Kathy is a freedom fighter. She is doing Gods work and for that she is reviled by the Great Satan; I know how she feels.
And you too Brother, are doing your part.
May Allah Bless you and not demand that a pipe bomb be set under your family's automobile, nor that your wife be shotgunned.
Why thanks, Tom, I always suspected who your alter ego was, now we know for sure! God must be proud!
Flash
Oh my God!! Why do you even let Swifty continue to post on your site? Good thing you aren't running for political office, Flash. FOX news would be replaying all the posts by Swifty and would be wondering why you continued to associate with him . . . .
Oh wait, on second thought, I take that back. I forgot that FOX actually endorses racist (as long as its against anybody who's not white), hate spewing inflammatory rhetoric and diatribes that oooze out of people like Tom, aka Swifty. . . .
Tom is free to post here all he wants. He does a much better job of making my points for me than I ever could! Of course, I don't think that is his intention, but we don't want him to know that.
Flash
You are so right on Flash..
This smells bad...
I hope her lawyers win this one...what is now happening is she is looking like the victim.
I'm sure all of those opposed to her release don't want that.
As for those contributors to your blog who pull their heads out of the "Sand"?
long enough to post here.
They do make your points very well.
When Mitch spent 400 words on this, I pointed out he looked to be bitching about pain he didn't endure, simply to make a point.
He claimed that he was merely noting that she was in the news.. poppy-cock is my reply, and funny, now that she's heading back to prison - well, there certainly isn't any bitching from the 'Government screws everything up' hyper-pious right (Swift included of course). No, just as Flash points out, here's someone who was told she'd be let out, who then told her family of course, but WHOA there nelly, the right screams and voiala', let's review that release order.
I guess government screw ups are fine if they're in your favor, eh Swift?
Soliah deserved to serve her time, it's too bad that her time was so indiscriminately determined. I wonder how much time Scooter Libby, or Oliver North served? I mean, old Ollie assisted with the terrorizing of thousands of Salvadorans, Hondurans, and Guatamalans.
Now, let's not get carried away there. What Ollie did wasn't necessarily right, but "assisted in terrorizing..."? Next you'll want to through the clerk at Gander Mtn in jail because he sold a gun to someone that goes on a shooting spree. Or worse, sold one to a deer hunter!
Granted, I understand the difference between legal sales and black market, but I also understand the difference between doing your job and actively seeking out ways to oppress people. I don't recall Ollie seeting government policy.
Just who is going to serve time for the 4000 dead US service members sent to war by Bush/Cheney because of their lies?
Lies continued by Condi Rice
I hope everyone watches Frontline tonight
Oliver North, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT, assisted in giving arms to Iran, and assisted in arming Contras, who, after the fact, we found out were engaging in out-and-out murder of unfriendly civilian populations.
I'm not sure what you'd call that, but I'd call it sponsoring terrorism - especially the part about giving arms to Iran, whom we now vilify for arming Hezzbolah. If Iran had spare cash lying about that instead of using to buy the weapons we gave them, now could use it to give to Hezzbolah, well then, what exactly do you suppose it should have been called? Make NO mistake, the Israelis were FURIOUS about Iran-Contra for exactly THIS reason.
And Mohenjo, when we talk about violating oaths, there isn't a person much more insidious and guilty than old Colonel North. He swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, then, without a blink, went out and SPECIFICALLY violated a check put against the executive branch by the legislative. This conduct didn't, for one moment, pass muster with military judicial review (that's why it was secret). Reagan claimed it was improper for Congress to pass the Bolin amendment, but that challenge failed, and past that, until it had been tried, North had ZERO legal standing to follow-through on those orders from the WH (thus why he was convicted).
No, Mr. North was a sponsor of terrorism, that's not really even a disputable point. He sponsored it by giving money (in the form of sellable weaopns) to Iran, and by giving arms to a bunch of thugs in Honduras.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Soliah was guilty, deserved jail, and so, therefore, did North, but you sure as heck don't see the right crying 'terrorism' when the acts suit their purposes.
I don't think we have decided how to treat lawbreakers. When their time is up, is it really up? I say yes, even in instances when I find it morally reprehensible.
Your words are an inspiration to all freedom fighters leftout (what a wonderful name!).
When the Devil Reagan set his evil henchmen to do his dirty work, a cloud of sulphur could be seen over every country in South America.
Now, we have the Devil Bush leading his fascist troops against the peace loving peoples of Afghanistan, Iraq and against my good friends in Iran.
Join me brothers and sisters, Death to the Satan America, free Kathleen Soliah and that wonderful Mumia fellow too!
Swifty..get a life!!!
Ms. Olson is apparently supposed to serve time for an extra year or so. Someone caught the discrepancy in her relase date(s), and therefore justice is being served.
Just because others may have been lucky enough to gain unearned early release does not mean that Ms. Olson is getting a raw deal; it simply means that the people who received unearned early releases got lucky. There's a distinction here: one person's inadvertant fortunate scenario does not mean that a person who did not benefit in a similar way has been "thrown under the bus" (a term everyone insists on using these days--though I'm dubious regarding its merits, I'll use it from time to time to try to be a bit more "hip"); it simply means that someone should count their lucky stars...at least for now.
Yes, Flash, they should go through those other folks' records, as well. And, yes, I, like others, have at least one thing about which I can count my lucky stars most days: Swiftee's comments. They make my often mediocre contributions feel surprisingly smart by comparison. Reading the Swiftster's notions provides me with a special little ego boost several days a week.
If you think for one minute that SJO, her husband and her attorneys did not know that there was a screw up and she was getting an early pass you are living in a dream land. From the day she went to jail she likely had the day of her release circled in her calendar.
To try spin this as shock and outrage by her attorneys is a joke, they were just crossing their fingers no one would notice and i am sure as the agents walked up to her in the airport they were thinking uh oh busted...again....
To assert the "right" people (and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt flash you didn't mean it in a political context)had to use a fine "tooth comb" and do an OMG when the "error" was discovered in a "myriad of Gonkulations" is insensitive (at best) to the family of the slain bank teller and the LA police who were the targets of that home grown terrorist...
I'm sure THEY knew the moment they heard that justice was being screwed and this was almost as much a slap in the face to them as the light concurrent sentences she got...
Actually it is almost poetic justice she was nabbed at the front door of freedom.....the teller never got a second chance... like she will in a year.
No "maybe" about it.. she needs to do her time....
And GiGi you really want those lawyers to "win this one"?
How about we charge them with knowingly aiding and abetting a convicted felon in not fulfilling a court ordered sentence...of course that would give them more publicity which is exactly what they are all about...
Doc, you are wrong, plain and simple. She was informed of her release date in 2004 and that is the date they circled. Remember she was sentenced, re-sentenced, and then had two more years tacked on. It would take more than Grampa Flash's accounting skills to figure that out. The took the words of the gonkulators.
As it usually the case with your contextually challenge interpretation, my beef is that she was singled out and I hope they are reviewing everyones case for potential miscalculation. and if there is anyone who still owes time, whether they have been on 2 minutes, two days, or two years, they should be picked up and thrown back in jail to, right!?
Flash
PS: I used a small letter 'r' so know ideological intent was meanton the word 'right'
I got a raw deal too.
Doc,
I have to agree with Flash - and justice isn't served, when it's served unequally. We have a clause, as I recall, that goes "no cruel or UNUSUAL punishment" meaning, in this case, if sentencing review upon release isn't normally conducted, but was conducted in this case purely as a sap to partisan politics, then it's unequal and unusual.
Swift, what a troll.. Flash may defend you, but no one conducts themselves like you do, and still has a shred of integrity.
Although we have a huge appearance issue facing us regarding Iraq, I'm not quite sure where Afghanistan got into this debate? I didn't bring it up, and you're conflation is most likely just a purposeful distortion of the truth. I wrote about IRAQ - it's a four letter word, you should be familiar with those - and IRAN-Contra (ok 4 and 5 letters there) - not Afghanistan. However, the point was the duplicity - unending duplicity in the right's case - you were all up in arms about her release, but of course don't talk about 'an intrusive government' when she gets shipped back - just like you oh-so-conveniently forget your own sponsorship of terrorism. Funny how your sponsorship isn't an issue - until it comes home to roost, but some whacko from the 70's represents some sort of indictment of liberalism (as you've so often asserted regarding Soliah).
Double-standards are your specialty it seems.
And thanks for the compliment, Leftout certainly IS more original than Swiftee - or OBL, or Hugo Chavez, maybe you really ought to sign your posts with your real hero's ID, you know, Levrentiy Beria. I think of all of the historical figures, his approach suits you best.
To quote him (from Wiki) - In June, 1937, he said in a speech, "Let our enemies know that anyone who attempts to raise a hand against the will of our people, against the will of the party of Lenin and Stalin, will be mercilessly crushed and destroyed". He is also credited with the slogan, "When you stop murdering people by the millions, they start to get notions."
You (Swift) gleefully look to punish anyone who dissents - and people like you have repeatedly stated they would willingly kill millions of Muslims if necessary - i.e. anyone who gets mad at our conduct in Iraq- we should be ready to exterminate such 'terrorists', at least, as I recall, until they stop coming, stop objecting to our conduct IN IRAQ. Your tactics are so strikingly similar to Beria's it's scary, he was just a bit more open.
Flash
Then what you are saying is that she new since 2004 the sentence & release date didn't add up?
Or it is so complicated to figure out her Lawyers did even figure it out?...if so I stand corrected.
With as high profile a case as this is I am confused how a sentencing date and a release date does not match and the 'catch' wasn't made. Seems like it should be simple math.
If you get a bank statement of your neighbor delivered to your mail bax it does not give you the right to open it up. If your employer adds a mistaken digit to your paycheck it does not give you the right to spend it. If you are mistakenly released early from prison it does not give you the right to remain free.
I understand your post and 'your beef' which is a reasonable one but claiming I am contextually challenged implies your over simplified logic is lost in the points I raise. You assume I did not get your 'beef' which I Was going to give you positive nod on in my earlier comment but didn't want you to get confused...obviously it didn't matter.
You imply you know something that I don't, which is she knew all along what her real release date was suppose to be. I think you are reaching, for the release date is provided by the State and that is that. It had been changed a couple different times and once you are in the system you are at the mercy of the system, as was so clearly on display the other day. They told her in 2004 her release date would be March 17, 2008. You are trying to imply some nefarious behavior on her part, I call you on it until you can prove otherwise
But none of that was ever part of my point or post, which is what confused me about your attack on me, that is all.
Flash
Doc,
I have to agree with Flash, my read of your post was that you were implying she and her attorneys knew all along that it was a screw-up. That seems inordinately doubtful, and further, highly speculative to the point of trying to say she was trying to 'slide through' unnoticed.
I think, instead, that Flash has the right of it, she was going to be released, mistake or no, until some wing-nut (or two) got pissed and called up and complained OR the overall level of press pushed a button in someone's psyche to go back and double-check. Either way, it's yellow justice, fair for me but not for thee.
Yes the lawyers knew.
They worked the case, worked the appeal and was involved in the 'good girl 'reduction to get the sentence reduced again.
A clerk at the facility she was being held at made an error in calculation and then to assert Justice was not served is a joke.
If they didn't know then they are a worthless legal team being that close and that involved over the years in this high profile case.
I am sure that those who had a vested interest in keeping her behind bars knew there was a screw up somewhere the moment they heard.
And you are selling Grandpa Flash short on his ability to do simple math.
There is al alternate explanation to all of this, of course. Some people are just plain mean.
Charley,
Are you taking about the son of the woman killed in the bank who was one of the first persons that called the authorities immediately after he heard about her EARLY release and pleaded for them to look into it?
OK Since you called me out I did some digging, from the LA Times.
http://www.latimes.com/news/
loca...0,5391203.story
"When news organizations reported Olson's release Friday, law enforcement officials reacted with dismay and raised questions about whether she had been let out too early.
Jon Opsahl, son of Myrna Opsahl, the woman killed in the bank robbery, called the Sacramento County district attorney's office and said he believed Olson had not served enough time."
Just because you wish something to be true does not make it so.
I suppose it was so hard a calculation to figure out after years of hearings, appeals, rulings etc. and all the billable hours they had into the case that her legal team was overwhelmed and that if the error went the other way and they ADDED another year by mistake her Lawyers would have been so confused with the "gonkulations" they would have missed it?
Give me a break.
Doc, you are wrong, and your ignorance of this situation is only exhibited to create a rise. The clerk at the facility doesn't exist. The gonkualtions are handled at a much higher level, ask Scott!
""Criticism over the early release from prison Monday of Sara Jane Olson, who lived as a fugitive for years in Minnesota, spurred a review of her sentence and the timing of her parole, Scott Kernan, the chief deputy secretary for the California Department of Corrections, said at a news conference. The review revealed that a 2004 miscalculation led to the former Symbionese Liberation Army member being released a year too early, he said.
"The department is sensitive to the impact such an error has had on all involved in this case and sincerely regrets the mistake," Kernan said.""
or ALberto:
"""This is an extremely unusual situation," said the department's general counsel, Alberto Roldan.
Roldan said the long period between Olson's crimes and her sentencing made the calculations especially difficult.
He said Olson's sentence had been reviewed several times, and there was no special reason to review her case at the time she was freed.""
Everyone, EVERYONE has said how difficult this calculations was having to re figure multiple times, and laws from over 30 years ago at the time of the infractions. No one NO ONE is saying anything remotely close to you false and slanderous implication. Argue she should be in prison for life, and I may even agree with you. But you comments are wrong, inaccurate and libelous. That argument is moot here.
If the chief deputy secretary for the California Department of Corrections is apologizing, I think you can to. Your speculation is WAY out of character for you!!
The girl was innocent in the first place.
If the bomb aint lit, you must aquit!
At least she gets to keep her house though.
Of course he issued a CYA statement. The clerk looked at the first pages and did not wade through to the last ones which identified the added time. It maybe a cumbersome process granted. Once she entered the miscalculated dates The system generated the release letter per the input. The lawyers are contesting that letter as the basis for release date.
Dude you are really getting wierd on this.
Her Lawyers New the correct release date but said nothing and I guess I don't blame them.
Funny though the son of the murdered woman new the moment he heard of the release.
Doc,
I'm not at all sure her lawyers work on early release scheduling - that said, you are implying a level of 'cover-up' that the state had screwed up, that you simply don't have evidence of.
Even so, of course Mrs. Opshal's family would complain, as would ANY victim's family - and probably DOES at any point a convict is given early release. Saying that HIS complaint was the catalyst is also, UNPROVEN CONJECTURE.
However, as I said, whether it was press exposure, or pressure from someone with an axe to grind (either involved or NOT involved in the case), the fact is, this review was almost certainly exceptional. As such, it implies an unequal level of justice.
I would complain about it if it were Sirhan Sirhan, Eric Rudolph, or G. Gordon Libby, it's just not right to start pandering to political pressure on criminal sentencing. In fact, it's the epitome of unjust.
The argument that the lawyers knew the date was wrong is without merit. The lawyers argue your case, the judge sentences, then its over for the lawyers. Yes there could be an appeal but these are theoretical arguments, not arguments about detailed days served. The state administrators figure out the timing. Anyone relying on a lawyer to do any accounting for them, whether in dollars or days is in serious trouble. Get out the white tape. This was an administrative error, not some lawyer conspiracy.
Commenting by HaloScan
