Chances dim that House will probe new Kent State shooting evidence

Published: Wednesday, November 24, 2010, 6:00 PM

John Mangels, The Plain Dealer

The prospect that Congress will examine new evidence from the 1970 shootings at Kent State University dimmed Wednesday, when staffers were unable to meet a tight deadline to arrange a hearing before new House leadership takes over. But a Justice Department review still is possible.

A House subcommittee led by U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Cleveland had been trying to collect and review materials, and line up witnesses who could testify about the new Kent State forensic evidence, which was uncovered by The Plain Dealer earlier this year.

Kucinich, a Democrat, will lose his subcommittee chairmanship – and his ability to keep the probe going -- when Republicans take control of the House in January. Kucinich said Wednesday he will send a report of the subcommittee's preliminary findings to the Justice Department next week, along with a formal request that the agency re-open its own investigation of the Kent State incident.

He said he hopes to make a personal appeal to Attorney General Eric Holder to take up the case. The Justice Department already had been weighing other requests to examine the new evidence.

More at link:

http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2010/11/chances_dim_that_house_will_pr.html


---------------------------------------

This is upsetting. I would like to ask DUers to please contact Rep. Kucinich at http://kucinich.house.gov/Contact/
and ask that the Kent State hearing will still be held on 1 December 2010. This may be the last chance for the truth about that horrible day to come out. Thank-you.

I went to the link and read the article but didn't see anything that would justify beating this dead horse. It's over. The Vietnam war is over. What do you hope to accomplish?

We need hearings to investigate the criminality of high government officials in pursuing two illegal wars in the middle east.

:sarcasm:

That relates to this how?

What would "justify beating this dead horse" in your eyes?
and at what point does the killing of unarmed kids who aren't doing anything even vaguely threatening become a dead horse?

so I can understand a little why you may think this is "beating a dead horse. However, if you read up on the history of the events, the role of Nixon and the Ohio governor Rhodes, the role of the provocateur, you may not consider this a "beating of a dead horse." People died that day and we have the right to know why and to make sure this never happens again.

Ask yourself this: do you really want the government to have the power to kill you, just because they disagree with you on policy? That's what happend and could happen again.