| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2007/12/1-6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:48727 Activity:moderate |
12/1 "Iraqis may offer US deal to stay longer"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us
What? They don't want UN or multinational presence but they want
the US?
\_ Republican controlled media lies. Only diplomacy through the UN
can stop the continued worsening of the situation which is now in
a state of full fledged civil war.
\_ Nothing can stop the continued worsening of the situation.
It's going to get worse before it gets better.
\_ That was sarcasm, sorry. I thought everyone would
understand that. Next time I'll label it. You're unaware
that violence in Iraq and Baghdad in particular has dropped
like a rock? "Oh but they still don't have a political
resolution!!!" Yeah, neither does the U.S. Congress for our
own governing needs. It's insane to ask that the Iraqis do
any better politically than we're doing, which is very poorly,
since both parties lack leaders.
\_ It would be nice if: 1) their police were not moonlighting
as insurgents, 2) their politicians were at least
pretending not to be corrupt and take bribes, and
3) well, I'll settle for 1) and 2) above.
\_ 1) they're getting shot like the rest of the insurgents,
2) yeah it would be nice if we didn't have people in
Congress right now with $90k stuffed in their freezer.
Congress right now with $90k stuffed in their
freezer.
3) well, I'll settle for just 2) for now.
\_ It remains remarkable to me that you cannot see a
a difference between a system where bribes are taken
w/o impunity and a system where allegations of
corruption are investigated and the guilty parties
are indicted.
\_ Oh, he can see the difference. He is just being
disingenuous.
\_ Oh really? Did Mr. Fridge get indicted? Is
he out of office? Is he in prison? Did I
miss a news cycle?
\_ Yes he got indicted. His trial is set to
start Jan 16. His lawyers are asking for
an extension, but it's coming... Sheesh..
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rep.-jefferson-wants-trial-delayed-2007-12-05.html
How many times have we covered this?
\_ http://csua.com/?entry=46846 He gets his
say in court. When they convict him, call
us. |
| 5/23 |
|
| news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us AP Iraqis may offer US deal to stay longer By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer Mon Nov 26, 12:44 PM ET BAGHDAD - Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the US a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for US security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday. Click Here The proposal, described to The Associated Press by two senior Iraqi officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like once the US significantly draws down its troop presence. In Washington, President Bush's adviser on the Iraqi war, Lt. Douglas Lute, confirmed the proposal, calling it "a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations." As part of the package, the Iraqis want an end to the current UN-mandated multinational forces mission, and also an end to all UN-ordered restrictions on Iraq's sovereignty. In a televised address Monday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said his government will ask the UN to renew the mandate for the multinational force for one final time, with its authorization to end in 2008. He insisted that the UN remove all restrictions on Iraqi sovereignty. Iraq has been living under some form of UN restriction since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the officials said. US troops and other foreign forces operate in Iraq under a UN Security Council mandate, which has been renewed annually since 2003. Iraqi officials have said they want that next renewal -- which must be approved by the UN Security Council by the end of this year -- to be the last. The two senior Iraqi officials said Iraqi authorities had discussed the broad outlines of the proposal with US military and diplomatic representatives. The Americans appeared generally favorable subject to negotiations on the details, which include preferential treatment for American investments, according to the Iraqi officials involved in the discussions. The two Iraqi officials, who are from two different political parties, spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is sensitive. Members of parliament were briefed on the plan during a three-hour closed-door meeting Sunday, during which lawmakers loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr objected to the formula. Preferential treatment for US investors could provide a huge windfall if Iraq can achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources. Such a deal would also enable the United States to maintain leverage against Iranian expansion at a time of growing fears about Tehran's nuclear aspirations. At the White House, Lute said the new agreement was not binding. "It's not a treaty, but it's rather a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations," Lute said. "Think of today's agreement as setting the agenda for the formal bilateral negotiations." Those negotiations will take place during the course of 2008, with the goal of completion by July, Lute said. The new agreement on principles spells out what the formal, final document will contain regarding political, economic and security matters. "We believe, and Iraqis' national leaders believe, that a long-term relationship with the United States is in our mutual interest," Lute said. From the Iraqi side, Lute said, having the US as a "reliable, enduring partner with Iraq will cause different sects inside the Iraqi political structure not to have to hedge their bets in a go-it-alone-like setting, but rather they'll be able to bet on the reliable partnership with the United States." When asked about the plan, US Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo noted that Iraqi officials had expressed a desire for a strategic partnership with the US in a political declaration in August and an end to the UN-mandated force. "Thereafter then, the question becomes one of bilateral relationships between Iraq and the countries of the multinational forces," she said. "At that point we need to be considering long-term bilateral relationships and we're following the Iraqi thinking on this one and we agree with their thinking on this and we'll be looking at setting up a long-term partnership with different aspects to it, political, economic, security and so forth." She said any detailed discussion of bases and investment preferences was "way, way, way ahead of where we are at the moment." The Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and US troops would relocate to bases outside the cities. Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 US troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000. Haidar al-Abadi, a senior Dawa member of al-Maliki's Dawa party, told Alhurra television that the prime minister would write parliament in the next few days to tell lawmakers that his government would seek the renewal of the UN mandate for "one last time." Al-Abadi said the Iraqi government would make the renewal conditional on ending all UN-mandated restrictions on Iraq's sovereignty. The Iraqi target date for a bilateral agreement on the new relationship would be July, when the US intends to finish withdrawing the five combat brigades sent in 2007 by President Bush as part of the troop buildup that has helped curb sectarian violence. On Sunday, Iraq's Shiite vice president hinted at such a formula, saying the government will link discussions on the next extension of the UN mandate to an agreement under which Iraq will gain full sovereignty and "full control over all of its resources and issues." Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said Iraq wanted an "equal footing" with the US on security issues as a sovereign country so Iraqi could "have relations with other states with sovereignty and interests." He said the government would announce within days a "declaration of intent" that would not involve military bases but would raise "issues on organizing the presence of the multinational forces and ending their presence on Iraqi soil." One official said the Iraqis expect objections from Iraq's neighbors. Iran and Syria will object because they oppose a US presence in the region. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will not like the idea of any reduction in their roles as Washington's most important Arab partners. A US soldier from the 3rd Brigade combat team of 101st Airborne Division searches a house during a patrol mission in the town of Youssifiyah, 20 kilometers (12 miles) south of Baghdad, Iraq, Monday, Nov. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. |
| thehill.com/leading-the-news/rep.-jefferson-wants-trial-delayed-2007-12-05.html Jefferson wants trial delayed By Susan Crabtree December 05, 2007 Rep. William Jefferson's lawyers, citing the mountain of evidence and documents prosecutors have amassed against the Louisiana Democrat, are asking the presiding judge for a two- to four-month delay of his trial, which is set to begin Jan. Jefferson will make his case for postponing the trial before US District Judge TS Ellis III on Dec. The nine-term congressman is accused of taking more than $500,000 in bribes and demanding millions more for himself and his family members from 11 different companies interested in securing business contracts in Africa. The defense lawyers argued that the sheer number of charges, the complexity of the case, the volume of material produced, and the need to review recorded conversations attained through wiretaps make it impossible to prepare in an adequate manner by mid-January. They point out that even though FBI informant Lori Mody instigated the investigation in March 2005, prosecutors did not begin to turn over the materials she attained to the defense until Aug. "Mr Jefferson's attorneys have been working diligently on this matter since the date of the indictment, but given the amount of work involved, it has been impossible to catch up to the government's two-year head start," they wrote in a memo filed with the court on Monday. The request comes just days after Ellis rejected an effort by Jefferson to move his trial out of northern Virginia. Jefferson and his attorneys had argued that prosecutors unfairly brought charges against him in suburban Alexandria rather than DC because they wanted a venue where fewer blacks are in the jury pool. Ellis has scheduled an evidentiary hearing later this month on Jefferson's request to suppress evidence seized and statements he made to investigators in August 2005, when the FBI raided his New Orleans home. The defense contends that agents went beyond the scope of the search warrant by taking photographs of Jefferson's personal records. They also argue that the manner in which Jefferson was questioned amounted to detaining him against his will. |
| csua.com/?entry=46846 Let's see some real jail time and a felony conviction from this one. He got totally fucked over on some BS trumped up garbage charge and sent to the wolves so *someone* could take the fall. See below for what Libby was convicted of and while you're at it, compare what happened to Libby vs. Sandy "Stuffed Shorts" who got probation and a trivial fine for stealing and destroying national security documents related to the Clinton administration's policies re: Al Qaeda in the 90s. If Libby deserves jail then SB deserves a treason charge with life or hanging on those scales of justice. He still doesn't understand that what he did was wrong, and apparently neither do a number of his supporters. Specifically what he got nailed for was this: the prosecution asked 8 reporters for their version of events and asked Libby as well. The reporters gave varying versions, different time lines, etc that didn't match each other. Libby didn't and in fact could not have matched what the reporters said so he got nailed for what exactly? Not matching all 8 reporters who didn't match themselves? They outed a spy and then obstructed the investigation into it. You are right that more than just Libby should have paid, but he was the only case that Fitzgerald felt was going to stick in a court of law. He's still going to prison for not having the same story as 8 reporters who also had different stories from each other. And let's not forget the $250k fine on top of 30 months in prison. obstruction of justice by the powerful is a serious problem and deserves serious penalties. the plea bargaining system has some strage pathologies ... eg the guy facing a serious charge with a lame public defender vs. the guy who can pay his legal bills though ill gotten gains or directors/officers insurance or otherwise has deep resources or something truly bizzare like the fbi/cia mole cases where the death penalty was taken off the table in return for cooperation or the OLYMPIC BOMBER case where death penalty was taken off the table because he hid a bunch of explosives in the hills and would not disclose where unless non-death ... since we've decided to torture people, i think there is an argument to be made that they are "consenting" to torture ... i dont think these people are "entitled" to this arrow in their legal quiver. if you want to claim he was railroaded, the very very heavy burden is on you to make the case. No one is above the law, not you, and not even the White House. A harsh lesson to have to learn, but one that I wish more WH crooks would get the opportunity to have. the Grand Jury in an attempt to derail the investigation. According to Fitzgerald, this actually had the intended effect of making the Grand Jury unable to make the case against the true perpetrators of the crime of revealing a CIA agents identity. According to the judge the evidence was "overwhelming" and according to all 12 jurors, it was "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, I'm open to the possibility that what he took out had no national security importance as you may not know, the govt has often classifies a lot of things en masse and will only "lazily evaluate" if they should not declassified. for example there are documents that are essentualy just strings of number from sensitive simulations which are classified possible in the relating-to-nuke classification, which is differnt from the Secret, Top Secret etc one , so just the fact that they were classified isnt quite enough for a air assessment. If Plame was say a IT Manager or Food Services manager at the CIA, even if it was strictly by the letter not legal to disclose her identity, I'd be more willing to think this might have been something unreasonable at the food of the tree, but again, the issue is you dont get to decide when to cooperate with the FBI and when you cant. If you or I had done it our lives would have been destroyed over it. And since he destroyed them we *can't* know, since that is the point of destroying them. We are forced to assume they did have value or he wouldn't have bothered. As far as Libby goes since no one here seems to actually know what he is accused of, I'll tell you. In plain English: Libby voluntarily talked to the grand jury investi- gating Plame's ID revealing. Those 8 reporters' versions of events and timelines not only did not match Libby, they did not match each other, and did not match their own written notes and did not match their previous testimony when brought back and questioned again on the same topics. Now here are two kickers for you on top of everything else: Richard Arma- tage was *known to the prosecutor* on *day 1* to be the Plame leaker. Before he ever talked to Libby, the prosecutor *knew* who the leaker was. His entire investiga- tion was supposed to be about finding the leaker, but slamming Armatage wasn't politically useful. He wanted Cheney, Rove and others who we now know had *nothing* to do with it. He couldn't get them but he was able to get Libby on a complete crap charge. And the second kicker: Libby's lawyers tried hard to get Plame's actual official status clarified in court but the judge agreed with the prosecution that whether or not she was in fact a "secret agent" or not was not relevent to the case! And then in the sentencing phase, the judge then allows the same prosecutor to argue that Libby should get super smashed for revealing a "secret agent's identity" but never allowed the defendant to examine that in court or answer those charges. A giant "fuck you" to Libby and any sense of real Justice. And now we've already started to see other people refusing to testify in front of various congressional committees because they're afraid they're get Libby'd. Having one branch of government literally afraid to *talk* to another branch of government out of fear of malicious prosecution is no way to run a government. Aren't you guys the "if they haven't done anything wrong, they have nothing to fear" crowd? His lies totally screwed up a federal case (remember various reporters went to jail to help keep Libby's lies secret) and damaged national security and he paid the price. Henry Hyde (R-IL) "So for my friends who think that perjury, lying and deceit are in some circumstances acceptable and undeserving of punishment I respectfully disagree." Dick Armey (R-TX) "But Mr Speaker, perjury before a grand jury is not personal and it is not private. Obstruction of justice is not personal and it is not private. Abuse of the power of the greatest office in the world is not personal and it is not private." Senator Sam Brownback (R- KS) "Perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes against the state. Perjury goes directly against the truth-finding function of the judicial branch of government." com/id/2162672 \_ I assume this is a "Tom DeLay is evul!" Seriously, get over the whole "our guys are angels, your guys are the devil" thing. You've got land scammers, bribe takers, nation security document destroyers and various other assorted and sundry felons walking ... Notice how the top 3/4's of the story spews so much irrelevant chaff, focusing on how Reagan/Clinton/Dubya fired most/all attorneys when they came to power. Only toward the end do you get: "When you have a transition between presidents - especially presidents of different parties - a US attorney anticipates that you will be replaced ... So I guess every administration fires \_ It's not just the firing, it's the (ab)use of the Patriot Act to replace the fired attorneys with Bush-cronies without Senate approval. If Coulter is such a blight on humanity, such a monument to indecency and all that is wretched in our political culture, what does it say about the political movement that has been running our country for the last six years (at least) that they embrace her so enthusiastically?" Was there a big debate years ago about whether a special prosecutor is able to call a sitting president to testify? How did Kenneth Starr manage to get Clinton on the stand to testify in his investigation of Whitewater, then ask him non related Whitewater questions like "Have you inserted ... php House Appropriations chair, himself under investigati... |