From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Clair George's trial a mistrial!!
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:08:50 GMT

In article <ART.92Aug30202154@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>
>   For those who want verification of Mark's statement with regard to Oliver
>   North, see Jeffrey Toobin's book, OPENING ARGUMENTS, which is now
>   available in a paperback edition from Penguin Books. Toobin worked for
>   Walsh throughout the North trial, and he deals with the point that Mark
>   makes here--that the facts showed North to be guilty, and that the North
>   appeal did not establish North's innocence, but merely resulted in a
>                                                   ^^^^^^
>   holding that his Constitutional rights were violated.
>
>Merely?  What the hell do you think the fifth amendment is all about?

I wasn't aware that you were confused about what the Fifth Amendment is
about. The "merely" merely denotes that the appeal did not prove North
innocent, as you seem to think it does. In English, such words as
"merely", "only", and "simply" may be used in a way that signifies,
without diminishing what follows, the exclusion of another proposition.
In this instance, I was noting that the appellate court held that North's
rights were violated, and I used "merely" to signify the exclusion of the
conclusion you mistakenly drew: that the success of the North appeal
proved his innocence.

It seems to come as a surprise to you that the Fifth Amendment, and
other Constitutional protections, have nothing to do with guilt or
innocence. Regardless of whether he was guilty or innocent, North
has Fifth Amendment rights; similarly, an appeal based on violation of
his rights has nothing to do with whether in fact he is guilty or innocent
on the facts.

>Perhaps you think it would have been alright to torture him too?

Perhaps English is not your first language.  Few native speakers of
English could read into my earlier comment that I think it's okay
to violate someone's Fifth Amendment rights. (As a lawyer, I disagree
with the reasoning of the appellate-court decision in the North case;
you can read Toobin's critique of the decision in OPENING ARGUMENTS,
if you ever decide you're interested in learning more facts about the
case.)

>   Had the U.S. Senate not stupidly decided to hold show hearings, North's
>   conviction would have occurred anyway, and would not have been overturned.
>
>I sure wish I was able to predict the future with your certainty.

You would be if you were more familiar with the facts of the North case.

>Has it
>slipped your mind that even with the tainted evidence North was acquited
>of nine of the most serious of the twelve charges brought?

No. Has it slipped your mind that North was found guilty of theft and
perjury? Most people think theft and perjury are serious crimes.
I'm sorry to hear that you think they aren't.



--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Newsgroups: misc.legal