InfoWeb
|
Use of Unnecessary Force: Police, Security, or Nazi Storm Troopers?
NEW YORK (WABC) -- Police in Washington threw a New York woman to the ground and then arrested her at an airport security checkpoint. Was the force justified? She says absolutely not, and has filed a $10 million lawsuit against the officers involved.
Robin Kassner says she blacked out and doesn't remember much about her February 2007 encounter with airport police, but security cameras captured the whole incident.
What is still not clear is how did a routine bag search escalate into what looks like a bar brawl?
"I realize, oh my God, I'm being beat up," Kassner said, narrating the surveillance video.
Kassner, a marketing executive, says she was pulled out of the security line at Reagan National Airport when screeners told her her contact lens solution didn't meet the liquid ban requirement.
As a TSA employee searched Kassner's bag, Washington D.C. airport police arrived and appeared to motion to her to step away from the bag. She turns her back, and that's when things get ugly.
Two officers are seen dragging Kassner away from her suitcase before they throw her to the ground.
"I was begging them over and over to get off me, and they wouldn't stop," she said.
Fifteen seconds later, police lifted Kassner to her feet and shoved her into a nearby table. It is unclear what she said next, but there were three officers involved at that point. One man can be seen taking his elbow and slamming her head onto the table.
"I suffered a concussion as a result of that, and I've had memory problems," she said.
Kassner says it felt like her arm was breaking as the three officers put her in handcuffs. And then, two minutes after it all began, she is led away.
A spokesman from the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority says that Kassner, "was interfering with the screening process and refusing to follow security procedures."
Kassner was arrested, taken to a Virginia jail and charged with obstruction of justice.
Drugs on Campus
(InfoWeb News) The drug distribution network was "so sophisticated" [they used those now "super high tech" text messages to communicate] that "the Feds had to be called in". Despite all the fear mongering and the vast homeland security bureaucracy, law enforcement still seems pathetically inept and out-of-touch with life in America. This begs the question: are all the intelligent people in our population smoking marijuana for recreation in academic and other intellectual settings, while the less intelligent portions of the population in law enforcement brain-damaged from drinking too much of the highly toxic and dangerous (but legal) substance alcohol?
Isn't it time to get real about the demonstrable fact that the "war on drugs" is actually the "war on citizens"? That our government supports highly toxic substances like alcohol and cigarettes, largely because of the corruption they support, while at the same time criminalizing less toxic and fatal substances like marijuana, again, because of the corruption that is supported by their criminalization.
What is the connection with our two stories "Clinton's Old Math" and "Drugs on Campus"? If you can't answer the question, you're probably one of Clinton's uneducated voters. Perhaps it's time for "Change" and to celebrate it with a Tea Party like the one held some two hundred years ago.
Barr Wins Libertarian Candidacy
(InfoWeb News) Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr formally entered the White House race Monday as the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination. Barr said he is running because voters want a choice beyond the two political parties. While many voters will agree with the sentiment, most voters are so inculcated with the two-party horse-race system (the blood of popular media) that they find themselves unable to pull a lever that is not for a democrat or republican. Were it not for the brainwashing of the populace in this regard, Barr might get considerably more than the 7% he is expected to garner at the polls. Even so, 7% is a lot better than the 2% to 3% Libertarian candidates usually draw in presidential elections.
"They believe that America has more and better to offer than what the current political situation is serving up to us," he said Monday at the National Press Club in Washington. "The reason for that is very simple, they believe in America as I believe in America. We believe in an America that is not and should not be and should never be driven by fear as current policies on behalf of both parties are in this country."
Barr, 59, represented Georgia's 7th congressional district from 1995-2003, and became an increasingly vocal critic of President Bush, especially over the president's support of the Patriot Act. He formally left the Republican Party in 2006.
About That Windfall Profits Tax
(InfoWeb News Service 5.8/2008) The windfall profits tax proposed by congressmen today will not find its way to citizen's pockets. Congress already has plans for the tens of Billions of dollars the windfall taxes will generate. That means it's a hidden tax on citizens, who will go on paying high prices at the pump while some of that money is siphoned off to the government who will, if you actually believe such things, will spend the money wisely on our behalf.
While announcing the plan, congressmen complained about the high price of gas, but couldn't explain how the windfall profits tax would help with that, since all the money would go to the government.
Political pandering? We didn't say that. Hopefully you already figured that out!
Bush Wiretap Whining Continues
(InfoWeb News Service) In another example of nationwide delusion, the Bush administration continues to hawk the alleged need for warrentless surveillance. As it stands, there is no way to verify such surveillance: legal efforts to determine the extent of the surveillance have been fruitless. Courts have ruled that since the surveillance is secret, it cannot even be determined that such surveillance is occurring at all. Only a court could come up with such a ridiculous assertion.It has become clear to all but the administration that the passage of the legislation demanded by the President is not a slam-dunk. But does the administration have a case for its claims that the program is necessary for national security? Not. This is an attempt to install point-and-click police work as a lazy substitute for doing real intelligence work, all at the expense of civil liberties. As founding father Ben Franklin observed: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (www.ushistory.org) More to the point, the legislation the Bush administration is an end-run around any hope of accountability in domestic intelligence that might violate civil rights. The administration fails to mention the extensive wholesale information gathering the NSA conducts in the interests of "data mining". The NSA collects domestic intelligence illegally, justifying its actions by saying it "doesn't look at the data". The NSA and FBI have promised "not to look at" the information they have amassed, unless they have obtained a court order or other lawful instrument to access the data. But who watches the watchers? How much can we trust the government to keep all this information private? What controls has it put in place to ensure this information is not misused, or to prevent it from being misappropriated or stolen? The massive collection of information has been reported on most notably by PBS's Frontline. If you haven't seen that program, we recommend you watch it on the web right now!
More News...
[Top News] [News Tabs]
InfoWeb
|
© 1992-2008, InfoWeb.net
