|
Home > Archive > Multiple sclerosis support > December 2005 > "Highly classified"???
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
"Highly classified"???
|
|
| Michael 2005-12-18, 1:02 am |
| .... but totally, utterly illegal, Bush's official, personal and completely
unrepentant abrogation of the Fourth Amendment is pure treason.
Impeach Bush, try him for treason, and imprison him for the rest of his
natural life.
Do it now.
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed...
How about just keeping in in the Attorney General's face 24/7/365 instead?
Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
Amendment Text
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and ***no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized***.
Is there anything at all in this text that's ambiguous?
Is there anything at all in Mr. Bush's most recent defense - "...leak...
national security... terrorists... I'd do it all again" - that can legally
absolve any President's total disregard for the principles for which his
government stands entirely under his own oath of office... and for which
Americans have paid with their lives for nearly two and a half centuries?
| |
|
| Right on, Michael. Dave
"Michael" <muirhead@haidagwaii.net> wrote in message
news:Ar-dncJRi6OzQTnenZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@qcislands.net...
> ... but totally, utterly illegal, Bush's official, personal and completely
> unrepentant abrogation of the Fourth Amendment is pure treason.
>
> Impeach Bush, try him for treason, and imprison him for the rest of his
> natural life.
>
> Do it now.
>
> "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed...
>
> How about just keeping in in the Attorney General's face 24/7/365 instead?
>
> Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
>
>
> Amendment Text
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
> effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
> violated,
> and ***no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
> or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
> the persons or things to be seized***.
>
> Is there anything at all in this text that's ambiguous?
>
> Is there anything at all in Mr. Bush's most recent defense - "...leak...
> national security... terrorists... I'd do it all again" - that can legally
> absolve any President's total disregard for the principles for which his
> government stands entirely under his own oath of office... and for which
> Americans have paid with their lives for nearly two and a half centuries?
>
| |
|
| On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:49:03 -0800, "Michael"
<muirhead@haidagwaii.net> wrote:
>... but totally, utterly illegal, Bush's official, personal and completely
>unrepentant abrogation of the Fourth Amendment is pure treason.
>
>Impeach Bush, try him for treason, and imprison him for the rest of his
>natural life.
>
>Do it now.
>
>"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed...
>
>How about just keeping in in the Attorney General's face 24/7/365 instead?
>
>Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
>
>
>Amendment Text
>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
>effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
>and ***no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
>or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
>the persons or things to be seized***.
>
>Is there anything at all in this text that's ambiguous?
>
>Is there anything at all in Mr. Bush's most recent defense - "...leak...
>national security... terrorists... I'd do it all again" - that can legally
>absolve any President's total disregard for the principles for which his
>government stands entirely under his own oath of office... and for which
>Americans have paid with their lives for nearly two and a half centuries?
>
Michael, carefully now, are you involving the Canadian point of you in
your above statement?
Donn
| |
| Michael 2005-12-18, 1:02 am |
| DCI wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:49:03 -0800, "Michael"
> <muirhead@haidagwaii.net> wrote:
>
>
> Michael, carefully now, are you involving the Canadian point of you in
> your above statement?
>
> Donn
Absolutely not, though I would defintiely do so if I thought it would wake
all of America the f#ck *UP*. Even though I do harbour other grudges
against the present administration, none of them has the slightest bearing
on my opinion of *this* kind of thing.
There is no reason defensible under the Constitution of the United States of
America (and I defy *anyone on earth* to show a legally defensible reason)
for the President of the USA to do and say as Mr. Bush has done and said in
this case. Because it was (and let there be no mistake, Bush said himself
that it was deliberately) constructed such as to permit its application to
US citizens, the Constitution's 4th amendment clearly and explicitly forbids
every single bit of it.
Either he is a criminal and a traitor, or your Constitution is exactly as
Bush himself described it: "... just a piece of paper!"
There is *no* in between in this case.
Either your President is a criminal and a traitor, or you live in a police
state... it's your choice.
| |
|
| Its amazing, this nation of laws has totally forgotten what it stands for.
Its just unbelievable in Iraq US champions secularism and in this country
you are liberal if you do, go figure.
--
Quaecomque sunt vera ----
"Michael" <muirhead@haidagwaii.net> wrote in message
news:Ar-dncJRi6OzQTnenZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@qcislands.net...
> ... but totally, utterly illegal, Bush's official, personal and completely
> unrepentant abrogation of the Fourth Amendment is pure treason.
>
> Impeach Bush, try him for treason, and imprison him for the rest of his
> natural life.
>
> Do it now.
>
> "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed...
>
> How about just keeping in in the Attorney General's face 24/7/365 instead?
>
> Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
>
>
> Amendment Text
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
> effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
> violated,
> and ***no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
> or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
> the persons or things to be seized***.
>
> Is there anything at all in this text that's ambiguous?
>
> Is there anything at all in Mr. Bush's most recent defense - "...leak...
> national security... terrorists... I'd do it all again" - that can legally
> absolve any President's total disregard for the principles for which his
> government stands entirely under his own oath of office... and for which
> Americans have paid with their lives for nearly two and a half centuries?
>
| |
|
| for about the zillionth time i've been reminded of the book "Fahrenheit
451." that's *book*, *451*, and Bradbury, not 'movie,' '9/11' and
'Moore.'
it's one of those books that 'everyone' has heard of, and everyone
'knows' that it's a book 'about censorship.' possibly *especially*
those who've never actually read it! having skipped both college and
high school, i never read F451 in school, and had just never bothered
to pick up a copy, till the time came when i was home-schooling my
daughter, and her Honors English program (in *middle school!*) had that
as one of the required texts.
the thing that struck me once i'd actually *read* the book, was how
totally wrong my idea of what it would be like was. the book-burning in
F451 was *not* the result of a corrupt government forcing its will upon
the people -- the point was made in the book, clearly, unequivocally,
and repeatedly, that the 'reforms' of the society being written about
were not only requested, but *demanded* by the people. they wanted to
feel safe, so they gave up freedom for entertainment and a sense of
security. i thought one of the most important points of the book was
that the society described was NOT an iron-fisted fascist regime
forcing its citizens to toe the line or risk imprisonment or
reprogramming, but a fearful society who demanded the government
protect them from terrors real or imagined, and provide them with fun
(the big tele-screens with fake 'people' who were programmed to
interact with real humans and play the role of their 'friends' isn't
even as outlandish in this day as it might have seemed way back when
Bradbury wrote the book).
nobody put the smack down and took freedom from people -- they begged
to have it taken away to appease their sense of fear.
it's an *excellent* book, and if you've never read it, i highly
recommend it.
rose
| |
|
| I know liberals read book (shamefully I have to admit) that I saw the movie.
That and bananas seemed too far fetched but Goldwater was right, these guys
come out of wood work and take away your liberty. The first year that I was
in the US, for summer vacation, I went back, the Iranian girls were so
fashionable and just good, but now Khomeini with HIS interpretation of his
mandate did away with that. Now US is going down that rathole.
--
Quaecomque sunt vera ----
"rose" <rosedawn_scott@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134919987.472412.228790@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> for about the zillionth time i've been reminded of the book "Fahrenheit
> 451." that's *book*, *451*, and Bradbury, not 'movie,' '9/11' and
> 'Moore.'
>
> it's one of those books that 'everyone' has heard of, and everyone
> 'knows' that it's a book 'about censorship.' possibly *especially*
> those who've never actually read it! having skipped both college and
> high school, i never read F451 in school, and had just never bothered
> to pick up a copy, till the time came when i was home-schooling my
> daughter, and her Honors English program (in *middle school!*) had that
> as one of the required texts.
>
> the thing that struck me once i'd actually *read* the book, was how
> totally wrong my idea of what it would be like was. the book-burning in
> F451 was *not* the result of a corrupt government forcing its will upon
> the people -- the point was made in the book, clearly, unequivocally,
> and repeatedly, that the 'reforms' of the society being written about
> were not only requested, but *demanded* by the people. they wanted to
> feel safe, so they gave up freedom for entertainment and a sense of
> security. i thought one of the most important points of the book was
> that the society described was NOT an iron-fisted fascist regime
> forcing its citizens to toe the line or risk imprisonment or
> reprogramming, but a fearful society who demanded the government
> protect them from terrors real or imagined, and provide them with fun
> (the big tele-screens with fake 'people' who were programmed to
> interact with real humans and play the role of their 'friends' isn't
> even as outlandish in this day as it might have seemed way back when
> Bradbury wrote the book).
>
> nobody put the smack down and took freedom from people -- they begged
> to have it taken away to appease their sense of fear.
>
> it's an *excellent* book, and if you've never read it, i highly
> recommend it.
>
> rose
>
| |
|
| Michael;
>Either your President is a criminal and a traitor, or you live in a police
>state... it's your choice.
Exactly.
This whole mess is beginning to remind me of 1973, the Watergate
break-in, the cover-up, and, finally, the first resignation of a
president in United States history. Crimes are being committed, and
I'm afraid it's starting at the top, as it did then.
Where is the new Deepthoat?
Sylvia
| |
|
| Rose;
>the point was made in the book, clearly, unequivocally,
>and repeatedly, that the 'reforms' of the society being written about
>were not only requested, but *demanded* by the people. they wanted to
>feel safe, so they gave up freedom for entertainment and a sense of
>security.
I have read "Fahrenheit 451" at least 5 times, the first time I read it
was in eighth grade, and I only read it because I loved Ray Bradbury's
work. I caught only the surface stuff about the book-burning then.
Later I caught the point you made: the society was being repressed at
its own request! We ARE being asked to trade our freedom for a sense
of "security," and I'm gagging as I write this word; every time the
president says it, I cringe because I don't feel very "sercure" in this
country any more. I fear another debacle like New Orleans in the
hurricane and its aftermath more than a terrorist attack.
Strange how writers in the late 50s and early 60s turned to science
fiction to make their social commentaries. Rod Serling used "The
Twilight Zone" to make a lot of political points under the cover of
"science fiction."
Bradbury and Serling had a lot in common, but only one "Twilight Zone"
was based on a Bradbury story, "I Sing The Body Electric," and that was
pure science fiction. I wonder what either of them would do with the
current situations in this country.
But I also highly recommend reading "Fahrenheit 451" to anybody.
Sylvia
| |
| QQQte@webtv.net 2005-12-18, 6:03 pm |
| oh my how interesting this topic is... a verbal war it is:-)... dory
| |
| robduncan2000@hotmail.com 2005-12-18, 6:03 pm |
| It actually reminds me of all the breaches to the Constitution the
democrats forced down Americans throats during WWII. Good thing Bush
hasnt gone as far as Roosevelt.
It would be hillarious to watch the libs trying to justify the same
behavior (which would occur for sure...) under a liberal admin.
People forget, the dems did far worse in WWII.
Rob
| |
| Michael 2005-12-18, 6:03 pm |
|
<robduncan2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134936607.614555.175980@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> It actually reminds me of all the breaches to the Constitution the
> democrats forced down Americans throats during WWII. Good thing Bush
> hasnt gone as far as Roosevelt.
>
> It would be hillarious to watch the libs trying to justify the same
> behavior (which would occur for sure...) under a liberal admin.
>
> People forget, the dems did far worse in WWII.
No one's forgotten... but that's a long time ago and the perps are all dead.
We're talking about here and now, and the main perp is still in office.
Condi Rice - she was National Security Advisor to Bush at the time and was
present for all the legal briefings on this affair - can't say what statute
gave Bush the authority to violate the Constitution so baldly.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/rice-no-answer
RUSSERT: What Democrats and Republicans in Congress are asking, what is the
authority that you keep citing? What law? What statute? Where in the
Constitution does it say that the President can eavesdrop, wiretap American
citizens without a court order?
RICE: Tim, the President has authorities under FISA which we are using and
using actively. He also has authorities that derive from his role as
Commander in Chief and his need to protect the country. He has acted within
his constitutional authority and within statutory authority. Now, I am not a
lawyer and I am quite certain that the Attorney General will address a lot
of these questions.
Rice said several times this morning that she's "not a lawyer." That is
irrelevant. Rice was the National Security Advisor when President Bush
authorized the NSA program, and said today that she was aware of Bush's
decision at the time. Shouldn't she know why it was legal?
Here's why it is *not* legal, according to the President's Oath, his duties,
FISA and the Consitution:
http://thetenthousandthings.blogspo...at-laws-be.html
And of course... Rice lied about it as well.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18...m-no-reference/
RICE: It's been reviewed not just by the White House counsel but by the
lawyers of the Justice Department and by the lawyers of the NSA, the
National Security Agency, and by the Inspector General of the National
Security Agency, and it has to be reauthorized every 45 days. And the
Congress, the congressional leaders, including -
RUSSERT: Those are administration lawyers. Why not go to an objective court?
RICE: - including leaders of the relevant oversight intelligence committees
have been briefed on this.
This is apparently not true. At the time the program was initiated, the
Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was former Sen. Bob Graham
(D-FL). On Friday's "Nightline," Graham made clear he had never once been
briefed by the administration about the program:
"There was no reference made to the fact that we were going to begin
unwarranted, illegal - and I think unconstitutional - eavesdropping on
American citizens."
| |
| Jim Carter 2005-12-19, 1:02 am |
| On 18 Dec 2005 10:20:35 -0800, "Sylv" <Sylv772003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>We ARE being asked to trade our freedom for a sense
>of "security," and I'm gagging as I write this word; every time the
>president says it, I cringe because I don't feel very "sercure" in this
>country any more.
"Those who desire to give up Freedom, in order to gain Security, will
not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
-Ben Franklin
"Nobody has ever seen an electron. Nor a thought. You can't see a
thought, you can't measure, weigh, nor taste it -- but thoughts are
the most real things in the Galaxy."
-Robert A. Heinlein,
_Citizen of the Galaxy_
| |
| robduncan2000@hotmail.com 2005-12-19, 1:02 am |
| A simple exucitive order is all thats needed. As the dems, during
WWII, aptly demonstrated when they made it illegal for ALL
German-Americans to own a radio, a flashlight, fireworks, etc....
They even made bicycle races illegal to save rubber needed for the war
effort.
Rob
| |
|
| I'm sure that's news to all the millions of German-Americans like me, who
lived in Wisconsin during WWII. What's your source?
Dave
<robduncan2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134952275.049358.234920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>A simple exucitive order is all thats needed. As the dems, during
> WWII, aptly demonstrated when they made it illegal for ALL
> German-Americans to own a radio, a flashlight, fireworks, etc....
>
> They even made bicycle races illegal to save rubber needed for the war
> effort.
>
>
> Rob
>
| |
|
| Its fascinating how crimes can be justified by precedence, slavery was legal
in most states, killing Indians was also tolerated, yet these are crimes
now, to justify a crime based on precedence is not correct. Precedence can
be used until congress/courts explicitly address the issue.
--
Quaecomque sunt vera ----
<robduncan2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134952275.049358.234920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>A simple exucitive order is all thats needed. As the dems, during
> WWII, aptly demonstrated when they made it illegal for ALL
> German-Americans to own a radio, a flashlight, fireworks, etc....
>
> They even made bicycle races illegal to save rubber needed for the war
> effort.
>
>
> Rob
>
| |
| Michael 2005-12-19, 1:02 am |
| robduncan2000@hotmail.com wrote:
> A simple exucitive order is all thats needed. As the dems, during
> WWII, aptly demonstrated when they made it illegal for ALL
> German-Americans to own a radio, a flashlight, fireworks, etc....
>
> They even made bicycle races illegal to save rubber needed for the war
> effort.
Did they make the existence of those laws a secret, even from the chairman
of the Senate Intelligence Committee?
That's what Bush did... and his own party's Congressmen/women don't like it.
Posted on Sun, Dec. 18, 2005
Lawmakers call for domestic spying probe
HOPE YEN
Associated Press
Democrats and Republicans called separately Sunday for congressional
investigations into President Bush's decision after the Sept. 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks to allow domestic eavesdropping without court approval.
"The president has, I think, made up a law that we never passed," said Sen.
Russell Feingold, D-Wis.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
said he intends to hold hearings.
"They talk about constitutional authority," Specter said. "There are limits
as to what the president can do."
....
Specter said he wants Bush's advisers to cite their specific legal authority
for bypassing the courts. Bush said the attorney general and White House
counsel's office had affirmed the legality of his actions.
....
Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used in a manner "consistent
with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it targets only international
communications of people inside the U.S. with "a clear link" to al-Qaida or
related terrorist organizations.
Government officials have refused to define the standards they're using to
establish such a link or to say how many people are being monitored.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called that troubling. If Bush is allowed to
decide unilaterally who the potential terrorists are, he becomes the court,"
Graham said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
"We are at war, and I applaud the president for being aggressive," said
Graham, who also called for a congressional review. "But we cannot set aside
the rule of law in a time of war."
| |
|
|
| robduncan2000@hotmail.com 2005-12-19, 1:02 am |
| It shouldnt be news to any that have a memory. I suggest a trip to
your local library. Go through some old newspapers of the time. They
have them on microfish/film. Itll help refresh your memory of the
oppresive democratic regime that ruled our nation with an iron fist
back then. Make no mistake, the limits on personal freedom instututed
by the democrats back then make the non-existant impositions on liberty
today seem trivial.
Rob
| |
|
| kamel wrote:
> I'm sure that's news to all the millions of German-Americans like me, who
> lived in Wisconsin during WWII. What's your source?
> Dave
News to me, too ... my very German grandparents [Grandfather = 1st
generation American; Grandmother = German immigrant] had a radio
during WWII ... probably had a flashlight, too ... if they were
available and not too expensive.
Maybe the Bill of Rights was limited to Wisconsin residents ... ;-)
Kathie
[vbcol=seagreen]
> <robduncan2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1134952275.049358.234920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
| |
|
| abdi wrote:
> Its fascinating how crimes can be justified by precedence, slavery was legal
> in most states, killing Indians was also tolerated, yet these are crimes
> now, to justify a crime based on precedence is not correct. Precedence can
> be used until congress/courts explicitly address the issue.
Contrary to popular opinion, we "liberals" do NOT support the
erosion of civil liberties even if that was done by Democrats.
I tend give Roosevelt the benefit of the doubt ... after all, we
WERE attacked by the Japanese and Germany DID declare war on the US.
OTOH, Clinton's restrictions on habeas corpus were NOT OK and I
don't give him the benefit of any doubt.
Kathie
| |
|
|
|
| Rob;
>A simple exucitive order is all thats needed. As the dems, during
>WWII, aptly demonstrated when they made it illegal for ALL
>German-Americans to own a radio, a flashlight, fireworks, etc....
Yes, they did, but it was loosely enforced. The area where my parents
lived had many Germans. My Chicago neighborhood was known as the
"Nordseit" (sp!), and still has remnants of the old country. Some of
these Germans were taken in for questioning (one of them was later my
parents' landlord), and they were afraid (some of them "Americanized"
their last names), but I don't think there was any widespread
prosecution of Germans.
I think you're mixing up the Germans with the Japanese. Now they were
treated like criminals, rounded up into "camps" in California. A lot
of them were second and third generation American citizens; their only
crime was their nationality. Sounds to me like some of the routine was
learned from the enemy the United States was fighting in Europe, Nazi
Germany.
I don't remember how it was resolved, but some Japanese sued the United
States government for their imprisionment. A man I worked with was
only ten years old when he and his family got arrested and thrown
somewhere. When they returned to their home a couple of years later,
everything was gone, including his new bike.
This was wrong. I don't think they landed one Japanese spy out of the
whole group that got incarcerated.
The wrongs of the past do not make the wrongs of the present correct,
however.
Sylvia
| |
|
| KKT wrote:
.......
>
> I tend give Roosevelt the benefit of the doubt ... after all, we WERE
> attacked by the Japanese and Germany DID declare war on the US.
AFAIR, we WERE attacked by al-Qaeda on 11 September 2001. Ergo, let's
follow KKT's reasoning (this time) and give Bush43 benefit of the doubt.
CW
PS: Rob, I've never read that the US restricted citizen
German-Americans and resident-alien Germans from owning radios during
WW2. In fact, I've read differing accounts on whether
Japanese-Americans in the internment camps were forbiiden radios.
>
> OTOH, Clinton's restrictions on habeas corpus were NOT OK and I don't
> give him the benefit of any doubt.
>
> Kathie
| |
|
| On 18 Dec 2005 20:31:49 -0800, "Sylv" <Sylv772003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Rob;
>
>
>Yes, they did, but it was loosely enforced. The area where my parents
>lived had many Germans. My Chicago neighborhood was known as the
>"Nordseit" (sp!), and still has remnants of the old country. Some of
>these Germans were taken in for questioning (one of them was later my
>parents' landlord), and they were afraid (some of them "Americanized"
>their last names), but I don't think there was any widespread
>prosecution of Germans.
>
>I think you're mixing up the Germans with the Japanese. Now they were
>treated like criminals, rounded up into "camps" in California. A lot
>of them were second and third generation American citizens; their only
>crime was their nationality. Sounds to me like some of the routine was
>learned from the enemy the United States was fighting in Europe, Nazi
>Germany.
>
>I don't remember how it was resolved, but some Japanese sued the United
>States government for their imprisionment. A man I worked with was
>only ten years old when he and his family got arrested and thrown
>somewhere. When they returned to their home a couple of years later,
>everything was gone, including his new bike.
>
>This was wrong. I don't think they landed one Japanese spy out of the
>whole group that got incarcerated.
>
>The wrongs of the past do not make the wrongs of the present correct,
>however.
>
>Sylvia
I grew up in Watts, California. The area then was noted for its Red
Car line station, small business, quaint housing (euphemism for tiny),
and "Japanese Gardens" from which folks could purchase vegetables and
fruits, etc. the best sweet corn I ever ate was from those fields.
When WWII started and the Japanese were to be interned in camps (some
of those camps areas are still around and are looked upon as
historical cites), many of the families "quit claimed" their property
to their Anglo "friends." The properties were to be held until such a
time as they returned, whenever. What happened to some of the families
was a travesty, some of the so-called friends sold property off and
move out of the area. So those families so effected came home to
nothing.
It was, the internment, a mystery to me because many of my school
friends were just shipped off to somewhere to places I didn't know for
reasons I really didn't understand. That was some 64 years ago.
Donn
| |
| robduncan2000@hotmail.com 2005-12-19, 1:02 am |
| Im sure theres a lot of things you dont know. Just like theres lots of
things I dont know.
Rob
| |
| John Husvar 2005-12-19, 11:00 am |
| In article <o2vbq1d0chlh37ggjrjolu2cm1cmv0i6eh@4ax.com>,
Jim Carter <spamfree@sentex.ca> wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2005 10:20:35 -0800, "Sylv" <Sylv772003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Those who desire to give up Freedom, in order to gain Security, will
> not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
> -Ben Franklin
Amen. 
Get used to it, everyone. You ain't "secure." You cain't be "secure."
Nobody on this Earth kin _make_ you "secure."
Bad things happen to good people and bad people in about proportionate
measure.
You can have a machinegun-toting policeman on every street corner and in
the middle if every block and you _still_ won't be "secure."
Some baddy will still figure out a way to steal from you, rob you, hurt
you, kill you, or blow you into small pieces, even if those cops are
only 1 minute away. Way too much can happen in one minute. You can be in
a homicide bombing anywhere and maimed for life or killed in less than 1
second.
Terrorism is just one more occupational hazard of being human. And all
the terrorists aren't in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, wherever. Some
of them are even in De Gubmint -- under the guise of protecting you from
terrorists. They keep you scared and take away your birthright while
promising to control crime and terror. They might be able to somewhat
deter some little crime, but only you can control your terror.
Think not? Just ask any Israeli, whatever you might think of Israel.
Terrorism mainly just pisses me off and I'll be damned if some gimcrack,
self-appointed representative of Allah, Jahweh, Jesus, Ba'al ZeBul,
Cthulhu, or Mongo Bongo of the Congo is going to make me give up my
freedom.
Screw 'em. It's my life and some dipshit may be able to take it by
stealth, bombing, or making me choke on a pizza, but I'm damn well going
to live it, my way, until I die, however I die.
Ahm sick o' this crap. I don't 'spect De Gubmint to do what it cain't
possibly do, make me safe. I refuse to spend my life crying: "Mr. G-Man,
Mr. G-Man, please make me saaaaaafe! Take my freedom, please!"
What a waste of good living time! What a cowardly way to waste a life!
What a despicable way to betray a country!
Jist mah xxx xxxx opinion.
John Husvar -- Ordained Deacon in The Church of St. John Moses Browning.
All hail The Mighty 1911!
| |
|
| chsw wrote:
> KKT wrote:
> ......
>
> AFAIR, we WERE attacked by al-Qaeda on 11 September 2001. Ergo, let's
> follow KKT's reasoning (this time) and give Bush43 benefit of the doubt.
Thanks. What country is "Al Qaeda?" We know that Japan attacked
Pearl Harbor, and we know that 15 of 17 hijackers on September 11th
were Saudis ... but you DO see the difference, don't you?
Al Qaeda's operating in some 60 countries ... including the US. It's
not a "state," it's not even state supported in most of those place
[and that includes Iraq].
So, yes, let's give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume that
he's not as stupid, inept, uncurious, and lacking in morals,
scruples, ethics, intelligence and good sense as all the evidence
suggests that he is ... because barring some good fortune, he's got
another 3 years.
KKT
| |
| Joan Carter 2005-12-19, 11:01 am |
| On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:04:50 GMT, John Husvar <jhusvar@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
alt.support.mult-sclerosis:
>Some baddy will still figure out a way to steal from you, rob you, hurt
>you, kill you, or blow you into small pieces, even if those cops are
>only 1 minute away. Way too much can happen in one minute. You can be in
>a homicide bombing anywhere and maimed for life or killed in less than 1
>second.
However, if the "karate clerk" who has black belts in 6 martial arts is handy,
perhaps he can protect you. Just saw that on the news, he literally scared the
pants off a would-be thief. And took a picture of his licence plate with his
cell phone to boot. Now I want that guy on my side. Not sure where it happened,
but think it was in the US. That story made my day.
---
Joan
| |
|
|
Joan Carter wrote:
> However, if the "karate clerk" who has black belts in 6 martial arts is handy,
> perhaps he can protect you. Just saw that on the news, he literally scared the
> pants off a would-be thief. And took a picture of his licence plate with his
> cell phone to boot. Now I want that guy on my side. Not sure where it happened,
> but think it was in the US. That story made my day.
Joan, it was Modesto, CA. The clerk was 5'4" and weighed 130 lbs., but
he had 6 black belts, by gum! :->
link to an article:
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?se...tate&id=3739249
rose
| |
| GT Tick 2005-12-19, 12:54 pm |
| And since this has been going on for at least as long as there has been
an NSA and a DEA we should concentrate on the current administration?
---
---
"Highly classified"???
Group: alt.support.mult-sclerosis Date: Sat, Dec 17, 2005, 7:49pm
(CST-2) From: muirhead@haidagwaii.net (Michael)
... but totally, utterly illegal, Bush's official, personal and
completely unrepentant abrogation of the Fourth Amendment is pure
treason.
Impeach Bush, try him for treason, and imprison him for the rest of his
natural life.
Do it now.
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed...
How about just keeping in in the Attorney General's face 24/7/365
instead?
Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
Amendment Text
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and ***no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized***.
Is there anything at all in this text that's ambiguous?
Is there anything at all in Mr. Bush's most recent defense - "...leak...
national security... terrorists... I'd do it all again" - that can
legally absolve any President's total disregard for the principles for
which his government stands entirely under his own oath of office... and
for which Americans have paid with their lives for nearly two and a half
centuries?
*****Don't Cry Because It's Over...Smile Because It Happened.*****
| |
| GT Tick 2005-12-19, 12:54 pm |
| It's all politics Michael. Both sides are looking for something to
accuse the other of and the press jumps on anything and everything to
fill columns. Well, except the NYT who sat on the story for a year
until they could print it for a political reason instead of a newsworthy
reason.
And committees on both sides of the aisle were/are fully aware of the
NSA's domestic 'eye in the sky' so to speak.
Your displeasure with 'our' administration seems a little over the top
considering where you sit. If you want to be honest (which you always
strike me as being) with yourself how far back do you want to take this
instead of your personal dislike of the sitting president?
---
---
Re: "Highly classified"???
Group: alt.support.mult-sclerosis Date: Sun, Dec 18, 2005, 5:06pm
(CST-2) From: muirhead@haidagwaii.net (Michael)
robduncan2000@hotmail.com wrote:
A simple exucitive order is all thats needed. As the dems, during WWII,
aptly demonstrated when they made it illegal for ALL German-Americans to
own a radio, a flashlight, fireworks, etc....
They even made bicycle races illegal to save rubber needed for the war
effort.
Did they make the existence of those laws a secret, even from the
chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee?
That's what Bush did... and his own party's Congressmen/women don't like
it.
Posted on Sun, Dec. 18, 2005
Lawmakers call for domestic spying probe HOPE YEN
Associated Press
Democrats and Republicans called separately Sunday for congressional
investigations into President Bush's decision after the Sept. 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks to allow domestic eavesdropping without court
approval.
"The president has, I think, made up a law that we never passed," said
Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
said he intends to hold hearings.
"They talk about constitutional authority," Specter said. "There are
limits as to what the president can do."
...
Specter said he wants Bush's advisers to cite their specific legal
authority for bypassing the courts. Bush said the attorney general and
White House counsel's office had affirmed the legality of his actions.
...
Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used in a manner
"consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it targets only
international communications of people inside the U.S. with "a clear
link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.
Government officials have refused to define the standards they're using
to establish such a link or to say how many people are being monitored.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called that troubling. If Bush is allowed
to decide unilaterally who the potential terrorists are, he becomes the
court," Graham said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
"We are at war, and I applaud the president for being aggressive," said
Graham, who also called for a congressional review. "But we cannot set
aside the rule of law in a time of war."
*****Don't Cry Because It's Over...Smile Because It Happened.*****
| |
|
| GT Tick wrote:
> And since this has been going on for at least as long as there has been
> an NSA and a DEA we should concentrate on the current administration?
> ---
A radio talk show host said that CBS' 60 minutes ran a story in February
2000 that NSA was spying in the US on both citizens and noncitizens. We
were not at war with al-Qaeda (or Iraq) at that time. So - why the fuss
now, especially when there may be more legal justification for such
actions, as well as tighter controls?
CW
> ---
> "Highly classified"???
> Group: alt.support.mult-sclerosis Date: Sat, Dec 17, 2005, 7:49pm
> (CST-2) From: muirhead@haidagwaii.net (Michael)
> .. but totally, utterly illegal, Bush's official, personal and
> completely unrepentant abrogation of the Fourth Amendment is pure
> treason.
> Impeach Bush, try him for treason, and imprison him for the rest of his
> natural life.
> Do it now.
> "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed...
> How about just keeping in in the Attorney General's face 24/7/365
> instead?
> Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
> Amendment Text
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
> violated, and ***no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
> supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
> to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized***.
> Is there anything at all in this text that's ambiguous?
> Is there anything at all in Mr. Bush's most recent defense - "...leak...
> national security... terrorists... I'd do it all again" - that can
> legally absolve any President's total disregard for the principles for
> which his government stands entirely under his own oath of office... and
> for which Americans have paid with their lives for nearly two and a half
> centuries?
>
> *****Don't Cry Because It's Over...Smile Because It Happened.*****
>
>
| |
| GT Tick 2005-12-19, 12:54 pm |
| John 'da man' wisely pontificates....."John Husvar -- Ordained Deacon in
The Church of St. John Moses Browning. All hail The Mighty 1911!
".....
---
---
Cocked and locked in a Yaqui slide. Screw deep leather and retaining
straps. Long live the +P.
*****Don't Cry Because It's Over...Smile Because It Happened.*****
| |
| GT Tick 2005-12-19, 12:54 pm |
| I saw that Joan, and maybe (as they say, 'back in the day') you coulda
gone to the mall with me. Now I'd have to depend on that loud roar and
a 'fast draw in my w/c or scooter. :-)
---
---
Re: "Highly classified"???
Group: alt.support.mult-sclerosis Date: Mon, Dec 19, 2005, 10:52am
(CST+1) From: spamfree@sentex.ca (Joan=A0Carter)
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:04:50 GMT, John Husvar <jhusvar@sbcglobal.net>
wrote in alt.support.mult-sclerosis:
Some baddy will still figure out a way to steal from you, rob you, hurt
you, kill you, or blow you into small pieces, even if those cops are
only 1 minute away. Way too much can happen in one minute. You can be in
a homicide bombing anywhere and maimed for life or killed in less than 1
second.
However, if the "karate clerk" who has black belts in 6 martial arts is
handy, perhaps he can protect you. Just saw that on the news, he
literally scared the pants off a would-be thief. And took a picture of
his licence plate with his cell phone to boot. Now I want that guy on my
side. Not sure where it happened, but think it was in the US. That story
made my day.
---
Joan
*****Don't Cry Because It's Over...Smile Because It Happened.*****
| |
| Michael 2005-12-19, 12:54 pm |
| GT Tick wrote:
> And since this has been going on for at least as long as there has
> been an NSA and a DEA
.... and long before that, I would think...
> we should concentrate on the current administration?
Well, no... that isn't the reason. It was done by direct presidential
Executive Order - an order which deliberately circumvented the checks and
balances built into the pertinent laws, and thereby abrogated the Fourth
Amendment. That's a direct violation of the President's sworn duty to
*uphold* the Constitution, which is impeachable as a high crime, and is
possibly treasonous as a deliberate and organized subversion of the nation's
most basic law.
Either the President is bound by the Constitution, or he is not... and if
not, then you no longer have a representative republic, do you?
> ---
> ---
> "Highly classified"???
> Group: alt.support.mult-sclerosis Date: Sat, Dec 17, 2005, 7:49pm
> (CST-2) From: muirhead@haidagwaii.net (Michael)
> .. but totally, utterly illegal, Bush's official, personal and
> completely unrepentant abrogation of the Fourth Amendment is pure
> treason.
> Impeach Bush, try him for treason, and imprison him for the rest of
> his natural life.
> Do it now.
> "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed...
> How about just keeping in in the Attorney General's face 24/7/365
> instead?
> Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
> Amendment Text
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
> violated, and ***no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
> supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
> place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized***.
> Is there anything at all in this text that's ambiguous?
> Is there anything at all in Mr. Bush's most recent defense -
> "...leak... national security... terrorists... I'd do it all again" -
> that can legally absolve any President's total disregard for the
> principles for which his government stands entirely under his own
> oath of office... and for which Americans have paid with their lives
> for nearly two and a half centuries?
>
> *****Don't Cry Because It's Over...Smile Because It Happened.*****
| |
| robduncan2000@hotmail.com 2005-12-19, 5:59 pm |
| Executive orders are legal. Thus the wiretaps are legal.
Rob
| |
| robduncan2000@hotmail.com 2005-12-19, 5:59 pm |
| Rob;
>A simple exucitive order is all thats needed. As the dems, during
>WWII, aptly demonstrated when they made it illegal for ALL
>German-Americans to own a radio, a flashlight, fireworks, etc....
Yes, they did, but it was loosely enforced. The area where my parents
lived had many Germans. My Chicago neighborhood was known as the
"Nordseit" (sp!), and still has remnants of the old country. Some of
these Germans were taken in for questioning (one of them was later my
parents' landlord), and they were afraid (some of them "Americanized"
their last names), but I don't think there was any widespread
prosecution of Germans.
----------------------------------
Persecution?
---------------------------------
I think you're mixing up the Germans with the Japanese.
---------------------------------
Nope. The japanese were locked up in concentration camps.
---------------------------------
Now they were
treated like criminals, rounded up into "camps" in California. A lot
of them were second and third generation American citizens; their only
crime was their nationality. Sounds to me like some of the routine was
learned from the enemy the United States was fighting in Europe, Nazi
Germany.
----------------------------------
Actually the NAZI concentration camps were modeled after the ones the
US built for the Japanese. Some, ignorant of WWII's timeline dont
realize we built ours first, then the NAZI's built theirs...
---------------------------------
I don't remember how it was resolved, but some Japanese sued the United
States government for their imprisionment. A man I worked with was
only ten years old when he and his family got arrested and thrown
somewhere. When they returned to their home a couple of years later,
everything was gone, including his new bike.
----------------------------------
If I recall correctly they won their lawsuit. But didnt win much per
person... It was a horrible thing the democrats did to the Japanese.
Much worse than anything President Bush has done to any Americans,
thats for sure. Some forget the past, if they ever knew it, all too
easily.
----------------------------------
This was wrong. I don't think they landed one Japanese spy out of the
whole group that got incarcerated.
---------------------------------
The point was to isolate them, not capture spies.
--------------------------------
The wrongs of the past do not make the wrongs of the present correct,
however.
-------------------------------
What wrongs would those be? Im still unsure, after all this time, just
what liberties of mine, or yours, have been infringed?
Rob
| |
| Michael 2005-12-19, 5:59 pm |
| robduncan2000@hotmail.com wrote:
> Executive orders are legal. Thus the wiretaps are legal.
Read the Foreign Intelligence Survellance Act, Rob.
Under FISA, such an executive order must be followed within 72 hours by an
application to the Court for warrant(s), or terminated the moment 72 hours
expires.
| |
| robduncan2000@hotmail.com 2005-12-19, 5:59 pm |
| robduncan2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Executive orders are legal. Thus the wiretaps are legal.
Read the Foreign Intelligence Survellance Act, Rob.
Under FISA, such an executive order must be followed within 72 hours by
an
application to the Court for warrant(s), or terminated the moment 72
hours
expires.
----------------------------
Google sucks.
Sure. But Im unsure of your point.
Rob
| |
| Michael 2005-12-19, 5:59 pm |
| robduncan2000@hotmail.com wrote:
> robduncan2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Read the Foreign Intelligence Survellance Act, Rob.
>
> Under FISA, such an executive order must be followed within 72 hours
> by an
> application to the Court for warrant(s), or terminated the moment 72
> hours
> expires.
> ----------------------------
> Google sucks.
>
> Sure. But Im unsure of your point.
The point is, the orders continued (renewed at 45-day intervals) for years,
no warrants were ever sought, and under law they expired at the end of 3
days. Even that three day limit exists only (and explicitly) because it
might not be possible to find a FISA-competent judge within the very short
timeframe necessary to capture a particular commmunication.
| |
|
| robduncan2000@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Actually the NAZI concentration camps were modeled after the ones the
> US built for the Japanese. Some, ignorant of WWII's timeline dont
> realize we built ours first, then the NAZI's built theirs...
Rob, that is incorrect. The concentration camp at Dachau was built for
political prisoners in the early 1930's. I had an uncle who escaped
from there after being beaten and tortured in 1938 when he was 19.
Sachsenhausen, the first work/death camp was built in 1939-40 in
downtown Oranienburg. You can see the gates about 200 yards from the
town's train station. The factory and crematory were still there in
1994, when I visited Germany.
CW
| |
|
|
| robduncan2000@hotmail.com 2005-12-19, 5:59 pm |
| I wasnt looking for it, but thank you...
The Presidents authority to decree executive orders is clear. And as
the section (1802) states... Blah, blah, blah... that he can, legally,
do what he did...
Rob
| |
| Jim Carter 2005-12-19, 5:59 pm |
| On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:33:43 -0600, OLTICK@webtv.net (GT Tick) wrote:
>And since this has been going on for at least as long as there has been
>an NSA and a DEA we should concentrate on the current administration?
Should anyone care about the background to this, before 9/11, see:
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/proc...219-echelon.htm
Ottawa bureaucrat Claude Hisson, the commissioner for the
Communications Security Establishment, is charged with investigating
any complaints into CSE operations. In his most recent annual report,
he admits that, on occasion, our spies intercept private
conversations. But he insists there is nothing to worry about. "The
sophistication of CSE's technology has led to speculation about the
organization's capability to intercept the communications of
Canadians," Mr. Hisson says.
| |
| Michael 2005-12-19, 5:59 pm |
| robduncan2000@hotmail.com wrote:
> I wasnt looking for it, but thank you...
>
>
> The Presidents authority to decree executive orders is clear. And as
> the section (1802) states... Blah, blah, blah... that he can, legally,
> do what he did...
Nope.
For warrantless orders, he's limited to
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means
of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as
defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken
communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and
exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1),
(2), or (3) of this title;"
(1801)
(a) "Foreign power" means-
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized
by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of
United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or
governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or
governments;
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation
therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of
United States persons; or
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or
governments.
.... which means he can order such a thing only with regard to foreign
governments and their acknowledged agents, and it specifically *excludes*
terrorists and terrorism suspects... for the surveillance of whom, he *must*
seek warrants.
| |
| robduncan2000@hotmail.com 2005-12-19, 5:59 pm |
| http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm
You didnt seem to mind, or complain, when Clinton, for eight years,
collected the same date, communications, and electronic info, when it
came to light in 2000.
Rob
| |
| Michael 2005-12-19, 5:59 pm |
| robduncan2000@hotmail.com wrote:
> http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm
>
> You didnt seem to mind, or complain, when Clinton, for eight years,
> collected the same date, communications, and electronic info, when it
> came to light in 2000.
I honestly didn't even notice. Sorry.
However, it deserves mention here that Echelon's basis has been in existence
since 1947 (and under constant improvement) the program as understood now
has been operative since the presidency of Bush I.
| |
| robduncan2000@hotmail.com 2005-12-19, 5:59 pm |
| And the democratic regime, under Clinton, chose to continue and expand
it.
Rob
| |
| Michael 2005-12-19, 6:00 pm |
| robduncan2000@hotmail.com wrote:
> And the democratic regime, under Clinton, chose to continue and expand
> it.
Could be. I don't know the history of it well and haven't found very much
reliable info about it... not least because the USA still officially denies
that it even exists.
As far as I can tell from what I *have* found, though, it's very probably
been (under various names) continued and expanded by every single US
administration since 1947.
| |
| QQQte@webtv.net 2005-12-19, 6:00 pm |
| yawning:-( and stretching my arms to read there is so much truth and so
little truth RE; proof provided in this thread..... sounds good tho if
you want to pick a winner on the asma as the know it all of facts...
just the facts ask 'Joe Friday from a very old cop tv show':-)... dory
| |
|
| John Husvar wrote:
> In article <o2vbq1d0chlh37ggjrjolu2cm1cmv0i6eh@4ax.com>,
> Jim Carter <spamfree@sentex.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Amen.
>
> Get used to it, everyone. You ain't "secure." You cain't be "secure."
> Nobody on this Earth kin _make_ you "secure."
>
> Bad things happen to good people and bad people in about proportionate
> measure.
>
> You can have a machinegun-toting policeman on every street corner and in
> the middle if every block and you _still_ won't be "secure."
>
> Some baddy will still figure out a way to steal from you, rob you, hurt
> you, kill you, or blow you into small pieces, even if those cops are
> only 1 minute away. Way too much can happen in one minute. You can be in
> a homicide bombing anywhere and maimed for life or killed in less than 1
> second.
>
> Terrorism is just one more occupational hazard of being human. And all
> the terrorists aren't in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, wherever. Some
> of them are even in De Gubmint -- under the guise of protecting you from
> terrorists. They keep you scared and take away your birthright while
> promising to control crime and terror. They might be able to somewhat
> deter some little crime, but only you can control your terror.
>
> Think not? Just ask any Israeli, whatever you might think of Israel.
>
> Terrorism mainly just pisses me off and I'll be damned if some gimcrack,
> self-appointed representative of Allah, Jahweh, Jesus, Ba'al ZeBul,
> Cthulhu, or Mongo Bongo of the Congo is going to make me give up my
> freedom.
>
> Screw 'em. It's my life and some dipshit may be able to take it by
> stealth, bombing, or making me choke on a pizza, but I'm damn well going
> to live it, my way, until I die, however I die.
>
> Ahm sick o' this crap. I don't 'spect De Gubmint to do what it cain't
> possibly do, make me safe. I refuse to spend my life crying: "Mr. G-Man,
> Mr. G-Man, please make me saaaaaafe! Take my freedom, please!"
>
> What a waste of good living time! What a cowardly way to waste a life!
> What a despicable way to betray a country!
>
> Jist mah xxx xxxx opinion.
>
> John Husvar -- Ordained Deacon in The Church of St. John Moses Browning.
> All hail The Mighty 1911!
Amen!!! You hit the nail right on the head. It's like trying to defend
against a home run, once the ball is hit, you can't stop it.
Good point about Israel, too. How's all their anti-terrorist tactics
working for them? Seems I read every couple of days about rocket
attacks, shootings, suicide bombers, etc.
I was watching the Senate on CSPAN earlier. A senator was talking about
the Patriot Act and how Inspector General reports have shown that it has
not been abused. And my reaction was "yet".
He then went on to talk about the NSA issue. He summarized Bush's
comments about how its only used for people talking to terrorists.
Well, think about this scenario: Unbeknownst to you, your next door
neighbor is a member of a terrorist organization. In his effort to
blend into the community, he has become friendly with you. He has made
no attempts whatsoever to recruit you. You call him occasionally, as
neighbors sometimes do. Now, the NSA, which has been monitoring his
phone, begins monitoring your calls. All your calls. And you are in no
way involved in any terrorist activities, unless being friendly to your
neighbor is considered "material support of terrorist organizations".
Is it right that they should have the ability to do that without
judicial review? Not in my book.
Take a look a the broader picture. We have the Patriot Act, giving the
government the power to demand records on anybody from anybody. The
military, according to a news report I read recently, is collecting
intel on protest groups. The TSA knows when & where you fly. And now
we have the NSA revelation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not the tin foil
hat type, looking for a government conspiracy, but if it walks like a
duck....
And the sad fact is that none of this will keep anyone from *eventually*
being successful. The reason that the government has been successful,
so they claim, at stopping a terrorist attack *in the US*, is that the
people involved have used poor security measures. They are getting
smarter, and eventually, I believe, and you should too, they will be
successful again. Its just a matter of time.
Think about this: If we can't stop illegal aliens from crossing our
borders, how can we even begin to think that we are going to prevent a
terrorist from entering & bringing in everything he needs? No need to
steal explosives/chemicals/etc from a company here in the US, just bring
it with you. We can't stop it & its foolish to think that we can.
I agree whole heartedly that life must go on. Yes, you might become the
victim of a terrorist attack, but you might also get hit by a bus, car
accident, or slip on the ice today. All you can do is accept that it is
risk we must live with, just like the other risks we accept every day.
But it isn't something that we must give up our rights over or accept
the erosion of those rights.
Great post, John!
Alex
| |
| John Husvar 2005-12-19, 6:00 pm |
| In article <alldq1ppdbe6l3q5jfv8b2dkm57hqjj4kd@4ax.com>,
Joan Carter <spamfree@sentex.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:04:50 GMT, John Husvar <jhusvar@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> in
> alt.support.mult-sclerosis:
>
>
> However, if the "karate clerk" who has black belts in 6 martial arts is
> handy,
> perhaps he can protect you. Just saw that on the news, he literally scared
> the
> pants off a would-be thief. And took a picture of his licence plate with his
> cell phone to boot. Now I want that guy on my side. Not sure where it
> happened,
> but think it was in the US. That story made my day.
> ---
> Joan
I like that feller already! My kind of guy!
John Husvar -- Ordained Deacon in the Church of St. John Moses Browning
| |
|
| Rob;
>Actually the NAZI concentration camps were modeled after the ones the
>US built for the Japanese. Some, ignorant of WWII's timeline dont
>realize we built ours first, then the NAZI's built theirs...
Say WHAT????
The Nazis were operatiing concentration camps LONG before Pearl Harbor,
which is when the United States began getting paranoid about the
Japanese citizens.
I don't know where you get your information, but you need to find some
accurate sources.
As for what liberties of mine have been infringed, none right now, to
my knowledge. My phone has not been wiretapped without a court order.
Yet.
What's going on with all these newsgroup emails is anybody's guess. .
..we could all be on some list somewhere and not know it.
Sylvia
| |
| Michael 2005-12-20, 1:03 am |
| Sylv wrote:
> Rob;
>
>
> Say WHAT????
>
> The Nazis were operatiing concentration camps LONG before Pearl
> Harbor, which is when the United States began getting paranoid about
> the Japanese citizens.
>
> I don't know where you get your information, but you need to find some
> accurate sources.
>
> As for what liberties of mine have been infringed, none right now, to
> my knowledge. My phone has not been wiretapped without a court order.
> Yet.
Not your own personal phone line itself directly, no...
.... but absolutely every thing you say or do on any telephone network or on
the internet (including your private email and your credit/debit card and
ATM transactions) is apparently captured by the Echelon program's systems
and automatically analyzed by machines to see if it's worth presenting to
live security people for more detailed analysis.
> What's going on with all these newsgroup emails is anybody's guess. .
> .we could all be on some list somewhere and not know it.
>
> Sylvia
| |
| QQQte@webtv.net 2005-12-20, 1:03 am |
| yes slyvia we could be on list.... abdi comes to mind here.... bill
clinton has even been mentioned amoughest the pirates that run our
country.... but i'll bet his cigars were made in the USA:-)... it seems
this thread is of no end... is there a NO spin guy amougest us.... NO
fer sure ... dory
| |
|
| Sylv wrote:
> As for what liberties of mine have been infringed, none right now, to
> my knowledge. My phone has not been wiretapped without a court order.
> Yet.
>
Are you sure? How can anyone be sure? Its not like they let you know.
Here is another question. What happens with any information they gather
on someone if it turns out that they have done nothing wrong? I'm sure
that there is a law somewhere that says they must not retain that
information, but what *actually* happens? Remember the TSA flap a while
ago when they were retaining info they weren't suppose to?
> What's going on with all these newsgroup emails is anybody's guess. .
> .we could all be on some list somewhere and not know it.
>
> Sylvia
>
You can be sure that they are monitoring all the newsgroups, somehow.
They would be stupid not to.
I recall reading about a new method of hiding messages, embedded in
digital images. I can't remember the name of it now,
stegano-somethingorother. Basically, the sender & reciever both have
access to the original image. Then a program encodes text into the
image. The text is not visible in the image, but by using the program,
the original image, & the encoded image, the text is decoded.
Think about that. How many images are on the net. Any one of them
could be used to communicate without being noticed. I doubt that they
can scan/check/whatever *every* image posted on the net, every day.
Alex
| |
| Darryl 2005-12-20, 1:03 am |
|
robduncan2000@hotmail.com wrote:
> And the democratic regime, under Clinton, chose to continue and expand
> it.
>
But they never tried to defend it publicly.
And during the Clinton years, there were no star chambers. So what if
the govt knew all about citizens, they couldn't do anything about it
unless they a) took it to a public court, and b) got the evidence
admitted.
Neither of those two caveats exist any longer, making the loss of our
privacy a bit more ominous now than it was then.
| |
|
| This is interesting Clinton is now the benchmark for these guys. They say
all nasty things about him except this, its like he was the last word.
--
Quaecomque sunt vera ----
"Darryl" <DarrylJ@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135046352.164600.274900@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> robduncan2000@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> But they never tried to defend it publicly.
>
> And during the Clinton years, there were no star chambers. So what if
> the govt knew all about citizens, they couldn't do anything about it
> unless they a) took it to a public court, and b) got the evidence
> admitted.
>
> Neither of those two caveats exist any longer, making the loss of our
> privacy a bit more ominous now than it was then.
>
| |
|
| Darryl wrote:
> robduncan2000@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> But they never tried to defend it publicly.
>
> And during the Clinton years, there were no star chambers.
How do you know? How would you know?
CW
So what if
> the govt knew all about citizens, they couldn't do anything about it
> unless they a) took it to a public court, and b) got the evidence
> admitted.
>
> Neither of those two caveats exist any longer, making the loss of our
> privacy a bit more ominous now than it was then.
>
| |
|
|
Alex wrote:
> Here is another question. What happens with any information they gather
> on someone if it turns out that they have done nothing wrong? I'm sure
> that there is a law somewhere that says they must not retain that
> information, but what *actually* happens? Remember the TSA flap a while
> ago when they were retaining info they weren't suppose to?
Alex, I wonder about that, too. local news has info about a bunch of
local folks who've been under surveillance since they staged an
anti-war protest outside a local military recruitment office. all of us
living here saw the coverage of the protest -- it was legal,
non-violent, did not block any doors, and was attended by a bunch of
overgrown hippie peacenik refugees from the 60's types, and another
small group of college kids. they weren't even an organized *group,*
just a bunch of folks who met up for an anti-war demonstration. they
were given a "Threat" rating -- why? I dunno! kind of like the Quaker
group being given a "Threat" rating because they met -- in the Quaker
Meeting Hall -- to discuss non-violent pro-peace demonstrations. Angry
Quakers and hippie grandmas? I guess I....don't see the threat!
the local peaceniks/college kids are trying to find out how long
they've been watched, and to what extent their personal info has been
gathered. so far, they've been unable to discover anything concrete,
due to 'national security reasons.' i think William Penn is rolling in
his grave!
i send a fair amount of "international e-mail," and in the past, i've
also made and received international phone calls. none of them were to
or from terrorists, but they've got to read/listen to KNOW that, right?
so what if i'm talking/e-mailing to my friends about the great pot
plants i've got growing in my garage? (there AREN'T any, thanks to S.D.
County, but there used to be, in accordance with Prop 215.) would this
info be "tossed" or "retained?" after all, remember all those teevee
ads about how "pot funds terrorism," complete with pictures of kids
toking up while saying "I crashed airplanes into buildings and killed
thousands," and "i blew up 20 Marines today." OFFENSIVE, but apparently
the government's True Belief?
i have blood relatives in Africa and Asia, both places with "emerging
Muslim extremist" problems. it's entirely possible my whole family is
on a list somewhere -- all those internatinal calls and e-mails,
'plotting' family reunions and scheduling trips to the U.S.
from...Nigeria, Singapore? looks bad. throw in the marijuana
cultivation, it looks like we're all a bunch of international terrorist
criminals. and i've even *attended* a Quaker meeting once!! i've never
marched in an anti-war demonstration, but i've held up plenty of
"Support Prop 215" signs over the years. plus, unlike many generic
peaceniks, i do own guns. add them all up, maybe it equals a "Threat"
rating from the Pentagon -- I don't know. which is part of the point!
nobody really "knows," cuz nobody's really *saying.*
rose
> I recall reading about a new method of hiding messages, embedded in
> digital images. I can't remember the name of it now,
> stegano-somethingorother. Basically, the sender & reciever both have
> access to the original image. Then a program encodes text into the
> image. The text is not visible in the image, but by using the program,
> the original image, & the encoded image, the text is decoded.
>
> Think about that. How many images are on the net. Any one of them
> could be used to communicate without being noticed. I doubt that they
> can scan/check/whatever *every* image posted on the net, every day.
>
> Alex
| |
|
|
Alex wrote:
> I recall reading about a new method of hiding messages, embedded in
> digital images. I can't remember the name of it now,
> stegano-somethingorother. Basically, the sender & reciever both have
> access to the original image. Then a program encodes text into the
> image. The text is not visible in the image, but by using the program,
> the original image, & the encoded image, the text is decoded.
Steganography, Alex. child pornographers have used it to encode their
images of child porn as well.
rose
| |
|
| rose wrote:
> Alex wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Alex, I wonder about that, too. local news has info about a bunch of
> local folks who've been under surveillance since they staged an
> anti-war protest outside a local military recruitment office. all of us
> living here saw the coverage of the protest -- it was legal,
> non-violent, did not block any doors, and was attended by a bunch of
> overgrown hippie peacenik refugees from the 60's types, and another
> small group of college kids. they weren't even an organized *group,*
> just a bunch of folks who met up for an anti-war demonstration. they
> were given a "Threat" rating -- why? I dunno! kind of like the Quaker
> group being given a "Threat" rating because they met -- in the Quaker
> Meeting Hall -- to discuss non-violent pro-peace demonstrations. Angry
> Quakers and hippie grandmas? I guess I....don't see the threat!
>
Yes, I believe that is what I read about.
> the local peaceniks/college kids are trying to find out how long
> they've been watched, and to what extent their personal info has been
> gathered. so far, they've been unable to discover anything concrete,
> due to 'national security reasons.' i think William Penn is rolling in
> his grave!
>
And they probably never will or at least not for the next three years.
> i send a fair amount of "international e-mail," and in the past, i've
> also made and received international phone calls. none of them were to
> or from terrorists, but they've got to read/listen to KNOW that, right?
> so what if i'm talking/e-mailing to my friends about the great pot
> plants i've got growing in my garage? (there AREN'T any, thanks to S.D.
> County, but there used to be, in accordance with Prop 215.) would this
> info be "tossed" or "retained?" after all, remember all those teevee
> ads about how "pot funds terrorism," complete with pictures of kids
> toking up while saying "I crashed airplanes into buildings and killed
> thousands," and "i blew up 20 Marines today." OFFENSIVE, but apparently
> the government's True Belief?
>
Yeah, those were *really* over the top!
> i have blood relatives in Africa and Asia, both places with "emerging
> Muslim extremist" problems. it's entirely possible my whole family is
> on a list somewhere -- all those internatinal calls and e-mails,
> 'plotting' family reunions and scheduling trips to the U.S.
> from...Nigeria, Singapore? looks bad. throw in the marijuana
> cultivation, it looks like we're all a bunch of international terrorist
> criminals. and i've even *attended* a Quaker meeting once!! i've never
> marched in an anti-war demonstration, but i've held up plenty of
> "Support Prop 215" signs over the years. plus, unlike many generic
> peaceniks, i do own guns. add them all up, maybe it equals a "Threat"
> rating from the Pentagon -- I don't know. which is part of the point!
> nobody really "knows," cuz nobody's really *saying.*
>
> rose
>
Yup. And you may wind up being monitored not because of who *you*
know/live next to/etc, but who your *relatives* know, etc. Same
scenario as I posted before, only substitute your relatives for you.
Alex
| |
|
| rose wrote:
> Alex wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Steganography, Alex. child pornographers have used it to encode their
> images of child porn as well.
>
> rose
>
Ahh, that's it! Thanks for jogging me muddled brain. :-)
Interesting, I didn't know about the pervert angle on it. I guess that
sort of proves my point then. I mean if the perverts can figure out how
to use the technology, I'm certain that terrorists can too.
Alex
| |
| GT Tick 2005-12-20, 5:59 pm |
| Alex posts....."I mean if the perverts can figure out how to use the
technology, I'm certain that terrorists can too.".....
---
---
And if terrorists can figger a way to code it a way to decode it will
also be found.
Sleep tight tonight 'your' NSA is awake.
*****Don't Cry Because It's Over...Smile Because It Happened.*****
| |
|
| On 2005-12-17 22:49:03 -0500, "Michael" <muirhead@haidagwaii.net> said:
>
> and ***no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
>
> Is there anything at all in this text that's ambiguous?
The part that says, "but upon probable cause..." is, in fact, ambiguous.
You guys are cutting off your noses to spite your faces. For your
hatred of our President you are willing, if not happy to loose the war
and be told when and to who to bow down.
--
Phan
| |
| Michael 2005-12-21, 1:03 am |
| phan wrote:
> On 2005-12-17 22:49:03 -0500, "Michael" <muirhead@haidagwaii.net>
> said:
>
> The part that says, "but upon probable cause..." is, in fact,
> ambiguous.
Not ambiguous. Individually determined according to the facts of each
case. It is "in fact", the responsibility of the *Courts* to determine
whether or not "probable cause" exists in any given case.
> You guys are cutting off your noses to spite your faces. For your
> hatred of our President you are willing, if not happy to loose the war
.... and to win the war, you are willing, if not happy to scrap the most
fundamental law on which your nation is founded - and for which it
*stands*...
> and be told when and to who to bow down.
.... which - in your case - would be your lying, subversive government
administration.
Tell me something, Phan.
How many Americans have been killed by terrorists in the past 20 years?
Contrast that with how many Americans have been killed (deliberately, not
including accidents) by other Americans in just the past 5 years. For
reference, there were 15,517 murders in 2000 alone (and that does not
include actual murders where pleas were copped to lesser homicide charges.)
Where is the "War On Murder"? Exactly who is bowing down to *whom*, where,
and in the name of what?
| |
|
| GT Tick wrote:
> Alex posts....."I mean if the perverts can figure out how to use the
> technology, I'm certain that terrorists can too.".....
> ---
> ---
> And if terrorists can figger a way to code it a way to decode it will
> also be found.
>
> Sleep tight tonight 'your' NSA is awake.
>
> *****Don't Cry Because It's Over...Smile Because It Happened.*****
>
>
Oh, I have no doubt that they can decode them. My point in an earlier
reply to Rose was the sheer volume of pictures that exist/are posted on
the net. The challenge is not decoding, its finding them.
Alex
| |
|
| phan wrote:
>
> The part that says, "but upon probable cause..." is, in fact, ambiguous.
It's been interpreted by the Courts for over 200 years ... and that
ALWAYS includes judicial review. It's not ambiguous.
> You guys are cutting off your noses to spite your faces. For your
> hatred of our President you are willing, if not happy to loose the war
> and be told when and to who to bow down.
This paragraph makes no sense.
KKT
| |
|
| The bow thing is also the scare tactic, its like any of that happened when
the budget was balanced and there was peace on earth.
--
Quaecomque sunt vera ----
"KKT" <sendme.nospam@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:43a97701_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
> phan wrote:
>
>
> It's been interpreted by the Courts for over 200 years ... and that ALWAYS
> includes judicial review. It's not ambiguous.
>
>
> This paragraph makes no sense.
>
> KKT
>
|
| |
|
|