Tag Archives: Politics
How about Sen Larry Craig? If it were not for all of these angry back-stabbing republicans are flapping their jaws for this man’s resignation only because they are just bitter there wasn’t enough time to get a wiretap started for ol’ Larry before the media got wind of what happened. Then maybe this man might have been able to keep his job. I guess their cover up scandal has not come up to bat yet so they should point the finger at the other guy while they can.
But let us compare the mule used for covering up who really leaked the identity of a CIA agent to the media and trying to keep the fact your bathroom stall had been raided by an over zealous beat cop.
I am Gay, I don’t agree with anything this man politics however, I read the transcript of the interview Craig had with the Police about the investigation. It appeared to me the Police kept leading the conversation into making it look like the Defendant was trying to lie.
I am going to ask that people open yourselves up to at least the possibility that this Hall Monitor, I mean Beat Cop working the Bathroom Stall scene could have very well seen Craig go to the men’s bathroom thought this guy could be his ticket out of Bathroom Patrol and followed behind him, then from the next stall over then managed to see enough that could be written into a Police Report to satisfy an arrest.
I know the Idaho Press-Tribune is known for their investigative research did manage to publish an article about the “reliable reputation” of this officer but, I don’t for a moment believe this man is not envied by the other Beat Cops.
Everyone who is so quick to demand the resignation of this man is foolish to not at least consider the possibility of Craig having ticket out of the Cruising Gay Sex Spots.
U.S. optimistic soldiers are alive
“…Four days after the attack, the ambush site remained littered with debris and pieces of armor on a swath of blackened asphalt on a palm-tree lined road, guarded by Humvees…”
Can someone remind me again, how long did it start before cleanup efforts took place after 9/11? It is possible to search for survivors and, the site still remain in “Investigation” status, correct?
Tags: war, iraq, idiots, bush, attack, invasion, antiwar, military
“Regardless of what Hugo Chavez says about us, we’re not the bogeyman,”
Russell Crandall, a former Western Hemisphere director at the National Security Council who is now at the Center for American Progress.
Dear Nathan,
Tonight, let the conversation begin. It’s live and online at 7 p.m. EST:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/conversation
Join me for the first in a series of conversations on the future of our country and the important issues like the Iraq war, health care, and energy independence. I’ll answer your questions three nights in a row, beginning tonight.
Since announcing my exploratory committee to run for president just two days ago, the outpouring of support has been amazing — tens of thousands of you have been wishing me well, signing up, and making contributions.
I believe we need new leadership to bring bold and practical changes to this country and to renew the promise of America. I believe in the idea that if you work hard and play by the rules, you and your family deserve a better life.
It all begins with a conversation about the right solutions to meet our challenges. It’s a conversation I’m looking forward to having with all of you as I travel across the country. But tonight, it begins live, online.
To learn more and sign up, http://www.hillaryclinton.com/conversation
I also hope you’ll take a moment to explore my new website at www.hillaryclinton.com, where you’ll find other ways you can join the conversation. You can send me a message, or even write the very first guest post for our upcoming blog.
I’m in, and I’m in to win. And with your participation, I believe we can win this together and create a better future for all of us.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Technorati Tags: Politics - News - Election - America - President - Election - Democrats - Hillary Clinton - 2008 - Hillary
In light of the recent developments in the Duke Rape Case, I decided to write this post. While it is not my intention to speculate a verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty for these Defendants. My interest is within the attention District Attorney Mike Nifong has received regarding possible Malicious Prosecution. It is not my intention to argue Guilt or Innocence for Nifong. It is the Malicious Prosecution in general that is of interest to me.
Malicious Prosecution and Misconduct from Police Officers happen more than people think. While there is a difference between the two; there are many similarities between the two.
For example, during the trial of a friend of mine; While the Jury was deliberating a verdict. They requested to see my friend’s laptop; which was confiscated as evidence during the arrest. When the Judge was presented with this request he denied the request despite the objection from the District Attorney. Before taking a recess the District Attorney was instructed once again that he was not to let the Jurors in this case have access to the laptop.
It later turns out that the District Attorney did indeed take the laptop to the Jurors Room. He had not only allowed them access to the laptop but, gave them assistance in turning it on along with pointing out were to find ‘…The Good Stuff…’
It was no surprise they came back with a verdict of Guilty, considering the very helpful District Attorney the Represent for the State was given a chance to charm this unbiased Jury of Peers.
This is just one of the many examples of Malicious Prosecution from the District Attorney but, there are several examples of Malicious Prosecution from the Judge who Presiding Judge as well. Being there was a co-defendant in the case who had written a letter that exonerated my friend from any direct knowledge that a crime had been committed; He would not accept the letter since there was a Similar Transaction from another Case (pending Trial) which my friend was a Defendant of as well. I can only assume another reason for rejecting the letter; During the illegal search of the vehicle (which was being operated by my friend) additional contraband was discovered by Police Officers.
Rejecting this letter would have separated the Defendants from Trial together. Doing this would have added another case to His Honor’s already busy Calendar along wreaking the legality of the Arrest and as this case would have, then Search which lead to having already been Arrested by Police Officers. (This doesn’t make sense, I know. Which made me wonder if this was a Court of Law or a Puppet Show.)
Another example of Judicial Misconduct which I witnessed was during a Supplemental Hearing the Trial Judge was alerted about a fictitious name given to Police Officers by the other Defendant (not my friend) which was meant to allude Police finding Warrants from another state which not only included a violation of probation but, Grand Theft Auto, Attempted Assault w/ Deadly Weapon, as well. After this was brought to the attention of the Court it wasn’t mentioned again, things continued as they were Defendants name never changed. To this day it is still listed as the fictitious name which was given.
I know for a fact there was knowledge of the Trial Judge about the fictitious name being used because; During the same Supplemental Hearing Defense Attorneys for my friend had objections about the Jury being able to hear about the pending charges against him however, the Criminal Record the other Defendant already had which included a violation of his release was not allowed to be heard.
The last time I checked; We are Innocent until proven Guilty? Or did I just hear that somewhere? I can see where someone might question the validity of the other Defendant’s Criminal Record being heard at Trial. His prior charges included Manufacturing a Controlled Substance. This particular case was a Trafficking case so, the fact the Judge didn’t allow the Criminal Record confirms that he was aware of the fictitious name being used. In a similar vein, it also proves that he had some sort of prejudice against my friend along with proving he had every intent to secure a conviction. Something was going to have to make his campaign look good next term, right? We might think he wasn’t doing his job otherwise.
This is one case of many where Police Misconduct, Malicious Prosecution, and Judicial Misconduct will occur. It is sad to think that the only real chance at getting Justice is from an Appeals Court and even then the Lower Court’s Decision might be upheld. That is a long time to sit in jail; waiting for a chance that someone might see the Civil Rights which were violated and overturn the Decision.
I will have the second part of this in a few days. Your comments are welcomed.
Published on Saturday, September 23, 2006 by the Chicago Sun-TimesBush Seeks Immunity for Violating War Crimes Act
by Elizabeth Holtzman
Thirty-two years ago, President Gerald Ford created a political firestorm by pardoning former President Richard Nixon of all crimes he may have committed in Watergate — and lost his election as a result. Now, President Bush, to avoid a similar public outcry, is quietly trying to pardon himself of any crimes connected with the torture and mistreatment of U.S. detainees.
The ”pardon” is buried in Bush’s proposed legislation to create a new kind of military tribunal for cases involving top al-Qaida operatives. The ”pardon” provision has nothing to do with the tribunals. Instead, it guts the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal law that makes it a crime, in some cases punishable by death, to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and makes the new, weaker terms of the War Crimes Act retroactive to 9/11.
Press accounts of the provision have described it as providing immunity for CIA interrogators. But its terms cover the president and other top officials because the act applies to any U.S. national.
Avoiding prosecution under the War Crimes Act has been an obsession of this administration since shortly after 9/11. In a January 2002 memorandum to the president, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales pointed out the problem of prosecution for detainee mistreatment under the War Crimes Act. He notes that given the vague language of the statute, no one could predict what future ”prosecutors and independent counsels” might do if they decided to bring charges under the act. As an author of the 1978 special prosecutor statute, I know that independent counsels (who used to be called ‘’special prosecutors” prior to the statute’s reauthorization in 1994) aren’t for low-level government officials such as CIA interrogators, but for the president and his Cabinet. It is clear that Gonzales was concerned about top administration officials.
Gonzales also understood that the specter of prosecution could hang over top administration officials involved in detainee mistreatment throughout their lives. Because there is no statute of limitations in cases where death resulted from the mistreatment, prosecutors far into the future, not appointed by Bush or beholden to him, would be making the decisions whether to prosecute.
To ”reduce the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act,” Gonzales recommended that Bush not apply the Geneva Conventions to al-Qaida and the Taliban. Since the War Crimes Act carried out the Geneva Conventions, Gonzales reasoned that if the Conventions didn’t apply, neither did the War Crimes Act. Bush implemented the recommendation on Feb. 7, 2002.
When the Supreme Court recently decided that the Conventions did apply to al-Qaida and Taliban detainees, the possibility of criminal liability for high-level administration officials reared its ugly head again.
What to do? The administration has apparently decided to secure immunity from prosecution through legislation. Under cover of the controversy involving the military tribunals and whether they could use hearsay or coerced evidence, the administration is trying to pardon itself, hoping that no one will notice. The urgent timetable has to do more than anything with the possibility that the next Congress may be controlled by Democrats, who will not permit such a provision to be adopted.
Creating immunity retroactively for violating the law sets a terrible precedent. The president takes an oath of office to uphold the Constitution; that document requires him to obey the laws, not violate them. A president who knowingly and deliberately violates U.S. criminal laws should not be able to use stealth tactics to immunize himself from liability, and Congress should not go along.
Elizabeth Holtzman, a former New York congresswoman, is co-author with Cynthia L. Cooper of The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens.
