Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 12 Jan 2007 06:38 In article <eo80er$8qk_001(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45A74B55.B204D4DE(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>MassiveProng wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>> > >>> >You mean Iran ? Simply not proven. >>> >>> You see... there you go... and you had almost made it completely >>> out of the retard barrel. >>> >>> I guess it's in your genes. You'll wash up on shore... Whale on the >>> beach. >> >>You have some *PROOF* ? I do mean proof not conjecture. With regard to >>conjecture I'd agree it's very likely they don't have an interest but they're >>*way* off being able to do anything. > >So you are willing to wait until Iran bombs somebody before >you will believe that 1. they have the bombs and 2. they >will use them. I suggest you write them a letter and volunteer >to be their first target. I personally prefer mess prevention >rather than cleaning it up. > >/BAH So I assume you'd be in favor of arresting and imprisoning people before they commit any crime to, just in case they might some time in the future?
From: Lloyd Parker on 12 Jan 2007 06:39 In article <eo81fp$8qk_005(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <e14dq2lrf4csajui0dav1bot1lcqcag9ua(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:35:06 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >>(Ken Smith) wrote: >> >>>In article <eo32dq$8ss_001(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>In article <eo30jp$9oj$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>[....] >>>>> The >>>>>point I am making is that it doesn't matter. It is illegal to shoot >>>>>someone who is going down the side walk on a pogostick. The law says >>>>>nothing about pogostick based commuting. The people who are saying that >>>>>the taps don't need a warrant would also be saying that shooting the >>>>>person on a pogostick was legal. >>>> >>>>But your idea of tapping is not what is covered by the law. It might >>>>be a desire of yours to have this happen, but it isn't yet. >>> >>>Commuting by pogostick isn't covered by the law. It is still not ok to >>>shoot one. >>> >>>[.....] >>>>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. >> >>Agreed. The only argument I seem to be hearing here is that some >>folks seem to trust the current President enough to allow him to >>declare himself above the law and an uncontrained dictator in all >>issues where he decides he wants to be above the law. > >Sigh! I see nobody trusting the President. Yes, most people have more sense than you. >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. > ><snip> > >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 12 Jan 2007 06:42 In article <f40fb$45a7ae0d$4fe7610$13513(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:6617a$45a169c9$cdd08444$3914(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>>T Wake wrote: > >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:enqpqn$8qk_002(a)s980.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >> <snip> > >>>>And there isn't really a difference between monitoring everything one >>>>person says and monitoring everything every one says - other than scale. > >>>From a legal standpoint I wish you'd give this some more >>>thought, more along a political science line. > >> I will try but the analogy you use is far from ideal. > >>>Consider strangers on a busy street, say in London or NYC, >>>unknown to one another, overhearing one another's >>>conversation as they pass by. > >>>Probably no harm no foul in that. > >> No, this is not the same thing as sampling every single conversation for >> "key phrases." > >That depends. Busy street, undercover narcotics cop who has >a specific reason for being there. > >>>Overhearing, or even overt or covert listening has no impact >>>unless and until the information has a use not compliant to >>>the wishes or benefit of the individual speaking. > >> Not the issue. The issue is about the right to privacy and the requirements >> of prior approval to monitor someone's communications. > >That's the ideal. Practicalities are different. > >>>Where your personal wishes are concerned, you'd prefer no >>>third uninvited party ever overhear or listen in on your >>>conversations whether on the street or on a telephone. But >>>there are other realities in play. > >>>The premise in the laws as written usually aren't entirely >>>honest. Where they say that the government may not listen in >>>on your conversations without either your permission or a >>>proper warrant, the real consequence, this is realpolitik >>>at work here, is that when the government does listen in >>>they're not permitted to use the information they acquired >>>against you. > >> A democratic government is ultimately accountable to the electorate. A >> government official (in the UK at least) who authorises an illegal activity >> are themselves subject to the rule of law when the illegal activity is >> brought to light. > >It is a rare instance that a head of state is taken to task >for illegal behaviors. Perhaps a handful in the past century? >Naw, let's not include the imagined slights under Stalin >and Hitler. Well, they tried with Pinochet, but he died first.
From: Don Bowey on 12 Jan 2007 12:25 On 1/12/07 3:34 AM, in article eo8dbl$69v$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu, "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote: > 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. That was our Coast Guard activity. Don
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 12 Jan 2007 12:29
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:17:34 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >"MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in >message news:qe6eq25v7vr2l8gqjagd38781phaa5v4kq(a)4ax.com... >> 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. > >No it isn't. > >You do not declare war on things like terrorism any more than you declare >war on poverty or childhood obesity. It sounds good, it makes a nice >rallying call and fits soundbites. But it is not a declaration of war. > >Unless of course I missed the bit where the declaration was made official by >a duly recognised authority. It's rhetoric from the administration with no other purpose at all than to give it an excuse it can use to justify anything and everything it does without having to make a rational argument to anyone about it. The really sad thing is that the rhetoric actually seems to gell with far too many here in the US. Jon |