Vigilante Justice

Justifiable Police Brutality

2010-06-16T06:20:00.000-07:00

If I reacted to being stopped and cited for jay-walking in this manner, and resisted arrest, I would expect to get a pop in the nose. Or something.

Another Reason to Keep Gitmo Open...

2010-04-25T08:00:00.000-07:00

Not ending it, but mending it!

From the BBC this morning!

Eleven suspected Somali pirates have been charged in a US court over two attacks on US naval vessels.

The charges include piracy, attacking to plunder a maritime vessel, and assault with a dangerous weapon. The men did not enter a plea and spoke only to say they understood proceedings against them, AP news agency reported.

After they were captured, the group was kept aboard US Navy vessels off the Somali coast while officials decided what to do with them.

At the Virginia courthouse, one suspect was on crutches and had his head bandaged, while another was in a wheelchair and had one leg bandaged because it had been amputated below the knee, AP said. The US government said the injuries resulted from the men's alleged battle with the Navy.

Five of the defendants were captured on 31 March after they allegedly fired at a US Navy ship from their boat, west of the Seychelles. According to court documents, they apparently mistook the guided-missile frigate USS Nicholas for a merchant ship. The other six were arrested in waters near Djibouti on 10 April after allegedly shooting at the USS Ashland, an amphibious vessel.

Both incidents involved US warships taking part in an international anti-pirate effort off the east coast of Africa.

The US legal process comes after Kenya - Somalia's neighbour - said it was planning to stop piracy trials, arguing that it was an international issue and they should not be left to bear the burden alone.

Pirates operating off the African coast have intensified attacks on shipping in recent years and have expanded their reach towards India, despite patrols by the US and other navies.

With piracy increasing, some have called for international courts to be set up to deal with the problem. Last year, the US charged a Somali teenager with piracy after he allegedly tried to seize a US ship in the Indian ocean.

Anwar al-Awlaki

2010-04-07T07:05:00.001-07:00

U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

I'll certainly support this project, going for it in a big way!

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and spent years in the United States as an imam, is in hiding in Yemen. He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25.

American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said.

It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said. A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president.

But the director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, told a House hearing in February that such a step was possible. “We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community,” he said. “If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.” He did not name Mr. Awlaki as a target.

The step taken against Mr. Awlaki, which occurred earlier this year, is a vivid illustration of his rise to prominence in the constellation of terrorist leaders. But his popularity as a cleric, whose lectures on Islamic scripture have a large following among English-speaking Muslims, means any action against him could rebound against the United States in the larger ideological campaign against Al Qaeda.

The possibility that Mr. Awlaki might be added to the target list was reported by The Los Angeles Times in January, and Reuters reported on Tuesday that he was approved for capture or killing.

“The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”
The official added: “The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one. Awlaki knows what he’s done, and he knows he won’t be met with handshakes and flowers. None of this should surprise anyone.”

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

Both the C.I.A. and the military maintain lists of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, former officials said. But because Mr. Awlaki is an American, his inclusion on those lists had to be approved by the National Security Council, the officials said.

Eugene Terreblanche Hacked to Death on His Sleep

2010-04-04T07:03:00.001-07:00

Johannesburg, South Africa (CNN) -- The right wing, white supremist leader, Eugene Terreblanche was probably one of the most divisive and least likable characters in recent South African history.

Not many people in South Africa would disagree with that. One newspaper editor called him "a violent racist" others have called his far right wing views "distasteful in the extreme."

However, his apparent murder on his farm has left many South Africans cold and fearful that this beautiful but deeply troubled country is again in the grip of racial hatred.

Terreblanche's killing comes soon after a senior figure within the ruling African National Congress, Julius Malema, was barred by a judge from singing the anti-apartheid song, "Kill the Boer" or "Kill the farmer."

The court ruled the song was tantamount to "hate speech." But the ruling party and its allies came out in defense of the song's violent lyrics, saying it reflected their heritage and struggle for freedom against the white apartheid government.

And then the man who represented the worst of that old, apartheid South Africa is bludgeoned and hacked to death on his farm. He was apparently attacked while taking an afternoon nap.

The connection was bound to be made; the coincidence just too much for racially sensitive South Africans.

They are asking -- did that song incite two young men to kill the archetypal "Boer?" Was his death more than a criminal incident over unpaid wages?

And will there now be reprisals against black South Africans by the small number of Terreblanche supporters, who will see him as a martyr?

For many here, the atmosphere now smacks of those scary, dark days before South Africans voted for a new democratic South Africa in 1994 -- when the white man and the black man were so suspicious of each other that many thought this country's transition to democracy would be violent and bloody.

But South Africans were led out of the twisted spectre of racial hatred by Nelson Mandela -- whose leadership and calm management prevented a potentially explosive conflict.

Mandela is now an old man, who cannot be expected to quell another rising tide of hatred and it is now left to a new generation of South African leaders to heed the lessons which he taught them 16 years ago.

But the bonds of nationhood that Mandela strived to build are still fragile and many in South Africa fear that Terreblanche could be even more divisive in death than he was in life -- and tear apart a nation still struggling to let go of the past.

A case of Insufficient Police Brutality

2010-03-30T21:00:00.001-07:00

BURBANK, Calif. (KABC) -- Tuesday, new details surfaced about the attempted murder suspect who led police on Monday's dangerous pursuit.

The two Burbank Police officers involved in Monday's shooting were placed on leave while they were under investigation, a standard practice with any officer-involved shooting.

The Burbank Police Department and the L.A. County District Attorney's office are investigating. They will determine if Monday's pursuit that ended in gunfire followed procedure and whether the officers' actions were within department guidelines.

The suspect was identified as 30-year-old Steven Satterly from Wabash, Indiana. He's wanted on a charge of attempted murder in Indiana.

The chase started Monday afternoon shortly after 4 p.m. in the Cajon Pass in San Bernardino County.

The California Highway Patrol said Satterly reached speeds of up to 100 miles per hour during the chase that stretched from the westbound 210 Freeway into the North Hollywood/Burbank area.

Burbank Police picked up the chase once Satterly exited the 134 Freeway and drove an older model gray Chevrolet Blazer through North Hollywood and Burbank. Satterly got stuck in traffic on Barham Blvd. just east of the 101 Fwy. Surrounded by officers as he tried to speed away, one officer fired his gun at the vehicle, shattering the driver's side window. Satterly was not struck by this shot.

Satterly bailed out of his vehicle at the entrance to Universal CityWalk a few minutes later. He allegedly brandished a knife at police, whereupon another shot was fired, this one striking Satterly in the torso. He was quickly taken into custody and rushed to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in stable condition.

The two officers have been temporarily removed from patrol as the department investigates. The shooting investigation can take from several months to a year. The department is concerned about the welfare of the two officers. Burbank Police Sergeant Robert Quesada:

We know from the information received that he committed a felony, a violent crime. We cannot allow him to just flee. And especially going toward CityWalk, where there are thousands of people."

It is a traumatic experience. Even though the officers weren't shot, it's still a traumatic experience. So we want to make sure that we care for them, make sure that they're OK to go back onto duty, to go back out onto the streets to serve the public.

Comment:

I, members of my family and friends drive these highways and byways. I want them safe. I have long felt that drivers engaging in felony evasion of arrest by vehicles should be stopped, dead, by police action. Once it is determined that there are no innocent passengers any fugitive's car which is being driven recklessly, as was the case in this instance, police should be mandated to use deadly force.

The officers in this case should be summarily decorated for doing their assigned duty of protecting public safety.

A Caveat In My Anti-Death Penalty Position

2010-01-18T08:03:00.000-08:00

My position in opposition to the death penalty arrived at after long and tortured reasoning is not based upon moral grounds but on enlightened self-interest, albeit broadly drawn. Since my objection to capital punishment is not on moral grounds, it is not absolute.

This case of Chemical Ali' (to be hanged within days) causes me to enter a caveat: where penal custody for life (a life sentence) is not secure, enabled or guaranteed, taking a dude out back and shooting him is permissible.

I take no position on Ali Hassan al-Majid's guilt or innocence. He's been sentenced (for the fourth time) to death by Iraq's high criminal court for ordering slaughter of Kurds in 1988. You can read about details here and elsewhere on the 'Net. His (relative) guilt may be beyond question, but it also beside the question.

So, I'm not making this about Chemical Ali'; I just consider him as a poster boy.

The question is, how can his re-release into society be definitively prevented. As the Guardian points out,

...the Guardian has learned that the US detention centre in which Majid has been held since being captured six years ago will continue to house prisoners until August, despite being scheduled to close on 31 December as part of a much-heralded security agreement between Washington and Baghdad. The status of forces agreement signed between both states had flagged the closure of the Camp Cropper detention centre as a milestone of security progress.

In the political disorder that follows post-Bush Iraq, there is no insurance this poster boy won't somehow gain his release.

Poster Boys like him are captured and tried all over the world, every day. Some can be sent to the Hague. But not all.

Of course, if Guantanamo didn't have to be closed to satisfy certain symbolic purposes; if it could be internationalized under United Nations auspices, Gitmo could serve as another secure International House of ~~Pancakes~~ Prisoners.

(But that's another story.)

So, If Chemical Ali' is guilty of the heinous acts of which he is accused, I'll pass on his case.

Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied

2009-12-19T07:38:00.000-08:00

James Bain, 54, was just 19 years old in 1974, and without a criminal record, when he was convicted of kidnapping and raping a 9-year-old Lake Wales boy, largely on the jury's faith in the boy's identification.

But a recent DNA test called Bain's conviction into question. On Thursday, after much anticipation, Bain was expected to walk out of the Bartow courthouse, on a conditional release, until prosecutors could finish their investigation.

Instead, Bain got something even better.

Mere minutes before the 9 a.m. hearing, prosecutors received a call from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement that verified the Innocence Project of Florida's DNA test results: The semen on the victim's underwear did not belong to Bain.

Instead of asking for a conditional release for Bain, State Attorney Jerry Hill moved Thursday to vacate Bain's sentence and to drop the charges against him.

About 9:45 a.m., Bain and his family finally heard the words they'd waited 35 years to hear:

"You are a free man," Circuit Judge James Yancey said. "Congratulations."

Bain had served more time behind bars than any of the 245 other prisoners exonerated through post-conviction DNA testing in the United States, including 10 others in Florida.

Since May 2001, he had asked the courts four times to test the DNA. With help from the Innocence Project, he filed his fifth and final request in July. Yancey granted the motion in October, without objection from the State Attorney's Office, and allowed the test.

The results were released last week, when prosecutors began working to verify the results and to rule out other possibilities.

The FDLE also concluded that the sperm found on the underwear did not belong to the victim, said spokesman Chip Thullbery. They'll run the DNA code in a statewide database and look for a match.

After the hearing, IPF lawyer Melissa Montle held Bain's hand as he walked down the courthouse steps and embraced his sisters inside a swarm of news reporters and cameras.

At the microphone stand, Bain remained calm and smiling.

He plans to spend time with family, to go back to school for reading and writing, and to watch "Titanic," a film he says helped him survive prison life. He wants to travel. Out of his seven siblings, he is the only child who has yet to visit Nassau, his father's home city in the Bahamas. He used a cell phone for the first time to call his mother, who waited at home for him in Tampa.

Once inside the public defender's office, Bain ate his first snack outside of prison: a glazed donut and a bottle of Mountain Dew. His belongings - notebooks, newspaper clippings and other saved artifacts - fit into a netted laundry sack. He remained calm and patient, as his family waited eagerly to take him home. Bains said,

I can't be angry. People had a job to do back then. It's just sad the way the outcome was.

According to Florida law, Bain is entitled to $50,000 for every year he was wrongfully incarcerated. That would amount to $1.75 million, but Thursday afternoon, Bain said money is not his priority.

Until the Innocence Project became involved, he said he felt "neglected" in the slow and complicated judicial process. He's seen a lot of innocent people during his time in prison, and says DNA testing should be made more accessible.

Had Bain's case been investigated today, the State Attorney's office says the trial might have gone differently. Many investigators are now trained to interview children, and DNA testing has replaced serology as the choice science.

Public Defender J. Marion Moorman said Thursday the DNA in Bain's case should have been tested earlier, but added that the larger problem is the number of cases, including Bain's, built on witness testimony. Moorman said,

We hear all the time from our clients that they are innocent. We get jaded and cynical, particularly those of us who've done this for a long time. This just, once again, teaches us the value of listening to our clients, of going the extra mile and giving them our 100 percent.

Blogging A Bridge (or something) Too Far

2009-12-08T06:32:00.000-08:00

Case # 07

A federal judge declared a mistrial Monday in the case of a notorious New Jersey hate blogger charged in June with threatening to kill judges.

According to court documents, after a three-judge panel of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit of Appeals upheld a Chicago handgun ban in June, Hal Turner blogged at Turner Radio Network that the judges should be “killed.”

A federal judge declared a mistrial Monday in the case of a notorious New Jersey hate blogger charged in June with threatening to kill judges.

According to court documents, after a three-judge panel of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit of Appeals upheld a Chicago handgun ban in June, 47-year old Hal Turner blogged at turnerradionetwork.blogspot.com that the judges should be “killed.”

Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions.

A day later he posted addresses, photos, maps and other identifying information about Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer, the authorities said.

The mistrial was declared after jurors, deliberating their second day, said they were hopelessly deadlocked. A retrial was set for March 1.

Turner, who claimed he was an FBI informant paid to disseminate right-wing rhetoric, maintained at his trial last week that his speech was protected by the First Amendment.

I don't care if he posts a banner on his blog:

Free Speech: No Matter who Doesn’t Like It!

This guy is guilty of shoutting "FIRE" in a theater crowded with trigger-happy, self-righteous gun-owners. He should do his freaking time.

Get me on that jury!

From the Sarasota, Florida Police Log (apparently)...

2009-11-29T21:22:00.000-08:00

An elderly Florida lady did her shopping and, upon returning to her car, found four males in the act of leaving with her vehicle.

She dropped her shopping bags and drew her handgun, proceeding to scream at the top of her lungs,

I have a gun, and I know how to use it! Get out of the car!

The four men didn’t wait for a second threat. They got out and ran like mad.

The lady, somewhat shaken, then proceeded to load her shopping bags into the back of the car and got into the driver’s seat. She was so shaken that she could not get her key into the ignition.

She tried and tried, and then she realised why. It was for the same reason she had wondered why there was a football, a Frisbee and two 12-packs of beer in the front seat.

A few minutes later, she found her own car parked four or five spaces farther down.

She loaded her bags into the car and drove to the police station to report her mistake.

The seargent to whom she told the story couldn’t stop laughing. He pointed to the other end of the counter, where four pale men were reporting a car jacking by a mad, elderly woman described as white, less than five feet tall, glasses, curly white hair, and carrying a large handgun.

No charges were filed.

The moral of the story? If you’re going to have a senior moment… make it memorable.

N.R.A. - Sponsored Terror Strikes Again

2009-11-29T12:47:00.000-08:00

PARKLAND, Wash. -
A gunman walked into a coffee shop and shot and killed four police officers Sunday morning in what sheriff's officials described as an "execution."

The officers were sitting in the cafe at a strip mall near the Tacoma suburb of Parkland with their laptop computers, preparing for their day shifts, when a man came in and opened fire, Pierce County Sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer said.

The officers were obviously targeted because they were in full uniform and no one else was shot at, Troyer said. Authorities scoured the area for the gunman, who is believed to have fled on foot or by car.

The NRA is sponsors free and open ownership of assualt (non-hunting) weapons for all Americans; for all Americans who haven't yet used them to murder people. This freedom is also spreading to Canada and especially to Mexico. Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. The NRA sponors this self-inflicted terrorism.

Make no mistake about it. And do not forget it.

Roman Polansky Out on Bail?

2009-11-27T08:18:00.001-08:00

Disgusting!
A Swiss court granted Oscar-winning filmmaker Roman Polanski $4.5 million bail on Wednesday, allowing him to remain in the country and under house arrest at his Gstaad ski resort and chalet. Swiss officials will not appeal the decision and the 76-year-old will be released “as soon as possible” after serving two months in jail.
Polanski is waiting extradition to the United States after pleading guilty to unlawful sex with a minor (a 13-year-old) in 1977. Polanski served 42 days in a psychological testing facility at Chino State Prison, but fled to France 31 years ago following the evaluation period and before sentencing.
The Swiss are hoping Polanski isn’t a flight risk this time due to the bail amount, his own family, and his age. The Chinatown director will be subjected to “constant electronic surveillance,” reports the AP.
Meanwhile, Polanski’s lawyers will be arguing for a dismissal of the case and Los Angeles prosecuters will continue the extradition process so he can face sentencing. His lawyers said “he will not accept being extradited to the United States.”
Unfortunately we live in a world where a person can rape a teen, disappear for over three decades, serve a few months, shell out four and a half million, and kick back in a mansion.
This also gives Polanski the freedom to edit his latest film, The Ghost starring Ewan McGregor, Tom Wilkinson, Kim Cattrell, and Pierce Brosnan. The film will need its music and sound reworked for the scheduled March 2010 release, where sadly it will gain more attention because its director is under house arrest for drugging and raping a teenager.

She Shot, He Shot. Who Shot Maj. Nidal Hasan?

2009-11-15T12:19:00.001-08:00

My veteran readers know in how much high esteem I hold women who can shoot and shoot straight. Sgt Kimberly Mundley is no exception. Heroism is walking in the direction of shots fired at Ft. Hood and is of Presidential Medal of Freedom stature. (Is that too hyperbolic?) She was wounded three or four times - severely enough for my tastes.

But there's nothing so important as the unvarnished truth. Sgt Mundely stopped some bullets. And maybe fired her own.

OTOH, we don't want another Jessica Lynch case.

If Sgt Mark Todd fired the bullets that actually dropped Hasan and prevented further killing, he should get top billing. That's what this story indicates.

The real story should beat a good story, every time.

And if Hasan's case ends up with his life imprisonment in a penitentiary as well as in his own crippled body, that would be a fitting end. Let him rot and die a natural death, his name forgotten.

Case # 06: The United States -vs- William Jefferson

2006-12-10T12:52:00.000-08:00

William Jefferson has to be guilty, even if he gets re-elected!

In yesterday’s run-off against a fellow Democrat, “despite an ongoing federal bribery investigation,” the AP reports. “In complete but unofficial returns, Jefferson, Louisiana’s first black congressman since Reconstruction, received 57 percent of the vote over state Rep. Karen Carter, who had 43 percent.”

This is the eight-term incumbent in whose freezer the FBI found $90,000 in bribe money,

Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., led a successful effort to remove Jefferson from the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

He was accused of taking bribes from a company seeking lucrative contracts in the Nigerian telecommunications market. He has not been charged with any crime and denies any wrongdoing.

Jefferson's campaign committee tried to paint his young African-American woman opposition candidate as a pawn of the white establishment.

His Rap sheet:

Investor turns informant and wears a wire. According to an FBI search warrant, Jefferson was videotaped accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from a Northern Virginia investor who was wearing an FBI wire. In one instance, at an unidentified D.C. restaurant, Jefferson allegedly exchanged cryptic notes with investor Lori Mody and discussed illegal kickbacks for his children in a telecommunications venture in Nigeria in which she had invested. “All these damn notes we're writing to each other as if we're talking as if the FBI is watching,” he told Mody, who was indeed wearing an FBI wire. The FBI probe began in March 2005 after Mody became concerned that Jefferson and others were trying to defraud her of millions of dollars that she had invested in iGate Inc., a Louisville high-tech company, the affidavit said. That was when the FBI and the U.S. attorney's office in Alexandria set up a sting.
Cold cash in the freezer. As part of the investigation against Jefferson, on August 3, 2005, federal agents executed search warrants against Jefferson's homes, car, and offices as part of an undisclosed investigation. The federal agents seized $90,000 in cash that was stuffed in plastic bags in Jefferson’s home freezer. This $90,000 was part of the $100,000 in cash that was handed over to Jefferson and videotaped in the sting operation. Five other offices were raided across the country in conjunction with the raid on Jefferson's property.
Former aide pleads guilty. Former Jefferson aide Brett Pfeffer, who was intimately involved in the scandal, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to bribe Jefferson as part of a plea bargain with the Department of Justice. On May 26, 2006, he was sentenced to eight years in prison.
Looking out for himself. Jefferson was criticized by ABC News for the apparent misuse of National Guard resources to check on his personal belongings and property at the height of the Hurricane Katrina rescue efforts. According to a military source, Jefferson delayed two heavy trucks, a helicopter and several National Guard members for over an hour while he went back into his house to retrieve “a laptop computer, three suitcases and a box about the size of a small refrigerator.” [ABC News, 9/15/2005]
Feds storm Capitol Hill. On May 20th FBI agents raided Jefferson's Capitol Hill office and stayed for 17 hours collecting documents. This was the first time that the FBI had raided and searched a Congressional office. The raid followed explicit procedures laid out in a judge-approved search warrant. Nevertheless, it has created a furor on Capitol Hill as lawmakers from both parties have charged the FBI with violating the constitutional separation of powers between the congressional and executive branches.

Sure, I'll take this case! I'll convict his shabby and crooked ass. I don't care if his constituents love him! He's fooking embarrassment to all non-Republicans!!!

Case #05: ACLU et.al. -vs- Transportation Security Administration

2006-12-02T11:27:00.000-08:00

I'll Take This Case!

The John Birch Society and the ACLU

-vs-

the Transportation Security Administration

And I say, "TSA - All the Way!"

By Christmas, Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix will test a new federal screening system that takes X-rays of passenger's bodies to detect concealed explosives and other weapons. The technology, called backscatter, has been around for several years but has not been widely used in the U.S. as an anti-terrorism tool because of privacy concerns.

TSA's Web site indicates that the Backscatter technology will be used initially as a secondary screening measure, meaning that only those passengers who first fail the standard screening process will be directed to the X-ray area.

When I first heard of it, soon after 9-11, I was immediately sold. I haven't changed my mind. I would like to see the program expanded and become a primary system.

The Transportation Security Administration said it has found a way to refine the machine's images so that the normally graphic pictures can be blurred in certain areas while still being effective in detecting bombs and other threats.

High-resolution images -- which clearly depict the outline of the passenger's body, plus anything attached to it, such as jewelry -- might be judged as too invasive.

The system will be set up so that the image can be viewed only by a security officer in a remote location. Other passengers, and even the agent at the checkpoint, will not have access to the picture.

In addition, the system will be configured so that the X-ray will be deleted as soon as the individual steps away from the machine. It will not be stored or available for printing or transmitting,

The radiation is lower than the kind a doctor would use to look at organs or bones. It's low enough it can be used safely on a pregnant woman.

In a backscatter portal, a single ray is passed rapidly over a person's body, taking just eight seconds to scan each side. Data collected from the position of scattered photons are processed to deliver a photographic-quality image. The process uses high-energy X-rays, which tend to reflect (scatter back) from objects, unlike the low-energy X-rays used for medical procedures, which tend to penetrate objects. Because of an effect called "Compton scattering," the rays are deflected differently depending on the density of the matter being scanned. They penetrate clothing but not flesh and are blocked more completely by solid objects. This effect means that most weapons will be sharply revealed by backscatter imaging.

The process is anonymous: as long as you don't pack pistol, knives or plastic explosives on your person, no one will ever associate your name to your physique.

Privacy-smivacy! We're talking about the front defensive lines in the struggle against world terror.

ASAP, I would like to see this technology become commonplace, installed in all target-rich environments in the civilized world: air terminals, athletic events, etc.

Install it as much as medical safety and budget considerations permit. Privacy is not an issue for me.

Case #04: United States v. George W. Bush et al.

2006-11-28T08:08:00.000-08:00

Elizabeth de la Vega, appearing on behalf of the United States:

Bush has Enronized the United States of America:

The president has committed fraud.
It is a crime in the legal, not merely the colloquial, sense.
It is far worse than Enron.
It is not a victimless crime.
We cannot shrug our shoulders and walk away.

Opening Statement:

The techniques of deception used by George W. Bush and his aides are identical to those used by Lay and Skilling. In his July 2002 speech announcing the signing of the Corporate Corruption Bill, the president said, "The only fair risks are [those] based on honest information." The president and his top advisers were acutely aware of the solemn risks posed by an invasion of Iraq, but instead of debating those risks honestly, they developed slogans, including the familiar "risks of inaction are greater than the risks of action" that simultaneously usurped and deflected counterarguments while providing no information whatsoever, honest or otherwise.

Such propaganda, cynical and craven as it is, might not qualify as criminal fraud, but the propaganda alone was insufficient to convince Congress and the American people to invest in the plan for war. To remedy this deficiency and close the deal, the president and his top aides made hundreds of representations, both general and specific, that were carefully crafted to manipulate public opinion. As we now know, many of those assertions were false and misleading. More important, we also now know that President Bush and his advisers had notice and direct knowledge that their representations were seriously undermined and in some key instances, disproved by information that was available to them. Consistently, the president and his aides knowingly conveyed false impressions, concealed important information, made deliberate misrepresentations, and professed certainty about facts that were speculative at best. Such is the definition of criminal fraud – whether committed by the president of the United States or the CEO of a major corporation.

The only difference between the fraud committed by the Enron officers and the fraud committed by the president is that the latter was far more comprehensive and far more calculated. Even as President Bush stood center stage endorsing honesty that July four years ago, he and his company were setting the stage for another show. If the "only fair risks" speech was a perky Frank Capra clip, the White House's next production would be 21st-century H.G. Wells.

As of July 30, 2002, Bush had directed the creation of the White House Iraq Group, a public-relations operation whose sole purpose was to market the war. This team, collectively called WHIG, was co-chaired by the president's closest aides and long-term political consultants, Senior Adviser Karl Rove – whom Bush has described as "the architect" of his 2004 reelection campaign – and former Counselor to the President Karen Hughes.

By July 30, 2002, the White House Iraq Group had already begun fabricating an ominous scenario that blurred together the Sept. 11 tragedy, mushroom clouds rising over American cities, and terrorists releasing strains of smallpox, interspersed with the shadowy face of a mad Iraqi dictator spring-loaded to attack the United States. They were collecting props – anthrax vials and undated photos showing centrifuge components and unidentifiable buildings where something ominous might be happening, but we can't afford to wait to find out. They were writing the script: power phrases like "Grave and gathering danger" and "We can't afford to let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud," designed less to inform than to inflame. And, finally, Rove, Hughes, and company were scheduling appearances for the President's War Council members that would begin just a month later, in early September 2002.

It was to be a bravura performance by the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense, the secretary of state, the national security adviser, and many supporting cast members. The production was so well done, in fact, that, like the radio audience terrified into hysteria by the infamous "War of the Worlds" broadcast of 1938, most of us were fooled. Admittedly, we resisted buying the duct tape and plastic sheeting; we may not have wrapped our heads in wet towels to ward off Martian gas like the 1938 radio audience. What happened, however, was much worse: because of Bush's fiction, we agreed to bomb people 8,000 miles away whose only "crime" was that they were oppressed by a violent and cruel dictator.

Undoubtedly, Americans were panicked by H. G. Wells' radio play in part because they were exhausted and nervous in those tough Depression years. But Orson Welles' breathless report of a Martian invasion was never intended to cause panic, nor was it ultimately harmful.

The president's elaborate production was, and still remains, an entirely different story. It was a deliberate effort to create a permanent state of fear in America. And to say it was harmful is like saying that it hurts to get hit by a Mack truck.

Federal sentencing guidelines recognize that one who defrauds a vulnerable victim, such as a salesman who falsely represents the curative benefits of an elixir to a cancer patient, has committed an even more serious crime than one who defrauds a person who is not so "particularly susceptible." The president knew that Americans were "particularly susceptible" in 2002. We were exhausted, and justifiably terrified, not only because of Sept. 11 but also because of the anthrax murders and the random Washington, D.C., sniper killings that coincided with the Bush-Cheney administration's push for war.

President Bush and his White House Iraq Group did not merely exploit this fear; they magnified it. Worse yet, the president was the very person upon whom the public relied to protect it from danger and, one would hope, from omnipresent fear itself. Having used the authority of the Oval Office to make people more afraid, having created an even darker backdrop of fear, our highest officials exploited that reliance and the trust they enjoyed by virtue of their positions to sell something they knew the American public would not otherwise have bought. It was as if the cancer victim's trusted personal physician had convinced him that his disease was more advanced than it really was, and then used the same fraudulently heightened fear to manipulate him into buying a bogus cure-all.

In the language of criminal law, the president and his senior advisers have abused a position of trust to defraud the most vulnerable of victims.

Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than 20 years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and chief of the San Jose Branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. Her pieces have appeared in The Nation, the Los Angeles Times, and Salon. She writes regularly for TomDispatch. This is the introduction to her new book,
United States v. George W. Bush et al. She may be contacted at ElizabethdelaVega@Verizon.net.

Case # 03: The People -vs- O.J. Simpson

2006-11-21T07:09:00.000-08:00

In the court of public opinion, Vigilante Justice wins out. Where our flawed judicial system failed, the assembled citizenry nonviolently bludgeoned the centers of corporate power and shamed them into joining a nearly universal shunning of the killer.

News Corp has cancelled the planned O.J. Simpson "If I Did It" television interview on Fox and also the publication of his book of the same title.

In a statement released today, Rupert Murdoch said,

I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project. We are sorry for any pain that this has caused the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

It also proved painful for the American people. Critics called for boycotts of advertisers who might sponsor the television broadcast on the Fox network; numerous broadcast stations announced they would refuse to carry the program; television hosts like Bill O’Reilly on the Fox News Channel — which, like Fox, is owned by the News Corporation — were vocal in their opposition of the telecast; and various bookstores said they might not stock his book. The book was to be published by ReganBooks, also owned by News Corporation.

Acquitted by a defective jury, O.J. Simpson was convicted in the court of public opinion and, still incarcerated by the same court, is denied citizen's rights to press and speech. Let's hope the verdict stands.

Rehabilitating Vigilantes & Vigilantism

2006-11-21T05:55:00.000-08:00

Identity Crisis

I have to confess something, which will not necessarily come as a surprise to many who know me, or even to some casual readers of these pages.

I have a morally-challenged ambivalence toward vigilantism. Basically stated, I feel there are good vigilantes and bad vigilantes. The problem is, like in many other areas, the good and bad resides in the eye of the beholder. And both probably are found on slippery slopes. 'Good' and 'Bad' vigilantes are as elusive as are concepts of true 'justice'; even more so because vigilantism is often practiced outside the courts where there is a presence of codified law and a respect for balance presentation of fact.

As a form of enforcement or punishment, vigilantism holds an enduring and problematic place in the history, especially U.S. On the one hand the vigilante purports to fight for justice and what is deemed "right"; on the other he is necessarily mired in a criminality that actually threatens the system of "law and order" which he claims to serve. I know it's a fine line I have to draw in this thread. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to explore whether a distinction can be made between good and bad Vigilantism.

For some, vigilantism is the solution. Where the law enforcement agencies have failed in their prosecution of criminal activities, it is thought that vigilante groups would tackle this problem by enforcing "community justice". Vigilantism is therefore seen as a concerted community response when formal legal institutions have failed to address the chaos of epidemic which engulfs them. Having therefore lost faith in the power of such systems and desiring to repossess the security he feels he has lost, the citizen-prey-turned-citizen-predator seizes law 'into his own hands' in his pursuit for justice. The vigilante is embedded in the American popular imagination as a hero who legitimizes violent criminal reaction to criminality. In our history, vigilantism was the ultimate resort when the legal systems that protect against victimization and the systems that implement justice for the victimized were seen to have been primitive, poorly formed, overwhelmed and inadequate in their chaotic environment. 'Frontier justice was meted out for cattle rustlers. Good. Mistakes were made. Bad. But bad mistakes are sometimes made by all legal and judicial systems, which are by definition, imperfect.

This analysis, however, does not reckon with the premium that is put on the values of procedural fairness, impartiality and procedural safeguards in a liberal society. A liberal society is concerned as much with means as with ends. There are certain means that are impermissible in civil societies regardless of whether they yield, in the short run, desirable outcomes. Arbitrary violence of vigilante groups is one such means. Even if it is true that vigilantism helps curtail violence, if their chosen means of operation is violent, their activities become inconsistent with liberal values and have to be deplored.

It therefore goes against the grain of modern civilized practice to tacitly recognize the powers of an unregulated militia to impose and carry out capital punishment outside the official processes of the legal system, and often without conclusive evidence of guilt. A society that values the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life would take extra precautions to ensure that the state does not sanction the taking of human life without adequate procedural safeguards and without ensuring that the process is conducted consistently with the law.

But there is a place for vigilantism. Vigilante groups are operative in most countries. The difference is that in majority of countries these groups act within the law; they participate by positioning themselves to observe and report of crime; they apprehend criminals and transfer their custody to duly constituted law enforcement agencies which have the responsibility of prosecuting and punishing the offenders. There definitely is a linkage between a vigilante state of mind and the 'mind of state' that makes community members responsible for crime management. Just look on it as 'outsourcing' or 'privatising' law enforcement. That's legit, ain't it?

So, I postulate here that there is still a role for this kind of vigilante activity, but only when the law enforcement agencies are not adequately deployed.

No doubt, the government needs to do more to restore the faith of the populace in the ability of the police to protect their lives and property. Nonetheless, the government has a duty to ensure that the activities of vigilante groups are confined to the narrow scope of assisting in the apprehension of suspected criminals. This would include so-called bounty hunters. These groups should not be allowed to usurp the prosecutorial and judicial functions of the state. The dissociation of means from ends, which is advocated by some (bad) vigilantes, would lead to the subversion of those cherished values (of fairness, civility, liberty, and freedom) which should be the aims of any decent liberal society.

Case # 02: Class Action Suit on Behalf of College Newspapers Editors

2006-11-19T19:55:00.000-08:00

College Newspapers are Censored and Suppressed by Unseen Hands.

This isn't a case as yet as far as I know, but it ought to be. For college newspapers, the disappearance of controversial reports from campus racks is a perennial problem.
By Richard Fausset, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 19, 2006

Megan Boehnke, the editor of the University of Kentucky's student newspaper, came up with a big, controversial scoop for last Monday's edition. Under a banner headline, she announced that two students and a recent graduate had been legally drunk when they died in high-profile accidents this year.

But someone — who apparently didn't want the story out — decided to scoop up Boehnke's scoop.

Early Monday, more than 4,700 copies of the Kentucky Kernel went missing from bins around campus. The free paper's total press run is 17,000, but enough copies were stolen to dull the buzz for a while.

As censorship goes, snapping up truckloads of local newspapers ranks among the bluntest of tactics — right up there with serving hemlock to Socrates. And it's obviously not the kind of problem big-city dailies are worried about.

But newspaper theft is a recurring and pernicious issue for college newspapers, and one that has endured, strangely, through the Internet era, when most controversial articles are usually just a Google search away.

The Kentucky theft was the 11th at an American campus since the school year started, according to the Student Press Law Center.

The Virginia-based nonprofit has logged an average of 24 incidents a year since it began keeping serious tabs in 1992.

"It's kind of a consistent problem, and a very difficult one to deal with and solve," said Executive Director Mark Goodman. "It's somewhat insidious, because it's out of the hands of the newspaper staff to do something to prevent it."

Punishing the thieves can be tricky: Because college papers are usually free of charge, prosecutors sometimes refuse to treat their disappearance as a theft, though newspapers must sometimes reimburse advertisers.

Some states are trying to remedy the problem. California will soon join Maryland and Colorado in explicitly criminalizing the theft of free newspapers. Starting in January, the taking of more than 25 free papers will result in a fine of up to $250 for first-time offenders.

The law was pushed strongly by the California Newspaper Publishers Assn. after a number of campus newspaper thefts this year.

At Glendale Community College, 2,000 copies of the student paper El Vaquero disappeared in June. The issue contained a report on student suicide that named a recent victim. College President John A. Davitt, who has since retired, was upset that the article was going to appear, but he denied having had the copies removed, El Vaquero reported.

At Pasadena City College, 5,000 copies of its student paper, the Courier, were stolen in May. Torn-up copies showed up at the newspaper office, with a note that claimed the Latino group MEChA was responsible. A student later admitted to taking and shredding the copies.

And at Cal State Chico, environmental activists stole 2,500 copies of the Orion, the campus weekly, because they were upset by an editorial. According to the Student Press Law Center, an anonymous caller threatened to "recycle all copies."

None of the California cases resulted in prosecutions, said Jim Ewert, legal counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Assn.

In Kentucky, campus police are pursuing the case. The cover of the Kernel, like those of many student papers, states that the first issue is free, but additional issues cost 25 cents.

Because the total value of the stolen copies is more than $300, the police say the act probably constitutes felony theft.

Acting Police Chief Joe Monroe said the department had identified a female suspect from surveillance cameras.

An arrest had not been made.

Editor Boehnke said she knew her article was causing a stir in the days before its publication: When she called one victim's mother for a comment, the mother asked her not to print the story, saying it would be hurtful to the family. Then Boehnke received more than a dozen calls and e-mails from the victim's family and friends urging her not to publish. Some were measured, others "hysterical," she said.

After consulting her faculty advisor and other journalism professors, Boehnke decided to publish.

Headlined "Students who died were legally drunk," it was the lead story, reporting that at least one Kentucky student had died in an alcohol-related incident in five of the last six years.

On Monday morning, she got a call from the newsroom. The paper — and her story — had disappeared from the heavily trafficked hallways of the central campus.

The story, she notes, is still available on the paper's website (www.kykernel.com), and the paper itself still available elsewhere on campus.

And a number of national websites that focus on education and the press have picked up news of the controversy.

"That's the thing," Monroe said. "All these people who wanted to suppress the story have only magnified the story."

It is, of course, the availability of papers on campuses that makes their theft so tempting. University of Kentucky police say that most of the thefts occurred within a mile of the Kernel offices.

But that concentration has also helped college newspapers avoid broader industry doldrums. Advertisers continue to be attracted to a medium tightly focused on an audience that is, by definition, young, educated and upwardly mobile.

Even in the Internet era, no product has come along to challenge college papers as the preeminent place for campus-specific news, according to Samantha Skey, a senior vice president of Alloy Media & Marketing, which places advertisements in college newspapers.

With so many college papers posting their content online these days, observers can only guess why newspaper theft remains so prevalent.

Goodman of the Student Press Law Center blames college educators for failing to instill in students a proper respect for divergent viewpoints.

But Skey thinks it might have something to do with the permanence of the printed word in the interactive age.

Maybe, she said, 21st century students see distasteful news in the paper "and they're frustrated that they can't edit it."

For more information on this problem, consult the SPLC Newspaper Theft Forum.

CASE # 01: The People -vs- Mostafa Tabatabainejad

2006-11-17T09:55:00.000-08:00

UCLA student stunned by Taser plans suit!

If I were a student at UCLA, you'd better believe I'd be in this demonstration. But in this instance, I'd rather be a juror! The photo is swiped from Raincoaster.

The Evidence:
The UCLA student stunned with a Taser by a campus police officer has hired a high-profile civil rights lawyer who plans to file a brutality lawsuit.

The videotaped incident, which occurred after the student refused requests to show his ID card to campus officers, triggered widespread debate on and off campus Thursday about whether use of the Taser was warranted. It was the third in a recent series of local incidents captured on video that raise questions about arrest tactics.

Attorney Stephen Yagman said he plans to file a federal civil rights lawsuit accusing the UCLA police of "brutal excessive force," as well as false arrest. The lawyer also provided the first public account of the Tuesday night incident at UCLA's Powell Library from the student, Mostafa Tabatabainejad, a 23-year-old senior.

He said that Tabatabainejad, when asked for his ID after 11 p.m. Tuesday, declined because he thought he was being singled out because of his Middle Eastern appearance. Yagman said Tabatabainejad is of Iranian descent but is a U.S.-born resident of Los Angeles.

The lawyer said Tabatabainejad eventually decided to leave the library but when an officer refused the student's request to take his hand off him, the student fell limp to the floor, again to avoid participating in what he considered a case of racial profiling. After police started firing the Taser, Tabatabainejad tried to "get the beating, the use of brutal force, to stop by shouting and causing people to watch. Generally, police don't want to do their dirties in front of a lot of witnesses."

He said Tabatabainejad was hit by the Taser five times and suffered "moderate to severe contusions" on his right side.

UCLA officials declined to respond directly to Yagman's statements, saying they still were conducting their internal investigation of the incident.

The university said earlier, however, that Tabatabainejad was asked for his ID as part of a routine nightly procedure to make sure that everyone using the library after 11 p.m. is a student or otherwise authorized to be there. Campus officials have said the long-standing policy was adopted to ensure students' safety.

UCLA also said that Tabatabainejad refused repeated requests by a community service officer and regular campus police to provide identification or to leave. UCLA said the police decided to use the Taser to incapacitate Tabatabainejad only after the student urged other library patrons to join his resistance.

Some witnesses disputed that account, saying that when campus police arrived, Tabatabainejad had begun to walk toward the door.

In a prepared statement released late Thursday, UCLA's interim chancellor, Norman Abrams, urged the public to "withhold judgment" while the campus police department investigates. "I, too, have watched the videos, and I do not believe that one can make a fair judgment regarding the matter from the videos alone. I am encouraged that a number of witnesses have come forward and are participating in the investigation."

Meanwhile, student activists were organizing a midday rally today to protest the incident, and the Southern California office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations called for an independent investigation.

The incident follows the recent announcement that four of the campus police department's nearly 60 full-time sworn officers had won so-called Taser Awards granted by the manufacturer of the device to "law enforcement officers who save a life in the line of duty through extraordinary use of the Taser." The award stemmed from an incident in which officers subdued a patient who allegedly threatened staff at the campus' Neuropsychiatric Hospital with metal scissors.

Jeff Young, assistant police chief, declined to indicate whether any of the honored officers were among the several involved in Tuesday's incident.

I've heard enough! Let the jury convene!