The logical consequences would be independence
Thurston Twigg-Smith has a letter
in the Maui
News about Prof. Francis Boyle's interpretation of
the apology
bill. He says that Sen. Daniel Inouye stated during the debate on the
Senate floor that it was "'a simple resolution of apology." Twigg-Smith says,
"In passing it, Congress never intended it to resolve disagreement over
historical facts." However, in that
same debate Senator Slade Gorton (R-WA) stated that
"...the logical consequences of this
resolution would be
independence."The
apology is in legal terms an admission
against interest, a confession if you will, and the findings of fact
and law that were included in the bill are not limited in use by what the
senators say their intention was.If
you signed a letter confessing to committing a crime, but said you only meant it
to be an apology, do you think that would stop a court from using it as evidence
to convict you? Not likely.
Posted: Fri - February 13, 2004 at 04:26 PM