Slashdot Mirror

In the US a treaty becomes the law of the US, so thats why the writers of the US Constitution put in that the Senate would have to ratify the treaty with a 2/3rds vote.

Even with a Democratic majority in the Senate, the Obama Administration will be very hard pressed into getting some Republicans to come over and sign this.

The Administration knows ACTA will not pass, if the details get out it'll be a firestorm among the most liberal Democrats, the Blue Dog moderates and Constitutionalist Republicans (more of whom will be in come January '11).

So the Administration is trying to end-around the Constitution and say it's not a treaty.

Clinton tried to do this with the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, On 13 October 1999, the United States Senate rejected ratification of the CTBT and the Clinton Administration tried to lay the ground work to enforce it's compliance in the US anyway. I recall the Senate sending the White House a letter on it and it pretty much

http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd47/47kyl.htm

at the expense of the rights of people?

It's OK to be importing an unprecedented amount of Chinese goods and exploit the cheap labor for every other aspect of the western economy, but Google is evil because they set up a satellite search service that institutes the required Chinese national policies?

Strawman argument. You brought up cheap Chinese goods and labor, not I. I am in no way defending the exploitation of the chinese worker.

Since the suppression of information is happening regardless of Google's presence, that should clarify that the root of the suppression is not due to U.S. companies agreeing to Chinese government demands, but is the Chinese government itself.

Fact: Google actively filters information on behalf of the Chinese government. The great firewall of China was built with American technology. Google is a part of that.

Frankly, it's also better for U.S. interests to have a "bubble" of Google servers that have a set of blacklisted/censored material for the time being, instead of watching Google lose out entirely in the fastest growing economy to the Chinese domestic engines (e.g. Baidu)

If you'll refer back to the link I posted, you'll see that at least a few members of the US Congress do not believe Google's behavior is in the best interest of the US. Chris Smith went so far as to propose a law to make Google's actions there illegal here. (Of course, his hypocritical solution allows for the filtering of content in the United States to continue, yet would make filtering the exact same material in China illegal.)

In game theory, it seems you would consider the situation a deadlock. I would consider it a prisoner dilemma. I believe human rights are more valuable than money. You must consider money to be more important than human rights. The mods seem to agree with you. Perhaps you and the mods would like to sell your rights... or is it only the rights of other people that you consider to be less important than money?

These politicians who (while it was a popular subject) wanted to crucify Google don't have any qualms about continuing to support China by importing their cheap goods and exploiting the cheap labor costs.

You can thank almighty capitalism for that. Chinese currency manipulation is largely to blame for the "cheap" goods and labor. What follows that is inevitable in a free market. Spineless politicians are more deserving of blame in regards to "one way" free trade with China. In effect, China is exploiting loopholes in a debt based global economy in an attempt to dominate said global economy.

Yes, Saddam occasionally would kick the U.N. inspectors out for a few weeks

"As time went on, some countries, especially the US, wanted to learn more about other parts of Iraq's capacity." The US even tried to find information about the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein. [Rolf Ekeus, Director of UNSCOM 1991-1997, Financial Times, 7/29/03]

When Great Britain and Argentina clashed over the Falkland Islands, off the southern coast of Argentina, Weinberger early on involved himself strongly on the British side..... Weinberger supported Thatcher's decision-he saw Argentina as the aggressor, and Great Britain as a principal U.S. ally. ... Reagan agreed with Weinberger on the need to assist Britain; the United States provided missiles, aircraft fuel, military equipment, and intelligence information to the British government. In a little over two months, British forces defeated the Argentines, who surrendered on 14 June 1982. A new Argentine government, not hostile to the United States, came to power. Proud of U.S. aid to Great Britain in this crisis, Weinberger felt it brought beneficial results.

UK The battle over the Falklands

Most of the Argentine settlers were expelled by a US warship in 1831 and a British expedition took control of the territory in 1832. British sovereignty was declared in 1833, although Argentina has always disputed this.

April 8
US Secretary of State Alexander Haig begins shuttle mediation. Two days later the EEC issues trade sanctions against Argentina while Mr Haig holds talks with Argentine junta. After further meetings the talks break down on April 17.

April 26
Mrs Thatcher says time for diplomacy is running out. President Ronald Reagan declares US support for Britain and economic sanctions against Argentina.

1982 FALKLANDS WAR TIMELINE

29th May
Argentines surrender Goose Green, British take 1,400 prisoners, and the Islanders imprisoned at Goose Green by the Argentines are released; Organisation of American States condemns Britain's military action and calls on the US to stop helping Britain - only the US, Chile, Columbia and Trinidad & Tobago abstain

4th June
Britain and US veto Panamanian-Spanish immediate ceasefire resolution in UN Security Council;
Spain criticises Britain's military action, becoming the only NATO country not to support Britain

12th July
USA ends trade sanctions against Argentina

Your treatment of the Suez Crisis is facile. While you pan the United States, I don't see that the Commonwealth was particularly warm to the UK action in the Suez Crisis either. In fact, a Canadian won a Nobel prize for inventing the peacekeeping force to help put an end to the crisis. Politically, Suez came at about as awkward of a time as it could have. The Soviets were intervening in Hungary, and the US was trying to garner support against that. Opposing the Soviet invasion while backing the UK/France/Israel invasion was at best a very awkward political problem. The US Presidential elections were a week away. You also neglect to mention that the Soviets threatened intervene on behalf of Egypt, and to attack London and Paris with rockets over Suez. The US's actions probably kept the Suez Crisis from spiraling out of control into WW3.

The entire US/UK Special relationship is pretty much a myth anyway

That is indeed a silly statement. To how many countries do you think the US sells Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons, specifically Trident missiles? One: The United Kingdom. Who does the US share nuclear weapons secrets with? The UK. Who did the United Kingdom share the greatest breakthrough in armor technology in the last century, the Chobham armor that made the M1 and Challenger tanks practically invulnerable to most shaped charge attacks for a generation? The United States. Who did the US pic

So you're claiming that the inspection crews being booted was a hoax? hahahaha!

"As time went on, some countries, especially the US, wanted to learn more about other parts of Iraq's capacity." The US even tried to find information about the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein. [Rolf Ekeus, Director of UNSCOM 1991-1997, Financial Times, 7/29/03]

Actually, no, it isn't. Kofi Annan and 188 countries disagree with you.

Responsible for the reckless creation of thousands of weapons many of which are unaccounted for. You see we were creating so many so fast we were building them just in time to store them away so we have room for the next weapon, the Soviet Union did the same both countries have had theft and missing weapons. Or given excess to unstable countries like Iran, Iraq, and Israel.

destroyed Soviet Union

In the chaos that followed its fall, weapons were flowing out of Soviet control and into the hands of terrorists. 100 nukes missing

Are you aware that the industries that were manufactoring our weapons are also involved in manufacturing our enemies weapons? That these companies sell to both sides with the hopes that increased conflict and greater loss of life will up demand for their products.

Revisionist pro Reagan history gives him and the arms race more credit that they deserve. The fall of the soviet union was inevitable. Futhermore, what has the soviet fall really accomplished, some regions in eastern europe still aren't free(Chechnya anyone?) and the majority of Russian political leaders are all ex communists ex KGB etc.. Same people new banner, I don't buy it. Its all the same crap just now we label them democratic and therefore they are good so we now ignore their human rights violations like we do our own.

What truly bothers me about this whole affair is that Roblimo, having decided to interview me and run the story, quoted roughly 15% of my letter of resignation and failed to provide a link to the whole letter when he could have easily done so. That's not my idea of how an open source news organization should do things.

It really and truly bothers me. Along with Google email using target ads and Bob Dylan doing commercials for Victoria Secrets. Ethics has gone to hell.

Saddam didn't have the weapons but wasn't 'open' to letting us look.