sabrina 1's Journal
Member since: Sun Mar 30, 2008, 05:51 AM
Number of posts: 47,007
Number of posts: 47,007
- 2014 (16)
- 2013 (21)
- 2012 (26)
- 2011 (1)
- December (1)
- Older Archives
Social Security is still one of the most popular and successful fiscal programs among Americans across political lines.
A recent poll shows that:
Americans Will Pay to Shore Up Social Security: Poll
Most Americans think it's important to preserve adequate Social Security benefits for younger generations — and they may even be willing to pay more taxes to get that assurance, a new survey finds.
The survey, released Thursday by the nonprofit National Academy of Social Insurance, found that about eight in 10 Americans think it is critical to support Social Security even if it means that working Americans have to pay more in taxes. A slightly higher percentage of the 2,000 people surveyed said they think it's critical to save Social Security even if wealthy people have to pay more.
Social Security had nothing to do with the Deficit, it didn't create or contribute to it. Yet we still hear the words 'SS and the Deficit' linked together each time politicians talk about the DEFICIT. The effort to create the impression that SS had something to do with the Deficit is obvious. And false.
The CPI is a cut in benefits to SS and is being used to sell the lie that SS had something to do with the Deficit.
None of this makes sense because SS has its OWN fund paid for by the people for their retirement.
The SS Fund has a two trillion dollar surplus.
People who are dependent on the benefits THEY PAID FOR are spending those benefits, putting their money into the Economy.
Increasing benefits means more money goes into the economy and doesn't have to come from the General Fund.
It also means that Republicans cannot claim that we 'cannot afford a Stimulus Package'. Maybe the Federal Budget can't, but the SS Fund can.
Elizabeth Warren: Don't Cut Social Security Benefits Expand Them
“Over the past generation, working families have been hacked at, chipped, and hammered. If we want a real middle class — a middle class that continues to serve as the backbone of our country — then we must take the retirement crisis seriously. Seniors have worked their entire lives and have paid into the system, but right now, more people than ever are on the edge of financial disaster once they retire — and the numbers continue to get worse.
As Noam Scheiber detailed in his big cover story on why Warren is a threat to Hillary Clinton in 2016, many of the issues that Warren has been championing for years now — Wall Street accountability and oversight of the big banks; stagnating middle class wages; the need for financial reforms designed to address the ways the economy is rigged in favor of the financial sector and against working Americans — are emerging as central to a larger argument over what the Democratic Party should stand for and who it really represents.
By planting a flag on the need to expand Social Security, Warren may have just added this issue to the pantheon of preoccupations that are driving those who want to see the party embrace a more economically populist posture going forward. Liberal bloggers such as Atrios and liberal groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, have been pushing for a Social Security expansion, arguing that Democratic priorities should be centered on the idea that declining pensions and wages (and savings) are undermining retirement security, and that the party should above all stand against undermining the social insurance system.
So why is this not happening?
We KNOW that when there is a surplus in the SS Fund, the Govt can't keep their hands off it. They spend it on Wars and Tax Cuts for the Wealthy who hoard it in offshore accounts depriving the US economy of money it badly needs.
Congress should EXPAND Social Security benefits, not cut them
In 2013, we made "expand Social Security -- don't cut it" a mainstream opinion in American politics.
Polls show that expanding Social Security is even popular by 2 to 1 in Kentucky and 3 to 1 in Texas! In 2014, we'll make this a campaign issue.
Join over 650,000 Americans who are going on offense on Social Security. Sign on the right.
SIGN THE PETITION TO CONGRESS: With corporations cutting worker pensions, Americans rely on Social Security more than ever. Congress should expand Social Security -- not cut it.
There is a good video of Rachel and Warren at the link also.
There is NO reason not to raise SS benefits. There is every reason why they should.
AND once again: Social Security had Zero to do with the Deficit!
Posted by sabrina 1 | Mon Jan 27, 2014, 02:22 PM (14 replies)
I know I've been told on DU that our Govt would not charge protesters under the 'terror' laws. So just in case anyone is still interested, our Govt most definitely would and has charged protesters under those atrocious laws.
The trial of those protesters has already begun with the Govt, using undercover cops as witnesses, claiming these three protesters were out to commit terrorist acts, several of them in fact.
The defense says that it was the undercover cops who were instigating people to try to get them to plot these acts. I have followed it a little over the past few days and can only hope that the Defense prevails, which in a sane society, would be a foregone conclusion.
But, as we all know, 'everything changed after 9/11' and even a few tough talking college students who in the past, would have grown up by now, since their arrest I mean, and moved on with their lives, especially if they are 'left leaning' or 'socialist' in their views, are a dangerous threat to our 'security'.
Apparently the cops believed that Rock Concerts were a good place to find 'terrorists' so they pretended to be 'fans' and spent a good deal of time at Rock Concerts. They also posed as OWS protesters. Peaceful protesters are also on the 'terrorist' list as we now know.
In this article from the Chicago Sun Times, the author, Mark Brown, shares his opinion of what he has so far witnessed at the trial.
Nato 3 Trials Most Alarming Revelations Are Not About The Defendants
For all these years, I just thought the Heartland Café was a place to find old hippies, but thanks to the NATO 3 trial, we now know that the Chicago police also consider it a hotbed of anarchists.
It turns out the Heartland is one of untold locations Chicago police deployed members of a 17-person undercover unit over a several month period in the spring of 2012 while trolling for anarchists planning to cause trouble at the NATO summit.
The next day, Chikko went to another undercover assignment at Permanent Records, 1914 W. Division, where another suspicious band was going to be playing, then on to another punk rock concert that night at 2966 S. Archer, where more license plate numbers were collected.
Two weeks later, Chikko’s assignment took her to Occupy Chicago headquarters, where a woman was giving a speech about tactics used by police against demonstrators during the 1968 Democratic National Convention. There was no mention of whether the speaker talked about police spying.
One of Chikko’s fellow undercover officers made a big find that day: a Ford conversion van parked outside with a flyer on which he could make out the word “anarchy.”
Sadly I agree with the author when he says:
But in all honesty, I think defense attorneys for the NATO 3 are kidding themselves if they think First Amendment concerns are going to sway a jury in a terrorism trial in a post-9/11 environment, even after the uproar over the NSA eavesdropping excesses.
What a waste of lives and resources for nothing. Well, other than protecting the top 1%. Still, hoping at least one juror will put an end to this travest.
Below, tweet of excerpts from Brown's article, from Occupy Chicago:
Occupy Chicago @OccupyChicago 1h
"@plussone: Chicago Sun-Times: #NATO3 trial’s most alarming revelations aren’t about the defendants | @suntimes | pic.twitter.com/hwnQzIW6Ff"
Posted by sabrina 1 | Sat Jan 25, 2014, 06:13 PM (2 replies)
When Republican Rep. Mike Rogers made the claim that Snowden might be a Russian spy without offering a shred of evidence, it didn't go over quite the way he expected.
Anderson Cooper did something that has become very unusual for US Journalists today, he announced that CNN wanted to make it clear that, other than the Republican's statements, CNN could find no evidence that Snowden was a spy.
He also stated that CNN had tried to get a statement from Rep Rogers today but were unable to do so.
Anderson Cooper explained the unusual public questioning of a US Senator by a US Journalist by stating that the news media has been lied to before BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS.
He then played footage of Sen. Ron Wyden's questioning of Clapper during which, we now know, Clapper lied!
Senator Diane Feinstein (D) and Rep Mike Rogers (R)
Diane Feinstein was with Rogers when he attempted to smear Snowden on National TV. She made no attempt to correct him.
CNN also stated that they did not know why Rogers made the claim, 'perhaps he received some information' from, well SOMEWHERE!
Well, we do know where these smear campaigns come from now.
We saw, in HB Gary's exposed emails, how a smear campaign is born.
Apparently creating smear campaigns is big business. Even a relatively obscure blogger, as Glenn Greenwald was at the time a bid on a contract to smear him was being presented to BOA, can become the target of an expensive contract for a smear campaign.
Cooper did not go into how Snowden came to be in Russia in the first place, YET.
Snowden did not flee to Russia! Snowden was on his way to South America, stopping over in Russia which he would have left in a couple of hours, when he found himself without a passport, making it impossible for him to leave that country.
I hope if the Republican, Rogers ever comes out of hiding, that Anderson Cooper will ask him WHY the US Government forced Snowden to stay in a country which they thought might want to have access to him. Of course it makes no logical sense, but I would love to hear Roger's response.
I have to admit I am more surprised to see a prominent CNN Reporter actually dispute an unsubstantiated statement about a well known controversial figure, from a powerful Senator than I am that the Republican tried to create a false impression without having to prove it about a Whistle Blower. That would be old news.
We became so used to Cheney, Bush, Condie and so many others, lying blatantly and with impunity while the 'press' became nothing more than, (thank you Steven Colbert) 'stenographers', that seeing this tiny bit of evidence that maybe the Press have finally been shamed into doing the job they are obligated to do was exciting.
We got a faint glimpse of real journalism from Anderson Cooper today and that is really the story here imo. Unsubstantiated statements or outright lies from politicians, is old news.
But imagine if this were to become a trend? Real journalism where public officials don't just get to use our airwaves for their own agendas without questioning from a compliant press. Imagine if they actually have to fear lying to the public again because of a free and Independent media they KNOW will question them!
“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” Thomas Jefferson
I'm not going to get my hopes up, but it's a nice dream ....
Edited to correct Rogers' title, thanks to DUer Liberal Dog for the correction.
Posted by sabrina 1 | Thu Jan 23, 2014, 01:26 AM (109 replies)
The direct quote ""I do not overall agree with the President on that issue" at 4:14.
Thanks DUers Autumn and Eomer ..
he was referring to the storage of people's data in response to a question regarding the President's statement that he would have to find some other entity to 'store all that data. Sanders stated, 'the question is not WHO will store it, but SHOULD it be stored at all.'
In the same CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer, Sen. Sanders was asked what he thought about the NSA reforms as described by President Obama in his speech.
Sen Sanders on NSA Reforms
Video at link.
Bernie was excellent as always as he continues to defend our Constitutional Rights.
'It's a start' he stated but 'the Devil will be in the Details'.
He expressed serious concerns about the statement by the President regarding 'who will store the data'. He was very clear that this was a violation of Constitution and believes that the data should not be stored at all. He went into detail about the chilling effect of these violations on people, including young people, students etc regarding 'going to a library and fearing to ask for a book, in case they might be viewed as a 'terrorist'. Very good responses from him on this.
He was asked by Wolf Blitzer if he had a received an answer to his question, 'Is the NSA spying Congress'. Blitzer stated that he had heard the Senator had received some responses. Sen. Sanders pointed out the enormous danger of such a practice, the potential for bribery etc and when asked what he had meant regarding Nixon (apparently referring to earlier statements) he responded: 'If Nixon had had this technology, can you imagine what he would have done with it'.
Worth listening to the whole interview. He was excellent as always.
Thank YOU Bernie. Never sells out the interests of the American People. Never prevaricates when it comes to our Constitutional Rights, while always given credit where it is due.
He expects a lot more reforms before this issue is resolved.
Note: I paraphrased his comments from the interview, they are not direct quotes ...
Posted by sabrina 1 | Sat Jan 18, 2014, 03:39 PM (253 replies)
I think it would be hard to disagree that this is one of the most brilliant programs so far. Too bad that Congress saw fit to force the people to bail out the Wall St Bankers and left the People to fend for themselves.
Maybe they just couldn't figure out a way to help the victims of those they bailed out. They are hopefully paying attention to OWS' Strike Debt which, according to Andrew Ross, a member of Strike Debt, was intended to be a 'public education' program regarding something known as the 'secondary debt market':
Occupy Wall St. Activists Buy $15 Million Personal Debt
"Our purpose in doing this, aside from helping some people along the way – there's certainly many, many people who are very thankful that their debts are abolished – our primary purpose was to spread information about the workings of this secondary debt market."
So far, and according to Rolling Jubilee, they bought all that debt for 'pennies on the dollar' and have relieved over 2,600 people of crushing debt. The cost to them for doing this was approximately $400,000. Imagine the profit there is in this secondary debt market. I'm there is insurance involved also, to cover the creditors.
Apparently buying people's debt really is big business.
The group has focussed on buying medical debt, and has acquired the $14.7m in three separate purchases, most recently purchasing the value of $13.5m on medical debt owed by 2,693 people across 45 states and Puerto Rico, Rolling Jubilee said in a press release.
“No one should have to go into debt or bankruptcy because they get sick,” said Laura Hanna, an organiser with the group. Hanna said 62% of all personal bankruptcies have medical debt as a contributing factor.
The way it works apparently, when people do not or cannot pay their debts, companies sell the debt VERY CHEAPLY to a 'secondary debt market'. Much more cheaply, according to Ross, than even he realized. The purchasers of the debt then attempt to collect all of it from the debtors, pressuring them with calls and threats etc.
Rolling Jubilee buys the debt, but rather than try to collect it, they forgive it, contacting the debtors to let them know 'you are off the hook'. Imagine the joy for people when they learn their debt has been paid?
Here's the reaction of one of those people:
Occupy Activists Buy Up People's Personal Debt
Washington — For a year and a half, 80-year-old Kentucky resident Shirley Logsdon received repeated calls from a debt collection agency over an unpaid medical bill.
Then one day, out of the blue, she received a letter saying the $983 debt had been handled -- purchased by Rolling Jubilee, a group linked to the Occupy Wall Street movement.
"I was dumbfounded but delighted, of course," Logsdon, who is retired along with her husband of 62 years, told AFP.
"We got a letter saying that everything had been resolved -- finally it is over, you don't have to worry, you don't owe us anything. (...) I didn't know these people. It was a godsend."
If a bunch of OWS activists could be this creative in finding a way to bail out the people, surely Congress, if they put their minds to it, could come up with something at least as creative. And although, as Strike Debt admits, what they have done so far is simply a drop in the bucket in terms of helping people like this, imagine what Congress could do with all the money and power THEY have?
There is something very wrong with a country when being sick plunges you into massive debt or trying to get an education. And when this happens, that predatory profiteers can extract huge profits by buying that debt and then persecuting people already mired in problems they cannot handle.
And worse, how differently the corrupt Wall St Bankers' debt is handled by contrast.
Thanks Occupiers, for removing the notion that 'nothing can be done' for the people. And for providing those burdened with debt with information on how cheaply their debt has been purchased. As Andrew Ross says:
“So when you get called up by the debt collector, and you're being asked to pay the full amount of your debt, you now know that the debt collector has bought your debt very, very cheaply. As cheaply as we bought it. And that gives you moral ammunition to have a different conversation with the debt collector."
Btw, Rolling Jubilee got the money to purchase the debt from donors. So thanks to all those great people who actually DO care. People can donate at the first link, I believe, if they can.
Posted by sabrina 1 | Thu Jan 16, 2014, 04:32 PM (13 replies)
You can always count on Right Wingers to become enraged when anyone tries to do something for the less fortunate. There's just something in the psyche of the far right that makes it impossible for them to have any empathy for their fellow human beings.
I'm not sure if anyone has been following Occupy Madison over the past year or so but Brenda Konkel, a former Madison Council Woman and OWS member has been working hard trying to provide shelter for the Homeless.
Many homeless people joined Occupy encampments across the country and when the crackdown broke up their encampments and State Officials provided nothing for them, OWS did not desert them.
Occupy Madison, eg, has become a non profit, with the intention of buying property to build 'tiny houses' so that the Homeless can feel more secure than they are in shelters or in other temporary places.
After visiting other 'tiny house' villages for the Homeless, in Ore and Washington eg, Brenda Konkel felt this could be a solution for Madison's homeless:
Homeless Advocates Hope Tiny Houses Villages Can Work For Madison Homeless
One impression Konkel says she is taking away from the tour is the role of fences. “Fences are important — it gives the community a sense of security and personal responsibility — and that gives people the right to govern what goes on there,” she wrote.
Konkel also remarks that “people have been able to make the model very successful with minimal intervention from the outside and it has resulted in very few problems in the surrounding community.”
So now, OMBuild Inc. (OccupyMadisonBuild) has raised enough money to make an offer on a piece of land where they would place 11 tiny houses. The homeless will help build them themselves:
Occupy Madison picks east side site for village of little houses
Occupy Madison is preparing to build a village of “little houses” for homeless people on the site of an auto body shop at the intersection of East Johnson and Third Streets. Plans call for the shop to be converted to a workshop where houses would be built and parked on the surrounding property.
Occupy Madison, which has organized as a nonprofit corporation, had an offer to purchase the property for $110,000 accepted, said Brenda Konkel, a member of the Occupy board of directors and well-known affordable housing and homeless services advocate. The property, at 2046-2050 E. Johnson Street, is currently home to Sanchez Motors.
“It’s almost perfect for our use,” Konkel said Wednesday.
Click on the comments after the article to see the reaction to this project.
There are issues that have to be resolved, but for the Far Right, attack, criticize and insult those who try to do some good, is all they know. Imagine if they were willing to help, to find alternatives if they don't like this one, to work WITH people who are trying to do some good. But all they can do is criticize.
One of them stupidly challenged Ms. Konkel to invite the Homeless into her own home if she wants to help them. She explained that she HAS had the Homeless in her home for over a year. No response to that from the smart ass.
Anyhow, she is doing great work along with all those who are working with her and I hope they can get started as soon as possible. People are wonderful sometimes, and OWS proves it every day!
There is a video of one of the houses already built but not on permanent property at this link. They really are a blessing for people who need to get off the street, to be warm and safe.
Group Builds Tiny Homes For Local Homeless
Posted by sabrina 1 | Thu Jan 16, 2014, 01:50 AM (12 replies)
Remember him? War mongering Neocon who advocated turning the ME into a 'sheet of glass' as fast as possible?
Member of Cheney's shadow government, war criminal, liar, and according to some 'one of the stupidest men in history'.
And, a huge fan of Machiavelli!
Every once in a while I look around to see where all the war criminals are hiding since their 'glory days' when you could not turn on your TV without having to listen to them lie to the American public for whom they had nothing but disdain.
I found this one still prattling away on his own blog where he describes himself in glorious terms and in case anyone is interested, he's available to speak to the media, for a price I'm sure.
I wanted to see what he thought of the Iran peace talks, being that he wanted to turn the entire ME into a glass parking lot.
From last week when it looked like there might not be a deal:
What Happened in Geneva, What Does it Mean
It’s not easy to make a deal with Iran (and even when you think you’ve made one, you might be wrong). The failure of the Geneva talks is just another in a long series of such failures. Even the public events are part of the well-established pattern: the secretary of state jumps on a plane and flies to meet with the Iranians. But when he gets there, he finds it’s not quite a done deal. And in the wee hours of the morning two days later, there’s no deal at all.
Remember that something very similar happened in September 2006, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice jumped on a plane in Washington and flew to New York, expecting to sign a deal at the United Nations with Iran’s Ali Larijani. The deal had been negotiated in secret over several months, and both sides had agreed to the final language. But Larijani never showed up. This time the deal had again been negotiated in secret over several months, and, unlike 2006, the Iranians actually showed up, smiling broadly and brandishing their signing pens. But it turned out that there was no deal. What went wrong?
Maybe the Iranians knew they were not dealing with trustworthy people in 2006? Just a thought.
He goes on to say this:
But whatever the answers to all these questions, one thing is luminously clear: the Obama administration certainly misspoke when it whispered to journalists that the deal was done, and that Kerry was just showing up to get his fair share of the champagne. As usual, too much (misleading) talk from Obama & Co, and too much amateurism in doing the real deal.
Reminds me of Obamacare, somehow.
Too bad he decided to add that last paragraph, he might have been able to extricate himself from the rest of the article. Those Right Wingers can't resist getting personal.
I know this is not too news worthy, other than to know the war criminals are STILL hovering around, trying to control what goes on in this country.
But it does feel good to see them make such fools of themselves, especially this arrogant moron.
Don't expect him to apologize, his blog is filled with negative garbage about Iran.
Too bad we didn't get him under oath in a Court of Law to answer for the tragic lies he told that got so many innocents killed, and all the other abuses of power he was such a big part of.
But for now, I hope he's having a really bad few days thinking about his irrelevance and prospect of what he wants least of all, PEACE in the ME!
Freedom Scholar! (yes I know but that's what he calls himself!)
And Thank You to President Obama and SOS Kerry!
Have a great day Michael! Lol!
Posted by sabrina 1 | Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:04 PM (4 replies)
Just want to check in as a Proud Member.
From time to time we have to do this as the Moral Equivalency meme makes its way to DU. You know the one, it takes various forms of this:
'We Democrats have our own version of the Crazy Right Teabaggers, it's called the Crazy Left'.
The 'Crazy Left' it appears are those who support the prosecution of Criminals, no matter how wealthy or connected they are.
It's a Crazy Left radical idea, apparently, to want the Law applied equally to all Americans.
If you have any 'Crazy Left' ideas such as 'Prosecute War Criminals' or an even crazier idea than that, eg: 'Prosecute Wall St. Criminals',feel free to post them here.
It's easy to forget what we stand for as Democrats these days, what with all the 'pragmatism' around.
So, I would love some reminders of our Principles so we don't forget what the goals are.
One of my favorite Crazy Left ideas is:
Hands Off Social Security!
One of my favorite Democratic Presidents is this guy:
Which also ensures my place on the 'crazy left' list I have been told.
And I am more than proud to be there.
Moral Equivalency = Not-so-subtle attack on Democrats.
Posted by sabrina 1 | Sat Oct 19, 2013, 01:21 PM (285 replies)
Cuts to SS, using Chained CPIs or any other cuts, using any other kind of deceptive language, will do NOTHING to bring down the Deficit.
Why? Because the SS Fund is not part of the Federal Budget.
And the Government has no right to touch it without the permission of those who own it. None, whatsoever!
SS is a fund OWNED BY those who paid into it during their working years, an INSURANCE fund that provides a safety net for retirees and now for the disabled and orphaned children.
Raiding this Insurance Fund has become a habit of Warmongers and the Wealthy who want to keep THEIR taxes as low as possible.
When they raid the SS Fund they have to provide US Govt Bonds to ensure that what they borrowed will be paid back.
They don't WANT to pay it back! They want to Privatize it and gamble with on Wall St. We know what has happened to Pension Funds when they were placed in the hands of the Wall St. Gamblers.
This must never happen to the SS Fund.
You will hear lies claiming that the fund is 'empty' and needs 'fixing'.
If that is the case, then every creditor of the US Govt holding those bonds, including China, need to worry that those Bonds have no value.
The US Government CAN NOT default on its creditors, INCLUDING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE who are among those creditors, without dire consequences to this country.
As one of those creditors, the SS Fund receives interest on the Bonds it holds every year.
Even during the recission the SS Fund continued to show a surplus.
The Fund has an over 2 Trillion dollar surplus.
The Bonds it holds are backed by the Full Faith and Credit of the US Government.
The Fund is NOT empty, it is owed trillions by the US Government.
Money that is safe so long as the US Govt honors its debt to its Creditors.
You might see some attempts, even here on DU, to use the CBO report to try to create the impression that SS Benefits need to 'cut' in order to help with the DEFICIT.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Because the SS FUND HAS ZERO TO DO WITH THE DEFICIT.
Therefore cutting benefits will have ZERO EFFECT ON THE DEFICIT.
Raise the Cap on SS and focus on creating jobs and the SS Fund will be good for another 100 years.
Anyone saying otherwise has one giant ulterior motive.
Thanks FDR for the Social Safety Nets that have saved the lives of countless numbers of Americans.
NO DEMOCRAT should ever participate in doing anything that would jeopardize those protections for the least among us.
Just thought this needs to be said periodically, even here on DU.
Hands OFF Social Security!
Pay for your wars and your Tax Cuts for the Wealthy with your own money!
Posted by sabrina 1 | Sun Sep 22, 2013, 02:53 PM (214 replies)
It's called 'The Rule of Law'.
We have the mechanisms in place on an International level. We signed on to various agreements with the civilized world on how to deal with accusations of War Crimes.
It works like this:
Once an accusation is made and there is some seemingly credible evidence to back it up Neutral Investigators are sent to the country in question to verify the claims, or not, as the case may be.
IF they determine, after spending sufficient time there, that there is evidence of crimes against the people, they return with that evidence and present it to the International Court.
There is no fear that presenting this evidence publicly will jeopardize anyone's 'National Security eg. So that excuse for NOT being willing to show the world the evidence, is eliminated.
Once there is agreement that in fact there is enough evidence to prove in court that War Crimes have been committed, indictments are handed down. It's hard to imagine that any civilized nation would not be on board to stop a War Criminal after the evidence has been seen and assessed to be true.
The accused then becomes an International Pariah and the accusations alone, WITH PROOF, cause others to fear being too supportive of his/her crimes in the future. Not only will that person be indicted but all those who aid and abet him/her in the commission of the crimes.
Eventually there will be an arrest or several arrests.
It works, without killing any more innocent people or becoming part of the killing generated by the criminals.
Here's an example of a War Criminal who was tried, convicted and sentenced for his crimes at the Hague not so long ago. The first one since WW11.
Isn't it time to begin to repeat this successful method of removing such people from positions of power where they can cause so much harm?
Charles Taylor sentenced to 50 years for war crimes
The first former head of state to be convicted of war crimes since World War II was sentenced to 50 years in prison Wednesday by an international court in The Hague, Netherlands.
The Special Court for Sierra Leone convicted former Liberian president Charles Taylor last month of supplying and encouraging rebels in neighboring Sierra Leone in a campaign of terror, involving murder, rape, sexual slavery and the conscription children younger than 15.
The brutal dictator didn't look so tough anymore as he was forced to answer for his crimes in a civilized court of law:
Isn't it time to begin to repeat this successful method of removing such people from positions of power where they can cause so much harm?
This seems to be the obvious way to get World support for dealing with War Criminals.
The world is failing to see how a 90 day bombing campaign will not result in even more death and destruction.
The doubts about the evidence CAN be wiped away if that evidence is made available for a thorough investigation.
Also possible if we use the Rule of Law, is the investigation of all the allegations on all sides and if the allegations against the 'rebels' turn out to be true, they too can be held accountable. And anyone who is supporting them with arms and finances will be less likely to do so once they are indicted for war crimes.
Then the International Community can act to begin the same process that put Taylor away for 50 years.
What a concept! And why stop at one War Criminal? Why not rid the world of all War Criminals this way? It certainly would have a lot more support than our current ignoring of war crimes when it suits us.
The Rule of Law!
The preferred method of dealing with crime by civilized nations everywhere.
Why have we abandoned it?
Posted by sabrina 1 | Fri Sep 6, 2013, 11:51 AM (146 replies)