Saturday, 26 October 2013, WASHINGTON, D.C. - The United States Department of "Justice" (DOJ) reportedly after more than five years of prosecuting criminal cases illegally withholding evidence from criminal defendants presumably now languishing in prisons around the Nation along with other rather variously unfortunate casualties of the "War On The U.S Constitution", under what the New York Times rather generously calls a "narrow" reading by DOJ's "National Security" Division (bet that makes readers sleep better knowing along with the rest of the crowd of federal military forces, other armed forces, secret forces, special forces, contract forces, departments, bureaus, agencies, committees and patrols we now may sleep peacefully with our empty wallets at our bedsides or locked up somewhere outside our prison cell knowing that we have even more lawyers in suits than we probably already even knew or suspected) violating the clearly established restraints of the U.S. Constitution in defense of that document from any and all terrorists so that we unequivocally, unflinchingly, unintelligibly may say: "We won. We beat ourselves. Hurrah!"
What on earth could merit such a run-on sentence overspilling its banks in an unrestrained (being THEIR very least favorite MOST frightening thought) torrent of words in a conspicuously unbalanced paragraph fairly (or not) screaming to be CONTAINED! Well dear readers basically that would be the not altogether appealing idea of explaining all this. And why we the editorial board of the Ninth Amendment believe the New York Times in this case let DOJ off far too easily our interpretation being that the entire premise of the article to which the link below will lead is flawed to the extent the disclosure of this heinous behavior is any sort of reasoned "policy decision". We agree vigorously with Amnesty International that what we have here is a pure and simple case of DOJ flaunting its sacred obligation to the promotion of justice but rather with its malfeasance for more than five years breaking the law illegally trying yet more of our population and only coming clean (doubtful) now for no better reason than it was CAUGHT IN A LIE TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, and if the Solicitor General cannot do the time, he should not have done the crime. As they say. You decide.
Link to NY Times Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/us/federal-prosecutors-in-a-policy-shift-cite-warrantless-wiretaps-as-evidence.html
Copyright 2013 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved (no claim as to NY Times content)
What on earth could merit such a run-on sentence overspilling its banks in an unrestrained (being THEIR very least favorite MOST frightening thought) torrent of words in a conspicuously unbalanced paragraph fairly (or not) screaming to be CONTAINED! Well dear readers basically that would be the not altogether appealing idea of explaining all this. And why we the editorial board of the Ninth Amendment believe the New York Times in this case let DOJ off far too easily our interpretation being that the entire premise of the article to which the link below will lead is flawed to the extent the disclosure of this heinous behavior is any sort of reasoned "policy decision". We agree vigorously with Amnesty International that what we have here is a pure and simple case of DOJ flaunting its sacred obligation to the promotion of justice but rather with its malfeasance for more than five years breaking the law illegally trying yet more of our population and only coming clean (doubtful) now for no better reason than it was CAUGHT IN A LIE TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, and if the Solicitor General cannot do the time, he should not have done the crime. As they say. You decide.
Link to NY Times Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/us/federal-prosecutors-in-a-policy-shift-cite-warrantless-wiretaps-as-evidence.html
Copyright 2013 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved (no claim as to NY Times content)
No comments:
Post a Comment