| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76
Comments:
<0> hahaha
<1> DarthBurg he's going to sweden to kick it with notG
<2> notG, well no, there isn't any such law, if there is, cite it.
<3> in order for that account of history to be true. You still have to believe that Saddam was behind 9/11.
<4> Tailor: and even if they are citizens.. the USSC ruled it is legal.. if the party on the other line, is a foreign agent, aka terrorist
<5> No i still don't see where that applies to US citizens
<6> TheTailor thats like saying the feds can kick in a hotel door cause you dont know if they are citizens
<6> its our right to privacy
<3> Lupine -- Prove it
<6> just like they have to have warrants to tap phones
<0> notG: in some circumstances, they can
<6> same thing as with a residence
<2> notG, well no, it's not like that at all.
<3> Lupine -- You cannot prove it because they did not say this
<6> lol
<4> AAAman: i already did. I can't help it if you are such a sniveling twit, you wont read actual cited rulings
<6> show me a law that gives them the right to do that pls
<6> so i can read it
<5> Show me where they explicitly state that you can warrentlessly spy on US citizens
<7> lol
<3> Lupine -- Your quotes stated the opposited
<4> notg: "rights" are not made by law.
<2> notG, *lol* won't make your argument.
<5> not just that they ruled that
<7> like talking to a brick
<6> i just wanna see it
<2> notG, well no, there isn't any such law, if there is, cite it.
<8> the way laws work is, thing are legal unless it explicitly states you *cannot*
<6> huh?
<8> not the other way around
<4> Bok: they found it inherent power of the president to defend the nation.
<6> i am asking you
<6> rofl
<5> "Foreign agents" and "foreign intelligence" clearly do not pertain to US citizens as stipulated by the FISA act
<4> Court of Review wrote: "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, ***uming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
<8> we don't need laws to enumnerate what we "can" do -- laws say only what we cannot do
<3> false is not the same as true
<4> Bok: The governments application for a
<4> surveillance order contains detailed information to support its contention that the target, who
<4> is a United States person, is aiding, abetting, or conspiring with others in international
<4> terrorism.
<8> *enumerate
<5> ok, and this states citizens of the US where?
<4> sorry, bad quote
<4> The governments application for a surveillance order contains detailed information to support its contention that the target, who is a United States person, is aiding, abetting, or conspiring with others in international terrorism.
<6> rofl
<5> ok and again in that instance the gov asked for permission
<5> so that isn't "warrantless"
<4> Bok: but they ruled he need not ask for a warrant. He can do it himself without a warrant.
<2> notG, cite the law that says this is true ---> [20:16] <6> if they have phone service in the US at a residence you must treat them as such
<5> your cutting and pasting things together in such a way as to give a false impression
<7> Bokavitch kind of like the US Media.
<3> false is not the same as true -- foreign intelligence is not domestic
<4> Bok: I *LINKED* the entire ruling dumb***
<6> hold on
<6> let me spend 2 hours
<6> getting you that
<6> ff
<4> since YOU and AAAman *REFUSE* like spoiled children to go look at it yourself, I have to SPOON FEED your ignorant ***es
<7> "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of m*** destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
<3> Lupine -- They absolutely nothing about tapping domestically
<6> let me go thru years or case law
<7> Dude knew his ****.
<6> hold on
<2> notG, it will take longer than that, as there isn't any such law.
<3> Lupine looks in the mirror and see nothing
<5> Lupine: i will read the whole thing sooner or later but what you've stated doesn't fit together
<6> TheTailor rofl
<9> Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."
<3> Lupine -- things are true if you just say they are true
<9> SUggest you look at that EO
<2> notG, *rofl* won't make your lies true either.
<6> huh
<6> listen faggot
<10> Racist or foul Language or Spam
<7> that never gets old
<4> AAAman: have you bothered to READ the court rulings?
<5> You quote one instance of not needing a warrant for foreign agents and foreign surveillance, then another quote that the gov did not overstep its boundaries and proved (WHEN ASKING FOR A WARRANT) that it had sufficient evidence for a search
<2> haha
<1> hehe dart
<1> h
<3> Lupine -- You are doing an excellent job
<5> these two things do NOT fit together as a coherant argument
<6> damn cant say the f word
<4> AAAman/Bokavitch: READ the damn thing, if you don't like me quoting
<6> wtf
<9> Bok -- look up the EO which I posted - you can find your information there...
<7> "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
<6> TheTailor i am laffing at you till i can give you a url
<4> of *COURSE* I can not quote 56 pages on #politics
<6> TheTailor so relax and argue with someone else for a bit
<3> lupine -- You have only spoke about foreign intelligence, which is not domestic
<4> TheTailor: can we make these two ignorants actually READ the court ruling before they say it doesn't apply?
<11> notG not that one :)
<7> "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of m*** destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people."
<6> rofl
<5> sorry Kaliuna i lost that, any chance you could repost?
<3> lupine -- Do you know the difference between foreign intelligence and domestic
<9> AAA check this one too : http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp
<7> "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of m*** destruction."
<9> Bok grab it Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."
<11> hey KALI
<9> hi CRY
<4> AAAman: do you know what "United states person" "united states citizen" and "domestic surveillance" is?
<7> "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of m*** destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of m*** destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should ***ume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
<12> notG, you are devoiced (Requested by Tailor - Reason: This channel is for adults, read the channel rules at www.ircpolitics.org )
<11> well at some point i should get answer from appraisers
<5> Jesus again it's a Foreign agent or an agent of a foreign power, not a US Citizen
<4> the ruling *IS* about US citizens, nimrod. IN the US, nimrod
<9> Cry -- give it a few --
<9> BOK also look up the URL I provided to AAA -- scroll back and get tht one too
<4> Bok: it is a US citizen IN the US.. communicating with a suspected terrorist.
<11> spoo notG..not my doing
<4> Kal: they have refused to READ the actual ruling
<11> Illiterati refuse to read
<9> Lupine -- post URL instead of ruling -- I'll grab it...
<4> WHY? They know they can't argue against it. they can't refute it.. so they just stick their head up their ***, and pretend it doesn't exist
<5> Lup: it's like 50 pages
<5> i will read it when i have a chance
<11> lUPINE..PRECISELY
<4> Kal: this is the best one: http://files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/fisa111802opn.pdf
<11> oh oh...a neutral website!!!!!
<4> Kal: there are several versions, all slightly different. As the entire ruling is censored.. and these are the excerts
<3> in the words of the Attorney General, "the authorization to use force, which was p***ed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes" authority for the administration "to engage in this kind of signals intelligence."
<9> Bok -- do so
<3> The claim of inherent authority might have some plausibility had Congress not acted so decisively to prohibit warrantless surveillance of U.S. persons in the United States when it enacted FISA in 1978.
<9> Lupine -- yup got that thanks -- will copy it all the pages
<13> KALIUNA$%$G
<13> hiya
<9> hi NIKIE!!
<3> The record is clear that Congress intended to prohibit warrantless intercepts in the United States.
<13> :)
<13> hola
<13> how are you
<5> for me to read it and come back and finish the convo will take too long, so i've asked you to paraphrase the relevent sections and you give me two quotes that don't fit together (at least not in the self contained way in which you posted them to me) I haven't plead anything but ignorance on that ruling and i've asked you to enlighten me with paraphrases which you have not yet been able to do
<11> Nikie is still kicking
<3> A Legal Analysis of the NSA Warrantless Surveillance Program
<13> HEHE
<9> "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes,"
<13> crayon boy, u loved every moment
<5> i will read it when i can but in the timeframe of this conversation it's not practical
<3> the Fourth Amendment is being violated with arrogance and seeming impunity.
<9> Bok - I just posted a quotation 1994 --
<3> "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."
<4> AAAman: who CARES what congress "intended", if we are dealing with power INHERENT to the executive branch?
<14> Lupine: It's NOT inherent ..
<7> http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3019/666/1600/Harry%20Taylor.0.jpg
<3> Lupine -- That is why I quote the Const
<4> icmp: says you. FISA court of review, and the US supreme court disagree with you.
<3> there's no meaning of the term I know that can be used to justify large-scale warrantless searches.
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#politics
#politics
IRC DarkEngine Professional 3.3
#unix
#solaris
cinemanow white stalker
#firebird
#stocks
#visualbasic
#solaris
|
|
