Slashdot Mirror

Why? The simple answer is because the First Amendment sees Freedom of the Press as both a personal and institutional right. It is an extension of the Freedom of Speech, which is something that Europe still lacks. The right of anyone to fairly criticize the government, business, etc. is at the very core of the American Ideal. After all, the likes of Voltaire and many others had to publish under pen names or posthumously because of the censorship of their day. The notion that the government can censor material still exists in Europe. Culturally, It's been there for generations, that those in authority could censor what is/was said. However, it was from Europe's own critics of this system from which the Founders of the United States drew their inspiration. Part of that was the right of every man to fairly write/say what they wanted without having to gain "approval" from anyone else, much less the government.

When I was living in Germany, I had a few debates about this subject with my German friends, in particular around the banning of Mein Kampf and the editing/removal of some of the Grimm Fairy Tales. Here in the US, I can walk into any bookstore and buy a copy without having to have special permission from the government. My German friends would point out how the post WW-II government wanted to prevent a resurgance of National Socialism. Basically the argument boiled down to the "Greater good of the community" argument.

We approached the topic from two completely different mindsets. And I have to think that at least culturally/historically it has to do with the United States being founded on principles far different that what existed in Europe at the time. (Again the Ideals part). The idea that government should be accountable to it's people, instead of a nobility/noble class.

The United States was founded on the idea that everyone has the right to voice their opinion. Doesn't mean anyone has to listen, but we have the right to say/write it and others to read it. The founding fathers of the US realized that without the ability to express views openly, the democratic process would fail. Now we can argue idealism vs. reality, but that freedom

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/press.htm

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Gouveuneur Morris were all involved in journalism to one degree or another, but how many would you consider to be "Professional Journalists?" Not many, and it could be argued that they were the Bloggers of their day. They all penned articles and often under a variety of pen names.

I suggest looking at Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism by Eric Burns. It's an interesting read on how Journalism began in this country and why it differs from elsewhere in the world.

Nope, I don't think the story is wrong:

US Dept of State

He is a member of the Intel Corporation NGO Advisory Board and writes for several publications specializing on the role of technology in development.

Just FYI to renounce your citizenship you must go to a US Embassy on foreign soil. You can't renounce whilst remaining in the country.
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

You might want to look up the definition of democracy before calling others morons. In fact, you're wrong. The US is a democracy. It is not a direct democracy, but representative systems fall within the definition of democracy. For starters, try this explanation. Here's a definition by the US State Department. And here is the Wikipedia article. All of these sources include representative systems as a subtype of democracy.

By the way, "representative republic" is not a word; it's a phrase. You might want to learn a bit about grammar along with improving your vocabulary.

Your point about companies hiring illegal immigrants is kind of what I'm getting at; I don't think that the problem is necessarily solvable by building any sort of physical barrier, and doing so would violate the principles that America was founded on: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breed free." So I think that it'd be better to crack down on companies hiring illegal immigrants, which will possibly force them to hire Americans t odo the same job, stimulating the economy. You say that the state shouldn't be able to pass laws that have to do with what grown adults do in their own home. Yet the We the People act would allow states to do this, because the federal courts couldn't hear challenges to the law's constitutionality. I just think that it would overturn too many important decisions, such as [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas]Lawrence v. Texas[/url], which overturned a Texas law criminalizing sodomy. I don't believe that cooperation in the UN would necessarily involve entangling alliances; I just think that since the UN is something that a lot of other countries are participating in, it would be irresponsible of the US as a superpower to just ignore it. Regarding your point about moral causes and Darfur, while I agree that the government shouldn't take up moral causes for the most part, lest it tend towards one particular system of morals, I think that a conflict that our own government has desccribed as 'genocide' is bad in pretty much every moral system, so that argument doesn't really apply here. My point about the estate tax is that it's usually not much to worry about, unless there's over a million dollars' worth estate, plus exemptions for family-owned farms. It's not something that usually applies to a family leaving heirlooms to its youngest generation. The government can tax stuff it doesn't own and does so all the time; that's part of what a tax is. It doesn't own the money you make, but there's income tax, and the same goes for sales taxes, etc.

Interesting trick about telling the guys at the front desk that it's illegal to surrender your U.S. Passport to the hotel. I'm a bit surprised that they'd buy that, I'll consider trying that if they try to hold mine. I haven't traveled in Europe much but in Africa and South America they'd typically want a copy at a minimum.

If you're worried about problems such as natural disasters, unrest, etc. in a country you're visiting or residing in it would be a good idea to register at: https://travelregistration.state.gov/ That way the embassy would know you're in that country and would be able to notify you of problems and give advice as what to do to deal with these problems.

"Since August 2007, the U.S. has been issuing only e-passports."

I expected better from the Washington Post.

The fifth and sixth amendments to the US constitution. Unfortunately, people nowadays think you're a crazy person for mentioning that in an argument.

First of all, none of the detainees in Guantanamo are US-citizens, so the US Constitution does not apply to them. This may be why people look at you funny, when you try to push this argument anyway.

Second, neither of the two amendments you listed would apply even to a US citizen in this case:

• The Fifth is out, because it explicitly excludes: "cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger".
• The Sixth is out, because it applies only to criminal prosecutions.

Give it up — this is a very hard legal question. US Supreme Court will be looking into this issue soon, and what these legal minds decide is anybody's guess.

It would appear, the Administration has found a loophole in the law and is using it. It will be using it until the hole is closed, but there is nothing illegal about their current "exploit"...

Only by air. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1082.html

• Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any offense or crime, even though subject of a pardon, amnesty or other similar legal action? Have you ever unlawfully distributed or sold a controlled substance(drug), or been a prostitute or procurer for prostitutes? [ ] Yes [ ] No
  
• Have you ever been refused admission to the U.S., or been the subject of a deportation hearing or sought to obtain or assist others to obtain a visa, entry into the U.S., or any other U.S. immigration benefit by fraud or willful misrepresentation or other unlawful means? Have you attended a U.S. public elementary school on student (F) status or a public secondary school after November 30, 1996 without reimbursing the school? [ ] Yes [ ] No
  
• Do you seek to enter the United States to engage in export control violations, subversive or terrorist activities, or any other unlawful purpose? Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization as currently designated by the U.S. Secretary of State? Have you ever participated in persecutions directed by the Nazi government of Germany; or have you ever participated in genocide? [ ] Yes [ ] No
  
• Have you ever violated the terms of a U.S. visa, or been unlawfully present in, or deported from, the United States? [ ] Yes [ ] No
  
• Have you ever withheld custody of a U.S. citizen child outside the United States from a person granted legal custody by a U.S. court, voted in the United States in violation of any law or regulation, or renounced U.S. citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation? [ ] Yes [ ] No
  
• Have you ever been afflicted with a communicable disease of public health significance or a dangerous physical or mental disorder, or ever been a drug abuser or addict? [ ] Yes [ ] No
  

Woah! I never thought about it that way before. Is that why the phrase US Military surge came about? As a Surge of Good v.s. the (obvious) in-Surge of Evil?

Man, devious.

1. According to a report by "The Economist", the Japanese government, by 2005, had apologized 17 times for the role of the Japanese in World War II. The Japanese government even gave a written apology to the Korean government.

2. According to a report by "The Washington Post", Tokyo paid $500 million of war reparations to Seoul in 1965.

3. According to a CNN report, a "Time" magazine report, and several other reports, Nazi symbols are popular in Korea. "A small photo of Adolf Hitler adorns the entrance to the Fifth Reich, an upscale watering hole in Seoul's Shinchon university district. A larger picture of the Führer hangs across from the bar, where waiters and waitresses with swastika arm badges mix drinks that have names like 'Adolf Hitler' and 'Dead'."

4. Koreans have viciously treated non-Koreans in South Korea. The Chinese immigrant community has succeeded in nearly every Asian country (including Japan). The exception is South Korea. The Chinese population in Korea declined from 50,000 to 10,000. "Many Chinese claim they were forced out by the Seoul authorities."

5. A reporter at "The Economist" wrote, "Koreans have always prided themselves on ethnic homogeneity, and feared and distrusted outsiders."

6. The U.S. State department has warned, "Citizenship [in Korea] is based on blood, not location of birth, and Koreans must show as proof their family genealogy. Thus, ethnic Chinese born and resident in Korea cannot obtain citizenship or become public servants."

7. "Purity" of blood is extremely important in Korean culture. "Traditional reverence for familial bloodlines [in Korea] and the social stigmas attached to adoptees as well as children who are disabled, mixed race or born out of wedlock limit local enthusiasm for the [adoption] program. Thus, international adoption continues to outpace domestic." "Because of societal values emphasizing the importance of bloodline, children were adopted domestically only by extended family or blood relatives."

Although a tiny percentage of Japanese citizens supports a revisionist history (as evidenced by the shocking memorial next to Yasukuni Shrine), the overwhelming majority of Japanese is aware of the correct history of World War II: specifically, the Japanese military initiated a war of aggression.

However, this unfortunate history is no justification, whatsoever, for the the racist and bigotted attitudes of the Koreans. Korean citizens who reside in Japan but who refuse Japanese citizenship should be treated as foreigners. These Korean "refuseniks" are loyal to either South Korea or North Korea. The Japanese government should fingerprint all Korean "refuseniks".

The US pays the largest percentage of the peacekeeping budget at around 25%: http://www.state.gov/p/io/pkpg/ US personnel are active in 8 of the 17 peacekeeping operations, but actual US troop numbers were hard to find (or my search abilities were weak). This is further confused by the fact that the US is reluctant to place troops under direct UN control. Kosovo, for example, had US troops under NATO control, so though they were supporting the UN peacekeeping mission, they were not "UN peacekeeping troops" included in the UN's headcount

On May 15, 2006, the State Department announced its intention to rescind Libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism in recognition of the fact that Libya had met the statutory requirements for such a move: it had not provided any support for acts of international terrorism in the preceding six-month period, and had provided assurances that it would not do so in the future. On June 30, 2006, the U.S. rescinded Libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. In July 2007, Mr. Gene Cretz was nominated by President Bush as ambassador to Libya. Background Note: Libya

Oh, I just read this one. They've been to Cuba, a state sponsor of terror. No wonder they're on the list. Never mind that I hear Cuban cigars are perfectly legal in Canada.

Even Hatch can't be blamed completely. The CIA, ever mindful of the need to justify its "mission," had conclusive evidence by the mid-1980s of the deepening crisis of infrastructure within the Soviet Union. The CIA, as its deputy director Robert Gates acknowledged under congressional questioning in 1992, had decided to keep that evidence from President Reagan and his top advisors and instead continued to grossly exaggerate Soviet military and technological capabilities in its annual "Soviet Military Power" report right up to 1990.

Now your interpretation of the Reagan Erra policies of funding the Arabs to fight the soviets that hatch supported is a little misguided too. First, we didn't fund and arm bin laden or the taliban. Bin Laden was considered a glory seeker of sorts as well as many of the other gulf arabs that came to fight. They were outcasts and basically funded themselves. Bin Laden done a lot of this though his own fortunes and they raised funds and stuff in other countries including Pakistan. He and his outside military wasn't a direct part of mujahideen but the mujahideen did use them when it was convenient. The taliban was later formed after the soviets withdrew and the religious fundamentalist that came in with bin laden's groups as well as the people he (they) influenced had participated in (and won power from) a civil war. So the idea of it being evil to start with is flawed to some degree. Some say that if we would have kept a presence over there and picked a side in the civil war, that the taliban would never have came to power and Bin laden wouldn't have had a safe haven to sharpen his teams of terrorist.

For a little more perspective on this, you should read this article It describes a little of the separations and goes into some of the known-knowns of the time. It will give you a better understanding of the situation. This official government position on the matter details a little more about it. And no, before it even comes out, there is no reason to doubt either of these articles based on their sources. Even the one from the government's site.

So yes, there are shades of evil. Well that is if you consider any of it evil. Democrats were completely in control of congress during the Reagan Erra you mentioned. They funded the antics just as much as the republicans pushed and supported it. And to some degree, if you take the position that the democrats had to compromise in order to get their stuff though, then they are worse then the republicans. I mean selling out something this important in order to get something else aproved when you are the ones controlling congress and shaping policy is just mind blowing. The id

Dude, are you stuck in the wrong decade? The IRA disarmed.

Notice the sanctions don't mention weapons, so it's OK in our government's eyes.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/94113.pdf

No. Burma is under an arms embargo, as well as other sanctions, by the US, and EU, and they have been for quite a while now. These sanctions have been getting stricter over time as they have been amended. Here is a link to ITAR: http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/docs/ITAR/2006/ITAR_Part_126.pdf and list of embargoed countries by the US http://pmddtc.state.gov/country.htm

Arms sales by the US are used as a political tool more than anything. It isn't about protecting an economy or jobs. Remember that the emborgoed countries are portrayed as threats, and by doing so this props up domestic arms production. It is a trade off. The US has China(a massive market for weapons sellers) embargoed as well, but they spend huge amounts of money on Naval weapons systems that operate in the Pacific. Either way the defense contractors make money and keep people employed and fat and happy in important congressional districts.

The countries supplying weapons to Singapore are the usual suspects of China, Russia, and North Korea. India, Singapore, and Israel have also been supplying the junta.

No. Burma is under an arms embargo, as well as other sanctions, by the US, and EU, and they have been for quite a while now. These sanctions have been getting stricter over time as they have been amended. Here is a link to ITAR: http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/docs/ITAR/2006/ITAR_Part_126.pdf and list of embargoed countries by the US http://pmddtc.state.gov/country.htm

Arms sales by the US are used as a political tool more than anything. It isn't about protecting an economy or jobs. Remember that the emborgoed countries are portrayed as threats, and by doing so this props up domestic arms production. It is a trade off. The US has China(a massive market for weapons sellers) embargoed as well, but they spend huge amounts of money on Naval weapons systems that operate in the Pacific. Either way the defense contractors make money and keep people employed and fat and happy in important congressional districts.

The countries supplying weapons to Singapore are the usual suspects of China, Russia, and North Korea. India, Singapore, and Israel have also been supplying the junta.

As someone else said, the restrictions have to do with things that could be considered 'weapons'. Filtering software isn't really seen as a military threat. The latest sanctions list only financial products as being restricted on export.

I'd heard WTO (not that I care a whole lot frankly) and found this:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2089.htm

"Canada has challenged U.S. trade remedy law in NAFTA and WTO dispute settlement mechanisms. Some of these cases involved actions taken by the U.S. Government on softwood lumber imports from Canada. However, the two countries implemented a comprehensive settlement on softwood lumber in late 2006 and these cases were dropped."

But, whatever. We know what happened.

I hadn't heard about the oil tax. Grrrrr. Friggin Harper.

First, see my response to the other guy's comment RE the post office analogy, and motivations for signing up for the army in general.

Second, don't be so hasty to throw out the idea that someone has to be stupid not to know what an army is used for. You don't.

I agree if you meant that the commander in cheif was/is/is still being stupid for mis-using our army, but the armed forces are not only there to 'fight wars'.

Are low-cost low-tech, not adequate for baseload.

> photovoltiacs are 4-10 times as expensive.

Again: the TCO is the only good measure. 10 times more expensive lasting 50 times more is a good deal. I'm not the one ignoring arguments, there.

> Biomass makes plenty of sense in some areas - Heck, my grandmother uses it to heat her house. Still, there's very little sense in trying to use it for electricity

One many usages it replaces gridpowered or oil-burning stuff.

> we're better off rendering it to ethanol or biodiesel

It may be true on a large scale.

> I've never liked Sen. Kennedy, but that was one of my head shakers. The current hypocrisy of many of the 'green' politicians irk me tremendously

I agree, but judging anything by the use most politicians have of it is often condemning it

>> That's one of the most weird assertion touted by the nuclear industry. It is not solid and leads to implicit very disputed "conclusions". Briefly: radionuclides emitted by coal plants are not very active nor concentrated.

> They're the same particles

Indeed. This was not my main argument

> studies of high-background radiation areas vs low-background radiation areas have found no increased levels of cancer.

Some found a relationship, that's why the linear model is the official one. There is also this radiation homeostasis thing. All this is pretty complicated, moreover we will only be able to count the harmed when the last nuclear waste will be cold. Putting abruptly "coal-plants emissions are more dangerous than nuclear ones" is absolutely ridiculous.

> Coal electricity generation is one of the larger producers of CO2 in the USA. Shutting them down, besides eliminating all the real pollution they produce, would drop our CO2 emissions by quite a bit. Cheap power can help to develop affordable alternatives to oil powered vehicles.

I agree, but some messages are at least understood by some as "nuclear power plants will solve the CO2 problem", this is ridiculous

> you could collocate an ethanol plant to help make use of the waste heat.

Co-generation is no specific to nuclear (it is much more rarely used in a nuclear plant because of some risk, induced or at least perceived)

> you'll never be able to convince me that nuclear power isn't safe

Chernobyl. TMI (no one knows for sure why it did not degenerate into a complete meltdown). Yeah, there are people saying that the tech is OK now, just as some said, before the disaster/incident that those Cherno/TMI plants were safe.

> I won't be able to convince you that it can be done safely.

Mostly because I somewhat know about security. In a word: there is no perfect answer nor absolute shield. Also: because the nuclear "camp" is one of the most secretive and propagandist (there is a bunch of plain liars, there).

> the highest target you've mentioned is 40% renewable In 2025, for a switch which began in 1997. That's 35 years. We now have 150 years of coal use, and 100 of oil use (with approx 70 of hard dependence). Given the ridiculous amount of R&D done on renewable those 30 last years (worldwide), this is an ambitious achievement.

> we'd still need to make up the remaining 60%

Coal produces 52% of US electricity (grid power). Let's add clean coal (it already started, at the federal and local level) and energy conservation, and we are done with the coal problem with no new nuclear plant.

IMO, Americans could do with far more such selflessness these days.

Actually 70% of American households give at least $1800 per year, that is more than most countries.
http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/Archive/2005/May/10-36789.html

According to this USA Today article Americans give more than twice of the next most charitable country.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm

Maybe EVERYONE could do with far more selflessness...

Political parties are a big part of the problem here in the states. The framers of our constitution did not anticipate the rise of political parties, and George Washington spoke against them in his farewell address. The two major parties here in the US have consolidated power and intentionally impeded the ability additional parties to have any influence in elections or legislation.

One good example of this is the current rule on filibustering which has made the process to a simple administrative chore requiring a 60% vote to break. No longer can one man halt all other activity against the will of even his own party and stand for what he knows is right. Another good example is the change to eligibility requirements and governance of the presidential debates. Where previously the League of Women Voters maintained a fair and open debate process, now the Commission on Presidential Debates, an organization controlled by corporate sponsors, has created minimum eligibility requirements that include a 15% share of the popular vote "as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations." This puts the requirements out of the reach of third party candidates who need the national exposure that the debates would give them to garner that much popular support.

The last reference above has a great comment from Alan Keyes that I feel deserves inclusions here.

Regarding the criteria regarding who should be admitted to the Presidential Debates, Keyes said it wasn't a difficult question and shouldn't require too much imagination. Keyes went on to say that one reasonable criteria would be that any Presidential Candidate who qualifies for ballot position in enough states to have the possibility of winning the 270 votes necessary to be elected president - should be included in the debates.

This has nothing to do with the ABM treaty, and everything to do with the START treaty. Which Bush (the elder) signed in 1991.
Bush (the junior) announced in 2001, "further reduce the number of operationally deployed warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 over the next ten years"

There is no need to move missiles from Minot to Barksdale. Barksdale already has a very large storage area of it's own.

Inquiring minds do not have the need to know. Besides, any US startup can raise funds and buy almost any machine, even one that requires ten times its weight in paperwork to ship to Canada. See ITAR for details.

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.

I doubt that's the case here - but the answer to "Can calling someone a 'classic crackpot' in the face of such incorrect data have any chance at making it to court, or even winning the suit?" is in my opinion, "Yes, and it can sometimes be valid". I mean after all, that's what the court is for, to sort that sort of thing out and determine what's a valid complaint and what's not.

Legal standards for libel vary widely, but one standard that I understand is often applied is that the statement must be proveably false. Is that proveably false?

From http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press0 8.htm:

Besides making distinctions between public and private figures, American courts also have ruled that various kinds of published information are generally immune from libel charges. For example, it is almost impossible for a writer to be found guilty of libel if the writing deals with opinions rather than facts. "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea," the Supreme Court said in a 1974 libel ruling.

Not long ago, the owner of a restaurant in New Orleans sued a food critic for writing unflattering things about his eating establishment. Too bad, the Louisiana Supreme Court told the restaurant owner, before sending him back to his kitchen empty-handed.

I'm not a lawyer - but to me, for the case against the book reviewer to get away from the above, they'd have to prove that the 'crackpot' slur is more than just an insult, but carries with it a specific (and false) allegation. There are two problems with that: 1) it's non-specific, and 2) it's true. ;)

That said, I don't think the reviewer needs to get out his checkbook just yet :)

See, that's the problem - he does, even though the check he's writing is to his lawyer. That's why I think the courts should look harder at thinking about punitive damages against plaintiffs in cases that are clearly intended simply to stifle legitimate, protected speech.

There is nothing illegal about government operating a list — of anything...

There is hardly even anything particularly wrong about it.

So much noise about a few anti-government activists being listed by the government as such — what's next, every slashdotter's list of foes to become subject of controversy and grounds for evoking gloomy "1989" comparisions?

Yes, some activists could be a threat against both property and persons — the lunatics rallying against WTO and similar forums have demonstrated that much. But even if listing them is a mistake, well, then so be it — not the first time the Executive branch has demonstrated stupidity and ineffectiveness...

The only legitimate reason to protest here is that the list may be (or, indeed, was) used to deny access to essential services (like airports) and otherwise limit essential freedoms over something so unrelated.

But, surprisingly, a very similar set of restrictions applied to people seeking so much as a passport (your State's government may blacklist you) raises nary a whisper of protest...

Other countries might have similar laws. However, probably only running a 'blog counts (arguably even MySpace) because that's like having a regular newpaper column. You could probably argue successfully that posting to a 'blog is nothing more than a letter-to-the-editor which doesn't make anyone a journalist. But if the posts get too regular and come to be expected (localroger on K5) then you might be considered a journalist.

Don't give me that "information wants to be free" or "security through obscurity doesn't work" bunk; the USA has been built on a foundation of necessary secrecy ever since the invention of potential doomsday weapons; since before near any of you who post on Slashdot were born.

This was the society you were born into, Americans; this is the rule of law. Civil disobedience when it comes to national security is not acceptable in an age of doomsday weapons. That isn't fearmongering, it's fact - policy that's been determined through considered rational thought, and which has organically evolved to meet the challenges of the times.

Don't be absurd. Selling goods to someone is trade, not help. By your reasoning, your neighbourhood grocery store "helps" you whenever you go there to buy food. The store's motivation is not to help you, but to make a profit. Likewise, the USA's motivation in providing Lend-Lease was to look after its own interests.

First, the USA sold war supplies to Britain - until Britain ran clean out of cash to pay for them. Then it accepted payment in property, and most of Britain's property holdings in the USA were liquidated. Then came the Destroyer deal, in which the USA lent Britain the use of 50 mothballed WW1 destroyers that it wouldn't let its own sailors go to sea in, and got 99-year leases on some valuable West Indian bases in return. Lend-Lease proper was passed by Congress in March 1941, and still required payment - if not then, later. If not in cash, something else - land, military secrets, technology, anything.

Check this out for *American* opinion on Lend-Lease:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwii/81508.htm

Yeah, ok. I don't think you know the details. You're just speculating.

What details are you suggesting I missed? Unless he is fibbing in his blog entry (linked in the summary) it had all the information necessary. No need to speculate.

If the people in the US were paying his company in Germany for him to present then he is a contractor, working in the US.

Under the Visa Waiver Program, an individual working in such a scenario is not considered "working in the US" until they hit 90 days. "The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) enables nationals of certain countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa." From here.

The USA appears to be a clear net beneficiary of cordial relations with the rest of the world. It's record on providing food, medicine, etc. to the rest of the world is not all that convincing in the first place, and what the rest of the world would gain by US isolationism is for instance the liberty to ignore US pharmaceutical patents, which immediately makes a billion in US medical aid replacable by a million of the same aid by a country that produces cheap copies of US pharmaceuticals. This is just an example: the price a country pays for participating in the international beauty contest for assistance and investment is respecting the rules of the game wrt. to property, IPR, patents, import tariffs, etc. The US normally buys the loyalty of most of the rest of the world for a very modest amount. Occasionally the US makes a costly mistake like Iraq (= invest a lot of money to lose goodwill in the international arena), but on the whole it is worth every penny.

Also, obviously, other countries will stop trading resources amongst eachother in dollars if the USA takes a less central place in the international arena, so Americans will have to get used to dollars not being very much in demand. The fundamental reason why the US attracts so much foreign investment is that it is perceived as low risk because it is the home market of the dollar, which functions as a kind of international yardstick of wealth. Central banks of other countries hold a major part of US public debt. Foreign direct investment will be targeted elsewhere if the US turns isolationist, which will be a great boon for higher risk developing countries since there is no alternative safe haven for investment capable of absorbing so much money as the US, and will cost the US 5.3 million jobs (41% of manufacturing jobs) which pay 15% higher on average than wages paid by U.S. companies, a steep increase in US interest rates, 12 percent of US corporate tax revenues, etc.

Most of these people would probably better off getting $100 which is like 5 years wages where they live.

>.. Nobody ever said it was the dictatorship of the country

But the "battlefield" by your definition is our entire country. You think the "Commander in Chief" has the right to spy on Americans in America because the battlefield is everywhere. That makes the CinC dictator on a battlefield that is our entire country.

>Are you making this shit up as you go along? The supreme court has never ruled on the habeas corpus of Lincoln years

Thank you for the profanity; it is evidence that you know you are wrong.

You are completely wrong about Lincoln and habeas; a good place to start learning is Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

I wonder if the statement is based on this study: http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2004/Nov/02-573 349.html? Though the study seems a little circular. You're correct of course that you don't have to smoke to have these difficulties.
--
Smoke free elecrtic power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

I don't think the issue is as simple as that. US companies get certain benefits from being incorporated in the US such as low corporate tax rates.

There is little advantage. The corporate tax rate is zero in many countries. The amount of red-tape around running a corporation is steadily rising (heard of Sarbanes-Oxley?). You may remember the uber-lefties threatening to move to Canada, should Bush win in 2004. Well, Microsoft is not threatening, it is just moving... This is still a great country, but it much worse (and less attractive to visitors, BTW) due to the post-9/11 hysteria...

... wants to become a US citizen and wins the lottery

Aren't you glad, your ancestors have won that lottery? Oh, wait, there was not any... Being healthy, non-criminal, and knowing a living-earning trade was enough to enter this country in the first half of the 20th century. And before that, there were no limits at all (other than the cost of the ticket).

If they don't want to be a citizen, they can work in their own country.

What about the millions, who do want to become a citizen, but can't win the lottery? We still have huge swathes of unsettled land. Our population density is four times less, than China's. Dying towns offer free land to people willing to move in...

But this is not a matter of Economics. This is a matter of Human Rights — as Americans learn in kindergartens, everybody's creator-given rights include Pursuit of Happiness. Being able to live anywhere they can afford, and work for anyone who would hire is certainly a legitimate pursuit.

And if you are concerned about them taking up our social programs, then don't give it to them. Don't give it to anyone undeserving, in fact... New Orleans — the city of huge "low income" housing projects — has seen its Hispanics population more than triple from 15K to 50K after Katrina. These fresh immigrants all happily come to work on the reconstruction. Meanwhile, the residents of those housing projects collect government subsidies doing little... Which of the two groups of people would you rather have as fellow citizens?

You can renounce it. You can effectively renounce it by committing certain acts (see state.gov for specific details). So if you were judged to have committed an act of treason you could lose your citizenship.

I think there may be some confusion here regarding the difference between the laws applying in a particular location and the laws being enforced in that location.

Let's take for instance Cuba. US Citizen Bob travels (by way of another country) to Cuba to hang out on the beach, and while there he decides to buy some cigars. Will he be arrested in the cigar shop? Almost certainly not.

If, however, he is caught with Cuban cigars on the way back into the country, and other evidence is found that he traveled to Cuba and violated US laws which prohibit his unlicensed commercial transactions there, then according to http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1 097.html it is likely that he's going to be facing criminal prosecution for the actions he took on foreign soil.

The Cuban police certainly weren't enforcing US law within Cuba, but Bob really isn't going to get the charges dropped by claiming he was abroad and therefore US law didn't apply.

If you're up for a bit of a read, the Harvard International Law Journal dealt with the issue of projected jurisdiction, how it relates to anti-terrorism enforcement abroad, and potential constitutional limits. It's all at http://www.harvardilj.org/print/101

J K Rowling is worth $1 billion dollars to Inland Revenue.

In 2006 Russian exports to the U.S. were worth $19 billion dollars. U.S. exports to Russia $4.7 billion. United States and Russia Have Prosperous Relationship

Do you think Putin gives a damn about about the downtrodden American geek who wants to keep his cheap mp3 fix?

Get real yourself.

I don't know if your comment is a troll or not, but I'll bite anyway. Travel to Cuba is strictly limited under US law. The laws were created under authority granted to the President's office via the 'Trading with the Enemy' act. You must obtain a license in order to travel Cuba legally. Licenses are only granted for scientific, educational, humanitarian and family visit puroses. More detail on the current law and it's history is here http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/87354. pdf (pdf warning). I'm not evoking boogeymen, but simply pointing out that a lot of posts here indicate a cavalier attitude towards travel to Cuba which is unwise if you live in the US.

A friend of mine (yeah, like I'm gonna post his peronal data on /.) travelled to Cuba via the Dominican Republic nearly 2 years ago. The State Department found out about it and he was fined over $1,700. That's a pretty hefty vacation tax. Bring back a couple of Cuban cigars and most likely, no one's going to notice it. Try bringing back a case and, at best it can be confiscated. At worst, you're looking at potential fines and prosecution. Like I said, the Customs and Homeland Security folks take their jobs pretty seriously.

I stand by my remarks.

"I trust that the US will now press the UN for resolutions condemning countries for human right abuses and acts which break international law, even if it means some of its own agents would be at risk of prosecution?"

We'll you're partially right. The US will indeed press the UN for such resolutions, but mainly because the second point is moot: The US has officially decided to commit any act of war it likes on countries that prosecute one of its agents for any of those crimes.

See this interesting document

http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/othr/misc/23425.htm
(and especially section 2008)

Another example is Russia. When the US introduced the form DS-157 form for visa applications few years ago, Russia created their own form for the USA citizens only that mirrors DS-157. So now Americans who want to visit Russia have to answers lots of questions like their last employments including addresses and supervisors names, military ranks, occupation and dates of service, all professional, charity and civil organizations they have ever been associated with, and so on.

.haeger