Category Archives: Civil Liberties
Reason.com: When Cops Claimed the Right to Search Anyone Who “Causes Fear in a Community”
Radley Balko has published a series of stories at The Huffington Post that use the government’s response to the marathon bombings as a newshook to write about Boston’s recurring role in the history of militarized policing. The most interesting article in the sequence, I think, is the segment on the modern drug war. Here’s the setup:
In the early 1980s, Boston authorities introduced widespread stop-and-frisks, barricades, and other high-intensity policing tactics in high-crime neighborhoods like Roxbury and Matapan. Critics claimed police were implementing a “search on sight” policy of black men in some neighborhoods, doing away even with the low bar of needing reasonable suspicion before conducting stop-and-frisks. Police admitted a search-on-sight policy, but only for anyone known to be or suspected of being in a gang, along with anyone who associates with those people. They also claimed to be following a vague policy that allowed them to search anyone they felt “causes fear in a community.”
According to a subsequent lawsuit, black men were stopped, patted down, and in some cases strip searched for no more than wearing the sports logo of a particular professional sports team. A Boston Globe investigation found 15 people who had been stripped searched on the street, but were never arrested.
State Sen. William Owens said the tactics were alienating an entire generation of black men, and that had effectively imposed martial law on some communities. Tensions boiled over in 1989 when a plainclothes officer shot 30-year-old Rolando Car during a stop-and-frisk after mistaking Carr’s keys for a gun.
At another point, “Residents of Lawrence were issued passes that they had to show to get into and out of the neighborhood. Anyone entering Lawrence had their vehicle license plate documented by police manning a barricade. A letter was then sent to the registered owner of the vehicle to let him know the car had been spotted in Lawrence.” The police chief, Balko notes, “described the tactics as a form of community policing.”
—-
Click here for the full article.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/06/when-cops-claimed-the-right-to-search-an
Reuters: U.S. appeals court strikes down mandate on union rights
The National Labor Relations Board violated the law when it required U.S. businesses to put notices in their workplaces and on their websites informing employees of their right to unionize, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the rule, finding that federal law prohibits the labor board from punishing a business for speech, or lack of it, as long as the business does not issue threats.
Freedom of speech “necessarily protects … the right of employers (and unions) not to speak,” Judge Raymond Randolph wrote for the appeals court.
In mandating the notices in 2011, a majority of the labor board appointed by President Barack Obama said that employees cannot fully exercise their rights unless they know what their rights are.
Business trade associations sued within days, arguing that the “11-by-17” posters violated corporate speech rights.
The ruling for the trade associations, including the National Association of Manufacturers, is the second major defeat at the appeals court for the labor board this year.
In January, the court invalidated Obama’s appointments to the board during a period of congressional inactivity. The Obama administration has since asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the ruling.
—–
Click below for the article on Reuters.com
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/07/us-usa-courts-laborboard-idUSBRE9460LD20130507
NY Times: U.S. Engaged in Torture After 9/11, Review Concludes
A nonpartisan, independent review of interrogation and detention programs in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks concludes that “it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture” and that the nation’s highest officials bore ultimate responsibility for it.
The sweeping, 600-page report says that while brutality has occurred in every American war, there never before had been “the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.” The study, by an 11-member panel convened by the Constitution Project, a legal research and advocacy group, is to be released on Tuesday morning.
Debate over the coercive interrogation methods used by the administration of President George W. Bush has often broken down on largely partisan lines. The Constitution Project’s task force on detainee treatment, led by two former members of Congress with experience in the executive branch — a Republican, Asa Hutchinson, and a Democrat, James R. Jones — seeks to produce a stronger national consensus on the torture question.
While the task force did not have access to classified records, it is the most ambitious independent attempt to date to assess the detention and interrogation programs. A separate 6,000-page report on the Central Intelligence Agency’s record by the Senate Intelligence Committee, based exclusively on agency records, rather than interviews, remains classified.
“As long as the debate continues, so too does the possibility that the United States could again engage in torture,” the report says.
The use of torture, the report concludes, has “no justification” and “damaged the standing of our nation, reduced our capacity to convey moral censure when necessary and potentially increased the danger to U.S. military personnel taken captive.” The task force found “no firm or persuasive evidence” that these interrogation methods produced valuable information that could not have been obtained by other means. While “a person subjected to torture might well divulge useful information,” much of the information obtained by force was not reliable, the report says.
Interrogation and abuse at the C.I.A.’s so-called black sites, the Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba and war-zone detention centers, have been described in considerable detail by the news media and in declassified documents, though the Constitution Project report adds many new details.
It confirms a report by Human Rights Watch that one or more Libyan militants were waterboarded by the C.I.A., challenging the agency’s longtime assertion that only three Al Qaeda prisoners were subjected to the near-drowning technique. It includes a detailed account by Albert J. Shimkus Jr., then a Navy captain who ran a hospital for detainees at the Guantánamo Bay prison, of his own disillusionment when he discovered what he considered to be the unethical mistreatment of prisoners.
But the report’s main significance may be its attempt to assess what the United States government did in the years after 2001 and how it should be judged. The C.I.A. not only waterboarded prisoners, but slammed them into walls, chained them in uncomfortable positions for hours, stripped them of clothing and kept them awake for days on end.
The question of whether those methods amounted to torture is a historically and legally momentous issue that has been debated for more than a decade inside and outside the government. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel wrote a series of legal opinions from 2002 to 2005 concluding that the methods were not torture if used under strict rules; all the memos were later withdrawn. News organizations have wrestled with whether to label the brutal methods unequivocally as torture in the face of some government officials’ claims that they were not.
In addition, the United States is a signatory to the international Convention Against Torture, which requires the prompt investigation of allegations of torture and the compensation of its victims.
—–
Click below for the full article.
Infowars: Man Sues TSA For $5 Million Following Peanut Butter Arrest
24 hours in a cell for joking about sandwich spread
An Arizona man who was arrested at the behest of the TSA, following a wisecrack over a jar of peanut butter is suing the federal agency for $5 million.
Frank Hannibal, 50, was detained and dragged from LaGuardia Airport recently by police after a run-in with TSA agents over the jar of gourmet sandwich spread.
“The liquid oil that separated from the peanut butter had them baffled,” Hannibal told the New York Daily News.
Hannibal then commented to his wife and children that “They’re looking to confiscate my explosives,” as TSA agents inspected the 16-ounce jar of “Crazy Richards” chunky peanut butter.
TSA screener Edwin Sanchez, overheard Hannibal’s remark, did not see the funny side, and immediately called the cops, according to the court complaint.
Hannibal spent the next 24 hours in a cell, during which time he was fed a peanut butter sandwich by cops who later charged him with the felony of “falsely reporting an incident”.
“It sounds laughable now but at the time to be led out of there like a terrorist was unbelievable,” Hannibal tells the Daily News. “My whole life was up in the air. It was a nightmare. My children were overwhelmed. It was crazy.”
Hannibal has brought a $5-million-dollar lawsuit against the TSA worker and the Port Authority officer who arrested him, all over a $7 confectionary which was returned to him upon his release from jail.
“It’s a sorry state of affairs in this country when sarcasm is considered a felony,” his attorney, Alan D. Levine of Queens, noted, adding that TSA agents need to act with common sense in such situations.
This is not an isolated incident. The TSA has a history of concentrating on looking out for cakes and pies, as well as sauces, oils and vinegars.
The Homeland Security agency has also instituted a crack down on candy and cupcakes.
At the same time, people are routinely waltzing through security lines with swords, knives, explosives and guns. Many agents are too busy groping women and searching old people’s diapers to bother checking passports and flight passes.
Still, it’s good to know that the government is keeping Americans safe from sandwich wielding jokers.
—
Click below to read Steve Watson’s article on infowars.
http://www.infowars.com/man-sues-tsa-for-5-million-following-peanut-butter-arrest/
Fox News Fail: George W. Bush has saved more lives than any American president
We aren’t going to post any of this gem of an article, but you can check it out at the link below. This one took the cake as the Fox News Fail of the week (and probably month), but there were plenty of other contenders as Fox News tries to help remake the image of George W. Bush, the President who pushed for the Unconstitutional Patriot Act, created the TSA and DHS, expanded the size of government, fought Unconstitutional wars while going back on 2000 campaign promises of his foreign policy, and whose reckless spending left America on a pathway to bankruptcy.
NOTE: Dana Perino’s take deserves honorable mention:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/23/my-favorite-memories-president-george-w-bush/
Opposing Views: Rapper Xstrav Arrested for Drinking Iced Tea in Parking Lot
Two videos (below) of the arrest of rapper Xstrav (Christopher Beatty) on April 29 outside an ABC Liquor Store in Fayetteville, North Carolina, have gone viral on the web.
According to LatinRapper.com, Xstrav and fellow rapper Tino Brown were waiting in the parking lot for Money Mal to meet them when a man walked up and asked repeatedly what Xstrav was drinking.
Brown, who was holding a camera or a cell phone, recorded the entire incident.
Xstrav told the man several times he was drinking Arizona Half & Half Iced Tea. Xstrav then asked the man several times to identify himself, to which he finally said “police,” but did not immediately show a badge or other form of ID.
The plainclothes police officer told Xstrav that he was “trespassing” and had to leave the property. When the rapper refused, the officer wrestled Xstrav to the ground and handcuffed him.
The plainclothes police officer did flash what may have been a badge for a few seconds, but apparently did not read Xstrav his Miranda Rights.
In the second video, a police car drove up with a uniformed police officer and Xstrav was led into the police car.
While some viewers have suggested the videos were fake, the North Carolina Court System website shows Beatty was charged with trespassing and resisting a public officer.
—–
Click below for the link to the article on Opposing View’s website.
Reason.com: California Considers Adopting a Homeless Bill of Rights
The Homeless Bill of Rights, the name applied to a new bill that recently soared through the California Assembly’s Judiciary Committee on a 7-2 vote, is the latest in a long line of California legislation that has grabbed national attention for its sheer lunacy. At the current rate, California’s “differently sheltered” will be the only residents left with any rights.
Its worst provisions have been stripped away and I doubt the governor will sign something that so thoroughly offends city officials, but the proposal does epitomize the mock-worthy nature of so much of the thinking that dominates this state’s government. Legislators in all states introduce crazy stuff to make a point. But in California, these strange bills can actually make it to the governor’s desk.
The homeless bill’s author, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), deserves credit for at least identifying a real problem, which is an oddity in a Legislature that usually avoids reality. Homelessness is rampant in California, and the troubled people who wander our streets often have nowhere to go as they get chased from one location to the next.
Homelessness is a vexing problem, but the solution is not to make the homeless a protected class of citizen with a constitutional right to urinate on sidewalks and accumulate piles of vermin-infested clothing in city parks. Instead of giving the homeless a place to live, the state government wants to give them taxpayer-subsidized lawyers.
The bill features overstated civil-rights-oriented language. It notes that California has “a long history of discriminatory laws and ordinances that have disproportionately affected people with low incomes.” The language refers to Jim Crow laws and anti-Okie laws.
Cities here struggle – sometimes clumsily and unfairly – with throngs of people who camp out in city parks and sleep on sidewalks and in doorways. There is a legitimate public issue here.
When I worked in a downtown Sacramento office building, my colleagues and I joked about being in a scene from a zombie movie. As we walked down the street, homeless people would limp toward us, hands out, demanding money. One of my reporters was assaulted by one. In a well-publicized incident near my old office, a homeless woman shot a man in a wheelchair after he told her to get a job. It’s not always unreasonable to try to shoo them away.
The homeless – many of whom are mentally ill or have substance-abuse issues – need compassion and social services (preferably ones provided by non-profits, rather than by government bureaucracies more interested in creating big pensions for their employees). Instead they are used as pawns for a politician’s political posturing.
The most objectionable language has already been removed. Critics have mocked the now-deleted provision that guaranteed homeless people “the right to engage in life sustaining activities that must be carried out in public spaces.” That includes eating, congregating, collecting personal property, and urinating. I’ve known non-homeless people who have received a citation for peeing in public, but a homeless person would have been exempt had the original language remained intact.
—-
Click below for the full article.
http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/03/homeless-bill-of-rights-showcases-califo
RON PAUL: The Internet Tax Mandate Is Backwards Thinking
David French, Senior Vice President of the National Retail Federation, the major industry group lobbying for the so-called “Marketplace Fairness Act,” (more aptly named the “National Internet Tax Mandate”) recently commented that “….the law [governing Internet sales
] today is a 20th-century interpretation of an 18th-century document….” Mr. French’s comments are typical of those wishing to expand government power beyond the limits established by the United States Constitution.
Those of us who insist the federal government remain within the confines prescribed by the Constitution are used to condescending lectures about how the Constitution is a “living document” whose principles evolve over time. I was even once informed by the then-Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, who was widely considered one of Congress’ leading constitutional authorities, that the constitutional requirement for a declaration of war was an anachronism!
While Mr. French may not go that far, he is arguing that Congress turn the Commerce Clause on its head by passing the Internet Tax Mandate. The Commerce Clause was intended to facilitate free trade by giving the federal government limited power to ensure state governments did not impose taxes and regulations on out-of-state business. Contrary to modern belief, the Commerce Clause was not intended to give Congress power to regulate every sector of the economy. And the Commerce Clause was certainly not intended to allow Congress to help state governments collect taxes on purchases from out-of-state merchants.
The National Internet Tax Mandate overturns the Supreme Court’s 1992 Quill v. North Dakota decision that states can only force businesses to collect sales tax if the business has a “physical presence” in the state. Quill represented a rare instance where the Supreme Court properly interpreted the Commerce Clause. Thanks to the Quill decision, the Internet has remained a tax-free zone, though some states require consumers to later pay taxes on products they purchased online. This freedom has helped turn the Internet into a thriving and dynamic sector of the economy, to the benefit of entrepreneurs and consumers.
Now that status is threatened by an alliance of big business and tax-hungry state governments seeking new powers to force out-of-state business to collect state sales taxes. Far from updating the Constitution to fit the needs of the 21st century, the National Internet Tax Mandate is a throwback to 18th century mercantilism.
The National Internet Tax Mandate will raise the costs of doing business over the Internet. Large, established Internet companies, such as Amazon, can absorb these costs, whereas their smaller competitors cannot. More importantly, the Mandate’s increased costs and regulations could prevent the creation and growth of the next Amazon.
Raising prices on goods purchased over the Internet will also impose an additional hardship on American consumers, many of whom are already struggling because of the troubled economy. And giving ravenous state governments new authority to tax sales made by out-of-state businesses practically guarantees future sales tax hikes, as the arguments will be made that most of the increases will fall on out-of-state businesses. These businesses will lack effective ability to oppose the tax increases — a form of taxation without representation.
Contrary to Mr. French, it is the proponents of the National Internet Tax Mandate who are embracing outdated principles, such as higher taxes on prosperity, piling more regulations on already over-burdened workers, and legislation designed to help entrenched businesses at the expense of their smaller competitors and consumers. Opponents of the Internet Tax Mandate recognize that the principles of limited government and free markets represented by a true reading of the Commerce Clause provide a timeless guide to economic growth and prosperity.
—-
Click below to read the article on Business Insider’s website by Dr. Ron Paul, former Texas Congressmen and current Chairman of the Campaign for Liberty.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-internet-tax-mandate-2013-5
Reason.com: Zero Tolerance Watch, Teen Faces Felony Charges for Science Experiment
Meet Kiera Wilmot, a 16-year-old student in Bartow, Florida. Before last week, Bartow High School Principal Ron Pritchard tells WTSP-TV, she had “never been in trouble before. Ever.” But then, the station reports, she
mix[ed] household chemicals in a tiny 8-ounce water bottle, causing the top to pop off, followed by billowing smoke in [a] small explosion.
Wilmot’s friends and classmates said it was “a science project gone bad, that she never meant to hurt anyone.”
Even the teen’s principal said, “She made a bad choice. Honestly, I don’t think she meant to ever hurt anyone. She wanted to see what would happen [when the chemicals mixed] and was shocked by what it did. Her mother is shocked too.”
The explosion happened around 7 a.m. Monday morning on school property, and no one was hurt. Staff, along with the school resource officer, acted quickly.
The principal told 10 News, “She told us everything and was very honest. She didn’t run or try to hide the truth. We had a long conversation with her.”
So: No one was hurt. There’s no sign that Wilmot was up to something malevolent. The kid’s own principal thinks this wasn’t anything more than an experiment, and he says she didn’t try to cover up what she had done. What punishment do you think she received? A stern talking-to? A day or two of after-school detention? Maybe she’ll have to help clean up the lab for a week?
Nope. The budding chemist has been kicked out of school and charged with a couple of felonies:
Wilmot was arrested Monday morning and charged with possession/discharge of a weapon on school property and discharging a destructive device.
The teen was expelled and will now complete her education in an expulsion program.
Miami New Times reports that Wilmot will be tried as an adult.
A statement from Polk County Schools says, “We urge our parents to join us in conveying the message that there are consequences to actions. We will not compromise the safety and security of our students and staff.” As far as I can tell, the only person in this story facing a serious threat to her safety and security is the girl who might have to serve a prison sentence — but then, she doesn’t go to Bartow High anymore, so perhaps the school system doesn’t think she counts.