3 ms·

This: "... recently, an unknown company brought a case before the FISA court which resulted in a secret 2011 holding that the NSA had violated the Fourth Am

by D9u 13y ago

This: "... recently, an unknown company brought a case before the FISA court which resulted in a secret 2011 holding that the NSA had violated the Fourth Amendment." As well as the US government insistence that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, used as an excuse to invade Iraq, yet no WMD were found. (Yellow cake uranium, etc) With this kind of a track record how are we supposed to have confidence in the US intelligence apparatus? This is a clear case of "it's not fascism when we do it."

VladRussian2 13y ago
>As well as the US government insistence that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, used as an excuse to invade Iraq, yet no WMD were found. according to current definition of WMD, Saddam had(and a billion other people have): http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_faqs http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_fa... "“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);" and section 921 has : "(4) The term “destructive device” means— (A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas— (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses; (B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and "
- postaround820 13y ago
  The FBI and the Attorney General have no jurisdiction in international affairs and neither does their definition of WMD.
- mpyne 13y ago
  You're conflating the military definition of WMD (which has essentially always been related to CBRN) with the U.S. civilian legal definition of WMD, which pre-dates the invasion of Iraq.

by D9u 13y ago

VladRussian2 13y ago

>As well as the US government insistence that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, used as an excuse to invade Iraq, yet no WMD were found. according to current definition of WMD, Saddam had(and a billion other people have): http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_faqs http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_fa... "“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);" and section 921 has : "(4) The term “destructive device” means— (A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas— (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses; (B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and "

postaround820 13y ago
The FBI and the Attorney General have no jurisdiction in international affairs and neither does their definition of WMD.
mpyne 13y ago
You're conflating the military definition of WMD (which has essentially always been related to CBRN) with the U.S. civilian legal definition of WMD, which pre-dates the invasion of Iraq.