Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 2 Jan 2007 05:40 In article <3msip2t0324676au95jnvrd2radhekr8jq(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Mon, 01 Jan 07 12:13:37 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave >us: > >>If you're going to eavesdrop on people in the US, you need a warrant. What >>part of that do you not understand? > > No. If one is going to eavesdrop on a SPECIFIC AMERICAN citizen, >one needs a warrant. If one wishes to monitor ALL streams >anonymously, selecting only those streams that carry malicious >material for further, totally WARRANTED surveillance. And how does the 4th amendment allow that? That would be like monitoring all calls from a particular phone booth.
From: Lloyd Parker on 2 Jan 2007 05:41 In article <c0028$45997c9c$4fe76a0$13940(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >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.DT L > >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. > Involving people IN the US. Without a warrant. >Got something else? > >Please show me.
From: Lloyd Parker on 2 Jan 2007 05:42 In article <c0028$45997c9c$4fe76a0$13940(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >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." > So what part of "breaking the law" do you not understand? >http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/01/26/MNG24GTB8O1.DT L > >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.
From: JoeBloe on 2 Jan 2007 19:02 On Tue, 02 Jan 07 10:41:55 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave us: >> >>Here it is again, international calls. >> > >Involving people IN the US. Without a warrant. You're an idiot! The moment one places an international connection, one NO LONGER has ANY right to privacy on that comm link. PERIOD. It doesn't get any more plain than that. Get yourself a clue.
From: JoeBloe on 2 Jan 2007 19:05
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 14:10:58 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >In article <459A00A0.DE70F2C9(a)earthlink.net>, >Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >[...] >> You too! How's the weather up your way? It is actually raining down >>here for the first time in a long time. > >It never rains in sunny California. SOUTHERN California, dumbshit. > > >If we work at it we may even hit my suggested target of 1,000,000 posts This thread is by far NOT even close to anything big by Usenet standards. It will take several more years for that to occur, and this sad POS thread won't drag out that long. It is nearly as pathetic as the first post's author. |