Wednesday's Brains Continued!

[elfs]

The Official Slogan of the Bush Administration: "Not every violation of the law is a crime."

It would be funny if this were some dude at a bar, y'know, but this is Michael Mukasey, the Attorney General of the United States. He also says that those who violated the law will not be pursued because they've suffered enough in the court of public opinion.

IOKIYAR.

Bush shocked, shocked! at Russia's behavior

With the war in Iraq having drained our resources, we have no sabers to rattle in the direction of that former superpower, still licking its wounded pride, Russia, as it clobbers a small neighbor it doesn't like. Of course, when we protest, Russia will just point, not to Iraq, but to Pakistan and Palestine, two states where we supported either foreign powers or oligarchal regimess over popularly elected officials because we didn't like what "the people" in those states had voted for.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will receive taxpayer bailouts. Why are they paying dividends?

Remember the scene in It's a Wonderful Life? "Your money's not here. It's over there. In his pockets. And his. And in the pockets of those well-dressed men running away."

Only one of McCain's nine homes is good enough for Architectural Digest!

Apparently, this is the reason the press loves to visit McCain's barbecues: his houses are gorgeous. Love the hot-tub.

What will the candidates do about the drug war?

On January 20th 2009, either the president of the United States will be a man who used to snort coke to ease his blues, or the First Lady will be a former drug addict who stole from charity to get her next fix. In this presidential campaign, there are dozens of issues that have failed to flicker into the debate, but the most striking is the failing, flailing 'War on Drugs.' Isn't it a sign of how unwinnable this 'war' is that, if it was actually enforced evenly, either Barack Obama or Cindy McCain would have to skip the inauguration -- because they'd be in jail?

(via Andrew Sullivan )

Comments

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

"IOKIYAR"? *highlight* *right-click* *google* (Firefox FTW)

Hey, some of my best friends are (more old-school) Republicans.

Honestly, these new idiots? Ought to be prosecuted for trademark infringement by the old guard. Doesn't look nothing like an elephant to me. Looks more like a *snake*.

[(Anonymous)]

Slight catch -
At least round here police don't particularly target users unless they cause secondary crimes or otherwise endanger people or property, the real place to put the effort is in stopping the dealers and others in the supply chain. Users won't be a concern if you can stop them getting the drugs to begin with.

[xengar.livejournal.com]

Oddly, your last link takes me to a column about Islam in the media, while all the comments at the bottom of the page are about the drug war column you intended to reference. Has it been taken down, or is my browser playing tricks on me?

[xengar.livejournal.com]

Ah, I found the article you were talking about (http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1354). It looks like The Huffington Post doesn't keep it's own archive of his columns it just links to The Independent's archive of them, and The Independent skipped that one.

[tagryn]

Actually, Russia is citing Kosovo as the precedent: if the West supported their independence from Serbia, why shouldn't Russia support the Ossetians and Abkhazians to get the same? The USA pretty much ignored their protests over Kosovo, so turnabout is fair game from their perspective.

Anyway, its not like we were ever going to go to war with Russia over this, Iraq or no Iraq. Which is just as well: land war in Asia and all that. The Caucasuses are probably the last place you'd want to get involved in a protracted shooting war, as the Russians found out in Chechnya. I'm surprised they haven't yet done to Tbilisi what they did to Grozny, just as a lesson that you don't f**k with Russia.

What part of "crime" don't you understand?

[ideaphile.livejournal.com]

Look up the word, for crying out loud.

A crime is a violation of the law for which one may be punished. There are plenty of laws that have no punishment associated. A violation of such a law is not associated with guilt or innocence. No charges can be brought and there can't be a conviction.

These violations can lead to civil proceedings in which someone may be held liable for failing to obey the law, but liability is a very different thing. For example, if I apply properly for a business license and the responsible bureaucrat fails to issue one to me, I can sue to get the license, but the bureaucrat isn't at risk of being sent to jail.

There are many such situations where the law prescribes and precludes courses of action without providing a punishment for failures to comply.

The fact you'd even think to say that you know more about the law than the Attorney General of the United States pretty much proves that you don't think rationally about politics. If you want to keep writing about politics, you ought to figure out why that is, and do something about it.

. png

Re: What part of "crime" don't you understand?

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Leaving aside the whole issue of civil versus criminal complaints here, other lawyers have looked at the report delivered to Mukasey from the Inspector General at the Justice Department and concluded that Michael Elston and Monica Goodling violated laws and regulations warranting prosecution. I don't have to be "better than Mukasey"; I can rely on other legal experts-- sure with their own axes to grind, but that's no more or less biased than being an appointee of a corrupt administration.

Mukasey won't prosecute them, and he has his reasons. I disagree strongly with those reasons, and his failure will result in a justice department running out the clock on the current administration.

[mikstera.livejournal.com]

I saw this on another blog, and thought it accurately captured how Michael Mukasey's statement translates:

"People in the justice department did illegal things for the Bush administration. They also destroyed the credibility of a vital government institution. BUT we aren't going to do a damn thing to them. Let alone charge them with a crime HAHA!"

I don't think quibbling over the exact definition of the word "crime" will change that.