Saddam's lawyer

[Matt]

I don't care about any negative press about "my country".

Why do you about yours?

Reputable negative press I don't care about. Ignorant, poorly-focused and biased negative press I care about, as a journalism student and as a decent human being.

So, you care a fair bit about the reputation of your country, yet expect to uphold that reputation against any criticism by doing nothing except asking the critics to stop?

I'm asking the critics who make obviously ignorant and biased comments to stop. It makes them look a lot worse than us.

[drakkie]

I'm asking the critics who make obviously ignorant and biased comments to stop. It makes them look a lot worse than us.

You want me with my still not too good vocabulary of english to write a very poorly written book ? My posts might lack a bit in the informational side, simpy because i can put it to words properly.

However calling me uninformed might be a bit off. I watch documentaries,read newspaper articles and many more about these matters. All from respected and mostly neutral sources (BBC,Dutch national tv,NRC Handelsblad paper, AD and plenty more). I also have contact with a Iraqi family and a dutch ex-soldier who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. They told things quite different from mainstream media. Overall, i dont think i am uninformed in this case.

Ignorant ? Not much i'd say.Atleast i try to also view both sides. One side mostly consists of propaganda though Biased ? Obviously. But what made me become biased ? Think about that and you'll realise the cause of all this behaviour by so many.

[drakkie]

Would you explain exactly how how the U.S. government is "infringing" on my privacy?

For example the Inet providers must supply the government with all their customers data.The need to provide all moves made by them and all pages visited,with complete data. They can basically track almost all your moves.

IIRC they can tap any phone they want without ever needing some judge's approval (not 100% sure).

and many more.

Luckily the EU denied them acces,which they were demanding.

Edit:
Read this stuff and you'll a bit know more about it.
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf

[Matt]

For example the Inet providers must supply the government with all their customers data.The need to provide all moves made by them and all pages visited,with complete data. They can basically track almost all your moves.

IIRC they can tap any phone they want without ever needing some judge's approval (not 100% sure).

and many more.

Luckily the EU denied them acces,which they were demanding.

Edit:
Read this stuff and you'll a bit know more about it.
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf

When I'm talking about ignorance, I'm talking about this. The government has not demanded the records from any ISP. They have requested them and MOST of the providers have handed them over with no complaints. True, about the phone tapping. This was done with no congressional permission or oversight. It also looks as if the actions will be found to be unconstitutional and illegal.

[drakkie]

When I'm talking about ignorance, I'm talking about this. The government has not demanded the records from any ISP. They have requested them and MOST of the providers have handed them over with no complaints. True, about the phone tapping. This was done with no congressional permission or oversight. It also looks as if the actions will be found to be unconstitutional and illegal.

Well if I am reading the patriot act thingy it seems to me,that they were kind of forced to. They would have gotten sued or something otherwise If i am wrong, please quote the correct sentence. If possible explain it a bit,my english aint to good with these difficult words.They rarely pop-up on school

And IIRC they DID demand them of the European providers.They just didnt give them and the EU defended them.

[man 430gt]

bahahaha

Have you not noticed that almost everything he has posted lately is anti-US oriented material?

I have not really Keeping track of his post lately, don't really do that with anyone..

As for everyone saying how he's soo anti-american, who cares? Be you business and avoid the thread give your opinion on material posted, just don't bring it back to the member sharing it..

How about that to agree on?

[Fleet 500]

True, about the phone tapping. This was done with no congressional permission or oversight. It also looks as if the actions will be found to be unconstitutional and illegal.

Actually, Congress knew about and approved it. It is perfectly legal because the president has executive privilege and also has the War Act to go by.
It is nowhere near being unconstitutional and/or illegal. Not at all.

[Fleet 500]

so here you implicitly admit that your privacy is being breached

Nope. During a time of war, certain things are allowed. Wiretaps, in conjunction with the Patriot Act, has prevented at least a half-dozen terrorist acts.
Do I put the safety of the country above the privacy of overseas phone calls? Most definitely!

[henk4]

Nope. During a time of war, certain things are allowed. Wiretaps, in conjunction with the Patriot Act, has prevented at least a half-dozen terrorist acts.
Do I put the safety of the country above the privacy of overseas phone calls? Most definitely!

so under Clinton you were also already at war?

[Mr.Tiv]

Nope. During a time of war, certain things are allowed. Wiretaps, in conjunction with the Patriot Act, has prevented at least a half-dozen terrorist acts.
Do I put the safety of the country above the privacy of overseas phone calls? Most definitely!

I don't know the satas on the first part, but the second is yet to be decided.

[Fleet 500]

For example the Inet providers must supply the government with all their customers data.The need to provide all moves made by them and all pages visited,with complete data. They can basically track almost all your moves.

Matt already answered this for me.

IIRC they can tap any phone they want without ever needing some judge's approval (not 100% sure).

and many more.

You're right; you're not sure. They don't need a judge's approval because many times they don't know if a call they are tapping will reveal any useful information. They can't ask for a judge's approval for every single (thousands) of phone calls!

So what are the "many more?"

[Fleet 500]

so under Clinton you were also already at war?

No, and that's the point. These things were done under Clinton when we weren't at war; they are now being done under Bush when we are. And all I hear are dummies (not you) calling Bush "Hitler," "idiot," "criminal" or whatever.

There have been terrorist attacks in this country (9/11, of course)... I want the government to do what is necessary to prevent another one, whether it's by wiretaps, checking emails, whatever.

[henk4]

No, and that's the point. These things were done under Clinton when we weren't at war; they are now being done under Bush when we are. And all I hear are dummies (not you) calling Bush "Hitler," "idiot," "criminal" or whatever.

There have been terrorist attacks in this country (9/11, of course)... I want the government to do what is necessary to prevent another one, whether it's by wiretaps, checking emails, whatever.

so the practice had been going on long before 9/11....and still 9/11 could not be prevented. Is that what you are saying?

[Mr.Tiv]

so the practice had been going on long before 9/11....and still 9/11 could not be prevented. Is that what you are saying?

That sounds fair.

[henk4]

That sounds fair.

was it intensified after 9/11?