December 30, 2009 11:28 a.m.E-mail Print Share Text Size
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court has set down strict guidelines for when police officers may use Tasers.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that a Coronado, Calif., police officer used excessive force when he used his Taser on an unarmed, nonviolent suspect. The unanimous three-judge panel upheld a trial court's decision allowing the suspect, Carl Bryan, to pursue his lawsuit against the city, police department and officer.
The appeals court says police should use a Taser only in threatening situations because it inflicts more pain than other so-called nonlethal weapons at an officer's disposal.
Experts expect some police departments will have to change their Taser policies if the decision stands."
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Damn - Now we all have to take off our underwear to board a plane!!!!
Eugene Robinson - Air terrorism attempt reveals bigger 'system' failure - washingtonpost.com
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano's initial assessment of the Christmas Day airliner attack -- that "the system worked" -- doesn't quite match the absurdity of "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." But only because she quickly took it back.
A 'system' dangerously off course
A system that allows a man identified to U.S. officials as a potential threat -- by his own concerned father -- to board a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit with powerful explosives sewn into his underwear? That lets this man detonate his bomb as the plane prepares to land, igniting a potentially catastrophic fire? That depends on a young, athletic passenger to be seated nearby? That counts on this accidental hero to react quickly enough to thwart the terrorist's plans?
If that's how the system works, we need a new system.
Don't misunderstand. I'm not blaming the Obama administration for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's alleged terrorist attack, and it would be reprehensible for anyone to try to use the incident to score political points. The White House is guilty only of defensiveness in not immediately recognizing the obvious: We have a problem. Actually, we have two problems.
The first is that the incident reveals serious deficiencies in the "system" that Napolitano and others were so quick to defend. At this point, no one can doubt that civilian aviation remains a major target of al-Qaeda, affiliated groups and imitators. Most of us are under the impression that removing our shoes at the airport and limiting ourselves to those tiny, trial-size containers of toothpaste, shaving cream and lotion are enough to ensure a safe flight. For passengers on Northwest Flight 253, this was not the case.
One solution -- expensive and intrusive, but effective -- would be to make use of new airport screening technology mandatory. Either a "whole-body imaging" scanner, which gives a much more detailed picture than a regular metal detector, or a "sniffer" machine, which analyzes trace chemicals, would have been likely to detect the explosives that Abdulmutallab allegedly was carrying.
In this instance, however, the system seems to have malfunctioned well before Abdulmutallab reached Amsterdam's Schiphol airport. Abdulmutallab's father, wealthy Nigerian banker Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, had warned U.S. and Nigerian authorities about his son's increasing radicalization -- information that led U.S. officials to put Abdulmutallab's name in a database, along with 550,000 other names, but not to revoke his multiple-entry visa or keep him off a Detroit-bound jetliner.
It is an ordeal for anyone from the developing world to obtain a visa to enter the United States. We already turn away multitudes. It will be no small task, but the system needs to be re-engineered to let the right people in and keep the dangerous people out.
When Abdulmutallab allegedly set his lap on fire, there were no air marshals on board to handle the situation. I realize it is not possible to provide an armed federal escort for every flight. But whatever algorithm officials use to determine which flights get marshals evidently needs improvement.
The second problem we face is much bigger, and there is no real solution in sight.
According to reports of Abdulmutallab's statements to authorities after his arrest, he claims to have gotten the bomb -- and instruction on how and when to use it -- from al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen. As noted previously in this space, and illustrated by a sobering report Monday in The Post, Yemen features prominently in al-Qaeda's expansion plans. Abdulmutallab's story suggests that an infrastructure for indoctrination, training and bomb-making is already in place, and that this ambitious young branch of al-Qaeda is confident enough to launch an attack on what the George W. Bush administration infelicitously called the "homeland."
Our enemy apparently sees its future in places such as Yemen -- or perhaps Somalia, a failed state for almost two decades, where militant fundamentalist Islam is on the march. The enemy's leadership is believed to be ensconced in remote areas of Pakistan, beyond the government's reach. Yet the United States will soon have about 100,000 troops chasing shadows in Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda's presence is now minimal.
I understand and appreciate the fear that if the Taliban were to take power again, it could invite al-Qaeda back into Afghanistan to set up shop. But I can't escape the uneasy feeling that we're fighting, and escalating, the last war -- while the enemy fights the next one.
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano's initial assessment of the Christmas Day airliner attack -- that "the system worked" -- doesn't quite match the absurdity of "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." But only because she quickly took it back.
A 'system' dangerously off course
A system that allows a man identified to U.S. officials as a potential threat -- by his own concerned father -- to board a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit with powerful explosives sewn into his underwear? That lets this man detonate his bomb as the plane prepares to land, igniting a potentially catastrophic fire? That depends on a young, athletic passenger to be seated nearby? That counts on this accidental hero to react quickly enough to thwart the terrorist's plans?
If that's how the system works, we need a new system.
Don't misunderstand. I'm not blaming the Obama administration for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's alleged terrorist attack, and it would be reprehensible for anyone to try to use the incident to score political points. The White House is guilty only of defensiveness in not immediately recognizing the obvious: We have a problem. Actually, we have two problems.
The first is that the incident reveals serious deficiencies in the "system" that Napolitano and others were so quick to defend. At this point, no one can doubt that civilian aviation remains a major target of al-Qaeda, affiliated groups and imitators. Most of us are under the impression that removing our shoes at the airport and limiting ourselves to those tiny, trial-size containers of toothpaste, shaving cream and lotion are enough to ensure a safe flight. For passengers on Northwest Flight 253, this was not the case.
One solution -- expensive and intrusive, but effective -- would be to make use of new airport screening technology mandatory. Either a "whole-body imaging" scanner, which gives a much more detailed picture than a regular metal detector, or a "sniffer" machine, which analyzes trace chemicals, would have been likely to detect the explosives that Abdulmutallab allegedly was carrying.
In this instance, however, the system seems to have malfunctioned well before Abdulmutallab reached Amsterdam's Schiphol airport. Abdulmutallab's father, wealthy Nigerian banker Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, had warned U.S. and Nigerian authorities about his son's increasing radicalization -- information that led U.S. officials to put Abdulmutallab's name in a database, along with 550,000 other names, but not to revoke his multiple-entry visa or keep him off a Detroit-bound jetliner.
It is an ordeal for anyone from the developing world to obtain a visa to enter the United States. We already turn away multitudes. It will be no small task, but the system needs to be re-engineered to let the right people in and keep the dangerous people out.
When Abdulmutallab allegedly set his lap on fire, there were no air marshals on board to handle the situation. I realize it is not possible to provide an armed federal escort for every flight. But whatever algorithm officials use to determine which flights get marshals evidently needs improvement.
The second problem we face is much bigger, and there is no real solution in sight.
According to reports of Abdulmutallab's statements to authorities after his arrest, he claims to have gotten the bomb -- and instruction on how and when to use it -- from al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen. As noted previously in this space, and illustrated by a sobering report Monday in The Post, Yemen features prominently in al-Qaeda's expansion plans. Abdulmutallab's story suggests that an infrastructure for indoctrination, training and bomb-making is already in place, and that this ambitious young branch of al-Qaeda is confident enough to launch an attack on what the George W. Bush administration infelicitously called the "homeland."
Our enemy apparently sees its future in places such as Yemen -- or perhaps Somalia, a failed state for almost two decades, where militant fundamentalist Islam is on the march. The enemy's leadership is believed to be ensconced in remote areas of Pakistan, beyond the government's reach. Yet the United States will soon have about 100,000 troops chasing shadows in Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda's presence is now minimal.
I understand and appreciate the fear that if the Taliban were to take power again, it could invite al-Qaeda back into Afghanistan to set up shop. But I can't escape the uneasy feeling that we're fighting, and escalating, the last war -- while the enemy fights the next one.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
California is in deep doo-doo again!!
California again faces massive deficit, projected at $21 billion
The state's chief budget analyst foresees a fiscal mess extending past the recession for years to come. He puts much of the blame on unrealistic budgeting assumptions.
Reporting from Sacramento - California government is again beset with red ink, facing a nearly $21-billion deficit over the next year and half, according to a report released today by the state's chief budget analyst.
Nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor projected state spending severely out of line with tax collections not just amid the current recession but for years to come. Solving the fiscal mess will require "painful choices" in both cutting services and raising revenue, Taylor warned.
The gloomy forecast, which comes after Sacramento officials have already raised taxes and slashed programs this year, portends a fierce budget battle again in 2010.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who last week predicted more across-the-board budget cuts, in January must unveil his plan to address the deficit.
"We look forward to receiving the governor's new budget proposal in January," Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) said in a statement, "and will immediately begin work on crafting budget solutions that will once again require both difficult spending reductions and additional revenues."
The legislative analyst, whom both Republicans and Democrats look to for fiscal advice, reported that the current budget year accounts for $6.3 billion of the deficit. Much of that is the result of unrealistic budgeting assumptions that have evaporated in the four months since lawmakers and Schwarzenegger agreed on a spending plan.
That budget, currently in place, assumed receipts of nearly $1 billion from the federal government for Medi-Cal, a sum the analyst questioned. Another $1 billion was assumed from the sale of a quasi-public workers' compensation agency that has stalled. Prison spending has outstripped its allotment, and schools are owed more than had been expected under the state's complex funding formula.
An additional $14.4 billion of the deficit is for the fiscal year that begins next summer.
The deficit is expected to be worse in the years beyond, as temporary taxes expire and raids on local government funds must be repaid by Sacramento. The analyst projected a $21.3-billion deficit in fiscal 2011-12 and $23 billion in 2012-13.
Even those numbers could turn out to be conservative. The figures assume that California wins all its pending court cases, in which billions in spending reductions are being challenged.
The forecast also assumes no cost-of-living adjustments for state workers and programs, after the Legislature suspended them this year.
The state's chief budget analyst foresees a fiscal mess extending past the recession for years to come. He puts much of the blame on unrealistic budgeting assumptions.
Reporting from Sacramento - California government is again beset with red ink, facing a nearly $21-billion deficit over the next year and half, according to a report released today by the state's chief budget analyst.
Nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor projected state spending severely out of line with tax collections not just amid the current recession but for years to come. Solving the fiscal mess will require "painful choices" in both cutting services and raising revenue, Taylor warned.
The gloomy forecast, which comes after Sacramento officials have already raised taxes and slashed programs this year, portends a fierce budget battle again in 2010.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who last week predicted more across-the-board budget cuts, in January must unveil his plan to address the deficit.
"We look forward to receiving the governor's new budget proposal in January," Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) said in a statement, "and will immediately begin work on crafting budget solutions that will once again require both difficult spending reductions and additional revenues."
The legislative analyst, whom both Republicans and Democrats look to for fiscal advice, reported that the current budget year accounts for $6.3 billion of the deficit. Much of that is the result of unrealistic budgeting assumptions that have evaporated in the four months since lawmakers and Schwarzenegger agreed on a spending plan.
That budget, currently in place, assumed receipts of nearly $1 billion from the federal government for Medi-Cal, a sum the analyst questioned. Another $1 billion was assumed from the sale of a quasi-public workers' compensation agency that has stalled. Prison spending has outstripped its allotment, and schools are owed more than had been expected under the state's complex funding formula.
An additional $14.4 billion of the deficit is for the fiscal year that begins next summer.
The deficit is expected to be worse in the years beyond, as temporary taxes expire and raids on local government funds must be repaid by Sacramento. The analyst projected a $21.3-billion deficit in fiscal 2011-12 and $23 billion in 2012-13.
Even those numbers could turn out to be conservative. The figures assume that California wins all its pending court cases, in which billions in spending reductions are being challenged.
The forecast also assumes no cost-of-living adjustments for state workers and programs, after the Legislature suspended them this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
