Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Oct 2006 05:42 In article <MPG.1f8dd485be8e903f989d78(a)News.Individual.NET>, Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <0h18i21ket4s0m5rkk8gckp0kk4oih33hh(a)4ax.com>, To-Email- >Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com says... >> On Wed, 04 Oct 06 14:48:36 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >> wrote: >> >> >In article <MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69(a)News.Individual.NET>, >> > Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> [snip] >> >> >> >>Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without >> >>warrant. Get with the program. >> >> >> > >> >Tapped? That's semantics. How does the NSA know a call is going to involve >> >someone of interest? They monitor all calls and a computer "listens" for >> >certain key words and phrases. >> > >> [snip] >> >> That's rarely the case, and not without warrant. >> >> What NSA was doing was using computer perusal of telephone _records_, >> "To/From" data. >> >> From those suspicious records, taps were authorized by a judge. > >YEs, and the foreign "taps" were intercepted calls from >"interesting" foreign numbers. They were not taps on phones. > Not in the old sense of physically connecting something to a phone. The NSA was intercepting the calls though.
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Oct 2006 05:43 In article <MPG.1f8dd5b29aa6ac49989d7a(a)News.Individual.NET>, Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <eg0vov$s36$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >says... >> In article <MPG.1f8db882374b5dc7989d6c(a)News.Individual.NET>, >> Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >In article <eg0k2p$e61$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >> >says... >> >> In article <MPG.1f8d91f2b6b5c0e8989d5f(a)News.Individual.NET>, >> >> Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >> >In article <efugkv$4up$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >> >> >says... >> >> >> In article <nrc5i2tq8jr4k99aqofmbbesm7em13ktok(a)4ax.com>, >> >> >> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >> >On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:28:11 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" >> >> >> ><nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:eftptn$c8p$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Tell me how many times the Bill of Rights says "people" and how many >> >> times >> >> >> >>> it >> >> >> >>> says "citizens." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>SCOTUS has said that even visitors have the rights of citizens when it >> >> come >> >> >> >>to legal processes. After all, you expect their homeland laws to >> apply >> >> in >> >> >> >>the US would you? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Correct. But they also realize that the rights apply only when those >> >> >> >people are physically in the USA. Which is why some bad guys are held >> >> >> >elsewhere. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >John >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Well, Bush thought Gitmo qualified as "elsewhere" but the USSC said no. >> >> Then >> >> >> he held people in Europe, which is raising a stink there. It might keep >> >> some >> >> >> prospective EU members out even. >> >> > >> >> >Actually, no it didn't. It said only that Congress had some say in >> >> >the matter. >> >> > >> >> No, Bush claimed the detainees could not sue in US courts and the case >> should >> >> be dismissed. The USSC said they could, and heard the case. Not talking >> >> about the way of trying them; talking about the right to sue. >> > >> >No, it said that the Bush plan hadn't been authorized by congress, >> >but that they were free to do so. >> > >> >--- >> > Keith >> >> No, Bush claimed the court didn't even have the right to hear the case >> because they were held outside the US, at Gitmo. The USSC obviously >> disagreed, as they heard the case. >> >They heard the case but the decision was that his plan couldn't go >forward without congressional approval. Pay attention. > The military commissions part. Bush tried to claim Gitmo was outside the federal courts' jurisdiction. The courts all rejected that. >BTW, the SCotUS is not superior to any other branch, or at least is >not supposed to be. They've been told before "with what army are >you going to enforce your decision". > Oh great, the stupid response.
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Oct 2006 05:44 In article <mv38i29lpc9s9sshrkdrbpgramufns6jn4(a)4ax.com>, Gordon <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote: >On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:46:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" ><nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >>"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >>news:eg0hcc$h85$2(a)blue.rahul.net... >> >>>>Clinton was successful. >>>> >>>>Bush is a failure. >>> >>> Unless you assume some really bad things about his motives that is. >> >>9/11 was Bush's failure. >> >How long had Bush been in office when 9/11 occurred? Who was in >office the 8 years before that? > >Gordon Oh great, another stupid response.
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Oct 2006 05:49 In article <kurtullman-8700B9.17512004102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >> I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone in my >> living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your >> listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights. > > Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over >that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone >doesn't have a warrant on it. Bush didn't get warrants! >It well settled that as long as one phone >is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair >game. Since there are no restrictions on tapping a phone outside of the >country, it would be legal tap. Thus anyone the phone calls or anyone >who calls the phone could be listened to as noted. Would be a rather >interesting case to make.
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Oct 2006 05:50
In article <v2c8i2tp1kf97gkk922mmi6brvb9iibqql(a)4ax.com>, Gordon <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote: >On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:50:58 +0100, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>Gordon wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:46:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote: >>> >"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >>> > >>> >>>Clinton was successful. >>> >>> >>> >>>Bush is a failure. >>> >> >>> >> Unless you assume some really bad things about his motives that is. >>> > >>> >9/11 was Bush's failure. >>> >>> How long had Bush been in office when 9/11 occurred? Who was in >>> office the 8 years before that? >> >>What's that got to do with it ? >> >>You're going to suggest next that politicians currently in power won't >>take the credit for the success of their predecessors' policies too ? >> >>The fact is that it happened 'on Bush's watch' and he's responsible. >> >>Graham >> >Had the 9/11 attacks happened during the Bush inauguration >ceremony, would this have been because of Bush's negligence and >ineptitude? How about the day after the inauguration? The week >after? The month after? What would be a reasonable cut-off date >for any responsibility of the previous presidency? > >Gordon Bush was warned repeatedly OBL was a threat. He ignored them. Read Woodward's book. |