Posted on 06/24/2002 7:46:00 PM PDT by american colleen
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:39:41 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
OKLAHOMA CITY
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
Then why do we need Keating?!? We already have public outrage!
But in an interview in his statehouse office Friday, Keating said it will be the job of the local review panels, appointed by bishops, to investigate allegations of negligence or obstruction of justice by those same bishops. While boards will not seek criminal prosecution, he hopes they will cooperate with prosecutors.
All this circular reasoning because the Bishops couldn't do what Men of God would have done. Pitiful.
The cover-up continues. Message to Keating: Don't be part of the problem. The acts were illegal. The cover-ups were illegal. Prosecute 'em. What would you decide if it had been YOUR teenage son?
This is insane.
< tinfoil hat> It seems he was "gotten" to... < /tinfoil hat>
You need Keating because you don't have a megaphone.
Keating has the backing of the bishops themselves.
They won't listen to you. Keating's got media contacts, media savvy, and is relentless.
DA's and Attorneys General will prosecute bishops if they can, but, in most cases, there's no law that allows them to.
In Massachusetts, for instance, the AG has already said he can't touch Law.
Don't try to confuse me with logic and important details, sink...OK, we'll send our stuff to Keating. Wanna bet his board is as big a circular file as Rome?
"Then why do we need Keating?!? We already have public outrage!"
We have outrage, but not a focal point for that outrage. Perhaps Gov. Keating may allow himself to become that focal point.
Remember that within the Church, Mr. Keating can be given no formal standing, no formal power. He serves at the sufferance of the bishops. Any power you or I may think he has within the Church is illusory. His only power is that of public opinion.
Perhaps we ought to be thinking of ways of cooperating with him, and enhancing the only power he really has.
sitetest
A bishop, priest, chior member, et al, who is a citizen in this country, in a said state and town cannot be prosecuted for a crime because their is no law allowing them to? There is no law that ex NFL players cannot murder their slutty wives either, but that still ruined OJ's day.
What the heck is going on here? Are these bishops officially citizens of the Vatican who are covered by diplomatic immunity? I give the church five years. Good riddance to the bastards. I think I'll convert to Taoism.
Definitely worth considering. Any ideas on exactly how to do this???
Yeah, but not tonight. It's past my bedtime.
I was surprised to get a rational response to my last post, since that implies that my last post was rational, too. ;-)
Must sleep...
sitetest
I'm sorry any panel with Robert Bennet on it has zero credibility with me. And yes I know he was doing what he was supposed to do in an advocacy role...but time and time again, despite the evidence, he took the side of the perp.
Bennett has sold his sole to the devil and the whole barrel is rotten to the core due to one spoiled apple! (ewwww...nice mixing of metaphors)
Right -- he also has no standing as a government prosecutor. I think I'd rather see that he knows the limitations of his position than have him promise to do things that only the Vatican or federal/state governments have the actual power to do. Those would be empty promises indeed. I am assuming until proven wrong that, as he hopes local boards will cooperate with prosecutors, he will cooperate with local boards and prosecutors.
That's what a lawyer does when the perp happens to be his client, unless he wants to court professional censure and a legal malpractice suit. He can, of course, resign from the case, but in many cases the judge would have to approve this.
Maybe he agreed to be on the board to make up for his past sins. If he's sincere, someone versed in Skadden, Arps cutthroat methods could be a genuine asset.
I don't know. But I'm willing to give him a chance until he gives me reason not to.
Statutes of limitations in many cases have expired. Also, under many state laws, the requirements for proving aiding and abetting are quite strict. Many states are rewriting their laws, but ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. And there are laws against an NFL player killing his slutty wife, as you so charmingly put it -- the jury (rightly or wrongly) was not persuaded that the prosecution proved its case.
There is a scene in A Man for All Seasons in which More gently reproves his son-in-law(?) for being willing to tear down laws that the devil hides behind, but More's view is that the same laws protect against the devil and (I wish I could remember it more exactly) tearing them down will leave only a windswept plain with no protection against the devil.
They are not, again not, little tin Gods.
There is nothing that excuses them for their evil acts any more than the rest of us common people.
I do not understand why there is any debate about the crime that was commited and the punishment that we all are subject to by the law.
The crime was commited, it was denied, coveredup, paid off,lied about,and ignored.
TIME TO REMOVE THE TRASH, NOW!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.