Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 2 Jan 2007 19:22 JoeBloe wrote: > 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. I generally don't bother with Parker because of what looks a lot like selective reading. Or could he actually be that stupid?
From: Ken Smith on 2 Jan 2007 22:18 In article <f0efd$459a7d43$4fe7539$20621(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: >> In article <e4998$4599798f$4fe76a0$13856(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> [....] >> >>>>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. >> >> >> Note here that the judge's order was "nation wide" >> //www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/18/WIRETAP.TMP > >"A federal judge's emphatic rejection Thursday of the Bush >administration's warrantless wiretapping of calls between >Americans and alleged foreign terrorists is far from the >last word on the legality of the program, which most likely >will be determined by the Supreme Court or Congress." > >An opinion in a district court is the starting point for a >legal discussion. Note the international nature of the >discussion. Note the words "alleged foreign terrorists" and also the "nation wide" part of this. This may not mean it is "international" it may mean that the people are "foreign terrorists". [....] >You've not convinced me that domestic phone calls are being >wiretapped without a warrant. I think I will drop the subject of the calls within the nation for now since, obviously, it is unlikely that I will find a signed confession of GWB on the web. > I've maintained that the >program which has everyone cranked has to do with >international calls and international emails. That's a >completely different issue than domestic only because >there can be no expectation of privacy. I don't know that you can say that part. If I make a phone call to Vancouver Canada, should I have no expectation of privacy but in one to Vancouver Washington, I should? >Which mobster was put away because the government bugged >every parking meter along a route he liked to walk while >he talked business with his associates? He was out of doors and walking in a public place. He was not making a phone call within his own house. It is a completely different subject. >We live in a world of surveillance. How many cameras in >the UK today? None are inside peoples houses. > As surveillance increases so do the >countermeasures, and eventually the counter- >countermeasures will kick in. Nothing will stop the cycle. This is more of a practical consideration than a moral one. We will still arrest peeping-toms. [....] >I remember when it was almost fashionable to be in a plane >that was hijacked and forced to fly to Cuba. That fad ended >when Castro summarily locked up any hijacker who forced a >landing on Cuban soil. Wile initially he demanded a ransom >which he called a "landing fee" from the airline whose >plane had been forced to Cuba, he tired of the game. He also shot a few too IIRC. >All this will end when all governments clamp down on >terrorists among them. Note that Pakistan is tired of >the nonsense along the Afghanistan border and has >expressed an intention to fence and mine that border. That will be a tough job. All of it that isn't up hill is down hill. >They'll probably get theirs done before we fence the >Mexican border. Americans don't want to pick lettuce. So long as there is a strong market for the labor with political clout, the fence won't be built or effective if it is. [....] >Once the terrorism eventually drops into oblivion the >wiretaps will also cease. I doubt it. When did the honey bee subsidy end? It was needed encourage bee keeping to make wax for bullets. >All this assumes the terrorists lose. I am confident that the method to terrorism will remain in use for a long time. It will be new groups with new reasons. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Winfield Hill on 2 Jan 2007 22:30 Ken Smith wrote: > Americans don't want to pick lettuce. So long as there is a strong market > for the labor with political clout, the fence won't be built or effective > if it is. Plenty of Americans DO pick lettuce. But they don't want to work for factory farms at $4 or $5 per hour doing it; they need $8 to $10 to make it reasonable. It's a bit surprising to realize that this labor cost difference would only modestly raise the final selling price. And, if all the growers had to live by the same wage rules, for the most part it wouldn't greatly affect their profits either.
From: Eeyore on 3 Jan 2007 00:44 Ken Smith wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > >Once the terrorism eventually drops into oblivion the > >wiretaps will also cease. > > I doubt it. When did the honey bee subsidy end? It was needed encourage > bee keeping to make wax for bullets. > > >All this assumes the terrorists lose. > > I am confident that the method to terrorism will remain in use for a long > time. It will be new groups with new reasons. It's been with us at least since the time of the Roman Empire. I doubt that terrorism will suddenly cease to be an attractive option for those who want to make a big impact with relatively few followers. Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Jan 2007 00:45
Winfield Hill wrote: > Ken Smith wrote: > > Americans don't want to pick lettuce. So long as there is a strong market > > for the labor with political clout, the fence won't be built or effective > > if it is. > > Plenty of Americans DO pick lettuce. But they don't want to work for > factory farms at $4 or $5 per hour doing it; they need $8 to $10 to > make it reasonable. It's a bit surprising to realize that this labor > cost difference would only modestly raise the final selling price. > And, if all the growers had to live by the same wage rules, for the > most part it wouldn't greatly affect their profits either. That's socialist talk Win ! Thompson will never forgive you, you liberal weenie you. Graham |