Well, Duh!
Thu   30 Mar 2006   8:32 by Kevin McGehee in Coweta County, GA 0 comments [War] [Courting Disaster] [Yippee-Ki-Yay!]	The account of an FBI informant, a critical government witness, about seeing one of the world’s most wanted terrorists in Lodi in 1999 is probably not true, an FBI agent testified in Sacramento federal court Wednesday. » Bee: Doubt cast on al-Zawahri sighting See also here and here.

Unbelievable

Tue   28 Mar 2006   17:07 by Kevin McGehee in Coweta County, GA 0 comments [Courting Disaster] [Yee-haw!] [Yippee-Ki-Yay!]

I can’t believe Baghdad Jim McDermott is actually being held accountable for his lawbreaking. Too bad it’s taken this long. A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Rep. Jim McDermott violated federal law by turning over an illegally taped telephone call to reporters nearly a decade ago. In a 2-1 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a lower court ruling that McDermott violated the rights of House Majority Leader John Boehner, who was heard on the 1996 call involving former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The lower court had ordered McDermott to pay Boehner more than $700,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and at least $600,000 in legal costs. McDermott, D-Wash., leaked to The New York Times and other news organizations a tape of a 1996 cell phone call The call included discussion by Gingrich, R-Ga., and other House GOP leaders about a House ethics committee investigation of Gingrich. Boehner, R-Ohio, was a Gingrich lieutenant at the time and is now House majority leader. A lawyer for McDermott had argued that his actions were allowed under the First Amendment, and said a ruling against him would have “a huge chilling effect” on reporters and newsmakers alike. » AP: Congressman Loses Appeal in Phone Taping Bite me, McDimwit. You don’t have a First Amendment right to eavesdrop on other people’s phone calls for a political “hit.“ By leaking the tape McDermott “chilled the free speech of others,“ namely Boehner and Gingrich, lawyer Michael Carvin said. A spokesman for McDermott said Tuesday the congressman had just received the ruling and was studying it. That means he’s having it translated into Moron.

As I Expected

Wed   22 Mar 2006   6:57 by Kevin McGehee in Coweta County, GA 0 comments [War] [Courting Disaster] [Yippee-Ki-Yay!]

The prosecution’s case in the Lodi terror imam trial is under assault, in large part because of the Zawahiri claim mentioned (skeptically) here. A defense lawyer on Tuesday aimed to undercut the credibility of an FBI informant and critical witness in the trial of two Lodi men charged with terrorist connections. [...] The informant acknowledged to Griffin on Tuesday that the FBI originally contacted him in Oregon about a multimillion-dollar money-laundering scheme, but he denied he was a suspect in that investigation. On the same occasion, Khan testified, he offered his services to the FBI and told the agents he had seen Osama bin Laden’s top adviser at the mosque in Lodi on numerous occasions when he was living there. Ayman al-Zawahri is known to the FBI as bin Laden’s personal physician and al-Qaida’s second-in-command. » Bee: Defense attacks FBI informant’s credibility I’m not even addressing whether or not the Zawahiri stuff is true—you have to see this from the standpoint of a juror. All of Khan’s other claims might have stood up to the smell test, if he hadn’t also claimed to have seen Zawahiri at that mosque. That would have an impact on a juror’s openness to attempts to impeach Khan’s credibility. I can’t imagine the Zawahiri claim being material to the case, so why did the prosecutors allow it into evidence? It may not lead to outright acquittal, but if so much of the case depends on this Khan guy it’s not out of the question.

Could Be Mistaken Identity

Tue   14 Mar 2006   7:35 by Kevin McGehee in Coweta County, GA 0 comments [War] [Courting Disaster] [Yippee-Ki-Yay!]

Ayman al-Zawahiri isn’t the most distinguished-looking gent, after all. An FBI informant testified Monday in Sacramento federal court that al-Qaida’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri, lived in Lodi during parts of 1998 and 1999. Naseem Khan, who is a critical prosecution witness in the trials of two Lodi men charged with having terrorist ties, testified he was living in Lodi in 1998 and 1999 and “every time I would go to the mosque (al-Zawahri) would be coming or going” from the mosque. Khan said al-Zawahri, known to the FBI as Osama bin Laden’s personal physician and top adviser, “disappeared” sometime in 1999. Khan recalled that he would speak to al-Zawahri when they encountered one another in passing but never had a conversation with him. “He would quietly come to the mosque and leave,“ Khan recalled. He did not say that he saw al-Zawahri anywhere else in Lodi during that period. Khan said he did not know who al-Zawahri was until he saw his picture with bin Laden on television news after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. » Bee: Top al-Qaida figure lived in Lodi, witness says Emphasis added. I’m thinking this fellow’s credibility will be impeached because of this claim, and it will weaken the case. UPDATE: Wikipedia (FWIW) has this: On February 23, 1998, he issued a joint fatwa with Osama bin Laden under the title “World Islamic Front Against Jews and Crusaders”, an important step in broadening their conflicts to a global scale. ...which would seem to suggest that Zawahiri wasn’t exactly a non-entity in the terrorist world at the time Khan claims to have seen him in Lodi. My skepticism has gone up a notch. ‘NOTHER UPDATE: Captain Ed notes, The defense has gone on the attack in this case to undermine the testimony, complaining that the judge blocked them from questioning Khan’s credibility. They claimed that the Pakistani ex-pat community in Lodi would have noticed an Egyptian like Zawahiri had he started attending the mosque, and the mosque president and other officials do not have any recollection of Zawahiri attending their services. It seems a bit far-fetched to me that the people at the mosque would have required attendees to state their ethnicity prior to entry, and that assumes that the mosque officials are being sincere in their remarks. If that’s the best defense that Hayat’s attorneys can muster, no wonder the judge ruled their objections out of order. But ShrinkWrapped replies in comments there, My understanding is that Arabic speakers are readily identified as to their country of origin by their dialect and accent. Apparently, Egyptians have very distinct ways of speaking (the varitey of different dialects and accents is one of the reasons it is so difficult for Americans to learn Arabic; at the Defence Language Institute, they are taught Modern Standard Arabic, which can be heard on al Jazeera, for example, but to really learn a particular country’s language requires much more study on top of the basics.) If this is accurate, then identifying Zawahiri as an Egyptian would not be difficult. That doesn’t invalidate the story but does make it more complicated. He’s right. Just as Spanish-speakers can tell a Mexican from an Argentinian, and English-speakers can tell an Australian from a Brooklynite, Arabic-speaking Palestinians would have been able to recognize the accent and dialect of an Egyptian in their midst. Another +1 on the skepticism meter.

But Maybe the Act Applies to the Plaintiffs…?

Wed   1 Mar 2006   10:26 by Kevin McGehee in Coweta County, GA 0 comments [Courting Disaster] [Yee-haw!] [Here's Your Sign] [Yippee-Ki-Yay!]

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled yesterday that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used against protesters at abortion clinics, ending a legal battle that has gone on for 20 years. The high court’s 8-0 decision effectively bars efforts by pro-choice groups to bankrupt the pro-life movement by using federal anti-mob laws against protest groups, claiming that such organizations were violent criminal conspiracies. But in his 15-page decision for the unanimous court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer ruled that “physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion,“ such as demonstrations by abortion opponents at clinics, “falls outside the scope of the Hobbs Act,“ the federal extortion statute enacted in 1946. “Congress did not intend to create a free-standing physical violence offense ... the Hobbs Act defines ‘extortion’ as necessarily including the improper ‘obtaining of property from another,‘“ concluded Justice Breyer, who was appointed by President Clinton and usually supports the right to abortion. » Washington Times: Court rules pro-lifers not racketeers And yet the attempt to apply the Hobbs Act was certainly aimed at depriving pro-life groups of their property (see emphasis added in excerpt). Is it possible, I wonder, that they themselves were engaged in an actionable attempt at racketeering?

‘What is the need for this bill?‘

Tue   21 Feb 2006   6:45 by Kevin McGehee in Coweta County, GA 0 comments [Out West] [Courting Disaster] [Yee-haw!] [Yippee-Ki-Yay!]

When a trial lawyer asks that question, it answers itself. The necessity of a bill that would specify that people have no duty to retreat from an attacker before using deadly force was questioned in a Wyoming House Judiciary Committee meeting Monday. Despite negative testimony from the public, the committee decided to further consider the bill later in the day. Tom Jubin of the Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association testified that years of case law had clarified the issue in Wyoming. He said Wyoming citizens already had the right to defend their homes without a duty to retreat. “That’s been the law here, essentially, forever,“ he said. “What is the need for this bill? I’m not sure.“ Proponents of the bill said it was necessary because the statute needed to be “crystal clear.“ » AP: Testimony heard on retreat bill Case law can be reversed and Jubin knows that. As far as I’m concerned, the mere fact the trial lawyers’ association questions the need for the bill, demonstrates its necessity.

The Wrong Direction

Thu   9 Feb 2006   8:40 by Kevin McGehee in Coweta County, GA 0 comments [Courting Disaster] [Here's Your Sign] [Yippee-Ki-Yay!]

If kids are passing their classes but unable to demonstrate knowledge of basic math and English to a standard established as necessary to graduate, not only should they not be allowed to graduate, but their teachers need to be scrutinized and possibly their schools investigated for fraud. Saying that high school students who have passed their classes should be able to graduate even if they flunk California’s test of basic math and English skills, a powerful San Francisco law firm sued the state Wednesday over the California High School Exit Exam. Attorneys with Morrison & Foerster filed the suit in San Francisco Superior Court on the same day tens of thousands of high school seniors across the state took the test for the fourth or fifth time. The suit asks the court to block the state from going through with its long-standing plan: to only allow those who pass the exam to graduate this year. “We think that’s unfair, we think that’s unwise, and we think that’s illegal,“ attorney Arturo Gonzalez said during a news conference. Gonzalez represents all students in the class of 2006 who have failed the exam but passed all other graduation requirements, such as classes and senior projects. » Bee: Suit alleges school exit exam unfair Emphasis added. Now, how did this guy manage to get all those people to retain him as a client? Well, realistically, he didn’t—this has to be a class-action lawsuit, which is a form of litigation that in my opinion needs to be strictly curtailed, if not abolished. Legal actions undertaken on the initiative of lawyers who will gain far more than any individual “client,“ are every bit as fraudulent as schools that turn out uneducated graduates. Which explains this alliance between the two, don’t you think?

I’ve Said It Before and I’ll Say It Again
Mon   6 Feb 2006   6:27 by Kevin McGehee in Coweta County, GA 3 comments [Courting Disaster] [Here's Your Sign] [Wackadoodle] [Yippee-Ki-Yay!]	Arlen Specter is an asshole.

Nuke ‘Em Anyway!
Mon   30 Jan 2006   18:34 by Kevin McGehee in Coweta County, GA 0 comments [Courting Disaster] [Yippee-Ki-Yay!]	Well, okay, no. It’s just that a filibuster would have added to GOP gains in this fall’s congressional elections, is all. Congratulations, Judge Alito—and thank you for not letting the Deaniacs’ hijinks run you off. UPDATE: Speaking of the Deaniacs… ‘NOTHER UPDATE: Make that, “Congratulations, Justice Alito!“

I Think I See the Problem

Mon   30 Jan 2006   6:20 by Kevin McGehee in Coweta County, GA 0 comments [Courting Disaster] [Yippee-Ki-Yay!]

Sen. Barack Obama, the freshman Democrat from Illinois who is one of his party’s brightest stars, chided his party yesterday for its “over-reliance” on “procedural maneuvers” such as the fruitless filibuster threats against the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. “We need to recognize—because Judge Alito will be confirmed—that if we’re going to oppose a nominee, that we’ve got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake,“ he said yesterday on ABC’s “This Week.“ » Washington Times: Obama criticizes party for strategy Obama is right—but the problem is, the people see their values being at stake from the opposite point of view that the Democrats do.

Page 6 of 30 pages « First  <  4 5 6 7 8 >  Last »