Category: law enforcement

Wife of U.S. diplomat flees UK after killing British teen in a traffic accident; U.S. refuses to waive diplomatic immunity

October 7, 2019 • 10:47 am

Many venues have reported that, on August 27, the wife of an American diplomat in England killed a teenage English citizen riding a motorbike. The woman, Anne Sacoolas (not named in most American reports, but named by Boris Johnson and several British outlets), was apparently driving on the wrong side of the road at the time, hitting and killing the 19-year-old Harry Dunn. The complication is that Sacoolas fled England after the crash and has claimed diplomatic immunity from prosecution. Read about the story here:

Although Britain, including Dominic Raab, the Foreign Secretary, has asked the U.S. to lift the woman’s diplomatic immunity, all the news reports, including the NYT above, say that this is unlikely to happen (the US already refused a request for waiver of immunity on September 5), but England is still trying.

Why won’t the US waive immunity? Well, you can read about diplomatic immunity in this Guardian article, which notes that U.S. diplomats and their families are covered throughout the UK by international and UK law. And although these diplomats are urged to obey British law, apparently they don’t have to, and immunity is rarely waived. I’m not sure if every crime is covered, so does a diplomat who, say, murders an English person also get diplomatic immunity from prosecution? Readers who know about these things should weigh in. And does fleeing the country somehow reinforce that immunity, so you don’t get extradited?

In this case, Sacoolas committed what would probably be classified as either reckless driving, negligent homicide, and perhaps failure to report an accident. What she allegedly did was clearly a crime, as the UK police have also asked for Sacoolas’s arrest so she can be interviewed.  The NYT also notes these complicating factors (the emphasis is mine):

The crash, the investigation, and Mr. Johnson’s identification of the American woman could further strain the so-called special relationship between the two countries, which has already been tested numerous times during Mr. Trump’s presidency.

Mr. Trump has engaged in public spats with Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London and endorsed Boris Johnson as a strong candidate for prime minister while his predecessor, Theresa May, was still in office. Kim Darroch, the British ambassador to the United States, resigned after leaked cables said Mr. Trump was “radiating insecurity” and his administration diplomatically “clumsy and inept.”

Still, Britain must walk a fine line, most notably because it is hoping to sign a trade deal with the United States after it leaves the European Union, a fraught process that is complicated by the fact that the Americans may make demands the British find unacceptable.

Robert Singh, a professor of politics at Birkbeck, University of London, who specializes in American foreign policy, said that he cannot recall a more serious immunity dispute between the two countries.

He said in an email that while the police could visit the suspect in the United States, such a visit would most likely be of limited value. “This merely seems to postpone the moment of reckoning,” he said. “If she is indeed guilty of the crime, as alleged, then there will be immense pressure upon the U.K. government to initiate formal extradition proceedings — which, one would imagine, any U.S. administration (and this one, in particular) will resist.”

The victim’s parents said they would continue fighting to get justice for their son’s death.

And indeed, this is what irks me about the case. In this case, the U.S. should waive immunity, for the woman is accused of committing a crime and then fleeing the country. It is not a trivial incident, either, like that of the many U.S. diplomats and their families who refuse to pay traffic violations in the UK. Dunn’s parents are devastated and are asking for justice, and I am on their side. Imagine if it were your son, and the alleged perpetrator gets of scot free!

As for that, a SkyNews video revealed that the name of the driver is Anne Sacoolas, 42, whose husband works at the RAF base Croughton, known to be a US intelligence base. The Sky video adds that the U.S. Embassy advised Sacoolis and her family to leave the UK. (I don’t know how the police found her name, or whether she reported what happened to the police).

I don’t think this is what diplomatic immunity was intended to cover. In the interests of justice, the U.S. government, which has the power to life Sacoolas’s immunity, should do so. It’s simple justice.

 

Felicity Huffman given prison sentence (a light one)

September 13, 2019 • 3:17 pm

Actor Felicity Huffman, who pleaded guilty in the college-admissions scandal, was sentenced today to 14 days in jail beginning October 25, along with a $30,000 fine, 250 hours of community service and one year supervised release.

Although this was a compromise between the jail time her own lawyers wanted (none) and what the prosecution requested (a month in stir), the fine is actually $10,000 higher than the $20K asked for by both sides. The prosecution had also asked for a year’s probation, while her lawyers asked for 250 hours of community service.  It looks as if the prosecution got more of what it wanted than did the defense. And I think the sentence is about right, for it shows that nobody, now matter how rich and famous, is above the law.

As CNN reports,

Federal court Judge Indira Talwani said she thinks Felicity Huffman’s punishment is “the right sentence here.”

She also spoke directly to Huffman, saying, “I think you take your sentence and you move forward.”

“You can rebuild your life after this. You’ve paid your dues,” the judge added.

Fellow actor Lori Laughlin must be shaking in her Blahniks, as Laughlin pleaded not guilty to more serious charges, which include mail fraud. If Loughlin is convicted, there’s little doubt that her sentence will be far more serious than Huffman’s, for there’s the “plea tax”.  I wonder if she will change her plea.

As for the other 33 parents and mastermind William Singer, well, American doesn’t care about them as they’re not famous.

This is one case where the reason for incarceration is neither removal from society to prevent danger, or reform  of the guilty party (you can be sure that neither woman will ever do this again). The only valid reasons are to deter others and to reassure Americans that fame and money can’t always buy you a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Felicity Huffman arrives at federal court with her husband William H. Macy for sentencing in a nationwide college admissions bribery scandal, Friday, Sept. 13, 2019, in Boston. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)

 

Why is everyone angry at red-light cameras?

June 3, 2019 • 11:00 am

A few years ago, Chicago installed red-light cameras and speeding cameras along the roads, which would automatically record your license plate and a photograph of the violation along with your ticket for about $100.  It’s hard to fight these things, but in both cases I think I did transgress both times, not coming to a complete stop while turning right on red (as I recall), though I’m not 100% sure about my speeding violation as there’s no way to check the machine. One thing is for sure, though: I’ve been a lot more careful about speeding and coming to a complete stop before turning right on red.  It may not be because I believe in a 25-mph speed limit on a major road in Chicago, but because I don’t want to get caught. But the results are the same, whatever the motivation: more people obey the law.

So why are so many people incensed about these cameras? They do work: I heard on the NBC News last night that installing red-light cameras has reduced crashes in major American cities by 21%. It’s not really a violation of your privacy, either, for if there was a cop rather than a camera, you’d have no argument. (Street cameras with facial recognition are, however, a different issue.) Yet although about 24 states have such cameras, 11 have prohibited them, including Texas, whose governor (see below) has just signed a bill ending them on September 1:

Here’s an article on the law from NBC 5 in Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas:

Like most Americans, I resent these cameras, but I can’t figure out why I do. Here are some possible reasons:

1.) They make a lot of money for the state. That’s true, but so what? You should be culpable if you violate the law.

2.) Americans see them as unfair because (as NBC says), the camera automatically assumes you’re guilty. That is an empirical question: do the cameras lie? That could easily be tested, and if they don’t lie, then you’re guilty. The problem is that sometimes they will lie, as nothing is 100% accurate, and you have no recourse if they did in your case. That is, they automatically assume you’re guilty, violating the presumption of innocence. That, however, doesn’t make me upset. In both of my case I think I almost certainly did violate the rules.

3.) Sometimes they punish people for stopping in a pedestrian crosswalk rather than just running a red light. Well, too bad: that’s also a violation.

4.) Somebody else was driving your car when the violation was committed, but the person to whom the car is registered must pay. This is the grounds on which Texas eliminated the cameras, but really, you will know if someone else was driving the car, as the date and time was recorded, and presumably you can dun whomever was driving for the fine.

5.) This may be a major reason why I and other people don’t like the intrusion: sometimes we think we should be able to break the law without getting caught, especially by a mechanical device rather than a cop. That is, we resent being monitored, like the inhabitants of Singapore, for constant adherence to the law, and part of our “freedom” means occasional freedom to violate the law without penalty.

None of these are really good reasons to oppose red-light and speeding cameras, but #5 comes closest to the reason I feel aggrieved. What do you think?

Alabama’s odious abortion bill

May 15, 2019 • 8:20 am

Most Americans have already heard this, so I’m just giving the news to those who haven’t, complaining about what happened, and offering you a chance to comment.

What happened, as the New York Times reports (click on screenshot below), is that the Alabama legislature passed a law that effectively ends all abortions in that state save in pregnancies that endanger the life of the mother. Pregnancies resulting from rape and incest must still be carried to term—a horrible stipulation.

From the paper:

The Alabama Senate approved a measure on Tuesday that would outlaw almost all abortions in the state, setting up a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the case that recognized a woman’s constitutional right to end a pregnancy.

The legislation bans abortions at every stage of pregnancy and criminalizes the procedure for doctors, who could be charged with felonies and face up to 99 years in prison. It includes an exception for cases when the mother’s life is at serious risk, but not for cases of rape or incest — a subject of fierce debate among lawmakers in recent days.

The House approved the measure — the most far-reaching effort in the nation this year to curb abortion rights — last month. It now moves to the desk of Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican. Although the governor has not publicly committed to signing the legislation, many Republican lawmakers expect her support.

This is part of a wider national movement energized by the election of Trump, which empowered conservatives and right-wing Christians:

Other state measures to restrict abortion rights have advanced in the South and the Midwest this year and invited legal fights. Already, the governors of Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Ohio have signed fetal heartbeat bills. [JAC: those are bills prohibiting abortion after the time when a fetal heartbeat appears.] And Arkansas moved up the cutoff point for legal abortions to 18 weeks of pregnancy, from 20 weeks.

CNN adds information about the vote, which was lopsided, even on the rape/incest stipulation:

After more than four hours of debate, the Republican-led Senate voted 25-6 to pass HB 314, which would slap doctors with up to 99 years in prison for performing an abortion. The Alabama House passed the bill earlier this month.
The law only allows exceptions “to avoid a serious health risk to the unborn child’s mother,” for ectopic pregnancy and if the “unborn child has a lethal anomaly.” Democrats re-introduced an amendment to exempt rape and incest victims, but the motion failed on an 11-21 vote.
Even for a conservative Republican state in the South, this is a reprehensible move. It is, of course, designed to be challenged, and it will be a brave Alabama doctor who will challenge it by performing an abortion in that state, risking life in prison if the Supreme Court upholds the law. For—make no mistake about it—this state law will go to the Supreme Court, who may affirm it, overturning Roe v. Wade. Then states will be free to make their own laws, and you know what that will do, especially in the South. Although that Court doesn’t like to reverse its previous decisions, this is one case where it may, for the Court is packed with conservative justices.
My own view, which I’ve expressed before, is that any woman who wants an abortion, right up to birth, should be permitted to have one, though that goes beyond the ruling of Roe v. Wade and its subsequent interpretation by courts. But in supporting Roe v. Wade, I’m on board with the majority of the American public, 73% of whom say that they don’t want that decision overturned. 

Grania points out that the decision, at least in Alabama, doesn’t seem to be so much a men vs. women issue (as is often claimed) rather than one of conservatives versus liberals:

And Matthew adds that the Alabama law is basically the same as the one holding sway in Northern Ireland, where abortions for rape and incest are also illegal, as well as every other abortion save those in which the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life.

https://twitter.com/helenlewis/status/1128572546528546818

I’ve always thought that yes, Trump will go away (perhaps next year), but his influence on the Supreme Court (and that of the Republican Senate) will remain for decades, with a conservative court that will interpret the law for ages to come. Let us hope that stare decisis will hold this time.

Should we apologize to the Canadian girl who lied about hijab attack?

January 28, 2018 • 11:00 am

Canadians have a reputation for being super nice, and for apologizing for everything.  In most cases that’s great, but not this time. That’s because Danielle S. McLaughlin, Director of Education Emerita of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, is now asking all Canadians (I’m presuming this because her piece was on HuffPo Canada) to apologize to the eleven year old girl who falsely reported an attack by a man who, said the girl, cut up her hijab. (See here and here for my reports on this).  The false report apparently went to the girl’s parents, her school, and then were broadcast in a press conference that included the girl, her parents, and school representatives. 

A police investigation soon revealed that the report was false.  When I wrote about it, I tried to downplay the “guilt” of the girl because she was young, and perhaps troubled—or even did this out of hatred of having to cover herself.  I said this:

Now I’m not going to come down on the girl. She’s only 11, and probably wanted to attract attention, perhaps because she feels marginalized or ignored. She’s young, though the other two cases are less excusable and, in fact, at least one falsely reporting hijabi has been charged with a crime. Those who seem more at fault are the girl’s parents, if they encouraged her to file a report and go public, or, more likely, the political climate in which cutting a hijab appears to be a “hate crime”—far more serious than cutting someone else’s headgear. (I’ve long thought that we should abolish the notion of “hate crimes”.)

The media and Muslim organizations, of course, originally had a field day, as this plays into the “Islamophobia” narrative pushed by many of them. When the girl’s lie was revealed, one human rights advocate was even “saddened” to learn the story was false, which I interpreted as her wishing that it were true. That’s an invidious wish if you don’t want Muslim girls to be attacked.

Who’s to blame here? The girl herself bears part of the blame, and 11-year-olds are not so young that they shouldn’t be rebuked. It’s not clear whether the girl’s parents are to blame, for they surely believed her, and then it would be their duty to report it to the school and the cops.  But if they decided to hold a press conference before the police investigation was done, then that’s on the girl, the parents, and the school. Also responsible are the news organizations and religious groups who reported this as if it were true.

We need to affix blame, or at least call people out, because false reports like this have a bad result:  they promote a “chicken little” effect of making us less likely to believe true reports (and of course there are real hate crimes against Muslims). Blaming and shaming can be deterrents against people making similar false reports. If everyone gets off scot-free, what’s to keep attention seekers and those with an ideological narrative to equate testimony with truth?

Who we shouldn’t blame, however, is ourselves—at least those of us who simply waited to hear what really happened. But Ms. McLaughlin thinks that we—meaning all Canadians, I suppose—owe the girl an apology. Here’s the article (click on the screenshot):

Two excerpts:

There is a reason that our society does not permit children of this age to vote or to sign contracts. They are not fully formed adults. They are on the way to being critical thinking individuals, but they have not yet arrived there. They can make independent choices, and also big mistakes. The Youth Criminal Justice Act treats people under the age of 18 differently from adults. Our laws recognize children as being less culpable than their seniors and expect those who are in trouble with the law to reform and mature as they age.

So don’t be surprised when a scared child is interrogated and comes up with her own personal bogeyman. As for the rest of us? Let’s just get a grip!

. . . Well, was the girl scared? No evidence of that: she came home with an already manufactured story that she later embellished. She wasn’t interrogated for no reason. McLaughlin continues:

Rather than call for an apology (what good would that do?) from the girl and her family, I believe we owe her an apology for not remembering that, even though she is well-spoken, she is still a child. She even told us, although it was while describing her fear at the fictitious attack: “I am a kid.” Exactly.

Sorry, Ms. McLaughlin, but I didn’t see anybody come down hard on the girl; if anything, they blamed the parents and the school. But surely we are not to blame. The people who owe us an apology are the girl, her family, and the organizations that bandied this story about and (with a few exceptions), didn’t chastise anybody (or even issue corrections) when the story turned out to be false. Blame and disapprobation must be affixed to prevent this from happening again. After all, it is in Muslims’ interest to discourage false reports of hate crimes against members of their faith.

What McLaughlin is doing, and what others have done, is turn the girl and her parents into victims. But victims of what? As Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, said:

“When racist, bigoted ‘Islamophobes’ supposedly target Muslims, Muslims are victims. And when Muslims fake ‘Islamophobic hate crimes,’ Muslims are victims. Not only that, but when Muslims scream ‘Allahu akbar’ and murder infidels, Muslims are victims. Always and in every situation, Muslims are victims, to be appeased and accommodated in every possible way.”

Indeed; the victimhood card has been played well by many Muslims, and other groups have taken the lesson. There’s nothing that makes people give you attention, defer to you, and avoid criticizing you than a strong claim that you’re a victim. And indeed, we should listen to genuine victims. Just not to those who fabricate or exaggerate their victimhood.

Trump’s unwise pardon

August 26, 2017 • 10:00 am

Well, Trump has given his first Presidential pardon, and it couldn’t have gone to a worse person than Joe Arpaio, a former sheriff (1993-2016) of Maricopa County, Arizona—a county that includes the state capital of Phoenix. Arpaio was not only a punitive hard-ass towards prisoners, but widely recognized as an anti-Hispanic bigot, which he displayed not only by upholding a controversial state immigration law, one was largely struck down by the Supreme Court, but by his horrendous treatment of prisoners. As the New York Times reports today (screenshot below, click to go to the article), Arpaio was ordered by federal courts in 2011 to stop “profiling” Hispanics by preferentially making them the victims of traffic stops, and then arresting them if they violated the immigration check that was deemed legal.

While the check was legal, the courts said that preferentially stopping Hispanics without good reason was not, and Arpaio was ordered to cease and desist. He refused, and that led to his conviction last month for criminal contempt of court, for which he might have served up to six months in jail. And that’s the crime for which Trump pardoned him.

The pardon was implied in a statement Trump made this week:

“I won’t do it tonight because I don’t want to cause any controversy,” the president said Tuesday night at a campaign-style rally in Phoenix, after asking, “Was Sheriff Joe convicted for doing his job?”

“I’ll make a prediction: I think he’s going to be just fine,” Mr. Trump said.

From our “President”:

Besides his profiling, Arpaio was an Obama birth-certificate truther, and someone who deliberately made his prison inmates suffer. As the Times reports:

Mr. Arpaio, 85, served for 24 years as sheriff of Maricopa County — which includes Phoenix — building a national reputation for harsh conditions in his county jail, and for his campaign against undocumented immigrants.

Mr. Arpaio had touted himself as “America’s toughest sheriff,” making inmates wear pink underwear and serving jail food that at least some prisoners called inedible. He was also at the forefront of the so-called birther movement that aimed to investigate President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

He was also famous for setting up a tent camp which, in the Arizona climate, was murderously hot. As Wikipedia describes it (I well remember when this was in the news):

Arpaio set up a “Tent City” in 1993 as an extension of the Maricopa County Jail for convicted and sentenced prisoners. Arpaio described Tent City as a concentration camp. Tent City was located in a yard next to a more permanent structure.

On July 2, 2011, when the temperature in Phoenix hit 118 °F (48 °C), Arpaio measured the temperature inside Tent City tents at 145 °F (63 °C). Some inmates complained that fans near their beds were not working, and that their shoes were melting from the heat. During the summer of 2003, when outside temperatures exceeded 110 °F (43 °C), Arpaio said to complaining inmates, “It’s 120 degrees in Iraq and the soldiers are living in tents and they didn’t commit any crimes, so shut your mouths!”

In 1997, Amnesty International said Arpaio’s tent city jail was not an “adequate or humane alternative to housing inmates in suitable … jail facilities.” Tent City was criticized by groups contending that there were violations of human and constitutional rights.

And about his jails (Wikipedia):

Federal Judge Neil V. Wake ruled in 2008, and again in 2010, that the county jails violated the constitutional rights of inmates in medical and other care-related issues. This ruling was a result of a lawsuit brought by the ACLU which alleged that “Arpaio routinely abused pre-trial detainees at Maricopa County Jail by feeding them moldy bread, rotten fruit and other contaminated food, housing them in cells so hot as to endanger their health, denying them care for serious medical and mental health needs, and keeping them packed as tightly as sardines in holding cells for days at a time during intake.”

In a ruling issued in October 2010, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Arpaio to follow Judge Wake’s 2008 ruling, which required Arpaio to end the overcrowding and to ensure all detainees received necessary medical and mental health care; be given uninterrupted access to all medications prescribed by correctional medical staff; be given access to exercise and to sinks, toilets, toilet paper and soap; and be served food that met or exceeded the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s dietary guidelines.

In the case of Braillard v. Maricopa County, the plaintiff’s attorney cited numerous reports commissioned and paid for by Maricopa county, dating back as far as 1996, detailing a “culture of cruelty” where inmates were routinely denied humane healthcare at Maricopa County jails run by Arpaio. Testifying in this case, Arpaio stated he could not deny making the statement that even if he had a billion dollars he wouldn’t change the way he runs his jails.

Arpaio said his jails were meant as places for punishment, and that the inhabitants were all criminals, although in fact most inmates had not been convicted of a crime and were awaiting trial.

Arpaio stated he reserved the punishment of living in Tent City “for those who have been convicted.” In April 2017 it was announced by newly-elected Sheriff Paul Penzone that the jail would be shut down.

In view of Arpaio’s bigotry and inhumanity, this pardon is ridiculous. He defied a federal court, engaged in ethnic profiling, and loved to humiliate and torture inmates—and was proud of it. What useful purpose save vindictiveness could explain the way he ran his jails? But Trump’s purpose is clear: he is catering to the bigots among his base, and to his hard-nosed “law and order” constituency. But pardoning a miscreant like Arpaio is not presidential, and the ACLU implies that in a statement opposing this pardon:

ACLU Deputy Legal Director Cecillia Wang said:

“With his pardon of Arpaio, Trump has chosen lawlessness over justice, division over unity, hurt over healing. Once again, the president has acted in support of illegal, failed immigration enforcement practices that target people of color and have been struck down by the courts. His pardon of Arpaio is a presidential endorsement of racism.”

And John McCain, who’s showing some heartening signs of decency as he nears the end of his life, has also objected. From the NYT:

Meanwhile, Senator John McCain, also an Arizona Republican, denounced the pardon of Mr. Arpaio.

“No one is above the law,” he said, “and the individuals entrusted with the privilege of being sworn law officers should always seek to be beyond reproach in their commitment to fairly enforcing the laws they swore to uphold.”

But Arpaio tweeted his gratitude:

I know of no President in American history who is less, well, Presidential. Trump fails to apprehend the seriousness and gravitas of his position, and is acting out like a little child. The sick thing is that, despite his historically low approval rating, there are still many who support him. From FiveThirtyEight:

Nearly 37% of Americans still like Trump’s performance. I’m not even going to try to understand that.