This stuff is legal and has been going on for a long time.

The authority comes from F.I.S.A.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/

It's legal when a court order is obtained, even ex post facto. That
Bush did not even seek it after the fact is suspect.

He has the same legal team that tells him that indefinitely holding
people without charges is fine, and that America does not have to
follow the Geneva or Hague conventions, advising him on this one.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
It's legal when a court order is obtained, even ex post facto. That
Bush did not even seek it after the fact is suspect.

The President has the power to order wiretaps without warrants, this is a
matter of settled law.
This was in fact argued before Congress by one of the Clinton legal team, so
it's not new.
Then there's the law passed after 9/11 that gave the President the power to
anything he sees fit to prevent further terrorist acts.


He has the same legal team that tells him that indefinitely holding
people without charges is fine, and that America does not have to
follow the Geneva or Hague conventions, advising him on this one.

The Genevea Convention only applies to members of the military, which
country does Al Quaeda fight for?

As to holding the terroroists indefinitely that power has also been
challenged in court and the President won.

The insurgency in Iraq has some elements of Al Quaeda in it, no doubt.
Some insurgents are no different than the French Resistance in World
War II. Some are probably just having fun.

F.I.S.A. deals with foreign, not domestic, intelligence. NSA deals with
foreign, not domestic, intelligence. I would like to see the 'settled
law' that allows the President to authorize domestic wiretaps without a
court order. Can you please provide it?

As for the Geneva Convention, I am quite sure that someone as
well-versed as you appear to be is aware that several uniformed Iraqi
and Afghani soldiers that were captured by US forces, including a
Brigadier General, have died in US custody. The Brigadier General (as I
recall) died of asphyxiation (or was it a traumatic chest injury?).

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
The insurgency in Iraq has some elements of Al Quaeda in it, no doubt.
Some insurgents are no different than the French Resistance in World
War II. Some are probably just having fun.

F.I.S.A. deals with foreign, not domestic, intelligence. NSA deals with
foreign, not domestic, intelligence. I would like to see the 'settled
law' that allows the President to authorize domestic wiretaps without a
court order. Can you please provide it?

I'll see if I can find more detail.


The phone calls that were being monitored were made to or came from other
countries and were to suspected terrorists. Those computers they find in
Iraq and other places have phone numbers, those are the ones being
monitored, at least as far as I am aware.

Settled law was possibly a bad choice of words, but it is not without
precedent. It has been done by many other presidents.

As for the Geneva Convention, I am quite sure that someone as
well-versed as you appear to be is aware that several uniformed Iraqi
and Afghani soldiers that were captured by US forces, including a
Brigadier General, have died in US custody. The Brigadier General (as I
recall) died of asphyxiation (or was it a traumatic chest injury?).

As far as I am aware of the prisoners we have from Afghanistan and Iraq are
being treated well.
Inpsections have been carried out by human rights groups and AFAICR they
have not had any serious complaints. I don't know any details about any
uniformed personel. If yo can point me to some info, I'd be interested.

I have no issue with suspected terrorists having their phones tapped. I
can also understand that it may need to be done immediately. I believe
that's why there's a policy in place that allows for court orders after
the fact.

Here are a couple of references regarding POW treatment:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar25.html

This one deals with Amnesty International's take on the treatment of
POWs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3100027.stm

While this one may help explain why you don't hear more from human
rights groups:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...ck=1&cset=true

And this one refers to the Major General (my mistake, I said Brigadier
General) that I mentioned:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May27.html

I am of the opinion that when the top official and his administration
are manipulating information and shading fine lines of grey between
right and wrong, those attitudes tend to 'trickle down' to their
subordinates much like certain corrupt economic theories are supposed
to. The buck, after all, stops at his desk.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
The insurgency in Iraq has some elements of Al Quaeda in it, no doubt.
Some insurgents are no different than the French Resistance in World
War II. Some are probably just having fun.

F.I.S.A. deals with foreign, not domestic, intelligence. NSA deals with
foreign, not domestic, intelligence. I would like to see the 'settled
law' that allows the President to authorize domestic wiretaps without a
court order. Can you please provide it?

Here's what I've found so far: From the New York Sun:

http://www.nysun.com/article/24610

Beyond the Fourth Amendment, the law that is said to restrict the Bush
administration's activities is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978. But, contrary to what you may read in some other newspapers, that law
does not require that all such surveillance be authorized by a court. The
law provides at least two special exceptions to the requirement of a court
order. As FISA has been integrated into Title 50 of the U.S. Code, Chapter
36, Subchapter I, Section 1802, one such provision is helpfully headed,
"Electronic surveillance authorization without court order."

This "without court order" was so clear that even President Carter, a
Democrat not known for his vigilance in the war on terror, issued an
executive order on May 23, 1979, stating, "Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the
Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire
foreign intelligence information without a court order." He said, "without a
court order."

Now, Section 1802 does impose some conditions, including that "there is no
substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of
any communication to which a United States person is a party." But the law
defines "United States person" somewhat narrowly, so that it would not
include illegal aliens or, arguably, those who fraudulently obtained legal
status.

And if Section 1802 isn't enough, regard section 1811 of the same subchapter
of the United States Code, "Authorization during time of war." It states,
"Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General,
may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this
subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to
exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the
Congress." Again, mark the phrase, "without a court order."

From Slate :http://www.slate.com/id/2070287/

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that "the right ... against unreasonable
searches and seizures . shall not be violated." Two hundred years of case
law and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
provide that if the government wants to eavesdrop on your conversations or
search your possessions for the purposes of bringing criminal charges, it
must first provide a judge or magistrate with evidence of "probable cause"
that a crime has been committed. No probable cause, no wiretap, no warrant,
and no quickie search just for the fun of it.

The exception to this principle arises with respect to presidential
authority and national security. Presidents from Roosevelt to Bush have
asserted the constitutional right to authorize surveillance without a
warrant, where national security-as opposed to crime control-is at issue.
Courts generally agreed, and it wasn't until after Richard Nixon gave a
whole new meaning to both surveillance and national security that Congress,
in 1978, enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, allowing the
executive branch to still conduct surveillance and searches for foreign
security purposes, but only subject to the oversight of a supersecret FISA
"spy court." First mistake: ensuring presidential openness and transparency
by creating a secret court.

The FISA court permits warrantless government surveillance so long as the
primary purpose is to obtain foreign intelligence information. Under FISA,
the government needn't show probable cause that a crime has occurred; FISA
surveillance orders are valid for 90 days as opposed to 30 days for ordinary
search warrants; the target of surveillance is never advised of this
surveillance; and the application itself and supporting affidavits are filed
under seal so that neither the target nor his attorney can ever see the
allegations against him. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is
comprised of 11 federal district court judges secretly selected by the chief
justice of the United States. These judges preside in a secret windowless
courtroom, behind elaborately locked doors on the top floor of the
Department of Justice on Washington's Pennsylvania Avenue NW. James Bond,
Austin Powers, and Underdog take turns guarding the door.

Following Sept. 11, Congress scrambled to enact legislation to prevent
future terrorism. In the six weeks lawmakers gave themselves to enact the
USA Patriot Act, they had just enough time to rubber-stamp John Ashcroft's
Christmas wish list with scant scrutiny of the legal necessity or
constitutionality of his myriad requests. That flapping noise we are now
hearing about secret courts is the sound of these chickens coming home to
roost. The Patriot Act amended FISA so that foreign intelligence gathering
need no longer be the "primary" purpose of the surveillance, so long as it's
a "significant purpose." In other words, thanks to the Patriot Act, the
primary purpose for a warrantless FISA wiretap or search can now be evidence
collection for criminal prosecution or the fact that someone just looks kind
of creepy.


As for the Geneva Convention, I am quite sure that someone as
well-versed as you appear to be is aware that several uniformed Iraqi
and Afghani soldiers that were captured by US forces, including a
Brigadier General, have died in US custody. The Brigadier General (as I
recall) died of asphyxiation (or was it a traumatic chest injury?).

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have no issue with suspected terrorists having their phones tapped. I
can also understand that it may need to be done immediately. I believe
that's why there's a policy in place that allows for court orders after
the fact.

Here are a couple of references regarding POW treatment:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar25.html

This one deals with Amnesty International's take on the treatment of
POWs:

I also note that the fact that such a story appears at all, demonstrates
that the system is working and that people who do wrong can be discovered
through the government's own resources.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3100027.stm

Sorry, but the BBC is not a relaible source IMO.


While this one may help explain why you don't hear more from human
rights groups:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...ck=1&cset=true

And this one refers to the Major General (my mistake, I said Brigadier
General) that I mentioned:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May27.html

I am of the opinion that when the top official and his administration
are manipulating information and shading fine lines of grey between
right and wrong, those attitudes tend to 'trickle down' to their
subordinates much like certain corrupt economic theories are supposed
to. The buck, after all, stops at his desk.

Then you must be waitnig anxiously for the Barret report, which is said to
show numerous abuses by the previous administration and how they, unlike any
other administration, were able to use the IRS for abuse.

Logical construct: Others have potentially broken the law. Therefore,
it is OK to break the law.

From:
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:54:47 GMT

Then you must be waitnig anxiously for the Barret report, which is said
to
show numerous abuses by the previous administration and how they,
unlike any
other administration, were able to use the IRS for abuse.

From: - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:48:21 GMT

F.I.S.A. deals with foreign, not domestic, intelligence. NSA deals with
foreign, not domestic, intelligence. I would like to see the 'settled
law' that allows the President to authorize domestic wiretaps without a
court order. Can you please provide it?

Here's what I've found so far: From the New York Sun:

http://www.nysun.com/article/24610

I'm sorry, the New York Sun is not a credible agency for news
reporting, IMO.

Let's see what Bushie has to say on the matter:

From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
Last update: December 20, 2005 at 5:09 PM

COMPILED BY EDITORIAL STAFF

Eat those words

PRESIDENT BUSH, SPEECH, APRIL 20, 2004.

"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way,
any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap,
it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed,
by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're
talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for
our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act,
constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is
necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Briefing Congress, briefly

"The president asserted in his Dec. 17 radio address that 'leaders in
Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this
authorization and the activities conducted under it.' This statement
gives the American public a very misleading impression that the
president fully consulted with Congress. First, it is quite likely that
96 senators of 100 senators, including 13 of 15 on the Senate
Intelligence Committee, first learned about this program in the New
York Times, not from any administration briefing. I personally received
a single very short briefing on this program earlier this year prior to
its public disclosure. That briefing occurred more than three years
after the president said this program began."

HARRY REID, SENATE MINORITY LEADER, R (sic)-NEV.

As to your other arguments, there has been no formal declaration of
war, no 'warring factions' identified, no definable parameters for
declaring victory ("unconditional surrender" or otherwise), and so on.
So we are left with an undeclared war against a person or persons
unknown which could potentially last for the rest of time which gives
dictatorial powers to the president and vast amounts of national
treasure being expended in the name of 'freedom.'

This is beginning to sound a lot like fascism.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
Logical construct: Others have potentially broken the law. Therefore,
it is OK to break the law.


Not at all. I don't see where the Bush Aministration has broken any laws.
If they have then the same laws were broken by several other administrations
who used the same warrantless search policy.

From:
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:54:47 GMT

Then you must be waitnig anxiously for the Barret report, which is said
to
show numerous abuses by the previous administration and how they,
unlike any
other administration, were able to use the IRS for abuse.

AFAIK no other President ever got IRS information to use against it's
enemies. Nixon was reported to have tried but was not able to because of
the unwillingness of the people at he IRS.

If Clinton was able to do such a thing, it marks a new low in politics, and
another plank removed from his separately creaky platform he was trying to
build a legacy on.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From: - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:48:21 GMT

F.I.S.A. deals with foreign, not domestic, intelligence. NSA deals with
foreign, not domestic, intelligence. I would like to see the 'settled
law' that allows the President to authorize domestic wiretaps without a
court order. Can you please provide it?

Here's what I've found so far: From the New York Sun:

http://www.nysun.com/article/24610

I'm sorry, the New York Sun is not a credible agency for news
reporting, IMO.

Let's see what Bushie has to say on the matter:

From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
Last update: December 20, 2005 at 5:09 PM

COMPILED BY EDITORIAL STAFF

Eat those words

PRESIDENT BUSH, SPEECH, APRIL 20, 2004.

"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way,
any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap,
it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed,
by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're
talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for
our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act,
constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is
necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Briefing Congress, briefly

"The president asserted in his Dec. 17 radio address that 'leaders in
Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this
authorization and the activities conducted under it.' This statement
gives the American public a very misleading impression that the
president fully consulted with Congress. First, it is quite likely that
96 senators of 100 senators, including 13 of 15 on the Senate
Intelligence Committee, first learned about this program in the New
York Times, not from any administration briefing. I personally received
a single very short briefing on this program earlier this year prior to
its public disclosure. That briefing occurred more than three years
after the president said this program began."

HARRY REID, SENATE MINORITY LEADER, R (sic)-NEV.

As to your other arguments, there has been no formal declaration of
war,

That appears to be debatable. SDome people think Congress did that when
they passed the legislation that gave the President the power to pretty much
do whatever he wanted after 9/11.

no 'warring factions' identified, no definable parameters for
declaring victory ("unconditional surrender" or otherwise), and so on.
So we are left with an undeclared war against a person or persons
unknown which could potentially last for the rest of time which gives
dictatorial powers to the president and vast amounts of national
treasure being expended in the name of 'freedom.'

This is beginning to sound a lot like fascism.

No, it's just the ususal leftist doublespeak. It's OK for them but not for
Republicans.

That appears to be debatable. SDome people think Congress did that
when
they passed the legislation that gave the President the power to pretty
much
do whatever he wanted after 9/11.

Would those 'some people' include Gonzalez. Miers, Rice, Rumsfeld, and
others, or perhaps the F.I.S.A. judge who resigned in protest, or Frist
and DeLay? LOL Some people think they've been abducted by aliens, think
they are Elvis, still believe in alchemy, and so on.

You believe whatever Scott McClellan spins. If you believe in logic,
you can't possibly believe the trash you're trying to sell.




no 'warring factions' identified, no definable parameters for declaring victory ("unconditional surrender" or otherwise), and so on. So we are left with an undeclared war against a person or persons unknown which could potentially last for the rest of time which gives dictatorial powers to the president and vast amounts of national treasure being expended in the name of 'freedom.'

This is beginning to sound a lot like fascism.

No, it's just the ususal leftist doublespeak. It's OK for them but not for
Republicans.

No, it's not OK for anybody, particularly those people under Oath to
protect the Constitution, to break the law (please point to where I
said any such thing). If this report you alluded to shows that the
Democrats broke the law, then those that are guilty and broke it should
pay. Just like Sean Hannity's radio theme song (which, by the way, is
actually about an abusive spouse she kills, I think).

I think the basic difference between most of us on the left and the
Republicans (or conservatives, as there really isn't any other segment)
is that most of those on the left are aware of such things as civil
liberties, and that we don't put parties first in their protection.
That, and we're much better educated for the most part. That's
statistically proven. (And it is also why it's such a high priority for
the conservatives to pit themselves against the evil 'liberal education
system.')

You conservatives may be dumb, but you ain't (By God) liberal.
Congratulations.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
That appears to be debatable. SDome people think Congress did that
when
they passed the legislation that gave the President the power to pretty
much
do whatever he wanted after 9/11.

Would those 'some people' include Gonzalez. Miers, Rice, Rumsfeld, and
others, or perhaps the F.I.S.A. judge who resigned in protest, or Frist
and DeLay? LOL Some people think they've been abducted by aliens, think
they are Elvis, still believe in alchemy, and so on.

You believe whatever Scott McClellan spins. If you believe in logic,
you can't possibly believe the trash you're trying to sell.

I didn't say I beleive it, It's simply saying it's debateable.


no 'warring factions' identified, no definable parameters for declaring
victory ("unconditional surrender" or otherwise), and so on. So we are
left with an undeclared war against a person or persons unknown which
could potentially last for the rest of time which gives dictatorial
powers to the president and vast amounts of national treasure being
expended in the name of 'freedom.'

This is beginning to sound a lot like fascism.

No, it's just the ususal leftist doublespeak. It's OK for them but not
for
Republicans.

No, it's not OK for anybody, particularly those people under Oath to
protect the Constitution, to break the law (please point to where I
said any such thing).

Please point to any place I said you did.

If this report you alluded to shows that the
Democrats broke the law, then those that are guilty and broke it should
pay. Just like Sean Hannity's radio theme song (which, by the way, is
actually about an abusive spouse she kills, I think).

I think the basic difference between most of us on the left and the
Republicans (or conservatives, as there really isn't any other segment)
is that most of those on the left are aware of such things as civil
liberties, and that we don't put parties first in their protection.

As a registered Libertarian I believe in civil liberty as well, but I don't
beleive that anybody has a claim on the fruits of my labor. I also don't
think there's any evidence that teh GOP is out to do away with them either.
There are reasonable things that ought ot be done in order to prevent
another 9/11 and listening to phne calls from people who ahd their numbers
show up on a terroist hard drive is one of them. I also don't think the
public has the right to know everything, unless there is abuse. Yes it is a
very fine line and somebody has to watch the people doing the listening.
The problem I see is that this is all very political and the fact that there
is teh current outcry is because the Democrats are looking to score points,
it has nothing to do with civil liberty, it has everything to do with
politics.


That, and we're much better educated for the most part. That's
statistically proven. (And it is also why it's such a high priority for
the conservatives to pit themselves against the evil 'liberal education
system.')

Part of it is the Liberal eleitism that flows from the Universities these
days. Where any idiot can get up and say that the GOP is for poisoning
water and denying civil rights, but when a Conservative comes to their
campus to speak o behalf of their viewpoint they get harrassed and heckled
and disinvited. They used to be places where ideas were argued and no the
only thing they argue about is how evil the non-liberals are. The ratio of
liberal to conservative professors is hardly giving fair shake to any other
philosophy. While guys like Ward Churchill may have a right to speak, they
ought not be teaching wihtout something to balance their insanity.



You conservatives may be dumb, but you ain't (By God) liberal.
Congratulations.

Not a conservative. There are plenty of things I think should be legal that
aren't and will never be if Conservatives have their way.

I couldn't in good conscience, belong to either party. I just think that
when you have 2 bad choices, it's OK to point out which one is worse and
why, and often it depends on the issue.

From: - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:55:07 GMT

As a registered Libertarian I believe in civil liberty as well, but I don't
beleive that anybody has a claim on the fruits of my labor.

I'm not sure, but I presume this means you don't believe in paying
taxes?

There are reasonable things that ought ot be done in order to prevent
another 9/11 and listening to phne calls from people who ahd their numbers
show up on a terroist hard drive is one of them.

I'm sure you'll dismiss Reuters and the New York Times as casually as
you did the BBC:

Reuters Updated: 2:41 a.m. ET Dec. 24, 2005
NEW YORK -

"The volume of information gathered from telephone and Internet
communications by the National Security Agency without court-approved
warrants was much larger than the White House has acknowledged, The New
York Times reported Saturday.

Citing current and former government officials, the Times said the
information was collected by tapping directly into some of the U.S.
telecommunication system's main arteries. The officials said the NSA
won the cooperation of telecommunications companies to obtain access to
both domestic and international communications without first gaining
warrants."

So much for 'listening to phne (sic) calls from people who ahd (sic)
their numbers show up on a terroist (sic) hard drive.'

But don't worry. I'm not expecting you to change your mind. Even when
you're confronted with new evidence.

Shhhh! said to the Bug Eater:

I'm not sure, but I presume this means you don't believe in paying
taxes?

Ah yes, the crazy quilt of Mickey's beliefs. An excellent accompaniment
to the overwrought rituals of the American holiday season.


What duh-Mikey Believes

Mickey believes almost all government is an intrusion on personal
liberty. The only explicit exceptions he's allowed for are national
defense and emergency services (police, firemen, EMTs). Mickey just says
"No!" to public schools, regulation of the marketplace, publicly funded
and maintained parks, government-sponsored tests of food and drugs, and
on and on and on.

Mickey believes that Arnii Krooborg never initiates hostilities on
Usenet. Also, that all nasty posts by Mr. **** are fully warranted by
previous nasty posts by others, but not necessarily the victim at whom a
specific Kroo-post is aimed. Mickey further believes that Arnii Krooborg
has never told a lie, that Arnii Krooborg is the foremost expert in
audio engineering known to man, and that Arnii Krooborg is a natural
leader who is possessed of great intelligence and charisma.

Mickey believes that every individual property owner should be
responsible for building his or her own section of the roadway system.
Nobody, and especially not the government, should be allowed to seize
property in order to build a road on it.

Mickey believes with absolute faith in the efficacy of audio DBTs. The
poor dunce's faith is unshaken by his own complete lack of experience
with any DBTs, including his cherished aBxism. That's right -- Mickey
has never, ever participated in a single aBxism ritual, or in any other
kind of DBT for that matter. The numerous problems of DBTs for untrained
consumers notwithstanding, Mickey fervently believes that if you can't
perceive audible differences during a DBT, then you are deluded if you
can perceive them in Normal listening.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:55:07 GMT

As a registered Libertarian I believe in civil liberty as well, but I
don't
beleive that anybody has a claim on the fruits of my labor.

I'm not sure, but I presume this means you don't believe in paying
taxes?

Not at the point of a gun.

Rational people understand teh need for certain government services, but
only the ones that protect the liberty of the individual.

There are reasonable things that ought ot be done in order to prevent
another 9/11 and listening to phne calls from people who ahd their numbers
show up on a terroist hard drive is one of them.

I'm sure you'll dismiss Reuters and the New York Times as casually as
you did the BBC:

Reuters Updated: 2:41 a.m. ET Dec. 24, 2005
NEW YORK -

"The volume of information gathered from telephone and Internet
communications by the National Security Agency without court-approved
warrants was much larger than the White House has acknowledged, The New
York Times reported Saturday.

Reuthers, like the BBC is not knon for its objectivity, then there is the
issue f them quoting the NY Times.


Citing current and former government officials, the Times said the
information was collected by tapping directly into some of the U.S.
telecommunication system's main arteries. The officials said the NSA
won the cooperation of telecommunications companies to obtain access to
both domestic and international communications without first gaining
warrants."

My understanding is that cel calls don't enjoy the same protections as other
forms of communication.


So much for 'listening to phne (sic) calls from people who ahd (sic)
their numbers show up on a terroist (sic) hard drive.'


That was one of the resons for monitoring calls. IMO they would have been
derelict had they not listened to those calls.

But don't worry. I'm not expecting you to change your mind. Even when
you're confronted with new evidence.

When there is evidence that they were monitoring people for th purpose of
making them political enemies or some other non-defense related issues, I
might. Protecting the people of this country is acceptable to me.

There is also the issue of the Intellgence Committee being made aware of all
this and Bush subjecting himself to oversight that he didn't need to, at
least according to an interview I overheard on television while making
dinner for my kids. Sorry I can't tell you who it was being interviewed.

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


Shhhh! said to the Bug Eater:

I'm not sure, but I presume this means you don't believe in paying
taxes?

Ah yes, the crazy quilt of Mickey's beliefs. An excellent accompaniment
to the overwrought rituals of the American holiday season.


What duh-Mikey Believes

Mickey believes almost all government is an intrusion on personal
liberty. The only explicit exceptions he's allowed for are national
defense and emergency services (police, firemen, EMTs). Mickey just says
"No!" to public schools, regulation of the marketplace, publicly funded
and maintained parks, government-sponsored tests of food and drugs, and
on and on and on.

The government has and should have the abilty to use force for protection of
liberty, they should not be able to force people to pay for things they
could do themselves.

Mickey believes that every individual property owner should be
responsible for building his or her own section of the roadway system.

Not what I said.

Nobody, and especially not the government, should be allowed to seize
property in order to build a road on it.


Nobody should be allowed to sieze property that is owned by somebody other
than the government. The government doesn't need to own any property other
than that which it need for it's buildings.

Mickey believes with absolute faith in the efficacy of audio DBTs.

Faith has noting to do with it.

The
poor dunce's faith is unshaken by his own complete lack of experience
with any DBTs, including his cherished aBxism. That's right -- Mickey
has never, ever participated in a single aBxism ritual, or in any other
kind of DBT for that matter.

Nor does that have any bearing on their efficacy or not. I have likewise
never seen the earth from space but I am certain that it is round.

The numerous problems of DBTs for untrained
consumers notwithstanding, Mickey fervently believes that if you can't
perceive audible differences during a DBT, then you are deluded if you
can perceive them in Normal listening.

Have you any evidence other than anecdote to the contrary?

"duh!" sez Mikey, while bashing his head with a brick.

Mickey believes that Arnii Krooborg never initiates hostilities on
Usenet. Also, that all nasty posts by Mr. **** are fully warranted by
previous nasty posts by others, but not necessarily the victim at whom a
specific Kroo-post is aimed. Mickey further believes that Arnii Krooborg
has never told a lie, that Arnii Krooborg is the foremost expert in
audio engineering known to man, and that Arnii Krooborg is a natural
leader who is possessed of great intelligence and charisma.

Thanks Mr. McMickey for, admitting you're mentally unbalanced.

From:
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 21:47:09 GMT

I'm not sure, but I presume this means you don't believe in paying
taxes?

Not at the point of a gun.

Rational people understand teh need for certain government services, but
only the ones that protect the liberty of the individual.

So instead, we have the Laffer curve (take II). Notice to the brain
dead: it's like going on strike. Even if (and that's a big if) you get
more revenue down the road, you never, ever, make up the revenue that's
lost. Reductio ad absurdum: remove all taxes and revenue will explode.

I have an individual liberty of providing salmonella-laced poultry, so
we can do away with the USDA. I can dump toxic chemicals and other
waste unimpeded (after all, Ann Coultier said the planet is 'ours to
rape') so let's get rid of the EPA. Since the government will pick up
the tab for pensions (at a much reduced rate, of course), and since
forcing me to fund my business' pensions is an affront to my personal
liberty (as well as digging onto the fruits of my labor) we can
deregulate any and all business endeavors. Enron, Worldcom, et al, were
aberrations. Business really WILL look out for the small guy if left
unimpeded. Roads, locks and dams, bridges, airports, ports, military
bases, etc., and their maintenance are not my problems. And by selling
the airwaves to big business, and deregulating it, we have greatly
improved the dissemination of accurate news coverage. Idealistic, but
very naive, IMO.

Your position appears to me to be that there is not (or should not be)
a fabric in the US consisting of about 280 million threads, but rather
a country of about 280 million individual threads with no connection.
Perhaps that's why it appears to some that the US is unravelling...

IMO your apparent position also implies that you believe that all
people are equal, in innate intelligence, physical abilities,
opportunities, and so on. If this is incorrect, let the *******s starve
or freeze to death, I say!

I have a friend who says that he's a libertarian. He says that
businesses should be allowed to not allow blacks, muslims, or any other
minority or class of people, into them, or that they should not be
required to hire them if they do not want to. The market, he claims,
will 'make the adjustment if their position is incorrect' (which of
course ignores the fact that the other 88% of the population would not
care, as it does not effect them), and that to force a business to
serve anybody, or to hire anybody, that they do not want to is against
their civil liberties.

How do you feel about that position?

My understanding is that cel calls don't enjoy the same protections as other
forms of communication.

So much for 'listening to phne (sic) calls from people who ahd (sic)
their numbers show up on a terroist (sic) hard drive.'

That was one of the resons for monitoring calls. IMO they would have been
derelict had they not listened to those calls.

Perhaps you should read the whole article. This is not targeting
specific individuals based on intelligence derived from terrorist
computers. This is warrantless, wholesale monitoring of trunk landlines
and email. As a 'libertarian' you should be offended, at the very
least.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10592932/

Maybe Bushie and his cronies should take a look at the 9/11 committee's
recommendations and shore up the plethora of chinks in our defenses
(assuming they really ARE serious about stopping another attack).

From:
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 21:47:09 GMT

There is also the issue of the Intellgence Committee being made aware of all
this and Bush subjecting himself to oversight that he didn't need to, at
least according to an interview I overheard on television while making
dinner for my kids. Sorry I can't tell you who it was being interviewed.

I'm sorry, I missed this from my initial read of your post, as so many
areas had me utterly incredulous.

Now that you've pointed out that some guy on TV said it was OK for
Bushie to do whatever he wants with no oversight (but that he's such a
Great Amurrican that he unecessarily *subjects* himself to it anyway),
I can see my positions are entirely wrong. I'm very sorry.

I can also see that I need to watch more TV. Thanks for the tip!

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From:
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 21:47:09 GMT

I'm not sure, but I presume this means you don't believe in paying
taxes?

Not at the point of a gun.

Rational people understand teh need for certain government services, but
only the ones that protect the liberty of the individual.

So instead, we have the Laffer curve (take II). Notice to the brain
dead: it's like going on strike. Even if (and that's a big if) you get
more revenue down the road, you never, ever, make up the revenue that's
lost. Reductio ad absurdum: remove all taxes and revenue will explode.

I have an individual liberty of providing salmonella-laced poultry, so
we can do away with the USDA.

You assume there are only corrupt buthers and that no private enterprise
might come to do the smae job as the USDA.

can dump toxic chemicals and other
waste unimpeded (after all, Ann Coultier said the planet is 'ours to
rape') so let's get rid of the EPA.

You assume that people would be allowed to poison their neighbors.

Since the government will pick up
the tab for pensions (at a much reduced rate, of course), and since
forcing me to fund my business' pensions is an affront to my personal
liberty (as well as digging onto the fruits of my labor) we can
deregulate any and all business endeavors.

You assume that contracts would not be enforced.

Enron, Worldcom, et al, were
aberrations. Business really WILL look out for the small guy if left
unimpeded.

Considering that most businesses are not run like Enron et al, I'd say
business has a very good track record. It is not in the self interest of
business to cheat anybody, employees or customers.
Contract law and laws against doing harm to people are not thrown out simply
because we don't have Federal agencies overseeing every aspect of our lives.

Roads, locks and dams, bridges, airports, ports, military
bases, etc., and their maintenance are not my problems.

What rational person would not want to have a military? Where there no
roads or bridges not built by government? Government is not the only way to
get things done, plus it is one of the most wasteful ways of tranferring
money from people to projects.

And by selling
the airwaves to big business, and deregulating it, we have greatly
improved the dissemination of accurate news coverage. Idealistic, but
very naive, IMO.

Should people not have the right to obtain their news from whomever they
choose? Do you assume that people are not smart enough to discover who is
providing the most accurate reporting?

Your position appears to me to be that there is not (or should not be)
a fabric in the US consisting of about 280 million threads, but rather
a country of about 280 million individual threads with no connection.
Perhaps that's why it appears to some that the US is unravelling...


My position is that force is immoral unless it is being used in response to
force.
My position is that people have the right to decide for themselves how their
money should be spent.

IMO your apparent position also implies that you believe that all
people are equal, in innate intelligence, physical abilities,
opportunities, and so on. If this is incorrect, let the *******s starve
or freeze to death, I say!

Of course not, but they are capable of determining who is cheating them and
who is providing the best bang for the buck. Rather than rely on something
as crappy as Social Security that picked 65 as the age to collect benefits
because that's when most people were dead by that age, they can choose
something with a better return.

From:
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:15:09 GMT

Let's examine your ridiculous statements one by one:

You assume there are only corrupt buthers and that no private enterprise
might come to do the smae job as the USDA.

No, I *know* that most butchers are not chemists or biologists, and
therefore do not have the necessary expertise to determine if something
is tainted. I do not want to trust my health to someone with a Vo-Tech
degree at 'Sam's Meat Examinations, Inc.'

You assume that people would be allowed to poison their neighbors.

No, I *know* that they already have. Rivers caught on fire, there were
no scrubbers in industrial chimneys, Lake Erie died, Love Canal,
another similar area in Missouri, and on and on and on. The market did
NOT change these things, by the way. Business will take the most
economical course, including burying or pouring waste into a lake.

You assume that contracts would not be enforced.

No, I *know* they already aren't. By some estimates a VAST majority of
pension funds are underfunded. This is due, in part, to deregulation,
or removing certain tax codes. Business has two prime responsibilities:
a return for investors the next fiscal quarter, and making money for
management. None of the management in place when the pensions were
underfunded will be required to make it up, I'm sure.

Who's picking up the tab for United's pension? Are you so blind that
you think that United is going to be the extent of it?

What rational person would not want to have a military? Where there no
roads or bridges not built by government? Government is not the only way to
get things done, plus it is one of the most wasteful ways of tranferring
money from people to projects.

So in your ideal world, you leave your driveway and pay a toll to
whomever owns that road. As you turn onto a former County road, you pay
another toll. As you turn from that road onto the former US Interstate,
you pay another toll. As you exit, you pay another toll, then another
because JohnCo only owns that road to the county line.

Sounds like nirvana to me, too. How efficient!

Considering that most businesses are not run like Enron et al, I'd say
business has a very good track record. It is not in the self interest of
business to cheat anybody, employees or customers.
Contract law and laws against doing harm to people are not thrown out simply
because we don't have Federal agencies overseeing every aspect of our lives.

While I, on the contrary, *know* that prior to government intervention
and the formation of labor unions, business' track record was
abominable. Given the choice between screwing people or employees, and
reporting poor income to investors (or taking reduced income packages
themselves), the record speaks for itself.

Should people not have the right to obtain their news from whomever they
choose? Do you assume that people are not smart enough to discover who is
providing the most accurate reporting?

I *know* people are not smart enough, especially when most of the
information is hidden from them. If you give someone complete
information, most can probably do a pretty good job of figuring things
out. By privatizing something that WE all own, there is no requirement
for any kind of balance in the news.

Should we open up ownership of the Mississippi River to the highest
bidder?

My position is that force is immoral unless it is being used in response to
force.

Then we have a pretty ****-poor record here, as well.

My position is that people have the right to decide for themselves how their
money should be spent.

And with you it always relates back to money. Your money in particular.
Is there any other factor more important in your world?

Of course not, but they are capable of determining who is cheating them and
who is providing the best bang for the buck. Rather than rely on something
as crappy as Social Security that picked 65 as the age to collect benefits
because that's when most people were dead by that age, they can choose
something with a better return.

Social security has been a minimum subsistance for millions over
decades. You *assume* that everybody is smart enough to beat the stock
market, when in reality there are at least as many losers as winners.
But I know, I know, it's YOUR money. You have no responsibility to
anyone but yourself.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
You *assume* that everybody is smart enough to beat the stock
market, when in reality there are at least as many losers as winners.
But I know, I know, it's YOUR money. You have no responsibility to
anyone but yourself.

Wrong!
It is not a zero sum game.
when the market goes up, there are many more winners than losers.
Historically, the market went up in almost, if not every,
consecutive twenty year period.



--
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:
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:15:09 GMT

Let's examine your ridiculous statements one by one:

You assume there are only corrupt butchers and that no private enterprise
might come to do the smae job as the USDA.

No, I *know* that most butchers are not chemists or biologists, and
therefore do not have the necessary expertise to determine if something
is tainted. I do not want to trust my health to someone with a Vo-Tech
degree at 'Sam's Meat Examinations, Inc.'

Did everybody die from tainted meat before the FDA? NO. There are simple
ways to insure meat is not contaminated and the more complicated ones could
be done by private companies who contract with the butchers.

You assume that people would be allowed to poison their neighbors.

No, I *know* that they already have.

Not legally and not because of the lack of an FDA.

Rivers caught on fire, there were
no scrubbers in industrial chimneys, Lake Erie died, Love Canal,
another similar area in Missouri, and on and on and on.

Even though we have these giant government agencies to oversee these things?

The market did
NOT change these things, by the way. Business will take the most
economical course, including burying or pouring waste into a lake.

Especially when they are getting butt****ed by government over things like
snail darters.
Your jingosim is noted.

You assume that contracts would not be enforced.

No, I *know* they already aren't. By some estimates a VAST majority of
pension funds are underfunded. This is due, in part, to deregulation,
or removing certain tax codes. Business has two prime responsibilities:
a return for investors the next fiscal quarter, and making money for
management.

Something that Liberals seem to like to **** with every chance they get as
well.
The best solution is for government to stay out of it except for prosecuting
actuyal crimes of fraud and contract violation.

None of the management in place when the pensions were
underfunded will be required to make it up, I'm sure.

And you assume that I support such fraud? How about the Teamsters
mismanagement of their funds. It cuts both ways.




Who's picking up the tab for United's pension? Are you so blind that
you think that United is going to be the extent of it?


Are you so blind as to think that is how all business workd and that there
are no factors outside of the control of the airlines that might be partly
responsible? In the case of United, I have heard from people I trust that
is was not managed very well. If there is fraud involved, then naturally
there should be jail sentences.

You seem to assume that capitalism means that nobody has any responsablity
any longer.

What rational person would not want to have a military? Where there no
roads or bridges not built by government? Government is not the only way
to
get things done, plus it is one of the most wasteful ways of tranferring
money from people to projects.

So in your ideal world, you leave your driveway and pay a toll to
whomever owns that road.

Perhaps, more likely a group of people finance the building of roads for
their use and maintain it themselves. People who own tings tend to keep
them repaired.

As you turn onto a former County road, you pay
another toll. As you turn from that road onto the former US Interstate,
you pay another toll. As you exit, you pay another toll, then another
because JohnCo only owns that road to the county line.

Perhaps, but it would be better than the taxes we pay for gasoline beikng
used for welfare or whatever non transportation idea that government finds a
use for as happens here in California.

Sounds like nirvana to me, too. How efficient!

And the system we have now which has led to gridlock is better?
The 101 and 405 freeways need 5 more lanes on each side or to be double
decked, but there is no action at all. Only NIMBYism. I doubt very
seriously that the situation would not be better had there never been state
run roads.

Considering that most businesses are not run like Enron et al, I'd say
business has a very good track record. It is not in the self interest of
business to cheat anybody, employees or customers.
Contract law and laws against doing harm to people are not thrown out
simply
because we don't have Federal agencies overseeing every aspect of our
lives.

While I, on the contrary, *know* that prior to government intervention
and the formation of labor unions, business' track record was
abominable.

That must be why so few people belong to unions. You beleive whatever
propaganda the leftists preached about business, and forget about eh abuses
of the unions themselves. The Teamsters and the Dockworkers are prime
reasons for high prices in the areas they affect.

Given the choice between screwing people or employees, and
reporting poor income to investors (or taking reduced income packages
themselves), the record speaks for itself.

Perhaps but not in the simplistic way you wish to interpret it.


Should people not have the right to obtain their news from whomever they
choose? Do you assume that people are not smart enough to discover who is
providing the most accurate reporting?

I *know* people are not smart enough, especially when most of the
information is hidden from them. If you give someone complete
information, most can probably do a pretty good job of figuring things
out. By privatizing something that WE all own, there is no requirement
for any kind of balance in the news.


I see, so the world is made up of only 2 kinds of people, the ones who screw
you and the people getting screwed. I think you are a bit simplistic in
your view. The world has benefitted in many ways because of business and
big business in particular. That there are some scummy people in the world
is a fact but it is not a fact that they are the only people in business.



My position is that force is immoral unless it is being used in response
to
force.

Then we have a pretty ****-poor record here, as well.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.


My position is that people have the right to decide for themselves how
their
money should be spent.

And with you it always relates back to money. Your money in particular.
Is there any other factor more important in your world?

Personal responsibilty. Being accountable for one's own actions and not
crying to government to fix one's own ****ups.


Of course not, but they are capable of determining who is cheating them
and
who is providing the best bang for the buck. Rather than rely on
something
as crappy as Social Security that picked 65 as the age to collect benefits
because that's when most people were dead by that age, they can choose
something with a better return.

Social security has been a minimum subsistance for millions over
decades. You *assume* that everybody is smart enough to beat the stock
market, when in reality there are at least as many losers as winners.

There are people who invest their money in mutual funds and if they use
reasonable care and patience they will make a profit. That's part of that
responsibility thing I was talking about. When you are responsible for your
self you take better care to see that you are not getting screwed.

But I know, I know, it's YOUR money. You have no responsibility to
anyone but yourself.

If everyone understood that responsibility, there would be a lot less poor
people.

From:
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:30:23 GMT

You assume that people would be allowed to poison their neighbors.

No, I *know* that they already have.

Not legally and not because of the lack of an FDA.

The poison refers to what I said below, not to the FDA.

Rivers caught on fire, there were
no scrubbers in industrial chimneys, Lake Erie died, Love Canal,
another similar area in Missouri, and on and on and on.

Even though we have these giant government agencies to oversee these things?

Um, perhaps the reason we have these things now is because of
government regulations? Tell me how the market drove these companies to
clean up their act. And tell me how these same companies will be driven
to reduce greenhouse gases without Kyoto or some other outside
influence.

The market did NOT change these things, by the way. Business will take the most
economical course, including burying or pouring waste into a lake.

Especially when they are getting butt****ed by government over things like
snail darters.

Argument by exception. You lose.

Your jingosim is noted.

jin·go·ism (jÄ*ng'gÅ?-Ä*z'É™m) n.
Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign
policy; chauvinistic patriotism.

You've totally lost me here. Can you explain?

While I, on the contrary, *know* that prior to government intervention
and the formation of labor unions, business' track record was
abominable.

That must be why so few people belong to unions. You beleive whatever
propaganda the leftists preached about business, and forget about eh abuses
of the unions themselves. The Teamsters and the Dockworkers are prime
reasons for high prices in the areas they affect.

Um, you'll note that I said 'prior to.' You seem to be arguing for
company stores, child labor abuse, and so on. That was the status quo
prior to government intervention and labor unions. I personally think
that the pendulum has swung too far toward the unions in the past few
years. You do kind of need to pay attention. Unless you truly ARE
arguing for 'the good old days' of company stores and the like...

Given the choice between screwing people or employees, and
reporting poor income to investors (or taking reduced income packages
themselves), the record speaks for itself.

Perhaps but not in the simplistic way you wish to interpret it.

Then enlighten me, O Wise One. Mysterious, simplistic parries to the
negative with no explanation hardly carry any weight.

I *know* people are not smart enough, especially when most of the
information is hidden from them. If you give someone complete
information, most can probably do a pretty good job of figuring things
out. By privatizing something that WE all own, there is no requirement
for any kind of balance in the news.

I see, so the world is made up of only 2 kinds of people, the ones who screw
you and the people getting screwed. I think you are a bit simplistic in
your view. The world has benefitted in many ways because of business and
big business in particular. That there are some scummy people in the world
is a fact but it is not a fact that they are the only people in business.

Wow. Where did you get that? To reiterate exactly what I said (and to
spell it out and use more and smaller words): The government
(particularly the Reagan administration) did us no favor by selling
something in the public's domain (i.e. the radio and television
airwaves) to private concerns. This ended any requirement for equal
time, or any facade of balanced news. People cannot make educated,
intelligent decisions when large amounts of data are withheld from
them. GIGO. Many people are not mad that the New York Times ran the
report about large amounts of illegal wiretaps occuring. Many ARE upset
that the Times held on to that report for a year. That information may
have changed how some people voted, for example. It may not have. But
people could not properly make up their minds in this case because
information was held from them.

Your position is the media is a bunch of damned liberals (used as an
epithet). My position is that all the main news outlets are owned by
the likes of News Corp., TimeWarnerAOL, and so on, and to me have a
decidedly conservative bent apparently mirroring their parent company's
views. Look at the chicken**** follow-up questions (or lack of
follow-up at all) asked by the White House beat reporters as an example
of this.

I find discussing things with you somewhat like reviewing data from a
computer with a faulty logic circuit. For most people, the argument "if
'a', then 'b': 'a' therefore 'b'" is a valid form. It appears you come
up with a conclusion of 'm' or 'q' from the same form.

But I know, I know, it's YOUR money. You have no responsibility to
anyone but yourself.

If everyone understood that responsibility, there would be a lot less poor
people.

And if everybody understood that there is a large group that is being
excluded from participating based on factors that they have no control
over, I'd argue the same likely result.

While you begrudge social services, I begrudge pork. I believe that if
we got rid of Senator Steven's 'Bridge to Nowhere' and Trent Lott's
billion dollar unwanted ships and like pork, we could have a very nice
and effective set of social services and still have a balanced budget.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
People cannot make educated, intelligent decisions when large
amounts of data are withheld from them.

Those who promote the efficient action of the free market too
often forget that Adam Smith required there be free access
to all relevant information for a free market to operate
efficiently.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile