Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
7/22/2016 12:52:13 AM

Bipolar rape victim jailed after having a mental breakdown while testifying against rapist

Her mind was already fragile as an egg.

For this 25-year-old bipolar woman — known only as Jane Doe — recounting the harrowing details of being violently choked and raped was too much. She stopped dead in the middle of her testimony at her rapist’s trial in Houston.

She broke.

According to court documents obtained by KPRC, the victim became disoriented and began babbling incoherently. She started crying, stood up from the witness stand and ran through the court to the outside world, screaming behind her that she’d never come back. Eventually, she wandered into traffic in front of the Harris County Criminal Courthouse.

She was involuntarily committed to the psychiatric ward of St. Joseph’s Hospital to stabilize.

“We all agree she needed to be treated for mental instability,” her lawyer Sean Buckley told The Washington Post in a phone interview early Thursday morning.

What he doesn’t agree with is what happened next: Jane Doe was imprisoned in the Harris County jail for 28 days, so the prosecution could ensure she would testify.

Eventually, she did finish testifying against Keith Hendricks, a serial rapist. Hendricks would be sentenced to two life sentences on Jan. 15 and is appealing his conviction.

But the 28 days she spent in jail before that were emotionally and physically damaging, according to Buckley. Because of this, Jane Doe is now suing Harris County and the county’s law enforcement agencies.

After stabilizing in the hospital, the state issued a writ of attachment, which allows police to hold a witness in custody. They can be issued in Texas when witnesses are considered to be a high risk for fleeing rather than testifying. But generally it’s used to hold those with criminal backgrounds or distinct reasons to flee, according to former prosecutor Kim Ogg, who is currently running to be the Harris County district attorney.

“Putting a witness in jail on a material witness bond is highly irregular and reserved for the worst of the worst witnesses, maybe gang cases,” Ogg told KPRC. “They can be protected by placing them in a hotel, you can place them with family, you can keep in contact.”

Instead, Jane Doe was thrown in Harris County jail for 28 days.

The complaint, which was obtained by The Washington Post, stated, “This lawsuit seeks damages for the Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ mistreatment of Jane Doe before and during her illegal imprisonment in the Harris County Jail.”

While in jail, the complaint alleges that Jane Doe suffered a number of indignities. Most distressing among them was physical assault from the other inmates, after she was placed in the general population — a fact her lawyer found especially distressing.

“They put her into the general population of the jail, even though the jail has a mental health unit,” Buckley said.

During her time in jail, the complaint stated that she was attacked by another inmate, who “repeatedly slammed her head into the concrete floor.”

When asked about her injuries, Buckley said she had a “superficial brain injury” but couldn’t specify beyond that.

The complaint also stated she “was forced to drink from a spigot attached to a dirty metal toilet.”

Finally, it stated that when Jane Doe was booked into the jail, she was mistakenly booked as the defendant in a sexual assault case.

“Whenever jailers or management of the jail would interface with her, they would see her as a defendant in an aggravated sexual assault case,” Buckley said.

“Their conduct shocks the conscience,” the complaint stated.

She also had trouble with the guards.

On January 8, Jane Doe allegedly suffered an “acute psychiatric episode and began loudly pleading with God to come to her rescue.” Guards were summoned, and Jane Doe hit one of them, who responded in kind by punching her across the face.

In lieu of fielding questions, Devon Anderson, the current district attorney, released a videotape in which she said she supports the decision to hold Jane Doe in jail. In it, she said Doe was “homeless,” which is in direct contradiction to the complaint, which mentions her “home.”

“I feel compelled to respond, despite the objections from my general counsel,” Anderson said in the video. “This report is disturbing, but there is more to the story that you are not told.”

Anderson continued, stating that the state’s actions were in the best interest for both Jane Doe and the public at large.

“If nothing was done to prevent the victim from leaving Harris County in the middle of trial, a serial rapist would have gone free, and her life would have been at risk, while homeless on the street,” Anderson, adding that she “fully support[s] the prosecutor’s actions.”

She concluded, “There were no apparent alternatives that would ensure the victim’s safety and her appearance at trial.”

Not everyone seemed convinced.

“It’s astounding to me that could have happened,” said KPRClegal analyst Brian Wice. “At the end of the day she received less due process, less protection than the rapist did.”

Judge Stacey W. Bond, who signed the order, told the station she couldn’t speak about the case because Hendricks is appealing the sentence.

(The Washngton Post)

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
7/22/2016 10:50:41 AM

Syria just got worse than the ‘worst-case scenario’


While the Republican National Convention was dominating headlines, the Obama administration’s management of the Syria crisis went from bad to worse.

Secretary of State John Kerry last week announced an agreement of military and intelligence cooperation with Russia in Syria to fight ISIS and the Nusra Front. No sooner had the deal been announced than NATO member Turkey, from whose Incirlik airbase the US conducts anti-ISIS operations, almost succumbed to a military coup that could’ve sent the country into chaos.

And on Sunday, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta described the current situation in Syria as “the worst-case scenario” for American interests.

Specifically, he told CBS, the worst-case scenario “is that [Bashar al-] Assad continues to remain in power,” “that the Russians continue to have a presence there” and continue to attack moderate Syrian forces and, finally, that ISIS would benefit from the mess.

Those headlines — partnership with Russia as NATO and US allies come under increasing pressure — capture the essence of President Obama’s Syria policy.

To understand the president’s decisions in Syria, one must look to his signature foreign-policy initiative: the deal with Iran. Since Syrian dictator Assad is Iran’s strategic ally, Obama long ago decided he wouldn’t back the effort to topple him.

Before the rise of ISIS in Syria, regional allies had urged Washington to bolster the American alliance against Iran. But they misread Obama.

Allies in Europe and the Middle East watched in confusion and disbelief as the president constantly privileged Russian and Iranian interests in Syria over their own. Meanwhile, the Syrian disaster grew worse, the body count rose and refugees flooded out of the country in larger numbers.

As the crisis deepened, the White House subtly but unmistakably shifted the goalposts. By 2013, the administration had made it known that the president regretted his initial call on Assad to “step aside.”

By that point, Obama had frustrated allies by insisting that any initiative had to get the support of Russia, which backed Assad. The administration brushed off complaints with a constant mantra: The only solution in Syria was political, not military, even as Russia and Iran were pouring in support to Assad precisely to impose a military solution.

Obama even went as far as publicly recognizing what he called Iran’s “equities” in Syria — shorthand for Iran’s ability to maintain its bridge to Hezbollah in Lebanon, and to supply it with missiles aimed at Israel. The White House then put our priorities in Syria in line with Russian and Iranian interests.

First, Obama entered into a partnership with Russia, which shielded Assad against a military strike over his use of chemical weapons. Then the president said the new priority was to fight terrorism (which means only ISIS and al Qaeda, and not Iran-backed terrorist groups fighting with Assad) and to provide humanitarian aid to Syrians. In both initiatives, Russia — Assad’s protector — was elevated to principal partner.

This decision has had catastrophic repercussions.

In September 2015, Russia intervened directly in Syria, knowing the White House wouldn’t stand in the way.

Russian President Vladimir Putin saw a golden opportunity to set up a military base on NATO’s southern flank, enabling him to project power both in the Middle East and Europe.

But Obama only doubled down by deepening military and intelligence cooperation with Russia in Syria, swatting aside objections from the Pentagon, the State Department and the intelligence community.

In so doing, the president is entrenching Russia’s presence on the border of NATO, the institution founded to counter Russian expansion.

What’s more, since the Russian enterprise in Syria is in full partnership with Iran, its success is Iran’s success. Stated differently, just as Russia now has a base bordering NATO member Turkey, Iran will also cement its presence in Syria — on Israel’s borders.

The latest agreement with the Kremlin, announced by Kerry, makes the US a partner in Russia’s war to save the Assad regime — the logical endgame of Obama’s policy.

Critics of the president’s Syria policy have often accused him of being too passive. This is a mistake.

The White House has been actively shaping the Syrian theater, both diplomatically and militarily. Only it has done so in a manner that has undercut and endangered US allies and interests. The worst-case scenario is what Obama will leave behind.

Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

(nypost.com)


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
7/22/2016 11:16:54 AM

Russian warplanes reportedly bombed US base in Syria











Jan. 28, 2016: Russian warplanes fly in the sky over the Mediterranean coastal city of Latakia (Reuters)

Russian warplanes reportedly bombed a secret military base in Syria used by elite American and British forces last month.

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that the Russian strike on the CIA-linked site was part of a campaign by Russia to pressure the White House to agree to closer cooperation in the Syrian skies, U.S. military and intelligence officials said.

Despite the fact that some forces could have been killed and the bombing dampened relations between Russia and the Pentagon and CIA, the White House and State Department still perused a compromise.

The U.S. and Russia agreed to a pact last week to target airstrikes against the Al Qaeda affiliate in the region – Nusra Front – despite objections from the Pentagon and CIA. Russia agreed to stop airstrikes on U.S.-backed rebels and restrain the Syrian air campaign. The two sides are still talking about designations where Russia would need U.S. approval to conduct an airstrike.

According to The Wall Street Journal, deal backers in the White House and State Department believe U.S. airstrikes on the Nusra Front in areas that were previously occupied by Russian forces would provide protection for allies in Syria.

However, officials in the Pentagon and CIA contend that Washington bowed to Moscow in the deal and believe that the U.S. needs to confront Russia.

The Russian strike on the base occurred on June 16. The U.S. and British forces help maintain what is described as a buffer zone in Jordan. Forces go into Syria to help protect Jordan from Islamic State, U.S. officials told The Journal. Forces didn’t spend the night, due to security reasons.

Nearly a day before the strike, 20 of 24 British special forces pulled out of the base. The U.S. tracked a Russian plane heading toward the base. The warplane dropped a cluster bomb, according to U.S. and rebel officials.

After the first strike, U.S. central command air operations center in Qatar called Russia’s air campaign headquarters in Latakia, Syria to tell them that the base shouldn’t be attacked.

However, Russian forces struck again nearly 90 minutes after the call was made. Russian pilots didn’t respond to U.S. calls using frequencies the two sides had previously agreed to use in case of an emergency.

At least four rebels were killed in strikes.

Russian officials initially told the Pentagon that the military thought it was an Islamic State facility, but U.S. officials rejected the notion because of what they described as a unique way the base was fortified, The Journal reported.

Russians then said that the Jordanians had given them the go-ahead to strike the base, but the U.S. double-checked and said no such authorization was given. Later, Russia told the U.S. that their headquarters wasn’t in position to call off the strike because the U.S. didn’t provide them with the proper coordinates of the base.

U.S. officials said that the Pentagon had never asked the Russians to steer clear of that area because it wasn’t close to the front lines and Russian aircraft didn’t operate in that part of Syria anyway.

The strike has increased the distrust between U.S. and American forces in Syria. According to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. didn’t want to give Russia any more information than they had to.

Since the strike, the U.S. has told Russia to steer clear of the Jordanian border.

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
7/22/2016 11:41:14 AM
Attention

US State Department warns of 'potential, imminent threat' in Saudi Arabia

© Reuters
Back in April, the US quietly warned citizens of "credible threats" to tourist areas in Turkey, particularly in Istanbul and the southern resort city of Antalya. In retrospect, one historic suicide bombing at the local airport, and one failed and/or staged coup later, the warning had been spot on. Which is why while traditionally official warnings of upcoming threats to US citizens around the globe have been generally ignored, this time it may be prudent to pay attention.

Moments ago, the US State Department warned Americans in Saudi Arabia about a "potential, imminent threat against U.S. citizens" Wednesday and urged to travel with caution. The agency tweeted out a brief statement titled "Reports of a potential imminent threat" in Jeddah.

The U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia was aware of threats to areas frequented by Westerners, such as "markets, restaurants and shopping malls," among others, the alert said. Those in the kingdom should "take extra precautions," the warning noted.

Americans who planned to head to Saudi Arabia should limit "non-essential travel" and carefully weigh the risks, the State Department added. The agency also restricted U.S. government personnel in the country from traveling within 50 miles of the border with Yemen.

They were also prohibited from visiting larger cities in regions recently hit by violence. "Keep your security and situational awareness levels very high. Be prepared to postpone or cancel activities for personal safety concerns," the advisory concluded.

The travel warning came roughly five hours after a similar announcement from the State Department warning Americans in Turkey to move with caution; that particular warning was probably unnecessary.

Unlike the constant barrage of terrorism in Turkey whether real of staged, Saudi Arabia has seen relatively stable in recent months,although two weeks ago a suicide bomber blew himself up in front of the US consulate in Jeddah.

Should the State Department be prescient again, keep an eye on oil prices because while Turkey is relatively irrelevant as an oil producer, a few well-placed explosions in Saudi Arabia could quickly stop out all recent crude shorts.


(sott.net)

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
7/22/2016 2:32:06 PM

As GOP trashes China, Beijing warns of potential war with U.S.


Patrick Winn, GlobalPost
10:13 a.m. EDT July 21, 2016















California delegates cheer during the third day session of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, on July 20, 2016.
(Photo: John Locher, AP)
There’s never an ideal time to antagonize the world’s largest army. But this week — when China is seething over perceived American aggression — is a particularly bad moment to rile up Beijing.

Yet that’s exactly what the U.S. Republican Party is doing. At its ongoing convention in Cleveland, led by nominee Donald Trump, the party is doubling down on China bashing.

According to the new Republican platform, China is guilty of “cultural genocide,” “barbaric population control” and a state-backed “hostile takeover” of American businesses.


Worse yet, China’s military is growing more intimidating thanks to — you guessed it — the “complacency of the
Obama regime.”

This bluster comes at an extremely tense moment in
US-China relations.

Last week, an international tribunal at The Hague sided with the United States and eviscerated one of China’s most contentious claims of sovereignty.

For years, Beijing has insisted that practically all of the
South China Sea — a vital waterway that supports one-third of the world’s shipping trade — is the “blue national soil” of China.

Unsurprisingly, other nations who look upon the sea from their shores (namely Vietnam and the Philippines) have never agreed.

The U.S. has urged both Vietnam and the Philippines to stand tall against China. All the while, the U.S. military has deployed its superior fleet of drones and warships into the sea to scare China into submission.

China’s response? Transforming minuscule islands into remote military bases armed with
powerful missiles. Once little specks of rock, these islands have swelled as Chinese barges dump mountains of sand around their edges.

Beijing has always paired its military maneuvers in the sea with rhetorical bombast printed in state-run media, which offers a window into the Communist Party’s thinking.

But in the wake of the Hague tribunal’s verdict, the government’s mouthpiece media have spoken more forcefully about the prospects for war.

One op-ed from a
state-run outlet asks, “Is there any chance of war in the South China Sea?” The same piece suggests that, if the United States did battle China over the sea, America may be vanquished: “The 21st century has witnessed a series of failures of U.S. military actions.”

Another
column compares the tribunal’s South China Sea ruling to the U.S.-orchestrated campaign to convince the world that Iraq possessed “weapons of mass destruction” — thus making the case for invasion.

According to the op-ed, this is the “same trick” played by the U.S., which “believes in nothing but ‘might makes right.’” (For good measure, the state-run paper adds that former
President George W. Bush should be charged as a war criminal.)

In the view of
Chinese communist stalwarts, the tribunal’s verdict is“radical and shameless” and will be disregarded as “nothing but a piece of paper.”

Yet they concede this piece of paper “may bring the China-U.S. contest to a
new climax” — and offers the U.S. “a great opportunity to humiliate and contain China.”

There is a common thread between the screeds coming from Beijing and Cleveland. Both parties, Communist and Republican, hope to project uncompromising power while satiating the nationalistic fervor that surges through their follower base.

On the Republican side, this anti-China drumbeat appears to have grown much louder with the ascent of Trump, a candidate who
insists that “we can’t continue to allow China to rape our country.”

Trump’s Democrat rival
Hillary Clinton hasn’t matched that level of outrageous rhetoric. But in Beijing’s halls of power, she too is regarded as overly hostile. As U.S. secretary of state, she routinely castigated China. If elected, she could more forcefully challenge Beijing in the South China Sea than President Obama ever did.

No matter who takes the
U.S. presidency, the odds of a naval war with China remain low — at least in the near future. The two nations are simply too intertwined to rush headlong into conflict. A Chinese state-run paper rightly points out that “only maniacs would start a war between China and the U.S.”

But nationalistic bluster is intensifying in both countries. And each year, an increasing number of warships, missiles and drones are brought to the sea to jockey for supremacy.

The sea is primed for an unintended event — a drone shot down, a game of chicken between warships gone too far — that would demand extraordinary tact from a future U.S. president seeking to avoid war.

As China’s state-run Global Times
puts it: “An accidental gunshot might put policymakers in both countries under huge pressure from public opinion, which could unexpectedly escalate the situation and lead to a grave crisis.”


(
usatoday.com)

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1