Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Jan 2007 08:10 In article <en90n9$5un$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <em3gds$8qk_001(a)s969.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[....] >>>Are you really denying people in America are being listened to? >> >>Some are but none of it is warrentless. > >This is flat wrong. Many americans have been and are being listened to >without a warrent. Bush claims that no warrent is needed. > >[.....] >>>The military commissions bill passed recently denies people held the writ of >>>habeas corpus (check out what Sen. Spector had to say about it). >> >>Which people are denied? > >You are should you Bush happen to want you to be. Why would he want me to be? > >> Be very specific. I don't care what >>Spector said about it; there was a campaing and election going on. >>There still is a campaign going on. > >You should care. It is the very things that have made the US a free >country that are being lost. I see. You cannot list those who are denied their US Constituional rights. Perhaps those who are being monitored under this law are those who have no Constitutional rights? IOW, they are not of this country but are an enemy of this country. /BAH
From: unsettled on 1 Jan 2007 09:26 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <en90n9$5un$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >>In article <em3gds$8qk_001(a)s969.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[....] >> >>>>Are you really denying people in America are being listened to? >>> >>>Some are but none of it is warrentless. >> >>This is flat wrong. Many americans have been and are being listened to >>without a warrent. Bush claims that no warrent is needed. >> >>[.....] >> >>>>The military commissions bill passed recently denies people held the writ > > of > >>>>habeas corpus (check out what Sen. Spector had to say about it). >>> >>>Which people are denied? >> >>You are should you Bush happen to want you to be. > > > Why would he want me to be? > >>> Be very specific. I don't care what >>>Spector said about it; there was a campaing and election going on. >>>There still is a campaign going on. >> >>You should care. It is the very things that have made the US a free >>country that are being lost. > > > I see. You cannot list those who are denied their US Constituional > rights. Perhaps those who are being monitored under this law > are those who have no Constitutional rights? IOW, they are not > of this country but are an enemy of this country. This argument is simply one about just who "the enemy within" might be. We have plenty of those who are "of this country" actually, no matter what definition is used. As to the other discussion embedded in the thread: If a communication is capturable outside the United States, then it is up for grabs as far as US monitoring (listening) without a warrant goes. Where the listener is sitting physically becomes moot. I don't think the expensive inconvenience of putting the listener on a ship outside the 50 mile limit, or in Mexico or Canada or some other place is going to achieve anything other than the cost of doing business. Once one establishes the fact that a communication can be captured outside the USA then what purpose is served by requiring that the listener be physically outside the US since constitutional protections afforded communications have already been negated. I think it absurd to think that constitutional protections were designed merely to make capturing and interpretation of communications more expensive, but that's what part of these arguments seems to be about.
From: Winfield Hill on 1 Jan 2007 10:02 Michael A. Terrell wrote: > hill(a)rowland.org wrote: >> hill(a)rowland.org wrote: >>> hill(a)rowland.org wrote: >>>> Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>>>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most >>>>>>>> of the posts were under the original subject title. This >>>>>>>> must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress >>>>>>>> test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Never have so many, said so much, about so little! ;-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I heard of one long flame war that passed 10K posts, >>>>>>> but I never found out which newsgroup. >>>>>> >>>>>> We passed 9000 on the 14th, and are now within 100 posts >>>>>> of 10,000. Keep up the good work guys, you can do it! >>>>> >>>>> Good job guys and gals, over 10,000 posts, and still >>>>> going strong. And still on topic more or less. I've only >>>>> read a smattering of the posts here and there, and there's >>>>> a minimum of flaming SFAICS. Nice to see. >>>> >>>> Still going strong, over 11,300 posts, no sign of slowing. >>> >>> Impressive, zoomed right past 12,000 without slowing, now >>> at 12130 posts and climbing towards 13000, going strong. >> >> Hmm, we're slowing down a bit folks! We're now at 12480 >> posts with 12500 in sight, but not so sure about 13000. > > Merry Christmas, Win. :) Happy New Year Michael :) With this post we're only three away from breaking the 12500 post BARRIER. I know we can do it!
From: Eeyore on 1 Jan 2007 10:11 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >Ken Smith wrote: > > > >> This is flat wrong. Many americans have been and are being listened to > >> without a warrent. Bush claims that no warrent is needed. > > > >Do you have some insight into what the activities are of > >the official US sleuthing business? > > > >Does the US constitution extend its protections beyond our > >borders? > > This is the crux of the matter. It amazes me that the > anti-Bush people insist that all have to follow our > Constitution yet hide behind the European nationalist > skirts when it comes to paying for it. Who are these "European nationalists" ?? > The US anti-Bushers > seem to want European law rather than US Constituional law. There is no "European Law". What did you mean ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Jan 2007 10:17
Winfield Hill wrote: > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > > hill(a)rowland.org wrote: > >> hill(a)rowland.org wrote: > >>> hill(a)rowland.org wrote: > >>>> Winfield Hill wrote: > >>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: > >>>>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >>>>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: > >>>>>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most > >>>>>>>> of the posts were under the original subject title. This > >>>>>>>> must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress > >>>>>>>> test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Never have so many, said so much, about so little! ;-) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I heard of one long flame war that passed 10K posts, > >>>>>>> but I never found out which newsgroup. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We passed 9000 on the 14th, and are now within 100 posts > >>>>>> of 10,000. Keep up the good work guys, you can do it! > >>>>> > >>>>> Good job guys and gals, over 10,000 posts, and still > >>>>> going strong. And still on topic more or less. I've only > >>>>> read a smattering of the posts here and there, and there's > >>>>> a minimum of flaming SFAICS. Nice to see. > >>>> > >>>> Still going strong, over 11,300 posts, no sign of slowing. > >>> > >>> Impressive, zoomed right past 12,000 without slowing, now > >>> at 12130 posts and climbing towards 13000, going strong. > >> > >> Hmm, we're slowing down a bit folks! We're now at 12480 > >> posts with 12500 in sight, but not so sure about 13000. > > > > Merry Christmas, Win. :) > > Happy New Year Michael :) > > With this post we're only three away from breaking the > 12500 post BARRIER. I know we can do it! Now that BAH's back we can do it for sure! Graham |