Time and again, crimes committed in places such as supermarkets and convenience stores have been recorded on CCTV cameras, resulting in the capture of the culprits. No surprise then that a poll conducted on March 28, 2012 shows not only that 86 percent of respondents expect businesses to have video surveillance, but that 60 percent of them expect businesses to be liable for the failure of such systems to record crimes that occur on their property. As Al Shipp, CEO of 3VR, a video surveillance equipment maker, puts it: “Video surveillance is a powerful tool for both preventing and solving crime. It appears Americans have received that message. It is now the ultimate responsibility of the video intelligence industry to ensure that its solutions provide a means for private businesses and law enforcement to share and capture critical information in a timely fashion that enables the apprehension of criminals and the deterrence of criminal acts.”

But there is a dark side to the use of video surveillance. Because surveillance cameras are often installed where they are hidden, their use is open to abuse. This is worsened by the absence of laws governing their use, and the lack of such laws has frequently been criticized. Many states outlaw the secret audio recording of conversations, but if these secret recordings are made on video instead, they are perfectly legal.  Critics have questioned the ethics, if not the legality, of recording unsuspecting citizens who may engage in activity that they would not otherwise if they knew their actions were being recorded. Whether on public or private property, such surveillance is often conducted, ostensibly to protect people from crime, but such recordings frequently eavesdrop on conversations or record private activities of people who are caught unawares. There have even been extreme cases of these cameras being placed in bathrooms and changing rooms, supposedly to help catch employee theft or for a similar reason, but the invasion of privacy in these cases is obvious. Worse, in such cases their use has been found to be totally legal.

Atty. Monica Risam Nicklin

Monica Risam Nicklin

Mysteriously, in the four days preceding Ohio’s primary election, Democratic voters of the 2^nd Congressional District were flooded with automated telephone calls in favor of a candidate who did not even campaign. William R. Smith apparently needed no fundraising or media exposure, either. Not that maintaining anonymity hurt his election bid any. Smith won by 59 votes against a well-known, well-funded and considerably harder-campaigning candidate who, on top of everything, enjoyed the endorsement of major Democratic groups.

Now this is the mystery: a group that calls themselves the “Victory Ohio Super PAC” claimed to have placed the calls, but apparently is not registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and so has no records with federal regulators of campaign contributions or spending.

Blaine Beekman, a Pike County commissioner who helped circulate Smith’s nominating petitions, said of Victory Ohio, “(It) clearly exists somewhere, because it spent a lot of money.” Nevertheless, he, like everyone else it seems, is clueless as to their exact identities. He adds, “To be frank with you, there’s no one in Pike County that would have the money to do these things. We have the highest unemployment rate in Ohio.”

A former Federal Election Commission official and a leading Washington campaign-finance manager, Kenneth Gross, mirrors the sentiment of campaign-finance experts who believe that Victory Ohio has violated federal election law. He says, “This activity does require disclosure.”

Paul Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center said any group can call themselves a “Super PAC” without breaking the law, as it is not a legal term. But he did add, “If this group spent more than 1,000 dollars on the robocalls and distributed more than 500 of such calls, then the group seemingly violated the federal law independent expenditure disclosure requirement.”

Hamilton County Democratic Party Director Caleb Faux commented on this, saying, “Robocalls are pretty cheap, but they (Victory Ohio) did enough of them I have a hard time believing they spent less than 1,000 dollars.” As to the Super PAC’s mysterious identity, he asks, “Who are they, what is their motivation, where did their money come from?”

Jan Brewer, the Republican governor of Arizona, has declined the invitation of Sen. Chuck Schumer D-New York to appear before his Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security to explain why she thinks that the $600 million in federal funds recently spent on tight border security was insufficient, and that the Grand Canyon state needs an even tougher immigration law.

Sen. Schumer said in a statement that, "Governor Brewer has long said border security is one of the nation's most pressing issues, so it is odd that she is unwilling to even come to Congress to defend her views." Schumer, who chairs the immigration and border security panel, added, "It makes you wonder whether there is genuine interest in finding real solutions to our broken immigration system.” He says he hopes the Governor will reconsider.

Brewer is scheduled to be in Washington on April 25. The Supreme Court will hear oral argument then on her state's already harsh immigration law, partially blocked as unconstitutional by lower courts.

The hearing comes more than a year after Congress approved more than $600 million to hire 1,000 new Border Patrol agents for the southern border and 250 new agents for the ports of entry. Schumer said the legislation has had “dramatic results” in decreasing illegal immigration.

Schumer asked Brewer to testify on why she signed SB 1070 into law in 2010. The law gives state police more powers, and the senator wants to know why these powers are “necessary in light of the substantially increased security situation along our southern border.” Furthermore, the New York senator said he’d like to know whether SB 1070 will remain “irrespective of whether conditions further improve along the southern border.”

Legal Counsel Monica Risam Nicklin

More than a handful of people were a “little heartbroken” over the National Basketball Association lockout. Everyone who is a fan of the NBA can empathize.

The first two weeks of the coming season have already been called off, along with all the preseason games before that. NBA Commissioner David Stern has said Christmas games may be axed as well if a deal is not reached soon. The players, who are millionaires, and the owners, who are billionaires, cannot come to an agreement on how to split the revenues.

The last CBA signed by the parties in 2005 guaranteed the players a 57% share of all basketball-related income (BRI). That deal has expired this year. Now, the owners want a substantial adjustment. They claim only 8 of the league’s 30 teams made money during the previous seasons. The other 22 teams were losing about $300 million a year. Naturally, negotiations included thorny issues on setting the salary cap.

Of course both parties are only trying to exhaust all options that are within their legal rights to protect and advance their interests. But don’t you wish the fans can have their say, too? It will be interesting if fans can band together and organize their own “stoppage.” When nobody’s going to the games anymore and the league is forced to sell tickets at discounted prices, maybe the owners and players will begin to see eye to eye.

The owners and players always say it’s all about the fans. Sure, but not during CBA negotiations. No, it’s not.

Attorney Monica Risam Nicklin

"Don't shoot. Don't shoot."

These were the last words of Muammar Gaddafi. For 42 years he was the undisputed lord of Libya. He had a harem of voluptuous Ukrainian nurses. A retinue of virgin Amazon bodyguards stayed with him wherever he went. He ordered the massacre of civilians and the rape of women and children. With impunity, he reportedly committed the worst crimes against humanity. Not even the world's courts could touch him. He had oil, therefore he had powerful allies.

Yet in the end, it was like he was reduced to the level of a sewer rat. He was caught hiding in a stinking hole in the ground. The harem and the virgin bodyguards are no longer with him. He was wounded and bleeding. He was alone, save for a few soldiers who in the final hour told the pursuing rebels where he was, to save their own skin.

He was dragged by his hair, beaten, then shot in the head.

Gaddafi was in his hometown, Sirte. Upon learning of his death, the people there celebrated joyously, as did everyone else in the country.

Images of his bloodied face and lifeless body are out there for the entire world to see. And the world is just staring right back. No sympathy will be coming his way.

You reap what you sow, they say. But who are we to judge?

If Republican Ron Paul is elected president, he intends to balance the federal budget in three years. To do that, he is going to cut $1 trillion in federal spending during his first year in office alone. But what would that really mean?

Five cabinet departments will be shut down: Energy, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce and Interior. Pull the plug on the Transportation Safety Administration, as well. About 221,000 federal employees will lose their jobs.

American troops stationed or fighting overseas will be recalled. Not all, but most of them. The US must conclude the wars it is fighting right now.

Members of Congress must take a smaller paycheck. But so will Paul the president. He will draw a salary of $39,336, which is about what the average American worker makes.

President Obama's healthcare and other financial reforms are questioned by some. Older Americans will keep their Medicare and Social Security benefits, but younger workers may opt out. The Federal Reserve will undergo a full audit.

Corporate income tax will be reduced to 15%. Capital gains and dividend taxes will be eliminated. Tax cuts enacted under George W. Bush will be extended.

Paul believes the federal government has grown too big and is spending too much. He said all the money that will be saved ultimately goes back to the people, who will decide how to spend it.

To say that this is a radical approach seems to be an understatement. Paul's budget cuts are massive and quick. I don't think it has been tried at this scale and pace before, and I understand why.

Can it be done? Yes, but it will be rough.

Will it work? Why not? If we save diligently and spend what we save wisely, no deficit problem will be insurmountable. 

Compared to Western societies, Asian countries are not well-known for equality between the sexes. In spite of this, the region boasts of iconic female leaders. And true to the Asian way of life, these leaders won their position and achieved their status primarily through the strength of familial relations. Each of them belongs to a powerful political clan or is married to one, or both.

The latest to make it to this elite club is Thailand’s Yingluck Shinawatra. She never held a government post before but was elected prime minister on her first attempt to run for public office. Her well-oiled political machinery, her supporters, even the populist programs she espoused, all once belonged to her brother, Thaksin Shinawatra, the ex-prime minister who now lives in exile.

Other distinguished female leaders that I can think of right off the top of my head are

- Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, daughter of former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto

- Corazon Aquino of the Philippines, widow of the martyred senator Benigno Aquino, Jr.

- Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh, daughter of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the country’s founding father and first president

- Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia, daughter of Sukarno, the country’s founding father and first president

- Indira Gandhi of India, daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru, the country’s first prime minister (No, Indira is not related to Mohandas Gandhi.)

These women are intelligent, successful and strong-willed people, but in the world of politics it always helps to have the right surname and lineage, especially if you are a woman, especially if you live in Asia.

Atty. Monica Risam Nicklin

A foiled assassination attempt is always a good thing. It means the target survived and the outcome the plotter hoped to get from the killing, which is usually more destructive and distressing than the murder itself, did not materialize.

Usually, an assassination attempt is foiled because the assassin failed to carry out the wicked deed and is caught or is himself killed. Most assassins who fail are said to be deranged fanatics. They are reportedly driven by a false sense of self-righteous convictions. They act alone.

The other kind of assassin is categorically more dangerous and a lot more complicated. He is a trained professional, is well-funded and has the support of a clandestine network of powerful, influential people. It is difficult to track him down because he is a faceless pawn. This kind of assassin are the ones employed by terrorist groups, secretive organizations and, yes, governments.

Rogue states are known to implement assassination policies as a foreign policy tool. But because states are sovereign entities, holding a government liable for an assassination attempt is an arduous task and a diplomatic nightmare.

In the news: An 11-year-old boy shoots his father’s pregnant fiancée to death, killing her unborn son as well, and then boards the bus to school.

We hear about these horrible incidents in the news. A 10-year-old boy pours gasoline on his sleeping neighbor, then using a lighter on him, watches him go up in flames. A 10-year-old girl kills a 4-year-old boy by strangling him, while her best friend, a 13-year-old girl, looks on. Afterwards she is seen boasting “I am a murderer!” while pointing at the house where she killed him. “See that house over there? That is where I killed him,” she adds triumphantly. She murders another boy, 3 years old, three months later. A police officer, who has been observing her suspicious behavior, notices her rubbing her hands in glee and laughing while watching the coffin of her latest victim being transported to the cemetery.

How could children so young be capable of committing a crime so violent, and premeditated at that? Crimes of this nature, when committed by adults, often shock entire nations and move people to call for punishment as severe as the crime. It's particularly stunning in the wake of cases that have grabbed headlines recently when children who are usually the victims of violent crime are actually the perpetrators. In the case of the 10-year-old girl, what is startling is the amount of forethought involved in her methods. The totally unfeeling way in which she executed her victims, torturing them with absolute disregard for their pain, plus her happy reaction to their deaths, is chilling beyond words.

But what exactly motivated these children to commit their crimes? What or who is to blame for their actions? based on findings, these children were found to be products of unhappy homes, themselves having suffered violence at the hands of others, often family members. Because no child is born like this, behavior is always molded by circumstances. In the end, the real tragedy is that they are as much victims as those they have harmed. In that light, it is difficult for me to say who I pity more, the murderers, or the murdered? And for as long as there will be families that fall short of their responsibilities, I fear that criminals of such a young age will continue to be produced. 

Monica Risam Nicklin (dual qualified lawyer in the US and UK)

Last March, a college student in Mexico was abducted, tortured and killed by members of drug syndicates. Such brutal killings have become a day-to-day occurrence in the country, since the government launched an intensive military campaign against the cartels almost five years ago.

But this case is different. The victim is the son of Javier Sicilia, one of Mexico's most respected poets. After the murder of his son, who investigations showed was just at the wrong place at the wrong time on the night of his abduction, Sicilia has become the leader of a nationwide movement of ordinary citizens. They want the government to put an end to the war on drugs and the bloodshed which they say comes with it, and they want President Felipe Calderon to step down from office.

In light of these developments, proposals to legalize drugs have resurfaced. Former presidents Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia, and Vicente Fox and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico are among the influential figures who support the idea.

Fox, Calderon's predecessor and ally, believes prohibition has never worked. When he was president he supported the war against drug, but not anymore. It is time, he said, to consider legalizing the production, sale and distribution of "cocaine, heroin, marijuana and metamphetamines, among other substances" to break the system that allows the cartels to harvest huge profits.

The former leader also agrees with critics who allege the Army is committing human rights abuses. The military, Fox says, is not trained to do police work and should not be running after drug cartels.

Some economists like Harvard's Jeffrey A. Miron say the drug industry flourishes because it is a black market. If it cannot be supressed, legalizing it becomes a logical step.

Calderon is willing to open formal debate on the topic, although he is still opposed to legalization. Legalization will allow more people easier access to drugs and its ill effects, which is why they are illegal in the first place.

Atty. Monica Risam Nicklin