my most important customer ever

Page 2 of 3  
What other company in the world could have done the projects Haliburton has?
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:18:30 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@gonefishin.net wrote:

--
Cats must pee in the hole in the
carpet where the key to the gas
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

my point exactly. haliburton didnt get the work because of cheney. they got the work because nobody else could do it. nobody. the left wing media leaves that critical piece of information out trying to get mileage out of cheneys haliburton connection.
--
Nathan in Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nathan wrote
my point exactly. haliburton didnt get the work because of cheney. they got the work because nobody else could do it. nobody. the left wing media leaves that critical piece of information out trying to get mileage out of cheneys haliburton connection.
================= An L.A. Times op-ed said, "Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo." An October 2003 article in the (Raleigh, NC) News & Observer quoted Bill Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce William Reinsch as saying "'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you.'"
It is certainly true that during a two year period Halliburton’s revenue from Defense Department contracts doubled. However, that increase in revenue occurred from 1998 to 2000 - during the Clinton administration.
When Factcheck.org checked the facts about allegations by Democrats that there was a scandal because of the "no-bid" contracts awarded to Halliburton they stated, "It is false to imply that Bush personally awarded a contract to Halliburton. The ‘no-bid contract’ in question is actually an extension of an earlier contract to support U.S. troops overseas that Halliburton won under open bidding."
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Shoot, why let facts get in the way of a good rant???

--
Change your thoughts and you change
your world.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

hmmmm......what say you now, gofish?
--
Nathan in Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Nathan In Montana" wrote:

the same thing I've said before Nathan.
you ascribe to a dictatorship, I prefer a democracy.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'm seriously asking here, Fish. In what way has your life or the life of anyone you personally know been restricted by Bush?
I know you to some extent and I'm willing to accept that you seriously feel your life has been hampered in some fashion, but for the life of me I can't imagine how.
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 10:46:30 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@gonefishin.net wrote:

--
Change your thoughts and you change
your world.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well, the US has never been a democracy. It was founded as a constitutional republic.
And, second, yes GWB has removed freedoms from the US people. Patriot Act (which he pushed through congress and then signed). And the assorted executive orders.
--

Christopher A. Young
You can\'t shout down a troll.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

please STOP with the sweeping generic statements. please tell me _specifically_ what freedoms were taken away. key word = specifically. please dont waste our time by trying to bullshit me with anything you cannot list specifically.
--
Nathan in Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One of these days he is going to have the freedom of not having his head bashed with a rock taken away from him.
The democraps keep spouting this loss of freedom BS, but they can never say anything specific.

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nathan In Montana wrote:

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once- public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
i call bullshit to everything you said that lacked a source. well, thats your entire response. please quote the sections upon which your statements are based.
--
Nathan in Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

This has been the case since long before GWB.

Sounds like you're kitchen sinking here, but didn't your buddy Slick Willy encourage his administration to not co-operate with FIFO requests as well as encourage them to not obey legal subpoenas?

Here's a clue, Mikey, that can happen with any FBI investigation.

Americans captured on the field of battle on the wrong side, yes, you're right.

Been in effect for years and it's been used for years against drug dealers many, many times long before GWB. For the record, I didn't agree with it when it was instituted and still don't. At least prove it was purchased with illegal money first.

Again, when they've been captured in a another country fighting for the enemy. Taliban John.

Same as above.
--
We have met the enemy and they are us
and you are me and we are all together
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
OPINION: Freedoms Lost Under G.W. Bush by Chuck Baldwin
Anyone who dares to oppose or even question Bush must be regarded as enemies of America or even as enemies of God.
February 1, 2005--History instructs us in the incremental process that elitists use to implement their totalitarian agenda. The first step is to use an incessant, highly orchestrated propaganda. At the national level, there is hardly any investigative journalism going on. Instead, the national press corps has become little more than lazy lackeys for the White House.
The second step is to lay the foundation for totalitarianism by passing legislation that may later be used against the citizenry. And that is exactly what the Bush administration has very successfully accomplished.
Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security was the brainchild of one William Jefferson Clinton. Of course, with the Republican, G.W. Bush, serving as President, that same Republican Congress was all too eager to pass these bills into law.
Whether or not individual Americans have been personally subjected to tyranny as a result of lost freedoms doesn't change the fact that they have already lost these freedoms.
The third step is to demonize and marginalize anyone the government's plans. Such opponents are characterized as "unpatriotic," Once again, the Bush minions have very skillfully done just that. Anyone who dares to oppose or even question Bush must be regarded as enemies of America.
Of course, the last step is to begin using the power and force of government to physically silence. And, as Germany's National Socialists proved, by the time this happens, there is no one around who is capable of coming to the assistance of such people.
this President has systematically put in place laws, policies, and bureaucracies that strip the American citizenry of the constitutional protections of their liberties.
Following are examples of freedoms which President Bush already expunged (as reported by the Associated Press):
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.
These rights have already been lost! Whether individual Americans have been personally subjected to the resultant tyranny or not doesn't change the fact that they have already lost these freedoms!
--

Christopher A. Young
You can\'t shout down a troll.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
sorry chris, you posted one authors opinion of the patriot act. i asked you for specifics. please quote the sections of the patriot act that have taken away my freedoms.
--
Nathan in Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sounds familiar. Like what's happened to smokers, gun enthusiasts, property rights and soon to happen to anyone who doesn't choose a bicycle with the current bs on global warming. Incrementalism has long been a tool of the left.
wrote:

--
We have met the enemy and they are us
and you are me and we are all together
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17346leg20030320.html
How "Patriot Act 2" Would Further Erode the Basic Checks on Government Power (3/20/2003)
"Patriot Act 2," would grant sweeping powers to the government, eliminating or weakening many of the checks and balances that remained on government surveillance, wiretapping, detention and criminal prosecution even after passage of the USA PATRIOT Act.
The Domestic Security Enhancement Act (also called "Patriot Act 2"):
Further dismantles court review of surveillance, such as by terminating court-approved limits on police spying on religious and political activity (sec. 312), allowing the government to obtain credit records and library records secretly and without judicial oversight (secs. 126, 128, 129), and by allowing wiretaps without a court order for up to 15 days following a terrorist attack (sec. 103); Allows government to operate in secret by authorizing secret arrests (sec. 201), and imposing severe restrictions on the release of information about the hazards to the community posed by chemical and other plants (sec. 202); Further expands the reach of an already overbroad definition of terrorism so that organizations engaged in civil disobedience are at risk of government wiretapping (secs. 120, 121) asset seizure (secs. 428, 428), and their supporters could even risk losing their citizenship (sec. 501); Gives foreign dictatorships the power to seek searches and seizures in the United States (sec. 321), and to extradite American citizens to face trial in foreign courts (sec. 322), even if the United States Senate has not approved a treaty with that government; and Unfairly targets immigrants under the pretext of fighting terrorism by stripping even lawful immigrants of the right to a fair deportation hearing and stripping the federal courts of their power to correct unlawful actions by the immigration authorities (secs. 503, 504). These are only examples of the unfettered powers that the new bill would grant to the government; for a complete analysis, please see ACLU's detailed section-by-section summary, available on our website.[3]
2. Undermining Checks and Balances
Under our Constitution, government powers are subject to control by the courts, the Congress, and ultimately by the American people, informed by a free press. Checks and balances help ensure both safety and freedom. They ensure that government actions taken for very important purposes, such as to prevent terrorism or other crime, do not violate the rights of ordinary citizens, and that government is held accountable when they do. They also help the government, ensuring that its resources are concentrated on arrests of real criminals - not on ineffective, feel-good solutions advanced by political leaders anxious to reassure a frightened public.
This section explains why eroding checks and balances is a false solution to the real problem of terrorism, and then explains just how Patriot Act 2 would further erode three key checks and balances - the courts, Congress, and the free press.
Eroding Checks and Balances Is a False Solution Anti-terrorism policies that infringe on basic rights - such as ethnically-based roundups of innocent persons, or intrusive surveillance of peaceful political activists - not only make America less free, they make our nation more vulnerable to terrorism. Such policies waste scarce government resources that should be used to track down real criminals, and help sew the seeds of mistrust among communities that might otherwise be willing to assist the government in arresting terrorists.
As FBI special agent Coleen Rowley observed in a recent letter to Director Robert Mueller, questioning the FBI's priorities in investigating and fighting terrorism:
The vast majority of the one thousand plus persons "detained" in the wake of 9-11 did not turn out to be terrorists. . . . [A]fter 9-11, Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seem to be essentially PR purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for statements on our progress in fighting terrorism. The balance between individuals' civil liberties and the need for effective investigation is hard to maintain even during so-called normal times, let alone times of increased terrorist threat or war. It is, admittedly, a difficult balancing act. But from what I have observed, particular vigilance may be required to head off undue pressure (including subtle encouragement) to detain or "round up" suspects, particularly those of Arabic origin.[4]
In the same vein, in late 2001, a memorandum was circulated by senior intelligence specialists expressing serious concerns that a focus on racial profiling or other investigative techniques that intrude on civil liberties could undermine security by distracting security officials from less clumsy and more reliable individual suspicion.[5] At the same time, no fewer than eight high ranking former FBI officials, many from the Reagan and Bush administrations, strongly criticized anti-terrorism proposals that violate civil liberties, saying such tactics were likely to be ineffective and to distract from proven investigative techniques.[6]
While granting new powers to federal agents, the draft bill systematically attacks precisely these basic checks and balances on government power, thus making it harder for professional law enforcement agents to resist pressure by political leaders to implement highly visible policies that violate civil liberties, rather than rely on proven techniques that are effective.
How Patriot Act 2 Weakens Checks and Balances Provided by the Courts, Congress and the Press
The Federal Courts. Under the Constitution, government searches and wiretaps, orders for confidential records, and spying on religious and political activity are subject to important limits. In general, searches and other surveillance are lawful only if the government shows to a court that it has probable cause to believe evidence relevant to a crime or intelligence related to a threat from a foreign power may be found.[7] Government spying on political, religious or other peaceful, expressive activity may not contravene the First Amendment, so federal courts are empowered to limit police spying to prevent these abuses. Obtaining sensitive records, such as credit records and library records, are also subject to Fourth Amendment standards and courts - not the Executive Branch acting alone - decide when those standards have been met. Finally, under the Constitution, the government may only detain persons under the supervision of a court.
Yet these basic rights, while embodied in the Constitution, do not enforce themselves. Rather, they are made meaningful only by the standards and procedures Congress has laid out for the federal courts to use in measuring the limits government authority. One such law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978,[8] is designed to ensure that wiretaps for national security purposes will never again be subject to the discretion only of the Executive Branch. Unilateral executive power had resulted in an abuse of power -- in the wiretapping of civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King, Jr. and in the secret political surveillance under Nixon that culminated in the crimes of Watergate.
Under the amendments to surveillance statutes the bill authorizes, the standards under which a court must approve searches and surveillance is lowered - in many cases, making such review no longer meaningful. The bill creates a new defense that could shield the future Nixon-era wiretappers from prosecution even if they act without a court order, so long as their activities were authorized by high government officials, as they were in Nixon's day (sec. 106). Likewise, limits on police spying approved by federal courts will be swept aside, freeing state and local police to spy on political and religious activity, thus violating citizens' First Amendment rights (sec. 312).
The draft bill also rescinds authority for immigrants to challenge the lawfulness of government action by habeas corpus (sec. 504). This section attempts to effectively reverse a Supreme Court decision holding that earlier restrictions on review of immigration decisions had left intact review under the Habeas Corpus Act, enacted in 1789 by the same Congress that ratified the Bill of Rights.[9] As a result, immigrants, including lawful permanent residents, will be subject to arbitrary deportations at the whim of the government.
The United States Congress. The Constitution lays out a separation of powers that puts Congress in charge of making the laws, approving treaties, and declaring war. By splitting power in this way, the Framers ensured that even a popular President could not change the law, declare war, or commit the country to binding international commitments without obtaining the consent of Congress.
Under current law, the Executive Branch may only extradite Americans or others to face trial in foreign courts if an extradition treaty, ratified by the United States Senate, specifies that the crime is one for which extradition is allowed. Likewise, the Executive Branch may not conduct searches and wiretaps on behalf of a foreign government which is investigating a foreign crime unless the Senate has approved a "Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty." Under the draft bill, however, extradition is allowed without a treaty or in excess of limits imposed by existing treaties, and so are foreign-directed searches and wiretaps (secs. 321, 322).
By writing the Senate out of the process of defining the limits of our legal relationships with other governments, the bill jettisons an important bulwark against subjecting American citizens to the control of possibly dictatorial governments. At the same time, the bill further strips away judicial power by preventing the courts from questioning an extradition request, even for an American citizen, even if the court were to find that the requesting country's legal system fails to respect fundamental civil and human rights (sec. 322).
The Free Press. The public is the ultimate source of power under our democratic system of government. For its decisions to be informed, the press must be unfettered and must have access to the workings of government through the Freedom of Information Act and other open government laws.
Under the draft bill, however, basic operations of government, such as the arrests of terrorism suspects who have not been criminally charged, can be kept secret (sec. 201). These might include material witness detainees, immigration detainees, or American citizens or others labeled "enemy combatants" by the President and incarcerated by the military. Grand jury witnesses can also be gagged at the government's request (sec. 206).
By casting a veil of secrecy over the basic workings of the judicial branch of our government, Patriot Act 2 violates an essential principle of American democracy and undermines public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system. As Alexander Hamilton made clear more than two centuries ago, a policy that allows "confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten" is a "dangerous engine of arbitrary government."[10]
Likewise, information required by law to be reported by chemical companies and others whose activities pose a hazard, while theoretically public, will be subject to severe restrictions on access(sec. 202). This information will become virtually inaccessible to the press, the public and environmental organizations, undermining their ability to hold government and industry accountable for public safety.
By undermining these key institutions of our government - the courts, the Congress and the press - Patriot Act 2 takes the position that checks and balances must be jettisoned in the interests of national security. Whenever America has succumbed to this temptation in the past - by interning Japanese Americans without trial during World War II, or by denying basic due process to suspected Communists during the red scares of the 1920s and 1950s - our nation has come to regret it.
There is a better way. Our nation should embraces its system of checks and balances and look on judges, Congress and the American people as partners in the fight against terrorism, rather than inconvenient obstacles to the Executive Branch.
3. Targeting Ordinary People, Not Terrorists
Patriot Act 2's laundry list of new powers will not only erode certain fundamental rights of terrorism suspects or other criminal defendants, but also contains powers which could be directed at ordinary people, such as protestors with diverse political viewpoints, members of community, environmental and religious organizations, library users and ordinary immigrants, including legal permanent residents.
When Congress enacted the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), it intended those extraordinary powers to be used against the Mafia and organized crime. Over the years, however, RICO was used far more broadly, even against anti-abortion protesters and other dissidents.[11] The ACLU is deeply concerned that some of the powers the government may be seeking in Patriot Act 2, while ostensibly directed at terrorists, could likewise be used in unexpected ways.
Protestors - Right and Left. Under an existing, overbroad definition of international and domestic "terrorism," any individual or group that breaks the law with the intent of influencing the government can be labeled a terrorist if their activities are "dangerous to human life."[12] Under that definition, diverse "direct-action" organizations, including Operation Rescue, the World Trade Organization protestors, and others could conceivably be labeled "terrorist organizations."
Patriot Act 2 not only fails to fix this definition, it exacerbates these problems by hinging even more anti-terrorism powers to this definition. These include new wiretapping authority (secs. 120, 121), civil asset forfeiture powers (sec. 427, 428), new death penalties (sec. 411), and a frightening and unprecedented power for the government to revoke American citizenship even of native-born Americans (sec. 501).
Under these new powers, an overzealous Attorney General in an Administration that favored abortion rights could label a pro-life organization that engaged in "direct action" as a domestic terrorist group. As a consequence, the government could wiretap their meetings, seize their property, and strip their supporters of United States citizenship, rendering them in the same position as stateless undocumented immigrants who face potentially indefinite detention.[13]
Community and Environmental Organizations. Community and environmental organizations rely on open records laws to ensure that the risks to health and safety from power plants, chemical plants and other hazardous facilities are understood and that proper safety precautions are maintained. This public pressure is often more effective than government regulation.
One such record-keeping requirement is the responsibility to complete a "worst case scenario" under the Clean Air Act.[14] Patriot Act 2 would impose extraordinary restrictions on access to these scenarios, effectively rendering them unavailable to the public in any useable form (sec. 202). As a result, companies whose activities pose a hazard to the community could keep those hazards secret.
Churches, Synagogues, Mosques and Other Religious and Community Groups. Religious and secular organizations that take controversial positions on issues like war and peace, abortion, or casino gambling could face infiltration and monitoring by local and state police departments acting in concert with unsympathetic government officials.
Patriot Act 2 would immediately terminate court-ordered limits on political spying by local and state police, freeing them to re-activate intelligence gathering squads that can investigate organizations without any evidence of a connection to terrorism or other criminal activity (sec. 312).
Library Users. Since September 11, American libraries, bookstores and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have been faced with ever-increasing demands from federal and state law enforcement agencies for records, e-mail, and other information for "dragnet-style" fishing expeditions.[15]
Under current law, the government is required under some circumstances to back up its demands with a court order. While the standard for issuing such orders has been lowered by the USA PATRIOT Act, some judicial intervention is still required. Under Patriot Act 2, these demands are likely to escalate even further, as the government gains new powers to issue "administrative subpoenas" and what it calls "national security letters" that will enable it to force compliance without going to court at all (secs. 128, 129).
Ordinary Immigrants. The Constitution and laws protect the rights of immigrants to due process of law, requiring the government to provide a fair hearing to anyone the government wants to deport, and subjecting the immigration authorities to the rule of law by giving the federal courts power to correct unlawful actions by the government. The Supreme Court reaffirmed these basic principles only two years ago when it ruled against the government in INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), saying "Judicial intervention in deportation cases is unquestionably required by the Constitution."
Patriot Act 2 seriously erodes the rights of immigrants - including lawful permanent residents - by providing for summary deportations without charges or evidence if the Attorney General merely suspects an immigrant may be a risk to national security (sec. 503). This proposal flies in the face of a consensus - supported by President Bush in the 2000 election campaign - that jailing immigrants on secret evidence is unreliable and un-American.
Finally, lawful permanent residents who are not suspected of posing any risk to national security - but have committed some minor criminal offense even in the distant past - will be stripped of their right to an immigration hearing and will be barred from petitioning a federal court to correct any unlawful actions by the government (sec. 504). Patriot Act 2 does this by rescinding the authority that the Supreme Court relied on to review the government's actions - the Habeas Corpus Statute.
Conclusion
Patriot Act 2 is fundamentally flawed because it relies on a false premise - that America can be safer if we do away with basic checks and balances. By undermining the role of the courts, Congress and the press in providing a real check on Executive power, Patriot Act 2 directs its ire at the institutions of American democracy instead of at the terrorists that threaten it. In so doing, it threatens to undermine the rights of ordinary people, not terrorists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
ENDNOTES
[1] Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272.
[2] Copies of the draft bill can be obtained at http://www.dailyrotten.com/source-docs/patriot2draft.html
[3] /safefree/general/17203leg20030214.html
[4] Full Text of FBI Agent's Letter to Director Mueller, N.Y. Times, March 5, 2003 (letter dated Feb. 26, 2003).
[5] Bill Dedman, Memo Warns Against Use of Profiling As Defense, Boston Globe, Oct. 12, 2001.
[6] Jim McGee, Ex-FBI Officials Criticize Tactics on Terrorism; Detention of Suspects Not Effective, They Say, Washington Post, Nov. 28, 2001, at A1
[7] See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (criminal surveillance); United States v. United States District Court ("Keith"), 407 U.S. 297 (1972) (intelligence surveillance).
[8] 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-63
[9]See INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
[10] THE FEDERALIST No. 84 (Hamilton) (emphasis in original) (quoting 1 Blackstone, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND 335).
[11] Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., __ U.S. __, 2003 WL 467549, (Feb. 26, 2003).
[12] 18 U.S.C. § 2331.
[13] See, e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
[14] 47 U.S.C. § 7212(r).
[15] Michael S. Gerber, Anti-Terrorism Measures Create Privacy Dilemma for Corporations, The Hill, March 12, 2003
--

Christopher A. Young
You can\'t shout down a troll.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I know...this is not the place...but it is public
It's sort of a odd time to say this, but I received an email..(chain type) the said to all to mail a Xmas card tot he ACLU and mark Merry Christmas on the outside.......this way they will have to open each and everyone....their thought is that there might be a contribution in the envelope....thus tying up there process and office time
BECAUSE THEY ARE ASSHOLES
and my thoughts (an American view) on N Korea:
Had anyone heard of General Black Jack Pershring? Look it up...........
Do you believe that General Pershing took the moral high-ground when he executed 49 people that somebody told him were terrorists?
What's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?
None! They both use the same tactics. Terrorists work against the interests of our government and freedom fighters work for our government. I guess that its all a matter of one's perspective.
There is little doubt that our military is filled with people whose record of accomplishments and willingness to do what needs done would make BJ Pershing look like a piker. But, when you consider the world-wide distress caused by things like the "atrocities" (torturing??? prisoners by making them pose nude in unflattering position for photographs) at the Abu Gharib prison complex why would anyone ever murder 49 alleged terrorists (or freedom fighters . you're choice). This would only inflame anti-American sentiment throughout the world and provide additional propaganda for the muslim radicals to use in support of the fight against the Great Satan.
This weekend is potentially the best chance we have had since 9/11 to make a big statement to the world. If N Korea tests a nuke on Sunday we should immediately respond by destroying Pyong Yuang with several submarine launched hydrogen bombs. This would end any speculation about our intentions or our willingness to support our words with meaningful action. We could even let one of those missiles go off track (way off track) and hit a spot in the deserts of Iran, providing a big apology for a technical malfunction, after the fact.
Oops! Sorry, but aren't you glad we didn't mean to target Terhan
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Send a few neutron bombs to Iraq. A few to Iran, Syria, and Lebanon wouldn't be a bad idea either.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
chris, youre getting there, but lets simplify this. first off, i dont care what they do to any american they catch fighting for our enemy. i dont care what they do to listen in on known terrorists. i am a law abiding american citizen. please tell me specifically what freedoms i have lost as a result of the patriot act, and show me within the patriot act where i lost them. thanks,
--
Nathan in Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.