larry@belch.Berkeley.EDU (Larry Foard) (11/17/90)
It looks like the recent disregard for the constitution is spreading,
according to CNN the FBI took materials without even bothering with a
search warrant. Fortunitly this time they are picking on some one who
can defend themselfs. I seriously hope Noriega gets acquited, it might
shake things up a bit. Although I think Noriega would probably prefer
US prison to deportation to Panama where he can be tried for some real
crimes.
jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) (11/17/90)
larry@belch.Berkeley.EDU (Larry Foard) writes: >It looks like the recent disregard for the constitution is spreading, >according to CNN the FBI took materials without even bothering with a >search warrant. Fortunitly this time they are picking on some one who >can defend themselfs. Defend themselves? Considering that according to the papers, CNN originally stole these tapes from the government, and that the FBI's retrieving them from an abandoned motel room (again, according to the paper) was simply a matter of recovering stolen property, it appears to me that the FBI is acting quite properly. As to the question of a warrent, even if the FBI is lying and the guy was in the room, I believe the law has a right to stop a crime in progress. And possesion of stolen goods is a crime. 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. Maybe since the tapes are back under control of the court, Noriega can stand trial and have some chance of it being fair. Besides, his revelations might just be very interesting and court is about the only way we'll find out about them. Looks to me like we need to give the FBI credit where credit is due, lest we lose our own credibility. 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"
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) (11/18/90)
In article <4948@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: >Defend themselves? Considering that according to the papers, CNN >originally stole these tapes from the government, and that the FBI's What papers? Which reporters wrote the story, and what were their sources? I've yet to see a single article where anyone other than the FBI claimed they were stolen. Unless, of course, you believe the FBI is telling the truth... -- J. Eric Townsend Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Systems Manager - University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics - (713) 749-2120 EastEnders list: eastender@karazm.math.uh.edu Skate UNIX(r)
pwh@bradley2.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) (11/18/90)
In <1990Nov17.194056.21721@lavaca.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) writes: >What papers? Which reporters wrote the story, and what were their >sources? I've yet to see a single article where anyone other than >the FBI claimed they were stolen. I haven't heard it reported anywhere but on CNN, but think about it: The Government made tapes. Suddenly CNN has them (or copies). Do you think the Feds just handed them over to them? -- ----- Pete Hartman pwh@bradley.bradley.edu Haazavaa?
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) (11/18/90)
In article <1990Nov17.194056.21721@lavaca.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) writes: >In article <4948@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: >>Defend themselves? Considering that according to the papers, CNN >>originally stole these tapes from the government, and that the FBI's >What papers? Which reporters wrote the story, and what were their >sources? I've yet to see a single article where anyone other than >the FBI claimed they were stolen. jgd explained to me that the Constitution carried such a story. I didn't see it (too far away). Was the Constitution able to find someone other than the FBI that claimed CNN stole the tapes? -- J. Eric Townsend Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Systems Manager - University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics - (713) 749-2120 EastEnders list: eastender@karazm.math.uh.edu Skate UNIX(r)
floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) (11/18/90)
In article <1990Nov17.194056.21721@lavaca.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) writes: >In article <4948@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: >>Defend themselves? Considering that according to the papers, CNN >>originally stole these tapes from the government, and that the FBI's > >What papers? Which reporters wrote the story, and what were their >sources? I've yet to see a single article where anyone other than >the FBI claimed they were stolen. > >Unless, of course, you believe the FBI is telling the truth... They don't need to tell the truth, they have a list... (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) Floyd -- Floyd L. Davidson floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu floydd@chinet.chi.il.us Salcha, AK 99714 connected by paycheck to Alascom, Inc. When *I* speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry.
jhenders@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) (11/18/90)
In article <1990Nov18.043223.4405@hayes.ims.alaska.edu> floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes: >In article <1990Nov17.194056.21721@lavaca.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) writes: >> >>Unless, of course, you believe the FBI is telling the truth... > >They don't need to tell the truth, they have a list... > I find it hard to beleive that in this group, with it's expressed concern for individual rights and privacy, the fact that the government just walked into Panama and snatched a foreign citizen is blithely accepted as right. Does the concern for whether he gets a fair trial overshadow the question of whether you have a right to try him in the first place? Of course, he's been branded as a "drug lord", so I guess it's all right. Does no one else see the McCarthy tactics being used in the current war on drugs? John Henders Vancouver,B.C.
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) (11/19/90)
In article <459@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca> jhenders@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) writes: > I find it hard to beleive that in this group, with it's expressed >concern for individual rights and privacy, the fact that the government >just walked into Panama and snatched a foreign citizen is blithely accepted >as right. I think you'll find few here who agree with that statement. Noriega was kidnapped before this group was formed, so it's no surprise we haven't discussed him. We *have* talked about extradition and crimes comitted in foriegn countries (and if you never left your country while doing whatever it was you did). -- J. Eric Townsend Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Systems Manager - University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics - (713) 749-2120 EastEnders list: eastender@karazm.math.uh.edu Skate UNIX(r)
spike@world.std.com (Joe Ilacqua) (11/19/90)
In article <4948@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: <larry@belch.Berkeley.EDU (Larry Foard) writes: <>It looks like the recent disregard for the constitution is spreading, <>according to CNN the FBI took materials without even bothering with a <>search warrant. Fortunitly this time they are picking on some one who <>can defend themselfs. <Defend themselves? Considering that according to the papers, CNN <originally stole these tapes from the government, and that the FBI's <retrieving them from an abandoned motel room (again, according to the <paper) was simply a matter of recovering stolen property, it appears to <me that the FBI is acting quite properly. According to CNN and the AP wire The US Government gave copies of the tapes to The Goverment of Panama who gave them to CNN. Innocent until proven guilty. ->Spike -- The World - Public Access Unix - +1 617-739-9753 24hrs {3,12,24,96,192}00bps
gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) (11/19/90)
In article <4948@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
#Defend themselves? Considering that according to the papers, CNN
#originally stole these tapes from the government, and that the FBI's
#retrieving them from an abandoned motel room (again, according to the
#paper) was simply a matter of recovering stolen property, it appears to
#me that the FBI is acting quite properly.
CNN claims that the "abandoned" room was still rented, and the
reporter was simply not in the room.
Even assuming the tape was stolen, (which the only thing I heard was
that the information may have been stolen, and the physical tape was
CNN's) the FBI still should have obtained a search warrent.
Even worse was the Supreme Court now allowing prior restraint, an
unprecidented restriction in the freedom of the press.
#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.
The whole thing appears to revolve around the fact that Johny-boy got
mmiffed that the US screwed up by violating the civil rights of a
suspected criminal, and is becoming an apologist for the FBI.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wdogar@motcid.UUCP (Haroon H. Dogar) (11/20/90)
jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: >Defend themselves? Considering that according to the papers, CNN >originally stole these tapes from the government, Uh... I'm no legal eagle, but it seems to me that for "the government" to have tapes of conversations between a defendant and his/her lawyer has got to be against some law. >Maybe since the tapes are back >under control of the court, Noriega can stand trial and have some chance >of it being fair. Not if the other side knows what he and his lawyer have been talking about. (I think its equally wrong for CNN to have or broadcast these conversations.) -hd
archer@elysium.esd.sgi.com (Doctor Benway) (11/20/90)
In <4948@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: *larry@belch.Berkeley.EDU (Larry Foard) writes: * *>It looks like the recent disregard for the constitution is spreading, *>according to CNN the FBI took materials without even bothering with a *>search warrant. Fortunitly this time they are picking on some one who *>can defend themselfs. * * *Defend themselves? Considering that according to the papers, CNN *originally stole these tapes from the government, and that the FBI's *retrieving them from an abandoned motel room (again, according to the *paper) was simply a matter of recovering stolen property, it appears to *me that the FBI is acting quite properly. As to the question of a *warrent, even if the FBI is lying and the guy was in the room, I believe *the law has a right to stop a crime in progress. And possesion of *stolen goods is a crime. * * Well, it wasn't a motel room, it was a room in the rather expensive hotel that CNN uses as its home base (sorry, I forgot the name). The FBI's story is that the reporter who possessed the tapes checked out, leaving the tapes behind, which were then picked up by the maid and turned into lost & found. The reporter claims that she didn't check out, and that her possessions (including her luggage) were removed from the room without her knowledge. As far as I know, there have been no allegations as to how CNN came into possession of the tapes in the first place. As far as I know, not even the FBI claims they were stolen. -- When artistic pretension is combined with abject | Archer Sully poverty the results are often VERY STUPID. | -- Crosley Bendix | archer@sgi.com
riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) (11/20/90)
In <5378@prussian9.UUCP> dogar@motcid.UUCP (Haroon H. Dogar) writes: >jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: >>Defend themselves? Considering that according to the papers, CNN >>originally stole these tapes from the government, >Uh... I'm no legal eagle, but it seems to me that for "the government" >to have tapes of conversations between a defendant and his/her lawyer >has got to be against some law. Not when the tapes were made in the prison, and Noriega had signed a waiver of recording in order to use the phone. It's still unanswered how the government tapes got into the hands of the CNN. >>Maybe since the tapes are back >>under control of the court, Noriega can stand trial and have some chance >>of it being fair. >Not if the other side knows what he and his lawyer have been talking about. >(I think its equally wrong for CNN to have or broadcast these conversations.) At this moment, CNN still has the tapes, they just have a court order, in essence validated by the Supreme Court, not to broadcast them. Tonight's paper said that CNN would provide a copy of the tapes to the district court so the judge will now be able to decide if Noriega's constitutional rights to an impartial jury and a fair trial will be violated by the entire world hearing conversations with his lawyer. I expect CNN will keep copies of the tapes. Remember also that the government is big. Just because the prison has the tapes doesn't mean that the U.S. attorney has them. (Although if I were on the bench I'd put the burden of proof on the government, with the best access to the evidence on the point, to prove the U.S. attorney had NOT heard them.) Even in the Pentagon Papers case, the publishing of the papers was restrained for about a week until the Supreme Court considered the matter. I don't think it's too much to ask CNN to wait until the Court can review the tapes in this case. While the Free Press is a fundamental right, so is a Fair Trial. -- riddle@hoss.unl.edu | University of Nebraska riddle@crchpux.unl.edu | College of Law mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org | Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu ((C. Irby)) (11/20/90)
In article <1990Nov20.035510.23148@hoss.unl.edu>, riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: > In <5378@prussian9.UUCP> dogar@motcid.UUCP (Haroon H. Dogar) writes: > >>jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: > >>>Defend themselves? Considering that according to the papers, CNN >>>originally stole these tapes from the government, > >>Uh... I'm no legal eagle, but it seems to me that for "the government" >>to have tapes of conversations between a defendant and his/her lawyer >>has got to be against some law. > > Not when the tapes were made in the prison, and Noriega had signed a > waiver of recording in order to use the phone. It's still unanswered how > the government tapes got into the hands of the CNN. ..but the government is *not* supposed to record conversations between a defendant and their lawyer. Signing a waiver- under minor duress ("You have to sign this sheet of paper, or we don't let you make phone calls")- is not sufficient to allow the government to violate lawyer-client privacy. The fun part is: have the Federal prosecutors got a copy of the tapes? >>>Maybe since the tapes are back >>>under control of the court, Noriega can stand trial and have some chance >>>of it being fair. > >>Not if the other side knows what he and his lawyer have been talking about. >>(I think its equally wrong for CNN to have or broadcast these conversations.) > > At this moment, CNN still has the tapes, they just have a court order, in > essence validated by the Supreme Court, not to broadcast them. Tonight's > paper said that CNN would provide a copy of the tapes to the district > court so the judge will now be able to decide if Noriega's constitutional > rights to an impartial jury and a fair trial will be violated by the > entire world hearing conversations with his lawyer. I expect CNN will > keep copies of the tapes. Fun thought- could the government force CNN to turn over "archival backups" of these tapes? Or does that just hold for computer information? Major parallels to Sun Devil here. > Remember also that the government is big. Just because the prison has the > tapes doesn't mean that the U.S. attorney has them. (Although if I were > on the bench I'd put the burden of proof on the government, with the best > access to the evidence on the point, to prove the U.S. attorney had NOT > heard them.) ..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..." (followups to alt.conspiracy?) ;-) > Even in the Pentagon Papers case, the publishing of the papers was > restrained for about a week until the Supreme Court considered the matter. > I don't think it's too much to ask CNN to wait until the Court can review > the tapes in this case. While the Free Press is a fundamental right, so > is a Fair Trial. Noriega? Get a fair trial? Suuuuure.... I think we ought to just give up on this one. Let's just put him on a plane back to Panama. I'm sure the Panamanians would be happy to see him again. -- C Irby || "Go that way... *really* fast. Internet: cirby@vaxa.acs.unt.edu || If something gets in your way, Bitnet: cirby@untvax || turn!" Compuserve: 71541,770 || ---_Better Off Dead_---
jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) (11/20/90)
dogar@motcid.UUCP (Haroon H. Dogar) writes: >>Defend themselves? Considering that according to the papers, CNN >>originally stole these tapes from the government, >Uh... I'm no legal eagle, but it seems to me that for "the government" >to have tapes of conversations between a defendant and his/her lawyer >has got to be against some law. Good thing you're not a legal eagle. As was pointed out in an almost page long article in the Atlanta Constipation Sunday, recording conversations of inmates is a common and repeatedly court blessed practice. It noted that generally lawyer-client conversations are not monitored, though the court has said that it is OK because the attorney is a common method of conducting business as usual by organized crime inmantes. The paper also noted that most holding facilities provide NON-bugged areas that are so-labeled if the inmate wants full privacy. >>Maybe since the tapes are back >>under control of the court, Noriega can stand trial and have some chance >>of it being fair. >Not if the other side knows what he and his lawyer have been talking about. >(I think its equally wrong for CNN to have or broadcast these conversations.) Hardly. As to CNN, the Supreme Court stated rather firmly what it thought of their actions. I'd have figured it would have been CNN that would come up with a case bad enough to have the court break its no-prior-restraint policy. Teddy's done it again. 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"
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (11/20/90)
In article <5378@prussian9.UUCP> dogar@motcid.UUCP (Haroon H. Dogar) writes: > >Uh... I'm no legal eagle, but it seems to me that for "the government" >to have tapes of conversations between a defendant and his/her lawyer >has got to be against some law. It is not against the law per se. Prisoners' conversations are routinely monitored, to prevent escape planning, for example. Defense lawyers know this, and normally have to arrange for unmonitored calls or face-to-face meetings. >(I think its equally wrong for CNN to have or broadcast these conversations.) I don't see how it's wrong, actually. The attorney-client privilege merely dictates that certain communications, made under certain specified circumstances, cannot be admitted into evidence at court; it doesn't say they can't be ferreted out and exposed by the press. Of course, you may be saying that it's morally or ethically wrong for the press to do this, even though it may be legally okay. I'm not clear what your reasoning for this position is, however. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 |"If the doors of perception were cleansed mnemonic@well.sf.ca.us | every thing would appear to man as it is, Electronic Frontier | infinite." Foundation | --Blake
gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) (11/20/90)
In article <5012@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
#Good thing you're not a legal eagle. As was pointed out in an almost
#page long article in the Atlanta Constipation Sunday, recording
#conversations of inmates is a common and repeatedly court blessed practice.
Good thing that you are not a legal eagle. While it may be the
practice that recording the conversations of inmates is a common
procedure, the US Justice department had an agreement with Noriega
that his conversations with his lawyer would NOT be recorded. Are you
not glad at the integrity of the Justice department?
#It noted that generally lawyer-client conversations are not monitored,
#though the court has said that it is OK because the attorney is a
#common method of conducting business as usual by organized crime
inmantes.
When and what court ever said that? Or was this part of the nefarious
RICO statures?
#The paper also noted that most holding facilities provide NON-bugged
#areas that are so-labeled if the inmate wants full privacy.
Noriega WANTED full privacy, and had made an agreement to get it when
ever he talked with his lawyers. Why was the government taping these
conversations anyway?
#>Not if the other side knows what he and his lawyer have been talking about.
#>(I think its equally wrong for CNN to have or broadcast these conversations.)
Why is it wrong for CNN to broadcast proof that the US is violating
the civil rights of a prisioner? Or that it is breaking its
agreements?
#Teddy's done it again.
Johnny's done it again.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wgsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) (11/20/90)
John DeArmond writes:
#I'd have figured it would have been CNN that would
#come up with a case bad enough to have the court break its no-prior-restraint
#policy. Teddy's done it again.
I would suspect that the reason for the change in attitude has more to
do with whom Reagan and Bush have appointed to the supreme court,
rather than any actions of Mr. Kennedy.
Mike, do you know the vote distribution of the current CNN injunction
ruling, and the distribution on the Pentagon Papers ruling? All I
heard on the CNN ruling was that it was 7-2, but I don't know who
voted which way.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wjet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) (11/21/90)
In article <1990Nov19.203754.19417@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes: >The federal government, including the FBI, is known to have its share >of leakers, Pete. The last I heard, the "leak" was someone in the Panamanian (Pandemonium?) gov't. ie: U.S. gov't gave the tapes to the Panamanians for some reason or another. -- J. Eric Townsend Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Systems Manager - University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics - (713) 749-2120 EastEnders list: eastender@karazm.math.uh.edu Skate UNIX(r)
riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) (11/21/90)
In <1990Nov20.145849.2564@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: >Mike, do you know the vote distribution of the current CNN injunction >ruling, and the distribution on the Pentagon Papers ruling? All I >heard on the CNN ruling was that it was 7-2, but I don't know who >voted which way. I'm probably not the Mike you had in mind :-) but here it is: 7-2, Marshall and O'Connor dissenting: CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., ET AL. v. MANUEL ANTONIO NORIEGA AND UNITED STATES 90-767 (A-370) November 18, 1990. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AND ON APPLICATION TO STAY RESTRAINING ORDERS ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. The application to stay restraining orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida presented to JUSTICE KENNEDY and by him referred to the Court is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. JUSTICE MARSHALL, with whom JUSTICE O'CONNOR joins, dissenting. The issue raised by this petition is whether a trial court may enjoin publication of information alleged to threaten a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial without ANY threshold showing that the information will indeed cause such harm and that suppres- sion is the only means of averting it. The District Court in this case entered an order enjoining petitioner Cable News Network (CNN) from broadcasting taped communications between respondent Manuel Noriega, a defendant in a pending criminal proceeding, and his counsel. The court entered this order without any finding that suppression of the broadcast was necessary to protect Noriega's right to a fair trial, reasoning that no such determination need be made unless and until CNN surrendered the tapes for the court's inspection. The Court of Appeals affirmed this conclusion. In my view, this case is of extraordinary consequence for freedom of the press. Our precedents make unmistakably clear that "'any prior restraint of expression comes to this Court bearing a "heavy presumption" against its constitutional validity,"' and that the proponent of this drastic remedy "'carries a heavy burden of showing justification for its imposition."' Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 558 (1976), quoting Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971) (citations omitted); accord, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971) (per curiam). I do not see how the prior restraint imposed in this case can be reconciled with these teachings. Even more fundamentally, if the lower courts in this case are correct in their remarkable conclusion that publication can be AUTOMATICAL- LY restrained pending application of the demanding test established by Nebraska Press, then I think it is imperative that we re-examine the premises and operation of Nebraska Press itself. I would grant the stay application and the petition for certiorari. U.S., 1990. Cable News Network, Inc., Et Al. v. Manuel Antonio Noriega And United States, No. 90-767 -- riddle@hoss.unl.edu | University of Nebraska riddle@crchpux.unl.edu | College of Law mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org | Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
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)
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (11/23/90)
In article <1990Nov20.145849.2564@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: > >Mike, do you know the vote distribution of the current CNN injunction >ruling, and the distribution on the Pentagon Papers ruling? All I >heard on the CNN ruling was that it was 7-2, but I don't know who >voted which way. I don't know anything about the vote on the CNN ruling other than the count (7-2). My guess is that one of the dissenters was Marshall; the other may have been Blackmun. In the Pentagon Papers case, the breakdown was Black Douglas Brennan Marshall White Stewart for the Times, with Burger Blackmun Harlan dissenting. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 |"If the doors of perception were cleansed mnemonic@eff.org | every thing would appear to man as it is, Electronic Frontier | infinite." Foundation | --Blake
llama@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) (11/23/90)
John DeArmond writes:
#I'd have figured it would have been CNN that would
#come up with a case bad enough to have the court break its no-prior-restraint
#policy. Teddy's done it again.
Greg Hennessy responds:
#I would suspect that the reason for the change in attitude has more to
#do with whom Reagan and Bush have appointed to the supreme court,
#rather than any actions of Mr. Kennedy.
I have a sneaking suspicion that John was referring to Ted TURNER, as
opposed to Ted Kennedy. Apologies if I've misunderstood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Read My Lips: No Nude Texans!" - George Bush clearing up a misunderstandingbzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (11/24/90)
>#I'd have figured it would have been CNN that would >#come up with a case bad enough to have the court break its no-prior-restraint >#policy. Teddy's done it again. > >I would suspect that the reason for the change in attitude has more to >do with whom Reagan and Bush have appointed to the supreme court, >rather than any actions of Mr. Kennedy. Um, was that a reference to Ted Kennedy or Ted Turner (owner of CNN)? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
wcs) (11/24/90)
In article <1990Nov19.145537.27524@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: > In article <4948@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: > #Defend themselves? Considering that according to the papers, CNN > #originally stole these tapes from the government, and that the FBI's > #retrieving them from an abandoned motel room (again, according to the > #paper) was simply a matter of recovering stolen property, it appears to > #me that the FBI is acting quite properly. >.... hotel room was still rented .... > Even assuming the tape was stolen, (which the only thing I heard was > that the information may have been stolen, and the physical tape was > CNN's) the FBI still should have obtained a search warrent. 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. > Even worse was the Supreme Court now allowing prior restraint, an > unprecedented restriction in the freedom of the press. 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. > #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. But there's a talk.politics.* for talking about most of this; the *.eff relevance is the alleged illegal possession of INFORMATION and the tactics used to suppress it. As somebody's .signature line says, the Constitution isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than what the Government is using today. We've seen three or four good examples of that in this case alone. Bill -- Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ Government is like an elephant on drugs: It's very confused, makes lots of noise, can't do anything well, stomps on anyone in its way, and it sure eats a lot.
gsh7w@astsun9.astro.virginia.edu (Greg Hennessy) (11/24/90)
Joe Francis writes:
#I have a sneaking suspicion that John was referring to Ted TURNER, as
#opposed to Ted Kennedy. Apologies if I've misunderstood.
The next morning the same thought occured to me, but it was then too
late to modify my post.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wcbp@foster.avid.oz.au (Cameron Paine) (11/24/90)
Sorry people. Please be a little less parochial. :-) I can figure out CNN but
who are `Teddy' and `Johnny'?
cbp
--
cbp@foster.avid.oz - ACSnet
cbp@foster.avid.oz.au - Internet
...!{hplabs,mcvax,nttlab,ukc,uunet}!munnari!foster.avid.oz.au!cbp - UUCPjet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) (11/25/90)
In article <1990Nov23.045358.28737@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes: >I don't know anything about the vote on the CNN ruling other than >the count (7-2). My guess is that one of the dissenters was Marshall; >the other may have been Blackmun. One was O'Connor(!), I forget who the other was. -- J. Eric Townsend Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Systems Manager - University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics - (713) 749-2120 EastEnders list: eastender@karazm.math.uh.edu "This meme's for you..." --me
jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) (11/25/90)
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"
jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) (11/25/90)
cbp@foster.avid.oz.au (Cameron Paine) writes: >Sorry people. Please be a little less parochial. :-) I can figure out CNN but >who are `Teddy' and `Johnny'? "Teddy" is Ted Turner, owner of CNN and self-apointed world leader. Johnny is a dweeb's way of speaking to me. 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"
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"
cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu ((C. Irby)) (12/07/90)
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. Oh? I think they could make an interesting point about whether the Feds might have used some of that information to gather other information... For one thing, they found out about some of his foreign accounts- that could lead to other things. They also found some of his 'friends' who had slipped through the net. And what *other* tapes were there? Was there a tape which included their discussions on the defense strategy? Sure could screw up any chance of a fair trial... -- C Irby || "Go that way... *really* fast. Internet: cirby@vaxa.acs.unt.edu || If something gets in your way, Bitnet: cirby@untvax || turn!" Compuserve: 71541,770 || ---_Better Off Dead_---
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. -------------------------------------------------------
rowan@ima.isc.com (Rowan Hawthorne) (12/11/90)
In article <21523@frog.UUCP>, jp@frog.UUCP (John Pimentel) writes: |> 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. Oh, you don't think they will be able to find 12 people who didn't watch the broadcast. I rarely watch television, and almost never watch television news. I did not see the broadcast. I know that there are many other people like me, in all classes of society, with all educational backgrounds, who do not watch television, or television news. In any case, none of this has anything to do with the Electronic Frontier. Followups to rec.arts.tv or misc.legal. Rowan Email brian@ima.isc.com Phone 617-661-7474 x206 Fax 617-661-2070 upstream from the last bend in the Charles River
John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (12/15/90)
In article <21523@frog.UUCP>, jp@frog.UUCP (John Pimentel) says: >In article <59624@microsoft.UUCP> chrisshe@microsoft.UUCP (Chris SHERWOOD) >I assert **my opinion** under the rights granted me under the >First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. The First Amendment does NOT grant rights. It recognises them, and places them off limits to government activity ("Congress shall make no law"). There is an important philosophical difference between granting rights, affirming rights, and recognising rights. >------------------------------------------------------- >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. >------------------------------------------------------- disclaimer: Queen's University merely supplies me with computer services, and they are responsible for neither my opinions or my ignorance. John G. Spragge