Your "electoral" processes are backwards and insane.

fengi explains why caucuses are pointless, why spending money on them is pointless, and why allowing them to define who continues to stand for election is REALLY pointless.

Short version: The *loser* of the last Chicago mayoral election, which had record low turnouts, got more votes than the *winner* of the record-high turnout Iowa caucuses - and yet somehow based on that, in the whitest of white states and the most hick-filled of hick states, that dropped a half-dozen candidates out of the running?

(no subject)

Trials in Iraq are a joke, and it's the USA's fault.

On the trial of Pulitzer-prize winning AP photographer Bilal Hussein:

He's being held in Iraq. His prosecution is a 5-man team from the US military. They've pressured the judge to completely exclude the defense attorney from trial proceedings, and refuse to allow him access to the defendant at all. The judge is allowing them to present secret witnesses via camera from secret locations, explicitly to prevent cross-examination. And, of course, on day #1 of the trial, before evidence or argument, the judge announced that he would recommend a conviction and refer the matter to the criminal court. This concerned the US sources, because they had been trying to get the judge to say that AFTER the evidence.

Harpers' does point out this:

Still this sort of conduct is the exception. Most of the Americans providing support to the court and its judges perform their functions in a capable and professional way, and most of the judges went out of their way to recount their experiences showing professionalism and kindness. The exceptions seem to come when there is heavy pressure out of Washington for a particular result. Like in the case of Bilal Hussein.

(no subject)