Jim Crow Police

Read the following editorial from Bob Herbert and tell me your opinion on what he is talking about. 

February 2, 2010


Op-Ed Columnist

Jim Crow Policing

By BOB HERBERT

The New York City Police Department needs to be restrained. The nonstop humiliation of young black and Hispanic New Yorkers, including children, by police officers who feel no obligation to treat them fairly or with any respect at all is an abomination. That many of the officers engaged in the mistreatment are black or Latino themselves is shameful.

Statistics will be out shortly about the total number of people who were stopped and frisked by the police in 2009. We already have the data for the first three-quarters of the year, and they are staggering. During that period, more than 450,000 people were stopped by the cops, an increase of 13 percent over the same period in 2008.

An overwhelming 84 percent of the stops in the first three-quarters of 2009 were of black or Hispanic New Yorkers. It is incredible how few of the stops yielded any law enforcement benefit. Contraband, which usually means drugs, was found in only 1.6 percent of the stops of black New Yorkers. For Hispanics, it was just 1.5 percent. For whites, who are stopped far less frequently, contraband was found 2.2 percent of the time.

The percentages of stops that yielded weapons were even smaller. Weapons were found on just 1.1 percent of the blacks stopped, 1.4 percent of the Hispanics, and 1.7 percent of the whites. Only about 6 percent of stops result in an arrest for any reason.

Rather than a legitimate crime-fighting tool, these stops are a despicable, racially oriented tool of harassment. And the police are using it at the increasingly enthusiastic direction of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.

There were more than a half-million stops in New York City in 2008, and when the final tally is in, we’ll find that the number only increased in 2009.

Not everyone who is stopped is frisked. When broken down by ethnic group, the percentages do not at first seem so wildly disproportionate. Some 59.4 percent of all Hispanics who were stopped were also frisked, as were 56.6 percent of blacks, and 46 percent of whites. But keep in mind, whites composed fewer than 16 percent of the people stopped in the first place.

These encounters with the police are degrading and often frightening, and the real number of people harassed is undoubtedly higher than the numbers reported by the police. Often the cops will stop, frisk and sometimes taunt people who are at their mercy, and then move on — without finding anything, making an arrest, or recording the encounter as they are supposed to.

Even the official reasons given by the police for the stops are laughably bogus. People are stopped for allegedly making “furtive movements,” for wearing clothes “commonly used in a crime,” and, of course, for the “suspicious bulge.” My wallet, my notebook and my cellphone would all apply.

The police say they also stop people for wearing “inappropriate attire for the season.” I saw a guy on the Upper West Side wearing shorts and sandals a couple weeks ago. That was certainly unusual attire for the middle of January, but it didn’t cross my mind that he should be accosted by the police.

The Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a class-action lawsuit against the city and the Police Department over the stops. Several plaintiffs detailed how their ordinary daily lives were interrupted by cops bent on harassment for no good reason. Lalit Carson was stopped while on a lunch break from his job as a teaching assistant at a charter school in the Bronx. Deon Dennis was stopped and searched while standing outside the apartment building in which he lives in Harlem. The police arrested him, allegedly because of an outstanding warrant. He was held for several hours then released. There was no outstanding warrant.

There are endless instances of this kind of madness. People going about their daily business, bothering no one, are menaced out of the blue by the police, forced to spread themselves face down in the street, or plaster themselves against a wall, or bend over the hood of a car, to be searched. People who object to the harassment are often threatened with arrest for disorderly conduct.


The Police Department insists that these stops of innocent people — which are unconstitutional, by the way — help fight crime. And they insist that the policy is not racist.


Paul Browne, the chief spokesman for Commissioner Kelly, described the stops as “life-saving.” And he has said repeatedly that the racial makeup of the people stopped and frisked is proportionally similar to the racial makeup of people committing crimes.

That is an amazingly specious argument. The fact that a certain percentage of criminals may be black or Hispanic is no reason for the police to harass individuals from those groups when there is no indication whatsoever that they have done anything wrong.

It’s time to put an end to Jim Crow policing in New York City.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/opinion/02herbert.html

Are we #1???

The following article talks about the idea that the United States is no longer the #1 country in the world. Read the article and find the point that Robert Samuelson makes, is he right or wrong? Why? If that is not the reason then, what is the reason?NYTimes

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Privacy

Do you believe we have a right to privacy in the United States? If so why or why not. And if we do what does that mean to you?

US CONSTITUTION

Go to page 771 in your textbook and read the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments).  If you were only allowed to keep one which one would you keep and why?

Sam vs Obama

Analyze the following cartoon.

What do you think it says about the United States, what does it say about yourself?

Mosques

Read the article below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html

Do you believe they should build the Mosque close to Ground Zero?
Why? Why Not?
What does it say about us if we do or do not let them build it?

Please make sure that your post is at least 100 words.

Due Sunday the 15th of August 20010 at 11:59 pm

Instructions for Blogging

This post is the first post you will do as part of your class participation every week.  So let me explain some of the rules & requirements for posting.

1st Rule

- All comments on posts are due on Sunday at 11:59pm, this is NOT an optional assignment.

2nd Rule

- All comments on posts are due on Sunday at 11:59pm. No exemptions, you will have on average six days to complete each assignment.

3rd Rule

-  Do not use short hand writing,  this is not texting or emailing your friends.  I would suggest you write your comment on word and then copy and past onto the blog.

4th Rule

- Read the articles or see the entire video before making a comment.

5th Rule

While you might disagree with a classmates opinion, please be respectful. Any foul language will only earn you a zero.   

6th  Rule

Any questions about the blog should be sent ASAP to my email (aserra01@sisd.net), or if you have time before the deadline be sure to consult with me during class.  

--------

Finally as part of this post please post a comment on stating what you are your expectations of this course for the 2010-2011 school year.  Also take a poll on the side.  

Immigration Law

Read the article below and give me your opinion on the new Arizona immigration law.

Washington Times Article

Read the article before writing it might give you an interesting perspective on the new law. 

South Park

Read the article below on last weeks episode of South Park.

South Park Opinion

Now do you believe that what Comedy Central did was right? Does South Park & it's creators have the right to show this episode.

Court TV

Read the following article from the Washington Post.
Washington Post story

Do you think that the Supreme Court should allow TV cameras for the oral arguments of cases? If so why or why not.


-- Post From My iPhone



-- Post From My iPhone




-- Post From My iPhone

Who would you pick?

Click on the following link to find several possible candidates to replace Justice Stevens, then decide which one you would pick and why you would pick them. If you think someone else would make a good Justice of the the Supreme Court of the United States then tell me who and why?

Court Nominees

Right to privacy

Do you believe we have a right to privacy in the United States? If so why or why not. And if we do what does that mean to you?


-- Post From My iPhone

Census day

April 1st is the official census day. For this blog you will need to talk to your parents or legal guardians and ask them about the census. Do they think it's important? Why? Have they received their census form? Have they sent it back? Please include your thoughts and opinions about the census.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Japan- Extra credit

Suggest a place that I should visit on my trip to Tokyo, Japan.
Include a link or a brief description of the place and a reason I should go.


Due March 12th.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Olympics

The Vancouver Olympics just finished, and the London Olympics start in 2 years. Both of these Olympics are over budget by billions of dollars, so my question is the following: Is it worth spending billions of dollars by the host country for the olympics?

Bring your book next Tuesday, you will need it for your review.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

How Christian were the founders?

Read the article below and write a reponse to it. 

How Christian Were the Founders?

By RUSSELL SHORTO

Published: February 14, 2010

Conservative activists on the Texas Board of Education say that the authors of the Constitution intended the United States to be a Christian nation. And they want America’s history textbooks to say so.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html

Justice and Terrorism

Read the article below and then watch the interview of Newt Gingrich.
What do you think we should do with Terrorist that are caught on American soil?  Should we put them on trial in the US Federal Court System or should we treat them as war criminals and leave them without a trial?  State your opinion on the matter and why you believe this.

February 12, 2010

Op-Ed Contributor

Tribunal and Error

By ALI H. SOUFAN

SINCE Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York announced that he no longer favored trying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind, in a Manhattan federal court because of logistical concerns, the Obama administration has come under increasing attack from those who claim that military commissions are more suitable for prosecuting terrorists. These critics are misguided.


As someone who has helped prosecute terrorists in both civilian and military courts — I was a witness for the government in two of the three military commissions convened so far — I think that civilian courts are often the more effective venue. In fact, the argument that our criminal justice system is more than able to handle terrorist cases was bolstered just last week by revelations that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called Christmas bomber, is cooperating with the authorities.


Of the three terrorists tried under military commissions since 9/11, two are now free. David Hicks, an Australian who joined Al Qaeda, was sent back to his native country after a plea bargain. Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s former driver and confidante, is a free man in Yemen after all but a few months of his five-and-a-half-year sentence were wiped out by time spent in custody. (The third terrorist, Ali Hamza al-Bahlul, a former Qaeda propaganda chief, was sentenced to life in prison.)


In contrast, almost 200 terrorists have been convicted in federal courts since 9/11. These include not only high-profile terrorists like Zacharias Moussaoui, who was convicted of conspiracy to kill United States citizens as part of the 9/11 attacks, but also many people much lower on the Qaeda pecking order than Mr. Hamdan.


The federal court system has proved well equipped to handle these trials. It has been the venue for international terrorism cases since President Ronald Reagan authorized them in the 1980s, and for other terrorist cases long before that. Prosecutors have at their disposal numerous statutes with clear sentencing guidelines. Providing material support, for example, can result in a 15-year sentence or even the death penalty if Americans are killed.


Military commissions, however, are new to lawyers. Military prosecutors are among the most intelligent and committed professionals I have ever known, but they faced great difficulties as they operated within an uncharted system, the legality of which has been challenged all the way to the Supreme Court three times.


It’s also worth noting that, since 9/11, there have been only two terrorists apprehended under military law on United States soil: Jose Padilla, the American accused of plotting to set off a “dirty bomb,” and Ali Saleh al-Marri, a Qaeda operative accused of being a sleeper agent. After several years, both were transferred to the federal system and are now serving time. If anything, holding them in military detention might have hindered our ability to gain their cooperation, as they gave no new significant information during that period.


Nonetheless, attacks on the abilities of the federal justice system have intensified ever since Mr. Abdulmutallab was arrested in Detroit on Dec. 25 and charged with federal crimes. Critics claim that he should have been held under the laws of war and not read his Miranda rights.


Whether suspects cooperate depends on the skill of the interrogator and the mindset of the suspects — not whether they’ve been told they can remain silent. When legally required, I’ve read some top Qaeda terrorists their rights and they’ve still provided valuable intelligence. Now we’ve learned that “despite” being read his Miranda rights, Mr. Abdulmutallab is cooperating with his F.B.I. interrogators. This should have been no surprise.


Critics were also off base in claiming that the two F.B.I. agents who first questioned Mr. Abdulmutallab were inexperienced local officials. They were veterans of counterterrorism work, at home and abroad, and are led by the special agent in charge of the bureau’s Detroit office, who has run antiterrorist operations across the world. I’ve worked with him; he’s highly experienced. The bureau ignored the attacks on the effectiveness and professionalism of its agents as it focused on getting vital intelligence from Mr. Abdulmutallab. It is owed an apology.


Indeed, it’s very disappointing to see politicians and pundits smear the law enforcement community, to imply that the United States attorneys and the F.B.I. cannot do their job properly under the law. Our justice system is an integral weapon in our war against Al Qaeda, and its successes are a big reason the terrorist group has failed to hit our homeland for nine years.


Other criticisms are similarly off the mark, including claims that classified information is at risk in federal courts. Terrorism cases aren’t the only instances in which classified information is handled in federal courtrooms — in espionage cases the threat of sensitive material being made public is just as great. That’s why in 1980 Congress passed the Classified Information Procedures Act, which allows the government to request permission to withhold classified information, produce summaries and redacted versions, or to show information only to defense lawyers with security clearances. The law is routinely invoked in terrorism trials, especially those related to Al Qaeda.


Critics also claim that trials might give terrorists a soapbox. But federal courts do not allow photography, recordings or broadcasts. What the defendants say is made known only through press reports afterward — just as with military commissions. And federal judges (like military judges) have the power to gag or remove defendants who try to disrupt trials.


Military commissions do serve an important purpose. We are at war, and for Qaeda terrorists caught on the battlefield who did not commit crimes inside the United States, or who killed American civilians abroad, military commissions are appropriate. But for terrorists like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who plotted to murder the innocent on United States soil, federal courts are not only more suitable, they’re our best chance at getting the strongest conviction possible.


Ali H. Soufan was an F.B.I. special agent from 1997 to 2005.






http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/opinion/12soufan.html

Current events

As I explained in class, the first 5 students that post are required to post a news story that is related to government. All posts after the 5th will be required to post a comment on on of he news stories.

For the 1st 5 that post be sure to include a link to the news story and please use the following example:
Title of story:
For Obama, Nuance on Race That Invites Questions
Author:
SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published:
February 9, 2010
Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/us/politics/09race.html



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Jim Crow policing

Read the following editorial from Bob Herbert and tell me your opinion on what he is talking about. 

February 2, 2010


Op-Ed Columnist

Jim Crow Policing

By BOB HERBERT

The New York City Police Department needs to be restrained. The nonstop humiliation of young black and Hispanic New Yorkers, including children, by police officers who feel no obligation to treat them fairly or with any respect at all is an abomination. That many of the officers engaged in the mistreatment are black or Latino themselves is shameful.

Statistics will be out shortly about the total number of people who were stopped and frisked by the police in 2009. We already have the data for the first three-quarters of the year, and they are staggering. During that period, more than 450,000 people were stopped by the cops, an increase of 13 percent over the same period in 2008.

An overwhelming 84 percent of the stops in the first three-quarters of 2009 were of black or Hispanic New Yorkers. It is incredible how few of the stops yielded any law enforcement benefit. Contraband, which usually means drugs, was found in only 1.6 percent of the stops of black New Yorkers. For Hispanics, it was just 1.5 percent. For whites, who are stopped far less frequently, contraband was found 2.2 percent of the time.

The percentages of stops that yielded weapons were even smaller. Weapons were found on just 1.1 percent of the blacks stopped, 1.4 percent of the Hispanics, and 1.7 percent of the whites. Only about 6 percent of stops result in an arrest for any reason.

Rather than a legitimate crime-fighting tool, these stops are a despicable, racially oriented tool of harassment. And the police are using it at the increasingly enthusiastic direction of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.

There were more than a half-million stops in New York City in 2008, and when the final tally is in, we’ll find that the number only increased in 2009.

Not everyone who is stopped is frisked. When broken down by ethnic group, the percentages do not at first seem so wildly disproportionate. Some 59.4 percent of all Hispanics who were stopped were also frisked, as were 56.6 percent of blacks, and 46 percent of whites. But keep in mind, whites composed fewer than 16 percent of the people stopped in the first place.

These encounters with the police are degrading and often frightening, and the real number of people harassed is undoubtedly higher than the numbers reported by the police. Often the cops will stop, frisk and sometimes taunt people who are at their mercy, and then move on — without finding anything, making an arrest, or recording the encounter as they are supposed to.

Even the official reasons given by the police for the stops are laughably bogus. People are stopped for allegedly making “furtive movements,” for wearing clothes “commonly used in a crime,” and, of course, for the “suspicious bulge.” My wallet, my notebook and my cellphone would all apply.

The police say they also stop people for wearing “inappropriate attire for the season.” I saw a guy on the Upper West Side wearing shorts and sandals a couple weeks ago. That was certainly unusual attire for the middle of January, but it didn’t cross my mind that he should be accosted by the police.

The Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a class-action lawsuit against the city and the Police Department over the stops. Several plaintiffs detailed how their ordinary daily lives were interrupted by cops bent on harassment for no good reason. Lalit Carson was stopped while on a lunch break from his job as a teaching assistant at a charter school in the Bronx. Deon Dennis was stopped and searched while standing outside the apartment building in which he lives in Harlem. The police arrested him, allegedly because of an outstanding warrant. He was held for several hours then released. There was no outstanding warrant.

There are endless instances of this kind of madness. People going about their daily business, bothering no one, are menaced out of the blue by the police, forced to spread themselves face down in the street, or plaster themselves against a wall, or bend over the hood of a car, to be searched. People who object to the harassment are often threatened with arrest for disorderly conduct.


The Police Department insists that these stops of innocent people — which are unconstitutional, by the way — help fight crime. And they insist that the policy is not racist.


Paul Browne, the chief spokesman for Commissioner Kelly, described the stops as “life-saving.” And he has said repeatedly that the racial makeup of the people stopped and frisked is proportionally similar to the racial makeup of people committing crimes.

That is an amazingly specious argument. The fact that a certain percentage of criminals may be black or Hispanic is no reason for the police to harass individuals from those groups when there is no indication whatsoever that they have done anything wrong.

It’s time to put an end to Jim Crow policing in New York City.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/opinion/02herbert.html

Should government tell us what to wear?

Watch the following video and post a comment on it. If you can not see the video then read the story below the video which talks about the same topic.






France's ban on the burqa

The war of French dressing
A plan to ban the wearing of the burqa in public stokes new controversy


Jan 14th 2010 | PARIS
From The Economist print edition

Corbis
FOR American commentators who like to denounce European complacency in the face of an increasingly assertive Islam, France is an intriguing test-case. It is home to Europe’s biggest Muslim minority, numbering some 5m-6m, and it unapologetically expects Muslims to adapt to French ways. In 1994 the government began clamping down on religious symbols, including the Muslim headscarf, in state schools. Ten years later it banned all “ostentatious” religious signs, including the veil, from state schools and other public buildings. Now yet another tightening is in the works: a proposed ban on wearing the burqa in any public places.

Jean-François Copé, parliamentary leader of the ruling UMP party, this week submitted a draft law stating that “nobody, in places open to the public or on streets, may wear an outfit or an accessory whose effect is to hide the face”. A few exceptions would be made, he said, such as for carnivals. At other times, anybody refusing to take off a face-covering could be fined €750 ($1,090). He hopes parliament will debate the draft at the end of March, shortly after the regional elections.

The move by Mr Copé, an ambitious politician, is a parliamentary not a government-led initiative. Yet it has broad backing. President Nicolas Sarkozy declared last year that the burqa was “not welcome on French soil”. François Fillon, the prime minister, said this week that he backed the idea of a ban. Mr Copé says that he already has 220 deputies supporting him.

When the French refer to the burqa, they do not mean the Afghan outfit, with a cloth grille over the eyes, which is not seen in France; they mean the niqab, the head-to-toe covering that leaves a narrow slit open for the eyes, which is traditionally found in the Gulf. Ten years ago, even this garment was virtually unknown in France, since most French Muslims originate from north Africa, where traditionalists cover only the hair, not the face. Today, according to intelligence estimates, some 1,900 women wear the niqab in France.

Yet even this number is tiny, so why are the French so exercised? One reason is their century-old secular tradition, which fiercely defends the separation of faith and state, and makes most French people uneasy about conspicuous religion. Nativity plays or carol concerts in state primary schools are unthinkable, as would be the swearing-in of presidents over the Bible. When the Swiss voted recently to ban the construction of minarets on mosques, Mr Sarkozy urged believers of all faiths in France to “practise their religion with humble discretion”. Liberal outsiders see this as intolerance. But to the French, who fought hard-won battles against authoritarian clericalism, it stems from a secular wish to keep religion in the private sphere.

Yet today’s concerns about the niqab go far beyond secularism. “The burqa is not a religious sign,” Mr Sarkozy said last year, but rather a “sign of subservience, a sign of debasement” of women. For six months, a cross-party parliamentary inquiry has been holding hearings about the burqa. One by one, French Muslim figures have filed in to state that, as Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Paris Mosque put it, “neither the burqa, nor the niqab, nor any all-over veil, are religious prescriptions of Islam.”

Moreover, as Dounia Bouzar, a French Muslim anthropologist, pointed out to the commission, most of the women she sees wearing the niqab are young. Intelligence sources suggest that 90% of them are under 40. Two-thirds are French nationals, half of them second- or third-generation immigrants, and nearly a quarter are converts. In other words, this is not an influx of women from the Gulf, but a statement by young French Muslim women, whose own mothers did not cover their faces. Mr Boubakeur and other mainstream French Muslim leaders are clear about its origins: it is “an invasion of salafism”, an ultra-puritan branch of radical Islam.

French politicians of many stripes are keen to draw a firm line in order to thwart further proselytising, particularly in the heavily Muslim banlieues. The (communist) chairman of the parliamentary commission, which is due to report at the end of January, favours a burqa ban. So do Eric Besson, a former Socialist who is now minister for immigration and national identity, and Fadela Amara, a Muslim minister and former campaigner for abused women, who once called the burqa a “prison”.

Yet even if it is justified on security grounds, a ban would still be controversial. The opposition Socialist Party opposes the burqa but frets that outlawing it may be counterproductive. The French Council of the Muslim Faith, an official body, fears that a ban would stigmatise Islam. As it is, Mr Besson has caused unease by launching a national consultation on what it means to be French that has unleashed a torrent of anti-Muslim commentary. Some argue that a ban would play into the hands of those who spread hardline propaganda. Others worry that women, who are often under domestic pressure to wear the burqa, would be unfairly punished. “France would be the only country in the world that sends its policemen…to stop in the street young women who are victims more than they are guilty,” wrote Laurent Joffrin, editor of Libération.

Mr Fillon said this week that he wanted first to pass a parliamentary resolution to condemn the wearing of the burqa; legislation could follow, but only after considering its compatibility with European law and with the French constitution. Under the 2004 law, the burqa is already banned in public schools, as it is on identity cards. Since last year, the wearing of balaclavas can also be banned during or near protests. The planned burqa ban would forbid the covering of the face even in the street, but not the wearing of an all-over veil that leaves the face exposed.

France is likely to come in for much outside criticism for its burqa ban. It will be accused of illiberalism, and disregard for freedom of expression, or of imposing a Western interpretation of women’s oppression. In his speech in Cairo last year, America’s Barack Obama said that “it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practising religion as they see fit—for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.” Yet all liberal democracies have to make compromises to balance freedom and security. France will argue that this is not a campaign against Islam, but an effort to uphold its values when they are being tested as never before. The world may not see it that way.

Bill of Rights

Go to page 771 in your textbook and read the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments).  If you were only allowed to keep one which one would you keep and why?

John Adams

As you see John Adams, what do you think of the Founding Fathers and how they behaved before the United States independence. 

KAL Cartoon

Read the cartoon above and post a comment on it.  Due by 1/10/2010