Jump to content

American Politics # Whatever


BloodRider

Recommended Posts

From the Previous Thread:

Personally, I think even an innocent person would not be thrilled with standing trial in.a foreign country where the government already has demonstrated bias against his position, and there will be enormous popular pressure to convict.

That's a reversal of the usual burden of proof.

We obviously disagree. It seems odd, though, that the government of India has never really pressed for this. One could speculate that the government is fully aware of the problems in trying to comvict this guy, and is concerned that an acquital could have nasty popular repercussions. In other words, they'd prefer to let sleeping dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted from the old thread:

Personally, I think even an innocent person would not be thrilled with standing trial in.a foreign country where the government already has demonstrated bias against his position, and there will be enormous popular pressure to convict.

Well, this is a trial, not an amusement park ride. Being thrilled doesn't enter into it.

By this measure, Osama Bin Laden can ask whichever country he is in to not extradite him because he knows the U.S. government has made up its mind about him, and he feels that evidence that will exonerate him has been tampered with.

That's a reversal of the usual burden of proof.

No it isn't, because the claim that evidence has been doctored is being made by the defendant. If every criminal who makes this claim is allowed to avoid a trial on this basis, the legal system would become a joke. Anyone can claim that to gain sympathy.

We obviously disagree. It seems odd, though, that the government of India has never really pressed for this. One could speculate that the government is fully aware of the problems in trying to comvict this guy, and is concerned that an acquital could have nasty popular repercussions. In other words, they'd prefer to let sleeping dogs.

Well, its only because the Indian legal system is slow enough, and in a case of this magnitude and with this many people involved, things have taken even longer. But the pressure at home is building up to request his extradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted from the old thread:

Well, this is a trial, not an amusement park ride. Being thrilled doesn't enter into it.

You made the point that a reluctance to be extradicted suggested guilt. I simply pointed out why an innocent person wouldn't want to be extradicted either.

By this measure, Osama Bin Laden can ask whichever country he is in to not extradite him because he knows the U.S. government has made up its mind about him, and he feels that evidence that will exonerate him has been tampered with.

Well, I'm not exactly expecting bin Laden to turn himself in anyway.

No it isn't, because the claim that evidence has been doctored is being made by the defendant. If every criminal who makes this claim is allowed to avoid a trial on this basis, the legal system would become a joke. Anyone can claim that to gain sympathy.

This is more than just an individual making that claim. Anyway, political realities are what make extradition requests different from the usual legal process. Countries can, and do, refuse such requests if they believe the facts warrant it.

Well, its only because the Indian legal system is slow enough, and in a case of this magnitude and with this many people involved, things have taken even longer. But the pressure at home is building up to request his extradition.

"Slow?!". 27 years is not "slow" -- it's ridiculous. And in all that time, India never even requested extradition. He's now 90 years old, apparently senile, and India finally gets around to deciding that they may want to put him on trial due to political pressure? He's not even going to be able to participate meaningfully in his defense, key witnesses on his behalf are dead, etc.

The fact that this was too sensitive an issue politically in India to move in a reasonably expeditious manner shouldn't be allowed to prejudice a foreign defendant. My guess is that they'll have to be satisfied with continuibg to burn him in effigy, because I doubt the U.S. Will extradite the old geezer at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

India did sought extradition for Anderson in 2007, but the US refused:

http://english.peopl...51/7019749.html

If 2007 was the first time they tried to get him 24 years is still a very long time.

Even if I don't personally agree with FLOW I think he has a point here. What crime is Anderson being extradited for exactly and is there a statute of limitations for it? If there is, is it one that can be agreed on internationally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If 2007 was the first time they tried to get him 24 years is still a very long time.

Even if I don't personally agree with FLOW I think he has a point here. What crime is Anderson being extradited for exactly and is there a statute of limitations for it? If there is, is it one that can be agreed on internationally?

Extradition is not automatic -- you don't ship citizens overseas for trial automatically just because another country requests it, even if there is an extradition treaty.. For extradition from the U.S., there must be enough evidence to meet the "probable cause" standard, as determined by a U.S. Federal court. People obviously have a right to challenge their extradition in court, including the right of appeal, to ensure that standard has been met. Otherwise, it would be a deprivation of rights without due process.

In 2007, the U.S basically got a request with no evidence. India wants this guy for a criminal action, and he wasn't even in the country when it happened. He was the CEO of the parent who came to the country after it happened to see what happened and to promise help.

From what I've read, indian law required that the plant be operated by the indian subsidiary, not the parent multinational. Based on that alone, I think getting probable cause that this guy committed a crime under U.S. Law would be pretty difficult. And that may be why the Indian government hasn't really pushed it during all these years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was also arrested when he visited (the incident occured December 3rd, and he was there just after), and released on bail, and then 'fled' the country, to use a legal term.

He may or may not be culpable, but what would a jury in the US think of someone who posted bail and then left the country? Even before the US government 'cooked up' evidence against him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was also arrested when he visited (the incident occured December 3rd, and he was there just after), and released on bail, and then 'fled' the country, to use a legal term.

He may or may not be culpable, but what would a jury in the US think of someone who posted bail and then left the country? Even before the US government 'cooked up' evidence against him?

I don't know. What would they think of arresting a guy for committing a crime that occured when he wasn't even in the country? And before there had been any kind of meaningful investigation? Let's be honest. Gvien the timing of his arrest, they arrested him not because they had any real evidence of his criminal culpability, but simply because of who he was.

It wasn't like he snuck out of the country. The Indian government intentionally let him leave. I'd say they arrested him to mollify an outraged and upset public, and let him leave because they didn't have the evidence to prosecute.

Anyway, snatching the CEO of a multinational company who visits a locally-controlled subsidiary in good faith after an accident sets a rather dubious precedent.

It would be the equivalent of us arresting and holding until trial (20 plus years in India, apparently) the CEO of BP who came here to consult with our government about the spill. How do you think the Brits would react to that? Politics aside, it would simply make it much less likely they'd come in the first place, which does nobody any good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know. What would they think of arresting a guy for committing a crime that occured when he wasn't even in the country?

What does it matter where he was when the crime occurred? Using that standard, the US have no case against Bin Laden - he wasn't even in the US in September 2001.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does it matter where he was when the crime occurred?

I made that point in the context of public opinion regarding him skipping bail. If the arrest seems fishy, people are less likely to judge him harshly for skipping bail.

The timing of his arrest so soon after the accident makes it less likely they would have been able to complete a factual investigation sufficient to establish probable cause. That suggests to me that they arrested him simply because of his position as CEO rather than because of specific evidence regarding his personal criminal conduct.

The fact that he went to India voluntarily in good faith and was arrested almost immediately probably wouid have an affect on opinion here as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rep Joe Barton characterized the $20 billion escrow fund set up by BP as a White House shakedown, and apologized to BP's CEO for the way he's been treated in Washington.

"It is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case a $20 billion shakedown."

Barton's the asshat who infamously thought he stumped Energy Secretary Chu on a basic question about oil and geology and is a leading protector of the fossil fuels industry, so nothing new here. But the White House is pouncing on his corporate whoredom and using him as a stick to beat the rest of the Republican caucus with.

"What is shameful is that Joe Barton seems to have more concern for big corporations that caused this disaster than the fishermen, small business owners and communities whose lives have been devastated by the destruction. Congressman Barton may think that a fund to compensate these Americans is a 'tragedy', but most Americans know that the real tragedy is what the men and women of the Gulf Coast are going through right now. Members from both parties should repudiate his comments."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/just_lethal.php#more?ref=fpblg

Of course, the usual suspects in the GOP and their appendant media organs are on Barton's side:

• Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) vigorously attacked the idea: "The president just called for creating a fund that would be administered by outsiders, which would be more of a redistribution-of-wealth fund," Bachmann said on Tuesday, also adding that BP should say, "We're not going to be chumps, and we're not going to be fleeced." Bachmann later backtracked on Wednesday, saying that BP should pay for all of the damages involved, but that the fund should not be "an unending pot of money."

• The Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative House members, released a statement Wednesday bashing the fund -- and seeming to criticize BP for accepting it. The group's chairman, Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), said in a statement that while BP should be held responsible for damages, "BP's reported willingness to go along with the White House's new fund suggests that the Obama Administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics. These actions are emblematic of a politicization of our economy that has been borne out of this Administration's drive for greater power and control."

• Rush Limbaugh said that the escrow fund would be a "slush fund," and wondered where the money would end up going: "Who's gonna get this money? Union activists? ACORN people? Who's gonna get this money. Let's keep a sharp eye on who Feinberg gives this money to. Because I'm telling you, this is just another bailout fund, called something else, and we'll see who gets it."

• Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) has also voiced criticism -- saying that forcing BP to pay the money now would cut into their profits, thus making it more difficult to pay more down the line. "If BP is the responsible party under the law, they're to pay for everything. I do worry that this idea of making them make a huge escrow fund is going to make it less likely that they'll pay for everything. They need their capital to drill wells. They need their capital to produce income. ... But this escrow bothers me that it's going to make them less able to pay us what they owe us. And that concerns me."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/say-what-gopers-slam-white-house-over-bp-gulf-spill-fund.php?ref=fpa

Is the GOP really that serious about defending the honor of a criminally negligent multinational corporation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the GOP really that serious about defending the honor of a criminally negligent multinational corporation?

I just commented about this in the Gulf thread. This message is so incredibly tone deaf, I'm amazed so many Republicans are backing it, especially in the midterm election season. I mean, if I was running Democratic campaigns, I would just put these quotes up and figure that Republicans had supplied enough rope to hang themselves. Even Republicans who haven't made these quotes can either be tarred by association or be forced to break from their fellows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barton's the asshat who infamously thought he stumped Energy Secretary Chu on a basic question about oil and geology

Barton: You’re our scientist. I have one simple question for you in the last six seconds. How did all the oil and gas get to Alaska and under the Arctic Ocean?

Chu: (laughs) This is a complicated story, but oil and gas is the result of hundreds of millions of years of geology, and in that time also the plates have moved around, and so, um, it’s the combination of where the sources of the oil and gas are–

Barton: But, but wouldn’t it obvious that at one time it was a lot warmer in Alaska and on the North Pole. It wasn’t a big pipeline that we created in Texas and shipped it up there and then put it under ground so that we can now pump it out and ship it back.

Chu: No. There are–there’s continental plates that have been drifting around throughout the geological ages–

Barton: So it just drifted up there?

Chu: That’s certainly what happened. And so it’s a result of things like that.

Certainly plate tectonics is a key reason Alaska has so much oil (see here). But Barton wasn’t really asking where the oil came from.

Barton was just repeating a standard global warming denier talking point that it was a lot warmer in Alaska at one point in the past, which deniers continue to assert somehow proves that current warming is part of a natural cycle, and not human driven.

This is fascinating.

A serious question though: Forget about the rest of the argument after "at one time it was a lot warmer in Alaska." What is the relevance of oil here? Does the argument start with "Oil can only be formed in warm tempretures"? I honestly don't get what he is trying to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is fascinating.

A serious question though: Forget about the rest of the argument after "at one time it was a lot warmer in Alaska." What is the relevance of oil here? Does the argument start with "Oil can only be formed in warm tempretures"? I honestly don't get what he is trying to say.

He was trying to peddle global warming deniers' talkingpoint, and perhaps suggesting that Alaska should be open up more for drilling.

At least that was my attempt to fathom the murky intelligence and thought process of Mr. Barton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is fascinating.

A serious question though: Forget about the rest of the argument after "at one time it was a lot warmer in Alaska." What is the relevance of oil here? Does the argument start with "Oil can only be formed in warm tempretures"? I honestly don't get what he is trying to say.

Oil can only be formed where there was a lot of life, which usually means warmer temperatures. But the explaination for oil in Alaska is that Alaska hasn't always been that far north.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just commented about this in the Gulf thread. This message is so incredibly tone deaf, I'm amazed so many Republicans are backing it, especially in the midterm election season. I mean, if I was running Democratic campaigns, I would just put these quotes up and figure that Republicans had supplied enough rope to hang themselves. Even Republicans who haven't made these quotes can either be tarred by association or be forced to break from their fellows.

Much as it pains me to admit it, Americans are remarkably tolerant of corporate abuse, and (it seems to me) far more likely to oppose than to support government intervention to prevent and/or punish it. Everyone's so wary of increased government power that they barely notice that corporate entities are far more likely to empty the cookie jar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tea Party flavor of the moment, Sharron Angle, is pulling a Palin. I realize "pulling a Palin" could refer to all sorts of idiotic behavior, but in this case I mean she's hiding from the press until her flacks are able to scrub all the crazy out of her public persona. Watch her hem, haw, duck, dodge, and finally flee a local TV reporter asking questions about her stated policies:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/angle-dodges-questions-about-transitioning-out-of-social-security-second-amendment-remedies-video.php

She handled that about as well as a white Arizonan meeting his son's Mexican bride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sharron Angle is a great example of the weirdness currently gripping this country, particularly where the Tea Party is concerned. It's not as if the left has no acquaintance with hyperpartisanship; one can look back at the anti-Bush sentiment of 2005-2006 and see this. However, that whole liberal griping was fairly consistent in terms of its goals. Drawdown in Iraq and less dependence on foreign oil? Those two things go together ideologically. Objections to torture and insistence upon renewing America's image abroad? One arguably leads to the other.

Now let's look at the Tea Party agenda. They want government out of health care but don't dare touch Medicare. People should stand on their own two feet but strengthen Social Security. Pay down the debt but don't raise taxes. Don't burden financial institutions with regulation but make sure there's money for mortgages and loans to small business. None of it hangs together logically, and comes across mainly as a right-wing rant about...well, I don't know what. Throw in a Senate candidate who talks openly about armed revolt (with no censure from her fellow Republicans) and you get the picture of a very strange time in America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oil can only be formed where there was a lot of life, which usually means warmer temperatures. But the explaination for oil in Alaska it that Alaska hasn't always been that far north.

Apparently, the bloke didn't grasp that, at one point, 'Alaska' was actually located in a temperate or tropical zone at one point and then drifted north. I don't think he grasped the very notion at all. He assumed that Alaska was where it has always been, and the oil somehow 'seeped' north. And this is the sort of ratbag we have in politics. Well done, Texass!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barack Obama, Dreamer in Chief — Charles Krauthammer

Pres. Barack Obama doesn’t do the mundane. He was sent to us to do larger things. You could see that plainly in his Oval Office address on the Gulf oil spill. He could barely get himself through the pedestrian first half: a bit of BP-bashing, a bit of faux-Clintonian “I feel your pain,” a bit of recovery and economic-mitigation accounting. It wasn’t until the end of the speech — the let-no-crisis-go-to-waste part that tried to leverage the Gulf Coast devastation to advance his cap-and-trade climate-change agenda — that Obama warmed to his task.

Pedestrian is beneath Obama. Mr. Fix-It he is not. He is world-historical, the visionary, come to make the oceans recede and the planet heal.

How? By creating a glorious, new clean-green economy. And how exactly to do that? From Washington, by presidential command, and with tens of billions of dollars thrown around. With the liberal (and professorial) conceit that scientific breakthroughs can be legislated into existence, Obama proposes to give us a new industrial economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...