Seperated at Birth???
Posted on 10/28/2004 1:48:01 PM PDT by handy
Edited on 10/28/2004 2:16:36 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
You were heading down the right road, but you turned off at the wrong exit.
There was nothing wrong with ABC's transmitting the tape into the US.
But ABC was under obligation to turn the original tape over to the appropriate authorities, which would have been FBI or Homeland Security. The original might have contained forensic clues useful to FBI or HS.
Instead, ABC turned an edited copy over to the authorities, after removing 15 minutes that might have had a political impact. It was not ABC's province to make that decision or tamper with the evidence. This is where network employees crossed the line.
The fact that this was related to terrorism and not some petty crime puts it under PATRIOT.
I agree with you, cajungirl. If the President speaks out about this, the DIMS DU ..sses will scream that the President is trying to control the media.
Best watch this unfold......and watch Kerry go down. From the speeches I saw today, Kerry was stuttering and sputtering a bit.......
President Bush was strong. That is what the American people will see and vote for. Oh, I hope and pray.
I need to get some of those! What's the name?
I knew I veered off, but follow my logic.
Nothing forces something purchased (per another thread) by a presumed specially protected class (1st amendment can always get sticky, especially when dealing with a "legitimate" news organization) to be turned over to the US government, especially when the transaction has taken place in a foreign country. The transaction may have been between foreign nationals... Yes, I know there are portions of Patriot that address activities in foreign countries, but I think they are limited to banking or money laundering. The tape itself may have never made the trip from Pakistan to the US, though I do not know.
However, it's content was transmitted into the US, which is where an argument against the legality of intercepting the signal again is answered in Patriot. A legal intercept allows the US government to take jurisdiction, whereas an illegal intercept boots the thing out of court on the first round.
It's hard to argue for bad intent when it went to "a legitimate US news organization". Still, if the same feed was sent to a nefarious character, could it not be argued that the intent could be to "weaponize" it, by releasing it into the general population? We're wandering into equal protection territory here, so... I go back to making all of the content into contraband, an act of terror, which means no one can claim to have a right to legally claim it, to "own" it, to use it at will, even by a "legitimate media organization".
Failure to turn the entire thing over to the US government should be the only lawful action. I'm talking about any & all copies. Intent to disseminate, even a portion reaches into the most common example used to explain the limits on the 1st amendment, yelling fire in a crowded theater. Anything short of turning it over makes the news organization a partner in the crime, in this case an act of terrorism.
By George, I think you've got it!
Right, but we're talking an organization here, rather than the action of an individual. I want all involved to have heat to their feet, which is where I went RICO. It takes the resources of the entire criminal orginization to give the crime the impact to meet the original test (to intimidate or coerce a civilian population).
Amen. This is beyond outrageous.
Sounds like a tin foiler to me.
I thought he looked a little "padded". Also he referred to "my fellow countrymen".
Did the "guilty, guilty, guilty" part sound a little weird to anyone else?
It seems to me that abc broke the law big time.
The Cia, FBI and Homeland Security should have been notified immediatly.
This is beyond belief if true.
I wrote 'em all.
Ihave sent out 5 emails...but...they are not being accepted.
all of my mail to them bounced back
Re the 7mm mag.
About a decade ago, our oldest son bought his dream rifle, a Remington left handed 7mm (we both are the weirdo's, who are right handed and our dominant eye is our left eye).
He equipped it with a powerful Leopold Scope and sighted it in at 300+ yards.
Then, for years, every deer he shot, was within 10 yards. In fact one in S Utah damn near prevented me from being a Grandparent because its antlers in its dying fall narrowly missed a critical spot as it fell and died with its antlers between his legs. We measured the distance he shot the deer, it was 15'.
Finally a couple of years ago, he was hunting with a customer on a ranch owned by the customer down by Gilroy. They saw 4 bucks about 400 yards away. The client said the bucks knew where to stand and be safely out of range. My son laid down aimed and squeezed the trigger. Three bucks walked away. Finally his long range investment paid off.
>>If ABC did this, they really are the scum of the earth.
Disney owns gAyBC.
Mooselems love disney.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=eurodisney+saudi
Got Aladdin?
I read bin Laden is on tape on Al Jazeera, so there are two tapes floating around....this is all very bizarre.
I say we ignore both of them, and give them NO MEDIA COVERAGE. How hard is that? Just let them know they aren't running the US, we are. I would just keep them as far out of spotlight as possible...both tapes.
Yes, reverse psychology sometimes works,,,,but we must be diligent in trying to minimize these terrorists, in giving them less coverage, our military less coverage and they won't know what's coming or when. We NEED TO BE ON OFFENSIVE NOT DEFENSIVE.
My comments on reverse psychology don't apply to the Bin Laden tape today. My comments yesterday applied to another situation. I agree that we need to stay on offense. Why did Bin Laden show this video? It's simple. He's giving America a chance to "do the right thing" meaning vote for the man who would get off their backs. Remember, they were successful with Spain so why not try the same thing here? Bin Laden implies that if you don't change your policies, then we will attack. It's a threat!!!!!!!
Seperated at Birth???
It was my understanding they were going to attack anyway, in fact, didn't they say destroy the infidels...and America is the infidels. So WHY should we care what his stupid tape says....or is he flip flopping like Kerry. Osama said he was gonna attack if we didn't leave Iraq, and now if we don't elect Kerry. What is he a democratic spokesman now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.