I previously posted about the intent of the Palestinians to seek recognition from the UN as a state.
It appears that they will be moving forward with that plan this week. The United States has said it will veto acceptance of Palestine in the security counsel, which will then leave the Palestinians with the sole option of going to the general assembly to be recognized as a "observer state." That will allow them to bring Israel before international tribunals to challenge Israeli actions, such as building settlements on what would then be recognized as Palestinian land.
I am deeply disturbed by the US and Israeli positions regarding the Palestinians actions. Repeatedly, they have both referred to the Palestinian's intent as "unilateral action." How can going to the UN, which has 193 member states, be considered "unilateral"? To be accepted as an observer state, the Palestinians would need 2/3 approval from the general assembly -- 129 countries. The time has come for this to happen.
Essentially, the Palestinians are looking to have a state which is enfranchised and legitimate - how can that be bad. In the future, if Palestinians continue to lob rockets at Israel, Israel can declare war and seek to legitimately end such state aggression - how is that bad?
Somebody please tell me why the Palestinian's should not have a state?
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Sara Palin!
Although I have often been critical of Palin, I can't help but like her just a bit more because of this one:
"A new book about tea party darling Sarah Palin has a salacious revelation about her sex life involving a well-known Miami sports star.
According to The National Enquirer, which obtained an advance copy of a book about Palin by investigative writer Joe McGinniss — Palin and former Miami Heat player Glen Rice had a one-night tryst back in 1987."
Dude could hit the Three.
"A new book about tea party darling Sarah Palin has a salacious revelation about her sex life involving a well-known Miami sports star.
According to The National Enquirer, which obtained an advance copy of a book about Palin by investigative writer Joe McGinniss — Palin and former Miami Heat player Glen Rice had a one-night tryst back in 1987."
Dude could hit the Three.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Actress banned from films because of alleged affair!
Female actress has alleged affair with another star. He is married, she is not. He is arrested when he allegedly beats his wife and threatens her with gun after his wife confronts him about alleged affair with the actress. Wife then drops charges and he is freed.
Result?
"The Kannada Film Producers' Association imposed the ban on Ms Thukral saying she had spoiled the 'domestic harmony of a fellow actor'."
...
"'If Nikhita [Thukral] apologises for her behaviour and says she will just work in films and not get involved in domestic affairs of fellow actors, we will withdraw the ban,' association president Munirathnam told the BBC."
What a Country!
In other news - The Mighty Dicks - Perry and Scott, have announced plans to annex the Florida Everglades to Shell Oil. After that is completed, they have indicated that they will mount white horses and "finish that darned war against the Injuns in Florida.
Result?
"The Kannada Film Producers' Association imposed the ban on Ms Thukral saying she had spoiled the 'domestic harmony of a fellow actor'."
...
"'If Nikhita [Thukral] apologises for her behaviour and says she will just work in films and not get involved in domestic affairs of fellow actors, we will withdraw the ban,' association president Munirathnam told the BBC."
What a Country!
In other news - The Mighty Dicks - Perry and Scott, have announced plans to annex the Florida Everglades to Shell Oil. After that is completed, they have indicated that they will mount white horses and "finish that darned war against the Injuns in Florida.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Palestinian Statehood
The New York Times published an op ed piece today arguing against recognition by the UN of Palestine as a State.
The article rightly points out that Israeli leadership is to blame for the breakdown in the peace process: "we put the greater onus on Mr. Netanyahu, who has used any excuse to thwart peace efforts..." Unfortunately, the article goes on to suggest that the "best path to statehood remains negotiations" and that Palestine should not seek Statehood.
Where have negotiations gotten the Palestinians in the last Forty-Four Years? A few examples:
- More settlers on land that the international community recognizes as belonging to Palestine - not Israel.
- Operations such as "Cast Lead" - the type of community wide reprisal that the Nazi's were known to commit - which resulted in the deaths of 320 children under 18 and over 100 women. It also saw the use of white phosphorus by Israel, which has been recognized as a war crime because of it indiscriminate effect on the target population and manner in which it kills - literally burning a hold through a person.
- An apartheid state for Palestinians who are Israeli citizens.
The Palestinians share in the blame - there is public support in Gaza and the West Bank for terrorist attacks against innocent Jews, as well as support for Hamas - an organization that has sworn itself in support of the demise of Israel.
But to say that Israel is justified is the same as saying that a man who shoots an unarmed kid who enters his fenced in yard is justified in the killing because Florida Law allows him to "defend his castle."
So what is the argument that the NY Times comes up with to oppose Palestinian Statehood?
"To get full U.N. membership the Palestinians have to win Security Council approval. The administration has said it will veto any resolution — ensuring the further isolation of Israel and Washington. If they fail in the Security Council, the Palestinians have said they will ask the General Assembly for enhanced observer status as a nonmember state. Even the more modest General Assembly vote, which the Palestinians are sure to win, would pave the way for them to join dozens of U.N. bodies and conventions, and could strengthen their ability to pursue cases against Israel at the International Criminal Court. But Israel would still control Palestinian territory, leaving the Palestinians disaffected after the initial euphoria."
In other words - (1) the United States and Israel will look bad because they oppose Statehood, (2) the Palestinians are likely to win in the General Assembly and thus gain rights that Israel will not permit them to have (territorial sovereignty), and (3) Palestine will be able to hold Israel accountable in International Courts of Justice.
Pretty awful reasons to oppose Statehood.
I want Israel to succeed and be a Jewish State for the rest of time. The way Israel is going about trying to protect itself is nothing more than ensuring that will not happen. Only internationally recognized borders for Israel and Palestine will ensure Israel's survival.
Only then, when terrorists attack Israel and violate is sovereignty (which undoubtedly will happen), will Israel be able to turn to the UN and muster International support for its necessary reactions to such an attack, and if necessary go to war - with proper justification.
The article rightly points out that Israeli leadership is to blame for the breakdown in the peace process: "we put the greater onus on Mr. Netanyahu, who has used any excuse to thwart peace efforts..." Unfortunately, the article goes on to suggest that the "best path to statehood remains negotiations" and that Palestine should not seek Statehood.
Where have negotiations gotten the Palestinians in the last Forty-Four Years? A few examples:
- More settlers on land that the international community recognizes as belonging to Palestine - not Israel.
- Operations such as "Cast Lead" - the type of community wide reprisal that the Nazi's were known to commit - which resulted in the deaths of 320 children under 18 and over 100 women. It also saw the use of white phosphorus by Israel, which has been recognized as a war crime because of it indiscriminate effect on the target population and manner in which it kills - literally burning a hold through a person.
- An apartheid state for Palestinians who are Israeli citizens.
The Palestinians share in the blame - there is public support in Gaza and the West Bank for terrorist attacks against innocent Jews, as well as support for Hamas - an organization that has sworn itself in support of the demise of Israel.
But to say that Israel is justified is the same as saying that a man who shoots an unarmed kid who enters his fenced in yard is justified in the killing because Florida Law allows him to "defend his castle."
So what is the argument that the NY Times comes up with to oppose Palestinian Statehood?
"To get full U.N. membership the Palestinians have to win Security Council approval. The administration has said it will veto any resolution — ensuring the further isolation of Israel and Washington. If they fail in the Security Council, the Palestinians have said they will ask the General Assembly for enhanced observer status as a nonmember state. Even the more modest General Assembly vote, which the Palestinians are sure to win, would pave the way for them to join dozens of U.N. bodies and conventions, and could strengthen their ability to pursue cases against Israel at the International Criminal Court. But Israel would still control Palestinian territory, leaving the Palestinians disaffected after the initial euphoria."
In other words - (1) the United States and Israel will look bad because they oppose Statehood, (2) the Palestinians are likely to win in the General Assembly and thus gain rights that Israel will not permit them to have (territorial sovereignty), and (3) Palestine will be able to hold Israel accountable in International Courts of Justice.
Pretty awful reasons to oppose Statehood.
I want Israel to succeed and be a Jewish State for the rest of time. The way Israel is going about trying to protect itself is nothing more than ensuring that will not happen. Only internationally recognized borders for Israel and Palestine will ensure Israel's survival.
Only then, when terrorists attack Israel and violate is sovereignty (which undoubtedly will happen), will Israel be able to turn to the UN and muster International support for its necessary reactions to such an attack, and if necessary go to war - with proper justification.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
The Liberal 4th Has Spoken
Looks like Obamacare lives on...for now...thanks to those liberal minded jurists in the Fourth Circuit. In a 33-page opinion, the first 16 of which listed the parties and amici (not sure if that is the correct usage), the Fourth ruled that the Commonwealth of Virginia lacked standing to sue:
"For the reasons that follow, we hold that Virginia, the sole plaintiff here, lacks standing to bring this action. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction."
The Court may not be as liberal as I hoped, it did go on to conclude:
"In sum, the significance of the questions at issue here only heightens the importance of waiting for an appropriate case to reach the merits. This is not such a case."
"For the reasons that follow, we hold that Virginia, the sole plaintiff here, lacks standing to bring this action. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction."
The Court may not be as liberal as I hoped, it did go on to conclude:
"In sum, the significance of the questions at issue here only heightens the importance of waiting for an appropriate case to reach the merits. This is not such a case."
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Lead up to 9/11
Leading up to the 10-year anniversary of 9/11, I encourage everybody to reflect on that day, and what has happened since. A good starting point would be to recall the impact it had on you and others. The link below will take you to a BBC page that has a few short videos you can watch - take a minute to go through some of them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14790016
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14790016
Friday, September 2, 2011
Nice Defense Win in 11th
If you were to check the published opinions of the 11th Circuit, you would not find the win by Eric Cohen - because the opinion is unpublished.
Maintaining a consistent approach to a tradition that any opinion likely to establish or reaffirm helpful precedent for a criminal defendant is not to be published, the 11th did not publish the decision of U.S. v. Williams, 2011 WL 3055281 (11th Cir. 2011), which confirmed two very important rules:
1) A defendant's "request to call his attorney to tell him “he was going to cooperate with the Government” constituted “some statement that can reasonably be construed to be an expression of a desire for the assistance of an attorney."" In the face of such a request, "further questioning is limited to clarification of the equivocal request.”" Williams, at *1.
2) If there is evidence that can support a valid theory of defense instruction, it is error not to give it. In Williams, the instruction would have told the jury that he could have had the intent to smuggle drugs, without the criminal intent necessary to convict. Id., at *2.
The Court did not even bother to publish the language of the instruction that was requested, but instead simply referred to another published case (United States v. Ruiz, 59 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir.1995) (team of Robert N. Scola, Jr., G. Richard Strafer, H. Scott Fingerhut for the appellants) containing a "nearly identical" instruction. Nearly identical is helpful, but not as helpful as the actual language itself.
You can be sure that if Williams ultimately decided the improperly admitted confession was harmless error and did not otherwise reverse, the opinion would have been published. Fortunately, the Court did not even reach that questions because it found the denial of the requested jury instruction to be reversible error.
But it is interesting to note that Williams also raised a third issue on appeal, which the Court did not address because of the reversal. Williams complained that the district court failed to conduct a competency hearing, but the Court found that because it was reversing on the jury instruction issue, it did not need to reach the competency question. A bit confusing give the fact that the Court did find the admission of Williams's confession to be in error, but did not reach the question as to whether or not it was reversible error.
The Court deserves credit for publishing a finding that a statement should have been excluded when it wasn't reversing on that issue. Too often the decisions go the other way - find any possible error harmless, without ever providing any reasoning (or guidance) as to whether or not there was error in the first place. But it seems that there is no rhyme or reason to what issues are reached and what issues are left untouched.
Anybody want to help me out?
Maintaining a consistent approach to a tradition that any opinion likely to establish or reaffirm helpful precedent for a criminal defendant is not to be published, the 11th did not publish the decision of U.S. v. Williams, 2011 WL 3055281 (11th Cir. 2011), which confirmed two very important rules:
1) A defendant's "request to call his attorney to tell him “he was going to cooperate with the Government” constituted “some statement that can reasonably be construed to be an expression of a desire for the assistance of an attorney."" In the face of such a request, "further questioning is limited to clarification of the equivocal request.”" Williams, at *1.
2) If there is evidence that can support a valid theory of defense instruction, it is error not to give it. In Williams, the instruction would have told the jury that he could have had the intent to smuggle drugs, without the criminal intent necessary to convict. Id., at *2.
The Court did not even bother to publish the language of the instruction that was requested, but instead simply referred to another published case (United States v. Ruiz, 59 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir.1995) (team of Robert N. Scola, Jr., G. Richard Strafer, H. Scott Fingerhut for the appellants) containing a "nearly identical" instruction. Nearly identical is helpful, but not as helpful as the actual language itself.
You can be sure that if Williams ultimately decided the improperly admitted confession was harmless error and did not otherwise reverse, the opinion would have been published. Fortunately, the Court did not even reach that questions because it found the denial of the requested jury instruction to be reversible error.
But it is interesting to note that Williams also raised a third issue on appeal, which the Court did not address because of the reversal. Williams complained that the district court failed to conduct a competency hearing, but the Court found that because it was reversing on the jury instruction issue, it did not need to reach the competency question. A bit confusing give the fact that the Court did find the admission of Williams's confession to be in error, but did not reach the question as to whether or not it was reversible error.
The Court deserves credit for publishing a finding that a statement should have been excluded when it wasn't reversing on that issue. Too often the decisions go the other way - find any possible error harmless, without ever providing any reasoning (or guidance) as to whether or not there was error in the first place. But it seems that there is no rhyme or reason to what issues are reached and what issues are left untouched.
Anybody want to help me out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)