COLOR OF LAW is a legal term used often by our 99% of black citizens in fighting against these policing, jailing, and court corruptions.
When we allow CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA to use EXECUTIVE ORDER as Trump is doing pretending they have the power to ignore all our Federal laws and US Constitutional rights-----the major public policy surrounding US city citizens enduring police corruptions and brutality with no consequence is just that attempt to place STATE'S RIGHTS OVER FEDERAL SUPREMACY.
Below we see what many activists including us shout in fighting what is a total disregard of rights for low-income black, white, and brown citizens in US cities.....this injustice will not remain tied to race and class-----it will take 99% of WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens and 99% of immigrant workers.
Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
'Lawrence Grandpre: It's not a panacea. Constitutional policing just means treat everyone equally. It does not mean dismantle the policing-industrial complex or the prison-industrial complex'.
Above we see the confusion that always begins these public policy discussions on US city policing, corruption, brutality and the complete loss of rights by our low-income 99% of citizens living in Baltimore's surrounding communities slated to become massive global corporate campuses----it's the designation of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE that global Wall Street pols use to ignore all that is Western nation MAGNA CARTA, COMMON LAW, US CONSTITUTIONAL AND FEDERAL LAW. This is to where the protection the young man seeks exists----but NO ONE talks about these policies especially our CAPTURED MEDIA OUTLETS LIKE REAL NEWS.
Urban policing can be reformed IMMEDIATELY---if the designation of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE and MOVING FORWARD STATE'S RIGHTS stop illegally ignoring 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE'S rights and public justice access.
So, REAL NEWS creates that headline to make the US 99% believe there is just no reforming corrupt and brutal policing under our US system of government, US Constitution, Bill of Rights, checks and balance government. OH, REALLY????? Everyone in Baltimore does know this POLICE REVIEW BOARD is bogus and useless as a solution---it is being filled with that 5% to the 1% behind all Baltimore corruption.
August 21, 2017
Why Urban Policing Cannot be Reformed
The Real News talks to reform advocates, defense attorneys, and former cops who say policing cannot be reformed without fully understanding its underlying imperative
Stephen Janis: The mood inside the Morgan State University Student Center was serious, four candidates who want to monitor the consent decree between the Baltimore police and the Department of Justice making their cases to the community. Among the attendees, skepticism.
Lawrence Grandpre: It's not a panacea. Constitutional policing just means treat everyone equally. It does not mean dismantle the policing-industrial complex or the prison-industrial complex.
Stephen Janis: Perhaps that's because missing from the discussion was a fundamental question. What is policing, and what does it do, and why is it so fundamentally resistant to change that all these efforts are necessary but seem to have little effect? Since the Justice Department concluded its investigation, determining Baltimore police used racist and unconstitutional tactics, scandals continue to emerge.
Rod Rosenstein: What you see is a lack of respect for the system, particularly in these discussions about overtime, when the sergeant is away on vacation and the officers are allegedly at casinos and various other places billing overtime.
Stephen Janis: Seven officers, part of a gun trace task force, were recently charged with money laundering, fraud, stealing from residents, and drug dealing. This body camera footage, showing officers placing drugs and then staging the discovery for the cameras, garnered national attention last month. Perhaps at some level, reform has proved so difficult because it fails to grasp a simple truism about policing in urban America. It's essential function in cities like Baltimore is not law enforcement. If it were, tens of thousands of crimes would not remain unsolved.
Instead, it seems organized to provide a damning narrative arc to the country's social and racial conflict. It's a process that is fueled by symbols, like the narrative of stories that we see on the news nightly of alleged black failure, urban despair, a symbolic conjugation of the country's lingering but still potent racial divisions, all told in the tale of arrests and busts, populated with imagery of officers in Kevlar vests and African-Americans in handcuffs. Only policing can write this narrative in a way that connects with the country's deep-rooted racism, and only policing can embed this animosity in a legal system, which it translates into fear, self-rationalization, and ultimately incarceration.
A case in point in how this works is this body camera footage of a controversial car stop in west Baltimore in 2016.
Joshua Insley: They pull him out of the car. They say, "We saw you conduct a narcotics transaction," they say that to the passenger Mr. Davis, "down the street." Then they stop the car. They pull him out of the car, they put handcuffs on him, and they start searching the car.
They tear the car apart, and I mean literally. They're pulling out the radio, pulling apart the doors, looking under the seats, all that stuff. After a while they don't find what they're looking for. Then the cameras basically stop. Before they stop, though, you can hear one of the officers who went back to the house, the yard, say, "Glen's freaking out." He's yelling, "Fuck, fuck, fuck," and all this other stuff on the radio because they can't find the stash.
Police (from camera): There's some [inaudible] money in front of you. 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80.
Joshua Insley: The cameras start up again, and they're back at the car. This time, Glen's there. He wasn't there for the first search. He was still in his covert location. This is when the 30-second rollback gets to be important, because what many officers didn't understand back then, which everybody is pretty clear on now, is when you start the body cam, the video will start from 30 seconds before you started it, and the audio will start from pretty much the time when you hit record. What a couple of them catch is officer Glen now is in the footwell of the car. He's down there mucking about, and he comes back out, and he stands there, and then the sounds start clipping on. After that, it goes for a couple of seconds with the sound. You hear one of the officers go, "Are we all right?" Yeah. They stand there for another second, and then they say, "Oh, did we check here?" Then a different officer goes in and comes out with this bag.
I know what the police position is, which is basically it was a legit find, but I can only say what I see in the video, which is it doesn't look good. It looks at the very least to have some sort of staging in it. Planting drugs is a very serious allegation. What I can say, as an attorney, it looks very bad.
Stephen Janis: Since the footage emerged, the charges were dropped, even though the police commissioner defended the officer's action.
Kevin Davis: I think we just have to have a frank conversation with the community that we're still in the midst of some growing pains. I think we all have to remember this. It's the job of criminal defense attorneys to raise doubt. When those gaps in video footage exist, it's ugly. What was there? I don't know. I didn't see it. The camera was on. Now it's off. Does that mean that when the camera was off, some type of criminal misconduct was taking place by police officers? I think that's a conclusion that we just can't jump to because a camera is off.
Stephen Janis: For example, there are five officers on the scene, all part of what's called specialized units, plainclothes officers who work without supervision, much like the aforementioned gun trace task force. They make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in overtime for this, stopping a car and searching because they smell marijuana. Before they find anything, two people are arrested, the car is towed, two lives disrupted and destroyed, and headlines that appear in emails and nightly news about drugs captured.
Meanwhile, the city continues on a pace for record murders, so why are they stopping cars, and why aren't they investigating and solving cases? Former police commander and outspoken critic of the war on drugs Neil Franklin says he thinks he knows why.
Neil Franklin: There's this willy-nilly group of folks who have come together to do whatever they want to do and tie it to drug enforcement. A lot of times, we were deciding upon what car to go after, or what target to go after, what person to go after. We were making that decision upon the value of their assets. We'd do financial workups on people. It wasn't always about how much dope they're bringing into the county. As long as they were bringing dope from somewhere or selling dope illegally, then we'd look at what's their value, financially. That's how we would target a lot of these folks.
Stephen Janis: Devon Stevenson is a staffer at the Real News. He remembers how the city handled violence in Cherry Hill during its experiment with mass arrests and zero tolerance.
Devon Stevenson: Man, we was sitting off that , ain’t gonna lie, just finished rolling a blunt. We hadn't even started smoking it yet. We didn't smell like weed or anything. We're sitting out back in the car, and just because the narcos know who we are and know us from the area or whatever, they come slow-rolling up the alley, and jump out of the car. Mind you, I've got the grill going, got some steaks on the grill. They pull up. My brother's car is parked across the grass right here. It's parked sideways across the grass, and they just jump out, smash us out of the car, lock us up for the blunt.
Stephen Janis: Just for a blunt?
Devon Stevenson: A blunt and a jar of grass, all three of us. All three of us got locked up for that. They would come through my alley like … during the day, in both shifts because there's two shifts. On the 7 to 3 shift, they're going to come through the alley about three or four times.
Stephen Janis: These were knockers?
Devon Stevenson: Yeah. Every now and again you get the rollers that come through, but on that 3 to 11 shift, man, they're coming through here. You're going to see them ridiculously.
Stephen Janis: The tactic did nothing to address violence. It only made his life more difficult, another chapter written by police in the story of chaos and failure that pervades the city, not because Baltimore's poor are murderous but because its police department is constructed on a premise that until it is fully understood will make it nearly impossible to change. This is Stephen Janis and Taya Graham reporting for the Real News Network in Baltimore.
Today, we simply want to continue that segue from existing fundamental rights of 99% of citizens through modern history and the goal of global 1% to END MAGNA CARTA et al to return to DARK AGES when global 1% could do ANYTHING THEY WANTED TO ACCUMULATE WEALTH AND POWER====you know, far-right, authoritarian, militaristic, dictator extreme wealth extreme power LIBERTARIAN MARXISM...no morals or ethics, no US Rule of Law, no God's natural law---lying, cheating, and steal all US wealth to top global 1%.
The American people WOKE UP after the 2008 economic crash revealed the massive Wall Street and corporate frauds of tens of trillions of dollars and OBAMA and his US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT did nothing about it. The only citizens protected by lawyers, courts, and US Justice were those 1% and their 2%----the 99% of citizens black, white, and brown citizens were left with NO JUSTICE......FLEECED.
We like to remind folks of the difference between US 1% and their 2% and GLOBAL 1% AND THEIR 2%. Our US rich are very few in number compared to global rich. One needs to have tens of billions to trillions of dollars in wealth to be that GLOBAL 1%-----and one must have a few billion dollars to be that global 2%. In America we have very few reaching those status of global 1% and their 2%----most are those 5% players being millionaires to hundred millionaires. An Oprah or Michael Jordan are those few billionaires that may place them for now in that global 2%-----Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are those multi-billionaires as SPAIN'S ORTEGA from last week's discussion----that begin that global 1% status.
THE OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE FAMILIES ARE THOSE GLOBAL 1% NOW HAVING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN WEALTH AND THEY ARE THE KINGS AND QUEENS TIED TO MAGNA CARTA TODAY----
Today's global 2% are mostly distant family to those global 1% and wealthy global corporate executives -----where today's global 1% are thinking themselves KINGS AND QUEENS not wanting MAGNA CARTA OR ANY COMMON LAW, MODERN CONSTITUTIONS trying to hold them accountable-----those global 2% are what was
THE BARONS FIGHTING THOSE DARK AGES KINGS AND QUEENS FOR MAGNA CARTA LEGAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS.
The barons of DARK AGES Magna Carta would be similar to today's global 2% now needing to fight the global 1% to keep THEIR MAGNA CARTA RIGHTS ----not the rights of 99% of WE THE PEOPLE----only the rights of that global 2%. This is the OUR REVOLUTION CROWD----this is not the revolution for 99% of citizens black, white, and brown---it is that global 2% trying to keep that wealth they LOOTED FROM 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
The 25 Barons of Magna Carta
The 25 Barons of Magna Carta
The committee of Twenty Five were a group of barons in the forefront of the opposition to King John who were entrusted by the terms of clause 61 of Magna Carta to ensure the king’s compliance with its terms.
- Eustace de Vesci
- Robert de Ros
- Richard de Percy
- William de Mowbray
- Roger de Montbegon
- John FitzRobert
- William de Forz
- John de Lacy
- Saer de Quincy, Earl of Winchester
- Richard de Montfichet
- William de Huntingfield
- Roger Bigod and Hugh Bigod
- Robert de Vere
- Geoffrey de Mandeville
- Henry de Bohun
- Richard de Clare and Gilbert de Clare
- William D'Albini
- Robert Fitzwalter
- William Hardel
- William de Lanvallei
- William Malet
- William Marshall II
- Geoffrey de Say
Since the clause anticipated the election of the twenty-five at some time in the future, their names are not actually listed in the charter. Consequently, the committee’s composition is known principally from the list given later in his chronicle by Matthew Paris, the celebrated chronicler of St Albans Abbey (Herts.). The twenty five were: Richard, earl of Clare; William de Fors, count of Aumale; Geoffrey de Mandeville, earl of Gloucester; Saer de Quincy, earl of Winchester; Henry de Bohun, earl of Hereford; Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk; Robert de Vere, earl of Oxford; William Marshal junior; Robert FitzWalter; Gilbert de Clare; Eustace de Vesci; Hugh Bigod; William de Mowbray; the Mayor of London; William de Lanvallei; Robert de Ros; John de Lacy, constable of Chester; Richard de Percy; John FitzRobert; William Malet; Geoffrey de Say; Roger de Montbegon; William de Huntingfield; Richard de Munfichet; and William d’Aubigny.
It is noteworthy that these men were all layfolk, and for the most part members of the hard-line baronial opposition to the king. No bishop or other Churchman appears, not even, for example, Giles de Braose, bishop of Hereford, who had long been hostile to John. The committee was seen in clear terms as a committee of enforcers, a group whose main responsibilities were to be of a military nature.
Why did the barons alight on the number twenty-five in particular? One very obvious reason, it being an odd number, was to avoid split voting. More mystically, however, the number twenty-five was highly significant in the Bible. It was, for example, the age from which God instructed Moses to permit the Levites to be consecrated to God’s service and the age from which many of the kings of Judea had come to the throne; while it also represented ‘the law squared’ in the sense that there are five books to the Pentateuch and, in the New Testament, five loaves for feeding the five thousand. These legitimising links from the Bible were of great importance in the Middle Ages.
At a more prosaic level, it is worth remembering that the court of aldermen of the city of London, which is known to have been in existence by 1200, was made up of twenty-five members. It may have been from the number of this body that the barons drew their most immediate inspiration.
Over the next two years, on a monthly basis, we will be publishing a short biography of each of the members of this famous group. They were a body linked together by ties of blood, kinship, association and, in many cases, neighbourhood. Most of all, however, they were brought together by their opposition to what they considered the unjust rule of King John.
London is about two decades ahead of US and our Washington DC in being ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for the global 1% as it is filled with the world's global 1% and their 2% having pushed out all 99% of UK citizens. The US founding fathers made the US the first to have that BILL OF RIGHTS specifically protecting those citizens from over-zealous corrupt rich thinking to make themselves KINGS AND QUEENS in US. These Bill of Rights were first aimed at white landed gentry basically America's rich at the time. 300 years of US Constitutional rights had made those BILL OF RIGHTS protection all 99% of WE THE PEOPLE. Our global 1% don't think so----and this is to where the words TYRANNY and ROGUE politicians come into play.
This article from global 1% banking GUARDIAN makes one believe these policies MOVING FORWARD a Bill of Rights in UK are about a 99% of UK citizens when in fact it is those BARONS/global 2% wanting to protect THEIR MAGNA CARTA rights----and indeed this is to what the UNITED NATIONS BILL OF RIGHTS is tied to as well. This same movement by our US 2% calling for a re-write of US Constitution-----making of new Bill of Rights---is also tied to protecting only those global 2% of citizens inside US Foreign Economic Zones.
THE 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN CITIZENS CANNOT HAVE ANY BETTER GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT AND PROTECTION OF RIGHTS THAN WE HAVE WITH OUR CURRENT US CONSTITION, BILL OF RIGHTS, COMMON LAW, AND 300 YEARS OF FEDERAL LAW TIED TO FEDERAL COURT PRECEDENT.
Please do not fall for that UNITED NATIONS global 2% telling us we need to change these in order for 99% of citizens to have protection---THEY ARE LYING.
THE OLD WORLD BARON GLOBAL 2% ARE FIGHTING THE OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% TO KEEP MAGNA CARTA IN PLACE FOR THEMSELVES.
Does Britain need a bill of rights?
A British bill of rights may complicate human rights law further, and that would help nobody but lawyers Adam Wagner on the UK Human Rights Blog, part of the Guardian Legal Network
Monday 8 August 2011 08.11 EDT First published on Monday 8 August 2011 08.11 EDT
The UK Bill of Rights Commission has launched a public consultation on whether we need a Bill of Rights.
You have until 11 November 2011 to respond and you can do so via email or post.
The document provides a useful and fairly noncontroversial summary of rights protections as they currently exist within the UK constitutional structure. It does not, however, provide any information at all about what a "bill of rights" might entail or how such instruments work in other countries: contrast the far more detailed (and very useful) document produced in 2010 by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
The Bill of Rights Commission was established in March 2011 and is due to report by the end of 2012. It is composed of 9 people, mostly Queen's Counsel and not all of whom are human rights experts. For detailed background, see my recent post as well as this excellent post on the UK Constitutional Law Group blog.
Interestingly, the original consultation document says,
"There are thus no British rights that are 'fundamental' in the sense that they enjoy special constitutional protection against Parliament."This represents the orthodox view of rights in UK law. However Lords Phillips and Hope – respectively the president and deputy president of the UK supreme court – have both argued recently that protections under the European Convention on Human Rights may have attained "constitutional" status. This means that if human rights were taken out of UK law, the courts may be able to apply them anyway, even if Parliament did not want them to.
In any event, this is an academic argument at present as the Bill of Rights Commission is not permitted by its terms of reference to recommend withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). At the moment we have a Human Rights Act, which incorporates the ECHR into UK law. Any bill of rights would have to be a "Human Rights Act plus", as thanks to the coalition agreement, it cannot be a "Human Rights Act minus".
It could, however, complicate matters. As I have pointed out before, the legal status of human rights protections in the UK is already pretty complex, potentially more so as a result of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (see para 46 of the consultation document, Rosalind English's and this UK Constitutional Law Group post).
If a UK bill of rights ends up making things more complicated, by dividing and tailoring (to coin a phrase) the rights which already and exist under the ECHR, it will probably help nobody but lawyers.
The commission is asking four questions:
(1) do you think we need a UK bill of rights?
(2) what do you think a UK bill of rights should contain?
(3) how do you think it should apply to the UK as a whole, including its four component countries of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales?
(4) having regard to our terms of reference, are there any other views which you would like to put forward at this stage?I am yet to read any strong case for a positive answer to question 1. With that in mind, whether the commission finds anything useful to do aside from making politically motivated gestures – for example on immigration and deportation — remains to be seen.
Given the commission's limited remit, the most that can be expected is two main recommendations.
First, a slight recalibration of the rights and responsibilities for the UK. As I have suggested before, this is an odd exercise to do in respect of "universal" rights which are broadly drafted and supposed to transcend national and cultural boundaries. It is also an end which could easily and less expensively be achieved by amending the Human Rights Act.
Secondly, a rebranding of the Human Rights Act as a "British" instrument, leaving aside the often made point that European Convention is a very British document already. This may make politicians feel more comfortable supporting it, rather than saying that rulings make them feel physically sick, but is unlikely to affect rights protections in any significant way.
Hopefully the public consultation will prompt some thoughtful responses which will be listened to, and the commission will generate some creative ideas to improve rights protections in the UK. In the meantime, we have three months to let them know our thoughts.
Adam Wagner is a barrister specialising in human rights, public and medical law, and edits the UK Human Rights Blog
'Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights'
We posted last week groups shouting for things like VOTING RIGHTS and now REAL NEWS telling us our US documents will not fix police corruption leading to this same WE NEED A NEW BILL OF RIGHTS.
Below we see in both UK AND US----these UNITED NATIONS movements are directed at today's global 2% ----we know this because they are not even mentioning the fact that our US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Federal laws are the BEST IN WORLD HISTORY at giving and protecting 99% of WE THE PEOPLE's rights and access to public justice.
'Adam Wagner is a barrister specialising in human rights, public and medical law, and edits the UK Human Rights Blog
Wade Henderson, president and C.E.O. of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, criticized the decision on Tuesday. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times '
NONE OF THESE GLOBAL NGOs ARE SHOUTING TO PROTECT OUR US DOCUMENTS---THEY ARE ALL TELLING US WE NEED NEW DOCUMENTS ----AND THAT IS A LIE.
We see the GLOBAL NGO as the voice for today's VOTING RIGHTS----also tied to BLACK LIVES MATTER POLICING CORRUPTION and all are telling 99% of WE THE PEOPLE our US rights and justice documents are not good enough. These same people tied to these GLOBAL NGO HUMAN RIGHTS are the CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA 5% TO THE 1% enriched having ignored all those strong US rights and justice documents.
We have those new global 2% knowing those global 1% are going to end MAGNA CARTA throwing these global 2% under the bus ---with those pesky 5% to the 1%. These UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS groups would be fighting for our US rights and justice structure if they were indeed working for the US 99% and global 99% of citizens coming to US Foreign Economic Zones----
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Leadership and organizational structure
The Leadership Conference is currently led by Vanita Gupta who took the helm in 2017 upon the retirement of Wade Henderson who had served as President and CEO of both The Leadership Conference and The Leadership Conference Education Fund (see below) since 2010. Previously, Karen McGill Lawson was Executive Vice President and COO of both organizations; and Nancy M. Zirkin was Executive Vice President for Policy of both organizations. Dorothy Height, who had been Chairperson of the Leadership Conference's Executive Committee, died on April 20, 2010; as of June 25, 2010, her replacement as chair had not yet been named.
As of June 2010, the Leadership Conference website reported that the organization had "more than 200" member organizations. The site described the organization's mission as "promot[ing] and protect[ing] the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States . . . [t]hrough advocacy and outreach to targeted constituencies . . . ."
According to the organization's website, "The Leadership Conference is a 501(c)(4) organization that engages in legislative advocacy. It ... has coordinated national lobbying efforts on behalf of every major civil rights law since 1957."
The Leadership Conference Education Fund, described by the Leadership Conference website as "the education and research arm of The Leadership Conference," was founded in 1969. It was previously known as the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund.
According to the Leadership Conference website, the Education Fund "builds public will for federal policies that promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States. The Education Fund's campaigns empower and mobilize advocates around the country to push for progressive change in the United States."
The Education Fund is a 501(c)(3) organization, which means that contributions are tax-deductible.
The idea that the US cannot reverse this MOVING FORWARD DARK AGES that eliminates who is a citizen-----that eliminates a private prison complex now allowed to use FORCED LABOR all of which is tied to ZERO TOLERANCE sending more and more and more and more mostly low-income and poor citizens to jail having never committed a crime----with more police corruption surrounding planting of guns and drugs to get that arrest-----IS NOT TRUE. SIMPLE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL LAWS AND US CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS, AND COMMON LAWS has given all 99% of black, white, and brown citizens these protections-----CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ARE SIMPLY NOT ENFORCING THOSE RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS.
The time frame between the 1960s-1970s CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENTS bringing those US CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS and the 1990s Clinton era left a very short window in installing and enforcing new civil rights laws and yes----as REAL NEWS video states----there is an institutional race and classism still happening in US.
August 21, 2017 REAL NEWS
Why Urban Policing Cannot be Reformed
The Real News talks to reform advocates, defense attorneys, and former cops who say policing cannot be reformed without fully understanding its underlying imperative
What we continue to shout as we agree with that statement of institutionalized race and classism is this------the failure in US to protect our 99% of citizens----the corruption of politicians, police, courts are tied to the DISMANTLEMENT OF ALL THAT IS OUR US CONSTITUTION, OUR US RULE OF LAW, OUR LOSS OF BILL OF RIGHTS----and what we have seen these few decades especially is CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA MOVING FORWARD BACK TO DARK AGES---and our US policing, law enforcement, access to justice has become THIRD WORLD-----
This is why we showed how Western nations' government structure and citizens rights' history is different than Asian. African, and Latin American-----it is the fact that the US is being taken THIRD WORLD ----that our institutions tied to rights and justice are more and more corrupt.
Corruption, Drug Cartels and the Mexican Police
By Ted Galen Carpenter
This article appeared in the National Interest on September 4, 2012.
On August 24, an armored U.S. embassy SUV was attacked in the mountains south of Mexico City. Gunmen pursued the vehicle at high speeds, riddling it with bullets and wounding two of the occupants. Now the mysterious attack has become even more troubling.
It was the fourth significant attack in the past few years on U.S. government personnel stationed in Mexico. In March 2010, Lesley Enriquez Redelfs, an employee of the U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juárez, was shot to death in her car along with her husband, Arthur, in broad daylight after leaving a children’s party sponsored by the U.S. consul. The husband of another consular employee was killed and their two children seriously wounded on the same day in a separate drive-by shooting. Jaime Zapata, a special U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on assignment to the U.S. embassy in Mexico City, suffered a similar fate in February 2011. Zapata and another ICE agent were returning to the capital after meeting with law-enforcement officials in the northern state of San Luis Potosí when they were ambushed.
But while those previous attacks clearly were carried out by hitmen employed by the violent Mexican drug cartels, the perpetrators of this assault appear to be twelve members of Mexico’s federal police. The circumstances of the pursuit and attack seem to rule out the scenario of mistaken identity. Although the exact reason for the attack has yet to be established, the most likely explanation is that the incident is the latest case of penetration of Mexico’s police forces by the cartels. Indeed, the New York Times reports that the “embassy personnel” in the SUV were CIA agents assisting the Mexican Navy in antidrug efforts, giving the cartels an obvious motive for ordering an attack. And the Washington Post quotes President Felipe Calderón as believing that the federal police involved had “ties to criminal organizations.”
It would certainly not be the first high-profile case of supposed law-enforcement personnel doing the bidding of the criminal syndicates. It is a long-standing problem. In February 2000, Tijuana’s police chief was assassinated, and a short time later, seven men, including two former members of the Tijuana police force, were arrested for the chief’s killing. The men confessed to working for the Sinaloa cartel. In another incident, a bloody gun battle ensued in downtown Tijuana when police attempted to stop a drug trafficker’s armed motorcade. The commander of the police unit and three officers were killed by the trafficker’s bodyguards. Those bodyguards, it turned out, were local police officers.
The administration of President Vicente Fox (2000–2006) made a valiant effort to crack down on police who had been co-opted by the drug cartels. At one point, more than seven hundred officers were charged with offenses ranging from taking bribes to drug-related kidnapping and murder. Yet those arrested represented only the tip of a very big iceberg of corruption.
Both violence and police corruption in Nuevo Laredo reached the point in June 2005 that Mexico’s national government suspended the city’s police force and sent in the federal police to patrol the streets. Federal authorities proceeded to purge the local police, eventually firing 305 of the 765 police officers—forty-one of them for attacking the federal police when those units arrived in the city.
Matters across the country have not improved since then. In July 2009, nearly eighty police officers were arrested in eighteen towns across the state of Nuevo León after soldiers found their names on an organizational roster captured from traffickers. Just before Christmas of that year, soldiers discovered a list of dozens of police in Monterrey, Mexico’s leading economic city, who were apparently on the payroll of traffickers—in some cases working as hit men.
Edelmiro Cavazos, the mayor of Santiago, a quaint tourist town a few hours from the U.S. border, certainly discovered that he could not trust his own police force. On the night of August 15, 2010, Cavazos was abducted from his home while his wife and children were visiting relatives in Texas. Two days later, his corpse was found dumped by the side of a road. He became one of fourteen mayors killed in 2010, but his murder was not the only awful aspect of the episode.
The security surveillance system showed one of the police officers assigned to guard the mayor’s house walking out to meet an approaching convoy of cars. Armed men emerged from those vehicles and walked up to the front door. When Cavazos answered the door, the gunmen threatened him with drawn weapons, forced him outside and pushed him into the back seat of the lead vehicle. The subsequent investigation implicated the guard and five other officers for involvement in Cavazos’ kidnapping and assassination.
Given that track record, it would not come as a great surprise if the investigation of the recent attack on the U.S. embassy employees shows that the federal police were doing the bidding of one of the cartels. The corruption in Mexico’s police forces runs very deep, and it grows steadily worse.
Nor is the situation with the country’s military much better. It should be remembered that the notorious Zetas cartel began in the late 1990s as a specially trained elite commando unit of the Mexican military. Indeed, the United States provided much of the training of that unit at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Most of the individuals who have joined the Zetas in the intervening years are former police or military personnel.
The harsh truth is that Mexico’s drug cartels are becoming stronger and more dangerous, and the law-enforcement and security agencies arrayed against them are riddled with turncoats and infiltrators. That is not surprising, since the drug syndicates have an estimated $35 billion to $60 billion a year in income at their disposal. Such a vast sum gives them an enormous capability to corrupt those people who are assigned to oppose them. The United States faces an increasingly troubling security situation on its southern border.
Notice it is the LIBERTARIAN CATO think tank in above article telling us MEXICO is endangering US citizens when it was CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA empire-building that created these conditions in Mexico and indeed have worked to bring those third world conditions to the US Foreign Economic Zones.....like BALTIMORE
'Given that track record, it would not come as a great surprise if the investigation of the recent attack on the U.S. embassy employees shows that the federal police were doing the bidding of one of the cartels. The corruption in Mexico’s police forces runs very deep, and it grows steadily worse'.
Where the policing and political corruptions targeting our black 99% of citizens is institutionalized------we need our 99% OF WHITE CITIZENS to WAKE UP ----MOVING FORWARD brings these same third world policing tactics to ALL 99% including white citizens. We must fight for ALL 99% OF CITIZENS to access rights and justice to keep those fundamental rights for all 99% of citizens---global 99% of citizens.
That said------what we are seeing in our US cities regarding police and political corruption is THIRD WORLD----it is BANANA REPUBLIC and if we look at those US cities tied to the worst of these conditions ----NEW ORLEANS AND BALTIMORE---we see two US cities having worked as if they are still in DARK AGES OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE ------this is the problem.
It is the failure of 99% of citizens in US cities to shout and demand US Rule of Law, US Constitutional rights, US Bill of Rights, and Common laws surrounding equal protection under law be enforced ----that is allowing all those rights to DISAPPEAR FOR ALL 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE and new immigrants.
Feature Article of Monday, 10 July 2017
Columnist: Nico van Staalduinen GHANA NEWS
New low in Police corruption!
Just last week my sister-in-law died. She was finally put out of her misery after a long year of suffering and trying to restart life after her stroke, unfortunately her improved situation didn’t last. A bad event for every family, in Europe what is left is calling the funeral home and they will take care of the extra “burden” of the bereaved family staying behind.
Not in Ghana, the bereaved has to come in action when a family member dies.
My youngest sister-in-law found my deceased sister-in-law who apparently died peacefully in her bed. She called my wife, who went over to the family house immediately, but since they both never had taken charge of the procedure of what to do when someone dies they went to the nearest police station.
The police insisted to be paid GH¢1,000 to come and inspect if there was no crime committed. My wife managed to “talk the price down” to GH¢200.
Then they were told that the deceased body should be brought for autopsy to the police hospital and an officer had to report her dead to the court and although that is part of their normal job my wife was charged for that “service”. The helpful police officer also called an ambulance on which he probably took his commission as well.
When my wife, her sister and the body of the diseased sister arrived at the police hospital the people responsible for receiving the corpses demanded GH¢100 which my wife paid, only to find out that that was not the fee for the mortuary but a personal, but let’s call it a “reward” for the people receiving and putting the corpses in the mortuary.
Naïve as we are, 2 days later my sister-in-law went to inquire if the autopsy had been done but she was informed that there was a waiting list. This list could be by-passed at a “fee” or otherwise it could take weeks or sometimes months.
Since we all wanted to proceed with the funeral arrangements my wife went back to the police station to inform if the death had been reported to the court. There we were informed that the officer, who “charged” money to go to court, was actually not the person who normally goes to court so we were asked to pay “transportation” for that person.
We informed a friend working at the police service if this was the normal procedure and he answered that an autopsy is only required in case of a suspicious death and a body didn’t need to go to the police hospital morgue but could go to any morgue.
When my wife went back to the police morgue with that story she was told that because the body was now at the police hospital and they (my wife and sister-in-law) were pushing to release he body it would now be threaded as a suspicious death.
They were also told that they should be present at the autopsy when the body was opened, but they could also just identify and wait outside if they would give the (police) doctor “something”.
That was when I decided to write this article about how shameless (police) corruption has become in Ghana.
Meanwhile the body is still in the morgue at the police hospital, the death still not reported at a court, and I am sure that this is not the end of the story yet.
But I can’t shut up for all to finish before and report this most shameful corruption I have ever experienced in our already very corrupt country.
We showed last week where language in our US Constitutional Amendments DID PROHIBIT SLAVERY------there was an exception surrounding prison labor ---as this statement below says-----we have had tons of Federal labor laws making slavery in all forms illegal.
That is not true if you take a STATE'S RIGHTS stance----saying Federal law, US Constitutional laws cannot tell states what to do. This is why many articles written from our right wing declare slavery was never abolished.
'The punishment exception was referring to prison labor when it was written in 1876, but constitutional law experts say it is now unnecessary because of current labor practices'.
Clinton era 1990s brought this slavery issue back when it sent our US corporations to overseas Foreign Economic Zones where they were allowed to use what is slave labor according to Western nation standards. Clinton-era installed ZERO TOLERANCE laws which created the PRISON PIPELINE and drove the rise in police corruption and the practice of US citizens being framed for imprisonment. Clinton-era also privatized our US public prison system which created a profit motive for expanding the number of citizens sent to prison.
At the same time it was CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA building the global slave trade human capital distribution system sending global labor pool 99% to overseas Foreign Economic Zones where they were indeed ENSLAVED.
All of these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and the ignoring of our Federal laws, US Constitution, Bill of Rights, common law rights to access to justice were lost in MOVING FORWARD BACK TO DARK AGES=====filled with enslavement, brutality, extreme wealth extreme poverty---and NO MAGNA CARTA holding the global 1% accountable to law.
IT IS NOT THE FAILURE OF US GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE---IT WAS THE FACT WE ALLOWED ROGUE POLITICIANS IN GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS AND PLAYERS IGNORE ALL OF THOSE CIVIL RIGHTS AND JUSTICE.
Here is very global 1% corporate wealth and power TIME MAGAZINE telling us 30 years after this problem started that there is indeed a problem of jailing US citizens not guilty of crimes---and this has been the status quo in Baltimore as all those US CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS expanding civil rights and liberties were never installed. This is why Baltimore has one of the worst of police department corruptions ---being third world.
39% of Prisoners Should Not Be in Prison
Getty ImagesAccording to a new study by the Brennan Center for Justice
By Lauren-Brooke Eisen and Inimai Chettiar
December 9, 2016
Lauren-Brooke Eisen is the senior counsel and Inimai Chettiar is the director of the Justice Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
For the past year, President-elect Donald Trump campaigned on “law and order,” stating at the Republican National Convention that under a Trump presidency, “safety would be restored.” His administration, with Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney general, is likely to be unfriendly on criminal justice. However, Trump and his ilk are outliers. There is strong trans-partisan agreement, among politicians, law enforcement, advocates and researchers that there are simply too many people in prison.
Crime exploded in the 1980s and 90s. Officials responded with harsh sentencing laws that had little impact and ironically may have made things worse. Now that crime is down, we need to change our approach. Instead of doubling down on the failed draconian policies of the past, based on vengeance, we have an opportunity to rethink how America punishes people who break the law and ground those decisions in what we know works.
With 2.2 million people in prison, mass incarceration is the greatest moral and racial injustice of our time. We need bold solutions to solve this crisis, but few systemic solutions exist.
For the past three years, we led a team of criminologists, lawyers, and statistical researchers to analyze criminal codes, convictions, and sentences to help pave a way forward. This week, we released our findings in a new report, How Many Americans Are Unnecessarily Incarcerated?
We found that approximately 39% of the nationwide prison population (576,000 people) is behind bars with little public safety rationale. And they can be released, significantly and safely cutting our prison population.
How did we get to this number? First, many people who are in prison shouldn’t have been sent there in the first place. For example, we found that 25% of prisoners (364,000 people), almost all non-violent, lower-level offenders, would be better served by alternatives to incarceration such as treatment, community service, or probation. Second, another 14% (212,000 prisoners) have already served long sentences for more serious crimes and can be safely set free.
Releasing these inmates would save $20 billion annually, enough to employ 270,000 new police officers, 360,000 probation officers, or 327,000 school teachers.
Republicans and Democrats agree that America’s experiment in mass incarceration has failed. Our research-driven recommendations aim to help rethink sentencing to make our justice system better by decreasing crime and recidivism, reducing the disproportionate impact on communities of color, and preserving the hard-won declines in crime over the last 20 years.
How We Got Here
There was a period in America where crime dominated the headlines. In 1968, Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon ran a campaign commercial where a series of still photos of angry protesters and burning buildings appeared over a soundtrack of a snare drum and dissonant piano chords. “Let us recognize that the first civil right of every American is to be free from domestic violence,” Nixon intoned. “So I pledge to you, we shall have order in the United States.” To a large extent, what average Americans saw on their television screens squared with their own experiences. From 1960 to 1980, violent crime soared 270%, peaking at 758 violent offenses per 100,000 people in 1991. African American and Latino communities bore the brunt of this crime rise. By the late 1970s, people of color were crime victims at a rate 24% higher than white Americans.
States and the federal government responded by enacting a series of laws that dramatically lengthened sentences for many crimes, and also created entirely new ones. Increased policing of lower-level offenses and drug violations swept more individuals into the system. Punitive policies such as mandatory minimum sentencing, the abolishment of parole, and a slew of new criminal laws caused the prison population to explode.
The nation experienced a prison boom. Average lengths of time behind bars increased by 33% in state prisons between 1993 and 2009, and doubled in the federal system.
As America became the world’s number one jailer, crime plummeted dramatically. Today, the overall crime rate is half of what it was at its peak in 1991. Violent crime is about where it was in 1970. Property crime is at 1967 levels.
Many may assume that this decrease in crime was caused by the increase in incarceration. But research shows incarceration had a limited impact on the massive drop in crime.
“When the incarceration rate is high, the marginal crime reduction gains from further increases tend to be lower, because the offender on the margin between incarceration and an alternative sanction tends to be less serious,” according to the Brookings Institute’s Hamilton Project. “In other words, the crime fighting benefits of incarceration diminish with the scale of the prison population.” A 2015 Brennan Center study came to the same conclusion.
Although there is some relationship between increased incarceration and lower crime, at a certain point, locking up additional people is not an effective crime control method, especially when imprisoning one person costs $31,000 a year.
Building on State Successes
The current sentencing regime was largely a knee-jerk reaction to crime, not grounded in any scientific rationale. While it may have seemed like a reasonable approach to protect the public, a comprehensive examination of the data proves it is ineffective at that task. Worse yet, it is also inequitable, placing a disproportionate burden on communities of color. Whether viewed through a lens of justice, fairness, public safety, cost, or victims’ rights, the U.S. prison system unnecessarily warehouses millions of people.
There are some state models for success. Over the last decade, a majority of states reduced their prison populations while cutting crime. From 1999 to 2012, New Jersey and New York reduced their prison populations by about 30%, while crime fell faster than it did nationally. Texas decreased imprisonment and crime by more than 20% during the same period. California cut its prison population by 27%, and violence in the state also fell more than the national average. These state reforms are excellent steps in the right direction. They provided modest fixes and short term relief. Although these reforms are heartening, we need more wholesale systemic changes to strike a blow to mass incarceration.
A problem of such epic proportions needs a bold solution.
Who’s Unnecessarily Behind Bars
Our team discovered these 576,000 people by rethinking who really needs to be behind bars and whether an alternative to prison could be a more effective sentence. Our current sentencing regime is largely based on outdated ideas about what is necessary to keep the nation safe, which we know don’t work.
Public safety should be the number one reason we incarcerate. But penalties should be the most effective, proportional, and cost-efficient sanction to achieve that goal. This would create more uniform sentences and reduce disparities, while preserving judicial discretion when needed.
To arrive at our findings, we considered four major factors.
The first factor is seriousness. Murder, for instance, should be treated as a far graver crime than writing a bad check. The second is victim impact. If a person has been harmed in the commission of a crime, especially physically, the punishment should weigh toward a more serious sentence. The third factor is intent. If a person knowingly and deliberately violated the law, a more severe sanction may be appropriate. The fourth factor is recidivism. Those more likely to reoffend may need more intervention.
We first applied this analysis to people convicted of lower-level offenses. We found that for an estimated 364,000 lower-level offenders (25% of the nationwide prison population), alternatives to prison are likely more effective.
We then applied these factors to prisoners who were serving serious crimes. They may warrant prison, but do they really need such lengthy sentences?
Research shows long sentences aren’t very effective. A 2007 National Bureau of Economic Research study found that prison stays longer than 20 months had “close to no effect” on reducing commission of certain crimes upon release. Other studies show prison often has a “criminogenic” effect, meaning that imprisonment can actually lead people to commit more crimes after release.
With that in mind, we took the 58% of prisoners serving time for six major crimes — aggravated assault, murder, nonviolent weapons crimes, robbery, serious burglary, and serious drug trafficking — and tested several methods for cutting sentences, ultimately landing on a 25% reduction. This approach would ensure that sanctions for serious crimes involve significant prison time, but that the sentences are better calibrated to deter recidivism and protect public safety.
This approach would shave a little over a year from prison sentences for these crimes. Applied retroactively, it means 212,000 prisoners (14% of the total prison population) have already served sufficiently long prison terms and could be released within the next year with little risk to public safety.
Rethinking Sentencing in America
Our findings are not isolated. A prominent coalition comprised of groups such as the ACLU, Beyond the Dream, #Cut50, Ella Baker Center, #FreeAmerica, and JustLeadershipUSA is calling for the prison population to be cut by 50%. Other criminologists have recommended we go back to the sentencing regime of the 1970s and 1990s, which would require us to cut average prison stays by almost 40%.
Our recommendations are more conservative and err on the side of public safety. We recommend that state legislatures and Congress make two major changes to sentencing laws: (1) eliminate prison for lower-level crimes altogether, barring exceptional circumstances; (2) and reduce current sentence lengths to be more proportional to the crimes committed, starting with considering a 25% cut to the six crimes we tested. We also recommend that they allow current prisoners to petition for application of these news laws, and that prosecutors use their discretion to seek sentences in line with this report.
Judges should have discretion to depart from these guidelines in special circumstances. And, we can’t simply swing open the prison doors — prisoners need proper support upon reentry into society to ensure they get back on their feet and do not recidivate.
Sentences should be based on what works to prevent crime, not vengeance. On social science research, not conjecture from 30 years ago on what we mistakenly assumed worked. And sentences should be proportional to the crime committed.
Donald Trump campaigned on a message that Washington is broken. Our bloated, wasteful, ineffective, and unnecessarily harsh criminal justice system is a prime example of that. Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senators Mike Lee and John Cornyn, and even Vice President-elect Mike Pence and Newt Gingrich have strongly backed criminal justice reform. In fact, many efforts in the states were championed by conservative lawmakers.
Republicans should not walk away from the cause now that Trump is in the White House. Their voices will be crucial in explaining to the next administration why America’s experiment in mass incarceration has failed, and needs to be fixed. Not only does using prison as a one size fits all punishment for crime devastate families and communities, but many of today’s overly punitive prison sentences produce little public safety benefits.
Our findings and recommendations are intended to offer a practical and effective approach to end mass incarceration while preserving public safety. Our goal with this report is to jump-start a conversation about how the United States can implement specific reforms that are audacious enough to truly end mass incarceration.
Supposedly the same global 1% CLINTON/OBAMA neo-liberals who created this mess are now going to work on fixing this---and they choose SENTENCING LAWS as the problem ---never mentioning STATE'S RIGHTS VS FEDERAL RIGHTS as the problem ---meaning there will be no solution.
Where is police corruption and brutality almost as worse as Baltimore? Chicago-----home of DICK DURBIN------so our global Wall Street 1% tag team CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA GLOBAL BANKING POLS are pretending to address these issues of US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zone problems without even mentioning that status FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE being the CAUSE OF BREAKDOWN IN US RULE OF LAW AND 99% CITIZENS RIGHTS
'The chief authors of the criminal justice overhaul, led by Grassley and Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)',
Senators plan to revive sentencing reform push
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley says he's not done yet pressing a cause with broad bipartisan support.
By SEUNG MIN KIM
01/04/2017 05:13 AM EST
"Criminal justice reform will be one of the legislative bills I plan to bring up early on,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley told POLITICO. | Getty
Criminal justice reform — the great bipartisan hope of 2016 that ended in disappointment — may not be dead just yet.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) plans to take up a bill to revamp U.S. sentencing laws and reform prisons soon after his panel clears the high-profile nominations from Donald Trump. A similar measure passed his committee overwhelmingly last year before stalling out in the face of opposition from law-and-order conservatives.
But Grassley told POLITICO he will soon try again.
"The committee will begin the year working through the attorney general and Supreme Court nominees, but criminal justice reform will be one of the legislative bills I plan to bring up early on,” he said in a statement. “It cleared the committee with a broad bipartisan majority in the last Congress, and I don't expect that to change.”
The chief authors of the criminal justice overhaul, led by Grassley and Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), will continue to try to drum up more support among senators, while “educating” the Trump administration about their bill’s merits, Grassley said. The legislation isn’t expected to be substantially different than last year’s version.
Criminal justice reform could’ve been one of the bright, bipartisan spots in an otherwise contentious election year. But despite support from President Barack Obama, powerful congressional Republicans, and a sprawling network of groups from the left and right, the legislation never made it to the floor. That was partly due to the determined efforts of law-and-order conservatives to steamroll it — and there's little to suggest that if the legislation heads to the Senate floor, that dynamic would change.
Nevertheless, Durbin approached Grassley after the election and pressed the chairman about whether the duo should make another run at it this year, Durbin recalled in a recent phone interview.
Grassley was in. And once the chairman tees up the bill this year in his committee, its supporters expect a bipartisan vote similar to the 15-5 tally it received in October 2015.
Durbin and Grassley’s aides have been discussing a strategy to advance the bill in 2017. Aiding their cause is the fact that three opponents — GOP Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana, Jeff Sessions of Alabama and David Perdue of Georgia — are leaving the committee this year, stirring hope that the vote count in favor of the measure could be higher. Vitter no longer serves in the Senate, Sessions is expected to be confirmed as attorney general and Perdue is shifting committees. Replacing them on the influential panel are Sens. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Mike Crapo of Idaho and John Kennedy of Louisiana.
“I think the committee will be just as strong. It may be stronger,” Durbin said. “When you have people like Grassley and Durbin and [Senate Majority Whip John] Cornyn and [Sen. Patrick] Leahy for goodness sakes … it ought to be enough for us.”
The criminal justice bill has two major components. The first part would effectively loosen some mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent crimes and has drawn the most controversy from some Republicans. The second plank includes changes to the prison system aimed at reducing recidivism rates.
Earlier this year, the bill’s chief authors rolled out changes meant to appease criticism from some GOP lawmakers that the legislation could inadvertently reduce sentences for violent offenders. That drew additional co-sponsors from both parties.
But the changes weren’t enough to satisfy opponents, whose ranks are smaller but just as persistent and vocal. In particular, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) has argued that the legislation, even with the revisions, risks prematurely freeing violent criminals and drug traffickers and warned that it is the “victims of crime who will bear the costs of this dangerous experiment in criminal leniency.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also opposes the bill, though he has been much more muted with his objections.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is rarely eager to take up policy fights that divide his conference — and Democrats point a finger at him as a prime reason why criminal justice reform stalled last year.
“The problem we ran into is Sen. McConnell, who didn’t want to call the bill to the floor. He was concerned about the impact on the election and also that the House wasn’t going to take it up,” Durbin said. The question remains going forward, he added, "whether McConnell will give us a chance.”
McConnell aide Don Stewart responded that the majority leader spoke several times about the issue in 2016 and “doesn’t need Sen. Durbin to be his spokesman.”
The president-elect ran on a law-and-order platform, but Trump doesn't appear to have weighed in on the Senate measure during his campaign.
Another wildcard factor is Sessions, Trump’s pick to become the attorney general. As a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was a fervent opponent of the sentencing overhaul and one of the five votes against it.
But Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), another supporter of the criminal justice reform effort, speculated that once Sessions becomes the attorney general, his chief objective will be on enforcing what Congress sends him — even if he disagrees with it — rather than slipping into the role of legislator and try to change the laws.
“He’s going to be focused on being the nation’s top law enforcement official,” Tillis said. “I don’t necessarily see him weighing in heavily on public policy choices that President Trump makes.”
Durbin said he intends to press Sessions on his views of criminal justice reform and how he’ll handle the issue at the Justice Department when the two meet privately to discuss about his bid to become attorney general on Wednesday. Though Sessions had wanted to meet earlier, Durbin said Senate Democrats decided as a caucus to not meet with any Cabinet selections until the new year.
“I want to know after all of the speeches he gave on the floor against criminal justice reform, what we can expect of him as attorney general,” Durbin said. “I don’t know what he’ll say.”
Still, others speculate that after Washington endures partisan wars over repealing Obamacare and confirming polarizing presidential nominees, Trump will be looking for a bipartisan win. Criminal justice reform could deliver one.
“I know we have enough votes to send this to the president’s desk,” Tillis said. Stressing his desire to avoid legislative gridlock, Tillis added: “The election was not a Republican mandate. The election was a results mandate.”
What we are seeing in US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones is a movement back to ignoring Federal laws and US Constitutional rights ----moving back even further to all first world/developed nation standards of policing, US Rule of Law, and citizens rights and access to justice-----US Foreign Economic Zones are to allow global corporations and global 1% to operate inside US as they do overseas ----and that is what drives this growing police/political corruption of ROBBER BARON few decades. Our 99% of black citizens are that majority those few decades inside US cities so they have felt the brunt especially in states having always operated under STATE'S RIGHTS ignoring FEDERAL RIGHTS.....LIKE BALTIMORE.
There is no movement in US Congress to stop this----Obama passed all kinds of law and used Executive Order to allow for EASIER JAILING OF US CITIZENS without charging for a crime----basically Obama pretended to make legal the very policies that have taken so many of our US citizens in US cities away. This REHABILITATION NOT IMPRISONMENT is only that same FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE forced labor policy that will hit 99% of WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens AND 99% of our global labor pool immigrants.
WAKE UP FOLKS======ALL 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE FIGHTING TO KEEP ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL LAWS, US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, BILL OF RIGHTS ===and not thinking all this will harm THE OTHER POPULATION GROUPS.
Philippines police plant evidence to justify killings in drug war, says report
Human Rights Watch says President Rodrigo Duterte bears ultimate responsibility for the deaths of thousands
The body of man suspected of drug dealing is removed from a street in Manila after a police operation in November 2016. Photograph: Bullit Marquez/A
This article is 8 months oldAssociated Press
Thursday 2 March 2017 00.43 EST Last modified on Thursday 2 March 2017 06.44 EST
A human rights watchdog has accused Philippines police of falsifying evidence to justify unlawful killings in the government’s war on drugs that has caused more than 7,000 deaths, and pointed the finger at president Rodrigo Duterte as being ultimately responsible.
Human Rights Watch said in a report on Thursday that Duterte and other senior officials instigated and incited the killings of drug suspects in a campaign that could amount to crimes against humanity.
The United Nations should create an independent investigation to determine responsibility and ensure accountability, the report said.
Presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella said the presidential palace will issue a statement later on Thursday in response to the report.
The report said police have repeatedly carried out extrajudicial killings of drug suspects, then falsely claimed self-defence and planted guns, spent bullets or drugs on the bodies.
“Our investigations into the Philippine drug war found that police routinely kill drug suspects in cold blood and then cover up their crime by planting drugs and guns at the scene,” said Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch and author of the report. “President Duterte’s role in these killings makes him ultimately responsible for the deaths of thousands.”
Human Rights Watch said masked gunmen taking part in killings appeared to be working closely with the police, casting doubt on government claims that vigilantes or rival gangs are behind majority of the killings. It said in several instances it investigated, suspects in police custody were later found dead and classified by police as “found bodies” or “deaths under investigation.”
The report draws heavily on interviews in metropolitan Manila with 28 family members of victims, witnesses to police killings, journalists and human rights activists. It also references initial police reports of killings, which Human Rights Watch said its field research consistently contradicted.