The respected Foreign Policy magazine details how the recent close vote on the NSA warrantless surveillance program was heading to a victory for privacy when the White House called in Nancy Pelosi. With heavy pressure from Pelosi, the White House was able to get just enough votes to kill privacy. Even with her ignoble role in this vote (and prior work to reduce civil liberties), many democrats are still supporting Pelosi in what is now a robotic form of politics. As their leader takes an axe to privacy, Democrats are again adopting the mantra that the other guys are worse and she is still good on other issues — making privacy just another item to trade off as part of the blue state/red state paradigm maintained by our duopoly of government.
Category: Society
Cyclist Lance Armstrong spent years vehemently denying that he was taking performance-enhancing drugs and attacked those who accused him of being a cheater. Now, he is essentially arguing that it was clear all along that he was a cheater so he does not have to give anything back to the U.S. government for the sponsorship contract with U.S. Postal Service. In his filing, Armstrong insisted “The government wanted a winner and all the publicity, exposure, and acclaim that goes along with being his sponsor. It got exactly what it bargained for.”
Attorney Robert Michael Hoffman is a free man. Hoffman has been at the center of a bizarre case where multiple women accused him of sexual assaulting them. The complication in the case was that the women had answered his Craigslist invitation for rough sex. He insisted it was merely rougher than they anticipated while they said it was forced sex. The case began to unravel in September 2011 when six of nine counts were tossed by Judge Bruce Chan after a secret tape contradicted the testimony of two of the women. Now the remainder have been dismissed against the San Francisco attorney. Hoffman specializes in sexual harassment cases.
There is an interesting potential lawsuit brewing in Ohio over a Holocaust memorial that will feature a prominent Star of David on the Ohio Statehouse lawn. The memorial, designed by Daniel Libeskind, has been criticized as violation by the separation of church and state by civil libertarians. The case could present a perfect vehicle to explore the meaning of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Salazar v. Buono in 2010 where a sharply divided court allowed a cross to remain on public lands as a memorial for the dead of World War I.
We have previously discussed how police are increasingly doing drug stops on pretextual grounds and seizing any money that a driver cannot explain to their satisfaction. It is called “policing for profit” and departments are able to keep much of seized money in these stops. The federal government is being forced to return over $1 million to Tara Mishra, 33, of California, who was taking her life savings as a stripper to buy her own business. That was before it was seized by Nebraska state troopers who declared that it must be drug proceeds. Even though no drugs were found and there was no basis for concluding the cash was from drug proceeds, the matter became a federal case and the Obama Administration fought her to deny her even a hearing for demanding the money back. Now U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon has ordered them to give back the money. However, this is not considered theft because police officers took the money at a traffic stop. The case is United States of America v. $1,074,900.00 in United States Currency, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11544 (D. Neb. 2013).
We have previously discussed difficult cases (here and here and here) where physical appearance is a job criteria — leading to claims of gender discrimination. Now, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Nelson Johnson has ruled that cocktail servers known as the “Borgata Babes” at Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa can be required to keep their weight within proscribed limits as part of their job. Johnson ruled against 22 cocktail servers in a decision that found that these positions are part entertainment and part waitress — allowing the company to specify appearance requirements for women described as “eye candy.” The company required women not to gain more than seven percent body weight after their hiring. They wear cleavage-bearing bustiers and high heels at work.
For many years, there has been controversy over the funding of military chaplains and the preferences given certain faiths. The problem is that as much 23 percent of our military list no religious association or preference. While many simply have no religious association with a particular faith, some are agnostics, some are atheists, and some are generally humanists. It would seem logical to have some chaplains who can relate to those groups. However, members of Congress are irate and insist that chaplains must believe in a deity to be funded. They warm that humanist or secularist chaplains would be traumatizing dying soldiers about being “worm food” and dying without hope.
Continue reading “Congress Moves To Block Atheist Chaplains”
New York Democrats must have the weakest bench of leaders in the country. Otherwise, it is hard to see how two disgraced politicians in sex scandals could be leading in the polls to resume power. On one hand you have Elliot Spitzer who, while Governor, used call girls with regularity. He now appears to be praying himself into the comptroller’s office at churches and synagogues. Then you have Anthony Weiner who sent out disgusting pictures of his genitals to women, lied to the press and public, and engaged in conduct that would be at best considered sexual harassment and at worst stalking. Yet, he is leading in the polls for a race for mayor of New York. Now, Weiner is again before the public asking for forgiveness — this time for new pictures and messages sent after his resignation and the birth of his child by his ever forgiving wife. Some as recently as last summer. By the way, Weiner now appears to go under the nom de guerre of Carlos Danger. It is not clear if he will use that name as mayor or just use it when he sends women pictures of himself in various obscene poses.
Continue reading “Meet Carlos Danger: Man of Mystery and Messaging”
It is something of a doggie whodunit. Citizens in Olathe, Kansas are debating the killing of a six pound Yorkie named Precious. Carl Henrichson is accused of killing Precious by standing on her while he claims that he was protecting his larger Labrador dog from a neighborhood menace.
Continue reading “Precious: Victim or Villain? Kansas Town Debates Death Of Yorkie”
These are certain things that you will not easily find in U.S. media like Jimmy Carter declaring that we no longer have a functioning democracy in this country. Another is reading about Snowden as a whistleblower. The White House has been highly successful in telling media not to refer to Snowden as a whistleblower and enlisting various media allies to attack him as a clown and a traitor or mocking his fear of returning home. This week you had to read Moscow Times or other foreign sites (or a link on Reddit) to learn that Snowden has won this year’s Whistleblower Award established by German human rights organizations.
Continue reading “Snowden Is A Whistleblower . . . Just Not In The United States”
The American Civil Liberties Union seems a bit less unified in the aftermath of the Zimmerman acquittal. I remain a huge admirer of the ACLU and its inspiring legacy in fighting for civil liberties in America. I also have great respect for ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero. However, the divisions evident on this civil liberties blog appears equally represented in that civil liberties institution. To the surprise of many, including myself, Romero sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder that seemed to clearly invite a civil rights or hate crime prosecution of George Zimmerman. The ACLU however has long taken the view that such prosecutions violate the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. When the federal government does not like the outcome of a high-profile case, it can use the very same facts to bring another prosecution under a different crime. After sending the letter, however, the ACLU staff appear to have objected and sent out a conflicting position that such successive prosecutions are violative of constitutional principles.
Continue reading “ACLU.2.0: ACLU Shifts Position On Civil Rights Action Against Zimmerman”
Submitted by Darren Smith, Guest Blogger
Does the US Government have rose colored glasses when it looks at itself administering justice for an individual after the demands of the public to instigate a prosecution are satisfied by an individual going to prison? One may look at a bit of history to see this more clearly. A chapter would be read by some in the case of Iva Toguri. Another might be that of George Zimmerman.
Continue reading “Seeing Justice Through Tokyo Rose Colored Glasses”
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
There has been a large volume of discussion on this blog concerning the loss of our personal liberties and constitutional freedoms. One of the most important of those “freedoms” that seem to be at risk is the Freedom of the Press, especially in light of recent events.
“Following the amendment of a long-standing U.S. law, people in this country will now be exposed to news which is produced by the U.S. government. On Jul. 2, a change to the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act, also known as the Smith-Mundt Act, came into effect, reversing a ban on the State Department and U.S. international broadcasting agencies which had prevented them from disseminating their program materials within U.S. borders. The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the U.S. federal government agency which oversees all U.S. government-supported media internationally, notes that individuals residing in the U.S. will now have access to vast amounts of new information.” Nation of Change Continue reading “Is Freedom of the Press Dead?”
Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
As erudite and informed as I pretend to be, the fact is that there is much that is important that I either miss, or fail to see any significance in. The death of investigative reporter Michael Hastings showed me that because my first reaction to the news flash was “who is Michael Hastings?” Reading further into the story I discovered that he was the reporter who brought down General William McChrystal and that he was considered to be one of America’s premier investigative journalists. As I read that original story, the thought occurred to me that possibly Hastings’s death in an auto “accident” was not simply a case of reckless driving, but I initially dismissed that as merely the operation of my cynical mindset. Nevertheless, the thought nagged at the back of my consciousness and then I saw a story on http://whowhatwhy.com/ , my favorite investigative website, run by the renowned Russ Baker. The stories title: “The Michael Hastings Wreck-Video Evidence Offers a few Clues” http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/07/14/the-michael-hastings-wreck-video-evidence-offers-a-few-clues/
For my own benefit and perhaps yours, I’ve done a little research into who Michael Hastings was and what he did that deserves attention. I explore the possibility that his death was no accident. I admit that I have no proof beyond speculation. Hopefully I can give you enough information to make your own judgments. In a world where American Presidents openly arrogate to themselves the right to kill people deemed enemies of the United States, all things suddenly become possible. When the basic right of habeas corpus can be denied to American citizens, based upon unproven allegations of their being threats to this country, isn’t it possible for those with the power to detain and to eliminate individuals, to make decisions as to someone’s existence doing harm to this country? Finally, doesn’t this unconstitutional expansion of powers give individuals with government connections the leeway to take revenge on those who expose them? While I’m not privy to knowledge of the actions of those in power and can claim no inside information, I certainly can speculate based on the experience of my lifetime. This then is my speculation about the death and life of Michael Hastings in the context of current life in these United States. Continue reading “What Happened to Michael Hastings?”
Last night, I appeared again (here and here) on the PBS Newshour to discuss President Barack Obama’s comments about the Zimmerman trial. While I usually do not intrude on our weekend guest bloggers, I have received a few emails about a comment that I made about the Stand Your Ground law. I was commenting on the President’s statement that we need to reexamine the Stand Your Ground law and noted that the law was not in play at the trial. This led to a few emails objecting that I had ignored the jury instructions that they claim imposed the standard of the SYG law on the jury. I disagree and wanted to briefly explain. Most were civil and insightful and I thought, after our exchange, it would be good to post a brief discussion on this insular issue from the trial. There are important things to discuss in the aftermath of the verdict, as the President said, but we should be clear about our view of the underlying legal standards and trial record.
Continue reading “The Stand Your Ground Law And The Zimmerman Trial”