I can't answer for Rockmom, but the blame for the crime falls on Ayers, the blame for the inability to prosecute him properly does not.

 

To admit it in any way other than a guilty plea is disingenious.

I thought he did jail time...

I believe that his wife did but not Ayers. His wife was once on the FBI's top 10 most wanted list. Apparently Ayers was just an inept foot soldier who never managed to kill anybody.

He may be an unrepentent terrorist, but I'm not sure he still hates his country.

He is friends with Hugo Chavez and has defended Ward Churchill. If any American citizen hates this country, then I believe that Bill Ayers is a pretty safe bet.

He may be an unrepentent terrorist, but I'm not sure he still hates his country.

 

As of 2001, he stated they didn't go far enough when they attacked us, so that sounds like he hates us, IMO.

 

His case was thrown out due to prosecutor error, but his wife's case was not thrown out, and she was sent to prison, on basically the same evidence. Ayers is an innocent as OJ.

To admit it in any way other than a guilty plea is disingenious.

 

Sure, he's as guilty as can be. That's non-debatable. The point is that the reason he is not serving time is NOT a result of his actions, but of those prosecuting him.

Sure, he's as guilty as can be. That's non-debatable. The point is that the reason he is not serving time is NOT a result of his actions, but of those prosecuting him.

 

I honestly don't know what you are debating. The above statement is ridiculous.

I honestly don't know what you are debating. The above statement is ridiculous.

 

I don't know how he can be clearer, but I will try.

 

Ayers is as guilty as sin. It is purely his fault that the bombings in the 70s that he is accused of committing happened. HE IS GUILTY.

 

His prosecution is NOT in his hands. The technicality he got off on is NOT a result of his doing. The fact that he is NOT in prison is the fault of shoddy prosecution.

I don't know how he can be clearer, but I will try.

 

Ayers is as guilty as sin. It is purely his fault that the bombings in the 70s that he is accused of committing happened. HE IS GUILTY.

 

His prosecution is NOT in his hands. The technicality he got off on is NOT a result of his doing. The fact that he is NOT in prison is the fault of shoddy prosecution.

 

He committed the crime and he is responsible for that crime. I understand the English language so I know what your words mean but I don't understand the point you are trying to make. However, I will continue playing your game if you want. Please explain to me what was so shoddy about the prosecution. I doubt that you know the facts of the case, the technicality that allowed him to avoid jail and what the prosecution did that was shoddy. Yet, you are willing to add your opinion that he is not to blame for not serving jail time but the shoddy prosecution is to blame.

 

Do you know whether he did any thing to obfuscate the prosecution? Do you know whether he frustrated justice by acts or omissions on his part?

 

I am disgusted that a known enemy of our country is given the same liberties, freedoms and privileges of loyal citizens.

He committed the crime and admitted it. Why wouldn't you blame him for it?

 

 

Because had the investigators not used illegal recordings, and the prosecutor had presented his case convicingly, including a key witness, he'd have been convicted. Unfortunately, that's the paradox of the system. A person is innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on the side alleging the crime by the defendent. Then, there is the whole double jeopardy provision. It's like the Mel Ignatow case. He wasn't proven guilty of the murder of his girlfriend. So, he got off scott free. Later, he admitted he'd done it, but he couldn't be tried for that crime again. However, he was convicted of perjury, and did do time for that.

 

That is the American Justice System. It works both for and against justice, but those protections ARE there for the protection of the innocent.

 

As for blaming him, absolutely. As I said in my post, I wasn't defending him.

He is friends with Hugo Chavez and has defended Ward Churchill. If any American citizen hates this country, then I believe that Bill Ayers is a pretty safe bet.

 

 

When I first read your post, I skimmed right over "Ward", and couldn't figure out why you'd be upset he defended Winston Churchill. :lol:

He committed the crime and he is responsible for that crime. I understand the English language so I know what your words mean but I don't understand the point you are trying to make. However, I will continue playing your game if you want. Please explain to me what was so shoddy about the prosecution. I doubt that you know the facts of the case, the technicality that allowed him to avoid jail and what the prosecution did that was shoddy. Yet, you are willing to add your opinion that he is not to blame for not serving jail time but the shoddy prosecution is to blame.

 

Do you know whether he did any thing to obfuscate the prosecution? Do you know whether he frustrated justice by acts or omissions on his part?

 

I am disgusted that a known enemy of our country is given the same liberties, freedoms and privileges of loyal citizens.

 

I am NOT playing any game. I, too, find it offensive when people commit crimes and do not end up paying for those crimes. However, our justice system is designed in such a way that it ends up giving the accused due process, in essence, preferring to err in such a way that letting a guilty person go being better then declaring a innocent person guilty.

 

As far as what I do and do not know about the case, honestly, I started researching the Ayers case when he first came to light as an associate of Obama. I do not know mountains of info about the man (I am sure that Hoot knows more and can fill you in), but I can tell you what I do know, based on my research.

 

Ayers was a VietNam war protestor. He was a leader of the Weathermen group, participating in several bombings, one of a statue dedicated to police casualties, the Capital building, the Pentagon and one of a police headquarters. Several of his associates would die while creating bombs. His case would get thrown out, due to illegal surviellance (sp?) and illegal search of defense offices. His wife would be convicted (as her case was not combined with his), but she didn't serve any time. She was given a fine and served several years of probation. I am not sure why the sentence was so light, but IMO it was due to the fact that there were no injuries in any of the bombings.

 

Again, that is what I know and is easily found with an Internet search. The only other thing I can point out is that he did admit to bombings after the statute of limitations had expired on the crime. In 2001, in a newspaper interview, he was unrepentent (sp?) of the crimes, and did say that "they didn't do enough." He later would say that statement did not refer to needing to place additional bombs, but that in general, they could have done more to protest the war (whatever that means).

 

Again, honestly, I am not being argumentative. I think he should have served time. After this, I am going to bow out of this one.