Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 3 Jan 2007 09:33 In article <engo6d$8qk_003(a)s893.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <engn63$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. So monitoring without a warrant isn't monitoring without a warrant if the person you're talking to is out of the country? What kind of "logic" is that? If I'm talking to Joe down the street or Juan across the Atlantic, the 4th amendment and the FISA law say you need a warrant to intercept my call. >Somebody (unsettled, I think) wrote the >procedures up in this thread. Did you read that post? > >/BAH
From: unsettled on 3 Jan 2007 15:22 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:engg2h$8qk_004(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>In article <enbata$6p7$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>No, I haven't. It is only your opinion that I have, but you are >>wrong. >> >> >>>Bush has made the claim that he can listen to your >>>phone calls. In your opinion, perhaps you don't deserve these rights. >> >>He can listen using the procedures described in the Patriot Act >>if, and only if, I cause attraction to myself by talking about >>procurement and disbrusement of mess-making subjects. So I don't >>do that. I also haven't said the word bomb in an airport since >>1975 or so. >> >>Has my Constitutional rights been taken away because it is no >>longer a prudent thing to say the word bomb when I'm going >>through security? >> >>Use your noodle. > But you have used it in an USENET post now, so I assume from this point > forward all your electronic comms are monitored. Of that I have no doubt. Everything usenet is international and public with *no* expectation of privacy. This is just like the bugged parking meters. Many of have assumed for years that usenet is scanned for such key words. I've seen all sorts of attention seeking posts using dozens of suspect expressions like anthrax, bomb, suitcase bomb, hijacking, concealed weapons, and the like. There, think that got someone's attention? I sure hope so! Otherwise the boys are asleep at the switch.
From: unsettled on 3 Jan 2007 15:25 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:engh96$8qk_010(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>In article <45999E2D.56197467(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Until someone is found guilty of a crime, that person has the full >>>>rights >>>>under US law. >>> >>>Unless *suspected* of terrorism of course in which case their rights are >> >>voided. >> >>If you agree with Ken's statement, you are also agreeing to be >>a subject of the US Constitution. If that is the case, >>you can find your tax forms at irs.gov. > > > Pure false reasoning Nope, she has merely extended it include very precisely everything that the original statement included, even if some of that was inadvertent. It is a very black/white approach, but then.......
From: unsettled on 3 Jan 2007 15:30 T Wake wrote: > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message > news:engmkb$f7p$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > >>In article <f0efd$459a7d43$4fe7539$20621(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>We live in a world of surveillance. How many cameras in >>>the UK today? >>They don't have a Bill of Rights. > Nor does it make it "right." > Nor is using a foreign nation as an example of what should or shouldn't be > allowed in your own nation particularly relevant. People in the UK have > become lax in safeguarding their civil liberties and now we have much less > "freedom" than [for example] when I was in School. Unfortunately freedom and liberty are always conditional. It is quite one thing to voluntarily give up some freedom in exchange for security, still another to give up freedom in order to have someone fill their pockets with wealth. Both have the same consequence while one is generally bearable while the other isn't.
From: unsettled on 3 Jan 2007 15:36
T Wake wrote: > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message > news:engn63$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. Not the same as "disappearing". > 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. I think dumb donkey dove headfirst into a set of issues he doesn't understand. That's not unusual for him. Neither the US nor the UK is likely to have a "cease to exist" sort of disappearance he's discussing as our future. That's the stuff of scifi and "The Prisoner" as I mentioned earlier. |