U.S. Engaged in Torture of Non-White People After 9/11, Review Concludes

NYTimes

A nonpartisan, independent review of interrogation and detention programs in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks concludes that “it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture” and that the nation’s highest officials bore ultimate responsibility for it.

The sweeping, 577-page report says that while brutality has occurred in every American war, there never before had been “the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.” The study, by an 11-member panel convened by the Constitution Project, a legal research and advocacy group, is to be released on Tuesday morning.

Debate over the coercive interrogation methods used by the administration of President George W. Bush has often broken down on largely partisan lines. The Constitution Project’s task force on detainee treatment, led by two former members of Congress with experience in the executive branch — a Republican, Asa Hutchinson, and a Democrat, James R. Jones — seeks to produce a stronger national consensus on the torture question.

While the task force did not have access to classified records, it is the most ambitious independent attempt to date to assess the detention and interrogation programs. A separate 6,000-page report on the Central Intelligence Agency’s record by the Senate Intelligence Committee, based exclusively on agency records, rather than interviews, remains classified.

“As long as the debate continues, so too does the possibility that the United States could again engage in torture,” the report says.

The use of torture, the report concludes, has “no justification” and “damaged the standing of our nation, reduced our capacity to convey moral censure when necessary and potentially increased the danger to U.S. military personnel taken captive.” The task force found “no firm or persuasive evidence” that these interrogation methods produced valuable information that could not have been obtained by other means. While “a person subjected to torture might well divulge useful information,” much of the information obtained by force was not reliable, the report says.

Interrogation and abuse at the C.I.A.’s so-called black sites, the Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba and war-zone detention centers, have been described in considerable detail by the news media and in declassified documents, though the Constitution Project report adds many new details.

It confirms a report by Human Rights Watch that one or more Libyan militants were waterboarded by the C.I.A., challenging the agency’s longtime assertion that only three Al Qaeda prisoners were subjected to the near-drowning technique. It includes a detailed account by Albert J. Shimkus Jr., then a Navy captain who ran a hospital for detainees at the Guantánamo Bay prison, of his own disillusionment when he discovered what he considered to be the unethical mistreatment of prisoners.

But the report’s main significance may be its attempt to assess what the United States government did in the years after 2001 and how it should be judged. The C.I.A. not only waterboarded prisoners, but slammed them into walls, chained them in uncomfortable positions for hours, stripped them of clothing and kept them awake for days on end.

The question of whether those methods amounted to torture is a historically and legally momentous issue that has been debated for more than a decade inside and outside the government. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel wrote a series of legal opinions from 2002 to 2005 concluding that the methods were not torture if used under strict rules; all the memos were later withdrawn. News organizations have wrestled with whether to label the brutal methods unequivocally as torture in the face of some government officials’ claims that they were not.

In addition, the United States is a signatory to the international Convention Against Torture, which requires the prompt investigation of allegations of torture and the compensation of its victims.

Like the still-secret Senate interrogation report, the Constitution Project study was initiated after President Obama decided in 2009 not to support a national commission to investigate the post-9/11 counterterrorism programs, as proposed by Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and others. Mr. Obama said then that he wanted to “look forward, not backward.” Aides have said he feared that his own policy agenda might get sidetracked in a battle over his predecessor’s programs.

The panel studied the treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and at the C.I.A’s secret prisons. Staff members, including the executive director, Neil A. Lewis, a former reporter for The New York Times, traveled to multiple detention sites and interviewed dozens of former American and foreign officials, as well as former detainees.

Mr. Hutchinson, who served in the Bush administration as chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration and under secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said he “took convincing” on the torture issue. But after the panel’s nearly two years of research, he said he had no doubts about what the United States did.

“This has not been an easy inquiry for me, because I know many of the players,” Mr. Hutchinson said in an interview. He said he thought everyone involved in decisions, from Mr. Bush down, had acted in good faith, in a desperate effort to try to prevent more attacks.

“But I just think we learn from history,” Mr. Hutchinson said. “It’s incredibly important to have an accurate account not just of what happened but of how decisions were made.”

He added, “The United States has a historic and unique character, and part of that character is that we do not torture.”

The panel found that the United States violated its international legal obligations by engineering “enforced disappearances” and secret detentions. It questions recidivism figures published by the Defense Intelligence Agency for Guantánamo detainees who have been released, saying they conflict with independent reviews.

It describes in detail the ethical compromise of government lawyers who offered “acrobatic” advice to justify brutal interrogations and medical professionals who helped direct and monitor them. And it reveals an internal debate at the International Committee of the Red Cross over whether the organization should speak publicly about American abuses; advocates of going public lost the fight, delaying public exposure for months, the report finds.

Mr. Jones, a former ambassador to Mexico, noted that his panel called for the release of a declassified version of the Senate report and said he believed that the two reports, one based on documents and the other largely on interviews, would complement each other in documenting what he called a grave series of policy errors.

“I had not recognized the depths of torture in some cases,” Mr. Jones said. “We lost our compass.”

While the Constitution Project report covers mainly the Bush years, it is critical of some Obama administration policies, especially what it calls excessive secrecy. It says that keeping the details of rendition and torture from the public “cannot continue to be justified on the basis of national security” and urges the administration to stop citing state secrets to block lawsuits by former detainees.

The report calls for the revision of the Army Field Manual on interrogation to eliminate Appendix M, which it says would permit an interrogation for 40 consecutive hours, and to restore an explicit ban on stress positions and sleep manipulation.

The core of the report, however, may be an appendix: a detailed 22-page legal and historical analysis that explains why the task force concluded that what the United States did was torture. It offers dozens of legal cases in which similar treatment was prosecuted in the United States or denounced as torture by American officials when used by other countries.

The report compares the torture of detainees to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. “What was once generally taken to be understandable and justifiable behavior,” the report says, “can later become a case of historical regret.”

Hunger Strikes and Indefinite Detention of Non-White Prisoners: A Rundown on What’s Going on at Gitmo

Propublica

It’s been 11 years since the first detainees were brought to Guantanamo Bay. (To BW's knowledge all the detainees are non-white) But the future of the prison, and the fate of the men inside it, is far from certain.  With 59 detainees at Gitmo currently on hunger strike, by the military’s count, here’s a primer on what’s going at the island prison.

What started the hunger strike?

It began after guards allegedly mishandled detainees’ Korans in a cell search in early February — but it’s certainly become about more than the holy books.

The military says detainees have previously hidden “improvised weapons, unauthorized food and medicine” in the spines of the Korans, and that the February searches were standard, conducted by Muslim translators. (Koran searches had set off hunger strikes before, in 2005.)

Attorneys for hunger strikers say the detainees have offered to relinquish their Korans rather than have them searched. The military initially would not accept that option, but now says, “if they choose not to have one, they choose not to have one.”

In any case, just about everyone – from the International Committee of the Red Cross to the general in charge of U.S. Southern Command – agrees the strike comes out of growing frustration and hopelessness among detainees. As we detail below, there are few indications that Gitmo will be shuttered or detainees transferred in the near future. The last detainee to leave Gitmo, last fall, was dead.

General Kelly, of U.S. Southern Command, said last month that detainees had watched Obama’s State of the Union address, and heard no mention of Guantanamo. “That has caused them to become frustrated and they want to ... turn the heat up, get it back in the media,” Kelly said.

In an account published in the New York Times last weekend, a Yemeni hunger striker named Samir Moqbel said he hoped “that because of the pain we are suffering, the eyes of the world will once again look to Guantánamo before it is too late.” (Moqbel had recounted his story by phone to his lawyers.)

Another detainee, a Saudi Arabian named Shaker Aamer, also recently wrote an op-ed. Calling himself “a bit of a professional hunger striker,” Aamer said “this one is a whole lot different.” Lawyers say the strike is far more widespread than the military’s count.

According to the military, two detainees have attempted suicide since the strike began.

Have there been clashes between guards and the prisoners?

Yes, most recently last weekend. In an early-morning raid on Saturday, soldiers in riot gear moved about 60 of the detainees from their communal living camp into individual cells. Guards fired four “less-than-lethal” rounds; they say some prisoners wielded makeshift weapons, constructed from broken broomsticks and plastic water bottles filled with rocks.

Military commanders told the Miami Herald that the once “compliant” detainees had been ignoring orders for months, “covering cameras, poking guards with sticks through fences, spraying U.S. forces with urine and refusing to lock themselves inside their cells for nightly sweeps.”

In January, there was an altercation on the facility’s new soccer field, which ended with guards shooting “one non-lethal round” at a group of detainees.

In a statement earlier this week, the military said the detainees were being placed on lockdown to allow for “round-the-clock monitoring.” In recent years, the communal living arrangement had been redone to “feel more like a dorm.” Now, the Miami Herald reports, those men are confined to their cells, without TV, legal documents, and the other things they were previously allowed.

In turn, detainees’ lawyers have said that prison guards became stricter in recent months, and that mail and personal items have been confiscated in cell searches.

An attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, Omar Farah, told ProPublica that he and other lawyers feared that the move to individual cells would cut off information about the strike. “The primary way we’ve been getting information is through prisoners’ accounts of one other.”

Are the strikers being mistreated?

At least one detainee has alleged that the hunger strikers are being punished, by being forced to drink potentially unsafe tap water and cold temperatures in their cells. The military disputes that, saying the tap water is safe and bottled water is available. On Monday, a federal judge ruled he did not have jurisdiction to weigh in on the prisoner’s treatment.

What about force-feeding?

As of Wednesday, 15 detainees are being force-fed nutritional supplements through tubes inserted into their noses. The military says strikers “present” themselves for the procedure, though it also says passing out counts as consent.

Others have been tied down for feedings. Moqbel, in his account in the New York Times, said he was once tied to a bed for 26 hours last month. Now, he wrote, “Two times a day they tie me to a chair in my cell. My arms, legs and head are strapped down. I never know when they will come.”

The Red Cross and other groups oppose force-feeding; they say prisoners have a right to choose whether they eat. The U.S. military position is that it would be inhumane to let prisoners starve. A spokesman told the Miami Herald allowing a detainee to harm himself “is anathema to our values as Americans.”

How many prisoners are left at Gitmo?

166. Since 2002, a total of 779 people have been held there.

No one has been brought to Gitmo under President Obama. The last people to leave were two Uighur Muslims from China, who were resettled in El Salvador last spring. Adnan Latif, a Yemeni, died in an apparent suicide in September. He was the ninth detainee to die.

Does the U.S. consider the detainees still there all dangerous terrorists?

No. In fact, about half the detainees have been approved for release. Here’s the government’s categorization of people held at Gitmo, as of last November:

• 56 have been cleared for transfer to their own or a third country. Last fall, the State Department made 55 of those names public.
• 30 Yemenis have been cleared to be sent back to Yemen, but are being held because of an unstable security situation there.
• 24 people have “possible prosecution pending.”
• 46 are being held in indefinite detention under the 2001 authorization for military force: they’ve been deemed too dangerous to release, but are not facing prosecution.
• Seven are facing trial by military commissions. That includes Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks.
• Three were convicted in military commissions and are serving out their sentences or fulfilling plea bargains. (Four others were also convicted but transferred to their home countries.)

The U.S. won’t release the names of those it considers hunger strikers, and it’s not always clear which category detainees fall into. Some of those who have spoken through their lawyers are on the cleared-for-transfer list (Moqbel, of the New York Times op-ed, is not, though he claims he is among the group of Yemenis who may be transferred.)

Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald says she has been told that the 9/11 defendants and the rest of the 16 “high-value” detainees, who were brought to Gitmo from the CIA’s black-site prisons, are not participating in the hunger strike. They are held in a separate, secret section of the camp. (See the Herald’s “prison-camp primer” for descriptions of where the detainees are held.)

Why haven’t the people cleared for transfer been released?

Over the past few years Congress effectively prohibited bringing detainees to the U.S. and made it difficult to send them to other countries, by requiring an assurance that the individual would never pose a threat to the U.S. in the future.

Difficult, but not impossible – there are waivers in the legislation that allow the president to get around the restrictions in certain cases. Human rights groups are pushing the administration to use those waivers, but Obama has yet to do so. Four detainees have been sent abroad since the law on overseas transfers went into effect, but in each case, it was to fulfill a court-ordered release or a military commission plea agreement, which Congress allowed. (The Supreme Court has ruled the men at Gitmo have the right to challenge their detention in federal court.)

As for the Yemenis still at Gitmo, Obama announced a moratorium on transfers to Yemen after the attempted Christmas Day bombing of 2009. There are also fears about recidivism – a report this year from the Director of National Intelligence estimates that 16 percent of released detainees have “reengaged” in militant activities. (Most of them were released under President George W. Bush.)

Other countries have also called for the release of their citizens. The president of Yemen, which has worked closely with the U.S. on drones and counterterrorism, recently referred to Gitmo as “clear-cut tyranny.”  Britain has also reportedly lobbied for the release of one of the hunger strikers, Shaker Aamer, who has British residency. The UN commissioner for human rights has said that “indefinite incarceration” at Gitmo “is in clear breach of international law.”

Why hasn’t Obama closed Gitmo?

The White House says he “remains committed” to closing Gitmo, but those plans have stalled in the face of congressional opposition.

One of Obama’s first acts in office was an executive order to shut down the prison within a year. He didn’t rule out continued military detention or trial in military commissions, but temporarily suspended the commissions and required a review of the status of the Gitmo detainees.

In a speech a few months later, Obama said that “the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained,” and had “set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world.”

Since then, lawmakers have passed restrictions and the administration has dropped many of its visible efforts to shut down Gitmo.

This January, the State Department shut down the office responsible for detainee resettlement. Even if transfer restrictions were loosened, it’s not clear what would happen to the prisoners who are being held indefinitely. A new periodic review process for the detainees was created in 2011, though it still hasn’t actually begun. Military commissions started up again, with some changes -- though still plenty of controversy, including questions about government censorship and surveillance.

What can outside observers see at Gitmo?

Not much beyond what the military wants them to see.

The competing claims about water quality, numbers of strikers, and the Koran searches underscore the limited, often one-sided, information that gets out. Detainees communicate mostly through their lawyers. The military controls access to the prison.  It recently stopped commercial flights to the base, a decision met with anger from attorneys and quickly reversed. For a few weeks recently, reporters were shut out of the prison.

A Reuters photographer recently recounted his tightly-monitored visit, and what he was and wasn’t allowed to shoot (totally fine: signs saying “No Photos.” Not fine: detainees’ faces.) Carol Rosenberg, of the Miami Herald, also recently described the restrictions on reporting from Gitmo, which she’s been doing for 11 years. She’s never been allowed to speak to a detainee.

The Red Cross has access to prisoners and has been to Gitmo during the strike, though its findings are rarely made public. Last week, the group’s president called the legal situation of prisoners there “untenable.”

How much does Guantanamo cost?

A lot. A recent report from the Government Accountability Office said the prison costs, on average, $114 million per year, not including military personnel. A 2011 analysis put the annual cost per prisoner at $800,000 – as much as 30 times what it costs to keep someone in federal prison.

The Pentagon has proposed a $150 million overhaul of the facility this year.

The Constitution and Blood Testing and Vampire Cops

NYTimes

Drunken driving kills someone every 53 minutes — 9,878 times in the United States in 2011. But the problem, however grave, should not be solved by policies that violate constitutional rights. The Supreme Court was correct when it ruled Wednesday that a Missouri policy requiring a blood test, even without a search warrant, of anyone arrested on charges of driving under the influence of alcohol violated the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches — unless circumstances demand immediate action and justify a warrantless test.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in an opinion joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and, for the most part, Anthony Kennedy, said that drawing blood to test its alcohol concentration is “an invasion of bodily integrity” that involves an individual’s “most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy.”

NYTimes

Opinion [HERE]

In Missouri v. McNeely, the police forced a driver to take a blood test at a hospital without a warrant, after he refused to take a breath test with a portable machine when he was stopped for erratic driving at 2:08 a.m. The blood test showed that his blood alcohol content was 0.154 percent, or almost twice the state’s legal limit.

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless blood test was an unreasonable search: there was no emergency that kept the police from getting a warrant in a timely manner, before the alcohol in the driver’s blood dissipated. It is this ruling that the Supreme Court, quite properly, has upheld.

Justice Sotomayor acknowledged that in some circumstances it is impractical for the police to get a warrant as soon as needed since the level of alcohol declines gradually when someone stops drinking. But a majority of states let police or prosecutors apply for warrants quickly by phone, e-mail or video conferencing. In this case, a prosecutor was on call to apply for a warrant and a judge to issue one. The officer did not try to get one simply because he thought it was not required. The Supreme Court has said wisely that it was.

Criminal Justice for White Folks: White Texas DA Arrested & faces charges for White man's Wrongful prosecution

MercuryNews

A Texas judge on Friday ruled that a former district attorney acted improperly when he prosecuted an innocent man who spent nearly 25 years in prison for his wife's slaying and ordered his arrest on criminal contempt and tampering charges.

Judge Louis Sturns, of Fort Worth, issued an arrest warrant for Ken Anderson for his handling of the case of Michael Morton. Sturns said there was sufficient evidence that Anderson was guilty on all three charges brought against him: criminal contempt of court, tampering with evidence and tampering with government records.

Anderson surrendered at the courthouse, where he now serves as an elected district court judge.

Morton, 58, was released from prison in October 2011 after new DNA tests showed he did not fatally beat his wife, Christine, in their north Austin home in 1986. Another man has been arrested for the killing.

Anderson, who has been a judge in Williamson County since 2002, has apologized to Morton for what he called failures in the system but said he believes there was no misconduct in the case.

During the weeklong Court of Inquiry, the special prosecutor, Houston defense attorney Rusty Hardin, presented witness testimony and other evidence to show Anderson kept evidence from Morton's attorneys at his trial.

The special court is a rarely used hearing that is held when officials or public servants are accused of wrongdoing. The process is similar to a grand jury proceeding,

but people can defend themselves against the evidence presented.

Among the evidence Morton's attorneys claim was kept from them were statements from Morton's then-3-year-old son, who witnessed the murder and said his father wasn't responsible and interviews with neighbors who told authorities they saw a man park a green van close the Morton home and walk into a nearby wooded area before the slaying.

In a videotaped deposition played during the Court of Inquiry, Anderson said he couldn't remember if he had evidence at the time of the trial that could have cleared Morton, but if he had had such material, he would have turned it over to the defense team.

The new DNA tests, which were conducted on a bloody bandanna found near the Mortons' home, pointed to another suspect, Mark Alan Norwood, who was arrested for the killing in November 2011. He is set to be tried in March for capital murder. Norwood also has been indicted in the 1988 slaying of an Austin woman who lived near the Mortons.

Anderson also is being sued by the State Bar of Texas for his conduct in the Morton case.

Little Rock police under renewed fire over accusations of excessive force

From [HERE] An Arkansas police department is facing a series of federal lawsuits alleging excessive use of deadly force by its officers, in cases that raise serious questions about its public accountability.

Families of victims shot and killed by officers of the Little Rock police department (LRPD) have told the Guardian that there is no effective oversight, and that internal investigations of the killings either covered up or disregarded serious violations of the department's own rules on use of force.

In December, the Guardian revealed how fresh testimony in the fatal shooting of Eugene Ellison, an unarmed 67-year-old African American, by an off-duty Little Rock police officer, cast doubt on the official version of events and the country prosecutor's decision to rule the killing justified. Ellison's death in December 2010 is now the subject of a federal criminal civil rights investigation, which will also look at accusations that LRPD has a "pattern of misconduct" in its use of force.

Now the Guardian can reveal that two more fatal shootings involving Little Rock officers are now the subject of federal lawsuits. One involves the death of a 28-year-old mentally ill Black man, Landris Hawkins, pictured, who was shot dead after he threatened to kill himself.

Speaking for the first time about the death, his grandmother Neomia Hawkins said that she called 911 expecting help. Instead, she said, police arrived and, after telling him to put down the knife he was holding, killed him.

Hawkins, 63, said: "They could have done something different. They could have tried to calm him. All they did was holler a couple of times and it was all over."

The Hawkins family lawsuit claims the officers failed to follow LRPD rules governing use of force and dealing with mentally ill men and women. It also alleges the force, under police chief Stuart Thomas, has a widespread practice of tolerating violations of rules, allowing acts of excessive force and covering up or disregarding allegations of excessive force.

A request to the LRPD from the Guardian for an interview with Thomas for comment was declined. "As we are in active litigation, we must respectfully decline the interview request," said a spokesman.

Neomia Hawkins, a retired clerical assistant with the Arkansas state police, said she filed the lawsuit because she felt that the department needed to be brought to account. "Something does need to be done. They keep doing it and they get away with it."

Another case involves the shooting of a young father, Collin Spradling, a white man in July 2008. Police initially told his family he had been shot and killed because he had pointed a gun directly at officers who had a valid warrant for his arrest.

But his father, Michael Spradling, described how two eyewitnesses said they did not see his son with a gun at the time of the shooting. A third witness, according to a video recording shot from one of the officer's cars and seen by the Guardian, said that both of Spradling's arms were pinned behind his back by officers when he was shot. His lawsuit also alleges that the claim that police had a valid arrest warrant was false.

"To this day I have no faith in the police I see the news and I hear about a shooting and I'm absolutely suspicious of it," said Michael Spradling.

Little Rock, with a population 195,314, is one of the most violent cities in the US. It has a violent crime rate of 1,490 crimes per 100,000 people, compared to a US average of 386.3 per 100,000, according to the FBI. The city reported 440 robberies per 100,000 people in 2011, compared to the national average of 113.7.

However, the LRPD also has rules governing potentially dangerous situations such as dealing with mentally ill people, when to use deadly force and indeed, when to use force in general. Critics say that the system is broken and urgently needs fixing, in particular the internal investigations of police killings.

"We think instances of police misconduct are likely to continue as long as matters such as these are not subject to an appropriate review process," said lawyer Michael Laux, who, along with his partner David Eisbrouch, of Balkin and Eisbrouch LLC, is representing all three families.

"Word gets around. And when officers become aware that instances of excessive force are not reviewed appropriately, it would seem to create a very dangerous precedent for the city."

In the last five years, there have been 32 shootings involving LRPD officers, according to files released in response to a freedom of information request by Laux.

It is difficult, however, to make any comparison with similarly sized cities as no central statistics are kept on fatal shootings by police, except in cases involving the shooting of a felon. The FBI, which records other crimes across the country, does not record police shootings, other than "justifiable homicides" – acts defined as "the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty".

In a case which critics say had a chilling effect on relations between the city's black community and police, Joshua Hastings, a former LRPD officer, was charged with manslaughter last year after killing Bobby Moore, a black 15-year-old whom he suspected of breaking into cars.

While a prosecutor ruled that, in the Hastings case, use of force was not justified, and he was suspended from the force, it later emerged that in his six years as an officer he had been suspended five times. A report by KARK4 News found that, a supervisor said Hastings had "continuously show poor decision-making and unprofessionalism as a Little Rock police officer" and that he had "great concern for his mental stability and decision making as a Little Rock police officer".

Hastings is the son of Lieutenant Terry Hastings, a veteran of the force who is also accused in the lawsuit brought by the family of Michael Spradling of falsely telling them that officers had had a valid warrant for his son's arrest.

Max Brantley, former editor of the Little Rock-based Arkansas Times, who now writes a blog for the liberal weekly paper, said that a belief that the LRPD misuse their authority has "been a leitmotif running through my 40 years here."

"My own limited experience of cops is that they are very professional," said Brantley, who has a pile of files on his desk relating to misuse of force and other misconduct allegations at LRPD. "But the cases mount. There's a swagger in how they operate. The police attitude is 'we own this space'. They are prone to exercise authority pre-emptively."

Brantley told the Guardian the LRPD has also been accused of excessive use of force in a number of non-fatal cases, including one involving Lieutenant David Hudson, which is the subject of another civil rights lawsuit against the department.

Hudson was suspended without pay for a month in November last year after beating up a customer outside a restaurant, while employed as a private security guard. The customer, Chris Erwin, was charged with resisting arrest, drunken conduct and public trespass, but the charges were later dropped. The incident was caught on video.

In a blogpost on the case, Brantley wrote that the suspension sent a "chilling signal" to the public. "Even with multiple witnesses and video, a beating of a non-criminal for backtalking an officer acting as a private security guard is not a firing offense. It gives the public every reason to wonder what happens when the lights are out, no videos are running and confrontations occur in poorer parts of town."

In another case in April 2012, Joe Thompson, the Arkansas surgeon general, was arrested after a confrontation at his home. Charges against him, including disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, were later dropped after audio files of the incident, which appeared to counter the police version of events, circulated on the internet.

Brantley said the time has come for a "thorough review of Little Rock police department's use of force, lawsuits or no lawsuits." He said: "I don't think you can have credibility in a police investigation in this town any more. You need to look at the use of force and individual officers."

Tim Lynch, of the Cato Institute's police misconduct reporting project, said that when questions have been raised over a police shooting, by victims or witnesses, it was the responsibility of the police chief or prosecution to turn it over to an outside agency for review. "This is what we have found to be best practice," Lynch said.

Lynch said that he had been calling for more transparency of the disciplinary records of police officers, because such records can identify "red flags" if there are problems with individual officers. He said that the disciplinary records are "shrouded in secrecy" and often, lawsuits against the police can also be settled in secret, leaving outside observers unable to judge whether a pattern of bad behaviour exists and how a force is reacting.

Pa. service company probed over NY inmate deaths

WSJ

The state attorney general's office says it's investigating a company that has become the state's largest private contract provider of jail medical services.

The Binghamton Press and Sun-Bulletin reports (http://press.sn/16WvqtH ) that the state Commission of Correction has issued critical reports about nine inmate deaths between 2009 and 2011 at county jails that contract with Correctional Medical Care, Inc.

The company, based in Blue Bell, Pa., says it uses some of the most qualified and dedicated licensed medical personnel in New York state to provide inmate health services in a cost-effective manner.

Yet, reports by the state Commission of Correction's Medical Review Board have found some level of fault with CMC in the nine inmate deaths. In some cases, it has also placed partial blame on correctional officers for mistakes.

Free Angela! Film Chronicles Black Panther's Journey

Politic365

In 1969, Angela Davis was every white man’s worst nightmare: Educated, possessor of a formidable intellect, black, assertive, an activist, a woman, and a communist.

Davis’ political opinions, social activism and her outspoken criticism of racism, segregation and the way African Americans and other non-whites were treated in a country sharply divided along racial and class lines, brought the full weight of the government upon her head.

The fallout is outlined in great detail in Free Angela and All Political Prisoners, a documentary film by director Shola Lynch. The story surrounds Davis’ removal from her teaching post at UCLA, Los Angeles; the charges brought against her for murder, kidnapping and conspiracy; the nationwide manhunt; her inclusion on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted List; and her arrest, trial and eventual acquittal. Viewers listen to narratives from Davis, friends, family and associates and witness their comments weaved around documents, videotapes and sometimes grainy historical footage.

The documentary is being shown in select theaters around the country, including Oakland and Los Angeles, Calif., New York and Philadelphia. In the Washington metropolitan area, the movie can be seen at the AMC Hoffman Center 22 in Alexandria, Va., and the AMC Magic Johnson Capital Center 12 in Largo, Md.

Today, Davis, 69, is an acclaimed political activist, scholar, and author. She remains unapologetic about her views on race, community building, and social justice and she works tirelessly in the struggle for gender equality, economic and racial justice. Of equal importance is her work to dismantle a prison-industrial complex in the United States in which 2.3 million people, primarily black and brown, are ensnared.

Back then, she was a 26-year-old Sorbonne-educated professor, who was immersed in activities she hoped would bring social, economic and political freedom for blacks.

The 102-minute documentary, shot in cinema vérité style, unfolds with snapshots of 17-year-old Jonathan Jackson and three other men leaving the Marin County Courthouse in San Rafael, Calif., with weapons trained on a judge, prosecutor and jurors. As the group gets into a yellow van, police snipers and guards from San Quentin Prison open fire leaving Superior Court Judge Harold Haley and three of the four hostage takers – including Jonathan – dead.

One detective walks from the crime scene with a weapon wrapped in plastic and viewers are told that Davis had purchased two of the guns.

In a straight-forward, vulnerable but poignant manner, Davis recaptures the heady, complex, scary days of the emergence of the Black Power Movement, black nationalism, the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, and an all-too-brief period of time when blacks around the country – like a sleeping giant shook off fear, lethargy and the past, and demanded an end to America’s homegrown apartheid system.

The Black Panther Party came to the attention of the authorities when in 1967, a small group of members, all bearing arms and led by Chairman Bobby Seale, marched into the California legislature to protest a pending gun-¬control bill and to illustrate that blacks had a constitutional right to bear arms. The group called for armed revolutionary struggle against the oppression and slavery-type conditions perpetuated by the ruling elite and their functionaries in the United States. They also strove to create a society of justice, freedom and equality for the masses of black and brown people. They developed breakfast programs and educated children, while advocating for a 10-point program which sought, among other things, employment, housing and an end to police brutality.

So concerned was FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover about the Panthers, he described them as “the single greatest threat to the internal security of the United States.” Hoover was determined to prevent the formation of a cohesive Black movement in the United States and used murder, coercion, extortion, disinformation and other tactics to undermine and destroy black leaders who exhibited leadership, organizational skills and the ability to communicate well. The FBI and police from Oakland, Chicago and elsewhere began targeting and assassinating members of the Panther organization.

The documentary reminds viewers of the raw anger, deep distrust and animus between the black community and police. Footage of an hours-long shootout between police and the Black Panthers illustrates the full-pitched gun battles that often ensued between law enforcement and the organization.

“It was as if we were living in a state of war, a state of siege,” said Davis. “We had to do all we could to usher in the Revolution. There was a conspiracy to kill every Black Panther in America and all black people.”

Quenesha McNair, 30, was left visibly moved by the film.

“I feel grateful for this information,” she said. “My generation knows the criticism directed at her approach to politics but not the level of determination to eradicate her. I’m surprised I’m just learning about her in the film. This wasn’t in the textbooks. I never knew how raw it was. The raid on the Black Panther headquarters was like genocide. I never, ever thought this could happen.”

Davis was also on the frontline as a spokesperson for the Soledad Brothers, three men in California’s Soledad Prison accused of killing a guard and persecuted for their political beliefs. George Jackson, John Clutchette and Fleeta Drumgo were each incarcerated for petty property crimes, we’re told, and jailed for years because of their attempts to bring about change in the prison system.

“I saw him at a hearing and I was drawn by the tenderness I didn’t expect to see in a prisoner,” said Davis of the man she loved, George Jackson. “He was a beautiful, powerful, passionate writer.”

Following the botched kidnapping and hostage deaths, the white establishment called Jonathan and his accomplices thugs, hoodlums and criminals. However, he was seen as a hero by many in the black community. At his funeral, thousands of mourners crowded the streets around the church, standing solemnly with fists raised in the Black Power salute as the coffin was carried into and out of the church.

As word about the shootout spread, Davis knew the feds would try to apprehend her.

“It was clear that this was not the time to make myself available for arrest,” she said soberly.

With a fugitive’s warrant of $100,000 on her head, Davis went underground, moving around for two months through Las Vegas and Miami, ending up in New York with local law enforcement and the FBI not far behind. As she evaded them, police descended on black communities around the country accosting black women with big afros and gaps between their front teeth. The FBI had agents conducting surveillance on anyone who knew Davis, and also began to wrangle information from her friends, family and associates.

“I knew there were countries that would accept me, but I decided I didn’t want to flee the country because I knew I’d be in exile for the rest of my life,” she said. “… I was pretty scared, always thought I’d be on the verge of being caught. I thought about the family I left behind, worried about mom and my siblings …”

Davis was traveling with a wealthy friend, David Poindexter, and the pair left Miami when the FBI questioned his mother.

“We were rapidly running out of money and I had a palpable sense that the FBI was closing in,” she said.

FBI agents had been searching parking lots in New York City looking for Poindexter’s car and found Davis at a Howard Johnson’s motel.

Davis, exhausted, pale and gaunt, said she was placed in a ward for women with psychiatric disorders.

“I hadn’t thought about what it meant to be a woman in prison,” she said.

Her sister Fania agreed.

“Angela’s education is now being put into practice,” she said during an interview in the documentary.

Davis’ capture ignited a firestorm of criticism of the Nixon administration and strident calls for her release. The Free Angela! Movement hopscotched from the U.S. abroad, with hundreds of defense committees calling for Davis’ release as well as the release of all political prisoners. Demonstrations, marches and fundraisers kept Davis’ case in the public eye even as Nixon called her “a dangerous terrorist.”

“It was lonely, very lonely. I read a lot and wrote a lot,” she recalled. “I followed the example of others like George and created a kind of freedom within that experience. They wanted to break me, wanted me to feel the burden of solitude.”

Davis was spirited from New York on a military aircraft, in the middle of the night and against her wishes, to be tried in California. In all, she spent 18 months behind bars. The prosecutor built an elaborate case around Davis’ all-encompassing love and passion for George Jackson which drove her to try to free him. But through the efforts of lawyers Howard Moore Jr., Leo Branton, Jr., and Doris Walker, Davis was granted bail and later freed after an all-white jury found her not guilty of all three charges, which initially carried the death penalty.

Her exoneration touched off exuberant and emotional celebrations inside the courtroom, around the courthouse complex and across the world.

“This is the happiest day of my life,” Davis later said at a press conference.

At the conclusion of the film, Davis crystallized the arc of her life since her release.

“I wanted to keep the structure and energy in place and to bring about more victories to the people. That became the theme of my life and here I am today …”

Sentencing Guidelines Not Applied to White Birmingham Cop who Beat Handcuffed Black Man - Appeal of Sentence Filed

Alabama.com

The U.S. Attorneys Office on Thursday filed a notice that it was appealing to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals the sentence handed down to a former Birmingham police detective, who was convicted last year on an excessive force charge related to hitting a handcuffed man in the backseat of a patrol car in 2007.

Corey Hooper had been sentenced March 7 by U.S. District Court Judge Inge Johnson to five years probation, including six months home detention, for his conviction the excessive force charge.

At Hooper's sentencing hearing Assistant U.S. Attorney Pat Meadows objected to the sentence because he said the judge varied greatly from the sentencing guidelines. He said after the hearing that prosecutors would review the sentence for a possible appeal. He had suggested more than seven years in prison for Hooper.

Last year a federal jury in a civil trial of a lawsuit filed against Hooper found that Hooper had used excessive force against Gulley for the same incident. The jury awarded Gulley $71,290 in the case. Gulley's injuries were so severe he had to go to the hospital three separate times, Gulley's attorney Wendy Brooks Crew told jurors.

According to the lawsuit, Gulley had been arrested and was in handcuffs in the back of a police car when Hooper, who was not the arresting officer, pulled him from a patrol car and repeatedly punched him in the face with a closed fist causing severe injury to Gulley. Jurors found that once apprehended, Gulley was not trying to escape and was not posing a threat. The jury deliberated less than an hour and a half before finding Officer Hooper, guilty of depriving Gulley's civil rights. [MORE]

U.S. District Court Judge Inge Johnson, who is a white woman, also ordered that during probation Hooper is not to get into any new debt so he can repay a civil lawsuit judgment against him to Martez Gulley, the man he was charged with hitting. Hooper also can't get a job in law enforcement or security and must participate in an anger management program, she said.

"I think you snapped that day. You're not allowed to snap," Johnson said. "So I want you to get some treatment." "Your conduct was inexcusable. You shouldn't have beaten a man with his hands handcuffed behind his back," the judge said. [MORE]

USA Today 'Will No Longer Use the Term Illegal Immigrant'

ColorLines

USA Today announced on Wednesday the newspaper "will no longer use the term illegal immigrant outside of direct quotes." The decision by the newspaper with the largest print circulation in the U.S. comes a week after the Associated Press dropped the i-word from their Stylebook.

The full memo was obtained by Romanesko and is published in its entirety below:

From: Coon, William

Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:16 PM 

To: USAT ED Virginia Staff; USAT ED Field Staff

Subject: Change in USA TODAY style on illegal immigration

You probably have heard that the Associated Press recently changed its style on the term illegal immigrant. Starting tonight, USA TODAY is also changing its style. It is not exactly the same as AP's, but the upshot is that we will no longer use the term illegal immigrant outside of direct quotes. Here's the new style:

illegal immigration

The term illegal immigration is acceptable, but do not label people as illegal immigrants, except in direct quotes. Undocumented immigrant, undocumented worker and unauthorized immigrant are acceptable terms -- depending on accuracy, clarity and context -- for foreign nationals who are in the country illegally. An alternative is to use a phrase such as "people who entered the U.S. illegally" or "living in the country without legal permission."

Avoid using the word alien to refer to immigrants, except in quoted matter or official government designations. Do not use illegal or illegals as a noun. It is considered pejorative by most immigrants. Migrant can be used instead of immigrant in a tight space.

USA Today is the widest circulated print newspaper in the United States, according to the Alliance for Audited Media, which audits U.S. newspapers' circulations. The newspaper is also the leader in single-copy newsstand volume, selling more than 425,000 copies per day.

8-year-old Black Girl Follows Tenn. Lawmaker Until He Drops Bill Linking Welfare to School Grades

ColorLines

Last week I wrote about a bill in Tennessee that would cut welfare benefits from parents with children performing poorly in school. The bill cleared both the House and Senate committees but yesterday the lawmaker behind the bill dropped his support for the bill, claiming further research on the impact on families was necessary.

However, The Tennessean reports Sen. Stacey Campfield (R) may have dropped the bill because of a powerful 8-year-old girl:

Before Thursday's session, activists organized a demonstration in the corridors of Legislative Plaza and the state Capitol. An 8-year-old girl confronted Campfield with a petition signed by opponents of the bill, and a choir of about 60 people, including some in clerical garb, sang "Jesus Loves the Little Children" outside the Senate chamber as lawmakers filed in.

Campfield walked away from the confrontation, saying repeatedly that he didn't think children should be used as political props. But it was a long walk, and the confrontation extended over several minutes as video cameras recorded the back-and-forth.

"Why do you want to cut benefits for people?" 8-year-old Aamira Fetuga asked Campfield after she chased him up a Capitol escalator.

Fetuga went on to follow Campfield after the camera stop rolling. 

Campfield says he withdrew his bill because he didn't have a full understanding of how the law would affect groups. 

"Did I know what the final result was going to be? No, I never do," Campfield said on the Senate Floor on Thursday. "I got a lot of good feedback from people. ... I think a lot of people were really close (to supporting it) but were just looking for a little bit more."

Inadequate Defense Leads to Vacated Conviction for Black Man

InnocenceProject

A Bronx judge vacated David Bryant’s conviction on Thursday and ordered his release after ruling that Bryant’s lawyer provided inadequate defense, reports The New York Times. Bryant was convicted of the 1975 rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl. 

 
Bryant, who had two prior arrests for sexual misconduct, was picked up by police within a day of the crime and confessed to the murder. He maintains that his confession was coerced after a lengthy interrogation where he was physically assaulted.
 
Thursday’s ruling by Justice Seth L. Marvin of State Supreme Court did not reach any conclusion about Bryant’s guilt, but instead focused on whether the failure of his attorney to consult with an expert on blood and semen testing was a critical mistake.

“This error falls within the category of rare cases where a single error in an otherwise competent defense is so egregious and prejudicial that it deprived defendant of a fair trial,” Justice Marvin wrote.

…

“His failure to have the defendant’s blood type determined or consult with a serologist was not part of a legitimate strategy; it was the result of neglect and ignorance,” Justice Marvin said.

Bryant’s original defense attorney testified that he did not remember details of the case because he was working 75 criminal cases at the time. His new attorney, Paul Casteleiro, sought DNA evidence that could help clear Bryant but most of it could not be located. Casteleiro did find an autopsy report that outlined the evidence related to blood testing. Bryant has type-B blood and according to the report, the blood recovered from the scene was not type B. Castelerio argued there is no physical evidence connecting Bryant to the crime.

The district attorney must now decide whether to appeal, retry him or dismiss the case.

Read the full article.

Filmmaker Ken Burns Discuss “The Central Park Five” on The Daily Show

Innocence Project

Wednesday night’s episode of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show featured an interview with documentary filmmaker Ken Burns about his latest film, “The Central Park Five.” Burns talks about the infamous case in which five young men of color were wrongfully convicted of a 1989 rape in New York’s Central Park and the city’s reluctance to acknowledge the mistake and provide compensation.

 
Watch the segment.
 
Read profiles of the exonerees from the Central Park Jogger case.

New Urban League ‘State of Black America’ report puts focus back on jobs (No Mention of White Supremacy as problem)

TheGrio

This week the National Urban League released its 2013 State of Black America report, a comprehensive, data-driven assessment of where black and Latino Americans stand in relation to their white counterparts in the US.

The report documents extraordinary gains in education even as it underscores inequities in employment that continue to be reflected in the income gaps that underwrite so many social factors, effectively detailed in the Equality Index, the National Urban League’s comprehensive model that accounts for education, health, civic engagement, social justice, and economics across race, taking into account age, region, and other factors.

The report cites important gains in educational attainment in the last 50 years spurred by Civil Rights activism and legislation as well as Affirmative Action policies.  For example, in 2013 there are 3-4 times as many black students enrolled in college as there were in 1963.

Marc Morial provides clarification

While this kind of educational progress is important, the NUL’s president, Marc Morial, spoke to theGrio, to provide some clarification and qualification of this data.

“It is important to note that (educational) gains have been made overall in America,” said Morial.  “There are more high school and college graduates overall because the economy demands a better educated worker.”

This progress in the college enrollment data should not obscure the persistent unemployment gaps between whites and blacks.

According to the report, “progress in closing the college enrollment gap is 5 times the progress in closing the unemployment rate gap.”

Key factors for fight for equality

Morial sees several factors that account for this pronounced inequality in the progress towards equality:

“1.) The recession of 2008 made a tough problem even worse – spikes in the black unemployment rate were greater than the national rates.  2.) We have to acknowledge the existence of employment discrimination – its tougher for blacks (even with college degrees) to get a job.  And 3.) African Americans tend to be more predominantly at the bottom end of the economic pool.  There is a higher percentage of (black) people with less education.”

The NUL plans on addressing some of these challenges via the “Jobs Rebuild America” initiative which will funnel $70 million dollars (public and private) into America’s cities targeting existing and emerging grassroots organizations that provide critical job training and placement for undereducated and long-term unemployed people.

Although NUL’s focus is on closing the persistent unemployment gaps, Morial acknowledges that the fight for racial equality still requires emphases on education. He is “excited about the president’s proposal for the largest expansion of federal support for early child hood education.”  According to Morial, “We need to do a lot more in urban communities to support those schools – they need more resources.”

TheGrio also reached out to Congressman Chaka Fattah for comments.  He declined but directed us to a press release that details new legislation that he and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand plan on introducing.  The Urban Jobs Act will connect “at-risk city youth with job opportunities.”  Again, this effort targets the most critical demographic for long term unemployment, and with the summer right around the corner, the timing of this legislation suggests the now common knowledge that summertime and youth unemployment can have disastrous effects in inner city America.

This report, like so much of the data that we have about inequality in this era of black exceptionalism, reminds us that black success can sometimes render invisible black suffering.  According to Morial: “We have a long way to go and a lot of work to do.”

Judges Threaten To Hold CA. Governor In Contempt For Ignoring Prison Health Care Crisis

Thinkprogress

A panel of federal judges in California lambasted Gov. Jerry Brown (D) on Thursday, for “>attempting to end judicial oversight of inmate health care and refusing to reduce dangerous overcrowding in state prisons. The panel found his lack of action was unconstitutional and presented a public health risk — and could lead to Brown being found in contempt of court.

Under the ruling — which the Brown Administration will appeal — California will have to submit a plan outlining how it proposes to reach safe inmate population levels within 21 days. The decision expands on another judge’s ruling last week that court oversight of California prison health care should not end considering the state’s inability to provide inmates with appropriate mental health care due to overcrowding.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled less than two years ago that California was failing to meet constitutional standards prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment due to rampant prison overcrowding and the resulting inadequate medical services. Brown and other California officials have argued that their efforts to address the issue have been sufficient, and that they should no longer be forced by courts to meet the population standards since the problem has basically been solved:

Deborah Hoffman, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, criticized the judges’ decision in a prepared statement.

“The truth of the matter is that California has invested more than a billion dollars to transform its prison health care system into one of the best in the country,” her statement said. “Our prisons now provide timely and effective health care to inmates that far exceeds what the Constitution requires.”

Currently, the prisons hold 119,542 inmates, or 149.5% of the number they were designed to hold, according to a report released this week by the corrections department.

The jurists…have ordered the state to reduce crowding to 137.5% of capacity. About 9,500 inmates would have to be removed to meet that goal.

Contrary to Hoffman’s and the Brown Administration’s rosy views on the state of California’s prison health system, the Golden State has a horrible record of providing sufficient services to prisoners. That’s particularly significant for the medically vulnerable prison population, which is comprised of a disproportionate number of minorities and low-income Americans — 37 percent of whom have chronic diseases, 65 to 80 percent of whom have struggled with substance abuse, and 13 percent of whom suffer from severe mental illness. With state cuts to mental health funding and California’s bursting prison population, prisons have also turned into de facto asylums, perpetuating cycles of mental illness and poverty in minority populations while enshrining stigma against ex-convicts and mental patients.

Made for TV psy ops: Media Still Hype Staged Toppling of Saddam Statue as Genuine

BlackListedNews

The tearing down of Saddam Hussein's statue in 2003 was a propaganda event, choreographed by US psy ops

Tuesday was the 10-year anniversary of the fall of Baghdad by invading US troops, marked infamously by the pulling down of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad’s Firdous Square.

The event is still treated in the media as a pivotal, symbolic moment in the Iraq War when ordinary Iraqis, freed by valorous American soldiers, triumphantly tore down the tyrannical image of the dictator.

But it has been confirmed over and over again that the event was staged by the US Marines psychological operations teams who knew the propaganda value of such a photo op.

Marking the 10-year anniversary of the statue’s toppling, The Associated Press described the memorable event: “Joyful Iraqis helped by an American tank retriever pulled down their longtime dictator, cast as 16 feet of bronze. The scene broadcast live worldwide became an icon of the war, a symbol of final victory over Saddam Hussein.”

Unmentioned in the AP report was the fact that “It was a Marine colonel — not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the TV images — who decided to topple the statue,” as The Los Angeles Times reported back in 2004.

In fact, US soldiers needed to use loud speakers to gather Iraqis around the statue – a necessary ingredient if the choreographed propaganda effort was to be convincing.

“It was a quick-thinking Army psychological operations team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking,” The Times report added.

Iraq War advocates, then and now, still cite the event as symbolic of “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” They are more right than they know. The event was symbolic. It was emblematic of the whole Iraq War: a massive lie perpetrated simultaneously on millions of innocent Iraqis and Americans.

34% Say U.S. Has Crony Capitalist Economic System

RasmussenReports

Americans are almost evenly divided when asked if the United States has a free market economy or a crony capitalist one. This helps explain why they think more government involvement in the marketplace makes it less fair.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 36% of American Adults believe the United States has a system of free market capitalism. But nearly as many (34%) view it as a crony capitalist system. Twenty-nine percent (29%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.) 

New Report Exposes Extreme ALEC Agenda

BlackListedNews

Seventeen bills introduced in the Arizona legislature in 2013 can be tied to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and every member of the Republican leadership in the state are current or recent ALEC members, according to a new report from the Center for Media and Democracy and its allies "ALEC in Arizona: The Voice Of Corporate Special Interests In The Halls Of Arizona's Legislature."

"ALEC is a secretive but powerful force in Arizona politics," said Lisa Graves, CMD's Executive Director. "This report exposes how corporations and Arizona legislators, have worked together to keep citizens in the dark about ALEC's extreme agenda."

"ALEC in Arizona" identifies seventeen bills introduced in the 2013 session that appear to reflect ALEC model legislation. These bills would defund Arizona's public school system (SB 1409 and HB 2617), eliminate collective bargaining rights (HB 2330), undermine the Affordable Care Act (HB 2588) and make it more difficult for Arizonans to sue corporations using class action lawsuits (SB 1452).

ALEC, the Goldwater Institute and Americans For Prosperity

The report documents how the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute, along with David Koch's Americans for Prosperity Arizona (AFP-Arizona), are working to support the ALEC agenda in Arizona. Both Goldwater and Americans for Prosperity are members of ALEC.

This session, six ALEC members, including Arizona state chair Debbie Lesko, co-sponsored HB 2588, which would undermine reforms from the Affordable Care Act. The language is nearly identical to the ALEC "Health Freedom Compact Act," which was sponsored as a 2011 ALEC bill by Goldwater's Nick Dranias. Goldwater then created a 2013 video ad opposing the creation of an Arizona health insurance exchange, while AFP-Arizona list blocking the expansion of Medicare under the Affordable Care Act as their number one legislative objective for Arizona in 2013.

Another bill that would prohibit public employees in Arizona from taking leave for union activity -- SB 1348 -- is a virtual carbon copy of the ALEC "Prohibition on Paid Union Activity (Release Time) by Public Employees Act," which was sponsored by Goldwater at the ALEC conference in North Carolina in 2012. AFP-Arizona list this issue as their number six legislative objective for 2013. At least ten ALEC legislators co-sponsored the bill. A recent report co-released by CMD and Arizona Working Families, investigated Goldwater's activities in more depth, examining their involvement within ALEC and their other lobbying activities.

Arizona Legislators Operate Secret Scholarship Scheme

Every member of the 2013 Arizona Republican leadership is listed as being a current or recent ALEC member, as are 27 other Arizona lawmakers. Despite ALEC's non-partisan claims, every one of the 35 identified members are Republican. After a high turnover election in November 2012, during which 13 ALEC members left the legislature, 26 freshman Arizona legislators took up their seats in January. As ALEC step up their legislator recruitment this month ahead of their spring conference in Oklahoma City from May 2-3, 2013, the number of Arizona ALEC members will likely increase even more, and as they are discovered we will make this information public on ALECExposed.org.

The report also details more than $200,000 worth of gifts paid to legislators through the Arizona ALEC "scholarship" fund, using money solicited by Arizona legislators from corporate lobbyists. By using ALEC as a conduit, the fund operates to hide the actual identity of the corporations who wrote the checks. Between 2006 and 2011, these corporations included Salt River Project ($30,000), University of Phoenix ($10,000), Freeport-McMoRan ($12,000) and Apollo Group/Insight Schools ($12,000).

Legislators documented as receiving awards include seven of the eight current Arizona Republican leadership. Between 2006-2011, Arizona House Speaker Andy Tobin received $5,945.27 in gifts from the fund, Senate Whip Adam Driggs got $9,610.83 and ALEC Arizona chair Debbie Lesko received $6,149.76. The internal workings of the Arizona fund, as well as identical funds in other states, were explored in another recent report that CMD co-released in November 2012, titled "Buying Influence: How the American Legislative Exchange Council Uses Corporate-Funded "Scholarships" to Send Lawmakers on Trips with Corporate Lobbyists."

ALEC in Arizona was released today by CMD, Arizona Working Families, Progress Now Education, People For The American Way Foundation and Common Cause, at a press conference outside the Arizona State House. This is the third annual report on ALEC's influence in Arizona. Previous reports exposed the connections between ALEC and the controversial SB1070 anti-immigration law, as well as numerous other anti-worker and anti-environmental bills based on ALEC "model" bills.

"A big strong army has nothing to do but harass little kids?" - Outcry as US-Palestinian teenager in Israeli military prison for throwing stones

Rt.com

The imprisonment by Israel of a 14-year old boy with joint US-Palestinian citizenship has provoked widespread criticism amongst human rights groups. The boy went before a military court on Thursday accused of throwing stones at Israeli cars.

Mohammed Khalek, who was born in New Orleans, was officially charged Thursday, along with two other youths, of pelting Israeli military and settler vehicles with stones outside the village of Silwad in the occupied West Bank.

The boy was arrested in the early hours of April 5th when heavily armed Israeli forces entered the family home. During the course of the arrest the braces on his teeth were broken.

The case was adjourned until next week, and his father, Abdulwahab Khalek, has accused the US of not doing enough to help his son.

“The US government is obliged to do something for us, but it doesn’t even care. They’ve lost the issue somewhere in their back pocket,” he said.

The US consulate in Jerusalem has declined to comment on the issue.

Randa Wahbe, an advocacy officer representing Mohammed, told RT that he has been potentially abused while in detention.

“He has told me that he has been slapped in the prison, his braces are broken off and we are concerned that he is being mistreated while under interrogation,” she said.

She said that there have been several cases of other children being forced to confess, of being denied access to family members and lawyers and threatened with sexual abuse and not being able to go back to school.

“In the case of Mohammed, he was told by interrogators that if he confessed he would be allowed to go home with his father, but when he confessed, his interrogation was extended for a further two days,” she said. Mahammed has not been allowed to see his father since then, except in court.

Defense of Children International, a human rights group, said there are 236 Palestinian children aged 12-17 among a total of 4,800 Palestinians in Israeli jails.

A UN study in March this year showed that Israel systematically and gravely violated the rights of Palestinians.

“The Israeli military’s treatment of Mahammed Khalek is appalling and all too common. There’s no justification for shackling him for 12 hours and interrogating him while refusing to let him see his father or a lawyer,” Bill Van Esveld, a researcher for Human Rights Watch, told Reuters.

The Israelis insist they need to crack down on potentially lethal stone throwing. Stones thrown by Palestinians last month caused a car to crash that left a three year old critically injured. In 2011 an American born settler was killed in is car outside Hebron by rocks hurled by Palestinian youths.

“These kind of events show you that throwing stones is not a game – it endangers innocent lives. The throwers age doesn’t change the fact that these objects kill, and it’s something we take seriously,” said an Israeli army spokesman.

Palestinians living on the West Bank are subject to a strict military law, which in theory means someone can be sentenced for up to 20 years for throwing stones at vehicles.

Since Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967, some 350,000 Israeli settlers have moved there, they are subject to Israeli law which is much more lenient.

Palestinians complain that they are regularly pelted with stones by Israeli settlers but that Israeli troops rarely intervene even when there are witnesses.

“Look at this oppression – a big strong army has nothing to do but harass little kids?” said Ali Hamid, the father of a 16-year old who was in the courtroom dock.

Podcast: When Prosecutors Mishandle Cases, Everyone Pays…Except For Them

Propublica

Last week, ProPublica's Joaquin Sapien detailed how New York City prosecutors had committed harmful misconduct in more than two dozen cases — sometimes putting the innocent behind bars while allowing the guilty back on the streets — yet several prosecutors received promotions and raises shortly after courts cited them for abuses.

"There's probably a lot of practitioners in the criminal justice system who are upstanding people with a lot of integrity and have no interest in putting an innocent person in jail but that's not really our point," Sapien explains. "Our point is that when these things happen the consequences are devastating for defendants and their families and the victims, and the consequences for a prosecutor responsible are nonexistent. There are no consequences. People, as we found, go on to have perfectly successful careers after this." 

Sapien joined ProPublica's editor-in-chief Steve Engelberg in our Storage Closet Studio to discuss why defense lawyers have been reluctant to file complaints against these prosecutors; how Claude Stuart, a former Queens assistant district attorney, has been one of the only prosecutors to be disciplined for misconduct in the past decade; and the interesting case of Tony Bennett, a man who was released from jail after his conviction was overturned due to misconduct and then admitted to ProPublica that he was guilty of murder.

Anarchists Get Solitary Confinement for Not Snitching

Reason.com

“You have to be strong. The only thing you do all day is just not break,” says Katherine “KteeO” Olejnik, on her two month detention in solitary confinement.

In September 2012, KteeO and her colleague, Matthew Duran, were imprisoned and sent to solitary confinement at Seattle Federal Detention Center for refusing to testify in front of a grand jury. They weren’t being tried for any crime, but refused to testify because of their political ideals.

“From the get-go, I never had any intention of being used as an instrument by the federal government,” says Duran.

“If I would have testified and something that I had said would have put someone in prison and taken them away from their family, I wouldn’t have been able to live with myself,” adds Olejnik.

What heinous crime could justify the use of solitary confinement to get KteeO and Matt to cooperate?

In this case, it was a few acts of vandalism during a May Day protest last year.

“It was a largely peaceful protest but there was a small contingent who were dressed in black and they were covering their faces, and they caused damage to the federal courthouse and also to some nearby businesses,” says Olejnik's attorney Jenn Kaplan.  

The suspects are alleged to be a group of anarchists, as are KteeO and Matt. Matt and KteeO believe they were brought in to testify based solely on their shared political beliefs with the suspects, and that the FBI is on a witch hunt to track down political dissenters.

Because grand juries are extremely secretive and there is very little transparency, the court would not release any information on the proceedings or the prosecution.

“If you’re not willing to cooperate with a grand jury’s investigation, no matter how illegitimate it seems, you can go to jail for a very long time,” says Kaplan, “and not just to jail, but it seems that the Bureau of Prisons can put you in solitary confinement for extended periods without having to justify its decision to anyone. And this could happen to any US citizen."

Were Matt and KateeO tortured for their testimony? They sure think so.

“Just the idea of locking someone up for days, weeks, months—and never letting them out—anybody that thinks would know that this is a form of torture,” says Duran.

Margaret Chen, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, notes that you can see the physiological and psychological effects of solitary confinement in as little as seven days, and they may include sleep deprivation, withdrawal, depression, anxiety, uncontrolled rage, suicidal thoughts and self-mutilation.

Using solitary confinement for convicted felons is controversial enough, but in this case the imprisonment was a form of coercion. The judge only released Matt and KteeO after concluding that they would not break their resolve under the harshest of circumstances.

About 7 minutes.

Written and produced by Tracy Oppenheimer; camera by Zach Weissmueller.