So, sorry to say it, but if telco's freely give information they own to the feds without a warrant, then no law has been broken.
Wrong. They might not be bound by the Bill of Rights, but there are other (federal!) laws that apply. Please see Section 222 of the Communications Act.
Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.
According to this blog, during the 1918 pandemic, the death rate for people aged between 25 and 34 was as high as that for people between 1 and 4 and between 70 and 80
I believe the reason that pandemic killed the 25-34 age group deals with something called a Cytokine Storm. H1N1 (the 1918 flu virus) infects the lungs, and the body freaks out and starts attacking the lungs with abandon to get rid of the virus. Thus, those in the 25-34 range (with a strong immune system) were more likely than normal to die because that strong immune system turned against them.
The games content certainly feels like adult material. I wouldn't like to think of my kid-brother, at 16, playing it. He's nowhere near mature enough. The 'AO' standard really is a better fit for this particular title
Recall that the age limit for AO is 18, whereas M is 17. I do not think there is such a huge gap in maturity between a 17 and an 18 year old. Definitely not a gap large enough to make this big of a fuss about.
It should be the right of the Red Cross to determine how close they need to get to the prisoner. Naturally, if they observe on their own this sort of behavior from the prisoner/detainee, they can decide that said prisoner is not worth the risk of seeing them.
I don't really think I'm being swift to judge. Rather, I'm saying that the government ought not be the ones deciding who should and should not have medical care. Rather, that decision should be left to those administering said care.
Violent and unpredictable? You mean a detainee, bound and shackled in a cell, is too violent for a member of the Red Cross to visually inspect? Where's the eye-rolling smiley when you need it....
So, in essence, the telco has every right to provide this information to the federal gov't if they want to (whether it's in their own best interest or not).
Sorry, you're wrong. Please see Section 222 of the Communications Act.
Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.
I will give preferential attention to any.edu domain results. This usually contains the links for lectures, power-point slides, PDFs, etc. from universities, and should thus be fairly reliable.
After having received a degree in the field of Computer Engineering, I was able to successfully use online courseware (googled, no less) to learn an elective I wanted to take in college, but couldn't (specifically, DSP).
I would dare say I was able to learn how to practically employ a variety of DSP techniques in about two weeks, no prof or classmates. This banks on having taken a Signals class in college...so I was already familiar with a lot of it.
Still, I echo other posts which say that this is not a suitable substitute for a proper education.
if a bum on the street approached you and told you that the moon is made of cheese and that a day is 24 hours long, you cannot claim that the second claim is false just because the first claim is (and, hey, the source is a bum anyway).
If a bum on the street told me the moon is made of cheese, I would most definitely be skeptical of any and everything that bum said afterward, including whether or not the day is 24 hours long. That is my point - if Yoo wrote one bullshit opinion, then the rest of his opinions are suspect as well.
Just because the day is 24 hours long doesn't mean I'm not going to call everything that bum says into question.
You think that the wiretapping program was "clearly illegal" because: #1- You think it violated FISA and the 4th Amendment
No, the wiretapping program is clearly illegal, due solely to the 4th amendment, no FISA necessary. That FISA exists and used to include provisions that exactly the kind of things which Bush authorized were clearly illegal is just icing on the cake; it was illegal^2. Now that FISA's been amended it's just illegal.
#2- One of the bigger legal papers out there that argues that the program doesn't violate FISA and the 4th Amendment was (probably) written by somebody who has made unrelated claims that you disagreed with.
For one, calling them "claims" is disingenuous; they are legal opinions that our executive branch is using to abuse power and should be written as if they were above the level of "claims", which has a connotation of "because I said so".
The legal opinions are only unrelated on their face. Anyone who proposes that torture is legal is fucked in the head, and anything they write is suspect, just like the bum above.
Here's a question. Can an act of Congress supersede the Constitution? I'm pretty sure the answer is no, hence why we need amendments to the Constitution and such. So, how can the AUMF supersede the 4th amendment? In a twilight world where you're trying to make it legal to torture and spy on people without oversight, you can just say "AUMF > 4th amendment" and go running around saying "look! Someone said this is legal, so it's legal and I'm gunna do it!". I call that a bullshit legal opinion.
By its nature, this is going to be a controversial line to draw, but it is a line that needs to be drawn.
It's only controversial if you're a weasel trying to figure out how to torture people and get away with it. The line doesn't need to be drawn...just don't torture people. Is it really that hard?
Instead, you're whole claim seems to be resting on "I don't like the guy who wrote it, so it must be wrong." That is neither compelling or accurate, and does nothing to strengthen your argument.
No, my claim is that Yoo has written bullshit legal opinions before. Really, torture being legal? Anything and everything that the administration did based on Yoo's opinions needs to be reconsidered; that is my argument. It has nothing to do with whether or not I like him.
2) going to have to prove that the surveillance they were subject to would not have been approved by a FISA court, and 3) arguing arguing aspects of the program that are no longer applicable with the amendments made to the program and FISA statute.
2) Whether it would have been approved or not does not change that it was not approved. 3) Whether they're no longer applicable does not change that it was applicable when it occurred.
And no court is going to rule that it was illegal back then, but is legal now because the same justifications that were used when the program was started were used to amend the law. It would be a complete waste of time.
So you're saying it's a complete waste of time to prosecute executive abuses in the past because Congress caved in the present?
How have your rights (you personally) been affected by this program? Have you been injured or damaged because of it? How is it any different than any other program that the government uses to protect and defend it's citizens?
That's just it, we don't know if it's just for protection and defense. Nobody knows, there's no oversight! Geeze, what the hell is so bad about a little judicial oversight?
Also, if the President is using the wiretapping powers to eavesdrop on political opponents, then all of America is being damaged. The point is, this is an if because there is no oversight. Why should there be no oversight? Because the paperwork is too hard to fill out? That's the point! Paperwork to fill out makes this less ripe for abuse.
Were my rights affected by watergate? Does it matter? It was still illegal.
Do you agree with the terrorist surveillance program now that the law has been amended to make it clearly legal?
I do not agree with it even after the law was amended. Warrantless surveillance is illegal per the 4th amendment. Period. Congress can pass a law saying that it isn't, but I'm pretty sure the Constitution supersedes laws of Congress; therefore, the TSP is still clearly illegal. Yes, clearly. Like glass.
And I'm not arguing against the government phone tapping terrorists. I'm arguing against the government having the ability to listen in on anyone's conversations, without judicial oversight. I'm arguing that such powers will be abused, and you're a complete fucking moron if you think otherwise.
By the way - this was a very specifically targeted program for the NSA, not a broad program for the FBI.
And who does the NSA give their leads to when it comes time for investigation?...could it be...the...Federal Bureau of...Investigation?
We should really just drop this. Neither of us is getting anywhere. You're obviously a lost cause, or vice versa.
You are disagreeing with the merits of an argument based on the messenger, and not the argument itself.
To call him a messenger of the argument is disingenuous - he is the author of the argument.
It is totally relevant to discuss the other arguments that an individual has made in order to call into question the credibility of the argument presented. If it can be shown that Yoo has had a pattern of shakey legal opinions not befitting the title of "expert", this would generally mean that you should be extra careful when considering any opinion he has written.
Actually, no. If you'll read the definition above, that wasn't an "adhom"
Actually, I was referencing you calling me idiotic as an adhom. I do believe that fits your definition of "attacking the messenger".
Actually, there will be probably no chance for a judge to weigh in on this. The appeals have been stopped,
I thought the suit against al-Haramain was still around, because they actually have standing to file suit that they were spied upon illegally. Plus, I was not aware of the suits against AT&T going through U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's court having been stopped.
the FISA statutes amended to allow for the program to continue without any other legal justification.
The amendments to FISA are not retroactive. It only makes it legal now, but it changes nothing about whether it was legal then.
So the only thing that was accomplished through the leaking of this classified program was that our enemies who are sworn to kill as many of us as possible are now aware of it, and our ability to gather intelligence against them has been damaged. Personally, I don't think that is much to celebrate about. I guess you disagree.
You're damn right I don't agree with government propaganda and a highly classified program that shits all over the rights of Americans in a way that makes Hollywood get a boner. Ignoring for a moment that massive surveillance of the kind being used doesn't even work and actually tends to cover up more leads than it opens by swamping the FBI with bogus tips...of course teh terrarists knew that we had massive surveillance going on before such information was released. Get real, do you think your mom didn't go searching through your shit when you were a kid?
Oh, btw, they're not sworn to kill us. They want to get rid of Israel.
You do realize that this has nothing to do with the legality of the NSA wiretap program. Don't you?
No, I don't realize that. Yoo is the guy who wrote the legal opinion for the NSA wiretap program. If it can be shown that Yoo also writes legal opinions for other clearly illegal activities, then this is evidence that the justifications for the NSA wiretap program are likely to be shakey, as well.
So which is it? Clear or muddy? Or is it clearly muddy?
There is a thin layer of mud atop otherwise clear water.
And unless you are a justice on the United States Supreme Court, whatever you "hold" has absolutely nothing to do with the actual legality of the program, so claiming that it is "clearly" illegal is idiotic.
Mmm, adhoms. Anyway, you're right, I cannot ultimately decide the legality of the program. I know, though, that if it weren't for the NSA leaker^W whistleblower, there would be no chance for a judge to weigh in on this.
Thank you for proving my point. There is nothing clear about this.
You do realize that the individual who wrote the legal opinion for legal warrantless surveillance also wrote legal opinions for using torture.
Torture is illegal. Period. See the Geneva Conventions. Yoo might as well have written a memo saying that the President is a King and can do whatever he wants; your same argument could be used to defend that.
I would be willing to bet that you haven't bothered to read it. FISA clearly gave Congress the ability to revise or supercede the statute with new legislation, which they did when they passed the AUMF on September 18th, 2001 which gave the President authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent future attacks.
Actually, I didn't read the DOJ paper itself, but I am familiar with that argument. Sure, it muddies the waters a bit. But, I still hold that the President is in clear violation of the law. If the argument outlined in the DOJ's whitepaper was really valid, then the recent update to FISA was unnecessary.
There isn't anything "clear" about this. The President and his legal advisers claim that it is legal, and the President's political enemies and opposition claim that it is illegal.
Oh, yes, John Yoo wrote a legal opinion saying that warrantless surveillance is perfectly legal. John Yoo also wrote legal opinions that torture is illegal. I believe Congress has been trying to get their hands on the Yoo opinion in order to verify the judgment used.
Oh, and it's not just the President's political enemies. Ashcroft - not exactly famous for defending civil liberties - wouldn't sign off on the legality of the program. Nor would Comey. And whole bunches of senior DoJ officials were preparing resignations. I'm sure you've heard of the Hospital Showdown in March 04.
B. there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
Individuals simply do not have the right to expose secret programs even if they do not like them
I will concede that leaking is wrong if you just don't like the program. But, in this case, the President is in clear violation of the laws of Congress (specifically, FISA and the 4th Amendment).
Maybe you don't buy that our President is breaking the laws he is supposed to uphold. So, let's run a hypothetical situation here.
The President orders five people to break into the DNC headquarters in DC as part of a program of political sabotage. Let's further say that some guy (let's call him Deep Throat) starts leaking information regarding the break-in and how far up the executive food chain it goes.
I don't understand. So then why did you concent to a search if you were so against it?
I wasn't against it then (like I said, I had nothing to hide, so it could only have helped me), but later I realized I was profiled.
Better yet stop speeding/rolling through stop signs/failing to signal/driving with bad brake lights or whatever else it was that got you pulled over in the first place.
1) I was a teenager back then. I'm in my mid-20s now. I drive much differently than I used to. Though, this doesn't matter because...
2) The cop says I was speeding, 80 in a 40. My passenger will tell you the speedometer never crested 50. The spot where I was finally pulled over was a mile down a windy road from the speed trap. I believe the cop measured someone else doing 80 in a 40, and then gave chase immediately, and the person he measured managed to pull into a driveway after going around a bend. The cop then comes flying up behind me much farther down the road, and I pulled over to let him pass, cos I thought he was going somewhere.
Funny. Before the court hearing, I tried to plead this case to him. "But I know it was your black jeep that I timed." "...sir, I drive a red jeep." "Yeah yeah, red jeep, whatever."
Anyway, you should rethink your viewpoint. That was only one cop. There are millions.
People will abuse power when given it; that is my viewpoint. I fail to see what needs rethought.
The fact that there are millions only tells me that there are more cops out there like him. In general, I have no problem going up to a cop and asking for assistance. However, when I do not initiate contact, it almost always goes horribly wrong. I wonder if it's because I still have long hair.
On the other hand, if you know that people who are X ethnicity *and* are likely to be violating Y law, then maybe it's 'racial profiling' to stop them on the street and talk to them. More likely it's just good police work and exactly the kind of thing most police do every day.
What happened to probable cause? That's definitely racial profiling.
I've been profiled before. I was a teenager with long hair, and the cop demanded to search my car because I was speeding. "You must be hiding something" he said to me. I even signed the consent form to search (I had nothing to hide).
That is not what I call good police work. That ruined my trust in the police. "To serve and protect" my ass...the cop car in Transformers had it right - "To punish and enslave"
Funny, why are all the speed traps where cops sit around open stretches of highway, where people are most likely to be able to speed safely, but there are never any speed traps near school zones or high-fatality intersections?
Hm...maybe those locations do not generate enough revenue from fines.
Research will use what is available as you say from 'tissue destined for disposal', but a commercial venture based on that research will not be satisfied with simply collecting what happens to be available. They will push for active harvesting to maintain a steady and predictable supply of embryonic tissue. It's a very slippery slope.
It's capitalism. If making as much money at the expense of any and everything else was not the core principle of our society, the slope would not be nearly as slippery.
Not all organisms all over the world would cross the speciation "barrier" at the same time, though. So, does this imply that for speciation to occur, transitive interbreeding must first occur, and then population B must then disappear, separating A and C?
That's now how it works. "Turning into humans" (or any other species) is a long, involved process that entails some random genetic mutations being advantageous enough for you to spread them around.
Okay. At what point in this long and involved process do you magically go from ape to human? I would think it would be somewhat of a continuous scale. At any point during this "long, involved process" migration occurs, isn't it possible that they would be still slightly more ape-like than human? And, with evolutionary inertia, some modifications would happen to make the species different, but for the most part the genetic half-and-half algorithm still generally pops out viable embryos.
Maybe. It's just a hypothesis. And this isn't even my field!
If humans come from apes, and apes originate in Africa, then perhaps apes migrated from Africa and then everyone roughly turned into humans after that?
Slashdot Mirror
So, sorry to say it, but if telco's freely give information they own to the feds without a warrant, then no law has been broken.
Wrong. They might not be bound by the Bill of Rights, but there are other (federal!) laws that apply. Please see Section 222 of the Communications Act.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000222----000-.html
Here, allow me to quote it for you.
Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.
According to this blog, during the 1918 pandemic, the death rate for people aged between 25 and 34 was as high as that for people between 1 and 4 and between 70 and 80
I believe the reason that pandemic killed the 25-34 age group deals with something called a Cytokine Storm. H1N1 (the 1918 flu virus) infects the lungs, and the body freaks out and starts attacking the lungs with abandon to get rid of the virus. Thus, those in the 25-34 range (with a strong immune system) were more likely than normal to die because that strong immune system turned against them.
The games content certainly feels like adult material. I wouldn't like to think of my kid-brother, at 16, playing it. He's nowhere near mature enough. The 'AO' standard really is a better fit for this particular title
Recall that the age limit for AO is 18, whereas M is 17. I do not think there is such a huge gap in maturity between a 17 and an 18 year old. Definitely not a gap large enough to make this big of a fuss about.
It should be the right of the Red Cross to determine how close they need to get to the prisoner. Naturally, if they observe on their own this sort of behavior from the prisoner/detainee, they can decide that said prisoner is not worth the risk of seeing them.
I don't really think I'm being swift to judge. Rather, I'm saying that the government ought not be the ones deciding who should and should not have medical care. Rather, that decision should be left to those administering said care.
Violent and unpredictable? You mean a detainee, bound and shackled in a cell, is too violent for a member of the Red Cross to visually inspect? Where's the eye-rolling smiley when you need it....
"a-ha! now we can uncover all those BUSH crimes!"
I read on Wired this morning that there are four levels of access for the International Committee of the Red Cross.
1) No Access
2) Visual Access
3) Restricted Access
4) Unrestricted Access
It bothers me that 3 means the Red Cross can only ask short questions about the health of the prisoner.
It bothers me even more that 2 means the Red Cross can only visually inspect the prisoner, with no chance to ask questions or take vitals.
But no access? What would motivate the government to label a prisoner such that the Red Cross has no access to that prisoner?
So, in essence, the telco has every right to provide this information to the federal gov't if they want to (whether it's in their own best interest or not).
Sorry, you're wrong. Please see Section 222 of the Communications Act.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000222----000-.html
Here, allow me to quote.
Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.
I will give preferential attention to any .edu domain results. This usually contains the links for lectures, power-point slides, PDFs, etc. from universities, and should thus be fairly reliable.
After having received a degree in the field of Computer Engineering, I was able to successfully use online courseware (googled, no less) to learn an elective I wanted to take in college, but couldn't (specifically, DSP).
I would dare say I was able to learn how to practically employ a variety of DSP techniques in about two weeks, no prof or classmates. This banks on having taken a Signals class in college...so I was already familiar with a lot of it.
Still, I echo other posts which say that this is not a suitable substitute for a proper education.
You win, too.
You win.
if a bum on the street approached you and told you that the moon is made of cheese and that a day is 24 hours long, you cannot claim that the second claim is false just because the first claim is (and, hey, the source is a bum anyway).
If a bum on the street told me the moon is made of cheese, I would most definitely be skeptical of any and everything that bum said afterward, including whether or not the day is 24 hours long. That is my point - if Yoo wrote one bullshit opinion, then the rest of his opinions are suspect as well.
Just because the day is 24 hours long doesn't mean I'm not going to call everything that bum says into question.
You think that the wiretapping program was "clearly illegal" because:
#1- You think it violated FISA and the 4th Amendment
No, the wiretapping program is clearly illegal, due solely to the 4th amendment, no FISA necessary. That FISA exists and used to include provisions that exactly the kind of things which Bush authorized were clearly illegal is just icing on the cake; it was illegal^2. Now that FISA's been amended it's just illegal.
#2- One of the bigger legal papers out there that argues that the program doesn't violate FISA and the 4th Amendment was (probably) written by somebody who has made unrelated claims that you disagreed with.
For one, calling them "claims" is disingenuous; they are legal opinions that our executive branch is using to abuse power and should be written as if they were above the level of "claims", which has a connotation of "because I said so".
The legal opinions are only unrelated on their face. Anyone who proposes that torture is legal is fucked in the head, and anything they write is suspect, just like the bum above.
Here's a question. Can an act of Congress supersede the Constitution? I'm pretty sure the answer is no, hence why we need amendments to the Constitution and such. So, how can the AUMF supersede the 4th amendment? In a twilight world where you're trying to make it legal to torture and spy on people without oversight, you can just say "AUMF > 4th amendment" and go running around saying "look! Someone said this is legal, so it's legal and I'm gunna do it!". I call that a bullshit legal opinion.
By its nature, this is going to be a controversial line to draw, but it is a line that needs to be drawn.
It's only controversial if you're a weasel trying to figure out how to torture people and get away with it. The line doesn't need to be drawn...just don't torture people. Is it really that hard?
Instead, you're whole claim seems to be resting on "I don't like the guy who wrote it, so it must be wrong." That is neither compelling or accurate, and does nothing to strengthen your argument.
...could it be...the...Federal Bureau of...Investigation?
No, my claim is that Yoo has written bullshit legal opinions before. Really, torture being legal? Anything and everything that the administration did based on Yoo's opinions needs to be reconsidered; that is my argument. It has nothing to do with whether or not I like him.
2) going to have to prove that the surveillance they were subject to would not have been approved by a FISA court, and 3) arguing arguing aspects of the program that are no longer applicable with the amendments made to the program and FISA statute.
2) Whether it would have been approved or not does not change that it was not approved.
3) Whether they're no longer applicable does not change that it was applicable when it occurred.
And no court is going to rule that it was illegal back then, but is legal now because the same justifications that were used when the program was started were used to amend the law. It would be a complete waste of time.
So you're saying it's a complete waste of time to prosecute executive abuses in the past because Congress caved in the present?
How have your rights (you personally) been affected by this program? Have you been injured or damaged because of it? How is it any different than any other program that the government uses to protect and defend it's citizens?
That's just it, we don't know if it's just for protection and defense. Nobody knows, there's no oversight! Geeze, what the hell is so bad about a little judicial oversight?
Also, if the President is using the wiretapping powers to eavesdrop on political opponents, then all of America is being damaged. The point is, this is an if because there is no oversight. Why should there be no oversight? Because the paperwork is too hard to fill out? That's the point! Paperwork to fill out makes this less ripe for abuse.
Were my rights affected by watergate? Does it matter? It was still illegal.
Do you agree with the terrorist surveillance program now that the law has been amended to make it clearly legal?
I do not agree with it even after the law was amended. Warrantless surveillance is illegal per the 4th amendment. Period. Congress can pass a law saying that it isn't, but I'm pretty sure the Constitution supersedes laws of Congress; therefore, the TSP is still clearly illegal. Yes, clearly. Like glass.
And I'm not arguing against the government phone tapping terrorists. I'm arguing against the government having the ability to listen in on anyone's conversations, without judicial oversight. I'm arguing that such powers will be abused, and you're a complete fucking moron if you think otherwise.
By the way - this was a very specifically targeted program for the NSA, not a broad program for the FBI.
And who does the NSA give their leads to when it comes time for investigation?
We should really just drop this. Neither of us is getting anywhere. You're obviously a lost cause, or vice versa.
You are disagreeing with the merits of an argument based on the messenger, and not the argument itself.
To call him a messenger of the argument is disingenuous - he is the author of the argument.
It is totally relevant to discuss the other arguments that an individual has made in order to call into question the credibility of the argument presented. If it can be shown that Yoo has had a pattern of shakey legal opinions not befitting the title of "expert", this would generally mean that you should be extra careful when considering any opinion he has written.
Actually, no. If you'll read the definition above, that wasn't an "adhom"
Actually, I was referencing you calling me idiotic as an adhom. I do believe that fits your definition of "attacking the messenger".
Actually, there will be probably no chance for a judge to weigh in on this. The appeals have been stopped,
I thought the suit against al-Haramain was still around, because they actually have standing to file suit that they were spied upon illegally. Plus, I was not aware of the suits against AT&T going through U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's court having been stopped.
the FISA statutes amended to allow for the program to continue without any other legal justification.
The amendments to FISA are not retroactive. It only makes it legal now, but it changes nothing about whether it was legal then.
So the only thing that was accomplished through the leaking of this classified program was that our enemies who are sworn to kill as many of us as possible are now aware of it, and our ability to gather intelligence against them has been damaged. Personally, I don't think that is much to celebrate about. I guess you disagree.
You're damn right I don't agree with government propaganda and a highly classified program that shits all over the rights of Americans in a way that makes Hollywood get a boner. Ignoring for a moment that massive surveillance of the kind being used doesn't even work and actually tends to cover up more leads than it opens by swamping the FBI with bogus tips...of course teh terrarists knew that we had massive surveillance going on before such information was released. Get real, do you think your mom didn't go searching through your shit when you were a kid?
Oh, btw, they're not sworn to kill us. They want to get rid of Israel.
You do realize that this has nothing to do with the legality of the NSA wiretap program. Don't you?
No, I don't realize that. Yoo is the guy who wrote the legal opinion for the NSA wiretap program. If it can be shown that Yoo also writes legal opinions for other clearly illegal activities, then this is evidence that the justifications for the NSA wiretap program are likely to be shakey, as well.
So which is it? Clear or muddy? Or is it clearly muddy?
There is a thin layer of mud atop otherwise clear water.
And unless you are a justice on the United States Supreme Court, whatever you "hold" has absolutely nothing to do with the actual legality of the program, so claiming that it is "clearly" illegal is idiotic.
Mmm, adhoms. Anyway, you're right, I cannot ultimately decide the legality of the program. I know, though, that if it weren't for the NSA leaker^W whistleblower, there would be no chance for a judge to weigh in on this.
Thank you for proving my point. There is nothing clear about this.
You do realize that the individual who wrote the legal opinion for legal warrantless surveillance also wrote legal opinions for using torture.
Torture is illegal. Period. See the Geneva Conventions. Yoo might as well have written a memo saying that the President is a King and can do whatever he wants; your same argument could be used to defend that.
I would be willing to bet that you haven't bothered to read it. FISA clearly gave Congress the ability to revise or supercede the statute with new legislation, which they did when they passed the AUMF on September 18th, 2001 which gave the President authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent future attacks.
Actually, I didn't read the DOJ paper itself, but I am familiar with that argument. Sure, it muddies the waters a bit. But, I still hold that the President is in clear violation of the law. If the argument outlined in the DOJ's whitepaper was really valid, then the recent update to FISA was unnecessary.
John Yoo also wrote legal opinions that torture is illegal.
Doh! That should be "John Yoo also wrote legal opinions that torture is legal."
I even hit preview. =(
Oh, yes, John Yoo wrote a legal opinion saying that warrantless surveillance is perfectly legal. John Yoo also wrote legal opinions that torture is illegal. I believe Congress has been trying to get their hands on the Yoo opinion in order to verify the judgment used.
Oh, and it's not just the President's political enemies. Ashcroft - not exactly famous for defending civil liberties - wouldn't sign off on the legality of the program. Nor would Comey. And whole bunches of senior DoJ officials were preparing resignations. I'm sure you've heard of the Hospital Showdown in March 04.
Oh, and if you think it's not illegal, please see 50 U.S.C. 1809 section a.1.B
Individuals simply do not have the right to expose secret programs even if they do not like them
I will concede that leaking is wrong if you just don't like the program. But, in this case, the President is in clear violation of the laws of Congress (specifically, FISA and the 4th Amendment).
Maybe you don't buy that our President is breaking the laws he is supposed to uphold. So, let's run a hypothetical situation here.
The President orders five people to break into the DNC headquarters in DC as part of a program of political sabotage. Let's further say that some guy (let's call him Deep Throat) starts leaking information regarding the break-in and how far up the executive food chain it goes.
Is such leaking illegal, to you?
I don't understand. So then why did you concent to a search if you were so against it?
I wasn't against it then (like I said, I had nothing to hide, so it could only have helped me), but later I realized I was profiled.
Better yet stop speeding/rolling through stop signs/failing to signal/driving with bad brake lights or whatever else it was that got you pulled over in the first place.
1) I was a teenager back then. I'm in my mid-20s now. I drive much differently than I used to. Though, this doesn't matter because...
2) The cop says I was speeding, 80 in a 40. My passenger will tell you the speedometer never crested 50. The spot where I was finally pulled over was a mile down a windy road from the speed trap. I believe the cop measured someone else doing 80 in a 40, and then gave chase immediately, and the person he measured managed to pull into a driveway after going around a bend. The cop then comes flying up behind me much farther down the road, and I pulled over to let him pass, cos I thought he was going somewhere.
Funny. Before the court hearing, I tried to plead this case to him. "But I know it was your black jeep that I timed." "...sir, I drive a red jeep." "Yeah yeah, red jeep, whatever."
Anyway, you should rethink your viewpoint. That was only one cop. There are millions.
People will abuse power when given it; that is my viewpoint. I fail to see what needs rethought.
The fact that there are millions only tells me that there are more cops out there like him. In general, I have no problem going up to a cop and asking for assistance. However, when I do not initiate contact, it almost always goes horribly wrong. I wonder if it's because I still have long hair.
On the other hand, if you know that people who are X ethnicity *and* are likely to be violating Y law, then maybe it's 'racial profiling' to stop them on the street and talk to them. More likely it's just good police work and exactly the kind of thing most police do every day.
What happened to probable cause? That's definitely racial profiling.
I've been profiled before. I was a teenager with long hair, and the cop demanded to search my car because I was speeding. "You must be hiding something" he said to me. I even signed the consent form to search (I had nothing to hide).
That is not what I call good police work. That ruined my trust in the police. "To serve and protect" my ass...the cop car in Transformers had it right - "To punish and enslave"
Speeding kills people
Funny, why are all the speed traps where cops sit around open stretches of highway, where people are most likely to be able to speed safely, but there are never any speed traps near school zones or high-fatality intersections?
Hm...maybe those locations do not generate enough revenue from fines.
Research will use what is available as you say from 'tissue destined for disposal', but a commercial venture based on that research will not be satisfied with simply collecting what happens to be available. They will push for active harvesting to maintain a steady and predictable supply of embryonic tissue. It's a very slippery slope.
It's capitalism. If making as much money at the expense of any and everything else was not the core principle of our society, the slope would not be nearly as slippery.
Not all organisms all over the world would cross the speciation "barrier" at the same time, though. So, does this imply that for speciation to occur, transitive interbreeding must first occur, and then population B must then disappear, separating A and C?
That's now how it works. "Turning into humans" (or any other species) is a long, involved process that entails some random genetic mutations being advantageous enough for you to spread them around.
Okay. At what point in this long and involved process do you magically go from ape to human? I would think it would be somewhat of a continuous scale. At any point during this "long, involved process" migration occurs, isn't it possible that they would be still slightly more ape-like than human? And, with evolutionary inertia, some modifications would happen to make the species different, but for the most part the genetic half-and-half algorithm still generally pops out viable embryos.
Maybe. It's just a hypothesis. And this isn't even my field!
If humans come from apes, and apes originate in Africa, then perhaps apes migrated from Africa and then everyone roughly turned into humans after that?