333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
 |
« Reply #1150 on: February 07, 2013, 12:07:40 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #1151 on: February 07, 2013, 01:47:12 PM » |
|
Woman Allegedly Lied About Baby’s Abduction To Get Cops To Find Stolen Car
February 6, 2013 4:55 PM
Photo Gallery: Super Bowl XLVII
CHICAGO (CBS) – A young mother from Harvey was in trouble with police after lying about her baby being in her car when it was stolen Wednesday morning on Chicago’s South Side.
Jeanette Holt, 25, has been charged with one count of felony disorderly conduct, police said.
CBS 2’s Dana Kozlov reports police rushed to a Chatham neighborhood daycare center around 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, after Holt called 911 to report her 1997 Chevy Monte Carlo had been stolen with her 1-year-old son inside.
At least seven squad cars were put on alert to search the area.
Police conducted a massive search for the car, only to find out the child was not inside to begin with. He had been in daycare all along.
Police sources said the boy’s mother lied about the abduction because she wanted officers to look for her car.
“We arrested her as a result,” Police Supt. Garry McCarthy said. “And we need to do that when people make false claims like that, because … it’s very serious, it endangers the public at large, and definitely our police officers who may be responding in a different fashion than just to take a report for a stolen vehicle.”
Such false reports also consume police resources at a time when the city is only responding to 911 calls where an imminent threat is present, which was not the case here.
“The case was she dropped her baby off at daycare. Upon signing the child in, someone had jumped in her car, because she left her car running, and they drove off,” said Eltonjia Thompson, owner of 4 Ever Young Daycare.
To be safe, the toddler’s father was called to the daycare, and verified his son was safe.
Thompson said it was “very stressful.”
Holt was taken into custody outside the daycare as soon as police realized she was lying, about an hour after the search had begun.
She was due in court on Thursday.
Incidentally, it’s also illegal in the state of Illinois to leave your car running on a public street.
|
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #1152 on: February 07, 2013, 02:58:47 PM » |
|
Entire Miami police squad fired after footage shows cops shopping, dining and kissing while ignoring 911 calls
RT — An investigation into Miami police officers’ on-duty conduct found six officers were ignoring 911 calls while instead kissing their girlfriends, shopping, and drinking coffee.
One 911 call involved an unconscious five-month-old baby. Video footage shows Miami police officer Dario Socarras ignoring dispatch orders to save the child, while drinking coffee for nine minutes and lying to the dispatcher about being “en route”. Paramedics eventually reached the unconscious child, while Socarras never went – but still, the officer wrote in his daily report that he attended the scene.
And Socarras is only one of six officers caught neglecting their duties: after being followed and caught on surveillance video by Internal Affairs, two officers and a sergeant were fired and three were suspended without pay for dereliction of duty from the Miami Dade Police Department.
The footage of the incidents documents the department’s worst case of delinquency in its history.
Aside from ignoring the dispatch orders to save the unconscious baby, Socarras was also found to have ignored armed robbery and residential burglary calls. Instead, the officer was found kissing and cuddling with his girlfriend in the parking lot of a shopping mall on two different occasions.
Socarras was also caught misleading a crime victim, promising to fill out a police report about items that were stolen form her, while telling dispatchers that no crime had occurred. The officer proceeded to give the victim a phony case number.
“We’re talking about falsification of official records, stealing time that doesn’t belong to you, because they are supposed to be available for service or duty and they are not,” former Miami Police Chief Ken Harms told CBS4.
And the officer’s supervisor was no better: Sgt. Jennifer Gonzalez was drinking coffee with Socorras while he ignored a dispatch order and was separately recorded shopping while on duty at stores including Target, Lowes and Kohl’s. In one incident, Gonzalez bought so many items at a department store that she even requested a store clerk to help her carry and load her goods into her police car.
Investigators also found that Gonzalez would spend hours visiting her parents in an area that was outside of the district she was employed to be working in. The sergeant has been accused of letting her own neglectful work habits affect others in her department, since all of the officers accused of dereliction of duty were working for her.
Officer Jose Huerta was found repeatedly lying about his availability, claiming he was stuck on a call involving a traffic incident when in fact he was free to respond to calls that the dispatcher had waiting for him. In one incident, he failed to immediately respond to a call about a five-year-old child being locked inside a vehicle – an incident that can quickly turn deadly in the heat under the Miami sun.
Internal Affairs discovered many other incidents of neglectful duties among officers and sergeants in the Miami Dade Police Department. Even though the investigation was conducted in 2010, the delinquent sergeant and officers were not penalized until late 2012.
While this is the Miami police department’s worst case of delinquency, its officers have repeatedly come under scrutiny for illegal and negligent actions. Last week, a Miami officer was fired for shooting an unarmed motorist. In September, police officer Fausto Lopez was fired for driving more than 120 miles per hour and was found to have driven more than 90 miles per hour more than 80 times.
Cases of police neglecting their duties and violating the law are not unusual in Miami, and the video surveillance acquired by the Internal Affairs investigation shows just how dire the situation is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
tu_holmes
|
|
« Reply #1153 on: February 07, 2013, 03:02:54 PM » |
|
Fuck 'em!
|
|
|
|
|
avxo
Getbig IV
Gender: 
Posts: 2050
New Avatar. Same Guy.
|
|
« Reply #1154 on: February 07, 2013, 05:06:23 PM » |
|
Entire Miami police squad fired after footage shows cops shopping, dining and kissing while ignoring 911 calls Wow... |
|
|
|
|
|
poldaktalos
|
|
« Reply #1155 on: February 07, 2013, 08:17:03 PM » |
|
Entire Miami police squad fired after footage shows cops shopping, dining and kissing while ignoring 911 calls
They should be charged as accomplices to all those incidents they ignored. |
|
|
|
|
|
whork
|
|
« Reply #1156 on: February 08, 2013, 05:49:28 AM » |
|
Entire Miami police squad fired after footage shows cops shopping, dining and kissing while ignoring 911 calls
RT — An investigation into Miami police officers’ on-duty conduct found six officers were ignoring 911 calls while instead kissing their girlfriends, shopping, and drinking coffee.
One 911 call involved an unconscious five-month-old baby. Video footage shows Miami police officer Dario Socarras ignoring dispatch orders to save the child, while drinking coffee for nine minutes and lying to the dispatcher about being “en route”. Paramedics eventually reached the unconscious child, while Socarras never went – but still, the officer wrote in his daily report that he attended the scene.
And Socarras is only one of six officers caught neglecting their duties: after being followed and caught on surveillance video by Internal Affairs, two officers and a sergeant were fired and three were suspended without pay for dereliction of duty from the Miami Dade Police Department.
The footage of the incidents documents the department’s worst case of delinquency in its history.
Aside from ignoring the dispatch orders to save the unconscious baby, Socarras was also found to have ignored armed robbery and residential burglary calls. Instead, the officer was found kissing and cuddling with his girlfriend in the parking lot of a shopping mall on two different occasions.
Socarras was also caught misleading a crime victim, promising to fill out a police report about items that were stolen form her, while telling dispatchers that no crime had occurred. The officer proceeded to give the victim a phony case number.
“We’re talking about falsification of official records, stealing time that doesn’t belong to you, because they are supposed to be available for service or duty and they are not,” former Miami Police Chief Ken Harms told CBS4.
And the officer’s supervisor was no better: Sgt. Jennifer Gonzalez was drinking coffee with Socorras while he ignored a dispatch order and was separately recorded shopping while on duty at stores including Target, Lowes and Kohl’s. In one incident, Gonzalez bought so many items at a department store that she even requested a store clerk to help her carry and load her goods into her police car.
Investigators also found that Gonzalez would spend hours visiting her parents in an area that was outside of the district she was employed to be working in. The sergeant has been accused of letting her own neglectful work habits affect others in her department, since all of the officers accused of dereliction of duty were working for her.
Officer Jose Huerta was found repeatedly lying about his availability, claiming he was stuck on a call involving a traffic incident when in fact he was free to respond to calls that the dispatcher had waiting for him. In one incident, he failed to immediately respond to a call about a five-year-old child being locked inside a vehicle – an incident that can quickly turn deadly in the heat under the Miami sun.
Internal Affairs discovered many other incidents of neglectful duties among officers and sergeants in the Miami Dade Police Department. Even though the investigation was conducted in 2010, the delinquent sergeant and officers were not penalized until late 2012.
While this is the Miami police department’s worst case of delinquency, its officers have repeatedly come under scrutiny for illegal and negligent actions. Last week, a Miami officer was fired for shooting an unarmed motorist. In September, police officer Fausto Lopez was fired for driving more than 120 miles per hour and was found to have driven more than 90 miles per hour more than 80 times.
Cases of police neglecting their duties and violating the law are not unusual in Miami, and the video surveillance acquired by the Internal Affairs investigation shows just how dire the situation is.
 |
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #1157 on: February 08, 2013, 09:45:02 AM » |
|
REPORT: A Tiny 71-Year-Old Woman Was Shot Twice In The Back During The LAPD's Manhunt Erin Fuchs|Feb. 8, 2013, 10:01 AM|1,747|8 Police who were hunting a former LAPD cop accidentally shot a 71-year-old woman and her daughter as they delivered the LA Times, that newspaper reports. Sources told the LA Times cops were trying to protect an LAPD officer named in former cop Christopher Dorner's online manifesto when they shot the two women in Torrance, Calif. Cops thought the royal blue Toyota Tacoma occupied by 71-year-old Emma Hernandez and her 47-year-old daughter Maggie Carranza matched descriptions for Dorner's Nissan pickup truck, CBS Los Angeles reported. "Tragically, we believe this is a case of mistaken identity," LAPD Chief Charlie Beck told reporters. But the women's lawyer, Glen Jonas, hinted that cops were being overzealous in trying to protect their own, according to the LA Times story. "The problem with the situation is it looked like the cops were administering street justice and didn't take the time to notice that these two older, small Latina women don't look like a large black man," Jonas told the Times. Hernandez was shot twice in the back and was stable as of late Thursday, Jonas told the Times. Her daughter just had stitches in her finger. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/lapd-officers-hunting-dorner-shot-women-2013-2#ixzz2KKK6c37o |
|
|
|
|
|
tu_holmes
|
|
« Reply #1158 on: February 08, 2013, 10:04:06 AM » |
|
REPORT: A Tiny 71-Year-Old Woman Was Shot Twice In The Back During The LAPD's Manhunt Erin Fuchs|Feb. 8, 2013, 10:01 AM|1,747|8 Police who were hunting a former LAPD cop accidentally shot a 71-year-old woman and her daughter as they delivered the LA Times, that newspaper reports. Sources told the LA Times cops were trying to protect an LAPD officer named in former cop Christopher Dorner's online manifesto when they shot the two women in Torrance, Calif. Cops thought the royal blue Toyota Tacoma occupied by 71-year-old Emma Hernandez and her 47-year-old daughter Maggie Carranza matched descriptions for Dorner's Nissan pickup truck, CBS Los Angeles reported. "Tragically, we believe this is a case of mistaken identity," LAPD Chief Charlie Beck told reporters. But the women's lawyer, Glen Jonas, hinted that cops were being overzealous in trying to protect their own, according to the LA Times story. "The problem with the situation is it looked like the cops were administering street justice and didn't take the time to notice that these two older, small Latina women don't look like a large black man," Jonas told the Times. Hernandez was shot twice in the back and was stable as of late Thursday, Jonas told the Times. Her daughter just had stitches in her finger. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/lapd-officers-hunting-dorner-shot-women-2013-2#ixzz2KKK6c37oThe LAPD is gonna be so fucked when this is all done. No matter how it plays out, they are gonna look like COMPLETE idiots. |
|
|
|
|
|
whork
|
|
« Reply #1159 on: February 08, 2013, 12:24:37 PM » |
|
REPORT: A Tiny 71-Year-Old Woman Was Shot Twice In The Back During The LAPD's Manhunt Erin Fuchs|Feb. 8, 2013, 10:01 AM|1,747|8 Police who were hunting a former LAPD cop accidentally shot a 71-year-old woman and her daughter as they delivered the LA Times, that newspaper reports. Sources told the LA Times cops were trying to protect an LAPD officer named in former cop Christopher Dorner's online manifesto when they shot the two women in Torrance, Calif. Cops thought the royal blue Toyota Tacoma occupied by 71-year-old Emma Hernandez and her 47-year-old daughter Maggie Carranza matched descriptions for Dorner's Nissan pickup truck, CBS Los Angeles reported. "Tragically, we believe this is a case of mistaken identity," LAPD Chief Charlie Beck told reporters. But the women's lawyer, Glen Jonas, hinted that cops were being overzealous in trying to protect their own, according to the LA Times story. "The problem with the situation is it looked like the cops were administering street justice and didn't take the time to notice that these two older, small Latina women don't look like a large black man," Jonas told the Times. Hernandez was shot twice in the back and was stable as of late Thursday, Jonas told the Times. Her daughter just had stitches in her finger. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/lapd-officers-hunting-dorner-shot-women-2013-2#ixzz2KKK6c37oCops should be banned. |
|
|
|
|
|
Jack T. Cross
|
|
« Reply #1160 on: February 08, 2013, 01:10:09 PM » |
|
The LAPD is gonna be so fucked when this is all done.
No matter how it plays out, they are gonna look like COMPLETE idiots.
It is nothing less than bizarre. |
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #1161 on: February 09, 2013, 05:55:00 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #1162 on: February 10, 2013, 05:59:52 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #1163 on: February 10, 2013, 07:19:44 AM » |
|
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
How the LAPD Lost my Trust
Gun Watch ^ | 10 February, 2013 | Dean Weingarten
Posted on February 9, 2013 8:19:56 PM EST by marktwain
I am a certified firearms instructor who has taught CCW classes in Arizona since the beginning of the CCW program there in 1994. As we are on the border with California, I watch the developments there with some interest. Unfortunately, nearly everything that I have read and heard about the LAPD and guns has lead me to distrust them.
I had numerous students who had dealings with the LAPD. I started hearing stories about how guns were seized, even if there were no crime involved. If an officer came across a gun, it was seized, and it would not be returned until the LAPD received a court order demanding that it be returned. As hiring a lawyer to obtain a court order could easily cost thousands of dollars, very few people even tried, as the cost was far more than the firearms were worth. This is legalized theft.
The practice has finally been challenged in court, and the Ninth Circuit has ruled that the under the fourth amendment, LAPD cannot simply steal firearms that are lawfully owned. The government is appealing the decision in Messerschmidt v. Millender.
I have also heard of California police who stop someone that has a firearm in their vehicle, who may have violated one of the many arcane firearms laws of the State. If the officer is being charitable, he may allow the individual to simply give the gun to him, rather than face felony charges.
The crowning moment came for me when I was describing the practice to a class of students, and one of them said "My brother is an LAPD police officer, and he has an amazing collection of firearms. Citizens just gave them to him to dispose of."
This is the stuff of third world dictatorships.
The other practice that made me distrust the LAPD has been their scofflaw attitude toward court orders to administer the California CCW program as the law requires. They have failed to do this for 17 years, even though ordered to do so by the court. The Court order was originally obtained by a legal action won by the Second Amendment Foundation. In the intervening years two more amended judgements of declaratory relief were signed. A current appeal to enforce the court order is in the works from the National Rifle Association and the California Rifle and Pistol Association.
When the LAPD engages in systematic legalized theft, and refuses to follow court orders to uphold the law, when they routinely fail to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, even though they have taken an oath to do so, they have lost my trust.
Dean Weingarten
|
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #1164 on: February 12, 2013, 06:45:35 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #1165 on: February 14, 2013, 12:30:34 PM » |
|
'Big Sis' Reasserts Unlimited Power to Seize and Inspect Laptops
Townhall.com ^ | February 13, 2013 | Bob Barr
Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2013 1:07:55 PM by Kaslin
President Obama did not mention it in his State of the Union address last night, and there hasn’t been much attention devoted to it in the Congress of late; but, the fundamental right to privacy Americans have a right to expect from their own government, has suffered yet another body blow.
On the surface, things seem to be in order. For example, at the beginning of February, the Federal Trade Commission released a staff report outlining consumer privacy recommendations for developers of mobile phone apps. FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz called the recommendations “best practices” intended to “safeguard consumer privacy,” that would “build trust in the mobile marketplace.”
Unfortunately, the rest of the Obama Administration hasn’t gotten the message.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), headed by Secretary Janet (“Big Sis”) Napolitano, just reaffirmed its policy that Americans returning home from travels abroad are subject to arbitrary searches and seizures of their computers and other electronic devices.
The controversy surrounding warrantless and suspicion-less searches at the U.S. border has been brewing for years. In 2009, for example, Napolitano asserted the government’s right to inspect and detain electronics from all persons traveling into the United States, and to copy any information stored on those devices. Continuing this view, the department’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties last week released its “Civil Liberties Impact Assessment” of the directives after originally setting a 120-day deadline back in August 2009.
As has become typical, the report contends the government can have its cake and eat it too. Confusingly, DHS concludes “current border search policies comply with the Fourth Amendment,” but that actually requiring federal agents to follow the Constitution would be “operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits.” In other words, what government is doing is constitutional even though the cost of following the Constitution would outweigh the benefits to be realized by the citizens. Clear? As mud.
Courts have long recognized the federal government’s robust power to inspect people and goods entering the country. After all, the very foundation of national sovereignty is a nation’s ability to protect its borders. Until recently, however, this “border search” power was reasonably considered to be limited to physical searches necessary to discover illegal contraband attempted to be brought into the country; inspecting a traveler’s suitcases, for example.
The proliferation of electronic communications devices -- personal computers, iPads, Blackberries, and what not -- and the potential treasure trove of information contained in such devices, however, has pushed the government to assert the power and the right to inspect such devices and anything stored thereon, under the “border search” provision.
In Uncle Sam’s view, because evidence of potential criminal activity can be found in a laptop computer’s hard drive just as in the tourist’s suitcase following a visit to Mexico, the former enjoys no more protection against government snooping than the latter. This limitless perspective, and the vast power grab reflected in it -- based on nothing more than the fact that a person has travelled abroad and is returning to their home -- is preposterous. More important, this assertion seriously undermines the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The average American returning from a trip abroad likely -- and understandably -- assumes the contents of his or her electronic device does not come close to meeting the threshold of “criminal” activity, such as would give a government agent the right to seize and peruse their iPad just because they are returning from a vacation. Government agents at our borders and ports of entry, however, are undeterred by such common sense and historically-sound notions of privacy.
In Napolitano’s view, just because an iPad is being carried by an American student returning from a semester studying in London, instead of returning to New York from Los Angeles, it becomes fair game for her agents to seize, inspect, download and retain data; all without any suspicion whatsoever the device’s owner has engaged in any illegal activity.
The “exhaustive,” three-year study conducted by the Department of Homeland is as flawed as most government “reports.” Unfortunately, unlike many other such projects, this one does more than just cost American taxpayers money; it comes at a heavy price to their fundamental, God-given right to privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #1166 on: February 15, 2013, 07:15:34 AM » |
|
Obama DOJ again refuses to tell a court whether CIA drone program even exists
As the nation spent the week debating the CIA assassination program, Obama lawyers exploit secrecy to shield it from all review
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 14 February 2013 08.50 EST
Jump to comments (426)
The Obama DOJ again tells a court that it cannot safely confirm or deny the existence of the CIA drone program Photograph: Alamy
It is not news that the US government systematically abuses its secrecy powers to shield its actions from public scrutiny, democratic accountability, and judicial review. But sometimes that abuse is so extreme, so glaring, that it is worth taking note of, as it reveals its purported concern over national security to be a complete sham.
Such is the case with the Obama DOJ's behavior in the lawsuit brought by the ACLU against the CIA to compel a response to the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request about Obama's CIA assassination program. That FOIA request seeks nothing sensitive, but rather only the most basic and benign information about the "targeted killing" program: such as "the putative legal basis for carrying out targeted killings; any restrictions on those who may be targeted; any civilian casualties; any geographic limits on the program; the number of targeted killings that the agency has carried out."
Everyone in the world knows that the CIA has a targeted killing program whereby it uses drones to bomb and shoot missiles at those it wants dead, including US citizens. This is all openly discussed in every media outlet.
Key Obama officials, including the president himself, not only make selective disclosures about this program but openly boast about its alleged successes. Leon Panetta, then the CIA Director, publicly said all the way back in 2009 when asked about the CIA drone program: "I think it does suffice to say that these operations have been very effective because they have been very precise." In 2010, Panetta, speaking to the Washington Post, hailed the CIA drone program in Pakistan as "the most aggressive operation that CIA has been involved in in our history". This is just a partial sample of Obama official boasts about this very program (for more, see pages 15 to 28 here).
Despite all that, the Obama DOJ from the start has refused not only to provide the requested documents about the CIA drone program, but they refuse to say whether such documents even exist. They do so by insisting that whether there even exists such a thing as a "CIA drone program" is itself classified, and therefore, they can neither admit nor deny whether they possess any of the documents sought by the FOIA request: "the very fact of the existence or nonexistence of such documents is itself classified," repeats the Obama DOJ over and over like some hypnotic Kafkaesque mantra.
Even in the face of the endless stream of public statements from the president on down discussing and boasting about the drone program, the federal judge presiding over the lawsuit last September meekly deferred (as usual) to the DOJ's secrecy claims and dismissed the ACLU's lawsuit. The judge, Rosemary Collyer, ruled that all of the public statements cited by the ACLU whereby Obama officials boasted of the drone program do not constitute official acknowledgment that the CIA (as opposed to some other government generally) has a drone program. The ACLU has appealed this decision.
As ludicrous as the DOJ's secrecy claims were before, they have now reached Alice in Wonderland proportions. Just last week, Obama's nominee to lead the CIA, John Brennan, spent hours upon hours before the Senate Intelligence Committee praising the CIA targeted killing program and discussing the oversight he would make available for that program as CIA director. Then, GOP House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers went on Face the Nation and did the same; when asked if "the administration has been straight with Congress in sharing information on what the rules are about using" drones, Rep. Rogers replied: "Monthly, I have my committee go to the CIA to review them. I as chairman review every single air strike that we use in the war on terror, both from the civilian and the military side when it comes to terrorist strikes."
Clearer and more definitive acknowledgment by the US government that the CIA has a drone program is impossible to imagine. As a result, late last week, the ACLU wrote a letter to the appellate court where its case is now pending to notify the court of these new public acknowledgments. Specifically, as the ACLU put it, Brennan and the Committee members "extensively discussed various aspects of the CIA's targeted-killing program, including the 'role' of the 'CIA director in [the]
approval process' for targeted killings abroad". Moreover, Rogers openly "discusse[d] his committee's 'monthly' oversight of the CIA's targeted-killing program." Now, there is simply no way to deny in good faith that the US government has publicly and officially acknowledged the CIA drone program.
But good faith is no impediment to the Obama DOJ when it comes to its abuse of secrecy powers. This morning, the DOJ sent a letter to the court replying to the ACLU. Ever after the events of last week, they have the audacity to claim that even the question of whether there is a CIA drone program must still be concealed. The DOJ argues - completely falsely - that the ACLU "identif[ies] no statement in which Mr. Brennan allegedly confirms purported CIA involvement in the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for 'targeted killing'", but merely cite "general discussions of 'targeted killing' that do not address the involvement of any particular agency". They dismiss the admissions of Chairman Rogers on the ground that "statements made by members of Congress do not constitute official disclosure by an Executive Branch agency."
Just think about that: Obama and his aides routinely boast about the drone program to make the president look like daddy-protector tough guy. Someone in the administration just disclosed last week to NBC News a "white paper" sent by the Obama DOJ to Congress purporting to legally justify the CIA assassination program. Everyone knows and is now debating whether the CIA should be doing this.
But what is missing from the debate is the most basic information about what the CIA does and even their claimed legal justification for doing it. The Obama administration still refuses to publicly disclose the OLC memo that purported to authorize it (they agreed two weeks ago to make it available only to certain members of Congress without staff present, thus still maintaining "secret law"). They conceal all of this - and thus prevent basic democratic accountability - based on the indescribably cynical and inane pretense that they cannot even confirm or deny the existence of the CIA program without seriously jeopardizing national security.
This is a complete perversion of their secrecy powers. Even among the DC cliques that exist to defend US government behavior, one would be hard-pressed to find anyone willing to defend what is being done here. The Obama administration runs around telling journalists how great and precise and devastating the CIA's assassination program is, then tells courts that no disclosure is permissible because they cannot safely confirm in court that the program even exists.
Such flagrant abuse of secrecy power is at once Orwellian and tyrannical. It has the effect of blocking even the most minimal transparency on the most consequential question: the government's claimed authority to execute anyone it wants without charges, far from a battlefield, in total secrecy. It yet again demonstrates that excessive government secrecy is an infinitely greater threat than unauthorized disclosures. This is why we need radical transparency projects and aggressive whistle-blowers. And it's why nobody should respect the secrecy claims of the Obama administration or believe the assertions they make about national security. What else do they need to do to prove how untrustworthy those claims are?
Use on US soil
Last week, Esquire's Charles Pierce noted that Brennan, at his confirmation hearing, refused to say whether the US government has the power to target US citizens for execution without charges even on US soil. Yesterday, GOP Sen. Rand Paul - who used his State of the Union response to denounce "secret lists of American citizens who can be killed without trial" - said that he would block Brennan's confirmation "until Brennan declares whether he believes the United States has the authority to use unmanned drones to conduct targeting killings of Americans — in the United States."
To understand just how radical the Obama administration is when it comes to secrecy, just think about the fact that it refuses to answer even that question.
|
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #1167 on: February 18, 2013, 10:57:13 AM » |
|
DHS Advances Plan For “Public Safety” Drones http://www.infowars.com/dhs-advances-plan-for-public-safety-dronesMore incarnations of spy technology to undergo testing Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com February 18, 2013 The Department of Homeland Security is advancing its plan to use surveillance drones for “public safety” applications, announcing last week that it had received a deluge of “excellent” responses from potential vendors and was set to carry out more tests of the technology. New testing of spy drones for “public safety” applications has been rubber stamped by the DHS. Image: YouTube As we first reported in July last year, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano told a House Committee on Homeland Security that the federal agency was “looking at drones that could be utilized to give us situational awareness in a large public safety [matter] or disaster,” despite the fact that the agency had previously indicated it was reticent to use spy drones to keep tabs on the public. This was followed by a “market research” announcement in September that confirmed the DHS was exploring a “Robotic Aircraft for Public Safety” (RAPS) project, and was asking small unmanned aerial systems (SUAS) vendors to take part. In an update posted on the FedBizOpps website last week (PDF), the federal agency announced that, “Vendor response to our Request for Information (RFI), Number: DHS 13-01, on small unmanned aircraft systems (SUAS) was excellent and included the submission of over 70 white papers.” The announcement added that a small number of the submissions would now be participating in the “first phase of assessments” for the technology in 2013 and 2014. The DHS refuses to specify which proposals were accepted and for what reasons. Initial testing of robotic spy drones for “public safety” applications was conducted by the DHS’ Science and Technology directorate at Fort Sill, Oklahoma last year. As Wired Magazine reported, the DHS is pursuing lightweight spy drones that can fly for two hours at a time, but it is also interested in military-style drones fitted with cameras that can spy on up to four square miles at a time. As we reported last week, the ARGUS-IS surveillance camera system, developed by BAE Systems in conjunction with DARPA, has the capability to track every moving object across an area of 15 square miles, or a medium-sized city – and could be fitted to unmanned drones that can stay airborne for years at a time. The DHS is already using another type of airborne drone surveillance, also utilized to track insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, for the purposes of “emergency and non-emergency incidents” within the United States. Experts predict that there will be 30,000 surveillance drones in American skies by 2020 following a bill passed last year by Congress that permits the use of unmanned aerial spy vehicles on domestic soil. Last week, a Federal Aviation Administration official told a conference in Northern Virginia that unmanned surveillance drones deployed in US airspace would not be armed with missiles. ********************* Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News. |
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #1168 on: February 18, 2013, 12:19:43 PM » |
|
The death of a man with Down syndrome who was reportedly killed after laying face-down in police custody has been ruled a homicide.
Via HP
WJLA reports that Robert Saylor, 26, of New Market, Md., was asphyxiated on Jan. 12, according to a medical examiner's ruling late last week.
A "law enforcement source familiar with the case" told the station that Saylor "went into distress when he was put face down on the ground."
Police were reportedly called to a Frederick movie theater by employees who couldn't get Saylor to leave. He had come to the theater with a health aide, paid admission for "Zero Dark Thirty," but allegedly remained after it was over.
Dr. George Kirkham, a criminologist and former law enforcement officer, told the Frederick News Post that Saylor's death may have been caused by positional asphyxia.
From the Post:
Positional asphyxia is typically the result of an intense struggle and often involves a person who is handcuffed and lying on their stomach after the struggle. Kirkham said people often panic and can't catch their breath. People with larger stomachs are particularly vulnerable, he said, because their bellies will push into their sternums, making breathing even more difficult.
Baltimore County Sheriff's Office spokesperson Jennifer Bailey said the case is still under investigation and that the three officers involved in Saylor's death -- Lt. Scott Jewell, Sgt. Rich Rochford and Deputy First Class James Harris -- "continue to work their normal assignments," according to the Post.
Frederick County State's Attorney Charlie Smith said his office is reviewing the incident and has not decided whether to bring charges.
WJLA previously spoke with Saylor's mom after the incident.
"He just loved unconditionally everybody," Patti Saylor said. "He has never had anyone put their hands on him in his life. He would not have been doing anything threatening to anybody."
Police officers nationwide often lack appropriate training for dealing with suspects who are mentally ill, according to an investigation by the Portland Press Herald.
In Maine alone, the investigation found that "42 percent of people shot by police since 2000 -- and 58 percent of those who died from their injuries -- had mental health problems."
Even the well-funded New York Police Department has reportedly resisted implementing "the best practices for police interactions with the mentally ill," according to a Village Voice feature published last August
|
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #1169 on: February 18, 2013, 12:52:31 PM » |
|
Originally published February 16, 2013 at 6:22 PM | Page modified February 17, 2013 at 3:42 PM Share: Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on linkedin More Sharing Services Comments (627) . E-mail article . Print Misstep in gun bill could defeat the effort One of the major gun-control efforts in Olympia this session calls for the sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners. The bill’s backers say that was a mistake. By Danny Westneat Seattle Times staff columnist Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around? As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia. That it’s part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far. “They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.” That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats. Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal. But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this: “In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.” In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail. “I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.” He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.” I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation. I spoke to two of the sponsors. One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on. “I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.” That lawmakers sponsor bills they haven’t read is common. Still, it’s disappointing on one of this political magnitude. Not counting a long table, it’s only an eight-page bill. The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional. “I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said. He said he came to realize that an assault-weapons ban has little chance of passing this year anyway. So he put in this bill more as “a general statement, as a guiding light of where we need to go.” Without sweating all the details. Later, a Senate Democratic spokesman blamed unnamed staff and said a new bill will be introduced. Murray had alluded at a gun-control rally in January that progress on guns could take years. “We will only win if we reach out and continue to change the hearts and minds of Washingtonians,” Murray said. “We can attack them, or start a dialogue.” Good plan, very bad start. What’s worse, the case for the perfectly reasonable gun-control bills in Olympia just got tougher. Danny Westneat’s column appears Wednesday and Sunday. Reach him at 206-464-2086 or dwestneat@seattletimes.com |
|
|
|
|
|
Jack T. Cross
|
|
« Reply #1170 on: February 18, 2013, 01:08:52 PM » |
|
WJLA previously spoke with Saylor's mom after the incident.
"He just loved unconditionally everybody," Patti Saylor said. "He has never had anyone put their hands on him in his life. He would not have been doing anything threatening to anybody."
I believe her. |
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #1171 on: February 18, 2013, 07:52:33 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
avxo
Getbig IV
Gender:
Posts: 2050
New Avatar. Same Guy.
|
|
« Reply #1172 on: February 19, 2013, 01:52:09 PM » |
|
Emergency services (like police and fire departments) are a legitimate function of government. They frequently provide rescue services. If this hovercraft can help, why shouldn't they have it? |
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #1173 on: February 19, 2013, 01:54:34 PM » |
|
Emergency services (like police and fire departments) are a legitimate function of government. They frequently provide rescue services. If this hovercraft can help, why shouldn't they have it?
In Pittsburgh they need hovercrafts? |
|
|
|
|
avxo
Getbig IV
Gender:
Posts: 2050
New Avatar. Same Guy.
|
|
« Reply #1174 on: February 19, 2013, 02:48:37 PM » |
|
In Pittsburgh they need hovercrafts?
First of all, let me repost my comment, and add a bit of emphasis: "Emergency services (like police and fire departments) are a legitimate function of government. They frequently provide rescue services. If this hovercraft can help, why shouldn't they have it?" So the question is, can the hovercraft help? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they have two rather large rivers basically running into the city, only to join and continue downstream? Now, I'm not a a search and rescue expert, but it seems to me that a hovercraft could be a valuable asset in search and rescue operations. The matter should, obviously, be scrutinized but based on what I read I don't see anything outright inappropriate. Tell us 333386, as a search and rescue expert who possesses a "Master's License" what's your take on this? Please explain things and substantiate your opinions, but please be sure to speak slowly and not use any crazy marine terms so the rest of us can understand  |
|
|
|
|
|
