[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NYT article "traditional", my ass.
Forwarded message:
> From [email protected] Sat Jun 4 17:47:37 1994
> Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 16:43:19 -0700
> From: [email protected] (Paul E. Baclace)
> Message-Id: <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: NYT article
> Sender: [email protected]
> Precedence: bulk
>
> Does anyone find the following somewhat distorted: "...White House
> and Justice Department officials have argued forcefully that is a
> necessary information-age compromise between the constitutional
> right to privacy and the *traditional* powers of law enforcement
> officials." [my emphasis] If wiretapping laws were passed
> in 1968, I don't consider that *traditional*. Is Markoff speaking
> about surveillance in exceedingly general terms?
>
>
> Paul E. Baclace
> [email protected]
>
Yes, I found it distorted. My question for John Markoff, if he would be
kind enough to answer, is: is "traditional" his word, or was it his
source's? If source's, was source DoJ, or White House?
IMO, police wiretapping usurped a power forbidden to it by the Fourth. To
call usurped power "traditional" is pretty smarmy.