Google Search

Showing posts with label Guilty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guilty. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

National-Security State Toadies are Guilty of Hypocrisy on Snowden


by Jacob G. Hornberger

One of the most amusing aspects of the NSA scandal has been watching national-security state toadies berate Edward Snowden, the man who blew the whistle on the NSA's longtime secret surveillance system, for being a "coward."

Their rationale?

They say that Snowden should have stayed here in the United States instead of fleeing to Hong Kong. They say that if he were a genuine hero, as his supporters say he is, he would have remained in the United States, where the national-security state would have incarcerated him, tortured him, and executed him.

Oh?

Well, pray tell, national-security state toadies: Where were you all when those CIA agents skedaddled out of Italy after committing felonious offenses in that country?

Well, I don't know where you all were but I can tell you what you were doing. You toadies were keeping your lips sealed. Unlike what you're saying about Snowden, you all have never issued a peep of protest about the refusal of those CIA agents to face the music in Italy, stand before the accusers, and defend themselves against the charges.

Let's review that case. CIA agents go into Italy and ensconce themselves in luxurious hotels at U.S. taxpayer expense. Then they proceed to kidnap a man on the streets of Milan and forcibly transport him out of the country. They ?take him to Egypt--yes, the same Egypt that was then headed by military strongman and brutal pro-U.S. dictator Hosni Mubarak. Why Egypt? Because Egypt's military dictatorship was great at torturing people. And the U.S. national-security state wanted the man to be tortured.

What's the problem with kidnapping and torture? Well, only that they're criminal offenses under Italian law, which is precisely why those CIA agents got criminally indicted and later convicted and sentenced to serve time by an Italian court.

By the time charges were brought, however, the CIA agents had fled the country, determined never to return to Italy to face justice.

Why not?

Equally important, why didn't the national-security state toadies who are now calling Edward Snowden a coward say the same thing about those CIA felons?

After all, couldn't those CIA agents have returned to Italy and proudly puffed out their heroic chests and proclaimed,

We are here in Italy to defend ourselves. We are proud members of the U.S. national-security state, the most powerful branch of the U.S. government. In our country, national-security state agents are immune from prosecution for murder, assassination, torture, kidnapping, perjury, or any other felony so long as we are operating to protect "national security." And we, not you or anyone else, decides what that term means. Therefore, you have to dismiss the charges against us or find us innocent because when we kidnapped, renditioned, and tortured that guy, we were doing so to protect "national security."
Alas, they didn't do that. They rushed back to the United States, never to return to Italy.

And the national-security state toadies don't dare say a word.

Moreover, let's not forget the unnamed CIA agents who participated in the execution of the young American journalist Charles Horman during the Pinochet military coup in Chile, which the U.S. national-security state helped to bring about. Those CIA killers of an innocent American citizen certainly have never returned to Chile to face justice. Long ago, they decided that discretion was the better part of valor.

What do the national-security state toadies say about those murderers? Nothing. Nothing at all. While they're screaming like banshees about how Snowden is a coward for refusing to voluntarily return to America to be brutalized, tortured, incarcerated, and executed, their lips are sealed with respect to the CIA agents who murdered American citizen Charles Horman in Chile.

On a related note, what about the Chilean criminal indictment of former national-security state official Navy Capt. Ray E. Davis for purportedly participating in Horman's murder.

Did Davis, who was indicted in 2011, rush back to Chile to face justice? Of course not.

Have the national-security state toadies criticized Davis for "cowardice." Of course not. Their lips have remained sealed about the matter.

What about CIA operative Jose Posada Carriles, who was indicted by the Venezuelan government for the bombing of a Cuban civilian airliner, a terrorist act that killed everyone on board, including the young members of Cuba's fencing team? We don't see him rushing back to Venezuela to face his accusers. Instead, this accused terrorist chooses to remain right here in the United States, where the national-security state continues to harbor and protect him, notwithstanding the existence of an extradition agreement between the United States and Venezuela.

And what about the national-security state toadies regarding Posada Carriles? You guessed it! Sealed lips and silence.

So, why the difference? Why do national-security state toadies call Snowden a coward while maintaining strict silence, or even support, for the national-security state agents who steadfastly refuse to face justice in Italy, Chile, and Venezuela?

The difference lies in the mindset that the toadies have toward the national-security state itself. The national-security state is their everything. It's their god. It's their idol. It's their daddy. It's their Big Brother. So, whatever happens to be the position of the national-security state, that's what the position of the national-security state toadies will be. Since the national-security state wants Snowden to return to the United States to be jailed, tortured, and executed, that's what the national-security state toadies want. Since the national-security state wants to harbor and protect its kidnappers, torturers, and murderers from crimes they've purportedly committed, that too is the position of the toadies.
_
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Commentary
- How Thieves and Terrorists "Apologize" to their Victims
- The True Cycle of Violence
- Will They Assassinate Snowden?
- The State Doesn't Define What is True or Right
- The Trick is to Suspend the Constitution Without Admitting It
- Snowden's Flight to Freedom
- Freedom versus The National-Security State
- The Land of the Blind: The Illusion of Freedom in America

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Denver Police Officer Found Guilty Of Using Badge To Sexually Assaulting Woman


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
DENVER (CBS4) ? A Denver police officer charged with sexually assaulting a woman he pulled over has been found guilty.

The verdict came in Tuesday afternoon against Hector Paez. He was found guilty of sexual assault, kidnapping and false reporting.

[...]?Before I knew it he said I had a warrant and threw me in the back seat of the car.?

The woman did have a warrant for a probation violation, but after driving her to a secluded area Paez told her there was a way to avoid jail.

?He just undid his pants and said, ?You know what you have to do,? ? she said. ?He thought, ?Here?s somebody with a warrant and I can do whatever I want to do with them. They?re not going to tell on me.? ?

Read More


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- North Carolina: Driving While Nervous is Not a Crime
- Indefinite Detention Without Trial: Completely Unconstitutional, Yet Routine
- Not So Merry Christmas Drug Busts
- Utah: Traffic Stop Valid Even When Cop Causes Violation
- Santa Claus Arrested by DPS Capitol Police for Chalking Sidewalk
- San Diego Cops Beat & Pepper Spray Innocent Man With Down Syndrome
- Arizona Police Officer Caught Hiding Evidence In His Garage, Lying About It -- Keeps Job
- Charlotte Cop Kills Dog, Nearly Shoots Pregnant Woman

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Friday, July 27, 2012

Presumed Guilty in Florida: Drug "Crimes" with no Criminal Intent



by William Grigg

Thanks to a state Supreme Court ruling effectively disposing of the need for prosecutors to prove criminal intent, the Florida state government can continue imprisoning people for possessing substances they didn't know were illegal.

Florida is one of two states afflicted with drug possession statutes that don't require the government to prove criminal intent. The statute permits defendants to offer an affirmative defense of "unwitting possession" -- which means that the defendant, not the state, has the burden of proof. ?The state Supreme Court, ruling the recent case of Florida v. Adkins, has rejected a challenge to that statute filed on behalf of dozens of defendants awaiting trial on drug possession charges.

"There is no constitutional right to possess contraband," insisted Justice Charles Canady in the majority opinion. "Nor is there a protected right to be ignorant of the nature of the property in one's possession."

Like most rulings of this kind, Canady's opinion begins with the totalitarian premise that the powers exercised by government are presumptively constitutional -- and that it is the actions of the individual that must be justified. This inverts the American perspective on law, in which government can exercise only those powers explicitly delegated to it in the applicable constitution (state or federal).

Since the repeal of the 18th Amendment, there has been no constitutional provision authorizing the federal government to regulate the possession or consumption of mood-altering substances. The Florida state constitution is similarly devoid of such provisions. Thus there is no constitutional authority for Florida officials to prosecute people for possession of such substances.

Even if the Florida state government had the authority to criminalize drug possession, the statute dealt with in this ruling would be illegitimate because it doesn't require the state to prove the existence of mens rea -- malicious intent on the part of the accused.

In order for an act to be a crime, it must involve the deliberate violation of a clear and intelligible statute by an act that inflicts injury to another person. Individual drug consumption -- although unwise -- doesn't injure anybody else; as a victimless act, it cannot be construed as a crime. The same is true of mere possession of narcotics, which -- as the Florida statute acknowledges -- doesn't even necessarily involve criminal intent.

Under the Florida v. Adkins ruling, however, people can be convicted of a supposed crime on the basis of mere physical proximity to contraband they didn't know was on their property or among their personal effects.

In his dissent, Justice James E.C. Perry points out that the standard embraced by the court would permit the prosecution and imprisonment of "a letter carrier who delivers a package containing unprescribed Adderall; a roommate who is unaware that the person who shares his apartment has hidden illegal drugs in the common areas of the home; a mother who carries a prescription pill bottle in her purse, unaware that the pills have been substituted for illegally obtained drugs by her teenage daughter, who placed them in the bottle to avoid detection ... a driver who rents a car in which a past passenger accidentally dropped a baggie of marijuana under the seat; a traveler who mistakenly retrieves from a luggage carousel a bag identical to her own containing Oxycodone; a helpful college student who drives a carload of a friend's possessions to the friend's new apartment, unaware that a stash of heroin is tucked within those possessions; [or] an ex-wife who is framed by an ex-husband who planted cocaine in her home in an effort to get the upper hand in a bitter custody dispute."

The majority opinion blithely dismissed these possibilities -- at least some of which have been validated through actual court experience -- by insisting that the statute's "affirmative defense" provision addresses the rights of the defendant. As Justice Perry observes, this violates common law principles ? traceable to ancient Roman law ? by forcing the defendant to overcome a presumption of guilt:

"Under the majority's decision "? the innocent will from the start be presumed guilty. The innocent will be deprived of their right to simply deny the charges and hold the State to its burden of proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The innocent will instead be forced to assert an affirmative defense, whereupon the possession of a controlled substance, whether actual or constructive, shall give rise to a permissive presumption that the possessor knew of the illicit nature of the substance... The innocent will then have no realistic choice but to shoulder the burden of proof and present evidence to overcome that presumption"?. The innocent will then hear their jury instructed on the permissive presumption that they knew of the illicit nature of the substance in question."
The statute upheld in the Adkins ruling is involved in roughly one third of all felony charges in Palm Beach County. Peter Antonacci, State Attorney for Palm Beach County, expressed relief over the ruling. "It would have been a substantial mess if had gone the other way," he told the Palm Beach Post, in apparent ignorance of his implicit admission that his office is responsible for imprisoning a great number of people who had done nothing to harm anybody else.

Read the Adkins ruling here.


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- VIDEO: California Police Open Fire & Unleash Dogs On Protesters Including Young Children
- Police Officer Killed Victim Of Break-In
- UK court acquits cop of killing man during anti-G20 protest
- Obama Administration to Review Clarence Aaron Commutation Request
- Ohio Police Claim 17-Yr-Old Pot Dealing High School Student A Drug "Kingpin"
- Police Chase Over Drugs Ends With Man Crashing Into Schoolbus Full Of Homeless Children
- Minneapolis SWAT team leader faces first-degree assault charge (Video released)
- Friends and family will protest deputy killing of innocent Leesburg man

there is no right to control what a man eats.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here