+292: For A Real Justice System
For anyone here involved in making penal laws here is an important test: Imagine that people you do not know from a country you do not know came to you and asked you to make their penal laws and you accept. Any difference in the laws between there and here should not be based on the mere difference in the identities of the people and countries between there and here. Justice systems should be rooted at being an individual not being a privileged group.
One thing about living powerless under an oppressive tyranny is that there is no moral call or obligation like here to correct what your representative government does to people elsewhere in the world. So while that call may press for more specific pointing let me at least speak in general terms and emphasize that we need to treat people in other countries the way we like to be treated. So by as much as we would have wanted no support for a dictatorship ruling us had we been living under one, we should not do that to people in other countries of the world. And yes the moral comparison should begin from this level, because democracy is the only just way and therefore none democratically elected regimes are stealing the countries they rule from their people. I want to be impowered by being on the right side not just protected by the mighty strength of my country.
Again, the Saudis have shown nothing justifying their attacks in Yemen as self defense, which is the only thing that would have permitted those attacks on another country, and the western powers also have no right to do such attacks just to balance out the powers there because of what they had done earlier to the other side (But I am also not denying how the attacks by the Saudis could have been much more devastating and careless about blood shedding if it were not for those western powers regulating them).
But it would be a different matter for the western powers if they seek to do something as good to the people as establishing a democratic system there and those actions are done only by as much as necessary for that purpose. While there may be fear for a repetition of what happened in Iraq, given that there is a militia there that seems capable of having the control on the country if it were not for attacks by air strikes from external military powers, the environment here seems to be far from being similar to that of Iraq, if the militia here chooses democracy which is the only just solution for everywhere.
I am not a law professional and before trying to take a look at that thing people talk about called the second amendment, less than ten years ago, I was not even sufficiently clear on what role it should play. But now that I am better in understanding that and have read the Constitution of this country, I wonder about the additional complication related to writing a new constitution for Iraq during the more urgent stage at the beginning of establishing a democratic system there. How much could people differ in their need at such a starting point and for a thing that allows being amended like this constitution? Actually, it even just require restricting the mode of amending stated there to only public voting, to make approval of amendments caries the same validity as approval of the Constitution.
Now for the situation in Yemen, those who are really for democracy, whoever they are, are the good guys, and those who oppose that are the bad guys no matter who they are, and the Constitution of this country, with its amendments, is one ready starting point for beginning a democratic process everywhere.
Related to the recent event of murdering of Shia civilians with that explosion in Iraq, it, again, should not need a reminder that whether a person is a Shia, Sunny, Christian, Yazidi, or with any other faith or belief, that should not lower even a tiny bit seeing that the blood of that person is morally protected. But just in case someone draws the conclusion that for the Shia to be targeted like that they must have a belief that is at least very far fetched in relation to Islam, that person may get shocked with how depending on even just the Sunny books suggests the other way around. I was a teenager of an age that probably was closer to childhood when I first asked myself why do I believe in this sect rather than that. But later finding an answer based on the resources of the Sunny themselves was like a walk in the park. There is no comparison between choosing between Islam and a different religion (or no religion) and between those two sects. That is because in the latter case there is a shared root and that root is the prophet of Islam. Trying to really follow that root leaves no doubt in which side is the correct one and how much the claims of the other side is hard to even reconcile within just itself.
It is this clarity of facts what the Saudis are really trying to fight with their persecution of the Shia wherever they can reach them.
291: The Outrageous Silence And Tolerance
This is completely unacceptable. Even if we assume we are legally helpless against corruption like that to which the preceding post refers, why is it being passed by with this low level of publicly pointing it out? The need to be restricted by a law should not be confused as implying that it is better not to criticize a thing as long as it does not violate the law. The power a society has through public shaming and preventing the unjust conduct or behaviour from mixing itself with the rest and appearing undistinguishable should be far from being ignored or underestimated like this, especially wherever and whenever the law cant reach or fails to reach. Beginning with those who are closest to the field where the wrong was done, making such criticisms with their unofficial capacities could be even more required from those who themselves are employed by the government. For example, what prevents honest prosecutors from voicing out their true opinions about such an outrageous dealing with a case, to the maximum allowed by law? Do they think that the system as a whole is served better by extending the restriction of having an official role to include their views and opinions regardless of the level of corruption they see in other jurisdictional domains?
290: Boulder Colorado, Seriously?
I just want to know if the people there think that there is a competition for voting the lowest human beings as district attorneys? Otherwise why have they been keeping for twenty four years now those who conspire on the blood of that six years old whose skull was fractured with a baseball bat then finished off by strangulation like something that does not count?
To all those corrupt prosecutors and media who pretend otherwise to hide reality with regard to the killing of JonBenét Ramsey, there isn't even a shadow of reasonable doubt that that six years old was killed by those living with her inside that house, period. Things fit in this direction and against that joke intruder claim to the level that it feels even the walls are about to scream and say what was just pointed out here and if there were a reasonable doubt in this case then nobody would have been convicted in any other case.
What is in the preceding post seems to fit with similar effort but from the other side which I have mentioned before. I am referring to how the view of corruption of officials seems to be limited to situations of bribery and exclude favoritism, here. Both, the thing in the preceding post and this one seems to be related to losing the meaning of corruption but one through over expanding that meaning while the other through over limiting it. Although the group identity issue seems to have a noticeable big connection with how much favoritism is underestimated as corruption in this country.
There is a TV show called Corrupt Crimes which I have seen other episodes of it without having any problem in seeing that title fits the stories. But I have watched two episodes of it today where the story has nothing to do with what one may categorize as corruption. I wonder if that is to push people away from recognizing corruption even more than how the group identity issue seems to have already taken away feeling corruption here?
It just occurred to me that I could have been thinking mostly about the show titled American Greed when I wrote that I saw other episodes of this show before. Nevertheless, the problem could be even bigger if the corruption category is applied like this for no ulterior motive.
Related to THIS case was the claim of death (suicide) in jail sufficiently verified? It is not just the claim itself but also how the behavior of the guy fits that of someone backed by some power that can pull corruption at such level for him. He did not show efforts to provide an alibi and hide evidences even close to that which someone in his position would do. And the killing he did was also not far from reflecting how dare you double cross me attitude that fits being in such position of power.
Related to a different case, although I may come back to it at some other future time, I still want to ask how often the prosecutor overrides indictment by its grand jury like the prosecutor of the JonBenét Ramsey case did? Unless I am missing that that grand jury had the power to indict on its own, why then did he go there in the first place? How much any other explanation can compete with that of someone seeking an excuse to serve some corrupt purpose but that effort made things worse for him and he was forced to show his original intention even clearer?
Apparently it is not good enough for THIS guy that he easily won the fight and beat the other guy but he also runs over the other guy back and forth with his car and then drive with the body of that other guy dragged with the car and finally finish things off with hitting or dropping a concrete block on the head of that other guy when this guy arrives at his garage. Then after what seems the result of special dedication by the honest part of law enforcement there, which involved dismantling the car piece by piece to finally find DNA evidence, this guy gets a deal of 12 years or less of imprisonment. Yes, finding the body of the victim and the concrete block thing came after the deal. But why would one want to make such a deal that early after discovering that incriminating evidence? All what was in the video does not counter the appearance of corruption there and in fact may actually make things fit that view better. Although I am not sure it will appear like that to anyone who really thinks that the allegations of Epstein death and Zimmerman court looked enough as not fake.
Actually, related to the preceding post, even assuming the deal I criticized in that case was surely not needed, I do not know that the entity I criticized has the final authority for making such deals.
I insisted on criticizing the handling of that case about the guy whose company claimed false sales to Walmart and Costco, by the FBI, and the silence of congress on that handling, because I ignored the possibility that if the CEO claims not knowing these things it could be seen as casting reasonable doubt. But at least based on some other case I watched on TV, it seems I shouldn't have taken such a position.
Who wins for maximum return on effort, Epstein with his bearded look for suicidal depression or Zimmerman with his injuries for killing another person as self defense?
And by the way, aside from other things about Zimmerman's case, why should the injuries of Zimmerman be seen as justifying a self defense claim but the fear of a teenager who finds himself suddenly being approached by an adult and the teenager reacts by running away then gets chased by that adult should not be? If the answer is that that fear could have also supplied justification for a self defense claim then what if the killing had happened the other way around? Should we not care about that and just rule in favor of the survivor like a jungle?
Believe it or not it seems that the charges brought against Epstein were Federal charges. So this extremely suspicious situation of acting as if the claim that he died in prison did not sound like made up show belongs proudly to the head of our government here. On the other hand they broke the record of the shortest silence time with the two trillions they authorized at the beginning of this corona virus exaggeration scam. The speed with which that was done makes it hard to avoid thinking that it was not done for the people but to make things run smoothly for the scam. And it does not even appear that they gave close to that level of decisiveness and actionable care with regard to this matter throughout the preceding time. So which path is more believable, the one suggesting sudden change or the one providing better connection by suggesting a planned thing?
Based on seeing that Saudi guy on TV yesterday, apparently it is not enough for those running that dictatorship all what is known about what they have done inside and outside that country but they also want to say that they may respond to words with targeted killings and assassinations. But why go far for doing that and with a story like the one shown yesterday instead of the well known and very commonly seen as the work of the Saudi government story of killing the singer Thekra/Thikra/Zekra/Zikra (ذكرى). I remember first hearing about that and find it very suspicious in 2003 even without knowing any reason for the Saudis to do that. The news of her death on one Arabic TV network stated that she was shot by her manager who then also shot herself. Later other version(s) of the news came, like for example this one https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2003/11/28/tunisian-singer-shot-dead or this one https://www.albawaba.com/entertainment/autopsy-report-thikra-shot-26-times-and-survived-only-15-minutes but, aside from the week explanation and how the savagery of the crime suggests otherwise, they all depend on the same explanation of murder suicide which is to the best of my knowledge and experience from living in that part of the world is as unheard of as for a person in the western world to be a suicide bomber, if not more. It was not until well over a decade later that I knew while browsing Youtube that she sang a song criticizing the Saudi ruling family very close to her killing and how people seem confident of that being the reason she was killed.
Here is one link to that song on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wXA24q9l3k
And here is some rough translation for the first three minutes and excerpt from the rest:
Who dare say
this is not reasonable
(We) visit and cray at
the Kaaba and the tomb of the prophet
(They) told me the teardrop
threatens the peace of the fleet
(We) visit and cray at
the Kaaba and the tomb of the prophet
(They) told me your voice
threatens the peace of the totaled (mentally totaled
because of drinking or drugs)
Cray in your chest (heart)
Do not bother our ruler
Our ruler not ruler
Protector of fleet
Dilutional not understanding
Totaled protecting oil
Our ruler not ruler
Protector of fleet
Dilutional not understanding
Totaled protecting oil
Who dare say
our brethren, from the house
of God prevented us
Who dare say
our brethren from the
pilgrimage to the house (of God)
prevented us.
They told us the teardrop
threatens the peace of the fleet
Who dare say
This is not reasonable
(We) advice you
pilgrimage to the pope and the Vatican
Easier than Mecca
and the Kaaba and more secure
(We) advice you
pilgrimage to the pope and the Vatican
Easier than mecca
and the Kaaba and more secure
Mecca its protector is its thief
Let the rest of it in my chest(heart)
Mecca its protector is its thief
Let the rest of it in my chest(heart)
who dare say to the ruler
your chair (throne) goes away
(I do not sufficiently know what
the text at 3:10 means but sounds like
the biggest insult at personal level
so far in the song. Then, in addition to other things later,
there is this part at 6 to 6:21):
Victory does not come to us
from your palace nor we dream of it
And pilgrimage if through favor
from you can be left for later
Victory does not come to us
from your palace nor we dream of it
And pilgrimage if through favor
from you can be left for later
I doubt that I am the only one noticing how the second stimulus payment status check provided by the IRS website is a joke and makes one feels like dealing with thugs. And this is also supported by how the website says that the payment can be claimed with tax return for 2020. Of course it is good to know that but how the way it is said suggests that it is not an unusual thing that you may not receive the payment even though according to the law you should be, is the troubling thing. Or is it that the problem is that in addition to the faking of presidents and attacks, we now also have faking the passing of laws?
I talked about this years ago and the situation still the same. How many other countries are there giving themselves the right to military attack another country just because it favors one side over another in the power struggle in the attacked country, like the Saudi government blatantly has been doing in Yemen for years? The world got that many voices against attacking Iraq regardless of the assurance of the intention to establish a democratic system there, but this is okay?
By the way, a democratic system of one person one vote for everybody, including a reasonable constitution if needed, is the just solution for everywhere.
