From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:10:32 GMT

In article 16469@cis.ohio-state.edu, csmith@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>>Then maybe you should read a newspaper.  No, taping a conversation with
>>someone is not a felony.  You're thinking of laws against wiretapping,
>>which forbid taping *phone calls.*  In addition, most of these laws only
>>forbid third parties from taping phone calls.  As long as one of the two
>>participants consents to the taping, it is usually legal.
>
>So you're saying the Republican party consented to the bugs placed by the
>Democrats?
how does that follow from "one of the two participants consents..."?

>>
>>>And what was so feloneous about the "Iran-Contra" affair (as if one
>>>hand some direct connection with the other. NOT).
>>
>>The first shipment of arms to Iran came before Reagan signed the finding
>>authorizing it.  That was illegal, because Iran was officially on the
>>terrorist nation list and sending weapons to them was illegal.
>>
>>The money from the legal sales, moreover, belonged to the US government,
>>since it was government property that was being sold.  Sending this
>>money to the contras was illegal.  Furthermore, the Boland amendment
>>forbid all government departments or agencies from helping to fund the
>>contras.  The NSC, by any rational definition, was included in that ban.
>>
>>And you don't think that when the same group of people sell arms to one
>>country, then use the proceeds for another purpose, that the two things
>>are related?
>
>If I had $10,000 in a bank account that I was going to buy a car with, and
>I won $10,000 in the lottery and deposited it in the same bank account,
>and then bought the car, did I buy the car with the lottery winning?
>
>Not really, since I was going to buy the car anyway.
>
>Same with the profits from the sale of arms to Iran. There was an account
>of funds going to the Contras already in existance. This account was used
>for a lot of other things as well. Did the funds from the arms sales go
>to the Contras? It can be argued both ways.

the question was whether *any* funds were sent to the contra's.  the
dubious garage sale income is yet another issue.


>
>Maybe selling arms to Iran was bad policy. But was it criminal? Did nothing
>good come from it?
>
>Maybe Congress did not want funds going to the Contras, but the Executive
>did. Who decides foreign policy, anyway?
both branches, naturally.  congess declares wars, the president fights them.
the president negotiates treates, congress ratifies them, both must sign 
on to appropriations,...


>
>Americans did not find this incident nearly as scandalous as the liberal media
>did. The constant barrage of the media has shaped public opinion somewhat (just
>as it has made Anita Hill a martyr when the real martyr is Judge Thomas) but
>Americans still don't think it is that much of a scandal.

you are partially correct here.  the lame, unthinking media have echoed
the administrations lies so often and made such little effort of 
reporting the facts, that the generally public is grossly ignorant
of the clearly devious, dishonorable, and "un-american" activities of bush, et. al. 
>--
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
>|                (This sig intentionally left blank)                 |
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
>Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)

-Don (GO BLUE!!)
>
>




Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism