Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:11:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:44:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:26:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
news:lq83731pga6t09or9tvgl3ou803pmvroq7@4ax. com...
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:00:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
news:4j737357249rflpflh5sl6asgp84flio3d@4a x.com...


Bush didn't take away any civil rights. He *gave* civil rights.
NOYB
would
not have said Bush took away our civil rights. Now, he may have
taken
away
the civil rights of some terrorists, but that's a different story.

The Patriot Act meddles with civil rights established for all
citizens
in
the constitution. To disagree with this means you are either
mentally
impaired, or a traitor to this country. Choose one.


And which of your civil rights did you lose?

You and others love to ask that question. It's the same as this: "If
you're
not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about". That is an
affront to the principles on which this country was founded. If you
don't
understand that, then 100% of what you've said about serving your
country
in
the military is a farce. You have no idea what you were serving for.
Thomas
Jefferson would rip you a new asshole for your failure to understand.
Then,
he'd send you to Benjamin Franklin for another dressing-down.


I asked which rights you'd lost, not which you were willing to give
up.
You
implied the Patriot Act cost you civil rights. Well, back up your
statement, or else you just sound like Harry, another whiner.


Among other things, the Patriot Act (which you have not read from end to
end) includes meddling with habeas corpus. If one citizen loses that
right,
every citizen loses that right.

Does this look familiar?

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"


You, being such an expert on the Patriot Act, should have no trouble
whatsoever showing us the sentence which 'meddles with' you right of
habeas
corpus.

Do so, or hush whining.


You took that oath, at least according to your stories. How did it feel,
promising to defend something you were ignorant about? What did you think
you were defending? "The country"? That's just a piece of land, like any
other. What about the principles which you so easily dismiss as trash?


Do so, or hush whining. It's so simple, and would prove your point.

You're back to your insults again. Which principles have I dismissed as
trash?

AT this point, I'd say you've dismissed the entire constitution. My
reasoning is this: You have stepped over the line by saying "Which of your
rights has been taken away?", which is an unacceptable question.

Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:11:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:44:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:26:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:00:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...


Bush didn't take away any civil rights. He *gave* civil rights.
NOYB
would
not have said Bush took away our civil rights. Now, he may have
taken
away
the civil rights of some terrorists, but that's a different story.
The Patriot Act meddles with civil rights established for all
citizens
in
the constitution. To disagree with this means you are either
mentally
impaired, or a traitor to this country. Choose one.

And which of your civil rights did you lose?
You and others love to ask that question. It's the same as this: "If
you're
not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about". That is an
affront to the principles on which this country was founded. If you
don't
understand that, then 100% of what you've said about serving your
country
in
the military is a farce. You have no idea what you were serving for.
Thomas
Jefferson would rip you a new asshole for your failure to understand.
Then,
he'd send you to Benjamin Franklin for another dressing-down.

I asked which rights you'd lost, not which you were willing to give
up.
You
implied the Patriot Act cost you civil rights. Well, back up your
statement, or else you just sound like Harry, another whiner.

Among other things, the Patriot Act (which you have not read from end to
end) includes meddling with habeas corpus. If one citizen loses that
right,
every citizen loses that right.

Does this look familiar?

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"

You, being such an expert on the Patriot Act, should have no trouble
whatsoever showing us the sentence which 'meddles with' you right of
habeas
corpus.

Do so, or hush whining.

You took that oath, at least according to your stories. How did it feel,
promising to defend something you were ignorant about? What did you think
you were defending? "The country"? That's just a piece of land, like any
other. What about the principles which you so easily dismiss as trash?

Do so, or hush whining. It's so simple, and would prove your point.

You're back to your insults again. Which principles have I dismissed as
trash?

AT this point, I'd say you've dismissed the entire constitution. My
reasoning is this: You have stepped over the line by saying "Which of your
rights has been taken away?", which is an unacceptable question.




MSNBC had a piece from the Washington post on this evening about more
revelations from the FBI regarding the substantial scope of its illegal
spying on Americans activities.
The FBI ought to be disbanded and we ought to start again. It's too
corrupt to do its job. This is the same FBI whose labs faked and
tampered with evidence in order to help local law enforcement agencies
get more convictions.

Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
 

HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:11:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:44:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:26:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:00:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...


Bush didn't take away any civil rights. He *gave* civil
rights. NOYB
would
not have said Bush took away our civil rights. Now, he may have
taken
away
the civil rights of some terrorists, but that's a different
story.
The Patriot Act meddles with civil rights established for all
citizens
in
the constitution. To disagree with this means you are either
mentally
impaired, or a traitor to this country. Choose one.

And which of your civil rights did you lose?
You and others love to ask that question. It's the same as this:
"If
you're
not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about". That
is an
affront to the principles on which this country was founded. If you
don't
understand that, then 100% of what you've said about serving your
country
in
the military is a farce. You have no idea what you were serving
for.
Thomas
Jefferson would rip you a new asshole for your failure to
understand.
Then,
he'd send you to Benjamin Franklin for another dressing-down.

I asked which rights you'd lost, not which you were willing to
give up.
You
implied the Patriot Act cost you civil rights. Well, back up your
statement, or else you just sound like Harry, another whiner.

Among other things, the Patriot Act (which you have not read from
end to
end) includes meddling with habeas corpus. If one citizen loses that
right,
every citizen loses that right.

Does this look familiar?

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend
the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"

You, being such an expert on the Patriot Act, should have no trouble
whatsoever showing us the sentence which 'meddles with' you right of
habeas
corpus.

Do so, or hush whining.

You took that oath, at least according to your stories. How did it
feel,
promising to defend something you were ignorant about? What did you
think
you were defending? "The country"? That's just a piece of land, like
any
other. What about the principles which you so easily dismiss as trash?

Do so, or hush whining. It's so simple, and would prove your point.

You're back to your insults again. Which principles have I dismissed as
trash?

AT this point, I'd say you've dismissed the entire constitution. My
reasoning is this: You have stepped over the line by saying "Which of
your rights has been taken away?", which is an unacceptable question.



MSNBC had a piece from the Washington post on this evening about more
revelations from the FBI regarding the substantial scope of its illegal
spying on Americans activities.
The FBI ought to be disbanded and we ought to start again. It's too
corrupt to do its job. This is the same FBI whose labs faked and
tampered with evidence in order to help local law enforcement agencies
get more convictions.















Here's the piece:

WP: FBI finds it overstepped in collecting data
Internal audit faults national security investigations
By John Solomon
The Washington Post
Updated: 12:27 a.m. ET June 14, 2007

An internal FBI audit has found that the bureau potentially violated the
law or agency rules more than 1,000 times while collecting data about
domestic phone calls, e-mails and financial transactions in recent
years, far more than was documented in a Justice Department report in
March that ignited bipartisan congressional criticism.

The new audit covers just 10 percent of the bureau's national security
investigations since 2002, and so the mistakes in the FBI's domestic
surveillance efforts probably number several thousand, bureau officials
said in interviews. The earlier report found 22 violations in a much
smaller sampling.

The vast majority of the new violations were instances in which
telephone companies and Internet providers gave agents phone and e-mail
records the agents did not request and were not authorized to collect.
The agents retained the information anyway in their files, which mostly
concerned suspected terrorist or espionage activities.

But two dozen of the newly-discovered violations involved agents'
requests for information that U.S. law did not allow them to have,
according to the audit results provided to The Washington Post. Only two
such examples were identified earlier in the smaller sample.

FBI officials said the results confirmed what agency supervisors and
outside critics feared, namely that many agents did not understand or
follow the required legal procedures and paperwork requirements when
collecting personal information with one of the most sensitive and
powerful intelligence-gathering tools of the post-Sept. 11 era -- the
National Security Letter, or NSL.

Such letters are uniformly secret and amount to nonnegotiable demands
for personal information -- demands that are not reviewed in advance by
a judge. After the 2001 terrorist attacks, Congress substantially eased
the rules for issuing NSLs, requiring only that the bureau certify that
the records are "sought for" or "relevant to" an investigation "to
protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence
activities."

The change -- combined with national anxiety about another domestic
terrorist event -- led to an explosive growth in the use of the letters.
More than 19,000 such letters were issued in 2005 seeking 47,000 pieces
of information, mostly from telecommunications companies. But with this
growth came abuse of the newly relaxed rules, a circumstance first
revealed in the Justice Department's March report by Inspector General
Glenn A. Fine.

"The FBI's comprehensive audit of National Security Letter use across
all field offices has confirmed the inspector general's findings that we
had inadequate internal controls for use of an invaluable investigative
tool," FBI General Counsel Valerie E. Caproni said. "Our internal audit
examined a much larger sample than the inspector general's report last
March, but we found similar percentages of NSLs that had errors."

"Since March," Caproni added, "remedies addressing every aspect of the
problem have been implemented or are well on the way."

Of the more than 1,000 violations uncovered by the new audit, about 700
involved telephone companies and other communications firms providing
information that exceeded what the FBI's national security letters had
sought. But rather than destroying the unsolicited data, agents in some
instances issued new National Security Letters to ensure that they could
keep the mistakenly provided information. Officials cited as an example
the retention of an extra month's phone records, beyond the period
specified by the agents.

‘Clear lines of responsibility’
Case agents are now told that they must identify mistakenly produced
information and isolate it from investigative files. "Human errors will
inevitably occur with third parties, but we now have a clear plan with
clear lines of responsibility to ensure errant information that is
mistakenly produced will be caught as it is produced and before it is
added to any FBI database," Caproni said.

The FBI also found that in 14 investigations, counterintelligence agents
using NSLs improperly gathered full credit reports from financial
institutions, exercising authority provided by the USA Patriot Act but
meant to be applied only in counterterrorism cases. In response, the
bureau has distributed explicit instructions that "you can't gather full
credit reports in counterintelligence cases," a senior FBI official said.

In 10 additional investigations, FBI agents used NSLs to request other
information that the relevant laws did not allow them to obtain.
Officials said that, for example, agents might have requested header
information from e-mails -- such as the subject lines -- even though
NSLs are supposed to be used to gather information only about the
e-mails' senders and the recipients, not about their content.

The FBI audit also identified three dozen violations of rules requiring
that NSLs be approved by senior officials and used only in authorized
cases. In 10 instances, agents issued National Security Letters to
collect personal data without tying the requests to specific, active
investigations -- as the law requires -- either because, in each case,
an investigative file had not been opened yet or the authorization for
an investigation had expired without being renewed.

FBI officials said the audit found no evidence to date that any agent
knowingly or willingly violated the laws or that supervisors encouraged
such violations. The Justice Department's report estimated that agents
made errors about 4 percent of the time and that third parties made
mistakes about 3 percent of the time, they said. The FBI's audit, they
noted, found a slightly higher error rate for agents -- about 5 percent
-- and a substantially higher rate of third-party errors -- about 10
percent.

The officials said they are making widespread changes to ensure that the
problems do not recur. Those changes include implementing a
corporate-style, continuous, internal compliance program to review the
bureau's policies, procedures and training, to provide regular
monitoring of employees' work by supervisors in each office, and to
conduct frequent audits to track compliance across the bureau.

The bureau is also trying to establish for NSLs clear lines of
responsibility, which were lacking in the past, officials said. Agents
who open counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations have
been told that they are solely responsible for ensuring that they do not
receive data they are not entitled to have.

The FBI audit did not turn up new instances in which another
surveillance tool known as an Exigent Circumstance Letter had been
abused, officials said. In a finding that prompted particularly strong
concerns on Capitol Hill, the Justice Department had said such letters
-- which are similar to NSLs but are meant to be used only in security
emergencies -- had been invoked hundreds of times in "non-emergency
circumstances" to obtain detailed phone records, mostly without the
required links to active investigations.

Many of those letters were improperly dispatched by the bureau's
Communications Analysis Unit, a central clearinghouse for the analysis
of telephone records such as those gathered with the help of "exigent"
letters and National Security Letters. Justice Department and FBI
investigators are trying to determine if any FBI headquarters officials
should be held accountable or punished for those abuses, and have begun
advising agents of their due process rights during interviews.

The FBI audit will be completed in the coming weeks, and Congress will
be briefed on the results, officials said. FBI officials said each
potential violation will then be extensively reviewed by lawyers to
determine if it must be reported to the Intelligence Oversight Board, a
presidential panel of senior intelligence officials created to safeguard
civil liberties.

The officials said the final tally of violations that are serious enough
to be reported to the panel might be much less than the number turned up
by the audit, noting that only five of the 22 potential violations
identified by the Justice Department's inspector general this spring
were ultimately deemed to be reportable.

"We expect that percentage will hold or be similar when we get through
the hundreds of potential violations identified here," said a senior FBI
official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the bureau's
findings have not yet been made public.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19215531/

Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:17:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:10:42 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:00:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
news:4j737357249rflpflh5sl6asgp84flio3d@ 4ax.com...


Bush didn't take away any civil rights. He *gave* civil rights.
NOYB
would
not have said Bush took away our civil rights. Now, he may have
taken away
the civil rights of some terrorists, but that's a different
story.

The Patriot Act meddles with civil rights established for all
citizens
in
the constitution. To disagree with this means you are either
mentally
impaired, or a traitor to this country. Choose one.


And which of your civil rights did you lose?

You and others love to ask that question. It's the same as this:
"If
you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about".
That
is an affront to the principles on which this country was founded.
If
you don't understand that, then 100% of what you've said about
serving
your country in the military is a farce. You have no idea what you
were
serving for. Thomas Jefferson would rip you a new asshole for your
failure to understand. Then, he'd send you to Benjamin Franklin for
another dressing-down.


Blah, blah, blah. So back to the question...

Which civil rights did you lose?


I haven't lost any, yet. But, as Fred pointed out....first they came
for
the Jews.

So which of your Jewish friends lost their civil rights? And for that
matter, which of your Muslim friends have lost 'em?


Wrong questions.

One citizen THAT WE KNOW OF has been denied his rights. That means the
door
is open for the government to pull the same stunt on anyone, for
whatever
reason comes from a president who imagines he is the queen.

These things grant too much power. You probably won't understand the
potential for abuse because it's a little after 5:00 and you're about to
shut off your brain until tomorrow:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/


You're full of your canned insults, but can't answer simple questions.

Simple questions were answered in your 8th grade civics class. Were you
there?


Still not answered.

The questions about my Jewish and Muslim friends? Those questions?

Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:20:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:37:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:00:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
news:4j737357249rflpflh5sl6asgp84flio3d@4a x.com...


Bush didn't take away any civil rights. He *gave* civil rights.
NOYB
would
not have said Bush took away our civil rights. Now, he may have
taken
away
the civil rights of some terrorists, but that's a different story.

The Patriot Act meddles with civil rights established for all
citizens
in
the constitution. To disagree with this means you are either
mentally
impaired, or a traitor to this country. Choose one.


And which of your civil rights did you lose?

You and others love to ask that question. It's the same as this: "If
you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about".
That
is an affront to the principles on which this country was founded. If
you
don't understand that, then 100% of what you've said about serving
your
country in the military is a farce. You have no idea what you were
serving for. Thomas Jefferson would rip you a new asshole for your
failure to understand. Then, he'd send you to Benjamin Franklin for
another dressing-down.


Blah, blah, blah. So back to the question...

Which civil rights did you lose?


I haven't lost any, yet. But, as Fred pointed out....first they came for
the
Jews.

Thank you. No, they haven't come for the Jews yet. You just said you've
not
lost any civil rights. Why use such a stupid analogy?


We know of one citizen whose rights were removed. Tell me why you think
this
government wouldn't do it again, especially since it has been CODIFIED. Go
look up "codified" before you respond.

We also know that legal firearms were confiscated from law abiding
citizens
in New Orleans in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. This had nothing to
do
with the Patriot Act, but it's still a clear indication of what the
government is capable of when it chooses to dismantle the law.

You trust too much.


You've still not answered the question. But, you continue your attempts at
being insulting.

What was insulting? My telling you that you trust too much?

Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:21:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:43:29 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message
...
In message , JoeSpareBedroom
sprach forth the following:

"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in
message
...
In message , JoeSpareBedroom
sprach forth the following:

Does this look familiar?

Not to any federal officeholder of the past 40 years not named "Ron
Paul".


"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same;"


Let's see what, if anything JohnH has to say about that oath.

What do YOU?

I say don't swear to defend something that only has symbolic meaning.
But,
the constitution is as real as tonight's dinner.


Then why are so many of your 'leaders' so willing to change it?

Just to be clear before we continue, who do you mean by "my leaders"?


Use your definition.

No. That would cause us to waste time. Your definition, or you'll have to
use Oreos to be satisfied tonight.

Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
 

"John H." wrote in message
...


AT this point, I'd say you've dismissed the entire constitution. My
reasoning is this: You have stepped over the line by saying "Which of
your
rights has been taken away?", which is an unacceptable question.


From earlier post:

NOYB: Which civil rights did you lose?

Joe (AKA Doug): I haven't lost any, yet.

You've appropriately answered the 'unacceptable' question.


So, you're OK with the government creating a rule that violates the
constitution, and using that new rule against

****CITIZENS*****

as long as it does not affect you?

Yes, or no.

Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
 

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:00:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .


Bush didn't take away any civil rights. He *gave* civil rights. NOYB would
not have said Bush took away our civil rights. Now, he may have taken away
the civil rights of some terrorists, but that's a different story.

The Patriot Act meddles with civil rights established for all citizens in
the constitution. To disagree with this means you are either mentally
impaired, or a traitor to this country. Choose one.


Wow! Choices. Let's see...mentally impaired or a traitor to this
contry...Ummm. Mentally impaired or a traitor to this
country...which to choose.
Arrg! I just can't make up my mind.
Mark E. Williams

Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:37:30 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

You took that oath, at least according to your stories. How did it feel,
promising to defend something you were ignorant about? What did you
*think* you were defending? "The country"? That's just a piece of land,
like any other. What about the principles which you so easily dismiss as
trash?

"think" ?? John was in the army, an an officer to boot.


And Donnie can offer nothing to the discussion *but* insults.

Donnie, save gas and hush.

You consider being called an officer in the army an insult...?
What would the American Legion think of you?

Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:37:30 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

You took that oath, at least according to your stories. How did it
feel,
promising to defend something you were ignorant about? What did you
*think* you were defending? "The country"? That's just a piece of land,
like any other. What about the principles which you so easily dismiss
as
trash?

"think" ?? John was in the army, an an officer to boot.


And Donnie can offer nothing to the discussion *but* insults.

Donnie, save gas and hush.

You consider being called an officer in the army an insult...?
What would the American Legion think of you?



This is getting confusing, but I'm 100% sure that's the goal to begin with.
Muddy the facts, avoid logic, keep the masses scared. Very much like a
certain malformed shrub that'll be going to seed in 2008.