Friday, September 29, 2006

Two Questions Arise: The Model Penal Code - Foley and Hastert Pedophiles?

Granted, I'm not sure if the Model Penal Code section 2.06 has been adapted to the jurisdiction of Washington, DC.

But, let's assume it has. Or at least the definition of accomplice

Section 2.06. Liability for Conduct of Another; Complicity

(1) A person is guilty of an offense if it is committed by his own conduct or by the conduct of another person for which he is legally accountable, or both.
(2) A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person when:
(a) acting with the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of the offense, he causes an innocent or irresponsible person to engage in such conduct; or
(b) he is made accountable for the conduct of such other person by the Code or by the law defining the offense; or
(c} he is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the offense.
(3) A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if:
(a) with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he
(i) solicits such other person to commit it; or
(ii) aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it; or
(iii) having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make proper effect so to do; or
(b) his conduct is expressly declared by law to establish his complicity.


The questions I have:
1. Was there a legal duty which was ignored when Rep. Foley's sexual predatory was first discovered many months ago?

2. If so, who had a legal duty to stop Rep. Foley from preying and sexually assaulting more children?

Those people may be brought to trial for being an accomplice to Foley's crimes.

Maybe it's nobody. But it's worth investigating.

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Gabby and St. Patrick

And they blame it on Democrats and Republicans. It sure isn’t partisan. I could argue, you know, hey, it’s really Republican, you know. But they don’t see it as a single party issue at all, and that frustration is, I think, a reason to consider a candidate whose achievements are most — obviously, mostly not on the political side. I am the most — you know, I think I am the most experienced person in actually getting stuff done in government you could possibly be, who is a total outsider.
link

Meanwhile...

After serving as a law clerk for a year to a federal appellate judge, Deval joined the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) in 1983 where he devoted most of his time to death penalty and voting rights cases. It was at LDF that Deval first met then-Governor Bill Clinton whom he sued in a voting rights case in Arkansas. Clinton worked with Deval to settle the case and the two began a relationship of strong mutual respect and admiration that continues today.

Deval left LDF in 1986 to join the Boston law firm of Hill & Barlow, where he became a partner in 1990. In addition to his private practice, he spent much of his time on pro-bono work, including a landmark lending scam case on behalf of Massachusetts' senior citizens. He also served as volunteer Chairman of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund's New England Committee and as a member of its National Board of Directors.

In 1994, President Clinton appointed Deval Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, the nation's top civil rights post. Deval worked on a wide range of issues at the Justice Department including the investigation of church burnings throughout the South in the mid-1990s, prosecution of hate crimes and abortion clinic violence, cases of employment discrimination, and enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Deval returned to private practice in 1997 with the Boston firm of Day, Berry & Howard. That same year, he was appointed by a federal district court to serve as the first chairperson of Texaco's Equality and Fairness Task Force, following the settlement of a significant race discrimination case at the company. He and his Task Force carefully reexamined and rebuilt the company's entire system of employment practices in a successful effort to create a more equitable workplace for everyone. Recognizing his unique ability to bring people together to get things done, Texaco hired Deval as Vice President and General Counsel in 1999, placing him in charge of its global legal affairs.

Next, Deval joined The Coca-Cola Company as Executive Vice President and General Counsel. He was elected to the additional position of Corporate Secretary in 2002. In these roles he was responsible for the company's worldwide legal affairs. He also served on the Company's Executive Committee - its senior leadership team. After nearly six years of commuting to Atlanta and New York, Deval resigned his post at Coca-Cola last year.

Deval has served on several charitable and corporate boards, as well as the Federal Election Reform Commission under Presidents Carter and Ford, and as Vice Chair of the Massachusetts Judicial Nominating Council by appointment of Governor Weld. He is the recipient of seven honorary degrees, including from Clark University in Worcester, Suffolk Law School in Boston, Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, and Curry College in Milton.
link

Good luck Gabrielli. Use your money. You need it. Emphasis all mine.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

General Clark Talks Tough

CAVUTO: General, we haven't had an attack in almost five years. That's not bad is it?

CLARK: Well, I'm delighted that we haven't and I hope we will never be attacked. The attack on 9/11 occurred on the president's watch. He took us into a war that we didn't have to fight. It's been used to incentivize recruiting al-qaeda. The number of people that are affiliated with al-qaeda world wide has more than doubled since 2001. Our armed forces are bogged down in Iraq. We haven't been able to effectively engage with North Korea. We're hearing the tom-toms beating for war with Iran. I think the American people can judge. This administration's policy has been a mistake and he's not made us safer. He's left us more vulnerable.

CAVUTO: Let me ask you, General, the folk we're fighting in Iraq right now, if we weren't fighting them in Iraq right now, where would they be?

CLARK: A lot of those folks wouldn't be fighting at all because what we did is, we incentivized a whole generation of young radical people to come and defend Islam against the United States. That the foreign terrorists that are there. Anywhere from a 1000 to 2000.

CAVUTO: So General, who incentivized the U.S.S. Cole attack? Who incentivized the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center?

CLARK: You changed the question... you changed the question. We did not have to attack Iraq. What we could have done is focused on Afghanistan and finished the job in Afghanistan but, Neil, we didn't do that. You realize, when we went into Afghanistan, we left Afghanistan again in a few months. We left 8000 combat troops there. We did none of the reconstruction. We didn't help the Afghan people recreate their economy. It had been devastated by the Soviets.

CAVUTO: Can I ask you, General. Wait a minute. We didn't respond to the U.S.S. Cole in any measurable way. We didn't respond to the '93 attacks on the World Trade Center in any way. So, is it just because this president is a Republican, that you're bashing him and prior one is not?

CLARK: No. It has nothing to do with that. In fact, the people who attacked us at The World Trade Center [in 1993], we arrested them. We broke up that ring. As far as the Cole attacks are concerned, a complete plan was worked up. By the time they had worked the plan up it was December of 2000. The administration was about to go out of office. A Republican was going to come in. I think, Richard Clarke has told the full story of passing along a 20 page plan along with all the details to the National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice. They never got a hearing. This president went on vacation in August of 2001 despite the warnings that al-qaeda was trying to attack us without ever summoning his cabinet offices together.


The clip is by far better, and includes a good amount of commentary beyond this transcript.



NEIL DOUCHEBAG: Would it have killed any of you at this pressert today to have at least acknowledged that [we have not been attacked in five years]?

CLARK: Well Senator Harry Reid did acknowledge the fact that we have not been attacked. But let me give you an example, Neil, in 1999 we got word and intercepted a terrorist group that was trying to attack Los Angeles airport - for new years of 2000 we broke that attack up. That's because we had an effective White House counter-terrorism strategy that was coordinating the agencies. That strategy fell apart in the early months of the Bush administraion - you can talk to the people, it's a matter of record. This administraion wanted to focus on weapons of mass destruction coming from North Korea, they wanted to focus on an ABM they did not focus on the problem of terrorism until it was too late. and then they took us to a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, that has made the problem more difficult to come to terms with.

Bless you General, and bless Richard Clarke. You'd both be in my cabinet!

DLC is Poison to Democrats

I'm sure some people can have a change of heart, but given the policies of the DLC, it's more like satan in donkey's clothing

"Any time the Democrats focus on the lack of progress in Iraq - and personalize it in Rumsfeld - it plays to their favor. But when Republicans stress that there hasn't been an attack on the homeland and we want to use aggressive surveillance to prevent future attacks, it plays to their favor," says Marshall Wittmann, a former GOP activist now with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).


Probably even a registered Democrat, so he can help the Joementum(tm) keep on keepin' on!

source

The Morality of Marvel

"When an individual acquires great power, the use or misuse of that power is everything, will it be used for the greater good or will it be used for personal or destructive ends? Now this is a question we must all ask ourselves."

Clinton's Anti-Terror and the GOP's Greed

Apparently, national defense measures are only justified when a republican has the idea

And they only work right when you break the law, violate the constitution, and remove the civil liberties of Americans. Just ask Bush.

More on Winning War

When several military experts called for the addition of hundreds of thousands of troops early in the Iraq War, the Bush Administration rejected the call, and instead chose to fight with a minimal force. And now, when our troops have been deployed over and over again; when almost all of our combat units at our bases at home are at the lowest state of combat readiness; and with this Administration's continued insistence to stay a failed course; it is now more obvious than ever that we can not sustain this war on its current course and we must change direction.

...

While the Administration stresses that we are a country at war, they refuse to spread the burden proportionately. Instead, they pursue tax incentives for the rich, run up our federal deficit, and spend astronomical sums in Iraq with little or no control over wasteful and fraudulent spending. This is not the picture of a country at war.

...

If we are to fight this war with the same sense of dedication and vigor as we did prior wars, we cannot do it without a surge in force.

It is unlikely that the President will call for a draft. A draft is politically unpopular. But we cannot continue to allow the President to pursue open-ended and vague military missions without a change in direction.


Rep. John Murtha

I've never served in the US Armed Forces, but I would to defend my country. However, Bush does not seem to want to win the war in Iraq, as he touts the political rhetoric reminding us we're at war as a reason to support his failed agenda. The only reason to go to war is to win - until now. Today, going to war is a boost to your ratings, as Bush bathed in the glory right after 9/11. Fortunately, America is continually awakening, and will not seem to accept perpetual war (on one front). Just as his military advisors have suggested, we need more troops in Iraq or the failure that exists today will perpetuate and more Americans will die needlessly because we simply will not succeed with the current strategy.

Murtha is a soldier and a strategist moreso than Bush could ever hope to be. But Bush does not seek the same strategy of Murtha: Murtha wants to win and bring our dying soldiers home while Bush wants perpetual struggle. This is not something a president should ever do, nor any military leader, and it only warrants his swift removal or congressional censure.