Olympic Bomber's Essays Posted On Local Web Site(Eric Rudolph Said To Taunt Victims From "Supermax")

Daily Press ^ | May 15, 2007 | By JAY REEVES

[fight_truth_decay]

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- Victims of Eric Rudolph, the anti-abortion extremist who pulled off a series of bombings across the South, say he is taunting them from deep within the nation's most secure federal prison, using a Web site operated by a preacher and anti-abortion activist from Hampton Roads. Rudolph, who was captured after a five-year manhunt and pleaded guilty in deadly bombings at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta and at a Birmingham abortion clinic, is serving life in prison at the ``Supermax'' penitentiary in Florence, Colo. Housed in the most secure part of the prison, he has no computer and little contact with the outside world aside from writing letters. But Rudolph's long essays have been posted on the Internet by a supporter who maintains an Army of God web site operated by Chesapeake minister Donald Spitz. The Army of God is the same loose-knit group that Rudolph claimed to represent in letters sent after the blasts. Spitz said he corresponds regularly with Rudolph and posts some of his essays because of their shared desire to end abortion. As for those who might be offended, he said, ``They don't have to look at it on the Web site.'' In one piece, Rudolph seeks to justify violence against abortion clinics by arguing that Jesus would condone ``militant action in defense of the innocent.'' In another essay about his sentencing, Rudolph mocks nurse Emily Lyons, who was nearly killed in the 1998 bombing in Birmingham, and her husband, Jeff. He uses pseudonyms rather than naming them, but there is no doubt he is describing Lyons and her husband. Rudolph recalls how Emily Lyons, in court, described the pain of her injuries and made an obscene gesture at Rudolph as she showed off a finger mangled by the blast.

[fight_truth_decay]

* * * U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, who helped prosecute Rudolph for the Alabama bombing, said there is nothing the prison can do to restrict Rudolph or Spitz."

``An inmate does not lose his freedom of speech,''

**The above statement as written is a given; but is this an instance outside the protection of the First Amendment when an inmate within Federal Prison is allowed to pass his (her) "words" to another person or organized group to lead a "fight" within their determined cause via the Internet through Mail/Messages with intent of building "mass" supporters?

**Furthermore, in passing along this related "conduct" with vindictive mention of those considered as "victim status"(from crimes perpetrated against them by this one individual(s)), be seen as further abuse or incite, a repeat of the same.?

[wideawake]

I don't see why Eric Rudolph should automatically have mail privileges.

And I don't see why assistant baby-shredder Emily Lyons should expect anyone to treat her murderous person with any respect.

In a just world, she'd be in the cell next to Rudolph.

[D-fendr]

The real problem here is not that Rudolph has freedom of speech, but has freedom of air.

[fight_truth_decay]

allowed to pass his (her) "words"

One can't stop the verbal flow of words from one immediate person or group to another; but the ongoing carry of "another's" written or composed words to the Internet for the purpose of reaching others to "follow the fight".

If free speech is not restricted, why can't Rudolph just publish his own blog from within prison?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Bombers are cowards.

[wideawake]

The real problem here is not that Rudolph has freedom of speech, but has freedom of air.

You can thank the federal prosecutor for offering him a plea.

If the feds had taken him to trial he would certainly have gotten the needle.

[jakewashere]

“In a just world, she’d be in the cell next to Rudolph.”

I’d be careful about saying things of that sort - it’s only one short bad-logic leap from there to “In a just world, Rudolph would have succeeded.”

[Excellence]

I’d like to see a response quote from Richard Jewell.

[wideawake]

I’d be careful about saying things of that sort - it’s only one short bad-logic leap from there to “In a just world, Rudolph would have succeeded.”

I'm not interested in bad logic.

I'm interested in the truth: Eric Rudolph is a murderer. Emily Lyons is a murderer.

In a just world, they would both pay for their crimes.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I’d be careful about saying things of that sort - it’s only one short bad-logic leap from there to “In a just world, Rudolph would have succeeded.”

I disagree. Wideawake's comment means that WHENEVER bad people do bad things, they should be punished. Rudolph should have gotten the chair. But then again, In a just world, so would abortion enablers.

[Diplomat]

She (the lawyer) is an idiot. The inmate most certainly loses part or all of his first amendment rights when being sentanced to prison becuase, he de-facto no longer has the ability to “peacefully assemble”.

To suggest otherwise is b.s. This a-hole GOT due process removal of his Constitutional rights when he was found guilty of murder and sentenced. He is SUPPOSED to lose some of his Constitutional rights when convicted by a jury of his peers.

[jwalsh07]

The prison authorities have the power to censor Rudolphs mail, that's another right he gave up when he became a convicted murderer.

Now if we could just find the backbone to stop the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies we'd really be on to something.

[fight_truth_decay]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18645369

Second video..which everyone should see...(one showing hand being held during tumor removal)...5 months old fetus