Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 6, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Rupert, slavishly adoring of a third-rate philosophy prof who spent his
>> career at an academic backwater, uncritically quoted the third-rate
prof
>> and blabbered:
>>
>
> It would be widely agreed in the academic community
No.
> that the author of
> "The Case for Animal Rights" is not a "third-rate prof
Regan spent his entire career at an academic backwater, and if not for
having staked out an extreme position on a controversial topic, his
entire career would have gone unnoticed in the academic world.
>>
>>
>>> [Regan, the third-rate prof:] Consider this possible scenario. Why
not hire someone to infiltrate
>>> the animal rights movement, as an agent provocateur, with one main
>>> purpose: to find a malleable person in the movement who could be
>>> "encouraged" (shall we say) to try to do something that would really
>>> discredit ARAs. Like, maybe this person could be "encouraged" to try
>>> to murder someone. And not just anyone. No, the "someone" should be a
>>> pillar of the community, someone who (what an odd coincidence) just
>>> happened to be a leader in a major animal user industry, someone who
>>> just happened to have been famously outspoken in his criticisms of
>>> ARAs. An attempt on his life would be perfect. It would show the
>>> public that ARAs really are extremists who will stop at nothing to
>>> further their ends. It is not hard to visualize the headline: "Animal
>>> Rights Terrorist Attempts to Murder Pillar of Community".
>>> A few problems would have to be solved. It takes time to find the
>>> right person for the job. It takes money to pay all the players. Who
>>> is going to come up with the necessary cash? Well, suppose the pillar
>>> himself could pay for the attempt on his life. Suppose the pillar
>>> himself (such is his influence) could arrange to have the local police
>>> on hand to arrest the would-be murderer. "Nah", you might say, "This
>>> is too fanciful, too conspiratorial. I don't think anyone in a major
>>> animal user industry would ever do anything like this." Think again.
>>> Leon Hirsch, past president of the Norwalk, Connecticut-based U. S.
>>> Surgical Cor****ation, played the role of the pillar of the community.
>>> Hirsch's former company manufactures staples used in place of ordinary
>>> sutures in many operations. During Hirsch's tenure, physicians
>>> received training by practicing on live dogs, who were vivisected,
>>> then killed. ARAs (led by Friends of Animals, also locate in Norwalk)
>>> mounted an in-your-face campaign against Hirsch and his company back
>>> in the late 1980s. His ingenious way of getting even was to put up the
>>> necessary money to arrange for an ARA to try to murder him.
>>> On November 11, 1989, a man on the payroll of a firm Hirsch had hired
>>> drove a young woman named Fran Trutt, a self-professed ARA, along with
>>> her two recently purchased pipe bombs, from New York City to Norwalk.
>>> When she placed the bombs adjacent to Hirsch's parking space, Hirsch's
>>> friends in the Norwalk police department just happened to be on hand
>>> to arrest her.
>>> The resulting story (not the bombs, which never exploded) was the real
>>> bombshell. There it was: "Animal Rights Terrorist Attempts to Murder
>>> Pillar of Community". As John C. Stauber and Sheldom Rampton observe,
>>> "Normally, of course, company presidents do not arrange their own
>>> murder, but Hirsch was neither crazy nor suicidal. He was trying to
>>> engineer an embarrassing scandal that would discredit the animal
>>> rights movement."
>>> Hirsch would have succeeded, too, except for one thing: the ensuing
>>> trial brought ot light extensive tape transcripts that implicated
>>> everyone, from Hirsch on down, who had hatched the plot to discredit
>>> ARAs. Friends of Animals sued Hirsch, who sold U. S. Surgical in 1998,
>>> but their suit was unsuccessful, and he never faced any criminal
>>> charges. Perhaps not surprisingly, Fran Trutt was the only person to
>>> serve time (a year in prison, followed by a year on probation). She
>>> seems to have left the movement.
>> False. There was no entrapment, and the firm did not set Trutt up.
>>
>
> Well, that's interesting, I wonder why Hirsch doesn't sue Regan for
> defamation.
>
> "No entrapment", eh? Strong words, Rudy.
No, the accusation of entrapment is what would be strong language, were
it not for the fact that every criminal in modern history claims to have
been entrapped. This **** Trutt was not entrapped at all. Entrapment,
at least in American jurisprudence, occurs when someone is induced by
law enforcement to commit a crime that he would not otherwise have
committed; that he showed no inclination to commit until pressure was
applied by police. There was no "agent provocateur" in this case - the
***** Trutt willingly engaged herself in the conspiracy to murder
Hirsch, and she obtained the materials for her pipe bombs entirely
independently of any coercion by the private security agents.
Regan completely misrepresented what happened. That's what third-rate
philosophy profs at academic backwaters do.
> I can't read your link because my anti-censor****p software has stopped
> working, I'll have to look at it later.
If you weren't willingly helping sup****t a corrupt autocracy, you
wouldn't have this issue. You're helping to prop up the vestiges of one
of the most corrupt, murderous regimes in history. The Chinese
Communist party caused the deaths of tens, more likely hundreds of
millions of Chinese, and here you are helping to sup****t the direct
political descendants of the murderers. Many of these people themselves
have blood on their hands, and you're helping them maintain their grip
on power.
|
