http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1203demotedcop03.html

Phoenix sergeant admits canceling parking tickets

David J. Cieslak
The Arizona Republic
Dec. 3, 2004 12:00 AM

The Phoenix Police Department is overhauling the way it voids parking citations after a veteran sergeant was demoted for repeatedly canceling tickets issued for his own car and a vehicle belonging to the operator of a popular downtown eatery.

William Wren, who has been with the department for 25 years, was demoted to the rank of officer and removed from the Downtown Operations Unit last month after a lengthy internal investigation, according to documents obtained by The Arizona Republic through a public records request.

During the investigation, Wren admitted that he voided parking tickets issued to his vehicle, including a citation he received last year when he was off-duty and getting a haircut.

"I'm willing to take the consequences for that because this is the dumbest thing I ever saw in my life," Wren told police investigators, referring to the citation issued during the haircut.

The investigation led the agency to order supervisors to use a computerized system that voids tickets - a system Wren reportedly bypassed - and now requires approval from commanders, said Phoenix police Cmdr. Kim Humphrey, a department spokesman.

In addition, the circumstances behind all citations also must be investigated before the tickets are considered for cancellation, Humphrey said.

"Once this issue came to light, a new process was put into place to ensure the problem didn't continue," Humphrey said.

In an interview Thursday night, Wren said he will appeal the discipline through the city's Civil Service Commission and has the backing of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association. Wren said high-ranking department officials asked him to void tickets and that he was stunned to learn they were not supporting him during the probe.

"The actions I took were for the best interest in the city, the downtown community and for the good of the police department. People told me I restored their faith in the department," said Wren, who has received several awards and commendations during his career. "This makes me look like a real scapegoat."

On several occasions, Wren told investigators he canceled tickets issued downtown because the department was being inundated with complaints from the businesses, saying parking enforcement personnel were overzealous and targeting certain people.

"Public relations is never a valid reason to void a ticket," Humphrey said.

"Nobody told him he could do that, nor was it standard practice by anybody but him."

Wren also canceled at least eight citations issued last year to A.J. Sulka, managing partner of Majerle's Sports Grill in downtown Phoenix, records show.

"The biggest thing was a safety issue, and sometimes parking at night downtown isn't the safest thing. Bill was concerned for me and other downtown business owners," Sulka said Thursday night. "This wasn't a quid pro quo deal, and I think Bill's getting a bad rap."

After Sulka was cited for parking in a restricted area outside the restaurant, he gave the citations to another downtown business manager who turned them over to Wren for cancellation, records show.

The other business owner, identified by police as Eric Ansel, owner of Art's Fisheries and the Rocky Point Shrimp Association in downtown Phoenix, told investigators that Wren also voided citations issued to an employee, a customer at Ansel's businesses and Ansel's mother.

Though Wren and other officers work off-duty as security guards at Ansel's businesses, both Ansel and Wren told investigators that the relationship did not play a role in the ticket cancellations.

<*==*><*==*><*==*><*==*>

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1203gitmo03.html

Evidence obtained by torture OK against detainees, U.S. says

Michael J. Sniffen
Associated Press
Dec. 3, 2004 12:00 AM

WASHINGTON - U.S. military panels reviewing the detention of foreigners as enemy combatants are allowed to use evidence gained by torture in deciding whether to keep them imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the government conceded in court Thursday.

The acknowledgment by Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle came during a U.S. District Court hearing on lawsuits brought by some of the 550 foreigners imprisoned at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The lawsuits challenge their detention without charges for up to three years so far.

Attorneys for the prisoners argued that some were held solely on evidence gained by torture, which they said violated fundamental fairness and U.S. due process standards. But Boyle argued in a similar hearing Wednesday that the detainees "have no constitutional rights enforceable in this court."

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon asked if a detention would be illegal if it were based solely on evidence gathered by torture, because "torture is illegal. We all know that."

Boyle replied that if the military's combatant status review tribunals (or CSRTs) "determine that evidence of questionable provenance were reliable, nothing in the due process clause (of the Constitution) prohibits them from relying on it."

Leon asked if there were any restrictions on using evidence produced by torture.

Boyle replied the United States would never adopt a policy that would have barred it from acting on evidence that could have prevented the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks even if the data came from questionable practices like torture by a foreign power.

Evidence based on torture is not admissible in U.S. courts. "About 70 years ago, the Supreme Court stopped the use of evidence produced by third-degree tactics largely on the theory that it was totally unreliable," Harvard Law Professor Philip B. Heymann, a former deputy U.S. attorney general, said in an interview. Subsequent high court rulings were based on revulsion at "the unfairness and brutality of it and later on the idea that confessions ought to be free and uncompelled."

Boyle said torture was against U.S. policy and any allegations of it would be "forwarded through command channels for military discipline." He added, "I don't think anything remotely like torture has occurred at Guantanamo."

<*==*><*==*><*==*><*==*>

the arizona republic thinks homeless are vermin who should be banned from phoenix parks

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/northphoenix/articles/1203exedit1203Z3.html

Parks should be safe and welcoming to all
They aren't shelters

Dec. 3, 2004 12:00 AM

Hey, it's a park, not a flophouse.

A park, not a social service agency.

A park, not a shelter. advertisement

Parks are for everybody, designed, planned and built to satisfy the recreational and leisure needs of the entire community, not just a segment of it.

And the presence of homeless men and women sleeping on park benches and on the grass during the day is ruining the park experience for more and more Phoenix residents.

You don't have to be cold-hearted or unsympathetic to the homeless' plight to recognize they shouldn't be setting up housekeeping in our city parks.

Think of a park and what it should be: serene, relaxing, playful, fun, inviting, enjoyable, soothing, natural, a refuge.

A place for a stroll or a game of touch football.

Not a place for your children to be panhandled by a scruffy stranger.

Unfortunately, the presence of homeless people in our city parks has become a major residential problem in all areas of the city, not just downtown.

We certainly agree that the homeless need basic life services, food, shelter and hygiene.

But parks are not set up to supply those services. And neither are residential neighborhoods. That's the point citizens are making to city officials and council members. Not all the parks have restroom facilities, for example, creating a public health hazard.

"People are afraid of them," observes Jim Brown, president of the Pasadena Neighborhood Association in north-central Phoenix, where Colter Park is now seen as more of a liability than an asset.

Council members and staff should not hesitate in taking a necessary first step: expanding the scope of a current ordinance restricting daytime camping in downtown Patriots Square. The restriction should apply to all city parks.

It's already prohibited to sleep in a city park after it's closed at night.

It seems logical that it should be unlawful to roll out the blankets and sleeping bags and hang out for hours at a time while the park is open.

The ordinance is aimed at taking back control of the parks, not in leaving the homeless to fend on their own. Park rangers already explain where the homeless can find services. Indeed, Phoenix, Maricopa County and several social service agencies are cooperating in a massive reorganization of services, setting up a downtown homeless campus.

Additional steps to assist the homeless might be required.

But a city park should be open and accessible and unintimidating for all our residents. Council members should adopt the new ordinance.

It's a park, not a shelter.

Ansel did not return phone calls seeking comment. Neither Sulka nor Ansel faced legal consequences for their actions.

<*==*><*==*><*==*><*==*>

When President Bush declared major combat operations were over May 1, 2003, the United States had about 148,000 troops in Iraq
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1202IraqTroops02-ON.html

U.S. force in Iraq to grow to highest level of war

Associated Press
Dec. 2, 2004 07:05 AM

WASHINGTON - With the insurgency still a threat to Iraq's planned elections, the U.S. force is about to expand to its highest level of the war - even higher than the initial invading force in March 2003.

The force will grow from 138,000 today to about 150,000 by mid-January, the Pentagon said Wednesday.

Extra troops are needed to bolster security before the national elections scheduled for Jan. 30. The increase in troop strength also underscores the fact that, despite enormous effort and cost, American commanders have yet to train and equip enough Iraqis for security duty.

Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, deputy commander of Central Command, which is responsible for U.S. military operations throughout the Middle East, told reporters at the Pentagon last month that the insurgents have managed to intimidate many Iraqis into not cooperating with the Americans.

The expansion of the U.S. force also recalls assertions made by some Bush administration officials when the invasion was launched that although stabilizing the country would not be easy or cheap, it certainly would not require more U.S. troops than it took to topple Baghdad.

As it turns out, the post-invasion period has been far costlier in blood and treasure than almost anyone predicted. When President Bush declared major combat operations were over May 1, 2003, the United States had about 148,000 troops in Iraq - slightly more than when the war began two months earlier and more than were there when Baghdad fell in early April.

The Pentagon said Wednesday that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a plan to send 1,500 soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, N.C., to Iraq this month and to extend by 60 days the combat tours of about 10,400 soldiers and Marines in Iraq who were to come home in January.

Most of those whose tours are being extended will serve two months longer than the 12-month tours the Army set as a standard limit to avoid putting too much stress on troops and their families.

The 12,000-troop increase is to last only until March, but it says much about the strength and resiliency of an insurgency that U.S. military planners did not foresee even a year ago, when they were focused on capturing deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Pentagon officials said they preferred to expand the force in Iraq mainly by keeping some troops there longer rather than sending thousands of fresh troops from the United States.

"They are the most experienced and best-qualified forces to sustain the momentum of post-Fallujah operations and to provide for additional security for the upcoming elections," a Pentagon statement said.

The military normally is reluctant to extend soldiers' combat tours because of the potential negative effect it could have on their families, and thus on their willingness to remain in uniform. In this case, Gen. George Casey, the most senior U.S. commander in Iraq, decided it was necessary to keep up pressure on the insurgents while providing security for the elections.

One unit, the 2nd Brigade of the 1st Cavalry Division, is being extended for the second time. Its soldiers originally were told they would be going home in November at the end of a 10-month assignment, but in October they got the news they would remain until mid-January. Now they are being extended until mid-March.

Rumsfeld's decision also applies to:

About 4,400 troops of the 2nd Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division, which is operating in north-central Iraq. They will stay until mid-March, instead of departing in early January. Those soldiers' home bases are mostly in Hawaii.

About 2,300 members of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, based in Okinawa, Japan, Hawaii and California, who will stay until mid-March instead of leaving in January.

About 160 soldiers of the 66th Transportation Company, based in Germany. They were due to depart Iraq in early January but instead will stay until early March.

The Army generally relies upon the 82nd Airborne to keep one of its three brigades on short-notice alert year-round to deploy abroad if there is a crisis. Shortly before the October elections in Afghanistan, about 600 members of the 82nd Airborne were sent there to strengthen security.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., a critic of the administration's handling of the war, said the Pentagon's announcement confirmed that the effort to stabilize Iraq would take years, with no certainty of success.

"This announcement makes it clear that commanders in Iraq need more troops and that this will be a long and very expensive process for the United States," Reed said. "It is still not clear whether Iraq will emerge from this chronic violence as a viable and stable country."

---

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.dod.gov

<*==*><*==*><*==*><*==*>

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1202suppress02.html
Judge: Police raid of Hells Angels was 'attack'

Brent Whiting
The Arizona Republic
Dec. 2, 2004 12:00 AM

A judge has taken police to task for a drug raid on a Hells Angels clubhouse in north Phoenix in which a man was shot.

In a blistering decision, Judge Michael Wilkinson of Maricopa County Superior Court described the early-morning operation as an "attack" that violated Arizona search-and-seizure laws.

The judge tossed out key evidence police obtained against the injured man, Michael Wayne Coffelt, a Phoenix resident and prospective Hells Angels member.

Coffelt, 42, had been scheduled to stand trial Jan. 5 on charges of aggravated assault against the Glendale officer who shot him.

Richard Schonfeld, a Las Vegas defense lawyer, said Wednesday that Wilkinson's order effectively guts the prosecution's case.

"The judge correctly interpreted the evidence," he said. "This is a first step toward redressing the grievance of Mr. Coffelt, . . . who was the victim here."

Wilkinson, in a two-page order issued Monday, ruled that police made an illegal entry in the 4:42 a.m. raid by attacking the rear of the clubhouse.

The assault came within the six seconds it took Coffelt, who was inside the house, to respond to police knocking on the front door, the judge said.

Clearly, officers failed to wait a reasonable time before firing a "diversionary grenade" and breaking a window, he said.

Coffelt was armed with a handgun when he came to the front door, Wilkinson said.

"This would appear to be reasonable behavior, given the hour and the fact that the house was under attack," he said.

The raid took place July 8, 2003, as part of a multiagency law-enforcement sweep across Arizona.

Officer Laura Beeler, who at the time was 33 and a nearly nine-year member of the Glendale force, shot Coffelt with a rifle. Beeler claimed that Coffelt took aim at her and fired once, but investigators determined that Coffelt never fired. The handgun recovered from him was fully loaded, police said.

Wilkinson ruled that Beeler was "incorrect" in claiming that she had been fired upon.

"But with the attack at the rear of the house, the diversionary grenade being set off and a 'break and rake' of the window, it was an understandable mistake," Wilkinson said.

Bill FitzGerald, a spokesman for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, said there has been no final decision on whether to appeal.

Schonfeld, the lawyer for Coffelt, said that still unresolved is a federal lawsuit that Coffelt filed against Glendale, Beeler and others on July 7, seeking unspecified damages.

Andrew Kirkland, Glendale's police chief, declined to comment on Monday's ruling because of the federal litigation, but he did say that officers had a valid search warrant.

Beeler has been cleared of any wrongdoing in the shooting by county prosecutors, as well as the Glendale police's Use of Force Review Board.

<*==*><*==*><*==*><*==*>

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/10306309.htm?1c

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal police officer has been accused of covering up for two colleagues who shot at a motorist.

A federal grand jury on Nov. 23 indicted Charles Jackson, a special agent with the Federal Protective Service, on charges he falsified records in an investigation, court records show.

Former federal officers Peter Taoy and John Haire pleaded guilty Nov. 15 to falsely accusing a motorist of attempting to run them over. The motorist, Jeffrey Petri, spent six days in jail last year on false charges of assaulting an officer.

The two said they engaged in a high speed chase with Petri after he ran a red light near the federal building in February 2003. Taoy fired several shots into the left front tire of Petri's Mercedes-Benz, then made up the story that Petri tried to run them over.

Both have resigned from the force and are to be sentenced March 7.

Haire said he went along with Taoy's "untrue story" because of "peer pressure," according to his plea agreement.

Jackson allegedly failed to disclose that Haire recanted his claim that Petri ran a red light. Authorities said the incident took place several blocks away, where federal police have no jurisdiction.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-30-recruiters_x.htm

Federal security official in Phoenix indicted
By Kim Smith, Tribune

A federal security official from Phoenix has been accused of falsifying records in connection with a San Francisco shooting that involved two other federal agents.

According to an indictment unsealed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, Charles Jackson, a Federal Protective Services special agent, was assigned to investigate a shooting involving federal officers Peter Taoy and John Haire in February 2003.

Taoy claimed that a man named Jeffrey Petri tried to run him down following a pursuit near the San Francisco Federal Building.

Jackson is accused of not telling authorities that Haire confessed that he had never seen Petris car drive by the federal building.

"The information that defendant Charles Jackson failed to disclose contradicted evidence that defendant Charles Jackson knew had been presented to the FPS, the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Northern District of California, and a Federal Magistrate-Judge in connection with Petris arrest and detention," the indictment reads.

The indictment states Jackson "substantially interfered with the administration of justice" and he "abused a position of trust he held as a FPS special agent."

George Walker, Jacksons attorney, did not return a call.

Jackson has since been assigned to the agencys office in Phoenix, according to a Tuesday story in the San Francisco Chronicle. Federal Protective Services is a division within the U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement.

Jackson is scheduled to be arraigned Dec. 7 in San Francisco.

Contact Kim Smith by email, or phone (480) 898-6334

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/30/BAGAPA3OOV1.DTL

SAN FRANCISCO
Federal agent charged in case where colleagues made up story
Official accused of falsifying records in high-speed chase
Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

A federal police official has been charged with covering for two colleagues in San Francisco who invented a story about a motorist trying to run them down to explain why one of them shot at the man's car.

Charles H. Jackson, a special agent with the Federal Protective Service, was indicted by a federal grand jury in San Francisco on a charge of falsifying records in a federal investigation, court records show.

Former federal officers Peter Taoy and John Haire pleaded guilty Nov. 15 to causing Jeffrey Petri to be jailed for six days last year on false charges of assaulting a police officer.

Taoy and Haire tried to pull Petri over after he ran a red light Feb. 15, 2003, but engaged in a high-speed chase to do so, authorities said. Federal police policy bans such chases for simple traffic violations.

The officers pinned their patrol car against Petri's Mercedes-Benz at Green and Larkin streets. Taoy fired several shots into the left front tire of the car, then concocted the accusation that Petri had tried to run him over, authorities said.

Haire said he went along with Taoy's "untrue story" because of "peer pressure," according to Haire's plea agreement.

Jackson, serving as an investigator, allegedly failed to disclose in a report that Haire had recanted his initial claim that he and Taoy had given chase after seeing Petri run the red light near the Federal Building. In reality, the incident happened several blocks away, where federal police have no jurisdiction, authorities said.

The Nov. 23 indictment said Jackson "substantially interfered with the administration of justice" and "abused a position of trust."

"The Department of Justice will not, under any circumstances, tolerate this conduct, and we will prosecute those who violate our laws, including those who are sworn to uphold the law," said U.S. Attorney Kevin Ryan in San Francisco.

Jackson's attorney, George Walker of San Francisco, questioned the indictment Monday, saying his client had taken the accused officer's statements at face value and then notified superiors when he noticed discrepancies.

"His job was not to investigate the officers. His job was merely to review the reports of the officers," Walker said. "It's really a shame. He's almost a 20-year veteran with an impeccable record."

In court papers, Jackson is described by federal prosecutors as having confronted Haire "with certain evidence about the incident," including a video recording from a Federal Building security camera.

Haire told Jackson that Taoy was lying about the incident, court papers said. The indictment against Jackson said the information he failed to disclose "contradicted evidence that (Jackson) knew had been presented to (authorities)."The case shines a rare spotlight on the federal police agency, which provides security and law enforcement for more than 8,800 federal facilities nationwide and is part of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Officials with both agencies declined comment or did not return calls Monday.

Taoy pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy against rights and making false statements. Haire pleaded guilty to deprivation of rights under color of law. Both have resigned from the force and are to be sentenced March 7.

Jackson is now a special agent in the Phoenix office, authorities said. He is expected to appear in U.S. District Court in San Francisco this week, his attorney said.

Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles and from Washington, D.C., are handling the Taoy, Haire and Jackson cases because federal prosecutors in San Francisco recused themselves on the grounds they could be witnesses.

E-mail Henry K. Lee at hlee@sfchronicle.com.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/10306309.htm?1c

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal police officer has been accused of covering up for two colleagues who shot at a motorist.

A federal grand jury on Nov. 23 indicted Charles Jackson, a special agent with the Federal Protective Service, on charges he falsified records in an investigation, court records show.

Former federal officers Peter Taoy and John Haire pleaded guilty Nov. 15 to falsely accusing a motorist of attempting to run them over. The motorist, Jeffrey Petri, spent six days in jail last year on false charges of assaulting an officer.

The two said they engaged in a high speed chase with Petri after he ran a red light near the federal building in February 2003. Taoy fired several shots into the left front tire of Petri's Mercedes-Benz, then made up the story that Petri tried to run them over.

Both have resigned from the force and are to be sentenced March 7.

Haire said he went along with Taoy's "untrue story" because of "peer pressure," according to his plea agreement.

Jackson allegedly failed to disclose that Haire recanted his claim that Petri ran a red light. Authorities said the incident took place several blocks away, where federal police have no jurisdiction.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-30-recruiters_x.htm

Federal security official in Phoenix indicted
By Kim Smith, Tribune

A federal security official from Phoenix has been accused of falsifying records in connection with a San Francisco shooting that involved two other federal agents.

According to an indictment unsealed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, Charles Jackson, a Federal Protective Services special agent, was assigned to investigate a shooting involving federal officers Peter Taoy and John Haire in February 2003.

Taoy claimed that a man named Jeffrey Petri tried to run him down following a pursuit near the San Francisco Federal Building.

Jackson is accused of not telling authorities that Haire confessed that he had never seen Petris car drive by the federal building.

"The information that defendant Charles Jackson failed to disclose contradicted evidence that defendant Charles Jackson knew had been presented to the FPS, the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Northern District of California, and a Federal Magistrate-Judge in connection with Petris arrest and detention," the indictment reads.

The indictment states Jackson "substantially interfered with the administration of justice" and he "abused a position of trust he held as a FPS special agent."

George Walker, Jacksons attorney, did not return a call.

Jackson has since been assigned to the agencys office in Phoenix, according to a Tuesday story in the San Francisco Chronicle. Federal Protective Services is a division within the U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement.

Jackson is scheduled to be arraigned Dec. 7 in San Francisco.

Contact Kim Smith by email, or phone (480) 898-6334

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/30/BAGAPA3OOV1.DTL

SAN FRANCISCO
Federal agent charged in case where colleagues made up story
Official accused of falsifying records in high-speed chase
Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

A federal police official has been charged with covering for two colleagues in San Francisco who invented a story about a motorist trying to run them down to explain why one of them shot at the man's car.

Charles H. Jackson, a special agent with the Federal Protective Service, was indicted by a federal grand jury in San Francisco on a charge of falsifying records in a federal investigation, court records show.

Former federal officers Peter Taoy and John Haire pleaded guilty Nov. 15 to causing Jeffrey Petri to be jailed for six days last year on false charges of assaulting a police officer.

Taoy and Haire tried to pull Petri over after he ran a red light Feb. 15, 2003, but engaged in a high-speed chase to do so, authorities said. Federal police policy bans such chases for simple traffic violations.

The officers pinned their patrol car against Petri's Mercedes-Benz at Green and Larkin streets. Taoy fired several shots into the left front tire of the car, then concocted the accusation that Petri had tried to run him over, authorities said.

Haire said he went along with Taoy's "untrue story" because of "peer pressure," according to Haire's plea agreement.

Jackson, serving as an investigator, allegedly failed to disclose in a report that Haire had recanted his initial claim that he and Taoy had given chase after seeing Petri run the red light near the Federal Building. In reality, the incident happened several blocks away, where federal police have no jurisdiction, authorities said.

The Nov. 23 indictment said Jackson "substantially interfered with the administration of justice" and "abused a position of trust."

"The Department of Justice will not, under any circumstances, tolerate this conduct, and we will prosecute those who violate our laws, including those who are sworn to uphold the law," said U.S. Attorney Kevin Ryan in San Francisco.

Jackson's attorney, George Walker of San Francisco, questioned the indictment Monday, saying his client had taken the accused officer's statements at face value and then notified superiors when he noticed discrepancies.

"His job was not to investigate the officers. His job was merely to review the reports of the officers," Walker said. "It's really a shame. He's almost a 20-year veteran with an impeccable record."

In court papers, Jackson is described by federal prosecutors as having confronted Haire "with certain evidence about the incident," including a video recording from a Federal Building security camera.

Haire told Jackson that Taoy was lying about the incident, court papers said. The indictment against Jackson said the information he failed to disclose "contradicted evidence that (Jackson) knew had been presented to (authorities)."The case shines a rare spotlight on the federal police agency, which provides security and law enforcement for more than 8,800 federal facilities nationwide and is part of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Officials with both agencies declined comment or did not return calls Monday.

Taoy pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy against rights and making false statements. Haire pleaded guilty to deprivation of rights under color of law. Both have resigned from the force and are to be sentenced March 7.

Jackson is now a special agent in the Phoenix office, authorities said. He is expected to appear in U.S. District Court in San Francisco this week, his attorney said.

Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles and from Washington, D.C., are handling the Taoy, Haire and Jackson cases because federal prosecutors in San Francisco recused themselves on the grounds they could be witnesses.

E-mail Henry K. Lee at hlee@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/16/BAGKF9RV4O1.DTL
2 ex-federal officers enter guilty pleas
Henry K. Lee

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

Two former federal police officers pleaded guilty Monday to falsely claiming that a motorist tried to run one of them over, forcing that officer to shoot at the car, authorities said.

Peter Taoy and John Haire, former Federal Protective Service officers, caused motorist Jeffrey Petri to be jailed for six days and wrongly charged with assaulting a police officer, according to court documents.

The officers, assigned to the Federal Building in San Francisco, chased Petri on Feb. 15, 2003, after he ran a red light in his Mercedes-Benz, authorities said. When they caught up to him, Taoy fired four shots into the car's left front tire.

The two officers made up a story that Petri had tried to run over Taoy, prosecutors said. The two also admitted to falsely stating that the pursuit began adjacent to federal property rather than several blocks away.

Taoy pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel to charges of conspiracy against rights and making false statements. Haire pleaded guilty to deprivation of rights under color of law. Both have resigned from the force and are to be sentenced March 7.

http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=2569597

SAN FRANCISCO Two former federal officers have pleaded guilty to violating a San Francisco man's civil rights when they arrested him last year.

The Justice Department says Peter Taoy (toy) and John Haire -- both formerly Federal Protective Service officers -- admitted to making false statements and disregarding the truth about the arrest of Jeffrey Petri.

The officers initially reported that they saw Petri blow through a red light and lead them on a high speed chase that ended when they shot out his tires -- an act they described as self-defense when he allegedly tried to run them over.

The problem was, it didn't happen that way at all. Many of the details given by the officers at the time of Petri's arrest were inaccurate and they resulted in Petri being jailed for six days and wrongfully charged with a federal crime.

The two officers now face a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison.

The case continues to be investigated by both the F-B-I and the Department of Homeland Security.

Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Terence Alexander pulled Diana Dietrich-Barnes

<*==*><*==*><*==*><*==*>

http://www.10news.com/news/3958341/detail.html

Officer Caught On Tape Forcing Woman To Ground
Eyewitnesses Say Woman Was Yelling

An incident involving a police officer forcing a woman to the ground is caught on tape, ABC reported.

It all began when a police officer confronted a woman at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, the world’s busiest airport.

Many were wondering if the officer used excessive force, but in court on Monday, the district attorney and the judge agreed to drop the charges after reviewing the videotape and deciding that the force was necessary because the vehicle's driver, Dietrich-Barnes, did not obey a direct command from the officer.

Images: Charges Dropped In Court

What Happened?

On Nov. 2, Dietrich-Barnes was waiting to pick up her mother, ABC reported.

After circling the airport several times, she stopped to check her mother's itinerary. A few moments later, Officer Terence Alexander told her to move, ABC reported.

As she backed up her sport utility vehicle her side mirror bumped the officer. He quickly reacted by opening the car door, taking Dietrich-Barnes out of the car and forcing her to the ground, where she was handcuffed, ABC reported.

Seven police officers came to the aid of Alexander before Dietrich-Barnes was arrested. She publicly complained that Alexander was too rough with her, a charge his lawyer disputes.

His attorney, Lecora Bowen, released the following statement:

“Dietrich-Barnes began to back up her SUV and struck Officer Alexander with enough force to injure his body and destroy his radio and then refused to get out of the car after more than four commands.”

Eyewitnesses report that Dietrich-Barnes was confrontational with the officer. One witness said she backed into the officer.

Another witness said, "I heard the woman screaming at the officer with the driver's door open. He was talking to her calmly, but I couldn't hear him over her yelling."
Copyright © 2004 ABCNEWS Internet Ventures.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/1204/04airport.html

Group accuses mayor of bias in airport probe

By TY TAGAMI
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 12/03/04

A small group of Cobb County activists is claiming that Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin displayed a racial bias after a recent incident involving a black officer accused of excessive force against a white patron of Atlanta's airport.

Three members of the Marietta-based human-rights group New Order traveled to City Hall on Friday after hearing about Franklin's request for a review of all police brutality incidents reported at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport during her three years in office.

The three men, who are black, wanted to know why she hadn't asked for a citywide review earlier. They noted that Franklin was responding to a well-publicized incident on Nov. 2, when a black officer named Terence Alexander pulled Diana Dietrich-Barnes of Stockbridge from a sport utility vehicle and threw her to the pavement. The scene was caught on airport security cameras.

Gerald Rose, the founder and chief executive of the group, which has a dozen members, said there had been numerous accusations of white officers manhandling blacks in Atlanta since Franklin took office. Franklin's office did not respond to the group's claim Friday.

Three more people are coming forward to claim an Atlanta police officer was overly aggressive when he arrested them at the airport.

Officer Terence Alexander is currently the focus of two internal affairs investigation. One involves a controversial arrest in early November at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. [See Related Story]

In that arrest, Diana Dietrich Barnes accused Officer Alexander of using unnecessary force when he arrested her near the baggage claim area outside Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. Dietrich-Barnes claims Officer Alexander slammed her to the ground after asking her to move her SUV from a no parking area.

Last week, 11Alive News showed the first airing of surveillance videotape of the Nov. 2 arrest. After watching the video, Alexander's supervisors allowed Dietrich-Barnes to go free without pressing charges.

The other investigation involves a case dating back three years.

Attorney Steve Zaloudek says he had a run-in with Officer Alexander three years ago when his sister-in-law dropped off him and his wife at the Atlanta airport.

"I went around to the back of the car to pull a bag out of the trunk. While I was doing that, I heard this officer, who I later found out was Officer Alexander, yelling and screaming at our car from the median area. And I don't remember exactly what he was saying but it was something to the effect of you need to move the car,” Zaloudek said.

"I simply said to the officer, ‘The sign says drop-off zone.’ He responded to me and said, ‘What did you say to me?’ He was very aggressive and I said the sign says it's a drop-off zone,” he added.

Zaloudek says he began walking to the terminal and away from the officer, who continued yelling at him.

"Right before I got to the curb I felt someone grab my arms and put them behind my back and tell me to drop my bags and he applied handcuffs to me,” he said.

Then he says the officer turned to his wife—Janu Sivanesan -- who is also an attorney.

“I said, ‘Oh my God, this is crazy, you can't do this,’ And he came back and that's when he grabbed my arms behind my back,’ Sivanesan said in a telephone interview. “Then he twisted them up over my head and iIstarted crying involuntarily because the pain was so bad."

"This is when it became brutal and abusive,” Zaloudek said.

Sivanesan was handcuffed, as well, along with her sister who ran up to see what was happening.

Police then took all three to a holding cell at the airport where they were eventually released with a copy of the charges.

"My wife and sister had three charges and I had two. The additional charge they had was the officer claimed they put him in fear for his safety,” Zaloudek said.

In a police incident report, Officer Alexander wrote that Zaloudek's wife was yelling and cursing before she approached him aggressively and bumped his chest with her body.

He also wrote that her sister struck him in the chest -– claims that both women deny.

"The charges against us were laughable to say the least,” Zaloudek said.

In five years with the department, Alexander has been suspended five times. Officer alexander's attorney Lecora Bowen had no comment on the new claims, but she did question why it took so long for a complaint to be filed.

Zaloudek said he waited until June of this year to file the complaint because he thought disorderly conduct charges against him, his wife and his sister-in-law were dismissed. Zaloudek says the city solicitor assured him all the charges were dropped, but those charges have not been taken out of the court computer system..

Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin has asked the police chief and airport general manager to review any police brutality allegations during her three years in office.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/10323146.htm?1c

Posted on Thu, Dec. 02, 2004

Police brutality probe launched in Atlanta

Associated Press

ATLANTA - Mayor Shirley Franklin ordered an inquiry into claims of police brutality at Atlanta's main airport, following broadcast of a video showing an officer shoving a woman to the ground.

Any brutality claims made during Franklin's three years in office will be reviewed by the police chief and the general manager of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Franklin said. Inquiry results will be made public, she said.

The order came after news reports of the Nov. 2 confrontation outside an airport terminal. Officer Terence Alexander was trying to arrest Diana Dietrich-Barnes on a traffic violation as she dropped off her mother at the airport. A security video shows him pushing her to the ground.

"As the mayor of a big city, I am always concerned about allegations of police brutality," Franklin said.

He charged Dietrich-Barnes with illegal parking, battery and obstruction, but the charges were dropped after his supervisors reviewed the videotape.

The officer, who said the woman injured him, then tried to get felony charges filed against her in Clayton County, where the airport is located, but a magistrate refused Monday to hear the case.

Alexander is on medical leave, and an internal investigation is being conducted by police. The officer has been reprimanded or suspended without pay 13 times since 2001 for violating departmental rules, police said.

Airport General Manager Ben DeCosta said confrontations between police and the public are rare, considering how many people move through the busy airport.

On the Web:

Mayor: http://www.atlantaga.gov/Mayor

Police: http://www.atlantapd.org

Airport: http://www.atlanta-airport.com

<*==*><*==*><*==*><*==*>

Arizona Prosecutors want to flush our right to a jury trial down the toilet for misdemeanor crimes. (Note the feds have already flushed our right to a jury trial down the toilet in federal cases)

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1204nojury04.html

State court to consider who gets jury trials

Michael Kiefer
The Arizona Republic
Dec. 4, 2004 12:00 AM

In Arizona, a defendant can get a jury trial for smoking marijuana but not for beating a spouse, for bare-bottom dancing but not for cruelty to animals.

The inconsistencies regarding who's entitled to a jury trial are at the center of a case being considered by the Arizona Supreme Court. The high court took the case under advisement on Oct. 28 but gave no indication when it would rule.

The outcome could affect misdemeanor cases, potentially having the biggest impact on DUI cases.

Getting rid of some of the jury trials could cut docket times and court costs. But defense attorneys worry it could do so at the expense of constitutional rights.

"One judge has one opinion," said Kathleen N. Carey, a Maricopa County public defender. "With (a jury) you have a better opportunity of really touching the heart of what our society feels in that community."

Drag-racing case

The case being considered by the Supreme Court is about drag racing.

Justin Derendal was arrested in late August 2002 when he and a friend were riding motorcycles down Bell Road in north Phoenix. Derendal was charged with drag racing, a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a hefty fine.

His attorney, Neal Bassett, requested a jury trial for Derendal in Phoenix Municipal Court, but the court refused his request. He filed a special action in Superior Court demanding a jury trial. He pointed out that reckless driving merited a jury trial.

"Drag racing is of an even higher grade than reckless driving," he said, meaning that it's considered a more serious offense. "And it's of the same nature. It's two cars driving recklessly instead of one car." The arguments for and against misdemeanor jury trials are split across the courtroom aisle.

Defense attorneys point to the principle that the accused is entitled to a trial by his or her peers. They also know that juries can be more lenient on their clients than judges.

Prosecutors feel that state tests to decide which cases are jury-eligible are too difficult to apply and that such jury trials waste court time and resources.

Both the state and federal tests for misdemeanor jury eligibility come out of DUI case law.

The federal test is attractively simple to prosecutors: Any offense punishable by a jail sentence of six months or less is petty and not deserving of a jury trial; other states have adopted that guideline. Arizona could, too.

But six months incarceration is the maximum punishment on the books for misdemeanors in Arizona.

"That means that no Arizona misdemeanor is jury-eligible under the federal test," Bassett said.

Prosecutors relish the idea of eliminating misdemeanor trials.

"Consistency and fairness. It's consistent with federal. It's fair, too," said Ken Flint, assistant Scottsdale city prosecutor.

Misdemeanor offenses

Misdemeanor cases are mostly tried in Justice and Municipal courts across the state.

According to the Research and Statistic Administrative Office of the Courts, which crunches numbers on behalf of the Arizona Supreme Court, there were more than 65,600 trials for misdemeanor offenses at the state's Justice and Municipal courts in fiscal 2004, which ended June 30.

Only 1,273 of those were jury trials and three-fourths of them were criminal traffic cases, which includes DUI, according to the brief Flint submitted to the high court in the Derendal case. He noted how much time and money could be saved by eliminating misdemeanor jury trials.

He cited 1995 figures claiming that Phoenix Municipal Court had spent nearly $1.3 million on jury trials, mostly for DUIs and had a juror no-show rate as high as 80 percent.

But defense attorneys are appalled.

"Justice should not be determined on an economic issue," Carey said. "This is the reason why we have a Constitution and we are so different from other countries. From the beginning of our statehood we have given individuals the right to a jury trial. It's a historical decision and a legislative decision."

When the Derendal case reached the Arizona Supreme Court, the justices asked for briefs describing why the state should or shouldn't adopt the federal guidelines set out in a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case called Blanton vs. City of North Las Vegas, which was about the right to a jury trial for DUI. The Blanton decision set the definition of petty offenses as those whose punishment is six months or less of incarceration.

That could include many Arizona DUIs, even though a state statute grants the right to a jury trial for DUI.

'State vs. Rothweiler'

The test for whether a misdemeanor is jury-eligible comes from the 1966 Arizona Supreme Court ruling in State vs. Rothweiler, also a DUI case. It listed three considerations that demanded jury trial: If there were an existing precedent for a jury trial under common law, that is, before Arizona became a territory; if it were a crime of "moral turpitude," that is, if it reflected on personal character; and if the consequences were greater than just the six-month imprisonment - say, the loss of driver's license and insurance and other social consequences of a DUI conviction.

All three tests are difficult to apply, and so many decisions are made on case law. If the court granted a jury trial once for a specific charge, it will offer it again.

But "unless the court actually says this offense gets a jury trial or this offense doesn't, it's difficult to determine whether an offense is jury-eligible," Flint said. "So it almost requires a charge-by-charge analysis."

It could go either way

The justices could decide to rule only on whether Derendal gets a jury trial, which would set precedent for that offense. They could clarify the existing law, making it easier for judges and attorneys to apply.

Or they could opt for the federal Blanton standard and eliminate jury trials for misdemeanors altogether, even for DUIs.

"I would be surprised if the Supreme Court went that far," said Hays, the Mesa prosecutor. "Obviously they're thinking about doing something with the Rothweiler test since they're the ones who asked that this issue be briefed.

"They must at least be considering revising what they've done in the past. But how far they're going to go, I don't know."

<*==*><*==*><*==*><*==*>

http://www.prensahispanaaz.com/edicion/principal/notas/pro.htm

Edición: 687. Del 1 al 7 de diciembre del 2004.
Phoenix, AZ.

Proposición 200 es anticonstitucional

Librada Martínez

El argumento sometido ante la Corte Federal de Tucson
en contra de la Proposición 200 se basó en la
inconstitucionalidad de la iniciativa, con la que,
según los abogados, el Estado estaría realizando
funciones que le corresponden al gobierno federal.
El abogado Daniel Ortega, junto con el Fondo
Méxicoamericano para la Educación y Defensa Legal
(MALDEF), sometió ayer martes ante la Corte Federal
DeConcini una demanda en contra de la gobernadora
Janet Napolitano, la Secretaria de Estado, Jan Brewer
y el director del Departamento de Seguridad Económica
(DES), David A. Berns, en su calidad de funcionarios
estatales, para impedir que implementen la propuesta
aprobada el pasado 2 de noviembre.
La iniciativa niega beneficios públicos a
indocumentados, obliga a comprobar la ciudadanía
estadounidense al registrarse para votar y mostrar una
identificación al momento de emitir el voto. Además,
exige a los empleados gubernamentales que denuncien a
los solicitantes de servicios que no comprueben su
elegilibilidad, de lo contrario estarían sujetos a
multas y hasta podrían enfrentar la cárcel.
“Ese sería el daño más grande de la ley, porque los
empleados que no denuncien a los solicitantes estarían
convirtiéndose en criminales”, dijo Ortega.
Destacó que con la implementación de la Proposición
200, las autoridades del estado estarían haciendo
funciones que corresponden a las autoridades de
Migración, que son exclusivas del gobierno federal.
Entre los demandantes, incluídas en el recurso legal
interpuesto por el despacho jurídico de Ortega y
MALDEF, destaca la organización no lucrativa Friendly
House, que proporciona servicios a alrededor de 40 mil
inmigrantes al año, y a unas 20 personas, entre éstas,
un bombero de la Ciudad de Phoenix, una empleada del
DES, una estudiante del Phoenix College y dos madres
de familia.

<*==*><*==*><*==*><*==*>

http://www.prensahispanaaz.com/edicion/principal/notas/cas.htm

Edición: 687. Del 1 al 7 de diciembre del 2004.
Phoenix, AZ.

“Castigan” a Ontiveros

Librada Martínez

Silverio Ontiveros, quien hasta la semana pasada se
desempeñó como subjefe de la Policía de Phoenix, fue
removido a comandante, un nivel inferior en el
organigrama del departamento.
De acuerdo con el jefe de la corporación, Jack Harris,
la remoción obedece a la necesidad de tener una
persona con “criterio y credibilidad” en la
subjefatura.
Según Harris, las investigaciones que el departamento
ha realizado sobre las acciones de Ontiveros en los
últimos 13 meses, han ocasionado que la comunidad
pierda confianza en el oficial.
Ese sentir, dijo, se desprende de la cobertura que los
medios dieron al incidente en el que su novia, Liza
Román,fue detenida por autoridades de inmigración en
la garita de Nogales con dos indocumentados en la
cajuela del vehículo que conducía, en hechos ocurridos
el pasado 15 de abril.
Apenas en octubre, una investigación conducida por el
departamento concluyó que Ontiveros no tuvo nada que
ver en el incidente protagonizado por su novia.
Sin embargo, el reporte objetó que el ahora comandante
no avisó a sus superiores sobre los hechos.
Harris indicó que la junta disciplinaria estudiará las
versiones del incidente en las próximas semanas, como
parte de una tercera investigación sobre Ontiveros.
El jefe policiaco desestimó que los resultados de la
investigación puedan costarle al oficial su empleo en
el departamento.
“No lo creo, la junta disciplinaria podría recomendar
que lo removieran a teniente, pero estaría muy
sorprendido que ésa fuera la recomendación”, dijo
Harris.

Una “atrocidad”
Ontiveros, quien se ha destacado por sus fuertes lazos
con la comunidad inmigrante a lo largo de sus 29 años
dentro del departamento, declinó hacer comentarios al
respecto, argumentando que no le está permitido hablar
con los medios sobre el asunto.
Sin embargo, su novia calificó como una “injusticia”
la remoción de Ontiveros. “Es una atrocidad,
arruinarle la carrera a una persona que ha sido leal a
la organzación y que ha dedicado 29 años de su vida a
la comunidad.”
Recordó que por muchos años Ontiveros ha sido la voz
de las minorías, ha promovido la diversidad dentro del
Departamento de Policía y no ha temido hacer los
cuestionamientos necesarios.
“Es una lástima que las personas que ahora le dan
espalda no se acuerden de quién ha sido la persona que
ha estado ahí 24 horas al día, siete días a la semana
para apoyar a su comunidad”, dijo Liza Román.

<==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==>

The US Military lied and said Pat Tillman was hero who was killed in a battle with Afghanistan freedom fighters. This was a lie Tillman was machine gunned to death by Americans who though his unit was terrorists.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=32634

News Update 
Army distorted Pat Tillman story  
Washington Post 
 
Pat Tillman 
Just days after Pat Tillman died from friendly fire on a desolate ridge in southeastern Afghanistan, the U.S. Army Special Operations Command released a brief account of his last moments. 
 
The April 30, 2004, statement awarded Tillman a posthumous Silver Star for combat valor and described how a section of his Ranger platoon came under attack. 

‘‘He ordered his team to dismount and then maneuvered the Rangers up a hill near the enemy’s location,’’ the release said. ‘‘As they crested the hill, Tillman directed his team into firing positions and personally provided suppressive fire. . . . Tillman’s voice was heard issuing commands to take the fight to the enemy forces.’’ 

It was a stirring tale and fitting eulogy for the Army’s most famous volunteer in the war on terrorism, a charismatic former star with the Arizona Cardinals and Arizona State University whose reticence, courage and handsome beret-draped face captured for many Americans the best aspects of the country’s post-Sept. 11, 2001, character. 

It was also a distorted and incomplete narrative, according to dozens of internal Army documents obtained by The Washington Post that describe Tillman’s death by fratricide after a chain of botched communications, a misguided order to divide his platoon over the objection of its leader and undisciplined firing by fellow Rangers. 

The Army’s public release made no mention of friendly fire, even though at the time it was issued, investigators in Afghanistan had taken at least 14 sworn statements from Tillman’s platoon members that made clear the true causes of his death. The statements included a searing account from the Ranger nearest Tillman during the firefight, who quoted him shouting ‘‘Cease fire! Friendlies!’’ with his last breaths. 

Army records show Tillman fought bravely during his final battle. He followed orders, never wavered and at one stage proposed discarding his heavy body armor, apparently because he wanted to charge a distant ridge occupied by the enemy, an idea rejected by his immediate superior, witness statements show. 

But the Army’s published account not only withheld all evidence of fratricide, it exaggerated Tillman’s role and stripped his actions of their context. Tillman was not one of the senior commanders on the scene — he directed only himself, one other Ranger and an Afghan militiaman, under supervision from others. Witness statements in the Army’s files at the time of the press release describe Tillman’s voice ringing out on the battlefield mainly in a desperate effort, joined by other Rangers on his ridge, to warn comrades to stop shooting at their own men. 

The Army’s April 30 news release was just one episode in a broader Army effort to manage the uncomfortable facts of Pat Tillman’s death, according to internal records and interviews. 

During several weeks of memorials and commemorations that followed Tillman’s death, commanders at his 75th Ranger Regiment and their superiors hid the truth about friendly fire from Tillman’s brother Kevin, who had fought with Pat in the same platoon, but was not involved in the firing incident and did not know the cause of his brother’s death. Commanders also withheld the facts from Tillman’s widow, his parents, national politicians and the public, according to records and interviews with sources involved in the case. 

On May 3, Ranger and Army officers joined hundreds of mourners at a public ceremony in San Jose, Calif., where Sen. John McCain, RAriz., Denver Broncos quarterback Jake Plummer and Maria Shriver took the podium to remember Tillman. The visiting officers gave no hint of the evidence investigators collected in Afghanistan. 

In a telephone interview, McCain said: ‘‘I think it would have been helpful to have at least their suspicions known’’ before he spoke about Tillman’s death in public. Even more, he said, ‘‘the family deserved some kind of headsup that there would be questions.’’ 

McCain said Sunday that questions raised by Mary Tillman, Pat’s mother, about how the Army handled the case led him to meet twice earlier this fall with Army officers and former acting Army secretary Les Brownlee to seek answers. About a month ago, McCain said, Brownlee told him the Pentagon would reopen its investigation. McCain said he was not certain about the scope of the new investigation but that he believed it is continuing. A Pentagon official confirmed an investigation is under way, but Army spokesmen declined to comment further. 

When she learned friendly fire had taken her son’s life, ‘‘I was upset about it, but I thought, ‘Well, accidents happen,’ ’’ Mary Tillman said in a telephone interview Sunday. ‘‘Then when I found out that it was because of huge negligence at places along the way — you have time to process that and you really get annoyed.’’ 

INQUIRY QUESTIONED 

As memorials and news releases shaped public perceptions in May, Army commanders privately pursued military justice investigations of several low-ranking Rangers who had fired on Tillman’s position and officers who issued the ill-fated mission’s orders, records show. 

Army records show that Col. James Nixon, the 75th Ranger Regiment’s commander, accepted his chief investigator’s findings on the same day, May 8, that he was officially appointed to run the case. A spokesman for U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, which is legally responsible for the investigation, declined to respond to a question about the short time frame between the appointment and the findings. 

The Army acknowledged only that friendly fire ‘‘probably’’ killed Tillman when Lt. Gen. Philip Kensinger Jr. made a terse announcement on May 29 at Fort Bragg, N.C. Kensinger declined to answer further questions and offered no details about the investigation, its conclusions, or who might be held accountable. 

Army spokesmen said last week they followed standard policy in delaying and limiting disclosure of fratricide evidence. ‘‘All the services do not prematurely disclose any investigation findings until the investigation is complete,’’ said Lt. Col. Hans Bush, chief of public affairs for the Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg. The Silver Star narrative released April 30 came from information provided by Ranger commanders in the field, Bush said. 

Kensinger’s May 29 announcement that fratricide was ‘‘probable’’ came from an executive summary supplied by Central Command only the night before, he said. Because Kensinger was unfamiliar with the underlying evidence, he felt he could not answer questions, Bush said. 

For its part, Central Command, headquartered at Mac-Dill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., handled the disclosures ‘‘in accordance with (Department of Defense) policies,’’ Lt. Cmdr. Nick Balice, a command spokesman, said in an e-mail Saturday responding to questions. Asked specifically why Central Command withheld any suggestion of fratricide when Army investigators by April 26 had collected at least 14 witness statements describing the incident, Balice wrote in an e-mail: ‘‘The specific details of this incident were not known until the completion of the investigation.’’ 

GUIDELINES LACKING 

The U.S. military has confronted a series of prominent friendly fire cases in recent years, in part because hairtrigger technology and increasingly lethal remote-fire weapons can quickly turn relatively small mistakes into deadly tragedies. Yet the military’s justice system has few consistent guidelines for such cases, according to specialists in Army law. Decision-making about how to mete out justice rests with individual unit commanders who often work in secret, acting as both investigators and judges. 

‘‘You can have tremendously divergent outcomes at a very low level of visibility,’’ said Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice and a visiting lecturer at Harvard Law School. 

In the Tillman case, those factors were compounded by the victim’s extraordinary public profile. Also, Tillman’s April 22 death was announced just days before the shocking disclosure of photographs of abuse by U.S. soldiers working as guards in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. The photos ignited an international furor and generated widespread questions about discipline and accountability in the Army. 

Commemorations of Tillman’s courage and sacrifice offered contrasting images of honorable service, undisturbed by questions about possible command or battlefield mistakes. 

Whatever the cause, McCain said, ‘‘you may have at least a subconscious desire here to portray the situation in the best light, which may not have been totally justified.’’ 

QUICK INVESTIGATION 

Working in private last spring, the 75th Ranger Regiment moved quickly to investigate and wrap up the case, Army records show. 

Immediately after the incident, platoon members generated after-action statements and investigators working in Afghanistan gathered logs, documents and e-mails. The investigators interviewed platoon members and senior officers to reconstruct the chain of events. By early May, the evidence made clear in precise detail how the disaster unfolded. 

On patrol in Talibaninfested sectors of Afghanistan’s Paktia province, Tillman’s ‘‘Black Sheep’’ platoon, formally 2nd Platoon, A Company, 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, became bogged down because of a broken Humvee. Lt. David Uthlaut, the platoon leader, recommended that his unit stay together, deliver the truck to a nearby road, then complete his mission. He was overruled by a superior officer monitoring his operations from distant Bagram, near Kabul, who ordered Uthlaut to split his platoon, with one section taking care of the Humvee and the other proceeding to a village, where the platoon was to search for enemy guerrillas. 

Steep terrain and high canyon walls prevented the two platoon sections from communicating with each other at crucial moments. When one section unexpectedly changed its route and ran into an apparent Taliban ambush while trapped in a deep canyon, the other section from a nearby ridge began firing in support at the ambushers. As the ambushed group broke free from the canyon, machine guns blazing, one heavily armed vehicle mistook an allied Afghan militiaman for the enemy and poured hundreds of rounds at positions occupied fellow Rangers, killing Pat Tillman and the Afghan. 

Investigators had to decide whether low-ranking Rangers who did the shooting had followed their training or had fired so recklessly that they should face military discipline or criminal charges. The investigators also had to decide whether more senior officers whose decisions contributed to the chain of confusion around the incident were liable. 

Reporting formally to Col. Nixon in Bagram on May 8, the case’s chief investigator offered nine specific conclusions, which Nixon endorsed, according to the records. 

Among them: 

• The decision by a Ranger commander to divide Tillman’s 2nd Platoon into two groups, despite the objections of the platoon’s leader, ‘‘created serious command and control issues’’ and ‘‘contributed to the eventual breakdown in internal Platoon communications.’’ The Post could not confirm the name of the officer who issued this command. 

• The A Company commander’s order to the platoon leader to get ‘‘boots on the ground’’ at his mission objective created a ‘‘false sense of urgency’’ in the platoon, which, ‘‘whether intentional or not,’’ led to ‘‘a hasty plan.’’ That officer’s name also could not be confirmed by The Post. 

• Sgt. Greg Baker, the lead gunner in the Humvee that poured the heaviest fire on Ranger positions, ‘‘failed to maintain his situational awareness’’ at key moments of the battle and ‘‘failed’’ to direct the firing of other gunners in his vehicle. 

• The other gunners ‘‘failed to positively identify their respective targets and exercise good fire discipline. . . . Their collective failure to exercise fire discipline, by confirming the identity of their targets, resulted in the shootings of Corporal Tillman.’’ 

The chief investigator appeared to reserve his harshest judgments for the lowerranking Rangers who did the shooting rather than the higher-ranking officers who oversaw the mission. While his judgments about the senior officers focused on process and communication problems, the chief investigator wrote about the failures in Baker’s truck: 

‘‘While a great deal of discretion should be granted to a leader who is making difficult judgments in the heat of combat, the Command also has a responsibility to hold its leaders accountable when that judgment is so wanton or poor that it places the lives of other men at risk.’’ 

Gen. John Abizaid, CENTCOM’s commander in chief, formally approved the investigation’s conclusions May 28 under an aide’s signature and forwarded the report to Special Operations commanders ‘‘for evaluation and any action you deem appropriate to incorporate relevant lessons learned.’’ 

The field investigation’s findings raised another question for Army commanders: Were the failures that resulted in Tillman’s death serious enough to warrant administrative or criminal charges? 

In the military justice system, field officers such as Nixon, commander of the 75th Ranger Regiment, can generally decide such matters. 

At least two low-ranking Rangers, including Baker, accepted administrative punishments that led to demotions but no incarceration, according to sources involved in the case. Baker left the Rangers on an honorable discharge when his enlistment ended last spring, while others who were in his truck remain in the Army, these sources said. 

It could not be learned what actions — if any — were taken against the more senior officers who pressured the platoon leader and ordered him to divide his force, over his objections. Army spokesmen declined to comment, citing privacy rules and Pentagon policy. 

Military commanders have occasionally leveled charges of involuntary manslaughter in high-profile friendly fire cases, such as one in 2002 when an Illinois National Guard pilot, Maj. Harry Schmidt, mistakenly bombed Canadian troops in Afghanistan. But in that case and others like it military prosecutors have found it difficult to make murder charges stick against soldiers making rapid decisions in combat. 

And because there is no uniform, openly published military case law about when friendly fire cases cross the line from accident to crime, commanders are free to interpret that line for themselves. 

FOCUS AIMS LOW 

The list of cases in recent years where manslaughter charges have been brought is ‘‘almost arbitrary and capricious,’’ said Charles Gittins, a former Marine who is Schmidt’s defense lawyer. Gittins said senior military officers tend to focus on lowranking personnel rather than commanders. In Schmidt’s case, he said, ‘‘Every single general and colonel with the exception of Harry’s immediate commander has been promoted since the accident.’’ Schmidt, on the other hand, was fined and banned from flying Air Force jets. 

Short of manslaughter, the most common charge leveled in fratricide is dereliction of duty, or what the military code calls ‘‘culpable inefficiency’’ in the performance of duty, according to military law specialists. This violation is defined in the Pentagon’s official Manual for Courts Martial as ‘‘inefficiency for which there is no reasonable or just excuse.’’ 

In judging whether this standard applies to a case such as Tillman’s death, prosecutors are supposed to decide whether the accused person exercised ‘‘that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances.’’ 

Even if a soldier or officer is found guilty under this code, the punishments are limited to demotions, fines and minor discipline such as extra duty. 

Records in the Tillman case do not make clear whether Army commanders considered more serious punishments than this against any Rangers or officers, and if so, why they were apparently rejected.

<<**>>

http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/1205bearup05-CP.html

Inmate claims jail bias
 
Dennis Wagner
The Arizona Republic
Dec. 5, 2004 12:00 AM

A Phoenix murder defendant whose father is a political rival to Sheriff Joe Arpaio says he's being housed in isolation as a psychiatric patient at a Maricopa County jail even though he's not mentally ill.

In letters and phone interviews from Madison Street Jail, Patrick Bearup said sheriff's officials singled him out for political retribution, even ordering the light in his cell to remain on 24 hours a day.

Medical records obtained by The Arizona Republic seem to confirm that allegation. In August, Dr. Pamela Drapeau of Correctional Health Services made this notation in Bearup's chart: "He remains on 6-3 (psychiatric ward) per order of MCSO because his father was running as an opponent to Sheriff Arpaio. . . . He has no psychiatric problems."

Bearup, 27, of Phoenix, is the son of Thomas Bearup, once an executive assistant in Arpaio's office. The elder Bearup had a bitter falling-out seven years ago with the sheriff and campaigned for the sheriff's job in 2000 and briefly last year. Now a minister, Thomas Bearup said Arpaio uses his power vindictively against political foes. "I think Patrick is probably a victim because of me," he added.

Jack McIntyre, an Arpaio spokesman, denied that the younger Bearup's placement was a form of retaliation. He said the inmate was first housed in the psychiatric unit due to concerns that he might be suicidal. Later, McIntyre said, a decision was made to keep him there for his safety. McIntyre said Bearup had expressed concerns about death threats and further endangered himself in jail by telling people that he is the son of a former sheriff's official.

Inmates under protection typically are housed in an "administrative segregation" unit. McIntyre said those cells are full, and Bearup is not the only inmate to be secured in medical quarters. "Keeping him alive and in the most safe place possible - I find it difficult for that to be retribution," he added.

The younger Bearup is one of four so-called skinheads arrested in September 2003 in connection with the murder of 40-year-old Mark Mathes. Phoenix police investigators say the victim was beaten with a baseball bat, shot in the head and dumped off a cliff near Crown King in February 2002. The purported motive: revenge for a theft.

"I'm innocent of the charges I'm in here on," said Patrick Bearup, whose trial is scheduled in March. "If I'm put to death (for the homicide), it'll be a sad day for our justice system."

Since his incarceration 14 months ago, Bearup has been housed in "6-3," except for brief stints in the infirmary. He said he is awakened by "suicide checks" every 15 minutes, denied human contact and rarely allowed exercise. He also said he spent months in a padded room with no bed.

"No one's allowed to live with me. No one's allowed to talk to me. . . . The sheriff is saying that I am (mentally ill). The doctor is saying that I'm not."

Correctional Health Services is not under Arpaio's authority, although it is housed inside Madison Street Jail and detention officers provide security. 

Notations in Bearup's medical chart indicate he is sequestered "as a courtesy hold for MCSO" because he is a "high-profile case." They also say he consistently denies suicidal thoughts, pointing out that he has newborn twins. "He does not want to be housed here on 6-3," wrote one psychiatric worker. "What sane person would?" 

Correctional Health Services records indicate that Bearup repeatedly filed grievances seeking placement in the regular inmate population but was refused. 

The Arpaio-Bearup saga dates to 1997, when Patrick's father had a feud with the sheriff and resigned as executive assistant.

<<**>>

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1205Lynching05.html

Lynchings of police spur justice debate 
Killings may shock nation into change

Chris Hawley
Republic Mexico City Bureau
Dec. 5, 2004 12:00 AM 

SAN JUAN IXTAYOPAN, Mexico - The blood has been scrubbed from the crosswalk in front of the Popol Vuh Elementary School. But for Mexicans, the horror and the shame remain.

On Nov. 23, a mob in this Mexico City suburb brutally beat three undercover cops in front of the school after apparently mistaking them for kidnappers. As news helicopters hovered overhead, they doused two of the police officers with gasoline and burned them alive. 

The lynchings, transmitted live on television, shocked the nation and have ignited a debate over vigilantism, justice and the rule of law in Mexico. advertisement  

Human rights groups say the lynching shows a fundamental breakdown in Mexican society, where police are seen as inept or corrupt, courts are perceived as secretive and ineffective, and communities frequently take the law into their own hands. 

"The system of justice in Mexico is, in a word, inoperative," said Jesus Robles, executive director of the Academy of Human Rights. "This (lynching) has forced a realization that we need a better system of public order."

Mob attacks on purse-snatchers and other suspected criminals occur a few times a year in Mexico City, mainly in the poor southeastern suburbs like San Juan Ixtayopan. Victims are usually beaten severely before being handed over to police. Sometimes they are stripped naked or tied to trees. 

Between 1991 and 2000, there were 96 such cases nationwide, mostly in central and southern Mexico, the Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Human Rights Center said in a 2001 report. Thirty-five of those occurred in or around Mexico City. In the past five years, at least five people have been killed in the city by vigilante mobs, El Universal newspaper said.

Police rarely go after the attackers, said David Velasco Yañez, director of the human rights center.

"That creates kind of a general complicity among everyone involved," Velasco said.

But the killings of innocent police officers in San Juan Ixtayopan stunned even violence-weary Mexico City residents. Viewers watched with horror as one of the agents pleaded to a television camera for help just before he was killed. Police commanders were criticized for failing to send backup or to dispatch SWAT teams by helicopter. 

Police say the killings in San Juan Ixtayopan may have been instigated by drug dealers who were being investigated by the undercover police. There had been rumors of child-snatchers lurking around the school, but local cops said they were unfounded. 

Around the scene of the crime, people are closemouthed about what happened. A food vendor in front of the school claimed not to know where the lynching occurred, despite a wooden cross marking the spot. A nearby candy seller said she knew nothing. Four neighbors said they were out of town that night. Mothers taking their children to the school refused to be interviewed, shaking their heads when asked about the killings. 

"Our children go to the high school, and the other children call them killers now," said a convenience store proprietor who refused to give her name. "The whole country thinks we are killers."

Many residents said they were sorry the two officers had died and said the mob had been tricked by "outsiders." But they also said a lack of police presence in San Juan Ixtayopan had forced townspeople into the role of police, judge and jury.

"On television and the movies, we see how police in other countries protect everybody," said Angela Rosas, another store clerk. "But not here. There is a lack of justice here, and so the people feel like they have to take action themselves."

It is a dilemma that has dominated newspaper columns and talk shows since the killings, with pundits and radio callers prescribing everything from arrest bonuses to military tribunals to cut down on lawlessness. 

Promising "zero tolerance" for vigilantism, President Vicente Fox urged Congress to act on a proposal he filed in March that would radically change Mexico's law enforcement system. 

The bill would consolidate the country's many police agencies to make them more efficient. To speed up justice, it calls for "oral" trials that would be open to the public instead of the time-consuming, written deliberations that dominate Mexican courts. 

The plan also targets prosecutors, who often are criticized by Mexicans as unwilling to take cases to court. 

Under the Fox proposal, suspects would be presumed innocent until proved guilty - a concept that doesn't exist in Mexican law. 

Fox is facing a hostile Congress that is unlikely to take up his plan. But the Supreme Court, too, has been quietly investigating ways to make the justice system more open. 

Other Latin American countries have made similar changes over the past decade.

"It generates more faith in the system, and creates a more transparent system where people can participate," said Fernando Santelices, an adviser with the Justice Studies Center of the Americas, a Chile-based organization that helps countries with reforms. 

But some Mexican analysts aren't so sure an overhaul of the entire justice system is the answer.

Instead, the government needs to encourage professionalism by paying police and prosecutors better and requiring them to be better educated, Robles said. It also has to crack down on bribery, he said. 

Robles said he hoped the outrage resulting from the lynchings would spur Congress to make changes. He noted that a huge anti-crime march in June had prompted lawmakers to pass a number of new measures against kidnapping and other offenses. 

"If anything positive has come from the deaths of these agents . . . it is that it has gotten everyone to reflect on what kind of society we want," he said.

Reach the reporter at chris.hawley@arizonarepublic.com.