Posted on 01/07/2006 8:38:11 PM PST by lainie
On Friday, January 6, 2006, El Rushbo said the following:
Transcribed from rushlimbaugh.com "It's Open Line Friday… Clip: Does Anyone Remember Wen ho Lee?" Windows Media Player, paid subscription required
'Phil from Prescott, Arizona': "What I wanted to talk about: you were mentioning how Bill Clinton never seemed like he was interested in tackling huge national security issues, but I seen an example in the Wen ho Lee case where they actually railroaded Wen Ho Lee so they could at least LOOK like they were tackling national security issues..."
Limbaugh: You know, this is a fascinating case, and I don't think enough people A) know about it or B) remember it. Wen Ho Lee, Chinese descent, working out at Los Alamos, right? Los ALamos nuclear lab. Wen ho Lee was accused, by the Clinton administration, of stealing secrets and sending them back to China. During the whole period where the Clinton administration was involved in all this funny money coming in from China, and the 1996 presidential campaign, and the John Huang/Charlie Tree days, and all of this. There was NEVER...this man was kept in jail for, I don't know how many months, but, at one point, when they took him into federal court, a federal judge...now, he sent me his book. Wen ho Lee sent me his book, and it opens with this judge's apology. The judge, I forget his name, federal district judge, apologized to Wen ho Lee for everything the United States government had done to him: falsely accusing him, keeping him in jail; this is unprecedented. Sometimes charges are dismissed and they're thrown out, or what have you. The judge made it plain that he was apologizing on behalf of the United States government for what had happened to Wen ho Lee. And Phil's point here is, he's taking off on the opening monologue today which is, the Clinton administration, during 2000, had this CIA plan to try to leak phony information to the Iranians so that when they put their nuclear bomb together, it wouldn't work. Now, the point of this was that the Clinton administration knew in 2000 the Iranians were working on nuclear cweapons, and they didn't do anything about it. And they had this CIA plan that was so bad that it was doomed to fail, and it did. And his point is Clinton just wanted to look tough on this stuff, just wanted to look big on this, so we indict Wen ho Lee, when no evidence, keep him in jail, and, uh, you know, it was worse than what happened to Ray Donovan, he was, 'where do I go to get my reputation back?' And now he's filed a counter suit. I think the last I heard was he's filed some sort of a counter suit. But I won't forget what this judge said to him, as his book opens: apologizing profusely for the entire U.S. government for what he did. And of course, the mainstream press and all of Clinton's buddies hardly gave it scant attention, folks. This is the bunch that did the Waco invasion, Ruby Ridge, uh, one other example I'm leaving out, but, we talk about civil liberties today and how we're losing it."
They've been a little stickier about such claims advanced in peacetime, or at least they were when John Marshall wrote the opinion in Ex Parte Bollman and Swartout, a habeas corpus case involving two men accused of (and imprisoned for) treason in the Aaron Burr adventure.
When Roger Taney wrote an opinion in Ex Parte Merryman during the Civil War, involving a Maryland Militia officer who was carrying out orders of the governor of Maryland that displeased President Lincoln and his generals, Lincoln ignored Taney's opinion freeing Merryman from imprisonment, continued to hold Merryman, and wrote out a warrant for the arrest of Chief Justice Taney which he gave to confidential agent Ward Hill Lamon, who never served Taney but instead, in the absence of any followup by Lincoln, held the warrant for a time and finally disposed of it. Lamon mentioned it in his memoirs, however, and Taney did know about the warrant, which he mentioned to someone else.
In your hypothetical, the "fortress doctrine" would only come into play if your kinsman opened fire on the lawmen and forted up in the house, like the Branch Davidians did. Weaver's case was a little iffier, since he never opened fire on lawmen -- but he did bid them defiance.
If your kinsman resists arrest and takes refuge in the house, the law (I think) requires you to bail from the premises immediately to avoid any animadversion of the law on yourself. The law requires you to abandon, rat out, inform on, and otherwise turn on your blood kin instantaneously, the second it moves against him.
My policy, too. You're short.
Document my "slur-like" slur, or the part that is "slur-like," and get back to me.
Waiting on answers.
You said Weaver was "a cretin at best, and, at worst, just as much enemies of our country as any foreign enemy could ever be."
Why are you falling back on the "life is precious" angle?
I have no doubt Mr. Weaver's wife and baby would be alive if he had done things differently, as well. The bottom line has got to be taking care of your family and starting a war with federal agents is never a wise thing to do.
Well, who started it? I think there is disagreement on that point. Who escalated it? I think there is disagreement on that point.
This world is imperfect, and I appreciate that you defend the superior force without reservation.
The incident was written up in American Rifleman, which is where I saw most of the discussion of it initially, and then there was more when Lon Horiuchi was tried in federal court for having shot Vickie Weaver.
She did have a babe in arms when she was shot. The baby wasn't hurt (other than taking a fall in his mother's arms).
Randy Weaver was running, wounded in the hand by Horiuchi's first shot, for the house, and Horiuchi tried a followup shot at him and nailed her solidly instead. She was dead before she hit the ground.
There was some discussion of whether Horiuchi could see her well, standing holding the door open for Weaver and his dead son's friend (they'd been out in the yard tending to the Weaver boy's body), or whether she was partially obscured by the cabin door.
If I shot at something and instead killed someone downrange, the doctrine Texas law would try to apply to me is the old one, "intent follows the bullet."
My understanding is that Horiuchi basically got off by pleading orders.
I seriously, seriously doubt that an armed raid by over 200 ATF agents, a raid that emptied practically every ATF field office in Texas and Oklahoma, would not have been brought to the attention of the President by his Secretary of the Treasury. In Bush's case, I think that was still Don Regan; in Clinton's, it was Lloyd Bentsen, a longtime U.S. Senator from Texas who'd just accepted appointment to Clinton's cabinet.
I don't believe for five nanoseconds that Presidents Bush and Clinton were unaware of the impending "ZBO" at Waco. (The ATF guys informally called it a "ZBO" -- "Zee Beeg One". It was so called because there was a loose tie to Treasury's annual budget request, which was pending for FY '94.)
In my personal opinion, he is a disgrace.
Interesting. Do you think it makes a difference, if someone breaks into your home under color of authority? If someone, to use your incomplete description of what happened on Ruby Ridge, "shot your dog," would that person enjoy a presumptive power to do so, in your eyes, and would you consider yourself powerless and prostrate before him? Would your "rights" extend no further than imploring him to forbear?
To teach your CHILDREN to behave in such a manner is irresponsible, negligent, and immoral.
Hmmm. If I teach my children my values.......then it depends on whether my values are "okay" with you, whether I'm "irresponsible, negligent, and immoral"?
Randy Weaver, and his ilk, ......
He has an "ilk"? What "ilk" would that be? A racial or ethnic "ilk"? Would that be a confessional "ilk" or maybe a philosophical "ilk"? Is he an "ilk" because he associates with known "ilks", or is it enough for him to show forth some quality of "ilkiness" to satisfy you that he is an "ilk" rather than a citizen?
.......are cretins at best, and, at worst, just as much enemies of our country as any foreign enemy could ever be.
This is getting a lot more interesting with every sentence. So now you're promoting him to "enemy of our country"? This is sensational -- I didn't know he was so dangerous! Because he didn't accept an invitation from the BATF to spy on other American citizens?
And what is the IQ level for "cretin"? If he tested well on a Binet test or maybe his college boards, or on some standard assessment of ability, would you still consider him a "cretin" because of his opinions, or would he have to fail his boards first?
Please don't tarnish the cause of conservatism by defending the indefensible.
Whether Randy Weaver is defensible was put to a jury. They sided with him, and against the United States of America. Would you like to reconsider your statement?
Did you miss the word, "theoretically", that introduced my post # 103 that you replied to?
I was explaining how the "fortress doctrine" works, not whether it's constitutional or desirable or consistent with the American conception of liberty and the relationship of the citizen to his government.
A lot of collectivist "doctrine" got laid down after the Civil War, as the triumphant moneyed interests began rearranging the furniture more to their liking.
Like calling in private armies of Pinkertons (strictly unconstitutional and illegal) to break strikes and enforce wage-breaking lockouts. That kind of thing.
The default position on Clinton for any honest person is, the great valves of Leavenworth Penitentiary gape wide to receive his sorry ass for the rest of his natural life -- and just name your charge. High treason. Bribery. Sale of his office. Obstruction of justice. Official oppression. Perjury. Aggravated rape. Subornation of perjury. Arkancide. Which one do you like?
It is not a defense of A, to say that B did something wrong. Please stop insisting that it is. People who insist on remaining silent about B, while criticizing A, rapidly lose the quality of credibility, along with their integrity.
As Bill Buckley likes to say, "who says A, must also say B."
To do less, is hypocrisy, and justly shunned by that remaining fraction of humanity that still has its God-given sense of smell.
He did one thing wrong. He refused to come down from his mountain and surrender. His skepticism is understandable, given what the Government had already tried to do to him. He wasn't being paranoid -- they were after him, and they had shown themselves willing to play dirty, and to take his freedom unjustly.
Even the business with the court date looks fishy in hindsight.
He was thoroughly justified in concluding that his Government's representatives were trying their damnedest to screw him to the wall -- unjustly, under color of authority.
But he was still obliged, under the law, to surrender, and let them do their worst before he got his day in court. Of course, I personally know a guy who once spent 18 months in jail without ever being charged, or tried. Smoke that one, folks.
Not really. In war it is necessary to choose your battles, and your tactics, wisely. Churchill understood that. Mr. Weaver didn't.
Because I dare disagree with you? Sorry you think so.
I just said I thought both sides were wrong.
From the best info I can get, the confrontation started when an agent shot the Weavers' son's dog. The son then shot the agent.
Yes, Mr. Weaver was innocent. But that's my point. Wouldn't he have been wiser, and richer, in the end to have surrendered before the situation escalated so totally out of control? I just cannot help but feel it would have been better to have spent time in jail than to risk your family being killed in an armed confrontation.
In contrast, look at the way the citizens of New Orleans handled the "gun grabbing" campaign by an ignorant, incompetent Chief of Police. They notified the NRA, and with their help, were able to reaffirm, in court, a basic right.
I was listening at the time. I thought the same thing. It was Bush sr.
Yeah, the Oklahoma National Guard was a major group doing the gun seizures in NOLA. I guess the citizens down there should have just done what they were told, given up their guns, and kept quite about it.
Upon waking up and getting ready for church, I see that this thread went on late into the night.... and I thought it was just a simple observation you made. I'm glad you didn't ask something like, Should it be called the Civil War or The War Between the States?
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.