HERE THEY ARE, AYER-EECES' LEECHES ROBBING THE LUNCH MONEY & TAXES FROM AMERICAN SCHOOL STUDENTS!!!
Union Thugs: "Raise My Taxes!"
April 22, 2010
Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now!
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, there's a story in the Chicago Trib, I have seen pictures, thousands and thousands of people marching, union thugs in Illinois demanding tax increases. Here it is. I've got the Chicago Tribune story right here. Grab audio sound bite number 31. We have a sound bite with this. "Thousands of protesters bused down by labor unions and social service advocates rallied at the Capitol today..." this was yesterday "...in an attempt to pressure state lawmakers into raising the income tax to avoid more budget cuts." The unions want everybody else and their taxes to go up so that they don't lose their pensions and they don't have to get any kind of cuts whatsoever. "A spokesman for Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White estimated the rally crowd at 15,000, with more than 12,000 marching around the building. That would appear to make it the largest Capitol protest since the Equal Rights Amendment crowds a quarter-century ago. Bus after bus pulled up on streets surrounding the Capitol complex and dumped sign-waving protesters clad in purple, green, red and blue shirts that represented a show of strength from a variety of public employee unions and dozens of groups that formed what they named the 'Responsible Budget Coalition.'" And here is what they were shouting.
PROTESTER: Raise my taxes! Raise my taxes! Raise my taxes! Raise my taxes! Raise my taxes!
RUSH: Springfield, Illinois, at the Capitol, thousands of protesters bused down by labor unions demanding higher taxes. Okay. Raise theirs. Raise their taxes. Cut ours. They want their taxes to go up, raise 'em! Now, this is an interesting development here. And it's interesting because the unions now see the underfunded pension plans, the states being bankrupt, and they see what Chris Christie is doing in New Jersey, and they see that California is paying attention to New Jersey, and they see the teachers unions get socked out there, all kinds of givebacks, teachers having to forgo promised raises and increases in pension benefits and so forth. So here are the freeloaders. "Rush, how can you say they're freeloaders? They're union people. They have jobs." They're freeloaders. These are public employee union people. They know what they live off of. They live off taxes. These are not private sector union people. These are people that live off of your tax payments. And they want more. They want you to have to pay more taxes so that they continue in their freeloader gigs.
Now, we've talked about the last couple days, freeloaders, what's the percentage of people in this country that have really just checked out, they've just cashed it in, they're sitting out there, they're happy to get whatever they get from the government, $300, $500 bucks a week, and people worry, have we reached the tipping point here, have we got to the point where 50% of the American people are freeloaders now? I don't believe we're anywhere near there, otherwise these people wouldn't be doing what they're doing, and Obama would be honest about what he was doing. He has to continue to lie about what his agenda is, trying to get people to support it. So look who it is that's now actually rallying for tax increases: public employee union people. They are the freeloaders. They are a net loss. They don't produce anything. They live solely off the output of the private sector, pure and simple, which they hate, by the way. I'm talking about their leaders and some of these rent-a-mob types that show up.
Now, who is it that runs Illinois? Who is it that runs Chicago? If I'm not mistaken, it's the Democrats. Well, why don't the Democrats who run Illinois want to raise taxes this year? Why do these unions have to pressure Democrats to do something that is automatic as breathing to them? Raising taxes. What's going on here? Raising taxes, why do you have to protest for that with Democrats in Illinois? And yet we got ACORN type agitators out there demanding a tax increase from people who do that automatically. They do it before they brush their teeth when they get up. I mean, it's a reflex action. This is incredible, unheard of, a bunch of leftist, socialist, neo-communist union people asking their brothers in government to raise taxes when they do it already anyway.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's a way I want to create a visual for you. As host, I excel at painting pictures, and creating circumstances where you create your own image. We don't provide the pictures here; you do, actually, via the talent of the host. So here you have 12 to 15,000 union thugs demanding tax increases at the state capital of Illinois, which is akin to a tick demanding that we feed the dog more. That's how you (laughing) That is the way to look at it -- or a leech, demanding that we feed the dog more. Yeah, it's a leech. You can see a leech. A tick, sometimes a flea, but whatever. You know, we're the dog, the union people are the leeches, and they're demanding that we be fed more. You know what else they were chanting out there?
"What do we want?"
"More money!"
"What do we want?"
"We want more money!"
"When do we want it?"
"Now!"
"When do we want it?"
"NOW!"
That's what one of their chants was -- and you can see a tick when it swells up, and they do swell up on a well-fed dog. They're just giant ticks -- a bunch of them, a bunch of leeches -- at the state Capitol in Illinois yesterday.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's another audio sound bite from the teacher union protest yesterday at the state capital in Springfield, Illinois. Here's a portion of some teacher talking about the state budget.
PROTESTER: Where's the mo-neeey? Where is the mo-neeeeey? Save our childrens! (sic) Give us the bucks. Where's the cash? We need it fast!
RUSH: Were you able to hear that? Were you able to make it out? "Where's the mo-neeey? Where is the mo-neeeeey? Save our childrens! Give us the bucks. Where's the cash? We need it fast." Now that you know that's what's being said, I'm going to play this again. This is an unidentified teacher at this rally for tax increases in Springfield, Illinois, yesterday. She's obviously another one of these people that wants some money from Obama's stash.
PROTESTER: Where's the mo-neeey? Where is the mo-neeeeey? Save our childrens! (sic) Give us the bucks. Where's the cash? We need it fast!
RUSH: "Where's the cash? Where's the money? We need it fast!" We've lost this group. We have lost them. This group is gone and everybody like 'em. They're gone. Anytime... Here's how to identify 'em, folks. I'm sure you have a federal or county courthouse nearby. All you need to do is drive by it, and I guarantee you, everybody going in and out of there other than the lawyers (well, including the lawyers) is going in there for their livelihood. Where do these people go when they want money? They go to the state Capitol. Do they go to work? No. They go to the state Capitol. They demand from government more money. We've lost those people. We're never going to convert those people. Those people are going to have to learn by virtue of tough experience. I marvel at this.
You can see who we've lost; you can identify 'em. Any courthouse, anyplace where checks are handed out, anyplace where complaints about the check not being big enough; you just check and see who's milling around there everyday, who's going in and out and you'll see who we've lost because to them, going to some government building is where you go to get, in effect, your salary. Joe Biden. (interruption) What do you...? (interruption) What -- what's your facial...? (interruption) Why are you surprised by this? (interruption) Where is the money? Are you surprised that this is unionized teachers asking this, as opposed to who asking it? Why does this surprise you? Do you think that these people do not know where their lifeblood is? Their lifeblood is taxes.
They live off everybody's taxes! These are the people who live off of everybody's taxes. They know full well what's at stake here if these Democrats have to starting cutting budgets. It's less for them. They know full well. You and I, Snerdley, the last place we would go is there. If something happened to this show, the last place I'd go is some courthouse or some state Capitol and start marching around, "Where's my money? Where's my money? I need it fast!" I would not even think of it. It would never occur to me. It would never cross my mind. These people, it's their daily existence. Even though they work, they're teachers, these are the freeloaders. It's not the people that are unemployed so much or exclusively, and they are a net drain on the economy. 'Cause the salaries that they are paid via our taxes, they produce nothing.
They're not even in the private sector. They're just vacuum cleaners. They just suck assets and value out of the private sector. It's no different... Remember when there was $15 billion, vouchers for a share of $15 billion from the stimulus plan in Detroit? Remember the scam artists selling all kinds of phony applications? Get one of these and you get to apply for your share of the $15 billion, and our radio reporter up there at WJR talked to these people and asked: "Where's the money coming from?" "I don't know. From Obama's stash. From Obama." No different. Those people were outta work. The teachers aren't. But they both go to the same place for their paycheck. That is where your taxes end up being collected and distributed. Except under this regime, this is going to expand. Now, Snerdley asked me a question: How can you not have a modicum of self-respect?
They think they do! These people, in their minds, are the ones whose lives have been spent getting the shaft, from the system and from The Man. And so now this is their turn to get even. They're heading down to these places, like Springfield, to get their share finally. They are being immorally correct as far as they're concerned. This is full of integrity. This is the way it's done, because they're victims. The political party that they belong to, the ideology that they subscribe to, has made all of them victims. I don't care what their race is, their gender is, their sexual oppression, their ethnicity or religion. They have all been made to think they are victims of Wall Street or anybody else who's successful or has a house when they don't.
The Democrat Party and liberalism has said, "Instead of you people going out and working for your share of an ever-expanding pie, we're going to make sure that those who have more than you do are giving it up to you," and we've been doing this for 50 years. Well, 60. So generations have been born into this entitlement way of thinking. "We deserve this. We built the country and our ancestors built it. We built the railroads. We built all these buildings. It's about time we got our share. It's us." So I don't think they have a problem with their integrity at all. I think they think this is what they are entitled to. To them, going to a courthouse or federal or state building to collect benefits is the same as you and me trying to find a job. You and I look at it as though we have to provide for ourselves.
These people have been told that they don't have a chance to provide for themselves because the deck is stacked against them, and even if they do happen to get a job it's going to get not fair, they're going to get fired and mistreated by ugly, unfortunate, mean-spirited bosses. So the government and the Democrat Party is there to make sure that the little guy, after getting stepped on by the system, at least gets his share. (interruption) Wait, Snerdley. (interruption) Now, you're right, Snerdley. He said, "What little guy? These people made a lot of money and got great benefits." I'm talking attitude, Snerdley. You got to understand how these people have been raised, you have to understand how they hear their political leaders. They are victims! It doesn't matter if they have $30,000 worth of benefits a year. If somebody has $31,000, they're mad. It's not fair.
If they earn 60 grand a year on their job and somebody in the neighborhood earns 70, it's not fair. How do you think "tax hikes for the rich" plays with these people? Oh, they love it. Get even with those people. Doesn't improve their lives any, but, boy, it makes 'em feel better because they think somebody else is getting hurt, somebody else is in pain. I mean this is a grievance. Liberalism, leftism is a grievance existence. You live your life angry and upset, thinking you have been given the shaft from the moment you were conceived. Some people think they were given the shaft because they were born. It's all an attitudinal thing. That's why we've lost these people. Can you imagine me wading into that crowd and trying to talk with four or five of them and saying: "Where's your sense of self-respect?
"What do you mean coming down here and petitioning these lawmakers to raise my taxes? Why don't you go and get a job that is self-satisfying, that's sufficient, and that provides and give yourself a career?" Do you think they would hear a word I said? Oh, they would take that as a giant insult. They won't be receptive. We've lost these people. By design. This is the point of the creation of a welfare state even among the working. It's all about an attitude; it's all about a mentality. It's all about rage and grievance and anger, rooted in a systemic unfairness. So when Obama runs around and says, "Our country has made mistakes," this bunch applauds. "Damn right they have! Screwing us, that's how they made mistakes." Thank you for this, Snerdley, because now I don't have to play the Joe Biden sound bites. I don't want to play 'em and now I don't have to.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: What is that last sound bite that we played? That teacher. No, we don't need to play it again, we don't play it again. I put it at the bottom of the stack. I don't remember what number it was. When I use it, I toss it. And when I want to get back to it, I don't know where it is. But anyway, here are these teachers: "Where's our money? Give us our money! We want our cash! We want it now!" The scary thing is these people are teaching students in Illinois. These are teachers. "Raise my taxes! Raise my taxes!" This is our Greece demonstration. This is the beginning of it, what's happening in Greece. Snerdley still can't get over it. He cannot believe that there are people who think this way. Why? I can't, either.
Let me give you another example. Los Angeles Time, James Oliphant: "Why religion could affect Obama's court nomination." Now, in this story, "Mark Scarberry, a law professor at Pepperdine University, said that having Protestant representation was key in a country where about half of Americans identify themselves in that manner."
Now, I do not think this way. I do not have an identity mentality. When I'm thinking of a judge on a court, I don't first say, "Well, what am I? I'm white, that I'm Protestant, I'm a Methodist! So I demand one of those." I don't think that way. Do you, Snerdley? Well, Obama does. That's why we had to get Sonia Sotomayor because she kills a couple birds with one stone in the identity politics, plus hardcore leftist. But I don't think this way. You and I don't, and this audience, we don't. "Where's our cash? We want it fast. Where's our money?" And they're teaching your kids.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Ray in Livermore, California. Welcome, sir, to the EIB Network. Great to have you here.
CALLER: Rush, it's great to have you. Thank you for the work you're doing. You often say on your show that it takes six weeks to convert someone. Boy, I hate to correct you. I've got a family member who was forced to listen to your show for three days, and it corrected years and years of brainwashing and lies from the marching band media. He's a great Rush listener now, he spreads the word. He was forced to use a friend's car when his broke down and the radio station was set on KSFO and the knob was broken off so it couldn't be changed. It took three days to convert him, Rush, and I thank you. In fact, can I give you the telephone number for my mom so you could talk to her for a couple hours? Maybe get her on board, too?
RUSH: Well, let me tell you something. It only took this guy three days?
CALLER: Three days, Rush.
RUSH: Three days. Why was he afraid to listen prior to the time he had no choice?
CALLER: Well, because he believed everything that he was being told, you know, he was just --
RUSH: The reason I ask is because we had a great blog post yesterday from some woman identifying herself as Bookworm. She said the reason liberals don't listen to me is because they are scared to death I will change their minds. They think I have mystical Svengali-like powers, and they're scared to death that I will upset their worldview. So they don't want to take the chance of listening.
CALLER: I think that is very true, and that's why I wanted you to talk to my mom, if you could just get a few minutes with her even, she's from the same generation you're from, and, you know, God bless her, she took her time to teach me how to think and not what to think, and now she can't understand why I disagree with most of what she believes in.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: And one other quick thing, Rush, going back to the first hour. Whenever the left or a statist accuses a Republican of doing something, a malfeasance, it's typically because the left has been doing that, they are currently doing it, or they plan on doing it in the near future. And it's some sort of preemptive attack, I believe.
RUSH: Yeah, it's called projection. You can always gauge what the left is doing by just listening to what they accuse us of doing. By the way, I saw this picture of the teachers protest in Chicago. And from the photos I've seen, it didn't seem like there was a lot of racial diversity in this group. I don't know if the media will point that out, but folks, this is how you create a permanent underclass. And you think, "Rush, you're talking about public school teachers." Yeah, we're talking about public school teachers, Illinois, permanent underclass. It's infuriating to Snerdley. It is to me, too, but it makes me more sad than anything else. Look at the worldview of these people. It's so narrow. In order to stay alive they've gotta go protest at the State Capitol building. I mean, that's pathetic.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Hey, Snerdley? Snerdley, I've been giving these teachers in Illinois too much credit. They didn't know where they were going. They just got on the buses and the union took 'em. They didn't know they were going to the statehouse. They just were told what to do when they got there. I'm sorry. I gave them more credit than they deserve for self-reliance. They already got the money. It's from Obama's stash. They're just trying to make sure that some of it doesn't get cut.
END TRANSCRIPT
Friday, April 23, 2010
MEET THE ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES' OF AMERICA -- DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR TAX DOLLARS ARE GOING???
HERE SHE IS, KIM WORTHY, A MICHIGAN COUNTY ATTORNEY, WORKING WITH UNITED NATION HOSTILE ENEMY STATES AT UNITED STATES' TAXPAYER DOLLARS' EXPENSE FESTERING PROPAGANDA AGAINST ANGLO-IRISH BANKS AND IMAGINARY PHARMACEUDICAL VESSELS IN SOMALIAN WATERS WHILE MORE THAN HALF OF THE STATES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BRING SUIT TO REPEAL OBAMA-SCARE!!!
Somali pirate's smile turns to tears; charged with crimes that could send him to jail for life
BY Thomas Zambito, Christina Boyle and Tracy Connor
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Updated Tuesday, April 21st 2009, 4:41 PM
Williams/APAbdiwali Abdiqadir Muse, right, cries as the judge asks his lawyer, Phillip Weinstein, about Muse's age in a Manhattan courtroom on Tuesday. The judge ruled he could be tried as an adult.
Lanzano/APPolice and FBI agents escort the Somali pirate suspect U.S. officials identified as Abdiwali Abdiqadir Muse into FBI headquarters in New York on Monday.
If the young pirate is actually 15 years old, is it right to try him as an adult?
Yes, these pirates deserve no mercy for their deadly acts.
No, he's just a kid and should be given more leniency.
Somali pirates free Philippine tanker, 23 crew Black-flagged pirate ship is chased downLeaders to discuss taking pirate fight to landSomali pirate arrives in N.Y. for trialHow to beat the piratesGive merchant seamen fighting chance, with gunsA Somali sea bandit wept as he was hit with piracy charges Tuesday that could put him in the brig forever.
Lawyers for Abduwali Abdukhadir Muse portrayed him as a wide-eyed victim of the crew that hijacked the Maersk Alabama, but the feds described him as a swaggering buccaneer.
He was among the first to storm the U.S. ship on April 8, fired at Capt. Richard Phillips and stole $30,000 from a safe, according to a criminal complaint filed in Manhattan.
He allegedly forced Maersk sailors to lower a ladder so more pirates could board - but then was tricked into putting down his weapon, tackled and tied up.
The rest of the pirates agreed to leave the Maersk only if the crew freed Muse and gave them a lifeboat - where they held Phillips hostage for four days.
"Muse told the captain that he had hijacked other ships before," the complaint charged, adding that he distributed the $30,000 in plunder on the lifeboat.
Muse was on a Navy ship, trying to broker a deal to end the standoff, when SEALs killed the other pirates and rescued Phillips on April 12.
He was flown to New York because the Manhattan FBI office prosecutes crimes in Africa. It was unclear why Muse's name in the formal federal account differed from that previously reported.
Wearing a prison jumpsuit and a bulky bandage on his wounded left hand, Muse was seen crying in the courtroom - a day after he smiled for the cameras while being led into 26 Federal Plaza.
He said little during the hearing beyond pleading poverty.
"I don't have any money," he told told Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck during a discussion of whether he could afford a lawyer.
Prosecutors presented a charge of piracy, which carries a life sentence, and four related counts.
The courtroom was briefly closed for a hearing on his age after the defense disputed claims he was at least 18.
The judge called Muse's father, who said the suspect was his eldest son, born in November 1993, making him just 15.
Pressed further, the father said his fourth-born son was born in 1990 - and the judge ruled his testimony was not credible.
Muse's court-appointed lawyers said they will appeal the age ruling and also want to see if he's subject to Geneva Convention rules on international prisoners.
They said he was shackled and blindfolded for eight days and had not been given pain medication for his hand in 24 hours.
"He is extremely young, injured and terrified," said lawyer Deirdre von Dornum.
She said it was possible the fisherman was kidnapped by the pirates during Somalia's civil war and forced to participate in the siege of the Maersk.
Asked about her client's seemingly cheerful demeanor before the media on Monday, von Dornum said, "He's never seen a camera before."
tzambito@nydailynews.com
Somali pirate's smile turns to tears; charged with crimes that could send him to jail for life
BY Thomas Zambito, Christina Boyle and Tracy Connor
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Updated Tuesday, April 21st 2009, 4:41 PM
Williams/APAbdiwali Abdiqadir Muse, right, cries as the judge asks his lawyer, Phillip Weinstein, about Muse's age in a Manhattan courtroom on Tuesday. The judge ruled he could be tried as an adult.
Lanzano/APPolice and FBI agents escort the Somali pirate suspect U.S. officials identified as Abdiwali Abdiqadir Muse into FBI headquarters in New York on Monday.
If the young pirate is actually 15 years old, is it right to try him as an adult?
Yes, these pirates deserve no mercy for their deadly acts.
No, he's just a kid and should be given more leniency.
Somali pirates free Philippine tanker, 23 crew Black-flagged pirate ship is chased downLeaders to discuss taking pirate fight to landSomali pirate arrives in N.Y. for trialHow to beat the piratesGive merchant seamen fighting chance, with gunsA Somali sea bandit wept as he was hit with piracy charges Tuesday that could put him in the brig forever.
Lawyers for Abduwali Abdukhadir Muse portrayed him as a wide-eyed victim of the crew that hijacked the Maersk Alabama, but the feds described him as a swaggering buccaneer.
He was among the first to storm the U.S. ship on April 8, fired at Capt. Richard Phillips and stole $30,000 from a safe, according to a criminal complaint filed in Manhattan.
He allegedly forced Maersk sailors to lower a ladder so more pirates could board - but then was tricked into putting down his weapon, tackled and tied up.
The rest of the pirates agreed to leave the Maersk only if the crew freed Muse and gave them a lifeboat - where they held Phillips hostage for four days.
"Muse told the captain that he had hijacked other ships before," the complaint charged, adding that he distributed the $30,000 in plunder on the lifeboat.
Muse was on a Navy ship, trying to broker a deal to end the standoff, when SEALs killed the other pirates and rescued Phillips on April 12.
He was flown to New York because the Manhattan FBI office prosecutes crimes in Africa. It was unclear why Muse's name in the formal federal account differed from that previously reported.
Wearing a prison jumpsuit and a bulky bandage on his wounded left hand, Muse was seen crying in the courtroom - a day after he smiled for the cameras while being led into 26 Federal Plaza.
He said little during the hearing beyond pleading poverty.
"I don't have any money," he told told Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck during a discussion of whether he could afford a lawyer.
Prosecutors presented a charge of piracy, which carries a life sentence, and four related counts.
The courtroom was briefly closed for a hearing on his age after the defense disputed claims he was at least 18.
The judge called Muse's father, who said the suspect was his eldest son, born in November 1993, making him just 15.
Pressed further, the father said his fourth-born son was born in 1990 - and the judge ruled his testimony was not credible.
Muse's court-appointed lawyers said they will appeal the age ruling and also want to see if he's subject to Geneva Convention rules on international prisoners.
They said he was shackled and blindfolded for eight days and had not been given pain medication for his hand in 24 hours.
"He is extremely young, injured and terrified," said lawyer Deirdre von Dornum.
She said it was possible the fisherman was kidnapped by the pirates during Somalia's civil war and forced to participate in the siege of the Maersk.
Asked about her client's seemingly cheerful demeanor before the media on Monday, von Dornum said, "He's never seen a camera before."
tzambito@nydailynews.com
Thursday, April 22, 2010
FREEDOM & SAFETY FOR YOUR CHILDREN & AMERICA ARE JUST ONE STEP AWAY, JOIN FRONTLINE TODAY!!!
https://www.frontsight.com/watchvideo.asp?movie=/newtest
.
.
IF THE CORRUPT TERRORISTS WON'T SECURE THE BORDER & OUR CITIES, WE WILL SOON BE ABLE TO DO IT OURSELVES THANX TO OUR FOUNDING FATHERS!!!
High court seems ready to overturn Chicago gun ban
March 2, 2010 11:04 PM
Most of the Supreme Court justices who two years ago said the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun rights signaled during arguments Tuesday they are ready to extend this right nationwide and to use it to strike down some state and local gun regulations.
Since 1982, Chicago has outlawed hand guns in the city, even for law-abiding residents who sought to keep one at home. That ordinance was challenged by several city residents who said it violated their rights "to keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment.
The case forced the high court to confront a simple question it had never answered: Did the 2nd Amendment limit only the federal government's ability to regulate guns and state militias, or did it also give citizens a right to challenge state and local restrictions on guns?
All signs Tuesday were that five justices saw the right to "bear arms" as national in scope and not limited to laws passed in Washington.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy described the individual right to a gun as being of "fundamental character," like the right to freedom of speech. "If it is not fundamental, then Heller is wrong," Kennedy said, referring to the decision two years ago that struck down the hand-gun ban in the District of Columbia. Kennedy was part of the 5-4 majority in that case.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. called it an "extremely important" right in the Constitution. Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. echoed the theme that the court had endorsed an individual, nationwide right in their decision two years ago.
The fifth member of the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas, did not comment during the argument, but he had been a steady advocate of the Second Amendment.
A ruling striking down the Chicago hand-gun ban would reverberate nationwide because it would open the courthouse door to constitutional challenges to all manner of local or state gun regulations. However, the justices may not give much guidance on how far this right extends.
Chief Justice Roberts all but forecast the court would issue an opinion that avoids deciding the harder questions about whether guns can be carried in public as well as kept at home. "We haven't said anything about the content of the Second Amendment," Roberts said at one point. He added that the justices need not rule on whether there is a right to carry a "concealed" weapon.
A lawyer for Chicago argued that there is a long American tradition of permitting states and cities to set gun regulations. For 220 years year, gun restrictions "have been a state and local decision," said attorney James A. Feldman. Cities should be permitted to set "reasonable regulations of firearms," he added, noting Chicagoans are allowed to have rifles and shotguns in their homes.
But he ran into stiff questioning from Scalia and his colleagues.
At one during the argument, Justice John Paul Stevens suggested the right to bear arms could be limited to homes. A liberal who dissented in the earlier gun-rights case two years ago, Stevens said the court could rule for the Chicago home owners and say they had a right to a gun at home. At the same time, the court could say it is not "a right to parade around the street with a gun," Stevens said.
But that idea got no traction with the other justices, and a lawyer representing the National Rifle Association said the court should not adopt a "watered down version" of the 2nd Amendment.
It will be several months before the court hands down a decision in the case of McDonald v. Chicago.
-- David G. Savage
March 2, 2010 11:04 PM
Most of the Supreme Court justices who two years ago said the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun rights signaled during arguments Tuesday they are ready to extend this right nationwide and to use it to strike down some state and local gun regulations.
Since 1982, Chicago has outlawed hand guns in the city, even for law-abiding residents who sought to keep one at home. That ordinance was challenged by several city residents who said it violated their rights "to keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment.
The case forced the high court to confront a simple question it had never answered: Did the 2nd Amendment limit only the federal government's ability to regulate guns and state militias, or did it also give citizens a right to challenge state and local restrictions on guns?
All signs Tuesday were that five justices saw the right to "bear arms" as national in scope and not limited to laws passed in Washington.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy described the individual right to a gun as being of "fundamental character," like the right to freedom of speech. "If it is not fundamental, then Heller is wrong," Kennedy said, referring to the decision two years ago that struck down the hand-gun ban in the District of Columbia. Kennedy was part of the 5-4 majority in that case.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. called it an "extremely important" right in the Constitution. Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. echoed the theme that the court had endorsed an individual, nationwide right in their decision two years ago.
The fifth member of the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas, did not comment during the argument, but he had been a steady advocate of the Second Amendment.
A ruling striking down the Chicago hand-gun ban would reverberate nationwide because it would open the courthouse door to constitutional challenges to all manner of local or state gun regulations. However, the justices may not give much guidance on how far this right extends.
Chief Justice Roberts all but forecast the court would issue an opinion that avoids deciding the harder questions about whether guns can be carried in public as well as kept at home. "We haven't said anything about the content of the Second Amendment," Roberts said at one point. He added that the justices need not rule on whether there is a right to carry a "concealed" weapon.
A lawyer for Chicago argued that there is a long American tradition of permitting states and cities to set gun regulations. For 220 years year, gun restrictions "have been a state and local decision," said attorney James A. Feldman. Cities should be permitted to set "reasonable regulations of firearms," he added, noting Chicagoans are allowed to have rifles and shotguns in their homes.
But he ran into stiff questioning from Scalia and his colleagues.
At one during the argument, Justice John Paul Stevens suggested the right to bear arms could be limited to homes. A liberal who dissented in the earlier gun-rights case two years ago, Stevens said the court could rule for the Chicago home owners and say they had a right to a gun at home. At the same time, the court could say it is not "a right to parade around the street with a gun," Stevens said.
But that idea got no traction with the other justices, and a lawyer representing the National Rifle Association said the court should not adopt a "watered down version" of the 2nd Amendment.
It will be several months before the court hands down a decision in the case of McDonald v. Chicago.
-- David G. Savage
ILLINOIS SUPPORTS ARIZONA --- WITH ANTI-IMMIGRATION LAWS IN ILLINOIS, WE WON'T WORRY ABOUT DOMESTIC TERRORISTS & KIDNAPPERS ANYMORE!!!
70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 Email to a Friend ShareThisAdvertisement
The Arizona legislature has now passed the toughest measure against illegal immigration in the country, authorizing local police to stop and check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it.
Opponents of the measure, including major national Hispanic groups, say it will lead to racial profiling, and 53% of voters in the state are concerned that efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants also will end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens. Forty-six percent (46%) don’t share that concern
Those figures include 23% who are very concerned and 18% who are not at all concerned.
Civil rights concerns were a bit higher last year. following a series of aggressive enforcement actions by the Maricopa County Sherriff.
Eighty-three percent (83%) of Arizona voters say a candidate's position on immigration is an important factor in how they will vote, including 51% who say it’s very important.
The measure is already having an impact on this year’s Senate and governor races in the state.
Senator John McCain, who is facing a serious Republican Primary challenge this year in part over his involvement in developing immigration reform legislation, on Monday endorsed the new state law. McCain now earns just 47% support to challenger J.D. Hayworth’s 42% in Arizona’s hotly contested GOP Senate Primary race.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
Arizonans consistently have been critical of the U.S. government’s failure to secure the border with Mexico, and that anxiety has increased with growing drug violence along the border.
While many in Washington, D.C. view immigration reform as a way to legalize the 10 million or more illegal immigrants in the country, 73% of voters in Arizona now say gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of these undocumented workers.
In July of last year, 51% of Arizona voters said it is more important for Congress to pass immigration reform than health care reform.
That view is shared by voters nationwide and has been for several years.
Eighty-four percent (84%) of Arizona Republicans and 69% of voters not affiliated with either major party in the state favor the new get-tough legislation. Democrats are more closely divided: 51% like the new law, but 43% oppose it.
Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats and 57% of unaffiliateds are concerned that the law may lead to possible civil rights violations against U.S. citizens. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Republicans are not very or not at all concerned about this.
Republican Governor Jan Brewer now has the bill on her desk, awaiting either her signature into law or her veto. State Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat who is running against Brewer for governor this year, has announced his opposition to the new law.
The top four GOP contenders for governor of Arizona, including Brewer, have all expanded their support since last month in match-ups with Goddard. The Democrat has lost ground and now trails in all four contests. One factor in the latest trends may have been Goddard’s refusal to join other states in suing the federal government over the new health care law. Brewer found a way to proceed despite Goddard’s refusal and got a big bounce in the polls.
The new law puts into state statute some of the policies that have long been practiced by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. But his aggressive enforcement of federal laws against illegal immigration have triggered a Justice Department probe and moves by the Obama administration to reduce his ability to enforce federal immigration laws.
When these moves against Arpaio were first reported in March 2009, 68% of Arizona voters said they had a favorable view of the sheriff. Voters also strongly favored his tactics including police raids on places where illegal immigrants gather to find work.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 Email to a Friend ShareThisAdvertisement
The Arizona legislature has now passed the toughest measure against illegal immigration in the country, authorizing local police to stop and check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it.
Opponents of the measure, including major national Hispanic groups, say it will lead to racial profiling, and 53% of voters in the state are concerned that efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants also will end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens. Forty-six percent (46%) don’t share that concern
Those figures include 23% who are very concerned and 18% who are not at all concerned.
Civil rights concerns were a bit higher last year. following a series of aggressive enforcement actions by the Maricopa County Sherriff.
Eighty-three percent (83%) of Arizona voters say a candidate's position on immigration is an important factor in how they will vote, including 51% who say it’s very important.
The measure is already having an impact on this year’s Senate and governor races in the state.
Senator John McCain, who is facing a serious Republican Primary challenge this year in part over his involvement in developing immigration reform legislation, on Monday endorsed the new state law. McCain now earns just 47% support to challenger J.D. Hayworth’s 42% in Arizona’s hotly contested GOP Senate Primary race.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
Arizonans consistently have been critical of the U.S. government’s failure to secure the border with Mexico, and that anxiety has increased with growing drug violence along the border.
While many in Washington, D.C. view immigration reform as a way to legalize the 10 million or more illegal immigrants in the country, 73% of voters in Arizona now say gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of these undocumented workers.
In July of last year, 51% of Arizona voters said it is more important for Congress to pass immigration reform than health care reform.
That view is shared by voters nationwide and has been for several years.
Eighty-four percent (84%) of Arizona Republicans and 69% of voters not affiliated with either major party in the state favor the new get-tough legislation. Democrats are more closely divided: 51% like the new law, but 43% oppose it.
Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats and 57% of unaffiliateds are concerned that the law may lead to possible civil rights violations against U.S. citizens. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Republicans are not very or not at all concerned about this.
Republican Governor Jan Brewer now has the bill on her desk, awaiting either her signature into law or her veto. State Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat who is running against Brewer for governor this year, has announced his opposition to the new law.
The top four GOP contenders for governor of Arizona, including Brewer, have all expanded their support since last month in match-ups with Goddard. The Democrat has lost ground and now trails in all four contests. One factor in the latest trends may have been Goddard’s refusal to join other states in suing the federal government over the new health care law. Brewer found a way to proceed despite Goddard’s refusal and got a big bounce in the polls.
The new law puts into state statute some of the policies that have long been practiced by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. But his aggressive enforcement of federal laws against illegal immigration have triggered a Justice Department probe and moves by the Obama administration to reduce his ability to enforce federal immigration laws.
When these moves against Arpaio were first reported in March 2009, 68% of Arizona voters said they had a favorable view of the sheriff. Voters also strongly favored his tactics including police raids on places where illegal immigrants gather to find work.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.
NOT JUST A DARK POOL OF CORRUPTION --- JUST A SANCTUARY CITY OF TERRORISM & INTERNATIONAL CHILD & HUMAN TRAFFICKING!!!
JUDICIAL WATCH
Chicago Is a "Dark Pool Of Political Corruption"
View Discussion Last Updated: Mon, 02/22/2010 - 11:57am
A major U.S. city long known as a hotbed of pay-to-play politics infested with clout and patronage has seen nearly 150 employees, politicians and contractors get convicted of corruption in the last five decades.
Chicago has long been distinguished for its pandemic of public corruption, but actual cumulative figures have never been offered like this. The astounding information is featured in a lengthy report published by one of Illinois’s biggest public universities.
Cook County, the nation’s second largest, has been a “dark pool of political corruption” for more than a century, according to the informative study conducted by the University of Illinois at Chicago, the city’s largest public college. The report offers a detailed history of corruption in the Windy City beginning in 1869 when county commissioners were imprisoned for rigging a contract to paint City Hall.
It’s downhill from there, with a plethora of political scandals that include 31 Chicago alderman convicted of crimes in the last 36 years and more than 140 convicted since 1970. The scams involve bribes, payoffs, padded contracts, ghost employees and whole sale subversion of the judicial system, according to the report.
Elected officials at the highest levels of city, county and state government—including prominent judges—were the perpetrators and they worked in various government locales, including the assessor’s office, the county sheriff, treasurer and the President’s Office of Employment and Training. The last to fall was renowned political bully Isaac Carothers, who just a few weeks ago pleaded guilty to federal bribery and tax charges.
In the last few years alone several dozen officials have been convicted and more than 30 indicted for taking bribes, shaking down companies for political contributions and rigging hiring. Among the convictions were fraud, violating court orders against using politics as a basis for hiring city workers and the disappearance of 840 truckloads of asphalt earmarked for city jobs.
A few months ago the city’s largest newspaper revealed that Chicago aldermen keep a secret, taxpayer-funded pot of cash (about $1.3 million) to pay family members, campaign workers and political allies for a variety of questionable jobs. The covert account has been utilized for decades by Chicago lawmakers but has escaped public scrutiny because it’s kept under wraps.
Judicial Watch has extensively investigated Chicago corruption, most recently the conflicted ties of top White House officials to the city, including Barack and Michelle Obama as well as top administration officials like Chief of Staff Rahm Emanual and Senior Advisor David Axelrod. In November Judicial Watch sued Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's office to obtain records related to the president’s failed bid to bring the Olympics to the city.
WE'RE STILL WAITING INFO FROM US DOMESTIC TERRORIST RE: ATTEMPTED BOMBING OF PLANE, TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN AT COOK COUNTY COURT, & 13 DEAD AMERICANS!
Senate issues subpoenas in Fort Hood shooting inquiry; Lieberman sees lack of cooperation by Obama administration
Todd J. Gillman/Reporter
Five months after an Army doctor's rampage at Fort Hood, the Senate homeland security committee issued subpoenas today to the Defense and Justice departments, with senators expressing frustration at their refusal to provide witnesses and documents needed to sort through the circumstances behind the Nov. 5 massacre.
"There's a need for an independent bipartisan congressional investigation here that goes beyond the executive branch departments investigating themselves," Senate Homeland Security Chairman Joe Lieberman said a few minutes ago in a call with reporters.
Maj. Nidal Hasan is accused of killing 13 people that day, and in hours and weeks that followed, there were troubling revelations suggesting co-workers and supervisors failed to act on concerns about his behavior, and that he had been in contact with a radical Muslim cleric in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki.
The government's own investigation, Lieberman said, "didn't answer for me some of the major questions I had," chief among them, weren't there enough alarms to trigger investigations of Hasan before it was too late.
"Based on the public record, it seems to me that there were repeated signals being sent off by Maj. Hasan that he was potentially a danger. We want to get more information about exactly what those signals were and why nothing was done to stop him," Lieberman said. "If that was the case, if a member of the US military was found to be in contact with a radical anti-American cleric over the Internet, why wasn't an investigation begun of him right then? What decisions were made that led to the fact that no investigation was begun?"
And, he said, "What did the people that Hasan was interacting with, for instance at Walter Reed, hear from him that should have given them concern that he was potentially a dangerous and violent individual?"
Lieberman and the committee's top Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, say they don't want to hold further public hearings, which might complicate the Hasan prosecution. But they say they need access to documents and witnesses to assess what went wrong and how to avoid such attacks in the future, and they accuse the administration of refusing to cooperate.
Read documents from the committee here.
Todd J. Gillman/Reporter
Five months after an Army doctor's rampage at Fort Hood, the Senate homeland security committee issued subpoenas today to the Defense and Justice departments, with senators expressing frustration at their refusal to provide witnesses and documents needed to sort through the circumstances behind the Nov. 5 massacre.
"There's a need for an independent bipartisan congressional investigation here that goes beyond the executive branch departments investigating themselves," Senate Homeland Security Chairman Joe Lieberman said a few minutes ago in a call with reporters.
Maj. Nidal Hasan is accused of killing 13 people that day, and in hours and weeks that followed, there were troubling revelations suggesting co-workers and supervisors failed to act on concerns about his behavior, and that he had been in contact with a radical Muslim cleric in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki.
The government's own investigation, Lieberman said, "didn't answer for me some of the major questions I had," chief among them, weren't there enough alarms to trigger investigations of Hasan before it was too late.
"Based on the public record, it seems to me that there were repeated signals being sent off by Maj. Hasan that he was potentially a danger. We want to get more information about exactly what those signals were and why nothing was done to stop him," Lieberman said. "If that was the case, if a member of the US military was found to be in contact with a radical anti-American cleric over the Internet, why wasn't an investigation begun of him right then? What decisions were made that led to the fact that no investigation was begun?"
And, he said, "What did the people that Hasan was interacting with, for instance at Walter Reed, hear from him that should have given them concern that he was potentially a dangerous and violent individual?"
Lieberman and the committee's top Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, say they don't want to hold further public hearings, which might complicate the Hasan prosecution. But they say they need access to documents and witnesses to assess what went wrong and how to avoid such attacks in the future, and they accuse the administration of refusing to cooperate.
Read documents from the committee here.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
THE AGE OF O' TROJAN MEN!!!
All the President's Goldman Sachs Men
by Michelle Malkin
Do you believe President Obama should be focusing on financial reform or jobs?
While President Obama assails the culture of greed and recklessness practiced by the men of Goldman Sachs, his administration is infested with them. The White House can no more disown Government Sachs than Da Boss-in-chief can disown Chicago politics.
Obama is headed to Wall Street on Thursday to demand "financial regulatory reform" -- just as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has filed civil suit against Goldman Sachs for mortgage-related fraud. Question the timing? Darn tootin'. There are no coincidences in the perpetually orchestrated Age of O. Everyone from disgraced former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to analysts at the Brookings Institution and Barclays Capital to the GOP leadership and Rush Limbaugh has noted the reeking political opportunism in the air.
As the New York Post reported Tuesday, the Democratic National Committee immediately bought sponsored Internet ads on Google that direct web surfers who type in "Goldman Sachs SEC" to Obama's fundraising site. "It's time to hold the big banks accountable," the money-grubbing DNC message bellows. But just like his crony capitalist predecessor George W. Bush, Obama has relied on Goldman Sachs and Wall Street power brokers to engineer massive government interventions to "rescue" failing businesses with the tax dollars of ordinary Americans.
While irony-challenged Democratic candidates like mob-linked banker Alexi Giannoulias in Illinois (who hopes to fill Obama's old Senate seat) call on Republicans to return their fat-cat Goldman Sachs donations, the Democrats are silent on the $994,795 in Goldman Sachs campaign cash that Obama bagged. The class-warfare Dems are also mum on all the president's Goldman Sachs men sitting in the catbird's seat:
-- Goldman Sachs partner Gary Gensler is Obama's Commodity Futures Trading Commission head. He was confirmed despite heated congressional grilling over his role, as Reuters described it, "as a high-level Treasury official in a 2000 law that exempted the $58 trillion credit default swap market from oversight. The financial instruments have been blamed for amplifying global financial turmoil." Gensler said he was sorry -- hey, it worked for tax cheat Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner -- and was quickly installed to guard the henhouse.
-- Goldman Sachs kept White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on a $3,000 monthly retainer while he worked as Clinton's chief fundraiser, as first reported by Washington Examiner columnist Tim Carney. The financial titans threw in another $50,000 to become the Clinton primary campaign's top funder. Emanuel received nearly $80,000 in cash from Goldman Sachs during his four terms in Congress -- investments that have reaped untold rewards, as Emanuel assumed a leading role championing the trillion-dollar TARP banking bailout law.
-- Former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson serves under Geithner as his top deputy and overseer of TARP bailout -- $10 billion of which went to Goldman Sachs. Left-leaning government watchdog Melanie Sloan of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington responded: "It makes it appear that they are saying one thing and doing another." Paul Blumenthal of the Sunlight Foundation noted that, while at Goldman Sachs, Patterson lobbied against executive pay limits that Obama had crusaded for as senator (before, that is, his administration carved out exemptions for AIG). While Patterson agreed to recuse himself on any Goldman Sachs-related issues or related policy concerns, Blumenthal wrote, it "still creates a serious conflict for Geithner, as Treasury is being partly managed by a former Goldman lobbyist. Geithner is also placed in a tough position considering that his chief of staff is limited in the areas in which he can work (supposedly)."
-- Obama's close hometown crony, campaign finance chief and senior adviser Penny Pritzker was head of Superior Bank of Chicago, a subprime specialist that went bust in 2001, leaving more than 1,400 people stripped of their savings after bank officials falsified profit reports. Pritzker's lawyer at O'Melveny and Myers, Tom Donilon, is now Obama's deputy national security adviser. He earned just shy of $4 million representing her and other high-profile meltdown clients including Goldman Sachs.
-- White House National Economic Council head Larry Summers reaped nearly $2.8 million in speaking fees from many of the major financial institutions and government bailout recipients he now polices, including JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs. A single speech to Goldman Sachs in April 2008 brought in $135,000. Summers has prior experience negotiating government-sponsored bailouts that benefit private concerns. In 1995, he spearheaded a $40 billion Mexican peso bailout that bypassed Congress. Summers personally leaned on the International Monetary Fund to provide nearly $18 billion for the package. Summers' boss, then Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, was former co-chairman of Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs -- the Mexican government's investment banking firm of choice.
Rubin continues to mentor another former employee of his with regular visits and chats -- Treasury Secretary Geithner, who as head of the New York Federal Reserve pushed bailed-out insurance conglomerate AIG to cover up sweetheart deals for investment banks that benefited, you guessed it, Goldman Sachs.
As Obama harangues Wall Street to clean up its house, all the president's Goldman Sachs men have their feet on the coffee table at his.
OBAMA'S FAST-TRACK DESTRUCTION OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY - COURTESY OF THE IMF!!!
STOP FAST TRACK FUNDING FOR THE IMF
U.S. Network for Global Economic Justice, January 1998
The current round of massive bailouts in East Asia -- South Korea, Indonesia, and Thailand -- has focused unusual attention on the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Apparently believing that legislators will now see the IMF as indispensable, the Clinton Administration has chosen this moment to request $18 billion for it, but they have probably been surprised by the resistance from legislators across the political spectrum. This is a critical opportunity to block or heavily condition funding for the agency most responsible for designing and managing the globalized economy -- an opportunity that many groups seeking to combat the IMF's impact on the poor, the environment, and labor have long been waiting for.
The IMF is the lender of last resort for countries with debt and other financial problems, and it uses its power to impose strict conditions on countries in exchange for its loans. These economic policy packages, usually called "structural adjustment programs" (SAPs) have been imposed on over 90 countries around the world, including most of Latin America, South Asia, and Africa. Other agencies like the World Bank also require SAPs, but it is the IMF which sets the pace. The conditions on the bailout loans being made to the East Asia governments closely resemble those of standard SAPs.
One of the main components of structural adjustment programs is the requirement that labor policies be made more "flexible." This obnoxious euphemism masks the fact that IMF bureaucrats practically dictate to governments around the world the policies that erode legitimate protections for workers and union organizers and encourage neglect of minimum wage laws. Countries that sign with the IMF usually experience massive layoffs in short order. South Korea is now bracing for a million layoffs, just as about two million Mexicans lost their jobs in the wake of the IMF-led bailout of 1995.
In tandem with its philosophy on labor laws, the IMF also makes the rules that foster the growth of free-trade zones (and maquila sectors) around the world. They do this by pressuring governments to lower barriers to outside investment and to eliminate rules limiting the ability of corporations to move their profits out of the country.
Now that IMF economics have been demonstrated so vividly in East Asia (which got into trouble partly because of such policies), we can strike a real blow against this pro-corporate, anti-worker regime promoted around the world by the IMF.
The $18 billion appropriation President Clinton seeks will probably come up soon after Congress starts its new session at the end of January. It is likely to be introduced as part of a "budget supplemental" attached to an unrelated, high-profile bill such as the one to extend U.S. troops' presence in Bosnia. In this way, the Administration would hope to prevent an open debate on this obscure but very powerful institution.
It is vital that we prevent Clinton from "fast-tracking" IMF funding in this way. The stakes are high: if we succeed, we will have created significant momentum for heavily conditioning, or even eliminating, U.S. support for the institution most responsible for imposing poverty policies around the world. If we fail, we may have lost any opportunity to have a real impact on IMF policies for at least the next three years.
The first step is to contact legislators and urge them to reject President Clinton's attempt to "fast-track" IMF funding through an attachment to an unrelated bill. Let the IMF, which imposes harsh policies on countries from South Korea to Zimbabwe to Nicaragua in a profoundly undemocratic manner, be exposed to the full light of the democratic process in the U.S., its biggest contributor and most powerful member. Legislators should commit themselves to insuring that IMF funding goes through the normal appropriations process, with full and open public hearings every step of the way.
The effort to block or heavily condition IMF funding will not stop with this "fast-track" maneuver. The 50 Years is Enough Network is preparing a longer analysis that should be available next week (week of January 19). We also have a sample op-ed piece and other materials in the works. It is vital that we wage this first battle NOW, but the overall campaign is just getting underway.
Labor Alerts: a service of Campaign for Labor Rights To receive our email labor alerts, send a message to CLR@igc.apc.org Phone: (541) 344-5410 Web site: http://www.compugraph.com/clr Membership/newsletter. Send $35.00 to Campaign for Labor Rights, 1247 "E" Street SE, Washington, DC 20003. Sample newsletter available on request.
Information provided by 50 Years is Enough: U.S. Network for Global Economic Justice (202) 463-2265, e-mail address: wb50years@igc.org
Saturday, April 17, 2010
THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT!!!
Andrew C. McCarthy
April 17, 2010 7:00 A.M.
The Kids Are Alright
Holder cows Republican senators into silence on the Gitmo Bar and the CIA.
So now we know why the self-proclaimed “most transparent administration in American history” continues to stonewall rather than reveal the official responsibilities of Justice Department lawyers who volunteered their services to America’s enemies during wartime. Like any good Democrat, Eric Holder says he is doing it for the children.
The attorney general bristled during Senate testimony on Wednesday that he was “not going to allow these kids” to have their reputations dragged “through the mud.” The “kids” coddled in this touching paternal display include 45-year-old Tony West, who now supervises hundreds of lawyers as chief of DOJ’s Civil Division. It’s been 17 years since Tony the Kid first served as an influential official in the Clinton Justice Department. From there, he went on to nine-year stint as a hot-shot partner at a prestigious San Francisco law firm — in his spare time running both Barack Obama’s lavish presidential campaign in California and the defense of John Walker Lindh, the “American Taliban” convicted on terrorism charges after making war on his country.
They grow up so quickly, don’t they? Kids like 40-year-old Neal Katyal, the current deputy solicitor general who, as Byron York observes, was a Georgetown law professor when he volunteered to represent Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s personal driver and bodyguard, who was apprehended transporting missiles in Afghanistan.
Then there’s precocious 38-year-old Jennifer Daskal. Over Holder’s dead body will anyone drag her reputation through the mud, insinuating that she spent her pre-DOJ years cheerleading for terrorists and running down her country when, in point of fact, Daskal spent her pre-DOJ years . . . cheerleading for terrorists and running down her country. When not campaigning on behalf of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (as if Bush had needed to torture him into confessing to atrocities he can’t stop bragging about) and Omar Khadr (accused of murdering an American serviceman), Daskal was pleading with the United Nations to designate the United States a rogue nation that systematically abuses prisoners, secretly imprisons suspects, applies the death penalty in a racially discriminatory manner, uses the “cloak of federalism” to conceal its serial violations of international law, invokes “the so-called ‘war on terror’” as a pretext for shredding the Bill of Rights, and, of course, harms our children — by subjecting juvenile criminals to life imprisonment when they commit murders.
Daskal also made time during her tenure at Human Rights Watch to expose a top-secret CIA program to detain high-level al-Qaeda operatives in overseas prisons. She and her HRW colleagues pooled intelligence from other fearless patriots who had volunteered to help terrorists bring lawsuits against the United States. As Tom Joscelyn and Debra Burlingame recount, that project had nothing to do with the lawful purpose of representing the terrorists — to challenge the validity of their detention as enemy combatants — but did involve extensive violation of court orders.
It’s interesting that Daskal should have entangled herself in that effort because — wouldn’t you know it! — the Gitmo Bar just happens to have been involved in another conspiracy to compromise the CIA, in this case by hiring private investigators to stalk intelligence officers, snap pictures of them, and then smuggle the photos into Gitmo so that top terrorists could try to identify them. The plan seems to have proceeded in a manner remarkably similar to HRW’s plot to expose the secret prisons, with Gitmo barristers pooling information and violating court orders. An ongoing criminal investigation had to be assigned to a new prosecutor from outside Main Justice after the CIA complained that Holder’s minions didn’t see what the big deal was about a little stalking — of intelligence operatives.
Meantime, under the direction of these wonderful kids, the Justice Department has pushed to expose classified information about the interrogation and detention of prisoners, to reopen cases against the CIA that had been closed because professional prosecutors found insufficient evidence of wrongdoing, to subject Bush Justice Department lawyers to professional sanctions, to extend Miranda protections to war criminals, and to grant full-blown civilian trials to alien enemy combatants held overseas. Can you imagine that anyone would have the temerity to suggest that maybe, just maybe, a department rife with political appointees who voluntarily lined up with the terrorists against the government during the Bush years might be just a teeny-tiny bit influenced by that experience? That they might have a predisposition that could be affecting their policy judgments?
Well, fear not. There is no such temerity. Judiciary Committee Republicans let the whole thing slide. There was not a single question at Wednesday’s hearing about stalking the CIA, nor a single question about Daskal and what she’s been doing since Holder brought her into the Justice Department. The attorney general’s palaver about “patriotism” went completely unchallenged: No questions about whether Holder thinks spying on the CIA is a proper role for lawyers whose only legitimate function is to litigate the legality of detention; no questions about whether Holder thinks lawyers exhibit patriotism when they violate court orders; no questions about what might have made the CIA believe Holder’s aides were not taking the stalking investigation seriously.
Holder’s “patriotism” gambit, like his specious portrayal of experienced, accomplished government attorneys as abused children, is a smokescreen. Republicans ought to be laughing at it, not cowed by it. The fact that we permit lawyers to volunteer their services to our wartime enemies doesn’t make the lawyers who do so patriots — any more than ambulance-chasers are patriots just because it’s legal to chase ambulances. When Eric Holder was an Obama campaign adviser, he didn’t just question the patriotism of Bush DOJ lawyers, he accused them of facilitating war crimes and insisted there needed to be a “reckoning” of their purported misdeeds. Those lawyers were working against the terrorists. But we’re not supposed to talk about lawyers who work for the terrorists.
Republicans sat mum as their Democratic counterparts lauded the Gitmo Bar for its “courage” and falsely accused critics of claiming that lawyers who flocked to al-Qaeda’s service are “disqualified” from future government service. Mightn’t one GOP senator have pointed out that critics are simply demanding the transparency and accountability that President Obama and his attorney general promised? They certainly seemed to have reservoirs of indignation when Al Gonzales was attorney general.
Obama is a radical of the Left, but the American people elected him. It is to be expected that, once in office, he would appoint other radicals of the Left. We’re not saying they’re disqualified. We’re saying Americans are entitled to know who they are and what they’re doing. And if Democrats truly believe their Gitmo Bar activities were courageously patriotic, then why aren’t they eager to tell us who they are and what they’re doing?
We don’t have to imagine what would happen if officials tied to a Republican administration were alleged to have compromised a CIA agent. We saw it happen: Democrats raised holy hell and milked it into a multi-year scandal. Now we have a real scandal, orders of magnitude more severe than Valerie Plame Wilson’s exposure, and we can’t even get a question asked about it? While the Republicans are playing it safe, the Left is playing for keeps.
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008).
OBAMA --- U.S. DOMESTIC TERRORIST & ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!
Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law? [Andy McCarthy]
You just can't make up how brazen this crowd is. One week ago, President Obama quietly signed an executive order that makes an international police force immune from the restraints of American law.
Interpol is the shorthand for the International Criminal Police Organization. It was established in 1923 and operates in about 188 countries. By executive order 12425, issued in 1983, President Reagan recognized Interpol as an international organization and gave it some of the privileges and immunities customarily extended to foreign diplomats. Interpol, however, is also an active law-enforcement agency, so critical privileges and immunities (set forth in Section 2(c) of the International Organizations Immunities Act) were withheld.
Specifically, Interpol's property and assets remained subject to search and seizure, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions like the Freedom of Information Act. Being constrained by the Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations of the Constitution and federal law that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans is what prevents law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical.
On Wednesday, however, for no apparent reason, President Obama issued an executive order removing the Reagan limitations. That is, Interpol's property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests ousiide the United States.
Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court — which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes — i.e., for actions taken in America's defense).
Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...mQ0NmJiZDNmMDY=
This Obama administration is scary. I suppose he would consider this executive order to elevate international police above American law another great, historical event.
You just can't make up how brazen this crowd is. One week ago, President Obama quietly signed an executive order that makes an international police force immune from the restraints of American law.
Interpol is the shorthand for the International Criminal Police Organization. It was established in 1923 and operates in about 188 countries. By executive order 12425, issued in 1983, President Reagan recognized Interpol as an international organization and gave it some of the privileges and immunities customarily extended to foreign diplomats. Interpol, however, is also an active law-enforcement agency, so critical privileges and immunities (set forth in Section 2(c) of the International Organizations Immunities Act) were withheld.
Specifically, Interpol's property and assets remained subject to search and seizure, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions like the Freedom of Information Act. Being constrained by the Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations of the Constitution and federal law that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans is what prevents law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical.
On Wednesday, however, for no apparent reason, President Obama issued an executive order removing the Reagan limitations. That is, Interpol's property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests ousiide the United States.
Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court — which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes — i.e., for actions taken in America's defense).
Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...mQ0NmJiZDNmMDY=
This Obama administration is scary. I suppose he would consider this executive order to elevate international police above American law another great, historical event.
AMERICANS OPPOSE DICTATORSHIPS & BRITAIN!!!
Rich Lowry
April 16, 2010 12:00 A.M.
Why We’re Paranoid
It’s an American tradition that dates back to the Founders.
Editor’s note: This column is available exclusively through King Features Syndicate. For permission to reprint or excerpt this copyrighted material, please contact kfsreprint@hearstsc.com or phone 800-708-7311, ext. 246.
Only an overcaffeinated tea partier would believe that the U.S. is on the path from “an open society into dictatorship,” right? Who could think that there are ten simple steps to establishing a police state and “that each of these 10 steps has already been initiated today in the United States”?
As you might have gathered, these aren’t the words of an unhinged right-winger but an unhinged left-winger: Naomi Wolf, author of the perfervid 2007 book The End of America.
Wolf detected a “fascist shift” in the country, and got some respectful notices (Library Journal: “compellingly and cogently argued”). While a New York Times review of the documentary based on the book didn’t buy it all, it concluded “there is still enough here to make you shiver.”
In the context of the media and the Left’s reaction to the tea partiers, the hypocrisy is manifest: fear of the federal government for me, but not for thee. The deeper point is that paranoia about government is woven into the American fabric, on both the left and the right. Provided it’s properly directed and honed, it’s a healthy reflex.
It wasn’t just book-hawking authors warning of the end of our liberties in the Bush years. Democrats recoiled from the Patriot Act — recently re-authorized without a peep — as a foul reprise of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Howard Dean fumed that it trampled “the rights of average Americans.” Sen. Russell Feingold declared it had made Americans “afraid to read books.”
Well, you might say, there go the Democrats again — weak on national security. But when Pres. Bill Clinton proposed a counterterrorism law in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, many Republicans screamed, too. The late Republican eminence Henry Hyde recalled another GOP House member’s saying, “I trust Hamas more than I trust my own government.”
The baton of paranoia about executive power passes back and forth from one party to the other depending on who is in opposition. The reaction tends to be the same because it is written in our political DNA, inherited from the most glorious paranoiacs the world has ever known — our Founding Fathers.
As Bernard Bailyn demonstrates in his classic, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, our forebears prized the thought of the 18th-century “country” opposition in England, which considered the government a clear and present danger to liberty — corrupt, conspiratorial, and insatiable.
America’s leaders viewed Revolutionary events through this prism. “They saw about them,” Bailyn writes, “not merely mistaken, or even evil, policies violating the principles upon which freedom rested, but what appeared to be evidence of nothing less than a deliberate assault launched surreptitiously by plotters against liberty, both in England and in America.”
This is the taproot of American paranoia. It’s not in status anxiety, or economic dispossession, or racism: It’s in flat-out distrust of governmental authority. As the Patriot Act shows, in America even the statists can summon a robust fear of government. And would we have it any other way? Would we prefer the natural deference to authority of a Japan, or a political culture as favorable to central government as Russia’s?
Now, literal paranoia is a noxious thing; it gives us the domestic terrorism of the New Left in the 1970s or the militia movement of the 1990s. But a bristling skepticism of government and a keen vigilance about our liberties should be treasured national qualities.
How you view particular expressions of them depends on your politics. I considered the Left’s tirade against the Patriot Act overwrought and ill-informed. But we certainly could have used such implacable suspicion of governmental powers when J. Edgar Hoover was waging his dirty war of domestic spying against Martin Luther King Jr.
A New York Times survey found that tea partiers are wealthier and better educated than the general population, exploding the stereotype of them as rubes. If critics still insist on foolishly dismissing them as lunatics, fine: They are crazy in a most characteristically American way.
— Rich Lowry is editor of National Review. © 2010 by King Features Syndicate.
April 16, 2010 12:00 A.M.
Why We’re Paranoid
It’s an American tradition that dates back to the Founders.
Editor’s note: This column is available exclusively through King Features Syndicate. For permission to reprint or excerpt this copyrighted material, please contact kfsreprint@hearstsc.com or phone 800-708-7311, ext. 246.
Only an overcaffeinated tea partier would believe that the U.S. is on the path from “an open society into dictatorship,” right? Who could think that there are ten simple steps to establishing a police state and “that each of these 10 steps has already been initiated today in the United States”?
As you might have gathered, these aren’t the words of an unhinged right-winger but an unhinged left-winger: Naomi Wolf, author of the perfervid 2007 book The End of America.
Wolf detected a “fascist shift” in the country, and got some respectful notices (Library Journal: “compellingly and cogently argued”). While a New York Times review of the documentary based on the book didn’t buy it all, it concluded “there is still enough here to make you shiver.”
In the context of the media and the Left’s reaction to the tea partiers, the hypocrisy is manifest: fear of the federal government for me, but not for thee. The deeper point is that paranoia about government is woven into the American fabric, on both the left and the right. Provided it’s properly directed and honed, it’s a healthy reflex.
It wasn’t just book-hawking authors warning of the end of our liberties in the Bush years. Democrats recoiled from the Patriot Act — recently re-authorized without a peep — as a foul reprise of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Howard Dean fumed that it trampled “the rights of average Americans.” Sen. Russell Feingold declared it had made Americans “afraid to read books.”
Well, you might say, there go the Democrats again — weak on national security. But when Pres. Bill Clinton proposed a counterterrorism law in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, many Republicans screamed, too. The late Republican eminence Henry Hyde recalled another GOP House member’s saying, “I trust Hamas more than I trust my own government.”
The baton of paranoia about executive power passes back and forth from one party to the other depending on who is in opposition. The reaction tends to be the same because it is written in our political DNA, inherited from the most glorious paranoiacs the world has ever known — our Founding Fathers.
As Bernard Bailyn demonstrates in his classic, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, our forebears prized the thought of the 18th-century “country” opposition in England, which considered the government a clear and present danger to liberty — corrupt, conspiratorial, and insatiable.
America’s leaders viewed Revolutionary events through this prism. “They saw about them,” Bailyn writes, “not merely mistaken, or even evil, policies violating the principles upon which freedom rested, but what appeared to be evidence of nothing less than a deliberate assault launched surreptitiously by plotters against liberty, both in England and in America.”
This is the taproot of American paranoia. It’s not in status anxiety, or economic dispossession, or racism: It’s in flat-out distrust of governmental authority. As the Patriot Act shows, in America even the statists can summon a robust fear of government. And would we have it any other way? Would we prefer the natural deference to authority of a Japan, or a political culture as favorable to central government as Russia’s?
Now, literal paranoia is a noxious thing; it gives us the domestic terrorism of the New Left in the 1970s or the militia movement of the 1990s. But a bristling skepticism of government and a keen vigilance about our liberties should be treasured national qualities.
How you view particular expressions of them depends on your politics. I considered the Left’s tirade against the Patriot Act overwrought and ill-informed. But we certainly could have used such implacable suspicion of governmental powers when J. Edgar Hoover was waging his dirty war of domestic spying against Martin Luther King Jr.
A New York Times survey found that tea partiers are wealthier and better educated than the general population, exploding the stereotype of them as rubes. If critics still insist on foolishly dismissing them as lunatics, fine: They are crazy in a most characteristically American way.
— Rich Lowry is editor of National Review. © 2010 by King Features Syndicate.
BRITAIN'S LAWYERS ARE REPRESENTING RADOVAN KARADZIC & DEFENDING IMPEACHED BLAGOJEVICH ON AMERICAN SOIL!!!
INSTITUTE FOR WAR & PEACE REPORTS:
26 Nov 09 — IWPRAA
Defendant reportedly says he won’t cooperate with new standby counsel and may appeal the appointment.
A British lawyer has been selected to act as standby counsel for Radovan Karadzic after the former Bosnian Serb president failed to attend the beginning of his Hague war crimes trial last month - but the appointment may be challenged by the defendant.
Karadzic retains his right to represent himself during his trial however Richard Harvey will prepare the defence case and be on hand to step in if Karadzic boycotts proceedings again when the trial resumes on March 1, 2010.
The trial was suspended on November 5 when judges decided to appoint a standby counsel to Karadzic’s case. They ruled that a lawyer would need until March 1 to prepare for trial.
Karadzic did not attend the hearings held to hear the prosecution’s opening statement on October 26 and 27 and on November 2. He insists he has not had enough time to prepare his defence case and that he will not attend his trial until he has had time to do so.
In the run-up to the start of the trial, both trial judges and appeals judges rejected his request to be given an additional ten months to prepare.
Karadzic has been in custody in The Hague for 15 months since he was arrested aboard a bus in Belgrade on July 21, 2008.
According to one of Karadzic’s legal advisers, Marko Sladojevic, Harvey has spoken to Karadzic and also expressed concern over having enough time to prepare for March 1.
“Mr Harvey spoke to Karadzic twice and he himself said he couldn’t be ready by March 1 which is just over 13 weeks [away],” Sladojevic told IWPR.
Following the appointment of Harvey on November 19, Sladojevic also said that Karadzic will not cooperate with the standby lawyer and may challenge the appointment over the procedure taken by the court to appoint him.
According to Sladojevic, Karadzic should have been provided with a full list of lawyers working for the court and then been able to select his own standby counsel. Sladojevic says that the court selected Harvey having allowed Karadzic to meet “four or five people”. Karadzic had also not informed the court which lawyer he wanted.
The court’s decision appointing Harvey as standby lawyer explained that court representatives met with Karadzic.
“In carrying out the trial chamber's decision on the appointment of counsel to represent the interests of Radovan Karadzic, the registrar provided the accused with a list of defence counsel all of whom meet the qualification requirements under [tribunal rules] and were available for appointment under the terms and conditions of the trial chamber's decision,” the court’s spokeswoman, Nerma Jelacic told IWPR.
“Moreover, the registry facilitated meetings between the accused and those counsel. The accused refused to select counsel from that list, and the registrar proceeded to make a selection.”
Sladojevic says that according to case law from a previous decision by appeals judges in the case of another self-represented defendant, Vojislav Seselj, Karadzic was entitled to select a lawyer from all the defence lawyers registered with the tribunal, not just from a limited selection.
“Mr Karadzic should have received a list of all practicing lawyers so that he can choose a lawyer as a standby counsel, not the registrar,” Sladojevic told IWPR.
According to that decision on December 8, 2006 Seselj was entitled to be provided with a list of all available Hague tribunal defence lawyers to act as standby counsel and to “be permitted to select standby counsel from that list”.
“This is why [Karadzic] will not cooperate with this lawyer until he receives a whole list [of lawyers] and until he can choose himself a lawyer from the list. We will probably challenge this decision during the course of next week,” Sladojevic added.
Karadzic is charged with 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity including the massacre of almost 8,000 Bosniak men and boys in the genocide at Srebrenica in July 1995.
Prosecutors also accuse him of orchestrating the 44-month campaign of sniping and shelling of the city of Sarajevo, which resulted in nearly 12,000 civilian deaths.
The indictment alleges that Karadzic is responsible for crimes of persecution, extermination, murder and forcible transfer which “contributed to achieving the objective of the permanent removal of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb-claimed territory”.
Harvey is experienced in international law and has represented defendants from Kosovo at the Hague tribunal. His clients include Lahi Brahimaj who faced trial alongside former prime minister of Kosovo, Ramush Haradinaj. The final judgement in that case is currently pending before the appeals chamber.
Harvey’s appointment comes ahead of a decision by trial judges on whether to allow Karadzic to appeal the decision to appoint him a standby lawyer. Karadzic asked to appeal the November 5 decision on November 11.
Simon Jennings is an IWPR reporter in The Hague.
Programme: International Justice - ICTY
Issue Date: Sat, 2010-04-17
TRI Issue 625
+++++++++++
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT FOR WAR CRIMES IN YUGOSLAVIA
Weekly Press Briefing
Date: 14.4.2010
Time: 12:00
Registry and Chambers:
Nerma Jelačić, Spokesperson for Registry and Chambers, made the following statement:
Good afternoon,
The trial of Radovan Karadžić resumed yesterday afternoon with the start of the Prosecution case. Hearings will be held three days per week for the remainder of April and until further order.
The trial of Vojislav Šešelj was adjourned on 30 March until further notice. Only one Chamber witness remains to be heard, and this is expected to take place in early May, after which the Trial Chamber will move to Rule 98bis procedure.
Next Tuesday 20 April, Vojislav Šešelj will make his initial appearance in the second contempt proceeding initiated against him by the Tribunal. The hearing will take place at 9:00 in Courtroom I. Šešelj is charged with having disclosed information on 11 protected witnesses, including their real names, occupations and places of residence, in violation of the Trial Chamber’s orders in a book he authored.
In the case of Prlić and others, the Ćorić defence rested its case on 1 April. The defence team of the last of six accused, Berislav Pušić, announced on 7 April that they will not call any witnesses. The next trial date will be announced in due course.
The trial of Momčilo Perisic adjourned yesterday for the rest of this week. The trial will resume on 3 May 2010. Timings and location will be confirmed in due course.
Hearings in the trial of Gotovina and others resume this afternoon in order to hear further Chamber witnesses. A total of seven Chamber witnesses are expected to be heard.
The trials of Mićo Stanišić and Stojan Župljanin, Vlastimir Đorđević, Jovica Stanišić and Franko Simatović and Zdravko Tolimir continue this week and next as scheduled.
The Tribunal has been busy outside of the courtrooms too.
This week the Tribunal welcomed three outreach visits from the former Yugoslavia. On Monday, the outreach programme hosted 19 students of law from Slovenia who were introduced to the work and achievements of the Tribunal. Furthermore, 15 journalists from the Western Balkans paid a study visit to the Tribunal earlier this week. And finally, Outreach is also hosting a group of Croatian war crimes trial monitors and journalists who are paying a study visit to the Tribunal. They have met with representatives from major branches of the ICTY to discuss issues ranging from investigations to media coverage of war crimes. The three-day visit has been organised by Dokumenta, a non governmental organisation from Croatia.
And finally, Registrar John Hocking is attending a three day meeting of Registrars of appellate, regional and international courts beginning today in Ottawa. Hosted by the Supreme Court of Canada, the meeting will address specific institutional and operational challenges and participating Registrars will exchange best practices on issues such as organisational structure and procedure, security of infrastructure and documents, translation and interpretation services, witness and victims protection programmes and enforcement of sentences. Registrar Hocking will address the meeting on Legal Aid and Defence Support at the ICTY.
Office of the Prosecutor:
Olga Kavran, Spokesperson for the Office of the Prosecutor, made no statement.
Questions:
A journalist pointed out that Karadžić mentioned the local butcher in Sanski Most that carried out killings at Manjača was prepared to deny that he was ever there. Asked if he was on the list of witnesses Karadžić plans to call, Jelačić said that at this stage of the proceedings only the list of Prosecution witnesses is available and that the defence would be required to submit its 65ter list of witness after the close of the prosecution case.
Referring to a meeting between the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) and a visiting group of Croatian journalists and NGO representatives and some media reports published in Croatia this morning, a visiting journalist who took part in these discussions asked OTP to clarify whether or not a letter was sent to Croatia in relation to the Mercep case and to further clarify the situation regarding that particular investigative file.
Kavran stated that, as was said yesterday, no letter was recently sent to the State Prosecutor's Office in Croatia regarding the Mercep file. Kavran clarified that what was sent to the Prosecutor in Croatia was done around four years ago, at the beginning of 2006 when the investigative files related to Tomislav Mercep and others in relation to crimes committed in the region of Slavonia during the war were transferred.
The OTP had conducted many investigations over the years since its establishment and gathered evidence against a number of persons suspected of committing serious violations of international humanitarian law. Due to resource limitations, some cases had to be given priority over others, which led to some investigations being halted, added Kavran. After the OTP stopped issuing new indictments at the end of 2004, as part of the completion strategy adopted by the UN, a number of unfinished case files containing evidence against suspected individuals remained in its possession. The OTP transferred these files to local prosecutors and the local judicial authorities bare the responsibility to bring such investigations to a conclusion based on the evidence provided by the ICTY, and to issue indictments where appropriate. A total of 17 such files were transferred to the Prosecutor’s offices in the former Yugoslavia: two to Croatia, one to Serbia and the remainder to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
To return to the issue in question: the file in relation to the crimes committed in Slavonija and Tomislav Mercep and others was transferred at the beginning of 2006. Based on part of that material a war crimes case known as "Marino selo" was conducted in Croatia. Kavran said that the journalists would have to address any other questions relating to this and other investigative files and any cases stemming from them, to the local Prosecutor's Office in Croatia.
Kavran added that she would like to restate something that Prosecutor Brammertz had said on a number of occasions: the ICTY’s Office of the Prosecutor closely cooperates with the prosecution services in the states of the former Yugoslavia in a true partnership. Given our interdependence and mutually reinforcing work, our success is intrinsically linked. Furthermore, the ultimate success of the Tribunal will also depend on the ability of national courts to successfully conduct their own war crimes prosecutions.
A journalist said that the Prosecutor’s office in Croatia claimed that they had no obligation to inform the OTP of what steps they were taking based on the material sent and asked whether this was an accurate statement and whether the Croatian Prosecutor had provided any information. Kavran responded that it was true that the Croatian State Prosecutor had no duty to inform the OTP on these cases and that there was a collegial exchange of information. Kavran added that the duty to inform existed only in cases referred to regional judiciaries in accordance with Rule 11bis, the cases where an indictment had been issued by the Tribunal.
A journalist asked how it was possible that the OTP had given these investigation files to Croatia and just yesterday Croatia’s State Prosecutor’s office said the case did not exist. He also asked why there was such high trust in the independence of the Croatian Prosecutor’s office and judiciary. Kavran answered that there was no legal mechanism through which the OTP could interfere in the way local war crimes cases were conducted in Croatia. Kavran further stated that the OTP pointed out several times that it was cooperating with judiciaries in the region and that this cooperation did not only include the transfer of investigative files to the region but also responses to the requests for assistance from the region. Kavran added that in its bi-annual report submitted to the UN Security Council, the OTP submitted information on how many such requests had been received and processed. In addition, three liaison Prosecutors, one from Croatia, one from Bosnia and Herzegovina and one from Serbia, are currently based here in The Hague to provide a very important link between the local Prosecutor's Offices and the OTP.
Asked if there was any concern or motion planned regarding the lengthy cross examination of the first witness by Karadžić, Kavran said that it would not be appropriate to comment on the basis of the first witness and it would be up to the Chamber to determine the parameters in the courtroom. Jelačić added that Judge Kwon said yesterday that Karadžić’s estimated time appeared to be neither responsible or realistic and warned the accused not to expect to be granted all the time he suggests he needs.
Asked for the name of the Chamber witness scheduled to testify this afternoon in the Gotovina and others case, Jelačić said that the Chambers witness would be Stjepan Žinić.
Documents:
Description
Title
Date
Dordevic Vlastimir
[Cd-Rom] Annex A To Addendum To Vlastimir Dordevic's Motion To Admit Correlative Portions Of Mfi P1575 Used By The Defence With Witness Danica Marinkovic
12-Apr-10
Dordevic Vlastimir
Vlastimir Dordevic's Notification Of Order Of Witnesses For Week Commencing On 26 April 2010
12-Apr-10
Dordevic Vlastimir
Vlastimir Dordevic's Motion To Admit Correlative Portions Of Mfi P1575 Used By The Defence With Witness Danica Marinkovic
01-Apr-10
Dordevic Vlastimir
Vlastimir Dordevic's Notification Of Order Of Witnesses For Week Commencing On 19 April 2010
06-Apr-10
Gotovina et Al.
Defendant Ante Gotovina's Motion Requesting The Trial Chamber To Issue Decisions On Certain Motions By No Later Than 30 April 2010
01-Apr-10
Gotovina et Al.
Nalog Kojim Se Zakazuje Rasprava
06-Apr-10
Gotovina et Al.
Order Scheduling A Hearing
01-Apr-10
Gotovina et Al.
Gotovina Defence Submission In Response To Trial Chamber Invitation Of 29 March 2010
07-Apr-10
Gotovina et Al.
Gotovina Defence Reply In Support Of Request For Certificate To Appeal The Trial Chamber's Decision On Request For Permanent Restraining Orders Directed To The Republic Of Croatia
08-Apr-10
Gotovina et Al.
Defendant Mladen Markac's Joinder To Gotovina Defence Submission In Response To Trial Chamber Invitation Of 29 March 2010
08-Apr-10
Gotovina et Al.
Gotovina Defence Request To Reply To Prosecution's Opposition To The Gotovina Defence's Request For Certification To Appeal The Trial Chamber's Decision On Requests For Permanent Restraining Orders Directed To The Republic Of Croatia
06-Apr-10
Gotovina et Al.
Defendant Mladen Markac's Joinder To Defendant Ante Gotovina's Request For Certificate To Appeal The Trial Chamber's Decision On Request For Permanent Restraining Orders Directed To The Republic Of Croatia
08-Apr-10
Karadzic
Correspondence From State [The Netherlands]
09-Apr-10
Karadzic
Notification Of Time Estimates For April 2010
09-Apr-10
Karadzic
Prosecution Notification Of Submission Of Written Evidence Pursuant To Rule 92 Ter With Appendix A. Witness John Wilson
09-Apr-10
Karadzic
Prosecution's Final Notification Of Additional Documents To Be Used With Witness Ambassador Okun And Request For Leave To Add One Document To The Rule 65ter List
12-Apr-10
Karadzic
Withdrawal Of Motion For Binding Order: Government Of Netherlands
13-Apr-10
Karadzic
Nalog O Rasporedu
07-Apr-10
Karadzic
Decision On Motion For Stay Of The Proceedings
08-Apr-10
Karadzic
Scheduling Order
01-Apr-10
Karadzic
Poziv Kraljevini Nizozemskoj
09-Apr-10
Karadzic
Odluka Po Zahtjevu Za Obustavu Sudskog Postupka
12-Apr-10
Karadzic
Decision On The Prosecution's First Bar Table Motion
13-Apr-10
Karadzic
Decision On Prosecution's Motion For Admission Of The Evidence Of Kdz172 (Milan Babic) Pursuant To Rule 92 Quarter
13-Apr-10
Karadzic
Motion For Stay Of Proceedings : Violation Of Burden Of Proof And Presumption Of Innocence
01-Apr-10
Karadzic
Prosecution's Motion And Submission Pursuant To "Decision On Prosecution's Fourth Motion For Admission Of Statements And Transcripts Of Evidence In Lieu Of Viva Voce Testimony Pursuant To Rule 92bis (Sarajevo Siege Witnesses)" With Public Appendix A And C
06-Apr-10
Karadzic
Prosecution's Submission Of Witness List For The Week Commencing 13 April 2010 With Appendix A
08-Apr-10
Karadzic
Prosecution's Motion To Substitute Witness
08-Apr-10
Karadzic
Prosecution Notification Of Submission Of Written Evidnece Pursuant To Rule 92ter With Appendix A. Witness Abdel-Razek
06-Apr-10
Karadzic
Prosecution's Response To Motion For Stay Of The Proceedings
07-Apr-10
Karadzic
Response To Prosecution's Motion For Reconsideration / Certification Re : Miroslav Deronjic Evidence
07-Apr-10
Perisic
Prosecution's Response To Mr. Perisic's Motion For The Admission Of Evidence Pursuant To Rule 92bis
06-Apr-10
Perisic
Decision On Mr. Perisic's Motion For The Admission Of Evidence Pursuant To Rule 92 Bis With Public Annex A
13-Apr-10
Perisic
Response To Defence Motion For Judicial Notice Of Adjudicated Facts
08-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Prosecution's Response To Milivoj Petkovic's Motion For The Admission Of Documentary Evidence
08-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Response Of Bruno Stojic To Milivoj Petkovic's Motion For The Admission Of Documentary Evidence Filed 26 March 2010
09-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Prosecution Objections To Exhibits Tendered By The Petkovic Defence In Connection With The Witness Zvonko Vidovic
13-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Berislav Pusic's Notice Regarding Presentation Of Evidence In The Defence Case
07-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Decision Relative Aux Demandes De La Defense Praljak De Certification D'appel Des Decisions Des 16 Fevrier Et 17 Mars 2010
01-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Notice By The Accused Mr. Petkovic (Absence From Court)
01-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Notice By The Accused Mr. Pusic (Absence From Court)
01-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Prosecution Objections To Exhibits Tendered By The Stojic Defence In Connection With The Witness Zvonko Vidovic
13-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Prosecution Objections To Exhibits Tendered By The Coric Defence In Connection With The Witness Zvonko Vidovic
12-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Valentin Coric's Opposition Against The Defence For Milivoj Petkovic's Request To Tender Certain Exhibits Into Evidence Through Witness Zvonko Vidovic
13-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Valentin Coric's Opposition Against The Prosecution's Request To Tender Certain Exhibits Into Evidence Through Witness Zvonko Vidovic
13-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Bruno Stojic's Filing Of The List Of Documents Tendered Through Witness Zvonko Vidovic On 30 March 2010
12-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Prosecution Filing Of "Ic List" Of Exhibits Tendered For Admission Concerning Witness Zvonko Vidovic
12-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Décision Portant Sur La Demande De La Défense Praljak D'admission D'éléments De Preuve Documentaires
01-Apr-10
Prlic and Others (Interlocutory)
Slobodan Praljak's Appeal Of The Trial Chamber's Refusal To Decide Upon Evidence Tendered Pursuant To Rule 92 Bis
07-Apr-10
Prlic and Others (Interlocutory)
Order Assigning Judges To A Case Before The Appeals Chamber
13-Apr-10
Sainovic et al (Appeal)
Defence Notice Of Filing Redacted Public Versions Of Final Trial Brief And Appeal Brief
06-Apr-10
Sainovic et al (Appeal)
Sreten Lukic's Reply In Support Of Second Motion To Present Additional Evidence Before Appeals Chamber
01-Apr-10
Sainovic et al (Appeal)
Scheduling Order
12-Apr-10
Seselj
Corrigendum To Prosecution's Response To The Accused's Motion Pursuant To Rule 66(B) For Alleged Prosecution Interviews With Tomislav Nikolic
01-Apr-10
Seselj
Prosecution's Response To The Accused's Motion Pursuant To Rule 66(B) For Alleged Prosecution Interviews With Tomislav Nikolic
01-Apr-10
Seselj
Odluka O Prihvatanju Svedocenja Miroslava Deronjica Na Osnovu Pravila 92 Quater Pravilnika O Postupku I Dokazima Sa Prilozenim Suprotnim Misljenjem Predsedavajuceg Sudije Jean-Claudea Antonettija
08-Apr-10
Seselj
Odgovor Tuzilastva Na Zahtev Optuzenog Na Osnovu Pravila 66(B) Da Mu Se Obelodane Navodni Razgobori Tuzilastva S Tomislavom Nikolicem
12-Apr-10
Seselj
Prosecution's Response To Motions By Mico Stanisic And Stojan Zupljanin For Access To All Confidential Materials In The Seselj Case
06-Apr-10
Seselj (Contempt Appeal)
Decision On Vojislav Seselj's Request To Submit An Oversized Reply Brief
09-Apr-10
Seselj (Contempt Appeal)
Odluka Po Zahtevu Vojislava Seselja Za Podnosenje Duze Replike
13-Apr-10
Stanisic & Simatovic
Odluka Po Zahtevu Tuzilastva Da Se Svedoci Saslusaju Putem Video-Konferencijske Veze
07-Apr-10
Stanisic & Simatovic
Stanisic Weekly Medical Report [13/04/2010]
13-Apr-10
Stanisic & Simatovic
Order (2) To Redact The Public Transcript And The Public Broadcast Of A Hearing [Re. Hearing 12/04/2010]
13-Apr-10
Stanisic & Simatovic
Stanisic Weekly Medical Report [06/04/2010]
06-Apr-10
Stanisic & Simatovic
Prosecution Response To Stojan Zupljanin Motion For Access To All Confidential Materials In The Stanisic And Simatovic Case
06-Apr-10
Stanisic & Simatovic
Decision On Prosecution's Motion For Admission Of Evidence Of Witness C-057 Pursuant To Rule 92 Quater
12-Apr-10
Stanisic & Simatovic
Odluka Po Jedanaestom, Dvanaestom I Trinaestom Zahtevu Tuzilastva Za Odobrenje Da Izmeni Svoj Spisak Dokaznih Predmeta Na Osnovu Pravila 65ter
08-Apr-10
Stanisic & Simatovic
Defence Response To "Prosecution Motion For Admission Of Evidence Of Witness Husein Ahmetovic Pursuant To Rule 92 Quater"
12-Apr-10
Stanisic & Zupljanin
Decision Granting In Part Prosecution's Consolidated Motion Concerning St139
06-Apr-10
Stanisic & Zupljanin
Prosecution's Response To Motion For Certification Of The "Decision Reconsidering In Part, And Providing Written Reasons, For The Trial Chamber's Oral Decision" Of 26 March 2010
14-Apr-10
Stanisic & Zupljanin
Prosecution Response To Stojan Zupljanin Motion For Access To All Confidential Materials In The Stanisic And Simatovic Case
06-Apr-10
Stanisic & Zupljanin
Prosecution Motion For An Extension Of Time To Request Certification To Appeal The Decision Granting In Part Prosecution's Motions For Judicial Notice Of Adjudicated Facts Pursuant To Rule 94(B)
07-Apr-10
Stanisic & Zupljanin
Motion For Certification Of The "Decision Reconsidering In Part, And Providing Written Reasons For, The Trial Chamber's Oral Decision" Of 26 March 2010
01-Apr-10
Stanisic & Zupljanin
Prosecution's Request For Certification To Appeal The "Decision Granting In Part Prosecution's Motions For Judicial Notice Of Adjudicated Facts Pursuant To Rule 94(B) "
07-Apr-10
Stanisic & Zupljanin
Decision Denying The Prosecution Motion For An Extension Of Time To Request Certification To Appeal The Decision Granting In Part Prosecution's Motions For Judicial Notice Of Adjudicated Facts Pursuant To Rule 94(B)
07-Apr-10
Stanisic & Zupljanin
Decision Granting In Part Prosecution's Motions For Judicial Notice Of Adjudicated Facts Pursuant To Rule 94(B)
01-Apr-10
26 Nov 09 — IWPRAA
Defendant reportedly says he won’t cooperate with new standby counsel and may appeal the appointment.
A British lawyer has been selected to act as standby counsel for Radovan Karadzic after the former Bosnian Serb president failed to attend the beginning of his Hague war crimes trial last month - but the appointment may be challenged by the defendant.
Karadzic retains his right to represent himself during his trial however Richard Harvey will prepare the defence case and be on hand to step in if Karadzic boycotts proceedings again when the trial resumes on March 1, 2010.
The trial was suspended on November 5 when judges decided to appoint a standby counsel to Karadzic’s case. They ruled that a lawyer would need until March 1 to prepare for trial.
Karadzic did not attend the hearings held to hear the prosecution’s opening statement on October 26 and 27 and on November 2. He insists he has not had enough time to prepare his defence case and that he will not attend his trial until he has had time to do so.
In the run-up to the start of the trial, both trial judges and appeals judges rejected his request to be given an additional ten months to prepare.
Karadzic has been in custody in The Hague for 15 months since he was arrested aboard a bus in Belgrade on July 21, 2008.
According to one of Karadzic’s legal advisers, Marko Sladojevic, Harvey has spoken to Karadzic and also expressed concern over having enough time to prepare for March 1.
“Mr Harvey spoke to Karadzic twice and he himself said he couldn’t be ready by March 1 which is just over 13 weeks [away],” Sladojevic told IWPR.
Following the appointment of Harvey on November 19, Sladojevic also said that Karadzic will not cooperate with the standby lawyer and may challenge the appointment over the procedure taken by the court to appoint him.
According to Sladojevic, Karadzic should have been provided with a full list of lawyers working for the court and then been able to select his own standby counsel. Sladojevic says that the court selected Harvey having allowed Karadzic to meet “four or five people”. Karadzic had also not informed the court which lawyer he wanted.
The court’s decision appointing Harvey as standby lawyer explained that court representatives met with Karadzic.
“In carrying out the trial chamber's decision on the appointment of counsel to represent the interests of Radovan Karadzic, the registrar provided the accused with a list of defence counsel all of whom meet the qualification requirements under [tribunal rules] and were available for appointment under the terms and conditions of the trial chamber's decision,” the court’s spokeswoman, Nerma Jelacic told IWPR.
“Moreover, the registry facilitated meetings between the accused and those counsel. The accused refused to select counsel from that list, and the registrar proceeded to make a selection.”
Sladojevic says that according to case law from a previous decision by appeals judges in the case of another self-represented defendant, Vojislav Seselj, Karadzic was entitled to select a lawyer from all the defence lawyers registered with the tribunal, not just from a limited selection.
“Mr Karadzic should have received a list of all practicing lawyers so that he can choose a lawyer as a standby counsel, not the registrar,” Sladojevic told IWPR.
According to that decision on December 8, 2006 Seselj was entitled to be provided with a list of all available Hague tribunal defence lawyers to act as standby counsel and to “be permitted to select standby counsel from that list”.
“This is why [Karadzic] will not cooperate with this lawyer until he receives a whole list [of lawyers] and until he can choose himself a lawyer from the list. We will probably challenge this decision during the course of next week,” Sladojevic added.
Karadzic is charged with 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity including the massacre of almost 8,000 Bosniak men and boys in the genocide at Srebrenica in July 1995.
Prosecutors also accuse him of orchestrating the 44-month campaign of sniping and shelling of the city of Sarajevo, which resulted in nearly 12,000 civilian deaths.
The indictment alleges that Karadzic is responsible for crimes of persecution, extermination, murder and forcible transfer which “contributed to achieving the objective of the permanent removal of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb-claimed territory”.
Harvey is experienced in international law and has represented defendants from Kosovo at the Hague tribunal. His clients include Lahi Brahimaj who faced trial alongside former prime minister of Kosovo, Ramush Haradinaj. The final judgement in that case is currently pending before the appeals chamber.
Harvey’s appointment comes ahead of a decision by trial judges on whether to allow Karadzic to appeal the decision to appoint him a standby lawyer. Karadzic asked to appeal the November 5 decision on November 11.
Simon Jennings is an IWPR reporter in The Hague.
Programme: International Justice - ICTY
Issue Date: Sat, 2010-04-17
TRI Issue 625
+++++++++++
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT FOR WAR CRIMES IN YUGOSLAVIA
Weekly Press Briefing
Date: 14.4.2010
Time: 12:00
Registry and Chambers:
Nerma Jelačić, Spokesperson for Registry and Chambers, made the following statement:
Good afternoon,
The trial of Radovan Karadžić resumed yesterday afternoon with the start of the Prosecution case. Hearings will be held three days per week for the remainder of April and until further order.
The trial of Vojislav Šešelj was adjourned on 30 March until further notice. Only one Chamber witness remains to be heard, and this is expected to take place in early May, after which the Trial Chamber will move to Rule 98bis procedure.
Next Tuesday 20 April, Vojislav Šešelj will make his initial appearance in the second contempt proceeding initiated against him by the Tribunal. The hearing will take place at 9:00 in Courtroom I. Šešelj is charged with having disclosed information on 11 protected witnesses, including their real names, occupations and places of residence, in violation of the Trial Chamber’s orders in a book he authored.
In the case of Prlić and others, the Ćorić defence rested its case on 1 April. The defence team of the last of six accused, Berislav Pušić, announced on 7 April that they will not call any witnesses. The next trial date will be announced in due course.
The trial of Momčilo Perisic adjourned yesterday for the rest of this week. The trial will resume on 3 May 2010. Timings and location will be confirmed in due course.
Hearings in the trial of Gotovina and others resume this afternoon in order to hear further Chamber witnesses. A total of seven Chamber witnesses are expected to be heard.
The trials of Mićo Stanišić and Stojan Župljanin, Vlastimir Đorđević, Jovica Stanišić and Franko Simatović and Zdravko Tolimir continue this week and next as scheduled.
The Tribunal has been busy outside of the courtrooms too.
This week the Tribunal welcomed three outreach visits from the former Yugoslavia. On Monday, the outreach programme hosted 19 students of law from Slovenia who were introduced to the work and achievements of the Tribunal. Furthermore, 15 journalists from the Western Balkans paid a study visit to the Tribunal earlier this week. And finally, Outreach is also hosting a group of Croatian war crimes trial monitors and journalists who are paying a study visit to the Tribunal. They have met with representatives from major branches of the ICTY to discuss issues ranging from investigations to media coverage of war crimes. The three-day visit has been organised by Dokumenta, a non governmental organisation from Croatia.
And finally, Registrar John Hocking is attending a three day meeting of Registrars of appellate, regional and international courts beginning today in Ottawa. Hosted by the Supreme Court of Canada, the meeting will address specific institutional and operational challenges and participating Registrars will exchange best practices on issues such as organisational structure and procedure, security of infrastructure and documents, translation and interpretation services, witness and victims protection programmes and enforcement of sentences. Registrar Hocking will address the meeting on Legal Aid and Defence Support at the ICTY.
Office of the Prosecutor:
Olga Kavran, Spokesperson for the Office of the Prosecutor, made no statement.
Questions:
A journalist pointed out that Karadžić mentioned the local butcher in Sanski Most that carried out killings at Manjača was prepared to deny that he was ever there. Asked if he was on the list of witnesses Karadžić plans to call, Jelačić said that at this stage of the proceedings only the list of Prosecution witnesses is available and that the defence would be required to submit its 65ter list of witness after the close of the prosecution case.
Referring to a meeting between the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) and a visiting group of Croatian journalists and NGO representatives and some media reports published in Croatia this morning, a visiting journalist who took part in these discussions asked OTP to clarify whether or not a letter was sent to Croatia in relation to the Mercep case and to further clarify the situation regarding that particular investigative file.
Kavran stated that, as was said yesterday, no letter was recently sent to the State Prosecutor's Office in Croatia regarding the Mercep file. Kavran clarified that what was sent to the Prosecutor in Croatia was done around four years ago, at the beginning of 2006 when the investigative files related to Tomislav Mercep and others in relation to crimes committed in the region of Slavonia during the war were transferred.
The OTP had conducted many investigations over the years since its establishment and gathered evidence against a number of persons suspected of committing serious violations of international humanitarian law. Due to resource limitations, some cases had to be given priority over others, which led to some investigations being halted, added Kavran. After the OTP stopped issuing new indictments at the end of 2004, as part of the completion strategy adopted by the UN, a number of unfinished case files containing evidence against suspected individuals remained in its possession. The OTP transferred these files to local prosecutors and the local judicial authorities bare the responsibility to bring such investigations to a conclusion based on the evidence provided by the ICTY, and to issue indictments where appropriate. A total of 17 such files were transferred to the Prosecutor’s offices in the former Yugoslavia: two to Croatia, one to Serbia and the remainder to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
To return to the issue in question: the file in relation to the crimes committed in Slavonija and Tomislav Mercep and others was transferred at the beginning of 2006. Based on part of that material a war crimes case known as "Marino selo" was conducted in Croatia. Kavran said that the journalists would have to address any other questions relating to this and other investigative files and any cases stemming from them, to the local Prosecutor's Office in Croatia.
Kavran added that she would like to restate something that Prosecutor Brammertz had said on a number of occasions: the ICTY’s Office of the Prosecutor closely cooperates with the prosecution services in the states of the former Yugoslavia in a true partnership. Given our interdependence and mutually reinforcing work, our success is intrinsically linked. Furthermore, the ultimate success of the Tribunal will also depend on the ability of national courts to successfully conduct their own war crimes prosecutions.
A journalist said that the Prosecutor’s office in Croatia claimed that they had no obligation to inform the OTP of what steps they were taking based on the material sent and asked whether this was an accurate statement and whether the Croatian Prosecutor had provided any information. Kavran responded that it was true that the Croatian State Prosecutor had no duty to inform the OTP on these cases and that there was a collegial exchange of information. Kavran added that the duty to inform existed only in cases referred to regional judiciaries in accordance with Rule 11bis, the cases where an indictment had been issued by the Tribunal.
A journalist asked how it was possible that the OTP had given these investigation files to Croatia and just yesterday Croatia’s State Prosecutor’s office said the case did not exist. He also asked why there was such high trust in the independence of the Croatian Prosecutor’s office and judiciary. Kavran answered that there was no legal mechanism through which the OTP could interfere in the way local war crimes cases were conducted in Croatia. Kavran further stated that the OTP pointed out several times that it was cooperating with judiciaries in the region and that this cooperation did not only include the transfer of investigative files to the region but also responses to the requests for assistance from the region. Kavran added that in its bi-annual report submitted to the UN Security Council, the OTP submitted information on how many such requests had been received and processed. In addition, three liaison Prosecutors, one from Croatia, one from Bosnia and Herzegovina and one from Serbia, are currently based here in The Hague to provide a very important link between the local Prosecutor's Offices and the OTP.
Asked if there was any concern or motion planned regarding the lengthy cross examination of the first witness by Karadžić, Kavran said that it would not be appropriate to comment on the basis of the first witness and it would be up to the Chamber to determine the parameters in the courtroom. Jelačić added that Judge Kwon said yesterday that Karadžić’s estimated time appeared to be neither responsible or realistic and warned the accused not to expect to be granted all the time he suggests he needs.
Asked for the name of the Chamber witness scheduled to testify this afternoon in the Gotovina and others case, Jelačić said that the Chambers witness would be Stjepan Žinić.
Documents:
Description
Title
Date
Dordevic Vlastimir
[Cd-Rom] Annex A To Addendum To Vlastimir Dordevic's Motion To Admit Correlative Portions Of Mfi P1575 Used By The Defence With Witness Danica Marinkovic
12-Apr-10
Dordevic Vlastimir
Vlastimir Dordevic's Notification Of Order Of Witnesses For Week Commencing On 26 April 2010
12-Apr-10
Dordevic Vlastimir
Vlastimir Dordevic's Motion To Admit Correlative Portions Of Mfi P1575 Used By The Defence With Witness Danica Marinkovic
01-Apr-10
Dordevic Vlastimir
Vlastimir Dordevic's Notification Of Order Of Witnesses For Week Commencing On 19 April 2010
06-Apr-10
Gotovina et Al.
Defendant Ante Gotovina's Motion Requesting The Trial Chamber To Issue Decisions On Certain Motions By No Later Than 30 April 2010
01-Apr-10
Gotovina et Al.
Nalog Kojim Se Zakazuje Rasprava
06-Apr-10
Gotovina et Al.
Order Scheduling A Hearing
01-Apr-10
Gotovina et Al.
Gotovina Defence Submission In Response To Trial Chamber Invitation Of 29 March 2010
07-Apr-10
Gotovina et Al.
Gotovina Defence Reply In Support Of Request For Certificate To Appeal The Trial Chamber's Decision On Request For Permanent Restraining Orders Directed To The Republic Of Croatia
08-Apr-10
Gotovina et Al.
Defendant Mladen Markac's Joinder To Gotovina Defence Submission In Response To Trial Chamber Invitation Of 29 March 2010
08-Apr-10
Gotovina et Al.
Gotovina Defence Request To Reply To Prosecution's Opposition To The Gotovina Defence's Request For Certification To Appeal The Trial Chamber's Decision On Requests For Permanent Restraining Orders Directed To The Republic Of Croatia
06-Apr-10
Gotovina et Al.
Defendant Mladen Markac's Joinder To Defendant Ante Gotovina's Request For Certificate To Appeal The Trial Chamber's Decision On Request For Permanent Restraining Orders Directed To The Republic Of Croatia
08-Apr-10
Karadzic
Correspondence From State [The Netherlands]
09-Apr-10
Karadzic
Notification Of Time Estimates For April 2010
09-Apr-10
Karadzic
Prosecution Notification Of Submission Of Written Evidence Pursuant To Rule 92 Ter With Appendix A. Witness John Wilson
09-Apr-10
Karadzic
Prosecution's Final Notification Of Additional Documents To Be Used With Witness Ambassador Okun And Request For Leave To Add One Document To The Rule 65ter List
12-Apr-10
Karadzic
Withdrawal Of Motion For Binding Order: Government Of Netherlands
13-Apr-10
Karadzic
Nalog O Rasporedu
07-Apr-10
Karadzic
Decision On Motion For Stay Of The Proceedings
08-Apr-10
Karadzic
Scheduling Order
01-Apr-10
Karadzic
Poziv Kraljevini Nizozemskoj
09-Apr-10
Karadzic
Odluka Po Zahtjevu Za Obustavu Sudskog Postupka
12-Apr-10
Karadzic
Decision On The Prosecution's First Bar Table Motion
13-Apr-10
Karadzic
Decision On Prosecution's Motion For Admission Of The Evidence Of Kdz172 (Milan Babic) Pursuant To Rule 92 Quarter
13-Apr-10
Karadzic
Motion For Stay Of Proceedings : Violation Of Burden Of Proof And Presumption Of Innocence
01-Apr-10
Karadzic
Prosecution's Motion And Submission Pursuant To "Decision On Prosecution's Fourth Motion For Admission Of Statements And Transcripts Of Evidence In Lieu Of Viva Voce Testimony Pursuant To Rule 92bis (Sarajevo Siege Witnesses)" With Public Appendix A And C
06-Apr-10
Karadzic
Prosecution's Submission Of Witness List For The Week Commencing 13 April 2010 With Appendix A
08-Apr-10
Karadzic
Prosecution's Motion To Substitute Witness
08-Apr-10
Karadzic
Prosecution Notification Of Submission Of Written Evidnece Pursuant To Rule 92ter With Appendix A. Witness Abdel-Razek
06-Apr-10
Karadzic
Prosecution's Response To Motion For Stay Of The Proceedings
07-Apr-10
Karadzic
Response To Prosecution's Motion For Reconsideration / Certification Re : Miroslav Deronjic Evidence
07-Apr-10
Perisic
Prosecution's Response To Mr. Perisic's Motion For The Admission Of Evidence Pursuant To Rule 92bis
06-Apr-10
Perisic
Decision On Mr. Perisic's Motion For The Admission Of Evidence Pursuant To Rule 92 Bis With Public Annex A
13-Apr-10
Perisic
Response To Defence Motion For Judicial Notice Of Adjudicated Facts
08-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Prosecution's Response To Milivoj Petkovic's Motion For The Admission Of Documentary Evidence
08-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Response Of Bruno Stojic To Milivoj Petkovic's Motion For The Admission Of Documentary Evidence Filed 26 March 2010
09-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Prosecution Objections To Exhibits Tendered By The Petkovic Defence In Connection With The Witness Zvonko Vidovic
13-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Berislav Pusic's Notice Regarding Presentation Of Evidence In The Defence Case
07-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Decision Relative Aux Demandes De La Defense Praljak De Certification D'appel Des Decisions Des 16 Fevrier Et 17 Mars 2010
01-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Notice By The Accused Mr. Petkovic (Absence From Court)
01-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Notice By The Accused Mr. Pusic (Absence From Court)
01-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Prosecution Objections To Exhibits Tendered By The Stojic Defence In Connection With The Witness Zvonko Vidovic
13-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Prosecution Objections To Exhibits Tendered By The Coric Defence In Connection With The Witness Zvonko Vidovic
12-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Valentin Coric's Opposition Against The Defence For Milivoj Petkovic's Request To Tender Certain Exhibits Into Evidence Through Witness Zvonko Vidovic
13-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Valentin Coric's Opposition Against The Prosecution's Request To Tender Certain Exhibits Into Evidence Through Witness Zvonko Vidovic
13-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Bruno Stojic's Filing Of The List Of Documents Tendered Through Witness Zvonko Vidovic On 30 March 2010
12-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Prosecution Filing Of "Ic List" Of Exhibits Tendered For Admission Concerning Witness Zvonko Vidovic
12-Apr-10
Prlic and Others
Décision Portant Sur La Demande De La Défense Praljak D'admission D'éléments De Preuve Documentaires
01-Apr-10
Prlic and Others (Interlocutory)
Slobodan Praljak's Appeal Of The Trial Chamber's Refusal To Decide Upon Evidence Tendered Pursuant To Rule 92 Bis
07-Apr-10
Prlic and Others (Interlocutory)
Order Assigning Judges To A Case Before The Appeals Chamber
13-Apr-10
Sainovic et al (Appeal)
Defence Notice Of Filing Redacted Public Versions Of Final Trial Brief And Appeal Brief
06-Apr-10
Sainovic et al (Appeal)
Sreten Lukic's Reply In Support Of Second Motion To Present Additional Evidence Before Appeals Chamber
01-Apr-10
Sainovic et al (Appeal)
Scheduling Order
12-Apr-10
Seselj
Corrigendum To Prosecution's Response To The Accused's Motion Pursuant To Rule 66(B) For Alleged Prosecution Interviews With Tomislav Nikolic
01-Apr-10
Seselj
Prosecution's Response To The Accused's Motion Pursuant To Rule 66(B) For Alleged Prosecution Interviews With Tomislav Nikolic
01-Apr-10
Seselj
Odluka O Prihvatanju Svedocenja Miroslava Deronjica Na Osnovu Pravila 92 Quater Pravilnika O Postupku I Dokazima Sa Prilozenim Suprotnim Misljenjem Predsedavajuceg Sudije Jean-Claudea Antonettija
08-Apr-10
Seselj
Odgovor Tuzilastva Na Zahtev Optuzenog Na Osnovu Pravila 66(B) Da Mu Se Obelodane Navodni Razgobori Tuzilastva S Tomislavom Nikolicem
12-Apr-10
Seselj
Prosecution's Response To Motions By Mico Stanisic And Stojan Zupljanin For Access To All Confidential Materials In The Seselj Case
06-Apr-10
Seselj (Contempt Appeal)
Decision On Vojislav Seselj's Request To Submit An Oversized Reply Brief
09-Apr-10
Seselj (Contempt Appeal)
Odluka Po Zahtevu Vojislava Seselja Za Podnosenje Duze Replike
13-Apr-10
Stanisic & Simatovic
Odluka Po Zahtevu Tuzilastva Da Se Svedoci Saslusaju Putem Video-Konferencijske Veze
07-Apr-10
Stanisic & Simatovic
Stanisic Weekly Medical Report [13/04/2010]
13-Apr-10
Stanisic & Simatovic
Order (2) To Redact The Public Transcript And The Public Broadcast Of A Hearing [Re. Hearing 12/04/2010]
13-Apr-10
Stanisic & Simatovic
Stanisic Weekly Medical Report [06/04/2010]
06-Apr-10
Stanisic & Simatovic
Prosecution Response To Stojan Zupljanin Motion For Access To All Confidential Materials In The Stanisic And Simatovic Case
06-Apr-10
Stanisic & Simatovic
Decision On Prosecution's Motion For Admission Of Evidence Of Witness C-057 Pursuant To Rule 92 Quater
12-Apr-10
Stanisic & Simatovic
Odluka Po Jedanaestom, Dvanaestom I Trinaestom Zahtevu Tuzilastva Za Odobrenje Da Izmeni Svoj Spisak Dokaznih Predmeta Na Osnovu Pravila 65ter
08-Apr-10
Stanisic & Simatovic
Defence Response To "Prosecution Motion For Admission Of Evidence Of Witness Husein Ahmetovic Pursuant To Rule 92 Quater"
12-Apr-10
Stanisic & Zupljanin
Decision Granting In Part Prosecution's Consolidated Motion Concerning St139
06-Apr-10
Stanisic & Zupljanin
Prosecution's Response To Motion For Certification Of The "Decision Reconsidering In Part, And Providing Written Reasons, For The Trial Chamber's Oral Decision" Of 26 March 2010
14-Apr-10
Stanisic & Zupljanin
Prosecution Response To Stojan Zupljanin Motion For Access To All Confidential Materials In The Stanisic And Simatovic Case
06-Apr-10
Stanisic & Zupljanin
Prosecution Motion For An Extension Of Time To Request Certification To Appeal The Decision Granting In Part Prosecution's Motions For Judicial Notice Of Adjudicated Facts Pursuant To Rule 94(B)
07-Apr-10
Stanisic & Zupljanin
Motion For Certification Of The "Decision Reconsidering In Part, And Providing Written Reasons For, The Trial Chamber's Oral Decision" Of 26 March 2010
01-Apr-10
Stanisic & Zupljanin
Prosecution's Request For Certification To Appeal The "Decision Granting In Part Prosecution's Motions For Judicial Notice Of Adjudicated Facts Pursuant To Rule 94(B) "
07-Apr-10
Stanisic & Zupljanin
Decision Denying The Prosecution Motion For An Extension Of Time To Request Certification To Appeal The Decision Granting In Part Prosecution's Motions For Judicial Notice Of Adjudicated Facts Pursuant To Rule 94(B)
07-Apr-10
Stanisic & Zupljanin
Decision Granting In Part Prosecution's Motions For Judicial Notice Of Adjudicated Facts Pursuant To Rule 94(B)
01-Apr-10
OBAMA'S TERRORISTS' WEATHER UNDERGROUND AND 'NOAH' OF OBAMA'S CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION ARE SUING THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING!!!
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Ayers suing Univ. of Wyo.
Bill Ayers and a University of Wyoming student are suing the school after it banned the former 1960s radical from speaking on campus.
Ayers, who is a professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago, makes college speeches and is routinely picketed, but the University of Wyoming last week banned him from using any university venue for a planned April 28 lecture.
Ayers and student Meg Lanker sued on Thursday, asking a federal judge to issue an injunction and allow the lecture. The lawsuit alleges the ban violates free speech rights and the freedom to assemble.
A university spokeswoman declined to comment on the suit.
Lanker told the Casper Star-Tribune that Ayers will speak at the Laramie Civic Center if he's not allowed on campus.
___
Information from: Casper Star-Tribune - Casper, http://www.trib.com
Copyright The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
