Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Oct 2006 07:11 In article <kurtullman-32C18F.14223605102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >In article <eg3f0u$j7l$8(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >> >> First, we don't know that. Secondly, when did the 4th amendment get repealed >> for an American citizen calling, say, France? > > Didn't. If the American is CALLING France, warrants are still needed, >even under the Bush statement. When calls originate OUTSIDE the country >and just come, then Bush says they don't need warrants. This is backed >up by current law, more or less. Which law is that? >If there is a legal tap on Goomba 1, >then if Goomba 2 calls G1, anything G2 says is usable against G2, >because the tap was legal. > In this case, when calls originate outside the US, there are no >requirements for warrant. Thus, if Terrorist 1 calls Terrorist 2 in >Pakistan it is legal. If T1 calls T3 in Newark it is also legal. > If one phone is legally tapped any calls to or from that phone are >fair game. The issue is "domestic wiretapping" though.
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Oct 2006 07:09 In article <FObVg.51593$E67.21082(a)clgrps13>, "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >"Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >news:MPG.1f8ef7a64499f172989d95(a)News.Individual.NET... > >> 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. > >Apparently you can't read. They have 72 hours to notify the FISA court that >they have done it, AFTER they have done it. > >The complaint now is that they refuse to record what they did and then have >it logged to a secret court. That is troubling. > > > > > > Keith doesn't let facts interfere with his ranting.
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Oct 2006 07:08 In article <MPG.1f8f092b8bc56682989d9c(a)News.Individual.NET>, Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <eg327g$5l0$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >says... >> In article <MPG.1f8dd5b29aa6ac49989d7a(a)News.Individual.NET>, >> Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >In article <eg0vov$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. > >You're repeating yourself. The fact is that they ruled that Bush >could do whatever Congress allowed him to do, but that the >framework had to be set in law. One more time: First, Bush argued the courts could not even hear the case. The courts all ruled they could. > >> >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. > >Nope, history. Tr reality some time. It's quite interesting. >
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Oct 2006 07:25 In article <qkrai2hvpp43t4lpu1ttca9tpq8ueb94qr(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:03:17 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>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. > >3000 people died at the WTC. Three orders of magnitude from that is 3 >million. We kill about 40K people a year in car accidents. > >John > > 3000 people in say, a 20-year span vs 800,000 people in a 20-year span with cars. Or take the 500,000 who die every year from tobacco-caused illnesses. As many people die every 3 days from that as died in the WTC. Why isn't Bush tapping the phones of the tobacco execs?
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Oct 2006 07:15
In article <yecVg.8912$GR.1933(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message >news:eg32m2$5l0$8(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... >> In article <lef8i2prust90bdlna6vmp1r0h9p7a7a95(a)4ax.com>, >> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:52:37 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>In article <peb8i2lf4af0irq171tqukscc9n0lec541(a)4ax.com>, >>>> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:51:21 GMT, 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. 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. >>>>> >>>>> And it varies state-by-state... it is legal in Arizona to record all >>>>> calls on your own phone, _without_ notifying the other party. >>>>> >>>>> All I need to do is push a button ;-) >>>> >>>> There are two different things going on here. One is what you can >>>>do as private citizen, which in AZ is that all are fair game. But we >>>>were talking about what goverment (be it under the mantel of cop-dom or >>>>spook-dom) can do. Whole 'nother kettle of fish.. >>> >>>Of course. But I can record and then hand over to the government, no >>>sweat, no warrant, nada. >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> >> And it can be thrown out. > >Maybe, maybe not, but in any case, the scenario that Jim presented is >immaterial. It is still a private citizen behaving as a private citizen. >Now, if the government were to come to that citizen and say "please tap your >phone when you call X", it would be thrown out in most courts in the US, >since that person would be interpreted as working as an ad hoc agent of the >government. The US Constitution only says what the Federal government can >and cannot do. Period. There is a reason that essentially every single >clause in the Constitution says: "Congress shall", or "The Federal >Government shall". A Constitution is a list of rules what a *government* >can and cannot do to or for its citizens. The fact that a private citizen >can do something in no way means that the Federal government is allowed to >do the same thing. > >Oh, and there is also a Federal law that say in any recording of a phone >conversation, at least one of the parties to the conversation must be aware >of the recording. So if Jim calls me, John cannot record the phone call >unless either Jim or I know the recording is taking place. Of course, >Federal laws only apply to interstate calls, but Jim is in Arizona and I'm >in Ohio (or am I?), so there you have it. > >Eric Lucas > > And some states have more restrictive laws. See http://www.wrf.com/publication_newsletters.cfm?id=10&publication_ID=12703, for example. |