| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > You try to scare as all with talk of "blanket unauthorised wiretap powers"
> > when I doubt they are even on the agenda.
>
> Don't just take my word for it: See the wiretap section of this page:
>
> http://www.aclu.org/news/2001/n092001e.html
I had a quick look. I see no mention of "blanket unauthorised wiretap powers"
>
> (the ACLU and the LP are hardly allies on much of anything these days...
> except civil liberties).
>
> As for your "willing to authorise innocent deaths" red herring, it's your
> usual spew.
Hardly. Perhaps you should read you own posts. A quick search finds these 2
where you condone civilian deaths:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12615
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12717
I note that in your reply, you failed to address these points:
1. Your apparent departure from your usual LP dogma.
2. Your apparent hypocrisy.
I can’t say I’m surprised.
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) Have a deeper look. Under the proposed legislation, the usual standard of proof is not needed, all that is needed is to assert National Security... that's "unauthorised". Further, the current restriction to particular people or phones would be (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) Don't just take my word for it: See the wiretap section of this page: (URL) ACLU and the LP are hardly allies on much of anything these days... except civil liberties). As for your "willing to authorise innocent deaths" red herring, it's your (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
74 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
