Showing posts with label Case. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Case. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Podcast: The Media"s Gotten the Hobby Lobby Case Upside Down

At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Podcast: The Media"s Gotten the Hobby Lobby Case Upside Down

Sunday, March 16, 2014

Army General in Sexual Assault Case to Plead Guilty to Lesser Charges

HTTP/1.1 302 Found Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 19:21:58 GMT Server: Apache Set-Cookie: NYT-S=0Mowv9dcx92tPDXrmvxADeHAOIOTVbwJwrdeFz9JchiAIUFL2BEX5FWcV.Ynx4rkFI; expires=Tue, 15-Apr-2014 19:21:58 GMT; path=/; domain=.nytimes.com Location: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/us/army-general-in-sexual-assault-case-to-plead-guilty-to-lesser-charges.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0 Content-Length: 0 nnCoection: close Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 HTTP/1.1 200 OK Server: Apache Cache-Control: no-cache Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Length: 52104 Accept-Ranges: bytes Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 19:21:58 GMT X-Varnish: 1771081129 1771080801 Age: 14 Via: 1.1 varnish Connection: keep-alive X-Cache: HIT




Skip to content Skip to navigation



http://nyti.ms/1iSJqtR

See next articles See previous articles


Continue reading the main story Share This Page


RALEIGH, N.C. — The Army general prosecuted in the military’s most closely watched sexual assault case has agreed to plead guilty to lesser charges in exchange for the dismissal of accusations that he twice forced his longtime mistress into oral sex, threatened to kill her and her family, and performed consensual but “open and notorious sexual acts” with her in a parked car in Germany and on a hotel balcony in Tucson.


The new guilty pleas, outlined in a document obtained by The New York Times, are expected to be entered by Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair in military court at Fort Bragg, N.C., as soon as Monday morning. They would end an embarrassing two-year case against one of the military’s rising stars that was derailed this year after prosecutors concluded that their chief witness, a captain who was the general’s mistress, may have lied under oath at a pretrial hearing.


The pleas could still set up a showdown. Defense lawyers say military prosecutors may call the captain — as well as her parents, who are from Nebraska — as witnesses at a sentencing hearing this week, in an effort to persuade the military judge to impose tougher punishment on General Sinclair.


But that would allow the general’s defense team, led by a former federal prosecutor, to cross-examine the 34-year-old woman, a military intelligence officer, with what they assert are numerous instances of contradictions or deceptions discovered during a year of trial preparation. The woman already testified earlier this month about what she said were threats from General Sinclair and forced oral sex, but she was not cross-examined because the court-martial was postponed.


General Sinclair, 51 and married with two children, was deputy commander of the 82nd Airborne Division as well as of American forces in southern Afghanistan when he was recalled in 2012. Until then, he was seen within the military as an officer who could progress to division commander or higher.


The general’s punishment will not be determined until a judge finishes holding the sentencing hearing. Prosecutors are expected to argue for prison time, while defense lawyers will contend that officers in similar cases have not faced jail time and have been allowed to retire at reduced rank. As one example, they cite the recent case of an Army brigadier general who lost his command and paid a $ 5,000 fine but was allowed to keep his rank after it was determined he had assaulted a girlfriend and committed adultery.


Had prosecutors proceeded with the sexual assault charges, General Sinclair would have faced the possibility of life in prison and permanent registration as a sex offender if convicted.


Defense lawyers also say General Sinclair is willing to retire as a lieutenant colonel — two rungs below his current rank, and the last at which no illegal acts are alleged to have occurred — which would probably cost him more than $ 1 million in total retirement pay.


Though his former lover’s problematic testimony at a hearing in January shook the prosecution team, and led the chief military prosecutor to quit the case after his bosses rejected his advice to drop charges that relied solely on her testimony, Army officials say they do not question her account of the general’s forcing her to perform oral sex against her will.



But the prosecution suffered another major setback last week when the military judge, Col. James L. Pohl, ruled that the senior Army commander overseeing the case may have been wrongly influenced by political considerations when he rejected the general’s earlier offer to resolve the charges by pleading guilty to lesser counts.


The judge’s ruling suggested that he thought military officials, under political pressure, may have stuck with the toughest charges against General Sinclair despite qualms in an effort to show new resolve against sexual misconduct.


General Sinclair pleaded guilty earlier this month to charges that included adultery, requesting explicit photographs from female Army officers, possessing pornography in a combat theater and seeking a date with a lieutenant.


The new guilty pleas expected to be entered Monday include disobeying a commander’s order not to contact his mistress, using demeaning language to refer to female officers and using a curse word when confronted about that conduct, and misusing his government travel charge card.


Yet the one guilty plea that may have been the break that allowed the deal to come together is a charge of “maltreatment” that a member of the defense team said was of critical importance to the general’s accuser, a member of the defense team said.


In that portion of the plea document, General Sinclair admits that he treated the captain “in a manner which when viewed objectively under all the circumstances was unwarranted, unjustified and unnecessary and reasonably could have caused mental harm or suffering during the course of an ongoing inappropriate sexual relationship.”


The lead Army prosecutor on the case, who has not spoken publicly about the matter outside of the courtroom, did not respond to an emailed request for comment on Sunday.


In an interview, Richard L. Scheff, the lead defense lawyer, said the plea deal would allow General Sinclair to move on with his life.


“The Army finally agreed to what were the essential terms for us, taking off the table all the charges that required General Sinclair to be a registered sex offender,” he said.


Mr. Scheff added that he was preparing for the possibility that he would be able to cross-examine the accuser at the sentencing hearing this week.


More on nytimes.com


Site Index




NYT > International Home



Army General in Sexual Assault Case to Plead Guilty to Lesser Charges

Saturday, March 15, 2014

Prosecutors rest case in conspiracy trial of bin Laden son-in-law

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



Prosecutors rest case in conspiracy trial of bin Laden son-in-law

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Opinion analysis: Clear statement ruling in investor-state arbitration case leaves open question on U.S. bilateral treaties

Diane Marie Amann is the Emily and Ernest Woodruff Chair in International Law at the University of Georgia School of Law.


The Supreme Court yesterday decided its first arbitration case involving a sovereign nation-state much as it would any other international commercial arbitration matter.  Overturning an appellate ruling that a private investor’s failure to fulfill a treaty requirement had deprived arbitrators of jurisdiction, the Court’s seven-member majority effectively reinstated a multimillion-dollar arbitral award against the sovereign state, the Republic of Argentina.  The judgment rebuffed a treaty interpretation proffered by the United States, which had briefed and argued the case as an amicus.  Yet the Court left open the question of how it would interpret certain investment treaties to which the United States is party.


The dispute in BG Group plc v. Republic of Argentina concerned the investment of petitioner BG Group, a British firm, in a privatized natural gas utility operating in Buenos Aires.  At the time of the early 1990s investment, Argentine law linked gas tariffs to the U.S. dollar.  But Argentina broke the linkage when its economy collapsed less than a decade later.  That and other emergency measures resulted in losses for BG Group, which in 2003 sought arbitration pursuant to a 1990 bilateral investment treaty between the United Kingdom and Argentina – one of the thousands of BITs that countries have concluded in the last quarter-century.  Following an arbitration in Washington, D.C., arbitrators concluded in 2007 that Argentina had not accorded BG Group “fair and equitable treatment” as required by Article 2(2) of the treaty, and thus ordered Argentina to pay $ 185 million in damages.  The matter then moved to federal court.


In 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia confirmed the arbitral award.  A year later the D.C. Circuit reversed.  Its decision turned on Article 8(2)(a) of the Britain-Argentina treaty, which provides that a dispute shall be submitted to arbitration upon one party’s request “where, after a period of eighteen months has elapsed from the moment when the dispute was submitted to the competent tribunal . . . , the said tribunal has not given its final decision.”  The arbitrators had ruled that it would have been “absurd and unreasonable” to enforce this local litigation requirement in the face of emergency restrictions imposed by Argentina, and the district court deferred to this determination.  But the D.C. Circuit reviewed the issue de novo, held that BG Group’s failure to satisfy the requirement had stripped the arbitrators of jurisdiction, and vacated the arbitral award.


Whether deferential or de novo review was appropriate amounted to a question of “who – court or arbitrator – bears primary responsibility for interpreting” the treaty provision, according to the opinion for the Court by Justice Stephen G. Breyer.  In search of an answer, the Court followed a two-step approach, “initially treat[ing] the document before us as if it were an ordinary contract between private parties,” and then examining “whether the fact that the document in question is a treaty makes a critical difference.” Citing precedents including Breyer’s own opinion for the Court in Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., the Court held that in disputes involving “ordinary contracts,” courts decide substantive issues of “arbitrability,” while “procedural matters” are presumptively left to arbitrators.  The local litigation clause in Article 8 constitutes “a purely procedural requirement – a claims-processing rule that governs when arbitration may begin,” the Court wrote in BG Group.  It found in the text of the Britain-Argentina treaty no evidence that drafters intended to displace this “ordinary contract assumption.”


The Court then acknowledged that what was at issue was not a private contract, but a treaty, and it expressed “respect” for “the Government’s views about the proper interpretation of treaties.” Yet the Court rejected the United States’s view that the local litigation clause was “‘a condition on the State’s consent’” meriting de novo scrutiny. Instead, the Court applied “‘a [h]ighly [d]eferential’” standard of review, and accepted the arbitrators’ determination that they had jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. The Britain-Argentina treaty, it reasoned, contained no “explicit language” or other evidence of an intent to set aside the “ordinary interpretive framework.”


The dissenters found little that was ordinary in this case of first impression. Of foremost concern was the fact that the document at issue was “a treaty between two sovereign nations” to which “[n]o investor is a party,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in a dissent joined by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.  By focusing first on private contracts, the majority “start[s] down the wrong road” and “ends up at the wrong place,” the dissent added.  In the dissenters’ view, Article 8(2)(a) is a substantive rather than a procedural requirement:  it “constitutes only a unilateral standing offer by Argentina with respect to U.K. investors” – an offer that must be accepted via submission of the dispute to a local court before Argentina may be held to have consented to arbitration.  Arguing for a remand to determine if actions by Argentina excused BG Group’s failure to exhaust the local adjudicative remedy, dissenters emphasized the investor-state aspect of the dispute:  “It is no trifling matter for a sovereign nation to subject itself to suit by private parties; we do not presume that any country – including our own – takes that step lightly.”


Quoting this passage was Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a concurrence in part that charted a path between the majority and dissenting opinions. Sotomayor agreed with the dissenters that the prerequisite of parties’ consent to arbitration “is especially salient in the context of a bilateral investment treaty” that amounts to “a nation state’s standing offer to arbitrate with an amorphous class of private investors.”  Unlike the dissent, however, Sotomayor found insufficient evidence that drafters intended such an offer.  She thus distinguished Article 8 of the Britain-Argentina pact from the explicit “Conditions and limitations on Consent of Each Party” contained in Article 11.18 of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.  Sotomayor explained that she joined the opinion for the Court with the understanding that the majority “wisely ‘leave[s] for another day the question of interpreting treaties that refer to “conditions of consent” explicitly.’”


The Court’s decision in BG Group thus may prove simply to impose a clear statement rule – a rule that no less than a private party, a nation-state which wants to assure that courts rather than arbitrators have the last word on whether it consented to arbitration must say so explicitly. As an amicus, the United States argued that such intent might be implicit in the bilateral investment treaty at issue.  Although the majority disagreed, as Sotomayor’s concurrence indicated, its holding may not extend to U.S. treaties that, unlike the Britain-Argentina treaty, contain explicit conditions.  These include not only the U.S.-Korea agreement, but also the North American Free Trade Agreement, to which the United States belongs along with Mexico and Canada, and the U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty. Whether in some future case the Supreme Court will enforce such express provisions remains an open question.


Plain English summary:


The Court’s decision in BG Group plc v. Republic of Argentina turned on a clause in an investment treaty between the United Kingdom and Argentina that required a private investor (here, a British company that had invested in Argentina) that wished to arbitrate its dispute with the host country first to submit the dispute to the country’s local court system and then wait for eighteen months.  A divided Supreme Court held that arbitrators, and not courts, are primarily responsible for deciding what to do if the private investor fails to satisfy this requirement. The Supreme Court thus reversed a decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned an arbitral award excusing such a failure by BG Group. The Court held that the local litigation requirement was a procedural, rather than substantive matter; therefore, courts should defer to the arbitrators’ determination.  Two Justices dissented. A third Justice concurred in part on the understanding that the Court’s opinion left for another day the question of how to interpret a clause that – unlike the one the Court was reviewing – explicitly conditioned the country’s consent to arbitration on fulfillment of the requirement.


[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, served as counsel to the petitioner in this case. The author of this post is not affiliated with that law firm.]


In association with Bloomberg Law




SCOTUSblog



Opinion analysis: Clear statement ruling in investor-state arbitration case leaves open question on U.S. bilateral treaties

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Child-Stealers and Prison Profiteers: A Case Study


Pro Liberate – by William Norman Grigg


For reasons beyond his control, it had taken Donny* three attempts to complete his senior year in high school. On his twentieth birthday, Donny was three days from finishing the classwork necessary to graduate from the Rebound School of Opportunity in Meridian, Idaho. All he had left was to make an oral presentation of his senior report. He had already been offered a post-graduation job at Valley Truss, a local construction service and supply store.  


At home, Donny’s father and mother, David and Norma, had prepared a party in honor of their oldest son’s birthday and his anticipated graduation.  When they got home from school, Donny’s siblings, Larry and Sally*, were eager to celebrate with their older brother. But Donny didn’t come home from school that day. Just before classes ended, he was dragged away in handcuffs by his probation officer, Robert Youngkin and taken to the Ada County Jail, where he will remain until April 28.


Over the past six years, Donny has been incarcerated in a variety of institutions, from “treatment centers” in both Idaho and Utah to the Idaho Department Juvenile Corrections Center in Nampa. The juvenile facility in Nampa has become notorious for corruption and sexual exploitation of inmates by guards and other staff members.



In 2008, Donny pleaded guilty to charges of indecent exposure and battery as a result of an incident with his younger brother and sister that did not involve physical contact.


“Norma and I went to Papa Murphy’s to pick up some pizzas for dinner,” David recounted to Pro Libertate. “We were gone just a few minutes – not even a half hour – and we left Donny here in charge of the younger kids. He was 14 at the time, and he seemed able to handle things. Besides, it was just down the block.”


At the time, Sally was six years of age, and Larry was ten. When Dave and Norma returned, Sarah told them that Donny had “asked us to take our clothes off.”


“We were upset and worried, of course, and we tried to find out immediately what had happened,” Dave related. “As far as we could tell, it wasn’t as if he had abused the kids, or even touched them. It was a `You show me yours, and I’ll show you mine’ kind of thing, which is bad, and wrong, but it was not anywhere near as bad as we were afraid it might be.”


Still, out of an abundance of caution, and acting as conscientious parents, Dave and Norma decided to have their daughter examined.


“We took Sarah to the hospital right away, and she was fine,” Dave reports. However, the hospital visit resulted in a mandatory report to social workers and police, and Donny was in custody before his parents returned.


An examination of Donny conducted on behalf of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare concluded that the teenager displayed “Mild Mental Retardation to Borderline Intellectual Functioning.” He was on a variety of prescription medications and severely depressed by the prospect of being separated from his family. His parents, who were hardly people of means, were predictably desperate to find an alternative to juvenile prison. They didn’t understand that the juvenile “justice” system is designed to prolong needless and unproductive suffering.


“The original evaluation called for outpatient therapy through SANE Solutions,” David points out. “However, at the hearing [counselor] Larry Overholzer discouraged us from seeking outpatient treatment, insisting that what he called an`in-patient’ approach would be better.”


Dave and Norma took that advice, without being told explicitly what it would entail. They soon regretted their decision.


“We asked the judge for Donny to receive in-patient treatment. He agreed – and the bailiffs took him into custody immediately. That happened six years ago. He has been a prisoner ever since.”


Seeing their son confined in a facility where he was surrounded by violent offenders – both among fellow inmates and the staff – led his parents to wonder “if we should sue the County for child endangerment,” David observes. They wouldn’t be the first to file a lawsuit of that kind against the JCC.


In June 2012, seven Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections employees filed a whistleblower lawsuitalleging that their supervisors had permitted female staffers to engage in sexual misconduct with male detainees. According to the lawsuit, the facility’s “cronyist, incompetent, corrupt, and unresponsive administration” had abetted widespread “fraud and waste of public resources”; bestowed promotions on unqualified personnel, who were insulated from accountability; and retaliated against employees who expressed concerns to supervisors.


One former employee described how some staffers would sexually exploit prisoners and were “grooming” others to replace them as resident predators.


“One staff member was [sexually] involved with a juvenile,” Shane Penrod told the Boise Weekly. “That juvenile became a staff member and now they are involved with another juvenile.”


The allegations didn’t reflect the isolated views of a few embittered dissidents: A total of 47 current and former employees eventually lodged complaints against the agency. The lawsuit claimed that the Nampa Police Department was made aware of the widespread problems – including sexual misconduct – at the jail, but did nothing about it.


The IDJC filed an official response denying all of the allegations. Sharon Harrigfeld, director of the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections, issued a statement reassuring the public “that our facilities are safe” and thanking “all staff for the public service provided each day to community safety.”


That statement was issued on July 31, 2012. At that time, the facility’s staff, whose indivisible probity had earned Harrigfeld’s unqualified endorsement, included 31-year-old employee Julie McCormick, who was arrested several months later and charged with sexual assault on a 15-year-old boy.


McCormick, who has entered a guilty plea, faces a sentencing hearing on March 17. The sexual offenses she committed are outlined, in infuriating detail, in a $ 1.2 million tort claim filed on behalf of her 15-year-old victim in November 2012.


While confined in the Juvenile Corrections Center’s mental health unit, the young boy “was a victim of statutory rape” by McCormick, who had been designated as “Safety and Security Supervisor” despite having “little or no qualifications for security, management, or care and treatment of juveniles or mental health patients….” That position gave McCormick the opportunity to groom the teenager, who was on psychiatric medications, “in a manner commonly used by child molesters” — lavishing attention on him, laundering his clothes and bedding at home, giving the boy “love notes” and taking his “letters and photos of his girlfriend out of his cell, isolating him from other persons.”


The sexual exploitation began on July 4, 2012 and continued for several months. Staff and management were aware of what was happening, but no action was taken.


IDJC staffer Rhonda Ledford, one of the original plaintiffs in the whistleblower suit, has confirmed that employees had seen evidence of McCormick’s criminal conduct and expressed concerns to supervisors the previous April, but were “required to sign confidentiality statements about the situation.”


On February 5 of this year, notice of an impending lawsuit was filed against the Department Juvenile Corrections on behalf of a former inmate who claims he was “threatened with bodily harm” by the staff if he were to “talk about crimes committed in the facility.” The plaintiff was committed to the JCC in June 2008 and released in February 2010 –a time frame that includes the two months Donny  served there. He claims that the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections has allowed “sexual predators to have continued access to inmates” at the JCC.


According to the plaintiff, he was the victim of repeated sexual assaults, including one that took place “while [he] was shackled and recovering from being anesthetized from surgical dental procedures in October 2008.” One staffer “locked him in a room … and had sexual intercourse” with the boy, who had been sexually abused before arriving at the JCC. The predator would seek to “pay” the victim for sexual favors – and then threaten “to turn him in for having cash in the facility.” The guard also “threatened she would tell Plaintiff’s friends and family of his sex acts if he spoke to anyone” about what had been done to him.


Some of the female staffers “watched Plaintiff and other male inmates shower for their own prurient interests,” according to the tort claim. Others “arranged for physical fights involving juvenile and young adult inmates at the facility, off camera, in a large closet room.” After he filed a complaint about his mistreatment, the staff “retaliated against him with extended incarceration and false accusations of behavior.”



The victim’s criminal record, and the possibility of being sent incarcerated again after his parole, left him vulnerable to blackmail following his release: His chief tormentor “continued to threaten and intimidate [him] through 2013.”


Rather than carrying out a thorough lustration of the facility in Nampa, the IDOJC filed a motion to seal the documents connected to the whistleblower lawsuit. This was to be expected, given that covering up sexual misconduct by “corrections” personnel is standard operating procedure.


In 2007, Timothy Ray Gilligan, who was employed as a prison guard at the Idaho Maximum Security Institution in 2007, admitted that he had repeatedly had sexual relations with a female inmate. In September 2009, Gilligan was arraigned on a charge of felonious sexual misconduct. Thanks to an all but inexplicable act of leniency by the Ada County prosecutor, and the uncharacteristic generosity of the Idaho Sex Offender Classification Board, Gilligan did not have to register as a sex offender. He wasn’t even prosecuted on the sex charge. As a result, he served only a few months of a three-year sentence.



The Ada County Prosecutor’s office, in collaboration with 4thDistrict Judge Ronald Wilper, arranged an agreement in which Gilligan was permitted to plead guilty to a charge of burglary — despite the fact that the only thing the offender may have taken by force was a captive woman’s self-respect.


The Sex Offender Classification Board helped out by relieving Gilligan of the prospect of being a registered sex offender, or even a violent sexual predator (VSP). This decision was supposedly made on account of the results of a “psycho-sexual evaluation” carried out by SANE Solutions, a quasi-private psychological counseling service that provides such evaluations and supervises treatment of convicted sex offenders.


A quick reminder: If Donny and his parents had agreed to an “out-patient” treatment program, it would have been conducted through SANE Solutions.


Gilligan, who worked as a “psychiatric technician” in the prison system subsequent to his admitted offenses, may have known how to game that system. Then again, it’s obvious that Gilligan’s erstwhile colleagues in the criminal “justice” system extended every conceivable professional courtesy in the effort to avoid ruining his life by forcing him to register as a sex offender.


As Donny  and his parents can testify, in sexual misconduct cases not involving employees of the state criminal “justice” system, the Ada County prosecutor’s office is not inclined toward such generosity.


The stated reason for Donny’s final arrest was an alleged probation violation. Specifically, he had not subjected himself to a required polygraph examination. Donny’s parents insist that they had received approval for an alternative treatment program as a substitute for a polygraph examination.


The polygraph ranks just below the witching rod as a reliable scientific instrument. It was invented by the same man who created the comic book character “Wonder Woman,” an Amazonian princess who wielded a magic lasso that could compel truthful disclosures from those whom it encompassed. Polygraph findings are generally not admissible as evidence in court, but the device is routinely used during interrogations as a way to intimidate suspects into confessing. It is also widely used to “re-offend” people on probation.


Several years ago, Donny “failed” a polygraph question about being alone with his siblings in violation of the terms of his probation. His father David insists that this was not only untrue, but impossible.


“We were appalled by that result,” he declares. “Donny was never left alone. He was under 24/7 supervision.”


Donny requested a second polygraph examination, which meant another $ 150 fee had to be paid by the family.  An appointment was made with an approved polygraph technician, and Donny, along with his father and his attorney, went to the appointed location – only to be told that the technician had selected a different location several miles away.


“Somehow we made it there on time, probably breaking several traffic laws doing so,” David recalls. This sudden change of plans resulted in the creation of an unnecessary high-stress situation, just as the harried young man was going to undergo a scientifically dubious examination that measures, among other things, his stress levels.


The second polygraph examination resulted in Donny being sent back to confinement to be treated for what were described as “thinking errors.”


“What on earth is a `thinking error’?” David asked, his voice burdened with incredulity. One of the doctors who examined Donny asked the same question: “He told us that he had no idea what was meant by the expression `thinking error,’ or how it could be treated.”


This meant another prolonged separation from the family as Donny made the circuit of treatment facilities in Idaho and Utah. Despite the anxiety, depression, and other difficulties he faced, Donny excelled in his independent study program, earning top grades in academic subjects and finding a place on the Honor Roll. Yet with metronomic regularity, some new problem would arise to extend his period of confinement and prevent him from graduating.


After Donny enrolled in the Rebound School, David recalls, “We went to a counselor … to try arranging an alternative to a polygraph. The proposal was that he would undergo six additional counseling sessions, and do some special assignments, in place of the polygraph examination.” David says that this alternative course was approved, leaving the family hopeful that the ordeal was, at last, winding down. He was once again living at home, flourishing in his studies, and doing volunteer work, along with his mother, every Thursday night at a food pantry run by a church in Kuna.


Every evaluation attested that Donny was not a danger to “re-offend.” If the object had been rehabilitation, that goal had clearly been achieved. But the probation and parole system is run by people who have the power to prolong the suffering of harmless people, and the whimsical cruelty necessary to do so on the thinnest pretext.


“We were half-way through the supplemental therapy sessions when the probation officer showed up and arrested him at school” last November 18, David recalls. “He had called the Principal at the Rebound Academy and found out that Donny had two weeks left to finish his work for graduation.” In what could reasonably be construed as an act of deliberate sadism, the probation officer waited until Donny’s birthday to drag him away from school in handcuffs.


“Our family had prepared a birthday party for Donny,” Dave points out. “The kids came home from school eager to see their brother, expecting to have a party. Instead we find out that he was arrested.”


According to the State of Idaho, the “kids” who were so eager to see Donny were his victims, and they needed to be protected from him. The terms dictated to the family made it impossible for David, who is on disability, to find a job: While Donny was at home, one of his parents had to be present to supervise him, especially when the younger children were at home.


“It’s been six years, and our family simply cannot take it anymore,” David told the judge during the January 14 hearing in which it was decided that the state Corrections system would steal another 168 days of Donny’s life.


“Idaho has to be number one in something – and it’s number one in dropout rate,” Norma pointed out in her statement to the judge. “I don’t want my kid to be a statistic.”


Donny wasn’t merely a statistic:  He was in many ways typical of thousands of troubled but essentially harmless people who are devoured by the tax-fueled engine of misery called the Idaho Criminal Justice System.



Despite its reputation for being commendably hostile toward government, the state ranks second in the country in terms of the prison population’s growth rate.


Those convicted of non-violent offenses in Idaho compose 62 percent of the inmate population, and they typically serve sentences twice as long as the national average.


Over the next five years, barring dramatic changes in the system, Idaho tax victims will pay roughly $ 300 million in prison construction and operating costs. The “corrections” system is an immensely lucrative racket, sustaining not only those directly employed to operate prisons and jails but also the profiteers  who populate an ever-expanding network of “private” organizations affiliated with the probation and parole system.


Among the changes being considered by the Idaho legislature is a proposal to hire more probation and parole officers and authorize them “to impose immediate sanctions for violators.” As the ordeal of Donny and his family illustrates, such “reforms” would not be an improvement. Non-violent “offenders” sentenced to probation are handed a Sisyphean stone and assigned an overseer who can extend their suffering at his discretion.


__
*The names of the children have been changed for the purposes of this story.


http://www.freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2014/02/child-stealers-and-prison-profiteers.html






Child-Stealers and Prison Profiteers: A Case Study

Saturday, February 1, 2014

“Fargo” In Michigan ? – Strange Case of 32-year-old Chopped Up Murder Victim Near Detroit Michigan Eerily Similar To Movie “Fargo”…

At Those Damn Liars, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Those Damn Liars and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Those Damn Liars makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Those Damn Liars does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Those Damn Liars.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Those Damn Liars and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Those Damn Liars send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Those Damn Liars has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Those Damn Liars"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


“Fargo” In Michigan ? – Strange Case of 32-year-old Chopped Up Murder Victim Near Detroit Michigan Eerily Similar To Movie “Fargo”…

Thursday, November 28, 2013

Mission Creep at the TSA and the Case for Privatization (Khaliah Barnes)

What is new with the TSA:



Follow the link below to watch the full event: http://www.cato.org/events/mission-creep-tsa-case-privatization Featuring Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Founder a…
Video Rating: 4 / 5



Mission Creep at the TSA and the Case for Privatization (Khaliah Barnes)

Monday, November 25, 2013

Steubenville Case: Superindent And 3 Staff Indicted (VIDEO)

At Those Damn Liars, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Those Damn Liars and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Those Damn Liars makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Those Damn Liars does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Those Damn Liars.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Those Damn Liars and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Those Damn Liars send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Those Damn Liars has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Those Damn Liars"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Steubenville Case: Superindent And 3 Staff Indicted (VIDEO)

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Liberals Should Lose This Affirmative Action Case


(Newser) – The Supreme Court has another high-profile affirmative action case on the docket this year, and it likely won’t fare well with the court’s conservative majority. But liberals shouldn’t fret, writes Emily Bazelon at Slate, because this is actually the right decision in the march toward equal-opportunity education. “The current huge fairness problem in university admissions isn’t race-based,” she argues. “It’s class-based.” This year’s case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, is about whether states have the right to ban schools from using affirmative action policies.


Ten states have such a ban, and it is at schools in those states “where the most interesting socioeconomic alternatives are unfolding,” writes Bazelon. “The Supreme Court won’t stand in the way of those experiments. And it shouldn’t.” What the court should do, however, is encourage all states to get more poor kids into higher education, no matter their color. “That’s the fairness we need most.” Click for her full column. (For a dissenting view on how the court should decide in the upcoming case, click for a New York Times editorial.)




Politics from Newser



Liberals Should Lose This Affirmative Action Case

Sunday, October 13, 2013

Obscuring the Details: A Panoramic Look at America’s Case Against Syria


US-Syria


The US federal government and the various agencies, media organizations, individuals, foreign governments, non-governmental organizations, lobbies, forces, and other entities that are tied to it have done everything in their power to obscure the details involving the chemical attacks that took place in Syria on August 21, 2013. The aim has been to justify the US-led foreign campaign that was launched against Syria in 2011 by making the Syrian government appear culpable of grievous crimes. The chemical attack on Ghouta has now come to represent the crux of the matter.


From the very start there was double-speaking coming from Washington and its cohorts about what happened in Ghouta. The Obama Administration and America’s allies deliberately ignored that chemical weapons were used in Syria prior to August 21, 2013. They have pretended that the United Nations investigation team that had arrived in Syria when chemical weapons were used in Ghouta had just stumbled there coincidentaly or with the purpose of «inspecting» the Syrian government’s chemical weapon depots.


Ignoring the Original Mandate of the UN Investigators 


In reality, the UN team that arrived in Syria in August was not a team of weapons inspectors. It was a team of «investigators.» Even more importantly, the Syrian government had invited the UN investigation team to Syria in March 2013. This was because the insurgents had launched chemical attacks on March 19, 2013. The US and its allies tried to blame Syria, but they were embarrassingly contradicted by Carla Del Ponte, one of the UN investigators responsible for Syria, that said all the evidence pointed to the insurgents and not the Syrian government. Although she backed her conclusion with facts, Del Ponte was dismissed by the US, and NATO even abnormally took the time to make a statement against here. Moreover, the insurgents were even caught trying to sneak sarin gas into Syria from Turkey by Turkish security forces in May 2013.


Because the insurgents were behind the chemical attacks in March 2013, Syria’s government originally wanted the UN investigators to have the authority and mandate to officially assign blame on which party used the chemical weapons. The US, however, put all types of obstacles in place to prevent the UN from issuing a report that the US-supported insurgents were using chemical weapons. It was the US, Britain, and France that prevented an UN investigation that could assign responsibility for any chemical weapon attacks from taking place. Instead they wanted a politicized inspection team that would try to demonize Syria and write reports against Damascus. This led to a deadlock in the United Nations over the type of team that the UN would send to work in Syria. A settlement was eventually reached. The US and its allies eventually reduced the mandate of the UN inspectors to one of only determining if chemical weapons were used.


The United Nation’s team even spells out the fact that they had originally entered Syria to investigate the March 2013 chemical attacks all in their September 2013 report’s Letter of Transmittal signed by Ake Sellstrom, the head of the UN mission, Scott Cairns, the head of the OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) component of the UN mission, and Maurizio Barbeschi, the head of the World Health Organization (WHO) component of the UN mission. The UN team states the following on the report’s third page: «Having arrived in the Syrian Arab Republic on 18 August 2013, we were in Damascus on the 21 August preparing to conduct on-site inspections in connection with our investigation into the allegations concerning the use of chemical weapons in Khan al-Asal and in Sheik Maqsood and Saraqueb. Based on several reports of allegations on the use of chemical weapons in the Ghouta area of Damascus on 21 August 2013, you instructed us to focus our investigation efforts on the Ghouta allegations. We, therefore, proceeded to conduct on-site inspections in Moadamiyah in West Ghouta and Ein Tarma and Zamalka in East Ghouta».


Cooked US Intelligence and Implausible White House Stories


The narrative that the US government and its allies present about Ghouta is contradictory to logic and highly implausible. Added to the fact that the US has a track record of lying to create pretexts for aggression, Washington’s claims should be heavily scrutinized. So should the same group of non-governmental organizations that have consistently backed American wars and conjured instant reports to justify US foreign policy and war.


President Obama and John Kerry claimed that the Syrian military used chemical weapons while it was advancing militarily in Ghouta. This is contrary to any procedure that would be followed by an organized military force. An advancing military would not gas an area when it was entering it with its forces. Obama and Kerry might as well have claimed that the Syrian military had decided to reduce the number of its own troops by killing them.


Furthermore, there was no tactical need to use chemical weapons in Ghouta whatsoever. Ghouta did not have a large amount of anti-government fighters. Nor was Ghouta under the full control of the insurgents. Despite being in worse situations, the Syrian military never bothered using chemical weapons earlier in the conflict when things were dire for the Syrian government.


On the contrary, using chemical weapons would be a self-defeating and suicidal move by the Syrian government. Why would the Syrian government use chemical weapons when the combined UN team of OPCW and WHO investigators arrived in Syria to investigate the use of chemical attacks? Moreover, why would the Syrian military decide to use chemical weapons unnecessarily?


No evidence has been provided that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attack on Ghouta. On the contrary the US has only made claims and a series of contradictory statements. Using cooked Israeli evidence, Washington has claimed that the orders to use chemical weapons were intercepted, but has failed to provide the transcripts or to give any names of Syrian officials. In its own intelligence report the US government has also said that it knew in advance that the chemical attacks were going to happen. If the US government is to be believed, this would mean that the Obama Administration did not mention it and did nothing to prevent the use of chemical weapons from happening.


It turns out that the US government was given some type of advanced warning by the Iranian government about a chemical attack in Syria. The warning, however, was that the insurgents planned on using chemical weapons. This has been matched by statements from insurgents themselves that Saudi Arabia had provided the chemical weapons to the insurgents. Russian officials have also assessed that the chemical attacks in Ghouta were part of an intelligence operation conducted by Saudi Arabia.


Chemical Weapon Hypocrisy


It is not true either that the Syrian government lied about not having chemical weapons. Even though it was widely known, Damascus never denied or acknowledged that it had chemical weapons. The Syrian government always strategically applied a policy of deliberate ambiguity that neither confirmed nor denied that Syria had chemical weapons in its military arsenal. Anyhow, there was acknowledgement from Syrian officials that Syria possessed chemical weapons when Syrian officials said that they were worried that the insurgents would try to get their hands on the chemical weapon stocks inside Syria or use chemical weapons to frame the government.


Aside from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert admitting that Israel has nuclear weapons in 2006, the deliberate ambiguity of Syria is the same policy that Israel has tried to apply in regards to its biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Despite the same policy being used by both Damascus and Tel Aviv, the US government and media apply double standards by falsely accusing Syria of lying about its possession of chemical weapons while they say nothing about Israel. Instead both the US government and media refuse to admit or recognize the fact that Syria was applying a policy of ambiguity.


President Obama even had the audacity to call the August 2013 use of chemical weapons in Syria the worst chemical weapon attack of the 21st Century. He ignored the use of chemical weapons against Iraqi combatants and civilians in Fallujah and Israeli chemical weapon attacks on Lebanon and Gaza. As heinous a crime as the chemical attacks on Ghouta were, more Iraqis were killed by the United States in its chemical attacks on Fallujah.


Even looking back at the last century, it was the United States and its British allies that armed Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons by knowingly providing him the materials and technology needed to gas both the Iraqi Kurds and Iran. Not once did the US condemn the use of chemical weapons by the Iraqi government in the 1980s while Baghdad was aligned with Washington. The British Defence Ministry was even directly helping Saddam Hussein’s government develop his chemical and biological weapons in Iraq while the Pentagon helped the Iraqis organize their attacks on Iran and sent US military officers to examine the success of Iraqi chemical warfare against the Iranians. Instead the US deliberately went out of its way to blame the Iranian victims of being responsible for the chemical weapon attacks.


Making Self-Serving Interpretations of the UN Report


It is clear from the radically different interpretations that the US and Russia have about the Final Communiqué of the Action Group for Syria that was made in Geneva on September 30, 2012 that Washington deliberately makes self-serving interpretations of anything from its agreements to international law and multilateral deals. While the consensus that was reached in the final communiqué at Geneva in 2012 called for a peaceful and democratic solution to the conflict in Syria, the US and its allies deliberately choose to pretend that their agenda was adopted by Russia, China, and the rest of the world. By this Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the league of foreign ministers supporting regime change in Damascus falsely claimed the Action Group for Syria called for a transitional government that would not include any role for President Bashar Al-Assad.


The case has been the same in regards to the UN team’s September 2013 report about the nature of the chemical weapon attacks in Ghouta. The initial UN report has been interpreted in self-serving ways by the US and its cohorts. The fact that an old Soviet-manufactured projectile was used on August 21 is being highlighted as an indicator of the Syrian government’s guilt, because the Syrian military uses Soviet-made and Russian-made weapons.


Just because a Soviet weapon was used does not mean that the Syrian military was behind the attack. Old Soviet weapons are in wide use, including by the insurgents in Syria. Even more importantly, the Soviet-made BM-14 series projectile is not in use in the Syrian military’s arsenal. Moreover, the Soviet Union never exported this model to Syria nor did Soviet officials ever supply any sarin gas warheads to any country. It has also been reported that the three Arab countries that receive this projectile were Egypt, South Yemen, and Libya.


Human Rights Watch (HRW), which has been actively lobbying for a war against Syria, has even produced a map to indict the Syrian government as being responsible for the attack. The map, which is featured in a report published by HRW in September 2013, points the finger at 104 Brigade of the Syrian Republic Guard for the chemical attacks. This has been refuted, because only special military units can use or launch chemical weapons in Syria and 104 Brigade is not one of them. Furthermore, there is chain of command that needs to be followed; chemical weapons can only be used with a high-level clearance and approval from Syria’s upper echelons.


The US government has fallaciously tried to equate the UN’s verification that sarin gas was used as some type of evidence that the Syrian government was responsible. While sarin samples have been verified by the United Nations, the authenticity of the evidence that has been provided by the US that the Syrian government is guilty needs to be examined. The US-supported insurgent’s videos that were appraised as real by US intelligence and presented to the world by the Obama Administration as evidence have not been verified. On the contrary, these videos have dubious scenes where the same bodies reappear in different locations.


From Strategic Deterrence to Liability


The Obama Administration has deliberately hidden behind the word «norm» and its plural («norms») as a means of trying to substitute it for an aura and façade of legality when it claims that Syria is in violation of international norms. Norms are expected patterns of behavior and not compulsory laws that must be enforced by the international community. Moreover, if the US wanted to follow international law it would obey what the Chemical Weapons Convention stipulates clearly, which says that when there is a violation all the signatories of the Chemical Weapons Convention must gather and then collectively decide what to do. There is no international law in place that allows the United States to unilaterally decide what to do or present itself as the enforcer of international agreements.


Syria was never in violation of international law through it position of chemical weapons either. This is because, like Egypt, Syria never signed the Chemical Weapons Convention. The reason behind this decision was that both the Egyptian and Syrian militaries decided to hold on to their chemical arms as strategic deterrents against Israel’s biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Although Israel became a signatory state to the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993, just like Myanmar, the Israelis did not ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. This is why Syria chose not to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention until after the chemical attack in Ghouta.


It became clear to the Syrian government in 2013 that the liability of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal outweighed its use as a strategic deterrent. As a result of the Syrian conflict, Syria’s chemical weapons have become less likely to prevent a foreign attack or invasion of Syria. The liability has become too great and as a result the Syrian government decided to give them up. This has pleased both the US and Israel, because it has given them a strategic advantage over Syria and its regional allies.


Now that Damascus has joined the Chemical Weapons Convention it should be noted that the Syrian government is not responsible for destroying its chemical weapons stock either under the agreement it has with the OPCW. It is the OPCW and the United Nations that are the responsible parties. The responsibility of Syria is to identify and declare all of its chemical weapons stock and to provide the OPCW access to them for destruction. It is possibly that the US may also try to obscure these facts as well to manipulate the situation.


America’s Goal is to Crush the Syrian Nation in an Indirect War of Attrition


The US government does not care about making the world a safer place. Syria’s chemical weapons have been a smokescreen all along. Speaking to Perviy Kanal (Channel One/First Channel), Russia’s largest network, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov let it be publicly known that the US was threatening to end working with the OPCW and to sabotage the agreement to destroy Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons if the Russians refused to give political compensations to the US. What Washington has wanted in return for an agreement to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons is that Russia and China allow a United Nations Security Council resolution that authorizes the use of force to be passed.


Before the chemical attacks on Ghouta, the anti-government forces in Syria were suffering one major defeat after another at the hands of the Syrian military. As the internal pressure against Syria began declining, the external pressure began increasing. The Israeli aerial assaults on Syria and the Turkish border incidents and threats were meant to bring the Syrian military’s winning momentum to an end. These Israeli and Turkish moves were meant to change the balance of power and direction of battle momentum in Syria. Their aim was to do this by psychologically disorienting and weakening the Syrian military and government with crippling doses of fear while motivating and encourage the anti-government militias to intensify their attacks.


The psychological attempts to bolster the anti-government militias against the Syrian military and its supporters failed. The Syrian military’s victories continued throughout 2013. The anti-government militia incursions into Latakia were blocked and their offensive surge from the Jordanian border was beaten by the Syrian military. Hezbollah also intervened to help purge the anti-government forces from the Lebanese-Syrian borders.


This has brought the US and its allies closer and closer into direct confrontation, in some form or other, instead of indirectly attacking Syria via their proxies. The US government, however, prefers to secure its objectives without using its own resources or exerting itself in any costly ventures. This is why Washington’s initial option has been to threaten and to give the perception of being ready to use military force before actually using military force.


The US strategy in Syria is that of an indirect war of attrition. America loses the conflict in Syria if either combating side in Syria wins. The US government and Israel want the fighting in Syria to continue as long as possible between all combating sides. Washington and Tel Aviv do not want to see anyone coming out totally victorious. This is even acknowledged by US analysts with high-level ties to the Pentagon and US government. This objective is candidly outlined in an article written on August 24, 2013 by Edward N. Luttwak, a military analyst and senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in the New York Times.


The real target of the US-led campaign in Syria is the Syrian nation and not merely the government in Damascus. The government could matter less. The US and Israeli objectives in Syria are to crush Syria as a nation-state, even if their own insurgent allies or Syrian National Coalition clients win and form the government in Damascus.




Global Research



Obscuring the Details: A Panoramic Look at America’s Case Against Syria

Friday, October 11, 2013

Man pleads guilty in South African abalone syndicate case



CAPE TOWN | Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:16am EDT




CAPE TOWN (Reuters) – A South African court sentenced a man to two years in prison on Friday after he pleaded guilty to helping transport 3,243 abalone as part of an international criminal ring that poached tons of the gourmet mollusk.



Rampant poaching has decimated the abalone population in South Africa’s coastal waters to feed demand for the high-priced delicacy in Asia, where the mollusks have also been over harvested, forcing buyers to look elsewhere.


Accused Peter Jansen appeared with more than 20 other suspects facing some 530 charges, including illegal possession of abalone, racketeering and corruption in what officials said was the biggest abalone criminal bust in the country’s history.


The alleged mastermind, Chinese national Ran Wei, has fled South Africa after police caught members of the syndicate last year and he is being charged in absentia.


In Jansen’s plea bargain, he admitted to hiring the car that transported 3,243 shucked abalone — also known locally as “perlemoen” — with an estimated value of 300,000 rand ($ 30,200)to South Africa’s commercial hub Johannesburg.


“The seized abalone was clearly not for own consumption but for commercial purposes of exporting and selling,” his guilty plea statement said.


Eleanor Yeld Hutchings, a manager at World Wide Fund’s marine program, said the abalone industry was an extreme example of a fishery with high levels of illegal, unregulated and unreported catch.


Some researchers estimate that the illegal harvest in South Africa for 2008 was 860 tonnes, more than 10 times the legal total allowable catch (TAC) of 85 tonnes for that year. Comparable levels are believed to have been since then.


“If poaching continues at its current level, and the TAC remains stable for the legal commercial catch, abalone could reach commercial extinction by 2030,” said Yeld Hutchings.


Besides poaching in its waters, South Africa, famed for its biodiversity, is also facing a dire threat to its rhino population which are being killed in their hundreds for their valuable horns.


(Reporting by Wendell Roelf, editing by Gareth Jones)



Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | RFID | Amazon Affiliate

Reuters: Oddly Enough

Man pleads guilty in South African abalone syndicate case