VABills Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Hmm.... maybe it did pay off. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/09/...qawi/index.html Of course inquiring minds now want to know who he was talking with. Load up the 16's we've got some more bombs to drop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 We almost got Bin Laden that way until some idiot in the press blabbed it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 10, 2006 Author Share Posted June 10, 2006 So if going through the phone log for that cell it turns out some fairly prominent US or ally people are on the call log, what do we do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 So if going through the phone log for that cell it turns out some fairly prominent US or ally people are on the call log, what do we do? 706160[/snapback] Put them all in a 'safe house' and drop another 500 pounder ? More seriously, I was initially disappointed that he died right away and did not suffer. The video of Daniel Pearl's beheading is branded in my brain, possibly for life. Reading now that he was alive for a while gives me morbid happiness that he did not die instantly without sharing some of the physical pain he imparted others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 I'm not aware of any complaints of tapping cell phones in Iraq. The problem is when Americans have their phones tapped within the U.S. without a warrant. They're two different issues. The end doesn't justify the means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirius99 Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 I'm not aware of any complaints of tapping cell phones in Iraq. The problem is when Americans have their phones tapped within the U.S. without a warrant. They're two different issues. The end doesn't justify the means. 706340[/snapback] You are delusional if you think it is that cut and dried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 I'm not aware of any complaints of tapping cell phones in Iraq. The problem is when Americans have their phones tapped within the U.S. without a warrant. They're two different issues. The end doesn't justify the means. 706340[/snapback] my thoughts exactly. who care's if they're tapping Iraqi's, Saudi's, Afghani's, hell I wouldn't even care if they tapped Brits or Canadians. Just don't do it to your own people Georgie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 I'm not aware of any complaints of tapping cell phones in Iraq. The problem is when Americans have their phones tapped within the U.S. without a warrant. They're two different issues. The end doesn't justify the means. 706340[/snapback] Actually, the problem is the media and Congress don't want Americans' phones tapped without a warrant. We don't actually know what Americans think...and are you REALLY willing to just assume Congress and the media represent them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Actually, the problem is the media and Congress don't want Americans' phones tapped without a warrant. We don't actually know what Americans think...and are you REALLY willing to just assume Congress and the media represent them? 706435[/snapback] How bout the Pew Research Center then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 10, 2006 Author Share Posted June 10, 2006 How bout the Pew Research Center then? 706441[/snapback] Actually they are pretty even split, 48% think it's okay and 47% think it's not. Of course the younger and blcaker you are there seems to be a bigger problem with the eaves dropping. The older and whiter you are and it's okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirius99 Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 How bout the Pew Research Center then? 706441[/snapback] Ummm, 48-47 with a 5% don't know is a statistical tie in research. So I don't know what point you are making unless you are saying Americans don't know what they want either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Actually they are pretty even split, 48% think it's okay and 47% think it's not. Of course the younger and blcaker you are there seems to be a bigger problem with the eaves dropping. The older and whiter you are and it's okay. 706442[/snapback] Ummm, 48-47 with a 5% don't know is a statistical tie in research. So I don't know what point you are making unless you are saying Americans don't know what they want either 706445[/snapback] I was looking at the chart entitled "Not My Phone Calls!" which had the results: 24% favor 73% against The chart below it also has breakdowns by party. The point is that they don't mind monitoring the terrorists, its ourselves that we don't like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirius99 Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 I was looking at the chart entitled "Not My Phone Calls!" which had the results: 24% favor 73% against 706446[/snapback] That wasn't the issue raised in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 That wasn't the issue raised in the thread. 706448[/snapback] Did you read PastaJoe's post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirius99 Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Did you read PastaJoe's post? 706449[/snapback] Did you? This thread, including PastaJoe's post, refers to terrorists, phones, and warrants. The applicable question in your linked research was the one VABills and I quoted, not the one you quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Did you? This thread, including PastaJoe's post, refers to terrorists, phones, and warrants. The applicable question in your linked research was the one VABills and I quoted, not the one you quoted. 706452[/snapback] Yep, and from my understanding, he specifically states that he's talking about American's in his post. He also is seperating the terrorist issues from the American issues, which I am doing, but you don't seem to be. The problem is when Americans have their phones tapped within the U.S. without a warrant. They're two different issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirius99 Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Yep, and from my interstanding, he specifically states that he's talking about American's in his post. Duh. Why would Congress or research statistics from Americans be vaild otherwise? He also is seperating the terrorist issues from the American issues, which I am doing, but you don't seem to be. Did you read his post???????????????? Show me the word "terrorist". It ain't there brainiac. This thread is all about terrorism, as was/is the in-question phone "tapping" without warrants. The applicable question in your linked research was the one asking about phone tapping of suspected terrorists without warrants. This shouldn't be that difficult to grasp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Duh. Why would Congress or research statistics from Americans be vaild otherwise? Did you read his post???????????????? Show me the word "terrorist". It ain't there brainiac. This thread is all about terrorism, as was/is the in-question phone "tapping" without warrants. The applicable question in your linked research was the one asking about phone tapping of suspected terrorists without warrants. This shouldn't be that difficult to grasp. 706458[/snapback] No need to get all defensive and insulting, its a friendly conversation. Yes, you are right, that is what the thread is about. However, the point that CTM was responding to (and that PastaJoe was making) was that American's don't care if we wiretap terrorists, we care if we wiretap Americans. This is also what I was replying to. The problem is when Americans have their phones tapped within the U.S. without a warrant. They're two different issues. Again, read this quote. He specifically states that "the problem is when Americans have their phones tapped within the U.S. without a warrant." Sounds to me like he's stated very clearly he isn't talking about tapping terrorists, but rather tapping American's within the US. Why do you think I'm even talking about what VABills was talking about? I'm responding to a comment by CTM, who was responding to PastaJoe's comment about wiretapping American's inside American territory. I could care less about the rest of the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirius99 Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 No need to get all defensive and insulting, its a friendly conversation. Well I meant to be insulting, but defensive? Where? Yes, you are right, that is what the thread is about. We started off well here However, the point that CTM was responding to (and that PastaJoe was making) was that American's don't care if we wiretap terrorists, we care if we wiretap Americans. This is also what I was replying to. No, neither of them mentioned terrorists. You inferred all of that. Joe was differentiating between US and non-US cell phone surveillance. Again, read this quote. He specifically states that "the problem is when Americans have their phones tapped within the U.S. without a warrant." Sounds to me like he's stated very clearly he isn't talking about tapping terrorists, but rather tapping American's within the US. That's because you are inferring what you want. Or you can't read, one of the two, because he certainly didn't type any of that. It's only "very clear" to you, Miss Cleo, and Timothy McVeigh. Why do you think I'm even talking about what VABills was talking about? I'm responding to a comment by CTM, who was responding to PastaJoe's comment about wiretapping American's inside American territory. I could care less about the rest of the thread. 706471[/snapback] I have no idea what you mean by this, but if you really believe what you posted, you must also agree that: 1. Americans are never terrorists 2. Americans do not in any way support terrorists or terrorism 3. Non-American terrorists within the US do not use American communications systems All three of which are simply ludicrous. The applicable question for both PJs and CTMs posts in your linked research was the one VABills and I quoted, not the one you quoted. Obviously Pew thought there was enough of a differentiation to as AMERICANS both questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 Just to clarify my view, I don't want the gov't casting a wide "trolling net" in the U.S. listening to our calls, and then some unknown persons deciding which calls might be terrorist related. If they want to listen to specific callers in the U.S., they should get a warrant from the FISA court. There has to be some judicial oversight on the executive branch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts