Ex-NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik Leaving Prison, Returning to NJ Home Tuesday: Sources (NBC News) and Other Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 NYC Police Related News Articles

 

- - - - -

 

Ex-NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik Leaving Prison, Returning to NJ Home Tuesday: Sources
Bernard Kerik, the disgraced NYPD commissioner who went to prison on corruption charges

By Andrew Siff — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘NBC News’ / New York, NY

 

 

Former NYPD commissioner Bernard Kerik is expected to return to his New Jersey home Tuesday after spending three years in federal prison, two sources tell NBC 4 New York.

 

Kerik, a one-time nominee to be the nation's Homeland Security Chief, is planning to spend his first day back at his Franklin Lakes home sharing a meal with his 20 guests, according to a friend catering the event.

 

"He put a request in for some food that he's been missing for a few years," said Albert Manzo, who runs Brownstone catering in Paterson, where the chocolate fountain and gourmet desserts have been New Jersey staples for decades.

 

"He loves our short ribs, shrimp scampi -- a lot of things he doesn't have access to there," added Manzo, whose family is featured in the reality show "Real Housewives of New Jersey."

 

Kerik lost access to those luxuries when he pleaded guilty to multiple counts of corruption, including tax fraud and lying to the government. He was also implicated in accepting $250,000 worth of free renovations to his Riverdale apartment.

 

Kerik is expected to ride back from Maryland with friends, leaving at about 9 a.m. and likely arriving in New Jersey in the afternoon, according to sources familiar with his plans.

 

Manzo said he's proud to cook for a longtime friend and that the former commissioner could pursue several avenues to restore his name.

 

"I can only speculate," he said. "But I'd say there's two or three books out there. I'd be looking for a TV movie."

 

Hailed as a hero for leading the NYPD during the 9/11 attacks, Kerik fell from grace when he became the first New York City police commissioner ever imprisoned on federal crimes. His legal problems clouded the political fortunes of other elected officials, especially that of his mentor, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

 

The two had met when Kerik volunteered to chauffeur Giuliani and provide security during his first unsuccessful race for mayor. Once elected in 1993, Giuliani promoted Kerik, a high school dropout, to the highest levels of city government.

 

The mayor eventually tapped his former bodyguard as the city's 40th police commissioner in 2001 despite his attaining only the lowest rank for a detective and failing to earn a college degree -- a requirement for officers above the rank of sergeant. During his failed presidential bid in 2008, Giuliani had to admit that he erred in recommending Kerik to President Bush.

 

-  -

 

NYPD Historical Note:   Kerik is the second former NYPD Police Commissioner to be jailed. 

 

The first, Mathew T. Brennan - also a former detective like Bernard Kerik -  went to the slammer for surreptitiously springing Tammany Boss William Tweed from the Ludlow Street jail. 

 

Tweed, later re-captured, would die on Blackwell (Roosevelt) Island.   Brennan - a Tweed Ring enabler and Tammany Hall favorite -  continued to milk the system long after Tweed’s death. - Mike Bosak

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Former NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik to be released from federal prison Tuesday: report

Kerik, 57, has spent more than three years in jail for tax fraud and lying to White House officials. The ex-top cop will reportedly head home to Franklin Lakes, N.J. and celebrate over a meal with 20 guests following his release.

By Daniel Beekman — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’

 

 

Bernie's back.

 

Disgraced former NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik is reportedly being released from federal prison in Maryland Tuesday.

 

The discredited top cop — nominated in 2004 by former President George W. Bush to be Homeland Security secretary — has served more than three years behind bars after pleading guilty to felonies that included tax fraud and lying to White House officials.

 

Initially slated for release in October, Kerik will head home to Franklin Lakes, N.J., after leaving the Federal Correctional Institution in Cumberland, Md., WNBC reported Monday night.

 

The 57-year-old will hitch a ride with friends and is expected to arrive home Tuesday afternoon, the report said. He is planning to celebrate over a meal with 20 guests. Kerik has requested food from Brownstone catering in Paterson, N.J., WNBC reported.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

Kerik is free today

By LARRY CELONA and JULIA MARSH — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The New York Post’

 

 

After three years in federal prison, disgraced former NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik is set to get out of jail today — and start partying.

 

Friends plan to drive Kerik five hours north from the Cumberland, Md., lockup to his home in Bergen County, NJ.

 

There, his wife, Hala, his two daughters and more than a dozen pals will celebrate with a feast provided by Brownstone caterers, owned by the Manzo family of “The Real Housewives of New Jersey.”

 

“He’s looking forward to getting home and seeing his family and his house,” said a friend.

 

Kerik, once eyed for the post of national homeland-security chief, is being freed a year earlier than his four-year sentence called for, but will be confined to his home until October.

 

Brownstone’s repast will include shrimp scampi, fresh mozzarella and brownies.

 

Kerik went to the slammer for a scandal that forever tarnished that once-respected lawman’s reputation.

 

He pleaded guilty to tax fraud and making false statements in connection with $250,000 in free renovations to his Bronx apartment.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Mayoral Race  / Kelly for Mayor

 

Ray Kelly Wouldn't Lie To Us: Quinn      [  L.O.L. ]

BY Jennifer Fermino — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’

 

 

Christine Quinn is pretty confident Ray Kelly won't run for mayor, despite a mysterious poll quizzing voters about his potential candidacy.

 

"Ray Kelly has said repeatedly he's not running for mayor," Quinn told reporters today. "And one thing I know about Ray Kelly, he's a man you can take at his word."

 

Rumors of a Ray Kelly run went into overdrive last week when CapitalNewYork.com and the Village Voice both reported about the strange poll quizzing voters on issues like stop and frisk, crime reduction and whether they'd support the NYPD Commissioner in an election.

 

Kelly denied that he was behind the poll - which typically costs tens of thousands of dollars - and reiterated that he had no plans on running.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Bloomberg / Kelly:  ‘Nail Everybody’

 

City set to collect $550 million in parking tickets this year: Report
Of the 10 million tickets issued, between 20% and 30% will go to commercial-delivery companies, Crain's New York reports.

By Tina Moore — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’

(Edited for brevity and NYPD pertinence) 

 

NOTE:   See Washington Post article below on speed cameras.  - Mike

 

 

The city will see a $550 million windfall this year from parking tickets, Crain’s New York reported. Of the 10 million issued, between 20% and 30% will go to commercial-delivery companies.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

NYPD Stop, Question and Frisk  Search    [ Proposed City Council “Biased-Based Profiling” Bill ]

 

Council risks crime boost, Mike warns

By SALLY GOLDENBERG — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The New York Post’

 

 

Mayor Bloomberg fired a new salvo in his war against a City Council measure to rein in stop-and-frisk, charging the anti-racial-profiling legislation would actually end the successful policing strategy and aid dangerous criminals.

 

In a letter sent to the council yesterday, Bloomberg attorney Michael Best implored council members to vote against a bill that would expand the definition of “biased-based profiling.”

 

Warzer Jaff 'Courts would be forced to focus on whether data about police enforcement fit whatever demographic quotas the judge deemed appropriate.' — Letter from lawyer for Mayor Bloomberg.

 

Best said the legislation would open the city to a flood of lawsuits against the NYPD and could spell the end of stop-and-frisk — a practice that critics say unfairly targets minorities.

 

“Intro 800 [the bill] would authorize new lawsuits that could result in a blanket prohibition against the use of stop, question and frisk in New York City — and potentially many other strategies and tactics used by the police to address and prevent crime,” Best wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Post.

 

“The bill would permit lawsuits by an ‘individual or organization’ claiming that ‘the activities of law-enforcement officers have had a disparate impact’ upon any of the various categories of people set forth in the bill.

 

“And in such a lawsuit, a court would be authorized to issue injunctive relief — meaning a court could issue an order prohibiting the policy or practice resulting in the disparate impact.”

 

He goes on to say that if the bill becomes law, anyone who feels he or she is stopped based solely on identifying features could sue and win if his or her demographic is stopped at a disproportionate rate.

 

For example, a man who is stopped and frisked could sue, claiming police unfairly target men if they make up a greater percentage of those stopped than they do the general population.

 

“Courts would be forced to focus on whether data about police enforcement fit whatever demographic quotas the judge deemed appropriate,” he wrote.

 

Bill sponsors Jumaane Williams and Brad Lander, both Brooklyn Democrats, say the measure would simply expand the city’s existing racial-profiling law by adding other demographic classes that should be protected, such as the homeless and gay people.

 

They have said police are free, under the bill, to chase leads that include descriptions but cannot stop and frisk people based solely on those descriptions.

 

Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is running for mayor, has said she won’t support the bill but also will not block it from coming to a vote.

 

The bill has 32 sponsors — two shy of the number of votes needed to override Bloomberg’s certain veto.

 

Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. (D-Queens), who chairs the Public Safety Committee, said he would not hold a hearing on the bill.

 

“This won’t reform stop-and-frisk; it will end it. Police officers, for good reason, will not put themselves at the mercy of state judges and will refuse to get out of their cars,” he said.

 

“As a result, criminals will again be emboldened, and crime will spike.”

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

NYPD Stop, Question and Frisk  Search    [ Federal District Court Trial ]

 

Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’ Editorial:

 

Free the NYPD
As the stop-and-frisk class action lawsuit closes, the flaws in Judge Shira Scheindlin's approach are glaringly apparent

 

 

As she closed her stop-and-frisk inquisition after nine weeks of testimony, Manhattan Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin mused about ordering cops to wear cameras to record encounters with the public.

 

She said the idea “intrigued” her because then, “everyone would know exactly what occurred.” In other words, everyone, including a judge, could evaluate an officer’s conduct based on documentary evidence rather than on a swearing contest between cop and complaining citizen.

 

A smattering of the latter is all Scheindlin had when she allowed civil rights activists to mount a class action against the NYPD, and her misjudgment became ever more glaring as weaknesses in the testimony against the police emerged.

 

To prevail, the activists had the burden of proving that cops victimized at least a handful of people by stopping them without reasonable suspicion of criminality, that the improper stops fit a pattern stretching across a half-million stops a year and that the NYPD broadly targeted New Yorkers based on race or ethnicity.

 

Scheindlin’s notion of equipping cops with wearable cameras reflected nothing so much as the activists’ failure to present indisputably convincing instances of police abuse.

 

Twelve witnesses described 19 cases in which, they alleged, cops unconstitutionally stopped and/or frisked them. Frisks are permissible when an officer has reasonable grounds to believe someone may be armed.

 

Some of the accounts established that cops were in the right — for example, stopping a man who had just been accused of harassment by a woman. In other instances, complainants and cops offered differing perspectives on events, with the police witnesses, for the most part, providing credible rationales for their actions.

 

Lacking a future-cam, Scheindlin is left with unresolved disputes that fall far short of proving the accused officers ran roughshod, let alone that they represent a department filled with cowboys.

 

Regardless, Scheindlin gave the activists free rein to present mumbo-jumbo statistical evidence in hope of making that giant conclusionary leap.

 

After studying hundreds of thousands of individual stop-and-frisk reports, their supposed expert stated that 82% showed proper cause for a stop, 12% lacked enough data to render an opinion and a mere 6% failed to justify stops.

 

A 6% error rate would barely qualify as wholesale, deliberate predation. More saliently, Scheindlin zeroed in on the numerical folly when she asked: “You really don’t know much about the stop just by looking at the form, do you?”

 

Finally, the activists’ attempt to prove the NYPD targets minority-group members based on race or ethnicity was ludicrous and offensive.

 

Calling to the stand disgruntled cops who had surreptitiously recorded their supervisors devolved into a labor-management sideshow, but there was nothing frivolous about Scheindlin’s open fixation on two numbers.

 

First, the overwhelming majority of those stopped, questioned and frisked are minorities because minorities represent the overwhelming majority of crime victims and suspects. The activists insist this amounts to profiling, and Scheindlin more than sympathetically listened.

 

Second, the majority of stops produce no criminal charges nor find weapons (although plenty are seized). “What troubles me is the fact that the suspicion seems to be wrong 90% of the time,” Scheindlin said. “That’s a high error rate.”

 

Not really, and her belief that the number indicates abuse reveals the mindset that led Scheindlin into this drive to right nonexistent wrongs.

 

No one expressed that point of view more odiously than Gretchen Hoff Varner, a lawyer for the activists, who said in closing arguments: “The NYPD has laid siege to black and Latino neighborhoods over the past eight years.”

 

The truth is that, thanks to the NYPD, the city’s minority neighborhoods have been the largest beneficiaries of plunging crime. Not that it mattered in Scheindlin’s courtroom.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Stop-and-frisk down 27 percent in Queens in 2012

By Rich Bockmann  — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The Queens Times Ledger’ / Queens

 

 

A new analysis of NYPD data by the New York Civil Liberties Union revealed Queens outpaced the city’s drop in police stops last year, and in some of the borough’s busiest areas the police appear to be stopping people more selectively than in the past.

 

The NYCLU incited the backlash against NYPD practices a year ago when it released a report showing stop-and-frisks had increased dramatically during the first10 years of the Bloomberg administration.

 

Among the group’s major criticisms were the low numbers of firearms recovered, the fact that young black and Hispanic males were stopped in disproportionately high numbers compared to their share of the population citywide and the low numbers of people who were either arrested or issued a summons after being stopped.

 

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly have defended the practice, saying blacks and Hispanics are actually under-stopped compared to the racial descriptions of crime suspects.

 

According to the NYCLU’s analysis of 2012 data released Wednesday, the number of stops in Queens fell 27 percent last year to just shy of 111,000, outpacing the citywide decrease of 22 percent.

 

The largest drop came in the 115th Precinct covering Jackson Heights and East Elmhurst, which ranked No. 3 across the city in 2011 with more than 18,000 stops. That number dropped 55.5 percent to just more than 8,000 last year.

 

The 110th Precinct, covering Corona and Elmhurst and bordering the 114th on the south side of Roosevelt Avenue, recorded the second smallest decline in the borough last year, dropping shy of 16 percent to just more than 9,000.

 

The two precincts share a common area known as an Impact Zone, a high-crime area the NYPD floods with new recruits to patrol the streets, and along Roosevelt issues such as prostitution, drug dealing and automobile break-ins call out for more policing.

 

In 2011, the precincts rounded out the bottom of the city’s top five with the highest percentage of frisks, with more than 70 percent of stops in each escalating to the point of a frisk.

 

Both precincts ranked in the top five again in 2012, with the 110th the highest precinct in the city with more than 81 percent of stops resulting in a frisk.

 

City Councilman Daniel Dromm (D-Jackson Heights) said he saw that last statistic as an encouraging sign that police were stopping people on more valid grounds.

 

“I think that means there’s much more reasonable suspicion if it then leads to a frisk,” he said. “The words we really use is ‘being more selective.’ There has to be a real, reasonable suspicion [to stop someone] and that’s always been the real requirement.”

 

Indeed, both precincts saw a decline in the number of innocent people stopped.

 

Downtown Jamaica’s 103rd Precinct, which ranked eighth across the city in 2011, dropped 24 percent last year to just under 13,000 stops, but it moved two spots up to rank No. 6 in the city.

 

The 106th (South Ozone Park), 108th (Long Island City), 113th (South Jamaica), 104th (Ridgewood), 102nd (Richmond Hill) and 109th (Flushing) precincts also saw drops above the citywide average.

 

The 101st (Far Rockaway), 105th (Queens Village), 112th (Forest Hills), 114th (Astoria), 100th (Rockaway Park), 111th (Bayside) and 107th (Fresh Meadows) precincts experienced declines below the city’s average.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Transit P.O. Oskar Rodriguez

 

Off-duty cop busted in Bronx for assault
Transit officer Oskar Rodriguez, 39, a 16-year NYPD veteran, is accused of punching a 22-year-old man.

By Rocco Parascandola AND Barry Paddock — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’

 

 

An off-duty cop was arrested in the Bronx Sunday for assault.

 

Transit officer Oskar Rodriguez, 39, a 16-year NYPD veteran, is accused of punching a 22-year-old man in the left side of his face, causing swelling and bruising.

 

Rodriguez was busted near Hunts Point at 9:30 p.m. He is charged with misdemeanor assault.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

I.A.B. Investigation

Grope dope Bynes a ‘liar’

By KIRSTAN CONLEY and DAVID K. LI — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The New York Post’

 

 

Maybe she was just hallucinating.

 

The NYPD yesterday said there was no evidence that Amanda Bynes was groped by cops who busted her for tossing a bong from a 37th-floor Midtown hotel room.

 

“Internal Affairs investigators have found no evidence to corroborate Ms. Bynes’ allegations,” NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said. “To the contrary, a credible civilian witness who was with the officers throughout told investigators that none touched Ms. Bynes inappropriately or otherwise engaged in misconduct at any time.”

 

The troubled ex-child star claimed that two officers groped her and that one “slapped my vagina.”

 

But Bynes still plans to sue the NYPD — and vowed yesterday to transform herself into a hip-hop star.

 

She told fans she’ll go after New York’s Finest in civil court, following her arrest last week for allegedly smoking pot and the bong toss.

 

“For once and for all, this is the last thing I’ll say about the mistaken arrest,” Bynes tweeted. “I’m suing NYPD for illegally entering my apartment, lying about drugs on me and lying about me tampering with nonexistent drug paraphernalia, then I’m suing for being put into a mental hospital against my will.”

 

Bynes was released without bail on Friday morning and appears to have been holed up ever since in her Midtown pad — where she has probably been looking in the mirror, imagining how she’ll look with a new nose and a new career path.

 

“I’m free forever! You can’t lock up an innocent person! Thanks for caring!” she tweeted yesterday.

 

“Look forward to seeing me in music videos!” she tweeted yesterday. “I’m getting in shape and getting a nose job! I’m looking forward to a long and wonderful career as a singer/rapper!”

 

Also yesterday, Bynes denied she wrote outrageous tweets mocking Rihanna’s 2009 assault by Chris Brown. “Someone is always mocking up fake tweets,” she tweeted. “I’m followed by so many people that someone is always mocking up fake tweets so I feel the need to address them! Rihanna and I met and I’m sure we’ll be in a music video together one day!”

 

Additional reporting by Aaron Feis

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

NYPD / National Park Service At Odds Over Statue of Liberty Security

 

Officials See Risk in Statue Security Plan
Parks Department Asked to Reconsider New Security Procedures

By PERVAIZ SHALLWANI — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The Wall Street Journal’ / New York, NY

 

 

With the Statue of Liberty scheduled to reopen on July 4, New York officials are pressing the parks department to reconsider new security procedures that they believe put the monument at "greater risk" for a terrorist attack.

 

At issue is the point where visitors are screened for Statue of Liberty tours. The National Park Service has said it plans to move security screenings to Ellis Island, after visitors have taken ferry rides from New Jersey and Manhattan. Those wanting to visit the statue will undergo a second screening.

 

On Monday, New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer called on the park service to revert to the procedure that was in place before the park had to be closed for repairs following superstorm Sandy: screening visitors at Battery Park and New Jersey before they board ferries.

 

That security strategy, which involved having visitors go through the same detectors used at airports, has been in place since after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

 

"The NYPD and the National Park Service have differences when it comes to protecting visitors from a terrorist attack," Mr. Kelly said.

 

"I believe this change can cause serious problems and make those who travel there at greater risk than they are now," Mr. Schumer said.

 

A National Park Service spokesman, Mike Litterst, said via email: "The National Park Service provides security at national icons across America and has done so successfully for decades. Safety...will continue to be our number one priority."

 

The statue and Liberty and Ellis islands have been closed since Sandy battered the region in October. The statue, which sits elevated on Liberty Island, was left unscathed by the storm, which flooded the island and destroyed infrastructure.

 

Park officials said the Battery Park and New Jersey screening sites were always meant to be a temporary solution. The storm damage accelerated the construction of the Ellis Island screening facility.

 

Mr. Kelly said there is no immediate threat to the statue, but said there remains an overall threat to key monuments. "In our judgment the threat has not abated," he said.

 

Messrs. Kelly and Schumer said they have had discussions with the parks service, which they said so far has resisted their overtures. Both recently sent letters to Sally Jewell, the department's newly appointed secretary, in hopes she will reconsider.

 

If money is the issue, they said, the additional costs could be offset by a "nominal" increase in the price of tickets, which now run from $9 to $20.

 

"They have talked to both of us repeatedly," Mr. Schumer said. "Thus far, they have resisted. With a new commissioner, hopefully they will change their mind....Right now the park service is not showing that carefulness we need."

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Citing Danger, Schumer Calls for Scrapping New Screening Plan for Statue of Liberty

By ALAN FEUER — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The New York Times’

 

 

Senator Charles E. Schumer called on the National Park Service on Monday to scrap what he called a dangerous new security plan for the Statue of Liberty, saying that it could leave visitors to the tourist attraction vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

 

For nearly two years now, the New York Police Department has opposed the Park Service’s plan to screen visitors to the statue at central points on Liberty and Ellis Islands, which were badly damaged by Hurricane Sandy and are scheduled to reopen on July 4. In early 2011, Ken Salazar, then the secretary of the interior, intended to announce the change, but he held off because of stiff objections from the police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly.

 

Prompted by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Park Service had for more than a decade conducted airport-style security checks at tented pavilions in Battery Park or in Liberty State Park in Jersey City before passengers boarded ferryboats to the statue. The people who run Battery Park, the Battery Conservancy, wanted the pavilion removed because it was unsightly and clogged the park with tourists.

 

The Park Service tried to find a nearby alternative, considering Pier A, then a Coast Guard building, but could not reach a deal and so decided to move the screening to Ellis and Liberty Islands.

 

Senator Schumer, appearing at a news conference near the ferry terminals in Battery Park, said that the decision to screen passengers after they had reached Liberty Island, instead of before they boarded the ferries, created the potential for terror attacks to occur onboard the boats or even at the base of the statue itself. “Imagine if airline passengers were not screened before they boarded a plane, but instead were screened after they landed,” he said. “It makes no sense. The Park Service is making a serious mistake here and we’re asking them to change it.”

 

Mr. Schumer was joined at the news conference by Mr. Kelly, who said that he had written a personal letter to Sally Jewell, the secretary of the interior. Mr. Kelly said that his department and the Park Service, an agency of the Interior Department, had been discussing the new proposal for weeks but had been unable to reconcile their differences.

 

Max Young, a spokesman for Mr. Schumer, said that the Park Service wanted to consolidate its security efforts into a single checkpoint on Liberty Island because it would facilitate visits and save money.

 

Michael Litterst, a spokesman for the Park Service, said, “Safety has been and will continue to be our No. 1 priority, and we are committed to implementing a plan that does not compromise the safety of our visitors or the security of these landmarks.”

 

Mr. Schumer and Mr. Kelly said that any additional costs incurred by returning to the former screening process could be paid for by a slight increase in the charge for visiting the statue. “My watchword on all terror issues is that you can’t be too careful,” Mr. Schumer said. “Now the Park Service is not showing that level of carefulness.”

 

Patrick McGeehan contributed reporting.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

 

Interior Department remains mum on NYPD criticism of new Statue of Liberty security screening practices
NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly has slammed the new National Parks Service plan, which will not require visitors to be screened until after they arrive on Liberty Island. The Sandy-pummeled tourist destination is expect to reopen on July 4.

By Barry Paddock — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’

 

 

The Interior Department has still not responded to NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly about his contention that new Statue of Liberty security screening practices could be an invitation to terror.

 

Under the National Parks Service plan, visitors won’t be screened until after they arrive on Sandy-pummeled Liberty Island when it reopens on July 4.

 

For more than 12 years, visitors have been screened at Battery Park and Liberty State Park — before getting on ferries.

 

“They’ve made a serious mistake,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). “Leaving the ferry with hundreds of people on board heading toward a national symbol without screening — that’s like a sitting duck in New York Harbor.”

 

In his May 11 letter to Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell, Kelly suggested a small increase in ticket fees could subsidize continued screening in Battery Park.

 

“The threat has not abated,” Kelly said Monday. “I don’t think it’s wise to shift the screening from Manhattan to the potential target.”

 

The National Parks Service said in a statement: “We are committed to implementing a plan that does not compromise the safety of our visitors or the security of these landmarks.”

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

 

NYPD School Safety Agent Arrested in Drug Raid

By Unnamed Author(s) — Monday, May 27th, 2013  ‘The BrooklyNews.Com’ / Brooklyn

 

 

NYPD School Safety Officer Christine Drayton was cuffed and taken into custody when officers executed a search warrant on a Ft Greene drug spot at about 6 a.m. Saturday.

 

She was one of six people arrested on charges that included possession of an illegal weapon (a gun), drugs (two ounces of pot), drug paraphernalia (scales) and a controlled substance (which had yet to be tested) police said.

 

The gun turned out to have been defaced, making it difficult to trace.

 

Drayton was immediately suspended from her job in East New York, pending the outcome of the case against her.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Brooklyn D.A.O.

 

Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes refuses to testify against one of his top prosecutors
A city lawyer argues in court papers that it is 'premature' for Hynes to be deposed 'at this time' in the suit brought by Jabbar Collins, who spent 15 years in prison for killing a rabbi.

By John Marzulli — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’  

 

 

Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes is balking at testifying under oath about a top prosecutor in his office accused in a $150 million lawsuit of railroading suspects in murder cases.

 

A city lawyer argues in court papers that it is “premature” for Hynes to be deposed “at this time” in the suit brought by Jabbar Collins, who spent 15 years in prison for killing a rabbi. Collins was freed in 2010 by a federal judge, who was appalled by prosecutor Michael Vecchione’s conduct in the case.

 

The legal wrangling comes as a reality show about the DA’s office debuts Tuesday night — Vecchione has appeared in promos for CBS’ “Brooklyn D.A.” — and Hynes gears up for a tough reelection race.

 

Collins’ lawyer, Joel Rudin, wants to grill Hynes about his personal involvement in the murder case; why he hasn’t disciplined underlings for prosecutorial misconduct over two decades; and his staunch support of Vecchione, who currently heads the rackets bureau.

 

“Authorities consistently hold that an elected, policymaking official should not be compelled to appear for deposition,” city lawyer Arthur Larkin argued in court papers filed in Brooklyn Federal Court.

 

Although Hynes’ deposition would almost certainly be barred from public release under a protective order, his opponents in the race have been hammering the veteran district attorney on the issue of wrongful prosecutions.

 

Hynes is not a named defendant in the suit, but earlier this year Federal Judge Frederic Block allowed a claim in the Collins case to move forward that accuses Hynes of being “so deliberately indifferent to the underhanded tactics that his subordinates employed as to effectively encourage them to do so.”

 

In Hynes’ place, the city is offering two “executive level” assistant district attorneys who have knowledge of policy and disciplinary matters in the office, according to Larkin.

 

Rudin said he will ask the judge to order Hynes to stop delaying the inevitable responsibility.

 

“It’s his (Hynes’) thinking behind his policies that matter,” Rudin told the Daily News. “The two underlings his lawyers are proposing are not an acceptable substitute.”

 

Rudin also recently asked a Brooklyn magistrate judge to order the city to turn over any documents, if there are any, relating to discussions about the Collins case in the reality show, and whether Hynes or Vecchione have received any payments, directly or indirectly, from CBS.

 

In an early CBS outline of the show obtained by The News, the allegations of misconduct by Vecchione, and the Collins case in particular, were addressed in the show.

 

“I can’t imagine CBS is going to pay these people, or they’re going to take money from CBS to go on the air and talk about the Collins case,” Larkin said, according to a transcript of a recent hearing. “I’ve been wrong about other things, I sure hope I’m not wrong about this.”

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Never a Crime-Free Moment            ‘Television Review’
By NEIL GENZLINGER — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The New York Times’:

 

 

You can’t blame Abe George for crying foul over “Brooklyn DA.”

 

This six-part series, which begins on Tuesday night on CBS and chronicles the efforts of the Brooklyn district attorney’s office, has been the focus of a legal challenge that is continuing almost till the last minute. Mr. George, a candidate for Brooklyn district attorney in the Sept. 10 primary, has argued in State Supreme Court in Manhattan that the program should not be broadcast because it gives an unfair advantage to the incumbent, Charles J. Hynes, who is seeking re-election.

 

Although Mr. Hynes is not featured in the “Brooklyn DA” premiere — it focuses on assistant district attorneys and other underlings — it is a very short step from some of the segments to election-influencing conclusions. That a vote against Mr. Hynes is a vote against police officers killed in the line of duty. Or that a vote against Mr. Hynes is a vote in favor of prostitution and human trafficking. Or that a vote against Mr. Hynes is a vote against a lot of selfless, hard-working, personable public servants.

 

Not that anything is stated so explicitly, but the tone of the first installment projects that Mr. Hynes is running a competent, problem-free ship, something his opponents would dispute. Future episodes might get into some of the recent tainted convictions and complaints about investigatory tactics that have dogged the office. But in the pilot, Michael F. Vecchione, the senior prosecutor who has been the object of some of those complaints, is a model of rectitude as he directs a sting operation involving art thefts. And encomiums about one staff member or another are never far away.

 

“She’s been so much help to me,” one woman says of Kathleen Collins, an assistant district attorney working a human-trafficking case. “She really has. She’s a really good person. She really is.”

 

In the legal dispute over whether the series gives Mr. Hynes an election advantage, CBS has billed this as a news program in an effort to get around equal-time provisions. Maybe, but it looks like a zillion other workplace reality shows.

 

It follows several prosecutors and other employees as they work cases. A substantial portion of the episode is devoted to the killing of Peter J. Figoski, a police officer shot in December 2011 while investigating a robbery in the Cypress Hills section. These segments and the ones involving human trafficking are heartstring-tuggers, and without the back story of the election wrangling they would be decent examples of such reportage. Mr. Hynes’s detractors, though, will have no trouble seeing them as manipulative.

 

Sever the series from the back story and from the various controversies surrounding Mr. Hynes’s office, and you have a reasonably well-executed program. Some of the story lines seem likely to continue over several episodes, while others might wrap up in one. And, commendably, not all are going to come out the way you might expect. The resolution of the human-trafficking case gives the pilot a surprise ending of sorts, though even here, summing up what happened, the judge, Vincent M. Del Giudice, sounds a bit like a cheerleader for the status quo.

 

“You have to follow justice wherever it leads,” he says. “Sometimes it results in very unpleasant decisions. It’s not chalking up wins or losses. It’s the pursuit of justice. He did the right thing. That’s what you want the D.A. to do, and that’s what they did.”

 

The antecedent for the judge’s “he” isn’t clear — female prosecutors worked the case — but to Mr. George, at least, the comment will surely sound as if Mr. Del Giudice is endorsing a candidate.

 

Apart from the guessing game over whether it is or isn’t a news program, the most annoying thing about “Brooklyn DA” is the way it flaunts its Brooklyn-ness. Television that ventures into that borough or, for that matter, other boroughs has created a series of clichés, all of which are in evidence here.

 

There must be rap music over a collage that name-checks the borough’s neighborhoods. There must be a visit to blocks that were once dangerous but now are too expensive to live on. There must be a stop at a deli or food cart where the guy behind the counter is an oracle. Here, the episode opens with that scene as an assistant district attorney buys corned beef and asks the guy wrapping it up for advice on his coming meeting with his boss.

 

“Just go for it,” is the profound wisdom dispensed along with the meat. In trendy, eclectic, overexposed Brooklyn as packaged for TV, even the sagacity has turned trite.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

U.S.A.

 

Commission wants to use malware to fight piracy

By Dwight Silverman (The Houston Chronicle) — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The Seattle Post-Intelligencer’ / Seattle, WA

(Edited for brevity and generic law enforcement pertinence) 

 

 

A new report from a commission studying the issue of American intellectual property theft has made draconian suggestions about ways to stop the practice, including infecting the computers of suspected perpetrators with malware.

 

The Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property’s stated focus is on the theft of IP from U.S. companies and institutions by international cyberspies. The emphasis in the 89-page report is on Chinese cyber assaults on business and government, but as TorrentFreak points out, the issue of general piracy is also addressed:

 

Because of online piracy and other forms of IP-theft, the commission believes that the U.S. economy is currently missing out on millions of jobs. In addition, they note that the threat to innovation significantly degrades quality of life for Americans.

 

The report distinguishes many different forms of IP-theft. However, throughout the report casual online piracy, counterfeiting, hacking and economic espionage are often lumped together when it comes to the recommendations.

 

The commission’s recommendations are alarming, to say the least. It wants business and government to have the right to install software on computers used by those suspected of IP theft that would normally be classed as malware. From the report:

 

Additionally, software can be written that will allow only authorized users to open files containing valuable information. If an unauthorized person accesses the information, a range of actions might then occur. For example, the file could be rendered inaccessible and the unauthorized user’s computer could be locked down, with instructions on how to contact law enforcement to get the password needed to unlock the account. Such measures do not violate existing laws on the use of the Internet, yet they serve to blunt attacks and stabilize a cyber incident to provide both time and evidence for law enforcement to become involved.

 

Yep, the malware described here would lock up your computer until you turned yourself in to the police. That type of software is apparently legal under U.S. law, but the commission suggests going further and actually damaging the systems of suspects.

 

While the commission says it doesn’t recommend immediate changes to laws, it wants those harsher measures to be considered:

 

When theft of valuable information, including intellectual property, occurs at network speed, sometimes merely containing a situation until law enforcement can become involved is not an entirely satisfactory course of action. While not currently permitted under U.S. law, there are increasing calls for creating a more permissive environment for active network defense that allows companies not only to stabilize a situation but to take further steps, including actively retrieving stolen information, altering it within the intruder’s networks, or even destroying the information within an unauthorized network. Additional measures go further, including photographing the hacker using his own system’s camera, implanting malware in the hacker’s network, or even physically disabling or destroying the hacker’s own computer or network.

 

The legal underpinnings of such actions taken at network speed within the networks of hackers, even when undertaken by governments, have not yet been developed. Further, the de facto sanctioning of corporate cyber retribution is not supported by established legal precedents and norms. Part of the basis for this bias against “offensive cyber” in the law includes the potential for collateral damage on the Internet. An action against a hacker designed to recover a stolen information file or to degrade or damage the computer system of a hacker might degrade or damage the computer or network systems of an innocent third party. The challenges are compounded if the hacker is in one country and the victim in another.

 

For these reasons and others, the Commission does not recommend specific revised laws under present circumstances. However, current law and law-enforcement procedures simply have not kept pace with the technology of hacking and the speed of the Internet. Almost all the advantages are on the side of the hacker; the current situation is not sustainable. Moreover, as has been shown above, entirely defensive measures are likely to continue to become increasingly expensive and decreasingly effective, while being unlikely to change the cost-benefit calculus of targeted hackers away from attacking corporate networks.

 

You can read the full report below.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/144144946/IP-Commission-Report-052213

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

2nd Amendment Issues / Gun Control

 

Gun Makers Saw No Role in Curbing Improper Sales

By MIKE McINTIRE and MICHAEL LUO — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The New York Times’

 

 

The Glock executive testified that he would keep doing business with a gun dealer who had been indicted on a charge of violating firearms laws because “This is still America” and “You’re still innocent until proven guilty.”

 

The president of Sturm, Ruger was not interested in knowing how often the police traced guns back to the company’s distributors, saying it “wouldn’t show us anything.”

 

And a top executive for Taurus International said his company made no attempt to learn if dealers who sell its products were involved in gun trafficking on the black market. “I don’t even know what a gun trafficker is,” he said.

 

The world’s firearms manufacturers have been largely silent in the debate over gun violence. But their voices emerge from thousands of pages of depositions in a series of liability lawsuits a decade ago, before Congress passed a law shielding them from such suits in 2005, and the only time many of them were forced to answer such questions.

 

Much of the testimony was marked confidential, and transcripts were packed away in archives at law firms and courthouses around the country. But a review of the documents, which were obtained by The New York Times, shows the industry’s leaders arguing, often with detachment and defiance, that their companies bear little responsibility, beyond what the law requires, for monitoring the distributors and dealers who sell their guns to the public.

 

The executives claimed not to know if their guns had ever been used in a crime. They eschewed voluntary measures to lessen the risk of them falling into the wrong hands. And they denied that common danger signs — like a single person buying many guns at once or numerous “crime guns” that are traced to the same dealer — necessarily meant anything at all.

 

Charles Brown’s company, MKS Supply, is the sole distributor of an inexpensive brand of gun that frequently turned up in criminal investigations. He said he never examined the trace requests that MKS received from federal agents to learn which of his dealers sold the most crime guns. This lack of interest was echoed by Charles Guevremont, the president of the gun manufacturer Browning, who testified that his company would have no reason to review the practices of a dealer who was the subject of numerous trace requests.

 

“That’s not for us to enforce the law,” Mr. Guevremont said.

 

A discordant note was sounded by one executive — Ugo Gussalli Beretta, a scion of the family of Italian firearms makers. His testimony indicated that he did not understand how easy it was to buy multiple guns in the United States, compared with his home country. Questioned by a lawyer for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, he said he believed — incorrectly — that Beretta U.S.A. had a policy requiring its dealers to first determine if there was “a legitimate need” for someone to buy so many guns.

 

Asked why he thought that, Mr. Beretta replied, “Common sense.” Because the testimony came in the context of high-stakes litigation, it is difficult to tell how much of it reflected a studied attempt to avoid liability or a fundamentally laissez-faire attitude toward the firearms trade.

 

Even so, many of those who testified are still with the same companies, and the issues they were asked about have not gone away. In the wake of the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., and other recent high-profile shootings, the gun industry’s response — that existing laws should be better enforced rather than new restrictions imposed — largely mirrors its stance from a decade ago.

 

Because of lobbying by gun-rights groups, there are more restrictions on the government’s use of trace data than when the lawsuits began. And the industry continues to oppose limits on multiple gun sales to a single buyer, a major theme of the lawsuits; it is in court fighting a new requirement that dealers report such rifle sales under certain circumstances.

 

Regarding Mr. Beretta’s testimony in 2002 about multiple sales, the general counsel of Beretta U.S.A., Jeffrey Reh, said last week that it was possible he had not understood the questions being asked because of the language barrier.

 

“That being said,” Mr. Reh said, “I can advise you that Beretta U.S.A.’s position is and has always been that the purchase by an individual of multiple firearms is not, in and of itself, evidence of improper or suspicious behavior.”

 

In all, more than 30 cities, counties or states filed suit against gun makers beginning in the late 1990s. The theory behind the litigation — that the industry was negligent, or willfully blind, in its sales practices — was similar to the one employed in the successful suits against tobacco companies that same decade.

 

Jonathan Lowy, the legal director for the Brady Center, which was involved in most of the suits, said firearms makers “should have a code of basic, reasonable business practices that dealers and distributors who sell their guns are required to follow.” He said Mr. Beretta’s testimony showed that the American gun industry was out of touch.

 

For their part, the manufacturers argued that the lawsuits were a frivolous abuse of the courts to grind them down financially. They also pointed to voluntary measures, like the industry trade association’s distribution of safety locks to gun owners, as evidence of their concern about reducing accidents.

 

The Times reached out to a half-dozen gun makers for comment. Most did not respond or declined. But Timothy A. Bumann, a lawyer for Taurus International Manufacturing, reiterated some of the arguments made by gun executives in their depositions, saying Taurus is not a law enforcement agency and has no legal duty to do more to police its dealers and distributors. Nevertheless, he said, the company is “proactive in all the things it reasonably can do vis-à-vis the safe and lawful use of its product.”

 

Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the industry’s trade association, said in an e-mail that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives “does not want manufacturers to play Jr. G-man.” He also highlighted a number of ways the association had worked with the A.T.F. — including an education program to prevent people from illegally buying guns and transferring them to people barred from doing so that was more than a decade old — as evidence of the industry’s commitment.

 

The lawsuits were bolstered, however, by testimony from several former industry insiders. The most prominent was Robert Ricker, a former lawyer for the National Rifle Association and executive director of the American Shooting Sports Council, the main gun industry trade association before it was disbanded.

 

“Leaders in the industry have consistently resisted taking constructive voluntary action to prevent firearms from ending up in the illegal gun market and have sought to silence others within the industry who have advocated reform,” Mr. Ricker wrote in a 2003 affidavit on behalf of the City of San Diego.

 

Mr. Ricker detailed the backlash from the N.R.A. and trade groups against anyone who pressed for changes to industry practices. Because of his calls for reform, Mr. Ricker, who died of cancer in 2009, said he was forced to resign as the head of the trade group.

 

Another insider, Robert Hass, a former Smith & Wesson executive, testified that “the nature of the product demands that its distribution be handled in such a way as to minimize illegal and unintended use.” And yet, he said in an affidavit, “the industry’s position has consistently been to take no independent action to ensure responsible distribution practices.” When Smith & Wesson voluntarily adopted a set of safeguards, including requirements that its dealers limit multiple sales of firearms, it was ostracized and boycotted, forcing it to abandon the changes.

 

Mr. Hass and Mr. Ricker were in the minority among industry professionals in insisting that firearms makers could do more to police themselves. More typical was a combative deposition given in 2001 by Robert Morrison, who retired two years ago as president of Taurus, in which he refused to acknowledge that guns in the wrong hands posed a risk to the public.

 

“I don’t believe that we know that,” he said. “I think we believe that the guns don’t pose any risk at all. It’s the people that are using them that pose the risk.”

 

And he challenged a plaintiff’s lawyer, telling him that if he knew of someone behaving irresponsibly with a gun, he should “go to the authorities and get them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law instead of bringing it up in a goddamn room like this.”

 

Mr. Morrison added that he expected the dealers who sell Taurus guns to abide by the law. But he said it was not his company’s role as a manufacturer to enforce responsible behavior. “It isn’t up to me to judge the legality of the sale,” he testified. “It’s up to the authorities.”

 

The executives were reluctant to concede that guns that were the subject of trace requests by the A.T.F. were necessarily tied to a crime, pointing to an A.T.F. disclaimer that “not all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms traced are used in crime.”

 

When the police wish to trace the ownership of a gun found at a crime scene, the bureau contacts the manufacturer with the serial number to try to learn where it was first sold.

 

Mr. Morrison cast doubt on the definition of “crime gun,” saying, “I wonder if they found them in the bushes or under a car, or maybe they didn’t find them at all, maybe they just showed up at the police department.”

 

When Larry Nelson, a vice president of Browning, was asked if he agreed that trace requests relate to criminal investigations, he said that the requests make “some kind of statement at the top of the form that suggests that.”

 

“But,” he said, “I think in reality it can be simply a gun that is not necessarily associated with crime.”

 

Glock’s chief operating officer at the time, Paul Jannuzzo, was particularly aggressive in defending his company’s policies. Asked whether Glock ever considered declining to sell high-capacity magazines for its guns, he replied, “Not for one half a second, no, sir.” And he belittled a 1994 law that temporarily banned such magazines, calling it “ridiculous” and a “feel good” measure. He said he did not see how his company could require dealers to properly secure the Glock guns they sold in their stores, and he derided a suggestion that children should be denied access to the section of stores where Glock guns were sold.

 

“Why? There’s nothing intrinsically evil about these things,” Mr. Jannuzzo said. “They don’t impart bad vibes or keep you up all night long if they’re separated from the ammunition and they’re in a counter or locked up or on a chain or a cord. I can’t imagine why anybody would even propose such a thing.”

 

Mr. Jannuzzo, a former prosecutor, was later convicted of embezzling money from Glock and is serving a seven-year prison sentence.

 

As quickly as the suits were filed, they began to run aground. Most were dismissed by judges or withdrawn. In some states, legislatures passed their own laws shielding gun makers from liability, leading to dismissals, and most of the suits that survived were eventually stymied by the federal immunity legislation passed in 2005.

 

In at least one case, a federal judge concluded that there was “clear and convincing evidence” that the industry could do more to reduce gun violence — but he dismissed the suit, brought by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, because he said the group lacked standing to claim damages. In his 2003 decision, the judge, Jack B. Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York, criticized the gun makers for turning a blind eye to gun violence.

 

“A responsible and consistent program of monitoring their own sales practices, enforcing good practices by contract, and the entirely practicable supervision of sales of their products by the companies to which they sell could keep thousands of handguns from diversion into criminal use,” Judge Weinstein wrote.

 

Only one major company, Smith & Wesson, the nation’s largest handgun manufacturer, broke ranks. In 2000, it agreed to settle the litigation, and it adopted a number of far-reaching changes, including promising to design a handgun that could not be operated by children and forbidding its dealers and distributors from selling at gun shows unless background checks were conducted on all sales.

 

Smith & Wesson’s sales quickly plummeted amid an industry backlash. Documents produced through the discovery process in the municipal suits show other gun makers seeking to isolate the company. A letter from Dwight Van Brunt, an executive at Kimber America, a gun maker, to top officials at a firearms industry trade group urged them to confer with the N.R.A. and “boycott Smith now and forever. Run them out of the country.”

 

“You guys need to make sure that no one else is going to join the surrender,” Mr. Van Brunt wrote.

 

None did. When a new company bought Smith & Wesson in 2001, executives distanced themselves from the arrangement, which had never been enforced. The company resumed its place in trade groups like the shooting sports foundation.

 

“It was important that we be an active part of the industry again,” Robert Scott, the new chief executive of Smith & Wesson, said in a 2002 deposition.

 

Last year, Smith & Wesson was inducted by the N.R.A. into its “Golden Ring of Freedom” circle of donors, reserved for patrons who have given a million dollars or more to the group, another milestone in the company’s long journey back.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Gun control supporters facing recall bids in Colo.

By KRISTEN WYATT   (The Associated Press)  —  Tuesday, May 28th, 2013; 9:28 a.m. EDT

 

 

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) -- A Democratic campaign office here usually would be quiet this time of year, a few weeks after the state's legislature wrapped up work and lawmakers headed off to summer vacations.

 

But even though it's not an election year, the office is in full campaign mode, with volunteers working the phones and reviewing maps in anticipation of a new front of modern campaigning - the recall phase.

 

A handful of Democratic state lawmakers in Colorado face recall petition efforts in what looks to be the first wave of fallout over legislative votes to limit gun rights. In an era in which recall efforts are booming, from governor's offices down to town councils and school boards, the Colorado efforts will serve as the first test of gun-rights groups' ability to punish elected officials who expanded gun control laws after last year's Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., shooting massacres.

 

In Colorado, gun-rights activists wasted no time seeking recalls to oust state Senate President John Morse and three other Democratic lawmakers. The targeted lawmakers weren't necessarily the main advocates for ratcheting back gun rights, but all come from districts with enough Republicans to give opponents hope they can boot out the Democrats and replace them with lawmakers friendlier to guns. Colorado is the only state outside the East Coast to have adopted significant statewide gun controls this year.

 

"Colorado seems to be the testing ground for some of the gun measures, so this has national implications," said Victor Head, a plumber from Pueblo who is organizing a recall attempt against a Democratic senator.

 

Two of four recall efforts in Colorado already have evaporated from lack of support. But in Colorado Springs, Morse opponents are piling up signatures in gun shops and outside libraries and grocery stores. The National Rifle Association sent a political mailer saying it was coordinating the recall effort with local groups, though the local recall petitioners have denied that. The NRA did not return calls for comment on their involvement in the Colorado Springs effort.

 

Morse has mounted a campaign to urge voters not to sign petitions. In an indication of the national stakes, that push is largely funded by a $20,000 contribution from a national progressive group called America Votes. The Morse campaign said the donation came through the group's local Colorado office.

 

The recall group's main funding comes from a $14,000 contribution from a nonprofit run by a local conservative consultant, Laura Carno. She said that contribution was made possible by some out-of-state donors.

 

"People in other states that are further down this road, like New York and Massachusetts, are calling up and saying `What can we do to help?'" Carno said. "This isn't what Colorado stands for."

 

In an interview, Morse seemed resigned to facing a recall vote after signatures are verified. He believes national gun-rights supporters are using his district to make a national statement about the political peril officials face if they take on gun control.

 

"That's what's going on here. They want to take out the Senate president," Morse said.

 

The organizer of the Morse recall effort, Anthony Garcia, didn't disagree. Garcia doesn't live in Morse's district but in the northern Colorado town of Brighton. Garcia said Morse was targeted not just because of his votes for gun control but because he is a prominent Democrat from a competitive district.

 

"It's as much about saying Colorado is angry as it is about getting one guy out," Garcia said. "Legislators need to know when citizens are outraged that they can't ignore the people."

 

Immediate accountability seems to be a common thread in recall attempts, said Joshua Spivak, who tracks recall elections nationwide at the Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform at Wagner College in New York. Technology makes it easier to organize, Spivak said, and modern-day voters watching political activity in real time on Twitter and TV aren't content to wait until another election to show their displeasure when they feel ignored.

 

Spivak said at least 169 officials at all levels of government faced recalls last year, up from 151 the year before. The number this year could go even higher, he said.

 

Technology isn't the only explanation.

 

"The other reason," Spivak said, "is that they succeed."

 

Most recalls actually fail, as in the case last year of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican who survived a recall election after attacking collective bargaining rights for state employees. But compared with re-election campaigns, when incumbents face up to 75 percent likelihood of winning, Spivak said recall elections have a much lower rate of success for incumbents.

 

In Colorado last year, seven recall efforts made it to ballots, all local races, Spivak said. Of those seven, two officials were ousted and two more resigned.

 

Nationwide, 108 recalled officials last year lost or left office after a recall. That makes the recall a powerful tool - and one likely to be used more often, Spivak said.

 

Back in Colorado Springs, a couple of Morse opponents defended the recall attempt as the best way for citizens to keep their representatives accountable.

 

"I believe in gun rights. And he didn't listen. He's supposed to represent the people, and when he doesn't do that, what are supposed to do? Nothing?" asked Bianca McCarl, a 40-year-old merchandiser who is supporting Morse's recall.

 

Assuming the Morse recall goes to ballots, with an election to be held by late summer, the incumbent holds a slight party registration advantage in the district. He believes most voters liked his gun votes.

 

He's counting on the support from voters like Joan Muir, a retiree who placed a pro-Morse sticker on her car bumper after seeing other cars carrying messages calling for his ouster. In an interview, Muir said she was dismayed by the recall campaign.

 

"I live here. I'm for gun control," Muri said. "I don't care for guns, period, so they don't speak for all of us when they say Morse didn't listen to the people."

 

---

 

Associated Press writer Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Washington, D. C.              (A Michael Bloomberg Wet Dream)

 

Speed cameras keep clicking away in the District

By Ashley Halsey III — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The Washington Post’ / Washington, DC

 

 

The $8 million box sits unmolested but detested beside a pillar in a tunnel that carries four lanes of traffic near the very heart of town.

 

It clicks, it flashes, it clicks, and it flashes.

 

That box and the cameras inside it have generated 61,061 speeding tickets in the past seven months, transferring $8.1 million from the wallets of K Street drivers into the District’s treasury. The cameras, which sit where four lanes of K Street dip under Washington Circle, is on pace to set a District record for cash earned by a speed camera.

 

There are orange warning signs — “Photo Enforced” — hanging beneath the 25 mph signs on either end of the tunnel, but they are missed or ignored by an average of 305 drivers a day who receive speeding tickets in the mail.

 

The revenue from speed cameras and red-light cameras has grown to become a noteworthy piece in the District’s $12.1 billion budget since the devices made their debut 14 years ago. Overall, they took in $84.9 million in fiscal 2012. Since the current fiscal year began Oct. 1, the 10 most-profitable speed cameras have issued $29.5 million in tickets.

 

Some who are ticketed complain that the District is out for the money rather than being concerned about safety or the law. City officials deny that charge.

 

Safety experts say people should not use that defense for violating speeding laws.

 

“The opposition is a reflection of the public’s inability or unwillingness to view speeding as a safety issue,” said Jonathan Adkins of the Governors Highway Safety Association, a coalition of state safety officials. “Some states reported that when gas prices were very high, speeds decreased. So, maybe once the public feels they will get a ticket if they speed, we will see a change. Drivers may slow down to save a buck but not slow down to potentially save a life.”

 

There is a solid body of research to support the argument that cameras reduce the risky behavior that causes accidents. Speeding was a factor in about a third of all traffic deaths nationwide, and the rate has been about the same in the Washington region, although in 2010 it played a role in 38 percent of the fatalities, according to data compiled by the regional transportation planning board.

 

The wide mix of state laws on speed-camera use seems to reflect the relative novelty of the tool. Twelve states expressly prohibit use of speed cameras; seven states permit limited use; the District and two states allow them; and 29 states have no laws regarding them.

 

Virginia has no law on speed cameras. Maryland limits speed cameras to work zones and school zones.

 

In a world where many drivers treat the speed limit more as a recommendation than gospel, and where a police officer with a radar gun has been considered bad luck rather than a high probability, the advent of speed cameras already has seen results.

 

When people in the District learn of a camera’s location — and they are posted on the police department’s Web site — they slow down to the speed limit as they approach. The drivers behind them may not know the reason for the relative crawl, but they have no choice but to slow down, too.

 

That leads to a question: As the District becomes accustomed to the tens of millions of dollars in camera fines, will it run low on cash if more people begin obeying the law? Once again, the fact that these devices are relatively new to the urban landscape makes the answer unclear.

 

“Does there come a point where the city’s not making money or even losing money? I think that’s a possibility in the long run,” said Anne T. McCartt, senior vice president for research at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. “That certainly would be the ultimate goal from a safety point of view. In the long run, you would expect violations to go down. That’s the purpose, and that’s going to happen.”

 

But she doubts speed cameras will grow so effective that they put themselves out of business. “Experience would say that drivers really like to speed; it’s hard to persuade people not to speed,” she said.

 

So far this fiscal year, the camera inside a 5-foot-tall steel box on K Street is by far the most productive in the District. After its $8.1 million in revenue, a camera on southbound D.C. 295 ranks second with 33,495 tickets valued at $4.6 million. The previous year’s leader, in the 600 block of New York Avenue NE, is third with 31,949 tickets worth $4.7 million, a drop in volume but increase in value because it is now in a work zone where fines are higher.

 

Rounding out the top speed cameras: another on D.C. 295, this one on the northbound side (19,685 tickets, $3.1 million); 2200 block of South Dakota Avenue (17,685 tickets, $1.7 million); 3500 Massachusetts Avenue (13,618 tickets, $1.5 million); two more cameras on D.C. 295, one southbound (13,172 tickets, $1.5 million) and one northbound (12,350 tickets, $2.4 million); and 1900 Branch Avenue (10,819 tickets, $1.8 million).

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Boston, Massachusetts

 

Delay stalls Boston police promotions
Judge has yet to rule on exam fairness case

By Maria Cramer — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The Boston Globe’ / Boston, MA

 

 

Boston officials are frustrated that a federal judge has not ruled on a case contesting the fairness of the police promotional exam, even though the case was heard more than two years ago.

 

More than 1,600 Boston police officers who are eligible to take the exam remain in career limbo because the department is reluctant to promote them in case Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. determines the test discriminates against some minorities, as several black and Latino officers have alleged.

 

The pending lawsuit “continues to cause uncertainty as to the process the city can and should follow in the selection of candidates,” Laurence J. Donoghue, an attorney for the city, wrote to O’Toole on May 14. Donoghue made a similar plea to the judge nearly a year ago.

 

In a statement, Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis said: “We encourage the judge to make a decision to allow the Department to move forward with a new promotional examination that both meets legal requirements, and identifies the best supervisor candidates for the Department.”

 

A clerk for O’Toole said the judge does not discuss pending cases.

 

‘How can you say there is nothing wrong with [the exam] and then you stop using it. It’s almost like you’re admitting there is something wrong.’

 

Federal judges have no deadlines to render a decision, but they must report the number of their pending cases twice a year to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

 

O’Toole heard closing arguments in February 2011 on the case brought by 44 minority patrol officers from seven departments across the state, who argued that the test, which is mostly multiple-choice questions, is inherently discriminatory because blacks and Hispanics historically do worse on such exams compared with white and Asian candidates.

 

The complexities of the case are probably delaying the decision, said Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge who is now a professor at Harvard Law School.

 

“Unlike a jury who can say yea or nay, [O’Toole] has to write something of substance which takes time, and people don’t realize that,” Gertner said.

 

It is not unusual for a judge to take months, even years to decide a difficult case, she said.

 

“I had decisions I could do quickly and I had decisions that sat on my shelf that I was struggling with,” Gertner said. “The time was not because I was out golfing. The time was because I couldn’t figure out what to do.”

 

Civil service exams are given to most public sector employees who want a job or promotion. Police chiefs and commissioners are required to promote the top scorers, a system that was meant to eliminate favoritism.

 

The plaintiffs in this case, who, in addition to Boston work in departments in Lawrence, Lowell, Methuen, Springfield, and Worcester, and for the MBTA transit police, argued that to do well on the tests, candidates do not need to demonstrate that they are capable leaders, but must rely on rote memorization to answer written questions.

 

The plaintiffs took the 2005 sergeant exam and were not promoted. After they sued in 2007, Boston police decided to promote only officers who took the 2008 exam, but would not promote officers who took subsequent tests for not only sergeant, but also lieutenant and captain.

 

There are now 1,640 Boston police officers eligible to take a promotional exam.

 

The effect has damaged morale among officers who want to move up in the ranks but have no way of doing so, said Mark Parolin, vice president of the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation.

 

“The career path has been stymied,” Parolin said.

 

Minority officers are also anxious for a ruling, said Boston police Detective Larry Ellison, president of the Massachusetts Association of Minority Law Enforcement Officers.

 

But he blamed the department for the delay in promotions, arguing O’Toole never instructed the city to stop promoting from the exam until he made a decision.

 

“How can you say there is nothing wrong with [the exam] and then you stop using it,” Ellison said. “It’s almost like you’re admitting there is something wrong.”

 

There are no clear answers on why some minorities tend to do worse than whites on such exams. One theory that was raised by a psychologist during the trial is that whites, who are more likely to have received a better education than blacks or Hispanics, fare well on exams where there is only one answer to a question, while minorities excel when they are asked to come up with several different ways of solving a problem.

 

“It has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with the deprivation of educational opportunities,” said Mark Brodin, a Boston College Law School professor.

 

A former staff attorney with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights in Boston, Brodin recalls litigating cases involving civil service exams as far back as the 1970s.

 

“Part of the reasons for the stubborn insistence of civil service people to stick with these almost wholly discredited multiple choice exams, I suspect, is they’re relatively inexpensive and easy to administer,” he said. More modern tests, like interviews that ask candidates how they would respond to different scenarios, are more time-consuming and require more staff, Brodin said.

 

Davis has said he agrees with the criticism that the current civil service exam does not measure leadership skills effectively. Recently, he announced a $2.2 million initiative to ­replace the exam with a testing system that would ­include interviews and other components to judge leadership potential.

 

But during the trial, city attorneys defended the current test as an adequate way to measure a candidate’s knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform the functions of sergeant.

 

And unions are loath to accept a new system that could allow administration favorites to be promoted over qualified candidates with less political clout.

 

Said Parolin: “All we’re looking for is a fair and impartial exam with no outside influence for our membership.”

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Utah

 

Utah police policies vary on use of undocumented immigrants as informants
Crime » Utah police policies vary on using undocumented immigrants to build cases.

By Janelle Stecklein — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The Salt Lake Tribune’ / Salt Lake City, UT

 

 

When the woman was pulled over by police, they discovered drugs inside her vehicle.

 

But officers also discovered something else — she was an undocumented immigrant.

 

The officer then allegedly told the woman she had 72 hours to become a confidential informant or he would report her to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the woman later told Tony Yapias, director of Proyecto Latino de Utah.

 

Yapias said he has heard stories of officers using immigration status as a "means to extort information" and force people to work to become confidential informants.

 

"I don’t believe using someone’s legal immigration status should be used to get information," he said. "Of course, it makes [those people] more vulnerable."

 

After West Valley City leaders revealed recently that an internal investigation showed some members of its now-disbanded Neighborhood Narcotics Unit improperly used confidential informants, some of whom may have been undocumented immigrants, The Salt Lake Tribune filed open-records requests with the state’s four largest police departments for policies on using confidential informants. The newspaper also filed a federal Freedom of Information request for the DEA’s policy, although the agency has not yet responded.

 

In large part, the Utah police departments’ policies are similar, but they differ on the use of undocumented immigrants.

 

On one end of the spectrum is Salt Lake City, which prohibits even asking individuals whether they’re in the country legally. On the other end, Unified Police policy prohibits use of undocumented immigrants as confidential informants. West Valley City falls in the middle — use of undocumented immigrants as informants is decided on a case-by-case basis, but any informant needs to be first cleared with immigration and citizenship services . The Department of Public Safety has no written policy. Officials with that agency said they don’t typically use confidential informants.

 

Ultimately, it’s up to individual police departments to set policy on using confidential informants, said Sim Gill, Salt Lake County district attorney. But his office must approve offers of reduced charges, leniency or other issues.

 

Using undocumented immigrants as informants creates an issue of veracity, Gill said.

 

"He’s already violating the law," he said of such immigrants. "I’m going to always be looking at every witness who is testifying — how can their veracity be compromised? Are they doing this because this is the truth or because they’re compromised?"

 

He said his staff must ensure officers aren’t coercing informants. Prosecutors don’t want a witness to come forward in the middle of a trial and drop a bombshell, saying they were coerced, mistreated or promised something in return for their cooperation.

 

Unified Police, which serves unincorporated Salt Lake County and a number of cities in the valley, has a long-standing written policy prohibiting the use of undocumented immigrants. That policy can only be overturned by a supervisor in the rare instance there is no other option to solve a crime, said Unified Lt. Justin Hoyal.

 

"We generally don’t use illegal or undocumented immigrants because of their status of being illegal," Hoyal said. "[Plus] we don’t want to put them in a position where they feel obligated or compelled to work for us because of their status."

 

He said the policy avoids creating additional issues.

 

"We don’t want to have illegal activities that are involved in our investigation," Hoyal said. "That could raise some questions later down the road. Just the use of someone who is illegal and undocumented, we’re not going to use [them] so as not to add illegalities to the case."

 

Lt. Troy Burnett, commander of the Weber-Morgan Narcotics Strike Force, said since 2009 about 88 percent of all his area’s methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin and marijuana has been seized from undocumented immigrants — typically working in Utah for Mexican drug cartels. However, those undocumented immigrants make up less than 1 percent of total arrests.

 

"That tells you there is a minority of people controlling the majority of drugs that come into Weber and Morgan counties," Burnett said.

 

He said using undocumented immigrants as confidential informants is done on a case-by-case basis, but he wouldn’t prohibit it.

 

"Why would we try to limit ourselves?" he asked. "Especially with a section of society that is responsible for bringing a majority of that into our community."

 

He noted that his unit is responsible for establishing the credibility of confidential informants so they have to ask if someone is in the country legally.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Homeland Security

 

In Terror Shift, Obama Took a Long Path

By PETER BAKER — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The New York Times’

 

 

WASHINGTON — The pivot in counterterrorism policy that President Obama announced last week was nearly two years in the making, but perhaps the most critical moment came last spring during a White House meeting as he talked about the future of the nation’s long-running terrorism war. Underlying the discussion was a simple fact: It was an election year. And Mr. Obama might lose.

 

For nearly four years, the president had waged a relentless war from the skies against Al Qaeda and its allies, and he trusted that he had found what he considered a reasonable balance even if his critics did not see it that way. But now, he told his aides, he wanted to institutionalize what in effect had been an ad hoc war, effectively shaping the parameters for years to come “whether he was re-elected or somebody else became president,” as one aide said.

 

Ultimately, he would decide to write a new playbook that would scale back the use of drones, target only those who really threatened the United States, eventually get the C.I.A. out of the targeted killing business and, more generally, begin moving the United States past the “perpetual war” it had waged since Sept. 11, 2001. Whether the policy shifts will actually accomplish that remains to be seen, given vague language and compromises forced by internal debate, but they represent an effort to set the rules even after he leaves office.

 

“We’ve got this technology, and we’re not going to be the only ones to use it,” said a senior White House official who, like others involved, declined to be identified talking about internal deliberations. “We have to set standards so it doesn’t get abused in the future.”

 

While part of the re-evaluation was aimed at the next president, it was also about Mr. Obama’s own legacy. What became an exercise lasting months, aides said, forced him to confront his deep conflicts as commander in chief: the Nobel Peace Prize winner with a “kill list,” the antiwar candidate turned war president, the avowed champion of transparency ordering operations over secret battlegrounds. He wanted to be known for healing the rift with the Muslim world, not raining down death from above.

 

Over the past year, aides said, Mr. Obama spent more time on the subject than on any other national security issue, including the civil war in Syria. The speech he would eventually deliver at the National Defense University became what one aide called “a window into the presidential mind” as Mr. Obama essentially thought out loud about the trade-offs he sees in confronting national security threats.

 

“Americans are deeply ambivalent about war,” the president said in his speech, and he seemed to be talking about himself as well. Mr. Obama said the seeming precision and remote nature of modern warfare can “lead a president and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism,” and it was not hard to imagine which president he had in mind.

 

“We must define the nature and scope of this struggle,” Mr. Obama said, “or else it will define us.”

 

In a sense, that had already happened to Mr. Obama. Somehow he had gone from the candidate who criticized what he saw as President George W. Bush’s excesses to the president who expanded the drone program his predecessor had left him. The killing he authorized in September 2011 of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen tied to terrorist attacks, brought home the disparity between how he had envisioned his presidency and what it had become. Suddenly, a liberal Democratic president was being criticized by his own political base for waging what some called an illegal war and asserting unchecked power.

 

The Awlaki strike also killed another American, Samir Khan, who officials say was not intentionally targeted. A subsequent strike killed Mr. Awlaki’s 16-year-old American son, a death that officials say was an accident. A furor over the American deaths convinced Mr. Obama that it was time to lay out clearer standards and practices for drone warfare.

 

Under the stewardship of John O. Brennan, then the president’s counterterrorism adviser, officials spent months discussing how to be more transparent about a program that was still officially secret and how to define its limits. After last spring’s discussion with the president, Mr. Brennan began a more intensive, formalized interagency process to rewrite the rules. He also took a first step in explaining the administration’s drone policy to the public with a speech in which he said strikes targeted only those who posed “a significant threat to U.S. interests.” But even then he did not directly acknowledge American involvement in Mr. Awlaki’s killing.

 

In seemingly endless meetings, including a dozen or more with the president, Mr. Brennan and other administration officials grappled with the issue. Concluding that Al Qaeda’s core leadership had been decimated, some officials wanted tighter restrictions on the use of drone strikes, but the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon balked. The C.I.A.’s counterterrorism center resisted another proposal to take its drones away and put them under Pentagon control.

 

While the agencies argued, Mr. Obama focused on winning a second term, boasting about the same aggressive approach he was privately rethinking. “Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top Al Qaeda leaders who’ve been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement,” he said in response to campaign criticism.

 

Days after his victory, he told his staff he wanted to conclude the review with a major speech, although there would no longer be pressure to complete it before the next inauguration, since he would be staying. Around the White House, it became known as Archives 2, a reference to the president’s May 2009 speech at the National Archives on counterterrorism issues.

 

“What he said repeatedly is he felt when he took office it wasn’t clear how we used this tool,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser assigned to write the speech. “Part of this frankly is laying out for the American people but also for the next president: here’s how we do this.”

 

The first outlines of the speech came together in February. But there were critical debates to resolve. As Mr. Brennan departed to become C.I.A. director, his replacement, Lisa Monaco, and the top White House national security lawyer, Avril D. Haines, ushered the process to a conclusion.

 

Ultimately, the president and his team decided to tighten the standard for striking targets outside overt war zones. Instead of being authorized for any “significant threat to U.S. interests,” drone strikes would be used only in cases of a “continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons.” They would also be limited to cases with a “near certainty” of avoiding civilian casualties.

 

The C.I.A.’s opposition to shifting responsibility for drones entirely to the Pentagon resulted in a compromise: There would be a transition period for the program in Pakistan, which would be reviewed every six months to determine if it was ready to be moved to military control. Administration officials suggest that the transfer of the Pakistan drone program may coincide with the withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan in 2014.

 

“The hawks may be grumbling about it, but that’s to be expected,” said a senior government official who supported the strategy shift. “This is a big change. But no one is screaming.”

 

The hawks proposed a change of their own, suggesting, as The Daily Beast has reported, that the president leave individual strike decisions in authorized areas outside overt war zones to the Pentagon and the C.I.A. But the White House rejected that. Mr. Obama felt those decisions were the president’s responsibility: he wanted to keep his own finger on the trigger.

 

All of that was codified in a Presidential Policy Guidance that remains classified. To address drone policy, though, meant owning up to the killings of Mr. Awlaki and other Americans, officials concluded. The C.I.A. and others resisted, but Mr. Obama decided to declassify information about not just Mr. Awlaki’s killing, but the killings of three other Americans who officials say had not been intentionally targeted.

 

Mr. Obama was also interested in instituting an independent review of how and when drone strikes would be conducted. Multiple papers were prepared and multiple options evaluated. Among them was a special court to oversee targeted killings, but the discussion became tied up in knots about how it would work. Would a judge have to approve such strikes in advance or after the fact? What about an independent board within the executive branch instead? Administration lawyers argued against surrendering presidential authority, and defense policy makers argued against giving up operational control.

 

That proved to be a debate Mr. Obama could not resolve. In his speech, he invited Congress to come up with ideas. He also thought it was time to review the authorization of force that Congress passed in the days after Sept. 11, 2001, and that has been the legal foundation for the war on terrorism. But after a two-hour discussion just days before the speech, he could not decide exactly how to do that, either.

 

In the midst of the White House debate, two bombs went off at the Boston Marathon in an attack attributed to two ethnic Chechens living legally in the United States, reaffirming the continuing threat of terrorism. For Mr. Obama, it was another pivot point. The Boston attack, he thought, typified the new terrorist threat more than 11 years after Sept. 11, 2001: smaller-scale attacks that have fewer casualties but are harder to stop and often conducted by people radicalized while already living in the United States.

 

At the beginning of May, Mr. Obama was given a first draft of the speech but tossed it out and wrote out a detailed outline by hand over several pages. He expanded it from drones to include a renewal of his failed promise to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. He also wanted fresh emphasis on nonmilitary tools like diplomacy, foreign aid and help for other countries dealing with threats inside their borders, although he made sure the word “patiently” was added to reflect the difficulty.

 

Some Pentagon and State Department officials learned only the day before the speech that Mr. Obama would lift his moratorium on repatriating Guantánamo detainees to Yemen and appoint a new official at the Defense Department to oversee transfer efforts.

 

Mr. Obama’s eventual speech, at 59 minutes one of the longest of his presidency other than a State of the Union address, reflected the process that developed it. Even as he set new standards, a debate broke out about what they actually meant and what would actually change. For now, officials said, “signature strikes” targeting groups of unidentified armed men presumed to be extremists will continue in the Pakistani tribal areas.

 

Even as he talked about transparency, he never uttered the word “C.I.A.” or acknowledged he was redefining its role. He made no mention that a drone strike had killed an American teenager in error. While he pledged again to close the Guantánamo prison, he offered little reason to think he might be more successful this time.

 

Yet even the promise of change left some people scathingly critical. “At the end of the day,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, “this is the most tone-deaf president I ever could imagine, making such a speech at a time when our homeland is trying to be attacked literally every day.”

 

Reporting was contributed by Scott Shane, Mark Mazzetti, Eric Schmitt and Charlie Savage.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Hacking 101  / Chinese Cyberspies

 

Confidential report lists U.S. weapons system designs compromised by Chinese cyberspies

By Ellen Nakashima — Tuesday, May 28th, 2013 ‘The Washington Post’ / Washington, DC

 

Excerpt; desired to read the article in its entirety, go to:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/confidential-report-lists-us-weapons-system-designs-compromised-by-chinese-cyberspies/2013/05/27/a42c3e1c-c2dd-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_print.html

 

 

Designs for many of the nation’s most sensitive advanced weapons systems have been compromised by Chinese hackers, according to a report prepared for the Pentagon and to officials from government and the defense industry.

 

Among more than two dozen major weapons systems whose designs were breached were programs critical to U.S. missile defenses and combat aircraft and ships, according to a previously undisclosed section of a confidential report prepared for Pentagon leaders by the Defense Science Board.

 

Experts warn that the electronic intrusions gave China access to advanced technology that could accelerate the development of its weapons systems and weaken the U.S. military advantage in a future conflict.

 

The Defense Science Board, a senior advisory group made up of government and civilian experts, did not accuse the Chinese of stealing the designs. But senior military and industry officials with knowledge of the breaches said the vast majority were part of a widening Chinese campaign of espionage against U.S. defense contractors and government agencies.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

                                                          Mike Bosak