Re: Favorite electronics movies

Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:43D72168.DFA8EFF@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> > Jim Yanik wrote:
> >>
> >> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> >> news:43D68AA3.A8E1F619@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> >>
> >> > Jim Thompson wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:58:53 -0800, "Richard Henry"
> >> >> <rphenry@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >wrote in message news:1qgct15o3fb3t360kce1uvajvoj5b81p6i@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> >> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:18:43 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> >> >> >> <Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Richard Henry wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >[snip]
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> I agree that monitoring communications between US citizens and
> >> >> >unfriendly
> >> >> >> >> foreigneers is in the US national interest. In fact, Congress
> >> >> >> >> agrees,
> >> >> >so
> >> >> >> >> much so that they set up a special secret court to issue the
> >> >> >> >> necessary warrants so that the Bill of Rights is not trashed in
> >> >> >> >> the process.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >That court (the FISA court) will even grant subpoenas after the
> >> >> >> >fact. So, why is George opposed to using them? My guess is that
> >> >> >> >the wiretaps in question have nothing to do with the war on
> >> >> >> >terrorism. Its more likely that the administration is venturing
> >> >> >> >into areas like industrial espionage or putting together lists of
> >> >> >> >'Friends of George' and 'Enemies of George'.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Bull puckey.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But George IS "listening" in on calls that end up yielding no
> >> >> >> subpoena-worthy information.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And you apparently have no problem with that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> If you are blind listening to calls from "over there" what do you
> >> >> >> expect?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >To end up in court on the wrong end of a warrant.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> In this day and age, I'd call it "Googling" ;-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Historically, it has been known as "spying".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You'd think on a technical newsgroup people would be more cognizant
> >> >> of the technology...
> >> >>
> >> >> The calls are "listened to" by computers looking for "key words".
> >> >
> >> > Not legally in this country without a subpoena.
> >> >
> >> >> Calls with certain key words are tagged for human examination.
> >> >
> >> > First, everyone knows about that capability. Years ago, even the
> >> > stupid terrorists started using code words or euphemisms for the
> >> > actual terminology. Second, the conversations of interest are most
> >> > probably in Arabic (one of a number of dialects), Farsi, Pashtun, etc.
> >> > The FBI, CIA nd NSA lack the language expertise to parse even the
> >> > targeted intercepts, let alone those caught by such a wide net.
> >> >
> >> > That this technique is being used suggests that it is being used
> >> > against US residents for entirely different purposes than combating
> >> > terrorism.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Do you have a problem with that?
> >> >
> >> > Yes. Its illegal.
> >> >
> >> >> If you do, may your town be the next terrorist target ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Maybe, maybe not. But spending time and money looking for porn and
> >> > closing strip clubs isn't going to stop that from happening. Read the
> >> > 9/11 Report about where the intelligence shortcomings are: They are in
> >> > data analysis, not collection. The CIA and FBI need better tools to
> >> > parse what they legally collect, not get swamped with more data.
> >> > They'd be better off throwing the con artists off the FBI IT upgrade
> >> > project and hiring somebody competent, for example.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> read this;
> >> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/24/130610.shtml?s=ic
> >>
> >> About FISA.
> >
> > That still doesn't excuse going beyond what the Patriot act authorized.
> > The administration actually asked for more powers than were granted by
> > the act and congress specifically said, 'No'. So they are intentionally
> > violating congressional intent.
> >
> > It'll be a real shame if they lose the capabilities that they have been
> > granted at present by abusing them.
> >
>
> The power of the Executive to use the military is from the Constitution,and
> no law Congress passes overrides the Constitution.An UnConstitutional law
> is as if there's no law at all.
> Even Clinton agreed with that,and I believe there was a USSC ruling cited
> in the article that supports it.
>
> Did you even read the articles I cited?

Yes. Some neocon whining about how, if we had only granted the
administration unlimited intelligence gathering power, the 9/11 attacks
could have been prevented. The 9/11 commission (and many in the
intelligence services) disagree. It was a failure to analyze data which
they already possessed which lead to the failures.

The only shortcomings that were generally agreed upon were in the area
of HUMINT (human intelligence), not ELINT.

Sorry, I just don't buy into the argument of an incompetent organization
being granted an ever larger budget and range of authority every time
they screw up as a proper fix.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ban the bomb. Save the world for conventional warfare.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy
    ... there is no "law" governing the ... that expands its power. ... war powers granted by a resolution of Congress, ... The Tenth Amendment is the cause celebre of those who know ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: OT the emperor is above the law. duh.
    ... By now it is clear to all but the fucking morons that the law is no longer what the Congress passes nor the Supreme Court interprets; the law is now whatever the President wants to do no matter what anybody says. ... They are as corrupt as the Republicans and there is no chance in Hell that they will have the moral courage to exercise any of their constitutional checks on executive and judicial abuse of power: The power to override the executive veto power, including those unconstitutional line-item vetos presidents past and present so artfully call "signing statements"; the impeachment power; the advise and consent power; or, as a last resort, the exclusive power to raise revenue, the "Power of the Purse" which is the ultimate power of the Congress over the other two branches and is unassailable except by the People themselves in the exercise of their legal right to vote or their natural right of revolution. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Rotten and Evil
    ... Our society cannot survive when those who expose the truth are criminally ... When those in power are breaking the law, are unethical, ... He has deliberately operated beyond the oversight of Congress and the ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: OT: Legit Question (I think)
    ... Why do *we* have to obey the law, ... doing to this country and the Constitution. ... There are limits to power too, ... Congress doesn't seem to think so. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: OT: Legit Question (I think)
    ... Why do *we* have to obey the law, ... if you're sharp you're probably ready to explain that the Constitution ... There are limits to power too, ... Congress is granted power to make law and individuals agree to abide ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)