High Crimes

High crimes were political offences against the country, such as abuse of office or failure to carry out obligations, or treason or bribery. They were 'high' because they related to the state and could only be committed by people in 'high' office.

According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanours

"High" in the legal parlance of the 18th century means "against the State". A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group. In democracies and similar societies it also includes crimes which attempt to alter the outcome of elections

High crimes were the basis for the impeachment of unsuccessful politicians before Parliament in medieval and early modern England, and for the American constitutional provision to punish the President and other office holders for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanours.

As explained by http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.

The recent media exposure of the venality of our expense troughing MP's certainly showed their behaviour to be offensive to the sense of justice of the people, although it is doubtful that many, if any, will be exposed to the sentencing of a court. Fiddling their expenses is not something that could only be done by high officials, it's well within the capacity of common people, who are all the more offended by it's banality in defining how the public increasingly regard their 'representatives' or rulers - as common thieves. Of course fixing the rules to give themselves special latitude in claiming expenses, and setting their own salaries absurdly high, offends the public's sense of justice, and can only be done by 'high' people; so it might be regarded as a high crime, particularly as it reveals their disposition to abuse their positions of authority and public trust.

Indeed, the normal conduct of Parliament is open to the suspicion of constituting a series of High crimes against the people that MP's are supposed to represent. They fail to execute their office faithfully, by passing legislation which they have not even read let alone pondered it's principles and likely effects so as to come to an honest opinion on it's merits. They prostitute their opinions and votes to the party system. In most cases they abase themselves to their party leaders in search of ministerial preferment. In many cases they all too obviously lack the moral and intellectual qualities suitable for high office and indeed, especially on the Labour side, are clearly selected because of their lack of capacity, which makes them servile lackeys of their leaders or leftist lunatics working to destroy anything worthwhile. It's nauseating to see the parade of sleazy riff-raff and shady characters given places in our legislature, and even in the cabinet. British politicians, especially on the left, have loved to pontificate about Britain's moral leadership in the world. Such pretensions must now be laid aside, as foreigners such as the Iranian leadership have been able to criticise the Prime Minister for allowing financially corrupt ministers to remain in his government. The House of Lords is likewise stuffed with placemen and shameless influence-peddlers. Neither leaders nor many followers have been much concerned about the progressive cession of British sovereignty to Brussels. This treason is obviously a High crime, but there is no way of holding them to account.

The state can function as a criminal enterprise. There's a famous old story of Alexander and the pirate according to which Alexander the Great asked a pirate if he had anything to say in his own defence before Alexander passed judgement upon him for troubling the world with his crimes. The pirate replied that he had done nothing which Alexander himself had not done on a far greater scale, but that because he had had only a single ship he was called a pirate, whereas Alexander's vast fleets and armies enabled him to be called King of Kings.

It is said that under Communism the rulers of Eastern Europe and their intelligence services engaged in massive looting of art and valuables for sale abroad and actively engaged in all sorts of crimes, and cultivated criminal groups to assist their money laundering, forgery, spying and subversion of other countries. It was rumoured in The Assassination of Robert Maxwell, who seems to have been involved with several intelligence agencies, that he made a lot of his money through such contacts, including money laundering for communist leaders under cover of publishing their dreary speeches in the West. The governments of much of the world are almost routinely expected to be involved in crimes such as drug trafficking or theft of natural resources and ill treatment of anyone who objects. International indignation is very selective. We hear some condemnation of governments such as those of Burma or North Korea which are not major powers, not floating on oil, and not on Israel's hit list. The media soon becomes bored. We don't hear so much about Zimbabwe now - and that's not because things there are getting better. Occasionally a maverick critic such as Craig Murray gets some publicity for the oppressive rulers of Uzbekistan and drug smuggling from Afghanistan, but the British government is embarrassed by his well informed accusations that it condoned the use of torture by third parties in the hope of gaining useful intelligence. He has now ceased to be employed by the government and is almost ignored by the media. It's interesting to see how criticism of the Chinese government has diminished as those in charge enriched themselves and created opportunities for Western companies to share in economic development. The slow genocide of Tibetans and destruction of their culture and religion as they are replaced by Han Chinese who loot the resources of the country and degrade it's environment, (as they have already done in China proper), the use of slave labour and the other oppressive brutalities of Communism no longer attract much media exposure or political opposition from Western governments. Scale of operation continues to matter - and, oh yes, China is now the greatest creditor of the American government which is very dependent on their continued purchase of still more of it's IOU's.

Of course, people in official positions may misuse them to commit crimes on their own account. That's more or less what laws are meant to detect and punish. It gets more difficult when there is widespread corruption and collusion between officials and politicians and outside media business and political interests. Honest officials may then be punished or prevented from doing their jobs properly to expose and remove the corruption. Here is a very recent reference in the Lew Rockwell blog to the intimate connection between politics and crime, especially drugs and money laundering and the complicity of the agencies of the state, which the author calls the Narcosaurus. It is partly based on the account of Catherine Fitts who was hounded by the American government for trying to expose this sort of thing. She lists an extensive bibliography concerning corrupt dealings by governments and their intelligence agencies. It's not just the state apparatus that can be hand in glove with crime. The most shocking part of her revelations is on page 18 of her 23 page account, where she recounts the story of a lecture she gave to about 100 people. These people were supposedly "committed to contributing to the spiritual evolution of our culture", yet only one would agree to decriminalise narcotics trafficking and prevent money laundering if he could. The others agreed that they would rather have an underclass continue to sell drugs to their children and grandchildren than risk a reduction in share values or government payouts. That was before the financial slump started. Now they'll get both. There may be some justice in the universe.

Madcowprod is a website which has for years exposed such connections between criminals and lobbyists and politicians and officials and spies; especially where drugs and 9/11 associations intersect in Florida. Here's one of their articles about the extensive criminal and political connections of one, Jack Abramoff , who was in trouble a few years ago. They also advertise a book about Barry Seal, someone who as a CIA agent was apparently involved in flying small aeroplane loads of cocaine into Mena airport in Arkansas when Clinton was governor. Indeed here is a whole page listing their articles about similar scandals.

Another similar website is Al Martin Raw, whose author was involved in the Iran-Contra affair, but fell out with the major figures and has been spilling the beans ever since. Years ago, about the time of the invasion of Iraq, he had a whole series of rumours about massive corruption at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama, from which vast amounts of American military equipment were said to have been secretly sold to foreign buyers. Senior officers were allegedly most lucratively involved and it was not clear how much might have been known and connived at by top officials. His informant, the 'Friendly Colonel', explained that equipment such as tanks or artillery would be re-labelled as spare desks or surplus furniture, and sold.

When Iraq was occupied there were many stories about the corruption and waste and theft of money which followed. Here is one from Mother Jones reprising the tale of the billions that went missing under the rule of Paul Bremer. Here is another about the lack of proper accounting and justification for more billions of dollars disbursed by the American military in the Middle East. The auditors of the Inspector General reported that about 95% of over $10.7 billion expended in a particular programme was not supported by proper documents. It is perhaps understandable that an organisation dedicated to 'killing people and breaking their stuff', might not be the most ardent of record keepers; but this is an age of bureaucracy, and the Pentagon is a vast bureaucracy, so such failures seem to go well beyond incompetence. However, even Alexander had similar problems. He was not a man to cross, but his Treasurer, Harpalus, twice managed to steal vast sums before finally absconding when he feared punishment for his life of debauchery in Babylon. Is it something in the Middle East that encourages corruption? Or is it the vast opportunities and the political connections? Is it the people or is it the Pentagon?

Indeed, the Pentagon seems to have only the most feeble grasp on its money and assets; one of the stories buried in the rubble of 9/11 was the fact that they simply could not account for what had happened to trillions of dollars! This is exceedingly hard to believe, but if investigations had been seriously pursued, investigators would have had some tough questions for the man who had been the Pentagon's financial controller at the time, Rabbi Dov Zakheim, who appears to have had some interesting and extremely influential business and political connections.

Only recently, after many years of alleged corruption, a whole lot of New Jersy politicians and officials were arrested along with a 'Kosher Nostra' of rabbis who are accused of organ trafficking, money laundering and corrupting state officials. Hmmm... this 'family' wasn't Italian, but perhaps there may be a relation between perpetrators and victims that isn't entirely explained by 'reasons of state'. Perhaps it's the relation between predators and prey, or parasite and host. Could there even be a 'Culture of Deceit'? That would overlap our original concept of High Crimes, because such opportunities would not be available to ordinary people, and they would be facilitated by favoured access to officials of the state.

Another aspect of High Crimes could be terrorism perpetrated or sponsored by the state. Unfortunately this may not be restricted to totalitarian regimes. Phillip Coppens wrote an article in Conspiracy Times, summarising allegations about terrorism perpetrated by Russian and Western government agencies who were supposed to be fighting terrorists. It's not altogether a new idea that something may be the disease or problem of which it claims to be the cure. It may even have been a medieval academic joke about philosophy. Of course, there are those who apply this notion to our modern War on Terror. One enthusiast, who made a series of videos on You Tube, picking holes in the official story about the London tube and bus bombings on 7/7 and blaming the authorities for the atrocities, and sent a copy to a judge, is now - predictably - in trouble with the law. See Ripple Effect and associated spin offs.

It is hardly to be supposed that political leaders or senior bureaucrats would issue clearly criminal orders - but they wouldn't have to do so. In the country of Thomas Becket and HenryII, David Kelly and 'King Tony', there's no shortage of ambitious would-be knights eager to please their bosses by finding ways of preventing inconvenient persons from troubling them, or to 'sex-up' dossiers to tell the media whatever will please their masters. Americans can remember Oliver North and 'plausible deniability'.

Of course, although there may be rogue elements within security services, it is difficult to imagine a Western bureaucracy officially proceeding with clearly criminal actions, such as causing explosions in public places. On the other hand, if all the requisite actions were segmented, 'need to know' security would prevent people from seeking the overview, and it is equally hard to imagine them failing to carry out specific tasks ordered by their superiors. If some of those superiors were disloyal or suborned, and if the more suspicious activities were contracted out and overall control was outside the normal channels, it is easy to imagine that the power of the state could be manipulated against the interests of the people it was supposed to protect. After all, that's what seems to have been happening slowly on the cultural, social and political levels for decades, as the culture and identity of the natives has been subverted and their institutions turned against them; so it would not be surprising if it was also done on the level of physical violence. The official leaders could be ignorant of the plan, shocked, and themselves actually believe the cover-up and propaganda fed to the media.

It's not only Western countries who may have trouble with rogue elements and subversion within the intelligence services and other state agencies. Turkey, for instance, has had troubles and suspicions of plots, labelled Deep State.

Things can get extremely weird in the area where politics, intelligence agencies, crime, secret societies, personal ambitions, delusions and sheer insanity meet and mingle. For instance, there is a set of interlinked blogs apparently run by ex-agents of British Intelligence, who appear to be assisting each other to recover from horrific torture, allegedly inflicted upon them in the course of their training as spies, intended to make them docile mind controlled slaves. MI5 and MI6 Exposed is an entry to this maze. MI5 and MI6 Exposed3 explains the torture in more detail and has thousands of supplementary comments, some of which make very strange allegations about public figures. Seemingly some of their torture training took place in exotic locations such as in excavations under the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, and a Templar castle in France; and it involved perversion of religious and masonic symbolism, and remote viewing. Presumably the underlying idea would have been that if a spy carried information sub-consciously, it would be difficult to make him reveal it, until exposed to the correct trigger. It may be nonsense, but if any of it is true, it shows that agents of our Western liberal democratic states are capable of abominable crimes, and are unlikely to be punished. It also raises questions about the sanity and fitness for office of officials in responsible positions, and their political masters. Any quirks and mental twitches will be concealed from public view, doubtless under the rubric of 'security', which it would not be 'in the public interest' to question. Our elected representatives will be too busy claiming expenses or cringing to their masters to subject them to any robust scrutiny. The parties don't pay more than lip service to their members and the public they purport to represent, which may partly explain the shrivelling of their membership. They do pay attention to those who pay them, and who control the media which shape public perceptions of them. The similarity in those who finance all the mainstream parties, and are close 'friends' of their leaders, may have something to do with the similarity of the parties policies and of the 'politically correct' attitudes they all enforce.

Indeed, the rule of the 'Political Class' is proving to be in their own immediate self-interest, and not in the long term interests of those they purport to represent. Communism with better Public Relations. This may be regarded as a High Crime. The public they rule is not blameless. Ordinary people are not in a position to commit High Crimes against the state, but they can still influence their rulers, and if their attitudes are selfish and short sighted, it's not surprising they get representatives and rulers who are even more so - but more cunning and energetic than average in hypocritically advancing themselves at the expense of the country.

The Highest Crime may be considered to be betrayal of one's own identity and potentiality, and that of one's people, although it will not be found on any statute book. People and rulers are guilty in their varying degrees. The Biblical tale of Esau selling his birthright to Jacob for a mess of pottage is grimly relevant. The rulers have done so, and their people shall pass away, displaced by strangers, not understanding what wrong they have done, ignorant of what was and what might have been.

Public Service

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Famous words from the inauguration speech of John F. Kennedy, but it would be hard to persuade the public that they constitute the guiding principle of their rulers, or even of themselves. Apparently derived via a sentiment from Rousseau, "As soon as any man says of the affairs of state, What does it matter to me?, the state may be given up as lost", from the Platonic idea that all citizens should be involved in the political life of their state, it may be questionable how practical it has ever been. Certainly the current scandal over MP's expenses makes it seem as if the guiding principle of our politicians is to grab all they can and make their country pay for it all.

Calls for constitutional reform are emerging from the uproar, and are being taken up by politicians, especially by David Cameron. Although some hanker for proportional representation, the preferred tinkering is to make Parliament function more like the American model, with stronger and more independent committees and petitions to recall MP's who have become unpopular. This overlooks the fact that the problems lie more with the people than with the mechanism, yet it conforms to the common delusion that utopia can be achieved by a bit more social engineering of the populace and 'reform' of institutions and mechanisms. This of course is all the more strange because American politicians are not noted for honesty, economy and ascetic living. Instead, it's well known that they are permanently running for re-election and desperately striving to collect money for their hugely expensive campaigns, which dwarf the costs of British elections.

It's not clear that those famous committees, attractive though they may be to grandstanding politicians, are really effective in scrutinising the activities of government and limiting public expenditure. The cut-down, whipped and government dominated British select committee version have been better noted for pompous bullying of witnesses such as Dr. David Kelley than for incisive investigation and scrutiny of government policy.

Indeed the recent bailout of Wall Street by the American taxpayer, cast a cold light on American politicians. Those that appeared before the world made a poor impression, looking ignorant and shifty. They received a tremendous amount of mail and phone calls from voters, almost entirely opposed to the expenditure, and after a brief hesitation they obeyed the instructions of the money-men and ignored their voters. Interestingly, their political judgment was sound, as apparently most of those who were up for re-election retained their seats! Follow the money.

This is the political system whose lack of control over government expenditure, produced the famous quip, "a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money", popularly attributed to Senator Everett Dirksen. Things have moved on, and billions now have become trillions. The Pentagon is responsible for about half the defense related expenditure on the whole planet, but they are very bad at keeping track of it. Their auditors reported that trillions of dollars have disappeared and simply can't be accounted for. That's amazing and disturbing, but the bad news was buried along with thousands of people on that archetypal 'good day to bury bad news' in 2001. Considering the record and connections of the Pentagon Comptroller at the time, and the realities of power in Washington, there's a very broad hint as to what happened to the money, and why such little fuss has been made about it. Then there's the billions of dollars stolen and wasted in Iraq, with little oversight. The representatives of the people don't do a very good job at preventing such outrageous peculation and waste.

Not only are American politicians failing to control and follow up government expenditure, but they may be making things worse. George Crile's book My Enemy's Enemy recounts the strange story that was the basis for the film Charlie Wilson's War, of how a minor congressman changed American foreign policy towards Afghanistan and it's occupation by the Soviet Union. He was able, with the aid of other shady politicians to vastly increase expenditure on weapons for the Afghan guerrillas, with very little attention.

It may be doubted that holding the government to account for policies and expenditure really forms a large part of politicians' interests and activities. They are not selected for any such competence, and little encouragement is given for them to develop it. Some of the more conscientious MP's complain that any outside knowledge they may have acquired is ignored in appointing them to committees. Ministers are bereft of knowledge that might be expected of those at the head of large organisations, and by the time they learn much, they are likely to have been removed or moved on to somewhere else. There remains a belief in some quarters that political representatives should have experience of life outside politics. That would have been fair enough in days when legislation was less, and it could be discussed at greater leisure, so it's general purport and practical implementation could be given more discriminating attention. Indeed that may have been more common when affairs of the nation were settled before a Witan or Senate, whose members were chosen at least in part because of their distinction and seniority in other areas of life. Now, however, we increasingly have professional politicians, for whom politics is the only life they have ever known, and in many cases they would be unfit to participate in anything else. We need not imagine that professional politicians do a better job of promoting good legislation and sober, competent, responsible government. Clearly they don't. They do conform to the current expectation that everyone should have a well defined full time job in this bureaucratised, mechanised and routinised society. Parliament becomes a factory for legislation - that's it's purpose, so it's expected to produce lots of output, regardless of necessity or quality. There's little concern that the legislators often don't bother to read the legislation they pass, let alone study it's details and understand it's implications. They take care to exempt themselves from any onerous provisions. The professional politicians are not proficient at devising good laws, but they are proficient at self promotion, media presentation and vacuous public statements. Not the most worthwhile skills, but essential in politics and it's ancillary activities. They are not representatives of their voters, they are a Political Class, who are turning their seats in Parliament into family fiefdoms, renewed versions of rotten boroughs, and sources of income for as many family members as possible. They're not worried about loss of sovereignty, nor about becoming rubber stamps for legislation favouring special interests, and even drafted by them. Their world of politics is plush, prosperous, gossipy and full of busy-work, so they feel they are working hard and doing a wonderful job which deserves even more money and perquisites, insulated from the people who provide this comfort, except via the media of political communication - downwards - which they dominate.

This Political Class does not have the best interests of their people at heart. They parrot mantras about helping the poor, improving education or health or whatever is the flavour of the moment, but it's the opposite that is achieved. That's not altogether surprising. Parasites don't improve the health of their hosts. They are not even representative of the natural upper class of the local people. Several years ago I saw a brief mention that the majority of the advertisers A class people in Britain - the people who own and run things and whose decisions shape the future of the country, are no longer British, but Indian and American. Our Political Class does not represent the British people, but a collection of aliens. Even those who may be British by blood, are mentally alien, adherents of socialism working actively to destroy their country and turn it into just another Third World hellhole which the Political Class will administer of behalf of the very rich and powerful.

There's no perfect political system and politics has always been somewhat rough and selfish. Bismarck famously remarked that it was better not to enquire too closely what went into the making of laws and sausages. It does not have to be degraded. Equally, one can recognise that being close to power has always been an excellent way to acquire wealth. William the Conqueror's Norman knights did pretty well out of Hastings. Clive and Warren Hastings did pretty well out of India, in the accepted manner of the time and place. The victory of Blenheim led to public appreciation on a Ducal scale for Marlborough. Government contracts have often been the source of considerable wealth, sometimes at the expense of the forces and the public. Gordon's pals seem to be doing nicely out of public-private finance initiatives. Expenses padding MP's can't claim to have provided any significant public services, and the public mood is hostile to their infuriating but relatively minor self enrichments.

Currently MP's are providing the unintended public service of being a focus for public anger and frustration. People can now vent some of their discontent over their powerlessness and lack of recognition by the political establishment. This shows a potential for re-invigorating Parliament, and gives agile politicians the opportunity to claim that the roar of the crowd is in support of their particular plans. It's a bit like the story from one of the 19th century French uprisings, where someone stops a disconsolate figure trailing after a mob and asks why he is following them. "I am their leader, therefore I must follow them" came the reply.

To an extent Parliament gives the public a reflection of it's own face, and the piggy visage now on view is not attractive. It's a bad fall in the public image from a Great Power and Empire, to a mean-spirited, grubby talking-shop of minimal importance.

Politicians serve the purpose of concealing the real sources of power. The public did not ask for the massive social changes of recent decades, such as mass coloured immigration, uncontrolled borders, abolition of the death penalty, denigration of Christianity and any form of civilisation and of local institutions and standards and promotion of homosexuality. All the evil nonsense spouted by depraved lefties, and infiltrated into the Political Class came via the media and 'educational' institutions fronting for very powerful interests hostile to traditional British culture. Those who voted for them were probably not even aware of their brainwashing, but felt a clear common lefty liberal interest as a Politically Correct Political Class, against the most basic interests of the people they ruled and supposedly represented.

It does not seem likely that the current popular anger at politicians will result in changes sufficiently radical to eliminate the deeper causes of the problem, resume sovereignty from Brussels and extirpate the socialist scum and their beneficiaries, generate a strong national consciousness and leadership loyal to the best interests of the local people. More likely there will be a change of personnel within the Political Class, from Brown to a somewhat better Cameron, before the public relapses into it's usual supine concentration on personalities and trivia, content with some cosmetic changes to the political system.