"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

Compromise between extremes is what has kept this country great for so
long.

Selfish and uncompromising extremists like you will eventually tear it
apart.


this message brought to you by Michael Moore.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Clyde Slick said:

Selfish and uncompromising extremists like you will eventually tear it
apart.

this message brought to you by Michael Moore.

Pay no attention to Sacky. He's a "reformed liberal".

Clyde Slick said:

Selfish and uncompromising extremists like you will eventually tear it
apart.
this message brought to you by Michael Moore.

Pay no attention to Sacky. He's a "reformed liberal".

Why would I pay attention to someone who is arguing for the US being
run by uncompromising extremists? He's obviously not too bright.

My friends elsewhere in the world think the western country most
similar to extreme muslim nations is the good old USA. People like nob
and Clyde prove their view correct.

The American Experiment. It was great while it lasted.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

Selfish and uncompromising extremists like you will eventually tear it
apart.

this message brought to you by Michael Moore.

Pay no attention to Sacky. He's a "reformed liberal".

and you're a rightwinger (by your definition) when it comes to immigration.

ScottW

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
Clyde Slick said:

Selfish and uncompromising extremists like you will eventually tear it
apart.
this message brought to you by Michael Moore.

Pay no attention to Sacky. He's a "reformed liberal".

Why would I pay attention to someone who is arguing for the US being
run by uncompromising extremists? He's obviously not too bright.

My friends elsewhere in the world think the western country most
similar to extreme muslim nations is the good old USA. People like nob
and Clyde prove their view correct.

The American Experiment. It was great while it lasted.

I suppose you support the appeasement gesture of the US State Dept and
think we should give up our freedoms (of the press) simply because offending
Muslims inspires them to violence?

ScottW

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
Clyde Slick said:

Selfish and uncompromising extremists like you will eventually tear it
apart.
this message brought to you by Michael Moore.

Pay no attention to Sacky. He's a "reformed liberal".

Why would I pay attention to someone who is arguing for the US being
run by uncompromising extremists? He's obviously not too bright.

My friends elsewhere in the world think the western country most
similar to extreme muslim nations is the good old USA. People like nob
and Clyde prove their view correct.


I sacked three embassies today, and burned 12 cars.
I wanted to chop off some hands, but I forgot where
I laid my axe last night.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

From: "ScottW"
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 16:40:54 -0800

I suppose you support the appeasement gesture of the US State Dept and
think we should give up our freedoms (of the press) simply because offending
Muslims inspires them to violence?

I think the uncompromising extremists in power in many muslim nations
inspires some of their population to violence.

I think this country is heading toward control by uncompromising
extremists. That they are 'fundamentalist' (or evangelical, the more
current term) Christian' here vs. 'fundmentalist muslim' there is
irrelevant.

As for freedom of the press, I think the press doing things like
witholding information, for example not releasing information on the
secret wire-tapping until after the election, and the softball
questions and follow-ups lobbed to politicians in power (under the
excuse that "If I ask hard questions they won't call on me next time")
which really only serves to allow them to spew their talking points one
more time, shows that we have already given up much of our freedom of
the press.

I base this view on lengthy conversations with press editors and
reporters that I know personally. Most absolutely believe we've already
lost it.

From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 18:00:50 -0500

How do you feel about gay marriage?

There is no such thing.

Let's see: which of these more closely states your views?

1. "God did not create Adam and Steve."

2. "If we allow gays to marry, then cats can marry dogs or someone
could marry a chair. It will lead to anarchy."

From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 19:45:23 -0500

I forgot where I laid my axe last night.

Your sex life is of no concern to me, moron.

From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 18:02:18 -0500

Hm. All the data I've seen suggests that a greater percentage of
educated people vote Democrat.

Thank God there's not a lot of them!!

Yeah. Educated people really suck, don't they?

And I thought nob was the biggest moron here.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: "ScottW"
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 16:40:54 -0800

I suppose you support the appeasement gesture of the US State Dept and
think we should give up our freedoms (of the press) simply because
offending
Muslims inspires them to violence?

I think the uncompromising extremists in power in many muslim nations
inspires some of their population to violence.

I think this country is heading toward control by uncompromising
extremists. That they are 'fundamentalist' (or evangelical, the more
current term) Christian' here vs. 'fundmentalist muslim' there is
irrelevant.

As for freedom of the press, I think the press doing things like
witholding information, for example not releasing information on the
secret wire-tapping until after the election,

Ever occurr to you that releasing the information at all may have been
illegal?

and the softball
questions and follow-ups lobbed to politicians in power (under the
excuse that "If I ask hard questions they won't call on me next time")
which really only serves to allow them to spew their talking points one
more time, shows that we have already given up much of our freedom of
the press.

That is such a tiny segment of the media....
Who cares when the answers won't be believed anyway?

ScottW

Scottie recites his mantra of stupidity.

Pay no attention to Sacky. He's a "reformed liberal".

and you're a rightwinger (by your definition) when it comes to immigration.

And now, for tonight's reading from the Book of Mikey, we have guest
moron Scottie "duh" Terrierborg. Will you take the podium, Mr.
Terrierborg?

From: "ScottW"
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:05:10 -0800

Ever occurr to you that releasing the information at all may have been illegal?

Since when is releasing information about (very likely) illegal
activities by politicians illegal?

I loved Gonzalez today: "The terrorists are laughing because we give
information away. Why, if this report had never come out they *never*
would've figured out or thought that we'd listen in on their
conversations!"

Who cares when the answers won't be believed anyway?

And right there is the attitude that leads to the demise of it in the
first place.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: "ScottW"
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:05:10 -0800

Ever occurr to you that releasing the information at all may have been
illegal?

Since when is releasing information about (very likely) illegal
activities by politicians illegal?

http://cryptome.org/doj-nsa-spy.htm


I loved Gonzalez today: "The terrorists are laughing because we give
information away. Why, if this report had never come out they *never*
would've figured out or thought that we'd listen in on their
conversations!"

Who cares when the answers won't be believed anyway?

And right there is the attitude that leads to the demise of it in the
first place.

Sarcasm isn't your strong suit I take it.

ScottW

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

I base this view on lengthy conversations with press editors and
reporters that I know personally. Most absolutely believe we've already
lost it.


Well, there you go!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 18:00:50 -0500

How do you feel about gay marriage?

There is no such thing.

Let's see: which of these more closely states your views?

1. "God did not create Adam and Steve."

2. "If we allow gays to marry, then cats can marry dogs or someone
could marry a chair. It will lead to anarchy."




--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 18:00:50 -0500

How do you feel about gay marriage?

There is no such thing.

Let's see: which of these more closely states your views?

1. "God did not create Adam and Steve."

2. "If we allow gays to marry, then cats can marry dogs or someone
could marry a chair. It will lead to anarchy."


Neither, but closer to #1, with a secular viewpoint.
Nature did not intend for Adam to hump Steve.

Marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
A lifetime loving and united relationship between two men,
or two women, is a beautiful thing, but it is not marriage,
it is something else. It should have equivalent rights.
I'm not happy about it, but adoption rights too, because
we already have it de facto, when straight couples split
for a gay relationship.

I'm not happy about abortion either, but we should have abortion rights,
because not to have them is even worse.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 18:02:18 -0500

Hm. All the data I've seen suggests that a greater percentage of
educated people vote Democrat.

Thank God there's not a lot of them!!

Yeah. Educated people really suck, don't they?

And I thought nob was the biggest moron here.


you do have a sense of humor, don't you?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:10:38 -0500

you do have a sense of humor, don't you?

No.

From: "ScottW"
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:42:23 -0800

Since when is releasing information about (very likely) illegal
activities by politicians illegal?

http://cryptome.org/doj-nsa-spy.htm

Interesting. Some of the case law quoted in this letter refers to
'combatants' ("detention to prevent a combatant's return to the
battlefield is a fundamental incident of waging war") yet this
administration insists that terrorists are not combatants and therefore
the Geneva convention is not applicable to them. It looks to me like
Bushie wants it both ways. Combatant law applies here, to justify
illegal wiretaps, but not when they capture a terrorist, when they are
not enemy combatants. His administration has a history of
reinterpreting laws to fit his agenda.

What was the name of the movie with Ray Liotta, Joe Pesci and Robert
DeNiro where they were mobsters? Liotta was dealing cocaine. He never
made calls from his house because he knew the line could be tapped.

Trying to pretend that the ability to tap phones is Top-Secret national
security information, and further, that the terrorists (the same ones
that figured out how to bring down two 100+ story buildings) are too
dumb to figure out that we can tap phones or email, is inane at best.

Sarcasm isn't your strong suit I take it.

As I've said in another post, I have no sense of humor.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:10:38 -0500

you do have a sense of humor, don't you?

No.




You're just another dour ultra-liberal.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

What was the name of the movie with Ray Liotta, Joe Pesci and Robert
DeNiro where they were mobsters? Liotta was dealing cocaine. He never
made calls from his house because he knew the line could be tapped.



Goodfellas.


Now, if am Al Queda opertaive in the US knew that it took 3 days to get a
warranted tap,
and if he knew that the governemnt would never do a warrantless
tap, he would buy a prepaid phone, use it for 3 days, throw it away,
and then get another one.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
:
: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
: oups.com...
:
: What was the name of the movie with Ray Liotta, Joe Pesci and Robert
: DeNiro where they were mobsters? Liotta was dealing cocaine. He never
: made calls from his house because he knew the line could be tapped.
:
:
:
: Goodfellas.
:
:
: Now, if am Al Queda opertaive in the US knew that it took 3 days to get a
: warranted tap,
: and if he knew that the governemnt would never do a warrantless
: tap, he would buy a prepaid phone, use it for 3 days, throw it away,
: and then get another one.
:
Are you mickeising the phrases, Art ?
Good thinking, hard to descramble buy the enemii :-)
Ri

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
From: "ScottW"
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:42:23 -0800

Since when is releasing information about (very likely) illegal
activities by politicians illegal?

http://cryptome.org/doj-nsa-spy.htm

Interesting. Some of the case law quoted in this letter refers to
'combatants' ("detention to prevent a combatant's return to the
battlefield is a fundamental incident of waging war") yet this
administration insists that terrorists are not combatants and therefore
the Geneva convention is not applicable to them. It looks to me like
Bushie wants it both ways. Combatant law applies here, to justify
illegal wiretaps, but not when they capture a terrorist, when they are
not enemy combatants. His administration has a history of
reinterpreting laws to fit his agenda.

Here's the twists as I gather it.... is it a wiretap for a computer to
scan all calls originating from or terminating at selected regions of
the world for key phrases, possibly voice prints (if you believe 24)
and then once detected.... record and transcribe or translate that call
for review by a person.

Is such a program a wiretap? Or is it only a wiretap after the
computer flagged and stored the call record. Is it a wiretap to
record every call so you have the entire call when a key word or phrase
is utterred at the end of the call? How can you get a warrant with
probable cause for casting such a wide net in the first place?
Does this activity fall under military surveillance covered by various
War Powers granted the president in a wide variety of case law and
legislations?
Does the FISA act even apply? These are terrorists...not foreign
intelligence agents embedded in embassy staffs.

and finally.... should the debate of all these questions take place in
open session of a politicized committee?

ScottW

From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 06:52:06 -0500

Nice argument. Too bad you haven't any idea what you're talking about.

Now, if am Al Queda opertaive in the US knew that it took 3 days to get a
warranted tap,
and if he knew that the governemnt would never do a warrantless
tap, he would buy a prepaid phone, use it for 3 days, throw it away,
and then get another one.

Which is what they do anyway. Do you suppose that Verizon is sending a
bill to Osama bin Laden? LOL! Think about it.

FISA warrants can easily be issued retroactively. The issue isn't that
there are wiretaps. The issue is that there is no oversight, no check
or balance, and that the current laws are apparently not being
followed. Bushie is President, not Dictator for Life.

All Bushie and crew would have to do is go back to the FISA court and
get a warrant *after* the tap had been done. They aren't willing to do
even that. Instead, they want to hang whoever it was that asked why
they weren't.

On 6 Feb 2006 16:59:20 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:



2. "If we allow gays to marry, then cats can marry dogs or someone
could marry a chair. It will lead to anarchy."

Well, Nero married his horse.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 06:52:06 -0500

Nice argument. Too bad you haven't any idea what you're talking about.

Now, if am Al Queda opertaive in the US knew that it took 3 days to get a
warranted tap,
and if he knew that the governemnt would never do a warrantless
tap, he would buy a prepaid phone, use it for 3 days, throw it away,
and then get another one.

Which is what they do anyway. Do you suppose that Verizon is sending a
bill to Osama bin Laden? LOL! Think about it.

FISA warrants can easily be issued retroactively.

That is the first I have heard of this, do you
have a reference?


The issue isn't that
there are wiretaps. The issue is that there is no oversight, no check
or balance, and that the current laws are apparently not being
followed. Bushie is President, not Dictator for Life.


For some things, theres should NOT be oversight.
You can't fight a war with oversight.



All Bushie and crew would have to do is go back to the FISA court and
get a warrant *after* the tap had been done. They aren't willing to do
even that. Instead, they want to hang whoever it was that asked why
they weren't.


Nobody asked, somebody told.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On 6 Feb 2006 16:59:20 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:



2. "If we allow gays to marry, then cats can marry dogs or someone
could marry a chair. It will lead to anarchy."

Well, Nero married his horse.


"At least" it was a mare, I hope.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 06:52:06 -0500

Nice argument. Too bad you haven't any idea what you're talking about.

Now, if am Al Queda opertaive in the US knew that it took 3 days to get
a
warranted tap,
and if he knew that the governemnt would never do a warrantless
tap, he would buy a prepaid phone, use it for 3 days, throw it away,
and then get another one.

Which is what they do anyway. Do you suppose that Verizon is sending a
bill to Osama bin Laden? LOL! Think about it.

FISA warrants can easily be issued retroactively.

That is the first I have heard of this, do you
have a reference?

But if the warrant is denied... you're in violation of the law.

ScottW

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 06:52:06 -0500

Nice argument. Too bad you haven't any idea what you're talking about.

Now, if am Al Queda opertaive in the US knew that it took 3 days to get a
warranted tap,
and if he knew that the governemnt would never do a warrantless
tap, he would buy a prepaid phone, use it for 3 days, throw it away,
and then get another one.

Which is what they do anyway. Do you suppose that Verizon is sending a
bill to Osama bin Laden? LOL! Think about it.

FISA warrants can easily be issued retroactively.

That is the first I have heard of this, do you
have a reference?

http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archi...les_thi_1.html

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradent...l/13738316.htm

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 06:52:06 -0500

Nice argument. Too bad you haven't any idea what you're talking about.

Now, if am Al Queda opertaive in the US knew that it took 3 days to get a
warranted tap,
and if he knew that the governemnt would never do a warrantless
tap, he would buy a prepaid phone, use it for 3 days, throw it away,
and then get another one.

Which is what they do anyway. Do you suppose that Verizon is sending a
bill to Osama bin Laden? LOL! Think about it.

FISA warrants can easily be issued retroactively.

That is the first I have heard of this, do you
have a reference?

http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archi...les_thi_1.html

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradent...l/13738316.htm

Simple... the primary scanning program has generated more than 72
hours backlog of recorded conversations requiring review. Remember
the leaks... much was made of the fact that so much data was captured
that they were overwhelmed in their attempt to process it.

If they discard any and in hindsight find out that a critical piece of
data that could have prevented a major incident was lost... you know
there'd be hell to pay.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 06:52:06 -0500

Nice argument. Too bad you haven't any idea what you're talking about.

Now, if am Al Queda opertaive in the US knew that it took 3 days to get a
warranted tap,
and if he knew that the governemnt would never do a warrantless
tap, he would buy a prepaid phone, use it for 3 days, throw it away,
and then get another one.

Which is what they do anyway. Do you suppose that Verizon is sending a
bill to Osama bin Laden? LOL! Think about it.

FISA warrants can easily be issued retroactively.

That is the first I have heard of this, do you
have a reference?

http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archi...les_thi_1.html

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradent...l/13738316.htm

Simple... the primary scanning program has generated more than 72
hours backlog of recorded conversations requiring review. Remember
the leaks... much was made of the fact that so much data was captured
that they were overwhelmed in their attempt to process it.

If they discard any and in hindsight find out that a critical piece of
data that could have prevented a major incident was lost... you know
there'd be hell to pay.

A little more... from your own article

"Administration officials have said the NSA program's classified nature
limits their explanations. Those limitations probably are fueling the
confusion, said Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, dean of the McGeorge School
of Law at the University of the Pacific in Sacramento and a former
general counsel for the NSA and the Central Intelligence Agency.
"We simply don't have the facts available to us, nor should we," she
said, noting that Congress can and should review the classified
program."

But they shouldn't do it in open committee session. That's just
absurd and Spector should be held accountable for it.

ScottW

From: "ScottW"
Date: 7 Feb 2006 10:40:32 -0800

is it a wiretap for a computer to
scan all calls originating from or terminating at selected regions of
the world for key phrases, possibly voice prints (if you believe 24)
and then once detected.... record and transcribe or translate that call
for review by a person.

Yes.

Is it a wiretap to
record every call so you have the entire call when a key word or phrase
is utterred at the end of the call?

Yes.

How can you get a warrant with
probable cause for casting such a wide net in the first place?
Does this activity fall under military surveillance covered by various
War Powers granted the president in a wide variety of case law and
legislations?

No. We are not at war. That's a political spin put on by Bushie. It's
diappointing that none of the politicians of either party are willing
to challenge that usage.

Here's a definition of war:

*************begin quote***************

war (wôr) n.

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between
nations, states, or parties.
The period of such conflict.
The techniques and procedures of war; military science.

A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price
war.
A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something
considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

**********End quote*********************************

We are not at war with a nation, state, or party. Do you remember last
year Rummy changing the name of GWOT to "The global struggle against
extremism?" That lasted about one day. Bushie shut it down because he
realized that if he couldn't call on executive war powers the party was
over.

Calling it a struggle against extremism is, however, far more accurate
the calling it a 'war.' You could also call it a 'campaign' or an
'effort.'

Christ. They don't even call it a 'war on terrorists.' It's a 'war on
terror.' That's why there is no end game.

Does the FISA act even apply?

Yes. If not, then Bushie is even more wrong than he already is.

These are terrorists...not foreign
intelligence agents embedded in embassy staffs.

Then Bushie should've asked for specific legislation. This also proves
my point that we are not actually at war, or in a state of war.

You do know, I'm sure, that several parts of the budget are 'black'
meaning there is no open public debate about them, nor any public
record about them. 20 years ago, the defense mapping agency's budget
was not public. It may still be 'black.' The point is, yes, in our
system of government even public policy can be handled in a 'secret'
way.

That some people are so willing to **** away civil rights shows me that
they do not understand what that means.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
message
ups.com...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 06:52:06 -0500

Nice argument. Too bad you haven't any idea what you're talking about.

Now, if am Al Queda opertaive in the US knew that it took 3 days to
get a
warranted tap,
and if he knew that the governemnt would never do a warrantless
tap, he would buy a prepaid phone, use it for 3 days, throw it away,
and then get another one.

Which is what they do anyway. Do you suppose that Verizon is sending a
bill to Osama bin Laden? LOL! Think about it.

FISA warrants can easily be issued retroactively.

That is the first I have heard of this, do you
have a reference?

http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archi...les_thi_1.html

useless and unacceptable reference.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradent...l/13738316.htm

oh, Shhh was talking about the 72 hour provision. Typically, they couldn't
get
an answer ini 72 hours.
I don't understand waht the big deal is.
when a govt agency taps or searches, etc.,
without a warrant, the only implication'is that they can't make a
prosecution stick.
I'll give up a few proseutions for a prevention anyday.
And, of course. the whole argument is based on'whether FISA is superceded
anyway, which makes arguing about FIAS moot..
I am not so concerned about the rights of
people in America talking by phone to known
Al-Queda operatives overseas.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: "ScottW"
Date: 7 Feb 2006 10:40:32 -0800

You disable my on reply

is it a wiretap for a computer to
scan all calls originating from or terminating at selected regions of
the world for key phrases, possibly voice prints (if you believe 24)
and then once detected.... record and transcribe or translate that call
for review by a person.

:Yes.

Is it a wiretap to
record every call so you have the entire call when a key word or phrase
is utterred at the end of the call?

:Yes.

How can you get a warrant with
probable cause for casting such a wide net in the first place?
Does this activity fall under military surveillance covered by various
War Powers granted the president in a wide variety of case law and
legislations?

No. We are not at war. That's a political spin put on by Bushie. It's
diappointing that none of the politicians of either party are willing
to challenge that usage.

:Here's a definition of war:

*************begin quote***************

:war (wôr) n.

:A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between
:nations, states, or parties.
:The period of such conflict.
:The techniques and procedures of war; military science.

:A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price
:war.
:A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something
:considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

**********End quote*********************************

:We are not at war with a nation, state, or party. Do you remember last
:year Rummy changing the name of GWOT to "The global struggle against
:extremism?" That lasted about one day. Bushie shut it down because he
:realized that if he couldn't call on executive war powers the party was
ver.

:Calling it a struggle against extremism is, however, far more accurate
:the calling it a 'war.' You could also call it a 'campaign' or an
:'effort.'



Call it what you want... here's what Congress said:

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible
for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed
against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United
States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States
citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy
of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to
the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action
to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United
States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,



Looks pretty clear to me.

ScottW

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
message
ups.com...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 06:52:06 -0500

Nice argument. Too bad you haven't any idea what you're talking about.

Now, if am Al Queda opertaive in the US knew that it took 3 days to
get a
warranted tap,
and if he knew that the governemnt would never do a warrantless
tap, he would buy a prepaid phone, use it for 3 days, throw it away,
and then get another one.

Which is what they do anyway. Do you suppose that Verizon is sending a
bill to Osama bin Laden? LOL! Think about it.

FISA warrants can easily be issued retroactively.

That is the first I have heard of this, do you
have a reference?

http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archi...les_thi_1.html

useless and unacceptable reference.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradent...l/13738316.htm

oh, Shhh was talking about the 72 hour provision. Typically, they couldn't
get
an answer ini 72 hours.
I don't understand waht the big deal is.
when a govt agency taps or searches, etc.,
without a warrant, the only implication'is that they can't make a
prosecution stick.
I'll give up a few proseutions for a prevention anyday.
And, of course. the whole argument is based on'whether FISA is superceded
anyway, which makes arguing about FIAS moot..
I am not so concerned about the rights of
people in America talking by phone to known
Al-Queda operatives overseas.


Interesting take from the Judiciary Committee Hearings not widely carried in
MSM.

One of the most telling moments is when Debra Burlingame points out that
prior to the September 11 attacks, the NSA was surveilling an al Qaeda
member in Yemen who placed or received more than a dozen phone calls to and
from a number in San Diego. Because these calls involved someone in the
United States, the NSA didn't listen to them. It turned out that the
"Kahlid" who was receiving the calls in San Diego was one of the September
11 hijackers. In fact, he was one of the hijackers who murdered Debra's
brother, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77.

If we were doing then... what the dems are screaming about doing
now....3,000+ deaths and 2 wars might have been avoided.

ScottW

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: "ScottW"
Date: 7 Feb 2006 10:40:32 -0800

is it a wiretap for a computer to
scan all calls originating from or terminating at selected regions of
the world for key phrases, possibly voice prints (if you believe 24)
and then once detected.... record and transcribe or translate that call
for review by a person.

Yes.

Is it a wiretap to
record every call so you have the entire call when a key word or phrase
is utterred at the end of the call?

Yes.

How can you get a warrant with
probable cause for casting such a wide net in the first place?
Does this activity fall under military surveillance covered by various
War Powers granted the president in a wide variety of case law and
legislations?

No. We are not at war. That's a political spin put on by Bushie. It's
diappointing that none of the politicians of either party are willing
to challenge that usage.

Here's a definition of war:

*************begin quote***************

war (wôr) n.

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between
nations, states, or parties.
The period of such conflict.
The techniques and procedures of war; military science.

A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price
war.
A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something
considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

**********End quote*********************************

We are not at war with a nation, state, or party. Do you remember last
year Rummy changing the name of GWOT to "The global struggle against
extremism?" That lasted about one day. Bushie shut it down because he
realized that if he couldn't call on executive war powers the party was
over.

Calling it a struggle against extremism is, however, far more accurate
the calling it a 'war.' You could also call it a 'campaign' or an
'effort.'

Christ. They don't even call it a 'war on terrorists.' It's a 'war on
terror.' That's why there is no end game.

Does the FISA act even apply?

Yes. If not, then Bushie is even more wrong than he already is.

These are terrorists...not foreign
intelligence agents embedded in embassy staffs.

Then Bushie should've asked for specific legislation. This also proves
my point that we are not actually at war, or in a state of war.

You do know, I'm sure, that several parts of the budget are 'black'
meaning there is no open public debate about them, nor any public
record about them. 20 years ago, the defense mapping agency's budget
was not public. It may still be 'black.' The point is, yes, in our
system of government even public policy can be handled in a 'secret'
way.

That some people are so willing to **** away civil rights shows me that
they do not understand what that means.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: "ScottW"
Date: 7 Feb 2006 10:40:32 -0800

is it a wiretap for a computer to
scan all calls originating from or terminating at selected regions of
the world for key phrases, possibly voice prints (if you believe 24)
and then once detected.... record and transcribe or translate that call
for review by a person.

Yes.

Is it a wiretap to
record every call so you have the entire call when a key word or phrase
is utterred at the end of the call?

Yes.

How can you get a warrant with
probable cause for casting such a wide net in the first place?
Does this activity fall under military surveillance covered by various
War Powers granted the president in a wide variety of case law and
legislations?

No. We are not at war. That's a political spin put on by Bushie. It's
diappointing that none of the politicians of either party are willing
to challenge that usage.

Here's a definition of war:

*************begin quote***************

war (wôr) n.

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between
nations, states, or parties.
The period of such conflict.
The techniques and procedures of war; military science.

A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price
war.
A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something
considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

**********End quote*********************************

We are not at war with a nation, state, or party. Do you remember last
year Rummy changing the name of GWOT to "The global struggle against
extremism?" That lasted about one day. Bushie shut it down because he
realized that if he couldn't call on executive war powers the party was
over.

Calling it a struggle against extremism is, however, far more accurate
the calling it a 'war.' You could also call it a 'campaign' or an
'effort.'

Christ. They don't even call it a 'war on terrorists.' It's a 'war on
terror.' That's why there is no end game.

Does the FISA act even apply?

Yes. If not, then Bushie is even more wrong than he already is.

These are terrorists...not foreign
intelligence agents embedded in embassy staffs.

Then Bushie should've asked for specific legislation. This also proves
my point that we are not actually at war, or in a state of war.

You do know, I'm sure, that several parts of the budget are 'black'
meaning there is no open public debate about them, nor any public
record about them. 20 years ago, the defense mapping agency's budget
was not public. It may still be 'black.' The point is, yes, in our
system of government even public policy can be handled in a 'secret'
way.

That some people are so willing to **** away civil rights shows me that
they do not understand what that means.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: "ScottW"
Date: 7 Feb 2006 10:40:32 -0800

is it a wiretap for a computer to
scan all calls originating from or terminating at selected regions of
the world for key phrases, possibly voice prints (if you believe 24)
and then once detected.... record and transcribe or translate that call
for review by a person.

Yes.

Is it a wiretap to
record every call so you have the entire call when a key word or phrase
is utterred at the end of the call?

Yes.

How can you get a warrant with
probable cause for casting such a wide net in the first place?
Does this activity fall under military surveillance covered by various
War Powers granted the president in a wide variety of case law and
legislations?

No. We are not at war. That's a political spin put on by Bushie. It's
diappointing that none of the politicians of either party are willing
to challenge that usage.

Here's a definition of war:

*************begin quote***************

war (wôr) n.

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between
nations, states, or parties.
The period of such conflict.
The techniques and procedures of war; military science.

A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price
war.
A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something
considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

**********End quote*********************************

We are not at war with a nation, state, or party. Do you remember last
year Rummy changing the name of GWOT to "The global struggle against
extremism?" That lasted about one day. Bushie shut it down because he
realized that if he couldn't call on executive war powers the party was
over.

Calling it a struggle against extremism is, however, far more accurate
the calling it a 'war.' You could also call it a 'campaign' or an
'effort.'

Christ. They don't even call it a 'war on terrorists.' It's a 'war on
terror.' That's why there is no end game.

Does the FISA act even apply?

Yes. If not, then Bushie is even more wrong than he already is.

These are terrorists...not foreign
intelligence agents embedded in embassy staffs.

Then Bushie should've asked for specific legislation. This also proves
my point that we are not actually at war, or in a state of war.

You do know, I'm sure, that several parts of the budget are 'black'
meaning there is no open public debate about them, nor any public
record about them. 20 years ago, the defense mapping agency's budget
was not public. It may still be 'black.' The point is, yes, in our
system of government even public policy can be handled in a 'secret'
way.

That some people are so willing to **** away civil rights shows me that
they do not understand what that means.

----------

We are talking about people who are talking to Al-Queda ops overseas.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

For some things, theres should NOT be oversight.

Not in this country. Maybe in Saudi Arabia.

You can't fight a war with oversight.

As I've explained in another thread, we are not at war. That is just a
justification for Bushie to do the exact things we are talking about.

We might as well be at war with dandruff.

Besides that, name one (real) war we have been involved in that had no
oversight.

You really don't have a clue, do you?

Nobody asked, somebody told.

Hm. I think that's what happened at Watergate too.