From: L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 18:47:33 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> <72546@cup.portal.com>
  <Dec.29.13.57.03.1992.2126@romulus.rutgers.edu> <72586@cup.portal.com>
  <Dec.30.10.06.34.1992.10064@romulus.rutgers.edu>

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <72586@cup.portal.com> L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:
>
>>>>> 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.  [...]
>>>>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>  ^^^^^^^--[What about this?]
>
>>> What "enemies" did Weinberger give aid and comfort to?  And how is
>>> "enemies" to be defined, and who is to do the defining?

	(Nice how you omitted my asking YOU your definition of what an
"enemy" is.  Can you please do so now?  Or are you incapable of it? :-)

>> I didn't say that Weinberger gave aid and comfort to any enemy.
>
>Then Weinberger is not guilty of being a traitor.

	By the Constitution you seem to apply selectively to your 
frame of reality, correct.  I agree that morality can be a dangerous
instrument for running the affairs of government, but in MY eyes,
Weinberger IS a traitor to the American people in not blowing the
whistle on an affair he KNEW was Constitutionally criminal.  Yes, I KNOW,
that's not what he was indicted for. For me, it's just the icing on
the cake.

>>> Again, how is "enemies" defined?
>
>> (Taken from some dusty ole dictionary on my shelf:)
>
>And not from the U.S. Constitution.

	Teddy, there are several rules that are not explicitly defined in 
the Constitution, yet they are still laws due to the interpretation of
the Constitution.  This interpretation is fulfilled by the Supreme Court,
Congress, and all the various legislative branches that embody the
government.  Do you mean to say that if it's not in the Constitution
explicitly, it doesn't exist?  Please make a rational argument for this.

>> 	ENEMY - A person who strongly dislikes or wants to injure or attack.
>>                 The armed forces of a nation, side, etc with which one's
>> 		country, side, etc is at war.  Anything that harms or
>> 		weakens.
>
>The protections accorded one by the U.S. Constitution cannot be swept
>away by an imprecise definition out of some dusty old dictionary.  You
            ^^^^^^^^^
>are going to have to do better than this.

	Please, Tedz, do better than ME :-)  Please define the meaning
of "enemy."  By no means am I sweeping away any protections afforded by
the document you seek to confuse me with.  Why, by your very logic,
we have no enemies! :-)

>> Caspar Weinberger, the former defense secretary, was indicted in 1992
>> on felony charges of perjury, making false statements and obstructing
>> congressional investigators.
>
>On the last day before the statute of limitations on the charges
>against him ran out.  Walsh was grasping for straws.

	Walsh was attempting to build a larger case, which is why he
waited until the the Statute of Limitations were to expire for Weinberger.
Would you fault any prosecutor for this?  And if you would, WHY?

>> This is not an "allegation."  It's a matter of record, no matter how
>> much you wish to state otherwise.
>
>But an indictment does not prove guilt.  The charges listed in the
>indictment are no more than allegations until proven in court.

	Then I must believe that Weinberger's own notes are mere
allegations, by your very logic :-)  Sorry, Teddy, they're very real,
and very damning.

>> "failed prosecutor?"  This scurrilous judgement of Mr. Walsh simply
>> ignores his record.
>
>Yes, failed prosecutor.  The only relevant portion of his record that
>matters here is that since he was appointed special prosecutor.  Every
>single one of the big fish he has gone after got away.

	Simply untrue. These Big Fish didn't "get away," which is something
you could have truthfully stated if they had been able to avoid conviction
in a trial that will now never happen.  'twas the pardons, Herr Schatz,
not their integrity nor their innocence. Inhale the capuccino :-)

	Bush's timely pardons permitted the following Big Fish to get 
"off the hook," so to speak.

	- Duane Clarridge
	- Clair George
	- Robert McFarlane
	- Elliot Abrams
	- Alan Fiers Jr.
	
	They are getting away with crimes ranging from perjury to
obstructing congressional inquiries because Bush has made it so, not
because of some "failure" attributed to Walsh.

	Do honestly believe that all of these men, including
Weinberger, would have been able to beat the rap?  If so, please
indicate the reasons...

>> Name a "rag" that you are even remotely respectful of, please.
>
>Policy Review, published by the Heritage Foundation, but what does
>that have to do with anything?

	Plenty. You denunciated the Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times,
etc, so naturally, I became curious. Is this difficult to understand?
	In all fairness, I'll seek out the latest issue of this bastion
of ultimately truthful journalism (if I'm to believe that everything
else is a sham and a hoax) and give it a try.  Thanks for the lead...

	But once again, you ignored the other question... what other "reliable"
sources do you use to verify your claims? (the question implies more than
just "Policy Review.")

(Apologies to everyone for going so off-topic in the last part of this
reply.)

Regards,

--Louis