December 7, 2015


News Clips For The Day


MIDDLE EAST ISSUES


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-loses-fight-against-syrian-refugees-for-now/

Texas loses fight against Syrian refugees, for now
CBS/AP
December 7, 2015

Photograph -- In this Nov. 29, 2015 photo, Syrian refugee Mohammad al Jaddou stands in front of his siblings (twins Maria, right, and Hasan) at their apartment in Dallas. LM Otero/AP


DALLAS - Syrian refugees are scheduled to arrive in Texas on Monday after the state eased up in its legal fight against resettlement agencies and the federal government.

Twelve Syrians, including six children, are expected to arrive in Dallas and Houston on Monday, joining relatives already settled in Texas. Another nine refugees are scheduled to arrive in Houston Thursday.

State officials fought for weeks to stop them, saying Syrian refugees posed an unacceptable security risk after the deadly Nov. 13 Paris attacks.

"I think it's irresponsible for the refugee resettlement operations to put aside any type of security interest and continue to press on about this," Gov. Greg Abbott said about the situation recently, according to CBS Dallas.

But two days after suing one resettlement agency, the International Rescue Committee, and federal officials, the state on Friday withdrew its request for an order immediately stopping the refugees from entering Texas. The lawsuit remains pending, and a judge could hear arguments in the case this week.

Texas took in nearly 250 Syrians before the Paris attacks. Federal officials said in court filings that they plan to resettle as many as 250 Syrians in Texas during the current fiscal year.

Governors in about 30 states since the attacks have said they don't want to accept any more refugees, though none have fought as hard as Texas. Advocates say connecting refugees to fears of terrorism is misguided, and federal officials say states don't have the power to refuse them.

The refugees expected in Texas include a family of six related to people already settled in the Dallas area. The family arrived in New York on Thursday night and stayed there through the weekend after originally being expected to go directly to Texas.

The family is expected to take an apartment in the same complex as several other Syrians. The lower-income complex in northeast Dallas is home to recent arrivals from around the world. Volunteers have collected furniture, hygiene products and other items for the apartment - including a bicycle each for the two children in the family.



“But two days after suing one resettlement agency, the International Rescue Committee, and federal officials, the state on Friday withdrew its request for an order immediately stopping the refugees from entering Texas. The lawsuit remains pending, and a judge could hear arguments in the case this week. …. Governors in about 30 states since the attacks have said they don't want to accept any more refugees, though none have fought as hard as Texas. Advocates say connecting refugees to fears of terrorism is misguided, and federal officials say states don't have the power to refuse them. …. The family is expected to take an apartment in the same complex as several other Syrians. The lower-income complex in northeast Dallas is home to recent arrivals from around the world. Volunteers have collected furniture, hygiene products and other items for the apartment - including a bicycle each for the two children in the family.”


I’m glad to see that though Texans are less liberal in general than the East Coast cities where I grew up, they are not making this issue a battleground, and that unnamed “volunteers” are helping them to get settled. Take a look at the Syrian children. They have beautiful, huge dark eyes and curious expressions. I hope they can be happy in this country, and will not grow up as a mistreated minority group. May those babies make friends, learn well in school and become good US citizens. If that happens, I don’t think they will become jihadists.




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-post-san-bernardino-checklist-congress/

What does Obama want Congress to do about ISIS and terrorism?
By REBECCA KAPLAN CBS NEWS
December 6, 2015

Play VIDEO -- NRA defends allowing people on no-fly lists to buy guns
Play VIDEO -- GOP pushes restrictions on U.S. visa waiver program


In his speech to the nation about the terror threat Sunday evening, the president had some ideas about what lawmakers could do to help keep the country safer.

But while those measures might help the U.S. prevent some attacks by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), CBS News Senior National Security Analyst Juan Zarate says they still miss the big picture.

"There's a need in this town to try to do something in the wake of an attack, and to pass laws and to fix programs. And that's important," Zarate said. "But what's interesting about these proposals is that in and of themselves or even together they don't deal with the broad problem of a growing terrorist movement globally that has now been able to inspire an attack in Southern California."

And there remains the fundamental question, how do you defeat ISIS? While what the president proposed included "really important things," Zarate said "they still seem to lack the material relevance to deal with what is a growing and urgent threat."

Here's what Mr. Obama asked of Congress and where those issues stand.

No guns for those on the no-fly list

President Obama: "Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security."

On the day after the San Bernardino shootings, Senate Democrats put forward a bill to ban those on the no-fly list from purchasing guns, but it failed on a 45-54 vote that mostly broke down along party lines (Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Illinois, voted with Democrats who supported the legislation while Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-North Dakota, voted with Republicans against it).

In a statement blasting lobbyists for the gun industry, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California - one of the bill's authors - said, "If you're too dangerous to board a plane, you're too dangerous to buy a gun."

A Republican alternative came from Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who proposed that the attorney general be able to delay a purchase by someone on the terror watch list for a maximum of 72 hours unless they were able to get a court to agree to stop the purchase entirely. That, he said, would protect the Second Amendment rights of those seeking to purchase guns. But that measure also failed on a vote 55 to 44 because there was a 60-vote threshold on the measure.

Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio, R-Florida, explained his opposition this way on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday: "These are everyday Americans that have nothing to do with terrorism, they wind up on the no-fly list, there's no due process or any way to get your name removed from it in a timely fashion, and now they're having their Second Amendment rights being impeded upon."

A 2010 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that individuals on the terrorist watch list were allowed to purchase firearms or explosives in 91 percent of purchases that involved background checks.

Assault weapons ban

President Obama: "We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies -- no matter how effective they are -- cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do -- and must do -- is make it harder for them to kill."

What's happening in Congress: An assault weapons ban has been a non-starter in Congress for years. A 1994 law banning weapons like AK-47s expired in 2004, and efforts to renew it - including one in 2013 after the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut - have all failed.

Stronger screening for those entering the U.S.

President Obama: "We should put in place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they've traveled to war zones. And we're working with members of both parties in Congress to do exactly that."

What's happening in Congress: After the Paris attacks last month, Republican leaders rolled out legislation aimed at strengthening a program that allows people from 38 countries to travel to the U.S. without first obtaining a visa, and this is one of the few items on the president's list that might actually attract bipartisan support.

The bill would deny visa waiver status to citizens of partner countries who have traveled to terrorist hotspots like Iraq and Syria in the last five years. If any of the 38 countries fail to share counterterrorism information with the U.S., the Department of Homeland Security would be required to terminate that country from the program.

All 38 countries would be required to issue their citizens new fraud-resistant "e-passports" with additional information like fingerprints. All partner countries would also have to submit lost or stolen passport information to INTERPOL, the International Criminal Police Organization. The bill would also require all 38 countries to check travelers against INTERPOL databases to determine whether they have ever been wanted by law enforcement for terrorist or criminal activity.

House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement after the president's speech that the House will vote this week on the bill.

Pass an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF)

President Obama: "Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it's time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight."

In Congress: An AUMF never seemed like a top priority for the president or Congress. The White House didn't even send the legislation to Congress until February, six months after it started bombing ISIS targets in Iraq. There has been widespread agreement that the 2001 AUMF granting the White House the authority to fight al Qaeda also covers the fight against ISIS.

In May of 2015 then-House Speaker John Boehner said the president should tear up the current legislation and try again. Republicans and Democrats have not been able to agree on the scope of the AUMF.

But in recent weeks the issue has gotten new life. In November, a bipartisan group of 35 lawmakers called on Ryan to develop a new war authorization after the Obama administration announced it was sending special operations forces into Syria.

"Taken all together, these represent a significant escalation in U.S. military operations in the region and place U.S. military personnel on the front lines of combat operations," the lawmakers said.



President Obama: "Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security." On the day after the San Bernardino shootings, Senate Democrats put forward a bill to ban those on the no-fly list from purchasing guns, but it failed on a 45-54 vote that mostly broke down along party lines (Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Illinois, voted with Democrats who supported the legislation while Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-North Dakota, voted with Republicans against it). …. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies -- no matter how effective they are -- cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do -- and must do -- is make it harder for them to kill." …. "We should put in place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they've traveled to war zones. And we're working with members of both parties in Congress to do exactly that." …. The bill would deny visa waiver status to citizens of partner countries who have traveled to terrorist hotspots like Iraq and Syria in the last five years. If any of the 38 countries fail to share counterterrorism information with the U.S., the Department of Homeland Security would be required to terminate that country from the program.”


“A 2010 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that individuals on the terrorist watch list were allowed to purchase firearms or explosives in 91 percent of purchases that involved background checks.” The US has been lax to the point of the ridiculous if the new reform law will touch such crucial elements as – requiring fingerprints, checking against INTERPOL databases, and the mandatory issuance of “fraud-resistant e-passports.” Why was such a program as visa waiver extended to 38 nations at all, since there are so many unstable nations with jihadist populations or other criminal organizations intertwined with their government. The Mexican police forces have been in the news for perhaps being involved with drug kingpins and at least one case of a large number of college students who were “disappeared.”

I don’t even think travelers from Europe should be allowed in without a visa, particularly in times like these. If the point is to shorten those annoying waiting lines, I think we need to examine our priorities. I certainly don’t want to see a rightwing bigot voted in as President who will put all Islamic people into Internment Camps, but we do need to maintain an intelligent level of care in such simple ways as scrapping the Visa Waiver program.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-bernardino-shooting-ex-colleague-syed-rizwan-farook-reveals-new-insight/

Ex-colleague: San Bernardino killer "didn't want to be in the U.S."
CBS NEWS
December 7, 2015

Play VIDEO -- San Bernardino shooting suspect's sister breaks her silence
40 PHOTOS -- San Bernardino shooting
Related Article -- San Bernardino suspect was obsessed with Israel, father says

Few people who knew the San Bernardino shooters well have come forward, but a former colleague and classmate of one of the suspects, Syed Rizwan Farook, is sharing some key insight into the troubles he says Farook was facing over the last few years, reports David Begnaud.

While other coworkers have described Farook as "reserved," Chaz Harrison said he did not have the same impression.

"Syed was a talker," Harrison said. "He was very confident when he talked. There was times when we walked out of work, in the morning, I couldn't get him to stop talking."

Harrison met Farook in college back in 2008. They later worked together and he says he watched him change over time.

"He liked to talk about cars a lot -- fixing things, building things -- he liked to talk about religion a lot," Harrison said. "He wanted to start a business, he wanted to just get a truck, put some tools in it and go around and fix people's cars. So there was a point where he was definitely making long term goals."

While Harrison said Farook intended these plans for the U.S., he also says he told the FBI that Farook "didn't want to be in the United States" because "being in this country just didn't fit his views."

Harrison said Farook was "passionate about his religion," and didn't feel that he could practice it the way he wanted to in America.

"He told me that him paying taxes was helping the United States support basically the war on Islam, the war on Muslims," Harrison said.

Farook also told Harrison he made plans to move to Dubai, but couldn't find a job.

Harrison said Farook "had a good work relationship with everyone," which made his attack on his own colleagues puzzling.

"I was trying to call him and I called every single person that possibly could have been in that building to find out if they were okay. And I'm over here calling this guy to find out if he's okay -- and he's the shooter? You know... how do you?" Harrison said, unable to finish his thought.

Farook's wife, Tasheen Malik -- the other suspect in the San Bernardino killings -- was more of a mystery to Harrison. He said Farook was very "secretive" and "didn't want to reveal too much about his wife."

"One of the first things I said, 'Hey you got a picture?' He didn't have any pictures," Harrison said. "He said that she was very uncomfortable. Everyone looked at her -- they stared her because of the way she dressed."




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-bernardino-suspect-was-obsessed-with-israel-father-says/

San Bernardino suspect was obsessed with Israel, father says
CBS NEWS
December 6, 2015

Photograph -- farookfather.jpg, The elder Syed Farook. CBS NEWS
Photograph -- marquez-1.jpg, Enrique Marquez. PHOTO VIA FACEBOOK
Photograph -- san-bernardino-shooting-victim-nicholas-thalasinos-4.jpg, Nicholas Thalasinos, 52, of Colton, Calif., (pictured with his wife, Jennifer), worked as a county restaurant inspector along with shooting suspect Syed Farook, and regularly discussed politics and religion, a friend, Kuuleme Stephens, told the Associated Press. FACEBOOK
Photograph -- farookfriend.jpg, Chaz Harrison. CBS NEWS


CBS News is learning more about the couple that carried out Wednesday's massacre in San Bernardino, their radical views, and just how they got their assault rifles.

From Pakistan to America there are new details about how Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook became radicalized. CBS News' Carter Evans reports that both were quiet students and both became deeply religious. And on Sunday, CBS News heard from Farook's father at his Southern California home.

The elder Syed Farook told the Italian newspaper La Stampa, "My son said he shared (ISIS leader Abu Bakr) Al Baghdadi's ideology, and supported the creation of the Islamic State. He also was obsessed with Israel."

He said his son told him about tensions with a Jewish colleague at the San Bernardino County Health Department.

Nicholas Thalasinos was among the 14 killed in the Inland Regional Center massacre. His wife Jennifer said her husband, a Messianic Jew, was vocal about his support for Israel.

"He did know the shooter. He worked with him in the same department. They were both health inspectors," Jennifer said. "Knowing my husband, if there was something said or if he came in being very radical, I'm sure my husband had plenty to say to him."

Investigators still have no clear motive for the attack, other than to say it was terrorism. Farook met his wife in Saudi Arabia, where she had moved from Pakistan. Those who knew her called Tashfeen Malik a "modern girl" who became deeply religious, never an extremist.

On Sunday, Tashfeen's uncles home in Pakistan was padlocked and abandoned. Authorities are telling everyone to stay away.

The FBI is now trying to piece together what turned them to terror, to massacre 14 and wound 21 others before dying in a hail of gunfire. The assault weapons they used have now been traced to the home of Enrique Marquez next door to where Farook once lived. Agents were at the house Sunday afternoon, carting away a cardboard box after raiding the home early Saturday morning.

A source also tells CBS News they are analyzing gun store surveillance video showing both Marquez and Farook together.

The two men attended the same high school and were close, said neighbor Lorena Aguirre.

"When he would go with Syed and work on the cars, they were happy, they joked around, you could see them laughing. And they spent the whole day, as soon as he got up he would go over," she said. "That went on for years...they were good friends."

Marquez hasn't been seen in the neighborhood since the shooting. Law enforcement sources said he checked himself into a mental health facility shortly after the attack.

Marquez was employed as a security guard. A law enforcement source tells CBS News he has not been interviewed yet. Authorities are taking their time with him because he may be the only credible witness and they want to make sure they don't jeopardize his future testimony.

Also on Sunday, CBS News' David Begnaud spoke with Farook's old classmate who witnessed his troubling changes.

"I was trying to call him and I called every single person that possibly could have been in that building to find out if they were okay," said Chaz Harrison. "And I'm over here calling this guy to find out if he's okay -- and he's the shooter? It's very difficult."

Harrison was a former coworker of Farook.

"Syed was a talker. A lot of people think he was very quiet. I didn't get that impression of him," he said. "He was very confident when he talked. There was times when we walked out of work, in the morning, I couldn't get him to stop talking."

Harrison said Farook was passionate about his religion.

"I let the FBI know that, he didn't want to be in the United States," Harrison said. "He had planned on leaving the United States. There were several occasions where I thought he was going to be leaving the United States."

Harrison said Farook said he wanted to move to Dubai.

"Syed didn't want to be in the United States because he told me that him paying taxes was helping the United States support basically the war on Islam. The war on Muslims," he said.

Harrison said he was very secretive about his wife.

"He was very secretive about his wife. He didn't want to reveal much about his wife," Harrison said. "I could see he wasn't really comfortable talking about it but what he did tell me, she was a pharmacist in her country. He also told me that, she didn't want to be here neither."

But Harrison said Farook never talked about wanting to hurt Americans.

"Syed's thing was he had to leave here because he couldn't live here," said Harrison. "He never talked about harming Americans...he couldn't be here and practice his religion the way I felt like maybe he wanted to."


Passionate -- “Harrison said Farook was "passionate about his religion," and didn't feel that he could practice it the way he wanted to in America. "He told me that him paying taxes was helping the United States support basically the war on Islam, the war on Muslims," Harrison said. Farook also told Harrison he made plans to move to Dubai, but couldn't find a job. Harrison said Farook "had a good work relationship with everyone," which made his attack on his own colleagues puzzling. …. "One of the first things I said, 'Hey you got a picture?' He didn't have any pictures," Harrison said. "He said that she was very uncomfortable. Everyone looked at her -- they stared her because of the way she dressed."


Obsessed -- The elder Syed Farook told the Italian newspaper La Stampa, "My son said he shared (ISIS leader Abu Bakr) Al Baghdadi's ideology, and supported the creation of the Islamic State. He also was obsessed with Israel." …. Nicholas Thalasinos was among the 14 killed in the Inland Regional Center massacre. His wife Jennifer said her husband, a Messianic Jew, was vocal about his support for Israel. …. They were both health inspectors," Jennifer said. "Knowing my husband, if there was something said or if he came in being very radical, I'm sure my husband had plenty to say to him." …. Those who knew her called Tashfeen Malik a "modern girl" who became deeply religious, never an extremist. On Sunday, Tashfeen's uncles home in Pakistan was padlocked and abandoned. Authorities are telling everyone to stay away. …. Marquez hasn't been seen in the neighborhood since the shooting. Law enforcement sources said he checked himself into a mental health facility shortly after the attack. Marquez was employed as a security guard. A law enforcement source tells CBS News he has not been interviewed yet. …. "Syed's thing was he had to leave here because he couldn't live here," said Harrison. "He never talked about harming Americans...he couldn't be here and practice his religion the way I felt like maybe he wanted to."


This country is neither Christian, Jewish nor Islamic to the degree that a “passionate” believer would approve. We are essentially a secular society, which is essential to our freedoms of speech, thought, politics and religion, things which Americans are “passionate” about.

It means that all religions will be somewhat covert in our worship and community activities, unless in ghetto-like neighborhoods. Here in America the word ghetto is usually applied to black neighborhoods with few if any whites, but in Europe is a term for Jewish neighborhoods under the Nazis and now for Islamic neighborhoods at least in France. Such a unified group situation as that implies also it is usually a restricted group of people, who when a minority, may be treated badly outside their own neighborhood. Farook’s wife felt self-conscious when Americans “stared” at her due to the way she dressed, but most of them have never seen that before.

Americans are more or less used to any and all Christian groups even those such as the Amish, but a news photograph taken from an upper window within the last year of a street corner in some large northern city – I can’t remember which – whose sidewalks were totally blocked by the titillatingly upended bodies of praying Muslim men. Just now I looked it up on the Net and found articles about the same kind of thing in some half a dozen cities. There was a case at the beginning of 2015 when Duke University was giving thought to allowing the Muslim call to prayer to be issued from their bell tower, and that was quashed after “loud and nasty” opinions were expressed to the University. See the news article below on that cultural conflict. This kind of thing simply will not make Americans happy. This is the melting pot, in which newcomers have religious freedom within reason. If they are to be accepted to “good society,” they will have to conform somewhat, however.

I can see why Farook and his wife were not happy here, but it will inevitably be up to those who are very, very religious to such a degree as walking around in a garment that covers all skin except “the nose and the eyes,” to make an emotional adjustment to being “stared at.” Not only do Americans need to make adjustments, but the Islamic people do also. This is just common sense.



DUKE UNIVERSITY --


http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/15/us/duke-call-to-prayer/index.html

Duke reverses decision to allow Muslim call to prayer
Stephanie Gallman-Profile-Image
By Stephanie Gallman and Devon Sayers, CNN
Updated 10:03 PM ET, Fri January 16, 2015 | Video Source: CNN


(CNN)—Duke University officials on Friday cited security concerns as part of the reason for the school's reversal of its decision to allow a Muslim call to prayer to sound from a campus chapel bell tower.

Neither the Durham, North Carolina, school nor the local FBI office, which was made aware of the situation at Duke, would specify details of these concerns, but Michael J. Schoenfeld, the university's vice president of public affairs, said the number and tone of the calls were "pretty loud and nasty."

"We have heard from a lot of people who have a lot of interesting and important opinions and perspectives on this," Schoenfeld said.

In a statement Thursday, the school said plans changed because its effort to "unify was not having the intended effect."

The Duke Muslim Students Association had planned to chant the call, or adhan, from the Duke Chapel bell tower. The adhan signals the beginning of the weekly prayer service. Jummah prayers have taken place in the basement of Duke Chapel for many years.

"Duke remains committed to fostering an inclusive, tolerant and welcoming campus for all of its students," Schoenfeld said. "I think when you do these kind of things you like to think and you hope that it will be seen by others as you see them as enlightened ways to introduce diversity and the celebration of faith tradition, but unfortunately it doesn't happen the way you would like it."

Plans for the audible call to prayer have been in the works since fall semester and are not in response to recent criticism of Muslims after the latest terror attacks and arrests, a source with close knowledge of the situation told CNN. The source also said the request did not come from the Muslim community on campus, but rather the university administration.

The university's Imam Abdullah Antepli said his community was disappointed in the school's reversal. But he had praise for Duke, calling its offerings to the Muslim community "far more comprehensive than many other universities in the entire U.S."

Schoenfeld said there will continue to be a call to prayer and service as usual.

"The only thing that has changed," he said, "is that it will not come from the bell tower of the Duke Chapel as previously announced."

There were no shortage of opinions on both sides after the reversal.

Franklin Graham, son of legendary evangelist Billy Graham, applauded the school. Graham had called on donors to withhold support over the plan to allow the adnan, questioning whether evangelical Christians at Duke would be allowed to broadcast their "message across campus."

Others expressed their disappointment in Duke for the reversal.

Omid Safi, head of Islamic studies at Duke University, directed a criticism at Graham.

"Spare me," Safi's Facebook post says, "Spare me the paranoia of a wealthy white male Christian who talks about being marginalized in America."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation's largest Muslim civil rights group, called the decision unfortunate, saying the university bowed to intimidation.

Members of the Muslim community will now gather on the quadrangle outside the chapel, a site of frequent interfaith programs and activities, before moving to their regular location for prayers. More than 700 of Duke's 15,000 undergraduate and graduate students identify as Muslim.

"Our Muslim community enriches the university in countless ways," Schoenfeld said.

Antepli added, "I see as opportunity, opportunity for people of all faiths, backgrounds and customs to come together and to learn from one another and to love each other."

CNN's Emma Lacey-Bordeaux contributed to this report.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/majority-of-american-wants-u-s-to-deploy-ground-troops-to-iraq-syria/

Majority of American wants U.S. to deploy ground troops to Iraq, Syria
By REBECCA SHABAD CBS NEWS
December 7, 2015

Photograph -- U.S. soldiers with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment patrol a new ditch they have dug to protect the base from attack on July 19, 2011 in Iskandariya, Babil Province Iraq. As the deadline for the departure of the remaining American forces in Iraq approaches, Iraqi politicians have agreed to meet in two weeks time in order to give a final decision about extending the U.S. troops' presence beyond the end of the 2011 deadline. Violence against foreign troops has recently picked-up with June being the worst month in combat-related deaths for the military in Iraq in more than two years. Currently about 46,000 U.S. soldiers remain in Iraq. Spencer Platt/Getty Images


A majority of Americans say the U.S. should send ground troops to Iraq and Syria to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), according to a CNN/ORC survey released Sunday night.

In the poll conducted before the San Bernardino shooting last week, 53 percent said the U.S. should send ground troops to fight ISIS.

The survey, released as President Obama delivered his prime time speech Sunday on terrorism, found 68 percent believe the U.S. military response against ISIS hasn't been aggressive enough.

Two-thirds said they disapprove of Mr. Obama's handling of ISIS and 60 percent said they disapprove of his handling of terrorism in general, up 9 percentage points since May.

On ground troops, 36 percent who said they lean Democratic said the U.S. should deploy ground troops and 69 percent of people who lean Republican said the same.

Fifty-two percent of Democrats, 66 percent of independents and 90 percent of Republicans said the U.S. military strategy isn't aggressive enough.

But even though there is a majority of skeptical Democrats, 57 percent of Democrats said things are going well in the fight against ISIS compared to 19 percent of Republicans who said the same.

Eighty-one percent said they believed terrorists associated with ISIS who are capable of launching an attack in the U.S. and 61 percent said it is very or somewhat likely that there would be acts of terrorism in the U.S. over the next several weeks.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter told Congress last week that the U.S. is sending additional special operations forces to Iraq and Syria.

The poll surveyed 1,020 adults between November 27 and December 1 with a 3 percentage point margin of error.



“A majority of Americans say the U.S. should send ground troops to Iraq and Syria to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), according to a CNN/ORC survey released Sunday night. In the poll conducted before the San Bernardino shooting last week, 53 percent said the U.S. should send ground troops to fight ISIS. The survey, released as President Obama delivered his prime time speech Sunday on terrorism, found 68 percent believe the U.S. military response against ISIS hasn't been aggressive enough. …. On ground troops, 36 percent who said they lean Democratic said the U.S. should deploy ground troops and 69 percent of people who lean Republican said the same. Fifty-two percent of Democrats, 66 percent of independents and 90 percent of Republicans said the U.S. military strategy isn't aggressive enough. …. Defense Secretary Ash Carter told Congress last week that the U.S. is sending additional special operations forces to Iraq and Syria. The poll surveyed 1,020 adults between November 27 and December 1 with a 3 percentage point margin of error.”


The San Bernardino event has sharpened all Americans’ views on the subject, because we have been complacently sure that we will win out over any and all adversaries ever since WWI and WWII. In other words, Americans have been consumed with conceit for as long as I can remember in their view of other nations and peoples.

Every adversary has to be considered as a separate case, and as some pundit pointed out recently, an enemy who cares nothing about his own safety can do a great deal of damage. The turn of mind of Islamic jihadists is simply not one of timidity or stupidity. We do need to change our plans and methods against ISIS, and do something about refugees who are coming in here. What I think we should do is make them go through a vetting process which is truly effective before they come here. The article about the Visa Waiver plan doesn’t sound good at all to me. So, I am one of those Democratic Americans who are not happy with the way Obama has handled ISIS up to now. He can always make a change in his policy.




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-kerry-one-state-comments-spark-furor-in-israel/

Kerry's "one state" comments spark furor in Israel
CBS/AP
December 7, 2015

Photograph -- U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry gestures upon arrival at Le Bourget airport in the outskirts of Paris, France December 7, 2015. Kerry is due to attend the last phase of the World Climate Change Conference 2015 (COP21). REUTERS/Mandel Ngan/Pool
Play VIDEO
Related Article: "Days of rage" continue in Israel


JERUSALEM -- U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has set off a furor in Israel by suggesting that Israel was destroying itself as a Jewish state.

Kerry told a conference on Israeli affairs in Washington on Saturday that through its continued occupation of the West Bank, Israel could make it impossible to partition the land between Jewish and Palestinian states. He said the alternative would have to be a "binational state" in which Jews and Palestinians live together in one state, ending Israel's Jewish majority.

"The one-state solution is no solution at all for a secure, Jewish, democratic Israel living in peace, it is simply not a viable option," Kerry said.

The U.S., along with most of the international community, has long argued that a "two-state solution" - establishing a Palestinian state and ending Israel's control over millions of Palestinians in territories occupied in the 1967 war - is the best way of creating a long-term peace.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted angrily on Sunday, telling his Cabinet that "Israel will not be a binational state" and blaming the Palestinians for the failure of peace efforts. But despite Netanyahu's pledges, Jewish settlement of the West Bank continues apace, while confusion over his true intentions grows by the day.

Meanwhile, Israel seems unable to stem a wave of stabbings and other attacks by Palestinian individuals, now in its third month, that has killed 19 Israelis and left over 100 Palestinians, most said by Israel to be attackers, dead.

New tide of Israeli-Palestinian violence

Amid the wave of violence, CBS News reported that Israelis have been clamoring to buy guns. Jerusalem resident Aryeh Freidman was among those applying for permits and shooting tutorials.

"I think it's important in these cases to have a means of self defense," he told Vigliotti.

This situation has sharpened the country's half-century-old debate over the Palestinians. Opposition politicians, intellectuals and retired military commanders are issuing increasingly strident warnings that never-ending violence awaits if Israel continues to occupy millions of angry Palestinians who cannot vote in its national elections.

"If Israel were the Titanic and the binational apartheid state its iceberg ... then the collision with the iceberg has already occurred," wrote columnist Rogel Alpher in the Haaretz daily. "Without a diplomatic solution, we will continue to slowly sink into an existence of knifings, hatred and fear."

Here's a look at the potential "one-state" outcome:

THE ARGUMENT FOR PULLING OUT OF THE WEST BANK
Ever since Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza from Jordan and Egypt in 1967, the question of the territories' fate has hung in the air.

Israel's more dovish left wing has favored a pullout from most of the areas, hoping this will bring Israel recognition and peace in the region. But over two decades of failed peace talks have convinced many a deal is not possible.

The left still favors a pullout, but the rationale has shifted to something more like nationalism: without a pullout, Israel would no longer be a Jewish-majority democracy because half of its population in effect will be Palestinians, most of them without true democratic rights.

That's because while Israel proper - the area defined by 1949 cease-fire lines that ended the war surrounding Israel's establishment - has roughly 6.3 million Jews and 1.7 million Palestinian citizens of Israel. Adding the West Bank and Gaza, demographers believe, would make the Arab and Jewish populations essentially equal.

A pullout from the West Bank is complicated by the presence of Jewish settlers, numbering 400,000 and growing. Eventually the situation may become irreversible, with the Palestinians abandoning efforts to set up their own state and instead demanding annexation and voting rights as citizens of a single "binational" state. Israelis who fear this scenario and see a future of internecine conflict, global economic boycotts and increasing isolation want a pullout now, from at least most of the West Bank, even without an agreement with the Palestinians.

"If the Israelis don't hurry up to implement the two-state solution on the ground, they will lose," said Ahmed Qurei, a longtime Palestinian negotiator.

THE ARGUMENT FOR NOT PULLING OUT OF THE WEST BANK
For some Jewish Israelis, the West Bank is literally the Promised Land - full of biblical places like Hebron, Jericho, Bethlehem and Shilo that must be kept as a birthright, whatever the consequences.

But this is a minority opinion, even among proponents of the occupation. The more common argument is rooted in security.

Without the West Bank, Israel would be about 10 miles (about 15 kilometers) wide at its narrowest point, with the West Bank looming over population centers and surrounding Jerusalem on three sides. Meanwhile, Islamic radicals are on the march across the region. Such Israelis imagine a future in which some version of the Islamic State group seizes control of the West Bank and launches daily attacks at Israel. They conclude that prudence requires holding onto the West Bank; the Palestinians must be satisfied with their autonomy zones set up under interim agreements in the 1990s.

THE IMPACT OF GAZA
Israel pulled troops and settlers out of the Gaza Strip in 2005 as part of a simple calculation: With the small but crowded territory neatly removed from the demographic equation, Jews still have a majority of some 60 percent. But the Islamic militants of Hamas seized control of Gaza, periodically firing rockets at Israel and leading the sides to three mini-wars to date. Many Israelis fear the West Bank will face a similar fate if Israeli withdraws. Meanwhile, the Palestinians and much of the world consider Gaza to still be occupied, since Israel blockades it and controls the airspace and sea access in an effort to minimize Hamas' ability to arm itself.

KEEP THE ARMY, REMOVE THE SETTLERS?
A paper published two weeks ago by a major Israeli think tank proposed a new unilateral solution in which settlers would be pulled out of most of the West Bank to create a situation more amenable to partition. The army would maintain its current positions until a better alternative emerged. The authors - economist Avner Halevi and Gilead Sher, a former chief negotiator with the Palestinians - said this would require removing about 100,000 settlers, while others living close to Israel's de facto border would remain pending a future negotiation. "The purpose of such a withdrawal would be to implement a temporary border that would create a reality of two nation-states," Sher and Halevi wrote.



“U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has set off a furor in Israel by suggesting that Israel was destroying itself as a Jewish state. Kerry told a conference on Israeli affairs in Washington on Saturday that through its continued occupation of the West Bank, Israel could make it impossible to partition the land between Jewish and Palestinian states. He said the alternative would have to be a "binational state" in which Jews and Palestinians live together in one state, ending Israel's Jewish majority. …. "The one-state solution is no solution at all for a secure, Jewish, democratic Israel living in peace, it is simply not a viable option," Kerry said. …. The U.S., along with most of the international community, has long argued that a "two-state solution" - establishing a Palestinian state and ending Israel's control over millions of Palestinians in territories occupied in the 1967 war - is the best way of creating a long-term peace. …. Amid the wave of violence, CBS News reported that Israelis have been clamoring to buy guns. Jerusalem resident Aryeh Freidman was among those applying for permits and shooting tutorials. "I think it's important in these cases to have a means of self defense," he told Vigliotti. This situation has sharpened the country's half-century-old debate over the Palestinians. …. That's because while Israel proper - the area defined by 1949 cease-fire lines that ended the war surrounding Israel's establishment - has roughly 6.3 million Jews and 1.7 million Palestinian citizens of Israel. Adding the West Bank and Gaza, demographers believe, would make the Arab and Jewish populations essentially equal. A pullout from the West Bank is complicated by the presence of Jewish settlers, numbering 400,000 and growing. Eventually the situation may become irreversible, with the Palestinians abandoning efforts to set up their own state and instead demanding annexation and voting rights as citizens of a single "binational" state. …. For some Jewish Israelis, the West Bank is literally the Promised Land - full of biblical places like Hebron, Jericho, Bethlehem and Shilo that must be kept as a birthright, whatever the consequences. But this is a minority opinion, even among proponents of the occupation. The more common argument is rooted in security. Without the West Bank, Israel would be about 10 miles (about 15 kilometers) wide at its narrowest point, with the West Bank looming over population centers and surrounding Jerusalem on three sides. Meanwhile, Islamic radicals are on the march across the region. …. "The purpose of such a withdrawal would be to implement a temporary border that would create a reality of two nation-states," Sher and Halevi wrote.”




Kerry is speaking words of wisdom, and is being ignored. The Kerry/US diplomatic solution is not unlike Solomon’s solution when he made peace between two women one of whom had turned over in her sleep and crushed her baby. Each claimed loudly that the remaining living child was hers. Solomon declared that the poor baby would be cut in half and divided between them, at which point the mother of the living child relented and offered to give the baby to the other. This told Solomon that she was, in fact, the real mother and gave the baby to her.

See the following al Jezeera article below on the Palestinian stance as of 2012.



http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/11/20121114135556610741.html

OPINION -- Murtaza Hussain
The inevitable state of Israel and Palestine -- The rise of the Israeli far-right signifies the end of the two-state solution, writes Hussain.
15 Nov 2012

Video – Why Palestinians are going to the UN Security Council
Video -- Empire - Palestine state ... of mind


Buried within the news of the merger of Israel's two major right-wing political parties, Likud and Yisrael Beitenu, was a subtext which has as yet not registered in popular discourse on the Middle East - the final death of the "peace process" between the Israelis and Palestinians and of the prospect of two separate states existing between them.

Despite the presence of a highly conciliatory, and by many accounts obsequious, Palestinian partner in President Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli leadership has moved farther away from the prospect of a two-state solution than at any time in recent memory and has firmly demonstrated their practical abandonment of the framework for peaceful separation outlined in the Oslo Accords.

Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli leader who came closer than any in history to delivering the peace treaty, which dovish Israelis have sought for decades, was murdered in a hail of bullets by a right-wing settler extremist, and today the ethno-nationalist agenda of his killer has formally ascended to the heights of power in the country.

Once considered to be dangerous and intractable extremists, Avigdor Lieberman and Yisrael Beitenu have today formally taken their place within Israel's legitimate political mainstream, while the segment of society which Rabin represented - that which was willing to make serious concessions to create two separate, sustainable and independent countries, has been pushed to the remote, irrelevant margins of Israeli political life.

In its place is a political majority which is in practice committed to the creation of a legally unprecedented Greater Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people, a position which observably exists today with the accelerating pace of settlement expansion but which has not been formally acknowledged due to the political expediency of maintaining the façade of an ongoing "peace process".

Among Israel's international supporters, suppression of dissent towards this fraught trajectory has led to boycotts and fierce attacks against self-described "liberal Zionists" for merely attempting to bring Israeli policy in line with official rhetoric on the Palestinian issue, a sign of how far rhetoric has diverged from actual policy intentions.

In the long-term, this set of circumstances can ultimately only lead to one of two things - the creation of a formalised system of unequal separation where Palestinians live in isolated cantonments without basic rights and freedoms or the creation of a bi-national state with equal rights for all citizens regardless of religion and ethnicity.

Supporters of Israel today characterise, with some degree of justice, the label of "Apartheid" as being hyperbolic and inaccurate. However, if Palestinians are given neither equal rights within Israel nor a viable state of their own, this label will become undeniably accurate - and the latter outcome appears to have become an impossibility given changing political mores within the country.

For Israel, a relatively small, young and regionally isolated country reliant upon international support to maintain its legitimacy today, there increasingly appears to be only one viable and sustainable choice available on its horizon - a single democratic state with full equality for all its inhabitants.

The end of 'two states for two peoples'

The Oslo Peace Accords which created the Palestinian Authority and was intended to be the first step towards a future final-status agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians is today viewed by many on both sides as a disingenuous charade cynically utilised to maintain the status quo.

The prospect of a peaceful settlement which would leave both parties with viable, separate states and put an end to decades of vicious conflict - a prospect which seemed so tantalisingly close in the early 90s when it was negotiated - appears today to have been nothing but a cruel mirage.

The Israelis and Palestinians have come face-to-face in several bloody confrontations in the intervening years and state-sanctioned illegal settlement construction is today increasing at a rate unseen in years.

The creation of "facts on the ground" through settlement-building coupled with vehement opposition to any attempt by Palestinians to seek international recognition of their future state is indicative of Israel's fundamental opposition to the prospect of a two-state solution despite its continued protestations to the contrary.

Perhaps, the most damningly explicit indictment of the Oslo formula for a peace came in the form of the "Palestine Papers"; the thousands of internal documents leaked to the media on the details of Israeli-Palestinian talks over the past decade.

Within them was revealed the true nature of the "negotiations" which for years had purportedly been continuing with the good faith intention of creating two states for two peoples; a shambolic process in which Palestinian negotiators expressed a near-fawning willingness to cede upon almost every Israeli demand but yet were repeatedly rebuffed by their negotiating partners.

Among the historic and unprecedented concessions revealed to have been repeatedly offered to Israel by the Palestinian Authority negotiators were disavowals of claims to the "right of return" of refugees and of claims upon illegal settlements built in the East Jerusalem neighbourhoods intended to make up part of a future Palestinian capitol.

Perhaps most tellingly was the utterly supine attitude displayed by Palestinian leaders - a far cry from the incorrigible militancy portrayed by the Israeli government as the main barrier to a peaceful settlement.

As reported in the leaked documents, when former Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei mildly protested the refusal by Israel to cede the West Bank settlement of Ma'ale Adumin, the sharp rebuke he received was that "then he would not have a state!" - an outcome which seems all but assured today despite the official Israeli position that a two-state solution is the only possible resolution to the conflict.

Indeed this past week, the Israeli government formally threatened to end Oslo and with it the Palestinian Authority for the transgression of attempting to seek non-member observer status at the United Nations.

The incongruence between Israel's claim to be fighting for two-states while simultaneously doing everything in its power to either ignore or undermine any move towards such an outcome is indicative of its true present aspirations - and in the long-term of the inevitability of a one-state solution.

Maintaining international viability

Contrary to popular perception that Israel maintains its support from the United States and other allies simply due to skillful lobbying or economic ties, there is abundant evidence that international support for Israel rests upon the belief that it holds shared values regarding democracy and human rights with Western democracies.

Accepting this fact and recognising the exponentially increased diplomatic costs to the US and other countries would incur to maintain essential support to a future state of Israel which abandons democratic values, it can be clearly seen that the trajectory which the Israeli political mainstream is taking the country is one that will lead it to unprecedented isolation and worldwide opprobrium.

Attempting to impose an Apartheid-style solution upon the Palestinians, the natural outcome of the abandonment by the political class of the two-state formula, would turn Israel into an international pariah.

At such a point, returning to a two-state solution would be impossible and the only avenue back into the global mainstream would be through dismantling the system of de facto legal and military separation and recognising Palestinians as full citizens within Israel.

For Israel, a country dependent in large part upon international patronage, maintaining support from foreign benefactors whose help is contingent upon the existence of a pretence of democracy is a vital national interest.

In the scenario which its leaders have created for the country, the zero-sum option of the future appears increasingly likely to be either unsustainable global isolation or an embrace of equal rights for both Palestinians and Israelis within one state.

The fight for equality

Today, Palestinians and their leadership are faced with a clear choice: either continue to perpetrate the charade of the non-existent peace process for the benefit of their occupiers or formally begin the fight for equal rights within a shared state of Israel.

In a situation which even its own leaders appear to recognise, the Palestinian Authority has become nothing more than a de facto contractor for the Israeli occupation, and gradual usurpation, of the land which was intended to have one day become Palestine.

The vision of "two states for two peoples", bravely articulated by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat before an extremist settler ended the life of the former, is dead and gone. Its perpetuation in the public sphere today is done solely in order to maintain a system of inequality and oppression by paying lip service to a future reward upon which no will exists to deliver, and which has in practical terms has become impossible to achieve.

A future state of enforced separation and racial inequality; the inexorable trajectory of today's Israeli political mainstream, will ultimately serve no one and its maintenance will not be lastingly possible in the face of international censure.

An Israel in which the rights of all are respected regardless of race or religion is the only solution which will deliver peace and stability to the present-day inhabitants of this land, and when presented with the alternative represents the only solution capable of creating an Israeli state which is both secure and viable in the long-term.

Murtaza Hussain is a Toronto-based writer and analyst focused on issues related to Middle Eastern politics. Follow him on Twitter: @MazMHussain
Source: Al Jazeera




GUNS AND COPS


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-wont-hear-challenge-to-assault-weapons-ban/

Supreme Court won't hear challenge to assault weapons ban
AP December 7, 2015

Photograph -- A Stag Arms AR-15 rifle with 30 round, left, and 10 round magazines in New Britain, Conn., Wednesday, April 10, 2013. AP / Charles Krupa
Play VIDEO -- How the AR-15 went from military weapon to civilian gun


WASHINGTON -- Acting in the aftermath of the San Bernardino mass shooting, the Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from gun owners who challenged a Chicago suburb's ban on assault weapons.

Two conservative justices said they would have heard the case and struck down the ban.

The court, though, left in place a lower court ruling that found that local governments have leeway in deciding how to regulate firearms. The federal appeals court in Chicago upheld the city of Highland Park's 2013 gun law that bans semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines.

In October, the federal appeals court in New York largely upheld similar laws in Connecticut and New York, among a handful of states that ban semi-automatic weapons.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly turned away challenges to gun restrictions since two landmark decisions that spelled out the right to a handgun to defend one's own home.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the Chicago appeals court ruling "flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents." Without mentioning any mass shootings in California and elsewhere that involved semi-automatic guns, Thomas said the weapons ban "is highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semi-automatic firearms used for lawful purposes" by roughly five million Americans.

"The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting," Thomas wrote.

The case had been under consideration at the high court for two months, but the delay in dealing with it now appears mainly due to waiting for Thomas to finish his opinion.

The appeal filed by Dr. Arie Friedman and the Illinois State Rifle Association argues that Highland Park has violated their constitutional rights by banning some of the most popular semi-automatic guns in the United States, as well as ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds.

Even though lower courts have mainly upheld gun restrictions, the Highland Park case arises out of a decision by the federal appeals court in Chicago that struck down the only statewide ban on carrying concealed weapons, in Illinois.

In 2013, when state lawmakers reacted to the court ruling by making it legal to carry a gun, they gave cities around the state 10 days to come up with local restrictions on assault weapons, or forfeit their right to do so.

Highland Park was one of fewer than 20 municipalities, all in the Chicago area, to enact regulations or bans, according to the rifle association.

The city's assault weapons ban was upheld by the appeals court in a 2-1 decision.

Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for the court that there is a "substantial benefit" to the Highland Park ordinance if it makes the public feel less at risk from a mass shooting. Variations of the Bushmaster AR-15, one of the guns specifically banned by Highland Park, were used in the Newtown, Connecticut school massacre and the theater shootings in Aurora, Colorado.

The gun control laws that the appeals court in New York upheld in October were passed after the 2012 massacre in Newtown.

Seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning assault weapons. The others are California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. In addition, Minnesota and Virginia regulate assault weapons, the center said.

The case is Friedman v. Highland, 15-133.




“Acting in the aftermath of the San Bernardino mass shooting, the Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from gun owners who challenged a Chicago suburb's ban on assault weapons. Two conservative justices said they would have heard the case and struck down the ban. The court, though, left in place a lower court ruling that found that local governments have leeway in deciding how to regulate firearms. …. In October, the federal appeals court in New York largely upheld similar laws in Connecticut and New York, among a handful of states that ban semi-automatic weapons. The Supreme Court has repeatedly turned away challenges to gun restrictions since two landmark decisions that spelled out the right to a handgun to defend one's own home. …. Seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning assault weapons. The others are California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. In addition, Minnesota and Virginia regulate assault weapons, the center said. The case is Friedman v. Highland, 15-133.”


It seems like a case of simple common sense to me to ban those automatic rifles especially if the magazine will hold over 10 rounds, because as self-defense they aren’t necessary. A pistol is sufficient if the citizen can shoot straight. And as for use at a shooting range or in hunting, again they aren’t needed. Target shooting with an ordinary single bullet style rifle which is held up to the eye and sighted is just as much fun. The point should be to hit the target every time, or to select a part of the dummy’s body. Most people just want a hand gun or an ordinary hunting rifle, I would think.

Clearly from the number of mass murders that have been committed with an AR-15 or similar weapon, however, peaceful use is not the intention at all. Being “Rambo” is the goal. The truth is that we don’t have a civilized society any more. The Old West took over our national mind and never let go with the popular novels of the 1800s and movies of the 1900s. Then there were the exploits of truly despicable gangsters from the 1920s and 30s. Those people who grew up on that kind of fiction are the ones who are NRA members today. There is also a large element of modern day people who are afraid of “the race war” that they believe – and seemingly hope – will come. Personally, the whole thing sickens me. It’s so absolutely brutal that I don’t see how “good Christian people” can agree to it as a way of life.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chicago-police-civil-rights-investigation-launched-by-department-of-justice/

Feds launch probe of Chicago PD's "use of force"
CBS/AP
December 7, 2015

13 Photos -- Demonstrators led by Rev. Jesse Jackson march down State Street to protest the death of Laquan McDonald and the alleged cover-up that followed on December 6, 2015 in Chicago, Illinois. SCOTT OLSON/GETTY IMAGES
Play VIDEO -- Police reports on Laquan McDonald's death don't match video
Photograph -- rtx1vsbb.jpg, Laquan McDonald walks on a road (top L -R) and is subsequently shot (bottom R) by police officer Jason Van Dyke (not pictured) in Chicago, in this combination of still images taken from a police vehicle dash camera video shot on October 20, 2014, and released by Chicago Police on November 24, 2015. CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS
Play VIDEO -- Can Chicago police regain trust?
Play VIDEO -- Legal Analysis of Chicago, Baltimore cop shooting trials


CHICAGO - Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced Monday the launching of an investigation into the Chicago Police Department for possible civil rights and other violations.

The investigation comes as the police force is under intense scrutiny since the recent release of a video showing white police officer Jason Van Dyke shooting black teenager Laquan McDonald 16 times. The announcement also comes just ahead of the expected release of similar footage in another young black man's death at the hands of an officer.

Lynch said the investigation will focus on the department's "use of force, including its use of deadly force," as well as its "accountability mechanisms" within the department itself.

"We understand that the same systems that fail community members also fail conscientious officers by creating mistrust between law enforcement and the citizens they are sworn to serve and protect," said Lynch, who was joined at a news conference by Zachary Fardon, the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, and Vanita Gupta, the head of Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

"This mistrust from members of the community makes it more difficult to gain help with investigations, to encourage victims and witnesses of crimes to speak up, and to fulfill the most basic responsibilities of public safety officials," she said. "And when suspicion and hostility is allowed to fester, it can erupt into unrest."

The civil rights probe follows others recently in Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri, and comes as the police department and Mayor Rahm Emanuel are under intense scrutiny over their handling of the October 2014 death of the 17-year-old McDonald.

Numerous state and community leaders have been clamoring for an investigation since the city was rocked by the McDonald shooting, which many say is emblematic of a much larger problem within the city.

Prosecutors have charged Van Dyke with first-degree murder in the 2014 shooting and Mayor Emanuel forced Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy to resign.

The video shows McDonald veering away from officers on a four-lane street when Van Dyke, seconds after exiting his squad car, opens fire from close range. The officer continues shooting after McDonald crumples to the ground and is barely moving. The video does not include sound, which authorities have not explained.

It was recently discovered the official police accounts of what happened to McDonald differed greatly from what the video presented.

The Chicago City Council signed off on a $5 million settlement with McDonald's family even before the family filed a lawsuit, and city officials fought in court for months to keep the video from being released publicly. The city's early efforts to suppress its release coincided with Emanuel's re-election campaign, when the mayor was seeking African-American votes in a tight race.

Last week, the Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan wrote a letter to the U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch calling for a federal probe of the Chicago Police Department.

CBS Chicago reports Emanuel initially referred to Madigan's request as "misguided," but one day later appeared to change course, saying that he is open to a federal probe of the department.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson said he was pleased with the decision to investigate Chicago. The longtime civil rights leader said he hoped that the investigation would focus not only on the police department, but on Emanuel's office and the Cook County State's Attorney's office, which he and others have criticized for taking so long to bring charges against Van Dyke.

"All three of them - the police, City Hall and the prosecutor's office - are suspect," Jackson said. "We cannot trust them."

A spokesman for the Chicago police department referred a request for comment about the reported investigation to Adam Collins, a spokesman for the mayor's office.

"We welcome the engagement of the Department of Justice as we work to restore trust in our police department and improve our system of police accountability," Collins said.

The Justice Department in the last six years has opened more than 20 investigations of police departments.

If the Justice Department finds systemic civil rights violations, the investigations typically result in court-enforceable agreements between the federal government and the local community that serve as blueprints for change and are overseen by an independent monitor. The federal government has the option of suing a police department that is unwilling to make changes.

Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez, criticized for not filing charges earlier in the McDonald case, says she will speak Monday morning about the killing of another young black man by city police. Authorities say Ronald Johnson, 25, pointed a gun at police before an officer shot and killed him on Oct. 12, 2014. His mother, Dorothy Holmes, said that wasn't the case and that her son was running away from police. Emanuel has said the city would release video this week of Johnson's shooting.

Emanuel has scheduled a Monday afternoon news conference on police accountability with interim Chicago Police Superintendent John Escalante and the new head of the Independent Police Review Authority, a city agency that investigates police cases. The mayor's office announced late Sunday that the former head of that agency, Scott Ando, had resigned effective immediately.

Emanuel's office said in a statement that while Ando had reduced the agency's backlog of cases, "... it has become clear that new leadership is required as we rededicate ourselves to dramatically improving our system of police accountability." Ando will be replaced by Sharon Fairley, general counsel and first deputy of the city's Office of the Inspector General and a former assistant U.S. attorney.

Emanuel acknowledged "the checkered history of misconduct in the Chicago Police Department" in an opinion column published in the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune. "Chicago is facing a defining moment on the issues of crime and policing and the even larger issues of truth and justice," Emanuel wrote. "To meet this moment, we need to conduct a painful but honest reckoning of what went wrong - not just in one instance, but over decades."

The University of Chicago said last month that an analysis by its civil rights and police accountability clinic found of 56,000 complaints against Chicago police - but only a fraction led to disciplinary action. Among the most notorious cases, dozens of men, mostly African-American, said they were subjected to torture from a Chicago police squad headed by former commander Jon Burge during the 1970s, '80s and early '90s. Burge was convicted of lying about the torture and served 4.5 years in prison.

Of 409 shootings involving Chicago police since September 2007, only two have led to allegations against an officer being found credible, the Chicago Tribune reported, citing data from the Independent Police Review Authority.



“The investigation comes as the police force is under intense scrutiny since the recent release of a video showing white police officer Jason Van Dyke shooting black teenager Laquan McDonald 16 times. The announcement also comes just ahead of the expected release of similar footage in another young black man's death at the hands of an officer. Lynch said the investigation will focus on the department's "use of force, including its use of deadly force," as well as its "accountability mechanisms" within the department itself. …. If the Justice Department finds systemic civil rights violations, the investigations typically result in court-enforceable agreements between the federal government and the local community that serve as blueprints for change and are overseen by an independent monitor. The federal government has the option of suing a police department that is unwilling to make changes. …. Emanuel has scheduled a Monday afternoon news conference on police accountability with interim Chicago Police Superintendent John Escalante and the new head of the Independent Police Review Authority, a city agency that investigates police cases. The mayor's office announced late Sunday that the former head of that agency, Scott Ando, had resigned effective immediately.”


“Authorities say Ronald Johnson, 25, pointed a gun at police before an officer shot and killed him on Oct. 12, 2014. His mother, Dorothy Holmes, said that wasn't the case and that her son was running away from police. Emanuel has said the city would release video this week of Johnson's shooting.” This is another case with an embarrassing video of a police killing. Emanuel is clearly washing his hands of communal guilt in public, and that’s fine. I considered him to be a good Democrat, as Obama’s friend, and pretty much concluded the cover-up of the McDonald killing to be the kind of political expediency that unfortunately goes on. He was worried about his next election, in other words. I’m sure some won’t forgive him for that, but he seems to be making a real effort to clean up the Chicago PD now. His police overview structure – the Independent Police Review Authority will be a great help in getting out the truth in future cases. Other cities need to do similar things, because Chicago is just one of the large cities whose police forces are undisciplined and sometimes brutal. I would also like to see them form community based groups which form a communications network for improving the day to day relations with officers and the courts.




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/university-of-rochester-students-nicholas-kollias-and-ani-okeke-ewo-abducted-rescued/

2 NY college students taken hostage, rescued by SWAT team
CBS/AP
December 7, 2015

Photographs -- Nicholas Kollias and Ani Okeke Ewo were rescued Sunday night, police said. WROC


ROCHESTER, N.Y. -- Two missing New York college students have been found safe after police say they were abducted and held hostage.

Rochester police say a SWAT team rescued the two University of Rochester students around 9:20 p.m. Sunday.

Nicholas Kollias and Ani Okeke Ewo were last seen around 2 a.m. Saturday near the school. They were reported missing Saturday evening and police issued an alert Sunday evening.

Police say the two college seniors from Illinois had been forcibly abducted and held against their will.

Both students were taken to the hospital, where one is recovering from a gunshot wound. Police say the student was shot in the leg before they began their rescue operation. His injury is non-life-threatening.

Four people have been taken into custody. The investigation is ongoing.

Police told CBS affiliate WROC that it appears Ewo and Kollias were targeted by the suspects, but they did not provide details.



“Rochester police say a SWAT team rescued the two University of Rochester students around 9:20 p.m. Sunday. Nicholas Kollias and Ani Okeke Ewo were last seen around 2 a.m. Saturday near the school. They were reported missing Saturday evening and police issued an alert Sunday evening. …. it appears Ewo and Kollias were targeted by the suspects, but they did not provide details.”


“Four people have been taken into custody. The investigation is ongoing.” One student is black and the other is white, but nothing is mentioned about their political activities. Who are the conspirators and why were they kidnapped? Is something political involved here? Were they possibly gay men? This is an interesting story with a lot of holes in it. Hopefully more articles will follow.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sexist-remark-gets-serbian-defense-minister-canned/

Sexist remark gets Serbian defense minister canned
CBS/AP
December 7, 2015

Photograph -- In this Friday, Nov. 14, 2014 file photo Serbian Defense Minister Bratislav Gasic, right as he speaks in front of Russian Gen. Vladimir Shamatov near Belgrade. AP Photo/Darko Vojinovic


BELGRADE, Serbia - Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic announced Monday he is firing the defense minister after he made a sexist remark to a female journalist.

Vucic said that Bratislav Gasic "can no longer be the minister of defense."

Gasic sparked outrage when he made a derogatory comment Sunday to a journalist from B92 Television who had knelt down in front of him to avoid being in the way of cameras.

B92 reports that when Gasic arrived at a press conference, "he asked whether his ministry's spokesman 'kept them outdoors the whole time,' and then said, using the feminine noun for 'journalist' in Serbian: 'I so like these journalists who kneel this easily.'"

Vucic said he was sorry for his minister's words.

"I think we have to protect all women in Serbia," Vucic said. "There is no excuse or apology that can justify what Bratislav Gasic has done."

Opposition parties and journalists' groups in Serbia earlier had called for the ouster. The left-leaning Democratic Party described Gasic's remarks as "bullying, sexism and verbal violence."

The country's equality watchdog also said the comments were "inadmissible and insulting."

Gasic has publicly apologized to the journalist, saying he "sincerely regretted" what he said.

Vucic responded that "it is good that he has apologized and that he regrets what he has done, but that is not enough."

Gasic is one of Vucic's closest allies and a vice-president of his right-wing Serbian Progressive Party. The opposition in the past has demanded Gasic's ouster many times over several reported scandals, but Vucic had previously refused to let him go.



“B92 reports that when Gasic arrived at a press conference, "he asked whether his ministry's spokesman 'kept them outdoors the whole time,' and then said, using the feminine noun for 'journalist' in Serbian: 'I so like these journalists who kneel this easily.' …. "bullying, sexism and verbal violence." The country's equality watchdog also said the comments were "inadmissible and insulting."

I wish Donald Trump’s comments would be as innocent-sounding as this somewhat disrespectful and teasing comment was. Trump, of course, is a reprobate and a “scumbag.” Many men in this country say very bad stuff with no qualms whatsoever, and they rarely even get sued. People are pretty rude here, actually, especially New Yorkers, so Trump is a natural part of his element. I’m glad to see that the Serbian Gasic has been fired. Unfortunately Trump is not in any office yet, so he can’t be fired.