I'll read your linked document when I get home tonight, but a few thoughts:
The Constitution gives the President sole authority to conduct warrantless surveillance of enemy forces for intelligence purposes to detect and disrupt armed attacks on the United States
This is a pretty big assertion here. The Constitution isn't a very long document, read it. It seriously doesn't say that. But it does say that
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
so to bring your second point to consideration, Congress can't issue any law or resolution that gives the President this power.
FISA specifically states that Congress can authorize surveillance by a statute other than FISA. The USSC confirmed in Hamdi that the 9/18/2001 joint authorization was an allowable statute.
I'll certainly have to double check this, but I believe that FISA actually states that it is the sole statute dealing with the subject of foreign intelligence wiretapping.
The NSA activities all fell within the 4th Amendment exception to the warrant requirement and satisfies and the fundamental requirement of reasonableness
With all due respect, this is certainly a case for the SCOTUS to decide. That's a pretty bold assertion.
I know you're trolling, but humor me... Which part of the Constitution gives the president that right? I know that the fourth amendment denies the government the right to conduct surveillance without warrants, where's the exception for the president?
Sorry for the long quote, but here's Article II (from The U.S. Constitution Online). I don't see this supposed right anywhere in there.
Article II. - The Executive Branch Note
Section 1 - The President
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by Amendment XII.)
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by Amendments XX and XXV.)
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not rece
You lost me at "liberal". You always know that a message is completely devoid of actual content when it has to be peppered with liberal this and neocon that and whatever-wing something else in order to keep the audience's attention.
Uh, Rome fell because the emperors were interested in an empire that they didn't have the resources to support. The hedonism was just the means to keep the public uninterested in politics so that the emperors could carry on unchecked. You know, Juvenal's panem et circenses. The end of the Roman Republic was the beginning of the Roman Empire, remember?
So you're saying that because the government tells you they're breaking the law for a good reason, then it's all right with you... no questions asked? Why can't they do this legally (by the letter of the law)?
The problem with your theory is that science is constantly expanding, whereas faith pretends to be eternal and unchanging (even though it evolves as well), and people hold on to their old faith-based beliefs about topics like evolution long after science has conquered them. Hence, conflict--the two overlap in certain areas.
That's the conflict between science and dogma. Dogma has nothing to do with faith (besides being often sold as one package). Dogma deals with observables and is basically just superstition and tradition. Faith doesn't make empirical falsifiable predictions, and so has no conflict whatsoever with science.
This may seem like a bunch of pedantic nitpicking, but my point is that religion and science don't have to be in conflict with each other at all. In fact, in their purest forms, they don't overlap at all.
...is this point of view: We in the USA have a real problem with our leaders.
Who here asked for leaders? I want representatives, not leaders. I'm interested in a government that goes where the people want it to go, not one that drags the people behind it. If you have a government full of leaders, things like this are what you end up getting time and time again.
Quite simply, when it comes down to it, neither Evolution nor Intelligent Design can be actually "proved" logically - which is why they both are scientific theories.
So your definition of a scientific theory is something which cannot "be actually 'proved' logically"? That's a pretty broad and useless definition, not to mention that it is not the generally accepted one.
If you're ever in a position where you need to defend yourself from the military of your own society - especially a military as vast as the US Army - would you really think that your weapons would present a viable defense?
The Iraqis don't seem to be having much of a problem with it, and there are more armed US citizens than Iraqis. Anyway, I think the fact that the populous is armed acts as a deterrent in itself. To avoid a military-vs-citizens conflict, the population would have to have their weapons confiscated, which would imply some looming unpopular government action and provoke a military-vs-citizen conflict in itself.
If you consider the number of military personnel in the US military (even not counting those who would desert faced with the prospect of fighting US citizens)) compared to the US population (spread out over the whole country) in a truly guerrilla conflict, you get an even more hopeless situation than Iraq or Vietnam.
I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the armed US population (even with a whole lot of.22s) could take the US military on quite easily. And you think this war is unpopular... Imagine the recruiting numbers in a war waged by the military against the population.
The fact is, if you want to purchase a song and have an iPod, ITMS is your only real, viable option. Sure, there are other places like eMusic, but they have a very limited selection that only appeals to a very small minority of users.
The fact is, if you want to purchase a car, [car dealer] is your only option. Sure there are other places like [other car dealer], but they don't have the color I like.
Your MS Office analogy fails because the lock-in is occurring in the file format, not the office suite. The use of.doc necessitates the use of MS Office. Apple's lock-in stems from iTMS. As iTunes is the only application that will play music bought from iTMS, their choice of file format locks you into their player (iTunes and iPod). The player doesn't lock you into anything.
Just because you're too lazy to find another source of music doesn't mean you're being abused by any particular industry. It just means that you're a consumer (this feeling of dissatisfaction you're experiencing will lead you to purchase a long string of devices that are never 'just right').
I hate to stand up for the guy, but have you visited the site? It doesn't really resemble a link farm at all. I'm having a difficult time finding that many external links at all. I've read the discussion of who this guys is, but the site itself surprisingly looks fairly legit.
Maybe I'm just not getting the joke, but if upon re-inspection you don't understand what you were doing and why, how do you come up with the comments to add to it?
If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base.
I always love this one. So basically, good people do the right thing because it is the right thing to do and doing the right (morally good) thing will lead to a better society for all. On the other hand, such religious people (those who would make this assertion) do the right thing only out of fear of punishment. Let them keep their religion if it is all that is keeping them civil, but they might learn that all of the world isn't as naturally morally corrupt as they.
They aren't hooked to the internet but they still stay patched anyway.
This may be a source of problems. If you have no way to get hit by a virus/worm, and you system is working... don't install the patches. There may be patches that you specifically want to install, but the bulk of them are only risking breaking what you've got. If reliability is important, then consistency is key!
Slashdot Mirror
The Constitution gives the President sole authority to conduct warrantless surveillance of enemy forces for intelligence purposes to detect and disrupt armed attacks on the United States
FISA specifically states that Congress can authorize surveillance by a statute other than FISA. The USSC confirmed in Hamdi that the 9/18/2001 joint authorization was an allowable statute.
The NSA activities all fell within the 4th Amendment exception to the warrant requirement and satisfies and the fundamental requirement of reasonableness
Sorry for the long quote, but here's Article II (from The U.S. Constitution Online). I don't see this supposed right anywhere in there.
You lost me at "liberal". You always know that a message is completely devoid of actual content when it has to be peppered with liberal this and neocon that and whatever-wing something else in order to keep the audience's attention.
Dig. I realized that I was a wee bit snappy.
Sorry to be pedantic, but that's what "on record" means.
Uh, Rome fell because the emperors were interested in an empire that they didn't have the resources to support. The hedonism was just the means to keep the public uninterested in politics so that the emperors could carry on unchecked. You know, Juvenal's panem et circenses. The end of the Roman Republic was the beginning of the Roman Empire, remember?
So you're saying that because the government tells you they're breaking the law for a good reason, then it's all right with you... no questions asked? Why can't they do this legally (by the letter of the law)?
Left pinky?! You've got to do better than that!
This may seem like a bunch of pedantic nitpicking, but my point is that religion and science don't have to be in conflict with each other at all. In fact, in their purest forms, they don't overlap at all.
Who here asked for leaders? I want representatives, not leaders. I'm interested in a government that goes where the people want it to go, not one that drags the people behind it. If you have a government full of leaders, things like this are what you end up getting time and time again.
And into this compound, which is described as being difficult to get into!?
It's Frank's
Yeah, I'm sure that's what pushed us over the top. You know that's the biggest non-regular bit of government spending this year! </sarcasm>
I've always wondered why people say this. What's your reasoning behind this statement?
So your definition of a scientific theory is something which cannot "be actually 'proved' logically"? That's a pretty broad and useless definition, not to mention that it is not the generally accepted one.
You've got a point there:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm
The Iraqis don't seem to be having much of a problem with it, and there are more armed US citizens than Iraqis. Anyway, I think the fact that the populous is armed acts as a deterrent in itself. To avoid a military-vs-citizens conflict, the population would have to have their weapons confiscated, which would imply some looming unpopular government action and provoke a military-vs-citizen conflict in itself.
If you consider the number of military personnel in the US military (even not counting those who would desert faced with the prospect of fighting US citizens)) compared to the US population (spread out over the whole country) in a truly guerrilla conflict, you get an even more hopeless situation than Iraq or Vietnam.
I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the armed US population (even with a whole lot of .22s) could take the US military on quite easily. And you think this war is unpopular... Imagine the recruiting numbers in a war waged by the military against the population.
The fact is, if you want to purchase a car, [car dealer] is your only option. Sure there are other places like [other car dealer], but they don't have the color I like.
Your MS Office analogy fails because the lock-in is occurring in the file format, not the office suite. The use of .doc necessitates the use of MS Office. Apple's lock-in stems from iTMS. As iTunes is the only application that will play music bought from iTMS, their choice of file format locks you into their player (iTunes and iPod). The player doesn't lock you into anything.
Just because you're too lazy to find another source of music doesn't mean you're being abused by any particular industry. It just means that you're a consumer (this feeling of dissatisfaction you're experiencing will lead you to purchase a long string of devices that are never 'just right').
I hate to stand up for the guy, but have you visited the site? It doesn't really resemble a link farm at all. I'm having a difficult time finding that many external links at all. I've read the discussion of who this guys is, but the site itself surprisingly looks fairly legit.
Right on, brother. Pity I had to slum down at -1 to find anything in this vein.
Maybe I'm just not getting the joke, but if upon re-inspection you don't understand what you were doing and why, how do you come up with the comments to add to it?
I always love this one. So basically, good people do the right thing because it is the right thing to do and doing the right (morally good) thing will lead to a better society for all. On the other hand, such religious people (those who would make this assertion) do the right thing only out of fear of punishment. Let them keep their religion if it is all that is keeping them civil, but they might learn that all of the world isn't as naturally morally corrupt as they.
Should it need a translator?
This may be a source of problems. If you have no way to get hit by a virus/worm, and you system is working... don't install the patches. There may be patches that you specifically want to install, but the bulk of them are only risking breaking what you've got. If reliability is important, then consistency is key!
As to the Sideshow Bob screencap: to your advantage, you had quite a few opportunities to get that shot!