RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | Sandra Bland's Death Is Part of White America's Killing Spree Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20877"><span class="small">William Boardman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 26 July 2015 10:02

Boardman writes: "White America is on a killing spree. White cops across the country are killing black men, women, and children at an obscene rate for obscene reasons. White America's designated executioners-in-uniform wield arbitrary and unpredictable lethal force on behalf of a state that rarely holds them accountable for their killings."

Lanitra Dean hugs Carlesha Harrison, a friend of Sandra Bland, during a vigil for Bland at Prairie View A&M University in Prairie View, Texas. (photo: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle/AP)
Lanitra Dean hugs Carlesha Harrison, a friend of Sandra Bland, during a vigil for Bland at Prairie View A&M University in Prairie View, Texas. (photo: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle/AP)


Sandra Bland's Death Is Part of White America's Killing Spree

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

26 July 15

 

"... every black man born in this country, until this present moment, is born into a country which assures him, in as many ways as it can find, that he is not worth the dirt he walks on... Now, many, indeed, have survived, and at an incalculable cost, and many more have perished and are perishing every day. If you tell a child and do your best to prove to the child that he is not worth life, it is entirely possible that sooner or later the child begins to believe it."
                                                        - James Baldwin, in Oakland, June 1963

hite America is on a killing spree. White cops across the country are killing black men, women, and children at an obscene rate for obscene reasons. White America's designated executioners-in-uniform wield arbitrary and unpredictable lethal force on behalf of a state that rarely holds them accountable for their killings. That's because it is white America that is on the killing spree. White America's white cops pull the triggers or beat the heads or choke the breath out of black people, but they are just the ugly expression of the supremacy of a white America that sanctions their murderous violence while feigning some concern, sometimes, about its bloody application. White America dares its black president to say something, do something, knowing he won't, knowing he can't, knowing he doesn't dare appear even for a moment to be the angry black man he has every reason to be.

As of July 22, 2015, US police had killed 644 people, as shown in a searchable count by the Guardian. The number is probably low, given the reluctance of US authorities to collect reliable data (such as Congress continuing the 19 year ban on gun violence research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Of the 644 dead at the hands of police, almost all (95%) are male, and most, 373 (58%), are non-white. Police killings on average are found justifiable¯ in 98.9% of all cases. Police killings are far more frequent in the US than in other developed countries. US police killed 59 people in the first 24 days of 2015, compared to the police of England and Wales who have killed 55 people in the past 24 years. The Icelandic police, in their 71 year history, have killed exactly one person (in 2013). Denmark, Russia, Pakistan, and Chad have all expressed concern about the state of human rights in the US. California police have killed 95 people so far. Texas is second with 64. Florida, Arizona, and Oklahoma round out the top five. Only South Dakota, Rhode Island, and Vermont police haven't killed anyone this year. So far in 2015, US police have killed six unarmed black women.

Whether or not Sandra Bland was directly killed by public officials (or their agents) in Texas on or before July 13 is not yet known (the Texas Tribune has covered the story since July 16). The case is currently in the character assassination phase [see below], as well as the speculation and rumor phase. This area of Texas has a reputation for racial profiling by its police. The Waller County Sheriff's Office says she hanged herself in her cell with a white plastic garbage bag. In any event, she died in police custody, like more than two dozen others in 2015 so far. Police custody is supposed to be where the arrestee is safe, not killed. According to Waller County District Attorney Elton Mathis, the Texas Rangers and the FBI are treating Bland's death as a homicide. The DA has reason to proceed carefully, as Waller County has a long history of racism, including a racist DA forced from office in 2004, continued monitoring by the U.S. Justice Department for voting rights violations, and being a leading area for lynchings from 1877 to 1950. On July 22 on CNN, Mathis said the case would go to a grand jury. He also said:

It is very much too early to make any kind of determination that this was a suicide or a murder because the investigations are not complete. This is being treated like a murder investigation. There are too many questions that still need to be resolved. Ms. Bland's family does make valid points that she did have a lot of things going on in her life that were good.¯

The best publicly available evidence so far of the stop and arrest of Sandra Bland is a pair of videos: the 49-minute dashcam video from the police cruiser and a much shorter video taken by a witness whom police chased away from the scene. [The first dashcam video from the Texas Department of Safety was 52 minutes, but had anomalies that triggered credible accusations of malicious editing; the second dashcam video is not substantially different from the first; as evidence, any dashcam video remains suspect since the chain of custody puts it in the hands of the accused from the start.]

What happened to Sandra Bland from Friday afternoon until Monday morning is much less clear. All that we know with any certainty is that the justice system in Waller County, Texas, was out of control from the instant it had Sandra Bland in its sights. If the Texas justice system did not literally kill Sandra Bland, it absolutely created the conditions that led to her death, however that may have occurred. No matter what actually happened, there are guilty Texas law enforcement personnel who need to be held accountable for their actions, most obviously, but not only, Trooper Brian Encinia, 30, who has been a trooper just over a year. He initiated the Texas killing of Sandra Bland around 4:30 in the afternoon of July 10 in Prairie View, Texas.

At that point, Sandra Bland was unknown to the wider world. She was just another young person who had been looking for work and found it. She was 28, from the Chicago suburb of Naperville, Illinois. She was unarmed. She was about to start working for her college alma mater, Prairie View A&M University. She was engaged with Black Lives Matter and active in social media. She was acutely aware of what it means to be black in America, and how dangerous it is.

For what it's worth, Bernie Sanders was the first to call the event police abuse¯ and more or less everyone else, from Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton, agrees with some version of Trump's opinion of Encinia: He just was very aggressive. I didn't like his demeanor, I thought it was terrible¦.¯

[There is a third, shorter (17:26) video, a dashcam video from the fourth police vehicle on the scene, but it has little apparent probative value. This cruiser arrived well into the event and shows three people, apparently all police officers, standing around in relaxed positions on the sidewalk (Encinia does not appear to be one of them). At 6:18, the three officers go to the back passenger-side backdoor of the second cruiser. Sandra Bland comes out and stands up. Two of the officers appear to do a patdown search. She is passive, unresisting, calm throughout. By 7:20, Sandra Bland is back inside the cruiser. During the next ten minutes, a fourth officer arrives (not Encinia) and they stand in a group, in relaxed postures, appearing to shoot the breeze. This video has no sound.]

[A fourth short (14:05) dashcam video from the same cruiser appears to be even less probative. It follows some time after the third video and mostly shows officers milling about with no sense of urgency. At 1:57, a medical van arrives, the med technicians seem to talk to Sandra Bland in the back of the second cruiser for two minutes, but she does not appear. At 11:35, the medical van leaves. At 13:01, Encinia appears to have a brief exchange with Sandra Bland inside the cruiser. At 13:26, Encinia's cruiser leaves, followed by the cruiser with Sandra Bland, followed by the dashcam cruiser. The video has no sound.]

[These two videos were posted on the City of Prairie View, Texas, YouTube channel late July 24, without comment. It has six subscribers and no other content.]

Why does Encinia chase her before she commits the "infraction"?

Encina's dashcam video (49-minute version) begins with the end of a previous stop, with Encinia walking up to the driver's side of the car (the driver is not visible), where he advises her to get her dad to send something to the insurance company. Then he says he's just giving her a warning for a speeding violation, no fine no penalty: "Follow the posted speed limit, OK?" But instead of just sending her on her way, he asks another question, still holding her license, so she's not free to go:

0:31 - Encinia: "What year are you here at school?" She says she's a sophomore. Encenia chats her up about her classes for a moment before repeating that there's no penalty. Then he returns her license. (So what was THAT about?) At 0:46 he steps away from the car, which drives away and slowly starts to turn left while signaling. After another car passes her in the left-hand turning lane, she turns left and drives away.
1:15 - As Encinia starts to move, Sandra Bland's car approaches the intersection where the previous car has just turned in. The only vehicles visible are Encinia's, Sandra Bland's, and the passing car in the far distance ahead of Encinia. This is a virtually empty roadway at least four lanes wide.
1:15-1:31 - At the intersection, Sandra Bland rolls slowly past a stop sign and turns right without signaling onto the roadway that is empty except for the police cruiser across the street in front of her. Encinia promptly makes a U-turn through the same intersection and speeds up to follow Sandra Bland.
1:32-2:31 - Encinia speeds up to catch up to Sandra Bland as she passes through an intersection on a green light. A white pickup truck is turning right onto the roadway in front of her. The roadway approaching the light has a single travel lane and a left-turn-only lane. After the light the roadway has two travel lanes. As Encinia closes in on Sandra Bland, she pulls into the right-hand lane without signaling. Encinia pulls into the right-hand lane behind her and, after a moment, at 2:02, he turns on his flashing lights. She slows and comes to a full stop by 2:15. The white pick-up truck passes them in the left-hand lane at 2:22 and drives out of sight.

Encinia asks, "What's wrong?" Is it possible he does not know?

2:31-3:11 - Encinia approaches the passenger side of Sandra Bland's car, apparently adjusting a weapon with his left hand as he walks. At 2:44, he tells Sandra Bland that he stopped her because "you failed to signal a lane change" and asks for her insurance papers. Sandra Bland is inaudible. At 2:50, Encenia asks, "What's wrong?" Her answer, if any, is inaudible.
(So much is already wrong. Failure to signal a lane change on an almost empty highway? A violation of the law that should be subject to officer discretion, one might think, especially since it's also a violation NOT to pull to the right to let a police cruiser pass. She a young black woman from Illinois, traveling alone, confronted with a strange white cop on the passenger side of her car deep in the heart of Texas asking her what's wrong? The better question is: what's right?) Twenty seconds after asking "What's wrong?" and getting no answer, Encinia changes tactic.
3:12-3:26 - Encinia: "How long you been in Texas?" (How is this relevant?)
Sandra Bland: "Got here yesterday."
Encinia says "OK," and is quiet for awhile.
3:27-8:39 - Ensenia: "Do you have a driver's license?" Response inaudible.
At 3:34, Ensenia asks, "You OK?" No response, or inaudible.
At 3:46, Encenia asks, "Where you headed to now?" Response inaudible. By 4:10 Encinia has returned to his cruiser.
At 7:24, a red car passes on the left and pulls into the right lane without signaling. Encinia does not pursue it.
At 8:35, Encinia returns to Sandra Bland's car, this time approaching the driver's side.
8:40 -Encinia says, "OK, Ma'am," and when she says nothing, he asks, "You OK?"(So what is really going on here? This is the third time Encinia has inquired about Sandra Bland's well-being, the second time with the same words. What's the relevance? It's not credible that he cares. If he believes he's made a legitimate stop, why doesn't he complete it quickly and professionally? If he knows he's made a specious stop, for whatever reason, why would he expect her to be OK? Is he taunting her? Baiting her? He presumably knows he can defuse the situation at any moment, if he wants to, by telling her she's just getting a warning. Why hasn't he said that yet? This time, when he says "You OK?" again, Sandra Bland responds, somewhat testily, but still staying disengaged.)
8:47-9:09 - Sandra Bland: "I'm waiting on you. This is your job. I'm waiting on you. What do you want me to do?"
(He interrupts her, but he doesn't say what he wants her to do. Instead he baits her again.)
Encinia: "Well, you seem very irritated."
Sandra Bland [matter-of-factly]: "I am. I really am. Because of what I've been stopped and am getting a ticket for. I've been getting out of the way. You've been speeding up, so I move over and you stop me. So yeah, I am a little irritated. But that didn't stop you from giving me a ticket."
Why does Encinia continue to escalate, relentlessly?
According to Encinia, later, he's NOT giving her a ticket, he's giving her a warning. Why does he not say this? Why does he make NO attempt to de-escalate, to defuse the tension, to calm her down? Why does he act so differently with Sandra Bland from the way he treated his previous stop just 8 minutes earlier? After Sandra Bland says, "That didn't stop you from giving me a ticket," there are three seconds of silence during which Encinia could simply say he's giving her a warning. He could even say she was right to pull out of his way as he sped up behind her. He does nothing like that. Instead he snarks.
9:09-10:38 -
Encinia: "Are you done?"
Sandra Bland: "You asked me what was wrong and I told you."
Encinia: "OK."
Sandra Bland: "So now I'm done, yeah."
Encinia: "OK."
(Silence about 3 seconds, then Encinia adds a new provocation.)
Encinia: "Do you mind putting out your cigarette, please? [inaudible phrase]" (brief pause)
Sandra Bland [still matter-of-fact]: "I'm in my car. Why do I have to put out my cigarette?"
(This is her first direct challenge to him, and it's a chance to de-escalate. But He does not try to calm her down, he doesn't even say, "Calm down." He ratchets up the threat.)
Encinia [edgy, quick]: "Well, you can step out now."
(This sudden escalation is startling. Encinia doesn't answer her question but jumps in instantly with his order to get out of the car. He doesn't say why. Does he know why? Reasoned or not, he orders it. She reasonably objects.)
Sandra Bland [calm]: "I don't have to step out of my car."
Encinia [voice rising]: "Step out of the car."
(After a couple of seconds of no response, Encinia opens the driver side door. He stands there, with his right hand reaching into the car as he continues to talk.)
"Step out of the car"
Sandra Bland: "No, you don't have the right."
Encinia [raising his voice]: "Step out of the car!"
Sandra Bland: "You do not have the right to do that."
(Their voices overlap as the exchange quickens.)
Encinia: "I do have the right. Now step out or I will remove you."
Sandra Bland: "I refuse to talk to you other than inside -"
[inaudible, overlapping]
Encinia: "Step out or I will remove you."
Sandra Bland: "I am getting removed for a failure to signal?"
Encinia: "Step out or I will remove you. I'm giving you a lawful order.
Get out of the car now, or I'm going to remove you."
Sandra Bland: "And I'm calling my lawyer."
Encinia: "I'm going to yank you out of here."
(As he says this, he lunges into the car, most of his upper torso leaning into the car as he apparently grabs at her.)
Sandra Bland: "OK, you're going to yank me out of my car? OK. All right.
[inaudible, Encinia on radio] Don't do this."
Encinia: "We're going to -"
Sandra Bland: "Don't touch me!"
Encinia [shouting]: "Get out of the car!"
Sandra Bland: "Don't touch me. I am not under arrest. You don't have the right to touch me."
Encinia: "You are under arrest."
Sandra Bland: "I'm under arrest for what? For what?"
(Encinia does not answer her question. Instead he calls for backup.)
Encinia: [inaudible] "... send me another unit... "
[loud and stressed]: "Get out of the car! Get out of the car! Now!"
Sandra Bland: "Why am I being apprehended? Did you try to give me a ticket for failure -"
Encinia: "I said get out of the car!"
Sandra Bland: "Why am I being apprehended? You done opened my car door." [overlapping}
Encinia: "I'm giving you a lawful order. I'm going to drag you out of here."
Sandra Bland: "So you're going to drag me out of my own car?"
(As she says this, Encenia draws his taser and points it at her, reaching inside the car to do so.)
Encinia [screaming]: "Get out of the car! I will light you up! Get out!
Sandra Bland [getting out of the car, holding her phone]: "Wow"
Encinia [screaming]: "Now!"
Sandra Bland: "Wow."
Encinia [screaming]: "Get out of the car!"
Encinia doesn't use his taser, Sandra Bland does nothing threatening
At 10:36, Sandra Bland emerges from the car gracefully. She is taller than Trooper Encinia. She walks toward the rear of the car and then to the sidewalk, as he directs. There is space between them, an arm's length or more.
10:38-11:35 -
Sandra Bland: [inaudible] "... for a failure to signal? You're doing
all this for a failure to signal?"
Encinia [shouting as he directs her to the sidewalk]: "Get over there!" Sandra Bland: "Right. Yeah. Yeah, let's take this to court, let's -"
(Sandra Bland exits the dashcam frame, going to the sidewalk.)
Encinia [shouting]: "Go ahead!"
(Encinia exits the dashcam frame behind her.)
Sandra Bland: "- failure to signal, yup, for a failure to signal!"
Encinia [shouting]: "Get off the phone! [overlapping] Get off the phone!"
Sandra Bland: "I'm not on the phone, I have a right to -"
Encinia: "Put your phone down! [overlapping] Put your phone down!"
Sandra Bland: "Sorry?"
Encinia: "Put your phone down! Right now! Put your phone down!"
(At 10:59, Sandra Bland comes back into the dashcam frame and places her phone on the trunk of her car. Encinia is briefly visible again, then both exit the frame.)
Encinia: "[inaudible] Come over here! [overlapping] Come over here now!"
Sandra Bland [off camera]: "- you feeling good about yourself?"
Encinia [still shouting]: "Stand right here!"
Sandra Bland: "You feeling good about yourself?"
Encinia: "Stand right there!" [overlapping]
Sandra Bland: "You feel real good about yourself, don't you?
Encinia: "Turn around!" [overlapping]
Sandra Bland: "You feel real good about yourself, don't you?"
Encinia [still shouting]: "Turn around now!" [overlapping]
"Put your hands behind your back and turn around now! Turn around!"
Sandra Bland: "Why am I being arrested? Why can't you tell me -
[overlapping] Why am I being arrested?"
Encinia: "I am giving you a lawful order. Turn around."
Sandra Bland: "Why am I being arrested?"
Encinia: "Turn around! [overlapping] I'm giving you a lawful order. Turn around!"
Sandra Bland: "Why will you not tell me that part?" [overlapping]
Encinia: "You're not complying."
Sandra Bland: "I'm not complying because you just pulled me out of my car."
Encinia [screaming]: "Turn around!"
Sandra Bland: "Are you fucking kidding me? This is some bullshit -"
Encinia: "Put your hands behind your back."

Ever professional, Encinia says he's glad Sandra Bland is epileptic

At this point, roughly eight minutes after being stopped for changing lanes without signaling, Sandra Bland is in handcuffs. There is no evidence in the dashcam video that she physically resisted at all at any point. The video shows Trooper Encinia to be the physical aggressor as well as the verbal aggressor. For the next minute or so, Sandra Bland rants and curses at Encinia, accuses him of being "scared of a female," calls him "a pussy," and rails at him for his behavior, adding "I can't wait to go to court" and repeating it several times.

At 11:47, Encinia tries to tell her he was just giving her a warning, saying, "If you had just listened -" She interrupts to say, "I was trying to sign the fucking papers. Whatever." But even if she had listened, she never would have heard Encinia say he was giving her a warning, because he didn't say it till it was way too late. Already he's creating a lie about the event. "You were getting a warning ticket, now you're going to jail," he says at 12:19, putting the blame on her. She says he's breaking her wrist, he tells her to stop moving. Then he leaves her unattended and goes to her car. At 13:00 he slaps the ticket on the trunk of the car and says, "This right here says a warning. You started causing a problem." She answers, nailing the critical moment: "You asked me what was wrong." He didn't say anything about getting a warning at the time.

Now Sandra Bland screams in pain that he's about to break her wrists and asks him to stop, then screams again. At 13:20, there are sounds of a tussle, screaming and shouting. This is likely the sound of Encinia taking the handcuffed Sandra Bland to the ground and holding her down with a knee in her back, her hands behind her back. Encinia screams, "Stop now! Stop!" During this, Encinia's backups from Prairie View PD arrive off camera, a white male and a black woman (apparently Penne Goode, on the force a few months), who says, "Stop resisting, Ma'am." Encinia screams, "If you would stop, then I would tell you.... When you pull away from me, then you are resisting arrest." When she says, "You're a real man now, you slam me, knock my head in the ground, I got epilepsy you motherfucker," Encinia replies, "Good! Good!" And the black female cop says, "You should have thought about that before you start resisting."

At 15:29, Encinia says, falsely, of the black female cop, "This officer saw everything," Sandra Bland says she didn't, she wasn't even there for most of it. "I'm not talking to you," says the black female cop. Later she reassures Encinia about his version of events. He says he's glad it's all on video. But it's not.

The second video, shot by a bystander who arrived well into the event, corresponds with the dashcam video roughly 13:50-15:29. It shows the black female cop and Encinia holding Sandra Bland down on the ground while she rails at them. After about thirty seconds, Encinia gets up and comes toward the camera, shouting "You need to leave" three times at the bystander, who says he's on public property. Encinia does not confront the bystander, who continues to tape as Encinia returns to Sandra Bland where she is still being held down. The officers bring her to the backup cruiser and the tape ends.

By 15:45, Encinia and the backup officers have put Sandra Bland in the backup cruiser and she can no longer be heard clearly. Later the backup cops search Sandra Bland's car, apparently without permission, a warrant, or reasonable probable cause.

The official story went right into "Character Assassination Mode"

Encinia, who has already told Sandra Bland it's all her fault, now (16:08) tells the black female cop his version of what Sandra Bland did to him: "She started yanking away and kicked me, so I took her straight to the ground." Then Encinia says he's not hurt, as he chats with the other officers about the nature of his "injuries."

Moments later (starting at 17:47), apparently alone in his cruiser, Encinia is talking to someone who can't be heard, probably on the phone. From Encinia's conversation, this person seems to be supportive, possibly a union rep or a lawyer, someone to whom Encinia is comfortable floating his first, fictitious version of his attack on Sandra Bland, calling it a traffic stop at which he "had a little bit of an incident," then breaks off.

After about five minutes of police radio chatter and static, Encinia is again talking to the same or another unknown but sympathetic person (23:24). Encinia is saying: "... de-escalate her and it wasn't getting me anywhere at all.... I put the taser away, you know I tried talking to her, calming her down, and that was not working.... Well, I know, that was when she was in custody, and now I'm trying to get her detained, get her to calm down, and, you know, just calm down. Stop throwing her arms. You know what? She never swung at me, just flailing and stomping around. [emphasis added] I said all right that's enough, and that's when I detained her.... we were in the middle of a traffic stop... I was trying to get her out and over to the side and, you know, just explain to her what was going on.... I don't have serious bodily injury, but I was kicked.... [he reviews the legal meaning of "assault"]... She said I threw her down intentionally, for nothing.... Well I kept telling her to calm down, calm down.... I didn't say you're under arrest.... I told her what she was receiving and what to do and so forth, and by that time she was very much irritated and so forth.... She wouldn't even look at me, she looked straight ahead, mad.... And then when I had her down on the ground, and another officer and I told her to stop resisting, and that's when I told her, you're under arrest.... I took the lesser of, I only took enough force as I see necessary, I de-escalated once we were on the pavement.... I allowed time to de-escalate and so forth.... over a simple traffic stop - yeah, I don't get it, I really don't." [Ends at 34:40, when Encinia goes to search Sandra Bland's car.]

No, he really doesn't seem to get it. He never asked her to calm down while it might have mattered, he kept escalating until she blew up. Is Encinia lying here? Does he even know what's true? Does he believe this palpably false version of the event? Will anyone else who sees the video think Encinia is capable of telling the truth?

During the last 30-plus minutes of the dashcam video, it records a number of traffic violations that draw no response from the police, even though they are similar to Sandra Bland's "offense." A car changes lanes without signaling, then passes another car on the right (14:45). A black car turns left without signaling and a red car passes it on the right (15:44). A truck turns left without signaling as a car changes lanes without signaling (16:54). A white car turns left without signaling (19:26). The tow truck to tow Sandra Bland's car, making a U-turn without signaling (22:22). A black car changes lanes with no signal (28:50). A truck turns right without signaling (34:06). A car changes lanes with no signal (46:45). A truck changes lanes with no signal (47:18). A van changes lanes with no signal (47:22). At least the last three violations took place right in front of Encinia's cruiser while there was nothing else to occupy his attention.

Encinia is joined by fellow Character Assassins

The character assassination phase in police crimes like this usually begins immediately, as it does here with Encinia. The character assassination phase is when officials who are perpetrators or perp-protectors do their best to blame the victim (the smearing of Michael Brown in Ferguson last year being a textbook example). Often they are joined by investigators and judicial authorities who are "team players" who protect the team above honesty or justice. Typically they are helped by credulous or like-minded media.

When District Attorney Elton Mathis [see above] said, on July 22, "we are treating this as a murder investigation," he was repeating what he'd said at his July 20 press conference. That perspective seems to have become an anomaly and Mathis seems to have faded into the background, leaving other officials to continue to attack Sandra Bland posthumously. Character assassination does not require falsehood, not does it preclude falsehood. But the most effective character assassination is anything that puts the target in a bad light and is true, or seems to be true, but lacks meaningful context. Some examples of the Texas effort to assassinate the character of Sandra Bland:

July 13. The Waller County Sheriff's Office established the official story from the start: that Sandra Bland committed suicide, hanging herself with a garbage bag. Posts on Facebook supporting the official story are no longer available there, as the Sheriff's Office Facebook page has been taken down. Among other things, it featured the Declaration of Independence and a cleavage-shot of a well-endowed woman in a blue dress. [Missing context from then till now: credible motivation to kill herself.]

July 14. The Waller County Sheriff's Office posted a lengthy press release on Facebook (no longer available) that summarized the official story: "On Monday, July 13th, at approximately 09:00 am, a female inmate [Sandra Bland] was found in her cell not breathing from what appears to be self-inflicted asphyxiation." [Missing context: Waller County Sheriff Glenn Smith has a history of racial animus that led to his suspension (2007) and then firing (2008) as police chief in nearby Hempstead, Texas.]

July 17. NBC Chicago-TV ran an "investigative" piece on Sandra Bland's driving record: "Sandra Bland had at least 10 encounters herself with police in both Illinois and Texas in past years" (headline). The report covered the years 2004-2014 and said she still owed $7,579 in fines and court fees. [Missing context: relevance to the Texas stop, which will never be adjudicated.]

July 21. The Waller County Sheriff's Office released a three-hour jail video purporting to show no activity around Sandra Bland's jail cell before she was found dead. Sandra Bland is not visible in any of the video. [Missing context: any reliable timeline of Sandra Bland circumstances from booking to death.]

July 21. The Waller County district attorney's office released Trooper Encinia's incident report despite its falsification of the event, easily determined by viewing the dashcam tape. Encinia omits his escalation when he asked Sandra Bland to put out her cigarette. Encinia omits mention of his drawing his taser and threatening Sandra Bland with it. Noting these omissions, The New York Times nevertheless quotes from the incident report as if it's credible.

July 22. Waller County Sheriff Glenn Smith told the Associated Press that Sandra Bland said she had previously tried to kill herself. If she did kill herself, she is the first black woman suicide in a Texas jail since 2009. [Missing context: A similarly "inexplicable suicide" occurred in Waller County jail in 2012: James Harper Howell IV, 29, was a white man in jail for the same charge as Sandra Bland, assaulting a public servant.]

July 22: Former NYPD detective Harry Houck tells CNN panel that "Sandra Bland died because she was 'arrogant from the beginning'" (headline). Houck seems to have seen a different video: "Even if he [Encinia] de-escalated that whole situation, she would have kept coming at that officer the way she did. I don't think he baited her at all. She just wanted to be uncooperative.... She had a problem with the officer, she had a problem with being stopped, she didn't like the fact that she was being stopped. Her whole arrogant attitude." [Missing context: Perception shaped by racial bias is a national problem.]

July 22. Unnamed "Texas officials" provided the basis for a Washington Post story headlined: "Sandra Bland previously attempted suicide, jail documents say." Referring to inconsistencies in jail paperwork, assistant district attorney Warren Diepraam emailed the post that "the contradictions were created by here." [Missing context: Why were the contradictions not noticed, addressed, resolved?]

July 23. The Last Refuge, a rightwing website (theconservativetreehouse.com), sets out to blame Sandra Bland's family for her suicide: "There's a particular irony with the sister of Sandra Bland, Sharon Cooper, going on television to state she blames the Waller County Texas jail for her sister's demise, when Sharon Cooper refused to aid Sandra while she was in jail for 3 days.... Apparently, Ms. Bland was trying to put together $500 for a bond payment and none of her family, including her sister Sharon, were willing to assist.... It would appear a disconnected family, and the sense of isolation, might very well have led to an overpowering sense of desperation - ultimately resulting in her suicide while in jail." This anonymous writer goes on to recite part of the NBC driving record report and other denigrations. [Missing context: What actually went on over the weekend with the $5,000 bond and the family?]

July 23. Assistant district attorney Warren Diepraam undercuts DA Mathis and reaffirms the official story: "At this particular time, I have not seen any evidence that indicates this was a homicide. I can say she tested positive for marijuana." [Missing contexts: (1) What evidence was looked for? (2) How did she get marijuana in jail? and (3) Is the marijuana evidence of homicide?]

July 24. Waller County Jail has apparently helped two women prisoners come forward to say Sandra Bland committed suicide. The women were in a cell with three inmates near the cell where Sandra Bland was alone. ABC Eyewitness News touts its "exclusive" coverage of these two witnesses, one of whom remains anonymous, who support the official story. [Missing context: the degree to which each of these women remains entangled in the Texas justice system.]

July 24. Waller County Judge Trey Duhon, in a Facebook post, blamed Sandra Bland for inconsistencies in jail forms filled out by jail personnel at different times. One form said she was depressed, another didn't. The judge's Facebook post also referred to a "high level" of marijuana in Sandra Bland's system. The judge's Facebook page is no longer available. [Missing context: any explanation of the apparently chaotic booking process at the Waller County Jail.]

July 24. Assistant district attorney Warren Diepraam discussed the preliminary autopsy report (later released), emphasizing the marijuana in her system and some 30 cuts on her left wrist that he guessed were self-inflicted some weeks earlier. These tidbits were picked up and amplified by KHOU-TV in Houston, characterizing it all as "evidence consistent with suicide and evidence of a troubled past." KHOU-TV presented it all from the prosecutors' point of view, even downplaying Sandra Bland's wrist and back injuries from handcuffs and a trooper's knee in her back. Gratuitously, KHOU-TV also threw in a segment on Sandra Bland's "other run-ins with the law," which they list in detail, with a throwaway line at the end that she had had no legal problems in the past five years. The tag line is another cheap shot about more blood tests to see if the were other substances in her system "like that epilepsy drug she claimed she was taking." [Missing context: any independent medical history.]

The flip side of character assassination of the victim is cover-up for the perpetrators. For example, "officials" at the Texas Department of Public Safety say Encinia is assigned to administrative leave, with pay, for violating unspecified police procedures and the Department of Public Safety courtesy policy. Officials refuse to answer questions about Encinia trying to pull Sandra Bland out of her car. Officials refuse to answer questions about Encinia drawing his stun gun. Officials pretty much refuse to answer most useful questions.

Trooper Encinia refused to answer most of Sandra Bland's questions. She asked him fourteen times, why was she being arrested? He never gave her an answer. He was still trying to figure it out, on the phone, after she was in custody. His answer might have saved her life. She was buried July 25. The official story expects us to believe that this feisty, educated, politically conscious black woman that we see on video tape and elsewhere in her online life changed so completely in less than three days that she gave up and killed herself.

Is that credible? What else happened over that weekend?



William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Seeking War to the End of the World Print
Sunday, 26 July 2015 08:16

Parry writes: "If the neoconservatives have their way again, U.S. ground troops will reoccupy Iraq, the U.S. military will take out Syria's secular government (likely helping Al Qaeda and the Islamic State take over)."

Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan. (photo: YouTube)
Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan. (photo: YouTube)


Seeking War to the End of the World

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

26 July 15

 

Despite the disastrous Iraq War, neocons still dominate Official Washington’s inside-outside game, government policymakers coordinating with think-tank opinion leaders to keep world tensions high and money flowing to military projects, a process personified by Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland, says Robert Parry.

f the neoconservatives have their way again, U.S. ground troops will reoccupy Iraq, the U.S. military will take out Syria’s secular government (likely helping Al Qaeda and the Islamic State take over), and the U.S. Congress will not only kill the Iran nuclear deal but follow that with a massive increase in military spending.

Like spraying lighter fluid on a roaring barbecue, the neocons also want a military escalation in Ukraine to burn the ethnic Russians out of the east, and the neocons dream of spreading the blaze to Moscow with the goal of forcing Russian President Vladimir Putin from the Kremlin. In other words, more and more fires of Imperial “regime change” abroad even as the last embers of the American Republic die at home.

Much of this “strategy” is personified by a single Washington power couple: arch-neocon Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century and an early advocate of the Iraq War, and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who engineered last year’s coup in Ukraine that started a nasty civil war and created a confrontation between nuclear-armed United States and Russia.

Kagan, who cut his teeth as a propaganda specialist in support of the Reagan administration’s brutal Central American policies in the 1980s, is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing columnist to The Washington Post’s neocon-dominated opinion pages.

On Friday, Kagan’s column baited the Republican Party to do more than just object to President Barack Obama’s Iranian nuclear deal. Kagan called for an all-out commitment to neoconservative goals, including military escalations in the Middle East, belligerence toward Russia and casting aside fiscal discipline in favor of funneling tens of billions of new dollars to the Pentagon.

Kagan also showed how the neocons’ world view remains the conventional wisdom of Official Washington despite their disastrous Iraq War. The neocon narrative gets repeated over and over in the mainstream media no matter how delusional it is.

For instance, a sane person might trace the origins of the bloodthirsty Islamic State back to President George W. Bush’s neocon-inspired Iraq War when this hyper-violent Sunni movement began as “Al Qaeda in Iraq” blowing up Shiite mosques and instigating sectarian bloodshed. It later expanded into Syria where Sunni militants were seeking the ouster of a secular regime led by Alawites, a Shiite offshoot. Though changing its name to the Islamic State, the movement continued with its trademark brutality.

But Kagan doesn’t acknowledge that he and his fellow neocons bear any responsibility for this head-chopping phenomenon. In his neocon narrative, the Islamic State gets blamed on Iran and Syria, even though those governments are leading much of the resistance to the Islamic State and its former colleagues in Al Qaeda, which in Syria backs a separate terrorist organization, the Nusra Front.

But here is how Kagan explains the situation to the Smart People of Official Washington: “Critics of the recent nuclear deal struck between Iran and the United States are entirely right to point out the serious challenge that will now be posed by the Islamic republic. It is an aspiring hegemon in an important region of the world.

“It is deeply engaged in a region-wide war that encompasses Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, the Gulf States and the Palestinian territories. It subsidizes the murderous but collapsing regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and therefore bears primary responsibility for the growing strength of the Islamic State and other radical jihadist forces in that country and in neighboring Iraq, where it is simultaneously expanding its influence and inflaming sectarian violence.”

The Real Hegemon

While ranting about “Iranian hegemony,” Kagan called for direct military intervention by the world’s true hegemonic power, the United States. He wants the U.S. military to weigh in against Iran on the side of two far more militarily advanced regional powers, Israel and Saudi Arabia, whose combined weapons spending dwarfs Iran’s and includes – with Israel – a sophisticated nuclear arsenal.

Yet reality has never had much relationship to neocon ideology. Kagan continued: “Any serious strategy aimed at resisting Iranian hegemony has also required confronting Iran on the several fronts of the Middle East battlefield. In Syria, it has required a determined policy to remove Assad by force, using U.S. air power to provide cover for civilians and create a safe zone for Syrians willing to fight.

“In Iraq, it has required using American forces to push back and destroy the forces of the Islamic State so that we would not have to rely, de facto, on Iranian power to do the job. Overall, it has required a greater U.S. military commitment to the region, a reversal of both the perceived and the real withdrawal of American power.

“And therefore it has required a reversal of the downward trend in U.S. defense spending, especially the undoing of the sequestration of defense funds, which has made it harder for the military even to think about addressing these challenges, should it be called upon to do so. So the question for Republicans who are rightly warning of the danger posed by Iran is: What have they done to make it possible for the United States to begin to have any strategy for responding?”

In Kagan’s call for war and more war, we’re seeing, again, the consequence of failing to hold neocons accountable after they pushed the country into the illegal and catastrophic Iraq War by selling lies about weapons of mass destruction and telling tales about how easy it would be.

Instead of facing a purge that should have followed the Iraq calamity, the neocons consolidated their power, holding onto key jobs in U.S. foreign policy, ensconcing themselves in influential think tanks, and remaining the go-to experts for mainstream media coverage. Being wrong about Iraq has almost become a badge of honor in the upside-down world of Official Washington.

But we need to unpack the truckload of sophistry that Kagan is peddling. First, it is simply crazy to talk about “Iranian hegemony.” That was part of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rhetoric before the U.S. Congress on March 3 about Iran “gobbling up” nations – and it has now become a neocon-driven litany, but it is no more real just because it gets repeated endlessly.

For instance, take the Iraq case. It has a Shiite-led government not because Iran invaded Iraq, but because the United States did. After the U.S. military ousted Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein, the United States stood up a new government dominated by Shiites who, in turn, sought friendly relations with their co-religionists in Iran, which is entirely understandable and represents no aggression by Iran. Then, after the Islamic State’s dramatic military gains across Iraq last summer, the Iraqi government turned to Iran for military assistance, also no surprise.

Back to Iraq

However, leaving aside Kagan’s delusional hyperbole about Iran, look at what he’s proposing. He wants to return a sizable U.S. occupation force to Iraq, apparently caring little about the U.S. soldiers who were rotated multiple times into the war zone where almost 4,500 died (along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis). Having promoted Iraq War I and having paid no price, Kagan now wants to give us Iraq War II.

But that’s not enough. Kagan wants the U.S. military to intervene to make sure the secular government of Syria is overthrown, even though the almost certain winners would be Sunni extremists from the Islamic State or Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front. Such a victory could lead to genocides against Syria’s Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other minorities. At that point, there would be tremendous pressure for a full-scale U.S. invasion and occupation of Syria, too.

That may be why Kagan wants to throw tens of billions of dollar more into the military-industrial complex, although the true price tag for Kagan’s new wars would likely run into the trillions of dollars. Yet, Kagan still isn’t satisfied. He wants even more military spending to confront “growing Chinese power, an aggressive Russia and an increasingly hegemonic Iran.”

In his conclusion, Kagan mocks the Republicans for not backing up their tough talk: “So, yes, by all means, rail about the [Iran] deal. We all look forward to the hours of floor speeches and campaign speeches that lie ahead. But it will be hard to take Republican criticisms seriously unless they start doing the things that are in their power to do to begin to address the challenge.”

While it’s true that Kagan is now “just” a neocon ideologue – albeit one with important platforms to present his views – his wife Assistant Secretary of State Nuland shares his foreign policy views and even edits many of his articles. As she told The New York Times last year, “nothing goes out of the house that I don’t think is worthy of his talents. Let’s put it that way.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Obama’s True Foreign Policy ‘Weakness.’”]

But Nuland is a foreign policy force of her own, considered by some in Washington to be the up-and-coming “star” at the State Department. By organizing the “regime change” in Ukraine – with the violent overthrow of democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 – Nuland also earned her spurs as an accomplished neocon.

Nuland has even outdone her husband, who may get “credit” for the Iraq War and the resulting chaos, but Nuland did him one better, instigating Cold War II and reviving hostilities between nuclear-armed Russia and the United States. After all, that’s where the really big money will go – toward modernizing nuclear arsenals and ordering top-of-the-line strategic weaponry.

A Family Business

There’s also a family-business aspect to these wars and confrontations, since the Kagans collectively serve not just to start conflicts but to profit from grateful military contractors who kick back a share of the money to the think tanks that employ the Kagans.

For instance, Robert’s brother Frederick works at the American Enterprise Institute, which has long benefited from the largesse of the Military-Industrial Complex, and his wife Kimberly runs her own think tank called the Institute for the Study of War (ISW).

According to ISW’s annual reports, its original supporters were mostly right-wing foundations, such as the Smith-Richardson Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, but it was later backed by a host of national security contractors, including major ones like General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and CACI, as well as lesser-known firms such as DynCorp International, which provided training for Afghan police, and Palantir, a technology company founded with the backing of the CIA’s venture-capital arm, In-Q-Tel. Palantir supplied software to U.S. military intelligence in Afghanistan.

Since its founding in 2007, ISW has focused mostly on wars in the Middle East, especially Iraq and Afghanistan, including closely cooperating with Gen. David Petraeus when he commanded U.S. forces in those countries. However, more recently, ISW has begun reporting extensively on the civil war in Ukraine. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Neocons Guided Petraeus on Afghan War.”]

So, to understand the enduring influence of the neocons – and the Kagan clan, in particular – you have to appreciate the money connections between the business of war and the business of selling war. When the military contractors do well, the think tanks that advocate for heightened global tensions do well, too.

And, it doesn’t hurt to have friends and family inside the government making sure that policymakers do their part to give war a chance — and to give peace the old heave-ho.

[For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com’s “A Family Business of Perpetual War.”]



Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
In Iraq, I Raided Insurgents. In Virginia, the Police Raided Me. Print
Sunday, 26 July 2015 08:10

Horton writes: "I didn't wake up until three police officers barged into my apartment, barking their presence at my door. They sped down the hallway to my bedroom, their service pistols drawn and leveled at me."

Alex Horton, 30, poses in the hallway outside his apartment on Thursday July 16, 2015 in Alexandria, Virginia. An Iraq War veteran, Horton was recently awoken by a police raid as he slept. (photo: Matt McClain/WP)
Alex Horton, 30, poses in the hallway outside his apartment on Thursday July 16, 2015 in Alexandria, Virginia. An Iraq War veteran, Horton was recently awoken by a police raid as he slept. (photo: Matt McClain/WP)


In Iraq, I Raided Insurgents. In Virginia, the Police Raided Me.

By Alex Horton, Washington Post

26 July 15

 

got home from the bar and fell into bed soon after Saturday night bled into Sunday morning. I didn’t wake up until three police officers barged into my apartment, barking their presence at my door. They sped down the hallway to my bedroom, their service pistols drawn and leveled at me.

It was just past 9 a.m., and I was still under the covers. The only visible target was my head.

In the shouting and commotion, I felt an instant familiarity. I’d been here before. This was a raid.

I had done this a few dozen times myself, 6,000 miles away from my Alexandria, Va., apartment. As an Army infantryman in Iraq, I’d always been on the trigger side of the weapon. Now that I was on the barrel side, I recalled basic training’s most important firearm rule: Aim only at something you intend to kill.

I had conducted the same kind of raid on suspected bombmakers and high-value insurgents. But the Fairfax County officers in my apartment were aiming their weapons at a target whose rap sheet consisted only of parking tickets and an overdue library book.

My situation was terrifying. Lying facedown in bed, I knew that any move I made could be viewed as a threat. Instinct told me to get up and protect myself. Training told me that if I did, these officers would shoot me dead.

In a panic, I asked the officers what was going on but got no immediate answer. Their tactics were similar to the ones I used to clear rooms during the height of guerilla warfare in Iraq. I could almost admire it — their fluid sweep from the bedroom doorway to the distant corner. They stayed clear of one another’s lines of fire in case they needed to empty their Sig Sauer .40-caliber pistols into me.

They were well-trained, their supervisor later told me. But I knew that means little when adrenaline governs an imminent-danger scenario, real or imagined. Triggers are pulled. Mistakes are made.

I spread my arms out to either side. An officer jumped onto my bed and locked handcuffs onto my wrists. The officers rolled me from side to side, searching my boxers for weapons, then yanked me up to sit on the edge of the bed.

At first, I was stunned. I searched my memory for any incident that would justify a police raid. Then it clicked.

Earlier in the week, the managers of my apartment complex moved me to a model unit while a crew repaired a leak in my dishwasher. But they hadn’t informed my temporary neighbors. So when one resident noticed the door slightly cracked open to what he presumed was an unoccupied apartment, he looked in, saw me sleeping and called the police to report a squatter.

Sitting on the edge of the bed dressed only in underwear, I laughed. The situation was ludicrous and embarrassing. My only mistake had been failing to make sure the apartment door was completely closed before I threw myself into bed the night before.

I told the officers to check my driver’s license, nodding toward my khaki pants on the floor. It showed my address at a unit in the same complex. As the fog of their chaotic entry lifted, the officers realized it had been an unfortunate error. They walked me into the living room and removed the cuffs, though two continued to stand over me as the third contacted management to confirm my story. Once they were satisfied, they left.

When I later visited the Fairfax County police station to gather details about what went wrong, I met the shift commander, Lt. Erik Rhoads. I asked why his officers hadn’t contacted management before they raided the apartment. Why did they classify the incident as a forced entry, when the information they had suggested something innocuous? Why not evaluate the situation before escalating it?

Rhoads defended the procedure, calling the officers’ actions “on point.” It’s not standard to conduct investigations beforehand because that delays the apprehension of suspects, he told me.

I noted that the officers could have sought information from the apartment complex’s security guard that would have resolved the matter without violence. But he played down the importance of such information: “It doesn’t matter whatsoever what was said or not said at the security booth.”

This is where Rhoads is wrong. We’ve seen this troubling approach to law enforcement nationwide, in militarized police responses to nonviolent protesters and in fatal police shootings of unarmed citizens. The culture that encourages police officers to engage their weapons before gathering information promotes the mind-set that nothing, including citizen safety, is more important than officers’ personal security. That approach has caused public trust in law enforcement to deteriorate.

It’s the same culture that characterized the early phases of the Iraq war, in which I served a 15-month tour in 2006 and 2007. Soldiers left their sprawling bases in armored vehicles, leveling buildings with missile strikes and shooting up entire blocks during gun battles with insurgents, only to return to their protected bases and do it all again hours later.

The short-sighted notion that we should always protect ourselves endangered us more in the long term. It was a flawed strategy that could often create more insurgents than it stopped and inspired some Iraqis to hate us rather than help us.

In one instance in Baghdad, a stray round landed in a compound that our unit was building. An overzealous officer decided that we were under attack and ordered machine guns and grenade launchers to shoot at distant rooftops. A row of buildings caught fire, and we left our compound on foot, seeking to capture any injured fighters by entering structures choked with flames.

Instead, we found a man frantically pulling his furniture out of his house. “Thank you for your security!” he yelled in perfect English. He pointed to the billowing smoke. “This is what you call security?”

We didn’t find any insurgents. There weren’t any. But it was easy to imagine that we forged some in that fire. Similarly, when U.S. police officers use excessive force to control nonviolent citizens or respond to minor incidents, they lose supporters and public trust.

That’s a problem, because law enforcement officers need the cooperation of the communities they patrol in order to do their jobs effectively. In the early stages of the war, the U.S. military overlooked that reality as well. Leaders defined success as increasing military hold on geographic terrain, while the human terrain was the real battle. For example, when our platoon entered Iraq’s volatile Diyala province in early 2007, children at a school plugged their ears just before an IED exploded beneath one of our vehicles. The kids knew what was coming, but they saw no reason to warn us. Instead, they watched us drive right into the ambush. One of our men died, and in the subsequent crossfire, several insurgents and children were killed. We saw Iraqis cheering and dancing at the blast crater as we left the area hours later.

With the U.S. effort in Iraq faltering, Gen. David Petraeus unveiled a new counterinsurgency strategy that year. He believed that showing more restraint during gunfights would help foster Iraqis’ trust in U.S. forces and that forming better relationships with civilians would improve our intelligence-gathering. We refined our warrior mentality — the one that directed us to protect ourselves above all else — with a community-building component.

My unit began to patrol on foot almost exclusively, which was exceptionally more dangerous than staying inside our armored vehicles. We relinquished much of our personal security by entering dimly lit homes in insurgent strongholds. We didn’t know if the hand we would shake at each door held a detonator to a suicide vest or a small glass of hot, sugary tea.

But as a result, we better understood our environment and earned the allegiance of some people in it. The benefits quickly became clear. One day during that bloody summer, insurgents loaded a car with hundreds of pounds of explosives and parked it by a school. They knew we searched every building for hidden weapons caches, and they waited for us to gather near the car. But as we turned the corner to head toward the school, several Iraqis told us about the danger. We evacuated civilians from the area and called in a helicopter gunship to fire at the vehicle.

The resulting explosion pulverized half the building and blasted the car’s engine block through two cement walls. Shrapnel dropped like jagged hail as far as a quarter-mile away.

If we had not risked our safety by patrolling the neighborhood on foot, trusting our sources and gathering intelligence, it would have been a massacre. But no one was hurt in the blast.

Domestic police forces would benefit from a similar change in strategy. Instead of relying on aggression, they should rely more on relationships. Rather than responding to a squatter call with guns raised, they should knock on the door and extend a hand. But unfortunately, my encounter with officers is just one in a stream of recent examples of police placing their own safety ahead of those they’re sworn to serve and protect.

Rhoads, the Fairfax County police lieutenant, was upfront about this mind-set. He explained that it was standard procedure to point guns at suspects in many cases to protect the lives of police officers. Their firearm rules were different from mine; they aimed not to kill but to intimidate. According to reporting by The Washington Post, those rules are established in police training, which often emphasizes a violent response over deescalation. Recruits spend an average of eight hours learning how to neutralize tense situations; they spend more than seven times as many hours at the weapons range.

Of course, officers’ safety is vital, and they’re entitled to defend themselves and the communities they serve. But they’re failing to see the connection between their aggressive postures and the hostility they’ve encountered in Ferguson, Mo., Baltimore and other communities. When you level assault rifles at protesters, you create animosity. When you kill an unarmed man on his own property while his hands are raised — as Fairfax County police did in 2013 — you sow distrust. And when you threaten to Taser a woman during a routine traffic stop (as happened to 28-year-old Sandra Bland, who died in a Texas jail this month), you cultivate a fear of police. This makes policing more dangerous for everyone.

I understood the risks of war when I enlisted as an infantryman. Police officers should understand the risks in their jobs when they enroll in the academy, as well. That means knowing that personal safety can’t always come first. That is why it’s service. That’s why it’s sacrifice.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Bar Officially Cannot Be Lowered Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Saturday, 25 July 2015 13:21

Borowitz writes: "A group of scholars who have been monitoring the descent of the bar over the past few decades have concluded that the bar can no longer be lowered, the scholars announced on Friday."

Donald Trump. (photo: LM Otero/AP)
Donald Trump. (photo: LM Otero/AP)


Bar Officially Cannot Be Lowered

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

25 July 15

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."


group of scholars who have been monitoring the descent of the bar over the past few decades have concluded that the bar can no longer be lowered, the scholars announced on Friday.

The academics, led by Professor Davis Logsdon, of the University of Minnesota, published their conclusion after their research definitively found that the bar had finally dropped to its lowest possible position.

“For those who thought the bar still had room to be lowered, our findings resoundingly contradict that assumption,” Logsdon said. “The bar is now essentially flush with the ground.”

Logsdon acknowledged that he and his fellow scholars have come under fire in the past for claiming that the bar could not be further lowered, specifically when they issued a paper to that effect after the selection of the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee in 2008.

“We got that one wrong,” he said. “Clearly, the bar still had a way to go.”

Now that the issue of whether the bar can be further lowered has been settled, Logsdon and his colleagues plan to examine the question of whether there is anything left to scrape at the bottom of the barrel. “Our findings are preliminary, but it appears that the answer is no,” he said.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump: The Dark Heart of the Republican Party Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=32445"><span class="small">Jeb Lund, Rolling Stone</span></a>   
Saturday, 25 July 2015 13:17

Lund writes: "Donald Trump isn't going off-script - this is who the GOP is."

Donald Trump is more in line with the rest of the Republican Party than many would like to admit. (photo: Daniel Acker/Getty)
Donald Trump is more in line with the rest of the Republican Party than many would like to admit. (photo: Daniel Acker/Getty)


Trump: The Dark Heart of the Republican Party

By Jeb Lund, Rolling Stone

25 July 15

 

here's a fun moment, back in the 2012 Democratic National Convention, where Bill Clinton is doing his job as his party's Explainer-in-Chief. He's talking about the Romney/Ryan attacks on Obama for "robbing Medicare." He explains how Obamacare does not, in fact, rob the program, but that the legendary Ryan budget does punch a hole in Medicare. A suppressed-laughter tone creeps into his Bubba voice, and he says, "It takes some brass to attack a guy for doin' what you did."

As is often the case with Bill, he underlines a fundamental problem with the Republican Party: It takes some brass to attack a guy for doin' what you did. Especially when that guy is Donald Trump, and what he's doing is running the same party playbook you have for the last few decades — just louder, and dumber, and with fewer limits than a trust-fund kid in a fully insured rental car. Attacking Trump on the merits, as fellow Republicans are doing, takes massive, King Kong levels of brass — not just because Trump will keep raising the stakes in response, but because that kind of attack would be the biggest "WHY ARE YOU HITTING YOURSELF???" moment in GOP history.

Sure, Lindsey Graham and Rick Perry have some brass, but that's just a symptom of a worse condition. Graham called Trump a jackass because he has a case of the vapors. First, Trump smeared John McCain, Graham's heterosexual life partner in Mideast carpet bombing. Second, in some polls, Graham is registering at 0.0 percent. Factoring in the margin of error, it's theoretically possible that Graham's appeal is so low that some people might choose to die instead of voting for him. At this point, the best he can do is lay down suppressing fire for the future nominee and hope that, when they break through to the presidency, they make him Secretary of Forever War.

As for Perry, well, he's also in danger of not polling well enough to join the grownups at the first GOP debate. Fox has decided that only those in the top-ten of poll results will take the main stage; everyone else has to sit at the kid's table, and he's in danger of being sandwiched there between Graham and Carly Fiorina, listening to George Pataki explaining that he's pro-choice. Talk about the winner's circle! Beyond that, all anyone knows about the guy is that he was on drugs during the 2012 primary, he wanted to eliminate three departments of the federal government so badly that he could only remember the names of two of them, and he got booed for saying it would be heartless not to offer in-state college tuition rates for children of undocumented immigrants in Texas. So attacking Trump with statements Perry clearly didn't write himself only garners favorable writeups in blogs and maybe some screen time on Fox to bump those numbers. Besides, Trump attacked him for being soft on the border, then copped a lot of Perry's old rhetoric about it. Again, attacking a guy for doin' what you did.

Meanwhile, every other candidate is taking the safest shots at Trump possible, for multiple reasons. The first and most obvious is that, if or when Trump flames out, they want to be able to snatch up his supporters. There's no reason to alienate them now if you believe you can get away with minor harrumphing about Trump while waiting for him to fizzle.

But the less obvious and more fundamental problem can be seen in the candidates' responses to Trump's accusations that Latin American immigrants are dumb, poor and/or rapists. As I explained elsewhere in more detail, essentially all of them have made variations on hysterical, nativist cracks about immigrants. This is an attitude so bone deep in the Republican Party that it is now nearly indivisible from it.

It's a mistake to think that Trump represents a horrifying new departure in tone. Just a few years ago, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer claimed that "illegals" were leaving severed heads in the desert. "America's Sheriff" Joe Arpaio (who joined Trump in birther conspiracy) has made a career of humiliating immigrants and leveraging his extreme tactics into national stardom. You probably can't spit in a Southwestern legislature without hitting a Republican who's had a picture taken with Joe. Likewise, it probably wouldn't take many loogies in the same houses of governance to find a Republican who's praised the "Minutemen" — white nativist yahoos who "patrol" the border with machine guns and trucks and less military discipline than the technicals they probably aren't smart enough to realize they look like (but less expensive and effective). And if you want to talk eliminationism, Steve Scalise, the third highest ranking member of the House GOP leadership went to a convention organized by neo-Nazi and former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke. When the Republican leadership found out, they did nothing.

Remember when Ebola was maybe coming from Mexico and Obama didn't care? And then ISIS was coming from Mexico, and Obama also didn't care, but then it turned out the "Muslim prayer rug" found at the border was an Adidas shirt? Trump isn't going off-script; he's just playing Mad Libs with the script.

If not immigration, what can the other candidates condemn Donald Trump for? Fiscal indiscipline via the multiple bankruptcies his enterprises have suffered? That'll be rich coming from the folks who kept mum from 2001 to 2009. Bobby Jindal cratered his state. Scott Walker can only balance budgets by breaking promises and using fuzzy accounting, defunding the state university system by $250 million, then handing $250 million to the Milwaukee Bucks, one of whose co-owners now works for him. I could go on, but the point is that these people plan to get revenues in order by ramping up defense spending and pairing that with tax cuts.

Speaking of which, they could accuse Trump of being a foreign policy lightweight. Though, again, Scott Walker. Or they could point to the fact that Walker, Cruz, Rubio and Bush's rhetoric about China, Russia, Iran and Islam in general would pit the United States on a war footing with about two billion people on day one.

And speaking of day one: Walker and Rubio want to rescind the current Iran deal, with the idea that they can then re-impose sanctions on Iran to bring it to its knees. This ignores that the sanctions will only work if the rest of the UN Security Council and the EU go along with it; but they just agreed to lift them, so no. If nonexistent sanctions don't work to get Iran back to a bargaining table that we just set on fire after years of evidently meaningless negotiation, it's bombs away! It's impossible to turn around and assert that Trump's belief that The Art of the Deal will help him understand Vladimir Putin sounds dumber than this.

Where else can they even hit Trump? They could attack him for insisting that old people have health care and some kind of safety net, but he's only making explicit the terms of the stage farce the rest of the candidates enact when they scream, "WE MUST OVERHAUL SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE," before whispering down at the footlights, "for everyone but the current generation of retirees and soon-to-be retirees." They're still talking to the same old people. 

There's also his endless self-promotion; for instance, they could hit him for making tacky ads hocking steaks. But have you looked at any campaign website's merchandise page? Try Rand Paul's: There are Rand Paul beer koozies and steins, a "Don't drone me, bro!" shirt, sandals, wineglasses, something called "Hillary's Hard Drive" (which sells for $95), "freedom socks" and a $1,000 autographed copy of the Constitution. And there is zero dignity in campaign ads. Here's Rand Paul chainsawing the tax code like some asshole version of the video for Frank Black's "Headache." Hell, a huge part of movement conservatism is basically a direct-mail scam designed to get people's money for "victory at the polls" and "influence in Washington" and "gold that can get them through the apocalypse."

But what really blows the GOP 2016 primary apart is something called Worthington's Law, which states that "more money = better than." The Republican Party has spent so many decades asserting the inerrant truth of financial social darwinism that Donald Trump is immediately the most important, smartest, wisest and best man for America out of all of them. If he weren't, how did he make all that money? My god, just think of all the jobs he's created via golf courses, casinos, exclusive USDA Prime Angus steakcraft, mattress sales, TV production and hotels. And what can they claim? Scott Walker's basically a career government sponge. Marco Rubio's cup of coffee in the private sector was a political favor, before he became a government sponge aided by a conservative sugar daddy. Ted Cruz was a lawyer and a government sponge. Jeb Bush? Ahahahaha, you didn't build that.

Even the other candidates' appeals to taste and professionalism fall flat. You can't argue Donald Trump shouldn't be making policy just because he's rich when you've pushed for and won the complete gutting of the campaign finance system so rich people can write "FOR ZERO DERIVATIVES REGULATION" in the memo of a massive check. This is the system working. How is Trump any less qualified to determine policy than Sheldon Adelson, who may have mob ties in China, who likes to quash marijuana referenda to keep people away from vices that aren't gambling, and who dictates our position on Israel? How is Trump less qualified to talk about abortion than ten-gallon shithead Foster Friess? Why is his money dirtier than the Kochs, whose exploding pipelines kill people? Hell, if anything, his candidacy cuts out the middleman. My god, think of the savings.

At best, his opponents can claim that his outrageousness is a liability in the longterm, but their rabid purity testing of candidates has made it go gangbusters this primary season. The greatest execration from right-wing media and the grassroots is RINO (Republican in name only), which — beyond tax loathing, Reagan pandering and uterine hostility — often amounts to little more than a test of how much a candidate is willing to sound like an asshole, and, dear lord, the man is transcendent in this regard. This guy is trolling on at least two other levels simultaneously, and we will never stop watching. Trump could start handing out money to hecklers only to fire them in front of crowds. He might actually buy a local business at a campaign stop just because he's bored. And while we're at it, picture this, somewhere in the middle of Iowa: 

This is what I'm saying: I'm always saying to people, "No one appreciates the farmers." And you're great! No, really, you're great! I love you. I always said, if I couldn't make it in big business, and I have, I'm very successful, I'm very very rich — but if I couldn't, I would have loved to be a farmer. That's probably why I build the Trump National Doral and the magnificent Trump International Turnberry, which I own, which are both extremely beautiful and exclusive courses. But it's the farmer thing, you know. It's the farmer thing! Because I wanted to grow something very very beautiful and world class. But here's the thing, [pointing to tractor] we have to do something about these mowers, because these are not in good shape. But don't worry, I have a mower guy. He's very very good, he handles all my mowers. We're going to get you some mowers, and I know everyone will love them.

We have to enjoy that kind of lunacy, because the underlying revelation is just too depressing — that all his antics and bloviation aside, Trump is the dark heart of the Republican Party in Carrara marble and brass. There's a begged question involved in discussing whether Trump's presence at the top of the GOP field and the first debate is an assault on the dignity of the GOP primary process; it's the presumption that there is something left unprofaned. But nothing about Trump is new. His brutish, demonizing nativism merely echoes the last decade's virulence and traces its roots to the "othering" aspects of the Southern Strategy. His twinned aggression and ignorance of foreign policy joins a proud tradition that started sometime around the moment the first conservative hijacked the Dolchstoßlegende to show how "liberals" lost us Vietnam after they lost us Cuba, China, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and — fuck it, why not? — Iran. Donald Trump is going to make us great and strong again without it costing a thing, just like the Eighties and the 2000s. His crass merchandizing and hucksterism falls right in with movement conservatism's direct-mail history, and his claims to innate wisdom superiority as a wealthy dealmaker can be traced from the Gilded Age right up to Citizens United. And the convenient thing about sounding the same is that both Trump and the other GOP candidates can issue a nearly identical press release screaming about the bigoted "liberal media cabal's" wildly distorted likening of the two by swapping the order of the proper nouns.

Donald Trump isn't movement conservatism malfunctioning. He's what happens after five decades of it working. It's gonna take a lot of brass for GOP candidates to attack the thing they made.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 Next > End >>

Page 2392 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN