Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 19:35 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > T Wake wrote: > > >> Military Police patrolling civilian towns is not normal... The fact the > >> idea was even suggested is shocking and I am ex-Army. > > > > What was the idea behind the use of MPs ? > > Civilian police were too undermanned to provide a suitable presence at > weekends and it was thought that most of the drinkers would be local > soldiers. I can see the logic in that. Graham
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 19:36 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:1CgVg.7743$TV3.3627(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:LtSdnY4ToMTxEbjYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> >> >> What situation can the intelligence be so vital that the law enforcement >> agency know it is going to be said but dont have time to advance request >> a warrant? > > Well, that's the issue. Phone calls aren't something you get much advance > warning of. If they see a phone call coming from a suspicious person (a > known terrorist, for example) to somebody inside the US, they need to turn > on the recording equipment *immediately*, or they *won't* know what was > said. It might be a completely innocent phonecall, but the US government > has decided (and I do happen to agree with this one) that if ObL calls > someone in the US, there is an excellent chance that he's plotting > something nasty inside the US. History (at least recent history) has > proven that to be a fairly good assumption. And I know this really > doesn't mean much to you, but being an independent body, I *do* trust the > FISA court to only use the privilege against known terrorists or their > associates. Here we have an issue about the assumption of guilt. That said, if you _know_ person X is bad. How hard is it to get a warrant to intercept his calls? Why wait until he makes a call to initate the process? Post-action justification is (to me) pointless. Once they have the information, no one is going to turn round and say "well the judge told us we cant use it, so forget it." >>> However, it's provided for in FISA. >> >> Not really relevant to me, as your country feels it can intercept my >> communications at its leisure. > > Well, yes, there is *that* little unpleasant fact.... > > Just out of curiosity, what does British law say are your rights as > regards British surveillance of this or any other type? > I am not sure. We have the Intercept of Communications Act which seems similar but I seem to think it requires permission before the event. Surveillance intercept for intelligence purposes may be a different matter as there is no reason for that evidence to turn up in court. As I said though, I don't really have any idea.
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 19:37 "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kurtullman-0481F2.19314905102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx... > In article <452590E2.F828860(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >> > Lobbing missiles >> >> The targeting was quite precise actually. >> > Yep. He hit that aspirin factory dead on. Managed to put down the > chimney of the Chinese Embassy during Kosovo, too, Rip roaring accuracy. Wow. Does your president launch and aim the missiles himself? Amazing. I love your country. >> > in the general direction (with a forewarning to >> > Pakistan) is not an "attempt to get OBL", just an attempt to show that >> > "something is being done". >> >> It's still 100% more than GWB ever did. >> > Yep GWB never did get around to clearing out the Taliban and > exiling him to mountains at the border. Did mange to give him some new bolt holes though.
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 19:37 Kurt Ullman wrote: > In article <452590E2.F828860(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > > > > > Lobbing missiles > > > > The targeting was quite precise actually. > > > Yep. He hit that aspirin factory dead on. Managed to put down the > chimney of the Chinese Embassy during Kosovo, too, Rip roaring accuracy. I gather the Chinese Embassy was down to poor 'intelligence' ! > > > in the general direction (with a forewarning to > > > Pakistan) is not an "attempt to get OBL", just an attempt to show that > > > "something is being done". > > > > It's still 100% more than GWB ever did. > > Yep GWB never did get around to clearing out the Taliban and > exiling him to mountains at the border. They gave up on the job. Graham
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 19:39
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:452595A4.5AF870E4(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > T Wake wrote: >> > >> >> Planes to the US are becoming a joke now, all because of four domestic >> >> flights being taken over. How many flights take off each day? >> > >> > Taken over ? >> > >> > I don't think a single one has been 'taken over'. >> >> Hmm. Pedantry again. What terminology would you use to describe the >> actions >> of the terrorists who flew the planes into the world trade centre? >> >> Did they not "take over" the plane? Was it not a domestic flight? >> >> I may be mistaken, and I often am. > > You said 'to the US' not 'in the US' so I took it to mean international > flights. > Sorry, I meant the flights going to the US were a joke, because four domestic US flights had been taken over. The idea was to highlight the foolishness of the resulting "Airport Security" actions. Interesting (related) article linked to from this page - http://www.whydontyou.org.uk/blog/2006/09/28/slashdot-effect-still-working/ |