Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Important emails (Score 1) 184

Now you are also wrong about the findings a court makes. It does not find that a violation of a law happened, the find that it's possible it happened and the case determines if it happened or not. Often, after the court has taken testimony and tried the facts, it is determined that a law was not broken.

I really don't know why I discuss things with you, as you've repeatedly demonstrated you're as dumb as a post.

Courts, before they listen to any facts, they determine whether or not it would constitute a violation of the law if those facts proved what the prosecutor wanted. There is something called a question of law, which is entirely distinct from the question of facts which is the trial itself.

As an example you may be able to understand, let us say the police arrest me for turning right on a red light. In some jurisdictions, where that is illegal, there would actually be a case there, where people would introduce evidence and witnesses.

In other places, where that is legal, the case would be thrown on the finding of law that such behavior is not actually illegal, regardless of what I actually did or didn't do. The person's 'guilt' or 'innocence' doesn't enter into it, because said behavior isn't actually a crime.

Now, hold that thought, and let's get back to what you said. And I'll quote 'Not one creditable judge has said the wire taping was illegal'.

Judges can, in fact, do that. They can say something isn't a crime. That would be a finding of law. They can stand there and say 'The behavior that this person is accused of is not a crime, case dismissed.'. They do this first, before any evidence is presented. (Because, obviously, it doesn't depend on any evidence.)

They did not do that in this case. They got past that little hurdle, and then threw out the case due to lack of evidence. (Strictly speaking, it was lack of evidence of standing, not lack of evidence of the crime itself, but that amounts to the same thing here.)

In other words, according to the court, the US government has not been proven to have done specific acts which the courts thinks would be illegal. They said, quite clearly to anyone who knows that the slightest bit about courts, that they think that behavior might be illegal but that it cannot be proven the government actually did it.

Incidentally, your claim that the judge who originally found them guilty was operating in an unprofessional manner is idiotic.

The first judge found them guilty because he accepted, into evidence, a document that the government had mistakenly given the ACLU demonstrating that the person in the suit was wiretapped.

On appeal, another judge refused to let that be entered as evidence, allowing the government to claim 'national security' for a document already publically published, and hence the ACLU had no evidence of the wiretapping.

You're arguing that it is incorrect behavior for judges to admit documents into evidence.

Now congress believed the president had this power constitutionally in 1967-68, so how did it disappear without any constitutional amendments?

'Congress' is not in charge of what constitutional powers the president has, you moron. The Constitution is.

Now, I like the way you attempted to phrase this whole phone tap business as openly as possible to make it appear that the government was listening to you tell Aunt Betty, mom's cookie recipe, but the reality of it is a lot different. The phone taps were only on people who were in contact with known terrorist and one end of the phone call was from outside the country. No one who has had any insight into the program, and yes, that includes democrats too, has ever made the claim otherwise.

Yeah, no one's suggested that.

'As part of that investigation, a senior F.B.I. agent recently came forward with what the inspector generalâ(TM)s office described as accusations of âoesignificant misconductâ in the surveillance program, people with knowledge of the investigation said. Those accusations are said to involve whether the N.S.A. made Americans targets in eavesdropping operations based on insufficient evidence tying them to terrorism.'

Oh, and before you argue against that link, I have to point out your claim was, in fact, that 'no one has made the claim otherwise', which is, quite clearly, 100%, a lie. Regardless of the truth, those claims have, in fact, been made by people knowledgeable with the program, and the NSA itself admitted there were problems. (Although they assert they're all accidental.)

Of course, in your case, it's because you're operating from zero knowledge, so, strictly speaking, you're not 'lying', you're just ignorant.

Uh.. Yea you did. Go back and read what you wrote. Now, I'm willing to accept that you didn't mean it to sound that way, but that's the message you put across.

This is because you are an imbecilic who can't read the names of posters.

OMG, you are a moron. How do you know anyone has committed a felony? You do not until they go to court and get convicted of their crime. But it's worse with you. You seem to be supporting locking up relatives, aids and anyone else who may not even have known of the felonies that haven't been proved to of happened. Like I said, I expect better from you. I'm wondering if you hit your head or something and all the sudden became stupid.

Ah, yes. The supporter of the Bush administration whining that we need trials before locking people up in Gitmo. And ignoring the fact that the Bush administration seemed to have no problem with locking up relatives of people who were themselves just vaguely slandered with terrorism by warlords.

It's funny how it's suddenly 'Rule of law!' when it's guys 'on your side', isn't it?

Comment Re:Overly Optimistic (Score 1) 265

Honest question here, I'm not trying to flame or anything. I find it hard to believe than TV-obsessed America your closest transmitter is over 50 miles away. That's insane! Doubly so considering you're on the relatively densely populated eastern fringe.

Here in Australia even small towns will generally have their own transmitter. If you truly live in the middle of nowhere (i.e. big farm with nearest other humans an hour's drive away), it might be an issue ... but I find it hard to believe somewhere 50 miles from NYC is that sparsely populated. Do you live in a reasonably populated area? (doesn't have to be a town ... even 'medium density farmland' is 'populated' by my definition)? If so, why don't they put a repeater up or something?

PS. As an aside ... one curious thing I have noted in America though (I've visited the US eight times) is that you guys seem to broadcast stuff at much greater powers than we do, at least for radio (not sure about TV). In Australia if I drive out of my city, I'd be lucky to hold an FM radio signal further than 15 miles from the edge of town. Our transmitters are turned down pretty low, methinks. In the US though I've picked up strong signals from towns 50-100 miles away.

Slashdot Top Deals

I am a computer. I am dumber than any human and smarter than any administrator.