Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomCube.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: In England, there is no fourth amendment. [Re: Redstorm]
    #8693353 - 07/28/08 05:34 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Find me the authority that says they were.





The Federal Wiretap Act of 1968

"Dealt with wire and electronic communications interceptions in the United States. A violation was punishable by fine, imprisonment for up to five years, or both. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) amended the Wiretap Act of 1968 and prohibited certain access, use, and distribution of wire and electronic communications.
The ECPA applied to businesses, private citizens, and government agencies."

http://www.yourdictionary.com/the-federal-wiretap-act-of-1968-and-the-electronic-communications-privacy-act-of-1986

FISA also prohibited the government from performing surveillance on parties that included US citizens unless a warrant was obtained.  Well, before it was ammended, anyways. 

"If a United States person is involved, judicial authorization was required within 72 hours after surveillance begins" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

If those two aren't enough, then the 4th ammendment to the Constitution should step in.

Bush is in clear violation of these protective measures.  Notice the first one describes possible imprissonment for up to 5 years.  Think he'll be sentenced? :rofl:


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: In England, there is no fourth amendment. [Re: Mr Me]
    #8693366 - 07/28/08 05:38 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Was JFK a communist sympathiser




I heard he got a bullet for signing Executive Order 11,110, which would essentially take much power from the Federal Reserve by authorizing the Treasury to issue $4.2 billion in silver certificates that would circulate alongside FRNs.  Who knows?


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: In England, there is no fourth amendment. [Re: Mr Me]
    #8693439 - 07/28/08 05:58 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Mr Me said:
Bush puts his name to statements made by lobbyists, lawmakers who hide behind him, and are accountable to none. By signing these statements, Bush has proven he is evil, but what happened to the last president that tried to stop the corruption in the US?




which president would that be? certainly not kenedy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Directive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_%28United_States%29


every president issues executive orders or security directives,
each one issues secret ones as well, these are the one we'll never see

there's a really odd numbering system in place if we're seeing
what's really been issued

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: In England, there is no fourth amendment. [Re: Mr Me]
    #8694055 - 07/28/08 07:56 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Mr Me said:  He signs statements allowing things like ..., or "US citizens can have habeas corpus, unless they are an enemy combatant" Then it's no holds barred torture, including to children




Source?

I'm not familiar this has happened.


I believe the administration has always said US citizens were due habeas, just that the president can detain them- but then they relented on that position, which was the furthest they took.



Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

Find me the authority that says they were.





The Federal Wiretap Act of 1968

"Dealt with wire and electronic communications interceptions in the United States. A violation was punishable by fine, imprisonment for up to five years, or both. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) amended the Wiretap Act of 1968 and prohibited certain access, use, and distribution of wire and electronic communications.
The ECPA applied to businesses, private citizens, and government agencies."

http://www.yourdictionary.com/the-federal-wiretap-act-of-1968-and-the-electronic-communications-privacy-act-of-1986

FISA also prohibited the government from performing surveillance on parties that included US citizens unless a warrant was obtained.  Well, before it was ammended, anyways. 

"If a United States person is involved, judicial authorization was required within 72 hours after surveillance begins" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

If those two aren't enough, then the 4th ammendment to the Constitution should step in.

Bush is in clear violation of these protective measures.  Notice the first one describes possible imprissonment for up to 5 years.  Think he'll be sentenced? :rofl:




Bush claims constitutional authority, so I don't know why you cite statutes.

Quote:

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States






The fourth only procludes unreasonable search.  It is argued that the monitoring when directed at enemies of the state is a military function given to the president.

I agree he should be barred from using such inteligence to seek to enforce civilian crimes.

I believe there is judicial recognition of this view, however; I don't recall it at the moment and the news stories are absolutely terrible in covering this issue, so they're no help.

Look at the prior discusions here though.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineVisionary Tools
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/23/07
Posts: 7,953
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: In England, there is no fourth amendment. [Re: johnm214]
    #8696070 - 07/29/08 05:56 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

Mr Me said:  He signs statements allowing things like ..., or "US citizens can have habeas corpus, unless they are an enemy combatant" Then it's no holds barred torture, including to children




Source?

I'm not familiar this has happened.

I believe the administration has always said US citizens were due habeas, just that the president can detain them- but then they relented on that position, which was the furthest they took.





http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6167856
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html

Before, it was done illegally and covertly. Anyone that tried to blow the whistle would either get ridiculed or silenced. Making it legal means so many more people can be detained with any criteria they wish

As damning as it is, what really concerns me is the sexual torture of children. I think some empathsis is needed on that. Here's John Yoo fantasising about the hell that will be visited upon children

Quote:

During a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel, John Yoo gave the green light for the scope of torture to legally include sexual torture of infants.

Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

Click here for the audio.

So if the President thinks he needs to order children's penises to be put in vices, there is no law that can stop him and after last night's vote, the Senate and Congress, exemplified by sicko 16-year-old boy groomer Mark Foley (R-FL) , has graciously provided Bush its full support for kids around the world to be molested in the name of stopping terror.

Yoo's comments were made before the passage of the torture legislation last night. Up until that point Bush had merely cited his role as dictator-in-chief as carte-blanche excuse for ordering torture - now his regime have the audacity to openly put it in writing - going one step further than even the Nazis did.
link





Here's an example of "unlawful enemy combatant" already happening

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/28/opinion/oe-ackerman28


Quote:

Railroading injustice

By Bruce Ackerman
September 28, 2006

BURIED IN THE complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.

This dangerous compromise not only authorizes the president to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our troops “during an armed conflict,” it also allows him to seize anybody who has “purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.” This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison.

Not to worry, say the bill’s defenders. The president can’t detain somebody who has given money innocently, just those who contributed to terrorists on purpose.

But other provisions of the bill call even this limitation into question. What is worse, if the federal courts support the president’s initial detention decision, ordinary Americans would be required to defend themselves before a military tribunal without the constitutional guarantees provided in criminal trials.

Legal residents who aren’t citizens are treated even more harshly. The bill entirely cuts off their access to federal habeas corpus, leaving them at the mercy of the president’s suspicions.

We are not dealing with hypothetical abuses. The president has already subjected a citizen to military confinement. Consider the case of Jose Padilla. A few months after 9/11, he was seized by the Bush administration as an “enemy combatant” upon his arrival at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. He was wearing civilian clothes and had no weapons. Despite his American citizenship, he was held for more than three years in a military brig, without any chance to challenge his detention before a military or civilian tribunal. After a federal appellate court upheld the president’s extraordinary action, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, handing the administration’s lawyers a terrible precedent.

The new bill, if passed, would further entrench presidential power. At the very least, it would encourage the Supreme Court to draw an invidious distinction between citizens and legal residents. There are tens of millions of legal immigrants living among us, and the bill encourages the justices to uphold mass detentions without the semblance of judicial review.

But the bill also reinforces the presidential claims, made in the Padilla case, that the commander in chief has the right to designate a U.S. citizen on American soil as an enemy combatant and subject him to military justice. Congress is poised to authorized this presidential overreaching. Under existing constitutional doctrine, this show of explicit congressional support would be a key factor that the Supreme Court would consider in assessing the limits of presidential authority.

This is no time to play politics with our fundamental freedoms. Even without this massive congressional expansion of the class of enemy combatants, it is by no means clear that the present Supreme Court will protect the Bill of Rights. The Korematsu case – upholding the military detention of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War II – has never been explicitly overruled. It will be tough for the high court to condemn this notorious decision, especially if passions are inflamed by another terrorist incident. But congressional support of presidential power will make it much easier to extend the Korematsu decision to future mass seizures.

Though it may not feel that way, we are living at a moment of relative calm. It would be tragic if the Republican leadership rammed through an election-year measure that would haunt all of us on the morning after the next terrorist attack.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

Directly, this man has done nothing wrong, so can't be brought to justice. Such an upstanding member of the legal society.

Can anyone here tell me how raping and torturing children infront of their family makes the US, or any ally nation, a safer place to live in?

Would this make people understand why the Iraqi's want the occupying armies out?

Quote:

Excerpt from statement provided by Kasim Mehaddi Hilas, Detainee #151108, on January 18 2004:

    I saw [name deleted] fucking a kid, his age would be about 15 - 18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard the screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn't covered and I saw [name deleted] who was wearing the military uniform putting his dick in the little kid's ass. I couldn't see the face of the kid because his face wasn't in front of the door. And the female soldier was taking pictures. [name deleted], I think he is [deleted] because of his accent, and he was not skinny or short, and he acted like a homosexual (gay). And that was in cell #23 as best as I remember.




--------------------

Edited by Visionary Tools (07/29/08 05:57 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: In England, there is no fourth amendment. [Re: johnm214]
    #8696233 - 07/29/08 07:26 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

It is argued that the monitoring when directed at enemies of the state is a military function given to the president.




Yes, I realize that excuse has been used, but the other acts are pretty explicit on what authority the law does and doesn't have.  And as for him claiming Constitutional authroity, that's a joke.  That man shouldn't even cite the Constitution because he doesn't even know what it says.  According to it, his war is illegal.  Bush just cherry-picks the parts that are conducive to his reign and bullshit war and ignores the parts that would hamper him.

I'm not saying you're making excuses for him, but I'm saying that he shouldn't be using such excuses.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.

Edited by pothead_bob (07/29/08 07:27 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
Re: In England, there is no fourth amendment. [Re: pothead_bob]
    #8696462 - 07/29/08 08:51 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

According to it, his war is illegal.




What part of the Constitution?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: In England, there is no fourth amendment. [Re: Redstorm]
    #8696695 - 07/29/08 10:09 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution:

Quote:

Summary of Article VI. The article states that international treaties such as the U.N. Charter, which was ratified by the US in 1945, are the “supreme law of the land.” The article reads:“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” [US Constitution]


Violation. The United States Congress violated Article VI of the Constitution when it passed Joint Congressional Joint Resolution 46 [S.J. Res 46] 'authorizing' the President to order "the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." The President then violated this article when he ordered the commencement of the official invasion of Iraq


.

http://www.thefourreasons.org/iraqinvasion.html

Bush not only violated the Constitution, but he also violated the resolution that permitted him to attack another country in the first place by never proving a relationship between Iraq and 9/11.

Joint resoultion states:

Quote:

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.




http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqwar.html

They didn't pose a threat, they weren't "in" on 9/11, so why are we still there and why did we go in the first place?

The man's a fucking criminal and he should be impeached and then imprisoned for the amount of destruction, destabilizing, and loss of life that he caused.

Edited by pothead_bob (07/29/08 10:19 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSoY
I am the LizardKing
 User Gallery


Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 774
Loc: Everywhere
Re: In England, there is no fourth amendment. [Re: pothead_bob]
    #8697307 - 07/29/08 12:41 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

the commander in chief has the right to designate a U.S. citizen on American soil as an enemy combatant and subject him to military justice.




People should be outraged by this.  It is our duty as American citizens to prevent our government from attaining this kind of ability.  This authority is not in the jurisdiction of the POTUS but rather of monarchs and dictators.  Some shortsighted persons will argue that these measures are for our protection, and that they haven't been used maliciously yet.  They are completely missing the point. 

The concept of *liberty* in America is founded on the belief that no one has any authority over a sovereign individual and no one is permitted to encroach on the liberty of another.  The spirit of the law exists to prevent such abuses of individuals' sovereignty, not to chip away at it.  The idea was to build a model of civilization different from the tyranny of a controlling monarchy (England).

The government is supposed to be a background structure that repels outside invasions, coins money, and preserves the constitution.  That's about it.


--------------------

"The choiceless truth of who you are is revealed to be permanently here permeating everything. Not a thing and not separate from anything."--Gaganji
"Yesterday is but today's memory and tomorrow is today's dream."
"My karma ran over my dogma!"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: In England, there is no fourth amendment. [Re: SoY]
    #8697410 - 07/29/08 01:05 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

The government is supposed to be a background structure that repels outside invasions, coins money, and preserves the constitution.  That's about it.




:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Give the power back to the states.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: In England, there is no fourth amendment. [Re: pothead_bob]
    #8699307 - 07/29/08 08:24 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

states tried taking their rights back some years ago but something
happened that ended up saying that states right are no longer in
existence, I think they called it a civil war

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: In England, there is no fourth amendment. [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #8699612 - 07/29/08 09:28 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Yeah, fuck the civil war.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: In England, there is no fourth amendment. [Re: pothead_bob]
    #8701028 - 07/30/08 06:11 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

*start another civil war

it's obvious that voting for ron paul wont bring back states right

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: In England, there is no fourth amendment. [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #8701070 - 07/30/08 06:53 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

I don't think that war is always the answer.

And, yes, I believe that voting for Ron Paul is a step in the right direction, which is why I voted for him in my primary.  How do you expect to make change if you don't take the first step?


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: In England, there is no fourth amendment. [Re: pothead_bob]
    #8703183 - 07/30/08 04:24 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

revolution, civil war, nuclear haulocaust

all first steps

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: In England, there is no fourth amendment. [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #8703225 - 07/30/08 04:32 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

As I said before, I believe that war is hardly the answer.  I don't think America is such a shithole that we need large-scale violence.  But if that's your opinion... I might ask where you plan on getting a nuclear warhead from.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: In England, there is no fourth amendment. [Re: pothead_bob]
    #8703337 - 07/30/08 04:57 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

I was hoping that would be the way things progressed, as for the
bomb, I thought I'd ask for one,I'll even say please

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: In England, there is no fourth amendment. [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #8703354 - 07/30/08 05:00 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Sounds reasonable... I'd try Nevada.  If they give you any guff, best to shoot for North Korea.  Might even be able to get them to launch it for you.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: In England, there is no fourth amendment. [Re: pothead_bob]
    #8703377 - 07/30/08 05:06 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

revolution doesnt have to be violent, it just has to be organized

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: In England, there is no fourth amendment. [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #8703810 - 07/30/08 06:42 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Well, that's precisley what Ron Paul was running on.  A revolution using the inner-workings of the current American system.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Top 12 Media Myths and Falsehoods on the Wiretapping, By Media Matters.org
( 1 2 3 all )
Twirling 5,138 50 04/16/06 11:52 AM
by Twirling
* For Your Security, Wiretaps Without Court Orders !!!??? SirTripAlot 756 2 12/16/05 11:32 AM
by daimyo
* Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of Interest Luddite 1,159 13 08/27/06 03:23 PM
by SquattingMarmot
* 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
dee_N_ae 13,932 131 09/19/02 01:08 PM
by francisco
* FISA Court Ruled Warrantless Wiretaps of Foreigners Illegal, prompting FISA Amendment johnm214 389 0 09/03/07 09:16 PM
by johnm214
* The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law Evolving 3,494 17 02/10/04 01:28 PM
by silversoul7
* Lileks on the Left's Confused Reaction to the Canadian Terrorists
( 1 2 3 all )
Phred 3,523 40 06/10/06 10:52 AM
by Redstorm
* Oppose Government Surveillance of Peaceful Protestors silversoul7 1,273 14 02/19/06 01:07 AM
by beatnicknick

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
1,976 topic views. 1 members, 5 guests and 18 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.