Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: An Open Letter to All True Americans
6/30/2011 12:42:29 PM
And everyone thought PFK was a saint he was afraid of coming up short again.


Blagojevich Convicted, But Was He Really Guilty?

Jun. 29 2011 - 6:28 pm | 1,015 views | 0 recommendations | 0 comments
Mug shot of Rod Blagojevich.

Image via Wikipedia

The conviction of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich represents a courtroom victory for United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald after a series of defeats, but to get this win, Fitzgerald had to convince a jury that sharp-elbowed politics is something for which a man should spend time in prison.

The most controversial charge Blagojevich faced was that he planned to sell Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate seat. But Fitzgerald decided to come out swinging, terminated the wiretaps on Blagojevich’s home and office, arrested the then-sitting governor, held a sensational press conference, and called it a wrap before this alleged sale would have even taken place. Fitzgerald was obviously unwilling to wait out the unfolding situation to see if the governor was really serious about “selling” the seat to the highest bidder.

Had Blagojevich actually followed through with the sale of a Senate seat, Fitzgerald’s heavy-handed prosecutorial approach might have been justified. But in light of the fact that no seat was sold, and that these appointments are regularly used to for political benefit, the reasonable doubt that a crime was actually committed would appear to be overwhelming. For a US Attorney who is known for “crossing his T’s and dotting his I’s,” you have to wonder why Fitzgerald didn’t spring into action after the sale of the seat, once the dirty deal was done. Blagojevich’s own writing may give us a clue. Blagojevich claims in his memoir, “The Governor,” that the goal of the Senate appointment was to get a political opponent out of the way, not to sell the seat for cash. If this scenario is to be believed, then Fitzgerald went forward with the case when he did because, had he waited until after the seat was filled, there would not have been a case since the seat would have been awarded not for cash, but for quite traditional political advantage.

One of the most shocking, and seemingly damning, sound bites that came from the wiretaps was Blagojevich’s assertion that Obama’s Senate seat was “a [expletive] valuable thing. You don’t just give it away for nothing.” A U.S. Attorney whose last few cases ended unfavorably might be interested in spinning this quote to seem as though a cash transaction was being arranged in exchange for the Senate seat. However, if Blagojevich were looking to use the seat for his political benefit, then his statement would be crass, but would also be evidence that he was operating within the parameters of the law. The type of political maneuvering engaged in by the then-governor may seem to the average citizen (or juror, for that matter), to be less than wholesome, perhaps even a bit sneaky, but if every unwholesome or sneaky maneuver were a crime, we would not be able to build the prisons quickly enough to meet demand.

In 1996, former Massachusetts Governor William Weld (a Republican) appointed then-President of the State Senate William Bulger (a Democrat) to be head of the University of Massachusetts system. As keen political observers noted at the time, the appointment would keep a powerful political foe out of the governor’s hair. Following the election that vacated his seat in the Senate, then President-elect Obama gave GOPer John Huntsman a prestigious position as Ambassador to China. This shocking move was interpreted by many Beltway observers as a shrewd attempt at keeping a potential 2012 opponent (who nonetheless has since announced his candidacy) out of the race. Given the federal government’s expansive and vague interpretation of the “honest services” statute, surely these appointments, arguably made solely for political reasons, represent violations of “honest services” much like the political machinations of Blagojevich that now likely will send him to jail.

And don’t think that these types of power-plays are exclusively an American phenomenon. In 2007 French President Nicholas Sarkozy (of the Union for a Popular Movement) personally supported the appointment of Dominique Strauss-Kahn (Socialist Party) to head the International Monetary Fund because, astute observers believe, it kept a potential presidential contender out of the country. (This move may indeed have helped Sarkozy politically, although it did have unintended consequences for Strauss-Kahn.)

In any of the above scenarios, Blagojevich’s wiretapped quote could be put into the mouth of the figure doing the appointing, and no law would have been broken. It is only because of the nature of the instructions given to the jury by the trial judge as to the meaning of what is essentially a meaningless statute, the leeway given to prosecutors to make arguments to the jury that seek to criminalize politics-as-usual, and the failure of appellate courts to rein in the abusive uses of vague statutes, that Rod Blagojevich can be convicted for doing what just about any other political figure does from time to time.

While announcing the indictments to a scrum of reporters at a hastily-called press conference on the morning Blagojevich was arrested, Fitzgerald accused the governor of going on a “political corruption crime spree,” even though many of these supposed criminal acts had yet to be classified as crimes. An Ethics in Government Act was slated to take effect in Illinois on January 1st, 2009, and Fitzgerald even admitted that much of the former-Governors “crime spree” was in accordance with state law as it stood at the time. While Blagojevich’s often crass and arrogant demeanor made it easy for an overzealous U.S. Attorney to paint him as corrupt, Fitzgerald’s attempt at character assassination was an irresponsible act that likely had an immeasurable influence on a supposedly unbiased jury. (It certainly had a huge influence in orienting the press corps against Blagojevich and turning many reporters into a cheering gallery for the prosecutors.)

In my book, “Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent,” I provide a plethora of case studies that demonstrate the threat overzealous federal prosecutors can pose to law-abiding citizens when vague and loosely-worded statutes are manipulated to paint anyone as a criminal. The steps taken by the Department of Justice to criminalize Blagojevich’s actions are worthy of a whole chapter in Three Felonies, if not an issue of MAD Magazine. As for Fitzgerald, the disregard for fairness he demonstrated in his desperate attempt to earn a conviction should not be cheered on by the public or the news media. It should be mocked on late night TV.

It is often said that one with a delicate stomach should avoid observing how either sausages or laws are made. The same aphorism applies in spades to the operations of politics in general. In a democracy, the kind of wheeling and dealing that goes on daily, the compromises that are made, the threats and favors exchanged, the motives for this or that action (or inaction) engaged in by public officials high and low, paint a picture that is not always pretty. But the very essence of democracy necessarily entails some quite un-pretty scenarios, since getting something done is like the proverbial task of herding cats. If one looks closely into a number of federal prosecutions of high public officials in the decades since the mid-1980s, a pattern emerges that suggests the use of vague federal statutes, such as Illinois’ citizens’ being deprived of the “honest services” owed them by their somewhat hapless governor. These statutes are instruments used to assert the supremacy of federal law over state politics, and, not so incidentally, to build the reputations and careers of federal prosecutors.

The assistance of Andrew Bruss in the preparation of this piece is acknowledged.

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: An Open Letter to All True Americans
6/30/2011 2:14:58 PM

RINOS To The Left Of Me

June 30, 2011 by Ben Crystal

RINOS To The Left Of Me
PHOTOS.COM
Candidates Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney are RINOs seeking the 2012 Republican nomination for the Presidency.

Recently, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-The Tanning Bed) played golf with President Barack Obama (D-George Soros’ pocket). In and of itself, a little time on the links is hard to criticize. We all know the old saw: A day on the golf course is better than a day listening to Obama read Alinskyite babble off the nearest teleprompter. I say that with the expectation that Obama probably sandbags the hell out of his opponents: from each according to his proximity to scratch, to each according to his 20+ handicap.

But Boehner has been playing a lot more than golf with Obama; and instead of a foursome, he’s been playing in a huge scramble with the Democrats. The tide of conservatism (created at least in part by a rising taxpayer recognition that the Democrats’ only plan for the nation appears to involve embittered rhetoric and assignation of blame) gave Boehner his position as Speaker of the House of Representatives. Yet Boehner is developing a far cozier relationship with the people who drove the nation into the ditch than he is with the people who have to winch it out. Whether it’s a vote against defunding the war in which Obama has not embroiled the United States (honest!) or dithering on raising the debt ceiling, Boehner seems to be ignoring the reality that 2010 was not a national referendum on Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, but a referendum on the increasingly unhinged liberalism of Pelosi, Obama and the Democratic Party.

The people want a conservative partner in Washington, not necessarily a Republican partner. That’s an important distinction, my friends. While Boehner has occasionally demonstrated a backbone, he has also too often run with the RINO herd. Before any of my dear readers respond with condemnations of my refusal to search for across-the-board bipartisanship, allow me to preempt your indignation:

  1. The 2010 turnover had nothing to do with bipartisanship. Voters went to polls across the Nation and told the Democrats (to paraphrase the President): “Sit down and have a Slurpee.” Recent polls indicate voters have even less faith in the Democratic Party now than they did then.
  2. I couldn’t help but notice bipartisanship suddenly became enormously important just moments after the Democrats in the House started having to beg for legislative scraps at the back door.
  3. The Democrats define bipartisanship strangely. As our own Chip Wood pointed out in his column Tossing Grandma off the Cliff and Other Democratic Lies, as opposition to Obamacare solidified, the liberal Democrat group Agenda Project produced a charming TV ad claiming the Republicans were planning the political equivalent of a mob hit on Medicare. The spot in question crossed a new Rubicon in the Democrats’ race to the bottom of the barrel. It depicted a reasonably well-groomed young fellow (whom we know to be a soulless conservative, since he’s wearing a suit, his hair is combed and he appears to have bathed) taking a wheelchair-bound old lady for a leisurely stroll — and pushing her off a cliff. If insinuating that conservatives are out to whack grandma is a Democrat’s idea of bipartisanship, then I’ll pass on the next Congressional love-in, thanks. It is worth noting that the Democrats are the ones pushing Obamacare’s death panels. And while they seem comfortable accusing conservatives of Medicare/Grandmama-cide, I can’t help but wonder where their plan to save Medicare might be. Maybe it fell off a cliff. Their rhetoric has grown exponentially more hysterical as their position has become more tenuous. I suppose hurling hate-filled tirades beats formulating a budget, a coherent foreign policy or a plan for improving the fortunes of people who don’t dine with Oprah Winfrey.

While Boehner and some members of the GOP have been putting from the Democrats’ rough at the Congressional level, another RINO has pushed to the front of the Presidential herd. Ambassador Jon Huntsman has left his post as the Nation’s envoy to the People’s Republic of China to challenge his boss for the big boy chair in the Oval Office. A former Governor of Utah, Huntsman is a well-connected, politically astute and telegenic candidate. While he remains an unknown quantity to many Republican voters (thanks in no small part to a campaign that started more slowly than my mother backing the truck out of the barn), he has access to some well-heeled financiers. And his pre-campaign hype was louder than a Who concert. (For the kiddies who don’t know who The Who is, think Lady Gaga with real instruments, real talent and real… clothing.)

Huntsman is an interesting study in the Revenge of the RINOS, if only because the hype surrounding his will-he, won’t-he, will-he campaign (he will, as it turns out) was generated without any real backing from any identifiable conservatives. In fact, the highest profile endorsement I heard directed toward Huntsman was offered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.): “…if I had a choice, I’d favor Huntsman” (And if I had a choice, Senator Reid, you would be making little stick figures of Sharron Angle while your ghostwriter worked on your memoirs.) While Huntsman served as Ambassador to China at the pleasure of the President of the United States, he did so not under President George W. Bush, but under President Obama. Given our increasingly lopsided relationship with the ChiComs, I hardly think that serving as the Beijing mouthpiece for Obama’s appeasement-at-all-costs-unless-you-look-like-an-easy-win foreign policy is much of a resume highlight for someone trying to convince voting Republicans that he’s the right man for the Oval Office.

Meanwhile, the man who would come in second in the “Harry Reid Endorsement Sweepstakes” is dragging his own RINO baggage. Say hello to Governor Mitt Romney, who still leads in the increasingly tight race for the GOP Presidential nomination. Romney is hardly the standard-bearer for the wave of conservatism which swept the nation in 2010. In 1994, Romney said: I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.” Romney now says his position has changed, of course. But he’s in his second race for the White House. My Bravo Sierra detector has an odd tendency to light up like a Christmas tree (how non-p.c. of me, apologies) — Winter Solstice tree — every time a RINO like Romney starts professing his passage to the right side of the political spectrum. Granted, Romney is to Obama as the Four Seasons is to the Super 8. Of course, in Obama’s America the rest of us can’t afford the Super 8 — and we can’t even get in the door of the Four Seasons (Mrs. Obama doesn’t like the riffraff getting too close, you know). But Romney has touted his adherence to the global-warming dogma, and there’s that nagging little matter with Obamacare’s older brother. It strikes me that the same conservative revolution which gave candidates like Romney a chance against Obama can do better than candidates like Romney.

“Better than candidates like Romney” excludes a certain former Speaker of the House. Newt Gingrich is astute, shrewd and easily the best debater of the GOP candidates. But it’s hard to vouch for the conservative credentials of a guy who plays footsie with a parasite like Al Sharpton. And while he was the more attractive of the two people in that “together we can solve it” global-warming promo he did with Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-California Society of Plastic Surgeons), the fact that he did the spot speaks volumes. Tell you what, Mr. Speaker, you and Nancy go solve “it.” Let someone else handle the real issues.

It’s a bit early for me to offer an endorsement in the GOP’s 2012 horse race. Also, no one actually asked me. In the interest of full disclosure, I’m still mildly depressed that neither former Representative Tom Tancredo (R-really not Mexico) nor Governor Chris Christie (R-Joisey) came out of the gate this time around. But there are some roses among the candidate thorns. Herman Cain continues to impress me, although evidently he dents Bob Schieffer’s memory less deeply. Representative Michele Bachmann (R-liberal nightmares) has proven herself early on to be a candidate to watch, and her Tea Party Caucus leadership bespeaks the kind of sound conservative thinking the Nation desperately needs. As an added bonus, she makes liberals do that spit-when-they-talk thing; that always gives me a chuckle. Now, if someone could just get her to stop mistaking the Duke and the Killer Clown, she could really open for business.

Governor Sarah Palin (R-the Grizzly Den) has that same effect on liberals, and she may well be the most unfairly maligned political figure in recent memory. But sometimes, I can’t tell if Palin’s kidding. Of course, I keep hoping that Obama has been kidding for the past few years. And then, there’s Representative Ron Paul (R-Grassroots America). I know I am going to suffer a few slings and arrows (again) from his rather… er… spirited supporters, but I don’t see a President when I see Ron Paul. I see the economics professor I wish Obama had had in college instead of whichever Keynesian moron he listened to. I sincerely hope the Republican who wins in 2012 names Paul Secretary of the Treasury to replace Secretary “Turbo-tax™” Geithner. Paul may oppose punitive and overly Byzantine taxes, but at least we know he pays them.

The 2012 Presidential campaign has a long way to go. In the meantime, it’s a jungle out there, kids. Let’s not mistake the RINOs for the elephants.

http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/government/rinos-to-the-left-of-me/?eiid=&rmid=2011_06_30_PLA_[P11821429]&rrid=238457146

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: An Open Letter to All True Americans
6/30/2011 10:18:21 PM

GARDNER, Mass.—A sign welcomes visitors to “historic” downtown Gardner, Mass., but history is one of the few things this city of about 20,000 residents has going for it these days.

While it still proudly calls itself “Chair City,” the heyday of fine-furniture manufacturing is long past and unemployment stands at about 11 percent. This blue-collar community about 60 miles west of Boston is grappling with a local economy that is generating less tax revenue for basic services and a state government drained by the Great Recession with less money to spread to its municipalities.

Gardner is typical of countless cities and towns around the country compensating with reduced services. Older children no longer have school buses. Public library hours have been slashed. Waits are longer at the assessor’s office because of fewer staff. Layoffs also have hit the public works department, and local teens can no longer be hired in the summer to spruce up parks and playgrounds.

“I’m supposed to be doing more, with a heck of a lot less,” said Mayor Mark Hawke, a Republican whose city is receiving less state money than it got a dozen years ago, yet has been saddled by the state with more responsibilities, known as local mandates.

His lament is a familiar one in cities and counties across the country. Gardner’s woes come amid a fiscal squeeze unlike any in modern history and are emblematic of the rough road ahead for local governments.

Governors and legislators in many states — themselves struggling with gaping budget holes — are slashing local aid and proposing to push even more duties down the government ladder in a dramatic restructuring of the relationship between states and their local governments.

Going broke

The financial strain has some city and county officials searching for ways to alter promised pension and health care benefits. Some analysts are forecasting a rise in municipal defaults, in which local governments are unable to pay the principal or interest on the bonds they have issued. When that happens, their credit ratings typically drop and it becomes more costly in the future for governments to finance improvements to roads, buildings and other projects. For the public, that could mean cuts in services or tax increases.

In just over two months, investors pulled $25 billion out of municipal bonds because of fears of defaults. Concerns intensified after Meredith Whitney, an influential financial analyst who heads her own firm, recently forecast the possibility of 50 to 100 municipal bond defaults worth hundreds of billions of dollars this year.

Other analysts believe such a scenario is unlikely, but they acknowledge there could be an increase in government defaults and bankruptcies.

From 1970 to 2009, there were just 54 defaults out of 18,000 municipal entities tracked by ratings agency Moody’s. The agency has estimated 10 to 15 municipal defaults are possible this year, although they are more likely to occur in small towns than larger cities.

“Most cities are not talking about insolvency,” said Richard Ciccarone, chief research officer for McDonnell Investment Management in Oak Brook, Ill., which monitors a database of government finances.

Since the San Francisco Bay area city of Vallejo declared bankruptcy in 2008, it has shaved costs by closing fire stations and reducing funding for senior centers, libraries and public works.

Even setting aside the possibility of insolvency, the coming years could put to the test the historical American assumption that local government is the best form of government.

Unlike their federal and state colleagues, local officials don’t have the luxury of passing the buck to someone below them. When the dollars run short, they must raise taxes, cut services or consider filing for bankruptcy protection. State and local governments cannot run deficits.

The figures are bleak:

• More than half the 335 counties and 646 cities analyzed by McDonnell Investment had deficits in their general funds in 2009, a trend that appeared to hold true in 2010. Audits showed 12 percent of counties, 16 percent of cities and 22 percent of school districts had less than a month’s worth of money in their general funds, a precariously low level.

• For eight consecutive quarters, downgrades of municipal bond ratings have exceeded upgrades, according to Moody’s Investors Service. And that trend is likely to continue in 2011 as local governments face “unprecedented financial strain,” said Anne Van Praagh, Moody’s vice president and senior credit officer.

• Eighty-seven percent of cities were less able to meet their fiscal needs in 2010 than in the previous year, according to a survey by the National League of Cities. And nearly two-thirds of surveyed counties said they anticipated revenue shortfalls this fiscal year, according to the National Association of Counties.

Local governments already have made the relatively easy budget cuts, such as limiting library hours, reducing park maintenance or trimming grants to local arts programs. Now the cuts are affecting the everyday lives of residents more directly.

In January, Camden, N.J. laid off nearly half of its police force and about one-third of its firefighters to offset falling tax revenue and diminishing aid from the state. Police Chief Scott Thompson said officers no longer will respond to minor traffic accidents and will not take reports on small thefts or property damage complaints.

A police union warned in a full-page newspaper ad that Camden will become a “living hell.” Residents are trying to fill the gap. The anti-crime volunteer group Guardian Angels says it will patrol Camden, just as it has done in Newark, N.J., since police were laid off there last November.

In the Bayless School District in suburban St. Louis, students now must walk to school — or catch a ride from parents — after the school board ended bus service. The cut came after Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon eliminated almost half the state’s school transportation aid.

“It was a cut that while painful, avoided more damaging cuts like layoffs or increased class sizes,” Bayless school board President Jeff Preisack said.

When Illinois delayed payments to medical providers because of a multibillion-dollar budget shortfall, the Vermillion County Health Department got a loan to stay afloat. Then, with the state more than $600,000 in arrears, the county decided to lay off half its staff and halt all services funded with state general revenue. Gone is the free clinic for sexually transmitted diseases and family planning, which served about 3,000 people. Also axed was a medical case management program for children in the foster care system.

Tax squeeze

While the severity of the financial crunch varies greatly from one city to another, local government officials point to a common cause for their financial woes: revenue from sales and property taxes, the pillars of local government finances, have fallen while costs to provide services and pay for government retirees keep rising.

Retiree costs are particularly problematic in states where politically powerful public employee unions wield broad power over health insurance and pension plans. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said his city’s $2.3 billion budget is being “crippled” by health care costs, hindering the city’s ability to improve schools and neighborhoods.

In a recent report, The Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education said health care costs for school districts rose by $1 billion from 2000 to 2007, four times the rate of inflation and outstripping by $300 million the increase in state aid to public education during the same period.

In New York, where residents are among the most heavily taxed in the nation, newly elected Gov. Andrew Cuomo has proposed, and the state Senate has approved, an annual 2 percent cap on property tax growth. Some municipal officials say such a cap would be disastrous unless accompanied by other changes. A task force of mayors has proposed that the state declare a financial emergency, impose a one-year freeze on public sector wages and require all local government employees to pay a share of their health insurance costs.

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: An Open Letter to All True Americans
7/2/2011 1:32:27 PM
Should we respect this countries sovereignty? If not why would anyone respect ours or yours?



Gadhafi Threatens Attacks in Europe If NATO Continues Air Campaign

TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — A defiant Moammar Gadhafi threatened Friday to carry out attacks in Europe against "homes, offices, families," unless NATO halts its campaign of airstrikes against his regime in Libya.

The Libyan leader, sought by the International Criminal Court for a brutal crackdown on anti-government protesters, delivered the warning in a telephone message played to thousands of supporters gathered in the main square of the capital Tripoli.

It was one of the largest pro-government rallies in recent months, signaling that Gadhafi can still muster significant support. A green cloth, several hundred meters long and held aloft by supporters, snaked above the crowd filling Tripoli's Green Square. Green is Libya's national color.

A series of powerful explosions later rattled the heart of the capital, apparently new NATO airstrikes, as Gadhafi supporters cheered, honked horns and fired into the air in the street. Black smoke could be seen rising from the area near Gadhafi's Bab al-Aziziya compound.

Gadhafi spoke from an unknown location in a likely sign of concern over his safety. Addressing the West, Gadhafi warned that Libyans might take revenge for NATO bombings.

"These people (the Libyans) are able to one day take this battle ... to Europe, to target your homes, offices, families, which would become legitimate military targets, like you have targeted our homes," he said.

"We can decide to treat you in a similar way," he said of the Europeans. "If we decide to, we are able to move to Europe like locusts, like bees. We advise you to retreat before you are dealt a disaster."

It was not immediately clear whether Gadhafi could make good on such threats.

In the past, Gadhafi supported various militant groups, including the IRA and several Palestinian factions, while Libyan agents were blamed for attacks in Europe, including a Berlin disco bombing in 1986 and the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people, mostly Americans. Libya later acknowledged responsibility for Lockerbie.

In recent years, however, Gadhafi was believed to have severed his ties with extremist groups when he moved to reconcile with Europe and the United States.

Al-Qaida and other jihadi groups have opposed Gadhafi since he cracked down in the late 1990s on the Islamist Libyan Islamic Fighting Group which sought to replace his regime with an Islamic state.

A U.S. State Department spokesman, Mark Toner, said the U.S. would take Gadhafi's threat of attacks seriously, as his regime carried out such actions in the past. Toner said he did not know if there was intelligence to indicate Gadhafi's regime would be able to carry out such attacks.

"This is an individual who's obviously capable of carrying these kinds of threats, that's what makes him so dangerous, but he's also someone who's given to overblown rhetoric," Toner told a news conference in Washington.

Friday's rally came just four days after the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Gadhafi, his son Seif al-Islam and Libyan intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanoussi for crimes against humanity. International prosecutors allege government troops fired on civilian protesters during anti-Gadhafi street demonstrations earlier this year.

The popular uprising has since turned into a protracted civil war, with anti-government rebels controlling much of eastern Libya and parts of Libya's western mountains. NATO has been bombing government-linked targets since March.

In his speech Friday, Gadhafi denounced the rebels as traitors and blamed them for Libya's troubles.

He said Libyans who fled to neighboring Tunisia are now "working as maids for the Tunisians."

"Tunisians used to work for Libyans. What brought you to this stage? The traitors," he added.

He called on his supporters to march on rebel strongholds, including the western mountain area and the port city of Misrata, both in the otherwise Gadhafi-controlled western Libya. "We must end this battle fast," he said of the attempts to oust him from power, which began with an uprising in mid-February.

Gadhafi's speech signaled that mounting international pressure, including the arrest warrants against him, have made him only more defiant.

His son, Seif al-Islam, who like his father is a wanted man, denied in a TV interview that either of them ordered the killing of civilian protesters in Libya, as prosecutors charge.

The younger Gadhafi told Russian news channel RT in an interview posted online Friday that "most of the people" died when they tried to storm military sites, and that guards fired on them under standing orders to protect the bases and themselves.

However, documents from the International Criminal Court outline multiple instances in which the tribunal prosecutors allege government troops fired on civilian protesters during anti-Gadhafi street demonstrations earlier this year.

The younger Gadhafi had once been viewed as a reformer by the West and was being groomed as a possible successor to his father.

Seif al-Islam wore a thick beard and traditional clothes in the interview. He denounced the international court seeking his arrest as controlled by the NATO countries now bombing Libya.

"This court is a Mickey Mouse court ... For me to be responsible for killing people, it was a big joke," he told the Russian state-funded network.

The Netherlands-based tribunal on Monday issued arrest warrants against the Libyan leader, his son Seif al-Islam and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanoussi.

The three are accused of orchestrating the killing, injuring, arrest and imprisonment of hundreds of civilians during the first 12 days of an uprising to topple Moammar Gadhafi from power, and for trying to cover up their alleged crimes.

Presiding Judge Sanji Monageng of Botswana has said that hundreds of civilians were killed, injured or arrested in the crackdown, and there were "reasonable grounds to believe" that Gadhafi and his son were both responsible for their murder and persecution.

But Seif al-Islam denied that he and his father specifically ordered protesters to be killed.

"Of course not," he said, arguing that government troops fired on protesters out of self-defense.

"Nobody ordered. Nobody. The guards fired. That's it. ... The guards were surprised by the attacking people and they (started) ... firing. They don't need an order to defend themselves," he said.

Seif al-Islam accused Western nations of intervening in Libya because they are after the country's oil and other resources. He said the goal is "to control Libya," and he vowed to fight on.

"Nobody will give up. Nobody will raise the white flag," he said. "We want peace, but if you want to fight, we are not cowards. ... We are going to fight."


Read more on Newsmax.com: Gadhafi Threatens Attacks in Europe If NATO Continues Air Campaign

Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: An Open Letter to All True Americans
7/7/2011 10:29:56 PM

The REAL Islam Revealed?



May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0


facebook
Like us on Facebook!