Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 3 Jan 2007 22:36 In article <engfb1$8qk_001(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <enbamj$6p7$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <enb0v0$8qk_001(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <d5c01$45980c28$49ecf63$3990(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>[....] >>>>Does the US constitution extend its protections beyond our >>>>borders? >>> >>>This is the crux of the matter. It amazes me that the >>>anti-Bush people insist that all have to follow our >>>Constitution yet hide behind the European nationalist >>>skirts when it comes to paying for it. The US anti-Bushers >>>seem to want European law rather than US Constituional law. >> >>What planet did you fly that in from? None of the anti-Bush folks posting >>here have suggested any such thing. > >The people you are parroting do. If you bother to continue to exptrapolate >their logic, it's the only conclusion. I am parroting no-one. Only in the fevered imaginings can any such extrapolations be done. The line you drew was at best at right angles to the direction others here were pointing. People have suggested that the US should perhaps obey its own laws. This is not by any means an extreme suggestion. No-one has hidden under any skirts. >> The US Constitution sets limits on >>what the US government is allowed to do. This was done to protect the >>people from the actions of an overreaching US government. The anti-Bush >>folks have been suggesting that Bush is in fact exactly the sort of >>"overreaching government" person that the founders forsaw and attempted to >>protect the nation from. > >The executive branch is not the piece of government that passed >the Patriot Law. There is no part of it that allows warrantless >wiretapping. Neither I nor anyone I can remember has suggested that the Patriot act did allow warrantless wire taping. People have pointed out other problems with that law but nothing to do with this subject. > One of the things that has changed is the procedure >to get those warrants. Not because of the Patriot or any other law passed in the last few years. That law that set up the FISA court still is the law that applies. This has not changed it is still the same law. > In the case of global terrorism, the >target is identified by monitoring incoming communications. This >is not wiretapping. Do yo mean "traffic analysis" in the form of detecting that a call is made or are you refering to the using of machines to listen in on the calls. The traffic analysis case could perhaps be considered not a wire tap. The other case certainly is. Listening to the words of the conversation is tapping the call no matter the electronic details. It requires a warrant to do this legally. > The techiques being used are undergoing >evolution, as all technology does when it's used for a new application. We are not talking about the "technigues" for listening to a call only that it was listened to. >It always takes years to sort out what is "legal" and what is not. >The Patriot Act is being changed as time goes on because experience >is gained. In this case what is being claimed happened has already and for a long time been known to be against the law. [...] >>Is that from the same or a different planet? Law suits have been filed >>and some have made their way through the court system. > >Yes. and this is how our Constitution and legal system work. >Do you honestly think that any collection of humans can write >a perfect law that will apply forever and won't require any >changing? No, but I do expect people to either (a) change it or (b) obey it. You can't say "because my car is fuel injected and the speed limits were written for cars with carburetors, the speed limits do not apply to me". >>This is how the >>kangaroo courts that Bush wanted to use on the captives were found to be >>illegal. > >Which captives? The ones who do not have rights under our >Constitutution? No, the ones who do. Consider the case of Jose Padilla and others. > If you claim that those terrorists have >US Constitutional rights, then you are demanding that the US >Consititution apply everywhere, including Europe. No, I am only demanding that the US follow its own laws in its own actions. It is not OK for the US to send people to places where they know for certain they will be tortured. It is not ok for the US to try people is kangaroo courts. It is not ok for the US to torture people. These things apply when the US acts even when these actions have there effect in part of total outside the US. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 3 Jan 2007 22:38 In article <engfiq$8qk_002(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [....] >In-coming communications that use certain keywords at a certain >count. In the news, this is called chatter. You can't know the word is there unless you "listen". This may include electronic processing. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 3 Jan 2007 22:41 In article <enggeq$8qk_006(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [....] > Why do you think >I keep writing in this hopeless thread? You'd say you had three heads if you thought it would make this thread continue. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 3 Jan 2007 22:47 In article <f376b$459bbe52$4fe7032$28733(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: [....] >>>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. > >> The "wouldn't greatly effect" seems to be the hard part of your argument. > >Agriculture has yet to learn the significance of "passing on >the costs." I think they may have learned a different version. Their version may be "if I try to pass on the cost they buy from someone else". > >> The factory farmer operators are knowingly hiring people who have no right >> to work in the country. They, at least, have the issue of the risks they >> are taking pushing them away from doing this. The pay difference is the >> only motive you have allowed for them to do this. This suggests that in >> their opinion, the pay difference is significant. > >To understand the significance to the farmer one has to look at >their entire financial picture. No, I only need to look at their actions. They react to the market like all people do. If they act like the cost is significant, it must be. > By harvest time total expenses >for the growing season have nearly peaked with no income yet, >and harvest is an out of pocket *right now* expense when the >least cash reserves are available, the selling price is at >its lowest, and shipping costs are just over the horizon. > >These difficulties are the same for all farms, regardless of size. True but any that spend extra have an extra debt at this point in the cycle. >s/effect/affect Yes, I can't spell. > >> all farmers, they would not see this as something >> they need to do for competitive reasons. > >You're right. By harvest time they're at the edge of broke. Late >harvest is almost as bad as no harvest notwithstanding the >shipping expenses. It is an annual financial crisis. This is another reason for using every worker they can get regardless of status. They need to get the crop to the market quickly. This means a need for a burst of labor at only one time of th eyear. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 3 Jan 2007 22:49
In article <engh6m$8qk_009(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <459B42B0.AF5E7A6B(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>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. > >You keep assuming that this mindset exists. That is what the >mindset of moderates need to change to; but it hasn't yet. What in gawds green earth does that mean?????? > >/BAH -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |