bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘THE LOS ANGELES TIMES’

CREATING FELONS WITH A WORD

In Bureaucracy, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on March 25, 2015 at 2:54 am

New York State prisons are about to get a lot fuller.

New York State Senator Tony Avella is sponsoring a bill to create a felony charge– “aggravated resisting arrest”–for people who have been convicted of resisting arrest twice in a 10-year period.

Under current law, resisting arrest is a misdemeanor, carrying a maximum penalty of one year in prison.

If the charge became a felony, those convicted could be sentenced from four years of probation to life in prison.

The bill has its origins in a letter the Lieutenants Benevolent Association–a police union–sent to New York Police Department (NYPD) Commissioner Bill Bratton in January requesting a change in the current law.

State Senator Avella’s proposed legislation reads as follows:

“A person is guilty of aggravated resisting arrest when he or she commits the crime of resisting arrest pursuant to Section 205.30 and has previously been convicted of such crimetwo prior times within a ten-year period.

“Aggravated resisting arrest is a class E felony.”

Click here: Bills

And Bratton, in testimony before the New York State Senate in February, supported harsher penalties for those who resist arrest.

“We need to get around this idea that you can resist arrest,” Bratton said to reporters after his appearance. “One of the ways to do that is to give penalties for that.”

This legislation–if enacted–will have both local and national implications.

Police pepper-spraying non-violent protesters

Local–because the NYPD is the largest police department in the country.  Its website states that it now has “approximately 34,500″ uniformed officers.

(To put that number into historical perspective: When Alexander the Great set out in 334 B.C. to conquer the Persian empire, his army numbered 30,000.)

National–because the NYPD is one of the most respected police departments in the country.  And other police departments will almost certainly follow suit in urging their state legislatures to pass similar legislation.

So what’s wrong with that?

“Resisting arrest” is one of those terms that can mean whatever a police officer wants it to mean.

If a prosecutor accuses someone of bank robbery, he must present valid evidence–such as witnesses, camera footage and (probably) portions of stolen money in the arrested person’s possession.

But if a cop says someone “resisted arrest,” the “evidence” often consists of only his claim.

“Resisting arrest” can mean anything–including that the person merely asked, “Why am I being arrested?”

WNYC–New York’s highly respected public radio station–reported in 2014 that 40% of resisting arrest cases are brought by five percent of police officers.

If an officer routinely claims that people are resisting arrest, this might signal his being overly aggressive toward civilians.

He might even use the criminal charge to cover up his use of excessive force.

This is especially relevant in light of a series of recent cases–some caught on camera–of police savagely beating arrestees, or using forbidden chokeholds on them.

Consider how such increased penalties could have affected the life of Tyeesha Mobley.

Mobley, 29, caught her nine-year-old son stealing $10 from her purse. She called the called the NYPD.

Can you please send over an officer to explain to my kids that stealing is wrong? she asked.

The police department obliged, sending over four officers to meet Mobley and her two boys at a nearby gas station.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bet.com/content/dam/betcom/images/2015/03/National/031915-national-Tyeesha-Mobley.jpg.custom1200x675x20.dimg&imgrefurl=http://www.bet.com/news/national/photos/bring-that-week-back/2015/03/bring-that-week-back-parents-says-daughter-not-allowed-at-black-friend-s-sleepover.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Betcom-LatestPhotos+(BET.com+-+Latest+Photos)#!031915-national-Tyeesha-Mobley&docid=JHk4KstsAEHWfM&tbnid=O-hToga7ZXEKgM:&w=1200&h=675&ei=undefined&ved=undefined&iact=c

Tyeesha Mobley

The meeting started off well. “Three officers was joking around with [the nine-year-old who had stolen the $10], telling him, ‘You can’t be stealing; you’ll wind up going in the police car,’” Mobley testified at a court hearing in October, 2014.

But the fourth officer apparently resented the assignment. According to a lawsuit subsequently filed by Mobley, the following happened:

“You black bitches don’t know how to take care of your kids,” said the fourth officer.  “Why are you wasting our time?  Why don’t you take your fucking kid and leave?”

Mobley decided that was a good time to do just that

But before she could do so, the cop told her she was under arrest.

“What for?” she asked. “If you’re going to say another fucking word,” the lawsuit alleges the cop warned her, “I’m going to knock your teeth down your throat.”

He then shoved her up against a car, kicked her legs, and handcuffed her.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/yhst-77502422005591/nypdsticker&imgrefurl=http://newyorkcityheros.com/nyshslgrtees1.html&docid=NkjZ5WArupw0GM&tbnid=gHWJFV5oUGoGYM:&w=250&h=298&ei=TdcRVfKaC-eIsQTpnoGIAQ&ved=0CAIQxiAwAA&iact=c

Mobley spent a night in jail.  Her two boys were taken away and placed in foster care for four months–with a family that spoke no English.

Finally, a judge threw out the case against her.

Mobley has since filed a lawsuit against New York City, the NYPD and the Administration for Children’s Services.

It doesn’t take a genius to see how Mobley’s life could have been turned into an even greater hell under the proposed change in “resisting arrest” laws.

CALL A COP, GO TO JAIL

In Bureaucracy, Law, Law Enforcement, Social commentary on March 24, 2015 at 3:21 pm

As the stage line goes: It seemed like a good idea at the time.

A mother finds that her nine-year-old son has stolen money from her purse.  So she decides to have someone who commands respect teach him that stealing is wrong.

So she calls the police–and things go horribly wrong.

Here’s what happened.

Tyeesha Mobley, 29, caught her nine-year-old son stealing $10 from her purse.

So she called the called the New York Police Department (NYPD)

Can you please send over an officer to explain to my kids that stealing is wrong? she asked.

The police department agreed, and sent over not one but four officers to meet Mobley and her two boys at a nearby gas station.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bet.com/content/dam/betcom/images/2015/03/National/031915-national-Tyeesha-Mobley.jpg.custom1200x675x20.dimg&imgrefurl=http://www.bet.com/news/national/photos/bring-that-week-back/2015/03/bring-that-week-back-parents-says-daughter-not-allowed-at-black-friend-s-sleepover.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Betcom-LatestPhotos+(BET.com+-+Latest+Photos)#!031915-national-Tyeesha-Mobley&docid=JHk4KstsAEHWfM&tbnid=O-hToga7ZXEKgM:&w=1200&h=675&ei=undefined&ved=undefined&iact=c

Tyeesha Mobley

The meeting started off well.

“Three officers was joking around with [the nine-year-old who had stolen the $10], telling him, ‘You can’t be stealing; you’ll wind up going in the police car,’” Mobley testified at a court hearing in October, 2014.

But the fourth officer apparently resented the assignment.

According to a lawsuit subsequently filed by Mobley, the following happened:

“You black bitches don’t know how to take care of your kids,” said the fourth officer.  “Why are you wasting our time?  Why don’t you take your fucking kid and leave?”

Mobley decided that was a good time to leave. But before she could do so, the cop told her she was under arrest.

“What for?” she asked.

“If you’re going to say another fucking word,” the lawsuit alleges the cop warned her, “I’m going to knock your teeth down your throat.”

He then shoved her up against a car, kicked her legs, and handcuffed her.

Mobley’s two sons–ages four and nine–could only watch in horror as their mother was being manhandled.

“Stop, you’re hurting mommy,” they cried, according to the complaint filed in the lawsuit.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/yhst-77502422005591/nypdsticker&imgrefurl=http://newyorkcityheros.com/nyshslgrtees1.html&docid=NkjZ5WArupw0GM&tbnid=gHWJFV5oUGoGYM:&w=250&h=298&ei=TdcRVfKaC-eIsQTpnoGIAQ&ved=0CAIQxiAwAA&iact=c

Yet worse was to come.

Mobley spent a night in jail.  Her two boys were taken away and placed in foster care for four months–with a family that spoke no English.

Finally, a judge threw out the case against her.

Mobley has since filed a lawsuit against New York City, the NYPD and the Administration for Children’s Services.

“She was simply trying to make sure her son stayed on the right path,” said her attorney, Philip Sporn.  “This shouldn’t  happen to anyone, let alone to a good mom with her kids.”

The lawsuit highlights a fundamental weakness of the American justice system.

Americans almost universally believe that any wrong can be rectified if enough money is paid out as punishment.

Thus, car makers who knowingly keep dangerous vehicles on the road instead of issuing a recall settle up in civil lawsuits.

As a rule, they refuse to admit wrongdoing–and the amount of money they’re forced to pay out to victims isn’t disclosed.

Nearly always, this means the victim–or his survivors–is forbidden to publicly say why the company paid out a huge settlement, such as: “They admitted they knew the brakes were faulty but they didn’t want to spend the money fixing them.”

And if the victims disclose this admission–or how much money they got from Car Maker X–that money can legally be taken from them.

Never, however, is a CEO criminally prosecuted for ordering his company to conceal wrongdoing or dangerous products.

Thus, corporate predators are allowed to escape the criminality of their actions–and go on to prey on other victims.

The same holds true with lawsuits against the police.

Even if Mobley wins a huge settlement, the officer who victimized her will almost certainly remain on the NYPD.

And he will be able to victimize others who have the bad luck to encounter him.

Handing out big chunks of money is not enough to establish justice for outrageous violations of people’s civil rights.

It’s as if former Reichsmarshall Hermann Goring, charged with war crimes, were allowed to fork over a big sum of money and then comfortably retire to his estate.

Until Americans realize that some crimes demand more than financial payment, this country’s “criminal justice system” will fail to live up to its name.

INVITING TERRORISM

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics on March 23, 2015 at 5:44 pm

A group claiming affiliation with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) claims to have posted online the names, photos,  street addresses, and, in some cases, ranks, of 100 American military service members.

And it called upon its Islamic “brothers residing in America” to kill them.

Calling itself Islamic State Hacking Division, the group said that it obtained this information by hacking military servers, databases and emails.

But an unnamed Defense Department official quoted by the New York Timesdownplayed the claim that government databases had been hacked.

Instead, he said most of the information could be found in public records, residential address search sites and social media.

Accompanying the release of this information was a message calling upon “lone wolf” Islamics to wage jihad stateside:

“These Kuffar [nonbelievers] that drop bombs over Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Khurasan and Somalia are from the same lands that you reside in, so when will you take action?

“Know that it is wajib [oblilgatory] for you to kill these kuffar! and now we have made it easy for you by giving you addresses, all you need to do is take the final step, so what are you waiting for?

“Kill them in their own lands, behead them in their own homes, stab them to death as they walk their streets thinking they are safe…”

After the information was posted, the Pentagon announced that it was investigating the matter.

So is the FBI.

Local police have been asked to step up patrols in the neighborhoods where the target service members live.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon has shown itself at a loss to deal with this new threat of Islamic terrorists using the Internet as a recruiting tool.

The agency didn’t ask YouTube to take down the posted message until a CBS News reporter asked if it had done so.

And how is the United States Government responding to threats such as this?

It’s vastly increasing the numbers of potential terrorists within the United States.

According to a December 9, 2014 press release by the U.S. Department of State:

“We applaud the 25 countries that have agreed to resettle Syrian refugees, including some who will be accepting UNHCR [United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees] referrals for the first time.

“The United States accepts the majority of all UNHCR referrals from around the world.  Last year, we reached our goal of resettling nearly 70,000 refugees from nearly 70 countries.  And we plan to lead in resettling Syrians as well.

“We are reviewing some 9,000 recent UNHCR referrals from Syria.  We are receiving roughly a thousand new ones each month, and we expect admissions from Syria to surge in 2015 and beyond.”

Click here: U.S. Plans To Lead in Resettling Syrian Refugees

Not only are swelling numbers of potential Islamic terrorists arriving almost daily in the United States, they are being provided, gratis, with assistance millions of hard-working Americans desperately need.

Assistance such as:

  • homes
  • furniture
  • clothes
  • English classes
  • help in enrolling their children in school
  • job training
  • health care

These will be provided by

  • the International Organization for Migrationtation to the United States;
  • networks of resettlement agencies
  • charities
  • churches
  • civic organizations
  • and local volunteers.

And what is the reason for the United States’ shipping so many potential terrorists into its borders?

Nothing more than simple liberal guilt for the sins of the world.

From the State Department’s press release:

“As the flow of [Syrian] refugees has grown to a mass exodus, countries hosting refugees in the region have contended with overcrowded hospitals and schools, shortages of everything from housing to water, economic pressures and recent evidence of mounting public resentment.

“But these very real burdens must pale in comparison to the daily struggles of Syrians themselves.

“Imagine losing practically everything – your loved ones, your home, your profession, and your dignity. Imagine the frustration of languishing for years, unable to work or send children to school, exhausting your resources and relying on handouts. Imagine fearing that this situation is never going to end.

“For Syrians and for other victims of violence and persecution – resettlement offers not just an escape, but a chance to start over.”

Of course, the State Department press release omits this startling fact:

Since 1979, Syria has been listed by the U.S. State Department as a sponsor of terrorism.

Among the terrorist groups it supports are Hizbollah and Hamas. For years, Syria provided a safe-house in Damascus to Ilich Ramírez Sánchez–the notorious terrorist better known as Carlos the Jackal.

There are no “good Syrians” for the United States to support–only murderers who have long served a tyrant and now wish to become the next tyrant.

Thus, flooding the United States with thousands–if not millions–of potential terroristic Fifth Columnists poses a genuine threat to present and future generations of Americans.

While Islamic nations like Syria and Egypt wage war within their own borders, they will lack the resources to launch attacks against the United States.

When Adolf Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, then-Senator Harry Truman said: “I hope the Russians kill lots of Nazis and vice versa.”

That should be America’s view whenever its sworn enemies start killing themselves off.   Americans should welcome such self-slaughters, not become entrapped in them.

Read the rest of this entry »

POLYGRAPH BY COPIER

In History, Law Enforcement, Self-Help on March 20, 2015 at 2:43 pm

Ever heard of “polygraph by copier”? If you haven’t, here’s how it works:

A detective loads three sheets of paper into a Xerox machine.

“Truth” has been typed onto the first sheet.

“Truth” has been typed onto the seond sheet.

“Lie” has been typed onto the third sheet. Then a criminal suspect is led into the room and told to put his hand against the side of the machine. “What is your name?” asks the detective.

The suspect gives it.

The detective hits the copy button, and a page comes out: “Truth.”

“Where do you live?” asks the detective.

The suspect gives an address, the detective again hits the copy button, and a second page appears: “Truth.”

Then comes the bonus question: “Did you or did you not kill Big Jim Tate on the evening of….?”

The suspect answers.

The detective presses the copy button one last time, and the sheet appears: “Lie.”

“Well, well, well, you lying little bastard,” says the detective.

Convinced that the police have found some mysterious way to peer into the darkest recesses of his criminality, the suspect “gives it up” and makes a full confession.

Yes, contrary to what many believe, police can legally use deceit to obtain a confession.

In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled, in United States v. Russell: “Nor will the mere fact of deceit defeat a prosecution, for there are circumstances when the use of deceit is the only practicable law enforcement technique available.”

In that case, the Court narrowly upheld a conviction for methamphetamine production even though the defendant had argued entrapment.

So what types of interrogative deceit might a police officer use to develop admissible evidence of a suspect’s guilt?

The general rule is that deception can be used so long as it’s not likely to cause an innocent person to commit a crime or confess to a crime that s/he didn’t commit.

Click here: The Lawful Use of Deception – Article – POLICE Magazine

Consider the following examples:

  • A detective is interviewing a suspect in a rape case.  “Oh, that girl,” he says, thus implying that the victim was a slut and had it coming.  The suspect, thinking he’s dealing with a sympathetic listener, starts bragging about his latest conquest–only to learn, too late, that his listener isn’t so simpatico after all.
  • “We found your prints on the gun”–or on any number of other surfaces.  Actually, there are few good places on a pistol to leave prints.  And those that are left can be smeared.  The same goes for other surfaces.  But if a suspect can be led to believe the cops have his prints, a confession is often forthcoming.
  • A police officer is interrogating a suspect in a murder case.  “He came at you, didn’t he?” asks the cop.  The suspect, who murdered the victim in cold blood, thinks he has an escape route.  “Yeah, he came at me”–this confirming that, yes, he did kill the deceased.
  • “Your partner just gave you up” is a favorite police strategen when there is more than one suspect involved.  If one suspect can be made to “flip”–turn–against the other, the case is essentially wrapped up.
  • Interrogating a bank robbery suspect, a cop might say: “We know you didn’t do the shooting, that you were only the wheelman.”  This implies that the penalty for driving the getaway car is far less than that for killing someone during a robbery.  In fact, criminal law allows every member of the conspiracy to be charged as a principal.
  • “I don’t give a damn what you did,” says the detective.  “Just tell me why you did it.”  For some suspects, this offers a cathartic release, a chance to justify their guilt.
  • The “good cop/bad cop” routine is known to everyone who has ever seen a police drama.  Yet it continues to yield results so often it continues to be routinely used.  “Look, I believe you,” says the “good” cop, “but my partner’s a real asshole.  Just tell me what happened so we can clear this up and you can go.”
  • “So,” says the detective, “why do you think the police believe you did it?”  “I have no idea,” says the suspect, confident that he isn’t giving up anything that might come back to haunt him.  “Well,” says the cop, “I guess you’ll just have to make something up.”  Make something up sounds easy, but is actually a trap.  The suspect may end up giving away details that could incriminate him–or lying so brazenly that his lies can be used against him.

So is there a best way for a suspect to deal with an invitation to waive his Mirandaright to remain silent?

Yes, there is.

It’s to refuse to say anything and to ask for permission to call a lawyer.

That’s the preferred method for Mafia hitmen–and accused police officers. Any cop who finds himself under investigation by his department’s Internal Affairs unit automatically shuts up–and calls his lawyer.

Any other response–no matter how well-intentioned–may well result in a lengthy prison sentence.

TRUMPING DEMOCRACY–AGAIN

In Politics, Bureaucracy, History on March 18, 2015 at 11:09 am

On March 18, Right-wing businessman and “reality” television celebrity Donald Trump announced plans to form a presidential exploratory committee.

“I am the only one who can make America truly great again,” he declared.

With this in mind, it’s well to recall his behavior during the 2012 Presidential election.

On April 17, 2011, toying with the idea of entering the Presidential race, the always self-promoting Trump said this about  Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and GOP candidate:

“He’d buy companies. He’d close companies. He’d get rid of jobs. I’ve built a great company. I’m a much bigger businessman and have a much, much bigger net worth. I mean my net worth is many, many, many times Mitt Romney.

Donald Trump

“Mitt Romney is a basically small-business guy, if you really think about it. He was a hedge fund. He was a funds guy. He walked away with some money from a very good company that he didn’t create. He worked there. He didn’t create it.”

Trump added that Bain Capital, the hedge fund where Romney made millions of dollars before running for governor, didn’t create any jobs. Whereas Trump claimed that he–Trump–had created “hundreds of thousands of jobs.”

So Romney himself may have been puzzled when Trump announced, on February 2, 2012: “It’s my honor, real honor, and privilege to endorse Mitt Romney” for President.

“Mitt is tough, he’s smart, he’s sharp, he’s not going to allow bad things to continue to happen to this country that we all love. So, Governor Romney, go out and get ‘em. You can do it,” said Trump.

And Romney, in turn, had his own swooning-girl moment: “I’m so honored to have his endorsement….There are some things that you just can’t imagine in your life. This is one of them.”

Mitt Romney

Throughout the 2012 Presidential race, Trump continued to “help” Romney–by repeatedly accusing President Barack Obama of not being an American citizen.

Had that been true, Obama would not have had the right to be President–since the Constitution says that only an American citizen can hold this position.

Of course, that was entirely what Trump wanted people to believe–that Obama was an illegitimate President, and deserved to be thrown out.

Come election night–and disaster for Romney.  And Trump.

When it became clear that Romney was not going to be America’s 45th President, Trump went ballistic on Twitter.  Among his tweets:

  • More votes equals a loss…revolution!
  • Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice!  The world is laughing at us.
  • We can’t let this happen.  We should march on Washington and stop this travesty.  Our nation is totally divided!
  • The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation.  The loser one!
  • He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election.  We should have a revolution in this country!

To put Trump’s rants into real-world perspective:

  • According to Trump, the electoral process works when a Republican wins the Presidency.  It only doesn’t work when a Democrat wins.
  • We should march on Washington” conjures up images of another Fascist–Benito Mussolini–marching on Rome at the head of his Blackshirts to sieze power.  Which is no doubt what Trump would love to do himself.
  • “The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation.  The loser one!”

This is absurd on three counts (four, if you count Trump’s misspelling of “won”).

First, the 2012 Republican Platform spoke lovingly about the need for preserving the Electoral College:

“We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College.

“We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose ‘national popular vote’ would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency.”

Second, the loser didn’t win: He lost.  With votes still being counted (as of November 8) Obama got 60,652,238.  Romney got 57,810,407.

Third, in 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote (50,999,897) to George W. Bush’s 50,456,002.  But Bush trounced Gore in the Electoral College (271 to 266).

Still, that meant Bush–not Gore–would head the country for the next eight years.  And that was perfectly OK with right-wingers like Trump.

It was only when Obama won the Electoral College count by 332 to 206 that this was–according to Trump–a “travesty.”

And Trump’s solution if voters dare to elect someone other than Trump’s pet choice: “Revolution!”

This comes perilously close to advocating violent overthrow of the government.  Otherwise known as treason–a crime traditionally punished by execution, or at least lengthy imprisonment.

In 2016, Americans would do well to consider the implications of this in the case of Donald Trump.

THE LEFT AND RIGHT AGREE: CENSORSHIP IS GOOD

In Bureaucracy, History, Politics on March 16, 2015 at 5:02 pm

Dictators on the Right and Left have different goals, but their tactics always remain the same. And chief among these tactics is the use of censorship–to glorify themselves and silence anyone who disagrees with them.

A dramatic example of censorship on the Left occurred in April, 1986,courtesy of Mikhail Gorbachev, recently-installed leader of the Soviet Union.

Elected General Secretary on March 11, 1985 by members of the ruling Communist Party, Gorbachev had quickly set out to revitalize the ailing empire he had inherited.

He introduced two new words to both the Soviet and Western vocabularies: “glasnost” (“openness”) and “perestroika” (“restructuring”).

It was “glasnost” that attracted immediate attention from Western scholars and journalists.  Gorbachev seemed to be promsing an end to rigid Soviet censorship of the press–for both Soviets and foreign correspondents.

The first test of this new polilcy came on April 26, 1986. An explosion blew the roof off the fourth reactor building at the Chornobyl nuclear power plant in Kiev, Ukraine. Massive quantities of radioactive particles began spewing into the air.

Explosion at Chernobyl nuclear power plant

And the Soviet government–supposedly committed to a policy of “openness”–reacted with silence.

No warnings went out to the Ukraine, to other parts of the Soviet Union, or to nations beyond the reach of the Red Army.

At 9 a.m. on April 28–more than 55 and a half hours after the explosion–an alarm sounded at the Forsmark Nuclear Power station in Sweden.

High amounts of radioactivity were being detected, but nobody knew from where.

The radiation spread to Denmark, Finland and Norway.  Scandinavian experts quickly traced the fallout to its source: The Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine.

But when Swedish authorities directly asked the Soviet government for an explanation, the reply they got was: Nothing happened.

On April 28 the Kremlin issued a statement: “An accident occurred at the Chornobyl Atomic Power Plant and one of the reactors was damaged. Measures have been undertaken to eliminate the consequences of the accident.”

As Moscow tried to keep a lid on the expanding catastrophe, Ukrainians tuned in to broadcasts over Radio Free Europe, the Voice of America or Radio Liberty.

But picking up these broadcasts was hard, because the Soviets–despite “glasnost”–continued their decades-old policy of jamming foreign radio stations.

On April 29, the Kremlin finally admitted that an “accident” at Chernobyl had killed two people, but “the situation has now been stabilized” and was under control.

American spy satelliltes, however, relayed pictures of fires still burning out of control at Chernobyl while Soviet aircraft circled the plant dumping chemicals to stop the blaze.

Meanwhile, Soviet TV “news” commentators parroted the line that there was nothing to worry about.

On April 30, the “news” led with a story about spring flowers in Ukraine and preparations for the annual May Day celebration in Moscow.

But the truth finally caught up with the Soviets.

By May 1986, about a month later, all those living within a 19 mile of the plant (about 116,000 people) had been relocated. According to reports from Soviet scientists, 10,800 square miles were contaminated.

Roughly 830,000 people lived in this area. Some reports project 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths, with predicted excess cases of thyroid cancer ranging between 18,000 and 66,000 in Belarus alone, depending on the risk-projection model.

Right-wingers also embrace censorship when it suits their aims. Such as in Florida–where coastal islands face the treat of being swallowed by the ocean and daily floods create nightmares for highway travelers.

But Rick Scott–its Republican Governor and a 2916 Presidential hopeful–doesn’t believe in “climate change’ or “global warming.”  Asked by a reporter for his views on the subject, he fobbed off the question with, “Well, I’m not a scientist.”

Smiling through the coming apocalypse: Rick Scott

Accordingly, he has ordered members of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to stop using those terms “global warming” and “climate change” in official correspondence.

DEP has a $1.4 billion budget and 3,200 employees, but is forbidden to speak openly about perhaps the foremost danger now facing Floridians.

According to the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting (FCIR) the policy is “unwritten” and was “distributed verbally statewide.”

Just as the Nazis passed down many of their orders verbally, to ensure deniability, so has Scott.

Accordingly, John Tupps, Scott’s spokesman, assured The Washington Post: “There is no policy in existence. … Allegations and claims made in the [Florida investigative article] are not true. This policy, it doesn’t exist.”

But FCIR has no reservations about exposing the issue that threatens the very existence of the state.

“The irony is clearly apparent,” said Tristam Korten, one of FCIR’s writers. “Florida is a peninsula with 1,200 miles of coastline, and when it comes to climate change, we’re the canary in the coalmine. And we’re relying on the state government to protect us and to plan for these changes.”

Rising sea levels threaten Miami–and the rest of Florida

Further proof of the governor’s censorship decree comes from statements of former DEP employees.

One of these, Kristina Trotta, was told during a 2014 meeting that she couldn’t employ terms such as “climate change” and “global warming.”

“We were told that we were not allowed to discuss anything that was not a true fact. The regional administrator told us that we are the governor’s agency; this is the message from the governor’s office. And that is the message we will portray.”

“BLACK [THUG] LIVES MATTER!”

In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Social commentary on March 10, 2015 at 2:49 pm

It’s happened again.

Another confrontation between a white police officer and an allegedly unarmed young black man.  Another struggle. Another dead black man, shot by police. And another outcry that police have once again murdered another innocent victim.

Except that the victim’s background proved anything but innocent.

Consider these three incidents:

Incident #1:

On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown, a black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, is shot and killed during a street confrontation with Darren Wilson, a white police officer.

Almost immediately, Ferguson blacks generally and the Brown family in particular begin referring to Michael Brown as “a child.”

Except that this “child” was 18–legally an adult who could obtain a credit card, enter the armed forces and drive a car.  He also stood 6’3″ and weighed 300 pounds.

Oh, and one more thing: Just before his fatal encounter with Wilson, Brown, Brown was caught on a grocery store video strong-arming a clerk, who had just seen him shoplifting a box of cigars.

Click here: SURVEILLANCE VIDEO: Police say Michael Brown was suspect in Ferguson store robbery – YouTube 

Michael Brown (left) roughing up a store owner

Click here: Lawsuit seeking release of Michael Brown’s juvenile records claims slain teen was a murder suspect – AOL.com

Incident #2:

On March 1, 2015, officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) are summoned to downtown Skid Row to break up a fight between two black men.

A security camera outside a homeless shelter shows a man pushing over a neighbor’s tent and the two men duking it out.

When four officers arrive, the suspect–Charley Saturmin Robinet–turns and ducks back into his own tent.  Then he jumps out, striking and kicking before ending up on the ground.  Officers use Tasers, but these appear to have little effect.

As the officers swarm about him, a bystander’s video captures the voice of a rookie officer shouting, “He has my gun! He has my gun!” That’s when the other three officers open fire.

Blacks in Los Angeles and throughout the nation immediately claimed that Robinet–known as “Africa” on the street–was unarmed when he was shot.

But LAPD Chief Charlie Beck stated that an inspection of the video shows Robinet reaching for the pistol in the rookie officer’s waistband.

The officer’s gun was later found partly cocked and jammed with a bullet in the chamber and another in the ejection port, indicating a struggle for the weapon, said Beck.

Then, on March 3, as a black outcry continued to sound throughout the nation, a news bombshell dropped:

In 2000, Robinet had been convicted of robbing a Wells Fargo branch and pistol-whipping an employee.  The reason for the robbery: To pay for acting classes at the Beverly Hills Playhouse.

While in federal prison in Rochester, Minnesota, Robinet was assigned to the mental health unit, where it was determined he suffered from mental illness requiring treatment in a psychiatric hospital. He served about 13 years in prison before being released in May, 2014.

Under the terms of his release, Robinet was required to report to his probation officer at the start of each month.  He failed to do so in November and December, 2014, and in January, 2015. So a federal arrest warrant was issued on January 9.

U.S. marshals were searching for him at the time of his fatal confrontation with the LAPD.

Click here: Man killed by Los Angeles police was wanted by US marshals – AOL.com

Incident #3:

On March 6, 2015, 19-year-old Anthony “Tony” Robinson, black, was shot and killed by a white police officer in Madison, Wisconsin.

The shooting came after police got a call saying that Robinson was jumping in and out of traffic and had assaulted someone. Robinson fled to an apartment, and the officer–Matt Kenny–heard a disturbance and forced his way inside.

According to police, a struggle ensued and Kenny fired after Robinson attacked him.

Only hours after the shooting, Madison Police Chief Mike Koval–who is white–called Robinson’s death “a tragedy” and prayed with Robinson’s grandmother in her driveway.

And then, on March 7, came the news: In 2014, Robinson had pleaded guilty to armed robbery and recently began serving a three-year probation term for that felony conviction.

According to a criminal complaint, Robinson was one of five men who staged a home-invasion robbery in Madison in April, 2014, searching for money and marijuana. Police captured Robinson as he fled the home, and he admitted that he stole a TV and an Xbox 360 from the apartment.

Tony Robinson

He was sentenced to three years’ probation in December.

Reacting to her son’s death, Robinson’s mother, Andrea Irwin, said:  “My son has never been a violent person. And to die in such a violent, violent way, it baffles me.”

Not every police shooting of a black is a replay of Mississippi Burning, the 1964 case where three civil rights workers were murdered by white racist police.

Some police shootings are fueled by anger or prejudice.  Others happen by accident or negligence. So it’s foolish to automatically assume that every police shooting is totally justified.

But it’s equally foolish to assume that every police shooting is totally unjustified. Especially when, in case after case, the “non-violent” victim turns out to have had a history of violence.

TERROR AND TRUTH(LESSNESS): PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 6, 2015 at 12:09 am

During World War II, British singer Vera Lynn comforted her war-weary fellow citizens with a poignant rendition of “The White Cliffs of Dover.” A portion of its lyrics goes:

There’ll be love and laughter And peace ever after. Tomorrow, when the world is free.

The shepherd will tend his sheep. The valley will bloom again. And Jimmy will go to sleep In his own little room again.

Click here: Vera Lynn: The White Cliffs of Dover – YouTube

The appeal of the song lay in its promise that, once Nazi Germany was defeated, peace and normality would return.

And despite being threatened with invasion in 1940 and devastated by massive bombing raids in 1940-41, citizens of Great Britain could take heart in the following:

Nazi Germany had a capitol–Berlin–and a single, all-powerful leader–Adolf Hitler. Once Berlin was occupied and Hitler dead or captured, the war would be over.

And, for all their ferocity, German soldiers were easy to recognize: They wore gray uniforms, spoke German and waved flags emblazoned with swastikas or imperial eagles.

Wehrmacht soldiers marching through conquered France

Today, Western nations under attack by Islamic “holy warriors” face none of those advantages. Islam has no single capitol city–or leader.

The American occupation of Baghdad in 2003 triggered a nationwide insurgency.  And deposing Saddam Hussein unleashed a religious war between Shia and Sunnis throughout Iraq.

Nor do Islam’s jihadist legions wear uniforms.  Many of them don’t speak Arabic or wear clothing associated with Arabs, such as flowing robes and headdresses.

More ominously, millions of Islam’s potential “warriors” live within the very Western nations they despise.  They can get all the instruction and inspiration they need to wreck havoc simply by going to the Internet.  Or, if they have the money, by traveling overseas to such terrorist-recruiting centers as Syria.

And yet, faced with an unprecedented threat to their security, many Western leaders refuse to publicly acknowledge this fundamental truth:

Even if the West isn’t at war with Islam, Islam is at war with the West. Leaders like President Barack Obama, who insisted, at a White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism in February: “We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”

David Cameron

And leaders like British Prime Minister David Cameron, who said on August 29, 2014: “Islam is a religion observed peacefully by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a poisonous ideology observed by a minority.”

It was at this same press conference that Cameron announced that United Kingdom authorities would soon begin revoking the passports of British citizens traveling to Syria.

Arthur M. Cummings, the FBI’s executive assistant director for national security, has no use for such Politically Correct terms as “man-caused disasters” to refer to terrorism.  Nor does he shy away from terms such as “jihadists” or “Islamists.”

“Of course Islamists dominate the terrorism of today,” he says bluntly.

In May, 2014, Steven Emerson, a nationally recognized expert on terrorism, posted an ad in The New York Times, warning about the dangers of PC-imposed censorship:

“Our nation’s security and its cherished value of free speech has been endangered by the bullying campaigns of radical Islamic groups, masquerading as ‘civil rights’ organizations, to remove any reference to the Islamist motivation behind Islamic terrorist attacks.

“These groups have pressured or otherwise colluded with Hollywood, the news media, museums, book publishers, law enforcement and the Obama Administration in censoring the words ‘Islamist’, ‘Islamic terrorism’, ‘radical Islam’ and ‘jihad’ in discussing or referencing the threat and danger of Islamic terrorism.

“This is the new form of the jihadist threat we face. It’s an attack on one of our most sacred freedoms—free speech—and it endangers our very national security. How can we win the war against radical Islam if we can’t even name the enemy?”

He has a point–and a highly legitimate one.

Imagine the United States fighting World War II–and President Franklin Roosevelt banning the use of “fascist” in referring to Nazi Germany or “imperialist” in describing Imperial Japan.

Imagine CNN-like coverage of the Nazi extermination camps, with their piles of rotting corpses and smoking gas ovens, while a commentator reminds us that “Nazism is an ideology of peace.”

Then consider these Islamic terrorist outrages of our own time:

  • The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., which snuffied out the lives of 3,000 Americans.
  • The 2004 bombing of Madrid’s commuter train system.
  • The attack on the London subway in 2005.
  • The killing of 13 U.S. Army personnel at Fort Hood, Texas, by a Muslim army major in 2009.
  • The hacking of a British soldier to death on a London street in 2013.
  • The bombing of the Boston Marathon in 2013.
  • The kidnapping of 300 Nigerian schoolgirls by Boko Haram in 2014.

In every one of these attacks, the perpetrators openly announced that their actions had been motivated by their Islamic beliefs.

In his groundbreaking book, The Clash of Civilizations (1996) Samuel Huntington, the late political scientist at Harvard University, noted: “The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”

All-in-all, the future looks better for would-be Islamic conquerors than for those in the West awaiting the next Islamic atrocity.

TERROR AND TRUTH(LESSNESS): PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 4, 2015 at 3:47 am

The headline on the CNN website said it all–or seemed to: “Religion’s Week From Hell.”

Then came the first paragraph: “Whether you believe that religious violence is fueled by faith or is a symptom of larger factors–political instability, poverty, cultural chaos–one thing seems clear: Last week was hellish for religion.”

The story–published on February 18–then went on to outline a series of atrocities committed in the name of religion:

“Across several continents, including North America, Europe, Central Asia and Africa, scores of religious believers suffered and died in brutal attacks over the past seven days.”

And here was the day-by-day chronicle of slaughter:

Monday:

  • Boko Haram, the Islamic group based in Nigeria, attacked several towns in Cameroon, kidnapping 20 people. They also exploded a car bomb in Niger.  At the time, the death toll was unclear.

Tuesday:

  • Craig Hicks, an athiest who ranted against religion on the Internet, was charged with killing three young Muslim students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Wednesday:

  • The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) attacked Kurdish forces in northern Iraq and Iraqi civilians in Baghdad.  At least 31 people were killed in Baghdad by ISIS bombs.

Thursday:

  • Al Qaeda seized a key military base in Baihan, Yemen, killing four Yemeni soldiers.  They then took control of the town’s weaponry.
  • With the United States’ having already closed its embassy in Yemen, Italy, Germany and Saudi Arabia did the same.

Friday:

  • Boko Haram killed 21 people in attacks on Mbuta and Akida villages in Nigeria.
  • The Islamic terror group also killed four civilians and a soldier in neighboring Chad.
  • In Peshawar, Pakistan, the Taliban attacked a Shia mosque, killing 19 and wounding dozens.

Saturday: 

  • In Copenhagen, Denmark, an Islamic gunman fired at attendees of a free-speech forum, where a Swedish cartoonist was scheduled to speak.  His alleged crime: Depicting the Prophet Mohammed.  Casualties: Three officers wounded and one 55-year-old man killed.
  • Hours later, the same terrorist visited a Copenhagen synagogue.  Opening fire, he wounded two officers and killing a private security guard.

Sunday:

  • ISIS released a video showing its members beheading more than a dozen members of Egypt’s Coptic Christian minority on a Libyan beach.

* * * * *

So much for “religion’s week from hell.”

Except that the title of this story was completely misleading. It would have been more accurately entitled: “Islam’s Week of Hell.”

ISIS member beheading a helpless captive

Of the 13 atrocities detailed above, all but one showcased Islamics as the murderers.

The single exception was that of Craig Hicks, an athiest who was charged with shooting three Muslim college students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

It was this case–and not any of the others–that brought Muslims to demand “justice.” Muslims immediately urged the Obama administration to investigate the murders as a hate crime.

Suzanne Barakat, the sister of one of the victims, said the students had been murdered because they were Muslims. She said that the killings should be considered an act of terrorism: “It’s time people call it what it is.”

But getting Islamics to label other Islamics as terrorists is an entirely different matter.

According to author Ronald Kessler, this has caused serious problems for the FBI. In his 2011 book, The Secrets of the FBI, Kessler notes the refusal of the Islamic community to identify known or potential terrorists within its ranks.

Says Arthur M. Cummings, the Bureau’s executive assistant director for national security: “I had this discussion with the director of a very prominent Muslim organization here in [Washington] D.C. And he said, ‘Why are you guys always looking at the Muslim community?'”

“I can name the homegrown cells, all of whom are Muslim, all of whom were seeking to kill Americans,” replied Cummings. “It’s not the Irish, it’s not the French, it’s not the Catholics, it’s not the Protestants.  It’s the Muslims.”

Occasionally, Muslims will condemn Al Qaeda.  But “rarely do we have them coming to us and saying, ‘There are three guys in the community that we’re very concerned about.'” said Cummings.

“They don’t want anyone to know they have extremists in their community.  Well, beautiful.  Except do you read the newspapers?  Everybody already knows it. The horse has left the barn.

“So there’s a lot of talk about engagement. But, realistically, we’ve got a long, long way to go.”

At one community meeting, an Islamic leader suggested to Cummings that then-FBI director Robert Meuller III should pose for a picture with his group’s members. The reason: To show that Islamics are partners in the “war on terror.”

“When you bring to my attention real extremists who are here to plan and do something, who are here supporting terrorism,” said Cummings, “then I promise you, I will have the director stand up on the stage with you.”

“That could never happen,” replied the Islamic leader.  “We would lose our constituency.  We could never admit to bringing someone to the FBI.”

REMEMBERING THE ALAMO: PART THREE (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Military on March 4, 2015 at 1:00 am

On the night before the final Mexican assault, one man escaped the Alamo to testify to the defenders’ courage. Or so goes the most famous story of the 13-day siege.

He was Louis Rose, a veteran of theNapoleonic wars and the dreadful 1812 retreat from Moscow.  Unwilling to die in a hopeless battle, he slipped over a wall and sneaked through Mexican siege lines.

At Grimes County, he found shelter at the homestead of Abraham and Mary Ann Zuber. Their son, William, later claimed that his parents told him of Rose’s visit–and his story of Travis’ “line in the sand” speech.

In 1873, he published the tale in the Texas Almanac.

But many historians believe it is a fabrication.  The story comes to us third-hand–from Rose to the Zubers to their son.  And it was published 37 years after the Alamo fell.

After a 12-day siege, Santa Anna decided to overwhelm the Alamo.

Some of his officers objected.  They wanted to wait for bigger siege cannon to arrive–to knock down the Alamo’s three-feet-thick adobe walls.  Without shelter, the defenders would be forced to surrender.

But Santa Anna insisted on an all-out assault: “Without blood and tears, there is no glory.”

The first assault came at about 5 a.m. on March 6, 1836.

The fort’s riflemen–aided by 14 cannons–repulsed it.  And the second assault as well. But the third assault proved unstoppable.

The Alamo covered three acres, and held at most 250 defenders–against 2,000 Mexican soldiers.  When the Mexicans reached the fort, they mounted scaling ladders and poured over the walls.

Travis was one of the first defenders to fall–shot through the forehead after firing a shotgun into the Mexican soldiery below.

Death of William Barrett Travis (waving sword)

Mexicans broke into the room where the ailing James Bowie lay. In Three Roads to the Alamo, historian William C. Davis writes that Bowie may have been unconscious or delirious.  Mistaking him for a coward, the soldiers bayoneted him and blew out his brains.

But some accounts claim that Bowie died fighting–shooting two Mexicans with pistols, then plunging his famous knife into a third before being bayoneted.  Nearly every Alamo movie depicts Bowie’s death this way.

Jim Bowie’s death

As the Mexicans poured into the fort, at least 60 Texans tried to escape over the walls into the surrounding prairie.  But they were quickly dispatched by lance-bearing Mexican cavalry.

The death of David Crockett remains highly controversial. Baby boomers usually opt for the Walt Disney version: Davy swinging Old Betsey as Mexicans surround him.  Almost every Alamo movie depicts him fighting to the death.

David Crockett’s death

But Mexican Colonel Jose Enrique de la Pena claimed Crockett was one of seven Texans who surrendered or were captured and brought before Santa Anna after the battle.  Santa Anna ordered their immediate execution, and they were hacked to death with sabers.

Only the 2004 remake of The Alamo has dared to depict this version. Although this version is now accepted by most historians, some still believe the de la Pena diary from which it comes is a forgery.

An hour after the battle erupted, it was over.

That afternoon, Santa Anna ordered the bodies of the slain defenders stacked and burned in three pyres. Contrary to popular belief, some of the garrison survived:

  • Joe, a black slave who had belonged to William B. Travis, the Alamo’s commander;
  • Susannah Dickinson, the wife of a lieutenant killed in the Alamo, and her baby, Angelina;
  • Several Mexican women and their children.

Also contrary to legend, the bravery of the Alamo defenders did not buy time for Texas to raise an army against Santa Anna. This didn’t happen until after the battle. But their sacrifice proved crucial in securing Texas’ independence:

  • The Alamo’s destruction warned those Texans who had not supported the revolution that they had no choice: They must win, die or flee their homes to the safety of the United States.
  • It stirred increasing numbers of Americans to enter Texas and enlist in Sam Houston’s growing army.
  • Santa Anna’s army was greatly weakened, losing 600 killed and wounded–a casualty rate of 33%.
  • The nearly two-week siege bought time for the Texas convention to meet at Washington-on-the-Brazos and declare independence from Mexico.

On April 21, 1836, Santa Anna made a crucial mistake: During his army’s afternoon siesta, he failed to post sentries around his camp.

That afternoon, Sam Houston’s 900-man army struck the 1,400-man Mexican force at San Jacinto. In 18 minutes, the Texans–shouting “Remember the Alamo!”–killed about 700 Mexican soldiers and wounded 200 others.

The next day, a Texas patrol captured Santa Anna. Resisting angry demands to hang the Mexican dictator, Houston forced Santa Anna to surrender control of Texas in return for his life. The victory at San Jacinto won the independence of Texas.

But the 13-day siege and fall of the Alamo remains the most famous and celebrated part of that conflict. Like Thermopylae, the battle of the Alamo proved both a defeat–and a victory.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,504 other followers

%d bloggers like this: