Friday, January 18, 2008

Kamenstein Replacement

MASTELLA, MALCOMUNE OR CRIME?

Andrea brings an article from Effedieffe very useful to get an overview on the case Mastella:

Clemente Mastella outside Palazzo Chigi: "I resign, throw in the towel ".
So, with emotional tone and defining his wife "a hostage", he concluded the speech in the House ...


One of the charges against Mastella & Mrs. would be to have threatened Bassolino: I remove the backing, and so I'll fall if you do not take as a councilor of miei.Ebbene? They do it all, you say all politicians Outreach. Formigoni and Prodi, Fini and Larussa, you name other names, when they are in a coalition government are the cattle market, exercising, when necessary, the blackmail, are grabbing seats, providing lucrative contracts to friends, make direct municipal and ASL trumpet their candidates, exchange favors and even TV showgirls.
What's wrong? E '"a bad habit, but is not a crime."
This distinction between «malcostume» e «reato» l'hanno evocata anche quelli che prendono un poco le distanze da Mastella. Ed è questo il segno della bassezza morale cui siamo caduti.
Se non vi rivoltate a questa distinzione, siete degradati moralmente anche voi.
Mastella fa come tutti gli altri? Eh no, c'è una differenza di grado.

Egli ha fondato un suo partito personale , che non usa il «malcostume» come mezzo, ma come scopo finale. Che ha il clientelismo come unico fine dichiarato, e arrogantemente dichiarato.

Ovviamente, è l'accettazione corrente del «malcostume» che glielo ha consentito.
Basta non avere alcuno scrupolo, e specie nel Meridione, ti puoi costituire un partito locale fatto di elettori che ti devono qualcosa, e che perdono qualcosa se tu non sei al potere: una base microscopica come quella di Ceppaloni, ma solidissima.
Da qui, con l'1%, puoi diventare ministro.
Restando nello stesso tempo sindaco di Ceppaloni, e mettendo la moglie alla presidenza della Regione.
Il sistema elettorale è fatto apposta per questo.
Premia chi ha pochi voti in un territorio concentrato, anche piccolo: voti che, ovviamente, vengono da favori fatti.
Non esiste un collegio unico nazionale dove possano present national projects, ideas, intellectual minds capable of thinking big.
Here a philosopher can not enter parliament, because it has places to give.
can not a writer and essayist, who has perhaps a million readers, but throughout the country.

can Mastella. What I consider a criminal much more than it appears to the media: a political thug. One that has transformed one of the ways of politics in its sole end.
This should be banned, because it drags us all down, level by level: up to the mountains of garbage, the economic ruin of a nation intera che manda un'immagine di sporcizia e malcostume invincibile. Certo che questi scostumati non commettono «reati»: anzitutto perché le leggi se le fanno loro, e decidono loro cos'è la «legalità».
Ma in termini di giustizia, di diritto naturale, essi rubano denaro dei contribuenti.
A questo si riducono le loro trame e manovre, a furto di denaro pubblico.
Non lo fanno (sempre) in modo diretto, intascandosi i soldi.
Lo fanno quando assegnano una poltrona da 400 mila euro di stipendio non a un competente ma a un «cliente» partitico.
Ciò non è reato.
Viene inteso as "malpractice."
But when the "immorality" is the rule when it became so common that the system leaves grow up to the mayor of Ceppaloni Minister of Justice, when any group or coalition is ashamed to have the support of a tub, here is the problem.
A problem that far exceeds the "legality".
Mastella, simply does not have the credibility to govern the judiciary.

When you transfer a magistrate discussed by his colleagues, as is his prerogative as a minister, it is inevitable that everyone is wondering if it does not prevent investigations into embezzlement and 'immorality', which is the only thing that - by his own admission - is in power.
And so the State fails, in a tide of poisons and suspicions that we no longer know even what they are justified, and how much invented. Mastella
why should not expect justice (if he had any decency), and once avutala, had to resign after it was discovered that he was interrogated by the magistrates who ordered the transfer.
Here the 'immorality' is something worse, and I am surprised that you do not understand: it is a minister who loses the right to make its official records, of which invests the state's authority, because its staff authority is that of a small country blackmailer.
In natural law, this constitutes contempt of the state.
whose authority we all need.

can also configure a coup : not a coup, the Pinochet, where a body of the state imposes its vision of the national project by force, but worse: the takeover of a gang, carried out in order to put clientes relatives and friends and the places that count.
For a country undergoing a coup with tanks on the street is not necessarily a shame: it gives a real force, which can kill you.
But be governed by the unwritten rule of 'malpractice' which is the opposite of loyalty, because he took power a mayor mafiosetto by half a point, yes this is a disgrace.
But this does not mean that I am defending De Magistris.
He, like many judges, a practice the 'immorality' appeals to the crowds (Santoro) leading the investigation into the square.

That the judiciary and all intercepts everything not by news of crime, but to try, with recordings of months, if those conversationalists are talking about committing a crime.
It 's very different.
fact, spying on thousands of people to see if they commit crimes, is the opposite della giustizia.
Peggio ancora se quei magistrati danno adito al sospetto di utilizzare i mezzi di cui l'autorità dello Stato li fornisce, per colpire una parte politica e favorirne un'altra: com'è accaduto in Mani Pulite.
Chiunque sa che mettendo sotto controllo per mesi i telefoni di gente che crede di parlare in privato, si possono ascoltare spropositi, volgarità, segreti ripugnanti: basta farlo abbastanza a lungo, e il gioco è fatto.
Se poi non risulta alcun reato, si possono sempre passare ai giornalisti amici, perché le diffondano, quelle parti più grassocce e ripugnanti delle conversazioni tra privati.
In modo, se non si riesce a incarcerare l'avversario, da sputtanarlo.

Sono le fughe di notizie : e chi le dà ai giornalisti?
I magistrati, è ovvio.
E' un reato, ma per accertarlo ci vorrebbero altri magistrati, che mai e poi mai hanno condannato un loro collega di casta per violazione di segreto istruttorio.
Si accetta questo reato come «malcostume».
Ma qual è la conseguenza?
Che quando un magistrato apre un'inchiesta su un ministro, magari il suo ministro, e un personaggio dei più loschi - anche se ne ha motivi autenticamente gravi - può essere accusato di agire per interessi di casta ed odio di parte, di cui ha dato abbondanti prove in precedenza.
Insomma: anche lui ha perso l'autorità morale per compiere gli atti del suo ufficio.
Esattamente come Mastella non ha autorità morale per esercitare gli atti di ministro.
Ho sentito che il leghista Castelli, nel periodo in cui è stato ministro della Giustizia, ha ricevuto una quarantina di avvisi di reato: evidentemente da magistrati che s'erano messi in testa di farlo cadere, o anche solo di esibire il loro odio per la sua parte politica e le «riforme» che questa minacciava
(e non ha fatto).
Motivazioni serie, fattispecie penali there were none, because he just lost their ministerial Castelli, those investigations have ended in nothing.
They just wanted to keep him from governing, to exercise the mandate given to him by the people with the vote.
They succeeded.

short : judiciary and politicians are two classes equal.
sometimes opposing, but for the interests of caste.
And the result is that, by dint of 'immorality', the rule does not work, and that theater becomes a suspect and the nest of the poison that is "politics" in Italy.
All because we tolerate the 'immorality' purchè non sia «reato».
E' una mentalità.
Da cui dobbiamo liberarci noi, ma soprattutto i magistrati.
Proprio perché ci sarebbe bisogno di loro contro i Mastella, ma non possiamo fidarci di loro per la loro mentalità.
Questa mentalità è una cancrena inestirpabile.
L'ha dimostrato la stessa Boccassini, quando giorni fa ha svuotato il sacco contro i colleghi (non aveva ricevuto una promozione): la magistratura è politicizzata, la magistratura applica le leggi in modo diverso ad «amici» e nemici, la magistratura è piena di improduttivi («fancazzisti»), ci sono casi di corruzione, judges are promoted itself according to logic and current faction.
But then, immediately after the Boccassini added: "There was a mitigating factor, until recently, when the Berlusconi government had declared war on the judiciary and thus the primary need was to defend his teeth today quell'attenuante no longer valid. "
Got it?

says, the prosecutor , who used extra-legal means, leaks, breaches of confidentiality of investigations, TV appearances, the word "malpractice" and the abuse of power, because "Berlusconi had declared war the judiciary, and it was necessary defend themselves with their teeth. "
conceives his action against Berlusconi as a defense of his corporation, and as a political battle.
But the judiciary should not "defend themselves with their teeth" (ie: the preventive detention to extract confessions, illegal wiretapping carpet, breaches of confidentiality of investigations by the press).
to defend it are the laws of the State.
why the judges have fixed salaries and high, so their careers are automatic and are virtually indisputable, if not from their own order (order, no corporation or "power"), why not give in for fear of losing their benefits who makes "war".
Even in Pakistan the judiciary has shown more courage and dignity, and independence of authority, against General Musharraf, who is a bit 'more dangerous than Berlusconi.
Remedies?
It can be imagined, of course.

Establish clear incompatibility : judges may leave the toga for a political career.
not have to talk on TV of the ongoing investigations.
Minister can not remain mayors of their electoral clientele.
life senators who must take drugs to 'spontaneously' resignation, a sense of shame and insult to the state.
Relatives can not be assigned seats by the relative minister or governor.
The conflict of interest should not be relied upon only for Berlusconi.
And again, the parliament can not express the rule or to provide ministers by MPs, it takes two separate votes, to maintain the tension of conflict between the two branches of government, executive and legislature.
Even more, the parliament should not meet at all times, just two monthly sessions in the fall and spring; lawmaker is not a job.
Unless it is considered normal for the assemblies of the building or boards of directors meets to decide every single day instead of the condominium manager or the managing director.
But above all, must begin by taking away their enormous fees.
Halving wages MPs or their grand commission, some readers objected, does not recover enough money to cover the deficit.
stupid remark.
The true meaning of a "reform" is to prevent that kind of politics becomes a profession, and so profitable as to justify any malpractice.
Like today: each month the legislature Prodi hard, others are 15 000 €. And there
take not only the parliamentary pro-Prodi, but also the opposition.
are the ones who do not fall Prodi.
too.

is the malpractice , where door one day to learn that the term will last one hundred years. Always the same faces, Visco, Napoletano, Fini, Prodi ...
, putting his cronies to posts in the public economic power, prepared just the extra-legal immortality.
But it is not a crime, warning: only "malpractice." But
killed democracy, the rule of law, jurisdiction.

Maurizio Blondet for - Effedieffe - Copyright © all rights reserved.

0 comments:

Post a Comment