Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<What we have done, however, is given them yet one more haven for their activities in Iraq, due to the basic anarchy that is slowly growing there.>> You have it backwards. Iraq was a haven for terrorists before Saddam fell. Now they are being hunted and killed by the thousands in Iraq. You didn't answer the question however. Why would the terrorists attack Canada when Cadada was anti war, anti Bush, anti Iraq? Can we agree the problem is Islam and not the USA foreign policy.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I asked for cases where PEOPLE had had their rights violated" And as you have now been answered, all of us have, including you. "Jon, that is a lie. Nobody is listening to your conversations" Gee, you seem awfully sure. Why is that? Can you point me to a link that says something that would lead me to believe that? "Why would the terrorists attack Canada" Because they are crazed killers. "Can we agree the problem is Islam and not the USA foreign policy." I would not want to label the entire religion.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <You are living in the land of theory and shadows and think we should abandon programs that save lives, like in Toronto, just because you are " worried " someone "might" be spying on your phone calls.> Once again, Beau... (sigh)... As far as I know, the Canadian executive has not claimed for itself the powers that the American executive has, and until someone can show me otherwise, I'm going to assume that warrants were obtained for spying on these individuals. Nobody, but nobody, has asked for those kind of programs to be abandoned. Just the cases that don't require warrants, don't have oversight, and mean the executive (today George, tomorrow Hillary or Tom or Mark or whoever) has more power than is wise in a democracy.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>As far as I know, the Canadian executive has not claimed for itself the powers that the American executive has<< It might not need to. Canadians do not have the same rights that we do. For instance, the gov't in Canada can censor religious broadcasting.
Originally Posted By thenurmis "Why are the Muslims trying to blow up Canadian buildings when Canada is totally anti war?" Beau, the prime reason is that Canada has offered support to the War in Afganastan, and shown it support for the US, in International form. In simple terms the war on America has started to "spill" over the northern boarder. The case against these people has not finished, from reports today the Police are still on the hunt, and now have a even better veiw of the support structor for this group in Canada. Also they have acknowlaged that the Canadain forces did recive some help from the FBI, although it was not released what services, or info was shared. ( I would imagine that it was a fairly large two way exchange) Exspect more arrests in the near future, and not all on the east coast. Hell and that is all they are releasing to the gen. public!!! One other intreasting note: one of the largest sorces of information gathered, in this case, was reported to be from the internet. Maybe "big brother" is watching in more ways than we know
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>"Why are the Muslims trying to blow up Canadian buildings when Canada is totally anti war?" Beau, the prime reason is that Canada has offered support to the War in Afganastan, and shown it support for the US, in International form.<< That support has been pretty flimsy, at best.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy >>"Why are the Muslims trying to blow up Canadian buildings when Canada is totally anti war?">> The correct answer to my question is that Islam is in a war with the west and anyone who does not bow down to Islam. If they are going to attack the biggest supporters of Muslims in North America, a bunch of anti war, anti Bush liberals in Canada... they will attack anyone. Once the libs figure this out, they might be able to actually help us win the war on terror instead of helping the enemy kill us all. That goes for the people in Frisco.
Originally Posted By jonvn Islam is not in a war with the west. Some, even many, members of the religion are. The religion is not. There is a difference.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Some, even many, members of the religion are. The religion is not. There is a difference.>> The religion is what the use to justify killing non believers. No Islam, no terrorism. Or at least 98% of terrorists attacks go away.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The religion is what the use to justify killing non believers" That's right, they do. And that's what everyone does with their religion, they use it as an excuse to engage in whatever behavior they wish to engage in. If they didn't have Islam, they'd find another reason.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<If they didn't have Islam, they'd find another reason.>> I don't think so. If these same Muslims had grown up Christian they would not be killing anyone. Just goes to show what religion is better.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Excellent point, now this. This from Neil Boortz today. <<Last night before I hit the sack I was watching some high-def TV show about some lost civilization that was centered in the Himalaya Mountains in Tibet. This particular civilization was located on the Silk Road trading route between Europe and China and was quite rich in and of itself, with gold and iron contributing to its wealth. The civilization is gone now. And what happened? Muslims, that's what happened. The nations surrounding this region converted to Islam and then the wars began. Eventually this isolated kingdom was wiped out completely. Watching this special I was struck with a thought (unusual, I know). At first glance it seems that since somewhere in the 1500s or 1600s the people of most nations and civilizations touched by Christianity and Western culture seemed to thrive to one degree or another, while the people of nations and civilizations touched by Islam seemed to generally suffer at worst, or just simply remain mired in their third-world status at best. >>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Thanks for that Ken. I didn't read Boortz today but I think he ( we ) have hit on something here that is simply undeniable.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Oh, I see. So, until we have a legal decision that says a law is broken, a law is not broken? So, if someone goes and robs a bank, but no one is convicted of robbing that bank, the bank was never robbed?<< This analogy is not only false, it's simply absurd. When a bank is robbed, a law has been broken. Whether anyone is convicted isn't the issue. The actions of the NSA have not broken the law. No "bank has been robbed." And no one has been convicted for that reason. WHen "Separate but Equal" was a legal standard, no one broke the law in following it. When it was challenged, a new interpretation of the Constitution struck it down. There is certainly legitimate cause for debate over whether the actions of the NSA are within the Constitution. And just as "Separate but Equal" was struck down, the NSA's present activites could be. But it will require a new interpretation of existing law. In the meantime, though, the law is NOT being broken, no matter how many times anyone says so.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Because they are wiretapping and listening in on phone conversations without warrant.<< Please provide an example of NSA wiretaps on ordinary citizens. Specifically, wiretaps without warrants.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DlandDug Here is an article from USA Today that pretty well sums up the present extent of NSA "wiretapping" activities. (I place quotes around the word because it has become an erroneous catch-all to describe any number of activities.) <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/news/w ashington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm</a> A few salient excerpts: >>The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations.<< >>The NSA's domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA.<< >>With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information. Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, declined to discuss the agency's operations. "Given the nature of the work we do, it would be irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operational issues; therefore, we have no information to provide," he said. "However, it is important to note that NSA takes its legal responsibilities seriously and operates within the law." The White House would not discuss the domestic call-tracking program. "There is no domestic surveillance without court approval," said Dana Perino, deputy press secretary, referring to actual eavesdropping. The government is collecting "external" data on domestic phone calls but is not intercepting "internals," a term for the actual content of the communication, according to a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the program. This kind of data collection from phone companies is not uncommon; it's been done before, though never on this large a scale, the official said.<< Some interesting historical background: >>Created by President Truman [doubtless one of those evil, power mad Republicans] in 1952, during the Korean War, the NSA is charged with protecting the United States from foreign security threats. The agency was considered so secret that for years the government refused to even confirm its existence. Government insiders used to joke that NSA stood for "No Such Agency." In 1975, a congressional investigation revealed that the NSA had been intercepting, without warrants, international communications for more than 20 years at the behest of the CIA and other agencies. The spy campaign, code-named "Shamrock," led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was designed to protect Americans from illegal eavesdropping.<< So, the NSA operated from 1952 to 1975 with no legal oversight. Let's see, that would be under Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford. Now there's a rogue's gallery, if ever there was one! (Actually, it was in 1978 during Carter's administration that the FISA was enacted. And just in time, too! Carter was doubtless one of those evil, power mad Republicans.) Now to the really germane part: >>A special court, which has 11 members, is responsible for adjudicating requests under FISA. Over the years, NSA code-cracking techniques have continued to improve along with technology. The agency today is considered expert in the practice of "data mining" — sifting through reams of information in search of patterns. Data mining is just one of many tools NSA analysts and mathematicians use to crack codes and track international communications. Paul Butler, a former U.S. prosecutor who specialized in terrorism crimes, said FISA approval generally isn't necessary for government data-mining operations. "FISA does not prohibit the government from doing data mining," said Butler, now a partner with the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C. The caveat, he said, is that "personal identifiers" — such as names, Social Security numbers and street addresses — can't be included as part of the search. "That requires an additional level of probable cause," he said.<< >>The NSA's domestic program raises legal questions. Historically, AT&T and the regional phone companies have required law enforcement agencies to present a court order before they would even consider turning over a customer's calling data. Part of that owed to the personality of the old Bell Telephone System, out of which those companies grew. Ma Bell's bedrock principle — protection of the customer — guided the company for decades, said Gene Kimmelman, senior public policy director of Consumers Union. "No court order, no customer information — period. That's how it was for decades," he said. The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered. The financial penalties for violating Section 222, one of many privacy reinforcements that have been added to the law over the years, can be stiff.<< >>The NSA's domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation's biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks.<< >>AT&T, when asked about the program, replied with a comment prepared for USA TODAY: "We do not comment on matters of national security, except to say that we only assist law enforcement and government agencies charged with protecting national security in strict accordance with the law." In another prepared comment, BellSouth said: "BellSouth does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any governmental agency without proper legal authority." Verizon, the USA's No. 2 telecommunications company behind AT&T, gave this statement: "We do not comment on national security matters, we act in full compliance with the law and we are committed to safeguarding our customers' privacy." Qwest spokesman Robert Charlton said: "We can't talk about this. It's a classified situation." [Qwest declined to participate in the program, despite pressure from the NSA.]<< As to whether the law has been broken: >>In December, The New York Times revealed that Bush had authorized the NSA to wiretap, without warrants, international phone calls and e-mails that travel to or from the USA. The following month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T. The lawsuit accuses the company of helping the NSA spy on U.S. phone customers. Last month, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales alluded to that possibility. Appearing at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Gonzales was asked whether he thought the White House has the legal authority to monitor domestic traffic without a warrant. Gonzales' reply: "I wouldn't rule it out." His comment marked the first time a Bush appointee publicly asserted that the White House might have that authority.<< That the EFF has filed a lawsuit isn't proof that the NSA has broken the law. Innocent until proven guilty also applies to 50 year old government agencies...
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Please provide an example of NSA wiretaps on ordinary citizens. Specifically, wiretaps without warrants.>> Crickets baby, crickets...
