The Everlasting Phelps

For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

Deniers and Skeptics

November 30th, 2009

Let me see if I have the current state of the environment correct from the Believer side in light of the CRU scandal:

Minute changes in temperature are sufficient to show that the world is in terrifyingly huge danger.  Minute changes in temperature readings by researchers are insignificant and shouldn’t be thought about too hard.

The tree ring data is sufficiently accurate to base significant portions of the model on, except where we have actual measurements, where it has to be adjusted to a warmer reading every time.

Sure, CRU screwed its data up, but all of the other data from other researchers that matches CRU’s altered data is perfectly fine and above suspicion.

Destroying emails covered by government transparency laws and conspiring to violate those laws are no big deal and just how scientists work.  Releasing those emails, though, is a vicious violation of the conspirator’s privacy and whoever did it should be strung up.

You really don’t need to actually read any of the emails to opine in length on why they don’t matter.  You do, however, have to examine all of the data and have a complete understanding of the climate models before you dare question their integrity.

The science is settled, because there aren’t any peer reviewed dissenting papers.  Except for the ones that did get published, which resulted in the CRU cartel blacklisting the journal that published them, and the ones that almost got published, until the CRU cartel put pressure on their editors to prevent them from being published, including attempting to discover who the anonymous referees were so that they could be directly tampered with.

The emails, on a whole, only show the CRU cartel to be a little rude and vindictive, unlike the skeptics, who can’t be trusted because they are rude and vindictive.

I’m sure that there’s more, but that’s where I am so far.

Hondurans Pick a Leader

November 30th, 2009

Jules: I don’t wanna hear about no mother-fucking ifs. All I wanna hear from your ass is, “You ain’t got no problems, Jules. I’m on the mother-fucker. Go back in there, chill them niggas out, and wait for the cavalry, which should be coming directly.”

Marsellus: You ain’t got no problems, Jules. I’m on the mother-fucker. Go back in there and chill them niggas out, and wait for The Wolf who should be coming directly.

Jules: You sending the Wolf??

Marsellus: Oh, you feel better, motherfucker?

Jules: Shit, negro, that’s all you had to say.

TASER again

November 20th, 2009

This time, the cop TASERed a 10 year old for misbehaving. Not any sort of criminal act, just because her mother didn’t feel like she could control her.

Bradshaw’s report says the girl was “violently kicking and verbally combative” when Bradshaw tried to take her into custody, and she kicked him in the groin. He said he delivered “a very brief drive stun to her back”.

“Her mother told me to tase her if I needed to,” Bradshaw wrote.

So the cop is suspended because he didn’t have his camera attached to the TASER.  Not because he did it, just that he didn’t have the recording.  (Of course, when those “rules” went out, I was pretty sure that they would “forget” to attach it on instances like this anyways.)

What I want to know is why he is not being charged with child abuse.  If the mother had TASERED her own daughter for refusing to take a shower, would there be any question that this is child abuse — hell, torture?  The police do not have the right to do anything that you and I cannot do.  We can do all the things that the police do, including arresting people (the old Citizen’s Arrest) — the only difference is that we aren’t protected by the law when we screw up and make a bad call.

So why is it that the girl is being charged with disorderly conduct (read: Contempt of Cop) rather than the officer being charged with felony assault on a child?

Trials

November 18th, 2009

But imagine KSM being found not guilty, which is a possibility. What happens then? According to Democratic Senator Jack Reed, “under basic principles of international law, as long as these individuals pose a threat, they can be detained, and they will.” Come again? You mean if KSM is acquitted he will still be detained? Yes indeed, according to Senator Reed. He will not be released, “because under the principle of preventive detention, which is recognized during hostilities,” we can continue to hold KSM.

Well, now. It seems to me as though President Obama and Attorney General Holder need to be asked whether they agree with Senator Reed. If not — if they believe that the proud, self-confessed mastermind of the deadliest attack in history on the American homeland should be able to walk free if acquitted in this trial — then Obama and Holder should certainly say so. If KSM were acquitted, the president and his attorney general should proclaim from the rooftops that Mohammed is a free man, found innocent in a civilian court of law, and then allow voters to render a judgment on their decision.

If, on the other hand, Obama and Holder agree with Senator Reed, they should state that as well.

via Commentary.

Here’s the deal.  The purpose of a criminal trial is not some administrative thing that the state does to decide what they are going to do.  They are there to allow the accused to defend himself.  The burden is on the state, and if they fail to carry that burden, then the accused must go free. That’s the point.  That’s where everything in our court system leads, from habeas corpus to the Fifth Amendment protections against double jeopardy.

What Holder and Obama are doing is taking the chance of either setting KSM free, or making a mockery of our court system.  True, the system has plenty to mock in it already, from testilying cops to rubber-stamp warrants to odious victimless crime convictions.  But this choice — letting KSM go or cutting the heart out of the court system — is a choice that they willingly took upon themselves.

When Obama spouts BS like, “it will all be OK when we execute him” he’s whistling past the graveyard.  If it’s a guaranteed conviction, it’s a kangaroo court worthy of Stalin.  Anyone who has studied the Nuremberg trials knows that there was no certainty that the Nazis would be convicted.  The government will have to prove its claims beyond a reasonable doubt.  That means revealing the ways that we got to him, which is an intelligence ding at best.  Protections like Miranda principles will begin to enter.  Has KSM been given access to all possibly exculpatory evidence?  Really?  Has he been given access to a lawyer in a reasonable amount of time?  Does that lawyer have a chance to interview anyone who might have testimony that clears him?  How about the Delta operators who picked him up?  The informant in Afghanistan or whereever who tipped us off?

KSM has a lot of defenses he can try, and he only needs to succeed with one of them.  This is a terrible, horrible lapse in judgment.  This has to be a no-mistakes, no hitter win, and nothing that this administration (or the last one) has done inspires me with confidence that they are capable of that.

Update: Also take a look at this:

If I were KSM’s lawyer, I’d argue the following:

1. That his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by letters and conversations that the government intercepted without a search warrant.

2. That his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination were violated if the government attempts to use statements made before he was read his Miranda rights or after he was waterboarded (since the Obama administration calls it torture).

3. That his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by not providing a speedy trial, that the Speedy Trial Act (a federal statute) has also been violated, and that he has been denied adequate legal counsel.

4. I would also say he cannot get a fair trial in New York and move for change of venue.

5. I would challenge the admissibility of any evidence that was unsecured even for an hour, challenge the authenticity of any offered evidence, insist on his Sixth Amendment right to confront every witness against him, including the capturing officers, interrogators, guards, transport personnel, and whoever else I can think of.

6. I would raise objections of circumstantial evidence, hearsay, the witnesses’ integrity, and every other conceivable objection to the evidence and every procedural step.

And that’s just what an ethical defense attorney would do.  Past history has shown that there is no guarantee that his defenders will be ethical.

The Everlasting Phelps

For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.