Of course not, because Manson is a "real criminal."
The idea that there should be curbs on the state's right to inflect death (yes, I am phrasing that right) is rather recent. These trials are all to the good, of course, but the idea that representatives of the state (one on "our side") should be liable as common criminals (or, here, as common tortious actors) is something I think it will take people a while to internalize, Bill of Rights, Nuremburg precedents, et. al. notwithstanding. And the, shall we say, contradictions inherent in taking such a position in the USA, as the leading exporter of such terror, should be obvious.
----Original Message Follows---- From: "Nancy Bauer/Dennis Perrin" <bauerperrin at mindspring.com> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Nun Killers Walk Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 13:52:17 -0400
Gregory:
You may be right about a change in venue -- certainly out of Florida, home to a number of war criminals and their supporters. And had Carter (or Robert White or any number of Carter administration personnel) been called to the stand, by EITHER the prosecution or the defense, it would have raised the profile of the case and forced the media, more than it did, to re-examine what went on during that terrible time. Instead, we have the Times' standard take that the 75,000 killed was roughly 50/50, when in fact the Salvadoran security forces were responsible for the vast majority of the slaughter (doing their Master's bidding).
Based on this, do you think Manson could be free by X-Mas?
DP
----------
>From: "Gregory Geboski" <ggeboski at hotmail.com>
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: Re: Nun Killers Walk
>Date: Sat, Nov 4, 2000, 1:38 PM
>
><<Why didn't they call Jimmy
>Carter to the stand?>>
>
>Who? The plaintiffs or the defendants?
>
>Seems to me that the defendants' attorneys, if they got Jimmy C on the
>stand, could ask him any number of embarrassing questions about HIS
>responsibility as Commander-in-Chief regarding imperial adventures and
>covert ops during his term in office. Then they could argue, "If you find
>against these defendants, you would have to find against the President of
>the United States as well."
>
>Which I sort of feel was in the back of the juror's minds, anyway.
>
>BTW, I think if you move this trial out of the South or Southwest, you get a
>different verdict. But this is bad news nonetheless...
_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.