RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | Al-Sadr: Russia, America and al-Assad Should All Get out of Syria! Print
Sunday, 09 April 2017 12:10

Cole writes: "Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on Saturday issued a broadside demanding that Russia and the United States withdraw from Syria and that strongman Bashar al-Assad resign as president."

Muqtada al-Sadr. (photo: Getty Images)
Muqtada al-Sadr. (photo: Getty Images)


Al-Sadr: Russia, America and al-Assad Should All Get out of Syria!

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

09 April 17

 

raqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on Saturday issued a broadside demanding that Russia and the United States withdraw from Syria and that strongman Bashar al-Assad resign as president.

Al-Sadr’s stand against al-Assad is unusual among Shiite movements. The Lebanese Shiite militia, Hizbullah, has entered Syria to battle for al-Assad’s survival. Iran is also strongly backing him. Other Iraqi Shiite militias, such as the League of the Righteous, have sent units to support the al-Assad regime, for instance in the battle for Aleppo. Contrary to what some allege, the Twelver Shiite groups are not very likely to be supporting al-Assad because he has an Alawite Shiite heritage. Alawites are not considered orthodox Muslims by the Twelver Shiites. Rather, there are two reasons for their support. Hizbullah and Iran need Syria to be in friendly hands if Iran is to continue to resupply Hizbullah with munitions for defense of South Lebanon from Israel. Second, al-Assad has configured himself as fighting a wave of Sunni extremism that threatens both secularists and the region’s Shiites.

Al-Sadr, who has long been considered quirky by other Iraqi leaders, began by calling on US President Donald J. Trump to stop going to excess in taking frivolous and thoughtless positions and decisions. He said Trump’s flakiness not only damages the US but also the world community. He warned that a heavy US intervention in Syria could turn into a Vietnam-style quagmire for Washington. Nor did al-Sadr see how Trump could bombard civilians to death in Mosul and then turn around and condemn the Syrian government for its killing of civilians (admittedly by horrific gas).

He also doubted that the US could accomplish anything positive in Syria. After all, he said, the Americans announced that they would help roll up ISIL in Iraq years ago, but ISIL is still there.

Al-Sadr asked, “Wasn’t enough for Syria that all sorts of internal and external actors were interfering in the country, such that the US should now initiate a negative role there, as well? The only one harmed by that,” he said, “is the Syrian people.”

Al-Sadr added, “I wouldn’t rule out that Trump’s decision to strike Syria will permit Daesh (ISIS, ISIL) to spread into other areas.” If the US wants to play the role of peacemaker and promoter of dialogue in conflict situations, he said, it can’t put off limits an honest broker role in Palestine, Burma, Bahrain, and so forth, where it sides heavily with one side against another.

Al-Sadr called on all parties to withdraw militarily from Syria and for the Syrian people to take charge, since it is the only legitimate actor that can determine its own destiny. Otherwise, only terrorism and occupation will benefit.

He specifically said Russia should also leave.

Al-Sadr went on to say “I find it fair that President Bashar al-Assad should tender his resignation and step down from power out of love for beloved Syria, so as to spare it the horrors of war and its domination by terrorists. He should give the reins of power to some popular and effective individuals who can stand against terrorism, so as to save Syrian territory as quickly as possible, so that his action can be lauded as historic and heroic, before it is too late…”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | In Syria: Clinton Calls for War, Trump Obliges, Both Blame Obama 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, 09 April 2017 10:46

Boardman writes: "Whatever really happened in Syria, the event has sparked a spasm of political response rooted more in emotion than anything resembling reality."

Donald Trump. (photo: Nigel Parry/CNN)
Donald Trump. (photo: Nigel Parry/CNN)


In Syria: Clinton Calls for War, Trump Obliges, Both Blame Obama

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

09 April 17

 

“Assad had an air force, and that air force is the cause of most of the civilian deaths, as we have seen over the years and as we saw again in the last few days. And I really believe that we should have and still should take out his airfields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop Sarin gas on them.”
Hillary Clinton at the Women in the World summit April 6, 2017

hat happened at dawn in the “rebel-held” town of Khan Sheikhoun in northwest Syria on April 4 remains in dispute, with little reliable evidence to support any version of events. Apparently indisputable is that whatever happened killed perhaps as many as 100 people and caused severe suffering to many more in a community of about 48,000, and that carnage was the result of chemical weapons dispersed by an airstrike. From there the versions of events diverge, usually according to the teller’s self-interests. Even the meaning of “rebel-held” is uncertain. As Deutsche Welle reported April 4: “Idlib province, where Khan Sheikhun is located, is mostly controlled by the Tahrir al-Sham alliance, which is dominated by the Fateh al-Sham Front, formerly known as the al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front.”

Let us stipulate, for the sake of maintaining focus, that the official Western version of the event is correct, and that it occurred very soon after the US government had announced that regime change in Syria was no longer a goal. Both the US secretary of state and the UN ambassador publicly said that it was no longer US policy to remove Syrian president Bashar al Assad as a precondition to a cease-fire. By what logic, then, does the Syrian air force launch a startling and deliberately provocative chemical weapons attack that could not go undetected and would surely push human rights buttons around the world? All but inexplicable, but it is the official version and it seems to be widely accepted with little serious skepticism.

Whatever really happened in Syria, the event has sparked a spasm of political response rooted more in emotion than anything resembling reality. On April 5, for example, President Trump responded ungrammatically, semi-coherently, maudlinly, and without any apparent need to know what actually happened:

It crossed a lot of lines for me. When you kill innocent children, innocent babies, babies, little babies, with a chemical gas that is so lethal—people were shocked to hear what gas it was—that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line. Many, many lines.

President Trump is not known for having great concern for any babies, much less dead babies killed with US participation in Mosul or all across Yemen (where the US helps starve children as well). But it’s nice that he can express the sentiment now, however insincerely and unconvincingly. He could have used the opportunity to offer humanitarian aid or to allow more Syrian babies into the US. But, like the good con he is, he moved without a beat to the snide “red line” reference that alludes to President Obama struggling with another Syrian attack in 2013, a time when Trump pleaded by tweet with the President not to bomb Syria: “President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save our ‘powder’ for another (and more important) day!”

The 2013 chemical weapons event in the Ghouta district of Damascus is widely misused these days to prove one point or its opposite, so it’s useful to remember what’s real about it. More than 1,400 people were killed in a rebel-held area. To this day there is no certainty as to who did it. President Obama indicated he favored a military response, but did not act impulsively. Public opposition (including Trump’s) to US military escalation in Syria grew, followed by Congressional opposition when the president sought authorization for the use of military force. Before Congress acted, the Russians brokered a deal under which Syria would give up its chemical weapons under international supervision (the deal did not include chlorine). Within a year a substantial amount of Syria’s chemical weapons had been destroyed, with no way to know if everything was gone. There was no inspection regime or other means to prevent Syria from redeveloping chemical weapons. According to the United Nations, the Syrian government, rebel groups, and ISIS all have used chemical weapons on multiple occasions since 2014, almost always without provoking international notice.

Likewise, the US has been using chemical weapons in the region for decades, also without provoking much notice. The US chemical weapon of preference is depleted uranium (DU), which lacks the ability to create dramatic video of dying and dead babies, but does manage to leave a radioactive residue that promotes childbirth deformities and cancer in all ages for generations. The US continues to use DU weapons in the region, at least in attacks on ISIS. Tomahawk missiles, a Raytheon profit center, have long been suspected of delivering a DU payload. So President Trump’s loosing of 59 Tomahawk missiles on Al Shayrat Airfield was answering a chemical weapons attack with a chemical weapons attack. And an act of war against a sovereign nation. And a war crime.

The US missile attack has received mostly bipartisan support in the US, as well as support from national leaders and cheerleading across much of the mainstream media. “America is back,” crowed Charles Krauthammer on Fox. On MSNBC, Brian Williams called the missile launches “beautiful” without apparent irony. Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer called it “the right thing to do“ and House Democrat Nancy Pelosi called it “a proportional response.” But both hedged on approving further military action without Congressional involvement (not that Democrats can have much influence).

“I believe we have a restoration of American moral clarity,” claimed Scott Jennings, former aide to President Bush and Sen. Mitch McConnell: “We now have a president who’s willing to act when it’s in our best interests and when it’s in the best interests of the world, to stop a genocidal mad man, which Bashar Al Assad certainly is.” Today, for Jennings, Assad is a “genocidal madman” in charge of Syria, but what was Syria in 1991 when the Syrian Air Force helped the first President Bush bomb Iraq? And what was Syria around 2006, when it helped the second President Bush outsource torture to Syrian facilities that were happy to do things Americans were too squeamish to do?

Within a week, US policy on Syria shifted 180 degrees away from regime change, only to complete the full 360 to an act of war, all in reaction to an event that had no great military, political, or philosophical importance. The killing at Khan Sheikhoun was an atrocity, with accompanying emotional impact magnified by social media, but far from any sort of serious threat to US national security (despite President Trump’s claim to the contrary).

Phyllis Bennis on Democracy NOW! explored the oddness of the moment:

… now, suddenly, because of Trump’s emotional reaction to the deaths of these particular children… —the hypocrisy, the selective outrage, that this group of children somehow sparks the outrage that didn’t exist when children were slaughtered under U.S. bombs in Mosul, when children were killed trying to make the crossing with their parents to a United States that would not accept them, that was slamming a door in their face, and drowning on the beach as a result. You know, this is not about a strategy. This is about a lashing out. It may be tied to concerns about all the political ways that the Trump administration is losing support. That’s certainly part of it.

The Tomahawk attack is lethal political kabuki. Did anything really happen? There were media shows of rockets flying. The US warned the Russians who warned the Syrians so the missiles hit an almost abandoned airfield. How does that send a message of anything but wink-wink, non-nod to anyone? It gets a few people in Congress wound up, but the majority hasn’t cared since 2002 when they voted to give the president effectively unlimited war power. The four-minute missile attack was good for days if not weeks of empty media coverage, overwhelming the rest of the news.

The Syria strike took attention away from the Senate changing its rules to elect Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch with 54 votes (the fewest since Clarence Thomas, thanks only to three Democrats). And Syria also distracted attention from the Republican achievement of electing perhaps the first confirmed plagiarist to the Supreme Court. Politico reported on Gorsuch’s academic plagiarism, where he borrowed heavily from several authors for his 2006 book and an academic article—without citing their work. In one chapter in “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” Gorsuch lifted entire passages from an Indiana Law Journal article, with minor additions and changes to verb tenses. Syracuse University writing professor Rebecca Moore Howard told Politico, “Each of the individual incidents constitutes a violation of academic ethics. I’ve never seen a college plagiarism code that this would not be in violation of.”

That’s probably not the worst to be said about Gorsuch, whose judicial record is as heartless and merciless as a chemical weapons attack. It’s not a stretch to imagine that, over twenty or more years on the bench, Gorsuch will be responsible for killing more “helpless men, women and children” (in President Trump’s phrase) with a pen than Bashar al Assad can gas. And Gorsuch-style judicial killing is less obvious, messy, or public.

Mission accomplished?



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
 
Trump's Illegal Act of War Against Syria Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=38303"><span class="small">Ronnie Dugger, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 09 April 2017 08:16

Dugger writes: "Let's be clear. Thursday, in our names, President Trump committed an act of war firing 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria without authority from Congress and therefore without authority from us, the American people."

The guided-missile destroyer Porter launching a Tomahawk missile in the Mediterranean Sea. (photo: MC3 Ford Williams/U.S. Navy/AP)
The guided-missile destroyer Porter launching a Tomahawk missile in the Mediterranean Sea. (photo: MC3 Ford Williams/U.S. Navy/AP)


Trump's Illegal Act of War Against Syria

By Ronnie Dugger, Reader Supported News

09 April 17

 

et’s be clear.

Thursday, in our names, President Trump committed an act of war firing 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria without authority from Congress and therefore without authority from us, the American people.

Under the Constitution only Congress can declare war. Trump did not ask Congress for war or for authority to use our military forces against Syria.

By no stretch of sophistry does George W. Bush’s 2001 authorization from Congress to use our military force against Al Qaeda and associated terrorists have any defensible connection 16 years later to Trump’s bombing Syria during its civil war, which so far has killed 400,000 people.

Trump called his bombing “retaliation,” but in the atrocity he gave as his reason, Syrians, not Americans, were gassed, 85 dying, more than 500 sickened. As Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., said Friday, “the United States was not attacked.” Because of that and since there is no declaration of war or statutory authority for Trump’s act of war, he has also violated the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Trump ordered what he did as a military dictator, which he is not. His commanding generals, whose own rules of war require them to refuse to obey an illegal order, obeyed his illegal order illegally. If their crime of aggression now metastasizes into a multinational war, even World War III, all of that will be on all of us as an American war of aggression prohibited under international law since the end of World War II at Nuremberg.

With Congress, as scheduled, recessing the day after these bombings for two weeks, at the least members of Congress ought to demand publicly from their home areas that Trump and his generals confer with and obey Congress before committing any further acts of war on Syria. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont said Friday that Trump “must come to Congress to authorize any further use of force against the Assad regime.” Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader of the House, asked Speaker Paul Ryan to call members back into session to “debate any decision to place our men and women in uniform in harm’s way.”

Of course now Trump must stand ready to protect or withdraw our thousand or so troops in Syria if they come under attack after his bombing, and in the same meanwhile, Mr. President, if you do not call a special session on this, then until you consult with and hear from Congress, in respect for the people of the United States, stand back.

War criminal Assad’s hideous, brutal war crime, again exploding the weapon of mass murder, sarin poison gas, upon his own people, should be prosecuted by both the International Criminal Court and, at our country’s initiative, the United Nations. Let Russia use their UN veto to protect Assad’s mass murders if they dare.

Did Trump’s act of war while warning Syria’s war ally Russia in advance constitute what he dramatized Thursday night, or was his fear of being impeached over collusion with Russia a major or controlling motivation? There is much more that should be asked and said, because Trump’s high crime Thursday ordering an act of war is impeachable, as are:

  • his nakedly selfish refusal to place his assets in a blind trust as required by the Constitution;

  • his presidential libels from the White House uttered against President Obama and other citizens;

  • his violation of his constitutional duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed by his executive orders directing his subordinates to undercut or disregard a large number of our laws in force;

  • his calling out on national and world TV while a candidate that he welcomed it if Russia had hacked Hillary Clinton’s missing emails, and urging them to make them public if they had them, along with whatever else he and/or his agents may have been doing to help Russia suborn, in his favor, the U.S. election he was in —

  • and alas, whatever other high crimes and misdemeanors he may commit if and as his elephantine ego and what we might understand to be his mental moral illness continue to cause him to put himself first, ahead of the country he is the president of.

At this moment, though, fellow citizens, I believe we need to stop, think carefully about Trump, our lethal and obedient military, our nuclear weapons, our country, the world, and confer with our own emotions and values, and then we should refuse, refuse, to once again “rally around the president” and be manipulated into waging another aggression just a dozen years since we let George W. Bush lie us into invading Iraq and a still raging bloody war that we and the whole world so bitterly regret.



Ronnie Dugger, author of presidential biographies of Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan, books about Hiroshima and universities, and articles in The New York Times, The Nation, The Washington Post, Harper’s, The Atlantic, and many other periodicals, received the George Polk career award in journalism in 2012. Living now in Austin, he is writing a book about nuclear ethics and nuclear war. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

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
 
Jeff Sessions Wants to Bring Back the War on Drugs Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=17988"><span class="small">Sari Horwitz, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Sunday, 09 April 2017 08:14

Horwitz writes: "When the Obama administration launched a sweeping policy to reduce harsh prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, rave reviews came from across the political spectrum. Civil rights groups and the Koch brothers praised Obama for his efforts, saying he was making the criminal justice system more humane."

Jeff Sessions of Alabama. (photo: Hilary Swift/NYT)
Jeff Sessions of Alabama. (photo: Hilary Swift/NYT)


Jeff Sessions Wants to Bring Back the War on Drugs

By Sari Horwitz, The Washington Post

09 April 17

 

hen the Obama administration launched a sweeping policy to reduce harsh prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, rave reviews came from across the political spectrum. Civil rights groups and the Koch brothers praised Obama for his efforts, saying he was making the criminal justice system more humane.

But there was one person who watched these developments with some horror. Steven H. Cook, a former street cop who became a federal prosecutor based in Knoxville, Tenn., saw nothing wrong with how the system worked — not the life sentences for drug charges, not the huge growth of the prison population. And he went everywhere — Bill O’Reilly’s show on Fox News, congressional hearings, public panels — to spread a different gospel.

“The federal criminal justice system simply is not broken. In fact, it’s working exactly as designed,” Cook said at a criminal justice panel at The Washington Post last year.

The Obama administration largely ignored Cook, who was then president of the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys. But he won’t be overlooked anymore.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has brought Cook into his inner circle at the Justice Department, appointing him to be one of his top lieutenants to help undo the criminal justice policies of Obama and former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr. As Sessions has traveled to different cities to preach his tough-on-crime philosophy, Cook has been at his side.

Sessions has yet to announce specific policy changes, but Cook’s new perch speaks volumes about where the Justice Department is headed.

Law enforcement officials say that Sessions and Cook are preparing a plan to prosecute more drug and gun cases and pursue mandatory minimum sentences. The two men are eager to bring back the national crime strategy of the 1980s and ’90s from the peak of the drug war, an approach that had fallen out of favor in recent years as minority communities grappled with the effects of mass incarceration.

Crime is near historic lows in the United States, but Sessions says that the spike in homicides in several cities, including Chicago, is a harbinger of a “dangerous new trend” in America that requires a tough response.

“Our nation needs to say clearly once again that using drugs is bad,” Sessions said to law enforcement officials in a speech in Richmond last month. “It will destroy your life.”

Advocates of criminal justice reform argue that Sessions and Cook are going in the wrong direction — back to a strategy that tore apart families and sent low-level drug offenders, disproportionately minority citizens, to prison for long sentences.

“They are throwing decades of improved techniques and technologies out the window in favor of a failed approach,” said Kevin Ring, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM).

But Cook, whose views are supported by other federal prosecutors, sees himself as a dedicated assistant U.S. attorney who for years has tried to protect neighborhoods ravaged by crime. He has called FAMM and organizations like it “anti-law enforcement groups.”

The records of Cook and Sessions show that while others have grown eager in recent years to rework the criminal justice system, they have repeatedly fought to keep its toughest edges, including winning a battle in Congress last year to defeat a reform bill.

“If hard-line means that my focus is on protecting communities from violent felons and drug traffickers, then I’m guilty,” Cook said in a recent interview with The Post. “I don’t think that’s hard-line. I think that’s exactly what the American people expect of their Department of Justice.”

Tough on crime

When asked for a case that he was proud to work on during his three-decade career as a prosecutor, Cook points to when his office went after a crack ring operating in Chattanooga housing projects between 1989 and 1991.

This was during the height of the crack epidemic and the drug war. After the cocaine overdose of black basketball star Len Bias in 1986, Congress began passing “tough on crime” laws, including mandatory minimum sentences on certain drug and gun offenses. In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed one of the toughest-ever crime bills, which included a “three strikes” provision that gave mandatory life sentences for repeat offenders.

Federal prosecutors such as Cook applauded their “new tools” to get criminals off the street.

Cook said last year: “What we did, beginning in 1985, is put these laws to work. We started filling federal prisons with the worst of the worst. And what happened next is exactly what Congress said they wanted to happen — and that is violent crime began in 1991 to turn around. By 2014, we had cut it in half.”

To bring down the Chattanooga drug ring’s leader, Victor Novene, undercover federal agents purchased crack from Novene’s underlings. Prosecutors then threatened them with long prison sentences to “flip” them to give up information about their superiors.

Cook said in March: “We made buys from individuals who were lower in the organization. We used the mandatory minimums to pressure them to cooperate.”

Cook’s office also added gun charges to make sentences even longer, another popular tool among prosecutors seeking the longest possible punishments.

With the mandatory minimum sentences and firearms “enhancements,” Novene received six life sentences. Many of his lieutenants were sentenced to between 16 and 33 years in federal prison.

But sentencing reform advocates say the tough crime policies went too far. The nation began incarcerating people at a higher rate than any other country — jailing 25 percent of the world’s prisoners at a cost of $80 billion a year. The nation’s prison and jail population more than quadrupled from 500,000 in 1980 to 2.2 million in 2015, filled with mostly black men strapped with lengthy prison sentences — 10 or 20 years, sometimes life without parole for a first drug offense.

Obama, the first sitting president to visit a federal prison, launched an ambitious clemency initiative to release certain drug offenders from prison early. And Holder told his prosecutors, in an effort to make punishments more fairly fit the crime, to stop charging low-level nonviolent drug offenders with offenses that imposed severe mandatory sentences. He called his strategy, outlined in an August 2013 report, “Smart on Crime.”

Cook has called it “Soft on Crime” and said the Chattanooga case would have been much more difficult to make, “if possible at all,” in recent years.

“We were discouraged from using mandatory minimums,” Cook said about Holder’s 2013 charging and sentencing memo to prosecutors. “The charging memo handcuffed prosecutors. And it limited when enhancements can be used to increase penalties, an important leverage when you’re dealing with a career offender in getting them to cooperate.”

Cook has also dismissed the idea that there is such a thing as a nonviolent drug offender.

“Drug trafficking is inherently violent. Drug traffickers are dealing in a heavy cash business,” he said on the “O’Reilly Factor” last year. “They can’t resolve disputes in court. They resolve the disputes on the street, and they resolve them through violence.”

Winning on the Hill

Cook and Sessions have also fought the winds of change on Capitol Hill, where a bipartisan group of lawmakers recently tried but failed to pass the first significant bill on criminal justice reform in decades.

The legislation, which had 37 sponsors in the Senate, including Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), and 79 members of the House, would have reduced some of the long mandatory minimum sentences for gun and drug crimes. It also would have given judges more flexibility in drug sentencing and made retroactive the law that reduced the large disparity between sentencing for crack cocaine and powder cocaine.

The bill, introduced in 2015, had support from outside groups as diverse as the Koch brothers and the NAACP. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) supported it, as well.

But then people such as Sessions and Cook spoke up. The longtime Republican senator from Alabama became a leading opponent, citing the spike in crime in several cities.

“Violent crime and murders have increased across the country at almost alarming rates in some areas. Drug use and overdoses are occurring and dramatically increasing,” said Sessions, one of five members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who voted against the legislation. “It is against this backdrop that we are considering a bill .?.?. to cut prison sentences for drug traffickers and even other violent criminals, including those currently in federal prison.”

Cook testified that it was the “wrong time to weaken the last tools available to federal prosecutors and law enforcement agents.”

After GOP lawmakers became nervous about passing legislation that might seem soft on crime, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declined to bring the bill to the floor for a vote.

“Sessions was the main reason that bill didn’t pass,” said Inimai M. Chettiar, the director of the Justice Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “He came in at the last minute and really torpedoed the bipartisan effort.”

Now that he is attorney general, Sessions has signaled a new direction. As his first step, Sessions told his prosecutors in a memo last month to begin using “every tool we have” — language that evoked the strategy from the drug war of loading up charges to lengthen sentences.

And he quickly appointed Cook to be a senior official on the attorney general’s task force on crime reduction and public safety, which was created following a Trump executive order to address what the president has called “American carnage.”

“If there was a flickering candle of hope that remained for sentencing reform, Cook’s appointment was a fire hose,” said Ring, of FAMM. “There simply aren’t enough backhoes to build all the prisons it would take to realize Steve Cook’s vision for America.”

Sessions is also expected to take a harder line on the punishment for using and distributing marijuana, a drug he has long abhorred. His crime task force will review existing marijuana policy, according to a memo he wrote prosecutors last week. Using or distributing marijuana is illegal under federal law, which classifies it as a Schedule 1 drug, the same category as heroin, and considered more dangerous than cocaine and methamphetamine.

In his effort to resurrect the practices of the drug war, it is still unclear what Sessions will do about the wave of states that have legalized marijuana in recent years. Eight states and the District of Columbia now permit the recreational use of marijuana, and 28 states and the District have legalized the use of medical marijuana.

But his rhetoric against weed seems to get stronger with each speech. In Richmond, he cast doubt on the use of medical marijuana and said it “has been hyped, maybe too much.”

Sessions’s aides stress that the attorney general does not want to completely upend every aspect of criminal justice policy.

“We are not just sweeping away everything that has come before us.” said Robyn Thiemann, the deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Policy, who is working with Cook and has been at the Justice Department for nearly 20 years. “The attorney general recognizes that there is good work out there.”

Still, Sessions’s remarks on the road reveal his continued fascination with an earlier era of crime fighting.

In the speech in Richmond, he said, “Psychologically, politically, morally, we need to say — as Nancy Reagan said — ‘Just say no.’?”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Dangers of Distraction Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=40776"><span class="small">Dan Rather, Dan Rather's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Saturday, 08 April 2017 14:01

Rather writes: "A flurry of unfounded allegations clutter our news feeds. Susan Rice. Wiretapping of the Trump team by President Obama. The latest Fox News induced Twitter rant."

Dan Rather. (photo: USA TODAY)
Dan Rather. (photo: USA TODAY)


The Dangers of Distraction

By Dan Rather, Dan Rather's Facebook Page

08 April 17

 

flurry of unfounded allegations clutter our news feeds. Susan Rice. Wiretapping of the Trump team by President Obama. The latest Fox News induced Twitter rant.

The smoke machine is turned on. There's a trained monkey dancing in the corner. The magician is buckling his cufflinks. The misdirection meter is turned up full. We cannot let ourselves be distracted.

It is baseball season so perhaps the age-old admonition of youth coaches across the country is warranted. "Keep your eyes on the ball."

We know that Russia - led by a former KGB agent - actively worked to undermine our election. We know that there are serious investigations into collision between Trump associates and Russian operatives. That is the story. Everything else is just noise and dust until proven otherwise.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 Next > End >>

Page 1676 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