Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 1 Jan 2007 10:51 In article <enb0v0$8qk_001(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <d5c01$45980c28$49ecf63$3990(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: [....] >>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. The US anti-Bushers >seem to want European law rather than US Constituional law. What planet did you fly that in from? None of the anti-Bush folks posting here have suggested any such thing. The US Constitution sets limits on what the US government is allowed to do. This was done to protect the people from the actions of an overreaching US government. The anti-Bush folks have been suggesting that Bush is in fact exactly the sort of "overreaching government" person that the founders forsaw and attempted to protect the nation from. [....] >>> You should care. It is the very things that have made the US a free >>> country that are being lost. >> >>Then instead of simply talking about it you should be >>bringing a class action lawsuit. > >To use the US Constitutional rights would undermine their claim. >This one of those ironies that is beyond bizarre w.r.t. their >illogic. Is that from the same or a different planet? Law suits have been filed and some have made their way through the court system. This is how the kangaroo courts that Bush wanted to use on the captives were found to be illegal. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 1 Jan 2007 10:55 In article <enb17e$8qk_002(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <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: [....] >>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. I listed one that should matter to you. You BAH have been denied your Constitutional rights. Bush has made the claim that he can listen to your phone calls. In your opinion, perhaps you don't deserve these rights. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 1 Jan 2007 11:04 In article <c64c8$45991a2e$4fe72a0$11039(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: [....] >> 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. No, it is more a matter of whether the rights extend to those who stand accused. Until someone is found guilty of crime, under US law, they are to be considered innocent. While you are considered innocent, you have all the rights that innocent people have. > >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. Since your logic have lead you to conclude that the US government is allowed to violate the constitution, you should reconsider your premise. I see your argument as flawed, but to you, it should be a reductio ad absurdum disproof of the premise. >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. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 1 Jan 2007 12:08 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <c64c8$45991a2e$4fe72a0$11039(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > [....] > >>>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. > > > No, it is more a matter of whether the rights extend to those who stand > accused. Until someone is found guilty of crime, under US law, they are > to be considered innocent. While you are considered innocent, you have > all the rights that innocent people have. Oh oh. Sounds a lot like the Robespierre rendition of Rousseau that only "peaceful citizens" have protections of the government. >>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. > Since your logic have lead you to conclude that the US > government is allowed to violate the constitution, you should > reconsider your premise. I see your argument as flawed, but > to you, it should be a reductio ad absurdum disproof of the > premise. Well it isn't permitted t violate the constitution. I think you misaprehend what the constitution of 2006/07 says on the subject. You have a lot of reading to do relating to privacy issues and the Constitution before you catch up to me. Simple basics for Constitutional law: If you cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in communications then the Constitutional protections *do not apply*. Once your communication exits the United States on/in any electronic (or physical in case of written material) leg you have no reasonable expectation of privacy for it. Start with Katz vs. United states and Griswold vs. Connecticut. Then fan out into subsequent cases citing these two. >>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. As is true of most people who haven't taken to time to study case law which defines constitutional rights beyond the words of the constitution itself, Ken, you appear to have a misunderstanding of what protections you are actually afforded as a matter of law. Such gutting of the constitution as has taken place happened over decades, well before either Bush was of any consequence in national politics. I urge you to spend some time reading Supreme Court cases and understanding the history which has brought us to this point.
From: unsettled on 1 Jan 2007 12:10
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! Ken is bound to drive this over the next few hundred. |