Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (119834)	12/15/2011 11:28:30 AM
From: longnshort	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

the middle class got a tax cut from the Bush tax cuts. How did that hurt them ?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (119834)	12/15/2011 11:36:13 AM
From: MJ	4 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

There you go Kenneth blaming Bush. That is what you do when you have nothing valid to add to the conversaton. You are throwing spitballs like a child again. Go to your corner and stay there until you can find something intelligent to add to the conversation. While there consider all of the wars that Obama has drug America into---------consider the destruction of people in the MId East Christians and Arabs as a result of his wars who are dead because of him.--------the whole of the Middle East is exploding . Eventuallly I fully suspect that Obama will engulf more in his senseless wars. Other nations not in the Middle East are starting to feel the effects-----i.e. Belgium , I read about the recent attacks in Belgium and wept.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (119834)	12/15/2011 2:05:08 PM
From: lorne	4 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

ken...More for you to be proud of..obama's commie czar holder destroying a good American doing his job. 'You can't even go home!' Feds go bonkers on border agent ... Outrage follows warning that Diaz will be banned from his own home during probation December 14, 2011 By Bob Unruh wnd.com The wife of former U.S. Border Patrol agent Jesus Diaz, who was jailed over his treatment of a drug smuggler, says she's outraged that the government has told her husband he won't be allowed to return home to be with her or associate with any other law enforcement-linked member of his family while on probation. "I have to ask what does the DOJ want me to do? I can't retire, I'm too young. Divorcing him is not an option as he would still have to come around for the children. What is Chito going to do about his brother, not see him for the next five years? He carries a gun," Diana Diaz, said in a statement released today through the Law Enforcement Officers Advocates Council, which has become an advocate for the officer in issues outside the courtroom. "When are we going to [be] done feeding the Mexican monster with our agents' lives and those of their families?" she asked. "Is a 15-year-old illegal drug smuggler worth more than almost 25 years of dedication and hard work, protecting two borders in two different states? While the president can pardon a turkey, it's just a signature to him. For us, it's life-altering." Click here to sign a petition sending a message to the federal government about Border Patrol Agent Jesus Diaz The comments came after Andy Ramirez, chief of the LEOAC, confirmed that the U.S. Bureau of Prisons at the prison where Border Patrol Agent Jesus E. 'Chito' Diaz Jr. is serving his prison sentence told him he cannot go home because his wife, a field operations supervisor Border Patrol agent in Del Rio Border Patrol Sector, Texas, is armed. "LEOAC was informed … Diaz cannot go home to a house with a weapon," the organization said. "That to do so would be a violation of his probation, and that he would be returned to prison." Ramirez confirmed that there are a number of law enforcement officers in Diaz' family, including his wife and his brother, Luis. "We at LEOAC fully understand why this rule would ordinarily apply to the so-called 'normal convicted felon.' However, this case was a complete overreach as a prosecution, contained false allegations starting with the fact that then-juvenile narco-trafficker and illegal alien 'Bernal' was labeled by the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility investigating agents as lacking credibility as a witness in their report to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas along with CBP Internal Affairs," the organization's statement said. "It's also known that he and other witnesses, federal agents testifying against Agent Diaz, also had credibility issues given the numerous conflicting statements and outright admissions of perjury (lying) for which none of them were charged by the government." Ramirez also noted Diaz' story "never changed," but the judge, Alia Moses, "filtered evidence" and that ensured the "conviction of an innocent Border Patrol agent while the real criminals were made out to be victims and protected by the U.S. and Mexican governments." "What will DOJ do next to the Diaz family? Will they not be satisfied until they have forced Diana into an early retirement, which given her age is highly unlikely? Or do they want to see Chito and Diana divorced? Isn't it enough that they've destroyed Chito's name and reputation? Isn't it enough that they've engaged in an attack on Diana's career as a 15-year BP agent that has resulted in further promotion and advancement to be halted, the details of which cannot be disclosed due to privacy concerns?" Ramirez said. He said the U.S. House of Representatives needs to investigate the case. "DOJ knows, as we do, that they can waive and/or modify the rule under the circumstances given both Diana's and Luis' occupations as BP agents, knowing the dangers they face as they continue to protect and defend America's borders from the dangerous drug cartels and human traffickers infiltrating the U.S. from Mexico each and every day. DOJ also knows that this case never should have seen the inside of a courtroom and should have solely resulted in, at the most, internal discipline by the Border Patrol," Ramirez said. WND reported several days earlier when the federal government started reaching into the prison commissary fund belonging to Diaz to address part of a $7,000 fine imposed by the judge. That's even though the court earlier told Diaz the fine would not be paid until after his jail sentence. While members of Congress already have asked the Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder to review the case, there has been no response from the Obama administration. Ramirez noted that Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., wrote about the controversy, including "a request for a waiver of the fine imposed by the court." He said that request "has clearly been ignored." "We concur with Mr. Hunter that this fine must be waived given the fact that this case is filled with inconsistencies in testimony, perjury, and knowing that Judge Moses filtered evidence and materials that could well have led to an acquittal verdict by the jury," he said. "We call on the House Committee on the Judiciary and House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to investigate this case and others for a pattern of overreaching political prosecutions of law enforcement officers while protecting illegal alien narco-traffickers [that] has continued through three presidential administrations. Also, Congress must question why DOJ can blatantly ignore congressional inquiries and begin holding the other federal government branches accountable," Ramirez said. According to the FreeAgentDiaz.com website, Diaz was "maliciously prosecuted at the request of the Mexican consul in Eagle Pass, Texas." The legal case against the officer was "solely motivated by politics and is yet another example of prosecutorial abuse and misconduct while protecting Mexico's narco-terror influences," organizers of the website said. They have been collecting donations to help with the fine as well as the needs of the agent's family. According to the discovery documents, other agents, hours after the alleged incident, claimed to an off-duty Border Patrol officer that Diaz used "excessive force" on the drug smuggler. That's even though the suspect "was processed for voluntary return to Mexico by BPA Marco A. Ramirez, and subsequently returned to Mexico on the same date." The officer was accused of handcuffing the suspect, then lifting him by his handcuffed arms. But government records show the smuggler reported no injuries, and was sent back to Mexico almost immediately. Prosecutors in the concluded case went back into court as soon as WND started reporting on the controversies involved and obtained a court order that prevents the defense counsel or Diaz from releasing discovery documentation in the case. However, the advocates council previously had received the information and it now has been posted online. The order came from Moses only a few days after WND reported on documents revealing the unidentified teenage drug smuggler had compromised his credibility by lying on the scene about any knowledge of marijuana. Among the documents revealed in the file is the complaint from the Mexican consul, which claimed that the suspect caught hauling 75 pounds of drugs into the U.S. "was arrested with excessive force" and that "minor complained about the incident once he arrived to the South Station." However, the U.S. government's report said the drug trafficking suspect, who was given immunity by the federal government, "did not complain that he was injured, hurt, or in pain when the official twisted his arms and applied the 'heavy pressure.'" Ramirez said, "The government's case is based on false testimony that is contradicted by the facts. Clearly, the U.S. attorney's office is concerned that WND will obtain other documents proving the prosecution of Diaz involved an abuse of government authority." On Oct. 20, Moses sentenced Diaz to 24 months in prison after he was found guilty in a federal criminal trial of denying the Mexican teenager of his constitutional rights by applying excessive force during the incident. He was accused eventually of violating the smuggler's rights by forcing him to the ground during his arrest, handcuffing him, then pulling on his arms to coerce him into complying with orders. Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean Border watchers will remember the extended battle fought by Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean after they were prosecuted, convicted and jailed, again at the request of the Mexican government, for shooting at and striking a drug smuggler who reportedly dropped a load in the U.S. and was fleeing back to Mexico. Their punishments ultimately were commuted by President George W. Bush, although they did not receive pardons, leaving their convictions on their records. Their original case stemmed from the Feb. 17, 2005, shooting of Oswaldo Aldrete-Davila. The two officers said they thought Aldrete-Davila was armed and made a threatening move. WND was among the first to report Aldrete-Davila then committed a second drug offense, smuggling a second load of 750 pounds of marijuana across the border while he was under the protection of immunity from federal prosecutor Johnny Sutton's office and in possession of a border-pass card authorized by the Department of Homeland Security. WND also reported when Aldrete-Davila admitted to federal drug smuggling charges, was convicted and sentenced to federal prison for a 57 months. Aldrete-Davila was granted immunity for his drug smuggling by federal prosecutors in exchange for his testimony against the agents. He had crossed the Rio Grande and picked up a marijuana-loaded vehicle near El Paso. After a car chase in which he fled from the officers, he abandoned the vehicle and ran back across the border on foot. He was shot in the buttocks as he ran. Read more: 'You can't even go home!' Feds go bonkers on border agent ... wnd.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (119834)	12/15/2011 2:07:46 PM
From: lorne	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

ken...hussein " flip floping away ".. trying to pick up a few votes? he can flip flop the other way in he gets put back in White House. Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trialCivil rights groups dismayed as Barack Obama abandons commitment to veto new security law contained in defence bill Chris McGreal in Washington guardian.co.uk, Thursday 15 December 2011 guardian.co.uk Americans can be arrested on home soil and taken to Guantánamo Bay under a provision inserted into the bill that funds the US military. Photograph: John Moore/Getty Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay. Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end". The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention. The legislation's supporters in Congress say it simply codifies existing practice, such as the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists at Guantánamo Bay. But the law's critics describe it as a draconian piece of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to include US citizens arrested in their own country. "It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent." There was heated debate in both houses of Congress on the legislation, requiring that suspects with links to Islamist foreign terrorist organisations arrested in the US, who were previously held by the FBI or other civilian law enforcement agencies, now be handed to the military and held indefinitely without trial. The law applies to anyone "who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces". Senator Lindsey Graham said the extraordinary measures were necessary because terrorism suspects were wholly different to regular criminals. "We're facing an enemy, not a common criminal organisation, who will do anything and everything possible to destroy our way of life," he said. "When you join al-Qaida you haven't joined the mafia, you haven't joined a gang. You've joined people who are bent on our destruction and who are a military threat." Other senators supported the new powers on the grounds that al-Qaida was fighting a war inside the US and that its followers should be treated as combatants, not civilians with constitutional protections. But another conservative senator, Rand Paul, a strong libertarian, has said "detaining citizens without a court trial is not American" and that if the law passes "the terrorists have won". "We're talking about American citizens who can be taken from the United States and sent to a camp at Guantánamo Bay and held indefinitely. It puts every single citizen American at risk," he said. "Really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us? The first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly named Patriot Act, is that our pre-9/11 police powers were insufficient to stop terrorism. This is simply not borne out by the facts." Paul was backed by Senator Dianne Feinstein. "Congress is essentially authorising the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge," she said. "We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge." Paul said there were already strong laws against support for terrorist groups. He noted that the definition of a terrorism suspect under existing legislation was so broad that millions of Americans could fall within it. "There are laws on the books now that characterise who might be a terrorist: someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect according to the department of justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist," Paul said. "If you are suspected because of these activities, do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantánamo Bay for indefinite detention?" Under the legislation suspects can be held without trial "until the end of hostilities". They will have the right to appear once a year before a committee that will decide if the detention will continue. The Senate is expected to give final approval to the bill before the end of the week. It will then go to the president, who previously said he would block the legislation not on moral grounds but because it would "cause confusion" in the intelligence community and encroached on his own powers. But on Wednesday the White House said Obama had lifted the threat of a veto after changes to the law giving the president greater discretion to prevent individuals from being handed to the military. Critics accused the president of caving in again to pressure from some Republicans on a counter-terrorism issue for fear of being painted in next year's election campaign as weak and of failing to defend America. Human Rights Watch said that by signing the bill Obama would go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law. "The paradigm of the war on terror has advanced so far in people's minds that this has to appear more normal than it actually is," Malinowski said. "It wasn't asked for by any of the agencies on the frontlines in the fight against terrorism in the United States. It breaks with over 200 years of tradition in America against using the military in domestic affairs." In fact, the heads of several security agencies, including the FBI, CIA, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general objected to the legislation. The Pentagon also said it was against the bill. The FBI director, Robert Mueller, said he feared the law could compromise the bureau's ability to investigate terrorism because it would be more complicated to win co-operation from suspects held by the military. "The possibility looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain co-operation from the persons in the past that we've been fairly successful in gaining," he told Congress. Civil liberties groups say the FBI and federal courts have dealt with more than 400 alleged terrorism cases, including the successful prosecutions of Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber", Umar Farouk, the "underwear bomber", and Faisal Shahzad, the "Times Square bomber". Elements of the law are so legally confusing, as well as being constitutionally questionable, that any detentions are almost certain to be challenged all the way to the supreme court. Malinowski said "vague language" was deliberately included in the bill in order to get it passed. "The very lack of clarity is itself a problem. If people are confused about what it means, if people disagree about what it means, that in and of itself makes it bad law," he said.