Friday, April 03, 2009

The Republicans attempts treason of an Elected Senator due to hear-say.

..."Begich dismissed the notion out of hand (click here). And the other two Republicans in the state's congressional delegation seemed to feel likewise. Sen. Lisa Murkowski said, "I am sure many of us wish we could turn the clock back to last November. Unfortunately, that is not an option." And Rep. Don Young added that Begich "will be in the Senate, he will do a good job."...

Attorney General Eric Holder is not stating Ted Stevens is innocent. He is saying there are inconsistencies in the actions of the prosecutors that would be overturned in appeal. Basically, the Bush Justice Department 'built in' methods of appeal that would keep Ted Stevens out of jail.

..."After careful review (click here), I have concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial," Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement. "In light of this conclusion, and in consideration of the totality of the circumstances of this particular case, I have determined that it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial."...



Bill Allen takes the stand in Ted Stevens trial (click here for audio)
Tue, September 30, 2008
The government’s star witness took the stand today in the trial of Senator Ted Stevens. Bill Allen was once a respected businessman in Alaska, and ran Veco, one of the state’s largest private companies. But he pleaded guilty last year to bribing state lawmakers, and prosecutors say he gave Ted Stevens gifts worth more than $250,000. Stevens is accused of lying about the gifts on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms.
PHOTO: Bill Allen, former CEO of VECO (photo Libby Casey, APRN)
Libby Casey, APRN - Washington, DC



Editorial: Stevens Case (click here)
The right course
Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to abandon prosecution of former Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska represents a strong commitment to new standards of integrity at the Justice Department....

...The decision means Stevens, 85, who was the longest-serving Republican senator in U.S. history, won't go to jail. But the impact of Holder's decision goes far beyond the former senator. The new attorney general is sending a message early in his tenure that misconduct by prosecutors won't be tolerated....
...After the trial, a Justice investigation found that Bill Allen, the government's star witness against Stevens, had made statements that were "inconsistent" with his testimony....


So, therefore, hearsay after the trial became more important than the actually testimony. The judge ridiculed prosecutors and let the trial go forward rather than stating a 'mistrial' and rescheduling after learning of the violations of law by prosecutors.


There needs to be an investigation of all the circumstances INCLUDING perjury by Bill Allen during the prosecution of Stevens. There either was perjury or not. At this point to prosecute Stevens again constitutes 'double jeopardy' and violates his constitutional rights. There were obviously 'pay to play' issues with the generosity by Allen of Stevens. In the 'audio' it is clearly stated there were many favors for Stevens because Bill Allen 'simply liked the guy.' How convenient. There are ethic violations by Stevens at the very least.

Sending troops into Afghanistan and Pakistan is necessary because of oppressive Taliban law.

..."Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told the BBC's Mark Mardell: "We are there to defend universal values and when I see, at the moment, a law threatening to come into effect which fundamentally violates women's rights and human rights, that worries me.
He added (click for video): "I have a problem to explain and President Karzai knows this, because I discussed it with him. I have a problem to explain to a critical public audience in Europe, be it the UK or elsewhere, why I'm sending the guys to the Hindu Kush."...

NGOs need to determine whether they are operating WILLINGLY under a regime that violates international law. If they are, then they are as guilty as The Taliban.

..."Ahead of the meeting, a number of leading charities warned that an increase in military deployments in Afghanistan could lead to a rise in civilian casualties.
They called on Nato leaders gathering in Strasbourg to do more to protect the population.
Last year more than 2,000 civilians were killed in Afghanistan.
In a report titled Caught in the Conflict, 11 aid groups including Oxfam, ActionAid and Care called on Nato to change the way it operates."...



The article at the title to this entry is a bit 'silly' to say the least. Some NATO countries are indecisive in sending troops into Afghanistan for concern they will be enforcing Sharia Law that violates the rights of women and human rights.

The reason the USA originally invaded Afghanistan in 2001 was to defend itself from attacks resulting from an organization called al Qaeda located then in Afghanistan and protected by The Taliban. A declaration of war includes establishing 'peaceful' law that respects the values of the victor. We would have hoped the victor was the USA, however, it is evidenced that through a rise in authority that is oppressive and in violation of human rights the Taliban have won the battle and have instilled a return of their authority.

The question to some European nations and the reason they question sending additional troops revolves around the FACT the ? new ? government in Afghanistan was ? freely ? elected and now is establishing laws that are counter productive, counter culture and down right illegal. That wasn't supposed to happen and why Hamid Karzai was elected President.

You see, the reason Mullah Omar wanted to ride victoriously into Kandahar as a returning hero on his ass (donkey), is because the USA lost the war and he and his influence from the far reaches of Pakistan, THROUGH legitimately sanctioned UN elections, overthrew the Karzai government. The reason the civilized world is calling the Karzai government corrupt is because 'the influence' of civilization was abandoned when Bush went into Iraq. The Karzai government, including his brother, was left with no alternative but to capitulate 'cultural' mores to the society and Afghan-Paki Drug Cartels, hence becoming as bad as the influence in order to ATTEMPT to maintain order.

In May, President Karzai steps down and it is completely obvious to me come elections later in the year, al Qaeda was to rule in Afghanistan compliments of the failure of Bush/Cheney to 'stay the fight.'

Once having established authority in Afghanistan through whatever figure head would be elected, al Qaeda would harness the power of what is currently the Afghan military/police and begin to build a 'power' to conquer Pakistan and secure nuclear capacity for al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

If that isn't evident to you, then I don't know what is. The USA has LOST the 'War of September 11th' and NATO has been trying to 'hold on' in order to 'devole' the abandonment of Bush/Cheney to Iraq.

One of the reasons the Obama Administration has sent additional troops into Afghanistan was because of 'the void' of authority from May until the elections and then to facilitate 'peaceful' elections in Afghanistan. It is completely obvious to me, that Hamid Karzai has done all he could to maintain 'an authority' in Afghanistan until the American Electorate came to their senses and placed a 'true patriot' in the Presidency to 'salvage' the 'war of 2001.'

The question now 'stands' as to what happens in May and what indeed happens in subsequent elections. At this point, President Karzai has to report to the United Nations that the current laws and proposed laws of Afghanistan are indeed comprised of human rights violations, hence, requiring abandonment of the Afghan Constitution and subsequent laws, instilling Marshall Law and a continuation of his leadership beyond May.

NATO has to reauthorize the war as a legitimate cause of civilized nations and seek to return control of the government to the benevolent people of Afghanistan. It is completely obvious 'The Taliban' are less an ethnicity of the region and more a militaristic regime that needs to be defeated and their leaders held accountable before World Courts "IF" they survive the return of order to the country.

Karzai and all his NATO allies have to address the General Assembly of the United Nations. One might want to find Musharraf and label him as a human rights offender in facilitating the return of a hostile military regime in Afghanistan.