karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (11/22/90)
In article <1990Nov20.075707.41354@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu ((C. Irby)) writes: >..would you like to bet (for you conspiracy buffs) that someone way up >in the government came up with this? You know... "Noriega is gonna spill >too much when he hits the stand... we have to get him loose. Someone >come up with a way of getting him off. Leak some information- get him >off on some technicality..." I have read this speculation elsewhere and I don't think it washes. Remember, Noriega was used as the justification for the United States launching a military attack upon, and taking control of, a soverign nation. If Noriega isn't convicted, it implies that the takeover wasn't justified. On the other hand, I believe CNN reported that the Panamanian government was preparing to prosecute Manny for at least a dozen murders he allegedly committed while in power in Panama, so if he were to get off in Florida, it is easy to envision a scenario where the US government would let Panama extradite him. -- -- uunet!sugar!ficc!karl (wk), "Any excuse will serve a tyrant." -- Aesop uunet!sugar!karl (hm)
fritzs@microsoft.UUCP (Fritz SANDS) (12/07/90)
In article <R447NA3@xds30.ferranti.com> karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >Remember, Noriega was used as the justification for the United States >launching a military attack upon, and taking control of, a soverign nation. > >If Noriega isn't convicted, it implies that the takeover wasn't justified. Ah, you must get more creative on spin control! If Noriega were to be acquitted by a jury, then that would be the implication. If Noriega is released on a "technicality" (do you notice how it *always* is a technicality) then it is either (1) a demonstration that justice is so para- mount in our land that we even let the most dastardly go free rather than risk (etc etc) or (2) a demonstration that we need more "conservative" judges to stop the gaping loopholes in our criminal system (etc etc). I bet that the prosecution's (awfully convenient) taping of Noriega's priveledged conversations will cause the case to be dropped. I am not normally a conspiracy buff, but this one is too fucking convenient. The youngest jr prosecutor knows that you just don't do that type of thing -- even on the poorest, least-publicised slob that you are going after. It was a setup. The US got what it wanted -- a puppet gov't in Panama. Fritz Sands
chrisshe@microsoft.UUCP (Chris SHERWOOD) (12/07/90)
In article <59608@microsoft.UUCP> fritzs@microsoft.UUCP (Fritz SANDS) writes: >I bet that the prosecution's (awfully convenient) taping of Noriega's >priveledged conversations will cause the case to be dropped. Only if they try to use the tapes in the case for the prosecution. It has no bearing on the case otherwise. . . -- ================== uunet!microsoft!chrisshe | | | O | | chrisshe@microsoft.uucp -+--+--+--+--+--+- "Adding people to a late project | O O | | | makes it later." -- Fred Brooks"
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (12/07/90)
fritzs@microsoft.UUCP (Fritz SANDS) writes: }In article <R447NA3@xds30.ferranti.com> karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: }>Remember, Noriega was used as the justification for the United States }>launching a military attack upon, and taking control of, a soverign nation. }> }>If Noriega isn't convicted, it implies that the takeover wasn't justified. ... }I bet that the prosecution's (awfully convenient) taping of Noriega's }priveledged conversations will cause the case to be dropped. }I am not normally a conspiracy buff, but this one is too fucking convenient. }The youngest jr prosecutor knows that you just don't do that type of thing -- }even on the poorest, least-publicised slob that you are going after. Ah, but I read it differently: in talking to a lawyer and a friend who has had the misfortune to be in jail, I've learned that the LEOs make _no_ secret of the fact that EVERYTHING in a prison is bugged. If you wish an untapped phone [or an unmiked conference room] to talk to your lawyer, you can ask for one and get it, but the default is that they're ALWAYS listening. I also noted that Noriega's lawyer didn't scream bloody murder at all... in fact, considering the apparent gravity of the misconduct [if there was some], I'd have guessed we'ed have seen it all page-one. But what do we see: the tape mysteriously appearing, wrangling on whether it can be broadcast, etc. What I think is that Noriega's lawyers *intentionally* let their conversations be taped, hoping for _just_ this kind of screwup: how many folk will know/learn enough to appreciate that they were _knowingly_ using a tapped phone and so shouldn't be [and weren't!] surprised that taped surfaced... versus folk who'll only get yet more of an impression of gross gov't misconduct in the pursuit of this case. And, in fact, it reaped rewards!! Shortly thereafter the judge intervened and reasserted that he would NOT allow this trial to become a circus and would insist on justice being done. And so ordered an evidentiary hearing in which the feds must PROVE that their seizure of Noriega's assets is proper. But: the charges on which the gov't based its seizure are essentially identical with the charges against Noriega, himself. Which means that the defense gets to participate in a mini-trial where the feds will have to show their evidence and such [and thereby allow the defense a chance to try to find counter-evidence and/or discrediting evidence and/or reasons to challege that evidence in the REAL trial]. We can't _know_ that the judge wouldn't have ordered an evidentiary hearing _anyway_ when Noriega's lawyers requested that the assets be released, but it sure seemed to me that the aura of gov't misconduct that Noriega's lawyers had [I'm guessing!] maanged to promote couldn't but have helped. /Bernie\
jp@frog.UUCP (John Pimentel) (12/08/90)
In article <R447NA3@xds30.ferranti.com> karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >In article <1990Nov20.075707.41354@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu ((C. Irby)) writes: >>..would you like to bet (for you conspiracy buffs) that someone way up >>in the government came up with this? You know... "Noriega is gonna spill >>too much when he hits the stand... we have to get him loose. Someone >>come up with a way of getting him off. Leak some information- get him >>off on some technicality..." > >I have read this speculation elsewhere and I don't think it washes. The leak has a pet theory of mine for some time (BTW, new to this group), which in this fashion Noriega won't get a "fair trial" and thus gets off. The question is how high in the administration was this action approved... is this the beginning of Noriega-gate? I think the "spill (leak doesn't cover it)" was planned from the beginning. >Remember, Noriega was used as the justification for the United States I thought it was the Americans were in trouble there. >On the other hand, I believe CNN reported that the Panamanian government >was preparing to prosecute Manny for at least a dozen murders he allegedly >committed while in power in Panama, so if he were to get off in Florida, it >is easy to envision a scenario where the US government would let Panama >extradite him. And let him talk... I don't think Pres. Bush would like that... > uunet!sugar!karl (hm) -- ------------------------------------------------------- John Pimentel ...!{decvax!mit-eddie!harvard}!frog!jp Disclaimer: The opinion presented, is just that; I take full responsiblity for those parts I've entered. -------------------------------------------------------
jp@frog.UUCP (John Pimentel) (12/11/90)
In article <59624@microsoft.UUCP> chrisshe@microsoft.UUCP (Chris SHERWOOD) writes: >In article <59608@microsoft.UUCP> fritzs@microsoft.UUCP (Fritz SANDS) writes: >>I bet that the prosecution's (awfully convenient) taping of Noriega's >>priveledged conversations will cause the case to be dropped. > >Only if they try to use the tapes in the case for the prosecution. It >has no bearing on the case otherwise. Defense: Juror No. ###,###,###,... did you see the CNN broadcast of the Noriega tapes? Juror No. ###,###,###,... : Yes, I did. Defense: Your I wish to disqualify this Juror, on the grounds that his/her may be biased as a result of hearing the tapes of my client and myself. Prosecution: No objection, your Honour. Judge: Respective Juror No. ###,###,###,... you're dismissed. Defense: Juror No. ###,###,###,... plus one... did you see the CNN broadcast of the Noriega tapes? It is my belief that Noriega will not get a fair trial in this country, because of this "leak" of information to the public. It is **my opinion** that this was a diliberate act on the part of the Justice Department and the Intelligence Community. I assert **my opinion** under the rights granted me under the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. Have a nice day. -- ------------------------------------------------------- John Pimentel ...!{decvax!mit-eddie!harvard}!frog!jp Disclaimer: The opinion presented, is just that; I take full responsiblity for those parts I've entered. -------------------------------------------------------