Judiciary Gone Mad: Man Gets Jail for City improvements

I have long though that cities, municipalities and the judiciary are over-zealous in trying to rule individuals' lives. Now courtesy of the Daily Breeze comes more evidence that these socialist busybodies are interested only in making ordinary peoples' lives worse, not better.

In Torrance, California, Francisco Linares bought a one-acre lot, tore down the existing house and built a new building. He then asked the city to repair the fence behind his proerty. However, the city informed him that it was on his own property and that it was his responsibility. Fair enough. Linares replaced the fence at his own expense. However, the city then deceided that the fence was indeed on city property and sued Linares to remove his improvements. Now a judge in Superior Court has sent Linares to jail for six months becasue he never got city permits to have the work done.

Cities have an indisputible duty to maintain pubic property, but they have no right whatsoever to engage in this kind of micro-management of the citizens' lives. Linares made the changes on his own property, and the city has no right to insist that he need permits or anything else in my view. If it were public property, then fair enough- it is city land. However, in this case, the story tells us that Linares was subsequently found to have done plumbing upgrades without city permits as well. Why should he need them? Again- it's his property. As long as the changes pass inspection, then there iss no need to get permits, in my mind.

The saddest part is that a judge found the man guilty and sent him to jail. This is a gross miscarriage of justice, in my opinion. Hollywood starts regularly get probaztion for far more serious offenses. Why is Linares going to jail simply becasue he didn't feel like dealing with some petty bureacrats?

It is time that we deal these busybody bureaucrats and teach them that their power ends where private property begins. As a nation, we used to understand that. It is a piuty that we seem to have forgotten that simple fact in these days of ever-increasing State power.

Sheehan for Congress!

It is hard to believe that the nutroots lurking in the fever swamps of the hard left can possibly belive that somehow Nancy Pelosi is not a sincere enough believer in the bnutroots preferrred strategy of retreat, surrender and defeat in the face of Muslim aggression. However, it seems that at least one nut does indeed believe exactly that. Acccording to Breitbart News, Cindy Sheehan will challenge Nancy Pelosi in the 2008 Congressional elections.

Sheehan's reasons for challenging Pelosi are that she claims Pelosi isn't working hard enough to hand the Muslim terrorists victory in the Iraq campaign. Breitbart reports that,

Sheehan, a Californian, officially announced that she intends to run as an independent against Pelosi in 2008 if the San Francisco congresswoman doesn't move to impeach Bush by July 23, the day she expects to reach Washington.

However, those are not the only reasons Sheehan has decided to run for office. She also says that,

Bush should be impeached because she believes he misled the public about the reasons for going to war, violated the Geneva Convention with the torture of detainees and crossed the line by commuting the prison sentence of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

These statements show such an incredible lack of understanding that is it hard to know where to begin. Her claim that Bush "misled the public" has been debiunked often enough thatr we should not need to do it again here. However, for anyone who somehow has managed to completely close their ears, let's recap. Bush used Hussein's proven possession of weapons of mass destruction as the main rationnale for his removal of Hussein, based on analysis from every single intellignce agency at the time. In addition, every major Democratic leader had made similar statements prior to Bush's election, and the U.S. Congress, on the basis of information that was less alarming than that showed to the President voted to give Bush the authority to proceed against Hussein. No one was misled, though the aftermath clearly showed that our Intelligence either was seriously in error or Hussein managed to successfully hide his wepons program before his removal. In either case, acting on the best information available at the time, no matter whether it was correct or not, does not constitute "misleading".

As for the Geneva Convention argument, let us remind Ms. Sheehan of the following:

• The United States signed andd ratified the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which specifically restrict their scope to organized armed forces and specifically exclude groups such as Hezbollah and al-Quaeda from its protections.


• The additional Geneva Protocols of 1977, which did extend the protections of the Geneva Conventions to terrorists like Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Quaeda, were signed in 1977 but never ratified by the United States, thus per the United States Constitution those Protocols do not bind us, despite what some judges may think.

That anyone would even make this argument shows that they are entirely ignorant both of the terms of the U.S. Constitution, and also the terms of the actual Geneva Conventions signed and ratified by the United States. So let me remind Ms. Sheehan of the actual text of the Constitution on the topic:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."
The preceding refers to the fact that the President may sign a treaty, as President Carter did in 1977, but that without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Sernate, it is not legally binding. Although President Carter signed the Protocols, the Senate refused to ratify, thus the protocols do not bind the United States. If Ms. Sheehan wishes to become a member of Congress, it might behoove her to actually know the text of the document she swears to uphold.

As for Sheehan's accusations of torture, she has a curiously narrow definition. Apprently it is only torture when it is done by Americans to Muslims? However, I find her thoughts on the subject difficult to take seriously until and unless she condemns the actions taken by our enemies with as much fervor as she uses to condemn her own countrymen. We have not beheaded anyone, nor have we forced them to plead, or forcibly converted them to any other religion. All of this has been done by the Mulsims we are fighting, yet i do not recall Sheehan or anyone else on the Left issuing condemnations. Have they forgotten the rapes of the captured Supply Corps soldiers? Or is it that the dignity and rights of the Muslim terrorists are more dear to them than the dignity and rights of their own countrymen and women?

Finally to address her last accusation, that of the President "crossing the line by commuting Lewis Libby's sentence". Ms. Sheehan, the constitution specifically give the President the power to do precisely that. While I do not necessarily agree that he ought to have intervened in this case, he absolutely has the power to commute and even pardon anyone other than those impeached and removed from office. Thus to claim that he somehow "over-stepped" shows again a lack of familiarity with the powers specifically granted to the president under the Constitution.

If Sheehan wishes to run against Pelosi, she is welcome. One far-left hypocrite replacing another will not affect the balance of power in the House. But her lack of familiarity with her own Constitution and her self-serving moral equivalency make her more a buffoon than a serious contender.

Scooting Free

In a manner of speaking. President Bush today commuted Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison sentence, meaning the former Chief of Staff for Vice-President Richard Cheney will not serve asny jail time, though he will still be a convicted felon, and he will have to pay a $250000 fine.

I have thought all along that the investigation that led to this conviction was a travesty, although the jury apparently acted reluctantly and sincerely believed Libby lied to them. However, in making the decision to comute, I also believe that the President made the right decision. Libby's crime was real- you do not lie under oath, no matter what the questions may be. That is what Clinton did and it iss inexcusable whether it is a Republican staffer or a Democratic President.

However let's consider that Libby is the only member of Bush's Administration to be convicted of anything, let alone the only member even to be indicted- compare this with the Clinton Administration, whose national Security Advisor Sandy Berger has been convicted with illegally stealing and destroying classified papers, whose associate attorney general (the number three post in the Justice Department) Web Hubbell has been convicted of tax evasion, whose former Director of Central Intelligence Agency John Deutch was found guilty of mishandling classified information (leaking), and whose Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Ciscneros was found guilty of lying to the FBI over a bribery case. Deutch and Hubbell were later pardoned by Clinton on his last day in office. In addition, many of Clinton's business partners and close associates were convicted and imprisoned in the Whitewater investigation, including Susan McDougal, who was pardoned as the President left office. And that is without discussing the many peopled who fled the country to avoid being quetioned in the China campaign money scandal (John Huang, Charlie Trie and others). As a reminder to Democrats, Matt Drudge has posted a link to a complete and useful listing of the pardons Bill Clinton issued. Bush commuted Libby's sentence- he did not pardon him.

However, while no Democrat complained about Bill Clinton pardoning criminals convicted of far more serious crimes, and though all of the current House or Seante leadership defended Bill Clinton for the exact same crime ("It's all about the sex", remember?) that Libby was convicted of, many Democrats were not so forgiving this time.

"The Constitution gives President Bush the power to commute sentences, but history will judge him harshly for using that power to benefit his own vice president's chief of staff who was convicted of such a serious violation of law." - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

I would take Seantor Reid more seriously if he or his party had mustered the same condemnation for their President, who was actually impeached for perjury.

In the main, I think President Bush made the correct decision. L:ibby committed a crime, and he ssholuldd make restitution. However, this is a man with no previous offenses, and his record says that he is unlikely to do it ever again. Paying his fine an serving his time under probation is sufficient as far as I am concerned. And although many conservatives may howl, I think that in the long run, Bush may even be appreciated for his courage in commutation without pardoning. Ultimately, I agree with Ed Morrissey, who writes,

If Bush wanted to take any action -- and I would have advised against it -- this is as far as he should go. It allows Libby to remain free while he pursues his appeal, but it makes it clear that the White House won't undo convictions for official misconduct. It strikes a balance that few will appreciate now, but later will accept as wise, as far as it goes. If Libby has a good case for reversal, let the courts make that decision.

Duff Wilson = Paid Hack

Duff Wilson, supposedly a professional reporter, has spent the entirety of the Duke lacrosse rape hoax acting as if he were a paid propagandist for disgraced Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. From his initial coverage of the case, in which he practically accused the defendents of rape, to his latest piece of hackery, wherein he attempts to spin Nifong's ethics trial as somehow exonerating Nifong, he stands as an example of "journalism" at its worst. Race-baiting, misleading articles and flat-out lies are Wilson's stock-in-trade, it appears.

Today, we are offered an excellent opportunity to compare Wilson's "coverage" of Nifong's ethics trial with the coverage provided by Associated Press reporter Aaron Beard.

Beard reports accurately that even the lab director, Dr. Brian Meehan, admitted that he agreed with Nifong to withhold results from DNA testing that proved conclusively that the three Duke students did not rape Crystal Mangum. This shows that Nifong deliberately broke the law in an attempt to convict three innocent people.

Wilson? He tries to spin the trial so that Nifong emerges as a victim and definitely not responsible for the attempt to hide evidence that was favorable to the defense. One can only wonder who is paying for Wilson's propaganda. Surely even the New York Times, despite being known more for its treasonous attempts to assist our Islamic enemies, must have a few standards of accuracy in cases where the accused have been so publicly vindicated.

Hat tip to Durham-in-Wonderland.

U.S. Resolve-1, Islamic Intimidation-0

Since the case of the Flying Imams that occurred in Minnesota it has become fairly obvious that Islamic groups in the United States are trying to use our own judiciary to scare us into silence about the various plots and terrorist ideals many of these groups support and espouse.

However, as Captain Ed reports on the new site Heading Right, in an article entitled The Unintended COnsequences of Tort Law, it appears that judiical intimidation does not always works the way that Muslim groups would like it to.

The case in question was a lawsuit for libel brought by the Islamic Society of Boston against various persons and groups who had accused them of having links to terror. Said links being fairly well-proven in the ensuing discovery phase, and with even more evidence of wrongdoing both by the City of Boston and the Islamic Society itself, the Muslim group today chose to withdraw the lawsuit.

This is excellent news. As Captain Ed remarks,

"Islamic groups have apparently decided that the way to dhimmitude is to use our legal system to disarm us, allowing them to intimidate us into submission.

It didn’t work in Boston. Let’s hope we remain firm enough to ensure it fails everywhere."

Indeed. As long as we remain resolute, intimidation will never succeed. We can only hope that the defeatists in our media and the Democratic Party take this lesson to heart. Hat tip to Ed Morrissey.

Return of the ACLU

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is not interested in defending Americans from terrorism. Nor are they very assertive in trying to stop Muslims from trying to slowly impose sharia law upon the United States. And they certainly would not lift a finger to protect a Christian who is being discriminated against by a non-Christian group or organization.

But as the World Tribune reports today, if you are a Muslim terrorist trying to destroy the United States, the ACLU is more than happy to help you sue an American company who might be cooperating with the U.S. government in trying to keep America safe.

According to the Tribune,

Boeing has been sued by suspected Al Qaida operatives transported by the CIA to Arab countries for interrogation and torture.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan on behalf of three Al Qaida suspects transported by the CIA under the so-called "extraordinary rendition program."

A spokesman for the ACLU told the Tribune "American corporations should not be profiting from a CIA rendition program that is unlawful and contrary to core American values," ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said. "Corporations that choose to participate in such activity can and should be held legally accountable."

there are so many problems with this statement I hardly know where to start. Firstly, the program of holding captured suspected terrorists outside of the United States is not unlawful- the Constitution (which does not confer American rights on non-Americans in any event) stops at the borders of the United States. Secondly, to claim the program is counter to American values shows enormous ignorance of American history. We have certainly done this before- has the ACLU studied the prisoner camps of World War II? Most were outside of the United States. And in any event, the program would probably not be necessary if US judges actually read the Geneva Convention signed and ratified by the United States, instead of inventing new rights out of whole cloth.

However, my biggest problem is with the ACLU itself. This is an organization that did not lift so much as a finger for Daniel Pearl or any other person kidnapped by Muslim terrorists- people who really did face torture and were in fact executed in a barbarous manner. That they should suddenly find common cause with al Quaeda- the organization responsible for said torture- says much more about the ACLU than it does about the program they ostensibly are against.