Would you give us the courtesy of an answer to my question:
"I wonder if you had or have the same compassion for people sitting at the entrance to Abortion Clinics when they are arrested and prosecuted by trumped up RICO charges by the Reno Justice Department?"
And a follow-up question:
Were you 100% in support of everything Reno did?
I answered your question, that no, I don't agree with everything that John Ashcroft has done.
Your response, like always is to post claptrap and lie that I refused to answer your question. Acutally, a pretty normal reaction for you when you don't want to or can't respond.
'You post shit on me, when I respond, your buddy TheMealTicket edits it out. You two are a great team!
Of course I did not support EVERYTHING that Reno did. Certainly, she made some mistakes with respect to David Koresh's cult in Waco.
As for the use of RICO in prosecuting Anti-Abortion terror bombers and other organized thugs who attempt to intimidate ladies from obtaining medical services to which they are legally guaranteed, I say, HERE HERE - There is NO BETTER cause I can imagine for RICO. After all, CERTAINLY, the Anti-Abortion movement is an organized movement acting against the laws of the land. Therefore, it is EXACTLY the type of group which ought to be targetted under RICO. That's WHY RICO was written - to effectively target organized outlaw groups that persecute law-abiding citizens.
... I'm well known for supporting a woman's right to choose.
Being against abortion is a religious and political stand, not a criminal enterprise. If somebody whom I am disagreeing with acosts me with his or her opinion, I can tell them to piss off. If somebody blocks my access to a public building, they can be arrested for trespassing. If somebody kills or advocates murder, they can be jailed using existing statues. When we attack our enemies with bigger guns then we need to use, we give them a power they would not have otherwise.
-- Modified on 5/18/2004 7:19:58 AM
As well as running a blanket intimidation campaign against doctors and patients. These are the specific acts for which RICO is justifiable. That is very different from merely protesting against abortion.
.. don't suggest it is very organized at all. I think these kinds of laws (RICO) being used in a "creative" way are very dangereous. The pendulum can swing both ways. Do you think the civil rights movement could have survived the RICO statues?
There are lots of people who disagree with me about abortion who demonstrate in front of abortion clinics in ways that upset me a lot. However, my feelings about this are my problem, as long as they either don't violate the law or if they are willing to accept the consequences of civil disobedience. I think it overkill to tar everybody wio feels that way with the criminal behavior of the extremists. They are not criminal gangs -- they are schlubs that sit at the margins of everything.
Again, I respect your feelings about this stud, but I think prosicuting (SP?) speech is something the US shouldn't do.
And throwing fetuses in jars at the poor ladies who are trying to get into the clinics.
None of that is speech. Your point about the civil rights movement is well taken - however, the acts that I am referring to are WELL outside the scope of civil disobedience. Publishing a website with the names and addresses of Doctors who perform abortions, and sending them all death threats, right after one of them was ACTUALLY killed, goes well beyond civil disobedience. That is no different from the types of things that the Mafia does to intimidate. RICO was developed SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of curtailing that type of behavior. If you are opposed to RICO in ALL cases, I can respect that view, and it's a valid perspective, however, I cannot accept the view that RICO was designed to target SPECIFIC groups of criminals. The law is the law, and it was written to target organized criminal enterprises - all ORGANIZED criminal enterprises. Not "WELL" organized criminal enterprises, and not Italian Mafia criminal enterprises.
Well said, Harry, though I must disagree with your basic premise on supporting a woman's right to choose, for reasons stated elsewhere.
One of the problems in this country that should transcend politics is the criminalization of thought and speech. Thus, Waco should offend everyone even more than the mock torture of Ba'athists at Abu Ghraib because; while both were done in our name, Waco was perpetrated on innocents. Similarly, so-called "hate crimes" laws are an effort criminalize thought, when existing statutes already bar murder, and don't contain a "homocide" exception, nor reduce the punishment for those who commit crimes on minority groups.
But RICO is just the latest statute perverted from its purpose to serve political ends. The anti-extortion provisions of federal law likewise have an exception for labor union bosses who use violence to extort money, so long as the extortion is for an "acceptable" purpose like a union contract.
Slow down- Waco perpetrated on innocents-?
I always wondered about that. For me, David Koresh is pretty obviuosly the villain here. Total lunatic- using the favourite fairy-tales book to lead a bunch of people into a bad situation.
He caused it. Caused the first raid. Caused the confrontation. Caused the fire. The govt took pretty basic actions- a lunatic killed a bunch of people.
If people are going to go bonkers after they read my people's creation myths- we can't blame that on the govt.
It's one of the many reasons that Karl Marx was actually right about something- Religion IS the opium of the people!
It's like basing one's life on The Cat in the Hat!
David Koresh was walking around downtown Waco the day before the raid. He would have been easy to arrest! I can't seem to remember, but I don't even think they had a valid reason to arrest him, question him, yes, arrest no.
Reno called the local and national media in to witness the FBI, ATF and Federal Marshals publicly arresting him, enforce, at daybreak! What the fuck do you think that was all about?
Make no mistake, I think Koresh was a madman, but ANY beat cop in the fucking country could have made this call! And anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see that Reno's intention was to send a message. That she survived this clusterfuck is another reason I think Clinton was less than average. If something like this happened under Ashcroft, all hell would break loose! And not just from liberals, most conservatives would go ballistic as well!
Also, in regards to your contention that those arrested and charged with RICO laws as being threatening is untruthful, they were sitting on public property, praying (not blocking doorways) and if anything, made those entering the abortion clinic "feel" uneasy! If making people feel uneasy is a crime, why didn't Reno arrest and charge with RICO every Union Picket line that went up during her tenure? The answer is easy, ITS NOT ILLEGAL TO MAKE PEOPLE FEEL UNEASY!
P.S. Your continuing self absorbed rants against other people religion is boring, and just may be making some feel "uneasy"!
On a lighter note, I have a date with a 40 something Brazilian lady tomorrow night, I know that we at least agree on the the more mature ladies! I get a little lazy about reviews, but I'll post one on her.
( http://www.hometown.aol.com/desire714/ )
Rather than blaming her predecessors from the Bush I administration for the BATF's modus operandi. After all, the Waco tragedy only took place during her FIRST TWO MONTHS as Attorney General. If she had followed the procedures that our CURRENT administration uses to deflect blame for EVERYTHING that goes wrong, she'd have certainly been blaming it on Bush and William Barr.
-- Modified on 5/20/2004 9:07:18 AM
Seventy rather nutty innocents, to be sure, but my recollection is that the Constitution protects your right to your nutty religion.
As for Ruby Ridge, it turns out the guy there was innocent, too, being acquitted by a jury. Certainly his wife --- shot between the eyes while holding her infant --- was innocent.
As for your slanders of religion and embrace of Marx, well, let's just say I'm not surprised. While the former has stood the test of time, the latter has been consigned to the dustbin of history (save for a few college campuses).
Oh, I get it, that doesn't matter, since it was a Republican President, and no blowjobs were involved.
Why aren't you STILL screaming that Bush and Barr should have been removed from office, and acknowledging the precedent that THEY set which led to Waco? Or don't you believe in applying the same standards to Republicans as you do to the Clinton Administration.
And James, I'm betting that you don't bother to reply to this, because you have no legitimate defense.
Of course, it matters, and blowjobs are irrelevant to perjury. Just because far Lefties are fixated on sex doesn't excuse it. But since you lie about everything else, it's little surprise that you would excuse lies about sex.
I don't defend the Bush Administration for Ruby Ridge, but neither do I confuse a failure to appropriately supervise with personal corruption and criminal behavior. Moreover, it is doubtful that the Ruby Ridge standoff was subject to the same public scrutiny as Waco was. Indeed, it is possible that Barr, and certainly Bush, were not even made aware of it. I certainly did not know about it at the time. I'm pretty sure that I first heard about Ruby Ridge from G. Gordon Liddy.
And I never argued, either at the time or since, that the Clintonistas should have been removed from office for what occurred in Waco, though Reno should probably have had the dignity to resign.
Even for you, James86, hat is probably the most self-serving piece of crap that you have yet posted on this board
That's not what I said at all. What I said was that it is difficult to believe that Bush 41 had the personal knowledge of what was happening at Ruby Ridge (which, as I recall, was of shorter duration, and was certainly smaller) than Clinton had to have had about Waco (multimonth standoff after a raid gone wrong where four agents were killed and plastered all over the media).
What happened to Randy Weaver and his family was clearly a travesty. It was one compounded when he was prosecuted/persecuted, actions which occurred after Bush 41 left office.
Moreover, I never said "Clinton did it." I said at least one high-ranking official of his Administration (Janet Reno was responsible), and you appear to have to argue with me even where she said she was responsible and I agree with her, albeit I do so informed by the notion that with responsibility should come consequences.
Finally, anyone who suggests that Waco wasn't a "travesty," and indeed, a greater "travesty" than Ruby Ridge, needs to reduce his intake of mind-altering substances.
Of course, a quotation from Joseph Iosserovish comes to mind: "One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic."
particularly when I demonstrate the differences.
That you cannot respond with anything more than disparaging characterizations demonstrates the emptiness of your assertion.
... but that is to be expected.
I think that Waco was a very bad call based on bad information from the FBI. Sometimes people get it wrong and these things happen. I would have fired some people for it, but I'm not the president. Ruby Ridge was also a LE overreaction and a fuckup. People aren't willing to wait standoffs out -- there is a big predisposition to act right now.
You will have to describe your labor union example more completely, I'm not sure I can read very tough negoiation in a labor contract as extortion. Tell me more.
Tough negotiation at the bargaining table is one thing, and wholly legitimate.
I was speaking of violence and threats of violence used to extort better terms. The Supremes specifically exempted violence perpetrated by labor unions and their bosses from the anti-extortion provisions of federal law (Hobbs Act) in the Enmons decision. In short, a labor union boss is permitted to do what a Mafia boss is not.
It's one more example of a special privilges being granted to a class of politically-preferred actors (usually on the far Left), an act which does violence to equal protection and fundamental notions of fairness.
... I'll leave it to other people that know more about it than me.
since ignorance of the subject usually stops no one here. 
Which, had Clinton/Reno acted like the Current Bush Administration, they'd have blamed the Waco/Koresh tragedy on the first Bush administration, for not correcting a situation in the Justice community that was clearly a pre-existing condition, given the Ruby Ridge tragedy.
But, unlike the present Bush administration, Janet Reno at least had the stones to say that Waco was her responsibility, and it would not happen again. BTW, nothing similar ever DID happen on her watch again.
Whereas James86 and Bribite have actually had the audacity to try the reverse, to blame Ruby Ridge on Reno and Clinton. But in fact, it was Which I can only attribute to their being completely uninformed or intentionally deceptive.
FYI, for the record: Ruby Ridge took place in August of 1992, while George Herbert Walker Bush was President, and William Barr was Attorney General. Clinton was elected in November of that year, and took office in late January of 1993. Janet Reno was nominated in Febraury and not confirmed until late that month. The Waco Standoff occurred over 51 days from January 30th through April of that year, culminating in the fire of April 19th where over 70 people were killed. Essentially, the Waco standoff occupied the FIRST two months of Reno's tenure. CERTAINLY, the Justice Department was still operating under the personnel, and rules of engagement, of the holdover BUSH regime, during that time. And yet Reno NEVER blamed the 1st Bush administration for this tragedy. She took responsibility, and made the corrections necessary to avoid such an occurrence in the future. Perhaps THAT is the lesson that we SHOULD take from this episode, and apply it to the present situation, where the 2nd Bush Administration ALWAYS blames his predecessors for unpleasantness that occurred under BUSH's watch. Such as 9/11. Such as why Iraq is a quagmire. etc, etc.
Bush/Barr were, of course, responsible for Ruby Ridge. However, there was no indication that the individual there could have easily been arrested but was not in order to contrive a media show. Four men died for no other reason than certain law enforcement entities wanted a public relations show, and for that, virtually no one was held responsible.
However, even if one assumes the logic of sdstud's argument --- i.e., that Bush I personnel were still in charge and started it, while Reno assuredly finished it --- one can assume that he also blames Clinton for the soft economy and the recession, since it began under economic policies and a federal budget which was Clinton's own (the new fiscal year, and federal budget for which Bush II was first responsible, didn't begin until October 1, 2001).
The flaw in sdstud's argument is mainly that personnel change very quickly with a change in administration, whereas policies move more glacially. And while the stormtrooper tactics used at Ruby Ridge were did not rise full blown from the big toe of Janet Reno (now there's a foul thought), they were not used by the Bush I administration to the extent that Clinton/Reno did (Waco; Elian Gonzales), or in circumstances as ill-advised (Waco, where Koresh could have been arrested in town on one of his many walks; Elian Gonzales, who was ripped from the arms of his family and against the wishes of his dead mother to be returned to a Communist dictatorship).
I certainly can appreciate that when it serves YOUR purposes, you blame the PRIOR administration (i.e. when they were Democrats), yet you have not the integrity to apply the same standards to YOUR beloved Republicans. No matter, we already pointed out your hypocrisy on this issue previously.
And, BTW, how do YOU know what Elian Gonzales dead mother wanted, given the choice between lunatic, camera-craving in-laws, or a loving father. You have no idea. But the LAW has always given precedent to surviving FIT, LOVING, BIOLOGICAL parents. So Reno, APPROPRIATELY followed the rule of LAW. Which is what the Attorney General is supposed to do. And she did it in SPITE of overwhelming political pressure to do the WRONG thing, and leave the kid in the custody of his wacko in-laws, who were already using him as the gravy train/ticket to fame and fortune.
I should think you'd be happy about this. Because, the Political Capital that Reno expended to do the RIGHT thing and FOLLOW THE RULE OF LAW, rather than do the politically expedient thing, pretty clearly cost Al Gore several thousand votes in the Cuban expatriate community in Florida - and thus, is the main reason that Bush was able to claim Florida and thus the Presidential election.
Or is this another example of hypocrisy, where the RULE OF LAW is only to be followed when it suits YOUR agenda?
-- Modified on 5/21/2004 7:00:20 PM
I learned long ago that bullshit usually requires a more lengthy response, owing to its multiple faulty premises.
1. They're not my "beloved Republicans." Actually I tend to agree with Samuel Francis, who calls it "the stupid Party," particularly when they appease the unappeasable far Left. 'Course, stupid ain't evil.
2. How do I "know what Elian Gonzales dead mother wanted"? Well, gee, let's see, she cast out on an unseaworthy vessel to try to bring her child to freedom. Let's just take a guess.
3. "Lunatic, camera-craving in-laws." "wacko in-laws... using him as the gravy train/ticket to fame and fortune." As opposed to a Commie tool of Castro who allowed himself to be used by the dictator? More ad hominem from a master. I can't begrudge anyone utilizing the media to advance their viewpoint in this media-crazed nation. Particularly when the full force of the Federal Government is attempting to send a child back into slavery.
4. "Loving husband." Elian's parents were divorced, and he was remarried.
5. "the LAW has always given precedent to surviving ... BIOLOGICAL parents." A true statement, as far as it goes, but the "best interests of the child" sometimes trumps it. But, of course, it is impossible to know what Elian's father truly wanted. He was holed up in Wye River surrounded by Castro's security apparatchiks, represented by one of Clinton's impeachment lawyers (Greg Craig, I believe), and Castro had hostages back in Cuba, including his infant son with his new wife. When Elian was turned over to him, he was quite clearly drugged.
6. "FIT, LOVING, BIOLOGICAL parent." A parent who desires to return their child to a Communist dictatorship is by definition unfit, and unloving, as generations of refugees coming to these shores would attest. Moreover, the so-called "LAW" in such a nation recognizes no such parental rights.
7. "Reno ... followed the rule of LAW." Nice change for her, if she had actually done so. Of course, the Clinton Administration (possible Bush I) crafted an exception around the Cuban Refugee Act (not sure about its correct name) holding that asylum was not available to refugees whose feet were "wet," i.e., those who didn't set foot on American soil prior to being taken into custody. So whether she "followed the rule of LAW" is highly debatable. Moreover, the Walter Polovchak case from the Seventh Circuit (early 80s) provided precedent for allowing Elian to stay.
8. "cost AL GORE ... the Presidential election." I would agree. Glad to see you agree that Bush won legitimately. Might be a first, but my memory fails me on this one.
In short, the "LAW" on this point is highly debatable. It was the Clinton/Reno POLICY which was detestable.
And, it is HIGHLY debateable that the in-laws that were holding Elian Gonzales against court orders had the child's interests in mind. Certainly, NONE of the child care EXPERTS who were involved in the specifics of that case thought the in-laws were suitable custodial parents. I personally find YOUR view of what is in the Child's best interest to be detestable. But this is certainly a judgement call, and Reno made what was, in MY opinion, although not yours, the correct call. But it WAS her call to make, I am sure even you would agree on THAT.
And I see NO EVIDENCE that a communist parent cannot be a fit, loving parent.
And, as for costing Gore the election, This event provided sufficient margin such that the Florida tally was moved from what WOULD have been a CLEAR margin of superiority for Gore, toward the UNCERTAIN margin that allowed Bush to use the machinations of his Brother's State election commission, and then the Supreme Court to wrest the election. All I am saying is that ABSENT the Elian Gonzales incident, Gore wins by a margin that would have been beyond dispute, and WITH this incident, we get the resultant dispute, which was, as you obviously know, settled by the Supreme Court. I did not say that Bush LEGITIMATELY won Florida. I said that without the Gonzales incident, Gore clearly would have legitimately won Florida. As a lawyer, I would expect that you could understand these semantic differences. That is, unless you are actually TRYING to mis-represent my position - which certainly would not surprise me in the slightest.
And, the intent of Elian's mother in leaving Cuba was clear when Elian would have been with HER. But neither YOU, nor anyone ELSE can actually KNOW, is what she would have thought of Elian being in the custodial care of the whacko, exploitive in-laws, and SHE was dead. That results in a fundamental change of condition, that renders all assumptions obsolete. And I do not, and more importantly, the LAW does not, make the assumption that YOU do, about how a life in a communist country, with a loving biological parent, CAN'T be in the interest of the child, compared to an unstable environment with unsuitable guardians in the U.S. YOU are flat out WRONG in this claim, especially on a legal basis.
As for my comment about the loving husband, that was just a typo. I meant, loving father, not loving husband.
-- Modified on 5/21/2004 6:58:27 PM
bein' agin it is not a crime- its political- but intimidating people or threatennig them with harm is a crime. That's what they got dinged for and fuck them with a hatstand for it!
Sounds more like a demand than a request. Calm down, stop yelling at me and I'll answer your question, or any other, when I damn well feel like it.
Thank you for your consideration.
Take two shots of gin and post me in the morning. Good night.
You'll have to forgive bribite, with George W. and his fellow neocons on the verge of being ousted this November. I think he's feeling a bit irritated.
Perhaps you can argue that enacting RICO had unforeseen consequences, but the people charged had every intention of obstructing the civil liberties of others, which went far beyond the practice of free speech or civil behavior. These actions were not limited to legal ones, as murder and terror were often implied, if not directly sanctioned, tactics. Also, the leadership was profiteering from this operation. All of this is beyond doubt.
Of course, Janet Reno's crowning acheivement, early in her tenure, was Waco. And she had a few other gems for which I cannot forgive her.
You must remember, however, she was Clinton's third choice as Attorney General. His first two better qualified candidates were "Borked." The only reason her career survived Waco was because by then, Congress could only expect the nominees to get much worse.
Bush has no such excuse with John Asscrost.
/Zin
"Borked"? You have got to be kidding, I only remember one and she was guilty of paying her maid and nanny under the table so as not to suffer what most employers suffer, the additional Social Security Tax, Workers Comp and a shit load of paperwork. I do that and they would throw my ass in Federal Prision!
In otherwords, she was guilty of tax evasion!
"Borked" is a term that has come to be associated with the process of the democrat's in the Senate not allowing a Presidential appointee to come to vote. A polite form of "He Was Fucked!"
Reno's RICO charges were overturned by the courts immediatelyt, showing once again that she abused the written laws of our country to forward her own political beliefs.
Maybe you would care to enlighten us as to why Bush would be in need of an excuse for John Ashcroft? But please, base it on facts, not knee jerk liberalism claptrap.
About throwing your ass in federal prison for "tax evasion," I had the idea the Senate knew how common this violation of the law is, and perhaps a few Senators themselves had some maids or household servants with which they made similar arrangements. I know that when I was a teenager, at least a few informal employers of mine should have served time then. It would be the equivalent of filling up prisons with Class C misdemeanors.
As for "borked" applying to actions by democrats, Republicans had their own very effective version of it during the Clinton administration, when many judgeships went unfilled. Several of Clinton's cabinet nominations were given the same treatment, Zoe Baird being one instance, including one or two after the fact. It gets to me that Republicans now cry at how unfair it is after they spent eight years doing it to Clinton...
Now, as for its origins, I'm glad Bork got Borked, and it still seems to me completely fair. Books that he has written sense then have told me that the face he was presenting to the senate and what he really represented were two different things.
As for the overturning of the cases, did the courts actually say she abused it in their rulings? We're they all overturned? I'll look into this more. You've piqued my interest.
As for why Bush should need an excuse for Ashcroft: two things, the raids on Big Doggie and Canal Street coming in the months following 9/11. These were embarrassments. It showed that with the country staring terrorism in the face, and now armed with the Patriot Act, Ashcroft was ready to investigate and enforce victimless crimes.
/Zin
Zoe Baird was the lawyer nominated as Atty Gen who was paying the help under the table. She wasn't "borked" she withdrew her name.
As far as allowing Clinton to appoint judges, that's bunk, he made it a very low priority and sent them to the Senate in mass bunches. In that the Republican Senate did not block Justice Ginsberg (which they should have), whose prior job was General Counsel for the ACLU, that argument is ridiculous.
All the RICO charges were thrown out, that some slanted posters on this board charge that the protesters were threatening harm is also unfounded, and a total lie. To bend the law to the point that peaceful protesters, "sitting" on public property can be arrested, jailed and forced to spend thousands to defend themselves from their own government from seriously abusive charges is/was a crime, to which Reno should have been charged.
As far as Ashcroft is concerned, if you can dig up something that proves that he abused his power or the law in the "raids" on Big Doggie or Canal Street, let us hear them. Otherwise you might just consider that what he did, maybe on a personal crusade was legal, and what Reno did as a personal crusade was an abuse of power and an affront to all law abiding Americans.
These "victimless crimes" you allude to were passed into law by our elected representatives. They are on the books. I don't see Kerry or any other democrat standing on a soapbox fighting for your "hobbying" rights or to legalize dope! Since you think they might be supportive of such issues, why do they lack the balls to write legislation legalizing it?
If you don't like Ashcroft, fine! But to accuse him of anything remotely illegal, or abusing his power is ludicrous.
I just wonder if you were silent while Reno was running roughshod over Conservative Americans Civil Rights, or did you find it agreeable because you didn't agree with them anyway? Which of course is a verbal caricature of a liberal!
THAT'S why the RICO statutes were used. Were the charges thrown out against those who really did just protest peacefully? Sure they were. That's just our system at work. But there WAS an ORGANIZED criminal enterprise behind the Anti-Abortion movement, which has gone to great lengths to do MORE than just make their views known, but rather, to actually intimidate and shut down the clinics. At that point, using RICO is fair game. When RICO is used, it ALWAYS involves cutting a big swath through those members of the organization, including little fish and big fish. Same here. But in fact, our system protects the rights of those that are TRULY the little fish. If they don't want to run afoul of RICO charges, they should not associate with an ORGANIZED movement that has been shown to threaten doctors and people who use the clinics.
Those who bombed clinics or killed or attempted to kill abortionists were prosecuted under federal hate crime laws. Even though even you should be able to recognize that bombing and murder or attempted murder is prosecutable in every state, county and city under existing laws without the idiotic "hate" label.
Those who Reno couldn't get under those statutes were creatively prosecuted under the RICO Act. These were people peaceably demonstrating on public property, not physically blocking entrances, or overtly harassing those wishing to enter. These were people sitting down, praying or singing.
Every single Anti Abortion organization and its leadership in the country denounced all violence against abortion clinics and abortionists! Without exception. As did every wing of the Christian Church, Right, Moderate and Left, even the evil Evangelicals!
Attempting to umbrella all people who oppose abortion with militant maniacs is unjust and untruthful!
I might remind you of your oft stated opinion that ALL MUSLIMS are NOT TERRORISTS! Even though no meaningful attempt at disassociating from the TERRORIST sect of Islam has been made from ANY MEANINGFUL Islamic group or its LEADERSHIP outside the nation of Turkey!
Lets try this, leave the bar in the same place for everyone, even those you don't agree with. Speak the facts, not hysterical innuendo and then you might garner some respect.
What I DO say is that the Anti-Abortion movement DID include organized terrorists. And in that situation, it was perfectly appropriate, and LAWFUL, to use the RICO statutes in order to discourage the lawful protesters from associating with the terrorist elements of the movement, and in fact, to turn in those folks who made up the terrorist elements of the movement.
Since the Anti Abortion movement obviously was not policing itself in this regard, the use of RICO was a completely legal and reasonable means of forcing them to do so.
BTW, I suggest that you take this argument to the people with whom you have it, and try to sue them. Because I frankly will never agree with you on it, and so long as YOU can't prove that the use of RICO was UNLAWFUL, I will be content to assume that it was, and not only that, it was beneficial to society. So go sue away.
The RICO Act was NOT used to prosecute perveyors of violence. It was used to prosecute peaceful demonstrators.
Following your foggy logic, all Ecco groups should be prosecuted because of the actions of ELF for not policing themselves. How moronic! Even over the top for you!
At the time, there was an existing record of Abortion clinics being bombed, and Doctors being shot. The use of RICO was intended to prevent this. The fact that some peaceful protesters were prosecuted, I say, big deal. The Right to Life MOVEMENT had proven itself already to be an ORGANIZATION that was tolerant of violence in furtherance of it's goals. Undoubtedly, many of it's participants were NOT violent. But at the time of the prosecution, this was unknown. We have courts to sort that stuff out, and they did so.
But I suspect not.
-- Modified on 5/22/2004 11:24:25 AM
Ashcroft just lost his case against Greenpeace. So in effect Ashcroft was WRONG!
See the difference?
Reno's case was thrown out of court! So in effect, she abused her power! ?
Frankly, Greenpeace, like the Right to Life movement, has occassionally reverted to terrorist tactics to accomplish their goals. Although Greenpeace's actions have been to cause property damage, rather than the bombings and killings that have sometimes come from the Right to Life group. That being said, when an organized group moves from peaceful protest to intimidation and threats or actual damage against property or people that they are protesting against, it has crossed the line into being an organized entity in pursuit of lawless activity, and thus would be subject to RICO prosecution. Of course, it is the judgement of the Law Enforcement arm whether to use RICO, and I recognize that John Ashcroft's agenda for using RICO would be different from Janet Reno's. However, I DO have the confidence in our Judicial system to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and in both of the cases discussed here, the Judiciary has kicked out the over-zealous RICO prosecutions against those who were simply protesting peacefully. In essence, our System works, but RICO, when used in this manner, DOES act as a check on organizations like Right to Life or Greenpeace from overstepping the bounds of organized protest, into organized threats, intimidation, and damage, against the entities that they are protesting against, with the Judiciary acting as a counter-balancing check on the prosecution from over-using RICO.
Baird pulled out because she could see the play being set up, and knew she could do nothing about it. So she didn't stay in to make it official. You're relying on a technicality. A chess game is still lost whether you resign or wait for the checkmate. The same with a Borking.
I don't know what Clinton's "priority" or how many nominations he sent to the Senate at a time has to do with how they were treated once they were there. Considering how the Senate treated his cabinet nominations, I could see how dealing with for scores of judge seats might have embittered him. But if these were less contentious times, it would seem to me to be common sense that the Senate has to move on filling judgeships.
The wing of the anti-abortion movement that sat on the sidewalks was just one prong of the attack. The sitters and the shooters were two wings of the same movement, where the leadership affected shock whenever somebody happened to get shot or a clinic got bombed, but the rhetoric they used was alway to stop abortion by any means possible. Given this, could it be that some sitters weren't content to just sit?
[I'll continue later. zzz]
Baird's tax evasion was uncovered in cursory investigation into her tax returns, by a Democrat controlled Senate. If the Dems wanted to bring her to vote, they could have, they had the votes to get her out of committee. But then again, having a tax evader in the highest law enforcement position in the land might not have endeared the American (overtaxed) public, especially right after Bill Clinton worked so fucking hard to not raise taxes, "but was forced to!"
Insofar as sending large quantities of nominees to the Senate, (most likely in an attempt to have them rubber stamped) bypasses the Senates responsibility for actually checking them out, making sure they are fit for service, not just some of the rank and file large donors from the Trial Lawyers Association, which of course many were!
It's absurd to link the peaceful demonstrations of thousands of people with the maniac atrocities committed by a handful of madmen in bombing abortion clinics, murdering abortion doctors, etc. The people who were charge with the RICO act were peaceful protesters, the people who bombed abortion clinics and shot abortionists were prosecuted for murder and hate crime laws.
Reno couldn't find any way to curb anti-abortion demonstrations which were beginning to take a toll on the multi million dollar abortion industry and therefore curb donations to the DNC and Clinton, so she manufactured the RICO horseshit.
But as a matter of clarity, would you deny the peaceful protest, on public property of people opposing abortion?
Rest assured we both detest the violence that the very few anti abortion activists (morons) committed, and the mainstream majority of the anti abortion movement also denounced, as did the Christian Right, Middle and Left!