Mass Killings Occur In USA Once Every 2 Weeks

Mass killers target Americans once every two weeks on average, in attacks that range from robberies to horrific public shooting sprees like the massacre Friday of 27 people in Newtown, Conn., a USA TODAY examination found.

Using news accounts and FBI records from 2006 through 2010, the most recent years for which complete records were available, USA TODAY identified 156 murders that met the FBI definitions of mass killings, where four or more people were killed.

All told, the attacks killed 774 people, including at least 161 young children.

The review offers perhaps the most current, complete picture yet of a crime that is both frighteningly common and not widely understood.

"Everybody is surprised when they hear it's dozens a year," said Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, who has studied mass murders. "People don't understand them. When they think of mass murders, they only think it's random."

USA TODAY's examination did not include murders during the past two years, both of which were marked by a series of high-profile public shootings, including a rampage this year at an Aurora, Colo., movie theater that left 12 dead and 57 injured, and an attack on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin that killed six.

Without more complete records, it is impossible to know whether mass killings increased over those years — though they have become less common since the mid-1990s, according to Grant Duwe, director of research at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, who has studied mass murders.

• The killings between 2006 and 2010, however, offer a portrait of mass murder that in many ways belies the stereotype of a lone gunman targeting strangers.
• Lone gunmen, such as the one who terrorized Sandy Hook Elementary School last week, account for less than half of the nation's mass killers. About a quarter of mass murders involve two or more killers.
• A third of mass killings didn't involve guns at all. In 15 incidents, the victims died in a fire. In 20 others, the killer used a knife or a blunt object. When guns were involved, killers were far more likely to use handguns than any other type of weapon.
• Children are frequently victims. At least 161 who died in mass killings -- roughly one in five -- were 12 and younger.
• Mass murderers tend to be older than other killers, with an average age of nearly 32 years old. Like all killers, they are overwhelmingly men.

Friday's massacre in Newtown "has turned a whole new page" in the nation's long-running debate over guns, said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., a leading proponent of tighter gun laws. "Parents and grandparents, dads, gun owners are thinking that their children at any time at any place could have someone come in and do this kind of massacre."

But for all the attention they receive, mass killings still accounted for only a tiny fraction — about 1% — of all the Americans who were murdered over those five years. During those five years, more died from migraines and falling out of chairs than were murdered by mass killers, according to death records kept by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Three times as many people perished from sunstroke.

Via: USA Today

Marine Corps Creates Law Enforcement Battalions To “Control Civil Disturbances”

Julie Watson reports:


The Marine Corps has created its first law enforcement battalions – a lean, specialized force of military police officers that it hopes can quickly deploy worldwide to help investigate crimes from terrorism to drug trafficking and train fledgling security forces in allied nations.

The Corps activated three such battalions last month. Each is made up of roughly 500 military police officers and dozens of dogs.

The idea behind the law enforcement battalions is to consolidate the military police and capitalize on their investigative skills and police training, he said. The new additions come as every branch in the military is trying to show its flexibility and resourcefulness amid defense cuts.

The war on terror has also taught troops the importance of learning how to gather intelligence, secure evidence and assist local authorities in building cases to take down criminal networks. Troops have gotten better at combing raid sites for clues to help them track insurgents.

They also have changed their approach, realizing that marching into towns to show force alienates communities. Instead, they are being taught to fan out with interpreters to strike up conversations with truck drivers, money exchangers, cellphone sellers and others. The rapport building can net valuable information that could even alert troops about potential attacks.

But no group of Marines is better at that kind of work than the Corps' military police, who graduate from academies just like civilian cops, Durham said. He said the image of military police patrolling base to ticket Marines for speeding or drinking has limited their use in the Corps. He hopes the creation of the battalions will change that, although analysts say only the future will tell whether the move is more than just a rebranding of what already existed within the Corps.

The battalions will be capable of helping control civil disturbances, handling detainees, carrying out forensic work, and using biometrics to identify suspects. Durham said they could assist local authorities in allied countries in securing crime scenes and building cases so criminals end up behind bars and not back out on the streets because of mistakes.

"Over the past 11 years of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, some lessons learned painfully, there has been a growing appreciation and a demand for, on the part of the warfighter, the unique skills and capabilities that MPs bring to the fight," Durham said. "We do enforce traffic laws and we do write reports and tickets, and that's good, but we do so much more than that."

Durham said the Marine Corps plans to show off its new battalions in Miami later this month at a conference put on by the Southern Command and that is expected to be attended by government officials from Central American countries, such as Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Belize.

Defense analyst Loren Thompson said the battalions make sense given the nature of today's global threats, which include powerful drug cartels and other criminal gangs that often mix with religious and political extremists, who use the profits to buy their weaponry.

"This is a smart idea because the biggest single problem the Marines have in dealing with low-intensity types of threats is that they basically are trained to kill people," he said. "It's good for the Marines to have skills that allow them to contain threats without creating casualties."

Gary Solis, a former Marine Corps prosecutor and judge who teaches law of war at Georgetown University, said Marines have already been doing this kind of work for years but now that it has been made more formal by the creation of the battalions, it could raise a host of questions, especially on the use of force. The law of war allows for fighters to use deadly force as a first resort, while police officers use it as a last resort.

If Marines are sent in to do law enforcement but are attacked, will they go back to being warfighters? And if so, what are the implications? Solis asked.

"Am I a Marine or a cop? Can I be both?" he said. "Cops apply human rights law and Marines apply the law of war. Now that it's blended, it makes it tougher for the young men and women who have to make the decision as to when deadly force is not appropriate."

Durham said that military police understand that better than any Marine since they are trained in both.

"They are very comfortable with the escalation of force," he said. "MPs get that. It's fundamental to what we do."

Via: "The Huffington Post"

Key West Seceded From The U.S.

Posted by "Sayf Maslul"

On April 23 1982, Key West Seceded From The U.S., declared war, surrendered, and requested one billion dollars in foreign aid - Source 

In 1982, the United States Border Patrol set up a roadblock and inspection point on US 1 just north of the merger of Monroe County Road 905A/Miami-Dade County Road 905A onto US 1 (they are the only two roads connecting the Florida Keys with the mainland), in front of the Last Chance Saloon just south of Florida City. Vehicles were stopped and searched for narcotics and illegal immigrants. The Key West City Council complained repeatedly about the inconvenience for travelers to and from Key West, claiming that it hurt the Keys' important tourism industry. Eastern Air Lines, which had a hub at Miami International Airport, saw a window of opportunity when the roadblocks were established; Eastern became the only airline to establish jet service toKey West International Airport, counting on travelers from Key West to Miami preferring to fly rather than to wait for police to search their vehicles.

When the City Council's complaints went unanswered by the federal government and attempts to get an injunction against the roadblock failed in court, as a form of protest Mayor Dennis Wardlow and the Council declared Key West's independence on April 23, 1982. In the eyes of the Council, since the federal government had set up the equivalent of a border station as if they were a foreign nation, they might as well become one. As many of the local citizens were referred to as Conchs, the nation took the name of the Conch Republic.

As part of the protest, Mayor Wardlow was proclaimed Prime Minister of the Republic, which immediately declared war against the U.S. (symbolically breaking a loaf of stale Cuban bread over the head of a man dressed in a naval uniform), quickly surrendered after one minute (to the man in the uniform), and applied for one billion dollars in foreign aid.

Conch Republic officials were invited to the Summit of the Americas in Miami in 1994, and Conch representatives were officially invited to 1995's Florida Jubilee. ^[5]

The mock secession and the events surrounding it generated great publicity for the Keys' plight — the roadblock and inspection station were removed soon afterward. It also resulted in the creation of a new avenue of tourism for the Keys.

Via: WikiPedia

We Are All Terrorists Now

“See Something Say Something” Campaign Could Allow People to Label ANY AMERICAN a Suspected “Terrorist” … Just Like in Nazi Germany or Stasi East Germany

By WashingtonsBlog

Posted on February 12, 2012 

List of Actions or Beliefs Which May Get You Labeled a Terrorist Grows Daily

Every American could – literally – be labeled a suspected terrorist under current governmental criteria.

Specifically, the following actions may get a U.S. citizen labeled as a suspected terrorist today:

• Speaking out against government policies

• Protesting anything

• Questioning war (even though war reduces our national security; and see this)

• Criticizing the government’s targeting of innocent civilians with drones (although killing innocent civilians with drones is one of the main things which increases terrorism. And see this)

• Asking questions about pollution (even at a public Congressional hearing?)

• Paying cash at an Internet cafe

• Asking questions about Wall Street shenanigans

• Holding gold

• Creating alternative currencies

• Stocking up on more than 7 days of food (even though all Mormons are taught to stockpile food, and most Hawaiians store up on extra food)
  

• Investigating factory farming

• Infringing a copyright

• Taking pictures

Read more here, H/T WashingtonsBlog

By SAMUEL J. RASCOFF 
Published: February 20, 2012 
Courtesy Of "The New York Times"

TWO years ago, John O. Brennan, President Obama’s top adviser on counterterrorism, spoke to members of a Muslim student group in a packed auditorium at the law school where I teach, offering his audience the White House’s position about what jihad does and does not mean.

Later that year, on a panel with me in that same auditorium, a commentator, Haroon Moghul, drew attention to efforts by American officials to build global networks of “acceptable” Muslim leaders.

There are other examples like these around the country. The Ohio Department of Public Safety has produced and distributed literature that declares, “When extremists attack and kill in the name of jihad, mainstream Muslims consider such acts as a total deviation from the true religion of Islam.”

Homeland Security officials were signed up for a 2010 conference in which one topic was “Seeking a Counter-Reformation in Islam.” In 2004, an inspector general criticized the Bureau of Prisons because it failed to “examine the doctrinal beliefs of applicants for religious service positions to determine whether those beliefs are inconsistent with B.O.P. security policies.”

In each of these cases, counterterrorism has put officials on a collision course with Islamic thought and practice — and, perhaps more dangerously, with the Constitution. The First Amendment prohibits government action “respecting an establishment of religion.”

From a national security point of view, challenging ideas that underpin radical Islam makes sense. Counterterrorism is ultimately about ideas; why shouldn’t officials try to marginalize the theological teachings cited by violent terrorists?

The problem is that when American officials intervene in Islamic teachings — interpreting them to believers in a national-security context and saying which are or are not acceptable — they create tensions, both legal and strategic.

The strategic problem is easier to see: Is the government a credible authority on Islamic interpretation? Based on the results of comparable efforts in Britain, the answer is a resounding no. Simply put, young Muslim men in the thrall of radical teachings will not embrace a more pacific theology because the F.B.I. tells them to, any more than Catholic bishops would have yielded to Mr. Obama’s plan to mandate coverage of contraceptives at Catholic hospitals if he had invoked canon law to defend his position.

Then there’s the legal problem. Constitutionally speaking, a government official who sets out to determine what a contested concept within Islam means, or which imams have the right to speak for a particular community, would be in danger of transgressing one of the cardinal tenets of the Establishment Clause: the secular state shall not become an arbiter of religious content.

The framers of the First Amendment, who were intimately aware of the complex relationships among the British monarchy, the Church of England and dissenting churches within that realm, understood that a government might seek to control or co-opt a church.

If that concern seems hypothetical, it is because for a generation cases on the Establishment Clause that have reached the Supreme Court have focused not on state encroachments on religion but on religious encroachments on the state. (Think of prayer in classrooms, or religious monuments on public land.)

But whether the state might try to dominate religion itself — known in early political theory as Erastianism — was an important concern for Jefferson and Madison. And the Supreme Court reaffirmed this core dimension of the Establishment Clause last month when it unanimously recognized the validity of the so-called ministerial exception to federal anti-discrimination laws. The court held that denying a church the ability to fire a Lutheran minister — even on grounds that would have been deemed illegal in a lay workplace — amounted to allowing the state to control the church. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote, “By forbidding the ‘establishment of religion’ and guaranteeing the ‘free exercise thereof,’ the Religion Clauses ensured that the new Federal Government — unlike the English Crown — would have no role in filling ecclesiastical offices.”

While no one is suggesting that our government today is “filling ecclesiastical offices,” some of its strategies to undercut radical Islamic ideology are a step in that direction. Beyond playing the role of theologian through official pronouncements on contested concepts like jihad, the government inappropriately serves as a missionary when it looks to convert would-be radicals and backs up its efforts with taxpayer-financed outreach.

Those programs go well beyond the government’s clear legal authority to address concrete threats to public safety; they put secular officials in the dubious enterprise of trying to shape the beliefs of American Muslims.

If I am right that the government is increasingly in danger of establishing an “official Islam,” a project that is at best ill-fated if not illegal, are there any good alternatives? Fortunately, yes.

Countering radical religious ideology is on much more solid constitutional — and strategic — footing if the heavy lifting is done not by the government but by grass-roots organizations that are grounded in civil society or in religious communities. The government must not be heavily and directly involved.

The relationship between the national security imperative and a great religious civilization is inevitably fraught. Reconciling the two won’t be achieved by allowing officials to become more active in espousing theological alternatives to radical Islam — or in training law-enforcement and intelligence professionals with hateful caricatures of Islam. The government’s efforts ought to be guided instead by the wisdom of the First Amendment and the values that it enshrines.

Samuel J. Rascoff, director of intelligence analysis at the New York Police Department from 2006 to 2008, is an associate professor of law at New York University.

The Fight Against Injustice

Cornel West, The Provocative US Intellectual Discusses Issues Of Race, Civil Liberties and Barack Obama's Leadership.

By Riz Khan
Last Modified: 28 Mar 2011 09:23
Courtesy Of "Al-Jazeera"

How do we fight social injustice when so many seem to have lost hope? According to provocative intellectual Cornel West the answer is simple - love.

On Monday's Riz Khan we speak to the bestselling author who argues that we are living in "catastophic, catatonic, and catalytic" times but we must face them with compassion.

The Biggest Threat Facing U.S. Is Fast Creeping Ignorance

It's reached epidemic levels in government. Isn't wanton ignorance among those we trust with nuclear policies, war, famine, jobs, the national debt and more, a concern?

By Stephen Pizzo
March 25, 2011
Courtesy Of "Alter Net"

I am old enough to remember the days when what Americans were told to fear most was "Creeping Communism."

There were even hearings. There was a blacklist. There were arrests and even a couple of executions.


In the end all communism turned out to be creeping toward was its own extinction.

We may not be as lucky with the new creep we're facing today: Creeping Ignorance.

As a story from AlterNet put it, "3/4ths of Senate GOP Doesn't Believe in Science: The Tea Party and its allies had made it unacceptable to the GOP base to be anywhere except pandering to the anti-science crowd." (Full Story)

The Right, which hated and feared commies and their (largely imaginary) infiltration into government, not only don't seem to care about creeping ignorance in government, but have come to embrace this new breed of government infiltrators.


The explanation for this embrace is simple as the minds of the infiltrators: science, and for that matter any other factual analysis, tends to flatly contradict many of the Right's most cherished fictions, such as:

• The more you cut taxes the more tax revenue flows into federal coffers.
• History proves America is a Christian nation.
• Climate change is either not happening at all or, if it is happening, it has nothing to do with our use of fossil fuels. ("I personally believe that the solar flares are more responsible for climatic cycles than anything that human beings do. ..." - Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin)
• Slashing regulation of business and high finance is good for business, good for the nation and good for the American public.
• If the rich are allowed to keep more of their earnings they will share it with everyone else, (trickle down.)
• School science classes should be "fair and balanced," like Fox News, when teaching the origins of life on earth by teaching the biblically-inspired "creationist" version alongside Darwin's scientific theory of evolution.
• President Obama "may not have been born in America" as he claims.
• President Obama is "a secret Muslim."

And the list of Creeping Ignorance goes on and on, growing longer with each passing month. Michelle Bachmann believes that the founding fathers "didn't rest until the put an need to slavery." She also believes the first shot "heard around the world" that started our war of independence was fired in New Hampshire. It wasn't. Did she care? Nope. Pointing out that it was fired in Massachusetts was, to her and her kind, just further proof of how the mainstream media picks on conservatives.

So, where are the hearings on Creeping Ignorance in the halls of Congress? I mean, I remember the time, not so long ago, when it was held as a matter of national policy that "a mind is a terrible thing to lose." It seems to me it's reached epidemic levels in federal and state government. Shouldn't someone hold hearings? Isn't wanton ignorance among those we trust with nuclear policies, war, famine, jobs, the national debt and more, a concern?

If there were hearings they could begin by taking a page from the popular Jeopardy quiz show:

Question: "They were the first major documents enshrining human rights since the Magna Carta."

Answer: "What's the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights?"

Question: "The US Civil War was fought over it."

Answer: "What was slavery?"

Question: "A process used by researchers to prove theories."

Answer: "What is the scientific method?"

Suspects should put under oath and asked directly:

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of any group that believes, or claims to believe, such things as that the US government was behind the 911 attacks or that President Obama was born in Kenya?"

And so on. Each suspect would be grilled until it could be established that this member of Congress was or wasn't a certified ignoramus.

Now, I'm plenty glad that Creeping Communism turned out to be a -- excuse the pun -- red herring. But I am not at all convinced that Creeping Ignorance will be as benign a threat to the US.

For the nation that has, for a couple of centuries, been not only a beacon of freedom, but also a beacon of knowledge and science, Creeping Ignorance at the heart of our government threatens to turn us into a nation only Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter, et al., could love: one big festival of stupidity.

Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans, which was nominated for a Pulitzer.

8 Facts About Redrawing The US Political Map

Redistricting 101

Every 10 years, everyone in the United States gets counted – all 308,745,538 of them, according to the 2010 Census. The number of representatives in Congress, however, stays at 435. Dividing the larger number by the smaller gives the average number of people in each congressional district (now 709,760).


But Americans move around a lot – for new jobs or better weather, to be closer to family, or just for the adventure. As a result, the boundaries of those congressional districts have to shift to make sure that each district has as close to the same number of people as possible. And that shifting can have important political, economic, and social consequences. That’s what ‘redistricting’ is all about.

Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer
Courtesy Of "The Christian Science Monitor"

1. How Are Seats In Congress Reassigned?

The process is called "reapportionment." It works this way: Each state is assigned one seat. Then, an apportionment formula allocates the remaining 385 congressional seats, one at a time, among the 50 states (starting with the most populous) until all 435 seats are assigned.

The largest state – California, pop. 37,253,956 – gets 53 US representatives. The smallest – Wyoming, pop. 563,626 – has just a single representative. (But Wyoming shouldn't feel too left out because it gets just as many US senators as every other state.)

2. Who Are Reapportionment's Winners and Losers?

As a result of the 2010 Census, eight states will gain congressional seats: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Washington.

Ten states will lose congres­sional seats: Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massa­chusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

3. Who Draws The District Lines?

State legislatures have primary responsibility for drawing district lines in most states. To reduce the possibility of political pressure or interference, many states name bipartisan commissions to do the redistricting.

In seven states – Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming – the population is so small that there's only one member of the House of Representatives. Therefore, there's no need for redistricting.

4. What Is 'Gerrymandering'?

Gerrymandering is the manipulation of district boundaries to give an advantage to one particular group (political, racial, religious, ethnic, urban, rural, etc.), often in an attempt to keep incumbent elected officials in power.

The name originated in the early 19th century, when Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed a law creating a district that benefited his party. It was shaped like a salamander, hence "Gerrymander."

The civil rights movement and the 1965 Voting Rights Act helped end (or at least reduce) the practice as it had been applied to race. But Republicans and Democrats still squabble over boundaries when it comes time to redistrict.

5. Once Redistricting Occurs, Can It Be Legally Challenged?

Yes. As recently as 2006, the US Supreme Court heard a challenge by the League of United Latin American Citizens of Texas to redistricting done following the 2000 Census.

Citing the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the court ruled by a 5-to-4 majority that one district's boundaries – District 23 – had to be redrawn because it diluted the voting strength of the majority population of Hispanics.

Writing for the court majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy also wrote that states could change congressional district boundaries more than once within each 10-year census period. This means, for example, that if a state legislature changes party control, the new majority can order another redistricting that could be to its advantage.

6. If A State Didn't Gain Or Lose Representatives, Will The Districts Stay The Same?

Unless they're one of the low-population states with a single US representative, they'll still have to adjust district boundaries because of population shifts within the state since the last census (or since the last redistricting, if one occurred more recently).

Even then, states may need to redistrict for state, county, and municipal positions elected by district.

7. How Will The Recent Midterm Elections Affect Redistricting?

Just as the recent elections saw a GOP takeover of the US House of Representatives (and more Republicans in the Senate), the list of "winners" and "losers" in terms of population – and therefore in congressional districts – appears to benefit Republicans.

As an analysis by the Gallup polling organization shows: "Each of the 10 states losing congressional seats as a result of the newly announced 2010 census reapportionment process is politically Democratic, based on a Gallup political identification measure from the first six months of this year. Five of the eight states gaining seats skew Republican."

On the other hand, Latinos are the fastest-growing minority group in the country. More often than not, Latinos vote Democratic (as was most evident in California's election for governor and US senator), and this could affect some states that the GOP has been relying on, until now.

8. How Could Reapportionment Affect The Next Presidential Election?

The number of representatives a state has in the House has a direct bearing on the number of votes a state has in the Electoral College. Following apportionment, states that voted for Barack Obama for president in 2008 lost six seats in Congress and hence six electoral votes, while states that voted for John McCain gained six.

Also, depending on who moves into a state, reapportionment may signal a shift in a state's overall political hue – for example, from relatively blue (Democratic) to relatively red (Republican). Some states could shift into the "swing" category (purple). Others might move out of the swing category to more likely vote with one party or the other.

In very close elections (such as 2000), just one state shifting this way could change the outcome.

What's next?

The US Census Bureau soon will provide states with more detailed demographic data from the 2010 Census so that redistricting may begin.