Slashdot Mirror

9. Governing Law and General Provisions.
This Agreement will be governed by the laws of Hungary, excluding the application of its conflicts of law rules. This Agreement will not be governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the application of which is expressly excluded. If any part of this Agreement is found void and unenforceable, it will not affect the validity of the balance of the Agreement, which shall remain valid and enforceable according to its terms. This Agreement shall automatically terminate upon failure by you to comply with its terms. This Agreement may only be modified in writing signed by an authorized officer of Xupiter.

16. Miscellaneous.
(a) This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof;(b) This Agreement and any dispute arising out of it shall be governed by the laws of Hungary; (c) Unless otherwise agreed in writing, all disputes relating to this Agreement (excepting any dispute relating to intellectual property rights) shall be subject to final and binding arbitration in the country of Hungary;

Every try to serve process in Hungary? Do you know what letters rogatory are?

First of all, I'm not the anonymous coward who posted the other response to this comment, however I agree with what that person had to say.

Have I ever stopped to think what our history would look like? There's not much need, as there are pro's and con's any which way you look at it, and the speculation for the past, the present, and the future is absolutely endless. We may have been much better off as two seperate unions. Certainly those hundreds of thousands of people who died during the US Civil War (stated as such to avoid semantecal arguments) would have been better off; they'd have not been killed in that war.

As for WWII, I shall assess the situation based on your own logic and assumptions. Let's assume that the two unions created by the cecession of the southern states were not strong enough to defeat Germany in 1945. First of all, without the help of the US (single nation) in WWI, it's possible the Germans would have signed a very beneficial peace accord with the rest of the allies, thereby heading off the economic desparity that lead to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. Assuming the Nazis did come to power anyway, we could also speculate that after 50 years, changes in internal politics within the united, conquered Nazis Europe would have had a massive and unparalleled good effect on the rest of the world. To be clear, I am absolutely not defending any of the horrific atrocities commited by the Nazi party in and around WWII; only speculating that 50 years could potentially bring about major changes in policies. A united Europe could have potentially devoted itself to helping people all over the world. Instead of small member states in the EU and the UN, we could have a world governing body that actually gets things done. Low pollution, advances in science, elimination of most wars and diseases; the possibilities are endless. On the other side, we could also have possibly seen the most horrible nightmares imagined come to life under the rule of the Nazi party. Then again, it's possible that with the collapse of the eastern front in WWII, the Allies could have possibly won with no help at all from the US.

In the end, the only thing we can say for certain is what is in the history books. What I see in them is a tail of unforgivable treachery from a government devised solely to better implement the will of the states and the will of the people. There is a reason the Civil War is said to have pitted brother against brother: it was wrong. The South was not "reclaimed", it was destroyed; hence the period of time post-dating the Civil War called "Reconstruction". From murderous barbarity, much good has come to be sure, but at what price? Do you sacrifice every moral fiber in your body because what comes next seems good? Lincoln had a choice to make: to follow the spirit of the law and allow the southern states to go their own way as it was always intended they ought to be able to do, or to start a massive, bloody war that would tear apart families and costs hundreds of thousands of lives and millions in damages. To allow the southern states to leave would put the economy of the North in jeopardy. It was a financial decision; it was the easy decision; it was the wrong decision. Unfortunately, the North won the war, and to the victors go the spoils. Thus, history spins the Civil War as a good thing and teaches the youth to believe that it was a hard and morally sound decision.

War is rarely a hard decision, and for damn sure is almost never a morally sound decision.

As for totally disagreeing with everything I said, I invite you to teach me about Ex Parte Milligan, in which the Supreme Court of the United States of America directly stated in no uncertain terms that the suspension of Habeas Corpus by the President was unconstitutional. Perhaps what you mean is that you disagree with the Supreme Court. That's fine; you have a right to do so, and I encourage you to petition the court to review that decision. Somehow, I doubt you'll find their response encouraging.

from the ruling in Ex Parte Milligan:
"it could be well said that a country, preserved at the sacrifice of all the cardinal principles of liberty, is not worth the cost of preservation."

And:
"Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."

Martial law is, of course, required for the suspension of Habeas Corpus. (Unless you ask the Bush Administration, which can come up with justification for anything the resident President does, even if it doesn't make any sense or have any relevence)

Oh, well. Let me do it for you: "-1, Offtopic."

This may sound as flamebait, and I do realize that the parent post and its trail is (5, hilarious), but since you were dead wrong on the export issue, I'll educate you on the Danish/US relations, plus a little extra about Denmark.

(This is taken from a US site, by the way.)

FOREIGN RELATIONS

Danish foreign policy is founded upon four cornerstones: the United Nations, NATO, the EU, and Nordic cooperation. Denmark also is a member of, among others, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Council of Europe, the Nordic Council, the Baltic Council, and the Barents Council. Denmark emphasizes its relations with developing nations.

Although the government has moved to tighten foreign assistance expenditures, it remains a significant donor and one of the few countries to exceed the UN goal of contributing 0.7% of GNP to development assistance.

In the wake of the Cold War, Denmark has been active in international efforts to integrate the countries of central and eastern Europe into the West. It has played a leadership role in coordinating Western assistance to the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania). The country is a strong supporter of international peacekeeping. Danish forces were heavily engaged in the former Yugoslavia in the UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR), in IFOR/SFOR as well as in KFOR.

Denmark has been a member of NATO since its founding in 1949, and membership in NATO remains highly popular. There were several serious confrontations between the U.S. and Denmark on security policy in the so-called "footnote era" (1982-88), when a hostile parliamentary majority forced the government to adopt specific national positions on nuclear and arms control issues. With the end of the Cold War, however, Denmark has been supportive of U.S. policy objectives in the alliance.

[snip]

Since September 11, 2001, Denmark has been highly proactive in endorsing and implementing U.S., UN, and EU-initiated counter-terrorism measures, just as Denmark has contributed substantially to the ISAF in Afghanistan and the neighboring countries.

U.S.-DANISH RELATIONS

Denmark is a close NATO ally, and overall U.S.-Danish relations are excellent. Active in Bosnia, OSCE Chairman-in-Office for 1997, and a leader in the Baltic region, Denmark and the U.S. consult closely on European political and security matters. Denmark shares U.S. views on the positive ramifications of NATO enlargement. Danish and U.S. troops have served side by side in Bosnia and in Macedonia in an effort to bring peace to the region.

Denmark's active liberal trade policy in the EU, OECD, and WTO largely coincides with U.S. interests; the U.S. is Denmark's largest non-European trade partner with about 6% of Danish merchandise trade. Denmark's role in European environmental and agricultural issues and its strategic location at the entrance to the Baltic Sea have made Copenhagen a center for U.S. agencies and the private sector dealing with the Nordic-Baltic region.

[snip]

The U.S. Air Force (USAF) base and early warning radar at Thule, Greenland--a Danish self-governing territory--serve as a vital link in Western defenses.

Oh, we export a great deal of Carlsberg beer though, which is pretty cool. We drink lots of it too - oh, and Tuborg. :-)

But the thing to keep in mind is that there are hundreds of cases, Supreme Court and many lower federal courts and state courts as well, that spell out and interpret various rights and responsibilities of the press. Some decisions contradict others, or only apply in certain circuits or states. It isn't easy to summarize with a single enumeration, beyond "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press."

"There is a concern that the Internet could be used to commit crimes and that advanced encryption could disguise such activity. However, we do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web?

The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. Two hundred years of court decisions have stood in defense of this fundamental right. The state's interest in effective crime-fighting should never vitiate the citizens' Bill of Rights."

If I remember right, one of the requirements of a recent set of World Intellectual Property Organization accords is that signatory members must pass laws expanding their intellectual property enforcement overseas. The US's compliance with this was the DMCA. So, for once, we choose to go along with international accords (unlike, say, the Kyoto Accords, the UN Conference on Racism, etc) and pass the DMCA. Lovely.

Funny, the same argument can be used against 'if Bush says he is a threat' that you used against my congress quote. Hm. Funny that.

Too bad for your arguement, Congress agrees with him.

Just because Saddam can shoot at us in the no fly zones despite his agreement not to does NOT imply that he's a clear and present danger of using weapons of mass destruction.

If they are breaking the cease fire agreement, What else are they doing. Gee, let's send in inspectors to see. If they won't allow the inspector's to do their job, the cease fire is off. Let's make _sure_ they don't posses such weapons.

They are not logically linked, idiot.

Ah, but yes they are. It's called credibility. You know, the thing your argument lost when it devolved into an ad hominem attack.

Senator John Ashcroft - evidently no relation to the daemon obsessed (or is that possessed?) Attorney General of the same name.

Who would have thunk this was stated by Ashcroft?

[Senator Ashcroft takes issue with administration views on the Internet and the use of encryption technology.]

. . . . . . . The Clinton administration would like the Federal government to have the capability to read any international or domestic computer communications. The FBI wants access to decode, digest, and discuss financial transactions, personal e-mail, and proprietary information sent abroad -- all in the name of national security.

. . . . This proposed policy raises obvious concerns about Americans' privacy, in addition to tampering with the competitive advantage that our U.S. software companies currently enjoy in the field of encryption technology. Not only would Big Brother be looming over the shoulders of international cyber-surfers, but the administration threatens to render our state-of-the-art computer software engineers obsolete and unemployed.

This report from the fcc has some hard facts. It's detailed and authoritative. The presentation of the data is slanted towards documenting rates of adoption. More fcc resources are here and here.

Digital Divide has some easy to read charts from the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau. Again, the data are not up-to-the-moment current, but they are reliable. And interesting. For example, you might be surprised at how many high income earners use dialup, or how many not-so-wealthy people use broadband.

A variety of U.S governent reports can be found here.

*****

This +1 informative post brought to you courtesy of Google and the 56K modem : )

I had to show proof that I had $15,000 x 4 years (bachelors degree) = $60,000 in cash or in a bank account or whatever... I NEVER heard of such a rule.

From the Visa FAQ linked from the planetpdf.com site:

* Q: How can an applicant learn why he/she was denied a visa at a post overseas?

A: An applicant is always told the reason for denial, orally or in writing. If an applicant does not understand the reason for denial, or wishes to offer further evidence to overcome the denial, he/she should contact the post where the application was made to determine that post's reapplication policy.


From the article:

Nonetheless, visa applications for both ElcomSoft employees were recently denied, she said; no reasons were given.

Is the US contradicting its own policy here?

Your prejudice is showing - the apartheid government was booted out 10 years ago. Do you think the rest of the world is still punishing the NEW government for the sins of the past. Wake up, moron. Sorry, I think 'dumbass' was the term you used.

US/South Africa treaty

Tor

That's the kind of sh*t that pisses me off, I don't pay taxes to have the government simply hand that money to a corp.

Actually, that's exactly what you do. Of course you could delude yourself into thinking that your particular share of the money was going into Condoleezza Rice's pocket, or perhaps Colin Powell's paycheck instead.

Of course, your money is probably going to TRW, Lockheed Martin, or Boeing, or perhaps all 3.

Remember, it might be neat to think about Bill Gate's money, or how much cash Microsoft has, but really. Call me when Microsoft gets awarded a multibillion dollar contract that has the potential to blow up or get shot down.

I've never seen Windows crash quite like that.

Like a dictator would? Gee, how nice.

Err.. no, more like Monroe doctrine. Unless you're calling Monroe a Dictator, then I guess you're correct.

Hmmm. The US has the potential to destroy every man, woman and child on the planet many times over. Does that mean that every man, woman and child has the right to use any means necessary to deny the US the use of these weapons and thus ensure their personal safety?

My point is that a potential nuke put in space is more than enough of a reason to consider SDI.

There are these things called "international treaties".

And? I hope you realize that space *will* be colonized, regardless of world treaties. The treaty was originally created in the early 60s. Why? Cause America were scared as hell about a little satelite named Sputnik omniously beeping around the planet. We [no necessarily the US] will eventually colonize the Earth's outer orbit, the Moon, Mars, it's just a matter of time.

Damn it.. I didn't want to debate point for point..

Personally, it's clear to me that a lot of the "little puke nations" are sick of the US telling them what to do, whilst simultaneously playing by its own set of rules when it wants to.

Russia can't invade former Soviet states to take out terrorists and India can't do the same in Kashmir but the US can waltz into Iraq as and when it pleases? Nice double standards you've got there, bud.

Good point and I somewhat agree. Although, my original point was the lack of support from our NATO allies. When times get tough for our allies, I doubt the US will blink an eye in helping our allies. I'm disappointed it's not reciprocal. Nelson Mandella is just one example. The man was imprisoned for how long? He finally becomes a free man and then divorces his wife a year later. But before I go too far off topic..

Where are they now? Empires are made to fall.

Yes, they do. Several books have been written on this and although I don't want to admit it, history is a good indicator of what will happen. However, my point was that in history, how many of the super powers were as generous as the US and had no plans for expansion?

Right on, bro! We've got the biggest guns and all those other shitty nations, even the ones that we call friends, should be quaking in their boots. If we want something then we'll take it, simple as that. Why shouldn't we? We're the biggest and the best. Fucking, yeah!

Yes, they should be quaking in their boots. The next time a terrorist group decides to target the US, they should fear for their lives. The next nation that harbors terrorists and provides sanctuary will think twice. That's the point. I'm obviouslly not saying let's invade Greenland because we can. I'm saying that if anyone is thinking about an offensive against us, be it small or large, they will think twice.

Yeah, right. I hope you don't mind when the large family down the road comes into your house and strips you of everything that you've got. Why shouldn't they? There's more of them then there are of you, there more powerful, etc. Enjoy your TV, etc while you can and be thankful that they're content with what they already have - for now. Because, when they kick down the door, you're going to be shit out of luck, pal.

Not likely, but good job here on the post. Congrats on your rating of 5. I don't really disagree with what you have said, I just think you misinterperted what I was saying. I'm just a patriot that vented some of his anger about 9-11, perhaps in the wrong way. God Bless America and may god have mercy on those who seek to destroy it.

That's all I have to say. Thanks for reading this.

Stupid Americans have been bilked out of thousands of dollars,
lured to Africa and (as described in this state department pdf) murdered.

Not saying you're necessarily courting death by jerking a spammer's chain but you might want to consider that some of these Nigerian fraudsters are serious thugs.

Would you make prank calls to Furio?

No, no basis at all.

I haven't given up to this extent yet, though. I agree that there are disgusting abuses of governmental power going on right now, but it's still technically possible to effect change in the system. It'll take some serious effort (certainly more effort that showing up at a foreign consulate and expatriating yourself), but I think there's still a chance to save the US if we can get the metaphorical pendulum to start swinging back in the other direction...

Don't forget the U.S. Department of State. I currently work for them (not an IT position) and have been to more than 30 different countries on the Gov. dime. I am currently on my first permanent overseas assignment and will live here for two years.

Although the pay may not be as high as private sector, when you are assigned overseas the USG pays-
Your rent (huge houses except in european capitals)
Your utilities
Gives you a stipend for more expensive countries
Pays for you to return to the states every two/three years(home leave).

You also get the security of working for the USG and possibly a 20 year retirement(not sure about the IT slots).

If you're really feeling adventurous try one of the third world African countries. The people are great and you get to live like a king(maids, gardeners ect).
This link is for the foreign service IT jobs. Note that you want foreign service jobs not civil service (which are U.S. based.

If you care about this issue, one way or the other, I suggest contacting Rep. Royce (above) or Susan E. Rice, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs (sorry - bio only - no contact info on that page) and let them know. I know that most people today tend to be cynical, the truth is that politicians do indeed listen to the people they represent - they have relections to worry about, if nothing else. That's how democracy works.

P.S. If you're going to D.C., make a point of visiting your representative and senator, even if only for the photo op. Their offices regularly get access and tours for constituents that travel to D.C. Also, the officials really do enjoy meeting with the people they represent. They don't get into that line of work unless they love pressing the flesh and meeting new people.

According to the Department of State we have extradited at least 12 US citizens to Mexico between 1995 and 2000.

.ad afgjk uba dooba doo DRUDGE REPORT 2002
Support The DrudgeReport; Visit Our Advertisers

WASH POST: Bush Admin Split over Iraq...

IRAQ 'CLOSE TO NUCLEAR BOMB GOAL'

Passive smoking can kill your cat... TIMEWARNER to charge flood victims for cable boxes... Archerd: Democrats seeking Hollywood money... Republicans will tie ANWR to Iraq; Say threat in Baghdad necessitates oil drilling in Alaska... Ventura Goofs On God... AP WORLD
AP NATIONAL
AP WASHINGTON
AP BUSINESS
AP ENTERTAINMENT
AP ON THE HOUR
AP HEADLINES
AP BREAKING
SEARCH
Headline:
Date Range:
Within 14 Days Within 13 Days Within 12 Days Within 11 Days Within 10 Days Within 9 Days Within 8 Days Within 7 Days Within 6 Days Within 5 Days Within 4 Days Within 3 Days Within 2 Days Within 1 Day
Any word(s) in article:


ANANOVA
DOW JONES
BLOOMBERG
PAKISTAN WIRE
PAKISTAN BROADCASTING
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC WIRE
ITAR-TASS
KYODO WIRE
PR NEWSWIRE
[SHOWBIZ] PR WIRE
SCRIPPS HOWARD
US INFO WIRE
U.S. NEWSWIRE
WORLDWIRES
XINHUA ABC NEWS
AD AGE DEADLINE
BBC
BBC AUDIO
BILLBOARD
BOSTON GLOBE
BROADCASTING & CABLE
CBS NEWS
C-SPAN SCHEDULE
CHICAGO TRIB
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
CNN
CNN TRANSCRIPTS
DAILY VARIETY
D.C. DAYBOOK
E!
ELECTRONIC MEDIA
EMERGENCY NET
ENT WEEKLY
FINANCIAL TIMES
FORBES MAG
FOX NEWS
INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIB
HILL
H'WOOD REPORTER
HUMAN EVENTS
INSIGHT MAG
INVEST BUS DAILY
JERUSALEM POST
JEWISH WORLD REVIEW
LA DAILY NEWS
LA TIMES
LUCIANNE.COM
MEDIA CHECK
MEDIA LIFE
MSNBC
MUCHMUSIC
NATION
NATIONAL ENQUIRER
NATIONAL REVIEW
NEW REPUBLIC
NY DAILY NEWS
NY OBSERVER
NY POST
NY TIMES
NEW YORKER
NEWSBYTES
NEWSWEEK
N. KOREAN NEWS
PEOPLE MAG
R & R
REASON MAG
ROLL CALL
SKY NEWS
SLATE: PAPERS
STAR
TIME MAG
TV SHOPTALK
[U.K.] DAILY MIRROR
DAILY RECORD
[U.K.] EVENING STANDARD
[U.K.] EXPRESS
[U.K.] GUARDIAN
[U.K.] INDEPENDENT
[U.K.] NEWS OF THE WORLD
[U.K.] PEOPLENEWS
[U.K.] STAR
[U.K.] SUN
U.K. TABLOIDS
[U.K.] TELEGRAPH
[U.K.] TIMES
US NEWS
USA TODAY
VILLAGE VOICE
WASH POST
WASH TIMES
WEEKLY STANDARD
WORLDNETDAILY
UPDATE: Mob Kills 2 in Ill. After Van Crash... US Senate Fails to Pass Medicare Drug Plan... Agents leaving Border Patrol in droves, union says... French spa to host next G8 summit... GLASSMAN/HASSETT: Dow 36000 Revisited... MATT DRUDGE
3 AM GIRLS
CINDY ADAMS
ARMY ARCHERD
DAVE BARRY
MICHAEL BARONE
PETER BART
BOB BARTLEY
STEPHEN BATTAGLIO
MARILYN BECK/SMITH
BLANKLEY
GLORIA BORGER
L. BRENT BOZELL
BRESLIN
DAVID BRODER
PAT BUCHANAN
BILL BUCKLEY
MONA CHAREN
ELEANOR CLIFT
RICHARD COHEN
PAUL COLFORD
JOE CONASON
ANN COULTER
STANLEY CROUCH
MICHAEL DALY
LOU DOBBS
MAUREEN DOWD
STEVE DUNLEAVY
ROGER EBERT
JOSEPH FARAH
SUZANNE FIELDS
ARI FLEISCHER
MICHAEL FLEMING
ROGER FRIEDMAN
JOHN FUND
LEAH GARCHIK
BILL GERTZ
GEORGIE GEYER
JONAH GOLDBERG
ELLEN GOODMAN
MARTIN GROVE
LLOYD GROVE
PETE HAMILL
CARL HIAASEN
NAT HENTOFF
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
H'WOOD REPORTER E-MAIL
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON
INSIDE BELTWAY
INSIDE POLITICS
INSIDE THE RING
MOLLY IVINS
AL KAMEN
MICKEY KAUS
KEITH J. KELLY
MICHAEL KELLY
MICHAEL KINSLEY
HARRY KNOWLES
MORT KONDRACKE
KRAUTHAMMER
LARRY KUDLOW
HOWIE KURTZ
JOHN LEO
DAVID LIMBAUGH
RUSH LIMBAUGH
HAL LINDSEY
RICH LOWRY
MICHELLE MALKIN
CHRIS MATTHEWS
MARY MCGRORY
MICHAEL MEDVED
DICK MORRIS
PEGGY NOONAN
BOB NOVAK
OFF THE RECORD
KATE O'BEIRNE
MARVIN OLASKY
BILL O'REILLY
PAGE SIX
ANDREA PEYSER
JIM PINKERTON
JOHN PODHORETZ
TV PROGRAMMING INSIDER
WES PRUDEN
ANNA QUINDLEN
WILLIAM RASPBERRY
REX REED
RICHARD REEVES
J. MAX ROBINS
RICHARD ROEPER
RUSH/MOLLOY
BILL SAFIRE
SCHLAFLY
TOM SHALES
GAIL SHISTER
LIZ SMITH
MICHAEL SNEED
JOE SOBRAN
THOMAS SOWELL
ANDREW SULLIVAN
HELEN THOMAS
CAL THOMAS
HUNTER S. THOMPSON
NEAL TRAVIS
TV COLUMN
DEB WEISS
JEFFREY WELLS
GEORGE WILL
WALTER WILLIAMS
WASHINGTON WHISPERS
BILL ZWECKER
GERTH ZEROS IN ON CHENEY... AIRLINES TO TRIM FLIGHTS ON SEPT 11... Accounting controls on EU budget 'unreliable'... Man Accused of Raping Nine Women He Met Through Internet... Pentagon: Hamas experimenting with chemical weapons... AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
AFP INTERNATIONAL
AFP NEWS WRAP
AFX
UPI WIRE
UPI NATIONAL
UPI WORLD
AP/REUTERS PHOTO WIRE
REUTERS ROUNDUP
REUTERS SPOTLIGHT
REUTERS WORLD
REUTERS POLITICS
REUTERS ODD
SEARCH






*FINDS ANY STORY LINKED ON DRUDGE WEATHER ACTION
QUAKE SHEET x x x x x VISITS TO DRUDGE
07/31/02

004,776,309 IN PAST 24 HOURS
107,519,403 IN PAST 31 DAYS
895,224,122 IN PAST YEAR DRUDGE ARCHIVES DRUDGE REFERENCE DESK EMAIL: DRUDGE@DRUDGEREPORT.COM SUPER-POWERED BY ALLEGIANCE TELECOM... DRUDGE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB SPEECH TRANSCRIPT

There are two arguments to your claim that we are "completely ignoring" the treaty. First is the fact that we are not ignoring it, we are withdrawing from it, in accordance with the procedures specified in the treaty:

Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from the Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests. [Emphasis mine]
--ABM Treaty, Article XV, Paragraph 2

This paragraph gives us the full authority to withdraw from the treaty at any time, so long as we provide an explanation and six months' notice of intent. When Pres. Bush announced our intent to withdraw, Pres. Putin called it a "source of annoyance" for Russia, but acknowledged that we were, in fact, within our rights.

The second argument is slightly shakier, but does have some validity. The second argument is that the treaty does not apply. From the preamble to the treaty: "The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, hereinafter referred to as the Parties...." The signatories include the USA and the USSR. The USSR doesn't exist anymore. That being true, a case can be made saying the treaty is null and void, because the opposing signatory no longer exists.

In either case, we are not ignoring the treaty; we are in full compliance with it. Whether or not that is a good idea is a matter of debate, but no party claims we are ignoring or breaching the treaty.

As promised, a link: ABM Treaty, as published by the US Department of State.

I would argue that it is essentially the same thing.

Not really; although the consequences might have been the same. Let's examine Yahoo's options:

Implement technical measures to make such content unavailable to French citizens, since it is illegal to hawk such wares in France. As you pointed out, this is probably close to impossible.

Comply (which they did as I recall)

Showing the middle finger to the judge accompagnied by a loud Fuckez vous, Monsieur

Option three would have been absolutely legit since no US court would shut down Yahoos US servers based on a French ruling.

But if Yahoo choses to ignore the verdict then they can't do any business in France. It's as simple as that.

Actually (assuming that you are US-American) the US is a lot worse in this respect, since they try to outlaw actions that doesn't even involve them directly. That is: threatening to seize assets of a foreign company in the US just because they do business with another sovereign foreign country.

Those that sit in glass houses...

Even if they've never ever been in a car nor tried to get a license, even if they don't have their Social Security and Selective Service cards (admittedly non-photo, but that's /something/ with a name on it), they should at least be able to get a passport or other form of ID without much effort. Hell, US passports are valid for ten years...

I believe there are processing fees for passports. According to the forms here, it would appear to be $60 (a $45 fee and another $15 fee). That could be a small problem for a homeless person. Not to mention the cost of getting the passport photos (usually around $5).

Also, I assume you need _some_ proof of identity to get a passport. That DS-11 form says you need a certified birth certificate. This may be beyond a homeless person's ability to acquire.

Aside from that whole hyperpollution issue and vicious totalitarian Communist corruptocracy and miserable population health and the wholesale violation of basic human rights, freedoms, and dignity, CHINA ROCKS!! WOO! GO eCOMMERCE AND TELEPHONE TECHNOLOGY!

(sidenote: Funny how the two most vicious sadistic empires on Earth are on the exact opposite sides of the planet.)

A little light reading material, for those who like their moral outrage straight-up: http://hrw.org/asia/china.php

and another perspective on China in case the phrase "human rights" sounds a little too pinko faggot for your finely-tuned intellectual sensibilities... http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/eap/8289 .htm ...

May whatever runs this stupid universe have mercy on the poor people in that godforsaken nation.

> The USA, of course, has more chemical and
> biological weapons than any other country on
> earth...

Why would you assume that?


I'm not assuming it. I was watching TV late one night in Maryland, and an official spokesperson from the the Department of Defense came on Channel 20 at about 3AM. She announced that chemical weapons would be destroyed in a series of explosions over the next few days, at no risk to the public... It sure was reassuring to see that our military has TV studios and everything ready to go in case they ever need to sieze control of the airwaves!

But it's probably true that the USSR *had* more. Arms races are like that sometimes. USA must be #2 then, don't you think?

As for stopping research into biological weapons into the 70s... Remember those Anthrax attacks? You know, the ones where the Anthrax was determined to be from a strain of Anthrax that the Army sheepishly admitted had gone missing? From Fort Detrick MD as I recall. Or was it Ft. Meade? Or was it Walter Reed? Heck, there are three facilities that deal with chemical and biological agents in the tiny state of Maryland, just think how many there must be in the whole U.S. of A!

The only way to reconcile the Anthrax mailer with your claim that we've stopped producing biological weapons is that we have so much stockpiled that we don't need to produce any more. I mean really, if you're gonna believe everything you read in a treaty, then perhaps you'd like to explain the existence of the Antrhax at Army labs in light of this statement:

Under the terms of the convention, the parties undertake not to develop, produce, stockpile, or acquire biological agents or toxins "of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective, and other peaceful purposes," as well as weapons and means of delivery. All such material is to be destroyed within nine months of the conventions entry into force. In January 1976, all heads of Federal departments and agencies certified to the President that as of December 26, 1975, their respective departments and agencies were in full compliance with the convention.

Interesting links:
Destruction of chemical weapons in USA: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/demil/default.htm

"SBCCOM also provides for safe chemical weapons storage;"
http://www.sbccom.army.mil/

I guess the reason I come down hard on the USA for not supporting the land mine ban but I don't take it to China for not signing the bioweapons ban is because we supposedly value human rights and freedom, yadda yadda yadda, yet we won't agree to a bioweapons treaty that involves inspection. Meanwhile we bomb Iraq when they kick out inspectors, who were later shown to be U.S. spies. Double standard, anyone?

And since you're going to ask, here are a few refs:
US balks at bioterror convention:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/ 0,7369,494257 ,00.html

UN weapons inspectors in Iraq were U.S. spies:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/mar1999/ iraq-m04 .shtml
or in case the socialists aren't liberal enough, there's frontline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontlin e/shows/unsc om/etc/script.html

Considering there are estimated to be over 50,000,000 unexploded landmines worldwide, I think this technology is a welcome sight.

-Sean

This is troll bait, but whatever. From this:

The countries profiled in this chapter are the 10 with the highest number of landmine casualties. (Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, Croatia, Eritrea, Iraq [Kurdistan], Mozambique, Somalia, and Sudan(footnote 3) as well as two others (Namibia and Nicaragua), which illustrate the global nature of the landmine contagion

The US is neither a huge producer of landmines nor is it a big user of landmines. Its controversy has stemmed from (as mentioned in the article) refusal to sign international landmine bans.

-Sean

"The U.S. also is calling for Milosevic and other high-ranking Serbian officials to be tried as war criminals at The Hague."

I was gonna say that since we planted a US Flag on the Moon, then basically we claimed it. (At least that's the way it works in cartoons.) But as I recall, we actually brought the flag back with us.

The US has limited outer space jurisdiction, according to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. The treaty limited State sovereignty over outer space. Outer space was declared to be the common heritage of mankind. It prevented certain military operations in outer space and upon celestial bodies, specifically, the placing in orbit of any nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, and the installation of such weapons on celestial bodies. Outer space was otherwise to be reserved for peaceful uses. Various other international conventions, such as the Moon Registration, and Liability Treaties, expand upon provisions found in the Outer Space Treaty.

The Moon Treaty of 1979 essentially stated that the exploration and use of the moon shall be the province of all mankind and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries.

The (approximately) 9,000 km border with Canada is completely uncontrolled except at major highways and urban areas.

Yes, but none of the 9/11 terrorists came through Canada. In fact, doing so would be pretty silly, since then you'd have to go through two immigration procedures, and both Canada and the U.S. share a list of known terrorists.

It would be easier to smuggle yourself into the U.S. aboard a ship than trying to cross the "completely uncontrolled" U.S.-Canadian border. Actually, the border between the U.S. and Canada employs quite a few high tech gadgets, such as motion detectors, IR video surveillance, and even low-level radar to track anyone trying to cross the border without going through a checkpoint. Forested areas are clearcut for 10 metres (or yards) each side of the border to make anyone crossing visible to surveillance.

Most of these practices are in place to catch drug smugglers, but they are equally effective against anyone trying to sneak across the border.

The prayer that opens a session of Congress is also not always Christian. Don't suppose you'd mind if I recited the Pledge with "under Allah", would you?

You didn;t have a point, you stole the article from here

The parent post is from "Libel Law in the United States" by Steven Pressman. It is most of that article, hardly changed at all.

Is the poster Steven Pressman? Or is this plagiarism?

With the additional benefit of the U.S. not meddling in the affairs of other countries. Everyone's a winner, I think.

Without the support of the U.S. in return for oil, profoundly undemocratic countries like Saudi Arabia might see some real change.

Why not? Saddam Hussein already kills millions of his own children by saying "NO!" to US grain imports that are due under the oil-for-food programme. Saddam has $10billion of grain ready and waiting for shipping under this scheme but he's saying, "NO! Don't give me the grain, let my children starve so the US will lift Iraqi sanctions, making America look weak so that binLaden will gain supporters and attack the US again."

Therefore in order that binLaden doesn't attack the US again, America must look strong, and maintain Iraqi sanctions at all costs, killing Iraqi children.

This is not even a credible argument. What does any of that have to do with the right to kill thousands? Are you implying that the US is killing Iraqi children, and is therefore hypocritical (i.e. killing our own citizens is bad, killing Iraq's citizens is fine)?

The blame for Iraqi's starving children lies solely on Saddam Hussein's pride. If he cared for his people, he would stop constructing his billion dollar palaces and spend the country's money on health care and food. There are few restrictions on importing basic humanitarian items like food or medicine, and a lot ($21 billion) has been delivered. For a better report on the import/export restrictions, check here.

People die, dude it's just the way the world works, that's why elections are such a big deal.

People also commit adultery, rape children, and murder innocents. Just because it HAPPENS does not mean we have the right to do it.

Why not? Saddam Hussein already kills millions of his own children by saying "NO!" to US grain imports that are due under the oil-for-food programme. Saddam has $10billion of grain ready and waiting for shipping under this scheme but he's saying, "NO! Don't give me the grain, let my children starve so the US will lift Iraqi sanctions, making America look weak so that binLaden will gain supporters and attack the US again."

Therefore in order that binLaden doesn't attack the US again, America must look strong, and maintain Iraqi sanctions at all costs, killing Iraqi children.

This is not even a credible argument. What does any of that have to do with the right to kill thousands? Are you implying that the US is killing Iraqi children, and is therefore hypocritical (i.e. killing our own citizens is bad, killing Iraq's citizens is fine)?

The blame for Iraqi's starving children lies solely on Saddam Hussein's pride. If he cared for his people, he would stop constructing his billion dollar palaces and spend the country's money on health care and food. There are few restrictions on importing basic humanitarian items like food or medicine, and a lot ($21 billion) has been delivered. For a better report on the import/export restrictions, check here.

People die, dude it's just the way the world works, that's why elections are such a big deal.

People also commit adultery, rape children, and murder innocents. Just because it HAPPENS does not mean we have the right to do it.

According to the US State department, Turkey was officially neutral during WWII.

After Hitler invaded Bulgaria and had conquered France, Turkey (probably wisely) decided to remain neutral. In 1941, nobody was going to come to their aid if they joined the Allies.

Ok, so 'Forever' might be a little strong... How about 'since WWII.

Also, the Ottoman Empire was the Ally in WWI, not Turkey. The Turkish Republic came into existence because of the weakness of the Ottoman Empire.

But you are right. The Armenian 'ethnic cleansing' / Genocide perpetrated by the Turks was inspiration for people from Hitler to Milosevic and Saddam.

=========

That's not the same guy. This Boucher works for the State Department; he's not the congressman the article is discussing.

I'd like to see who all is back from the Reagan era. I know Cheney and Rumsfeld. Admitidly two very high ranking officials, but who else. It seems a bit generous to say "a good majority

• Mitch Daniels - Office of Management and Budget Director
• Condoleezza Rice - Foreign Policy Advisor
• Robert Zoellick - US Trade Representative
• Andrew Card - Chief of Staff
• Richard A. Clarke - Special Advisor for Cyberspace Security
• Robert Joseph - Senior Director for Proliferation Strategy, Counterproliferation and Homeland Defense
• Elliot Abrams - Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights,and International Operations
• Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State (from former Bush Admin)
• Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense
• Gary R. Edson - Deputy Assistant for International Economic Affairs and Deputy National Security Advisor
• William Howard Taft, IV - Legal Advisor to the Secretary of State
• Timothy Muris - Federal Trade Commission

Just when did the US create a situation in the middle east? Look at Britain that created Israel. Look at the arab countries for attacking Israel. Look at Israel for rocketing innocent people. Look at childish leaders that can't agree on how to meet for peace, let alone discuss peace terms. There are lots of people to blame for the problems but hardly the US, unless giving hope of some sort of peace settlement is a bad thing.

You must remember that Bush came into the White House saying outright that Clinton's mistake was in meddling with the affairs of the Middle East. Up until 2 weeks ago, he pretty much wanted to ignore the issues...which lead to mass confusion on Bush's stance Which Sharon took as an OK to advance onto Palestine territory. Now recently, Powell went over there to try to resolve things, but his mission was considered by many as a failure. Both sides have lost respect for the US as a mediator.

Bush does not really care or want to be involved in the middle east. It's quite a tangled web. On one hand, part of his administration wants to fully support Israel. But on the other hand, if he does support Israel, the entire Islamic world will come down upon him. Even today's news, the Saudi Prince (our supposed Ally) just threatened to cut off ties to the US if the US does not take a harder stance on Israel. In addition, Egypt (another ally) is threatening to go to war again Israel once it gets enough financial support.

Alright...I'm done with my rambling... :-P

The average age of the members of Congress is 54.4. According to the 2000 Census, only 23.9% of all people fit into the category of being of eligible voting age but twenty or more years younger than the average member of Congress. Even if you include children, only 49.6% of the population fits into this group. 50.4% of the population -- the majority, especially when you consider the percentage who actually vote -- are older than the group claimed to be "the largest age group of the population."

Isn't it easier for lobbyists to persuade young members of Congress without much political experience? After all, they don't have as much experience to judge from and are less aware of lobbyists' favorite tactics and tricks to get support.

A good deal of these spam e-mails are related to the Nigerian Advance Fee Fraud, which the U.S. State Department considers a big enough deal to publish their own materials on it. See here [link is to a PDF] or here. The fraud is quite advanced, often going so far as to appear to originate from the Central Bank of Nigeria, use official letterheads and stationary, etc.

The moral of the story is that sometimes spam is not just annoying, but potentially fraudulent and therefore dangerous. I'm glad to see something is being done about this, not only to curb spam, but also to prevent the scam from growing.

It's sort of ironic that one of the last Marxist states is banning this technology -- 'cause for years the US jumped through hoops to keep technology "with military applications" out of the Soviet bloc. (Actually, in the case of Cuba, it still does.) At one time it was even illegal to sell them 16-bit computers! (Apple IIs apparently did not represent a security threat.) In hindsight this was just plain dumb. Information technology played a big role in the downfall of the left-wing dictatorships, and continues to make life difficult for autocracies of every stripe.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/transition/nsc.htm

hint: it's a joke

ciao

Per the US State Dept. India information

Its called research

BBC says warlords are filling the power vaccum. The Taliban that ran those areas are being released. I give them 6 months to find they way back to the top in many rural areas.

As for the most wanted, you'll have to dig through
this and this and this. Find other reports with more details and you'll find the quote about the 70% strength from a high ranking US offical (If I remembered which one, I would have a link for you) and the numbers (which change every week)

I assume you can find details about the US economy and the fact that Osama hasn't been found.

The US didn't win the gulf war (Sadam is still in power) and it looks like they they aren't going to win this one either since most of the boogie men will be alive when its done. The real question is will the people of Afganastan win this time?

However, in an interesting twist of ethics and morals, there are registered secrets ((trade secrets ) that are essentially the same thing as patents without the benefit to the general public (the military is not so restricted), except you can get sued something ugly for going public and trying to patent or use someone else's *secret* process no matter how original you though you were. Trying to prove you didn't get it from the owners of the *secret* technology is not very easy.

Considering how *new discovery* dependant Computer Science and its derived engineering disciplines are at this time, the ethical nature of I.P. and patenting are still under debate. Just look at the whole Open Source initiative: it almost tries to return the original meaning of copyright (protection of attribution) to the current twisted definition (protection of money). In both cases, the majority is hurt by the expansion of rights to the individual (i.e. corporation) whereas the individual only gets a small conjectured advantage (majority of patents are never actually implemented, just registered and defended (yet another source of income not derived from meaningful work)). Not a surprise for a system whose major originating proponent created such patents as the patent covering his *long arm* - a device that consists of a long pole with a grasping device at the end to help get books off tall shelves (even though such devices had been used for centuries by his contemporary farmers for occasional chores.)

"The fact that it works is immaterial,"

L. Ogborn.