From: Adam 

George J. Sherwood wrote:
> Adam wrote:
>
>>
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=avrKgZr.ESOQ&refer=us
>>
>> Looks like Tom's off with no Delay.
>>
>> One wonders where the trail will end what with his chief of staff now in
>> the sh*t as well. I wonder how close the Texan band of brothers is now...
>>
>> Mmmm I love the smell of rampant corruption in the morning. It must be
>> very humorous to be a State dept official (e.g. Ms Rice) & to tour the
>> world lecturing others on how important it is to stamp out corruption....
>
> Guess I missed the part where he plead guilty or was convicted.  Hate to
> think I was to assume an accused terrorist was guilty as you do here.  I
> think most likely it looked like he was going to lose the election and was
> told he needs to step out of the way.  Rebulicans can't afford to lose what
> is most likely a solid district.
>
> George

Eee's a pol mate. I'd hate to think pols would need to be convicted in a democracy.

Small difference between the stds required from an elected pol in a major
state & an accused terrorist. Maybe you are considering bribing AQ not
to attack the US?

Interesting that you think it's OK to bang people up w/o trial, proof or
even due process & yet you seem to think that a pol should get all that
in spades before he can be even judged by public opinion. I'm quite happy
to have either approach so long as there is some consistency.

In fact the executive banging up pols for an indeterminate term w/o trial,
proof or due process is something many would welcome but on the off chance
you think that's a bit harsh (& possibly even against the legal &
moral traditions of your country) then extending due process etc to accused
terrorists would be second best.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5