Slashdot Mirror

On the whole, east European countries, including Latvia, are notoriously dodgy and a common source of online scams. I've worked with online transaction systems here in Europe that regularly block transactions of any kind to IP's or addreses in these destinations. It's actually quite common (and often used on a 'rating' system to detemine the likelyhood a transaction is fraudulent, much in the same way spam assain works to rate emails as potential SPAM).

Again, that's even here in Europe, because it's quite clear to companies here how much of a problem it is, even if those states are EU members now (a status they were only granted less than a year ago I might add, and they still do not yet have equal status as I recall, in a move to prevent 'brain drain' from people flooding for poorer ex-soviet countries to west block countries).

Searching for 'crime' and 'Latvia' (something I did to help illustrate the point) shows on the first page of results from Google that the US Departement of State has even issued a travel notice for all US citizens going to Latvia. The state.gov web site says amoung other things:

"Internet crime is a growing concern in Latvia. Common fraudulent schemes involve both Internet auction sites and Internet job search sites. In the first scam, criminals offer valuable items for sale at low prices on Internet auctions and request that payment be sent by wire transfer to a bank in Latvia or though a fraudulent escrow site that they have created themselves. In this scheme the money passes through a bank in Latvia and is quickly withdrawn by ATM or transferred to a bank in another country. It is very difficult in these cases to discover the identities of the account holders or recover the funds.

The second common scam involves identity theft through false job offers. In this scheme, a company claiming to be located in Latvia, but which has a non-existent address, offers the victim employment as a U.S.-based agent or freight forwarder. When the victim responds to the job offer, commonly posted on one of several popular internet job sites, a Social Security number and other identifying information - needed for the identity theft - is required under the guise of conducting a background check. ".

Just because it's a small nation, doesn't mean it's not notiously dodgy - it is, and it is known for online fraud as well as quite a few other tyes of crime (people trafficing being another that springs to mind). So as a European I'd have to say I agree with the article and think it's accurate in it's assertion.

Sorry for the bad link! New York Times v. the United States http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0297/ijde/g oodsb1.htm

Cut-n-past time. http://www.state.gov/p/sa/rls/fs/36149.htm

Fact Sheet
U.S. Embassy, Afghanistan
Kabul, Afghanistan
September 12, 2004

U.S. Embassy, Afghanistan Update

Update

The focus of the United States and its coalition partners continues to be reconstruction, elections and Disarmament, Demobilization, and Re-integration (DDR). The facts below list progress made in Afghanistan on several fronts over the last month.

Elections & Voter Registration

-- To date over 10.6 million Afghans have registered to vote -- 41 percent of them are women.

-- The presidential election campaign season officially opened September 7.

Education

-- More than 4.8 million children are enrolled in schools throughout the country, the largest number in the history of Afghanistan.

-- 500,000 children are expected to return to the warm-weather school locations this September in the south and east.

Afghan National Army (ANA)

-- The ANA has 13,500 soldiers. There are another 3,000 currently being trained.

Afghan National Police

-- The Afghan National Police has 29,275 police officers (trained by the United States and Germany).

Disarmament, Demobilization, and Re-integration (DDR)

-- 14,665 Afghan Militia Forces have been disarmed since April.

-- 12,720 of those soldiers are about to begin the reintegration program.

Heavy Weapons Cantonment

-- Heavy weapons are now completely cantoned in Kabul.

-- Cantonment continues in Gardez, Mazar, and Jalalabad and will begin in Konduz today (September 12).

Infrastructure

-- Work began on the Kandahar to Tirin Kowt Road. The road will be complete at the end of 2005.

Refugee & IDP return

-- Over 600,000 refugees and internally displaced persons have returned to their homes since January 2004.

Sounds like major progress to me. Ok, so not total success. But damn good pregress started fresh after the war IMHO.

One thing I would take issue with here though is that "American-Style" democracy is not necessarily synonymous with liberty (the two can exist independent of each other).

The post you are responding to didn't say anything about democracy, American-style or otherwise. Certainly one can have great personal freedom under, say, a benevolent dictatorship - although I'd suggest that democracy is a better bet for preserving freedom in the long run. But you seem to be suggesting that American-style freedom is not necessarily the kind of freedom that is appropriate to other people, and with that I disagree.

...liberty cannot be imposed, for if it is, it is not liberty.

No. If A tells B, "you can't go outside without a veil", and I tell A, "you can't stop her", and make it stick, I have imposed liberty - that is, the only freedom I have taken away is the freedom to take away others' freedoms. A society in which a man cannot tell his neighbor how to dress, or how to worship, is more free than one in which he can - even though he has lost the "freedom" to tell his neighbor how to dress.

Iran is moving slowly in a direction of popular democracy with a strong religious aspect... there is no separation between church and state.

Do the Iranian people have the freedom practice any religion they want? To preach any religion they want? The freedom not to be bound by the laws of the government-sanctioned form of Islam? No. "Apostasy, specifically conversion from Islam, can be punishable by death."

You are treating the Iranian people as though they were a collective, Muslim hive-mind. You talk about the right of self-determination without asking whether that means the right of a Muslim majority to impose its will on Christians, Jews, Baha'is, and atheists - and on Muslims who are not Twelver Shi'ites.

You are right that American intervention would likely be counterproductive, but I'd be glad to have the U.S., or the U.N., or benevolent aliens impose freedom on Iran and the world, if I thought it were possible.

My most recent experience:

Last August I, my girlfriend, and two other (male) friends went on holiday to Mexico. We booked it in June, to travel in August.

The flight was from London to Cancun, changing in Houston - with the Houston->Cancun flight leaving 1hr 40 minutes after we landed.

One of the co-travellers has a Malaysian passport, (although he had "indefinite leave to remain" in the UK, and is now a full British Citizen) so he had to apply for a tourist visa to enter the US. As he's a male aged between 16 and 45, aswell as the standard DS-156 visa application form, he also had to fill in the dreaded DS-157 form.

On that form, he had to provide:

• His "Tribal" name (WTF??)
• EVERY country he had visited in the last ten years
• Full name and address of a contact person in the US (he didn't HAVE a contact in the US, we were staying there for less than 2hrs, for god's sake!)
• The address and supervisor's name of the last two places he'd worked
• The address of every educational establishment he had EVER attended
• Every Professional, Social or Charitable organisation he had ever worked with, belonged to, or CONTRIBUTED to
• Rank, branch, position and speciality of any military service he'd ever done
• Details of any "armed conflict" he'd ever been in, either as participant OR VICTIM

....and all of this to enter a US airport for 1hr, 40 minutes.

He applied for his visa in June, to travel at the end of August. The visa was eventually approved - it arrived in October.

Net result: he lost 2000 UK pounds (that's $3,733 US) on a holiday that never happened, as buried deep within Expedia's small print was a clause that prevented refunds or claims on travel insurance in case of visa problems.

So despite now having a visa which allows him to visit the US any time in the next ten years, he's never going to use it. He never wants to go to the US ever again, and now that the rest of us (British citizens from birth) have to have fingerprints and digital photos taken, neither do we.

And GWB is personally responsible for stopping the spread of HIV around the globe? There are plenty of countries and NGOs out there fighting AIDS, and I don't see why US funding should have such a big impact. FYI, Bush increased spending on stopping HIV/AIDS to $2 billion a year, a 143% increase from 2001 to 2004.

The US spends quite a bit of money fighting AIDS, considering how much impact it is having on our country. In 1996 (sorry, couldn't find more recent numbers with all figures), the US spent the following:

• HIV/AIDS -- $1.4 billion, with 32,000 deaths. That's $43,750 per AIDS death.
• Cancer -- $2.5 billion, with 500k deaths. That's $5,000 per cancer death.
• Heart Disease -- $851 million, with 750k deaths. That's $1,135 per heart disease death.

• Now, it's not entirely fair to compare dollars per death. It'd be more fair to compare dollars per years of life lost, or something like that. So diseases that affect young people will be more important. Even so, we spend a huge amount on AIDS compared to other serious diseases. The amount we spend is easily justified because this is a pandemic that threatens tens of millions of lives, even if they aren't our own.

http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial _690.html

Criminal Cases Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties: Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties (MLATs) are relatively recent development. They seek to improve the effectiveness of judicial assistance and to regularize and facilitate its procedures. Each country designates a central authority, generally the two Justice Departments, for direct communication. The treaties include the power to summon witnesses, to compel the production of documents and other real evidence, to issue search warrants, and to serve process. Generally, the remedies offered by the treaties are only available to the prosecutors. The defense must usually proceed with the methods of obtaining evidence in criminal matters under the laws of the host country which usually involve letters rogatory. See "Questions" below.

MLAT Treaties in Force:

I. The United States has bilateral Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLAT) currently in force with: Anguilla*, Antigua/Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Canada, Cayman Islands*, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Dominica, Egypt, Estonia, Greece, Grenada, Hong Kong, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Korea (South), Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Montserrat*, Morocco, Netherlands, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Romania, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad, Turkey, Turks and Caicos Islands*, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

Wow... what a biased viewpoint.. especially for a +5, informative. Israel is completely serious about the peace process... it's just that the Palestinian leadership (ie Arafat) wasn't serious about it...

And why not mention the $800m/yr in economic aid to Egypt? Or the 3 Billion with a capital B in U.S. backed loan guarantees? Money that we could use on "say, our crumbling roads/railway system, healthcare/retirement, inadequate community emergency services, etc." You would rather we cut off Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East.... for what reason?

By your own statistics,

Foreign aid

The USA comes bottom of the graph in terms of giving as a percentage of GNI/GDP. (page 25)

And considering the percentage of this aid going to Israel, let alone Iraq. Your generosity does not seem so shiny.

"Who the FBI, CIA, NSA, DoD, and the Pentagon ought to be going after is China, Korea, Thailand, and all the other Southeast Asian countries that are costing American companies millions, if not billions, in 'lost revenues' on computer software sales. Sadly, that would require an act of war..."

The US (and other Berne signatories) do fight piracy in the countries you've mentioned, and it doesn't take an act of war in the sense that you probably mean. It's typically done with economic sanctions.

Examples and more info:

• http://www.templetonthorp.com/en/news621
• http://www.bna.com/itr/arch245.htm
• http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Release s/2003/May/Special_301_Report_Finds_Some_Progress, _But_Improvement_Needed.html
• http://usinfo.state.gov/ei/Archive/2003/Dec/31-309 8.html

Why did the FBI agents raid that Dallas host?

Agents of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigations have raided the offices of internet service provider Infocom in Dallas, Texas. The raid came as a result of information that the company was cooperating with the Holy Land Fund for Relief and Development, suspected of being a Hamas fundraising front. The FBI agents confiscated servers, computers and financial records of Infocom. Several websites came down as a result of the raid, including that of the Holy Land Fund.

Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Maybe this was why that Dallas web host was raided?

As for the H1s running out in a day - you know that was because applications from FY03 (INS years run Oct-Sept. Don't ask why :) ) hit the quota in March '04, right? So any applications for H1-b between March 2004 and October 2004 went into a queue, and when the next year's allocation of H1 became available in October, they all went.

I guess that meant that there was quite a bit of demand (at least 65,000 apps filed in six months). I don't know if that's a case of demand rising to meet supply, or if that's indicative of a true economic need. Interesting, anyway.

where's the monkey with 4 asses?

For the United States, the laws that control libel and slander first began to take shape even before the colonies gained their independence from Britain. One of the most famous American cases involved New York publisher John Peter Zenger, who was imprisoned in 1734 for printing political attacks against the colonial governor of New York. Zenger's lawyer established a legal precedent by arguing successfully that truth is an absolute defense in libel cases. Up until then, it had never mattered much whether the allegedly libelous statements about someone were true or false. Since the Zenger case, however, someone can sue successfully for libel only if the defamatory information is proven to be false. [emphasis mine]

This would be governed by the Outer Space Treaty, I'd think.

Not exactly. We didn't oust Hussein because he is a bad person, but because he was seeking weapons that would give him the ability to strike us and our allies.

Actually, it's difficult to rescind your US citizenship, and if the US State Department gets the idea you're doing it to avoid taxes, you may get blacklisted from entering the US. Check out the State Department site for more details.

The United States is the largest financial contributor to the UN and has been every year since its creation in 1945.

How many terrorist incidents have there been in the US since 9/11? The Macy's Parade looked pretty calm to me.

eh? Acts of terrorism are stable if not on the rise. So, we haven't been bombed on American soil in 4 years? That's not something to brag about.

Story 1 -- global terrorism rose in 2002
Story 2 -- global terrorism sucks. US may be as safe as we were since 9/11 but reelection may prompt new acts
Story 3 -- Rise in terrorism in 2003 over 2002. (Note in the first article 2002's numbers were understated though.
Story 4 -- Lebanese, people who actually know something about terrorim, see 100% rise due to foreign policy.
...

It's all google-able. And if we count those 'insurgents' as terrorist, which we're fond of doing when it serves our purposes, terrorism is astronomical.

I've been tracking this for a while, so I waited to make sure I got one of the last non-RFID passports. It's valid for 10 years, and hopefully people will have solved the privacy problem by then. Hopefully.

Are you saying we should have allowed Saddam to continue to slaughter Iraqi kurds by the tens or hundreds of thousands? Is it not better to risk killing a few to prevent not only the death but the certain torture of thousands more?

Was not Saddam openly offering $25k to the family of each suicide bomber to blow up Israelis and Americans, in the name of Palestine, anywhere in the world?

Novices may say that "anyone can edit" Wikipedia, but it's not that simple. Wikipedia is run by Jimbo Wales, who said that "[he] is not by any stretch of the mind leftist politically, philosophically or otherwise!", and "[m]any years ago, [he] was an Undergraduate and a huge fan of Ayn Rand....". The people he gave admin privileges are of a similar ilk, one prominent one is a Moonie, and they work together.
As far as entries on this or that, Wikipedia may be fine. As far as articles about history, news, or politics, there is a very heavy American bias, in fact it is basically a white collar American's view of the world encyclopedia.

For example, the entry for "East Germany" (before a friendly editor came across it) opened with: "East Germany, formally the German Democratic Republic (GDR), German Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR), was a Communist satellite state of the former Soviet Union which, together with West Germany, existed from 1949 to 1990 in Germany." One wonders why it would be said on the East Germany page that it was a "satellite state of the former Soviet Union" and someone of that point of view would not say that West Germany was a satellite state of the USA.

It just presents a very upper middle class American view of the world. Muslims/Arabs/Middle Easterners are always in the wrong, the US and Israel is always right. All socialist countries, from the Eastern Europeans to the Chinese to Latin American ones and so forth, are all bad, while the US was spreading freedom and democracy around the world, from Vietnam to Chile.

Ever wonder what NPOV sources articles come from, say, History of Colombia? Well, where else would you learn about the history of Colombia than the US State Department? With the vast oil holdings of the American wealthy down there, not to mention the billions in military "aid" the US sends down to Colombia every year, you'll not find a more neutral source. And who better to explain the history of Colombia than the US state department?

Is that the only source for "History of Colombia"? Hell no. We also put in some information from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, so you can get a feel of the rich history of Colombia from the eyes of an overseas investor. An overseas investor reading a memorandum called "MEMORANDUM OF DETERMINATIONS Political Violence Claim of Sector Resources, Ltd." In other words, its the history of Colombia, as seen from an insurance claim of an overseas company which was mining gold from Colombia and shipping it back to the US, before some local Colombians came by and made them stop doing this.

So #3 on the list of US foreign "aid" (Colombia) has its history written from the perspective of the US State Department, how about #2, Egypt? Well, what do you know, the history of Modern Egypt is told by the US State Department once again. Yes, we get to see some gems of NPOV Egyptian history taken from the US State Department and put into Wikipedia like "Nasser's domestic policies were arbitrary and frequently oppressive, yet generally popular. All opposition was stamped out, and opponents of the regime frequently were imprisoned without trial. Nasser's foreign and military policies helped provoke the Israeli attack of June 1967 that virtually destroyed Egypt's armed forces along with those of Jordan and Syria. Israel also occupied the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. Nasser, nonetheless, was revered by the masses in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world until his death in 1970." (does Ed Poor moonlight as a copy editor for the State Department?) Yes, yes, that nast

Novices may say that "anyone can edit" Wikipedia, but it's not that simple. Wikipedia is run by Jimbo Wales, who said that "[he] is not by any stretch of the mind leftist politically, philosophically or otherwise!", and "[m]any years ago, [he] was an Undergraduate and a huge fan of Ayn Rand....". The people he gave admin privileges are of a similar ilk, one prominent one is a Moonie, and they work together.
As far as entries on this or that, Wikipedia may be fine. As far as articles about history, news, or politics, there is a very heavy American bias, in fact it is basically a white collar American's view of the world encyclopedia.

For example, the entry for "East Germany" (before a friendly editor came across it) opened with: "East Germany, formally the German Democratic Republic (GDR), German Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR), was a Communist satellite state of the former Soviet Union which, together with West Germany, existed from 1949 to 1990 in Germany." One wonders why it would be said on the East Germany page that it was a "satellite state of the former Soviet Union" and someone of that point of view would not say that West Germany was a satellite state of the USA.

It just presents a very upper middle class American view of the world. Muslims/Arabs/Middle Easterners are always in the wrong, the US and Israel is always right. All socialist countries, from the Eastern Europeans to the Chinese to Latin American ones and so forth, are all bad, while the US was spreading freedom and democracy around the world, from Vietnam to Chile.

Ever wonder what NPOV sources articles come from, say, History of Colombia? Well, where else would you learn about the history of Colombia than the US State Department? With the vast oil holdings of the American wealthy down there, not to mention the billions in military "aid" the US sends down to Colombia every year, you'll not find a more neutral source. And who better to explain the history of Colombia than the US state department?

Is that the only source for "History of Colombia"? Hell no. We also put in some information from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, so you can get a feel of the rich history of Colombia from the eyes of an overseas investor. An overseas investor reading a memorandum called "MEMORANDUM OF DETERMINATIONS Political Violence Claim of Sector Resources, Ltd." In other words, its the history of Colombia, as seen from an insurance claim of an overseas company which was mining gold from Colombia and shipping it back to the US, before some local Colombians came by and made them stop doing this.

So #3 on the list of US foreign "aid" (Colombia) has its history written from the perspective of the US State Department, how about #2, Egypt? Well, what do you know, the history of Modern Egypt is told by the US State Department once again. Yes, we get to see some gems of NPOV Egyptian history taken from the US State Department and put into Wikipedia like "Nasser's domestic policies were arbitrary and frequently oppressive, yet generally popular. All opposition was stamped out, and opponents of the regime frequently were imprisoned without trial. Nasser's foreign and military policies helped provoke the Israeli attack of June 1967 that virtually destroyed Egypt's armed forces along with those of Jordan and Syria. Israel also occupied the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. Nasser, nonetheless, was revered by the masses in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world until his death in 1970." (does Ed Poor moonlight as a copy editor for the State Department?) Yes, yes, that nast

That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. (Saddam Hussein) is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.

Identifying the treaty involved is likely to narrow the other state involved down to one. The MLATs are all theoretically seperate two party treaties, except one with the UK over the Cayman islands, which includes a lot of UK subsidiaries (see below, from the state department's own website).

"MLAT Treaties in Force:

I. The United States has bilateral Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLAT) currently in force with: Anguilla*, Antigua/Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Canada, Cayman Islands*, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Dominica, Egypt, Estonia, Greece, Grenada, Hong Kong, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Korea (South), Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Montserrat*, Morocco, Netherlands, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Romania, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad, Turkey, Turks and Caicos Islands*, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

*Treaty with the United Kingdom concerning the Cayman Islands relating to Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. This MLAT was extended to Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, and the Turks and Caicos Islands on Nov. 9, 1990, and to Montserrat on April 26, 1991."

http://travel.state.gov/law/mlat.html

What's interesting to me is the web site lists a lot of other treaties AND NON-TREATIES that function much like an MLAT, including some that normally only invoked for narcotics cases (but apparently don't all have to be limited that way), and some informal agreements involving SEC matters.

As far as I understand it, the Indymedia was hosted in UK but the FBI seized it on the request of Italian and Swiss governments. Is there an active interest in this matter by the US government other then just complying with the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties (MLATs)?

Personally, I think Ashcroft is a poster-boy for the drama-queenishness of the left.

I don't know of anyone more personally vilified, slandered, and pretty much being accused of being a latter-day Hitler than John Ashcroft.

Why? Don't give me your vague wishy-washy crap about "eroded civil liberties" - what specifically can't you do now that you could do before?

His job at Justice is/was to enforce the laws, if you have a beef with the law, don't complain to the cop.

His argument on protecting America from terror is a little more comprehensive than you dismissively paint: check the listing of terrorist attacks at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm.
Ho w many, after 9/11, have been against civil American targets?
How many were there before 9/11, to compare apples/apples, let's limit it just to the previous 4 years?
To suggest that the terrorist threat is imagined as you imply, is ridiculous.

To point to a lack of 'terrorist' convictions is simply disingenuous or stupid. What was Al Capone put away for? Murder? Extortion? Racketeering? Hmm. I guess the FBI failed to prosecute him effectively too.

It probably will require you take off the tinfoil hat for a second, but READ THE PATRIOT ACT. There is very little in the entire act that grants the US Gov't any powers it didn't already have one way or another. Mainly, it's about streamlining procedures - hardly worth the "OMG teh gobbermint is teh debil!" response /. comments seem to suggest.

His shortcomings - he didn't like bare breasted statues, fundamentalist views, attacking Islam:
1) last time I checked, people were still allowed to hold personal preferences, or was that overturned by the political correctness polics and I missed it? Do I have to validate my personal aesthetics with you first?
2) I know the Liberal Elite in this country would like to consider anyone with religious views as some sort of benighted rube or Untouchable, but you know churchgoers ARE people too, right? Or aren't they included in the "open-minded" liberal worldview?
3) attacking Islam - how? I've only heard him make carefully worded statements pointing at Islamofacists, not Islam in general. Any specifics or is that just more vague bitching?

The president would have been in gross violation of his oath of office to have allowed US citizens to be prosecuted by a non-US court.

OK, please quote which section of the consitution, or the President's oath of office if you like, prohibits US citizens from being prosecuted by a non-US court. Again, sorry to disappoint you, but it happens all the time - it's a basic tenet of international law. Why else would the US have extradition treaties with other countries (for example, the US-UK Extradition Treaty, which "Obligates each State to extradite to the other, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses")?

If you don't like the ICC, fine. But at least get your facts straight before you criticise it. And, while you're at it, stop treating the US constitution like some sort of magic piece of paper that has universal powers. It doesn't.

A quick, cursory reading of the treaty referenced by the poster will show that there is no banning of such a space-based missile defense system. In fact, the claim that the militarization of space is forbidden is not grounded in fact.

The treaty bans the following:

• Space-based nuclear weapons
• Space-based weapons of mass destruction

Certainly, space-based systems designed to provide a member state with defense against incoming weapons of mass destruction do not themselves qualify as weapons of mass destruction. Similarly, as long as the weapons to not contain nuclear warheads, they are not in violation of this treaty.

Following are few places in the treaty where weapons are mentioned.

1. Preamble: Recalling resolution 1884 (XVIII), calling upon States to refrain from placing in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction or from installing such weapons on celestial bodies . . .
2. Article IV: . . . not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space . . .
3. Article IV: The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used . . . exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden.

As can be plainly seen, none of these items ban the installation of conventional defensive weaponry in space. The treaty explicitly deals with installation of nuclear weapons and offensive weapons of mass destruction, as well as using the moon or other celestial bodies for military bases, installations, or fortifications, or for the conducting of military maneuvers.

The term "cruise missile" means an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path. The term "ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM)" means a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.

The term "intermediate-range missile" means a GLBM or a GLCM having a range capability in excess of 1000 kilometers but not in excess of 5500 kilometers.

The treaty was signed by practically every member of the UN general assembly at the time:

http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/spac e5.txt

A more descriptive article about this can be found here. I found this portion to be most interesting...

The substance of the arms control provisions is in Article IV. This article restricts activities in two ways:

First, it contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction.

Where in the mentioned article does it indicate that the new weapons will be nuclear (or WMDs)? This sounds (mostly) legal to me.

A very bad idea, possibly, but illegal?

"Democrats successfully painting Republicans as racist is the greatest propaganda coup in history since EVERY real civil rights gain Blacks have ever made and continue to make has been because of Republicans."

The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act weren't passed by Democrats?

Here's a great quote from the "majority rule, minority rights" State Department site:

Acceptance of ethnic and cultural groups that seem strange if not alien to the majority can represent one of the greatest challenges that any democratic government can face. But democracies recognize that diversity can be an enormous asset. They treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat.

I wonder how the anti-gay marriage constitutional change fits in there.

I think it was George Washington who expressed his fear that the country should be divided not only along party lines, but also along geographical lines.

Right you are. Take a look at this link for more information:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac /49.htm

I fund this paragraph most interesting:
Two-thirds of the Address is devoted to domestic matters and the rise of political parties, and Washington set out his vision of what would make the United States a truly great nation. He called for men to put aside party and unite for the common good, an "American character" wholly free of foreign attachments. The United States must concentrate only on American interests, and while the country ought to be friendly and open its commerce to all nations, it should avoid becoming involved in foreign wars. Contrary to some opinion, Washington did not call for isolation, only the avoidance of entangling alliances. While he called for maintenance of the treaty with France signed during the American Revolution, the problems created by that treaty ought to be clear. The United States must "act for ourselves and not for others."

There was a _reason_ the electoral college came into being: so that populous states would not "drown" out the less populous ones.

Sigh... need I point you to the source ?

Another case in point: A Q Khan. This guy was peddling nuclear know-how (and I literally mean peddling: he had distributed brochures on how his labs would give you the machinery to enrich Uranium and train your people at arms fairs) to all and sundry, and yet he was let off without even a slap on the wrist. This guy (AQK) gave nuclear know-how to North Korea, Libya, etc. and yet nothing happened to him.

Numbers:
Finding 300,000 is rather easy. Tony Blair once mentioned 400,000 but that was bad info so ignore that one. Saddam joined the Ba'ath party back in 1963 as a torturer which should be worry enough. He attacked Iran in 1980 with biological and chemical weapons. He tried to annex Kuwait in 1990. Throughout history every country has had a hands off policy about dictators who kill their own people. So long as the don't invade another country no one cared. Pol Pot for example. Pinoche, Stalin, Hitler until he invaded Poland. We often do this simply because no one believes these dictators could possibly be killing as many people as is reported. The Libertarian solution is to not respond unless we or our allies are attacked, and then come down with the heaviest of hands. Besides, all these discontented Iraqis should have been able to terrorize Saddam's regime just as easily as they could ours.

What post-1776 legislation are you referring to that changes this? Chapter and verse, please.

There are others, but this is the most prominent.

The person responding to your original post is totally wrong.

Nope. I'm right, he's wrong, and you're wrong too (for supporting him).

An AC has already answered, so I'll just copy her link.

If it were possible to exclude people from your business for "any reason", then you could exclude all blacks, asians, and Irish... and that will land you in major legal trouble. You might recall that in 1965 the National Guard enforced against arbitrary exclusion...

Businesses are *not* public entities, either in the literal physical way or in the more figurative organizational way.

Wrong. Many businesses are public- including all those that accept uninvited customers walking in off the street, which includes most shops. Also, all restaurants, gasoline stations, and movie theaters are explicitly labelled as public entities.

If you want to have a restaraunt which is NOT a public entity, then you must define it as a private club, which means maintaining a membership list of allowed customers.

This is the part where specific laws constrain the behaviors of businesses. I believe these constraints to be largely unconstitutional but the Supreme Court doesn't... so what can you do.

So, you knew you were wrong the whole time, and yet you still claimed I was wrong?? Just because you think yourself a better jurist than the USA Supreme Court, doesn't mean you can spread falsehoods about the current state of USA law.

Non citizens do not have the right to speedy trial.

You dont see every country in the world being attacked by militant islamic extremist foreigners now do you?

2/25/03 - Venezuela - 2 bombs explode simultaneously at spanish and columbian embassies. 1 Columbian and 3 Venezualans killed.

3/4/03 - Philippines - bomb explodes at airport. 21 killed, 149 injured.

3/20/03 - Lebanon - bomb explodes in apartment building. 2 killed, 9 wounded.

3/22/03 - Greece - bomb explodes at ATM.

3/24/03 - India - 11 men, 11 women, and 2 boys shot execution style by armed militants

3/25/03 - Serbia - 4 bomb attacks on UN interim administration

3/26/03 - Chile - bomb explodes at bank

3/29/03 - Greece - hand grenade tossed into a McDonalds

3/31/03 - Cuba - plane carrying 46 passengers hijacked

4/2/03 - Philippines - bomb explodes on passanger warf. 16 killed, 55 wounded.

4/5/03 - Lebanon - two bombs explode at restaurant. 10 wounded. undetonated C-4, TNT, and gas containers found.

4/8/03 - Algeria - 1 Swede and Dutch citizen kidnapped

4/11/03 - Algeria - 2 Austrians kidnapped

4/12/03 - India - multiple grenade attacks kill 1, wound 43.

4/12/03 - Venezuala - C-4 bomb explodes at OAS office

4/14/03 - France - militants set fire to car and destroy restaurant

4/15/03 - Turkey - bombs explode at 2 different McDonalds. 1 injured.

4/22/03 - India - bomb explodes at dairy. 6 killed, 12 wounded.

4/25/03 - India - bomb explodes at courthouse. 3 killed, 34 wounded.

5/5/03 - India - bomb and grenade attacks kill 1, injure 26.

5/16/03 - Morocco - 5 bombs explode simultaneously damaging Belgian consulate. 33 killed, 101 wounded.

6/4/03 - Belgium - Letters found containing the nerve agent adamsite. 10 hospitalized.

6/9/03 - Peru - 71 workers of an Argentine company kidnapped

6/17/03 - Italy - bomb explodes in front of spanish school

6/18/03 - France - militants destroy 2 villas with bomb blasts

6/26/03 - Kenya - aid workers attacked with hand grenades

7/3/03 - Columbia - 5 swiss citizens kidnapped

8/5/03 - Indonesia - bomb explodes in front of hotel 12 killed 149 wounded. Al-Qaida claims responsibility.

8/8/03 - Spain - mail bomb sent to Greek consulate

10/5/03 - Malaysia - 3 Indonesians and 2 Filipinos kidnapped. 1 escaped, 4 found executed.

11/11/03 - Greece - bomb found outside bank

His father is Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

If the US had let the UN do its job, the war in Iraq would never have been necessary. The inspectors were already back in, the inspections were already working and Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, nor was he any threat to his neighbors. I agree that the credible threat of military force was necessary to bring down Saddam, but there should not have been any need to actually use it.

agree on a resolution that would result in "serious consequences" if broken

What, you still think 1441 was reason enough to go to war? Get outta here! You been living under a rock the last year? Even Dubya gave up on that one and started harping on about how 678 was still in effect (which it wasn't, the cease-fire after Gulf War I killed it) before he gave up on that angle altogether and started with his "better off without Saddam" line which he's currently using. Read 678, especially the "all necessary means" bit. That bit is missing from 1441 which means it does NOT automatically authorize the use of force to implement it. Another resolution was required and Negroponte et al tried really hard to bribe and coerce one into being, but most of the security council resisted so they went it alone instead. And that's why Kofi Annan called the invasion illegal, because formally it was an unlawful act of aggression against a sovereign state.

Before Bush came around, the combined moral and political might of the U.N. couldn't even keep inspectors in

The UN kept inspectors in Iraq for several years before Bush was appointed president. Richard Butler withdrew them once, but Clinton got them back in, presumably between blowjobs. And he didn't need no invasion to do it either.

Saddam was trying to weasel his way out of sanctions so he could start up his nuclear program again.

Yep. But he wasn't succeeding. Let me quote Secretary of State Colin Powell in a statement he made in 2001:

We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place

You're not calling Colin Powell a liar, are you?

Actually he's being a little alarmist when he says - It means that a passport holder is continuously broadcasting his name, nationality, age, address, and whatever else is on the RFID chip.

RFID chips don't actually broadcast unless they are hit with radio energy at the correct frequency.

The real reason behind these new passports is probably to get people through immigration controls as rapidly as possible. Even a savings of a few seconds, will make the lines move more rapidly. By not having contact readers ie smartcard type, there won't be parts to wear out and probably less downtime for equiptment.

The Chinese deliberately steal Western software, videos, and music, make millions of copies of such intellectual property, and then proceed to export the illicit goods into the American market. The pirated copies of, say, Windows XP compete directly against the real McCoy in the American market. The FBI have arrested numerous Chinese for pirating software, music, and videos.

The piracy rate in Russia is 87%. The rate in China (which includes Taiwan province and Hong Kong) is 92%. The rate in Russia is lower than the rate in China; moreover, the Russians do not export the pirated software into the USA to compete against the original manufacturers of the software.

Clearly, piracy in Russia is a problem but is nowhere near as bad as piracy in China.

Bush indeed wants the UN to outlaw all forms of human cloning worldwide, even though right now all forms are legal in the US: Position statement

According to this Indymedia.org article and AFP report, the request to seize Indymedia servers hosted by a US company in the UK (covered in this previous slashdot story) originated from government agencies in Italy and Switzerland, not the United States. Because Indymedia's hosting company, Rackspace, is a US company, the FBI coordinated the request and accompanied UK Metropolitan Police on the seizure under the auspices of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), an international legal treaty, but, according to an FBI spokesman, 'It is not an FBI operation. Through [MLAT], the subpoena was on behalf of a third country'. Rackspace's statement reads, 'In the present matter regarding Indymedia, Rackspace Managed Hosting, a U.S. based company with offices in London, is acting in compliance with a court order pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which establishes procedures for countries to assist each other in investigations such as international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering. Rackspace responded to a Commissioner's subpoena, duly issued under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1782 in an investigation that did not arise in the United States. Rackspace is acting as a good corporate citizen and is cooperating with international law enforcement authorities. The court prohibits Rackspace from commenting further on this matter.'

I thought we were in a democracy not a republic. I would hold that anything that gets people interested in politics would be good.

No, we're in a republic. If we were in a democracy the electorate would vote directly for issues (tax cuts, raises, laws, etc). Instead, we vote for a series of people who make those decisions for us.

Cheers,
Craig

Good points, but perhaps things are already being done. Sactions, supplying them with food and talks all seem largely useless. But putting the plans on CNN for the world to see and approve wouldn't be wise, either.

The US presence in S. Korea seems to be tightening up a bit, doesn't it? Read this: http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive/2004/Jun/29-53 5351.html and consider what other posters have said about Seoul falling, think about how S. Korean troops would be regarded differently in N. & S. Korea and globally. And consider the US missile defense system http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A966 1-2004Aug17.html Bush is building and Kerry opposes.