Rights

[Vega`]

Come on now, guys. Sternn is a veteran of Operation: Desert Storm. He deserves a little more respect.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Actually Sternn is right in the fact that oil is bought in U.S. dollars.
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/rev...ervice_ID=9752

The issue is that this cannot be the sole reason for going to war against Iraq, as this does not stop Iraq from selling its oil in euros if the country ever decides to.

[Vega`]

Uh, yeah. Didn't need a fake news site that stole al-Jazeera's name or a pathological liar on ignore to tell me that. I hope Iran does make the switch. It'll increase our exports, decrease our imports, and lower our trade deficit, thusly allowing the economy to confidently stablize and switch back to neutral.

If they do make the switch, you wait and watch to see if the US invades. Matter-o-fact, watch Russia too cause they said they were going to switch over to selling their oil in Roubles. That'll go over great in the world market. Maybe they're next too.

Once we've conquered the world, it's on to Mercury to secure and control the universe's supply of helium-3! Muahahaa!

[Godslayer Jillian]

Pardon my skepticism, although you could be right, as I didn't research too much, but where can we see the authenticity of this site?

[Vega`]

Of the al-Jazeera site? This is the real one: http://english.aljazeera.net/

You can find a Wiki article on the site you linked to here that explains it's nature in the journalistic world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera.com

[we_are_138]

Originally Posted by TSW|Abaddon

He's not very educated on a lot of things. He's also a total liar, just put him on ignore like I did. He's just an America hating prick that looks for anything to make America look bad but backpedals like crazy as soon as you mention something like the IRA. If he really did give two shits about the world he wouldn't just be concentrating on America. I'm sure that when a democrat gets elected in 2008 he will shut up.

i don't think he hates America. I think he actually does care. (Sternn, correct me if I'm wrong, if you do, in fact, hate America) I'm a U.S. citizen, and I believe someone earlier on this thread posted about how we need to make a distinction between the American government and the American people. Which, I do agree, is true. The American government does a lot of things that the people do not agree with. However, we, as the American People, are doing NOTHING about it. Well, yes some of us are canvassing, some of us are in fact holding protests in the streets, some fundraise, some of us are writing senators and representatives, and some are campaigning for the party they believe will fix everything to make it all better.

But the truth is, we have let Bush get into office. We let the war happen. Some of us did all we thought could. A lot of us just sat at home and complained. I didn't even vote in 2004. I think the truth is, that most of us are just happy to get by. As long as we have certain things, like food to eat, a place to live, a place to work, somewhere to go out and have fun, we will remain complacent and almost forgetful of all of the bad things that go on around us, outside of our little bubble. And I think our system does a really good job at keeping people apathetic, We don't think about how we buy clothes made by slave labor, we eat food that's cheap and bad for us, watch whatever is on network TV, and all of these things distract us. And all of us at some level buy into it.

I have a cousin fighting in Iraq. And I am so comfortable in my little world that I don't even think of him every day. How messed up is that? Is that messed up? I might have gone off topic here. Forgive me, as I was a history major in college and have a tendancy to run on and on and switch topics, sometimes with no organization of thought whatsoever. That's why I did history, and not political science. (:

[TSW|Abaddon]

I really do think he hates America in general. His topics come off as very hateful and bigoted. That hatred has blinded him to any point that may not align with what he believes. If somone truly cared about something then they would be open to different possibilities. I don't mind questioning the government, I'm not a right-wing neocon shill.

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then.

This is an important quote to live by IMO. However Sternn's level of "resistance" is just absurd. Someone who really cared wouldn't say stuff like...

On the topic of Israel

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Soldiers die. Thats what they do. Especially when they sit on top of land they are occupying that belongs to another country.

On Troops

Originally Posted by CptSternn

But lets face it, they should get used to it. When the troops do come home, there will be no parades, no V day, the best they can hope for is that people won't spit on them.

On good things in Iraq

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Too bad the truth scares people so much they tune it out. Guess I should have posted more 'warm-n-fuzzy' stories of all the good things in Iraq and all the positive stuff bush has done. Oh wait, there is none of that.

A great lie by Sternn

Originally Posted by CptSternn

My question - was Sadaam so bad that the us had to take him out? I mean, the us troops themselves have murdered more Iraqis than Sadaam was ever accused of murdering. The us troops displaced more Iraqis than Sadaam was ever accused of displacing. The us troops have been caught tourturing more Iraqis than Sadaam has been accused of tourturing, and so far the us troops have jailed more Iraqis than Sadaam ever jailed, they had to build new prisons to hold all the new 'criminals'.

I guess in his intense search for the truth he missed the Al-Anfal campaign...

On MY SERVICE IN IRAQ

Originally Posted by CptSternn

As I said before, if your so gung-ho for the military go back. I'll be happy to fly over and piss on your grave once they mail the bits of you back in a bag.

I think Binkie put it best...

Originally Posted by Binkie

Yeah. We actually had some good, intelligent debates when Sternn was banned from this forum the first time.

Umm, yeah so I don't think Sternn is some nice guy looking to help us Americans out. He brings up any little thing that he can throw in the face of Americans to make himself feel better. Anyone who brings up 9/11 as an inside job or downplays Saddam isn't an open freethinking individual. He's a troll. Don't feed the troll!

[Godslayer Jillian]

Sternn has proved to be a nuissance since I arrived here.
Although I give him the benefit of doubt on this conversation, and I actually stood for one of his points, that was because I thought that maybe just this time he might be right.
Yet, for years he has proven himself that not only is he a source of faulty information, but has also used half-truths (His famous *snips* in an atricle) to prove a point, and even lies about himself.
I have stated many times the fact that virtually all of his threads are against America. This doesn't say that America is all-evil so much as that he cares for nothing else but to give the United States a bad name.
Now, I'm not saying I would be willing to defend this country, as I don't like to pledge allegiance to any flag, but I accept the fact that Democracy is one of the best forms of government humans have come up with and its development is so young that it's not only unrealistic, but stupid, to think that if it hasn't solved all the problems in the world by now, it's worthless.

[Vega`]

Originally Posted by TSW|Abaddon

Anyone who brings up 9/11 as an inside job or downplays Saddam isn't an open freethinking individual.

Haha. Yeah. He's not exactly playing with a full deck of cards there. And what cards he is playing with aren't even his. Hes like a sponge thrown into a sewer. Rather than producing any of it's own, it just soaks up a bunch of other people's shit and dribbles it all over the place.

[TSW|Abaddon]

Originally Posted by Vega`

Hes like a sponge thrown into a sewer. Rather than producing any of it's own, it just soaks up a bunch of other people's shit and dribbles it all over the place.

LOL, great analogy! Well it looks like the Dems win the House. Maybe that will cut Sternns BS down a bit now that we've come out of "the dark ages."

[CptSternn]

Wow, once again, a whole thread about me. I feel loved.

[Don't Look Behind You]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Wow, once again, a whole thread about me. I feel loved.

Yup. I hardly remeber a thread on America where you didn't turn into the centre of all attention. So much for objective argumentation.

[CptSternn]

More updates from the bush regime. You know, after getting the 'whuppin' last week as the us leader so elequently put it, one would think he would you know, try and do what he said he would do the day after and work with the dems.

Of course, this is next week, and he has already gone off again on his own course and it doing it again...

Administration: Detainees have no rights

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Monday that Guantanamo Bay prisoners have no right to challenge their detentions in civilian courts and that lawsuits by hundreds of detainees should be dismissed.

In court documents filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Justice Department defended the military's authority to arrest people oversees and detain them indefinitely without access to courts.

It's the first time that argument has been spelled out since
President Bush signed a law last month setting up military commissions for the thousands of foreigners being held in U.S. prisons abroad.

Bush hailed the law as a crucial tool in the war on terrorism and said it would allow prosecution of several high-level terror suspects.

Human rights groups and attorneys for the detainees say the law is unconstitutional. Prisoners normally have the right to challenge their imprisonment.

The Justice Department said Monday that the detainees have no constitutional rights. Giving military detainees access to civilian courts "would severely impair the military's ability to defend this country," government attorneys wrote.

"Congress could have simply withdrawn jurisdiction over these matters and left the decision of whether to detain enemy aliens held abroad to the military," the Justice Department wrote.

Instead, the new military commission structure established "unprecedented" levels of review for detainees, the attorneys wrote.

Thats right, now bush says anyone he deems fit to detain no longer gets any rights and the Geneva Convention doesn't apply, because he says so.

This follows the cases last week where 'suspects' were released, and he had them thrown into gitmo, not because they had done ANYTHING, but because they were interrogated using the new techniques and he doesn't want the world to know what those are. Thats right - innocent people, found innocent and released were 'detained' again by bush and now are being held without ANY rights, because he says so.

Much like Hicks from Australia - bush refuses to let him go - because under Australian law he hasn't committed a crime, therefore bush refuses to free him even though he has done nothing wrong, because he doesn't want him to tell the world what he has been through at the hands of his american captors.

[CptSternn]

I thought I'd ressurect this thread to go alongside the discussion of the rights of the convicted, and found this article to be worth a post...

http://www.kotv.com/news/national/story/?id=121151

Rice Says Bush Won't Abide By Legislation To Limit Iraq War

WASHINGTON (AP) _ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war and suggested President Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.

But Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said lawmakers would step up efforts to force Bush to change course. ``The president needs a check and a balance,'' said Levin, D-Mich.

Rice said proposals being drafted by Senate Democrats to limit the war amounted to ``the worst of micromanagement of military affairs.'' She said military leaders such as Gen. David Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, believe the president's plan to send more troops is necessary.

``I can't imagine a circumstance in which it's a good thing that their flexibility is constrained by people sitting here in Washington, sitting in the Congress,'' Rice said. She was asked in a broadcast interview whether Bush would feel bound by legislation seeking to withdraw combat troops within 120 days.

``The president is going to, as commander in chief, need to do what the country needs done,'' she said...

Although this does not pertain to specific rights per say, it does however directly conflict once again with the Constitution. To argue the president is above Congress and that he does not have to abide by legislation passed by them is quite startling, well it would be if bush had not have already trampled on so many other Constitutional rights. I mean, why stop with personal rights? Might as well remove the system of checks and balances with the three branches of government, right?

After all, in the immortal words, and video, of gw himself...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...+paper&spell=1

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face" "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

[nuksaa]

Although this does not pertain to specific rights per say, it does however directly conflict once again with the Constitution. To argue the president is above Congress and that he does not have to abide by legislation passed by them is quite startling, well it would be if bush had not have already trampled on so many other Constitutional rights.

Actually it doesn't. This piece of legislation isn't worth the paper it is written. The checks and balances provided by the Constitution doesn't give Congress any rights with regard to specific troop employment. That is a power of the executive branch.

Powers of the with Congress' relation to military:

To raise and support Armies;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
And of course, declare war.

It is the Congress who is beginning to step on the Constitution not the executive branch.

And let's continue the process by which legislation processes through. A bill is submitted to Congress, the Congress passes or defeats the bill, the bill then goes to the desk of the President for approval, the President then signs or vetos the bill, if the President vetoes the bill, it returns to Congress to determine if the veto will be overridden. Regardless, this piece of legislation is bordering on un-Constitutional. The President has powers the Congress cannot infringe upon and vice versa. If Congress wants to send the message clearly to the President, vice passing crap legislation, cut the funding.

If Congress wants to excercise the checks and balance process, they need to cut funding; that is their power. If Congress really wanted to excercise their checks and balances, the should have never have passed HJR 114. There were enough votes on the floor to ensure this resolution wasn't passed, 31 Democrats in the Senate voted for HJR 114. If those 31 would have voted "nay", there would have been 54 against in the Senate; a clear majority.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by nuksaa

Actually it doesn't. This piece of legislation isn't worth the paper it is written. The checks and balances provided by the Constitution doesn't give Congress any rights with regard to specific troop employment. That is a power of the executive branch.

Where as I wouldn't disagree with the assertions made in your post, I would add that they do not specifically address the aforementioned issue.

The president said through one of his spokespersons he would not abide by a piece of legislation from congress. It does not matter the substence of the legislation.

You are correct in the path of of bill to a law, and the president has the right to veto, but if he is overturned and still refuses to abide by the legislation then he is in direct conflict with the constitution. The claims made were not that he would veto legislation, they were that if legal legislation were passed, he would refuse to fulfill his duties as president and abide by the law as set by congress.

The statements made clearly show a deviation from what one considers the American system of checks and balances. Congress makes the laws, the president enforces them. To say the president will no longer enforce laws passed and will make up his own path to follow outside of congress is to say america is now a dictatorship, one man leading with no oversight and no way to correct his course if he goes astray, which many today will say is already happening.

[Drake Dun]

When the judiciary is confronted with a clearly unconstitutional law passed by congress (which happens with alarming frequency), they refuse to obey it (well... except when they decide to play ball, and pretend the constitution doesn't mean what it says). Why should the executive behave differently?

"Balance of powers" does not mean "legislative trumps everybody".

Now, I am not familiar with the law in question, but from the posts in this thread it sounds like it is something with the purpose of limiting the number of troops which can be deployed to Iraq. I just read the constitution through, and it seems very clear to me that Congress has no power in this regard. As much as I hate to defend the Bush administration on anything.

Not that this is particularly unusual. Except that usually it is one of the bills of right that Congress flagrantly ignores, and not something in the original text of the Constitution.

Drake

[nuksaa]

If the legislation did get overturned, it would be submitted to the Supreme Court for review of the Constituional viability of the legislation. Once there it would go through the process before the President would be required to abide by it. Your argument is based on a statement that is being taken out of perspective. The process of a bill becoming a law is legislation not necessarily law. The Congress is using this legislation to force the President to follow what they want, which they don't even know how to proceed if he agreed. That is what the President was commenting on and is being taken out of context. It isn't the first time a President has openingly made known his complete disagreement.

Let's deal with the ifs. If the legislation was passed, veto overridden, backed by the Supreme Court, and the President violated it; I promise you the impeachment process would be swift and you would then be complaining about President Cheney.

Facts are this legislation is not law. And the President has not violated any law. Even the article title you posted is an interpretation of what Condeleeza Rice said in the interview. You are basing your opinion on conjecture and bias.

This country is far from being a dictatorship. The reason many share this view is due to the fact the Congress are being a bunch of wankers. The majority of that body are content to be hecklers and jockey their position in the stands vice doing something worth while.

what one considers the American system of checks and balances.

Because many do not know the Constitution well enough to understand the checks and balance system.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by nuksaa

Facts are this legislation is not law. And the President has not violated any law. Even the article title you posted is an interpretation of what Condeleeza Rice said in the interview. You are basing your opinion on conjecture and bias.

No it's not law, but I wouldn't say my opinion is conjecture or bias. As per the article, which was written with the headline of the same title, infers that bush will not be stopped, even IF legislation is legally passed. The comments made were to that effect. As I said previously, I'm not arguing how a bill becomes a law or the steps needed to be taken to challenge it in the judiciary, I'm merely pointing out the the current executive is making statements to the effect that they are monolithic and will not be stopped, implying they will not be stopped even with legal intervention by in this case at least one of the other branches. The reality of this, of course, is yet to be proven, but the mindset that it obviously shows reflects on the administration itself, which was my point.

The bush administration is now famous for its assertions. Ol gw claimed he has the power to hold people without habeas corpus, which he has. He then claimed he can listen to phone calls whenever he saw fit, which he has. He then claimed he could read anyones mail he deemed necessary, which he has. Now he claims that he can prolong an unpopular war for however long he feels he wants and has said he doesn't care what the congress thinks or tries to do, as he will do as he wants when he wants and will not be stopped even by other members of the American government.

Because many do not know the Constitution well enough to understand the checks and balance system.

Sad but true.

[nuksaa]

even IF legislation is legally passed.

The legislation passed is a non-binding piece of legislation that would be unconstitutional as a law. It is crap in it's inception and it is crap today. It is action taken with no power behind it to be legal. So vice creating legislation that would mean something and have weight, this wonderful Dem Congress has spent their first action to pass what I equate to a bunch of wanking.

Now he claims that he can prolong an unpopular war for however long he feels he wants and has said he doesn't care what the congress thinks or tries to do

Strange how I have never seen the article in which he has stated such a claim.

Ol gw claimed he has the power to hold people without habeas corpus, which he has. He then claimed he can listen to phone calls whenever he saw fit, which he has. He then claimed he could read anyones mail he deemed necessary, which he has.

And these actions are different from any other presidential administration, how? Guantanamo Bay has been in existence for some time, as have the various intellegence agencies been listening to telephones and reading mail. For having such a poor opinion of the man, you give him a lot of credit make him sound like a genious.

but I wouldn't say my opinion is conjecture or bias.

Your synopsis is that the President would blatantly disregard a law upheld by the Supreme Court. The facts are this piece of legislation is not binding in anyay shape or form. Most everyone knows this. So no, he doesn't need to follow it. Part of the checks and balance system is definitely the President doesn't need to abide by every unbinding piece of paper the Congress passes.

Should the President state "I don't like broccoli" be taken to mean he is against argiculture and is going to ensure the downfall of every farm? This 'controversy' over the President not following crap legislation is blown out of proportion. It ranks right up there with 'whose the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby'.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by nuksaa

And these actions are different from any other presidential administration, how? Guantanamo Bay has been in existence for some time, as have the various intellegence agencies been listening to telephones and reading mail. For having such a poor opinion of the man, you give him a lot of credit make him sound like a genious.

Well... it's possible that other presidents have been doing some of these things without us finding out about it. God only knows what goes on up there. But we know that Bush has been spying on Americans outside of his legal authority to do so, flagrantly ignoring laws, sanctioning torture, and so forth. To the best of our knowledge, several of these abuses are above and beyond the stuff that your average president does.

Speaking of torture, the big controversy about that right now is a great example of how politics warps people's common sense, and how a political issue is already half-way resolved as soon as its central question is framed. Here is what I mean. The U.S. is torturing people. When you set out to inflict pain upon someone for the purpose of eliciting information, you are torturing them. Whether it is a form of torture specifically forbidden by the Geneva convention or some other piece of writing somewhere is a different question, but it's torture, plain and simple.

Drake

[nuksaa]

Whether it is a form of torture specifically forbidden by the Geneva convention

That is under the assumption the individual is covered by the Geneva Convention. Not that it is right, but there are loop holes in the Convention.

When you set out to inflict pain upon someone for the purpose of eliciting information, you are torturing them

What about forcing them to meet some existing condition? What about inflicting pain for punishment?

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by nuksaa

That is under the assumption the individual is covered by the Geneva Convention. Not that it is right, but there are loop holes in the Convention.

The fact a nation is looking for such loop holes to use as a proverbial 'fig leaf' to cover its actions should be viewed as a warning sign of its true intentions, not as a good thing that they were able to skirt the very laws put in place to protect the innocent.

[CptSternn]

Another article today on topic...

FBI underreported use of USA Patriot Act

WASHINGTON - The
FBI underreported its use of the USA Patriot Act to force businesses to turn over customer information in suspected terrorism cases, according to a Justice Department audit.

http://news.**********/s/ap/20070309...DOqQTpnEes0NUE

The fact the federal investigators either deliberately or through 'shoddy record keeping' tried to keep the number of investigations and the number of times they used their 'new' power to investigate AMERICANS a secret is another bad sign.

The fact they try and hide the number of investigations shows even the agents don't believe they have real cases, and are just preforming 'fishing expeditions' on American citizens - looking into whoever, whenever, because they now have been given unlimited power to do so.

I would hate to live in a country where the federal police spend the tax payers funds on spying on the very citizens they are supposed to be protecting merely on trivial suspicions or personal vendettas.

This furthers the point I made at the beginning of this post. Prior to bush, the FBI needed solid evidence to investigate a person. Now, there is no system of checks or balances - they can do whatever they want, without fear of repercussion as anyone who gives them information is forbidden from speaking of it.

Does that sound like an open and true democratic government? Secret police investigating what they want under the guise of secret search orders, 'sneak-n-peak', or reviewing of a persons library habits in an effort to get a lead in a possible investigation?

It says right now the FBI are so short of cases that the need to review the book reading habits, internet habits, and banking records of citizens in efforts to find out who the possible 'suspects' are in a crimes they have no knownledge of.

So anyone who reads a certain book, visits a certain website, or looks into various topics is now considered a possible terrorist.

The new 'american way'.

[CptSternn]

Duke **** case implodes, revealing 'world of injustice'

http://news.**********/s/usatoday/20...b7tT728pbMWM0F

Americans like to think that few innocent people are arrested, much less charged or convicted, and that rogue prosecutors are the stuff of fiction.

Not so, the nation learned Wednesday, when the already shaky sexual assault case against three former Duke University lacrosse players collapsed entirely.

An independent investigation cleared the three athletes who had been accused of ****** a stripper hired for a team party last year. The athletes were victims of a "tragic rush to accuse," North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper found, and were indicted despite a total lack of credible evidence. They were guilty of nothing more than raunchy behavior.

How could such a travesty have happened with all the checks and balances in the legal system? The Duke lacrosse case serves as a cautionary tale about the damage a combustible mix of sex, race, class, politics and overheated media coverage can wreak:

•Rush to judgment. The sensational case began in March 2006 when the stripper, a 28-year-old black woman, told police she had been beaten, ***** and sodomized by the white Duke students. Her accusations ignited race and class tensions among residents of Durham, N.C., and within the elite university. Too many commentators and academics who didn't know the facts were hasty to believe the "privileged jocks gone wild" scenario. Too many civil rights leaders seemed to draw the wrong lessons from the days when young black men in the South were convicted or lynched based on flimsy **** accusations from white women. Due process and the presumption of innocence got lost in the uproar.

•A runaway prosecutor. Instead of carefully gathering the evidence, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong threw gasoline on the fire. Nifong shamelessly exploited the racially charged atmosphere to help his election campaign, calling the accused men "hooligans" and likening the incident to cross burnings. Ignoring a lack of DNA evidence and the accuser's constantly changing stories, Nifong obtained grand jury indictments against players David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann. Even as the case grew ludicrously weak, the D.A. refused to drop the charges. It is a telling lesson in the ability of prosecutors to manipulate grand juries.

The damage from the Duke case goes beyond that done to the three students. It might hurt the cause of legitimate **** victims. It could persuade some not to come forward, fearing their allegations wouldn't be believed. It also could lead some police, prosecutors and even jurors to doubt women's true charges of ****. Just 42% of victims, on average, reported rapes and sexual assaults to police from 2000 through 2005, according the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. The Duke case could set back hard-won improvements in the treatment of sexual assault victims.

If any good is to come of the fiasco, it will be new checks on the power of prosecutors such as Nifong, who appears to have put ambition above the pursuit of impartial justice. The North Carolina State Bar has filed ethics charges against Nifong, accusing him of making inflammatory comments, withholding evidence from defense attorneys, and lying to the court and investigators. Cooper, who took over the case in January, wants the state Supreme Court empowered to intervene quickly if a prosecutor goes off the rails. The students and their lawyers called for more transparency in the grand jury process.

This is all helpful, but it's of little consolation to the students whose lives were thrown into turmoil for more than a year. At their news conference Wednesday, the young men said the experience had opened their eyes to the fact that innocent people in America can be railroaded. Seligmann said it exposed him to "a tragic world of injustice I never knew existed." And they acknowledged that without talented and expensive lawyers, they might well have ended up spending 30 years in prison for a crime they didn't commit.

The players no longer face the prospect of years behind bars. They finally have a measure of justice. They can get on with their lives. The damage, however, is done. It all brings to mind the question that former Labor secretary Raymond Donovan famously asked 20 years ago when he was acquitted of fraud and larceny charges: "Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?"


This is the new norm for the American judicial system. Convict by media. Use terms like 'person of interest' to make them a social pariah. Why have someone killed and start a conspiracy when you can simple attack them personally, spread lies and rumours about their character so no one listens to them, hires them, or allows them to defend themselves.