The Father of Computer Science is Still a Criminal

[ascorbius]

Perhaps I'm a bit strange, but has no-one else realised that a Pardon doesn't matter for Alan Turing when he has a Stamp?

A pardon is given by the government - Once... whereas if he gets a stamp, everyone sending a letter will kiss his ass every day Better than a pardon methinks.

(yeah yeah, they don't use glue you need to lick anymore.. but I found the idea amusing)

 

[brazuca]

That would be ilegal. Ex post facto law in mallen parten (latin) as you said is against most countries constitutional rights. I know for fact that this is ilegal in the US. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

Number one, we don't have a codified constitution. The government could pass a series of laws that decreed every family's first-born son will be taken away and killed, King Herod style. And if the laws pass the vote then you can't cite a single constitutional ruling to stop this.

The UK parliament has Absolute Power.

There is not such thing as an unconstitutional law in the UK.

Number Two, even if this Ex-post-facto law was in place preventing pardons and they couldn't be bothered to amend it, why did it not apply is 2006 when they were able to posthumously pardon all the soldiers they executed for cowardice in the First World War?

Number three, Ex-post-Facto has never been applied to prevent pardons or clemency, only to escalating punishment after a crime, or charging someone for a crime when they committed said act when before said act had been criminalised.

US and UK most definitely have the power to execute pardons, especially posthumously.

No ex post facto is getting some conduct that was not a crime, transform it into a crime and then press charges against that person for that old conduct. It was very commom during the Imperial Roman times. I know UK does not have a constitution, but as wikipedia says:

"Retrospective criminal laws are prohibited by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, but several noted legal authorities have stated their opinion that parliamentary sovereignty takes priority even over this.[7][8] For example, the War Crimes Act 1991 created an ex post facto jurisdiction of British courts over war crimes committed during the Second World War."

I do not see UK returning to this habbit as in a democracy this kind of posture can and will bring a lot of insecurity to any opposition to the governament.

"No ex post facto is getting some conduct that was not a crime, transform it into a crime and then press charges against that person for that old conduct."

Either way, that has nothing to do with pardoning a dead person for what WAS a crime but no longer is, but today is considered a very WRONG thing to prosecute/persecute over.

You also don't answer for #2 and #3. Which would have anyone think Ex Post Facto is utterly irrelevant and the House of Laws were perfectly able to pardon Turing SHOULD THEY HAVE WANTED TO!

I wouldn't cite democratic principals of UK on a day like this, when a thoroughly undemocratic institution as The House of Lords has made such a callous and dishonest decree. This is a Black day for democracy. And ugly reminder of how far we have to go.

This is 2012 for crap sake, why the hell do we still have to take this shit from these unelected, unrepresentative and out of touch House of Lords. KICK EM ALL OUT! I don't care if you have to pay them off, it'll be money well spent securing democracy we should have had centuries ago.

And that's the part I need to stay shut and listen, well read... hehehehehehe! No one knows what's better for UK than UK, if you say the way things are now is not good, then I have to agree.

 

[conflictofinterests]

Again, people gloss over how he was allegedly a child molester, only given till his work was done, before being given the choice of imprisonment, or chemical castration.

He decided on the chems. He then committed suicide.

If people think that The British House of Lords is some sort of evil homophobic group, so be it... but perhaps what was possibly 'swept under the rug' is why they refuse to pardon the man.

(The Prime Minister who eventually 'apologized' to him was a baby when Alan Turing was convicted. Just sayin.)

I was going to say that if a simple "Our bad" was too much for the British government, then I was disappointed in them, but with this brought to light, I suppose there would be a point to that. Still, maybe the allegations of child molestation are those that tended to crop up around known homosexuals at the time (because someone who's that abnormal can't JUST like consenting adults, right?) The plot seems to thicken.

 

[Treblaine]

Perhaps I'm a bit strange, but has no-one else realised that a Pardon doesn't matter for Alan Turing when he has a Stamp?

A pardon is given by the government - Once... whereas if he gets a stamp, everyone sending a letter will kiss his ass every day Better than a pardon methinks.

(yeah yeah, they don't use glue you need to lick anymore.. but I found the idea amusing)

I'm glad you find the the issue of chemical castration, suicide, persecution, betrayal and abuse of power by anti-democratic institutions so "amusing".

Your stamp idea is not going to hold any salt when UK is putting diplomatic pressure on governments to not persecute homosexuals they will fire back:

"Oh, you want us to not do string up homosexuals yet and you British categorically refuse to pardon your even your gay war hero... after you chemically castrated him and drove him to suicide?"

You think "oooh, we've him on a stamp and said sorry" is going to be a robust response to REFUSING TO PARDON HIM! It's not like it's just something we 'haven't gotten around to pardoning yet', our undemocratic House of Lords have actively thrown out the possibility and reaffirmed the illegality of his innocent actions.

This is a fucking disaster and I don't see how it can be undone.

 

[conflictofinterests]

That's just stupid. "Pardons" are called "pardons" for a reason. It's the government forgiving you for committing a crime that you did commit, not one that you didn't. It's a way of saying "We know you did something illegal but we're going to let you get away with it." Pardons aren't appeals on sentences. Pardons are forgiveness for sentences. They weren't asking for them to undo the court's decision. They were asking the British Government to forgive the crimes, not find that no crimes were committed. Seriously, do these people even know what a "pardon" is?

I'm going to sound incredibly anal with the way I say this, but pardons aren't for forgiving you for a crime you committed, but for a crime you were convicted of.

Sometimes the two are the same, sometimes they're not.

Sometimes you could be found innocent of a crime, but the State of Texas will execute you years later, because well, it's Texas.

But for the purpose of this discussion they are the same thing. We appreciate your clarification, but I don't think it was dissuasive from this point of view.

 

[Jodah]

Can't really disagree with their reasons. Just because the law is gone now doesn't mean it should impact those who broke it then. Laws are not applied retroactively. That cuts both ways.

 

[oktalist]

-A pardon states that you were innocent of the crime that you were convicted of.

No, a pardon says that you were guilty of the crime, but are nevertheless forgiven. It is exactly appropriate to this kind of situation.

His Turing Machine, designed in 1936, was an early blueprint for the electronic digital computer.

This is one of the most annoyingly wrong factoids out there, which seems to have entered the collective consciousness through a web of misunderstandings of misinformed journalists and become an accepted "fact". The Turing machine was not a blueprint for any physical computer; it was an abstract concept used in mathematics to formulate proofs of theorems, and can not be said to have been designed. It was nevertheless a groundbreaking idea in mathematics, and it just so happens that Turing later played a major role in designing the first electronic computers, so one can see how easily the misunderstanding could be made.

Also, "digital" is a bit superfluous in "digital computer", don't ya think? All computers are digital by definition, even Babbage's analytical engine.

It's sort of like saying that because Hitler made many great contributions, especially before World War II (the guy was an international "man of the year") that we should pardon him for all of his crimes, like that little holocaust thing, so he can be remembered as a humanitarian and economic reformist....

Nobody is saying that Turing should be pardoned for anything other than homosexuality.

It's more like admitting that good people are sometime capable of heinous misdeeds.

 

[the clockmaker]

For god's sake!

-A pardon states that you were innocent of the crime that you were convicted of.
-It was illegal at the time to be homosexual
-Turing was homosexual
-Turing was in breach of that law.

He was given an appology, but a pardon is not possible under the law. It would be meaningless under the law. And since it is a legal action, it would be pointless to do it. People think that because they ask someone to 'pardon them' when they bump into them in the corridor that it is synonomous with forgiveness, but under the law it is a very specific thing.

They are not saying that the law was right, they are not saying that being gay is wrong, they are simply stating what the law was and what the facts are.

actually you're describing acquittal; to quote Wikipedia "A pardon is the forgiveness of a crime and the cancellation of the relevant penalty; it is usually granted by a head of state (such as a monarch or president) or by a competent church authority."

"his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice."

Emphasis mine. Within the currently standing UK legistlation that I could find (perhaps a more legally minded escapist can help out there) that was the only provision that I could find on the conditions of granting a pardon. both of which are implied to expunge the record of what occured due to the requirement of a new fact coming to light within the case. That's the Criminal justice act (1988), reffering to the compensation of miscarrages of justice.

Remember, law is a fucked up place where words don't nessecerily mean what they are commonly thought to mean.

Now in similar laws, it is stated that the queen (and I'm assuong king would be a fair streatch from there), may grant an extra-judicial pardon, but this seems to be treated slightly differeantly in that it is a perogative of mercy (criminal law act (northern ireland) (1967) (et al.)) in that it is used to relieve any punishment, ie commute death to life, release etcetera etcetera.

As it stands, there are no new facts come to light in the case and he is no longer being punished under the law. So he cannot be compensated under the Criminal justice act (1988) and I doubt that the royal perogative of mercy can be retroactive.

Again, I am not a student of the law, so there may be some holes in this, but remember that the dictionairy defintion of a word may not be the legal definition

 

[Malty Milk Whistle]

It isn't often that people can make me sick to my stomach.

The people who condemn Turing using his machines manage it though.

But yeah, Jobs Innovates, Turing "gets away with".

Filth. The lot of you.

Inb4 something about high horses and the descent thereof


I sort of agree with the decision.

They're not going back and whiting out all the undesirable decisions of the past, but rather, admittting that the law was terrible and ensuring the same thing never happens again.

The same way that we can't start punishing people for things they've done in the past, that happen to be illegal now.

We can't undermine the rule of law. Sure, the law can be pretty damn stupid sometimes, but it's not like we have anything better (I'm sure there's a fallacy in there somewhere).

Listen to the running colour dog guys, these things speak pure truth and honesty! But yah, this is all true. He was not found innocent, ergo does not qualify for a pardon. See that? logic. Its quite simple really.

 

[ascorbius]

Perhaps I'm a bit strange, but has no-one else realised that a Pardon doesn't matter for Alan Turing when he has a Stamp?

A pardon is given by the government - Once... whereas if he gets a stamp, everyone sending a letter will kiss his ass every day Better than a pardon methinks.

(yeah yeah, they don't use glue you need to lick anymore.. but I found the idea amusing)

I'm glad you find the the issue of chemical castration, suicide, persecution, betrayal and abuse of power by anti-democratic institutions so "amusing".

Your stamp idea is not going to hold any salt when UK is putting diplomatic pressure on governments to not persecute homosexuals they will fire back:

"Oh, you want us to not do string up homosexuals yet and you British categorically refuse to pardon your even your gay war hero... after you chemically castrated him and drove him to suicide?"

You think "oooh, we've him on a stamp and said sorry" is going to be a robust response to REFUSING TO PARDON HIM! It's not like it's just something we 'haven't gotten around to pardoning yet', our undemocratic House of Lords have actively thrown out the possibility and reaffirmed the illegality of his innocent actions.

This is a fucking disaster and I don't see how it can be undone.

WOW, slow down there fella - You're reading a lot between very few lines about my feelings on a matter.. - A matter I deliberately did not wade into.. oh well, here goes.

First of all, This is a gaming forum - nothing you say on here will change the outcome of the decision, if it upsets you so much, petition your MP.

Secondly, the law is different now and a persecution of Homosexuals law will NEVER AGAIN EXIST.. but what's done is done - otherwise all manner of cases would come out of the woodwork. Bad things happen, We learn, we get better.

What happened to Alan Turing was tragic. What happened to Leonardo De-Vinci was tragic (he almost was killed for being homosexual) Both influenced our world in epic amounts. I respect them both a great deal.

Finally, get over it please. This thread has turned really emotional for no reason whatsoever. If you're still upset about it, that MP idea isn't a bad one. Exercise that democracy - it's what it's for!

 

[Treblaine]

For god's sake!

-A pardon states that you were innocent of the crime that you were convicted of.
-It was illegal at the time to be homosexual
-Turing was homosexual
-Turing was in breach of that law.

He was given an appology, but a pardon is not possible under the law. It would be meaningless under the law. And since it is a legal action, it would be pointless to do it. People think that because they ask someone to 'pardon them' when they bump into them in the corridor that it is synonomous with forgiveness, but under the law it is a very specific thing.

They are not saying that the law was right, they are not saying that being gay is wrong, they are simply stating what the law was and what the facts are.

actually you're describing acquittal; to quote Wikipedia "A pardon is the forgiveness of a crime and the cancellation of the relevant penalty; it is usually granted by a head of state (such as a monarch or president) or by a competent church authority."

"his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice."

Emphasis mine. Within the currently standing UK legistlation that I could find (perhaps a more legally minded escapist can help out there) that was the only provision that I could find on the conditions of granting a pardon.

Then how the hell were the 306+ separate cases of Soldiers executed for "cowardice" in WW1 being posthumously pardoned? What new evidence came forward to pardon ALL of them together, not each case each with new evidence, but EVERY execution for cowardice, categorically, were pardoned.

Sets a pretty clear legal precedent for the power to Pardon.

The House of Lords have no technical excuse for refusing to Pardon, they are guilty of intellectual cowardice.

 

[Treblaine]

Perhaps I'm a bit strange, but has no-one else realised that a Pardon doesn't matter for Alan Turing when he has a Stamp?

A pardon is given by the government - Once... whereas if he gets a stamp, everyone sending a letter will kiss his ass every day Better than a pardon methinks.

(yeah yeah, they don't use glue you need to lick anymore.. but I found the idea amusing)

I'm glad you find the the issue of chemical castration, suicide, persecution, betrayal and abuse of power by anti-democratic institutions so "amusing".

Your stamp idea is not going to hold any salt when UK is putting diplomatic pressure on governments to not persecute homosexuals they will fire back:

"Oh, you want us to not do string up homosexuals yet and you British categorically refuse to pardon your even your gay war hero... after you chemically castrated him and drove him to suicide?"

You think "oooh, we've him on a stamp and said sorry" is going to be a robust response to REFUSING TO PARDON HIM! It's not like it's just something we 'haven't gotten around to pardoning yet', our undemocratic House of Lords have actively thrown out the possibility and reaffirmed the illegality of his innocent actions.

This is a fucking disaster and I don't see how it can be undone.

WOW, slow down there fella - You're reading a lot between very few lines about my feelings on a matter.. - A matter I deliberately did not wade into.. oh well, here goes.

First of all, This is a gaming forum - nothing you say on here will change the outcome of the decision, if it upsets you so much, petition your MP.

Secondly, the law is different now and a persecution of Homosexuals law will NEVER AGAIN EXIST.. but what's done is done - otherwise all manner of cases would come out of the woodwork. Bad things happen, We learn, we get better.

What happened to Alan Turing was tragic. What happened to Leonardo De-Vinci was tragic (he almost was killed for being homosexual) Both influenced our world in epic amounts. I respect them both a great deal.

Finally, get over it please. This thread has turned really emotional for no reason whatsoever. If you're still upset about it, that MP idea isn't a bad one. Exercise that democracy - it's what it's for!

Yes, this is a site greatly to do with computer gaming and Turner is the FATHER OF COMPUTING! And a national hero of my country who was horribly abused by a hateful society and government. This is all very relevant, relevant enough Escapist have made a headline story about it.

Petition my MP... WE ALREADY DID! And they fucking threw that petition out and rolled out this bullshit excuse! Write a letter to them? Should be about as effective if I post it to them or just put it in a bottle and throw it in the ocean!

It is NOT ENOUGH to just change the law and move on, as that makes no distinction between the law being repealed for morality or practicality. Pardon of the most notable victims of this unjust law sends a loud an unambiguous message THAT HOMOSEXUALITY SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED BY THE LAW!!! That other countries today have no excuse of "aah, you used to do it, and you

"This thread has turned really emotional for no reason whatsoever."

I think it's obvious the reason for the emotion.

"Exercise that democracy"

Get this, the House of LORDS (yes, we still have them) who have made this decision IS NOT A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED AUTHORITY!

Worse than than, Lords are Lords for life! UK has many un-democratically appointed positions, but they are tolerated when benign and obedient to Democratically elected officials. NOT WHEN THEY DO SHIT LIKE THIS!

And there is nothing we can do about it. Nothing. There are no re-elections for Lords. They aren't obliged the listen to the public. They are LORDS for fugg sake! They should be in costume at a renaissance fair, not making political decisions in government!

 

[maturin]

"A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offense. He would have known that his offense was against the law and that he would be prosecuted."

I don't even need to Godwin's Law this.

 

[ascorbius]

Perhaps I'm a bit strange, but has no-one else realised that a Pardon doesn't matter for Alan Turing when he has a Stamp?

A pardon is given by the government - Once... whereas if he gets a stamp, everyone sending a letter will kiss his ass every day Better than a pardon methinks.

(yeah yeah, they don't use glue you need to lick anymore.. but I found the idea amusing)

I'm glad you find the the issue of chemical castration, suicide, persecution, betrayal and abuse of power by anti-democratic institutions so "amusing".

Your stamp idea is not going to hold any salt when UK is putting diplomatic pressure on governments to not persecute homosexuals they will fire back:

"Oh, you want us to not do string up homosexuals yet and you British categorically refuse to pardon your even your gay war hero... after you chemically castrated him and drove him to suicide?"

You think "oooh, we've him on a stamp and said sorry" is going to be a robust response to REFUSING TO PARDON HIM! It's not like it's just something we 'haven't gotten around to pardoning yet', our undemocratic House of Lords have actively thrown out the possibility and reaffirmed the illegality of his innocent actions.

This is a fucking disaster and I don't see how it can be undone.

WOW, slow down there fella - You're reading a lot between very few lines about my feelings on a matter.. - A matter I deliberately did not wade into.. oh well, here goes.

First of all, This is a gaming forum - nothing you say on here will change the outcome of the decision, if it upsets you so much, petition your MP.

Secondly, the law is different now and a persecution of Homosexuals law will NEVER AGAIN EXIST.. but what's done is done - otherwise all manner of cases would come out of the woodwork. Bad things happen, We learn, we get better.

What happened to Alan Turing was tragic. What happened to Leonardo De-Vinci was tragic (he almost was killed for being homosexual) Both influenced our world in epic amounts. I respect them both a great deal.

Finally, get over it please. This thread has turned really emotional for no reason whatsoever. If you're still upset about it, that MP idea isn't a bad one. Exercise that democracy - it's what it's for!

Yes, this is a site greatly to do with computer gaming and Turner is the FATHER OF COMPUTING! And a national hero of my country who was horribly abused by a hateful society and government. This is all very relevant, relevant enough Escapist have made a headline story about it.

Petition my MP... WE ALREADY DID! And they fucking threw that petition out and rolled out this bullshit excuse! Write a letter to them? Should be about as effective if I post it to them or just put it in a bottle and throw it in the ocean!

It is NOT ENOUGH to just change the law and move on, as that makes no distinction between the law being repealed for morality or practicality. Pardon of the most notable victims of this unjust law sends a loud an unambiguous message THAT HOMOSEXUALITY SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED BY THE LAW!!! That other countries today have no excuse of "aah, you used to do it, and you

"This thread has turned really emotional for no reason whatsoever."

I think it's obvious the reason for the emotion.

"Exercise that democracy"

Get this, the House of LORDS (yes, we still have them) who have made this decision IS NOT A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED AUTHORITY!

Worse than than, Lords are Lords for life! UK has many un-democratically appointed positions, but they are tolerated when benign and obedient to Democratically elected officials. NOT WHEN THEY DO SHIT LIKE THIS!

And there is nothing we can do about it. Nothing. There are no re-elections for Lords. They aren't obliged the listen to the public. They are LORDS for fugg sake! They should be in costume at a renaissance fair, not making political decisions in government!

OK, let's get something straight... I'm from the UK.
The house of Lords serves a purpose - they act as a general balance stopping the government from putting through what ever they like as law - If they don't like it, it gets thrown back for debate.

But understand this, The house of Lords have nowhere near the power of the House of Commons. The Government can overrule the House of Lords, they just don't do it very often. In fact the House of Commons often throw laws at the house of lords to see what sticks.

"The House of Lords is the second chamber of Parliament and is also called the Upper House. Because it is not elected, it does not have the same powers as the Commons, but it retains the right to revise and scrutinise the Government's actions and legislation. Its independent minds and extensive expertise form a crucial check on the power of the executive in Parliament but it is much more likely to wield this power by asking Ministers to think again than to veto whole pieces of legislation." - From Politics.co.uk

If the Prime Minister really wanted to pardon Alan Turing, He could, He just doesn't care enough about it to overrule the House of Lords.

If you haven't already, sign this current e-Petition [link]http://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/23526[/link]

This will be my last post on the matter.

 

[Kiwilove]

Re: Thai
Honey, until you find an article that actually backs up your allegations, I suggest you stick to fact, not rumor. Not even your own source supports you.
OT:
Some of it's bigotry, some of it's laziness. If they pardon Turing, they have to pardon all the other people convicted under such laws before 67, creating a lot of paperwork.
BTW, have they ever pardoned Oscar Wilde?

 

[Ken Sapp]

While I would say that posthumously pardoning him for his service to Britain and the Allied Nations would be a good thing to do, I have to agree with the reasons given for refusing the pardon. Let his conviction, punishment and death serve as an example of darker moments in our history which we strive to rectify for current and future generations.

There are numerous examples of stupid, bigoted, or hateful laws throughout history up to the present day. Instead of focusing our attention on the ones which have since been rectified we should be working to get rid of those that remain and prevent new ones from being written.

 

[DarkRyter]

Well, he was in violation of the law at the time, no matter how ridiculous the law was. he would get a pardon if some sort of new evidence proved that he did not commit the crime.

It's sad, but this is the most logical course of action. And as a computer scientist, I think Turing would agree.

Also, I think you don't get to be called "The Father of Computer Science", until you get a data type.

No, not Robert Int.

 

[the clockmaker]

For god's sake!

-A pardon states that you were innocent of the crime that you were convicted of.
-It was illegal at the time to be homosexual
-Turing was homosexual
-Turing was in breach of that law.

He was given an appology, but a pardon is not possible under the law. It would be meaningless under the law. And since it is a legal action, it would be pointless to do it. People think that because they ask someone to 'pardon them' when they bump into them in the corridor that it is synonomous with forgiveness, but under the law it is a very specific thing.

They are not saying that the law was right, they are not saying that being gay is wrong, they are simply stating what the law was and what the facts are.

actually you're describing acquittal; to quote Wikipedia "A pardon is the forgiveness of a crime and the cancellation of the relevant penalty; it is usually granted by a head of state (such as a monarch or president) or by a competent church authority."

"his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice."

Emphasis mine. Within the currently standing UK legistlation that I could find (perhaps a more legally minded escapist can help out there) that was the only provision that I could find on the conditions of granting a pardon.

Then how the hell were the 306+ separate cases of Soldiers executed for "cowardice" in WW1 being posthumously pardoned? What new evidence came forward to pardon ALL of them together, not each case each with new evidence, but EVERY execution for cowardice, categorically, were pardoned.

Sets a pretty clear legal precedent for the power to Pardon.

The House of Lords have no technical excuse for refusing to Pardon, they are guilty of intellectual cowardice.

1-legislative law trumps common law, so a precedent is not grounds for ignoring what the law states.
2-reading into it simply the new evidence was a greater understanding of PTSD, that the soldiers were not, in fact cowards and as such were not guilty of the crime that they were convicted of
3-in addition there was found to be a systemic miscarriage of justice, that the defendents were not able to call for their own witnesses and produce their own evidence. As the courts martial were found to be conducting themselves improperly, it would provide reasonable doubt on the decision that was reached.

So to compare the two cases,
-Turing was in breach of the law that he was charged under/in retrospect those charged of cowardice were found to have reasonable doubt as to thier guilt
-I can find no mention that Turing's trial (while obviously enforcing an abominable law) was conducted in anything other than a legally proper manner./The soldiers charged with cowardice were not given a fair trial.

As such, a precedent would not really apply, legally.

So he is morally entitled to whatever restitution the government can offer, but under the law there is no case and so the house of lords, an institution concerned with the law has no legal grounds to grant him a pardon.

And as to the accusation of intellectual cowardice, you should read over the second paragraph of the statement again, where they call the punishment meted against him "cruel and absurd" and state that they will not "try to put right what cannot be put right" and ensure instead "that we never refer to those times". That seems to be a pretty pro-turing statement, and in fact, more politically visible than a pardon.

 

[Johanthemonster666]

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