by Scott Creighton
UPDATE: Some have claimed that Napolitano did not lie during the interview. I disagree. He did. At the end of this article, I will show with a transcript and links to facts proving that he is lying.
UPDATE: James Corbett gets it wrong claiming that the “revolution” has just begun (I guess he implies that the previous one to overthrow Mubarak was fake) to get rid of the “new” dictator, Morsi. He actually claims that there isn’t much MSM attention being paid to this and then starts to cite a Voice of America article on the subject as a reference. Why doesn’t he just go straight to the source and quote Foreign Policy magazine while he’s at it. Corbett could not be more wrong in his interpretation of the news. He claims that Morsi had declared he is about the “lawmakers” as well as the courts when in fact its the justices that already disbanded the lower house of parliament in Egypt and Morsi was protecting the upper house so they couldn’t disband them as well. He also fails to mention that Morsi wants to retry Mubarak and his crony business buddies for crimes committed against the people during the previous revolution and the fact that the justices all support Mubarak and his crony capitalist friends of the United States. None of this is mentioned by James. “We could be about to see the beginning of a real revolution in Egypt”
Thanks for nothing James. Madame Secretary says the check is in the mail. Try reading the constitution that Morsi wants to put to the people for a vote before opening your mouth again.
UPDATE: Michael Rivero gets it right on his show today at What Really Happened. Good for him! Someone let him know about the English translation of the constitution linked below. He could get it to a lot of people out there so they could see what the MSM and the fake alternatives are working against.
UPDATE: Same bullshit story being sold to the left by HuffPuff as well…. that tells you something doesn’t it, HuffPuff and Fox selling the same lies
Judge Napolitano is a liar
Many of the “libertarians” (read as “neoliberals”) out there have been singing the praises of Judge Napolitano for quite a while now, considering him someone who (and I really hate to use this ridiculous phrase) “speaks truth to power”
I figured all along the guy was just being positioned to have a certain amount of credibility which he would later use in the service of his globalist paymasters one day.
Well, that day is here.
Napolitano just went on Studio B with faceman Sheppard Smith to completely misrepresent the new Egyptian constitution claiming, falsely, that it is “just like Iran’s”, setting up religious leaders as the heads of the country. Nothing could be farther from the truth. He also claims that the constitution is unlike a Western one which emphasizes “individual rights”
The following are excerpts from the constitution in question which prove Judge Napolitano is a liar:
“No political party shall be formed that discriminates on the basis of gender, origin or religion.”
“The State shall ensure safety, security and equal opportunities for all citizens without discrimination.”
“Dignity is the right of every human being, safeguarded by the State.”
“All citizens are equal before the law. They have equal public rights and duties without discrimination.”
“Individual freedom is a natural right, safeguarded and inviolable.”
“Any person arrested, detained or whose freedom is restricted in any way, shall be treated in a manner preserving human dignity. No physical or moral harm shall be inflicted upon that person.”
“The private life of citizens is inviolable. Postal correspondence, wires, electronic correspondence, telephone calls and other means of communication shall have their own sanctity and secrecy and may not be confiscated or monitored except by a causal judicial warrant.”
“Private homes are inviolable. With the exception of cases of immediate danger and distress, they may not be entered, searched or monitored, except in cases defined by law, and by a causal judicial warrant which specifies place, timing and purpose. Those in a home shall be alerted before the home is entered or searched.”
“Freedom of belief is an inviolable right.”
“The State shall guarantee the freedom to practice religious rites and to establish places of worship for the divine religions, as regulated by law.”
“The right to private assembly is guaranteed without the need for prior notice. Security personnel shall not attend or intercept such private meetings.”
Of course, the Studio B website fails to provide their readership with a link to the English translation of the constitution so they could read it for themselves. Instead Napolitano constantly repeats the notion that the White House, the Obama administration, “understands” what is at stake here, i.e. “letting this constitution stand in Egypt” and of course the implication is that “something” has to be done to stop it.
I have posted the full translation of the constitution here and I am still working through it.
For those of you out there still arguing that it’s Morsi who is working for the state department on this one, you’re on the same side as Fox News. Just thought I would point that out.
UPDATE: partial interview transcript:
1. Morsi as “dictator”
SS: the best way to describe what Morsi did was he came in and basically tried to make himself a dictator.
Judge: He did.
That’s not true. What Morsi did was prevent the judiciary (who is loyal to the dictator Mubarak) from disbanding the other house of parliament in an effort to keep a new constitution from being written. He protected his office and the remaining elected legislators. It’s also important to note that he was targeted by the judiciary when Morsi reassigned a prosecutor who had just dropped all charges against Egyptian officials who were responsible for the deaths of protesters during last year’s uprising. They were Mubarak supporters and the judiciary wanted them to get off the hook. Morsi reassigned the prosecutor to the Vatican I believe. Morsi also wants to try Mubarak along with the others for those deaths.
“Many activists, including opponents of the Brotherhood, criticize the judiciary as packed with judges and prosecutors sympathetic to Mubarak.” AP
“Morsi supporters counter that the edicts were necessary to prevent the courts, which already dissolved the elected lower house of parliament, from further holding up moves to stability by disbanding the assembly writing the new constitution, as judges were considering doing. Like parliament was, the assembly is dominated by Islamists. Morsi accuses Mubarak loyalists in the judiciary of seeking to thwart the revolution’s goals and barred the judiciary from disbanding the constitutional assembly or parliament’s upper house.” NPR
“In a nod to revolutionary sentiment, Morsi also ordered the retrial of Mubarak and top aides on charges of killing protesters during the uprising. He also created a new “protection of the revolution” judicial body to swiftly carry out the prosecutions.” AP
Say what you want about his motives, Morsi was NOT setting himself up as a dictator. He was taking necessary action to prevent one branch of government from abusing their powers and thwarting the revolutionary change and accountability the people in Egypt struggled and died for.
Read this section in the new constitution and tell me it describes a dictator only beholding to Sharia law:
Chapter Two: Executive Authority
Section 1: The President
The President is the Head of State and chief of the executive authority. He looks after the interests of the people, safeguards the independence and territorial integrity of the motherland, and observes the separation between powers.
He carries out his responsibilities in the manner prescribed in the Constitution.
The President of the Republic shall be elected for a period of four calendar years, commencing on the day the term of his predecessor ends. The President may be reelected only once.
The process of the presidential election begins at least 90 days before the end of the presidential term. The result is to be announced at least 10 days before the end of term.
The President of the Republic may not hold any partisan position for the duration of the presidency.
Before assuming the presidential position, the President of the Republic shall take the following oath before the House of Representatives and the Shura Council: “I swear by Almighty God to loyally uphold the republican system, to respect the Constitution and the law, to fully look after the interests of the people and to safeguard the independence and territorial integrity of the motherland.”
Does that describe a madman making himself dictator? Do you see any mention of Sharia law?
2. Deliberately misleading his viewers
Judge: While he was doing that, he got the legislature, which was also elected with him, to write a new constitution, without any debate, without any input and against the rules of the present constitution and he’s just putting it out there for the public to vote on
That’s kinda what the revolution was about. Getting rid of the constitution which allowed for a 20 year brutal dictatorship and writing a new one. They’ve been writing it and debating it for months now, and it was supposed to take another 2 months or so of debate and fine tuning. But the Mubarak supporting judiciary got wind of it, because it isn’t a secret, and they figured out that the US and other neoliberal states wouldn’t like it. So, THEY tried to kill it.
As to that last little statement by Judge, “just putting it out there for the public to vote on it”… what a horror that is, huh? Letting the PEOPLE decide if they want it or not. That’s supposed to be the actions of a guy setting himself up as dictator?
3. Directly lied and mislead his viewers about the judges
Judge: Why are the judges so upset? Well, the Egyptian system of judges is very similar to ours and the British system. Judges can say to the government “that’s unconstitutional you can’t do it”. Not so in the Islamic world. Which is what this new constitution will have. Their goal and object and oath will be fidelity to Sharia law not to the Western law of individual rights and divided powers as we understand it. That’s the problem right now
Aside from a lie of omission which is still a lie (obviously I have already detailed and linked to sources showing that is NOT the problem nor the motivation behind the judges doing what they did… they are loyal to our puppet Mubarak and the powers (U.S., Britain, Israel) that propped him up for decades) what Judge says is absolutely not true.
As I have pointed out in the original article above, individual rights are indeed spelled out, with great detail in the new constitution so Judge’s claim that it does not show fidelity to that need is baseless at best and an outright lie at worse.
Chapter Three: The Judicial Authority
Section 1: General Provisions
The Judicial Authority shall be independent, vested in the courts of justice, which shall issue their judgments in accordance with the law. It’s powers are defined by law. Interference in the affairs of the judiciary is a crime that is not forfeited by the passing of time.
As to the divided powers that he claims are in our “Western” constitution but not this new Egyptian one:
The political system is based on the principles of democracy and shura (counsel), citizenship (under which all citizens are equal in rights and duties), multi-party pluralism, peaceful transfer of power, separation of powers and the balance between them, the rule of law, and respect for human rights and freedoms; all as elaborated in the Constitution.
Once again, he is absolutely wrong. You may claim that he is wrong due to ignorance, but I feel that if someone goes on the news as an expert in a matter he is duly responsible for what he says in this regard. If he is wrong, and claiming to know what he is talking about, then my assumption is that he is making a false statement on purpose.
As to his claim that the new constitution only seeks fidelity to Sharia law and the judiciary will ONLY take an oath to that:
Sovereignty of the law shall be the basis of rule in the State.
The independence and immunity of the judiciary are two basic guarantees to safeguard rights and freedoms.
Penalty shall be personalized. There shall be no crime or penalty except in accordance with the law of the Constitution. No penalty shall be inflicted except by a judicial sentence. Penalty shall be inflicted only for acts committed after a law has come into force.
These passages are of critical importance to show what Judge claims is patently untrue. The “law” is the basis of rule in the State, not Sharia law, but the constitution itself. Again this is made perfectly clear in article 76: “ There shall be no crime or penalty except in accordance with the law of the Constitution“… NOT “Sharia law” as Judge claims, but the law of the constitution.
Big difference. he’s using the stereotypical fear of the creeping “Sharia law” boogeyman to influence his Fox News viewers.
As to Judge’s preposterous claim that the only oath they will take is too Sharia law:
Prior to the start of his or her tenure, a Member shall take the following oath before his or her Council: “I swear by Almighty God to loyally uphold the republican system, to respect the Constitution and the law, to fully look after the interests of the people, and to safeguard the independence and territorial integrity of the motherland.”
That is the actual oath of office that they are to take in the two bodies of legislature.
Where does that say ANYTHING about Sharia law?
You may argue that Judge got up there knowing nothing about what he was talking about but that does not excuse the fact that he got nearly EVERYTHING he said ABSOLUTELY WRONG in the first part of the interview.
He was SO wrong, and so wrong in ways that support the administration’s posturing for regime change in Egypt, that I concluded that he had to do it on purpose.
And I stand by it.
Morsi is not a saint. But he’s also not Mubarak either.
He’s not our puppet and he’s proved that over and over again. State didn’t like him interfering in the Israeli attack on Gaza and they had to rush down there and take credit for the cease fire agreement that he put together.
They have MANY reasons not to like this man or the direction he is taking the country. Foremost of these is this new constitution which is about as anti-neoliberal as a constitution can get. It is a slap in the face of the globalist agenda and if allowed to stand, to be voted on by the people (which Napolitano seems to resent) it will serve as a bad example to other Middle Eastern nations.
Like Cuba, that can’t be allowed.
As to Judge and my assessment of him, I stand by it. He’s a liar. And I proved it.