My column for today is The 2010 Movement . It’s in response to Jesuitic placebo by Manuel Buencamino and Filomeno Sta. Ana III, which appeared in yesterday’s Talk of the Town. See also Communal action must target Gloria by Leloy Claudio. While my personal position is for the President’s resignation, I support both proposals criticized by Buencamino and Sta. Ana: impeachment and an independent counsel. Impeachment, because I have been convinced for some time that it is the preferred option for most people (or a large chunk of the public, anyway), and a special prosecutor, as I’ve outlined in the past, because it will, indeed, strengthen institutions and accountability.
Whether those advocating impeachment in October are doing so out of sneakiness -it will just postpone things until the crisis solves itself on June 30, 2010- or out of a genuine belief that we shouldn’t burn down the barn to get rid of a rat, is, of course, another question altogether.
Of course, if the Supreme Court weighs in, we could have an impeachment, sooner than in October. Hope springs eternal.
In the column I also refer to trench warfare, wars of attrition, etc. So you might want to visit First World War.com.
Yesterday, Teodoro, Esperon ask Arroyo to pardon 9 junior officers although the Inquirer editorial said, it’s time to Pay the piper. It will be interesting to see how the President’s boosters justify a pardon without bringing up uncomfortable (for them) reminders of the President’s pardon for former President Estrada. With regards to the professional officers’ dilemma concerning dissent, Dissent and Strategic Leadership of the Military Professions by Don M. Snider makes for relevant reading. See pub849.pdf
RCMP raids Tory party headquarters
TOM HANSON/THE CANADIAN PRESS
Tonda MacCharles
Ottawa Bureau
for more particulars you may check the star:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada
Please Note: The current Head of Election Canada was Appointed to the Position by PM Harper after the resignation of JP Kingsley (17 years in service) rumored to have been due to the same Legal Battle between the former head and the Party on how they Election Expense relating to TV ads were interpreted..not much of the contested amount, but Law is Law and until it is cleared it is not resolved..
sorry wrong links up there, here is the right one, including related articles: thanks..
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/414652
Actually the question above is if the In-and Out Scheme is not a violation of the election law, the Party which depends on the Election Campaign Rebates from the Government for the next Election Campaign expense is entitled to up to 75% rebates for every Election Campaign which Election Canada Refuted. And I have the Feelings the Party is going to loss this one and the $700 thousands plus rebates.
The scheme was tried in 2006 election because the party was awashed with campaign funds but only limited to spend $18 millions and decided to divert $l.3 million for the scheme expecting to get back 75% in rebates..now we are in trouble…
jeg, in the natural order of things in a free and civilized society, most that are legal are “goodâ€Â, while most that are illegal are “evilâ€Â.
Are you sure, Bencard? Im surprised by this stand of yours. (Ok maybe not.) You realize that youre arguing that our system of laws is the final arbiter of good and evil, not legal and illegal.
In your adopted country, the people and not the courts are the final arbiter. In trials, the jury judges not only the facts but the law itself.
congressmen are, more often than not, pragmatic players. they know in which direction the political wind is blowing.
And they know on which side their toast is buttered, and the hand that butters it.
wrong, jeg. technically, the people are the final arbiter only on election time. after that, the legislature makes the law, the executive implements it, and the courts construe it, all according to the constitution.
juries are triers of fact only, not judges of law. judging the law is the sole prerogative of the courts. you are apparently being misled by wikipedia.
juries are triers of fact only, not judges of law.
Again, color me surprised, Bencard. Youre a lawyer in the good ole USA and you come up with this… shall we call it a reinterpretation of American Law? (By the way, I like Wikipedia. It’s self-correcting.)
I give you the words of Supreme Court Chief Justice, his charge to the jury:
“It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of fact; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision.â€Â
Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 (1794) My emphasis.
Link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0003_0001_ZO.html
@ bencard
I said “I think”, with regard to why it would seem that, at the very least, her allies (if not Gloria herself) in Congress have been so obviously blocking all of the impeachment attempts thrown against her.
I can’t speak for the President because I’m not in her immediate circle, but I work(ed?) for a political party whose bigger wing is allied to her and I’ve seen firsthand how determined my old bosses were in stopping the impeachment.
My “scenario” is in response to the usual, anti-Gloria thinking that the impeachment is being blocked because she’s guilty. It’s the norm for society naman eh; if you have nothing to hide, why stop an investigation? If you stop it somehow, then maybe there are skeletons in your closet.
Like you, I believe that guilt requires proof. Kahit pa ano sabihin ng anti-Gloria crowd, good, solid, “beyond reasonable doubt” proof is still required BY LAW to convict someone. Di ba yan ang cornerstone ng modern western legal doctrine, yung “Innocent until proven otherwise” principle, and that burden of proof is on the accuser? What I was referring to, Bencard, was “Napoleonic Law”, where the one accused of guilt has to prove he or she isn’t guilty, not the other way around.
What I was illustrating with my first post for this thread, bencard, was that the “blocking” of the impeachment at the level of the House may not be automatically construed as evidence of guilt. Impeachment is political, not legal. And politically speaking, sino ba ang in control and has the numbers in the Senate? Di ba ang anti-Gloria group?
So regardless of whether or not the allegations about Gloria are true or not, bencard, POLITICALLY SPEAKING, what would Gloria, or at least her allies, do? Would they agree to send the impeachment to a Senate that is so obviously wanting to send Gloria to the gallows?
I wasn’t talking about legalistic stuff, bencard, we more or less agree on that score anyway. But you have to agree to the reality that regardless of what’s legal or not, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WON’T CARE. They judge based on what they see or hear without regard to what’s legal or right or even true. I deal with information everyday in my job as a PR operative, bencard, and I see how true that can be.
Ergo my comment on Gloria re the Senate. The second that impeachment gets to the Senate, it would be curtains for Gloria, regardless of what’s legal, right or true. So, thinking as a longtime political media operative, I would say that, given such a situation, it would be in her best interests to keep her impeachment from reaching the Senate.
And, bencard, I have the gall and the RIGHT to call Gloria a Little Girl, if for no other reason than this country being a democracy the last time I looked.
If I spit on her eye in person, that would be wrong because regardless of what people think about her or how she got the position, she is still THE President of the Republic of the Philippines and if only for the post you have to show her the respect the law requires. You punch her because you’re angry at her, you not only get charged for assault and battery but get something heavier because of the “aggravating circumstances” clause attached to the Office of the President.
But if I, as a law-abiding, tax-paying, God-fearing citizen of this country, decide to call her names even in a public forum because I’m upset at her, I think I’m entitled to do so. I think it’s under what’s called the Bill of Rights, last time I looked, under “Free Expression.”
This is a democratic country in the 21st century, bencard, not a feudal kingdom in the Middle Ages.
As for your dig on lighting a candle to her intellectually, I’m not even going to dignify your ad hominem with a reply, except to point out that one of the most brilliant persons this country has produced is also its worst dictator.
By the way, Benccard, Ive googled and found this for you. You might find it interesting and useful reading.
Link: http://www.columbialawreview.org/pdf/Rubenstein.pdf
The abstract reads:
The right to a jury trial is deeply embedded in the American criminal law system. While nominally the jury is only a finder of fact, criminal juries occasionally defy their instructions and oaths by acquitting a defendant they believe to be guiltyâ€â€jury nullification. In denying the existence of valid nullification, the federal courts generally rely on Sparf v. United States, a nineteenth-century case wherein the Supreme Court narrowed the role of the jury. This Note argues that recent Supreme Court precedent has reevaluated the role of the jury and in the process has expanded the possibilities for nullification. This Note then suggests a conservative proposal for expanding the role of verdicts of conscience without disrupting the modern trial dynamic.
kung sa bagay Rob Ramos kahit anong tawag nang mango “rpotester sa Amerika kay George W., hindi naman sila hihahakot at e se ship sa Guantanamo..si mickey moore at iba pa dyan sobra, sobra na ang W. bashing kumikita pa…
Jeg,
if i may…
jury nullification is not the same as invalidating a law or declaring it unconstitutional.
the nullification goes only as far as a law’s non-application to a defendant/accused. the jury ‘judges’ the law only insofar as its application over a particular defendant/accused
the decision that you cited, Georgia v. Brailsford, did not result in a law becoming invalid or declared unconstitutional
so when bencard says juries are not judges of law, the context is ‘not judging a law to the extent of declaring it invalid or unconstitutional’
Im assuming youre a lawyer too, scalia, from your choice of handle, so please be assured that I respect your legal opinion. (And all your other opinions for that matter.)
jury nullification is not the same as invalidating a law or declaring it unconstitutional.
Yes. Jury nullification only applies to the case at bar. A succession of jury nullifications can render a law repealed de facto or lead the legislature to repeal it. I go that from Wikipedia, by the way. But if you dont like Wiki, I could always google.
so when bencard says juries are not judges of law, the context is ‘not judging a law to the extent of declaring it invalid or unconstitutional’
I dont know, scalia. The statement was pretty straightforward and absolute. See how contrasts it with ‘triers of fact’?
juries are triers of fact only, not judges of law.
The issue was the role of the jury and not whether it can declare a law invalid (they cannot — the law may still apply in other trials; they can only determine whether or not the law is unjust in that particular case), and bencard clearly is of the opinion that the jury cannot judge the law. In any case, let’s wait for his reply.
Rob, reading Bencard’s reaction at your ‘little girl’ label (which i took as just lambing coming from you given that you are a Gloria-supporter), i can only imagine the kind of dressing-down Joey Salceda received from a Bencard-equivalent when he called Gloria a ‘lucky bitch’.
Jeg,
sorry but the first one – A succession of jury nullifications can render a law repealed de facto – is not correct.
though you can say a succession of jury nullifications can render a law practically ineffective
but it depends on the law, and depends on the composition of the jury for each case. im not yet aware of a law that suffered successive jury nullifications. its possible that in the US one lawyer can ‘specialize’ in getting juries to nullify a specific law.
when ‘can judge the law’ is used it means that the one ‘judging the law’ can determine the fate of the law being judged
though you can say a succession of jury nullifications can render a law practically ineffective
Yeah, whatever. De facto repealed, practically ineffective, dead letter. Same, same. Semantics.
its possible that in the US one lawyer can ’specialize’ in getting juries to nullify a specific law.
Such a cynic. Methinks youve been watching too many Hollywood movies, but who knows? I certainly wouldnt.
when ‘can judge the law’ is used it means that the one ‘judging the law’ can determine the fate of the law being judged
Again this retreat into semantics. Jury nullification does not determine the fate of the law. It is limited to the case, whether the jury thinks the law is just. Remember what Chief Justice John Jay said in that thing I quoted?
But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both [facts and law].
Did the Chief Justice say or even imply that the fate of the law is determined by the jury? No. Did he say the jury can judge the law? Yes. Laws are made by the legislature. The people judge whether the law is just or not in each and every instance it comes into question, especially at a trial.
Nevertheless, you may have the honor of having the last say on the matter.
Jeg,
no its not the same. ‘practically ineffective’ means the law is still a law. ‘repealed’ means the law is no more
subscribe to free news at law.com, read a few every week for many years, then you’ll know what i mean. lots of news which can be described ‘only in America’
if i remember correctly, your use of ‘a jury judges the law’ has the tenor of ‘the jury deciding the fate of a law’. thats how bencard understood it also
the way CJ Jay used ‘judges the law’ is different from how you used it – he meant ‘what the applicable law is’. the issue in that case is whether a particular indebtedness remains because of the applicability of many laws – a treaty, state legislation – complicated by a recently-concluded revolution
thank you
thanks, anthony scalia, for ably addressing jeg’s concerns about my previous postings above regarding the proper function of a jury.
jeg, i think i already pointed out before in previous threads that a jury has no power to make judgment on the law. juries act only according to the instructions of the court. should a jury overstep the boundaries and issues an improper verdict , an adverse party may request the same to be set aside, and move for a directed verdict and/or a judgement notwithstanding the verdict. the most common ground for such motion(s) is that the verdict is against the law. i know this subject is too complicated for a layman to understand (especially for a filipino in the philippines where there is no trial by jury). i don’t mean to sound condescending but i think you are perceptive and smart enough to comprehend what i’m talking about.
btw, the opinion you cited (braisfold) rendered in 1794, less than 20 years after USA was constituted as an independent nation. so much water has flowed under the bridge since then. tell you what, i have no time to do it myself but if you are interested, you can shepardize the case to determine whether it’s still good. i really don’t think it is but you can do it (consult shepard’s citations) for your own edification.
btw (no 2), rubenstein’s article re “jury nullification” is an aspirational point of view, not a persuasive statement of what the prevailing doctrine is. he, however, acknowledges the lack of acceptance of such nullification theory. i don’t think it helps your argument, but thanks for the heads up just the same.
bencard,
welcome
rob’ ramos, i guess all i’m trying to point out is that the president has all the right to defend, and try to insulate, herself from any attack against her integrity, her office, and her person. by the same token, people who support her, and want her to continue as president, have the right to do whatever they can legally do to protect her from her enemies.
i’m not denying you the “right” to address her in a condescending manner. my concern is that if a filipino like you has no respect for your president, how can you expect outsiders to have any? what kind of example do you give to our children, especially the very young, who are becoming so politicized and taught how to hate their president. maybe calling the president “little girl” gives you an illusion of some kind of superiority and makes you feel good about yourself. i can only say that contempt begets contempt, and when you live in a foreign country like me, you want your country and its leaders, as well as your own people to be treated with respect and not contempt.
jeg, i think i already pointed out before in previous threads that a jury has no power to make judgment on the law. juries act only according to the instructions of the court.
Thanks for the reply, Bencard. But the facts dont bear out what you wrote.
The jury has the power to make judgements on law. That’s the function of the jury. That’s the jury’s raisson d’etre. Final arbiter on the facts or on whether or not the law is just in a particular case. They have the right to go against the instructions of the court. You point out that Chief Justice Jay’s charge was in 1794, so I suppose you prefer something more recent.
The jury has an “unreviewable and irreversible power… to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge… The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions
of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.†(U.S. v. Dougherty, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1972, 473 F.2d at 1130 and 1132.)
“If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence… If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.†(United States v. Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006.)
There’s more of that from a few seconds of googling and in deference to your preferences, none of them were from Wikipedia. You can check them out at your law library. I didnt since I dont have a law library.
The fact that jury nullification occurs at all belies what you wrote. If what you wrote is true, then jury nullification doesnt exist.
Nevertheless, thanks for your spirited argument in favor of total State control of laws which is what we have here in the Philippines.
For once I agree with Bencard: there is no way in hell this Congress will allow an impeachment complaint to reach the Senate. Not with P500,000 paper bags flowing out of Malacanang. Anything short of flagrante delicto will easily be given the benefit of the doubt (which should not be the case).
This, of course, is very obvious, but several naive posters on this blog still insist that we work at persuading congressmen to endorse an impeachment complaint. As Manolo pointed out before, what kind of leverage have you got over your congressman?
But if hundreds of thousands pool together their outrage, that’s hard to ignore. And if there are people spouting “focus on impeachment”, I suspect some of them may actually be in the camp of this administration, trying to divert and diffuse the outrage.
Oh, and Bencard: the Erap complaint reached the Senate not because congressmen felt the heat from their constituents, but because of Manny Villar’s sleight-of-hand.
Come on, Bencard! This statement is bulls*t on so many levels!
A leader may always have positional power or authority, but respect is always EARNED! It cannot be commanded. And a leader may, by his or her actions, lose the respect of the people. There is no question that GMA has lost the respect of many people. They may tolerate her out of fear of alternatives or due to their respect for constitutional processes, but they do not respect her. They know what her administration is about and you cannot ask them to simply spout her praises.
GMA and your George W. Bush may both be in power, but many people there and here have lost all respect for them. But instead of being concerned about what the world will say about America when Americans badmouth Bush, these Americans are more concerned about what the world thinks of America with someone like Bush at the helm.
I’m also concerned about what the kids are learning: that massive government corruption is OK; that congressmen, bishops, and judges can be bought; that electoral fraud pays; that our sovereignty is for sale to China. I want our kids to know all of this is WRONG, even if it is prevalent.
Jeg,
sorry to bring this up again.
maybe defining the problem will facilitate the discussion:
what do you mean by a ‘jury judges the law’?
a. do you mean the jury can decide the fate of a law – declare it invalid/unconstitutional – in the same degree it can decide the fate of an accused – guilty or not guilty?
or
b. do you mean the jury judges the law by limiting its applicability to particular accused/defendants
If its letter (b), end of discussion. There is no problem with letter (b), because in the process of handing down a judgment, a jury in effect judges the law; they can decide if it applies to a case or not. for sure bencard will agree to this
However, letter (a) is the way you come across to me and bencard
i hope you would stop citing decisions, especially non-US SC decisions, because there’s a great probability that the decisions you cited are later abandoned by the same court (identical factual milieu but different decision) or reversed by a higher court. in other words, the rulings in the decisions you cited may not necessarily be precedents
i hope im wrong in my observation, but it seems you are just trying to outsmart bencard in his own game
Hi, scalia. I commend you as well for your spirited defense of Bencard, who quite frankly doesnt need it.
In answer to your question, it’s (b). It’s always been (b). Youre the one who brought up (a), and continue to bring it up even though I have been clear that it’s (b).
And yes, youre wrong in your observation, since (a) Bencard isnt playing a game so he doesnt have a game, and (b) Are you kidding? I can’t outsmart Bencard.
Oh before I forget, you did say something about supreme court decisions being your preference. Correct me if Im wrong, but once a jury declares a defendant not guilty, the case won’t reach the supreme court anymore. So you won’t find cases where the supreme court reverses an acquittal.
“The jury has an unreviewable and irreversible power… to acquit…”
Maybe Bencard can enlighten us on whether the SC can reverse an acquittal.
Jeg,
now its clear, because i tell you, the first time you brought it up, you come across as (a). that explains my reactions
you said
because SC decisions are precedents. lower court decisions, if not appealed, do not really set precedents, as their ‘precedential’ value is lesser than an SC decision
correct. the basis there is higher than an SC decision – the Constitution
you said
what i meant by ‘outsmarting at his own game’ is that you are trying to ‘out-US-lawyer’ the US lawyer. you, from a civil law jurisdiction with no juries, trying to lecture a veteran of a common law jurisdiction known for its jury system, on jury nullification and jury judging of law!
but since you explained it, then okay, thank goodness im wrong.
Ah. Let me assure you that the profession of law has nothing to fear from me. Far be it from me to lecture you lawyers on law. Like I said I was surprised by Bencard’s stand on the role of the jury when the facts available to someone who can google clearly belie that position. But chalk that up to a philosophical difference. Bencard is a ‘sovereignty resides in the government’ sort of guy and he sees a powerful jury as anathema to orderliness. I guess Im a ‘sovereignty resides in the people’ sort of guy.
wrong jeg, sovereignty resides in the people who make the constitution and the statutes through their chosen representatives and agents. the government is empowered by the constitution, and the same constitution limits the powers of the government. the constitution is the manifestation of the people’s sovereignty.
btw, a jury of twelve ordinary men and women, generally not trained in law, cannot be the depository of sovereignty of an entire nation.
mike, your “many people” (have you made a count of them?) are fond of imitating their american counterpart leftist loonies in bad-mouthing not only their president, their institutions, and their country. for them, libertarian concepts of unbridled “rights” must take precedence over traditional notions of civility, loyalty and respect for authority, maybe even patriotism. i have a feeling that the extreme anti-americanism that pervades the world, e.g., iran, syria, venezuela and the deadly terror groups, was largely spawned by homegrown enemies of the u.s. by the same token, i think the philippines is less respected in the family of nations mostly because of the bad p.r. (black eyes) that its ‘gaya-gaya’ detractors have been dishing out, eg., joma, casino, abs-cbn, inquirer, gabriela, b&w movement, trillianes, et al.
nobody is being “command(ed)” to respect anyone. while “respect” is earned, as you say, acts of contempt out of spite or hatred is never justified. civil disobedience, as practiced by gandhi and martin luther king, is peaceful and rational, not vicious, violent or insane. if , by their acts, they disturbed the public order, they were willing to go to jail.
all the alleged scandals you claim that the kids are learning, do they also learn the difference between facts and accusations or between proof and conjectures? do they learn basic rules of fairness and due process. have they learned to demand to hear both sides of the story? have they been told that they cannot just condemn their government just because their parents didn’t like it? i doubt it because i don’t think these parents know, or care about, these things at all.
Is GMA willing to show her side of the story at all?
Majority of the Filipinos are raring to listen to her side but Arroyo prefers to keep mum either by claim of executive privilege or through technical roadblocks put up by Lozano and Pulido.
Honesty was what her parent, President Dadong especially, always cared about. Poor dad, it didn’t seem to have rubbed off on the daughter.
wrong jeg, sovereignty resides in the people who make the constitution and the statutes through their chosen representatives and agents. the government is empowered by the constitution, and the same constitution limits the powers of the government. the constitution is the manifestation of the people’s sovereignty.
Exactly like I said your position is except that, in a lawyerly way, it took you more words to state it: Sovereignty resides in the government. The people on the other hand is not subservient to the constitution because of the fact that they can change it if they want to, through constitutional convention, con-ass, people’s initiative, or revolution. I dont know how they do it in your country though, but Im sure revolution is one of them.
btw, a jury of twelve ordinary men and women, generally not trained in law, cannot be the depository of sovereignty of an entire nation.
Sure. I wonder why this statement of yours is even necessary. The depository of the sovereignty of an entire nation is in the people, the vast majority of whom are not trained in law. But in your legal system, they are entrusted with determining the facts of a case and the justness of a law as it applies to a case. You might not agree with it, but you swore to abide by it when you took your oath.
jeg, just try having all the people think, act, live, decide, govern, as one person. if it is at all possible, i doubt if it will in the philippines (lol).
You seriously don’t think the policies of the US had anything to do with it? Such as, for example, vetoing any attempt to censure Israel at the UN? It’s all because of pinkos like Jane Fonda? Geez, Bencard, you’re smarter than that.
We are only talking about expressing our opinion of our leader. Everyone is entitled to express his opinion, whether it is praise, spite, or hatred. Salceda called her a “lucky bitch,” and he’s a member of her cabinet! So if it’s good enough for him, it should be good enough for the rest of us.
Have they also learned to discern when they are being fed official bullsh*t? when the government is trying its best to hide something behind “executive privilege”? when politicians are trying to pull a fast one on them?
yeah mike, the far left loonies in the u.s. oppose anything its government does to protect its national interest, and they would give aid and comfort to its enemies by rhetorics of hate (obama’s pastor j. wright) or actually fighting for the enemy (walker), or engaging in terrorist acts inside u.s. (oklahoma bombing, chicago seven). to these people, the enemy of the u.s. is their friend.
it appears that, in one moment of idiocy, salceda tried to be “cool” and a smart-mouth by using a trite american expression (with sexual connotation) and applied it to his female president. i think this is an example of the ‘gaya-gaya’ trait of the pinoy. in any event, you cannot justify a tasteless behavior with another, be it coming from salceda or or the pope himself.
no, the children, obviously, never learned to “discern” the true meaning of executive privilege. how can they when adults like you seem to be clueless too. official bullshit? it looks more like they “discern” what heir parents and elders feed them, a one-track, anti-government version of disputed facts.
Bencard, Timothy McVeigh (one of the Oklahoma bombers) was was not from the Left. According to Wikipedia, his voter registration indicated his affiliation with the Republican Party.
cvj, he was a us-hater nonetheless – a far right loony. we have that too, you know, the confessed magadalo traitors and copycats, among others.
Bencard, i do agree that Gambala and the others who have plead guilty are traitors to the Magdalo cause.
cvj, and how does the magdalo group prosecutes traitors to its cause? and how does it mete out punishment – by killing them?
Americans like bencard are often too self-righteous. The followings are facts:
1. U.S. is the only country in the world which the U.N. found to be a “terrorist state.â€Â
2. U.S. is the only country in the world that used nuclear weapons against innocent civilians
3. U.S. is the only country of fairly recent history to invade another sovereign country (Iraq) on “sexed up†intelligence, leading to the slaughter of innocent civilians, all in violation of the U.N. Charter and International Law.
Bencard, i’m not Magdalo so i don’t know the answer.
cvj, you could have fooled me again. you see, you talk like you have an insider’s knowledge of the magdalo’s “cause”. btw, do you know something most people don’t – that the traitors confessed to their traitorous acts against the magdalo club, instead of against the government?
bencard, no need for “insider’s knowledge”, they have a website.
http://www.magdaloparasapagbabago.blogspot.com
watchful eye, the u.n. is kinda like the philippines – dominated by envious, bitter, scapegoating have-nots who blame all their miseries on the power class. of course, voting by u.n. ordinary members to declare u.s. a “terrorist state” is like the “masa” voting erap for the presidency.
u.s. used the a-bomb in a war against a powerful and fanatical enemy who would not have given up till there’s no one left standing in their ranks. they started the atrocities, u.s. just ended it. it’s sad there were collateral damage but, hey, who are you to hold the u.s. to a higher standard than the rest of the world? i’m sure, if the shoe was on the other foot, the enemy would have no compunction using it against the americans. you know, or heard, of what they did in bataan and the rest of the country.
the u.s. is the best judge of what is for its national interests, and not some radical nobodies in a god-forsaken part of the world. just because the u.s. is the “most powerful” nation in the world does not preclude it from committing a mistake. in any event, i, for one, support the idea of bringing the fight right on an enemy’s doorstep rather than wait for them in my own living room.
bencard, are you saying Iraq attacked the United States first? When?
where did i say that, cvj. i think you are seeing things you want to see that aren’t there.
Bencard, in which case Watchful Eye’s points #1 and #3 (at 12:37am) still stand and your characterization of the U.N. is ad hominem that fails to address these points.
who are to judge, huh, cvj. judges are usually impartial and wise. are you?
Just a factual observation, no politics here.
A comparison between erap and gloria.
Lady first-gloria:
-she improved the economy
-stat said most corrupt president of RP
-stat said RP most corrupt gov’t. in the world under
her
-stat said RP a major human rights violator under her
-negative approval rating by her people
-negative popularity rating
erap:
-ousted from presidency by the minority of his people
-convicted of plunder by SandiganBayan
-positive approval rating by his people
-positive popularity rating
Will you guys add some more facts?
Bert, regarding…
I have good reason to believe that the GDP growth is overstated:
http://www.cvjugo.blogspot.com/2008/03/gdp-growth-and-missing-energy.html
I hope we find out if and when she leaves office.