From: pas@kepler.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 5 Jan 1993 02:02:19 GMT
Organization: University of New Hampshire
NNTP-Posting-Host: kepler.unh.edu

mp: Mike Polen
ps; Paul Sand
dn: David M Nieporent

mp: [Weinberger] was not a traitor. He was being tried for obstructing
    justice. He did disagree, but he did not have the courage of his
    convictions to tell the truth in front of the special prosecutor and
    congress. That is against the law. 

ps: Ah, why bother with judges and juries when Mr. Polen can so reliably
    detect lawbreakers? Unfortunately for the self-proclaimed Forces of
    Truth and Justice: by all accounts even the prosecutors were willing
    to let this master criminal slip off on a misdemeanor rap had he
    been willing to testify `correctly;' that is, implicate Reagan,
    Bush, et. al. in something or other. Evidently, this game isn't
    about tracking down crime anymore (if, indeed, it ever was); the
    most charitable interpretation is that the prosecutors were
    desperately trying to justify their dismal performance and largely
    futile existence by coercing testimony against Big Fish.

dn: Amazingly enough, this has been done for CENTURIES. Wow. Giving a
    subordinate a lesser sentence in exchange for implicating higher
    ups.

I think everyone who has seen more than three TV cop shows knows how
this works. Mr. Nieporent seems to be missing the point, or perhaps
simply wants to use bandwidth in belaboring the obvious.

dn: You almost fooled someone with this inane statement, though.

dn: I didn't see you complain when this was done to get Noriega, for
    instance. Or John Gotti.

I admire Mr. Nieporent's attempt to draw this silly parallel (along
with his usual witless sneers), but I don't think it stands much
scrutiny. Weinberger is rather consistent in maintaining that he had
nothing to bargain with for `a lesser sentence'; he couldn't give the
prosecutors what they wanted without lying. And the actual charges made
against him seemed (to say the least) strained, involving novel and
unprecedented extensions of law to behavior not previously considered
indictable. (I note that one indictment against Weinberger, the one
announced a few days before the election, with much attendant
publicity, was thrown out by a judge a few days *after* the
election--with of course much *less* publicity.)

mp: Republicans make you a hero for breaking laws against Congress as
    long as they are done in support of Republican agendas.

ps: Yeah, yeah, and Democrats don't give a rat's ass about civil
    liberties and separation of powers as long as Republicans are the
    victims.

dn: Not at all true, of course. North and Poindexter's convictions were
    overturned because of the 5th amendment protection against
    self-incrimination. Democrats didn't complain about that.

Mr. Nieporent apparently missed my relatively clear intent to parody
Mr. Polen's partisan rant. That's OK, but to state the obvious: I am
aware that many Democrats (and the ACLU) noticed and deplored Walsh's
habit of playing fast and loose with the civil liberties of his
victims. Good for them. One can only hope that more posters in this
forum follow that fine example.

ps: Partisan potshots aside, however, I saw that at least one Democrat
    senator (Inouye) told Walsh that indicting Weinberger would be a bad
    idea. I dare say that you could get numerous Democrats to agree,
    although truth serum might be necessary in many cases.

dn: I'm sure one DemocratIC senator did say this.  
			 ^^ adjective, not noun 
    And I'm sure at least one RepublicAN senator told Bush a pardon
    would be a bad idea. I dare say that you could get numerous
    Republicans to agree, although truth serum might be necessary in
    many cases.

(1) It's fun to play at being pedantic, but one should try to find
actual mistakes.  The `Democrat' construction is not too common, but
nevertheless common enough to not require correction.  (See, for
example, Safire's _The New Language of Politics_.)

(2) I did manage to name an *actual* Democratoid without trying very
hard, one who is on record as considering Walsh's prosecution of
Weinberger to have been unwarranted.  Mr. Nieporent's vacuous musing
on Republicans, on the other hand, is simply yet another example of him
talking through his hat. Such behavior should probably be avoided by
someone who likes to fling around accusations of inanity.
-- 
-- Paul A. Sand           | We know, of course, that the presence or absence,
-- Univ. of New Hampshire | style, and condition of a person's eyewear is an
-- pas@kepler.unh.edu     | immediate and reliable indicator--perhaps the best
                          | available--of deep traits of personality.
			  |	(Brad Yearwood, talk.politics.misc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc