That would depend on which drug warriors you are talking about.
If you know anything about the McWilliams case, I don't see how
you can defend such drug-war atrocities on the basis of good
intentions. Besides, such intentions don't really exist. Drug
warriors generally view people like McWilliams as killers of
youth (his case was about pot growing), so of course they feel
justified by wishing him dead and employing any means (and just
following orders). Of course when prohibition is finally ended,
it will prolly be like slavery and no warriors will be charged
with crimes. But if it's like the Nazis, I'm sure the defendants
will make similar claims; "but your honor, we really didn't
actively seek the death and ruin of all those millions". HA!
If anyone's words are showing an emotional attachment, it would
appear to be yours.
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
_____
>
> Tell the mother of Peter McWilliams too.
>
Pursuing poor policies in regards to drug laws is a universe away
from
actively seeking the death of Americans for political purposes.
I realize you have a strong emotional attachment to McWilliams,
but
don't let emotion confuse you into thinking the drug warriors
wanted
Peter dead.
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
