<DIV>Well, they did wipe out Anderson with a criminal conviction. I agree that that's a sham. Obviosuly the Justice Dept is more interestiung in detaining innocent Muslims than in chasing down corporate crime. This should not be a surprise. jks Nomiprins@aol.com wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">In a message dated 6/9/2003 11:27:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dhenwood@panix.com writes: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" TYPE="CITE">But why Martha? Sure she's annoying and almost certainly a dreadful person, but a criminal? </BLOCKQUOTE> Couldn't agree more. Against a backdrop of not a single corporate indictment, no  Enron convictions, no WorldCom convictions, and no Wall Street convictions for crimes that wiped out trillions of dollars, not to mentions jobs and retirement plans, scape goating Martha Stewart is appalling and ridiculous. She did not hurt the public. Others did. And yet, here she is,  part of yet another deflection of real justice policy. Nomi </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><hr SIZE=1> Do you Yahoo!? Free <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/tag/*http://calendar.yahoo.com">online calendar</a> with sync to Outlook(TM).