| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Lord Calvert" |
| Date: |
01 Aug 2003 05:40:05 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Amoral |
Which would explain why Ashcroft made New York drop the 1st degree murder
charge against James Kopp so he could be tried under a lesser federal
crime.
Blowing out an abortion providers brains in front of his family just isn't
that
serious a crime in Ashcroft's warped, twisted mind.
REALLY? Do you have a link to an arctical on that? (I can't seem to
find it)
Does he have any -Valid- legal reason for this?
There are many. Use your favourite web browser to look up "Barnett Slepian"
"James Kopp" "Amherst, NY" and "Operation Rescue"
The biggest argument in Ashcroft's favor is that when Kopp was found he was in
custody in France. French law prohibits extradition of an accused criminal if
he would face the death penalty upon his return and so-called "liberal" New
York has the death penalty for Murder One. Ashcroft intervened in a state case
(violating his dedication to states rights), made New York drop the murder
charge (violating his dedication to the death penalty) and had him tried under
a lesser federal charge (interference to access) to get him out of France. Both
the New York and Erie County attorney generals were willing and prepared to try
Kopp in absentia. They believed that they had sufficient evidence to do so.
It is believed that Ashcroft did all this legal legerdemain in order to keep an
operative of a political ally and friend (Randall Terry) out of the electric
chair. It was pure political favoritism and aiding and abetting terrorists.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Amoral |
01 Aug 2003 08:10:15 PM |
|
|
On 01 Aug 2003 22:40:05 GMT, forlornh@aol.commode (Lord Calvert) wrote in alt.atheism:
Which would explain why Ashcroft made New York drop the 1st degree murder
charge against James Kopp so he could be tried under a lesser federal
crime.
Blowing out an abortion providers brains in front of his family just isn't
that
serious a crime in Ashcroft's warped, twisted mind.
REALLY? Do you have a link to an arctical on that? (I can't seem to
find it)
Does he have any -Valid- legal reason for this?
There are many. Use your favourite web browser to look up "Barnett Slepian"
"James Kopp" "Amherst, NY" and "Operation Rescue"
The biggest argument in Ashcroft's favor is that when Kopp was found he was in
custody in France. French law prohibits extradition of an accused criminal if
he would face the death penalty upon his return and so-called "liberal" New
York has the death penalty for Murder One. Ashcroft intervened in a state case
(violating his dedication to states rights), made New York drop the murder
charge (violating his dedication to the death penalty) and had him tried under
a lesser federal charge (interference to access) to get him out of France. Both
the New York and Erie County attorney generals were willing and prepared to try
Kopp in absentia. They believed that they had sufficient evidence to do so.
It is believed that Ashcroft did all this legal legerdemain in order to keep an
operative of a political ally and friend (Randall Terry) out of the electric
chair. It was pure political favoritism and aiding and abetting terrorists.
You know I'm no fan of Asscraft's, right?
Where's the consistency between your correct citation of France's position on extradition
to the possibility of execution, and your conclusion that the accused in this case stood any
chance at all of being removed from France to face *any* charge, unless execution be off
the table (so to speak)? Politically, it would seem to me that the AG in this instance had
no option but to eat the loss of fried prisoner for the sake of not being seen to let
prosecution for the crime go by the board altogether. When in France do as the Freedom do.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by vernon; NEW! IMPROVED! plonked by Lani_girl
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Amoral |
01 Aug 2003 09:07:56 PM |
|
|
It is believed that Ashcroft did all this legal legerdemain in order to keep
an
operative of a political ally and friend (Randall Terry) out of the electric
chair. It was pure political favoritism and aiding and abetting terrorists.
You know I'm no fan of Asscraft's, right?
Where's the consistency between your correct citation of France's
position
on extradition
to the possibility of execution, and your conclusion that the accused
in
this case stood any
chance at all of being removed from France to face *any* charge, unless
execution be off
the table (so to speak)? Politically, it would seem to me that the AG
in
this instance had
no option but to eat the loss of fried prisoner for the sake of not
being
seen to let
prosecution for the crime go by the board altogether.
My point is that was not Ashcroft's decision to make. That was Eliot Spitzer's
and Frank Clark's decision. However since Ashcroft and Spitzer are political
enemies and Ashcroft is a rock-solid ally of the terrorist organization
Operation Rescue which Kopp was a part of, Ashcroft felt it necessary to
intervene in a case in which he had no jurisdiction. Ashcroft took a charge
"off the table" that he didn't have the authority to handle and he did it over
the objection of the state and county DA. He assumed federal authority over a
state case...something which a states rights advocate would never, NEVER do.
And he did it in order to prevent a legal execution, something a pro-death
penalty advocate would never, NEVER do. He violated his own principles for
politics and did it in support of terrorism.
To put it plainly, he acted like exactly the sort of person conservatives have
been railing against for decades. He exercised federal authority in a state
case against the wishes of the state and in a matter in which he did not have
jurisdiction because the state DA is a political enemy. He let a foreign power
dictate American legal procedures. In a time where the US is allegedly fighting
terrorism, he effectively waived the death penalty for a suspected (now
convicted) terrorist because the person in question belongs to a terrorist
organization which is a friend of the Republican Party.
He has no business calling himself a conservative or a patriotic American ever
again.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Amoral |
02 Aug 2003 01:27:34 AM |
|
|
On 02 Aug 2003 02:07:56 GMT, forlornh@aol.commode (Lord Calvert) wrote in alt.atheism:
It is believed that Ashcroft did all this legal legerdemain in order to keep
an
operative of a political ally and friend (Randall Terry) out of the electric
chair. It was pure political favoritism and aiding and abetting terrorists.
You know I'm no fan of Asscraft's, right?
Where's the consistency between your correct citation of France's
position
on extradition
to the possibility of execution, and your conclusion that the accused
in
this case stood any
chance at all of being removed from France to face *any* charge, unless
execution be off
the table (so to speak)? Politically, it would seem to me that the AG
in
this instance had
no option but to eat the loss of fried prisoner for the sake of not
being
seen to let
prosecution for the crime go by the board altogether.
My point is that was not Ashcroft's decision to make. That was Eliot Spitzer's
and Frank Clark's decision. However since Ashcroft and Spitzer are political
enemies and Ashcroft is a rock-solid ally of the terrorist organization
Operation Rescue which Kopp was a part of, Ashcroft felt it necessary to
intervene in a case in which he had no jurisdiction. Ashcroft took a charge
"off the table" that he didn't have the authority to handle and he did it over
the objection of the state and county DA. He assumed federal authority over a
state case...something which a states rights advocate would never, NEVER do.
Up to here I'm following you (and I wasn't really up on the state's pursuit of the case,
actually.) Although, of course, the federales have often taken first crack at a defendant
against whom both state and federal charges might lie, and there's often a frank political
game about who gets dibs. I think the states' rights objection is a little thin in view of
that.
And he did it in order to prevent a legal execution, something a pro-death
penalty advocate would never, NEVER do.
Here, your argument goes right off the tracks, afaics. He was never coming back to the
U.S. to stand trial, this side of the Sixth Republic (I may have lost count), if any possibility
of his facing execution was not rigorously excluded. If he'd been tried in absentia, he was never
coming home to be executed, unless of his own volition, or in a U.S,-led regime-change exercise.
France just won't let go of the body in such a case. (I don't blame them. Opposition to capital
punishment is not something to be cavalierly put aside for pragmatic concerns, even if there were
any.)
He violated his own principles for
politics and did it in support of terrorism.
An AG acting out of politics! Has it come to this?!?!
To put it plainly, he acted like exactly the sort of person conservatives have
been railing against for decades. He exercised federal authority in a state
case against the wishes of the state
Or he exercised federal authority in a federal case, and at cross-purposes with the
state in pursuit of *its* case. That's not unprecedented. I'll grant that the state prosecutors
have a right to be *****, but if both jurisdictions have a case to bring, it's not uncommon
for the federal entity to take first crack. How that gets ironed out usually is about the
politics of party affiliation as regards the principles. There isn't a law requiring one to
defer to the other, so if it's not a friendly cooperation, the more powerful entity gets to
call it. If not law, then politics. What third force would decide between the two
authorities?
and in a matter in which he did not have
jurisdiction because the state DA is a political enemy.
You're losing me again, because I don't know the NY personalities. Certainly if there *is*
a federal case to bring, the AG of the U.S. has jurisdiction (unless you convince me otherwise.)
The state DA has his own authority in the state's case, but how does that diminish the authority
of the U.S.A.G. in the U.S.'s case?
I see that you rely in part on the willingness of state authorities to proceed in absentia.
Pennsylvania had a celebrated case like that which was resolved a couple of years ago, when Ira
Einhorn was extradited. He'd been tried in absentia for murder, convicted, and sentenced to
death, all while he was living Frenchly in France. There was no legal way to have him returned
to the U.S. until Pennsylvania passed a new law enabling a second trial, in cases where a first
trial had been held in absentia. Only then, and only on the further condition that PA agree in
advance to forego asking for the death penalty in the second trial, did France agree to
extradition. As I understand it, there was never any legal option for the Freedom to act
otherwise. Given that NY would necessarily have been in the same position relative to
France if they'd gone ahead with an in absentia trial, and would never have gotten hands
on the defendant again without a similar solution to that PA reached, I'm not at all convinced
that it didn't serve a federal legal purpose to bring the available federal charge, side-stepping
the unattainable death penalty, and get a conviction to strengthen the federal law involved.
Sure there's something in that for Ashcroft politically: it blunts the criticism that his
religious fanaticism would prevent his applying the federal law protecting access to
health care services by women who may or may not be seeking an abortion.
He let a foreign power
dictate American legal procedures. In a time where the US is allegedly fighting
terrorism, he effectively waived the death penalty for a suspected (now
convicted) terrorist because the person in question belongs to a terrorist
organization which is a friend of the Republican Party.
One more time: the dueling authorities aside, there was no possibility of a capital
punishment prosecution against this defendant, once he set his foot on Freedom soil and
was allowed in. Nobody let the Freedom do that. It's in their laws. They're not French
to disregard them.
He has no business calling himself a conservative or a patriotic American ever
again.
<shrug>
I have no dog in that fight.
If fear of being stereotyped forces a fundy to obey the law he's supposed to uphold,
I call it a good day.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by vernon; NEW! IMPROVED! plonked by Lani_girl
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Amoral |
02 Aug 2003 06:15:39 AM |
|
|
My point is that was not Ashcroft's decision to make. That was Eliot
Spitzer's
and Frank Clark's decision. However since Ashcroft and Spitzer are political
enemies and Ashcroft is a rock-solid ally of the terrorist organization
Operation Rescue which Kopp was a part of, Ashcroft felt it necessary to
intervene in a case in which he had no jurisdiction. Ashcroft took a charge
"off the table" that he didn't have the authority to handle and he did it
over
the objection of the state and county DA. He assumed federal authority over
a
state case...something which a states rights advocate would never, NEVER do.
Up to here I'm following you (and I wasn't really up on the state's
pursuit
of the case,
actually.) Although, of course, the federales have often taken first crack
at a defendant
against whom both state and federal charges might lie, and there's often a
frank political
game about who gets dibs. I think the states' rights objection is a little
thin in view of
that.
You're missing my point. The state and federal charges were different. The
state charge which Ashcroft illegally forced New York to drop was 1st degree
murder. The federal charge which Kopp was facing was "interference with the
right to an abortion." Ashcroft made the state change it's charge to 2nd degree
murder...again, something he did not have the legal authority to do since the
state and federal charges were unrelated. By doing so he kept the operative of
a political ally from facing the death penalty and violated the conservative
principle of states rights.
He violated his own principles for
politics and did it in support of terrorism.
An AG acting out of politics! Has it come to this?!?!
We come to understand, even if we do not wholly accept, that politicians do
indeed act largely for political reasons. I could probably deal with the fact
that he did this for political reasons were it not for the fact that he did it
in support of terrorism. THAT's the major issue. Ashcroft supported a terrorist
and his organization by violating his own oft-stated principles.
To put it plainly, he acted like exactly the sort of person conservatives
have
been railing against for decades. He exercised federal authority in a state
case against the wishes of the state
Or he exercised federal authority in a federal case, and at
cross-purposes
with the
state in pursuit of *its* case.
No...the federal and state cases were unrelated. Kopp has yet to be prosecuted
for the federal case. I may have implied otherwise in my previous posts. My
recollection was in error.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted King" |
|
| Title: Re: Amoral |
02 Aug 2003 10:23:04 AM |
|
|
In article <20030802071539.04816.00001132@mb-m26.aol.com>,
forlornh@aol.commode (Lord Calvert) wrote:
My point is that was not Ashcroft's decision to make. That was Eliot
Spitzer's
and Frank Clark's decision. However since Ashcroft and Spitzer are
political
enemies and Ashcroft is a rock-solid ally of the terrorist organization
Operation Rescue which Kopp was a part of, Ashcroft felt it necessary to
intervene in a case in which he had no jurisdiction. Ashcroft took a charge
"off the table" that he didn't have the authority to handle and he did it
over
the objection of the state and county DA. He assumed federal authority over
a
state case...something which a states rights advocate would never, NEVER
do.
I decided to get more information about just exactly what Ashcroft did
and stumbled on this unrelated but fascinating (actually kind of scary)
web page:
http://www.unashamedandassociates.org/wwwboard/messages/1171.html
[unpublished letter to editor of Buffalo News]
From: Unashamed and Associates
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:57 PM
Subject: SUPPORT FOR JAMES KOPP
Dear Editor,
I am making the long trip from my home town of Newark, Ohio to support
my Brother James Kopp in your City Buffolo. I am thankfull for the
opportunity because if Kopp indeed ended the santanic blood lust of the
baby butcher Bennett Slepian, then he is a righteous man who preformed a
righteous deed. Therefore, he deserves the support of all good men as he
is vilified by the wicked.
In this present social climate in which evil is called good and good
evil, we read in the Buffalo News the caption and excerpt:
Law enforcement readies for
abortion rally
By Jerry Zremski and
Vanessa Thomas
News Staff Reporters
l/15/2003
"Local, state and federal law enforcement will be ready to protect not
only Buffalo's abortion clinic, but also local hospitals and gay bars,
when anti-abortion radicals come to town next week to rally in support
of admitted killer James C. Kopp."
What is wrong with this picture? Baby murder and sodomy are both capital
crimes in God's criminal justice system (Gen 9:6; Lev 20:13). According
to the article the "Christian" President George W. Bush and "Christian"
Attorney General John Ashcroft will be sending "Local, state and federal
law enforcement" not to apprehend and try these capitol offenders but
rather to protect them.
I , with the other brothers and sisters in Christ, will gather peaceably
and will sing the praises of James Kopp on behalf of Christ our King for
upholding His righteous law, in the absence of Godly civil Government.
With Love,
Chuck Spingola
*****
*****
*****
[end]
Note the reference to Lev 20:13:
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to
death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
So these people want the government to kill every sexually active *male*
homosexual or bisexual.
I'm sure it was just an accidental oversight that he forgot to include:
Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's
wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the
adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Civil government upholding "Christ's righteous law" in that case would
lead to the government putting to death a lot more straight Christians
than homosexuals.
If being moral leads to that kind of "love" then I'm for amorality.
Ted
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daemon" |
|
| Title: Re: Amoral |
02 Aug 2003 09:14:49 PM |
|
|
Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<lodited-
<Rant>
Ughh...This letter makes me so sick, seriously I feel so bad right
now... Religion can be SO stupid, By the logic of the
anti-abortionists if we don't try and make babies at every possible
moment we're murdering potential babies that may have become consious.
its the same with the fetuses, theyre not consious yet, the potential
is there (as with eggs and sperm) but they are not consious, yet. And
Murdering a man for doing abortions (they'll just goto another doctor
anyway *calling Dr. Coathanger*) is like killing someone for passing
out condoms. GRRRRRRR. And then there's the effect on the mother's
life.....ughhhhhh.. so sickening BLaeH! PLUS! they care so much
about 'lives' then parade a guy for killing (for their cause, Of
course)
#@%^*%$#@&%$#@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <makes wild gesture> They're
INSANE!!!!
</Rant>
Phew, ok, I'm a little better now.
________________________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and
I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.unashamedandassociates.org/wwwboard/messages/1171.html
[unpublished letter to editor of Buffalo News]
From: Unashamed and Associates
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:57 PM
Subject: SUPPORT FOR JAMES KOPP
Dear Editor,
I am making the long trip from my home town of Newark, Ohio to support
my Brother James Kopp in your City Buffolo. I am thankfull for the
opportunity because if Kopp indeed ended the santanic blood lust of the
baby butcher Bennett Slepian, then he is a righteous man who preformed a
righteous deed. Therefore, he deserves the support of all good men as he
is vilified by the wicked.
In this present social climate in which evil is called good and good
evil, we read in the Buffalo News the caption and excerpt:
Law enforcement readies for
abortion rally
By Jerry Zremski and
Vanessa Thomas
News Staff Reporters
l/15/2003
"Local, state and federal law enforcement will be ready to protect not
only Buffalo's abortion clinic, but also local hospitals and gay bars,
when anti-abortion radicals come to town next week to rally in support
of admitted killer James C. Kopp."
What is wrong with this picture? Baby murder and sodomy are both capital
crimes in God's criminal justice system (Gen 9:6; Lev 20:13). According
to the article the "Christian" President George W. Bush and "Christian"
Attorney General John Ashcroft will be sending "Local, state and federal
law enforcement" not to apprehend and try these capitol offenders but
rather to protect them.
I , with the other brothers and sisters in Christ, will gather peaceably
and will sing the praises of James Kopp on behalf of Christ our King for
upholding His righteous law, in the absence of Godly civil Government.
With Love,
Chuck Spingola
*****
*****
*****
[end]
Note the reference to Lev 20:13:
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to
death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
So these people want the government to kill every sexually active *male*
homosexual or bisexual.
I'm sure it was just an accidental oversight that he forgot to include:
Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's
wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the
adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Civil government upholding "Christ's righteous law" in that case would
lead to the government putting to death a lot more straight Christians
than homosexuals.
If being moral leads to that kind of "love" then I'm for amorality.
Ted
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Amoral |
02 Aug 2003 07:41:42 AM |
|
|
On 02 Aug 2003 11:15:39 GMT, forlornh@aol.commode (Lord Calvert)
wrote:
My point is that was not Ashcroft's decision to make. That was Eliot
Spitzer's
and Frank Clark's decision. However since Ashcroft and Spitzer are political
enemies and Ashcroft is a rock-solid ally of the terrorist organization
Operation Rescue which Kopp was a part of, Ashcroft felt it necessary to
intervene in a case in which he had no jurisdiction. Ashcroft took a charge
"off the table" that he didn't have the authority to handle and he did it
over
the objection of the state and county DA. He assumed federal authority over
a
state case...something which a states rights advocate would never, NEVER do.
Up to here I'm following you (and I wasn't really up on the state's
pursuit
of the case,
actually.) Although, of course, the federales have often taken first crack
at a defendant
against whom both state and federal charges might lie, and there's often a
frank political
game about who gets dibs. I think the states' rights objection is a little
thin in view of
that.
You're missing my point. The state and federal charges were different. The
state charge which Ashcroft illegally forced New York to drop was 1st degree
murder. The federal charge which Kopp was facing was "interference with the
right to an abortion." Ashcroft made the state change it's charge to 2nd degree
murder...again, something he did not have the legal authority to do since the
state and federal charges were unrelated. By doing so he kept the operative of
a political ally from facing the death penalty and violated the conservative
principle of states rights.
It doesn't matter.
I'm going to type this slowly and loudly so you take notice this time:
THERE WAS NO WAY KOPF WOULD HAVE BEEN EXTRADITED IF
THE DEATH PENALTY COULD HAVE BEEN USED BECAUSE FRENCH
LAW APPLIES IN FRANCE, NOT US LAW.
Do you understand what that means?
He violated his own principles for
politics and did it in support of terrorism.
An AG acting out of politics! Has it come to this?!?!
We come to understand, even if we do not wholly accept, that politicians do
indeed act largely for political reasons. I could probably deal with the fact
that he did this for political reasons were it not for the fact that he did it
in support of terrorism. THAT's the major issue. Ashcroft supported a terrorist
and his organization by violating his own oft-stated principles.
To put it plainly, he acted like exactly the sort of person conservatives
have
been railing against for decades. He exercised federal authority in a state
case against the wishes of the state
Or he exercised federal authority in a federal case, and at
cross-purposes
with the
state in pursuit of *its* case.
No...the federal and state cases were unrelated. Kopp has yet to be prosecuted
for the federal case. I may have implied otherwise in my previous posts. My
recollection was in error.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
