Every state in the Union, plus the District of Columbia has laws on their books banning the destruction of evidence. That’s normally called “obstruction of justice”. The Federal Government has a similar statute for situations where Federal Courts have jurisdiction. In any trial, in any courthouse in America, a party destroying evidence suffers the sting of having that misdeed offered against them because it’s legally considered “evidence of a guilty conscience.”
Against that backdrop, consider the recent admission by Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) director, Michael Hayden, that the Agency destroyed videotapes of C.I.A. interrogations of highly prized terror suspects. The Agency did so despite being warned not to do so by one of the few members of Congress who knew of the tapes existence, Jane Harman (a Democratic Representative from California), who sat on the House Intelligence Committee.
Mind you, the 9/11 Commission was never shown the tapes and the Congressional Committees that held hearings on the C.I.A.’s response to 9/11 and the lead-up to the Iraq War were also never given the tapes. The Agency kept the tapes in-house and then destroyed them once it appeared they might someday be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution.
The excuse now being given for the destruction of the tapes rings hollow: To protect the interrogators and their families.
First of all, the Bush Administration identified covert C.I.A. agent Valerie Plame without a second thought when it suited their desire to smear her husband.
Next, since torture was and still is a crime in the United States, if the interrogators engaged in torture, they and their family members are do no protection by the government for the interrogator’s misdeeds.
What’s obvious from this whole affair, is that interrogators with the C.I.A. engaged in torture and the tapes were destroyed to prevent anyone from proving it by videotape. Destroying evidence shows consciousness of guilt in anyone’s book, and that applies to the C.I.A. as well!
Friday, December 7, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
G.O.P. Senator Grassley Making The Televangelists Nervous
Christian televangelists are nervous about the prospect of Republican Senator Charles Grassley from Iowa holding Congressional committee hearings to investigate their financial dealings - and they should be. The Senator's decision to take on widespread financial corruption in the Christian Broadcast community represents a serious threat to money-grubbing televangelists nationwide.
If the product of Senator Grassley's proposed hearings is greater enforcement of existing IRS regulations that prohibit ministers from using their ministries to reap excessive personal financial gain, that would strike a serious blow to the lifestyles of many Christian televangelists who, for years, have thumbed their noses at the IRS, not to mention at Christ, while lining their pockets with millions of dollars of tax-deductible donations from their viewers. If Grassley's investigation results in regulation of ministry record-keeping and the enactment of rules requiring ministries to grant public disclosure of how and where funds are spent to maintain tax-exempt status with the IRS, Christian televangelist donations will almost certainly drop off because many viewers will donate elsewhere rather than lose a tax deduction for their contribution. It's no wonder the Christian TV hucksters are worried.
Even Christian ministries that are not being specifically targeted by the Grassley investigation are worried, because any rules promulgated by Congress on the tax issue will apply to them as well.
In my opinion, that's not a bad thing. If charities wish to make a living off tax-deductible donations, they owe a duty to the citizenry at large, and to the folks making the donations, to spend those funds for the purposes for which they were solicited, and not to enrich the charity's figurehead. At this point, the only way to insure that charitable funds are properly spent is to require public disclosure of charity financial records as a requirement for charitable organizations to maintain tax-exempt status.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from interfering in the practice of religion, but that civil right does not include the right to tax-exempt status for charitable donations that are not being used for charitable purposes.
If the product of Senator Grassley's proposed hearings is greater enforcement of existing IRS regulations that prohibit ministers from using their ministries to reap excessive personal financial gain, that would strike a serious blow to the lifestyles of many Christian televangelists who, for years, have thumbed their noses at the IRS, not to mention at Christ, while lining their pockets with millions of dollars of tax-deductible donations from their viewers. If Grassley's investigation results in regulation of ministry record-keeping and the enactment of rules requiring ministries to grant public disclosure of how and where funds are spent to maintain tax-exempt status with the IRS, Christian televangelist donations will almost certainly drop off because many viewers will donate elsewhere rather than lose a tax deduction for their contribution. It's no wonder the Christian TV hucksters are worried.
Even Christian ministries that are not being specifically targeted by the Grassley investigation are worried, because any rules promulgated by Congress on the tax issue will apply to them as well.
In my opinion, that's not a bad thing. If charities wish to make a living off tax-deductible donations, they owe a duty to the citizenry at large, and to the folks making the donations, to spend those funds for the purposes for which they were solicited, and not to enrich the charity's figurehead. At this point, the only way to insure that charitable funds are properly spent is to require public disclosure of charity financial records as a requirement for charitable organizations to maintain tax-exempt status.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from interfering in the practice of religion, but that civil right does not include the right to tax-exempt status for charitable donations that are not being used for charitable purposes.
Monday, December 3, 2007
The 27th Amendment - The Hawaii Amendment
Section 1. The right of the football team of the University of Hawaii, a Division-I school, who finished the 2007 season undeated, to play in the BCS Bowl Championship game in January of 2008, shall not be denied, especially in favor of teams with (11-1) and (10-2) records.
Section 2. The NCAA shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
(enough said)
Section 2. The NCAA shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
(enough said)
Texas Creationists Raise Their Ugly Head
The Texas Education Agency has given the "heave-ho" to their Director of Science, Christina Castillo Comer, because she sent a pro-evolution advocacy group an e-mail informing the group of a presentation being given by a professor who provided expert testimony in the Dover, Pennsylvania creationism trial. Texas officials point out that Ms. Comer resigned, but resignation under duress isn't any different from an old-fashioned firing in my book.
The reason for Ms. Comer's canning is that "Creationism" (a/k/a "Intelligent Design") advocates won't take no for an answer and are preparing for a 2008 campaign to hijack the Texas Board of Education into making the same mistake as the Dover, Pennsylvania School Board and mandating the teaching of creationism as science.
Ms. Comer, a career science teacher, was seen by Pro-Creationism advocates as a major stumbling block in their drive towards mandating creationism in Texas schools, and they seized upon the e-mail as an excuse to remove that barrier.
The decision rendered by Federal District Court Judge Jones in the Dover "Intelligent Design" trial provides a thorough analysis of why "Intelligent Design" is not science, but rather a veiled attempt to teach religion in school under the guise of science. Such attempts by government to advance religion violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and cannot not be tolerated.
It's a sad commentary on the competency of education officials in Texas who refuse to learn from the mistakes of others, namely, the Dover School Board. You'd think they'd know better, but apparently not.
The reason for Ms. Comer's canning is that "Creationism" (a/k/a "Intelligent Design") advocates won't take no for an answer and are preparing for a 2008 campaign to hijack the Texas Board of Education into making the same mistake as the Dover, Pennsylvania School Board and mandating the teaching of creationism as science.
Ms. Comer, a career science teacher, was seen by Pro-Creationism advocates as a major stumbling block in their drive towards mandating creationism in Texas schools, and they seized upon the e-mail as an excuse to remove that barrier.
The decision rendered by Federal District Court Judge Jones in the Dover "Intelligent Design" trial provides a thorough analysis of why "Intelligent Design" is not science, but rather a veiled attempt to teach religion in school under the guise of science. Such attempts by government to advance religion violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and cannot not be tolerated.
It's a sad commentary on the competency of education officials in Texas who refuse to learn from the mistakes of others, namely, the Dover School Board. You'd think they'd know better, but apparently not.
Three Cheers for Democratic Voters in Venezuela
Here's to the Pro-Democracy voters in Venezuela who defeated a referundum to grant current Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, near dictatorial powers for the remainder of his life. Here's to the rest of the world for allowing Venezuelans to decide their own destiny!
Make no mistake, at some point in the future, Hugo Chavez will try again to officially transform his position as President of Venezuela into supreme dictator, but for now, a majority of voters, albeit a slim one, have decided otherwise.
In the meantime, it behooves the rest of mankind to remember that nature abhors a vaccuum. Men like Chavez fill that void in the political world because "salt-of-the-earth" working people all too often find themselves without a voice, and will follow almost anybody they believe will empower them.
In their hearts, most people want to be free to determine their own future, but freedom means little if one cannot put food on the table for one's family.
Economic repression is just a dictatorial as political oppression. That's why Chavez took power in the first place. Fortunately, Venezuelan voters recognized that the opposite is true as well.
Make no mistake, at some point in the future, Hugo Chavez will try again to officially transform his position as President of Venezuela into supreme dictator, but for now, a majority of voters, albeit a slim one, have decided otherwise.
In the meantime, it behooves the rest of mankind to remember that nature abhors a vaccuum. Men like Chavez fill that void in the political world because "salt-of-the-earth" working people all too often find themselves without a voice, and will follow almost anybody they believe will empower them.
In their hearts, most people want to be free to determine their own future, but freedom means little if one cannot put food on the table for one's family.
Economic repression is just a dictatorial as political oppression. That's why Chavez took power in the first place. Fortunately, Venezuelan voters recognized that the opposite is true as well.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
The Activist Conservative Judiciary
People who make a pastime out of hurling "activist judge" epithets at liberal leaning judges when it comes to Constitutional decisions are only fooling themselves. There isn't a single judge on the federal bench who isn't an "activist judge". The only difference between camps is what part of the Constitution a judge will choose to give preeminence.
"Conservative" federal judges are all too eager to ignore the privacy rights of ordinary citizens that form the linchpin of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution in the name of national security. While it is certainly understandable why a judge would instinctively want to do so - survival is the most basic instinct - the fact is, by ignoring the intent of our Constitutional Framers, they too become activist judges.
On other questions, like the Bush Administration's attempt to recreate an "imperial presidency" with virtually unchecked power therein, the conservative bench has time and time again jettisoned the wisdom of the Founding Fathers that Congress, the repository of the collective will of the people, should hold the ultimate power of government. In taking said approach, the conservative judiciary exhibits the very kind of activist behavior that critics of the liberal judiciary are quick to condemn.
The point is not that one side is right and the other is wrong. The point is, all judges are activists...the real question is what are they advocating?
"Conservative" federal judges are all too eager to ignore the privacy rights of ordinary citizens that form the linchpin of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution in the name of national security. While it is certainly understandable why a judge would instinctively want to do so - survival is the most basic instinct - the fact is, by ignoring the intent of our Constitutional Framers, they too become activist judges.
On other questions, like the Bush Administration's attempt to recreate an "imperial presidency" with virtually unchecked power therein, the conservative bench has time and time again jettisoned the wisdom of the Founding Fathers that Congress, the repository of the collective will of the people, should hold the ultimate power of government. In taking said approach, the conservative judiciary exhibits the very kind of activist behavior that critics of the liberal judiciary are quick to condemn.
The point is not that one side is right and the other is wrong. The point is, all judges are activists...the real question is what are they advocating?
An Old Friend Drops By And Gives the Heave-Ho
Richard Roberts, president of Oral Roberts University, the religious university built by former televangelist, Oral Roberts, resigned his post this past week amidst accusations of financial improprieties and misuse of university funds for his own private purposes. That's old news.
What's new to the storyline is that Richard Robert remarked to a gathering of students that his resignation was prompted by a visit from God, who reportedly told the embattled University President to hang up his shoes.
Over the years, Mr. Roberts has boasted of a close personal relationship with God, intimating in the process, that there was something more special about his relationship with God, than say, your or my relationship with God. Oh, he'd deny that was the case, for sure, but if you've ever heard him speak, you can't miss the implication that God has elevated him above all others for work more important than anything you or I do.
What I want to know is this: If the (Reverend) Richard Roberts was speaking with God on a daily basis, why didn't the subject of Robert's thievery - which is what his financial shenanigans amounted to in moral terms - come up sooner? I'm not seeking to question God here, I'm just questioning the sincerity of a man who claims he's got a special "in" with God.
Believe me - there's a big difference!
What's new to the storyline is that Richard Robert remarked to a gathering of students that his resignation was prompted by a visit from God, who reportedly told the embattled University President to hang up his shoes.
Over the years, Mr. Roberts has boasted of a close personal relationship with God, intimating in the process, that there was something more special about his relationship with God, than say, your or my relationship with God. Oh, he'd deny that was the case, for sure, but if you've ever heard him speak, you can't miss the implication that God has elevated him above all others for work more important than anything you or I do.
What I want to know is this: If the (Reverend) Richard Roberts was speaking with God on a daily basis, why didn't the subject of Robert's thievery - which is what his financial shenanigans amounted to in moral terms - come up sooner? I'm not seeking to question God here, I'm just questioning the sincerity of a man who claims he's got a special "in" with God.
Believe me - there's a big difference!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)