Toto

Abe - the original question was whether Bush was going soft on Walker because his support for religion meant he couldn't take a strong stand against someone who followed the dictates of his faith. There's not a lot of evidence for that, but it was interesting speculation, and the review of the law was interesting.

The latest on Walker: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/01/16/ret.walker.charges/index.html" target="_blank">Ashcroft: Death penalty remains possibility for Walker</a>.

In spite of being read his Miranda rights, he has been questioned for 45 days without talking to an attorney, his parents charge. Ashcroft says that Walker is a big boy - he decided to go to war, and he is capable of deciding on his own that he doesn't need an attorney.

4th Generation Atheist

It's sort of a "local" story as well as a "national" one for us here in DC, since the trial is apparently going to take place in our neck of the woods. Anyone interested in following the story in that fashion can find ongoing info at <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com" target="_blank">the Washington Post website</a>; today's story is on <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58099-2002Jan16.html" target="_blank">this page.</a>

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: 4th Generation Atheist ]</p>