Posted on 12/04/2003 4:41:44 AM PST by johnny7
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:11:10 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON -- In a hearing featuring as much emotion as law, the Supreme Court yesterday explored the delicate issue of public disclosure of death scene photos and autopsy reports that surviving family members want kept secret.
The case focuses on four photographs of the body of Vincent W. Foster Jr., a former White House aide in the Clinton administration who committed suicide. But the hearing ranged far from that, touching on privacy issues surrounding the deaths of US soldiers overseas and the identification of body parts after the World Trade Center attacks in 2001. When the justices looked at the narrow legal issue before them, they pondered whether the federal Freedom of Information Act was designed to protect the privacy only of individuals who figure in government photos or reports, or also protects the privacy interests of surviving relatives when federal files contain the sometimes gruesome images of death.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Dammit... we care!!
I believe that Scalia's point was that there was no real evidence to substantiate the man's claims of a conspiracy and that all the pictures in the world would make no difference. The only real difference is the furtherance of the man's name to the demise of the family's wishes and dignity. Do you really think the family would try to hold back info if they thought that it might result in a final resolution and the conviction of the killer?
No... I don't. But ask me another question. Do I think someone other than the family is behind their decision? Damn right!
The Washington Post's Version of The Hearing
FReeper Allan Favish on FOX Big Story/John Gibson at 5:00pm re: SCOTUS argument Vince Foster Photos
I also believe that the Klintons were responsible for his death, but it would appear that the photos are probably not going to turn the tide and it would serve no useful purpose to oppose the family. If it was my family, I would want justice done, but would be really miffed if others thought that their own "investigations" trumped my right to privacy.
The photos will never see the light of day. Done deal.
As tempting as it is to flame you for the above statement, I'm going to refer you to my post just above, so that you can read a little and learn some things.
Allan Favish, the attorney arguing this case before the Supreme Court, is a longstanding FReeper who methodically built his case both in the courts and in the hearts and minds of many of us here.
His presence and his work predates the Free Republic site itself; back in the day, the foundation of FR was built on a discussion forum started by Jim Robinson called "Whitewater". It was a site devoted to recording all things Clinton, particularly what were perceived as crimes against citizens of this country. Some of us believed (some still do) that this country would not survive a Clinton presidency. We were almost proved right. We're not sure yet that we'll be proved wrong.
The crimes of the Clinton presidency were well documented here, to the point that this site (which evolved from the Whitewater site) became the essential reference in the media, in the government and in the citizenry for the events surrounding both impeachment and the attempt to steal the 2000 election by Clinton's protege, Al Gore.
The archives of this site will stand to refute Clinton's attempts to rewrite the history of his disastrous reign. That's no small accomplishment.
We have had our share of tinfoil and disruptors here over the years, and those people have been exposed and dealt with.
Allan Favish is the real deal. He has credible evidentiary proof that the investigations to date have not addressed key points regarding what happened to Vince Foster. The fact that Fiske and Starr considered the Foster case is of little consequence; their inquiries in the Foster matter were tangential to their primary investigations.
A very little bit of historical perspective on your part would reveal that, when dealing with things Clinton, all is not what it appears to be. If you believe that the wishes of the family have anything to do with the matter at hand, I would refer you to do some research on Clinton operatives named Ickes, Pellicano, Livingstone, Blumenthal, Morris, Begala, Carville, Thomason, and others. Hardly a group of people one can count on for an objective measure of 'truth'. Some of these named are proven intimidators on the Clintons behalf.
On the other side of the coin, for a view of what it's like to be on the 'outside' of the Clinton experience, I would refer you to the experiences of Clinton acquaintances named Jones, Willey, Broaddrick, McDougal, Tripp, Dale, Aldrich, Foster, Hubbell, Trulock, Elian Gonzalez, and others. Some of these people were in jeopardy of their very lives for crossing the Clintons. Some people arguably lost their lives for crossing the Clintons. That is the crux of Allan Favish's appearance before the court. That he is even in front of the court on this matter speaks to the gravity of concern that, indeed, there may infact be merit to his argument. You would do well to consider that the court does not suffer fools in matters it chooses to consider.
Simple searches on this site and Google ought to satisfy your misstatement that " the family would [not] try to hold back info if they thought that it might result in a final resolution and the conviction of the killer"...
Have a look-see, and do come back if you have any questions.
Good tag. Too many out there just can't be bothered. I'm not a conspiracy advocate but I don't like to be told 'move on... nothing here.'
Good tag. Too many out there just can't be bothered. I'm not a conspiracy advocate but I don't like to be told 'move on... nothing here.'
I don't blame people for not wanting to think about things Clintonian.
The purpose of Clinton's minions obfuscating was to wear down the will and resolve of good people, to get them to say, "Cripes! Enough already."
The whole idea of 'move on' is that there's 'nothing here', and all your time trying to find something will just be a waste, so don't bother.
As we learned over the years, the more you dig with things Clintonian, the more bothersome the connections and interconnections become, to the point that the evidence against them, not the exculpatory findings, become overwhelming.
My departed father believed - as I did - that Clinton was a warning to us, and feared that Clinton and his wife signalled the end of American history.
Neither of us anticipated the internet; nor did Clinton, much to his everlasting regret.
I don't think it's over the top to suggest that Jim Robinson (and the FReepers, and the likes of Matt Drudge) saved this country.
I'll defer further judgement to the seemingly capable hands of those who have been concentrating on the issue.
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.