I am not here taking a position on his case. I am pointing out the basis of the argument for clemency and the disconnect from the notion that he should not be supported because of his ideas. He's not asking for support for those ideas, if he still holds them, but for release because he says he didn't do anything. If he did, then on his own terms, he ought not be released. I don't know whether he did or not. I know little about the case. But I do know something about the FBI, eh? Their record with political radicalism is not what it should be. Isn't that enough to help create a little doubt in your mind?
--jks
>
>>I think armed struggle is self-deafeating the present circumstances
>>(and almost any I can imagine arising), but this strikes me as an
>>odd approach. If his claim is right, he's innocent and was framed.
>>If so, should he not be freed, whatever his views? I mean, he's not
>>asking you to endorse his present or former views, but to spring him
>>from the pokey because he didn't kill anyone.
>
>Then who did? And how did Peltier get the agents' guns?
>
>
>Brad DeLong
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com