Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 12 Jan 2007 10:25 In article <eo81a4$8qk_004(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eo5lfa$gtn$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [...] >>>If your idea was legal, then the only way to screen for certain >>>phrases would be for the government to have a blanket warrant. >> >>There is no need for the government to commit the crime of warrantless >>wire tapping. You seem to think that it must and therefor you look for a >>way to make it legal. It doesn't have to and it is not legal. >> >You still are not considering the consequences of your demands >in the case of what will happen when there's a national threat. There is always a national threat. Never a day goes by without one. The system involving the FISA court and warrants and such were created to deal with it. If those laws aren't good enough, some more could be created. The president had a complete rubberstamp congress but elected not to get a new law. He just violated the old one and claimed the power to do so. This means there was no debate and no reference to the people's priorities about their rights and security. >The Patriot Act #1 and #2 are the first two tries to figure out >how to protect the nation without suspending the Constitution. Oh boy! do you ever have that worng! Starting 1777, there have been laws in this class. >If you hogtie all methods of dealing with new technology, there >will only be one solution left. I am not suggesting any sort of hogtie. I am only suggesting that the things be done within the law. Elsewhere, I indicated one of many ways I saw that this could be done. It would mean that you and I would have to give up on things like phone calls to our lawyers and discussion of some other topics over phone lines. If the content of a phone call that is purely within the US is not private, the warrant is not needed. If it is, the warrant is needed. If the call is not private, it is no longer safge to talk to your patent or criminal lawyer over it. It would become a crime to mension things that can't be said to foreign nationals without first getting a license to do so. If the claims of the Bush admin are allowed to remain unchallanged, there will be practical affects. These will be bad affects. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 12 Jan 2007 11:01 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:eo834m$8qk_002(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>In article <eo5kh2$gtn$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >>>In article <eo5c66$8qk_002(a)s814.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>><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. >> >>Then me a word to use that describes the fight to the death >>between two civilizations. > > > Why do you need a word which describes it any better than saying a "fight to > the death between two civilizations?" (Which, incidentally is not what a > "war" is). > > >> I call this war. It is European-style >>thinking that has limited the description between two countries. > > > Nonsense. > > Did a legitimate, legally empowered authority in your government declare > war? Is your government able to declare war on behalf of a civilisation? How do you declare war on Hesbalah or al qaeda? If you win, who signs the surrender documents? >>Islam didn't have the notion of nationalism until recently and >>they still don't quite use this heirarchy for classification of >>people groups. > Incorrect. "Islam succeeded in uniting an Arab world of separate tribes and castes, but disagreements concerning the succession of the prophet caused a division in Islam between two groups, Sunnis and Shi'ites." http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001468.html The balance of this history is interesting in its own right. Seems to me Islamic nationalism is along ideological lines rather than classic geopolitical ones. >>Until you understand this, I guess you will >>continue to ignore that this war[or whatever] exists. It is >>not a simple conflict. > I agree, the conflict is far from simple. It is not a war either, therefore > invoking "war powers" is dishonest. For the US it is the only tool currently available. I believe UK has a strong history of dealing with Irish terrorism in precisely the same way. I'm open to hearing about some other model. There's no one to negotiate with, so what's left?
From: unsettled on 12 Jan 2007 11:26 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <eo81fp$8qk_005(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > [....] > >>Sigh! I see nobody trusting the President. > > > I sure do! It is down to a smaller fraction now that he has shown how > thunderingly incompetent he is, but there are still some. What about the people who elected him, twice! >> I see a few people >>noticing that rpoblems are getting sorted out with interactions >>between all four structures of the US govnerment: voters, legislative, >>executive and judicial. > Now that the democrats have been elected, there is going to be some > sorting out of problems. The previous crew where a complete rubberstamp. You're going to see an awful lot of rubberstamping by the Democrats.
From: Lloyd Parker on 12 Jan 2007 06:34 In article <qe6eq25v7vr2l8gqjagd38781phaa5v4kq(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:15:18 +0000, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >>The simple answer is that the terrorists are criminals and what's required is >>international *police* action to stop it. > > > There is. It's called the Worldwide Struggle Against Terrorism, > > AND IT IS A WAR. The US didn't call it a war when it took on the Barbary Coast pirates. This is analogous.
From: Lloyd Parker on 12 Jan 2007 06:37
In article <eo7v76$8ss_003(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <eo5pi8$bam$8(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <eo5bun$8qk_001(a)s814.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <45A5D901.C7F3FDDC(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>MassiveProng wrote: >>>> >>>>> We are at war. >>>> >>>>With which country ? >>> >>>It's a new kind of war. The stakes are civilizations, not >>>political geographical lines. You are still stuck in European >>>style thinking about rules of waging war. Since this is a new kind of >>>war, new rules and new techniques are being created. So far, >>>these new rules are being dictated to Western civilization by >>>religious extremists. Since technology allows these groups to >>>wreak havoc globally, there will have to be new ways to deal >>>with problems and messes they create. Winning this war requires >>>time. Nobody will be able to say, "We won" on a specific date >>>until historians look back on the century. >>> >>The constitution provides one way, and one way only, to take this country to >>war. > >Does the single way deal with a war between civilizations? hmm.. >this is now getting interesting. >> >> >>>The only response from the Democrat leadership last night was >>>their presidential campaign platform. It was ineffective in >>>2004; I don't understand why they think it will be effective >>>in 2008. >> >>Like Bush's plan has been so effective for 4 years, right? > >I has been effective. Yeah, and there's a Nigerian who wants your help getting a million dollars out of his country. > You just aren't hearing about it because >that news would undermine the Democrat leadership's goal of ceding. > >/BAH No, we aren't hearing about it because it's a lie. Look at all the Republicans now deserting Bush. Are they just not hearing about the successes too? |