It is hardly surprising that this event described by Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers would take place in Oakland. An auto repair and body shop of all places is letting out its place for an event that feature vicious anti-Semites.
http://proisraelbaybloggers.blogspot.com/2013/10/uptown-body-and-fender-hosts.html
Shame on Sabeel, a partner of the Presbyterian Church USA, and shame on the Presbyterian Church USA itself. If you are a Presbyterian American, you should know that your church is anti-Semitic.
I also take particular note of the caricature of Ariel Sharon and its creator in this post. That very same caricature was featured on the so-called "apartheid wall" erected by the Muslim Student Union at UC Irvine in May 2008 during their annual week of Israel-bashing.
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2008/05/another-example-of-anti-semitism-from.html
Naturally, the university did nothing.
11 comments:
Ariel Sharon is a bit of a caricature... and I don't see anything to suggest that the Presbyterian Church is sponsoring the event... you mean if a nominal member of a church allows their business to sponsor an event, suddenly the church is directly responsible for the content of what is said at the event? That's a stretch, even for guilt by association, although I understand similar stretches are indulged by drug enforcement task forces to prosecute the second cousin of the next door neighbor of the mother of a low-level street distributor of a drug operation in the next state.
You're all wet, Siarlys. We have good laws to protect the innocent.
I suggest you research the connection between the Presbyterian Church USA leadership and Sabeel.
Gary, you display an unusual confidence in the good faith of federal bureaucracies to scrupulously observe constitutional norms -- something you never credit any other part of the executive branch with, certainly not any other part of the Department of Justice... but "We have good laws to protect the innocent" ???
I'm sure you were a scrupulously honest DEA agent, and went after many genuine bad guys, I really am, but as James Madison said about what could be assumed and relied upon in adopting a constitution, "enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
I know many families who have provided detailed personal accounts of what happened to their loved ones at the hands of some of the more zealous of your former co-workers.
Which reminds me, there is an article in The Economist about a father and daughter who run a grocery store, who generally transported cash to the bank in amounts under $10,000, because that is the limit of what their insurance policy would cover them for, in the event of loss or theft. Suddenly the feds have confiscated their entire bank account for violation of a law against "structuring" financial transactions in amounts under $10,000. No claim they were money laundering, no evidence their business was anything but legitimate. And our "good laws to protect the innocent" allow their money to be seized first, questions to be discussed later. This would seem to be the sort of government over-reach the more legitimate portions of the polyglot Tea Party movement rightly denounce -- but these are precisely the sort of laws you and I are now arguing about.
As for PCUSA leadership and Sabeel, life is too short to chase will o' the wisps to see if there might be something to what you say. You're trying to make a case... where's the beef?
Siarlys,
You should take the case you mentioned to the IRS because that is their jurisdiction. It is also called smurfing and was used by numerous drug organizations and others to conceal drug proceeds. I suspect there is more to the story.
SABEEL is an anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian religious organization that operates in the ME. I have mentioned them before on this site.
While there certainly are the comparatively very, very occasional excesses by law enforcement at all levels, Siarlys is apparently unaware that "...detailed personal accounts of what happened to their loved ones..." are, virtually without exception, hyped and exaggerated, usually to the extreme (yes, Siarlys, to potentially/probably include even your friends to some degree or other), although a rare few are admittedly legitimate.
Gary is also correct that the grocery store caper involving "smurfing" almost certainly involves stuff that has not been reported that we do not, and may never, know the full extent of. The incidence of targeting legitimate father/daughter business people who are truly innocent is exceedingly rare.
And I would note that our "good laws to protect the innocent" allow police to, say, first make an arrest based only on probable cause, a fairly low standard of proof, with questions of further investigation, indictments/charges, trials, etc., to be discussed later. That is just the way it works around here. If you want a requirement that proof beyond a reasonable doubt must exist before an arrest/seizure can occur, say so.
This, of course, ties in with Siarlys' total misunderstanding about how the system works as evidenced in his position that the maximum penalty for ANY criminal offense be 25 years in the can WITH the possibility of parole after that time. Parole Charles Manson?? Parole Major what's his-face, the Ft. Hood shooter?? Parole whoever?? Etc., etc. Give me a break!!!
Elwood,
I should have also added that when structuring comes to the attention of the IRS, it is investigated b their Criminal Investigation Division) they first investigate to see if it is connected to another illegal activity.
When I was stationed in Pittsburgh in the 1980s, IRS initiated an investigation into a group of people who were doing this from bank to bank. Together, we determined they were importing heroin into the US, worked together and successfully prosecuted them.
Ah, elwood, what an embarrasse de richesse as Lenin used to say when presented with a particularly ripe basket of stupidity to skewer in his inimitably sardonic style.
Let's see, I once said that MY personal belief is that nobody SHOULD serve more than 25 years in prison without at least being considered for parole, and elwood pontificates that I believe that THIS IS HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS. Then, rather than offer proof that this is NOT in fact the law of the land (which would be easy to do, its not), elwood retreats into expressing HIS personal opinion that Charles Manson and Major Nidal should NEVER be paroled (elwood's opinion being no more evidence of "how the system works" than mine).
Rest easy elwood, I have grave doubts that Manson will ever be paroled. In fact, I have grave doubts that I would vote to parole him. Consideration means those who actually could handle parole aren't overlooked in a general rush to lock up everyone. Manson, from what has come out in the press, has done nothing to improve himself since being locked up. Not so for everyone behind bars.
Leading up to that, elwood expostulates on the fact that an arrest can occur on probable cause, tip-toeing around the fact that I was discussing people sent to prison for long terms on something well short of probably cause, not people subjected to the undoubted inconvenience of being arrested before the courts release and exonerate them. But elwood has never been in either situation, so he can prattle about any LaLa Land his decrepit imagination is able to conjure up.
For the rest, we are to take elwood's word for it that the incidence of targeting legitimate business people who are truly innocent "is exceedingly rare," not because elwood has been counting or anything, but as Joe Isuzu used to say, "You have, MY WORD ON IT." And without reading any of the details, elwood AND Gary are satisfied that if the owners of the business are facing legal action, they "almost certainly" were smurfing, because, if they weren't, why, they wouldn't have been subject to legal action in the first place. Like the NKVD, our law enforcement agencies "never make mistakes."
Of course IF cash deposits in amounts smaller than $10,000 are being structured BECAUSE they are the fruits of heroin trafficking, then law is a legitimate tool to nail them. The problem comes when mindless bureaucrats take a single code section out of context, find a bare mathematical corollary unrelated to any otherwise illegal activity, and waste our tax money prosecuting harmless businesses rather than going after genuine criminals. Its the lazy way to earn your taxpayer-financed salary and pat yourself on the back. Going after REAL bad guys takes a certain modicum of courage, as I'm sure Gary knows.
See what I mean?? Like a blind hog, even Siarlys occasionally manages to find an acorn, but he did not do so this time.
To respond to the seemingly only non-ad hominem portion of his screed (also one of his favorite words, and I can see he has been reading the dictionary again), people are NOT "...sent to prison for long terms on something well short of probably (sic) cause...".
At least in our civilian system, people ARE sometimes sent to prison for long periods of time after having first been merely ARRESTED on probable cause with or without a warrant, and later then only upon either being indicted by a grand jury or formally charged on the basis of a complaint (either of which significantly exceeds the mere probable cause standard), and then even later upon either pleading guilty to one or more of the charges against them (which I believe more than 90 per cent do) or having been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by either a judge in a bench trial or by a jury (which also happens in over 90 per cent of trials, I believe).
And that, Siarlys, is how we end up in prison.
Good point, El.
Siarlys has watched too much CSI Miami and spoken to too many convicted inmates who were really innocent.
elwood displays the debating style of a California DA I once had the dubious pleasure of observing... "if the facts and the law are both against you, kick up a cloud of dust..."
elwood thinks if he just dances from one position to another, I'll be too dizzy to land a shot in his immediate vicinity. I've pointed out the logical and factual fallacies of his last couple of posts, and he doesn't try to defend either, he's leapt to the branches of another tree crying "nyeah nyeah, you can't find me over here..." Maybe not elwood, but there is an old proverb about arguing with a fool. I've tried to give you credit for being a thoughtful, coherent individual with something of substance to say, but you're three ranks of straw men away from anything I ever offered, and you knock you own straw men down with great gusto. (You also haven't grasped WHAT the phrase "ad hominem" means, but you've evidently recognized its something nobody wants to hear as a description of their own words).
I don't watch TV Gary, and I've talked to many who are innocent, as well as many who are guilty. There are two kinds of people who get arrested, innocent and guilty. Ditto for those who go to trial, those who are convicted, and yes, those who are acquitted. No system is perfect. We try to come close. At present, we're not doing very well at it.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21588915-how-prosecutors-seize-assets-innocent-grabbing-hand-law
Siarlys,
That phrase you quoted is the defense lawyers' creed. DA's entire case has to be based on facts. The defense is another story.
Post a Comment