<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_19_145227</id>
	<title>FBI Violated Electronic Communications Privacy Act</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1263914220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes to tell us of a report from the Washington Post which alleges that the FBI "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/18/AR2010011803982.html">illegally collected more than 2,000 US telephone call records</a> between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records." The report continues,
<i>"E-mails obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place to protect civil liberties. The stream of urgent requests for phone records also overwhelmed the FBI communications analysis unit with work that ultimately was not connected to imminent threats. ... FBI officials told The Post that their own review has found that about half of the 4,400 toll records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in technical violation of the law. The searches involved only records of calls and not the content of the calls. In some cases, agents broadened their searches to gather numbers two and three degrees of separation from the original request, documents show."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes to tell us of a report from the Washington Post which alleges that the FBI " illegally collected more than 2,000 US telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records .
" The report continues , " E-mails obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place to protect civil liberties .
The stream of urgent requests for phone records also overwhelmed the FBI communications analysis unit with work that ultimately was not connected to imminent threats .
... FBI officials told The Post that their own review has found that about half of the 4,400 toll records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in technical violation of the law .
The searches involved only records of calls and not the content of the calls .
In some cases , agents broadened their searches to gather numbers two and three degrees of separation from the original request , documents show .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes to tell us of a report from the Washington Post which alleges that the FBI "illegally collected more than 2,000 US telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records.
" The report continues,
"E-mails obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place to protect civil liberties.
The stream of urgent requests for phone records also overwhelmed the FBI communications analysis unit with work that ultimately was not connected to imminent threats.
... FBI officials told The Post that their own review has found that about half of the 4,400 toll records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in technical violation of the law.
The searches involved only records of calls and not the content of the calls.
In some cases, agents broadened their searches to gather numbers two and three degrees of separation from the original request, documents show.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30824244</id>
	<title>Re:There should be criminal prosecutions</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1263894300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And if 5 years in jail seems excessive, it should take a look at the penalties for growing certain plants in your back yard.</p></div><p>Stupid rhododendrons....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if 5 years in jail seems excessive , it should take a look at the penalties for growing certain plants in your back yard.Stupid rhododendrons... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if 5 years in jail seems excessive, it should take a look at the penalties for growing certain plants in your back yard.Stupid rhododendrons....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820446</id>
	<title>Your First Premise Is WRONG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263922080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have NO rights in the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.org/" title="whitehouse.org" rel="nofollow">U.S.S.A.</a> [whitehouse.org].</p><p>Yours In Minsk,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have NO rights in the U.S.S.A .
[ whitehouse.org ] .Yours In Minsk,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have NO rights in the U.S.S.A.
[whitehouse.org].Yours In Minsk,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819538</id>
	<title>No shit, Sherlock?</title>
	<author>Bastard of Subhumani</author>
	<datestamp>1263918300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't it be quicker to list ones they haven't violated?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't it be quicker to list ones they have n't violated ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't it be quicker to list ones they haven't violated?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820998</id>
	<title>Re:Told you so!</title>
	<author>Mishotaki</author>
	<datestamp>1263924480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After diligently criticizing the powers of government for over 11 months, we have more proof that Obama is destroying America.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Your Fox Opinutainment Team</p></div><p>Obama destroying something? it can't be! they gave him the nobel peace prize!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After diligently criticizing the powers of government for over 11 months , we have more proof that Obama is destroying America.Sincerely,Your Fox Opinutainment TeamObama destroying something ?
it ca n't be !
they gave him the nobel peace prize !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After diligently criticizing the powers of government for over 11 months, we have more proof that Obama is destroying America.Sincerely,Your Fox Opinutainment TeamObama destroying something?
it can't be!
they gave him the nobel peace prize!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819774</id>
	<title>Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down.</title>
	<author>Shatrat</author>
	<datestamp>1263919320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It happens all the time and it doesn't really do anything but put criminals back on the streets.<br>What should be done is convict the criminal and then turn around and convict the investigator who broke the law during the course of the investigation.<br>What you propose is just 'two wrongs make a right as long as two different people commit them'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It happens all the time and it does n't really do anything but put criminals back on the streets.What should be done is convict the criminal and then turn around and convict the investigator who broke the law during the course of the investigation.What you propose is just 'two wrongs make a right as long as two different people commit them' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It happens all the time and it doesn't really do anything but put criminals back on the streets.What should be done is convict the criminal and then turn around and convict the investigator who broke the law during the course of the investigation.What you propose is just 'two wrongs make a right as long as two different people commit them'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820052</id>
	<title>Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down.</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1263920400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think these illegal wiretaps lead to any convictions.  So there is no case, no judge, and no defendant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think these illegal wiretaps lead to any convictions .
So there is no case , no judge , and no defendant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think these illegal wiretaps lead to any convictions.
So there is no case, no judge, and no defendant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30829982</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on WHO is breaking the law</title>
	<author>CisJokey</author>
	<datestamp>1263986940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To avoid that you had to change fundamentals in your law. "Precedence" law (hope this word means what i mean) is always tricky to handle without thousands of rules.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To avoid that you had to change fundamentals in your law .
" Precedence " law ( hope this word means what i mean ) is always tricky to handle without thousands of rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To avoid that you had to change fundamentals in your law.
"Precedence" law (hope this word means what i mean) is always tricky to handle without thousands of rules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819604</id>
	<title>Told you so!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263918540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After diligently criticizing the powers of government for over 11 months, we have more proof that Obama is destroying America.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Your Fox Opinutainment Team</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After diligently criticizing the powers of government for over 11 months , we have more proof that Obama is destroying America.Sincerely,Your Fox Opinutainment Team</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After diligently criticizing the powers of government for over 11 months, we have more proof that Obama is destroying America.Sincerely,Your Fox Opinutainment Team</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821142</id>
	<title>Depends on WHO is breaking the law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263924960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>U.S. citizens are expected to comply with tens of thousands of BS laws and regulations that come out of Washington DC, and are regularly prosecuted for violating them.  By contrast, government employees (from the President on down) violate the 15-20 pages of the U.S. Constitution on a regular basis, and nobody is arrested or prosecuted.  Why should WE have to read, understand and obey the massive volume of rules that they spew out every year when THEY refuse to obey a very simple set of rules governing their behavior?  I guess it depends on who is breaking the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>U.S. citizens are expected to comply with tens of thousands of BS laws and regulations that come out of Washington DC , and are regularly prosecuted for violating them .
By contrast , government employees ( from the President on down ) violate the 15-20 pages of the U.S. Constitution on a regular basis , and nobody is arrested or prosecuted .
Why should WE have to read , understand and obey the massive volume of rules that they spew out every year when THEY refuse to obey a very simple set of rules governing their behavior ?
I guess it depends on who is breaking the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>U.S. citizens are expected to comply with tens of thousands of BS laws and regulations that come out of Washington DC, and are regularly prosecuted for violating them.
By contrast, government employees (from the President on down) violate the 15-20 pages of the U.S. Constitution on a regular basis, and nobody is arrested or prosecuted.
Why should WE have to read, understand and obey the massive volume of rules that they spew out every year when THEY refuse to obey a very simple set of rules governing their behavior?
I guess it depends on who is breaking the law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819720</id>
	<title>2000+ Felonies?</title>
	<author>macemoneta</author>
	<datestamp>1263919140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't these violations felonies?  If so, then why are criminals employed by the FBI instead of in prison?  If not, then (aside from the invasion of privacy), what's the problem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't these violations felonies ?
If so , then why are criminals employed by the FBI instead of in prison ?
If not , then ( aside from the invasion of privacy ) , what 's the problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't these violations felonies?
If so, then why are criminals employed by the FBI instead of in prison?
If not, then (aside from the invasion of privacy), what's the problem?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30822268</id>
	<title>Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down.</title>
	<author>Rasputin</author>
	<datestamp>1263929520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Deliberate illegal acts should lead to jail time. Law enforcement officers are not above the law."</p><p>Yeah, the problem is Barack Obama chose not to pursue the crimes of the Bush Administration. He believed that doing so would cause a Republican backlash. It is an understandable strategy, but leaves no room for JUSTICE. It also hasn't prompted the right-wingers to cut him any slack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Deliberate illegal acts should lead to jail time .
Law enforcement officers are not above the law .
" Yeah , the problem is Barack Obama chose not to pursue the crimes of the Bush Administration .
He believed that doing so would cause a Republican backlash .
It is an understandable strategy , but leaves no room for JUSTICE .
It also has n't prompted the right-wingers to cut him any slack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Deliberate illegal acts should lead to jail time.
Law enforcement officers are not above the law.
"Yeah, the problem is Barack Obama chose not to pursue the crimes of the Bush Administration.
He believed that doing so would cause a Republican backlash.
It is an understandable strategy, but leaves no room for JUSTICE.
It also hasn't prompted the right-wingers to cut him any slack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821420</id>
	<title>Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down.</title>
	<author>evil\_aar0n</author>
	<datestamp>1263926280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Law enforcement officers are not above the law.</p><p>Sure they are.  Two recent events:</p><p>1. I'm driving a little behind a NY state trooper on the expressway.  I'm in the normal lane, on the right, and the trooper's in the passing lane, though he's not passing anyone; he's just cruising, there.  A county sheriff comes up behind us, lights and siren going, in the passing lane, and the statie does nothing: doesn't move over to the right lane, doesn't speed up, doesn't slow down - nothing.  After following the statie for a few seconds, the sheriff had to dodge into the right lane to get around him.</p><p>2. I'm in my home town, making a turn onto a 2-lane stretch leading out of town.  Speed limit is 30 for at least half a mile.  A police officer from another town turns onto the same street, right behind me and then - no lights, no siren - just blazes up street, leaving me in the dust, though I was doing 35.</p><p>The police are definitely above the law - at least in their own minds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Law enforcement officers are not above the law.Sure they are .
Two recent events : 1 .
I 'm driving a little behind a NY state trooper on the expressway .
I 'm in the normal lane , on the right , and the trooper 's in the passing lane , though he 's not passing anyone ; he 's just cruising , there .
A county sheriff comes up behind us , lights and siren going , in the passing lane , and the statie does nothing : does n't move over to the right lane , does n't speed up , does n't slow down - nothing .
After following the statie for a few seconds , the sheriff had to dodge into the right lane to get around him.2 .
I 'm in my home town , making a turn onto a 2-lane stretch leading out of town .
Speed limit is 30 for at least half a mile .
A police officer from another town turns onto the same street , right behind me and then - no lights , no siren - just blazes up street , leaving me in the dust , though I was doing 35.The police are definitely above the law - at least in their own minds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Law enforcement officers are not above the law.Sure they are.
Two recent events:1.
I'm driving a little behind a NY state trooper on the expressway.
I'm in the normal lane, on the right, and the trooper's in the passing lane, though he's not passing anyone; he's just cruising, there.
A county sheriff comes up behind us, lights and siren going, in the passing lane, and the statie does nothing: doesn't move over to the right lane, doesn't speed up, doesn't slow down - nothing.
After following the statie for a few seconds, the sheriff had to dodge into the right lane to get around him.2.
I'm in my home town, making a turn onto a 2-lane stretch leading out of town.
Speed limit is 30 for at least half a mile.
A police officer from another town turns onto the same street, right behind me and then - no lights, no siren - just blazes up street, leaving me in the dust, though I was doing 35.The police are definitely above the law - at least in their own minds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819488</id>
	<title>That anonymous reader is going to be jack bauered</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263918120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That anonymous reader is going to be jack bauered and then go to thompson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That anonymous reader is going to be jack bauered and then go to thompson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That anonymous reader is going to be jack bauered and then go to thompson.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821602</id>
	<title>Re:Better Dead than Red?</title>
	<author>rev\_sanchez</author>
	<datestamp>1263927060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In this scenario I'd say we're giving away liberties for an increased risk of harm over the long term.  I believe that an authoritarian government or one that is constantly grabbing more power for itself is more dangerous to its people than an external threat from terrorists.  Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Idi Amin's Ugandan, the Banana Republics of Central and South America, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Hilter, etc. were all far more dangerous than terrorist groups unless they have the power to overthrow the government.<br>
<br>
I think it's safer to live with more of a risk from terrorism, which is very low when compared with other less dramatic but more easily preventable causes of death, than to further empower a much more potentially dangerous body.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In this scenario I 'd say we 're giving away liberties for an increased risk of harm over the long term .
I believe that an authoritarian government or one that is constantly grabbing more power for itself is more dangerous to its people than an external threat from terrorists .
Stalin 's Russia , Mao 's China , Idi Amin 's Ugandan , the Banana Republics of Central and South America , Cambodia under Pol Pot , Hilter , etc .
were all far more dangerous than terrorist groups unless they have the power to overthrow the government .
I think it 's safer to live with more of a risk from terrorism , which is very low when compared with other less dramatic but more easily preventable causes of death , than to further empower a much more potentially dangerous body .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this scenario I'd say we're giving away liberties for an increased risk of harm over the long term.
I believe that an authoritarian government or one that is constantly grabbing more power for itself is more dangerous to its people than an external threat from terrorists.
Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Idi Amin's Ugandan, the Banana Republics of Central and South America, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Hilter, etc.
were all far more dangerous than terrorist groups unless they have the power to overthrow the government.
I think it's safer to live with more of a risk from terrorism, which is very low when compared with other less dramatic but more easily preventable causes of death, than to further empower a much more potentially dangerous body.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821532</id>
	<title>Lawless Law Enforcement</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1263926700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was in a conversation with someone the other day about what it means to be in a civilized society.  Where the morality and ethics of a society are important, there is a factor where respect for the law is a top-down characteristic.  When a nation of laws implements its laws and punishments in a fair and equitable manner, respect for the law rises.  When this doesn't happen, respect for the law decreases.  And when the legal system, and especially law enforcement, break the law, you can expect respect for the law and the government in general to decrease dramatically.</p><p>EVERYONE in the U.S. should be deeply concerned by this.  Where this all leads to is a culture of society of corruption that are the only believed to exist in Hollywood movies and 3rd world nations.  No one believes it can happen here, but I see that it can and will if it's not prevented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was in a conversation with someone the other day about what it means to be in a civilized society .
Where the morality and ethics of a society are important , there is a factor where respect for the law is a top-down characteristic .
When a nation of laws implements its laws and punishments in a fair and equitable manner , respect for the law rises .
When this does n't happen , respect for the law decreases .
And when the legal system , and especially law enforcement , break the law , you can expect respect for the law and the government in general to decrease dramatically.EVERYONE in the U.S. should be deeply concerned by this .
Where this all leads to is a culture of society of corruption that are the only believed to exist in Hollywood movies and 3rd world nations .
No one believes it can happen here , but I see that it can and will if it 's not prevented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was in a conversation with someone the other day about what it means to be in a civilized society.
Where the morality and ethics of a society are important, there is a factor where respect for the law is a top-down characteristic.
When a nation of laws implements its laws and punishments in a fair and equitable manner, respect for the law rises.
When this doesn't happen, respect for the law decreases.
And when the legal system, and especially law enforcement, break the law, you can expect respect for the law and the government in general to decrease dramatically.EVERYONE in the U.S. should be deeply concerned by this.
Where this all leads to is a culture of society of corruption that are the only believed to exist in Hollywood movies and 3rd world nations.
No one believes it can happen here, but I see that it can and will if it's not prevented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820734</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares...</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1263923460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If it helps reduce the threat of terrorism and none of those involved with making or receiving the phone calls were inconvenienced or were persecuted on other charges that were discovered outside the original reasons for looking at the records than what is the difference?</i></p><p>That police-state tactics may be a graver threat to this republic than terrorism?</p><p><i>I'm not suggesting the government have total power to do anything they want, but how can we stand by and complain that terrorism is on the rise when a fit is thrown every time some phone records are looked at due to some technicalities?</i></p><p>I don't recall complaining that terrorism was on the rise. Could it be that the people who are complaining benefit from those complaints by having larger budgets and more power?</p><p><i>We should stop wasting resources on investigating our own agencies for things that did not have any affect on anyone. Maybe we could get out of debt and put the economy on track...</i></p><p>Because these investigations are going to cost more than the budget of the Department of Homeland Security?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it helps reduce the threat of terrorism and none of those involved with making or receiving the phone calls were inconvenienced or were persecuted on other charges that were discovered outside the original reasons for looking at the records than what is the difference ? That police-state tactics may be a graver threat to this republic than terrorism ? I 'm not suggesting the government have total power to do anything they want , but how can we stand by and complain that terrorism is on the rise when a fit is thrown every time some phone records are looked at due to some technicalities ? I do n't recall complaining that terrorism was on the rise .
Could it be that the people who are complaining benefit from those complaints by having larger budgets and more power ? We should stop wasting resources on investigating our own agencies for things that did not have any affect on anyone .
Maybe we could get out of debt and put the economy on track...Because these investigations are going to cost more than the budget of the Department of Homeland Security ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it helps reduce the threat of terrorism and none of those involved with making or receiving the phone calls were inconvenienced or were persecuted on other charges that were discovered outside the original reasons for looking at the records than what is the difference?That police-state tactics may be a graver threat to this republic than terrorism?I'm not suggesting the government have total power to do anything they want, but how can we stand by and complain that terrorism is on the rise when a fit is thrown every time some phone records are looked at due to some technicalities?I don't recall complaining that terrorism was on the rise.
Could it be that the people who are complaining benefit from those complaints by having larger budgets and more power?We should stop wasting resources on investigating our own agencies for things that did not have any affect on anyone.
Maybe we could get out of debt and put the economy on track...Because these investigations are going to cost more than the budget of the Department of Homeland Security?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30823852</id>
	<title>Re:Better Dead than Red?</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1263892500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, we should limit drivers to only those certified and licensed.</p><p>Oh wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , we should limit drivers to only those certified and licensed.Oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, we should limit drivers to only those certified and licensed.Oh wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820594</id>
	<title>It's Obvious</title>
	<author>drej</author>
	<datestamp>1263922860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a new law (involving electronic devices and such) so of course it's still okay to break it. I mean, it's not even in the bible!

Besides: It's just too damn comfortable to spy on people over the phone or internet, much better than hiding bugs in people's houses and waiting outside in inconspicuous trucks. If for one can't see the FBI stopping anytime soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a new law ( involving electronic devices and such ) so of course it 's still okay to break it .
I mean , it 's not even in the bible !
Besides : It 's just too damn comfortable to spy on people over the phone or internet , much better than hiding bugs in people 's houses and waiting outside in inconspicuous trucks .
If for one ca n't see the FBI stopping anytime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a new law (involving electronic devices and such) so of course it's still okay to break it.
I mean, it's not even in the bible!
Besides: It's just too damn comfortable to spy on people over the phone or internet, much better than hiding bugs in people's houses and waiting outside in inconspicuous trucks.
If for one can't see the FBI stopping anytime soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820348</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm, this is like saying --</title>
	<author>cbiltcliffe</author>
	<datestamp>1263921540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>corrupt politicians...</p></div><p>You repeat yourself, grasshopper....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>corrupt politicians...You repeat yourself , grasshopper... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>corrupt politicians...You repeat yourself, grasshopper....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820038</id>
	<title>Re:Duhh...</title>
	<author>jank1887</author>
	<datestamp>1263920340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sorry, even with that last sentence this needs an Offtopic mod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sorry , even with that last sentence this needs an Offtopic mod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sorry, even with that last sentence this needs an Offtopic mod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819682</id>
	<title>I'm sure it was for our own good.</title>
	<author>cvtan</author>
	<datestamp>1263919020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am shocked and appalled.  So who knows who was in charge of the FBI during this period?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am shocked and appalled .
So who knows who was in charge of the FBI during this period ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am shocked and appalled.
So who knows who was in charge of the FBI during this period?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819914</id>
	<title>Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down.</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1263919860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>FBI officials told The Post that their own review has found that about half of the 4,400 toll records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in <b>technical violation</b> of the law. (emphasis added)</p></div><p>It seldom happens here anymore because of the idea of "technicalities". Certain factions in the US -- chiefly the one that, with unconscious irony, is always calling for "law and order" -- have brainwashed large portions of the public into believing that the law doesn't or at least shouldn't matter in cases where the outcome displeases them. When someone is acquitted because law enforcement agencies trampled all over the law during their investigation, they are regarded as "getting off on a technicality", and it generally triggers a backlash against the rule of law and accusations that the courts in question are "soft on crime". Of course, what has happened is that the courts in question are actually tough on crime <i>even when the crimes are committed by law enforcement</i>, and they are far-sighted enough to know that treating law enforcement agencies as being above the law is the royal road to serfdom, but the yokels don't get it. In their view, the function of the law is to dish out punishment, not to maintain actual order, and anything that gets in the way of punishing people -- often including their actual innocence -- angers them.</p><p>Unfortunately, there's not a lot of sympathy among those types for enforcing proper police procedure. They're the same people who hold the view that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't care about being searched. And it's true enough that <i>they</i> have nothing to hide inside their trailer parks, so why worry?</p><p>I wouldn't expect anything to change until the "law and order" faction grasps the fact that the expression "technical violation of the law" has no actual meaning; something is in violation of the law or it is not, and if the law is to lead to justice, it must apply to everyone equally, whether it's a thug holding up a liquor store or a better-dressed thug illegally wiretapping American citizens.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FBI officials told The Post that their own review has found that about half of the 4,400 toll records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in technical violation of the law .
( emphasis added ) It seldom happens here anymore because of the idea of " technicalities " .
Certain factions in the US -- chiefly the one that , with unconscious irony , is always calling for " law and order " -- have brainwashed large portions of the public into believing that the law does n't or at least should n't matter in cases where the outcome displeases them .
When someone is acquitted because law enforcement agencies trampled all over the law during their investigation , they are regarded as " getting off on a technicality " , and it generally triggers a backlash against the rule of law and accusations that the courts in question are " soft on crime " .
Of course , what has happened is that the courts in question are actually tough on crime even when the crimes are committed by law enforcement , and they are far-sighted enough to know that treating law enforcement agencies as being above the law is the royal road to serfdom , but the yokels do n't get it .
In their view , the function of the law is to dish out punishment , not to maintain actual order , and anything that gets in the way of punishing people -- often including their actual innocence -- angers them.Unfortunately , there 's not a lot of sympathy among those types for enforcing proper police procedure .
They 're the same people who hold the view that if you have nothing to hide , you should n't care about being searched .
And it 's true enough that they have nothing to hide inside their trailer parks , so why worry ? I would n't expect anything to change until the " law and order " faction grasps the fact that the expression " technical violation of the law " has no actual meaning ; something is in violation of the law or it is not , and if the law is to lead to justice , it must apply to everyone equally , whether it 's a thug holding up a liquor store or a better-dressed thug illegally wiretapping American citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FBI officials told The Post that their own review has found that about half of the 4,400 toll records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in technical violation of the law.
(emphasis added)It seldom happens here anymore because of the idea of "technicalities".
Certain factions in the US -- chiefly the one that, with unconscious irony, is always calling for "law and order" -- have brainwashed large portions of the public into believing that the law doesn't or at least shouldn't matter in cases where the outcome displeases them.
When someone is acquitted because law enforcement agencies trampled all over the law during their investigation, they are regarded as "getting off on a technicality", and it generally triggers a backlash against the rule of law and accusations that the courts in question are "soft on crime".
Of course, what has happened is that the courts in question are actually tough on crime even when the crimes are committed by law enforcement, and they are far-sighted enough to know that treating law enforcement agencies as being above the law is the royal road to serfdom, but the yokels don't get it.
In their view, the function of the law is to dish out punishment, not to maintain actual order, and anything that gets in the way of punishing people -- often including their actual innocence -- angers them.Unfortunately, there's not a lot of sympathy among those types for enforcing proper police procedure.
They're the same people who hold the view that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't care about being searched.
And it's true enough that they have nothing to hide inside their trailer parks, so why worry?I wouldn't expect anything to change until the "law and order" faction grasps the fact that the expression "technical violation of the law" has no actual meaning; something is in violation of the law or it is not, and if the law is to lead to justice, it must apply to everyone equally, whether it's a thug holding up a liquor store or a better-dressed thug illegally wiretapping American citizens.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821750</id>
	<title>Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon</title>
	<author>hosecoat</author>
	<datestamp>1263927720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In some cases, agents broadened their searches to gather numbers two and three degrees of separation from the original request, documents show.</p></div><p>so what has kevin bacon been up to?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In some cases , agents broadened their searches to gather numbers two and three degrees of separation from the original request , documents show.so what has kevin bacon been up to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In some cases, agents broadened their searches to gather numbers two and three degrees of separation from the original request, documents show.so what has kevin bacon been up to?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820050</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263920400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blackwater</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blackwater</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blackwater</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819772</id>
	<title>Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263919320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know how often that happens in the USofA</p></div><p>no u</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how often that happens in the USofAno u</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how often that happens in the USofAno u
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819780</id>
	<title>On the other hand...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263919320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Bureau officials said agents were working quickly under the stress of trying to thwart the next terrorist attack and were not violating the law deliberately. "  Well, I guess if they didn't MEAN to be naughty we can't complain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bureau officials said agents were working quickly under the stress of trying to thwart the next terrorist attack and were not violating the law deliberately .
" Well , I guess if they did n't MEAN to be naughty we ca n't complain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bureau officials said agents were working quickly under the stress of trying to thwart the next terrorist attack and were not violating the law deliberately.
"  Well, I guess if they didn't MEAN to be naughty we can't complain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820284</id>
	<title>Really</title>
	<author>delvsional</author>
	<datestamp>1263921300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a big fucking surprise.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a big fucking surprise .
/sarcasm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a big fucking surprise.
/sarcasm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30825482</id>
	<title>Re:Told you so!</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1263899880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're absolutely correct.  I'm sure his administration will begin making the heads roll immediately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're absolutely correct .
I 'm sure his administration will begin making the heads roll immediately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're absolutely correct.
I'm sure his administration will begin making the heads roll immediately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819706</id>
	<title>Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down.</title>
	<author>RichMan</author>
	<datestamp>1263919080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about making some of the guilty in the FBI do the perp walk?</p><p>Deliberate illegal acts should lead to jail time. Law enforcement officers are not above the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about making some of the guilty in the FBI do the perp walk ? Deliberate illegal acts should lead to jail time .
Law enforcement officers are not above the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about making some of the guilty in the FBI do the perp walk?Deliberate illegal acts should lead to jail time.
Law enforcement officers are not above the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819544</id>
	<title>2000? What a shame they overdid it</title>
	<author>mrRay720</author>
	<datestamp>1263918300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Had they collected 16 fewer records, it could have been so much more appropriate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Had they collected 16 fewer records , it could have been so much more appropriate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had they collected 16 fewer records, it could have been so much more appropriate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820014</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>Alinabi</author>
	<datestamp>1263920280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Soldiers are citizens too. And tend to dislike firing on their own countrymen.</p></div><p>That has rarely been the case throughout history.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Soldiers are citizens too .
And tend to dislike firing on their own countrymen.That has rarely been the case throughout history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soldiers are citizens too.
And tend to dislike firing on their own countrymen.That has rarely been the case throughout history.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819534</id>
	<title>Surprised?</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1263918240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When even the Supreme Court doesn't hold up the constitution as a valid basis there is not much that we can do except for revolt - but even if you get a critical mass to do that, they'll just stick the army on you or use near-lethal weaponry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When even the Supreme Court does n't hold up the constitution as a valid basis there is not much that we can do except for revolt - but even if you get a critical mass to do that , they 'll just stick the army on you or use near-lethal weaponry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When even the Supreme Court doesn't hold up the constitution as a valid basis there is not much that we can do except for revolt - but even if you get a critical mass to do that, they'll just stick the army on you or use near-lethal weaponry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30822886</id>
	<title>Re:Better Dead than Red?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1263931500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By that logic we should probably have sent food instead of soldiers to Iraq.</p><p>Does the old saying "gimme liberty or gimme death" tell you something? There are people who value their freedom higher than their life. Granted, they become rare...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By that logic we should probably have sent food instead of soldiers to Iraq.Does the old saying " gim me liberty or gim me death " tell you something ?
There are people who value their freedom higher than their life .
Granted , they become rare.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By that logic we should probably have sent food instead of soldiers to Iraq.Does the old saying "gimme liberty or gimme death" tell you something?
There are people who value their freedom higher than their life.
Granted, they become rare...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820382</id>
	<title>You ignorant liberals just don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263921720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have to sacrifice our freedoms to protect our freedoms.  Even though our free society is better than an authoritarian one, authoritarianism is far better at protecting freedom.  So, the only way to be free and have rights is to not be free and lose your rights.  You dirty hippies get it now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have to sacrifice our freedoms to protect our freedoms .
Even though our free society is better than an authoritarian one , authoritarianism is far better at protecting freedom .
So , the only way to be free and have rights is to not be free and lose your rights .
You dirty hippies get it now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have to sacrifice our freedoms to protect our freedoms.
Even though our free society is better than an authoritarian one, authoritarianism is far better at protecting freedom.
So, the only way to be free and have rights is to not be free and lose your rights.
You dirty hippies get it now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820260</id>
	<title>I'm still waiting...</title>
	<author>macintard</author>
	<datestamp>1263921240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...for the Hope &amp; Change that was promised to me.  So far, BO seems a lot like GWB, but with better speaking skills.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...for the Hope &amp; Change that was promised to me .
So far , BO seems a lot like GWB , but with better speaking skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...for the Hope &amp; Change that was promised to me.
So far, BO seems a lot like GWB, but with better speaking skills.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820072</id>
	<title>Where were the T-parties</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1263920520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where were the T-parties? Where is Fox news? Why are they not protecting our constitutional rights and going after the people who committed these felonies against the our citizens?</p><p>Oh, that's right.  The only protest people they think are liberals, who want things like health care, and believe in the rule of law.  When a conservative administration breaks the law its for our own good. My bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where were the T-parties ?
Where is Fox news ?
Why are they not protecting our constitutional rights and going after the people who committed these felonies against the our citizens ? Oh , that 's right .
The only protest people they think are liberals , who want things like health care , and believe in the rule of law .
When a conservative administration breaks the law its for our own good .
My bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where were the T-parties?
Where is Fox news?
Why are they not protecting our constitutional rights and going after the people who committed these felonies against the our citizens?Oh, that's right.
The only protest people they think are liberals, who want things like health care, and believe in the rule of law.
When a conservative administration breaks the law its for our own good.
My bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820812</id>
	<title>Re:You ignorant liberals just don't get it</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1263923700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, authoritarianism may be better at protecting lives against external threats, but itself may be a graver internal threat.</p><p>Or is my sarcasm meter off today?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , authoritarianism may be better at protecting lives against external threats , but itself may be a graver internal threat.Or is my sarcasm meter off today ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, authoritarianism may be better at protecting lives against external threats, but itself may be a graver internal threat.Or is my sarcasm meter off today?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821580</id>
	<title>Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down.</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1263927000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Police have a huge advantage when it comes to evading the law. If you don't take away their motivation to perform illegal investigations they will do whatever the hell they want because they are unlikely to be caught. And perversely they would be less likely to be caught when abusing the rights of the innocent, since those cases would be dropped before coming under the scrutiny of the judge and defense counsel at trial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Police have a huge advantage when it comes to evading the law .
If you do n't take away their motivation to perform illegal investigations they will do whatever the hell they want because they are unlikely to be caught .
And perversely they would be less likely to be caught when abusing the rights of the innocent , since those cases would be dropped before coming under the scrutiny of the judge and defense counsel at trial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Police have a huge advantage when it comes to evading the law.
If you don't take away their motivation to perform illegal investigations they will do whatever the hell they want because they are unlikely to be caught.
And perversely they would be less likely to be caught when abusing the rights of the innocent, since those cases would be dropped before coming under the scrutiny of the judge and defense counsel at trial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819656</id>
	<title>Surprised?</title>
	<author>SirBigSpur</author>
	<datestamp>1263918840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is anyone actually surprised by this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anyone actually surprised by this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anyone actually surprised by this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30822100</id>
	<title>Re:Better Dead than Red?</title>
	<author>frankxcid</author>
	<datestamp>1263929040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So those that survived the terrorist attack came out a-ok with no issues.  As cold as it seems, a car accident has a more narrow effect radius than terrorist attacks.  I live in Pennsylvania, 500 miles away from the towers and i was affected by the terrorist attacks.  Although it was not as dramatic as dying in the attack, I lost my job, my company closed and took me 7 years to return to the same pay scale before the attack happen, how does that fit into your neat "No-one-is-affected-unless-they-died" stats.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So those that survived the terrorist attack came out a-ok with no issues .
As cold as it seems , a car accident has a more narrow effect radius than terrorist attacks .
I live in Pennsylvania , 500 miles away from the towers and i was affected by the terrorist attacks .
Although it was not as dramatic as dying in the attack , I lost my job , my company closed and took me 7 years to return to the same pay scale before the attack happen , how does that fit into your neat " No-one-is-affected-unless-they-died " stats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So those that survived the terrorist attack came out a-ok with no issues.
As cold as it seems, a car accident has a more narrow effect radius than terrorist attacks.
I live in Pennsylvania, 500 miles away from the towers and i was affected by the terrorist attacks.
Although it was not as dramatic as dying in the attack, I lost my job, my company closed and took me 7 years to return to the same pay scale before the attack happen, how does that fit into your neat "No-one-is-affected-unless-they-died" stats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820184</id>
	<title>Heh, nice.</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1263920940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So too, in this case, I have to wonder what the benefit of having "civil liberties" is if the end result is being killed by a terrorist attack.</i></p><p>Actually, according to TFA, all these "nonexistent emergencies" and requests for records having nothing to do with actual terrorism overloaded the FBI's communications analysts, which one can reasonably guess <b>hindered</b> their efforts to find actual terrorist threats.</p><p>Oh but don't let practical consequences get in the way of that pretty "Liberty or Safety" false dichotomy.  I mean it's so nice and <i>obvious</i> if you don't think about it even the tiniest bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So too , in this case , I have to wonder what the benefit of having " civil liberties " is if the end result is being killed by a terrorist attack.Actually , according to TFA , all these " nonexistent emergencies " and requests for records having nothing to do with actual terrorism overloaded the FBI 's communications analysts , which one can reasonably guess hindered their efforts to find actual terrorist threats.Oh but do n't let practical consequences get in the way of that pretty " Liberty or Safety " false dichotomy .
I mean it 's so nice and obvious if you do n't think about it even the tiniest bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So too, in this case, I have to wonder what the benefit of having "civil liberties" is if the end result is being killed by a terrorist attack.Actually, according to TFA, all these "nonexistent emergencies" and requests for records having nothing to do with actual terrorism overloaded the FBI's communications analysts, which one can reasonably guess hindered their efforts to find actual terrorist threats.Oh but don't let practical consequences get in the way of that pretty "Liberty or Safety" false dichotomy.
I mean it's so nice and obvious if you don't think about it even the tiniest bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596</id>
	<title>Some Judges need to lay the smack down.</title>
	<author>snowraver1</author>
	<datestamp>1263918480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some Judges need to let some guilty people walk to teach the FBI that they have to play by the rules.  I don't know how often that happens in the USofA, but clearly it's not enough.  I know that in Canada, it is not that uncommon to have evidence invalidated because of invalid collection technique.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some Judges need to let some guilty people walk to teach the FBI that they have to play by the rules .
I do n't know how often that happens in the USofA , but clearly it 's not enough .
I know that in Canada , it is not that uncommon to have evidence invalidated because of invalid collection technique .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some Judges need to let some guilty people walk to teach the FBI that they have to play by the rules.
I don't know how often that happens in the USofA, but clearly it's not enough.
I know that in Canada, it is not that uncommon to have evidence invalidated because of invalid collection technique.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820760</id>
	<title>This is the problem.</title>
	<author>lattyware</author>
	<datestamp>1263923520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whenever anyone points out that these laws are to help stop terrorists, they forget that the first abuse often comes with good intents, but slowly decends into the police state nightmare no one wants.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever anyone points out that these laws are to help stop terrorists , they forget that the first abuse often comes with good intents , but slowly decends into the police state nightmare no one wants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever anyone points out that these laws are to help stop terrorists, they forget that the first abuse often comes with good intents, but slowly decends into the police state nightmare no one wants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819728</id>
	<title>Hmm, this is like saying --</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263919140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>corrupt politicians are... CORRUPT! OMFG!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>corrupt politicians are... CORRUPT ! OMFG !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>corrupt politicians are... CORRUPT! OMFG!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821102</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263924840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kent State? May 4th 1970 Ohio National Guard from over 300 feet away fires into a crowd of unarmed students killing four, one student is shot in the back and one student not involved it the protest is killed from a stray bullet. Courts said the Guard was justified killing the unarmed and distant students and not even an apology was issued.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kent State ?
May 4th 1970 Ohio National Guard from over 300 feet away fires into a crowd of unarmed students killing four , one student is shot in the back and one student not involved it the protest is killed from a stray bullet .
Courts said the Guard was justified killing the unarmed and distant students and not even an apology was issued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kent State?
May 4th 1970 Ohio National Guard from over 300 feet away fires into a crowd of unarmed students killing four, one student is shot in the back and one student not involved it the protest is killed from a stray bullet.
Courts said the Guard was justified killing the unarmed and distant students and not even an apology was issued.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821834</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>Ren Hoak</author>
	<datestamp>1263928080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Revolution is an option, but a better one is voting. Sadly there are insufficient numbers of voters (lacking apathy) and there aren't many politicians worthy of being voted for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Revolution is an option , but a better one is voting .
Sadly there are insufficient numbers of voters ( lacking apathy ) and there are n't many politicians worthy of being voted for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Revolution is an option, but a better one is voting.
Sadly there are insufficient numbers of voters (lacking apathy) and there aren't many politicians worthy of being voted for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30824526</id>
	<title>Re:Told you so!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263895680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how FOX would spin the fact, that the laws were put in place by the Bush administration...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how FOX would spin the fact , that the laws were put in place by the Bush administration.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how FOX would spin the fact, that the laws were put in place by the Bush administration...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819778</id>
	<title>Re:Better Dead than Red?</title>
	<author>BlackPignouf</author>
	<datestamp>1263919320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sir, are an idiot.</p><p>The probability of getting killed by a terrorist attack is so low that it shouldn't be any valid excuse to give away your privacy.<br>Bend over if you'd like, but please let others fight for their rights.</p><p>"Post PS": "personal PC" is just wrong</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sir , are an idiot.The probability of getting killed by a terrorist attack is so low that it should n't be any valid excuse to give away your privacy.Bend over if you 'd like , but please let others fight for their rights .
" Post PS " : " personal PC " is just wrong</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sir, are an idiot.The probability of getting killed by a terrorist attack is so low that it shouldn't be any valid excuse to give away your privacy.Bend over if you'd like, but please let others fight for their rights.
"Post PS": "personal PC" is just wrong</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30822726</id>
	<title>Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down.</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1263931020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Deliberate illegal acts should lead to jail time. Law enforcement officers are not above the law.</i> <br> <br>If anything they should face a harsher sentence than a regular member of the public.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Deliberate illegal acts should lead to jail time .
Law enforcement officers are not above the law .
If anything they should face a harsher sentence than a regular member of the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deliberate illegal acts should lead to jail time.
Law enforcement officers are not above the law.
If anything they should face a harsher sentence than a regular member of the public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30831000</id>
	<title>Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down.</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1263998280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It seldom happens here anymore because of the idea of "technicalities". Certain factions in the US -- chiefly the one that, with unconscious irony, is always calling for "law and order" -- have brainwashed large portions of the public into believing that the law doesn't or at least shouldn't matter in cases where the outcome displeases them. When someone is acquitted because law enforcement agencies trampled all over the law during their investigation, they are regarded as "getting off on a technicality"</i> <br> <br>As opposed to an innocent person being dragged through the process of a trial. Or even public servants failing to do their job properly.<br> <br> <i>and it generally triggers a backlash against the rule of law and accusations that the courts in question are "soft on crime".</i> <br> <br>When the problem is more likely to be either the police in failing to gather evidence correctly. Or prosecutors attempting to prosecute weak cases, including for politcal reasons.<br> <br> <i>Of course, what has happened is that the courts in question are actually tough on crime even when the crimes are committed by law enforcement,</i> <br> <br>Except that they are not. Otherwise you'd expect to see police and/or prosecutors jailed for "contempt of court" every so often.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seldom happens here anymore because of the idea of " technicalities " .
Certain factions in the US -- chiefly the one that , with unconscious irony , is always calling for " law and order " -- have brainwashed large portions of the public into believing that the law does n't or at least should n't matter in cases where the outcome displeases them .
When someone is acquitted because law enforcement agencies trampled all over the law during their investigation , they are regarded as " getting off on a technicality " As opposed to an innocent person being dragged through the process of a trial .
Or even public servants failing to do their job properly .
and it generally triggers a backlash against the rule of law and accusations that the courts in question are " soft on crime " .
When the problem is more likely to be either the police in failing to gather evidence correctly .
Or prosecutors attempting to prosecute weak cases , including for politcal reasons .
Of course , what has happened is that the courts in question are actually tough on crime even when the crimes are committed by law enforcement , Except that they are not .
Otherwise you 'd expect to see police and/or prosecutors jailed for " contempt of court " every so often .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seldom happens here anymore because of the idea of "technicalities".
Certain factions in the US -- chiefly the one that, with unconscious irony, is always calling for "law and order" -- have brainwashed large portions of the public into believing that the law doesn't or at least shouldn't matter in cases where the outcome displeases them.
When someone is acquitted because law enforcement agencies trampled all over the law during their investigation, they are regarded as "getting off on a technicality"  As opposed to an innocent person being dragged through the process of a trial.
Or even public servants failing to do their job properly.
and it generally triggers a backlash against the rule of law and accusations that the courts in question are "soft on crime".
When the problem is more likely to be either the police in failing to gather evidence correctly.
Or prosecutors attempting to prosecute weak cases, including for politcal reasons.
Of course, what has happened is that the courts in question are actually tough on crime even when the crimes are committed by law enforcement,  Except that they are not.
Otherwise you'd expect to see police and/or prosecutors jailed for "contempt of court" every so often.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819620</id>
	<title>A question:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263918660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just out of interest, does anyone know what jurisdiction the feds. in the US would hold for international calls made to/from the US?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just out of interest , does anyone know what jurisdiction the feds .
in the US would hold for international calls made to/from the US ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just out of interest, does anyone know what jurisdiction the feds.
in the US would hold for international calls made to/from the US?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30852846</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>DaleSwanson</author>
	<datestamp>1264072980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd just like to point out that a significant portion of those in the US military aren't US citizens.  I was surprised by this, but many joined largely to get their citizenship.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_armed\_forces#Demographic\_controversies" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_armed\_forces#Demographic\_controversies</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd just like to point out that a significant portion of those in the US military are n't US citizens .
I was surprised by this , but many joined largely to get their citizenship.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United \ _States \ _armed \ _forces # Demographic \ _controversies [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd just like to point out that a significant portion of those in the US military aren't US citizens.
I was surprised by this, but many joined largely to get their citizenship.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_armed\_forces#Demographic\_controversies [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820614</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1263922920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you sure that they're not through and out on the other side, yet ? It's not written anywhere that you can't buy the army, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure that they 're not through and out on the other side , yet ?
It 's not written anywhere that you ca n't buy the army , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure that they're not through and out on the other side, yet ?
It's not written anywhere that you can't buy the army, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820334</id>
	<title>Re:Better Dead than Red?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263921540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So too, in this case, I have to wonder what the benefit of having "civil liberties" is if the end result is being killed by a terrorist attack. Being alive is a prerequisite to enjoying civil liberties, so being dead means being unable to enjoy them. We should be preserving life now, as the most important first step, and we can focus on preserving our civil liberties later since we'll still be alive to fight for them.</p></div><p>Frankly, sir, I find you a much greater threat than any terrorist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So too , in this case , I have to wonder what the benefit of having " civil liberties " is if the end result is being killed by a terrorist attack .
Being alive is a prerequisite to enjoying civil liberties , so being dead means being unable to enjoy them .
We should be preserving life now , as the most important first step , and we can focus on preserving our civil liberties later since we 'll still be alive to fight for them.Frankly , sir , I find you a much greater threat than any terrorist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So too, in this case, I have to wonder what the benefit of having "civil liberties" is if the end result is being killed by a terrorist attack.
Being alive is a prerequisite to enjoying civil liberties, so being dead means being unable to enjoy them.
We should be preserving life now, as the most important first step, and we can focus on preserving our civil liberties later since we'll still be alive to fight for them.Frankly, sir, I find you a much greater threat than any terrorist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820024</id>
	<title>There should be criminal prosecutions</title>
	<author>Grond</author>
	<datestamp>1263920280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>about half of the 4,400 toll records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in technical violation of the law.</em></p><p>'Technical violation of the law' is also known as 'crime.'  The degree to which the law has been violated may be relevant for sentencing, but it's irrelevant in determining whether or not a crime has, in fact, taken place.</p><p><em>In true emergencies, Caproni said, agents always had the legal right to get phone records, and lawyers have now concluded there was no need for the after-the-fact approval process.</em></p><p>So how many of these were actually true emergencies?  And having the legal right to get something doesn't excuse getting it illegally.  If the police have probable cause they can get a warrant to search my house.  If they decided to skip getting a warrant and search it anyway, the results of that search are inadmissible even though the police could have done it legally.  It should be no different in this case.  In fact, in this case there's a statute specifically defining the crime, and it does not excuse a criminal act if it could have been done legally but wasn't.</p><p><em>Bureau officials said agents were working quickly under the stress of trying to thwart the next terrorist attack and were not violating the law deliberately.</em></p><p>That's not a legally recognized excuse.  The intent that matters is the intent to intercept the communication, which was plainly present (this is not a case of accidentally tapping the wrong line or anything like that).  Whether they knew what they were doing was illegal or whether they thought what they were doing was justified is irrelevant in this case, per the statute.</p><p><em>Caproni said the bureau will use the inspector general's findings to determine whether discipline is warranted. </em></p><p>Discipline?  I hope that's just for starters.  The ECPA provides for a jail sentence of up to 5 years per violation, and I would like to see prosecutors pursue significant jail sentences for the "senior FBI managers up to the assistant director level" that approved the procedures for emergency requests, particularly for those who did so "for two years after bureau lawyers raised concerns and an FBI official began pressing for changes."  They betrayed the public trust and broke the law even after their illegal behavior was pointed out to them.  It's utterly inexcusable.</p><p>The federal government should also be made to pay the appropriate statutory civil fine to the parties whose phone records were illegally gathered, which is the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation, or $10,000.  If $10,000 in statutory damages seems excessive, the government should take a look at the Copyright Act some time.  And if 5 years in jail seems excessive, it should take a look at the penalties for growing certain plants in your back yard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>about half of the 4,400 toll records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in technical violation of the law .
'Technical violation of the law ' is also known as 'crime .
' The degree to which the law has been violated may be relevant for sentencing , but it 's irrelevant in determining whether or not a crime has , in fact , taken place.In true emergencies , Caproni said , agents always had the legal right to get phone records , and lawyers have now concluded there was no need for the after-the-fact approval process.So how many of these were actually true emergencies ?
And having the legal right to get something does n't excuse getting it illegally .
If the police have probable cause they can get a warrant to search my house .
If they decided to skip getting a warrant and search it anyway , the results of that search are inadmissible even though the police could have done it legally .
It should be no different in this case .
In fact , in this case there 's a statute specifically defining the crime , and it does not excuse a criminal act if it could have been done legally but was n't.Bureau officials said agents were working quickly under the stress of trying to thwart the next terrorist attack and were not violating the law deliberately.That 's not a legally recognized excuse .
The intent that matters is the intent to intercept the communication , which was plainly present ( this is not a case of accidentally tapping the wrong line or anything like that ) .
Whether they knew what they were doing was illegal or whether they thought what they were doing was justified is irrelevant in this case , per the statute.Caproni said the bureau will use the inspector general 's findings to determine whether discipline is warranted .
Discipline ? I hope that 's just for starters .
The ECPA provides for a jail sentence of up to 5 years per violation , and I would like to see prosecutors pursue significant jail sentences for the " senior FBI managers up to the assistant director level " that approved the procedures for emergency requests , particularly for those who did so " for two years after bureau lawyers raised concerns and an FBI official began pressing for changes .
" They betrayed the public trust and broke the law even after their illegal behavior was pointed out to them .
It 's utterly inexcusable.The federal government should also be made to pay the appropriate statutory civil fine to the parties whose phone records were illegally gathered , which is the greater of actual damages , $ 100 per day of violation , or $ 10,000 .
If $ 10,000 in statutory damages seems excessive , the government should take a look at the Copyright Act some time .
And if 5 years in jail seems excessive , it should take a look at the penalties for growing certain plants in your back yard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about half of the 4,400 toll records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in technical violation of the law.
'Technical violation of the law' is also known as 'crime.
'  The degree to which the law has been violated may be relevant for sentencing, but it's irrelevant in determining whether or not a crime has, in fact, taken place.In true emergencies, Caproni said, agents always had the legal right to get phone records, and lawyers have now concluded there was no need for the after-the-fact approval process.So how many of these were actually true emergencies?
And having the legal right to get something doesn't excuse getting it illegally.
If the police have probable cause they can get a warrant to search my house.
If they decided to skip getting a warrant and search it anyway, the results of that search are inadmissible even though the police could have done it legally.
It should be no different in this case.
In fact, in this case there's a statute specifically defining the crime, and it does not excuse a criminal act if it could have been done legally but wasn't.Bureau officials said agents were working quickly under the stress of trying to thwart the next terrorist attack and were not violating the law deliberately.That's not a legally recognized excuse.
The intent that matters is the intent to intercept the communication, which was plainly present (this is not a case of accidentally tapping the wrong line or anything like that).
Whether they knew what they were doing was illegal or whether they thought what they were doing was justified is irrelevant in this case, per the statute.Caproni said the bureau will use the inspector general's findings to determine whether discipline is warranted.
Discipline?  I hope that's just for starters.
The ECPA provides for a jail sentence of up to 5 years per violation, and I would like to see prosecutors pursue significant jail sentences for the "senior FBI managers up to the assistant director level" that approved the procedures for emergency requests, particularly for those who did so "for two years after bureau lawyers raised concerns and an FBI official began pressing for changes.
"  They betrayed the public trust and broke the law even after their illegal behavior was pointed out to them.
It's utterly inexcusable.The federal government should also be made to pay the appropriate statutory civil fine to the parties whose phone records were illegally gathered, which is the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation, or $10,000.
If $10,000 in statutory damages seems excessive, the government should take a look at the Copyright Act some time.
And if 5 years in jail seems excessive, it should take a look at the penalties for growing certain plants in your back yard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819872</id>
	<title>Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down.</title>
	<author>yariv</author>
	<datestamp>1263919740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is ridiculous, although it is the behavior of any legal system I know of. Obviously evidents that were acquired in some illegal process should still be used, but those FBI officials who "didn't play by the rules" should be tried. I believe that for a policeman to know that violating a citizen's rights will send him to jail is probably more persuading than that what he found in this manner won't be used. In the current method, if you think you can't get the evidence in any other way there is no reason not to get it illegally and hide the illegality.</p><p>So, someone (I don't know how the US justice system works very well) should prosecute those responsible, as you do in any other violation of the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is ridiculous , although it is the behavior of any legal system I know of .
Obviously evidents that were acquired in some illegal process should still be used , but those FBI officials who " did n't play by the rules " should be tried .
I believe that for a policeman to know that violating a citizen 's rights will send him to jail is probably more persuading than that what he found in this manner wo n't be used .
In the current method , if you think you ca n't get the evidence in any other way there is no reason not to get it illegally and hide the illegality.So , someone ( I do n't know how the US justice system works very well ) should prosecute those responsible , as you do in any other violation of the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is ridiculous, although it is the behavior of any legal system I know of.
Obviously evidents that were acquired in some illegal process should still be used, but those FBI officials who "didn't play by the rules" should be tried.
I believe that for a policeman to know that violating a citizen's rights will send him to jail is probably more persuading than that what he found in this manner won't be used.
In the current method, if you think you can't get the evidence in any other way there is no reason not to get it illegally and hide the illegality.So, someone (I don't know how the US justice system works very well) should prosecute those responsible, as you do in any other violation of the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821088</id>
	<title>Re:Told you so!</title>
	<author>BarefootClown</author>
	<datestamp>1263924780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, except that it's A) The Washington Post, not FOX, and B) between 2002-2006, solidly in Bush's term.  FOX is also <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/19/report-fbi-illegally-collected-phone-records/?test=latestnews" title="foxnews.com">carrying the story</a> [foxnews.com], and they also say--right up front, in the lede--that it was 2002-2006, and goes on to make it explicit in the first sentence: "The FBI violated the law in collecting thousands of U.S. telephone records <i>during the Bush administration</i>, The Washington Post reported Monday [emphasis mine]."</p><p>But don't let a silly little thing like <i>fact</i> get in the way of FOX-bashing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , except that it 's A ) The Washington Post , not FOX , and B ) between 2002-2006 , solidly in Bush 's term .
FOX is also carrying the story [ foxnews.com ] , and they also say--right up front , in the lede--that it was 2002-2006 , and goes on to make it explicit in the first sentence : " The FBI violated the law in collecting thousands of U.S. telephone records during the Bush administration , The Washington Post reported Monday [ emphasis mine ] .
" But do n't let a silly little thing like fact get in the way of FOX-bashing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, except that it's A) The Washington Post, not FOX, and B) between 2002-2006, solidly in Bush's term.
FOX is also carrying the story [foxnews.com], and they also say--right up front, in the lede--that it was 2002-2006, and goes on to make it explicit in the first sentence: "The FBI violated the law in collecting thousands of U.S. telephone records during the Bush administration, The Washington Post reported Monday [emphasis mine].
"But don't let a silly little thing like fact get in the way of FOX-bashing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819668</id>
	<title>Re:Better Dead than Red?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263918960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see where you got your handle from 'BadAnalogyGuy'...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see where you got your handle from 'BadAnalogyGuy'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see where you got your handle from 'BadAnalogyGuy'...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819726</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1263919140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Soldiers are citizens too.  And tend to dislike firing on their own countrymen.<br> <br>
Most successful revolutions have had a large chunk of the army on their side as well.  Although you do need a pretty corrupt government for this to happen, and the Us is nowhere near there yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Soldiers are citizens too .
And tend to dislike firing on their own countrymen .
Most successful revolutions have had a large chunk of the army on their side as well .
Although you do need a pretty corrupt government for this to happen , and the Us is nowhere near there yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soldiers are citizens too.
And tend to dislike firing on their own countrymen.
Most successful revolutions have had a large chunk of the army on their side as well.
Although you do need a pretty corrupt government for this to happen, and the Us is nowhere near there yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821290</id>
	<title>Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down.</title>
	<author>Kattspya</author>
	<datestamp>1263925620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We theoretically have this in Sweden and I can guarantee you don't want it.
<br> <br>
The part about having any evidence admittable in court works fine. The second part never works or at least I have never heard of any cop/prosecutor getting in any trouble for unlawfully collected evidence. No matter what you do you're fucked but at least in the US you get less fucked than in most countries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We theoretically have this in Sweden and I can guarantee you do n't want it .
The part about having any evidence admittable in court works fine .
The second part never works or at least I have never heard of any cop/prosecutor getting in any trouble for unlawfully collected evidence .
No matter what you do you 're fucked but at least in the US you get less fucked than in most countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We theoretically have this in Sweden and I can guarantee you don't want it.
The part about having any evidence admittable in court works fine.
The second part never works or at least I have never heard of any cop/prosecutor getting in any trouble for unlawfully collected evidence.
No matter what you do you're fucked but at least in the US you get less fucked than in most countries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820604</id>
	<title>Re:No shit, Sherlock?</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1263922860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can answer that one for you. The 3rd. But only because the FBI are not considered soldiers. They have in fact occupied property without the consent of the owners.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can answer that one for you .
The 3rd .
But only because the FBI are not considered soldiers .
They have in fact occupied property without the consent of the owners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can answer that one for you.
The 3rd.
But only because the FBI are not considered soldiers.
They have in fact occupied property without the consent of the owners.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30822752</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1263931140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Certainly soldiers are citizens. But you must not underestimate how little real information soldiers get.</p><p>When you look at how the Soviet systems crushed revolutions, you will notice that the soldiers were usually crucial for the success of the oppression. How could they fight against someone who basically did what they wanted themselves, more freedom? Simply by giving them false information. Those soldiers were told that it wasn't a revolution backed by the people, they were told that a few insurgents toppled the good government that all people loved and oppressed the people now, and that they were begging for help.</p><p>Well, essentially what we get told before our armies invade some country.</p><p>Detach yourself from the idea that you get a full coverage just because the press needn't lie. The press lies, the government lies, the difference between dictatorship and democracy is just that in a democracy they're telling different lies. Unless of course it's necessary "for the good of the country".</p><p>Do you really think that you'd be told the real deal if a revolution started? Or that soldiers would be told how it really is? They'd get told that some terrorists are attacking capitol hill and threaten the American way of life, and that the army is expected by the people to come to the rescue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Certainly soldiers are citizens .
But you must not underestimate how little real information soldiers get.When you look at how the Soviet systems crushed revolutions , you will notice that the soldiers were usually crucial for the success of the oppression .
How could they fight against someone who basically did what they wanted themselves , more freedom ?
Simply by giving them false information .
Those soldiers were told that it was n't a revolution backed by the people , they were told that a few insurgents toppled the good government that all people loved and oppressed the people now , and that they were begging for help.Well , essentially what we get told before our armies invade some country.Detach yourself from the idea that you get a full coverage just because the press need n't lie .
The press lies , the government lies , the difference between dictatorship and democracy is just that in a democracy they 're telling different lies .
Unless of course it 's necessary " for the good of the country " .Do you really think that you 'd be told the real deal if a revolution started ?
Or that soldiers would be told how it really is ?
They 'd get told that some terrorists are attacking capitol hill and threaten the American way of life , and that the army is expected by the people to come to the rescue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Certainly soldiers are citizens.
But you must not underestimate how little real information soldiers get.When you look at how the Soviet systems crushed revolutions, you will notice that the soldiers were usually crucial for the success of the oppression.
How could they fight against someone who basically did what they wanted themselves, more freedom?
Simply by giving them false information.
Those soldiers were told that it wasn't a revolution backed by the people, they were told that a few insurgents toppled the good government that all people loved and oppressed the people now, and that they were begging for help.Well, essentially what we get told before our armies invade some country.Detach yourself from the idea that you get a full coverage just because the press needn't lie.
The press lies, the government lies, the difference between dictatorship and democracy is just that in a democracy they're telling different lies.
Unless of course it's necessary "for the good of the country".Do you really think that you'd be told the real deal if a revolution started?
Or that soldiers would be told how it really is?
They'd get told that some terrorists are attacking capitol hill and threaten the American way of life, and that the army is expected by the people to come to the rescue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819798</id>
	<title>Like to believe these are all good people, but ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263919380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to believe these are all good people, but sometimes even good people get carried away and need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law... to the top of knowledge and 1 more level of accountability.</p><p>Jail time is needed.</p><p>I've seen people fired for policy violations in the private sector. Anyone who knew about these violations needs to be fired even if they didn't actively participate.</p><p>The FBI needs to be cleaner than any other law enforcement agency in the USA. They haven't lost my trust, but they are headed that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to believe these are all good people , but sometimes even good people get carried away and need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law... to the top of knowledge and 1 more level of accountability.Jail time is needed.I 've seen people fired for policy violations in the private sector .
Anyone who knew about these violations needs to be fired even if they did n't actively participate.The FBI needs to be cleaner than any other law enforcement agency in the USA .
They have n't lost my trust , but they are headed that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to believe these are all good people, but sometimes even good people get carried away and need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law... to the top of knowledge and 1 more level of accountability.Jail time is needed.I've seen people fired for policy violations in the private sector.
Anyone who knew about these violations needs to be fired even if they didn't actively participate.The FBI needs to be cleaner than any other law enforcement agency in the USA.
They haven't lost my trust, but they are headed that way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819674</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>DakotaSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1263918960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Revolt isn't necessary:  the Federal Government is going to go bankrupt in the fairly near future and consequently collapse.  With no money to fund it all, this becomes a self-correcting problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Revolt is n't necessary : the Federal Government is going to go bankrupt in the fairly near future and consequently collapse .
With no money to fund it all , this becomes a self-correcting problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Revolt isn't necessary:  the Federal Government is going to go bankrupt in the fairly near future and consequently collapse.
With no money to fund it all, this becomes a self-correcting problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820770</id>
	<title>Perspective</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1263923520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tracing down the communications "networks" of suspected terrorists actually does sound like a useful way of generating intelligence, so the FBI may have a valid rationale behind doing this. However, I fail to see how this constitutes an "emergency", since there is little requirement for timeliness -- these records are not going to disappear if they don't collect them right away, and the analysts are going to take weeks or months to analyze them anyway. In short, I don't see any down side to using approved procedures to collect this information, making sure to dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s. Failing to do so is either laziness or the result of a delusion caused by watching too much "24".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tracing down the communications " networks " of suspected terrorists actually does sound like a useful way of generating intelligence , so the FBI may have a valid rationale behind doing this .
However , I fail to see how this constitutes an " emergency " , since there is little requirement for timeliness -- these records are not going to disappear if they do n't collect them right away , and the analysts are going to take weeks or months to analyze them anyway .
In short , I do n't see any down side to using approved procedures to collect this information , making sure to dot all the " i " s and cross all the " t " s. Failing to do so is either laziness or the result of a delusion caused by watching too much " 24 " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tracing down the communications "networks" of suspected terrorists actually does sound like a useful way of generating intelligence, so the FBI may have a valid rationale behind doing this.
However, I fail to see how this constitutes an "emergency", since there is little requirement for timeliness -- these records are not going to disappear if they don't collect them right away, and the analysts are going to take weeks or months to analyze them anyway.
In short, I don't see any down side to using approved procedures to collect this information, making sure to dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s. Failing to do so is either laziness or the result of a delusion caused by watching too much "24".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30826058</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1263902580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I guess for a revolution to start, you not only need a very corrupt government, but you need everyone to know about it, which either means a corrupt, ineffectual government (such as Pre-soviet Russia had) or a completely out of control government - which I'm not sure whether History does provide any examples.<br> <br>
I think the military would know if most of the people knew.  I'm guessing in the example you gave, everyone - not just the military - was told that these were brutal oppressive insurgents, and most people believed it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I guess for a revolution to start , you not only need a very corrupt government , but you need everyone to know about it , which either means a corrupt , ineffectual government ( such as Pre-soviet Russia had ) or a completely out of control government - which I 'm not sure whether History does provide any examples .
I think the military would know if most of the people knew .
I 'm guessing in the example you gave , everyone - not just the military - was told that these were brutal oppressive insurgents , and most people believed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I guess for a revolution to start, you not only need a very corrupt government, but you need everyone to know about it, which either means a corrupt, ineffectual government (such as Pre-soviet Russia had) or a completely out of control government - which I'm not sure whether History does provide any examples.
I think the military would know if most of the people knew.
I'm guessing in the example you gave, everyone - not just the military - was told that these were brutal oppressive insurgents, and most people believed it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30822752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30852980</id>
	<title>Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down.</title>
	<author>DaleSwanson</author>
	<datestamp>1264073580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This happens in the US too.  The problem, as pointed out above is that it doesn't punish the FBI.  The FBI gets to say "hey we arrested them, the stupid courts set them free", while still doing whatever they want and abusing their powers.  Then the public as a whole suffers from the criminals being set free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This happens in the US too .
The problem , as pointed out above is that it does n't punish the FBI .
The FBI gets to say " hey we arrested them , the stupid courts set them free " , while still doing whatever they want and abusing their powers .
Then the public as a whole suffers from the criminals being set free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This happens in the US too.
The problem, as pointed out above is that it doesn't punish the FBI.
The FBI gets to say "hey we arrested them, the stupid courts set them free", while still doing whatever they want and abusing their powers.
Then the public as a whole suffers from the criminals being set free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820524</id>
	<title>At least China is honest...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263922560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least China doesn't pretend to have more than one political party.  Republicans == Democrats</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least China does n't pretend to have more than one political party .
Republicans = = Democrats</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least China doesn't pretend to have more than one political party.
Republicans == Democrats</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819968</id>
	<title>Technical Violation of the Law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263920040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After an internal review, I have determined that when I shot that guy and stole his wallet, that was in "technical violation of the law".  However, since I performed a good faith auditing of my procedures on the matter, I feel that an administrative reprimand is the appropriate course of action.</p><p>I'm a bad person... there now everyone can feel safe again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After an internal review , I have determined that when I shot that guy and stole his wallet , that was in " technical violation of the law " .
However , since I performed a good faith auditing of my procedures on the matter , I feel that an administrative reprimand is the appropriate course of action.I 'm a bad person... there now everyone can feel safe again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After an internal review, I have determined that when I shot that guy and stole his wallet, that was in "technical violation of the law".
However, since I performed a good faith auditing of my procedures on the matter, I feel that an administrative reprimand is the appropriate course of action.I'm a bad person... there now everyone can feel safe again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820032</id>
	<title>Who cares...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263920340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it helps reduce the threat of terrorism and none of those involved with making or receiving the phone calls were inconvenienced or were persecuted on other charges that were discovered outside the original reasons for looking at the records than what is the difference?  Perhaps they had a lead on a terrorist act that lead them down the path of needing some additional records.  If it had discovered a plot to blow up some major building and those involved were arrested the FBI would probably have been hailed as heroes and given medals.  I'm not suggesting the government have total power to do anything they want, but how can we stand by and complain that terrorism is on the rise when a fit is thrown every time some phone records are looked at due to some technicalities?  We should stop wasting resources on investigating our own agencies for things that did not have any affect on anyone.  Maybe we could get out of debt and put the economy on track...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it helps reduce the threat of terrorism and none of those involved with making or receiving the phone calls were inconvenienced or were persecuted on other charges that were discovered outside the original reasons for looking at the records than what is the difference ?
Perhaps they had a lead on a terrorist act that lead them down the path of needing some additional records .
If it had discovered a plot to blow up some major building and those involved were arrested the FBI would probably have been hailed as heroes and given medals .
I 'm not suggesting the government have total power to do anything they want , but how can we stand by and complain that terrorism is on the rise when a fit is thrown every time some phone records are looked at due to some technicalities ?
We should stop wasting resources on investigating our own agencies for things that did not have any affect on anyone .
Maybe we could get out of debt and put the economy on track.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it helps reduce the threat of terrorism and none of those involved with making or receiving the phone calls were inconvenienced or were persecuted on other charges that were discovered outside the original reasons for looking at the records than what is the difference?
Perhaps they had a lead on a terrorist act that lead them down the path of needing some additional records.
If it had discovered a plot to blow up some major building and those involved were arrested the FBI would probably have been hailed as heroes and given medals.
I'm not suggesting the government have total power to do anything they want, but how can we stand by and complain that terrorism is on the rise when a fit is thrown every time some phone records are looked at due to some technicalities?
We should stop wasting resources on investigating our own agencies for things that did not have any affect on anyone.
Maybe we could get out of debt and put the economy on track...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819894</id>
	<title>Re:Better Dead than Red?</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1263919800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Total number of Americans killed in Terrorist attacks in the last decade:  ~3000 (No, soldiers fighting a way don't count)<br>Total number of Americans killed in car accidents in the last decade:  ~400,000</p><p>I have to wonder what the benefit of having "the ability to travel" is if the end result is being killed in a car accident.  Being alive is a prerequisite to enjoying travel, being dead means you'll never travel anyway.  We should be preserving life now, as the most important first step, and we can focus on preserving our ability to travel later since we'll still be alive to work for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Total number of Americans killed in Terrorist attacks in the last decade : ~ 3000 ( No , soldiers fighting a way do n't count ) Total number of Americans killed in car accidents in the last decade : ~ 400,000I have to wonder what the benefit of having " the ability to travel " is if the end result is being killed in a car accident .
Being alive is a prerequisite to enjoying travel , being dead means you 'll never travel anyway .
We should be preserving life now , as the most important first step , and we can focus on preserving our ability to travel later since we 'll still be alive to work for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Total number of Americans killed in Terrorist attacks in the last decade:  ~3000 (No, soldiers fighting a way don't count)Total number of Americans killed in car accidents in the last decade:  ~400,000I have to wonder what the benefit of having "the ability to travel" is if the end result is being killed in a car accident.
Being alive is a prerequisite to enjoying travel, being dead means you'll never travel anyway.
We should be preserving life now, as the most important first step, and we can focus on preserving our ability to travel later since we'll still be alive to work for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30828232</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>webweave</author>
	<datestamp>1263921000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as posted above, Kent State, May 4, l970 is a good example, what was the Guard told to shoot down unarmed students? I'm sure you were right with "some terrorists are attacking " INSERT NAME "and threaten the American way of life." At the time of the Kent St. massacre America was fighting another illegal war (according to that piece of paper, The Constitution.) and the war was secretly escalating when Nixon had promised to end it. So why not turn the Guard into a death squad and while you're at it how about some illegal wiretaps a la Watergate? How is this different from any other despot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as posted above , Kent State , May 4 , l970 is a good example , what was the Guard told to shoot down unarmed students ?
I 'm sure you were right with " some terrorists are attacking " INSERT NAME " and threaten the American way of life .
" At the time of the Kent St. massacre America was fighting another illegal war ( according to that piece of paper , The Constitution .
) and the war was secretly escalating when Nixon had promised to end it .
So why not turn the Guard into a death squad and while you 're at it how about some illegal wiretaps a la Watergate ?
How is this different from any other despot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as posted above, Kent State, May 4, l970 is a good example, what was the Guard told to shoot down unarmed students?
I'm sure you were right with "some terrorists are attacking " INSERT NAME "and threaten the American way of life.
" At the time of the Kent St. massacre America was fighting another illegal war (according to that piece of paper, The Constitution.
) and the war was secretly escalating when Nixon had promised to end it.
So why not turn the Guard into a death squad and while you're at it how about some illegal wiretaps a la Watergate?
How is this different from any other despot?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30822752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819510</id>
	<title>The FBI?  Surely not!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263918180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FBI violated our privacy and civil rights?  Surely not, I tell you!</p><p>-JJS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FBI violated our privacy and civil rights ?
Surely not , I tell you ! -JJS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FBI violated our privacy and civil rights?
Surely not, I tell you!-JJS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30822412</id>
	<title>2000?</title>
	<author>HomelessInLaJolla</author>
	<datestamp>1263930060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That isn't even a photon in the universe of illegal activity perpetrated by those clowns.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is n't even a photon in the universe of illegal activity perpetrated by those clowns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That isn't even a photon in the universe of illegal activity perpetrated by those clowns.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820958</id>
	<title>Re:There should be criminal prosecutions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263924240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>'Technical violation of the law' is also known as 'crime.' The degree to which the law has been violated may be relevant for sentencing, but it's irrelevant in determining whether or not a crime has, in fact, taken place.</i>
<p>
It's not a crime until a judge or jury says it is. Until then, it's only an alleged crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Technical violation of the law ' is also known as 'crime .
' The degree to which the law has been violated may be relevant for sentencing , but it 's irrelevant in determining whether or not a crime has , in fact , taken place .
It 's not a crime until a judge or jury says it is .
Until then , it 's only an alleged crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Technical violation of the law' is also known as 'crime.
' The degree to which the law has been violated may be relevant for sentencing, but it's irrelevant in determining whether or not a crime has, in fact, taken place.
It's not a crime until a judge or jury says it is.
Until then, it's only an alleged crime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30831380</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1264000620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>When even the Supreme Court doesn't hold up the constitution as a valid basis there is not much that we can do except for revolt - but even if you get a critical mass to do that, they'll just stick the army on you or use near-lethal weaponry.</i> <br> <br>The issue of exactly what can cause a revolt is somewhat chaotic. As is how armed forces will react. Consider that China had to bring in troops from a completly different part of the country to deal with the Tianaman Square protest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When even the Supreme Court does n't hold up the constitution as a valid basis there is not much that we can do except for revolt - but even if you get a critical mass to do that , they 'll just stick the army on you or use near-lethal weaponry .
The issue of exactly what can cause a revolt is somewhat chaotic .
As is how armed forces will react .
Consider that China had to bring in troops from a completly different part of the country to deal with the Tianaman Square protest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When even the Supreme Court doesn't hold up the constitution as a valid basis there is not much that we can do except for revolt - but even if you get a critical mass to do that, they'll just stick the army on you or use near-lethal weaponry.
The issue of exactly what can cause a revolt is somewhat chaotic.
As is how armed forces will react.
Consider that China had to bring in troops from a completly different part of the country to deal with the Tianaman Square protest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30831148</id>
	<title>Re:There should be criminal prosecutions</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1263999360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The ECPA provides for a jail sentence of up to 5 years per violation, and I would like to see prosecutors pursue significant jail sentences for the "senior FBI managers up to the assistant director level" that approved the procedures for emergency requests, particularly for those who did so "for two years after bureau lawyers raised concerns and an FBI official began pressing for changes."</i> <br> <br>Sounds like they may have broken quite a few other laws, which could have much longer sentences attached.<br> <br> <i>And if 5 years in jail seems excessive, it should take a look at the penalties for growing certain plants in your back yard.</i> <br> <br>5 years rather inadequate in the case of a senior public official. Especially without a lifetime ban from ever working in law enforcement or standing for public office.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ECPA provides for a jail sentence of up to 5 years per violation , and I would like to see prosecutors pursue significant jail sentences for the " senior FBI managers up to the assistant director level " that approved the procedures for emergency requests , particularly for those who did so " for two years after bureau lawyers raised concerns and an FBI official began pressing for changes .
" Sounds like they may have broken quite a few other laws , which could have much longer sentences attached .
And if 5 years in jail seems excessive , it should take a look at the penalties for growing certain plants in your back yard .
5 years rather inadequate in the case of a senior public official .
Especially without a lifetime ban from ever working in law enforcement or standing for public office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ECPA provides for a jail sentence of up to 5 years per violation, and I would like to see prosecutors pursue significant jail sentences for the "senior FBI managers up to the assistant director level" that approved the procedures for emergency requests, particularly for those who did so "for two years after bureau lawyers raised concerns and an FBI official began pressing for changes.
"  Sounds like they may have broken quite a few other laws, which could have much longer sentences attached.
And if 5 years in jail seems excessive, it should take a look at the penalties for growing certain plants in your back yard.
5 years rather inadequate in the case of a senior public official.
Especially without a lifetime ban from ever working in law enforcement or standing for public office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819714</id>
	<title>Re:Better Dead than Red?</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1263919140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You clearly have absolutely no fucking idea how unlikely you are to die in a terrorist attack, particularly in a pre-Patriot Act world.  By your logic, we should all give up any semblance of freedom and have our government lock us away in cages to prevent automobile deaths.</p><p>I'd rather be dead then a slave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You clearly have absolutely no fucking idea how unlikely you are to die in a terrorist attack , particularly in a pre-Patriot Act world .
By your logic , we should all give up any semblance of freedom and have our government lock us away in cages to prevent automobile deaths.I 'd rather be dead then a slave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You clearly have absolutely no fucking idea how unlikely you are to die in a terrorist attack, particularly in a pre-Patriot Act world.
By your logic, we should all give up any semblance of freedom and have our government lock us away in cages to prevent automobile deaths.I'd rather be dead then a slave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821292</id>
	<title>You'd get in more trouble for speeding</title>
	<author>The Atog Lord</author>
	<datestamp>1263925620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I were caught speeding, could I justify that by telling the officer who pulled me over that I was stressed?</p><p>Now, imagine that instead of speeding, I were instead violating the Constitution of the United States. For a period of several years.</p><p>We have rules and laws to prevent this from happening. But if there are no consequences for the people and agencies who violate our rights, then those rights have no teeth. The people who have done this to us should be prosecuted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were caught speeding , could I justify that by telling the officer who pulled me over that I was stressed ? Now , imagine that instead of speeding , I were instead violating the Constitution of the United States .
For a period of several years.We have rules and laws to prevent this from happening .
But if there are no consequences for the people and agencies who violate our rights , then those rights have no teeth .
The people who have done this to us should be prosecuted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were caught speeding, could I justify that by telling the officer who pulled me over that I was stressed?Now, imagine that instead of speeding, I were instead violating the Constitution of the United States.
For a period of several years.We have rules and laws to prevent this from happening.
But if there are no consequences for the people and agencies who violate our rights, then those rights have no teeth.
The people who have done this to us should be prosecuted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30822094</id>
	<title>Suggested Readings:</title>
	<author>foobsr</author>
	<datestamp>1263929040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The narrator inhabits a paranoid dystopia where nothing is as it seems, chaos seems to rule all events, and everyone is deeply suspicious of every one else. In danger of losing his mind, our protagonist starts keeping a diary, and it is this diary which details only a few days in his life that is ultimately found by a future society and given the title Notes from the Neogene. Memoirs Found in a Bathtub is this distant voice from the past, this Notes from the Neogene."
<br> <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoirs\_Found\_in\_a\_Bathtub" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoirs\_Found\_in\_a\_Bathtub</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
Also probably anything by <a href="http:///en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strugatsky" title="wikipedia.org">Arkady and Boris Strugatsky</a> [wikipedia.org], who were originally targetting the Soviet Union. Well, US is SU looking backwards.
<br> <br>
CC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The narrator inhabits a paranoid dystopia where nothing is as it seems , chaos seems to rule all events , and everyone is deeply suspicious of every one else .
In danger of losing his mind , our protagonist starts keeping a diary , and it is this diary which details only a few days in his life that is ultimately found by a future society and given the title Notes from the Neogene .
Memoirs Found in a Bathtub is this distant voice from the past , this Notes from the Neogene .
" http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoirs \ _Found \ _in \ _a \ _Bathtub [ wikipedia.org ] Also probably anything by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky [ wikipedia.org ] , who were originally targetting the Soviet Union .
Well , US is SU looking backwards .
CC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The narrator inhabits a paranoid dystopia where nothing is as it seems, chaos seems to rule all events, and everyone is deeply suspicious of every one else.
In danger of losing his mind, our protagonist starts keeping a diary, and it is this diary which details only a few days in his life that is ultimately found by a future society and given the title Notes from the Neogene.
Memoirs Found in a Bathtub is this distant voice from the past, this Notes from the Neogene.
"
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoirs\_Found\_in\_a\_Bathtub [wikipedia.org]
 
Also probably anything by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky [wikipedia.org], who were originally targetting the Soviet Union.
Well, US is SU looking backwards.
CC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821286</id>
	<title>Re:The FBI? Surely not!</title>
	<author>Syberz</author>
	<datestamp>1263925560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Relax, they were just using company ressources to make sure their wives weren't having an affair.</p><p>Arnie did it in True Lies and it all worked out in the end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Relax , they were just using company ressources to make sure their wives were n't having an affair.Arnie did it in True Lies and it all worked out in the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Relax, they were just using company ressources to make sure their wives weren't having an affair.Arnie did it in True Lies and it all worked out in the end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30832906</id>
	<title>Re:Better Dead than Red?</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1264007040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I have to wonder what the benefit of having "civil liberties" is if the end result is being killed by a terrorist attack</i> <br> <br>In terms of causes of death terrorists attacks rank along with "freak accidents".<br> <br> <i>Being alive is a prerequisite to enjoying civil liberties, so being dead means being unable to enjoy them. We should be preserving life now, as the most important first step, and we can focus on preserving our civil liberties later since we'll still be alive to fight for them.</i> <br> <br>If that were the aim you'd start with adressing the leading causes of death. e.g. spend more on traffic cops...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to wonder what the benefit of having " civil liberties " is if the end result is being killed by a terrorist attack In terms of causes of death terrorists attacks rank along with " freak accidents " .
Being alive is a prerequisite to enjoying civil liberties , so being dead means being unable to enjoy them .
We should be preserving life now , as the most important first step , and we can focus on preserving our civil liberties later since we 'll still be alive to fight for them .
If that were the aim you 'd start with adressing the leading causes of death .
e.g. spend more on traffic cops.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to wonder what the benefit of having "civil liberties" is if the end result is being killed by a terrorist attack  In terms of causes of death terrorists attacks rank along with "freak accidents".
Being alive is a prerequisite to enjoying civil liberties, so being dead means being unable to enjoy them.
We should be preserving life now, as the most important first step, and we can focus on preserving our civil liberties later since we'll still be alive to fight for them.
If that were the aim you'd start with adressing the leading causes of death.
e.g. spend more on traffic cops...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820030</id>
	<title>Re:Told you so!</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1263920340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why will Obama not Deny that he signed each one of these requests?  I have heard that several of them were related to <a href="http://gb1990.net/" title="gb1990.net">Glen Beck killing and raping a young girl in 1990.</a> [gb1990.net]</p><p>Why won't Glen Beck Deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?  And why won't President Obamba deny that he signed each one of these orders personally?</p><p>(ever notice how when the last administration was in, certain people got mad, and corrected you that "It is PRESIDENT Bush", and those same people call our current president by his last name, or even worse, his first-middle-last.. Even if you don't respect the person, you have to respect the position, damnit.  During the Campain, President Clinton came to my small town.. Some people wrote in nasty editorials about referring to him as President, when our President was PRESIDENT Bush.  the newspaper had to explain that president is a title for life, and that its actually encoded into law somewhere...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why will Obama not Deny that he signed each one of these requests ?
I have heard that several of them were related to Glen Beck killing and raping a young girl in 1990 .
[ gb1990.net ] Why wo n't Glen Beck Deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990 ?
And why wo n't President Obamba deny that he signed each one of these orders personally ?
( ever notice how when the last administration was in , certain people got mad , and corrected you that " It is PRESIDENT Bush " , and those same people call our current president by his last name , or even worse , his first-middle-last.. Even if you do n't respect the person , you have to respect the position , damnit .
During the Campain , President Clinton came to my small town.. Some people wrote in nasty editorials about referring to him as President , when our President was PRESIDENT Bush .
the newspaper had to explain that president is a title for life , and that its actually encoded into law somewhere... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why will Obama not Deny that he signed each one of these requests?
I have heard that several of them were related to Glen Beck killing and raping a young girl in 1990.
[gb1990.net]Why won't Glen Beck Deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?
And why won't President Obamba deny that he signed each one of these orders personally?
(ever notice how when the last administration was in, certain people got mad, and corrected you that "It is PRESIDENT Bush", and those same people call our current president by his last name, or even worse, his first-middle-last.. Even if you don't respect the person, you have to respect the position, damnit.
During the Campain, President Clinton came to my small town.. Some people wrote in nasty editorials about referring to him as President, when our President was PRESIDENT Bush.
the newspaper had to explain that president is a title for life, and that its actually encoded into law somewhere...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820044</id>
	<title>Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down.</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1263920340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Some Judges need to let some guilty people walk to teach the FBI that they have to play by the rules.  I don't know how often that happens in the USofA, but clearly it's not enough. I know that in Canada, it is not that uncommon to have evidence invalidated because of invalid collection technique. </i></p><p>It's not uncommon in the US either for improperly acquired evidence to be invalidated, and depending on the importance of that evidence for the accused to walk.  That's generally been the "teeth" in the 4th Amendment and the rules of evidence.  It's why cops always read you your Miranda Rights, because Miranda was a guy who was pretty much as guilty as they come but was tricked into thinking he didn't have any rights and had to confess, so his confession was thrown out and he walked.</p><p>The thing is, it's not clear that any of these investigations resulted in actual arrests or charges or anything.  It's not clear to what purpose they were getting these records.   All I can see from the article is that the agents got these records by invoking "nonexistent emergencies".  Well if the emergency was non-existent, it's not hard to imagine that the crime was non-existent too.</p><p>The impression I get is basically the FBI going on fishing expeditions.  Fishing expeditions that not only came to naught and violated civil liberties, but also overloaded their communications analysts with crap that had nothing to do with actual terrorist threats.  So the FBI's counsel can say that they only "technically" violated the law but that the agents were only trying to stop the next terrorist attack, and hey that might even be true, but the practical result was they made it <i>harder</i> to stop the real terrorist threats with their sloppy and illegal work.</p><p>Hey, who would have thought that the FBI "technically" violating the law would be a bad thing both to those who value civil liberties, <i>and</i> to "Ends justify the means" types?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some Judges need to let some guilty people walk to teach the FBI that they have to play by the rules .
I do n't know how often that happens in the USofA , but clearly it 's not enough .
I know that in Canada , it is not that uncommon to have evidence invalidated because of invalid collection technique .
It 's not uncommon in the US either for improperly acquired evidence to be invalidated , and depending on the importance of that evidence for the accused to walk .
That 's generally been the " teeth " in the 4th Amendment and the rules of evidence .
It 's why cops always read you your Miranda Rights , because Miranda was a guy who was pretty much as guilty as they come but was tricked into thinking he did n't have any rights and had to confess , so his confession was thrown out and he walked.The thing is , it 's not clear that any of these investigations resulted in actual arrests or charges or anything .
It 's not clear to what purpose they were getting these records .
All I can see from the article is that the agents got these records by invoking " nonexistent emergencies " .
Well if the emergency was non-existent , it 's not hard to imagine that the crime was non-existent too.The impression I get is basically the FBI going on fishing expeditions .
Fishing expeditions that not only came to naught and violated civil liberties , but also overloaded their communications analysts with crap that had nothing to do with actual terrorist threats .
So the FBI 's counsel can say that they only " technically " violated the law but that the agents were only trying to stop the next terrorist attack , and hey that might even be true , but the practical result was they made it harder to stop the real terrorist threats with their sloppy and illegal work.Hey , who would have thought that the FBI " technically " violating the law would be a bad thing both to those who value civil liberties , and to " Ends justify the means " types ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some Judges need to let some guilty people walk to teach the FBI that they have to play by the rules.
I don't know how often that happens in the USofA, but clearly it's not enough.
I know that in Canada, it is not that uncommon to have evidence invalidated because of invalid collection technique.
It's not uncommon in the US either for improperly acquired evidence to be invalidated, and depending on the importance of that evidence for the accused to walk.
That's generally been the "teeth" in the 4th Amendment and the rules of evidence.
It's why cops always read you your Miranda Rights, because Miranda was a guy who was pretty much as guilty as they come but was tricked into thinking he didn't have any rights and had to confess, so his confession was thrown out and he walked.The thing is, it's not clear that any of these investigations resulted in actual arrests or charges or anything.
It's not clear to what purpose they were getting these records.
All I can see from the article is that the agents got these records by invoking "nonexistent emergencies".
Well if the emergency was non-existent, it's not hard to imagine that the crime was non-existent too.The impression I get is basically the FBI going on fishing expeditions.
Fishing expeditions that not only came to naught and violated civil liberties, but also overloaded their communications analysts with crap that had nothing to do with actual terrorist threats.
So the FBI's counsel can say that they only "technically" violated the law but that the agents were only trying to stop the next terrorist attack, and hey that might even be true, but the practical result was they made it harder to stop the real terrorist threats with their sloppy and illegal work.Hey, who would have thought that the FBI "technically" violating the law would be a bad thing both to those who value civil liberties, and to "Ends justify the means" types?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540</id>
	<title>Better Dead than Red?</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1263918300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I went to buy a printer the other day I was confronted with a dizzying array of choices. Do I want a laser printer or inkjet? Do I want one that supports Linux or is Windows-only OK? What is the cost of maintenance after purchase?</p><p>Then I remembered I don't have a personal PC to connect it to.</p><p>So too, in this case, I have to wonder what the benefit of having "civil liberties" is if the end result is being killed by a terrorist attack. Being alive is a prerequisite to enjoying civil liberties, so being dead means being unable to enjoy them. We should be preserving life now, as the most important first step, and we can focus on preserving our civil liberties later since we'll still be alive to fight for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I went to buy a printer the other day I was confronted with a dizzying array of choices .
Do I want a laser printer or inkjet ?
Do I want one that supports Linux or is Windows-only OK ?
What is the cost of maintenance after purchase ? Then I remembered I do n't have a personal PC to connect it to.So too , in this case , I have to wonder what the benefit of having " civil liberties " is if the end result is being killed by a terrorist attack .
Being alive is a prerequisite to enjoying civil liberties , so being dead means being unable to enjoy them .
We should be preserving life now , as the most important first step , and we can focus on preserving our civil liberties later since we 'll still be alive to fight for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I went to buy a printer the other day I was confronted with a dizzying array of choices.
Do I want a laser printer or inkjet?
Do I want one that supports Linux or is Windows-only OK?
What is the cost of maintenance after purchase?Then I remembered I don't have a personal PC to connect it to.So too, in this case, I have to wonder what the benefit of having "civil liberties" is if the end result is being killed by a terrorist attack.
Being alive is a prerequisite to enjoying civil liberties, so being dead means being unable to enjoy them.
We should be preserving life now, as the most important first step, and we can focus on preserving our civil liberties later since we'll still be alive to fight for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820788</id>
	<title>The agents that did this are TERRORISTS themselves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263923640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should be delt with accordingly...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should be delt with accordingly.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should be delt with accordingly...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821252</id>
	<title>Re:Better Dead than Red?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263925440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A truly magnificent old-school troll. I tip my hat to you, sir!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A truly magnificent old-school troll .
I tip my hat to you , sir !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A truly magnificent old-school troll.
I tip my hat to you, sir!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819468</id>
	<title>Duhh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263918060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your tax dollars aren't being used to your benefit. Your never going to get propper health care when it's more profitable for politicians to sell you out to insurance companies for 'campaign contributions'</p><p>I can't even find out how much my insurance company will cover for a given procedure. They refuse to tell me until its to late.</p><p>But the FBI can break the law and spy on me all day...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your tax dollars are n't being used to your benefit .
Your never going to get propper health care when it 's more profitable for politicians to sell you out to insurance companies for 'campaign contributions'I ca n't even find out how much my insurance company will cover for a given procedure .
They refuse to tell me until its to late.But the FBI can break the law and spy on me all day.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your tax dollars aren't being used to your benefit.
Your never going to get propper health care when it's more profitable for politicians to sell you out to insurance companies for 'campaign contributions'I can't even find out how much my insurance company will cover for a given procedure.
They refuse to tell me until its to late.But the FBI can break the law and spy on me all day...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30825072</id>
	<title>Re:Better Dead than Red?</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1263898200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahh, I get it.</p><p>This is like that <a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/story/10/01/14/2226219/Obama-Appointee-Sunstein-Favors-Infiltrating-Online-Groups" title="slashdot.org">slashdot</a> [slashdot.org] we read the other day, where the Fed is going to sneak into our conversations and try to modify them...</p><p>Nice try, SPOOK!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh , I get it.This is like that slashdot [ slashdot.org ] we read the other day , where the Fed is going to sneak into our conversations and try to modify them...Nice try , SPOOK !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh, I get it.This is like that slashdot [slashdot.org] we read the other day, where the Fed is going to sneak into our conversations and try to modify them...Nice try, SPOOK!
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819722</id>
	<title>Who's going to jail?</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1263919140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to TFA, the US DOJ started investigating the FBI over this issue in 2006.  Why aren't FBI agents in jail right now?  And why didn't the Washington Post ask this question?</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to TFA , the US DOJ started investigating the FBI over this issue in 2006 .
Why are n't FBI agents in jail right now ?
And why did n't the Washington Post ask this question ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to TFA, the US DOJ started investigating the FBI over this issue in 2006.
Why aren't FBI agents in jail right now?
And why didn't the Washington Post ask this question?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30826106</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1263902880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fair enough, but then we have the anti-war demonstrators putting flowers in gun barrels, and the Yugoslav army not willing to fight Slovenians during the breakup of Yugosavia.  You even have that iconic Tiannaman square scene where the tank driver could have crushed the student.  Any of these would likely have been a lot more violent if those going against the army were resisting an invasion.<br> <br>
There are examples of both but on the whole I'd argue that relying on the army to side with the government over the people is not something I'd bet my country on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fair enough , but then we have the anti-war demonstrators putting flowers in gun barrels , and the Yugoslav army not willing to fight Slovenians during the breakup of Yugosavia .
You even have that iconic Tiannaman square scene where the tank driver could have crushed the student .
Any of these would likely have been a lot more violent if those going against the army were resisting an invasion .
There are examples of both but on the whole I 'd argue that relying on the army to side with the government over the people is not something I 'd bet my country on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fair enough, but then we have the anti-war demonstrators putting flowers in gun barrels, and the Yugoslav army not willing to fight Slovenians during the breakup of Yugosavia.
You even have that iconic Tiannaman square scene where the tank driver could have crushed the student.
Any of these would likely have been a lot more violent if those going against the army were resisting an invasion.
There are examples of both but on the whole I'd argue that relying on the army to side with the government over the people is not something I'd bet my country on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820082</id>
	<title>Re:Better Dead than Red?</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1263920520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seen many terrorists in your neighborhood? Don't count the ones in your family portrait now!!</p><p>So - you're willing to surrender your rights, and cower in fear of terrorists, and you've NEVER SEEN ONE!!</p><p>Cool.</p><p>Personally, I refuse to surrender my rights.  Hell - every harbor town I've ever seen was populated by freaks of some kind or another, but I still walked the streets like I owned them.  Chicago, New York, and LA are populated by thieves, robbers, whores, and worse - especially after the sun goes down.  I should fear going out?</p><p>Funny - I don't fear what I HAVE seen, but you fear what you HAVEN'T seen.</p><p>Imagine that.  Can I get you some more Kool-Aid, dude?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seen many terrorists in your neighborhood ?
Do n't count the ones in your family portrait now !
! So - you 're willing to surrender your rights , and cower in fear of terrorists , and you 've NEVER SEEN ONE !
! Cool.Personally , I refuse to surrender my rights .
Hell - every harbor town I 've ever seen was populated by freaks of some kind or another , but I still walked the streets like I owned them .
Chicago , New York , and LA are populated by thieves , robbers , whores , and worse - especially after the sun goes down .
I should fear going out ? Funny - I do n't fear what I HAVE seen , but you fear what you HAVE N'T seen.Imagine that .
Can I get you some more Kool-Aid , dude ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seen many terrorists in your neighborhood?
Don't count the ones in your family portrait now!
!So - you're willing to surrender your rights, and cower in fear of terrorists, and you've NEVER SEEN ONE!
!Cool.Personally, I refuse to surrender my rights.
Hell - every harbor town I've ever seen was populated by freaks of some kind or another, but I still walked the streets like I owned them.
Chicago, New York, and LA are populated by thieves, robbers, whores, and worse - especially after the sun goes down.
I should fear going out?Funny - I don't fear what I HAVE seen, but you fear what you HAVEN'T seen.Imagine that.
Can I get you some more Kool-Aid, dude?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819834</id>
	<title>Re:Some Judges need to lay the smack down.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263919560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That doesn't really help, because very often the illegal wiretapping is used to find evidence that can then be collected through traditional methods.</p><p>This kind of thing is often very politically expedient -- wiretap your oppenent and find his weakness, and then expose them and force him to step down.</p><p>The illegal wiretapping needs to be dealt with as a criminal offense.  Subverting the Constitution shouldn't be treateed lightly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't really help , because very often the illegal wiretapping is used to find evidence that can then be collected through traditional methods.This kind of thing is often very politically expedient -- wiretap your oppenent and find his weakness , and then expose them and force him to step down.The illegal wiretapping needs to be dealt with as a criminal offense .
Subverting the Constitution should n't be treateed lightly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't really help, because very often the illegal wiretapping is used to find evidence that can then be collected through traditional methods.This kind of thing is often very politically expedient -- wiretap your oppenent and find his weakness, and then expose them and force him to step down.The illegal wiretapping needs to be dealt with as a criminal offense.
Subverting the Constitution shouldn't be treateed lightly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821790</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>mhajicek</author>
	<datestamp>1263927960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Notice the recent trend toward a robotic military?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Notice the recent trend toward a robotic military ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Notice the recent trend toward a robotic military?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819726</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30831000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30822726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30826106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30822268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30832906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30831148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30826058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30822752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30828232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30822752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30824244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30824526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30852980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30831380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30829982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30822886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30825482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30825072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30822100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30823852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30852846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_145227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_145227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_145227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_145227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_145227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30829982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_145227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_145227.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_145227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_145227.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30831148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30824244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_145227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30832906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30825072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30822100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30823852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30822886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_145227.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30852980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30822268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30822726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30831000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_145227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30824526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30825482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_145227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_145227.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821102
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30826106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30822752
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30826058
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30828232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30820014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30852846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30831380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_145227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30819510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_145227.30821286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
