How come everyone and everything you disagree with is labeled "little"?--Kitt

Every time you post to me you sound like a middle school kid. Are you?

-- bucky1

Like I said, bucky, you call everyone and everything you don't like 'little'. Not just me. So your excuse, - which is an ironical excuse since your frequent use of 'little' makes you come off as childish - it doesn't fly.

By the way, I noticed that you couldn't bring yourself to say a simple 'thanks' for my having posted something you might like, in the middle of one of your tantrums, so as to lighten the tone. Not very 'big' of you.

Go back to your rubber room where you belong. You give everyone here a bad name.

-- Titus Pullo

Lawdy, Lawdy, That's a contest winner in the category of Ironical coming from the likes this TP character.

Not sure why you addressed that at me. I have no care for Ron Paul. I just posted that talkingpoints video link because I, once again, got tired of bucky's bashing posts that so frequently include the word 'little'. So I tried to give him something to calm down with. Didn't work, though.

Don't forget. He is on in about two minutes from now.

like what little boys do.(my emphasis)

-- bucky1

Jury of twelve (The "Cabal") convicts bucky on his own words.

Privacy is a world lost or word lost. Mr. Greenwalds privacy is stored with multiple business, governmental, and personal entities. Every food purchase, movie rental, website visited, earnings, etc.. is recorded.

Greenwald's ego blinds him to the truth. Intelligent and articulate yes, but unwise. He's fighting (delusional) a battle that was ceded when society lashed itself to the oxcart of convienience, "modern technology".

-- punkout

I see. So it would be all right with you if there were cameras on every corner that could see through our clothes? It would be all right with you if there were security persons on every corner who had the right to strip search anyone of us...in front of anyone who happened to be passing by at any given time?

Since "the oxcart of convieniece" (whatever the f' that's supposed to mean) has been wheeled in you now see no reason to make any attempts to curb the privacy intrusions of the Government. Even though the government itself does any and all of this in complete secrecy?

When did some Americans forget what America is supposed to be about?

Read c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y

KITT

-- punkout

No, you try reading carefully, punkout.

Repeating the same daft droll you said the first time, only prefaced with a smart ass introduction, doesn't change anything or address anything new. Do you think you are the only one in America who is aware of scanners at the grocery store?

Simplistic 'Be afraid, be very afraid', type rhetoric is not making conversation or bringing in new information. It's just regurgitating simplistic rhetoric in a feeble attempt to voice some big deal conclusion that we are all supposed to stand up and take notice of.

And Saddam had attacked us, or perhaps you forget all those missle launches at American and British aircraft,

-- Porthos

If Iraq or some other country or region had decided to make constant and illegal flights over parts of America, bombing things at will daily, I hope we would have attempted, as Iraq did, to shoot down the aircrafts. We don't have the right to do any damn thing we please anywhere in the world, and then expect to suffer no consequences.

Some information about the illegal no fly zones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

Porthos

... And Saddam had attacked us, or perhaps you forget all those missle launches at American and British aircraft,

Porthos has that same post at the The Strong... whatever thread. I answered him over there much in the same way that he has been answered over here.

Porthos

... And Saddam had attacked us, or perhaps you forget all those missle launches at American and British aircraft,

Here is more on that:

The Embarrassment and Illegality of the No-Fly Zones

by Jacob G. Hornberger, November 21, 2002

President Bush's "zero tolerance" for Iraqi violations of UN resolutions has apparently dropped to "two percent tolerance." According to administration officials, Iraqi forces have once again fired on U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zones in Iraq, which U.S. officials had previously claimed would constitute an immediate justification for invading Iraq, not only under the principle of "self-defense" but also for violation of the recently passed UN resolution.

The Bush administration, however, is backing off and so far is not using the shootings as a "self-defense" excuse to invade Iraq, and so far isn't even taking the matter to the UN Security Council.

There's a very good reason for the government's decision: Despite their mild protestations to the contrary, U.S. officials know that the no-fly zones have been illegal from the get-go. And their decision not to use either "self-defense" or violation of the UN resolution as a justification for invading Iraq is an implicit acknowledgment of that illegality.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0211h.asp

What does the legislation actually say?

When Cunningham says "...I'd like Ms. Martin to point me to a word in this legislation that talks about communications where a person is located inside the United States..." what was her response?

Can anyone (Glen?) provide excerpts of the relevant problematic portions of the legislation? If not, then this is all just spin...

The legislations says the following:

From the NewHour transcript in direct reply the question you asked about:

KATE MARTIN: Well, it's very clear. It says "surveillance directed at people overseas." Millions of people overseas have communications with people in the United States. And it's those communications that go out from overseas to the United States or the United States to overseas that are clearly covered by this. And, in fact, there was a separate provision that said "foreign-to-foreign." The administration said no to that provision.