Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 8 Jan 2007 06:28 In article <enqoll$8ss_010(a)s980.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <enoqbr$74t$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <eno667$8ss_005(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <enm0ff$6ka$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>In article <enll0p$8qk_003(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>In article <459DC24E.2A4AD092(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> When you use your wireless telephone, >>>>>>> do you believe that conversation is a private communication? >>>>>> >>>>>>Once upon a time I never expected to be listened to by spies whether real >>>or >>>>>>electronic. That's for sure. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Then you had a serious reality filter. The Cold War mythologies were >>>>>all about spies and electronics and stuff. The US embassy in Russia >>>>>couldn't be used because of all the bugs. Hollywood movies are >>>>>filled with people talking in the bathroom with the water running. >>>>>Little girls learn all about how sound carries. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>/BAH >>>> >>>>How do you like Bush asserting he's got the right to open and read >>>first-class >>>>mail? >>> >>>During WWII all mail going and coming from overseas was read. >> >>Now we have laws forbidding that. > >These are peacetime laws. Find me one which says it doesn't apply when the president says we are at war (and note that Congress has not declared war). Show me where the 4th amendment ceases to apply. >> >>>Any sensitive words were literally cut out of the letter. >>>My uncle married a Tunis who came from a town called Whitehall. >>>So his letters would read that he was still in Whitehall which >>>was code for a certain area on the African continent. >>> >>>Now, whether you like it or not, we are at war. >> >>The president cannot suspend laws just because he feels like it. > >There are war powers which are necessary when the country is at >war. > Dictatorial powers are not among them. The president has no authority, in the constitution or in statute, to suspend laws. >> >>>The news >>>reports have not specified which mails are in question nor >>>any facts about this news bite from CBS. >>> >>> >> >>Bush left it pretty open-ended. > >All of these faux reports are done for the purpose of trying >to get sensitive information public. It astounds me that >people, who think like you, cannot figure out that publishing >who is being tapped will be used by these enemies to make >big messes. > > Whoa. Bush said this in his signing statement. >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 8 Jan 2007 06:36 In article <entm2m$8qk_002(a)s947.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ens471$m0q$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <enqou0$8ss_011(a)s980.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <enq1pe$cuv$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>[....] >>>>It has been spelled out on several news casts. Here's the text that >>>>causes the most concern: >>>> >>>>******* Begin quote ******** >>>>The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as >>>>enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an >>>>item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner >>>>consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct >>>>searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and >>>>safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches >>>>specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection. >>>>******************* >>>> >>>>Note that it applies to all mail of any kind. The claim is one of quite >>>>broad authority since the definition of "exigent circumstances" is quite >>>>wide. >>> >>>How are you going to make it more specific? >> >>The definitions could be spelled out. >> >>> Should there be legal >>>handcuffs on inspections even if new types of containers are dripping >>>powder or tick or can't be x-rayed or zapped to kill bacteria? >> >>There should be the need to get a warrant in a situation that is not >>truly an emergency. "A reasonable expectation of death or injury" could >>be included in the wording. In non-emergency cases, there is time to get >>the warrant. No judge will deny one if the case is anything like >>reasonable. > >How do you know that Bush's administration isn't dealing with >emergencies? Should they hold a public poll asking which ones? >Or should we ask our enemies if envelop X has lethal substances? > Bush said the gov't could open mail in a broad range of circumstances. The law already allows it if the mail is suspected of containing something dangerous. >> >>>ARe you really insisting that a law be passed for each and every >>>new method people use to transport deadly materials? >> >>No, all that I or any others want is that nothing else be snuck into the >>law under the mask of "national security". > >Until specifications can be identified from experience, there has >to be an "other" category in the law. The methods used to make >messes are no longer limited to local geographical areas. >> >> >>> Congress >>>can't pick which toilet paper to use within 12 months. >>> >>>You're being silly. >> >>No, you are going willingly to the slaughter. You have been tricked into >>thinking there is a threat worthy of giving up your rights over and then >>tricked into thinking that giving up your rights will make you safe. > >But I haven't given up my rights. I tell you what. I'll post >my list of what I've read in the last few years. You read it >so you can learn my basis. Then you can pick holes in facts >rather than wishful thinking that no national threats exist. > >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 8 Jan 2007 06:29 In article <enqp0r$8ss_012(a)s980.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <459FA66F.2CB0CFEC(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >It is however pretty clear to me that a former g/f of mine had her land >>> >> >line tapped for being active in CND. It was hilariously obvious. >>> >> >>> >> So you've already realized that privacy does not include landlines. >>> >> Why do you think it is going to include broadcasts over thru the air? >>> >> >>> >> I don't understand this logic. >>> > >>> >That tap would have needed a warrant though. >>> >>> And the tap gets one; it's the law. >> >>Your taps don't need warrants any more though do they ? > >Yes, they do require warrants. Perhaps you should stop >confusing tapping with monitoring. > >/BAH So if you don't tap, how do you monitor?
From: Lloyd Parker on 8 Jan 2007 06:31 In article <o0c2q21060nupheiukk3h2ja0tee8f9aai(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 12:01:04 +0000, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >> >>> >> So you've already realized that privacy does not include landlines. >>> >> Why do you think it is going to include broadcasts over thru the air? >>> >> >>> >> I don't understand this logic. >>> > >>> >The tap would have been put in place _after_ a warrant was issued. Do you >>> >see how that is different. >>> >>> And that's how it works today. There is a difference between a phone >>> tap and sampling hundreds of sounds for certain utterances. >> >>No there isn't ! > > Yes there is, dipshit. > > It's like the difference between placing a monitor directly on a >missile launcher with the intent of monitoring that one launch pad, >and monitoring an entire hemisphere from space for a launch signature. > > It's like branch prediction on Intel CPUs. > > We need it, and dolts like you should stay out of it. Need what? If you "need" the gov't monitoring your phone calls, why weren't you singing the praises of the Soviet Union?
From: Lloyd Parker on 8 Jan 2007 06:37
In article <entnvq$8qk_003(a)s947.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45A2617C.840CDE4E(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>> >> >>> >>>How do you like Bush asserting he's got the right to open and read >>> >>>first-class mail? >>> >> >>> >>During WWII all mail going and coming from overseas was read. >>> > >>> >Now we have laws forbidding that. >>> >>> These are peacetime laws. >> >>Is this peacetime or not ? > >As I have stated a gazillion times in this thread, we are at >war. > >/BAH And as we've told you, we're not. The constitution provides only 1 way for the US to be at war, and it hasn't happened. We're no more at war than during the Vietnam war, for example. Or the cold war. |