Homeland Security Prepares for GOP Government Shutdown Over Immigration

John Boehner, waiting for the punch

John Boehner looked as if he were a spectator at his own hanging — and in a sense he is.

He can defy conservatives by abandoning their fight to undo President Obama’s immigration actions and perhaps lose his speakership in the process. Or he can stand with the conservatives and be blamed for shutting down the Department of Homeland Security.

Dana Milbank writes about political theater in the nation’s capital. He joined the Post as a political reporter in 2000.View Archive

• Facebook
• Google+
• RSS

So the House speaker is leading from behind. Waiting for his turn to speak at a news conference following a House GOP caucus meeting Wednesday morning, he was a bundle of nerves: He stroked the hem of his jacket, rubbed his fingertips together, licked his lips, pinched his nose and allowed his famously moist eyes to well with tears just before approaching the microphone.

CNN’s Dana Bash asked Boehner whether he is concerned that, if he passes a Homeland Security bill without the immigration provisions, “it will be the end of your speakership.”

“I’m waiting for the Senate to act,” Boehner replied.

Bash persisted: But was he concerned about a rebellion in his own ranks?

“I’m waiting for the Senate to pass a bill.”

NBC’s Luke Russert asked him why he hadn’t spoken with his Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), in two weeks.

Boehner reiterated his position that “we’re waiting for the Senate to act.”

Politico’s Jake Sherman asked what he thought about the merits ofMcConnell’s plan to split the immigration issue from the funding of DHS.

“I’m waiting for the Senate to pass a bill,” Boehner repeated.

Will Congress avoid a government shutdown?

“I’m waiting for the Senate to act.”

Boehner began to walk away. “Do you think the Senate should act?” Bash teased.

The speaker gave a brave smile.

Of course, everybody knows what the Senate is going to do: Democrats,after blocking passage of a bill that made DHS funding contingent on undoing Obama’s immigration policy, have agreed to support McConnell’s plan to decouple the two. The only question is what Boehner will do — and conservatives are sharpening their knives.

“I am not going to vote to fund unconstitutional conduct,” Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) said as he left the caucus meeting in the Capitol basement. “Illegal aliens are undermining national security,” he added, accusing McConnell of “a breach of oath of office and our fealty to the United States Constitution.”

Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) was livid: “Voters believed that in November Harry Reid was going to be dethroned and that the Senate was going to be controlled by Republicans, so I’m sad to say that hasn’t happened.”

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a leader of a conservative House faction, said the bill linking immigration to DHS funding remained the House Republican position, and Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) declared that “we don’t plan to do anything” to change it.

Furthermore, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) announced he had spoken with two TSA agents about a shutdown, “and they both said: ‘Stay strong. We’ll be all right.’ ”

This left House higher-ups unnerved. “We’re going to move this,” Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.), part of the leadership, declared as he left the meeting. Move what? “Uh, what, I think what John talked about. He’s going to get together with people. . . . I think we’re going to work through the problems. And, um, I’m really not prepared to say.”

Reporters surrounded Sessions and camera lights went on. “This is not what I wanted at this point,” Sessions muttered. “I’m just walking to my office, guys,” he said. “John will cover that. Is that fair? It is to me.”

But “John” didn’t do that. He and his leadership team went to the microphones to talk about — education. None of the six lawmakers at the GOP news conference mentioned the Homeland Security standoff in their opening statements.

“When I had 4-H animals and I sold them, I saved that money so I could go to school,” disclosed Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.).

Said verbally challenged Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.): “I have two small kids that are now one in college and one about to go to college.”

Reporters, however, did not care how small McCarthy’s college-age kids are. They wanted to know what Boehner was going to do about immigration — and Boehner was playing for time. “Until the Senate does something, we’re in a wait-and-see mode,” he said for the umpteenth time — and he acknowledged that during this waiting and seeing, he hadn’t spoken with McConnell. “Listen, Senator McConnell’s got a big job to do. So do I.”

Yes, and he can’t avoid doing it much longer.

https://www.facebook.com/TommyEqualityNews

Terrorist in ISIS Videos Is Identified as British National

Terrorist in ISIS Videos Is Identified as British National

The man in the black balaclava who has seemed to have beheaded several foreign hostages in Islamic State videos has been identified by British security services as Mohammed Emwazi, a British national from London.

Known in the news media as “Jihadi John,” he is said to have been born in Kuwait and traveled to Syria in 2012. His name was first published on Thursday on the website of The Washington Post.

The story was confirmed by a senior British security official, who said that the British government had identified Mr. Emwazi some time ago but had not disclosed his name for operational reasons.

Mr. Emwazi, 27, grew up in Queen’s Park, West London, and graduated from the University of Westminster with a degree in computer programming.

He first appeared in Islamic State videos in August, when he appeared to behead the American journalist James Foley and deliver threats against the West. The actual execution was not included in the video.

READ MORE » http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/world/europe/jihadi-john-mohammed-emwazi-identified.html?emc=edit_na_20150226

Five things you need to know about Charlotte’s proposed LGBT non-discrimination ordinances

Five things you need to know about Charlotte’s proposed LGBT non-discrimination ordinances

Posted: 25 Feb 2015 05:01 AM PST

Charlotte City Council is due to consider amendments to several local non-discrimination ordinances at their March 2 meeting. The changes would extend protections to members of the LGBT community and others. Here are five quick facts you need to know and ways you can take action and get involved.

Charlotte Council meeting will be heavy on anti-gay rhetoric

Charlotte Council meeting will be heavy on anti-gay rhetoric

Posted: 25 Feb 2015 02:10 PM PST

When City Council meets on March 2 to consider LGBT-inclusive updates to local non-discrimination ordinances, they'll be met in force with three dozen or more anti-gay Christian activists.

Talk Toughens as U.S.-Israel Relations Fray

By PETER BAKER and JODI RUDORENFEB. 25, 2015

WASHINGTON — When President Obama’s national security adviser sat down with her Israeli counterpart at the White House last week, she upbraided him over leaks in Jerusalem that the Americans interpreted as an attempt to undermine nuclear negotiations with Iran.

The meeting, shielded from the public but fraught with tension, brought home the depth of the frustration between Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It is a mutual enmity that has only grown in recent days as Mr. Netanyahu prepares to address the Republican-led Congress next week about the dangers of a possible nuclear deal with Iran.

What started out last month as a dispute over a speech has consumed the two sides ever since, threatening long-term consequences and possibly fracturing America’s tradition of bipartisan support for Israel. The president’s national security adviser, Susan E. Rice, evidently was not mollified by the meeting with Yossi Cohen, her Israeli counterpart, since she said in a television interview on Tuesday night that Mr. Netanyahu’s actions were “destructive” because they were injecting partisanship into the relationship.

  Video

Play Video|0:57

Rice Opposes Netanyahu’s Planned Speech

Rice Opposes Netanyahu’s Planned Speech

Susan E. Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser, said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned speech to Congress posed a problem for the Israeli-American relationship.

Video by Charlie Rose on Publish Date February 25, 2015. Photo by Charlie Rose.

Her comment came even as Mr. Netanyahu turned down a new invitation to meet separately with Senate Democrats while in Washington, further fueling the partisan flavor of the dispute. For their part, as of Wednesday afternoon, administration officials had not told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a bipartisan pro-Israel lobby, who — if anyone — it was sending to its annual conference in Washington starting Sunday.

The relationship “has never been so terrible as it is today,” said Giora Eiland, a former Israeli national security adviser. “Nobody even tries to use any diplomatic words.”

Eytan Gilboa, an expert on Israeli-American relations at Bar-Ilan University, called Ms. Rice’s comment “unprecedented” and told Israel Radio that it was clear the longstanding bipartisanship that underpinned the alliance “has now been badly broken.”

The polarization seems to be growing. J Street, a pro-Israel group more aligned with Mr. Obama’s positions on Iran, is running a full-page ad in Thursday newspapers attacking Mr. Netanyahu for coming to Capitol Hill just two weeks before his own election. “Prime Minister Netanyahu: Congress Isn’t a Prop for Your Election Campaign,” the ad declares.

On the other side, Republicans were happy to portray Democrats as insufficiently supportive of Israel. Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate, began selling $35 T-shirts that say “I Stand With Bibi,” using Mr. Netanyahu’s nickname. “Obama and the Democrats refuse to stand with Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu,” her political action committee said in an email to supporters. “Will you?”

For many Israel supporters, including those at AIPAC who have labored to maintain support across the aisle, the splintering represents a profound danger. AIPAC will try to counter the trend by sending supporters to all 535 congressional offices during its three-day conference.

Document: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Letter to Democratic Senators

But critics and even some supporters of Mr. Netanyahu were dismayed by his decision to decline an invitation from Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, two of Israel’s strongest Democratic supporters, to meet with Democrats while in town.

“Since when does an Israeli prime minister say no to a meeting with Democrats?” said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. He added: “By the way, their Israeli voting record is impeccable. Not good, not very good, impeccable. The Democrats extend a hand of sorts and he says no? This defies explanation.”

An Israeli official said Mr. Netanyahu turned down the Democrats because he also declined an invitation to meet separately with congressional Republicans. While he accepted an invitation to address a joint meeting of Congress from Speaker John A. Boehner, a Republican, that was extended on behalf of the Congress as a body and both parties are invited. The partisanship has been created by others, the Israeli official said.

“It was important to try to keep this as bipartisan as possible,” said the official, who asked not to be named in keeping with diplomatic protocol. “That’s why he rejected both requests he had for meetings from Republicans and Democrats.” Instead, Mr. Netanyahu will focus on the speech to Congress. “From his perspective, it’s the last chance he has to voice the deep concerns he and many others in Israel have as we see this agreement with Iran taking shape.”

Other efforts by the Israelis to reframe the debate have fallen short. Ron Dermer, the ambassador to Washington and a close ally of Mr. Netanyahu who helped arrange the congressional invitation, emailed Arab ambassadors to encourage them to come to Mr. Netanyahu’s speech to make the point that Arab nations are also worried about a nuclear Iran, the journalist Jeffrey Goldberg reported on The Atlantic’s website. At least two envoys, from Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, turned him down.

At a campaign event in Israel on Wednesday, Mr. Netanyahu stood firm, ratcheting up his criticism of the developing deal with Iran. Referring to the world powers negotiating with Tehran, he said “it seems they have given up on that commitment” to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, according to the Israeli daily Haaretz.

“I respect the White House and the president of the United States,” he was quoted as saying. “But on such a critical topic that could determine whether we exist or not, it is my duty to do everything to prevent this great danger to the state of Israel.”

In Washington, Secretary of State John Kerry rejected the criticism. Mr. Netanyahu considered the interim agreement reached with Iran that opened the talks for a longer-term deal as “the worst thing that ever happened,” Mr. Kerry said during a House hearing. “Well guess what? Every aspect of the interim agreement has been complied with.”

Mr. Kerry also needled Mr. Netanyahu by recalling that the prime minister supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, “and we all know what happened with that decision.”

During her meeting last week with Mr. Cohen, the Israeli adviser, Ms. Rice expressed the administration’s pique at leaks by the government in Jerusalem about the Iranian talks, the kinds of leaks she said had not happened in the past.

To the Americans, it seemed an intentional effort to torpedo the negotiations with one-sided information, and it undercut trust. “We shared with them that this causes us great concern,” said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. Israeli officials have complained that the Americans are freezing them out, which the White House has denied.

Ms. Rice raised the stakes in her interview with Charlie Rose on PBS on Tuesday night when she said Mr. Netanyahu’s decision to speak to Congress two weeks before Israeli elections has “injected a degree of partisanship, which is not only unfortunate, I think it’s destructive of the fabric of the relationship.”

With the exception of that one word, she was following the standard script that the White House has used recently. The White House strategy has been to sit back and let Mr. Netanyahu endure the criticism he has generated. White House officials said she was not trying to escalate by using the word “destructive” — no talking points were sent in advance to American officials — but she clearly felt license to say it, and it reflected the lack of any imperative on the part of the White House to try to smooth over the clash.

Netanyahu’s Blind Spot - Full of hubris, Bibi fails to realize that Israel is not as popular as it once was

Netanyahu’s Blind Spot

Full of hubris, Bibi fails to realize that Israel is not as popular as it once was.

By Scott McConnell • February 25, 2015

yakub88 / Shutterstock.com

Whatever Benjamin Netanyahu says when he addresses Congress will likely be overshadowed by the controversy his speech has already generated.

John Boehner’s invitation to the Israeli leader has become a partisan issue; several Democrats have announced they will avoid the speech, and countless more will simply not show up. Neither Obama, nor John Kerry, nor Vice President Biden will meet with the Israeli prime minister. “The lobby is a night flower. It thrives in the dark and dies in the sun,” AIPAC’s former research director Steve Rosen wrote in a memo to a new employee in 1982. Rosen recognized that the more Israel’s influence on Capitol Hill and the Executive Branch was acknowledged, the more vulnerable it would be to challenge. Netanyahu and his ambassador, by arranging the invitation, have inadvertently put Israel’s influence on the Congress under a bright light.

It was supposed to work differently. For instance: In 1958, John F. Kennedy met with Philip Klutznick, a major figure of the Presidents Conference of Major Jewish Organizations. Kennedy, who had traveled in Palestine as a young man, expressed concern about Palestinian refugees. Klutznick set him straight: if he planned to talk like that, he shouldn’t count on any financial support from Klutznick or his friends during the presidential bid Kennedy was contemplating. JFK got the message and dropped the refugee topic for the duration of the campaign. This was early Israel lobby, the night flower at its classic best: a quiet behind the scenes reminder, a potentially nettlesome subject disappears from political discussion, the public none the wiser.

Instead there is this: more than a month of media debate over Netanyahu’s speech; obvious contempt flowing between the Israeli government and President Obama. Dueling full-page newspaper ads. State Department spokespeople openly mock the Israeli leader’s comments about the Iran negotiations. Netanyahu plunges ahead; for him the speech has become central to his own election campaign, and to postpone it might show weakness.

The Israel lobby is far from slain. AIPAC is closely involved in lobbying for Senate legislation designed to blow up the Iran negotiations, and is within shouting distance of securing a veto-proof majority. And yet a generation ago, an Israel lobbyist famously boasted he could get 70 senators to sign a cocktail napkin in a day’s time. Here with a Republican majority determined to undermine and embarrass President Obama, plus a number of Democrats who are either reflexively pro-Israel or dependent on Israel lobby funds, the Kirk-Menendez legislation has 60-odd supporters, after months of work.

What will Netanyahu say? He surely will claim Iran is pledged to Israel’s destruction, that it is a messianic, apocalyptic regime whose nuclear aspirations pose an existential threat to Israel. Israeli leaders say this again and again. Existential, a big word so significant in Western intellectual life in the ‘50s and ‘60s, so laden with profound and mysterious connotation, but hard to truly grasp. (“Shoot the Piano Player” is an existential movie, a girlfriend told me at 17, as if that was supposed to clear it up.)

But here the meaning is simple, that a nuclear Iran threatens Israel’s existence, or as it is often put, its “very existence.” James Fallows is one who has addressed this claim lucidly:

We’ve reached the stage where a particular word obscures more than it clarifies about Iran and its nuclear prospects. That word is “existential,” as in this now-standard formulation from Prime Minister Netanyahu: “A nuclear Iran is an existential threat on Israel and also on the rest of the world.”

I have learned in seeing mail that if the first paragraph of a message includes the word “existential,” I know 90 percent of what will come next. In this context an existential threat, literally a challenge to continued existence, means implicitly likening Iran to Nazi Germany—or explicitly equating it, as Netanyahu has done for many years.

By definition an existential threat justifies any action that might forestall it, from preemptive military strikes to efforts at torpedoing an “unacceptable” diplomatic deal. It makes all compromises suspect. And it means that opinions from other countries lack moral standing, because after all their existence is not on the line.

Fallows goes on to make several strong points. In the nuclear age, we are all under an existential threat. Americans have been so ever since they lost their monopoly on nuclear weapons. South Korea is probably the most existentially threatened nation on the planet right now—as its enemy, North Korea, regularly brandishes its arsenal and makes terrifying threats. But for some reason the South Korean president isn’t invited to address Congress.

There is no valid comparison between the situation Israel might face with a nuclear-capable Iran and Nazi Germany. In 1938, Germany had the most powerful army in the world. Iran’s is nowhere near the top 10. In a nuclear war with Israel, Iran would get incinerated, because Israel is a nuclear power with a substantial arsenal. The 1938 analogy doesn’t withstand the most basic scrutiny.

Does Netanyahu realize his open fight with the administration risks damage to Israel’s special relationship with the United States? The Israeli press is full of such musings. Why does an Israeli leader savvy enough to be elected several times not recognize the danger? I would surmise that the answer lies in his supreme self-confidence, which has never failed Netanyahu in the past. He knows the United States well, having attended high school and graduate school here, and speaks English fluently. In countless interviews on American television, he seems never to have faced a well-informed opponent. He aligned himself early on with American neoconservatives, a tough and intelligent group whose influence seemed to know no direction but up from 1975 onwards.

His past appearances in Congress have been hugely successful. In 2002, stated before a Congressional hearing that Saddam Hussein was “pursuing with abandon, with every ounce of effort, weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons … Saddam is hell-bent on achieving atomic bombs as fast as he can.” Bibi went on to charge that Saddam has sprinkled Iraq with “nuclear centrifuges the size of washing machines” and that nothing short of an American invasion or regime change would stop Saddam from passing out nuclear weapons to terrorist groups. An invasion, he concluded would work out swimmingly. “If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you it will have enormous positive reverberations around the region,” he concluded.

No one sought to bring these predictions up when he was invited again in 2011, receiving 29 standing ovations for explaining that Obama’s efforts to forge a two-state solution were a nonstarter. Years earlier, before these speeches, in a private meeting with right-wing West Bank settlers, Netanyahu had boasted that “America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.” How could his Capitol Hill experiences fail to confirm this view?

But things have actually changed in the United States. Not a lot, but somewhat. The neoonservatives remain entrenched in the think tanks and the GOP, and are hardly without influence. But they are broadly distrusted in ways they weren’t before the Iraq war. When you hear “Paul Wolfowitz” you don’t think smart guy, hawkish; you think architect of the Iraq disaster.

The issue, too, is different. It is not fairness or a sliver of justice to the Palestinians, of whom it could be said possess few resources beyond their patience and capacity for endurance. It is Iran. And make no mistake, Netanyahu is asking America to prepare for war against Iran. Had the war with Iraq gone swimmingly, his case would meet less resistance. But it didn’t. The cost of Iraq was a wrecked country, hundreds of thousands of destroyed lives, trillions of dollars wasted, and the rise of ISIS. Iran is four times bigger.

Before the Iraq war, the eminent diplomatic historian Paul Schroeder in this magazine mused that one of the unspoken but important reasons for the war was that it would benefit Israel. This circumstance of a great power fighting as a proxy on behalf of a small client state represented something that Schroeder found “unique in history.” It is true that if it happened once it could happen again. But Netanyahu may not recognized there is organized pushback that did not exist 12 or 13 years ago. There is a professionalized pro-peace constituency in D.C., far larger and more organized than the justice for Palestine or anti-Iraq war elements were. In America at large there is inchoate and perhaps exaggerated fear of Sunni Muslim extremism, of ISIS risen from the ashes of destroyed Iraq. But with that fear it is dawning on Americans that Iran is perhaps the only state in the Mideast both willing and able to fight ISIS. The American military certainly understands this.

Finally, Netanyahu probably fails to realize that Israel itself is simply not as popular as it once was. The decades of occupation have taken a toll. Grassroots Democrats (the delegates at the 2012 convention) oppose the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem. Most Americans want the United States to be neutral between Israelis and Palestinians. Most Americans disapprove of the invitation for Netanyahu to address Congress without consulting the White House. The world has shifted in the last few years, not greatly but not trivially, in ways Netanyahu does not appreciate.

I hope Netanyahu goes ahead with his speech. I hope he’s re-elected. He has become a polarizing figure, a walking billboard for an Israel that foments war and rejects compromises for peace, a potent symbol for all those who think the United States is too close to Israel for America’s own good. God willing, Netanyahu won’t succeed in bringing about a war between the United States and Iran. He’s not popular enough. But he is making more and more Americans question the special relationship. Go Bibi Go.

Scott McConnell is a founding editor of The American Conservative.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/netanyahus-blind-spot/

When did Shakespeare and Cervantes Die?

Shakespeare and Cervantes died on the same date, but not on the same day.

Writers William Shakespeare and Miguel de Cervantes did not die on the same
day. While both writers died on April 23, 1616, it was when countries were
using two different calendar systems: the Gregorian and Julian calendars.
Cervantes died in Spain which used the Gregorian calendar, now referred to
as the Western calendar, and is widely used as of 2015. Shakespeare died in
England which still used the Julian calendar. England would not adopt the
Gregorian calendar until 1752. To switch from the Julian to Gregorian
calendar, countries had to add 10 days to the current date to get on track
with the new system. Therefore, if the switch to Gregorian was to occur
after July 6, the next day would be July 14. Shakespeare died 10 days after
Cervantes on May 3, 1616.

Read More: http://www.wisegeek.com/when-did-shakespeare-and-cervantes-die.htm?m

Why Collection of Arrestee DNA Violates the Fourth Amendment

Why Collection of Arrestee DNA Violates the Fourth Amendment

Wednesday 18 February 2015 at 3:00 PM ET edited by Jenna Decker

JURIST Guest Columnist Christen Giannaros, St. John's University School of Law Class of 2015, is the twelfth author in a twelve-part series from the staffers of the Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development. Giannaros discusses the Fourth Amendment rights violations implicit in DNA collection upon arrest...

©  WikiMedia (Olek Remesz)

In 2010, Alonzo King was arrested on assault charges. At the station house, a police officer took a cotton swab and ran it against King's inner cheek, collecting his DNA. Police were acting pursuant to a federal statute, which allows for the collection of DNA from arrested individuals. When King's DNA was processed, police discovered that it matched the DNA found at a 2003 rape crime scene, and subsequently prosecuted him for that crime.
Most individuals who hear about King's eventual capture would be relieved: they feel safer, they feel better protected and they feel that justice has been served. But there is a bigger, more serious concern lurking in the background: DNA collection from arrestees violates the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment prohibits searches and seizures executed without a warrant or probable cause. This important protection is explicitly violated each time law enforcement collects and processes an arrestee's DNA, because there is no probable cause to search the arrestee for any crimes other than the one he was arrested for.
Unfortunately, this concern fell on deaf ears when the US Supreme Court, in Maryland v. King, determined that arrestee DNA collection is constitutional because it helps law enforcement confirm an individual's identity. But the court relied almost entirely on a false premise in reaching this conclusion. As Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent, an arrestee is not "identified" when his DNA sample matches an unknown DNA sample recovered from an unsolved crime scene. Rather, an arrestee is "identified" through the process of fingerprinting, measurements and photographs. The majority's decision rests on shaky grounds, and the constitutional deprivations that will follow are extremely worrisome.
The first flaw in the court's decision is its mischaracterization of an arrestee's expectation of privacy. The Supreme Court has previously held that in order for an individual to contest a search, that individual must have an "expectation of privacy" in the area to be searched. The majority asserted that since arrestees are in the custody of the police, they should necessarily expect that their privacy will be intruded upon (i.e., have their DNA collected and searched), the argument goes. But this lack-of-privacy argument fails to recognize that although arrestees are in police custody, they are not similar to convicts or parolees, who have already been proven guilty of a crime and justifiably retain no expectation of privacy. (Prior Supreme Court cases have established that convicts and parolees have a diminished expectation of privacy.) Instead, arrestees are presumed innocent until proven guilty, a basic tenet of American criminal law, and thus retain an expectation of privacy.
As such, the collection of arrestee DNA is unjustifiably intrusive. But criminals like King are not the only ones that should be worried about the court's recent decision. Falsely accused individuals, offenders of non-violent crimes and completely innocent arrestees must have their DNA collected too. In addition to the wrongful use of a person's DNA to search for a link to unsolved crimes, what makes the collection objectionable is that the federal DNA statute is silent about what happens to the DNA sample. Currently, the DNA information from the sample gets stored as a DNA "profile" on a nationwide database for criminals. If an individual is later found innocent or not prosecuted, the government must destroy the DNA profile after the arrestee obtains a final court order stating that he may have his profile removed. The actual DNA "sample," however, is indefinitely retained by the government—meaning that law enforcement retains unbridled access to the sensitive, private information that DNA stores. I can't help but reference the Orwellian undertones evident in this limitless grant of police authority.
Further, because DNA contains sensitive genetic information, it can be used to perform familial searches. A familial search is a partial search in which law enforcement, who cannot match a recovered DNA sample from a crime scene to a DNA sample in the nationwide database, search the database for someone who might be related to the recovered sample. If a familial relationship between the known individual in the database and the unknown sample is shown, law enforcement can find and investigate the known individual and his family in efforts to find the true perpetrator. This has serious privacy implications. First, it subjects purely innocent individuals to harassment and investigation by law enforcement. Secondly, African Americans are more likely to be the subject of this harassment, since they represent about 40 percent of people convicted of felonies each year. One study showed that 17 percent of African Americans could be identified through familial searches—a stark contrast to the 4 percent of Caucasians who could be identified through familial searches.
Are you still unconvinced of King's serious consequences? Let's say you are falsely arrested for a crime you did not commit. At the station house, you are cornered into an impossible choice: either submit a DNA sample which the government can retain indefinitely (for a crime you did not commit), or refuse to submit a DNA sample and be charged with a class A misdemeanor. You should not have to choose between having your Fourth Amendment rights violated and being charged with a crime. Despite these serious implications, the court justified using arrestee DNA for identification purposes, even though effective "identification" measures already exist: fingerprinting, photographing and body measurements.
The Fourth Amendment is the heart of our protections against intrusions by the government. As such, a search incident to arrest may only be executed to yield either weapons or evidence that the individual may destroy, or evidence that is relevant to the crime of arrest. In searching an arrestee for his DNA, none of these objectives are satisfied. That the government can come up with a practical need for requiring arrestee DNA collection is not a reason to eviscerate our exceptional Fourth Amendment rights.
Christen Giannaros earned a B.A. in Political Science and Sociology from Queens College. Christen interned with Sony Music's Legal Department, and currently serves as a law clerk for Bondi Iovino & Fusco. Christen also serves as an Internal Competition Director for the St. John's Moot Court Honor Society.
Suggested Citation: Christen Giannaros, Why Collection of Arrestee DNA Violates the Fourth Amendment, JURIST - Student Commentary, Feb. 18, 2015 http://jurist.org/student/2015/02/christen-giannaros-fourth-amendment-dna-collection.php

California plastic bag ban halted by referendum petition

California plastic bag ban halted by referendum petition

Wednesday 25 February 2015 at 11:28 AM ET by Peter Snyder

©  WikiMedia (Trosmisiek)

[JURIST] The implementation of California's plastic bag ban [SB 270 text], which was set to go into effect in July, has been halted by a successful referendum petition. The trade group American Progressive Bag Alliance (ACPA) [advocacy website] collected [LAT report] more than 800,000 signatures on their petition [petition form]. A random sampling of these signatures by election officials is projected to satisfy the requirement 504,760 signatures needed to place the measure on the November 2016 ballot. The ACPA contends [PITA report] the bag ban will eliminate manufacturing jobs and boost grocery store profits. Supporters of ban, including campaign group California vs. Big Plastic [advocacy website], argue the law is intended to protect the environment by preventing littering and pollution caused by plastic grocery bags. In addition, supporters of the ban have heavily criticized the more than $3 million spent by ACPA in their push for a referendum. The referendum will not affect bans on plastic grocery bags enacted by 138 cities and counties in California.
SB 270 has faced a protracted and continuing political battle. California Governor Jerry Brown [official website] signed [JURIST report] the bill in October, making it the first law of its kind in the US. California Senator Alex Padilla [official website] introduced the bill in an effort to reduce the amount of litter caused in the state by plastic bags. Austin, Texas, banned [Earth Policy Institute report] plastic bags in 2013 and in January 2014, Los Angeles because the largest US city to ban the use of plastic bags.

Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

New study: We should stop fighting marijuana legalization and focus on alcohol and tobacco instead

WEATHER ALERT USA- Local News Alert: D.C. public schools to open on 2-hour delay

Wed., Feb. 25, 2015 10:01 PM

View in your Web browser

Local News Alert: D.C. public schools to open on 2-hour delay

D.C. Public Schools will open on a two-hour delay Thursday because of weather conditions. Check back for the status of other school districts in the region, and stay with Capital Weather Gang for the latest on the winter weather.”

Read more »

North Carolina Senators Vote to Give Clerks 'Right to Discriminate'

North Carolina Senators Vote to Give Clerks 'Right to Discriminate'

Posted: 25 Feb 2015 11:18 AM PST

The North Carolina Senate just passed a bill that would allow registrars and magistrates to refuse to marry same-sex couples on the basis of 'sincerely held religious beliefs.'
read more

Florida Republicans Spend Nearly $1 Million On Obamacare Alternative And Nobody Signs Up

Author: Jameson Parker February 25, 2015 8:35 pm

Florida Republicans were eager to dispel the suggestion that conservatives have no practical alternative to Obamacare, and will be screwing millions of people out of health insurance should their incessant efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act actually come to fruition. So, to prove everybody wrong, the state’s Republican lawmakers designed a rival marketplace that they hoped would dissuade people from seeking insurance on the federal (read: Socialist Obama) exchange. Spoiler: It’s a massive failure.
The Republican-dominated Florida legislature has been adamant in refusing to work with the new healthcare laws or even expand Medicaid. The partisan fight has prevented an estimated 750,000 Floridians from receiving health insurance, despite the new law. That’s too bad, because other conservative states that swallowed their pride and began working with the ACA have seen massive cuts in their uninsured rates (go figure!) and overwhelming satisfaction from the people who now receive care under the healthcare reforms (again… go figure).

To prove that they weren’t heartless, just ideologically stubborn, Republicans, led by Sen. Marco Rubio, plopped down over $800,000 to design and implement their own health insurance marketplace. The alternative isn’t meant to mirror the ACA, but provide a conservative-based model. This means that much of what people would consider essential to any effective health insurance plan (e.g., covering the cost of hospital stays, limiting out-of-pocket expenses for pricey surgeries, etc.) aren’t included. Those would be hand outs, and the road to Stalinism is paved with handouts. Instead, the “insurance” consists of what amounts to coupons offering discounts for things like prescriptions and eyeglasses.
If coupons for eyeglasses doesn’t sound like enough temptation to get people to abandon comprehensive health insurance under Obamacare, you’d be right. Six months after the launch of the program, called Florida Health Choices, and the Tampa Bay Times reported in August that just 30 people had signed up. (In fairness, they said another seven individuals had initially signed up but later cancelled.) By the end of the year, that number swelled… to 49.
The offerings on the Florida Health Choices exchange are so awful that almost none of the 764,000 Floridians who have been blocked from getting health insurance by Florida Republicans have taken the bait, either. They’d rather have nothing than the insulting crumbs thrown at them by conservative lawmakers.

As with every conservative shortcoming recently, Republicans were quick to blame liberals for the failures of their policies:

The plan’s biggest backer in the Legislature blames the lack of business on the federal Affordable Care Act, which features comprehensive plans with varying subsidies for those who qualify.
“Obviously we wanted more (business), but the competition is giving it away for free,” said state Sen. Aaron Bean, R-Fernandina Beach.

In other words, the “competition” was out-competing them by offering a more effective business model. The proof is in the hard numbers. Despite the roadblocks set up by Republicans, Florida signed up a truly staggering 1.6 million people for healthcare under the ACA during the 2015 open enrollment. It’s the highest number in any state in the nation. And by a great deal. If you are one of the 49 people who signed up for Marco Rubio’s alternative, you may want to head over to healthcare.gov as soon as possible. You backed the wrong horse.

Read The FBI's File On 'Radical Extremist' Anti-Gay Pastor Fred Phelps

Read The FBI's File On 'Radical Extremist' Anti-Gay Pastor Fred Phelps

Recently released FBI records on Fred Phelps, the head of the Westboro Baptist Church who died in March, show that the bureau considered him a "radical extremist" and had received complaints about Phelps and his church, as well as requests from his organization to investigate various threats. Read more.

Romania gets serious about ending its notorious corruption

Romania's anticorruption taskforce is making great strides in one of Europe's most corrupt nations. Among the thousand-plus convicted last year are 24 mayors, five MPs, two ex-ministers, and a former prime minister.

By Kit Gillet, Correspondent February 25, 2015

• 

  Marian Ilie/Reuters

  View Caption

Bucharest, Romania — Outside the National Anticorruption Directorate in downtown Bucharest, more than a dozen reporters and cameramen stand around chatting. It’s a weekday afternoon, and they know it’s only a matter of time before the next high-profile Romanian shows up to face charges of corruption.
Even a few years ago, Romania's powerful and well-connected were able to line their own pockets with impunity, earning the country deserved notoriety as one of Europe's most graft-ridden nations.
But today, in a perfect storm of external pressure from the European Union and internal public anger, Romania's crackdown on corruption is almost routine. With an independent and tenacious special prosecutor's office driving the effort, the country is making dramatic strides in holding elites just as accountable as the common man.

Recommended: Think you know Europe? Take our geography quiz.

Major progress

Romania has long been considered one of the most graft-ridden countries in Europe, ranking last among European Union member states on Transparency International’s 2014 Corruption Perception Index (tied with Greece, Italy, and Bulgaria).

Yet as part of the country’s ascension into the EU, which they joined in 2007 along with neighboring Bulgaria, Romania – where graft reaches to all levels of society – was required to clean up its act.
“It started because we had the right mix of external pressure from the European Commission and internal pressure from the population,” says Laura Stefan, an anticorruption expert and a former director in the Romanian Ministry of Justice.
Yet, she adds: “When this started, there was no trust in the state. A lot of people were skeptical, and it took a long time and a lot of strong cases to convince people.”
In 2003, the country established the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA), a specialized prosecutor's office tasked with fighting corruption and graft. Initially the DNA targeted lower-level figures, but within a few years it was aiming far higher, and the number of people convicted of high-level graft of more than 10,000 euros ($11,300) has risen accordingly.
Last year 1,138 individuals, including politicians, businessmen, judges, and prosecutors, were convicted of corruption in Romania, up from 155 in 2006. This included 24 mayors, five members of parliament, two ex-ministers, and a former prime minister, not to mention seven judges and 13 prosecutors. Those convicted include politicians of all stripes, irrespective of party lines.

High-profile targets

This year the headlines have continued to pile up. Last week Monica Iacob Ridzi, a former sports and youth minister, was sentenced to five years in prison for abuse of power and corruption. A few days earlier, a former transportation minister was also jailed, sentenced to two years for taking bribes while in office, including getting a house built for his mother free of charge.
These days Romanian news channels are fixated on the rapid fall from grace of Elena Udrea, a glamorous MP, former tourism minister, and recent presidential candidate (she finished fourth) who was arrested in mid-February on charges of money laundering, influence peddling, and taking bribes. Pundits had a field day when Ms. Udrea asked for permission to refurbish and decorate the cell she was being held in under preventive arrest.
Some 7 percent of politicians elected in 2012 have been convicted or are currently under investigation for corruption, according to estimates. The DNA’s conviction success rate is over 90 percent.
The DNA’s biggest conviction to date has been that of former Prime Minister Adrian Nastase (2000-2004), who was sentenced to four years behind bars in January 2014 for bribery and blackmail.
“Right now it is ugly, but it is a sign of progress, it shows willingness,” says Cristian Ghinea, director of the Romanian Center for European Policies, a Bucharest-based think tank.

Push back

This progress, however, has not come without a backlash.
DNA’s chief prosecutor, Laura Codruta Kovesi, has had her personal life regularly attacked in the media, particularly by news organizations owned or linked with some of the powerful men who have been targeted by DNA investigations. Last year she sued one television station for libel after it accused her of taking bribes.
Yet these public accusations seem to have had little impact on the popularity of the DNA or of Ms. Kovesi herself; in fact, some have suggested that the organization is now Romania’s fourth-most-trusted institution, behind only the church, Army, and security services.
In a statement released last month to coincide with the EU’s latest report on corruption, Frans Timmermans, vice president of the European Commission wrote that: “Romania is on the right course and needs to stick to it. Tackling corruption remains the biggest challenge and the biggest priority.”
Any remaining concerns hinge on the actions of parliament, which has previously tried to curtail the scope of investigations.
While politicians have at least publicly supported the DNA’s anticorruption drive, there have been attempts in parliament to shield elected officials from investigation and prosecution.
In December 2013, on a day dubbed Black Tuesday,the parliament passed a draft law that would have granted immunity to elected officials. The international community reacted strongly, as did many Romanians who took to the streets in protest, and the measures were later struck down.

No longer untouchable

Last November, just days after an anticorruption candidate won Romania’s latest presidential election, lawmakers were once again called to vote on a controversial amnesty bill. This one would have opened the way to releasing any inmate serving up to six years in prison for non-violent crimes – which would have included most of those serving time for corruption.
This time the vote was almost unanimously against the bill.
If there were clear-cut signs that no one is now safe from investigation, it has been in recent weeks, as first Udrea, the former presidential candidate, was arrested, and then Iulian Hertanu, the brother-in-law of Romania’s Prime Minister Victor Ponta, was detained. Mr. Hertanu was allegedly involved in embezzling funds worth around 1.75 million euros.
“The area of untouchables has gotten smaller and smaller with time,” says Ms. Stefan, the anticorruption expert.
“People are seeing for the first time, if you steal you go to jail, no matter who you are. This is the way it should be, but we need to keep the momentum.”

Bowser: Legal pot possession to take effect at midnight

Bowser: Legal pot possession to take effect at midnight

D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser announced on live television Wednesday that marijuana possession will become legal in the District at 12:01 a.m. Thursday. “We believe that we’re acting lawfully,” Bowser said, offering a direct retort to House Republicans who late Tuesday urged the mayor to reconsider moving forward with legalization.

Read more »

Alaska becomes third state to allow recreational marijuana use

Alaska becomes third state to allow recreational marijuana use

Tuesday 24 February 2015 at 1:02 PM ET by Elizabeth LaForgia

©  WikiMedia (Axsadi Sánchez de Tagle)

[JURIST] Alaska's voter initiative legalizing marijuana use takes effect Tuesday, making it the third state, along with Colorado and Washington, to legalize recreational marijuana. The ballot[text], which was approved by voters in November, allows adults 21 and older to possess up to an ounce of marijuana and up to six plants. However, it is still illegal to sell marijuana in the state. Alaska Governor Bill Walker filed legislation [Alaska Public Media report] on Monday to create a marijuana control board to handle the regulation and licensing of marijuana retailers. As of now, it is legal to give or barter for marijuana, but not to sell it. Under the ballot measure's implementation timeline, marijuana retailers are not expected to have licenses until 2016. Smoking marijuana in public is also banned, and state police officers have said [AP report] they plan to strictly enforce the ban with fines of up to $100.
The legal use and sale of marijuana [JURIST backgrounder] for both medical and recreational purposes has become a major political issue in the US with a number of states contemplating various legalization initiatives. In December Oklahoma and Nebraska filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] against neighboring Colorado over the new marijuana market. In November voters in Alaska, Oregon and Washington, DC, voted [JURIST report] to legalize recreational marijuana. In September the Pennsylvania State Senate approved [JURIST Report] legislation that would legalize several forms of medical marijuana. In July Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed [JURIST report] legislation that will allow adults and children suffering from seizures access to medical marijuana. In April the Maryland House of Representatives passed a bill [JURIST report] that would decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Harsh rhetoric sets stage for High Noon drama in Netanyahu’s Congress speech [PM burns bridges]

Harsh rhetoric sets stage for High Noon drama in Netanyahu’s Congress speech

The prime minister’s onslaught could convince Tehran to take the nuclear deal and to widen current U.S.-Israel rift to a historic rupture.

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden

By Chemi Shalev 

     submit to reddit  

If there was any hope in the Prime Minister’s Office that recent reports of breakthroughs in the nuclear talks with Iran would blunt some of the controversy and create a more convenient atmosphere in advance of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to Congress, by mid-week it was clear that this was nothing more than a temporary lull before all-out war broke out. The administration brought out its heavy guns, Netanyahu counterattacked with harsh tones and wagging finger, burning his bridges with Democratic senators in the process.

Susan Rice, often described as the “feistiest” of Netanyahu’s Washington foes, said his latest moves were “destructive”. Secretary of State John Kerry lost his familiar cool before a skeptical Congressional panel, conjuring Netanyahu’s misplaced 2002 projections about Iraq in an effort to undermine his dire 2015 predictions on Iran. Netanyahu, for his part, began to talk to world’s powers in the same language he addresses his political foes, accusing them of capitulation before he goes on, presumably, to describe them as weak-kneed, anti-Zionist enemies of the state.

All this against a backdrop of increasingly high-octane rhetoric, starting with Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, an Israel supporter and AIPAC stalwart, who accused Netanyahu of “disappointing those of us who have stood with Israel for decades”; through Tennessee Congressman Steve Cohen who described Netanyahu as “reckless”; and, most injuriously of all, Daily Show host Jon Stewart who used the recent revelations of questionable intelligence documents to accuse Netanyahu of spreading the same kind of lies about Iran that the Bush administration used to justify its war in Iraq – and with similar goals in mind.

On the other hand, however, one can’t deny that this ballooning brouhaha is only enhancing the anticipation and expectations in advance of Netanyahu’s speech, turning it into a potential ratings blockbuster, the best show in town, a one on one, High Noon style showdown between Netanyahu and President Obama, tense political drama of the kind that House of Card writers can only dream about. Before the fight of the century between boxers Mayweather and Pacquiao, Netanyahu will be stepping up to a Capitol Hill podium for his own fateful battle, with the whole world against him and only the Republicans cheering him on.

It’s impossible to tell what the reaction will be on the day after, but the headlines the night before are crystal clear: “The speech of his life”. Not only because his Congress appearance is emerging as Netanyahu’s last defense against the incessant wave of negative publicity and insinuations of corruption that are plaguing his chances for reelection, but because this is the supposedly Churchillian moment that he’s been waiting for all his life. Now he will be Daniel entering the Lions’ Den to caution the world against the dangers he’s been warning about for the past quarter century at least: “One cannot dismiss the possibility,” he wrote in his 1995 book A Place Among the Nations, “that Iran will use atomic weapons, not only against Israel but against other countries, will deceive Western countries, including the United States, first and foremost, and thus try to bring about the ancient vision of the victory of Islam over the infidels.”

The strange and even tragic thing is that in recent weeks, Netanyahu has been doing all he can to help the Iranians achieve what he describes as “a license” to make nuclear weapons, first by alienating Obama and the administration and they by infuriating the Democratic senators, without which there is no veto-proof majority that can sustain legislation that might stop the deal. Such was the case when he declined the invitations of Senators Durbin and Feinstein to meet separately and privately with Democratic senators by using the preposterous claim that it is this, rather than his collusion with Boehner on the invitation, that would damage bipartisan support for Israel.

Perhaps Netanyahu should travel to the Majlis in Tehran instead of Congress in Washington, given that Ayatollah Khamenei could be the last remaining obstacle preventing the agreement that Netanyahu describes as an existential threat. If Netanyahu were to lavishly praise the proposed agreement, the Iranians might be convinced of its faults and step away. But after he rains down fire and brimstone next Tuesday on Capitol, Hill, Tehran might very well conclude not only that this is indeed the deal of the century but also a once in a lifetime opportunity to widen the rift that Netanyahu has created between Israel and America to a historic rupture that will be very hard to heal.