|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
| 178 |
Date: 2001-10-04 15:12:22 Janet Dawson (no email / no homepage) wrote: If the war on terrorism is to be effective, law enforcement should stop abusing its resources. In particular, prior to September 11, 2001, the US attorney's office in New York was examining whether Bill Clinton's commutation of the sentences of four men in the state is responsible for swinging votes to the Senate campaign of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Of course it is. Everything that a politician does is responsible for swinging votes one way or the other. That's politics. If the US Attorney's Office would like to investigate the biggest and the most scandalous, politically motivated, quid pro quo in American History, it should look into the fact that Theodore Olson's role in the campaign to stop the vote is directly responsible for the fact that he was appointed Solicitor General, or does the US attorney's office in fact believe that Al Gore would have appointed Ted Olson. Better still, the US attorney's office in New York should stop playing politics and maintain its law enforcement duties. To date, it has failed its most basic responsibility -TO PROTECT ALL CITIZENS OF NEW YORK. New York needs a better US attorney's office. |
|
| 176 |
Date: 2001-10-04 02:05:40 Sean Elert (no email / no homepage) wrote: I can't believe that Janet Reno is currently being sued for rescuing Elian Gonzalez from a bunch of terrorists. I thought we were ar war with terrorists, I didn't think that they would be provided the opportunity to abuse the judicial system again. |
|
| 175 |
Date: 2001-10-03 11:51:25 Diane Dawson (no email / no homepage) wrote: America will never forget the victims of the Twin Towers massacre. |
|
| 174 |
Date: 2001-10-02 15:50:09 The Boston Globe (no email / no homepage) wrote: THE SUPREME Court, which changed history in 1997 by allowing the Paula Jones civil suit to go forward while Bill Clinton was president, will compound that error if it now disbars him permanently from Supreme Court practice. Yesterday's action, suspending Clinton and giving him 40 days to argue for reinstatement, may have been routine, following his five-year disbarment in Arkansas as part of a plea agreement with Independent Counsel Robert Ray the day before he left office last January. Seventeen other lawyers received the same sanction from the Supreme Court yesterday after being disbarred locally for a variety of misdeeds. But Clinton's case is anything but routine, and that should drive the court to withdraw its sanction once Clinton's lawyers have filed his response. In 1997, the court ruled unanimously that sitting presidents are not above the law and do not enjoy a right to ''automatic temporary immunity,'' in the words of a concurring opinion from Justice Stephen Breyer. The court acknowledged that the presidency deserved ''high respect'' and that pains should be taken so that Clinton's busy official schedule would not be unduly affected. But it said that the case should go forward because Jones, ''like every other citizen ... has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims.'' Although it sounded reasonable on principle, this decision failed badly in practice. It was a mistake to treat Jones and Clinton as two ordinary citizens, because the entire case turned on the fact that Clinton was president. Jones said the incident of sexual harassment that was at the base of her case occurred in 1991, more than a year and a half before Clinton became president. Yet she did not file the claim until 1994, when he was in the White House and she was receiving financial backing from some of Clinton's bitterest opponents. Once the case moved to a grand jury, Clinton was called to answer questions about other sexual relationships, including with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. It is questionable whether this was a legitimate line of inquiry - as it turned out it had nothing to do with the conclusion of the Jones suit. But it is absolutely clear that if Clinton had been an average citizen he would not have been forced to testify in that situation. As it was, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr failed to find evidence of other crimes, despite spending millions in the effort, but he put Clinton in a position where he committed a new crime. Clinton lied under oath. For this his presidency will be forever tarnished. And the nation was subjected to a year-long impeachment ordeal. But the Supreme Court, which contributed to Clinton's problems by treating him as an average citizen, should not prolong that ordeal now that Clinton has left office. |
|
| 173 |
Date: 2001-10-01 21:04:50 Sandra Harrington (no email / no homepage) wrote: The decision on Clinton came as the Supreme Court opened its 2001-2002 session. With U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson looking on, Chief Justice William Rehnquist opened the court term by recognizing "the terrible loss" caused by the September 11 terrorist attacks and expressed condolences to Olson over his wife's death. Barbara Olson was a passenger on the hijacked jet that crashed into the Pentagon. "Before we hear the first argument, let us take a moment to recognize the terrible loss caused by the terrorist attacks on America that occurred on September 11," Rehnquist said. "I know our hearts go out to the families of those killed and injured. We extend our condolences to the Solicitor General of the United States Theodore Olson for the loss of his wife Barbara. "In the aftermath of the attacks we have witnessed extraordinary bravery and compassion from Americans from all walks of life. Let us take a moment to grieve with those who mourn, and honor those who have heroically performed their duty," Rehnquist said. Olson sat in the front bench, flanked by former solicitors general Kenneth Starr and Seth Waxman. Olson, as solicitor general, leads the Justice Department attorneys who argue cases on behalf of the U.S. government. In the two cases argued Monday, assistants to Olson are defending the government's position. Olson is scheduled to argue the government's case for the first time in a case next week. Clinton hater Barbara Olson was denied the opportunity to gloat. |
|
| 172 |
Date: 2001-10-01 19:50:57 Roger Blake (no email / no homepage) wrote: It is ironic that the Arkansas Supreme Court disbarred Clinton because staunch presidential supporters on the bar committee had quit the proceedings and created a disadvantage for Clinton. Indeed, the people with the most integrity refused to interfere, and that compromised the majority of, eight committee members who pulled out because of ties to Clinton, leaving 6 clueless extremists behind, to disbar the former President. In the light of conflict of interest, the fact that the US Supreme Court disbarred Clinton today, leads one to question why Republican Supreme Court activists do not recuse themselves, in the manner that Clinton's supporters did. But nobody is surprised by this ignorant Supreme Court. Most reasonable people believe that the majority of Supreme Court Justices should be impeached, and they have certainly verified that conclusion today. |
|
| 171 |
Date: 2001-10-01 13:25:44 Tom Wilkinson (tom5515@yahoo.com / no homepage) wrote: September 11, 2001 was a high stakes game of chicken where fundamentalists of all stripes were trying to manipulate their adversaries and the consequence of this grand manipulation was the biggest crime against humanity this world has ever seen. And what has all this doublecross and violence proved. It has exposed the challenge of the 21st century. We must all move away from fundamentalism and back to the fundamentals, because if we do not, the next terrorist will be the closest mirror. |
|
| 170 |
Date: 2001-09-30 15:26:17 Paul Coleman (paulcoleman@yahoo.com / no homepage) wrote: According to reuters, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. This play on words has been widely ridiculed but there is some truth to it. And so, the current challenge is to treat all freedom fighters like terrorists, because any freedom fighter who challenges the freedom of innocent people is a terrorist. Now, all we have to do is to identify all the freedom fighters. |
|
| 169 |
Date: 2001-09-28 22:00:48 BOSTON GLOBE (no email / no homepage) wrote: The people who planned the attacks on Sept. 11 were clearly smart. It seems there are some things about us that they have understood better than we have understood ourselves. They may also understand some geopolitical realities better than we do. They will stop at nothing. The brainchildren of Edward Teller may soon be available to them. One of their goals is to frighten and shock us. This they have done. But we suspect that their ultimate goal is to provoke a world war between Islam and the West. This war must be against hate, inequity, and blind, unthinking nationalism. Along with any military response, we must look honestly at our role in the world, at all the sources of anti-Americanism, legitimate and illegitimate, and proceed with our eyes open. |
|
