Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:
"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."
and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a complete
stand-alone paragraph:
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
private conversations of very large number of American citizens were
examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the fourth
amendment)...
...and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is now
considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity for all
of those fourth amendment violations?
It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of, such
legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many violations
of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid responsibility.
What am I not understanding?
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
On Jul 18, 8:52 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 5:15 am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 16, 10:27 pm, r payne <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > You start with and Ad Hominem attack. You then state the information is both public and
> > > private like it lives some double life followed by a description that is to any thinking man
> > > the very defination of private. And never offer a third option.
>
> > > This all give you the appearance of having the mental ability of a 9 year old.
>
> > > To whit, I have come to the conclusion you are not worth the trouble and see no reason to
> > > read let alone to respond to anything you post.
>
> > > ron
>
> > Ron,
>
> > Track krw's record on other newsgroups. He appears to only show up so
> > he can denigrate someone, [snipped for brevity]
>
> Pot...Kettle, Kettle......Pot
Sorry. No. This is the only NG I attend. And you're the only major
league asshole I know on here at the moment, but you can't help that.
You were born to it, and then grew into the role.
On Jul 11, 11:20=A0pm, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <c3bec7e8-e2e5-4657-97a8-dfd811314666
> @a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 11, 4:21=A0pm, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > [email protected] says...
>
> > > > Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:
>
> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, =
houses,
> > > > papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, sh=
all
> > > > not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cau=
se,
> > > > supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the p=
lace
> > > > to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
>
> > > > and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a comple=
te
> > > > stand-alone paragraph:
>
> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be pass=
ed."
>
> > > > So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
> > > > private conversations of very large number of American citizens wer=
e
> > > > examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the f=
ourth
> > > > amendment)...
>
> > > The conversations are private. =A0The records of conversations are
> > > not. =A0
>
> > > > ...and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is now
> > > > considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity for =
all
> > > > of those fourth amendment violations?
>
> > > The are not fourth amendment violations. =A0The new law prevents
> > > ambulance chasing (the reason it took so long to pass).
>
> > > > It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of, su=
ch
> > > > legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many viola=
tions
> > > > of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid responsibility.
>
> > > Wrong.
>
> > > > What am I not understanding?
>
> > > ANYTHING about the world around you.
>
> > > --
> > > Keith
>
> > If you had ANY clue about how stupid that sounds, you'd do the
> > honorable thing and crawl back under your rock again.
>
> I'm sure it does sound stupid to you. =A0You're so clueless any
> reasonable statement would *sound* stupid, to you.
>
Oh my. Had I known you to be such a clever and verbally acrobatic
adversary, I would never have started this path to my demise.
Charlie Self wrote:
> On Jul 19, 9:20 am, FrozenNorth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>> > Charlie Self wrote:
>>
>> >> On Jul 18, 8:10 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>> "Charlie Self" wrote:
>> >>> > oh. I am SO sorry. I just SEEM to be a leftist (whatever that is).
>> >>> > I'm
>> >>> > a liberal. Generally, I get alonog with people of any political
>> >>> > stripe, until the start calling names. Then, they can do as I
>> >>> > suggest
>> >>> > you do: go fuck yourself.
>>
>> >>> You mean that dude hasn't made your kill file yet?
>>
>> >>> You must trying to piss up a rope?
>>
>> >>> Lew
>>
>> >> Sorry, Lew. No kill files in Google that I've found, at least none
>> >> that work. Generally, that's not a problem because even those I
>> >> disagree with politically are willing to discuss, not name call, but
>> >> countertop and krw seem to feel it's within their purviews to be
>> >> candidates for Pain In The Ass of The Western World. I'm done
>> >> responding to their asininities, anyway. This is the political silly
>> >> season, which maybe excuses a Canadian sticking his unwanted, unneeded
>> >> and worn out oar in, but name calling is never suitable.
>>
>> >http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
>>
>> > I've heard about some people having success with this, never used it as
>> > I don't use Google Groups, as usual your mileage may vary.
>>
>> OK, just tried it, you already appear to be using Firefox, so go and
>> install the GreaseMonkey extension from the above page, restart Firefox,
>> then click on the link to the GG Kilefile script, it will ask you if you
>> want to install it, say Yes.
>>
>> In GG I saw links labelled 'Kill Thread' and 'Ignore User' littered
>> throughout.
>>
>> Be careful, have fun, and don't ignore yourself.
>> ;-)
>> --
>> Froz...
>
> I just tried it. I love it! Thanks again.
Happy days are here again.
;-)
You have taught me enough over my years of lurking, so it is only fair.
--
Froz...
Charlie Self wrote:
> On Jul 18, 8:10 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Charlie Self" wrote:
>> > oh. I am SO sorry. I just SEEM to be a leftist (whatever that is).
>> > I'm
>> > a liberal. Generally, I get alonog with people of any political
>> > stripe, until the start calling names. Then, they can do as I
>> > suggest
>> > you do: go fuck yourself.
>>
>> You mean that dude hasn't made your kill file yet?
>>
>> You must trying to piss up a rope?
>>
>> Lew
>
> Sorry, Lew. No kill files in Google that I've found, at least none
> that work. Generally, that's not a problem because even those I
> disagree with politically are willing to discuss, not name call, but
> countertop and krw seem to feel it's within their purviews to be
> candidates for Pain In The Ass of The Western World. I'm done
> responding to their asininities, anyway. This is the political silly
> season, which maybe excuses a Canadian sticking his unwanted, unneeded
> and worn out oar in, but name calling is never suitable.
http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
I've heard about some people having success with this, never used it as I
don't use Google Groups, as usual your mileage may vary.
--
Froz...
J. Clarke wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:
>>
>> "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."
>>
>> and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a
>> complete stand-alone paragraph:
>>
>> "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
>>
>> So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
>> private conversations of very large number of American citizens
>> were examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in
>> the fourth amendment)...
>
> What "records" are these? If you are going to make accusations at
> least be precise about them.
The telco computer records of long distance calls placed by/to US
subscribers, which has been widely covered in the news. I'm surprised
that you need to ask, John.
>> ...and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is now
>> considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity for
>> all of those fourth amendment violations?
>
> Huh? An "ex post facto law" allows the government to prosecute
> someone for an act that was lawful at the time that it was performed.
> Your interpretation is rather novel.
And you appear to intentionally disregard the meaning of "ex post
facto". In general it refers to a law enacted "after the fact" which
alters the legality of acts which took place before its passage. Your
definition is only half right. Check your dictionary for confirmation.
>> It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of,
>> such legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many
>> violations of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid
>> responsibility.
>>
>> What am I not understanding?
>
> The law, apparently.
Perhaps, which is why I asked for comments. Thank you for yours.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
krw wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:
> >
> > "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."
> >
> > and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a complete
> > stand-alone paragraph:
> >
> > "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
> >
> > So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
> > private conversations of very large number of American citizens were
> > examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the fourth
> > amendment)...
>
> The conversations are private. The records of conversations are
> not.
The records are private. The conversations are private between the
participants of the conversations and the records are private between the
participants of the conversation and the company through which the call was
made. If the telcom decided to turn over the records it can but they have
thus far been reluctant out of a fear of lawsuits. The law is an attempt to
get the records without having to get a court order, which may prove dificult.
Not being a lawyer (thank the powers the be), I cannot speak for ex post
facto.
>
>
> > ...and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is now
> > considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity for all
> > of those fourth amendment violations?
>
> The are not fourth amendment violations. The new law prevents
> ambulance chasing (the reason it took so long to pass).
>
> > It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of, such
> > legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many violations
> > of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid responsibility.
>
> Wrong.
>
> > What am I not understanding?
>
> ANYTHING about the world around you.
>
> --
> Keith
That last statement shows a lack of maturity that completly disembowls the
rest of your post.
ron
krw wrote:
>
>
> The conversations are private, the billing records are not.
>
So you (or anyone) can walk into a telco and ask for the numbers to and from any
particular number you want and they will give them to you?
The answer is no. This is because this information is not public. Therefore it is
private to some group. If a member of the group wants to release it, that member
can. Since you demonstrate you are incabable of reading plain english, I don't
really expect you to understand this.
Unless you can provide a third option, the information is either private or public. If
the information is public anyone can ask for and get the information. If the information
is private one party that is privy to the information has to decide to release it.
The big decidion for the telco is that since they are payed to provide a service, they
have to keep their customers happy and not everyone would be happy with the release of
any information. That is why they have disclosure policies that the customer agrees to
when sighing up.
ron
You start with and Ad Hominem attack. You then state the information is both public and
private like it lives some double life followed by a description that is to any thinking man
the very defination of private. And never offer a third option.
This all give you the appearance of having the mental ability of a 9 year old.
To whit, I have come to the conclusion you are not worth the trouble and see no reason to
read let alone to respond to anything you post.
ron
krw wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
>> private conversations of very large number of American citizens were
>> examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the fourth
>> amendment)...
>
> The conversations are private. The records of conversations are
> not.
I missed the "how" and "why" part of what you wrote, but do appreciate
your attempt to be responsive.
>> It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of, such
>> legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many violations
>> of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid responsibility.
>
> Wrong.
Are you saying that is doesn't really so appear to me, or are you saying
that granting immunity after the fact doesn't give the appearance that
there was a need for immunity to be granted?
>> What am I not understanding?
>
> ANYTHING about the world around you.
It does sometimes seem that way. Still, I'm managing to get just a bit
closer to ANYTHING every day.
Sometimes asking questions helps - and sometimes it doesn't.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Robatoy wrote:
> So, Morris, was this trip back into The Wreck a pleasant/constructive
> experience? <G>
Interesting at least. I wasn't really looking for pleasant, and it's
usually informative to hear what constructive people have to say about
things that might matter in the long haul. Most of the woodworkers I
know (here on the wreck and elsewhere) seem to want to design and build
things that'll outlast themselves - and so whether we ultimately agree
or not, I find what they have to say interesting...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
On Jul 14, 12:43=A0pm, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 12:32 am, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> : What am I not understanding?
>
> >> That if we don't blindly do everything the administration wants,
> >> and make sure to adjust laws as needed to make it all legal, then the
> >> Terrorists Will Have Already Won.
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -- Andy Barss
>
> > Well, Andrew, if there aren't enough terrorists to allow an
> > administration to operate under the 'fear' ticket, you might as well
> > make some up. How would you control the angry masses who pay over 4
> > dollars for gasoline if you didn't have the terrorists to blame?
>
> > Take a slice of daily life and remove the influence of terrorists...
> > what would you have left?
> > What if Poland hadn't been a threat to Germany in the 30's? The Dutch
> > were about to invade? You think the German people would have rallied
> > around a mad man in the hope to find protection?
> > It is an old formula. It works. For a while.
>
> > Bin Laden has been dead for 4 years. But, he's no good to Bush, dead.
> > So they keep him alive...BOOGA BOOGA!!!
>
> Hmmm.... Sure would like to see some proof of that. Or some credible
> tidbit of information.
Wouldn't we all?
On Jul 19, 8:56 am, FrozenNorth <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > On Jul 18, 8:10 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Charlie Self" wrote:
> >> > oh. I am SO sorry. I just SEEM to be a leftist (whatever that is).
> >> > I'm
> >> > a liberal. Generally, I get alonog with people of any political
> >> > stripe, until the start calling names. Then, they can do as I
> >> > suggest
> >> > you do: go fuck yourself.
>
> >> You mean that dude hasn't made your kill file yet?
>
> >> You must trying to piss up a rope?
>
> >> Lew
>
> > Sorry, Lew. No kill files in Google that I've found, at least none
> > that work. Generally, that's not a problem because even those I
> > disagree with politically are willing to discuss, not name call, but
> > countertop and krw seem to feel it's within their purviews to be
> > candidates for Pain In The Ass of The Western World. I'm done
> > responding to their asininities, anyway. This is the political silly
> > season, which maybe excuses a Canadian sticking his unwanted, unneeded
> > and worn out oar in, but name calling is never suitable.
>
> http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
>
> I've heard about some people having success with this, never used it as I
> don't use Google Groups, as usual your mileage may vary.
>
> --
> Froz...
I think I tried that before, but it's worth a second shot. Thanks.
On Jul 18, 8:10 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" wrote:
> > oh. I am SO sorry. I just SEEM to be a leftist (whatever that is).
> > I'm
> > a liberal. Generally, I get alonog with people of any political
> > stripe, until the start calling names. Then, they can do as I
> > suggest
> > you do: go fuck yourself.
>
> You mean that dude hasn't made your kill file yet?
>
> You must trying to piss up a rope?
>
> Lew
Sorry, Lew. No kill files in Google that I've found, at least none
that work. Generally, that's not a problem because even those I
disagree with politically are willing to discuss, not name call, but
countertop and krw seem to feel it's within their purviews to be
candidates for Pain In The Ass of The Western World. I'm done
responding to their asininities, anyway. This is the political silly
season, which maybe excuses a Canadian sticking his unwanted, unneeded
and worn out oar in, but name calling is never suitable.
On Jul 10, 11:13=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0"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."
>
> and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a complete
> stand-alone paragraph:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
>
> So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
> private conversations of very large number of American citizens were
> examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the fourth
> amendment)...
>
> ...and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is now
> considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity for all
> of those fourth amendment violations?
>
> It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of, such
> legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many violations
> of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid responsibility.
>
> What am I not understanding?
>
So, Morris, was this trip back into The Wreck a pleasant/constructive
experience? <G>
On Jul 11, 7:51=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here is my understanding:
>
> Before law A was enacted, it was illegal to do ABC.
> Because the law was changed as law A was signed, it is now legal to do AB=
C. =A0
> IMO,this usually means (or should mean) that anyone convicted for doing A=
BC
> (before law A was enacted) should now be pardoned, or the conviction shou=
ld
> be overturned, unless law A is overturned. =A0So ex post facto the legali=
ty
> of doing ABC is confirmed.
>
> Before law B was enacted, it was legal to do XYZ. =A0That must mean that
> anyone who did XYZ before law B was enacted did so legally and cannot be
> prosecuted or convicted of doing XYZ. =A0You cannot be convicted ex post
> facto.
>
> I'm a biochemist, born in Holland, and tis is how it should be interprete=
d
> according to my gospel <grin>.
You are, however, resorting to logic and common sense which means you
will lose at least two followers. <G>
As a Canuckistani, also born in Holland, I challenge the 'true'
meaning of anything written in Latin.
As far as the legal opinion of the average woodworker is concerned?
Non Gradus Anus Rodentum!
r-----> who is not a 'Murkun so I am not allowed to participate in
this debate. Even so.... if you violated a law, you violated a law. If
the law is repealed, you still violated it when it was in effect. So
the punishment should stand. There are still bezillions of people in
pergatory for a bologny-on-Friday rap.
On Jul 11, 7:45=A0am, mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:13:18 -0500, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote=
:
> >Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:
>
> > =A0 =A0 "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."
>
> >and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a complete
> >stand-alone paragraph:
>
> > =A0 =A0 "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
>
> >So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
> >private conversations of very large number of American citizens were
> >examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the fourth
> >amendment)...
>
> >...and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is now
> >considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity for all
> >of those fourth amendment violations?
>
> >It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of, such
> >legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many violations
> >of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid responsibility.
>
> >What am I not understanding?
>
> Well, Morris, it's like Kris Kristoferson said, "Law Is for the Protectio=
n of
> the People"
>
> If you don't remember or haven't heard it, check it out...
>
> mac
>
> Please remove splinters before emailing- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The law is for the protection of the GUILTY
On Jul 10, 8:13=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0"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."
>
> and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a complete
> stand-alone paragraph:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
>
> So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
> private conversations of very large number of American citizens were
> examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the fourth
> amendment)...
>
> ...and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is now
> considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity for all
> of those fourth amendment violations?
>
> It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of, such
> legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many violations
> of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid responsibility.
>
> What am I not understanding?
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
The common people are getting screwed again.
President George W Bush =3D the GREAT RAPER (not a muscian) of US
On Jul 13, 12:32=A0am, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
> Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : What am I not understanding?
>
> That if we don't blindly do everything the administration wants,
> and make sure to adjust laws as needed to make it all legal, then the
> Terrorists Will Have Already Won.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -- Andy Barss
Well, Andrew, if there aren't enough terrorists to allow an
administration to operate under the 'fear' ticket, you might as well
make some up. How would you control the angry masses who pay over 4
dollars for gasoline if you didn't have the terrorists to blame?
Take a slice of daily life and remove the influence of terrorists...
what would you have left?
What if Poland hadn't been a threat to Germany in the 30's? The Dutch
were about to invade? You think the German people would have rallied
around a mad man in the hope to find protection?
It is an old formula. It works. For a while.
Bin Laden has been dead for 4 years. But, he's no good to Bush, dead.
So they keep him alive...BOOGA BOOGA!!!
On Jul 19, 9:20 am, FrozenNorth <[email protected]>
wrote:
> FrozenNorth wrote:
> > Charlie Self wrote:
>
> >> On Jul 18, 8:10 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> "Charlie Self" wrote:
> >>> > oh. I am SO sorry. I just SEEM to be a leftist (whatever that is).
> >>> > I'm
> >>> > a liberal. Generally, I get alonog with people of any political
> >>> > stripe, until the start calling names. Then, they can do as I
> >>> > suggest
> >>> > you do: go fuck yourself.
>
> >>> You mean that dude hasn't made your kill file yet?
>
> >>> You must trying to piss up a rope?
>
> >>> Lew
>
> >> Sorry, Lew. No kill files in Google that I've found, at least none
> >> that work. Generally, that's not a problem because even those I
> >> disagree with politically are willing to discuss, not name call, but
> >> countertop and krw seem to feel it's within their purviews to be
> >> candidates for Pain In The Ass of The Western World. I'm done
> >> responding to their asininities, anyway. This is the political silly
> >> season, which maybe excuses a Canadian sticking his unwanted, unneeded
> >> and worn out oar in, but name calling is never suitable.
>
> >http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
>
> > I've heard about some people having success with this, never used it as I
> > don't use Google Groups, as usual your mileage may vary.
>
> OK, just tried it, you already appear to be using Firefox, so go and install
> the GreaseMonkey extension from the above page, restart Firefox, then click
> on the link to the GG Kilefile script, it will ask you if you want to
> install it, say Yes.
>
> In GG I saw links labelled 'Kill Thread' and 'Ignore User' littered
> throughout.
>
> Be careful, have fun, and don't ignore yourself.
> ;-)
> --
> Froz...
I just tried it. I love it! Thanks again.
On Jul 18, 5:15=A0am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 10:27 pm, r payne <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You start with and Ad Hominem attack. =A0You then state the information=
is both public and
> > private like it lives some double life followed by a description that i=
s to any thinking man
> > the very defination of private. =A0And never offer a third option.
>
> > This all give you the appearance of having the mental ability of a 9 ye=
ar old.
>
> > To whit, I have come to the conclusion you are not worth the trouble an=
d see no reason to
> > read let alone to respond to anything you post.
>
> > ron
>
> Ron,
>
> Track krw's record on other newsgroups. He appears to only show up so
> he can denigrate someone, [snipped for brevity]
Pot...Kettle, Kettle......Pot
FrozenNorth wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
>> On Jul 18, 8:10 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Charlie Self" wrote:
>>> > oh. I am SO sorry. I just SEEM to be a leftist (whatever that is).
>>> > I'm
>>> > a liberal. Generally, I get alonog with people of any political
>>> > stripe, until the start calling names. Then, they can do as I
>>> > suggest
>>> > you do: go fuck yourself.
>>>
>>> You mean that dude hasn't made your kill file yet?
>>>
>>> You must trying to piss up a rope?
>>>
>>> Lew
>>
>> Sorry, Lew. No kill files in Google that I've found, at least none
>> that work. Generally, that's not a problem because even those I
>> disagree with politically are willing to discuss, not name call, but
>> countertop and krw seem to feel it's within their purviews to be
>> candidates for Pain In The Ass of The Western World. I'm done
>> responding to their asininities, anyway. This is the political silly
>> season, which maybe excuses a Canadian sticking his unwanted, unneeded
>> and worn out oar in, but name calling is never suitable.
>
> http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
>
> I've heard about some people having success with this, never used it as I
> don't use Google Groups, as usual your mileage may vary.
>
OK, just tried it, you already appear to be using Firefox, so go and install
the GreaseMonkey extension from the above page, restart Firefox, then click
on the link to the GG Kilefile script, it will ask you if you want to
install it, say Yes.
In GG I saw links labelled 'Kill Thread' and 'Ignore User' littered
throughout.
Be careful, have fun, and don't ignore yourself.
;-)
--
Froz...
"i82much" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Politicians remind me of when I was single...Tell the ladies what they
> wanna hear till I got what I wanted
Difference being that you hope you *don't* get screwed by your politician
but know that you probably will. With the ladies, your hopes are exactly the
opposite. :)
J. Clarke wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:
>>
>> "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."
>>
>> and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a
>> complete
>> stand-alone paragraph:
>>
>> "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
>>
>> So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
>> private conversations of very large number of American citizens were
>> examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the
>> fourth amendment)...
>
> What "records" are these? If you are going to make accusations at
> least be precise about them.
>
>> ...and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is now
>> considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity for
>> all
>> of those fourth amendment violations?
>
> Huh? An "ex post facto law" allows the government to prosecute
> someone for an act that was lawful at the time that it was performed.
> Your interpretation is rather novel.
"Ex post facto" just means "after the fact". There is no reason an ex post
facto law cannot decriminalize a previous illegal action as well as
criminalize a previous legal one.
________________
>> It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of,
>> such
>> legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many
>> violations of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid
>> responsibility.
>>
>> What am I not understanding?
>
> The law, apparently.
It seems to me he understood it quite well.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : I'm still trying to figure out who makes less sense, or is a bigger
> : dick, you or Charlie.
>
>
>
> Size queen, eh?
>
>
> -- Andy Barss
DITTO
DITTO
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:
>
> "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."
>
> and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a complete
> stand-alone paragraph:
>
> "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
>
> So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
> private conversations of very large number of American citizens were
> examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the fourth
> amendment)...
The conversations are private. The records of conversations are
not.
> ...and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is now
> considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity for all
> of those fourth amendment violations?
The are not fourth amendment violations. The new law prevents
ambulance chasing (the reason it took so long to pass).
> It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of, such
> legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many violations
> of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid responsibility.
Wrong.
> What am I not understanding?
ANYTHING about the world around you.
--
Keith
In article <c3bec7e8-e2e5-4657-97a8-dfd811314666
@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> On Jul 11, 4:21=A0pm, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:
> >
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, ho=
uses,
> > > papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shal=
l
> > > not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause=
,
> > > supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the pla=
ce
> > > to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> >
> > > and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a complete
> > > stand-alone paragraph:
> >
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed=
."
> >
> > > So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
> > > private conversations of very large number of American citizens were
> > > examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the fou=
rth
> > > amendment)...
> >
> > The conversations are private. =A0The records of conversations are
> > not. =A0
> >
> > > ...and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is now
> > > considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity for al=
l
> > > of those fourth amendment violations?
> >
> > The are not fourth amendment violations. =A0The new law prevents
> > ambulance chasing (the reason it took so long to pass).
> >
> > > It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of, such
> > > legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many violati=
ons
> > > of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid responsibility.
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > > What am I not understanding?
> >
> > ANYTHING about the world around you.
> >
> > --
> > Keith
>=20
> If you had ANY clue about how stupid that sounds, you'd do the
> honorable thing and crawl back under your rock again.
I'm sure it does sound stupid to you. You're so clueless any=20
reasonable statement would *sound* stupid, to you.=20
--=20
Keith
In article <11f59b4c-2054-4639-88ce-6d3d7372fb41
@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> On Jul 11, 11:20=A0pm, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <c3bec7e8-e2e5-4657-97a8-dfd811314666
> > @a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 11, 4:21=A0pm, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > > [email protected] says...
> >
> > > > > Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:
> >
> > > > > =A0 =A0 =A0"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 c=
ause,
> > > > > supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the=
place
> > > > > to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> >
> > > > > and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a comp=
lete
> > > > > stand-alone paragraph:
> >
> > > > > =A0 =A0 =A0"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be pa=
ssed."
> >
> > > > > So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records o=
f
> > > > > private conversations of very large number of American citizens w=
ere
> > > > > examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the=
fourth
> > > > > amendment)...
> >
> > > > The conversations are private. =A0The records of conversations are
> > > > not. =A0
> >
> > > > > ...and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is no=
w
> > > > > considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity fo=
r all
> > > > > of those fourth amendment violations?
> >
> > > > The are not fourth amendment violations. =A0The new law prevents
> > > > ambulance chasing (the reason it took so long to pass).
> >
> > > > > It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of, =
such
> > > > > legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many vio=
lations
> > > > > of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid responsibility.
> >
> > > > Wrong.
> >
> > > > > What am I not understanding?
> >
> > > > ANYTHING about the world around you.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Keith
> >
> > > If you had ANY clue about how stupid that sounds, you'd do the
> > > honorable thing and crawl back under your rock again.
> >
> > I'm sure it does sound stupid to you. =A0You're so clueless any
> > reasonable statement would *sound* stupid, to you.
> >
>=20
> Oh my. Had I known you to be such a clever and verbally acrobatic
> adversary, I would never have started this path to my demise.
The terminally stupid are often easily impressed; your flattery=20
doesn't mean much.
--=20
Keith
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
>
> krw wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> > > Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:
> > >
> > > "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."
> > >
> > > and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a complete
> > > stand-alone paragraph:
> > >
> > > "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
> > >
> > > So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
> > > private conversations of very large number of American citizens were
> > > examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the fourth
> > > amendment)...
> >
> > The conversations are private. The records of conversations are
> > not.
>
> The records are private.
No, they are most assuredly NOT. They are property of the phone
company to do with as they see fit.
> The conversations are private between the
> participants of the conversations and the records are private between the
> participants of the conversation and the company through which the call was
> made.
The conversations are private, the billing records are not.
> If the telcom decided to turn over the records it can but they have
> thus far been reluctant out of a fear of lawsuits. The law is an attempt to
> get the records without having to get a court order, which may prove dificult.
No, the law is intended to immunize the phone companies from
frivolous lawsuits filed by idiots like yourself.
> Not being a lawyer (thank the powers the be), I cannot speak for ex post
> facto.
Evidently you can't speak facto, at all.
> >
> >
> > > ...and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is now
> > > considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity for all
> > > of those fourth amendment violations?
> >
> > The are not fourth amendment violations. The new law prevents
> > ambulance chasing (the reason it took so long to pass).
> >
> > > It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of, such
> > > legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many violations
> > > of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid responsibility.
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > > What am I not understanding?
> >
> > ANYTHING about the world around you.
> >
> > --
> > Keith
>
> That last statement shows a lack of maturity that completly disembowls the
> rest of your post.
Nope. The point is exactly correct. I can't help it if the truth
hurts. It *IS* still the truth.
--
Keith
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> krw wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
>
> >> So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
> >> private conversations of very large number of American citizens were
> >> examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the fourth
> >> amendment)...
> >
> > The conversations are private. The records of conversations are
> > not.
>
> I missed the "how" and "why" part of what you wrote, but do appreciate
> your attempt to be responsive.
How? Why? Conversations are protected by wiretap laws. Billing
records are not. The phone company even has them. ;-)
> >> It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of, such
> >> legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many violations
> >> of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid responsibility.
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> Are you saying that is doesn't really so appear to me, or are you saying
> that granting immunity after the fact doesn't give the appearance that
> there was a need for immunity to be granted?
There was a need to save them from the hordes of ambulance chasers
that would have sued them senseless. Even if they won (who knows
what a stupid jury would do - look at this thread) they'd be out
millions in defense costs. Not much incentive to cooperate.
> >> What am I not understanding?
> >
> > ANYTHING about the world around you.
>
> It does sometimes seem that way. Still, I'm managing to get just a bit
> closer to ANYTHING every day.
Progress is good. It beats the alternatives.
> Sometimes asking questions helps - and sometimes it doesn't.
Sometimes the way a question is asked changes the form of the
answer.
--
Keith
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
>
> krw wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The conversations are private, the billing records are not.
> >
>
> So you (or anyone) can walk into a telco and ask for the numbers to and from any
> particular number you want and they will give them to you?
Of course not. They are the property of the phone company. If they
chose to sell the information there isn't a damned thing you could
do about it though. There is no expectation of privacy.
> The answer is no. This is because this information is not public. Therefore it is
> private to some group.
It is not private information, as the contents of the call are. The
records are telco property. The contents are not.
> If a member of the group wants to release it, that member
> can.
As can the telco.
> Since you demonstrate you are incabable of reading plain english, I don't
> really expect you to understand this.
You are the one who is acting stupid beyond belief.
--
Keith
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Unless you can provide a third option, the information is either private or public.
Perhaps to a narrow-minded fool, yes. It is public in the sense
that it doesn't take a subpoena for the government to get. It is
private in the sense that it is phone company property, to do with
as they please.
> If the information is public anyone can ask for and get the information.
Correct. Anyone can ask. The phone company may just comply; their
option. There is no court demand required for them to comply. Is
that simple enough for you?
> If the information
> is private one party that is privy to the information has to decide to release it.
They are not compelled in any way to keep the information private.
> The big decidion for the telco is that since they are payed to provide a service, they
> have to keep their customers happy and not everyone would be happy with the release of
> any information. That is why they have disclosure policies that the customer agrees to
> when sighing up.
Bullshit.
--
Keith
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> You start with and Ad Hominem attack.
No start. No Ad Hominem. Obvious statements (which you aren't man
enough to quote).
> You then state the information is both public and
> private like it lives some double life followed by a description that is to any thinking man
> the very defination of private. And never offer a third option.
Given two words, one cannot describe the world. If you're mentally
deficient enough to believe that one can, well, even I don't have
enough Ad to describe your Hominem.
> This all give you the appearance of having the mental ability of a 9 year old.
Yes, apparently that describes you well, given that you can't even
place the words in the context of the discussion at hand.
> To whit, I have come to the conclusion you are not worth the trouble and see no reason to
> read let alone to respond to anything you post.
IOW, "I'm going to take my ball and run home crying to mommy."
--
Keith
In article <c475e2a7-fadc-4f15-9222-
[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> On Jul 16, 10:27 pm, r payne <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You start with and Ad Hominem attack. You then state the information is both public and
> > private like it lives some double life followed by a description that is to any thinking man
> > the very defination of private. And never offer a third option.
> >
> > This all give you the appearance of having the mental ability of a 9 year old.
> >
> > To whit, I have come to the conclusion you are not worth the trouble and see no reason to
> > read let alone to respond to anything you post.
> >
> > ron
>
> Ron,
>
> Track krw's record on other newsgroups. He appears to only show up so
> he can denigrate someone, call names, and perform similar feats of
> daring intellectual nincompoopery. You're wasting energy typing in
> responses because his response will always be an offspring of those
> you've already seen.
Well, I mostly read (lurk) and learn, but when idiot leftists
(redundant) show their true colors with off-topic posts, yes, I get
involved. Since you seem to be included in that group... If you'd
rather talk about woodworking, please do and I'll learn.
--
Keith
In article <ad44e56a-c012-4bdb-bfb8-
[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> On Jul 18, 5:11 pm, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <c475e2a7-fadc-4f15-9222-
> > [email protected]>, [email protected]
> > says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 16, 10:27 pm, r payne <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > You start with and Ad Hominem attack. You then state the information is both public and
> > > > private like it lives some double life followed by a description that is to any thinking man
> > > > the very defination of private. And never offer a third option.
> >
> > > > This all give you the appearance of having the mental ability of a 9 year old.
> >
> > > > To whit, I have come to the conclusion you are not worth the trouble and see no reason to
> > > > read let alone to respond to anything you post.
> >
> > > > ron
> >
> > > Ron,
> >
> > > Track krw's record on other newsgroups. He appears to only show up so
> > > he can denigrate someone, call names, and perform similar feats of
> > > daring intellectual nincompoopery. You're wasting energy typing in
> > > responses because his response will always be an offspring of those
> > > you've already seen.
> >
> > Well, I mostly read (lurk) and learn, but when idiot leftists
> > (redundant) show their true colors with off-topic posts, yes, I get
> > involved. Since you seem to be included in that group... If you'd
> > rather talk about woodworking, please do and I'll learn.
> >
> > --
> oh. I am SO sorry. I just SEEM to be a leftist (whatever that is). I'm
> a liberal.
You're a leftist.
> Generally, I get alonog with people of any political
> stripe, until the start calling names. Then, they can do as I suggest
> you do: go fuck yourself.
Gee Charlie. That's just soo (il)liberal of you.
--
Keith
In article <bfeea9b5-c28d-4341-8c5c-
[email protected]>, [email protected]=20
says...
> On Jul 18, 9:06=A0pm, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <ad44e56a-c012-4bdb-bfb8-
> > [email protected]>, [email protected]
> > says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 18, 5:11 pm, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > In article <c475e2a7-fadc-4f15-9222-
> > > > [email protected]>, [email protected]
> > > > says...
> >
> > > > > On Jul 16, 10:27 pm, r payne <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > You start with and Ad Hominem attack. =A0You then state the inf=
ormation is both public and
> > > > > > private like it lives some double life followed by a descriptio=
n that is to any thinking man
> > > > > > the very defination of private. =A0And never offer a third opti=
on.
> >
> > > > > > This all give you the appearance of having the mental ability o=
f a 9 year old.
> >
> > > > > > To whit, I have come to the conclusion you are not worth the tr=
ouble and see no reason to
> > > > > > read let alone to respond to anything you post.
> >
> > > > > > ron
> >
> > > > > Ron,
> >
> > > > > Track krw's record on other newsgroups. He appears to only show u=
p so
> > > > > he can denigrate someone, call names, and perform similar feats o=
f
> > > > > daring intellectual nincompoopery. You're wasting energy typing i=
n
> > > > > responses because his response will always be an offspring of tho=
se
> > > > > you've already seen.
> >
> > > > Well, I mostly read (lurk) and learn, but when idiot leftists
> > > > (redundant) show their true colors with off-topic posts, yes, I get
> > > > involved. =A0Since you seem to be included in that group... =A0If y=
ou'd
> > > > rather talk about woodworking, please do and I'll learn.
> >
> > > > --
> > > oh. I am SO sorry. I just SEEM to be a leftist (whatever that is). I'=
m
> > > a liberal.
> >
> > You're a leftist.
> >
> > > Generally, I get alonog with people of any political
> > > stripe, until the start calling names. Then, they can do as I suggest
> > > you do: go fuck yourself.
> >
> > Gee Charlie. =A0That's just soo (il)liberal of you.
> >
> > --
> > Keith
>=20
> I'm still trying to figure out who makes less sense, or is a bigger
> dick, you or Charlie.
> It's close... awful close...
I see you can't stay out of this contest. Ok, you win!
--=20
Keith
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 13, 12:32 am, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> : What am I not understanding?
>>
>> That if we don't blindly do everything the administration wants,
>> and make sure to adjust laws as needed to make it all legal, then the
>> Terrorists Will Have Already Won.
>>
>> -- Andy Barss
>
> Well, Andrew, if there aren't enough terrorists to allow an
> administration to operate under the 'fear' ticket, you might as well
> make some up. How would you control the angry masses who pay over 4
> dollars for gasoline if you didn't have the terrorists to blame?
>
> Take a slice of daily life and remove the influence of terrorists...
> what would you have left?
> What if Poland hadn't been a threat to Germany in the 30's? The Dutch
> were about to invade? You think the German people would have rallied
> around a mad man in the hope to find protection?
> It is an old formula. It works. For a while.
>
> Bin Laden has been dead for 4 years. But, he's no good to Bush, dead.
> So they keep him alive...BOOGA BOOGA!!!
Hmmm.... Sure would like to see some proof of that. Or some credible
tidbit of information.
In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:
>
> "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."
>
>and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a complete
>stand-alone paragraph:
>
> "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
>
>So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
>private conversations of very large number of American citizens were
>examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the fourth
>amendment)...
>
>....and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is now
>considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity for all
>of those fourth amendment violations?
>
>It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of, such
>legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many violations
>of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid responsibility.
>
>What am I not understanding?
>
Two things, I think.
First, despite apparent widespread belief to the contrary, the Fourth
Amendment does not prohibit *all* searches and seizures, only "unreasonable"
ones. Whether the searches in question are "reasonable" (and thus
Constitutional) is a topic about which reasonable individuals can disagree,
and may need to be tested in court.
Second, while it's true that a literal reading of the term "ex post facto law"
would include any law *de*criminalizing a previously *il*legal act, it's clear
from the history of the British Empire's abuses, and the Founding Fathers'
determination to avoid them, that they were concerned mainly with the
opposite. In any event, it's a moot point, since the Constitution grants the
President a nearly unlimited power to issue pardons and reprieves. If a law
decriminalizing, ex post facto, a previously illegal act should be declared
unconstitutional, the President need only issue a blanket pardon to any and
all persons who have, or may have, committed violations.
Here is my understanding:
Before law A was enacted, it was illegal to do ABC.
Because the law was changed as law A was signed, it is now legal to do ABC.
IMO,this usually means (or should mean) that anyone convicted for doing ABC
(before law A was enacted) should now be pardoned, or the conviction should
be overturned, unless law A is overturned. So ex post facto the legality
of doing ABC is confirmed.
Before law B was enacted, it was legal to do XYZ. That must mean that
anyone who did XYZ before law B was enacted did so legally and cannot be
prosecuted or convicted of doing XYZ. You cannot be convicted ex post
facto.
I'm a biochemist, born in Holland, and tis is how it should be interpreted
according to my gospel <grin>.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:628512eb-bb3a-4583-b8c6-1758f7b46f8d@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 11, 7:51 pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Here is my understanding:
>>
>> Before law A was enacted, it was illegal to do ABC.
>> Because the law was changed as law A was signed, it is now legal to
>> do AB
> C.
>> IMO,this usually means (or should mean) that anyone convicted for
>> doing A
> BC
>> (before law A was enacted) should now be pardoned, or the conviction
>> shou
> ld
>> be overturned, unless law A is overturned. So ex post facto the
>> legali
> ty
>> of doing ABC is confirmed.
>>
>> Before law B was enacted, it was legal to do XYZ. That must mean
>> that anyone who did XYZ before law B was enacted did so legally and
>> cannot be prosecuted or convicted of doing XYZ. You cannot be
>> convicted ex post facto.
>>
>> I'm a biochemist, born in Holland, and tis is how it should be
>> interprete
> d
>> according to my gospel <grin>.
>
> You are, however, resorting to logic and common sense which means you
> will lose at least two followers. <G>
> As a Canuckistani, also born in Holland, I challenge the 'true'
> meaning of anything written in Latin.
> As far as the legal opinion of the average woodworker is concerned?
> Non Gradus Anus Rodentum!
>
> r-----> who is not a 'Murkun so I am not allowed to participate in
> this debate. Even so.... if you violated a law, you violated a law. If
> the law is repealed, you still violated it when it was in effect. So
> the punishment should stand. There are still bezillions of people in
> pergatory for a bologny-on-Friday rap.
>
I don't agree that "if you violated a law, you violated a law. If the law
is repealed, you still violated it when it was in effect. So the
punishment should stand." Presumably the law was repealed because it was
judged (pun intended) to be contrary to public good, and the "deed" was
not considered against the law, as amended. Unless the amendment
expressly left standing prior convictions, those convictions are
automagically overturned. At least, IMNSHO !!
AFA the bologna on Friday rap, that's for the religious courts to
consider. Has nothing to do with mundane law.
I am human. I always was. The reference to Holland was merely for
background. I believe in real human law, and, IMNSHO (again) that is
irrespective of nationality (watever that is) or religion (which is even
vaguer). Basic principle is to have respect for others' opinions.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : What am I not understanding?
>
> That if we don't blindly do everything the administration wants,
> and make sure to adjust laws as needed to make it all legal, then the
> Terrorists Will Have Already Won.
>
> -- Andy Barss
>
I am NOT a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, either <Grin. That's a joke>
That said.....
No laws have been "adjusted". It's been that way for a long, long time.
If a cop comes knocking at the door, you have the absolute right to refuse
entry, but the fact is, most people wouldn't. If he has a warrant, you do
not have the right of refusal. In fact, with some warrants, they really
don't even have to knock first.
(Watch COPS sometime when they're on a drug bust. The cops will routinely
knock once, scream out "police", and less than two seconds later hit the
door with a battering ram.)
Well, the telco's were the same way. Telco's routinely supply police (even
local police, much less the feds,) with telephone records. Been doing it
for decades.
The dustup in Congress, was the provision to stop lawsuits against the
telco's. And make no mistake, there was a long range plan to this. They
didn't want some podunk judge somewhere finding that there WAS an
expectation of privacy attached to the non-public records.
(Read Roe v. Wade sometime and the Supremes logic concerning privacy and
abortion. People, good, honest people, are still fighting over that one,
with no end in sight.)
This is NOT a clear cut issue. For instance, the CDC just issued a warning
about the worst outbreak of measles in a decade. Would it be in the
public's interest to require the CDC to get a court order every time just to
build the statistics about a measles outbreak?
Banks are a bit more touchy. Most banks, AFAIK, don't routinely supply
records...but they could if they wanted too. It the IRS that can get really
nasty. They can freeze accounts without recourse to any court/judge.
I seem to remember something about telephone taps on fiber optic cables. If
they tap the cable, for suspect X, they may end up tapping thousands of
conversations. Seems, (as I remember), absolutely no information gained
from any extraraneous source B can be used in court. Period.
On Jul 18, 5:11 pm, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <c475e2a7-fadc-4f15-9222-
> [email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 16, 10:27 pm, r payne <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > You start with and Ad Hominem attack. You then state the information is both public and
> > > private like it lives some double life followed by a description that is to any thinking man
> > > the very defination of private. And never offer a third option.
>
> > > This all give you the appearance of having the mental ability of a 9 year old.
>
> > > To whit, I have come to the conclusion you are not worth the trouble and see no reason to
> > > read let alone to respond to anything you post.
>
> > > ron
>
> > Ron,
>
> > Track krw's record on other newsgroups. He appears to only show up so
> > he can denigrate someone, call names, and perform similar feats of
> > daring intellectual nincompoopery. You're wasting energy typing in
> > responses because his response will always be an offspring of those
> > you've already seen.
>
> Well, I mostly read (lurk) and learn, but when idiot leftists
> (redundant) show their true colors with off-topic posts, yes, I get
> involved. Since you seem to be included in that group... If you'd
> rather talk about woodworking, please do and I'll learn.
>
> --
oh. I am SO sorry. I just SEEM to be a leftist (whatever that is). I'm
a liberal. Generally, I get alonog with people of any political
stripe, until the start calling names. Then, they can do as I suggest
you do: go fuck yourself.
On Jul 10, 8:46 pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:13:18 -0500, Morris Dovey wrote:
> > It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of, such
> > legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many violations
> > of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid responsibility.
>
> > What am I not understanding?
>
> Seems to me you understand it quite well, Morris :-).
>
> What I don't understand is why Obama changed his stand and voted for the
> bill - be interesting to see who just contributed a large sum of money to
> the campaign.
He was against it before he was for it. Trying to reverse Kerry.
On Jul 19, 6:07=A0pm, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : I'm still trying to figure out who makes less sense, or is a bigger
> : dick, you or Charlie.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Size queen, eh? =A0
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -- Andy Barss
I would respond if I had some idea what you are talking about. I say :
*IS* a bigger dick, not *HAS* a bigger dick (as *big* is unlikely
anyway.)
On Jul 18, 9:35=A0am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 8:52 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 18, 5:15 am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 16, 10:27 pm, r payne <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > You start with and Ad Hominem attack. =A0You then state the informa=
tion is both public and
> > > > private like it lives some double life followed by a description th=
at is to any thinking man
> > > > the very defination of private. =A0And never offer a third option.
>
> > > > This all give you the appearance of having the mental ability of a =
9 year old.
>
> > > > To whit, I have come to the conclusion you are not worth the troubl=
e and see no reason to
> > > > read let alone to respond to anything you post.
>
> > > > ron
>
> > > Ron,
>
> > > Track krw's record on other newsgroups. He appears to only show up so
> > > he can denigrate someone, [snipped for brevity]
>
> > Pot...Kettle, Kettle......Pot
>
> Sorry. No. This is the only NG I attend. And you're the only major
> league asshole I know on here at the moment, but you can't help that.
> You were born to it, and then grew into the role.
Wow! A compliment ! Thank you, kind sir. (You're kinda fun to play
with too!)
On Jul 18, 9:06=A0pm, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <ad44e56a-c012-4bdb-bfb8-
> [email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 18, 5:11 pm, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > In article <c475e2a7-fadc-4f15-9222-
> > > [email protected]>, [email protected]
> > > says...
>
> > > > On Jul 16, 10:27 pm, r payne <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > You start with and Ad Hominem attack. =A0You then state the infor=
mation is both public and
> > > > > private like it lives some double life followed by a description =
that is to any thinking man
> > > > > the very defination of private. =A0And never offer a third option=
.
>
> > > > > This all give you the appearance of having the mental ability of =
a 9 year old.
>
> > > > > To whit, I have come to the conclusion you are not worth the trou=
ble and see no reason to
> > > > > read let alone to respond to anything you post.
>
> > > > > ron
>
> > > > Ron,
>
> > > > Track krw's record on other newsgroups. He appears to only show up =
so
> > > > he can denigrate someone, call names, and perform similar feats of
> > > > daring intellectual nincompoopery. You're wasting energy typing in
> > > > responses because his response will always be an offspring of those
> > > > you've already seen.
>
> > > Well, I mostly read (lurk) and learn, but when idiot leftists
> > > (redundant) show their true colors with off-topic posts, yes, I get
> > > involved. =A0Since you seem to be included in that group... =A0If you=
'd
> > > rather talk about woodworking, please do and I'll learn.
>
> > > --
> > oh. I am SO sorry. I just SEEM to be a leftist (whatever that is). I'm
> > a liberal.
>
> You're a leftist.
>
> > Generally, I get alonog with people of any political
> > stripe, until the start calling names. Then, they can do as I suggest
> > you do: go fuck yourself.
>
> Gee Charlie. =A0That's just soo (il)liberal of you.
>
> --
> Keith
I'm still trying to figure out who makes less sense, or is a bigger
dick, you or Charlie.
It's close... awful close...
On Jul 11, 4:21=A0pm, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>
>
> > Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, hous=
es,
> > 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."
>
> > and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a complete
> > stand-alone paragraph:
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
>
> > So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
> > private conversations of very large number of American citizens were
> > examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the fourt=
h
> > amendment)...
>
> The conversations are private. =A0The records of conversations are
> not. =A0
>
> > ...and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is now
> > considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity for all
> > of those fourth amendment violations?
>
> The are not fourth amendment violations. =A0The new law prevents
> ambulance chasing (the reason it took so long to pass).
>
> > It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of, such
> > legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many violation=
s
> > of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid responsibility.
>
> Wrong.
>
> > What am I not understanding?
>
> ANYTHING about the world around you.
>
> --
> Keith
If you had ANY clue about how stupid that sounds, you'd do the
honorable thing and crawl back under your rock again.
On Jul 16, 10:27 pm, r payne <[email protected]> wrote:
> You start with and Ad Hominem attack. You then state the information is both public and
> private like it lives some double life followed by a description that is to any thinking man
> the very defination of private. And never offer a third option.
>
> This all give you the appearance of having the mental ability of a 9 year old.
>
> To whit, I have come to the conclusion you are not worth the trouble and see no reason to
> read let alone to respond to anything you post.
>
> ron
Ron,
Track krw's record on other newsgroups. He appears to only show up so
he can denigrate someone, call names, and perform similar feats of
daring intellectual nincompoopery. You're wasting energy typing in
responses because his response will always be an offspring of those
you've already seen.
On Jul 10, 8:13=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0"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."
>
> and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a complete
> stand-alone paragraph:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
>
> So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
> private conversations of very large number of American citizens were
> examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the fourth
> amendment)...
>
> ...and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is now
> considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity for all
> of those fourth amendment violations?
>
> It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of, such
> legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many violations
> of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid responsibility.
>
> What am I not understanding?
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Makes me wonder what's being done that his "buddies" need protecting?
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:
>
> "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."
>
> and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a
> complete
> stand-alone paragraph:
>
> "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
>
> So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
> private conversations of very large number of American citizens were
> examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the
> fourth amendment)...
What "records" are these? If you are going to make accusations at
least be precise about them.
> ...and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is now
> considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity for
> all
> of those fourth amendment violations?
Huh? An "ex post facto law" allows the government to prosecute
someone for an act that was lawful at the time that it was performed.
Your interpretation is rather novel.
>
> It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of,
> such
> legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many
> violations of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid
> responsibility.
>
> What am I not understanding?
The law, apparently.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
dadiOH wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>> Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:
>>>
>>> "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."
>>>
>>> and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a
>>> complete
>>> stand-alone paragraph:
>>>
>>> "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
>>>
>>> So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
>>> private conversations of very large number of American citizens
>>> were
>>> examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the
>>> fourth amendment)...
>>
>> What "records" are these? If you are going to make accusations at
>> least be precise about them.
>>
>>> ...and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is now
>>> considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity for
>>> all
>>> of those fourth amendment violations?
>>
>> Huh? An "ex post facto law" allows the government to prosecute
>> someone for an act that was lawful at the time that it was
>> performed.
>> Your interpretation is rather novel.
>
> "Ex post facto" just means "after the fact". There is no reason an
> ex post facto law cannot decriminalize a previous illegal action as
> well as criminalize a previous legal one.
Google "term of art".
> ________________
>
>>> It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of,
>>> such
>>> legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many
>>> violations of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid
>>> responsibility.
>>>
>>> What am I not understanding?
>>
>> The law, apparently.
>
> It seems to me he understood it quite well.
If he thinks that it is a violation of the Constitution to make a
previously unlawful act lawful and require that those convicted under
the prior law to be released, then, no, he does not understand it and
neither do you.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Morris Dovey wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>> Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:
>>>
>>> "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."
>>>
>>> and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a
>>> complete stand-alone paragraph:
>>>
>>> "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
>>>
>>> So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
>>> private conversations of very large number of American citizens
>>> were examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in
>>> the fourth amendment)...
>>
>> What "records" are these? If you are going to make accusations at
>> least be precise about them.
>
> The telco computer records of long distance calls placed by/to US
> subscribers, which has been widely covered in the news. I'm
> surprised
> that you need to ask, John.
There have been so many different accusations made concerning the NSA
that one can't keep them straight without a scorecard.
If you mean the phone bills, they belong to the telco, if the telco
wants to give them to the government it seems to me that that's the
telco's business.
>>> ...and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is now
>>> considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity
>>> for
>>> all of those fourth amendment violations?
>>
>> Huh? An "ex post facto law" allows the government to prosecute
>> someone for an act that was lawful at the time that it was
>> performed.
>> Your interpretation is rather novel.
>
> And you appear to intentionally disregard the meaning of "ex post
> facto". In general it refers to a law enacted "after the fact" which
> alters the legality of acts which took place before its passage.
> Your
> definition is only half right. Check your dictionary for
> confirmation.
No, I regard what I have been taught concerning ex post facto laws and
the purpose of that particular provision, which was to ensure that the
government could not retroactively arrest someone for violating a law
that was enacted after the action for which he was arrested was
committed. By your logic, the prohibition on ex post facto laws would
prevent the government from enacting, as part of a statute, a
provision nullifying the conviction of persons tried under that
statute prior to its repeal. I have never seen _anything_ that
suggested that this was the intent nor heard of any court decision
that ruled such a provision a violation of the Constitution.
You're assuming that "ex post facto" is a modifier of "law" rather
than that "ex post facto law" is a term of art.
>>> It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of,
>>> such legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many
>>> violations of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid
>>> responsibility.
>>>
>>> What am I not understanding?
>>
>> The law, apparently.
>
> Perhaps, which is why I asked for comments. Thank you for yours.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
r payne wrote:
> krw wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>> Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:
>>>
>>> "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."
>>>
>>> and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a
>>> complete stand-alone paragraph:
>>>
>>> "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
>>>
>>> So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
>>> private conversations of very large number of American citizens
>>> were
>>> examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the
>>> fourth amendment)...
>>
>> The conversations are private. The records of conversations are
>> not.
>
> The records are private. The conversations are private between the
> participants of the conversations and the records are private
> between
> the participants of the conversation and the company through which
> the call was made. If the telcom decided to turn over the records
> it
> can but they have thus far been reluctant out of a fear of lawsuits.
> The law is an attempt to get the records without having to get a
> court order, which may prove dificult.
Every telco except Qwest has turned over the records on request.
> Not being a lawyer (thank the powers the be), I cannot speak for ex
> post facto.
>
>>
>>
>>> ...and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is now
>>> considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity for
>>> all of those fourth amendment violations?
>>
>> The are not fourth amendment violations. The new law prevents
>> ambulance chasing (the reason it took so long to pass).
>>
>>> It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of,
>>> such legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many
>>> violations of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid
>>> responsibility.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>>> What am I not understanding?
>>
>> ANYTHING about the world around you.
>>
>> --
>> Keith
>
> That last statement shows a lack of maturity that completly
> disembowls the rest of your post.
>
> ron
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
: What am I not understanding?
That if we don't blindly do everything the administration wants,
and make sure to adjust laws as needed to make it all legal, then the
Terrorists Will Have Already Won.
-- Andy Barss
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
: I'm still trying to figure out who makes less sense, or is a bigger
: dick, you or Charlie.
Size queen, eh?
-- Andy Barss
"Charlie Self" wrote:
> oh. I am SO sorry. I just SEEM to be a leftist (whatever that is).
> I'm
> a liberal. Generally, I get alonog with people of any political
> stripe, until the start calling names. Then, they can do as I
> suggest
> you do: go fuck yourself.
You mean that dude hasn't made your kill file yet?
You must trying to piss up a rope?
Lew
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:13:18 -0500, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:
>
> "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."
>
>and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a complete
>stand-alone paragraph:
>
> "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
>
>So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of
>private conversations of very large number of American citizens were
>examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the fourth
>amendment)...
>
>...and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is now
>considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity for all
>of those fourth amendment violations?
>
>It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of, such
>legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many violations
>of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid responsibility.
>
>What am I not understanding?
Well, Morris, it's like Kris Kristoferson said, "Law Is for the Protection of
the People"
If you don't remember or haven't heard it, check it out...
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:13:18 -0500, Morris Dovey wrote:
> It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of, such
> legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many violations
> of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid responsibility.
>
> What am I not understanding?
Seems to me you understand it quite well, Morris :-).
What I don't understand is why Obama changed his stand and voted for the
bill - be interesting to see who just contributed a large sum of money to
the campaign.