Posted by: ModeratePostUser
Pakistan Frees Nuclear Dealer in Snub to U.S. (NY Times, 2/6/09)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/world/asia/07khan.html?_r=1&;pagewanted=all
So much for nuclear “containment.”
Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan may have singlehandedly given the U.S. the excuse it needed to extend the National Security State indefinitely. Should we believe that U.S. intelligence officials didn't know Khan was selling nuclear weapons equipment and technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea and were helpless to stop him? Or is it possible they chose not to stop him to ensure permanent job security for themselves and profitability for the large private corporations that control the federal government and benefit from permanent warfare and occupation of foreign countries? Such corporations include manufacturers of weapons, aircraft and troop transportation, surveillance systems, missile defense systems, hundreds of military support contractors (from mess hall to mercenaries), arms dealers, oil companies and mining companies that exploit the resources of occupied countries, and conglomerates such as G.E. that most Americans do not associate with "national security."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/world/asia/07khan.html?_r=1&;pagewanted=all
So much for nuclear “containment.”
Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan may have singlehandedly given the U.S. the excuse it needed to extend the National Security State indefinitely. Should we believe that U.S. intelligence officials didn't know Khan was selling nuclear weapons equipment and technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea and were helpless to stop him? Or is it possible they chose not to stop him to ensure permanent job security for themselves and profitability for the large private corporations that control the federal government and benefit from permanent warfare and occupation of foreign countries? Such corporations include manufacturers of weapons, aircraft and troop transportation, surveillance systems, missile defense systems, hundreds of military support contractors (from mess hall to mercenaries), arms dealers, oil companies and mining companies that exploit the resources of occupied countries, and conglomerates such as G.E. that most Americans do not associate with "national security."
02/08/09: NEVER KILL A CARNIVORE
Posted by: ModeratePostUser
BORDER FENCES HAVE CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES
“Animal Extinction - the greatest threat to mankind”
-The Independent (U.K.)
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/animal-extinction--the-greatest-threat-to-mankind-397939.html
“Animal Extinction - the greatest threat to mankind”
-The Independent (U.K.)
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/animal-extinction--the-greatest-threat-to-mankind-397939.html
Posted by: ModeratePostUser
"Law Talkin' Mike," a prosecutor in South Carolina had this to say about the Supreme Court's possible abolishment of the exclusionary rule (that prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used against a criminal defendant):
"Horror stories about how the exclusionary rule lets awful criminals get away on technicalities is one of the great urban legends of the criminal justice system. I've been either a prosecutor or a public defender for 15 years and I can think of only a small handful of cases where real bad people got away with something because of a minor police error. There is already a good faith exception that saves law enforcement from purely innocent mistakes. And inevitable discovery (we'd have found it anyway) saves other screw ups.
It does happen once in a great while and maybe there is room for some enlargement of the good faith exception, but a wholesale rejection of the exclusionary rule would be stupid and unnecessary. Plus, it would overturn years of established precedent, something I thought conservatives were against.
"Horror stories about how the exclusionary rule lets awful criminals get away on technicalities is one of the great urban legends of the criminal justice system. I've been either a prosecutor or a public defender for 15 years and I can think of only a small handful of cases where real bad people got away with something because of a minor police error. There is already a good faith exception that saves law enforcement from purely innocent mistakes. And inevitable discovery (we'd have found it anyway) saves other screw ups.
It does happen once in a great while and maybe there is room for some enlargement of the good faith exception, but a wholesale rejection of the exclusionary rule would be stupid and unnecessary. Plus, it would overturn years of established precedent, something I thought conservatives were against.
Posted by: ModeratePostUser
Disgorge, Wall Street Fat Cats (By Maureen Dowd, NY Times 1/31/09)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/opinion/01dowd.html?_r=1
The best thing that could happen to the economy would be for Wall Street to refuse to come to the Treasury Department to negotiate.
Ms. Dowd says, "The president needs to think like Andrew Cuomo. 'Performance bonus’ for many of the C.E.O.’s is an oxymoron,' he said. 'I would tell them, a) you don’t deserve a bonus, b) where are you going to go? and c) if you want to go, go.’"
I'll be surprised if tax cheating Treasury Secretary Geithner will be any more aggressive with Wall Street than his corrupt predecessor Paulson, who was CEO of Goldman Sachs before taking office. And though Obama is still talking the talk of reform, he will probably do little more than Bush to reign in Wall Street.
The nation's financial system is too important to be left to Wall Street and its corrupt regulators. Only nationalization of failed banks and ouster of their executives will stop banks from arguing they need bailout money to avoid imminent failure.
Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation (By Sheryl Gay Stolberg, NY Times 1/30/09)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html
From the article:
In a decision in 2007, the Supreme Court effectively blocked a sex discrimination claim against Goodyear Tire and Rubber by Lilly Ledbetter, who argued that for years she had been paid less than her male colleagues. The court ruled she had to bring the case within 180 days of her employer’s initial decision to pay her less than men.
President Obama signed legislation on Thursday overturning the Supreme Court’s decision, which could open the doors to similar cases. Congress is weighing legislation to expand on laid-off workers’ rights.
Justices Step Closer to Repeal of Evidence Ruling (By Adam Liptak, NY Times 1/30/09)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/washington/31scotus.html?pagewanted=1&;em
Police are already trained to lie to suspects or anyone else to obtain evidence, which is despicable. If the exclusionary rule were abolished police would be encouraged to commit crimes to obtain evidence to convict other criminals. This would not be an effective crime reduction strategy.
Judge Refuses to Delay a Case at Guantánamo (By William Glaberson, NY Times 1/29/09)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/30gitmo.html?_r=1
A small setback, but the only judge to defy Obama's directive will probably be overruled by the Pentagon official in charge of the military commission system, who recently ruled that a detainee could not be prosecuted because he had been tortured at Guantánamo.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/opinion/01dowd.html?_r=1
The best thing that could happen to the economy would be for Wall Street to refuse to come to the Treasury Department to negotiate.
Ms. Dowd says, "The president needs to think like Andrew Cuomo. 'Performance bonus’ for many of the C.E.O.’s is an oxymoron,' he said. 'I would tell them, a) you don’t deserve a bonus, b) where are you going to go? and c) if you want to go, go.’"
I'll be surprised if tax cheating Treasury Secretary Geithner will be any more aggressive with Wall Street than his corrupt predecessor Paulson, who was CEO of Goldman Sachs before taking office. And though Obama is still talking the talk of reform, he will probably do little more than Bush to reign in Wall Street.
The nation's financial system is too important to be left to Wall Street and its corrupt regulators. Only nationalization of failed banks and ouster of their executives will stop banks from arguing they need bailout money to avoid imminent failure.
Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation (By Sheryl Gay Stolberg, NY Times 1/30/09)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html
From the article:
In a decision in 2007, the Supreme Court effectively blocked a sex discrimination claim against Goodyear Tire and Rubber by Lilly Ledbetter, who argued that for years she had been paid less than her male colleagues. The court ruled she had to bring the case within 180 days of her employer’s initial decision to pay her less than men.
President Obama signed legislation on Thursday overturning the Supreme Court’s decision, which could open the doors to similar cases. Congress is weighing legislation to expand on laid-off workers’ rights.
Justices Step Closer to Repeal of Evidence Ruling (By Adam Liptak, NY Times 1/30/09)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/washington/31scotus.html?pagewanted=1&;em
Police are already trained to lie to suspects or anyone else to obtain evidence, which is despicable. If the exclusionary rule were abolished police would be encouraged to commit crimes to obtain evidence to convict other criminals. This would not be an effective crime reduction strategy.
Judge Refuses to Delay a Case at Guantánamo (By William Glaberson, NY Times 1/29/09)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/30gitmo.html?_r=1
A small setback, but the only judge to defy Obama's directive will probably be overruled by the Pentagon official in charge of the military commission system, who recently ruled that a detainee could not be prosecuted because he had been tortured at Guantánamo.