Thursday, January 31, 2013

Nick Turse: The Hagel Hearings

The Last Best Chance for the Truth About a Lost War and America's War-Making Future

Cross-posted with TomDispatch.com

He's been battered by big-money conservative groups looking to derail his bid for secretary of defense.  Critics say he wants to end America's nuclear program.  They claim he's anti-Israel and soft on Iran.  So you can expect intense questioning -- if only for theatrical effect -- about all of the above (and undoubtedly then some) as Chuck Hagel faces his Senate confirmation hearings today.    

You can be sure of one other thing: Hagel's military service in Vietnam will be mentioned -- and praised. It's likely, however, to be in a separate and distinct category, unrelated to the pointed questions about current issues like defense priorities, his beliefs on the use of force abroad, or the Defense Department's role in counterterrorism operations.  You can also be sure of this: no senator will ask Chuck Hagel about his presence during the machine-gunning of an orphanage in Vietnam's Mekong Delta or the lessons he might have drawn from that incident.

Nor is any senator apt to ask what Hagel might do if allegations about similar acts by American troops emerge in Afghanistan or elsewhere.  Nor will some senator question him on the possible parallels between the CIA-run Phoenix Program, a joint U.S.-Vietnamese venture focused on identifying and killing civilians associated with South Vietnam's revolutionary shadow government, and the CIA's current targeted-killing-by-drone campaign in Pakistan's tribal borderlands.  Nor, for that matter, is he likely to be asked about the lessons he learned fighting a war in a foreign land among a civilian population where innocents and enemies were often hard to tell apart.  If, however, Hagel's military experience is to be touted as a key qualification for his becoming secretary of defense, shouldn't the American people have some idea of just what that experience was really like and how it shaped his thinking in regard to today's wars?

Chuck Hagel on Murder in Vietnam

"In Chuck Hagel our troops see a decorated combat veteran of character and strength -- they see him as one of their own," President Obama said as he nominated the former Republican senator from Nebraska to become the first former enlisted service member and first Vietnam veteran to serve as secretary of defense.  He went on to call him 'the leader that our troops deserve.' 

Chuck Hagel and his younger brother, Tom, fought together in Vietnam in 1968. The two are believed to be the only brothers to have served in the same infantry squad in that war and even more remarkably, each ended up saving the other's life.  'With Chuck, our troops will always know, just as Sergeant Hagel was there for his own brother, Secretary Hagel will be there for you,' the president said. 

Largely unnoted was the falling out the brothers had over the conflict.  After returning home, Tom began protesting the war, while Chuck defended it.  Eventually, the Hagel brothers reconciled and even returned to Vietnam together in 1999.  Years before, however, the two sat down with journalist and historian Myra MacPherson and talked about the war.  Although their interpretations of what they had been through differed, it's hard not to come away with the sense that both witnessed U.S. atrocities, and that Chuck Hagel's vision of the war is far more brutal than most Americans imagine.  That his experience of Vietnam would include such incidents should hardly be surprising, especially given the fact that Hagel served in the 9th Infantry Division under one of the most notorious U.S. commanders, Julian Ewell, known more colorfully as 'the Butcher of the Delta.'

The Hagel brothers, MacPherson recounts in her moving and important history Long Time Passing: Vietnam and the Haunted Generation, argued over whether American troops were 'murdering' people.  Chuck disagreed at first, pointing instead to the depredations of Vietnamese revolutionary forces.  Tom reminded his brother of the CIA's Phoenix Program which, with an estimated body count of more than 20,000 Vietnamese, too often turned murderous and was no less regularly used by corrupt Vietnamese government officials to settle personal grudges.  'There was some of that,' Chuck finally granted.

Tom then raised an example that hit closer to home -- the time, after an enemy attack, when a sergeant from their unit took out his frustrations on a nearby orphanage.  'Remember the orphanage, Chuck' That sergeant was so drunk and so pissed off that he crawled up on that track [armored personnel carrier] and opened up on that orphanage with a fifty-caliber machine gun,' Tom said.

When Chuck started to object, MacPherson writes, his brother was insistent.  'Chuck, you were there!  Down at the bottom of the sandhill.'  Skeptically, Chuck asked his brother if he was saying the sergeant had 'slaughtered children in the orphanage.'  Tom granted that he didn't know for sure, 'because none of us went in to check.'  Chuck responded, 'In any war you can take any isolated incident''

But the war Tom Hagel detailed to MacPherson wasn't one punctuated by a few isolated 'incidents.'  He would talk about officers ordering the mutilation of enemy dead and soldiers shooting up and burning down a village, about how helicopter gunships and napalm decimated large areas of the countryside, about the lethality of indiscriminate weapons fire and about coming upon the bodies of women and children when firefights were over.  He also recounted, in detail, a July 1968 assault on a 'hardcore' enemy village in which their unit took part.  After the battle had ended, he said, a lieutenant shot and killed a civilian in cold blood.  'We're collecting all the NVA [North Vietnamese Army] bodies and this woman walks out of a hootch.  He just shot her dead,' Tom recalled.

The Hagel Hearings: America's Last Best Chance for the Truth

Recently, MacPherson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in support of Chuck Hagel's bid to serve as Secretary of Defense: 'His experience has taught him the physical and mental toll of combat.  He would surely think twice before sending young men and women into unnecessary, stupid, or unwinnable conflicts... One thing I know: Chuck Hagel will stand up to whatever is thrown at him.' 

Tom Hagel has recently talked about his brother in similarly glowing terms.  'He's going to do a great job, he'll be totally committed to it,' he told Politico. 'I think he will bring special sensitivity for enlisted personnel to the job, because, of course, of his experiences as an enlisted person in Nam.'    

While he ultimately voted to authorize the war in Iraq -- despite grave misgivings -- there is a perception that, in the future, Hagel would be reticent to plunge the United States into yet more reckless wars and a strong belief exists among his supporters that he will stand up for America's sons and daughters in uniform.  On one subject, however, Hagel's Vietnam experience shows him in a lesser light: sensitivity to the plight of the men and women who live in America's war zones.  In this area, his seeming unwillingness to face up to, no less tell the whole truth about, the Vietnam War he saw should raise serious questions.  Unfortunately, it's a blind spot not just for him, but for official Washington generally, and probably much of the country as well. 

It's worth noting that the Hagel brothers left Vietnam just as their commanding general, Julian Ewell, launched a six-month operation in the Mekong Delta code-named Speedy Express.  One whistleblowing veteran who served in that operation told the Army's top generals that Ewell's use of heavy firepower on the countryside resulted in a 'My Lai each month' (a reference, of course, to the one massacre most Americans know about, in which U.S. troops slaughtered more than 500 civilians, most of them women, children, and elderly men).  That veteran's shocking allegations were kept secret and a nascent inquiry into them was suppressed by the Pentagon.

A later Newsweek investigation would conclude that as many as 5,000 civilians were killed during Speedy Express.  A secret internal military report, commissioned after Newsweek published its account, suggested that the magazine had offered a low-end estimate.  The document, kept secret and then buried for decades, concluded:

'While there appears to be no means of determining the precise number of civilian casualties incurred by US forces during Operation Speedy Express, it would appear that the extent of these casualties was in fact substantial, and that a fairly solid case can be constructed to show that civilian casualties may have amounted to several thousand (between 5,000 and 7,000).'

During the war, efforts by U.S. senators to look into Speedy Express were thwarted by Pentagon officials.  More than four decades later, no senator is ever going to launch an investigation into what actually happened or the Pentagon cover-up that kept the American people in the dark for decades.  Theoretically, the Hagel hearings do offer the Senate a belated chance to ask a few pertinent questions about the Vietnam War and the real lessons it holds for today's era of continuous conflict and for the civilians in distant lands who suffer from it.  But any such hope is, we know, sure to die a quick death in that Senate hearing room.

Chuck Hagel's views on the Vietnam War underwent a fundamental shift following the release of audio tapes of President Lyndon Johnson admitting, in 1964, that the war was unwinnable.  That "cold political calculation" caused Hagel to vow that he would "never, ever remain silent when that kind of thinking put more American lives at risk in any conflict." 

But what about lives other than those of Americans?  What about children in shot-up orphanages or women who survive a murderous crossfire only to be gunned down in cold blood?  Chuck Hagel may well be, as Mr. Obama contends, 'the leader that our troops deserve.'  But don't the American people deserve a little honesty from that leader about the war that shaped him?  In these few days, the senators considering his nomination have an opportunity, perhaps the last one available, to get some answers about a war whose realities, never quite faced here, continue to dog us so many decades later.  It's a shame that they are sure to pass it up in favor of the usual political theater. 

Nick Turse is the managing editor of TomDispatch.com and a fellow at the Nation Institute.  An award-winning journalist, his work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, and regularly at TomDispatch. He is the author most recently of Kill Anything that Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam (The American Empire Project, Metropolitan Books).  Published on January 15th, it offers a new look at the American war machine in Vietnam and the suffering it caused. His website is NickTurse.com.  You can follow him on Tumblr and on Facebook. 

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch and join us on Facebook.  Check out the newest Dispatch book, Nick Turse's The Changing Face of Empire: Special Ops, Drones, Proxy Fighters, Secret Bases, and Cyberwarfare.



Menendez Makes Big Denial Amid Drama

WASHINGTON ' Sen. Robert Menendez's office says he reimbursed a prominent Florida political donor $58,500 on Jan. 4 of this year for the full cost of two of three trips Menendez took on the donor's plane to the Dominican Republic in 2010.

Details of Menendez's trips emerged as his office said unsubstantiated allegations that the senator engaged in sex with prostitutes in the Dominican Republic are false.

There has been no public disclosure of the two trips until now.

"The senator paid for the two trips out of his personal account and no reporting requirements apply," Menendez spokeswoman Tricia Enright said Wednesday night.

The FBI searched the West Palm Beach, Fla., office of the donor ' eye doctor Salomon Melgen ' on Tuesday night and early Wednesday, but it was unclear if the raid was related to Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat.

A third trip by Menendez aboard Melgen's plane ' a campaign fundraising journey to the donor's residence in the Dominican Republic ' took place in May 2010. That trip was reported to the Federal Election Commission, said Enright. The trip, for fundraising from the community of Americans in the region, took Menendez to Puerto Rico as well as the Dominican Republic, said Menendez's office.

Menendez categorized the other two trips as personal. The first was Aug. 6-9, 2010, a round trip from South Florida to the Dominican Republic. The second was Sept. 3-6, 2010, from New Jersey to the Dominican Republic and back.

Menendez could have invoked what is known as a "friendship exemption" regarding the two personal trips, which would have required the senator to report the travel to the Senate Ethics Committee as a gift. Instead, Menendez chose to reimburse the full cost of the two trips.

The Daily Caller, a conservative website, reported shortly before the November election that Menendez traveled on Melgen's private plane to the Dominican Republic to engage in sex with prostitutes. Some New Jersey Republicans filed a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee last fall in the wake of the allegations by The Caller. In response, Menendez's staffers searched records for trips by the senator and found the two additional trips that hadn't been reimbursed.

On Tuesday, Menendez became chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, succeeding Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

At FBI headquarters in Washington, spokesman Jason Pack said the bureau "cannot comment on the existence or status of an investigation." Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler also declined to comment.

Records filed in Palm Beach County show an Internal Revenue Service lien against Melgen of more than $11.1 million for unpaid taxes from 2006-09. Prior liens for taxes from 1998 to 2002 were subsequently withdrawn, records show.

Menendez's office said the accusations of engaging with prostitutes "are manufactured by a politically motivated right-wing blog and are false."

Menendez's office said Melgen has been a friend and political supporter of the senator for many years and said the three trips Menendez took have been "paid for and reported appropriately." Menendez's office later changed the statement's wording to specify that the trips had been "paid for or reported appropriately," correcting the misimpression that all three trips had been publicly disclosed.

The Daily Caller began publishing stories about Menendez and Melgen on Nov. 1, when it reported that two women from the Dominican Republic said Menendez paid them for sex earlier in 2012. Prostitution is legal in the Caribbean nation.

Melgen is involved in numerous businesses, all sharing the same address in West Palm Beach, according to records filed with the Department of State in Florida.

Late Tuesday and early Wednesday, FBI agents were seen inside the West Palm Beach building, walking its halls and standing beside shelves full of files.

Melgen is listed as having an ownership interest in DRM Med Assist, which Federal Aviation Administration records show is the owner of a CL-600 Challenger plane. Flight records for the aircraft were not immediately available.

Melgen, a registered Democrat, has made $193,350 in political contributions since 1998, including $14,200 to Menendez, according to Federal Election Commission records. Menendez was chairman of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee, which raises money for Democratic Senate candidates, from 2009-11.

Menendez, a lawyer, is a former mayor of Union City, N.J., and also served in the New Jersey state General Assembly and the New Jersey state Senate. He is divorced and has two children.

Melgen, 58, is a native of the Dominican Republic, where he earned his medical degree from the Universidad Nacional Pedro Henrquez Urea in 1978. He has lived in the U.S. since at least 1980, holding an internship, residency and fellowship at hospitals in Connecticut, Missouri and Massachusetts, according to records filed with the Florida Department of Health.

Melgen has been licensed to practice in Florida since 1986 and purchased the West Palm Beach plot of land where he built his main office in 1991. Over the years, Melgen has become regarded as a top ophthalmologist, speaking at conferences and even operating on then-Gov. Lawton Chiles in 1997. The governor later appointed Melgen to a state panel on HMOs.

Calls to Melgen's offices Wednesday were forwarded to an answering service where receptionists told callers to try back Thursday. Calls to Melgen's home in North Palm Beach, which is appraised at $2.1 million, went unanswered.

On the website for his medical practice, Melgen writes: "I am always asked what sets me apart from most other doctors, and I would have to say that I do not consider myself to be a `cookbook' physician. My patients are my number one priority, and when I am looking to treat a diagnosis I try to look at all the data at hand and extrapolate the best treatment instead of solely adhering to what the current `standard' of treatment may be."

___

Associated Press writers Matt Sedensky in West Palm Beach, Fla., Curt Anderson in Miami and Jack Gillum and Larry Margasak in Washington contributed to this report.

Also on HuffPost:

  • Robert Byrd (D-W.V.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> Jan. 3, 1959 to June 28, 2010 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 51 years, 5 months, 26 days <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., appears at a Senate hearing on May 9, 2007 in Washington. He died on June 28, 2010 at the age of 92. (KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> Jan. 3, 1963 to Dec. 17, 2012 <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HI) speaks at a May 18, 2011 hearing in Washington. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

  • Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> Dec. 14, 1954 to April 4, 1956 and Nov 7, 1956 to Jan 3, 2003 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 47 years, 5 months, 8 days <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> Senator Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., pictured on May 22, 1997. He died on June 26, 2003 at the age of 100. (STEPHEN JAFFE/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> Nov. 7, 1962 to Aug. 25, 2009 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 46 years, 9 months, 19 days <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) speaks during a Jan. 21, 2007 taping of NBC's "Meet the Press." He died on Aug. 25, 2009 at the age of 77. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

  • Carl Hayden (D-Ariz.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> March 4, 1927 to Jan. 3, 1969 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 41 years, 9 months, 30 days <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> President Lyndon Johnson presents a pen to Sen. Carl Hayden, D-Ariz., on September 30, 1968 in Washington. Hayden died on Jan. 25, 1972 at the age of 94. (AP Photo)

  • John Stennis (D-Miss.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> Nov. 5, 1947 to Jan. 2, 1989 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 41 years, 1 month, 29 days <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> John Stennis, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, speaks on the July 6, 1969 edition of ABC's "Issues and Answers." Stennis died on April 23, 1995 at the age of 93. (AP Photo)

  • Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> Dec. 24, 1968 to Jan. 2, 2009 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 40 years, 10 days <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> In this Tuesday, April 7, 2009 file photo, former Sen. Ted Stevens arrives at federal court in Washington. Stevens died in a plane crash on Monday, Aug. 9, 2010 at the age of 86. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert, file)

  • Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> Nov. 9, 1966 to Jan. 2, 2005 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 38 years, 1 month, 25 days <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., appears at a Town Hall on Thursday, Oct. 7, 1983. He ran for the 1984 Democratic presidential nomination, but lost out to Vice President Walter Mondale. (AP Photo/Ron Frehm)

  • Richard Russell (D-Ga.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> Jan. 12, 1933 to Jan. 21, 1971 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 38 years, 19 days <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> Sen. Richard Russell (D-Ga.), shown from his Senate office desk in Washington on July 14, 1942. Russell died on Jan. 21, 1971 at age 73. (AP Photo/Eugene Abbott)

  • Russell Long (D-La.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> Dec. 31, 1948 to Jan. 2, 1987 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 38 years, 3 days <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> Russell Long, shown at his desk in Baton Rouge, La., on Feb. 21, 1948. Long died on May 9, 2003 at age 84. (AP Photo)

  • Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> Jan. 3, 1975 to present <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., stands in front of the U.S. Capitol building on Monday, Nov. 26, 2007. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

  • Francis Warren (R-Wyo.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> Nov. 18, 1890 to March 3, 1893 and March 4, 1895 to Nov. 24, 1929 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 37 years, 4 days <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

  • James Eastland (D-Miss.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> June 30, 1941 to Sept. 28, 1941 and Jan. 3, 1943 to Dec. 27, 1978 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 36 years, 2 months, 24 days <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> Sen. James O. Eastland of Mississippi, is shown in Washington on March 25, 1971. Eastland died on Feb. 19, 1986 at age 81. (AP Photo / Charles Tasnadi)

  • Warren Magnuson (D-Wash.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> Dec. 14, 1944 to Jan. 2, 1981 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 36 years, 20 days <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> Then-Rep. Warren Magnuson (D-Wash.) smiles in his Washington office on Oct. 19, 1943. Magnuson died on May 20, 1989 at the age of 84. (AP Photo)

  • Joe Biden (D-Del.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> Jan. 3, 1973 to Jan. 15, 2009 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 36 years, 13 days <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> Democratic vice presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Joe Biden (D-Del.) speaks at a rally in support of then-Democratic presidential nomineee U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) on October 12, 2008 in Scranton, Pa. (Photo by Jeff Fusco/Getty Images)

  • Pete Domenici (R-N.M.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> Jan. 3, 1973 to Jan. 2, 2009 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 36 years <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> U.S. Republican Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) listens during the announcement of the America Competes Act on March 5, 2007 in Washington. (MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> Jan. 3, 1961 to Jan. 2, 1997 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 36 years <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> U.S. Sen. Claiborne Pell, D-R.I., announces on Sept. 5, 1995 that he would not seek a seventh term in office. Pell died on Jan. 1, 2009 at age 90. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa) (AP Photo/Charles Krupa, File)

  • Kenneth McKellar (D-Tenn.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> March 4, 1917 to Jan. 2, 1953 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 35 years, 10 months <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> Sen. Kenneth McKellar (D-Tenn) left, and James M. Landis, OCD director meet on Feb. 27, 1942. McKellar died on Oct. 25, 1957 at age 88. (AP Photo)

  • Milton Young (R-N.D.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> March 12, 1945 to Jan. 2, 1981 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 35 years, 9 months, 22 days <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, left, chats to Senator John L. McClellan (D-Ark.), center, and Senator Milton Young (R-N.D.), at the White House in Washington, March 24, 1975. Young died on May 31, 1983 at the age of 85. (AP Photo)

  • Ellison Smith (D-S.C.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> March 4, 1909 to Nov. 17, 1944 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 35 years, 8 months, 13 days <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> Sen. Ellison Smith (left) meets with Secretary of Agriculture, Henry Wallace (right) on Jan. 18, 1934 in Washington. Smith died on Nov. 17, 1944 at age 80. (AP Photo)

  • Allen Ellender (D-La.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> Jan. 3, 1937 to July 27, 1972 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 35 years, 6 months, 24 days <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> Sen. Allen Ellender, D-La., bids goodbye to Mrs. Ladybird Johnson after a gumbo luncheon at the Capitol on August 21, 1964. Ellender died on July 27, 1972 at age 81. (AP Photo)

  • William Boyd Allison (R-Iowa)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> March 4, 1873 to Aug. 4, 1908 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 35 years, 5 months <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a>

  • Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> Jan 3. 1977 to present <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) heads to a weekly policy meeting at the Capitol on March 20, 2012 in Washington. (Photo by T.J. Kirkpatrick/Getty Images)

  • Richard Lugar (R-Ind.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> Jan 3. 1977 to present <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> Sen. Richard Lugar attends a courtesy call to the Malacanang Palace in Manila on October 29, 2012. (NOEL CELIS/AFP/Getty Images)

  • John McClellan (D-Ark.)

    <strong>Dates of service:</strong> Jan. 3, 1943 to Nov. 28, 1977 <strong>Years of service:</strong> 34 years, 11 months <strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm">United States Senate</a> A portrait of John McClellan, who served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1935-38 and served in the Senate from 1943 until his death in 1977. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)




GOP Politician Swears At Teenage Basketball Referee

The 17-year-old youth basketball referee who got into an argument with Frederick County Commissioners President Blaine Young rebuts some of the county official's claims, his mother said Wednesday.

Stacy Allwein said her son, Michael, was not the aggressor in the Jan. 5 dispute, and the New Life Christian School senior reacted only after Young, 41, made an obscene comment.

Allwein said she was not at the game, but believes her son's explanation of events.

Allwein, of New Market, said in an interview with The Frederick News-Post that although her son did not want to talk publicly about the event, she felt a need to balance the claims made by Young.

"I was furious when it all happened," she said. "We decided to let it go. We wanted to set the right example for Michael."

But after reading that Young told The News-Post the referee initiated the confrontation, Stacy Allwein decided to come forward.

"I just thought it was very arrogant and (Young) was twisting things to make himself look like a victim," Allwein said. "It just appeared he had ulterior political motives. Taking the blame off him and putting it on a 17-year-old."

Allwein said she was shocked by Young's comments to her son.

"You might call someone a lot of things, but who calls somebody those obscene words?" she said.

Young, who is campaigning for governor, is a volunteer coach for his son's team, the Heat. The players are fifth- and sixth-graders.

The Linganore, Oakdale, Urbana Youth Athletic Association disciplined Young with a one-game suspension. Young said he decided to call the teenager to apologize.

"If I thought it was appropriate, would I agree to sit a game or would I agree to apologize?" Young said. "Have elected officials or human beings made mistakes? Sure."

Allwein was not suspended for his actions, but was told how to better handle similar situations in the future, according to a league official.

"They both agreed the situation escalated to an unacceptable level," the league's president, Jamie Dailey, said Wednesday. "We addressed the situation immediately and took action. As far as we're concerned, the situation is over and was handled appropriately."

LOUYAA Vice President Arnie McGaha called both the coach and referee to get their versions of what happened, Dailey said. No one witnessed the altercation.

"Just the simple fact that there was a heated argument that took place, that is not acceptable on our playing field," Dailey said. "Whatever happened, it shouldn't have."

David Crawmer, coach of the opposing team, said Wednesday that he heard some banter between Young and Allwein during the game.

"Nothing I had never seen before," Crawmer said. "A coach not happy about a call. Nothing seemed out of the ordinary."

After the game, Crawmer shook hands with Young's team and the referees and walked away, he said; he did not see or hear the postgame altercation.

Who said what and when is still up for debate. Allwein said her son gave the following account:

After the game, Michael was sitting on the floor changing his shoes when Young confronted him.

"Blaine was hovering over him," she said.

After a brief exchange, Allwein said her son told Young to "get out of my face."

That's when Young made an obscene comment, she said, and her son responded with mild profanity.

Young's account of events differs. While he would not say specifically what was said, Young reiterated Wednesday that the referee initiated the verbal dispute.

"What he said to me, I found extremely offensive," Young said.

The situation bothered him for the rest of that weekend, he said.

"This was an isolated situation that got out of hand on both sides," Young said. "It bothered me that I allowed somebody to get to me that way."

This is the first problem the league has had with either Young or Allwein, according to McGaha.

"I think Michael is a young man who has a lot of passion toward basketball and likes to be around the game," McGaha said. "I think they are both good people, and I think they are involved because they have a passion for basketball."

Young's team won the game by 19 points and remains undefeated this season, according to the league's website.

Allwein, who is in his first season as a referee for this league, will continue to work games, his mother said. Referees are paid less than $20 a game, according to a league official.

Her son, who has played basketball since the first grade, is a starting guard on his high school team.

"He literally is doing it because he likes to do it," Stacy Allwein said of Michael's decision to be a referee. "He gives up a lot of things, but he likes to be in the gym. ... He knows basketball, and he loves kids." ___

(c)2013 The Frederick News-Post (Frederick, Md.)

Visit The Frederick News-Post (Frederick, Md.) at www.fredericknewspost.com

Distributed by MCT Information Services

Also on HuffPost:



Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Barbara Holm: Rhetoric of Rape

I feel like I've heard the word rape more in the last five years than ever in my life. Maybe in part that's because five years ago I was 20 and busy thinking about Harry Potter. But I think mostly it's because sexual violence is being discussed more, by politicians, people in television, comedians, and society in general. I wonder if that means as a society battling an endless rape culture, we're starting to pull out... or that it's getting worse.

On Wednesday New Mexico Rep. Cathrynn Brown introduced House Bill 206, that would make getting an abortion after sexual assault a criminal offense because it would be tampering with the evidence. You may be thinking, "Cathrynn... that is a woman's name... weird." Well, reader, good job remembering literally the only thing I remember from Wuthering Heights, and yes, you're correct.

This is one of the craziest things I've ever heard, and I'm a comedian who likes jokes about cryptozoological creatures and aliens. Brown's language that she used to describe it makes it seem like she has no idea that she sounds like she's punishing the victims. She sounds like she's not thinking of the victims at all. NM Rep Gail Chasey commented, "As an attorney I started looking at it and thought that's not how we gather evidence in a rape anyway, so it doesn't even make sense logically."

How would using a fetus as evidence even work? The baby comes out, it hunts down its father and confronts them on Jerry Springer and then 20 years later, boom, we got him!? Also, what about victims that don't get pregnant? That opens up the Todd Akin "legitimate" argument that if women don't get pregnant, maybe they weren't really assaulted... Which just basically proves that Todd Akin and people akin to him lack a legitimate soul.

I think this kind of rhetoric is what shames a lot of victims into not reporting it, or subliminally encourages men into thinking that forcing, manipulating, or taking advantage of women is okay. (It's not okay. Ever. Being a good person is okay. Try that.) It seems like we're talking about it more, which I think is good because it's bringing it into the spotlight, calling attention to the problem, hopefully inspiring to take action towards a solution. I wonder if maybe this style of conversation has been historically consistent, but now finally people, men and women, are speaking out against the rhetoric.

It's good that we're getting so mad about the comments politicians and comedians are making. But it doesn't seem like the politicians are getting any better at it. The Todd Akins and Cathrynn Browns and Daniel Tosh's (Yes I know he isn't a comedian, thank goodness) do not seem like they are learning, developing empathy or social graces. What if we talked about sexual violence like it was a bad thing? Oh, no I'm ruining comedy again. I'm not saying politicians and comedians shouldn't talk about horrible crimes; I'm just saying maybe talk about it in a way that makes the rapist, not the victim the villain.

I honestly think Cathrynn Brown made a mistake in her wording and did not mean to villainize the victims. But lately it seems the excuse of "I misspoke" is a broken record, and that our record of talking about sexual violence in a way that doesn't terrify women on a primal fight or flight level is also broken.

The way we talk about rape in the media often illustrates the crime as a violent crime that occurs in dark alleys (which it is) but this neglects the idea it can happen at a party, or a date, or at a friend's house. Our words affect how people perceive issues. The media, news and otherwise, has a lot of influence on our culture's behavior. Even if politicians or comedians aren't saying, "Rape is okay," they're often not saying "rape is wrong" either. I think it's good we're talking about it more. Let's make sure we're talking about it in a beneficial way. The way people are talking about it in the news is affecting how your kids are talking about it in gym class and how your boyfriends are talking about it in their stupid boyfriend treehouse club. (Do boyfriends have treehouse clubs? I don't know.) Words have a lot of power. Don't use them for evil.

I think the best way to deal with a problem like this is to put more thought into how to talk about sexual violence in a way that makes it clear that it is a horrible thing. I guess I'm not really saying anything too outlandish there. I think after the Cathrynn Brown incident, it's important to remember that a lot of us are good people, and we shouldn't just be silent and wait until someone makes us angry to show that.


Follow Barbara Holm on Twitter: www.twitter.com/barbara_holm



Montana Republican Pushes Draconian Law

WASHINGTON -- A Republican state legislator in Montana, who once asked to be paid in gold coins, has introduced legislation that would allow convicted criminals in the state to request a sentence of corporal punishment in lieu of jail.

State Rep. Jerry O'Neil (R-Columbia Falls) has put forward a new bill that would allow the option of corporal punishment for those convicted of misdemeanors and felonies in the state. The bill, which has not yet been assigned to committee, would allow for the convicted to bargain with a judge for a sentence of corporal punishment, but would give the judge the final say in who receives such a punishment. The Lowdown blog of the Great Falls Tribune first reported the story Tuesday evening.

O'Neil's legislation defines corporal punishment as "the infliction of physical pain on a defendant to carry out the sentence negotiated between the judge and the defendant." The exact means of inflicting said physical pain is not written into the bill, but would presumably be determined during negotiations between defendants and judges. The bill also does not specify whether any felonies would be exempt from the law, thus allowing for the possibility that murderers could receive corporal punishment instead of jail time.

The last case of corporal punishment used for a criminal in the U.S. was a public whipping in Delaware in 1952. Delaware formally abolished public whipping in 1972. Under the terms of the Montana legislation, corporal punishment -- whatever method might be employed -- would be conducted either by county sheriffs or officials with the state Department of Corrections.

Corporal punishment remains a common form of criminal punishment in several countries including Singapore, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen and Nigeria. For example, media reported on Monday that the Iranian state amputated the fingers on the right hand of a convicted thief. Corporal punishment remains on the books in several other countries including Barbados, Botswana, Brunei, Swaziland, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, and Zimbabwe.

O'Neil, who backed Ron Paul for president in 2012, is no stranger to unusual requests. Late last year, he requested that the state pay his legislative salary in gold and silver coins to guard against the collapse of the dollar. The request was denied by state officials.

Also on HuffPost:

  • Alabama State Capitol (Montgomery, Ala.)

    Pictured on Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2012. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)

  • Alaska State Capitol (Juneau, Alaska)

    Pictured on Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011. (AP Photo/Chris Miller)

  • Arizona State Capitol (Phoenix)

    Pictured on Friday, April 23, 2010. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

  • Arkansas State Capitol (Little Rock, Ark.)

    Pictured on Wednesday, Nov. 30, 2011. (AP Photo/Danny Johnston)

  • California State Capitol (Sacramento, Calif.)

    Pictured on Thursday, Jan. 5, 2006. (Photo by David Paul Morris/Getty Images)

  • Colorado State Capitol (Denver)

    Pictured on Thursday, Oct. 26, 2006. (Photo by Doug Pensinger/Getty Images)

  • Connecticut State Capitol (Hartford, Conn.)

    Pictured on Tuesday, Feb. 7, 1999. (AP Photo/Bob Child)

  • Delaware State Capitol (Dover, Del.)

  • Florida State Capitol (Tallahassee, Fla.)

    Pictured on Monday, Jan. 3, 2011. (AP Photo/John Raoux)

  • Georgia State Capitol (Atlanta)

    Pictured on Tuesday, November 13, 2007. (Photo by Jessica McGowan/Getty Images)

  • Hawaii State Capitol (Honolulu)

  • Idaho State Capitol (Boise, Idaho)

    Pictured on Monday, Jan. 14, 2008. (Ned Dishman/NBAE via Getty Images)

  • Illinois State Capitol (Springfield, Ill.)

    Pictured on Tuesday, Sept. 21, 2004. (AP Photo/Seth Perlman)

  • Indiana State Capitol (Indianapolis)

    Pictured on Saturday, Feb. 4, 2012. (Photo by Jeff Gross/Getty Images)

  • Iowa State Capitol (Des Moines, Iowa)

    Pictured on Wednesday, Aug. 10, 2011. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

  • Kansas State Capitol (Topeka, Kan.)

    Pictured on Thursday, April 15, 2010. (AP Photo/Orlin Wagner)

  • Kentucky State Capitol (Frankfort, Ky.)

    Pictured on Wednesday, April 12, 2006. (AP Photo/James Crisp)

  • Louisiana State Capitol (Baton Rouge, La.)

    Pictured on Monday, Jan. 14, 2008. (Matthew HINTON/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Maine State Capitol (Augusta, Me.)

    Pictured on Monday, Oct. 17, 2011. (AP Photo/Pat Wellenbach)

  • Maryland State Capitol (Annapolis, Md.)

    Pictured on Friday, Nov. 23, 2007. (JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Massachusetts State House (Boston)

    Pictured on Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2007. (Photo by Darren McCollester/Getty Images)

  • Michigan State Capitol (Lansing, Mich.)

    Pictured on Wednesday, April 13, 2011. (Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)

  • Minnesota State Capitol (St. Paul, Minn.)

    Pictured on Friday, July 1, 2011. (Photo by Hannah Foslien/Getty Images)

  • Mississippi State Capitol (Jackson, Miss.)

    Pictured on Thursday, June 10, 1999. (AP Photo/Rogelio Solis)

  • Missouri State Capitol (Jefferson City, Mo.)

    Pictured on Friday, Oct. 16, 2000. (Photo credit should read ORLIN WAGNER/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Montana State Capitol (Helena, Mont.)

  • Nebraska State Capitol (Lincoln, Neb.)

    Pictured on Wednesday, Nov. 25, 1998. (AP Photo/S.E. McKee)

  • Nevada State Capitol (Carson City, Nev.)

  • New Hampshire State House (Concord, N.H.)

    Pictured on Friday, Dec. 28, 2001. (Todd Warshaw//Pool/Getty Images

  • New Jersey State House (Trenton, N.J.)

    Pictured on Friday, Aug. 13, 2004. (Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images)

  • New Mexico State Capitol (Santa Fe, N.M.)

  • New York State Capitol (Albany, N.Y.)

    Pictured on Sunday, March 16, 2008. (Photo by Daniel Barry/Getty Images)

  • North Carolina State Capitol (Raleigh, N.C.)

    Pictured in 1930. (AP Photo)

  • North Dakota State Capitol (Bismarck, N.D.)

    Pictured on Thursday, April 19, 2012. (AP Photo/Dale Wetzel)

  • Ohio Statehouse (Columbus, Ohio)

    Pictured on Tuesday, March 8, 2011. (Photo by Mike Munden/Getty Images)

  • Oklahoma State Capitol (Oklahoma City)

    Pictured on Wednesday, Feb. 29, 2012. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)

  • Oregon State Capitol (Salem, Ore.)

    Pictured on Friday, May 20, 2011. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer, file)

  • Pennsylvania State Capitol (Harrisburg, Pa.)

    Pictured on Thursday, June 28, 2012. (BRIGITTE DUSSEAU/AFP/GettyImages)

  • Rhode Island State House (Providence, R.I.)

    Pictured on Wednesday, Aug. 1, 1945. (AP Photo)

  • South Carolina State House (Columbia, S.C.)

    Pictured on Monday, Jan. 21, 2008. (Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images)

  • South Dakota State Capitol (Pierre, S.D.)

    Pictured on Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2012. (AP Photo/Doug Dreyer)

  • Tennessee State Capitol (Nashville, Tenn.)

    Pictured on Tuesday, Sept. 30, 1941. (AP Photo)

  • Texas State Capitol (Austin, Texas)

    Pictured on Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2011. (MIRA OBERMAN/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Utah State Capitol (Salt Lake City)

    Pictured on Thursday, March 15, 2001. (GEORGE FREY/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Vermont State House (Montpelier, Vt.)

    Pictured on April 9, 1953. (AP Photo/Francis C. Curtin)

  • Virginia State Capitol (Richmond, Va.)

    Pictured on Wednesday, May 2, 2007. (Photo by Chris Jackson/Getty Images)

  • Washington State Capitol (Olympia, Wash.)

    Pictured on Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012. (AP Photo/Rachel La Corte)

  • West Virginia State Capitol (Charleston, W.V.)

    Pictured on July 2, 2010. (MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Wisconsin State Capitol (Madison, Wis.)

    Pictured on Saturday, Dec. 24, 2011. (KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Wyoming State Capitol (Cheyenne, Wyo.)

    Pictured on Tuesday, March 6, 2001. (Photo by Michael Smith/Newsmakers)




Joe Donnelly, Conservative Democrat, Opposes Assault Weapons Ban

Around the Web:

Ind. Dem Donnelly opposing assault weapons ban

Giffords appeals for gun control at hearing

John Nichols: Ryan should heed Catholic leaders on guns

Obama assault weapon ban gets no respect in Indiana

Sen. Joe Donnelly opposing assault weapons ban

Donnelly: More limits on firearms needed

Sen-elect Joe Donnelly, pro-gun Democrat, now open to gun control ...

Joe Donnelly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) - The Washington Post



Tuesday, January 29, 2013

For GOP, World Turned 'Upside Down' On Immigration


(Repeats with no change in text)
* Republican leaders' shift on immigration after election
* Some fear party risks irrelevancy by alienating Hispanics
* Bipartisan plan's biggest hurdle likely to come in House
By John Whitesides
WASHINGTON, Jan 29 (Reuters) - What a difference one brutally disappointing election can make.
At this time last year, Republican U.S. presidential contenders were competing to act tough on immigration to win favor with the party's conservative base.
Eventual nominee Mitt Romney led the way by advocating "self-deportation" - a plan that essentially called on the government to make life so miserable for the nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants, most of whom are Hispanics, that many would leave on their own.
But since Democratic President Barack Obama's decisive victory over Romney in November with the support of more than seven in 10 Hispanic voters, the game has changed.
Many Republicans now see gaining favor with the fast-growing Hispanic voting bloc, which accounts for 10 percent of the U.S. electorate and is growing, as a matter of political survival.
Some remain critical of any plan that would give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship. But next-generation Republican leaders - including Florida Senator Marco Rubio, 41, a favorite of the conservative Tea Party movement - are desperate to remove the issue as a liability for the party.
That is why a plan announced on Monday by a bipartisan group of eight U.S. senators including Rubio is widely seen as the best hope in years for a comprehensive immigration overhaul - even though it is similar to a 2007 plan that was shot down by conservative Republicans despite being backed by Republican President George W. Bush.
But now, "the politics on this issues have turned upside down," said New York Democrat Chuck Schumer, another senator in the bipartisan group crafting the immigration plan.
"For the first time ever, there is more political risk in opposing immigration reform than in supporting it," Schumer said.

REPUBLICANS LOSING HISPANIC SUPPORT
Compared with the bitter, uncompromising politics that have clouded Capitol Hill in recent years, the news conference held by the senators on Monday was practically a festival of love.
There was Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona - who lost the presidential race to Obama in 2008 and is a frequent critic of the administration - heaping praise on the Democratic president for supporting immigration reform.
There was Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, giving credit to Bush for backing immigration changes when many Republicans did not.
During the news conference, Rubio and Democrat Robert Menendez of New Jersey, another member of the group, made a point of explaining parts of their plan in Spanish, a symbolic reach-out to those who could be affected by it.
The changed dynamic on immigration reflected how "the election was a real wake-up call to Republicans. They have had their eyes opened on Hispanics," said Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Minnesota.
Asked why he thought this immigration bill might succeed, McCain said: "Elections. The Republican Party is losing the support of our Hispanic citizens."
Republican strategist Ana Navarro said McCain - whose state borders Mexico and is about 30 percent Hispanic - could be an important voice to other Republicans on the immigration bill.
"Nobody can talk to other Republicans with the authority that John McCain can about what it means to move the Latino vote," Navarro said.

'AN IMPORTANT FIRST STEP'
The group of senators behind the immigration plan - which also includes Republicans Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democrat Michael Bennet of Colorado - said they hoped for quick action.
But even if successful, Congress' revamping of the immigration system is likely to take most of 2013. Congress also will be wrestling with budget issues and Obama's ambitious gun-control proposals in the next few months.
"Today is an important first step in what is going to be a significant and complicated journey," Rubio said.
The plan would create what the senators called a "tough but fair" path to citizenship for many undocumented immigrants after undefined improvements to border security and a crackdown on people who have overstayed their visas.
The plan faces some hurdles in the Senate. But the big question will be whether it can clear the Republican-led House of Representatives, which is dominated by conservatives adamantly opposed to anything resembling "amnesty" for undocumented immigrants.
One rising star among House conservatives - Paul Ryan, the Budget Committee chairman who was Romney's vice presidential nominee - already has voiced support for Rubio's immigration efforts. Others seem to be loading up to attack such a plan.
"When you legalize those who are in the country illegally, it costs taxpayers millions of dollars, costs American workers thousands of jobs and encourages more illegal immigration," Representative Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, said in a statement.
Many conservatives said they would wait for the final proposal, which will be developed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said the final measure will require far more input than it has received so far.
"All members must have an opportunity to debate and amend any legislation that comes to the floor. This effort is too important to be written in a back room and sent to the floor with a take-it-or-leave-it approach," McConnell said. "It needs to be done on a bipartisan basis and include ideas from both sides of the aisle."
Groups that oppose easing the immigration restrictions blasted the plan and predicted that it would meet the same fate as the 2007 bill.
"We expect that once the American public learns of the details of this proposal, and comes to recognize that it will do nothing to fix the problems of our broken immigration system, it will meet with the same overwhelmingly negative response that it received in 2007," said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
But backers of a comprehensive immigration plan said there was a new mood of optimism in their ranks.
"The histrionics and demagoguery on immigration have died down, at least for now," said Fergus Cullen, a former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party who has launched an immigration reform group.
"There seems to be a different attitude," Cullen said. (Additional reporting by Steve Holland; Editing by David Lindsey and Will Dunham)

Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

Also on HuffPost:

  • The Naturalization Act of 1790

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 was our country's first set of laws dealing with citizenship. Applicants had to be "<a href="http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=226 " target="_hplink">a free white person</a>" of "good moral character." This excluded indentured servants and slaves. Good moral character was substantiated by establishing residence for at least one year in the state from where he was applying, and at least two years of residence in the country. The Naturalization Act of 1795 would extend that requirement to five years, and is still standard today.

  • The Fourteenth Amendment, 1868

    A Reconstruction Amendment that was added to the U.S. Constitution following the Civil War, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment establishes for the first time that children born on U.S. soil would be conferred U.S. citizenship regardless of their parent's citizenship status, race, or place of birth. Last year, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) introduced the <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr140 " target="_hplink">Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011</a> to Congress, and challenged this. The bill would require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident for a child to be granted citizenship. According to the <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h140/text " target="_hplink">bill's text</a>, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and "clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth." Prior to this, Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/nathan-deal-georgia-lawma_n_207485.html " target="_hplink">introduced</a> a similar <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1868/show" target="_hplink">bill</a> in 2009.

  • The Naturalization Act of 1870

    The Naturalization Act of 1870<a href="http://thepoliticsofimmigration.org/pages/chronology.htm " target="_hplink"> explicitly extended</a> naturalization laws to "aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent." This meant that for the first time, African-American children would be conferred citizenship upon birth. Asian immigrants and other people of color are excluded per the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795.

  • The Page Act of 1875

    Named after Republican Representative Horace F. Page, this is the first U.S. federal immigration law to explicitly prohibit the immigration of a particular group: persons of Asian descent. Primarily meant to limit Chinese immigrant labor and prostitution, the Page Act prohibited the immigration of: (1) contracted labor from "China, Japan, or any Oriental country" that was not "free and voluntary," (2) Chinese prostitution and (3) criminals and women who would engage in prostitution. Ultimately, the <a href="http://www.uchastings.edu/racism-race/pageact.html " target="_hplink">Page Act</a> severely <a href="http://immigration-online.org/228-page-act-united-states-1875.html " target="_hplink">restricted</a> the immigration of Asian women. Only 136 of the the nearly 40,000 Chinese immigrants who arrived in the months before the bill's enforcement were women. And, it would pave the way for the Chinese Exclusion Act. In this picture, Michael Lin, chair of the 1882 Project, a coalition of rights groups seeking a statement of regret over that year's Chinese Exclusion Act, speaks on May 26, 2011 in Washington, DC, at the US House of Representatives in front of a reproduction of a 19th-century sign that aimed at rousing up sentiment against Chinese Americans. Lawmakers introduced a bill that would offer an official statement of regret for the act, which banned further immigration of Chinese to the United States and ended citizenship rights for ethnic Chinese. (AFP PHOTO/SHAUN TANDON).

  • The Chinese Exclusion Act, 1882

    Signed by President Chester A. Arthur, the <a href="http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/seven/chinxact.htm " target="_hplink">Chinese Exclusion Act</a> was the first federal immigration law to prohibit immigration on the basis of race. The bill barred all Chinese laborers, skilled and unskilled, from immigrating to the U.S. for ten years. It was made permanent by 1903, and was not lifted until the 1943 Magnuson Act. The 1898 Supreme Court <a href="http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/exclusion.html " target="_hplink">decision</a> in <em>United States v. Wong Kim Ark</em> finally extended naturalization laws to persons of Chinese descent by ruling that anyone born in the United States was indeed a U.S. citizen. This editorial cartoon from 1882 shows a Chinese man being excluded from entry to the "Golden Gate of Liberty." The sign next to the iron door reads, "Notice--Communist, Nihilist, Socialist, Fenian & Hoodlum welcome. But no admittance to Chinamen." At the bottom, the caption reads, "THE ONLY ONE BARRED OUT. Enlightened American Statesman--'We must draw the line <em>somewhere</em>, you know.'" (Image Source: Frank Leslie's illustrated newspaper, vol. 54 (1882 April 1), p. 96. [Public domain], via <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_only_one_barred_out_cph.3b48680.jpg" target="_hplink">Wikimedia Commons</a>).

  • The Naturalization Act of 1906

    The Naturalization Act of 1906 further <a href="http://www.understandingrace.org/history/gov/eastern_southern_immigration.html" target="_hplink">defined</a> the naturalization process: the ability to speak English was made a <a href="http://www.enotes.com/topic/Naturalization_Act_of_1906" target="_hplink">requisite</a> for immigrants to adjust their status.

  • The Immigration Act of 1924

    U.S. President Coolidge signed this U.S. federal <a href="http://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/ImmigrationAct " target="_hplink">bill</a> into law. It capped the number of immigrants who could be admitted entry to the U.S. and barred immigration of persons who were not eligible for naturalization. And, as the Naturalization Act of 1790 required, an immigrant had to be white in order to naturalize. The quotas varied by country. Image Source: Flickr Creative Commons, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycmarines/6306315902/" target="_hplink">NYCMarines</a>.

  • The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (The McCarran-Walter Act)

    The <a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:zwaVG82lZisJ:www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/polsciwb/brianl/docs/1952McCarranWaltersAct.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjEwx76FIBTixZAfyncZz-1CSuSeciv5qB6vvWTrUfW58XRpXq8zkpnI57XSuuG5Bu-WSySGbEhxYvZxP7y6qDQuOsDhgDa6qUqUaJ8F4imTzKJsVtppHc_-eew2dK6vGhoIUZs&sig=AHIEtbTNQ5GFiNMVS-xyThq8VVSj_gG9KA " target="_hplink">McCarran-Walter Act</a> kept up the controversial Immigration Act of 1924, but <a href="http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/ImmigrationAct" target="_hplink">formally</a> ended Asian exclusion.

  • Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

    When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, it <a href="http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/1965_immigration_and_nationality_act.html" target="_hplink">abolished</a> the quota system that favored immigration from Europe and limited immigration from Asia and South America.

  • Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

    The 1996 <a href="http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/PUBLAW/HTML/PUBLAW/0-0-0-10948.html " target="_hplink">Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act</a> (IIRIRA) is a piece of legislation that <a href="http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/1996_illegal_immigration_reform_and_immigrant_responsibility_act.html " target="_hplink">defined</a> an array of issues to do with legal and illegal immigration -- from outlining how border patrol agents should administer visa processing, to the minutiae of how to handle deportation proceedings -- IIRIRA established enforcement and patrolling practices.




Report: Needless Unemployment Fees Forced Upon Jobless Americans

WASHINGTON -- Jobless Americans are paying millions in unnecessary fees to collect unemployment benefits because of state policies encouraging them to get the money through bank-issued payment cards, according to a new report from a consumer group.

People are using the fee-heavy cards instead of getting their payments deposited directly to their bank accounts. That's because states issue bank cards automatically, require complicated paperwork or phone calls to set up direct deposit and fail to explain the card fees, according to a report issued Tuesday by the National Consumer Law Center, a nonprofit group that seeks to protect low-income Americans from unfair financial-services products. An early copy of the report was obtained by The Associated Press.

Until the past decade, states distributed unemployment compensation by mailing out paper checks. Some also allowed direct deposit. The system worked well for people who had bank accounts and could deposit the check without paying a fee.

It also cost states millions of dollars each year to print and mail the checks.

Banks including JPMorgan Chase & Co., U.S. Bancorp and Bank of America Corp. seized on government payments as a business opportunity. They pitched card programs to states as a win-win: States would save millions in overhead costs because the cards would be issued for free. And people without bank accounts would avoid the big fees charged by storefront check cashers.

However, most of the people being hit with fees already have bank accounts. The bank-state partnerships effectively shifted the cost of distributing payments from governments to individuals. The money needed to cover those costs is deducted from people's unemployment benefits in the form of fees.

Consumer advocates like NCLC are focused on ensuring access to the direct-deposit option so that people can avoid the card fees.

The trouble, the new report says, is that many states make it difficult for people to sign up for direct deposit. The rate of people using direct deposit ranges from a national high of 82 percent in Minnesota to a low of 16 percent in Arizona, the report says.

Minnesota offers direct deposit to people when they apply for benefits, and allows them to change their payment method online or over the phone, the report says.

In Arizona, by contrast, people are automatically enrolled in the card program. After they receive the card, they must find a paper form, fill it out, and submit it by mail. There is no way to change payment methods online or over the phone.

"The difference in direct-deposit rates among states seems primarily due to how hard or easy the state makes it for workers to choose direct deposit," the report says.

In five states ' California, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland and Nevada ' unemployed people aren't offered direct deposit at all. The report says that setup is illegal under a federal law that bars states from requiring benefits recipients to open an account at a particular bank.

The federal government recommended in 2009 that people with bank accounts receive payments via direct deposit. Nearly four years later, the report says, "there is no excuse for any state not to be offering direct deposit as the first choice for payment of unemployment benefits."

Banks make more money when more people use the cards. In the past, some of their deals with states prevented states from offering direct deposit, or required states to promote the card program as a first option.

To cover the cost of issuing cards and running the programs, banks charge a plethora of fees, including charges for balance inquiries, phone calls to customer support, leaving an account inactive for a period of months, or making a purchase using a personal identification number.

Many states have eliminated some fees and improved consumer protections in the two years since NCLC published its first comprehensive review of state unemployment payments. Banks no longer charge overdraft fees, which skimmed up to $20 from the benefits of card users whose spending exceeded the balance on the card.

Pennsylvania was singled out for praise in the report. Residents of that state will save $5.2 million in card fees each year because the state switched to a lower-fee card.

In part because of the recent improvements, the report says, prepaid cards often are the best option for people who don't have bank accounts. Those people would often pay even bigger fees to storefront check cashing services.

"A well-designed prepaid card is safer, cheaper and more convenient than paying to cash a paper check," said Lauren Saunders, one of the report's authors, in a prepared statement. But she said "it is no substitute for direct deposit to an account of your own choosing."

___

Daniel Wagner can be reached at . http://www.twitter.com/wagnerreports

Also on HuffPost:

  • Millionaires

    More than<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/millionaires-unemployment-benefits_n_1931837.html"> 2,000 millionaires took home unemployment</a> benefits in 2009, according to a recent report from the Congressional Research Service. That comes to a total of $20.8 million.

  • Prisoners

    Prisoners in a variety of states may be improperly receiving unemployment benefits while serving time. An investigation by Illinois officials in July turned up <a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-11/news/ct-met-inmate-unemployment-20120712_1_unemployment-benefits-greg-rivara-inmates">at least 420 inmates</a> taking home unemployment benefits, according to the <em>Chicago Tribune</em>. In Arizona, the state improperly paid prisoners more than<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/19/arizona-collects-on-improper-payments-to-prisoners/"> $1.1 million in unemployment benefits</a> over a two-year period, according to Fox News. In one case a convicted killer managed to <a href="http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8568004">collect $30,000 in unemployment benefits</a> between 2008 and 2010, the Los Angeles ABC affiliate reports.

  • Dead People

    Among the people improperly receiving unemployment benefits in New York state are those <a href="http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Dead-People-Receive-Unemployment-Checks-164616016.html">who aren't even alive</a>, according to the Associated Press. The state's comptroller Thomas DiNapoli said he's stopped more than $1 million in improper benefits to the dead, undocumented immigrants and working people.

  • Government Workers

    In Maryland, one state worker making $9,700 <a href="http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-10-02/news/bs-bz-audit-unemployed-workers-20121002_1_unemployment-benefits-overpayments-auditors">took home $5,800 in unemployment benefits</a> at the same time, according the <em>Baltimore Sun</em>.

  • Fired Prison Workers

    The California Corrections Agency <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/31/local/me-prisons31">wrongly paid prison workers</a> that they fired for misconduct $1.3 million in unemployment benefits over two years, the <em>Los Angeles Times</em> reports. Recipients included a prison guard fired after being arrested in a drunken hit-and-run incident and a prison guard involved in a narcotics transaction.

  • People With Jobs

    It may come as no surprise that one of the requirements of receiving unemployment benefits is being unemployed, but in Illinois at least <a href="http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1681146451/Illinois-cracking-down-on-unemployment-fraud">12,000 people wrongly collected</a> unemployment benefits while working, according to the <em>Peoria Journal-Star</em>.

  • Retired Public Workers

    In Massachusetts <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/us-seeks-recoup-billions-unemployment-benefits-paid-error/story?id=15921922&page=2#.UGyUF_mfHll">retired public workers collecting</a> benefits became such a problem that local leaders pushed for statewide reform on the issue, according to ABC News. These retirees were receiving public pensions at the same time.



Conservative Foes Ready For Battle With Obama

Police, activists prepare days ahead of Ariz. law - Yahoo! News


» Bertha Lewis: A Socialist Rallying Cry for Immigration Reform - Big Government


30 Reasons to Give: #5 | Obama for America | 2012



Monday, January 28, 2013

Steven Cohen: The Importance of Immigration

According to New York Times reporter Julia Preston:

"A bipartisan group of senators has agreed on a set of principles for a sweeping overhaul of the immigration system, including a pathway to American citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants that would hinge on progress in securing the borders and ensuring that foreigners leave the country when their visas expire. The senators were able to reach a deal by incorporating the Democrats' insistence on a single comprehensive bill that would not deny eventual citizenship to illegal immigrants, with Republican demands that strong border and interior enforcement had to be clearly in place before Congress could consider legal status for illegal immigrants."

While it would be nice to think that all of this movement is simply an expression of our elected leaders finally deciding to do the right thing, it is of course a reaction to our growing Hispanic population and President Obama's overwhelming (about 70 percent) share of the Hispanic vote in his bid for reelection. However, if immigration reform finally happens it is long overdue and extraordinarily important.

Although some people like to pretend they came over on the Mayflower, very few of us are far removed from immigrant roots. A half century ago John F. Kennedy could call America "a nation of immigrants," and publish a book with that title: We remain a nation of immigrants today. Even if many of us did not have the courage or vision to uproot and move to America, many of our parents, grandparents and great grandparents made that difficult journey. Our diversity is what makes America unique and is a source of our fundamental strength and long term prospects.

Even before there was a global economy and the technology to support global communication, shipping and rapid travel, America was the world's gathering place. America did not collect the world's wealthy and elite, it attracted those rejected, oppressed, enslaved and even jailed. But those with the courage to come freely or the strength to survive the harsh treatment of slavery (and the equally harsh treatment of Native Americans) are the people who built this nation. The people trying to slam the door closed behind them are nearly all the descendants of relatively recent immigrants.

As the world gets smaller and economic competition is based more and more on creativity and technological innovation, the place that attracts the world's best minds will have a distinct advantage. We are that place. If you walk the streets of Tokyo or Beijing, it is not difficult to distinguish native from tourist. If you walk the streets of New York or the malls of Los Angeles, good luck in trying to figure out who is home and who is not. America may not be a melting pot, since each immigrant group tries to retain an element of their identity, but in its own often imperfect way, it is a place that is built to encourage, accept, tolerate and even absorb diversity. A place with roots everywhere has a tremendous edge in a global economy. We can do business anywhere, and host workers from anyplace. We are also a place that allows individual freedom and creativity. Even if economies are growing faster in other places, freedom and tolerance of diversity will remain a key part of America's appeal.

America has long been a place with a large foreign-born population. In 1900, when our population was about 76 million, about 10 million or 13.6 percent were born abroad. A decade later, our population was about 92 million and 13.5 million or 14.7 percent were foreign born. While in 1970 our foreign-born population slipped to less than 5 percent, that trend was soon reversed. In 1990 as our population approached 250 million, nearly 20 million or almost 8 percent were foreign-born. In our most recent census in 2010, there were 309,350,000 people living here, almost 40 million or 12.9 percent were born abroad. Over 17 million were naturalized citizens and over 22 million were non-citizens. These data do not include an estimated 11 million people living here illegally. The idea that immigration is un-American is a fundamental misread of our history and traditions.

The immigration debate is packed with ideology and misconceptions and the process of achieving citizenship has become cumbersome and bureaucratic. Brianna Lee of the Council on Foreign Relations has written an excellent summary of this debate, and she notes that:

"...after President Obama was reelected for a second presidential term in 2012, government officials and lawmakers have made several indications that they are ready to make a bipartisan push for broad, comprehensive immigration reform."

There is little question that a law violated every day by 11 million people undermines respect for all laws, but there is even less question that deporting 11 million people is an impractical and unjust response to an obviously dysfunctional immigration process. So we find ourselves at one of those political moments in time, when the door to a more reasonable policy has opened up a bit. Opening the door for these 11 million while slamming it shut for everyone else would be the height of folly. We need a reform that is reality-based. We need an immigration policy that recognizes that the very definition of America requires that we continue to welcome people from other places and other cultures. Our distinctive identity and character is built on constant and continuous immigration. If the nativist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant impulse is indulged by immigration reform it will be clear sign that America is in decline.

We need, as we have always needed, the kind of people willing to uproot their lives for a chance at the American dream. The surest sign that the dream has ended would be a policy that shut the door to legal immigrants, or a time when people are no longer attracted by the promise of America. President Obama was wise enough to include it in the compelling vision he presented during his second inaugural address when he observed that the American journey is far from over and said:

"Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country...."

The loaded language of the immigration debate includes words like "amnesty" and fear that the American way of life could be threatened by those not born to it. The American way of life was created by those not born to it. It is a history built by outsiders who pushed their way in: By my grandparents and probably by yours. Let's find a way to honor our history and traditions by continuing the practices that built that history and tradition. And let's do it before this brief political moment passes and the door once again slams shut.


Follow Steven Cohen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/earthinstitute



Maryland Death Penalty Debate.. 'My Mindset On This Has Always Been Divided,' Says Republican

State Sen. Allan Kittleman is torn.

When lobbied by the ACLU and the NAACP to repeal Maryland's death penalty, Kittleman asks how he can ensure the most heinous murderers will never kill again.

When approached by fellow senators or state's attorneys who want to keep capital punishment, Kittleman questions whether there can be a foolproof way to ensure the state doesn't kill an innocent person.

"My mindset on this has always been divided," said Kittleman, a Howard County Republican who hopes to skip his own committee to listen to another panel's death penalty hearings before the legislation reaches the Senate floor. "It really is an issue that I'm struggling with, and I want to make sure I do the right thing."

Like a handful of other publicly undecided senators, Kittleman's internal struggle has made him a target in a behind-the-scenes lobbying press conducted in part by elected officials, prosecutors, religious groups, a Catholic bishop, the wrongly accused and advocates who have strong views on one side or the other.

In a divided chamber considered key to overturning the death penalty, Kittleman and a few other senators may cast the deciding votes on whether to uphold Maryland's narrowly written capital punishment law or to erase it from the books for the first time in 35 years.

The death penalty debate, perhaps the most emotional issue of the General Assembly session, does not break cleanly down party lines as lawmakers choose instead to yield to constituent views, emotion or their moral beliefs.

A pro-capital punishment Democrat has vowed to join with Republicans in a filibuster if necessary, while a Republican leader promised to quietly cast his vote for repeal. Of the handful of undecideds, some are in a greater state of consternation than others.

"How do I balance ensuring the safety of our citizens with also protecting civil liberties and civil rights?" Kittleman asked. "I think that's a dilemma that a lot of people are facing."

Before the hearings have begun, death penalty opponents are confident they have the votes for repeal. Their measure, pushed by Gov. Martin O'Malley, has attracted 21 co-sponsors -- three shy of the necessary majority in the Senate, which will take up the matter first. If they win there, they expect an easier path in the House of Delegates.

"We've been doing this long enough, and counting votes long enough, that we have a sense of where folks are at," said Jane Henderson, who has worked for Maryland Citizens Against State Executions since 2001.

"This is an idea whose time has come," Henderson said. "I would argue that this has been happening over the past 20 years. People support the death penalty in theory, but when they look at it, they realize we can't do it right."

The more loosely organized death penalty supporters, who have been slower to mobilize this year, expect a close fight that they still believe they can win. The last time advocates attempted repeal, in 2009, lawmakers ultimately recast the state's death penalty law to require a high standard of proof.

As a result of the change that year, prosecutors can seek the death penalty only when they have DNA evidence, a videotape of the crime or a video-recorded confession by the killer.

"Not only is it targeted to the worst of the worst, there are assurances there that an innocent person won't be affected," said Baltimore County State's Attorney Scott D. Shellenberger, who has been an outspoken proponent of keeping Maryland one of 33 states to allow the death penalty.

Shellenberger has targeted 25 senators, and said he is building a coalition that he hopes will include correctional officers and the Fraternal Order of Police to help sway the vote.

"It was close then, it's close now," Shellenberger said of the 2009 debate. "It's certainly an issue about which reasonable minds can have a difference of opinion. As long as that's the case, it will always be close."

A recent poll by OpinionWorks of Annapolis found Maryland voters divided on the issue, with 48 percent opposed to repeal and 42 percent in favor.

While five people currently sit on death row -- three for crimes from 1983 -- Maryland has had a de facto moratorium on the death penalty. A judge in 2006 overturned the rules for carrying it out. Maryland law calls for the use of three drugs in lethal injection, but one of them is no longer available.

O'Malley, who first attempted to repeal the law in 2007, argues that it is costly and an ineffective deterrent to crime. Keeping it, he said puts Maryland in the company of some of the world's most repressive regimes.

Capital punishment supporters argue that retaining the theoretical threat of the death penalty both satisfies a sense of justice and gives prosecutors a bargaining chip to get a sentence of life without possibility of parole. The death penalty is necessary, they argue, for a convict with a life sentence who kills a correctional officer while in prison.

Thirty years ago, Sen. John Astle came to the General Assembly as a supporter of the death penalty. This year, repeal advocates see him as an ally, though he says he has reservations.

The Anne Arundel Democrat has been visited by Auxiliary Bishop Denis J. Madden of Baltimore and Kirk Bloodsworth, who spent years on death row before he was exonerated by DNA evidence. But Astle says he's still not ready to vote for repeal without deciding how to punish inmates with life sentences who commit another crime.

"Even when I was a proponent, you still have this feeling inside that it's a horrible thing to deliberately take someone's life," he said.

Sen. Ron Young, a Democrat from Frederick, said he has grappled with the death penalty for decades, since he prepped for a college debate. He knows repeal advocates count him in their corner, but he says he's approaching the vote "with hesitation."

"There's that emotion and passion. 'Damn it, [the murderers] didn't care, so why should I?' But I'd like to think I'm better than that," Young said.

The lobbying efforts have not touched the resolute, whose convictions are swayed neither by party nor argument.

"I think to myself, 'What if my daughter was a victim of one of these crimes, or a family member?' " said Sen. Robert J. Garagiola, a Montgomery County Democrat who supports capital punishment.

"It's more from the gut," Garagiola said. "It would be different if Maryland had a hundred-some people on death row and we were executing people every other week. In this state, it's used sparingly to begin with."

Sen. Ed Reilly, an Anne Arundel Republican and minority whip, created a page of talking points against capital punishment. They include that fiscal conservatives should support repeal because it is less costly than the death penalty, though he relies on his moral conviction as a Catholic.

"As a leader of the caucus, it would be inappropriate for me to stand on the floor and twist arms and try to convince people. It is a very, very personal decision to all 47 members of the chamber," Reilly said. "Even if I wasn't in leadership in the Republican caucus, I probably wouldn't be an active participant. There's plenty of people out there motivating others."

ecox@baltsun.com ___

(c)2013 The Baltimore Sun

Visit The Baltimore Sun at www.baltimoresun.com

Distributed by MCT Information Services



Raid Of The Day: Drug Cops Take Over Jerome, Arizona

On October 15, 1985, more than 100 law enforcement officers swarmed the entire town of Jerome, Arizona. The historic hilltop hamlet was a boomtown in the 19th and early 20th century after copper deposits were discovered nearby.

Once the copper was gone, Jerome atrophied into a ghost town by the early 1950s. But some counterculture hippies rediscovered the town in the mid-60s, and for 20 years it served as an artsy, bohemian enclave.

Jerome also loved its pot. Residents grew the drug in the nearby hills, and legalization sympathizers had taken over the local government. Jerome officials took a live and let live approach to marijuana. That is, until an informant moved in and began recording his conversations around town for state and federal anti-drug agencies.

The team of state cops and federal agents moved in early that autumn morning. One resident told The New York Times, 'To bring 100 policemen into a small town at 5 o'clock in the morning, dragging women and children out of bed, scaring them half to death, to get 9 or 10 pounds of marijuana is asinine.'

Police later said the haul was closer to 50 pounds. They arrested over 20 people, including the police chief, two city council members, and the former mayor.

A spokesman for the Arizona Department of Public Safety, which organized the raid, explained to the Times why the aggressive tactics were necessary. 'It's a town that would like to secede and carry on its own life style. The people there strongly believe in an individual's freedom, above all else.'

And we certainly can't have that.

(The "Raid of the Day" features accounts of police raids I've found, researched, and reported while writing my forthcoming book Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces. It's due out in July, but you can pre-order it here.)



Sunday, January 27, 2013

Israeli Official Hints Pentagon Plans May Make Lone Strike On Iran Unnecessary

JERUSALEM ' Israel's departing defense minister, Ehud Barak, said that the Pentagon had prepared sophisticated blueprints for a surgical operation to set back Iran's nuclear program should the United States decide to attack ' a statement that was a possible indication that Israel might have shelved any plans for a unilateral strike, at least for now.

Read the whole story at New York Times



Ryan J. Reilly: Obama's Gitmo, Four Years Later

ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE -- At around 8 a.m., a civilian airplane chartered by the military and full of lawyers, human rights representatives and journalists will depart Andrews Air Force Base in route to the Guantanamo Bay Navy Base in Cuba. Family members of victims of the September 11th attacks arrived yesterday.

This wasn't the way it was supposed to be.

Four years ago last week, a newly elected President Barack Obama signed an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay's prison facility by January 22, 2010. "We are going to win this fight, we are going to win it on our terms," Obama said at the time.

Three years past his self-imposed cut-off date, the military trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four fellow prisoners accused of plotting the Sept. 11 attacks continues at the facility Obama pledged the shut down.

I'll be reporting from Gitmo's Camp Justice all this week. There are a few interesting issues to be resolved in court, but I'll also be reporting more broadly on how Guantanamo has changed -- and hasn't -- since Obama took office.

Anything you'd like to learn about how Guantanamo operates? Email me at ryan.reilly@huffingtonpost.com. Meanwhile, here's a list of what I'm reading to prepare for the trip:

Who Decides The Laws of War? -- Charlie Savage

Gitmo prosecutor's rejected memo released -- Josh Gerstein

Top 5 Reasons To Preserve the CIA Black Sites -- Daphne Eviatar

9/11 Defendants Seek to Preserve CIA Sites Where They Were Tortured -- Spencer Ackerman

Anything Carol Rosenberg writes


Follow Ryan J. Reilly on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ryanjreillly