The conviction of a southern California man for saying that someone should assassinate then-candidate Barack Obama, has been overturned by a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court.
Walter Bagdasarian of La Mesa, was found guilty two years ago by a federal judge in San Diego of violating a statute prohibiting threats to kill, kidnap or do bodily harm to a major presidential candidate.
The majority opinion said that Bagdasarian's vitriolic epithets were "particularly repugnant" because they endorsed violence. But the panel concluded that a reasonable person wouldn't have taken seriously his drunken diatribe in an online Yahoo! chat room at 1 a.m.
Among the comments he had posted was an observation that Obama "will have a 50 cal in the head soon" and that someone should "shoot the [racist slur]."
"There are many unstable individuals in this nation to whom assault weapons and other firearms are readily available, some of whom might believe that they were doing the nation a service were they to follow Bagdasarian's commandment," said the appeals panel opinion written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt(*).
"There is nevertheless insufficient evidence that either statement constituted a threat or would be construed by a reasonable person as a genuine threat by Bagdasarian against Obama."
The ruling noted that Bagdasarian did have in his possession .50-caliber weapons and ammunition but said the reference to a bullet in Obama's head was "a prediction that conveyed no explicit or implicit threat on the part of Bagdasarian that he himself would kill or injure Obama."
The majority opinion written by Reinhardt and joined by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski also said Bagdasarian's call to "shoot" Obama wasn't an offense under the statute used to convict him because the law doesn't criminalize "predictions or exhortations to others to injure or kill the president."
Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw dissented in part, arguing that there was enough evidence to find him guilty of threatening harm. (*) Judge Reinhardt is the judge that overturned the will of California's voters on Prop. 8, which forbade homosexual marriage, while concealing the fact that he was also a homosexual.
#1
This may have a hidden meaning, especially in California. It the Spanish language, there is an imperfect verb form in common use, which says approximately says:
"Somebody should do something about that."
It arose as a kind of defensive speech in old Mexico, because if you said "I should do something about that", you could get shot, and if you said "He should do something about that", *he* could get shot.
So, by excusing this lout, this panel of the 9th Circuit could be setting up a judicial excuse for bad Mexicans to hide behind when they make violent threats.
#4
2008: [Jesse] Jackson was caught Sunday during a break before a live interview on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" whispering to a studio guest that he would like to castrate Obama.
I guess Jesse set the standard for hold harmless in this sort of thing.
Judge Reinhardts spouse is Ramona Ripston, executive director of the American Civil Liberies Unions Southern California affiliate.
You're thinking of Judge Vaughn Walker who is gay. Walker was nominated to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan and renominated by George H. W. Bush (not the 9th circuit court of appeals).
#8
I expected, from the headline, that it'd be open season on Bush. Imagine my surprise when I read it was OK to threaten The One.
Oh, wait! I get it! It's a trap!
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/20/2011 18:25 Comments ||
Top||
#9
IANAL, but I seem to recall a Supreme Court decision from the Lyndon Johnson era where somebody said something about shooting Johnson. The Supreme Court ruled that it was protected free speech, since it was "obvious" that the defendant did not actually plan to kill Johnson, and he wasn't urging people to do so.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
07/20/2011 18:33 Comments ||
Top||
#10
[SGT. SCHULTZ here].
OTOH, pragmatically POTUS BAMMER = ANY SUCCESSOR is at risk come "2012" as Radical Islam continues to expands its Jihad outside of AFPAK [read, CONUS-NORAM, Americas] + espec GOES NUKULAAR.
And now theres "OWG/GLOBAL CALIPHATE" HAPPINESS, thanks to consequences of the well-meaning Jasmine movements.
Our effort in Afghanistan is complex and daunting. Our troops there have done great service, but Afghanistan itself is almost unimaginably primitive. I, along with many others, have had mixed feelings about a strategy that sometimes seems to mortgage the success of our often-heroic efforts to the ability of the Afghans to create a decent society.
So, when our friend Pete Hegseth told us that he was assigned to go to Afghanistan as a counter-insurgency instructor, we asked him to let us know what the real story is on the ground. We know of no one more reliable than Pete to convey for our readers an accurate and balanced picture of how things are going in that corner of the world. So, here is Petes first dispatch from Afghanistan. It is long, but you wont find a more knowledgeable, balanced assessment of the situation on the ground in that country anywhere:
Well thought through and briskly written, this is the report of a man who is accustomed to assess for future action, and hasn't the time for, or interest in, fancy writing techniques. As Captain Hegseth writes:
... based on what Ive seen, heard, observed, read, and studied since arriving, Ive built a down and dirty list of critical mission factors; some give me optimism, others give me pause (challenges), and still others remain large, looming questions that will impact ultimate war success or failure.
Below Ive listed four items in each category. Its not an exhaustive list by any means, and I plan to dig deeper on every item, and other items, as my tour continues. Take a read, and let me know what you think. Warning, its lengthygrab a frosty beverage and proceed at your own risk.
[Dawn] Life in Soddy Arabia is good -- oil rich, tax free incomes, multiple servants, big villas and security. Even labourers, remark on the improved quality of life in Saudi as compared to Pakistain. For them this is an opportunity to support their families in the relative security of the Kingdom.
It seems Pak expat workers are satisfied with life. Even migrant labourers who I have conversed with personally say life is better in Saudi than in Pakistain, and the incomes they receive give their families back home a fighting chance. Personally, I've had good experiences and memories of living in the Kingdom for many years. But let's face it -- there is a conflict between personal gain and ethical integrity when it comes to Soddy Arabia.
One can witness a pervasive sort of racism, a form of Saudi supremacy that views other types of Arabs and particularly the South Asian expats (who are mostly labourers) as inferior and mere 'commodities' who can be bought and sold ruthlessly. Expats are not human beings but a commodity to be bartered and acquired.
Connected to racial supremacy is an attempt to insulate the regime from criticism by using the cloak of religion. Saudi textbooks are filled with references to hate; the Islamic Studies curriculum in the country is simply barbaric. I've experienced first-hand being taught by an Islamic Studies teacher in one of the most prominent private schools in Riyadh, about the dangers of having non-Mohammedans as friends and about the evil conspiracies hatched by Christians, Jews and Shias.
In Pakistain, Saudi petro-dollars have funded factories of hate in the form of the madrassa system. 'Petro-Islam' is a nightmare scenario -- capitalism and a dangerous ideology locked in a tight embrace. It is because of the sheer amount of money behind this austere and dangerous theology that it can easily overwhelm the moderate elements in any given society.
Little attention is given in Pakistain about the treatment of Pak labourers. If the Saudis will not speak about the suffering of these people then why should we remain silent? It is understandable that Paks within Saudi cannot protest, but why do Paks living outside who have witnessed first-hand the harsh treatment of their fellow citizens choose to remain silent? The Gulf countries practice a modern day equivalent of slavery, and our media should be more vocal about it, instead of weaving tales about Mossad and RAW.
The treatment of Pak labourers as sub-humans is deeply pervasive. The underlying logic of this treatment is that a non-Saudi can never be an equal; they are always meant to serve. Paks like to criticise Europe's hostility to immigrants but the anti-immigration feeling in Soddy Arabia is deeply toxic and yet it is never scrutinised.
A famous Pak defence of Soddy Arabia is that it is an 'Islamic country' and ergo a good place to raise the kids. But there is very little 'Islamic' about the country -- in my time in Saudi, I talked to converts to Islam who travelled from as far as America and the UK to see for themselves the 'Islamic' Kingdom of Soddy Arabia. Privately, they reveal a story of disillusionment and profuse disappointment.
Many were shocked by what they see in Saudi. They talk about a hypocrisy running deep within the society. Whilst the elite enjoy a hedonistic lifestyle of drinking and private nightclub-style parties, the religious police make life hell. I once saw a mullah in a GMC reverse on one of the main roads in Riyadh just to tell a woman to put her burqa on properly.
I find we are confused about our reaction to the prospect of a 'Saudi Revolution'. When Mubarak was toppled and Ben Ali decamped, the reaction amongst Paks was positive, after all these dictators were merely pawns of the West. But talk about Saudi, and again there is that sense of unease and discomfort. After all, for all their faults the Saudis still do some great work. Many Paks and indeed Mohammedans around the world have a sense of deep respect in regards to the provision of the Hajj. Indeed, the Saudis have continually done a fantastic job in improving facilities, crowd control and should be given credit for handling such a difficult event with efficiency.
But on the issue of faith, some Paks are naive in thinking that a Mohammedan country can never be unjust with another Mohammedan country; they refuse to accept that in the reality of real politick there is no 'Islamic Ummah'.
It is this sense of moral unease we have when we talk about Soddy Arabia that has haunted Pak hearts and minds. On the one hand, we receive great remittances from Pak workers who are employed in the Kingdom, but on the other hand everyone knows that they are discriminated against and have little or no rights. But yet again the response is that those Paks living and working in Soddy Arabia should be grateful that they even have a job because of the deteriorating economic conditions back home. In this cold, utilitarian world where money talks, it is impossible that the Pak government will fight for its citizens rights in front of the Saudi Royal family.
The old adage, 'Don't bite the hand that feeds you', comes to mind. Pakistain is trapped in an abusive marriage (or maybe a delusional affair?) when it comes to Saudi.
Today the Kingdom is launching a great counter-revolution trying to contain the 'Arab Spring' by buying off Arab militaries, supporting dictators, issuing fatwas against the protestors and involving the Pak security forces in controlling protests in Bahrain which has become a stage for its great feud with Iran. Pakistain is very much a supporter of tyranny in the greatest political awakening of the 21st century, and this will hurt only Paks in the end.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/20/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm interpreting this Artic to mean or infer that the Sunni KSA is not exactly thrilled about Sunni Pakistan's new rapprochement wid Shia Iran.
#3
after all, look at all the medical, technological, and cultural achievements the Master Race has given the world. Why shouldn't they feel superior?
Oh.
Nevermind
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/20/2011 8:03 Comments ||
Top||
To see a map, click here. To read Rantburg reports on Wednesday's ruling on Mexican Army jurisdiction in human rights cases, click here, here, here and here.
By Chris Covert You can read Part I by clicking here
The implications of the latest ruling by the Mexican Supreme Court last week left open many more questions that the issues it supposedly revolved.
When the Mexican military was deploy to the streets in an effort to fight the flow of drugs and guns into the US and into Mexico itself, its only guideline were the existing military regulations and some of the changes implemented in 2005. Those changes included installing human rights directorates within the existing structures of the main military agencies, the army, navy and air force. Those organizations are in addition to the deliberate subordination of the military to civilian legal authorities.
Anytime a Mexican Army unit, for example, arrests a suspect and seizes contraband, commanders can interrogate suspects and use information gained from those interviews, but cannot act on their own or further develop information without legal officials becoming apprised.
Since 2005, not much has changed. Mexican military commanders in the field still turn over suspects and contraband to legal officials, and respond to citizen's complaints, dealing with the situations as they rise, under existing Mexican law.
The proposed changes to Article 57 in the proposed national security law in bifurcating the crimes of forced disappearances, rape and torture as offenses for which soldiers can be charged and tried under military justice now appear to be mere window dressing in light of the new ruling.
Amongst the new concerns is legal defense for soldiers. Who pays for lawyers? As a legitimate concern, it is one the Supreme Court failed to address in its ruling.
As professor Oliva Posada pointed out in the article in Monday's Milenio, "In the midst of operations where death and fear are permanent companions, adding legal uncertainty to the mood of those who are the ultimate resource of the country will not provide a good result."
Inasmuch as Mexican Supreme Court president Juan Silva Meza said that the new decision is not mandatory, the reaction from Mexican officials do not act as though any part of the new ruling is discretionary. Adding to the conclusion is the applicability of the new ruling to cases of forced disappearances that took place almost 30 years ago, which was the more obvious intent of the ruling.
The case of Radilla pacheco took place in 1974 in Guerrero in the midst of a civil war against several socialist, communist and populist movements which arose in Mexico just after the Cuban communist revolution.
Many of those cases cry out for justice. If the statistics are accurate, as many as 1,200 individuals disappeared during that time; some of the victims were in the custody of Mexican military.
As few as 10 percent of those 659 cases in Guerrero would overload the courts system in that state in addition to the normal caseload. Add to that as many concurrent cases, it is easy to see the problem the Mexican Supreme Court has unleashed on its own system.
Additionally, Mexican state police mostly do not have the education or training to investigate human rights cases. Some police have no more than a 6th grade education. Since those agencies are the ones who are at the front lines of the war on the drug cartels, the ruling can easily be seen as a gift to the cartels.
The case load for lawyers as well as police agencies, however, is nothing when compared to the potential cases in the drug war against the Mexican military that could be filed. According to statistics released by the Mexican Army office if human rights since 2006, 6,000 cases were filed in SEDENA's military justice system, which is equipped to investigate and adjudicate those cases. That's 1,000 cases every year for a legal system unprepared to deal with such a deluge.
And as one senior Mexican general remarked last week, "98 percent of the cases filed are jokes," adding that many of those cases are filed by those in league with organized crime.
A complaint sure to be raised in the coming days as senior Mexican military officials lobby for the new national security law is what Posada called the lack of precautions. The Supreme Court left open many questions of implementing the new law that the Chamber of Deputies and the senate will have to resolve in the absence of clear guidelines.
By refusing or failing to deal with the newly created status of soldiers and sailors in the field, the new ruling places them outside, "the premises at the express request of the civil power, and the mandate of the supreme commander of the armed forces, namely the President of the Republic."
In other words, instead of being a part of a national security force, military personnel are now just individuals who committed crimes outside the context of the orders they followed.
#2
Additionally, Mexican state police mostly do not have the education or training to investigate human rights cases. Some police have no more than a 6th grade education.
Which means, they probably have a better education than many graduates of Atlanta's high school system.
[Dawn] We are ready to lay down lives (jaan bhee hazir hai) for the honour of the companions of the Holy Prophet (PTUI!), Lashkar-e-Jhangvi ... a 'more violent' offshoot of Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistain. LeJ's purpose in life is to murder anyone who's not of utmost religious purity, starting with Shiites but including Brelvis, Ahmadis, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Rosicrucians, and just about anyone else you can think of. They are currently a wholly-owned subsidiary of al-Qaeda ... leader Malik Ishaq said after he was freed from jail amid Kalashnikov-wielding supporters on a Land Cruiser motorcade. He did not specify whose lives he was talking about. But the Shia know.
The influential co-founder of a Sipah-e-Sahaba breakaway group now linked with al Qaeda and the Taliban received a stipend from the Punjab government while he was in jail, and like other key terror suspects, was allowed to use a mobile phone.
Malik Ishaq had told an Urdu daily in October 1997 that he was involved in the killing of 102 people. He was set to sit in solemn silence in a dull, dark dock, in a pestilential prison with a life-long lock the same year, and eventually charged with 70 of those murders in 44 different cases, including the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in March 2009. Last week, the Supreme Court released him because of "lack of evidence".
Among those who fear the consequences is Fida Hussain Ghalvi, a key witness in a case in which Ishaq was accused of killing 12 members of a Shia family during a Majlis in 1997. When Ghalvi and three other men identified Ishaq, he told them in front of a judge that "dead men can't talk". Five witnesses and three of their relatives were killed during the trial. Ishaq was acquitted because of "lack of evidence".
But that is just the tip of the iceberg. A more remarkable case involving the anti-Shia leader from southern Punjab was the bombing of an Iranian culture centre in Multan, also in 1997. Eight people were killed. When investigating officer Ijaz Shafi persuaded two witnesses to appear in court, his car was sprayed with 13 bullets. Anti-Terrorism Court judge Bashir Ahmed Bhatti convicted Ishaq but the Supreme Court overturned the conviction in 2006 because of "lack of evidence".
In March 2007, the same judge, scheduled to hear another case against Malik Ishaq, was on his way to the court when a remote-controlled bicycle bomb went kaboom! near his car, killing his driver and two coppers. Ishaq was charged with planning the bombing. Two years later, the prosecution's witnesses suddenly turned hostile. Ishaq was acquitted in April 2009, because of "lack of evidence".
In that context, it is very surprising that one of the Supreme Court judges who released Malik Ishaq on bail last week scolded the prosecution and said the case was weak. The same judge, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, was part of a Lahore Hight Court bench that had asked the police to close down cases of hate speech and incitement to violence, against Jamaatud Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed. The bench would simply not accept that Jamaatud Dawa was another name for Lashkar-e-Taiba, because the new name was not present on a certain list.
Malik Ishaq praised the Supreme Court after his release and said justice had been done. And that is ironic. Why do these people refer to the modern secular notions of law and justice when they do not believe in them? Because that is what gives them a decisive advantage. They have access to multiple epistemic devices. They can identify and exploit weak spots in our legal structure from outside, while simultaneously carrying out practices that are only justified in their own context. And that is why they are winning.
The state and its judiciary, on the other hand, insist on upholding the singular letter of law. They believe that is justice. But justice must question itself. Why should we abide by laws when dealing with people who simply do not believe in those laws? Why should we allow them the privileges of our legal system when they are fighting to replace it with their own?
Posted by: Fred ||
07/20/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Lashkar e-Jhangvi
[Dawn] WAS the goal to grab headlines? Or simply to shift responsibility? It was the classic Pak conspiracy theory of blaming those mysterious `foreign hands`, but coming from a senior government official in charge of domestic security, Interior Minister Rehman Malik`s Pak politician, current Interior Minister under the Gilani administration. Malik is a former Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) intelligence officer who rose to head the FIA during Benazir Bhutto's second tenure. He later joined the Pak Peoples Party and was chief security officer to Bhutto. Malik was tossed from his FIA job in 1998 after documenting the breath-taking corruption of the Sharif family. By unhappy coincidence Näwaz Shärif became PM at just that moment and Malik moved to London one step ahead of the button men. statement on Sunday only trivialised the horror Bloody Karachi has been through over the last two weeks. Israeli weapons have been found in the port city, Mr Rehman claimed, suggesting that this meant a foreign element was behind Bloody Karachi`s unrest. Without more direct linkages between the city`s violence and external powers, this claim defies logic. The black market in weapons is international and is not necessarily direct; arms smugglers and markets serve as clearing houses for weapons from multiple countries. In order to make the claim credible, more evidence would have to be made public. Who were these weapons recovered from? What other links did these people have to any foreign power? In an earlier statement, the interior minister had also suggested that Taliban elements were involved in the festivities when he claimed they were spotted in the Kati Pahari area. It remains unclear how those labelled Taliban were identified as such. Was it established that they had ties to the TTP or TTP-linked groups? Or were they simply described thus because of the language they speak or their towns of origin?
In the absence of answers to such questions, Mr Malik`s statements only come across as attempts to gloss over the complexities of Bloody Karachi`s political and ethnic violence by blaming elements external to the city itself. The fact is that Bloody Karachi`s conflicts are homegrown and deeply intertwined with local politics. As the party in power in Sindh, the PPP must take responsibility for its failure to stop the violence before it spiralled out of control. In fact, it was the reaction to a senior PPP official`s statements that led to another stage of violence that erupted last week. To blame external powers in such a scenario only diminishes the extent of Bloody Karachi`s problems and creates the impression that this government does not recognise its own responsibility to protect its citizens.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/20/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
Analysis: Intelligence estimates that Hamas, Islamic Jihad have more than 10,000 rockets, missiles, a large stockpile that can reach Tel Aviv. The current attacks are just minor parties letting off steam.
Despite the continued rocket fire from the Gaza Strip, the IDF does not appear to be preparing for a large-scale operation, such as Operation Cast Lead in 2009. The understanding in the defense establishment is that the approximately 20 rockets that landed in Israel since last week have been fired by radical Islamic groups affiliated with al-Qaida and global jihad, made up of former Hamas operatives.
Despite the continued rocket fire from the Gaza Strip, the IDF does not appear to be preparing for a large-scale operation, such as Operation Cast Lead in 2009.
The understanding in the defense establishment is that the approximately 20 rockets that landed in Israel since last week have been fired by radical Islamic groups affiliated with al-Qaida and global jihad, made up of former Hamas operatives.
"The groups are blowing off steam," one defense official said on Sunday after three more rockets hit Israel on Saturday night. "We are not viewing this as a real escalation."
This can be understood by reviewing the IDF's response so far to the rocket fire. While 20 rockets in a week is definitely a significant increase compared to the usual drizzle -- in June for example four were fired into Israel and in May just one - the IDF is not responding the way it did during the last escalation in April.
There are three main reasons.
First, Hamas is not directly involved in the rocket fire like it was in April, when in one weekend it fired more than 120 rockets into Israel. This, however, does not clear Hamas of responsibility since Israel believes that if the terror group wanted to, it could stop the other factions from firing.
The second reason is that no one has been hurt from the rocket attacks, unlike the escalation in April, which started with the anti-tank missile attack on a school bus that killed 16-year-old Daniel Viflic.
The third reason is that, for the time being, neither Israel nor Hamas appear to be interested in a new large-scale operation. Hamas prefers the quiet so it can continue its unprecedented military buildup, and Israel, like in previous cases, is doing what it can to postpone the conflict for as long as possible and until there is no longer an alternative.
One of the main problems with Gaza today is that any future Israeli operation would likely have to be dramatically different than it was in 2009.
Then, the main strategy was to separate the southern part of the Gaza Strip from the North, to cut off arms supplies to northern Gaza -- the location of most of the rocket launchers -- and to hit Hamas infrastructure hard from the air throughout the Strip.
Today, Military Intelligence estimates Hamas and Islamic Jihad have obtained more than 10,000 rockets and missiles -- including a large stockpile of Iranian Fajr-5 rockets that can reach Tel Aviv -- close to what Hezbollah had on the eve of the Second Lebanon War in 2006. A year ago, the terror groups were believed to have just a few thousands rockets, but the revolution in Egypt has completely altered the balance of power between Israel and Gaza.
Practically speaking, this buildup has major operational ramifications for the IDF and means Palestinian terror groups now store their rockets and launchers throughout the region. In order to effectively stop rocket fire into Beersheba, Ashdod, Ashkelon and Tel Aviv, the IDF will have to operate throughout the entire Strip.
Israel is extremely concerned by the major increase in weapons and explosives smuggling into Gaza since Hosni Mubarak's downfall in February. Already in April, The Jerusalem Post reported one of the first results of the revolution was the interim government's decision to stop construction of a steel barrier that Egypt had been building along its border with Gaza in an effort to curb smuggling.
Instead, since the revolution, the IDF believes Hamas has smuggled in three times the amount of explosives it brought into Gaza in all of 2010. This is in addition to unprecedented amounts of anti-aircraft missiles and guided anti-tank missiles, like the Russian-made Kornet that hit the school bus three months ago.
Israel understands Egypt's relationship with Hamas has changed since Mubarak's departure and that the military rule is turning a blind eye to the increase in smuggling, and at the same time has also lost control over Sinai and the Beduin tribes there. The closer ties between Egypt and Hamas are understood by Israel as possibly connected to the upcoming elections in Egypt and a desire by the current leadership to align itself with the Muslim Brotherhood, which it understands will gain power in the vote.
The latest is that Egypt's election will take place in November, or possibly later, to give the non-Muslim Brotherhood parties a chance to get organized, which will give Hamas time to acquire even more weaponry. The secondaries are going to be something, when the time comes.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Punjab
WAS the goal to grab headlines? Or simply to shift responsibility? It was the classic Pak conspiracy theory of blaming those mysterious `foreign hands`, but coming from a senior government official in charge of domestic security, Interior Minister 
Analysis: Intelligence estimates that Hamas, Islamic Jihad have more than 10,000 rockets, missiles, a large stockpile that can reach Tel Aviv. The current attacks are just minor parties letting off steam.
First, Hamas is not directly involved in the rocket fire like it was in April, when in one weekend it fired more than 120 rockets into Israel. This, however, does not clear Hamas of responsibility since Israel believes that if the terror group wanted to, it could stop the other factions from firing.
