The truth Behind Paul Kidd?
Aksirrtsoeks The Tactless Vargr Corsair
the photos to a website for everyone to see because he was proud of
the children.
---
"My men have a disease of the heart which can only be assuaged by
gold" - Hernan Cortez
unidyne
"Aksirrtsoeks The Tactless Vargr Corsair" <dsa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:40c5bc1d...@news.individual.net...
> I heard that he took photos of his children in the bathtub and posted
> the photos to a website for everyone to see because he was proud of
> the children.
Not from what I've heard.
He had taken a photo of one of his kids in the tub, someone from the
photolab called the cops (erroniously presuming kiddie porn).
If anyone has any details, please let me know!
Steven F. Scharff
Obvious Fake. Do Not Harvest.
>Not from what I've heard.
>He had taken a photo of one of his kids in the tub, someone from the
>photolab called the cops (erroniously presuming kiddie porn).
>
>If anyone has any details, please let me know!
Which essentially brings us back to where we started these threads. As someone
who participated in them, myself, I think our collective information on the
matter has been mined of all it's usefulness and relevancy, and anything more
is now entirely (instead of partially) speculation.
If anyone gets something more that is solid and they care to share, I'm sure
we'll all be waiting; until then, I think the person who posted the original
query can be assured we've given all we have for now.
********************************************************
If you want me to see your response, please post.
http://www.towerofbabel.com/antispam
http://members.hostedscripts.com/antispam.html
********************************************************
steve gallacci
"Obvious Fake. Do Not Harvest." wrote:
>
> >From: "unidyne" uni...@cox.net
>
> >Not from what I've heard.
> >He had taken a photo of one of his kids in the tub, someone from the
> >photolab called the cops (erroniously presuming kiddie porn).
> >
> >If anyone has any details, please let me know!
>
> Which essentially brings us back to where we started these threads. As someone
> who participated in them, myself, I think our collective information on the
> matter has been mined of all it's usefulness and relevancy, and anything more
> is now entirely (instead of partially) speculation.
>
> If anyone gets something more that is solid and they care to share, I'm sure
> we'll all be waiting; until then, I think the person who posted the original
> query can be assured we've given all we have for now.
>
From my sources, while he may have attracted the attention of
authorities for something fairly harmless, it opened the investigation
that went fishing via searches of his home and computers, including
those of which he had no oversight, and didn't stop until it found
something, anything, to build a case on. The impression is that it was
no "worse" than anything that anyone may have peeked at on line (and
didn't include actual kiddy porn), but since there were naughty images
under his roof, he was charged and convicted of some sort of pornography
crime. Sentencing and appeals to come.
Ostrich
> I heard that he took photos of his children in the bathtub and posted
> the photos to a website for everyone to see because he was proud of
> the children.
>
I'll be warning my mother to keep out of Australia.
--
-Ostrich! <")
Aksirrtsoeks The Tactless Vargr Corsair
great Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>he was charged and convicted of some sort of pornography
>crime.
What crime?
Anonymouse
> steve gallacci <bev...@comcast.net> shall never vanquished be until
> great Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>
> >he was charged and convicted of some sort of pornography
> >crime.
>
> What crime?
The crime of allowing fans use his house and computer.
Jenna
> authorities for something fairly harmless, it opened the investigation
> that went fishing via searches of his home and computers, including
> those of which he had no oversight, and didn't stop until it found
> something, anything, to build a case on. The impression is that it was
> no "worse" than anything that anyone may have peeked at on line (and
> didn't include actual kiddy porn), but since there were naughty images
> under his roof, he was charged and convicted of some sort of pornography
> crime. Sentencing and appeals to come.
This is depressingly familiar sounding. For all the 'right reasons',
this sort of witch-hunt mentality is plunging us into a pandemic of
paranoia and intrusiveness where the wheat and chaff are apparently
indistinguishable until after the damage is done.
However, and this is not in any way meant as any sort of personal
slight on Mr Kidd, who I know very little about and have never had any
contact with - but I would guess that for someone to actually be
_convicted_ of possessing material, it would need to be quite a bit
more than merely 'naughty'. It would need to be explicit within a
pretty narrow range of subject matter.
I certainly hope this doesn't turn out to be just about drawings,
however explicit they are, or what they're of. If the law can't make a
qualatative distinction between actual photographs of actual people
actually involved in abusive or illegal acts, and an erotic drawing
which involved nothing but someone's imagination and a piece of paper,
then we're talking about thought crimes. If it is illegal to turn a
thought into a drawing which you never show to anybody, then logically
it must be illegal to have the thought in the first place.
That wascally miscweant Joe Strike
...since there were naughty images
> under his roof, he was charged and convicted of some sort of pornography
> crime. Sentencing and appeals to come.
the morality police strike again! We must all be pure, pure PURE!
Chuck Melville
Ostrich wrote:
> dsa...@yahoo.co.uk (Aksirrtsoeks The Tactless Vargr Corsair) wrote in message news:<40c5bc1d...@news.individual.net>...
>
>>I heard that he took photos of his children in the bathtub and posted
>>the photos to a website for everyone to see because he was proud of
>>the children.
>>
From what I'm told, the pictures were never on a website. It was a
photo lab tech who called the police after developing the photos.
> I'll be warning my mother to keep out of Australia.
With the doors the Patriot Act is opening here in the States, I'd
advise your mother to stay out of the USA as well.
DishRoom1
Ostrich wrote --
>>>I heard that he took photos of his children in the bathtub and posted
>>>the photos to a website for everyone to see because he was proud of
>>>the children.
>>>
>
> From what I'm told, the pictures were never on a website. It was a
>photo lab tech who called the police after developing the photos.
I see.
>
>> I'll be warning my mother to keep out of Australia.
>
> With the doors the Patriot Act is opening here in the States, I'd
>advise your mother to stay out of the USA as well.
Funny, I am in the US and the Patriot Act has not hurt me.
John Shughart
Chuck Melville
Jenna wrote:
> steve gallacci <bev...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
>>From my sources, while he may have attracted the attention of
>>authorities for something fairly harmless, it opened the investigation
>>that went fishing via searches of his home and computers, including
>>those of which he had no oversight, and didn't stop until it found
>>something, anything, to build a case on. The impression is that it was
>>no "worse" than anything that anyone may have peeked at on line (and
>>didn't include actual kiddy porn), but since there were naughty images
>>under his roof, he was charged and convicted of some sort of pornography
>>crime. Sentencing and appeals to come.
>
>
> This is depressingly familiar sounding. For all the 'right reasons',
> this sort of witch-hunt mentality is plunging us into a pandemic of
> paranoia and intrusiveness where the wheat and chaff are apparently
> indistinguishable until after the damage is done.
>
> However, and this is not in any way meant as any sort of personal
> slight on Mr Kidd, who I know very little about and have never had any
> contact with - but I would guess that for someone to actually be
> _convicted_ of possessing material, it would need to be quite a bit
> more than merely 'naughty'. It would need to be explicit within a
> pretty narrow range of subject matter.
Actually, it would require very little. It requires a -belief- that
the material found is offensive. Case in point, the photos that started
all this was nothing more than a parent's proud pix of their child
taking a bath. How this could be offensive is beyond me, but some
overanxious photo clerk concluded it was an act of pedophillia, and that
started the ball rolling. When it comes to the question of any
offensive furry art, it boils down to legal definitions and the
philosophical 'beauty being in the eye of the beholder'. Keep in mind
that here in the States the legal definition of obscenity (in relation
to pornographic works) has never been satisfactorily settled; the
Supreme Court deferred such definition to local community authorities,
and local definitions tend to differ from community to community. How
it's defined in Australia, I don't know, but I wouldn't be at all
surprised to find the same difficulties and same solutions. If there
were images of furries engaged in anything adult, no matter how tame or
how explicit, it's likely to be viewed as offensive because of a
prevailing attitude that anything involving 'cartoon animals' is
intended for children in the first place, and that adult furry material
is therefore obscene.
In short, it wouldn't necessarily have to be explicit; it would simply
have to be thought inappropriate, and then the jumps in logic, legal and
otherwise, would begin.
>
> I certainly hope this doesn't turn out to be just about drawings,
> however explicit they are, or what they're of. If the law can't make a
> qualatative distinction between actual photographs of actual people
> actually involved in abusive or illegal acts, and an erotic drawing
> which involved nothing but someone's imagination and a piece of paper,
> then we're talking about thought crimes. If it is illegal to turn a
> thought into a drawing which you never show to anybody, then logically
> it must be illegal to have the thought in the first place.
Yes. That has been the crux of the argument for quite some time,
especially here in the States. And it has happened.
Mike and Carole
"DishRoom1" <dish...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040609092104...@mb-m05.aol.com...
Not yet. Give it time.
Mike
Chuck Melville
DishRoom1 wrote:
> Chuck Melville wrote --
>
>
>> With the doors the Patriot Act is opening here in the States, I'd
>>advise your mother to stay out of the USA as well.
>
>
>
> Funny, I am in the US and the Patriot Act has not hurt me.
>
I wouldn't wait about until it hurts you personally. The so-called
Patriot Act is a device to get around Constitutional protections in
order to get at any -suspected- criminals. Doesn't even have to be a
terrorist, doesn't even have to be, in fact, a criminal. Just someone
suspected of being such. It's one of the most devious measures executed
by a paranoid administration, a preemptive device that fits in with the
administration's usual 'end justifying the means' philosophy. It is, in
fact, one of the most UN-American acts I've seen in decades, despite its
very Orwellian title.
For that matter, just because it hasn't been used on you personally
doesn't mean that it isn't hurting you.
iBuck
Since you haven't been harmed, can read the blacked out sections in the ACLU's
lawsuit to overturn section 215?
The public almost didn't know there was a suit, becuse the goverment contended
that releasing the legal documents, would be a violation of the patriot act
(despite the fact that the goverment alleged the powers in question have not as
of yet been used, and therefore, the release of a simple lawsuitt to overturn,
without an actual use of the power, but on principle could not reveal any
secret information) Even -after- the legal documents were released, the
goverment wanted a list of the the types of buisness records that could be
requested with a National Security Letter (not a warrant signed by a judge)
redacted from the ACLU website...
I consider that absurd level of secrey harm to -every- american, and this isn't
just a libreral thing, a lot of hard right conservitives are concerned about
the expansion of goverment survailance too...
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
iBuck
>suspected of being such.
Doesn't even have to be that, it's on the say so that it's "related to an
investigation involving a terroist" you could be a pefectly innocent person on
the sidelines, but they can still get your info, on their say-so.. and who do
they say it to? themselves, the NSL's do not require judical approval, and do
not have any method of challenging their validity, even if you somehow found
out about, which is difficult, since disclosing the service of an NSL to
-anybody- at any time, even years later (other than those needed to aquire the
info) is a crime...
iBuck
>advise your mother to stay out of the USA as well.
The same kind of reporting by film lab staff happens in the US as well, and as
varous child abuse procecutions here in the US have shown, that's all it takes
to get the ball rolling... they don't -need- the patriot act to make your life
miserable, search your house, etc... they could do it before it was passed..
Martin Skunk
> slight on Mr Kidd, who I know very little about and have never had any
> contact with - but I would guess that for someone to actually be
> _convicted_ of possessing material, it would need to be quite a bit
> more than merely 'naughty'. It would need to be explicit within a
> pretty narrow range of subject matter.
I agree on this point. I've done some research and have found that
each Australian state has a series of laws regarding contents on the
Internet. I've found that some of these laws allow the Australian
Broadcasting Authority (ABA) to take down some contents from a website if
they consider it "prohibited content".
However, if I have read correctly, Mr. Paul Kidd is
being -convicted-, and not being requested to take some contents offline. A
conviction means he has been found guilty of a crime, and as such, his case
is considered to be a crime according with the Crimes Act with jurisdiction
on the territory where Mr. Kidd lives. I don't know where he does live, so I
can't tell exactly what is the crime he has been found guilty of.
While the definition of a certain crime may vary depending of the
state, the definition of these crimes can be very ample: In Victoria, for
instance, child pornography 'means a film, photograph, publication or
computer game that describes or depicts a person who is, or who looks like,
a minor under 16 engaging in sexual activity or depicted in an indecent
manner or context' (Crimes Act, 67A). Under this law, 'publications' also
include stories, poems, essays, drawings and -cartoons-'.
We don't know exactly what is the cause of him being convicted,
since "pornography" isn't a crime on Australia. He may be conviced, however,
for having -illegal- pornography on his computer. Whatever that illegal
pornography is, is something beyond our actual knowledge.
---Martin Skunk
mouse
news:40c6cd78$0$29791$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au:
>
> The crime of allowing fans use his house and computer.
Dude, are you fucking retarded, or what??
Darrel L. Exline
> I wouldn't wait about until it hurts you personally. The so-called
> Patriot Act is a device to get around Constitutional protections in
> order to get at any -suspected- criminals. Doesn't even have to be a
> terrorist, doesn't even have to be, in fact, a criminal. Just someone
> suspected of being such. It's one of the most devious measures executed
> by a paranoid administration, a preemptive device that fits in with the
> administration's usual 'end justifying the means' philosophy. It is, in
> fact, one of the most UN-American acts I've seen in decades, despite its
> very Orwellian title.
Actually, from my understanding of the USA PATRIOT Act, the only major
change in "freedoms" is that instead of having to serve a search
warrant, the cout-ordered search can be conducted clandestinely, and
the warrant served after the fact.
It STILL requires a court ordered warrant for there to be a search,
and all items obtained in the search MUST be cataloged (although they
can be replaced at-scene with identical items so as not to alert the
suspected criminal) and receipts must be given to the suspect within 3
weeks of the seizure, and/or the items returned.
USA PATRIOT allows for covert criminal investigations to look for
ballistic and DNA analysis, fingerprint identifications, photocopying
of documents, and conduct telephone wiretaps without tipping off the
suspected terrorist that they are being investigated, and therefore
not allow the suspected terrorist to take measures to hinder the
investigation.
BTW, the acronym "USA PATRIOT" stands for "Uniting And Strengthening
America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism". Any covert warrants issued under the authority
granted in USA PATRIOT investigations are limited to investigating
suspected acts of terrorism.
I guess I'm one of the few americans who feel a lot safer with USA
PATRIOT in effect. The more evidence that can be collected without
opportunity for tampering, the more sure you can be certain that the
outcome of the verdict relied on all possible evidence. Less room for
reasonable doubt.
The alternative is to bust in on the suspects, tear open the sofa,
cupboards, drywall, etc., take everyone into custody for
interrogation, and then say "Oops, we're sorry" when it turns out
there's no case to go on. With USA PATRIOT, investigators are more
careful not to damage anything in the initial search because they
don't want to be found out, and unless there's enough evidence, people
don't get hauled into interrogation rooms.
Funny point: Once people hear what USA PATRIOT actually is, that it's
limited to the war on terror, and that it has an expiration date
built-in requiring a renewal via congressional review... most of the
objections to it disappear. But you won't find anti-Bush lobbyists
telling people what USA PATRIOT actually is; they just use
inflammatory buzz-words like "Losing our freedom", and "Orwellian
Big-Brother"... anything to convince people to put their liberal
candidates into office.
You wont find any of those people talking about all the terrorists
that USA PATRIOT has taken off the streets before their plans came to
fruition, either. LAX bombing plots, more hijackings, Non-profit
"charities" who send their money to known terrorist organizations,
drug runners who finance terrorists, etc.
Yup... back in the late 80's, having been a victim of mistaken
identity and detained in the back of a police car for nearly 2 hours
while my car's interior was viciouly gutted as I looked on (I never
should have told them "Yes, feel free to look wherever you want, I
have nothing to hide") I feel MUCH safer now with USA PATRIOT than
without it.
--Darrel.
iBuck
>change in "freedoms" is that instead of having to serve a search
>warrant, the cout-ordered search can be conducted clandestinely, and
>the warrant served after the fact.
That's just the sneak and peek provision, Section 213, there are a good
number of other sections, that could be considered to be major changes freedoms
>It STILL requires a court ordered warrant for there to be a search
for some information however the "production of any material thing" can be
requested under Section 215's expansion of National Security Letters, which
also now have a -perement- gag order attached to them, what's more, and while
presented to the court, the do not have the same standard of probable cause
attached to them, only that they are sought for intelegence reasons..
>and receipts must be given to the suspect within 3
>weeks of the seizure, and/or the items returned.
USA PATRIOT, section 213 "which period thereafter be extended by the court for
good cause shown"
>Any covert warrants issued under the authority
>granted in USA PATRIOT investigations are >limited to investigating
>suspected acts of terrorism.
USA PATRIOT section 213: "to search for and seize any property or material
that constituttes evidence of a criminal offence in violation of the laws of
the United states"
>The alternative is to bust in on the suspects, tear open the sofa,
>cupboards, drywall, etc., take everyone into custody for
>interrogation, and then say "Oops, we're sorry" when it turns out
>there's no case to go on.
That allready happened to that lawyer out in Oregon, who the FBI misidentified
by fingerprintas one of the Madrid bombers.. but this was after they -did-
execute a sneak and peek warant to search his house, and do god only knows what
else - they still havent released details despite dropping the case after the
'suspect' was in material witess custody for over a week (As a side note, the
FBI agents who did search the house apparently considered the his son's spanish
homework suspicious and seized it as well)
>unless there's enough evidence, people
>don't get hauled into interrogation rooms.
Problem is that they do...
For more details, here's the ACLU fact sheet on what it USA PATRIOT -does-
contain...
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12263&c=206
Tamar
and I don't believe anyone with a US address can claim to suddenly be an
expert on Aussie law. That and it's really pointless to make opinions one
way or another when nobody here, or very few have the actual facts of the
case being spoken about. I mean, nobody can even nail down exactly what it
is he's being charged of, just vague assumptions of what the totality of
them may be.
I say, either wait till the facts of exactly what the charges are and the
actually legal decisions about them are made, or reframe from making wild
comments on things you couldn't support even if anyone asked you to other
than, in your gut that's what I feel.
--
Shawntae Howard
www.extinctioners.com
"Jenna" <je...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:507e9315.04060...@posting.google.com...
Tamar
for any specific type of crime.
Though look what happened to that, I believe, muslim convert lawyer guy a
couple of weeks ago they thought they found figure prints on for bomb making
material. He was found to have nothing to do with it, but his name was
pretty dissed in the media because of his arrest, or detainment.
--
Shawntae Howard
www.extinctioners.com
"DishRoom1" <dish...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040609092104...@mb-m05.aol.com...
mouse
news:db6c131.04060...@posting.google.com:
> I guess I'm one of the few americans who feel a lot safer with USA
> PATRIOT in effect.
Thats because you are a fucking pussy.
mhirtes
mouse <mo...@blackvault.com> wrote:
And by defending the "Patriot" Act, Darrel proves that he's anything but
an American.
Poor Darrl. He was born too late to be a part of the SS. Then again,
wouldn't it hilarious seeing him ending up in a glass booth in an
Israeli courtroom? <g>
Mike and Carole
of Kate Worley.
Truth is you thought you might have gone a little too far when you got an
indirect threat and ran scared.
Mike
"mhirtes" <m...@nospambots.com> wrote in message
news:mh-6C39EE.19...@news.central.cox.net...
Jenna
> Actually, from my understanding of the USA PATRIOT Act, the only major
> change in "freedoms" is that instead of having to serve a search
> warrant, the cout-ordered search can be conducted clandestinely, and
> the warrant served after the fact.
Cop show scripts will have to be re-written.
"We're requesting a search warrant. We have reason to suspect he
possesses Z"
"On what grounds?"
"On the grounds that we already found it when we searched"
"Then he doesn't have it now - you do."
"Well, we want a warrant for before we knew he had it."
"Did you even _suspect_ he had it, at the time?"
"Well, no - we were looking for Y, but we found a bunch of Z instead."
"So you want a warrant to look for something that he doesn't
possess at the moment, and that you had no reason to suspect he
posessed when you found it."
"That's right"
"Ok, just checking."
Keeshah
> should have told them "Yes, feel free to look wherever you want, I
> have nothing to hide") I feel MUCH safer now with USA PATRIOT than
> without it.
>
> --Darrel.
several east coast states.
Matrix collects data on are drivers licences, finger prints, SSN, Phone
numbers, cars we own, guns we own, tracks are cell phone calls, tracks
are credit cards perchases, Atm deposit and withdraws, hotel rooms we
rent, rental cars we rent.
All without are knowage or permission!
Any law enforcement or agency an access the data collected on us, at
any time for any reason.
That is what the Patriot act has done to us.. here on the east coast
mhirtes
"Mike and Carole" <Shan...@cyberback.com> wrote:
> Hey Bozo, I thought you were staying away for a while, supposedly in honor
> of Kate Worley.
Nice try.
Tamar
--
Shawntae Howard
www.extinctioners.com
"Mike and Carole" <Shan...@cyberback.com> wrote in message
news:10868313...@news.cyberback.com...
iBuck
USA PATRIOT has nothing to do with MATRIX... MATRIX is a state level program,
with backstopping from DHS, the only thing they have in common is acute
paranoia...
Keeshah
matrix program that was part of
the Patriot act. There was such a public outcry to the fed program, that
it was subposily cancelled.
It is just a back door way of putting Matrix into place, with hopefully
no one noticing.
Darrel L. Exline
>
> Cop show scripts will have to be re-written.
>
> "We're requesting a search warrant. We have reason to suspect he
> possesses Z"
> "On what grounds?"
> "On the grounds that we already found it when we searched"
> "Then he doesn't have it now - you do."
> "Well, we want a warrant for before we knew he had it."
> "Did you even _suspect_ he had it, at the time?"
> "Well, no - we were looking for Y, but we found a bunch of Z instead."
> "So you want a warrant to look for something that he doesn't
> possess at the moment, and that you had no reason to suspect he
> posessed when you found it."
> "That's right"
> "Ok, just checking."
You completely didn't get what I was saying. A warrant still needs to
be *issued* by a court order before the original search, it just
doesn't have to be *served* on the individual at the time of the
search.
Do you understand the difference?
Issued: The court writes the warrant after being presented with
evidence of reasonable cause.
Served: Warrant is presented to the subject to tell them about the
court order.
Re-read my original post and you'll realize you misread what I said.
USA PATRIOT allows the search to happen before the suspect is served
wtih the warrant, but it DOES NOT allow searches to happen without a
warrant!
--Darrel.
Darrel L. Exline
> Matrix collects data on are drivers licences, finger prints, SSN, Phone
> numbers, cars we own, guns we own, tracks are cell phone calls, tracks
> are credit cards perchases, Atm deposit and withdraws, hotel rooms we
> rent, rental cars we rent.
>
> All without are knowage or permission!
>
> Any law enforcement or agency an access the data collected on us, at
> any time for any reason.
>
>
> That is what the Patriot act has done to us.. here on the east coast
I've not heard of MATRIX, but I'm curious: How is MATRIX (if it
actually exists and isn't some dream of conspiracy theorists) at all
related to USA PATRIOT? Are you associating the two just because
someone said they were related, or do you believe that something in
USA PATRIOT enabled MATRIX to be created?
Sidenote: Is everybody *conveniently* forgetting that USA PATRIOT was
approved almost unanimously at a bipartisan level? Isn't it nice that
now that it's an election year, it can all be blamed on
republicans?... Hmm...
--Darrel.
Darrel L. Exline
> I mean, nobody can even nail down exactly what it
> is he's being charged of, just vague assumptions of what the totality of
> them may be.
Actually, the people who know what's going on are being respectful of
Paul's wishes not to drag this all out in public. Unfortunately, that
means that everyone else is free to rampantly create and spread rumors
almost unchecked.
It'd be nice if people just stopped rumor-monging and waited for an
official announcement (like an overturned conviction... that'd be
nice.)
--Darrel.
iBuck
Re-read her post and you'll realize that you misread what she said...
It's the bigest problem with a secret search, there's noone there (like the
searchee's lawyer) to look over the cop's shoulders to make sure they only
search for what they said they wanted to look for in the warrant...
iBuck
>actually exists and isn't some dream of conspiracy theorists)
Then, quite frankly I'd say you'e unqualified to comment on the state of our
freedom's post 9/11. But if you'd like to fill the gaps in your knowlege, Take
a look here...
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=14257&c=130
Oh, by the way, this is hardly an east coastthing, unlesss someone has moved
Utah lately...
Oh, one of the more intresting MATRIX related events, one of the companies
developing the database engine, decided that they'd pass off to the goverment a
list of some 120,000 individuals that they though had a high "terrorist
quotient" as a demonstration..
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=15834&c=130
> Is everybody *conveniently* forgetting that USA PATRIOT was
>approved almost unanimously at a bipartisan level
Yes, and so quickly in the wake of a national disaster that some of the people
voting on it, didn't even have a chance to -read- the bill...
Not exactally the best example of responsible democracy in action....
And by the way, there's some fairly signifcant bipartisan support for repairing
the gaping rents in our freedoms as well...
>Isn't it nice that
>now that it's an election year, it can all be blamed on
>republicans?
Dosent matter who's fault it is, it still needs to go...
iBuck
>matrix program that was part of
>the Patriot act. There was such a public outcry to the fed program, that
>it was subposily cancelled.
No, right answer... here's the text of the Patriot act...
http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=12250
If you dig around in it, you won't find the genesis of the "Federal level
matrix program" which was called "Total Information Awareness. The TIA was
the brainchild of John Poindexter's think tank, over at DARPA, which also
raised such a hue and cry over their propsal of a terroism futures market...
In short, USA PATRIOT is hardly the -only- law that's been passed that's
abridged our freedoms. Several bits and peices of what's been refered to as
PATRIOT II have been passed, atached to legislation, here and there..
If you want to convice somebody, it helps to get your facts straigt, If you
look, you'll see that I took Darell over the coals on his veiw on the Patriot
act, precicly because he didn't have his facts right over the scope of the
secion he was talking about, much less other sections...
Brian Henderson
>Funny, I am in the US and the Patriot Act has not hurt me.
Not yet anyhow.
mouse
> Actually, the people who know what's going on are being respectful of
> Paul's wishes not to drag this all out in public.
Then why was the original thread posted in the first place? who was
responsible for that, and maybe he should tlak to whoever he told that
started spreading the word
Mike and Carole
"mouse" <mo...@blackvault.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95049E2...@204.152.189.149...
Actually, I posted the original question, as I was trying to sort fact from
rumor and see if there was anything we could do to help.
Mike
Charles Gray
wrote:
>
>
>DishRoom1 wrote:
>> Chuck Melville wrote --
>>
>>
>>> With the doors the Patriot Act is opening here in the States, I'd
>>>advise your mother to stay out of the USA as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> Funny, I am in the US and the Patriot Act has not hurt me.
>>
>
> I wouldn't wait about until it hurts you personally. The so-called
>Patriot Act is a device to get around Constitutional protections in
>order to get at any -suspected- criminals. Doesn't even have to be a
>terrorist, doesn't even have to be, in fact, a criminal. Just someone
>suspected of being such. It's one of the most devious measures executed
>by a paranoid administration, a preemptive device that fits in with the
>administration's usual 'end justifying the means' philosophy. It is, in
>fact, one of the most UN-American acts I've seen in decades, despite its
>very Orwellian title.
>
> For that matter, just because it hasn't been used on you personally
>doesn't mean that it isn't hurting you.
It should be noted that it is very rare that at one point *boom* a
nation loses its internal freedom. Usually you have many smaller
steps adding up to a final destination. Look at Germany, from 1933
on.
More importantly, you don't have to assume that any given group of
people are *evil* to see the danger. Trust Bush? Fine-- the tools
THIS administration have forged will still be available when a
Democrat is sitting in the office. Any dodge around Habeus corpus,
or the various protections we've created, opens a hole in our
democracies defense.-- and one more dangerous than anything Bin Laden
can do.
From *A man for all seasons*:
Roper: So now you'd give the devil the benefit of law?
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get
after the devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every tree in England to do that.
More: Oh, and when the last law was down and the devil turned on you
where would you hide Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is
planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws not God's, and
if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - do you
really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow
then? Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own
safety's sake.
Jenna
> You completely didn't get what I was saying. A warrant still needs to
> be *issued* by a court order before the original search, it just
> doesn't have to be *served* on the individual at the time of the
> search.
>
> Do you understand the difference?
>
> Issued: The court writes the warrant after being presented with
> evidence of reasonable cause.
> Served: Warrant is presented to the subject to tell them about the
> court order.
>
> Re-read my original post and you'll realize you misread what I said.
Your original post just said that the warrant was served after the
fact. It didn't say anything about when it was issued.
Anonymouse
Then why didn't you just ask Paul?
Darrel L. Exline
> dar...@polarden.org (Darrel L. Exline) wrote in message news:<db6c131.04061...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
> Your original post just said that the warrant was served after the
> fact. It didn't say anything about when it was issued.
Actually, my original post said:
"It STILL requires a court ordered warrant for there to be a search"
This implies that the warrant comes first, not the search.
Darrel L. Exline
> >I've not heard of MATRIX, but I'm curious: How is MATRIX (if it
> >actually exists and isn't some dream of conspiracy theorists)
>
> Then, quite frankly I'd say you'e unqualified to comment on the state of our
> freedom's post 9/11. But if you'd like to fill the gaps in your knowlege, Take
> a look here...
>
> http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=14257&c=130
You cited a press release about a request for documents, written by
left-wing extremist group, the ACLU. Yeah... very reliable
information.
Nothing in that article is fact, except for the part that says they
requested documents from various states. Everything that follows that
statement is merely the opinion of the ACLU (which may, or may not be
true, but hardly reliable as facts.)
> Oh, by the way, this is hardly an east coast thing, unlesss someone has moved
> Utah lately...
I'm in San Diego. Even Utah is relatively pretty far to the east...
That's probably why MATRIX hasn't been discussed much here.
--Darrel.
iBuck
information.
More so than yours.. as the ACLU, tends to operate in the legal sphere, they
have this intresting habit of putig their legal documents online, the courts
tend to frown on being lied to. What's more since the ACLU tends to -win- a
good number of their cases, that tends to support their accuracy. Also, the
ACLU backing on this issue crosses party lines as the following indicates...
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11449&c=39
>Nothing in that article is fact, except for the part that says they
>requested documents from various states. Everything that follows that
>statement is merely the opinion of the ACLU (which may, or may not be
>true, but hardly reliable as facts.)
Nevertheless it's more than sufficient to establish the existance of the
program...
Of course, god forbid that you go past the article itself, and perhaps follow
the links on the site that lead to their court papers, and the information they
obtained from the goverment under a series of FOIA requests.. but since you're
to lazy to actually research something...
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=14240&c=130
>I'm in San Diego. Even Utah is relatively >pretty far to the east...
>That's probably why MATRIX hasn't been >discussed much here.
More likely because California pulled out, or even more likely, that you just
haven bothered to find out what's going on around you...
Chuck Melville
Darrel L. Exline wrote:
>
> You cited a press release about a request for documents, written by
> left-wing extremist group, the ACLU. Yeah... very reliable
> information.
The oft-quoted belief that the ACLU is a left-wing extremist group is a
long-standing myth. ELF is an extremist left-wing group. The ACLU is
an organization that goes to great lengths to protect and defend the
average citizen andhis Constitutional Rights. What puts them at odds
with a great many people is that they often do so in defense of
unpopular causes or individuals. But it's interesting to note that many
conservatives are now flocking to the ACLU as a result of the Patriot
Act -- membership here in Washington has actually tripled over the past
year, primarily with conservative Republicans, in an uneasy alliance.
It isn't only the Liberals and Moderates who are uncomfortable with, and
greatly concerned over the Patriot Act.
Jenna
> > fact. It didn't say anything about when it was issued.
>
> Actually, my original post said:
> "It STILL requires a court ordered warrant for there to be a search"
>
> This implies that the warrant comes first, not the search.
I don't see that a court ordered warrant couldn't be issued after the
search, but maybe I've just been watching too much 'Minority Report'.
iBuck
>search, but maybe I've just been watching too much 'Minority Report'.
It could, but the evidenc would likely be excluded, if the timing came out in
court..
The danger however is what you alluded to, that while looking for X, with a
warrant, they go digging around for Y, and Z, as well, when nobody is looking
over their shoulders, and get a warrant for those at leisure..
Karl Meyer
"iBuck" <lncra...@aol.com.star> wrote in message
news:20040610132442...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> > Is everybody *conveniently* forgetting that USA PATRIOT was
> >approved almost unanimously at a bipartisan level
>
> Yes, and so quickly in the wake of a national disaster that some of the
people
> voting on it, didn't even have a chance to -read- the bill...
>
> Not exactally the best example of responsible democracy in action....
It was however a great example of certain paranoid politicos using a
horrible event to allow them to increase government power at the expense of
supposedly constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. It was calculated and in no
way designed to make us 'safer'. If they'd waited even 6 monthes, I doubt
the bill would have ever passed. Yes there were some holes in national
security, but they should have been plugged in as targetted a fashion as
possible with enough time to consider some of the ramifications of whatever
changes were proposed, not in a kneejerk overreaction to 9/11.
> And by the way, there's some fairly signifcant bipartisan support for
repairing
> the gaping rents in our freedoms as well...
We can only hope there are enough in the position to do so who will consider
they are supposed to be considering the interests of the citizens of this
country over the interests of increasing the government's power especially
since the supreme court justices don't seem to be serving their role in the
checks and balances system very well at the moment.
> >Isn't it nice that
> >now that it's an election year, it can all be blamed on
> >republicans?
>
> Dosent matter who's fault it is, it still needs to go...
Definately. At this point, about all I feel I can do is vote for those
challanging the incumbants and hope they still have more shreds of ethics
left than those who've been in power do. Since I don't really agree
wholeheartedly with either party line, there's no reason for me to be loyal
to either.
Charles Gray
wrote:
>
>
To many conservatives the Patriot Act is a nightmare out of some
Russian commisars mind. Secret trials, arrests without being charged
or permitted to even know the charges against you, beign found
"guilty" of terrorism by executive act-- no, true conservatives aren't
in favor of that at all...
iBuck
>or permitted to even know the charges against you, beign found
>"guilty" of terrorism by executive act-
Again, if you're speaking of the "Enemy combatant" and Gitmo dententions,
those are not rooted in the USA PATRIOT act, but are based on Bush's
intreprtation of his authority, as Commander in cheif, in fact the prime
argument in the Padilla case that was just argued before the supreme court was
that such detentions went -against- the will of congress.
Brock Ulfsen
> To many conservatives the Patriot Act is a nightmare out of some
> Russian commisars mind. Secret trials, arrests without being charged
> or permitted to even know the charges against you, beign found
> "guilty" of terrorism by executive act-- no, true conservatives aren't
> in favor of that at all...
Except when it is done to non-US citizens and they are held on Cuban
soil, like David Hicks and Mandu Habib...
...Brock.
iBuck
>soil, like David Hicks and Mandu Habib...
That presumse those responsable are "true consertives" , Shrub's credentials in
that area are suspect at best...
Darrel L. Exline
> More so than yours.. as the ACLU, tends to operate in the legal sphere, they
> have this intresting habit of putig their legal documents online,
Actually, they have this interesting habit of putting *selected*
documents online to slant public opinion in extreme directions. And
when they don't get their way, they practice extortion tactics and
abuse the court system.
> What's more since the ACLU tends to -win- a
> good number of their cases, that tends to support their accuracy. Also, the
> ACLU backing on this issue crosses party lines as the following indicates...
Actually, they tend to bully people into settling because their
war-chest is overflowing with cash from special interests, making it
too expensive most of the time to fight them. For example, the Board
of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, after receiving a threat
from the ACLU, decided to remove a tiny little cross from the county
seal because the ACLU claimed it represented an endorsement of a
particular religion. Never-mind the fact that California was founded
by Spanish missionaries, or that the seal also contains an image of
the greek goddess of agriculture: "Pomona" and several other symbols
of the region's heritage... and lets not forget that the name of the
county itself means "The Angels" in spanish.
No, the county board of supervisors caved in to the ACLU's demands
because they don't want to spend the money to fight it. That's how
the ACLU wins cases.
Here's a few websites to read on the subject:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121039,00.html
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040608.shtml
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13425
> >Nothing in that article is fact, except for the part that says they
> >requested documents from various states. Everything that follows that
> >statement is merely the opinion of the ACLU (which may, or may not be
> >true, but hardly reliable as facts.)
>
> Nevertheless it's more than sufficient to establish the existance of the
> program...
Granted. I concede that the MATRIX program exists. I have not seen
evidence that USA PATRIOT is behind it, though.
> Of course, god forbid that you go past the article itself, and perhaps follow
> the links on the site that lead to their court papers, and the information they
> obtained from the goverment under a series of FOIA requests.. but since you're
> to lazy to actually research something...
Or maybe I have too much of a real-life to bother. I usually post
from work when there's some time between other tasks. I don't always
have time to browse randomly across the web.
> >I'm in San Diego. Even Utah is relatively >pretty far to the east...
> >That's probably why MATRIX hasn't been >discussed much here.
>
> More likely because California pulled out, or even more likely, that you just
> haven bothered to find out what's going on around you...
My point being that it isn't discussed much in California and that's
why I hadn't heard of it. In the case of MATRIX, it *isn't* going on
around me. The first time I ever heard about MATRIX was in this
thread (and that post was implying that USA PATRIOT was behind it).
But, you're not saying that I'm expected to research each and every
new method of law enforcement, even the ones I have never heard of,
are you? Just what *is* your point?
--Darrel.
iBuck
>documents online to slant public opinion in extreme directions.
Like the brief's filed by their opponents? Those are hardly supportive of
their case, but there never the less...
>Actually, they tend to bully people into >settling because their
>war-chest is overflowing with cash from >special interests
Special intrests? Such as oh, prehaps citizens like me who actually care about
thier constitutional protections?
>Never-mind the fact that California was >founded
>by Spanish missionaries, or that the seal also >contains an image of
>the greek goddess of agriculture: "Pomona" >and several other symbols
>of the region's heritage... and lets not forget >that the name of the
>county itself means "The Angels" in spanish.
Never mind the ACLU will turn around and back a church when they feel that the
the govement is wrongfully stepping on thier toes...
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13518
>That's how the ACLU wins cases.
Sometimes, but a good number of them -still- go to court, and are decided in
the ACLU's favor there...
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121039,00.html
Hrm, known right wing leaning media organization, and puts a milqtost line from
the ACLU against a county supervisor who includes terms like "radical" and a
comment that their symbol should be the hammer and sickle..
So much for "Fair and Balanced"
>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040608.shtml
Oh, an even more inflamatory opinion peice titled "The Taliban come to Los
Angles", but I think your exact words about opinion peices were - "(which may,
or may not be true, but hardly reliable as facts.)"
>http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13425
A pretty good source, also says the council was were flooded by calls afterward
and is reconsidering, so I don't think this can be chalked up as a "win" for
the ACLU yet...
>Granted. I concede that the MATRIX program exists.
Why did it take you so long? you could have looked it up instead of posting
this, or the last response..
>I have not seen evidence that USA PATRIOT is >behind it, though.
It's not, and I made that point to the other feller, Just because there's some
lamebrained anti-terrist measure that restricts people's freedom out there,
doesn't mean it's part of USA PATRIOT, dosn't mean we shouldn't be concerned
about it either..
>Or maybe I have too much of a real-life to >bother
In the past you've had the time to run a fullscale furrycon, with that out of
the way, you should have plently of time to read the news every now and then,
instead of subsisting on soundbites. Oh, if that was an implication that I
-don't - have a real life, all I can say, is provide some backup, judging by
your state of knowledge about things around you, I have nothing to worry
about..
>I don't always
>have time to browse randomly across the web.
But you have time to froth on usenet about things where you basically don't
know what you're talking about...
Samantha Ann Patterson
Darrel L. Exline <dar...@polarden.org> wrote:
SIEG HEIL!