SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bonefish who wrote (655823)5/21/2012 1:57:27 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1579731
 
Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson.



To: Bonefish who wrote (655823)5/21/2012 2:09:02 PM
From: joseffy3 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1579731
 
The Zimmerman case disintegrates

Beating people up because they looked at you funny is wrong.

by John Hayward 05/21/2012
humanevents.com

The release of evidence in George Zimmerman’s murder trial quickly made a mockery of his second-degree murder charges, and threw a further layer of shame upon media and political opportunists who misrepresented a tragic, but fairly straightforward, case of lethal force employed in self-defense.

It is remarkable to take stock of this evidence and realize that it supports every single aspect of Zimmerman’s statement to the police. His injuries are consistent with his account of physical assault by Trayvon Martin. Martin’s gunshot wound occurred at the very short range described by Zimmerman, demolishing fantasies about a racist mall-cop wannabe stalking and murdering an innocent black kid for no reason.

The Smoking Gun highlighted this bit of eyewitness testimony – released to the public by the Sanford police only a few days ago, but known to the prosecution when Zimmerman was charged – tendered to the police only 90 minutes after the shooting occurred, by a resident of Zimmerman’s community who heard the altercation and decided to investigate:

The man recalled seeing “a black male, wearing a dark colored ‘hoodie’ on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help.” The black male, he added, “was mounted on the white or Hispanic male and throwing punches ‘MMA (mixed martial arts) style.'”

The witness--who was in his living room and about 30 feet away from the confrontation-- said he called out to the two men that he was dialing 911. “He then heard a ‘pop,’” police reported, and saw the black male “laid out on the grass.”

Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit relates the discovery of video from Trayvon Martin’s YouTube account, removed at some point during the last month, that shows he was actually involved in some sort of underground “fight club.”

Also fatal to the prosecution’s case is the discovery that Martin had THC in his system – he had apparently been smoking pot that night. As related by the local CBS News affiliate:

According to the autopsy report made public record by the Office of the Medial Examiner, the blood from Martin’s chest contained 1.5 ng/ML of THC, a drug commonly found in marijuana. There was about 7.3ng/mL of THC carboxy, the by-product of the body’s metabolism of THC.

Depending on the amount of THC consumed and the frequency in which it is consumed, THC carboxy can stay in a person’s system from somewhere between two weeks to a month, according to WBTV. THC itself can stay in the body for as long as four hours.

This is important because the charging document clearly, and without evidence, accuses Zimmerman of racially “profiling” Martin. On the other hand, Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher that Martin caught his eye because “this guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something… it’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.” Only then did the dispatcher specifically ask about Martin’s race, and request a description of his clothing.

Despite the prosecution’s awareness of the autopsy reports and eyewitness testimony, they included none of it in their affidavit against Zimmerman. Criminal lawyer and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who has been beside himself ever since the Zimmerman charges were filed, writes in the New York Daily News that it’s time to drop the charges, but doubts State Attorney Angela Corey “will do the right thing,” because “until now, her actions have been anything but ethical, lawful, and professional.”

As Dershowitz points out, the evidence released in this case means Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law isn’t even a factor in Zimmerman’s defense. Much political hay has been made out of this law, but if Zimmerman was on the ground getting beaten to a pulp, withdrawal from the encounter was physically impossible for him. “A defendant, under Florida law, loses his ‘stand your ground’ defense if he provoked the encounter,” observes Dershowitz, “but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.”

For that matter, as Dershowitz notes, there is not one shred of evidence to support the prosecutor’s contention that Zimmerman provoked the encounter. Neighborhood Watch patrols are not illegal. There is no evidence that Zimmerman shouted any “fighting words” at Martin.

Dershowitz also mentions a suspicion I’ve harbored since the weird, circus-like press conference at which Corey announced the charges: they’re a political instrument designed to buy time for everyone to cool down, leading to a long trial that dismantles some of the hysteria built up around the Trayvon Martin case. If true, the strategy is understandable… but utterly outrageous. The United States does not do “show trials.” The justice system is not a safety valve for releasing unhealthy levels of political tension. Individual citizens are not pawns to be shoved around in media games by gun-control advocates, race hustlers, or opportunistic politicians.

The purpose of law enforcement is to protect the public, not appease certain segments of it.

State attorney Angela Corey responded by saying, “What the general public has to remember, and the media has to remember, is that there is a lot we cannot release by law.” Zimmerman’s lawyer also cautiously conceded that more evidence may be in prosecutorial hands, as yet unreleased to either him or the public.

That doesn’t change the virtually indisputable fact that Corey deliberately suppressed evidence helpful to Zimmerman when her affidavit was written. At best, that’s very sloppy work. ABC News discusses the sort of cards Corey might be holding:

One key to the case is which of the two men instigated the clash that left Martin dead. The prosecution says Zimmerman initiated the altercation when he "profiled" Martin that night, and then got out of his car to follow him. In the newly released documents, lead homicide officer on the case, Chris Serino of the Sanford Police Department, called the shooting "avoidable" had Zimmerman remained in his vehicle.

What has yet to be seen are two main pieces of evidence: Zimmerman's statement on the night of the incident, and his reenactment of the events of that night, which could prove vital when and if the case is heard in court.

It’s difficult to see how any of that might convince a jury to hand down a “guilty” verdict to Murder Two charges. How does that “stay in your car” principle work? Do you have to stay in your car when you see anyone acting suspiciously in your neighborhood, or do the age, sex, and racial background of the subject matter? Does everyone have to stay in their cars, or only members of certain age, sex, and racial groups?

Or is it simpler for the law to assert that beating someone into the ground and administering an MMA-style thrashing is wrong, even if they looked at you funny?




To: Bonefish who wrote (655823)5/21/2012 5:09:31 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1579731
 
As Obama Preaches Patience, Mattis Prepares for War With Iran

by Eli Lake May 21, 2012
thedailybeast.com

Exclusive: CentCom commander’s call for third Persian Gulf carrier group was rejected, reports Eli Lake.


As Western diplomats meet this week in Baghdad to try to coax Iran’s leaders to disclose its full nuclear program, Gen. James Mattis will be keeping an eye on the Persian military.

Mattis wanted to send a third aircraft-carrier group to the Persian Gulf earlier this year, The Daily Beast has exclusively learned, in what would have been a massive show of force at a time when Iranian military commanders were publicly threatening to sink American ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The four-star Marine Corps general and CentCom commander believed the display could have deterred Iran from further escalating tensions, according to U.S. military officials familiar with his thinking.

But the president wanted to focus military resources on new priorities like China, and Mattis was told a third carrier group was not available to be deployed to the Gulf.

The carrier-group rebuff in January was one of several for the commander responsible for East Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Working for the Obama administration, Mattis has often found himself the odd man out—particularly when it comes to Iran.

Military sources close to the general tell The Beast that Mattis was worried that the president’s decision, announced in November, to fully withdraw from Iraq would leave the U.S. military without access to the country’s bases and with few options to project power in the region. The military had been negotiating with the Iraqi government for continued access to bases there for some intelligence, training, and counterterrorism missions until Obama announced his decision to the press in November.

“General Mattis is a key player in administration debates and a vital implementer of the administration’s policies,” said Denis McDonough, a deputy national-security adviser and one of President Obama’s most trusted advisers on foreign affairs.

Those who have worked with Mattis say his views when it comes to Iran are more in line with those of America’s allies in the Persian Gulf and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu than with his own government’s. At a recent charity event for Spirit of America, Mattis, known by admirers as the “warrior monk” and by detractors as “Mad Dog Mattis,” said his three top concerns in the Middle East were “Iran, Iran, and Iran.”

Gen. James Mattis, the head of U.S. Central Command, wanted to send a third aircraft carrier group to the Persian Gulf earlier this year, but the president wanted to focus military resources on new priorities like China. Mattis was told a third carrier group was not available. (Matt Dunham / AP Photo)


The official U.S. national-intelligence estimate on Iran concludes that the country suspended its nuclear-weapons work in 2003, but sources close to the general say he believes that Iran has restarted its weapons work and has urged his analysts to disregard the official estimate.

While Mattis has largely voiced his dissent about recent U.S. Iran assessments in private, on occasion his displeasure has spilled into the public record. In March, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked Mattis, “After all the sanctions that have been imposed on the Iranian regime, do you believe the regime has been at all dissuaded from pursuing a nuclear-weapons capability?”

Mattis responded: “No, sir, I have not seen that.”


The general also serves as a critical liaison with America’s Arab allies in the Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which share Israel’s concern about Iran’s nuclear program. Since 2007 the United States has approved an unprecedented level of arms sales to those countries.

“General Mattis is reflecting two pretty traditional concerns,” said Thomas Donnelly, the codirector of the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. “One is that of a regional commander who has to every day deal with our allies and partners in the region that do not fear Israel, but do fear Iran.”

“There isn’t a single other leader in government who doesn’t share some concern over the direction Iran is headed.”

At times, Mattis has even served as an important interlocutor with the Israelis—even though Israel is the one Middle Eastern country that does not fall within his area of responsibility. According to U.S. and Israeli officials, Mattis has had regular contact with Maj. Gen. Gadi Shamni, the military attaché at the Israeli Embassy in Washington. These meetings are not on the public schedule and are often over dinner, according to these sources.

Mattis’s unsuccessful push for a third carrier group was a significant request. There are only 11, and that number will go down to 10 this year when the USS Enterprise is decommissioned after 50 years. And Obama’s new military strategy unveiled in January calls for a beefed-up military presence in the Pacific Ocean to counter China.

The general did get an afloat forward staging base, or AFSB, a floating dock that can host smaller aircraft or launch the rigid-hull inflatable speedboats favored by special forces—though in February Adm. John Harvey, commander of fleet forces, denied press reports that the AFSB would be used as a SEAL mothership.

“It appears that General Mattis is at the point where he knows his power projected from land will decrease over time with the close of two land-centered wars,” said Peter Daly, the chief executive officer of the U.S. Naval Institute. Daly retired from the Navy in August with the rank of vice admiral. His last job was as deputy commander of U.S. fleet forces, the Navy’s broker in the global-force-management process that the U.S. military uses to determine where to place its numerous assets.

“Unlike the past, where we’ve had permission to go into these other countries and operate, that is less likely in the future. It is appealing to operate from the sea, where you do not need permission.”

Mattis was commanding his area of responsibility in an “outstanding manner and with great skill,” said George Little, a spokesman for Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Little added: “The secretary trusts his judgment implicitly on some of the most pressing security and military challenges of our time, including the war in Afghanistan. General Mattis is seasoned, studied, and the consummate warrior. He is also among the best of advisers, candid and honest, and always in keeping with—and in full support of—our national interests. He’s one of America’s finest military leaders.”

A senior U.S. defense official acknowledged that Mattis has differences with the White House on Iran. “He’s doing exactly what we need any combatant commander to do: telling us what he thinks he needs, giving us his perspective on the problems he faces,” this official said. “That’s what you want. That’s what you expect. And he does it all privately, with all the more credibility. There isn’t a single other leader in government who doesn’t share some concern over the direction Iran is headed.”

Mattis declined to comment for this article.



Eli Lake is the senior national-security correspondent for Newsweek and the Daily Beast. He previously covered national security and intelligence for the Washington Times. Lake has also been a contributing editor at The New Republic since 2008 and covered diplomacy, intelligence, and the military for the late New York Sun. He has lived in Cairo and traveled to war zones in Sudan, Iraq, and Gaza. He is one of the few journalists to report from all three members of President Bush’s axis of evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.





To: Bonefish who wrote (655823)5/21/2012 5:23:42 PM
From: joseffy2 Recommendations  Respond to of 1579731
 
Democrats are dreading a Wisconsin wipeout

By Jennifer Rubin 05/21/2012
washingtonpost.com

Given current polling, it is not surprising that Democrats in Wisconsin are freaking out. The Wall Street Journal reports: “With little more than two weeks until Wisconsin’s gubernatorial recall election, some Democratic and union officials quietly are expressing fears that they have picked a fight they won’t win and that could leave lingering injuries.” No one is bothering to claim a Scott Walker victory would be insignificant:

The election has taken on significance beyond Wisconsin state politics: Organized labor sees the battle as a major stand against GOP efforts to scale back collective-bargaining rights for public-sector workers, as Mr. Walker did after taking office in 2011. Some Democrats now fear mobilizing Republicans to battle the recall could carry over to help the party — and Republican Mitt Romney — in November’s presidential election. .?.?.
For the left-leaning groups that have spent months trying to oust Mr. Walker, a loss would be a deflating end to a process that began with unions and their allies gathering more than 900,000 signatures to force a recall.
From the start, some in the Democratic Party worried that a Wisconsin recall could drain needed resources, fire up the conservative base and ultimately make it more difficult for Mr. Obama to win the state.
As you might expect, the finger-pointing is well underway on the side that is likely to lose. (“Top Democrats now say that when labor groups first raised the specter of a recall, the party’s officials urged their allies in Wisconsin to reconsider.”)

Time magazine, under a headline “Why the Coalition Trying to Recall Scott Walker Is Splintering,” likewise reports that “the campaign to recall Walker is sputtering, and the governor has pulled ahead in the polls with a little over two weeks to go until the June 5 election.” It seems that the Republicans out-organized organized labor:

To protect their imperiled star, the GOP has assembled a solid ground-game buoyed by robust fundraising and a clear economic message. By contrast, Walker’s opponents are a fractured force: a loose constellation of Democrats, political-action committees, and labor groups with overlapping goals but spotty coordination. The Democrats have been unable to drive a consistent message, careening from collective bargaining to Walker’s purported dishonesty, the “war on women” and jobs and education.
All of this bodes well for Walker and ultimately for Republicans on the ballot in November, including Mitt Romney and the eventual U.S. Senate nominee. Really, is Obama’s message any clearer than that of the recall forces? In the meantime, Republicans are organized, energized and well aware that if they can put Wisconsin’s 10 electoral votes in Romney’s column, suddenly he’ll have many more options to get to 270 electoral votes.