"Criminal Injustice?" Ans: Because the cops are the other half of the Tardary
Mort Zuckerman
gary_w...@nymc.edu, scientifi...@ostp.gov,
pkru...@princeton.edu, Stanle...@fiu.edu,
emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: "Criminal Injustice?" Ans: Because the cops are the other
half of the Tardary
Date: Nov 19, 2009 10:36 AM
ARTICLE BELOW
========================
It's because of the dot guv unions and the cops. Cops don't think.
They don't know who they're working for.
And the FBI is even more demented and paranoid.
And the USDOJ is an even bigger batch of fairies.
Uuum. Have you ever tried talking to a cop? You can have the highest
level of verbal eloquence and speak in paragraphs but if to cops, they
don't hear a word of it. It's like they have moongoogles on and them
UN translator things in their ears. They only hear their own cop
version of their own brainscramble, where everyone is a bad guy and an
enemy, exactly like the soldiers who come back with PTSD for shooting
civilians in the back. (Very much like schizophrenics hear bad, bad,
voicesclue.)
Cops are hopeless.
Utterly.
They're *TOO* *AFRAID* to open their ears and eyes. It's like every
other dot guv union that cannibalizes the people. They and their
idiot dot guv union ilk will chop up *YOUR* kids and throw it into
their pedi-people-soup to serve their own.
To Wit:
DCF-Rowlandgate, and the 57 million dollar pediatric supermax in
Middletown, CT, where it costs $600,000 dollars per year, per kid.
http://www.actionlyme.org/BRAINLESS_BUREAUCRATS.htm
The Guv went to jail for it, but not the Drunken DCF Whores, Ragaglia
and her Sluts... the ones who actually provided the pediatric bodies
for the dut guv union members' pedi-people-soup:
http://www.actionlyme.org/RAGAGLIA_GRANDJURY_DETAILS.htm
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
=========================
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Criminal-Injustice-by-Kathy-Malloy-091118-150.html
Why are Republicans afraid of the law? Did they collectively buy into
Dubya's belief that the U.S. Constitution, and therefore our entire
system of government, was nothing more than a “goddam piece of paper,”
and, furthermore, should be abandoned if it might possibly be used to
protect a swarthy Muslim?
What is so terrible about applying our system of justice to prosecute
the accused criminal Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City? Critics
on the right claim that it is wrong to criminalize acts of terror, and
that his “enemy combatant” status demands prosecution by a military
tribunal. But it's important to remember that the designation “enemy
combatant” was invented by the Bush Crime Family, and that neither
Mohammed nor any of his accused co-conspirators were members of any
kind of army or military organization, which is one of the reasons
Attorney General Eric Holder decided the best course of action was to
try them as criminals.
In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General
Eric H. Holder, said, “We need not cower in the face of this enemy.
Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve
is firm, and our people are ready . . . I'm not (afraid) of what
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial and no one else has to be
afraid either.”
But the NeoCons are afraid. Ironically, these are the same lemming-
like clump that chanted “rule-of-law, rule-of-law” when the question
arose if it was proper to try a sitting President caught in a
carefully designed perjury trap . . . about sex play with a
”girlfriend.” They wanted every comma, semi-colon, and gerund phrase
of the Constitution upheld and respected when prosecuting Bill
Clinton; but if the same documents might grant a fair trial to a
Muslim criminal suspect? Fughetabout it.
Some Republicans argue that a criminal trial gives the impression that
America really isn't involved in a war against terrorism. And if you
think about it, the Bush administration never once adequately defined
the “war on terror,” what the parameters were, who the enemy was, how
to gauge success or failure, or when “victory” would (could?) be
achieved. Logic would say that when an administration declares war
against a concept, rather than a nation or regime, and does so without
going to Congress to obtain a legal declaration, then the only legal
course that would make certain captured alleged terrorists are brought
to justice would be within the parameters of our legal system.
Would the naysayers rather see these alleged criminals sit at GITMO
forever? What message would that send about our system of justice and
our faith in that system? Has our nation become so permanently broken
that we are actually afraid to apply our own laws to criminals? Were
the ideals crafted by the Founding Father's that frightening?
President Obama is confident that these critics will be silenced once
a guilty verdict is obtained and Mohammed is sentenced to death. “I
don't think it would be offensive at all when he's convicted and when
the death penalty is applied to him,” Obama told NBC News. Doubtlessly
mindful of the fact that another group of anti-Obama haters would jump
him for that statement, the President quickly added that he wasn't
intending to prejudge the outcome of the case.
Sadly, no matter what action Obama takes in this case, it will be
wrong in the eyes of the Limbot-Beck-Dittoheads; if he prosecutes
Mohammed he's inviting another terrorist attack on NYC; if he leaves
him at GITMO then he's ignoring the issue and sweeping the 9/11
attacks under the rug.
With this action, however, there is at least some measure of respect
returned to our legal system and our Constitution, a document the so-
called conservatives in this county used toclaim inviolable, until the
Bush Crime Family came to power with their illegal wars and trumped-up
lies about WMDs,their privacy violations, Homeland “Security,” illegal
wiretaps and Patriot Acts. It would be reaffirming to see it respected
again.
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci