OPINION

Our politics of anger

Americans are experts in dissatisfaction. But it could be getting out of control.

Gregory Rodriguez

March 1, 2010

Iused to think it was odd that anger was the operating principle of politics in America, a country that elevates the "pursuit of happiness" to a self-evident right. But then I realized it's happiness itself -- the ill-defined, carrot-on-a-stick nature of it -- that makes us so mad. If our collective goal weren't so lofty (and vague), and if we didn't believe we were entitled to our heart's desire, maybe we could calm down, leave well enough alone and count our blessings.

But that's not how we roll. We leave actual contentment with what is, and God forbid, satisfaction with what we have accomplished, to others -- like, say, the bon vivant French. In America, it's all about trajectory -- not where we're at but where we'll get to next.

In fact, whether we admit it or not, we citizen strivers need anger -- maybe especially political anger -- to keep all this momentum going. Satisfaction might lull us into passivity; dissatisfaction can move us to act. A quick check of most comment boards supports this: You hear mostly from the ticked off.

This is one reason why so much of political activity on all sides is about leveraging, even stoking, our displeasure. Appealing to fury isn't a bad way to get large numbers of people to move in your direction. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Anger can move you to fix whatever's wrong with the state of things. Combined with a redemptive message, it has the possibility of achieving remarkable, positive change. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of the process of turning anger into a "transforming force." Even momentary outrage can move legislators to pass necessary laws and change less-than-ideal conditions.

But anger also tends to encourage us to place blame and responsibility for our troubles on others. It can bolster an unhealthy sense of entitlement. What is true for individuals can be true for the collective: Anger uncontrolled can overwhelm us and ultimately make our lives a whole lot worse.

There's no way to prove it, but it seems that American politics is angrier than ever. (You may not agree if you eschew talk radio and cable-TV yammering.) But the increase in partisanship, which surely feeds anger, is provable and explainable: The disappearing cross-party vote in Sacramento or in Washington is a recent phenomenon that can be charted.

Still, it's important to remember that bile and intolerance is nothing new to our political scene. Throughout U.S. history -- in speeches, tracts and sermons -- political players have spewed plenty of horrendous things about their opponents. In the 1790s, for instance, one French visitor to the U.S. found "the violence of opinion" downright "disgraceful."

You might want to blame our divisive political rhetoric on anxiety and uncertain times, but it wouldn't be fair. Studies have shown that anxiety and anger have two very distinct effects on political behavior. Anxiety is a response to a perceived threat over which a person feels little control. In contrast, anger arises as a response to a negative event that a person feels gets in the way of his goals. Anxiety leads people to overestimate risk and do nothing; anger tends to lower one's sense of perceived threat and leads to heightened risk-taking.

In other words, in a democracy, anger gives people a greater sense of control over their fate and spurs them to action, however ill considered. The anger ethos, then, dovetails well with our can-doism and the belief that individuals have control over their own destinies.

My fear is that the 24/7 media feedback loop is changing our anger calculus. Like porn on the Web, political anger is becoming a compulsion. The Joe Stacks of the world -- the ones who are mad as hell and about to fly a plane into an IRS office -- could always find compatriots, but now they can congregate instantly, on a fan page on Facebook, for instance. It's all become too easy, accessible and, in some cases, merely an end in itself.

I'm not concerned that this indulgent anger will produce thousands of Joe Stacks; he was an extreme case. My real worry is that the garden-variety version of this anger will be so virulent and inescapable that it will so alienate other, cooler citizens that they will give up on politics altogether.

I mean, if you're not frothing at the mouth, what are your choices? I see only two: Either leave politics to the furious ones, or get so angry about the state of affairs that you have no choice but to fight back.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rodriguez1-2010mar01,0,6083677,print.column

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Daily News

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bullets and barristas

Starbucks' gun-tolerant policy stirs controversy

By Greg Bluestein

The Associated Press

02/28/2010

Dale Welch recently walked into a Starbucks in Virginia, handgun strapped to his waist, and ordered a banana Frappuccino with a cinnamon bun. He says the firearm drew a double- take from at least one customer, but not a peep from the baristas.

Welch's foray into the coffeehouse was part of an effort by some gun owners to exercise and advertise their rights in states that allow people to openly carry firearms.

Even in some "open carry" states, businesses are allowed to ban guns in their stores. And some have, creating political confrontations with gun owners. But Starbucks, the largest chain targeted, has refused to take the bait, saying in a statement this month that it follows state and local laws and has its own safety measures in its stores.

"Starbucks is a special target because it's from the hippie West Coast, and a lot of dedicated consumers who pay $4 for coffee have expectations that Starbucks would ban guns. And here they aren't," said John Bruce, a political science professor at the University of Mississippi who is an expert in gun policy.

Welch, a 71-year-old retired property manager who lives in Richmond, Va., doesn't see any reason why he shouldn't bear arms while he gets caffeinated.

"I don't know of anybody who would provide me with defense other than myself, so I routinely as a way of life carry a weapon - and that extends to my coffee shops," he said.

The fight for retailers heated up in early January when gun enthusiasts in northern California began walking into Starbucks and other businesses to test state laws that allow gun owners to carry weapons openly in public places. As it spread to other states, gun control groups quickly complained about the parade of firearms in local stores.

Some were spontaneous, with just one or two gun owners walking into a store. Others were organized parades of dozens of gun owners walking into restaurants with their firearms proudly at their sides.

In one case, about 100 activists bearing arms had planned to go to a California Pizza Kitchen in Walnut Creek, but after it became clear they weren't welcome they went to another restaurant. That chain and Peet's Coffee & Tea are among the businesses that have banned customers with guns.

Just as shops can deny service to barefoot customers, restaurants and stores in some states can declare their premises gun-free zones.

OpenCarry.org, a leading group encouraging the demonstrations, applauded Starbucks in a statement for "deciding not to discriminate against lawful gun carriers."

"Starbucks is seen as a responsible corporation and they're seen as a very progressive corporation, and this policy is very much in keeping with that," said John Pierce, co-founder of OpenCarry.org. "If you're going to support individual rights, you have to support them all. I applaud them, and I've gone out of my way personally to let every manager of every Starbucks I pass know that."

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has responded by circulating a petition that soon attracted 26,000 signatures demanding that Starbucks "offer espresso shots, not gunshots" and declare its coffeehouses "gun- free zones."

Gun control advocates hope the coffeehouse firearms displays end up aggravating more people than they inspire.

"If you want to dress up and go out and make a little political theater by frightening children in the local Starbucks, if that's what you want to spend your energy on, go right ahead," said Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady campaign. "But going out and wearing a gun on your belt to show the world you're allowed to is a little juvenile."

The coffeehouse debate has been particularly poignant for gun-control advocates in Washington state, where four uniformed police officers were shot and killed while working on their laptops at a suburban coffeehouse. The shooter later died in a gun battle with police.

Ralph Fascitelli of Washington Ceasefire, an advocacy group that seeks to reduce gun violence, said allowing guns in coffeehouses robs residents of "societal sanctuaries."

"People go to Starbucks for an escape, just so they can get peace," Fascitelli said. "But people walk in with open-carry guns and it destroys the tranquility."

Gun control advocates have been on the defensive. Their opponents have trumpeted fears that gun rights would erode under a Democrat-led White House and Congress, but President Barack Obama and his top allies have largely been silent on issues such as reviving an assault weapons ban or strengthening background checks at gun shows.

Gun rights groups are looking to build on a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban, and cheered legislation that took effect Monday allowing licensed gun owners to bring firearms into national parks. Obama signed that legislation as part of a broader bill.

Legislators in Montana and Tennessee, meanwhile, have passed measures seeking to exempt guns made and kept in-state from national gun control laws. And state lawmakers elsewhere are considering legislation that would give residents more leeway to carry concealed weapons without permits.

Observers say the gun rights movement is using the Starbucks campaign to add momentum and energize its supporters.

"They're trying to change the culture with this broader notion of gun rights," said Clyde Wilcox, a Georgetown University government professor who has written a book on the politics of gun control. "I think they are pressing the notion that they've got a rout going, so why not just get what they can while they're ahead?"

---

On the Net:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_14489116

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Witnesses may be forced to call cops

CALIFORNIA: Those who fail to report sexual assults may be jailed, fined.

By Don Thompson

The Associated Press

02/28/2010

SACRAMENTO - As many as 20 people stood by and watched for nearly two hours, Richmond police say, as others gang-raped a 16-year-old girl outside a high school homecoming dance in the tough San Francisco Bay area community last fall.

Now, state legislators are seeking to change the law so witnesses in similar situations could be charged with a crime for failing to call police.

The move concerns both prosecutors and civil rights attorneys, however. They say the pending bills in the state Assembly and Senate might make it harder - not easier - to convict rapists.

The bystanders in the Richmond case could not be charged with a crime because current law only requires witnesses to report murder or rape when the victim is younger than 14. Failing to do so is a misdemeanor, punishable by six months in jail and a $1,500 fine.

A bill to be taken up by the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday would remove the age limitation, but give witnesses up to 96 hours - four days - to report a rape.

The bill by Assemblyman Isadore Hall, D-Compton, is competing with two similar measures this year.

The Assembly approved a bill by Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara, in January that also would remove the age limitation, without giving witnesses a reporting window. A bill by Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, would raise the reporting age from 14 to 18.

Both the Nava and Yee bills would apply to murder as well as rape.

Yee's bill has not yet been set for a committee hearing, while Nava's bill is awaiting Senate action.

"There's clearly a good intent," said Scott Thorpe, chief executive officer of the California District Attorneys Association. "The question is, is this a good way to do it?"

Witnesses identified during investigations might be more reluctant to cooperate if they fear being charged with a crime, Thorpe said. If witnesses are granted immunity from prosecution, defense attorneys can use that to challenge their truthfulness and motivation during trials.

American Civil Liberties Union lobbyist Valerie Small Navarro said police should concentrate on building relations with the community and protecting witnesses from retaliation.

"You would be committing a crime just for being at the wrong place at the wrong time," Navarro said. "Is this what we want, criminalizing innocent behavior?"

Nava, a former deputy district attorney who is running for attorney general, countered that the bills merely expand existing law. He said no one has demonstrated that current law has caused problems for police or prosecutors.

"I think the Richmond rape did capture everyone's attention and cried out for some kind of a response," said Nava. "Ultimately what we would all like is for people in society to feel that duty and obligation to help their neighbor. But sometimes people need a little encouragement. That's what the bill is trying to do."

In the Richmond case, police finally were called not by a witness, but by a former Richmond High student who said she learned about it from a family member who heard people bragging about the incident. Officers found the girl semiconscious and partly clothed near a picnic table. Seven suspects ranging in ages 15 to 43 have pleaded not guilty to rape.

Richmond police have been working with state lawmakers to craft the proposed legal changes.

It's better to apply the law immediately rather than giving witnesses "four days to think it over," Nava said, and to apply it to victims of all ages.

Yee believes the emphasis should remain on protecting minors, while adult women should be able to choose whether to seek charges against their attackers, said spokesman Adam Keigwin. For similar reasons, Yee authored a 2008 law specifying that adult domestic violence victims can't be punished for refusing to testify against their attackers.

Hall did not respond to repeated messages seeking comment Friday.The Assembly Public Safety Committee is set to also consider several other bills Tuesday:

It would be illegal to smuggle cell phones to prison inmates under a bill by Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles. Cell phones are not on the current list of prison contraband, but Padilla's bill would make smuggling the phones a misdemeanor. It also would let prison officials confiscate any phones brought into prisons by visitors, even if visitors did not intend to give them to inmates. Prison officials say inmates have used the phones to coordinate escapes, attacks, and crimes on the street.

Felony burglary is currently defined as entering a building or vehicle with intent to resist, delay, or obstruct police, allowing fleeing criminals to break into someone's house, business or vehicle to evade police and face only a misdemeanor. A bill by Assemblyman Jim Nielsen, R-Yuba City, would expand the felony burglary law to include entering a building or vehicle with intent to resist, delay, or obstruct police.

Anyone convicted of secretly photographing someone under or through their clothing would be required to register as a sex offender under a bill by Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries, R-Lake Elsinore. It is currently a misdemeanor to use a concealed still or video camera to take such photographs.

Meanwhile, the Senate Public Employment and Retirement Committee on Monday is set to take up a bill that would continue paychecks for state employees even if the state has no budget in place by the start of the new fiscal year on July 1. The bill by Assemblyman Ira Ruskin, D-Redwood City, would require that employees be paid their usual hourly wages. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has cited a 2003 California Supreme Court decision that employees should be paid only the federal minimum wage if the state has no budget.

----

Read the bills at www.sen.ca.gov and www.assembly.ca.gov

http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_14489108

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Wall Street Journal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OPINION

Congress Tries to Break Hawaii in Two

A racial spoils precedent that could lead to new 'tribal' demands across the U.S.

By GAIL HERIOT AND PETER KIRSANOW

Last week, the House of Representatives, in a largely party-line vote, passed the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. Popularly known as "the Akaka bill," this piece of legislation might turn out to be this Congress's single most calamitous decision.

The bill creates a complex federal framework under which most of the nation's approximately 400,000 ethnic Hawaiians can organize themselves into one vast Indian tribe. It endows the tribe with the "inherent powers and privileges of self-government," including the privilege of sovereign immunity from lawsuit. It also by clear implication confers the power to tax, to promulgate and enforce a criminal code, and to exercise eminent domain. Hawaii will in effect be two states, not one.

The method used to create this tribe should make everyone squeamish. The bill delegates the delicate task of deciding who may join the tribe to a federal commission appointed by the secretary of the Interior. Ultimately, the tribe itself will have the power to expel members or invite new ones.

Earlier versions of the bill demanded that the secretary appoint only ethnic Hawaiians as commissioners. In the current version, only those with "10 years of experience in the study and determination of Native Hawaiian genealogy" and "an ability to read and translate . . . documents written in the Hawaiian language" may serve on the commission. These commissioners will examine an applicants' backgrounds to ensure that only "qualified Native Hawaiians" with the right amount of Hawaiian blood join the tribe.

To understand all of this, you have to know something about the Aloha State's racial entitlement system. The State's Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), established in 1978, administers billions of dollars generated from lands the federal government ceded to the state decades ago. These monies should be used to benefit all Hawaiians. Instead they are spent on benefits for ethnic Hawaiians, including home loans and business loans as well as housing and education programs.

The protection of these benefits is what motivates supporters of the Akaka bill. Ten years ago, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a Hawaiian law that limited the right to vote for those who oversee OHA to ethnic Hawaiians. The court ruled in that case, Rice v. Cayetano, that it violated the 15th Amendment's prohibition on racial discrimination in voting rights.

Rice set off a firestorm that has not yet subsided. If OHA's election methods were unconstitutional, then its racially-exclusive benefits were almost certainly also in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Something had to be done.

And it was. Shortly after Rice, Hawaii's Democratic Sen. Daniel Akaka introduced a bill in Congress to protect race-based benefits in his state. He did so by seeking to exploit a 1974 Supreme Court decision, Morton v. Mancari. In that case, the court found that racial discrimination on the basis of membership in "quasi-sovereign tribal entities" was constitutional. Following the logic of the ruling, Mr. Akaka and others hoped that by transforming ethnic Hawaiians from a race into a tribe they would effectively protect special benefits for ethnic Hawaiians.

Indeed, the benefits pot might even be sweetened by such a transformation. The Akaka bill provides that after the tribe is established, its leaders may negotiate with Hawaii for the transfer of land. Everyone involved understands this to refer to 1.4 million acres known as the Ceded Lands—lands that were ceded to the state by the federal government when statehood was granted in 1959. Some activists take the position that since these lands were once owned by the Hawaiian monarchy, they rightfully belong to ethnic Hawaiians. Some even argue the tribe's ultimate goal should be secession from the United States.

Nevertheless, two problems remain. First, the Akaka bill privileges what is in fact a race, not a tribe. The very act of transforming a racial group into a tribal group confers a privilege on one race and not others and is thus unconstitutional. Second, while the Constitution implicitly gives the federal government the power to recognize tribes with a long and continuous history of separate self-governance, it does not give the power to confer sovereignty on new tribes, or to reconstitute a tribe whose members have long since become part of the mainstream culture.

If it did, all manner of mischief could be accomplished, as ethnic Hawaiians will not be the last group to demand special status. Some activists argue that Southern California should be set aside as a homeland for Mexican Americans of Indian descent. Right now, that idea looks like pure fantasy. If the Akaka bill becomes law, it will suddenly become more plausible.

What's more, the Amish in Pennsylvania and the Orthodox Jews in New York could also start to see a benefit from constituting themselves as a tribe, since tribes, unlike federal and state governments, are free to establish theocratic governments. On what ground will Congress say no to these and other would-be tribes?

Mr. Akaka's supporters argue that the American government was complicit in the 1893 overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani, which they believe illegally denied not just the queen's individual right of sovereignty, but her subjects' collective right, too. They see this bill as an appropriate remedy.

This historical claim has been hotly debated. Even assuming American complicity, however, it is beside the point. The Kingdom of Hawaii was a multiracial society from its inception in 1810, when King Kamehameha united what had previously been a group of warring islands.

In the true spirit of Aloha, its rulers were welcoming of immigrants, who came from all over the world, including Portugal, China, Japan, the United States, Great Britain and Germany. The 1840 Hawaiian constitution declared that "all races" were of "one blood" and established a bicameral parliament whose members were multiracial. By 1893, ethnic Hawaiians were a population minority.

This cosmopolitan, constitutional monarchy was no kinship-based tribe. Anyone born on Hawaiian soil or swearing allegiance to the queen was considered the queen's subject and hence "Hawaiian." No single race was deprived of "its" sovereignty rights by the overthrow.

In 1959, 94.3% of Hawaiian voters cast ballots in favor of statehood. Within months, Hawaii became the 50th state. No one argued then that ethnic Hawaiians were part of a separate political system that needed special status. To the contrary, everyone acknowledged that ethnic Hawaiians were part of the political mainstream. It is now too late in the game to argue otherwise.

The U.S. Senate is expected to take up the Akaka bill in the coming weeks or months, where its opponents are insisting on a thorough debate. One reason for hope is that Hawaii's Republican Gov. Linda Lingle has finally withdrawn her support for the legislation. For years she advocated passing the bill, establishing a tribe, and then using vigilance to ensure that the tribe does not acquire undue power or resources during its negotiations with the state. She has now reconsidered.

Good for her. This is a train that needs to be stopped before it leaves the station.

Ms. Heriot and Mr. Kirsanow are members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703411304575093180795586118.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion#printMode

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Fox News

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Al Qaeda Growing in Strength in North Africa

Monday , March 01, 2010

WASHINGTON —

Al Qaeda's terror network in North Africa is growing more active and attracting new recruits, threatening to further destabilize the continent's already vulnerable Sahara region, according to U.S. defense and counterterrorism officials.

The North African faction, which calls itself Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), is still small and largely isolated, numbering a couple hundred militants based mostly in the vast desert of northern Mali. But signs of stepped-up activity and the group's advancing potential for growth worry analysts familiar with the region.

The rapid recent rise of the Al Qaeda group in Yemen — which spawned the Christmas airliner attack — is seen by U.S. officials and counterterrorism analysts as evidence that the North African militants could just as quickly take on a broader jihadi mission and become a serious threat to the U.S. and European allies.

The Mali-based militants have yet to show a capability to launch such foreign attacks, but are widening their involvement in kidnapping and the narcotics trade, reaping profits that could be used to expand terror operations, officials and analysts said.

Several senior U.S. defense and counterterrorism officials spoke about AQIM on condition of anonymity to discuss internal analysis.

Those advances have set off alarms within the counterterrorism community, which watched as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula quickly transformed over the past year from militants preoccupied with internal Yemeni strife to a potent group recruiting and training insurgents for terror missions inside the U.S.

That threat was underscored by the failed Christmas airliner attack, which officials say was planned and directed by Yemeni insurgent leaders.

A key fear is that as AQIM expands, its criminal and insurgent operations will continue to destabilize the fragile governments of heavily Islamic North Africa, much as it has in Mali. The Maghreb includes the North African nations of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Mauritania.

As a result, the U.S. has been working to boost poverty-stricken Mali's defenses. Last year, the U.S. gave $5 million in new trucks and other equipment to its security forces, and Pentagon funds also have been approved to provide training.

Several senior U.S. defense and counterterrorism officials spoke about AQIM on condition of anonymity to discuss internal analysis.

Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution Saban Center and a former CIA officer, said that the North African terror group has a larger area to operate in and a wider Islamic population pool to draw from, but has not launched the kind of large-scale attacks initially feared when it became an Al Qaeda affiliate three years ago.

"Now, if it is beginning to reorganize, recruit and develop, because of this international potential, it could become a much more dangerous threat," Riedel said. "And if there is a role model in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, that is very disturbing."

Born as an Algerian insurgency in the early 1990s, the group was largely defeated and driven into a swath of ungoverned desert land — about the size of France — in northern Mali. In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the group reached out to Al Qaeda in an effort to survive. AQIM was officially recognized as an Al Qaeda affiliate by Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, on the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Both the U.S. and the European Union have designated AQIM a terrorist organization.

The group has since absorbed some of Al Qaeda's techniques for roadside bombs and suicide attacks. Occasionally it has issued videos and statements on jihadi Internet forums.

In December 2007, for example, the group attacked the U.N.'s Algerian headquarters, killing 37 people, including 17 U.N. staff members.

At the same time, AQIM has increased its recruiting efforts, drawing insurgents from Mauritania, Nigeria and Chad, officials said. The recruits are trained in small arms and roadside bomb construction, officials said, then return to their home countries to plan and execute attacks.

The spike in recruiting and training, along with the increase in kidnappings and other crimes, has made the region more insecure and unstable in just a year, several officials said.

The militants often partner with local criminals, who kidnap tourists then sell them to AQIM, which then demands ransoms, officials said. Those alliances cement contacts between the criminal groups and AQIM, broadening its reach and membership.

The kidnappings have had mixed results. Last week, the group released French hostage Pierre Camatte after holding him for three months. The move was spurred by a Mali court decision that released four jailed AQIM members.

Some hostages have been killed — including Edwin Dyer, a British tourist who was captured with three others including two U.N. envoys. Britain had refused to pay ransom to the group.

So far, the group has not moved beyond kidnappings to push Al Qaeda's global jihad aims, creating tensions between the offshoot organization and core Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, said Haim Malka, deputy director for the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Middle East program.

"They have not yet become more globally focused, they've stayed in the Sahara region and they've failed to make inroads in other parts of North Africa," he said. Malka cautioned that the group's broadening efforts to work with local criminal networks on kidnappings may give the appearance that it is expanding more than it actually is.

Despite the group's limited reach, British and American authorities have issued strong warnings against travel to northern Mali, saying there is a "high threat from terrorism" and from criminal acts and kidnappings.

The concern, according to officials, is that the insurgents will gain strength, expand their scope across the region and destabilize other areas, much as they have done already in northern Mali.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,587640,00.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Arrest Made in Case of Missing California Girl

Monday , March 01, 2010

SAN DIEGO —

A registered sex offender was arrested Sunday in the disappearance of a suburban San Diego teenager as some 1,400 volunteers spent the weekend searching a park and surrounding area where she disappeared three days ago, authorities said.

The arrest came after about 120 law enforcement officers and the volunteers had searched Rancho Bernardo Community Park in San Diego for 17-year-old Chelsea King.

Investigators found evidence that led to the arrest of 30-year-old John Albert Gardner of Riverside County, San Diego County Sheriff William Gore told the Associated Press in an interview.

Gore said investigators, who combed the area around Lake Hodges in the park where King's car was found, discovered physical evidence linking Gardner to the case. Gore would not elaborate on the nature of the evidence.

Gardner was taken into custody outside a business in Escondido shortly after 4 p.m. Sunday and was questioned Sunday night.

"This investigation is ongoing and specific criminal charges are still being determined," Gore said at a news conference Sunday.

Investigators also suspect Gardner could be tied to a Dec. 27 assault on a female jogger from Colorado Springs, Colo. in the park, a popular regional recreation area full of running trails, Gore said.

Gardner is from Lake Elsinore some 75 miles north of San Diego, according to the Megan's Law Web site. He had to register as a sex offender because of a conviction for lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14, the site said.

It was not immediately clear whether Gardner has hired an attorney.

King's parents continued pleas for her return and said the arrest offered them no relief.

"Nothing will change for us until our beautiful daughter, Chelsea King, comes home," Brent and Kelly King said in a statment released through a family spokeswoman Sunday night. "We will continue searching for her, and we ask that all of you do the same until she's back with us."

Gore said the search for King and for further evidence would continue throught the night and expand beyond the park.

"There are several searches going on around the county," Gore said. "We are going to refocus some of our search efforts."

The volunteers also handed out flyers during the weekend effort.

"It's a reflection of who she is and what kind of person she is," Brent King said of the numbers showing up to help. "She's that kind of kid that everybody loves, and it shows."

Chelsea King's BMW was found in the park after she failed to return to her home in suburban Poway, Calif. on Thursday, sheriff's spokeswoman Jan Caldwell said.

Investigators also looked for clues on the teen's cell phone, which was found in her car, and on her home computer.

The search for Chelsea King, a straight-A senior at Poway High School, also took to the Internet, where a Facebook page generated more than 24,000 fans. A Web site was created at findchelsea.com.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,587634,00.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pa. Man Dies During Storm After 911 Calls Unheeded

Sunday , February 28, 2010

PITTSBURGH —

With her boyfriend in severe abdominal pain, Sharon Edge called 911 for an ambulance in the early morning hours of Feb. 6. Heavy snow was falling — so heavy it would all but bring the city to a standstill — and Curtis Mitchell needed to go to a hospital.

"Help is on the way," the operator said.

It never arrived.

Nearly 30 hours later — and 10 calls from the couple to 911, four 911 calls to them and at least a dozen calls between 911 and paramedics — Curtis Mitchell died at his home. His electricity knocked out, his heat long off, the 50-year-old former steelworker waited, huddled beneath blankets on his sofa.

"I'm very angry, because I feel they didn't do their job like they supposed to," said Edge, 51. "My man would still be living if they'da did they job like they was supposed to ... They took somebody that I love away."

Mitchell, on disability for depression, had a history of pancreatitis, an inflammation of the pancreas, Edge said, and had spent nine days in a hospital in late January. He had been home about a week when he was overcome with pain. Autopsy results are pending, awaiting toxicology test results, authorities said.

Now Pittsburgh officials have ordered an investigation and reforms of the city's emergency services system as Mitchell's case highlighted key shortcomings:

— Details of Mitchell's calls weren't passed on from one 911 operator to another as shifts changed, so each call was treated as a new incident.

— Twice, ambulances were as close as a quarter-mile from Mitchell's home but drivers said deep snow prevented the vehicles from crossing a small bridge over railroad tracks to reach him. Mitchell was told each time he'd have to walk through the snow to the ambulances; in neither case did paramedics walk to get him.

— Once, an ambulance made it across the bridge and was at the opposite end of the block on the narrow street where the couple lived — a little more than a football field's length. Again, paramedics didn't try to walk.

"We failed this person," said Michael Huss, the city's public safety director.

To be sure, Mitchell's ordeal unfolded as the storm dumped nearly two feet of snow on Pittsburgh; the 911 system was swamped with more than twice as many calls as usual and overall emergency response was hampered.

Regardless of how deep the snow was, Huss said it was unacceptable that paramedics didn't walk to help Mitchell. If they had, Huss believes Mitchell may have survived.

"... You get out of that damn truck and you walk to the residence," Huss said. "That's what needed to happen. We could have carried him out."

The six paramedics on the three ambulances could be disciplined, Huss said. He declined to say what that might be.

Paramedics or firefighters will now be required to go to a caller's door.

"Everyone needs to get a response," Huss said Thursday.

That Mitchell died waiting to get to the hospital is a cruel coincidence.

Edge and Mitchell met eight years ago in an emergency room. Both were getting their medications under control for their mental illnesses, she said. He was being treated for depression; she has bipolar disorder.

"We've been stuck together ever since, like glue," Edge said.

Several years ago, they moved into a small red brick rowhouse in Hazelwood, the riverside neighborhood that was home to Pittsburgh's last working steel mill, which shut down a dozen years ago.

Sitting on the tan and blue fabric sofa where Mitchell died, Edge described him.

He enjoyed watching TV, particularly westerns. They hoped to get married by a justice of the peace in April, then celebrate with a little party.

"He did for his friends," she said. "He looked out for other people when they needed stuff. He was there to help."

They didn't have a car. During the storm, a neighbor offered to drive them to a hospital but he couldn't get his car shoveled out.

Edge is a little sketchy on details of Mitchell's worsening condition and death. Then again, she didn't think she'd need to relive them. She thought they first called 911 on the night of Feb. 5, but records indicate the first call was made about 2 a.m. on Feb 6. Sometime Friday night, the storm knocked out their power and the couple sought warmth under blankets as the house got colder.

Edge said Mitchell had begun to feel stomach pains during the week, but he tried to deal with it. By Friday morning, he woke up in pain. Still, he tried to manage with medication, she said.

A review of the 911 calls by the Associated Press shows no anger in Mitchell's or Edge's voices. There was no screaming. Conversations with operators were cordial and the couple seemed to understand the difficulties the snow posed.

Still, Mitchell and Edge let them know he was in pain.

"My stomach man, it's real messed up. It's killing me," he tells a 911 operator about 11:15 a.m. on Feb. 6.

About 8 p.m. that night — in the eighth call to 911 — Edge tells an operator: "My boyfriend called for an ambulance. He's in a lot of pain and we've been waiting for a couple hours now."

At one point, Mitchell can be heard exclaiming "Oh man, what?" when Edge relayed to him that they would have to walk to the ambulance because of the snow. It was not clear when that conversation took place.

In all, three ambulances were dispatched at separate times. In each case, Mitchell was told he'd have to walk to them — and he canceled the calls.

As the hours went by, Mitchell's pain intensified and he began to have shortness of breath. Because he complained of abdominal pain, which is generally not considered life-threatening, he was initially ranked as a medium priority. About 11:20 a.m. Saturday, his priority level was upgraded, but not as an emergency.

Mitchell tried to sleep. He took his prescriptions — oxycodone for pain and sleeping pills for his insomnia. Edge gave him the medication and closely followed the dosage, she said.

"All that time, he was dying and I didn't even know it," Edge said.

Shortly before 8 a.m. on Feb. 7, Edge made her last 911 call.

"I think my husband's dead. Oh God, oh God," she sobbed.

The 911 operator told Edge to calm down and asked for the address and phone number.

"I've been trying to get an ambulance here for three days. He's been having stomach pains," Edge said.

The operator talked Edge through a check to see if Mitchell was breathing. Try to get him onto the floor on his back, the operator said.

But Mitchell's body was cold. Edge couldn't wake him.

"Oh God, he can't leave me ... Curtis? Curtis?" Edge said, struggling to move him.

The operator assured Edge that paramedics were on the way.

"He's dead," Edge said.

"No, no, no. You're going to stay with me," the operator said, continuing the checks on Mitchell.

Finally, someone came to the door.

"Who is it?" asked Edge. "Is it the medics?"

"Yes."

"All right," said the operator. "You did a good job. I'm going to hang up now. Let them in. Good bye."

The snow had long since stopped falling. It took firefighters two minutes from being dispatched to reach the couple's home.

They checked for a pulse, but it was too late.

"They said he was gone," Edge said.

It would be five more hours before workers from the medical examiner's office came for Mitchell's body.

A police officer waited with her. Edge sat on the sofa with the body.

"I kissed and hugged him," she said of Mitchell. "But it was all I could do."

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,587627,00.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

'Accidental' Shooting Death of Prof.'s Brother a Copy-Cat Killing?

Friday , February 26, 2010

CANTON, Mass. —

The attorney for the parents of a woman accused of a triple murder at an Alabama college said Friday there's "no question" it was an accident when she fatally shot her brother in Massachusetts in 1986, despite doubts now being raised by the district attorney there.

"The DA has not gotten his facts right, but that's characteristic of the whole proceeding," said attorney Bryan Stevens.

He made the comments a day after Norfolk District Attorney William Keating announced he had ordered an inquest into the death of Amy Bishop's brother, 18-year-old Seth Bishop, in their Braintree home in suburban Boston.

Bishop's mother, Judith Bishop, was the only other witness to the shooting, and both she and her daughter told police the shotgun went off accidentally. Stevens said Judith Bishop told police the truth and will tell the same story to the judge during the inquest.

"There's absolutely nothing that will be new," he said. "She'll say the same thing in 2010 that she said in 1986."

"It was an accident, no question about it," Stevens said.

The 1986 shooting has come under scrutiny since Amy Bishop, 45, was accused of shooting to death three colleagues at the University of Alabama in Huntsville on Feb. 12.

Keating, the district attorney, has highlighted what he said are serious flaws in the 1986 investigation that ruled the shooting accidental, including that Bishop and her parents weren't questioned by police until 11 days after the shooting.

Also, police reports that Amy Bishop used a shotgun to try to steal a getaway car from a local dealership before being arrested at gunpoint weren't mentioned in a 1987 report on the killing by a state trooper assigned to the district attorney's office.

On Thursday, Keating said new evidence raises questions about Amy Bishop's state of mind the day of the shooting. He said police photos of her bedroom floor show a newspaper with an article on a shotgun killing in which the suspects fled in a car stolen at gunpoint from a local dealership — striking parallels to what Bishop had done that day.

Judith Bishop told police her daughter had been trying to learn how to use the shotgun when she accidentally fired it into her bedroom wall. She said her then-21-year-old daughter came downstairs for help unloading the gun and again accidentally fired it, right in front of her, as Seth Bishop was walking through the kitchen.

The timeline of the inquest is not yet known. The proceedings are closed, but the judge can make details and testimony public and the Bishops can be subpoenaed to testify under oath.

Keating said he might not have requested the inquest if the Bishops had cooperated with two state troopers who visited their Ipswich house last week. The Bishops didn't answer the door, he said, and then Samuel Bishop cut off a phone call between the troopers and his wife.

Stevens said his clients believe an inquest is "perfectly all right" and they will cooperate.

"When it comes time to tell what they have to tell, they'll tell it," he said.

Samuel Bishop was a professor in the art department at Northeastern University, while Judith Bishop was active in local politics as a member of Braintree's Town Meeting governing board.

Stevens said reports that former police chief John Polio interfered for the Bishops in the 1986 case were "simply not true." Polio has also denied trying to help the Bishops.

The Bishops have not commented since their daughter was arrested in Alabama, and Stevens said they won't.

"They have no interest at all in getting involved in this media frenzy here," Stevens said. "They have no comment. They basically want to be left alone."

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,587458,00.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Time to Get Real About What Is -- And Isn't -- Terrorism

After every major act of domestic violence we need to stop debating whether or not it qualifies as “terrorism.” We need to recognize who our enemy is and that our country's counterterrorism resources are finite.

A middle aged white guy with tax problems recently flew a small plane into the I.R.S. building in Austin, Texas. That sad episode triggered a public discussion on whether to classify this cowardly criminal act as “terrorism” or not. Austin's Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett and Republican Rep. Michael McCall both labeled it a case of domestic terrorism, but President Obama's Special Counter-Terrorism Assistant John Brennan didn't deem it worthy of the designation.

Glenn Greenwald wrote recently that not designating the Austin incident a “terrorist attack” simply highlights a bigoted reality that only Muslim perpetuated violence is worthy of such designation. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), held a national press conference on February 22 to highlight “a double standard on the use of the label “terrorism” as it relates to acts of violence committed by people who are not Muslims.” CAIR quoted U.S. Code Section 2656f(d) of Title 22 defining “terrorism” as: “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets.”

They further quoted from the Federal Code of Regulations defining the terrorism crime as involving, “the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Having an argument about whether or not to call specific attacks “terrorism” misses the point and indicates a misunderstanding of how counterterrorism policymaking works.

Everyone, lawyers included, would agree that “terrorism” is essentially politically motivated violence. There might be a United Nations north-south split over whether targeting militaries should be included in the definition, but when targeting civilian populations through terrorist acts as a means to achieve political objectives a global consensus exists that this is “terrorism.”

This method of defining all politically motivated violence as an equal threat is a defensive approach to counter-terrorism policy making. This model doesn't allow a focus on the perpetrator profile likely to cause the next severely damaging attack. And without a focused profile law enforcement, with limited resources, has a lesser chance of preempting future major attacks. Often preventative analysis in the defensive model is too heavily influenced by sociological/environmental considerations such as poverty reduction, but this analysis has been proven inadequate and, since 9/11, also politically impractical.

The offensive posture to fighting terrorism recognizes the socio-political factors driving “violent extremism,” but it also recognizes that the main thrust of counter-terrorism resources must be allocated to the following two areas: First, there needs to be a focus on the type of threats that are most likely to repeat themselves in the near term, and second threat assessments must incorporate the attack's psychological impact on society and its way of life.

We need to ask ourselves two key questions concerning the Austin-IRS office plane attack before designating it a terrorist attack: First, was it a psychologically traumatizing act of violence with societal-level impact? The fact of the matter is that while this was a very cowardly criminal act, society is not fearful of the middle-aged white guys with IRS issues massacring civilians.

Second, is the profile of this attack one likely to reoccur in the near term and thus carries a “terrorizing” impact upon society; or is it simply an infrequent/one-off event?

Two critical factors worthy of consideration here are whether there's an ideological movement inciting folks to conduct violent acts against the IRS, and second whether the IRS is systemically -- as a matter of policy -- pushing taxpayers to a critical pressure point. While anti-taxation beliefs are as American as the original Boston Tea Party and much activism exists around the topic, no “ideology” or “movement” infrastructure exists that would radicalize our citizenry to systematically murder federal employees. When it comes to the IRS abusing taxpayers to the point where, for example, one percent of them might snap every year, that's obviously not true and is not supported by any empirical data.

In September 1986 Christopher Hitchens wrote a column in Harpers magazine called “Wanton acts of usage. Terrorism: A cliché in search of a meaning.” In that article he explained how the word “terrorism” has lost all practical usefulness due to its misuse in political discourse.

Almost 25 years later it's time for us to get off the proverbial hamster wheel. After every major act of domestic violence it's time for us to stop debating whether or not it qualifies as “terrorism.” We need to recognize that our country's counterterrorism resources are finite. We simply can't target all sources of violence equally. We must prioritize our efforts and focus our attention and resources on combating violent extremism. We need to be aware of the psychological impact that comes from the reasonable fear in our society of an on-going and future terror threat. We also need to fight back against a militant ideological movement or movements with the capacity to consistently target civilians as a means to achieving their political goals.

The public is largely focused on what is known about previous terror attacks, to the extent it's reported in the media, so that it can learn from them how to gauge future violent threats. While understandable, it's not an effective way to anticipate and prevent future attacks. In fact, it's like driving your car down the road by only looking through the rear view mirror. That might work as long as the road is straight but when the road curves or something changes, it's easy to wind up in the ditch.

Although it might appear counter-intuitive, our public discourse needs to shift from debating labels to prioritizing efforts to identify and combat violent extremism threats. Only then can we objectively assess our efforts to prevent them.

Mohamed Elibiary is a National Security Policy Analyst advising several Intelligence and Law Enforcement agencies and serves as one of three appointed civilians to the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) Advisory Board. He can be reached at melibiary@texasintel.org.

.