Beheading Video - Page 13

**CingularDuality** · 05-31-2004, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOWDRAG

http://www.nathanadams.com/WeSupportU.htm

This was done by http://www.gcsdistributing.com/

I'm going to find something to buy from this patriotic company...

en4rcment · 05-31-2004, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOWDRAG

http://www.nathanadams.com/WeSupportU.htm

I've seen it before, yet watching it again brings the tears to the corners of my eyes. A good reminder that there are those amongst us who continually sacrifice for the greater good...

God bless them...

xliipapa6 · 05-31-2004, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Why would you think that President Bush and/or his administration is behind it? How do you know that he doesn't have a team furiously working to find out who exactly made that video and why?

Why? Because he is the C&C of our armed forces. If he doesn't keep himself informed, then he needs to go. A leader needs to kept abreast of what his staff and military are doing. plausible deniability don't make the grade these days. He's pushing for "PERMANENT" use of the Patriot Act. This will in time give Big brother rights to tap your phones internet connection whatever, legally without having to give cause, only by saying "for the peace and safety of our nation." This could be a beginning of a socialistic society by giving the government too much power and or control. Allowing them to spy on you and me. Bush and his buddies seem to be trying to use a "control by fear" method of controlling us to have a free wielding sword to do as they please...that's why.

**CingularDuality** · 05-31-2004, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xliipapa6

Why? Because he is the C&C of our armed forces. If he doesn't keep himself informed, then he needs to go. A leader needs to kept abreast of what his staff and military are doing. plausible deniability don't make the grade these days. He's pushing for "PERMANENT" use of the Patriot Act. This will in time give Big brother rights to tap your phones internet connection whatever, legally without having to give cause, only by saying "for the peace and safety of our nation." This could be a beginning of a socialistic society by giving the government too much power and or control. Allowing them to spy on you and me. Bush and his buddies seem to be trying to use a "control by fear" method of controlling us to have a free wielding sword to do as they please...that's why.

If you want to spread untruths about the Patriot Act, feel free to start another thread. You obviously know next to nothing about it, and I doubt that you've even bothered to try to read the actual published legislation.

As for President Bush knowing everything that his "staff and military are doing": You're funny.

xliipapa6 · 05-31-2004, 07:46 PM

Then what the hell is he doing in office? You mean to tell me, if you were running a multi-billion institution, you wouldn't want to know what was going on!?! How can you feel ok with having a president who doesn't have a clue to what he's in charge of? that would be like me turning my car off at the top of a hill, letting go of the steering wheel and hoping for the best.

BTW, http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html talks about the patriot act. But be warned!, the government has wrongly accused some already of being threats to the US. If you disagree with the Gov you too might be a target of a hush-hush psyop.

this act seems by all appearances, to be a free do whatever you want card in the name of national security. Do you think your government is honest? I like to think of myself as level-headed to some degree, but to get back on topic, Kodak NY has studied the film footage of the Nick Berg beheading & the ? Abu Garaib prison scandal and the same camera shot both films due to computer analyses that determined digital signatures of both films were identical. Also, why did the US military Deny having Berg in custody when the State Department said we did have him in custody? one of them is lying. I lean toward the consular official that gave the Berg family the memorandum stating we DID in fact have Nick Berg in custody. So I do NOT believe the lies.

**DudeMan** · 05-31-2004, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Kodak NY has studied the film footage of the Nick Berg beheading & the ? Abu Garaib prison scandal and the same camera shot both films due to computer analyses that determined digital signatures of both films were identical.

ok i have seen a web site that saus he said that kodak said... and no official comment from codak, so please before you display this as fact can you show me the official kodak statement that the films are identical without shadow of a doubt.

xliipapa6 · 05-31-2004, 10:49 PM

What!?! you honestly think the GOV would allow for Kodak to divulge the truth publicly? Everything you or I have to go on are press releases, sorry to hurt your feelings. but unless you or I have a TOP SECRET_SECRET Clearance, you and I can only say what we know by what we've read. I'm not this old by being stupid to know that governments and a "new world order" control what you or I really see. So if you're fishing for facts, you'll only be upset by the fact that maybe this is true, maybe not. why do I say this?

(truth)The Nick Berg beheading thing came out during the abu garaib prison scandal.

(truth)The Consular from Iraq sent a letter/memo stating that Nick was in fact in US Military Custody. whereas the military said it did not. While these two stories conflict it does raise the question; which one is lying and which is telling the truth.

The government has lied in the past, but since you're in the UK, I imagine a UK citizen so I won't lay into you for that. But to think my government isn't crafty is silly. the 2000 election is proof of what lengths a person will go to get what they want.

**DudeMan** · 06-01-2004, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xliipapa6

What!?! you honestly think the GOV would allow for Kodak to divulge the truth publicly? Everything you or I have to go on are press releases, sorry to hurt your feelings. but unless you or I have a TOP SECRET_SECRET Clearance, you and I can only say what we know by what we've read. I'm not this old by being stupid to know that governments and a "new world order" control what you or I really see. So if you're fishing for facts, you'll only be upset by the fact that maybe this is true, maybe not. why do I say this?

(truth)The Nick Berg beheading thing came out during the abu garaib prison scandal.

(truth)The Consular from Iraq sent a letter/memo stating that Nick was in fact in US Military Custody. whereas the military said it did not. While these two stories conflict it does raise the question; which one is lying and which is telling the truth.

The government has lied in the past, but since you're in the UK, I imagine a UK citizen so I won't lay into you for that. But to think my government isn't crafty is silly. the 2000 election is proof of what lengths a person will go to get what they want.

so in short then .... NO

dont spin me yarn about new world order and all that , not to hurt your feelings but i dont much care for a conspiracy, and reading about kodaks adventure in technoland from a conspiracy theory site is not my idea of any kind of proof.

if the deal like this is sooo far down its to the bottom sectors of kodac there is nothing the governemnt could do, someone would hae blown the whistle, until they do its all a bunch of stories around a camp fire.

xliipapa6 · 06-01-2004, 12:40 AM

Then please, tell us of what you think about all of this. I'll leave this alone then as well. but as a gentleman..I agree to disagree with you agreeably.

**CingularDuality** · 06-01-2004, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xliipapa6

Then what the hell is he doing in office? You mean to tell me, if you were running a multi-billion institution, you wouldn't want to know what was going on!?! How can you feel ok with having a president who doesn't have a clue to what he's in charge of? that would be like me turning my car off at the top of a hill, letting go of the steering wheel and hoping for the best.

BTW, http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html talks about the patriot act. But be warned!, the government has wrongly accused some already of being threats to the US. If you disagree with the Gov you too might be a target of a hush-hush psyop.

this act seems by all appearances, to be a free do whatever you want card in the name of national security. Do you think your government is honest?

I'm finding it difficult to even take your post seriously. Do you really expect President Bush to know what Lance Corporal Shmuckatelli is doing in Iraq? Do you think that Lt. Numbnuts is briefing him daily? Do you think that CIA Special Agent Spooksie is keeping our president abreast of every interrogation that he conducts overseas? You must be delusional!

I couldn't get that Epic site to even open. I will tell you that I'm very familiar with the Patriot Act. I probably have read more about that law than you even have access to... I'll say this: The Patriot Act does nothing to take away liberties from law abiding citizens. Judges are still needed to sign warrants. For the most part, the Patriot Act lets federal agents use the tools that were restricted for fighting organized crime and lets us use it against terrorists. Before the Patriot Act we couldn't do that.

I'd like to know exactly what concerns you have with the Patriot Act. I'm a fairly devout libertarian, so you're not going to hear me tout the party line. But I think the Patriot Act is an invaluable tool for our government to use to fight terrorism...

jex · 06-01-2004, 08:22 AM

I think that post links to the entire patriot act disseminated and explained (at least I think). Since you can't get it working I just copied a load out. I can't read this stuff - Law just winds me up with its baffle.

Quote:

(2) DEFINITION- Section 2510 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by--

(A) in paragraph (17), by striking `and' after the semicolon;

(B) in paragraph (18), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and

(C) by inserting at the end the following:

`(19) `foreign intelligence information' means--

`(A) information, whether or not concerning a United States person, that relates to the ability of the United States to protect against--

`(i) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;

`(ii) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or

`(iii) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power; or

`(B) information, whether or not concerning a United States person, with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to--

`(i) the national defense or the security of the United States; or

`(ii) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.'.

(c) PROCEDURES- The Attorney General shall establish procedures for the disclosure of information pursuant to section 2517(6) and Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i)(V) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that identifies a United States person, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801)).

(d) FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION-

(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall be lawful for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence (as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a)) or foreign intelligence information obtained as part of a criminal investigation to be disclosed to any Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official in order to assist the official receiving that information in the performance of his official duties. Any Federal official who receives information pursuant to this provision may use that information only as necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information.

(2) DEFINITION- In this subsection, the term `foreign intelligence information' means--

(A) information, whether or not concerning a United States person, that relates to the ability of the United States to protect against--

(i) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;

(ii) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or

(iii) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power; or

(B) information, whether or not concerning a United States person, with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to--

(i) the national defense or the security of the United States; or

(ii) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.

SEC. 204. CLARIFICATION OF INTELLIGENCE EXCEPTIONS FROM LIMITATIONS ON INTERCEPTION AND DISCLOSURE OF WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.
Section 2511(2)(f) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `this chapter or chapter 121' and inserting `this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title'; and

(2) by striking `wire and oral' and inserting `wire, oral, and electronic'.

SEC. 205. EMPLOYMENT OF TRANSLATORS BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

(a) AUTHORITY- The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to expedite the employment of personnel as translators to support counterterrorism investigations and operations without regard to applicable Federal personnel requirements and limitations.

(b) SECURITY REQUIREMENTS- The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall establish such security requirements as are necessary for the personnel employed as translators under subsection (a).

(c) REPORT- The Attorney General shall report to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate on--

(1) the number of translators employed by the FBI and other components of the Department of Justice;

(2) any legal or practical impediments to using translators employed by other Federal, State, or local agencies, on a full, part-time, or shared basis; and

(3) the needs of the FBI for specific translation services in certain languages, and recommendations for meeting those needs.

SEC. 206. ROVING SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.

Section 105(c)(2)(B) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(c)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting `, or in circumstances where the Court finds that the actions of the target of the application may have the effect of thwarting the identification of a specified person, such other persons,' after `specified person'.
SEC. 207. DURATION OF FISA SURVEILLANCE OF NON-UNITED STATES PERSONS WHO ARE AGENTS OF A FOREIGN POWER.

(a) DURATION -

(1) SURVEILLANCE- Section 105(e)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(e)(1)) is amended by--

(A) inserting `(A)' after `except that'; and

(B) inserting before the period the following: `, and (B) an order under this Act for a surveillance targeted against an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 101(b)(1)(A) may be for the period specified in the application or for 120 days, whichever is less'.

(2) PHYSICAL SEARCH- Section 304(d)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1824(d)(1)) is amended by--

(A) striking `forty-five' and inserting `90';

(B) inserting `(A)' after `except that'; and

(C) inserting before the period the following: `, and (B) an order under this section for a physical search targeted against an agent of a foreign power as defined in section 101(b)(1)(A) may be for the period specified in the application or for 120 days, whichever is less'.

(b) EXTENSION-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 105(d)(2) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(d)(2)) is amended by--

(A) inserting `(A)' after `except that'; and

(B) inserting before the period the following: `, and (B) an extension of an order under this Act for a surveillance targeted against an agent of a foreign power as defined in section 101(b)(1)(A) may be for a period not to exceed 1 year'.

(2) DEFINED TERM- Section 304(d)(2) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1824(d)(2) is amended by inserting after `not a United States person,' the following: `or against an agent of a foreign power as defined in section 101(b)(1)(A),'.

SEC. 208. DESIGNATION OF JUDGES.

Section 103(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)) is amended by--

(1) striking `seven district court judges' and inserting `11 district court judges'; and

(2) inserting `of whom no fewer than 3 shall reside within 20 miles of the District of Columbia' after `circuits'.

SEC. 209. SEIZURE OF VOICE-MAIL MESSAGES PURSUANT TO WARRANTS.

Title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in section 2510--

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking beginning with `and such' and all that follows through `communication'; and

(B) in paragraph (14), by inserting `wire or' after `transmission of'; and

(2) in subsections (a) and (b) of section 2703--

(A) by striking `CONTENTS OF ELECTRONIC' and inserting `CONTENTS OF WIRE OR ELECTRONIC' each place it appears;

(B) by striking `contents of an electronic' and inserting `contents of a wire or electronic' each place it appears; and

(C) by striking `any electronic' and inserting `any wire or electronic' each place it appears.

**Zebra** · 06-01-2004, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I couldn't get that Epic site to even open. I will tell you that I'm very familiar with the Patriot Act. I probably have read more about that law than you even have access to... I'll say this: The Patriot Act does nothing to take away liberties from law abiding citizens. Judges are still needed to sign warrants. For the most part, the Patriot Act lets federal agents use the tools that were restricted for fighting organized crime and lets us use it against terrorists. Before the Patriot Act we couldn't do that.

I love how you throw "law abiding citizens" in there, as if the government knows who among us are innocent before it spies on us. Having a judge sign a warrant is only meaningful if the judge has the authority to reject the warrant, and that's not the case under section 215 of the Patriot Act. As long as the Justice Department says it needs the warrant to protect us against terrorism, the judge must approve the application. Maybe you don't consider being secure against unreasonable searches a liberty, but our founding fathers did.

**DudeMan** · 06-01-2004, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xliipapa6

Then please, tell us of what you think about all of this. I'll leave this alone then as well. but as a gentleman..I agree to disagree with you agreeably.

i have said on many occaisions wjhat i think of it, and i dont deserve a reply that baisically says im badgering you to stop discussiong it thanks.

i ask for the official statement and i got new world order, im not interested in whether or not niel armstron walked on the moon who shot kenedy, whether princess diana is dead, they all have pretty believeable stories and then pretty beleivable conspiracy's i am concerned with evidence and if someone says kodac says i am not interested.

if kodac says well then my ears will perk up.

**DudeMan** · 06-01-2004, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zebra

I love how you throw "law abiding citizens" in there, as if the government knows who among us are innocent before it spies on us. Having a judge sign a warrant is only meaningful if the judge has the authority to reject the warrant, and that's not the case under section 215 of the Patriot Act. As long as the Justice Department says it needs the warrant to protect us against terrorism, the judge must approve the application. Maybe you don't consider being secure against unreasonable searches a liberty, but our founding fathers did.

well actually the patriot act will change one thng with regards to ileagally spying on its citizens... it willl make all the evidence they already have admissable.. the goveernment is alreadyspying on terrorists, it has admitted it many tmes with mobile phone conversations. they are not admissable evidence, but they are already doing it. and how do you think the FBI is cathing the sick o perverts well hackjing their computer nothing to do with that person asked for pics... they hack the computer.

i dont aghree with spying like that at all, and fpr what, september 11 was caused by like 6 guys, in the millions of people and traffic the FBI think they will find those 6guys...
not bloody likely the odds are already against them

**leejo** · 06-01-2004, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xliipapa6

After seeing that beheading video, We are mad about some pictures of iraqi prisoners being naked?

IMHO, We should exterminate with extreme prejudice, anyone in Iraq that fires weapons at our troops of any kind. We need to take the same severity as the Israeli's do.

Go in, hit hard and hit fast. Eliminate the muslim cleric in Fallujah and pick each successor off.. Take no prisoners, you get caught after shooting at us? Bullet in the head. War is a bitch, make no mistake. like my sig states, reflects my feelings.

I get mad and sad when we lose troops or civilians, But I have to remember this is war. Lives get lost.

Forgive me for saying this, but you've swung pretty widely from one extreme to the other without waiting for facts. Now Bush is behind the video and his head should roll based on some crackpot website's claim?

Simmer down!

05-31-2004, 07:46 PM	#185 (permalink)
xliipapa6 Join Date: May 2004 Location: New Carrollton, Maryland Posts: 118	Re: Beheading Video Then what the hell is he doing in office? You mean to tell me, if you were running a multi-billion institution, you wouldn't want to know what was going on!?! How can you feel ok with having a president who doesn't have a clue to what he's in charge of? that would be like me turning my car off at the top of a hill, letting go of the steering wheel and hoping for the best. BTW, http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html talks about the patriot act. But be warned!, the government has wrongly accused some already of being threats to the US. If you disagree with the Gov you too might be a target of a hush-hush psyop. this act seems by all appearances, to be a free do whatever you want card in the name of national security. Do you think your government is honest? I like to think of myself as level-headed to some degree, but to get back on topic, Kodak NY has studied the film footage of the Nick Berg beheading & the ? Abu Garaib prison scandal and the same camera shot both films due to computer analyses that determined digital signatures of both films were identical. Also, why did the US military Deny having Berg in custody when the State Department said we did have him in custody? one of them is lying. I lean toward the consular official that gave the Berg family the memorandum stating we DID in fact have Nick Berg in custody. So I do NOT believe the lies. __________________ Don't be a fool and die for your country. Let the other sonofabitch die for his. George S. Patton

05-31-2004, 10:49 PM	#187 (permalink)
xliipapa6 Join Date: May 2004 Location: New Carrollton, Maryland Posts: 118	Re: Beheading Video What!?! you honestly think the GOV would allow for Kodak to divulge the truth publicly? Everything you or I have to go on are press releases, sorry to hurt your feelings. but unless you or I have a TOP SECRET_SECRET Clearance, you and I can only say what we know by what we've read. I'm not this old by being stupid to know that governments and a "new world order" control what you or I really see. So if you're fishing for facts, you'll only be upset by the fact that maybe this is true, maybe not. why do I say this? (truth)The Nick Berg beheading thing came out during the abu garaib prison scandal. (truth)The Consular from Iraq sent a letter/memo stating that Nick was in fact in US Military Custody. whereas the military said it did not. While these two stories conflict it does raise the question; which one is lying and which is telling the truth. The government has lied in the past, but since you're in the UK, I imagine a UK citizen so I won't lay into you for that. But to think my government isn't crafty is silly. the 2000 election is proof of what lengths a person will go to get what they want. __________________ Don't be a fool and die for your country. Let the other sonofabitch die for his. George S. Patton

06-01-2004, 12:40 AM	#189 (permalink)
xliipapa6 Join Date: May 2004 Location: New Carrollton, Maryland Posts: 118	Re: Beheading Video Then please, tell us of what you think about all of this. I'll leave this alone then as well. but as a gentleman..I agree to disagree with you agreeably. __________________ Don't be a fool and die for your country. Let the other sonofabitch die for his. George S. Patton

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links