American System of Injustice

Re: American System of Injustic

**A System of Injustice: **America Locked Up

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

In a just published book, “Thinking About Crime,” Michael Tonry, a distinguished American law professor and director of Cambridge University’s Institute of Criminology, reports that the US has the highest percentage of its population in prison than any country on earth. The US incarceration rate is as much as 12 times higher than that of European countries.

Unless you believe that Americans are more criminally inclined than other humans, what can explain the US incarceration rate being so far outside the international mainstream? I can think of the following reasons:

  1. To prove that they are “tough on crime,” politicians have criminalized behavior that is legal elsewhere.

  2. Many innocent Americans are in jail.

There is enormous evidence backing up both reasons. Professor Tonry notes that during the past three decades the number of Americans in prison has increased 700%. Imprisonment has far outstripped the growth in the population. Subtracting children and the elderly, one in eighty Americans of prison eligible age is locked up.

America’s privatized prisons have to be fed with inmates in order to maintain their profitability. Prosecutors need high conviction rates to justify their budgets and to build their careers. Taken together these two facts create powerful incentives to put people away regardless of crime, innocence or guilt.

Consider the case of Charles Thomas Sell as recently told by Carolyn Tuft of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and by Phyllis Schlafly on TownHall (Dec. 13). Mr. Sell, a dentist, has been locked up for almost 8 years without a trial. Allegedly, Sell is guilty of Medicare fraud, but with no evidence or witnesses against him, the virtuous, just, democratic, moral US government tortured Mr. Sell in an effort to make him confess. Now they can’t bring him to trial where he will talk. So Mr. Sell is kept locked up under the pretense that his unwillingness to admit his guilt is evidence that he is mentally incompetent.

Schlafly asks the correct question: “Is there no accountability for this type of government misconduct?” The answer is NO. Mr. Sell might as well be in Stalin’s Gulag or in the hands of the Waffen SS or US captors at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. No one will do anything about the crime that the US government has committed against Mr. Sell.

No one will do anything to help William R. Strong, Jr., another victim of our heartless injustice system. Strong has been in a Virginia prison for a decade on false charges of “wife rape.” Mr. Strong has been trying to get a DNA test, confident that the semen in the perk test is not his but that of the lover of his unfaithful wife. But since Strong was convicted prior to the advent of DNA testing, prosecutors argue that he has no right to the evidence.

Another innocent victim of “Virginia justice” is Chris Gaynor, who my investigations indicate was framed by a corrupt prosecutor with the connivance of a corrupt judge, who intimidated Gaynor’s witnesses by jailing one of them. Only liars were permitted on the witness stand. I brought the facts to light in the newspapers at the time, but the Arlington, Virginia, criminal injustice system did not let facts interfere with its show trial.

Government routinely breaks the laws. So says Judge Andrew P. Napolitano in the current issue of Cato Policy Report and in his book, “Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws.” Judge Napolitano reports on cases of torture, psychological abuse, and frame-ups of innocents that he discovered as the presiding judge. Any American naive enough to trust the police and prosecutors should read what Napolitano has to say.

Torture has become routine in American prisons. The goal of the torturers is guilty pleas and false testimony against innocent defendants. The torturers succeed. Napolitano reports that “fewer than 3 percent of federal indictments were tried; virtually all the rest of those charged pled guilty.”

Does anyone seriously believe that the police are so efficient that 97 out of 100 people indicted are guilty?!

The cherished code, “you are innocent until proven guilty,” no longer holds in America. You are guilty when charged. You will be tortured or abused and threatened with more charges until you agree to a plea bargain.

Diane Lori Kleiman is an attorney who has worked in a district attorney’s office and for the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. She says prosecutors have little concern with real crimes, preferring to target high-profile individuals in order to garner headlines and create a political career for themselves. Martha Steward is a victim of prosecutorial ambition as was Michael Milken, whose false imprisonment created a political career for Rudy Giuliani.

Kleiman says that prosecutors look for high-profile targets. “It isn’t necessarily an issue of right and wrong. It’s an issue of taking the case to trial and getting the publicity. That makes your career.”

The Martha Stewart case, Kleiman says, “is the first time in history where they charged an individual with false statements, without her signing the statement or without a tape recording that she even made the statement. And not under oath.” Kleiman is referring to US history, not Soviet or Nazi history, histories that our criminal injustice system now mimics.

The US criminal justice system is bereft of justice and accountability. It only serves the ambitions of prosecutors. In America, criminal “justice” operates like a Stalin-era street sweep in which hapless citizens instantly became “enemies of the people” simply by being arrested.

Re: American System of Injustic

Funny, I must have missed the "Stalin-era" street sweep in my neighborhood. Why does every rate third hack writer resort to Nazi comparisons? Even the Stalin comparison is just pale beyond belief.

So JayR, why so fascinated with Americas criminal justice system? Little brush with the law perhaps? Out on bail? Of course I presume that you are sitting in your daddies basement, and you post these putrid little rants while taking a break from your XBox. Yeah, America sucks, but at least you got to level seven.

Re: American System of Injustic

Standing in line, wasting time
Waiting for the welfare dime
That’s just the way it is
Some things will never change

Watch me land 6 airliners on to the deck of an aircraft carrier.

Re: American System of Injustic

Have you considered, perhaps, a job? And what has given you this need to post anti-american crap?

Re: American System of Injustic

c

Re: American System of Injustic

**"American System of Injustic"

every country has problems...the difference is, in democratic countries media (TV, print media, web media etc etc) is free and powerful, because of that more and more public issues are comming in front of people's (world) and peoples get this impression that American justice system is bad.

I can bet that peoples of China, North Korea and Russia (communist) are in more miserable condition then American people. Its only after 1990 some economical reforms that led china back in track. But still china, russia and north korea have closed economy with very less freedom for citizens. Till 1990, citizens of china were not even allowed to leave the country, the problem still remains at large. North Korea and Russia are hav'g the same issues.
**

Re: American System of Injustic

does it somehow make you feel good pointing to all the negatives of the United States? There are negatives in every country so I really don't understand what you're trying to prove here.

I think we can all admit that the united states does also have it abundant positives and that's why so many people come to live here every year.

Re: American System of Injustic

Don't bother understanding

JayR probably gets a daily e-mail filled with conspiracy rants against USA and gleefully posts them here thinking that posting long articles will garner some sort of intellectual credibility on gupshup

Re: American System of Injustic

It's popular, people think it is trendy and cute.

What ends up being particularly nauseating is when those who are consistantly against the US, are in fact living in the US, going to school here or living with a hard working relative while playing an xbox about 20 hours a day.

As we now know JayR has UTube videos of him landing planes on a carrier, and no response to the "job" question. That sort of tells me that he has nothing better to do than bash the US, surf the web and play Flight Simulator. We have seen this behavior before.

Re: American System of Injustic

when people come to the States or any other country to live in i'm sure they develop some amount of affection and loyalty to that country. Freedom of speech is one thing I totally support and a person should speak up when they've been wronged in some way but why constantly bash the country that you live in just because you're frustrated for whatever reason.

JayR maybe you're intensely missing your wife and baby and that's why you're going on this GS posting frenzy.....call your wife, yaar.

Re: American System of Injustic

If you read my previous posts, I have my own biz, a small hostel (to be specific) around Black Sea (to be non-specific). My wife is has gone across the border to visit my heavy drinking now Russian in-laws.

I lived in the US for 20 years. I left bitter and depressed over my fiancee's illegal visa denial.

Re: American System of Injustic

Oh, well, that does explain your anger and bitterness.

And, you should be angry at the State Department. They are the ones who cracked down on the mail order bride business coming out of the former Soviet countries. A lot of "future brides" somehow never got married, and did not return when their fiancee visa ran out.

Rant away.

Re: American System of Injustic

Really?

1. PROCESSING REVOCATIONS OF NONIMMIGRANT VISAS BY MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT - 12/30/1999 ON PETITIONED VISAS
Many consulates (particularly those in Eastern Europe, South America and parts of Asia) seem to routinely re-adjudicate petitions previously approved by the INS. It has always been our understanding that consulates may investigate approved petitions for misrepresentations or fradulant documentation, but that they may not re-adjudicate cases.

2. REMINDER REGARDING VISA REFUSAL PROCEDURES BY COLIN A. POWELL VIA VISA OFFICE - 06/12/2001 ON NON-PETITIONED VISA
I am sending this message because I want to remind all consular officials of the current rules that must be followed for refusals of visas. It is important that consular officers follow all statutory and regulatory provisions in the issuance and refusal of visas -- we must exercise caution and work within the fundamental legal framework that governs visa adjudication law. This is not a matter or traditionalism or resistance to change. As stated in 9 FAM 41.121 N2, it is the policy of the Department of State to give visa applicants every reasonable opportunity to establish their eligibility to receive a visa. We are wary of any practices or procedures that may encroach on or in any way potentially jeopardize this doctrine [of consular non-reviewability]. Visa refusals, however, require extra protections, and there are limits to how far we can go in that area.

3. GUIDANCE ON PETITION REVOCATIONS BY COLIN A. POWELL - July 1, 2001 ON PETITIONED VISAS
1. Posts should be judicious about returning petitions, since the revocation process is lengthy and the evidentiary standard that must be met to sustain a petition revocation is relatively high.
2. ..posts return relatively few petitions to BCIS for revocation. This is a positive practice from our perspective, since petitions should only be returned to BCIS when fraud or misrepresentation or ineligibility for status can be clearly established or when the petition merits automatic revocation because of such circumstances as the death of the petitioner.
3. In all cases BCIS approval of a petition is prima facie evidence of the applicant's status.. a consular officer should only seek revocation of the petition if the officer knows, or has reason to believe, that the petition approval was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or other unlawful means.
4. ..posts seeking revocations must show the "factual and concrete reasons for revocations." BCIS has asked us to remind consular officers that revocation requests must provide solid, factual evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, evidence that is likely to stand up in a court of law.
5. Posts should not return petitions to BCIS based on mere suspicion or as a substitute for making a decision at post. If the evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or ineligibility for status is strong enough to lead to a likely revocation, returning the petition would be warranted. However, if the evidence is not likely to lead to a revocation and returning the petition would be a wasted exercise, the petition should not be returned. Returning cases that are only suspect or that appear too complex to figure out is not appropriate and only increases BCIS'' administrative burden and prevents the applicants and petitioners in these cases from obtaining the timely decision on their petitions to which they are entitled.
6. In absence of hard, factual evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or ineligibility for status, consular sections are advised to issue the visa.

4. GUIDELINES AND CHANGES FOR RETURNING DHS/BCIS APPROVED IMMIGRANT VISA & NONIMMIGRANT VISA PETITIONS BY COLIN A. POWELL - February 24, 2004 ON PETITIONED VISAS
5. The department is regularly named as a co-defendant with DHS in cases involving the return of petitions to DHS.
6. The memo supporting the petition return must clearly show the factual and concrete reasons for recommending revocation (observations made by consular officer cannot be conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant) and; consular officers must provide to the applicant in writing as full an explanation as possible of the legal and factual basis for the visa denial and petition return.
7. In general, an approved petition will be considered by consular officers as prima facie evidence that the requirements for classification have been met.
8. DHS regulations require DHS/BCIS to provide the petitioner notice of intent to revoke, and to allow the petitioner an opportunity to rebut the grounds for revocation. DHS regulations require that revocations must be based only on grounds specified in the regulations.
9. The report must be comprehensive, clearly showing factual and concrete reasons for revocation. The report must be well reasoned and analytical rather than conclusory. Observations made by the consular officer cannot be conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant." The criteria cited in this note derive from the Board of Immigration Appeals case, Matter of Arias, in which the Board determined that the memorandum supporting a petition return did not constitute "good and sufficient cause" for petition revocation, because it consisted of "observations of the consular officer that are conclusory, speculative, equivocal, or irrelevant to the bona fides of the claimed relationship".
10. Memo supporting petition returns should be scrutinized carefully bearing in mind that they may become relevant in litigation. The memoranda should be based on specific factual evidence, rather than conclusions, and should be clearly reasoned.

Re: American System of Injustic

Visas & Foreign Affairs at one United States Mission

On September 24, 2001, Michael Guest, an openly gay man, was appointed as the U.S. Ambassador to Romania. Guest’s presence made Bucharest a more attractive assignment for other gays in the Foreign Service.

Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), lists increasing opportunities for same-sex partners accompanying personnel on assignment overseas and securing taxpayer-funded health insurance and benefits for the partners and children of lesbian and gay employees in its mission statement. As the gay marriage debate raged at home, taxpayers began to foot the bill for defacto union[s] in Bucharest.

Advertisements for the annual Christmas parties invited not just spouses but partners. Suddenly it was like there was a club running thing, said one Foreign Service veteran who had been stationed there. If you weren’t part of the gay clique, you did not belong. After Guest began his mission, the persistent recognition and endorsement of same-sex partners prevented a devout Evenglical Christian and father of five, who had been accustomed to his post being a family-friendly environment, from participating in certain events to avoid having to explain homosexuality to his young children.

Others who have worked in Bucharest claim that the cultural shift at the embassy was not limited to the formal approval of same-sex relationships and make graver charges. These witnesses claim that promiscuity among some Americans stationed in Romania increased to levels that threatened to jeopardize the mission’s reputation and subject U.S. government employees to blackmail. They stated that some diplomats were engaging in homosexual relations with Romanian citizens and other foreign nationals.

Such dalliances led some to ridicule the U.S. diplomatic presence in Romania as the pink embassy and the Bucharest bathhouse. A letter sent by a group of Romanian NGOs and individuals to President Bush and Secretary Powell in January named high-level appointees responsible for having “transformed the U.S. diplomatic addresses in to havens of debauchery”, and further alleges that ***ased on reports and pornographic photos circulating around newspapers *they.. use their privileged positions to corrupt young Romanians, paying them for sexual relations, by both cash and visas to the U.S. The signatories of this letter include the Union of War Veterans, the National League of December 1989 Combatants, and three former Romanian parliament members.

An erstwhile gay lover of a former high-ranking official at the USAID mission in Bucharest has described such conduct in a sworn statement. He says that he lived with this official for four years in his government housing under the guise of serving as household help. There he claims to have witnessed U.S. government employees engaged in lewd acts and entering into other compromising positions.

According to his deposition, these acts included multiple sexual encounters with young Romanian men, some of whom may have been minors. The high-ranking USAID official’s taxpayer-provided residence was said to be the site of wild sexually charged parties where participants allegedly used drugs and viewed pornography. He states that this official has made sexually explicit photographs of himself available on the Internet. He accuses other officials of paying for sexual favors as well as offering foreign nationals visas in exchange for money or sex. Asked for comment, the USAID press office said it was unaware of any such allegations. Calls to the Inspector General’s office were not returned.

This goes beyond moral and cultural tensions over homosexuality. If true, these serious betrayals of diplomatic responsibility are incompatible with the professional climate required to represent this country abroad effectively. Contrary to a firm U.S. policy against illicit sexual liaisons and the corruption of minors, they would constitute illegal acts using taxpayers’ property and money with the potential to harm national security.

In addition, our national reputation has suffered enough recent damage in Romania due to the case of Kurt Treptow, a prominent historian the U.S. embassy in Bucharest placed on the Fulbright Commission. Yet Treptow was a convicted sex offender. He videotaped himself engaging in sexual acts with children as young as seven, some of whom were allegedly orphans, and was sentenced to seven years in Romanian prison for pedophilia and child abuse.

In addition to the allegations about Guest’s role in Treptow appointment, newspaper articles accused Guest of poor leadership in presiding over an embassy that the paper says is plagued by mismanagement. Several of the articles accuse embassy officials, including Guest, of engaging in influence-peddling in the appointment of outsiders to embassy posts. One article accuses the embassy of assisting U.S. citizens in obtaining legal assistance in Romania to adopt children in what it calls a multi-million dollar adoption effort in which U.S.-owned adoption agencies allegedly charge $10,000 or more to facilitate adoptions for Americans.

In July 2004, Guest was recalled to the U.S. Department of State following a yearlong onslaught of articles in an English language newspaper in Bucharest accusing Guest of corruption and mismanagement. Whoever is posted as U.S. ambassador to Romania will be responsible for maintaining acceptable standards of conduct. On December 4, 2007, Guest resigned (retired) over State Department’s discrimination against gay and lesbian employees.

Re: American System of Injustic

Subjects: If you do the crime, you do the time.
Sovereign: If you do the crime, you don’t do the time.

Re: American System of Injustic

JayR

must be siome bad luck, when I had issues with a US consulate, a congressman and one senator helped me deal with the consulate and they were straight as a leaser beam after they got an ass whooping from Obama and Hastert's offices

i dont understand teh thread though, from injstice in US we are down to gay embassy staff and their activities?

what gives

whats next ...we complain about traffic?

Re: American System of Injustic

c

Re: American System of Injustic

c

Re: American System of Injustic

Why are you so desperate to live in a country you obviously despise?

And pray tell what country do you now favor where power does not equal abuse + corruption?

Re: American System of Injustic

c