Sunday, August 20, 2006

...declaring the president to be a criminal

* lindorff:
"The important thing about these two rulings--and it is a point that the squeamish mainstream media have shied away from mentioning--is that they both are declaring the president to be a criminal. That is, he has been found in the first case to be in criminal violation of the Constitution, as well as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and in the second, he has been found to be in violation of U.S. and International Law.

Note that when someone has committed a felony--say a bank robbery or a case of assault and battery or of murder--and when a court has found that person to be guilty of the crime in question, that person is from that moment hence considered a criminal. The case may be appealed to a higher court, but in the meantime, judgment has been rendered, and a penalty assigned.
[]
Now there has been no penalty established in either of these crimes, serious as they are, because under the Constitution, the president cannot be convicted or punished by a court unless he is first impeached and removed from office, but the facts of his serial criminal behavior has been established."


* fueling the 'water' debate a bit more, here's Nader:
"What would a Galbraithian economy look like in the United States? For starters, major public investments--fueled by corporate tax reforms--in public works--public transit, repaired schools, clinics, upgraded drinking water systems, good parks and libraries, and environmental health projects. These forms of public wealth for everyone, he believed, would also advance the objective of a full employment economy.

Galbraith believed that uncontrolled capitalism, especially the giant corporations, required prudent regulation to diminish the damage their out-of-control greed and power inflict on society. Always a realist, he was more than aware of the capture of regulatory agencies by the very companies that they were created to regulate.

He saw sham in the pretense that the large defense manufacturers are free market corporations. Since over 90% of their business comes from the Department of Defense, he urged that they should be taken over and treated as public corporations shorn of their profiteering, waste and unaccountable lobbying pressure."
i couldnt agree more.

* craig murray:
"One aspect of the alleged bomb plot which has provided a tremedous boost to the atavists, is the so-called "Baby bottle bomb".

As the Daily Telegraph reported on August 14, "Scotland Yard are quizzing Abdula Ahmed, 25, and his 23 year old wife Cossor over suspicions that they were to use their baby's bottle to hide a liquid bomb".

This appalling and macabre idea is just what the rabid right needed to stoke up images of how sub-human Muslims are. Prepared to blow up their own baby! For example, John Howard, Australian Prime Minister:
"That would be an appalling reflection on the lack of humanity of that child's parents."

That is one of the more moderate quotes. I won't repeat some of the stuff from US blogs."
(yay, australia!)

* fas:
"In a favorable decision for two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee who are charged with conspiracy to unlawfully gather national defense information, a federal court ruled (pdf) late last week that they did not solicit actual classified documents and that the government cannot now claim that they did.
[]
The upshot of the court's interpretation is that the defendants (or anyone else) may be guilty of violating the Espionage Act even if they did not solicit classified "documents," but only "information." And not only that, the "information" they gather need not be classified, as long as it is "related to the national defense" and closely held by the government."

4 comments:

oldschool said...

lindorff makes some good points. He also is wrong. His claim that the president has been found "guilty" and that penalties should be rendered, is specious. There are no criminal penalties to be assessed within civil cases - to impy otherwise makes the rest of his more cogent argument less credible, which is regrettable.

Even the most miserable, rotten fuck, say, oh, a George W. Bush, is entitled to an initial presumption of innocence, a trial by the jury of his peers (insert your own joke here), right to confront the witnesses against him, etc. While the idea that GWB may avail himself on provisions of the constitution that he has waged war upon is ironic, and karmicly cruel, it remains nonetheless true.

Goddammit. Am I a defense man or what?

lukery said...

thnx o/s.

time for some nuance - was the case this past week a civil case? (i presume the answer is 'yes') - but it's a criminal statute, no?

i think conyers indicated that it was a criminal statute

LeeB said...

My 2 cents:

This is a civil case, yes.

And it is about a criminal law.

And the judge said the criminal statute was violated by KGB, oopsy (new form I learned from Rimone), sorry, "Raisinbrain." (Judge Taylor reminded us we don't have a king, thank goodness.)

So, isn't this where, in the style of Perry Mason, we say, "Book 'em, Dano!" . . . or at least start by giving John Conyers the subpoena power to start the investigations to build the case? (shouldn't take him more than a week or two, since he's more than half-way there!)

rimone said...

to quote the preznit (on lindorf): 'who cares what you think?'

fucking lying criminal asswipe. (not lindorf)