Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Oct 2006 09:21 In article <MPG.1f8ef4cf73c0df1e989d90(a)News.Individual.NET>, Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> >> "Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >> news:MPG.1f8dd485be8e903f989d78(a)News.Individual.NET... >> > 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. >> >> 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. >> >Your "demands" are silly. When the other end of the line is in a >mosque in Iran (number captured on a &bad_guy's_laptop), I _demand_ >that your call be intercepted. Your "Constitutional rights" have >nothing to do with it. > 4th amendment get repealed?
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Oct 2006 09:21 In article <MPG.1f8ef5524ba0ae25989d91(a)News.Individual.NET>, Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <eg32hc$5l0$6(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >says... >> 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! > >Not needed for foreign intelligence. > Says who?
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Oct 2006 09:22 In article <MPG.1f8ef59ed88a743f989d92(a)News.Individual.NET>, Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <eg325f$5l0$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >says... >> 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. > >Yes, from *OUTSIDE* the country (i.e. foreign intelligence). There >were no domestic calls "tapped", without warrant. > First, we don't know that. Secondly, when did the 4th amendment get repealed for an American citizen calling, say, France?
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Oct 2006 09:23 In article <MPG.1f8ef7a64499f172989d95(a)News.Individual.NET>, Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <ZUVUg.13317$7I1.10123(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> >> "Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >> news:MPG.1f8dd1a463fccb53989d76(a)News.Individual.NET... >> > In article <IjTUg.51404$E67.14436(a)clgrps13>, nobody(a)nowhere.com >> > says... >> >> >> >> "Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >> >> news:MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69(a)News.Individual.NET... >> >> >> >> > Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without >> >> > warrant. Get with the program. >> >> Uhh...then why does even the White House refer to this as the "warrantless >> wiretap" program? > >They do? I thought that was Dan Blather's (et. al.) name. How cute. Do you spell it Klinton too? > >> And who cares if the phone that's tapped is in another >> country. If it is able to listen to something going on in a living room in >> the US, then it is *domestic* surveillance. > >NO, it is not. It is foreign intelligence. > If an American in America is involved, there's the 4th amendment. >> >> How would you ever know? >> >> >> > *You*don't know, so you assume thay are. Your tinfoil hat is >> > slipping. >> >> And you assume they aren't. If I'm wrong, no harm, they can still get post >> facto warrants, and we still catch the bad guys. If *you're* wrong, my >> Constitutional rights are being trampled. All I insist on is >> accountability. Right now, the NSA is accountable only to themselves, and >> this is a clear violation of the system of checks-and-balances built into >> the Constitution. As a citizen of this country, I demand of my government >> that the actions of one branch of the government *always* be subject to >> review and approval of another branch. It's the very basis of our >> Constitution...and Bush has duped you into believing that you must give up >> that right. > >The value of the intercepts is fleeting. I don't want them waiting >around for a judge to rubber stamp a intercept order for every >phone call from *bad_guy.phonenumber. FISA gives them 72 hours to listen in before even requesting a warrant. > >> Let me ask you a question.... FISA sets up courts and has a system whereby >> the NSA can get warrants within a certain number of hours after a tap is >> used. > >Nope. not good enough. If the call is suspect it can't wait a >"certain number of hours". The value is gone by the time they can >call a FISA judge. > You can ask for the warrant the "certain number of hours" later. Geez, you should really become informed before spouting off. >> Why do we need anything else? Not for speed. > >Why because you think phone calls last "a certain number of hours"? > >> Not for security of >> the warrant information. The only plausible reason that we would need >> approval for the President to do anything more than that is if he has >> already authorized the NSA to do something they're not currently allowed to >> do under FISA. FISA ensures that the NSA is at least accountable to some >> independent entity outside the Executive branch of the government. You >> don't want your government to be held accountable for their actions? > >Nonsense. Better double up on your hat. >
From: John Fields on 5 Oct 2006 14:04
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:53:31 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:21:44 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > This mess is about changing a mindset; either Western civilization's >> >> > mindset is changed or religious extremists' mindset is changed. >> >> >> >> I agree completely. >> > >> >How about removing the either and replacing the or with and ? >> >> --- >> Unless that led to convergence, why would that guarantee cessation >> of hostilities? >> >> The solution is the willingness to look for common ground and to >> build a mutually respectful relationship around that island. > >So where do bombs and guns fit into this ? --- Old enmities on both sides make the willingness to try to find common ground difficult. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |