31
3DHS / Re: Up early?
« on: June 26, 2010, 02:59:51 AM »
I should be walking home from my night shift when we're able to see it. That might be pretty cool. 
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
32
3DHS / Re: Youtube Video sparks controversy over Md. wiretap laws.
« on: June 25, 2010, 07:51:40 PM »
My friend brings up a good point. This video ends up identifying an undercover cop and puts this cop and his family in danger. That might be a valid reason to take the video down.
33
3DHS / Re: Al Gore Accused of Sexual Assault!
« on: June 25, 2010, 07:26:16 PM »I've been raised to question everything I hear, not just what's coming out of one party.
...or 1 parent? *evil snicker*
Yeah. Stray Pooch still thinks he's my biological father.
34
3DHS / Re: Youtube Video sparks controversy over Md. wiretap laws.
« on: June 25, 2010, 07:24:52 PM »The un-uniformed cop seemed a bit heavy handed coming out of his vehicle with a drawn weapon like that. Not very observant either because he never saw the camera. It wasn't until later, after posting on You-tube, did the police even know the event was filmed. Had there been no sound posted the law would not have been violated. This guy will get probation, at least I hope so. The cop is a moron and on a power trip.
Seriously. This smacks of them trying to avoid embarrasment.
35
3DHS / Youtube Video sparks controversy over Md. wiretap laws.
« on: June 25, 2010, 06:50:39 PM »
From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/15/AR2010061505556.html?sid=ST2010061505592
In early March, Anthony Graber, a 25-year-old staff sergeant for the Maryland Air National Guard, was humming a tune while riding his two-year-old Honda motorcycle down Interstate 95, not far from his home north of Baltimore. On top of his helmet was a camera he often used to record his journeys. The camera was rolling when an unmarked gray sedan cut him off as he stopped behind several other cars along Exit 80.
From the driver's side emerged a man in a gray pullover and jeans. The man, who was wielding a gun, repeatedly yelled at Graber, ordering him to get off his bike. Only then did Maryland State Trooper Joseph D. Uhler identify himself as "state police" and holster his weapon. Graber, who'd been observed popping a wheelie while speeding, was cited for doing 80 in a 65 mph zone. Graber accepted his ticket, which he says he deserved.
(Watch the video from the incident)
[Note: The main part of this video doesn't start until 3:00 on. The first 3 minutes is him driving very recklessly and speeding]
A week later, on March 10, Graber posted his video of the encounter on YouTube. What followed wasn't a furor over the police officer's behavior but over Graber's use of a camera to capture the entire episode.
ad_icon
On April 8, Graber was awakened by six officers raiding his parents' home in Abingdon, Md., where he lived with his wife and two young children. He learned later that prosecutors had obtained a grand jury indictment alleging he had violated state wiretap laws by recording the trooper without his consent.
The case has ignited a debate over whether police are twisting a decades-old statute intended to protect people from government intrusions of privacy to, instead, keep residents from recording police activity.
Maryland's wiretap law applies only to audio recordings, so it is just the sound from Graber's video that is at issue legally. Like 11 other states, Maryland requires all parties to consent before a recording might be made if a conversation takes place where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy." (By contrast, Virginia and the District require one party's consent to a recording.) But is there any expectation of privacy in a police stop? That's where police and civil libertarians differ.
During a 90-minute search of Graber's parents' home, police confiscated four computers, the camera, external hard drives and thumb drives. The police didn't take Graber to jail that day because he had just had gall bladder surgery.
A week later, he turned himself in. "I just wanted to do the right thing," he said in an April interview with Miami journalist Carlos Miller, who runs the blog Photography Is Not a Crime.
It was Graber's first arrest. He spent 26 hours in jail. Graber has since stopped talking publicly about the case on the advice of his attorneys. On June 1, he was arraigned in Harford County Circuit Court in Bel Air. He faces up to 16 years in prison if convicted on all charges.
The YouTube effect
Maryland's wiretap law has been around since the 1970s, before the VHS era, let alone the digital revolution, and did not anticipate the advent of video cameras attached to helmets or embedded in cellphones. Nor did the law anticipate YouTube and the ease with which such videos could be disseminated. Until now, its most famous alleged violator was Monica Lewinsky confidante Linda Tripp -- then a Columbia resident -- who taped her phone conversations with the aide about her relationship with President Bill Clinton. (The case was dismissed.)
But the decades-old wiretap law has suddenly become a fresh battleground for civil libertarians and bloggers who consider Graber's prosecution and a series of similar arrests a case of government overreach.
The frequency of such arrests has picked up with the spread of portable video cameras and the proliferation of videos showing alleged police misconduct on the Web. Miller has documented eight arrests in the past few years, including one of an Oregon man who was arrested for using his cellphone camera to tape police he says were being rough with a friend and a Chicago artist who taped his arrest for selling $1 artwork. "Most of the people getting arrested are not criminals," Miller said. "It is just really a power trip on the side of police."
The attention the Graber case is receiving has surprised Harford prosecutor Joseph I. Cassilly, who said his office has prosecuted similar cases before, including one within the past year against the passenger of a car that was stopped during a drug investigation who started taping officers with a cellphone camera. Cassilly said he didn't know the status of the case because the prosecutor handling it has been out sick.
"The question is: Is a police officer permitted to have a private conversation as part of their duty in responding to calls, or is everything a police officer does subject to being audio recorded?" Cassilly said.
ad_icon
Cassilly thinks officers should be able to consider their on-duty conversations to be private. Other officers share that view and have issued warnings to documentarians. Another video that surfaced on YouTube shows a Baltimore police officer at the Preakness warning a cameraman who was recording several other officers subduing a woman that such recordings are illegal.
State police spokesman Greg Shipley said that Uhler acted appropriately and that the officer never pointed his gun at Graber, putting it away as soon as he saw Graber comply with his commands.
Troopers are told to act as if they are being videorecorded, Shipley said. If they see someone videorecording them, they can ask them to stop but are to take no further action even if the cameraman continues, he said. If they think a private conversation is being illegally recorded, they are to contact the local state's attorney's office and let a prosecutor decide whether a violation occurred.
David Rocah, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland who is part of Graber's defense team, said on-duty officers have no expectation of privacy while doing their job in public. If police need to talk to an informant, they can have a private conversation, he said. "But when they are public officials performing their duty for everyone to see and hear, that is not a private conversation," Roach said.
State supreme courts in Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Washington have upheld people's right to record police officers. (Illinois has since made it illegal to record anyone without consent.)
Dashboard videocams
Complicating the issue: Maryland state troopers record traffic stops themselves, using dashboard cameras that were installed in all patrol cars as a result of a 2003 settlement with the state ACLU over racial profiling.
In an August 2000 legal opinion, the state's attorney general wrote that "many encounters between uniformed police officers and citizens could hardly be characterized as 'private conversations' " and that "any driver pulled over by a uniformed officer in a traffic stop is acutely aware that his or her statements are being made to a police officer and, indeed, that they may be repeated as evidence in a courtroom."
But Cassilly says the use of dash cameras does not negate officers' entitlement to privacy on the job. Police who use dash cameras must alert drivers that they are being taped, he said.
As Graber's case moves forward, civil libertarians are concerned about its implications in light of what happened to John McKenna, an unarmed University of Maryland student who was beaten in March by three police officers after the school's basketball victory over Duke. Police initially charged McKenna and another student with assaulting mounted police and alleged his injuries were caused by the horses. After a private investigator working for McKenna's attorney uncovered a video of the incident, the charges were dropped. The Prince George's County prosecutor and the FBI have since launched investigations.
If people who videorecord police are successfully prosecuted, even if they capture misconduct, the evidence they gathered is not admissible in court.
A judge could still dismiss the case against Graber at a hearing scheduled for October. But Rocah said it might be too late because "the message of intimidation has already been sent."
Graber told Miller that he is afraid of police now and so nervous driving that he has put his motorcycle up for sale.
tl;dr
-Staff Sergeant Graber was driving home on I-95, speeding and doing wheelies on his motorcycle.
-He was pulled over by a police officer in plain clothes who, before ever identifying himself as an officer, was waving around his pistol.
-Staff Sergeant took the ticket and then placed a motorcycle cam video on Youtube.
-The police said that this video violated wiretap laws and used it as a motive to raid his house andsteal(confiscate) his computer, camcorder, and flash drives.
---
This is ridiculous. I know there are two sides to every story, but what possible reason could they have to take all this stuff other than spite?
The cop had every right to pull him over and maybe he was wrong for pulling out his weapon. I don't care about all that. The issue is using wiretap laws to punish this person for his freedom of speech... then again are youtube videos covered by the first ammendment?
In early March, Anthony Graber, a 25-year-old staff sergeant for the Maryland Air National Guard, was humming a tune while riding his two-year-old Honda motorcycle down Interstate 95, not far from his home north of Baltimore. On top of his helmet was a camera he often used to record his journeys. The camera was rolling when an unmarked gray sedan cut him off as he stopped behind several other cars along Exit 80.
From the driver's side emerged a man in a gray pullover and jeans. The man, who was wielding a gun, repeatedly yelled at Graber, ordering him to get off his bike. Only then did Maryland State Trooper Joseph D. Uhler identify himself as "state police" and holster his weapon. Graber, who'd been observed popping a wheelie while speeding, was cited for doing 80 in a 65 mph zone. Graber accepted his ticket, which he says he deserved.
(Watch the video from the incident)
[Note: The main part of this video doesn't start until 3:00 on. The first 3 minutes is him driving very recklessly and speeding]
A week later, on March 10, Graber posted his video of the encounter on YouTube. What followed wasn't a furor over the police officer's behavior but over Graber's use of a camera to capture the entire episode.
ad_icon
On April 8, Graber was awakened by six officers raiding his parents' home in Abingdon, Md., where he lived with his wife and two young children. He learned later that prosecutors had obtained a grand jury indictment alleging he had violated state wiretap laws by recording the trooper without his consent.
The case has ignited a debate over whether police are twisting a decades-old statute intended to protect people from government intrusions of privacy to, instead, keep residents from recording police activity.
Maryland's wiretap law applies only to audio recordings, so it is just the sound from Graber's video that is at issue legally. Like 11 other states, Maryland requires all parties to consent before a recording might be made if a conversation takes place where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy." (By contrast, Virginia and the District require one party's consent to a recording.) But is there any expectation of privacy in a police stop? That's where police and civil libertarians differ.
During a 90-minute search of Graber's parents' home, police confiscated four computers, the camera, external hard drives and thumb drives. The police didn't take Graber to jail that day because he had just had gall bladder surgery.
A week later, he turned himself in. "I just wanted to do the right thing," he said in an April interview with Miami journalist Carlos Miller, who runs the blog Photography Is Not a Crime.
It was Graber's first arrest. He spent 26 hours in jail. Graber has since stopped talking publicly about the case on the advice of his attorneys. On June 1, he was arraigned in Harford County Circuit Court in Bel Air. He faces up to 16 years in prison if convicted on all charges.
The YouTube effect
Maryland's wiretap law has been around since the 1970s, before the VHS era, let alone the digital revolution, and did not anticipate the advent of video cameras attached to helmets or embedded in cellphones. Nor did the law anticipate YouTube and the ease with which such videos could be disseminated. Until now, its most famous alleged violator was Monica Lewinsky confidante Linda Tripp -- then a Columbia resident -- who taped her phone conversations with the aide about her relationship with President Bill Clinton. (The case was dismissed.)
But the decades-old wiretap law has suddenly become a fresh battleground for civil libertarians and bloggers who consider Graber's prosecution and a series of similar arrests a case of government overreach.
The frequency of such arrests has picked up with the spread of portable video cameras and the proliferation of videos showing alleged police misconduct on the Web. Miller has documented eight arrests in the past few years, including one of an Oregon man who was arrested for using his cellphone camera to tape police he says were being rough with a friend and a Chicago artist who taped his arrest for selling $1 artwork. "Most of the people getting arrested are not criminals," Miller said. "It is just really a power trip on the side of police."
The attention the Graber case is receiving has surprised Harford prosecutor Joseph I. Cassilly, who said his office has prosecuted similar cases before, including one within the past year against the passenger of a car that was stopped during a drug investigation who started taping officers with a cellphone camera. Cassilly said he didn't know the status of the case because the prosecutor handling it has been out sick.
"The question is: Is a police officer permitted to have a private conversation as part of their duty in responding to calls, or is everything a police officer does subject to being audio recorded?" Cassilly said.
ad_icon
Cassilly thinks officers should be able to consider their on-duty conversations to be private. Other officers share that view and have issued warnings to documentarians. Another video that surfaced on YouTube shows a Baltimore police officer at the Preakness warning a cameraman who was recording several other officers subduing a woman that such recordings are illegal.
State police spokesman Greg Shipley said that Uhler acted appropriately and that the officer never pointed his gun at Graber, putting it away as soon as he saw Graber comply with his commands.
Troopers are told to act as if they are being videorecorded, Shipley said. If they see someone videorecording them, they can ask them to stop but are to take no further action even if the cameraman continues, he said. If they think a private conversation is being illegally recorded, they are to contact the local state's attorney's office and let a prosecutor decide whether a violation occurred.
David Rocah, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland who is part of Graber's defense team, said on-duty officers have no expectation of privacy while doing their job in public. If police need to talk to an informant, they can have a private conversation, he said. "But when they are public officials performing their duty for everyone to see and hear, that is not a private conversation," Roach said.
State supreme courts in Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Washington have upheld people's right to record police officers. (Illinois has since made it illegal to record anyone without consent.)
Dashboard videocams
Complicating the issue: Maryland state troopers record traffic stops themselves, using dashboard cameras that were installed in all patrol cars as a result of a 2003 settlement with the state ACLU over racial profiling.
In an August 2000 legal opinion, the state's attorney general wrote that "many encounters between uniformed police officers and citizens could hardly be characterized as 'private conversations' " and that "any driver pulled over by a uniformed officer in a traffic stop is acutely aware that his or her statements are being made to a police officer and, indeed, that they may be repeated as evidence in a courtroom."
But Cassilly says the use of dash cameras does not negate officers' entitlement to privacy on the job. Police who use dash cameras must alert drivers that they are being taped, he said.
As Graber's case moves forward, civil libertarians are concerned about its implications in light of what happened to John McKenna, an unarmed University of Maryland student who was beaten in March by three police officers after the school's basketball victory over Duke. Police initially charged McKenna and another student with assaulting mounted police and alleged his injuries were caused by the horses. After a private investigator working for McKenna's attorney uncovered a video of the incident, the charges were dropped. The Prince George's County prosecutor and the FBI have since launched investigations.
If people who videorecord police are successfully prosecuted, even if they capture misconduct, the evidence they gathered is not admissible in court.
A judge could still dismiss the case against Graber at a hearing scheduled for October. But Rocah said it might be too late because "the message of intimidation has already been sent."
Graber told Miller that he is afraid of police now and so nervous driving that he has put his motorcycle up for sale.
tl;dr
-Staff Sergeant Graber was driving home on I-95, speeding and doing wheelies on his motorcycle.
-He was pulled over by a police officer in plain clothes who, before ever identifying himself as an officer, was waving around his pistol.
-Staff Sergeant took the ticket and then placed a motorcycle cam video on Youtube.
-The police said that this video violated wiretap laws and used it as a motive to raid his house and
---
This is ridiculous. I know there are two sides to every story, but what possible reason could they have to take all this stuff other than spite?
The cop had every right to pull him over and maybe he was wrong for pulling out his weapon. I don't care about all that. The issue is using wiretap laws to punish this person for his freedom of speech... then again are youtube videos covered by the first ammendment?
36
Culture Vultures / Re: what`s popular today on youtube
« on: June 25, 2010, 06:34:01 PM »
LMFAO!!! That was hilarious!
Phillip DeFranco Show
And the first twenty seconds of this video perfectly sum up my feelings on Obama. NSFW.
This show is immensely popular. Huge fan following. Pretty much everybody I know watches this.
[Edit: I'll grant he takes to cheap humoronce in a while(okay often), but I still like it.]
Phillip DeFranco Show
And the first twenty seconds of this video perfectly sum up my feelings on Obama. NSFW.
This show is immensely popular. Huge fan following. Pretty much everybody I know watches this.
[Edit: I'll grant he takes to cheap humor
37
3DHS / Re: Pattern Recognition
« on: June 25, 2010, 06:28:43 PM »
Rather than fruitlessly trying to get you to see what I believe to be an error in your way of thinking, I would like to address one particular quote:
Are you saying that deaths caused by a (in your mind) not pointless war would be treated with less outrage? Soldiers die, it's the sad reality of life. 37,000 soldiers dead in three years is tragic. Nobody wants to see soldiers die on both the "pro-" and "anti-" american side.
Frankly because of the efforts in Korea at least half of the country remained free. It's not a complete victory sure, but (and I speak on behalf of my South Korean friends whose families were free to move the US) I'd call that a victory.
Quote from: Michael Tee
Maybe you could explain how outrage over the pointless sacrifice of American lives becomes an "anti-American drum?" What would you consider a "pro-American drum," the desire to see even more dead Americans coming home in body bags?
Are you saying that deaths caused by a (in your mind) not pointless war would be treated with less outrage? Soldiers die, it's the sad reality of life. 37,000 soldiers dead in three years is tragic. Nobody wants to see soldiers die on both the "pro-" and "anti-" american side.
Frankly because of the efforts in Korea at least half of the country remained free. It's not a complete victory sure, but (and I speak on behalf of my South Korean friends whose families were free to move the US) I'd call that a victory.
38
3DHS / Re: Al Gore Accused of Sexual Assault!
« on: June 25, 2010, 06:20:15 PM »true Pup....
and I have a feeling when it's a conservative it doesn't
have to be the National Enquirer breaking the story.
I'm not quite as conservative as my father before me (random star wars flashback).
I am fully aware that both parties have extremists who lie and alter the truth in anyway they can. I lean traditionally towards the values of Republicans, true, but not unfalteringly and unquestioningly.
I've been raised to question everything I hear, not just what's coming out of one party.
39
3DHS / Re: McChrystal fired.....Obama picks Petraeus for Afghanistan
« on: June 25, 2010, 06:15:42 PM »
Obama has immense charisma, but no significant political experience. The Dems ultimately wanted him, in my opinion mostly because of this charisma. He speaks well (perhaps this is what you meant when you said he talks white) is a fantastic orator and is overall a much more likeable, personable guy than McCain... at least to the undecided voter.
I really can't say that they didn't push the race card to its absolute limit, but i'd say it's about 50-50. If the Hildebeast had been elected they would have played the sex card. 2008 was all about changing the formula. It made the voters who were undecided excited about playing some minor part in that change.
The idealistic opinion that our votes actually in some way matter in the grand scheme of things; the concept that if "our guy" doesn't get the office all hell will break loose and if he does it will reign in a new golden age.
Obama won because he was black, was a good speaker, was basically a celebrity, and because Bush was so unpopular. Not one thing mentioned here makes him fit to lead the free world. And with the party lines getting so extreme, that's not what it's about anymore. It's about having a face who can win the elections so that the party can be in power.
[Edit: And incidentally, Kramer, I love your avatar.
]
I really can't say that they didn't push the race card to its absolute limit, but i'd say it's about 50-50. If the Hildebeast had been elected they would have played the sex card. 2008 was all about changing the formula. It made the voters who were undecided excited about playing some minor part in that change.
The idealistic opinion that our votes actually in some way matter in the grand scheme of things; the concept that if "our guy" doesn't get the office all hell will break loose and if he does it will reign in a new golden age.
Obama won because he was black, was a good speaker, was basically a celebrity, and because Bush was so unpopular. Not one thing mentioned here makes him fit to lead the free world. And with the party lines getting so extreme, that's not what it's about anymore. It's about having a face who can win the elections so that the party can be in power.
[Edit: And incidentally, Kramer, I love your avatar.
]
40
3DHS / Re: live with it
« on: June 25, 2010, 06:06:47 PM »
That's what you get for wasting your money on technology run amok.
I love my gadgets. I have a cell phone and a laptop and I can hardly go anywhere without them. But do we really have to compress everything into one?
There's that old saying... Jack of all trades, master of none. That's basically what this is.
I love my gadgets. I have a cell phone and a laptop and I can hardly go anywhere without them. But do we really have to compress everything into one?
There's that old saying... Jack of all trades, master of none. That's basically what this is.
41
3DHS / Re: Al Gore Accused of Sexual Assault!
« on: June 25, 2010, 06:04:51 PM »Was that story next to the one about the aliens in the Washington Monument? Or about the latest celebrity pregnancy?Maybe it was right next to the story about John Edwards mistress and love child
that was in the National Enquirer and everybody dismissed like you seem to be doing...
"ah that cant be true....look at the source".
As a general rule, yes, I tend to carefully scrutinize the source of anything I hear. That notwithstanding everybody gets it right once in a while. I don't deny that these events happened, I'm simply saying I don't know enough about it to make an informed called either way and that I do tend to treat the National Enquirer with the same regard I treat a poorly written fiction novel. Maybe that's a mistake, but I'll take my chances not getting the cutting edge.
They're still better than that one black-and-white one... i think it's called the Globe or something. If they're telling the truth then there are an additional 800 commandments 2500 Nostradamus predictions and 32,000 aliens.
42
3DHS / Re: Al Gore Accused of Sexual Assault!
« on: June 25, 2010, 02:57:28 PM »The tabloid was the National Enquirer. They are the ones who broke the story about John Edwards love child.
Other publications were aware of the story but chose not to run it.
Which is the same as what happened with Edwards.
Really? That's interesting.
Why not though? I mean we have to hear about every other minor disgrace from every celebrity under the sun (that Val Kilmer discussion comes to mind). And it's not like Gore is powerful enough any more to force through some kind of gag order or cover up.
43
3DHS / Re: Al Gore Accused of Sexual Assault!
« on: June 25, 2010, 02:27:59 PM »A national tabloid magazine
Was that story next to the one about the aliens in the Washington Monument? Or about the latest celebrity pregnancy?
[Edit: Don't mean to sound snide here, but it says tabloid. Do we know exactly what magazine or is there more than one source?]
I mean if this really did happen, maybe old Gore is just desperate for attention.
Let's face it, the guy has seen better days. Every politician seems to be having a race to see who can go crazy first and Gore was never far from the finish line...
44
3DHS / Re: Second generation in the Saloon
« on: June 25, 2010, 02:10:50 PM »QuoteTypical capitalist advertising
As if commies don't advertise.
Capitalist, Socialist and Communist walk into a bar.
The barman says "drinks are 2 bucks."
The Capitalist goes first. He says "I'll tell you what, go ahead and give me the drink for 1 buck. By lowering your price you'll gain more business and your bottom line will be improved, plus you'll have me as a repeat customer."
The barman nods, takes the dollar and gives him a drink. He tells the other two "drinks are 1 buck."
The Socialist goes next. He says "You know you have plenty of alcohol in your establishment. You should give your alcohol for free. I work on a farm and will give you my food and we can all share what we have."
The barman agrees and give the Socialist a drink.
The Communist walks up, pulls out a gun and says: "I'll have what he's having."
45
3DHS / Re: Pattern Recognition
« on: June 25, 2010, 01:51:03 PM »<<The Constitution does not dictate whether or not a person who is in power should have military experience. It is not a requirement, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.>>
It's not necessarily a bad idea, but it's clear that neither the Framers of the Constitution nor the U.S. electorate had any problems with a civilian of no military experience whatsoever holding the office of President. You might as well argue that since the federal government is responsible for dealing with other states, the President must have diplomatic experience. The Framers trusted in the wisdom of the common man and did not like to exclude him from any office in favour of "experts" of any kind. As between some egg-head Ivy League college grad and an unlettered frontiersman, the Constitution is content to let the voters make the choice, and so it should be. It is the man, and not his experience or credentials that is the important thing. The U.S.A. was never intended to be the kind of country where only men of a certain class or degree could hold office.
This is not a classist argument. I'm not saying anything like we should reinstate a caste system, I'm saying I wouldn't hire a doctor to build my house or a lawyer to do my yardwork (or a lobbyist making my pizza
).The person who runs the military should know what he is doing militarily. He should also be a great politician and diplomat, as you say.
You know there are eight different titles for the POTUS? Among them are Chief Citizen and Commander-In-Chief. One man must be many things.
Quote
<<And we did not militarily lose Vietnam. We have, in fact, not military lost any war. >>
Ha ha ha. No? Then I'd better correct the definition of "lose" and "loser" in my dictionary. Seemed to me that Vietnam went exactly the way your military tried to prevent it from going, also that the Korean cease-fire was not agreed to until after the North Korean forces and China's PLA drove American forces from the Yalu River to south of the 38th parallel. It was the failure to achieve victory in battle that led to the political discord that you refer to, not the other way round. It was the casualty rates among U.S. troops that led to the growth of the desire for peace. When American forces are winning, the public supports them. The American public will NOT, however, back a bunch of losers - - not over any extended period of time, at least.
Stray Pooch took the words right out of my mouth.