sábado, 23 de noviembre de 2013

Oscar López vs. George Stinney

¿Has leído sobre el caso de George Stinney, un niño de 14 años que murió en la silla eléctrica, acusado de haber cometido un crimen que al parecer no cometió? Fue la persona más joven a la que se le aplicó la pena de muerte en Estados Unidos. Ocurrió en en el año 1944, y ahora ha surgido un movimiento interesado en reabrir el caso.
23 de noviembre de 2013
Calidad de vida
Undécima carta de Oscar López Rivera a su nieta
Las manos en el cristal: Oración entre cuchillas

¿Muy conmovedor ah?

Me parece que a la nieta de Oscar no le están contando toda la historia y por consiguiente...

"Un pueblo que no conoce su historia no puede comprender el presente ni construir el porvenir"
Helmut Kohl
Político alemán

Charles Stinney said he remembered the events vividly because" for my family, Friday, March 24, 1944, and the events that followed were our personal 9/11."
George Stinney, Black Teen Executed In 1944, May Get New Trial
Associated Press
Posted: 11/10/2013

Triste realidad estadounidense y otra rayita para la historia racista de los estados del sur de principios del siglo XX. Pero resulta que muchos perciben que todo este contexto histórico también debe ser estudiado para entender por qué llevaron a este niño negro a la silla eléctrica.

Y sí, se debe reabrir el caso e investigar porque en 1944 se llevó a un adolescente de catorce años a la silla electrica, porque, en aquella epoca los demócratas no eran las blancas palomas que pretenden pintarse hoy en día sino todo lo contrario, era los victimarios contra los negros que además eran republicanos y no los dejaban votar.

Juzgue usted...

¿Fue este niño víctima de
la supremacía blanca del
Partido Demócrata y
del Ku-Klux-Klan?
After 1902, however, Democrats enjoyed literally absolute control of the State House of Representatives. For more than half-a-century, not a single Republican in South Carolina was elected to the State House of Representatives. Democrats regularly won over 95% of the popular vote in presidential elections.

That’s a record on par with that of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union.

There are several reasons why this occurred. Democrats in South Carolina were strongest of all the Deep South states, because blacks were the majority of the population. Only Mississippi at the time also had a black-majority population.

This meant that in free and fair elections, blacks would actually have control of South Carolina politics. If a free and fair election took place in another Southern states, the Democratic Party would still probably have maintained power – since whites were a majority of the population. In fact, this is what happens in the South today, except that the roles of the two parties are switched.
The Rise and Fall of the South Carolina Democratic Party
By: inoljt Wednesday June 15, 2011

El caso de George Stinney tiene esqueletos en el closet y es interesante que un periodista se haya tomado el tiempo de investigar que verdaderamente pasó en esos años...

Carolina Skeletons Revisited: 
Part 4 of 4, 
by David Stout
In: BlogCarolina Skeletons Revisited: Part 4 of 4, by David Stout
In 1988, while working as a reporter, David Stout published Carolina Skeletons, based on the true story of a 1940s double-murder, for which fourteen year-old George Stinney was controversially executed. The book won Stout an Edgar award for best first novel. In this exclusive, four-part series, Stout revisits the novel. This is part 4 of the series.

“A Life for a Life, Even at Age Fourteen.”

That was the headline over my March 1982 article in The Record of Bergen County, New Jersey, about the 1944 execution of George Stinney in South Carolina for killing two little girls near a saw mill.

The newspaper gave the article good display, even though the editors had been skeptical at first about why I wanted to dig up the dead past. But I’d recalled what the great William Faulkner had written years before about his native South: “The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.”

Indeed, the events in Clarendon County, South Carolina, never faded for those who were touched by them. The son of the sheriff saw fourteen-year-old George Stinney put to death, became a lawman himself and vowed never to watch another execution.

“I wouldn’t attempt to get capital punishment for someone that age,” he told me. “But times were different then.”

Times were different then.

In 1982, I had observed white and black deputies working side by side in the Clarendon County sheriff’s office, something that would have been inconceivable not many years before.

In 1944, the outside world paid little notice as South Carolina executed George Stinney less than three months after the killing of two little girls.

Nowadays, many years go by between crime and execution. Depending on the circumstances, a death penalty case can draw the attention of the entire United States, other nations, even the Vatican.

The more I learned about the case of George Stinney, the more I reflected on it, I came to see him as a victim of time and place and circumstances.

In 1944, the governor of South Carolina was a New Deal Democrat named Olin D. Johnston. Reading copies of the letters and telegrams sent to him, I shed some of my Yankee superciliousness.

“Enough murder and carnage in this world at present, without the state of South Carolina joining in by killing a fourteen-year-old,” wrote a woman from Myrtle Beach.

“I am a white man, I believe in the right thing among the white or colored,” wrote someone from Ridgeway, South Carolina. “Now I am pleading with you for the life of the little Negro boy.” The writer said mercy for George Stinney would only be fair in view of a lenient sentence recently imposed on a sixteen-year-old white South Carolinian for a rape-murder.

But a few people applauded when Johnston said he would not halt the execution. “Sure glad to hear of your decision regarding nigger Stinney,” one message said.

Johnston was running in the Democratic primary for the United States Senate that year, against an old-line segregationist. It would not have helped Johnston politically to delay the execution. (Johnston won the primary, and a Senate seat.)

George Stinney’s court-appointed lawyer also had political ambitions. Perhaps that’s why he bailed out of the case right after the verdict, declining even to file a notice of intent to appeal, a simple step that would have postponed the execution.

Of course, it’s futile to view a case from yesteryear through today’s lens. But some things are worth saying.

The fact that George Stinney was tried in Clarendon County, where the girls were killed; that the jurors were all white; that no psychiatric evidence was presented on Stinney’s behalf; that his lawyer didn’t try to undermine the confession; that there was no appeal--all this would be inconceivable today.

Thoughts like those stayed with me after my article on the Stinney case appeared in The Record in March 1982. (Soon afterward, I moved to the New York Times.)

And I recalled what George Stinney’s brothers and sisters had said: Why was there no investigation of a bullying white man who lived near the saw mill? And is it really so hard to believe that the confession was beaten out of George Stinney? Things like that are still happening, especially to defendants who are poor, uneducated and dark-skinned.

But I couldn’t forget that the sheriff of 1944 had bought George Stinney a candy bar and a Bible, an act of compassion that might not have occurred to other lawmen in that time and place, an act that didn’t square with a man who would beat a confession out of a suspect.

I had done all I could as a journalist. So, in the fall of 1982, I sat down and began to write a novel about what happened in the lumber hamlet of Alcolu, South Carolina, in 1944, and of attempts to uncover “the truth” long afterward.

I vowed I would finish the novel, no matter what. George Stinney and the other people from that time and place deserved no less.

David Stout is an accomplished reporter who has been writing mysteries and true crime since the 1980s. Born in Erie, Pennsylvania, Stout took a job at the New York Times in 1982, where he began writing his first novel, Carolina Skeletons. The book won Stout an Edgar award for best first novel and is currently available through MysteriousPress.com.

¿Qué les parece?

¿Presos políticos o terroristas presos?
¡Esa es la pregunta!
Los independentistas socialistas acusan a los estadounidenses de racistas y asesinos pero por una extraña razón apoyan el Partido Demócrata de Barack Obama que una vez apadrinó la secta terrorista llamada Ku-Klux-Klan. ¿Paradójico? Yo también lo creo. ¿Será que son la misma cosa?

Aunque las noticias cambian, la realidad es que muchos no conocen la verdadera historia política de los Estados Unidos y tienen la percepción de que los racistas blancos son los del Tea Party, otra falsedad.

Oscar López utiliza este hecho lamentable de pie forzado para contarle a su nieta una sola parte de la historia desde su perspectiva particular de preso en una carcel del Sur y aprovecha para martirizarse como si también él fuera una víctima inocente del sistema americano. Nada más lejos de la verdad.

Yo honestamente creo que George Stinney fue una víctima inocente en un caso amañado por demócratas blancos racistas que ejercían el poder político y judicial en el estado de Carolina del Sur para el 1944.

Este caso debe reabrirse, pero también debe salir a la palestra pública los pecados de los demócratas para que dejen de asumir esa imagen casi santoral que se adjudican y dejar de diabolizar a los republicanos que eran las verdaderas víctimas y es por eso que hoy Carolina del Sur es republicano.

Vamos, que la verdad siempre sale a la luz.

Por otro lado me parece que los socialistas que marchan hoy también deben aceptar que Oscar López Rivera no es el “George Stinney” boricua porque fue un adulto, que con todas sus facultades perteneció a un grupo terrorista llamado FALN, que conspiró para asesinar americanos en actos terroristas con materiales explosivos que él custodió y que al sol de hoy no ha pedido perdón ni ha mostrado arrepentimiento, al contrario, utiliza su caso para exacerbar pasiones bajo un manto de artista pacifista.

Su excarcelación significa la glorificación de otro terrorista como lo fue Filiberto Ojeda Ríos y que estos mismos socialistas pretenden utilizarlos de parapeto para ganar poder político. 
Las cosas como son.

En mi opinión, si a Oscar López Rivera lo indultan quizás se acabe el chijí-chijá de las marchitas socialistas pero eso no será suficiente para un pueblo que está harto de los criminales que no lo dejan vivir en paz.

En estos momentos este tipo de actividad no muestra ningún tipo de lucha contra la criminalidad que nos arropa, sólo la glorifica, triste ejemplo para los jóvenes adolescentes que los están mirando, una razón más para creer que los socialistas amamantan a los delincuentes, — el mejor ejemplo son las negociaciones de las FARC en Cuba — increíblemente tienen la capacidad de autodenominarse víctimas y todo este embeleco para lograr un poder político que no merecen, 
simplemente, porque 
el neocomunismo quita libertades. 
Such is Life!