Here a Noose, There a Noose..

ONE NIGHT IN JULY, A SECOND-YEAR COAST Guard cadet found a noose among his personal belongings when he returned to his berth after a stint on watch aboard the barque Eagle.
A noose. The 19-year-old engineering student put it in his pocket and went about his business, taking solace in the knowledge that he was on the fifth week of a six-week cruise.
The next morning, though, found him hurt and angry. The cadet, who is Black, reported the finding to his commander, Capt. J. Christopher Sinnett. It is important to note that the cadet was at first willing to have his name attached to this story. But again, after overnight consideration, requested to have his privacy. Ultimately, that it happened at all is far more import than to whom it happened.
Sinnett investigated the incident, but found no culprit. Of course, no one admitted to it. And, for that matter, exactly what was it? Was it a poorly thought-out prank, intended to amuse? Or was it a racist act intended to intimidate and humiliate?
Sinnett said that he was, in polite terms, very upset, as were many of the cadet's friends, classmates and shipmates of varied backgrounds and cultures. They were disturbed that one of their own would be subjected to such a gesture, and that one of their own would so egregiously violate the oft-repeated code of “honor, respect and devotion to duty.”
Sinnett said he made it quite clear in an address to everyone on board that the incident was unacceptable behavior.
So what to do next? There's no one to punish. Well, you educate. Ken Hunter, the academy's civil rights officer, was notified immediately. He put together an impromptu race relations training for all of the cadets on campus and anyone who interacts with them. Unlike the academy's standard annual sensitivity training, these sessions included discussion, photographs and anecdotes on the historical derogatory symbolism of the noose.
“When you first hear about things like this, you wonder, 'Do people get it?'” Hunter said. “Then you wonder, 'Was it was a joke, or was it race motivated?' And, 'Aren't we past this?'”
Aboard ship, Sinnett convened focus groups, comprised of 10 to 15 cadets each, to talk about what was done and all of its ramifications.
“It is a problem. We looked at it as a problem and we talked about it like a problem,” he said. “The feedback was astounding. Unfortunately, there were no indications as to who did it or why, but there was a lot of positive feedback from the crew and the cadets. Many of them had a lot to say, and I think it sent a strong message to whomever did it.”
“Honestly, I think it was an inappropriate joke,” the cadet said. He said only the perpetrator knows if the act was one of bigotry.
Frankly, I find it difficult to perceive the cowardly act as having anything other than purposeful racist motivations. That perception was fortified Friday evening when academy spokesman David French told me that during the course of the training, a noose was also surreptitiously delivered to a white female who was conducting part of the training.
Generally speaking, friends of differing cultural persuasions care enough and know enough to never assume they have the privilege of making off-color jokes or comments. I can't believe that was the case here.
Incidents like this beg intense public reaction, especially on a campus where, among the minority staff and personnel, there is a feeling that the leadership on campus is insensitive to racial matters. They believe the academy would prefer such incidents remain out of the pubic eye.
Their perception is bolstered by the fact that this incident only came to light more than two months after it happened, and certainly through no effort of the academy, but rather from people who felt it was intentionally being kept quiet.
Does it beg a protest led by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the NAACP, such as is ongoing in the noose-related incident in Jena, La.? I think not. But should the public that the Coast Guard is bound to serve and protect, especially the local public, know that such things go on in our local Homeland Security college? Absolutely.
Much to its credit, the academy was quite forthcoming in response to my inquiries. Most important, the offended cadet is satisfied with the academy's response, and the opportunity he had to address his classmates and crewmates aboard the Eagle.
“I confronted everyone the next day at quarters,” he said. “I said what I needed to say. I think what I said will have the most impact on the person who might have felt that way. Or the person who played an inappropriate joke knows it and won't do it again, whichever it was.
“But, whatever it was, now I've put it behind me and moved on.”
The young man is a credit to the academy. He is even more so to his family and his culture.
(This is the opinion of Chuck Potter.)

This gives an indication of the environment and the atmosphere at the Academy that gave rise to the things that happened to Webster Smith. The Academy is pretty much a closed society. Attitudes and actions start at the top of the chain of command and run down hill. The senior officers set the tone, and the lower ranking officers and cadets take their clues from them. The senior officers gave the impression that they wanted to scape-goat African American cadets to make political points with Congressman Shays and the Militant women's organizations to show how they were protecting the young white female cadets.
What they did to Webster Smith signaled to the cadets that they could engage in some subtle racially intimidating behavior. Also, if they were caught the punishment would be lax or little at all. They started to roll a snowball down a mountain, and now it is picking up momentum. They unleashed a whirl wind. Who knows where it will end? One thing is sure, Van Sice and Wisniewski opened up a Pandora's Box.
This did not happen over night. It has been brewing. What happened to Webster Smith was not an abberation. It was in keeping with the decisions and signals from the Superintendent and the Commandant of Cadets.
The correct decision in the Formal Complaint of Racial Discrimination could put the brakes on this trend, and might even stop it all together. It would show some of the lesser bigots that their pranks or intimidating acts will not be tolerated by the larger society outside of the Academy grounds.
The Rule of Law still prevails in this country. Most people would do the right thing for the right reason, if they were allowed to do so.




What's done in the dark, will soon come to light.

Army private at Fort Campbell guilty of rape-murder.

Army Pfc. Jesse Spielman, 22, was found guily by a military jury on 3 August of conspiracy to commit rape, rape, housebreaking with intent to commit rape and four counts of felony murder according to the AP.

Spielman, of Chambersburg, Pa., was charged in connection with the March 12, 2006, slaying of the girl and the killings of her family. The attack took place in Mahmoudiya, a village about 20 miles south of Baghdad.

Military prosecutors did not say Spielman took part in the rape or murders, but alleged he went to the house knowing what the others intended to do and served as a lookout. Spielman had pleaded guilty on 30 July to lesser charges of conspiracy to obstructing justice, arson, wrongfully touching a corpse and drinking.

The judge scheduled a sentencing hearing for Saturday morning, 4 August. Spielman faces a mandatory life sentence. The jury will decide if he will be eligible for parole.

Spielman's grandmother, Nancy Hess, collapsed outside the courtroom after the verdict was read and prosecutor Maj. William Fischbach ran to her side and called 911.

Spielman's sister, Paige Gerlach, screamed: "I hate the government. You people put him (in Iraq) and now, this happened."Defense attorneys left the courthouse immediately following the verdict and could not immediately be reached for comment.

Prosecutors rested their case Thursday when a fellow soldier's recanting of a story that Spielman acted as a lookout during the attack last year.

Spc. James Barker, who has admitted his own role in the assault, said in earlier testimony that he had allowed investigators to draft sworn statements for him that implicated Spielman in the crime.

Barker testified Wednesday, ! August, that several portions of the document were untrue, including references to Spielman's role in the conspiracy to attack the family and his knowledge of plans to rape the girl.

Another soldier convicted in the attack, Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, testified that Spielman stood guard as his fellow soldiers raped the girl. Cortez said Spielman was within a few feet of the others as they held down the screaming girl but did nothing to stop them.

Barker, Cortez and another soldier, Pfc. Bryan L. Howard, pleaded guilty for their roles in the slayings and received sentences of five to 100 years under plea agreements with prosecutors.

Steven D. Green, who was discharged from the Army before being charged, faces a possible death sentence when he is tried in federal court in Kentucky. He has pleaded not guilty to charges that include murder and sexual assault.

Barker and Cortez have given investigators conflicting statements about whether Spielman knew of the plan to rape the girl and was present when they discussed it over swigs from bottles of whiskey and gin mixed with energy drinks, according to testimony.

During their courts-martial, Barker and Cortez testified they took turns raping the girl while Green shot and killed her mother, father and younger sister. Green shot the girl in the head after raping her, they said.

The girl's body was set on fire with kerosene to destroy the evidence, according to previous testimony.

Fort Campbell is a sprawling military post on the Kentucky-Tennessee border.

FBI Raid Violated US Constitution.

The FBI violated the Constitution when agents raided U.S. Rep. William Jefferson's office last year and viewed legislative documents in a corruption investigation, a federal appeals court ruled # August, according to the AP.

The court ordered the Justice Department to return any legislative documents it seized from the Louisiana Democrat's office on Capitol Hill. The court did not order the return of all the documents seized in the raid and did not say whether prosecutors could use any of the records against Jefferson in their bribery case.

Jefferson argued that the first-of-its-kind raid trampled congressional independence. The Constitution prohibits the executive branch from using its law enforcement powers to interfere with the lawmaking process. The Justice Department said that declaring the search unconstitutional would essentially prohibit the FBI from ever looking at a lawmaker's documents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected that claim. The court held that, while the search itself was constitutional, FBI agents crossed the line when they viewed every record in the office without giving Jefferson the chance to argue that some documents involved legislative business.

"The review of the Congressman's paper files when the search was executed exposed legislative material to the Executive" and violated the Constitution, the court wrote. "The Congressman is entitled to the return of documents that the court determines to be privileged."

The raid was part of a 16-month international bribery investigation of Jefferson, who allegedly accepted $100,000 from a telecommunications businessman, $90,000 of which was later recovered in a freezer in the congressman's Washington home.

Jefferson pleaded not guilty in June to charges of soliciting more than $500,000 in bribes while using his office to broker business deals in Africa. The Justice Department said it built that case without using the disputed documents from the raid.

The court did not rule whether, because portions of the search were illegal, prosecutors should be barred from using any of the records in their case against Jefferson. That will be decided by the federal judge in Virginia who is presiding over the criminal case."Today's opinion underscores the fact that the Department of Justice is required to follow the law, and that it is bound to abide by the Constitution," defense attorney Robert Trout, said, promising more legal challenges to "overreaching by the government in this case."
The Court said the Constitution insists that lawmakers must be free from any intrusion into their congressional duties. Such intrusion, even by a filter team, "may therefore chill the exchange of views with respect to legislative activity," the court held.

The case has cut across political party lines. Former House Speakers Newt Gingrich, a Republican, and Thomas Foley, a Democrat, filed legal documents opposing the raid, along with former House Minority Leader Bob Michel, a Republican.

Conservative groups Judicial Watch and the Washington Legal Foundation were joined by the liberal Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in supporting the legality of the raid.

Following his indictment, Jefferson's supporters accused the Bush administration of targeting Black Democrats to shift attention from the legal troubles of Republican congressmen.

"We are confident that as this case moves forward, and when all of the facts are known, we will prevail again and clear Congressman Jefferson's name," Trout said Friday.

Jefferson was re-elected to a ninth term in 2006. His win complicated things for Democratic leaders who promised to run the most ethical Congress in history.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., stripped Jefferson of his seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee and placed him instead on the Small Business Committee.
The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit judges who considered the case were Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson and Judge Judith W. Rogers.

Ginsburg and Rogers served in the Justice Department and Henderson served as deputy South Carolina attorney general. None of the judges served in the legislative branch, though Rogers was counsel to a congressional commission formed to review Washington's municipal structure. Ginsburg and Henderson were appointed by Republican presidents, Rogers by a Democrat.

Woman Killed By Family Because She Loved Wrong Man.

Banaz Mahmod loved not less but last.LONDON (Reuters) - A Kurdish woman was brutally raped, stamped on and strangled by members of her family and their friends in an "honor killing" carried out at her London home because she had fallen in love with the wrong man.

(What kind of an animal could do something like this to another human being; or, worse still, to his own daughter? Are these the people who are in competition with us for the Moral Highground in this world?)

Banaz Mahmod, 20, was subjected to the 2-1/2 hour ordeal before she was garroted with a bootlace. Her body was stuffed into a suitcase and taken about 100 miles to Birmingham where it was buried in the back garden of a house.

Her badly decomposed body was found in April 2006, three months after the killing.

Last month a jury found her father Mahmod Mahmod, 52, and his brother Ari Mahmod, 51, guilty of murder after a three-month trial. Their associate Mohamad Hama, 30, had earlier admitted killing her.

On Thursday at a pre-sentence hearing for Hama, the Old Bailey heard details about Banaz's last moments.

Prosecutors said the three convicted men, along with two other suspects who are still at large, had carried out the killing fearing that the authorities were closing in on them.

They believed Banaz had brought shame on the family by leaving her husband, an Iraqi Kurd she had been forced to marry at 17, and falling in love with Rahmat Suleimani, an Iranian Kurd.

Her former unnamed partner had raped her as well as repeatedly beating her, the court heard.

Hama, who prosecutors said had been a ringleader in the murder, was caught by listening devices talking to a friend in prison about the murder.

In the recordings, transcripts of which were relayed to the court, Hama and his friend are hearing laughing as he described how she was killed with Banaz's uncle "supervising".

"I was kicking and stamping on her neck to get the soul out. I saw her stark naked, only wearing pants or underwear," Hama is recorded as saying.

His lawyers say there is no evidence to support the prosecution's claims.

The decision to kill her came after a meeting on January 23 -- the day before she was murdered -- when the family decided to take action before the police could foil their attempts, said prosecutor Victor Temple.

Hama is due to be sentenced on Friday with Mahmod Mahmod and his brother, Ari.

Woman Who Killed Purse Snatcher Faces Charges.

Dutch woman who killed thief to be tried; but was it murder? Or accidental homocide? Or justifiable homocide? Should she be prosecuted for trying to retrieve her purse from a purse snatcher? Did the thief get what he deserved? Did he intend the natural consequences of his acts? Was injury or death an anticipated consequence of his actions? Did he assume the risks?

A woman who fatally crushed a teenager with her car after he snatched her purse will be prosecuted, authorities said Friday, 27 July.

The early 2005 incident assumed national importance and inflamed tensions with the country's Moroccan community. The 19-year-old man came from a Moroccan family and the filmmaker Theo van Gogh had been murdered by a Muslim radical just two months earlier.

Some sympathized with the driver, believing she justifiably chased the thief and killed him accidentally. But many in Amsterdam's Moroccan community said the incident reflected Dutch disdain for them.

The story had many complexities, including the youth's criminal background and the driver's record of reckless driving.

The woman, identified as Germaine C., 45, was in her car when the teenager, identified as Ali el Bejjati, grabbed her purse from the back seat and then hopped on a scooter driven by a friend, prosecutors said Friday.

The woman chased them with her car in reverse and hit the scooter, pinning the thief against a tree. He died on the spot. His accomplice fled on foot.

The woman was arrested, interrogated and released several days later.

The prosecution said in a statement that formal charges would be filed later, adding they could range from vehicular homicide to reckless driving.

The national broadcaster, NOS news, reported that the woman had told police she wanted only to "bump" the scooter. It also reported she had previously been cited for driving in reverse on a freeway.

El Bejjati had been convicted before of purse theft and was awaiting trial on armed robbery charges when he died.
Dutch woman who killed thief to be tried By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jul 27, 7:47 PM ET



A woman who fatally crushed a teenager with her car after he snatched her purse will be prosecuted, authorities said Friday.

The early 2005 incident assumed national importance and inflamed tensions with the country's Moroccan community. The 19-year-old man came from a Moroccan family and the filmmaker Theo van Gogh had been murdered by a Muslim radical just two months earlier.

Some sympathized with the driver, believing she justifiably chased the thief and killed him accidentally. But many in Amsterdam's Moroccan community said the incident reflected Dutch disdain for them.

The story had many complexities, including the youth's criminal background and the driver's record of reckless driving.

The woman, identified as Germaine C., 45, was in her car when the teenager, identified as Ali el Bejjati, grabbed her purse from the back seat and then hopped on a scooter driven by a friend, prosecutors said Friday.

The woman chased them with her car in reverse and hit the scooter, pinning the thief against a tree. He died on the spot. His accomplice fled on foot.

The woman was arrested, interrogated and released several days later.

The prosecution said in a statement that formal charges would be filed later, adding they could range from vehicular homicide to reckless driving.

The national broadcaster, NOS news, reported that the woman had told police she wanted only to "bump" the scooter. It also reported she had previously been cited for driving in reverse on a freeway.

El Bejjati had been convicted before of purse theft and was awaiting trial on armed robbery charges when he died.
TOBY STERLING AP (7/27/07)

LEAVE NO COMRADE BEHIND!

Long before the Band of Brothers hit the screen, it was unwritten law for the U S military to leave no man behind. In this day and age, we can expand that to say "Leave no man or woman behind".
A third-class female cadet, a sophomore, USCGA Class of 2010, and a male enlisted man claimed two Mexican policemen assaulted them after they came ashore from skinny-dipping at the beach during the pre-dawn hours in Veracruz, Mexico.
It appears that female 3/c Cadet Jane Doe and the enlisted man may have been swimming or cavorting on the beach while the two policemen hid behind some rocks and surprised them when they came out of the ocean.
Cadet Jane Doe said the police officers attempted to handcuff them, and forced her to perform oral sex on one of them.
The Eagle docked Friday in Veracruz and left on Monday. Cadet Jane Doe and the enlisted man are still in Mexico working with authorities. The ship, CGC EAGLE, is continuing on its summer training program. It is due to arrive in Miami on July 27 as its next port call.

The Coast Guard Academy can look forward to some rude awakenings in this case. I dare say they have little or no experience in dealing with Mexico and corrupt Mexican officials. They made a big mistake in leaving a teenage female cadet and an enlisted man in Mexican custody. Someone had better fly to Mexico quickly and carry plenty of CASH. This is not the Cadet Webster Smith case and the Rule of Law. In Mexico, money talks and justice walks.
The Commanding Officer of the Eagle is out of his mind. If I had been CO, that ship would never have sailed without every cadet and crewman on board.
There would be no reason to leave cadets or crewmen behind if they were only witnesses to an investigation. That is an easy call. Take their statements and let them leave on the ship. They could even fly back whenever and if ever there was a trial. This case will never see a trial.
These two kids are going to be charged. That is why they were not allowed to leave Mexico. Mommie and Daddy and the Coast Guard Academy are going to have to come up with some CASH, and a lot of it.
Silvina Morales, the prosecutor's office agent in charge of the case, indicated that a Complaint had been drafted; and according to the complaint, the female cadet and the enlisted man decided to swim at a local beach. She said the two policemen apparently hid behind some rocks and surprised the swimmers when they came out of the ocean.. They could be charged with almost anything; such as, public drunkenness, swimming nude on a public beach, public indecency, drunk and disorderly, having sex in public, assaulting a police officer, refusal to cooperate with a police officer, being on the beach after dark or sundown. They may have entered a closed or secured area.




Nevertheless, we will not rest until these two brave young Americans are returned to American soil.


Even if the female cadet and the enlisted man are eventually released from Mexican custody, this case will be far from over.
What standard will be used to dispose of this case? The Webster Smith Standard, where the female cadet gets no discipline? Shelly Raudenbush had a torrid fling with a Navy enlisted man in Norfolk, Virginia and went on to be the Star Witness against Webster Smith. She received complete immunity for fraternizing with a Navy enlisted man, and Webster Smith was convicted, essentially, for keeping her secret.
Or, will it be the Shelly Raudenbush Standard where the female cadet gets immunity from prosecution, no charges for fraternizing with an enlisted man?
Or the Cadet John Miller Standard where the local authorities take care of resolving the case and the cadet is returned to duty with a warning to be more discrete next time?

Either way, the female cadet corps has the Wisniewski Curse? Or, perhaps it is the Shelly Raudenbush Curse? Either way, the Coast Guard albatross is still there around the neck of the Coast Guard Academy. Until the Webster Smith travesty is resolved fairly, and Webster Smith is given his Commission and his degree, and his record is wiped clean, the cadets will continue to suffer these terribly embarrassing incidents.

The torch has been passed to a new Gender, and the females continue to get a free ride with no ethical accountability. With each Academy entering class containing more and more females, the Coast Guard Academy can look forward to more of the same, underway as before and steady as she goes.



LATE BREAKING NEWS: On or about Tuesday, 24 July, 3/c Cadet Jane Doe was repatriated to Miami, Florida to her family. Not as big as Elian Gonzales, but just as emotional. She is awaiting the arrival of the CGC Eagle with the rest of her classmates. The skids were greased and she was released. She will have the best sea story to tell from this cadet summer training cruise.
What deal was struck with the Devil to secure her release?
Was she an unfortunate victim of circumstances, or a victim of her own bad judgment?

Natalie Granger, a Coast Guard spokeswoman, said U.S. officials are working with the Mexican government on the investigation. She said the details of the investigation could not be released until the work is complete, and she could not say how long that would take. The two policemen were charged with robbery, abuse of authority and sexual misconduct.

12 Jan 2008, Update: White Teenage Female Cadet Claims Sexual assault By Mexican Police on Veracruz Beach.Two Mexican law enforcement officers accused of assaulting a white female Coast Guard Academy third class cadet and a Black enlisted crew member stationed onboard the Coast Guard Academy training ship USCGC Eagle are still in jail.
The incident occurred during a port call in Veracruz, Mexico, in mid-July 2007.

The case is under review by the First Criminal Court in Veracruz, and the judge has not issued a final decision, according to a Coast Guard Academy spokesman.

The U.S. Embassy has just received a verbal update from the Mexican court.

According to that update, the accused police officers filed an appeal against their imprisonment, and a federal court denied the appeal, but the criminal court is expecting a new appeal. Mexican courts are like German jokes, they are not funny and you never know where they are going or how they will come out.

The third-class female cadet and the male crew member said the police officers attempted to handcuff them, stole some of their possessions, threatened them and forced the female to perform oral sex on one of them, while they were on liberty after a late night swim at a beach in Veracruz, Mexico.

The two policemen have allegedly been charged with robbery, abuse of authority and sexual misconduct.


BRING ME MEN.

Dedicated Marine Will Not Go To Jail.

Cpl. Trent Thomas will not be sent to prison for his role in killing an Iraqi civilian.
A military jury convicted him of conspiracy to committ murder for his role in the April 2006 killing of a retired Iraqi policeman in the village of Hamdania,
but they decided not to send him to prison.
He was sentenced to a BCD, a bad-conduct discharge, and a reduction to the lowest pay grade. He could have received life in prison.
Thomas had been in pre-trial confinement in the brig since May 2006.
Thomas, of Madison, Ill., was one of seven Marines and a Navy corpsman accused in connection with the killing.
"I believe we did what we needed to do to save Marines' lives," Thomas said outside court, while declining to discuss the details of what happened that night. "I think anybody who understands what war is or what combat is understands."
A military jury of three officers and six enlisted Marines deliberated Thomas' sentence for less than an hour before returning its decision.
On 18 July, the jury convicted Thomas, 25, of kidnapping and conspiracy but acquitted him of other charges, including the most serious, premeditated murder.
Prosecutors had recommended Thomas be sentenced to 15 years in prison with a dishonorable discharge, reduction in rank and a fine.
Thomas' attorneys argued that their client was only following orders from his squad leader and asked that he be credited for the 519 days he has already served in the brig and be returned to active duty.
"We failed him as a Marine Corps, because under good leadership, this Marine would not be here today," Maj. Haytham Faraj told the court. "Consider where the responsibility lies."
Thomas had agreed in January to plead guilty in the case, but withdrew the guilty pleas on the eve of sentencing in February. His attorney, Victor Kelley, said that pretrial agreement had called for 12 years in prison.
"I was going to take a deal for 12 years because my lawyer said it was in my best interest, but then my lawyers called me back and said, 'We're going to fight this,'" Thomas said Friday. "That was all I needed."
On Thursday, 19 July, Thomas told the court he wanted to continue serving.
"I've never been good at anything until I came to the Marine Corps," said Thomas, who served three combat tours in Iraq and was awarded a Purple Heart for the 2004 siege on Fallujah. "It's pretty obvious Michael Jordan was meant to play basketball. Tiger Woods was meant to play golf. The Marine Corps, it's me."
The final terms of Thomas' punishment are subject to review by Lt. Gen. James Mattis, the commanding general overseeing the case, but he can only reduce the sentence.
Four other Marines and the sailor charged pleaded guilty to reduced charges in exchange for testimony. A court-martial began Friday, 20 July, in a Camp Pendleton courtroom for Thomas' squadmate Cpl. Marshall L. Magincalda. Proceedings are scheduled to begin next week in the case of squad leader Sgt. Lawrence Hutchins III. Both are charged with murder, kidnapping, conspiracy and other offenses.
Tom Umberg, a former military prosecutor, called Thomas' punishment "pretty outrageous" and suggested the jurors might have been swayed by their own combat experiences.
"I have never heard of a court-martial that convicted someone of conspiracy to murder and kidnapping and not adjudicate some kind of (prison) sentence," Umberg said. "Obviously there was some sympathy, maybe even empathy, because all of the panel members had served in Iraq."