From: Aaron Weissman <aweissman@mocc.com>
To: “‘Jeff Barber’” <fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>
Message Hash: 3dc8a5b02294ee8be3cc38e7e57e937be0ac46bcb874bbe1ba7b42a1500006dc
Message ID: <01BCC9C9.8D7FBE60.aweissman@mocc.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-09-25 22:33:18 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 06:33:18 +0800
From: Aaron Weissman <aweissman@mocc.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 06:33:18 +0800
To: "'Jeff Barber'" <fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: Why the White amendment is a good idea (fwd)
Message-ID: <01BCC9C9.8D7FBE60.aweissman@mocc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Thursday, September 25, 1997 1:37 PM, Jeff Barber
[SMTP:jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com] wrote:
> We shouldn't have to "trick" Congress into doing the right thing,
> or provide cover for them either.
Ultimately, we are not going to "trick" them. Congress has tools, like
CRS, that ensure that they (usually) have good information before a bill is
sent to the President.
However, why shouldn't we provide cover for them? You can be sure that
Oxley, McCain, Kerrey, etc. will receive "cover" from the FBI and Law
Enforcement. You can be sure that they will receive endorsements from all
of the right "fraternal brotherhood of police whatever" organizations come
election time.
If a Member of Congress wants to support civil rights, I think that we
*should* provide as much support and "cover" as possible. It's hard enough
to publically support civil rights and free speech in today's media
climate.
We won yesterday because the Committee found a solution that gave them
cover and allowed all parties to declare victory. I find that to be a very
good thing.
Aaron
Return to September 1997
Return to “Aaron Weissman <aweissman@mocc.com>”
1997-09-25 (Fri, 26 Sep 1997 06:33:18 +0800) - RE: Why the White amendment is a good idea (fwd) - Aaron Weissman <aweissman@mocc.com>