Letters to the Editor

• Oh, reeeeally?

  But the USA Patriot Act created a new category of domestic terrorism, which is defined as an offense "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government" or "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Under this broad definition, eco-saboteurs become terrorists if their crime seeks to change government policy or action.

  Well, I'm certainly looking forward to all the anti-abortion and anti-gay groups who will be prosecuted as terrorists now! What? This definition of terrorism only applies to leftists and foreigners? Oh, well, never mind.

  @Amerigo

  the defense attorney picked apart the female cop's testimony and paperwork and argued every minutia in an attempt to distract the jury from the basic facts of the case.

  So when the defense points out inconsistencies in the State's argument it's only to 'distract' from the 'facts?'

  In my case we the jury had no difficulty in determining that the cop, although in many respects not a polished witness, was 100% truthful--she admitted to several mistakes--and the defendant lying--there were inconsistencies in her testimony.

  Yes, the cop was '100% truthful' despite 'several mistakes,' but the defendant was 'lying' because there were 'inconsistencies.' Care to define 'mistakes' vs. 'inconsistencies?' Perhaps if I'd been on the jury and heard the testimony I'd agree, but the way you've written this sounds very biased.

  -- thatboy
  [Read thatboy's other letters]
  Permalink Thursday, March 27, 2008 07:27 AM