Saturday, June 5, 2010
White House Now Declaring That Israel's Defensive Naval Blockade Is "Unsustainable"
Reuters reports tha the "White House said on Friday Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip was unsustainable and urged a Gaza aid vessel sent by pro-Palestinian activists to divert to an Israeli port to reduce the risk of violence."
"The current arrangements are unsustainable and must be changed. For now, we call on all parties to join us in encouraging responsible decisions by all sides to avoid any unnecessary confrontations," Mike Hammer, spokesman for the White House National Security Council said in a statement.
Once again the White House is siding with Israel's enemies and attempting to deny Israel the right of self defense. The purpose of the naval blockade on Gaza is to prevent weapons from being shipped to Hamas and to prevent Gaza from becoming an Iranian port on the Mediterranean. That the White House is now declaring this sensible blockade, a blockade being one of the most passive forms of military intervention against a hostile enemy, "unsustainable" is inexcusable. Israel's action is not only clearly sustainable, but justified and necessary.
Tweet
Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: Fire Helen Thomas For Advocating "Religious Cleansing"
In response to Helen Thomas saying on camera that Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine" and go back to Germany and Poland, Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer has in an e-mail correctly called for Helen Thomas to "lose her job over this. As someone who is Jewish, and as someone who worked with her and used to like her, I find this appalling. She is advocating religious cleansing. How can Hearst stand by her? If a journalist, or a columnist, said the same thing about blacks or Hispanics, they would already have lost their jobs."
Elan Steinberg, executive director of the World Jewish Congress, sharply rebuked her. "Shame on Helen Thomas. She is certainly old enough to remember the Holocaust and the Second World War. She owes an apology to all victims of the Nazis," Steinberg said.
Tweet
Friday, June 4, 2010
Gaza Flotilla Raid Commando: "They Had Murder In Their Eyes" And "We Had No Choice"
To read this important report from the Jerusalem Post visit http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177445. Tweet
Flotilla's Response To IDF Call To Turn Around: "Go Back To Auschwitz" And "Don't Forget 9/11 Guys"
Ynet reports that the "IDF released on Friday an audio reproduction of the moments before Monday's raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla. In it, the soldiers can be heard warning the flotilla that its vessels are nearing an area under naval blockade. They are answered by calls of 'Go back to Auschwitz' and 'Don't forget 9/11 guys.'"
To listen to the audio from these disgusting excuses for human beings visit http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3899131,00.html.
Tweet
WSJ's Daniel Henninger On "The Beating Up On Israel"
To read this excellent article by Daniel Henninger visit http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282740991794622.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories Tweet
Charles Krauthammer: "If Even A Blockade, The Most Passive And Benign Of Defenses, Is Impermissible, What Defenses Does Israel Have Left?"
To read the article by Charles Krauthammer in National Review visit http://article.nationalreview.com/435513/israel-disarmed/charles-krauthammer. Tweet
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Berghuis v. Thompkins: Supreme Court Rules That Miranda Right To Remain Silent Must Be Unambiguously Invoked By Suspect To Stop An Interrogation
The Supreme Court recently handed down a ruling that will effect the Miranda rights of suspected criminals. In any news story or discussion of a Supreme Court decision regarding Miranda rights it is important to point out that there is actually a strong originalist argument to be made that Miranda v. Arizona, which is the basis for the right to be mirandized and have confessions not count as evidence until that takes place, actually has no basis in the original Constitution. Justice White began his dissent in that famous case by declaring, "The proposition that the privilege against self-incrimination forbids in-custody interrogation without the warnings specified in the majority opinion and without a clear waiver of counsel has no significant support in the history of the privilege or in the language of the Fifth Amendment. As for the English authorities and the common law history, the privilege, firmly established in the second half of the seventeenth century, was never applied except to prohibit compelled judicial interrogations."
The Supreme Court just ruled, in a decision written by Justice Kennedy and joined by Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, as correctly described by Scotuswiki, that "if a suspect does not want to talk to police — that is, to invoke a right to silence — he must say so, with a clear statement because it is not enough to sit silently or to remain uncooperative, even through a long session; and, second, if the suspect finally answers a suggestive question with a one-word response that amounts to a confession, that, by itself, will be understood as a waiver of the right to silence and the statement can be used as evidence. Police need not obtain an explicit waiver of that right. The net practical effect is likely to be that police, in the face of a suspect’s continued silence after being given Miranda warnings, can continue to question him, even for a couple of hours, in hopes eventually of getting him to confess."
The mainstream liberal media have responded to this reasonable ruling that slightly modifies and clarifies a rule that itself is not based on the Constitution by claiming that the Miranda rights are being decimated. A Los Angeles Times editorial declared the ruling "a problematic one for future application of the Miranda rule." Adam Cohen wrote in Time Magazine that
The Supreme Court ruled that "[i]f an ambiguous act, omission or statement could require police to end the interrogation, police would be required to make difficult decisions about an accused's unclear intent and face the consequence of suppression 'if they guess wrong. Suppression of a voluntary confession in these circumstances would place a significant burden on society's interest in prosecuting criminal activity." The Court explained that “Thompkins’ silence during the interrogation did not invoke his right to remain silent. A suspect’s Miranda right to counsel must be invoked 'unambiguously. . . .' If the accused makes an 'ambiguous or equivocal' statement or no statement, the police are not required to end the interrogation. . . or ask questions to clarify the accused’s intent. . . . Had Thompkins said that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk, he would have invoked his right to end the question-ing. He did neither.”
This ruling is simply common sense, not the disaster the left has portrayed it as. If a suspect has been informed of his Miranda rights, and understands his Miranda rights, and yet he allows for interrogation to continue and then proceeds to answer a question, that answer should count as evidence for purposes of trial. As a person that had heard his Miranda rights as told to him by the police officers, and as a person asked specifically if he understands the rights, the suspect should then have to unambiguously declare that he is invoking the right. The Supreme Court made a logical that in no way infringes on the underlying right to remain silent during an interrogation, or any other of the rights that are well known to all Americans from watching any cop television show that features an arrest. The hysterics from the left regarding this case are once again completely unwarranted. They cry fowl when the Supreme Court actually delivers a logical opinion reining in a Supreme Court precedent to meet what common sense requires, but laud Supreme Court decisions that impose liberal policies on the nation without any regard to the Constitution and its original meaning.
Tweet
Documents Show Elena Kagan To Be Extremely Liberal On Social Issues, A Sign That She Will Impose Her Views On The Nation Despite The Constitution
CBS News reports that "Elena Kagan has kept her cards so close to the vest that in the days after President Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court, some on the left worried she was too moderate to replace liberal Justice John Paul Stevens. But in documents obtained by CBS News, Kagan--while working as a law clerk to the late Justice Thurgood Marshall - made her positions clear on some of the nation's most contentious social issues. The documents, buried in Marshall's papers in the Library of Congress, show Kagan standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the liberal left, at a time when the Rehnquist Supreme Court was moving to the conservative right... The Marshall documents are legal memos summarizing cases the Court had been asked to consider. They cover the spectrum of hot-button social issues: abortion, civil rights, gun rights, prisoners' rights and the constitutional underpinnings for recognizing gay marriage. On abortion, Kagan wrote a memo in a case involving a prisoner who wanted the state to pay for her to have the procedure. Kagan expressed concern to Marshall that the conservative-leaning Court would use the case to rule against the woman--and possibly undo precedents protecting a woman's right to abortion. 'This case is likely to become the vehicle that this court uses to create some very bad law on abortion and/or prisoners' rights,' she wrote in the 1988 memo. She also expressed strong liberal views in a desegregation case. Summarizing a challenge to a voluntary school desegregation program, Kagan called the program 'amazingly sensible.' She told Marshall that state court decisions that upheld the plan recognized the 'good sense and fair-mindedness' of local efforts. 'Let's hope this Court takes note of the same,' she wrote in the 1987 memo. Just three years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a nearly identical plan. Kagan also wrote a memo that senators could use to question whether she believes there is a constitutional right to gay marriage. That memo summarized a 1988 case involving a prisoner serving a life sentence in New York. He argued the state of New York was required to recognize his marriage-by-proxy in Kansas - even though such marriages were illegal in New York. The basis of his argument was that New York had a duty under the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause to recognize his Kansas the marriage as valid. Kagan told Marshall his position was 'at least arguably correct,' and recommended asking for a response from New York officials. Then there was the recently disclosed memo on gun rights. In a case challenging the District of Columbia's handgun ban as unconstitutional, Kagan was blunt: 'I am not sympathetic.' The Supreme Court took the opposite approach two years ago, striking down the D.C. gun ban as unconstitutional. Taken together, these documents are certain to provoke considerably more questions than the less controversial papers unearthed before her confirmation hearings for solicitor general." Tweet
Obama Calls For An "Investigation Of International Standards” To Determine The Facts Around Gaza Flotilla Action
There is no need for such an investigation other than to further ostracize Israel. The action taken by the Israelis is all on video, and the response of the lynch mob on the boat attacking the Israeli soldiers and putting the lives of the soldiers at risk is clear as day, without a need for any investigation. Obama should feel ashamed of himself for not standing strongly behind Israel and condemning the violent hate activists aboard that boat that sparked a deadly confrontation with Israeli forces with its dangerous attacks on the soldiers.
Tweet
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
VP Joe Biden Defends Israel From Criticism In Defensive Action Taken Against Hostile Flotilla
Ha'aretz reports that in "an interview with Charlie Rose, Biden pointed out that Israel had given pro-Palestinian activists the option of unloading their cargo at the Ashdod port, and offered to bring it to the Gaza Strip on their behalf."
"They've said, 'Here you go. You're in the Mediterranean. This ship -- if you divert slightly north you can unload it and we'll get the stuff into Gaza,'", he said. "So what's the big deal here? What's the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza? Well, it's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping… 3,000 rockets on my people.
"Look, you can argue whether Israel should have dropped people onto that ship or not -- but the truth of the matter is, Israel has a right to know -- they're at war with Hamas -- has a right to know whether or not arms are being smuggled in."
Ha'aretz further reports that "during the interview, Biden also blamed Hamas for the crisis that has wracked the coastal territory and for the ongoing state of conflict with Israel."
"As we put pressure, and the world put pressure on Israel to let material go into Gaza to help those people who are suffering, the ordinary Palestinians there, what happened? Hamas would confiscate it, put it in a warehouse [and] sell it.
"So the problem is this would end tomorrow if Hamas agreed to form a government with the Palestinian Authority on the conditions the international community has set up," Biden told Rose.
Tweet
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
Israeli PM Netanyahu Rightfully Defends Action Taken Against Gaza Flotilla
The AFP reports that "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed 'regret' Monday over the loss of life in a raid on an aid convoy that left at least nine dead, but said Israeli troops acted to 'defend their lives.' 'We regret the loss of life,' Netanyahu said in Ottawa during a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. But he insisted the Israeli forces had acted to defend themselves, telling reporters later that the flotilla was seeking to smuggle into Gaza rockets or other weapons to attack the Jewish state. The raid by Israel troops 'was to prevent the infiltration of thousands of rockets, missiles and other arms that could hit our cities, communities or people,' the Israeli leader said. 'The Israeli soldiers 'defended themselves from a lynching,' he added. I give my complete backing to the army, the soldiers and commanders who acted to defend the state and to protect their lives,' he added. Netanyahu cut short his visit to Canada and cancelled his trip to Washington to return to Israel to deal with the crisis, after the incident provoked a wave of international criticism... Netanyahu said Israeli commandos who stormed the ships in an attempt to prevent them from reaching Gaza were attacked by the pro-Palestinian activists on board. 'They deliberately attacked the soldiers, they were mobbed with clubs, beaten and stabbed, and there are even reports of gunfire,' he said."
Tweet
Thousands Partake In Anti-Israel Protest In Athens That Turns Violent, Muslim Brotherhood Marches In Egypt, Thousands March In Turkey
Thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in Europe and the Middle East on Monday, clashing with police as they protested the fact that Israeli soldiers were brutally attacked while boarding a Gaza-bound aid flotilla in an attempt to enforce a naval blockade intended to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorist. The violence instigated by the leftist activists on the flotilla led to a clash that left 10 dead. Reuters reports that in "Athens, some 3,500 protesters rallied outside the Israeli embassy, chanting 'Hands off Gaza' and 'Free Palestine'." It's odd to be yelling "Free Palestine" when Israel left Gaza in 2005 and yet the terrorism and violence was in no way abated. Reuters says that several hundreds in Athens "clashed with police, throwing chunks of marble, stones and bottles. Police fired teargas to disperse them. 'Demonstrators set barricades on fire, police chased them, there were a lot of stones and teargas and a few people had blood on their heads,' a Reuters witness said, adding he saw four people injured. Police said they detained five protesters. The Israeli marines' action in the eastern Mediterranean sparked street protests and government ire in Turkey, long Israel's lone Muslim ally in the region, and thousands of followers of an anti-U.S. cleric took to the streets in Baghdad. Across Egypt, which in 1979 became the first Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel, up to 8,000 Egyptians protested, demanding the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador in Cairo and called on the government to open its Rafah borders with Gaza. The protests were organised by the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's biggest opposition group which is affiliated to Hamas, the Islamist group that took control of the Gaza strip in 2007. Two Brotherhood parliamentarians were on board the convoy ships. 'Hamas you are the cannon and the Brotherhood is your voice,' chanted thousands of Egyptians protesting in Cairo." Tweet
Demonstrators Try To Break Into The Israeli Embassy In Paris
The Jerusalem Post reports that during "a violent anti-Israel demonstration in Paris on Monday, demonstrators tried to break into the Israeli embassy. The demonstration was in protest at the killing of nine pro-Gaza activists during the storming of the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara early on Monday morning. About 1200 people took part in the noisy demonstration against Israel, and threw stones at police who cordoned off the embassy." Tweet
Gaza Flotilla Participants Have Invoked Killing Of Jews
As is correctly described below the video on Youtube by Palestinian Media Watch: "The name Khaibar mentioned in battle cry was the last Jewish village defeated by Muhammad's army in 628. The battle marked the end of Jewish presence in Arabia. There are Muslims who see that as a precursor for future wars against Jews. At gatherings and rallies of extremists, this chant is often heard as a threat to Jews to expect to be defeated and killed again by Muslims."
Tweet
Israel Navy Commandos Explain That Gaza Flotilla Leftist Activists Tried To Lynch The Soldiers
Ha'aretz reports that left-wing activists "on board a six-ship flotilla carrying aid to the Gaza Strip tried to lynch the Israel Navy commandos who boarded their Turkish-flagged boat early Monday, Israel Defense Forces sources told Haaretz on Monday afternoon. At least nine people were killed and several more were wounded in the fighting that erupted aboard one of the ships. The IDF confirmed that at least seven Navy commandos had been wounded, two of them seriously, in a fight which apparently broke out after activists tried to seize their weapons. The commandos, who intercepted the Turkish ferry Mavi Marmara after it ignored orders to turn back from its course to Gaza, said they had encountered violent resistance from activists armed with sticks and knives. According to the commandos, the activists threw one of the soldiers from the upper deck to the lower after they boarded. The organizers of the flotilla said the troops opened fire first. An Israeli military spokesman said some of the commandos were equipped with paintball guns but the non-lethal weapons were not enough against activists who charged in with batons. 'They had pistols with live ammunition as back-up, to defend themselves,' he said. The IDF said it had confiscated two pistols from the boat. One of the commandos told reporters he descended by rope from a helicopter onto one of the six ships in the convoy and was immediately attacked by a group of people waiting for them. 'They beat us with metal sticks and knives,' he said. 'There was live fire at some point against us.' A Reuters cameraman on the Israel Navy ship Kidon, sailing close to the convoy, said IDF commanders monitoring the operation were surprised by the strong resistance put up by the pro-Palestinian activists. One of the commandos said some of the soldiers were stripped of their helmets and equipment and a several were tossed from the top deck to a lower deck, forcing them to jump into the sea to escape. 'They jumped me, hit me with clubs and bottles and stole my rifle,' one of the commandos said. 'I pulled out my pistol and had no choice but to shoot.' The soldiers said they were forced to open fire after the activists struck one of their comrades in the head and trampled on him. A senior IDF field commander ordered the soldiers then to respond with fire, a decision which the commandos said received full backing the military echelon. The IDF said its rules of engagement allowed troops to open fire in what it called a 'life-threatening situation'. 'Navy fighters took control of six ships that tried to violate the naval blockade [of the Gaza Strip],' said a statement from the IDF. 'During the takeover, the soldiers encountered serious physical violence by the protesters, who attacked them with live fire.'"
Tweet
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Gen. Stanley McChrystal: Taliban Training In Iran
The AP reports that the "commander of NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan said Sunday there is 'clear evidence' that some Taliban fighters have trained in Iran.Gen. Stanley McChrystal told reporters in the Afghan capital that Iran — Afghanistan's western neighbor — has generally assisted the Afghan government in fighting the insurgent group. 'There is, however, clear evidence of Iranian activity — in some cases providing weaponry and training to the Taliban — that is inappropriate,' he said. McChrystal said NATO forces are working to stop both the training and the weapons trafficking." Tweet
In Unprecedent Move, White House Backs UN Resolution For Nuclear Free Middle East That Targets Israel
The AFP reports on "Washington's unprecedented backing for a UN resolution for a nuclear-free Middle East that singles out Israel has both angered and deeply worried the Jewish state although officials are cagey about openly criticising their biggest ally. The resolution adopted by the United Nations on Friday calls on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and urges it to open its facilities to inspection. It also calls for a regional conference in 2012 to advance the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East. Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, with around 200 warheads, but has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its capabilities since the mid-1960s. The document, which singles out Israel but makes no mention of Iran's controversial nuclear programme, drew a furious reaction from the Jewish state who decried it as 'deeply flawed and hypocritical.' But it was US backing for the resolution which has caused the most consternation among Israeli officials and commentators, who interpreted the move as 'a resounding slap around the face' which has dealt a very public blow to Israel's long-accepted policy of nuclear ambiguity." Tweet
The Recent Illegitimate Use Of International Law By Supreme Court In Constitutional Interpretation And The Nomination Of Elena Kagan
Former Attorney General Edwin Meese under Ronald Reagan has rightly said that "nothing troubles me more than justices who invoke international law and the decisions of international law tribunals in interpreting the Constitution... [F]oreign laws and foreign courts are not legitimate guideposts for interpreting the Constitution. And when justices rely on them, they're violating their oaths to uphold our own Constitution."
This troubling development has become even more pronounced in recent years as the Supreme Court has looked to foreign law and practices in their majority rulings. As recent examples, the Supreme Court cited international law and practices in the 2005 case of Roper v. Simmons which held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18 under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. As Justice Antonin Scalia correctly wrote in the opening of his dissent to that ruling, “The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation’s moral standards – and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.” This alone is bad enough, but even worse, the arbitrary nature of the decision was undeniably self evident. The 5-4 decision overturned a ruling from less than 20 years earlier which upheld the very same sentences for an offender above or at the age of 16 (in Stanford v. Kentucky, 1989). That opinion was written by none other than Antonin Scalia, and declared that "[w]e discern neither a historical nor a modern societal consensus forbidding the imposition of capital punishment on any person who murders at 16 or 17 years of age. Accordingly, we conclude that such punishment does not offend the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment." The Justices of a more recent Supreme Court in 2005 were doing nothing more than imposing their own policy on the nation by judicial fiat, overturning statutes in 25 states, with no basis in the Constitution and obviously running against existing precedent. A further example of the use of international practices can be seen in the Supreme Court this month going one step further, continuing to abuse its self-ordained power of judicial review, deciding even more arbitrarily than before in Graham v. Florida that it was cruel and unusual punishment for 35 States and the District of Columbia to allow juvenile life without parole. The decision specifically cited a “global consensus” on the matter to validate its illegitimate ruling.
There is no reason to believe that Obama's Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan will not be a proponent of this troubling trend once she is on the Court. During her confirmation hearings for her current position of solicitor general she said: "At least some members of the court find foreign law relevant in at least some contexts. When this is the case, I think the solicitor general's office should offer reasonable foreign law arguments to attract these justices' support for the positions that the office is taking." She was willing to make illegitimate arguments to satisfy the illegitimate nonsense of the liberal Justices who she herself described as willing to "find foreign law relevant." In a New Hampshire speech on Oct. 6, 2008, then Harvard Dean Kagan referred to "a transnational perspective" as being "foundational" as "part of the core of legal thought and activity in this new century." The relevance of international law and practices to Constitutional interpretation is an important question that she must answer honestly and forthrightly in her confirmation hearings, or else be voted against.
Tweet
RSS Feed (xml)