The War on Police is over- Jeff Sessions

[Origanalist]

FEB 28 2017, 1:52 PM ET
AG Sessions Says DOJ to ‘Pull Back’ on Police Department Civil Rights Suits
by PETE WILLIAMS


Donald Trump's attorney general said Tuesday the Justice Department will limit its use of a tactic employed aggressively under President Obama — suing police departments for violating the civil rights of minorities.

"We need, so far as we can, to help police departments get better, not diminish their effectiveness. And I'm afraid we've done some of that," said Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

"So we're going to try to pull back on this," he told a meeting of the nation's state attorneys general in Washington.


Sessions said such a move would not be "wrong or insensitive to civil rights or human rights." Instead, he said people in poor and minority communities must feel free from the threat of violent crime, which will require more effective policing with help from the federal government.

While crime rates are half of what they were a few decades ago, recent increases in violent crimes do not appear to be "an aberration, a one-time blip. I'm afraid it represents the beginning of a trend."

Sessions said he will encourage federal prosecutors to bring charges when crimes are committed using guns. Referring local drug violations that involve the use of a firearm, for example, to federal court can result is often a stiffer sentence than would be imposed by state courts.
"We need to return to the ideas that got us here, the ideas that reduce crime and stay on it. Maybe we got a bit overconfident when we've seen the crime rate decline so steadily for so long," he said.

Under the Obama Administration, the Justice Department opened 25 investigations into police departments and sheriff's offices and was enforcing 19 agreements at the end of 2016, resolving civil rights lawsuits filed against police departments in Ferguson, Missouri; Baltimore, New Orleans, Cleveland and 15 other cities.

On Monday, Sessions said he is reviewing the Justice Department's current policy toward enforcing federal law that prohibits possession of marijuana, but has made no decision about whether to get tougher.

article at hxxp://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ag-sessions-says-trump-administration-pull-back-police-department-civil-n726826

[CPUd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0pJ0BrbuwE

[shakey1]

https://i0.wp.com/www.fiz-x.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/rorybbellows.gif

[Madison320]

I agree. Police are a state issue.

[pcosmar]

I agree. Police are a state issue.

I agree that the Police State is an issue,
they should not exist in a Free society.

They only exist in Authoritarian Society. And are necessary for such to exist.

Control Enforcers are not needed nor welcome in a Free Society.

[Madison320]

I agree that the Police State is an issue,
they should not exist in a Free society.

They only exist in Authoritarian Society. And are necessary for such to exist.

Control Enforcers are not needed nor welcome in a Free Society.

That'd be nice but impossible. You're always going to have police or people acting as police (George Zimmerman for example).

[pcosmar]

That'd be nice but impossible. You're always going to have police or people acting as police (George Zimmerman for example).

People acting as police ( forcing authoritarian edicts),, should be stopped,,

They should be ostracized,, and ridiculed verbally. and stopped physically if they persist.

Their aggression should be immediately stopped. (like a charging bear)

I recommend large and dangerous game ammo.

[Madison320]

People acting as police ( forcing authoritarian edicts),, should be stopped,,

They should be ostracized,, and ridiculed verbally. and stopped physically if they persist.

Their aggression should be immediately stopped. (like a charging bear)

I recommend large and dangerous game ammo.

The people stopping the people acting as police would be the police. Force exists. People are always going to try to force other people to do stuff against their will. It's all a form of government (police).

[pcosmar]

The people stopping the people acting as police would be the police. Force exists. People are always going to try to force other people to do stuff against their will. It's all a form of government (police).

People stopping tyranny with force are militia.

People who try to force people against their will should be shot. Immediately and repeatedly.

Government must have limits.(our Constitution defined certain limits). and police are not government.They are Enforcers of Control. Hired Guns.

Free people do not need to be controlled.

[fisharmor]

That'd be nice but impossible. You're always going to have police or people acting as police (George Zimmerman for example).

Zimmerman absolutely did not act like police.
There are photographs. The man was physically assaulted and pretty severely beaten. It was a clear-cut case of self-defense.
If he was acting like police, he would have drawn his gun and shot Martin in the back before he was even close, and then about a quarter million dollars in forcibly extracted tax money would be spent defending him.

[Madison320]

Zimmerman absolutely did not act like police.
There are photographs. The man was physically assaulted and pretty severely beaten. It was a clear-cut case of self-defense.
If he was acting like police, he would have drawn his gun and shot Martin in the back before he was even close, and then about a quarter million dollars in forcibly extracted tax money would be spent defending him.

I totally agree. I was just using that example because it seemed that mostly anarchists were against Zimmerman. They were calling him a "wanna be cop". Which I thought was highly ironic. Anarchists should've been in favor of "private" police like Zimmerman.

[Madison320]

People stopping tyranny with force are militia.

People who try to force people against their will should be shot. Immediately and repeatedly.

Government must have limits.(our Constitution defined certain limits). and police are not government.They are Enforcers of Control. Hired Guns.

Free people do not need to be controlled.

Militia, government, police. What's the difference? They all use force to make people do stuff they don't want to do.

[pcosmar]

Militia, government, police. What's the difference? They all use force to make people do stuff they don't want to do.

No They don't.

The militia are the people.. They are the victims of police.

Militia is Defensive. Non aggressive. It is a Voluntary Defensive Force.

Government is not supposed to make people do anything against their will. If it does,, it is wrong.
Enforcers who do so are wrong.

They are criminal.

You are attempting to defend criminal behavior,, simply because criminals rule.

[Madison320]

Militia is Defensive. Non aggressive. It is a Voluntary Defensive Force.

Government is not supposed to make people do anything against their will. If it does,, it is wrong.
Enforcers who do so are wrong.

They are criminal.

You are attempting to defend criminal behavior,, simply because criminals rule.

So you're not an anarchist, you're just against governments that initiates force? A government that only retaliates against force is OK with you?

[seapilot]

No They don't.

The militia are the people.. They are the victims of police.

Militia is Defensive. Non aggressive. It is a Voluntary Defensive Force.

Government is not supposed to make people do anything against their will. If it does,, it is wrong.
Enforcers who do so are wrong.

They are criminal.

You are attempting to defend criminal behavior,, simply because criminals rule.

I think it comes down to simply is the person/group paid to enforce the law or volunteer for free to enforce the law?

[Origanalist]

No They don't.

The militia are the people.. They are the victims of police.

Militia is Defensive. Non aggressive. It is a Voluntary Defensive Force.

Government is not supposed to make people do anything against their will. If it does,, it is wrong.
Enforcers who do so are wrong.

They are criminal.

You are attempting to defend criminal behavior,, simply because criminals rule.

Plus rep . There is a big difference.

[Ender]

No They don't.

The militia are the people.. They are the victims of police.

Militia is Defensive. Non aggressive. It is a Voluntary Defensive Force.

Government is not supposed to make people do anything against their will. If it does,, it is wrong.
Enforcers who do so are wrong.

They are criminal.

You are attempting to defend criminal behavior,, simply because criminals rule.

THIS.

The militia in the 2nd Amendment meant every man, 14 and up, protecting their local community, ESPECIALLY against a gov gone wrong.

[shakey1]

No They don't.

The militia are the people.. They are the victims of police.

Militia is Defensive. Non aggressive. It is a Voluntary Defensive Force.

Government is not supposed to make people do anything against their will. If it does,, it is wrong.
Enforcers who do so are wrong.

They are criminal.

Affirmative... much like the draft.

http://images2.pics4learning.com/catalog/d/draftcard.jpg

[pcosmar]

So you're not an anarchist,

No I am not.
I favor limited govt. and I favor enforcing those limits.


I am in favor of destroying any agent of tyranny.
I am opposed to authoritarian Policy and enforcers of such policy.

I would suggest you educate yourself on both proper government,, and on the origin of police.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.

[Anti Federalist]

Meantime, the War on Us continues, unabated.

[Madison320]

No I am not.
I favor limited govt. and I favor enforcing those limits.


I am in favor of destroying any agent of tyranny.
I am opposed to authoritarian Policy and enforcers of such policy.

I would suggest you educate yourself on both proper government,, and on the origin of police.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

So you're in favor of limited government but not government police? Why can't you have limited government with a police force that only enforces proper laws like murder and theft?

What's the difference between a sheriff and a cop?

[fisharmor]

So you're in favor of limited government but not government police? Why can't you have limited government with a police force that only enforces proper laws like murder and theft?

To your earlier point, not even anarchocapitalists go as far as to say "I am against all government".
"Government" is a word that means something. "State" is a word that means something. They are not identical concepts.
"Anarchist" means something. It means someone who is opposed to (an-) a monopoly ruler (-archon).
I generally don't call myself an anarchist because of the confusion behind this word. I advocate a stateless society wherein governance is determined by the free market.

To the quoted point, pcosmar is not a fellow advocate of statelessness, but we see eye-to-eye on the subject of police. We both agree that law enforcement duties can be, and also are more appropriately suited to being, accomplished by private citizens.

The point where I (and others like me) go farther is in that I also see the statist legal system being abjectly opposed to fundamental concepts of liberty.


What's the difference between a sheriff and a cop?

Today? Nothing.
Some people presume that sheriffs are better because they are (supposed to be) a reactive force, as opposed to proactive.
When you see LEOs hanging out behind billboards poaching for revenue, they are not sheriffs. Sheriffs are supposed to serve warrants, and bring in people the system has already determined to be out of line, rather than going out and finding (or making) people out of line, which is the entire job of police.

Unfortunately you can find a whole pile of dead dogs and beat-up autistic kids in sheriff records, too. So I recognize they're better in that they are (supposed to be) reactive. But they are still fundamentally anti-liberty.

[anaconda]

I agree that the Police State is an issue,
they should not exist in a Free society.

They only exist in Authoritarian Society. And are necessary for such to exist.

Control Enforcers are not needed nor welcome in a Free Society.

In a free society can I hire an armed bodyguard? If so, how many? Then, can I join with several of my neighbors, pool some money, and hire a small armed security detail? To what sorts of alleged indiscretions can our security detail respond? If other neighbors object to our security detail, what is their recourse?

[Origanalist]

In a free society can I hire an armed bodyguard? If so, how many? Then, can I join with several of my neighbors, pool some money, and hire a small armed security detail? To what sorts of alleged indiscretions can our security detail respond? If other neighbors object to our security detail, what is their recourse?

This happens every day without the force of the state behind it. Kind of a silly question.

[anaconda]

This happens every day without the force of the state behind it. Kind of a silly question.

You may have missed my point. At what point does the state come into existence and when does the society have police? I was responding to the statement that "Control Enforcers are not needed nor welcome in a free society." A free society is not a violence free society. Do I make the society authoritarian the moment I hire a bodyguard?

[pcosmar]

What's the difference between a sheriff and a cop?

boggles,,,

OK, a Sheriff is an elected servant,,whose job it is to insure that rights (of anyone, accused of anything)are protected.

A cop is a hired gunman,, who takes orders for pay.. Mercenary to the highest bidder.
At best an enforcer,, to enforce laws imposed on people . Laws that the people themselves will not enforce.
At worst,, well,, we have not seen the worst yet. :(

[pcosmar]

You may have missed my point. At what point does the state come into existence and when does the society have police? I was responding to the statement that "Control Enforcers are not needed nor welcome in a free society." A free society is not a violence free society. Do I make the society authoritarian the moment I hire a bodyguard?

Answered here.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Police (the concept and practice) was imported from Authoritarian Europe.. some years after the revolution.

Law enforcement is a civil duty of every person.
it does not require Government,, though it should be respected by proper government.

[anaconda]

Answered here.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Police (the concept and practice) was imported from Authoritarian Europe.. some years after the revolution.

Law enforcement is a civil duty of every person.
it does not require Government,, though it should be respected by proper government.

Thanks for the link! I will definitely check it out.

[anaconda]

Sessions is a jackass.

[Origanalist]

You may have missed my point. At what point does the state come into existence and when does the society have police? I was responding to the statement that "Control Enforcers are not needed nor welcome in a free society." A free society is not a violence free society. Do I make the society authoritarian the moment I hire a bodyguard?

I would say that if your bodyguard had legal authority to arrest anyone for any trumped up reason they want to come up with, confiscate their belongings (and their bank account), write them tickets ....eh, you get my point. They aren't really defending you are they?

[anaconda]

I would say that if your bodyguard had legal authority to arrest anyone for any trumped up reason they want to come up with, confiscate their belongings (and their bank account), write them tickets ....eh, you get my point. They aren't really defending you are they?

Is it OK if I go have them punish people who are, in my opinion, driving too fast or disturbing the peace with noise?

[Origanalist]

Is it OK if I go have them punish people who are, in my opinion, driving too fast or disturbing the peace with noise?

No.

[Origanalist]

Is it OK if I go have them punish people who are, in my opinion, driving too fast or disturbing the peace with noise?

Well, maybe if they are playing rap music.

[CPUd]

Does it mean the feds are going to drop these charges?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508151-They-re-cops-AND-robbers-SEVEN-Baltimore-police-officers-are-arrested-for-racketeering

[anaconda]

No.

What if kids routinely play near the street? Must I accept that drivers exceed a reasonable speed limit? If so, why?

[Origanalist]

What if kids routinely play near the street? Must I accept that drivers exceed a reasonable speed limit? If so, why?

What if cops sit in school zones and write really expensive tickets to people when the kids are in school? Must I except it? Why?

You can come up with a million excuses for the police state, keeping you safe is the most common and the most laughable. If someone is driving reckless and hits a kid prosecute them for it. When a couple people lose their homes and everything they own and their freedom people notice.

[CPUd]

Ron Paul gives a good argument against the government "keeping you safe", the government can put you in prison and keep you safe. The role of the government is to protect liberty.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508144-Ron-s-Tweetstorm-Was-Trump-s-Speech-Libertarian

[anaconda]

What if cops sit in school zones and write really expensive tickets to people when the kids are in school? Must I except it? Why?

You can come up with a million excuses for the police state, keeping you safe is the most common and the most laughable. If someone is driving reckless and hits a kid prosecute them for it. When a couple people lose their homes and everything they own and their freedom people notice.

Ah, I see. Your explanation is quite compelling. What if the jury won't convict because the defendant has the biggest private security force?

[kcchiefs6465]

Ah, I see. Your explanation is quite compelling. What if the jury won't convict because the defendant has the biggest private security force?
The current government, or are you speaking of the utopia that no one suggests as able to occur?

Which is better?

Well, the one that one isn't forced to pay for and the one that one is able to defend themselves against.

[pcosmar]

What if kids routinely play near the street? Must I accept that drivers exceed a reasonable speed limit? If so, why?

Yes,

or move away from roads.

why? Because you have no right nor ability to dictate the actions of others.

[Origanalist]

Ah, I see. Your explanation is quite compelling. What if the jury won't convict because the defendant has the biggest private security force?

What if!? What if!? What if!? Oh dear!!!!! You pose these questions as if people don't already do these things now because, police. Well, they do, the only difference is that the police state makes a profit to further it's control over us. Liberty is messy yes, maybe you should provide a place for recreation away from the street for your kids instead of demanding police make the streets a safe place for your kids to play.

[anaconda]

Yes,

or move away from roads.

why? Because you have no right nor ability to dictate the actions of others.

What if I decide that no one has the right to recklessly endanger my child?

[anaconda]

What if!? What if!? What if!? Oh dear!!!!! You pose these questions as if people don't already do these things now because, police. Well, they do, the only difference is that the police state makes a profit to further it's control over us. Liberty is messy yes, maybe you should provide a place for recreation away from the street for your kids instead of demanding police make the streets a safe place for your kids to play.

OK. This is good.

[pcosmar]

What if I decide that no one has the right to recklessly endanger my child?

Go ahead and decide that.

and for the record.. No One has the right to harm anyone.

HOWEVER,, YOUR OPINION IS NOT BINDING ON OTHERS.

[anaconda]

Go ahead and decide that.

and for the record.. No One has the right to harm anyone.

HOWEVER,, YOUR OPINION IS NOT BINDING ON OTHERS.

What about natural law? Does a mama bear have a right to attack a human that wanders to close to their lair?

Are speeding motorists' threats to my child a form of assault? Are there no speed limits in a libertarian society?

[anaconda]

J. Sessions is a non-starter with his devotion to the war on drugs and asset forfeiture.

[pcosmar]

Are speeding motorists' threats to my child a form of assault?
Why are your children in the way of people driving?

if your children were not playing in the streets (where cars drive) they would not be in harms way.

or are you just trying to be contrary despite the logic.?

[pcosmar]

Are there no speed limits in a libertarian society?

Why would there be?

Why would or should any human dictate to others?
What makes one wise and worthy enough to rule another?

Before you ask any more questions,, you better answer this one.

[osan]

"We need, so far as we can, to help police departments get better, not diminish their effectiveness. And I'm afraid we've done some of that," said Attorney General Jeff Sessions.


Much is the FAIL here. No mention of what constitutes "get[ting] better", nor "effectiveness". These men are the "leaders" or occupy leading roles in so-called "government" that presumes to rule 320 million people. One would think they would be keenly interested in clear, complete, and correct communications. Alas, it appears their interests lie elsewhere. Wonder where that might be...


"So we're going to try to pull back on this," he told a meeting of the nation's state attorneys general in Washington.

More of the same. What in hell does he mean to communicate with "try"? And what does "pull back" mean in its particulars? Seems to me he is bullshitting an audience seeking to be bullshitted.



Sessions said such a move would not be "wrong or insensitive to civil rights or human rights."

Police are heros! If only those stupid Americans would realize it.


Instead, he said people in poor and minority communities must feel free from the threat of violent crime, which will require more effective policing with help from the federal government.

Lies. Firstly, not all "poor" communities are the same, much as can be said of Knee Grows. For example, I went to Lowes to get tubing and fittings for a pair of HAM radio antennae we're building. I left my laptop in a cart in the parking lot, didn't realize until I was home, raced back and found the computer under a cash register, locked away and safe. $3K worth of MacBook can be tempting, yet in this "poor" community in WV, the good Christian people still turned it in. Had this been NJ, it would have been gone, about 75% certain, where the thinking would have gone something like this: "Yo yo... look'idis shit... fukkin' stoopit niggiz lef'd'shit... maaahn now... niggiz be stoopit..." And that would be that.


While crime rates are half of what they were a few decades ago, recent increases in violent crimes do not appear to be "an aberration, a one-time blip. I'm afraid it represents the beginning of a trend."

Unsupported assertion. FAIL^2


Sessions said he will encourage federal prosecutors to bring charges when crimes are committed using guns. Referring local drug violations that involve the use of a firearm, for example, to federal court can result is often a stiffer sentence than would be imposed by state courts.

I sure hope Trump has a valid strategy behind appointing Sessions because this masturbatory obsession he has with drugs leaves me wanting to slap him across his face. There's something wrong there, personally speaking. The boy may be a crackerjack prosecutor, but at least some of his "values" are plenty loused up.


"We need to return to the ideas that got us here, the ideas that reduce crime and stay on it.

You mean like respecting individual rights to keep and bear arms?

Yeah, didn't think so.


Under the Obama Administration, the Justice Department opened 25 investigations into police departments and sheriff's offices and was enforcing 19 agreements at the end of 2016, resolving civil rights lawsuits filed against police departments in Ferguson, Missouri; Baltimore, New Orleans, Cleveland and 15 other cities.

The innuendo here being that this was wrong, yet offering no supporting evidence in justification.

[osan]

I agree. Police are a state issue.

Meaningless.

Police are an individual issue; a rights issue; an issue of the question of whether they hold the just authority to violate the rights of others, ever. I believe we all know the correct answer.

[osan]

That'd be nice but impossible. You're always going to have police or people acting as police (George Zimmerman for example).

That brand of thinking is self-fulfilling.

As for Zimmerman, what on earth do you mean? He was part of a neighborhood watch. He saw something he found suspicious and, well, watched. Unless I've missed something, I am not sure of the connection you imply.

[osan]

People stopping tyranny with force are militia.

Whatever we call them, they are Freemen asserting their freedom and all the rights and other appurtenances thereto.


People who try to force people against their will should be shot. Immediately and repeatedly.

Amen^Amen


Government must have limits.(our Constitution defined certain limits). and police are not government.They are Enforcers of Control. Hired Guns.

And in order to enforce those limits, the people have got to have their heads not ensconced in their sphincters.


Free people do not need to be controlled.

Pony up the rep, I'm out for now.

[osan]

Militia, government, police. What's the difference? They all use force to make people do stuff they don't want to do.

Über logic-FAIL.

Using force to defend oneself against violation is not a crime. It is virtue.

[Madison320]

Why would there be?

Why would or should any human dictate to others?
What makes one wise and worthy enough to rule another?

Before you ask any more questions,, you better answer this one.

Suppose all the roads were all private. There's 2 roads I can take to get to my destination, Road A or Road B. Road A has a speed limit, Road B does not. Road A takes longer, but it's safer. Many people might choose Road A, correct?

[pcosmar]

Suppose all the roads were all private. There's 2 roads I can take to get to my destination, Road A or Road B. Road A has a speed limit, Road B does not. Road A takes longer, but it's safer. Many people might choose Road A, correct?

Why the phuck should roads they be private,, other than a driveway or parking lot.?

Roads were never private ever in human history. except Toll Roads..
and that was feudal times.(highway robbery)

it was not until well after the invention of automobiles that roads somehow magically became government property.
and later the Federal Government dictated the roads. (turned some into airfields).

I think I own all the roads my ancestors built.

[MallsRGood]

The war on police is over...

...and the war on the public is just beginning.

[pcosmar]

...and the war on the public is just beginning.

that would be my concern.

[anaconda]

Why would there be?

Why would or should any human dictate to others?
What makes one wise and worthy enough to rule another?

Before you ask any more questions,, you better answer this one.

For the same reasons that a small tribe sits down over the camp fire and agrees that there shall be no murder among them, and that there will be consequences?

[CPUd]

How Jeff Sessions wants to bring back the war on drugs

When the Obama administration launched a sweeping policy to reduce harsh prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, rave reviews came from across the political spectrum. Civil rights groups and the Koch brothers praised Obama for his efforts, saying he was making the criminal justice system more humane.

But there was one person who watched these developments with some horror. Steven H. Cook, a former street cop who became a federal prosecutor based in Knoxville, Tenn., saw nothing wrong with how the system worked — not the life sentences for drug charges, not the huge growth of the prison population. And he went everywhere — Bill O’Reilly’s show on Fox News, congressional hearings, public panels — to spread a different gospel.

“The federal criminal justice system simply is not broken. In fact, it’s working exactly as designed,” Cook said at a criminal justice panel at The Washington Post last year.

The Obama administration largely ignored Cook, who was then president of the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys. But he won’t be overlooked anymore.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has brought Cook into his inner circle at the Justice Department, appointing him to be one of his top lieutenants to help undo the criminal justice policies of Obama and former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr. As Sessions has traveled to different cities to preach his tough-on-crime philosophy, Cook has been at his side.

Sessions has yet to announce specific policy changes, but Cook’s new perch speaks volumes about where the Justice Department is headed.

Law enforcement officials say that Sessions and Cook are preparing a plan to prosecute more drug and gun cases and pursue mandatory minimum sentences. The two men are eager to bring back the national crime strategy of the 1980s and ’90s from the peak of the drug war, an approach that had fallen out of favor in recent years as minority communities grappled with the effects of mass incarceration.

Crime is near historic lows in the United States, but Sessions says that the spike in homicides in several cities, including Chicago, is a harbinger of a “dangerous new trend” in America that requires a tough response.

“Our nation needs to say clearly once again that using drugs is bad,” Sessions said to law enforcement officials in a speech in Richmond last month. “It will destroy your life.”

Advocates of criminal justice reform argue that Sessions and Cook are going in the wrong direction — back to a strategy that tore apart families and sent low-level drug offenders, disproportionately minority citizens, to prison for long sentences.

“They are throwing decades of improved techniques and technologies out the window in favor of a failed approach,” said Kevin Ring, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM).

But Cook, whose views are supported by other federal prosecutors, sees himself as a dedicated assistant U.S. attorney who for years has tried to protect neighborhoods ravaged by crime. He has called FAMM and organizations like it “anti-law enforcement groups.”

The records of Cook and Sessions show that while others have grown eager in recent years to rework the criminal justice system, they have repeatedly fought to keep its toughest edges, including winning a battle in Congress last year to defeat a reform bill.

“If hard-line means that my focus is on protecting communities from violent felons and drug traffickers, then I’m guilty,” Cook said in a recent interview with The Post. “I don’t think that’s hard-line. I think that’s exactly what the American people expect of their Department of Justice.”
...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-jeff-sessions-wants-to-bring-back-the-war-on-drugs/2017/04/08/414ce6be-132b-11e7-ada0-1489b735b3a3_story.html

[CPUd]

More about this guy:


...
"When you put criminals in jail, crime goes down," Cook said. "That's what incapacitation is designed to do, and it works."

He calls a "myth" the idea that most offenders in federal prisons are nonviolent drug pushers and says racial bias plays no role in who gets federally prosecuted.

"People get prosecuted who break our laws," Cook said.

He cited as an example that the lion's share of defendants being prosecuted in the federal court system in Knoxville on methamphetamine, oxycodone and heroin trafficking charges are predominantly white.

He also noted the gun sentences targeted in the proposed law could play a key role in helping Knoxville authorities combat the city's deadly gang problem.

"It's a very effective tool for taking those violent repeat offenders off the street," Cook said.
...


http://archive.knoxnews.com/news/crime-courts/knoxville-federal-prosecutor-battling-in-congress-against-sentencing-reform-3117e459-ec3e-1d89-e053--376797231.html

[tod evans]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-jeff-sessions-wants-to-bring-back-the-war-on-drugs/2017/04/08/414ce6be-132b-11e7-ada0-1489b735b3a3_story.html

There is no lower form of life than a prosecutor.

[Ender]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-jeff-sessions-wants-to-bring-back-the-war-on-drugs/2017/04/08/414ce6be-132b-11e7-ada0-1489b735b3a3_story.html


“If hard-line means that my focus is on protecting communities from violent felons and drug traffickers, then I’m guilty,” Cook said in a recent interview with The Post. “I don’t think that’s hard-line. I think that’s exactly what the American people expect of their Department of Justice.”

Notice not a word is said about ending the WoD. Probably his department's heaviest deep pockets liner.