What Will Happen to Mel "The Patriot" Gibson Next? (Courtesy of The Offshore Wire)

The Offshore Wire

TOW News
8/3/2006

What Will Happen to Mel Gibson Next?

Charged with misdemeanor drunken driving Wednesday, Mel Gibson faces up to six months in jail if convicted. "I want to apologize specifically to anyone in the Jewish community for the vitriolic and harmful words" Gibson said in a statement issued Wednesday. DUI charges and apologies aside, everyone's curiosity is focused on what will Mel Gibson do next. Betus.com Celebrity odds makers believe he will get arrested again for DUI.

Gibson was born in Peekskill, New York, in 1956, the sixth of ten children born to Hutton Gibson (whose parents were U.S. businessman, John Hutton Gibson, and Irish-Australian opera singer Eva Mylott) and Anne Reilly Gibson (who was born in the parish of Columcille, County Longford, Ireland). Although Gibson always maintained his United States citizenship, he lived in Australia from the age of twelve. His father moved his family to Australia in 1968, allegedly in protest of the Vietnam War.

Gibson married Robyn Moore, whom he initially met through a dating service, in 1980. They have one daughter and six sons. Many of Gibson's positions are in accordance with traditionalist Catholicism. He is, however, a proponent of the death penalty and a supporter of gun ownership.

Gibson is known for making strongly opinionated statements. Some gay rights groups accused Gibson of homophobia, after a 1992 interview in the Spanish magazine El Pais. Asked what he thought of gay people, he said, "They take it up the ass." Gibson gestured descriptively, continuing, "This is only for taking a shit." Gibson spares no one, not even the Vatican. "Vatican II corrupted the institution of the church. Look at the main fruits: dwindling numbers and pedophilia." he said in an interview with the Times in January 2003. His first clash with the Jewish community took place in 2004. His film The Passion of the Christ was criticized for alleged anti-Semitic imagery and overtones. Gibson has strongly denied that the film is anti-Semitic.

Mel Gibson's alcoholism dates to his teenage years. In 1984, Gibson was arrested for drunk driving after he rear-ended a car in Toronto. According to Clarkson, when the other driver exited his vehicle and began shouting profanity at him, Mel Gibson laughed and offered him a drink. He was fined $400 and banned from driving in Canada for 3 months. In a 2004 Primetime interview with Diane Sawyer, Gibson admitted to drug and alcohol abuse.

Betus.com celebrity odds makers posted odds on what will happen to Mel Gibson next. Get arrested again for DUI is favorite, currently offered at +400. A true temptation to ones who wish to make easy cash, given Gibson's past. Start attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings is posted at +500. Make another anti-Semitic remark in public is offered at +1000 yet again his "vitriolic" tongue may land big money into bettors pockets. $100 on this prop would pay $1,000 should Gibson prove that he can't control himself.

Click here to view and bet on the latest celebrity props at BetUS.com . BetUS offers up to 50% sign up bonus. See Web site for details.

BetUS.com, America's favorite sportsbook, is endorsed by Jesse Ventura.

Originally published August 3 2006 - Theonlinewire.com

NOW ON THE WIRE

SPORTSBOOK RATINGS

TheOnlineWire features over 400 rated sportsbooks. Ratings are based on strict criteria which considers a sportsbook’s financial stability, management experience, customer service practices, dispute resolution policies, website performance and wagering portfolio. Click here to view all ratings.

TOW EVENTS

TOW MIA 2006

If you missed the party, here's your chance to have an inside look. Stay tuned for announcements regarding future TOW Events. Click Here.

TOW SERVICES

Email Alerts
Stay up-to-date with the latest news and alerts by subscribing to TOW's Email Service. CLICK TO SIGN-UP

TOW SPORTS FORUM

The up-to-the-minute source for the Player's Perspective.
CLICK HERE

The OffShore Wire

DISCLAIMER

Information contained in this Web site is intended for recreational purposes only. Access to information contained in this Web site is void where prohibited. Please read our full disclaimer before accessing information contained in this Web site.

© 2004-2006 Web Game Consultants N.V. (theoffshorewire.com, theonlinewire.com, towforum.com) Reproduction in part or in total of this copyrighted material is allowed only with prior consent of Web Game Consultants N.V.Unauthorized use is prohibited and will be prosecuted.

SOURCE - http://www.theonlinewire.com/articleView.aspx?ID=1201

The Washington Post / Infowars.com

White House Proposal Would Expand Authority of Military Courts

R. Jeffrey Smith / Washington Post | August 3 2006

A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to expand the reach and authority of such "commissions" to include trials, for the first time, of people who are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court's jurisdiction. The two provisions would be likely to put more individuals than previously expected before military juries, officials and independent experts said.

The draft proposed legislation, set to be discussed at two Senate hearings today, is controversial inside and outside the administration because defendants would be denied many protections guaranteed by the civilian and traditional military criminal justice systems.

Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.

Detainees would also not be guaranteed the right to be present at their own trials, if their absence is deemed necessary to protect national security or individuals.

An early draft of the new measure prepared by civilian political appointees and leaked to the media last week has been modified in response to criticism from uniformed military lawyers. But the provisions allowing a future expansion of the courts to cover new crimes and more prisoners were retained, according to government officials familiar with the deliberations.

The military lawyers received the draft after the rest of the government had agreed on it. They have argued in recent days for retaining some routine protections for defendants that the political appointees sought to jettison, an administration official said.

They objected in particular to the provision allowing defendants to be tried in absentia, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to describe the deliberations. Another source in contact with top military lawyers said, "Their initial impression is that the draft was unacceptable and sloppy." The source added that "it did not have enough due-process rights" and could further tarnish America's image.

The military lawyers nonetheless supported extending the jurisdiction of the commissions to cover those accused of joining or associating with terrorist groups engaged in anti-U.S. hostilities, and of committing or aiding hostile acts by such groups, whether or not they are part of al-Qaeda, two U.S. officials said.

That language gives the commissions broader reach than anticipated in a November 2001 executive order from President Bush that focused only on members of al-Qaeda, those who commit international terrorist acts and those who harbor such individuals.

Some independent experts say the new procedures diverge inappropriately from existing criminal procedures and provide no more protections than the ones struck down by the Supreme Court as inadequate. John D. Hutson, the Navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000, said the rules would evidently allow the government to tell a prisoner: "We know you're guilty. We can't tell you why, but there's a guy, we can't tell you who, who told us something. We can't tell you what, but you're guilty."

Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney general during the Reagan administration, said after reviewing the leaked draft that "the theme of the government seems to be 'They are guilty anyway, and therefore due process can be slighted.' " With these procedures, Fein said, "there is a real danger of getting a wrong verdict" that would let a lower-echelon detainee "rot for 30 years" at Guantanamo Bay because of evidence contrived by personal enemies.

But Kris Kobach, a senior Justice Department lawyer in Bush's first term who now teaches at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, said he believes that the draft strikes an appropriate balance between "a fundamentally fair trial" and "the ability to protect the effectiveness of U.S. military and intelligence assets."

Administration officials have said that the exceptional trial procedures are warranted because the fight against terrorism requires heavy reliance on classified information or on evidence obtained from a defendant's collaborators, which cannot be shared with the accused. The draft legislation cites the goal of ensuring fair treatment without unduly diverting military personnel from wartime assignments to present evidence in trials.

The provisions are closely modeled on earlier plans for military commissions, which the Supreme Court ruled illegal two months ago in a case brought by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni imprisoned in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. "It is not evident why the danger posed by international terrorism, considerable though it is, should require, in the case of Hamdan, any variance from the courts-martial rules," the court's majority decision held.

No one at Guantanamo has been tried to date, though some prisoners have been there since early 2002.

John Yoo, a former Justice Department lawyer who helped draft the earlier plan, said Bush administration officials essentially "took DOD regulations" for the trials "and turned them into a statute for Congress to pass." He said the drafters were obviously "trying to return the law to where it was before Hamdan " by writing language into the draft that challenges key aspects of the court's decision.

"Basically, this is trying to overrule the Hamdan case," said Neal K. Katyal, a Georgetown University law professor who was Hamdan's lead attorney.

The plan calls for commissions of five military officers appointed by the defense secretary to try defendants for any of 25 listed crimes. It gives the secretary the unilateral right to "specify other violations of the laws of war that may be tried by military commission." The secretary would be empowered to prescribe detailed procedures for carrying out the trials, including "modes of proof" and the use of hearsay evidence.

Unlike the international war crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the commissions could rely on hearsay as the basis for a conviction. Unlike routine military courts-martial, in which prosecutors must overcome several hurdles to use such evidence, the draft legislation would put the burden on the defense team to block its use.

The admission of hearsay is a serious problem, said Tom Malinowski, director of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch, because defendants might not know if it was gained through torture and would have difficulty challenging it on that basis. Nothing in the draft law prohibits using evidence obtained through cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment that falls short of torture, Malinowski said.

The U.S. official countered that a military judge "would look hard" at the origins of such evidence and that defendants would have to count on "the trustworthiness of the system."

To secure a death penalty under the draft legislation, at least five jurors must agree, two fewer than under the administration's earlier plan. Courts-martial and federal civilian trials require that 12 jurors agree.

- INFOWARS: BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND -

SOURCE FOR SOURCES - http://infowars.com/articles/ps/wh_proposal_expands_authority_military_courts.htm

Cincinnati Community Press / Infowars.com

Bill would ban chip implantation in employees

MARY DANNEMILLER | CINCINNATI COMMUNITY PRESS | August 3 2006

SYCAMORE TWP. -- State Sen. Robert Schuler (R -- 7th District) recently introduced a bill that would prevent companies from implanting microchips in their employees without their consent.

The Employee Privacy Protection Bill comes as an answer to the company CityWatcher.com's use of radio frequency identification tags in two employees.

The Walnut Hills-based security company came under fire in February after it was discovered that Chief Executive Officer Sean Darks and another unnamed employee were injected in the forearm with a VeriChip.

The chip acted as an identification card, allowing access to classified areas as a signal transmitted an ID number to a receiver.

The impending law defines "radio frequency identification tags" as silicon chips containing an antenna that stores data and transmits data to a wireless receiver.

A VeriChip can also be used as a global positioning system, the senator said.

"People have to have their privacy. It's not up to the employer to keep tabs on (employees)," Schuler said.

If passed, the bill would make it illegal for employers to require their employees to be implanted with a chip.

CityWatcher.com's employees were implanted with the chip voluntarily, which is permitted under the new bill.

"Voluntary use is OK, but sometimes it's hard to say what's voluntary and what's not," Schuler said.

The bill states that any employer caught requiring his or her employees to be chipped will be fined $150 per violation.

"It ($150) is a typical fine for a minor misdemeanor and it's enough to prevent further use," Schuler said.

Though CityWatcher.com is the first known company in the United States to implant employees with VeriChips, Wisconsin also recently passed a bill which says that no one can require the use of such chips.

According to Schuler, the fine for a violation in Wisconsin is $10,000 per day.

Due to the fact that the Senate is not in session, the bill will not face a vote until September and is not expected to reach the House of Representatives until November.

Darks, chief executive officer of CityWatcher.com, was unable to be reached for comment.

- INFOWARS: BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND -

SOURCE FOR SOURCES - http://infowars.com/articles/bb/rfid_bill_would_ban_chip_implant_in_employees.htm







Peace by Patriotically and Passionately providing perspective...
BK

_____________________

...

Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy - http://blackkrishna.blogspot.com/

Music - http://www.soundclick.com/bands/0/blackkrishna.htm

...

P.S. Buy the DVD to distribute copies at infowars.com - or watch "TerrorStorm" on Google Video! NOW!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947

P.P.S. Check this out too while you still can!

Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet's First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them the most. If the public doesn't speak up now, our elected officials will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

Online - International News Network / Infowars.com

America will attack Iran, Syria in October: Gul

Online | August 3 2006

RAWALPINDI: The former chief of ISI, Maj. Gen (R) Hameed Gul has "predicted" that America would definitely attack Iran and Syria simultaneously in October.

He was talking after attending the Hamdard Majlis Shoora, Tuesday evening. He also condemned the lackluster and weak reaction of Pakistan and Islamic bloc about Israel’s attack of Lebanon.

Analyzing the current war scenario he observed that war has both political and strategic factors and despite "using" Israel, America has lost the war in Lebanon, where masses have united against the recent Israeli onslaught, and would have been more formidable if the generals of Saddam had not sold out to American dollars.

He analyzed that Israel would soon be "forced" to stop its land strikes but would continue its horrific and heinous air strikes against Lebanon, converting it to ruins.

He also "predicted" that after Iran and Syria, Saudi Arabia would also meet the same fate, followed by Pakistan.

- INFOWARS: BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND -

- INFOWARS: BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND -

- INFOWARS: BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND -

SOURCE FOR SOURCES - http://infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_syria_america_attack_october.htm