Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, from *OUTSIDE* the country (i.e. foreign intelligence). ThereIn article <MPG.1f8dd485be8e903f989d78@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <0h18i21ket4s0m5rkk8gckp0kk4oih33hh@4ax.com>, To-Email-
Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com says...
On Wed, 04 Oct 06 14:48:36 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
In article <MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[snip]
Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without
warrant. Get with the program.
Tapped? That's semantics. How does the NSA know a call is going to
involve
someone of interest? They monitor all calls and a computer "listens" for
certain key words and phrases.
[snip]
That's rarely the case, and not without warrant.
What NSA was doing was using computer perusal of telephone _records_,
"To/From" data.
From those suspicious records, taps were authorized by a judge.
YEs, and the foreign "taps" were intercepted calls from
"interesting" foreign numbers. They were not taps on phones.
Not in the old sense of physically connecting something to a phone. The NSA
was intercepting the calls though.
Two issues. One was the foreign intelligence calls, the other wasIn article <0h18i21ket4s0m5rkk8gckp0kk4oih33hh@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 06 14:48:36 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
In article <MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[snip]
Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without
warrant. Get with the program.
Tapped? That's semantics. How does the NSA know a call is going to involve
someone of interest? They monitor all calls and a computer "listens" for
certain key words and phrases.
[snip]
That's rarely the case, and not without warrant.
Yes, that is the case, and Bush claims he does not need a warrant; that he
has the inherent power as C-in-C.
What NSA was doing was using computer perusal of telephone _records_,
"To/From" data.
No, they were monitoring phone calls.
Foreign intelligence.From those suspicious records, taps were authorized by a judge.
Have you been in a coma? The issue is warrantless eavesdropping.
I've never been to the moon either, but I assume its not made of"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8dd1a463fccb53989d76@News.Individual.NET...
In article <IjTUg.51404$E67.14436@clgrps13>, nobody@nowhere.com
says...
"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69@News.Individual.NET...
Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without
warrant. Get with the program.
How would you ever know?
*You*don't know, so you assume thay are. Your tinfoil hat is
slipping.
You _don't_ know so you assume they aren't.
You're an idiot. You have no idea what my "Constitutional values"Interesting stand off. Have to hope the oversight committees have the same
level of constitutional values you do, but even if they don't you will never
know so the stand off continues.
They do? I thought that was Dan Blather's (et. al.) name."Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8dd1a463fccb53989d76@News.Individual.NET...
In article <IjTUg.51404$E67.14436@clgrps13>, nobody@nowhere.com
says...
"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69@News.Individual.NET...
Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without
warrant. Get with the program.
Uhh...then why does even the White House refer to this as the "warrantless
wiretap" program?
NO, it is not. It is foreign intelligence.And who cares if the phone that's tapped is in another
country. If it is able to listen to something going on in a living room in
the US, then it is *domestic* surveillance.
The value of the intercepts is fleeting. I don't want them waitingHow would you ever know?
*You*don't know, so you assume thay are. Your tinfoil hat is
slipping.
And you assume they aren't. If I'm wrong, no harm, they can still get post
facto warrants, and we still catch the bad guys. If *you're* wrong, my
Constitutional rights are being trampled. All I insist on is
accountability. Right now, the NSA is accountable only to themselves, and
this is a clear violation of the system of checks-and-balances built into
the Constitution. As a citizen of this country, I demand of my government
that the actions of one branch of the government *always* be subject to
review and approval of another branch. It's the very basis of our
Constitution...and Bush has duped you into believing that you must give up
that right.
Nope. not good enough. If the call is suspect it can't wait aLet me ask you a question.... FISA sets up courts and has a system whereby
the NSA can get warrants within a certain number of hours after a tap is
used.
Why because you think phone calls last "a certain number of hours"?Why do we need anything else? Not for speed.
Nonsense. Better double up on your hat.Not for security of
the warrant information. The only plausible reason that we would need
approval for the President to do anything more than that is if he has
already authorized the NSA to do something they're not currently allowed to
do under FISA. FISA ensures that the NSA is at least accountable to some
independent entity outside the Executive branch of the government. You
don't want your government to be held accountable for their actions?
See folks" He is _that_ stupid.Keith wrote:
jfields@austininstruments.com says...
Graham is vehemently anti-American, as can be seen in his posts
which have nothing to do with US policy.
Yep! ...right down to the way local school districts run their
school buses. He knows all.
It seems Americans are too stupid to even consider the concept of double decker
buses if you need to move more ppl than fit in a single deck one !
Again, why should the government be involved in medical research?jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg2m74$8qk_002@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <45226CD9.FF260140@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
The anti-Bushers keep saying this and it makes absolutely no sense.
What do you mean "retain power"? He has a term in office which
will end. He won't retain any powers after the Inaugeration in 2009.
take away peoples' rights, and kill a
segment of the world population, in much the same propagandistic way
that
Hitler did.
You've been listening to Democrats without thinking. Everything
coming out of their mouths is campaign speeches for 2004. This
is not a typo...I meant four.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Bush is the next
Hitler, just that there *are* parallels between their misanthropic
behavior,
if hugely different in degree and consequence.
You are excoriating Bush for doing one of his primary jobs which
is national security. I suppose you long for the days of the
Clintons where the goal was to breakdown all national security.
The Republicans are in a real panic here in Florida over Mark Foley.
They are afraid that the Democrats will get the seat he just vacated
because of the scandal.
Sure. That's local politics and wonderful to use as smoke and
mirrors to distract your attention from the real threats.
You mean kind of like gay marriage amendments, embryonic stem cells, Iraq
(as opposed to the *real* fight against terrorism), and so on?
Minors? It appears that this flap (at least the publicTo consider those real issues but to call the abuse of minors by a
Congressman "a smokescreen" is about as disingenuous as politics gets.
Indeed, you are.Keith wrote:
In article <IjTUg.51405$E67.42536@clgrps13>, nobody@nowhere.com
says...
"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message.
Clinton was successful.
Bush is a failure.
Unless you assume some really bad things about his motives that is.
9/11 was Bush's failure.
You are your mother's failure.
Bwahahahahahahahaha !
Are you always this retarded ?
---John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:28:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:55:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
It [WW2] simply has zero relevance to the issue at hand. Mind you, just to put your fevered >> >> >American
minds at rest, should European Islam be stupid enough to get 'nasty' expect another >> >> >Kristallnacht' with
Muslims being progromised.
I bet you're looking forward to that, boxcars and death camps. Does
"get nasty" include acquiring political power?
If it ever came to it, I'd expect it would be the public reacting, not the politicians.
---
So then you're saying that you're all racists just waiting for
something to happen so you can let it out?
No.
I'm saying that if someone threatens their fundamental freedoms, the British public will defend them. You should approve of that.
In article <v2c8i2tp1kf97gkk922mmi6brvb9iibqql@4ax.com>,
Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:50:58 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:46:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote:
"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
Clinton was successful.
Bush is a failure.
Unless you assume some really bad things about his motives that is.
9/11 was Bush's failure.
How long had Bush been in office when 9/11 occurred? Who was in
office the 8 years before that?
What's that got to do with it ?
You're going to suggest next that politicians currently in power won't
take the credit for the success of their predecessors' policies too ?
The fact is that it happened 'on Bush's watch' and he's responsible.
Graham
Had the 9/11 attacks happened during the Bush inauguration
ceremony, would this have been because of Bush's negligence and
ineptitude? How about the day after the inauguration? The week
after? The month after? What would be a reasonable cut-off date
for any responsibility of the previous presidency?
Gordon
Bush was warned repeatedly OBL was a threat. He ignored them. Read
Woodward's book.
Why? It's in the fiction section.
Actually, they didn't. Most thought he didn't do enough; too manyIn article <0cr8i2p5gcd7asiq8nsdlon8b0m6h69l5a@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
[....]
How many times has Clinton pointed and wagged his finger at the media?
(1) "I did not have sex with that woman."
(2) "I _tried_ to get OBL...", just recently interviewed by Chris
Wallace.
Sounds like the sign of the liar to me ;-)
On (2) we have external evidence that he did try to get OBL. It was all
over the news and the Neocons yelled "wag the dog" about it.
---T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote..
That's very hypothetical but I reckon I'd fight against any tyranny
suppressing important freedoms.
Aha, you only defend "Important" freedoms. Ok.
It was meant to be emphasis about *fighting*.
Foley intersect. Clinton signed the law that made previous actsAgreed, but those couple of orders of magnitude are made up by the fact that
the guy is a US Congressman, and in effect, the page's boss. They write the
laws that guide this nation...we're supposed to expect more of them. Add to
that the power imbalance (which is what consent laws are all about), and it
becomes even worse.
\Agreed. Actually there is a rather ironic place where Clinton and
In article <45241443.FB093847@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
Keith wrote:
jfields@austininstruments.com says...
Graham is vehemently anti-American, as can be seen in his posts
which have nothing to do with US policy.
Yep! ...right down to the way local school districts run their
school buses. He knows all.
It seems Americans are too stupid to even consider the concept of double decker
buses if you need to move more ppl than fit in a single deck one !
See folks" He is _that_ stupid.
--
Keith
Considering how the USA treated its indigenous ppl, I'm appalled thatOn Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:41:27 -0700,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
in Msg. <k4a8i29r7fefoc7u4d8ja0k5psaubo2s76@4ax.com
The history of Europe is the history of war. The earliest Greek
writings that survive are tales of war. Europe has been at war for
most of the last 3000 years,
The history of the US is no less war-ridden than that of Europe except
that it is much shorter. This is as unfair a comparison as that between
a single nation (the US) with only two borders and a not very
well-defined conglomerate of dozens of nations and cultures (Europe).
---John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 08:29:14 -0700, John Larkinwrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:30:02 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
I find it truly fantastic that the US Gov't has become such a cesspool of
fuckwits and that so may of the US population are keen to lap it up.
Graham
It was some time ago that you stopped thinking and stopped discussing
and began ranting. I sure hope you don't design electronics with a
similar level of intellectual effort.
---
Like when he advocated using a chip to drive 8, 20mA LEDs when the
absolute maximum current in the supply or the ground pin was limited
to 75mA?
The 20mA / LED is in your imagination. I *never* use that much.
It looked a heck of a lot better to me and least he was an intelligent andEeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
JoeBloe wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
Essentially a stupid jerk is all he amounts to.
Let him be one. He is merely doing the popular action in
blaming the US to assuage his fear.
I have no fear of these issues. It's the damn Americans who are afraid
you clot !
America hating blind bastard. That's all you are, ass, and why does
it smell like unkempt livestock in here?
It's what Bush has done to America that's horrible. It's brought the very
worst out in eveyone there. It was fine under Clinton.
No. It was not fine at all.
---JoeBloe wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:20:21 GMT, Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net
Gave us:
The thing we must ask ourselves
is, had I been one of the cops would/should I have waited for the
suspect to pull what ever he had in his pocket out and just hope
it wasn't a gun?
If you had/have any memory of your oath, policies, and laws, you had
better wait.
San Diego PIGS (yes here they are actually pigs still) dump their
entire clips into a person from 30 paces away, and three "officers" do
it in unison. That judge and jury at the end of a gun barrel CRAP
don't get it in his country, in my view. Buncha pussies is what they
are. They shot some old, drunk five foot two obese mexican man with a
garden trowel in his hand... from 30 paces away... and dumped the
whole clip in him. These bastards should ALL be ousted from the
farce, and we should start over.
The real problem lies with the California version of a police
academy. They have no clue what is contained in the US Constitution,
and they ALL forget their oath five seconds after they utter it.
This is the trouble with any country that believes in gun law.
Correct. I didn't really give a damn before.In article <eg2ouk$8qk_007@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
A lot of this anti-US fervor started with Democrat Presidential
candidates trying out their sound bytes in 2002-2004 in Europe.
/BAH
OH BS. It started with Bush invading another nation.
Are you really that monumentally stupid ?another possibility is
the goal is to cede to these extremists
You obviously haven't been listening then.In article <452390B0.7B5389D0@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Well, I'd like to have a few less crapolas posts so I can find
the ones were posted by thoughtful people.
Yet another American dismisses non-American thing thinking as crap.
All you seem to do is post lines like this. You have no dialog
just a gut reaction that happens to be deemed to be politically
correct at the moment.