The World's Human and Civil Rights Community

Congress passes law turning over corporate media to CIA

2019-02-03T13:10:00.001-08:00

(Watch Shocking Video) You might not be aware of July 2, 2013's implementation of a new reform passed in January, 2014. The result is an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts.

Senator J. William Fulbright and President Johnson

For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences.

The restriction of these broadcasts was due to the Smith-Mundt Act, a long-standing piece of legislation that has been amended numerous times over the years, perhaps most consequentially by Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright. In the 1970s, Fulbright was no friend of VOA and Radio Free Europe, and moved to restrict them from domestic distribution, saying they "should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics." Fulbright’s amendment to Smith-Mundt was bolstered in 1985 by Nebraska Senator Edward Zorinsky, who argued that such "propaganda" should be kept out of America as to distinguish the U.S. "from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity."

Zorinsky and Fulbright sold their amendments on sensible rhetoric: American taxpayers shouldn’t be funding propaganda for American audiences. So did Congress just tear down the American public’s last defense against domestic propaganda?

Lynne Weil

BBG spokeswoman Lynne Weil insists BBG is not a propaganda outlet, and its flagship services such as VOA "present fair and accurate news."

"They don’t shy away from stories that don’t shed the best light on the United States," she told The Cable. She pointed to the charters of VOA and RFE: "Our journalists provide what many people cannot get locally: uncensored news, responsible discussion, and open debate."

A former U.S. government source with knowledge of the BBG says the organization is no Pravda, but it does advance U.S. interests in more subtle ways. In Somalia, for instance, VOA serves as counterprogramming to outlets peddling anti-American or jihadist sentiment. "Somalis have three options for news," the source said, "word of mouth, al-Shabab, or VOA Somalia."

This partially explains the push to allow BBG broadcasts on local radio stations in the United States. The agency wants to reach diaspora communities, such as St. Paul, Minnesota’s significant Somali expat community. "Those people can get al-Shabab, they can get Russia Today, but they couldn’t get access to their taxpayer-funded news sources like VOA Somalia," the source said. "It was silly."

Lynne added that the reform has a transparency benefit as well. "Now Americans will be able to know more about what they are paying for with their tax dollars — greater transparency is a win-win for all involved," she said. And so with that we have the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, and went into effect this month.

But if anyone needed a reminder of the dangers of domestic propaganda efforts, the past 12 months provided ample reasons. Last year, two USA Today journalists were ensnared in a propaganda campaign after reporting about millions of dollars in back taxes owed by the Pentagon’s top propaganda contractor in Afghanistan. Eventually, one of the co-owners of the firm confessed to creating phony websites and Twitter accounts to smear the journalists anonymously. Additionally, just this month, the Washington Post exposed a counter-propaganda program by the Pentagon that recommended posting comments on a U.S. website run by a Somali expat with readers opposing al-Shabab. "Today, the military is more focused on manipulating news and commentary on the Internet, especially social media, by posting material and images without necessarily claiming ownership," reported the Post.

But for BBG officials, the references to Pentagon propaganda efforts are nauseating, particularly because the Smith-Mundt Act never had anything to do with regulating the Pentagon, a fact that was misunderstood in media reports in the run-up to the passage of new Smith-Mundt reforms in January.

One example included a report by the late BuzzFeed reporter Michael Hastings, who suggested that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act would open the door to Pentagon propaganda of U.S. audiences. In fact, as amended in 1987, the act only covers portions of the State Department engaged in public diplomacy abroad (i.e. the public diplomacy section of the "R" bureau, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.)

Rep. Mac Thornberry

But the news circulated regardless, much to the displeasure of Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), a sponsor of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. "To me, it’s a fascinating case study in how one blogger was pretty sloppy, not understanding the issue and then it got picked up by Politico‘s Playbook, and you had one level of sloppiness on top of another," Thornberry told The Cable last May. "And once something sensational gets out there, it just spreads like wildfire."

That of course doesn’t leave the BBG off the hook if its content smacks of agitprop. But now that its materials are allowed to be broadcast by local radio stations and TV networks, they won’t be a complete mystery to Americans. "Previously, the legislation had the effect of clouding and hiding this stuff," the former U.S. official told The Cable. "Now we’ll have a better sense: Gee some of this stuff is really good. Or gee some of this stuff is really bad. At least we’ll know now."

FP News Contributed to this report

President Donald Trump Ends Shutdown, announcing deal to reopen Government

2019-01-26T06:48:00.001-08:00

President Trump on Friday agreed to temporarily reopen the federal government without getting any new money for his U.S.-Mexico border wall, retreating from the central promise of his presidency, for now, in the face of intense public anger.

Some cried with relief. Their 35-day nightmare of missing bill payments, working without paychecks, asking strangers for money and visiting food pantries was finally ending.
But many of the federal workers who have been furloughed or working for free since December were leery of the three-week deal reached on Friday to reopen the government. New worries gnawed: How long before they got paid? Would federal contractors see even a dime of back pay?
And most of all, after the longest shutdown in American history, would they and 800,000 other federal workers be back in the same mess in three weeks if President Trump and Democrats do not reach an accord on whether to fund his proposed border wall?
“This was all for nothing, basically,” said Angela Kelley, 51, a furloughed worker for the Bureau of Land Management in Milwaukee who picked up shifts as an Uber driver to earn money to buy gas and groceries as the shutdown dragged on.

On Friday, Mr. Trump praised federal workers as “fantastic people” and “incredible patriots” and acknowledged the toll they had suffered. But several federal employees said they still felt angry after being treated like pawns, they said, in a five-week-long Washington standoff. They said the shutdown had left deep scars on their families and finances and undermined their faith in elected leaders, and in the careers they had chosen.

The New York Times talked with more than a dozen federal workers and contractors — from wildland firefighters to Coast Guard families to museum security guards — about how they had survived the shutdown, and the uncertainty they now face.

‘They Chose to Break Faith’
John Hare, 42, is one of thousands of Coast Guard employees and retirees worried that they may find themselves in the same precarious position a few weeks from now.
Because the Coast Guard is the only branch of the military that is part of the Department of Homeland Security, it was affected by the shutdown. About 55,000 active-duty, reserve and civilian employees had already missed either one or two paychecks, while another 50,000 military retirees would have gone without a pension payment for the first time on Feb. 1.
After 22 years of service, Mr. Hare was forced to retire from the Coast Guard last August after learning he had a rare form of cancer that spread from his appendix. His wife had to stop working to care for him, and missing Mr. Hare’s pension check of $2,698 would have put a significant dent into the family budget.

“The faith in our leadership to be able to negotiate with each other has been broken,” Mr. Hare, of Rolesville, N.C., said on Friday. “And they chose to break faith with the U.S. military.”
“I certainly question the hostage-taking of government employees’ paychecks,” he said. “And nobody that was in power who had the power to stop this, none of them were injured” by the shutdown.

“It is less a sense of relief because nothing has been solved.”
‘This Has Damaged My Family’
Yvette Hicks, 40, a security guard at the Smithsonian museums, said she woke up on Friday and prayed, once again, for the shutdown to end. As a single mother, she said the shutdown had taken a toll on her family’s budget and her own mental health.

When she learned on Friday she might be returning to work, Ms. Hicks said she had been crying. Her 14-year-old daughter and 8-year-old son were due home from school soon, and she was trying to put up a brave face for them. She said her son, Kaden, had nevertheless told his teachers that his mother was now sad all the time.

John Hare is one of thousands of Coast Guard employees and retirees worried that they may find themselves in the same precarious position a few weeks from now.
Credit Eamon Queeney for The New York Times
Ms. Hicks said her family had once been homeless, and that she believed her job at the Smithsonian was a path to stability. She even saved up enough to book a spring-break vacation for her children to an indoor water park in Virginia. But as the bills piled up and her paychecks stopped, she said she canceled the trip and lost the $350 deposit she had paid for a room.

“It’s just a hurting thing,” she said. “This has damaged my family.”

‘Our Country Is Being Run by Children’

Anthony Powers, 35, had begun thinking about leaving his 15-year career as part of an elite team of wildland firefighters with the United States Forest Service in Southern California. He was that frustrated with his nation’s leaders.
“Our country is being run by children,” he said.
On Friday, he was relieved but not elated, noting that everything could shut down again soon.

Mr. Powers and his colleagues typically spend this time of year clearing away brush to help lessen fire danger in the coming year. None of that has been happening for the last month or so, and his team needs more than three weeks to get the job done. He also has a national conference set for the end of February, and the short-term opening leaves him in limbo. Is it going to happen? Should he plan for it? Not plan for it?

“There’s been so much planning for this to go into the long-term,” he said. “Now it’s like, where do you reset?”
‘So Out of Touch With the American People’
Nic Trujillo, 34, a single father and collections representative for the Internal Revenue Service in Ogden, Utah, said the shutdown had done financial and emotional damage.
He had not paid rent in January because he needed to pay other expenses. On Friday, he and his 6-year-old son were just one week away from being evicted and having to move in with extended family.

Staying at home had also left him depressed. Before he was ordered to return to work without pay on Jan. 18, his natural night-owl tendencies had taken over. He would stay up late, get up to get his son off to school, then sleep for much of the day.

“I haven’t really done anything. I haven’t really gone anywhere,” he said, explaining that he didn’t want to waste gas. “It’s just been a very depressive time.”

He said he blamed both the president and Congress for the shutdown, saying that none of them knew what it was like to live paycheck to paycheck.

“They are so out of touch with the American people that it’s unacceptable.”
‘I’m Staying in Shutdown Mode’
Kim Howell, 34, whose husband is in the Coast Guard in Boston and has been working 12-hour night shifts throughout the shutdown, said she didn’t feel much relief on Friday. She said she didn’t expect that her husband would get any back pay for a week or two. And then there was the possibility that the government would shut down again in three weeks.

Ms. Howell said her family had been fortunate because she works for a tech startup. But the loss of her husband’s income strained them. They had to put off rent payments, utility bills, and cellphone, cable and internet bills.

She had visited a food pantry that had been set up in Boston for Coast Guard families. She worried about the impact on her three children, who are 9, 13 and 14. Her oldest child told her he felt helpless and anxious watching his parents try to navigate the crisis. She did not blame any particular party, but said she felt betrayed. And she worried the dysfunction was far from over.
“I’m staying in shutdown mode,” she said. “That’s the only responsible thing to do right now.”

Reporting was contributed by Julie Turkewitz and Mitch Smith.

Government Shutdown Begins to effect poor people of America

2019-01-21T07:42:00.001-08:00

Food stamps, rent aid and the safety net for American’s poorest at risk as shutdown drags on. As the partial government shutdown continues into its third week, the impacts are falling hardest on those who can afford it the least — and the effects will grow even more punishing if key agencies remain paralyzed beyond Feb. 1 and into March. At risk: food on the table for millions of vulnerable households, rental assistance and other safety net programs.

Trump last week threatened to keep the government partially closed for months, even years, if the impasse over the border wall continues.

Under criticism, the Trump administration this week moved to shore up one of the most important pillars of the social safety net, the food stamp program, which benefits 38 million Americans and whose funding was due to run out at the end of January.

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said Tuesday that the agency would rely on a little-known budget provision to give states the money for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for the month of February ahead of time — by Jan. 20 — to circumvent the expiration of federal appropriations.

Perdue also ensured that other nutrition assistance programs, including school meals and a program for mothers and young children, would be funded through February. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) provides food, baby formula and breast-feeding support to 7.3 million mothers and children under 5 years old.

Callie Schneider, 11, fills plastic bags with food that will go to families in need. (Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post)
But officials could not promise that those benefits would continue if the shutdown lasts until March. The food stamp program has a $3 billion reserve, which would cover less than two-thirds of the $4.8 billion in benefits distributed each month.

Beginning in March, families could experience an average cut of at least $90, or close to 40 percent, assuming the agency spreads the $1.8 billion shortfall evenly across the 19 million households receiving SNAP benefits, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The USDA has not said what it would do in the event the shutdown lasts that long. When the SNAP contingency money runs out in April, the food assistance program will probably be closed altogether, anti-poverty advocates said.

“At that point, it will take Congress taking some sort of emergency action to fund the program if the government doesn’t reopen,” said Rebecca Vallas, vice president of the Poverty to Prosperity Program at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. “We will see hunger in America skyrocket. It’s going to take more than just flipping a switch to make things right after this.”

[Wisconsin is the GOP model for ‘welfare reform.’ But as work requirements grow, so does one family’s desperation.]

Already, more than 2,500 grocers and other retailers are no longer accepting food stamps because their SNAP licenses were not renewed before the shutdown started Dec. 22, according to the Food Marketing Institute, an industry group.

Federal funding has also been shut off for cash welfare benefits, known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), for 3.4 million of the poorest Americans, the majority of whom are children. For now, states are picking up the financial burden — $4.2 billion they were to have received from the Department of Health and Human Services to cover January through March. States are providing benefits by cobbling together previously unspent federal funds with state dollars.

“We don’t know at what point states will start to panic and that will start to affect people relying on TANF,” said Elizabeth Lower-Basch, an expert on the social safety net at the Center for Law and Social Policy.

If the government does not fully reopen by Feb. 1, nearly 270,000 rural families who receive federal rent subsidies through the USDA would also be at risk of eviction because their landlords would no longer be paid, said Bob Rapoza, executive secretary of the National Rural Housing Coalition.

“These are the poorest rural people in the country,” Rapoza said. “They’re farmworkers, they’re senior citizens, they’re disabled.”

An additional 2.2 million low-income households receiving rent assistance could be put in jeopardy in March when funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Section 8 voucher program runs out.

State and local public housing agencies would also stop receiving money to operate more than 1 million public housing units in March.

And another 100,000 low-income tenants are already at risk because HUD did not have staff in place during the shutdown to renew at least 1,150 affordable housing contracts that expired in December.

That means apartment owners will not be paid and must now dip into their reserves to cover their mortgages — which they may not be able to do indefinitely.

HUD officials told The Washington Post this week that furloughed staffers have been called back to work to scour agency accounts for money that could be used to cover contracts that expired before the shutdown. But those that expired after Dec. 22 remain in limbo, with payments possible only after renewal of the earlier batch of contracts. The agency sought to downplay the impact of the expired contracts.

“No one has ever been evicted because of a shutdown, and the landlords have always been made whole,” said HUD spokesman Jereon Brown.

But he acknowledged that more contracts expire with each day that the government remains closed. Another 500 contracts are scheduled to expire by the end of January, and 550 in February, the agency said.

The risk of eviction for low-income tenants grows the longer the government remains closed, housing advocates say.

“The longer the shutdown continues, the more the lowest income people will be hard hit,” said Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. “If we get to March, we’re going to be looking at a potentially significant number of evictions.”

HUD also announced Wednesday there could be major delays in the disaster relief funding it is sending to Puerto Rico, Florida, and a number of other places because of the shutdown, saying it likely would not be able to meet a timeline set by Congress .

The shutdown has hit Native American tribes especially hard because so many of their basic services depend on federal funding, as a legacy of their negotiated treaties with the U.S. government.

U.S. Rep. Sharice Davids (D-Kan.) — a member of the Ho-Chunk Nation and one of two Native American congresswomen newly sworn in this month — said one tribe witnessed a member die during the shutdown because road crews did not plow snow-filled roads and an ambulance could not get through. She did not provide further details, saying she wanted to respect the tribe’s privacy.

Several tribes have reallocated funds to keep hospitals and clinics open on their lands. But staff at those hospitals has already grown thinner, Davids said.

“For many in these communities, this is the only way people can access health care,” she said.

[Already reeling from tariff war, some farmers aren’t receiving government support checks amid shutdown]

Kerry Hawk Lessard, executive director of Native American Lifelines — a Baltimore-based group that provides health assistance to Native Americans living in urban areas — said she has needed to turn away members seeking rides to doctor’s appointments and halt funding for previously promised eyeglasses as a result of the shutdown.

Nonprofit groups in Washington say they are making contingency plans after facing an uptick in calls from furloughed federal workers — with 362,000 of them living in the area — as well as families starting to panic about losing a slew of social safety benefits.

The Capital Area Food Bank in Northeast Washington revamped its website to lead with a tutorial on how to get food during the shutdown. The food bank sought assurances from federal authorities that the government will continue supplies of food and is trying to persuade grocery stores and other partners to help shore up dwindling supplies.

“We’re hearing from first-timers trying to understand how we work, what the hours are, whether there’s any near their homes,” said Radha Muthiah, the food bank’s president and chief executive.

Valerie Beaudin, 51, who was furloughed from her job as U.S. Census geographer, spent Tuesday morning handing out supplies at a food pantry in Huntingtown, Md., during a special event for federal workers.

Some were young, newly hired workers with no savings. Others were couples who both worked for the federal government.

“They were grabbing everything from luncheon meat to oranges to diapers and baby supplies,” Beaudin said.

Muthiah said Capital Food Bank has started talking about creating a fund for future shutdowns.

“We have an emergency cushion we use for natural disasters like floods, tornadoes,” Muthiah said. “We’ve never had to allocate for shutdowns before, but given how things are shaping up, this may be the new norm.”

Jeff Stein, Damian Paletta and Amy Goldstein and NY Times contributed to this report.

Things you should know about Global Poverty

2018-10-26T11:27:00.002-07:00

World poverty is at an all time high, and the Poverty Shared Prosperity series provides a global audience with the latest and most accurate estimates on trends in global poverty and shared prosperity. The 201,8 edition — Piecing Together the Poverty Puzzle —broadens the ways we define and measure poverty. It presents a new measure of societal poverty, integrating the absolute concept of extreme poverty and a notion of relative poverty reflecting differences in needs across countries. It introduces a multi-dimensional poverty measure that is anchored on household consumption and the international poverty line of $1.90 per person per day but broadens the measure by including information on access to education and basic infrastructure. Finally, it investigates differences in poverty within households, including by age and gender. 

Extreme Poverty

The world has made tremendous progress in reducing extreme poverty. The percentage of people living in extreme poverty globally fell to a new low of 10 percent in 2015 — the latest number available — down from 11 percent in 2013, reflecting continued but slowing progress. The number of people living on less than $1.90 a day fell during this period by 68 million to 736 million.

Despite the tremendous progress in reducing extreme poverty, rates remain stubbornly high in low-income countries and those affected by conflict and political upheaval. In the 25 years from 1990 to 2015, the extreme poverty rate dropped an average of a percentage point per year – from nearly 36% to 10%. But the rate dropped only one percentage point in the two years from 2013 to 2015. In fact, the total number of poor in Sub-Saharan Africa has been increasing. In 2015, more extreme poor lived in that region than in the rest of the world combined. By 2030, under all but the most optimistic scenarios, poverty will remain in double digits in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Shared Prosperity

On shared prosperity — defined as the growth in income of the bottom 40 percent in each country — the picture looks mixed. In 70 of the 91 countries for which data were available, incomes of the bottom 40 percent improved between 2010 and 2015. In addition, in 54 percent of those 91 countries, their income grew faster than the average. Progress in East and South Asia has been more impressive with the bottom 40 percent growing annually by 4.7 percent and 2.6 percent respectively from 2010 to 2015. Latin America and the Caribbean saw less growth in shared prosperity than in the recent past, but at 3.2 percent per year the bottom 40 experienced sizeable income growth. Strong income growth among the bottom 40 is also observed among various Baltic countries, as they recover from the crisis in the late 2000s.

However, slow economic progress is hindering shared prosperity in some regions, particularly in some Europe and Central Asia which experienced negative or low levels of shared prosperity. More worrying, among poorer economies monitored in which extreme poverty rates remain high (particularly those in Sub-Saharan Africa), income growth at the bottom has on average been lower than in the rest of the world. In two-thirds of the 14 extremely poor countries, average incomes are increasing at an annual rate below the global average of 2 percent. Another worry is that data needed to assess shared prosperity is weakest in the very countries that most need it to improve. Only one in four low-income countries and four of the 35 recognized fragile and conflict-affected states have data that allows us to monitor shared prosperity over time. Since a lack of reliable data is associated with slow income growth for the poorest, the situation could be even worse than currently observed.

Higher Standards for a Growing World

Higher Poverty Lines

As the world grows wealthier and extreme poverty becomes more concentrated, there are legitimate questions over whether $1.90 is too low to define whether someone is poor in all countries of the world. In half of the countries in the world, extreme poverty is at or below 3 percent, but that doesn’t mean the fight to eradicate poverty is over in these countries. The World Bank now reports on two higher-value poverty lines: $3.20 and $5.50 per day. These lines, which are typical of standards among lower- and upper-middle-income countries, respectively, are designed to complement, not replace, the $1.90 international poverty line. Data suggest that the rapid gains against extreme poverty have not been matched by reductions in the number of people living below these higher levels of income. In 2015, over a quarter of the world’s population survived on $3.20 per day and nearly half of the world still lived on less than $5.50 per day.

Societal Poverty Line

Similarly, as countries grow, their definitions of what constitute basic needs change. The cost of performing the same function may differ across countries depending on their overall level of income. To monitor this, the World Bank has introduced a societal poverty line based on the typical level of consumption or income in each country. By this yardstick, in 2015, 2.1 billion people were poor relative to their societies, three times the number of people living in extreme poverty. With over half of the population societally poor, Sub-Saharan Africa has substantially higher rates of societal poverty than other regions. In contrast, East Asia & Pacific has seen its societal poverty rate drop by 38 percentage points. Since 1990, societal poverty declined across all developing regions, but has remained stubbornly static in high-income countries.

Multidimensional Poverty Measure

As we seek to end poverty, we also need to recognize that being poor is not just defined by a lack of consumption or income. Other aspects of life are critical for well-being, including education, access to basic utilities, health care, and security. The multidimensional view reveals a world in which poverty is a much broader, more entrenched problem, underlining the importance of stronger, inclusive growth and of investing more in human capital. At the global level, the share of poor according to a multidimensional definition that includes consumption, education, and access to basic utilities is approximately 50 percent higher than when relying solely on monetary poverty.

In a sample of 119 countries for the years around 2013, only one in eight are poor in monetary terms, but among them eight out of nine are also deprived in at least one other dimension, lacking education or basic infrastructure services. In Middle East & North Africa and Latin America & the Caribbean, despite the low prevalence of monetary poverty, almost one in seven people lack adequate sanitation. In Sub-Saharan Africa, more than in any other region, shortfalls in one dimension go hand-in-hand with other deficiencies. Even though South Asia has made progress in poverty reduction, shortfalls in education remain high for both adults and children and aren’t strongly associated with monetary poverty. In addition, the number of people in the region living in households without access to electricity is far greater than those living in monetary poverty.

Inside the Household

People experience poverty differently even within the same household. Traditional measures haven’t been able to capture variations because the surveys stop at the household level. Measuring poverty as experienced by individuals requires considering how resources are shared among family members. While data are limited, there is evidence that women and children are disproportionately affected by poverty in many — but not all — countries. Sex differences in poverty are largest during the reproductive years, when, because of social norms, women face strong trade-offs between reproductive care and domestic responsibilities on the one hand and income-earning activities on the other hand. Worldwide, 104 women live in poor households for every 100 men. However, in South Asia, 109 women live in poor households for every 100 men. Children are twice as likely as adults to live in poor households. This primarily reflects the fact that the poor tend to live in large households with more children.

There is evidence from studies in several countries that resources are not shared equally within poor households, especially when it comes to more prized consumption items. There is also evidence of complex dynamics at work within households that go beyond gender and age divides. More surveys are needed to capture consumption patterns of individuals so that governments can implement policies to bridge the inequalities within households. Read More

Terence Crutcher shot by Tulsa officer Betty Shelby caught on cam

2016-10-30T15:18:00.001-07:00

A videotaped police shooting of a black man in Tulsa on Friday has prompted the chief of police to ask the Justice Department to investigate and has the man's family crying foul.

Graphic video showing the shooting death of Terence Crutcher, 40, on Friday, went viral, adding the case to the list of police-involved shootings raising questions about relations between law enforcement in the United States and black men.

Police said they were responding to a call of a vehicle abandoned in the middle of the roadway. In video from officers' dashcams and also from a helicopter, four officers are seen responding as Crutcher holds his hands up in the air and walks away from officers, toward his stalled vehicle.

In the video taken from the helicopter, a male is heard to say, "That looks like a bad dude too. He might be on something."

Crutcher is then seen to fall to the ground.

Police said Crutcher did not respond to their comments and that one officer used a stun gun on him and another shot him.

Police Chief Chuck Jordan, meeting with reporters, assured that justice would be done and said he called in the Justice Department to ask for an investigation.

"I'm going to tell you right now that there was no gun on the suspect or in the suspect's vehicle," Jordan said. "I want to assure our community and I want to assure all of you and people across the nation who are going to be looking at this: we will achieve justice."

The chief added, "I would like to see us be a better city than some of the other cities we’ve seen. I hope some of my performance in the past has shown you we will do the right thing."

Crutcher's family and lawyer also held a press conference. They said they'd viewed the video and they saw no justification for Crutcher's shooting.

Crutcher's twin sister, Tiffany Crutcher, said the family demands to know what happened and wants charges pressed against police officer Betty Shelby, who shot and killed Crutcher.

"We ask for facts, we ask for answers, and we clearly got it through the video and we are devastated," she said. "The entire family is devastated."

Tiffany Crutcher, playing on the words of the male on the video shot from the helicopter, said her brother was a good man who loved God.

"That big bad dude was enrolled at Tulsa Community College," she said. "He just wanted to make us proud. That big bad dude loved God."

American States Making The Most Racial Progress

2016-02-04T15:13:00.005-08:00

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said those words in his famous "I Have A Dream Speech" in 1963. Now, 52 years later, he might be heartened to know Mississippi is making progress.

Mississippi ranks third out of the fifty states and the District of Columbia for the amount of racial progress it has made over time, according to a recent WalletHub study. Georgia ranked as the top state for racial progress, while New Mexico came in second.

States ranked by racial progress:

The study looked at 10 historical indicators in each state (things like homeownership, median income and poverty rates) for both black and white people, then compared the gap between them as a measure of inequality. States whose gaps shrank the most over time were deemed to have made the most progress. In terms of racial integration alone, Hawaii was found to be the most unified, followed by New Mexico, Texas and Maryland. Hawaii also had the second-lowest gap in median annual income between black and white populations, the lowest gap in the poverty rate, and the lowest gap in the rate of business ownership.

States ranked by racial integration:

From a policy perspective, what sets the more successful states apart, and how can that be implemented elsewhere? “Racial inequality takes place in employment, housing, education, policing, in accessing affordable quality health care, and in many more arenas," Meghan Burke, an associate professor of sociology at Illinois Wesleyan University,explained in the report. "States are bound to vary in those inequality levels because of the different demographics, economies, and policies."

"However, one thing seems clear: race-conscious and proactive, intentional policy to create and sustain equal opportunity is always better than policies favoring the free market or those that are color-blind in other ways," she added. "Pretending racism and inequality doesn’t exist, or that it can be solved through individual (market) choices, will only continue to grow these already-deep inequalities.”

Race-conscious and proactive, intentional policy to create and sustain equal opportunity is always better than policies favoring the free market or those that are color-blind in other ways.

The handful of experts interviewed in the report largely supported that basic premise, though they differed in their assessments of how much progress the country has actually made.

Nearly all agreed we must prioritize -- and fund -- quality education, and remove a wide variety of barriers to homeownership, which traditionally has been the greatest builder of wealth for American families.

“Because wealth can be transmitted across generations, what has occurred in the past still reverberates in the present," Margaret Anderson, a sociology professor at the University of Delaware, explained in the report.

"Bank redlining, predatory lending practices, and the greater likelihood of racial minorities receiving subprime loans means that they have been unable to accumulate assets (mostly in the form of home ownership) to the same extent as whites,” she continued.

We're still a long way from realizing the vision laid out in King's dream, but we're making progress. Or, as he said, more eloquently:

“I say to you today, my friends, though, even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up, live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"

Read the full report on racial progress, here.

Also on HuffPost:

9 Comments

Sort by

Top

Add a comment...

Andrew Harris ·

Central Washington University

Institutionalize racism (the major cause) is virtually impossible to quantifiably measure. Therefore any attempt to calculate racial progress is a red herring mean to divert attention from the real problem at hand. The real problem is White supremacy; the belief that members of the Caucasian race are superior in all ways to other groups or races in the world.

Unlike · Reply · 8 · Jan 18, 2016 5:18pm

Ian Monteith ·

University of Saskatchewan

Okay, but if it's impossible to quantify, how would you ever be able to tell if measues introduced to lessen "while supremecy" are working or not? Or is it just a hopeless, terrible thing that will be with us always? Just trying to focus on solutions here as perhaps a more useful approach than a verbal beat down on a racial group.

Like · Reply · Jan 19, 2016 12:09pm

Theresa Parrott ·

None of Your Business

We are in the 21st century and we arl talking about 'Racial Progress'.

How long should we wait, another 500yrs? I think not!

The fact is this country foundation was formed on racism, violence and greed. The oppression and labeling of black people around world was mostly created by Europeans.

Just like any other problem, it cannot be resolved until the root cause and origin of the problem is dealt with. The problem and origin of racism is white surpremacy, plan and simple.

I don't want to hear this 'making progress' bs. Because what happened to the descendants of the continent of Africa should have never happened in the first place.

Looking at history and what the Europeans has done to people of color around the world, I wonder where did they come from. What is their true origin because they are heartless,no soul, no spirit. To call myself a Christian would be a slap in the face to my ancestors.

It is time black people to start thing for ourselves and to let go of the slave mentally our people have been indoctrinated into.

We have allowed others to dictate who voices we hear and the voices we don't hear. What is militant or radical talk.

Introduce yourself to Dr. Ben, Dr. Clarke, Dr. Amos.

Unlike · Reply · 2 · Jan 19, 2016 7:04am

Stan Woods ·

San Diego City College

Barack Obama's presence, in the minds of white Americans, has evened the score and wiped away their sins, so now they can release their pent up racism.

Like · Reply · Jan 19, 2016 1:14pm

Thanos Perlegas ·

Oxford Brookes University

If you have not visited the MLK Monument in Washginton DC I encourage you to do so. Especially at night. Follow that visit with a walkthru of the FDR Monument and that is a great evening.

Like · Reply · Jan 18, 2016 7:00pm

Nsa Jones

No one has a solution here that I've seen. This idea of oppression has to do with the justice system, their cops, a mismanaged education of the people, and frankly the automization of the planet through computer software and robotics. Not to mention the Governments sponsoring terroism, shipping drugs, intentional poisinging of people.

Yes humans are being phased out. Were all getting very poor, quickly. And all the above OPRESSION doesn't care what color you are. Does it? Doesn't give a shit if you call yourself left or right. And now its getting hard to breath in this horrid environ...See More

Like · Reply · Jan 19, 2016 5:27pm

Ronald Bruce Robinson

The State of Denial will always rank higest among riightwiingwhiites.

Like · Reply · 4 · Jan 18, 2016 7:08pm

Heyward Johnson ·

Central Office Technician at Retired

Progress takes time but Black Americans have been on this soil before the majority of White Americans. This nation should be embarrassed that racial hatred, injustice and economic disenfranchisment of Black Americans is still an issue. Racism is a White American problem that no one can help thems solve but themselves. Don't ask non White folks to solve the problem they caused and imposed on non Whites.

Like · Reply · 2 · Jan 19, 2016 11:37amEdited

Napoleon Smith ·

Executive Producer at Paramount Pictures

Black culture should be ashamed to follow Dems that keep them as a victim for their own political gain.

Like · Reply · Jan 19, 2016 11:35am

Heyward Johnson ·

Central Office Technician at Retired

Napoleon Smith The fact is Black Americans are victims of a racist America who never have come to terms or attempted to end her institituional racsim and war on Black Americans. Don't blame Black people for being what you made us.

Like · Reply · Jan 19, 2016 11:46am

Napoleon Smith ·

Executive Producer at Paramount Pictures

Heyward Johnson is is whites that tell black men that they don't have to take care of there kids at a rate of over 78%. It is whites that tell blacks that they don't need an education at rate of a little over half graduating. Is it whites that promote gang culture in their entertainment and music. Is it whites that have blacks committing half the homicide shootings. No.

I am black and was raised in a predominantly white upper class neighborhood. Guess what. I am successful. Sure I have seen racism here and there. But not to any level that could impact me. What was the difference. I did not live in the victim culture that unfortunately other blacks did.

Stop blaming and look at the real problems blacks face.

Like · Reply · 1 · Jan 19, 2016 12:18pm

Show 3 more replies in this thread

Stan Woods ·

San Diego City College

No offense but this guy's not even a minority. How was this measured?

Like · Reply · Jan 19, 2016 1:12pm

Marcus Jackson ·

New Orleans, Louisiana

I don't know about this ranking ...

Like · Reply · Jan 18, 2016 9:46pm

Facebook Comments Plugin

Africa's Nelson Mandela 1918 - 2013 one of the greatest men's story

2013-12-08T17:24:00.000-08:00

Mandela was born on 18 July 1918 in the village of Mvezo in Umtatu, then a part of South Africa's Cape Province. Given the forename Rolihlahla, a Xhosa term colloquially meaning "troublemaker",in later years he became known by his clan name, Madiba.

His patrilineal great-grandfather, Ngubengcuka, was ruler of the Thembu people in the Transkeian Territories of South Africa's modern Eastern Cape province.

One of this king's sons, named Mandela, became Nelson's grandfather and the source of his surname.Because Mandela was only the king's child by a wife of the Ixhiba clan, a so-called "Left-Hand House", the descendants of his cadet branch of the royal family were morganatic, ineligible to inherit the throne but recognized as hereditary royal councillors. His father, Gadla Henry Mphakanyiswa, was a local chief and councillor to the monarch; he had been appointed to the position in 1915, after his predecessor was accused of corruption by a governing white magistrate.In 1926, Gadla, too, was sacked for corruption, but Nelson was told that he had lost his job for standing up to the magistrate's unreasonable demands.A devotee of the god Qamata, Gadla was a polygamist, having four wives, four sons and nine daughters, who lived in different villages. Nelson's mother was Gadla's third wife, Nosekeni Fanny, who was daughter of Nkedama of the Right Hand House and a member of the amaMpemvu clan of Xhosa.

Later stating that his early life was dominated by "custom, ritual and taboo", Mandela grew up with two sisters in his mother's kraal in the village of Qunu, where he tended herds as a cattle-boy, spending much time outside with other boys. Both his parents were illiterate, but being a devout Christian, his mother sent him to a local Methodist school when he was about seven. Baptised a Methodist, Mandela was given the English forename of "Nelson" by his teacher. When Mandela was about nine, his father came to stay at Qunu, where he died of an undiagnosed ailment which Mandela believed to be lung disease. Feeling "cut adrift", he later said that he inherited his father's "proud rebelliousness" and "stubborn sense of fairness".

His mother took Mandela to the "Great Place" palace at Mqhekezweni, where he was entrusted under the guardianship of Thembu regent, Chief Jongintaba Dalindyebo. Although he did not see his mother again for many years, Mandela felt that Jongintaba and his wife Noengland treated him as their own child, raising him alongside their son Justice and daughter Nomafu. As Mandela attended church services every Sunday with his guardians, Christianity became a significant part of his life. He attended a Methodist mission school located next to the palace, studying English, Xhosa, history and geography. He developed a love of African history, listening to the tales told by elderly visitors to the palace, and became influenced by the anti-imperialist rhetoric of Chief Joyi. At the time he nevertheless considered the European colonialists as benefactors, not oppressors. Aged 16, he, Justice and several other boys travelled to Tyhalarha to undergo the circumcision ritual that symbolically marked their transition from boys to men; the rite over, he was given the name Dalibunga.

Malcolm X: Honoring the Life of a civil rights leader

2013-02-21T16:38:00.002-08:00

One reason for the separation from the nation of Islam was growing tension between Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad because of Malcolm X's dismay about rumors of Muhammad's extramarital affairs with young secretaries, actions that were against the teachings of the Nation. Although at first Malcolm X had ignored the rumors, after speaking with Muhammad's son Wallace and the women making the accusations, he came to believe that they were true. Muhammad confirmed the rumors in 1963 but tried to justify his actions by reference to precedents set by Biblical prophets.

Malcolm X, May 19, 1925 – February 21, 1965), born Malcolm Little and also known as El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Arabic: الحاجّ مالك الشباز‎), was an African-American Muslim minister and human rights activist. To his admirers, he was a courageous advocate for the rights of blacks, a man who indicted white America in the harshest terms for its crimes against black Americans. Detractors accused him of preaching racism, black supremacy, and violence. He has been called one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history.

Malcolm X's father died—killed by white supremacists, it was rumored—when he was young, and at least one of his uncles was lynched. When he was 13, his mother was placed in a mental hospital, and he was placed in a series of foster homes. In 1946, at age 20, he went to prison for breaking and entering.

Malcolm X Explains his fathers murder

In prison, Malcolm X became a member of the Nation of Islam; after his parole in 1952, he quickly rose to become one of its leaders. For a dozen years, Malcolm X was the public face of the controversial group, but disillusionment with Nation of Islam head Elijah Muhammad led him to leave the Nation in March 1964. Malcolm X's expressed beliefs changed over time. As a spokesman for the Nation of Islam he taught black supremacy and advocated separation of black and white Americans—in contrast to the civil rights movement's emphasis on integration. After breaking with the Nation of Islam in 1964—saying of his association with it, "I did many things as a [Black] Muslim that I'm sorry for now. I was a zombie then ... pointed in a certain direction and told to march"—and becoming a Sunni Muslim, he disavowed racism and expressed willingness to work with civil rights leaders, he continued to emphasize Pan-Africanism, black self-determination, and self-defense.

After a period of travel in Africa and the Middle East, he returned to the United States, where he founded Muslim Mosque, Inc. and the Organization of Afro-American Unity. The Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU) was a Pan-Africanist organization founded by Malcolm X in 1964. Malcolm X announced the establishment of the OAAU at a public meeting in New York's Audubon Ballroom on June 28, 1964. He had written the group's charter with John Henrik Clarke, Albert Cleage, Jesse Gray, and Gloria Richardson, among others. The OAAU was modeled on the Organisation of African Unity, which had impressed Malcolm X during his visit to Africa in April and May 1964. The purpose of the OAAU was to fight for the human rights of African Americans and promote cooperation among Africans and people of African descent in the Americas. Malcolm X did not have sufficient time to invest in the OAAU to help it flourish. In a memo dated July 2, 1964, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover described the nascent OAAU as a threat to the national security of the United States.

After his death, Malcolm X's half-sister, Ella Collins, took over the leadership of the OAAU, but dwindling membership and Malcolm X's absence eventually led to the collapse of the organization.

Malcolm X announced the establishment of Muslim Mosque, Inc. on March 12, 1964, four days after his departure from the Nation of Islam. The group's membership consisted primarily of former Nation of Islam members. In a 2003 interview, one of its former leaders recalled that MMI started with a core of about 50 dedicated activists.

Malcolm X spent much of the time between March 1964 and February 1965 overseas. In his absence, James 67X Shabazz served as the de facto leader of Muslim Mosque, Inc.The Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU) was a Pan-Africanist organization founded by Malcolm X in 1964.

Between March 1964, when he left the Nation of Islam, and February 1965, when he was assassinated, Malcolm X's philosophy evolved as he traveled through Africa and the Middle East. Those changes confused many members of Muslim Mosque, Inc.

Initially, the teachings of Muslim Mosque, Inc. were similar to those of the Nation of Islam. When Malcolm X became a Sunni Muslim, made the hajj, and wrote to the members of MMI from Mecca about his pilgrimage and how it had forced him to reject the racism that had previously characterized his views of white people, many members could not believe what they were hearing. The Nation of Islam had taught that no white people were permitted in the holy city of Mecca. Some MMI members refused to believe that Malcolm X had become a Sunni, and others thought he was being misquoted when he wrote about white people.

By May 1964, membership in Muslim Mosque, Inc. had grown to 125, and the group was attracting people who were not former Nation of Islam members. Malcolm X sought acceptance of Muslim Mosque, Inc. by mainstream Islamic organizations.In August 1964, the Supreme Council on Islamic Affairs awarded 20 scholarships to permit young MMI members to study at Al-Azhar University tuition-free. Also in August, MMI was admitted to the Islamic Federation of the United States and Canada. The following month the World Islamic League offered 15 scholarships through MMI for study at the Islamic University of Madinah.In February 1965, less than a year after leaving the Nation of Islam, he was assassinated by three members of the group.Following the assassination of Malcolm X in February 1965, Muslim Mosque, Inc. foundered and was disbanded.

Malcolm X and Martin Luther King: methods of the two leaders of the African American Nation.

From his adoption of the Nation of Islam in 1952 until he broke with it in 1964, Malcolm X promoted the Nation's teachings, including that black people are the original people of the world, that white people are "devils", that blacks are superior to whites, and that the demise of the white race is imminent. While the civil rights movement fought against racial segregation, Malcolm X advocated the complete separation of African Americans from whites, proposing establishment of a separate country for black people in America as an interim measure until African Americans could return to Africa.

U.S family courts destroy morality and citizen stability

2012-06-28T21:50:00.000-07:00

Can you go to jail for not paying your child support?
A father espoused his views on child support laws in the United States. I found his statement to be insightful and revealing in regards to the constant madness surrounding child support laws in this country. I believe he accurately advanced the plight of the

American Father in the following statement:
Well Ms. Child support that is a sad tale but the only the ONLY thing unusual about it is that you (the victim) are a woman. As a man whose ex-wife did everything she could do to get me fired then sued me for contempt for not paying alimony, child support, her legal fees, etc. I can say that for men this is common. You see the states have a vested, pecuniary interest in maximizing child support awards. The nonsense that this is “FOR THE CHILDREN!!!” is a lie plain and simple. States make money by awarding as much as possible and mom (sorry Dad in your case) ALWAYS supports the most egregious amounts possible because hey… IT’S HER MONEY RIGHT?!?

Of course if the question really being asked is what is best for the children and the courts answer is ALWAYS that its MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY then the obvious solution is to always grant sole custody to the party that makes the most. That would completely negate any reason for child support but we can’t do that because 99% of the time its Dad that makes more and as mentioned it isn’t really about what’s best for the children but what is best for generating cash for the state. You see if mom doesn’t work and dad makes $100,000 well then according to the shares model that is a serious stream of moolah heading to the state from matching federal funds. It doesn’t matter if mom is a drug addict, or a psychopath, or pimps out the daughter to her boyfriends in exchange for crack, that doesn’t matter. What matters is maximizing child support and getting the father into arrears as quickly as possible (arrears generate interest and penalties! For the children!!!).

The entire scheme of child support has the effect of paying mom handsomely to divorce dad – then we claim we’re concerned for broken homes. It is designed from the ground up to destroy fatherhood, create conflict (sometimes murder), and maximize the taxation of men. Sorry as a woman you are effected by this as its a fact that most of the time the punishment for past due c.s. is almost never enforced if the guilty party is female. It is often said that the only way to stop child support and alimony is to make women actually have to pay it. Well here’s hoping you see that it is wrong now that you have a taste of what millions of ex-fathers have to endure every single day. We are forced out, told under threat of violent arrest not to see our children, then we are punished for “abandoning” our children with huge payouts to the kidnappers and their agents. When the end of our civilization comes (hopefully quickly) I expect history will view us in the same light we view every other trader of slaves in history.

Here’s the comment that inspired the above:
Ok, I have been reading all this stuff on this site and let me tell you from first hand experience how this works. I went to jail last August while I was in a high risk pregnancy w/ my new baby boy. I was there for 30 days and it was soo horrible. I could not have ANY contact w/ my now 4 yr old son and that doesnt even speak for the 2 I am in trouble for not paying on.
Let me make something very clear. I was married to ex hubby for 5 yrs…during which time, I witnessed him hit my now 14yr old son w/ a remote in the head, call both my 14 and my 10 yr old names such as dumbarse…polite wording of course and asking if they were stupid several times, (which btw they are not by any means)….after I witnessed him spank the 14 yr old which was almost 7 at time w/ a paddle and leave his butt an ENTIRE bruise…i made my decision. I got a job and held it for nearly a year and when i thought the time was right I packed my stuff and the kids and left. Little did I know that I would soon get pregnant w/ my now 4 yr old and was fired almost immediately afterwards.Well to make this part of the story short…he won custody cause i lost my apartment, my car, no job and no money…where as he had it all.

The other day I had to go back for a review and there had been a 4 mth period which i had no money to pay towards the child support this time. but the last 3 mths i have made all my payments as i had had them taken out of my checks. which btw i had to show proof cause they were saying i hadnt paid except for 1 mth. well now they have admitted that out of the original $7000 i owed for back support, i have paid $5000 of it…but yet in less than one mth i have to come up w/ another $2000 or go to jail for 6mths…despite the fact that i am working and paying now, and despite the fact that i am also raising 2 younger kids on my own w/ little pay. This is not about the kids…this is about them getting there share of the money. We have given the government way too much authority…We need to stop this madness. Did I mention that while I am in jail not only will they not be recieving my payments, but they will actually be increasing which will make it that much harder to catch up on.

I am desperate!!! Please give me an idea on what to do…and before anyone says it…i love my kids (all of them) and i am in there lives…at least as much as there “dad” allows it. The sad thing is that there dad actually put me on supervised visits while i was in jail due to who the other 2 kids dad is…nothing to do w/ me myself and i havent seen them but 2 times in the last year. Please believe me…this isnt by my choice. I just want the country to see what we are facing. I would never do this to anyone…especially when there are other kids involved.
1) Child support shouldn’t exist in the first place. Or at least the government/court system should have no say in it. Government mandated child support is just one more nail in the coffin destroying our families.

2) If a man and woman are not married, and the woman gets pregnant, the man should have no legal rights to the child – nor should the female expect anything from him. That is, there should be no legal requests on either party – the government should stay out of it. The male (and female) disregarded any moral (and legal) obligation by having sex outside of marriage or by in the very least, not marrying when they discovered the pregnancy. By attempting to remove the consequences of immoral behavior (financial and social hardship) – you encourage more immoral behavior. By removing the lawyers, judges, legislation, and our matriarchal dominated court system – you force men and women to face these problems without the aid or force of any legal body – and that is a good thing for the child. Both parents would have to negotiate and agree to the terms – without being able to use the force of a court or legal body.

3) Child support is often, if not a majority of the time, used to drive a further wedge between the father and his ambiguous relationship with the child. Women often use child support and judges to intimidate, if not outright harass a man.

4) Our present system of matriarchal dominated family court – has nearly destroyed our culture, our country, and our security. For the last 40 years women have been in control of America’s lawyers and judges. The lawyers all work together because more divorce works in their favor because of the monetary benefit they receive from such legal proceedings.
In America it is almost insanity for a man to consider marriage – or sex for that matter – because of the heinous aggression and contempt that our legal system has in store for him. If you think that all of the following items have been good for America – then please explain to me how:

1) Women pursuing careers (or dreams or whatever).

2) America’s court system rewarding women for divorce and punishing men for having married in the first place.

3) Media bombardment from all angles showing that a woman should have it all – or at least a life free from children, the ‘bondage’ of marriage, and the demands of those pesky men.

4) Medicaid paying for the poor to have children out of wedlock.

5) The tax system rewarding the poor for having a medicaid baby.
If you think that this female dominated culture that has become America is a good thing, then once again – I ask you how? One thing is for certain, that is, a society which promotes such ‘values’ as I mention above, will not stand. It cannot stand. And if you think that America (whatever America is these days) will survive it – think again.

Stories told by child support victims:Joe parta:
Why would states believe that noncustodial parents are an endless money supply? The system causes people to commit crimes or even suicide. I miss lady liberty.
Millanie peters:
AMERICAN LAWS ARE STUPID AND IS COSTING ALL TAX PAYERS AND WASTING TO MUCH OF OUR MONEY ON THINGS THAT DON’T WORK !

Dominique Dawkins:American child support system is a scam and the judges are deadbeat bench warmers who don’t have a clue as to how many good fathers their are out there. If the woman leaves the relationship she should bare all the expense of raising the kids or give them to the father who can most likely give them a better home and a good life.
American child support system is evil and needs to be shot dead and be destroy and put the judges that abused every father in prison and let them rot in their own curupted poison.

Kieth Stoneberger:have now found myself in the boat as most NCP. Before, I used to keep up my payments no problem and I never could figure out why noone else could. I made sure that was the first payment out of my paycheck. I was in an automobile accident in 1998 and was out of work for 8 months and I did not want the support to be lowered because I thought my daughters really needed it. I had enough saved up that I could do that. From time to time, I have tried to get shared custody because I wanted the children. I thought it was pointless anyway to finance my ex wife to sit on her butt. She worked for about 8 months, just before the divorce was final till the accident. She only did that because the her lawyer told her that more than likely she would lose custody if the divorce decree went before him and she did not have a job. So she has to show she was able to make a home with work. Fortunally, our divorce decree incorporated an agreement. Eventually I married again to a woman who brought in 5 kids. Her ex husband has never paid a lick of child support. So I ended up supporting two families. My ex had remarried also and has two more children by him. She had me in court and had my support raised because her and her husband were having trouble making ends meet. I was astonished when she told the court that her husband was not working and was having difficulty finding work and his kids were sufferring. Without question as to my situation, the support was raised. I objected that it is not up to me to take care of his kids also and if she cannot take care of my children with what she gets now, then I ask for custody. I was denied and I was to take care of my own first. Fast foward a few years and the injuries I recieved from the accident had finally caught up with me. I lost me job in 2008 because I need a total hip replacement. Until August of 2010, my support has been kept up. In March 2011, I was in jail for 7 days because I do not have a job to pay the support. I had proof that I been “pounding the pavement” since 2008 looking for work. My injuries are severe enough that I qualify for for rehab services. The court did not wanna see it. My wife and my mom came up with the money. Now my mom is more in debt because of this and I still owe her. This Tues, I am looking at the same thing. I even have the job searches. I am still using the rehab services to get a career change. But it is right, it is only about the money.

Robert Walsh:
I am currently going through the very same incident that the gentleman wrote about above ….. child support and the rules that come along with it….. allow a quick explanation that i am currently experiencing ….. divorced 15 yrs ago …. i agreed to having my kids every other weekend, and 2 days a week…… paying 200 per week for child support…. so for years i paid the child support and shared the children, and for the most part it worked out fine, i of course had to work on saturdays to make enough money to pay my bills as well as the child support, which takes time away from the kids …. I coached my daughters team, and my sons team, took them camping , day trips, bike rides, a cruise, shared as much free time as i could with them…. well, one day i told the kids wouldnt it be nice if you guys could stay with dad for the summers and mom could have you every other weekend and twice a week, i of course wouldnt pay child support during those 2 months, and the kids loved the idea, the idea would have created a closer bond with my children, and i would feel what it feels like to have my kids all the time like mom gets to feel…. well, let me tell you, her answer to that idea was a flat out ” NO ” and if i wanted that badly enough i was to take her back to court….. meaning she was going to fight it ! ….. everything changed from that day on…. i have always paid my child support, and played by the book….. and she wanted me to take her back to court and fight…. more than likely bring the kids to court….. the following week the kids were all upset, and said that mom is really mad and that the idea was not a good idea after all….. this crushed me ! ….. and i immediatly stopped paying child support, and started spending that money directly on the kids instead of sending it to the mom…. then all of a sudden the economy tanked, and i wasnt making any money… all of a sudden i was really behind on child support….. but my attitude was screw her ! … well she took me to court, got a lawyer and twice sent out a warrent for my arrest !! …. my anger towards her flourished, and the wedge began between my children and myself … today my kids dont want anything to do with me… i am the bad guy now ! and she is the hero,….. what i have learned is the system is corrupt…. child support should be illiminated is right ! …. but the time with the children should be split even time each week…… no money involved at all !! This should be a law !! Now i know there are exceptions to this idea, but for most of us , we can make this work between the ex, the kids, and so on…. for the exs who were married to abusers, well then you would have a different rule… but for the majority of the normal divorces this idea would work… and will never split up a dad and his children !! May this not ever happen to another dad again …. it already has happened to far to many.

Jeniffer Wallace:
As a minister, an ordained minister, I want to give a big hand clap to those of you who realize the sanctity of marriage. I too disagree with the idea of child support for a woman who willingly bears a child out of wed lock. This is not just an abomination in Christian society, but in the Buddist, Jewish, Muslim…… No up standing religious organization on the planet supports this. There is always the argument that a man “should not have gotten her pregnant”. As a woman, you set the standard and should not allow yourself to be impregnated! Afterall, the national average cost for a marriage liscense is $ 25.00. Child birth is life threatening. If you are stupid enough to risk you life in child birth for a man that does not think you are worth trhe $25.00 investment to marry you and cover that baby (spiritually) with the privelege of marriage, then you deserve to suffer. You deserve to be penniless and the detriment of that baby should rest on your shoulders alone. After all, if you and I went and test drove a Porche…… and I deceided that I wanted it……. the dealership would not allow me to have it, and then make you pay for it…..just because you are the one who could afford it….. and you took the test drive with me! They would consider that you did not apply for the car! They would take into account that I cannot afford the car! This is the same difference with child support. If you the woman are making a decision with your body that your wallet cannot support, you should not be allowed to keep posession of the child. The child should be given to the father, and if he does not want it, to the state. After all, when the state takes children from the mother, she is not asked to pay child support to the Foster parents! I think that if you are allowed choices, then men, where there was no privelege of marriage, should be allowed to walk away. Bastard children are not on the same level as covenant children. If you don’t agree, read Genesis 21 and 22. Abraham had a bastard child named Ishmael. His presensce began to cause problems in the marriage. God told Abraham not to be saddened about the bondage woman (Haggar the baby mama) and his Seed (Ishmael) but instead to drop them off in the desert and he would take care of them.! He later commends Abraham for his willingness to sacrifice his ONLY son Isaac on the mountain. what is the difference between Ishmael and Isaac? They were both sons of Abraham. Still God did not refer to Ishmael as a Son but as a seed! God must uphold the order that he himself instituted. If he gave the same status to Ishmael that he gave Isaac, he would then spit on the institution of marriage himself. Membership has its privaleges. In short, the ineterest of children hasno bearing on the sanctity of marriage. What God put together let o man put assunder. Placing this obligation on an act of abomination puts marriage assunder. And the women who take part in this are cursed. Statistics show that they are less likely to marry, and the free money child support they recieve is not landing them on Wall street!
Strange huh!
I say there should be NO child support forced upon a father of out-of -wed lock children. This will teach women to have standards and protect the interest of their children.
If you were a husband, then you better stick with those children and find a way to keep the family together.

Mathew franklyn:
I fully understand, and want you to know you are not alone. I don’t have any advice for you other than to do whatever you can to keep your sanity, move forward any way possible, and stay capable of being in the lives of your children, even if it will be years in the future. They are worth it, as I have learned, but the system empowers women to destroy the man, his relationship with his children, or both. You will be left with a choice of which will be destroyed, and no one can judge you if you let the relationship fall, as you will suffer immeasurably if you do not, as I have, but whatever you do, don’t let both die. Also, expect no help as a single father if you are by some miracle blessed with the custody of your children, the system does not value you, you have to do it yourself, unlike all single mothers the system falls over backwards to help. You are not alone.
Bob Timberman:
I would like to comment as a man that has had his life and that of his children ruined by an evil woman empowered by a system hellbent on destruction of anything good. My ex was allowed to move in criminals, drug addicts and whatever slug she could find, while my life was under scrutiny even for having my kids in the company of my then girlfriend. I fought and went bankrupt twice trying to get the court to hear me. It was the arrearage from an unfair system that was the concern of the court. Even though child support and visitation was supposed to be two separate issues, the stature before a judge of a man fallen behind on support is that of a deadbeat. The system is evil and because no moral judgment is made, the system should be shut down. The government should not be in the business of administering child support. In any given county in America, there is the largest building in the county seat and that building holds the child support agency. Many resources are expended in a heartless endeavor that does destroy the lives of the children.

No morality = evil. The courts are evil entities. I am in agreement that folks having children out of wedlock should be ashamed (even though I know that I have done it – I know and have learned). The court system should not be involved in a support role of something with such negative affects on society. The courts should prosecute crime and not the fathers of children. No, it is not fair that a man lays down and gets a gal pregnant, but it is not fair that a woman lays down and gets pregnant. Money will not make the situation any better but it will help pay the bills. A system that enslaves the man and empowers the woman will not make the life of the child any better.

I have been a non-custodial parent and paid and I have been a custodial parent (single parent) and have received nothing. It was not worth it to me to see the woman anymore and she disappeared. She would have only been ordered to pay $5 a week and I did not want her around. The court really does make everything worse. I think government can only mess up anything it touches because of the lack of morality of the State.

Sign the petition

White House leaks of cyber warfare against Iran Under investigation

2012-06-07T13:52:00.001-07:00

WASHINGTON — Top Democratic and Republican lawmakers are vowing to pursue recent leaks of sensitive information they believe came from the White House on the covert drone and cyber wars against terrorism. Leaders of the Senate and House intelligence committees said Thursday they are drafting legislation to further limit who can access highly classified information — and possibly impose new penalties for revealing it.

Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein says it likely will also require that the White House notify Congress when it decides to release classified information to the media. Republican lawmakers have accused the White House of spilling national security secrets to boost the president’s reputation in an election year.

White House spokesman Jay Carney dismissed any suggestion that the White House has leaked sensitive information for political purposes. Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. FBI spokesman Paul Bresson had no comment on the reported investigation.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he was informed that an FBI inquiry was under way.
The senator from Georgia and other leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees issued a joint statement Tuesday deploring the apparent leaks.

"In recent weeks, we have become increasingly concerned at the continued leaks regarding sensitive intelligence programs and activities, including specific details of sources and methods," said Chambliss; Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-California; Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Michigan; and Ranking Member C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger, D-Maryland, in the statement.

"These disclosures have seriously interfered with ongoing intelligence programs and have put at jeopardy our intelligence capability to act in the future. Each disclosure puts American lives at risk, makes it more difficult to recruit assets, strains the trust of our partners and threatens imminent and irreparable damage to our national security in the face of urgent and rapidly adapting threats worldwide."
The House and Senate Intelligence Committee leaders said they intended "to review potential legislation to strengthen authorities and procedures with respect to access to classified information and disclosure of it, as well as to ensure that criminal and administrative measures are taken each time sensitive information is improperly disclosed."
"We also intend to press for the executive branch to take tangible and demonstrable steps to detect and deter intelligence leaks, and to fully, fairly, and impartially investigate the disclosures that have already taken place."
The committee is expected to add leak provisions later this month, when it takes up the FY13 intelligence authorization bill. The plan is for the Senate to vote on the measure before the summer recess.
Although the House has already passed a version of the bill without the leak provisions, they would likely be added during a conference with the Senate.
The White House pushed back against suggestions it could be leaking classified information for political purposes.
"This administration takes all appropriate and necessary steps to prevent leaks of classified information or sensitive information that could risk ongoing counterterrorism or intelligence operations," spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday aboard Air Force One as the president traveled to campaign events on the West Coast.
"Any suggestion that this administration has authorized intentional leaks of classified information for political gain is grossly irresponsible."
Asked about the White House's response, Sen. John McCain told CNN International's "Amanpour," "I would expect nothing else from the White House. But the fact is that the portrayal of the president in these stories is nothing short of heroic."
The ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee added, "Clearly, administration officials were involved."
McCain, R-Arizona, said he has "great faith" in the FBI but that a matter as weighty as national security "probably deserves a special counsel."
He continued, "It's clear that the Iranians will profit from having this information. In fact, they might even feel they are justified in cybercounterattacks."
Feinstein told CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer" that she didn't believe any of the information came from the top ranks of the White House.
"I think one of the problems is, information is not closely held sufficiently," she said. She described policies regarding responding to leaks as "archaic" and said they need to be revamped.
The government's failure to keep its secrets has dissuaded some people from giving information to the United States and has endangered lives, she said, but she is unaware of anyone having been killed as a result. She would not go into specifics.
"People just talk too much," she said. "This didn't used to be the case. But suddenly it's like it's a spreadable disease."
John Kerry, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, expressed confidence Wednesday that the White House played no role in the apparent leaks. "I know that people at the White House were not involved," he said.
He disputed McCain's assertion to the contrary. "McCain needs to know, before people make that kind of accusation, the reporters themselves have said it did not come from anybody on the Obama team or on the Democratic side or anything like that," Kerry said. "I take that at face value."
But he said such a leak "endangers our long-term security."
A report in The New York Times on Friday provided classified details of what it described as a U.S cyberattack targeting Iran's nuclear centrifuge program.
Since shortly after he became president, Barack Obama has ordered cyberattacks targeting computers that run Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, the report said, attributing the information to participants in the program.
The White House has said it did not authorize any leak of such information.
McCain said Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin has agreed to hold a hearing on the matter.
Some Republicans, including McCain, have called for a special prosecutor to investigate.
But Deputy Attorney General James Cole, in response to a question from Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said Wednesday that he does not believe a special prosecutor is needed in this case.
Chambliss said he expects the FBI to conduct a "full and fair investigation, including a review of administration officials who have been quoted anonymously or directly."
Feinstein said she had discussed the possibility of a joint hearing with Levin.
On Tuesday, White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest said the administration believes that classified information should remain secret for a reason, and "publicizing it would pose a threat to our national security."
McCain and Chambliss cited other recent leaks as well, including information on the administration's efforts to expand its drone program and the president's involvement in "kill lists" against militants in Yemen and Pakistan.
Also, the public airing of details surrounding a recently disrupted bomb plot in Yemen by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula angered intelligence and national security officials.
CNN's Terry Frieden, Carol Cratty, Adam Levine, Ted Barrett, Pam Benson, Dan Lothian, Tom Dunlavey and Josh Levs contributed to this report.

Did You Know That Women Are Still Paid Less Than Men?

2012-06-04T10:09:00.000-07:00

On average, full-time working women earn just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. This substantial gap is more than a statistic -- it has real life consequences. When women, who make up nearly half the workforce, bring home less money each day, it means they have less for the everyday needs of their families, and over a lifetime of work, far less savings for retirement.

Do you support equal pay for women?
It's been nearly 50 years since Congress passed the Equal Pay Act, but today a woman who works full time still earns just 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man.
That's not just unfair. When women, who make up nearly half the workforce, bring home less money each day, it means they have less for the everyday needs of their families. That's bad for kids, it's bad for communities, and it's bad for the entire country.

So President Obama is supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act, which is designed to update the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and help close the pay gap. Congress is scheduled to vote on the legislation this week.
To help raise awareness of pay discrimination and make it clear that it is a problem with serious consequences, we've put together a series of e-cards to highlight the issue.
Pick your favorite, then email it to your friends or share it online:

Obama Administration push to renew Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

2012-05-23T19:23:00.001-07:00

On Tuesday, a key Senate panel voted to extend a 2008 provision involving a foreign intelligence surveillance law that is set to expire at the end of the year. The Obama administration is pushing to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, subsequently violating Americans civil liberties.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

America's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA" Pub.L. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1783, enacted October 25, 1978, 50 U.S.C. ch.36, S. 1566) is an Act of Congress, (signed by President Jimmy Carter), which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of being engaged in espionage and violating U.S. law on territory under United States control).^[1] The law does not apply outside the US.

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Protect America Act of 2007

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

FISA Amendments Act of 2008

[edit]Subsequent amendments

The Act was amended in 2001 by the USA PATRIOT Act, primarily to include terrorism on behalf of groups that are not specifically backed by a foreign government.

An overhaul of the bill, the Protect America Act of 2007 was signed into law on August 5, 2007.^[2] It expired on February 17, 2008.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 passed by the United States Congress on July 9, 2008.^[3]

[edit]History

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced on May 18, 1977 by Senator Ted Kennedy. The bill was cosponsored by the nine Senators: Birch Bayh, James O. Eastland, Jake Garn, Walter Huddleston, Daniel Inouye, Charles Mathias, John L. McClellan, Gaylord Nelson, and Strom Thurmond.

The act was signed into law by President Carter in 1978.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervinand Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources to spy on political and activist groups, which violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.^[4] The act was created to provide Judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security. It allowed surveillance, without court order, within the United States for up to one year unless the "surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". If a United States person is involved, judicial authorization was required within 72 hours after surveillance begins.

[edit]Bush administration warrantless domestic wiretapping program

Main article: NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

The Act came into public prominence in December 2005 following publication by the New York Times of an article^[5] that described a program of warrantless domestic wiretapping ordered by the Bush administration and carried out by the National Security Agency since 2002; a subsequent Bloomberg article^[6] suggested that this may have already begun by June 2000.

[edit]Scope and limits

For most purposes, including electronic surveillance and physical searches, "foreign powers" means a foreign government, any faction(s) or foreign governments not substantially composed of US persons, and any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government. §§1801(a)(1)-(3) The definition also includes groups engaged in international terrorism and foreign political organizations. §§1801(a)(4) and (5). The sections of FISA authorizing electronic surveillance and physical searches without a court order specifically exclude their application to groups engaged in international terrorism. See §1802(a)(1) (referring specifically to §1801(a)(1), (2) and (3)).

The statute includes limits on how it may be applied to US persons. A "US person" includes citizens, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, and corporations incorporated in the US.

The code defines "foreign intelligence information" to mean information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential grave attack, sabotage or international terrorism.^[7]

In sum, a significant purpose of the electronic surveillance must be to obtain intelligence in the U.S. on foreign powers (such as enemy agents or spies) or individuals connected to international terrorist groups. To use FISA, the government must show probable cause that the “target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.”[2]^[8]

[edit]Provisions

The subchapters of FISA provide for:

Electronic Surveillance (50 U.S.C. ch.36 subch.I)
Physical Searches (50 U.S.C. ch.36 subch.II)
Pen Registers and Trap & Trace Devices for Foreign Intelligence Purposes (50 U.S.C. ch.36 subch.III)
Access to certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence Purposes (50 U.S.C. ch.36 subch.IV)
Reporting Requirement (50 U.S.C. ch.36 subch.V)

The act created a court which meets in secret, and approves or denies requests for search warrants. Only the number of warrants applied for, issued and denied, is reported. In 1980 (the first full year after its inception), it approved 322 warrants.^[9] This number has steadily grown to 2224 warrants^[10] in 2006. In the period 1979-2006 a total of 22,990 applications for warrants were made to the Court of which 22,985 were approved (sometimes with modifications; or with the splitting up, or combining together, of warrants for legal purposes), and only 5 were definitively rejected.^[11]

[edit]Electronic surveillance

Generally, the statute permits electronic surveillance in two scenarios.

[edit]Without a court order

The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information;^[7] targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. § 1801(a)(1),(2),(3)^[12] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.^[13]

The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,^[14] and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.^[15]

Since 50 U.S.C. § 1802(a)(1)(A) of this act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (1),(2), (3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore; foreign-based political organizations, not substantially composed of United States persons; or entities that are directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.^[16] Under the FISA act, anyone who engages in electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute is subject to both criminal penalties^[17] and civil liabilities.^[18]

Under 50 U.S.C. § 1811, the President may also authorize warrantless surveillance at the beginning of a war. Specifically, he may authorize such surveillance "for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress."^[19]

[edit]With a court order

Alternatively, the government may seek a court order permitting the surveillance using the FISA court.^[20] Approval of a FISA application requires the court find probable cause that the target of the surveillance be a "foreign power" or an "agent of a foreign power", and that the places at which surveillance is requested is used or will be used by that foreign power or its agent. In addition, the court must find that the proposed surveillance meet certain "minimization requirements" for information pertaining to US persons.^[21]

[edit]Physical searches

In addition to electronic surveillance, FISA permits the "physical search" of the "premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by" a foreign power.

The requirements and procedures are nearly identical to those for electronic surveillance.

[edit]FISA court

Main article: United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

The Act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and enabled it to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal police agencies (primarily the F.B.I.) against suspected foreignintelligence agents inside the U.S. The court is located within the Department of Justice headquarters building. The court is staffed by eleven judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States to serve seven year terms.

Proceedings before the FISA court are ex parte and non-adversarial. The court hears evidence presented solely by the Department of Justice. There is no provision for a release of information regarding such hearings, or for the record of information actually collected.

Main article: United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review

Denials of FISA applications by the FISC may be appealed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. The Court of Review is a three judge panel. Since its creation, the court has come into session twice: in 2002 and 2008.

[edit]Remedies for violations

Both the subchapters covering physical searches and electronic surveillance provide for criminal and civil liability for violations of FISA.

Criminal sanctions follows violations of electronic surveillance by intentionally engaging in electronic surveillance under the color of law or through disclosing information known to have been obtained through unauthorized surveillance. The penalties for either act are fines up to $10,000, up to five years in jail, or both.^[17]

In addition, the statute creates a cause of action for private individuals whose communications were unlawfully monitored. The statute permits actual damages of not less than $1,000 or $100 per day. In addition, that statute authorizes punitive damages and an award of attorney's fees.^[18]

Similar liability is found under the subchapter pertaining to physical searches.

In both cases, the statute creates an affirmative defense for a law enforcement agent acting within their official duties and pursuant to a valid court order. Presumably, such a defense is not available to those operating exclusively under presidential authorization.

[edit]Lone wolf amendment

In 2004, FISA was amended to include a "lone wolf" provision. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(1)(C). A "lone wolf" is a non-US person who engages in or prepares for international terrorism. The provision amended the definition of "foreign power" to permit the FISA courts to issue surveillance and physical search orders without having to find a connection between the "lone wolf" and a foreign government or terrorist group.^[22]

[edit]Constitutionality

[edit]Before FISA

In 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment applied equally to electronic surveillance and to physical searches. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). The Court did not address whether such requirements apply to issues of national security. Shortly after, in 1972, the Court took up the issue again in United States v. United States District Court, Plamondon, where the court held that court approval was required in order for the domestic surveillance to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. 407 U.S. 297 (1972). Justice Powell wrote that the decision did not address this issue that "may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents."

In the time immediately preceding FISA, a number of courts squarely addressed the issue of "warrantless wiretaps". In both United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973), and United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), the courts upheld warrantless wiretaps. In Brown, a US citizen's conversation was captured by a wiretap authorized by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence purposes. In Butenko, the court held a wiretap valid if the primary purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence information.

A plurality opinion in Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1975), held that a warrant was required for the domestic surveillance of a domestic organization. In this case, the court found that the domestic organization was not a "foreign power or their agent", and "absent exigent circumstances, all warrantless electronic surveillance is unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional."

[edit]Post FISA

There have been very few cases involving the constitutionality of FISA. In two lower court decisions, the courts found FISA constitutional. In the United States v. Duggan, the defendants were members of theIrish Republican Army. 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984). They were convicted for various violations regarding the shipment of explosives and firearms. The court held that there were compelling considerations of national security in the distinction between the treatment of U.S. citizens and non-resident aliens.

In the United States v. Nicholson, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence gathered under a FISA order. 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). The court affirmed the denial of the motion. There the court flatly rejected claims that FISA violated Due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, Equal protection, Separation of powers, nor the Right to counsel provided by the Sixth Amendment.

However, in a third case, the special review court for FISA, the equivalent of a Circuit Court Of Appeals, opined differently should FISA limit the President's inherent authority for warrantless searches in the foreign intelligence area. In In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) the special court stated “[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”

[edit]Criticisms

K. A. Taipale of the World Policy Institute, James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation,^[23] and Philip Bobbitt of Columbia Law School,^[24] among others,^[25] have argued that FISA may need to be amended (to include, among other things, procedures for programmatic approvals) as it may no longer be adequate to address certain foreign intelligence needs and technology developments, including: the transition from circuit-based communications to packet-based communications; the globalization of communications infrastructure; and the development of automated monitoring techniques, including data mining and traffic analysis.^[26]

The need for programmatic approval of technology-enabled surveillance programs is particularly crucial in foreign intelligence. See, for example, John R. Schmidt, the associate attorney general (1994–1997) in the Justice Department under President Bill Clinton,^[27] recalling early arguments made by then-Attorney General Edward Levi to the Church Committee that foreign intelligence surveillance legislation should include provisions for programmatically authorizing surveillance programs because of the particular needs of foreign intelligence where "virtually continuous surveillance, which by its nature does not have specifically predetermined targets" may be required. In these situations, "the efficiency of a warrant requirement would be minimal."

And, in a recent essay, Judge Richard A. Posner opined that FISA “retains value as a framework for monitoring the communications of known terrorists, but it is hopeless as a framework for detecting terrorists. [FISA] requires that surveillance be conducted pursuant to warrants based on probable cause to believe that the target of surveillance is a terrorist, when the desperate need is to find out who is a terrorist.”^[28]

[edit]Amendments

[edit]Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006

On March 16, 2006, Senators Mike DeWine (R-OH), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 (S.2455),^[29]^[30] under which the President would be given certain additional limited statutory authority to conduct electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States subject to enhanced Congressional oversight. Also on March 16, 2006, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced the National Security Surveillance Act of 2006 (S. 2453),^[31]^[32] which would amend FISA to grant retroactive amnesty^[33] for warrantless surveillance conducted under presidential authority and provide FISA court (FISC) jurisdiction to review, authorize, and oversight "electronic surveillance programs." On May 24, 2006, Senator Specter and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006 (S. 3001) asserting FISA as the exclusive means to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance.

All three competing bills were the subject of Judiciary Committee hearings throughout the summer.^[34] On September 13, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve all three mutually exclusive bills, thus, leaving it to the full Senate to resolve.^[35]

On July 18, 2006, U.S. Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) introduced the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act (H.R. 5825). Wilson's bill would give the President the authority to authorize electronic surveillance of international phone calls and e-mail linked specifically to identified terrorist groups immediately following or in anticipation of an armed or terrorist attack on the United States. Surveillance beyond the initial authorized period would require a FISA warrant or a presidential certification to Congress. On September 28, 2006 the House of Representatives passed Wilson's bill and it was referred to the Senate.^[36]

Protect America Act of 2007

On July 28, 2007, President Bush called on Congress to pass legislation to reform the FISA in order to ease restrictions on surveillance of terrorist suspects where one party (or both parties) to the communication are located overseas. He asked that Congress pass the legislation before its August 2007 recess. On August 3, 2007, the Senate passed a Republican-sponsored version of FISA (S. 1927) in a vote of 60 to 28. The House followed by passing the bill, 227–183. The Protect America Act of 2007 (Pub.L. 110-55, S. 1927) was then signed into law by George W. Bush on 2007-08-05.^[37]

Under the Protect America Act of 2007, communications that begin or end in a foreign country may be wiretapped by the US government without supervision by the FISA Court. The Act removes from the definition of "electronic surveillance" in FISA any surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. As such, surveillance of these communications no longer requires a government application to, and order issuing from, the FISA Court.

The Act provides procedures for the government to "certify" the legality of an acquisition program, for the government to issue directives to providers to provide data or assistance under a particular program, and for the government and recipient of a directive to seek from the FISA Court, respectively, an order to compel provider compliance or relief from an unlawful directive. Providers receive costs and full immunity from civil suits for compliance with any directives issued pursuant to the Act.

A summary of key provisions follows.

The Act empowers the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence ("DNI") to authorize, for up to one year, the acquisition of communications concerning "persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States" if the Attorney General and DNI determine that each of five criteria has been met:

there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance (meaning it does not involve solely domestic communications);
the acquisition involves obtaining the communications data from or with the assistance of a communications service provider who has access to communications;
a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and
minimization procedures outlined in the FISA will be used.

This determination by the Attorney General and DNI must be certified in writing, under oath, and supported by appropriate affidavit(s). If immediate action by the government is required and time does not permit the preparation of a certification, the Attorney General or DNI can direct the acquisition orally, with a certification to follow within 72 hours. The certification is then filed with the FISA Court.

Once the certification is filed with the FISA Court, the Attorney General or DNI can direct a provider to undertake or assist in the undertaking of the acquisition.

If a provider fails to comply with a directive issued by the Attorney General or DNI, the Attorney General may seek an order from the FISA Court compelling compliance with the directive. Failure to obey an order of the FISA Court may be punished as a contempt of court.

Likewise, a person receiving a directive may challenge the legality of that directive by filing a petition with the FISA Court. An initial review must be conducted within 48 hours of the filing to determine whether the petition is frivolous, and a final determination concerning any non-frivolous petitions must be made – in writing – within 72 hours of receipt of the petition.

Determinations of the FISA Court may be appealed to the Foreign Intelligence Court of Appeals, and a petition for a writ of certiorari of a decision from the FICA can be made to the U.S. Supreme Court.

All petitions must be filed under seal.

The Act allows providers to be compensated, at the prevailing rate, for providing assistance as directed by the Attorney General or DNI.

The Act provides explicit immunity from civil suit in any federal or state court for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under the Act.

Within 120 days, the Attorney General must submit to the FISA Court for its approval the procedures by which the government will determine that acquisitions authorized by the Act conform with the Act and do not involve purely domestic communications. The FISA Court then will determine whether the procedures comply with the Act. The FISA Court thereafter will enter an order either approving the procedures or directing the government to submit new procedures within 30 days or cease any acquisitions under the government procedures. The government may appeal a ruling of the FISA Court to the FICA and ultimately the Supreme Court.

On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall inform the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate of incidents of noncompliance with a directive issued by the Attorney General or the DNI, incidents of noncompliance with FISA Court-approved procedures by the Intelligence Community, and the number of certifications and directives issued during the reporting period.

The amendments to FISA made by the Act expire 180 days after enactment, except that any order in effect on the date of enactment remains in effect until the date of expiration of such order and such orders can be reauthorized by the FISA Court.”^[38] The Act expired on February 17, 2008.

[edit]Subsequent developments

Legal experts experienced in national security issues are divided on how broadly the new law could be interpreted or applied. Some believe that due to subtle changes in the definitions of terms such as "electronic surveillance," it could empower the government to conduct warrantless physical searches and even seizures of communications and computer devices and their data which belong to U.S. citizens while they are in the United States, if the government contended that those searches and potential seizures were related to its surveillance of parties outside the United States. Intelligence officials, while declining to comment directly on such possibilities, respond that such interpretations are overly broad readings of the act, and unlikely to actually occur. Democratic lawmakers have nonetheless indicated that they are planning to introduce a revised version of the legislation for consideration as early as September 2007.^[39]

In a September 10, 2007 address at a symposium on modernizing FISA held at Georgetown University Law Center's National Security Center, Kenneth L. Wainstein, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, argued against the current six-month sunset provision in the Protect America Act of 2007, saying that the broadened surveillance powers the act provides for should be made permanent. Wainstein proposed that internal audits by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Division of the Justice Department, with reporting to select groups of Congressmen, would ensure that the expanded capability would not be abused.^[40]

Also on September 10, DNI Mike McConnell testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs that the Protect America Act had helped foil a major terror plot in Germany. U.S. intelligence-community officials questioned the accuracy of McConnell's testimony and urged his office to correct it, which he did in a statement issued September 12, 2007. Critics cited the incident as an example of the Bush administration's exaggerated claims and contradictory statements about surveillance activities. Counterterrorism officials familiar with the background of McConnell's testimony said they did not believe he made inaccurate statements intentionally as part of any strategy by the administration to persuade Congress to make the new eavesdropping law permanent. Those officials said they believed McConnell gave the wrong answer because he was overwhelmed with information and merely mixed up his facts.^[41]

Speaking at National Security Agency headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland on September 19, 2007, President George W. Bush urged Congress to make the provisions of the Protect America Act permanent. Bush also called for retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who had cooperated with government surveillance efforts, saying, "It's particularly important for Congress to provide meaningful liability protection to those companies now facing multibillion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in efforts to defend our nation, following the 9/11 attacks."^[42]

On October 4, 2007, the bipartisan Liberty and Security Committee of the Constitution Project, co-chaired by David Keene and David D. Cole, issued its "Statement on the Protect America Act." [3] The Statement urged Congress not to reauthorize the PAA, saying the language of the bill "runs contrary to the tripartite balance of power the Framers envisioned for our constitutional democracy, and poses a serious threat to the very notion of government of the people, by the people and for the people." Some in the legal community have questioned the constitutionality of any legislation that would retroactively immunize telecommunications firms alleged to have cooperated with the government from civil liability for having potentially violated their customers' privacy rights.^[43]

In an article appearing in the January/February 2008 issue of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers journal of Security and Privacy, noted technology experts from academia and the computing industry found significant flaws in the technical implementation of the Protect America Act which they said created serious security risks, including the danger that such a surveillance system could be exploited by unauthorized users, criminally misused by trusted insiders, or abused by the government.^[44]

On October 7, 2007, The Washington Post reported that House Democrats planned to introduce alternative legislation which would provide for one-year "umbrella" warrants, and would require the Justice Department inspector general to audit the use of those warrants and issue quarterly reports to a special FISA court and to Congress. The proposed bill would not include immunity for telecommunications firms facing lawsuits in connection with the administration's NSA warrantless surveillance program. House Democrats said that as long as the administration withholds requested documents explaining the basis for the program that they cannot consider immunity for firms alleged to have facilitated it.^[45] On October 10, 2007 comments on the White House South Lawn, President Bush said he would not sign any bill that did not provide retroactive immunity for telecommunications corporations.^[46]

On October 18, 2007, the House Democratic leadership put off a vote on the proposed legislation by the full chamber to avoid consideration of a Republican measure that made specific references to Osama bin Laden. At the same time, the Senate Intelligence Committee reportedly reached a compromise with the White House on a different proposal that would give telephone carriers legal immunity for any role they played in the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping program approved by President Bush after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.^[47]

On November 15, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-9 along party lines to send an alternative measure to the full Senate other than the one the intelligence committee had crafted with the White House. The proposal would leave to the full Senate whether or not to provide retroactive immunity to telecommunications firms that cooperated with the NSA. Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy said that granting such immunity would give the Bush administration a "blank check" to do what it wants without regard to the law. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the committee, said that court cases may be the only way Congress can learn exactly how far outside the law the administration has gone in eavesdropping in the United States. When the full Senate takes up the bill, Specter is expected to offer a compromise that would shield the companies from financial ruin but allow lawsuits to go forward by having the federal government stand in for the companies at trial.^[48]

On the same day, the House of Representatives voted 227-189 to approve a Democratic bill that would expand court oversight of government surveillance inside the United States while denying immunity to telecom companies. House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers left the door open to an immunity deal in the future, but said that the White House must first give Congress access to classified documents specifying what the companies did that requires legal immunity.^[49]

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Senator Dodd Speaks in Opposition to FISA Bill on Floor of U.S. Senate

In February 2008, the Senate passed the version of the new FISA that would allow telecom companies immunity. On March 13, 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives held a secret session to discuss related information. On March 14, the House voted 213-197 to approve a bill that would not grant telecom immunity — far short of the 2/3 majority required to override a Presidential veto.^[50] The Senate and House bills are compared and contrasted in a June 12, 2008 report from the Congressional Research Service.^[51]

On the evening of November 11, 2008, the House of Representatives held a secret, closed door meeting to debate changes to the FISA bill. [4]^[52]

[edit]See also

[edit]References

^ 50 U.S.C. ch.36, The complete text of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
^ Weiner, Eric (2007-10-18). "The Foreign Service Intelligence Act: A Primer". National Public Radio.
^ "U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote Summary, Vote 00168, 100th Congress, 2nd Session". 2008-07-09.
^ FISA Debate Involves More Than Terrorism - Daily Nexus
^ [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm "Bush Lets US Spy on Callers Without Courts" (Dec. 16, 2005)
^ Spy Agency Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11, Lawyers Say
^ ^a ^b 50 U.S.C. § 1801(e) Definition of Foreign intelligence information
^ Rosenbach, Eric, and Aki J. Peritz. Confrontation or Collaboration? Congress and the Intelligence Community. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. 12 June 2009. Harvard Kennedy School. 21 July 2009 <http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf>.
^ Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 1980 Annual Report
^ http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2006rept.pdf
^ EPIC: FISA Orders 1979-2006
^ 50 U.S.C. § 1801(a) Definition of Foreign power
^ 50 U.S.C. § 1802(a)(1), Conditions under which the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order
^ 50 U.S.C. § 1802(a)(3), Requirement of the Attorney General's to file reports under seal on warrantless surveillance to the FISC
^ 50 U.S.C. § 1802(a)(2), Requirement of the Attorney General's to report on compliance with warrantless surveillance requirements to Congress
^ 50 U.S.C. sect;1802 (a)(1)(A) The limitation of warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined in 50 U.S.C § 1801 (a) (1),(2), and (3)
^ ^a ^b 50 U.S.C. §1809 - Criminal sanctions
^ ^a ^b 50 U.S.C. §1810 - Civil liability
^ 50 U.S.C. § 1811 - Authorization during time of war
^ 50 U.S.C. § 1805(a) Electronic surveillance with a court order
^ 50 U.S.C. [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/1801.html § 1801(h)] Minimization procedures definition
^ “Lone Wolf” Amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, via fas.org
^ Commentary, Wash. Times, Jan. 24, 2006
^ Why We Listen, N.Y. Times, Jan. 30, 2006
^ The Eavesdropping Debate We Should be Having
^ Whispering Wires and Warrantless Wiretaps, N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Sec., No. VII Supl. (Spring 2006)
^ "A historical solution to the Bush spying issue," Chicago Tribune (Feb. 12, 2006)
^ A New Surveillance Act, Wall Street Journal February 15, 2006
^ Press Release of Senator DeWine
^ Dewine Bill as introduced
^ Specter Floor Statement
^ Specter Bill as introduced
^ Specter Offers Compromise on NSA Surveillance, Washington Post, June 9, 2006
^ FIS linking to 2006 FISA Congressional Hearings material
^ Conflicting Bills on Warrantless Surveillance Advance in Senate, Secrecy News, September 14, 2006
^ House Passes Wilson FISA Bill, Press Release, September 29, 2006.
^ Bazan, Elizabeth (2008-02-14). "P.L. 110-55, the Protect America Act of 2007:Modifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 2008-04-29.
^ Sussmann, Michael (2007-08-06). "FISA Amended to Allow Acquisition of Cross-Border Communications Without a Court Order". DigestibleLaw.com. Retrieved 2007-08-11.
^ James Risen and Eric Lichtblau (2007-08-19). "Concerns Raised on Wider Spying Under New Law". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-08-19.
^ Ryan Singel (2007-09-11). "Government Promises to Self-Audit Spying to Make Powers Permanent". Wired News. Retrieved 2007-09-11.
^ Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball (2007-09-12). "Spy Master Admits Error". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 2007-11-05. Retrieved 2007-09-13.
^ Anne Broache (2007-09-12). "President Bush rallies for immortal spy law changes, telco protection". CNET News.com. Retrieved 2007-09-20.
^ Anthony J. Seebok (2008-01-29). "Is It Constitutional for the Senate to Retroactively Immunize From Civil Liability the Telecoms That Provided the Government with Information About Customers' Communications?". FindLaw Writ Legal News and Commentary. Retrieved 2008-02-07.
^ Steven M. Bellovin, Matt Blaze, Whitfield Diffie, Susan Landau, Peter G. Neumann, and Jennifer Rexford (2008-02-05). "Risking Communications Security: Potential Hazards of the Protect America Act" (PDF). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Security and Privacy.doi:10.1109/MSP.2008.17. Retrieved 2008-02-05.
^ Ellen Nakashima (2007-10-07). "Democrats to Offer New Surveillance Rules". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-10-07.
^ David Stout (2007-10-10). "Bush Presses Congress on New Eavesdropping Law". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-10-10.
^ Eric Lichtblau (2007-10-18). "Senate Deal on Immunity for Phone Companies". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-10-18.
^ Pamela Hess (2007-11-15). "Congress Takes Up Terrorist Surveillance". Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-11-15.
^ Pamela Hess (2007-11-15). "House OKs Surveillance Oversight Bill". Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-11-15.
^ Jonathan Weisman (2008-03-15). "House Passes a Surveillance Bill Not to Bush's Liking". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-03-28.
^ Bazan, Elizabeth (2008-02-08). "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Comparison of House-Passed H.R. 3773, S. 2248 as Reported by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and S. 2248 as Reported Out of the Senate Judiciary Committee" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 2008-04-29.
^ Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio debates secret house meeting [1]

[edit]External links

Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance - For Victims Of FISA Abuse
The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act FAQ
EPIC FISA page
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act resources from the Federation of American Scientists
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: A Brief Overview of Selected Issues, Congressional Research Service, February 8, 2008
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: An Overview of the Statutory Framework and Recent Judicial Decisions, Congressional Research Service, September 22, 2004
NOW on PBS Uncovers Surveillance Details Through AT&T Whistleblower
2004 FISA Annual Report to Congress, via FAS
FBI memo, "What do I have to do to get a FISA?
"So Judge, How Do I Get That FISA Warrant?" The Policy and Procedure for Conducting Electronic Surveillance. The Army Lawyer, October 1997
Executive Order 12139 - Jimmy Carter's Executive order to provide as set forth in FISA for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes
Executive Order 12949 - Bill Clinton's Executive order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
David Alan Jordan, Decrypting the Fourth Amendment: Warrantless NSA Surveillance and the Enhanced Expectation of Privacy Provided by Encrypted Voice over Internet Protocol - Boston College Law Review, Vol. 47, 2006
K. A. Taipale, The Ear of Dionysus: Rethinking Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, 9 Yale J. L. & Tech. 128 (Spring 2007).
Plural Politics Protect American Act Plainspeak Legal Primer
Guide to lawful intercept legislation around the world
Prepared Remarks of Kenneth L. Wainstein, Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the Georgetown University Law Center's National Security Center Symposium on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Modernization, September 10, 2007
Department of Justice on FISA and the Protect America Act
OpenCongress on S.2248 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2007
Secret House meeting on FISA
The Need to Roll Back Presidential Power Grabs, by Arlen Specter, The New York Review of Books, Volume 56, Number 8 · May 14, 2009

Global outrage on Military Torture, Beatings, and Violence Against Unarmed Protesters

2012-05-21T14:58:00.000-07:00

Nato makes No mistake killing innocent civilians

Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai has accused NATO of killing eight children in an air strike on the country's territory. The incident adds to the already strained relationship between Afghanistan and its Western allies. See full stories and comments

The May 4 clashes resulted in the arrest of some 350 demonstrators, including 10 children and 16 women. Over 250 of them remain behind bars. HRW conducted extensive interviews with many of those released, collecting testimony from over a dozen who said they were tortured and beaten while in prison.

Female detainee Hagar Abu Khazeem told reporters at a lawyers' syndicate in Cairo on May 12 that she fled to a nearby mosque for protection. "But military police came into the mosque and started yelling at us," she said, according to Reuters. "One soldier pointed a gun at me and next thing I knew he shot at me and the bullet went through my arm.

The soldiers came up to where I was with four other women and around 20 or 30 of them attacked us as if they hated us." Rights groups have accused Egypt's transitional military leadership of launching a covert crackdown on dissent since taking power following the ousting of former President Hosni Mubarak last year. The country is due to hold historic presidential elections next week in a move toward a full transition to civilian leadership.

Military soldiers beat and tortured protesters they arrested at a demonstration near the Defense Ministry on May 4, 2012, Human Rights Watch said today, after interviews with numerous victims and lawyers. The military also failed to protect the protesters from attacks by armed groups in the early morning hours of May 2, at the same demonstration, which began on April 27 in Cairo’s Abbasiyya neighborhood.

The anti-military protests in Cairo's Abbasiyya area began on April 27 but did not turn violent until May 2, when they lead to attacks on demonstrators by unknown assailants -- violence HRW says military forces did little to stop.

The brutal beating of both men and women protesters shows that military officers have no sense of limits on what they can do. The official law enforcement authorities may arrest people where there is evidence of wrongdoing, but it never has the right to beat and torture them.

On May 4, after the protest turned violent, military officers arrested at least 350 protesters, including 10 children and 16 women. They were brought before military prosecutors, who ordered their detention pending trials before military courts. At least 256 remain in detention. Human Rights Watch interviewed many of those who had been released, who gave consistent accounts of torture and beatings during arrest and in detention.

“The brutal beating of both men and women protesters shows that military officers have no sense of limits on what they can do,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The official law enforcement authorities may arrest people where there is evidence of wrongdoing, but it never has the right to beat and torture them.”

The demonstrators gathered in Abbasiyya on April 27 to protest the Supreme Presidential Election Commission’s exclusion of Hazem Abu Ismail as a presidential candidate.

Although there had been some prior scuffles with people in civilian clothes who threw stones at demonstrators at the sit-in, there was no major violence until May 2, according to witnesses and participants, when several dozen armed men without uniforms began shooting rifles and pellet guns at protesters, killing nine protesters and bystanders. Numerous witnesses described how violence and gunfire continued for at least six hours while armed military stationed nearby took no action to prevent it.

The security forces present on the scene and witnessing the violence should have taken all reasonable steps to end it and to protect those there, including arresting those taking part in the violence, especially the armed gang, Human Rights Watch said. The failure of military personnel nearby to intervene to protect lives demonstrated – at a minimum – serious negligence in the performance of their law enforcement duties.

In response to the violence against protesters on May 2, thousands gathered on Friday, May 4 in Abbasiyya, near the Defense Ministry. At a televised news conference on May 3, the day before the planned protest, Gen. Mokhtar al-Molla, a member of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), said: “We have positioned the military to prevent people from approaching the Ministry of Defense. We are protecting them from themselves because if anyone comes near the Ministry of Defense we have a right of legitimate self-defense.”

The military’s role in protecting buildings must be governed by Egypt’s human rights obligations which protect against arbitrary arrest, beatings, and torture of detainees, and the arbitrary use of force – especially lethal force – in law enforcement, Human Rights Watch said.

There has been no accountability for the earlier cases of torture at the hands of the military that Human Rights Watch and Egyptian human rights groups such as the Nadim Center for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Torture have documented over the past year of military rule.

Human Rights Watch interviewed 16 men and women who stated they were tortured by beating, electroshocks, and whipping by military officers on March 9, 2011, on the grounds of the Egyptian Museum, adjacent to Tahrir Square, and on March 6, 2011, in Lazoghli square. The military has not investigated or punished these incidents or similar incidents on December 16, 2011, despite promises to do so.

International human rights law bans trials of civilians before military courts. Nevertheless, the Egyptian military has insisted on continuing to try civilians before military tribunals, on the basis of the 1966 Code of Military Justice. On May 6 the Egyptian parliament approved amendments to the Code of Military Justice that limit only the right of the president to refer civilians to military tribunals and fail to address the broad discretion given to the military in articles 5 and 7 to try civilians.

Over the past year Human Rights Watch has documented at least three other cases in which the military stood by as gangs in civilian clothes, in some cases apparently under military command, and attacked and sometimes arrested protesters. They include incidents at a Tahrir Square protest in March 2011, a protest at Abbasiyya in July, and the Maspero protest in October.

“Egyptians won’t feel secure until there is a law enforcement system they can trust to police demonstrations effectively and protect them from attacks by thugs,” Stork said. “And they won’t feel secure as long as the military beats and tortures people it arrests and then brings them before military courts.”

Dispersal of Protest, Arrests, and Military Trials
At around 3 p.m. on May 4, protesters and troops, separated by barbed wire about 600 meters from the Defense Ministry, started to throw stones at each other, witnesses told Human Rights Watch. The military then used teargas and water cannons and fired blanks to disperse protesters, who started to retreat. Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) then drove through the streets in Abbasiyya and into neighboring Ghamra – a ten-minute drive away – with soldiers firing blanks from the vehicle roofs. In the early evening, General al-Molla announced that the military was imposing an 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew in the area surrounding the Defense Ministry.

The Health Ministry announced on May 5 that it had recorded 373 injuries and one fatality, a soldier.

As they dispersed the protest, military officers arrested at least 350 protesters, bystanders, journalists, and medics. The Front for the Defense of Egyptian Protesters, a coalition of human rights lawyers and nongovernmental organizations, documented many arbitrary arrests, including journalists, medics, and bystanders. The Committee to Protect Journalists documented the assault, arrest, or injury of 18 journalists.

Military prosecutors issued 15-day detention orders for the entire group of 350 pending interrogation, on charges of “illegally demonstrating, entering a military zone, assaulting the authorities, blocking traffic and membership in an illegal group that aims to threaten public order.”

Mohamed Abdelaziz, a lawyer, told Human Rights Watch that the coalition had submitted a request to the head of the military justice system, Gen. Adel Morsy, to transfer the entire case to civilian courts on the grounds that the military’s involvement in the violence would mean that it cannot investigate it with any impartiality. There has been no ruling on this.

Torture, Beatings, and Violence Against Unarmed Protesters
On May 5 military prosecutors released 16 women, and on May 10, 17 men, on grounds that they were students. Over the following week, the prosecutors released 66 others.

Accounts from released detainees, lawyers who were present during their interrogation, and video footage confirm that military police systematically beat both male and female protesters during their arrests. The released detainees also said that beatings continued during detention. One video taken by Rasd News Network shows military police beating protesters with batons as they arrest them. In video footage broadcast live on state TV, at least six military police are seen dragging a bloodstained man with a torn shirt to a wall and beating him with their batons until other officers intervene.

Adel Khattab, one of those released, told Human Rights Watch that military officers had arrested him along with a friend when they were looking for a third friend who had been arrested:

Military soldiers beat us all the way up the street, from the bridge to the hospital. They beat us with their sticks, kicked us, and punched us. At one point there were around 10 or 15 of them beating me. They put us into vans; there were around 25 or 28 of us in one van and there were women with us. I saw soldiers hit them. Then they took us to the military police camp in Khalifa al-Maamoun, where they beat us again. My head was bleeding and my clothes were ripped by the time they brought me after that to the military prosecutor. Then they moved us to Tora prison. When we arrived there we were given a “reception party” where three plainclothes prison officials beat us and whipped us with hoses.

Military officers also beat and arbitrarily arrested women protesters. Hagar Abu Khazeem said at a news conference at the lawyers’ syndicate in Cairo on May 12:

I’d gone into the mosque because things were getting violent outside and I thought I’d be safe in the mosque. But military police came into the mosque and started yelling at us. One soldier pointed a gun at me and next thing I knew he shot at me and the bullet went through my arm. The soldiers came up to where I was with four other women and around 20 or 30 of them attacked us as if they hated us.

Aya, a doctor who had treated injured protesters, had also gone into Nour mosque to escape the violence. In a televised parliamentary hearing, she said:

I saw military police and special forces soldiers come into the mosque and start arresting the protesters inside the mosque. They seemed to be searching for arms but they didn’t find anything. I saw one soldier waving his gun around at us and then heard a shot as he fired. I learned later that he had shot a woman demonstrator in the arm.

Then one of the soldiers pushed me toward the exit to the steps of the mosque. On the steps I saw how they treated both the men and the women: they beat them, slapped in the face, kicked them. They beat me and their hands were touching everywhere in my body... At one point the officer in charge came over and said let this one go and as I followed him I suddenly felt somebody hit me on the head with a heavy stick. I fainted and they carried me to a van; when I came to, there were two other girls there, one of them 14. In the van they beat us again, sexually harassed us, insulted us. One soldier hit me in the eye with his elbow.

When they took us to the military camp they beat us again and threatened us, saying “if you open your mouth we’ll throw you to the soldiers and you know what will happen to you.” I could hear the officers saying to the soldiers, “These are the people who killed hundreds of soldiers.” So now Egyptian soldiers are made to feel that civilians are there to attack them, that we are the enemy, and they congratulate themselves for arresting us.

Abdel Hamid Mekkawy had been protesting on May 5 outside S28, the military base that houses the military courts, in response to the May 4 arrests, along with dozens of others who were chanting anti-military slogans, when military officers arrested him along with nine others. Military prosecutors released him a week later. He told Human Rights Watch:

When they first took me inside the military base they started beating me with sticks and with the end of a gun in my back. They beat me for around an hour. I had long hair at the time and at one point the soldier grabbed me by the hair and banged my head against the wall, again and again. They hit me in the kidneys; everywhere on my body with sticks and with their fists and they kicked me.

Five lawyers from the Front for the Defense of Egyptian Protesters told Human Rights Watch that every detainee they had represented before military prosecutors had been beaten and that prosecutors had consistently failed to investigate their torture, neither questioning them about who had beaten them nor referring them to forensic medical doctors, the only officials competent according to Egyptian law to issue a medical report that can be admitted as evidence of torture.

One of the lawyers, Mahmoud Fathelbab, said he had attended the interrogations of five journalists who all had visible injuries and that in all but one case the prosecutors had failed to ask the detainees about their beating. In the one case where the prosecutor had noted the protester’s injuries, he had failed to order a referral to a forensic medical doctor.

Tamer Baza, another lawyer, said that he had been present during the interrogation of 10 detainees who had clear marks of whipping on their backs and that three had stitches in their heads. He told Human Rights Watch:

The detainees had been too scared to formally file a beating complaint. They see the judge in front of them who is a ranked military officer and if they speak of having been tortured it’s as if they are accusing him. So they don’t say anything because all they want is to be released and they are scared that bringing up torture will mean further detention.

Mohamed Abdelaziz, a third lawyer, told Human Rights Watch that he had filed a torture complaint before the public prosecutor on behalf of a released protester, Halim Heneish, whom military officers had beaten on the head with the back of a gun.

Failure to Protect: May 2 Attack on Protesters by Gangs
Human Rights Watch spoke to protesters, witnesses, and medics who described the armed attack between 1 and 4 a.m. on May 2 in Abbasiya Square and along the road leading to the Defense Ministry.

One protester, Ibrahim, who would give only his first name, told Human Rights Watch that he had seen a group of at least 50 men carrying guns and sticks. Ahmed Aggour, another protester, told Human Rights Watch that at around 1:30 a.m., he was near the Noor mosque:

There were armed thugs in the side streets and at the gas station. The thugs shot at us with pellets and guns. Those in the front were the ones most likely to be shot. I saw four men shot in front of me. One of them was a doctor who was trying to treat an injured man.

Abdel Karim said he had gone into Abbasiya Square along with other protesters at around 2 a.m. and that after hours of exchanges of stone-throwing and running back and forth, a man in civilian clothes shot him in the right foot with a rubber pellet gun.

Doctors on duty in the field hospital set up at the site told Human Rights Watch that they started receiving gunshot victims just after 1 a.m. Dr. Saleh Mohamed said that he had received the bodies of five people killed by gunshots, three people wounded by gunshots, and scores of people with minor injuries from rubber pellets.

The Health Ministry confirmed nine deaths. Dr. Ashraf Refai told the Egyptian daily Al Shorouk that the seven autopsies conducted at Zeinhom morgue had concluded that six deaths were caused by live ammunition, including three of people with head wounds, and that one death was caused by pellets in the chest. Maha Maamoun, a lawyer with the Hisham Mubarak Law Center, told Human Rights Watch that she was at Zeinhom morgue while the autopsies were being conducted and that two of those killed were residents of Abbasiya who had been shot next to their homes

Protesters told Human Rights Watch that between 8 and 9 a.m. on May 2, military police and riot police approached Abbasiya Square and stationed themselves between the sit-in and the armed groups, which effectively ended the violence.

The witnesses who spoke with Human Rights Watch said that the military made no effort to intervene during the height of the violence, despite being stationed at the ministry of defense nearby. Karim Ennarah, a protester who was present from 2:30 a.m. to 6 a.m., told Human Rights Watch that the military had remained stationed at the barricade on the street leading to the Defense Ministry and within clear earshot of the shooting.

Another protester, Mahmoud, who said he was there from midnight to 6:30 a.m., told Human Rights Watch, “As in previous days, the army and central security forces were standing and watching us.”

The World Government conspiratorial control over global environment release

2012-05-19T17:14:00.004-07:00

The anti-globalization movement, or counter-globalisation movement, is critical of the globalization of corporate capitalism. The movement is also commonly referred to as the global justice movement, alter-globalization movement, anti-globalist movement, anti-corporate globalization movement, or movement against neoliberal globalization. Participants base their criticisms on a number of related ideas. What is shared is that participants stand in opposition to large, multi-national corporations having unregulated political power and to the powers exercised through trade agreements and deregulated financial markets.

Specifically, corporations are accused of seeking to maximize profit at the expense of sabotaging work safety conditions and standards, labor hiring and compensation standards, environmental conservation principles, and the integrity of national legislative authority, independence and sovereignty. Recent developments, seen as unprecedented changes in the global economy, have been characterized as "turbo-capitalism" (Edward Luttwak), "market fundamentalism" (George Soros), "casino capitalism" (Susan Strange), "cancer-stage capitalism" (John McMurtry), and as "McWorld" (Benjamin Barber).
Many anti-globalization activists generally call for forms of global integration that better provide democratic representation, advancement of human rights, fair trade and sustainable development and therefore feel the term "anti-globalization" is misleading.

In the documentary, director Jones describes the Bilderberg Group, tracking them to Ottawa and Istanbul to document their private meetings and reveals an alleged eugenics-obsessed group of global elite whose mission is the elimination of most of the earth’s population and the enslavement of the rest. He covers the formation of the North American transportation control grid including its first phase the NAFTA superhighway, discusses the pseudo-science eugenics used by governments, and describes the goals of the elites for the creation of a North American Union.

Alexander Emerick "Alex" Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American talk radio host, actor and filmmaker. His syndicated news/talk show The Alex Jones Show, based in Austin, Texas, airs via the Genesis Communication Network over 60 AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations across the United States and on the Internet. His websites include Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com.
Mainstream sources have described Jones as a conservative and as a right-wing conspiracy theorist. Jones sees himself as a libertarian, and rejects being described as a right-winger. He has also called himself a paleoconservative and an "aggressive constitutionalist". Alex Jones has been the center of many controversies. Jones has accused the US government of being involved in the Oklahoma City bombing and September 11 attacks.

The Alex Jones Show syndicated radio program is broadcast nationally by Genesis Communications Network to more than 60 AM and FM radio stations in the United States, and to WWCR Radio shortwave. Live-broadcast times are weekdays 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. CST and Sundays from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. CST. The Sunday broadcast is also broadcast by Emmis Communications' KLBJ Radio.
Alex Jones is also the operator of several web sites centered on news and information about civil liberties issues, global government, and a wide variety of current events topics. Several of these sites are www.infowars.com, www.prisonplanet.tv, www.prisonplanet.com, and www.jonesreport.com.

Jones has directed and produced a number of videos detailing his theories of a "New World Order" and his concerns that U.S. national sovereignty and constitutional rights have both been eroded as a result. They also address his views concerning the misuse of government power, corporate deception and collusion between disparate power structures.

Jones has directed and produced a number of videos detailing his theories of a "New World Order" and his concerns that U.S. national sovereignty and constitutional rights have both been eroded as a result. They also address his views concerning the misuse of government power, corporate deception and collusion between disparate power structures.

Films

Alex Jones and fans at the Première of A Scanner Darkly

Alex Jones with 9/11 truth on September 11, 2007 in downtown Manhattan

Year	Film	Notes
1998	America: Destroyed by Design
1999	Police State 2000
1999	Are You Practicing Communism?	Produced by Mike Hanson
2000	America Wake Up or Waco
2000	The Best of Alex Jones
2000	Dark Secrets Inside Bohemian Grove
2000	Police State II: The Takeover
2001	Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports: Exposed
2001	911 The Road to Tyranny: Special Emergency Release
2002	911 The Road to Tyranny
2002	The Masters of Terror: Exposed
2003	Matrix of Evil
2003	Police State 3: Total Enslavement
2004	American Dictators: Documenting the Staged Election of 2004
2005	Martial Law 9-11: Rise of the Police State
2005	The Order of Death
2006	TerrorStorm: A History of Government-Sponsored Terrorism
2007	Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement
2007	Endgame 1.5
2007	TerrorStorm: A History of Government-Sponsored Terrorism - Second Edition
2007	Loose Change: Final Cut by Dylan Avery	Executive producer
2008	The 9/11 Chronicles: Part 1, Truth Rising
2008	Fabled Enemies by Jason Bermas	Producer
2009	DVD Arsenal: The Alex Jones Show Vols. 1—3
2009	The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
2009	Fall of the Republic: Vol. 1, The Presidency of Barack H. Obama
2009	Reflections and Warnings: An Interview with Aaron Russo
2010	Police State IV: The Rise Of FEMA
2010	Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined by Jason Bermas	Producer
2010	The Fall of America and the Western World by Brian Kraft	Featured
2012	New World Order: Blueprint of Madmen

Author

Year	Book	Publisher
2002	9-11: Descent Into Tyranny	Progressive Press

Film subject

Year	Film	Notes
2003	Aftermath: Unanswered Questions from 9/11	by Stephen Marshall
2009	New World Order	by Luke Meyer and Andrew Neel

Acting

Jones has appeared in two Richard Linklater movies as a supporting actor.

Year	Film	Role
2001	Waking Life	Man in Car with P.A.
2006	A Scanner Darkly	Street Prophet

Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

2012-05-17T18:40:00.001-07:00

Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, issued the following statement following the introduction today of the Voter Empowerment Act in the House of Representatives: “Today’s introduction of the Voter Empowerment Act sends a powerful and timely message about the importance of eliminating barriers to voting and improving the administration of our elections. Our nation is strong when our democracy is strong, and our democracy is strongest when every citizen has free and full access to the voting booth.

The ability to cast a vote and have that vote count is the most precious civil right in America. But as we approach an election with so much at stake, we’re seeing new efforts in states across the country to exclude citizens from registering and voting on a scale unheard of since passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The days of poll taxes, literacy tests, and brutal physical intimidation may be behind us, but today’s disenfranchisement tactics aimed at minority communities, while more subtle, are no less pernicious. Last year, 14 states passed restrictions on the right to vote. This year, similar legislation is pending in 24 states. None of these measures will improve elections; they will only suppress voter participation.

The Voter Empowerment Act is a comprehensive plan to strengthen elections, combat voter exclusion, and expand voter participation. We applaud the bill’s sponsors and urge the House to give it serious consideration as soon as possible.”

Wade Henderson is the president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the rights of all persons in the United States. The Leadership Conference works toward an America as good as its ideals.

The Leadership Conference is the nation's premier civil and human rights coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States. Through advocacy and outreach to targeted constituencies, The Leadership Conference works toward the goal of a more open and just society. The Education Fund builds public will for civil and human rights through campaigns that empower and mobilize civil and human rights advocates around the country to push for progressive change.

Mr. Henderson is also the Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Professor of Public Interest Law at the David A. Clarke School of Law, University of the District of Columbia. Mr. Henderson is well known for his expertise on a wide range of civil rights, civil liberties, and human rights issues, and is the author of numerous articles on civil rights and public policy issues. Since taking the helm of The Leadership Conference in June 1996, Mr. Henderson has worked diligently to address emerging policy issues of concern to the civil and human rights community and to strengthen the effectiveness of the coalition. Under his stewardship, The Leadership Conference has become one of the nation's most effective advocates for civil and human rights.

“I am pleased that President Obama today took a very important step forward in his support for civil and human rights by expressing his personal support for marriage equality. As a lifelong civil and human rights advocate, I have always believed that civil rights are measured by a single yardstick. When the government bestows inheritance rights, tax benefits, adoption rights, child custody, power of attorney, and other privileges on married individuals – but denies those same basic privileges to gays and lesbians – it is a blunt and injurious denial of equality and family security.

I believe that gays and lesbians deserve the same marriage rights and privileges as the rest of us. Anything less is an insult to the institution of the American family. President Obama’s support for marriage equality is a powerful reaffirmation of our belief in equal treatment under the law.”

Georgia State violates constitutional rights of federal immigration detainees with violence

2012-05-17T17:32:00.002-07:00

ATLANTA — Suspected illegal immigrants in Georgia are suffering from a “systemic violation ... of civil and human rights” during their confinement in “substandard” federal immigration detention facilities, including Stewart Detention Center, the largest of its kind in the nation, according to a new report by the state's chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The 182-page report, released Wednesday, immediately added fuel to the hot-burning debate over illegal immigration in this Deep South state, where the presence of an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants — the seventh-largest population in the nation — has transformed large swaths of both cities and countryside.

D.A. King, a prominent supporter of stricter illegal immigration policies here, dismissed the document as a “pseudo-report” that relied too heavily on the testimony of detainees, who, by the nature of their circumstances, would tend to be in a complaining mood.

King, president of the activist group the Dustin Inman Society, added in an interview that the ACLU “is leading the anti-enforcement charge here in Georgia.... Their goal here is to stop any enforcement of U.S. immigration law.”

Officials from U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and an attorney for Detention Management LLC, the owner of the Irwin Center, did not respond to queries about the investigation.

But Steve Owen, a spokesman for the Corrections Corp. of America, which operates Stewart and the North Georgia Detention Center, called the report an “unfortunate example of the lack of seriousness with which ACLU lawyers approach the very real and practical challenges our nation faces in safely, humanely and cost effectively housing our immigrant detainee population.”

Owen said in an interview that the ACLU ignored or underplayed CCA responses to some of the criticisms of its facility. Those responses argued that the facilities featured clean cells, with a “robust and effective” grievance process at Stewart. The company also argued that some of the allegations were unsubstantiated or incorrect.

For Anton Flores-Maisonet, co-founder of Alterna, a Georgia-based immigrant rights ministry, the report bolstered his long-standing contention that suspected illegal immigrants in federal detention centers were being treated like criminals, or worse, when in fact many of them were guilty of violating only civil immigration statutes.

“I think every American, regardless of how knowledgeable they are about the complexities of our broken immigration system, should be able to agree to some codified, basic human rights minimums as to what we do with individuals we've chosen to detain for immigration purposes,” he told the Los Angeles Times.

The report, “Prisoners of Profit,” was based on documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, as well as tours and interviews at Georgia's four federal immigration facilities.

Three of those facilities, including the 1,750-bed Stewart Detention Center, are run by private corporations. The report challenges the wisdom of the private model, alleging the “systemic violation of immigrant detainees’ civil and human rights while detained in substandard prison-like conditions ill suited for civil detainees.”

The report highlights a number of instances in which detainees were allegedly coerced by staffers at the centers into signing “Stipulated Orders of Removal,” which allow them to be deported without a court hearing.

In some cases, guards at the jails allegedly screamed at and threatened immigrants who would not sign the orders. In two cases, a officer allegedly physically forced immigrants to sign.

The report also alleges that detainees are not given information about pro bono legal services, denied adequate medical care, and subject to regulations that could violate attorney-client confidentiality rights.

Hygiene was also a concern: At the privately run Irwin County Detention Center, female detainees are provided with used underwear and, in at least one case, a woman was given “soiled” underwear, causing her to suffer from an infection that left her legs and genitals scarred, according to the report.

Last year, Georgia passed a tough illegal immigration crackdown law, but parts of it are on hold until the U.S. Supreme Court renders a decision on a similar law passed in Arizona in 2010.

US military uses remote-controlled drones killing over 2000 total civilians in Pakistan and Somalia

2012-05-13T19:32:00.001-07:00

Somalias al-Shabab fighters say a US assassination drone attack has left at least 38 people dead and dozens of others wounded in the Horn of Africa state, Press TV reports. The airstrike is said to have taken place in Somalia\'s southwestern district of Badade, a Press TV correspondent reported.

The US military uses remote-controlled drones in Somalia for reconnaissance operations and targeted killings. Washington has been carrying out assassination attacks using the unmanned aircraft in other countries including Afghanistan, Libya Pakistan, and Yemen. Washington claims the CIA-run strikes are meant to eliminate militants, but witness reports and figures offered by local authorities indicate the attacks have led to massive civilian deaths in these countries.

The United Nations has slammed the assassination drone attacks as targeted killings, saying that they pose a challenge to international law. Ten years ago, the United States Air Force successfully launched a missile from a Predator drone for the first time at a test range in the Nevada desert.

While unmanned aerial vehicles (or drones as they are commonly known) had previously been used in military operations for reconnaissance, surveillance and targeting purposes,this was a significant point in the evolution of military drones. Just months later, in the aftermath of ‘9/11’, the first operational armed strike by a remote controlled unmanned drone took place in Afghanistan, when a CIAoperated Predator drone attacked al-Qaeda leader Mohammed Atef. According to media reports, Atef was killed along with seven other people.

Since that first attack, the use of armed drones has risen, slowly at first but more dramatically since 2009, to the point where at times drone strikes are almost a daily occurrence. In 2011 the use of drones continued to rise with drone strikes in at least six countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Gaza).

While the vast majority of these strikes were carried out by the United States, the UK also uses armed drones, announcing in September 2011 that it had reached the ‘landmark’ of 200 drone strikes in Afghanistan; Israel continued to use armed drones in the Occupied Territories and the Italian air force flew Reaper drones during the Libyan conflict. With both the Unites States and the UK announcing
that they are to double the size of their drone fleet, and with fifty countries reportedly developing or buying unmanned aerial vehicles, drone strikes can only increase.

As the use of drones expands however, controversy about their use also grows. Supporters of armed drones argue that their ability to loiter over a particular area together with their highly accurate sensors and cameras gives the ability to have increased control over when and where to strike, thus enabling greater accuracy and less ‘collateral damage’. Opponents argue that by removing one of the key restraints to warfare – the risk to one’s own forces – unmanned systems make undertaking armed attacks too easy and will make war more likely.

The ‘persistent presence’ of drones over a particular area looking for suspicious behavior and ‘targets of opportunity’ is also leading, it is suggested, to large numbers of civilian casualties, while legal experts and human rights organisations have condemned the rise in targeted extra-judicial killing enabled by the use of armed drones. Despite the increased use of armed drones – and the controversy surrounding their use – accessible, accurate and reliable information about drones, about how they are being used and about future developments remains difficult to find.

Watchkeeper and Hermes 450
While the Watchkeeper drone was originally supposed to be in service with UK forces in Afghanistan by February 2010, delays pushed back the in-service date until 2011 and then early 2012. By early 2011 over 200 Watch keeper test flights had taken place in Israel, while test flights of the Watch keeper continued at Parc Aberporth in West Wales throughout 2011 where by September 230 test flight had taken place.

In January 2011, Amnesty International criticised the fact that British army personnel were in Israel being trained to use the Watchkeeper drone. Amnesty International UK Campaigns Director Tim Hancock told Sky News 8 "It would seem wholly inappropriate for UK forces to be trained in the use of drones by a country with a track record of applying this technology in grave abuses of people's human rights." In May 2011 British Army personnel also began training to use Watch keeper at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire from where the aircraft will be flown in airspace specially allocated for UAV flying around the Salisbury Plain Training Area.

Meanwhile use of the ‘stop gap’ Hermes 450 drone by British forces in Afghanistan continued with Thales announcing in September 2011 that over 50,000 flight hours had been achieved.

Reaper
In May 2011, the British MoD announced that a second RAF squadron would be formed to ‘fly’ Reaper drones in addition to the RAF 39 Squadron, based at Creech USAF base in Nevada. The new RAF 13 Squadron will be based at RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire meaning that for the first time Reaper drones would be controlled from the UK.

It is thought that the RAF will also continue to control British Reapers from Creech in the US and may maintain a presence there in the long term. In July 2011 the Ministry of Defence confirmed that a British Reaper strike in March 2011 had mistakenly killed four Afghan civilians and injured two others.

The revelation came after a NATO ISAF investigation into the attack. Local reports suggest that children had been among the casualties but this has not been possible to confirm. At the end of July 2011 Armed Force Minister, Nick Harvey visited the RAF Reaper drone pilots in Las Vegas to congratulate them on their work. In September 2011 RAF Wing Commander Gary Coleman briefed defence industry delegates on Reaper operations at a UAV conference. His presentation, obtained by Drone Wars UK under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that:

• From mid-2012 there will be 44 Reaper crews operating UK Reapers with three Reapers constantly flying 24/7
• Hellfire missiles are three times more likely to be used in British drone strikes than the 500lb Paveway bomb
• If “lower yield weapons” had been available more strikes would have been undertaken
• Reaper “mishaps” [i.e. crashes] happen approximately every 10,000 hours of flying
• There are “Fatigue and Psychological stressors” on personnel operating Reaper 9 A report on the conference by a journalist from the military press revealed that the stresses on drone pilots included the fact that Reaper crews were away from family and friends for a long times as they were deployed to Creech on three - year postings, as well as the fact that time differences meant that crews were
operating Reaper drones on night shifts.

These factors may well have contributed to decision to control Reapers from the UK in future. In April the MoD announced that it had reached a significant landmark in its operation of Reaper drones - 20,000 operational flying hours over Afghanistan.

In September another milestone was passed – the 200 th British drone strike. As always details about the circumstances of the strike remain secret.

200,000 African-American and Hispanic Borrowers Charged Higher Fees on loans from racial bias banks

2012-05-10T16:25:00.000-07:00

Bank of America agreed to pay a $335 million settlement Wednesday over alleged claims of racial bias in home mortgage lending involving Countrywide Mortgage, which the bank bought in 2008. Jeffrey Brown discusses the investigation and settlement with Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

Justice Department Reaches $335 Million Settlement to Resolve Allegations of Lending Discrimination by Countrywide Financial Corporation

More than 200,000 African-American and Hispanic Borrowers who Qualified for Loans were Charged Higher Fees or Placed into Subprime Loans

The Department of Justice today filed its largest residential fair lending settlement in history to resolve allegations that Countrywide Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries engaged in a widespread pattern or practice of discrimination against qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers in their mortgage lending from 2004 through 2008.

The settlement provides $335 million in compensation for victims of Countrywide’s discrimination during a period when Countrywide originated millions of residential mortgage loans as one of the nation’s largest single-family mortgage lenders.

The settlement, which is subject to court approval, was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in conjunction with the department’s complaint which alleges that Countrywide discriminated by charging more than 200,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers higher fees and interest rates than non-Hispanic white borrowers in both its retail and wholesale lending. The complaint alleges that these borrowers were charged higher fees and interest rates because of their race or national origin, and not because of the borrowers’ creditworthiness or other objective criteria related to borrower risk.

The United States also alleges that Countrywide discriminated by steering thousands of African-American and Hispanic borrowers into subprime mortgages when non-Hispanic white borrowers with similar credit profiles received prime loans. All the borrowers who were discriminated against were qualified for Countrywide mortgage loans according to Countrywide’s own underwriting criteria.

“The department’s action against Countrywide makes clear that we will not hesitate to hold financial institutions accountable, including one of the nation’s largest, for lending discrimination,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “These institutions should make judgments based on applicants’ creditworthiness, not on the color of their skin. With today’s settlement, the federal government will ensure that the more than 200,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers who were discriminated against by Countrywide will be entitled to compensation.”

The settlement resolves the United States’ pricing and steering claims against Countrywide for its discrimination against African Americans and Hispanics.

The United States’ complaint alleges that African-American and Hispanic borrowers paid more than non-Hispanic white borrowers, not based on borrower risk, but because of their race or national origin. Countrywide’s business practice allowed its loan officers and mortgage brokers to vary a loan’s interest rate and other fees from the price it set based on the borrower’s objective credit-related factors . This subjective and unguided pricing discretion resulted in African American and Hispanic borrowers paying more. The complaint further alleges that Countrywide was aware the fees and interest rates it was charging discriminated against African-American and Hispanic borrowers, but failed to impose meaningful limits or guidelines to stop it.
“Countrywide’s actions contributed to the housing crisis, hurt entire communities, and denied families access to the American dream,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “We are using every tool in our law enforcement arsenal, including some that were dormant for years, to go after institutions of all sizes that discriminated against families solely because of their race or national origin.”

The United States’ complaint also alleges that, as a result of Countrywide’s policies and practices, qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers were placed in subprime loans rather than prime loans even when similarly-qualified non-Hispanic white borrowers were placed in prime loans. The discriminatory placement of borrowers in subprime loans, also known as “steering,” occurred because it was Countrywide’s business practice to allow mortgage brokers and employees to place a loan applicant in a subprime loan even when the applicant qualified for a prime loan . In addition, Countrywide gave mortgage brokers discretion to request exceptions to the underwriting guidelines, and Countrywide’s employees had discretion to grant these exceptions.

This is the first time that the Justice Department has alleged and obtained relief for borrowers who were steered into loans based on race or national origin, a practice that systematically placed borrowers of color into subprime mortgage loan products while placing non-Hispanic white borrowers with similar creditworthiness in prime loans. By steering borrowers into subprime loans from 2004 to 2007, the complaint alleges, Countrywide harmed those qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers. Subprime loans generally carried higher-cost terms, such as prepayment penalties and exploding adjustable interest rates that increased suddenly after two or three years, making the payments unaffordable and leaving the borrowers at a much higher risk of foreclosure.

The settlement also resolves the department’s claim that Countrywide violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by discriminating on the basis of marital status against non-applicant spouses of borrowers by encouraging them to sign away their home ownership rights . The law allows married individuals to apply for credit either in their own name or jointly with their spouse, even when the property is owned by both spouses. For applications made by married individuals applying solely in their own name between 2004 and 2008, Countrywide encouraged non-applicant spouses to sign quitclaim deeds or other documents transferring their legal rights and interests in jointly-held property to the borrowing spouse. Non-applicant spouses who execute a quitclaim deed risk substantial uncertainty and financial loss by losing all their rights and interests in the property securing the loan.

In addition, the settlement requires Countrywide to implement policies and practices to prevent discrimination if it returns to the lending business during the next four years. Countrywide currently operates as a subsidiary of Bank of America but does not originate new loans.

The department’s investigation into Countrywide’s lending practices began after referrals by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Office of Thrift Supervision to the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division in 2007 and 2008 for potential patterns or practices of discrimination by Countrywide.

Today’s announcement is part of efforts underway by President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF). President Obama established the interagency FFETF to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes. For more information on the task force, visit www.StopFraud.gov .

A copy of the complaint and proposed settlement order, as well as additional information about fair lending enforcement by the Justice Department, can be obtained from the Justice Department website at www.justice.gov/fairhousing .

The proposed settlement provides for an independent administrator to contact and distribute payments of compensation at no cost to borrowers whom the Justice Department identifies as victims of Countrywide’s discrimination. The department will make a public announcement and post contact information on its website once an administrator is chosen. Borrowers who are eligible for compensation from the settlement will then be contacted by the administrator. Individuals who believe that they may have been victims of lending discrimination by Countrywide and have questions about the settlement may email the department at countrywide.settlement@usdoj.gov .

Oakland police brutality at its worst with federal judge threatening military intervention

2012-05-02T19:03:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday, the celebration of May Day in Oakland, California led to the arrests of 25 people. There were several clashes between protesters and the police force, even though Oakland law enforcement has been criticized in the past for its heavy-handed tactics against non-violent protesters. Jessica Hollie, an Occupy Oakland blogger, gives us her firsthand account of May Day in Oakland.

Yesterday, a federal judge ordered Oakland’s police department to submit a plan to address numerous unresolved complaints regarding their handling of the Occupy Oakland protests, warning that failure to comply within a week could lead to sanctions. District Judge Thelton Henderson’s mandate comes just a day after the release of a report by an outside monitor that concluded Oakland police used “an overwhelming military-type response” to Occupy’s demonstrations — the first official report to confirm Occupy Oakland’s struggles against police brutality.

The Oakland police department has received more than 1,000 misconduct complaints since the Occupy protests began, most have which have become backlogged. The department has been under court-ordered external monitoring and review since 2003, after four officers were accused of planting evidence, fabricating police reports and using excessive force. Henderson’s mandate sets strict deadlines for the department to clean up its act while continuing to comply with the reforms that stemmed from that 2003 case:

HENDERSON: It would be problematic enough if, as seems inevitable, [Oakland police's] compliance levels were to backslide as a result of their failure to address the Occupy Oakland complaints in a timely fashion. Such failures would be further indication that, despite the changed leadership at the City of Oakland and its police department, [Oakland police] might still lack the will, capacity, or both to complete the reforms to which they so long ago agreed. The court will consider appropriate sanctions, including the imposition of daily or weekly monetary sanctions, until compliance is achieved.

The Oakland police force’s clashes with Occupy demonstrators have been well-documented on ThinkProgress. On October 25, police attempted to subdue protesters with heavy-handed tactics such as rubber bullets, flash grenades, and smoke bombs — and ended up injuring an Iraq War veteran in the process. The Oakland police department later rejected an ACLU public records request to investigate the October events, and Oakland Mayor Jean Quan’s legal adviser resigned in outrage over the city’s treatment of the Occupy protesters.

Vietnam's activists demand immediate release of everyone arbitrarily detained and imprisoned.

2012-04-21T22:50:00.003-07:00

Blogger Nguyen Van Hai (pen name Dieu Cay) has drawn the ire of the Vietnamese government with his human rights promotion and criticism of the authorities. They have kept him behind bars since 2008, and during the past 18 months, his family and lawyers have had no access to him. In April, he is brought to trial for the second time, now under national security legislation for his peaceful blogging.

The human rights situation in Vietnam is poor and worsening, with a steady stream of people being locked up for nothing more than exercising their rights. Vietnam's development donors should publicly express unstinting support for Vietnam's courageous activists and demand the immediate release of everyone who has been arbitrarily detained and imprisoned.

On October 19th 2010 Nguyen Van Hai was due to be released after serving two and half years in prison for tax evasion. On the same day, his family was informed that he would not be let out. Instead, Van Hai was accused of spreading “propaganda against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam” (Article 88 of the Vietnamese Penal Code).

Van Hai is considered one of Vietnam’s most influential bloggers. Writing under the pen name Dieu Cay, he was a pioneer when blogging first took off in Vietnam in 2007. “Dieu Cay” is Vietnamese for a peasant’s water pipe, and he chose the name to lend support and give a voice to poor and marginalized groups in Vietnam.

Van Hai started campaigning for social justice after a wave of demonstrations of farmers in Ho Chi Minh City in 2007. Farmers from several Western provinces gathered to protest at inadequate compensation after the authorities had confiscated their land. Police used force to break up the demonstrations. Van Hai met some of the protesters, and was taken by their stories, which he wrote down in a book. He later said that he shared their burden and wanted to stand up for their rights.

After following demonstrations for better working conditions for shoe factory workers in 2008, he also expressed how he saw their vulnerability as his own:

“As of today I stand on the side of the workers union, and I am with them in their struggle because I have become one of them. Side by side with my brothers and sisters, I will fight to the end.

I am blessed for life to give me such wonderful friends. Let us hope the moment comes soon when all of my colleagues will prevail.”(excerpt from his blog)

With some fellow activists, Van Hai established The Club of Free Journalists, a blogger network that quickly rose to prominence. They all wrote about issues such as corruption, the political relationship to China, social injustice, and the lack of human rights.

Since 2008, the authorities have silenced this independent voice by keeping Van Hai in continuous imprisonment. Already in May 2009, The UN Working group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that his detention was contrary to international law.

After one and a half years in incommunicado detention, on 29 March he finally allowed to meet his lawyer in a detention center in Ho Chi Minh City. He was sick and had lost a lot of weight. His family has not yet been able to meet with him.

In April 2012, Van Hai will face trial again. It is crucial that both media and foreign diplomats will seek to monitor the trial to ensure maximum visibility to Van Hai’s case. The trial is expected to take place in mid-April. Two other bloggers will stand trial at the same time, also charged with crimes against national security for their peaceful writing.

It remains unclear which prison or prisons he has been in since October 2010. What is clear, however, is that the conditions in Vietnamese prisons are very poor and prisoners depend on food supplements from relatives and friends. This is one reason why Van Hai’s wife Duong Thi Tan has been very worried about his wellbeing. She has repeatedly sought permission from prison authorities to visit him to hand over food and other supplies. But the food packages were never delivered. Once it was even returned to her with the explanation “he refuses to accept them.”

Civil Rights Defenders believes that the charges against Nguyen Van Hai have been politically motivated, in order to stop his hard-hitting criticism and his defence of human rights. The first trial was far from fair and did not live up to international standards.

Bio: Nguyen Van Hai

About 60 years old.

Has served in the military.

Married.

Van Hai’s pen name: Dieu Cay, means something like “farmers water pipe”. These water pipes, made out of Bamboo, are used by farmers to smoke tobacco. It is a symbol for farmers, poor people.

Together with other bloggers Van Hai formed the Organisation for Independent Journalists (Câu Lạc Bộ Nhà Báo Tự Do).

In 2008 Van Hai received an award by Vietnam Human Rights Network because of his commitment for freedom of speech. In the following year Van Hai also received the Hellman/Hammett-award by Human Rights Watch.

Human rights at risk in Vietnam
Ngyuen Van Hai’s case is no exception in Vietnam. It is part of a system based on surveillance, censorship and threats to restrict the right to freedom of expression. To stifle voices they do not tolerate, the authorities routinely press trumped up criminal charges against people who raise peaceful criticism, including human rights defenders.

Vietnam is “the world’s second biggest prison for netizens after China,” according to Reporters without Borders in its 2012 Internet Enemies report. The report highlights imprisonment and other repression against netizens, i.e. online activists, worldwide.

There is a tendency to overlook Vietnam’s human rights abuse. China and Burma inadvertently steal the human rights limelight, leaving Vietnam to look like the good guy in the region. Clearly, it is not.

Independent media is illegal and blogs are prohibited from disseminating ‐ and even linking ‐ content that opposes the government. Bloggers and online journalists are subject to arbitrary detention and lengthy prison terms for expressing views that the government considers harmful to national security or disturbing to the social order.

Despite repression and control, growing numbers of Vietnamese people are braving the threats, finding ways to voice their views about issues like corruption, government policies towards China, land grabbing and police violence. And they appear increasingly strategic about how to keep up their activism without risking arrest.

Facts Vietnam
Capital: Hanoi
Population: 89 million (UN, 2010)
Life expectancy: 73 years (men), 77 years (women) (UN)
Religion: Buddhism
President: Truong Tan Sang
Other: After three decades of wars, in 1975 Vietnam became a unified country once again. Today Vietnam is one of the fastest-growing economies in Southeast Asia. In 2007 Vietnam joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Justice for teenager Trayvon Martin leads to March on washington

2012-04-08T08:03:00.001-07:00

Hundreds of protesters marched in Washington on Saturday to demand “Justice for Trayvon,” the Florida teen who was shot and killed in February.
The protest was largely organized by Howard University students. Corryn Freeman, one of the organizers, said, “We want an arrest [in Martin's death], but that’s not where it’s going to stop. George Zimmerman [who said he killed Martin in self-defense] is just a symptom of the big problem. Racism is the big problem.”

The "hoodie" was once just a staple of casual streetwear. Now it's a symbol of racial profiling. Protestors sporting "hoodies" marched through the nation's capital Saturday, demanding justice for African-American youth Trayvon Martin who was fatally shot while wearing a "hoodie" in late February by community watch volunteer George Zimmerman.
“Trayvon Martin, Emmett Till: How many more youth will they kill?” the protesters chanted as they marched more than two miles from Meridian Hill Park, also known as Malcolm X Park, to Freedom Plaza.

Humam Abdul Malik of Southeast Washington, who marched Saturday with his 13-year-old son, said protests would continue in the District and across the country until Zimmerman is tried before a jury.

“It ain’t a race issue; it’s a justice issue,” Malik said. “Let him go to court, and if he’s innocent, let it be proven there. That’s the system.”

Hundreds of people joined in Saturday’s march, which stretched nearly a city block at times.

The protest was largely organized by Howard University students, who said they want more than Zimmerman’s arrest. They are seeking reform of the justice system that so far has allowed Zimmerman to walk free — and that has resulted in what they said is the racial profiling and wrongful deaths of too many young black Americans.

“We want an arrest, but that’s not where it’s going to stop,” said Corryn Freeman, a Howard University senior who helped organize the march. “George Zimmerman is just a symptom of the big problem. Racism is the big problem.”

Upon reaching Freedom Plaza, the marchers sang “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” often called “the black national anthem,” and watched a reenactment of Martin’s shooting and its aftermath by Howard’s theater group, the Howard Players.

The mother of 26-year-old Emmanuel Okutuga, who was fatally shot by a Montgomery County police officer last year, clutched a photograph of her son. “This happens too often,” she said. “There are too many Trayvons out there.”

More than a dozen speakers, many of them local university students and activists, urged members of the crowd to harness their anger and turn it into durable change through community organizing and advocacy.

“It’s time to stop complaining; it’s time to get to work,” said Rashiah Greene of the National Black United Front, a national coalition of activists.

D.C. environmental justice advocate Kari Fulton said marchers need to start lobbying politicians and lodging public comments with local, state and federal agencies.

“We gotta take our hoodies to the Hill,” she said. “Don’t let this be the day that you put your right fist up, and then you walk away.”
Martin was fatally shot in February as he walked toward a home in a gated community while wearing a hooded sweatshirt and carrying a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea. His shooter was volunteer neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman, who has said he acted in self-defense and has not been charged.

Legal counsel for George Zimmerman: Shooting of Trayvon Martin wasn't racially motivated

The legal counsel for George Zimmerman says the shooting of Trayvon Martin wasn't racially motivated.
Updated at 7:48 a.m. ET: Florida’s 2005 “Stand Your Ground” law, which says a citizen doesn’t have to retreat before using deadly force against an attacker, could throw a legal wrinkle into the case of a neighborhood watch captain who shot to death an unarmed black teenager.

Police in the central Florida town of Sanford have said that 28-year-old George Zimmerman says he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in self-defense during a confrontation in a gated community. Police have described Zimmerman as white; his family says he is Hispanic and not racist.Legal experts, gun-rights advocates and gun-control groups contacted by msnbc.com offered varying opinions on whether Zimmerman can avoid criminal charges under Stand Your Ground.

Richard Hornsby, an Orlando-based criminal defense attorney, says he thinks the grand jury is likely to indict Zimmerman for manslaughter, a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Less likely is a more serious charge of second-degree murder, a crime that implies intent and that is punishable by up to life in prison, he said.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Trayvon Martin's final phone call -- made to his girlfriend -- is shedding new light on the moments leading up to his deadly confrontation with a neighborhood watch volunteer. NBC's Lilia Luciano reports.
“This case isn’t even a close call to me. This is a case of a guy trying to be a vigilante,” Hornsby said. “It wasn’t like he was trying to avoid trouble. He brought a firearm to a fistfight.”
“My gut feeling he will ultimately be charged with some type of manslaughter charge,” agreed Philip Sweeting, retired deputy police chief for the Boca Raton Police Department and a law enforcement consultant who has testified in court cases as an expert in police shootings and use of force.

“My gut reaction was this was an accidental discharge,” Sweeting added. “If you put yourself in the shooter’s position and you’re wrestling with this kid and a gun goes off, what are you going to tell the cops?”
If indicted, Zimmerman can raise the Stand Your Ground defense under the 2005 law signed by Gov. Jeb Bush. That legislation, derisively called the “Shoot First” law by its critics, gives Floridians the right to use deadly force to defend themselves in public places without first trying to escape. The National Rifle Association lobbied hard for the bill, saying it would allow citizens to better protect themselves from violent crime.
The key section of the law states:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Police did not arrest Zimmerman after the shooting, but State Attorney Norm Wolfinger announced Tuesday the case will go before a Seminole County grand jury.

Kendall Coffey talks about the legal developments in the Trayvon Martin case and Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.
Hornsby says the 2005 bill allows Zimmerman’s lawyers to argue to a judge – before any trial -- that the case should be dismissed on grounds he was permitted to defend himself. If the case isn’t dismissed, they could argue self-defense at trial.
Daniel Vice, senior attorney with the gun-control group Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, contends “Stand Your Ground,” combined with Florida laws allowing people to carry guns in public, have made it difficult to pursue criminal charges against people who shoot others and then say it was self-defense.
“All you have to say is that you reasonably believed you were threatened, and the only person who can dispute that is the person you have just killed,” Vice says.

"It's very hard to bring these types of cases because the 'Shoot First' law combined with public carrying of loaded guns protects people who engage someone and shoot to kill."
According to a 2010 review by the St. Petersburg Times, reports of justifiable homicide tripled after the law went into effect. It has been invoked in at least 93 cases with 65 deaths, used to excuse violence in deadly neighbor arguments, bar fights, road rage and even a gang shootout, the newspaper reported.
Lawyer: Trayvon Martin fearful in final call
Trayvon Martin case to go to grand jury
Gun-rights advocates say the facts to date are scarce and “Stand Your Ground” may or may not apply in this case.
According to transcripts of the 911 calls, a police dispatcher tells Zimmerman he doesn’t need to follow the teen, but Zimmerman apparently does anyway. So is he or the teen the one who feels threatened?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Department of Justice has launched an investigation into the death of the teen shot in the picturesque city of Sanford, Fla. NBC's Ron Allen reports.
“The question again is whether he (Zimmerman) acted reasonably or not. At this point it doesn’t look good for him, but I don’t know what the heck happened and quite frankly no one else does either,” says Jon H. Gutmacher, an Orlando attorney, NRA-certified instructor and author of "Florida Firearms: Law, Use & Ownership."
“When you’re talking about law and whether things were legal and illegal, you can’t guess. You’re supposed to react to facts. The facts have been kept from the public and the press.”
Added Dave Workman, director of communications for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms: “There’s a misunderstanding about what Stand Your Ground laws really do. No Stand Your Ground law translates to a broad permission for the use of lethal force when it’s not warranted.”
He added: “A lot of people have left the starting gate before they really know what has happened. A rush to judgment is never a good thing.”

Real Shocking Crimes caught on camera: "Warning Graphic."
What your mainstream media never tell you: Marvel at the al-Jazeera film crew whipping the crowd to hysteria. This is what most UK/american mainstream media do ; get the crowds TO ACT for the cameras. Ever noticed the STAGED gun shots or in-the-lens chanting? It's all fake, staged propaganda for the liars at Sky/ITN/BBC?CNN/Fox. اسامہ بن لادن ہلاکओसामा बिन लादेन को मार डाला قتل أسامة بن لادن Oussama Ben Laden tué Osama Bin Laden getötet Usama bin Ladin dödas DURBAN, South Africa -- “No high hopes for Durban.” “Binding treaty unlikely.” “No deal this year.” Thus ran the headlines. The profiteering UN bureaucrats here think otherwise. Their plans to establish a world government paid for by the West on the pretext of dealing with the non-problem of “global warming” are now well in hand. As usual, the mainstream media have simply not reported what is in the draft text which the 194 states parties to the UN framework convention on climate change are being asked to approve. Behind the scenes, throughout the year since Cancun, the now-permanent bureaucrats who have made highly-profitable careers out of what they lovingly call “the process” have been beavering away at what is now a 138-page document.

Its catchy title is "Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Under the Convention -- Update of the amalgamation of draft texts in preparation of [one imagines they mean 'for'] a comprehensive and balanced outcome to be presented to the Conference of the Parties for adoption at its seventeenth session: note by the Chair.” In plain English, these are the conclusions the bureaucracy wants. The contents of this document, turgidly drafted with all the UN's skill at what the former head of its documentation center used to call “transparent impenetrability”, are not just off the wall – they are lunatic. Subscribe to VesInteL World News by Email

US Attorney General Eric Holder presented justification for killing American citizens

2012-03-06T09:15:00.000-08:00

US Attorney General Eric Holder has presented the White House’s justification for killing American citizens on foreign soil without trial. He says it is OK to do so because America is “at war with a stateless enemy.”
Holder argued drone killings like that of Al-Qaeda figure Anwar al-Awlaqi last September are “in full accordance with the Constitution.”

"'Due process' and ‘judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security," the attorney general said. "The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process."
"Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack," he said in a speech Monday at a law school in Chicago.
"Our government has both a responsibility and a right to protect this nation and its people from such threats," he added.
Holder says in some cases acting without a court decision is the only realistic alternative, because the situation is changing in real time and a window of opportunity may close.
"In this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out – and we will not," Holder said.
He promised such actions will only be taken against senior terrorist figures.
He also defended the use of drones by US forces.
“The use of advanced weapons may help to ensure that the best intelligence is available for planning and carrying out operations, and that the risk of civilian casualties can be minimized or avoided altogether,” Holder argued.
The practice is blamed for hundreds of civilian deaths in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but allows fast response without the use of American ground troops in operations.

Unlawful killings?
At least three US citizens have been killed by US forces on foreign soil in recent months. Civil rights groups cried foul after the attack on Awlaqi in Yemen. US citizen Samir Khan was killed in the same attack, and Awlaqi's US-born teenaged son was killed in October in a suspected US air strike in Yemen.
President Barack Obama hailed the death of Awlaqi as a major blow to Al-Qaeda, but critics said it amounted to an assassination to deliberately kill a US citizen without a prior attempt to indict him.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit seeking the release of documents authorizing such drone strikes. After Holder’s comments, it lashed out at the attorney general’s position.
"Few things are as dangerous to American liberty as the proposition that the government should be able to kill citizens anywhere in the world on the basis of legal standards and evidence that are never submitted to a court," ACLU National Security Project director Hina Shamsi said in a statement.
She added that anyone willing to give such power to Obama must first assess whether he is ready to give it to every subsequent president as well.
Israel ‘reserves right to strike Iran’, may have already decided

Israel will decide for itself whether to strike Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Barack Obama. He may have already decided to do so, some media suggest. The US is stressing the need to find a diplomatic resolution.
The two leaders met Monday in the White House ahead of Netanyahu’s speech later today before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Israel fears Iran is seeking to develop an atomic bomb, although Tehran insists its nuclear plans are strictly civilian.
“Israel must reserve the right to defend itself and after all, that’s the very purpose of the Jewish state, to restore to the Jewish people control of our destiny,” Netanyahu told Obama while the two leaders were seated in the Oval Office.
Netanyahu pushed back against the Obama administration’s repeated attempts to dissuade Israel from attacking Iran.
“My supreme responsibility as Prime Minister of Israel is to ensure that Israel remains the master of its fate,” he told Obama.
On Sunday, Obama told the AIPAC conference in Washington that the US "will not hesitate" to use force to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
“I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” he said. “And as I’ve made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.”
However, the US President stressed that diplomacy could still succeed.
“I firmly believe that an opportunity remains for diplomacy – backed by pressure – to succeed,” he said. “The United States and Israel both assess that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon, and we are exceedingly vigilant in monitoring their program.”
But Israel may have already decided to proceed with a military action against Iranian nuclear facilities.
“All US intelligence officials are confident the Israeli leadership has already decided to attack Iran, unless a significant change happens in the coming weeks or months with the Iranian nuclear program,” Israeli Channel 2 reports, citing sources in the American administration.
Israel fears it may soon lose its window to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Washington, on the other hand, is pressuring Tel Aviv to hold off on what it considers would be a premature and dangerous attack on Iran, arguing that economic sanctions require time to take hold.
‘Israel won’t strike’
Despite Netanyahu’s harsh rhetoric, Joshua Holland, an editor at the alternative news portal AlterNet, thinks Israel is not likely to attack Iran.
“It would put Israel in a position where it is the aggressor in the eyes of much of the international community,” he told RT.
“I think that this is saber-rattling by and large on Israel’s part, in order to put pressure on Western powers to increase the sanctions regime against the Iranian government,” Holland said, adding that, “The sanctions are reportedly working.”

Secretive power with globalist agenda of world government

2012-02-04T08:33:00.001-08:00

The nation we live in (America) is headed for destruction. We as the people need to recognize the battles we face and acknowledge the diversities and threats which come with them. Our country is the greatest influence of the world and our nation’s failures will damage the world's economy like a domino effect. To begin the recognition of our problem, we must understand the source of our greatness and what it means.

The American Constitution, which has been ignored in many situations today, and forgotten as being the foundation of our country. Many activities of our government have been inappropriate, for far too long, and our world is beginning to show signs of these affects. You’re in danger and you don’t even know it, or maybe you do, either way, we must put our minds together to overcome these difficult times. Don’t stay silent, share this information, and join our solutions.

Follow: Facebook Twitter Youtube.

THE INTRODUCTION OF 2012, THE YEAR OF ORDER.

As we enter this new year, we take our time to recognize what it is. The beginning of a new year is actually the embodiment of the previous year, none more relevant than the year 2011, the action year. We are guided by this action, as it is embedded in our life and impacts the transition of our world. To understand the face of the year 2012 you must know the body of 2011 entirely. All living creatures are apart of something bigger than themselves, but most living creatures personalize everything. When everything is taken personal you will always miss the main objective or the big picture so to speak.

Everything we do affects the world and has no limitations on the reach. Everyone, when looking at the 2011 body has been affected as a world unit, through all sorts of changes, frustration, chaos and turmoil (2011 the year of action). The threat of society reside in the leaders that be, we are on a crash course with destruction and it appears to be known worldwide, but nothing is being recognized by the powers in control.

Our time is very limited for change, the leading countries of the world are knee deep in deception and corruption. The world is being constantly misled, for Countries personal greed and empowerment. All around the world we see the change of unwanted powers and leaders, a sign of re positioning for order, leading to the change of control for reasons that be. Our world order has been put in place by some, other than ourselves. What is their main reason for order?

Secretive power elite with a globalist agenda: Conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government—which replaces sovereign nation-states—and an all-encompassing propaganda that ideologizes its establishment as the culmination of history's progress. Significant occurrences in politics and finance are speculated to be orchestrated by an unduly influential cabal operating through many front organizations. Numerous historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to achieve world domination through secret political gatherings and decision-making processes.
Prior to the early 1990s, New World Order conspiracism was limited to two American countercultures, primarily the militantly anti-government right, and secondarily fundamentalist Christians concerned with end-time emergence of the Antichrist. Skeptics, such as Michael Barkun and Chip Berlet, have observed that right-wing populist conspiracy theories about a New World Order have now not only been embraced by many seekers of stigmatized knowledge but have seeped into popular culture, thereby inaugurating an unrivaled period of people actively preparing for apocalyptic millenarian scenarios in the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. These political scientists are concerned that this mass hysteria could have what they judge to be devastating effects on American political life, ranging from widespread political alienation to escalating lone-wolf terrorism.

During the 20th century, many statesmen, such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill, used the term "new world order" to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power after World War I and World War II. They all saw these periods as opportunities to implement idealistic proposals for global governance in the sense of new collective efforts to address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve, while always respecting the right of nations to self-determination.

These proposals led to the creation of international organizations, such as the United Nations and NATO, and international regimes, such as the Bretton Woods system and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which were calculated both to maintain a balance of power in favor of the United States as well as regularize cooperation between nations, in order to achieve a peaceful phase of capitalism. These creations in particular and liberal internationalism in general, however, would always be criticized and opposed by American ultraconservative business nationalists from the 1930s on. In the aftermath of the two World Wars, progressives welcomed these new international organizations and regimes but argued they suffered from a democratic deficit and therefore were inadequate to not only prevent another global war but also foster global justice.

The United Nations: designed in 1945 by U.S. bankers and State Department planners, and was always intended to remain a free association of sovereign nation-states, not a transition to democratic world government. Thus, activists around the globe formed a world federalist movement hoping in vain to create a "real" new world order. In the 1940s, British writer and futurist H. G. Wells would go further than progressives by appropriating and redefining the term "new world order" as a synonym for the establishment of a technocratic world state and planned economy. Despite the popularity of his ideas in some state socialist circles, Wells failed to exert a deeper and more lasting influence because he was unable to concentrate his energies on a direct appeal to intelligentsias who would, ultimately, have to coordinate a Wellsian new world order.
During the Red Scare of 1947–1957, agitators of the American secular and Christian right, influenced by the work of Canadian conspiracy theorist William Guy Carr, increasingly embraced and spread unfounded fears of Freemasons, Illuminati, and Jews being the driving force behind an "international communist conspiracy". The threat of "Godless communism" in the form of a state atheistic and bureaucratic collectivist world government, demonized as a "Red Menace", therefore became the main focus of apocalyptic millenarian conspiracism.

The Red Scare would shape one of the core ideas of the political right in the United States which is that liberals and progressives with their welfare-state policies and international cooperation programs such as foreign aid supposedly contribute to a gradual process of collectivism that will inevitably lead to nations being replaced with a communist one-world government. In the 1960s, right-wing populist individuals and groups with a producerist worldview, such as members of the John Birch Society, disseminated a great deal of conspiracy theories claiming that the governments of both the United States and the Soviet Union were controlled by a cabal of corporate internationalists, greedy bankers and corrupt politicians intent on using the United Nations as the vehicle to create the "One World Government".

Harris Bircher 92 years old

This right-wing anti-globalist conspiracism would fuel the Bircher campaign for U.S. withdrawal from the U.N.. American writer Mary M. Davison, in her 1966 booklet The Profound Revolution, traced the alleged New World Order conspiracy to the creation of the U.S. Federal Reserve System in 1913 by international bankers, who she claimed later formed the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921 as the shadow government. At the time the booklet was published, "international bankers" would have been interpreted by many readers as a reference to a postulated "international Jewish banking conspiracy" masterminded by the Rothschilds.

Claiming that the term "New World Order" is used by a secretive elite dedicated to the destruction of all national sovereignties, American writer Gary Allen, in his 1971 book None Dare Call It Conspiracy, 1974 book Rockefeller: Campaigning for the New World Order and 1987 book Say "No!" to the New World Order, articulated the anti-globalist theme of much current right-wing populist conspiracism in the U.S.. Thus, after the fall of communism in the early 1990s, the main demonized scapegoat of the American far right shifted seamlessly from crypto-communists who plotted on behalf of the Red Menace to globalists who plot on behalf of the New World Order.

The relatively painless nature of the shift was due to growing right-wing populist opposition to corporate internationalism but also in part to the basic underlying apocalyptic millenarian paradigm, which fed the Cold War and the witch-hunts of the McCarthy period. In his 11 September 1990 Toward a New World Order speech to a joint session of the U.S. Congress, President George H. W. Bush described his objectives for post-Cold-War global governance in cooperation with post-Soviet states:

Iran's Govt. refuse demonstrations violators shot & killed.

2012-01-25T19:20:00.000-08:00

Recent Story:

Authorities in Iran have arrested at least half a dozen journalists and bloggers.

History of Iran's Human Rights Violations:

In 2011 Iranian authorities refused to allow government critics to engage in peaceful demonstrations. In February, March, April, and September security forces broke up large-scale protests in several major cities. In mid-April security forces reportedly shot and killed dozens of protesters in Iran’s Arab-majority Khuzestan province. There was a sharp increase in the use of the death penalty. The government continued targeting civil society activists, especially lawyers, rights activists, students, and journalists. In July 2011 the government announced it would not cooperate with, or allow access to, the United Nations special rapporteur on Iran, appointed in March 2011 in response to the worsening rights situation. Freedom of Assembly and Association In February and March thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of Tehran, the capital, and several other major cities to support pro-democracy protests in neighboring Arab countries and protest the detention of Iranian opposition leaders.

The authorities’ violent response led to at least three deaths and hundreds of arrests. In response to calls by former presidential candidates and opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi for mass protests in February, security forces arbitrarily arrested dozens of political opposition members in Tehran and several other cities beginning on February 8. Several days later they placed both Mousavi and Karroubi under house arrest, where they remained at this writing. In April Iran’s parliament passed several articles of a draft bill which severely limits the independence of civil society organizations, and creates a Supreme Committee Supervising NGO Activities chaired by ministry officials and members of the security forces.

Authorities had already banned or severely restricted the independence of several professional organizations not covered by the draft bill, including the Journalists’ Association and the Bar Association. Dozens of activists affiliated with banned opposition political parties or student groups are currently serving time in prison. Death Penalty In 2010 Iranian authorities recorded 252 executions, but rights groups believe many more were executed without official acknowledgement. Most of those executed had been convicted of drug-related offenses following flawed trials in revolutionary courts.

The number of executions increased even further following the entry into force in late December 2010 of an amended anti-narcotics law, drafted by the Expediency Council and approved by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.Since then Iran has executed more than 400 prisoners—including 67 drug offenders in January 2011 alone—according to rights groups. Authorities have refused to acknowledge more than half these executions. Crimes punishable by death include murder, rape, trafficking and possessing drugs, armed robbery, espionage, sodomy, adultery, and apostasy.

On September 3 the semi-official Iranian Students News Agency announced the execution of six men in the southwestern city of Ahvaz. Three of the men were convicted under Iran’s anti-sodomy laws. Iran leads the world in the execution of juvenile offenders, individuals who committed a crime before turning 18-years-old. The Iranian state executed at least three children in 2011, one of them in public. Iranian law allows capital punishment for persons who have reached puberty, defined as nine-years-old for girls and fifteen for boys. There are currently more than a hundred juvenile offenders on death row. Authorities have executed at least 30 individuals on the charge of moharebeh (“enmity against God”) since January 2010, allegedly for their ties to armed or terrorist groups. During the early morning hours of January 24, 2011, authorities in Tehran’s Evin prison hanged Jafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haj-Aghai for their alleged ties to the banned Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) opposition group.

Ali Saremi, who admitted to sympathizing with the MEK’s ideological aspirations, was also hanged in Evin prison on December 28, 2010, for the crime of moharebeh. As of October 2011 at least 16 Kurds were on death row, many of them for alleged national security crimes and moharebeh. Freedom of Expression Authorities continue to shut down newspapers and target journalists and bloggers.

Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance

On September 5 the Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance’s Press Supervisory Board shut down the weekly Shahrvand (Citizen) and daily Ruzegar (Time) for insulting the authorities and “propaganda against the state,” among other crimes. On September 5 and 6, Intelligence Ministry forces raided the offices of Majzooban-e Noor, a website affiliated with the Nematollahi Gonabadi Sufi order, and arrested at least 11 members of its editorial staff on unknown charges. According to Reporters Without Borders, there were 49 journalists and bloggers in Iran’s prisons as of October 2011.

The judiciary sentenced Vahid Asghari, a 24 year-old blogger, to death for his alleged involvement in “running obscene websites,” according to rights groups. The Ministry of Science, backed by the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, implemented regulations to limit social science course offerings at various universities as part of an Islamicization program. Authorities also issued restrictive quotas to limit the courses and majors that women students could take at certain universities. State universities prevented some politically active students from registering for graduate programs despite test scores that should have guaranteed them access.

The government systematically blocked websites that carry political news and analysis, slowed down internet speeds, and jammed foreign satellite broadcasts. Human Rights Defenders and Lawyers Authorities have imprisoned, prosecuted, or harassed dozens of defense lawyers since June 2009. In August 2011 Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi said at least 42 lawyers had faced government persecution since June 2009. In January a revolutionary court convicted Nasrin Sotoudeh, a prominent rights lawyer, of “acting against the national security” and “propaganda against the regime” and sentenced her to 11 years in prison. Authorities also barred Sotoudeh from practicing law and from leaving the country for 20 years.

Lawyer Khalil Bahramian jailed

In September the judiciary reduced her sentence to six years imprisonment. In February a revolutionary court sentenced rights lawyer Khalil Bahramian to 18 months in prison and imposed a 10-year ban on his practicing law. In July the judiciary sentenced Mohammad Ali Dadkhah, a prominent lawyer and co-founder (with Ebadi) of the Center for Defenders of Human Rights (CDHR), to nine years in prison and a 10-year ban from teaching and legal practice. On September 10 security forces arrested Abdolfattah Soltani, another CDHR co-founder. On September 27 a revolutionary court in Tehran sentenced Narges Mohammadi, an executive member of the CDHR, to 11 years imprisonment for acting against the national security and membership in an illegal organization.

Also on September 27, security forces raided the home of Masoud Shafiee, the lawyer who represented three American hikers detained in Iran since July 31, 2009, and interrogated him for several hours. On October 2 they prevented him from leaving the country. Authorities had earlier released one of the hikers, Sarah Shourd, on September 14, 2010, and the two others, Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal, on September 21. Few if any independent rights organizations can openly operate in the country in the current political climate. Women’s Rights Iranian women are discriminated against in personal status matters related to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody. A woman requires her male guardian’s approval for marriage regardless of her age. An Iranian woman cannot pass on her nationality to her foreign-born spouse or their children. A woman may not obtain a passport or travel outside the country without her husband’s written permission.

Treatment of Minorities The government denies freedom of religion to adherents of the Baha’i faith, Iran’s largest non-Muslim religious minority. On May 21, security forces arrested at least 30 Baha’is in a series of coordinated raids in several major cities. At this writing authorities were still holding the defendants without charge. All those arrested were affiliated with the Baha’i Institute for Higher Education, a correspondence university established in 1987 in response to the government’s policy of depriving Baha’i students of the right to pursue higher education. According to the Baha’i International Community, there were 100 Baha’is detained in Iran’s prisons as of October. Authorities discriminate against Muslim minorities, including Sunnis who account for about 10 percent of the population, in political participation and employment. They also prevent Sunni Iranians from constructing mosques in major cities.

In recent years officials have repeatedly prevented Sunnis from conducting separate Eid prayers in Tehran and other cities. On September 5, in Fars province, paramilitary Basij militia attacked members of Iran’s largest Sufi sect, the Nematollahi Gonabadi order, killing one. The authorities then launched a campaign of arrests against members of the group in several cities. Authorities also targeted converts to Christianity. In September a revolutionary court convicted six members of the evangelical Church of Iran to one year prison terms on charges of “propaganda against the state,” allegedly for proselytizing. On September 25, authorities summoned Yousef Nadarkhani, the pastor of a 400-member Church of Iran congregation in northern Iran, to court and told him he had three opportunities to renounce his faith and embrace Islam.

Nadarkhani refused to recant and faced possible execution as of this writing. In 2010 the judiciary had sentenced Nadarkhani to death for “apostasy from Islam” despite the fact that no such crime exists under Iran’s penal code. The government restricted cultural and political activities among the country’s Azeri, Kurdish, Arab, and Baluch minorities, including organizations that focus on social issues. In April security forces reportedly killed several dozen protesters, most of them ethnic Arabs, in Iran’s southwestern province of Khuzestan. Authorities arrested dozens and executed nine men allegedly connected to protests on May 9. Security forces also arrested hundreds in Iran’s Azerbaijan region following large-scale protests in August and September, part of a pattern of harassment against environmental and Azeri civil society activists. Key International Actors In March the UN Human Rights Council appointed a special rapporteur for Iran.

In July 2011 the Iranian government announced it would not cooperate with or allow the special rapporteur access. On September 23 the special rapporteur submitted his first report on Iran in which he highlighted a “pattern of systematic violations of … human rights” and repeated his call on the government to allow him to visit the country. Iran continued to refuse access to UN special procedures, despite their longstanding and repeated requests for invitations to visit. No special rapporteurs have visited the country since 2005.

On September 15 the UN secretary-general submitted a report to the UN General Assembly in which he said he was “deeply troubled by reports of increased numbers of executions, amputations, arbitrary arrest and detention, unfair trials, torture and ill-treatment” and bemoaned “the crackdown on human rights activists, lawyers, journalists and opposition activists.” On November 3 the UN Human Rights Committee issued its concluding observations following its review of Iran’s implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

UN Human Rights Council

The committee concluded “that the status of international human rights treaties in domestic law is not specified in the legal system, which hinders the full implementation of the rights contained in the Covenant.” On April 14 the European Union imposed asset freezes and travel bans on 32 Iranian officials, including members of Iran’s judiciary, who have committed rights abuses. In June the United States extended individuals sanctions against additional members of the Revolutionary Guards, the Basij militia, and Iran’s security forces involved in rights violations. Later that month the US sanctioned companies with ties to the Revolutionary Guards and military. Iranian and Turkish cross-border military operations against Kurdish rebels in Iraqi Kurdistan, which began in mid-June, killed at least 10, injured dozens, and displaced hundreds of civilians.

American civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

2012-01-16T11:55:00.000-08:00

Rarely seen footage of Martin Luther King, Jr., speaking to students at Barratt Junior High School in Philadelphia on October 26, 1967, where he delivered his speech "What Is Your Life's Blueprint?"

American civil rights leader. Leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and advocate of nonviolent protests of segregation and other anti-civil rights laws. Best known for his speech "I Have a Dream" (1963). Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964.

The repository contains seven quotes from Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

1. Principle: If a man hasn’t discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.

2. Best: If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.

3. Friendship: In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.

4. Walter L. Morristivation: You don’t have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step.

5. Behavior: Life’s most urgent question is: what are you doing for others?

6.Justice: That old law about an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

7.Right and Wrong: One who condones evils is just as guilty as the one who perpetrates it.

The Civil Rights Movement received an infusion of energy with a student sit-in at a Woolworth's store in Greensboro, North Carolina. On February 1, 1960, four students Ezell A. Blair, Jr. (now known as Jibreel Khazan), David Richmond, Joseph McNeil, and Franklin McCain from North Carolina Agricultural & Technical College, an all-black college, sat down at the segregated lunch counter to protest Woolworth's policy of excluding African Americans. The four students purchased small items in other parts of the store and kept their receipts, then sat down at the lunch counter and asked to be served. After being denied service, they produced their receipts and asked why their money was good everywhere else at the store, but not at the lunch counter. These protesters were encouraged to dress professionally, to sit quietly, and to occupy every other stool so that potential white sympathizers could join in. The sit-in soon inspired other sit-ins in Richmond, Virginia; Nashville, Tennessee; and Atlanta, Georgia. As students across the south began to "sit-in" at the lunch counters of a few of their local stores, local authority figures sometimes used brute force to physically escort the demonstrators from the lunch facilities.

The "sit-in" technique was not new—as far back as 1939, African-American attorney Samuel Wilbert Tucker organized a sit-in at the then-segregated Alexandria, Virginia library. In 1960 the technique succeeded in bringing national attention to the movement. The success of the Greensboro sit-in led to a rash of student campaigns throughout the South. Probably the best organized, most highly disciplined, the most immediately effective of these was in Nashville, Tennessee. On March 9, 1960 an Atlanta University Center group of students released An Appeal for Human Rights as a full page advertisement in newspapers, including the Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta Journal, and Atlanta Daily World. This student group, known as the Committee on the Appeal for Human Rights (COAHR), initiated the Atlanta Student Movement and began to lead in Atlanta with sit-ins starting on March 15, 1960. By the end of 1960, the sit-ins had spread to every southern and border state and even to Nevada, Illinois, and Ohio.

Demonstrators focused not only on lunch counters but also on parks, beaches, libraries, theaters, museums, and other public places. Upon being arrested, student demonstrators made "jail-no-bail" pledges, to call attention to their cause and to reverse the cost of protest, thereby saddling their jailers with the financial burden of prison space and food. In April, 1960 activists who had led these sit-ins held a conference at Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina that led to the formation of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).[29] SNCC took these tactics of nonviolent confrontation further, to the freedom rides.See also: Greensboro sit-ins and Nashville sit-ins

The World's Human and Civil Rights Community

Congress passes law turning over corporate media to CIA

President Donald Trump Ends Shutdown, announcing deal to reopen Government

Government Shutdown Begins to effect poor people of America

Things you should know about Global Poverty

Terence Crutcher shot by Tulsa officer Betty Shelby caught on cam

American States Making The Most Racial Progress

States ranked by racial progress:

States ranked by racial integration:

Africa's Nelson Mandela 1918 - 2013 one of the greatest men's story

Malcolm X: Honoring the Life of a civil rights leader

Malcolm X Explains his fathers murder

Malcolm X and Martin Luther King: methods of the two leaders of the African American Nation.

U.S family courts destroy morality and citizen stability

White House leaks of cyber warfare against Iran Under investigation

Did You Know That Women Are Still Paid Less Than Men?

Obama Administration push to renew Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

Contents

[edit]Subsequent amendments

[edit]History

[edit]Bush administration warrantless domestic wiretapping program

[edit]Scope and limits

[edit]Provisions

[edit]Electronic surveillance

[edit]Without a court order

[edit]With a court order

[edit]Physical searches

[edit]FISA court

[edit]Remedies for violations

[edit]Lone wolf amendment

[edit]Constitutionality

[edit]Before FISA

[edit]Post FISA

[edit]Criticisms

[edit]Amendments

[edit]Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006

[edit]Subsequent developments

[edit]See also

[edit]References

[edit]External links

Global outrage on Military Torture, Beatings, and Violence Against Unarmed Protesters

Nato makes No mistake killing innocent civilians

The World Government conspiratorial control over global environment release

Films

Author

Film subject

Acting

See also

Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

Georgia State violates constitutional rights of federal immigration detainees with violence

US military uses remote-controlled drones killing over 2000 total civilians in Pakistan and Somalia

200,000 African-American and Hispanic Borrowers Charged Higher Fees on loans from racial bias banks

Oakland police brutality at its worst with federal judge threatening military intervention

Vietnam's activists demand immediate release of everyone arbitrarily detained and imprisoned.

Justice for teenager Trayvon Martin leads to March on washington

US Attorney General Eric Holder presented justification for killing American citizens

Secretive power with globalist agenda of world government

Iran's Govt. refuse demonstrations violators shot & killed.

Authorities in Iran have arrested at least half a dozen journalists and bloggers.

American civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.