New Evidence Undermines Feds' Case Against Arizona

[Warph]

As someone so eloquently put it: "It is not an issue that Obama hates White America. If you read and follow his dialogue you will find that.

He is firmly committed to only his VERSION of America. His is a leftist, socialist, cradle to grave 'take from the wealthy' give to the poor HISPANICS, BLACKS AND MUSLIMS in America.

When you see 92 percent of the Black voters support Him, 82 Percent of the Muslims support him, and 72 percent of the Hispanics support him. I would say that there is a problem with him being racist.

The idea of racism HAD taken a back burner for the past decade or so. Until America felt GUILTY about talking about race and voted OBAMA into office.

Now we are paying an even greater price that we imagined with his lack of leadership, his racist attitudes towards blacks, Muslims and Hispanics. He is the RACIST and it shows in every decision he makes, every word he DOES not say and his support of all ideas contrary to the Constitution of the United Staters and the WILL OF THE PEOPLE."

.....Warph



New evidence undermines feds' case against Arizona
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
September 2, 2010


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/New-evidence-undermines-feds_-case-against-Arizona-705578-102106209.html#ixzz0yZxi5MZi


You've heard a lot about the Justice Department's lawsuit to stop the new Arizona immigration law. But that's just one part of the Obama administration's multi-front war on immigration enforcement in Arizona.

In addition to the drive to kill the new law, Attorney General Eric Holder is also suing the Maricopa Community College system in Phoenix, alleging it broke the law by requiring a job seeker to provide a green card before being hired. And on Thursday the Justice Department filed suit against the Maricopa County Sheriff's office, run by the flamboyant Joe Arpaio, as part of an extended investigation into alleged civil rights violations there.

Despite the splash of attention from the newest lawsuit, the Justice Department's investigation of Arpaio could end badly for Holder. When the Department first informed Arpaio that a probe was under way, back in March 2009, it sent a letter saying the investigation would focus on "alleged patterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures." But now we learn that just six months before that, in September 2008, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, known as ICE, did its own investigation of Arpaio's office -- and gave it a clean bill of health. Arpaio's lawyers recently got a copy of the ICE report through the Freedom of Information Act.

ICE officials evaluated how the sheriff's office performed under a law that allows specially trained local law enforcement officers to enforce parts of federal immigration law. The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, which is the largest sheriff's office in the Arizona, has 189 officers who have been trained by ICE to enforce federal immigration statutes.

The report, crammed with acronyms and bureaucratese, is not light reading. But struggle through it, and the key sentence is this: "The OI and DRO supervisors consider the conduct and performance of the MCSO ... officers to be professional and meeting the requirement of the MOA." Translated, that means officials from the Homeland Security Department's Office of Investigation (OI), along with officials from the Detention and Removal Operations office (DRO), concluded that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO), in its handling of illegal immigrants, acted in a professional manner and complied with a memorandum of agreement (MOA) under which the government gave them the authority to enforce federal law. That agreement included a ban on racial profiling.

ICE investigators also interviewed top federal officials involved in illegal immigrant cases in Arizona. They found an "excellent" working relationship between the sheriff's office and the feds. ICE talked as well to federal prosecutors in Phoenix, who described the cases brought by Maricopa County as "high quality."

In all, it's a quite positive assessment of an operation that just six months later would come under the Justice Department's microscope for alleged civil rights violations. It also lends indirect support to Arpaio's contention that the Justice Department investigation is politically motivated.

A tidbit of information contained in other government documents released under the Freedom of Information Act also suggests politics may be involved. Arpaio's lawyers found a March 11, 2009, e-mail, sent just after the Justice Department investigation was announced, from an ICE employee to John P. Torres, then the acting assistant secretary of ICE. "Did you see this?" the e-mail said, attaching a news report on the investigation. "Yes," Torres responded a few minutes later. "Interesting politics at play."

What happens now? It's been nearly a year and a half since the investigation began, and the Justice Department has not charged the sheriff's office with violating anyone's civil rights. Instead, Thursday's lawsuit goes after Arpaio for allegedly failing to cooperate fully in the probe.

"It's a totally political lawsuit," says Bob Driscoll, a former Bush Justice Department Civil Rights Division official who is representing Arpaio. "They want to find evidence of discrimination, but all they're finding is evidence of law enforcement that includes immigration enforcement." (The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.)

Failing to find proof of real discrimination in Maricopa County could ultimately doom the administration's entire crusade in Arizona. The much-publicized suit against the new immigration law is based on the possibility that it might result in future discrimination, but at the same time the department is struggling to find evidence of civil rights violations in Arpaio's office, which uses enforcement techniques similar to those outlined in the new law. There's a real chance that in the end Obama's war on Arizona will come to nothing.

Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blogposts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.

[Sarge]

I really think it's time for Arizona and other states as well, to ignore the federal government and the federal judges. It seems that is has gotten to the point where judges are running the country and not he people. Sometimes you just have to say no more.

[jarhead]

 I totally agree with you Sarge---but how do the states go about doing it  when the Feds dangle the money like a carrot on a string ? Tell them to shove the money ? Then what ? They send in the National Guard or the regular Army to "quell the uprising " ? A military coup is what we need. Maybe you, me and WARPH can talk about doing it over a couple cold beers---you know---a beer summit !! That solves everything.

[srkruzich]

I totally agree with you Sarge---but how do the states go about doing it  when the Feds dangle the money like a carrot on a string ? Tell them to shove the money ? Then what ? They send in the National Guard or the regular Army to "quell the uprising " ? A military coup is what we need. Maybe you, me and WARPH can talk about doing it over a couple cold beers---you know---a beer summit !! That solves everything.

Hey want in on that summit with  you old farts!  Gotta love uprisings and beer.

[Jo McDonald]

I will be the waitress ---

I will need to sip from each brew - to make sure it doesn't make you noblemen ill.

[Warph]

I totally agree with you Sarge---but how do the states go about doing it  when the Feds dangle the money like a carrot on a string ? Tell them to shove the money ? Then what ? They send in the National Guard or the regular Army to "quell the uprising " ? A military coup is what we need. Maybe you, me and WARPH can talk about doing it over a couple cold beers---you know---a beer summit !! That solves everything.

Terrific idea, Jarhead... count me in!  Jo, you can sit at the head of the table with us and tell jokes.... we'll get anmar to dress up in a german waitress outfit  and bring us the beer on a silver platter... the beer unopened of course.  Since this is a "Military Coup" get-together, we wouldn't want her getting any ideas.  You know how she is about War talk.

[jarhead]

WARPH my friend. you're a fix'n to get bitch slapped. Don't say I didn't warn you !! 

[Sarge]

First off, there would be no uprising to quell. The states would just not do what the federal govt or federal judges say. True, they wouldn't get federal money, but they wouldn't be sending the federal govt any money either. If Arizona ignores what some federal judge says and just keeps on enforcing their laws, what is the federal govt going to do? Is not the national guard supposed to belong to the respective states? Isn't it called the Arizona National Guard? Do you think the Arizona National Guard is going to do anything at all to the citizens of Arizona? I say the states should just say no to the federal govt.  I think  a discussion of this over numerous quaffs of beer is a capital idea.

[larryJ]

Hey guys, what about me?  Don't I get an invite?  Geez, I feel like the kid that doesn't get picked for a team until the very last.



Seriously, it would be interesting if a majority of Americans stood up and said no to the federal government.  Is there a legal way to do that?  The South tried it in 1861, but tried it by force.  Your idea is to calmly sit on your barstools and ignore the feds.  I like that.


Larryj

[Varmit]

I will be the waitress ---
I will need to sip from each brew - to make sure it doesn't make you noblemen ill.

Nothing like a cold beer from a pretty, young, waitress!!

Sarge, that is a good idea.  Yes, the Guard belongs to the States, but the president has the power to call them up, so who do they really belong to?  I think the States would be better off going with a "Well regulated Militia" that does not fall under UCMJ or the Armed Services chain of command.

Larry, it was the North (federal) that invaded the South (state).  Sit on your barstool and ignore them?...thats just what they want you to do.

And yes, I know I wasn't invited to this summit...but the first rounds on me.