A U.S. district court has ruled that Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio's department has violated the rights of Latino drivers by racially profiling them as part of a crackdown on illegal immigration and issued an injunction to halt the practice.
The decision on Friday marks the first time that the hard-line Maricopa County sheriff's office has been found to be engaging in systematic racial profiling.
In 2010, Arizona passed a law that set the legal framework for Arpaio's actions, including a provision that allows police to check a person's immigration status if he is pulled over for any other reason. While the U.S. Supreme Court struck down most of the law last year, it left in place the so-called show-me-your-papers provision.
The Associated Press reports:
"It also backs up allegations made by critics that Arpaio's officers rely on race in their immigration enforcement.
"Snow also ruled Arpaio's deputies unreasonably prolonged the detentions of people who were pulled over.
"A small group of Latinos alleged deputies pulled over some vehicles only to make immigration status checks.
"Arpaio has denied the allegations."
Steve Shadley of member station KJZZ reports from Phoenix:
"The court order blocks Arpaio from conducting immigration sweeps and using race or Latino ancestry as a factor in determining to stop any vehicle in Maricopa County with a Latino occupant.
"Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery's office said it would not comment, KJZZ said."
The ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, which has opposed the Arizona law and similar laws in other states, called Friday's ruling a "great day for all the people of Maricopa County."
Speaking to KJZZ, the Rights Project's director, Cecillia Wang, said that "for too long this sheriff's office has been violating the rights of people around the county — people he is meant to serve."
The court "has held that practice is illegal and violates the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure," she said.
Lydia Guzman, a founder of Somos America, an immigrant rights organization, tells NPR that she's elated by the ruling but "we don't expect too much cooperation" from Arpaio.
"At the same time, we're going to be asking the federal government to help ensure that this federal order is abided by," she said.
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford says he doesn't smoke crack cocaine and isn't an addict, in response to a video that surfaced recently purporting to show him using the illegal drug.
Last week Ford called the cellphone video obtained by The Toronto Star "ridiculous" and blamed the newspaper for "going after me."
Friday's comments from Ford were more emphatic.
"I do not use crack cocaine, nor am I an addict of crack cocaine," he said at a news conference. "As for a video, I cannot comment on a video that I have never seen, or does not exist."
He didn't take questions from reporters and said he'd held his silence on the matter for the past week because his lawyer advised him "not to say a word."
Last week, the Star reported that two of its reporters had viewed a video that appeared to show Ford smoking crack. The newspaper says the footage was being "shopped around Toronto by a group of Somali men involved in the drug trade." The website Gawker has also obtained the video, but it has not been verified by other news organizations.
It's difficult for an American president to govern through nuance, especially when it's necessary to persuade a majority of the people that certain actions are essential for national security. And effective persuasion usually requires clarity.
That's how you arrive at President George W. Bush's stark formulation "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" after Sept. 11, and much of what sprang from it.
But if President Obama's newly recalibrated counterterrorism strategy as outlined in his speech Thursday demonstrates anything, it is his penchant for nuance.
It's a tendency required by the times. After more than a decade of two large-scale wars, Americans long ago hit the kind of war weariness that made them open to the notion of downsizing what Obama's predecessor had described as a "global war on terror" that could last decades.
But there are still enemies who seek to wage an asymmetric fight against the U.S. Thus the need for the kind of complex U.S. approach — in short nuance — that can be hard to explain or easy to misstate in the Twitter era.
For an example of this nuance, just take Obama's new guidance for when the U.S. will target individuals for destruction by drone. In the past, a terrorist suspect could apparently be targeted for that fact alone.
But the administration's new guidance, according to a White House fact sheet, requires that a suspected terrorist only be targeted if he's a "continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons. It is simply not the case that all terrorists pose a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons; if a terrorist does not pose such a threat, the United States will not use lethal force."
That's a distinction that's difficult to imagine the Obama administration's immediate predecessor making, with its more cut-and-dried approach.
But part of Obama's appeal to many Americans when he was first elected in 2008 was his promise of a smarter approach to counterterrorism than Bush's, one that would improve the U.S.' image abroad. That was a vow that appeared challenged, at least when it came to the Obama administration's controversial use of drones.
Obama greatly expanded the use of the remotely controlled unmanned vehicles, with their Hellfire missile payloads, far beyond anything that occurred under Bush. The result? Growing anger toward the U.S. in unstable places like Pakistan and Yemen, and in other nations with Islamic majorities across the region.
While the use of the high-tech weapons has engendered outrage elsewhere in the world, Americans have mostly embraced the tactic.
Recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans support drone attacks on terrorist suspects. Civil libertarians and human-rights activists like Code Pink protester Medea Benjamin, who interrupted the president's speech Thursday, may question the killing by drone of U.S. citizens abroad or of the innocent — but that doesn't appear to be a majority concern.
It's this widespread support of U.S. drone warfare among the public that has given Obama the latitude he has enjoyed until now to increasingly conduct these attacks. The president didn't mention in his speech the popularity of the drones with Americans among the reasons for continuing their use. Americans' support of the use of drones certainly has made this part of his counterterrorism policy easier than it would be otherwise.
Ironically, the one part of his counterterrorism policy in which Obama showed the least nuance has arguably been the most vexing: his campaign promise to close Guantanamo, freeing those detainees deemed as not dangerous while transferring the rest to the U.S. mainland for trial.
It's not by choice, of course. He ran into fierce congressional resistance when he first tried to make good on his promise in 2009 shortly after entering the White House, and all indications are that Republican lawmakers will do their best to thwart him again. And with most Americans agreeing with them that Guantanamo should remain open, their chances of winning are probably better than Obama's.
On today's Planet Money, we meet a single mother who makes $16,000 a year — and who managed to fund a vacation at a Caribbean resort with an interest-free loan from one of the world's largest banks.
Edith Calzado gets credit cards with teaser zero-percent interest rates — then transfers her balance before the rate ticks up. She signs up for store cards to get discounts — then pays off her bill on time. She gets food stamps and lives in subsidized housing. Her son is doing well in school.
She may be the single most successful and productive beneficiary of government assistance you'll ever meet.
Billionaire Paul Tudor Jones is back-peddling from remarks he made at a symposium last month that motherhood causes women to lose the necessary focus to be successful traders.
"As soon as that baby's lips touched that girl's bosom, forget it," Jones told an audience at the University of Virginia on April 26.
"Every single investment idea ... every desire to understand what is going to make this go up or go down is going to be overwhelmed by the most beautiful experience ... which a man will never share, about a mode of connection between that mother and that baby," he said. "And I've just seen it happen over and over."
But in a statement released Friday, Jones apologized for what he has called "off the cuff" remarks:
"Much of my adult life has been spent fighting for equal opportunity, and the idea that I would support limiting opportunity for any segment of society, particularly women, is antithetical to who I am and what I have done," he said. "My remarks offended, and I am sorry."
The offending comments were made as Jones, the founder of Tudor Investment Corp., a $13 billion hedge-fund firm based in Greenwich, Conn., participated in a question-and-answer symposium at the University of Virginia's McIntire School of Commerce. Prominent investors Julian Robertson of Tiger Management and John Griffin of Blue Ridge Capital were also part of the panel.
The video was obtained by The Washington Post through a Freedom of Information Act request. You can skip to Jones' controversial remarks in the video below beginning at about 2:30.
Not surprisingly, the comments haven't gone over well with some women. Writing for Time magazine, columnist Rana Foroohar shot back at what she called Jones' "convoluted argument":
"He's saying that women can't be good traders because they are too much at the mercy of their emotions. Actually, plenty of research has shown just the opposite. In the bestselling book, The Hour Between Dog and Wolf, John Coates, a former trader who is now a neuroscientist at Cambridge University, looks at just how emotionally influenced traders — mainly men — are."