Black Lives Matter

I wouldn't know what Fox has to say about anything. It's a meaningless ad hominem unthinking people throw out to hide the fact they don't know what they're talking about.

I like that my candidate for president factors the cost of caring for our service personnel after the war into the cost of war.

Here's some foreign policy by Bernie
________________________

“We live in a difficult and dangerous world, and there are no easy or magical solutions. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I will defend this nation, its people, and America’s vital strategic interests, but I will do it responsibly. America must defend freedom at home and abroad, but we must seek diplomatic solutions before resorting to military action. While force must always be an option, war must be a last resort, not the first option.

As a member of Congress, I have supported the use of force only when it was a last resort and America’s vital interests were at stake. I opposed the first Gulf War, as did many other Members of Congress, because I believed that there was a way to achieve our goals without bloodshed, through sanctions and concerted diplomatic action. I supported the use of force to stop the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. And, in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, I supported the use of force in Afghanistan to hunt down the terrorists who attacked us. I regret that President Bush did not use that authority properly, and that American combat troops remained there too long. I voted against the war in Iraq, and knew it was the right vote then, and most people recognize it was the right vote today. The only mission President Bush and his neo-conservative friends accomplished was to destabilize an entire region, and create the environment for al-Qaeda and ISIS to flourish.

While we must be relentless in combating terrorists who would do us harm, we cannot and should not be policeman of the world, nor bear the burden of fighting terrorism alone. The United States should be part of an international coalition, led and sustained by nations in the region that have the means to protect themselves. That is the only way to defeat ISIS and to begin the process of creating the conditions for a lasting peace in the region.”
– Sen. Bernie Sanders
FOREIGN POLICY: STRENGTH THROUGH DIPLOMACY
Senator Sanders believes that the test of a great and powerful nation is not how many wars it can engage in, but how it can resolve international conflicts in a peaceful manner. From the Middle East, to Ukraine, to North Korea, to the South China Sea, to civil war in the world’s newest nation – South Sudan, we face a multitude of serious foreign policy challenges.

Senator Sanders will protect America, defend our interests and values, embrace our commitments to defend freedom and support human rights, and be relentless in combating terrorists who would do us harm. However, after nearly fourteen years of ill-conceived and disastrous military engagements in the Middle East, it is time for a new approach. We must move away from policies that favor unilateral military action and preemptive war, and that make the United States the de facto policeman of the world.

Senator Sanders believes that foreign policy is not just deciding how to react to conflict around the world, but also includes redefining America’s role in the increasingly global economy. Along with our allies throughout the world, we should be vigorous in attempting to prevent international conflict, not just responding to problems. For example, the international trade agreements we enter into, and our energy and climate change policies not only have enormous consequences for Americans here at home, but greatly affect our relations with countries around the world. Senator Sanders has the experience, the record and the vision not just to lead on these critically important issues, but to take our country in a very different direction.

IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
Sen. Sanders considers his vote against the Iraq War to be one of the most important he has cast, and believes that the invasion in Iraq was one of the worst foreign policy blunders in modern U.S. history. As a leader in the opposition to the war in Iraq, much of what then Congressman Sanders feared would happen has, in fact, occurred. Not only did the United States invade Iraq based on false information, but the war has radically destabilized the entire region and has been completely counterproductive in terms of fighting international terrorism.

As the former Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Senator Sanders knows what the cost of war is. He knows that 6,700 brave men and women lost their lives in those wars, that too many came home without legs, arms or eyesight. He also knows that some 500,000 servicemen and women returned home with PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury, and that the war disrupted the lives of tens of thousands of families.

Sen. Sanders voted to authorize military strikes against Afghanistan, after it became clear that the Taliban regime harbored and gave support to Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda terrorists who attacked America on 9/11. However, while we entered that war with significant clarity of purpose and moral authority, President Bush soon lost sight about what our goals were in Afghanistan. Instead of fighting those who attacked our country, he embroiled our troops in a quagmire in a far-away land.

Sen. Sanders called on both Presidents Bush and Obama to withdraw U.S. troops as soon as possible and for the people of Afghanistan to take full responsibility for their own security. After visiting Afghanistan, Sen. Sanders spoke-out against the rampant corruption he saw, particularly in regards to elections, security and the banking system.

PREVENTING A NUCLEAR IRAN
The U.S. must do everything it can to make certain that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, that a nuclear Iran does not threaten Israel, and to prevent a nuclear arms race in the region. Sen. Sanders supports the agreement between the U.S., Iran, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program, because it has the best chance of limiting Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon, while avoiding yet another war in the region.

While the agreement is not perfect, it is far better than the path we were on – with Iran developing nuclear weapons and the potential for military intervention by the U.S. and Israel growing greater by the day. If Iran does not live up to the agreement, sanctions can be reestablished and all other options remain on the table. It is incumbent upon us, however, to give the negotiated agreement a chance to succeed, and Sen. Sanders applauds President Obama and Secretary Kerry for their efforts.

ISRAEL AND PALESTINE
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been one of the world’s most difficult and intractable disputes for more than sixty years. Moreover, the failure to resolve that crisis has helped fuel other conflicts in the region. Senator Sanders has long supported a two-state solution that recognizes Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, and the Palestinians right to a homeland in which they control their political and economic future.

The most recent violence in Gaza represented a particularly ugly and violent time in the dispute. Senator Sanders strongly condemned indiscriminate rocket fire by Hamas into Israeli territory, and Hamas’ use of civilian neighborhoods to launch those attacks. However, while recognizing that Israel has the right to defend itself, he also strongly condemned Israeli attacks on Gaza as disproportionate and the widespread killing of civilians as completely unacceptable.

The U.S. must play a leading role in creating a two-state solution, which will require significant compromises from both sides. The Palestinians must unequivocally recognize Israel’s right to exist, and hold accountable those who have committed terrorist acts. The Israelis must end the blockade of Gaza, and cease developing settlements on Palestinian land. Both sides must negotiate in good faith regarding all other outstanding issues that stand in the way of a durable and lasting peace in the region. In the meantime, strict adherence, by all sides, to the tenets of international humanitarian law is necessary in order to avoid escalating the conflict yet again.

COMBATING TERRORISM
We live in a dangerous world full of serious threats, perhaps none more so than the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al-Qaeda. Senator Sanders is committed to keeping America safe, and pursuing those who would do Americans harm.

But we cannot combat international terrorism alone. We must work with our allies to root out terrorist funding networks, provide logistical support in the region, disrupt online radicalization, provide humanitarian relief, and support and defend religious freedom. Moreover, we must begin to address the root causes of radicalization, instead of focusing solely on military responses to those who have already become radicalized.

And while there is no question our military must be fully prepared and have the resources it needs to fight international terrorism, it is imperative that we take a hard look at the Pentagon’s budget and the priorities it has established. The U.S. military must be equipped to fight today’s battles, not those of the last war, much less the Cold War. Our defense budget must represent our national security interests and the needs of our military, not the reelection of members of Congress or the profits of defense contractors. The warning that President Dwight David Eisenhower gave us about the influence of the Military-Industrial Complex in 1961 is truer today than it was then.

PROTECTING AMERICA AND AMERICAN VALUES
Senator Sanders believes our country must remain vigilant to protect us from terrorist attacks at home, whether from organized international terrorist networks, or from “lone wolf” extremists. The threat is real, and he will aggressively pursue those who would do us harm. However, Sen. Sanders strongly believes that we must pursue policies that uphold the core values that make us proud to be Americans.

That is why Sen. Sanders voted against the Patriot Act when it was first passed, why he voted against the Patriot Act when it was renewed, and why he opposed the so-called USA Freedom Act this past spring. We must not trade away our constitutional rights and civil liberties for the illusion of security.

Instead, we must rein in the National Security Agency and end the bulk collection of phone records, internet history, and email data of virtually all Americans.Our intelligence and law enforcement agencies must have the tools they need to protect the American people, but there must be legal oversight and they must go about their work in a way that does not sacrifice our basic freedoms.

The same goes for our actions abroad. The U.S. must never again embrace torture as a matter of official policy. In an increasingly brutal world, the wanton use of torture by the Bush administration simply meant we lost our moral standing to condemn others who engage in merciless behavior. That is why Sen. Sanders has consistently spoken out against waterboarding and other forms of extreme “enhanced interrogation.”

We must also, finally, close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. The mere existence of this camp, and the misguided policies that led to its creation, continues to damage the United States’ moral standing in the world, undermines our foreign policy, and fans the flames of terrorism rather than deters it.

AS PRESIDENT, SEN. SANDERS WILL:
Move away from a policy of unilateral military action, and toward a policy of emphasizing diplomacy, and ensuring the decision to go to war is a last resort.
Ensure that any military action we do engage in has clear goals, is limited in scope, and whenever possible provides support to our allies in the region.
Close Guantanamo Bay, rein in the National Security Agency, abolish the use of torture, and remember what truly makes America exceptional: our values.
Expand our global influence by promoting fair trade, addressing global climate change, providing humanitarian relief and economic assistance, defending the rule of law, and promoting human rights.

The first gulf war was needed and it could not had been done better so that he did not care for that war tell me all I need to know about his judgments.

The word idiot come to mind.

Yes. It does...

I FEEL the love!!!!

I've no idea, having 24 posters in a row on ignore.

Yeah, I've got quite a few on ignore too - but when I peeked, I had to comment on the warm fuzziness.

He could be rename after Chamberlain as the head in the sand seems to be the position both of those gentlemen care for.

Leaked police files contain guarantees disciplinary records will be kept secret

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/07/leaked-police-files-contain-guarantees-disciplinary-records-will-be-kept-secret

<snip>

George Joseph in New York

Sunday 7 February 2016 07.00 EST

<snip>

A Guardian analysis of dozens of contracts obtained from the servers of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) found that more than a third featured clauses allowing – and often mandating – the destruction of records of civilian complaints, departmental investigations, or disciplinary actions after a negotiated period of time.

The review also found that 30% of the 67 leaked police contracts, which were struck between cities and police unions, included provisions barring public access to records of past civilian complaints, departmental investigations, and disciplinary actions.

Samuel Walker, a professor in criminology at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, said there was “no justification” for the cleansing of officers’ records, which could contain details of their use of force against civilians.

“The public has a right to know,” Walker said. “If there was a controversial beating, we ought to know what action was actually taken. Was it a reprimand? A suspension?”

Walker said that while an officer’s whole personnel file should not be readily available to the public outside of court proceedings, records of disciplinary action should be.

The leaked contracts became publicly accessible last week, when hackers breached the Fraternal Order of Police’s website and put around 2.5GB worth of its files online. These provide a glimpse into the influence of police unions, which Black Lives Matter activists have accused of impeding misconduct investigations, particularly after the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Maryland in April.

<snip>

At least as recently as 2007, if an officer in Independence, Missouri, was “involved in a shooting incident”, that officer could not be interrogated for at least 12 hours nor be “treated a suspect” unless local authorities thought there was reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a crime had been committed. This protocol was mandated in the local police union’s contract in a clause specifically designed for “officer-involved shooting investigations”.

In recent years, Independence has made headlines for cases of police brutality and police shootings.

From small towns in Nebraska and New Jersey to major cities like Cincinnati, Ohio and Jacksonville, Florida, “expungement” clauses allowed for records of formal investigations and written reprimands to be “purged” after a few years or, in some cases, months.

Chuck Canterbury, the FOP president, said that such contract provisions were designed to protect the due process rights of police officers. “Disciplinary files are removed because they affect career advancement,” said Canterbury. “People make mistakes and if they learn from them, they should be removed. This is standard HR practice.”

Other deals contained provisions focused on blocking public access to records that were preserved. A 2006-2008 contract from Burlington Township, NJ, for example, required the police department’s Investigations Commander to keep formal complaints and internal investigation documents “in a locked file”, barring access to all except the department’s investigations commander and chief law
enforcement officer.

Similarly, in Ralston, Nebraska, the 2009-2012 FOP contract created a “Police Officers’ Bill of Rights”, which said: “Unless agreed to by the Officer, the City shall not divulge the reason for any disciplinary action that is not appealed to the Civil Service Commission.” The city was also bound to “make every reasonable effort” to prevent a photograph of the officer from being released to the public or news media.

Among five other FOP contracts, where such confidentiality clauses could not be inserted because of state open records laws, several included language seemingly designed to help officers beat public records requests.

One 2009-2011 FOP contract from Hamilton County, Nebraska, initiates a mandatory five-step response to public records requests, in which the department would ascertain the identity of the person making the request, provide the officer with a summary of the would-be released information, guarantee the officer five days to object to the request, and allow the officer a departmental hearing to make the case that the release could threaten his or her personal security.

Devon M Jacob, a civil rights attorney and former police officer, said: “These are public employees, so their performance should be available to the public. There’s no reason matters of waste or wrongdoing should be kept away from the public. I disagree with this idea that unsustained complaints or investigations don’t matter.”

Speaking to the rationale for sealing off investigatory and complaint records, Canterbury, the FOP president, said: “It’s mostly the false or unsustained complaints that officers feel unduly hurt their careers. Nobody expunges guilty adjudicated use-of-forces, so if these acts are found unsustained in the first place, why should they continue to have any bearing on officers?”
In Jacksonville, Florida, however, according to a 2008-2009 FOP contract, if an officer were to receive a written reprimand with suspension or loss of pay, after a sustained formal investigation, that action would have to be purged after five years.

Often, even substantiated use-of-force allegations fail even to garner penalties as high as a reprimand with suspension. To put this in perspective, even in cases between 2010 and 2015 in which the NYPD’s office of the inspector general confirmed that officers had used unwarranted excessive force, officers were given no discipline 35.6% of the time.

According to the contracts, however, most of the investigations into police misconduct are led by officers’ supervisors or investigators within the department – a process that leaves some reform advocates skeptical. One leaked 2004-2006 contract from Worthington, Ohio, said that any city official who received a citizen complaint about a police officer must advise the complainant to go to the police department instead. “If the citizen does not wish to contact the Division of Police,” the contract said, “City staff should contact the Division of Police in a timely manner and advise a supervisor of the complaint.”

Alex Vitale, an associate professor of sociology at Brooklyn College, said such contract measures in effect undermined the possibility of robust civilian review boards for police. “You could pass a law to create a civilian oversight commission, but that law can’t supersede what’s in the contract,” said Vitale. “They just want to make clear what the process is and make sure there aren’t independent investigations. The police think ‘no one understands what we do’. It’s all part of this ‘us against the world’ mentality that dominates police thinking.”

Canterbury said the FOP rejects the idea of civilian review boards. “Departments do much better than civilian review boards because civilians have no knowledge of law enforcement or expertise on procedures,” he said. “Police departments do a very good job on internal reviews, plus we already have external review processes like local governments, prosecutors’ officers, and grand juries.”

Black Lives Matter activists argue, however, that there are too many conflicts of interest for the police to impartially investigate their own members. “Beyond the role nepotism and cronyism continues to play in the corruption of law enforcement, there is an inherent distrust of the police’s ability to keep communities safe,” said Delaine Powerful, an organizer in the Black Youth Project. “We cannot trust a system born out of slave patrols and night watches to conduct its own criminal investigations into unnecessary and unwarranted force by police.”

Ron Hampton, a former director of the National Black Police Association and a police officer in Washington DC, said: “People just don’t feel that the police can investigate themselves thoroughly or impartially.

“When we see all of this stuff on film, then it goes to the internal investigation and grand jury, etc, and then no indictment, no trial ... I don’t see how you can have trust in a process that doesn’t work for you.”

I hope not all police departments have the same policies to expunge records. That should be illegal.

Yes indeed these complains should be on the officers personal files for the rest of their careers.

It should be illegal. It like Al Capone to judge the killings made by Frank Nitti.

Absolutely, these jackets belong to criminals and we all need to know what these criminals are capable of.

Former Texas Prosecutor Disbarred For Sending Innocent Man To Death Row
Charles Sebesta lied and presented false testimony against Robert Carter for the murders of six people.
02/09/2016 04:52 am ET
Reuters
JON HERSKOVITZ

A Texas legal panel voted on Monday to disbar a former prosecutor for sending an innocent man to death row by presenting tainted testimony and making false statements that undermined the defendant's alibi.

The Board of Disciplinary Appeals appointed by the Texas Supreme Court upheld a state licensing board's decision to disbar Charles Sebesta for his conduct in convicting Anthony Graves, who spent 18 years in prison on charges of setting a fire that killed six people before being freed.
ASSOCIATED PRESS


Anthony Graves spent 12 years on death row for a crime he didn't commit.

Sebesta had convicted Robert Carter for the murders and tried to get Carter to say Graves was an accomplice. But the day before he was to testify, Carter told Sebesta he acted alone and Graves was not involved, the board said.

"Sebesta never disclosed this information to the defense," the board said.

Sebesta then presented false testimony implicating Graves, crucial in a conviction since there was no physical evidence linking him to the crime, it said.

Before Graves' attorney was to present the alibi witness, Sebesta falsely stated in court that the witness was a suspect in the murders and could be indicted. The witness refused to testify and left the court, it said.

Graves' conviction was reversed in 2006 and he was remanded for a new trial. In 2010, a special prosecutor found there was no credible evidence that Graves was involved in the murders and Graves was then released.

Sebesta said he was being unfairly treated and that Graves was justly convicted.

"I am concerned about the process," he said in a telephone interview, adding he was being targeted by state bar attorneys.

"My opinion is that we presented the evidence we had and felt like it was sufficient," he said of the Graves case.

One of Graves' pro bono lawyers applauded the decision.

“In rejecting Sebesta’s argument, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals found that Charles Sebesta’s misconduct was so egregious that they characterized him as having ‘unclean hands.’ That certainly is a fitting description,” said Neal Manne.



A study this month said that U.S. exonerations hit a record high in 2015 as more prosecutors have been looking at troubled cases.

The issue has gained additional attention because of the hit Netflix documentary series "Making a Murderer," which suggests authorities planted evidence against two Wisconsin men convicted of murder. The allegation has been rejected by local law enforcement.

Even Black Kids In Kindergarten May Face Racial Bias

Study finds white people may feel threatened by African American children as young as five.
02/09/2016 05:52 am ET

Nick Visser
Reporter, The Huffington Post

A new study suggests white people may hold an inherent negative bias against black kids as young as five.

A new study prompted by the spate of unarmed black men killed in America suggests people may be more likely to mistake a toy or a tool for a gun when an African American is holding it. And this inherent negative bias was found to extend to black kids as young as five years old.

The research, published this week in the journal Psychological Science, conducted several tests to gauge inherent bias towards white or black people. Researchers quickly showed 64 white participants a photo of either a black or white five-year-old's face and then an image of a gun or a toy. They asked them to ignore the face they saw and then identify the object as either the threatening or safe object.

During the first test, subjects were quicker to identify guns after seeing photos of black boys than they were when seeing white children. When researchers showed the participants white faces, the participants mistakenly labeled guns as toys in greater frequency than when primed with an image of a black kid.

A second test introduced men into the trials and replaced the toys with common tools, but researchers found similar results linking black adults, regardless of age, to the threatening objects in greater frequency.

Lead study author Andrew Todd, an assistant professor of psychology and brain sciences at the University of Iowa, told The Huffington Post the impetus for the report was linked to "the alarming rate at which young African Americans ... are shot and killed by police in the U.S."

"Although such incidents have multiple causes, one potential contributor is that young Black males are stereotypically associated with violence and criminality," Todd said in a statement.

The study notes that further research can be done to see if the bias extends to black women, and if there is an age young enough where this inherent negativity ends. However, the authors end their paper suggesting "that youth may be insufficient to disarm the threat associated with black men."

"So pervasive are these threat-related associations that they can shape even low-level aspects of social cognition," Todd said.

Ain't that the truth.

https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/demographics

Damn white racists as there is no reason to assume that as a class black young men might be more of a threat then white young men.

In any case, you can not solve problems by only looking at them through a PC filter.

Would it not be nice if we could address all of the problems of black youth instead of being limited to the white racists and police elements of the problem.

Police shootings/killings justify or not justify are a tiny element of the risks that black males run growing up in the US.

Blacks killed blacks at roughly four times the rate of other groups and if we could reduce that rate to the norm for other groups the police killings would likely to be reduce to the norm of other groups also at least in my opinion.

The mafia must have gone underground.

The mafia are adults who for the most part do not do drive by shootings or large scale killings for the hell of it.

I can not remember when the last bystanders including children was killed or harm in mafia battles.

An most important of all Italian teenagers are not dying in gun battles and have the same chance of growing up as the majority of other US teenagers.

And you have this on first hand information?