The victims of a drone strike alleged to be launched last year by the United States spoke to members of Congress on Tuesday and urged the US government to stop killing civilians with weaponized unmanned aerial vehicles.
Rafiq ur Rehman, a primary school teacher from North Waziristan, Pakistan, spoke through an interpreter on Capitol Hill on Tuesday along with his two children, ages nine and 13.
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Florida) invited Rehman to speak in Washington about the strike last October that killed Momina Bibi, his 67-year-old mother who was recognized around the region as a midwife, not a militant. Regardless, a weaponized drone purported to be under the control of the US Central Intelligence Agency executed Bibi in front of her grandchildren on Oct. 24, 2012. The US has not formally acknowledged the attack, nor taken responsibility.
"Nobody has ever told me why my mother was targeted that day,” Rehman said during the Tuesday morning panel. "All media reported three, four, five militants were killed. But only one person was killed that day. A mom, grandma, a midwife.”
“The string that holds the pearls together. That is what my mother was,” Rahman said. “Since her death, the string has been broken and life has not been the same. We feel alone and we feel lost.”
This summer, in the middle of the night, the small Canadian town of Lac-Megantic was suddenly thrust into a nightmare. A train carrying crude oil derailed, and then exploded, destroying half the downtown and claiming 47 lives.
With big oil companies planning to massively increase crude oil and tar sands trains, this is a serious and growing threat to the safety of communities across the U.S. Astonishingly, federal regulators have known since 1991 that the most common railway tanker car – known as the DOT-111 – is prone to rupture and explode during derailments. Yet regulators have largely sat on their hands.
In the wake of the Lac-Megantic tragedy, the Department of Transportation is now accepting public comments on rail car safety. Our current system is anything but safe – and it's time for the DOT to take the dangerous DOT-111 train cars off the rails. Submit a comment to the Department of Transportation: Protect our communities from dangerous oil trains.
Lac-Megantic wasn’t the first oil tanker train explosion, or even the most recent. In fact, earlier this month 13 tanker cars carrying liquefied petroleum and crude oil derailed and exploded in Alberta, Canada. In 2009, 13 tanker cars ruptured and caught fire after a derailment in Cherry Valley, Illinois, killing one person and injuring nine, including two firefighters.
The DOT-111 has been called “the Ford Pinto” of the railways, because, like the car that was pulled from the roads in the early 70’s, DOT-111’s have a “high incidence of tank failures during accidents.”
With oil companies looking to expand on the already-booming oil production in the Alberta tar sands and the Bakken formation in North Dakota, they are relying on these unsafe rail cars to bring their oil to refineries and coastal shipping ports. But we can’t let them continue to endanger communities with rail tanker cars that are known to have serious safety problems.
Removing these dangerous tankers from our railroads – and ensuring that the replacements are built to higher standards - is only one way that the Department of Transportation can take action to improve rail safety. The agency should also enforce speed limits on trains, reschedule trains from running through communities at peak times, and alert communities when these trains will be moving through. Tell the Department of Transportation: Protect our communities from the dangerous DOT-111 tanker train car. Submit a comment now.
Thanks for taking a stand against dangerous oil trains.
Elijah Zarlin, Campaign Manager
A security guard shot and killed an Israeli man on Friday at a public restroom at Jerusalem’s Western Wall, one of Judaism’s holiest sites. He opened fire after hearing the man shout "Allahu Akbar," which means "God is greatest" in Arabic.
The guard said he fired his handgun because he thought the man was a Palestinian militant, Reuters quoted police spokesperson Micky Rosenfeld as saying: "The fact he shouted Allahu Akbar, that seems to be why the security guard drew his weapon and fired a number of shots at him."
The victim, who was Jewish and in his mid-40s, was treated for his injuries by paramedics but died from his wounds, the Jerusalem Post reported.
The victim of the shooting was a frequent visitor to the holy site, according to Israeli media. Those who knew him said he was a ‘strange person,’ slightly disconnected from reality, who came to the Western Wall to rant about government policies. Lately, he claimed that he had converted to Islam, witnesses said.
(The Atlantic) -The Department of Homeland Security is using algorithms to “prescreen” travelers before they board domestic flights, reviewing government and private databases that include Americans’ tax identification numbers, car registrations and property records.
Documents leaked by whistleblower Edward J. Snowden emerged this week, revealing NSA phone monitoring of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, 35 unidentified heads of state, and 70 million calls in France.
The extent of the surveillance is sparking widespread indignation and endangering joint counter-terrorism operations among Germany, France and the United States.
The world's leading Scientists, Physicians, Attorneys, Politicians and Environmental Activists expose the corruption and dangers surrounding the widespread use of Genetically Modified Organisms in the new feature length documentary, "Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs".
Senior Executive Producer / Writer / Director: Gary Null PhD
Executive Producer/Writer/Co-Director: Richard Polonetsky
Producers: Paola Bossola, Richard Gale, James Spruill, Patrick Thompson, Valerie Van Cleve
Editors: James Spruill, Patrick Thompson, Richie Williamson, Nick Palm
Music: Kevin MacLeod (Incompetech.com), Armando Guarnera
Graphics: Jay Graygor
Standing Bear (1834(?) - 1908) (Páⁿka iyé official orthography: Maⁿchú-Naⁿzhíⁿ/Macunajin;[1] other spellings: Ma-chú-nu-zhe, Ma-chú-na-zhe or Mantcunanjin pronounced [mãtʃuꜜnãʒĩꜜ]) was a PoncaNative American chief who successfully argued in U.S. District Court in 1879 in Omaha that Native Americans are "persons within the meaning of the law" and have the right of habeas corpus. His wife Susette Primeau was also a signatory on the 1879 writ that initiated the famous court case.
In 1875, the Ponca paramount chief White Eagle, Standing Bear, and other Ponca leaders met with US Indian Agent A. J. Carrier and signed a document allowing removal to Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma). White Eagle and other Ponca leaders later claimed that because of a mistranslation, he had understood that they were to move to the Omaha Reservation, not to the Indian Territory.
In February 1877, eight Ponca chiefs, including Standing Bear, accompanied Inspector Edward C. Kemble to the Osage Reservation to select a site. Due to lack of preparation by the agent, they did not identify a site. Angry about what he called the Ponca chiefs' "insubordination", Kemble left them to walk back north. He proceeded to prepare to remove the tribe. In April, Kemble headed south to the Quapaw Reservation near present-day Peoria, Oklahoma, with those Ponca willing to leave. In May the US Army forced the removal of the rest of the tribe, including Standing Bear and his family.[4]
The Ponca arrived in Oklahoma too late to plant crops that year, and the government failed to provide them with the farming equipment it had promised as part of the deal. In 1878 they moved 150 miles west to the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River, south of present-day Ponca City, Oklahoma. By spring, nearly a third of the tribe had died due to starvation, malaria and related causes. Standing Bear's eldest son, Bear Shield, was among the dead. Standing Bear had promised to bury him in the Niobrara River valley homeland, so he left to travel north, with 65 followers.[5]
When they reached at the Omaha Reservation in Nebraska, they were welcomed as relatives. Word of their arrival in Nebraska soon reached the government. Under orders from the Secretary of the Interior, Carl Schurz, who also directed the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Brigadier General George Crook had the Ponca arrested for having left the reservation in Indian Territory.[6] The Army took Standing Bear and the others to Fort Omaha, where they were detained. Although the official orders were to return them immediately to Indian Territory, Crook was sympathetic to the Ponca and appalled to learn of the conditions they had left. He delayed their return so the Ponca could rest, regain their health, and seek legal redress.[7]
As the trial drew to a close, Judge Dundy announced that Chief Standing Bear would be allowed to make a speech in his own behalf. Raising his right hand, Standing Bear proceeded to speak. Among his words were, "That hand is not the color of yours, but if I prick it, the blood will flow, and I shall feel pain," said Standing Bear. "The blood is of the same color as yours. God made me, and I am a man."[8]
On May 12, 1879, Judge Elmer S. Dundy ruled that "an Indian is a person" within the meaning of habeas corpus. He stated that the federal government had failed to show a basis under law for the Poncas' arrest and captivity.[9]
It was a landmark case, recognizing that an Indian is a “person” under the law and entitled to its rights and protection. “The right of expatriation is a natural, inherent and inalienable right and extends to the Indian as well as to the more fortunate white race,” The judge concluded.
Years later, blind and in failing health, Poppleton would reflect on his final court plea for Standing Bear: “I cannot recall any two hours' work of my life with which I feel better satisfied.”[10]
Standing Bear and his followers were immediately freed. The case gained the attention of the Hayes administration, which provided authority for Standing Bear and some of the tribe to return to the Niobrara valley in Nebraska.
At first the United States district attorney considered appealing the decision, but after studying Judge Dundy's written opinion (a brilliant essay on human rights), he made no appeal to the Supreme Court. The United States government assigned Standing Bear and his band a few hundred acres of unclaimed land near the mouth of the Niobrara, and they were back home again.
As soon as the surviving 530 Poncas in Indian Territory learned of this astonishing turn of events, most of them began preparations to join their relatives in Nebraska. The Indian Bureau, however, was not sympathetic. Through its agents the bureau informed the Ponca chiefs that only the Great Council in Washington could decide if and when the tribe might return. The bureaucrats and politicians (the Indian Ring) recognized Judge Dundy's decision as a strong threat to the reservation system; it would endanger the small army of entrepreneurs who were making fortunes funneling bad food, shoddy blankets, and poisonous whiskey to the thousands of Indians trapped on reservations. If the Poncas were permitted to leave their new reservation in Indian Territory and walk away as free American citizens, this would set a precedent which might well destroy the entire military-political-reservation complex.
In his annual report, Big Eyes Schurz admitted that the Poncas in Indian Territory "had a serious grievance," but he strongly opposed permitting them to return to their homeland because it would make other Indians "restless with a desire to follow their example" and thereby cause a breakup of the territorial reservation system.16
At the same time, William H. Whiteman, who headed the lucrative Ponca agency, tried to discredit Standing Bear's band by describing them as "certain renegade members of the tribe," and then he wrote in glowing terms of his considerable expenditures for materials and tools to develop the reservation in Indian Territory. Whiteman made no mention of the discontent prevalent among the Poncas, their constant petitions to return to their homeland, or of his feud with Big Snake.
Big Snake was Standing Bear's brother, a giant with hands like hams and shoulders as big as a buffalo's. Like many huge men, Big Snake was quiet and gentle of manner (the Poncas called him the Peacemaker), but when he saw that White Eagle and the other head men were being intimidated by agent Whiteman, he decided to take action on his own. After all, he was the brother of Standing Bear, the Ponca who had won freedom for his people.
Determined to test the new law, Big Snake requested permission to leave the reservation and go north to join his brother. As he expected, permission to leave was refused by agent Whiteman. Big Snake's next move was not to leave Indian Territory, but to travel only a hundred miles to the Cheyenne reservation. With him went thirty other Poncas, making what they believed to be a gentle testing of the law which said that an Indian was a person and could not be confined to any particular reservation against his will.
Whiteman's reaction was that of any entrenched bureaucrat whose authority is threatened. On May 21, 1879, he telegraphed the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, reporting the defection of Big Snake and his party to the Cheyenne reservation, and requesting that they be arrested and detained at Fort Reno "until the tribe has recovered from the demoralizing effects of the decision recently made by the United States district court in Nebraska, in the case of Standing Bear."17
Big Eyes Schurz agreed to the arrest, but evidently fearing another challenge in the courts, he asked the Great Warrior Sherman to transport Big Snake and his "renegades" back to the Ponca reservation as quickly and quietly as possible.
In his usual blunt manner, Sherman telegraphed General Sheridan on May 22: "The honorable Secretary of the Interior requests that the Poncas arrested and held at Fort Reno, in the Indian Territory... be sent to the agency of the Poncas. You may order this to be done." And then, as if anticipating Sheridan's apprehensions about flying in the face of Judge Dundy's recent decision, Sherman decreed: "The release under writ of habeas corpus of the Poncas in Nebraska does not apply to any other than that specific case."18 For the Great Warrior Sherman it was easier to unmake laws than it was for the courts of the land to interpret them.
And so Big Snake lost his first test of his brother's victory at law, and he never had a chance to try again. After being brought back to the Ponca agency in the Corn Is in Silk Moon, Big Snake was marked for destruction. Agent Whiteman reported to Washington that Big Snake had "a very demoralizing effect upon the other Indians ... extremely sullen and morose." In one paragraph Whiteman charged that Big Snake had repeatedly threatened to kill him, and in another complained that the Ponca had never spoken to him since his return. The agent became so furious that he begged the Commissioner of Indian Affairs "to arrest Big Snake and convey him to Fort Reno and there confine him for the remainder of his natural life."19
Finally, on October 25, Whiteman obtained authorization from Sherman to arrest Big Snake and imprison him in the agency guardhouse. To make the arrest, Whiteman requested a detail of soldiers. Five days later, Lieutenant Stanton A. Mason and thirteen soldiers arrived at the agency. Whiteman told Mason that he would send out a notice to the Poncas, ordering those who had money coming to them for special work to report to his office the next day. Big Snake would be among them, and as soon as he entered the office, Mason was to make the arrest.
On October 31 Big Snake entered Whiteman's office about noon and was told to take a chair. Lieutenant Mason and eight armed men then surrounded him, Mason informing him that he was under arrest. Big Snake wanted to know why he was being arrested. Whiteman spoke up then and said one charge against him was threatening his (Whiteman's) life. Big Snake calmly denied this. According to the post trader, J. S. Sherburne, Big Snake then stood up and threw off his blanket to show he was not armed.
Hairy Bear's statement: "The officer told Big Snake to come along, to get up and come. Big Snake would not get up, and told the officer he wanted him to tell him what he had done. He said he had killed no one, stolen no horses, and that he had done nothing wrong. After Big Snake said that, the officer spoke to the agent, and then told Big Snake he had tried to kill two men, and had been pretty mean. Big Snake denied it. The agent then told him he had better go, and would then learn all about it down there. Big Snake said he had done nothing wrong, and that he would die before he would go. I then went up to Big Snake and told him this man [the officer] was not going to arrest him for nothing, and that he had better go along, and that perhaps he would come back all right; I coaxed all I could to get him to go; told him that he had a wife and children, and to remember them and not get killed. Big Snake then got up and told me that he did not want to go, and that if they wanted to kill him they could do it, right there. Big Snake was very cool. Then the officer told him to get up, and told him that if he did not go, there might something happen. He said there was no use in talking; I came to arrest you, and want you to go. The officer went for the handcuffs, which a soldier had, and brought them in. The officer and a soldier then tried to put them on, but Big Snake pushed them both away. Then the officer spoke to the soldiers, and four of them tried to put them on, but Big Snake pushed them all off. One soldier, who had stripes on his arms, also tried to put them on, but Big Snake pushed them all off. They tried several times, all of them, to get hold of Big Snake and hold him. Big Snake was sitting down, when six soldiers got hold of him. He raised up and threw them off. Just then one of the soldiers, who was in front of him, struck Big Snake in the face with his gun, another soldier struck him alongside the head with the barrel of his gun. It knocked him back to the wall. He straightened up again. The blood was running down his face. I saw the gun pointed at him, and was scared, and did not want to see him killed. So I turned away. Then the gun was fired and Big Snake fell down dead on the floor."20
The Interior Department first issued a statement that Standing Bear's brother "Big Snake, a bad man" had been "shot accidentally."21 The American press, however, growing more sensitive to treatment of Indians since the Standing Bear case, demanded an investigation in Congress. This time the military-political-reservation complex was operating in the familiar climate of Washington, and nothing came of the investigation.
The Poncas of Indian Territory had learned a bitter lesson. The white man's law was an illusion; it did not apply to them. And so like the Cheyennes, the diminishing Ponca tribe was split in two—Standing Bear's band free in the north, the others prisoners in the Indian Territory. (Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, pp. 360-66)
Big Snake said he had done nothing wrong: that he carried no knife; and threw off his blanket and turned around to show he had no weapon. The officer again told him to come along. Big Snake said he had done nothing wrong and that he would die before he would go. I then went up to Big Snake and told him this man (the officer) was not going to arrest him for nothing, and that he had better go along, and that perhaps he would come back all right; I coaxed all I could to get him to go; told him that he had a wife and children and to remember them and not get killed. Big Snake t hen got up and told me that he did not want to go, and that if they wanted to kill him they could do it, right there. Big Snake was very cool. Then the officer told him to get up and told him that if he did not go, there might something happen. He said there is no use in talking; I came to arrest you and want you to go. The officer went for the handcuffs, which a soldier had, and brought them in. The officer and a soldier then tried to put them on him, but Big Snake pushed them both away. Then the officer spoke to the soldiers, and four of them tried to put them on, but Big Snake pushed them all off. One soldier, who had stripes on his arms, also tried to put them on, but Big Snake pushed them off. They tried several times, all of them, to get hold of Big Snake and hold him. But Big Snake was sitting down, when six soldiers got hold of him. He raised up and threw them off. Just then one of the soldiers, who was in in front of him, struck Big Snake in the face with his gun, another soldier struck him along side the head with the barrel of his gun. It knocked him back to the wall. He straightened up again. The blood was running down his face. I saw the gun pointed at him, and was scared and did not want to see him killed. So, I turned away. Then the gun was fired and Big Snake fell down dead on the floor.
From Senate Executive Document No. 14, 46th Congress, 3d Session (January 5, 1881), p. 13.
United States, ex rel.
Standing Bear, v. George Crook, a
Brigadier-General of the Army of the United States.
An Indian is a /person/ within the meaning of the /habeas corpus/ act, and as such is entitled to sue out a writ of /habeas corpus/ in the federal courts when it is shown that the petitioner is deprived of liberty under color of authority of the United States, or is in custody of an officer in violation of the constitution or a law of the United States, or in violation of a treaty made in pursuance thereof.
The right of expatriation is a natural, inherent, and inalienable right and extends to the Indian as well as to the white race.
The commissioner of Indian affairs has ample authority for removing from an Indian reservation all persons found thereon without authority of law, or whose presence may be detrimental to the peace and welfare of the Indians.
The military power of the government may be employed to effect such removal; but where the removal is effected, it is the duty of the troops to convey the persons so removed, by the most convenient route, to the civil authorities of the judicial district in which the offense may be committed to be proceeded against in due course of law. In time of peace, no authority civil or military exists for transporting Indians from one section of the country to, another, without the consent of the Indians, nor to confine then to any particular reservation against their will; and where officers of the government attempt to do this and arrest and hold Indians who are at peace with the government for the purpose of removing teens to and confining them on a reservation in the Indian Territory they will be released on /habeas corpus/.
(Before DUNDY, J.)
/habeas corpus/.-/Right of Indian to Writ/.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
/A. J. Poppleton/ and /John L. Webster/, for the relators.
/G. M. Lambertson/, United States attorney, for the government.
DANDY, J.-During the fifteen years in which I have been engaged in administering the laws of my country, I have never been called upon to hear or decide a case that appealed so strongly to my sympathy as the one now under consideration On the one side, we have a few of the remnants of a once numerous and powerful, but now weak, insignificant, unlettered and generally despised race; on the other, we have the representative of one of the most powerful, most enlightened, and most Christianized nations of modern times. On the one side, we have the representatives of this wasted race coming into this national tribunal of ours, asking for justice and liberty to enable them to adopt our boasted civilization, and to pursue the arts of peace, which have made us great and happy as a nation; on the other side, we have this magnificent, if not magnanimous, government, resisting this application with the determination, of sending these people back to the country
which is to then less desirable than perpetual imprisonment in their own native land. But I think it is creditable to the heart and mind of the brave and distinguished officer who is made respondent herein to say that he has no sort of sympathy in the business in which he is forced by his position to bear a part so conspicuous; and, so far as I am individually concerned, I think it not improper to say that, if the strongest possible sympathy could give the relators title to freedom, they would have been restored to liberty the moment the arguments in
their behalf were closed. No examination or further thought would then have been necessary or Reliant. But in a country where liberty is regulated by law, something more satisfactory and enduring than mere sympathy must furnish and constitute the rule and basis of judicial action. It follows that this case must be examined and decided on principle of law, and that unless the relators are entitled to their discharge under the constitution or laws of the United States, or some treaty made pursuant thereto, they must be remanded to the custody of
the officer who caused their arrest, to be returned the Indian Territory, which they left without the consent of the government.
On the 8th of April, 1879, the relators, Standing Bear and twenty-five others, during the session of the court held at that time at Lincoln, presented their petition, duly verified, praying for the allowance of a writ of /habeas corpus/ and their final discharge from custody thereunder.
The petition alleges, in substance, that the relators are Indians who have formerly belonged to the Ponca tribe of Indians, now located in the Indian Territory; that they had some time previously withdrawn from the tribe, and completely severed their Tribal relations therewith, and had adopted the general habits of the whites, and were then endeavoring to maintain themselves by their own exertions, and without aid or assistance from the general government; that whilst they were thus engaged and without being guilty of violating any of the laws of the United States, they were arrested and restrained of their liberty by order of the respondent, George Crook.
The writ was issued and served on the respondent on the 8th day of April, and, the distance between the place where the writ was made returnable and the place where the relators were confined being more
than twenty miles, ten days were allotted in which to make return.
On the 18th of April the writ was returned, and the authority for the arrest and detention is therein shown. The substance of the return to the writ, and the additional statement since filed, is that the relators are individual members of, and connected with, the Ponca tribe of Indians; that they had fled or escaped from a reservation situated some place within the limits of the Indian Territory-had departed therefrom without permission from the government; and, at the request of the secretary of the interior, the general of the army had issued an order
which required the respondent to arrest and return the relators to their tribe in the Indian Territory, and that, pursuant to the said order, he had caused the relators to be arrested on the Omaha Indian reservation, and that they were in his custody for the purpose of being returned to the Indian Territory.
It is claimed upon the one side, and denied upon the other, that the relators had withdrawn and severed, for all time, their connection with the tribe to which they belonged; and upon this point alone was there any testimony produced by either party hereto. The other matters stated in the petition and the return to the writ are conceded to be true; so that the questions to be determined are purely questions of law.
On the 8th of March, 1859, a treaty was made by the United States with the Ponca tribe of Indians, by which a certain tract of country, north of the Niobrara river and west of the Missouri, was set apart for the permanent home of the said Indians, in which the government agreed to protect them during their good behavior. But just when, or how, or why, or under what circumstances, the Indians left their reservation in
Dakota and went to the Indian Territory, does not appear.
The district attorney very earnestly questions the jurisdiction of the court to issue the write, and to hear and determine the case made herein, and has supported his theory with an argument of great ingenuity and much ability. But, nevertheless, I am of the opinion that his premises are erroneous, and his conclusions, therefore, wrong and unjust. The great respect I entertain for that officer, and the very able manner in which his views were presented, make it necessary for me to give somewhat at length the reasons which lead me to this conclusion.
The district attorney discussed at length the reasons which led to the origin of the writ of /habeas corpus/, and the character of the proceedings and practice in connection therewith in the parent country.
It was claimed that the laws of the realm limited the right to sue out this writ to the /free subjects/ of the kingdom, and that none others came within the benefits of such beneficent laws; and, reasoning from
analogy, it is claimed that none but American citizens are entitled to sue out this high prerogative writ in nay of the federal courts. I have not examined the English laws regulating the suing out of the writ, nor have I thought it necessary so to do. Of this I will only observe that if the laws of England are as they are claimed to be, they will appear at a disadvantage when compared with our own. This only proves that the laws of a limited monarchy are sometimes less wise and humane than the laws of our own republic-that whilst the parliament of Great Britain was legislating in behalf of the favored few, the congress of the United States was legislating in behalf of all mankind who come within our jurisdiction.
Section 751 of the revised statutes declares that "the supreme court and the circuit and district courts shall have power to issue writs of /habeas corpus/." Section 752 confers the power to issue writs on the judges of said courts, within their jurisdiction, and declares this to be " for the purpose of inquiry into the cause of restraint of liberty."
Section 753 restricts the power, limits the jurisdiction, and defines the cases where the writ may properly issue. That may be done under this section where the prisoner " is in custody under or by color of authority of the United States, * * * or is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of a law of the United States, * * * or in custody in violation of the constitution or of a law or treaty of the United States." Thus, it will be seen that when a /person/ is in custody or deprived of his liberty under color of authority of the United States, or in violation of the constitution or laws or treaties of the United States, the federal judges have jurisdiction, and the writ can properly issue. I take it that the true construction to be placed upon this act is this, that in /all/ cases where federal officers, civil or military, have the custody and control of a person claimed to be unlawfully restrained of liberty, they are /then/ restrained of liberty under color of authority of the United States, and the federal courts can properly proceed to determine the question of unlawful restraint, because no other courts can properly do so. In the other instance, the federal courts and judges can properly issue the writ in /all/ cases where the /person/ is alleged to be in custody in violation of the constitution or a law or treaty of the United States. In such a case, it is wholly immaterial what over, state or federal, has custody of the person seeking the relief. These relators may be entitled to the writ in either case. Under the first paragraph they certainly are-that is, if an Indian can be entitled to it at all-because they are in custody of a
federal officer, under color of authority of the United States. And they may be entitled to the writ under the other paragraph, before recited, for the reason, as they allege, that they are restrained of liberty in violation of a provision of their treaty, before referred to. Now, it must be borne in mind that the /habeas corpus/ act describes applicants for the writ as /"persons,"/ or /" parties,"/ who may be entitled thereto. It nowhere describes them as citizens, nor is citizenship in any way or place made a qualification for suing out the writ, and, in the absence of express provision or necessary implication which would require the interpretation contended for by the district attorney, I should not feel justified in giving the words /person/ and /party/ such
a narrow construction. The most natural, and therefore most reasonable, way is to attach the same meaning to /words/ and /phrases/ when found in a statute that is attached to them when and where found in general use.
If we do so in this instance, then the question cannot be open to serious doubt. Webster describes a person as "a living soul; a self-conscious being; a moral agent; especially a living human being; a mans or child; an individual of the human race." This is comprehensive enough, it would seem, to include even an Indian. In defining certain generic terms, the 1st section of the revised statutes declares that the word /person/ includes copartnerships and corporations. On the whole, it seems to me guise evident that the comprehensive language used in this section is intended to apply to all mankind-as well the relators as the mere favored white race. This will be doing no violence to language, or to the spirit or letter of the law, nor to the intention, as it is
believed, of the law-making power of the government I must hold, then, that /Indians/, and consequently the relators, are /persons/, such as are described by and included within the laws before quoted. It is said, however, that this is thirst instance on record in which an Indian has been permitted to sue out and maintain a writ of /habeas corpus/ in a federal court, and /therefore/ the court must be without jurisdiction in the premises. This is a /non sequitur/. I confess I do not know of another instance where this has been done, but I can also say that the occasion for it perhaps has never before been so great. It may be that the Indians think it wiser and better, in to end, to resort to this peaceful process than it would be to undertake the hopeless task of redressing their own alleged wrongs by force of arms. Returning reason, and the sad experience of others similarly situated, have taught them the folly and madness of the arbitrament of the sword. They can readily
see that any serious resistance on their part would be the signal for their utter extirmination. Have they not, then, chosen the wiser part by resorting to the very tribunal erected by those they claim have wronged and oppressed them ? This, however, is not the tribunal of their own choice, but it is the /only/ one into which they can lawfully go for deliverance. It cannot, therefore, be fairly said that because no Indian ever before invoked the aid of this writ in a federal court, the rightful authority to issue it does not exist. Power and authority right
fully conferred do not necessarily cease to exist in consequence of long non-user. Though much time has elapsed, and many generations have passed away, since the passage of the original habeas corpus act, from which I have quoted, it will not do to say that these Indians cannot avail themselves of its beneficent provisions simply because none of their ancestors ever sought relief thereunder.
Every /person/ who comes within our jurisdiction, whether he be European, Asiatic, African, or "native to the manor born," must obey the laws of the United States. Every one who violates them incurs the penalty provided thereby. When a person is charged, in a proper way, with the commission of crime, we do not inquire upon the trial in what country the accused was born, nor to what sovereign or government allegiance is due, nor to what race he belongs. The questions of guilt and innocence only form the subjects of inquiry. An Indian, then, especially off from his reservation, is amenable to the criminal laws of the United States, the same as all other persons. They being subject to arrest for the violation of our criminal laws, and being persons such as the law contemplates and includes in the description of parties who may sue out the writ, it would indeed be a sad commentary on the justice and impartiality of our laws to hold that Indians, though natives of, our
own country, cannot test the validity of an alleged illegal imprisonment in this manner, as well as a subject of a foreign government who may happen to be sojourning in this country, but owing it no sort of allegiance. I cannot doubt that congress intended to give to /every person/ who might be unlawfully restrained of liberty under color of authority of the United States, the right to the writ and a discharge thereon. I conclude, then, that, so far as the issuing of the writ is concerned, it was properly issued, and that the relators are within the
jurisdiction conferred by the /habeas corpus/ act.
A question of much greater importance remains for consideration, which, when determined, will be decisive of this whole controversy. This relates to the right of the government to arrest and hold the relators for a time, for the purpose of being returned to a point in the Indian Territory from which it is alleged the Indians escaped. I am not vain enough to think that I can do full justice to a question like the one under consideration. But, as the matter furnishes so much valuable material for discussion, and so much food for reflection, I shall try to present it as viewed from my own standpoint, without reference to consequences or criticisms, which, though not specially invited, will be sure to follow.
A review of the policy of the government adopted in its dealings with the friendly tribe of Poncas, to which the relators at one time belonged, seems not only appropriate, but almost indispensable to a correct understanding of this controversy. The Ponca Indians have been at peace with the government, and have remained the steadfast friends of the whites, for many years. They lived peaceably upon the land arid in
the country they claimed and called their own.
On the 12th of March, 1858, they made a treaty with the United States, by which they ceded all claims to lands, except the following tract:
"Beginning at a point on the Niobrara river, and running due north so as to intersect the Ponca river twenty-five miles from its mouth; thence from said point of intersection up and along the Ponca river twenty
miles; thence due south to the Niobrara river; and thence down and along said river to the place of beginning; which tract is hereby reserved for the future homes of said Indians." In consideration of this cession, the
government agreed " to protect the Poncas in the possession of the tract of land reserved for their future homes, and their persons and property thereon, during good behavior on their part." Annuities were to be paid them for thirty years, houses were to be built, schools were to be established, and other things were to be done by the government, in consideration of said cession. (See 12 Stats. at Large, p. 997.)
On the 10th of March, 1865, another treaty was made, and a part of the other reservation was ceded to the government. Other lands, however, were, to some extent, substituted therefor, " by way of rewarding them
for their constant fidelity to the government, and citizens thereof, and with a view of returning to the said tribe of Ponca Indians their old burying-grounds and cornfields." This treaty also provides for paying $15,080 for spoliations committed on the Indians. (See 14 Stats. at Large, p. 675.)
On the 29th day of April, 1868, the government made a treaty with the several bands of Sioux Indians, which treaty was ratified by the senate on the 16th of the following February, in and by which the reservations
set apart for the Poncas under former treaties were completely absolved.
(15 Stats. at Large, p. 635.) This was done without consultation with, or knowledge or consent on the part of, the Ponca tribe of Indians.
On the 15th of August; 1876, congress passed the general Indian appropriation bill, and in it we find a provision authorizing the secretary of the interior to use $25,000 for the removal of the Poncas to the Indian Territory, and providing them a hone therein, with consent of the tribe. (19 Stats. at Large, p.192.)
In the Indian appropriation bill passed by congress on the 27th day of May, 1878, we find a provision authorizing the secretary of the interior to expend the sum of $30,000 for the purpose of removing and locating the Ponca Indians on a new reservation, near the Kaw river.
No reference has been made to any other treaties or laws, under which the right to arrest and remove the Indians is claimed to exist.
The Poncas lived upon their reservation in southern Dakota, and cultivated a portion of the same, until two or three years ago, when they removed therefrom, but whether by force or otherwise does not appear. At all events, we find a portion of them, including the relators, located at some point in the Indian Territory. /There/, the testimony seems to show, is where the trouble commenced. Standing Bear, the principal witness, states that out of five hundred and eighty-one Indians who went from the reservation in Dakota to the Indian Territory, one hundred and fifty-eight died within a year or so, and a great proportion of the others were sick and disabled, caused, in a great measure, no doubt, from change of climate; and to save himself and the
survivors of his wasted family, and the feeble remnant of his little band of followers, he determined to leave the Indian Territory and return to his old home, where, to use his own language, "he might live and die in peace, and be buried with his fathers." He also states that he informed the agent of their final purpose to leave, never to return, and that he and his followers had finally, fully, and forever severed his and their connection with the Ponca tribe of Indians, and had resolved to disband as a tribe, or band, of Indians, and to cut loose
from the government, go to work, become self-sustaining, and adopt the habits and customs of a higher civilization. To accomplish what would seem to be a desirable and laudable purpose, all who were able so to do went to work to earn a living. The Omaha Indians, who speak the same language, and with whom many of the Poncas have long continued to intermarry, gave them employment and ground to cultivate, so as to make
them self-sustaining. And it was when at the Omaha reservation, and when /thus/ employed, that they were arrested by order of the government, for the purpose of being taken back to the Indian Territory. They claim to be unable to see the justice, or reason, or wisdom, or /necessity/, of removing them by force from their own native plains and blood relations to a far-off country, in which they can see little but new-made graves
opening for their reception. The land from which they fled in fear has no attractions for them. The love of home and native land was strong enough in the minds of these people to induce them to brave every peril
to return and live and die where they had been reared. The bones of the dead son of Standing Bear were not to repose in the land they hoped to be leaving forever, but were carefully preserved and protected, and
formed a part of what was to them a melancholy procession homeward. Such instances of parental affection, and such love of home and native land, may be /heathen/ in origin, but it seems to me that they are not unlike
/Christian/ in principle.
What is here stated in this connection is mainly for the purpose of showing that the relators did all they could to separate themselves from their tribe and to sever their tribal relations, for the purpose of becoming self-sustaining and living without support from the government.
This being so, it presents the question as to whether or not an Indian can withdraw from his tribe, sever his tribal relation therewith, and terminate his allegiance thereto, for the purpose of making an independent diving and adopting our own civilization.
If Indian tribes are to be regarded and treated as separate but dependent nations, there can be no serious difficulty about the question. If they are not to be regarded and treated as separate, dependent nations, then no allegiance is owing from an individual Indian to his tribe, and he could, therefore, withdraw therefrom at any time.
The question of expatriation has engaged the attention of our government from the time of its very foundation. Many heated discussions have been carried on between our own and foreign governments on this great question, until diplomacy has triumphantly secured the right to every person found within our jurisdiction. This right has always been claimed and admitted by our government, and it is now no longer an open question. It can make but little difference, then, whether we accord to the Indian tribes a national character or not, as in either case I think the individual Indian possesses the clear and God-given right to withdraw from his tribe and forever live away from it, as though it had no further existence If the right of expatriation was open to doubt in
this country down to the year 1868, certainly since that time no sort of question as to the right can now exist.
On the 27th of July of that year congress passed an act, now appearing as section 1999 of the revised statutes, which declares that: " Whereas, the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and, whereas, in the recognition of this principle the government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship. * * ,* Therefore, any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is declared
inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the republic."
This declaration must forever settle the question until it is reopened by other legislation upon the same subject. This is, however, only reaffirming in the most solemn and authoritative manner a principle well settled and understood in this country for why years past.
In most, if not all, instances in which treaties have been made with the several Indian tribes, where reservations have been set apart for their occupancy, the government has either reserved the right or bound itself to protect the Indians thereon. Many of the treaties expressly prohibit white persons being on the reservations unless specially authorized by the treaties or acts of congress for the purpose of carrying out treaty stipulations.
Laws passed for the government of the Indian country, and I for the purpose of regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, confer upon certain officers of the government almost unlimited power
over the persons who go upon the reservations without lawful authority.
Section 2149 of the revised statutes authorizes and requires the commissioner of Indian affairs, with the approval of the secretary of the interior, to remove from any "tribal reservation" any person being thereon without authority of law, or whose presence within the limits of the reservation may, in the judgment of the commissioner, be detrimental to the peace and welfare of the Indians. The authority here conferred upon the commissioner fully justifies him in causing to be removed from Indian reservations /all/ persons thereon in violation of law, or whose presence thereon may be detrimental to the peace end welfare of the Indians upon the reservations. This applies as well to an Indian as to a white person, and manifestly for the same reason, the object of the law being to prevent unwarranted interference between the Indians and the agent representing the government. Whether such an extensive discretionary power is wisely vested in the commissioner of Indian affairs or not, need not be questioned. It is enough to know that the power rightfully exists, and, where existing, the exercise of the power must be upheld. If, then, the commissioner has the right to cause the
expulsion from the Omaha Indian reservation of all persons thereon who are there in violation of law, or whose presence may be detrimental to the peace and welfare of the Indians, then he must of necessity be
authorized to use the necessary force to accomplish his purpose. Where, then, is he to look for this necessary force? The military arm of the government is the most natural and most potent force to be used on such
occasions, and section 2150 of the revised statutes specially authorizes the use of the army for this service.
The army, then, it seems, is the proper force to employ when intruders and trespassers who go upon the
reservations are to be ejected therefrom.
The first subdivision of the revised statutes last referred to provides that "the military forces of the United States may be employed, in such manner and under such regulations as the president may direct, in the
apprehension of every person who may be in the Indian country in violation of law, and in conveying him immediately from the Indian country, by the nearest convenient and safe route, to the civil authority of the territory or judicial district in which such person shall be found, to be proceeded against in due course of law." * * *
This is the authority under which the military can be lawfully employed to remove intruders from an Indian reservation. What may be done by the troops in such cases is here fully and clearly stated; and it is /this/
authority, it is believed, under which the respondent acted.
All Indian reservations held under treaty stipulations with the government must be deemed and taken to be a part of the /Indian country/, within the meaning of our laws on that subject. The relators were found upon the Omaha Indian reservation. That being a part of the Indian country, and they not being a part of the Omaha tribe of Indians, they were there without lawful authority, and if the commissioner of Indian affairs deemed -their presence detrimental to the peace and welfare of the Omaha Indians, he had lawful warrant to remove them from the reservation, and to employ the necessary military force to effect this object in safety.
General Crook had the rightful authority to remove the relators from the reservation, and must stand justified in removing them therefrom. But when the troops are thus employed they must exercise the authority in the manner provided by the section of the law just read. This law makes it the duty of the troops to convey the parties arrested, by the nearest convenient and safe rote, /to the civil authority of the territory or judicial district in which persons shall be found, to be proceeded against in due course of law/. The /duty/ of the military authorities is here very clearly and sharply defined, and no one can be justified in departing therefrom, especially in time of peace. As General Crook tad the right to arrest and remove the relators from the Omaha Indian reservation, it follows, from what has been stated, that the law required him to convey them to this city and turn them over to the marshal and United States attorney, to be proceeded against in due course of law. Then proceedings could be instituted against them in either the circuit or district court, and if the relators had incurred a penalty under the law, punishment would follow; otherwise, they would be discharged from custody. Put this course was not pursued in this case; neither was it intended to observe the laws in that regard, for General Crook's orders, emanating from higher authority, expressly required him to apprehend the relators and remove them by force to the Indian Territory, from which it is alleged they escaped. But in what General Crook has done in the premises no fault can be imputed to him. He was simply obeying the orders of his superior officers, but the orders, as we think, lack the necessary authority of law, and are, therefore, not
binding on the relators.
I have searched in vain for the semblance of any authority justifying the commissioner in attempting to remove by force any Indians, whether belonging to a tribe or not, to any place, or for any other purpose than what has been stated. Certainly, without some specific authority found in an act of congress, or in a treaty with the Ponca tribe of Indians, he could not lawfully force the relators back to the Indian Territory, to remain and die in that country, against their will. In the absence of all treaty stipulations or laws of the United States authorizing such removal, I must conclude that no such arbitrary authority exists. It is true, if the relators are to be regarded as a part of the great nation of Ponca Indians, the government might, in time of war, remove them to any place of safety so long as the war should last, but perhaps no longer, unless they were charged with the commission of some crime. This is a war power merely, and exists in time of war only. Every nation exercises the right to arrest and detain an alien enemy during the existence of a war, and all subjects or citizens of the hostile nations are subject to be dealt with under this rule.
But it is not claimed that the Ponca tribe of Indians are at war with the United States, so that this war power might be used against them; in fact, they are amongst the most peaceable and friendly of all the Indian tribes, and have at times received from the government unmistakable and substantial recognition of their long-continued friendship for the whites In time of peace the war power remains in abeyance, and must be
subservient to the civil authority of the government until something occurs to justify its exercise. No fact exists, and nothing has occurred, so far as the relators are concerned, to make it necessary or lawful to exercise such an authority over them. If they could be removed to the Indian Territory by force, and kept there in the same way, I can see no good reason why they might not be taken and kept by force in the penitentiary at Lincoln, or Leavenworth, or Jefferson City, or any other place which the commander of the forces might, in his judgment, see proper to designate. I cannot think that any such arbitrary authority exists in this country.
The reasoning advanced in support of my views, leads me to conclude:
/1st./ That an /Indian/ is a PERSON within the meaning of the laws of the United States, and has, therefore, the right to sue out a writ of /habeas corpus/ in a federal court, or before a federal judge, in all cases where he may be confined or in custody under color of authority of the United States, or where he is restrained of liberty in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States.
/2d./ That General George Crook, the respondent, being commander of the military department of the Platte, has the custody of the relators, under color of authority of the United States, and in violation of the laws thereof.
/3d./ That no rightful authority exists for removing by force any of the relators to the Indian Territory, as the respondent has been directed to do.
/4th./ That the Indians possess the inherent right of expatriation, as well as the more fortunate white race, and have the inalienable right to "/life, liberty/, and the pursuit of happiness," so long as they obey the laws and do not trespass on forbidden ground. And,
/5th./ Being restrained of liberty under color of authority of t the United States, and in violation of the laws thereof, the relators must be discharged from custody, and it is so ordered.
ORDERED ACCORDINGLY.
NOTE-At the May term, 1879, Mr. Justice MILLER refused to hear an appeal prosecuted by the United States, because the Indians who then petitioned for the writ of /habeas corpus/ were not present, having been released by the order of DUNDY, J., and no security for their appearance having been taken.
* Source:
Cases Determined in the United States Circuit Courts for the Eighth Circuit
Reported by John Dillon, The Circuit Judge.
Volume 5
Davenport, Iowa: Egbert, Fidlar, & Chambers. 1880.
(NaturalNews) The federal government is working on a plan that would
mandate black box tracking devices be installed in every vehicle, with
real-time uploading of vehicle location, speed and mileage to government
authorities. This Orwellian technology is already technically feasible
and will be promoted as a way to increase "highway safety" while
boosting government revenues from mileage taxation.
"The devices,
which track every mile a motorist drives and transmit that information
to bureaucrats, are at the center of a controversial attempt in
Washington and state planning offices to overhaul the outdated system
for funding America's major roads," reports the LA Times.
"[Congress
is] exploring how, over the next decade, they can move to a system in
which drivers pay per mile of road they roll over. Thousands of
motorists have already taken the black boxes, some of which have GPS
monitoring, for a test drive."
On December 10, 2013, the world community will commemorate the 65th
anniversary of the adoption and proclamation of the United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On this day, as people of faith,
who acknowledge the importance of protecting the God-given dignity of
every human being, we reaffirm the Universal Declaration’s statement
that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.”
The National Religious Campaign Against Torture’s theme for Human
Rights Day 2013 is “Confronting Solitary Confinement in an Age of Mass
Incarceration.” NRCAT developed a Human Rights Day toolkit to help congregations and religious organizations observe the day. The 2013 toolkit includes:
A bulletin insert with educational material and an interfaith prayer
A poster for the promotion of Human Rights Day
Talking points for integrating the reality of solitary confinement into sermons and prayers during worship
Links to other worship resources, as well as to educational and
advocacy activities that congregations can do to commemorate Human
Rights Day
We encourage you to observe Human Rights Day
during worship services, as a part of your religious education efforts
and through advocacy activities during either the weekend of December
6-8, December 13-15, or another time of your choosing. If your
congregation plans to commemorate Human Rights Day in any way, please let us know.
With the theme “Confronting Solitary Confinement in an Age of Mass
Incarceration,” NRCAT invites your religious community to commemorate
Human Rights Day and to focus on the human rights crisis faced by the
over 80,000 people held in long-term solitary confinement in U.S.
prisons, as well as their families and loved ones.
Join NRCAT and other people of faith in calling for the end of prolonged
solitary confinement in U.S. jails and detention centers. Download our
free Human Rights Day toolkit. Together we can put an end to this egregious form of torture.
Sincerely,
Linda Gustitus, President
Rev. Richard Killmer, Executive Director
P.S. The deadline for submissions for the Call for Art has been extended until November 15, 2013.
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel and the European Union will drift apart if they cannot compromise on new EU guidelines covering Jewish settlement on occupied land that could damage research and trade ties, Israeli's deputy foreign minister said.
The two sides must overcome the dispute - focused on territory that Palestinians want for a state - before the end of November, when a multi-million dollar EU research program called Horizon 2020 is due to be finalized.
If there is no deal, Israel risks missing out on generous funding for its scientists. By the same token, Europe will lose Israeli-know how, Deputy Foreign Minister Ze'ev Elkin said.
"If we fail to resolve this problem, the future direction will be a kind of separation between Israel and the European Union," Elkin told Reuters in an interview.
"We are the start-up nation. It would be a big mistake for Europe to lose its relations with Israel," he said.
A senior EU official visited Israel this week, promising that the 28-nation bloc wanted to work closely with Israel and its burgeoning hi-tech economy, but all efforts so far to bridge their differences have failed.
Despite Israel's intimate diplomatic and military ties with the United States, its biggest economic partner by far is the European Union, which accounted for almost third of all exports and imports into the Jewish state last month.
Despite deep historical links, relations between Israel and Europe have grown more bumpy in recent years, with the EU increasingly vocal in its criticism of Jewish settlements, saying they imperil the chances of peace with the Palestinians.
Matters came to a head in July, when the EU's Executive Commission announced it would bar financial assistance to any Israeli organization operating in the West Bank from 2014.
The move finally put some teeth into EU opposition to settlements built on territory Israel seized in a 1967 war and which are now home to more than 500,000 Israelis. Palestinians want the land for part of a future independent state.
FURY
When the guidelines were unveiled, Israel furiously accused EU bureaucrats of lying about the scope of the measures. Surprised by the angry response, EU officials said Israel had failed to grasp European frustration over settlement expansion.
"This had been in the pipeline for months. The problem was that the Israelis did not originally understand the (bureaucratic) language, so felt exposed," said a senior European diplomat in Jerusalem, who declined to be named.
Israel has since toned down the criticism, but Elkin said the EU move was aimed at imposing new borders on Israel via trade sanctions rather than through on-going negotiations with the Palestinians. He also said that it meant the Europeans could dictate where Israeli money went in any joint ventures.
"As it stands, we cannot sign Horizon 2020. It would force us to discriminate (against) our own institutions," said the pro-settler Elkin, who, unlike Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, does not believe the Palestinians should have their own state.
Although it carries much less weight in the region than the United States, Europe has nonetheless managed to precipitate important diplomatic moves that were later followed by others.
In 1980, it recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) when both Washington and Israel still considered it to be a terrorist group. It also pushed for an independent Palestine before the United States adopted the same position.
The EU has said it will not change the new guidelines, but is looking at ways for a flexible implementation of the rules.
"No progress has yet been made on reaching a common understanding," said an official involved in the talks.
The European Commissioner for Industry, Antonio Tajani, brought a delegation of more than 60 EU businessmen to Israel this week and sought to play down the dispute.
"There are problems, of course. But the message is, we want to work with Israel," he told Reuters in Tel Aviv.
Senior EU diplomat Pierre Vimont is due to visit Israel before the end of the month to discuss the impasse.
"The Europeans tell us not to worry, but of course we worry, we are Jewish," said an Israeli official involved in the discussions. "We want clear commitments on how this will be implemented, and we want it in writing."
(Additional reporting by Adrian Croft, Justyna Pawlak and Luke Baker in Brussels, editing by Mark Heinrich)
Published on Sep 20, 2013
The European diplomats, who were trying to deliver emergency aid to the residents of a demolished Palestinian village, were manhandled by Israeli troops and their truck was seized by the IDF. READ MORE: http://on.rt.com/riib3s
(Reuters) - Two months before the troubled October 1 launch of Obamacare exchanges, a key administration official overseeing the program assured a congressional oversight panel that work was on track to roll out a tested website that would make it easy for Americans to enroll in affordable health insurance coverage.
"This is a large and complicated endeavor that I am proud to lead, and every decision is being made by my prior work experience," Marilyn Tavenner testified on August 1 before the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, describing the launch of the Healthcare.gov website.
Come Tuesday, the former nurse who heads the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will again find herself before a House committee - this time, to explain how Healthcare.gov failed when the administration flipped the on switch. She will face Republicans eager to prove, thus far unsuccessfully, that the White House orchestrated decisions that may have stalled the system.
Lawmakers on both sides of the partisan aisle are growing increasingly impatient with website snafus that they say are frustrating the public and adding to taxpayer costs. The White House has scrambled to fix technical issues and disputes Republican allegations that political motives were behind changes in the website's function.
Tavenner's scheduled testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee is expected to offer insight into the decision-making. A key player, she was cleared to visit the White House 425 times between December 2009 and June 2013, including for several meetings with Obama himself, visitor logs show.
One Oval Office meeting with Obama in March would have occurred as some technology officials in her agency publicly fretted about the possibility that the complicated website would malfunction, telling an insurance forum they were working to avert problems.
Tavenner, 62, who was confirmed for her job by the Senate in May, was optimistic about the rollout when questioned by skeptical Republican senators at an April hearing.
Tavenner is expected to be a critical witness this week because "she's more responsible for decisions made at CMS that probably led to this disaster," said Joe Antos, a healthcare analyst with the conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank.
A committee aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said: "We expect her to be forthcoming. We think she'll be a very serious witness, and she's certainly integral."
Tavenner appears one day before her boss, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, is due to testify before another panel in the Republican-controlled chamber.
Committee aides hope that Tavenner can describe system problems at the more complicated back end of the federal marketplace, where consumers determine their eligibility for premium subsidies and enroll in coverage. Aides and experts fear new crippling problems could emerge as enrollment picks up in November and early December.
LAST-MINUTE DECISION
There is also intense interest in Washington in learning who decided at the last minute to deny visitors to Healthcare.gov the ability to browse insurance plans without first creating a website account. That decision is widely blamed for the bottlenecks that helped paralyze the system as millions of visitors flooded the marketplace in the first days of enrollment and during the ensuing weeks.
"That (decision) had to be made at the highest possible levels, meaning in my view the White House. That's a strategic call about selling the reform," Antos said.
White House visitor logs, which provide a public record of who visits with administration officials, have not yet been released for the August period when potential problems with the website launch may have been discussed.
Republicans also want to know who in the administration decided to make Tavenner's agency the "quarterback" or system integrator for the huge information technology system behind Healthcare.gov. Analysts say that decision - rather than giving the job to the private sector - also may have created problems.
Last week, the administration announced that it was handing the job over to a private contractor as part of the effort to fix the online enrollment system.
CMS, the agency that oversees the massive federal Medicare and Medicaid programs, already had plenty to do before it took charge of implementing Obamacare, the Senate's leading Republican Mitch McConnell said in May, after voting against Tavenner's confirmation.
Tavenner, who had served as acting administrator for more than a year, was nonetheless easily confirmed by the Senate on a 91-7 vote. Promising to run the agency like a business, she won accolades from leading Republicans who looked favorably on her career as a nurse and later as an executive for Hospital Corporation of America. She left HCA after 25 years to become Virginia's health and human resources secretary.
Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a fellow Virginian, introduced Tavenner at her Senate hearing. He said he differed with Obama's healthcare policy, "but if there is anyone that I trust to try and navigate the challenges, it is Marilyn Tavenner."
House Republican lawmakers at Tuesday's hearing are expected to focus not just on the healthcare website, but on the Affordable Care Act and its impact, aides said.
"The website is terrible ... but the real problem is the law, which is causing people to lose coverage that they already have," one Republican aide said.
Democrats will ask Tavenner what steps the administration will take to fix the reported website problems, one House Democratic aide said.
The Democrats may focus on positive experiences of some of the 700,000 people who have filled out applications as a first step toward enrollment, including some who have been denied insurance previously because of pre-existing conditions, the Democratic aide said.
Nonetheless, Democrats view the hearing as a largely political event staged by Republicans as part of their continued criticism of Obamacare, he said.
On Friday, aides to committee Republicans were reviewing what Tavenner said on the record to Congress about the healthcare website before it went live, and comparing that with the actual rollout.
(Additional reporting by Gabriel Debenedetti; Editing by Marilyn Thompson, Martin Howell and Mohammad Zargham)
Dennis Gaydos, a homeless man from Palm Springs, was making his home outside of a church in the sunny Florida community without incident until a police intervention changed his life.
Gaydos says he was keeping to himself in his temporary home on the church grounds when the Palm Springs Police department SWAT team, dressed in full military garb, shot him multiple times with rubber bullets.
The close-range blast slashed off a portion of his right ear lobe and rendered his left eye a pulpy mess.
In the four years since the event, Gaydos has filed a federal lawsuit against Palm Beach County, Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and the Village of Palm Springs Police Department. The lawsuit, which was filed in late July, is in response to the SWAT team to removing him from his encampment and severely butchering him.
Other damages include “physical suffering, permanent disfigurement including the loss of use of a bodily function, injury and mental anguish.”
“What happened to Mr. Gaydos was outrageous,” says Kevin Anderson to Jose Lambiet of GossipExtra.com. Anderson, Gaydos’ police liability lawyer, adds that “the behavior of the police officers and deputies at the scene was simply unexplainable.”
The lawsuit states, with a deployed helicopter over head, “the plaintiff was overtaken by multiple deputies and police officers. The Plaintiff was not threatening harm to the officers or other individuals upon the defendants’ arrival.”
Authorities claim Gaydos refused to come out and, on the contrary, officers allegedly took action when they spotted Gaydos wielding a cell phone in one hand and a “knife” in the other.
Gaydos admits to having a cell phone in his hands at the night of the incident, but said he had just finished calling a food assistance agency.
It is believed that the food agency’s operator reported to law enforcement that Gaydos was living in underbrush by the church’s parking lot.
Gaydos claims the incident which left him blind and deaf should have never occurred since he had permission from the pastor to reside there.
Gaydos’ attorney added the artificial light in the area was more than sufficient to prevent an “accidental” shooting.
Palm Beach County records indicate the night of the incident, Gaydos didn’t have any criminal charges filed against him and was never arrested.
According to official records no knife was recovered from the scene either.
Five years after a California SWAT team raided the home of a man already imprisoned and pointed weapons at his loved ones, a Ninth Circuit panel will allow the family of Javier Bravo Jr. to sue the detective working the case.
The SWAT team in Santa Maria, California burst opened the door of Hope and Javier Bravo’s home in 2006 looking for their son over alleged connections with a drive-by shooting. Authorities were looking for the younger Bravo and believed he had hidden weapons involved in a 2006 drive-by shooting, but were unable to locate him after they stormed the house shortly after 5 a.m.
As luck would have it, Bravo was already behind bars. His incarceration was clearly listed on the search warrant obtained by Detective Louis Tanore, though authorities neglected to notice it before drawing weapons on the criminal’s family.
After pointing assault weapons at the 8-year-old grandson of the Bravos, the child ran off to the bathroom screaming. Hope Bravo then produced a letter penned by her son that was mailed from prison as to proof of his incarceration. As noted on the rap sheet attached to the warrant, Javier Jr. had been behind bars for six months already at the time of the raid.
At the time of the incident, a District Court judge ruled in favor of the authorities and argued that the fact that Javier Jr. was imprisoned at the time was irrelevant to the raid. Last Friday, however, a federal appeals court reversed the decision, allowing the family to go after the detective and others involved.
According to Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, the police “had no evidence that Mr. and Mrs. Bravo or E.B. were involved in the April 21 shooting or that during a period in which Javier Junior was not residing in their home they would have assisted Tangas gang members in concealing evidence, and specifically in concealing evidence from the shooting.” Further, the judge went after the detective and charged that his “generalized statements in the affidavit that it is 'common' for families of gang members to assist other members of the gang are insufficient to support probable cause to search the Bravos' home.”
A Seattle, Washington apartment rented by members of the local Occupy Wall Street chapter was raided and ransacked by the local SWAT team early Tuesday as part of an investigation into alleged anarchist actions.
In response to pressure from more than 250,000 CREDO Activists and others last fall, Trader Joes, Whole Foods and General Mills all committed not to sell Monsanto's sweet corn.1
But not Walmart.
Walmart, wrote to us that "nothing is more important than the safety and satisfaction of our customers." But that's just not consistent with selling this unlabeled GMO sweet corn, which contains three genetic modifications — including the insecticide Bt — and hasn't been tested to prove it is safe for humans to eat.2
Walmart could make a powerful statement for consumer safety by rejecting Monsanto's GMO sweet corn, but they won't do it unless we put very public pressure on the company.
This corn is Monsanto's first foray into designing GMO foods that could wind up whole on your plate. If it's successful, we can be sure that it will just be the beginning for Monsanto, who already produces roughly 90% of GMO seeds around the globe.
As the largest food retailer, and even the largest seller of organic foods, Walmart can set an important precedent that could keep Monsanto's GMO sweet corn, and any future GMO foods, from taking root.
If Walmart really means that nothing is more important than their customers safety then they need to take a stand now.
-Ponca-1877.jpg)