[Cons] Article 1, Section 9 - Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto (3 of 4)

So first of all, what the hell are they?

If you don't know, here's the wikipedia definition:

Bill of Attainder: A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person’s civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself. 

Or to Summarize: A penalty just for being somebody or a member of a specific group.

Ex Post Facto: An ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the facts") is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly called an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with lifelong imprisonment) retroactively. Such laws are also known by the Latin term in mitius.

Or to Summarize: It's about changing the rules after the fact so that even if you think you're obeying the law, it can still mean you're not.

Both of these are really important for the rule of law, because even though that rule of law is an illusion, it's a REALLY important illusion.  And if the law is not fair, then its almost impossible to believe in it.  So to the degree the law is fair, or at least gives the illusion of fairness, the law is strong.  That's why when we know the law is not fair, the law starts to lose strength and civilization itself is threatened.  That's the problem with being a Republic.

So, we should definitely include these in any constitution, and probably in the 'always' part, not the Hierarchy of Rights or the BrundleStaag, no matter how much I might want to punish Conservatives merely for being Conservatives.  After all, they might do the same thing to me...(in fact they probably would.)  

And yet....AND YET...

If the primary argument against Ex Post Facto and Bills of Attainder is that it makes the law seem unfair, what about instances where behavior of the offending parties in question also threatens the rule of law?  For those of you who have seen the movie, "Lethal Weapon 2" you likely remember the moment where the racist South African villain laughs that he will get away with murder because he has Diplomatic Immunity? Or what about the fact that millions of people are losing their homes but the bankers got away with it?  Or how I hear my entire life about how a war criminal is the worst thing EVER and they hunt them down until the end of time, and yet we let them get away with it.

The argument can be made that as bad as these things are, the alternative is worse.  This why we need to let Nazis and Racists and Liars have their political speech, because it helps keep the speech free for everyone.  I can see this.  It might be fun to imagine a world with blurry Rule of Law where Batmans whirl around and solve the grey areas, while the law still keeps the glue apart for everyone else.  But without script writers, I really doubt that would work out too well. 

But I think the argument can be made that there might be some areas where the willful ignorance is so high, so deliberate, and so evil that even if the law doesn't cover it, punishment still needs to be applied to cover the rule of law itself.  I think one excellent example of this was the efforts by the Tobacco Lobby to cover up the truth causing millions to die of cancer.  Yes, its true conventional laws were used to punish them....but what if that had failed? EVERYONE knew they were guilty and patently evil...I mean selling cigarettes to children....

And, quite frankly, I think we need to punish conservatives for AGW denial.  This isn't a joke any more.   There is no ambiguity and their willful ignorance is threatening all life on earth.  The cost will be in the TRILLIONS to fix it, and there is a deliberate effort not only to cover it up by the Koch brothers, but to ignore the consequences thereof...

I think they should pay.

Right now, I assure you, I am in the vast vast minority....but what about in the future? What about when the sea levels rise and every day is hot, August Hot?

What's better...a rampaging mob that moves to the south and tears the conservatives limb from limb...or a process...an organized threshold to actually PUNISH an organization so evil and destructive that everyone hates them, like the Westboro Baptist Church?

When people are sufficiently pissed off, there is going to be action....whether or not they have a loop hole in the law...so why not allow a mechanism in the rule of law?

I'll set the barrier at a simple one: 80%.  If a national vote (not a legislature because legislatures suck) can find 80% of the people voting against you? Yeah.  You're gone.

Banishment is the best alternative.  And yes, it can be abused, which is why I think it should also require voting over three years to make it happen, but it might also make some groups who abuse our hospitality...calm down a little.

[Wall of Shame] If a Conservative Is Speaking, a Conservative is Lying

This is my wall of shame for conservatism, not just the lies they tell. 

The 10 Most Corrupt States

Inaction over Climate Report highly likely.

Gun Advocates Spook Fast Food Workers Into Hiding in Freezer

Thailand court ousts prime minister after abuse-of-power verdict

How Censors Killed the Golden Age of Comics (Race, Women)

NRA threatens Surgeon General confirmation unless it gets what it wants

If conservatives are so concerned about the families, why did Mitt Romney make political hay of Benghazi before the families were even notified?

ABC and FOX lie by omission about false 'wind turbine sickness'

Bundy Militia thugs deny threatening Federal Agents

Spending by the Monster Brothers in Context

What if we stopped talking about Benghazi and started talking about what matters?

Top Conservative Blogger Gloats to "Libs" That Nigerian Girls Have Probably Been Sold

Will the BLM Reward Terroristic Threats, Desecration & Vandalism in Utah's Recapture Canyon?

GOP's Benghazi mob must support release of Senate torture report now

Christianists launch campaign to get HGTV to put Benhams back on the air

Allen West: Focus on Boko Haram Is Obama Ploy to Distract from Benghazi

Al Gore Explains The Real Motivation Behind Republicans' Climate Change Denial

Retired Army Col. Harry Riley expects that somewhere between 10 million and 30 million people will help him shut down Washington on Friday for Operation American Spring.

[Turkey] Image of Conservative PM's aide kicking protester stokes anger over Turkey mine fire

x

[Wall of Shame] The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

Citizens Storm a Public Meeting in Protest at City Council Indifference over Police Brutality.

A Refresher for someone who thought the police beat down of Occupy wasn't a big deal.

Judge Rules Citgo Petroleum owes nothing for 10 years of criminal pollution.

Family of Affluenza drunk driver to pay millions.

Judge halts investigation into corrupt politician.  (Reconfimed.)

Texas Officer Shoots 93 year old woman after having previously shot someone else a year previous.

USPO Grants Patent To Amazon for "Photographing Something with a White Background"

Why Nordic Countries are Better than America...and not because "Homogenous Populations" 

Oligarchy Judge ignores please from ignorant jury to spare Occupy victim harsh justice

Cops Raid Family Party, Pepper Spray Children, Taser Grandma

NSA, Metadata, and Congress

Just Because You Weren't Dancing is No Reason for Us Not to Beat You Up and Then Throw You in Jail.
x

[Cons] Article 1, Section 9 - Habeus Corpus/Revolution (2 of 4)

I'm starting a new thread in this blog called [Revolution] because we don't live in a democracy.  The conservatives are right...we live in a Republic.  A Roman Republic with corrupt, elite senators that report to royal houses who only throw some bread and circuses to the plebes to keep them from revolting.

I mean, take something as innocent as this article about the army taking Apache helicopters from the national guard for budget reasons.  Well, we definitely need a smaller military,but the question is, do we want our lethal weapons all in the hands of the federal government or shall the state militias retain any actual fire power?  See, the problem with being so psycho about the 2nd amendment that you interpret it only for self defense (it does apply there) you ignore the right of states to defend themselves if the Federal government goes berserk.  Where are the conservatives howling about the defanging of the national guard? I'll tell you where...they're too busy defending a thief in Nevada to care about preserving the actual organization most likely to protect us in a military coup.  Who are the citizen soldiers?  The national guard, that's who.

Whatever.

The constitution does not allow for the dissolution of congress by the president.  Lots of other countries do this.  Its a bad idea.  While legislatures suck, separation of powers are necessary.  Rights are rights, always and forever, so the idea that the Habeus Corpus or Hierarchy of Rights can ever be suspended is ludicrous.  It should NEVER be allowed.

But Tom, what if there's an emergency? I hear you say.

Well first of all, let's understand that emergencies are the first weapon of tyrants.  Hitler used them to take over Germany.  The dictator of Egypt used it there.  George W. Bush used the emergency of 9/11 to get us into a war with Iraq.  (Conservatives STILL will not admit Iraq was awful or still blame cowardly liberals as being 'co guilty'.  Victims all forever.)

If the separation of powers should never be abrogated to keep democracy in place, so too should rights. I argue that there is NEVER an instance where the rights as determined by a people shall be 'suspected' in secret courts.  Now, war is war, and sometimes you have to do extreme things.  But if they are extreme enough to actually be needed, then they are extreme enough that you should face the consequences of them.

Let me say that again because I cannot emphasize it enough.

IF YOU HAVE A SUFFICIENT EMERGENCY TO THROW THE HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS OUT THE WINDOW, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY YOUR ACTIONS IN A COURT OF LAW.

No blanket immunity for cops, for soldiers, for government officials or anyone else.  How do you keep them from being drowned in nuisance conservative style law suits? Very carefully.  Part of the whole reason I think we need to eliminate professional police departments as they currently exist is because cops are never basically held to account unless someone dies or they hack off a limb, and even then there is no guarantee.  Our public servants need enough latitude to do their job, not a blank check to set up Guantanamo Bay.

[Revolution] The First Domino to Fall

This post is in reaction to a series of thoughts I've had, ever since the DHS coordinated crushing of Occupy, and heightened recently by two articles I mention in this post.  The two articles, to summarize, basically state that a) We do live in an Oligarchy where we no longer have a say in our government and b) the most effective way to get our government back is for the left and the right to unite.  In that post, I explain why this is an incredibly stupid idea, mainly due to the fact that the right are largely populated by pathological liars. 

Nothing worth accomplishing anything was ever accomplished by liars.

• So if we can't wait for the mythical third party....
• And non violent revolution has and will be crushed in this country...
•  And armed revolution without the aid of the military is functionally impossible...
•  And revolution fostered BY the military is a horrible horrible idea...
•  And John Galt isn't going to save us...
•  And a mythical charismatic leader rising up from nowhere isn't going to save us...

Then where do we start? 

• Because doing nothing is only going to make it worse.  The elite are taking more power and wealth, not less.
•  Non violent revolution IS possible, but it does require a truly free society in which it possible.  

So where do we start?

We start by eliminating the police.

Now, now, I know I sound like I'm insane, and I do not think all police individually are evil or against us.  But there is instance after instance after instance where it seems AS AN INSTITUTION the police are in a perpetual state of us vs them, as if they were in permanent Stanford prison experiment mode.   Why else do you think the Oligarchy is arming our police departments? 

OK, you might argue, granted the police might be the first tool in the arsenal of oppression, and there might be some bad apples, but surely reform is possible.

What kind of reform might you be proposing?

Civilian Oversight?  Many of the police departments that took part in the nationally coordinated strike against Occupy had Civilian oversight boards.

Monitoring? Lots of police abuse has been caught on camera and nothing has been done about it.  Also, sometimes the monitoring equipment is tampered with.

Getting better leadership might remove corruption, but it will not remove the 'us vs them' mentality of police units in riot gear.  For a peaceful revolution to succeed, the police need to have enough cohesion to stop a legitimate riot, but side with people making a legitimate protest against the oligarchy.

In short, when the Department of Homeland Security calls them up and says, "We're going to crush the first amendment rights of Americans," the police say, "Go F*ck Yourselves."   Let us also not forget that in union states, police unions are highly conservative and are often the only union to ally themselves with conservatives.  If we are to hope for change, it will never come from conservatives.  Conservatives are by definition against change.  Look at the vast majority of conservative attitudes toward Occupy.

So what we need is a democratization of police forces, and not a political democratization, but an ACTUAL democratization.  After all, at the federal level, the Democratic party is indeed part of the oligarchy, even if they're the less lying part.

So how might this goal be accomplished? Well...have you ever had your bike or scooter stolen? Maybe your house robbed or maybe your car?  Were the police able to do much there?  No.  But they're fairly good at solving murder (when they're not pinning it on minorities that is but that's really a prosecutor problem)   They're also pretty good at solving traffic accidents.  But, come on, haven't you ever wondered, if you are driving on the highway, if the cop sitting there with a laser gun didn't have something better to do?  Are they working for you or the insurance companies? 

Before professional police forces, militia often handled investigations and matters of domestic abuse etc.  If your house is in the process of being robbed, you want the police to show up.  If a bunch of bank robbers are taking people hostage, you want the police to show up.

So let's think about this then: Homocide detectives, SWAT, administration and maybe in certain cases (MAYBE) counter terrorism, police efforts are genuinely appreciated (though I suppose if your religion makes law and order part of your creed then ALL law enforcement efforts are appreciated, Oligarchy or not), but traffic enforcement and vice and riot control are all some of the areas of the worst abuse by people who seem to have far too much time on their hands.

Here are some solutions I have thought of so far:

A core professional core, with the national guard performing non professional functions.  This would entail removing the national guard from the pentagon's command in all events save invasion by an actual foreign army.  The problem with this is that Washington is Corrupt, and so this will not happen.  It could maybe happen after we rewrite the constitution...but not now.

Again, a core professional series of units, who can handle legitimate police function, but for large scale operation like riot control, citizens are called up in reserve units ala Jury Duty.  If it is a legitimate riot, then the 'posse' concept would work quite well.  You might have over enthusiasm, but at the same time if it is Occupy or a non violent protest, as long as you didn't have too many conservatives in your ranks, you'd be fine.  The key to this is that you need to have large scale things like this done by CITIZENS, not citizen oversight, which means protection of their jobs while they do their stint and ACTUAL PAY unlike Jury Duty which is complete crap.

Those are the only two I've thought of so far.  Electing all cops won't work, it's just not realistic.  Electing all police core officers of captain or above won't work, because most District Attorneys are elected, and they're often corrupt and withhold evidence from the defense, so that would only make the problem worse.  Civilian oversight doesn't work.  Cameras really don't work unless the abuse is flagrant.

The only way we're going to have a peaceful revolution is if the cops are on OUR side, and while it came close in New York, they still have to feed their families and have jobs, so when DHS leans on mayors (conservative or liberal alike) and threatens to remove all federal funds if they do not comply, the police sided with the Oligarchy.  We still have control at a local level...we can do this.  Change at the federal level seems impossible.  But change at a local level, in non conservative areas is something that CAN happen, though it is a risk.

[Phil] OK, so both sides are bad. That doesn't mean both sides are EQUALLY bad.

Two articles recently have come to my attention.  The natural response from bothers is of course being to be that both sides are the same, and that the elite simply use our divisions to keep us apart.  Well, to a certain degree that is true, but that also doesn't mean that Shruggers and Conservatives are not pathological liars and that they're the REASON the elite are able to play us like fiddles.

The first article is a fascinating study by Princeton that pretty much tells us what those of us paying attention already knew.  That the elite are in charge, and that we on the ground are worth nothing in terms of affecting power.  Or in other words, exactly what Occupy Wall Street was talking about.  But Shruggers and Conservatives have insisted that they had no actual agenda or effect on the national dialog and were basically bunch of hippies.  Nothing could be farther from the truth, and the fact that this article was even published is to me proof they have affected the dialog.

The second was posted by this rather interesting youtube channel called Stormclouds Rising that basically proves that Harry Reid had his hand in the cookie jar regarding the ranch confrontration.  Does that change the fact that Mr. Jolly Ranger has had his OWN hand in the federal cookie jar getting free grazing for 25 years? No.  It does not.  Both are scum, and Stormcloud's rightfully had quite a bit of skepticism given the people defending Jolly Rancher.  Shruggers love to talk about the importance of contract law, but the fact is Mr. Jolly Rancher had a contract with the federal government to PAY HIS TAXES and broke it with the rest of us for 25 years.  I have no sympathy for Mr. Rancher.

So what do these two articles teach us? Something we knew already.  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  So what?  Just because the elite are money grubbing f*cktards, doesn't change the fact that they are still people. In fact, that proves they are even MORE like people, which means that they all still have their own political beliefs.  I mean, seriously, if you had a chance to talk to the Koch brothers or Mr. Boner or Harry Reid in a locked elevator, they might eventually admit to stealing billions from US tax payers, but they would still have substantially believe that their own publicly admitted political platform was right.

The 'elite playing both sides against the middle' smacks of RandGoldOwl, and it's pretty f*cking rediculous.  Why ascribe to compotence what we can just ascribe to greed?  Greed trumps ideology in government service with Harry Reed, and Greed trumps ideology in the terms of small government or fiscal responsibility in the Koch brothers.  That doesn't mean they all get along.  Sure, they lie to us an manipulate us, but there is no 'special accord' between the two factions of Cowardly and Corrupt and Corrupt and Crazy that actually rule this country.

Both sides are not the same.  So let's call a spade a spade here.  Special special special snowflakes say, "Calling half the country stupid is just empowering the MAN, man" but really, the special special special snowflakes are actually empowering their own jailers.  We *DO* need to unite, and we do *NOT* have to agree.  There are a handful of Shruggers and Conservatives who only lie about things like AGW but actually understand that the minimum wage is not evil and taxes are not theft. 

We're in a war for our survival, a war for the soul of this nation, and in a war, do you want someone who pathologically lies to you to be your rifle buddy?  If you're a gamer, imagine if you had to play blind but the other guy could see your cards all the time.  Liberals may be too fragmented and occasionally too cowardly but conservatives are totally self deceptive to the point of their own destruction. It is not liberal competence that has kept the middle class from imploding all this time but conservative Incompetence in selecting tea party candidates.

NOTHING will be accomplished until the bothers finally stop pretending both sides are the same and admit that lies will accomplish nothing.

Glossary

I will update this as time goes on, but I feel the time has come to add this.

Bother - Also known as a Bothsider Freak An individual who insists that both sides of the political spectrum of the same no matter what evidence is provided to the contrary.  See also Truther or Birther.

Carthaged - Burying an idea so far deep in history that it becomes forgotten or lost or irretrievably changed, like how the Romans not only burned Carthage, but salted the earth around the city so it could never rise again.  Sure, the memory of Hannibal and the Alps lives forever...but check a map...Rome lives.  There is no Carthage except Carthage, IL maybe...and I doubt that's what Hannibal fought for....

Shrugger - Follower of or one sympathetic to Objectivism, specifically Atlas Shrugged.  They also typically believe they have secret secret knowledge that none of the rest of us have ala RandGoldOwl.

11/30/2024

Murdercop - In a society without accountability of Law Enforcement, Cops aren't Cops, they're Murdercops

Windowfucker - A person who asks, "How much property was damaged in a riot?"rather than "How many people were hurt in the Riot?" or "Why did the Riot Happen?"

Virus Ally - See also RFK JR, people who think Vaccines are false or claim to just want a different vaccination schedule but everything they say or do clearly indicates that they're just murderous virus ally freaks