San Francisco Bay Area Fim à Pena de Morte

Stanley "Tookie" Williams será executado em 2006 se não for pedida clemência

 
A 11 de Outubro o Supremo Tribunal dos Estados Unidos rejeitou o apelo de Stanley "Tookie" Williams reclamando a investigação do racismo e da discriminação que estão no centro do seu caso assim como das possibilidades de inocência. O procurador, de uma forma original, retirou todos os jurados negros do júri para que a decisão fosse tomada apenas por brancos. No julgamento este procurador fez observações marcadamente racistas e nas argumentações finais comparou Williams a um tigre de bengala num jardim zoológico, alegando que a comunidade negra- Sul Centro de Los Angeles- era o equivalente ao "habitat" natural do Tigre de Bengala.

estória original | Leia mais sobre a decisão de 11 de Outubro | Cobertura do caso Williams

O Supremo Tribunal recusou investigar as queixas de racismo neste caso, considerado como «caso exemplo» nacional, devido ao facto de o procurador excluir jurados tendo por base a raça e ofender as minorias em frente de júris apenas formados por brancos. Em 2002 um Tribunal de Apelo sentenciou que os escritos de Tookie's na prisão, nos quais ele renunciava ao seu modo de vida como gangster poderiam servir de base ao pedido de clemência do Governador da Califórnia. Se não for pedida clemência,será executado a 13 de Dezembro. Para esta data estão marcadas mais duas execuções.

Campanha para o Fim da Pena de Morte por "Voices from Death Row". Inclui declarações de amigos e da advogada de Tookie's, Barbara Becnel, e de eventos em São Francisco Berkeley em 11 de Outubro.

add a comment on this article

Secret Conservative-Republican Vatican Interests

yezbok drahcir 17.Jan.2006 20:12



I am sorry… I have decided to apologize before I proceed with this commentary, so that if you choose to read it, you can blame any resulting anger you might have on the lack of either a justifiable right to silence me, or a quick and fitly set reproof, otherwise it is intended to inspire constructive analysis of why popular leaders sometimes get assassinated.


By no means can one dictate policy while failing to demonstrate power of authority, and for obvious reasons. Dictators are not open to suggestions or answering unscripted questions amid public gatherings, much less telegraph where or whom they will strike next. Also, by inherent nature, a man like Kim Jong Il is bent on suppressing anything or anyone that might tarnish his image of power, authority and respect, by questioning or even suggesting public policy.


In 1788, the Holy Father Pope Pius VI dispatched an emissary to Paris to meet with Benjamin Franklin and ask him one short and simple question; “Would it be okay with President George Washington if the Pope named a bishop in the new land?” Since that was what the revolution in the colonies was all about - freedom, to include religious freedom - word came back from Washington telling the Pope he is welcome to appoint any bishop he wants for the United States.


One hundred and seventy-two years later, Presidential Nominee John F. Kennedy gave a speech on September 12, 1960 to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, countering assumptions that the Vatican would influence his Presidency or Government. Kennedy said, "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters - and the Church does not speak for me."


One of Kennedy’s official biographers later said, “He knocked religion out of the campaign as an intellectually respectable issue”.


On January 20, 1961 John F. Kennedy moved into the Whitehouse, but after two years and ten months, on November 22, 1963 the incredibly popular Liberal-Democrat Catholic President was assassinated.


If the majority of US citizens were greatly saddened by the death of John F. Kennedy, and the Vatican had never publicly condemned his Presidency, while the Jewish people encouraged it, then we might assume that his Liberal-Democrat Catholic Presidential fate was met either by secret Conservative-Republican Vatican interests or, for the sake of the Church, Conservative-Republican Anti-Catholic interests.


Speaking of leadership pressures, can five individual justices safely keep the Supreme Church out of the Supreme Court when they hold the very power to include Her? The five Supreme Court Justices, who are of the Catholic faith, know full well that it would be unwise of a Catholic judge to warrant the opposition of the Vatican, especially since they have been appointed for the remainder of their careers or competence.


Suppression of communication really bothers me, because I see light as the communication and propagation of life energy. Suppression especially ticks me off when I hear of political assassinations, and consider the fact that true diplomacy invites dialogue. To me, North Korea’s Kim Jong Il is demonstrating what preachers fail to rightfully call an ‘abomination of desolation’, which also crushed the ancient whistleblower referred to as Christ.


With Conservative-Republican religious interests, are we about to see the resemblance of that beastly Papal image of yesteryear, when questions or suggestions were an affront to ecclesiastical authority and respect?


It would be wise to believe in a devil personified by devious and veiled humanity. Also, it would not hurt to recognize that so-called manmade religion prefers to reshape the concept of a devil into an unseen living entity that is bent on utter destruction than describe ‘him’ as a demon that scares the sheep into large folds of morality-minded voters.


Because I more than just suspicious, I will say that I believe in the devil and hope to someday cut ‘him’ off at ‘his’ insidiously abominable root that chokes the flowers in the garden of free ideas stemming from free choice, free speech, free will, and the freedom to remain among the living who live and let live.


If Sam Alto wishes to permit credence, let him provide the fulfillment of this four-day Supreme Court forecast, but please do not let Indy media pull this article with intentions to provide him the freedom of unchallenged pursuits that future history books might also be bent on covering up.



~ January 17, 2006