Is it possible the YUKOS indictment has merit?

[BaliBabyDoc]

Russia fires back at US, German critics

I understand the political undercurrents associated with Khodorkovsky's arrest but isn't it almost universally accepted that most of the members of the "Oligarchs" essentially cheated, stole, intimidated, or killed to gain advantages during the early years of the Russian experiment in capitalism? I have little doubt the YUKOS episode wouldn't have happened if Khodorkovsky wasn't financing opposition to Putin . . . then again if Cheney's Energy Task force had it's way Enron might be the country's most valuable corporation and Kenny Boy would be financing Bush '04.

For the sake of argument let's pretend Americans (the people, courts, Congress, and the Executive) actually believe AND practice most of what's in the Constitution. Would Hawaii be a US state? How much of CA, TX, and the desert SW would still be occupied by Mexicans . . . OK . . . legal Mexicans? Wasn't the S&L scandal one big re-distribution of federal assets (ie the people's money)? The current negotiations for a tobacco settlement will essentially pay quota holders by applying extra costs on consumers . . . even though the quota system was racist and corrupt at its onset. And let's not forget that Ken Lay still walks the streets of Houston.

Money, power, and politics are common bedfellows but pursuit of any or all of them often (but not necessarily) leads people to violate the laws of man and/or God.

 

[ElFenix]

what clause in the constitution prevents the expansion of the united states?

 

[ElFenix]

^

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The Constitution is more than Articles and Amendments . . . it is the embodiment of how America should relate to the world and how Americans should relate to one another. If you name a state, I can probably tell you about how Native Americans were persecuted and/or murdered . . . often with the assistance if not official approval from state and/or federal authorities.

Granted, the 3/5ths clause was certainly a license to steal but in general the Constitution is written in language that protects the rights of individuals. I see no prohibition against US expansion in the Constitution but I doubt anyone would cite that document as justification for the Middle Passage, stealing Hawaii, stealing the SW, or the Trail of Tears. America is great today b/c we were evil in the past . . . or at least perpetrated evil deeds.

The point of the thread is that America is criticizing Russia b/c the notion of unencumbered markets is apparently more important than criminal misdeeds. Despite the ulterior motives, if Khordokovsky is a criminal he should go to jail and not collect $5B from Exxon/Mobil or Chevron/Texaco. I don't know if he's guilty but he looks like it from a distance . . . just like Kenny Boy and Kozlowski. The rule of law says "do the crime . . . it's you arse . . . no matter how much cheddar you got" . . . well except for OJ . . . and Teddy on the bridge . . . and Jeb's daughter . . . and Ws daughters . . . oh yeah and Neil's teenage asian fetish.

 

[ElFenix]

well, i'll agree with the trail of tears part. jackson disobeyed the supreme court when he ordered that. but everything else is completely constitutional.

 

[zephyrprime]

I agree with Balidoc about the Yukos thing being poorly analyzed by the american press. Yukos is by no means an innocent person. It is troubling that the russian government seems to be selective in in prosecution of these guys. But I'm not sure if the russian government has been strong enough to take on all these corrupt business people at once or at all until now. Remember that parliament member that was murdered a few years back?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I think you don't understand the true soul of the Constitution . . . and by extension the Declaration of Independence. IMHO, these documents embody an ethos that goes beyond what is explicitly written. Arguably, the nations (and peoples) throughout the world that still admire our country (though not necessarily current leadership) also believe in the ethos of America . . . physically represented by the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution.

Hence I repeat . . . you can claim (probably somewhat reasonably) that various affronts to human decency and the rights of all human beings committed by the US government, US citizens, or state/local government were Constitutional. My point is that those actions cannot be defended on the basis of the best characteristics of my country. By the letter of the law the Dredd Scott decision was Constitutional . . . I doubt many people beyond the Texas GOP consider it a good decision.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I doubt many people beyond the Texas GOP consider it a good decision.

thanks for admitting how much of an arse you are. i'll leave this thread now, since you can't remain above petty attacks.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I apologize if you feel offended . . . are you from TX or a member of the GOP? It certainly wasn't intended to be personal. Unfortunately, the power of reading comprehension pretty much favors my interpretation of the TX GOP.

2000 TX GOP platform

We respect the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our founders? intent to restrict the power of the federal government over the States and the people.

I could put a positive spin on this one and call it an endorsement of limited government. Curiously, Strom rode that platform but I don't think he was looking out for all people . . . just some people.

We believe that good government is based on the individual and that each person?s ability, dignity, freedom and responsibility must be honored and recognized. We believe that while equal opportunity is a right and privilege, equal outcome is not. We insist that no one?s rights are negotiable and that individual freedom demands personal responsibility.

Sounds good . . . but of course past offenses (displaced peoples, stolen property, stolen labor) and the wealth/opportunity that has accumulated to those with access will not be rectified. Justice delayed is justice denied . . . in the case of the TX GOP, it's apparently . . . justice forgotten.

I have not read the 2002 version but I doubt it's changed much . . . but I wonder if they still talk about excessive government spending.

I cite Dred Scott b/c in my opinion the decision reflects what was truly meant by the Founding Fathers . . . although Jefferson (and I believe Franklin) were wafflers. The decision is clearly Constitutional but does NOT reflect the ethos of the document that some Americans have internalized. I say some b/c I don't think you can have much of an opinion of the US Constitution without reading it. Considering most Americans have never read the document, they probably have no more than a Cliff Notes idea of what it says. Accordingly, their internal perception of the document is likely quite superficial.

If the TX GOP platform was the law of the land from 1850 on . . . African-Americans would not have the right of citizenship. I wouldn't go as far as to say slavery would still be legal but I imagine even fewer generations of black Americans would be participating in the American dream.

Edit: Just looked at your profile . . . I see you are from TX. I thought Austin was supposed to be an oasis. Maybe you've never read the TX GOP platform but I think my interpretation is quite reasonable.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Khodorkovsky quits

Dmitri Medvedev, in an interview with Russia's Rossiya television Sunday, questioned the impounding of a large portion of the shares in Yukos Oil Company, which prosecutors claim belong to Khodorkovsky.

"How effective legally, for instance, was the arrest of shares in Yukos? The shares belong to offshore companies and they are supposed to ensure that damages are paid," Medvedev said.

"The legal effectiveness of such measures is not obvious. Our colleagues should think through the economic consequences of their decisions."

The U.S. State Department's Richard Boucher said last week that the Bush administration believes that the arrest and the freezing of Yukos shares raises "serious questions about the rule of law in Russia."

Ivanov, in a separate interview with Rossiya television Sunday, said the U.S. "is trying to place the actions of the judicial organs of Russian in doubt. This is interference in the judicial affairs of another state that is not acceptable and should not be in the normal terms of democratic society."

Ivanov said it was part of a pattern of "double standards" by the United States in which Washington tries to "teach other people."

The foreign minister noted that financial scandals have affected the United States recently, but that the State Department did not intervene or criticize the judicial process in those cases.

Rule of law . . . US markets . . . HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA . . .