Lincoln and the First Shot by Richard N. Currrent is reviewed briefly here. Rather than re-invent the wheel, I will make only a few comments. This is a good, short, documented book focusing on the crucial events leading up the Confederate shelling of Ft. Sumter.
Neither side wanted to fire the first shot and hoped their opponent would do it. Both Davis and Lincoln were under pressure to not back down. Lincoln declared secession illegal and promised to protect or recover any federal facilities. Many of Davis' supporters wanted war, but Davis hoped Lincoln would back down. Both sides underestimated the determination of their opponents. Both sides hoped the other should back down. Both sides forged ahead waiting for the other to back down. No one backed down. The result was the bloodiest war Americans ever fought.
The lost cause delusionists claim that Lincoln wanted war and maneuvered the Confederates into firing the first shot. The logical problem, and the reason for the dispute, is definitional. IF, secession was legal, the attempt to re-supply Sumter was an aggressive act by a foreign power to reinforce an unlawful military facility. Lincoln started the war under this assumption. This assumes that secession was constitutional and valid. Lincoln had promised to preserve the union. IF secession were illegal, interfering with a federal military facility, and demanding its surrender and firing on it is an act of war. The rebels started/caused the war. This debate cannot be settled by facts. However, note that no nation recognized the Confederacy. Neither side wanted war, but neither would back down. Rather than wait until the re-supply boat for Sumter approached and then sinking it or blocking it, Confederates, started shelling Ft. Sumter. If they could stop the re-supply ship, Ft. Sumter would have to surrender peacefully. However, this is a moot point. Given that the 2 adversaries had radically different interpretations of the situation and neither side would back down, war was inevitable.
Saturday, November 21, 2015
Friday, November 20, 2015
More on House Demolitions on West Bank
44 posted a comment and good question regarding the post below on Israeli demolition of homes in which accused murderers/terrorists lived. "My question is, were the homes destroyed as part of a wartime military operation or was it a civilian police action? The prior follows Sherman's tactical understanding that "war is hell". If it was the latter, then there's definitely a fundamental human rights violation.." Below is from Wikipedia:
"House demolition is a method utilized by the Israeli army (IDF) in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip against Palestinians and in some cases Israeli settlers.
Demolition may be done to enforce building codes and regulations, which in the occupied Palestinian territories are set by the Israeli military.[1] IDF explanations for other house demolitions include use as a counter-insurgency security measure to impede or halt militant operations[2] House demolitions are also claimed to be a potent deterrent against terrorism,[3] in significantly decreasing Palestinian terrorists attacks.[4][5][6] Human rights organizations and the United Nations criticize the ongoing demolitions[7] of Palestinian homes as violating international law, and Amnesty International has contended that the Israeli government actually uses demolitions to collectively punish Palestinians[2] and to seize property for the expansion of Israeli settlements.[8][9] Theodor Meron advised the Israeli government in 1968, soon after the occupation of the Palestinian territories in the Six Day War, that the practice contravened international law, in particular the Geneva Conventions."
"
The United Nations (UN) and human rights groups such as Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross who oppose the house demolitions reject the IDF's claims, and document numerous instances where they argue the IDF's claims do not apply.[2] They accuse the Israeli government and IDF of other motives:
In 2004, Human Rights Watch published the report 'Razing Rafah: Mass Home Demolitions in the Gaza Strip'.[27][28] The report documented what it described as a "pattern of illegal demolitions" by the IDF in Rafah, a refugee camp and city at the southern end of the Gaza Strip on the border with Egypt where sixteen thousand people lost their homes after the Israeli government approved a plan to expand the de facto "buffer zone" in May 2004.[28][29] The IDF’s main stated rationales for the demolitions were; responding to and preventing attacks on its forces and the suppression of weapons smuggling through tunnels from Egypt."
"
The use of house demolition under international law is today governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention, enacted in 1949, which protects non-combatants in occupied territories. Article 53 provides that "Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons ... is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations."[31]
However, Israel, which is a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention, asserts that the terms of the Convention are not applicable to the Palestinian territories on the grounds that the territories do not constitute a state which is a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention.[32][33][34] This position is rejected by human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, which notes that "it is a basic principle of human rights law that international human rights treaties are applicable in all areas in which states parties exercise effective control, regardless of whether or not they exercise sovereignty in that area."
From Wikipedia on "West Bank."
"Israel's peace treaty with Jordan and the Oslo Accords, did not change the status of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) as occupied territory with Israel as the occupying power. . . .In 1982, as a result of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, the direct military rule was transformed into a semi-civil authority, operating directly under the Israeli Ministry of Defense, thus taking control of civil matters of Palestinians from the IDF to civil servants in the Ministry of Defense. The Israeli settlements were on the other hands administered subsequently as Judea and Samaria Area directly by Israel."
In fact, one can make the argument that the occupation itself it unlawful. See "legal status" at the West Bank article from Wikipedia. If the occupation is unlawful under international law, then the demolitions are unlawful.
Although the actions are carried out by military forces, the West Bank is an occupied territory, but not a war zone in the usual sense of the word. Of course, one can argue that there is a 'war on terrorism." The 1967 war which led to the occupation is long over. Any analogy to Sherman's march to the sea during the Civil War is not warranted.
"House demolition is a method utilized by the Israeli army (IDF) in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip against Palestinians and in some cases Israeli settlers.
Demolition may be done to enforce building codes and regulations, which in the occupied Palestinian territories are set by the Israeli military.[1] IDF explanations for other house demolitions include use as a counter-insurgency security measure to impede or halt militant operations[2] House demolitions are also claimed to be a potent deterrent against terrorism,[3] in significantly decreasing Palestinian terrorists attacks.[4][5][6] Human rights organizations and the United Nations criticize the ongoing demolitions[7] of Palestinian homes as violating international law, and Amnesty International has contended that the Israeli government actually uses demolitions to collectively punish Palestinians[2] and to seize property for the expansion of Israeli settlements.[8][9] Theodor Meron advised the Israeli government in 1968, soon after the occupation of the Palestinian territories in the Six Day War, that the practice contravened international law, in particular the Geneva Conventions."
"
The United Nations (UN) and human rights groups such as Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross who oppose the house demolitions reject the IDF's claims, and document numerous instances where they argue the IDF's claims do not apply.[2] They accuse the Israeli government and IDF of other motives:
- Collective punishment, the punishment of an innocent Palestinian "for an offence he or she has not personally committed."[2][24]
- Theft of Palestinian land by annexation to build the Israeli West Bank barrier or to create, expand or otherwise benefit Israeli settlements.[2][25]
In 2004, Human Rights Watch published the report 'Razing Rafah: Mass Home Demolitions in the Gaza Strip'.[27][28] The report documented what it described as a "pattern of illegal demolitions" by the IDF in Rafah, a refugee camp and city at the southern end of the Gaza Strip on the border with Egypt where sixteen thousand people lost their homes after the Israeli government approved a plan to expand the de facto "buffer zone" in May 2004.[28][29] The IDF’s main stated rationales for the demolitions were; responding to and preventing attacks on its forces and the suppression of weapons smuggling through tunnels from Egypt."
"
The use of house demolition under international law is today governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention, enacted in 1949, which protects non-combatants in occupied territories. Article 53 provides that "Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons ... is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations."[31]
However, Israel, which is a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention, asserts that the terms of the Convention are not applicable to the Palestinian territories on the grounds that the territories do not constitute a state which is a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention.[32][33][34] This position is rejected by human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, which notes that "it is a basic principle of human rights law that international human rights treaties are applicable in all areas in which states parties exercise effective control, regardless of whether or not they exercise sovereignty in that area."
From Wikipedia on "West Bank."
"Israel's peace treaty with Jordan and the Oslo Accords, did not change the status of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) as occupied territory with Israel as the occupying power. . . .In 1982, as a result of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, the direct military rule was transformed into a semi-civil authority, operating directly under the Israeli Ministry of Defense, thus taking control of civil matters of Palestinians from the IDF to civil servants in the Ministry of Defense. The Israeli settlements were on the other hands administered subsequently as Judea and Samaria Area directly by Israel."
In fact, one can make the argument that the occupation itself it unlawful. See "legal status" at the West Bank article from Wikipedia. If the occupation is unlawful under international law, then the demolitions are unlawful.
Although the actions are carried out by military forces, the West Bank is an occupied territory, but not a war zone in the usual sense of the word. Of course, one can argue that there is a 'war on terrorism." The 1967 war which led to the occupation is long over. Any analogy to Sherman's march to the sea during the Civil War is not warranted.
Chicago police discipline rare and biased?
Some of reasons why police misconduct is often so bad and widespread, is the occupational and organizational culture. Discipline for officers is relatively rare in many agencies. One of the worst in Chicago.
"In 18 years with the Chicago Police Department, the nation’s second-largest, Jerome Finnigan had never been disciplined — although 68 citizen complaints had been lodged against him, including accusations that he used excessive force and regularly conducted illegal searches.
"In 18 years with the Chicago Police Department, the nation’s second-largest, Jerome Finnigan had never been disciplined — although 68 citizen complaints had been lodged against him, including accusations that he used excessive force and regularly conducted illegal searches.
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Israel outrage, razing homes of alleged killers
There are lots of 'bad guys' and few 'good guys,' and enough blame to go around to everyone over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israelis are our only reliable ally in the Middle East and many American identify with them, and provide monetary, media and polticial support. Thus, it appears that Israel gets a pass on many issues that they should be hammered on and perhaps sanctioned for. Destruction of the homes of accused killers on the West Bank (conquered by Israel and occupied, with new Jewish settlements, after the 1967 war), is one of these examples which defies ideas of fairness, due process, and punishes people for merely residing in the same home as an accused killer. These individuals have not yet been convicted. Arguably it only makes a bad situation worse. It also, of course, helps create an opportunity for new or expanded Jewish settlements on the West Bank.
"Israeli forces on Saturday destroyed the family homes of three Palestinian men charged with carrying out a drive-by shooting last month that killed a couple in front of their four children, and the forces also demolished the home of a man accused of fatally shooting an Israeli in June. It was the most sweeping use of a recently revived, controversial antiterrorism measure since a wave of unrest escalated last month, mostly through demonstrations, stabbing attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians, and attempts to hit Israelis with vehicles. Israel’s Supreme Court approved the demolitions, all in the West Bank, on Thursday after days of debate." . . .
"Israeli forces on Saturday destroyed the family homes of three Palestinian men charged with carrying out a drive-by shooting last month that killed a couple in front of their four children, and the forces also demolished the home of a man accused of fatally shooting an Israeli in June. It was the most sweeping use of a recently revived, controversial antiterrorism measure since a wave of unrest escalated last month, mostly through demonstrations, stabbing attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians, and attempts to hit Israelis with vehicles. Israel’s Supreme Court approved the demolitions, all in the West Bank, on Thursday after days of debate." . . .
Home demolitions were a tactic widely used against the families of Palestinian suicide bombers during the second intifada, which erupted in 2000. But the practice was largely halted in 2005 after a commission found that it rarely worked as a deterrent, and often inflamed hostility. It was revived as a punitive measure last year.
“There are all too many incentives to encourage people to commit terrorist crimes,” said Mark Regev, a government spokesman. “People who commit these terrorist crimes are not afraid to die. So the fear that the house that they lived in will be destroyed after they are gone provides an effective deterrence and saves lives.”
"Sarit Michaeli, of the Israeli rights group B’Tselem, denounced the demolitions.
“The authorities have never accused the relatives who are losing their homes of any crimes,” Ms. Michaeli said. “The notion that it’s acceptable to punish people for other people’s actions is an affront to the law.”
The idea that loss of a home is going to deter terrorist acts sounds more like a rationalization than a reality. However, there are unfortunately, no easy answers to this conflict.
The idea that loss of a home is going to deter terrorist acts sounds more like a rationalization than a reality. However, there are unfortunately, no easy answers to this conflict.
More politically correct authoritarianism on campus
I never cease to be amazed at the
left-wing politically correct authoritarianism and animosity toward civil
rights that exists at many public colleges
and universities. That authoritarianism
is clear in the case of Second Amendment rights and First Amendment rights.
(see post below). In terms of numbers of
students, those campuses outnumber those with right-wing authoritarianism. Most of the latter are private or religious
schools. Private and religious schools
are not covered by the First Amendment.
The left-wing authoritarians believe that
the campus is entitled only a watered-down politically correct version of the
First Amendment and Second Amendments.
Below is an example of the position of a left-wing academician on the
First Amendment. Their obsession with ‘safe
space’ and ‘’microaggression’ overrides the First Amendment rights of others.
(The Supreme Court has long held that even hate speech is protected, bold added
below):
“This past week, the news media has
energetically discussed student unrest at Yale and at the University of
Missouri, where students are protesting administrative insensitivity or
inaction in the face of troubled racial climates. At Mizzou, in particular, student
activists have demanded safe space. A student journalist, Tim Tai, was denied access to the protesters’ tent city in a
public area of the campus. The protesters didn’t want to be photographed or
interviewed, possibly not trusting journalists to tell their story accurately.
The next day, they rightly changed their
stance, opened their space to the media, and a debate on free speech and safe
spaces found new life. Quickly, the student protesters were accused of not
tolerating free speech in regard not only to Mr. Tai, but also to those who use
racial epithets and otherwise engage in hate speech. They were accused of being
weak, of being whiny for having the audacity to expect to attend college
without being harassed for their blackness.
As a writer, I believe the First Amendment
is sacred. The freedom of speech, however, does not guarantee freedom from
consequence. You can speak your mind, but you can also be shunned. You can be
criticized. You can be ignored or ridiculed. You can lose your job. The freedom
of speech does not exist in a vacuum.
Many of the people who advocate for freedom of speech with the most bluster
are willing to waste this powerful right on hate speech.”
What the writer ignores is that if one can show that a
public college or university fires and employee or disciplines a student for
engaging in protected speech, the institution may be liable for damages and
injnctions for civil rights violation. It
is disturbing to see how many faculty and journalists lack the courage to speak
up when politically incorrect speech is denied constitutional respect in public
facilities. Finally, there is no such
thing as a ‘waste’ or First Amendment rights.
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
The 'outrageous government conduct' defense
It is rarely invoked and even then, rarely wins, but it is real.
Monday, November 16, 2015
Latest FBI data on hate crimes, Down in 2014
Keeping in mind the problems with such data, consider the following;
In 2014, law enforcement agencies reported 5,479 hate crime incidents involving 6,418 offenses to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.
2014 figures are down from 2013, when 5,928 criminal incidents involving 6,933 offenses were reported.
Of the 5,462 single-bias crimes reported in 2014, 47% involved racial motivation. Other motivators included sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, gender identity, disability, and gender. See the full report.
In 2014, law enforcement agencies reported 5,479 hate crime incidents involving 6,418 offenses to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.
2014 figures are down from 2013, when 5,928 criminal incidents involving 6,933 offenses were reported.
Of the 5,462 single-bias crimes reported in 2014, 47% involved racial motivation. Other motivators included sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, gender identity, disability, and gender. See the full report.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Police and illegal immigration/detainer flap
"Last month, Democrats in the United States Senate blocked a Republican-backed [anti]sanctuary cities bill, despite growing pressure from conservatives to crack down on local governments that refuse to fully cooperate with federal immigration officials or, in cities like Durham, to vigorously pursue immigration investigations.
But the lack of action in Washington has only increased the ferment over the issue in some cities and states across the country."
The issue became more inetense after a murder in San Francisco.
"The suspect is a Mexican national with an extensive criminal record who had been deported five times. Before the shooting, he had been released from custody by the authorities in San Francisco, who declined to respond to a federal request that the immigration authorities be notified. Sheriff Mirkarimi said he had been barred from responding by San Francisco’s sanctuary rules, which strictly limit cooperation between the police and federal immigration officials."
Read the article from the NYT to see develoments in N.C., TX and elsewhere.
'
Supreme Court to hear challeng to Texas abortion clinic laws
According to the NYT:
“The case concerns two parts of a state law that imposes strict
requirements on abortion providers. It was passed by the
Republican-dominated Texas Legislature and signed into law in July 2013 by Rick
Perry, the governor at the time.
One part of the law requires all clinics in the state to meet the standards
for “ambulatory surgical centers,” including regulations concerning buildings,
equipment and staffing. The other requires doctors performing abortions to have
admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
Officials in Texas said that the contested provisions were needed to
protect women’s health. Abortion providers responded that the regulations were
expensive, unnecessary and intended to put many of them out of business.”
The abortion providers are right.
The real purpose of the law is to put as many abortion clinics out of
business as possible. I predict the laws
will be overturned. It could be 5-4 with
Kennedy the deciding vote (as usual), or even 6-3.
The measures were modest and sensible, Ken Paxton, Texas’ attorney general, said in a statement on Friday
Friday, November 13, 2015
More on the culture of victimization
People on both the left and right are into the culture of victimization, not just the left and its microaggressions. See this excellent article from the Atlantic.
For example, the emergence of “the blogosphere” in the early aughts––something I participated in to some extent–– was rife with examples of conservative, progressive, and libertarian bloggers calling attention to minor slights against their respective ideological groups by mainstream media outlets. In “Fisking” the MSM, the aggrieved seized on these slights, often exaggerating them in the process; tried to garner the support of third parties (an ombudsman, the public at large); cast themselves as victims of unfair treatment; and demonized adversaries.
For example, the emergence of “the blogosphere” in the early aughts––something I participated in to some extent–– was rife with examples of conservative, progressive, and libertarian bloggers calling attention to minor slights against their respective ideological groups by mainstream media outlets. In “Fisking” the MSM, the aggrieved seized on these slights, often exaggerating them in the process; tried to garner the support of third parties (an ombudsman, the public at large); cast themselves as victims of unfair treatment; and demonized adversaries.
White Supremacist Violence has not died out
The KKK has largely faded into the background and many think white supremacy advocates and white supremacy violence are things of the past. Think again! The Dylan Roof case has brought new attention to the problem.
According to the
FBI
“It was a gruesome
and hateful crime—three men with white supremacist tattoos punching and kicking
the face and body of an African-American man at a bus stop in Houston last
summer simply because of the color of his skin. All three were recently convicted of the attack, following
an investigation by the FBI and its partners.
It’s
not an isolated case.
It seems like a throwback to a different era, but white supremacy—which sees
whites as inherently superior to those of other races—still exists in America
today.”
See this list of recent white supremacist crimes 2009-2012.
FIRE on Microagression and First Amendment on campus
Accoring to FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education):
Would colleges really take action to prohibit or punish speech alleged to be subconsciously insulting? Unfortunately, speech codes at some colleges and universities are already almost there—a quick look at FIRE’s Speech Codes of the Month demonstrates that. This month’s “winner,” the University of West Alabama, prohibits “harsh text messages or emails,” and December’s stand-out policy at Virginia State University says that students may not “offend … a member of the campus community.” Colleges routinely punish students for speech others have found offensive, and speech that might make listeners uncomfortable. With schools already restricting speech beyond what the First Amendment permits, it wouldn’t be a huge step to censor speech that might negatively affect students over time.
Troublingly, an October report (PDF) on bias and discrimination at UCLA seems to encourage the school to chill speech that it may not punish directly—an initiative that would plainly conflict with decades of First Amendment jurisprudence. The report says (emphasis added):
The idea of microaggressions is not new, but it is gaining attention, and developments at UCLA illustrate that many expect microaggressions to be dealt with administratively, not through open debate. But whether the perceived verbal insult is “macro” or “micro,” the correct answer to insulting or offensive speech must be more speech—not censorship, not the threat of unwarranted investigation, and not disruption of class."
Would colleges really take action to prohibit or punish speech alleged to be subconsciously insulting? Unfortunately, speech codes at some colleges and universities are already almost there—a quick look at FIRE’s Speech Codes of the Month demonstrates that. This month’s “winner,” the University of West Alabama, prohibits “harsh text messages or emails,” and December’s stand-out policy at Virginia State University says that students may not “offend … a member of the campus community.” Colleges routinely punish students for speech others have found offensive, and speech that might make listeners uncomfortable. With schools already restricting speech beyond what the First Amendment permits, it wouldn’t be a huge step to censor speech that might negatively affect students over time.
Troublingly, an October report (PDF) on bias and discrimination at UCLA seems to encourage the school to chill speech that it may not punish directly—an initiative that would plainly conflict with decades of First Amendment jurisprudence. The report says (emphasis added):
We recognize that not all of the incidents of perceived discrimination of which faculty members complain will be actionable. Several faculty members referenced the notion of “microaggressions,” which researchers have defined as “subtle verbal and nonverbal insults directed toward non-Whites, often done automatically and unconsciously. … Some enhanced recordkeeping would allow the university to monitor the number of complaints regarding such incidents, and therefore to better understand the campus climate for faculty (and students) of color. And finally, investigations might deter those who would engage in such conduct, even if their actions would likely not constitute a violation of university policy.In other words, the report states that “microaggressions” protected under the First Amendment may be deterred by subjecting speakers to investigations. The statement alone is absolutely true—and it should be treated as a warning. Chilling speech on campus is not some kind of benign side-effect, nor is investigating protected speech a permissible means of influencing student or faculty dialogue. As Torchreaders already know, intimidating students into self-censorship is no more constitutional than punishing them directly for their speech. In White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1228 (9th Cir. 2000), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an investigation into protected speech chilled expression and was therefore a violation of the First Amendment in and of itself. Similarly, in Levin v. Harleston, 966 F.2d 85 (2nd Cir. 1992), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s finding that a university president’s creation of a committee to investigate protected speech by the professor implied the possibility of disciplinary action, and thus violated the First Amendment. The report’s implication that chilling protected speech is an acceptable strategy is alarming and dangerous.
The idea of microaggressions is not new, but it is gaining attention, and developments at UCLA illustrate that many expect microaggressions to be dealt with administratively, not through open debate. But whether the perceived verbal insult is “macro” or “micro,” the correct answer to insulting or offensive speech must be more speech—not censorship, not the threat of unwarranted investigation, and not disruption of class."
Microaggression obsession threatens First Amendment Values
Violence and threats are not protected by the First Amendment, but the trending microaggression obsession threatens those values. Some call such conscious and unconscious acts and words "the new face of racism." Like it or not, racist comments and hate speech are generally protected by the First Amendment. Just as right-wing political correctness chilled protected speech during the McCarthy years, left-wing political correctness threatens those same freedoms on many college campuses today.
Both the left and right are capable of amazing hypocrisy and authoritarianism. It seems like too many people want to wear he mantle of "victim," when others behave in provocative ways that are constitutionally protected. First Amendment freedoms have fallen victim to campus speech codes. I guess the next step is microaggression codes.
Further, First Amendment values are central to the educational process.
"
Both the left and right are capable of amazing hypocrisy and authoritarianism. It seems like too many people want to wear he mantle of "victim," when others behave in provocative ways that are constitutionally protected. First Amendment freedoms have fallen victim to campus speech codes. I guess the next step is microaggression codes.
Further, First Amendment values are central to the educational process.
“Some call it the new face of racism — not the
blatant acts of bias that recently led to the University of Missouri's campus
unrest and resignation of the president and chancellor. Instead, a phenomenon
known as "microaggression" — everyday slights and snubs, sometimes
unintentional — is drawing widespread attention across college campuses and
kicking up a debate about social justice and free speech rights. . . . Some critics, however, say they worry that
the microaggression movement chills free speech, increases conflict and
perpetuates an aggrieved sense of victimhood.
Bradley Campbell, a an associate professor of
sociology at Cal State Los Angeles, said the movement is transforming society
from a "dignity culture," in which people are taught to have thick
skins and refuse to allow others to affect their sense of self-worth, to a
"victimhood culture" that advertises personal oppression. . . . Such
a shift, he argued, could increase mental health problems and 1st Amendment
conflicts, such as campus speech codes and the recent attempt by University of
Missouri students to bar journalists from entering a public area they deemed
their "safe space."
He also said that labeling those who
unintentionally offend as aggressors seemed harsh, potentially creating more conflict
and alienation among groups.
Others defend the focus on microaggression
as the next step forward in the country's long, slow march toward greater
equality and understanding.”
"
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
U.S. Supreme Court: Officer will not face civil trial in killing case.
The Supreme Court, without reaching the merits of the case, and in a per curiam opinion, ruled that the officer who shot and killed a fleeing driver would not face civil trial. Only Justice Sotomayor dissented. According to the ABA Journal:
"A police officer who fired six times at the car of a fleeing arrestee, killing the driver, was entitled to qualified immunity in a civil suit, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a summary reversal. . ..
The driver, Israel Leija Jr., had fled after a police officer approached his car at a drive-in restaurant and told Leija he was under arrest, according to the Supreme Court opinion. Leija drove at speeds between 85 and 110 miles per hour during the chase. Twice he called the Tulia police dispatcher, claiming that he had a gun and would shoot at officers if they didn’t give up the chase. The dispatcher also received a report that Leija might be intoxicated.
Officers set up tire spikes at three locations, including at Cemetery Road beneath an overpass. Mullenix drove to the Cemetery Road overpass and considered shooting at Leija’s car to disable it. Mullenix asked the dispatcher to ask his supervisor if the plan was worth doing, and got out of the vehicle; it’s unclear whether he heard his supervisor’s advice to wait to see if the spikes worked. Mullenix fired when the car approached, killing Leija." . . .The majority concluded:
"Those [precedents] cases “have not clearly established that deadly force is inappropriate to conduct like Leija’s,” the Supreme Court said. Indeed, the court said, its opinions “never found the use of deadly force in connection with a dangerous car chase to violate the Fourth Amendment, let alone to be a basis for denying qualified immunity.”
Sotomayor said Mullenix had no training in shooting to disable a vehicle, had no permission to shoot, and did not wait to see if the spikes stopped the vehicle. She argued that Mullenix “puts forth no plausible reason to choose shooting at Leija’s engine block over waiting for the results of the spike strips.”
If the officer heard the order/advice and deliberately ignored it, agency discipline should be considered. Many commentators think the U.S. Supreme Court had been too generous to officers with its qualified immunity rulings. Some argue that this has encourage police to be excessively aggressive. IMHO, without having read the opinions, except for the advice/order issue, this seems like a decision where the officer deserves the benefit of the doubt.
The opinions are here. Scroll down to find them.
"A police officer who fired six times at the car of a fleeing arrestee, killing the driver, was entitled to qualified immunity in a civil suit, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a summary reversal. . ..
The driver, Israel Leija Jr., had fled after a police officer approached his car at a drive-in restaurant and told Leija he was under arrest, according to the Supreme Court opinion. Leija drove at speeds between 85 and 110 miles per hour during the chase. Twice he called the Tulia police dispatcher, claiming that he had a gun and would shoot at officers if they didn’t give up the chase. The dispatcher also received a report that Leija might be intoxicated.
Officers set up tire spikes at three locations, including at Cemetery Road beneath an overpass. Mullenix drove to the Cemetery Road overpass and considered shooting at Leija’s car to disable it. Mullenix asked the dispatcher to ask his supervisor if the plan was worth doing, and got out of the vehicle; it’s unclear whether he heard his supervisor’s advice to wait to see if the spikes worked. Mullenix fired when the car approached, killing Leija." . . .The majority concluded:
"Those [precedents] cases “have not clearly established that deadly force is inappropriate to conduct like Leija’s,” the Supreme Court said. Indeed, the court said, its opinions “never found the use of deadly force in connection with a dangerous car chase to violate the Fourth Amendment, let alone to be a basis for denying qualified immunity.”
Sotomayor said Mullenix had no training in shooting to disable a vehicle, had no permission to shoot, and did not wait to see if the spikes stopped the vehicle. She argued that Mullenix “puts forth no plausible reason to choose shooting at Leija’s engine block over waiting for the results of the spike strips.”
If the officer heard the order/advice and deliberately ignored it, agency discipline should be considered. Many commentators think the U.S. Supreme Court had been too generous to officers with its qualified immunity rulings. Some argue that this has encourage police to be excessively aggressive. IMHO, without having read the opinions, except for the advice/order issue, this seems like a decision where the officer deserves the benefit of the doubt.
The opinions are here. Scroll down to find them.
President gets setback on executive orders power
Although this ruling is not a ruling on the merits of the President's power to make massive policy changes via executive order, it suggests that Obama will ultimately lose. Democracy can be slow and inefficient, but we must abide by the constitutional separation of powers. Congress makes the laws, the President enforces them. These executive actions are not adjustments or tweakings of Congressional action. According to the NYT:
"A federal appeals court said Monday that President Obama could not move forward with his plans to overhaul immigration rules by providing up to five million people with work permits and protection from deportation.
"A federal appeals court said Monday that President Obama could not move forward with his plans to overhaul immigration rules by providing up to five million people with work permits and protection from deportation.
"A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, ruled 2 to 1 against an appeal by the Obama administration, saying a lawsuit brought by 26 states to block Mr. Obama’s actions was likely to succeed at trial.
The ruling is the latest blow to the president’s efforts to circumvent congressional inaction on immigration by using the power of his office to reshape the way immigration laws are enforced."
Friday, November 06, 2015
Good analyis of the Confederate Flag Flap
Excellent sociological and historical analysis by Richard M. McMurry.
"RICHARD M. MCMURRY, a native of Atlanta, Georgia, is a historian, author, and lecturer of Civil War history. He graduated from the Virginia Military Academy, earned a PhD in history from Emory University, and taught at Valdosta State University and North Carolina State University. He has written four major books on the western theater, one of which was awarded the Laney Prize, and many articles and essays for history journals and magazines. Dr. McMurry compiled a biographical encyclopedia of the alumni of the Virginia Military Institute who served in the Civil War."
Some quotes follow:
"First, we must understand that symbols like the Confederate Flag have no intrinsic meaning. The meanings symbols carry is that which humans attach from their own learning. Thus, any viewer of a symbol is free to assign it any range of meanings. The symbol itself, then is constant, but the value symbolized is not. Assuming that the Confederate Flag is an element of our culture, it becomes neccesary to define culture. Stephen M. Fjellman, in his book Vinyl Leaves, defines cultre as: "a public, more-or-less shared set of symbols, meanings, understandings, and beliefs people use to make sense of and reproduce their normal lives." Culture and symbols, like the Confederate Flag, can be shared on an international, local, regional, economic, racial, ethnic, or family level, all of which can overlap forming an infinite array of possibilities. Herein lies the source of controversy over the Confederate flag.
Semiotics is the term for this "study of signs." Semiotics involves a sort of unpacking of signs by looking at them not as having any natural meaning, but as constructs reproducing society's beliefs. As Valetin Volosinov put it: "Whenever a sign is present, ideology is present" (cited in Chandler). For a more detailed explanation of Semiotics, see Daniel Chandler's Semiotics for Beginners."
"The flag was a symbol of the Confederate States of America, the losing party in the Civil War. Volumes upon volumes have been written about the causes of the Civil War, but most historians agree slavery was the one single issue without which the war could have been avoided. The war was not fought over slavery in the South, but slavery in the territories, especially those acquired from Mexico in 1848. Southerner's feared any kind of government regulation of their "peculiar institution," and saw the outlawing of slavery in the territories as a sure sign that slavery in the South would soon end as well. "
The current flap is an update of civil rights movement and the issue of white supremacy.
"RICHARD M. MCMURRY, a native of Atlanta, Georgia, is a historian, author, and lecturer of Civil War history. He graduated from the Virginia Military Academy, earned a PhD in history from Emory University, and taught at Valdosta State University and North Carolina State University. He has written four major books on the western theater, one of which was awarded the Laney Prize, and many articles and essays for history journals and magazines. Dr. McMurry compiled a biographical encyclopedia of the alumni of the Virginia Military Institute who served in the Civil War."
Some quotes follow:
"First, we must understand that symbols like the Confederate Flag have no intrinsic meaning. The meanings symbols carry is that which humans attach from their own learning. Thus, any viewer of a symbol is free to assign it any range of meanings. The symbol itself, then is constant, but the value symbolized is not. Assuming that the Confederate Flag is an element of our culture, it becomes neccesary to define culture. Stephen M. Fjellman, in his book Vinyl Leaves, defines cultre as: "a public, more-or-less shared set of symbols, meanings, understandings, and beliefs people use to make sense of and reproduce their normal lives." Culture and symbols, like the Confederate Flag, can be shared on an international, local, regional, economic, racial, ethnic, or family level, all of which can overlap forming an infinite array of possibilities. Herein lies the source of controversy over the Confederate flag.
Semiotics is the term for this "study of signs." Semiotics involves a sort of unpacking of signs by looking at them not as having any natural meaning, but as constructs reproducing society's beliefs. As Valetin Volosinov put it: "Whenever a sign is present, ideology is present" (cited in Chandler). For a more detailed explanation of Semiotics, see Daniel Chandler's Semiotics for Beginners."
"The flag was a symbol of the Confederate States of America, the losing party in the Civil War. Volumes upon volumes have been written about the causes of the Civil War, but most historians agree slavery was the one single issue without which the war could have been avoided. The war was not fought over slavery in the South, but slavery in the territories, especially those acquired from Mexico in 1848. Southerner's feared any kind of government regulation of their "peculiar institution," and saw the outlawing of slavery in the territories as a sure sign that slavery in the South would soon end as well. "
The current flap is an update of civil rights movement and the issue of white supremacy.
"With the coming
of the Civil Rights movement came the beginnings of the controversy surrounding
the flag which we know today. White Southerners believed that their exclusive
culture was being threatened, and the flag became a symbol against civil rights.
The segregationist Dixiecrat party of 1948, who ran Strom Thurmond for
president, took on the Confederate flag as its symbol."
Thursday, November 05, 2015
Right to home-school one's children
This El Paso family decided to home school their children.
"Now the family is embroiled in a legal battle the Texas Supreme Court hears Monday that could have broad implications on the nation’s booming home-school ranks. The McIntyres are accused of failing to teach their children educational basics because they were waiting to be transported to heaven with the second coming of Jesus Christ.
At issue: Where do religious liberty and parental rights to educate one’s children stop and obligations to ensure home-schooled students ever actually learn something begin?
“Parents should be allowed to decide how to educate their children, not whether to educate their children,” said Rachel Coleman, executive director of the Massachusetts-based Coalition for Responsible Home Education."
No rights are absolute. It's the line-drawing that is difficult. Stay tuned!
"Now the family is embroiled in a legal battle the Texas Supreme Court hears Monday that could have broad implications on the nation’s booming home-school ranks. The McIntyres are accused of failing to teach their children educational basics because they were waiting to be transported to heaven with the second coming of Jesus Christ.
At issue: Where do religious liberty and parental rights to educate one’s children stop and obligations to ensure home-schooled students ever actually learn something begin?
“Parents should be allowed to decide how to educate their children, not whether to educate their children,” said Rachel Coleman, executive director of the Massachusetts-based Coalition for Responsible Home Education."
No rights are absolute. It's the line-drawing that is difficult. Stay tuned!
Edited "Victors Write the History" (?)
I see a lot of folks using the old saying "History is written by the victors."
However, the saying is not always true. It is a lazy way of dealing with issues. Since the invention of the printing press, the internet and in American with freedom of speech and press, it is even less true than before.
With regard to the controversy over the "Lost Cause" delusion, its advocates say it is a necessary correction to history written by the victors. However, a look a historiography shows that, in general, the losers of the Civil War were the first to get out their books, articles and movies.
"An example would be the American Civil War and the Lost Cause movement, a term borrowed from Edward Pollard's 1866 book The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates : Comprising a Full and Authentic Account of the Rise and Progress of the Late Southern Confederacy--the Campaigns, Battles, Incidents, and Adventures of the Most Gigantic Struggle of the World's History." This was probably the first book to come out after the end of the war.
According the Wikipedia:
Edward A. Pollard (February 27, 1832–December 17, 1872) was an American journalist and Confederate advocate.
Pollard is most famous for authoring The Lost Cause in 1866, followed up by The Lost Cause Regained in 1868. His work argued that the primary reason for Secession was not slavery but the preservation of state sovereignty, although he clearly supported the institution of slavery.[1] The Lost Cause and The Lost Cause Regained also advocated for the supremacy of the white race, supported the relegation of blacks to a second class status, and took the government [Union] to task for excesses committed during and after the recent war."
The lost cause also had it's movie. "Another prominent use of the Lost Cause perspective was in Thomas F. Dixon, Jr.'s 1905 novel The Clansman, later adapted to the screen by D. W. Griffith in his highly successful but controversial Birth of a Nation in 1915." And, of course, "Gone With the Wind" ignored the dark side of slavery. See Wikipedia.
Confederate VP Alexander Stephens also had books. "He wrote A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States (1867–70, 2 vol.) and History of the United States (1871 and 1883)."
Don't have time for more research but may get back to this later.
'
Monday, November 02, 2015
We need to rethink mandatory arbitration
In case you haven't notices, white collar and corporate crime and tortious conduct are rarely seriously punished. Corporations pay fines, but no one ever goes to jail (see prior posts on these topics). For instance, the GM ignition lock scandal took a number of lives, but no individual was ever called to answer in court. Another area of the law that may need change is mandatory arbitration. Arguably it save money and time for all parties involved. However, there is a down-side for consumers. According to the
FBI returning to 9 mm handguns
The FBI moved to 10 mm handguns and then to .40 cal S&W. It is now going back to 9 mm luger jacketed hollowpoint.
"The FBI is returning to the ammunition caliber it labeled ineffective and blamed for the deaths of two of its agents during a 1986 shootout in Miami – the 9mm jacketed hollow-point luger.
In addition to the new bullet, the FBI has decided to purchase a new pistol to fire it, something that could be in the hands of the bureau’s 13,000 agents by 2016. The decision could also have far-ranging implications for local law enforcement agencies because they often model their procurement decisions on those made by the FBI.
The shooter, former Army Ranger Michael Platt, then went on to kill two agents and wound a third. Though Platt was shot multiple times, an autopsy revealed that he died from the wound suffered from that first shot – one that penetrated his chest cavity but stopped just short of his heart."
As is often case with law enforcement, the agency ignored the real problem and looked for a technological solution. Although there was some flukey bad luck, the real problem in the shootout was haste, poor preparation. and poor tactical decision-making by the officers involved.
"The initial collision that forced the suspects off the road caused some unforeseen problems for the agents, as the FBI vehicles sustained damage from the heavier, older car driven by Matix.[8] Just prior to ramming the Monte Carlo, Manauzzi had pulled out his service revolver and placed it on the seat in anticipation of a shootout,[8] but the force of the collision flung open his door and sent his weapon flying. Hanlon lost his .357 Magnum service revolver during the initial collision, though he was still able to fight with his Smith & Wesson Model 36 backup gun. The collision knocked off Grogan's glasses, and there is speculation his vision was so bad that he was unable to see clearly enough to be effective (a claim disputed by the FBI's Medical Director, who stated that Grogan's vision was "not that bad"). Grogan is credited with landing the first hit of the gunfight, wounding Matix in the forearm as he leaned out of the Monte Carlo to fire the shotgun at Grogan and Dove.[9]Despite being on the lookout for two violent felons who were known to use firearms during their crimes, only two of the FBI vehicles contained shotguns (in addition to Mireles, McNeill had a shotgun in his car, but was unable to reach it before or during the shootout), and none of the agents was armed with a rifle. Only two of the agents were wearing ballistic vests, and the armor they were wearing was standard light body armor, which is designed to protect against handgun rounds, not the .223 Remington rounds fired by Platt's Mini-14 rifle. While heavier armor providing protection against rifle rounds would normally have been hot and uncomfortable to wear on patrol in Miami's April climate, the agents, spending the day sitting in air conditioned vehicles on the lookout for a single target, were facing good conditions for its use.
The other six agents involved in the stakeout in five vehicles, who did not reach the shootout in time to participate, did have additional weaponry including Remington shotguns, Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine guns, and M16 rifles."
"The FBI is returning to the ammunition caliber it labeled ineffective and blamed for the deaths of two of its agents during a 1986 shootout in Miami – the 9mm jacketed hollow-point luger.
In addition to the new bullet, the FBI has decided to purchase a new pistol to fire it, something that could be in the hands of the bureau’s 13,000 agents by 2016. The decision could also have far-ranging implications for local law enforcement agencies because they often model their procurement decisions on those made by the FBI.
The shooter, former Army Ranger Michael Platt, then went on to kill two agents and wound a third. Though Platt was shot multiple times, an autopsy revealed that he died from the wound suffered from that first shot – one that penetrated his chest cavity but stopped just short of his heart."
As is often case with law enforcement, the agency ignored the real problem and looked for a technological solution. Although there was some flukey bad luck, the real problem in the shootout was haste, poor preparation. and poor tactical decision-making by the officers involved.
"The initial collision that forced the suspects off the road caused some unforeseen problems for the agents, as the FBI vehicles sustained damage from the heavier, older car driven by Matix.[8] Just prior to ramming the Monte Carlo, Manauzzi had pulled out his service revolver and placed it on the seat in anticipation of a shootout,[8] but the force of the collision flung open his door and sent his weapon flying. Hanlon lost his .357 Magnum service revolver during the initial collision, though he was still able to fight with his Smith & Wesson Model 36 backup gun. The collision knocked off Grogan's glasses, and there is speculation his vision was so bad that he was unable to see clearly enough to be effective (a claim disputed by the FBI's Medical Director, who stated that Grogan's vision was "not that bad"). Grogan is credited with landing the first hit of the gunfight, wounding Matix in the forearm as he leaned out of the Monte Carlo to fire the shotgun at Grogan and Dove.[9]Despite being on the lookout for two violent felons who were known to use firearms during their crimes, only two of the FBI vehicles contained shotguns (in addition to Mireles, McNeill had a shotgun in his car, but was unable to reach it before or during the shootout), and none of the agents was armed with a rifle. Only two of the agents were wearing ballistic vests, and the armor they were wearing was standard light body armor, which is designed to protect against handgun rounds, not the .223 Remington rounds fired by Platt's Mini-14 rifle. While heavier armor providing protection against rifle rounds would normally have been hot and uncomfortable to wear on patrol in Miami's April climate, the agents, spending the day sitting in air conditioned vehicles on the lookout for a single target, were facing good conditions for its use.
The other six agents involved in the stakeout in five vehicles, who did not reach the shootout in time to participate, did have additional weaponry including Remington shotguns, Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine guns, and M16 rifles."
Taser Problems for Border Patrol
The Los Angeles Times “examined 450 uses of Tasers
from 2010 to 2013 that were documented by U.S. Customs and Border Protection
agents. . .
At least 70 times, agents fired the devices at
people who were running away, even though there was no struggle or clear
indication that agents were in danger, according to use-of-force reports. At
least six times, agents used the weapons against people who were trying to
climb over the border fence back into Mexico.
Two people were shocked while they were handcuffed.
Two were hit with five cycles of the weapon, even though the agency's policy
says no one should receive more than three.
Three people died after being hit by Tasers wielded
by border agents or customs officers. In one episode, 24-year-old Alex Martin, who had
led agents on a car chase, burned to death after a border agent smashed his car window and
fired a Taser inside. The device ignited an explosion and fireball.”
What we see over and over in attempts at police reforms is that training and new equipment do not solve the problem. The problems of institutional/occupational culture, lack of transparency and accountability, poor leadership and sloppy recruiting are generally ignored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)