explained those.

It also doesn't directly say "you spend nights with the black panthers"- but you can be excluded on those grounds as well- they are items that are mentioned, usually in the job decription, and certainly asked in face to face interviews for public safety "Do you belong to an organization that is dedicated to the overthrow of the US goverment or an agency that advocates violence towards others"- a legit question, and the Clan falls into BOTH of those categories.

Debated question, and check and mate- it doesn't matter if it is a white, black, hispanic or jewish society- if it advocates violence against others or advocates the overthrow of US law- it is legal to refuse hire in a security organization. Period.

As others have posted, a person does have the right of free speech. This man made internet posts on his own time and in no way, stands accused of misconduct towards minorities or of being incompetent in his job.



I believe that it would. If he pulls over a minority, then his whole belief system and internet posting clearly come into play. It would be a defense attorney's dream. The case would be Furmanated. Perhaps a compromise of sorts could be reached. He publicly repudiates the group, does "sensitivity training" and then the state patrol gives him a desk job.



As far as I understand it, citizens have a right of free association. In essence, no, the state patrol is in the wrong here. On top of that, he resigned his membership in the Knights.

alabamajim-The trooper joined the group on the internet after his wife left him to be with a man who happens to be a minority. He says the group gave him a venue in which to "vent" about his personal problems.

The state has been forced to reinstate Henderson and in a more recent article, the issue is to be settled by a judge.

I am incredulous. You readily admit that this man's association with a hate group will effect his job...a job in which he is placed in a position of authority over the public trust, and then determine that this is essentially immaterial and he can have freedom of association?

I was planning on responding to aevans again if and when he addressed my points. Since he did not, I'll respond to your post. I've looked this up and found the pertinent information. A law enforcement official must be able to meet all N.L.E.T.C. Certification Standards or that certificate can be revoked. Who determines those standards? Link:


So, the council both establishes the standards, AND is responsible for the revocation of certification if they determine that the officer has failed to meet the requirements. What are those requirements? Pdf file here Among other things, this pdf file lists the type of extensive background investigations and character witness assessment referred to by Vermillion and myself above. It also states:

Ergo, the Council decides who meets the above subjective character qualifications. If the Council decides this man doesn't qualify (and it sounds like it has) Henderson and his lawyer don't have any ground to stand on. Even if they don't revoke his certification outright he will not qualify (unless they want him to) when it expires (annually).

I just really haven't had time to post all that much as of late, so if I missed your previous posts then I'm sorry.

I would say that if a law enforcement agency found out that someone was in the Klan, they probably wouldn't hire them.

However, I'm saying that unless he openly admitted it, had made comments that eluded to it, or someone told them... they wouldn't know.

Furthermore, this guy hadn't done anything inappropriate. I'm NOT advocating Klansmen being cops, but would say that this guy will most likely win. If being a biggot stopped people from becoming police officers... our country would be better off. However, these types of traits are difficult to uncover and generally wouldn't be answered completely honestly regardless of whether someone was in a group of this nature or not.

There are probably 1000+ hate groups that would evoke this type of emotion from people that DON'T have a history of violence, etc. I'll use an example... if someone was in a groupt that had blatently racist or anti-semetic overtones, but wasn't a part of the Klan/Neo-Nazi's, how would you feel? If this man hadn't posted any messages, hadn't mistreated citizens, etc... should he still be fired? Is he any safer for not being a part of the KKK, but another racist organization? What if said group had no history of violence, but did make comments about the US gov't in a negative fashion? (i.e. Ali Mohammed and the Egyptian Jihad!)

People's arguments are often valid about not wanting a person to be a law officer when in a group of this nature. However, our labor laws protect everyone, including racists and fruit cakes. Biggots come in all sizes, shapes, and colors. The biggest difference is that most groups that have "white power overtones" are automatically seen as violent and unsafe. What if he'd been a part of a Nebraska militia group that was getting ready for the "race war", but obeyed all laws?

Havning membership in the black panthers, in the same manner of this trooper, would disqualify you in the APD or state troopers here, and would get you fired if you joined on your own time, because they advocate violent uprising against the law of the land. IN fact, part of the questionaire- you can not belong to a group like that, or join a group like that while employed. It is even part of the union contract.

The first, most important and common sense angle on this is from the prosecutor- it gives the defense an opening a mile wide to discount the credibility of the officer on the stand during trials.