Yesterday’s New York Times Magazine featured a cover story by Tom Robbins (not that Tom Robbins) on one of the fanatic leftists who participated in the infamous Brink’s robbery in New York. As George Russell recounts in “The other Rosenberg case,” the October 1981 robbery, which ended in a careening series of car chases and a bloody shootout, left two policemen and an unarmed Brink’s employee dead and others injured.
Bill Clinton pardoned Susan Rosenberg (we should never forget what a cretin Clinton is) and Kathy Boudin has been paroled. How about a little love for Judith Clark, the subject of the Times Magazine cover story? My vote is to send Rosenberg and Boudin back to the can. Short of that, I yield the floor to to David Horowitz:
The New York Times, which played a key role in getting convicted and unrepentant murderer Kathy Boudin a parole, has now published a similar massive plea posing as a news story for her accomplice, Judy Clark. The piece is maliciously titled “The Radical Transformation of Judy Clark” as though Clark, understanding the heinous nature of her crime which left 9 children fatherless, is prepared to renounce the life that led to it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Of course Clark is in her sixties now and regrets her separation from the infant she abandoned to commit the crime (her last crime not her only crime). Her daughter is now 31 and she would obviously like to be able to share the kind of life with her that her victims cannot share with their dead fathers. And, of course, being old and gray, she no longer thinks Amerikkka is on the brink of a violent revolution and liberation. Unlike Boudin, moreover, she does seem to have given some thought to the enormity of what she did to those nine fatherless children. But that said, there is no indication that her parole plea is anything but self-serving, or that she has turned her back on the progressive terrorists — Boudin, Bill Ayers and Berna[r]dine Dohrn among them — who were her comrades-in-arms through the twelve years of armed warfare she conducted against her country and its citizens, which left more than a handful of people dead.
To begin with, Clark and her mouthpiece at the Times, present the culprit as an absent-minded accomplice to the one crime for which she was convicted, the Brink’s robbery in Nyack NY in 1981. According to Clark, her participation was an “obligation” — the fulfillment of a promise she had made to participate as a getaway driver in a robbery she thought would never take place. This is baloney. Clark was part of a group that called itself “The Family,” which was a working alliance between the Black Liberation Army and the May 19th Communist Movement (so-named in part to commemorate the day the BLA murdered a black and white police team in New York for no reason other than that they were a black and white officer working together).
The May 19 gang was mainly women (among them Boudin, Clark and Susan Rosenberg) who served as the getaway team for the BLA in a string of bank robberies in which people were killed. One attempted assassination of a New York judge was unsuccessful. All these crimes were committed in the name of the revolution, which in the perverse eyes of progressives like Judy Clark, justified them. The Family had also sprung a cold-blooded killer — Assata Shakur — from federal prison. Clark’s role in the May 19th organization was not the beginning of her criminal career but its fulfillment. Previously she had spent 7 years as one of the most fanatical members of the Weather Underground, helping to conduct many bombings and kill at least three people, and probably also two police officers whose deaths are still under investigation.
A guilty person who understands their guilt and has genuine remorse begins by accepting responsibility for what they did and for all they did — and not pretending (as Clark does in this article) that they became a violent radical only after they were arrested as a result of guilt for not having been revolutionary enough. Or that their participation in the one crime they were apprehended for was actually the result of inattention or some other excusable offense.
Far more important, a truly remorseful terrorist will feel obligated to turn his back on his fellow terrorists and their supporters and do the innocent a service by revealing what they know, and who their networks are, and what they actually did — not just what they got caught doing. This kind of truth-telling is an authentic form of atonement and would protect others — and particularly young radicals just starting out who may become involved in criminal ventures just as Clark did when she was young and the tragedies she caused were still in front of her.
Robbins styles himself an investigative journalist, but he sets strict limits on the extent of his curiosity. There is of course a political point to his credulity. The extent to which the left (the Times, the mainstream media, the universities) looks after its own is truly amazing.
UPDATE: Ron Kuby comments below: “[Y]our statement ‘Susan Rosenberg…served as the getaway team for the BLA in a string of bank robberies in which people were killed’ is false and defamatory. Rosenberg was never convicted of being part of any getaway team, any bank robbery, or any murder. In the interests of factual accuracy, please remove that reference.”
Ah, Ron, I know you’re not a close reader, but it’s hard to miss that it wasn’t my statement. I was quoting David Horowitz. Since you raise the issue, however, I’ll quote Jay Nordlinger from his excellent NR article “Clinton’s Rosenberg case.” Referring to the Brink’s robbery, Jay writes: “Rosenberg’s role in the crime was that of getaway driver and general accomplice.” And George Russell seems to be referring to the likes of you when he writes in the article I cite above:
Rosenberg was a hardened member of an active terrorist organization whose members had robbed banks and armored cars; killed police and unarmed security guards; broken prisoners out of U.S. jail; helped to smuggle felons to Cuba; continued a campaign of bombing after various group members jumped bail; and they were storing large quantities of explosives and weaponry to further continue that campaign when she was apprehended. It took two more years to roll up most of the other members of the disparate and dangerous group.
Because federal prosecutors in New York’s Southern District under then U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani decided that they would not pursue charges for her alleged part in the Brink’s armored car robbery, Rosenberg and her lawyers have ceaselessly argued for more than two decades that the lack of a conviction is tantamount to proof of her innocence. But Justice Department officials, led by future U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, a Democrat, insisted that they had evidence Rosenberg was also involved in the 1981 robbery bloodbath. They testified to that effect every time Rosenberg had a parole hearing.
This lengthy recitation is a necessary precondition for putting in context who Susan Rosenberg really is…