Slashdot Mirror

This one, obviously.

Witness:

http://www.fishercenter.bard.edu/about/ - another Gehry monstrosity. A performing Arts Center with no shops nor dressing rooms directly accessible to backstage.

Actually, it was Clinton who signed the treaty and Bush withdrew Clinton's signature that killed the treaty. I think the problem with the American perspective has always been "where's the free lunch" instead of making mutual sacrifices to make the world a better place. Global warming is not something that the United States or the World can do alone to solve.

Actually, President Clinton signed the Kyoto treaty in 1998. However, under the US Constitution, all treaties must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate -- no such vote has ever been scheduled, because there's not enough Senate support for the treaty.

In 2001, President Bush "withdrew" the US signature on the Kyoto treaty -- I have no idea if such a withdrawal is legitimate, not that it matters much.

Actually, President Clinton DID sign the Kyoto protocol... he just did not bother submitting it to the Senate for ratification, because he knew that it would never pass. Even leading Democratic Senator Robert Byrd wrote President Clinton urging him NOT to sign the protocol, and noting that signing it would be contrary to the terms of a Senate resolution passed by a vote of 95-0. After leaving office, a number of Clinton aides spoke out against the protocol, acknowledging that it would be both more difficult and more expensive to comply with than they thought when they were in office. And the Democratic Party has dropped support for the Kyoto protocol from their party platform this year.

Why is it that when President Bush obtains the advice and consent of Congress to go to war he is criticized and ridiculed, but when President Clinton signed the Kyoto protocol in defiance of a unanimous Senate who tells him it will not consent to the treaty, he is praised?

"Better that we tell the industry what our resistance is really about:
We reject the government's copyright system that makes
Federal authorities into thugs that enforce the music companies'
restrictions of our freedom to spread information to whomever we want."

"Better that we tell the industry what our resistance is really about:
We reject the government's copyright system that makes
Federal authorities into thugs that enforce the music companies'
restrictions of our freedom to spread information to whomever we want."

Just a few other mentions of sealand from other sources:

When asked about the status of Sealand, the British Home Office (Britain's equivalent to the Department of Internal Affairs) has, for thirty years, referred people to the Foreign Office as Sealand wasn't considered part of the United Kingdom. Until the HavenCo announcement on June 5 last year.

Free radical

A paper discussing jurisdiction as it pertains to sealand.

This all goes back to jurisdiction. If you go by the ruling in the 25 November 1968 case, in which shots were fired from Sealand in warning towards ships of the British navy, then Sealand has a good case for sovereignty.

The court declared that it was not competent in Roy of Sealand's case as it could not exert any jurisdiction outside of British national territory

A paper concerning abortion laws as they pertain to the EU. From 2000, but it does contain an interesting line.

For Home Office spokesman Tim Watkinson, the situation is clear: "The [United Kingdom] does not recognize Sealand as an independent state, it is within our territorial waters and as such subject to UK law."

As was laid out earlier, the island sits 7-10 miles off shore. It's "declaration of sovereignty" came in 1967, When territorial waters extended only to 3 miles. England would have had no authority until October 1st, 1987, when they moved their border to 12 miles. If we go by the 1968 ruling, England still has no rights over the island.

The fort itself was considered derilect, and as such open to claim.

This would have been prior to england extending it's territorial waters claim from 3 to 12 miles. International law forbids territory of another nation from being claimed simply by extending waters. I believe, though i have no links to back it, that the decision to move England's territorial waters out to 12 miles was based in part on preventing any further claims to small coastal islands, man made or otherwise. I'd be glad to be proven wrong.

Overall this is a unique situation. Any legal preceedings would have to face an uphill climb to establish jurisdiction. If they can indeed prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Sealand does fall under English law, everything else becomes a mute point. Until such time as they can prove Sealand doesn't fit criteria as an independand nation, they have no jurisdiction.

Note that the report on Kosovo was the basis of testimony used in the trial of Slobodan Milosevic. Streaming video of the testimony is here, see 13-14 March.

I'm a student at Bard College in NY state, and we use IMAP so presumably students, faculty, and staff can get their email at any terminal on or off-campus. I'm not a sysadmin, so I'm not sure what all they use, but I know they use IMP for our webmail. You can find out more at http://inside.bard.edu then cick on Henderson Computing Resources Center.