LibriumArcana.Games

Reuters) - The Obama administration on Tuesday said it was preparing to sue Arizona county sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department for violating civil rights laws by improperly targeting Latinos in a bid to crack down on illegal immigrants.

The sheriff's high-profile crackdown on illegal immigrants has helped thrust the issue onto the national political stage with some states passing tough new laws aimed at pushing out those in the country illegally.

The administration's Justice Department and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office have been in settlement talks for months over allegations that officers regularly made unlawful stops and arrests of Latinos, used excessive force against them and failed to adequately protect the Hispanic community.

Those negotiations have broken down because of a fight over the Justice Department's demand that an independent monitor be appointed by a federal court to oversee compliance with the settlement, which has now reached 128 pages in draft form, according to the Obama administration.

"We believe that you are wasting time and not negotiating in good faith," Roy Austin, deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's civil rights division, said in a letter to the lawyer for Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO).

Austin said in the letter that Arpaio's team demanded that a meeting slated for Wednesday include for the first time negotiations over the monitor and previously had demanded that the Justice Department provide more details about its findings.

"MCSO's refusal to engage in good faith negotiations requires us to prepare for civil (court) action," Austin said. He added that the Justice Department has recently discovered more information about the "failure to reasonably investigate sex crimes" by Arpaio's office.

The Justice Department in a December report outlined numerous alleged civil rights violations, including that Latino drivers were four to nine times more likely to be stopped than non-Latinos by Arpaio's force.

The sheriff has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing and lashed out at the Obama administration for targeting his department and failing to deal with the problem of illegal immigration with some 11.5 million believed to be in the United States.

In a strongly worded statement on Tuesday, Arpaio said the appointment of a monitor would force him to abdicate responsibility for his police force, including decisions about policies, operations, jail programs and enforcement.

"To the Obama administration, who is attempting to strong arm me into submission only for its political gain, I say: This will not happen, not on my watch!" Arpaio said in the statement.

Arpaio's force has been under investigation by federal authorities since 2008 during the Bush administration. Obama's Justice Department spent months fighting for access to documents and to some of his deputies. Arpaio was interviewed twice during the probe.

SirNitram wrote:The Feds were ready to settle. However, an unnegotiable part was having a court-appointed monitor present to review all of Arpaio's actions. The Duke of Assholishness refused to allow such an invasion of his sovieregn right to be a dick to everyone else and waste taxpayer money. Now there's gonna be a trial.

Steve wrote:So they'll elect his hand-picked predecessor. And then support Arpaio during his (likely) appeals. And then try to defiantly re-elect him when he gets out of prison.

Steve wrote:Just disagreeing with the attitude that getting rid of him will magically make Maricopa County a land of milk and honey.

rhoenix wrote:Tears from Conservatives have much more salt in them. Much better for fusion power. ;)

Josh wrote:See Havoc? Optimism!

General Havoc wrote:I know... it's like... weird man. I feel dirty.

rhoenix wrote:That's the funniest part to me. Granted, I may not have the best of samples from which to draw, but I'll at least show this: I would consider myself closer to liberal than conservative in terms of political views, overall.

Havoc would likely consider himself closer to conservative than liberal. And yet, whenever he and I discuss issues, as long as we're pulling from the same datasets, we don't tend to disagree on much. When Havoc and I have disagreed, and it turned into a debate, either the differences of our two positions were only separated by a small amount, or one of us didn't see another part of the issue that factored in, and we ended up agreeing.

The issues he and I, for example, tend to butt heads on, we've both agreed most of the time that there are no easy answers to.

Josh wrote:Basically, I think government really only serves when it's the only reasonable option, but not as a first option.

rhoenix wrote:
I do identify myself as a liberal on more issues than I do as a conservative. However, I don't think the government should have first crack at any given option.

Cynical Cat wrote:That's not at all true. No one here thinks that privatizing the entire military is a good first option. Monopolistic industries like power and health care are places where government often does better and its definitely in the public interest for the government to either run the industry or have a hand in how they're run. On the other hand, no one's attracted to the idea of government run neighborhood bakeries. Not every situation is equal.

frigidmagi wrote:We do have government run booze shops in Utah and Norway. By the way, the prices and restricted selection are enough to qualify as a Marine Horror Story.

"And they only had one kind of Whiskey!"