Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 3 Jan 2007 12:09 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:engh96$8qk_010(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45999E2D.56197467(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >>> Until someone is found guilty of a crime, that person has the full >>> rights >>> under US law. >> >>Unless *suspected* of terrorism of course in which case their rights are > voided. > > If you agree with Ken's statement, you are also agreeing to be > a subject of the US Constitution. If that is the case, > you can find your tax forms at irs.gov. Pure false reasoning
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Jan 2007 12:07 In article <engn3g$f7p$7(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <enggrr$8qk_007(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <1167795024.451323.271660(a)n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, >> "Winfield Hill" <hill(a)rowland.org> 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. >> >>And the newly elected Democrats in Congress are saying that >>the "right" amount is $15/hour. > >You are a liar. Nobody has proposed raising the minimum wage to that. Then you haven't been listening to what the Democrat leadership is threatening to do. The statistics they are using is nuts. I just heard that female state stats which extrapolate to $15/hour. They won't get that amount passed by all bartering starts with the high figure. The Dems want "poor" people to begin to believe that they will never get paid enough unless a Democrat gets into the White House in 2008. They are already campagning for 2008 elections. /BAH /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Jan 2007 12:12 In article <engn63$f7p$8(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <enghkv$8qk_001(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <45999D6B.96DDFDF1(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>> > >>>> >You should care. It is the very things that have made the US a free >>>> >country that are being lost. >>>> >>>> I see. You cannot list those who are denied their US Constituional >>>> rights. Perhaps those who are being monitored under this law >>>> are those who have no Constitutional rights? IOW, they are not >>>> of this country but are an enemy of this country. >>> >>>So who gets to decide if they're an enemy ? >> >>The Patriot Act specifies who. > >No, it says the president can designate anyone, anytime, anywhere as an enemy >combatant, and gives the person no way to challenge that. If this is true (and it's not), then why are you blaming Bush? That was Congress who wrote it and passed it...twice. > >>Actions demonstate who are enemies. >>Letters of intent give pointers to who is an enemy. > >And how can one man be given authority to take away constitutional rights? You keep saying that; what you state is untrue because you are simply repeating your misconception of what the US Constitution says and what laws say. For some reason, you have wedged into your head that monitoring international communications is equivalent to warrantless wiretapping. Somebody (unsettled, I think) wrote the procedures up in this thread. Did you read that post? /BAH
From: T Wake on 3 Jan 2007 12:29 "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message news:engmkb$f7p$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > 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. >> >><snip> additional opinions >> >>> Why did they feel the need to said what they did here >>> http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s2455.html >> >>Congress is liable to say anything at all, especially when >>writing and submitting new bills. Let's just wait and see >>what comes out of the Judiciary Committee. >> >>You've not convinced me that domestic phone calls are being >>wiretapped without a warrant. 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. > > One party to the calls is in America. How does the 4th amendment allow > that? > >> >>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? >> > > A little different -- in public, there is less expectation of privacy, as > anyone standing around could overhear. > >>We live in a world of surveillance. How many cameras in >>the UK today? > > They don't have a Bill of Rights. Nor does it make it "right." Nor is using a foreign nation as an example of what should or shouldn't be allowed in your own nation particularly relevant. People in the UK have become lax in safeguarding their civil liberties and now we have much less "freedom" than [for example] when I was in School.
From: T Wake on 3 Jan 2007 12:35
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message news:engn63$f7p$8(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > In article <enghkv$8qk_001(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <45999D6B.96DDFDF1(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) 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. >>> >>>So who gets to decide if they're an enemy ? >> >>The Patriot Act specifies who. > > No, it says the president can designate anyone, anytime, anywhere as an > enemy > combatant, and gives the person no way to challenge that. > >>Actions demonstate who are enemies. >>Letters of intent give pointers to who is an enemy. > > And how can one man be given authority to take away constitutional rights? > >>> >>>What happens if someone denounces *YOU* for example. >> >>As you people have denounced me in this thread? Nothing happens to me. >>I do need to make a decision on whether it's useful to continue >>to educate and learn in order to prevent messes from happening. >> >>> >>>You can then be 'disappeared' >> >>I have no idea where you are getting this notion. You didn't >>happen to watch a certain "Law and Order" TV show, did you? >>Hint. Those stories are fiction and have started other >>urban myths. >> >>>and you'll simply officially cease to exist. I >>>believe this kind of thing was reputedly common in Communist Russia. >> >>I don't think I'll officially cease to exist. That means that >>I no longer have to pay property and income taxes. I think /BAH missed the point here. As you say the problem with legislation such as the UK's prevention of terrorism act is that some one "suspected" of a certain crime loses the ability to defend themselves or challenge the accusation for a certain period of time. While I am not suggesting that either the current UK government or the US government would use such "power" for the wrong things - there is nothing to say the same limits will apply to future governments. I can only assume the potential pitfalls of this legislation are what Eeyore was referring to and the sarcastic reply was just an evasion. |