From: L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 07:37:07 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <Dec.26.07.44.44.1992.9492@romulus.rutgers.edu> <72466@cup.portal.com>
  <Dec.27.21.59.46.1992.19876@romulus.rutgers.edu>

kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <72466@cup.portal.com> L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Malo) writes:
>
>> Theodore A. Kaldis:
>>> Michael Silverman:
>
>>>> Far from being patriots, the men Bush pardoned (like Weinberger)
>>>> are *traitors* to the United States of America
>
>>> Why is Weinberger a "traitor"?  By all accounts, he had opposed the
>>> so-called Iran-Contra arms deal.
>
>> By "all accounts," Weinberger can be considered a traitor.
>
>You must have neglected to consider Article III, Section 3 of the U.S.
>Constitution.

	The following is the *exact* content of said Article:

--

	"Treason against the United States, shall consist 
only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their 
enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be 
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses 
to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of 
treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption 
of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person 
attainted."

--

	I will agree that it has yet to be proven that Weinberger is
directly responsible for the Arms-For-Hostages deals that former
president Reagan secretly approved (this would make Reagan a "traitor,"
by the very definition in the above section).  But certainly Weinberger's
deliberate lies concerning the extent of his knowledge on the
hidden negotiations with Iran prove that his anything he has said, or
will say, is subject to extreme prejudice, and bespeaks a certain
complicity overall.  Aiding and abetting a traitor would make you a
traitor as well, would it not?	

>> The following are excerpts from an article written in the Washington
>> Post:
>
>> [...]
>
>I don't happen to be particularly fond of the Washington Post, but
>even if we disregard my sentiments regarding this rag, I don't think
>there is anyone who would be inclined to advance the suggestion that
>the stature of the Post even approaches that of the U.S. Constitution.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Name a "rag" that you are even remotely respectful of, please.
(I've highlighted your acknowledgement that the U.S. Constitution is
worthy of your respect for something I will point out at the end of this
reply, Teddy...)

>> [...]
>
>> BTW: I have a question fer ya, Tedz... do you *actually* believe
>> Weinberger is as innocent as he claims?
>
>If Weinberger's only supposed "crime" is withholding information from
>that bunch of scumbags we call Congress, then I commend him for it --

	Unfortunately, Ted, that bunch of scumbags we call Congress happens
to be instrumental to the function of our government.  Until we have a new 
form of government in this country, you have to understand the following:

	Congress introduces and passes legislation.  The president, if he
agrees, signs them and they become LAWS.  Laws that apply to EVERYONE.
This includes Congress, himself, and ANY officials he appoints for his
cabinet.  What this mean, in even simpler terms, is that NO ONE is above
THE LAW.  While there may be a Good Old Boy's Club in Congress and the rest of
White House that shields these Good Men from persecution when they want to
be Bad Men, the fact still stands that whatever crime they commit IS still
a CRIME.

	And yes, Virginia, there is a crime in lying to Congress during
an investigation, whether the reasons are "patriotic" or not.  Don't get
flustered with me, take your frustrations out on whoevever it was that
signed this into law.  If that won't work (dead men not only tell no tales,
they are rather inept at recanting :-), write your local congressman and
demand that this law of lying to Congress being a crime is unfair, unjust,
and not fitting your frame of reality.  Oooops... did I say write your
Congressman?  I forgot... he's just part of "that bunch of scumbags..." :-)
 
>and I applaud George Bush for rightfully pardoning him.

	The problem with Bush's act is not that he pardoned a group of men
originally involved in the Iran-Contra scandal.  It's that he pardoned
their CRIMES.  Theirs were not acts of "patriotism."  Theirs were violations
of public trust.

	Unless, of course, Teddy, you thoroughly support the notion that
any and all elected/appointed officials can do whatever they wish without
consulting with, or least reporting to, their constituency.

>> If so, can you please provide some documented proof, such as I have
>> for my position?  Thanks..
>
>What proof? 

	More so then you've provided thus far, Herr Schatz.

>It is my own personal conviction that something that is
>printed in The Washington Post must necessarily be considered suspect
>until it can be verified by other more reliable sources.  

	...And printed in the New York Times, and printed in the 
Los Angeles Times, and printed in most major newspapers on this continent,
as well as around the world. I guess they could all be suspect, and should
all be verified by more reliable sources.  Could you suggest what sources
YOU use, Teddy? :-)

>Even so,
>even if we are to take Post accounts at face value, what do they
>prove?  Nothing.  They are only Walsh's allegations, and the final
>determination upon them was to be made in court, which is a moot point
>now.

	No, they are not only Walsh's allegations. Your very statement
shows contempt for historical facts.  Do you seek to revise them somehow?
I'll make it very simple for you.  Weinberger was asked if he had any
knowledge of such and such during the Iran-Contra affair.  He explicitly
stated "no."  Later, it turns out, evidence in the form of NOTES HE
HIMSELF TOOK surface and contradict his testimony.  Which means he lied.
Period.  Do you have another interpretation of this public knowledge that
would cause you to state that these past events are only allegations
advanced by Walsh? :-)

>But the deeper issue here -- one which you have utterly neglected --
>is why is it a crime to lie to Congress?  Because Congress has made it
>so!  As if Congress has never lied to the American public.  But until
>Cogress imposes the same kind of penalties for lying upon each of its
>individual members, I will heartily applaud anyone who lies to
>Congress and is able to get away with it.

	How have I neglected such an issue? I was not aware that the
topic encompassed debating how lying to Congress is a crime or not.  But, 
since you insist (in trying to swerve the main topic from its core)...

	You imply your respect for the constitution earlier on in this
reply.  Therefore, did you know that:

--
(From the U.S. Constitution)

"Article I

Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be 
vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist 
of a Senate and House of Representatives."

--

	The point?  Only that I see you applying the Constitution to your
frame of reality selectively, neglecting, as it were, the very basis of
how the Constitution would be upheld.  Therefore, NO, you can't say to
hell with Congress (including praising anyone who lies to this body
of government).  But I apologize if I presume too much of your stand
on this.  So let's have it: Do you wish to abolish or uphold Congress?

	Oh, here's another passage from the Constitution... one of those
damn amendments :-)

--

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in 
Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold 
any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under 
any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member 
of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a 
member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial 
officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United 
States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against 
the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But 
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove 
such disability.

--

Please tell me what else I'm neglecting, Tedz... :-)

--Louis
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc