Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Jan 2007 07:08 In article <d5c01$45980c28$49ecf63$3990(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >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. > >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? Look, Bozo, as we've been telling you, Americans in the US are being wiretapped, without warrants. > >> [.....] > >>>>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. > >>> 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. > >Then instead of simply talking about it you should be >bringing a class action lawsuit.
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Jan 2007 07:11 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: >>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. >> >>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 Our gov't must. >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. > > > OK, official idiot alert. > > >> >>> [.....] >> >>>>>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. >> >>>> 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. >> >>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. > >/BAH > As Keith Olberman said, Bush claims he's defending our rights but then won't let us exercise them.
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Jan 2007 07:12 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: >>[....] >>>>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? And who are those? Democrats? Liberals? Muslims? >IOW, they are not >of this country but are an enemy of this country. > The worst enemies of this country are those who would subvert our constitution. If you want to see one, look in a mirror. >/BAH >
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Jan 2007 07:13 In article <c64c8$45991a2e$4fe72a0$11039(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >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. No it isn't. US law and the 4th amendment are clear on this. >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. If you're going to eavesdrop on people in the US, you need a warrant. What part of that do you not understand? >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. > How? What part of the constitution allows that? >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: unsettled on 1 Jan 2007 13:40
Lloyd Parker senselessly posits: > In article <c64c8$45991a2e$4fe72a0$11039(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>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. > How? What part of the constitution allows that? It is obvious to all that you fail to comprehend the basics as is the usual case for people who think they have a significant grasp of the law by reading the constitution without investigating any of the other documents which explain and modify it, so this one time I'll reply to your pathetic outcry. The US Constitution doesn't "allow" anything. That document is designed to limit the powers of government. We now revert to a much earlier discussion which stated that anything not forbidden is permitted. The particulars of the verbiage within the constitution is sometimes written in positive sentences while remaining restrictive in effect. From the preamble: "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Read the annotations at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/preamble/ The preamble states that the constitution is limited to whatever goes on inside the US borders. Activities forbidden to the US Government within our borders are not similarly restricted without our borders. US embassies in other countries are within the borders of the US. An embassy rented office or apartment not formally part of the embassy is not part of the US. When anyone places or receives an international telephone call they can have no reasonable expectation of privacy, so none attaches. So long as one end of a telephone conversation takes place outside the US it is available for US wiretap. See Katz vs. United States. Bush is right, you're wrong. Learn to live with it. Encryption devices designed for telephone service are available. If you're that paranoid, buy and use one yourself and don't talk to folks unwilling to do the same thing. The only secrets are those not written down or spoken, nor even whispered to God. If you don't want to know what your rights are don't read or learn anything beyond what you already think you know. But in that case please do steer clear of adult conversations in future. |