When a Neocon takes an office in the USA it is to SABOTAGE 'the purpose' of any government role or authority, even if that means being incompetent. Incompetence or the explicit legislating of law to be meaningless in 'real practice' is a form of treason.
The purpose of any Neocon is to undermine the authority of government to the point where the electorate is so disgusted they will opt to be WITHOUT government and its cost. Hence, tax decreases and downsizing of government and the increased wealth of the 'upper crust' and the unavoidable demoralizing of the middle class and exploitation of the poor.
In regard to The Stevens Case:
...The most important question that remains largely unanswered, said officials and veteran lawyers, is whether the corner cutting, especially the serial concealment of information damaging to the government, was a result of flawed judgments and heavy workloads or an intentional step by prosecutors to increase their chances of a high-profile conviction....
"Corner cutting" RESULTING IN "flawed judgements and heavy workloads" IS an intentional step.
"...In an example of the disarray of the government team, one F.B.I. agent said in an affidavit that as many as 30 boxes of unsorted evidence sat outside a prosecutor’s office as the trial was to begin...."
When executing the 'Rule of Law' becomes impossible due to lack of 'infrastructure/qualified personnel' it is treason. When a country's budget is 'toyed' with to attempt to undermine Social Security while compromising the legal infrastructure that is to uphold the law, that is treason. What the Bush/Cheney/Gonzalez ? Justice ? department did was to continually cause upheaval and disarray in 'the authority' of law while 'displaying' attempts to secure 'political favors' for its electorate.
Stevens is guilty and the testimony of those in the trial may or may not be PERJURY. But, the inability of The Justice Department to carry out a COMPETENT trial of Stevens due to lack of sufficient infrastructure IS a violation of the integrity of the USA Constitution and an impeachable offense of the Bush Executive Branch.
Questions? No? End of Discussion !
When privatizing any 'aspect' of government, it is SUPPOSED to be an improvement to the process, NEVER a breach of National Security and a way of keeping taxes down to stop the increasing size of government.
There is no excuse for the high incompetency of the Bush/Cheney/Gonzalez ? Justice ? Department.
NONE !
The Justice Department of the USA IS NECESSARY to carry out our laws and protect National Security. There is NO outsourcing The Justice Department because Gonzalez was a brilliant strategist to the appearance of incompetency. There was no incompetency, there was PLANNED Obsolescence of government REGARDLESS of its importance to National Security.
If Holder is worth his salt, he'll assign a Special Prosecutor while realizing there may be nothing to prosecute as THE APPEARANCE of incompetency will only prove the next step might be to remove licenses to practice. Holder's Special Prosecutor would have to PROVE there was a CONTINUED and steady trend that compromised the integrity of Prosecution. It is bigger than the Steven's Case and should be attempted for the sake of 'ending' the possibility of any repeat attempt by future administrations and/or Justices.
The problem in pursuing 'the perfectionING' of the USA Constitution and its practice, is the cost and whether the people of the country will 'frown' at the implimentation of still another investigation of the Bush Executive Branch while calling it 'political horseplay' at the public's expense.
To me it is not horseplay so much as defending our Constitution.
...The case, against the former U.S. attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales (click here), and others, was sent to the prosecutor's office for review by Baltasar Garzon, the crusading investigative judge who ordered the arrest of Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator. The official said that it was "highly probable" that the case would go forward and that it could lead to arrest warrants.
The move represents a step toward ascertaining the legal accountability of top officials in the former administration of President George W. Bush for allegations of torture and the mistreatment of prisoners in the campaign against terrorism....
