Governing Buzzards - Part 3 - Does the WTS lie about being Exonerated?

heathen

Amazing-- According to webster the word exonerated means to relieve of a charge . If they did not serve the sentence that was handed down in the trial then the word can be used to describe a state of relief . In all fairness I think you are trying to stir up suspicion under false pretense . It is apparent that the governent tried the same tactics of arresting conscientious objectors in WW2 , korea and vietnam. I never thought it was constitutional do so myself .
wannaexit

great read and very enlightning. Looking for #4.
wannaexit

Amazing

Heathen,

You note:

"Amazing-- According to webster the word exonerated means to relieve of a charge . If they did not serve the sentence that was handed down in the trial then the word can be used to describe a state of relief."

First you are not being intellectually honest with your quote of Websters. If you go to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary as shown below, you will find the rest of the definition:

After clicking on web site, select Dictionary and type in EXONERATE:

http://merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Exonerate&x=16&y=15

Here is what you get:

One entry found for exonerate.

Main Entry: ex·on·er·ate
Pronunciation: ig-'zä-n&-"rAt, eg-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin exoneratus, past participle of exonerare to unburden, from ex- + oner-, onus load
1 : to relieve of a responsibility, obligation, or hardship
2 : to clear from accusation or blame
synonym see EXCULPATE

" Exculpatory Evidence" a synonym of Exonerate, is to find evidence that shows the person is not guilty, to clear them of suspecion:

Here is the meaning of Exculpate from the same on-line Merrian-Webster dictionary:

Main Entry: ex·cul·pate

Pronunciation: 'ek-(")sk&l-"pAt, (")ek-'
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -pat·ed; -pat·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin exculpatus, past participle of exculpare, from Latin ex- + culpa blame
: to clear from alleged fault or guilt- ex·cul·pa·tion

/ "ek-(")sk&l-'pA-sh&n / noun
synonyms EXCULPATE, ABSOLVE, EXONERATE, ACQUIT, VINDICATE mean to free from a charge. EXCULPATE implies a clearing from blame or fault often in a matter of small importance <exculpating himself from the charge of overenthusiasm>. ABSOLVE implies a release either from an obligation that binds the conscience or from the consequences of disobeying the law or committing a sin <cannot be absolved of blame>. EXONERATE implies a complete clearance from an accusation or charge and from any attendant suspicion of blame or guilt <exonerated by the investigation>. ACQUIT implies a formal decision in one's favor with respect to a definite charge <voted to acquit the defendant>. VINDICATE may refer to things as well as persons that have been subjected to critical attack or imputation of guilt, weakness, or folly, and implies a clearing effected by proving the unfairness of such criticism or blame <her judgment was vindicated>.

First, Rutherford and company were NOT cleared ... they were released to be re-tried ... therefore "suspecion" of guilt still remained.

Secondly, most people understand the word "Exonerate" to mean being shown to be innocent, not guilty of the charge ... as is indicated by the definition I have linked to. Therefore, in the minds of Jehovah's Witnesses, they are led to believe that Rutherford and company were shown to be not guilty as a basis of their release from prison.

Instead, legally, they were given a WRIT OF ERROR ... which in matters of law means that trial errors were made, and that the accused must be tried again. They were then released on bail, but the Government never pursued the new trial, as the war was over.

The intellectually honest thing here is that the Society officers were proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt ... and the trial errors were not significant ... you can read them in the Transcript. also, other important issues were that the Society officers were NOT railroaded as they claim ... they were afforded a full and fair trial following all the proper procedures, except small errors. They admitted on the Witness stand that the Finished Mystery book was published to meet a schedule that would imply fulfillment of prophecy and to assure making extrra money.

It is not me that is trying to "stir" things up ... it is the dishonest presentation of the Society of its own history that has stirred things up.

Jim W.

simwitness

If they did not serve the sentence that was handed down in the trial then the word can be used to describe a state of relief .

They were granted a new trial, not released (other than on bail)... The Government then had the choice to pursue or not. They were not "aquitted" or found "not guilty" in the court of law. They had a 2nd chance to prove their non-guilt that was not pursued.
No "relief" was granted, they basically got lucky in that the Gov't chose not to follow up on it... take that any way you want it.
I never thought it was constitutional do so myself .
But that is not the point, The WTBS would have you believe that they were individually persecuted for thier beliefs.. not that the law they were tried under was unconstitutional. The fairness or constitutionality of the law was not being raised at this time, at least not by the WTBS.
Ray H. Abrams in his book , preachers present arms , published in 1933 states that he believes it was all about religious persection from opposers of the russelites.
Who is this person, and why should his "belief" on the matter make any difference to me? I don't mean to sound to synical, but why did he beleive this way? Was the WTBS the only group/person to be prosecuted under this law? Was their prosecution under this law with merit? (I am not speaking to the constitutionality or rightness of the law, but to the execution of it).
heathen

You guys or gals are not making much sense . If you are released from prison and not retried even tho they were going to retry the case I think it's fair game to say you were aquitted or exonerated.I don't see how anyone can serve 18 months of a sentence that was 20 yrs. and then released without further harasment still being considered guilty . They clearly stated that what they were doing was making it a matter of conscience as to whether to join the war effort or not . Sedition as I see it in my websters is--- rising against political authority , I can't see any evidence of that in what you posted so far of the trial . They were trumped up charges as I see it against the WTBTS .
Amazing

Heathen,
You are not reading with comprehension what has been. I will walk you through your last comment.
You guys or gals are not making much sense . If you are released from prison and not retried even tho they were going to retry the case I think it's fair game to say you were aquitted or exonerated.
No, being released is NOT any kind of exoneration or aquittal. For example, a person is arrest and even charged, but later on, due to problems with the evidence, the District Attorney drops the case, the person is neither found guilty nor deemed innocent. They are not exonerated nor aquitted. These eight defendants were found guilty, but later released on certain trial errors ... but they were guilty, and were on released on a WRIT OF ERROR. My argument is that the Society misrepresents the basis of their release.
I don't see how anyone can serve 18 months of a sentence that was 20 yrs. and then released without further harasment still being considered guilty.
The same reason that some murderers are very guilty, but are released early on parole ... the release did not exonerate them. Some murderers are released due to certain trial errors ... and they get away before they state can retry them ... or they may be re-tried, and found guilty again. Recently, former Governor Ryan of Illinois released 167 inmates from death row because he feared some might be innocent ... but could not tell for sure. Being released is not in any way an exoneration.
They clearly stated that what they were doing was making it a matter of conscience as to whether to join the war effort or not.
That is NOT what happened, not what I wrote about above. The Society was putting pressure on people to not join ... AND ... to defect from their current military assignments ... they were attempting to induce active duty military personnel during a time of war. Yet, they at the same time claimed their religion had no rule as to being part of the war effort. It was not an issue of being a matter of conscience, but an issue of saying one thing but doing another.
Sedition as I see it in my websters is --- rising against political authority, I can't see any evidence of that in what you posted so far of the trial . They were trumped up charges as I see it against the WTBTS.
How matters are legally defined in matters of law, does vary somewhat from Websters. Example: The "Pardon System" is used to release innocent people as well as forgive the guilty ... but if they are innocent they need not a Pardon ... but the word Pardon is used in law in a different way than it is in Websters. You need to looks things up in a Law Dictionary.
They were NOT trumped up charges ... but rather the result of a year of investigation, a month long Grand Jury to indict, and a month to prepare trial, and two weeks for the trial ... there was no railroad job. The Society officers were guilty as a matter of law ... and the charges were not sedition, but closely related to that. The charges were that the Society induced treason, interferred with the Draft during wartime, etc. If you read the trial transcript, you will get the real flavor of what happened.
The problem is that you are still swallowing up the Society swill that they claim they were exonerated, when in fact they were not. You still swallow their line that they were innocent little Bible Students minding their own business and railroaded off to prison on trumped up charges, when in fact, that is not what happened.
Should the Society have been taken to task by the court? I believe with respect to their efforts to induce actuve duty military personnel to leave their posts, they should have done some jail time. I think the rest is a matter of opinion, and not worthy of a trial .. but that was never my point ... my point is how the Society misrepresents history to make it appear they were innocent and they were somehow fulfilling Bible prophecy.
Jim W.
mustang

I have studied the aspects of Sedition Law for other reasons. This dovetails with the 1917 Rutherford/WTS case. It provides an interesting historical backdrop for this thread. Since it is a very long "read", I have started another thread ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/65780/1.ashx ) to contain the reference material and comments. I may still be editing or adding to this for a short period... (under construction)
Mustang
Big Tex

the earnest Bible Students humbly and faithfully publishing the Good News of the Kingdom ? when they then boldly published the Finished Mystery book ? claiming it to be the posthumous work of Pastor Russell, the seventh in the Series Studies in the Scriptures ? they were suddenly invaded by jack-booted thugs who seized the works of the Society in New York and Pennsylvania ? arresting seven of the Society officers ? dragging them in the middle of the night before a mean-spirited magistrate, who upon the presentation of trumped-up charges and scant evidence, sent them to prison in order to stop the Good News of the Kingdom

Wow talk about a trip down Memory Lane. Reminds of the meetings back in the early to mid 70s.
Jim, I had to smile about your reference to WAIT on Jehovah. The very people who later advocate that for others, themselves do no such thing. Hypocritical hypocrites.
Excellent series.
heathen

The whole sedition thing is clearly a trumped up charge in my book . They were not interested in undermining the government authority but only in obeying Gods law which as they interpreted it was to not kill . I think they were foolish to start with by suggesting people join the military effort because of the draft but to not kill the enemy and fire over their heads . The government today is far more demonized by the WTBTS but I still couldn't see charges of sedition should the same circumstances arise . They teach their members to obey the laws but not to be involved in politics or do things contrary to christian teachings , they are the least political group on the planet . They have no representation in government because they don't vote yet they pay taxes . Whether or not all of their actions led up to fulfillment of prophesy is a matter of interpretation . People can make the bible seem like it says anything because most of the scripture in revelation is symbolic.
outnfree

Thanks, Jim.
The Society officers were guilty as a matter of law ... and the charges were not sedition, but closely related to that. The charges were that the Society induced treason, interferred with the Draft during wartime, etc.
Heathen -- are you reading with comprehension? The point is not even what they were charged with, the point is that 7 of 8 WT Society officers and "Bethel-heavies" were not "exonerated" but, rather, found guilty. They were not the 'revived' witnesses of Revelation. Heck, 'The Finished Mystery' was not penned by Russell as the Seventh in the "Studies in the Scriptures Series." Are you seeing a pattern of dishonesty here yet?
The issue is not the appropriateness of the Sedition Act or any other of the laws enacted during wartime (Patriot Act, anyone?).
They were not interested in undermining the government authority but only in obeying Gods law which as they interpreted it was to not kill .
Any soldier, any citizen could have conscientiously objected and paid whatever legal consequences their CO status incurred (jail, beatings, psychological abuse). The Society had no "you must NOT bear arms" policy at the time and didn't until the Second World War. You might wish to read Mustang's thread to have a feel for the political climate in 1917. You might also like to read "Thirty Years a Watchtower Slave" to see how the Society purposefully sent out special representatives to "stir things up" in order to claim 'persecution.' Seems like, in this case, the head honchos were knowingly flaunting the laws to "stir things up" with active servicemen. That would have been fine, if they'd just skipped the revisionist history, and admitted that they did break laws because they really wanted their adherents to "obey God's law to not kill." They should have been willing to pay whatever legal consequences ensued as well (jail, beatings, psychological abuse).
Morally, they should have pled guilty and thrown themselves on the court's mercy. But, no. They turn a disinterest on the part of the U.S. government to re-try the case into "exoneration." That's just bullshit spewed by slimey, opportunistic, self-serving poseurs.
"Let him who has ears to hear, listen."
outnfree

Governing Buzzards - Part 3 - Does the WTS lie about being Exonerated?

Share this