Police State - Official Thread

[Straw Man]

This was an Obama appointee and the family said this crack pot DA drove the kid to this.

so blame MIT who insisted on pressing charges

blame the DA

blame the kid  (who by the way is someone you would probably hate if he didn't provide a lame reason for you to direct your irrational hate at Obama)

blame depression (since this kid had a history of it)

you're supposed to be an attorney .....right ?

so why don't you show some actual proof of your claim of "Obama admn. Out of control."

[333386]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

The Tyranny of Barack Obama's Department of Justice: Targeting Jews, Aaron Swartz, 26-year-old
Atlas Shrugs ^ | 1/13/13 | Pamela Geller
Posted on January 13, 2013, 4:06:32 PM EST by Nachum

Aaron Swartz, 26-year-old genius, computer prodigy, co-creator of RSS and Reddit, is dead.

Swartz committed suicide in the wake of relentless bullying and persecution/prosecution by Eric Holder's Department of Justice. Swartz was "driven to the edge" by the government's aggressive prosecution of a non-existent legal case. Swartz made public documents available to everyone -- this was his crime. “It’s like trying to put someone in jail for allegedly checking too many books out of the library.”

Put this in context. Obama's DoJ, headed by Eric Holder, refused to prosecute thr Black Panthers who violently threatened voters with billy clubs and night sticks at polling places on election day. The case was dropped, despite the fact that the case "was already won." This was so gross a violation of voters' rights and the proper function of the Department of Justice that one of its best and brightest senior lawyers resigned in protest: J. Christian Adams.

Obama's Department of Justice policy is that "no voter intimidation cases will brought against a black defendant where the victim is white."

Obama's pro-jihad Department of Justice refused to prosecute Muslim Brotherhood groups, including Hamas-CAIR, ISNA, MSA, MSU, et al, despite the "mountain of evidence" entered into evidence in the largest terrorist funding trial in our nation's history. Documents linked these groups to the funding of terror and murder of non-Muslims, and conspiring toward "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within."

Obama's pro-sharia Department of Justice department is pursuing cases against cities and towns to enforce sharia in the schools, prisons, and workplace. Obama's Department of Sharia filed an unusual lawsuit against the school system in December 2010, not to ensure that the kids get a good education, mind you, but more importantly, to ensure that the Muslims get special rights and extraordinary accommodation.

The DOJ

(Excerpt) Read more at atlasshrugs2000.

so blame MIT who insisted on pressing charges

blame the DA

blame the kid  (who by the way is someone you would probably hate if he didn't provide a lame reason for you to direct your irrational hate at Obama)

blame depression (since this kid had a history of it)

you're supposed to be an attorney .....right ?

so why don't you show some actual proof of your claim of "Obama admn. Out of control."

[333386]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/12/aaron-swartz_n_2463726.html

Obama is worse than W, incredible as that might be.  Total abuse of power

F Obama and everything related and connected to him.

[Straw Man]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

The Tyranny of Barack Obama's Department of Justice: Targeting Jews, Aaron Swartz, 26-year-old
Atlas Shrugs ^ | 1/13/13 | Pamela Geller
Posted on January 13, 2013, 4:06:32 PM EST by Nachum

Aaron Swartz, 26-year-old genius, computer prodigy, co-creator of RSS and Reddit, is dead.

Swartz committed suicide in the wake of relentless bullying and persecution/prosecution by Eric Holder's Department of Justice. Swartz was "driven to the edge" by the government's aggressive prosecution of a non-existent legal case. Swartz made public documents available to everyone -- this was his crime. “It’s like trying to put someone in jail for allegedly checking too many books out of the library.”

Put this in context. Obama's DoJ, headed by Eric Holder, refused to prosecute thr Black Panthers who violently threatened voters with billy clubs and night sticks at polling places on election day. The case was dropped, despite the fact that the case "was already won." This was so gross a violation of voters' rights and the proper function of the Department of Justice that one of its best and brightest senior lawyers resigned in protest: J. Christian Adams.

Obama's Department of Justice policy is that "no voter intimidation cases will brought against a black defendant where the victim is white."

Obama's pro-jihad Department of Justice refused to prosecute Muslim Brotherhood groups, including Hamas-CAIR, ISNA, MSA, MSU, et al, despite the "mountain of evidence" entered into evidence in the largest terrorist funding trial in our nation's history. Documents linked these groups to the funding of terror and murder of non-Muslims, and conspiring toward "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within."

Obama's pro-sharia Department of Justice department is pursuing cases against cities and towns to enforce sharia in the schools, prisons, and workplace. Obama's Department of Sharia filed an unusual lawsuit against the school system in December 2010, not to ensure that the kids get a good education, mind you, but more importantly, to ensure that the Muslims get special rights and extraordinary accommodation.

The DOJ

(Excerpt) Read more at atlasshrugs2000.

who the fuck is Pamela and what the fuck is atlasshrugs2000 and more importantly.... why should anyone give a shit ?

why do you keep posting blog posts

can't you think up your own shit instead of constantly have to use everyone else's opinion?

[333386]

who the fuck is Pamela and what the fuck is atlasshrugs2000 and more importantly.... why should anyone give a shit ?

why do you keep posting blog posts

can't you think up your own shit instead of constantly have to use everyone else's opinion?

Pamela Geller has been very well known activist against the advancement of sharia and Islamic crazies

[Straw Man]

Pamela Geller has been very well known activist against the advancement of sharia and Islamic crazies

never heard of her and don't give a shit what she thinks about anything

for all I know she is a complete moonbat which would make sense if she is one of your sources of info

[333386]

Obama’s ‘kill list’ critic found dead in New York City
                    
Press TV
Jan 13, 2013
Prominent American blogger and computer prodigy Aaron Swartz, who spoke against US President Barack Obama’s “kill list” and cyber attacks against Iran, has been found dead in New York.
Police found the body of the 26-year-old in his apartment in New York City borough of Brooklyn on Friday, said a spokeswoman for the city’s chief medical examiner.
Brooklyn’s chief medical examiner ruled the death a suicide by hanging, but no further detail is available about the mysterious death.
Last year, Swartz openly criticized the US and the Israeli regime for launching joint cyber attacks against Iran.

The blogger was also vocal in criticizing Obama’s so-called kill list and other policies.
Obama has been reportedly approving the names put on the “kill lists” used in the targeted killing operations carried out by US assassination drones.

Every week or so, more than 100 members of the US national security team gather via secure video teleconference run by the Pentagon and go over the biographies of suspects in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, and “nominate” those who should be targeted in the attacks.

Obama is then provided with the identities of those put on the “kill list” and signs off on every strike in Yemen and Somalia as well as the risky strikes in Pakistan.
Full story here.

[333386]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/aaron-swartz-father-says-killed-by-government_n_2482646.html

[333386]

Pregnant woman, hogtied by traffic cops, for talking on her cell phone wins $250,000 payout
 Daily Mail ^ | 1-18-13 | By Joshua Gardner

Posted on Friday, January 18, 2013 6:14:58 PM

The pregnant Los Angeles woman who was brutally hogtied by California Highway Patrolmen in August 2011 after being pulled over for chatting on her cell phone while driving has finally received retribution in the form of a $250,000 settlement.

According to the LA Times, Tamara Gaglione, 30, was hauled away and charged with misdemeanor evading and resisting arrest and driving on a suspended license.

Those charges were dropped, however, once Gaglione's terrible treatment was revealed in footage from the cruiser's video camera.

It is unclear in the grainy video exactly how aggressive, if at all, Gaglione was toward the cops. What is clear, though, is that Hernandez and Martinez drew their weapons on the unarmed Gaglione as they approached her and forced her onto the ground.

Hernandez later claimed Gaglione did not tell them of her pregnancy until after she was on the ground, but Gaglione said she told the officers as they approached her.

Hogtied, Gaglione was subsequently taken away in a patrol car.

Gaglione filed suit against the department and the officers involved, but the video evidence that eventually won Gaglione $250,000 this past November was not immediately forthcoming. Gaglione's attorney Howard Price claimed that Hernandez failed to check a box on the arrest report stating a video camera had, in fact, recorded the incident.


(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Click to Add Topic
 KEYWORDS: cops; donutwatch; Click to Add Keyword
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
Support Free Republic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-68 nextlast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Watch the sickening video at the below link that shows the cops thugs brutally abusing this innocent young woman.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264685/Pregnant-LA-woman-hogtied-highway-patrolmen-receives-250-000-outrageous-treatment.html


 

[Skip8282]

Pregnant woman, hogtied by traffic cops, for talking on her cell phone wins $250,000 payout
 Daily Mail ^ | 1-18-13 | By Joshua Gardner

Posted on Friday, January 18, 2013 6:14:58 PM

The pregnant Los Angeles woman who was brutally hogtied by California Highway Patrolmen in August 2011 after being pulled over for chatting on her cell phone while driving has finally received retribution in the form of a $250,000 settlement.

According to the LA Times, Tamara Gaglione, 30, was hauled away and charged with misdemeanor evading and resisting arrest and driving on a suspended license.

Those charges were dropped, however, once Gaglione's terrible treatment was revealed in footage from the cruiser's video camera.

It is unclear in the grainy video exactly how aggressive, if at all, Gaglione was toward the cops. What is clear, though, is that Hernandez and Martinez drew their weapons on the unarmed Gaglione as they approached her and forced her onto the ground.

Hernandez later claimed Gaglione did not tell them of her pregnancy until after she was on the ground, but Gaglione said she told the officers as they approached her.

Hogtied, Gaglione was subsequently taken away in a patrol car.

Gaglione filed suit against the department and the officers involved, but the video evidence that eventually won Gaglione $250,000 this past November was not immediately forthcoming. Gaglione's attorney Howard Price claimed that Hernandez failed to check a box on the arrest report stating a video camera had, in fact, recorded the incident.


(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Click to Add Topic
 KEYWORDS: cops; donutwatch; Click to Add Keyword
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
Support Free Republic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-68 nextlast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Watch the sickening video at the below link that shows the cops thugs brutally abusing this innocent young woman.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264685/Pregnant-LA-woman-hogtied-highway-patrolmen-receives-250-000-outrageous-treatment.html


 

I just watched that video - that's disgusting.

And not a damn thing will probably happen to those shitbag cops.

[333386]

I just watched that video - that's disgusting.

And not a damn thing will probably happen to those shitbag cops.

They must have have had a valid reason to do it.  Im sure of it! 

[333386]

Wrongly jailed guy set to sue
By DOUGLAS MONTERO and BILL SANDERSON
Last Updated: 9:42 AM, January 19, 2013
Posted: 1:00 AM, January 19, 2013

 
An NYPD detective’s “improper” relationship with a witness helped land two innocent people in prison for 17 years, one of the wrongly convicted suspects said in a $100 million notice of claim filed with the city yesterday.

Eric Glisson and Cathy Watkins were freed in October after being cleared in the 1995 slaying of Bronx cab driver Baithe Diop when investigators realized the killing was committed by others.

Glisson says in a notice of claim filed with the city that one of the cops on the case, retired Detective Michael Donnelly, had an “improper personal relationship” with Miriam Tavares, a key witness in the case.
 
ERIC GLISSON Spent 17 years in prison.

Tavares is deceased, and Donnelly, who is retired, could not be reached.

Glisson’s notice of claim seeks damages from the city. If it does not lead the city to settle the case, he can sue.

“I think the people who committed this atrocity towards me should be held liable,” Glisson said.

Watkins’ lawyer declined to comment. “It’s a wonderful feeling just to get up and see my life is not going to be dictated,” he said.

Since his release from Sing Sing Prison on Oct. 24, Glisson has moved to an apartment in Washington Heights and is finishing up his bachelors degree. He said he never expected to be freed from prison or its rigid daily routine.

[poldaktalos]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/19/16598461-lapd-conduct-investigation-after-cop-gives-cyclist-ticket-for-arguing-with-me?lite


LAPD conduct investigation after cop gives cyclist ticket 'for arguing with me'

An LAPD officer's conduct is being investigated after a YouTube video of him ticketing a bicyclist who told him he was blocking the bike path went viral. The cyclist's ticket has since been canceled.
In the 10-minute clip, a cyclist turns on his helmet camera and records the interaction on the Venice Beach bike path, which drew a handful of onlookers who protested that the cyclist had done nothing wrong and that the officer needed to address serious crime in Venice.
The bicyclist, who identifies himself at 34-year-old Chris Jackson of Venice, posted the video after Thanksgiving weekend, when he was ticketed for speeding after telling a motorcycle officer he was blocking the popular bike-only path.

.....

The officer finally settles on giving Jackson a ticket under California Vehicle Code 22350, the Basic Speed Law.
"Listen to me, sir. The reason why I'm going to write you for unsafe speed is because you are arguing with me," Gracey says. "This is a catch-all, 22350. Because you're riding on the wrong side of the back path, you're looking at me, and you're complaining because my emergency vehicle is on the bike path. And that's unsafe speed. Looking in the wrong direction, traveling in the wrong way, that's unsafe."

[333386]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Supreme Court to consider if silence can be evidence of guilt
Al' Reuters ^ | Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:48pm EST
Posted on January 20, 2013 9:08:09 AM EST by


Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider whether a suspect's refusal to answer police questions prior to being arrested and read his rights can be introduced as evidence of guilt at his subsequent murder trial. Without comment, the court agreed to hear the appeal of Genovevo Salinas, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to 20 years in prison for the December 1992 deaths of two brothers in Houston.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...

[333386]

http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USBRE90A13P20130111

Full article.

[avxo]

Supreme Court to consider if silence can be evidence of guilt

Come on? Seriously?

Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider whether a suspect's refusal to answer police questions prior to being arrested and read his rights can be introduced as evidence of guilt at his subsequent murder trial.

Amazing... just amazing.

[tonymctones]

Come on? Seriously?

Amazing... just amazing.

no worries, the liberals tell me the govt has my best interest in mind and we should just trust them and go along with anything they say.

[avxo]

no worries, the liberals tell me the govt has my best interest in mind and we should just trust them and go along with anything they say.

What does this have to do with liberals or conservatives? This may come as quite a shock to you but not everything is divided along party lines or demarcated by political philosophy, and not everybody sees things through partisan glasses.

[333386]

Cops Are Outraged That New York's New Magazine Limit Could Apply to Them
Reason ^ | Jan. 18, 2013 | Jacob Sullum
Posted on January 21, 2013 5:56:23 PM EST by neverdem

In my column this week, I asked why police officers should be allowed to have so-called high-capacity magazines if they have no defensive value. Since "no one needs" to fire more than X number of rounds before reloading (and assuming that "need" should define what people are allowed to possess), why not apply the same limit to everyone? It looks like the New York legislature, which this week reduced the state's magazine limit from 10 rounds to seven, did take an evenhanded approach—but only by accident. According to DNAinfo.com and WABC, the ABC station in New York, legislators were in such a rush to impose new gun restrictions that they forgot to exempt active-duty and retired law enforcement officers from the new magazine rule. Whoops.

Cops are complaining about the lack of a double standard:

"As a law enforcement officer for over 20 years, I understand the importance of instituting a new policy on mandating the limits of bullets that a regular citizen can possess, but as a matter of fact the bad guys are not going to follow this law," said Norman Seabrook, president of the correction officers union, the city's second largest.

"The way the current legislation is drafted, it actually handcuffs the law enforcement community from having the necessary ammunition needed to save lives," he said. "We must not allow this to happen."

Roy Richter, president of the Captains Endowment Association and a lawyer, said, "It puts retired officers in a position that the clip they were issued by the NYPD, carried for their careers and were fully trained on, is now considered contraband."

Michael J. Palladino, who is head of the NYPD's 6,000-member detectives union and president of the state's Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, which represents 50,000 members, joined in calling for Cuomo and the legislature to immediately amend the law.

"Gun reform must prevent criminals and the deranged from getting illegal weapons—not restrict law-abiding retired cops from protecting themselves and the public," Palladino said.

"I support the governor in gun reform, however the new legislation restricts law enforcement officers who retire, and that could jeopardize the safety of the public."

DNAinfo.com calls the absence of a law-enforcement exemption a "loophole in the law," but in fact it is the very opposite of a loophole: Cops are outraged at the possibility that they might be treated the same as "a regular citizen" under the law. One has to wonder: If, as Seabrook says, the new magazine limit will have no impact on criminals and if, as Seabrook and Palladino agree, more than seven rounds sometimes are necessary to "save lives," what justification can there be for imposing this arbitrary restriction not just on "law-abiding retired cops" but on law-abiding citizens in general?

A spokesman for Gov. Andrew Cuomo told WABC, "We are still working out some details of the law, and the exemption will be included. Currently no police officer is in violation." I'm not sure why he says that, since the part of the law that bans pre-existing magazines holding more than 10 rounds is "effective immediately." According to WABC, "Nearly every law enforcement agency in the state carries handguns that have a 15-round capacity." The provision covering magazines that hold eight, nine, or 10 rounds takes effect on April 15. Contrary to what Richter says, such magazines won't actually be "contraband" for people who already have them, but their owners will be expected to put no more than seven rounds in them at a time. I am serious: That is what the law says. A prohibited "large capacity ammunition feeding device" is, among other things, a magazine legally obtained before April 15 that "contains more than seven rounds of ammunition."

It is implausible enough to suggest that a criminal—who by definition has no compunction about breaking the law, who is not legally permitted to possess firearms to begin with (if he has a felony record), and who is highly motivated to obtain the tools of his trade—would be deterred from obtaining a 10-round magazine by the legislature's new dictate, especially since plenty of them will remain in circulation. It is beyond fanciful to suppose that, having obtained a 10-round magazine, a criminal would think twice about putting more than seven rounds in it because legislators said he shouldn't. But in New York state, that whiff of a pretext suffices to abridge people's Second Amendment rights and, according to the cops clamoring for an exemption to the new limit, put lives at risk.

The Patrolmen's Benevolent Association says it is "actively working to enact changes to this law that will provide the appropriate exemptions from the law for active and retired law enforcement officers." State Sen. Eric Adams (D-Brooklyn), who is a former NYPD captain but nevertheless does not know which constitutional amendment protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures, told WABC he will introduce legislation restoring the double standard to which cops have become accustomed. "You can't give more ammo to the criminals," he explains. I thought that was the whole point of this law.

[Shockwave]

LAWL

"As a law enforcement officer for over 20 years, I understand the importance of instituting a new policy on mandating the limits of bullets that a regular citizen can possess, but as a matter of fact the bad guys are not going to follow this law," said Norman Seabrook, president of the correction officers union, the city's second largest.

[avxo]

LAWL

It's pretty funny but it's a statement of fact - the bad guys aren't going to feel constrained by a law anyways, so the law will only constraint those who voluntarily stay within its bounds. It would be slightly different (ignore questions of legality for the sake of argument) if the law called for a total ban on something (e.g. "no hollow-point bullets at all") since you then suppress the supply completely.

On the issue of high capacity magazines, while I think that a ban on them isn't really going to really help address the issue, it ought to be debated anyways.

The more general question, I guess, could be: what shouldn't be generally (or casually) available to civilians? Automatic weapons? Hollow-point bullets? Suppressors/silencers? Please note, I'm not advocating for banning those things. I'm saying that examing what is out there, and then asking ourselves what should and shouldn't be allowed and making rational judgements based on facts and not FUD ought to be our starting point.

Personally, for example, I'm fine with hollow-point bullets being generally unavailable but not fine with limiting how many bullets someone can own (it's a logistic nightware if nothing else).

[333386]

Obama To Sign Bill Authorizing 30,000 SPY Drones To Fly Over AMERICA



 



The police state you always feared forming as you watch
 
Look! Up in the sky! Is it a bird? Is it a plane? It’s … a drone, and it’s watching you. That’s what privacy advocates fear from a bill Congress passed this week to make it easier for the government to fly unmanned spy planes in U.S. airspace.
 


The FAA Reauthorization Act, which President Obama is expected to sign, also orders the Federal Aviation Administration to develop regulations for the testing and licensing of commercial drones by 2015.
 
Privacy advocates say the measure will lead to widespread use of drones for electronic surveillance by police agencies across the country and eventually by private companies as well.
 
“There are serious policy questions on the horizon about privacy and surveillance, by both government agencies and commercial entities,” said Steven Aftergood, who heads the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.
 
The Electronic Frontier Foundation also is “concerned about the implications for surveillance by government agencies,” said attorney Jennifer Lynch. The provision in the legislation is the fruit of “a huge push by lawmakers and the defense sector to expand the use of drones” in American airspace, she added.
 
According to some estimates, the commercial drone market in the United States could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars once the FAA clears their use.
 

The agency projects that 30,000 drones could be in the nation’s skies by 2020.
 
The highest-profile use of drones by the United States has been in the CIA’s armed Predator-drone program, which targets al Qaeda terrorist leaders. But the vast majority of U.S. drone missions, even in war zones, are flown for surveillance. Some drones are as small as model aircraft, while others have the wingspan of a full-size jet.
 
In Afghanistan, the U.S. use of drone surveillance has grown so rapidly that it has created a glut of video material to be analyzed.
 
The legislation would order the FAA, before the end of the year, to expedite the process through which it authorizes the use of drones by federal, state and local police and other agencies. The FAA currently issues certificates, which can cover multiple flights by more than one aircraft in a particular area, on a case-by-case basis.
 
The Department of Homeland Security is the only federal agency to discuss openly its use of drones in domestic airspace.
 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, an agency within the department, operates nine drones, variants of the CIA’s feared Predator. The aircraft, which are flown remotely by a team of 80 fully qualified pilots, are used principally for border and counternarcotics surveillance under four long-term FAA certificates.
 
Officials say they can be used on a short-term basis for a variety of other public-safety and emergency-management missions if a separate certificate is issued for that mission.
 
“It’s not all about surveillance,” Mr. Aftergood said. source – Washington Times


http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=8504

[avxo]

Obama To Sign Bill Authorizing 30,000 SPY Drones To Fly Over AMERICA

Wow... what a sensational title...

The FAA Reauthorization Act, which President Obama is expected to sign, also orders the Federal Aviation Administration to develop regulations for the testing and licensing of commercial drones by 2015.

Oh... well, shit. That's not even remotely close to what the title was suggesting. But hey, you weren't really expecting a title that reflects the reality, were you?  

 

The agency projects that 30,000 drones could be in the nation’s skies by 2020.

The area of the United States is 3,794,000 miles². So by 2020, if this prediction is accurate, and you assume an even distribution of drones across the entire United States, there will be one drone per 126 miles². While that may sound scary, perhaps  you ought to consider that satellites currently provide 100% coverage of the continental United States, and by combining imagery from multiple commercial satellites and using advanced image processing techniques can achieve effective resolutions of about 5 inches... "spy drones" don't worry me too much.

[333386]

In graduate thesis, John Brennan argued for government censorship: ‘Too much freedom is possible’
 The Daily Caller ^ | 1/23/13 | Charles C. Johnson

Posted on Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:17:11 PM by Nachum

In his 1980 graduate thesis at the University of Texas at Austin, John Brennan denied the existence of “absolute human rights” and argued in favor of censorship on the part of the Egyptian dictatorship.

“Since the press can play such an influential role in determining the perceptions of the masses, I am in favor of some degree of government censorship,” Brennan wrote. “Inflamatory [sic] articles can provoke mass opposition and possible violence, especially in developing political systems.”

Brennan serves as President Barack Obama’s national security advisor. Obama has nominated him to lead the Central Intelligence Agency.


(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/23/in-graduate-thesis-john-brennan-argued-for-government-censorship-too-much-freedom-is-possible

[333386]

An Innocent Man Spent 37 Years In Jail Due To Galling Technicality
Abby Rogers|Jan. 26, 2013, 10:33 AM|1,697|18

ABCNews/YouTube
 
Bill Macumber


Barry Siegel's book "Manifest Injustice" chronicles the saga of Bill Macumber, who was falsely was imprisoned for 37 years for the murder of two people in Scottsdale, Ariz.
 
What's most galling about this tragedy is that it could have been avoided if not for a legal technicality.
 
A man named Ernest Valenzuela had confessed the crime to his attorney—before later dying in a prison fight. The attorney's testimony could have vindicated Macumber. Instead, a judge protected the attorney-client privilege of the dead man and let the innocent man go to jail.
 
When Macumber came to trial in 1975, Valenzuela's former public defender Thomas O'Toole wrote to the trial judge asking to testify about his now-dead client's confession.
 
However, Judge Charles Hardy wouldn't allow the confession to be heard.
 
"Let the record show the Court has ruled that the proffered evidence isn't admissible," Hardy said in his ruling, according to the book. "First because the communications to Mr. O'Toole and Mr. Petica [another of Valenzuela's defense attorneys] were privileged because of the attorney-client relationship. There's no waiver of the privilege."
 
After Macumber was sentenced to life behind bars, his defense team appealed the case all the way to the Arizona Supreme Court.
 
The state Supreme Court ultimately gave him a retrial because of issues with ballistics evidence.
 
But in its ruling granting him a retrial, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled the trial court could still "assert" the attorney-client privilege on behalf of the dead man and exclude his testimony if it wanted to.
 
But yet again, the court ruled against Macumber, with Judge Robert Corcoran saying attorney-client privilege prevented the testimony. Macumber was convicted a second time.
 
After reading the book, we were shocked that a dead man's rights would supersede those of a living man who was fighting for his life.But according to legal ethics expert Andrew Perlman, who teaches procedure and professional responsibility at Suffolk University Law School, the court made the right decision with respect to the law.
 
"It is not shocking to me that a court would uphold the privilege here, even though doing so might have produced an unjust outcome in this particular case," Perlman said in an email to Business Insider. "The problem is that if courts reject the privilege any time it might be perceived as necessary to uncover the truth, clients would become quite concerned about sharing any information with their lawyers. Although I believe that there should be an exception to the duty of confidentiality to permit lawyers to disclose information necessary to prevent the wrongful execution or incarceration of an innocent person, I am not convinced that such a disclosure should have the effect of waiving the attorney-client privilege."
 
Macumber was released from prison in November 2012 after the Arizona Justice Project got involved and filed motions that successfully questioned the judges' decisions to not allow Valenzuela's testimony, The Republic reported at the time.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-macumber-case-legal-technicalities-2013-1#ixzz2J6opYvpE