February 18th, 2007

Chris Keeley

These days, instead of bodies bobbing down the Nile, there are European white-water rafters. Kampala

Dan Kyobe, right, brought his brother to a video hall to see “The Last King of Scotland.” His father was killed by soldiers during Idi Amin’s reign.

A Film Star in Kampala, Conjuring Amin’s Ghost

KAMPALA, Uganda, Feb. 17 — This year, the Oscar buzz has made it all the way to Kampala.

On Saturday, none other than Forest Whitaker, a leading contender for best actor, parted a crowd of paparazzi in front of a chic hotel here in Uganda’s capital, and then strutted down a stretch of genuine red carpet for the official opening of “The Last King of Scotland.”

Official being the key word. Because the movie, about the blood-soaked reign of Uganda’s mercurial dictator, Idi Amin, actually arrived a few weeks ago, via shrink-wrapped, bootlegged DVDs shipped in from China. Already, it has created quite a stir in Kampala’s tin-roofed video halls. Collapse )

Chris Keeley

Juan Cole: Brandeis Defunded by Rich Likudniks--2/16/07

Juan Cole: Brandeis Defunded by Rich Likudniks--2/16/07

  Friday, February 16, 2007

*Brandeis Defunded by Rich Likudniks*
*www.juancole.com <http://www.juancole.com>*

*Super-wealthy donors have retaliated against Brandeis University *
inviting former president Jimmy Carter to speak on campus in connection
with his book on Israeli Apartheid in the West Bank. They said they will
withold further donations *to the school*

The president of Brandeis, Jehuda Reinharz, once commented on Middle
East Centers at major American universities, saying, "My problem is not
the anti-Zionism or even that many of them are anti-American, but that
they are third-rate." Why exactly should he judge their scholarship by
whether or not they are Zionists? Does everyone have to be a Zionist? As
for the Red-baiting and vague, general put-down of the works of other
academics, it is too despicable for words. Reinharz notoriously thought
well of the "scholarship" of Joan Peters, whose "From Time Immemorial"
was dismissed by Israeli historian Yehoshua Porath as a forgery.
Collapse )
Chris Keeley

She has got it all wrong.

Please send Victoria to Iraq.  Also send her an email disputing her legal opinions, as that it is what there are, Right Wing Propaganda clouding the true motives and facts in this Consiracy.  (an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.) I personally disagree with everything she says and points out.   This is almost the case with all of her opinions.  http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=conspiracy

Her email is - dt@digenovatoensing.com

Trial in Error
If You're Going to Charge Scooter, Then What About These Guys?

By Victoria Toensing
Sunday, February 18, 2007; B01

Could someone please explain to me why Scooter Libby is the only person on trial in the Valerie Plame leak investigation?

Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald charged Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff with perjury on the theory that Libby had a nefarious reason for lying to a grand jury about what he told reporters regarding CIA officer Plame: He was trying to cover up a White House conspiracy to retaliate against Plame's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. Wilson had infuriated Vice President Cheney by accusing the Bush administration of lying about intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Collapse )
Chris Keeley

Libby Is Guilty

Libby Is Guilty

Libby is guilty. And he's going to be found guilty. The jury might not convict him on all counts, but he has no chance of surviving the perjury count that was proved beyond a reasonable doubt with Tim Russert's testimony.

The multi-million dollar defense, which provided no defense at all, did not call Libby to the witness stand for one very simple reason: Libby is very very guilty. Publicly, defense lawyers cling to the text book theory that the defendant has no burden of proof and that no negative inference should ever be taken when a defendant doesn't defend himself on the witness stand. Practically, every defense lawyer knows that the jury desperately wants to hear from the defendant and that the only reason not to put him on the stand is that he is soooo guilty that every answer he gives after his name will eradicate any shred of reasonable doubt. Think about it. Your whole life is at stake in the outcome of a criminal trial. You're innocent. And you don't testify in your own defense? Around the courthouse when defense lawyers are chatting about their cases, the only question they ask each other is can you put your guy on the stand? Those conversations always assume the defendant is guilty. The question is just about the degree of difficulty in presenting a defense.


Collapse )