Jihad needs scientists

[Lloyd Parker]

In article
<kurtullman-F49EC0.10524905102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

In article <eg32hc$5l0$6@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article
kurtullman-8700B9.17512004102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone in
my
living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your
listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights.

Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over
that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone
doesn't have a warrant on it.

Bush didn't get warrants!
Read the next para which is a nice, coherent and well thought out
suggestion as to why one may not be needed.


It well settled that as long as one phone
is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair
game. Since there are no restrictions on tapping a phone outside of the
country, it would be legal tap. Thus anyone the phone calls or anyone
who calls the phone could be listened to as noted. Would be a rather
interesting case to make.

No it doesn't. If you're listening to Americans in America, you need a
warrant. The FISA act seems clear as does the 4th amendment. Further, nobody
has proven the NSA was only eavesdropping on overseas calls.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <fk8ai2hhr2q700qcpmdb499i7i7sga8gpc@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 06 09:41:24 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In 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.

From those suspicious records, taps were authorized by a judge.

Have you been in a coma? The issue is warrantless eavesdropping.


...Jim Thompson

You sure are exhibiting your inability to read. You must be a
Democrat.

...Jim Thompson

Fact: The NSA has been engaging in warrantless wiretaps. To claim otherwise
is either ignorant or a lie.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <pp8ai25rbnqffaq63m7op8bkfqkb8n051t@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 06 09:50:29 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In article <v2c8i2tp1kf97gkk922mmi6brvb9iibqql@4ax.com>,
Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:
[snip]

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.

Woodward is an opportunist. You must be a Democrat.

...Jim Thompson

You must be an idiot. Bush praised Woodward's first 2 books, by the way.
Further, Card and others have confirmed what he wrote.

I'll take Woodward's word anyday over Bush's.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <mr8ai292mf71q5nm1o2m5q2lutvj1h2e4o@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 06 09:51:29 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In article <lef8i2prust90bdlna6vmp1r0h9p7a7a95@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
[snip]
But I can record and then hand over to the government, no
sweat, no warrant, nada.

...Jim Thompson

And it can be thrown out.

Not in Arizona it can't.

It's up to a judge. If you appear to be acting as an agent of the state, it
will usually be thrown out.

You must be a Democrat, you're so ignorant.

...Jim Thompson

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <MPG.1f8ef43ad604286c989d8f@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <nnWUg.13331$7I1.12003@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net says...

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:hc38i2pmri56a6s84fsnmnklt06aihsves@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:35:28 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:08:34 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Homer J Simpson wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote

I don't think Clinton was a very good moral example, but then
again, there
are lots of things that are worse than getting an adulterous
blowjob at
work

Carter sold arms to the Indonesians so they could massacre the East
Timorese. Compared to that a blowjob is nothing.

Heck, even the UK sold arms to the Idonesians. Jet fighters in fact.

That the US public could get so worked up over a minor sexual
indiscretion yet
not give a damn about killing tens of thousands of foreigners is very
telling
and a very depressing comment on the state of US society.

You pay _way_ too much attention to the media.

I'm imagining Ken Starr ?

Without the media's turning Clinton's sexual indiscretions into a
cause célebre, the Lewinski matter would have remained private, as
it should have stayed.

That's rich. Democratic idiocies (Clinton's inappropriate sexual relations
in office) are the Democrats' fault, but Republican idiocies (attempting to
smear and impeach Clinton over something so ridiculously small) are the
fault of the press.

Rape, perjury, suborning perjury, are "ridiculously small" charges
My, you live in a different world.

Lie and smear. Typical right-winger.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <MPG.1f8ef4cf73c0df1e989d90@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net says...

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8dd485be8e903f989d78@News.Individual.NET...
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.

I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone in my
living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your
listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights.

Your "demands" are silly. When the other end of the line is in a
mosque in Iran (number captured on a &bad_guy's_laptop), I _demand_
that your call be intercepted. Your "Constitutional rights" have
nothing to do with it.

4th amendment get repealed?

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <MPG.1f8ef5524ba0ae25989d91@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <eg32hc$5l0$6@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...
In article
kurtullman-8700B9.17512004102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone in
my
living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your
listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights.

Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over
that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone
doesn't have a warrant on it.

Bush didn't get warrants!

Not needed for foreign intelligence.

Says who?

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <MPG.1f8ef59ed88a743f989d92@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <eg325f$5l0$2@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...
In 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.

Yes, from *OUTSIDE* the country (i.e. foreign intelligence). There
were no domestic calls "tapped", without warrant.

First, we don't know that. Secondly, when did the 4th amendment get repealed
for an American citizen calling, say, France?

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <MPG.1f8ef7a64499f172989d95@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <ZUVUg.13317$7I1.10123@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net says...

"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?

They do? I thought that was Dan Blather's (et. al.) name.

How cute. Do you spell it Klinton too?

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.

NO, it is not. It is foreign intelligence.

If an American in America is involved, there's the 4th amendment.

How 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.

The value of the intercepts is fleeting. I don't want them waiting
around for a judge to rubber stamp a intercept order for every
phone call from *bad_guy.phonenumber.

FISA gives them 72 hours to listen in before even requesting a warrant.

Let 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.

Nope. not good enough. If the call is suspect it can't wait a
"certain number of hours". The value is gone by the time they can
call a FISA judge.

You can ask for the warrant the "certain number of hours" later. Geez, you
should really become informed before spouting off.

Why do we need anything else? Not for speed.

Why because you think phone calls last "a certain number of hours"?

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?

Nonsense. Better double up on your hat.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <MPG.1f8ef931a1973410989d97@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <w88Vg.9105$vJ2.869@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net says...

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?

Again, why should the government be involved in medical research?

"Provide for the general welfare" clause?

There is plenty of private money about. If the VCs thought there
was promise in embryonic stem cell research they'd be flocking to
it. I don't see that happening.

To consider those real issues but to call the abuse of minors by a
Congressman "a smokescreen" is about as disingenuous as politics gets.

Minors? It appears that this flap (at least the public
information) is about IMs to an 18YO.

One was 16.

Was Lewinsky a minor too?

She was 22.

Ugly, sure. Throw the bumb under the next bus, sure. BTW, why is
Barney Frank still in congress?

Being gay in this country doesn't get you drawn and quartered yet, but I'm
sure you right-wingers are working on it.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <MPG.1f8efa5f98d07c31989d9a@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <eg3143$okg$2@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net
says...
In 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.

Actually, they didn't. Most thought he didn't do enough; too many
sheets left standing in the desert. The aspirin factory raid was a
killer though.

Actually they did. Did your talking points memo not come through?

 

[Eeyore]

JoeBloe wrote:

Fuck off, retard.

The classic American debating postion.

Don't you ever see why we'd like to get you retards off our backs when you
respond to perfectly reasonable criticism like this ?


Graham

 

[Eeyore]

JoeBloe wrote:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 16:57:03 GMT, Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net
Gave us:

Okay, I'm a little slow this morning. What's the second purpose?
I can see where purpose # 1 is to get rid of the excess young
men, by brainwashing them into being suicide bombers, so the
ruthless leaders can have more of the young women to themselves,
but what's purpose #2?

From their POV or ours? We of course say there is no purpose, but
you readily see in the world what they think they are getting. There
are actually entire nations of ill informed societies that have
actually been duped into thinking these extreme bastards have a
righteous cause.

What do you mean by 'duped' ? You think they imagine it ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Ken Smith wrote:

In 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.

The neo-cons are terminally clueless.

Graham

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8ef43ad604286c989d8f@News.Individual.NET...

Rape, perjury, suborning perjury, are "ridiculously small" charges
My, you live in a different world.

You are confusing Clinton with the Republicans - they're the ones now seen
as committing rape, perjury and suborning perjury.

Bill looked for volunteers.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-8700B9.17512004102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...

Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over
that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone
doesn't have a warrant on it. It well settled that as long as one phone
is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair
game.

Unless the person is talking to their lawyer in which case the cops are
supposed to not listen, although they ignored that in the Scott Peterson
case.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-DF361C.08005005102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...

There have been a coupla attorneys who tried that defense. Something
about a sugar jag leading to them killing or at seriously injuring
someone. Can't remember right off if it worked or not. Our defense
attorneys are nothin' if not creative.

You can't beat, "She's too pretty for prison, your honor".

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:eg32m2$5l0$8@leto.cc.emory.edu...

Of course. But I can record and then hand over to the government, no
sweat, no warrant, nada.

And it can be thrown out.

Not even in CA which is an all party state. See the recent cases of Scott
Peterson and John Mark Karr.

The law is now an arcane thing to be twisted as desired, not a servant of
the public good.

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Keith wrote:
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...

And you think you can defeat 'radical Islam' with bombs and
bullets ?

I know there is no choice. Perhaps you want to submit?

There is no need to 'submit'

You're living in a perversely stupid fantasy paranoid world.

It comes from the constant bombardment by Bush's fear-mongering--it's
his
way of keeping power over people. People start to lose perspective on
what is happening and why. It really is a very powerful narcotic.

Have you seen this ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

No, I hadn't. Interesting thesis. I do hope PBS or BBCAmerica picks up
the program, I'd like to see it.

It's available online.

And would you believe I didn't bookmark it ! Sorry.

Now that I know to look, I'm sure I can find it. I'm not a huge fan of
streaming video like this, but if it's the only way I'll see it, I will.
Thanks!

The site I had in mind actually had a DVD ISO image of the 3 programmes that
made up the series. It was a 44GB download IIRC !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Keith wrote:
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...

And you think you can defeat 'radical Islam' with bombs and
bullets ?

I know there is no choice. Perhaps you want to submit?

There is no need to 'submit'

You're living in a perversely stupid fantasy paranoid world.

It comes from the constant bombardment by Bush's fear-mongering--it's
his
way of keeping power over people. People start to lose perspective on
what is happening and why. It really is a very powerful narcotic.

Have you seen this ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

No, I hadn't. Interesting thesis. I do hope PBS or BBCAmerica picks up
the
program, I'd like to see it.

It's available online.

And would you believe I didn't bookmark it ! Sorry.

Now that I know to look, I'm sure I can find it. I'm not a huge fan of
streaming video like this, but if it's the only way I'll see it, I will.
Thanks!

There are some bits and pieces here btw. The series was called 'The Power of
Nightmares'.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=power+of+nightmares&search=Search

Graham