I agree! REH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 10:04 AM Subject: Re: An extreme punishment? > The handcuffs were barbaric. Under U.S. law Rigas is innocent until proven > guilty. If the handcuffs were meant as "punishment" rather than as > restraints to prevent him from resisting arrest, they violated his right to > a fair trial. They put the punishment before the conviction. It may even be > that Rigas' defense builds on the issue of the climate in which Rigas can't > receive a fair trial. > > Bush and Cheney are big "crooks". With the connivance of brother Jeb and the > supremes, they stole an election. Bush and Cheney were, apparently, sleazy > businessmen, too. Whether they did anything "illegal", though, is another > matter. The point is not whether or not they broke any laws, the point is > that political connections paved a rosy path for them to profiteer. The > problem with any punishment for Bush or Cheney is that it would likely be in > the context of crass symbolism. They would be sacrificed as scapegoats so > that the system of monied political corruption could go on, with perhaps a > few inconsequential concessions to popular democracy. > > On second thought, maybe the sight of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices > Scalia, Kennedy, O'Connor and Thomas being led away in handcuffs would "send > a clear signal that things have changed" > > Justice Stevens: "One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never > know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's > Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is > the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of > law. I respectfully dissent." > >
