HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhouge@craysea.cray.com (Jennifer Houge)
Subject: Re: Rape After Rape After Rape
Organization: Cray Research, Inc. - Americas West
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:21:15 CST

In article <1992Dec19.083114.11621@truffula.sj.ca.us> cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) writes:
>
>
>In article <2100.2b2f909c@mbcl.rutgers.edu> imran@mbcl.rutgers.edu
>  (Shahid Imran) writes:
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>	What follows is an article from the New York Times.  Why am I posting
>>it here?  I feel that some of the issues pertain to at least some of the
>>threads I have seen in this group (and the other groups that I am posting to).
>>The article is about the calculated destruction of the Bosnian Muslims.  The
>>article contains extremely graphic descriptions of brutality, torture, and
>>rape.  
>
>
>
>If you'd like to *do* something about these tragedies, one place to start
>is to join Amnesty International.  In the USA, contact Amnesty at 322 8th
>Ave., New York NY 10001 (212)807-8400.  Another constructive action would
>be to write the Times: encourage them to enlarge the set of victims they
>see fit to discuss.  Write to Editor, The New York Times, 229 W 43rd St.,
>New York, NY 10036 (212)556-1234.
>
>Imagine a world without secret wars!
>
>Cameron Spitzer
>cls@truffula.sj.ca.us


If you live in the Pacific Northwest and are interested in helping, there
is a group called the Western Washington Fellowship of Reconciliation which
is based in Seattle, Washington.  This group is dedicated to bringing together
people of various ethnic and religious backgrounds in order to talk about
the problems in Yugoslavia and around the world without fighting.  This group
is commited to extablishing International Zones of Peace and ending the war
in the Balkans.

You can reach the WWFOR at (206) 789-5565. >

The WWFOR is also involved in counseling and providing aid to refugees from
Bosnia.  If you would like to volunteer, please call the above number.

Let us find a way to end this horrifying practice without destroying ourselves
and our cultures.


Jennifer Houge

Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1346 alt.society.civil-liberty:7136
From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Date: 30 Dec 92 06:15:29 GMT
Organization: VTT

In article <komarimf.725644720@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski) writes:
>dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:

>>  III.
>>  The issuance of any pardon in violation of Section I of this Article 
>>  is grounds for impeachment of the president who issues such a pardon.
>>  This Section has no bearing upon whether any other specific offense 
>>  is impeachable.

>	Sounds good, except for the above section.  Why have a President 
>impeached for trying to pardon someone who can't be pardoned? The President
>himself(herself) did nothing wrong.  Just say that Congress (or the courts) 
>will not accept pardons for those groups of people and leave it at that.

It is the President who is head of the executive branch, and as such has
juristiction over the Federal Prisons.  A President who issues a pardon,
even if held to be invalid still has the power (but not the right) to
release that person from prison.

>- Mark Komarinski - komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
>[MIME mail welcome]
>Smile.  It makes people wonder what you're up to.


-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Small Business Systems, Incorporated, Smithfield, RI 02917
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:24:12 GMT

weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka) writes:

>* we know when they have been found innocent.

There is no such thing as an being found "innocent". Only "not guilty".

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
-- AT&TNet: +1 401 273 4669               /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 16:02:17 GMT


In article <1992Dec31.210106.11742@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu said:

> Most prosecutors have a limited budget.  And when you're accused of
> a serious crime (outside of the whole politics mess), you are
> entitled to a public attorney.

This is almost but not quite accurate... if you're charged with a
crime which carries a potential prison sentence then you're entitled
to the services of an attorney at no charge to you _if and only if_
the court rules that you are indigent and therefore cannot afford an
attorney on your own.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:57:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.101646.1241@colorado.edu>
weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka) writes:

>An alternate might be to ban blanket pardons of the unconvicted.
>Let them go through the judicial process, so that we know what
>they are guilty ( and incocent) of before a pardon is allowed.

Unfortunately, when one is being Walshed (investigated by Mr Walsh,
that is), going through the judicial process and paying for one's own
lawyer against a prosecutor with an infinite budget is a chunk of the
punishment itself.

-- 
E. Elizabeth Bartley           |        "This is a world of compensation; and
he who would be no slave must consent to have no slave.  Those who deny freedom
to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, cannot long
retain it."    - Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:26:32 GMT

In article <C01v1F.C8L@demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.222537.26253@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>In the long run, what effect will your ammendment have?  Will it not discourage
>those in the executive branch from taking action for fear of future 
>retribution?
>
>Well *that* sounds like an excellent effect to me.

I would not argue with you on the surface of your statement and due to it's
superficiality it's difficult to go farther.  I do, however, believe that
this investigation is an attempt to criminalize what was, inarguably, bad 
policy and is therefore misguided.  The long term effect on the Presidency
could very well be such that it curtails the ability of the executive branch
to take action.  I, like the founders, believe that a weak government is a
greater threat to liberty than a tyrant and that to vitiate the foreign policy
perogatives of the executive branch is to weaken it.

>:  The founders argued in favor of the energetic executive
>:and I would like for you to address this issue.
>
>And the founders are always right?  Although I'm sure they could appreciate
>the duplicity of man which doesn't changes over the ages, I doubt very much
>they could have forseen the global scope of actions of your current
>executive.

This is not nearly an adequate analysis of your proposals effect on the 
presidency and also on the balance of powers.  

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: House Voting Rights
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 11:38:48 GMT

Bruce Kaskubar (kaskubar@kirby.mayo.edu) wrote:
: According to George Wills' December 17 column, the House Democratic
: caucus (Tom Foley et al.) is attempting to give voting rights to
: the five delegates from American Samoa, Guam, the District of
: Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.  (OK, only when the
: House is acting as a Committee of the Whole but real work gets done
: then.)  Jesse Jackson and his four counterparts (all Democrats)
: will now join the fray with all the representatives of us taxpaying
: types.  American Samoa's representation will be about 17 times that
: of Montana, per capita.  If taxation without representation is
: tyranny, what's representation without taxes and statehood?

The residents of DC don't pay taxes?
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1339 alt.society.civil-liberty:7120 misc.legal:21792
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:08:07 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Dec29.144325.21842@panix.com>, pw@panix.com sez:
>
>I have a foolishly optimistic question here -- if someone has been
>pardoned for a crime, even prospectively like Weinberger, does this
>mean that they lose their 5th-Amendment protections and can be
>compelled to testify about others involved in the crime, under
>penalty of being held indefinitely on contempt-of-court charges? 

Yes.  It's exactly the same as if the person is granted statutory
immunity under 18 USC secs. 6001-6003.  You cannot be held
"indefinitely" under civil contempt, however; rather, you can be held
only for the duration of the proceeding wherein you refused to testify
(e.g., the life of the grand jury) or for the designated statutory
maximum, whichever is shorter.

Note also that Weinberger wasn't really pardoned "prospectively",
since the conduct in question is in the past.

>If
>they lie, does the pardon cover the perjury as well?

Absolutely not.  Cf. 18 USC sec. 6002: "no testimony . . . compelled
under the order . . . may be used against the witness in any criminal
case, *except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or
otherwise failing to comply with the order*" (emphasis added).

-- 
They told me you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kaskubar@kirby.mayo.edu (Bruce Kaskubar)
Subject: test
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 00:20:13 GMT

sorry, just testing
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:33:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.035730.13699@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Unfortunately, when one is being Walshed (investigated by Mr Walsh,
>that is), going through the judicial process and paying for one's own
>lawyer against a prosecutor with an infinite budget is a chunk of the
>punishment itself.

Of course this happens to thousands of private citizens every year without one
peep from Mr. Bush.  It wouldn't be so bad if Bush were to pardon those folks
as well.

                                      James Parker
                                      jap@cb1focus.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:39:07 GMT


In article <1992Dec30.182632.15252@anasazi.com>, 
best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) said:

> I do, however, believe that this investigation is an attempt to
> criminalize what was, inarguably, bad policy and is therefore
> misguided.

Why do you believe this?  Because George Bush said so?

Like it or not, the basis of the investigation and of the criminal
charges was not "These guys allegedly planned and implemented bad
policy."  It was "These guys allegedly broke various federal laws."
Recognizing that a person committed a crime is not equivalent to
"criminalizing" his actions.  Despite what George Bush might have you
believe to the contrary.

> The long term effect on the Presidency could very well be such that
> it curtails the ability of the executive branch to take action.

Interesting.  How do you get from "might curtail the ability of the
executive branch to break the law" to "might curtail the ability of
the executive branch to take action"?  Do you _want_ the executive
branch to be able to violate or ignore federal law with impunity?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1337 alt.society.civil-liberty:7113
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Date: 29 Dec 92 14:43:25 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <1992Dec29.070334.24585@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>As Lawrence Walsh has stated, the pardon by Bush of Caspar Weinberger
>shows terrible disrespect for the principle that ours is a government
>of law.  The idea that a President can have his/her [<= someday?]
>underlings violate the laws and then pardon them when leaving office so
>that they serve little or no time is reprehensible.  Something should
>be done to close this loophole.  I suggest a constitutional amendment
>along the following lines:

I have a foolishly optimistic question here -- if someone has been
pardoned for a crime, even prospectively like Weinberger, does this
mean that they lose their 5th-Amendment protections and can be
compelled to testify about others involved in the crime, under
penalty of being held indefinitely on contempt-of-court charges? If
they lie, does the pardon cover the perjury as well?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: No, it wasn't
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:14:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.212611.24708@news2.cis.umn.edu> stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Jack Stecher) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.111938.13398@mr.med.ge.com> gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983) writes:
>>
>>I beleive it was Madison, who was against the idea of a bill of rights. 
>
>No, it was Washington.  Madison believed that adding a bill of rights
>would take care of the anti-federalists' objections, and added the 9th
>and 10th to address Washington's.

In a sense I would agree with your statement but not to the extent that
Madison was _for_ the bill of rights.  He was, as you have said, attempting
to defang the anti-federalist objections by offering those additions to the
Constitution we now call the Bill of Rights.  This action by Madison stands
as one of the outstanding displays of democratic statesmanship.

I believe that his actions saved the Constitution by virtue of his 10
non-ammending ammendments (note that they are all negations of federal
power).  I also believe that he would be distressed to learn that most
Americans consider the Bill of Rights to be _the_ Constitution.

>I believe that Madison was sincere in thinking a bill of rights would
>limit the authority of the federal government.  After all, he served
>as Jefferson's Secretary of State, then was elected President on the
>Democratic-Republican ticket.

Of course, Madison was great!

Mike Best
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1364 alt.society.civil-liberty:7208
From: patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Summary: BUSHed by Walsh!
Date: 1 Jan 93 03:15:22 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Distribution: na
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC

In article <1992Dec31.035730.13699@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.101646.1241@colorado.edu>
>weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka) writes:
>
>>An alternate might be to ban blanket pardons of the unconvicted.
>>Let them go through the judicial process, so that we know what
>>they are guilty ( and incocent) of before a pardon is allowed.
>
>Unfortunately, when one is being Walshed (investigated by Mr Walsh,
>that is), going through the judicial process and paying for one's own
>lawyer against a prosecutor with an infinite budget is a chunk of the
>punishment itself.
>
Astonishing that the Executive branch did not pass the pardons thru
the Justice Department and especially consult with the Special
Prosecutor which the Executive Branch appointed, before issuing these
pardons.  Is this BUSHwacking or just plain BU[ll]SH[it]?



-- 
Patricia Ann Bromberger                            patth@panix.com
P.O.Box 273 - Island Station
New York, NY 10044 USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:32:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.182632.15252@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com
(Mike Best) writes:

> I, like the founders, believe that a weak government is a
> greater threat to liberty than a tyrant and that to vitiate the foreign policy
> perogatives of the executive branch is to weaken it.

I'm afraid you've got it backwards, here.  The Founders *feared* a strong
government.  They had just revolted against one strong, centralized,
tryannical government, and weren't about to let it happen again (in fact,
see my .sig below for Jefferson's views...).

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"...when all government... in little as in the great thing, shall be
drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
separated."  Thomas Jefferson, 1821
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:25:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.070334.24585@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>As Lawrence Walsh has stated, the pardon by Bush of Caspar Weinberger
>shows terrible disrespect for the principle that ours is a government
>of law.  The idea that a President can have his/her [<= someday?]
>underlings violate the laws and then pardon them when leaving office so
>that they serve little or no time is reprehensible.  Something should
>be done to close this loophole.  I suggest a constitutional amendment
>along the following lines:

While you may address this issue in general as you may wish.  The action
by Bush to pardon these underlings is by no means universally considered
as reprehensible.  In fact, after watching Walsh after the pardons, Walsh
showed himself to be the very likeness of a persecutor that those who
decried MacCarthy's rule so oft lament when speaking of Republicans.

Also, consider the evidence - it seems true that Poindexter and North were
guilty of covering up evidence but Casper Weinberger is on record as being
against this policy.  What we have here is Walsh persecuting these people
and is attempting to do so by criminalizing what was, in effect, bad policy.

In the long run, what effect will your ammendment have?  Will it not discourage
those in the executive branch from taking action for fear of future 
retribution?  The founders argued in favor of the energetic executive
and I would like for you to address this issue.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: No, it wasn't
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:00:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.221431.26012@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com
(Mike Best) writes:

> I believe that his actions saved the Constitution by virtue of his 10
> non-ammending ammendments (note that they are all negations of federal
> power).

I'm afraid I don't agree here.  Only the 1st actually mentions any
governmental agency (Congress), all the other Amendments refer to the
Rights of the _PEOPLE_.  It doesn't mention which government shall not
infringe on these Rights, so it must be assumed that _NO_ government
shall infringe on these Rights!  Not the Feds, not the States, not the
local governments....  These are _some_ of the Rights which are to be
retained ny the people (as the 9th mentions that there are Rights which
were not enumerated in the list).

> I also believe that he would be distressed to learn that most
> Americans consider the Bill of Rights to be _the_ Constitution.

Agreed!!

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"...when all government... in little as in the great thing, shall be
drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
separated."  Thomas Jefferson, 1821
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: prb@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Botts)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:05:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.172756.27643@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
>pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>>I have a foolishly optimistic question here -- if someone has been
>>pardoned for a crime, even prospectively like Weinberger, does this
>>mean that they lose their 5th-Amendment protections and can be
>>compelled to testify about others involved in the crime, under
>>penalty of being held indefinitely on contempt-of-court charges? If
>>they lie, does the pardon cover the perjury as well?
>
>       That's right.  Now Congress can call them in, ask questions about
>Bush, and they can't plead the Fifth Amendment, because they themselves
>aren't at risk.  And that's exactly what some members of Congress are 
>preparing to do.
>
>					John Nagle

I wonder if anybody pointed that out to George before he decided to do
this? If so, then that strongly suggests that Bush's version of his
involvement in the whole affair is largely accurate, and that he feels
he has little or nothing to be afraid of. If not, then I'd like to have
been in the room when the legal geniuses who proposed the pardon had to
explain to the President that he had just made it easier to COngress to
get to the bottom of his own culpability....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty