Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: JoeBloe on 1 Jan 2007 16:01 On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 15:55:22 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >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. You're an idiot.
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Jan 2007 10:32 In article <ac6e2$45995590$4fe722c$12935(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >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. And it limits the power of the gov't to search to those instances where it has a warrant. It doesn't say "except where one party is outside the US" or "except where the communication could be intercepted elsewhere." >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. Yes. So when a person is inside the US, the gov't needs a warrant to intercept communications. >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. > I did: Holding * So long as an individual can justifiably expect that his conversation would remain private, his/her conversation is protected from "unreasonable search and seizure" by the Fourth Amendment. * The Fourth Amendment protects people, not just places. Therefore, the rights of an individual cannot be violated, regardless of whether or not there is physical intrusion into any given area. * A warrant is required before the government can execute a wiretap, and the warrant must be sufficiently limited in scope and duration. >Bush is right, you're wrong. Learn to live with it. The Supreme Court sides with me. Then why did he tell an audience, just days before the warrantless wiretapping was made public, that the gov't needs a warrant to wiretap? >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. >
From: JoeBloe on 1 Jan 2007 16:06 On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 12:40:07 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> Gave us: >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. Good one.
From: unsettled on 1 Jan 2007 16:13 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <324d6$45994001$4fe722c$12385(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Ken Smith wrote: > > [....] > >>>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. > > > Not really. I am pointing out that under the US system, the accused > retains all the rights. Until someone is found guilty of a crime, that > person has the full rights under US law. > > [...] > >>Simple basics for Constitutional law: If you cannot have >>a reasonable expectation of privacy in communications then >>the Constitutional protections *do not apply*. > > > In a two way phone call within the US you have the reasonable expectaions > of privacy and this is why up until the day of Bush, a warrant was > required to tap phone lines within the US. Bush claims the right to do so > without warrant. > > > >>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. > > > We are talking about communications within the US. Not those that have > left. The wire taps are being done within the US where the expectation of > privacy applies. You need to read up on what has been happening to your > rights. This is your claim. Show me.
From: unsettled on 1 Jan 2007 16:26
unsettled wrote: > Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <324d6$45994001$4fe722c$12385(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>> Ken Smith wrote: >> >> >> [....] >> >>>> 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. >> >> >> >> Not really. I am pointing out that under the US system, the accused >> retains all the rights. Until someone is found guilty of a crime, >> that person has the full rights under US law. >> >> [...] >> >>> Simple basics for Constitutional law: If you cannot have >>> a reasonable expectation of privacy in communications then >>> the Constitutional protections *do not apply*. >> >> >> >> In a two way phone call within the US you have the reasonable >> expectaions of privacy and this is why up until the day of Bush, a >> warrant was required to tap phone lines within the US. Bush claims >> the right to do so without warrant. >> >> >> >>> 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. >> >> >> >> We are talking about communications within the US. Not those that >> have left. The wire taps are being done within the US where the >> expectation of privacy applies. You need to read up on what has been >> happening to your rights. > > > This is your claim. > > Show me. Ken, I found these: "The New York Times first disclosed last month that the president had approved a program under which the NSA had been intercepting an apparently large volume of communications to and from the United States without first obtaining special court approval, as required by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/01/26/MNG24GTB8O1.DTL Not a constitutional issue after all, eh? "The president said he intends to continue using secret international wiretaps to monitor activities of people in the United States suspected of having connections to al Qaeda." http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush/index.html Here it is again, international calls. Got something else? Please show me. |