Letters to the Editor
bucky1
Published Letters: 1714
-
A few questions on the law ...
[Read the article: How did the Bush administration use its secret eavesdropping powers?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As I understand the criminal law in this country, the following scenario is correct.
If a gang of men pull a bank job, all knowingly involved are guilty of the robbery. That includes the men who went in the bank, the mastermind who stayed at the hideout, the driver who waited outside, the mechanic crew who prepared the cars, the crew that staged a diversion a few blocks away, and anyone else involved in any way.
If a gun was used, then all are guilty of armed robbery. A given prosecutor looking at his case may choose 'conspiracy' or other law to charge some people involved, but 'armed robbery' taints all of the criminal gang. If a murder was committed inside the bank, the whole gang in now apt to be charged with murder or 'conspiracy to commit' or whatever the phrase may be.
If we get to this point without a lot of pedantic remarks or thoughts; the first question is if the gang receives any immunity on their crimes if they wear nice matching uniforms. I think most adults who say no to that; and they would say no even if the gang came up with a great and impressive sounding name. (the committee to liberate dollars from captivity)
What if everyone in the gang worked for the CIA, FBI, or BATF? Or, god forbid the VP's office! Does murder in an 'official' capacity make it morally OK? Legally justifiable?
OK, the real question. May one murder in cold blood simply because your government tells you to do so? What about other laws, like spying on civilians without a court order? (and so forth)
-
Paul in real Projection; or just mindless
[Read the article: How did the Bush administration use its secret eavesdropping powers?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So it's ussins that "see only white/black" in our "little world of hate"? And that's why you embrace Randolph Bourne, while readily admitting he was no "classic liberal"? And why you defend LBJ so vigorously against facile comparisons to GW Bush? And why you are so unfailingly courteous to one and all?
Are you LWM? Or, are you his sock-puppet? I wrote to him, and about him. Are you two one and the same? I wrote, "Yes LWM/Anonymous" and you try to pretend that meant you.
It gets real tiresome to have people like you attack every post while pretending to be a thinking human.
Then you get everything backwards on purpose. Bourne, in my book, was a classic liberal. He lived and worked in times that being a classic liberal was not uncommon. He was also the kind of fellow that would not attack antiwar.com as you did. What sort of war monger attacks antiwar.com?
I would never defend LBJ; just ask William. How the hell can you possible get things so backwards. Are you drinking?
-
Great interview!
[Read the article: Interview with Helen Thomas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks Glenn, that really made this day much brighter.
HT: But they really went soft after 9/11. Reporters, I'm assuming, did not want to be called unpatriotic and un-American when we were in a national crisis.
Yes, they failed America and the middle east.
-
Not just guns, but boots....
[Read the article: Interview with Helen Thomas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Paul Dirks: "... When in comes to "the most guns" what we have is air power, missiles and nukes. We've already proven that our stash of boots with rifles is much more limited. Which, as we've seen, means we can blow up anything we want but are complete unable to control the political events that then take place in the rubble. ..."
This is exactly so. This is why the professionals in the military who believe that air power trumps all are dead wrong. You will never 'win' a war (if such is even possible) from the air. You can utterly destroy a country; committing mass genocide from the air --- but who is depraved enough to see that as an option?
-
House Narrowly Defeats Measure to Defund Vice President’s Office
[Read the article: Interview with Helen Thomas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]antiwar.com blog:
The House of Representatives just narrowly defeated an amendment to deny funds to operate Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. Cheney had insisted that his office is exempt from Executive Department oversight by arguing that he is not part of that department. Rep. Rahm Emanuel proposed the amendment as a counter to that incredible claim.
The measure was defeated 209-217, with most Republicans and 24 Democrats siding with Cheney. GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas and Walter Jones of North Carolina voted in favor of defunding Cheney’s office.
Emanuel tried to attach the amendment to a bill funding the Treasury Department and other agencies that could have faced a veto by President Bush. The overall bill includes a salary increase for House members that would bring their annual pay to nearly $170,000 next year.
The attempt to kill funds for Cheney’s vice presidential office and the government-owned mansion he lives in came on the same day Bush said he would not provide documents being subpoenaed by Democrats in Congress related to the firings of federal prosecutors.
Hmmmm. How can that measure lose in the house? Did we not vote in a Democratic majority?
OK, so it would never make it to the president's desk; and never be signed even if it did. So?
Come on Dems, give me a little payback for the hard work in the damn heat and humidity down here working to get Republicans out.