Troll? You people amaze me. Everyone gets their panties in a bunch over the cause du jour. I don't come to/. for political news I come here for tech news. If some goverment functionary wants to snoop through my ISPs records to see that I spend 80% of my time online surfing for porn let them have at it.
I am not going to worry about it because the courts will settle it. It's not worth my time. Why do you think the DOJ removed the gag order? Because there was nothing sensitive at risk. It's working the way it's supposed to.
Well, the only way a person citizenship in a foreign country is to create a system that track and have knowledge of individuals. Isn't that what you are opposing?
Now thats funny! What in my previous post lead you to believe that I condoned the governments actions?
I think the japanese internment was ignorant and misguided but that doesn't change the fact that it happened and what the justifications where for it at that time.
I suggest you read the entire thread before making such assumptions. BTW. I am an american of japanese descent.
I agree with you but there was a court case a few years ago where a phone company sold call records to a marketing organization. I beleive the court ruled that it was legal for them to do so unless the owner of the phone "opted out". I think the phone company was US West. There may have been appeals that I am not aware of so it could have changed.
How do you formally declare war on an organization? They have no ambassadors or government. In the mid 90's bin Laden declared war on the US. We just failed to take it seriously until 9/11. The US hasn't formally declared war since WW2 but that hasn't stopped us from fighting them. The politicians don't have the backbone for it.
If you recall the D's did do it but on a much larger scale. It was called japanese internment camps. Why did they do it? We where at war.
A quote: Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes: "The war power of the national government is the power to wage war successfully and it is not for any court to sit in review of the wisdom of their actions [the executive or Congress], or to substitute its actions for theirs."
Let's seen what happens this time around now that an R did it to one person.
If I am a US citizen chilling in London or Paris I am governed by the laws in London and Paris and not the US constitution. Specific treaties may apply but your mileage may vary.
The executive branch is also bound by international treaties such as the Geneva Convention which does allow for holding enemy combatants. That is why it's going to the Supreme Court.
On the issue of not obeying their oaths of office I completely agree with you. When I was in the military I took an oath to protect and defend the consitution of the US against all enemies foreign and domestic... The oath of office for politicians and judges contains the same wording if I remember correctly but very few seem uphold it. Just look at Judge Ginsberg saying that judges should be looking at foreign law when making rulings.
As I said, we are talking about public information here...there is no expectation of privacy.
If I where to call you on the telephone it's a 3 party transaction...you, me, and the phone company. The fact that I called you is an public matter the contents of the call is not.
Do you know how they define arbitrary interference?
That was an abuse of power by an unidentified imigration agent. He was and idiot and should be punished. Stupid people will do stupid things with or without the Patriot Act.
As the article itself states there where no violations of the Patriot Act.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't this be rated funny?
Blah blah blah, who do you think removed the gag order? It sure as hell wasn't the ACLU. If not for the agency you decry you wouldn't even know about.
Troll? You people amaze me. Everyone gets their panties in a bunch over the cause du jour. I don't come to /. for political news I come here for tech news. If some goverment functionary wants to snoop through my ISPs records to see that I spend 80% of my time online surfing for porn let them have at it.
I am not going to worry about it because the courts will settle it. It's not worth my time. Why do you think the DOJ removed the gag order? Because there was nothing sensitive at risk. It's working the way it's supposed to.
I really don't give a shit.
I agree with you...the changing of the logo signaled their downfall.
I submitted this story 3 days ago. I guess my post wasn't Anti-Bush enough to be accepted.
Maybe this is why you never got it:
Dude Busted for Pot
How the left wing freaks protest the WTO all over the world but they support it when it takes a stand against US interests.
Another biased presentation of a story brought to you by Michael
If Apple really got into trouble Steve would just pull out that copy of OSX for Intel he keeps under his pillow.
all the CD drives prematurely eject?
That thing is the giant bong that management was smoking when they came up with the business plan. It's a piece of Internet history.
Try changing your window ident to localhost and see what happens.
Thanks, i've been keeping an eye on what buchanan has to say. Where can I find more information on the BNP?
Well, the only way a person citizenship in a foreign country is to create a system that track and have knowledge of individuals. Isn't that what you are opposing?
Now thats funny! What in my previous post lead you to believe that I condoned the governments actions?
I think the japanese internment was ignorant and misguided but that doesn't change the fact that it happened and what the justifications where for it at that time.
I suggest you read the entire thread before making such assumptions. BTW. I am an american of japanese descent.
I agree with you but there was a court case a few years ago where a phone company sold call records to a marketing organization. I beleive the court ruled that it was legal for them to do so unless the owner of the phone "opted out". I think the phone company was US West. There may have been appeals that I am not aware of so it could have changed.
I agree he can't have it both ways. It's up to the court to decide. Thats the only way the system works.
How do you formally declare war on an organization? They have no ambassadors or government. In the mid 90's bin Laden declared war on the US. We just failed to take it seriously until 9/11. The US hasn't formally declared war since WW2 but that hasn't stopped us from fighting them. The politicians don't have the backbone for it.
BTW: Thanks for the mental stimulation
If you recall the D's did do it but on a much larger scale. It was called japanese internment camps. Why did they do it? We where at war.
A quote:
Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes: "The war power of the national government is the power to wage war successfully and it is not for any court to sit in review of the wisdom of their actions [the executive or Congress], or to substitute its actions for theirs."
Let's seen what happens this time around now that an R did it to one person.
If I am a US citizen chilling in London or Paris I am governed by the laws in London and Paris and not the US constitution. Specific treaties may apply but your mileage may vary.
What the hell does Ashcroft have to do with it. It's a research project. Maybe, when it is actually used.
The executive branch is also bound by international treaties such as the Geneva Convention which does allow for holding enemy combatants. That is why it's going to the Supreme Court.
On the issue of not obeying their oaths of office I completely agree with you. When I was in the military I took an oath to protect and defend the consitution of the US against all enemies foreign and domestic... The oath of office for politicians and judges contains the same wording if I remember correctly but very few seem uphold it. Just look at Judge Ginsberg saying that judges should be looking at foreign law when making rulings.
As I said, we are talking about public information here...there is no expectation of privacy.
If I where to call you on the telephone it's a 3 party transaction...you, me, and the phone company. The fact that I called you is an public matter the contents of the call is not.
Do you know how they define arbitrary interference?
Now your on the right track. Thats why the Supreme Court is getting involved and I believe they should. It's all about the constitution.
But this still has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.
That was an abuse of power by an unidentified imigration agent. He was and idiot and should be punished. Stupid people will do stupid things with or without the Patriot Act.
As the article itself states there where no violations of the Patriot Act.