McVeigh: FBI admit to withholding evidence.
John Rennie
in the McVeigh Case. His lawyers are considering an appeal.
Neil
I just got a CNN email about that. Holy &%$#.
-N
Stern
not me
John Rennie
"Neil" <ne...@imap1.asu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.010510...@general3.asu.edu...
Here is the New York Times report for those who are not registered:
May 10, 2001
F.B.I. Mistakenly Withheld Boxes of Documents From McVeigh
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Statement from the F.B.I. on release of documents:
On Tuesday, May 8, the Department of Justice notified Timothy McVeigh's
attorneys of a number of FBI documents that should have been provided to
them during the discovery phase of the trial.
While the department is confident the documents do not in any way create any
reasonable doubt about McVeigh's guilt and do not contradict his repeated
confessions of guilt, the department is concerned that McVeigh's attorneys
were not able to review them at the appropriate time.
The documents have been made available to McVeigh's attorneys, and the
department has asked for notification if they believe any of the documents
create any reasonable doubt about McVeigh's guilt.
WASHINGTON -- Just six days before Timothy McVeigh's scheduled execution,
the FBI turned over thousands of documents from the Oklahoma City bombing
investigation to McVeigh's defense team Thursday. An attorney said the
materials may prompt a request for a stay.
"We're considering all our options," McVeigh lawyer Nathan Chambers said
after the documents, which the FBI said were mistakenly withheld, were
delivered to his office in Denver.
Chambers said he had spoken to McVeigh about the documents but declined to
reveal what he said. "Mr. McVeigh is going to think about it and decide how
he wants to proceed," he said.
The disclosure was a jarring development, coming as federal law enforcement
officials make final preparations for McVeigh's lethal injection at a
federal prison facility in Terre Haute, Ind., next Wednesday.
The Justice Department said "a number of FBI documents" should have been
provided to McVeigh's attorneys during the discovery phase of his 1997 trial
in Denver federal court.
"While the department is confident the documents do not in any way create
any reasonable doubt about McVeigh's guilt and do not contradict his
repeated confessions of guilt, the department is concerned that McVeigh's
attorneys were not able to review them at the appropriate time," the agency
said in a statement.
The agency said it has asked defense attorneys for notification if they
believe the documents throw McVeigh's guilt into question.
McVeigh's trial judge, U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch, was not
immediately available to comment.
In a recently published book, "American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh & The
Oklahoma City Bombing," McVeigh claimed sole responsibility for the April
19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred R. Murrah Federal Building, which killed 168
people and injured hundreds of others.
"My decision to take human life at the Murrah Building -- I did not do it
for personal gain. ... I did it for the larger good," he told the book's
authors.
He had also ordered his lawyers not to intervene in his case.
The FBI discovered the mistake as it gathered documents for archiving, said
a law enforcement official in Washington, speaking on condition of
anonymity. A source said an initial FBI review indicated the withholding was
an accident and not an attempt to disrupt McVeigh's defense.
The documents include FBI records of interviews and other matters related to
the investigation. Chambers said he was not aware of their existence until
Wednesday when told of them in a telephone call from Sean Connelly of the
U.S. Attorney's office in Denver.
"Here we are a full six years after the bombing and a less than a week
before Mr. McVeigh's scheduled execution and these reports mysteriously
appear. So it's a cause for concern," Chambers said.
Similar documents formed the basis of an unsuccessful appeal by bombing
co-defendant Terry Nichols, who claimed the papers could have changed the
outcome of his federal trial. He was found guilty of conspiracy and
involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to life in prison.
Chambers declined to say whether the documents would be favorable to any
appeal by McVeigh.
"If it becomes an issue, the courts will deal with it," he said.
St.George
Indeed.
Certainly it seems to me that, if the constitution is to be respected, the
path is quite clear from here:
1) The execution will be stayed
2) A federal judge will set aside the conviction, ruling that it cannot be
seriously claimed that the defendant's rights were respected if 200 pieces
of evidence were withheld.
3) The FBI agents/prosecutors responsible will be arrested and indicted; a
prelude to conviction on several serious charges and the inevitable
imposition of double-figure prison sentences.
4) After the government re-files the case against McVeigh, a judge rules in
favour of the defence motion claiming that the publicity so far has been so
prejudicial that McVeigh's right to a fair trial can no longer be
guaranteed.
5) The judge dismisses the charges and McVeigh walks free, an 'innocent'
man.
6) Another federal judge rules that Oklahoma's efforts to try McVeigh on
state charges are obviously a case of double jeopardy, and therefore totally
unconstitutional.
7) McVeigh returns to his farm, and promptly writes a book telling how God
himself saved him because He hates the federal government too. The book
sells 7,000,000; McVeigh purchases a massive ranch on prime land, holds
militia meetings and training there, and lives out a long and healthy life,
each evening surveying his endless property and recalling that all this is a
direct result of his bravery in standing up to oppression.
Of course, this will only happen if the constitution is actually respected.
For some reason, I get the feeling it won't be.....
Neil
> Indeed.
>
> Certainly it seems to me that, if the constitution is to
> be respected, the path is quite clear from here:
>
> 1) The execution will be stayed
Perhaps, assuming McVeigh desires it to be stayed.
> 2) A federal judge will set aside the conviction,
> ruling that it cannot be seriously claimed that the
> defendant's rights were respected if 200 pieces of
> evidence were withheld.
Do you believe that even if the 200 pieces of evidence are
irrelevant to the issue of the defendant's guilt, the
verdict should be reversed and the defendant released?
> 3) The FBI agents/prosecutors responsible will be
> arrested and indicted; a prelude to conviction on
> several serious charges and the inevitable imposition of
> double-figure prison sentences.
If the witholding of documents was intentional, that is
likely a violation of federal statutes on Obstruction of
Justice, among others. The obstruction would have to be
intentional and deliberate, however. If it was accidental,
it is not a crime, especially if the documents would not
have changed the verdict. No democracy on earth imprisons
people for making accidents that cause no one any harm.
> 4) After the government re-files the case against
> McVeigh, a judge rules in favour of the defence motion
> claiming that the publicity so far has been so
> prejudicial that McVeigh's right to a fair trial can no
> longer be guaranteed.
This doctrine has its limits, otherwise any defendant could
raise so much publicity for himself that he'd effectively
immunize himself from being tried for his crimes. Rather
convenient, especially in this Information Age where news
and information can fly around the world in seconds, don't
you think?
> 6) Another federal judge rules that Oklahoma's efforts
> to try McVeigh on state charges are obviously a case of
> double jeopardy, and therefore totally unconstitutional.
Not necessarily but the issue of double jeopardy on
dismissals (rather than on acquittals) is complicated.
> Of course, this will only happen if the constitution is
> actually respected. For some reason, I get the feeling
> it won't be.....
To put it as simply and succintly as I can, you
misunderstand the Constitution.
-N
Jezebel to you
>Date: 5/10/01 4:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9dfair$6b6a$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>
>
>so who is shocked by this revelation????
>
>not me
nor am I....always some kind if bungling going on...sheesh.....pro or con.....
Mary Perkins
you) wrote:
Hello all!
Just found this newsgroup so here goes for my first post....
Since this guy wants to die, it's hardly a punishment to let him.
[OK I know it's a horrible way to go, but it's soon over.]
Personally I'd like to see him locked up for life, and living with
what he has done. His victims would know that he was being punished
by his suffering. His death serves no useful purpose.
Make him live! - That, to me, would be justice.
So all in all, this latest development, prolonging his life, is a good
thing as far as I'm concerned.
Thanks for reading,
Mary.
-- -- --
Want to make money from your PC? This one REALLY works!
For FREE info. Visit: www.guaranteed-income.net/
George
John Rennie wrote:
>
> Breaking news: The FBI admit to withholding 200 separate items of evidence
> in the McVeigh Case. His lawyers are considering an appeal.
George
immediately lynched by a mob.
Mitchell Holman
}
}"Neil" <ne...@imap1.asu.edu> wrote in message
}news:Pine.GSO.4.21.010510...@general3.asu.edu...
}> On Fri, 11 May 2001, John Rennie wrote:
}>
}> > Breaking news: The FBI admit to withholding 200
}> > separate items of evidence in the McVeigh Case. His
}> > lawyers are considering an appeal.
}>
}> I just got a CNN email about that. Holy &%$#.
}>
}> -N
}>
}
}Here is the New York Times report for those who are not registered:
}
}May 10, 2001
}
}
}F.B.I. Mistakenly Withheld Boxes of Documents From McVeigh
}
In a perfect world we would hold hearings to
discover just how much of a "mistake" this was.
But with the current administration in charge, any
excuse is a good excuse as far as law enforcement
"mistakes" go.............
Mitchell Holman
}On Fri, 11 May 2001, St.George wrote:
}
}> Indeed.
}>
}> Certainly it seems to me that, if the constitution is to
}> be respected, the path is quite clear from here:
}>
}> 1) The execution will be stayed
}
}Perhaps, assuming McVeigh desires it to be stayed.
}
}> 2) A federal judge will set aside the conviction,
}> ruling that it cannot be seriously claimed that the
}> defendant's rights were respected if 200 pieces of
}> evidence were withheld.
}
}Do you believe that even if the 200 pieces of evidence are
}irrelevant to the issue of the defendant's guilt, the
}verdict should be reversed and the defendant released?
}
Well, there IS the issue of punishment to be
weighed............
John Rennie
Oscar Wilde said that if anyone could read of the death of little Nell (The
Old Curiosity Shop) and not burst out laughing, he had to have a heart of
stone. The Great McVeigh Bungle will cause many a similar laugh.
Stern
to be true about the government...it is corrupt...the FBI lied about Ruby
Ridge and about Waco...the FBI also killed women and children...all guilty
of defending their right to bear arms...the only difference between them and
McVeigh is that they were government sanctioned....
and now we have this BS surfacing in the last days before the
execution...they sure didn't want it to come out after the execution...when
it would really create an uproar...and possible retaliatory attacks from
those who believe in an eye for an eye ...as Tim does...
I know that Tim is guilty...everyone knows that...but there are many more
people involved in this than we will ever know...McVeigh will not name
names...not now, not on his deathbed, and not if he lived forever...
my understanding is that a lot of this evidence revolves around eye witness
accounts of seeing "John Doe"...and I also read somewhere on this vast web
of information...that there were maintenence workers in the building who
were unfamiliar to the regular employees...I think these statements are most
probably included in these thousands of documents that got "misplaced"....
being from his home town...I heard his minister become quite outspoken
about the FBI "mistake"...he basically said that this is the very thing that
Tim found so very offensive about the government...the lies and the
deceit...it amazed me to hear a minister take a stand in that way...
it seems kind of ironic to me that at the very brink of his death...the
goverment would prove him right.....
John Rennie
"In most criminal cases these F.B.I. documents would not be required to be
given to defense counsel during the discovery process. However, in the
McVeigh case the government agreed to go beyond the documentation required
between prosecution and defense teams."
Its the first of these two sentences I don't understand. Why have a
'discovery process' if documents are not going to be given to the defence
counsel? It's a good thing that there aren't that many Federal murder
cases.
George
along these lines: Firstly it will take a ong time to look through all
the files so there should be a stay of exectuion. Because it's federal,
the government can issue the stay and a court order is not needed as it
would be in a state case. Then IF it's found that any of the documents
could show anything new that wasn't brought up in the trial it could
have possibly been ground for a retrial had McVeigh not already opened
his mouth about how he'd done it.....something his attorneys advised him
about, presumably with this eventuality in mind. The general consensus
is that he still dies but probably a week or two later (possibly even a
couple of months) than originally planned.
JIGSAW1695
From: "John Rennie" Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net
Date: 5/11/01 3:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <9dhdh0$dmj$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>
====================================================Rules of Evidence in
Federal proceedings differ quite a bit from state processings.
Hell, for all we know, the paper work are xerox copies of fax's ordering
pizza's.
John Rennie
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010511171758...@ng-mp1.aol.com...
That isn't the point Jiggy but the question was really aimed at Neil. BTW
in two hours on this ng 42 messages received - 38 of them were Dirt Dog/PV
stupidities. I'll give it another 24 hours - if this feud still continues
I'll have to kill file PV as well as Dirt Dog. Pity really.
Anyway the paper work might have had something to do with Waco?
>
>
St.George
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:2A008159A74B191F.E4CC4532...@lp.airnews.net...
Indeed...it does seem that this was more cock-up than conspiracy, but it
still is a disastrous error, which could well prove extremely serious for
justice. Everyone, as far as I know, on this NG, unites in the opinion that
McVeigh should only leave prison in a box - the only dispute is whether his
exit should be sooner or later.
However, as I said in another post, if the constitution is to be respected,
I cannot see how hundreds of missing documents cannot have thrown doubt on
whether the right to a fair trial was in fact respected.
Hence, there must be a serious doubt as to whether the conviction can stand.
Furthermore, there is the interesting circumstance here that McVeigh has
publicly admitted guilt, and hence cannot possibly, surely, get the
presumption of _innocence_ to which he would be entitled.
So which goes out the window, the constitution or the concept of justice?
If the past of the death penalty is any guide, then both...
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<god_save_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Indeed...it does seem that this was more cock-up than conspiracy,
In all such cases, there seems to be a band of lunatics prepared to deny
the bleeding obvious. The Bryant case in Australia was another one
where shoddy investigations gave conspiracy theorists free rein to claim
whatever they felt they could get away with. The fact remains, in both
cases, that the prick did it. He's as guilty as sin and no amount of
hand-wringing about fouled-up investigations is going to make one whit
of difference to it.
As guilty and monstrous as he may be, however, McVeigh should not be
executed even though he deserves nothing better.
> However, as I said in another post, if the constitution is to be
> respected,
> I cannot see how hundreds of missing documents cannot have thrown doubt
> on
> whether the right to a fair trial was in fact respected.
If you're going to cling slavishly to the constitution then another
trial should be undertaken. However, given McVeigh's supposed desire to
have things over with ASAP, a sensible person might ask him if he
_wants_ another trial.
> Furthermore, there is the interesting circumstance here that McVeigh has
> publicly admitted guilt, and hence cannot possibly, surely, get the
> presumption of _innocence_ to which he would be entitled.
In legal "fact", he can. Unless, of course, he enters a plea of guilty.
> So which goes out the window, the constitution or the concept of justice?
Beautifully trolled, Mark, but your argument holds little water.
> If the past of the death penalty is any guide, then both...
Quite.
Mr Q. Z. D.
----
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"To understand recursion you must first understand recursion."
Mitchell Holman
>In article <9did7r$ip$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "St.George"
><god_save_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> Indeed...it does seem that this was more cock-up than conspiracy,
>
>In all such cases, there seems to be a band of lunatics prepared to deny
>the bleeding obvious. The Bryant case in Australia was another one
>where shoddy investigations gave conspiracy theorists free rein to claim
>whatever they felt they could get away with. The fact remains, in both
>cases, that the prick did it. He's as guilty as sin and no amount of
>hand-wringing about fouled-up investigations is going to make one whit
>of difference to it.
>
That is beside the point. If the premire investigating
agency in the country - if not the world - can bungle a
high-profile, spare-no-expense case like this, what else
have they bungled? If this is the best they can do, what
is average? What is merely acceptable?
That anyone should die as a result of "investigations"
like this is barbaric.
JIGSAW1695
From: "John Rennie" Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net
Message-id: <9dhq2g$s5i$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>
===============================
I dont disagree with you in the least John. It is one thing for the Fed to
withhold information from the defense by saying "We are within our legal rights
to withhold all information from you" and another to say "we gave you most of
the stuff, but dang, we got careless and forgot to give you some 2000 pages on
info". The keyword is "careless" which is not something that I expect from the
FBI or any other LEO, though I know that slips can happen. Its like a chief
inspector from Scotland Yard going to a crime scene and getting lost on the
way. It is just something that you wouldnt expect to happen.
As for Dirt Dog, screw 'em and killfile him.
Yours in Socialist Solidarity
Jigsaw
St.George
> On Fri, 11 May 2001, St.George wrote:
>
> > Indeed.
> >
> > Certainly it seems to me that, if the constitution is to
> > be respected, the path is quite clear from here:
> >
> > 1) The execution will be stayed
>
> Perhaps, assuming McVeigh desires it to be stayed.
This sort of stay is an executive matter, first and foremost, is it not?
Hence McVeigh's wishes are irrelevant - he cannot make the state (broader
sense) execute him if they do not want to.
> > 2) A federal judge will set aside the conviction,
> > ruling that it cannot be seriously claimed that the
> > defendant's rights were respected if 200 pieces of
> > evidence were withheld.
>
> Do you believe that even if the 200 pieces of evidence are
> irrelevant to the issue of the defendant's guilt, the
> verdict should be reversed and the defendant released?
Ah...another one of Neil's famous deliberate 'misunderstandings'
Why do you do this? You know full well that you are arguing a total
strawman.
Firstly, what I believe is irrelevant. As I made QUITE CLEAR in my opening
words, my premisses are conditional on whether "...the constitution is to be
respected..." I made this clear so that there would not be this sort of
'misunderstanding', but it looks like I shall have to introduce 'Specific
Cautions for Neil on the Intent and Wording of my Statements' in future.
Quite apart from what I believe, show me where I suggested that this (lack
of) evidence should, or even could, result in an acquittal and release?
All I said was that the conviction could be nullified. That is why I wrote,
in the very sentence before your strawman, that a judge could "...set aside
the conviction...", and not could 'acquit McVeigh and immediately release
him'.
The fact is that my statement was totally correct. Hence, as you could not
argue on the facts, your only recourse was to 'misunderstand' me and then
argue against those misunderstandings, and in inflammatory fashion to boot.
You have 'Lawyer' stamped all over you, Neil...I look forward to reading of
your no-doubt successful motions to introduce bloody crime scene photos into
the guilt phase of trials...
'....Look how nasty this murder was, people - look at all the blood! If you
don't convict him, NO-ONE WILL BE PUNISHED! Just because the detective took
the fifth when asked if he planted evidence doesn't mean that NO-ONE SHOULD
BE PUNISHED! Look - that's a gouged eye on the floor....'
> > 3) The FBI agents/prosecutors responsible will be
> > arrested and indicted; a prelude to conviction on
> > several serious charges and the inevitable imposition of
> > double-figure prison sentences.
>
> If the witholding of documents was intentional, that is
> likely a violation of federal statutes on Obstruction of
> Justice, among others. The obstruction would have to be
> intentional and deliberate,
No kidding. I think that it was implicit in my statement that there would
have to be some criminal actions going on in order to qualify for conviction
on "several serious charges" and hence lengthy sentences.
however. If it was accidental,
> it is not a crime, especially if the documents would not
> have changed the verdict. No democracy on earth imprisons
> people for making accidents that cause no one any harm.
Which is completely irrational, BTW. Punishment should be dependent on
degree of guilty intention, or negligence, and not on results.
There are a million examples, but one that comes to mind is that at a Welsh
football ground a few years ago, where some fans negligently discharged a
celebratory firework. Unfortunately for all concerned, its flightpath was
not as intended and it hit and killed a spectator on the other side of the
stadium. All agreed that there was no intent to harm whatsoever, but they
still got 6 years, IIRC.
To me, the sentence seems quite harsh. However, had the victim dropped his
keys and bent down at the crucial time, the perpetrators could likely expect
nothing more serious than a policeman's wagging finger, which seems
ludicrously lenient.
My point is that recklessly discharging a firework where it can be
reasonably foreseen that an accident may result should be punished with
'Sentence X'. What X is, exactly, is IMHO far less important than the
consistency that ALL reckless firework dischargers get X whether the
firework kills someone, or whether it explodes harmlessly on an empty seat.
> > 4) After the government re-files the case against
> > McVeigh, a judge rules in favour of the defence motion
> > claiming that the publicity so far has been so
> > prejudicial that McVeigh's right to a fair trial can no
> > longer be guaranteed.
>
> This doctrine has its limits, otherwise any defendant could
> raise so much publicity for himself that he'd effectively
> immunize himself from being tried for his crimes. Rather
> convenient, especially in this Information Age where news
> and information can fly around the world in seconds, don't
> you think?
Hardly. This can easily be prevented by interpreting the doctrine not to
include deliberate acts with the intention of provoking a dismissal under
this clause. Besides, a use of your proposed criminal tactic would have to
be _before_ the original trial, which is very different to this situation.
However, as I raise elsewhere, a re-trial would have specific problems, as
McVeigh would be again _legally_ innocent, but with his admission of
_factual_ guilt already in the public domain.
What's your opinion, Neil? In these circumstances, do _you_ believe that
McVeigh could be guaranteed his right of a presumption of _innocence_? If
so, justify; if not, which goes out the window first - justice or
constitution?
> > 6) Another federal judge rules that Oklahoma's efforts
> > to try McVeigh on state charges are obviously a case of
> > double jeopardy, and therefore totally unconstitutional.
>
> Not necessarily but the issue of double jeopardy on
> dismissals (rather than on acquittals) is complicated.
No it's not. In fact, the issue is very, _very_ simple.
I quote from a document you may have heard about, called The Constitution of
the United States of America. Basically, it says what you Americans can
do. Unfortunately, it is utterly useless.
In fact, it is worse than useless, it is positively harmful to your society.
However, for some unfathomable reason you all seem to think it is of some
use, so here goes. In fact, this part is technically not part of the
constitution, but rather the (notional) fifth amendment to it
"...No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual
service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation..."
As you can see, there, and as plain as day, is the provision that "...nor
shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy
of life or limb..."
If you, Neil, have an argument as to how the state of Oklahoma could attempt
to put McVeigh's life in jeopardy without violating both the strict wording
AND the intent of that clause, I would be absolutely fascinated to read it.
Frankly, the fact that such an action could even be considered, let alone be
almost certain to happen should McVeigh end up getting off the federal rap,
is an excellent illustration of just why the US constitution is so useless,
not to mention harmful.
Honestly, it is so crap it is not true. Just a quick scan through
Amendments I thru X, the so-called 'Bill of Rights', reveals that I,II, IV,
V, VI, VIII & X, and probably VII and IX as well, are _routinely_ and
massively abused, ignored and wilfully misinterpreted. And don't even get
me started on international treaties!
I would laugh at the stupidity; but it is actually not funny, so great is
the damage done. What sort of ludicrous so-called Supreme Law is it that
any part can ever be violated, let alone _most_ of it, and all of the time??
The ONLY one that is abided by is III, which provides that "...No soldier
shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of
the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law..."
I'd happily lay a pound to a penny, though, that should such a need arise,
the government would be quartering soldiers, in blatant violation, like a
shot.
> > Of course, this will only happen if the constitution is
> > actually respected. For some reason, I get the feeling
> > it won't be.....
>
> To put it as simply and succintly as I can, you
> misunderstand the Constitution.
Completely untrue - everything that I wrote in my post was precisely
accurate and correct.
The fact is that I understand the US constitution excellently, and
thoroughly. That is why I can point out how crap it is with complete
authority. Your reply, however, provokes two comments.
The first is that as usual, you wilfully misinterpret in order to argue
against a strawman, and end with a rude and inaccurate declaration of
ignorance. This comments on you personally.
As for the second, it comments on you professionally, in that I clearly have
a better understanding of the constitution than you, despite it being your
job and me an Englishman. What you have an understanding of, and like most
lawyers I am sure an excellent one, is the way in which the courts - with
the compliance of the executive - have down the years wilfully ignored and
subjugated both the letter _and_ the spirit of the document. You well
understand, I am sure, the exact nature and scope of all the perversions to
the constitution, and which ones can win you a case if correctly twisted.
I, however, content myself with a mere understanding of the actual words.
Absolutely _ludicrous_ interpretations, and stretches, are now accepted by,
and still made by, the courts, and hence the United States has effectively
gone full circle, back to a state governed by the common law - in other
words what _courts_ have determined as right and wrong, fair and unfair.
The difference, of course, in this inferior, de facto version of the
original English common law, is that the people, through the legislature,
CANNOT assert democratic superiority over politically-motivated judge
diktat, through statute law. Time and time again in the US, judges
supercede the people, with what better illustration than whose decision
mattered when the people said Gore by 300,000+ votes, but the judges said
Bush by 5?
We will see the same again within twenty years when SCOTUS, based purely on
the political views of the justices of the day, will abolish the death
penalty, permanently and irrevocably, and against the wishes of the states,
the people and the legislators.
The numbers involved make it all too obvious who is the real power in the
US, and it is all down to the Supreme Law being some inane sentiments badly
ripped off from the 1689 English Bill of Rights. In the United Kingdom,
contrarily, the will of the people _is_ the law, and there is NO appeal.
Note, incidentally, that I do not (necessarily) assert a logical superiority
for the UK model, I merely state the simple fact that the United Kingdom is
a democracy, and the United States is most certainly not.
[****'Specific Caution for Neil on the Intent and Wording of this
Statement.......Neil, I specifically and individually caution _you_ that
this statement, the preceding two sentences may NOT be correctly taken to
imply a personal view on my behalf that the UK is somehow 'better' than the
US, in a broad or narrow sense****]
[####****Specific Double-Secret Caution for Neil on the Intent and Wording
of the Precdeding Caution.....Neil, I specifically and individually caution
_you_ that the preceding Caution may NOT be correctly taken to imply a
personal view on my behalf that the UK is not, in fact, better than the US,
in a broad or narrow sense; merely that the preceding Caution specified that
the preceding Statement ONLY was not, in and of itself, to be taken as an
indication of my views on that topic****####]
St.George
"George" <lo...@my.website> wrote in message
news:3AFC044C...@my.website...
> or substitute 6 and 7 for......He walks out of prison a free man and is
> immediately lynched by a mob.
Wouldn't bother me, Top-Posting Boy.
St.George
"Mary Perkins" <Ma...@ChezMary.com> wrote in message
news:3afbba79...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On 11 May 2001 07:29:31 GMT, jezebe...@aol.comsmooches (Jezebel to
> you) wrote:
>
> >>From: "Stern" BTS...@prodigy.net
> >>Date: 5/10/01 4:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >>Message-id: <9dfair$6b6a$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>
> >>
> >>so who is shocked by this revelation????
> >>
> >>not me
> >
> >nor am I....always some kind if bungling going on...sheesh.....pro or
con.....
> >
> >
>
> Hello all!
>
> Just found this newsgroup so here goes for my first post....
Welcome to the NG. Are you condemned here for eternity?
> Since this guy wants to die, it's hardly a punishment to let him.
> [OK I know it's a horrible way to go, but it's soon over.]
Actually, Mary, as methods of execution go, I cannot think of one single one
that is less "horrible". Better than 19 minutes in the gas chamber foaming,
choking, vomiting and worse...
> Personally I'd like to see him locked up for life, and living with
> what he has done. His victims would know that he was being punished
> by his suffering. His death serves no useful purpose.
> Make him live! - That, to me, would be justice.
Sure, if you're after punishment or vengeance, prison's the way to go here.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<D3199990F1869499.715DB598...@lp.airnews.net>,
ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
That the state cen take human life, Mark, is immoral.
Stern
date (?) computers the FBI has to use....can anyone believe that the FBI
uses anything less than state of the art computers???? and if they
do...why????
Neil
First, you should understand something about John Ashcroft.
Because of his conservative political views, he was
considered to be a controversial choice for Attorney General
for some.
For others, including numerous ranking Senate Democrats and
moderate liberals in general (such as myself), one thing
about him stands out that persuaded all moderates to support
his appointment: his unbending commitment to the rule of law
and his strong sense of ethics. I believe he was
successfully confirmed by the Senate (which is 50% Democrat)
with quite a strong majority for these reasons.
He is thus entitled, to any objective person, to a
presumption of good faith and honesty when he reports on
this matter to the American public.
There are of course pre-trial discovery rules in effect in
federal criminal trials. Not every document in the
government's possession need be disclosed to the defense in
a trial. Which documents must be disclosed and which don't
have to be disclosed is governed by a specific rule of
Federal Criminal Procedure.
Ashcroft is in essence saying that these 200 documents,
which were accidentally left unreviewed by whichever member
of the FBI was responsible for transferring them from the
FBI to the U.S. Attorney's Office (which then reviews each
document to determine whether to disclose it to the
defense), did not fit into the category of "must be
disclosed" under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Whether they were required to be disclosed or not, however,
that determination must be made by federal prosecutors (who
are of course lawyers). The prosecutors must have these
documents in hand in order to make their disclosure
decisions. Apparently, they didn't, because these documents
were left somewhere in the FBI's offices. When discovered
during an archiving of the McVeigh documents by the FBI, the
FBI immediately contacted McVeigh's defense and made the
error public.
To make sure that the defense attorneys themselves were
independently satisfied that the documents weren't indeed
discoverable (i.e., required to be disclosed under the
Rules), Ashcroft decided to give them extra time to review
them and possibly file an appeal if they want to.
-N
JIGSAW1695
Date: 5/12/01 12:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <9djo4f$2q2a$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>
====================================================
Good questopn Stern, until you think a about it for a minute or two. The
bombings happened five years ago under the Clinton Administration, The lead
Talking Head of the Justice Department was Janet Reno who bent over bacvkwards
to see that no real harm was done to her boss. She ran the FBI remember?
Who is to say that early on some documents were "accidently" placed in a
basement broom closet with a stern warning "Do Not Touch or Tamper With This
Evidence".
And a few weeks after Mc Veigh's execution, the media receives a mysterious
call that the FBI under Bush and Aschcroft has surpressed evidence that could
have pointed to the true bomber and we should all vote for Al Gore in Twenty
Oh Four.
Ah, what the hell.....the Clinton andministration would never do anything like
that, woould they. Hey, take some keys off of a compuer Key Board, screw up a
telephone system, sell a few pardons........thats just a bunch of Clintons Cids
playing around and having some fun at the end of a long hard day...but this
evidence thing was something serious and they would never considerer it.
Jigsaw
St.George
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:diablo-F2BC24....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
And Mitchell agrees!
Neil
> > > Certainly it seems to me that, if the constitution is to
> > > be respected, the path is quite clear from here:
> > >
> > > 1) The execution will be stayed
> >
> > Perhaps, assuming McVeigh desires it to be stayed.
>
> This sort of stay is an executive matter, first and
> foremost, is it not? Hence McVeigh's wishes are
> irrelevant - he cannot make the state (broader sense)
> execute him if they do not want to.
The judiciary can also issue a stay upon motion of the
defendant.
I will ignore your ad hominems. Your statement was totally
incorrect. And you responded to my bona fide question with
six paragraphs of legal nonsense, none of which contained an
answer to that question and three of which I snipped for
brevity.
You stated the judge would "set aside the conviction"
because the defendant's constitutional rights could not be
respected when 200 documents had been withheld. When
determining whether the witholding of such evidence violates
the defendant's rights, the court would have to first
determine that (1) the documents were discoverable and
should have been disclosed at all (and the AG has been very
clear in his opinion that they do not fit this category, and
he's confident enough of that to allow the defense extra
time to review them without forcing them to fight for that
time in court), and (2) the failure to disclose those
documents caused prejudice to the defendant in a material
way, i.e., in a way that might have caused a reasonable jury
to render a different verdict had they been disclosed.
Without those two findings, the defendant's rights have not
been violated even if the documents were never disclosed. He
would thus not be entitled to a mistrial (the term used to
refer to "setting aside a conviction, fyi).
> '....Look how nasty this murder was, people - look at
> all the blood! If you don't convict him, NO-ONE WILL BE
> PUNISHED! Just because the detective took the fifth
> when asked if he planted evidence doesn't mean that
> NO-ONE SHOULD BE PUNISHED! Look - that's a gouged eye
> on the floor....'
I strongly suspect, ladies and gentlemen, that Mark is on
crack.
> > If the witholding of documents was intentional, that is
> > likely a violation of federal statutes on Obstruction of
> > Justice, among others. The obstruction would have to be
> > intentional and deliberate, however. If it was
> > accidental,
> > it is not a crime, especially if the documents would not
> > have changed the verdict. No democracy on earth imprisons
> > people for making accidents that cause no one any harm.
>
> Which is completely irrational, BTW. Punishment should
> be dependent on degree of guilty intention, or
> negligence, and not on results.
That's what I just stated. The crime of obstruction of
justice requires a showing of "guilty intention." The
general principle behind this requirement is that
democracies generally don't imprison people for accidentally
doing things that cause no harm.
> > > 4) After the government re-files the case against
> > > McVeigh, a judge rules in favour of the defence motion
> > > claiming that the publicity so far has been so
> > > prejudicial that McVeigh's right to a fair trial can no
> > > longer be guaranteed.
> >
> > This doctrine has its limits, otherwise any defendant could
> > raise so much publicity for himself that he'd effectively
> > immunize himself from being tried for his crimes. Rather
> > convenient, especially in this Information Age where news
> > and information can fly around the world in seconds, don't
> > you think?
>
> Hardly. This can easily be prevented by interpreting
> the doctrine not to include deliberate acts with the
> intention of provoking a dismissal under this clause.
Easy to say when your country doesn't respect the freedom of
speech the way this and other English common law countries
does. Canada for example tries to censor all media coverage
of trials before they occur. A hopelessly losing battle of
course thanks to the Internet.
> However, as I raise elsewhere, a re-trial would have
> specific problems, as McVeigh would be again _legally_
> innocent, but with his admission of _factual_ guilt
> already in the public domain.
As I've stated before, his admission of guilt would be
inadmissible, though certainly he would have trouble finding
a non-tainted jury.
> What's your opinion, Neil? In these circumstances, do
> _you_ believe that McVeigh could be guaranteed his right
> of a presumption of _innocence_? If so, justify; if
> not, which goes out the window first - justice or
> constitution?
Like I said, it would be hard to find a jury that has heard
nothing about McVeigh's case. This does not however preclude
all jurors from being able to objectively examine the
government's case at trial and render a verdict as the law
requires. If he was so fearful of not getting a fair jury
under any circumstances, the option of having his case tried
by a federal district court judge instead is purely at his
disposal.
> > > 6) Another federal judge rules that Oklahoma's efforts
> > > to try McVeigh on state charges are obviously a case of
> > > double jeopardy, and therefore totally unconstitutional.
> >
> > Not necessarily but the issue of double jeopardy on
> > dismissals (rather than on acquittals) is complicated.
>
> No it's not. In fact, the issue is very, _very_ simple.
>
> I quote from a document you may have heard about, called
> The Constitution of the United States of America.
> Basically, it says what you Americans can do.
> Unfortunately, it is utterly useless.
>
> In fact, it is worse than useless, it is positively
> harmful to your society.
[more nonsense snipped]
You need to educate yourself a bit more on subjects you wish
to expound upon. Start with the history of the incorporation
debate to begin with, then move on to federalism and states'
rights, and the 14th Amendment. And if you haven't the
foggiest idea what I'm talking about... well, that's exactly
my point.
> If you, Neil, have an argument as to how the state of
> Oklahoma could attempt to put McVeigh's life in jeopardy
> without violating both the strict wording AND the intent
> of that clause, I would be absolutely fascinated to read
> it.
Oh what the hell, I'll give you the short answer. The
Amendment you cite was passed by the Framers in the 18th
century. It was very clearly meant to apply to federal
prosecutions only, because the 14th Amendment didn't apply
ANY federal constitutional rights on the states until 1868.
Nowhere in the Constitution will you find any language that
indicates an intent of the 1868 framers to apply the double
jeopardy clause to bar state prosecutions when federal
prosecutions have occurred.
> > To put it as simply and succintly as I can, you
> > misunderstand the Constitution.
>
> Completely untrue - everything that I wrote in my post
> was precisely accurate and correct.
[other PV-like ranting and raving snipped]
No, not really. You don't even understand the most basic
principles about the Constitution, the rules of criminal
procedure, the rules of evidence, or much else about the
United States. Nearly every legal theory you asserted was
incorrect and based on gross misinterpretations of the
Constitution and criminal law. Your attempts to theorize on
these issues are so badly flawed that you're very close to
simply being ignored by myself in the future when you try
them. [You will notice that there are legal theories flying
left and right on this newsgroup, and I only choose to
respond to a select number of them. That choice is
deliberate.]
-N
Neil
> > Hardly. This can easily be prevented by interpreting
> > the doctrine not to include deliberate acts with the
> > intention of provoking a dismissal under this clause.
>
> Easy to say when your country doesn't respect the
> freedom of speech the way this and other English common
> law countries does. Canada for example tries to censor
> all media coverage of trials before they occur. A
> hopelessly losing battle of course thanks to the
> Internet.
Whoa, that made no sense. Must be the crack Mark shipped to
me last week. What I meant to say was that England and other
English common law nations do not respect freedom of speech
the way this country does.
-N
Ivan Gowch
[snip]
St.G:
==>> Hardly. This can easily be prevented by interpreting
==>> the doctrine not to include deliberate acts with the
==>> intention of provoking a dismissal under this clause.
==>Easy to say when your country doesn't respect the freedom of
==>speech the way this and other English common law countries
==>does. Canada for example tries to censor all media coverage
==>of trials before they occur. A hopelessly losing battle of
==>course thanks to the Internet.
What utter crap.
Canada doesn't attempt to censor "all
media coverage of trials before they
occur." The media may cover to their
heart's content -- with a couple of reasonable
exceptions.
The way it works here is that the media may
not, _around the time of an upcoming trial_
attribute evidence to the defendant, in a way
that may taint a jury. Any media outlet that
violates this rule may be held in contempt of
court. Note that this only applies around the
time of the trial. If Joe Blow is busted today,
there's nothing to stop me from publishing
that the victim's DNA was found in Blow's
car, because his trial is not going to be held for
months, at least. If I publish that information a
couple of weeks before the trial begins, however,
I might find myself in front of a judge. ALSO note
that I'm free to publish the existence of the
evidence at any point prior to trial; what I am
prohibited from doing -- again, close to the trial
date only -- is link the evidence to the defendant.
IOW, I'm free to say that police got a major break
in the case when they discovered the victim's DNA
in a car, but it's dangerous to say it was the
defendant's car. Once a trial is on, of course,
everything may be published.
The other exception is a "publication ban,"
which a judge presiding at a preliminary
hearing may impose at the request of
-- usually -- the defence. That ban applies
only to _new_ information disclosed during
the preliminary hearing (which is held to
determine whether there is enough evidence
to justify sending the accused to trial). Such
a publication ban does not apply to information
already published, or developed
independently of the preliminary hearing, and
it expires when the trial begins.
Now, you may find the above outrageous
limitations on free speech, but they're not.
Whatever limitations on free speech these
rules may impose are more than offset by the
absence, in Canada, of the circus-like trial-
by-media that the American "justice" system
has become.
The U.S. media declares every high-profile
defendant guilty or innocent and analyses every
piece of evidence long before they ever go to trial,
which is why the term "American justice" is considered
such a joke in Canada and much of the rest of the
world.
[snip]
==>You need to educate yourself a bit more on subjects you wish
==>to expound upon.
He's not the only one, Neil baby.
--
"This would be the best of all possible
worlds, if there were no religion in it!"
-John Adams.
"Amen."
- Ivan Gowch <go...@hotmail.com>
Rev. Don Kool
> }> On Fri, 11 May 2001, John Rennie wrote:
> }> > Breaking news: The FBI admit to withholding 200
> }> > separate items of evidence in the McVeigh Case. His
> }> > lawyers are considering an appeal.
> }>
> }> I just got a CNN email about that. Holy &%$#.
> }>
> }> -N
> }>
> }
> }Here is the New York Times report for those who are not registered:
> }
> }May 10, 2001
> }
> }
> }F.B.I. Mistakenly Withheld Boxes of Documents From McVeigh
> }
>
> In a perfect world we would hold hearings to
> discover just how much of a "mistake" this was.
> But with the current administration in charge, any
> excuse is a good excuse as far as law enforcement
> "mistakes" go.............
It is the "current administration" that brought out the mistakes of
the previous administration, my naive young murderer loving friend.
As the guilt of your beloved murderer Tim McVeigh is not in
question, have no doubt that justice will be served and in short
order.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
Rev. Don Kool
> "Little Mitchie Holman" <ta2...@airmail.net> wrote...
> > "John Rennie" <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
> > }"Neil" <ne...@imap1.asu.edu> wrote...
neither.
Hope this helps,
Ivan Gowch
wrote:
[snip]
==>Since this guy wants to die, it's hardly a punishment to let him.
==>[OK I know it's a horrible way to go, but it's soon over.]
==>
==>Personally I'd like to see him locked up for life, and living with
==>what he has done. His victims would know that he was being punished
==>by his suffering. His death serves no useful purpose.
==>Make him live! - That, to me, would be justice.
You're 100% right, Mary. Executing McVeigh
is madness on a number of levels, not the
least of which is what you've expressed --
that allowing him to commit "suicide by
government" lets him off far too easy.
I'm with you -- sentence him to life. Perhaps
he will continue to be the unrepentant macho
asshole he is for 30 years or so. But one day,
perhaps when he's in his 50s or 60s and begins
to feel his own mortality, he will awake in his
cell and the full realization will hit him -- the
shortness of human existence, the emptyness of
his own life, with no wife, no kids, no one on
the face of the planet who cares about him, the
futility of his act, the enormity of the loss and
grief his crime produced.
And then Tim McVeigh's heart will break and he
will finally feel remorse.
And on that day, justice will be done.
Killing him will only reward him with the smug
satisfaction that he was right all along.
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
Regards,
Typhanee Kassedyne
Ivan Gowch <go...@SPAMMENOThotmail.com> wrote in message
> I'm with you -- sentence him to life. Perhaps
> he will continue to be the unrepentant macho
> asshole he is for 30 years or so. But one day,
> perhaps when he's in his 50s or 60s and begins
> to feel his own mortality, he will awake in his
> cell and the full realization will hit him -- the
> shortness of human existence, the emptyness of
> his own life, with no wife, no kids, no one on
> the face of the planet who cares about him, the
> futility of his act, the enormity of the loss and
> grief his crime produced.
>
> And then Tim McVeigh's heart will break and he
> will finally feel remorse.
I think he has already felt remorse. I also think he has thought about all
the things he'll never have. That is partially why he's ready to die.
A Planet Visitor
"Typhanee Kassedyne" <tr...@mcn.net> wrote in message news:hqmM6.719$sg2.8...@nntp1.onemain.com...
Better to go out like a lion than whimper like a lamb, knowing
that in any case, you're going! Don't think he's any martyr to
any cause, because they had to hunt him down like a dog,
to find him. If he wished to be a martyr, he could have simply
went from the bomb site to the Police as soon as the building
exploded. I'll be interested to see how he reacts if he thinks
he can beat the DP.
PV
Neil
> I think he has already felt remorse. I also think he
> has thought about all the things he'll never have.
> That is partially why he's ready to die.
I do not believe he feels remorse.
Imagine you fought in World War II, in Normandy. Imagine you
fought bravely and fiercely, and killed many German soldiers
in the heat of battle. You also launched a grenade into an
occupied house that killed a key German officer, but which
unfortunately was also occupied by a French civilian family.
You feel bad, very bad, that the civilians died, but you
know that you did the right thing because you were fighting
for a greater cause, in the heat of battle, and the death of
that officer saved the lives of many Allied troops. You
might feel sadness but you certainly don't feel remorse: if
you had to go back, you would do the same thing if you had
to.
That is how Timothy McVeigh feels about his act of bombing
the federal building in Oklahoma. He has explained as such
in his own free words, on many different occasions. The dead
children were collateral damage.
-N
Greg Kuperberg
Neil <ne...@imap1.asu.edu> wrote:
}Imagine you fought in World War II, in Normandy. Imagine you
}fought bravely and fiercely, and killed many German soldiers
}in the heat of battle. You also launched a grenade into an
}occupied house that killed a key German officer, but which
}unfortunately was also occupied by a French civilian family.
}That is how Timothy McVeigh feels about his act of bombing
}the federal building in Oklahoma. He has explained as such
}in his own free words, on many different occasions. The dead
}children were collateral damage.
I agree with you about McVeigh's state of mind. It just goes to show
that this execution certainly isn't a deterrent. On the contrary,
it will, as he expected, make him a famous war casualty.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *
Typhanee Kassedyne
A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:K3nM6.223334$fs3.38...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> He's ready to die because he KNOWS he's GOING to die.
> Better to go out like a lion than whimper like a lamb, knowing
> that in any case, you're going! Don't think he's any martyr to
> any cause, because they had to hunt him down like a dog,
> to find him. If he wished to be a martyr, he could have simply
> went from the bomb site to the Police as soon as the building
> exploded. I'll be interested to see how he reacts if he thinks
> he can beat the DP.
>
> PV
I didn't say he was a martyr, I simply said I think he feels remorse.
Typhanee Kassedyne
> I do not believe he feels remorse.
>
> Imagine you fought in World War II, in Normandy. Imagine you
> fought bravely and fiercely, and killed many German soldiers
> in the heat of battle. You also launched a grenade into an
> occupied house that killed a key German officer, but which
> unfortunately was also occupied by a French civilian family.
> You feel bad, very bad, that the civilians died, but you
> know that you did the right thing because you were fighting
> for a greater cause, in the heat of battle, and the death of
> that officer saved the lives of many Allied troops. You
> might feel sadness but you certainly don't feel remorse: if
> you had to go back, you would do the same thing if you had
> to.
>
> That is how Timothy McVeigh feels about his act of bombing
> the federal building in Oklahoma. He has explained as such
> in his own free words, on many different occasions. The dead
> children were collateral damage.
>
> -N
>
If we are going to play the semantics game, my dictionary only says that
'remorse' is feeling a sense of guilt over the wrongdoing one has done. It
doesn't say that the person wouldn't choose to do it over again. I might
feel absolutely horrible after killing someone who walks into my house and
tries to kill me, however, that doesn't mean I wouldn't do it again. I know
how Tim McVeigh feels about it. And what he says to the media and how he
really feels aren't necessarily the same.
As far as the dead children being 'collateral damage' that isn't a term he
coined, it is a term he was taught. (And those too were his own words.) If
you did something you believed in your heart was the only 'right' thing to
do, you'd have to justify it somehow. If he admits remorse to appease the
country then everything he has done was for nothing. That's worse to
swallow than having done it in the first place. He just used the same
training he was given to deal with killing an 'enemy' soldier, and applied
it to the situation at hand. You think that was any easier to live with?
Typhanee Kassedyne
Greg Kuperberg <gr...@manifold.math.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:9dsvm4$ag5$1...@manifold.math.ucdavis.edu...
> I agree with you about McVeigh's state of mind. It just goes to show
> that this execution certainly isn't a deterrent. On the contrary,
> it will, as he expected, make him a famous war casualty.
I’d have to agree with you that executing him isn’t a deterrent. If someone
out there has the same frame of mind, they are ready to die for what they
believe in, anyway. McVeigh said himself that he expected to die in a
shootout with police, or something of a similar nature, so he was
anticipating his choices would result in his death. Most people who
consider themselves to be fighting for a cause are ready to pay the ultimate
price for their beliefs. Otherwise, they wouldn’t bother in the first
place.
A Planet Visitor
"Typhanee Kassedyne" <tr...@mcn.net> wrote in message news:RdpM6.383$fp.5...@nntp3.onemain.com...
then you would suppose. He feels remorse that he didn't cover
his tracks better, and was caught. He feels NO remorse for
what he did... of that we can be certain.... if he claims children
were 'collateral damage.'
PV
Typhanee Kassedyne
> > I didn't say he was a martyr, I simply said I think he feels remorse.
> >
> Oh I'm sure he feels remorse. But for quite different reasons
> then you would suppose. He feels remorse that he didn't cover
> his tracks better, and was caught. He feels NO remorse for
> what he did... of that we can be certain.... if he claims children
> were 'collateral damage.'
>
> PV
Actually no, he expected to be caught. And again, he didn't coin the term
'collateral damage' he learned it from our government. If you know human
nature as much as you pretend to, you'd realize that sometimes people say
things or categorize things in a way so they are able to deal with them. You
might be certain you know how he feels but don't assume all people feel as
you do, on the subject. (Granted, 98.9 % probably do, but not everyone.)
BETH A STERN
why...he would not have wanted the government to think it was foreign
terrorists....that surely would have defeated his purpose...
and as far as acting alone..."me thinks he doth protest too much"...he
certainly will die protecting all of his cohorts....why???....so that they
can continue "teaching the government a lesson"....so that when the next
Waco or Ruby Ridge occurs...someone will be around to avenge it...
A Planet Visitor
"BETH A STERN" <BTS...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:9dv124$7t88$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
> Tim meant to "be caught"....he wanted the world to know just what he did and
> why...he would not have wanted the government to think it was foreign
> terrorists....that surely would have defeated his purpose...
>
> and as far as acting alone..."me thinks he doth protest too much"...he
> certainly will die protecting all of his cohorts....why???....so that they
> can continue "teaching the government a lesson"....so that when the next
> Waco or Ruby Ridge occurs...someone will be around to avenge it...
>
Perhaps you should consider that keeping McVeigh alive
will allow HIM to continue 'teaching the government a lesson,'
by conducting classes in the white supremacist groups in
prison.
But obviously you have no agenda attached to your remarks...
Do you????
PV
Greg Kuperberg
A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>Perhaps you should consider that keeping McVeigh alive will allow HIM
>to continue 'teaching the government a lesson,' by conducting classes
>in the white supremacist groups in prison.
You don't get too many students in solitary confinement.
Or are you worried that he will educate the guards?
A Planet Visitor
"Typhanee Kassedyne" <tr...@mcn.net> wrote in message news:e2AM6.824$sg2.1...@nntp1.onemain.com...
his tracks, using false identities, and so forth. If you believe
that McVeigh was a soldier fighting a war, which entailed the
'collateral damage,' he spoke of, then there's really nothing to
discuss in that aspect... because I certainly see him as an
obscene example of depravity in his disregard for innocent
human life. And I'm not always happy being in the majority
in my opinion... but in this case I'll make an exception.
If you look at some of my previous comments concerning
McVeigh, perhaps you'll understand that I thought long and
hard before holding a firm opinion that he should be executed.
I now think it's only right and moral for us to execute him... in
addition to my belief that keeping him alive represents a
greater threat to our society then putting him to death.
PV
Typhanee Kassedyne
BETH A STERN <BTS...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:9dv124$7t88$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
> and as far as acting alone..."me thinks he doth protest too much"...he
Actually I was thinking the same thing myself. Granted the theory does help
Jones promote his book, and it's pretty clear that Tim feels a lot of
animosity toward him. It's possible he protests because he's trying to make
sure that Jones doesn't further his own cause.
Also, it's not out of the realm of possibility if there are others involved,
his family has been threatened. I doubt he's too worried about his mother,
but I know he loves his father and is especially close to his sister,
Jennifer. There are also close family friends he loves. If his family or
friends were threatened, there is no doubt in my mind he'd take total
responsibility.
> certainly will die protecting all of his cohorts....why???....so that they
> can continue "teaching the government a lesson"....so that when the next
> Waco or Ruby Ridge occurs...someone will be around to avenge it...
Hopefully there won't be another Waco or Ruby Ridge. I do wonder how the
feds would have handled the Freemen in Jordan if Oklahoma City hadn't
happened. Possibly better considering all the scrutiny after Waco, but it's
still hard to say.
A Planet Visitor
"Greg Kuperberg" <gr...@manifold.math.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message news:9dv1ll$chk$1...@manifold.math.ucdavis.edu...
> In article <sODM6.256604$o9.38...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
> A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >Perhaps you should consider that keeping McVeigh alive will allow HIM
> >to continue 'teaching the government a lesson,' by conducting classes
> >in the white supremacist groups in prison.
>
> You don't get too many students in solitary confinement.
> Or are you worried that he will educate the guards?
Ah, yes... a lifetime in solitary confinement. How humane
of you. Or do you believe that this represents a greater
punishment than the DP, thus you support it?
PV
Typhanee Kassedyne
Greg Kuperberg <gr...@manifold.math.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:9dv1ll$chk$1...@manifold.math.ucdavis.edu...
> You don't get too many students in solitary confinement.
> Or are you worried that he will educate the guards?
> --
> /\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
> / \
> \ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
> \/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *
Yeah, I don't see him being released into the general prison population,
even if he were spared the death penalty. He's never going to be a medium
or minimum security prisoner. He also doesn't strike me as the type who
tries to solicit followers. He seems more the type who finds others who
already share his beliefs, and interacts with them accordingly.
Typhanee Kassedyne
> Well, we disagree here. He tried, rather ineptly, to cover
> his tracks, using false identities, and so forth. If you believe
> that McVeigh was a soldier fighting a war, which entailed the
> 'collateral damage,' he spoke of, then there's really nothing to
> discuss in that aspect... because I certainly see him as an
> obscene example of depravity in his disregard for innocent
> human life. And I'm not always happy being in the majority
> in my opinion... but in this case I'll make an exception.
> If you look at some of my previous comments concerning
> McVeigh, perhaps you'll understand that I thought long and
> hard before holding a firm opinion that he should be executed.
> I now think it's only right and moral for us to execute him... in
> addition to my belief that keeping him alive represents a
> greater threat to our society then putting him to death.
>
> PV
I am glad to hear that you at least took a long look at the whole issue
before taking a side, and I certainly respect your views. I shared your
view up until about a month ago, so I can understand where you are coming
from.
Greg Kuperberg
A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>Ah, yes... a lifetime in solitary confinement. How humane
>of you. Or do you believe that this represents a greater
>punishment than the DP, thus you support it?
I just don't really care about Timothy McVeigh's feelings. The man is
a basket case. I am against the death penalty because it corrupts the
government and because it's an expensive farce. McVeigh is a perfect
example. The McVeigh sentence is just a great big bloody circus on
national TV. If we hadn't sentenced him to death we would have forgotten
about him a long time ago. If the purpose is to prevent him from winning
any converts, it has failed miserably because he's on the cover of Time
Magazine now.
If his feelings still matter, then in my opinion he deserves the right to
commit suicide. If that's what he really wants. His doctor can offer him
cyanide if he decides that LWOP is pointless. Yet another contradiction
of the death penalty is that they don't even let death row prisoners
commit suicide. They keep them alive just so that they can kill them.
Neil
> If we are going to play the semantics game, my
> dictionary only says that 'remorse' is feeling a sense
> of guilt over the wrongdoing one has done. It doesn't
> say that the person wouldn't choose to do it over again.
> I might feel absolutely horrible after killing someone
> who walks into my house and tries to kill me, however,
> that doesn't mean I wouldn't do it again. I know how
> Tim McVeigh feels about it. And what he says to the
> media and how he really feels aren't necessarily the
> same.
>
> As far as the dead children being 'collateral damage'
> that isn't a term he coined, it is a term he was taught.
> (And those too were his own words.) If you did
> something you believed in your heart was the only
> 'right' thing to do, you'd have to justify it somehow.
> If he admits remorse to appease the country then
> everything he has done was for nothing. That's worse to
> swallow than having done it in the first place. He just
> used the same training he was given to deal with killing
> an 'enemy' soldier, and applied it to the situation at
> hand. You think that was any easier to live with?
Ok, so basically you think that even though he shows
absolutely no remorse, even though he says he has no
remorse, even though he actually says he feels the opposite
way and is PROUD of what he's done, and even though he
describes the innocent children he murdered as "collateral
damage," this man is remorseful for what he's done.
Some people, sometimes, are willing to set aside and ignore
even overwhelming evidence when they want to believe what
they want to believe.
-N
p.s. Did you hear about the letter he sent to a Houston
newspaper a few days ago?
Neil
> I’d have to agree with you that executing him isn’t a
> deterrent. If someone out there has the same frame of
> mind, they are ready to die for what they believe in,
> anyway. McVeigh said himself that he expected to die in
> a shootout with police, or something of a similar
> nature, so he was anticipating his choices would result
> in his death. Most people who consider themselves to be
> fighting for a cause are ready to pay the ultimate price
> for their beliefs. Otherwise, they wouldn’t bother in
> the first place.
I also agree killing him will not be a deterrant. Killing
him, however, is justified in light of what he did.
-N
Typhanee Kassedyne
> Ok, so basically you think that even though he shows
> absolutely no remorse, even though he says he has no
> remorse, even though he actually says he feels the opposite
> way and is PROUD of what he's done, and even though he
> describes the innocent children he murdered as "collateral
> damage," this man is remorseful for what he's done.
Yes, that's exactly what I think. Do you always believe everything you hear?
Are you solely basing your belief he has no remorse on things he's said to
the media, and/or the bombing itself? (I'll agree, that in itself is pretty
overwhelming criteria.)
> Some people, sometimes, are willing to set aside and ignore
> even overwhelming evidence when they want to believe what
> they want to believe.
>
> -N
Sometimes people get so caught up in media hype they are unable (or
unwilling) to analyze all the details. Sometimes their judgment overrides
their ability to see anything other than what they choose to see. Do you
think Robert Nigh feels the way he does just because he is against the death
penalty? What about several reporters who've interviewed him and said he
wasn't the 'evil monster' they expected? Given his views on several things
I think it's completely illogical to assume he doesn't feel remorse. He
might not feel it every second of every day, but he feels it.
> p.s. Did you hear about the letter he sent to a Houston
> newspaper a few days ago?
I haven't read it, but I heard he was making it clear there was no other
person who was involved in the bombing but him. The one he wrote May 2?
A Planet Visitor
"Greg Kuperberg" <gr...@manifold.math.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message news:9dvf8v$d3c$1...@manifold.math.ucdavis.edu...
> In article <ZzEM6.257161$o9.38...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
> A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >Ah, yes... a lifetime in solitary confinement. How humane
> >of you. Or do you believe that this represents a greater
> >punishment than the DP, thus you support it?
>
> I just don't really care about Timothy McVeigh's feelings. The man is
> a basket case. I am against the death penalty because it corrupts the
> government and because it's an expensive farce.
And how exactly does it work to corrupt the government? Perhaps
because you believe it's the only activity supported by the state
that would presume the taking of a human life is permissible?
If THAT were the case, then licensing of private motor vehicle
driver's licenses needs to be examined. In that case, more are
killed by vehicular homicide in ONE DAY, then we have executed
in ~25 years. And such driving is government supported through
private licensing. And does the licensing of drivers for PERSONAL
driving serve any government purpose? Perhaps driving should
be restricted ONLY to those activities which impact society in
a GENERAL sense, such as to and from work in special
circumstances, work activities, government activities, public
transportation, etc. Abolish automobile pleasure driving and a
dramatic reduction in vehicular homicides would accompany
such an action. In addition to vast savings in energy consumption.
Have ONLY commercial transportation used in every personal
pleasure application. In fact, a larger reduction in the killing of
INNOCENT humans from vehicular homicides that occur in ONE
day would be realized, than that which has occurred in the past
25 years for PROVEN MURDERERS, if the DP had been abolished
then.
In fact, EVERY activity in society has a cost/benefit associated
with it that incorporates 'life' as part of the cost or benefit related
to each other. It is never stated as such... but it ALWAYS exists.
Do you wish to eliminate the DP? Then work on its root... its
causes, rather than try to trim the leafs of the weed. Dig deep
and work on the CAUSES of violence in our nation:
1. The media: Self-policing does NOT work. I do not advocate
censorship, but I do advocate restricting violent content of media
from minors, through LAWS. LAWS with teeth in them.
2. The abdication of parental responsibility: Why is it that
teachers are forced into the role that parents MUST play?
Nowadays, when teachers tell parents of the actions of their
uncontrollable children, the teachers are generally met with
a response from the parents of "You handle it." It isn't the
teacher's role to SUBSTITUTE for parental control. And it
ends up being assumed by peers. While parents wonder
WHY Johnny built that explosive device with his buddies in
the garage.
3. The drug problem: One word - legalize. Our current
problem is a abysmal failure. Legalization may not work,
but we have NOTHING left to try! The current Supreme
Court decision regarding medicinal use of marijuana is a
total disgrace, IMHO. We have only put our head FURTHER
into the sand.
4. Our disenfranchised: One word again - Disgrace. We
are a nation without honor, until we fulfill our commitment
to equal rights to the LAST FULL MEASURE. We've
taken relatively baby steps in achieving equal rights in
my lifetime, IMHO. I can only hope that the next
generation does a better job than my generation has
done. My father's generation did not even pay lip
service to equal rights, lacking even an understanding
of what it MEANT. My generation has ONLY paid lip
service to equal rights. The next generation needs to
IMPLEMENT TRUE HUMAN RIGHTS.
When you solve these 4 problems (by no means inclusive
to all the problems related to violence in our society),
perhaps then you can speak of the DP having some
validity in relation to violence. Until you do solve these
problems, the DP will always remain the 'effect' of the
'cause,' which is violence and in excess of 10,000
homicides a year in our nation.
Of course, the cost of execution in relationship to L wop is
the biggest 'strawman' argument of them all. Even were
it to be true, which I will never believe for one moment...
the argument can be reduced to an ad absurdum. Using
cost as an argument it can be clearly shown that giving
NO prison sentence to ANYONE for ANY crime, will also
reduce societal cost to the Justice System, to a miniscule
amount in respect to costs of trial, due process, incarceration
and execution. Nevertheless, the cost to society IN
GENERAL, will obviously skyrocket.
> McVeigh is a perfect
> example. The McVeigh sentence is just a great big bloody circus on
> national TV. If we hadn't sentenced him to death we would have forgotten
> about him a long time ago. If the purpose is to prevent him from winning
> any converts, it has failed miserably because he's on the cover of Time
> Magazine now.
>
If you believe he would be forgotten as the murderer of 168
innocent human beings had we placed him in prison for life,
I believe you are sadly mistaken. ONCE he is executed, he
WILL become an object of the past. As long as he lives, he
represents a constant reminder of how depraved a human
can be, while we still believe his actions have NOT met our
minimum moral criteria for execution. If this is so, then WHAT
IS our minimum moral criteria for execution? Murder 1000...
murder 10,000... murder a million. Sorry... but 168 meets
MY general criteria. Why do you think he is on the cover
of Time? Do you really believe that the pro-DP caucus
has created such an uproar over his execution? Look at
the sources behind the bloody media circus and understand
that this is not a one-sided issue. It is a contentious issue
which is divided rather evenly... and the media eats such
issues up.
> If his feelings still matter, then in my opinion he deserves the right to
> commit suicide. If that's what he really wants. His doctor can offer him
> cyanide if he decides that LWOP is pointless. Yet another contradiction
> of the death penalty is that they don't even let death row prisoners
> commit suicide. They keep them alive just so that they can kill them.
Since when do we allow those convicted of ANY crime to
choose their form of punishment? I find no contradiction in
the belief that SOCIETY determines the penalty, and not
those convicted. WE make the determination if ANY penalty
meets the criteria WE establish, which examines the
circumstances of the crime, the effects on our society, and
the possibility of recidivism. In McVeigh's case I find IMHO
that all of this criteria justifies our use of the DP.
PV
Greg Kuperberg
Because unlike most other connections between the government and death,
the death penalty gives politicians an incentive to kill people. Many
people die in car accidents, but no one at the DMV ever brags about it.
Judges and district attornies can and do campaign on their executions.
This corrupting incentive not only perverts justice in capital cases,
it undermines due process in general and it eclipses other vindictive
behavior by law enforcement. It spreads like a cancer.
>If you believe he would be forgotten as the murderer of 168
>innocent human beings had we placed him in prison for life,
>I believe you are sadly mistaken.
I don't see John Gotti, Ted Kaczynski, or Harold Shipman getting on the
cover of Time lately. To name three examples.
>Do you really believe that the pro-DP caucus has created
>such an uproar over his execution?
Yes I do. Timothy McVeigh is on the cover of Time because of John
Ashcroft's grandstanding. They just can't avoid the ceremony, not in
a big case like this. It's the biggest entertainment from Washington
since the inauguration. There is so much ceremony that in the end it just
might bring the show down. It reminds me of a scene in "The 500 Hats of
Bartholemew Cubbins": The executioner finally declares that he can't
cut off Bartholemew's head because Bartholemew can't take off his hat.
>> If his feelings still matter, then in my opinion he deserves the right to
>> commit suicide. If that's what he really wants.
>Since when do we allow those convicted of ANY crime to
>choose their form of punishment?
You asked me, sarcastically, whether solitary confinement for life would
be more humane than the death penalty. So is it that LWOP is too much
punishment, or not enough punishment?
Personally, I don't think that punishment is the government's
business. Public safety is the government's business. Deterrence
is the government's business. Rehabilitation is the government's
business. Laying proper blame is sometimes the government's business.
But punishment is not, because it's not the government's business to
give people what they deserve. The government should be fair itself,
but it shouldn't try to make life fair. Most conservatives feel strongly
that government shouldn't dole out money to people just because they
might deserve it. I agree with that, but I agree with the flip side even
more: The government absolutely shouldn't dole out injury to people just
because they might deserve it.
I agree that convicts shouldn't be allowed to choose their sentences.
McVeigh's sentence ought to be life in prison without parole. Either
that's more cruel than the death penalty or it isn't. If it's too
cruel then the remedy is to let him end his own life if he wants to.
That isn't letting him decide his sentence, it's leaving him
something to decide apart from his sentence.
--
John Rennie
the Government's business. I reject entirely the idea of punishment. As
a concept it harkens back to the middle ages. It's a word that is there
with evil, wicked, good, bad, immoral, moral, unrighteous, righteous; all of
which mean something to the people that use them but usually not the same
thing.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote in message news:9e1i88$oot$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Greg Kuperberg" <gr...@manifold.math.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
> news:9e19lv$eii$1...@manifold.math.ucdavis.edu...
> > In article <nFUM6.236758$fs3.40...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<rest clipped>
> Good post Greg - I especially like the comments about punishment not being
> the Government's business. I reject entirely the idea of punishment. As
> a concept it harkens back to the middle ages. It's a word that is there
> with evil, wicked, good, bad, immoral, moral, unrighteous, righteous; all of
> which mean something to the people that use them but usually not the same
> thing.
>
Me too, John... Just thing about how much money we
can save by convicting them but not punishing them.
The thought boggles the mind.
By the way: 'punish' -- To subject to pain, loss,
CONFINEMENT, DEATH, etc.
Yep -- let all governments do any with punishment.
PV
PV
Neil
> Neil <ne...@imap1.asu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.21.010517...@email2.asu.edu...
>
> > Ok, so basically you think that even though he shows
> > absolutely no remorse, even though he says he has no
> > remorse, even though he actually says he feels the opposite
> > way and is PROUD of what he's done, and even though he
> > describes the innocent children he murdered as "collateral
> > damage," this man is remorseful for what he's done.
>
> Yes, that's exactly what I think. Do you always believe
> everything you hear?
My belief is based on statements he has made to the press
himself, and to the authors of the book written about him,
and the letters he himself has written about the bombing,
and my rejection of the groundless accusations that there is
a government conspiracy somehow making him say or write
things he doesn't really mean.
-N
Typhanee Kassedyne
> My belief is based on statements he has made to the press
> himself, and to the authors of the book written about him,
> and the letters he himself has written about the bombing,
> and my rejection of the groundless accusations that there is
> a government conspiracy somehow making him say or write
> things he doesn't really mean.
>
> -N
I don't really believe there is a government conspiracy making him say or
write things either, so we agree on that much.
Did you read the new book on him? I didn't get the impression from reading
the reviews on it that he came out sounding like a 'monster'. One person
said: "But, if you need to come away from this book with the view of Tim
McVeigh as a highly disturbed, demonic psychopath, don't buy it! You won't
find closue or peace in the pages of AMERICAN TERRORIST."
Typhanee
A Planet Visitor
"Greg Kuperberg" <gr...@manifold.math.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message news:9e19lv$eii$1...@manifold.math.ucdavis.edu...
> In article <nFUM6.236758$fs3.40...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
> A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >And how exactly does [the death penalty] work to corrupt the government?
>
> Because unlike most other connections between the government and death,
> the death penalty gives politicians an incentive to kill people. Many
> people die in car accidents, but no one at the DMV ever brags about it.
> Judges and district attornies can and do campaign on their executions.
> This corrupting incentive not only perverts justice in capital cases,
> it undermines due process in general and it eclipses other vindictive
> behavior by law enforcement. It spreads like a cancer.
>
from any Justice System flaws you may observe. In my
opinion, sending someone to prison for the rest of their
life although they are innocent, is every bit as egregious a
failure of the Justice System as is an innocent executed.
In both cases, a life has been deprived. Judges and district
attorneys have and will always campaign on being 'tough
on crime.' Simply because crime is easily identified as
something NONE of the citizenry are in favor of. In truth,
I believe just the opposite effect is in place. I believe that
the DP serves as a greater level of due process than any
other penalty. I think if we abolished the DP, we would only
find juries more willing to send those who are innocent
to L wop, because of a lowered level of expectation of taking
a life through execution. Further, I think if the DP were
abolished the due process in place for the DP would simply
disappear and a lower level would emerge for L wop. The
fact that 62% or 73% or whatever happens to be claimed
as the number of DP cases overturned doesn't bother me
as much as it would if we suddenly abolished the DP, and
found ourselves with a 10% overturn rate for L wop. In
that case I'd begin to believe we were sending a lot more
innocent people to prison for the rest of their life.
> >If you believe he would be forgotten as the murderer of 168
> >innocent human beings had we placed him in prison for life,
> >I believe you are sadly mistaken.
>
> I don't see John Gotti, Ted Kaczynski, or Harold Shipman getting on the
> cover of Time lately. To name three examples.
>
When he is executed, he will certainly quickly disappear.
in my opinion. I can well imagine that John Gotti has
received more publicity than McVeigh. And I see Kaczynski,
still mentioned frequently. I wonder how often Ted would
be mentioned had he been executed after he was
convicted?
> >Do you really believe that the pro-DP caucus has created
> >such an uproar over his execution?
>
> Yes I do. Timothy McVeigh is on the cover of Time because of John
> Ashcroft's grandstanding. They just can't avoid the ceremony, not in
> a big case like this. It's the biggest entertainment from Washington
> since the inauguration. There is so much ceremony that in the end it just
> might bring the show down. It reminds me of a scene in "The 500 Hats of
> Bartholemew Cubbins": The executioner finally declares that he can't
> cut off Bartholemew's head because Bartholemew can't take off his hat.
>
John Ashcroft was never my first choice for Attorney General.
In fact when he was first nominated, I mentioned in this
newsgroup that his nomination might have been Bush's first
mistake. I have turned around completely on this. He has
certainly not grandstanded, but has admitted that mistakes
were made by the FBI, and has NEVER placed the blame
on the past administration, where I feel it belongs. It took
a lot of guts on his part to act as he did. Of Course, as
always -- IMHO.
> >> If his feelings still matter, then in my opinion he deserves the right to
> >> commit suicide. If that's what he really wants.
> >Since when do we allow those convicted of ANY crime to
> >choose their form of punishment?
>
> You asked me, sarcastically, whether solitary confinement for life would
> be more humane than the death penalty. So is it that LWOP is too much
> punishment, or not enough punishment?
>
L wop is too much punishment. I don't know how I can make
this more clear... because I've said it before. IMHO, L wop
is a disaster... both practically and morally. You need to
perhaps look at my other posts of recent days to see how
I feel about L wop. If I were forced to choose for myself,
I would choose the DP, knowing that L wop means L wop.
Given if you were truly guilty, and knew L wop was True
L wop, which would you choose? Keep in mind that if you're
innocent, I believe you have a better chance holding out for
the DP anyway, rather than L wop, because of the elevated
due process inherent in a DP sentence. I believe a person
is either capable of rehabilitation or not capable of
rehabilitation. If not, we need to consider the DP... if yes,
what is the purpose of L wop? Send them to prison, with
the understanding that they will come up for parole as part
of the rehabilitation process, when WE, through our
rehabilitation efforts, determine they should be examined for
parole, and not on a set schedule of parole determination.
> Personally, I don't think that punishment is the government's
> business.
Huh???? You understand that even a 3 day jail sentence is
'punishment.' Do you advocate elimination of ALL punishment?
> Public safety is the government's business. Deterrence
> is the government's business. Rehabilitation is the government's
> business.
None of these aspects can be accomplished without
punishment. I don't really know where you're going here.
I agree that each of the other points you mention are the
government's business. But how is that accomplished
without 'punishment?'
> Laying proper blame is sometimes the government's business.
> But punishment is not, because it's not the government's business to
> give people what they deserve.
Huh, again??? Whose job is it? Vigilantism?
> The government should be fair itself,
> but it shouldn't try to make life fair. Most conservatives feel strongly
> that government shouldn't dole out money to people just because they
> might deserve it. I agree with that, but I agree with the flip side even
> more: The government absolutely shouldn't dole out injury to people just
> because they might deserve it.
>
Apparently you're confusing 'punishment' with torture or the
DP. I guess??? You have to be more specific as to what you
define 'injury' to be, since both physical and mental injury are
certainly connected.
> I agree that convicts shouldn't be allowed to choose their sentences.
> McVeigh's sentence ought to be life in prison without parole. Either
> that's more cruel than the death penalty or it isn't. If it's too
> cruel then the remedy is to let him end his own life if he wants to.
> That isn't letting him decide his sentence, it's leaving him
> something to decide apart from his sentence.
We can leave NOTHING for him to decide. The entire purpose
of society is perverted if we leave 'anyone' decide even with
one day's difference, the level of punishment we enact. We
decide whether L wop or the DP is more cruel, as a society.
Presently those states using L wop as lesser penalty have
decided such. I believe L wop is more cruel, but that's only
MY opinion. The U.S. has determined the DP is appropriate.
Certainly you and I may form opinions in regard to this
sentence, but certainly you must agree that McVeigh should
NEVER have a say in the sentence. We do not run a Justice
System with 'pick and choose' sentencing by the convicted.
Nor should we. And of course.... IMHO.
PV
Greg Kuperberg
A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>In my opinion, sending someone to prison for the rest of their
>life although they are innocent, is every bit as egregious a
>failure of the Justice System as is an innocent executed.
At least the system has more time to change its mind with LWOP.
>> Personally, I don't think that punishment is the government's
>> business.
>
>Huh???? You understand that even a 3 day jail sentence is
>'punishment.' Do you advocate elimination of ALL punishment?
pun搏sh - 1a: to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation
b: to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution
or retaliation
Punishment in the sense of retribution (definition 1b) is not the
government's business. Retribution means dishing out to people what
they deserve. Punishment in the more general sense of imposing penalty
(definition 1a) might be the government's business, provided that it
serves some practical purpose other than retribution. Deterrence,
public safety, and rehabilitation are all practical purposes. They are
the three legitimate purposes of criminal penalties.
>> Laying proper blame is sometimes the government's business.
>> But punishment is not, because it's not the government's business to
>> give people what they deserve.
>Huh, again??? Whose job is it? Vigilantism?
Fairness is a strictly personal issue. It's the job of each of us
individually to seek what we think we deserve. If you get lucky and get
more than you deserve, great. If you get less than you deserve, tough.
It's not the goverment's job to make life fair to you. The government
should be fair itself, but that's not the same thing.
Haven't you heard that life isn't fair?
Neil
> I don't really believe there is a government conspiracy
> making him say or write things either, so we agree on
> that much.
>
> Did you read the new book on him? I didn't get the
> impression from reading the reviews on it that he came
> out sounding like a 'monster'. One person said: "But, if
> you need to come away from this book with the view of
> Tim McVeigh as a highly disturbed, demonic psychopath,
> don't buy it! You won't find closue or peace in the
> pages of AMERICAN TERRORIST."
What I did read was an article he authored last year or
maybe the year before. He made some very interesting points
that I agreed with, such as his point that the U.S.
government commits murder just as he did. I think he used
the example of Iraq, and a Clinton-ordered bombing of Sudan
(or was it Afghanistan?).
It is true that the U.S. has ordered missile attacks on
targets in other countries which directly resulted in the
death of innocent civilians.
McVeigh feels he has done the exact same thing. He doesn't
see it as murder. That's not remorse anymore than U.S.
actions in Iraq have been met with remorse from our
government.
-N
Typhanee Kassedyne
> What I did read was an article he authored last year or
> maybe the year before. He made some very interesting points
> that I agreed with, such as his point that the U.S.
> government commits murder just as he did. I think he used
> the example of Iraq, and a Clinton-ordered bombing of Sudan
> (or was it Afghanistan?).
>
> It is true that the U.S. has ordered missile attacks on
> targets in other countries which directly resulted in the
> death of innocent civilians.
>
> McVeigh feels he has done the exact same thing. He doesn't
> see it as murder. That's not remorse anymore than U.S.
> actions in Iraq have been met with remorse from our
> government.
>
> -N
It's possible the government officials don't lose sleep over what happened
when they did the bombing, but then again they probably haven't seen
pictures of the results of the bombing. Tim has and I'd wager he's lost
sleep over it. I think that's partially why he keeps bringing up Waco. Not
only does he not want the rest of us to forget it, he constantly has to
remind himself to justify why he killed innocent people.
I'll agree to disagree though. :)
Typhanee
lil_jew...@webtv.net
throw them
lil_jew...@webtv.net
NOT GUILTY! it has not been proven! can u honestly take the government
and FBI's side after their constant fuck ups? he did do it idiots. the
goverments a crock!
http://communiy.webtv.net/playoby-girl-21/tim_mcveighs_innocen
lil_jew...@webtv.net
this country is so BARBARIC! no one deserves to die
lil_jew...@webtv.net
NOT GUILTY! it has not been proven! can u honestly take the government
JIGSAW1695
From: lil_jew...@webtv.net
Date: 5/18/01 1:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <21361-3B...@storefull-625.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
the governmet is bunch of fuck ups. i dont trust them as far as i can
throw them
===============================
Very few people do as a result of the actions of the Clinton administration.
John Rennie
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010518150201...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
=================================
And what actions were those Jiggy? Remember it was his administration you
criticised not the man himself.
>
>
A Planet Visitor
<lil_jew...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:21362-3B...@storefull-625.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Greg Kuperberg" <gr...@manifold.math.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message news:9e279c$fr8$1...@manifold.math.ucdavis.edu...
> In article <YN0N6.238282$fs3.40...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
> A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >In my opinion, sending someone to prison for the rest of their
> >life although they are innocent, is every bit as egregious a
> >failure of the Justice System as is an innocent executed.
>
> At least the system has more time to change its mind with LWOP.
>
case, 'more' is 'less,' IMHO.
> >> Personally, I don't think that punishment is the government's
> >> business.
> >
> >Huh???? You understand that even a 3 day jail sentence is
> >'punishment.' Do you advocate elimination of ALL punishment?
>
> pun搏sh - 1a: to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation
> b: to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution
> or retaliation
>
> Punishment in the sense of retribution (definition 1b) is not the
> government's business. Retribution means dishing out to people what
> they deserve. Punishment in the more general sense of imposing penalty
> (definition 1a) might be the government's business, provided that it
> serves some practical purpose other than retribution. Deterrence,
> public safety, and rehabilitation are all practical purposes. They are
> the three legitimate purposes of criminal penalties.
>
Then you should have said 'retribution' is not the government's
business... because 'punishment' certainly IS. Not 'retribution' I
can agree with. Not 'punishment' I cannot. The extraction
of anyone's life, or liberty IS punishment. To claim it's not the
government's business, is to claim invalidation of the entire
Justice System.
> >> Laying proper blame is sometimes the government's business.
> >> But punishment is not, because it's not the government's business to
> >> give people what they deserve.
> >Huh, again??? Whose job is it? Vigilantism?
>
> Fairness is a strictly personal issue. It's the job of each of us
> individually to seek what we think we deserve.
I'm hoping you mean 'seek what we think THEY deserve.'
Otherwise you've lost me. If it is 'they,' then I don't see
it as our job, but certainly our 'right' to claim that a
punishment (such as the DP) does not fit the crime,
and you have every right to feel that way, as I have
every right to feel that there are those who I see DO
deserve the DP. Thus, you seek abolition and I seek
retention. But, in any case... as I've so often said...
IMHO, I find your opinion to be quite a bit more
RIGID than mine. You assert NO murderer should be
executed. I assert NOT ALL murderers should be
executed. I know you probably don't see it the same,
but I see my position as MORE FLEXIBLE than yours.
I accept society examining EACH individual case of
murder in the determination of the DP depending upon
the individual circumstances. You reject ANY
determination of such a penalty REGARDLESS of the
circumstances.
Now if you mean it AS you say... I'm not sure what
you means, but....
You may feel it's "the job of each of us to seek what
'we' deserve," but it's certainly not 'our purpose.'
In fact, in every cost/benefit analysis we expect to achieve
maximum benefit at minimum cost to us. Certainly when
one murders, they DO NOT seek what they know they
deserve. They seek to AVOID that which they deserve.
And the same is applicable in the case of ANY crime, in
general. Those committing crimes weigh the cost/benefit
associated with the crime (certainly almost all not doing so
very intelligently). They commit the crime because they
do NOT seek what they think they deserve for committing
the crime. They seek to benefit and avoid what they
deserve in the process.
> If you get lucky and get
> more than you deserve, great. If you get less than you deserve, tough.
> It's not the goverment's job to make life fair to you. The government
> should be fair itself, but that's not the same thing.
>
Certainly can't argue with that!
> Haven't you heard that life isn't fair?
Yep... I've heard 'life's a bitch... and then you die.'
PV
JIGSAW1695
Date: 5/18/01 6:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <9e462t$ia3$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>
===============================
He is included, John.
Ivan Gowch
[snip]
==>=>>the governmet is bunch of fuck ups. i dont trust them as far as i can
==>=>>throw them
==>Very few people do as a result of the actions of the Clinton administration.
That's Nixon administration, Jig. Nixon destroyed
the credibility of government. Nixon -- the criminal
president who had to pardon himself before he
could resign in disgrace.
And then Reagan came along and put the nail
in the coffin by demonstrating that not only is
government not honest or honourable, but it's
not even of normal intelligence.
Judged against these guys, Bill Clinton looks pretty
damn good.
That's what the history books will say. Trust me.
--
"This would be the best of all possible
worlds, if there were no religion in it!"
-John Adams.
"Amen."
- Ivan Gowch <go...@hotmail.com>
JIGSAW1695
Date: 5/19/01 1:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <3b05fde9...@news.primus.ca>
On 18 May 2001 19:02:01 GMT, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
[snip]
==>=>>the governmet is bunch of fuck ups. i dont trust them as far as i can
==>=>>throw them
==>Very few people do as a result of the actions of the Clinton administration.
That's Nixon administration, Jig. Nixon destroyed
the credibility of government. Nixon -- the criminal
president who had to pardon himself before he
could resign in disgrace.
And then Reagan came along and put the nail
in the coffin by demonstrating that not only is
government not honest or honourable, but it's
not even of normal intelligence.
Judged against these guys, Bill Clinton looks pretty
damn good.
That's what the history books will say. Trust me.
===============================
God help us if history is allowed to be revised that way.
A Planet Visitor
"Ivan Gowch" <go...@SPAMMENOThotmail.com> wrote in message news:3b05fde9...@news.primus.ca...
> On 18 May 2001 19:02:01 GMT, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> ==>=>>the governmet is bunch of fuck ups. i dont trust them as far as i can
> ==>=>>throw them
>
> ==>Very few people do as a result of the actions of the Clinton administration.
>
> That's Nixon administration, Jig. Nixon destroyed
> the credibility of government. Nixon -- the criminal
> president who had to pardon himself before he
> could resign in disgrace.
>
> And then Reagan came along and put the nail
> in the coffin by demonstrating that not only is
> government not honest or honourable, but it's
> not even of normal intelligence.
>
> Judged against these guys, Bill Clinton looks pretty
> damn good.
>
> That's what the history books will say. Trust me.
>
Trust ME --
Not as long as I'm around to say that lying SOB,
came on National TV, and told ME and EVERY OTHER
American -- "I did not have sexual relations with that
woman - Monica Lewinski." Only when DNA analysis
backed him into the CERTAINTY that he could no longer
LIE his way out of it, did he finally admit it. Without
such proof, he would STILL be uttering the same lying
refrain. Quite simply if he had said "It's nobody's
business what I do if it doesn't impact decisions I
make in my capacity as President," I would have stood
up and applauded the man, as one of high character.
But he DID NOT DO THAT. Instead he tried to LIE his
way out. Go see the movie "The Contender," to see
how a MORAL person responds to such accusations.
I'd like to believe that anything MY President tells me,
is the truth, or he/she remarks that it's none of my
business. Both of those answers I can readily accept.
The road he took only makes me question exactly what
OTHER lie he may have said to me.
PV
>
>
> --
>
> "This would be the best of all possible
> worlds, if there were no Ivan in it!"
> -Planet Visitor.
>
> - Ivan Gowch <go...@hotmail.com>
>
Neil
> That's Nixon administration, Jig. Nixon destroyed
> the credibility of government. Nixon -- the criminal
> president who had to pardon himself before he
> could resign in disgrace.
>
> And then Reagan came along and put the nail
> in the coffin by demonstrating that not only is
> government not honest or honourable, but it's
> not even of normal intelligence.
>
> Judged against these guys, Bill Clinton looks pretty
> damn good.
>
> That's what the history books will say. Trust me.
Why is the Bush Sr. Administration being left off of this
list? The Marc Rich pardon pales in comparison to the
appearance of impropriety Bush Sr. caused with the pardons
he issued precluding the possibility of an investigation
into his own possible criminal conduct. We will never know
the truth about Bush and Reagan's involvement, thanks to
Bush's pardon.
-N
Ivan Gowch
J:
==>==>Very few people do as a result of the actions of the Clinton administration.
IG:
==> That's Nixon administration, Jig. Nixon destroyed
==> the credibility of government. Nixon -- the criminal
==> president who had to pardon himself before he
==> could resign in disgrace.
==>
==> And then Reagan came along and put the nail
==> in the coffin by demonstrating that not only is
==> government not honest or honourable, but it's
==> not even of normal intelligence.
==>
==> Judged against these guys, Bill Clinton looks pretty
==> damn good.
==>
==> That's what the history books will say. Trust me.
==>God help us if history is allowed to be revised that way.
No revision necessary, Jig. History will judge
Bill Clinton as one of the best presidents of
the 20th century, despite being somewhat
oversexed, whose potential was in large part
stymied by a conspiracy of right-wing morons
in both parties.
The historians will be highly perplexed how a
criminal like Richard Nixon ever avoided
prison, and astonished that the American
electorate was ever stupid enough to elect
a failed Hollywood pitchman and certified
dimwit like Ronald Reagan.
It'll be an interesting read. I'm looking forward
to it. Aren't you?
Ivan Gowch
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
[snip]
IG:
==>> That's Nixon administration, Jig. Nixon destroyed
==>> the credibility of government. Nixon -- the criminal
==>> president who had to pardon himself before he
==>> could resign in disgrace.
==>>
==>> And then Reagan came along and put the nail
==>> in the coffin by demonstrating that not only is
==>> government not honest or honourable, but it's
==>> not even of normal intelligence.
==>>
==>> Judged against these guys, Bill Clinton looks pretty
==>> damn good.
==>>
==>> That's what the history books will say. Trust me.
==>Trust ME --
You must be joking. . . .
==>Not as long as I'm around to say that lying SOB,
==>came on National TV, and told ME and EVERY OTHER
==>American -- "I did not have sexual relations with that
==>woman - Monica Lewinski." Only when DNA analysis
==>backed him into the CERTAINTY that he could no longer
==>LIE his way out of it, did he finally admit it. Without
==>such proof, he would STILL be uttering the same lying
==>refrain. Quite simply if he had said "It's nobody's
==>business what I do if it doesn't impact decisions I
==>make in my capacity as President," I would have stood
==>up and applauded the man, [. . .]
Well, isn't that _special_, you self-righteous
prig.
The fact is, Clinton would have said that,
except that he was forced to lie by an
incompetent judge (and vengeful former
student of his) who committed the gross
malpractice of permitting the author of an
entirely frivolous civil lawsuit to ask him that
question under oath.
It was nobody's business then and nobody's
business now and, as the polls showed time
after time, the vast majority of the American
people didn't care about his sex life and didn't
care that he lied about it.
Get over it, pal. No one gives a fig about Bill's fib
except, in descending order of humanity, sexually
uptight moralists, hypocrites and Republicans.
Clinton will be judged on his not-insignificant
accomplishments, not the lipstick marks on his
dick or the fact he tried to keep his private life
private.
--
"This would be the best of all possible
St.George
> On Sun, 13 May 2001, Neil wrote:
>
> > > Hardly. This can easily be prevented by interpreting
> > > the doctrine not to include deliberate acts with the
> > > intention of provoking a dismissal under this clause.
> >
> > Easy to say when your country doesn't respect the
> > freedom of speech the way this and other English common
> > law countries does. Canada for example tries to censor
> > all media coverage of trials before they occur. A
> > hopelessly losing battle of course thanks to the
> > Internet.
>
> Whoa, that made no sense. Must be the crack Mark shipped to
> me last week.
Hope you enjoyed it, Neil. For your next consignment, I have arranged for
shipment through Little Rock airport. Your contact is 'Billy-Bob'
What I meant to say was that England and other
> English common law nations do not respect freedom of speech
> the way this country does.
If you mean by that statement that there are restrictions on inflammatory
trial reporting until a verdict is delivered, then you are right. However,
interpreting it as a meaningful restriction on free speech, when compared to
the media circus fiascos and wholesale abrogation of justice seen so often
in the US, is quite ridiculous.
St.George
Clinton was a part of the Clinton administration, John, you may be surprised
to learn.
And the reason why Jiggy is quite correct (and _please_ don't make me say
that ever again) is because his ludicrous antics resulted in absolute
embarassment for the US worldwide. Whether you believe this was because of
the severity of his poor conduct, or because of an over-reaction by others
to it, is not important.
The fact is it is only one man's fault that people around the world dissolve
with laughter at the very mention of the word 'Monica'.
As you well know, if Tony was caught doing this sort of thing, he'd be out
by the end of the week. And quite rightly - regardless of your moral view
on this sort of conduct, the very fact that Clinton was so damned STUPID
enough not only to get caught, but to get caught lying and perjuring about
it, is ample evidence of inability to govern a whole nation properly.
St.George
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:klvN6.268034$o9.41...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
<snip>
> Trust ME --
> Not as long as I'm around to say that lying SOB,
> came on National TV, and told ME and EVERY OTHER
> American -- "I did not have sexual relations with that
> woman - Monica Lewinski."
You know what I found quaint? The way so many Yanks _believed_ him!
I still remember the press conference - it must have been about 730PST and I
was eating breakfast in my apartment - Bella Vista complex in Santa Clara -
and he came on with his denial, his flustered red face SCREAMING 'Liar'.
I turned to my companion for the night and said simply "I thought he was a
MUCH better liar than that!"
Only when DNA analysis
> backed him into the CERTAINTY that he could no longer
> LIE his way out of it, did he finally admit it. Without
> such proof, he would STILL be uttering the same lying
> refrain. Quite simply if he had said "It's nobody's
> business what I do if it doesn't impact decisions I
> make in my capacity as President," I would have stood
> up and applauded the man, as one of high character.
> But he DID NOT DO THAT. Instead he tried to LIE his
> way out. Go see the movie "The Contender," to see
> how a MORAL person responds to such accusations.
I've not seen it. Gary Oldman, who played the evil republican, I think,
said how disgusted he was with the studio for cutting it in such a way as to
introduce a completely unintended liberal bias to the movie - typical of
American media.
Hence, I didn't think it worth my time or money to see yet more Hollywood
propaganda.
A Planet Visitor
"Ivan Gowch" <go...@SPAMMENOThotmail.com> wrote in message news:3b06d2b5...@news.primus.ca...
If a prig is someone who dislikes being lied to...
Guilty, Gov'nor. But I don't see MYSELF as
self-righteous... I see you as such. Since we
are speaking in this newsgroup of the DP in the
U.S., and YOU are self-righteously condemning it.
Understand that reasonable disagreement about
this subject from anyone is appropriate and welcome.
But I find your postings far from reasonable, and
patently self-righteous.
>
> The fact is, Clinton would have said that,
> except that he was forced to lie by an
> incompetent judge (and vengeful former
> student of his) who committed the gross
> malpractice of permitting the author of an
> entirely frivolous civil lawsuit to ask him that
> question under oath.
>
Of course... 'The Devil made me do it!" How
totally appropriate of you as one who believes that
murderers ALWAYS have an EXCUSE for
committing murder. Clinton-speak -- "I wouldn't
have lied if you hadn't asked me.' And I was
speaking of his lie TO ME. On National TV.
Not under oath, but under a responsibility to
me as MY President. I've said this before, but
it seems simply self-evident. If Paris was ever
struck by a nuclear missile, and my President
went on TV, and said "That wasn't our missile,"
I'd like to believe he was telling the truth, before
I grab my gun and begin to defend my country from
any retaliation by France.
> Clinton will be judged on his not-insignificant
> accomplishments, not the lipstick marks on his
> dick or the fact he tried to keep his private life
> private.
>
Total crap. Clinton would have NEVER admitted to
it, lacking certain proof that it DID exist. His
statement was made to ME, Ivan... so bug off.
Unless that was a sock puppet speaking to me
on TV... he LIED TO ME. We had a former President,
Grover Cleveland, who fathered a child out of wedlock,
and fully admitted such. Clinton lacks even the tiniest
shred of morality... thus, it's quite understandable
that you would hero worship an out and out
LIAR. And whether you know it or not, we
EXPECT morality from our leaders. Not morality
in sexual conduct. I don't care WHAT they DO. As
long as they don't LIE to me, by DENYING they did
it. After all, you also feel Einhorn deserves champagne
and foie gras for trying to beat the rap, so I well
understand where you're coming from on this issue.
His current stature as to his accomplishments while President
is exceeded by even William Henry Harrison, who caught
pneumonia on his inauguration day, and succumbed some
few days later. Clinton is already a non-person in the U.S.,
and will continue to decline in stature.
But go ahead and keep posting to hear yourself talk.
Maybe you can even convince yourself that he didn't lie.
>
> "This would be the best of all possible
Ivan Gowch
<god_save_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
==>
==>"John Rennie" <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
==>news:9e462t$ia3$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
==>>
==>> "JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
==>> news:20010518150201...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
==>> > Subject: Re: McVeigh: FBI admit to withholding evidence.
==>> > From: lil_jew...@webtv.net
==>> > Date: 5/18/01 1:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
==>> > Message-id: <21361-3B...@storefull-625.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
==>> >
==>> > the governmet is bunch of fuck ups. i dont trust them as far as i can
==>> > throw them
==>> >
==>> >
==>> >
==>> > ===============================
==>> >
==>> > Very few people do as a result of the actions of the Clinton
==>> administration.
==>>
==>> =================================
==>> And what actions were those Jiggy? Remember it was his administration
==>you
==>> criticised not the man himself.
==>
==>
==>
==>Clinton was a part of the Clinton administration, John, you may be surprised
==>to learn.
==>
==>And the reason why Jiggy is quite correct (and _please_ don't make me say
==>that ever again) is because his ludicrous antics resulted in absolute
==>embarassment for the US worldwide. Whether you believe this was because of
==>the severity of his poor conduct, or because of an over-reaction by others
==>to it, is not important.
==>
==>The fact is it is only one man's fault that people around the world dissolve
==>with laughter at the very mention of the word 'Monica'.
==>
==>As you well know, if Tony was caught doing this sort of thing, he'd be out
==>by the end of the week. And quite rightly - regardless of your moral view
==>on this sort of conduct, the very fact that Clinton was so damned STUPID
==>enough not only to get caught, but to get caught lying and perjuring about
==>it, is ample evidence of inability to govern a whole nation properly.
A proposition that is hard to argue with, I'm afraid.
--
"This would be the best of all possible