Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 15:46 Keith wrote: > In article <45244E9E.D8DD822E(a)hotmail.com>, > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > What do you think about the Vincennes shooting down an Iranian Airbus then ? > > Successful missile test? How about proof of American sailors being trigger happy dickheads ? The simple fact that you can make a joke out of the mass slaughter of innocent ppl is one reason why the rest of the world looks at the USA in incredulity. Graham
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 15:48 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:V89Vg.19652$Ij.8360(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:eg2p1f$8qk_008(a)s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <gvTUg.51409$E67.10236(a)clgrps13>, >> "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:efvurj$8ss_006(a)s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>>> Which criticism was unacceptable? >>>> >>>> I don't understand you people; first you complain that he can't >>>> think for himself; then, you object when he expresses his opinion about >>>> something. >>>> >>>> You can't have it both ways. >>> >>>Can too. >>> >>>Criticizing Bush for his lack of thought is really criticizing Bush. >>> >>>Criticizing Bush for his 'thoughts' is really criticizing Cheney. >> >> All this rhetoric is a very nice way to ignore the existence >> of a national threat. > > Which one would that be, the dangers of driving on the nation's highways? > That's at least 3 orders of magnitude greater of a real threat to every > person in the country than is terrorism. As I said previously, I get this almost daily. The media have managed to create a massive, disproportionate, threat from terrorism. It would be quite impressive if it wasn't so annoying.
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 15:48 Jim Thompson wrote: > You must be a Democrat. So when does the new Civil War start ? At least it'll keep you jerks out of everyone else's hair. Graham
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 15:49 Jim Thompson wrote: > You must be a Democrat, you're so ignorant. And you're what exactly ? Graham
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 15:49
"Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1f8ef7a64499f172989d95(a)News.Individual.NET... > 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. Maybe, but at the very least, I've seen Tony Snow use it since he went to the White House. I think I've heard Bush use it in a speech--I can't be certain about that, but I am certain about Tony Snow. >> 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. Then why does the Supreme Court disagree with you? You so arrogant that you think you know Constitutional law better than the justices on the Supreme Court? Why is Bush trying to get Congress to pass legislation to legalize it, when we already have FISA? >> 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. No, nice try at a strawman, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying and what is provided for in FISA. Read carefully. The NSA has a certain number of hours (I believe it is 72 hours) *after* they listen in on the the call to file for a post facto warrant. They don't have to have the warrant before they listen in, they just have to get one afterwards. By the time they get the warrant, they've already gotten the information by listening to the call. No value gone, just a record kept of the surveillance, and accountability to somebody besides their own "good will". It was a well-thought out Act, until the Adminimstration chose to ignore it. You might want to read up on it sometime. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quoting US Code TITLE 50 > Chapter 36 > Subchapter I > 1805 Issuance of Order: (f) Emergency orders Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that- (1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and (2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists; he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Me again. So all they have to do is have the puppy-dog Gonzales have a standing emergency request with the FISA court for emergency surveillance, and have it renewed every 72 hours. Then they can file for a warrant any time in the particular 72 hour window they happen to be in, even if it is *after* they have already eavesdropped on a call. Got it? Or do you even care about the facts? Eric Lucas |