[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Neocon Nuttery See other Neocon Nuttery Articles Title: John Bolton escapes citizen's arrest at Hay Festival Source: Telegraph (UK) URL Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor ... 7s-arrest-at-Hay-Festival.html Published: May 28, 2008 Author: Stephen Adams Post Date: 2008-05-29 02:21:25 by X-15 Keywords: None Views: 309 Comments: 16 Security guards blocked the path of columnist and activist George Monbiot, who tried to make the arrest as Mr Bolton left the stage. The former ambassador - a key advisor to President George W Bush who argued strongly in favour of invading Iraq - had been giving a talk on international relations to more than 600 people at the literary festival. Mr Monbiot was blocked by two heavily-built security guards at the end of the one-and-a-half hour appearance, before he could serve a "charge sheet" on him. After being released by the guards the columnist - a fierce critic of the 2003 American-led invasion - made a dash through the rain-soaked tented village in a failed attempt to catch up with Mr Bolton. A crowd of about 20 protestors, one dressed in a latex George Bush mask, chanted "war criminal" as Mr Bolton was ushered away. Mr Monbiot said moments later he was "disappointed" that he had been blocked from making the citizen's arrest. "This was a serious attempt to bring one of the perpetrators of the Iraq war to justice, for what is described under the Nuremberg Principles as an international crime," he said. During Mr Bolton's talk, to a packed-out audience, Mr Monbiot had asked Mr Bolton what difference there was between him and a Nazi war criminal. Mr Bolton said the war was legal, partly because Iraq had failed to comply with a key and binding UN resolution after the end of the Gulf War in 1991. On the war's legality, he added: "This is not my personal opinion, this is the opinion of the entire legal apparatus of the US government." A citizen's arrest can be carried out under certain circumstances by a member of the public, if they believe a person had carried out a crime, under the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Earlier, festival director Peter Florence had said they had sought legal advice and been told carrying out such an arrest would be "completely unlawful" given the circumstances. He said: ""The Hay Festival encourages visitors to voice their opinions, but also requires that, in their expression, they respect both the law and the speaker." A spokesman for The Guardian, for which Mr Monbiot writes a regular column, said he was acting in a "personal capacity". Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: X-15 (#0) During Mr Bolton's talk, to a packed-out audience, Mr Monbiot had asked Mr Bolton what difference there was between him and a Nazi war criminal. Mr Bolton said the war was legal, partly because Iraq had failed to comply with a key and binding UN resolution after the end of the Gulf War in 1991. On the war's legality, he added: "This is not my personal opinion, this is the opinion of the entire legal apparatus of the US government." Heehaw - isn't our gubment so smart - it does pre-emptive attacks on nations who don't threaten us and when our gubment is taken to task for this ALLEGED thuggish behavior...quelle surprise!...our "ENTIRE LEGAL APPARATUS" says what we have done is absolutely legal. It can't get any better than this when you're a freedom loving/liberating nation with the biggest military in the whole cosmos. Yippee! Tax dollars well spent... scrapper2  posted on  2008-05-29   2:33:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: X-15 (#0) A citizen's arrest can be carried out under certain circumstances by a member of the public, if they believe a person had carried out a crime, under the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The British legal system would not have sustained such an arrest because the govt would want any such arrests to be first approved by them. (They may not want all criminals discovered in The UK arrested) Pinochet's arrest was sanctioned before any action was taken and if some rogue had simply jumped him first it probably would not have had the support of the govt. Bolton presumably was there by invitation and that would have been an embarrassing diplomatic incident, to which the only face saving disposition would have been to arrest the zealous citizen. Did he attempt to get the govt to deny entry or arrest Bolton? Either way he'd have been screwed. HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-05-29   3:14:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: X-15 (#0) (Edited) A citizen's arrest can be carried out under certain circumstances by a member of the public, if they believe a person had carried out a crime, under the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. A citizen is allowed to make an arrest in certain instances, as determined by state laws, which vary by state. A State Cop gave my kid and his friend a ticket for riding their bikes without a helmet. My kid was 14 at the time. The cop had my kid sign the ticket. When my son showed me the ticket I got so mad that I tore it up and threw it in the trash. I told my son that he wasn't old enough to (legally) sign anything and that the cop was guilty of criminal offenses. After regaining my composure (and taping the ticket back together) I drafted a short note to the judge of the court named in the citation, as if it were coming directly from my son, that simply stated "Dear Judge, my dad said I couldn't come to your court, sorry Justin". A few weeks later an envelope addressed to my son arrived from the court indicating that (a) a warrant would issue for his arrest (b) A fine of $195.00 would have to be paid, or (c) no driver license would be issued to him in the future until the fine was paid. At this point I wrote a "CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE" to the Judge of the Juvenile Traffic Court (In California). The notice contained numerous veiled and not so veiled threats, one of which was placing him (the judge) under citizens arrest. I further stated that I would place this Juvenile Court Judge under arrest and then have him standing in front of a real Judge in a real courtroom for complicity in an extortion scheme. I informed this fake Juvenile Court jerk that the cop had coerced a minor to contract, under threat and duress while armed, that the helmet law in California related to bicycles was a DMV Code and my son wasn't subject to it. Maybe I should post the entire notice, but the end result was this: I received a letter from the Court Administrator for San Diego County that stated: No warrant will issue, no fine needs be paid and no hold will be placed upon your son's driver license. We hope this will address your concerns as stated in your April 14th Letter to Judge Spearman. Side note: The other kid had to pick up trash along the highway for 30 days. The point being that people simply "roll over" when the system says "roll over and play dead". As every good fascist knows, the perpetuation of the fascist fraud depends, in the long run, on the training of fledglings in the faith. The dictators catch their conscripts young and discipline them to think in goose-step. Promises of reward for the faithful and ominous warnings about the dangers of nonconformity play their part in making apprentices firmly believe a mass of lies, half-lies, and nonsense. Doubt, even the tiniest wondering doubt, is the cardinal sin. There are few heretics. noone222  posted on  2008-05-29   4:10:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: scrapper2, noone222, Hounddawg (#1) Mr Bolton said the war was legal, partly because Iraq had failed to comply with a key and binding UN resolution after the end of the Gulf War in 1991. Based on this logic it would also be legal for the US to wage war against Israel.. Lady X  posted on  2008-05-29   10:29:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: noone222 (#3) A citizen is allowed to make an arrest in certain instances, as determined by state laws, which vary by state. I am of the understanding that citizens arrests are outlined in article 9, section 5 of the US Constitution.. Lady X  posted on  2008-05-29   10:31:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: Lady X (#4) Based on this logic it would also be legal for the US to wage war against Israel.. That's Riiiight! There are some 60 some odd resolutions with which Israel is out of compliance. Imagine the shrieks of horror if the US presumed that non compliance automatically authorizes military intervention including nukes if we suspect that the evidence isn't in full view of our satellites! That fact is never mentioned in the US mainstream media. But, as you know Americans are the least informed white folks on the planet. And, we've also had political curiosity, responsibility and a desire for justice and fair play literally programmed out of us. I'm simply shocked and saddened when people give me the wrong answer no matter how carefully I box them in with the question: "So, you're telling me that even if Israel is caught selling our most guarded secrets to the enemy, we should not penalize them?" "That's right!", the parrot replies...."They're GAWD's Chosen peepul and Pastor (Hagee, Falwell) told me that they...." Yep, we should give Israel everything they want. (especially since there will never be a need to cut social security to pay for it) HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-05-29   10:43:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: X-15 (#0) During Mr Bolton's talk, to a packed-out audience, Mr Monbiot had asked Mr Bolton what difference there was between him and a Nazi war criminal. Mr Bolton said the war was legal, partly because Iraq had failed to comply with a key and binding UN resolution after the end of the Gulf War in 1991. On the war's legality, he added: "This is not my personal opinion, this is the opinion of the entire legal apparatus of the US government." I don't think that's a difference between Bolton and a Nazi war criminal. After all, I'm sure the entire legal apparatus of Hitler's government also viewed Hitler's war as legal. To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II. aristeides  posted on  2008-05-29   11:07:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: aristeides (#7) I don't think that's a difference between Bolton and a Nazi war criminal. After all, I'm sure the entire legal apparatus of Hitler's government also viewed Hitler's war as legal. I started to write that several hours ago but hesitated because I can't recall Hitler or his peeps ever citing a single legal authority in support of a single thing! According to my American sources (which may have had a slight taint of bias) Hitler was the supreme legal authority who never felt the need to seek legal opinions! Since there were no separate but equal branches of govt serving as balance to each other, what would have been the point other than courtesy and deference to some source who would also see it for what it was and wisely sustain the Führer's opinion? And, it's my understanding that "non Christians" had come to dominate all of the degreed professions (through nepotism and their cultural penchant for and attraction to education in well compensated fields of endeavor and enterprise) and, considering the consequences for having been so labeled it could be argued that no "good German" would dare to offer a dissenting opinion (about the invasion of Poland or, the forced labor camps for instance) lest his racial purity and/or party loyalty be called into question.... But, even without Hitler for support it can be stated (with no contrary empirical evidence likely to surface) that Bush chose his entire cabinet, not the least of which were his flak AGs because they'd reliably heave up legal opinions that would survive the challenges and appeals until the pardons are granted and the questions are moot. HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-05-29   12:52:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: noone222 (#3) No warrant will issue, no fine needs be paid and no hold will be placed upon your son's driver license. We hope this will address your concerns as stated in your April 14th Letter to Judge Spearman. Good job. Lod  posted on  2008-05-29   13:01:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: X-15 (#0) this is the opinion of the entire legal apparatus of the US government ZOG is one big dumbshit. nobody  posted on  2008-05-29   13:07:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: HOUNDDAWG (#8) (Edited) Actually, for his declarations of war -- starting with Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, but going all the way to the declaration of war on the U.S. a couple of days after Pearl Harbor -- Hitler made sure to get authorization from the Reichstag. And German judges did occasionally do things of which Hitler disapproved. It wasn't too good for their careers, but some of them had the courage to do it. However, it was generally on relatively minor things. Never on something as momentous as the legality of Hitler's war. Like the criminal that he was, Hitler hated the law, and lawyers. So he seldom sought their advice. As a matter of fact, the last meeting of the Reichstag -- I forget whether it was in 1942 or '43 -- was to give Hitler supreme power to overrule judges. (His power to do that had been limited up to that point.) To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II. aristeides  posted on  2008-05-29   14:19:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: X-15 (#0) Another media clown with a bucket of pink for your walls. nobody  posted on  2008-05-29   14:21:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: X-15 (#0) John Bolton makes Donald Rumsfeld look like Ron Paul. On top of being your typical neocon warmonger, he's also a Chritian Fundie nut. It wouldn't surprise me if McCain wins the Presidency, Bolton will have a high cabinet post, possibly Secretary of State or Defense. Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2008-05-29   15:03:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: Lady X (#4) article: Mr Bolton said the war was legal, partly because Iraq had failed to comply with a key and binding UN resolution after the end of the Gulf War in 1991. Lady X: Based on this logic it would also be legal for the US to wage war against Israel.. Indeed! Israel, the consummate racist thuggish welfare queen, has accumulated many more UN General Assemly resolutions against it than Iraq ever had. scrapper2  posted on  2008-05-29   23:56:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#13) John Bolton makes Donald Rumsfeld look like Ron Paul. On top of being your typical neocon warmonger, he's also a Chritian Fundie nut. It wouldn't surprise me if McCain wins the Presidency, Bolton will have a high cabinet post, possibly Secretary of State or Defense. Indeed, what a good Christian John Bolton is! 1. www.larryflynt.com/bolton/ John R. Bolton Court Divorce Records Show His First Wife Fled Home When He Was Traveling Abroad Publisher Larry Flynt's Questions Posed to State Department Regarding Corroborated Allegations that First Wife was Forced into Group Sex go Unanswered May 11-LOS ANGELES-Court records concerning the divorce of John R. Bolton, the Bush administration's nominee to become the next ambassador to the United Nations, show his first wife fled the couple's marital home when he was traveling abroad in mid-August 1982. The records further show that she took most of the couple's furniture. Corroborated allegations that Mr. Bolton's first wife, Christina Bolton, was forced to engage in group sex have not been refuted by the State Department despite inquires posed by Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt concerning the allegations. Mr. Flynt has obtained information from numerous sources that Mr. Bolton participated in paid visits to Plato's Retreat, the popular swingers club that operated in New York City in the late 1970s and early 1980s. "The first Mrs. Bolton's conduct raises the presumption that she fled out of fear for her safety or, at a minimum, it demonstrates that Mr. Bolton's established inability to communicate or work respectfully with others extended to his intimate family relations," said Mr. Flynt. "The court records alone provide sufficient basis for further investigation of nominee Bolton by the Senate." (Click here for court records). Mr. Flynt continued, "The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations must be free of any potential source of disrepute or blackmail." Mr. Flynt has contacted the State Department asking that they confirm or deny the allegations of Mr. Bolton's prior conduct concerning his wife and the alleged paid visits to Plato's Retreat. He has also called upon the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to conduct an inquiry into the very serious evidence concerning his first wife's fear of him. Neither the State Department nor the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has yet responded to Mr. Flynt's inquiries. The Hustler magazine publisher demanded an immediate response from Mr. Bolton. Mr. Flynt has personal knowledge about sources corroborating the allegations of nominee Bolton's misconduct, and he has called upon these persons to publicly come forward with their information. "First wife Christina Bolton has understandably remained silent on what led her to flee her husband of 10 years and to take the family belonging with hers. A full inquiry would necessarily involve meetings with Mrs. Bolton to uncover the circumstances of her flight and the Committee should subpoena her in private session," Mr. Flynt said. Mr. Flynt has no further comment at this time, except to ask that the press examine the attached court document pertaining to Mrs. Bolton flight from her home. Mr. Flynt is awaiting further leads regarding Mr. Bolton's private behavior, at which point he will have more information to convey. 2. Read all about this chickenhawk POS in wiki and right web. Though John is a Luthern he loves Israel like a born again nutter. rightweb.irc- online.org/profile/972.html Bolton is an outspoken hawk on U.S. policy in the Middle East, and has since the mid-1990s been closely associated with a number of neoconservative organizations and pressure groups that are close to the right-wing Likud Party in Israel, including AEI, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG). Along with a number of other Bush administration figures, Bolton served on JINSA's board of advisers before joining the administration. JINSA promotes the classic neoconservative fare, such as a "peace through strength" policy to support Israel, and works to build "strategic ties" between the U.S. military and U.S. military contractors with Israel. Other administration figures associated with this militarist organization that aims to strengthen the military-industrial complexes in both Israel and the United States are Cheney, Douglas Feith, and Paul Wolfowitz. Two months prior to the Iraq invasion, Bolton traveled to Jerusalem to meet with former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to discuss strategies for "preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction." No mention was made of the widely accepted fact that Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East. Instead, the undersecretary focused on the Bush administration's disarmament targets following the planned invasion of Iraq. In February 2003, Bolton said that once regime change plans in Iraq were completed, "It will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran, and North Korea afterwards" (Foreign Policy In Focus, February 20, 2003). Bolton received strong support from major pro-Israel organizations during the 2005 confirmation hearings, including from the Anti-Defamation League, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, B'nai B'rith International, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and JINSA. As the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Bolton continued to champion controversial Israeli military activities. In early July 2006, he spearheaded opposition to a proposed UN Security Council resolution that would have called for Israel to end its attacks and its "disproportionate use of force" in the Gaza Strip. The blocked resolution would have also called for the release of a kidnapped Israeli soldier. The resolution received ten votes, with four abstentions, and with Bolton casting the lone opposition vote. In October 2004, Bolton wielded the U.S. veto to block a similar draft calling for Israel to end all military operations in northern Gaza. On July 15, 2006, Bolton also blocked Security Council consideration of a ceasefire resolution in the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. In a FoxNews interview, Bolton commented: "What our job is in New York is to make sure that that right of self-defense is not abridged arbitrarily. But also, to try and do what we can to help the Lebanese government, which was elected democratically, and to see if we can help remove the cancer" (O'Reilly Factor, July 20, 2006). Like the White House, Bolton characterizes Israel's campaigns in the Gaza Strip and in Lebanon as part of the global war on terrorism. Rejecting the rising calls for a ceasefire and rejecting criticism of Israel's bombing of Lebanon, Bolton said that there is "no moral equivalence" between Lebanese civilian casualties of Israeli bombing and Israelis killed by "malicious terrorist acts" (AFP, July 17, 2006). scrapper2  posted on  2008-05-30   0:12:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: aristeides (#11) Very good and thank you. HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-05-30   5:15:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]