 sj |
||
|
||
BS: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart)
|
|
|
Subject: J'Accuse! From: InOBU Date: 09 Apr 02 - 08:00 PM Injustice, Injustice, for that's all it was They've arrested Lynn Stuart without any cause, Bound over for trial for defending the damned The enemies of justice are strangling our land... Larry |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! From: Willie-O Date: 09 Apr 02 - 08:03 PM Huh? W-O |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! From: GUEST Date: 09 Apr 02 - 08:52 PM I agree Larry, it is more than outrageous. Just when you think you've seen it all... |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! From: Áine Date: 09 Apr 02 - 09:00 PM It's a great beginning, a shem, now finish the song and start singing it from the rooftops! Le grá, Áine |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! From: michaelr Date: 09 Apr 02 - 09:12 PM Larry - a clue, please? |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! From: Áine Date: 09 Apr 02 - 09:21 PM Here's a link to the story at CNN.com. -- Áine |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! From: Áine Date: 09 Apr 02 - 09:30 PM What the article I cited doesn't talk about are the draconian measures used to indict the suspects in this case. Can someone else find a news source that explains Attorney General Ashcroft's attitude toward attorney/client confidentialy -- something which he believes can be tossed out the window on his whim? -- Áine |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! From: michaelr Date: 09 Apr 02 - 09:36 PM OK, so on the surface it looks like a convicted Arab terrorist used his lawyer to communicate with his henchmen, and since that's forbidden, the lawyer got slapped. So? Does InOBU know something CNN isn't telling us? Michael |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! From: toadfrog Date: 09 Apr 02 - 10:27 PM The lawyer client privilege cannot be "tossed out" on anyone's whim, because it is a matter for courts, not Attorney Generals, to decide. On the other hand,it is subject to exceptions. I don't know all of them, but I do know that, for example, wiring money is not a privileged activity. And I know from long experience that the privilege is often abused. Little as I trust Ashcroft, I have to assume he knows the law. And if he is going outside the law, he will get his case thrown out of court. There is just not enough information there to warrant indignation, without more. |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! From: Bobert Date: 09 Apr 02 - 10:30 PM Yeah, this is some pretty scarey stuff and a shot fired across to bow of any defense attorney who might be contemplating defending any of the detainees in Cuba. Ol' Bobert thinks that Joe McCarthy is smiling in his grave tonight. |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! From: InOBU Date: 09 Apr 02 - 11:55 PM Let's look at the acusation. Here is Lynn (who I know, and I can tell you is innocent...) who does not speak arabic. Now they are saying she is responsible for the fact that as she speaks in English to her client, and according to the Feds, her translator speaks about something else with her client, how is she to know? I suppose the Att. Gen expects lawyers can only defend folks who speak their language? Who's next? WHen they come for you, who will be left to speak on your behalf? Larry |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! From: Lepus Rex Date: 09 Apr 02 - 11:59 PM All very creepy. Crappy choice for a thread name, though, Larry. ;) ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! From: michaelr Date: 10 Apr 02 - 12:01 AM It seems reasonable to me for a lawyer to be able to communicate with his/her client in one's or the other's language... especially in a high-profile case like this. Are you saying she was an unwitting dupe, Larry? Whether that's the case, or she was complicit, the Justice Dept. should be doing its job of ensuring that this jerk does not direct more killing of innocents from behind bars. Whom, exactly, are you accusing of what? Michael |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! From: Áine Date: 10 Apr 02 - 12:35 AM I don't know whether this link will work or not. If it doesn't, I found this site by searching Google using the terms 'attorney general' +ashcroft +taping +attorney/client. The article is really a 'white paper' entitled:
COMMENTS REGARDING EAVESDROPPING ON CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS These folks have a few things to say about the AG's policies that he has used to indict Lynn Stuart. Makes a good read. Here's the introduction (emphasis added by myself):
Introduction And thanks Lor, for bringing this to everyone's attention, since the 'media' seems to hiding their light under a bushel on this one . . . geez, they don't want any sponsors yanking their ads now, do they? I hear Paula Zahn and her 'happy TV family' is pretty high upkeep . . . -- Áine |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: michaelr Date: 10 Apr 02 - 01:00 AM Thanks, Aine; that certainly is disturbing. Someone will have to sue the Justice Dept. on constitutional grounds to get that one rescinded, I'll wager... However, it doesn't answer my questions to Larry. Well, it's late, I'll check back tomorrow. Regards, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Apr 02 - 05:37 AM Stand back a bit, and the "war on terrorism" is going really well for anybody who wants to see the USA destroyed, and this is another victory. |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: Grab Date: 10 Apr 02 - 07:53 AM Erm, is client confidentiality more important than the lives of the ppl at risk if this guy keeps his terrorist organisation running? The exception to client confidentiality in this case wasn't made bcos Ashcroft said "Make it so", it was done bcos he (or his employees) took it before a court and the court agreed with him. Sounds reasonable to me, the same way any other rights can be suspended in exceptional circumstances. When they come for you, who will be left to speak on your behalf? Well, when I'm the leader of a terrorist organisation, we'll deal with that then, shall we? Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: InOBU Date: 10 Apr 02 - 09:36 AM Well, a couple of historical reference explanations. "When they come for you..." a Catholic priest, whose name temporarily escapes me said, of being a Catholic in nazi Germany... when they came for the jews I said nothing, as I was not a jew... (He goes on in the same vien, they came for the Trade Unionists, Socialists, Comunits, Adventists, Gays, etc...) and when they came for me, there was noone to speak for me... J'Accuse, ... who do I accuse? Well, one may remember this was the title of the Zola essay about Dreyfuss, the Jewish innocent scapegoated in France. I accuse the executive branch of government of scapegoating the defense bar for doing their job, when our failed foreign and economic policies have brought us to the brink of world war. Cheers Larry PS thanks Áine |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: SDShad Date: 10 Apr 02 - 09:42 AM Minor correction, Larry: The author of those words, the Rev. Martin Niemoller was, in fact, a Lutheran minister, and, if memory serves, one of the cofounders--along with the theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer--of the Confessing Church, which was in effect the "true" Lutheran Church in Germany during the the dark times when the twisted, perverted, Nazi-enforced, "state" Lutheran Church was in force. Chris |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: InOBU Date: 10 Apr 02 - 09:53 AM Thanks Chris, right you are. Cheers, Larry |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: InOBU Date: 10 Apr 02 - 09:57 AM Michaelr: You state that..."It seems reasonable to me for a lawyer to be able to communicate with his/her client in one's or the other's language... especially in a high-profile case like this. " Well, this means if a particular ethic community does not have the most competant lawyers, or has a small number of lawyers, their community should not have equal access to justice? Is that what you mean? Or is it that only linguists should practice law, and that trials should be held until a lawyer can train in a minority language, such as, say Aluit? Cheers Larry |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: kendall Date: 10 Apr 02 - 10:08 AM Ashcroft has a very simple phylosophy; if you agree with him, you are a hero. If you don't, you are a traitor. Where did all those Nader voters go? Still think you made the right choice? |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: InOBU Date: 10 Apr 02 - 10:12 AM Well said, Kendall, they same Nader fans called me a wishy washy liberal when I said Mr. N should though his support over to Gore at the last minute, and they said, Republicans and Democrats, it is all the same! Cheers Larry |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: GUEST Date: 10 Apr 02 - 11:05 AM It is all the same. Do you really think the draconian response to 9/11 would have less offensive if instituted under President Gore? If you believe that, then you don't know your history very well. GWB isn't the fault of Nader voters. GWB is president as a result of corruption in the highest places (like the Supreme Court that appointed him). The problem is with political corruption running rampant (which the soft money bill will not stop--hard money, soft money--it's all money used to buy politicians and influence). If you seriously think the sad state of affairs under GWB is Nader's fault guys, I suggest you see a therapist who can help you learn new coping strategies instead of blaming others and holding grudges. But wait! How could I forget that blaming others, holding grudges, that is what Mudcat membership is all about! |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: InOBU Date: 10 Apr 02 - 11:47 AM And posting anonimouly shows the pride in the Nader forces??? Cheers Larry Otway |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: InOBU Date: 10 Apr 02 - 11:48 AM And posting anonimouly shows the pride in the Nader forces??? Cheers Larry Otway |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: Troll Date: 10 Apr 02 - 01:26 PM Larry. Big Sign. DON'T FEED THE TROLL! troll |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Apr 02 - 01:43 PM I doubt if there'd have been much difference in the way Gore responded to September 11th. Maybe there's a fair chance that the Holy Land confrontation would have developed a little less catastrophically. Rewriting past history in that kind of way is entertaining, but not very useful.
Looking forward one thing I confidently predict is that this is going to be one of those historical periods that a lot of people are going to be deeply embarrassed and ashamed of.
Of course a cynic might say that all historical periods are like that when you get down to it - but any place where the state is allowed to listen in on lawyers with their clients, including those who haven't been either convicted of anything or even accused of anything, is well on the way to being totalitarian. |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: Art Thieme Date: 10 Apr 02 - 02:57 PM Complex--complex--complex. To use a possibly less incendiary example: Where does my right to privacy impinge or conflict with your right to toss shit on me while I'm taking a nap?? ---------------Lenny Bruce (paraphrased by Art Thieme explaining the necessity for laws regulating that one should only defecate in the bathroom and not in the bedroom) |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: DougR Date: 10 Apr 02 - 03:08 PM Grand Juries indict people, not attorney generals. If she is innocent, she will no doubt be found innocent. A Grand Jury obviously thought there was sufficient reason to indict. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Apr 02 - 03:36 PM You mean you only convict guilty people in America, Doug? When did that start happening? (Noone other country seems to have cracked that one.)
One problem is people have this tendency to say "there's no smoke without fire" - including people on juries. |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: Mrrzy Date: 10 Apr 02 - 04:05 PM I heard this one on NPR too, and it was mightily unclear to me that they had any evidence that the lawyer KNEW what the 2 arabic speakers were discussing. But they didn't just listen in on attorney-client conversations, which would be reprehensible. They obtained a COURT ORDER to eavesdrop, which is OK in my book. Had they (lawyer et al.) not been breaking the rules, they would have had nothing to fear from the eavesdropping. I did gather, however, that the lawyer was also talking about issues that were banned from conversation, even if she wasn't specifically passing info to and from the Sheik and the Egyptian terrorists, so she IS, apparently, guilty of that, if not of fomenting terrorism as may be the interpreter. I did not hear anybody say that they thought she'd participated in the fomenting, just had broken the rules of what was a permissible topic of conversation (the case, period, apparently). Now, whether it's OK to limit what lawyers can talk about with incarcerated clients is another question. |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Apr 02 - 04:21 PM I quote from that link Áine found - "The regulation... allows the Department of Justice, unilaterally, without judicial oversight, and with no meaningful standards, to eavesdrop on the confidential attorney-client conversations of persons in custody whom the Justice Department itself may be seeking to prosecute."
That is what I meant by totalitarian. That is a step over the line. It's a victory for anyone who wants to see the destruction of the experiment in democracy that the USA is supposed to be. |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: SDShad Date: 10 Apr 02 - 06:42 PM Cheers back to you, Larry. I brought it up only because Niemoller and Bonhoeffer are both particular heroes of mine--especially Bonhoeffer, and what little I've read of his actual theology has had a profound effect on me (although for the most part I find I must take theology, especially 20th century German liberal Protestant intellectuals like Bonhoeffer and Tillich, in small doses--thick stuff). Chris |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: michaelr Date: 10 Apr 02 - 10:00 PM Larry - in the unlikely event that no American lawyer can be found who speaks Arabic, an American translator should the be used - NOT an Arab national. I certainly agree that this country is well on the road to totalitarianism, but then I have thought so since the 1970s. Michael |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Apr 02 - 10:05 PM "an American translator should be used - NOT an Arab national."
I can't see what difference that would make. |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: DougR Date: 10 Apr 02 - 10:20 PM No, McGrath, I'm sure you can't. :>) Also McGrath, I don't think the majority in the U. S. are ready to give up the jury system. Mistakes are made, but the alternative to juries is not very attractive. My point was, and I guess it escaped you, is that the Attorney General of the United States cannot indict anyone. It is impossible for him to do so. So whether or not you like the current AG, he cannot be blamed for what a Grand Jury does. If the Grand Jury indicts, it is his departments responsibility to prosecute. Prosecution does not mean an automatic verdict of guilty. You may not be familiar with our judicial system here in the U. S., but you appear to be familiar with most everything else, so it surprises me if you are not. Larry, on the other hand is a lawyer, and he does know better. Shame on you Larry. :>) Dougr |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: toadfrog Date: 11 Apr 02 - 01:29 AM There has to be some confusion here. Doug, you are mistaken. It is a notorious fact that District Attorneys, or Attorney Generals do in fact control grand juries. That is not even controversial. It is not a particularly left-wing idea. Every lawyer knows that it's true. And our constitutional "right" to be indicted by grand juries is thus a joke. Aine: I am sure that Ashcroft is up to things that are scary. But what Lynn Stuart is accused of, among other things, is conveying to the press what amounts to instructions to hit-men. The lawyer-client privilege protects confidential communications between a lawyer and his/her client. Messages to be conveyed to the press are not "confidential." Thus if I am accused of a crime, and tell my lawyer where I hid the body, that is a privileged communication. It is confidential, and it is information the lawyer needs to conduct the defense. But if I tell him to go tell Cheech and Guido to go whack some witnesses, that is a communication intended for third persons not necessary to the defense, no privilege attaches, and no principle whatsoever suggests that that the communication should be protected. A communication is likewise not privileged if the lawyer is retained for the purpose of perpetrating a crime or fraud. Finally, California is much more jealous of evidentiary privileges that almost anyone else. But there was a recent case where the accused told his lawyer not to worry about the trial, because he was going to have the prosecuting witnesses "whacked." He reported that to the police, and the court quickly found another exception - where disclosure is necessary to prevent someone from being killed or harmed. I personally think that was correct. Do you disagree? |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: kendall Date: 11 Apr 02 - 06:51 AM Pedant alert! It is Attorneys general, not, attorney generals. Ashcroft scares me. We all know how a leader can lead us down the primrose path with either "pie in the sky" or scare tactics. |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Apr 02 - 08:57 AM This isn't the kind of situation where actual nationality really makes that much difference. That young man they're putting on trial for being with the Taliban is an American citizen, hence the trial.
I wasn't querying the jury system, Doug, just pointing out that saying "If she is innocent, she will no doubt be found innocent" just doesn't follow. Innocent people get found guilty and guilty people get found not guilty, and noone's found a way of avoiding that. It happens in countries where there are juries like ours, and it happens where there's other systems. |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: InOBU Date: 11 Apr 02 - 08:58 AM Hi Toadfrog: Any case you work on with transcripts of taped conversations, even without two languages being spoken (think of how long the state department worked on the ben lauden video, and there is still controversy over details of what has been said...) there is the ability to put the prosicutors spin on it. Remember the case of the couple who were going to be tried for killing their daughter untill a judge finally said that there was no relationship at all between what was said on the tapes from their bugged house and the transcripts produced by the police? Every unintelligible sound was tranlated into an inculpatory coment. gotta run... phone call ...cheers Larry |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: DougR Date: 11 Apr 02 - 02:00 PM Toad: Not to be argumentive, but ... I agree that Attorneys General (thank you very much Kendall)control Grand Juries, but unless the evidence they present is compelling, it does not necessary follow that the Grand Jury will indict. I think I am right about that. McGrath: Yes, I agree, Juries do, at times, find the innocent guilty. I'm sure the person in question will have excellent counsel though, and I think if she is innocent she stands a good chance of being acquitted. Just my opinion, of course. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Apr 02 - 04:31 PM "I think if she is innocent she stands a good chance of being acquitted."
I hope so too. But that also implies there's a real possibility that even if totally innocent she may be convicted.
As happened to too many people in both our countries. The Guildford Four, The Birmingham Six, the Maguire Family, Timothy Evans...and there's a long long list of lesser known names to add to that.
"If she is innocent, she will no doubt be found innocent". No, not "no doubt".
And behind the individual case there stands the new doctrine that the state can monitor what goes on between a lawyer and a client. A very subversive doctrine that I cannot imagine your Founding Fathers tolerating for a moment. |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: Grab Date: 12 Apr 02 - 09:18 AM OTOH, if you've done it, there's proof you've done it, and you've told the police that you did it and were glad you'd done it, you can still get off scott free if your lawyer plays the system. Think Menendez... Re the transcription issue, the tapes are evidence and are therefore open to both parties. You can get your own transcriber/translator if you don't think the prosecution's transcription is correct. If your lawyer hasn't checked the evidence that you're being convicted on, he's incompetent. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: InOBU Date: 12 Apr 02 - 09:49 AM Hi Graham... I would be very surprised if Lynn is convicted. There is a case, I will try and find the names, recently, where the police, as mentioned above, put unintelligible transcripts forward, with completely made up translations, concerning the dissapearence of a couple's child. They clamed the parents killed the child and then after bugging their home, every obscure comment or unintelligble noise, in the transcript was, "Why did we kill our daughter..." In fact, the parents who turned out to be innocent, lost years of their lives and all their money. What we have here, is a warning off of the defense bar, when it comes to defending a class of defendants in this nation. As to the overall question of danger, why is it that a cleric, asked a question of Islamic law, is now in jail and isolated while a terrorist like Dov Hiken is in city government in the United States. His direct involment in the bombing of Sol Hurok's office, led to the near death of a friend of mine, and ironicly the death of a young jewish receptionist. We are living in very strange times... Larry |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: DougR Date: 12 Apr 02 - 12:01 PM The bombing of Sol Hurock's office OBU? Tell me more! I knew Sol Hurock, slightly, and cannot imagine why anybody would want to bomb his office. Was it because of his being Jewish? McGrath: there is also the possibility that she IS guilty, right? dougR |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Apr 02 - 12:44 PM "McGrath: there is also the possibility that she IS guilty, right?"
Obviously, in principle it's possible that anyone might be guilty of anything. The principle is they are assumed to be innocent until and unless proved guilty.
And the other principle is that there are strict limits on what the state can be allowed to do. And that is a principle on which "conservatives" should be at least as hard to satisfy as "liberals" when it comes to accepting extensions of those elimits. |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: InOBU Date: 12 Apr 02 - 01:31 PM Well, what happened, I forget the date, a long time ago, maybe 20 - 25 years ago? When councilman Dov Hiken was an active member of the JDL's leadership (Jewish Defense League), Sol Hurok brought the Bolshoi Balet to NY. For this crime, the JDL put an incendiary bomb in a lamp by the single door in the office. When the staff arrived in the morning, the receptionist turned on the lamp and was killed. My friend Larry Goosen and his co-workers were trapped by the fire in the rest of the office. They tried in vane to break the windows in the high rise office to get air. One by one they fell unconsious, Larry aware that there was no hope and seeing others sucumbing lost conciousness believing that he was also about to die. The heros of the FDNY got him out, and revivied him. He died a few years ago... Well there it is, the leadership of the JDL are now in NY city government, while the feds jail lawyers... go figure. CHeers Larry |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: kendall Date: 12 Apr 02 - 01:40 PM Does this remind anyone of 17th century Salem Massachusettes? |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: DougR Date: 12 Apr 02 - 02:24 PM Thanks, Larry, I recall the indident now. |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: Hrothgar Date: 13 Apr 02 - 10:18 PM "I can't imagine why anyone would want to bomb his office..." Nobody could imagine why anybody wanted to bug the Democrats in the Watergate building, either. But I digress. More importantly, where would John Adams stand now if he wanted to defend the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre? And just to take the names a little further, would anybody like to compare the Bush presidents, father and son, with the Adams presidents? Thread is startting to creep a bit, isn't it? Sorry about that. |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: Grab Date: 14 Apr 02 - 05:51 PM Larry, on what you've said I doubt it too. If her translator is getting instructions from the terrorist but she's not in on it, she should be OK. Your example is incredible - who'd let themselves go down for that? If the ppl concerned knew they hadn't gone round saying that, why didn't they get the evidence checked? I mean, anyone half awake could sort that out - translators aren't that expensive to hire, the tapes are freely available to the defence and the ppl on trial know they didn't say that so the original translation must be an error. Either the lawyer or the ppl convicted or both must have been utter cretins. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: Amos Date: 14 Apr 02 - 10:46 PM I would suggest it would have been a lot smarter to try the bugger under military tribunal rules, since they were accusing him of acts of war. If you propose to use the American system of civilian justice, you make an ass of yourself when you simultaneously use military tactics inside the process. In anycase if Lynn was not aware of the conversation contained, why the hell is she even being accused of anything. A |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: Barry Finn Date: 15 Apr 02 - 12:53 AM Nothing is that scared or beyond the means that are used in this country to manipulate the system if the ends are deemed justifiable. Question athority! In Boston, as it turns out many yrs after, a few agents of the FBI have had their hands in the pockets of some of the local gangland bosses (or is the term now Warlord). They fed information that knowingly caused the murders (at least 20 known) of some of the competion & of others who fell from favor while at the same time they helped to set up others who took took the fall for these serial killers. One of these men was just cleared for one of these murders after serving 30 yrs (do only the guilty go to prison?) There's our system at work. Does anyone know for sure that our civil rights won't get trampled on when the justifiable need comes about. Or that it's not happening now? Look at our voting rights (or is it privilige), our freedom to speak (when spoken to?). As it stands now the military is getting unquestionable amounts of money & power, they're going the world over as the saviour & defender of all that's holy, it seems as if we're more than willing to start World War III. All this & if we, the public, question or ask for an explantion we're suspect of treason or at the least of being a danger to ourself &/or society,(a jailable or hospital offense). Where the hell did our right to question go? Opps, was that ever a right? I guess I got side tracked. Goodnight & sleep securely, the Lord Bush is watching over us all. Barry
|
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: Troll Date: 15 Apr 02 - 01:35 AM I suppose that nothing of this sort ever happened under a Democrat President, eh? Maybe Congress needs to pass a law banning the Republican Party and THEN we'd all be OK. Larry, I hope that Lynn gets this cleared up quickly. Cases of this type can drag on for years. troll |
|
Subject: RE: J'Accuse! (US Indictment of Lynn Stuart) From: toadfrog Date: 15 Apr 02 - 11:24 PM Troll: With all due respect, the proper usage is "Democratic president." The use of conscious linguistic slurs lowers the tone of things, and makes people mad. Do you want a response, or are you just tossing out insults? Has anyone yet said anything about "Republicans" in this thread? I don't think it is about Republicans and Democrats; its about being against authority. Troll, I take it you are a Libertarian, and theoretically hate authority just as much as Barry Finn, and all the people on this thread who assume, on the basis of ideology and without any evidence, that of course Ms. Stuart is being framed. So why don't you agree with them? Aren't you the one who thinks we all have to have guns to defend ourselves from tyranny? Doesn't Ashcroft work for the government? Isn't government, in your philosophy, always evil? And folks, why pick on Lynn Stuart? If the cops are always wrong, shouldn't everybody now in prison be let lose? |