Image 01 Image 03

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

/var/www/vhosts/legalinsurrection.com/httpdocs/wp-content/themes/bridge-child/readFeeds.incFALSE

Central to the charge that Israel's conduct warrants an investigation by an "independent" commission to investigate whether it committed war crimes is the premise that Israel, in defending itself against rockets launched by Hamas into its territory, caused a disproportionate number of civilian deaths. Since a commission appointed by the anti-Israel United Nations Human Rights Council is looking to convict, a fair investigation into the violence is in order. Unfortunately, in an article from last week entitled "The U.N. says 7 in 10 Palestinians killed in Gaza were civilians. Israel disagrees," The Washington Post failed to provide the necessary context to allow a proper understanding of Operation Protective Edge.
The war in Gaza will now continue in a battle between databases to determine who was killed and why. The most contested number, the one that attracts the most stubborn insistence and ferocious rebuttal, is not the total fatalities on the Palestinian side, the more than 2,100 dead in the Gaza hostilities. The controversy centers instead on the ratio of civilians to combatants, or as the Israelis call them “terrorist operatives.”
In the second sentence the reporter, William Booth, mentions the "stubborn insistence and ferocious rebuttal," but doesn't acknowledge his own role in supporting the "stubborn insistence." Booth's articles on Operation Protective Edge have often contained similar language describing "mounting Palestinian civilian casualties." Furthermore, in other instances articles on which Booth was bylined listed casualty totals with no judgment as to their veracity. For example on July 19 a dispatch on which he had a byline reported:
The Palestinian death toll from the conflict rose Saturday to more than 330, including about 60 children, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. An additional 2,200 have been injured. The United Nations estimates that about 80 percent of the casualties are civilians, many of them children.

LATEST NEWS

A report from NBC news indicates that police officers in Ferguson, Missouri are being equipped with on-body cameras in the aftermath of the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson. The picture above captures an example of footage from this type of camera at the moment an equipped officer (not from Ferguson) was assaulted by a suspect, thus supporting the officer's responsive use of force against the suspect. (Video below the fold.) I first came across one of these devices when cough, cough a "friend" of mine was pulled over for speeding in New Hampshire maybe three years ago. (Yes, my "friend" was on his motorcycle at the time.) The officer approached and immediately pointed out that he was wearing the camera, and asked if it was OK for our interaction to be recorded. Naturally, I said yes. I was frankly surprised he asked---or at least went through the motions of asking---for my permission. This was NOT a major city in New Hampshire, which are tough to come by in the "Live Free or Die" state under the best of circumstances, so even small New England towns have been making use of these cameras for some years now. Today they are apparently used by over 1,000 departments, and at a cost of about $300, it seems a worthwhile investment for most ANY department. Officers are equipped with body armor to protect them against physical attacks; they ought to be similarly equipped with on-body cameras to protect against false claims of legal liability. Below follows the NBC video report.

A few days ago, President Obama made what is probably one of his silliest remarks yet when he insinuated we're only now realizing the world is a "messy" place because of the advent of social media. Really? No one noticed the underbelly of humanity before Twitter? We beg to differ.

That time that jerk Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton.

Screen Shot 2014-09-01 at 11.58.26 AM  

Archduke Ferdinand gets capped and a little thing called "World War I" happens

Screen Shot 2014-09-01 at 11.53.26 AM

It seems like even the most staunch democrats are waking up to the realities of Obama's America---especially the political realities. Republicans need to capture 5 of the 6 most competitive Senate seats in the 2014 midterms to regain control of the chamber and end Majority Leader Harry Reid's reign of terror against Republican legislation. This means unseating at least three incumbent Democrats in states that Mitt Romney swept in 2012, and national democrats are nervous at the prospect. Why? Because Barack Obama is a toxic commodity. Via Politico:
Six years ago, Obama’s massive campaign organization helped to sweep several Senate Democrats, now the most endangered, into office with his appeal to unite political factions. Now, he’s an attack line. Across the country, from Alaska and Colorado, to Louisiana and North Carolina, Republicans are citing how often the Democratic incumbent sided with the White House on votes in Congress. It’s a tactic Democrats used to great effect in 2006 when they wrestled back control of the Senate by linking every incumbent to President George W. Bush, who was even more unpopular than Obama. “He’s going to be an anchor on each one of these Democrats all the way through,” said Guy Harrison, a media consultant for the Republican Senate nominees in Arkansas, Colorado and North Carolina. “They’re trying to grasp every life preserver they can, but the anchor of Obama is still going to pull them down.”

During an appearance on FOX News Sunday, Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan was asked how many Americans have joined ISIS. His answer was nothing short of stunning. Ian Tuttle of National Review has the details:
House Intel Chair: ‘Hundreds’ of Americans Have Fought with ISIS; Some Have Returned to U.S How many Americans are fighting with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria? “It’s in the hundreds,” says Representative Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. There are “hundreds” of Americans “that have at least one time traveled, participated, and trained with them. Some of them have drifted back [to the U.S.], some of them have gone to Europe,” Rogers says.
Here's the video:

The American Medical Association wants to jumpstart a health care discussion that died a political death almost five years ago: to "death panel," or not to "death panel?" Of course, we're not talking about actual panels making life-or-death decisions on behalf of patients, but mandated coverage for "end of life discussions" between patients and doctors. Back in 2009, Sarah Palin coined the divisive term, and woke America up to the possibility that yes, handing over our health care decisions to the government a little bit at a time could backfire in spectacular and inhumane ways. The New York Times reports that the AMA is putting pressure on the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to begin covering these end of life discussions. If the Center adopts the AMA's recommendations, Medicare patients could start receiving coverage for these conversations as early as next year. From the Times:
“We think it’s really important to incentivize this kind of care,” said Dr. Barbara Levy, chairwoman of the A.M.A. committee that submits reimbursement recommendations to Medicare. “The idea is to make sure patients and their families understand the consequences, the pros and cons and options so they can make the best decision for them.” Now, some doctors conduct such conversations for free or shoehorn them into other medical visits. Dr. Joseph Hinterberger, a family physician here in Dundee, wants to avoid situations in which he has had to decide for incapacitated patients who had no family or stated preferences.
Although the Affordable Care Act contains no coverage requirements for end of life conversations, many private insurance companies have made the choice on their own to cover these appointments.

On Sunday, a federal judge temporarily blocked a new Louisiana law that would require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their practice. U.S. District Judge John deGravelles' ruling potentially saved all 5 of Louisiana's abortion clinics from being forced to close their doors today. Via Reuters:
"Plaintiffs will be allowed to operate lawfully while continuing their efforts to obtain privileges," Federal Judge John deGravelles wrote in the decision. A hearing will be scheduled within a month for the judge to make a more permanent ruling on the law. Abortion rights activists applauded the decision, the latest in a string of rulings against similar measures, saying it would give doctors more time to seek hospital privileges.
Last week, abortion providers from three Louisiana clinics sued the state over the new admitting privileges requirement, stating that it would cause all of Louisiana's clinics to close, forcing women to leave the state to seek an abortion. Similar laws have come under fire in Texas and Mississippi, and all are almost certain to head to the Fifth Circuit once the inevitable appeals are filed. DeGravelles' ruling is different than others we've seen in that it specifically addresses the problem of the time gap that exists between the time abortion providers apply for privileges at nearby hospitals, and the the that those hospitals either approve or reject the application. CBS News explains:

but sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity...

Israel has reportedly fired upon and shot down a Syrian drone that invaded Israeli-controlled airspace this Sunday. Although the Israeli military does not believe that the drone was launched as part of an attack on Israel, the tensions in the Golan Heights borderlands have officials on alert. From the Wall Street Journal:
"Our sense is that it wasn't the intention to attack Israel,'' said Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, a military spokesman. Nevertheless, Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon said Israel has little tolerance for violation of its "sovereign" airspace and that its response would be "aggressive." The intercept came just hours after U.N. peacekeeping forces from the Philippines made dangerous escapes from two border outposts in Syria, where they were trapped for two days by rebel forces including the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front. Despite the rescue, some 44 Fijian peacekeepers remain in captivity three days after their position near the Quneitra crossing was overrun by rebel forces who have wrested control of the area from the Syrian army. The Nusra Front released a statement over the weekend saying they were holding the Fijians, and that they were being treated well. The group criticized the U.N. role in the Syrian civil war.

One of the most common laments to come out of Ferguson these last days has been that surely it was outrageous for Office Darren Wilson to use his service pistol to shoot an "unarmed" Mike Brown.  (Earlier iterations of this narrative went further in their misinformation, describing the 18-year-old 6'4" 292 pound Brown as a "kid" or "child," as well as falsely claiming that Wilson shot Brown in the back, but such misinformation falls outside the scope of this post.)  Similar arguments were made in the context of the shooting by George Zimmerman of the "unarmed" Trayvon Martin. The notion that a defender may use a firearm in self-defense only if they themselves are faced with a firearm is entertainingly naive, but has no basis in actual law, nor in common sense. In the eyes of the law a gun is not some magical talisman of power, it is merely one of perhaps an infinite number of means of exerting force.  Legally speaking the law tends to divide force into two broad buckets:  non-deadly force and deadly force.  There is some stratification in the context of non-deadly force--a poke to the chest is not the same degree of non-deadly force as a punch to the face--but really none whatever in the context of deadly force.  Deadly force is simply deadly force. For purposes of conciseness, I limit this discussion to cases in which deadly force is involved, as was the case in both Ferguson and Zimmerman.

Deadly Force: Force Likely to Cause Death or Grave Bodily Harm

It's fun to think about how the media would drive itself crazy trying to choose sides between Joe and Hillary. On one hand, Hillary is a woman and the media's expected inheritor of the presidency. On the other hand, Biden is part of the Obama administration. Justin Sink of The Hill recently reported:
Biden fuels '16 talk with New Hampshire visit Vice President Biden will head to New Hampshire next week for an event on the economy that is certain to intensify speculation that he is readying a bid for the presidential nomination in 2016. Biden will be joined at the Wednesday event in Portsmouth by members of Congress, the White House said in a statement. The attendees at the event could include Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who is locked in a tough reelection fight against former Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.). Shaheen did not meet with Biden during his last trip to the state, a fact that was highlighted by the state's GOP.

At least they know how to have fun? According to the Washington Times:

Islamists who gained control of a U.S. Embassy residential compound in Libya last week posted a video online of the men throwing a spring break-like pool party at the property.

A commander for the umbrella Islamist militia group, the Dawn of Libya, told The Associated Press that his fighters had been in control of the compound since last week. The group granted access to the compound to an AP reporter, who said some windows had been broken, but most of the equipment there appeared to remain untouched. The journalist saw treadmills, food, televisions and computers still inside.

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Deborah Jones tweeted that the video appeared to have been shot in at the embassy’s residential annex, AP reported.

The video (which nauseatingly spins from side to side) shows a group men diving off a balcony into the pool below:

Since late 2013, California has been experiencing one of the largest, most intense droughts in the state's history. As of August 26, the U.S. Drought Monitor rates the drought in most of California 'D4 - Exceptional Drought', the highest rating on its scale. It spread from south-central California, and has since hit even some of California's usually water rich areas, including Sacramento County. Water management and the drought have been major talking points across the state for the past year, so logically they have also become huge issues for the coming congressional elections. This is especially true in California's highly contested 7th District elections, where former Republican Representative Doug Ose challenges Democratic Incumbent Ami Bera. In the last few months, Ose has begun to focus even more heavily on the district's water issues, though the drought has been a key part of his campaign since its beginnings: he released a fairly comprehensive water plan in mid-February 2014. Ose's plan focuses primarily on improvements to California's water infrastructure, increasing water retention, creating new storage locations, and accessing new water resources. 'Immediate Action Items' listed by the plan include:

A 39 year old man was arrested for beating up notorious anti-Israel MP George Galloway yesterday. The Guardian reports:
The Bradford West MP was released from hospital on Saturday morning having suffered a suspected broken jaw and rib as well as facial bruising. Neil Masterson, 39, has been accused of shouting about the Holocaust and attacking him. The attack, it is claimed, was related to comments Galloway recently made about the conflict in Gaza. The MP was posing for pictures in Notting Hill in west London when the attack took place. He was treated overnight at St Mary's hospital. Police said he was charged with the assault an Galloway and another man. A spokesman said Masterson was due to appear at Hammersmith magistrates court on Monday.
The suspect is not Jewish. A few weeks ago Galloway declared Bradford to be an "Israel-free zone."
Earlier this month the left-wing Respect MP said that goods, academics, and tourists from the “illegal, barbarous, savage state that calls itself Israel” were not welcome in Bradford because of the country’s actions in Gaza. ”We don’t want any Israeli goods, we don’t want any Israeli services, we don’t want any Israeli academics coming to the university or the college,” he added. Galloway’s comments have already attracted attention from the police, and on Monday, in response to the MP’s statement, Israeli ambassador Daniel Taub made a special trip to the Yorkshire town.

Here's another item for the growing list of things we weren't told about Obamacare before it was passed. It seems the Affordable Care Act presents a direct threat to employer provided health insurance plans and could force up to 150 million people out of their current plans. Jim Angle of FOX News did a recent in-depth report on the subject:
Will ObamaCare mean the end of employer-provided insurance? President Obama's famous promise that “you can keep your plan and your doctor, no matter what” was not the only misleading argument he made for his health care plan. There is yet another controversy, with even bigger consequences, brewing for Americans who already have health care. Analysts predict that as ObamaCare takes hold, it will mean the end of employer-provided insurance, with former Obama adviser Zeke Emanuel predicting that80 percent of such plans will disappear within ten years.

The riots in Ferguson may have subsided, but the legal battle brewing between protesters and city officials may rekindle racial tensions and bring the St. Louis area back into the spotlight. From the ABA Journal:
Five protesters are suing the city of Ferguson and St. Louis County, Missouri, as well as their police chiefs, based on allegations that they were subject to excessive force and false arrest, among other things. ... Two plaintiffs, a woman and her son, 17, claim that they were wrongfully arrested for failure to disperse at a Ferguson McDonald’s restaurant, which they visited after attending an AME Church “Peace and Love rally.” Another plaintiff arrested for failure to disperse stated that after riding the bus to visit his mother, police shot him with rubber bullets as he attempted to avoid a blocked street. ... Justin Cosma, a Ferguson police officer, is also named as defendant in the case.
Specifically, the Ferguson protesters are suing for false arrest, negligent supervision (of the police departments by the City of Ferguson and St. Louis,) intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, and two separate civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: deprivation of civil rights, and failure of the police department to train, supervise, and discipline its officers. The suit seeks over $40 million in damages, and plaintiffs' attorneys say that new defendants may be added at any time. This won't be the first time that police officers in Ferguson have come under fire after alleged civil rights violations. Several officers associated with the department have a history of trouble with allegations of excessive force.