Police in Brooklyn, New York, touted a raid they made last December that seized 22 firearms, even posting a photo of themselves with their haul online. But the police department’s own lab quickly figured out that 21 of the 22 guns were not real firearms but replicas, starter pistols, and air guns. And the one real firearm had been rendered inoperable by the removal of the trigger and some internal components. But the district attorney is refusing to drop weapons charges against the owner of the fake guns, Elizaveta Zlatkis, who leases the weapons to people shooting music videos. The NYPD and the Brooklyn DA’s office refused to answer questions from a local newspaper about why Zlatkis is still facing charges.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3ok1NQu
via IFTTT
Georgia Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler appears to have been handed her walking papers by Georgia voters, who put Democratic challenger Raphael Warnock in her seat and Democrats one person closer to controlling the Senate.
But even with the vast majority of the votes tallied, it’s not clear whether fellow Republican incumbent Sen. David Purdue fended off his challenger. As midnight eastern came and went Tuesday, Purdue remained in a tie with Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff with 97 percent of the vote counted.
If both Democratic candidates win, the next Senate will be split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans, meaning incoming Vice President Kamala Harris will have the tie-breaking vote in favor of the Democrats. If either Democrat loses, the Senate remains in Republican control.
Beyond control of the Senate, the race is also a political culture test to determine whether continued loyalty to President Donald Trump is necessary for Republicans to win their own elections as Trump clings to wild, disproven conspiracy theories that his election loss was due to widescale fraud. Perdue and Loeffler have been reluctant to publicly acknowledge that Trump lost the election while Trump rallied on their behalf (well, sort of).
As of 10 p.m. Tuesday evening, Loeffler and Purdue were both leading, but the vote was close and major networks and media outlets had not called the races. Initial tallies had both Democrats in the lead, but those were predominately absentee ballots. As with the November election, Democratic voters had been urged to mail in their ballots. By about 9:30 p.m. both races were neck-and-neck.
But even as the incumbents picked up votes and took the lead, there was no surge putting either of them inescapably ahead. With 88 percent of the vote counted at about 10:45 p.m., Loeffler was ahead of Warnock by just 80,000 votes, and Perdue was ahead of Ossoff by 120,000 votes. Even though Loeffler was slightly ahead, Dave Wasserman, U.S. House editor of the Cook Political Reportconcluded that she had lost to Warnock. By 10 p.m., other outlets, like The New York Times and its election needle, predicted that Warnock was very likely going to win.
The logic for calling against the Republicans even though they were ahead was because at that time, only 42 percent of DeKalb County’s votes had been counted. DeKalb is a Democratic stronghold that contains part of the City of Atlanta and ranks fourth in the state in population. As of 11 p.m., election officials in DeKalb county indicated they had more than 171,000 votes to report out.
Trump responded to the delay in DeKalb County results by suggesting there was fraud afoot:
Looks like they are setting up a big “voter dump” against the Republican candidates. Waiting to see how many votes they need?
Once the DeKalb votes started coming in at 11:30 p.m., the shift was immediate. Warnock pulled ahead of Loeffler by 20,000 votes while Ossoff pulled within 20,000 votes of Perdue with 96 percent of the vote counted. Then within minutes, more votes came in for Ossoff and the two men were put in a virtual tie. As of 11:45 p.m., less than 500 votes separate the Perdue and Ossoff. Warnock, meanwhile, extended his lead over Loeffler to 30,000 votes.
Neither race has actually been “called” by major media outlets, but most of the remaining uncounted votes are in areas with significant Democratic populations.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38mXRcl
via IFTTT
The British judge who blocked Julian Assange’s extradition to the United States on Monday was persuaded by psychiatric testimony indicating a “substantial risk” that the WikiLeaks founder would kill himself in response to the harsh conditions he is apt to face in U.S. custody. Although she was much less impressed by the argument that Assange’s prosecution for violating the Espionage Act threatens freedom of the press, that danger is just as real.
Westminster Magistrates’ Court Judge Vanessa Baraitser accepted the Justice Department’s assurance that imprisoning someone for publishing information the government does not want the public to see is consistent with freedom of expression. She emphasized that Assange is accused of posting unexpurgated documents without regard to the danger that could pose to U.S. informants in Afghanistan.
According to the Justice Department, Baraitser noted, “the prosecution case is expressly brought on the basis that Mr. Assange disclosed materials that no responsible journalist or publisher would have disclosed.” But the Espionage Act charges against Assange require no such “basis,” and any journalist who obtains or publishes classified information related to national security could face the same charges.
The 18-count Assange indictment, which the Justice Department unveiled in May 2019, is based on his disclosure of Defense Department files and State Department cables that indisputably touched upon matters of legitimate public interest, including the treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees, secret missile attacks in Yemen, and potential war crimes in Iraq. The revelations in these documents generated massive press coverage by leading news outlets such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.
Baraitser, following the Justice Department’s lead, wants to distinguish between “responsible” journalism like that and the less careful and professional kind practiced by Assange. But the Espionage Act draws no such distinction.
Counts 9 through 17 of the Assange indictment involve “disclosure of national defense information,” a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. That penalty applies to anyone who “willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated” such information to “any person not entitled to receive it.”
This felony is the bread and butter of any journalist who covers national security issues and publishes information that the government would prefer to keep secret. So is the conduct described in Count 1, which alleges that Assange conspired to receive national defense information, and Counts 2 through 8, which allege that he obtained it.
Anyone who violates those provisions also faces a maximum sentence of 10 years for each count. So even leaving aside the charge that Assange violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by helping his source, former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, crack a password, Assange faces up to 170 years in prison for doing things that respectable news organizations routinely do.
“The New York Times, among many other news organizations, obtained precisely the same archives of documents from WikiLeaks, without authorization from the government—the act that most of the charges addressed,” Times national security reporter Charlie Savage noted in 2019. “While The Times did take steps to withhold the names of informants in the subset of the files it published, it is not clear how that is legally different from publishing other classified information.”
Responding to Baraitser’s decision, Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, warned that “the U.S. indictment of Assange will continue to cast a dark shadow over investigative journalism.” In particular, he said, the nine counts focused on “pure publication” represent “an unprecedented attack on press freedom, one calculated to deter journalists and publishers from exercising rights that the First Amendment should be understood to protect.”
Assange is not popular with professional journalists, especially since his involvement in publishing the emails that embarrassed Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election. But by now they should realize that the case against him is also a case against them, and they cannot count on their press passes to save them.
Islamic terror has been trending down for five years.
Some American officials said this would never happen.
America has failed to properly fight terrorism, said former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, so it “has spread, gaining countless new adherents.”
Others said fundamentalism’s demand for religious obedience over individual freedom means “peace is not possible.” Muslims will never embrace Enlightenment ideals like individual freedom and separation of church and state.
But Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, of the group Ideas Beyond Borders, calls that view “ignorant.” He says Middle Eastern young people are moving away from fundamentalism. Surveys do show Middle Eastern youth are becoming less religious and less trusting of religious leaders.
Faisal credits the internet. “Facebook, the social media entry to the Middle East, has been kind of revolutionary.” It introduced young people to American sitcoms. Friends and Seinfeld, subtitled in Arabic, “show you what good life looks like.”
Faisal grew up in Iraq and had a very different upbringing. “I was told, ‘you cannot hold hands with this woman…cannot listen to that music.'” That leads young people to “develop a lot of resentment against the establishment.”
But until social media was invented, most didn’t know about alternatives.
After Faisal escaped Iraq and discovered the freedoms of America, he started Ideas Beyond Borders, which translates articles and books about individual rights into Arabic. They also make short videos about these ideas.
His social media following grew quickly. One of his Facebook pages has 3.5 million likes. “People were searching for it,” he says in my newest video, because “this was the first time the ideas of freedom and liberty were available in Arabic.”
He asks his audience what videos they would like to see and what books “that if you publish yourself, you might get blown up” they would like translated next. “They often say Steven Pinker,” he says.
“What does Steven Pinker say that deserves being blown up?” I ask.
“Enlightenment,” he replies. “The values of reason, and science, and separation of church and state, in this case, mosque and state. And freedom of economy. Freedom of movement has really led to a prosperous society.”
In the last few years, more young people have pushed back against their countries’ repression. “They want individual rights. They want freedom of speech,” says Al Mutar.
At those protests, Faisal’s volunteers set up tents and pass out Western books like Lying by Sam Harris and Pinker’s Enlightenment Now.
Some of his supporters have been attacked by radicals. One was killed.
But Faisal claims young people are winning the war of ideas.
I push back. “I’ve been told optimistic things before. Arab Spring was supposed to change everything.”
Arab Spring was “overblown,” he replies. But then the brief rule of ISIS changed the minds of some even very religious people.
“Some believed in the concepts that ISIS advocated…establishing a caliphate and establishing religious law,” says Faisal. “But then they live under it and see a beheaded woman and gays being thrown from rooftops. Most people there are just like anyone else. They want to live in peace and prosperity.”
Faisal’s journey to peace and prosperity began when he was a teen. His neighborhood “became infested with al-Qaida members.” He received death threats. That’s when he came to America.
“Is America what you expected?” I ask.
“Definitely,” he replies. “In fact, much better than I thought.”
Americans welcomed him into their homes and gave him books.
Now, Ideas Beyond Borders translates those books into Arabic. “We have 120 translators working for us full time.”
It’s good that Ideas Beyond Borders spreads the word about freedom.
COPYRIGHT 2020 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35gqPIJ
via IFTTT
Georgia Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler appears to have been handed her walking papers by Georgia voters, who put Democratic challenger Raphael Warnock in her seat and Democrats one person closer to controlling the Senate.
But even with the vast majority of the votes tallied, it’s not clear whether fellow Republican incumbent Sen. David Purdue fended off his challenger. As midnight eastern came and went Tuesday, Purdue remained in a tie with Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff with 97 percent of the vote counted.
If both Democratic candidates win, the next Senate will be split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans, meaning incoming Vice President Kamala Harris will have the tie-breaking vote in favor of the Democrats. If either Democrat loses, the Senate remains in Republican control.
Beyond control of the Senate, the race is also a political culture test to determine whether continued loyalty to President Donald Trump is necessary for Republicans to win their own elections as Trump clings to wild, disproven conspiracy theories that his election loss was due to widescale fraud. Perdue and Loeffler have been reluctant to publicly acknowledge that Trump lost the election while Trump rallied on their behalf (well, sort of).
As of 10 p.m. Tuesday evening, Loeffler and Purdue were both leading, but the vote was close and major networks and media outlets had not called the races. Initial tallies had both Democrats in the lead, but those were predominately absentee ballots. As with the November election, Democratic voters had been urged to mail in their ballots. By about 9:30 p.m. both races were neck-and-neck.
But even as the incumbents picked up votes and took the lead, there was no surge putting either of them inescapably ahead. With 88 percent of the vote counted at about 10:45 p.m., Loeffler was ahead of Warnock by just 80,000 votes, and Perdue was ahead of Ossoff by 120,000 votes. Even though Loeffler was slightly ahead, Dave Wasserman, U.S. House editor of the Cook Political Reportconcluded that she had lost to Warnock. By 10 p.m., other outlets, like The New York Times and its election needle, predicted that Warnock was very likely going to win.
The logic for calling against the Republicans even though they were ahead was because at that time, only 42 percent of DeKalb County’s votes had been counted. DeKalb is a Democratic stronghold that contains part of the City of Atlanta and ranks fourth in the state in population. As of 11 p.m., election officials in DeKalb county indicated they had more than 171,000 votes to report out.
Trump responded to the delay in DeKalb County results by suggesting there was fraud afoot:
Looks like they are setting up a big “voter dump” against the Republican candidates. Waiting to see how many votes they need?
Once the DeKalb votes started coming in at 11:30 p.m., the shift was immediate. Warnock pulled ahead of Loeffler by 20,000 votes while Ossoff pulled within 20,000 votes of Perdue with 96 percent of the vote counted. Then within minutes, more votes came in for Ossoff and the two men were put in a virtual tie. As of 11:45 p.m., less than 500 votes separate the Perdue and Ossoff. Warnock, meanwhile, extended his lead over Loeffler to 30,000 votes.
Neither race has actually been “called” by major media outlets, but most of the remaining uncounted votes are in areas with significant Democratic populations.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38mXRcl
via IFTTT
The British judge who blocked Julian Assange’s extradition to the United States on Monday was persuaded by psychiatric testimony indicating a “substantial risk” that the WikiLeaks founder would kill himself in response to the harsh conditions he is apt to face in U.S. custody. Although she was much less impressed by the argument that Assange’s prosecution for violating the Espionage Act threatens freedom of the press, that danger is just as real.
Westminster Magistrates’ Court Judge Vanessa Baraitser accepted the Justice Department’s assurance that imprisoning someone for publishing information the government does not want the public to see is consistent with freedom of expression. She emphasized that Assange is accused of posting unexpurgated documents without regard to the danger that could pose to U.S. informants in Afghanistan.
According to the Justice Department, Baraitser noted, “the prosecution case is expressly brought on the basis that Mr. Assange disclosed materials that no responsible journalist or publisher would have disclosed.” But the Espionage Act charges against Assange require no such “basis,” and any journalist who obtains or publishes classified information related to national security could face the same charges.
The 18-count Assange indictment, which the Justice Department unveiled in May 2019, is based on his disclosure of Defense Department files and State Department cables that indisputably touched upon matters of legitimate public interest, including the treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees, secret missile attacks in Yemen, and potential war crimes in Iraq. The revelations in these documents generated massive press coverage by leading news outlets such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.
Baraitser, following the Justice Department’s lead, wants to distinguish between “responsible” journalism like that and the less careful and professional kind practiced by Assange. But the Espionage Act draws no such distinction.
Counts 9 through 17 of the Assange indictment involve “disclosure of national defense information,” a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. That penalty applies to anyone who “willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated” such information to “any person not entitled to receive it.”
This felony is the bread and butter of any journalist who covers national security issues and publishes information that the government would prefer to keep secret. So is the conduct described in Count 1, which alleges that Assange conspired to receive national defense information, and Counts 2 through 8, which allege that he obtained it.
Anyone who violates those provisions also faces a maximum sentence of 10 years for each count. So even leaving aside the charge that Assange violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by helping his source, former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, crack a password, Assange faces up to 170 years in prison for doing things that respectable news organizations routinely do.
“The New York Times, among many other news organizations, obtained precisely the same archives of documents from WikiLeaks, without authorization from the government—the act that most of the charges addressed,” Times national security reporter Charlie Savage noted in 2019. “While The Times did take steps to withhold the names of informants in the subset of the files it published, it is not clear how that is legally different from publishing other classified information.”
Responding to Baraitser’s decision, Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, warned that “the U.S. indictment of Assange will continue to cast a dark shadow over investigative journalism.” In particular, he said, the nine counts focused on “pure publication” represent “an unprecedented attack on press freedom, one calculated to deter journalists and publishers from exercising rights that the First Amendment should be understood to protect.”
Assange is not popular with professional journalists, especially since his involvement in publishing the emails that embarrassed Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election. But by now they should realize that the case against him is also a case against them, and they cannot count on their press passes to save them.
Islamic terror has been trending down for five years.
Some American officials said this would never happen.
America has failed to properly fight terrorism, said former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, so it “has spread, gaining countless new adherents.”
Others said fundamentalism’s demand for religious obedience over individual freedom means “peace is not possible.” Muslims will never embrace Enlightenment ideals like individual freedom and separation of church and state.
But Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, of the group Ideas Beyond Borders, calls that view “ignorant.” He says Middle Eastern young people are moving away from fundamentalism. Surveys do show Middle Eastern youth are becoming less religious and less trusting of religious leaders.
Faisal credits the internet. “Facebook, the social media entry to the Middle East, has been kind of revolutionary.” It introduced young people to American sitcoms. Friends and Seinfeld, subtitled in Arabic, “show you what good life looks like.”
Faisal grew up in Iraq and had a very different upbringing. “I was told, ‘you cannot hold hands with this woman…cannot listen to that music.'” That leads young people to “develop a lot of resentment against the establishment.”
But until social media was invented, most didn’t know about alternatives.
After Faisal escaped Iraq and discovered the freedoms of America, he started Ideas Beyond Borders, which translates articles and books about individual rights into Arabic. They also make short videos about these ideas.
His social media following grew quickly. One of his Facebook pages has 3.5 million likes. “People were searching for it,” he says in my newest video, because “this was the first time the ideas of freedom and liberty were available in Arabic.”
He asks his audience what videos they would like to see and what books “that if you publish yourself, you might get blown up” they would like translated next. “They often say Steven Pinker,” he says.
“What does Steven Pinker say that deserves being blown up?” I ask.
“Enlightenment,” he replies. “The values of reason, and science, and separation of church and state, in this case, mosque and state. And freedom of economy. Freedom of movement has really led to a prosperous society.”
In the last few years, more young people have pushed back against their countries’ repression. “They want individual rights. They want freedom of speech,” says Al Mutar.
At those protests, Faisal’s volunteers set up tents and pass out Western books like Lying by Sam Harris and Pinker’s Enlightenment Now.
Some of his supporters have been attacked by radicals. One was killed.
But Faisal claims young people are winning the war of ideas.
I push back. “I’ve been told optimistic things before. Arab Spring was supposed to change everything.”
Arab Spring was “overblown,” he replies. But then the brief rule of ISIS changed the minds of some even very religious people.
“Some believed in the concepts that ISIS advocated…establishing a caliphate and establishing religious law,” says Faisal. “But then they live under it and see a beheaded woman and gays being thrown from rooftops. Most people there are just like anyone else. They want to live in peace and prosperity.”
Faisal’s journey to peace and prosperity began when he was a teen. His neighborhood “became infested with al-Qaida members.” He received death threats. That’s when he came to America.
“Is America what you expected?” I ask.
“Definitely,” he replies. “In fact, much better than I thought.”
Americans welcomed him into their homes and gave him books.
Now, Ideas Beyond Borders translates those books into Arabic. “We have 120 translators working for us full time.”
It’s good that Ideas Beyond Borders spreads the word about freedom.
COPYRIGHT 2020 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35gqPIJ
via IFTTT
Sonia Tabizada, age 36, of San Jacinto, California, pleaded guilty in federal court to intentionally obstructing persons in the enjoyment of their free exercise of religious beliefs by threatening to bomb the Georgetown Visitation Preparatory School in Washington, D.C., in violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 247.
In May 2019, school officials announced that Visitation Prep, the oldest Catholic school for girls in the country, would begin publishing same-sex wedding announcements in its alumni magazine to advance its teaching that “we are all children of God … worthy of respect and love.” According to the plea agreement, Tabizada learned of this announcement and made multiple calls threatening violence in response to the school’s decision.
On May 15, 2019, Tabizada left a voice message stating that she was going to burn and bomb the church. Tabizada also stated that she was going to kill school officials and students. Several minutes later, Tabizada left a second voice mail stating that she was going to blow up the school and warned that she would commit “terrorism.” …
“The defendant’s violent threats were directed at the free exercise of a private school community’s religious beliefs. An attack upon the free exercise of any person or group’s religious beliefs is an attack upon the civil rights of every citizen. Today’s guilty plea is part of my office’s commitment to ensuring that all District citizens can safely exercise their religious beliefs and that all of their civil rights are protected,” said Michael R. Sherwin, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.
(Expurgation, of course, in the original.)
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35fAMpN
via IFTTT
Sonia Tabizada, age 36, of San Jacinto, California, pleaded guilty in federal court to intentionally obstructing persons in the enjoyment of their free exercise of religious beliefs by threatening to bomb the Georgetown Visitation Preparatory School in Washington, D.C., in violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 247.
In May 2019, school officials announced that Visitation Prep, the oldest Catholic school for girls in the country, would begin publishing same-sex wedding announcements in its alumni magazine to advance its teaching that “we are all children of God … worthy of respect and love.” According to the plea agreement, Tabizada learned of this announcement and made multiple calls threatening violence in response to the school’s decision.
On May 15, 2019, Tabizada left a voice message stating that she was going to burn and bomb the church. Tabizada also stated that she was going to kill school officials and students. Several minutes later, Tabizada left a second voice mail stating that she was going to blow up the school and warned that she would commit “terrorism.” …
“The defendant’s violent threats were directed at the free exercise of a private school community’s religious beliefs. An attack upon the free exercise of any person or group’s religious beliefs is an attack upon the civil rights of every citizen. Today’s guilty plea is part of my office’s commitment to ensuring that all District citizens can safely exercise their religious beliefs and that all of their civil rights are protected,” said Michael R. Sherwin, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.
(Expurgation, of course, in the original.)
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35fAMpN
via IFTTT
The final step of the process of electing the president is the formal counting of the votes of the presidential electors. Usually a rather dull ceremony, this year there are expected to be some fireworks. In the weeks since President Trump lost his bid for reelection, his supporters have offered increasingly unhinged legal theories and baseless claims of fraud deny the reality that Joe Biden will be inaugurated as the next president. I would like to think that the current attempt to derail the counting of the votes and the affirmation of Biden’s victory will be a last ditch effort to continue Trump in office, but the last few weeks suggest that there will be more last ditch efforts after this one.
Some Republican members of Congress will forsake their constitutional duty in order to curry favor with a fickle president and his deluded fans. Others will do the honorable thing despite the political risks. The fact that we must have this conversation says nothing good about the state of the American constitutional democracy.
I have a piece out in Lawfare today that takes an extended look at the counting of the electoral votes and the likely objections to doing so. From the conclusion:
It has now been revealed that the president attempted to bully the governor of Georgia into changing the presidential vote count for no other reason than that the president wanted it. It is hard to imagine a more flagrantly corrupt action on the part of a losing president short of simply attempting to bribe presidential electors or forcibly seizing ballots. If Republican legislators object to the counting of electoral votes for Biden, it is this brazen effort to steal an election that they will be assisting. Their attempted assistance might be as practically futile as the president’s phone call itself was. They might not actually succeed in stealing the election. But their objections to the counting of properly certified ballots can hardly be interpreted as anything other than a desire to do so.
