[narby]

Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King Hussein of Jordan.

.......

A few months later Uday lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon killed.

This jerk is complicit in a murder. I think these brothers-in-law were the ones who were talking about what Iraq was doing, and Uday, with CNN's prior knowledge, murdered them.

The First Amendment might give lots of protection for free speech. But it's not a license for murder.

I was discusted with CNN before. Now I'm beyond.

[diamond6]

Do you know for a fact that he knew were Uday's brothers in law were? I hate to break this to you, but there is no legal obligation to warn somebody that someone has threatened their life. However, there may be a moral obligation, and it appears he did what he could by warning King Hussein. He probably did not have the ability to warn the brothers in law privately, and therefore, would have risked the life of the interpreter as he stated.

[byrdy]

Maybe they didn't grant him an interview and therefore, he felt they deserved to die.

[F-117A]

Still, I felt I had a moral obligation to warn Jordan's monarch, and I did so the next day. King Hussein dismissed the threat as a madman's rant. A few months later Uday lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon killed.

This jerk is complicit in a murder. I think these brothers-in-law were the ones who were talking about what Iraq was doing, and Uday, with CNN's prior knowledge, murdered them.

Amen! One wonders if his informing King Hussein lead to Hussein "encouraging" the brothers-in-law to return to Iraq. Thereby removing the madman's threat, which most likely was NOT an idle rant!