News
Mayor Withdraws Nomination of Police Commissioner Who Defended U.S. Drone Killings
In the face of opposition, Mayor Libby Schaaf has withdrawn her proposed appointment of an ex-U.S. District Attorney as a police commission alternate. Brian Hauck, in a former position, defended the U.S. government’s killing by drone attack of two U.S. citizens accused not of violence but of “incendiary commentary.”
These extra-judicial drone killings have been condemned internationally. In the 2013 lawsuit against the federal government, the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights the family of the man and his teenaged son, who was killed in Yemen in 2011.
At last Thursday’s Rules Committee meeting, the Schaaf administration proposed that Hauck serve as an alternative commissioner on the Police Commission.
At the meeting, Schaaf’s Chief of Staff Elinor Buchen praised Hauck for his “years of experience in the Department of Justice…he brings a level of expertise on some of the more technical issues.”
Hauck said, “I do have experience in these issues and look forward to serving the community whatever way the city would find helpful.”
The resolution to appoint Hauck was placed on the consent calendar on this week’s City Council agenda, which meant that it was not considered controversial and would probably be approved with little or no discussion.
However, the proposal quickly unraveled after Hauck’s background was brought to the attention of City Councilmembers and the public by journalist Jaime Omar Yassin at “Oakland News at Hyphenated Republic” (https://hyphenatedrepublic.com).
City Council President Rebecca Kaplan took the item off the consent calendar, in a motion seconded by Noel Gallo, meaning that it would have to be debated in public. A number of public speakers spoke against the resolution. Finally, the Mayor’s Office pulled the resolution off the agenda.
“Before it was pulled by the Mayor’s staffer there was public comment including public criticism of the nomination,” Kaplan told the Oakland Post after the meeting.
“I was told about the issue by a local journalist,” she said. “I agree with many in the community who spoke on their concerns about the nomination, given the undisclosed prior role defending extra-judicial killings.”
The 2011 case received wide attention around the world, involving the extra-judicial killing of Anwar Al Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman Al Awlaki in a U.S. drone attack.
The family’s lawsuit argued that then- U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and then-CIA Director David Petraeus, among others, were liable for having violated the constitutional rights the Al Awlakis.
Hauk represented the U.S. government in the hearing. According to a summary of the case by journalist Yassin, Hauck argued the U.S. could not be responsible for extra-judicial assassinations of citizens because it would “distract” those officials with the fear of litigation.
He also argued that though the two did have constitutional rights, “no court was capacitated to consider those rights’ – only the executive in consultation with Congress could decide on such matters.
Rashidah Grinage of the Coalition for Police Accountability told the Oakland Post as a former U.S. attorney, Hauck could respond that he had no choice but to make the case that he was assigned to make by his employer. However, she did question why he failed to disclose the issue to the mayor or the Police Commission, when he was interviewed by the selection committee
“This seems to reflect a lack of political awareness, especially about Oakland,” she said.
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of January 15 – 21, 2025
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of January 15 – 21, 2025
To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of January 8 – 14, 2025
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of January 8 – 14, 2025
To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.
#NNPA BlackPress
Supreme Court Decision Confirms Convicted Felon Will Assume Presidency
NNPA NEWSWIRE — In a 5-4 ruling, the court stated that Trump’s concerns could “be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal” and emphasized that the burden of sentencing was “relatively insubstantial” given that Trump will not face prison time. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberal justices in the majority, with four conservative justices dissenting.
By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent
@StacyBrownMedia
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President-elect Donald Trump’s emergency request to block criminal proceedings in his New York hush money case, ensuring that a sentencing hearing will proceed as scheduled on Friday. The decision makes it official that, on January 20, for the first time in its history, the United States will inaugurate a convicted felon as its president.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court stated that Trump’s concerns could “be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal” and emphasized that the burden of sentencing was “relatively insubstantial” given that Trump will not face prison time. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberal justices in the majority, with four conservative justices dissenting.
Trump was convicted in May for falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to intervene in a state criminal case, particularly before all appeals in state courts were exhausted.
Trump’s legal team claimed the sentencing process would interfere with his transition to power and argued that evidence introduced during the trial included official actions protected under the Supreme Court’s prior ruling granting former presidents immunity for official conduct. Merchan, the New York judge who presided over the trial, ruled in December that the evidence presented was unrelated to Trump’s duties as president.
Prosecutors dismissed Trump’s objections, stating that the sentencing would take less than an hour and could be attended virtually. They said the public interest in proceeding to sentencing outweighed the President-elect’s claims of undue burden.
Justice Samuel Alito, one of the four dissenting justices, confirmed speaking to Trump by phone on Wednesday. Alito insisted the conversation did not involve the case, though the call drew criticism given his previous refusals to recuse himself from politically sensitive matters.
The sentencing hearing is set for Friday at 9:30 a.m. in Manhattan. As the nation moves closer to an unprecedented inauguration, questions about the implications of a convicted felon assuming the presidency remain.
“No one is above the law,” Bragg said.
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Books for Ghana
-
Bay Area4 weeks ago
Glydways Breaking Ground on 14-Acre Demonstration Facility at Hilltop Mall
-
Arts and Culture4 weeks ago
In ‘Affrilachia: Testimonies,’ Puts Blacks in Appalacia on the Map
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks ago
FILM REVIEW: The Six Triple Eight: Tyler Perry Salutes WWII Black Women Soldiers
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Living His Legacy: The Late Oscar Wright’s “Village” Vows to Inherit Activist’s Commitment to Education
-
Alameda County3 weeks ago
Barbara Lee Releases Statement on Possible Run for Mayor of Oakland
-
Alameda County4 weeks ago
AC Transit Holiday Bus Offering Free Rides Since 1963
-
Activism4 weeks ago