Archive for the ‘Judicial System’ Category
That’s the link that goes to Ernie Branscomb’s blog post titled: “Vent your Spleen” – This post is a classic example of what Ryan McMaken writes about in his article: “Lessons From the Casey Anthony Trial.” – Here’s the opening paragraph:
Perhaps not since the feds hanged Mary Surratt for Abe Lincoln’s assassination have so many been so happy at the thought of seeing a woman lynched. To the outrage of bloodthirsty, bleary-eyed couch potatoes from sea to shining sea, Casey Anthony was found not guilty of the murder of her daughter.
Now compare this to what Branscomb says:
What got me started on all of this, is that I got to thinking about Casey Anthony. She has absolutely no principles whatsoever. While she was in jail awaiting trial it came out that she had used a friends credit card and ran up a bunch of bills on it that she had no way of paying. She stole her friend’s checks and used them to buy beer and clothes. She pleads guilty to 13 felony fraud, bad check, and credit card theft counts. On top of being a thief and a fraud, she is a liar and a slut. Only a fool would think that she doesn’t have at least a small idea of what happened to her daughter.
Followed by this:
**** Sadly, there are men out there that would like to take advantage of her drop dead gorgeous body. Maybe she could become a prostitute, it wouldn’t be much of a life style change for her, she apparently would go to bed with any man that was “Hot”. I guess the true test is what would the average man think of her?
This is probably the most disgusting display of effeminate, gossip-mongering and character assassination I’ve read in a local blog for some time. What makes it REALLY sewer-scum caliber is that these people (see comments) are some of the first people to preach law and order the old-fashioned way. We sure know what kind of law and order that is. But, then…
I’ll let Mr McMaken speak for me, he continues:
The case itself is far less interesting than the reaction to it. In spite of all the drama that the despicable “news” media attempted to inject into it, the actual trial was humdrum. In typical fashion, the prosecution built its case on mostly circumstantial evidence and on character assassination. The jury concluded that the prosecution had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A not-guilty verdict was returned. Case closed.
This is exactly how the legal system is supposed to work. People are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. We’re not supposed to convict people of capital crimes because we find them distasteful or annoying.
None of that matters to the great American lynch mob, which, not even being present at the trial, finds itself so magnificently insightful and so morally pure, that its shrill cries for justice echo with unparalleled histrionic fervor down the virtual halls of Facebook and Twitter. [Emphasis added]
I could continue, but after reading Branscomb’s so-called venting, I felt like I needed to take a bath. I guess what really gets to me is the unabashed, in-your-face corruption and hypocrisy. Unprincipled, morally and ethically depraved versus sanctimonious, self-righteous, elitism. Because it goes to the very heart of, “preach rule of and law, but enforce rule of men” here’s a small example. He says, “’Karma’ which I absolutely don’t believe in, because I can’t hit it with a hammer, so it doesn’t work for me.” Then proceeds with all the authority and self-righteousness God gave a goose to tell everyone all about “Karma.” Perhaps Branscomb should have taken to heart the words of someone considered an authority on Karma: “Stop judging that you may not be judged; for with what judgment you are judging, you will be judged; and with the measure that you are measuring out, they will measure out to you.”
The standard exemplified here that sets the norm is also defined in this quote – a fitting conclusion:
“We are an attention-deficit nation, and we have dumbed ourselves down so much that people don’t understand the simplest of things.”
When I first looked to see what Dave Stancliff had written in his Sunday As It Stands opinion column I thought,
“here he goes again – preaching more lawless, mob rule.” After reading the article I decided not to make any observations – the whole thing was way too trite.
So, what changed my mind? You don’t suppose I could pass up another golden opportunity to excoriate Dave Stancliff, do you?
Actually, no. What griped me is the constant drum-beat for more laws to deprive everyone of what freedom, justice and accountability remains in our corrupt society. “Frivolous lawsuits” are just that, FRIVOLOUS.
When every deck there is, is totally stacked against the average working and retired man and woman in this country, using one Mickey Mouse lawsuit to fill newspaper space railing against “frivolous lawsuits” does everyone a disservice. Rather than denigrate the injured, he would have better served everyone had he spent the time and word dealing with the real cause of the problems: greedy, self-serving and amoral lawyers.
Let’s set the matter right – right up front, I don’t have any use for lawyers. First, its been my experience, that they all believe they are better than everyone else. If for no other reason than they are in a position to victimize the people that are forced to use them. The judges in this country think they are too good to speak to or recognize the “common” man. So they breed this special class of royalty that judges will accept past their Bar. Second, if you don’t have the money to pay their exorbitant fees, despite the fact that they are employed by you, the “fee” payer, they exercise their right to betray you, to the detriment and harm to you, your business and your family’s best interest. Even if you have the money, where “money” is no issue, they still treat you like some sub-human, low-class pile of dog crap.
Since that’s pretty much the bottom line when it comes to lawyers, for me personally today, whenever I have a problem, rather than look to a lawyer to purportedly speak in my behalf, I deal directly and personally. Since the gutless, effeminate paranoid have passed so many laws today restricting speech, the safe possibility to personally resolve ANY matter by simple speech (communicating by letter, email, telephone or personally) – actually talking to one another, I realize this is a rather precarious solution. That’s the way people used to settle their problems. So, what’s happened?
Well, in Mr. Stancliff’s case, the “shoe’s on the other foot.”
It wasn’t too long ago that Dave Stancliff was threatening to take me to court for writing an observation or two about his newspaper column. Despite the fact that he was making all kinds of outlandish accusation, from where I stand, that was about as “frivolous” as it could get. His “threats” were not “frivolous,” but the basis he set forth certainly was.
What have we recently learned about how we are justified in dealing with people that makes threats? What was the justification President Obama gave for going to war with Muammar Gaddafi and Libya? His, Gaddafi’s “threat.”
There’s another lesson learned here and that is when you don’t communicate, and I am not talking about arbitrary ultimatums either, the only other way to resolve issues is WAR. The choice: either talk peacefully or act violently. When people refuse to recognize your legitimate rights to exist same as them and then act on that belief refusing to talk to you, they are at de facto war with you.
The best solution is to work out the problems personally – peacefully – one on one. Whenever you bring in a surrogate to speak for you or act in your behalf, you are ostensibly at war. No one ever wins at war. Yet, it seems, that is a lesson few if any wannabe elitist Americans have learned.
April Fool’s Day today, right?
(Reuters) – The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that members of a fundamentalist church have a free-speech right to hold anti-gay protests at military funerals to promote their view that God hates America for tolerating homosexuality.
Personal responsibility is something that applies to everyone, even those that voluntarily go to war.
The Suggestibility Of Bradley Manning
I haven’t written much about Bradley Manning’s treatment in his military brig, since Greenwald has done a great job along with many others who are following the story carefully. There seems to be a lot of controversy over whether or not he is being tortured. In my opinion, locking up someone who has not presented any kind of threat to other prisoners and who has not been convicted of a crime for months on end in solitary confinement under tight restrictions is torture. It’s horrible enough to do it someone who has been convicted, but using these techniques on someone you are trying to get to testify against someone else cannot be seen in any other light.
As we well know by now, the line between interrogation and torture has become indistinguishable among far too many people and many of these more suspect interrogation techniques are likely to produce the same kind of false information you get from torture. So one aspect of the Manning story stuck out at me as being pretty damning evidence and that’s the fact that he’s being awakened every five minutes during the day and if the guards “need” to assure themselves that he’s ok, they wake him up at night. Keep in mind that this is a guy who’s completely isolated and has no access to anything unauthorized, not even a real blanket and pillow. (Apparently, he’s got some strange device that makes him miserable.)
Sleep deprivation is well known to enhance “suggestibility” and is commonly used in interrogations:
A person’s suggestibility is how willing they are to accept and act on suggestions by others. Interrogators seek to increase a subject’s suggestibility. Methods used to increase suggestibility may include moderate sleep deprivation, exposure to constant white noise, and using GABAergic drugs such as sodium amytal or sodium thiopental.
There’s no evidence that they are using white noise or the drugs mentioned, but it sure sounds as if they employing moderate sleep deprivation to increase “suggestibility.” And we know what they are suggesting, don’t we?
Months and months of sleep deprivation and isolation cannot be justified for security reasons. This fellow isn’t a commando. He isn’t a professional spy. He’s just some grunt who uploaded some electronic files. The only reasonable explanation for his treatment is that they are trying to get him to implicate someone else in his alleged a crime. And that’s the oldest reason for torture in the books. In the old days, they wanted their subjects to implicate Satan. Today it’s Julian Assange.
What is going on here is truly an assault on this nations’ manhood and womanhood.