Thursday, December 11, 2014


News Clips For The Day


http://www.fox19.com/story/27576878/body-cameras-to-be-worn-by-all-cincinnati-police-officers

Chief Blackwell wants body cameras for all officers
Posted by Lindsey Wopschall
Posted: Dec 08, 2014 3:51 PM EST Updated: Dec 09, 2014 5:31 AM EST

CINCINNATI, OH (FOX19) -
The success of a 90-day pilot program is giving Cincinnati Police Chief Jeffrey Blackwell confidence to outfit all 600 police officers in uniform with a body camera.

“First it increases our transparency and it increases our professionalism. Complaints on officers go down somewhere between 65 and 80 percent,” said Chief Blackwell during a city council meeting on Monday.

The past seven months Blackwell says Cincinnati PD has been doing its homework on body cameras. In the first academic study of body cameras worn by police officers in Rialto, California, use of force incidents declined by 59 percent and citizen complaints reduced by 87.5 percent.

It will cost the city between $500,000 to $1.8 million to implement a body camera program for the department. Chief Blackwell hopes to get half of the cost covered by the federal government. He is traveling to Washington D.C. this week to make the request.

Policy is being created to determine how often the camera footage will be stored and logistics, like when the cameras would be turned on.

Despite Blackwell's rave reviews of body cameras he admits there are some issues that will need to be considered.

“You absolutely do not want your officers to find a button or turn something on when every moment may count. So I don't want my officers to divert their attention away from a suspect or a high profile deadly scenario because they feel the need to turn the camera on,” he said.

Police Specialist Yvonne Gutapfel tested the body cameras on six of her shifts and says she's skeptical.

“Skeptical in that it was something else I was going to have to take care of, have to maintain, keep charged, didn't really change anything though,” she said.

Gutapfel says she doesn't think the cameras will change the behavior of her and her co-workers or the people they police judging by her experience on the job.

“We have people that are out of control in a McDonalds and they know they are on camera, and we will tell them, you know everything is on camera, and they won't care. So I don't think us having a body camera is going to make them law abiding citizens,” she said.

Police agencies across the country are requesting the results from Cincinnati's pilot program, looking to follow Cincinnati Police Department and its push for officers to wear body cameras.
Once Cincinnati PD gets the funding for the body cameras, police will be outfitted with them one to two months after.




“The success of a 90-day pilot program is giving Cincinnati Police Chief Jeffrey Blackwell confidence to outfit all 600 police officers in uniform with a body camera. “First it increases our transparency and it increases our professionalism. Complaints on officers go down somewhere between 65 and 80 percent,” said Chief Blackwell during a city council meeting on Monday.... In the first academic study of body cameras worn by police officers in Rialto, California, use of force incidents declined by 59 percent and citizen complaints reduced by 87.5 percent. It will cost the city between $500,000 to $1.8 million to implement a body camera program for the department. Chief Blackwell hopes to get half of the cost covered by the federal government. He is traveling to Washington D.C. this week to make the request.Policy is being created to determine how often the camera footage will be stored and logistics, like when the cameras would be turned on. Despite Blackwell's rave reviews of body cameras he admits there are some issues that will need to be considered. “You absolutely do not want your officers to find a button or turn something on when every moment may count. So I don't want my officers to divert their attention away from a suspect or a high profile deadly scenario because they feel the need to turn the camera on,” he said. ... “Skeptical in that it was something else I was going to have to take care of, have to maintain, keep charged, didn't really change anything though,” she said. Gutapfel says she doesn't think the cameras will change the behavior of her and her co-workers or the people they police judging by her experience on the job. “We have people that are out of control in a McDonalds and they know they are on camera, and we will tell them, you know everything is on camera, and they won't care. So I don't think us having a body camera is going to make them law abiding citizens,” she said.”

Officer Gutapfel thinks the cameras won't change either police or suspects behavior, but the statistics in Cleveland and in Rialto, California does so far show fewer complaints and less police violence. As Cleveland chief said, it “increases our professionalism.” I think police in general will be more aware of being fair and professional because they are being watched. The Chief didn't say that the suspects would be “law abiding citizens” as a result of it, so if Gutapfel is hoping for that she may be disappointed. If it takes away as much of the threat from police abuse of power as the statistics seem to say it will, it will be a success. The chief said that the policy question of whether the cameras are to be left on all the time, or turned on when they get out of their car, is being decided. It seems to me they should be on all the time. Then there are no gaps in coverage, and the officer doesn't have to keep paying attention to the camera.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-cops-gesture-to-shoplifter-goes-viral/

Alabama cop's gesture to shoplifter goes viral
CBS NEWS December 9, 2014, 11:04 AM

When a woman was caught shoplifting eggs over the weekend in Tarrant, Alabama, a police officer responded not with a court date but a carton of eggs.

CBS affiliate WIAT-TV reports that Officer William Stacy was called to the local Dollar General store on Saturday when the woman was caught trying to steal a dozen eggs.

Stacy recognized the woman because he had responded to a previous call to her house and had seen her difficult living conditions, WIAT reported.

When the store agreed not to press charges, Stacy decided to pay for the eggs.

"She tried to give me all the money she had," Stacy said. "It was about $1.25. I told her the best way to pay me back was to never do something like that again."

A customer recorded the incident, which showed the officer hugging the woman in the store's parking lot. By Monday night, WIAT reported that the video had more than 265,000 views on Facebook.

"My phone was blowing up with notifications and texts," Stacy told the station.

Tarrant Police Chief Dennis Reno said he was he was gratified by the officer's gesture.

"I was pleasantly surprised that something good came out of me getting a phone call on a Sunday, instead of something bad," Reno said.




Here we have an officer stepping out of his role as enforcer when he gives a shoplifter a carton of eggs after she was caught stealing. When she offered him her last $1.25 in payment, he wouldn't take it, saying for her to pay him back by never stealing again. Hopefully she won't, but whether she does or not he has behaved as a benign influence in the situation, as Jesus himself would have wanted. Thank goodness for every “good cop,” because the criminals are sometimes actually very needy people. I know some people shoplift as a way of life or for the fun of it – especially wealthy young men and women in high end stores – but I don't think this woman was that type. I think she was hungry and only had $1.25. Bless you, Officer Stacey.





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/09/senate-cia-report_n_6270138.html

Senate Report Says Torture Program Was More Gruesome, Widespread Than CIA Claimed
By Ali Watkins and Ryan Grim
December 9, 2014

WASHINGTON -- The Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday released the highly anticipated 500-page summary of its report on the CIA’s post-9/11 torture program, providing a sobering glimpse into one of the darkest chapters in the U.S. government's history.

In the report, a product of a 5-year investigation, Senate investigators reveal sordid details of the systemic and individual failures by the agency personnel who ran the "enhanced interrogation program" -- the government's euphemism for systematic torture -- during the George W. Bush administration. The program involved capturing terrorism suspects and shipping them to secret overseas prisons, where they were subjected to techniques such as waterboarding.

The CIA's program has long been criticized as un-American and a chilling departure from the nation’s values. Opponents allege that it resulted in gross abuses and inhumane treatment of detainees, some of whom were eventually revealed not to have been involved in terror organizations.

The 6,300-page report may be the most unsanitized official account to date of the agency’s program, which the Senate investigators say was mismanaged, poorly conducted and characterized by abuses far more widespread than the CIA previously conveyed to lawmakers.

The newly released document tears apart the CIA's past claims that only a small number of detainees were subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques. The agency has said it held fewer than 100 detainees and subjected fewer than one-third of those to controversial tactics such as waterboarding. But Senate investigators found that the CIA had actually kept 119 detainees in custody, 26 of whom were illegally held. And despite CIA insistence that the program was limited in scope, Senate investigators conclude that the use of torture was much more widespread than previously thought.

The study reveals several gruesome instances of torture by mid-level CIA officers who participated in the program, including threats of sexual violence using a broomstick and the use of "rectal hydration" in instances of harsh interrogations that lasted for days or weeks on end. And, contrary to the agency's prior insistence that only three detainees were subject to waterboarding, the Senate report suggests it was likely used on more detainees.

The report cites the presence of materials typically used for waterboarding being present at certain "blacksites," or secret prisons, where the agency had previously said waterboarding was not used.

Rather than wrestling with the morality of the agency’s torture program or the operation's damaging effect on the U.S.’ international credibility, Senate investigators instead weighed whether the agency's tactics were effective. Through narrative examinations of 20 separate detainee cases, the panel attempted to make the case that the use of harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding did not yield valuable intelligence.

"The committee reviewed 20 of the most frequent and prominent examples of purported counterterrorism 'successes' that the CIA has attributed to the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chair of the intelligence panel, said in a statement Tuesday. "Each of those examples was found to be wrong in fundamental respects."

In some instances, the study finds, the information acquired proved irrelevant to stopping terror threats. In others, the use of the techniques resulted in detainees providing fabricated or inaccurate information, and in still other cases, the information obtained through interrogating the detainees had already been acquired through other techniques.

Given that the techniques were ineffective, the study says, the agency routinely misled Congress and the White House when it claimed that the use of torture did in fact contribute to intelligence victories. For instance, the Senate report pushes back against the CIA's argument that torture provided the information about Osama bin Laden's courier that helped the U.S. kill the al Qaeda leader in 2011. In a 10-page discussion on the subject, Senate investigators say the information that led the U.S. to bin Laden was obtained from a detainee while he was in foreign custody, prior to being subjected to torture.

The CIA, however, refutes these conclusions. In a roughly 100-page official response released alongside the intelligence panel’s summary, the agency contends that harsh interrogation techniques were effective.

“The sum total of information provided from detainees in CIA custody substantially advanced the Agency’s strategic and tactical understanding of the enemy in ways that continue to inform counterterrorism efforts to this day," the agency said in its rebuttal.

The response argues that it's not clear whether the valuable information could have been acquired by means other than harsh interrogation techniques, although the agency concedes that it's possible.

“It is impossible to imagine how CIA could have achieved the same results in terms of disrupting plots, capturing other terrorists, and degrading al-Qa’ida without any information from detainees, but it is unknowable whether, without enhanced interrogation techniques, CIA or non-CIA interrogators could have acquired the same information from those detainees," the rebuttal said.

Still, the CIA is not advocating a return to the use of torture during interrogations. Rather, it is most concerned with defending itself against charges that it misled Congress and the White House about the extent and value of the program. The official response vehemently challenges the Senate's allegation that the spies acted outside the limits of what the White House had allowed the agency to do. The agency has said that the enhanced interrogations were part of a government-approved program carried out under express orders from within the Bush administration.

"The image portrayed in the Study of an organization that—on an institutional scale—intentionally misled and routinely resisted oversight from the White House, the Congress, the Department of Justice, and its own OIG simply does not comport with the record,“ the agency's response said.

Among the Senate report’s 20 main conclusions are that the CIA misled Congress, the White House and the Department of Justice, that the agency ignored internal critiques of the program, and that the CIA's use of the techniques went far beyond the legal authority bestowed upon it by the Bush White House.

In a statement Tuesday, President Barack Obama said, "The report documents a troubling program involving enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects in secret facilities outside the United States, and it reinforces my long-held view that these harsh methods were not only inconsistent with our values as nation, they did not serve our broader counterterrorism efforts or our national security interests."

"That is why I will continue to use my authority as President to make sure we never resort to those methods again," Obama added.

"In carrying out that program, we did not always live up to the high standards that we set for ourselves and that the American people expect of us," CIA Director John Brennan said Tuesday in his official response. "As an Agency, we have learned from these mistakes, which is why my predecessors and I have implemented various remedial measures over the years to address institutional deficiencies."

The agency says it has no intention of revamping the current version of its interrogation program, which was curbed as a result of directives from Obama. "It is Director Brennan’s resolute intention to ensure that Agency officers scrupulously adhere to these directives, which the Director fully supports," the statement continued.

"CIA has owned up to these mistakes, learned from them, and taken numerous corrective actions over the years. Further improvements to CIA practices continue to be made today as a result of our review of the SSCI Study," the agency's response noted, referring to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the intelligence panel's full name.

The document’s release marks the conclusion of an explosive, high-stakes feud that played out between the White House’s chief spying agency and its powerful Senate overseers about how much of the report to release publicly.

The feud revolved around the executive branch's insistence that the committee redact the pseudonyms used to identify the mid-level CIA officers involved in the program. Despite a monthslong fight, Feinstein was ultimately forced to relent and allow the pseudonyms to remain blacked out in order to get her study's summary out the door before the panel's incoming Republican majority takes control of the report in January.

The study, which was first commissioned by Feinstein in 2009, began as a bipartisan effort with then-ranking member Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.). Republicans on the panel, though, withdrew from the study just months after it was commissioned.

The document released Tuesday will very likely be the only portion the public sees of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report. Although Feinstein suggested in April that the full report would be released at a later date, Republicans are not likely to seek further declassification once they gain control of the committee, given their opposition to the investigation.

The study set the stage for a dramatic, closed-door dispute between the agency and Feinstein, which resulted in deeply personal jabs and competing referrals to the Justice Department asking for criminal investigations. The CIA accused Feinstein’s staff early this year of taking highly sensitive material from the secure agency facility where the investigation was conducted. Feinstein, meanwhile, insisted the investigators had a right to the document, and further accused the agency of improperly monitoring the computers her staff used to construct the study.

The Department of Justice declined to investigate either the CIA's or Feinstein's allegations. The CIA has since conceded that it did improperly monitor Senate investigators’ computers, and is conducting an independent accountability review board to determine what consequences, if any, its employees should face.
This is a developing story and will be updated.




“In the report, a product of a 5-year investigation, Senate investigators reveal sordid details of the systemic and individual failures by the agency personnel who ran the "enhanced interrogation program" -- the government's euphemism for systematic torture -- during the George W. Bush administration. The program involved capturing terrorism suspects and shipping them to secret overseas prisons, where they were subjected to techniques such as waterboarding. The CIA's program has long been criticized as un-American and a chilling departure from the nation’s values. Opponents allege that it resulted in gross abuses and inhumane treatment of detainees, some of whom were eventually revealed not to have been involved in terror organizations.... including threats of sexual violence using a broomstick and the use of "rectal hydration" in instances of harsh interrogations that lasted for days or weeks on end.... Rather than wrestling with the morality of the agency’s torture program or the operation's damaging effect on the U.S.’ international credibility, Senate investigators instead weighed whether the agency's tactics were effective.... Still, the CIA is not advocating a return to the use of torture during interrogations. Rather, it is most concerned with defending itself against charges that it misled Congress and the White House about the extent and value of the program. The official response vehemently challenges the Senate's allegation that the spies acted outside the limits of what the White House had allowed the agency to do. … The agency says it has no intention of revamping the current version of its interrogation program, which was curbed as a result of directives from Obama. "It is Director Brennan’s resolute intention to ensure that Agency officers scrupulously adhere to these directives, which the Director fully supports," the statement continued. "CIA has owned up to these mistakes, learned from them, and taken numerous corrective actions over the years. Further improvements to CIA practices continue to be made today as a result of our review of the SSCI Study," the agency's response noted, referring to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the intelligence panel's full name.... The Department of Justice declined to investigate either the CIA's or Feinstein's allegations. The CIA has since conceded that it did improperly monitor Senate investigators’ computers, and is conducting an independent accountability review board to determine what consequences, if any, its employees should face. This is a developing story and will be updated.”

With another stroke of his executive pen, Obama put an end to these practices, however they are defined. What is torture? If this isn't, the CIA is clearly guilty of “cruel and unusual” tactics, though the CIA and Bush Administration have stated that what they did was not “torture.” The use of several different kinds of sexual abuse have been in the news since the CIA activities came to light, and they are surely inhumane and grotesque at the very least. The terms “rectal hydration” and “rectal feeding” are two terms I've never heard before. They are, however, according to a medical article, both medical procedures used only in extreme cases. They were used by the CIA as forms of “behavior modification,” especially when prisoners were on hunger strikes. Along with the threat of sodomization with a broom handle, they were used to achieve greater control over the prisoners. Cortez, in the Bloomberg article said, “This was done not solely for therapeutic reasons but as another form of abuse or humiliation,” Keller said. “Given the circumstances, this is sodomy with the intention of humiliation under the guise of medical treatment.” See the article – Where Rectal Feeding Came From and How the CIA Used It, Bloomberg,, By Michelle Fay Cortez  Dec 11, 2014 for more on the subject.





http://aattp.org/thanks-gop-michigan-is-now-a-theocracy-and-your-state-is-next/

Thanks GOP! Michigan Is Now a Theocracy and They’re Coming for YOUR State Next!
Posted by: Josh Kilburn in GOP War on Women, Most Popular on AATTP, Religion, TEApublicans in Action December 7, 2014

The war on secularism has hit my home state, and soon, it’ll be coming to yours, too, in the wake of the November Republican sweep.

My state was the birth place of the Republican party, back when they were the good guys — back when they were the party of anti-slavery, when they had a progressive wing that included presidents like Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. Michigan has always been seen as a blue state, but the truth is much different: we’re mostly Detroit, Ann Arbor, Bay City, and to a lesser extent, Flint, surrounded by the very worst of Mississippi.

And the recent house legislation is proof of that. Envious of what their hero Putin’s been able to pull off in Russia, the theocratic Republican party has been pushing the claim that they have theocratic authority over anyone and everyone who’s not interested in playing along with their warped religion hard. House Bill 5958, the ominously named Religious Freedom Restoration Act, is a bill that authorizes Christian extremists to discriminate based on their stunted and atrophied conscience. It grants them free reign to breach the law and the social mores they never respected, giving them the legal room to refuse service, housing, and violate other  citizen’s rights, any rights, if the theocrat feels it violates their “religious freedom” or objects on “religious ground.”

The real dangerous part of this law is one that I’ve seen before: the so-called “conscience clause.” According to The New Civil Rights Movement:

Supporters of these bills claim they allow people of faith to exercise their religion without government interference, but in reality, they are trojan horses, allowing rampant discrimination under the guise of religious observance.

For example, under the Religious Freedom law, a pharmacist could refuse to fill a doctor’s prescription for birth control, or HIV medication. An emergency room physician or EMT could refuse service to a gay person in need of immediate treatment. A school teacher could refuse to mentor the children of a same-sex couple, and a DMV clerk could refuse to give a driver’s license to a person who is divorced.

I have no idea why they call this a “conscience clause.” Calling this a “conscience clause” is like calling Pol Pot’s regime “pro-Western education.” They two aren’t just diametrically opposed; they occupy different realities.

But apparently “pro-lifers” have no problem establishing a law that lets them legally kill people they disagree with. That’s the real purpose for this bull; it lets them punish people they desperately want to punish for defying their warped little religion, and for mocking their sad little God.

This bill was fast-tracked by James Bolger, the Speaker of the House, and passed with a vote of 59-50. It’s modeled after the Federal RFRA, which the Supreme Court has said shouldn’t be applied at the state level, meaning this abomination probably won’t hold up in court. Bolger couldn’t resist pinning himself on a cross, though, when he was celebrating:

“I support individual liberty and I support religious freedom,” Bolger said today. “I have been horrified as some have claimed that a person’s faith should only be practiced while hiding in their home or in their church.”

Your own Book says that, you moron. Bolger is a Roman Catholic, like a majority of people in this state. It must be nice to conveniently forget the discrimination Catholics have suffered at the hands of Protestants, but I haven’t; I’m reminded almost every day of it. The right-wing Protestants I know refuse to consider Catholicism a form of Christianity and they’re most certainly going to consider “Papism” the wrong religion. Good job, Bolger. Maybe you should change your name to Quisling.

If it’s any consolation, this bill contains similar language to what got shot down in Arizona after George Takei threatened to lead a boycott the state. Tourism is a huge draw for Michigan, so perhaps it’s time for a boycott of the Great Lake State.




The war on secularism has hit my home state, and soon, it’ll be coming to yours, too, in the wake of the November Republican sweep. My state was the birth place of the Republican party, back when they were the good guys — back when they were the party of anti-slavery, when they had a progressive wing that included presidents like Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. Michigan has always been seen as a blue state, but the truth is much different: we’re mostly Detroit, Ann Arbor, Bay City, and to a lesser extent, Flint, surrounded by the very worst of Mississippi....  House Bill 5958, the ominously named Religious Freedom Restoration Act, is a bill that authorizes Christian extremists to discriminate based on their stunted and atrophied conscience. It grants them free reign to breach the law and the social mores they never respected, giving them the legal room to refuse service, housing, and violate other  citizen’s rights, any rights, if the theocrat feels it violates their “religious freedom” or objects on “religious ground.”... For example, under the Religious Freedom law, a pharmacist could refuse to fill a doctor’s prescription for birth control, or HIV medication. An emergency room physician or EMT could refuse service to a gay person in need of immediate treatment. … This bill was fast-tracked by James Bolger, the Speaker of the House, and passed with a vote of 59-50. It’s modeled after the Federal RFRA, which the Supreme Court has said shouldn’t be applied at the state level, meaning this abomination probably won’t hold up in court.”

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/ is a liberal leaning web page featuring news in the conservative war against our democracy as established by the 1960s Civil Rights movement. On “conscience clauses” or “refusal clauses,” see http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/2013_vol_39/january_2013_no_2_religious_freedom/the_spread_of_conscience_clause_legislation.html. The RFRA 1993 was set up to protect Native American sacred sites, and is now being used by fundamentalist Christian interests to enable them to refuse service on a discriminatory basis if they feel that their strongly held religious beliefs are threatened, for example the bakery a year or two ago who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The fear is that the real purpose of Michigan's law is to reinstitute a new set of discrimination circumstances, this time under a so-called “conscience clause,” also called a “refusal clause.” Under such a law black people still can't sit down to eat in restaurants that define integration as being un-Biblical. This article states that the new Michigan law is probably unconstitutional, as the federal law of the same name was so declared, saying that it “shouldn't be applied at the state level.” So this law isn't actually an attempt at establishing a state religion, but rather tries to get around the constitutional ban on discriminatory laws by allowing individuals to discriminate with impunity. On the New Civil Rights Movement website there is an article about a offbeat North Carolina church called Word of Faith Fellowship Church actually kidnapped a gay man in an effort to cure him of his “demons.”

Religious Freedom Restoration Act, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia –

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion. The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer(D-NY) on March 11, 1993 and passed by a unanimousU.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes[1] and was signed into law by PresidentBill Clinton. It was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. However, it continues to be applied to the federal government - for instance, inGonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal - because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized. In response to City of Boerne v. Flores, some individual states passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities.

This law reinstated the Sherbert Test, which was set forth by Sherbert v. Verner, and Wisconsin v. Yoder, mandating that strict scrutiny be used when determining whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, has been violated. In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;[2] therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”[3] The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest.”[3] Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.[4] The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest. The law, in conjunction with President Bill Clinton's Executive Order in 1996, provided more security for sacred sites for Native American religious rites.[3]





CBS/AP December 9, 2014, 9:37 PM
Lawmakers seeking hearings on police tactics

WASHINGTON - Three high-ranking House Democrats are pressing for hearings on police tactics and race in the wake of the deaths of two unarmed black men at the hands of police in Ferguson, Mo., and Staten Island, N.Y.

Reps. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, John Conyers of Michigan and Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, all members of the Congressional Black Caucus, made the request in a letter Tuesday to the incoming GOP chairmen of the House committees with oversight over the judiciary and homeland security.

They write that the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner raise "multiple, complex issues" and that Congress should look at matters ranging from the grand jury process to policies for use of force. House Speaker John Boehner has indicated he's open to hearings on the issue.

Last week, Boehner had suggested Congress could possibly hold hearings on the shooting deaths because there were unanswered questions in both Brown's and Garner's cases.

"I think the American people want to understand more of what the facts were," Boehner said at a press conference. "There are a lot of unanswered questions that Americans have and frankly I have."

In September, Congress held hearings on militarization of U.S. police departments, in the wake of the initial violence in Ferguson after Brown's death. Senators were critical of the distribution of surplus military equipment from the Defense Department, Homeland Security, and Justice Department to local law enforcement agencies.




“Reps. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, John Conyers of Michigan and Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, all members of the Congressional Black Caucus, made the request in a letter Tuesday to the incoming GOP chairmen of the House committees with oversight over the judiciary and homeland security. They write that the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner raise "multiple, complex issues" and that Congress should look at matters ranging from the grand jury process to policies for use of force. House Speaker John Boehner has indicated he's open to hearings on the issue.... In September, Congress held hearings on militarization of U.S. police departments, in the wake of the initial violence in Ferguson after Brown's death. Senators were critical of the distribution of surplus military equipment from the Defense Department, Homeland Security, and Justice Department to local law enforcement agencies.”

I'm glad to see these things are under scrutiny by Congress. We do need a law that states specifically what “use of force” police are allowed to use and when. The next step will be for the police chiefs and mayors on the local level to oversee their officers and mete out punishment for egregious and senseless violence which really “has teeth in it.” The suggestion of civilian boards to be formed that perform as go betweens with both the police and the citizens, working to establish trust, and serving also as a forum for complaints against policemen. I hope we get some real action now on both federal and local levels.





http://www.politicususa.com/2014/12/08/gun-nuts-threaten-president.html

Gun Nuts Threaten President Over Something He Hasn’t Even Done

By: Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Monday, December, 8th, 2014

Look above at the mention of the president and an image of a firing gun from World Net Daily yesterday. Add to that the suggestive title: TRIGGER PULLED TO STOP EXECUTIVE ORDER ON GUNS ‘There’s only 1 way to hold Obama accountable’.

What does that suggest to you?

We haven’t forgotten Sarah Palin taking opponents into her sights right before Democratic Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot. Giffords was on Palin’s hit list. Gun-owning conservatives have proven to be very suggestible.

Why the threat? What has Obama done now to warrant being assassinated by some gun-toting conservative lunatic?

Turns out to be something he hasn’t actually done.

The Second Amendment Foundation claims it worries that President Obama will announce an executive order “committing the United States to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty” on Christmas Eve.

The treaty, claims World Net Daily, “requires nations to keep records tracking every transaction involving firearms.”

That’s not exactly what the treaty is about. According to the UN:

The landmark Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), regulating the international trade in conventional arms – from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships – will enter into force on 24 December 2014.

Far from being a “small arms” treaty, Article 2 of the treaty specifies:

(a)Battle tanks;
(b) Armoured combat vehicles;
(c) Large-calibre artillery systems;
(d) Combat aircraft;
(e) Attack helicopters;
(f) Warships;
(g) Missiles and missile launchers; and
(h) Small arms and light weapons.

I know we have a well-armed citizenry, but battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships? Really? Is this something Americans need to worry about?

Not according to the UN. The ATT specifies as a principle,
Non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State in accordance with Article 2 (7) of the Charter of the United Nations

And reaffirms,

[T]he sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system

For the record, Article 2(7) states:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.

But according to Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, not only is this is a “small arms treaty,” but it is aimed at American gun owners:

The only way to do that is to set up a national database, and that is what the U.N. wants every country to set up and maintain. We know that’s been one of the objectives of this administration from Day 1 anyway, so under the color of the U.N., that’s what they’re going to try to do.

In fact, the ATT specifically does not include domestic gun sales.
Yet Gottlieb insists,

We knew from Day 1 the Obama administration wanted to push this treaty, but they didn’t want to get gun owners all up in arms before the election and mobilize the Republican base. Based on what he’s done with amnesty, we have reason to believe he’s doubling down on everything that he can’t get through Congress now, and he’s going to do it through executive orders or actions. It’s a case of dictator in chief.

The treaty goes into effect the day before Christmas:

So based on that, it gives him a window to do it now. Christmas Eve triggers the opportunity, in their eyes, where they could do this way below the radar. When everyone is looking for Santa Clause to arrive, they may end up with an anti-gun treaty instead.

Watch the Second Amendment Foundation’s over-the-top ad: (A hand gun with the caption “the only way to stop him” from signing gun legislation.)

It even turns out what Gottlieb is suggesting is a lawsuit. But apparently, for the folks at WND, it is more titillating to seem to be suggesting shooting the president instead.
Gottlieb says,

We will educate the public, so people understand the threat that an Obama executive order poses to the Constitution. Nobody elected Barack Obama as emperor, but his actions lately suggests he believes otherwise. If he has forgotten there are three branches of government, we intend to refresh his memory.

And the Second Amendment Foundation is not alone in its opposition. It is joined by the National Association for Gun Rights, the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights, the National Rifle Association (NRA), the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), and The Heritage Foundation.

You would not think these groups would be so opposed to, as the ATT states, “the need to prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market, or for unauthorized end use and end users, including in the commission of terrorist acts.”

Apparently their opposition to terrorism is only skin deep. We already know they oppose restrictions on domestic terrorism.

But no matter the level of their opposition, nothing – nothing – excuses the suggestion that the only way to stop the president from doing something you don’t want him to do, is to shoot him.




“Turns out to be something he hasn’t actually done. The Second Amendment Foundation claims it worries that President Obama will announce an executive order “committing the United States to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty” on Christmas Eve. The treaty, claims World Net Daily, “requires nations to keep records tracking every transaction involving firearms.” That’s not exactly what the treaty is about. .... Watch the Second Amendment Foundation’s over-the-top ad: (A hand gun with the caption “the only way to stop him” from signing gun legislation.) It even turns out what Gottlieb is suggesting is a lawsuit. But apparently, for the folks at WND, it is more titillating to seem to be suggesting shooting the president instead. Gottlieb says, We will educate the public, so people understand the threat that an Obama executive order poses to the Constitution. Nobody elected Barack Obama as emperor, but his actions lately suggests he believes otherwise. If he has forgotten there are three branches of government, we intend to refresh his memory.... Apparently their opposition to terrorism is only skin deep. We already know they oppose restrictions on domestic terrorism. But no matter the level of their opposition, nothing – nothing – excuses the suggestion that the only way to stop the president from doing something you don’t want him to do, is to shoot him.”

You really should go to the politicus website given above and have a look at the cartoon drawing of a gun with it's caption. It is nothing other than a call for violence against the President. “We haven’t forgotten Sarah Palin taking opponents into her sights right before Democratic Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot. Giffords was on Palin’s hit list. Gun-owning conservatives have proven to be very suggestible.”