NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/politics/misc/65617

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 4.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!L-Bueno
From: [e-mail] (Louis Alberto Bueno)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 19:25:23 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
References: <cubsfan.725313723@camelot>
  <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
  <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
  <[e-mail]>
Lines: 102

[e-mail] (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:
>
>> Theodore A. Kaldis:
>
>>> You must have neglected to consider Article III, Section 3 of the U.S.
>>> Constitution.
>
>> The following is the *exact* content of said Article:
>
>>     "Treason against the United States, shall consist
>> only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their
>> enemies, giving them aid and comfort.  [...]
>>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  ^^^^^^^--[What about this?]

    You answer the question yourself later in this reply, Teddy...

>What "enemies" did Weinberger give aid and comfort to?  And how is
>"enemies" to be defined, and who is to do the defining?

    I didn't say that Weinberger gave aid and comfort to any enemy.
I slotted Reagan for this.  Please make the distinction, or, at least,
print out these articles with a fresh ink ribbon :-)

    Nice philosophical question there, Tedz... just WHO is the
enemy, and just WHO says so?  You sure got me there on that one... maybe
it's anyone who wishes ill toward you?  Perhaps wishes to kill you?
Do you have any ideas on this you'd like to contribute? :-)

>(Keep in mind
>that the allegations against Weinberger concern notes he supposedly
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^
>concealed, not that he somehow helped some supposed enemy of ours.)

    "Supposedly?"  Please, please, Teddy... let's not dream here on
this one.  He DID conceal his own notes.  He DID lie to Congress.  Once
again, for the upteempth time, please provide even a margin of proof
to support your statement.

>> I will agree that it has yet to be proven that Weinberger is directly
>> responsible for the Arms-For-Hostages deals that former president
>> Reagan secretly approved (this would make Reagan a "traitor," by the
>> very definition in the above section).
>
>Again, how is "enemies" defined?

    (Taken from some dusty ole dictionary on my shelf:)

    ENEMY - A person who strongly dislikes or wants to injure or attack.
                The armed forces of a nation, side, etc with which one's
        country, side, etc is at war.  Anything that harms or
        weakens.

    If you meant to make some example by having someone other than
yourself state the definition, I'd like to hear the explanation. PLEASE.

>> But certainly Weinberger's deliberate lies concerning the extent of
>> his knowledge on the hidden negotiations with Iran prove that his
>> anything he has said, or will say, is subject to extreme prejudice,
>> and bespeaks a certain complicity overall.
>
>You speak of "deliberate lies" as if this were already a matter of
>fact.  But it is not -- it is only a highly dubious allegation put
>forth by the office of a failed prosecutor who has nothing to show for
>the squandering of at least $40 million in tax dollars.

    Wrong-O, babe.  Are you reading the Martian Times, or what? :-)

    Caspar Weinberger, the former defense secretary, was indicted in
1992 on felony charges of perjury, making false statements and obstructing
congressional investigators.  This is not an "allegation."  It's a matter
of record, no matter how much you wish to state otherwise.

    "failed prosecutor?" This scurrilous judgement of Mr. Walsh
simply ignores his record.  Should I post it for you, or can you look
it up for yourself, Teddy? :-)  As for spending up to $35 MM thus far,
imagine why:  It's taken this long.  100 percent hostility from very
secret agencies, unwilling witnesses, congress getting in the way and
senior officials pleading the Fifth.  Can you imagine the magnitude of
this task?

>> Aiding and abetting a traitor would make you a traitor as well, would
>> it not?
>
>No it would not.  Levying war against the United States or adhering to
>and giving aid and comfort to its enemies would.

    Well, then since you can adhere that strictly to the definition
provided by the Constitution, then I won't push the issue further. That's
fine enough for me (remember, this concerns REAGAN, not WEINBERGER).

    BTW: You purposefully neglected to answer my previous questions:

    Name a "rag" that you are even remotely respectful of, please.

    Could you indicate to me what "reliable" sources you use to
verify your claims?

Thanks,

--Louis