Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!emory!rsiatl!jgd
From: jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: CNN
Message-ID: <5076@rsiatl.UUCP>
Date: 25 Nov 90 04:26:00 GMT
Organization: Rapid Deployment Systems, Inc. (making go fast things and things go fast)
Lines: 55

wcs@cbnewsh.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs) writes:

>I assume that "according to the papers" means "according to the FBI"?
>As Greg points out, in the absence of a search warrant, the FBI is
>violating the law and the Constitution, unless of course the theft
>was by an individual FBI agent covering his own behind,
>which would be official misconduct or something.

Ohhh, I like it. A conspiracy under every rock.  Would you consider it 
a violation of the Constitution (whatever that means) that (again
according to the NEWSpapers), the FBI was INVITED in by the CNN Center
security?  Editorial speculation was that CNN realized that they had
f*cked up and were trying to take a face-saving way out.  

>Especially since the US Government apparently made the tape illegally,
>and was responsible for leaking it (apparently to the Panamanians).
>Admittedly, a news service that wants to claim reporter-client privilege
>really ought to respect lawyer-client privilege themselves, but it
>may be that their presentation of the story did that; I didn't catch it.

That has been addressed by others here.  Suffice to say that the recordings
were perfectly legal.  As to the path of the recordings to CNN, the only
reports I've read about have to do with them being stolen.  WE'll probably
never know for sure.

>> #The whole thing appears to revolve around the fact that Teddy-boy got
>> #miffed that the US went into Panama without his permission and has been
>> #trying to sabotage the whole thing since.
>Teddy has every right to object: if you believe the Constitution,
>the Congress is the one who's supposed to declare war, unless you
>contend that the War Powers Act is an implicit declaration of war
>authorizing the Commander-In-Chief to start small wars when he wants.

Do you really believe that Bush should have consulted with Ted Turner
before going in?  Maybe he could have consulted with Jane too.  After
all, she's demonstrated hereself to be a *fine* patriot.  (sarcasm intended,
for the brain dead.)

You know, the problem with zealots on either side is that they cannot
fanthom their side as being wrong or the other side as being right.
Why is it so hard to embrace the concept that perhaps just this once
the government may have been pretty much correct?  I know that if I were
up on high profile charges and some media slime attempted to broadcast
my conversations -especially against a court order - I'd root for sending
in the Marines!  I think the FBI has been quite restrained in this
case.

John


-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        | "Purveyors of Performance Products 
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |  to the Trade " (tm)
Marietta, Ga                  | 
{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd      | "Vote early, Vote often"