Tag Archives: civil liberties

US Justice Department Blasts Baltimore PD for Rampant Racism

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Two weeks after a Baltimore prosecutor dropped charges against the remaining officers awaiting trial in the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray, the US Department of Justice on Wednesday released a scathing 163-page report on its investigation into the policies and practices of the Baltimore Police Department.

The DOJ interviewed hundreds of Baltimore residents, as well as officers and other police officials. It also reviewed training materials, data on pedestrian and vehicle stops, data on arrests between 2010 and 2015, and use-of-force reports going back more than five years. It found that Baltimore officers routinely engaged in unconstitutional stops, searches, and arrests—overwhelmingly involving African Americans—and that the department’s policies encourage officers to have “unnecessary, adversarial interactions with community members.” The report calls on the department to address “racism” within its ranks. The investigation’s key findings include:

Baltimore police officers disproportionately targeted black residents for stops, searches, and arrests. Baltimore police recorded 300,000 pedestrians stops from January 2010 to June 2015. Eighty-five percent of those stopped were black, though blacks comprise 63 percent of Baltimore’s total population. Even though officers found contraband 50 percent more often on white pedestrians and twice as often during vehicle stops of white residents, blacks pedestrians were 37 percent more likely to be stopped than white ones, and black drivers were 23 percent more likely to be stopped than white drivers. Blacks had a higher rate of arrest than any other group.
Baltimore cops conducted nearly half of their stops in two predominantly black areas. Fourty-four percent of all stops were made in two of the city’s police districts—both predominantly black. These areas contain just 11 percent of the city’s total population. More than 400 people were stopped more than 10 times in a five-and-a-half-year period—95 percent of whom were black. Seven people—all of them black—were stopped more than 30 times. One African American man in his mid-50s was stopped 30 times, yet none of the stops resulted in citations or criminal charges. And less than four percent of all stops made by Baltimore officers resulted in a citation or criminal charges.
Baltimore officers arrest black residents for “highly discretionary offenses” at disproportionate rates. Black people accounted for 91 percent of all those charged solely with trespassing or failure to obey; 89 percent of people charged for making false statements to an officer; and 84 person of those charged with disorderly conduct. Blacks were also five times as likely to be arrested for drug charges as white people despite comparable rates of drug use. Officers often arrest people who are standing in front of private businesses or public housing projects, the report notes, unless they are able to satisfactorily “justify” their presence there. Moreover, from 2010-2015, BPD supervisors and local prosecutors rejected charges that cops made against black people at significantly higher rates than they did charges made against people of other races, “indicating that officers’ standard for making arrests differed for African Americans,” the report said. Baltimore supervisors and prosecutors dismissed 11,000 charges during that time period.

The DOJ also found that Baltimore cops are inadequately trained, supervised, and disciplined. In one incident reviewed, a BPD shift supervisor instructed officers to arrest “all the black hoodies” in a neighborhood. The DOJ found 60 incidents where a black complainant alleged an officer had used a racial slur, but which was then classified as a lesser offense by Baltimore police supervisors. The DOJ also determined that Baltimore cops regularly failed to appropriately secure arrestees when transporting them in police vehicles, and that the department needs to update its vehicle equipment to ensure passengers’ safety. (Freddie Gray died after his spinal chord was partially severed when he was place in the back of a police vehicle and handcuffed and shackled at the legs, but without a seatbelt.)

At a press conference Wednesday morning, Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlins-Blake announced that the police department would implement 26 policies toward reform, and that the department was actively looking to build “constructive citizen inclusion” into the department’s process for reviewing police misconduct. Department transport vehicles have also been outfitted with new safety equipment, including cameras, she said, and the department started a new body camera program. Rawlins-Blake added that all Baltimore police officers would have body cameras within two years.

More: 

US Justice Department Blasts Baltimore PD for Rampant Racism

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, Jason, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on US Justice Department Blasts Baltimore PD for Rampant Racism

The Border Patrol Is in Chaos. Can Its New Chief Make a Difference?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A new chief took over the US Border Patrol this month, and for the first time in 92 years, it isn’t someone who rose through the ranks. Mark Morgan—a former FBI official who once specialized in intelligence and counterterrorism—has stepped in to lead the scandal-plagued group once described as “America’s most out-of-control law enforcement agency.”

Predictably, Morgan’s hiring has caused a stir among Border Patrol agents, who expected one of their own to take the helm. The Border Patrol union—which recently endorsed Donald Trump and has vocally opposed Obama’s immigration actions—urged Morgan to remember that those who protect the border every day are “the real experts in border security.” Joshua Wilson, a spokesman for the union’s San Diego chapter, asked the Los Angeles Times, “How can someone who has never made an immigration arrest in his career expect to lead an agency whose primary duty is to make immigration arrests?”

But Border Patrol critics have been pushing for a shakeup at the top for years. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the umbrella agency that encompasses the Border Patrol, is the largest law enforcement agency in the country with 44,000 armed officers, double the size of the FBI and larger than the New York Police Department. Since its rapid expansion in the wake of 9/11, critics have said that CBP’s training and capacity to investigate employee misconduct hasn’t kept up, leaving new recruits green and often unaccountable.

Here are some of the biggest complaints about the Border Patrol in recent years:

Corruption

Reports of corrupt Border Patrol agents have led journalists and politicians to question whether officers are doing enough to secure the borderlands against illegal drugs and gang activity. In fact, CBP as a whole has long been plagued by allegations of corruption within its ranks. A recent investigation by the Texas Tribune and Reveal found that at least 134 officials have pleaded guilty or been convicted in the last 12 years on corruption charges, often for allowing drugs and undocumented immigrants to cross into the United States. Fifty-two of those were Border Patrol agents.

For example, two brothers, both Border Patrol agents in San Diego, made more than $1 million smuggling 1,000-plus undocumented immigrants across the border, according to the Justice Department. Another agent in El Paso allegedly smuggled weapons, including high-powered pistols and flare guns, into the country with the help of his girlfriend. In Texas, yet another agent has been linked to a gruesome cartel-linked beheading. He now faces murder and organized crime charges. A CBP spokeswoman told Mother Jones that the agency plans to cooperate fully with that investigation. CBP also says that it does not tolerate corruption within its ranks and that the overwhelming majority of its officers and agents perform their duties with honor.

Abuse

Numerous reports have indicated that Border Patrol agents and other CBP employees often operate with impunity. The advocacy group American Immigration Council reported that more than 800 abuse complaints against CBP agents were filed between 2009 and 2012—and only 13 resulted in disciplinary action. In one case, a Border Patrol agent was accused of kicking a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry. Another group of agents was accused of stripping an undocumented immigrant, leaving him naked in a cell, and calling him a “faggot” and a “homo.” Yet another allegedly forced female immigrants into sex. A CBS News investigation also found that sexual misconduct within CBP is significantly higher than at other federal law enforcement agencies. And in 2012, Border Patrol agent Luis Hermosillo was sentenced to eight years in prison for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a Mexican tourist. (CBP has said that it has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to sexual assault.)

To make matters worse, the agency has also been notoriously slow in processing complaints. Among those cases that were closed, CBP took an average of 122 days to come to a decision. The rest were often in limbo for more than a year. After R. Gil Kerlikowske became CBP commissioner in 2014, he created a CBP Integrity Advisory panel to assess the agency’s progress toward greater accountability. However, as recently as this March, the panel described the agency’s internal affairs team as “woefully understaffed” and its disciplinary system as “broken.” The panel recommended that CBP add 350 criminal investigators to look into employee misconduct. (The agency has made room in next year’s budget request for 30 new investigators and is seeking $5 million for cameras, including body cameras.)

Interestingly enough, Morgan has experience overseeing such internal probes: In 2014, he served as acting assistant commissioner for internal affairs at CBP, during which he launched an investigative unit dedicated to criminal and serious misconduct.

High-Profile Deaths

More than 50 people have died during altercations with CBP agents since 2010, including at least 19 US citizens. Several of those incidents involving the Border Patrol have gained nationwide attention. In 2011, Jesús Alfredo YanÌ&#131;ez Reyes was shot in the head after allegedly throwing rocks and a nail-studded board at Border Patrol agents attempting to take his companion into custody. The next year, a Mexican teenager named José Antonio Elena Rodríguez was walking along a street near his hometown when an agent on the other side of the border opened fire, killing Rodríguez. Another cross-border shooting case, in which unarmed teenager Sergio Adrian Hernandez Güereca was shot near El Paso, is currently being considered by the Supreme Court.

In 2013, the Police Executive Research Forum, a policy and research group focused on law enforcement agencies, issued a report criticizing CBP agents’ practice of shooting rock-throwers and vehicles that don’t pose an immediate threat to agents’ lives. The report noted that in some fatal incidents, the shots appeared to have been taken “out of frustration.” The agency eventually changed its use of force policy, but its initial response was to challenge the recommendations and suppress the report for weeks.

Since then, CBP has announced that its agents have been using force less frequently. The agency says on its website that last year, use-of-force incidents fell by roughly 26 percent. The American Civil Liberties Union, however, reports that the number of people hurt or killed during encounters with CBP agents actually increased during that same time period.

See the original post: 

The Border Patrol Is in Chaos. Can Its New Chief Make a Difference?

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Border Patrol Is in Chaos. Can Its New Chief Make a Difference?

The Lawyers Who Helped Make Gay Marriage the Law of the Land Are Just Getting Started

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last June, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. A year later, President Obama has christened Stonewall Inn the first national monument to LGBT rights, and the nation is engaged in a conversation—and new legal battles—involving transgender equality, another piece of the puzzle. I caught up with Memphis-based civil rights attorney Maureen Holland, part of the winning legal team in Obergfell, to discuss the eventful past year, the Pulse massacre, and her next big legal project.

Maureen Holland

Mother Jones: After the Obergefell ruling, there was substantial resistance, including Kim Davis the county clerk in Kentucky who refused to grant marriage licenses. Several states proposed bills that would let businesses deny services to LGBT customers on religious grounds. Were you surprised by the level of pushback?

Maureen Holland: It did not surprise me. Many southern states pushed back after the Loving 1967 interracial marriage case was decided, so we recognized there might be resistance. But I think the pushback was overshadowed by the overwhelming support for the decision. For some time, I was continually getting comments about how many lives were positively affected.

MJ: Since then, there’s been a growing number of federal lawsuits by people alleging their civil rights were violated when they were denied marriage benefits, or fired after coming out to their employers as gay.

MH: Employment protections are the next step in the gay-rights fight. In February 2015, before Obergefell, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that its offices would accept claims from people alleging sexual orientation-based discrimination in the workplace. After Obergefell, many people believed their cases would finally be heard if they filed claims—so they did. But the EEOC has to review the claims, decide which ones it wants to take action on, deny the claim, or tell the claimant they can sue in federal court. In recent months, we’ve seen people filing lawsuits who finally got their right-to-sue letters for claims they filed right after Obergefell. I don’t know if any organization is keeping track of the number of cases.

MJ: You’re now working on a case on behalf of a gay cop in Memphis who says he was harassed while working as his department’s LGBT liaison. You argue that workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation is covered under the Civil Rights Act’s ban on gender discrimination in the workplace. Can you explain the logic?

MH: Sexual orientation discrimination is essentially discriminating against somebody because they’re not conforming to the norms of their sex. Men should talk a certain way. Women should wear a certain attire at work. That kind of discrimination is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. And discriminating against someone because they’re a man dating a man but you think they should date women is the same type of discrimination. So we think it is illegal as well. That argument would also extend to discrimination based on gender identity.

MJ: Which brings me to my next question: In Obergefell the Supreme Court found that gay marriage is a protected right under the Constitution, but it didn’t say sexual orientation is a protected class, like race and gender. Is there any language in that opinion that suggests your strategy will succeed?

MH: There’s language in any court opinion—called dicta—that you can draw implications from and use to extend the finding to other contexts. The dicta in Obergefell is clear: The Court adopts the idea that “psychologists and others recognize that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.” In my complaint for the Memphis officer, I use this and other quotes as the framework for the argument that the Obergefell ruling was not just about marriage.

MJ: This notion that sexual orientation is immutable sounds like a clear indication that it should be a protected class. The Constitution’s equal protection clause was meant to protect people from discrimination based on attributes they can’t change.

MH: Exactly. But we don’t have case law that says it with that level of clarity in regard to sexual orientation. That’s why people are bringing these cases.

MJ: Let’s pivot to transgender rights. We’re in the midst of a big national debate about that. Why now?

MH: It’s the next conversation we had to have about LGBT rights. Gender identity—what is that? What does it mean? How do our laws apply to individuals who transition? The Obergefell decision opened up space for a more national conversation.

MJ: President Obama repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. His Department of Justice stopped enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act before the Obergefell decision. And 11 states are now suing his administration over bathroom guidelines it issued for transgender students.

MH: I think President Obama has become a great advocate for LGBT rights. He’s talked about his transition in thinking on same-sex marriage, and the fact that we got to see him do that openly and honestly has been helpful. He has issued executive orders that give protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity to public-sector employees. All these things speak well to his willingness to not just say it, but to do things that are meaningful to protect LGBT people.

MJ: When might the Supreme Court take up the question of whether sexual orientation and gender identity are constitutionally protected?

MH: It could happen the year after next. They have to accept a case that asks the question, first. But there are a number of those moving into the Court of Appeals. It also depends on the decisions of the Courts of Appeal. The Supreme Court tends to take cases when there’s a difference in opinion in the circuits—not just because they think a case is interesting. That’s what happened in Obergefell.

MJ: I’m curious about your thoughts on what happened in Orlando.

MH: I was heartbroken. It was hard to see—as a member of the LGBT community myself—people targeted because of their identity, when a year prior we had celebrated Obergefell. No one should be targeted because of who they love, and that message needs to continue to be said, and protections need to be in place. I spoke at a vigil for Orlando here in Memphis the day it happened. The crowd came out, and I think they were afraid to be who they are because they knew they could be targeted. You want to live in a community where you don’t have to be afraid to go outside or go to work and be who you are. And that’s what I hope the future will be. We’re not there yet.

Visit link:

The Lawyers Who Helped Make Gay Marriage the Law of the Land Are Just Getting Started

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Lawyers Who Helped Make Gay Marriage the Law of the Land Are Just Getting Started

2015 Saw a Record Number of Attacks on US Mosques

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The past three years have been difficult for Muslim-Americans, according to a new report tracking increasing Islamophobia issued by the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the UC-Berkeley Center for Race and Gender. Among the most eye-catching findings: the researchers recorded 78 attacks on mosques last year, the highest since CAIR began monitoring such incidents in 2009.

The report highlights the growth of many other forms of discrimination. Self-declared “Muslim-free” businesses have cropped up across the country, and bullying of Muslim students, even by teachers, is on the rise. One piece of good news is a decrease in law enforcement anti-terrorism trainings led by purported experts who spread fear and misinformation about Muslims.

The report suggests that anti-Muslim incidents spike in the wake of terrorist events, noting an uptick in violent anti-Muslim rhetoric that took place after Islamic State militants beheaded two Americans in Syria in August 2014. Additional armed anti-Islam demonstrations sprouted up in the wake of an attempted terror attack on a cartoon contest in Garland, Texas last year, where illustrators had been invited to submit caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. And after November’s Paris attacks, there was a marked increase in attacks on American mosques.

The study comes after a Republican primary season that repeatedly featured anti-Muslim rhetoric. Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has repeatedly called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslim migration to the United States. Sen. Ted Cruz spoke at summits hosted by the Center for Security Policy, a group which has been declared an extremist anti-Muslim group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Ben Carson told Meet the Press that he believed Islam was inconsistent with the Constitution and said he wouldn’t vote for a Muslim to be president. Two-thirds of Republican primary voters in New Hampshire favored banning Muslims from entering the United States, and last September, a survey of Republican voters in Iowa found that almost a third think Islam should be illegal.

Here are some key developments highlighted in the report:

Mosque Attacks

Last year saw a spike in attacks on Muslim places of worship.

var embedDeltas=”100″:458,”200″:400,”300″:400,”400″:400,”500″:400,”600″:400,”700″:400,”800″:400,”900″:400,”1000″:400,chart=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-S7bK6″),chartWidth=chart.offsetWidth,applyDelta=embedDeltasMath.min(1000, Math.max(100*(Math.floor(chartWidth/100)), 100))||0,newHeight=applyDelta;chart.style.height=newHeight+”px”;

Thirty-four mosques were targeted in just the final two months of 2015—more incidents than typically occur across an entire year. Only two of November’s attacks took place before the Paris terror attacks.

var embedDeltas=”100″:455,”200″:427,”300″:400,”400″:400,”500″:400,”600″:400,”700″:400,”800″:400,”900″:400,”1000″:400,chart=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-yBjnM”),chartWidth=chart.offsetWidth,applyDelta=embedDeltasMath.min(1000, Math.max(100*(Math.floor(chartWidth/100)), 100))||0,newHeight=applyDelta;chart.style.height=newHeight+”px”;Some recent attacks:

September 2015: Three young men burned three crosses on a New York’s mosque’s lawn.
November 2015: Vandals targeted a Texas mosque, covering the door in feces and throwing torn Korans on the ground.
December 2015: A severed pig’s head was left outside a Philadelphia mosque.
December 2015: A mosque in California was firebombed shortly before a prayer service.
December 2015: Raw bacon was wrapped around the door handles of a Las Vegas mosque.

Anti-Sharia movement

Since 2010, many state legislatures have seen bills introduced to prevent the influence of Sharia law on US courts, an effort which critics say has no purpose other than to vilify Muslims. As even a writer in the conservative National Review noted, “this ‘creeping Sharia’ phenomenon supposedly going on in American courts is not even happening.” Nonetheless, anti-Sharia and anti-foreign law bills have been popular among Republican state lawmakers.

Anti-foreign law bills have been enacted in ten states.
Over 80 similar bills and amendments were introduced between 2013-2015â&#128;¨. All but one were solely sponsored by Republicans.
To date, none of these laws have been invoked in legal proceedings.

var embedDeltas=”100″:483,”200″:455,”300″:427,”400″:400,”500″:400,”600″:400,”700″:400,”800″:400,”900″:400,”1000″:400,chart=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-AvQZV”),chartWidth=chart.offsetWidth,applyDelta=embedDeltasMath.min(1000, Math.max(100*(Math.floor(chartWidth/100)), 100))||0,newHeight=applyDelta;chart.style.height=newHeight+”px”;

The Islamophobia network

The report identified 33 groups whose “primary purpose” is to spread fear and hatred of Islam. Financial information collected by CAIR suggests that the following organizations had the highest average annual revenue between 2008 and 2013.

  1. David Horowitz Freedom Center
  2. Middle East Media and Research Institute
  3. Clarion Project
  4. Middle East Forum
  5. Center for Security Policy
  6. Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
  7. Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation
  8. Christian Action Network
  9. Abstraction Fund
  10. ACT for America

Textbooks

After a firestorm of complaints that school textbooks were too pro-Islam, Florida and Tennessee passed laws giving parents more power to reject certain course materials.

Muslim-free businesses

Since 2014, businesses in Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, New York, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire have publicly declared themselves “Muslim-free.”

Media Bias

A 2014 study of national TV news published in the Journal of Communication found that “among those described as domestic terrorists in the news reports, 81 percent were identifiable as Muslims. Yet in FBI reports from those years, only 6 percent of domestic terror suspects were Muslim.”

Jump to original:

2015 Saw a Record Number of Attacks on US Mosques

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, PUR, Radius, Sprout, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 2015 Saw a Record Number of Attacks on US Mosques

An Ex-Marine Killed Two People in Cold Blood. Should His PTSD Keep Him From Death Row?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

At 12:44 p.m. on March 6, 2009, John Thuesen called 911. “120 Walcourt Loop,” he told the dispatcher, breathing hard. “Gunshot victims.”

The dispatcher in College Station, Texas, asked what had happened. “I got mad at my girlfriend and I shot her,” he said. “She has sucking chest wounds…”

He’d not only shot Rachel Joiner, 21, but also her older brother Travis. Thuesen had broken into the house after midnight, not sure what he’d do but wanting to see his estranged girlfriend. She was out with her ex-boyfriend, but when she returned later that morning, things “got out of hand.” Thuesen, a 25-year-old former Marine reservist, called 911 and almost immediately expressed remorse. When he was arrested, he repeatedly asked the police about the victims and tried to explain why he’d kept shooting Rachel and her brother: “I felt like I was in like a mode…like training or a game or something.”

The prosecution in the case gave it’s opening statement on May 10, 2010. With DNA evidence and no other suspects, it only took prosecutors three days to make their case. Over the next week, the defense team touched on the facts that Thuesen suffered from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from his service in Iraq, but pleaded for leniency in his sentence. None of that swayed the jury: On May 28, 2010, he was sentenced to death.

While on death row, Thuesen was given new lawyers, death penalty experts from the state’s Office of Capital and Forensic Writs. In Texas, there are often two trials, one to determine guilt or innocence and the second to determine sentencing. Lawyers argued in their 2012 petition to have both the death penalty and the conviction vacated, and for a new sentencing trial, arguing that if his lawyers had served him adequately, “John Thuesen would not be on death row today, awaiting an execution date.” In July 2015, Judge Travis Bryan III—the same judge who had presided over the criminal trial—agreed, and ruled that Thuesen’s lawyers hadn’t adequately explained the significance of his PTSD to jurors, and how it had factored into his actions on the day of the murders. Bryan also ruled that Thuesen’s PTSD wasn’t properly treated by the Veterans Health Administration. He recommended that Thuesen be granted a new punishment-phase trial. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals could rule on Bryan’s recommendation at any time.

John Thuesen shortly after his arrest in 2009 Brazos County Sheriff’s Office

The ruling on his case has implications for a question that has concerned the military, veterans’ groups, and death penalty experts: Should service-related PTSD exclude veterans from the death penalty? An answer to this question could affect some of the estimated 300 veterans who now sit on death rows across the country, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. But it’s unclear how many of them suffer from PTSD or traumatic brain injuries, given how uneven the screening for these disorders has been.

Experts are divided about whether veterans with PTSD who commit capital crimes deserve what is known as a “categorical exemption” or “exclusion.” Juveniles receive such treatment, as do those with mental disabilities. In 2009, Anthony Giardino, a lawyer and Iraq War veteran, argued in favor of this in the Fordham Law Review, writing that courts “should consider the more fundamental question of whether the government should be in the business of putting to death the volunteers they have trained, sent to war, and broken in the process” who likely would not be in that position “but for their military service.” In a Institute of Medicine study estimated that between 13 and 20 percent of the 2.6 million Americans who’d served in Iraq and Afghanistan showed at least some of the symptoms of PTSD.

Add to that the training these soldiers receive. “The current efficacy of military training means we are sending to war the most proficient and lethal killers in our nation’s history,” Joshua London, a veterans’ defense lawyer and advocate for reformed judicial treatment of veterans, wrote in a 2014 law journal article, “Why Are We Killing Veterans?” “Likewise, the warriors that return home to our communities are conditioned in a manner that makes them more dangerous, volatile, and amenable to violence than any previous generation of veterans.” If a soldier seems troubled, some psychiatrists have noted, often the preferred treatment option is to provide psychotropic drugs without additional follow-up. For some, especially when combined with other drugs or alcohol, this can result in difficulty with self-control. In April 2014, journalist Ann Jones documented dozens of killings by veterans since 2002.

During his trial, the jury was presented two stark versions of Thuesen. The first was of a cold-blooded murderer. The night before the murders, Thuesen went to see Rachel, but she told him to leave her alone. He broke into her house and lay in her bed, and after she got home he shot her, then Travis, three times each. But Thuesen was also presented as a deeply traumatized soldier who, one of his fellow Marines testified, was forced to fire a heavy machine gun into a car carrying several people and at least one child. Several experts agreed that Thuesen suffered from PTSD and had tried to seek treatment over the course of at least two years. Six months before the murders, Thuesen was suicidal and taken by the police to the VA Medical Center in Houston. He stayed just a few days while he detoxed from alcohol abuse, and he was given anti-depressants and referred to counseling sessions at his local VA clinic.

Tim Rojas, the Marine who’d served with Thuesen and testified about the time he shot up the car, finds himself somewhere in the middle. “People are going to say, ‘Well then, post-traumatic stress does not give you the license to shoot or kill,” he says. “I agree with that. Of course not. But in this case, does John deserve to be on death row? No. Absolutely not. Does he need to be accountable for his actions? Yes. But there’s no way, no way, he needs to lose his life. No way.”

Read this article: 

An Ex-Marine Killed Two People in Cold Blood. Should His PTSD Keep Him From Death Row?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on An Ex-Marine Killed Two People in Cold Blood. Should His PTSD Keep Him From Death Row?

Hunger Strike in San Francisco Puts a Spotlight on Police Brutality

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

At the corner of 17th and Valencia Streets in San Francisco late Tuesday afternoon, a group of about 20 protesters remained camped outside the Mission Police Station, fueled by coconut water, vitamin supplements, and cars honking in solidarity. Several were in the sixth day of a hunger strike. Their goal: The ouster of San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr and his boss, Mayor Ed Lee, over a string of police violence and alleged misconduct.

A stash of rations sat near the entrance of the station, where last week five people began the protest: Maria Cristina Gutierrez, Ilyich Sato, Sellassie Blackwell, Ike Peterson and Edwin Lindo. The demonstrators also set up three tents on a nearby corner. Gutierrez, a short, soft-spoken woman who runs a neighborhood preschool, has also at times escaped the cold evenings in her van parked across the street.

The group had pondered the decision to stop eating for several months, the organizers told me. What compelled them to go forward with the plan was the latest police shooting in San Francisco: In early April, a homeless man, Luis Gongora, allegedly brandished a knife at officers, who responded with fatal gunfire.

Ilyich Sato, who performs locally as a rapper, sat in a blue camping chair, musing about the mothers of two other recent victims of police shootings. “It’s the inspiration of the families,” he said. “Alex Nieto’s mother. Gwendolyn Woods—Mario Woods’ mother. I think of them every day I’m out here.”

Clad in a striped beanie and brown jacket, Edwin Lindo, an education consultant and community advocate who is currently running for the city supervisor seat covering the Mission district, said he hasn’t eaten since April 20. “My body is fragile,” he said. “My mind and spirit is at a level I’ve never experienced in all my life.”

The demonstrators’ sense of resolve flows from a series of police-involved shootings of black and Latino men. A recent investigation that uncovered alleged racist and homophobic texting by several SFPD officers has only added to the feelings of outrage and frustration. The ongoing texting scandal has forced George Gascon, the city’s district attorney and former police chief, to reassess 3,000 criminal cases for potential bias.

The group of demonstrators at Mission Police Station pointed to four recent cases:

Alejandro “Alex” Nieto: In March 2014, the 27-year-old was eating a burrito in Bernal Heights Park when officers confronted him after receiving reports of a man with a gun who acted erratically. Gascon said Nieto pointed a Taser gun at officers and refused to comply with their orders to show his hands. Multiple officers shot Nieto, killing him. Gascon declined to bring charges against the four officers involved. In a lawsuit brought by Nieto’s family, a federal civil jury found in favor of the officers.

Amilcar Perez-Lopez: In February 2015, the 20-year-old Guatemalan immigrant was shot and killed in a confrontation with two SFPD officers in the city’s Mission District. Police Chief Suhr told reporters at a press conference that Perez-Lopez had lunged at officers with a knife before he was shot. Witnesses later told the Guardian that police had tried to grab Perez-Lopez from behind, and that after he struggled free and ran, they shot him in the back. An autopsy concluded Perez-Lopez had indeed been shot six times from behind.

Mario Woods: In December 2015, multiple SFPD officers unleashed a hail of bullets on the 26-year-old Woods, who was a suspect in a stabbing case. Police had claimed Woods threatened officers with a large kitchen knife, but a video released by the Woods family’s attorney raised doubts about that account. The footage, released on the same day the family filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the San Francisco police department, shows Woods pacing alongside a wall with his arms to his side before he was shot 20 times. Numerous shots struck him from behind, according to an autopsy report released in February. Police said Woods refused to comply with officers’ orders. At the time of his death, Woods had methamphetamine, marijuana, cough medicine, antidepressants, caffeine, and nicotine in his system, according to the autopsy report. The city’s attorney argued the cops had acted lawfully. The case is under investigation and prompted a federal probe of SFPD’s use-of-force policies.

Luis Gongora: On April 7, San Francisco police responded to a report of a man waving a large knife at a homeless encampment. Within 30 seconds of leaving their patrol vehicles, officers shouted, “Get on the ground!” and “put that down,” according to surveillance footage obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle. The officers then fired four beanbags and seven bullets at the 45-year-old Gongora. He was rushed to a nearby hospital, where he died. Officials told reporters at a news conference that Gongora had lunged at officers with a knife, though witnesses at the scene disputed that, according to the Chronicle.

Earlier on Tuesday, Mayor Lee told reporters at a press conference that he respected the demonstrators’ right to protest, and that he stood by his police chief. Suhr said he had no plans to resign.

By Tuesday evening, the group on hunger strike was joined by a much larger crowd: Roughly 200 people packed on the street outside the Mission Police Station, trying to get into the monthly community meeting inside in which residents can raise issues with Captain Daniel Parea, who oversees the station.

As Parea began to speak, Lindo stood up and called for the meeting to be held outside, to accommodate the crowd. Parea refused, and people inside started chanting, “Fire Greg Suhr!” Parea declared the meeting canceled and walked out.

Outside, the crowd circled several of the core demonstrators. Gutierrez offered some quiet pleas for justice. Selassie led chants of the names of Nieto, Woods, and others who were killed. Lindo said that if he were to be elected supervisor, any police misconduct that results in a settlement by the city would come out of the police department’s retirement fund. (Most such settlements ultimately fall on taxpayers.) “When they are not held accountable, you do things with impunity,” Lindo said.

Now the block was cordoned off by police. A crowd of demonstrators spilled into the middle of the intersection at 17th and Valencia. Patrol cars and groups of officers stood at the ready nearby, although the situation remained peaceful.

“The police are going to be here regardless,” Sato said. “It’s systemic police problems that have to stop, and we have to do what we can to prevent it.”

Read more – 

Hunger Strike in San Francisco Puts a Spotlight on Police Brutality

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hunger Strike in San Francisco Puts a Spotlight on Police Brutality

Will This Bill End the War Between the Government and the Tech Community Over Encryption?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee will introduce a bill on Monday afternoon aiming to help solve the long-running fight between the government and the tech and privacy communities over encryption, which has made headlines recently thanks to the FBI’s attempt to force Apple to help unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters.

The bill, which will be introduced by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and is backed strongly by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), would create a commission of 16 experts with a range of backgrounds—from cryptographers and intelligence officials to privacy advocates and tech executives—to “examine the intersection of security and digital security and communications technology in a systematic, holistic way, and determine the implications for national security, public safety, data security, privacy, innovation, and American competitiveness in the global marketplace,” according to text of the legislation that was provided to Mother Jones.

It’s part of a larger push to have the government and private sector work together to create new ways to solve the impasse over encryption and other digital security issues. While the government wants to be able to access encrypted devices and messages when needed, tech companies and cryptographers have said there is simply no current way to create such a backdoor for the government without also potentially giving that same access to cybercriminals and hackers. Hillary Clinton has called for a “Manhattan-like project” to square that circle, with other presidential candidates calling for similar public-private cooperation.

McCaul and the commission’s backers hope the panel may find a new, previously undiscovered way to reconcile the legal and technical demands of the two sides, but there appears to be little idea of what that could be. In conversations with lawmakers, privacy advocates, national security lawyers, and technologists, none were able to offer Mother Jones any concrete notion of what a solution may look like. Many members of the technology and privacy communities also view calls for more cooperation and discussion as disingenuous. They argue the technical questions are settled, and that more talking won’t solve anything—but may produce bad legislation that harms security and privacy. “‘They say they can’t do it, but let’s pass the legislation to find out, and I bet they’ll figure out the solution after we’ve mandated it.’ That seems like a bad idea to me,” Julian Sanchez of the libertarian Cato Institute told Motherboard last year.

Each party would get to nominate eight members of the commission, with each nominee coming from a different one of eight fields. Six of the slots would go to law enforcement and intelligence community representatives, with the other 10 given to tech business and economics experts along with two cryptographers and two members of the civil liberties community. The group would have a year to draft a final report, which would require the approval of 11 of the 16 members.

You can read the full text of the bill below:

DV.load(“https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2725649-McCaul-Commission.js”,
width: 630,
height: 800,
sidebar: false,
text: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-2725649-McCaul-Commission”
);

McCaul-Commission (PDF)

McCaul-Commission (Text)

See the original post – 

Will This Bill End the War Between the Government and the Tech Community Over Encryption?

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, Cyber, FF, Gandhi, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will This Bill End the War Between the Government and the Tech Community Over Encryption?

Apple Challenges "Dangerous" Request to Help FBI Break Into iPhone

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Responding a federal judge’s order last week that Apple help the FBI unlock the iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters, the company shot back on Thursday with a challenge that accused the government of seeking a fix that is “too dangerous to build.”

The judge’s order mandated that Apple write new code allowing the FBI to enter an unlimited number of passwords on the phone’s lock screen without triggering the phone’s auto-erase feature. That request sparked a firestorm among people who felt the needs of the government were superseding the privacy and security rights of citizens.

Apple CEO Tim Cook insisted from the start of the controversy that complying with the FBI’s request would set a dangerous precedent, allowing the government to order companies to provide essentially any service needed to aid an investigation. The company repeated that argument in its challenge to the court order:

This is not a case about one isolated iPhone. Rather, this case is about the Department of Justice and the FBI seeking through the courts a dangerous power that Congress and the American people have withheld: the ability to force companies like Apple to undermine the basic security and privacy interests of hundreds of millions of individuals around the globe. The government demands that Apple create a back door to defeat the encryption on the iPhone, making its users’ most confidential and personal information vulnerable to hackers, identity thieves, hostile foreign agents, and unwarranted government surveillance. The All Writs Act, first enacted in 1789 and on which the government bases its entire case, “does not give the district court a roving commission” to conscript and commandeer Apple in this manner.

Apple says the demand for new code, which it’s calling “GovOS,” violates its First Amendment right to free speech. Courts have previously ruled that computer code is free speech, and Apple executives told reporters on a conference call that the company views an order to rewrite its code as coercion to adopt the government’s views on privacy and security. The company is also challenging the court order on the basis of the Fifth Amendment right to due process.

You can read Apple’s complete challenge below:

DV.load(“https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2722221-Apple-Motion-to-Vacate.js”,
width: 630,
height: 800,
sidebar: false,
text: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-2722221-Apple-Motion-to-Vacate”
);

Apple-Motion-to-Vacate (PDF)

Apple-Motion-to-Vacate (Text)

Original source – 

Apple Challenges "Dangerous" Request to Help FBI Break Into iPhone

Posted in Anchor, Casio, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Apple Challenges "Dangerous" Request to Help FBI Break Into iPhone

What Happens When a Campus Rape Expert Gets Accused of Sexual Assault?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Jason Casares, the associate dean of students and deputy Title IX coordinator at Indiana University’s flagship campus in Bloomington, has built a reputation as an expert on college sexual assault. He’s well known enough among his peers to have been voted president, in November 2014, of the Association for Student Conduct Administration, a professional group of around 2,700 college officials. Last year, he helped write the curriculum for the group’s training program for campus rape investigators.

For the ASCA’s annual conference this month, Casares had planned to teach seminars on Title IX and on using a “trauma-informed approach” in sexual misconduct investigations. Then, during the conference keynote on February 3, ASCA board member Jill Creighton circulated a letter accusing him of sexual assault.

Creighton’s letter described an evening last December when the two had drinks at a convention for fraternity and sorority advisers in Fort Worth, Texas. “I made the mistake of letting my guard down while socializing with Jason about Association business,” Creighton wrote. “Jason took advantage of me after I had had too much to drink…I did not consent to sexual contact.”

Casares declined to be interviewed, but a statement released by his lawyer says that he “categorically denies the false accusations of sexual misconduct leveled against him by a colleague.”

Creighton, an administrator at New York University who had recently been voted the ASCA’s next president, provided Mother Jones a statement detailing her experience in the days after the alleged assault. According to the statement, she confronted Casares in a text message, requesting that he resign from the ASCA—they were slated to work together on the board for at least two more years—and step back from his position as a public leader on the issue of sexual assault. When Casares refused, Creighton filed an incident report with law enforcement in Fort Worth on December 9.

Detectives are still reviewing the report, officer Tamara Pena confirmed. Meanwhile, IU has placed Casares on paid administrative leave. A school spokesman said that IU also is conducting its own investigation and will review all student sexual-misconduct hearings in which Casares participated this academic year.

Perhaps the most troubling development, though, came when Creighton asked the ASCA board to impeach Casares after she filed her police complaint. The organization—which is made up of people trained in investigating campus sexual assault—mounted an investigation resembling an on-campus sexual-assault inquiry, but, Creighton says, without the same concern for protecting the accuser.

“I was repeatedly told that this isn’t a Title IX matter, and while I understand that, I am speaking my truth to make sure that our Association takes a hard look in the mirror before it claims national leadership on sexual misconduct,” Creighton wrote in her letter.

The ASCA’s leadership had never been faced with a claim like Creighton’s before, according to Anthony Icenogle, the group’s attorney. As student conduct officials, they knew how to investigate sexual assault without the involvement of law enforcement. But in an interview with Mother Jones, Creighton says the inquiry did not reflect their training. “The processes that we run on our campuses are designed to be fundamentally fair to everyone involved,” she says. “At no moment was I provided with fairness.” Among other things, Creighton says that Casares was allowed to hear and respond to her presentation to the board, while she wasn’t allowed to do the same for his.

“The scope of our process was to determine whether or not there was board member misconduct,” says Jennifer Waller, the ASCA’s executive director. “Although we completely adhere to as much as possible the principles of fundamental fairness, the process that ensues from that is very different from a campus process.” (The ASCA later released a letter outlining the procedures they followed in Creighton’s case).

Upon receiving Creighton’s claim, the board’s first move was to temporarily suspend both her and Casares. The ASCA then hired an independent investigator, attorney Shannon Hutcheson, to help determine whether the board should impeach him.

Hutcheson’s investigation, however, leaned on “ancillary witnesses,” Icenogle says—people who could testify to Creighton and Casares’s general honesty. Icenogle made a point to say that Casares and Creighton had gone to multiple bars. (“This wasn’t a one-transaction event.”) Still, Hutcheson “didn’t go through the process of going to the bars,” Icenogle said. “There’s a possibility there could have been third-party witnesses, but nobody was identified to us.” After almost six weeks and at least $30,000 in expenses, Hutcheson presented her conclusion to the ASCA board: Creighton’s story “could not be substantiated.”

When Creighton received an excerpt of Hutcheson’s report, she says she was shocked: “The report blames me for being in the same hotel room, blames me for not crying out for help in the moment, blames me for not taking physical pictures of my injuries…and blames me for confronting him.”

The board’s deliberations remain under wraps, but Casares stepped down on January 29, according to an ASCA letter released on February 4. He remains a member, with “the same rights as other members to attend and present at ASCA events,” the letter says.

The decision to allow Casares to appear at last week’s conference is part of what prompted Creighton to go public with her story. She posted the letter to her Twitter timeline on February 3, after Casares’ presentation on “trauma-informed” sexual-assault investigations. “I felt unsafe in ASCA,” Creighton’s letter says. “I also could not stand the hypocrisy of Jason parading his expertise on Title IX, knowing how he had behaved with me,” she wrote, adding:

This is not something the Association can afford to be ambivalent about. We cannot claim national leadership in addressing sexual misconduct, only to fail miserably in our first test within our own Association…I don’t want to hurt the Association by speaking out, I want to strengthen it, cause us introspection that this can happen even within our own profession, and challenge us to walk our talk not just on our campuses, but in all phases of our professional engagement.

Casares’ lawyer has discussed a possible defamation suit against Creighton. And if an ASCA member makes a complaint about Creighton’s conduct, Waller confirms, she could receive a warning or even face impeachment from the board.

For now, Creighton remains the ASCA’s newest president-elect, though she will take a leave of absence from the organization rather than immediately stepping into the role of president. “These are my friends and colleagues and my professional family,” Creighton says. “To me, it felt like the safest place in the world where I could have possibly reported, and it turned out to be the exact opposite.”

Link to article – 

What Happens When a Campus Rape Expert Gets Accused of Sexual Assault?

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, Jason, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Happens When a Campus Rape Expert Gets Accused of Sexual Assault?

My Right to Die: Assisted Suicide, My Family, and Me

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Every story has a beginning. This one starts in late 2001, when my father-in-law fractured three of his ribs. Harry was a retired physician, and after a thorough workup that he insisted on, it turned out that his bone density was severely compromised for no immediately apparent reason. Further tests eventually revealed the cause: He had multiple myeloma, a cancer of the bone marrow.

Harry’s cancer was caught early, and it progressed slowly. By 2007, however, it had taken over his body. When my wife saw him in early 2008, she remarked that he looked like someone in a lot of pain but trying not to show it—despite the fact that he was taking oxycodone, a powerful opiate.

During a career that lasted more than three decades, he had watched all too many of his patients struggle with their final months, and this experience had persuaded him that he would take his own life if he found himself dying of an agonizing and clearly terminal illness. Now he was. Finally, on the evening of January 29, he stumbled and fell during the night, and decided his time had come: He was afraid if he delayed any longer he’d become physically unable to remain in control of his own destiny.

Kendrick Brinson

This was important. Since Harry lived in California, where assisted suicide was illegal, he had to be able to take his life without help. Because of this, he initially intended not to tell either of his daughters about his decision. He wanted to run absolutely no risk that merely by being with him in his final moments, or even knowing of his plans, they’d be held responsible for his death.

Luckily, neither my wife nor her sister had to learn of their father’s death via a call from the morgue. A friend persuaded him to call both of them, and on January 30 we all drove out to Palm Springs to say our last goodbyes. After that, Harry wrote a note explaining that he was about to take his own life and that no one else had provided any assistance. It was time. He categorically forbade any of us from so much as taking his arm. He walked into his bedroom, put a plastic bag over his head, and opened up a tank of helium. A few minutes later he was dead.

Why helium? Why the note?

Harry was a methodical man, and when he decided he would eventually take his own life, he naturally looked for advice. The place he turned to was the Hemlock Society, founded in 1980 with a mission of fighting to legalize physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill adults.

When we went through Harry’s files after his death, we found a slim manila folder with several pages copied from various Hemlock publications, nestled between a bunch of fat folders containing financial information, his will, and his medical records. One of the pages recommended that you write a note making it clear that you had taken your own life, unassisted by anyone else. This was meant for the sheriff or the coroner, and was designed to protect anyone who might be suspected of illegally aiding you.

There were also several pages with instructions on how to take your life using an “inert gas hood kit.” This is a fairly simple and painless way to die, since your body reflexively wants to breathe, but doesn’t really care what it breathes. If you breathe pure helium, or any other inert gas, you won’t feel any sensation of suffocation at all. You simply fall unconscious after a minute or so, and within a few more minutes, you die.

At the time of Harry’s death, the Hemlock Society—known today as Compassion & Choices—was one of the oldest and best-known organizations working to legalize physician-assisted suicide. But it was hardly the first. During the 19th century, as opioid painkillers became widespread, euthanasia became a lively topic of discussion. By the turn of the century it had been banned in nearly every state. Public opinion finally started to shift in the 1930s, and by 1949 it had progressed enough that the Euthanasia Society of America was able to recruit several hundred Protestant and Jewish clergymen in an effort to challenge New York’s law prohibiting physician-assisted suicide. Thanks partly to fresh memories of the infamous Nazi “forced euthanasia” programs that killed thousands of the disabled and mentally ill, and partly to the Catholic Church’s opposition to any form of suicide, their effort failed.

Still, support for physician-assisted suicide continued to tick slowly upward, from 37 percent in 1947 to 53 percent by the early ’70s, when the birth of the patients’ rights movement helped shine a new spotlight on issues of death and dying. Karen Ann Quinlan provided the spark when she fell into a coma and was declared by doctors to be in a “persistent vegetative state.” Her parents went to court to have her respirator removed, and in 1976 the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in their favor. That year California became the first state to recognize living wills as legally binding documents that authorize the removal of life-sustaining treatment in the face of imminent death. Other states followed, and end-of-life directives became an increasingly common part of the medical landscape. Today, there’s hardly a medical show on television that hasn’t dealt with the now-famous DNR—Do Not Resuscitate—order.

Active euthanasia remained illegal everywhere, but the door had been opened a crack—and supporters of assisted suicide started pushing to open it further. Founded in the aftermath of the Quinlan fight, the Santa Monica-based Hemlock Society soon became one of the most aggressive backers of abolishing legal bans on physician-assisted suicide. By the end of the 1980s, national support had gained another 12 polling points, and success seemed within grasp. In 1988, supporters of assisted suicide tried but failed to get a measure on the California ballot. In 1991, a similar measure made it on the ballot in Washington state but failed to gain passage. In 1992, Californians got a measure on the ballot, and polls showed the public widely in favor. But a well-funded opposition campaign, led by the Catholic Church, took its toll, and in the end the initiative failed, 54 to 46 percent. Finally, in 1994, backers succeeded in Oregon. Three years later, following a court fight and a second ballot measure, Oregon became the first state to legalize physician-aided suicide.

Ever since Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act took effect in 1997, the state health authority has published annual reports about the numbers and types of patients who have gotten a prescription for DWDA drugs. Probably the main takeaway is the simplest one: If Oregon is any indication, assisted suicide will never be a popular option. In 1998, only 24 people received DWDA prescriptions, and 16 used them. By 2014, after 16 years in which Oregonians could get used to the idea, 155 people requested prescriptions, and 105 used them. That’s 105 out of about 34,000 total deaths statewide, or roughly one-third of 1 percent.

Part of this is due to the stringency of Oregon’s law. Requests for DWDA drugs must be confirmed by two witnesses and approved by two doctors. The patient must not be mentally ill. And most important of all, both doctors have to agree that the patient has no more than six months to live. Because of this, about two-thirds of all patients who requested drugs had cancer, an illness that frequently has a definite timeline. Only about one-sixth have degenerative diseases with indeterminate timelines, like Alzheimer’s or ALS—Lou Gehrig’s disease.

In the decade after Oregon’s law took effect, the physician-assisted-suicide movement gained little ground. On a national level approval rates remained steady, with about two-thirds of Americans telling Gallup they supported the concept, but that seemingly strong support didn’t translate into legislative success.

Some of the reasons for this failure are obvious, but among the obscure ones is this: Assisted suicide has long been a West Coast movement. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, California, Oregon, and Washington all had active legislative legalization campaigns—even if only Oregon’s succeeded—and according to a 1996 survey, West Coast doctors received many more requests for assisted suicide than doctors in other parts of the country. No one is quite sure why, but outside of the West Coast, it was simply not a very prominent issue.

Another reason legalization failed to gain ground is rooted in semantics. Miles Zaremski, an attorney who has argued on behalf of such bills for years, is typical of assisted-suicide supporters when he maintains that in the case of terminal patients, “we’re not dealing with the concept or notion of suicide at all.” Rather, it’s nothing more than aiding the natural dying process. Opponents call this Orwellian and worse. Public sensitivities reflect this linguistic divide. Although that longitudinal Gallup poll has long reported two-thirds support for legally allowing doctors to “end the patient’s life by some painless means,” support historically drops by 10 points or more when they ask if doctors should be allowed to “assist the patient to commit suicide.” So when legislation is under consideration, opponents fill the airwaves with the word “suicide,” and public support ebbs.

A third reason is demographic: The assisted-suicide movement has long been dominated by well-off, educated whites. As early as 1993, Dick Lehr reported in a Boston Globe series titled “Death and the Doctor’s Hand” that every doctor he talked to said that patients who asked about assistance in dying were typically middle to upper class and accustomed to being in charge. As one oncologist put it, “These are usually very intelligent people, in control of their life—white, executive, rich, always leaders of the pack, can’t be dependent on people a lot.”

In fact, one of the reasons Oregon was first to pass an assisted-suicide bill is likely because it’s a very white state—and so are the patients who take advantage of the Death With Dignity Act. The 2014 report from the Oregon Health Authority says that the median age of DWDA patients is 72 years old; 95 percent are white, and three-quarters have at least some college education.

Aid-in-dying bills are a tougher lift in more-diverse states. Minority patients have historically been wary of the medical establishment, and not without reason. There’s abundant evidence that people of color have less access to health care than whites and receive less treatment even when they do have access. If the health care system already shortchanges them during the prime of their lives, would it also shortchange them at the end, pressing them to forgo expensive end-of-life care and just take a pill instead? This fear makes the doctors who serve them cautious about discussing assisted suicide. “My concern is for Latinos and other minority groups that might get disproportionately counseled to opt for physician-assisted suicide,” one doctor told Lehr. More recently, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, director of the medical ethics program at the University of California-Irvine School of Medicine, explained to the New York Times, “You’re seeing the push for assisted suicide from generally white, upper-middle-class people, who are least likely to be pressured. You’re not seeing support from the underinsured and economically marginalized. Those people want access to better health care.”

Finally, there’s the fourth and most obvious reason for legislative failures: Assisted suicide has a lot of moral opposition.

Suicide has always been a sin to the Catholic Church, and in 1965 the Vatican reaffirmed this position, declaring that abortion, euthanasia, and other forms of taking life “poison human society.” In 1980, the church released its “Declaration on Euthanasia,” which permitted the refusal of extraordinary measures when death was imminent but categorically opposed any kind of assisted suicide, calling it a “violation of the divine law.” In 1995, Pope John Paul II issued his Evangelium Vitae encyclical, which condemned the growing acceptance of euthanasia as a personal right.

It was Evangelium Vitae that popularized the epithet “culture of death,” which has since been adopted by born-again Christians to condemn both abortion and assisted suicide. This makes assisted-suicide legislation especially difficult to pass in states with a large Catholic or conservative Christian presence.

Opposition also comes from many within the disability rights movement, who have a long-standing wariness of the medical community. “Doctors used to exercise near-total control over the lives of people like me with significant disabilities,” writes Diane Coleman, a disability rights activist, “sentencing us to institutions, and imposing their own ideas about what medical procedures would improve our lives.” That attitude has since improved, but not enough to allay fears that doctors might care for the disabled differently if assisted suicide becomes legal. Will they treat depression in the disabled with less than their usual vigor, giving in more easily to requests for lethal drugs? Consciously or unconsciously, will they be more likely than they should be to diagnose imminent death?

And it’s not just doctors. The seriously disabled already live with the reality that many people consider their lives barely worth living in the first place. They fear that if assisted suicide becomes commonplace, the right to die could evolve into a “duty to die,” and those with disabilities—along with minorities and the poor—might face increased pressure to end their lives. The pressure could come from family members, exhausted from tending to disabled children or parents. It could come from insurance companies, for which assisted suicide is a lot cheaper than six months of expensive end-of-life care. It could come from government “death panels,” trying to control costs and keep taxes low. Or it could come from the disabled themselves, out of worry that they’re a burden on friends and family, both emotionally and financially.

More generally, opposition also comes from those who fear a slippery slope. In the Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal, 1 in 28 deaths now comes via doctor-assisted suicide. That’s up 200 percent in the past decade, largely because the rules are so lenient. All you have to do is claim unbearable suffering, which in practice can mean that you’re just tired of living.

Opposition also comes from the medical profession itself. This has softened over the past few years, with a large 2010 survey showing that more physicians supported assisted suicide (45 percent) than did not (40 percent). Nonetheless, until last year both the American Medical Association and every single state medical group formally opposed physician-aided suicide.

In California, all of these things—its large Latino population, its large Catholic population, the opposition of doctors, and real concerns about both slippery slopes and pressure on the poor—conspired for years to keep assisted suicide from becoming legal. In the past quarter century, advocates tried five times to pass legislation legalizing the practice—via ballot measures in 1988 and 1992 and legislation in 1995, 1999, and 2005. Five times they failed.

Then Brittany Maynard happened.

For California’s assisted-suicide movement, Brittany Maynard was perfect: young, attractive, articulate, dying of a brain tumor—and very much on their side. Marcia Angell, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, called her “the new face of the movement.

Maynard’s cancer was diagnosed on the first day of 2014. She underwent surgery to remove the tumor, but in April it returned, worse than ever. A few months later she moved from San Francisco to Oregon and partnered with Compassion & Choices—the successor to the Hemlock Society—to create a six-minute video explaining why she wanted the right to control the time and manner of her death. It has been viewed nearly 12 million times since then. In October, she was featured on the cover of People. On November 1, she took the pills she had been prescribed and died.

Maynard’s story galvanized the cause of assisted suicide in California. Two months after her death yet another bill was introduced. It passed the state Senate in June, but opposition from church leaders, disability rights activists, and others bottled it up in the Assembly’s Health Committee in July. Nationally, support for “assisted suicide” was up 17 points, and had finally hit the same two-thirds level in Gallup polls that “ending life painlessly” had long maintained. State polls showed even stronger support: Californians approved it by a margin of 71 to 22 percent. Nevertheless, for the sixth time, assisted suicide couldn’t quite find enough votes even to make it out of committee.

Then supporters got a lucky—and totally unexpected—break: Gov. Jerry Brown called for a special legislative session to address Medicaid funding issues. Unsurprisingly for California, those funding issues haven’t yet been resolved. But equally unsurprisingly, California legislators had no intention of letting a special session go to waste. Dozens of measures were brought up, and one of them was the assisted-suicide bill that had failed only a month earlier. This time, though, things were different. Special-session rules allowed supporters to exclude from the Health Committee five Democrats who had opposed it earlier in the year. With that, the bill finally made it to a floor vote.

It also helped that the bill had a list of safeguards even longer than Oregon’s. Patients must be competent adults with no diagnosed mental disorders that would impair judgment. Two doctors have to certify that patients have less than six months to live. Doctors are required to meet privately with patients to ensure they aren’t being coerced. Two oral requests for aid-in-dying drugs must be made 15 days apart, along with a written request. Only the attending physician can prescribe the medication. The drugs must be self-administered. And the law expires automatically in 10 years unless the Legislature reenacts it.

On September 9, ABX2-15 was passed by the Assembly. On September 11, it was passed by the state Senate. On October 5, after a month of silence about his intentions, Brown signed it into law. Sometime in 2016—90 days after the Legislature adjourns the special session—assisted suicide will finally be legal in California.

For more than a decade after Oregon passed the nation’s first assisted-suicide law, no other state followed. Then, in 2008, Washington voters passed a ballot measure legalizing the practice. In 2009, it was legalized by court order in Montana. Vermont’s lawmakers followed in 2013. Now, the addition of California has tripled the number of Americans with the right to ask a physician for a lethal prescription if they have a terminal disease.

Does this mean that assisted suicide is the next big civil rights battle? The fact that four states have approved assisted suicide in just the past seven years suggests momentum may finally be reaching critical mass. What’s more, if Gallup’s polling is to be believed, the word “suicide” has finally lost its shock value. Still, legislation continues to fail more often than it passes, even in blue states like Massachusetts and Connecticut. Right now, it’s just too early to tell.

Every story has an ending. This one, it turns out, hasn’t quite ended yet, but the beginning of the end came in 2014, when I too broke a bone. In my case, it was a bone in my back, and when I woke up on the morning of October 18, I couldn’t move. My wife called 911, and a few minutes later a crew of burly firefighters loaded me onto a stretcher and carried me downstairs to a waiting ambulance.

Kendrick Brinson

In the ER, the first thing they did was take a set of X-rays. A few hours later a doctor delivered the news in matter-of-fact tones: They had found lytic lesions on bones all over my body—on my legs, my skull, my hips, and my arms. Further tests were needed to confirm the ER doctor’s diagnosis, but there was really only one thing that could cause this. Like Harry, I had multiple myeloma.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that Mother Jones provides excellent health care coverage for its employees. I spent a week in the hospital, where I got a kyphoplasty to repair the bone and began the first stage of chemotherapy. After 16 weeks, the level of cancerous cells in my bone marrow had decreased from about 50 percent to 5 percent, good enough that I qualified for the second stage of treatment, an autologous stem cell transplant.

In concept, this is a simple procedure. First, I spent a couple of days having bone marrow stem cells extracted from my blood and then frozen. A couple of weeks later I was given a huge dose of a powerful chemotherapy drug that’s basically designed to kill everything in its path—including all my healthy bone marrow stem cells. This would kill me in short order, so the next day my stem cells were unfrozen and pumped back into my body. That’s it. All the rest was recovery. My immune system died off completely within a few days, and then started rebounding. After a couple of weeks I went home. Two months after that I felt fine.

Unfortunately, the procedure didn’t work. My bone marrow was still 5 percent cancerous. So now I’m on stage three, a different chemotherapy drug. It’s working, but it’s not working all that well. My last lab test showed that my bone marrow is only 4 percent cancerous, which is the right direction but not the right magnitude. There’s no known treatment that puts multiple myeloma in complete remission, but the goal is to get close enough to zero that the cancerous cells are undetectable. I’m nowhere near that yet.

I may still get there. And if my current medication doesn’t do the job, there are other things to try. Nonetheless, even though I feel fine, the grim fact is that I’m responding to the chemotherapy only modestly.

So how long do I have to live? Five years? Ten years? Two? No one knows. But I’m 57 years old, and death is no longer so far away that I never think about it. The odds are slim that I’ll ever collect a Social Security check.

That makes this story a very personal one. Sometime in the next few years the cancer will start to progress rapidly and there will be no more treatments to try. My bones will become more brittle and may break or accumulate microfractures. My immune system will deteriorate, making me vulnerable to opportunistic outside infections. I may suffer from hemorrhages or renal failure. My bones will stop retaining calcium, which will build up instead in my bloodstream. I may be in great pain—or I may not. Multiple myeloma can end in a lot of different ways. But one thing is sure: Once any of these symptoms start up, I’ll be dead within a few weeks or months.

Like Harry, though, I’ve never intended to let that happen. I have no interest in trying to tell other people what to do if they find themselves close to death, but my choice has always been clear: I don’t want to die in pain—or drugged into a stupor by pain meds—all while connected to tubes and respirators in a hospital room. When the end is near, I want to take my own life.

Until this year, that would have left me with only two options. The first is to wait until my wife is out of the house and lug out a helium tank. Assuming I do everything right, I’ll die quickly and painlessly—but I’ll also die alone. I would have no chance to say goodbye to friends and family, nor they to me. My wife would have the horror of discovering my corpse when she came home, and that would be her final memory of me.

The second option is that I’d wait too long and land in a hospital. I’d end up with all those tubes and pain meds I never wanted, and I’d never get out. Maybe I’d be there for a week, maybe a few months. Who knows? It’s pretty much my worst nightmare.

Kendrick Brinson

But now I have a third option. When I’m within six months of death, I can ask my doctor for a prescription sedative that will kill me on my own terms—when I want and where I want. Will I ever use it? I don’t know. I suspect that taking your own life requires a certain amount of courage, and I don’t know if I have it. Probably none of us do until we’re faced with it head-on.

But either way, I won’t have to die before I want to out of fear that I’ll lose the capacity to control my own destiny if I wait too long. Nor will I have to die alone out of fear that anyone present runs the risk of being hauled in by an overzealous sheriff’s deputy. I’ll be able to tell my wife I love her one last time. I can take her hand and we can lie down together on our bed. And then, slowly and peacefully, I’ll draw my last breaths.

I don’t want to die. But if I have to, this is how I want it to happen. I don’t want a “suicide party,” but neither do I want to suffer needlessly for months. Nor do I want to cause other people any more pain than I have to. I want to go out quietly, with my loved ones at my side.

When he signed California’s right-to-die bill, Gov. Brown attached a signing statement. “I do not know what I would do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain,” he wrote. “I am certain, however, that it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill. And I wouldn’t deny that right to others.”

Nor would I.

See original article:  

My Right to Die: Assisted Suicide, My Family, and Me

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on My Right to Die: Assisted Suicide, My Family, and Me