Tag: law

We Had Rights

Ministry of Truth has an essay up on First Amendment Rights.  

We had rights — at one time.  

We still have rights — IF you are granted them.  

Have we reached that point? Yes.

In my last essay, I asked:

Have we reached it? — the point where everything starts becoming “preventative” for our government?

The answer is now; yes.

San Diego Sheriff deployed military crowd control device at Congressional town halls

The increasing frustration with politicians and overflow crowds attending August town halls led San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore to place military-type crowd control devices at two area town hall meetings.

Rep. Susan Davis-D Calif. and Rep. Darrell Issa-R Calif. held town halls that exceeded capacity (10,000+ total attendees) and prompted the Sheriff’s Department to have Long-Range Acoustic Devices(LRADs) standing ready.

Both town halls took place without incident; however the use of the military device concerned San Diegians. The LRAD crowd control is primarily used in Iraq to control insurgents and can cause serious and lasting harm to humans.

This trend, civilian law enforcement employing military weapons, is disturbing…

How Obama Fights Terrorism

After writing about how different, in practice and results, the Democratic and Republican views towards anti-terrorism were comparing President Clinton to President W. Bush, here comes Democratic President Barack Obama to show us that there is simply a “Barack” way when it comes to fighting terrorism.

* No imminent danger, congressmen say

* Focus on one man who met with people in Queens

* Apartment shared by five Afghan men searched – witness

* Militant ideology sympathetic to al Qaeda detected – NYT

I’ll let the highlights from the article sink in first…

GOP Anti-Terrorism vs Democratic Anti-Terrorism

It was eight years ago that we were told America was changed forever, that we would need to go to the “dark side” to fight terrorism, that we would get Osama Bin Laden “dead or alive”.  The Bush administration was correct about some of it; they did change America and they did lead us to the “dark side”.  

What they failed to do, however, was effectively deal with terrorism.

Attorney General Holder Needs to Resign

So, we learn today that Attorney General Eric Holder will not prosecute Bradley Schlozman for perjuring himself before Congress:

WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder has decided not to bring any criminal charges against a former Bush administration official who lawmakers said lied to them in sworn testimony.

If the Attorney General will not enforce the law, he needs to resign his office.

Supreme Court: Citizen’s United vs FEC (updated)

The upcoming case, Citizen’s United vs FEC, will be Justice Sotomayor’s debut case on the Supreme Court.  The case, however, has taken a strange and dangerous turn:

Citizens United, a conservative group, brought suit arguing that it should be exempt from the restrictions of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law for a movie it made that was sharply critical of Hillary Clinton. The organization said it should not have to disclose who financed the film.

Instead of deciding the case before it, the court engaged in a remarkable act of overreach. On June 29, it postponed a decision and called for new briefs and a highly unusual new hearing, which is Wednesday’s big event. The court chose to consider an issue only tangentially raised by the case. It threatens to overrule a 1990 decision that upheld the long-standing ban on corporate money in campaigns.

Why would the Supreme Court take a case that has a defined decision (whether or not the making of a political movie puts the makers under the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law restrictions) and suddenly wish to hear arguments about another issue?

That answer should be obvious: they want to give corporations, and their money, more say in our political process.  

Matt Barber Brings The Full Scale Insanity.

Crazy Matt Barber of the Liberty Council is at it again! Somehow the Dog wound up on Mr. Barbers radar and is now subjected to weekly spamming. Since Mr. Barber e-mails these to the Dog, there is no question of being able to reproduce the whole thing and then show exactly how bat-shit crazy Mr. Barbers points of view are. As a glimpse into the deranged mind of the deranged Right, serves two purposes; first to know what our opponents are saying to each other and second it gives the Dog a chance to mercilessly mock this mouth-breathing race and sexuality baiting asshat.

Originally posted at Squarestate.net

Law is for Losers. (MASSIVELY UPDATED!)

Those who obey “laws” are losers.  Those who game the laws are winners.

Law is for losers; Game Theory for winners.

Seems a parsimonious explanation, e.g., Wall Street, War Crimes, eh?

discuss.

I specifically invite IOZ and Greenwald, but please be inclined to a FREE-FOR-ALL.

Please also include human nature, as opposed to “rationality,” as a causal factor.

An intro to “selection pressures versus markets” would also be desired.

Thenk Q.

(Suppositions due by my birthday.)

MASSIVE UPDATE: IOZ’s opening statement:

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will largely retain Bush era airline safety policies, the White House announced. Officials explained that these old policies were necessary to protect the future from the threats of the past.

“Everything that is currently happening will immediately reach a state of having happened,” said Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. “Therefore, it is in our vital interest.”

In a statement released later in the day, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that “in an increasingly legal world, we need to take every lawful illegal step possible to ensure that action is taken.”

The civil liberties community gesticulated and made several sounds indicating frustration.

However, administration officials remained committed. “Obviously it is impossible to wage cyberwar against the United States from outside of the United States,” said a spokesman. “But if you can get a laptop physically inside of American borders, all bets are off.”

The Internet could not be reached for comment by press time.

Aced.  15-love (l’oeuf).

(And I wasn’t expecting anyone to even rsvp.)

What were they hiding?

Their arguments have always been, and continue to be especially from their propaganda machines, TV and Radio, that what they did was cleared by the administrative lawyers, as I heard one say this morning “Highly experienced Lawyers!”, and they were are then legal!

The George Washington University National Security Archives have posted up the reports, side by side, from the Bush administration, in May 2008, and the newly released same report from the Obama administration, August 24th 2009.

The “Bad Apples” are scared!

While the newly released CIA Inspector General report, as redacted as it is, has raised eyebrows with the techniques used during interrogations, I found some items that raised MY eyebrows:

231.  During the course of this Review, a number of [CIA] Agency officers expressed unsolicited concern about the possibility of, recrimination or legal action resulting from their participation in the CTC Program.  A number of officers expressed concern that a human rights group might pursue them for activities.  Additionally, they feared that the Agency would not stand behind them if this occurred.

232. One officer expressed conern that one day, Agency officers will wind up on some wanted list to appear before the World Court for war crimes stemming from activities.

Another said, “Ten years from now we’re going to be ‘sorry we’re doing this … [but] it has to be done.” He expressed concern that the CTC Program will be exposed in the news media and cited particular concern about the possibility of being named in a leak.

Glenn Greenwald has a great article on this issue.

While I was shopping…

I was at the grocery store the other day when something happened; I got to see the face of the GOP supporter today.  That “face” was that of a check-out clerk, a lady in her mid-50’s, I’d guess, who was working for minimum wage in a grocery store in a small town in South Carolina.

Like all the big chain stores, if you have one of their “cards” you get select items discounted.  I never have those store “cards” on me, as my wife has them, so, I asked the lady behind me if she’d let us scan her card.  She was very nice about it and handed the clerk her card, mentioning that the benefits “weren’t what they used to be”, to which, I agreed.  I told her that it was happening with pretty much everything, and, replied to her that it wouldn’t be long before companies stopped offering benefits totally.  

And that is when it happened, when the clerk snorted in derision and said, “that’s the change people voted for…

COPS edition

I’m going to start off with this video of a traffic stop, and, run the readers through it step by step:

Then, I will add another incident, but, both are over the fold…

Load more