At a time when most Arizona officials emphasize that under the new law, officers will only check immigration status within the context of another lawful contact, Sheriff Joe Arpaio isn’t afraid to engage in sweeps — major round-ups of illegal alien bad guys to be held in his famous tent jail.
Not only that, he recently showed the county’s impressive armored assault vehicle, complete with a 50-caliber machine gun, to the local media. He then told the cartels that he is ready for them: “I want to warn everybody, especially in Mexico, if you want to come through Maricopa County, we’re gonna have enough firepower to react to any assaults on our deputy sheriffs.”
The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office launched its 16th crime and immigration sweep in a stretch of desert in the southwestern portion of the county.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio says the one-day sweep was prompted by reports of many drug and immigrant smugglers moving through the Vekol Valley.
By late Thursday night, sheriff’s deputies say 11 arrests had been made including seven people being investigated for human smuggling. The other arrests were for outstanding warrants and traffic violations.
Since early 2008, Arpaio has launched patrols that seek out traffic violators and arrest other offenders, such as people accused of human smuggling.
Sometimes, judges’ decisions are hard to figure, like releasing Somali terrorists onto the streets of America. Maybe the accused men sounded properly repentant, but the judge in question may not know that under the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya, deception in the service of that religion is considered a moral action.
And why were refugees who returned to their home country to take up jihad allowed to re-enter the United States? It seems a repudiation of the contract by which Somali refugees entered this nation.
When Minnesota Somalis began traveling to their war-torn homeland to take up arms nearly three years ago, authorities initially feared they might someday return as domestic terrorists.
But recent court activity suggests at least some of the men are not as dangerous as once feared. Five have been allowed to go free with various conditions as their cases work through the court system, including two who admitted spending time in a terrorist training camp. After months in custody, the pair have gradually received more freedom, and are now living with family members.
“Judges tend to err on the side of caution in these cases,” said Stephen Vladeck, an associate law professor at American University in Washington. So for a court to release a terrorism suspect, the judge “found clearly and convincingly that the defendant is not a threat.”
Roughly 20 men — all but one of Somali descent — left Minnesota from December 2007 through October 2009 to join al-Shabab, a violent group that seeks to establish an Islamic state in Somalia. The federal government designated al-Shabab a foreign terrorist organization in March 2008, and said it has ties to al-Qaida.
The threat posed by al-Shabab took on more urgency last week, when the group claimed responsibility for twin bombings in Uganda that killed 76 people during the World Cup final. It was the first time al-Shabab had struck outside Somalia’s borders. In a new audio message released Thursday, the militant group’s leader threatened further attacks.
It’s unclear whether any Minnesota men were involved in the attack. The FBI is assisting the investigation in Uganda.
Federal officials are still seeking some of the Minnesota suspects, and authorities warn the group could still pose a threat in the future.
“These individuals still present a dangerousness because of the ideology involved and the training that they get in camps,” said E.K. Wilson, an FBI spokesman in Minneapolis.
Below, Somali residents of Minnesota who left to pursue jihad in their homeland learned traditional Islam from al-Shabab, perhaps participating in capital punishment by stoning. The accused adulterer pictured was semi-buried and then executed as local villagers were forced to watch.
The pundits and political suits have been telling us that fewer aliens are crossing because of better policing and the bad economy. Reporting of border violence is the trumped-up hysteria of crazed conservatives, according to Washington columnists.
But today’s death count shows that aliens are still coming in great numbers despite high unemployment numbers (at least for citizens) and despite the brutal desert heat of mid-summer.
Perhaps the crossers are exhibiting a reasonable response to President Obama’s repeated references to comprehensive amnesty. They may well be hoping to be amnestied if they can get established in America in time.
The number of deaths among illegal immigrants crossing the Arizona desert from Mexico is soaring so high this month that the medical examiner’s office that handles the bodies is using a refrigerated truck to store some of them, the chief examiner said Friday.
The bodies of 40 illegal immigrants have been brought to the office of Pima County Medical Examiner Dr. Bruce Parks since July 1. At that rate, Parks said the deaths could top the single-month record of 68 in July 2005 since his office began tracking them in 2000.
“Right now, at the halfway point of the month, to have so many is just a very bad sign,” he said. “It’s definitely on course to perhaps be the deadliest month of all time.”
From Jan. 1 to July 15, the office has handled the bodies of 134 illegal immigrants, up from 93 at the same time last year and 102 in 2008. In 2007, when the office recorded the highest annual deaths of illegal immigrants, 140 bodies had been taken there through July 15.
Parks said his office, which handles immigrant bodies from three counties, is currently storing roughly 250 bodies and had to start using a refrigerated truck because of the increase in immigrant deaths this month.
He said many of the bodies seem to be coming from the desert southwest of Tucson, where it tends to be hotter than eastern parts of the border or the Tucson metro area.
Authorities believe the high number of deaths are likely due to above-average and unrelenting heat in southern Arizona this month and ongoing tighter border security that pushes immigrants to more remote, rugged and dangerous terrain.
Another recent measure of the continuing invasion is CIS’ film compilation of illegals trooping by concealed cameras within the United States:
The hidden camera footage, acquired from a variety of sources, indicates that there is an unfortunate lack of federal law enforcement presence on Arizona’s federal land on the border in Nogales, in the Coronado National Forest (15 miles inside the border), and the Casa Grande Sector (80 miles inside the border). Also significant to the story are responses received as part of Freedom of Information Act requests made by Janice Kephart, the Center’s Director of National Security Studies, in August 2009. Featured in the film is a 2004 federal government PowerPoint showing the near-complete devastation of a borderland national park due to illegal-alien activity, highlighting the disconnect between the situation on the ground in Arizona and Washington rhetoric.
The policy is yet another example of how immigration is an upside-down universe of reversed values, rules and behavior; where lawbreaking is rewarded and citizens who demand laws be enforced are accused of racism. The government will not protect citizens from foreign predators who enter our open borders by the thousands, but illegal alien victims get the red carpet treatment.
Now the Victim Visa program has re-awakened under the Obama administration after a few years of relative somnolence: this year’s quota has been filled, and immigration lawyers are demanding an unlimited number of Victim Visas because the attorneys sense another strategy to ship mass numbers of lawbreaking aliens into American communities.
The government has issued all 10,000 visas available this year for immigrant crime victims who help authorities investigate and prosecute perpetrators.
The last of this fiscal year’s supply of visas was approved Thursday morning, marking the first time the government has hit the statutory “U” visa limit since the program became active two years ago.
The visas were created as part of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. They are given to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking and other crimes in exchange for cooperation with law enforcement.
In 2007, attorneys for immigrants who had been victims of crime sued the federal government for failing to issue any visas. Only 52 were issued in 2008. About 6,000 applications were approved last fiscal year.
Alejandro Mayorkas, director of Citizenship and Immigration Services, said that an increased focus on U visa processing, as well as increased outreach and resources to crime victims groups and law enforcement, have contributed to increased applications.
“We will not turn our attention away from victims of crime,” Mayorkas said.
Another 10,000 visas will be available in October, when the 2011 fiscal year begins. Until then, the federal government can grant interim legal status to non-citizens whose applications are approved for the visas so they can work.
Most visas are given to people not allowed to be in the country, but some are given to people with some sort of permission to be in the U.S.
Crystal Williams, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said she is pleased the government “has turned its own situation on U visas around so thoroughly.”
“I hope this shows that the years of benign neglect of this visa are behind us,” she said.
The milestone highlights challenges law enforcement officers face in investigating and prosecuting crimes involving mostly illegal immigrants. Many are too afraid of deportation to report crimes. Critics of a new Arizona immigration law fear the law may affect immigrants’ willingness to assist law enforcement.
The use of all 10,000 visas indicates the visa’s efficacy to law enforcement, said Gail Pendleton, co-director for ASISTA, a group that advises the Justice Department’s Office of Violence Against Women.
The next step is for Congress to eliminate the 10,000 limit, which Williams called a self-defeating quota.
The re-energizing of this portal for illegal aliens (“Most visas are given to people not allowed to be in the country”) is an indicator of the left’s infatuation with victimhood, particularly of third world persons (although the activists’ concern does not extend to the the crime victims of illegal aliens). Immigration lawyers get to feel generous, but the program adds thousands more onto the welfare rolls at a time when states can hardly afford to import more poverty.
There are no statistics given for the home countries or educational levels of those receiving Victim Visas, but it is likely they are mostly young and uneducated. The number of sex workers is not mentioned, but the program is part of an anti-trafficking law, so the skill set of some recipients was learned at massage parlors.
For an actual case study, see the San Francisco Chronicle’s 2006 series Diary of a Sex Slave which ends “happily” with the victim remaining in the city on a T-1 trafficking visa rather than being deported home to Korea. Such is the diversity we are supposed to celebrate uncritically.
When Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad was first arrested by law enforcement, the press did its usual bang-up job of reporting, using its favored narrative of just another Muslim in the neighborhood, nothing to worry about; the neighbors were shocked, shocked that such a nice family could be connected with terrorist activity, etc.
Many people who knew Faisal Shahzad said they are surprised he is accused in the Times Square attempted bombing.
The 30-year-old son of a retired official in Pakistan’s air force had a master’s degree from the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut, a job as a budget analyst for a marketing firm in Norwalk, two children and a well-educated wife who posted his smiling picture and lovingly called him “my everything” on a social networking website.
But shortly after becoming a U.S. citizen a year ago, he gave up his job, stopped paying his mortgage and told a real estate agent to let the bank take the house because he was returning to Pakistan.
Shahzad was charged Tuesday with trying to blow up a crude gasoline and propane device inside a parked SUV amid tourists and Broadway theatergoers. Some say he seemed quiet, but normal. Others say that, as they look back, there were some red flags.
However, at some point before he built his failed bomb, he filmed an explanatory video about the joy of jihad for Allah, which appeared recently.
It’s possible that the guy could have gone Islamo-wacko after he arrived as an immigrant. Such things do happen, as was pointed out in a Wall Street Journal article (Infiltrating Jihadis’ World) about an undercover operation that noted, “At times, [the radicalization process] was so rapid that a year or two could separate clubbing in Miami from prayer five times a day.”
But either way — sleeper agent or radicalized here — Faisal Shahzad illustrates what a dumb idea Muslim immigration is. Muslims can go off the deep end into violent jihad anywhere, including nice American suburbs, so let’s not admit them in the first place.
The Rasmussen quiz-masters tend to ask more interesting questions than some polling organizations, and today’s item is enormously fascinating: a great majority of voters believe the country’s rulers don’t give a rat’s ass about the opinions of the electorate.
And — no surprise — one of the most indicative issues in this regard is immigration.
The frustration that voters are expressing in 2010 goes much deeper than specific policies. At a more fundamental level, voters just don’t believe politicians are interested in the opinions of ordinary Americans.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 68% believe the nation’s Political Class doesn’t “care what most Americans think.” Only 15% believe the Political Class is interested in the views of those they are supposed to serve. Another 17% are not sure.
Skepticism about the Political Class interest in voters is found across just about all demographic and partisan groups. However, self-identified liberals are evenly divided on the question. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of conservatives and 64% of moderates reject the notion that the Political Class cares. […]
Below, the joy of treason — From left, Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL), Lindsey O. Graham (R-SC), and Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) enjoyed a bipartisan yuck in 2007, probably about destroying America with their illegal alien amnesty bill — which failed due to the outrage of the citizens.
The gubernatorial candidates continued to spar over illegal immigration Wednesday, with Republican nominee Meg Whitman insisting her positions are not so different from those of her Democratic rival, Jerry Brown, and Brown countering that their views are as different as night and day.
Whitman began the back-and-forth, publishing an op-ed piece in several Spanish-language newspapers that criticized the harsh rhetoric surrounding the debate and noting that she received flak in the Republican primary because of her opposition to Arizona’s controversial crackdown on illegal immigrants.
She says she and Brown opposed that law, as well as driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, sanctuary cities and Proposition 187, the 1994 California ballot initiative that would have denied most taxpayer-funded services to those in the country illegally.
“Clearly, when examining our positions on immigration, there is very little over which Jerry Brown and I disagree,” Whitman wrote for the Eastern Group Publications in East Los Angeles, which distributes 11 newspapers. “Latinos seeking a candidate who supports amnesty for illegal immigrants won’t find one on the gubernatorial ballot this year.”
Whitman declines to say what should be done about illegal immigrants in the country, saying such a discussion cannot be made until the federal government secures the border. However, her words suggest she is not in the camp that supports deporting all of them.
“We must find a fair and practical solution to the status of the millions of undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States,” she wrote.
Whitman has gotten into trouble in this area before. Last fall, while visiting the border, Whitman said, “Can we get a fair program where people stand at the back of the line, they pay a fine, they do some things that would ultimately allow a path to legalization?” The last three words are precisely those derided as “amnesty” by Republicans who have argued for stricter controls. A spokeswoman later said the candidate was referring not to citizenship but to a “temporary guest worker program.”
In the GOP primary, as rival Steve Poizner hammered her for those words, Whitman brought out her campaign manager, former Gov. Pete Wilson, a man celebrated by many conservatives and reviled by many Latinos because of his highly visible support of Proposition 187. Wilson appeared in a radio ad called “Tough as Nails,” in which Whitman said, “Illegal immigrants should not expect benefits from the state of California.”
Democrats point out that such a denial of benefits was the aim of Proposition 187. Whitman’s campaign, which has aggressively and expansively courted Latinos since the primary, says that in the ad, Whitman is referring only to the benefits that appear in the next sentence in the ad, driver’s licenses and admission to state-funded universities and colleges.
Jerry Brown must be having a good laugh at Whitman’s rookie screw-up. After all, the whole point of a political campaign is to point out the idiot positions of your opponent and then use them as a club to pummel him.
Large numbers of hispanics will never vote for a Republican, but if Whitman campaigned hard on tough immigration enforcement, she might convince disaffected white voters to choose her. Oh well.
LAS VEGAS — In this election season, Senator Harry Reid’s campaign events often include claims of how many stimulus funded jobs he’s created. But how many of these construction jobs are going to workers in the country illegally?
E-Verify is a computer program many employers use to determine if job applicants are U.S. citizens. Construction companies are not forced to use the official E-Verify system to determine if construction job applicants are in this country legally.
Republican Senator Jeff Sessions introduced an amendment in 2009 that would have made E-Verify permanent and mandatory for all construction companies. Senator Reid did not allow the idea to come up for a vote.
“The reason: we need to do comprehensive immigration reform. We cannot do it piecemeal,” said Reid.
That’s the Dems’ answer for everything immigration related: comprehensive amnesty with hispandering politics set on High.
Hey, Harry, if the country had more immigration enforcement, there would be a lot fewer jobless Americans. But traditional citizens and their need for employment get little attention from the current government.
And anyway, we citizens are still owed serious border and workplace control as promised in the 1986 amnesty, which didn’t come with an expiration date. It was a carrot-and-stick compromise (the kind that Obama denies he is holding out for now), but the aliens got their reward while we citizens never got the increased policing.
And now the Dems want to run the same play yet again, like we’ve never seen it before.
After jawboning for a couple years about perhaps making public face-covering illegal, the French have taken action. The lower house of the legislature passed a bill and it is thought the legislation will become law in September.
There has also been also movement in Belgium to disallow burqas in the public space: Belgium ban burqa-type dress; Law cites public security, securing emancipation of women.
This follows a referendum in Switzerland last year where voters chose to ban minarets.
So Europe has not completely caved to the Muslim demographic onslaught.
France’s lower house of parliament overwhelmingly approved a ban on wearing burqa-style Islamic veils Tuesday, part of a concerted effort to define and protect French values that has disconcerted many in the country’s large Muslim community.
Proponents of the law say face-covering veils don’t square with the French ideal of women’s equality or its secular tradition. The bill is controversial abroad but popular in France, where its relatively few outspoken critics say conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy has resorted to xenophobia to attract far-right voters.
The ban on burqas and niqabs will go in September to the Senate, where it also is likely to pass. Its biggest hurdle will likely come after that, when France’s constitutional watchdog scrutinizes it. Some legal scholars say there is a chance it could be deemed unconstitutional.
Spain and Belgium have similar bans in the works. In France, which has Europe’s largest Muslim population, about 5 million of the country’s 64 million people are believed to be Muslim. While ordinary headscarves are common in France, only about 1,900 women are believed to wear face-covering veils. […]
France’s government has sought to insist that assimilation is the only path for immigrants and minorities, and last year it launched a grand nationwide debate on what it means to be French. The country has had difficulty integrating generations of immigrants and their children, as witnessed by weeks of rioting by youths, many of them minorities, in troubled neighborhoods in 2005.
Middle East expert Daniel Pipes has been collecting instances of the burqa being used for criminal or terrorist purposes, and has compiled quite a list: Niqabs and Burqas as Security Threats. On that subject, he astutely remarked, “The niqab and burqa should both be banned on security grounds, as one cannot have faceless persons walking the streets, driving cars, or otherwise entering public spaces.”
Aren’t Chicago pols supposed to be slick wheeler-dealers, who can trade seats and manipulate the electorate with great expertise? Obie must not be quite the smooth operator we were led to believe, judging from his klutzy handling of tough political sledding of late.
Interestingly, the public’s image of the ideal Obama, carefully crafted during the campaign by spinmeister political consultants, has been under assault by reality. The idea that he was perfect, a messiah who walked on water fell steadily into amnesia and is now little mentioned by embarrassed former acolytes.
Now we are seeing that the image of brilliant politician, a man able to combine various ethnic tribes and interest groups effectively, is similarly false
With midterm elections less than four months away, Republicans are fired up and ready to go. But they are not the only ones upset with Barack Obama. The president has also angered many of the key Democratic constituencies he needs to keep control of the House and Senate, and now Democrats are blowing furiously on the fading embers of their electoral coalition, hoping to stave off disaster this November. In the process they are abdicating their responsibilities to govern — failing to pass a budget or any of their annual spending bills, while using their executive and legislative powers to appease their special interests instead. It is a far cry from the hope and change they promised two years ago.
Take organized labor. Unions are incensed with Obama and congressional Democrats for their failure to deliver on key priorities such as card-check legislation. Gerry McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, complained earlier this year, “We can’t get anything done for the people we represent.” The White House made things worse by publicly ridiculing the AFL-CIO for supporting a primary challenge to Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), prompting the union to fire back: “Labor isn’t an arm of the Democratic Party.” […]
Another disenchanted constituency is Hispanics. Latino support for Obama has dropped 12 points since the start of the year, as anger has grown over the Democrats’ failure to make immigration reform a priority. Instead of putting forward legislation, Obama delivered a speech this month in which he laid the blame for his failure to act on Republican demagoguery. Then last Tuesday, the administration filed a lawsuit in federal court to block Arizona’s immigration law. This was unnecessary, according to Kris Kobach, the former Justice Department official who helped draft the Arizona law, because the law was already being challenged by the ACLU and other groups: The issue was already tied up in the courts. The Justice Department doesn’t add anything by bringing its own lawsuit. These actions were designed to bolster Hispanic support, but they doomed any hope of bipartisan cooperation on immigration. Democrats appear more interested in posturing to win Hispanic votes than getting something accomplished for Hispanic voters. But the strategy may backfire if Latinos see through the charade, and the Arizona lawsuit ends up bringing down Democrats facing tough reelection battles in the West.
During the campaign, candidate Obama promised full amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. Instead, they are getting a substitute prize of a lawsuit against Arizona. Does he really think that anti-American amnesty-supporting hispanics will go to the polls in November in gratitude? It seems unlikely to me.
I’ve long enjoyed the twice-yearly meetings of the National Governors Association, which are shown on C-SPAN. The 50 members get together to share ideas and consider important topics like education and healthcare. The ambiance is normally one of adult problem solving, where the party differences are less important than exploring policies that work in the real world. Governors are executives who make decisions that have discernible outcomes, unlike legislators in Congress who can coast along for years without authoring any important bills.
Governors’ opinions are also a revealing reflection of what’s going on politically away from the Beltway. How interesting that Obama’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona was a hot topic among the governors, and was viewed unfavorably by the Democrats.
BOSTON — In a private meeting with White House officials this weekend, Democratic governors voiced deep anxiety about the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona’s new immigration law, worrying that it could cost a vulnerable Democratic Party in the fall elections.
While the weak economy dominated the official agenda at the summer meeting here of the National Governors Association, concern over immigration policy pervaded the closed-door session between Democratic governors and White House officials and simmered throughout the three-day event.
At the Democrats’ meeting on Saturday, some governors bemoaned the timing of the Justice Department lawsuit, according to two governors who spoke anonymously because the discussion was private.
“Universally the governors are saying, ‘We’ve got to talk about jobs,’ ” Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, said in an interview. “And all of a sudden we have immigration going on.”
He added, “It is such a toxic subject, such an important time for Democrats.” […]
The Democrats’ meeting provided a window on tensions between the White House and states over the suit, which the Justice Department filed last week in federal court in Phoenix. Nineteen Democratic governors are either leaving office or seeking re-election this year, and Republicans see those seats as crucial to swaying the 2012 presidential race.
The Arizona law — which Ms. Brewer signed in April and which, barring an injunction, takes effect July 29 — makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant there. It also requires police officers to determine the immigration status of people they stop for other offenses if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they might be illegal immigrants.
The lawsuit contends that controlling immigration is a federal responsibility, but polls suggest that a majority of Americans support the Arizona law, or at least the concept of a state having a strong role in immigration enforcement.
Republican governors at the Boston meeting were also critical of the lawsuit, saying it infringed on states’ rights and rallying around Ms. Brewer, whose presence spurred a raucous protest around the downtown hotel where the governors gathered.
“I’d be willing to bet a lot of money that almost every state in America next January is going to see a bill similar to Arizona’s,” said Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska, a Republican seeking re-election.
But the unease of Democratic governors, seven of whom are seeking re-election this year, was more striking.
“I might have chosen both a different tack and a different time,” said Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, a Democrat who was facing a tough fight for re-election and pulled out of the race earlier this year. “This is an issue that divides us politically, and I’m hopeful that their strategy doesn’t do that in a way that makes it more difficult for candidates to get elected, particularly in the West.” […]
But Mr. Bredesen said that in Tennessee, where the governor’s race will be tight this year, Democratic candidates were already on the defensive about the federal health care overhaul, and the suit against Arizona further weakened them. In Tennessee, he said, Democratic candidates are already “disavowing” the immigration lawsuit.
“Maybe you do that when you’re strong,” he said of the suit, “and not when there’s an election looming out there.”
Oops, Obama’s ethnic strategy is not looking quite so brilliant out in the country as seen by the Democrats who have to deal with the fallout.
The liberal press has taken some notice to the death sentence by stoning for an Iranian woman, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, for adultery. The execution has been postponed for review after the international uproar; however it still may be carried out.
In order to burnish its appearance of caring about justice (so important to liberal media), Newsweek (July 9) has presented a list of brutal punishments in response to the Iranian stoning case. So virtuous.
Since many of the truly cruel punishments occur in the Muslim world under sharia law, Newsweek threw in an American execution by firing squad to promote the diversity fable that all cultures are morally equal.
The article did note that the man to be executed actually chose death by firing squad, but nevertheless included shooting as one of its brutal punishments, along with the everyday punishments of beheading, amputations and stoning so favored by Islam.
In 2003 an Indian citizen working in Saudi Arabia took part in a brawl, wounding a man’s eye. Puthan Veettil Abd ul-Latif Noushad was eventually sentenced, in 2005, to have his own right eye gouged out as punishment. It was, according to charity Human Rights Watch, the third eye-gouging sentence handed down within a year. HRW was unable to confirm whether any of the gougings had actually taken place. In Noushad’s case, the Indian government made an appeal for clemency. It is not clear if the appeal was successful. The State Department, on its website, still lists eye-gouging as a punishment that can be handed down by courts in Saudia Arabia.
Iran also allows chemical blinding. In 2005 a 27-year-old man named only as Majid had been stalking a woman, Ameneh Bahrami. When she refused his advances he poured a container of sulphuric acid over her. Bahrami was blinded and disfigured. Majid was sentenced to have five drops of hydrochloric acid dripped into each open eye, blinding him. […]
Ronnie Lee Gardner, a convicted murderer who elected to die by firing squad, was strapped to a chair at a prison in Draper, Utah, and shot with .30 caliber bullets just after midnight on June 18 this year.
According to the Associated Press his head was “secured by a strap across his forehead. Harness-like straps constrained his chest. His handcuffed arms hung at his sides. A white cloth square affixed to his chest over his heart—maybe 3 inches across—bore a black target.”
Among some in the military, death by firing squad is considered more honorable than hanging. One example was Nazi Hermann Göring, who requested that form of execution, but was denied and managed to commit suicide rather than be hanged.
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.