Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 11 Jan 2007 19:15 Ken Smith wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >They are not oblivious; these people are still thinking in > >the old ways. > > No, they are simply unwilling to allow the wrong word to be applied to the > situation. If you control the language, you control the debate. By > calling something "a war", you are claiming certain things are true about > it. If the thing being called "a war" doesn't really have those > characteristics, using the term can lead to confusion. > > The US can't send troops against this new enemy and force them to > surrender. They don't have a capital city to bomb. Basically "the tools > of war" are useless against them. This makes it far better to not refer > to it as a war so people don't get confused about what is going on. The simple answer is that the terrorists are criminals and what's required is international *police* action to stop it. Armies are no good for this. Also the terrorists get some credibility by being seen as an 'army'. By calling them criminals they are exposed as what they really are. Graham
From: Phil Carmody on 11 Jan 2007 20:17 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <45A26418.B3E5B20A(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >How about food in restaurants ? I've just disovered it may be in some > 'Indian' > >food for example but there's no way of knowing. > > You ask. There was a lady who went to eat a restaurant and > ordered pesto sauce because the waitress said there wasn't any > nuts. Pesto sauce is pesto sauce because of the nuts. Typical BAH bullshit. Pesto does not need to contain nuts. As long as you're crusing herbs, it's pesto (simply meaning 'crushed' nothing more). The best parts of the best pestos are the cheeses. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Ken Smith on 11 Jan 2007 21:14 In article <kb1dq29shm7vh8th9aj6jbsiiut6sf8vpu(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: [....] Thank you for finding those for me. I'll read them later and may repond again if I find anything startling in them. >Far more informed opinion there than what you are getting with >name-calling posters here. The name calling is usually evidence of lack of confidence in their own argument. Unsettled, is an example of someone who is confident. He is being polite and posting some stuff worth reading. Some of the others are trying to win by yelling louder and louder. While this may work with children in a school yard, it doesn't work very well at convincing adults. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 11 Jan 2007 21:18 In article <45A6D316.557E0535(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [...] >Also the terrorists get some credibility by being seen as an 'army'. By calling >them criminals they are exposed as what they really are. I would have left out the "some". The terrorists have profitted greatly from the errors made. After the speach last night Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's standing in Iran will be much improved. Nothing increases the support for a leader like an external threat. Before the speach his position was starting to look a little shaky. The economy of Iran is a fairly big mess. He was having a hard time finding someone to blame it on. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 11 Jan 2007 21:54
In article <b63a$45a66778$cdd08573$4810(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: >> In article <59dc4$45a56ac4$cdd08595$30848(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, [....] >> >> No he's right. Note that you are trying to rebut it with things about >> actions of the phone company and not the government. > >Please read the case law to which I posted the link below. >Argued January 12, 1976. >Decided April 21, 1976. >Respondent, who had been charged with various federal offenses, made a pretrial motion >to suppress microfilms of checks, deposit slips, and other records relating to his >accounts at two banks, which maintained the records pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act >of >1970 (Act). These are bank records that are in question. Bank records would also contain the fact that the person had a safety deposit box. The demanded information would be information that is expected to be in the business records of the bank. This makes them no longer strictly the property of the accused. > He contended that the subpoenas duces tecum pursuant to which the material >had been produced by the banks were defective and that the records had thus been >illegally seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Following denial of his motion, >respondent was tried and convicted. The Court of Appeals reversed, having concluded >that the subpoenaed documents fell within a constitutionally protected zone of >privacy. I am somewhat surprised that the Appeals Court reversed it. This smells like 9th circuit. >Held: Respondent possessed no Fourth Amendment interest in the bank records that could >be vindicated by a challenge to the subpoenas, and the District Court therefore did >not >err in denying the motion to suppress. Pp. 440-446. > (a) The subpoenaed materials were business records of the banks, not >respondent's >private papers. Pp. 440-441. > (b) There is no legitimate "expectation of privacy" in the contents of the >original checks and deposit slips, since the checks are not confidential >communications >but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions, and all the >documents >obtained contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to >their employees in the ordinary course of business. The Fourth Amendment does not >prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to >Government authorities. The Act's recordkeeping requirements do not alter these >considerations so as to create a protectable Fourth Amendment interest of a bank >depositor in the bank's records of his account. Pp. 441-443. Notice here that there is no mention of the opening of his safety deposit box without warrant. This would be more like the taking of the signal in the phone call. The billing information of a phone company is like the bank records. The signal is like the contents of the box. [....] >The District Court overruled respondent's motion to suppress, and the evidence was >admitted. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed on the ground that a >depositor's Fourth Amendment rights are violated when bank records maintained pursuant >to the Bank Secrecy Act are obtained by means of a defective subpoena. It held that >any >evidence so obtained must be suppressed. Since we find that respondent had no >protectable Fourth Amendment interest in the subpoenaed documents, we reverse the >decision below. What do you know 5th circuit. [...] >adequate "legal process." The fact that the bank officers cooperated voluntarily was >found to be irrelevant, for "he whose rights are threatened by the improper disclosure >here was a bank depositor, not a bank official." 500 F.2d, at 758. I am only a little surprised at this point. If the records are those of the bank or partly those of the bank, the bank's rights would also be tied up in this. The wording here indicates they didn't think of this issue or perhaps considered it too minor to worry aout. [....] >On their face, the documents subpoenaed here are not respondent's "private papers." >Unlike the claimant in Boyd, respondent can assert neither ownership nor possession. >Instead, these are the business records of the banks. As we said in California Bankers >Assn. v. Shultz, supra, at 48-49, "[b]anks are . . . not . . . neutrals in >transactions >involving negotiable instruments, but parties to the instruments with a substantial >stake in their continued availability and acceptance." The records of respondent's >[425 >U.S. 435, 441] accounts, like "all of the records [which are required to be kept >pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act,] pertain to transactions to which the bank was >itself >a party." Id., at 52. This is the really important part. Everyone knows that the bank keeps records of transactions. We also know that banks must do so to opperate properly. This is very different than the case on a phone line. The phone company has no need or business keeping records of the content of the signal I send over the line. This places the signal in a completely different class than the billing information. [...] [ Footnote 5 ] Nor did the banks notify respondent, a neglect without legal consequences here, however unattractive it may be. Note the word "here". In another case, it may matter. It may matter in a civil action against the bank. >We are not confronted with a situation in which the Government, through "unreviewed >executive discretion," has made a wide-ranging [425 U.S. 435, 445] inquiry that >unnecessarily "touch[es] upon intimate areas of an individual's personal affairs." In other words if there was "touching upon intimate ...", the answer may be very different. [...] >Today, not surprisingly, the Court finds respondent's claims to be made too late. >Since >the Court in California [425 U.S. 435, 456] Bankers Assn. held that a bank, in >complying with the requirement that it keep copies of the checks written by its >customers, "neither searches nor seizes records in which the depositor has a Fourth >Amendment right," id., at 54, there is nothing new in today's holding that respondent >has no protected Fourth Amendment interest in such records. A fortiori, he does not >have standing to contest the Government's subpoena to the bank. Alderman v. United >States, 394 U.S. 165 (1969). From this you could argue that a law can be passed allowing the wiretaps. There has been no law so today, they remain illegal. [...] >The government's use of the information is what is covered. >When the phone company made such records on behalf of the >government, any lawyer (good or bad) will tell you the phone >company was an agent acting on behalf of the government, >therefore they stood in the place of the government where >the defendant is concerned. The phone company does not record the signal on the phone line. They record billing information. This is a very different matter than what is being talked about. [....] >One can, given the computer age we're in, argue that the data stream >listened to is a set of records subject to subpoena by any prosecutor. One can also argue that a pig is a cow. I don't expect either to win. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |