RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | Are Cell Phones Changing the Narrative on Police Shootings? Print
Friday, 10 April 2015 10:41

Taibbi writes: "Former North Charleston police officer Michael Slager has already been fired and charged for the murder of Walter Scott."

Matt Taibbi. (photo: Christopher Anderson/Magnum Photos/New York Magazine)
Matt Taibbi. (photo: Christopher Anderson/Magnum Photos/New York Magazine)


Are Cell Phones Changing the Narrative on Police Shootings?

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

10 April 15

 

Thank God for the video in the Scott case, but cell phones aren't everywhere yet

lmost everyone's seen the video. The latest murder of an unarmed African-American man by police was captured in its entirety by a bystander named Feidin Santana, and the footage was so gruesome it basically precluded any controversy.

Former North Charleston police officer Michael Slager has already been fired and charged for the murder of Walter Scott. Still, one has to wonder: "Would this guy have gotten away with this without the video?"

Nonwhite America has watched police lie compulsively about incidents like this for as long as there have been police. You can open the law books and find cases like the Scott murder in almost any state of the union, in almost every year, going back decades and decades.

The only difference is that in the past, before everyone above the age of 2 had a cell phone, the insultingly lame explanations of the police ("The gun just went off"; "The suspect suddenly took a swing at me") were almost always swallowed whole, by juries and the media alike.

But even before cell phones became ubiquitous, the presumption that a police officer's testimony is sacrosanct started to die out. Public defenders in big cities long ago learned to deal with the frustration of police caught lying on the stand who were allowed to continue giving evidence in other cases.

Even judges, increasingly, aren't always buying the stories police officers give anymore, particularly when it comes to issues like probable cause. Earlier this year, a local defense attorney sent me a long list of cases, mostly here in New York, that involved judges ruling that police had fabricated testimony. It's clear even magistrates are losing patience.

Take People v. Andrews, for instance, in which a judge named Steven Knopf threw his figurative hands up in frustration over a police officer's changing descriptions of a "snowball" of cocaine he claimed to have seen a young black man throw into a Ford Focus. The story changed so many times that the judge had no choice but to toss the case.

"It is clear to this Court that [the] Police Officer's multiple descriptions. . .indicates he was unclear about what, if anything, he actually observed in this defendant's hand," the judge wrote. "In fact, it is this Court's belief that [the officer] did not see anything in the defendant's hand, in spite of his creative descriptive testimony."

The problem is that this kind of "testilying" is usually only caught when the officer's fabrications are so absurd and incompetent that judges literally have no choice but to suppress his or her evidence. Judges don't like showing up cops in court. There are even cases on record when judges admit out loud to being reluctant to discredit the testimony of police, no matter how clumsy their testimony.

"I don't like to jeopardize their career and all the rest of it," a federal judge named John Sprizzo said a few years back, after ruling that two cops had "tailored" their testimony to justify an illegal search.

Minus video, a defendant on the wrong side of a police fabrication typically has to hope the arresting officer is so dumb and such a maladroit liar that he leaves a judge no choice but to override his natural inclination to buy the testimony of a sworn officer. Those are pretty long odds.

Getting back to the Scott case, the presence of a cell phone clearly changed the game. Going forward, maybe innovations like body cameras will help change the national narrative about these incidents (although it's significant that when there is no video, like in the Michael Brown case, white people still tend to reflexively believe the police).

The thornier problem will be what will happen with the thousands of other, smaller incidents that involve questionable car stops or searches, where cases are generated based on police seeing suspects making "furtive movements," or "leaning" in the direction of an officer's gun, or suspiciously "loitering," or smelling the "strong odor of marijuana," etc. (Not sure what body electronics they can install to check that last sort of probable cause issue).

And there isn't always video to save the day in other my-word-against-his cases. Look at the recent research on chokehold allegations in New York.

According to a study done by the new chair of the Civilian Complaint Review Board, New Yorkers made 1,048 allegations of chokeholds against police over a five-year period, between 2009 and 2014. 

Of those, the CCRB substantiated the allegations – meaning they found a preponderance of evidence of police misconduct – in just 10 of those cases. As one attorney put it to me, "Historically, if there's no video, they just don't substantiate."

And when Phillip Eure, the newly-appointed Inspector General of the NYPD, looked at those 10 cases, he found something amazing. There was virtually no discipline for any of the officers involved, even in that tiny sliver of "substantiated" abuses. This is from the Daily News report on Eure's study:

In all 10 cases the NYPD ignored CCRB's suggested punishment. In nine of the cases, CCRB recommended the toughest sanction possible, departmental charges. In every case the cop got lesser punishment ranging from no punishment at all to the loss of five vacation days.

North Charleston resident Feidin Santana is rightly being praised for having the presence of mind (and the backbone) to take the cell phone video of Slager's murder of Scott, but as the Eure study and others show, there won't always be a Santana on hand, particularly for the less serious cases.

One other often-overlooked issue is the problem of the police who fail to help victims after the fact. In the Scott case, the police appeared to have lied about administering CPR to him while he lay on the ground bleeding to death. As Vanity Fair put it:

While the police report on the incident indicates that officers performed C.P.R. on Scott, the video footage the Times reviewed and posted does not show any of the three officers who were eventually on the scene administering C.P.R. to Scott, who is face-down, hands cuffed behind his bloodied back.

This is one of the many consistent themes to a lot of these police-abuse stories. In so many incidents, even the nearby officers who didn't administer the deadly force originally are discovered later on to have not helped or made real efforts to save the victim.

We heard about that in the Akai Gurley shooting case in East New York, where the two officers involved reportedly texted their union reps before calling for help for Gurley.

And then of course there was the Eric Garner case, where a multitude of officers stood around with hands on hips while Garner said "I can't breathe" 11 times. (And though of course no one knows for sure, it's likely that many of those officers now have immunity after testifying before a grand jury). What about criminal responsibility for refusing medical aid, or, worse, lying about refusing medical aid?

That's what's worrisome about this case. Slager will be painted as the bad apple and he'll have the book thrown at him. But the institutional response didn't come around until the video surfaced. Which should make even doubters wonder how often the authorities lie and get away with it.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Netanyahu Slips, Reveals Reason for Opposition to Iran Deal Print
Friday, 10 April 2015 08:23

Cole writes: "US television news isn't very good and it has clearly gotten worse over the past 20 years."

Benjamin Netanyahu. (photo: AP)
Benjamin Netanyahu. (photo: AP)


Netanyahu Slips, Reveals Reason for Opposition to Iran Deal

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

10 April 15

 

S television news isn’t very good and it has clearly gotten worse over the past 20 years. In the aftermath of the Kerry-Zarif initial framework deal on nuclear energy in Iran, it seems obvious that an interview with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif would be newsworthy. But to my knowledge none of the networks or major cable news shows had him on.

Or you could have talked to the British, French, German, Russian or Chinese foreign ministers, all of whom were principals and all of whom would have had interesting insights.

Instead, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was given repeated access to millions of Americans to talk trash about the deal over the weekend and to make mostly false allegations about its contours. Israel is a small country of 8 million with a gross domestic product in the range of Portugal. Netanyahu isn’t a party to the deal. He doesn’t have more riding on it than Britain or France. Israel isn’t even threatened by Iran, since Israel has several hundred nuclear weapons and submarines to deliver them. Iran has only old, conventional weapons. Even if it someday had a nuclear weapon, which its leaders say would be un-Islamic and that they don’t want it, Israel has a powerful deterrent.

So what is really going on? Netanyahu let it slip in an interview on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday:

“Secondly, Iran is going to have sanctions lifted, including crippling sanctions, pretty much up front. And that’s going to have billions and billions of dollars flow into the Iranian coffers, not for schools or hospitals or roads, but to pump up Iran’s terror machine throughout the world.

And it’s a military machine that’s now engaged in conquest throughout the world in Iraq and Syria and Yemen, around the borders of Israel elsewhere.”

In other words, Netanyahu wants to keep Iran poor and undeveloped. He wants to make sure that “crippling” sanctions aren’t lifted. He wants to keep Iranians in grinding poverty.

Is it true that the Iranian state would not spend the money that it garnered through a lifting of sanctions on schools or hospitals?

Look, I am no fan of the Islamic Republic or its system of government or its censorship and authoritarianism. But let us say that Netanyahu, in standing for permanent military rule over 4 million stateless Palestinians, and in launching disproportionate military campaigns with disregard for non-combatant life, is not obviously superior.

And, as far as social spending goes, Iran is in principal as progressive as Israel, though not as rich per capita. The Iranian state has built enormous numbers of schools since 1979, especially in rural areas, and [pdf] has brought literacy among the over-15 population from 65% in 1990 to 90% today. In the 15-25 age group, literacy is fully 98% and there are nearly 4 million university students. Iran has done better in educating its women than most other Middle Eastern countries, and a majority of Iranian college students is women.

Data covering the increase in literacy within international women from 1970-2000. (photo: Informed Comment)
Data covering the increase in literacy within international women from 1970-2000.
(photo: Informed Comment)

Literacy rates were low in the 1970s and relatively few Iranians went to university then. You can’t produce an impressive change in literacy that way without investing substantially in schools.

The crippling sanctions on Iran that make Netanyahu’s mouth water so much have badly hurt the 60,000 Iranian students studying abroad, making it difficult for them to transfer money and causing the value of the riyal to plummet. Those students are not politicians and ought not to have their futures held hostage to geopolitics.

As for health care, Iran has universal health care, unlike the USA, and it is mandated in the Iranian constitution. The Islamic Republic has spent substantial sums making it more available to the population, including in previously neglected rural areas. Crippling sanctions over the long term would certainly pose severe health risks to ordinary Iranians.

So it simply is not true that the Iranian state does not spend on schools and hospitals, as Netanyahu alleged. His purpose in making this false claim is to deflect an obvious critique of “crippling” sanctions, which is that they harm ordinary people, not just the state.

His allegation that an Iranian commander pledged to destroy Israel is unlikely to be true. The Iranian leadership doesn’t like Israel, but they have a no first strike policy and don’t have the slightest intention of attacking anyone with conventional military forces. Iran is too far away to attack Israel and it would be madness to strike at a nuclear power. Typically Iranians say things like “the Occupation regime must end,” and people like Netanyahu interpret that to be a threat to roll tanks (Iran has actually made no such threats, whatever you have been told).

As for his charge that Iran is using its oil money to spread terrorism or conquer the Middle East, this claim is mostly also for the most part not true. Netanyahu counts a national liberation organization that fought Israeli occupation such as Lebanon’s Hizbullah as a “terrorist organization.” What he really means is that it interfered with Israel annexing 10% of its neighbor Lebanon’s territory (which it held 1982-2000). He counts Iran’s help to Iraq in fighting Daesh (ISIL or ISIS) as a “conquest” of Iraq! in all this verbiage, the major legitimate knock against Iran with regard to its foreign activities is that Iran has helped the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria to survive, something it has done through odious practices such as barrel-bombing its own population. But Netanyahu doesn’t even say anything about that except to complain that Iran is active near Israeli borders with Syria.

“Crippling” sanctions haven’t in any case stopped Iran from arming Hizbullah and there is no reason to think they ever will. Moreover, given the weakness of the Lebanese military, someone needs to keep the Israelis from trying to annex Lebanese territory again.

Netanyahu has showed his hand. He wants to use the USA and the Treasury Department to sanction Iran into penury, to keep its middle classes small and shrinking and to cut people’s income, education and health care. He wants a total war on Iran, including on Iranian women, children and non-combatants. It isn’t a plausible aspiration, and it isn’t a worthy one.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Poll: Americans Starting to Worry About Climate Change Now That It Affects Their Lawns Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Thursday, 09 April 2015 13:13

Borowitz writes: "A new poll shows that Americans who were unconcerned about climate change as it wreaked havoc around the world are beginning to worry, now that global warming is affecting the appearance of their lawns."

A Lawn in need of rain. (photo: Maureen Sullivan/Getty)
A Lawn in need of rain. (photo: Maureen Sullivan/Getty)


Poll: Americans Starting to Worry About Climate Change Now That It Affects Their Lawns

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

09 April 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."


new poll shows that Americans who were unconcerned about climate change as it wreaked havoc around the world are beginning to worry, now that global warming is affecting the appearance of their lawns.

According to the poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, rising sea levels, the destruction of habitats, and catastrophic weather conditions, such as hurricanes and tsunamis, have not served as the wake-up call to Americans that their lawns’ unsightly barrenness has.

In interviews across the state of California, residents expressed anger and outrage that climate change had been allowed to worsen to the point that it has now severely limited their choice of ground cover, shrubs, and other decorative plantings.

“We are being forced to create a front lawn out of stones and, yes, cacti,” said Harland Dorrinson, a resident of suburban Sacramento. “I’m not sure that this is a world I would want to leave to my children.”

“Right now we’re looking at a situation where we have to choose between saving our climbing hydrangeas or our roses,” said Tracy Klugian, of San Diego. “We are no longer living like humans.”

Carol Foyler, a San Mateo resident who has watched her lawn turn from a gorgeous green to a hideous brown during California’s drought, said she blamed scientists “for failing to warn us of the true cost of climate change.”

“They always said that polar bears would starve to death,” she said. “But they never told us our lawns would look like crap.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
We Can't End Rape Stigma by Forcing All Victims to Identify Themselves Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=30488"><span class="small">Jessica Valenti, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Thursday, 09 April 2015 13:05

"It's not anonymity that perpetuates stigma - rape culture does. And more so than protecting victims from the amorphous idea of 'stigma', anonymity in the media protects them from the very tangible - and often horrible - ramifications of coming forward."

 (photo: Robin Beckham Beepstock/Alamy)
(photo: Robin Beckham Beepstock/Alamy)


We Can't End Rape Stigma by Forcing All Victims to Identify Themselves

By Jessica Valenti, Guardian UK

09 April 15

 

ALSO SEE: Why Rape Victims Don't Want to Give Reporters the Names of Their Attackers


Rape victims who share their stories and names are indisputably brave – but they shouldn’t have to be if they don’t want to

n a perfect world, there would be no stigma to being a victim of sexual violence. Sexual assault survivors could come forward and talk about their stories without fear of retribution, shaming or harassment. Reporters could print the names of those assaulted, knowing that the victims’ safety would remain intact.

But we do not live in a perfect – or even near-perfect – world. And if we want rape victims to be able to tell their stories in the media, we must protect their anonymity.

In the wake of Rolling Stone’s retraction of and non-apology for a 2014 article about an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia, the question of how reporters should handle stories about sexual violence has provoked some fruitful discussions about how to balance empathy with rigorous reporting or that the rules of Journalism 101 still apply, for example.

But one misguided suggestion to come out of the discussion about rape, reporting and responsibility is that journalists should only publish stories in which the rape survivor agrees to be named. Sonali Kohli at Quartz, for instance, argued that “there is something patriarchal and counterproductive to the idea that sexual assault is presumed to be shameful for the survivor.”

As in previous, ill-informed arguments about removing any anonymity for rape victims in the media, Kohli suggests that removing anonymity from victims will also remove from victims the stigma perpetuated by their anonymity.

But it’s not anonymity that perpetuates stigma – rape culture does. And more so than protecting victims from the amorphous idea of “stigma”, anonymity in the media protects them from the very tangible – and often horrible – ramifications of coming forward.

People who have been sexually assaulted are frequently the targets of extreme victim-blaming, smear-campaigns and harassment, to the point where some survivors of sexual violence have taken their own lives.

The young teeanger at the center of a rape case in Maryville, Missouri, for example, came forward in 2013 just to be harassed out of town. Her house burned down under mysterious circumstances and she attempted suicide. This is not to say that anyone who comes forward will face a lifetime of horror, but the decision to come forward can only be made by the person most impacted: the survivor.

Kohli posits that writing about survivors who are willing to be named “can encourage other women to be open as well.” Rape victims who share their stories and names are indisputably brave – but they shouldn’t have to be if they don’t want to. And if we only write about the people who are willing to have their first Google result be their sexual assault (or the personal attacks they face because of their honesty), then the only stories we’ll hear are those from “perfect victims.”

Without anonymity or pseudonymity, the people most likely to be public about their rape will be those with social and family supports in place, those who reported the crime to law enforcement, and those whose reputations and private lives can withstand very public and hostile scrutiny.

What if a sex worker is raped? Do we really think that she should chance arrest by talking openly to a reporter? Should writers ignore the rapes of undocumented immigrants and other people whose safety or freedom would be at risk if they came forward?

Rather than ensuring a more full picture of sexual assault, mandating named rape survivors in the media will mean a skewed understanding of the breadth of sexual violence and a much more narrow picture of what rape really looks like.

There is a reason that reporters protect the name of rape victims, and there is a reason that anti-violence organizations come up with comprehensive media kits to help journalists fairly report their stories while protecting survivors. It’s because we want to to do the right thing – not just for those who have been attacked, but for journalism. And until that perfect world arrives in which being open about being a victim of sexual violence isn’t essentially an invitation for harassment and worse, anonymity is the right thing to provide to the survivors who want or need it.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29455"><span class="small">Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept</span></a>   
Thursday, 09 April 2015 11:38

Greenwald writes: "John Oliver’s Monday night interview of Edward Snowden — which in 24 hours has been viewed by 3 million people on YouTube alone - renewed all the standard attacks in Democratic circles accusing Snowden of being a traitor in cahoots with the Kremlin."

Martin Luther King Jr. (photo: unknown)
Martin Luther King Jr. (photo: unknown)


Political Smears Never Change: NYT’s 1967 Attack on MLK’s Anti-War Speech

By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept

09 April 15

 

ohn Oliver’s Monday night interview of Edward Snowden — which in 24 hours has been viewed by 3 million people on YouTube alone — renewed all the standard attacks in Democratic circles accusing Snowden of being a traitor in cahoots with the Kremlin. What’s most striking about this — aside from the utter lack of evidence for any of it — is how identical it is to what Nixon officials said to smear the last generation’s greatest whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg (who is widely regarded by Democrats as a hero because his leak occurred with a Republican in the White House). As The New York Times reported in August 1973:

An ezcerpt from an article by The New York Times in 1973. (photo: The Intercept)

An excerpt from an article by The New York Times in 1973. (photo: The Intercept)

As the Freedom of the Press Foundation recently noted: in December 1973, The NYT described the origins of Nixon’s “Plumbers Unit” and detailed how much of it was motivated by the innuendo spread by Henry Kissinger that Ellsberg was a covert Soviet operative:

An ezcerpt from an article by The New York Times in 1973. (photo: The Intercept)

An excerpt from an article by The New York Times in 1973. (photo: The Intercept)

I defy anyone to listen to any Democratic apparatchik insinuate that Snowden is a Russian agent and identify any differences with how Nixon apparatchiks smeared Ellsberg (or, for that matter, how today’s warnings from Obama officials about the grave harm coming from leaks differ from the warnings issued by Bush and Nixon officials). The script for smearing never changes — it stays constant over five decades and through the establishments of both parties — and it’s one of the reasons Ellsberg so closely identifies with Snowden and has become one of his most vocal defenders.

A reader this morning pointed me to one of the most illustrative examples of this dynamic: an April 1967 New York Times editorial harshly chastising Martin Luther King for his anti-war activism. That editorial was published three days after King’s speech on the Vietnam War at the Riverside Church in New York City, which, as I have written about many times, was one of the most powerful (and radical) indictments of American militarism delivered in the 20th century.

Among other things, King denounced the U.S. government as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” as well as the leading exponent of “the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long.” He said “the war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit.” And he argued that no significant American problem can be cured as long as the country remains an aggressive and violent actor in the world: “if America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over.”

An ezcerpt from an article by The New York Times in 1967. (photo: The Intercept)

An excerpt from an article by The New York Times in 1967. (photo: The Intercept)

The attack of the NYT editors on King for that speech is strikingly familiar, because it’s completely identical to how anti-war advocates in the U.S. are maligned today. It begins by lecturing King that his condemnation of U.S. militarism is far too simplistic: “the moral issues in Vietnam are less clear cut than he suggests.” It accuses him of “slandering” the U.S. by comparing it to evil regimes. And it warns him that anti-war activism could destroy the civil rights movement, because he is guilty of overstating American culpability and downplaying those of its enemies:

Documentation on the civil rights movement. (photo: The Intercept)

Documentation on the civil rights movement. (photo: The Intercept)

That has every element of the standard Washington attack on contemporary anti-war advocates: condemnation of U.S. militarism is “overly-simplistic,” ignores complexities and nuances, “slanders” our government leaders and military officials, and downplays or “whitewashes” the crimes of America’s enemies. It’s worth remembering that Washington smear merchants never change their script: they haul the same ones out regardless of the issue or who is doing the dissenting.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2501 2502 2503 2504 2505 2506 2507 2508 2509 2510 Next > End >>

Page 2502 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