Jack,
You write, "So despite Starr's occasional heavy handedness, some of us aren't so prompt to defend the Clintons' rights when they have thumbed their noses at all the bona fide efforts to investigate their acts in the past."
This is what troubles me and should trouble any citizen, that being that when all else fails resort to expediency, and the law of the land can take the back seat until "justice" prevails.
Again, I am not a Clinton yay or nay and have not made up my mind what I think of his and Hillary's activities. However, I am astonished at the paucity of righteous indignation at Starr's apparently being given carte blanc to ride roughshod over the letter and intent of the law. As we all see, it is not only the Clintons and their rights being damaged in this unconstitutional and unlawful, renegade process. I'm sure all of us on this forum can give examples of egregious results of this brand of law and order. We seem to give tacit approval to this flavor of "legal" proceeding by our continued silence and not protesting its propagation. Look how long Tailgunner Joe flew and how many innocent people he brought down. No matter what I think of the crime or the criminal, I would not be quick to condone witch hunts.
BTW, I had been wanting to let you know that I have read with interest your posts on the HMOs and health insurance. I hope that everyone on this forum reads and studies them with an eye to reversing this trend which, IMO, ultimately places the physician and patient at odds and in adversarial roles.
Holly |
