Okay, that’s a valid point.
I guess there’s a difference between you being aware of what you wrote and you being aware of the implications of what you wrote. Let’s try this a bit simpler.
You said
And you also said
Now pay close attention here.
Based on the above quotes, it would seem that you believe commuting the death sentence of people whose guilt (for the crimes they were convicted of) is questionable is not the correct decision. And that the correct decision is to execute people whose guilt (for the crimes they were convicted of) is questionable.
Is it in fact your position?
If not, then it would follow from your own words that Bush made the correct decision in commuting Lucas’ sentence, since - as you say - “there were questions about Lucas’ guilt for the specific crimes he was convicted of”, and that my comments about your reasoning in post #35 are an accurate characterization. Sorry about that.
It’s amazing the kind of mistakes you can make when you don’t bother reading what was said.
Here’s a quote that might help you understand what all the rest of us are talking about:
I’d like to think this will clear things up for you. But I’ll admit my expectations aren’t very high at this point.
It is consistent with and confirms what I said in post #35. To repeat
You seem to think - to the extent that the word “think” can be accurately applied to your mental processes - that you’re contradicting this, but in fact you’re not.
In sum, contrary to your earlier claim, you actually agree with Bush’s decision, and would have commuted Lucas’ sentence yourself were you governor, but you have a low opinion of Bush and can’t accept that he may have made the right choice for the right reasons, so you look to ascribe self-serving motivations.
As I suggested earlier, there’s an advantage in this type of reasoning for certain types of people, in that it significantly expands their horizons in terms of ability to criticize people they dislike. They get it wrong and you attack them, but even if they get it right you can attack them just as well - a jerk like that couldn’t have done it for the right reasons, so let’s attribute some evil machination.
Enjoy.
It’s more complicated than that Forthingay. This decision wasn’t made in a vacuum. This isn’t Nemo being surprised that Bush didn’t kick a puppy as he went by because we know he is a bad person. Here the question is why did Bush choose to commute Lucas’ sentence when he failed to commute others. If Bush commuted his sentence but not any of the 153 others there are three possibilities:
-
Bush commutes sentences at random and Lucas just was lucky that Bush was feeling generous that day. This doesn’t look good for Bush
-
Bush thought that on its merits the Lucas case was unique relative to the other 153 cases and so recommended commutation. No evidence of what makes this case unique has been presented.
-
Bush chose to commute Lucas based on reasoning not related to the merits of the case but due to some external reasoning (hence the nefarious intent).
Forthingay, which of these three do you believe was the case and why?
The point is that no evidence that it wasn’t unique was presented either.
If a guy commutes one guy out of 153, then either this was the one case that was most deserving, or it’s not and you can question his motives. Little Nemo acknowledged in the OP that this guy’s guilt was questionable, which makes the decision the correct one. The burden of proof would then be on him to show that other people’s guilt was even more questionable. Not only did he not do this, but he seemed to take for granted that he didn’t need to bother to do so.
This is entirely based on Little Nemo’s view of Bush.
I’ve not followed it all that closely, but my guess is that this was the most egregious. Mostly based on comments to this thread by knowledgeable posters, who noted the serious issues with Lucas’ conviction, but also based on the notion that when a slimy politician decides to commute a sentence for political calculations, he usually does not select the most notorious and infamous murderer around to do it with. Plus, I don’t share Little Nemo’s view of Bush.
FWIW, if you look carefully at the comments to this thread, you’ll see that the only person taking Little Nemo’s position here is him himself, despite his attempts to suggest otherwise. (Several people have said other nasty things about Bush.) What makes this less noticable than it might be is the fact that he’s posted it so many times, but it’s all him. Other than LN, posters who were familiar with the case have tended to adopt your second option.
FP, you are not aware of what my views of Bush are. All you are doing is saying you know what I think. And so far every time you’ve said it you’ve been wrong.
Perhaps you’ll be happier in a thread all by yourself, where you can argue with the imaginary people that only exist in your head and win every argument.
Thanks but no need for that, I’m doing just fine in this thread.
Aside from making Little Nemo, the poster, the target of your comments instead of what he has posted.
Both of you need to dial back the personal antagonism and knock off speculation as to motives or knowledge.
[ /Moderating ]
Karla Faye Tucker was killed (courtesy of George W. Bush) on Feb 3, 1998.
Henry Lee Tucker got his LIFE BACK (courtesy of George W. Bush)) on June 26, 1998.
This thread, on the other hand, refuses to die.
Okay, I have no idea what point you’re trying to make here. Were you trying to imply something by changing Henry Lee Lucas’ last name to Tucker?
Wasn’t the fifty-seventh reincarnation of the Pachamama Lama born on the date in 1998 exactly between those two dates, at the exact antipodal point on the Earth’s surface from Plano, Texas?
And are we talking about Chris Tucker, or the other Chris? I always mix 'em up.
Or maybe Marshall Tucker?
Can’t you see
Can’t you see
What that Hey Jude/Sympathy for the Devil I-flat VII-IV-I overused chord sequence
Been doin’ to me
If anyone deserved a death sentence, it was Chris Tucker for Rush Hour 3.
Bush was perfectly consistent in his communtation if you assume one thing: Dubya likes to kill people. He did not commute the sentences of the other 153 criminals he executed because he likes to kill people. When it was time for him to authorize killing Henry Lee Lucas, this is probably what got said:
Legal Advisor: “Look this guy certainly deserves to die, but our people are saying they fucked up so badly in this case that if you execute him, it’ll make it very hard for you to kill a lot of other people who actually committed the crimes Lucas confessed to. I mean, they really fucked up bad here. Texas bad. So we’re kind of in a quandary here. A quandary, sir, it means a big mess. Unless we let this Lucas guy go to life imprisonment, we aren’t going to be able to kill nearly as many people as we otherwise would.”
Dubya: “I’ll let the fucker go if I get to kill the rest.”
Advisor: “Good decision, sir!”
Of course, the same reasoning applies if Bush was merely indifferent and did whatever his legal staff told him, and the Texas Justice system is simply a murder machine. You be the judge.
I don’t know, I think you’re naively assigning some sort of humanity to Bush, one of the most evil monsters to ever walk this planet. I think it really went like this:
Legal Advisor: This guy probably doesn’t deserve to die for this crime, but that never stopped you any of the other times.
Bush: Exactly. That makes it even more fun.
Advisor: But here’s the thing. We think this guy may not be guilty of the specific crime he was convicted for, but he probably murdered a lot of other people. So in this case, the best way to maximize the number of people you can kill is to commute his sentence. Then you can later let him out on parole, and he can kill a whole bunch of people. Or better yet, maybe he escapes from prison and goes on a massive killing spree before dying in a spectacular shootout with the police in which many cops are also killed.
Bush: Wow, that’s so exciting. Let’s go for it!
That sounds a lot more likely to me, considering what we know about that cretinous depraved subhuman fiend known as Bush. But you be the judge.
Nah. Bush like to kill people, and he likes other people who like to kill people. So letting Lucas off was kind of a professional courtesy, and also left the chance open that Lucas could kill more people some day.
ENOUGH!
Making up shit about Bush does nothing to promote a good discussion or a serious debate.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
To the degree that the above posts were serious, the timing doesn’t add up. Lucas’ death sentence was commuted in 1998, when Bush was already into his second term as Governor. Any decision Bush made regarding Lucas would have had no effect on the majority of other executions during his governorship as they had already been carried out.