Diana El-Bynum says both she and her husband were handcuffed and were humiliated in front of their neighbors. She says she can't believe the police could have made a mistake like this. Inspector Horne says this type of mistake doesn't happen often and accounts for a small percentage of the thousands of operations they do a year. In this case, he says surveillance officers didn't give an address of the home they were targeting. [FOX Philadelphia]What kind of excuse is that? If you donât have an address, don't do the raid, silly.
"They gave a physical description, house with a black storm door, in front of the residence was a pick up truck. Unfortunately there was a house 5 doors away that had a black storm door with pick up in front. The officers didn't have time to determine which house was which," said Inspector Horne.Considering how many people die in these raids, maybe they should make time. But at least they made a half-assed apology:
Inspector Horne said "On behalf of the Philadelphia Police Department and the Narcotics Strike Force, I'm totally willing to apologize for the efforts, the mistake. The overall intent was to eradicate drugs from the neighborhood."So because the intent was to eradicate drugs, should we be tolerant of this sort of incompetence? Is that what he's saying? Again, people get killed when police raid the wrong house, so it's actually a really big deal. I just don't know what else to say about this. They didn't even have an address this time.
Tough action by Mexico is driving down the cocaine supply in 26 U.S. cities, a recently declassified Drug Enforcement Administration analysis shows, an encouraging drop in narcotics crossing the border that law enforcement officials hope will continue.It just goes on like this. Cocaine is more expensive! The Drug Czar is optimistic! Mexico is kicking some serious drug trafficker ass! Amazingly, Leinwand entirely fails to explain that cocaine prices are still just a fraction of what they used to be. The real story behind cocaine prices is that they've rather consistently continued spiraling downward despite decades of drug war demolition tactics.
â¦
This new Calderón government is really taking a tough stance, and it's really taking its toll on the trafficking organizations," says Tony Placido, the DEA's intelligence chief.
[drug policy expert Peter] Reuter says this isn't the first time the Mexicans have gotten tough on traffickers. "The Mexican government is clearly cracking down, but the government has cracked down before to no effect," Reuter says. "It's sort of early days for declaring that something important has happened."These revealing perspectives are relegated to bowels of a different article on page 3, while Leinwand's above-the-fold cover story reads like an ONDCP press release. This is unacceptable. With opposing viewpoints safely quarantined in an entirely separate â and less prominent â article, ONDCP can now tout their USA Today coverage without directly exposing anyone to Reuter or Blumstein's skepticism. And that's exactly what they've done.
Eventually, drug traffickers will develop new routes to get around whatever is stopping them, says Alfred Blumstein, a professor who specializes in criminology at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.
"It's a resilient process," Blumstein says. "I would anticipate that over a period of time, like six months to a year," the drug traffickers will "be back in shape."
| ||||
| Â | About a thousand Florida residents attended a Restoration of Rights and Redemption Summit last week to obtain support to have their civil rights restored. The Miami Herald reported that the effort was led by the local American Civil Liberties Union and Legal Aid in response to the Clemency Board's April vote to make it easier for most people convicted of nonviolent felonies to have their civil rights - which include voting - restored. Sen. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami, had $50,000 inserted in the state budget to help finance the summit and pay for a promotion campaign. Of the 38,000 individuals eligible for rights restoration at the time the rule was changed, nearly 14,000 have regained their rights. | |||
| ||||
| Â | The U.S. District Court of Massachusetts has opened the way for a challenge to the state's disenfranchisement policy as a violation of the Voting Rights Act. On August 30, the Court issued a ruling in Simmons v. Galvin, a case challenging that state's disenfranchisement laws. The plaintiffs had argued that the state of Massachusetts incorrectly denied their right to vote in federal and state elections. In its ruling, the Court denied the state's motion for a summary judgment on the plaintiff's claim that Massachusetts' disenfranchisement policy violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs had argued that the racially disproportionate impact of the state's felony disenfranchisement policy violated the Act. The Court ruled that "[i]t may be difficult for plaintiffs to prove that racial bias in the court system exists and has interacted with other cognizable factors to render" the Massachusetts policy unlawful, but they should be given the opportunity to make that case in court. The Court rejected two additional arguments of the plaintiffs. First, the plaintiffs had contended that the change to the Massachusetts law in 2000 that denied the right to vote to persons who are currently incarcerated should not apply to them because they were incarcerated prior to the constitutional amendment that resulted in the policy change. They argued that to deny their right to vote was a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court disagreed, ruling that the Ex Post Facto Clause does not apply to "civil, non- punitive measures" intended "for the regulation of the franchise." The Court held that the "amendment was intended to be primarily civil and regulatory, rather than punitive, in nature." Secondly, the plaintiffs argued that Massachusetts' disenfranchisement policy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In granting the state's motion for summary judgment, the Court pointed to the established ruling in Richardson v. Ramirez upholding the practice of felony disenfranchisement as clear evidence that the law in Massachusetts does not run afoul of the Constitution. - - - - - - Help The Sentencing Project continue to bring you news and updates on disenfranchisement! Make a contribution today. | |||
As you may know, a major philanthropist has committed to match the first $3 million that MPP can raise from the rest of the planet in 2007.
This means that the $1,802,152 in donations that we have received from the 5,523 people who have donated so far this year will be doubled.
But as you can see, we are still a ways off from meeting the $3 million challenge â $1,197,848 off, which means that we need to raise $10,890 every day from today through the end of the year to make our goal.
So if youâre one of the approximately 94,500 people on this e-mail list who hasnât yet given to MPP this year, please make a donation today, because we need your support to finance the following projects that weâre paying for this fall ...
 - Signature drives to place medical marijuana initiatives on the ballot in Arizona and Michigan, as well as assisting the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy with raising funds for a signature drive to place a marijuana "decriminalization" initiative on the ballot in Massachusetts. All three initiatives will be voted on in November 2008.
 - The launch of a new Outreach Department at MPP, which will use creative âviral marketingâ techniques on the Web to attract new activists and donors from across the country to MPPâs ranks.
 - A new full-time staffer in our D.C. headquarters to organize our growing grassroots network in 50 congressional districts, with the goal of securing a record 190 votes for our medical marijuana legislation on the House floor next summer ... which would position us to pass the legislation in 2009, soon after a new president and Congress take office.
 - A new full-time staffer in California to help pass legislation in Sacramento to legalize the sale of medical marijuana statewide â landmark legislation that has never before been passed.
 - A full-time staffer in New Hampshire who is heading up a large team of voters to influence all presidential candidates to take public, positive positions on medical marijuana. So far, weâve garnered positive positions in favor of medical marijuana access from all eight Democratic candidates and two of the nine Republican candidates.
 - A new TV/radio advertising campaign in Alaska to build on the existing level of support for taxing and regulating marijuana like alcohol. Support for such a proposal is already ahead by a 53% to 42% margin (with 5% undecided) â the highest level of support in any state â but we need to increase the publicâs support to beyond 60% in order to safely pass a ballot initiative to end marijuana prohibition entirely. This has yet to be done anywhere in the world, and we hope to do it in the next few years.
Weâre at a critical juncture in our work, and we have a lot of expenses right now. Would you please help by making a donation today? Anything you can give will help us meet the matching challenge ... that is, your donation will be doubled.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.
